Comparative Analysis of Two Instructional

Strategies and Their Impacts on Selected

University Engineering Students
Performances in Particle Technology

Kevon R. McAnuff & Simon M. Yalams

University of Technology
Kingston, Jamaica

Overview
Introduction
Methodology
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Recommendations
References

Introduction
Teaching models which incorporate active learning
strategies continue to receive widespread support
from modern literature on classroom instructional
modes.
Uncertainties still exist on the necessity for these
methods in engineering education since students are
already active through practical laboratory
experiments.
Not many engineering faculty members are keen in
testing the effectiveness of various instructional
strategies such as active learning, constructivism etc.

Introduction cont.
It should not be expected that by adopting any
particular instructional method the learning
outcomes will just be same and good as
reported in the literature (Prince, 2004).
Not all active learning strategies are apparently
good for all circumstances, a try and see or
verification is necessary in engineering
education.
A good knowledge of these learning strategies
is key.

Introduction cont.
Collaborative Learning Model
Collaborative learning may be used to describe any
instructional method in which students work together
in small groups to accomplish a common task.
This model can be viewed as encompassing all groupbased instructional methods, including cooperative
learning (Felder & Brent, 2001).
Some authors consider collaborative and cooperative
learning as having distinct historical developments
and different philosophical roots (Mohamed, 2008).

Introduction cont.
Collaborative Learning Model cont.
The principal element of collaborative learning is
students interactions and not solely learning.
Although there appears to be strong agreement
among educational experts that collaboration
improves learning outcomes relative to individual
work across the board
Also disagreements exists among others that the
benefits of group work does not necessarily improve
with frequency of grouping and working.

Introduction cont.
Cooperative Learning Model- What is it?
......defined as a structured form of group work
where students pursue common goals while
being assessed individually (Mohamed, 2008).
Key feature here is a focus on cooperative
incentives as oppose to competition to promote
learning (Felder & Brent, 2001).
Increased higher-order thinking skills and
improved students performance are some of
the benefits of cooperative learning.

Introduction cont.
Cooperative Learning Model cont.
Other benefits include fostering self-esteem,
promoting interpersonal relationships and improving
social support (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998).
Whether or not cooperative learning is very effective
in defining and measuring team skills is still
debatable.
Also, stringent criteria and time involved in using
some of these models are yet unresolved issues.
What then? USE it in engineering or LEAVE it?

Methodology
The experimental design adopted for this study
was the Post-test Only Control Group Design.
In this design, the primary focus of the
researchers was determining whether the two
groups are different after the program.
The groups mean performance on three
assessments were measured and then
compared using a two-tailed independent t-test
with a 95% confidence interval ( = 0.05).

Methodology cont.
Participants
The participants in this study were 38 third-year
students (16 females and 22 males between the
ages of 21 and 24).
These students were enrolled in the compulsory
Particle Technology module.
The lecture sessions were attended by all students
while the class was randomly divided into two
groups, A and B, with each group attending a single
tutorial session per week.

Methodology cont.
Instruments
Two midterm tests and a final examination were
used to assess students performances.
The content validity ratio of the tests were found
to be between 0.2 to 1.0 for individual test items
and 0.47 to 0.87 for overall test instruments.
The reliability coefficient was found using the
inter-rater method and ranged from 0.6 to 1.0 for
individual test items and 0.73 to 0.93 for overall
test instruments.

Methodology cont.
Procedure
In the traditional lecturing sessions (group A),
PowerPoint slides presentation was used to
deliver lessons and all examples were solved on
the whiteboard.
In the active learning sessions (group B),
students worked together on problems in a
small group setting.
Class activities used - jigsaw method, think-pairshare, round robin, brainstorming and debates.

Methodology cont.
Procedure
Group B
Share

Pair

Think

Results
Research question 1: Which of the two
instructional approaches used for teaching
Particle Technology students yields better
students academic performance?
To answer this question, the mean of
participants score on each instrument was
calculated for each group and then compared.

Results cont.
On all three
instruments,
students taught
with traditional
lecturing (group
A) yielded better
performance than
those taught with
active learning
strategies (group
B).

Results cont.
Research question 2: Do Particle Technology
students significantly differ in their
academic performances based on the two
methods of teaching used?
To answer this question, participants
performances on the various test instruments
were subjected to an independent t-test analysis.
This analysis was carried out using the SPSS
software applications with a confidence interval of
95% ( = 0.05).

