Interactive Computer-Centered Instructions for Science and Engineering Education

doi:10.4236/ce.2012.33059

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Creative Education

2012. Vol.3, No.3, 375-379

Published Online June 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.33059

Interactive Computer-Centered Instructions for Science and

Engineering Education

Mohammad A. Matin

Department of El ec trical and Computer Engineering, University of Denver, Colorado, USA

Email: mmatin@du.edu

Received March 28th, 2012; revised April 25th, 20 12; accepted May 10th, 2012

Both the formal and informal cooperative learning methods are proven pedagogical tools that provide the

context for engaging students in reflective judgment and consultation. The cooperative method pays close

attention to the multiple learning styles of students participating in the classroom project. Our engineering

program’s goal is to expose students majoring in engineering (electrical, computer and mechanical) to a

positive interdependence, face-to-face interaction, development of interpersonal skills and individual ac-

countability. We introduces the use of Blackboards and clickers together to enhance cooperative learning

aimed at educating students to succeed in today’s global economy. As such, classroom instruction and

group projects were assigned to foster an environment that maximized the use of computers, took advan-

tage of information and resources available on the internet and Blackboards, and nurtured cooperative

learning among groups. This paper describes a method to create a learner-centered, cooperative environ-

ment, which will engage students, give positive interdependence, face-to-face interaction, and will help

them to develop interpersonal skills and individual accountability in better understanding, critical thinking

and judgment, all of which are necessary skills to succeed in twenty first century economy. This teaching

method already impacted hundreds of students from fall, winter and spring, 2007 to spring 2011 and will

impact thousands of students in the future. At the end of the courses outcomes were evaluated using de-

veloped questionnaires using Clicker response system. To answer one of the questions, “I wish the pro-

fessors in my other classes use the clicker”, 72.1% strongly agree or agree, 18.3% disagree and 9.7%

strongly agree. To answer anothe r question, “The use of clickers in techhnology-21 c lass improves my abil-

ity to learn the material”, 88.3% s trongly agree or agree, 9.6% disagree and 2.1% strongly agree. Accord in g

to the results obtained from the questionnaire, students heavily benefited from the clicker system. The assess-

ments were done anonymously.

Keywords: Clicker; Engineering Education; Pedagogy; Blackboard; Cooperative;

Face-to-Face Interaction

Introduction

In 1995, Robert Barr and John Tagg (1995) observed a para-

digm shift in American education—from the traditional “In-

struction Paradigm” to the “Learning Paradigm.” Reviews of

models developed in the Education field reveal that a quiet but

exciting revolution is taking place in the way education is de-

livered following John Dewey’s seminal works published sev-

eral decades ago (1933, 1944). In 2001 Johnson & Johnson

(2001) reported that there are three basic ways students can

interact with each other as they learn. They can compete to see

who is “best”, they can work individualistically toward a goal

without paying attention to other students, or they can work

cooperatively with a vested interest in each other’s learning as

well as their own.

A majority of students are not able to stay focused during a

lecture for more than 30 minutes. After about 15 or 20 minutes,

their attention starts to drift for a bit, and by the end of the lec-

ture they are not able to absorb much or in some cases, any of

the information. According to McKeachie (1999), “a classroom

research study showed that immediately after lecture students

recalled 70% of the information presented in the first 10 min-

utes and only 20% of that from the last 10 minutes”. Students’

attention can be maintained throughout a class session by peri-

odically giving them something to do. According to Johnson et

al. (1998), Felder (1994), Meyers et al. (1993), and Bonwell et

al. (1991), many different activities can serve this purpose of

which the most common is the small-group exercise also called

the active learning exercise. The basic exercise includes: 1) re-

sponding to questions; 2) problem solving; 3) explaining writ-

ten material; 4) analytical, critical, and creative thinking; 5) re-

calling prior material; 6) summarizing.

“Cooperative learning is instruction that involves students

working in teams to accomplish an assigned task and produce a

final product under conditions that include the following five

elements”, Felder (1994):

1) Positive interdependence;

2) Individual accountability;

3) Face-to-face interaction;

4) Appropriate use of teamwork skills;

5) Regular self-assessment of team functioning.

