A Multimedia-Workshop Learning Environment for Statics
Siegfried M. Holzer and Raul H. Andruet
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061
holzer@vt.edu
Abstract
We are developing a cooperative learning environment in the subject area of statics that combines hands-on experiments with interactive multimedia in the framework of experiential learning. The project is part of the National Science Foundation's Southeastern University and College Coalition for Engineering Education (SUCCEED), which is committed to a comprehensive revitalization of undergraduate engineering education for the 21st Century.
In this paper we discuss elements of the workshop environment and illustrate how students are guided through the four stages of experiential learning to discover the method of joints for the analysis of trusses.
Introduction
...for the computer to bring about a revolution in higher education, its introduction must be accompanied by improvements in our understanding of learning and teaching. Herbert Simon, Nobel Laureate [1]
Simon's statement has been a reassuring theme in our search for important elements of learning and examples of innovative educational environments [2] to guide the development of a multimedia learning environment (MLE) for statics. We are using Authorware Professional to construct the multimedia program. As a consequence of this effort, the MLE has evolved into a workshop environment that includes hands-on experiments and group activities in the context of experiential learning.
The purpose of this paper is: (1) to discuss elements of the workshop environment, including experiential learning, cooperative learning, and evaluation; and (2) to illustrate activities that are designed to help students learn the method of joints for the analysis of trusses.
Experiential Learning
Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. David Kolb [3]
Experiential learning, which has its origin in the works of Dewey, Lewin, and Piaget, focuses on the central role that experience plays in the learning process [3]. Moreover, "learning from experience is the process whereby human development occurs" (Vygotsky inKolb [3]).
Although experience is essential to learning, it is not enough; one has to do something with it to construct knowledge [4]. This is reflected by Kolb's [3] experiential learning model in Figure 1, which displays the two basic dimensions of the learning process: grasping and transforming experience.
Figure 1. Experiential Learning Model
Each dimension has two opposite but complementary modes of learning. The two distinct modes of grasping are concrete experience and abstract conceptualization: the first refers to tangible qualities of immediate experience, grasping through feeling; the second refers to indirect comprehension of symbolic representation of experience, grasping through thinking. The two distinct modes of transforming experience are reflective observation and active experimentation. They emphasize carefully observing and describing how things are versus practical applications, watching as opposed to doing [3].
At any given moment, the learning process may involve one or a combination of these four adaptive learning modes. What is significant is that their synthesis leads to higher levels of learning [3].
Cooperative Learning
...early evidence suggests that students who work in small groups, even when interacting with high-tech equipment, learn significantly more than students who work primarily alone. The Harvard Assessment Seminars [5]
Cooperative learning is not a new concept [6]. Extensive research, initiated in the late 1800s, has demonstrated significant advantages of cooperative learning over competitive and individualistic learning in various learning characteristics; these include [7]: high-level reasoning; generation of new ideas and solutions; positive attitudes toward subject, instructor, and learning experience; motivation for learning; personal responsibility; commitment and caring for fellow students; and student retention.
Cooperative learning, which means students working together to achieve common goals, has five basic elements [7].
1. Positive interdependence. The performance of each member is vital to the group's success.
2. Promotive interaction. The members exchange ideas and help one another learn.
3. Individual accountability. Individual performance is evaluated and feedback is provided.
4. Social skills. The members acquire leadership, decision-making, trust-building, communication, and conflict-management skills.
5. Group processing. Groups assess their effectiveness and identify areas for improvement.
Cooperative activities, such as the solution of a problem, can be structured as follows [7].
1. Formulate. Each member of the group formulates his or her solution. This encourages individual reflection and organization of thoughts. We found that this activity is particularly helpful to students who are not experienced in group activities.
2. Share. One member shares his or her solution with the group. This provides opportunities to practice and improve oral presentation skills. This task is rotated among the members of the group.
3. Listen. The members of the group listen carefully to the presentation. They may wish to take notes, but they should not interrupt the presentation. Being a good listener is another important interpersonal skill.
4. Create. The group creates its solution by analyzing, questioning, testing, and synthesizing the individual solutions. It is important to learn to be critical of ideas without being critical of people.
The instructor and assistants, if available, monitor the group activities, obtain feedback, and intervene when desirable. At the end, the instructor may ask one member of a group to present its solution. The instructor may summarize important findings and set the stage for the next activity.
Workshop Environment
There is mounting evidence that for most students taking introductory physics, the classes are massive failures [8]. We cover too much material and don't pay enough attention to helping students learn to reason inductively [9]... doesn't traditional lecture overemphasize problem-solving over conceptual understanding [10]? As I passed the physics lecture hall each day, I saw ... the bored expressions on the faces of students. The lecturer ... is one of our best [9].
Recognition of the limitations of lectures [7, 11, 12] prompted faculty members in many institutions to create new educational environments that stimulate active learning through direct experience and guided inquiry [9]. Workshop Physics [9] is a fine example of such an environment.
We are designing a workshop environment for statics that incorporates important elements of learning [4] and features of effective learning environments [2]. It combines hands-on experiments with interactive multimedia in the context of cooperative and experiential learning. The workshop sessions are structured as follows.
1. Warm-up problem. We like to start a session with short group activities (approximately five minutes) to address problems or questions that surfaced in homework, weekly quizzes, or minute papers [13], or to focus on the lesson of the day. Most students learn best when they receive frequent evaluation combined with quick feedback and the opportunity to revise and improve their work over time [5].
2. Activities. The session consists of mini lectures (10-15 minutes long) interspersed with group activities. We have experimented with this format in classes without multimedia by using an overhead projector and supplying students with coursepacks that include lecture notes with gaps. The gaps are places where students can record the results of group activities, such as raising or answering questions and completing parts of problem solutions or derivations initiated in the coursepack. Our principal goal is to promote active learning.