Results cont.
Group A
participants
performed
significantly
better than
Group B
participants
on all three
assessments.

Results cont.
Research question 3: Do Particle Technology
students taught with active learning
strategies and traditional lecturing
significantly differ in their academic
performances based on gender?
In order to establish whether the observed
differences between the mean performances of
male and female was significant, another
independent t-test analysis was done.

Results cont.
Female
participants in
Group A
performed
significantly
better than their
counterparts in
Group B on two
of the three
assessments.

Results cont.
Male
participants in
Group A
performed
significantly
better than their
counterparts in
Group B on all
three
assessments.

Discussion
The statistical analysis done on the test instruments
found p values ranging from 0.001 to 0.01 which
indicates that there was a significant difference
between the mean of both groups.
In all three instances, the mean for Group A (ranging
from 56.12 to 82.82) was found to be higher than
that of Group B (ranging from 38.04 to 61.93).
These findings indicate that participants taught with
traditional instructional strategies performed better
than those taught with active learning strategies.

Discussion cont.
The result also revealed that male and female
participants taught with traditional lecturing performed
better than their counterparts taught with active
learning strategies.
Female students taught with traditional lecturing
achieved up to 24.0 % higher academic performance
when compared to their female counterparts taught with
active learning strategies.
Male participants taught with traditional lecturing
achieved up to 26.4 % higher academic performance
when compared to their male counterparts taught with
active learning strategies.

Discussion cont.
The lower academic performance of group B students
could be due to the fact that this was the first time
they were using active learning strategies on such an
extensive basis.
It is also possible that too much group work can lead
to some members not being given a chance to
process the material in their own time (self-discovery).
The use of some active learning strategies could have
resulted in participants being more fascinated and
grossly involved with the social interaction rather than
the learning aspects.

Discussion cont.
Another important factor, which could greatly
influence the performance of the participants, is
their average class attendance.
The average attendance for participants taught
with traditional lecturing was found to be 66% while
that observed for the participants taught with
active learning strategies was 58%.
Therefore, the consistently higher scores recorded
by group A participants could be attributed to their
longer contact time with the lecturer directly
involved with the module.

Discussion cont.
While these results contradicts many of the studies
reviewed, educational studies only tell us what
worked, on average, and specifically for the
populations examined.
Educators should not expect that simply adopting a
particular educational method will result in similar
learning outcomes to those reported in educational
studies.
This is so because the practical limitations of these
studies and the complex nature of the learning
process must also be considered.

Conclusion
The research findings revealed that students taught
with traditional lecturing performed significant better
than those taught with active learning methods.
The revelation persisted even when students
academic performances were compared based on
gender.
Thus, the findings provide empirical evidence
contrary to common beliefs about the greater
effectiveness of active learning strategies in
developing students engineering skills.

Recommendations
1. Students should be sensitized as to the nature and
possible benefits of active learning strategies in order
to alleviate concerns of additional workload and
limited supports.
2. Particle Technology teachers should recognize the
value of traditional lecturing as an effective learning
strategy in order to improve students performances.
3. Future studies should be conducted with appropriate
measures in place to achieve comparable attendance
among the students in both study groups.

Recommendations cont.
4. This approach should be tried on other engineering
modules, especially on varied population and sample
size in order to authenticate further this finding.
5. Further research should focus on understanding the
characteristics of female students that possibly
resulted in them outperforming their male
counterparts.
6. This experiment should be replicated in other
occupational education areas which share certain
characteristics with engineering in order to confirm
or refute these findings.

References
1. M. Prince, Does active learning work? A review of the
research. Journal of Engineering Education , vol. 93, no.3,
pp. 223-231, 2004.
2. R. M. Felder, & R. Brent, Effective strategies for
cooperative learning. The Journal of Cooperation and
Collaboration in College Teaching , vol. 10, pp. 69-75, 2001.
3. A. R. Mohamed, Effects of active learning variants on
student performance and learning perceptions.
International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning , vol. 2, no.2, pp. 1-14, 2008.
4. D. Johnson, R. Johnson, & K. Smith, Cooperative learning
returns to college: What evidence is there that it works?
Change, vol. 30, pp. 2635, 1998.
5. C. H. Lawshe, A quantitative approach to content validity.
Personnel Psychology, vol. 28, pp. 563-575, 1975.

Thank You