We adapted an interactive computer centered cooperative

learning experience using two dimensions. These are the Radio

Frequency based clicker response system and the Blackboard

(Bb). This philosophy of engaging students with active learning

in a class room environment gave positive experiences that

motivated them as life-long learners.

M. A. MATIN

The common vision that all faculties involved from the de-

partment of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Mecha-

nical and Materials Engineering share in this project is to create

a learner and computer-centered environment, which engages

students in critical thinking and judgment necessary to motivate

in current technology. Carefully chosen multiple-choice con-

ceptual questions are posed to students during lecture segments.

The students are then encouraged to discuss these questions

cooperatively with their members and ultimately convey their

answers to the instructor using clicker in real time. The lecturer

then devotes some time to a resolution of the issues raised by

the students’ responses.

About Clicker

“In 1997, the Physics department at the University of Illinois

embarked on a major reform of all of its 33 introductory

classes”, Scott (2007). Their goal was to integrate all aspects of

a course using interactive engagement methods based on phys-

ics education research in a team teaching environment. The

major change to their lectures was to include active learning

segments. These segments were patterned after the concept

tests introduced at Harvard University. We have taught two di-

fferent levels of introductory physics at Harvard using this

strategy and have found that students make significant gains in

conceptual understanding (as measured by standardized tests)

as well as gaining problem solving skills comparable to those

acquired in traditionally taught classes. Dozens of instructors at

other institutions have implemented Peer Instruction with their

own students and found similar results”, Mazur group (2011).

Carefully chosen multiple-choice conceptual questions are po-

sed to students in these segments. The students are then en-

couraged to discuss these questions with their neighbors and

ultimately convey their answers to the instructor. The lecturer

then devotes some time to a resolution of the issues raised by

the students’ responses.

Initially, the students register their votes by using flashcards.

The quantitative aspects of this system is limited, but, more

importantly, the students’ votes are not unknown. In the inter-

vening years, they experimented with various systems to record

the students’ votes, including a wired system and an infra-

red-based wireless system. They encountered the problems us-

ing these systems that led them to develop “i-clicker”. This

development took two years and was generously supported by

the Provost’s Initiative on Teaching Advancement, the Educa-

tional Technology Board, the College of Engineering, and the

Department of Physics at the University of Illinois.

In 2005, Hayden-McNeil Publishing acquired i-clicker. “The

acquisition adds to Macmillan’s portfolio of leading higher

education publishers which includes Bedford St. Martin’s, W.

H. Freeman, Worth Publishers, and i-clicker, a leading provider

of classroom response systems, Macmillan News (2011)”.

There is overwhelming evidence that students learn more if

they actively participate in their learning, Johnson et al. (1991,

1998) and Lyman (1998). The use of a personal response sys-

tem, also known as clickers, in lecture classes is becoming

widespread at a large number of universities. I-clicker (2011),

the most flexible and most reliable classroom response system,

requires no hardware installation, eliminates the frustrating

log-in procedure, works with any presentation application, in-

cludes a built-in LCD screen, and can be formatted according to

style preferences, Interactive Teaching DVD (2007).

These devices allow students to respond to questions deve-

loped by the instructor and enable the instructor to use a num-

ber of activities that promote active learning. Initially, the

clicker was incorporated into the general chemistry course and

all three quarters of the organic chemistry sequence in Denver

University. A trial was performed in the organic chemistry

course during the winter quarter of 2006. A more extensive

program was used during the second quarter of organic chemis-

try in the spring 2007. Because the careful design of questions

that focus on key concepts is of critical importance to the use of

clickers, considerable effort has been devoted to this, during the

summer. After successfully completing a project funded by the

Center for Teaching and Learning at the University of Denver,

results were published in an international Conference in 2008

(Matin et al., 2008).

The clicker is ideal for encouraging class participation in any

size classroom from small enrollments to large enrollment.

Harvard University physicist Eric Mazur demonstrates the use

of Peer Instruction and Just-in-Time Teaching—two innovative

techniques for lectures that use in-class discussion and immedi-

ate feedback to improve student learning. These techniques are

now being used successfully in many disciplines. All incoming

engineering students have to buy Turning Technologies clickers,

Turning Technologies (2011) for all four years of the degree

program.

