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
Abstract This study examined the effects of active learning and
traditional lecturing on the academic performance of Particle
Technology students in order to identify the more effective
teaching strategy. Two active learning models, namely,
cooperative and collaborative learning were used. The population
of the study consisted of thirty-eight third year students enrolled
in the Bachelor of Engineering in Chemical Engineering program
in one of the universities in one of the Caribbean Island. The
post-test only control group experimental design was employed
for the study while the instruments used to collect data were
midterm tests and a final examination. The data collected was
subjected to an independent t-test analysis ( = 0.05), using the
SPSS statistical software application. The findings indicated that
students taught with traditional lecturing performed significantly
better (mean P = 0.01) than those taught using active learning
strategies. Males and female participants taught with traditional
lecturing also performed better than their counterparts taught
with active learning. Based on the findings of the study, it was
recommended that students be better sensitized about new
teaching strategies being implemented, Particle Technology
teachers recognize the value of traditional lecturing, appropriate
measures be implemented to achieve comparable attendance
among study groups and future studies should focus on
understanding the characteristics of female students which
results in them exhibiting enhanced learning compared to their
male counterparts.
Keywords-comparative;engineering; instructional; strategies;
performances; particle technology

I.
INTRODUCTION
Active learning strategies are viewed by many as a
fundamental change from traditional teaching methods. As
such it has received substantial attention over the past several
years. However, there remains some uncertainty as to the
necessity for these methods in engineering education since
students are already active through practical homework
assignments and laboratory experiments. Beside, many
engineering educators lack the interest to examine the
educational literature for answers and consequently do not
always appreciate the difference between the common forms
of active learning. There are also drawbacks for engineering
faculty expecting to select a few articles to see the
effectiveness of active learning strategies. Readers must take
care to understand the subject of the study as well at the

authors methods of data collection and interpretation.

However, the subject of the study might not necessarily be
obvious as a result of the broad range of methods which are
presented as active learning. This process cannot be eliminated
but its complexity can be greatly reduced if one focuses on the
fundamental aspects of common active learning methods.
According to [1], in order to assess what works, care must be
taken in interpreting data, various learning outcomes must be
considered and reported improvement should be properly
quantified. While the use of statistics assist in the presentation
of learning outcomes, it does not eliminate the need for
interpretation when evaluating for significance. Educators
should not expect that simply adopting a particular educational
method will result in similar learning outcomes to those
reported in educational studies as the practical limitations of
these studies must also be considered. This approach is
supported by [1] who opined that educational studies only tell
us what worked, on average, and specifically for the
populations examined. Nevertheless, according to [2], if the
data supporting a particular learning model is extensive and a
teachers students also resemble the test population, there is a
greater possibility that similar results will be obtained.
Alternatively, educators should also view the findings
presented in literature as a means to identify the variables
involved in educational studies.
Teaching models which incorporate active learning
strategies continue to receive widespread support from modern
literature on classroom instructional modes which suggest that
these strategies result in more meaningful learning when
compared to traditional, passive lectures with regards to
retention of material, motivating students and developing
thinking skills [3]. This was supported by [4] who went further
to state that active learning also improved students
performance, as measured by traditional tests, and also created
positive students attitudes towards the learning process.
Moreover, the multiple learning styles included in active
learning strategies conform to educational models based on
theories of learning and motivation. However, not all of these
supports for active learning are compelling. For example, [5]
conceded that the measured improvements of learner-centered
over instructor-centered instructional strategy on students
learning in two online courses were small, and concluded that

