NDT paper work

8/13/2019 NDT paper work

1/8

Using Hands-On Activities to Engage Students inEngineering Mechanics

T LuckeSenior Lecturer in Engineering

University of the Sunshine CoastMaroochydore, Australia

[email protected]

Conference Topic: curriculum development

Keywords: student engagement; group collaboration; teamwork

1 INTRODUCTION

Much of the pivotal engineering education research in the last two decades promotes student-

centred learning and active learning principles. Active learning principles recognise that when

students are actively engaged with their learning, they are much more likely to understand the

concepts. The degree to which a student is engaged with their academic work or experience is

one of the crucial factors in determining the students educational development. The more

involved and engaged the student is with the program, the greater his or her level of

knowledge acquisition and general cognitive development [1]. Bonwell and Eison [2] explain

that when students are actively involved, they engage in higher-order thinking tasks such asanalysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

Another important finding that is emerging from current engineering education literature is

the value of successful group collaboration project work for students personal and academic

development. Group collaboration not only encourages the deep learning approaches needed

to fully understand the material, but also acquaints students with other class members andhelps build a sense of community with them. Such activities tend to maximise all the group

members learning outcomes and have been shown to promote higher individual achievement

than competitive or individualistic approaches [1]. Ditcher [3] affirms that employers

expectations have also changed and they now demand graduates that can work cooperatively

with others and have good communication and management skills. Teaching activitiestherefore need to be designed to promote more student engagement and engineering programs

need to incorporate more opportunities for students to experience teamwork [4].

Engineering Mechanics (incorporating areas such as statics, strength of materials, mechanics

of solids and so on) is a core area of curriculum for both civil and mechanical engineering

students. It is traditionally regarded by many students as conceptually difficult and theoretical.

Although active learning techniques have been acknowledged as effective means of

improving student engagement in their learning, pressures of time and economy have led to

many hands-on activities being reduced within engineering programs, or replaced with on-line

alternatives [5]. This has been particularly so in courses such as structural mechanics, wheremany programs have reduced traditional laboratory sessions to reduce student contact hours

and teaching costs. Virtual laboratory alternatives, either through remote access laboratoriesmade available through the internet, or via computer simulations, are becoming increasingly

popular in structural mechanics [6]. They have particular application in distance education


2/8

programs, and have also been developed to incorporate group work. Research has shown that

they can be equally as effective as hands-on activities when properly implemented [7]. It

should also be borne in mind that laboratory practicals that are done for the sake of it, without

careful establishment of learning objectives and integration with other aspects of course

instruction, may not be particularly useful for student learning. However, where personal

interaction between students is possible in traditional face-to-face learning environments, theuse of small group, hands-on practical/project-based activities, has been repeatedly shown to

provide positive student learning outcomes [8].

This paper describes an initiative that was undertaken to promote student engagement and

improve learning outcomes in two new core undergraduate engineering mechanics courses,

namely Engineering Statics and Mechanics of Materials. A set of low cost, hands-on,

interactive models were developed for students to use in small groups that demonstrated the

underlying theory and helped them to better understand the basic engineering principles.

2 CORE ENGINEERING MECHANICS COURSES

Engineering Statics and Mechanics of Materials are foundation engineering courses that aretraditionally regarded by many students as conceptually difficult and overly theoretical.

Engineering students often experience substantial difficulties with foundation mechanics

courses and it is widely noted in the literature that pass rates in typical foundation mechanics

courses tend to be unacceptably low [9; 10]. The well documented difficulties that students

have with foundation mechanics courses such as Engineering Statics and Mechanics of

Materials may often influence students' decisions to study engineering at university. It has

also been shown that poor performance in these early engineering courses causes manystudents to lose confidence in their abilities and to consequently drop out of engineering

programs [11; 12]. Poor performance in Engineering Statics and Mechanics of Materials canalso pre-empt students to accept mediocrity in their learning and de-motivate them to strive

for their best. Therefore, the "Ps get degrees" attitude is often rife among engineering students[9]. Poor performance in foundation mechanics courses can often cause students to struggle

with simple concepts throughout the rest of their degrees and into their professional lives.

