120 likes | 214 Vues
Explore the need for an entry-level test in electrical engineering education, addressing challenges and interventions to improve student preparedness and success rates. The test results reveal common conceptual misunderstandings that can be addressed through course interventions. Identify key areas for curriculum development and design to enhance student learning in electrical engineering.
E N D
What do they know? An entry-level test for electricity Gerard Rowe
Context • Mismatch Industry demand for more engineering graduates vs. lack of growth in high-school pool • Growth likely from under-represented groups and students with lower achievement levels • Academic preparedness needs to be assessed
Background • The compulsory electrical engineering course ELECTENG 101 is perceived as “difficult” • Pass rates have not been as high as in other year-one courses, particularly for under-represented groups such as Maori and Pacifika • There is a perception that the modular teaching and assessment of the national high-school qualification has not prepared students well for study in this course
Diagnostic Tests • Part 1 Electrical Engineering • Part 2 Circuit Theory, Electronics, Electromagnetics • Ready for First Year Quiz
Diagnostic test • Diagnostic assessment administered on day 2 • 30 minutes, 22 questions • 20 MC & 2 free-response questions covering:– simple circuit theory– forces on charges & currents in magnetic fields– electromagnetic induction • Questions based on high-school physics & maths
Diagnostic Test results 2007 Mean = 10.4 Pass rate 30%
The Diagnostic Test, a closer lookKnown conceptual misunderstandings from PER:- Sequential thinking- Misapplication of Ohm’s law- Current is “used up” 2007 Correct (D) 52%, (A) 37% 2008 Correct (D) 61%, (A) 29%
Tests for sequential thinking.2007 23% correct (B) 39% (A), 15% (E)2008 27% correct (B) 38% (A), 20% (E)
Diagnostic Tests • Part 1 Electrical Engineering • Part 2 Circuit Theory, Electronics, Electromagnetics • Ready for First Year Quiz
Interventions • Minor changes to lecture delivery and content of tutorials • Active learning in class • OASIS practice problems • Peer marking • Part 1 Assistance Centre • Part 1 Lecturers’ Network • Foundation Tutorials for at-risk (Part 2) students
Conclusions • The diagnostic test was valuable as a “wake-up call” and led to behavioural changes on behalf of students and some modification to course content. • Significant (pre-tertiary) conceptual errors were identified. • Many students appear to follow a “sequential thinking” model. • Many students inappropriately apply Ohm’s law. • Misunderstandings can be corrected by appropriate course interventions.
Where to from here? • Shared NZEEL identification of learning obstacles / threshold concepts (TC) • Shared resources for overcoming TC • Use of NZEEL wiki for dissemination • NZEEL coordination of input to NCEA/CIE/IB curricula • Design of resources for high schools • Concept inventory dissemination, evaluation, development, refinement • Establish smalls groups to work on key areas of curricula • Curriculum design (research vs practice) – the role of CDIO? • Learning styles – development of variety of resources