A Supplemental Instruction Model for Engineering Physics Instruction

Abstract

Engineering students in a school of approximately 1300 undergraduate students jumped to a 45% average rate of grades D, F, or W (or DFW rate) in University Physics I over the course of multiple semesters. These outcomes existed despite steadily increasing academic preparation of students in each incoming freshman class, as measured by the average ACT composite and math subscores. To address the persistently high DFW rates, the School of Engineering at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville began offering a new Engineering Physics I course to engineering students, beginning in the Spring 2014 semester. This course design includes three hours of lecture per week, closely integrated with two hours of supplemental instruction and two hours of laboratory per week. This paper presents the design of the course, including an assessment-based approach for selection and rotation of supplemental instruction work groups, explores results of the pre-and post-assessments for two semesters of Engineering Physics I, and presents implications for this course as well as for interfaces with subsequent courses in engineering curricula.

Does Peer-Assisted Instruction for Physics Help Improve Student Learning?

“…The impacts of SI on problem-solving strategies have been discussed in the literature [14,15]. Studies on group-based approaches have shown the effectiveness not only on the problem-solving skills but also usefulness in building fundamental concepts of calculus-based physics [16,17]. Video-based SI could also be used as an interactive information processing and delivery mechanism that can significantly increase students' understanding of concepts.…”

“…Furthermore, it also revealed that the students who achieve grades lower than C-cannot progress in the STEM field. Evidence has shown that students in engineering physics with SI classes are well-prepared for subsequent important gateway courses [16]. Moreover, the number of students dropping out during the first year almost halved with the SI support system at the School of Engineering at Lund University Sweden [20].…”

WIP: Study to Lower DFQ Rates in Statics and Dynamics for Multiple Engineering Majors

“…Most engineering departments accept a D letter grade for successful completion of MEEN 221 for their curriculum; however those students who fail (F) or drop (Q) have to repeat the course which negatively impacts departments' retention of students; increases cost of education; and delays students' graduation. High DFW/DFQ rates like the ones in MEEN 221 have also been reported for Statics, Dynamics and other foundational courses in engineering curricula in other studies [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. These studies have implement changes in the courses that involve more student-centered learning activities [2,7], online-learning environments [5,3], supplemental instruction [4,8], a summer bridge programs [6], and significant structural course redesign [3] to decrease DFW rates by 20-30% in some cases [6,7,].…”

“…High DFW/DFQ rates like the ones in MEEN 221 have also been reported for Statics, Dynamics and other foundational courses in engineering curricula in other studies [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. These studies have implement changes in the courses that involve more student-centered learning activities [2,7], online-learning environments [5,3], supplemental instruction [4,8], a summer bridge programs [6], and significant structural course redesign [3] to decrease DFW rates by 20-30% in some cases [6,7,]. MEEN 221 during the time period, Fall 2015 -Fall 2019 had incorporated many of these ideas such as increased student activities in class, grouping students to work on class problems, and hiring peer teachers to increase one-on-one instructor help during lectures.…”