Chapter 5.................................................................................................................................. 147
5.2 Sub-Question 1 – How do students learn thermodynamics?
153 would use that instead as it was much simpler than the other recommended text book. Of the other recommended book, Eastop and McConkey (1993), prescribed for the follow on subjects, he indicated that it had more than was required for Thermodynamics II and not enough related to Thermodynamics II, so he hadn’t used it. He also indicated that his friend had Eastop and McConkey (1993), but hadn’t used it either.
Several interviewees said that they had obtained copies of the library notes and had used them extensively. There are also copies of the recommended books in the library, but student C indicated that the problem with the library was the availability of the recommended books, especially as their use is spread amongst other classes of students studying thermodynamics as well.
As highlighted in Chapter 3.9.3, O'Brien & Symons (2007, p.414) found that science students were the least likely to consult a librarian and that 23% never used the library, and in Chapter 4.2.3 that students were less likely to consult a librarian than their professors. In this study frequency of library use was not found to significantly influence pass rates although it was found that students who used the library more frequently had a higher pass rate, as discussed in Chapter 4.2.3. It was also found that although 60% indicated that they had done a library orientation course, 4% never used the library and 16% used it only monthly or less, and for those who did use it regularly books were the most common use. Also 72% indicated that they had consulted a librarian for assistance. It is felt that students should be encouraged to do the Library orientation course to get to know how to use it effectively as this resource is often underutilised.
154 interviewed took very different approaches to learning. Student C, described in Chapter 4.4.2.5 as a student who took a deep approach to learning, got to understand the basics first, which enabled him to understand the later sections. In describing how he approached his learning he said:
“…still you do not have an understanding of this one chapter. You have referred to various sets of notes but still you do not understand it, and that is where you would need a lecturer to maybe shed some light on on on the difficulties that you are having”.
and later said:
“I have been putting a fair amount of work into understanding material and whenever I I encountered a problem I would consult a lecturer immediately, such that I would get clarification upon that section before we got to the test environment…and the availability of lecturers when I had problems”
and of studying technique:
“I wouldn’t say there is a specific technique I use Sir. It’s just old school sitting down with a text book and reading”.
Student F, described in Chapter 4.4.2.5 as adopting a surface approach, said he preferred to learn things “parrot fashion”, a sure road to disaster.
Concerning the consulting of a lecturer or otherwise to assist with problem solving realised some interesting results, mainly in connection with the tackling of past papers. In relation to the use of past papers, mentioned in Chapter 4.4.2.5 and discussed in detail in Chapter 4.4.3.1.1 and 4.4.3.1.2, student A said:
“The problem is the availability of the solutions thereof, because if we do a past paper there is no way of knowing whether you’re right or wrong”.
This problem was discussed by several interviewees, some indicating that if they did a problem they would compare their answers with other students and if they all had the same answer they would assume that they were correct. Only about half indicated that they would consult the lecturer to find out if they were correct. O'Brien & Symons (2007, p.414), as described in Chapter 4.2.3, found that students most often consulted their fellow students. However, student C, concerning getting assistance from other students, said:
“…the only time I would either interact with another student is if I had a problem and you find that the hours during which I’m working on this material does not allow me access to a lecturer, because most of the time I do my studying in the evenings. So what
155 I would do is, I would consult other students that I know may have an understanding of the sa of the section I’m working on…”.
Asked what extra support may be helpful, student D said:
“I would like to get to to go to the the students who are, who are…doing Thermos III, to give us their knowledge what they did in S2. I think that’s extra support we’d get from them, if they are willing to give that, give us the knowledge they have”,
but of tutors:
“but then for tutors, maybe you won’t understand that guy, then you’ll find it difficult to understand that section, but if you know of friends outside,...it is easy to approach them, you know them, so where we tend to have friends who who doing, have you, who are in the higher level than us… so you interact with your fellow students”.
In all, six of those interviewed mentioned tutors to help them work through problems, although two responded negatively to the idea, suggesting they’d rather consult their friends who’d already done Thermodynamics II. In the Council On Higher Education report (2010, p.10), mentioned in Chapter 4.4.2.2 and 4.4.3.1.2, it recommends that students should be actively engaged with their fellow students in and out of the classroom in various activities as “students learn more when they are intensely involved in their education and are required to reflect on their learning”, and that peer student tutoring should be encouraged.