978-1-4673-6109-5 /13/$31.00 2013 IEEE

Technische Universitt Berlin, Berlin, Germany, March 13-15, 2013
2013 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)
Page 952

the principles lack substantial evidence with respect to

empirical support for active learning. Nonetheless, active
learning models continue to receive huge support from
educational literature. Still, given the range of instructional
methods presented as active learning, what is being endorsed
by the literature is not always apparent and therefore it can be
quite confusing interpreting the findings of educational
studies. Consequently, active learning should be thought of as
an approach and not as a method and so the various methods
are best assessed independently.
Active learning can be achieved by introducing
students activity into the traditional lecture sessions.
Reference [2] highlighted the use of one such approach called
the concept tests method in their Unified Engineering class.
This involved incorporating brief multiple-choice conceptual
questions into lectures to test students knowledge of the
material. Additionally, the lecturer only introduced new
material when a majority of the class did well on a question.
On the other hand, students were placed in small groups to
work out the answer to the question when the concept tests
revealed conceptual problems or misunderstandings. When
students were asked to compare the active learning techniques
to the traditional lecture format, their responses reflected an
overall positive attitude towards the active learning
techniques. Specifically, some students commented on the
effect of the active learning techniques on improving their
learning and understanding of the content, and in stimulating
their thinking and classroom participation. Another important
component of active learning highlighted by [4] is the type of
activity, as this influences how much material students
retained. Essentially, students should be thoughtfully engaged
and activities designed around important learning outcomes.
There is little doubt as to the significance of students
engagement as there is substantial evidence to support its
effectiveness on a wide range of learning outcomes.
1) 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. Consequently, this
model can be viewed as encompassing all group-based
instructional methods, including cooperative learning [7].
Reference [4] however, stated that some authors indeed
distinguish between collaborative and cooperative learning as
having distinct historical developments and different
philosophical roots. Interpretation aside, it is important to
understand that the principal element of collaborative learning
is students interactions and not solely learning. There is
strong agreement among the findings of various educational
studies probing the question of how collaboration influences
learning outcomes. In a review of 168 studies, [8] found that
cooperation improved learning outcomes relative to individual
work across the board. Similar results were found by [9] who
looked at 37 studies of students in science, mathematics,
engineering and technology. In a related study investigating
the effect of incorporating small, medium and large amounts
of group work on achievement, [9] sought to determine if the
benefits of group work improve with frequency. The positive
effect sizes associated with low, medium and high amount of

time in groups were found to be 0.52, 0.73 and 0.53,

respectively. Interestingly, the highest benefit was found for
medium time in groups and not for large time in groups. On
the contrary, evaluating the effects of frequency of group work
on promoting positive students attitudes revealed that more
time spent in groups did however produce the highest effect.
The effect sizes reported were 0.37, 0.26, and 0.77 for low,
medium and high amount of time in groups respectively.
These attitudinal results must however be interpreted with
caution as the authors admitted that they were based on a
relatively small number of studies.
2) Cooperative Learning Model
According to [4], this model can be defined as a
structured form of group work where students pursue common
goals while being assessed individually. The cooperative
learning model proposed by [1] is the most common found in
the engineering literature [1]. This model is characterized by
five specific tenets, namely, face-to-face promotive
interaction, mutual interdependence, appropriate practice of
interpersonal skills, individual accountability, and regular selfassessment of team functioning. The principal feature among
the different cooperative learning models highlighted by [7] is
a focus on cooperative incentives as oppose to competition to
promote learning. Increased higher-order thinking skills and
improved students performance are among the benefits of
cooperative group learning outline in the findings of much of
the educational research. Cooperation has also been credited
with fostering self-esteem, promoting interpersonal
relationships and improving social support. Still, the rather
stringent criteria and time needed for successful learning
causes many instructors to hesitate when considering the use
of cooperative learning models. The fact that cooperative
learning models create a setting which promotes interpersonal
skills and effective teamwork would also interest engineering
faculty. In addition, engineering program accreditation bodies
such as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET) call for engineering students to acquire
these skills [6]. The lack of team skills displayed by
engineeering students was also noted as a frequent concern
among employers. Therefore, the development of these skills
in engineering students could also lead to better integration in
the industry. Furthermore, it would be quite difficult to put
forth an argument that individual work such as that taking
place in traditional lecture classes helps to build team skills
given that practice is a precondition of learning any skill. It is
not always easy to ascertain whether cooperative learning
effectively develops interpersonal skills as how one defines
and measures team skills must be taken into consideration.
Even so, strong arguments are put forward by [8] to support
the view that cooperative learning is indeed effective in this
area. Additionally, when cooperative learning groups are used,
they recommend that students be explicitly trained in the skills
required to be effective team members. Since traditional
instruction focuses on individual learning and typically does
not include explicit instruction in teamwork, it is fair to
assume that it would be less effective than the opportunity to
practice interpersonal skills while getting explicit instructions
in these skills. Empirical evidence to support this conclusion
was provided by [10] who studied the effects of competitive