The sheer volume of literature demonstrating the difficulties that students have with

Engineering Statics and Mechanics of Materials was a serious concern when developing the

Engineering Program at University of the Sunshine Coast (USC), which is currently in its

third year. The typically high failure rates of around 35% in these introductory engineering

subjects [13; 14] were considered unacceptable and it was decided a different approach to

teaching these subjects was clearly required. Contemporary literature clearly demonstrates

that well-designed student projects encourage active inquiry and higher-level thinking.

Students become more engaged in learning when they have a chance to explore thecomplexities and challenges of solving real-life engineering problems [15].

A literature review of contemporary engineering education was undertaken to identify

successful teaching approaches that have been used to improving student learning outcomes

in foundation engineering courses. The review findings suggested that a more effective

teaching strategy would be to move away from the typically over-complicated text book

approach to introducing relevant theory, and to simplify the concepts by using real-worldexamples that students can relate to. The use of simple, hands-on interactive models and

activities to demonstrate real-world concepts in small student groups also increases studentengagement and promotes deeper understanding and a real enthusiasm for learning [1; 2; 4; 8;

12; 16; 17]. The following section gives some background on the Engineering Statics and

Mechanics of Materials courses and describes some of the interactive hands-on models that

were developed.


3/8

2.1 Engineering Statics

Engineering Statics is a first year undergraduate course that is taken by civil (and mechanical

from 2012) USC engineering students. The course ran for the first time in 2011. The courseincorporates typical statics topics such as concurrent and non-concurrent force systems,

equilibrium of forces, centre of gravity, friction and hydrostatics forces. Students attend a twohour practical/project session every week where the theory they have learned that week is put

into practice. The first cohort in Engineering Statics in 2011 consisted of 68 civil engineering

students. The class is generally separated into four groups of approximately 15-20 students for

each of the tutorial and practical classes. The learning that takes place in the lecture and

tutorial classes is reinforced by a number of different practical projects using the new hand-on

demonstration models including: Force Resultants, Summing Moments, Method of Sections,

Centroids and Friction.

2.2 Mechanics of Materials

Mechanics of Materials is a second year undergraduate course that is taken by civil (and

mechanical from 2012) USC engineering students. The course also ran for the first time in2011. The course incorporates topics such as stress and strain, torsion, beam deflection and

column buckling. The first cohort in Mechanics of Materials in 2011 consisted of 20 civil

engineering students. Students attend a two hour practical/project session every fortnightwhere the theory they have learned in the preceding weeks is put into practice. The second

cohort in 2012 consisted of 33 civil and mechanical engineering students. The class is

generally separated into two groups of approximately 20 students for each of the tutorial and

practical classes. The learning that takes place in the lecture and tutorial classes is reinforced

by a number of different practical projects using the new hand-on demonstration models

including the beam deflection and column buckling practicals.

3 HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES TO PROMOTE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT3.1 Force Resultants - Statics

The first practical that the students undertake in Engineering Statics is the Force Resultants

practical. The aim of this practical was to investigate and prove the theory that the resultant ofa number of concurrent forces acting simultaneously at a single point can be determined by

simple addition of the forces graphically, either tip to tail or by breaking the forces down intotheir x and y components and adding these separately. Students used a simple three force

system consisting of a hanging weight, a pair of force transducers and a protractor to

demonstrate the theory of concurrent forces and equilibrium. Students used two different

methods (tip-to-tail and component addition) to prove that the theory of equilibrium was

valid. The assessment for all practicals involved writing a short practical report that includedtheir calculations, observations and discussions.

3.2 Summing Moments - Statics

The aim of this practical was to investigate and verify the theory that the support reactions ofloaded beams can be found by summing the moments about each of the supports separately.