In relation to the interviews concerning tutorials, opinions were varied. Some interviewees recommended more problems rather than extra tutorial periods, student I saying that more tutorial periods would help, but student D indicated that students don’t attend their tutorial periods a lot of the time anyway so more periods would be a waste of time.
The right approach to studying and the appropriate study time are added requirements for success. Analysis of the study habit survey’s twenty nine items, seen in Appendix H, when compared to students’ passing the subject only produced one definitive result, although some interesting trends were observed. As indicated in Chapter 4.2.4 study times indicated in the literature vary from around ten to thirty hours per week. A significant finding from the study habit survey was that students who studied three or more hours per week on Thermodynamics had twice the probability of passing as students who studied less. Further, although not a significant finding, it was observed that those who completed all their tutorial problems had a
156 50% greater chance of passing, as discussed in Chapter 4.2.6.
Much has been studied about various forms of delivery in recent years along with the way that students learn. Various modes of delivery were discussed in Chapter 2.2 and how students learn in Chapter 2.1. In Chapter 4.2.6 students preferred learning styles were investigated via the study habit survey. Whilst not a reliable test due to its simplicity, at 49% as seen in Table 4.8, the majority of students indicated that they preferred a visual style of learning, a figure much lower than the more valid and reliable studies of Felder and Brent (2005, p.61), using their Index of Learning Styles (ILS), at 82%. Visual learners, who are generally predominant in undergraduate engineering classes according to Felder and Brent (2005, p.61), appear to have a higher probability of passing than other types of learners. As mentioned above, students who professed to be visual learners were in the majority in this class and recorded the highest pass rates. Also indicated in Chapter 4.2.6 the majority of teaching is done verbally using lectures, indicating a mismatch of teaching and learning styles, with the auditory learning style only indicated by 6% of students.
Group work, introduced in Chapter 2.2.6, is an area which has become increasingly popular as it can help to build a student’s independence and skills. Setting up of the groups was described in Chapters 3.8.1 and 4.1.1. Although seven of the nine students interviewed indicated that they normally study on their own rather than in groups, discussed in Chapter 4.4.2.1, the running of the computer laboratory sessions combined with the tutorial period required students to actively participate in group activities to solve their tutorial problems and construct their spreadsheets according to the assignment instructions on the handouts described in Chapter 3.8.2. Most groups tended to get on with the tasks fairly quickly, but some initial problems arose fairly soon which were dealt with as described in Chapter 4.1.2. Although computer problems continued to plague operations, most groups tended to carry on with the required tasks. Combined group work with computer aided learning was one of the main components of this study and it was successful in that students interacted with each other and shared ideas. No groups appeared to break down from a cooperative viewpoint.
Another aspect of the study that was new to students was the assessment of their peer’s spreadsheets. Although there was initially some concern from the students about the process they got on with the task and provided a fair assessment according to the rubrics requirements.
This can be seen from the comments made by students on the assessment forms, mentioned in
157 Chapter 4.1.7.2, as well as the moderation weighting factor for the assessment, described in Chapter 4.1.7.3, being close to one. There were some problems during the peer assessment, also mentioned in Chapter 4.1.7.2 and 4.1.8.1, although these did not hamper the process. It also provided a formative aspect to it, seen by Student D’s comment in Chapter 4.1.8.2. Further, the fact that several groups were prepared to reassess assignment 2, described in Chapter 4.1.8.4, showed that they took an interest in the process.
Concerning study techniques, specifically note taking introduced in Chapter 2.1.8 and discussed in Chapter 4.2.6, this was investigated both in the interviews and via the study habit survey.
Student C said:
“I just take the key points as to what was covered in class and then the certain
information that I may have realized is not in the notes, then that I may have taken…”.
Of the other students interviewed, only one indicated that they would partially rewrite their notes later because the library notes contained all the information they required, several others also indicating that the library notes were generally sufficient. Only 25% of the students surveyed indicated that they rewrote their class notes later. It was not found to be a significant factor for achieving success, as mentioned in Chapter 4.2.6.
5.3 Sub-Question 2 – What problems do students studying Thermodynamics experience