Description of the Project

The project involves the introduction of cooperative learning

non-traditional methods aimed at educating students to succeed

in today’s global economy. As such, classroom instruction and

group projects assigned foster an environment that maximizes

the use of computers, takes advantage of information and re-

sources available on the internet and Blackboards, and nurtures

cooperative learning among groups. Real-world technological

situations were presented. Students had the opportunity to ac-

tively interact with partners and faculty using blackboard.

The following tools in Blackboard were used to facilitate

cooperative learning.

Blackboard Tests & Surveys

Incorporate surveys (anonymous) or tests (graded) into co-

operative learning activities or to solicit feedback about coop-

erative learning activities. Use surveys for peer rating of team

members. Instructors can develop online tests or quizzes in

Blackboard that students complete as a group or a team.

Group Pages

Creating Blackboard Groups can give students tools to col-

laborate online on cooperative learning projects. Blackboard

groups have their own self-contained email, discussion groups,

collaboration a nd file exchang e area.

Group Selection

Use Advanced Group Manage r to randomly assign stude nts to

their group or to create groups.

Blackboard groups have their own self-contained email. Emails

376

M. A. MATIN

can be sent to individual users or to the entire group. Emails

sent from within Blackboard are sent to the student’s DU email

address.

Collaboration Tools

The collaboration tools in Bb provide a synchronous com-

munication area that enables users to participate in online col-

laborations with instructor and students. The collaboration area

includes a Lightweight Chat and Virtual Classroom.

Lightweight Chat

Communication tool that allows students to participant in

real time text-based discussions. Lightweight chat works simi-

lar to instant messenger.

Virtual Classroom

The Virtual Classroom consists of all the functionality in-

cluded in the Lightweight Chat plus it includes a whiteboard

and other features that may be used during online collaboration

sessions.

File Exchange

File Exchange is a tool that the students can use to exchange

files for group projects they are collaborating on. Instead of

exchanging files via email, students can send and pickup files

from the group tools area in Blackboard.

Wiki

Wiki is a collaborative tool which has been licensed as an

add-on to Blackboard. The wiki tool was developed by a com-

pany called Learning Objects. The license also includes a cou rse

Blog tool. Instructors can assign students the task of creating a

collaborative website, or wiki, within the course management

environment and the instructor can assess each student’s indi-

vidual contributions to the sites. Each student can add content,

edit others’ contributions, and reformat layout as he desires, but

a full history of the revisions is maintained and accessible. De-

termining what and how much to add or revise is part of the

group process.

Discussion Board

The Discussion Board is a communication tool that allows

students and instructors to participate in online discussions

without requiring all class participants to be online at the same

time. Conversations are grouped into Forums and Threads that

contain a main posting and all related replies. Bb groups or

teams can have online discussions between group members and

then share a summary of their group discussions in the main

course discussion board.

The discussion board was used as a Group discussion Board:

we provide a Group Discussion Board to any group. It was only

accessible to the members of the group. The instructor and the

group members can create forums in the Group’s Discussion

Board. Group members can change the name of, but not delete,

a forum the Instructor has set up.

We set up as gradable Discussion board and each gradable

forum creates a grade book column that only the members of

the group could see (i.e. a group’s members do not see other

group’s discussion grade center columns). Following are the

description, grading rubrics, assessment criteria of discussion

board posted in the Blackboard.

Discussion Board Usage

The online discussion board is this course’s equivalent of

in-class participation. Participation includes students posting

their own thoughts and responses to texts, videos, and other

assignments. It also includes students posting their responses to

other students’ thoughts and responses. Discussion boards are

not a series of disconnected monologues—they are a rich, evol-

ving set of dialogues.

Please plan to check the Bi-weekly discussion board threads

several times and respond to new posts or reply to post re-

sponses frequently. For each discussion board assignment, you

should post your own response and respond to other students’

posts. Always use proper scientific terms.

