Total views : 105

A Low Risk Hybrid Teaching Methodology for Improving the Motivation Levels of Students: A Casestudy on Digital Image Processing Course

Affiliations

  • Dept of Electronics & Communications Engineering & Joginapally B.R. Engineering College, Hyderabad, India

Abstract


The motivation levels of the contemporary engineering students to sit and learn in a traditional classroom is relatively low, due to the exposure of new technologies since their childhood. They don't believe in totally classroom study and have little patience to sit long hours in the classroom, as they see alternative ways of learning outside the classroom. Hence, there is need for devising new pedagogy techniques which can motivate them to attend the class, and at the same time, to study outside the classroom and out of institution hours. However, the age-old pedagogy method of deductive learning and class room teaching can't be thrown away all of a sudden. So a low risk method of teaching is required for the universal acceptance by the students and by the authorities. In this paper, a hybrid low risk teaching methodology is considered for the undergraduate course of Digital Image Processing for the students of Electronics and Communications Engineering (ECE) specialization. Three topic wise active learning activities: quiz, group discussion and simulations were devised and implemented along with the traditional classroom teaching. A course end survey was conducted at the end of the course. The responses to the survey clearly showed that the motivation level of the students significantly increased after the implementation of active level methodologies. The significant increase in the marks obtained in the II internal examination also confirm the effectiveness of the hybrid technique used. The results are very much encouraging to the teacher, to implement the proposed technique in the next semester also as indicated by the students.

Keywords

Motivation, Learning Style, Classroom Teaching, Activity Specific, Teacher Specific Questions.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 43)

References


  • Steven R.Hall, IanWaitz,Doris R.Brodeur,Diane H. Soderholm, and Reem Nasr, (2002) Adaption Of aLearning In A Lecture-Based Engineering Class, 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, November 6 – 9, Boston, MA, T2A, 9-13.
  • Issam Rebaï, Jean-Marc Labat and Amar Balla, (2002) Analysing the Relationship between Learning Styles and Navigation Behaviour in Web-Based Educational System, Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal,Vol.2,No.4., 400-421
  • RichardM. Felder andLindaK. Silverman, (1988) Learning and Teaching Styles In Engineering Education, Engr. Education, 78 (7), 674–681
  • Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of EngineeringEducation, 95(2), 123-138.
  • Reed, W., & Oughton, JM., (1997) Computer experience and interval-based hypermedia navigation, ResComput Education, 30(1), 38-52.
  • M Recabarren, az, (2016) Modifying the student's resistance towards active learning with more active-learning, 122nd ASEE AnnualConference&Exposition, Seattle,WA.
  • Roehl, Amy, Shweta Linga Reddy, and Gayla Jett Shannon. (2013) The flipped classroom: An opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning strategies. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences 105.2, 44-49.
  • Thiruchadai Pandeeswari S and Pudumalar S, (2016) Streamlined Integration of ICT Tools and Active Learning Strategies for Effective Content Delivery in Engineering Education - An Experimental Study, poster at LATICE, Fourth International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and EngineeringMumbai, India,March 31st -April 3rd, 2016.
  • Nick Savage and Roy Birch, An evaluation of motivation in engineering students, employing self-determination theory, Annual Conference of Engineering Education 14 -16 July 2008, LoughboroughUniversity,UK.
  • Marton F., & Säljö R., (1976). On qualitative differences in learning – 1: outcome and process, British Journal of Educational Psychology,Vol. 46, 411.
  • Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. T., (2005) Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom-Based Practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94: doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00831. x, 87–101.
  • Felder, RichardM; Brent, Rebecca, (2004) The Intellectual Development of Science and Engineering Students. Part 2: Teaching to Promote Growth, Journal of Engineering Education