Effectiveness of Challenge-Based Instruction in Biomechanics

Journal of Engineering Education, Oct 2006 by Roselli, Robert J, Brophy, Sean P

ABSTRACT

Studies were designed to determine the effectiveness of challenge-based instruction (CBI) versus traditional lecture-based instruction. Comparisons were made over a three-year period between student performance on knowledge-based questions in courses taught with taxonomy-based and challenge-based approaches to instruction. When performance on all questions was compared, CBI classes scored significantly better than control classes on 26 percent of the questions, while control classes outperformed CBI classes on eight percent of the questions, but there was no significant difference in overall performance. However, students in CBI classes performed significantly better than students in control classes on the more difficult questions (35 percent versus four percent). We attribute these differences to additional opportunities available in CBI classrooms for learners to examine their conceptual understanding. Student surveys indicate a slight preference for the challenge-based approach. We believe that the challenge-based approach is effective and has the potential to better prepare students for the workplace and for life-long learning.

Keywords: challenge-based instruction, How People Learn (HPL), STAR Legacy Cycle

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Active Learning and the "How People Learn" Framework

Active learning can be defined as any instructional method that engages students in their own learning process by encouraging them to think about what they are learning and how well they are learning it. A recent meta-analysis supports the contention that small group learning is effective in enhancing student performance and attitudes toward learning [1]. Prince [2] recently reviewed the effectiveness of various forms of active learning in engineering, including collaborative learning, cooperative learning, and problembased learning (PBL). He states: "Some of the evidence for active learning is compelling and should stimulate faculty to think about teaching and learning in nontraditional ways."

Felder and Brent [3] have applied active learning principles in chemical engineering education with considerable success. Rather than take a "surface approach" to learning by memorizing facts, they endorse a "deep approach" so the learner understands the meaning of the facts and how they relate to each other. Students cannot achieve deep understanding of a topic that does not seem relevant. However, engineering instructors often introduce new material without relating it to concepts that are more familiar to the students. For instance, before presenting a differential control volume for performing a momentum balance in fluid mechanics, it is important to first motivate the students by presenting familiar real life examples that illustrate the application of the principles they are about to learn. Thus, an effective way to learn the material is through the process of inductive learning in which the topic is introduced in terms of specifics, and advances to more general abstract concepts only when the students' need to know has been established. They acknowledge that some students will resist active learning, but much of this can be defused by explaining why active learning methods are implemented from the very outset [4].

Recent research findings in the learning sciences are summarized in a National Academy of Science (NAS) report [5]. The key finding is that effective learning environments are those that center not only on the knowledge to be gained, but also on the learners, assessment methods, and issues of community. The interaction of these four major dimensions form the How People Learn (HPL) framework described in the NAS report. Active learning environments naturally center on the learner's acquisition of new knowledge and involves interactions between the learners to form a community. With the right presentation of the content, these environments can develop not only the domain knowledge, but also develop learners awareness of other perspectives in other communities. Appropriate guidance by the instructor can strengthen these dimensions and integrate them with relevant assessment methods to produce an authentic HPL environment.

Despite their effectiveness, not many engineering faculty have introduced active learning, or HPL techniques, into their classrooms. In fact, Bernould [6] provides evidence that the present cohort of engineering students is ill-equipped to engage in active learning. Civil engineering students overwhelmingly (85-95 percent) prefer passive, lecture-based instruction with plenty of homework exercises. This is consistent with a Department of Education study [7] that shows over 87 percent of engineering faculty use lectures as their sole or primary method of instruction. However, Hartley and Davies [8] found that although learners can recall 70 percent of the first 10 minutes of a lecture, they only remember 20 percent of the remainder. In addition, the strong emphasis on analytical problem solving is not as important to industry as the need to foster innovative engineers with strong communication skills and open-ended problem solving skills [9]. Further, solutions to well-structured problems in the classroom do not necessarily lead to solutions of complex, ill-structured problems in the workplace [10]. Bernould concludes that engineering education must reform itself by becoming more interdisciplinary and more active, but warns that it will be a challenge for students to excel in such a drastically different educational paradigm [6].