Chapter 5.................................................................................................................................. 147
5.1 Summary of Primary Question
The Primary Question was to investigate how delivery affects student understanding. Different forms of delivery were discussed in Chapter 2.2. The primary method of delivery at the DIT is lectures, typically interspersed with tutorials. Most subjects have a prescribed text book,
augmented by class handouts. A set of notes students could photocopy were put in the library to supplement the various sections of this subject, with the recommended reference book being Eastop and McConkey (1993) which is the prescribed book for the follow on subjects in this field. Computers are another option which can be used as an addition or alternative to lectures and tutorials in the form of online or offline teaching and learning, as defined and discussed in Chapter 2.4.3.
Each of these modes of information delivery was investigated during the course of this study,
149 the main one being the computer intervention. Lectures, tutorials and the computer intervention followed by text books and library use will be discussed below.
5.1.1 Lectures, Tutorials and the Computer Intervention
Since the lectures and the computer intervention, which incorporated the tutorials, ran in parallel and were integral to the study they were compared to each other as two different styles of teaching and learning. In performing the main component of the Thesis the number of lectures was roughly halved as seen in Table 3.3, the rest of the time being spent in the computer laboratories where students, operating within a constructivist approach as detailed in Chapter 2.1.7, were free to both do their tutorials and generate their spreadsheets. However, to do the latter required an understanding of the former such that the method of solving the tutorial problems could be analysed and then integrated into the spreadsheet. To align the spreadsheet with the assessment criteria of the marking rubrics required the students to become familiar with the terminology and nomenclature associated with Thermodynamics.
Student C, a deep learner, said:
“for the computer presentation method you really have had to have acquired the knowledge before you went into the session itself, because you could not do anything on the PC if you did not know the basics of what you are doing, so ultimately you actually had to sit down with the text book and you had to listen in class to learn the material”.
The lectures that were done during this time period covered essentially the same amount of work that is normally done in twice the time. The quantity of work covered did not appear to affect the student’s ability to utilise it. However, interview student A, who also indicated that one needed an understanding of the formulas before the computers worked appropriately, seen in Chapter 4.4.3.1.1, also indicated that the lectures were possibly too fast. Conversely, concerning the pace of the lectures during the computer intervention Student E said:
“for the beginning it it went at a fairly okay pace”.
Although the Researcher was aware of the limited lecture time and tried to minimise the impact, a lot of lecture time was also taken up trying to explain the various aspects and requirements of the interventions. Aulls (2002, as cited in Kirschner, Sweller and Clark, 2006, p.79) reported that to achieve all the learning outcomes, teachers had to spend a great deal of time on both
150
“teaching content and scaffolding-relevant procedures”. In this study, students became visibly frustrated at times when the Researcher started to explain things required for following computer sessions. Interview Student G said:
“we spended most of the time doing spreadsheet and then – during lec lecture time probably the lecture takes up about an average of 45 minutes, so on that 45 minutes, we took around about 30 minutes briefing us with spreadsheets so – and then the rest of the time you just brushing up on on the sub on the ah on that particular section”.
However, he went on to say later that the spreadsheets weren’t a problem for him but rather the subject’s theory and, when comparing lectures with the computer exercises:
“Ja Sir, I think this the spreadsheet has, it has some bit of an advantage in terms of, uh, doing the work on your own so it makes you understand more than just sitting back, somebody’s explaining something to you, but if you just give me the work and then I sit and then I know what to do so I think – ja, I think the spreadsheet. Ja, I think it has some bit of an advantage in terms of understanding some of the stuff Sir”.
Hmelo-Silver, Duncan and Chinn (2007, p.102) state that “A great deal of structure is provided through scaffolds in the IL and PBL environments” and that one of the important questions to ask is “what kinds of support and scaffolding are needed for different populations and learning goals” (ibid, p.105). The Researcher has to wonder if the traditional lectures approach was the best approach to follow during the intervention.