3. Closure. At the end of each session, students are asked to respond to the following minute paper questions about the day's lesson and activities: important points ? any surprises? muddy parts or questions? what changes would facilitate your learning? any concerns?
The minute paper [13] was cited in the Harvard Assessment Seminars [5] as one example of "small changes in teaching format that can lead to significant gains for students." Another one was small-group activities.
Evaluation
The primary measures of the effectiveness of the learning environment will be three student characteristics: (1) their ability to acquire and apply basic skills of statics in the solution of engineering problems; (2) transferable laboratory, computer, cooperation, and communication skills which are expected to be a valuable byproduct of this workshop environment; and (3) the attitude of the students toward statics and engineering as a whole. A good attitude is important for a journey of lifelong learning.
Evaluation data will include: (1) quizzes, examinations, journal entries, and end-of-lesson minute papers; (2) interactions among instructor and students, undergraduate assistants and students, and among students in teamwork; and (3) a student questionnaire that will assess the effectiveness of the workshop and the multimedia program [14].
The Method of Joints
A selection of screens from the MLE is presented (Figures 2-9) to illustrate how students are guided to discover the method of joints for the analysis of trusses. Experiential learning is coupled with the Socratic approach and group activities to engage students and to help them focus on specific objectives.
The four stages of the experiential learning cycle (Figure 1) are displayed in Figure 2. Their names have been changed to reflect our learning activities. They can be selected in any order to accommodate individual learning styles [11]. However, for most students the inductive approach to learning is most natural [3,12].
1. Experiment (concrete experience)
The simple truss in Figure 3 carries a weight of 32 ounces. The member forces are measured by spring scales which are calibrated in ounces. The question concerns the sense of the member forces (tension or compression). Using the cooperative structure of Johnson et al. [7], one might instruct each group of students (composed of three or four students who share one or two computers and one truss experiment) to do the following: (1) formulate an answer to the question individually; (2) share your answer with your partners; (3) listen carefully to your partner's answer; (4) create a collective answer through discussion, and possibly experimentation, and enter it in the computer.
The instructor and undergraduate student assistants monitor the groups of students and provide assistance as needed. The instructor may select one answer and share it with all students. In addition, the MLE answer can be used as a discussion aid: click support a to see the image of the spring scale pulling on a finger (Figure 3); by clicking support b, one would see member 1 pushing against a finger.
The question in Figure 4 focuses on the relative magnitudes of the member forces. The students may use again the cooperative learning structure of Johnson et al. [7] - formulate, share, listen, create - to answer the question. They are also encouraged to experiment with the truss. For example they might observe the member forces for [[alpha]] = 45deg., [[alpha]] < 45deg., and [[alpha]] > 45deg.. The MLE answer can be obtained by clicking the members.
Figure 5 illustrates how the magnitude of the compressive force in member 1 can be determined experimentally: A spring scale is attached to joint c and pulled collinearly with member 1 until member 1 lifts off from support b. The answer in Figure 5 is coupled in the MLE with a free-body diagram (FBD) that allows the student to drag the 39 ounce force from one side of joint c to the other and resolve it to verify equilibrium (Figure 7). Thus the student has a firsthand experience with the principle of transmissibility (a hypertext link, hotspot, in the answer provides access to a definition of transmissibility).
2. Analysis (reflective observation)
Figure 6 illustrates the construction of a FBD, to relate member and joint forces, by dragging force arrows from the palette to members and joints. Feedback is given in the event of an error (for example, the forces of member 1 are not balanced; "Newton's first law" in the note is a hotspot). Once the FBD is completed, the user is asked to check equilibrium at joint c (Figure 7). The objective is to focus attention on the relation between the load and member forces at joint c to guide the students toward the method of joints. The hotspot "measurement" in the answer links the user to a statement of the precision of measurement.
3. Hypothesis (abstract conceptualization)
The students are now asked to propose a method for computing the member forces (Figure 8). Cooperative learning is particularly important at this learning stage. the hotspot "Method of joints" in the answer provides a link to a formal statement of this method of analysis.
4. Testing (active experimentation)
The final step of the experiential learning process involves testing of the proposed method of analysis on a new truss configuration (Figure 9). This is followed by the application of the method of joints to different trusses. The experiential learning model is also used to help students discover the method of sections.
Summary
Workshop Statics, a laboratory-based learning environment for statics, is being developed. It includes hands-on experiments, group activities, and interactive multimedia in the framework of experiential learning. It is illustrated how students can cooperate in this environment to learn the method of joints in the analysis of trusses.
Acknowledgment
Funding for this work was provided by the NSF to SUCCEED (Cooperative Agreement No. EID-9109053). SUCCEED is a coalition of eight schools and colleges working to enhance engineering education for the twenty-first century. We appreciate the thoughtful suggestions of a reviewer,
which we tried to implement.
References
1. Kozma, R. B. and J. Johnston, "The Technological Revolution Comes to the Classroom," Change, 23(1), January/February, 1991.
2. Holzer, S. M., A Framework for Multimedia Learning Environments, Report CE/VPI-ST-93/11, December, 1993.
3. Kolb, D., Experiential Learning, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984.
4. Holzer, S. M., "From Constructivism to Active Learning," The Innovator, The SUCCEED Newsletter, No. 2, Spring, 1994.
5. Light, R. J., The Harvard Assessment Seminars, First Report 1990,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138.
6. Ercolano, V., "Learning through Cooperation," Prism, ASEE, November
1994.
