Tag Archives: MOOC

Blended learning environments

This is the last in the series of posts on Creating A Learning Environment (CALE).  The series has been based on a workshop given periodically by Pat Campbell [of Campbell-Kibler Associates] and me in the UK and USA, except for the last one on ‘Learning problem-solving skills’ on October 24th, 2018 which was derived on talks I gave to students and staff in Liverpool.  In all of these posts, the focus has been on traditional forms of learning environments; however, almost everything that I have described can be transferred to a virtual learning environment, which is what I have done in the two MOOCs [see ‘Engaging learners on-line’ on May 25th, 2016 and ‘Slowing down time to think (about strain energy)’ on March 8th, 2017].

You can illustrate a much wider range of Everyday Engineering Examples on video than is viable in a lecture theatre.  So, for instance, I used my shower to engage the learners and to introduce a little statistical thermodynamics and explain how we can consider the average behaviour of a myriad of atoms.  However, it is not possible to progress through 5Es [see ‘Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate and Evaluate’ on August 1st, 2018] in a single step of a MOOC; so, instead I used a step (or sometimes two steps) of the MOOC to address each ‘E’ and cycled around the 5Es about twice per week.  This approach provides an effective structure for the MOOC which appears to have been a significant factor in achieving higher completion rates than in most MOOCs.

In the MOOC, I extended the Everyday Engineering Example concept into experiments set as homework assignments using kitchen equipment.  For instance, in one lab students were asked to measure the efficiency of their kettle.  In another innovation, we developed Clear Screen Technology to allow me to talk to the audience while solving a worked example.  In the photo below, I am calculating the Gibbs energy in the tank of a compressed air powered car in the final week of the MOOC [where we began to transition to more sophisticated examples].

Last academic year, I blended the MOOC on thermodynamics with my traditional first year module by removing half the lectures, the laboratory classes and worked example classes from the module.  They were replaced by the video shorts, homework labs and Clear Screen Technology worked examples respectively from the MOOC.  The results were positive with an increased attendence at lectures and an improved performance in the examination; although some students did not like and did not engage with the on-line material.

Photographs are stills from the MOOC ‘Energy: Thermodynamics in Everyday Life’.

CALE #10 [Creating A Learning Environment: a series of posts based on a workshop given periodically by Pat Campbell and Eann Patterson in the USA supported by NSF and the UK supported by HEA] – although this post is based on recent experience in developing and delivering a MOOC integrated with traditional learning environments.

Depressed by exams

I am not feeling very creative this week, because I am in middle of marking examination scripts; so, this post is going to be short.  I have 20 days to grade at least 1100 questions and award a maximum of 28,400 marks – that’s a lot of decisions for my neurons to handle without being asked to find new ways to network and generate original thoughts for this blog [see my post on ‘Digital hive mind‘ on November 30th, 2016].

It is a depressing task discovering how little I have managed to teach students about thermodynamics, or maybe I should say, how little they have learned.  However, I suspect these feelings are a consequence of the asymmetry of my brain, which has many more sites capable of attributing blame and only one for assigning praise [see my post entitled ‘Happenstance, not engineering‘ on November 9th, 2016].  So, I tend to focus on the performance of the students at the lower end of the spectrum rather than the stars who spot the elegant solutions to the exam problems.

Sources:

Ngo L, Kelly M, Coutlee CG, Carter RM , Sinnott-Armstrong W & Huettel SA, Two distinct moral mechanisms for ascribing and denying intentionality, Scientific Reports, 5:17390, 2015.

Bruek H, Human brains are wired to blame rather than to praise, Fortune, December 4th 2015.

How many repeats do we need?

This is a question that both my undergraduate students and a group of taught post-graduates have struggled with this month.  In thermodynamics, my undergraduate students were estimating absolute zero in degrees Celsius using a simple manometer and a digital thermometer (this is an experiment from my MOOC: Energy – Thermodynamics in Everyday Life).  They needed to know how many times to repeat the experiment in order to determine whether their result was significantly different to the theoretical value: -273 degrees Celsius [see my post entitled ‘Arbitrary zero‘ on February 13th, 2013 and ‘Beyond  zero‘ the following week]. Meanwhile, the post-graduate students were measuring the strain distribution in a metal plate with a central hole that was loaded in tension. They needed to know how many times to repeat the experiment to obtain meaningful results that would allow a decision to be made about the validity of their computer simulation of the experiment [see my post entitled ‘Getting smarter‘ on June 21st, 2017].