978-1-4673-6109-5 /13/$31.00 2013 IEEE

Technische Universitt Berlin, Berlin, Germany, March 13-15, 2013
2013 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)
Page 953

and cooperative learning strategies on academic performance

of Nigerian students in mathematics. Furthermore, the authors
went on to state that cooperative strategies resulted in a greater
increase in social skills when compared to competitive or
individual situations. These findings are in agreement with a
study conducted by [11] which reported an increase in
students interpersonal skills necessary for effective teamwork
as a result of employing cooperative learning strategies.
In one of the Islands in the Caribbean, many of our
educational institutions employ passive learning through
traditional lecturing and as a result active learning strategies
are sparsely used. In contrast, many researchers support the
use of active learning which they have found to increase
retention, foster team building and develop higher level
thinking skills [3]. The main problem that the study sought to
investigate was which of these learning strategies will bring
about better performances from the students enrolled in the
Particle Technology module. The study was guided by the
following questions: 1.) Which of the two instructional
approaches (active learning and traditional lecturing strategy)
used for teaching Particle Technology students yields better
students academic performance? 2.) Do Particle Technology
students significantly differ in their academic performances
based on the two methods of teaching (active learning and
traditional lecturing strategy) used? and 3.) Do Particle
Technology students taught with active learning strategies and
traditional lecturing significantly differ in their academic
performances based on gender?
II.

METHODOLOGY

The experimental design adopted for this study was

the Post-test Only Control Group Design. This design was
chosen because of its strength against single-group and
multiple-group threats to internal validity [12]. Typically, a
pre-test is used to assess whether the groups are comparable at
the beginning of the program. However, since random
assignment was used in the formation of the groups, it then
could be assumed that the two groups are probabilistically
equivalent initially and therefore the pre-test was not required.
In this design, the primary focus of the researchers was
determining whether the two groups are different after the
program. The groups performance on three assessments were
measured and then compared by testing for the differences
between the means using a two-tailed independent t-test with a
95% confidence interval ( = 0.05). This t-test was done using
the SPSS statistical analysis software and the t-value (t),
degrees of freedom (df) and p-value (Sig. (2-tailed)) reported.
The t-value is the ratio of the difference between the mean of
both groups and the standard error of the difference. The
degree of freedom is calculated by adding the two sample
sizes then subtracting two when equal variance can be
assumed. If equal variance cannot be assumed it is then
calculated using the Satterthwaite formula. The p-value is the
two-tailed probability obtained from the t distribution which
gives the probability of observing a t-value of equal or greater
absolute value under the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis
being that there is no significant difference between the mean
score of both groups.