Students were firstly given a worksheet showing 10 different beam loading cases. They werethen required to use the theory of summing moments to calculate the support reactions in each

of the 10 cases. Once the students had used the theory to calculate the reactions at the

supports, they were then given a loading set consisting of a pair of small kitchen scales, a

simple beam and a quantity of M24 steel nuts to use as weights. The students then replicated

each of the 10 loading cases using the loading set and recorded the actual support reactions onthe scales (Figure 1a).


4/8


5/8

attaching a string to the block and hanging weight off it to produce enough a lateral force to

move the block (Figure 1d). The two results were then compared.

3.5 Beam Deflection Mechanics of Materials

The aim of this practical was to investigate and verify the beam deflection theory when

subjected to lateral loadings. Deflection models were constructed that consisted of fivedifferent aluminium beam sections of the same length (1m) that are placed onto support

stands at each end, one at a time. A plunger type dial gauge is placed underneath the beams

and zeroed when no load is applied. Students first used Vernier callipers to measure the

dimensions of the five beams in order to calculate the second moment of areas for each shape.They then calculated the theoretical deflection of the five beams when various lateral loads

were applied. Once the students had used the theory to calculate the theoretical deflection they

then tested the theory by applying various incremental point and uniform loads that align with

the theory they have learned in the lectures and tutorials [18], using a plunger type dial gauge

located underneath the beam (Figure 1e). The deflection readings were then compared to

those obtained using the theory and the effects that varying geometrical properties have on

beam deflection behaviour were discussed in their reports. The beam deflection practical wasobserved to generate a high level of student engagement and students appeared to truly enjoy

undertaking the practical.

3.6 Column Buckling Mechanics of Materials

This practical was developed to investigate the behaviour of slender members under axial

compression. The models were used to test the buckling behaviour of 2.4mm diameter

extruded wire when it is axially loaded from above. Three different wire materials weretested, namely stainless steel, mild steel and aluminium. The models allow for different end-

fixing conditions to be replicated in order to observe the effect this has on the bucklingbehaviour of the different materials. The lengths of wire are placed in the model and loads are

applied to the wire by stacking weights on top of the wire holder.

Students first used Vernier callipers to measure the diameter of the wire in order to calculatethe second moment of area. They then used Euler bucking theory to calculate the theoretical

deflection of the wire when various axial loads were applied. Once the students had used thetheory to calculate the theoretical deflection they then tested the theory by applying various

axial loads to the wire under different end support conditions (Figure 1f). The deflection

readings were then compared to those obtained using the theory and the effects that the

different end conditions have on column buckling deflection behaviour were discussed in

their reports. Students were observed to enjoy undertaking the column buckling practical and

it generated a high level of student engagement.

4 PROJECT EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION

A range of evaluation methods have been used to gauge the effectiveness of the new

practicals in achieving increased student engagement, including classroom observation,

standard course evaluation instruments, student surveys and analysis of assessment results.

4.1 Classroom observations

Significant levels of student engagement were observed during the new practical classes

(Figure 1). The small student groups appeared to work very well together with all group

members taking responsibility for their roles in the practicals. There was much interaction anddiscussion among the group members and they all appeared to benefit from the experience.


6/8

4.2 Course evaluation instruments

A standard course evaluation instrument called a student feedback on course (SFC) is used for

all courses taught at the University of the Sunshine Coast every time they are delivered. TheSFC results for Engineering Statics and Mechanics of Materials were analysed in 2011, which

was the first year that the both new courses were run. The SFC has 16 questions in total with10 core questions relating directly to the course being assessed. The most important of these

questions is the last question: Q16: Overall, I was satisfied with the quality of this course.

The average 2011 SFC evaluation results for Engineering Statics and Mechanics of materials

were 4.2 and 4.8 respectively (on a 5 point scale with 5 = strongly agree with the statementand 1 = strongly disagree). The results for Q16 for both courses were 4.1 and 5.0 respectively.