Assessment of Students’ Discussion Board Posts Will

Consider

 The degree to which the student demonstrates his/her un-

derstanding of the question or prompt, and the underlying

or broader issues associated with the question.

 How well the student brings course materials into his/her

response, including specific examples that may help to

solve the marketing problem.

 Whether the student makes effective reference to outside

(non-class) materials that may relate to the question, or

considers the question from a different perspective.

 How thoughtfully and seriously the student replies to other

students’ responses to his/her post.

 Clear, concise writing style, with effective paragraphing,

minimal spelli ng errors, and appropriate grammar.

 Use Equation Editor.

 Give references.

Assessment of Students’ Discussion Board Responses

Will Consider

 How effectively the student engages with the student re-

sponse to which (s)he is responding, including referring to

the posting student by name and reflecting on specific

points in the original post.

 Clear, concise writing style, with effective paragraphing, mi-

nimal spelling errors, and appropriate grammar.

 Use proper scientific terms.

Discussion Grading Rubric

Excellent/Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory

Response to Discussion Question (maximum 5 points) Re-

sponse demonstrates a thoughtful analysis of the question and

provides at least three supporting examples (5 points) Response

offers an opinion with 1 - 2 supporting examples (3 points) Ex-

presses opinion without supporting examples (1 point) Re-

sponses to Networking Postings (maximum 5 points) Thought-

ful response to posting, including comments and questions that

facilitate further discussion (1 point per response) Limited or

vague response to posting that leaves little opportunity for con-

ti nued discus sion (.5 point per re sponse) Expresses simple agree-

M. A. MATIN

ment or disagreement without discussion (0 points).

In addition, they had the opportunity to actively participate in

the class room using Radio Frequency based clicker. Figure 1

depicts the model central to the project.

Educational Objectives Achieved

The following educational objectives were achieved:

1) Introduced cooperative-based instruction in Science and

Engineering courses;

2) Promoted retention of critical theories and technological

concepts;

3) Provided “relevant” education that allowed students to be

effective in active learning;

4) Fostered interactive learning and real time feedback using

clicker;

5) Nurtured an active learner-centered cooperative environ-

ment;

6) Encouraged maximum use of computer-centered learning

using internet and blackboard;

7) Implemented a learner and computer-centered cooperative

environment by adapting the curriculum to accommodate mul-

tiple learning styles;

8) Developed the reflective judgment skills of students in

current and future technology;

9) Promoted an interdisciplinary perspective in a cooperative

manner.

By participating in this new teaching method, students achi-

eved the following learning outcomes:

1) The student demonstrated effective understanding of theo-

retical and practical concepts presented in the course;

2) The student identified the problem, research and analyzed

pertinent data/information, and evaluated alternative courses of

decisions/actions available;

3) The student decided the most appropriate action in the twen-

ty first century technology applications;

4) The student appreciated the complexities involved in work-

ing a cooperative environment;

5) The student visualized the science and technology applica-

tion.

Results and Discussion

After a successful clicker workshop in the summer of 2007,

Computer Centered Cooperative instructions were implemented

in various departments of Natural Science and Mathematics

division and School of Engineering and Computer Science, at

the University of Denver. Science and engineering faculty

showed an enormous interest in implementing the clicker based

teaching to enhance the student’s learning skills. As examples,

Figure 1.

The model.

here are some results from three courses such as Technology-21,

Optoelectronics and Optical networking. In optoelectronics and

Optical Networking classes cooperative learning was facilities

using the following tools from Blackboard in addition to use

the clicker during class.

 Blackboard Tests & Surveys.

 Email.

 File Exchange.

 Wiki.

 Discussion Board.

Both clicker and Blackboard surveys were used for the

course assessment. In Optoelectronics and Optical Networking

class related videos were posted in the assignment section of

the Blackboard. A graded and non graded Discussion Forum

was added in the Group discussion area, 95% to 98% student

participated in the graded discussion compare to 65% to 70% in

non graded discussion. Incentives are very important and atten-

tion is needed during the developing of course materials. An

incentive for faculty is also important to participate in the new

programs, such as salary supplements or stipends. The Center

for Teaching and Learning (CTL) provides half stipend for

developing a pilot course and other half for implementing the

course. Assessments were performed after four weeks and ten

weeks of quarter system. Both assessments are in very close

agreement with only 5% difference.