1) Participants
The study was conducted in the chemical engineering
program at a popular university in one of the Islands in the
Caribbean. 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. Particle Technology is a three (3) credit
module designed to give students a clear understanding of the
characteristics of particles and how these characteristics
determine such prosperities as its density and conductivity, the
surface per unit volume and the interaction between particles
and fluids. The module also focuses on some physical unit
operations involving particle enlargement, reduction,
separation and blending as well as the design and analysis of
several equipment involved in these processes. The module
consisted of a two hours lecture session in addition to two onehour tutorial sessions per week. The lecture sessions were
attended by all students while the class was divided into two
groups, A and B, with each group attending a single tutorial
session per week.
2) Instruments
The instruments used to assess students performance
were two midterm tests and a final examination. The first
midterm tests was given at the end of the second unit and
assessed major concepts covered in units one and two while
the second midterm test was given at the end of the fourth unit
and assessed major concepts covered in units three and four.
Both tests had duration of two hours and comprised of three
problems in the form of short answer and restricted essay
items in which the students had to carry out numerous
calculations. At the completion of the module, students were
given a summative assessment in the form of a comprehensive
final examination, which was used to test students overall
understanding of the major concepts covered in the module.
The examination comprised one short answer item and three
restricted essay items and required students to perform
various calculations. Students were required to answer all
questions within the allotted duration of two hours. A formula
sheet was also provided. In order to determine whether the
research instruments truly measure that which they were
intended to measure or how truthful the research results are,
the instruments were assessed for face and content validity.
The content validity was done using a method advocated by
[13] for gauging agreement among raters or judges regarding
how essential a particular item is. This formula yields values,
which range from +1 to -1. The content validity ratio for
individual test items ranged from 0.2 to 1.0 and 0.47 to 0.87
for the overall test instruments. This indicates that the
instruments had sound content validity as positive ratios mean
that more than half of the expert raters rated the knowledge
being measured by the items as being essential. In order to
assess the reliability of the instruments, the inter-rater method
was used. The reliability of individual test items ranged from
0.6 to 1.0 on a scale of 0.0 to 1.0. This indicates that the
research instruments had good reliability, as there was at least
60% agreement between the expert raters. The reliability for
the overall test instruments were even higher ranging from
0.73 to 0.93.

978-1-4673-6109-5 /13/$31.00 2013 IEEE

Technische Universitt Berlin, Berlin, Germany, March 13-15, 2013
2013 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)
Page 954

56.12

17.87

14

38.04

18.58

17

82.82

11.77

14

61.93

19.84

A
B

17
11

66.24
47.82

14.42
19.31

Sig.
(2-tailed)

Final Exam

17

df

Test 2

Test 1

Std. Dev.

As can be seen in Fig. 1, the results indicate that

students taught with traditional lecturing (group A) yielded
better academic performances than those taught with active
learning strategies (group B) on all the instruments. The
largest difference between the mean performance of each
group was observed in test 2 (20.9 percentage points) while
the difference in the mean performance of both groups in test
1 and the final examination were approximately equal (18.1
percentage points on test 1 compared to 18.4 percentage points
on the final examination).

TABLE 1: T-TEST ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPANTS SCORE ON EACH ASSESSMENT

Mean

a) Research question 1: Which of the two instructional

approaches (active learning and traditional lecturing
strategy) 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. Fig. 1 presents a comparison between the
mean score of group A and group B participants on each of the
instruments.

As can be seen in Table 1, there was a significant

difference in the scores for group A and group B participants
on all three assessments, with group A participants recording
higher scores than those in group B. These results suggest that
active learning strategies do not have a positive effect on
participants performance. Specifically, the results suggest
that when traditional lecturing is used, participants
performance improved.

RESULTS

b) Research question 2: Do Particle Technology

students significantly differ in their academic performances
based on the two methods of teaching (active learning and
traditional lecturing strategy) used?
To answer this question, participants performances
on the various test instruments were subjected to an
independent t-test analysis to establish whether the difference
between the performances of participants taught with
traditional lecturing (group A) and those taught with active
learning strategies (group B) was significant. This analysis
was carried out using the SPSS software applications with a
confidence interval of 95% ( = 0.5).

Group

III.

Fig. 1. Mean scores for group A and group B participants on each test
instrument.

Assessment

3) Procedure
Firstly, the third year chemical engineering class
which consists of 38 students was initially randomly divided
into two groups of equal size, groups A and B. Therefore,
there was no sampling error as the entire population was used
for this study based on the small size of the groups. However,
due to absenteeism of some participants in both groups, the
group sizes had to be revised to capture those who actually
took part in the study. That is, those who were present for at
least half of the sessions. In the final analysis Group A was
reduced to 17 members while Group B reduced to 14
members. Both groups had two hours of joint lecture and one
hour of separate tutorial sessions each week. It is in these
tutorial sessions that the variation in instructional strategies
was employed. Group A was used as the traditional lecturing
group while Group B was the active learning group. In the
traditional lecturing sessions, there were no active learning
exercises or cooperative/collaborative group activities.
PowerPoint slides presentation was used to deliver lessons and
one of the researchers solved all examples on the whiteboard.
Socratic questions were asked during lecture and volunteer
answers solicited. Conversely, in the active learning sessions
for group B, active learning strategies in the form of
cooperative and collaborative exercises were employed.
Students worked together on problems in a small group setting
until all members of the group understood the problem and
completed it. The main class activities used included the
jigsaw method, think-pair-share, round robin, brainstorming
and debates to name a few. In order to assess students
performance two midterm tests and a comprehensive final
examination were administered. The first midterm test was
given at the end of the second unit and the other at the end of
the fourth unit while the final examination, which covered the
entire module content, was given at the end of the module.