While these student evaluation results are extremely encouraging for courses run for the first

time, other studies have pointed out that it is difficult to directly relate positive student

feedback to measurable improvements in learning outcomes [9]. However, most of the student

comments on the practicals shown in Section 4.3 clearly indicate that the students found the

practicals using the new hands-on demonstration models interesting and enjoyable. Research

[1] shows that knowledge acquisition and general cognitive development is much greaterwhen students are engaged with their learning. When students are actively involved, they

engage in higher-order thinking tasks such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation [2]. The

students' final grades for both courses reflected these higher order thinking skills.

4.3 Student Surveys

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of using the new hands-on models in the practical

classes, students were asked to comment on whether they thought that using the models hadhelped them understand the relevant theory. They were also asked for suggestions on how the

practical classes might be improved. Some of the responses to these surveys are shown below.

I think it was an interesting practical as it helped me to visualise and observe thereasons for a moment turning a certain direction around a particular point.

I do feel as though this practical has helped me in understanding the applications andtheory behind summing moments with the hands on experience that we have done.

I believe that this practical has helped me grasp the concept of summing moments tofind reactions. I feel that it has enhanced my learning experience and should continue

to do so further into the semester.

This practical helped me to better understand me topic. I liked the way the 10 caseswere given to us, because I learn best by just repetition and practice as I believe a lot

of other people do.

Overall, I believe this was a good experiment showing the practical side of the method

of sections. It definitely helped me improve my understanding of finding axial forces intrusses by cutting the truss and summing the moments around a point.

This was a great way to learn what you really meant by the Method of Sections, Iunderstand it a lot better now.

I have found this practical has helped reinforce the concept of sections quite well, andI really enjoyed being able to make my own truss section to see how forces worked.

This practical was a great challenge, lots of fun. More like this!

Before the practical my understanding of Centroids was limited but as I workedthrough the steps it became clearer to the knowledge and understanding of the concept

Overall, I believe this was a good experiment showing the practical side of finding the

Centroid. It definitely helped me improve my understanding of Centroids and 1stMoment of Areas.


7/8

I think this was a good prac. Unfortunately my results were messed up howeverdespite this I think it aided in my understanding on the concepts surrounding friction.

The prac gave a good visualisation of the work covered in the lectures regardingfriction. Perhaps a bit much crammed into one prac.

The Practical help me to understand the concepts of dry friction and more specifically

the coefficient of static friction, It allowed me to get some hands on experience andeven though the results didn't match up in the end I know why they didn't.

4.4 Evaluation of Final Grades

Although the new practicals were clearly successful in improving the level of student

engagement, teamwork and understanding, it is difficult to make any substantial claims on the

pedagogical benefits of using the hands-on, interactive models due to a lack of reliable

evidence. However, the final grades for students in both Engineering Statics and Mechanicsof Materials were substantially better than typical results presented in the literature for similar

foundation mechanics courses [19; 20; 21]. Although there is very limited data available onengineering student pass rates, Table 1 shows pass rates for USC Engineering Statics and

Mechanics students compared to similar international foundation mechanics course studentpass rates.

Table 1. Comparison of Overall Student Pass Rates

Course Institution Year Pass Rate

Engineering Statics University of the Sunshine Coast (Australia) 2011 78%

Mechanics of Materials University of the Sunshine Coast (Australia) 2011 95%

Engineering Statics The University of Texas at San Antonio [13]2004-

200962%

Engineering Statics North Carolina Agricultural and TechnicalState University, USA [14]

2004 57%

Vector Statics California State Polytechnic University [12]2001-

200256%

The results in Table 1 clearly show that USC student pass rates were better overall than similar

international results. This better than average could be attributed to the increased level of

interest and student engagement that these hands-on practicals produced. However, there is not

enough evidence available at this time to verify this claim. There are many variables that could

influence the results from one student cohort to the next and these would have to be taken into

account to enable a realistic comparison. Although, the results are definitely encouraging.