The second half of the semester was completed in the normal fashion of lectures as mentioned previously. Student A, described previously as a visual learner in Chapter 4.4.3.1.2 and who also professed, during the interview, to being a global learner who liked to see the whole picture first, when comparing the two methods of presentation performed during the semester said:
“I don’t know if it’s because I’m just understanding the work now, but I much preferred the lecture method, the second method that we tried. The first one I found very
confusing too because I didn’t understand the computer program so well”,
indicating that he also battled with the formulas of Thermodynamics and trying to get them to work in Excel, saying later:
“when we moved over to lecturing where there are the notes, there are all the pictures, this is what’s up, ok, now its dawning on me, oh this is what’s happening so yes it has been a big difference”.
He indicated later, once he understood the equations and how they worked, that he would likely
151 have not had such a problem using them in Excel. He also said that he had taken on an extra subject that semester and had battled with the workload, although he spent four to five hours an evening studying. Of lectures in the first few weeks, during the computer intervention Student A said:
“…we very bad with the formulas. You did spend a couple of weeks with us going through all the different, um, what the different symbols and stuff and all that mean, um, but maybe a bit too fast with the new information. We still trying to get into the learning mode and all of a sudden we're expected to learn all these huge formulas, so yes, you hear it in class, I’ll glance over that later and then when you get down to taking pen in your hand and writing then you really start concentrating but just sitting back in class and just hearing all these, like words being thrown at you, it’s like it goes in the one ear and goes out the other”.
As a suggestion to change the approach in the beginning student A said:
“…kind of half the class or more than half the class battled with that whole concept.
Um if I could have request if I could have done this from scratch again, I think, I think what would have made a big change is, um, first get us to understand the formulas properly, a first off overview then formulas and then give us a spreadsheet, then we’ll do well not do a hundred percent because I mean it’s not that difficult”.
Student H indicated that he had not got much out of the computer intervention and said of the two teaching and learning approaches:
“If I were to choose, I I would go for that that chalk one, because the the computers, I i its there's a lot, it's demanding I would say. Because you got to know your computers first... program, and then you have to know the concepts and get them right and then combining the three it becomes very difficult”.
Student D, when comparing the second computer assignment with the first, said:
“after assignment one, maybe we fin, we find it easier to do assignment two, because we knew what eww we did in ah for the first assignment, and we know we knew our problems were were about, but then for assignment two time was short”,
indicating that they were running out of time to complete assignment 2 in the time available.
The number of interventions was probably too high for the time available and the Researcher has to admit being at fault here in possibly being over-enthusiastic and trying to do too much in the time available. The students interviewed generally seemed to initially have more difficulty
152 programming Excel than with the Thermodynamic theory, but found things easier to do after assessing assignment 1, student D saying for the second assignment:
“…for doing it for the second time, I find it much easier to understand”.
Comparing the two styles of presentation for the two halves of the semester, student D said:
“the time we had for Mr xxxxxx for the assignment we had more time to study then to get knowledge from out of him…listening, doing the tuts, but exactly cause the for assignment, we did have the time to go for a lectures, we did have the time too for a tut [but]…we had to include in the while we do the computer assignments”,
indicating that generating the spreadsheets whilst at the same time trying to do tutorials was problematic. These problems were exacerbated by the computer problems experienced whilst in the laboratory, as described in Chapter 4.1.4, although the Researcher did assist students with tutorial problems whilst in the computer laboratory. Although student D indicated that he, and other students, were not sure what to do with the computer assignments, he went on to say:
“…but at the end of the day, we learnt something from it”.
5.1.2 Text books and Library use
The area where text books and library use were investigated included the study habits survey, analysed in Chapter 4.2 and the interviews, discussed in Chapter 4.4. The study habit survey looked at what interaction students had with the library and the interviews considered what use the interviewees made of the library and what text books, notes, etc. they consulted in learning Thermodynamics.
Student A said of the recommended books:
“the recommended book yeh, but I hear that the other one is a lot better the Roel Rayner Joel is a lot better so I'll I'll look into that”
and of the Library notes, which he didn’t use much in the early sections, during the computer exercises, but later, for the lectured half of the subject:
“I’ve used thoroughly, especially for combustion and steam plant. I can understand the notes, um, the only thing that that it lags a bit is maybe the calculations side”.
Student D indicated that he had a full set of library notes which he found easy to use, again especially combustion and steam plant, but that if Joel (1987, 1996) had better information he
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.