Lessons learnt and changed understanding: Can Machine

Dynamics students survive without my lectures?

Ian HowardMechanical Engineering

Presentation Overview

• My Teaching Style• Intro to Machine Dynamics 231• Flipping the Classroom Experience• Overview of Outcomes from S1, 2013• Lessons Learnt• Future Modifications• Conclusions

My Teaching Style

• Content & resources provided– Full lecture notes– iLectures from previous years– Current iLectures– All Tutorials provided from week 1

• Interactive explanation of material– Annotation using graphics tablet– Group discussion in lecture as appropriate– Worked examples

• Tutorials– Focus on problem solving

Intro to Machine Dynamics 231

• 200+ students (Max has been 270)• Runs concurrently in MIRI (~100 students)• Last major unit change in 2004• Technically Focused• Fundamentals of Dynamics and Applications• Introduction to Machine components• Students struggle with concepts/visualisation

Flipping the Classroom Experience

• What changes were made for 2013?Machine Dynamics 231 2012 2013Number of students 229 209Assessment Weighting 50 % exam,

20% group assign, 20 % test, 10 % lab

50 % exam, 20% group assign, 20 % tute activity, 10 % lab

Lecture Hours per week 3 1Tutorial Hours per week 1 1Tutorial size 9 classes,

20 – 30 students each6 classes, 30 – 40 students each

Tutorial Venue Building 300 classroom style.Working alone

Building 216 new teaching space. Assembled in groups of 4-6

Flipping the Classroom Experience

Rationale for reducing lecture time(suck it and see)

Advantages DisadvantagesFree up time Less time for interactionLess emphasis on content Less able to convey myself to

the students More focus on core material Less time for ‘jokes’ …Increase responsibility of students to be engaged

Less time to tell them …

Frustration – how else will they know??More expensive overall ??

Flipping the Classroom Experience

Tutorial Activities• Replaces mid semester test • 20 % weighting• 10 activities submitted, marked and returned• 1 activity per week over 10 weeks• Cost 5 hrs per week in marking• Designed to engage students every week

Overview of Outcomes

2 2 1 1.5 2 1.5 1 1.5 2 1.5

0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 1

2 1 2 0.5 0.5 1 2 1.5 2

1 1 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 1 2 1.5 1.5

1 2 2 2 2 0.5 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2

1.5 1 2 1 0.5 0.5 1 2 1 1

1.5 0.5 2 2 1.5 1.5 1.5

Tutorial Activity Results

Overview of Outcomes

• Unit mean mark improved 58 % - 65 % (2012/13)

• Exam mean mark improved 46 % - 55 %(2012/13)

• Mean tutorial mark of 63 %• Attendance at the 1 hr lecture improved• Tutorial attendance (compulsory) improved• Tutorial activities forced students to engage

with material weekly

Lessons LearnteValuate OutcomesUnit Name: Machine Dynamics 231Unit Number: 308805 Response Rate: 25 - 21 % 2012 – 2013 results

1. The learning outcomes in this unit are clearly identified. 98 - 98 2. The learning experiences in this unit help me to achieve the learning outcomes. 91 - 77 3. The learning resources in this unit help me to achieve the learning outcomes. 91 - 83 4. The assessment tasks in this unit evaluate my achievement of the learning outcomes. 91-925. Feedback on my work in this unit helps me to achieve the learning outcomes. 74 - 786. The workload in this unit is appropriate to achievement of the learning outcomes. 87 - 887. The quality of teaching in this unit helps me to achieve the learning outcomes. 84 - 758. I am motivated to achieve the learning outcomes in this unit. 94 - 859. I make best use of the learning experiences in this unit. 94 - 8910. I think about how I can learn more effectively in this unit. 92 - 84 11. Overall, I am satisfied with this unit. 88 - 81

Lessons Learnt• eValuate Comments–As expected – the good, bad and ugly

• Some Good comments– The weekly tutorial activities are a great way for us to refresh and study the

content learned in the lecture. – the tutorials activities were for me the best way to learn the concerned subject

each time. – The videos from the past years was really useful in helping me understand certain

topics better. – The short revised lectures were helpful, with the addition of more detailed

lectures available on blackboard. – Where diagrams and movies are presented, make it much easier to visualise the

systems we are studying. Technical drawings are not very good at helping see what it is we are supposed to be seeing

– The tutorials are the most helpful bycovering the practical aspect of the subject that are tought.

– good lecturer and lots of notes available

Lessons Learnt• Some Poor comments– I found that the lectrues mostly focused on deriving

equations and not enough time was spent on worked examples. I found the quality of the lecture notes poor and I also had a tutor that was not only extremely difficult to understand, but his hand writing was also unreadable making coming to the tutorials almost pointless. The fact that every member in the group assignment had to attempt all questions was frustrating as well.

– The lectures were generally unhelpful and the tutorials were similar. The labs were also unhelpful in understanding content especially as it had not yet been studied in most cases

Lessons Learnt• Student comments for

improvements– Increase tutorial time to 2 hrs– Improve quality of tutorial sessions– Increase time between lecture and tutorial

Future Modifications

• Increase tutorial time to 2 hrs• Improve quality of tutorial sessions• Increase time between lecture and tutorial• Try out some in-class tutorial assessments• Try out some on-line quizzes

Conclusions

• Reducing lecture time appeared to have little bearing on student engagement

• Student engagement can be increased using compulsory tutorial activities

• Overall student grades improved giving encouragement for further developments in 2014