5 CONCLUSIONS

This paper reports on an initiative that was undertaken to promote student engagement in

order to improve learning outcomes in two new core undergraduate engineering mechanics

courses. A set of low cost, hands-on, interactive models were developed for students to use in

small groups that demonstrated the underlying theory and helped them to better understand

the basic engineering mechanics principles.

A comparison of student pass rates for the two new USC courses demonstrated that the pass

rates were higher than those achieved in similar international foundation engineering courses

Although these results are very encouraging, there is as yet, still insufficient evidence

available to make any substantial claims on the pedagogical benefits of using the hands-on,

interactive models. However, the degree of student engagement and involvement whileundertaking the practicals was clearly evident. This paper illustrates that with a few materials


8/8

and a little imagination, engineering practicals can be designed to promote more engaging and

rewarding student learning experiences.

REFERENCES

[1] Smith KA, Johnson DW, Johnson RW and Sheppard SD (2005), Pedagogies o

engagement: Classroom-Based Practices. Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94,

No. 1, pp. 1-15.

[2] Bonwell CC and Eison JA (1991), Active learning: Creating excitement in the

classroom, Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.

[3] Ditcher A (2001), Effective teaching and learning in higher education, with particular

reference to the undergraduate education of professional engineers, International

Journal of Engineering Education,Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 24 - 29.

[4] Mills JE and Treagust DF (2003), Engineering education is problem-based or project-based learning the answer? [online], Australasian Journal of Engineering Education.

Available from: http://www.aaee.com.au/journal/2003/mills_treagust03.pdf

[5] Feisel LD and Rosa AJ (2005), The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering

education,Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 121-130.

[6] Maiorana C, Sgarbossa L and Salomoni V (2008), New methodologies in teaching e-

structural mechanics using WWW, Computer Applications in Engineering Education,

Vol. 16, pp. 189-210.

[7] Abdel-Salam T, Kauffman PJ and Crossman G (2006), Does the lack of hands-on

experience in a remotely delivered laboratory course affect student learning? European

Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 747-756.

[8] Baldock TE and Chanson H (2006), Undergraduate teaching of ideal and real fluid

flows: the value of real-world experimental projects, European Journal of Engineering

Education, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 729-739.

[9] Goldfinch T, Carew A and McCarthy T (2008), improving learning in engineering

mechanics: The significance of understanding, Proc. of the 2008 AAEE Conference,

Yeppoon, Australia, pp.1-6.

[10] Steif P (2004), An articulation of the concepts and skills which underlie engineering

statics, Proc. of the 2004 ASEE Conference, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.

[11] Emerson T and Ward M (2005), Students are leaving engineering curriculums; Can our

educational approach stop this? Proc. of the 2005 ASEE Conference, Portland, USA.

[12] Rezaei A, Jawaharlal M, Kim K and Shih A (2007), Development of a hybrid vector

statics course to reduce failure rate, Proc. of the 2007 ASEE Conference, Honolulu, USA.

[13] Manteufel R and Karimi A (2010), Grade-based correlation metric to identify effective

statics instructors, Proc. of the 2010 ASEE Conference, Louisville, Kentucky, USA

[14] Waters CK and Rojeski P (2005), Retention of information improving the engineeringoutcomes, Proc. of the 2005 ASEE Conference, Portland, Oregon, USA.

[15] Lombardi MM (2007), Authentic Learning for the 21st Century: An Overview,Educause website: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3009.pdf

[16] Dong K (2006), Making statics a friend for life, Proc. of the 2006 ASEE Conference,

Kansas City, USA.

[17] Lucke T (2009), Developing more engaging engineering practicals, Proc. of the 2009

AAEE Conference, Adelaide, Australia.

[18] Biggs J (1996), Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment,Journal of Higher

Education, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 347-364.

Documents

NDT paper work