1. 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 1 Find the angular velocity of the gear F given the angular velocity at A How do we solve this?

2. The Effect of Virtual and Physical Manipulatives on Students’ Abilities to Learn Dynamics in an Undergraduate Mechanical Engineering Program A Dissertation Proposal 10/2/2012 Edward Pan University of Virginia

3. 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 3 Agenda  Introduction  The Problem  Research Questions  Significance  Theoretical Framework  Visualizations & Manipulatives  Dynamics Education  Context & Participants  Study Design  Instruments & Data  Analysis  Expected Outcomes  Budget, Equipment, Timeline

4. 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 4 Introduction  STEM education a national focus  Engineering education must adapt  Technology for authentic practice 3D printing CAD  Need to help nontraditional students  Visualization a key skill

5. 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 5 The Problem  Dynamics Foundational course in mechanical engineering Study of accelerated motion  Particle kinematics  Particle kinetics  Rigid body kinematics Lecture and problem solving with static diagrams Students have difficulty solving problems  Difficulty visualizing the problem may be responsible

6. Research Questions 1.How does student performance compare for students with instruction supplemented with virtual manipulatives, instruction supplemented with physical manipulatives, and traditional methods of instruction? 2.How do students use static diagrams, physical manipulatives, and virtual manipulatives when learning rigid body kinematics? a.What kinds of mental models of mechanical systems do students develop using static diagrams, physical manipulatives, and virtual manipulatives? 3.What do students think about static diagrams, physical manipulatives, and virtual manipulatives as learning aids? 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 6

7. 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 7 Significance  Knowledge of how students learn with physical and virtual manipulatives  How students learn dynamics  Engineering education  Instructional technology  Higher Education  Education as a whole

8. 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 8 Theoretical Framework  How People Learn  Embodied Cognition  Cognitive Load Theory  Mental Models Phenomenological Primitives Mappings Analogical Thinking Mechanistic Mental Models

9. 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 9 Visualizations & Manipulatives  Visualizations Tend to support lower performance and lower spatial ability students Deceptive Clarity & Illusion of Explanatory Depth  Physical Manipulatives  Virtual Manipulatives Mixed results

10. 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 10 Dynamics Education  Supplementary Computer-Based Instruction  Computer Aided Design  Virtual Environments  Hands-On Activities  Restructuring Pedagogical Approaches

11. 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 11 Context & Participants  MAE 2320 (Dynamics) Spring 2013 semester at UVA  150-170 students  Lecture: 2x 1:15  Lab: 1x 2:00

12. 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 12 Study Design  Quasi-experimental w/ stratified sampling  Treatment groups: Traditional: lecture + static diagrams Physical: lecture + static diagrams + physical manipulatives Virtual: lecture + static diagrams + virtual manipulatives

13. Study Design: Procedure  Pretest  Treatment: 4x 20m breakout sessions to solve 1 multipart problem ea. Absolute Relative velocity Instant centers & relative acceleration Rotating axes  Posttest & Questionnaire 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 13

14. Instruments & Data  Pre/Posttest DCI PSVT  Questionnaire  Video recordings 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 14

15. 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 15 Analysis Research QuestionDataAnalysis Method 1.Student performance under 3 treatments Pretest performance (spatial skills and prior dynamics understanding) Speed (minutes) and accuracy (% correct) on posttest. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation), ANOVA, pairwise t-tests, regressions controlling for pretest ability 2.How students use diagrams and manipulatives Video observationQualitative: grounded theory, frequency analysis a.What mental models are formed Video observation, Targeted student interviews Qualitative: grounded theory, frequency analysis 3.What students think about manipulatives and diagrams Questionnaire responses Qualitative: grounded theory, frequency analysis

16. 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 16 Expected Outcomes  No difference  Virtual and physical benefit low performers, no effect on high performers  Virtual and physical hurt low performers, no effect on high performers

17. 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 17 Budget ResourceQty High Unit $ High Total Low Unit $ Low Total 3D printed physical models (1/pair)112$100.00$11,200.00$50.00$5600.00 Printouts for problems (1/pair)336$0.10$33.60n/a Static diagrams (1/pair)336$0.10$33.60n/a Pretests (1 ea, 22 pp)3696$0.10$369.60n/a Posttests (1 ea, 22 pp)3696$0.10$369.60n/a Questionnaires (1 ea, 2 pp)336$0.10$33.60n/a Consent forms (participant, 2 pp)336$0.10$33.60n/a Consent forms (researcher, 2 pp)336$0.10$33.60n/a Mini-DV tapes12$4.00$48.00$2.00$24 Total:$12,155.20$5624.00

18. 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 18 Other Equipment ResourceQty Computers (w/ Autodesk Inventor) for V treatment group28 Virtual models28 Video cameras3 Tripods3 Additional teaching/research assistants for breakout sessions2

19. 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 19 Timeline Oct 10, 2012Proposal defense Nov 1, 2012IRB submission Dec 20, 2012Breakout session problems developed Jan 1, 2013Complete virtual models Jan 11, 2013Complete 3D printing, prepare equipment Jan 14, 2013Courses begin at UVA Jan 15, 2013First day of Dynamics: consent, pretest Jan 24, 2013RBK (absolute) breakout session Jan 29, 2013RBK (relative vel.) breakout session Jan 31, 2013RBK (inst. ctrs) breakout session Feb 7, 2013RBK (rot. axes) breakout session Feb 14, 2013Exam review: posttest & questionnaire Feb 22, 2013Video transcription done Feb 29, 2013Primary analysis done Mar 18, 2013Dissertation to committee April, 2013Dissertation defense

20. 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 20 Takeaway Points  Dynamics is difficult, visualization may be why  Physical and virtual manipulatives may help students visualize mechanical systems  Most likely to benefit students with low spatial abilities or low performance, if at all  May actually have no effect or even harm students’ abilities to visualize  This study is worthy of investigation

21. 10/2/2012Virtual and Physical Manipulatives in Dynamics 21  Questions?