The simple answer is six repeats are needed if you want 98% confidence in the conclusion and you are happy to accept that the margin of error and the standard deviation of your sample are equal.  The latter implies that error bars of the mean plus and minus one standard deviation are also 98% confidence limits, which is often convenient.  Not surprisingly, only a few undergraduate students figured that out and repeated their experiment six times; and the post-graduates pooled their data to give them a large enough sample size.

The justification for this answer lies in an equation that relates the number in a sample, n to the margin of error, MOE, the standard deviation of the sample, σ, and the shape of the normal distribution described by the z-score or z-statistic, z*: The margin of error, MOE, is the maximum expected difference between the true value of a parameter and the sample estimate of the parameter which is usually the mean of the sample.  While the standard deviation, σ,  describes the difference between the data values in the sample and the mean value of the sample, μ.  If we don’t know one of these quantities then we can simplify the equation by assuming that they are equal; and then n ≥ (z*)².

The z-statistic is the number of standard deviations from the mean that a data value lies, i.e, the distance from the mean in a Normal distribution, as shown in the graphic [for more on the Normal distribution, see my post entitled ‘Uncertainty about Bayesian methods‘ on June 7th, 2017].  We can specify its value so that the interval defined by its positive and negative value contains 98% of the distribution.  The values of z for 90%, 95%, 98% and 99% are shown in the table in the graphic with corresponding values of (z*)², which are equivalent to minimum values of the sample size, n (the number of repeats).

Confidence limits are defined as: but when n = , this simplifies to μ ± σ.  So, with a sample size of six (6 = n   for 98% confidence) we can state with 98% confidence that there is no significant difference between our mean estimate and the theoretical value of absolute zero when that difference is less than the standard deviation of our six estimates.

BTW –  the apparatus for the thermodynamics experiments costs less than £10.  The instruction sheet is available here – it is not quite an Everyday Engineering Example but the experiment is designed to be performed in your kitchen rather than a laboratory.

Listening with your eyes shut

I am in the London Underground onboard a train on my way to a conference on ‘New Approaches to Higher Education’ organised by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the Engineering Professors’ Council.  The lady opposite has her eyes closed but she is not asleep because she opens them periodically as we come into stations to check whether it’s her stop.  I wonder if she is trying to reproduce John Hull’s experience of the depth of sounds as a blind person [see my post entitled ‘Rain brings out the contours in everything‘ on February 22, 2017].  For the second time in recent weeks, I close my eyes and try it for myself.  It is surprising how in a crowded train, I can’t hear anyone, just the noise made by the train.  It’s like a wobble board that’s joined by a whole percussion section of an orchestra when we go around a bend or over points.  The first time I closed my eyes was at a concert at the Philharmonic Hall in Liverpool.  My view of the orchestra was obstructed by the person in front of me so, rather than stare at the back of their head, I closed my eyes and allowed the music to dominate my mind.  Switching off the stream of images seemed to release more of my brain cells to register the depth and richness of Bach’s Harpsichord Concerto No. 5.  I was classified as tone deaf at school when I was kicked out of the choir and I learned no musical instruments, so the additional texture and dimensionality in the music was a revelation to me.

Back to the London Underground – many of my fellow passengers were plugged into their phones or tablets via their ears and eyes.  I wondered if any were following the MOOC on Understanding Super Structures that we launched recently.  Unlikely I know, but it’s a bit different, because it is mainly audio clips and not videos.  We’re trying to tap into some of the time many people spend with earbuds plugged into their ears but also make the MOOC more accessible in countries where internet access is mainly via mobile phones.  My recent experiences of listening with my eyes closed, make me realize that perhaps we should ask people to close their eyes when listening to our audio clips so that they can fully appreciate them.  If they are sitting on the train then that’s fine but not recommended if you are walking across campus or in town!