Comparative Analysis of Two Instructional Strategies and Their Impacts on Selected University Engineering Students Performances in Particle TechnologyKevon R. McAnuff & Simon M. YalamsUniversity of TechnologyKingston, Jamaica

Overview IntroductionMethodologyResultsDiscussionConclusionRecommendationsReferences

Introduction Teaching models which incorporate active learning strategies continue to receive widespread support from modern literature on classroom instructional modes. Uncertainties still exist on the necessity for these methods in engineering education since students are already active through practical laboratory experiments.Not many engineering faculty members are keen in testing the effectiveness of various instructional strategies such as active learning, constructivism etc.

Introduction cont. It should not be expected that by adopting any particular instructional method the learning outcomes will just be same and good as reported in the literature (Prince, 2004).Not all active learning strategies are apparently good for all circumstances, a try and see or verification is necessary in engineering education.A good knowledge of these learning strategies is key.

Introduction cont. Collaborative Learning ModelCollaborative learning may be used to describe any instructional method in which students work together in small groups to accomplish a common task.This model can be viewed as encompassing all group-based instructional methods, including cooperative learning (Felder & Brent, 2001).Some authors consider collaborative and cooperative learning as having distinct historical developments and different philosophical roots (Mohamed, 2008).

Introduction cont. Collaborative Learning Model cont.The principal element of collaborative learning is students interactions and not solely learning.Although there appears to be strong agreement among educational experts that collaboration improves learning outcomes relative to individual work across the board Also disagreements exists among others that the benefits of group work does not necessarily improve with frequency of grouping and working.

Introduction cont. Cooperative Learning Model- What is it?......defined as a structured form of group work where students pursue common goals while being assessed individually (Mohamed, 2008). Key feature here is a focus on cooperative incentives as oppose to competition to promote learning (Felder & Brent, 2001).Increased higher-order thinking skills and improved students performance are some of the benefits of cooperative learning.

Introduction cont. Cooperative Learning Model cont.Other benefits include fostering self-esteem, promoting interpersonal relationships and improving social support (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998).Whether or not cooperative learning is very effective in defining and measuring team skills is still debatable. Also, stringent criteria and time involved in using some of these models are yet unresolved issues.What then? USE it in engineering or LEAVE it?

MethodologyThe experimental design adopted for this study was the Post-test Only Control Group Design. In this design, the primary focus of the researchers was determining whether the two groups are different after the program. The groups mean performance on three assessments were measured and then compared using a two-tailed independent t-test with a 95% confidence interval ( = 0.05).

Methodology cont.ParticipantsThe participants in this study were 38 third-year students (16 females and 22 males between the ages of 21 and 24).These students were enrolled in the compulsory Particle Technology module.The lecture sessions were attended by all students while the class was randomly divided into two groups, A and B, with each group attending a single tutorial session per week.

Methodology cont.InstrumentsTwo midterm tests and a final examination were used to assess students performances. The content validity ratio of the tests were found to be between 0.2 to 1.0 for individual test items and 0.47 to 0.87 for overall test instruments.The reliability coefficient was found using the inter-rater method and ranged from 0.6 to 1.0 for individual test items and 0.73 to 0.93 for overall test instruments.

Methodology cont.ProcedureIn the traditional lecturing sessions (group A), PowerPoint slides presentation was used to deliver lessons and all examples were solved on the whiteboard. In the active learning sessions (group B), students worked together on problems in a small group setting. Class activities used - jigsaw method, think-pair-share, round robin, brainstorming and debates.

ProcedureGroup B

Methodology cont.ThinkPairShare

ResultsResearch question 1: Which of the two instructional approaches used for teaching Particle Technology students yields better students academic performance?To answer this question, the mean of participants score on each instrument was calculated for each group and then compared.

Results cont.On all three instruments, students taught with traditional lecturing (group A) yielded better performance than those taught with active learning strategies (group B).

