Live-Time Feedback Effect on Undergraduate Students' Learning Yousef Sardahi

Yousef Naranjani

Abstract

This essay addresses the effect of “live-time feedback”, feedback on assignments given before they are submitted, on undergraduate students learning. This method was applied to two different courses in UC Merced, Computer Aided Engineering ME137 and Engineering Computing ME021, offered in spring 2014. In both classes, students used computer software to solve their weekly assignment. The efficiency of the proposed method was measured quantitatively and qualitatively.The midterm and final projects/exams grades of two different populations of students were compared. The first sample of the populationwas subjected to the live-time feedback. While, the second type of students may or may not get written comments about their work after they receive their grades. In addition, midterm surveys for both classeswere designed to qualitatively measure the students' liking of this method. The results show a considerable improvement in grades and indicate that the majority of the populations included in this study like the live-time feedback method.

Introduction

Laboratories in engineering majors play an important role in building students’ skills to deal with real life problems. One of program learning outcomes (PLOs) of Mechanical Engineering major -that can be achieved through labs- is that the student should be able to design and conduct experiments andnumerical simulations, analyze, and interpret general scientific and engineering information by the end of the program [1]. Theother PLOs such as the ability of students to identify, formulate, solve engineering problems, and use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice can be also accomplished by practicing in the labs. The courses’ learning outcomes (CLOs) that pour in the same direction of the PLOs for each course are as follow: Computer Aided Engineering ME137: 1) Understanding the basic concept of feature-based, parametric, and solid modeling. 2) Being able to construct 2-D and 3-D models, assembly and sub-assembly structures. 3) Being able to generate 2-D and 3-D models for finite element analysis. Engineering Computing ME021: 1) Learn basic knowledge of programming for engineering computations 2) Learn basic skills to formulate engineering computing problems in Fortran and Matlab 3) Gain ability to continue to learn advanced computing and programming skills 1

4) Apply programming skills to studies of various engineering subjects 5) Gain an understanding of the importance of computing in modern engineering 6) Practice and demonstrate the computer programming skills in programming assignments. Students will demonstrate their proficiency formally in the programming projects. It can be noticed that the CLOs aim to build students’ skills in order to achieve the general PLOs. So, efficient teaching methods are necessities that guarantee moving towards that target. In this work, we introducethe live-time feedbackmethod. The live-time feedback means that there is no time delay in getting feedback from the teaching assistance (TA) about students’ performance on an assigned work. That is, students are provided with feedback abouttheir workduring the lab time and before they submit their assignments.By the LTF, the students have single or multiple times of interaction with their TA and they can submit their work only when it meets the full grade standards. They might be asked a couple of questions to get the exit ticket for the lab session. Our hypothesis is that students learn more if they get immediate oral comments from the TAwhile they are practicing or doing the homework instead of getting written feedback ontheir submitted work a few days later The importance of feedback as a tool to improve the teaching-learning process was discussed by Ovando and Martha in [2] and references therein. In that study, eight conditions for effective and successful feedback were mentioned. The authors claimed that “feedback for teaching and learning should be relevant, immediate, factful, helpful, confidential, respectful, tailored and encouraging if it is going to be effectively used to achieve successful teaching and learning”. In this investigation, the authors also indicated that not only students but also instructors may benefit from this method. On this light, the effect of live-time feedback is introduced in this essay. Fig. 1 explains how this approach works and shows its similarities to a real control system. The course learning outcomes are the target. The instructor plays the role of senor through measuring the actual students’ learning and sending it back to a comparative function that measured the gap between what a student should learn and what he is actually learning. The student’s effort is relatively proportional to the value of this gap. That is, based on the instructor’s comments, if the gap is big, the student should do more effort on the assignment to make the gap as small as possible. Course learning outcomes

+

Student

Assignment

Instructor Figure 1: the effect of the live-time feedback method 2

Actual learning

Quantitative Analysis

Table 1 demonstrates both of the midterm and final average grades for three different populations for ME021. It can be noticed that the students who got Live-time feedback have better average than others. The distribution of the grades around the mean can be measured by the standard deviation. It can notice that for the Spring Semester, the number of students having grades close to the average is higher than those of the other sections where the live-time feedback was not provided.That is, the average was higher and larger number of the students had grades close to it. That is to say, the proposed method reduces the learning discrepancies between students. For Fall Semester 2014, even though a few number of the students had grades far away from the mean, the general average was smaller than that of Spring Semester 2014 where the live-time feedback was implemented. Midterm grade comparison for ME-137 is presented in Table 2. The TA1 indicates the teaching assistant that implemented the live-time feedback method starting spring 2014 and TA2 indicates the other teaching assistant which is more experienced and he kept his method the same. Comparing the results it is noticed that in fall 2013 there was a 12.3 points gap between the two lab sessions which completely eliminated in spring 2014. Major reason for the difference is known to be the LTF method. It should be noted that in both semesters, the exam is standardized and the same rubric is being used for grading.

