Development And Assessment Of Hands On And Visualization Modules For Enhancement Of Learning In Mechanics

Engineering mechanics education is currently undergoing a transformation from strictly lecture based education to a format where a variety of innovative learning techniques are used. Both new techniques for enhancing student learning as well as concrete data establishing the effectiveness of these techniques are needed. This paper builds on previous work using innovative teaching tools by developing and assessing our current use of two tools: computer based visualizations and hands-on demonstrations and experiments. These tools were used in our Fall 1998 Engineering Mechanics core course which is taken by all cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy, regardless of their major. The hands-on tools are low-cost, interactive experiments designed to enhance understanding of specific abstract concepts. The visualization content consists of finite element based stress results displayed in color formats. Both the hands-on and the visualization tools are designed to emphasize aspects of stress analysis which our students have traditionally found difficult to grasp. Evaluation of the enhancement in student learning, brought about by use of these tools, has been accomplished by a variety of assessment techniques. Next, the assessment results are correlated with the student’s Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) as well as the type of “learner” they are, as measured by the VARK learning style inventory. Results indicate that the hands-on and visual content overall enhances the learning experience. Specifically, it is rated highly by the MBTI “N” type students, but not as highly by the MBTI “S” types. However, both S-types and N-types benefited from it in their ability to solve problems. VARK K-types gave the hands-on and visual content the highest rating of any student “type” we studied.

[1]  Daniel Jensen,et al.  Hands On Experiences To Enhance Learning Of Design: Effectiveness In A Redesign Context When Correlated With Mbti And Vark Types , 1999, 1999 Annual Conference Proceedings.

[2]  G. Lawrence.  People types and tiger stripes: A practical guide to learning styles , 1979 .

[3]  Daniel D. Jensen,et al.  Evaluation and Refinement of a Restructured Introduction to Engineering Design Course Using Student Surveys and MBTI Data , 1997 .

[4]  Ralph E. Flori.  Perspectives on the Role of Educational Technologies , 1997 .

[5]  Hemalata C. Dandekar,et al.  Bringing the Real World to the Classroom , 1991 .

[6]  Suzanne M. Kresta,et al.  Hands‐on Demonstrations: An Alternative to Full Scale Lab Experiments , 1998 .

[7]  D. Wallace,et al.  How Might Classroom Time Be Used Given WWW‐Based Lectures? , 1998 .

[8]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  Product Evolution: A Reverse Engineering and Redesign Methodology , 1998 .

[9]  R. Felder,et al.  Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. , 1988 .

[10]  Heshmat A. Aglan,et al.  Hands‐On Experiences: An Integral Part of Engineering Curriculum Reform , 1996 .

[11]  K. Dunn,et al.  Teaching Students Through Their Individual Learning Styles: A Practical Approach , 1978 .

[12]  Diana Laurillard,et al.  Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology , 1993 .

[13]  David Wallace,et al.  A Comparative Evaluation of World Wide Web-Based and Classroom Teaching , 1997 .

[14]  George D. Catalano,et al.  The Sunrayce '95 Idea: Adding Hands‐on Design to an Engineering Curriculum , 1996 .

[15]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  Building Better Mousetrap Builders: Courses To Incrementally And Systematically Teach Design , 1998 .

[16]  W. Ernst Eder,et al.  Comparisons—Learning Theories, Design Theory, Science , 1994 .

[17]  D. G. Meyer,et al.  Experience using the VideoJockey system for instructional multimedia delivery , 1994, Proceedings of 1994 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference - FIE '94.

[18]  D. Crismond,et al.  Designing an Evaluation of an Interactive Multimedia Program: Assess MIT'S EDICS Program , 1992, Proceedings. Twenty-Second Annual conference Frontiers in Education.

[19]  Sheri Sheppard,et al.  Interactive Multimedia Courseware and the Hands-on Learning Experience: An Assessment Study , 1996 .

[20]  C. R. Cosgrove,et al.  Assigning Students to Groups for Engineering Design Projects: A Comparison of Five Methods , 1994 .

[21]  Dan Jensen,et al.  Method for teaching finite elements which combines the advantages of commercial pre‐ and postprocessing with student‐written software , 1998 .

[22]  Gene Moriarty.  Engineering Design: Content and Context , 1994 .

[23]  F. L. Tan,et al.  Development of engineering courseware for university undergraduate teaching using computer animation , 1995 .

[24]  Gregory R. Miller,et al.  A suite of computer-based tools for teaching mechanics of materials , 1996 .

[25]  Michael A. Mullens,et al.  Teaching Concurrent Engineering at the University of Central Florida , 1995 .

[26]  Phillip C. Wankat,et al.  Teaching Engineering , 1992 .

[27]  Spencer P. Magleby,et al.  A Review of Literature on Teaching Engineering Design Through Project‐Oriented Capstone Courses , 1997 .

[28]  Frank P. Incropera,et al.  Revising a Mechanical Engineering Curriculum: The Implementation Process , 1996 .

[29]  R. Felder,et al.  Navigating the Bumpy Road to Student-Centered Instruction , 1996 .

[30]  Sheri Sheppard,et al.  THE ROLE OF SIMULATION SOFTWARE IN AN IDEAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT , 1997 .

[31]  I. B. Myers.  Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator , 1985 .

[32]  D. Evans.  Design in Engineering Education: Past Views of Future Directions. , 1990 .

[33]  Kurt Gramoll.  Interactive beam analysis program for engineering education , 1993 .

[34]  D. Reamon,et al.  Motor workshop: the role of interactivity in promoting learning , 1998, FIE '98. 28th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Moving from 'Teacher-Centered' to 'Learner-Centered' Education. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.98CH36214).

[35]  Richard A. Behr.  Computer simulations versus real experiments in a portable structural mechanics laboratory , 1996 .

[36]  M. Lumsdaine,et al.  Thinking Preferences of Engineering Students: Implications for Curriculum Restructuring , 1995 .

[37]  William H. Mason,et al.  Applied aerodynamics education - Developments and opportunities , 1998 .

[38]  T. A. Harris,et al.  On Effective Methods to Teach Mechanical Design , 1995 .

[39]  Mary H. McCaulley.  Psychological Types in Engineering: Implications for Teaching. , 1976 .

[40]  Neil D. Fleming,et al.  Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection , 1992 .

[41]  James I. Craig,et al.  Use of Multimedia Development Software for Engineering Courseware , 1994 .

[42]  Billy V. Koen,et al.  Toward a Strategy for Teaching Engineering Design , 1994 .

[43]  Albert B. Smith.  Self-Paced Instruction and College Student Personalities. , 1973 .