2.75

29

0.010

3.47

20.25

0.002

2.89

26

0.008

978-1-4673-6109-5 /13/$31.00 2013 IEEE

Technische Universitt Berlin, Berlin, Germany, March 13-15, 2013
2013 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)
Page 955

Table 3 presents the results of the statistical analysis

conducted on the mean scores of male participants in groups A
and B on each assessment. As can be seen, there was a
significant difference in the scores for group A and group B
male participants on all three assessments with group A
participants recording higher scores than those in group B.
These results suggest that active learning strategies do not
have a positive effect on male participants performance.
Specifically, the results of the analysis suggest that male
participants taught with traditional learning performed
significantly better than their counterparts taught with active
learning strategies.

70.29

12.98

46.33

21.66

89.43

8.87

75.50

18.35

A
B

7
6

69.86
54.00

12.56
13.16

Sig.
(2-tailed)

df

Std. Dev.

Final Exam

Mean

Test 2

Test 1

Group

Assessment

TABLE 2: T-TEST ANALYSIS OF FEMALE PARTICIPANTS SCORE ON EACH

ASSESSMENT

2.465

11

0.031

1.789

11

0.101

2.220

11

0.048

46.20

13.78

31.82

14.24

10

78.20

11.67

51.75

14.64

10

63.70

15.72

40.00

24.29

Sig.
(2-tailed)

10

df

Std. Dev.

Final Exam

Mean

Test 2

Test 1

Group

Table 2 presents the results of the statistical analysis

conducted on the mean scores of female participants in groups
A and group B on each assessment. As can be seen, there was
a significant difference between the scores of group A and
group B female participants on midterm Test 1 and the Final
Examination. These results suggest that female participants
taught with traditional learning performed significantly better
than their counterparts taught with active learning strategies.
However, for midterm Test 2, there was no significant
difference between the scores for group A (M=89.43,
SD=8.87) and group B (M=75.50, SD=18.35) female
participants; t (11) = 1.789, p = 0.101. This suggests that there
is no significant difference between the performance of female
participants taught with traditional learning and those taught
with active learning strategies.

TABLE 3: T-TEST ANALYSIS OF MALE PARTICIPANTS SCORE ON EACH

ASSESSMENT

Assessment

c) 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
participants taught with traditional lecturing (group A) and
those taught with active learning strategies (group B) was
significant, the data was subjected to an independent t-test
analysis using the SPSS software application with a
confidence interval of 95% ( = 0.5).

2.169

16

0.045

4.273

16

0.001

2.266

13

0.041

IV. DISCUSSION
From the results, it can be seen that the test
instruments showed a high level of content validity and
reliability. This can be attributed to the fact that all
instruments were constructed to be in close agreement with the
module outline. Therefore, individual test items were designed
to assess one or more specific objectives to determine if the
participants have satisfied the desired learning outcomes. The
statistical analysis conducted on both mid-semester
examinations as well as the final examination 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. Since these
assessments were announced well in advance, participants had
sufficient time to build on the concepts they were introduced
to in the various sessions. Therefore, the results could be
interpreted to suggest that participants in the active learning
group (Group B) did not sufficiently grasp the basic concepts
being conveyed and therefore could not make significant
addition to their knowledge base. These findings disagreed
with that of [6] who examined the performance of over 90
students in five chemical engineering courses and found
significantly improved performance for students in classes
with extensive use of active and cooperative learning
techniques as opposed to students taught using the traditional
approach. The active learning group outperformed the control
group on several measures among which are retention and
graduation in chemical engineering. Additionally, a
significantly larger number of the graduates in this group
opted to pursue further study in chemical engineering. It must
be noted however, that [6] conducted a longitudinal study,
which spanned the entire period of the participants course of
study. This would have given the participants the opportunity
to fully develop an appreciation for the active learning
strategies. This argument is supported by [8], who provided
strong arguments to suggest that training participants to be
effective team member will increase the probability of success
when using cooperative learning groups.