Table 1: Engineering Computing Class (ME021)–grade comparison

Semester Spring semester 2014, live-time feedback Spring semester 2014, No live-time feedback Fall semester 2014, No live-time feedback

Average Midterm/Final 93.5/88.22

DeviationMidterm/Final

89.6/83.88

14.9/11.67

90.6/84.92

9.71/15.58

10.2/6.63

Table 2: Computer Aided Engineering (ME137) - Midterm grade comparison

Semester Spring semester 2014, live-time feedback(TA1) Spring semester 2014, No live-time feedback(TA2) Fall semester 2013, No live-time feedback(TA1) Fall semester 2013, No live-time feedback(TA2)

3

Grades’ Average 85.2 85.31 74.3 86.6

Grades’ Deviation 16.0 22.17 17.5 10.6

Qualitative Analysis

In the midterm survey, two questions were dedicated to measure the students' likeness and the efficacy of the live-time feedback in ME-021. Table 3 shows that 80.4 % of the studentsthink that TA should keep providing his students with comments on their work before they submit it. In addition 76.8 % of these students think this method was helpful. On the other side, 9.1 % claim that this approach was not helpful. This group of students might not need help because the course was straightforward for them. ME-137 survey results are presented in Appendix. A few questions are dedicated for the evaluation of the LTF method in the mid-semester survey. 96% of the students mentioned that they like LTF. In addition 83% of students indicate that they like the exit ticket idea and 96% believe that the TA feedback affected their learning. The numbers show that not only the student performances increased in action, but also they really liked this method.

Table 3: some questions from the midterm survey (ME021) Statement

I want my TA to keep providing live time feedback about my work I found TA’s feedback during the lab very helpful

Disagree Strongly

1 0%

2 0%

9.1%

0.2% 4.5% 4.5%

Conclusion

3 0%

Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 4.5%

Agree Strongly

5 6 7 4.5% 18.2 72.7% 4.5% 13.6 63.2%

The efficacy of the live time feedback on students’ performance for two classes has been investigated. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses showed that this method had a good impact on the participants’ learning since it breaks the ice wall between students and their teachers. In other words, students are not allowed to submit their work before they get a feedback and green light before they turn the assigned work in. By that way, the interaction between these students and their teacher is guaranteed. We think that the proposed approach can be implemented successfully in all computer related laboratories. In other labs, this idea can be applied completely or partially depending on their structure.

4

References

1. http://engineering.ucmerced.edu/academics/undergraduate-programs/majors/mechanicalengineering 2. Ovando, Martha N. "Constructive feedback: A key to successful teaching and learning." International Journal of Educational Management 8.6 (1994): 19-22.

Appendix - ENGR137 Assessment results, The pre-semester assessment results:

What is your major? Mechanical Engineering (80%) Engineering (other) (16%) Non-Engineering (4%) What year are you? Freshman (0%) Sophomore (0%) Junior (73%) Senior (27%) Have you worked with a 3D modeling software before? Yes (57%) No (43%) Have you worked with a finite element analysis software before? Yes (11%) No (89%) Have you decided if you want to go to graduate school or not? I want to go to grad school (47%) I will not attempt grad school (21%) Not decided yet (32%) Have you taken / Are you taking Strength of Materials (ENGR151)? Yes (43%) No (57%) Have you taken / Are you taking Finite Element Analysis? Yes (3%) No (97%)

The mid-semester assessment results: I found TA’s feedback during the lab helpful in my learning

5

Strongly Disagree(0%), Disagree(0%), Neither Agree nor Disagree(4%), Agree(50%), Strongly Agree(46%) I like to have parts final volume to check my work before submitting Strongly Disagree(0%), Disagree(0%), Neither Agree nor Disagree(0%), Agree(29%), Strongly Agree(71%) I want my TA to keep providing live time feedback about my work Strongly Disagree(0%), Disagree(0%), Neither Agree nor Disagree(4%), Agree(38%), Strongly Agree(58%) I think taking this course was a good idea Strongly Disagree(0%), Disagree(0%), Neither Agree nor Disagree(0%), Agree(25%), Strongly Agree(75%) If I could, I would skipped attending labs Strongly Disagree(46%), Disagree(38%), Neither Agree nor Disagree(17%), Agree(0%), Strongly Agree(4%) The instructions and expectations of labs are clear Strongly Disagree(0%), Disagree(0%), Neither Agree nor Disagree(17%), Agree(42%), Strongly Agree(42%) I like the exit ticket idea (TA check your work) Strongly Disagree(0%), Disagree(0%), Neither Agree nor Disagree(13%), Agree(29%), Strongly Agree(54%) I think I will use the material I learned in this lab in future Strongly Disagree(0%), Disagree(0%), Neither Agree nor Disagree(4%), Agree(29%), Strongly Agree(67%) The TA’s overall performance was satisfactory so far Strongly Disagree(0%), Disagree(0%), Neither Agree nor Disagree(4%), Agree(42%), Strongly Agree(46%)

6