Results cont.Research question 2: Do Particle Technology students significantly differ in their academic performances based on the two methods of teaching used? To answer this question, participants performances on the various test instruments were subjected to an independent t-test analysis. This analysis was carried out using the SPSS software applications with a confidence interval of 95% ( = 0.05).

Results cont.Group A participants performed significantly better than Group B participants on all three assessments.

Results cont.Research question 3: Do Particle Technology students taught with active learning strategies and traditional lecturing significantly differ in their academic performances based on gender?In order to establish whether the observed differences between the mean performances of male and female was significant, another independent t-test analysis was done.

Results cont.Female participants in Group A performed significantly better than their counterparts in Group B on two of the three assessments.

Results cont.Male participants in Group A performed significantly better than their counterparts in Group B on all three assessments.

DiscussionThe statistical analysis done on the test instruments found p values ranging from 0.001 to 0.01 which indicates that there was a significant difference between the mean of both groups. In all three instances, the mean for Group A (ranging from 56.12 to 82.82) was found to be higher than that of Group B (ranging from 38.04 to 61.93). These findings indicate that participants taught with traditional instructional strategies performed better than those taught with active learning strategies.

Discussion cont.The result also revealed that male and female participants taught with traditional lecturing performed better than their counterparts taught with active learning strategies. Female students taught with traditional lecturing achieved up to 24.0 % higher academic performance when compared to their female counterparts taught with active learning strategies. Male participants taught with traditional lecturing achieved up to 26.4 % higher academic performance when compared to their male counterparts taught with active learning strategies.

Discussion cont.The lower academic performance of group B students could be due to the fact that this was the first time they were using active learning strategies on such an extensive basis.It is also possible that too much group work can lead to some members not being given a chance to process the material in their own time (self-discovery).The use of some active learning strategies could have resulted in participants being more fascinated and grossly involved with the social interaction rather than the learning aspects.

Discussion cont.Another important factor, which could greatly influence the performance of the participants, is their average class attendance.The average attendance for participants taught with traditional lecturing was found to be 66% while that observed for the participants taught with active learning strategies was 58%.Therefore, the consistently higher scores recorded by group A participants could be attributed to their longer contact time with the lecturer directly involved with the module.

Discussion cont.While these results contradicts many of the studies reviewed, educational studies only tell us what worked, on average, and specifically for the populations examined.Educators should not expect that simply adopting a particular educational method will result in similar learning outcomes to those reported in educational studies.This is so because the practical limitations of these studies and the complex nature of the learning process must also be considered.

ConclusionThe research findings revealed that students taught with traditional lecturing performed significant better than those taught with active learning methods. The revelation persisted even when students academic performances were compared based on gender.Thus, the findings provide empirical evidence contrary to common beliefs about the greater effectiveness of active learning strategies in developing students engineering skills.

RecommendationsStudents should be sensitized as to the nature and possible benefits of active learning strategies in order to alleviate concerns of additional workload and limited supports.Particle Technology teachers should recognize the value of traditional lecturing as an effective learning strategy in order to improve students performances.Future studies should be conducted with appropriate measures in place to achieve comparable attendance among the students in both study groups.

Recommendations cont.This approach should be tried on other engineering modules, especially on varied population and sample size in order to authenticate further this finding.Further research should focus on understanding the characteristics of female students that possibly resulted in them outperforming their male counterparts.This experiment should be replicated in other occupational education areas which share certain characteristics with engineering in order to confirm or refute these findings.

ReferencesM. Prince, Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education , vol. 93, no.3, pp. 223-231, 2004.R. M. Felder, & R. Brent, Effective strategies for cooperative learning. The Journal of Cooperation and Collaboration in College Teaching , vol. 10, pp. 69-75, 2001.A. R. Mohamed, Effects of active learning variants on student performance and learning perceptions. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning , vol. 2, no.2, pp. 1-14, 2008.D. Johnson, R. Johnson, & K. Smith, Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, vol. 30, pp. 2635, 1998.C. H. Lawshe, A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, vol. 28, pp. 563-575, 1975.

Thank You