Effectiveness of Challenge-Based Instruction in Biomechanics
Background: A review of the literature indicates that active learning techniques, including problem based learning (PBL), have been effectively employed to enhance engineering education. Like PBL, Challenge-based instruction (CBI) is a student-centered learning activity that revolves around a real life problem for which the learner does not initially have sufficient knowledge to obtain a solution. CBI differs from PBL in the manner of assistance provided to the students as they work through the problem. Since more class time is devoted to discussion, less material is presented in a CBI classroom than in a traditional lecture-based course. Consequently, students in a CBI course must spend more time with the material outside of the classroom. It is conceivable that this trade-off between in-class discussion and lecture might reduce the effectiveness of CBI.
Objectives: We hypothesize that since more time is spent clarifying predominantly difficult concepts in a CBI course, that CBI students might be expected to perform better than a control group when examined on more difficult knowledge-based questions.
Methods: We addressed this by comparing students' performance on final exam questions in different sections of the same course taught with two different instructional methods over a period of three years. One section was taught by an instructor using a more traditional instructional method, while the other section was taught by another instructor using a challenge-based instructional design method. Classroom student and instructor interactions were made in each section using the VaNTH Observation System (VOS). Between 12 and 20 knowledge-based questions were asked in common in each section on the final examination. Each problem was graded by a graduate student on the basis of rubrics devised by the instructors. Responses to fifty questions asked over the three year study were divided into two groups on the basis of difficulty. Performance by students taught with the two different methods was compared for the less-difficult (N=27) and the more-difficult (N=23) questions using a t-test. Student perceptions of instructional methods were addressed by comparison of student course ratings for a single instructor before and after implementation of CBI, and by evaluation of surveys conducted in CBI classes.
Results: VOS observations confirmed that there were more student-centered, assessment-centered and community-centered activities in the CBI sections than in the traditional sections. When performance on the less difficult knowledge-based questions was compared, we found no significant difference between the two methods of instruction (p = .33). However, students taught with CBI did significantly better than those taught with traditional instruction on the more difficult knowledge-based questions (p=.022). The CBI group outperformed the traditional group on 35% of these questions, the traditional group outperformed the CBI group on 4% and there was no difference between groups on 61% of the more difficult questions. Differences in favor of the CBI classes were also found when examining some of the more difficult rubrics, even when no net differences were found on a problem.
Discussion and Conclusions: The results support our hypothesis that students in CBI courses may have a better command of some of the more difficult concepts taught in the course. Students in CBI classes are given the opportunity to clarify concepts amongst themselves in small groups and also with the instructor in class discussions. The more difficult the concept, the longer the students will spend in discussion. Presumably less time is spent on these topics in traditional lecture-based courses, in favor of covering more topics. In addition, CBI encourages students to think through a problem in a systematic way, one that does not presume that they have all the information necessary from the start. We believe this prepares the student for the workplace, where problems are typically open-ended, and also provides motivation for life-long learning.
Acknowledgements: This work was supported primarily by the Engineering Research Center Program of the National Science Foundation under Award Number EEC9876363.
Author 1: Robert J. Roselli robert.j.rosselli@vanderbilt.edu Author 2: Sean P. Brophy sbrophy@purdue.edu Article Link: www.asee.org }}} [https://stemedhub.org/groups/cleerhub/wiki/issue:1277 : Back to 2007 Summer Issue Vol. 3, No. 2] [[Include(issues:footer)]]