978-1-4673-6109-5 /13/$31.00 2013 IEEE

Technische Universitt Berlin, Berlin, Germany, March 13-15, 2013
2013 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)
Page 956

The data analysis also revealed that male and female

participants taught with traditional lecturing (group A)
performed better than their counterparts taught with active
learning strategies (group B). Female students taught with
traditional lecturing achieved up to 24.0 percentage point
higher academic performance when compared to their female
counterparts taught with active learning strategies. Similarly,
male participants taught with traditional lecturing achieved up
to 26.4 percentage point higher academic performance when
compared to their male counterparts taught with active
learning strategies. These findings are in contradiction to that
conducted by [5] which examined the impact of instructorcentered versus learner-centered instructional strategy on
students learning in two online courses and found no
significant difference across treatment groups. The lower
academic performance witnessed among participants taught
with active learning strategies could be due to the fact that this
was the first time they have been involved with the use of
active learning strategies on such an extensive basis.
Reference [9] conducted a study in which the effect of
utilizing large, medium and small amounts of group work on
achievement was investigated and found positive effect sizes
associated with large, medium and small amount of time in
groups to be 0.53, 0.73 and 0.52, respectively. Interestingly,
the highest achievement was not found for large time in
groups but for medium time in groups. This suggests that the
use of extensive group work will not necessarily result in
higher performance. Rather a balance between group and
individual work should be sought. One possibility is the fact
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) but rather being told the solutions by other
members. This could then lead to some members of the group
not being able to properly develop their critical thinking
capabilities. In addition, the participants were being exposed,
almost exclusively, to traditional instructional methods over
their previous two years at the university. Even during the
period of this study, participants were enrolled in other
module in which instructors also used traditional methods.
Since these methods allow participants to remain passive, they
could view active learning strategies in a negative light by
requiring them to do more work. This could also explain the
lower level of attendance recorded for the active learning
group (Group B) when compared to the group exposed to
traditional methods (Group A). Additionally, the introduction
of different active learning strategies could also have resulted
in some of the participants being more fascinated and grossly
involved with the social interaction aspects so much that they
lost tract of the main objectives of the lesson, thus achieving
lower academic performances.
Another important factor, which could greatly
influence the performance of the participants, is their average
class attendance. As was presented in the results, the average
attendance for participants taught with traditional learning
strategies (Group A) was found to be 66% while that observed
for the participants taught with active learning strategies
(Group B) was 58%. Therefore, the consistently higher scores
recorded by Group A participants (male and female) when
compared to their counterparts in group B could be attributed
to their higher rate of class attendance which resulted in them

having a longer contact time with one of the researchers who

in this case was the lecturer directly involved with the module.
This low average attendance observed for participants in this
study can also be linked to the universitys policy, which
regards students as adult learners capable of making
responsible decision, and therefore does not mandate students
to attend class.
While these results contradicts many of the studies
conducted as seen in the review of the literature for instance,
[1] cautioned that 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 as the
practical limitations of these studies and the complex nature of
the learning process must also be considered. This complexity
of interpreting research finding was highlighted by [5] who
measured small improvements of discussion over lecture in his
study but still conceded that the principles lacked substantial
evidence with respect to empirical support for active learning.
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Although the increasing body of educational research
seems to suggest that active learning strategies prove to be
more effective than traditional lecturing methods, whether that
premise holds for teaching engineering modules is yet to be
determined. In this study, active learning strategies were
evaluated with a view to determine if they were, indeed, more
effective than traditional lecturing in improving students
academic performance in an engineering module and, if so, to
what extent. The research findings revealed that there is a
significant difference between the academic performances of
Particle Technology students based on the two methods of
teaching (active learning and traditional lecturing strategy)
used, which favors traditional lecturing. The revelation
persisted even when students academic performances were
compared based on gender. Interestingly though, male and
female Particle Technology students taught with traditional
lecturing approach significantly differ in their academic
performances while male and female students taught with
active learning strategies did not differ significantly in their
academic performances. Thus, the findings of this study
provide empirical evidence contrary to common beliefs about
the greater effectiveness of active learning strategies compared
with traditional lecturing in developing students engineering
skills.
Based on the findings of this study, the following
recommendations were made:
1.