This teaching method already impacts hundreds of students

from fall, winter and spring, 2007 to spring 2011 and will im-

pact thousands of students in the future. This new teaching

method developed higher-order thinking competencies, promo-

ted collaborative learning, and improved communication skills

and student instant feedback. At the end of the courses out-

comes were evaluated using developed questionnaires using

Clicker response system.

Results of assessment for Technology-21 Class using Cli-

cker are presented below:

The assessment questions for Technology-21 class were:

1) The use of Clickers in Technology-21 improved my abil-

ity to learn the material;

2) The frequency of the use of Clickers in Technology-21

was just right;

3) I wish the professors in my other classes would use the

Clicker;

4) The use of the Clicker in Technology-21 encouraged me

to attend lectures;

5) The use of Clickers in Technology-21 helped me under-

stand energy, its benefits and problems.

The assessments were done anonymously and results are

shown below in a pie-chart format (Figures 2-6):

Figure 2.

The use of Clickers in Technology-21 improve my ability to learn

the material.

378

M. A. MATIN

Through the input of students, majority believed that the

clicker had not only helped them understand the course materi-

als, but liked the frequency of the use, and believed it encour-

aged participation.

Acknowledgements

Author is acknowledging Office for Teaching and Learning

(OTL), University of Denver for their funding and science and

engineering faculty who participated in the clicker based in-

struction.

REFERENCES

Figure 3.

The frequency of t h e use of Clickers in Tec h -21 was just right. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—A new para-

digm for undergraduate education. Change, 27 , 18-25.

Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excite-

ment in the classroom. Washington DC: George Washington Univer-

sity.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of re-

flective thinking to the educative process. Lexington, MA: D. C. Hea-

th and Company.

Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education: An introduction to the

philosophy of educatio n. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Felder, R. M. (1994). Any question s? Chemical Engineering Education,

28, 174-175.

I-Clicker (2011). The decision is simple. URL (last checked 11 July 2011).

http://www.iclicker.com/dnn/Abouticlicker/AdvantagesBenefits/tabi

d/145/Default.aspx

Derek Bok Center (2007). Interactive teaching DVD: Promoting better

learning using peer instruction and just-in-time teach ing. Boston, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Figure 4.

I wish the professor in my other classes would use the Clicker. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. (2001). Joining together: Group theory

and group skills (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentic e Hall.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning:

cooperation in the college classroom (2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interac-

tion Press.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Active learning:

cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book

Company.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Smith, K. A. (1998). Maximizing ins-

truction through cooperative learni ng. ASEE Prism, 7, 24-29.

Lyman, F. T. (1998). The responsive classroom discussion: The inclu-

sion of all students. In A. Anderson (Ed.), Mainstreaming Digest (pp.

109-113). College Park: University of Mary land Press.

Matin, M. A., & Edelstein, J. (2008). Clicker: A personal response sys-

tem for effective teaching. Proceedings of International Conference

on Technology, Communication and Education, Kuwait, 7-9 April

2008, 48-50.

Figure 5.

The use of the Clicker in Tech-21encouraged me to attend lectures. Macmillan News (2011). Move adds leading college custom publisher

to macmillan port folio. URL (last checked 12 July 2011).

http://us.macmillan.com/splash/news/news07.html

McKeachie, W. (1999). Teaching tips (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Hough-

ton Mifflin.

Mazur Group (2011). Peer instruction. URL (last ch ecked 12 July 2011).

http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/research/detailspage.php?rowid=8

Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning. San Fran-

cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Scott, M. (2007). Innovations in undergraduate physics education at Illi-

nois. URL (last checked 12 July 2011).

http://research.physics.uiuc.edu/ PER/Course_Revisions.html

Turning Technologies, LLC (2011). Turning ideas into solutions. URL

(last checked 12 July 2011). www.turningte c h nologies.com

Figure 6.

The use of Clickers in Tech-21 helped me to understand the sub-

ject materials.