Paper to be presented at PTEE2000 "Physics Teaching in Engineering Education", Budapest 13 - 17 June 2000.

Link to full paper (pdf-format)

Link to slides of talk (pdf-format)

TEACHING ENGINEERING MECHANICS COURSES USING ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT METHODS*

Jonte Bernhard
ITN, Campus Norrköping, Linköping University,
S-60174 Norrköping, Sweden
Phone +46 11 363318, Fax +46 11 363270
E-mail: jonbe@itn.liu.se Homepage: http://www.itn.liu.se/~jonbe

KEYWORDS: Physics Education Research, Microcomputer Based Laboratory, Mechanics.

Most university level students do not acquire a good functional understanding of mechanics [1] after a traditionally taught course. In my studies of traditionally taught engineering students in Sweden, approximately one third of the students hold "Aristotelian" views of force and motion after taking an introductory course and very few acquire a full "Newtonian" view.

Research has shown that it is very difficult to change students' views in mechanics. To change students' views of the world requires active engagement teaching methods [2]. One such method is Microcomputer Based Laboratories (MBL). In an MBL-lab students do real experiments, not simulated ones, using different sensors (force, motion, temperature, light, sound, EKG) connected to a computer via an interface. One of the main educational advantages of using MBL is the real-time display of experi-mental results and graphs thus facilitating direct connection between the real experiment and the abstract representation. This make it possible to develop new types of lab experiments designed to facilitate better student learning and to use labs to address common misconceptions.

In this paper the implementation and evaluation of active engagement teaching methods, such as MBL, in an introductory and in an advanced mechanics course for engineering students, at Högskolan Dalarna in Sweden, will be reported. In booth courses were lecture time heavily reduced and active engagement labs using MBL were introduced instead of the lectures. Very good learning results were achieved in booth courses and the reformed courses were well received by the students.

REFERENCES

1. Good overviews can be found in: L C McDermott "Students' conceptions and problem solving in mechanics" in Tiberghien, Jossem and Barojas (eds) Connecting Research in Physics Education with Teacher Education, ICPE (1998) and L C McDermott and E F Redish "Resource Letter PER-1: Physics Education Research", Am J Physics, 67, 755-767 (1999)
2. R R Hake "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses", Am J Physics, 66, 64 - 74 (1997)

* Financial support from the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education, Council for Renewal of Higher Education, is gratefully acknowledged