Most freshmen in engineering departments link an equation learned in a course as a unique theory specific to the subject and fail to realize that it is part of a more general notion that can be applied to a wide variety of natural phenomena. The students are able to use formulas related to the theory perfectly, but sometimes fail to understand what the basic concepts hidden behind the applications are. As a result, many students do not know how to apply similar formulas in other courses in the department. On the other hand, engineers are problem solvers; they need good critical and creative thinking skills to increase the performance of a process or design a new plant under technical, social, economic, regulatory, and environmental constraints. By consequence, how can engineering students be taught to achieve these goals? Literature has shown that effective teachers have succeeded in making students feel good about school and learning, thus increasing student achievement. Moreover, students in an actively taught class do a better job of learning (memorizing) the material they are exposed to, compared to those in a passively taught section. It is also agreed that motivation is probably the most important factor that educators can target in order to improve learning.
The main objective of this investigation is to quantify the effects of an active learning strategy on the motivation of students in a process control course. Different from the qualitative methodologies previously presented in the literature, the objective of this first quantitate method is an attempt to measure the impact of an active learning strategy on the motivation of students by introducing a motivation factor for each student calculated from the Final Grade Point (FGP) and the Cumulative Grade point average CGPA. In the first part of the investigation, the Relative Performance (RP) of students is used as a new tool to gauge the effects of the active learning strategy on the performance of students. For the second part of this quantitative method, the Dadach Motivation Factor “DMF” is introduced in order to measure the effects of the active learning strategy on the motivation of students. For the validation of this first quantitative method, the final results will be compared to the student survey as a qualitative method.
Table of Contents
1. ACTIVE LEARNING
2. MEASURING STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
3. COURSE AND TEACHING STRATEGIES
4. ASSESSMENT STRATEGY OF THE COURSE
5. RELATIVE PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS
6. QUALITATIVE MEASUREMENT OF MOTIVATION
7. DADACH MOTIVATION FACTOR
8. STUDENT’S SURVEY
9. CONCLUSION
Research Objectives and Core Themes
The main objective of this investigation is to quantitatively measure the impact of an active learning strategy on student motivation within a process control course, moving beyond traditional qualitative assessment methods by introducing a new "Dadach Motivation Factor" (DMF).
- Application of active learning strategies in engineering education.
- Development of a novel quantitative tool (DMF) based on Ohm's Law analogy.
- Evaluation of Relative Performance (RP) as a metric for academic success.
- Triangulation of quantitative results with qualitative student survey data.
- Assessment of intrinsic motivation and its correlation with academic performance.
Excerpt from the Book
DADACH MOTIVATION FACTOR
Different from the qualitative methodologies presented in the literature, the objective of this first quantitative method is an attempt to measure the impact of an active learning strategy on the motivation of students by introducing a motivation factor (MF) for each student calculated from his Final Grade Point (FGP) and his Cumulative Grade point average CGPA. To reach this goal, the general formula of transport phenomena is utilized:
Flow = Driving Force / Resistance
For example, in Ohm’s law, the current I (flow of electrons) is motivated by the difference in potentials ΔU and controlled by the electrical resistance, R, of the circuit.
Using an analogy with Ohm’s law, what students learn could represent the “Flow” of information from the teacher (the source of knowledge). It is also assumed that a student having a low CGPA could present a higher “Resistance” to receive the information and, by consequence, to his motivation and performance [38, 39, 40]. As shown in Figure 3, since nothing can be done about the student’s CGPA “R”, the active learning strategy was used as the driving force “ΔU” in order to push the information “current” in the brain of the students.
Summary of Chapters
1. ACTIVE LEARNING: Provides a theoretical overview of active learning, highlighting its benefits for student engagement, higher-order thinking, and motivation.
2. MEASURING STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES: Discusses direct and indirect assessment methods used in higher education and the limitations of each.
3. COURSE AND TEACHING STRATEGIES: Details the implementation of an active learning approach in a Process Control course, including the use of analogies, videos, and group activities.
4. ASSESSMENT STRATEGY OF THE COURSE: Outlines the grading structure of the course, which combines traditional exams with non-exam active learning assessments.
5. RELATIVE PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS: Introduces the Relative Performance (RP) metric to compare individual student achievement against their academic history.
6. QUALITATIVE MEASUREMENT OF MOTIVATION: Reviews existing qualitative literature regarding student motivation, including surveys and Vroom's theory.
7. DADACH MOTIVATION FACTOR: Proposes a novel quantitative formula using an Ohm's Law analogy to calculate student motivation based on performance and grades.
8. STUDENT’S SURVEY: Analyzes feedback from student satisfaction surveys to validate the success of the active learning implementation.
9. CONCLUSION: Synthesizes the quantitative and qualitative findings, suggesting that the new method effectively gauges the impact of teaching strategies on motivation.
Keywords
Active Learning, Motivation, Process Control, Dadach Motivation Factor, DMF, Relative Performance, Engineering Education, Ohm's Law Analogy, Student Achievement, Likert Scale, Teaching Strategies, Quantitative Analysis, Student Satisfaction, Academic Performance, Educational Assessment
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The research focuses on quantifying the effectiveness of active learning strategies on student motivation and academic performance within an undergraduate engineering course.
What are the primary themes addressed in the study?
Key themes include active learning methodologies, the transition from qualitative to quantitative motivation measurement, student satisfaction, and the use of performance metrics in higher education.
What is the main goal of the investigation?
The primary goal is to introduce and validate a new quantitative metric, the "Dadach Motivation Factor" (DMF), to better understand the link between teaching strategies and student performance.
Which scientific method is utilized in this paper?
The paper utilizes a quantitative method based on analogies from transport phenomena (specifically Ohm's Law) to calculate motivation, which is then compared against traditional qualitative survey results.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body covers the theoretical basis of active learning, descriptions of specific teaching techniques like Pair Problem Solving and Problem-Based Learning, and the development and application of the DMF.
What are the characterizing keywords of this work?
The work is characterized by terms such as Active Learning, Dadach Motivation Factor, Engineering Education, Relative Performance, and Educational Assessment.
How is the "Resistance" of a student defined in the DMF formula?
Resistance is defined as the inverse of the student's Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA), representing the difficulty a student might face in absorbing new information.
What does a Dadach Motivation Factor higher than unity signify?
A DMF value greater than 1.0 indicates that the active learning strategy had a significant positive impact on that student's motivation.
How does this study compare to existing qualitative literature?
Unlike previous qualitative studies relying solely on self-reported surveys or interviews, this study introduces a quantitative approach using FGP and CGPA data to provide more objective evidence.
What was the outcome regarding the students' relative performance?
The study found that 69% of students achieved a positive relative performance, suggesting that the active learning strategies used were generally successful in enhancing student outcomes.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Zin Eddine Dadach (Autor:in), 2013, First Quantitative Measurement of Motivation. Study of the Effects of Active Learning Strategies, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/419631