Students should be sensitized as to the nature of active

learning strategies as well as possible benefits in order
to alleviate concerns of additional workload and
limited supports.

2.

Particle Technology teachers should not rely

completely on active learning strategies but rather
recognize the value of traditional lecturing as an
effective learning strategy in order to improve
students performances.

978-1-4673-6109-5 /13/$31.00 2013 IEEE

Technische Universitt Berlin, Berlin, Germany, March 13-15, 2013
2013 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)
Page 957

3.

4.

5.

6.

Future studies should be conducted with appropriate

measures in place to achieve comparable attendance
among the students in both study groups. This would
convincingly remove any potential confounding effects
associated to attendance, and would reaffirm or refute
this finding.
Again, because this approach has not been tried on
other engineering modules other than Particle
Technology, doing so is highly recommended
especially on varied population and sample size in
order to authenticate further this finding.
Further research in this area is also warranted which
should focus on understanding the characteristics of
female students that possibly resulted in them
exhibiting enhanced learning under both models when
compared to their male counterparts.
The study also recommends that a replication of this
experiment be done in other occupational education
areas such as Technical and Vocational Education
modules which share certain characteristics with
engineering in order to confirm or refute these
findings.

VI.
[1]
[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]
[13]

REFERENCES

M. Prince, Does active learning work? A review of the research.

Journal of Engineering Education , vol. 93, no.3, pp. 223-231, 2004.
S. R. Hall, I.Waitz, D. R. Brodeur, D. H. Soderholm, & R.Nasr,
Adoption of active learning in a lecture-based engineering class. 32nd
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Boston:MA, 2002.
L. B. Nilson, Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college
instructors 2nd ed., San Francisco, CA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.
2003.
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.
R. Sweat-Guy, & C. Wishart, A longitudinal analysis of the effects of
instructional strategies on student performance in traditional and elearning formats. Issues in Informing Science and Information
Technology , vol. 5, pp. 149-163, 2008.
R. M. Felder, A longitudinal study of engineering student performance
and retention V: Comparisons with traditionally-taught students.
Journal of Engineering Education , vol. 87, pp. 469-480, 1998.
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.
D. Johnson, R. Johnson, & K. Smith, Cooperative learning returns to
college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, vol. 30, pp. 26
35, 1998.
L. Springer, M. Stanne, & S. Donovan, Effects of small-group learning
on undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and
Technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, vol.
69, no.1, pp. 2152, 1999.
E. B. Kolawole, Effects of competitive and cooperative learning
strategies on academic performance of Nigerian students in
mathematics. Educational Research and Review, vol. 3, pp. 033-037,
2008.
P. T. Terenzini, A. F. Cabrera, C. L. Colbeck, J. M. Parente, & S. A.
Bjorklund, Collaborative learning vs. lecture/discussion: Students
reported learning gains. Journal of Engineering Education , pp. 123130, 2001.
W. Trochim, The research methods knowledge base, 2nd ed., Cincinnati,
OH: Atomic Dog Publishing, 2000.
C. H. Lawshe, A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel
Psychology, vol. 28, pp. 563-575, 1975.

978-1-4673-6109-5 /13/$31.00 2013 IEEE

Technische Universitt Berlin, Berlin, Germany, March 13-15, 2013
2013 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)
Page 958