Interactive Computer Simulation and Animation (CSA) to Improve Student Learning of Projectile Motion in an Undergraduate Engineering Dynamics Course

Yongqing Guo, Ning Fang

Abstract

Computer simulation and animation (CSA) has been receiving growing attention and application in recent years in the international engineering education community. In the present study, an innovative set of CSA learning modules was developed to improve student learning of projectile motion in engineering dynamics, an important yet difficult undergraduate engineering course. The new CSA learning modules integrate visualization with mathematical modeling to help students directly connect engineering dynamics with mathematics. Quasi-experimental research involving an intervention group and a comparison group was performed to investigate the extent to which the new CSA learning modules improved student learning of projectile motion. The results show that as compared to the comparison group, students in the intervention group increased their learning gains by 30.3% to 43.6% on average, depending on the specific CSA learning modules. The difference in learning gains between the two groups is found to be statistically significant. From the present study, it is concluded that properly-designed computer simulation and animation not only provides students with a visualization tool for them to better understand engineering phenomena, but can also improve their procedural skills for finally solving problems in engineering dynamics.

References

  1. Barrett, S. F., LeFevre, E. W., Steadman, J. W., Tietjen, J. S., White, K. R., and Whitman, D. L., 2010. Using the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) examination as an outcomes assessment tool. National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, Seneca, SC.
  2. Bates, A. W., Poole, G., 2003. Effective teaching with technology in higher education: foundations for success, Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA.
  3. Bedford, A., Fowler, W., 2009. Engineering mechanics dynamics, Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ, 5th edition.
  4. Bernadin, S., Kalaani, Y. A., and Goforth, F., 2008. Bridging the gap between lab and lecture using computer simulation. In Proceedings of the 2008 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA.
  5. Budhu, M., 2009. Enhancing instructions using interactive multimedia simulations. Simulation, 76(4), 222-231.
  6. Calderón, A., Ruiz, M., 2014. Bringing real-life practice in software project management training through a simulation-based serious game. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, Barcelona, Spain.
  7. Case, J., Marshall, D., 2004. Between deep and surface: procedural approaches to learning in engineering education contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 29(5), 605-615.
  8. Clark, W., DiBiasio, D., 2007. Computer simulation of laboratory experiments for enhanced learning. In Proceedings of the 2007 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu, Hawaii.
  9. Cornwell, P. J., 2000. Dynamics evolution - change or design. In Proceedings of the 2000 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, St. Louis, MO.
  10. Donnelly, A., Wu, C. Y., and Hodge, E., 2004. A model for teaching materials evaluation: development and testing of interactive computer simulations modules for undergraduate education. In Proceedings of the 2004 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah.
  11. Dunn, R., Griggs, S. H., (Eds.) 2000. Practical approaches to using leaning styles in higher education, Bergin & Garvey. Westport, CT.
  12. Flori, R. E., Koen, M. A., and Oglesby, D. B., 1996. Basic engineering software for teaching (BEST) dynamics. Journal of Engineering Education, 85, 61- 67.
  13. Gu, Y. T., Tan, A., 2009. Using visualization tool to help engineering students learning dynamics. In Proceedings of 20th Annual Conference for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education, Adelaide, Australia.
  14. Hake, R. R., 1998. Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.
  15. Hibbeler, R. C., 2012. Engineering mechanics dynamics, Pearson Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ, 13th edition.
  16. Hiebert, J., Lefevre, P., 1986. Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In Hiebert, J., (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum. Hillsdale, NJ.
  17. Kolmos, A., and Holgaard, J. E., 2010. Learning styles of science and engineering students in problem and project based education. International Journal of Learning Technology, 5(3), 211-242.
  18. Kumar, R., Plummer, M., 1997. Using contemporary tools to teach dynamics in engineering technology. International Journal of Engineering Education, 13, 407-411.
  19. Manjit, S., Selvanathan, N., 2005. A TAPS interactive multimedia package to solve engineering dynamics problems. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 22, 275-289.
  20. Philpot, T. A., Hall, R. H., 2006. Animated instructional software for mechanics of materials: implementation and assessment. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 14(1), 31-43.
  21. Rittle-Johnson, B., Star, J., 2007. Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 561-574.
  22. Stanley, R., 2008. An efficient way to increase the engineering student's fundamental understanding of particle kinematics and kinetics by using interactive web based animation software. Computers in Education, 18, 23-41.
  23. Stanley, R., 2009. A way to increase the engineering student's qualitative understanding of particle kinematics and kinetics by using interactive web based animation software. In Proceedings of the 2009 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, TX.
  24. Taraban, R., Definis, A., Brown, A. G., Anderson, E. E., and Sharma, M. P., 2007. A paradigm for assessing conceptual and procedural knowledge in engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 335-345.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Guo Y. and Fang N. (2015). Interactive Computer Simulation and Animation (CSA) to Improve Student Learning of Projectile Motion in an Undergraduate Engineering Dynamics Course . In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU, ISBN 978-989-758-108-3, pages 173-180. DOI: 10.5220/0005363401730180


in Bibtex Style

@conference{csedu15,
author={Yongqing Guo and Ning Fang},
title={Interactive Computer Simulation and Animation (CSA) to Improve Student Learning of Projectile Motion in an Undergraduate Engineering Dynamics Course},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU,},
year={2015},
pages={173-180},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0005363401730180},
isbn={978-989-758-108-3},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU,
TI - Interactive Computer Simulation and Animation (CSA) to Improve Student Learning of Projectile Motion in an Undergraduate Engineering Dynamics Course
SN - 978-989-758-108-3
AU - Guo Y.
AU - Fang N.
PY - 2015
SP - 173
EP - 180
DO - 10.5220/0005363401730180