Huett, K. C., & Kawulich, B. B., & Raju, P., & Sankar, C. S. (2013, June), Use of Multimedia Case Studies in an Introductory Engineering  Course at Two Southeastern Universities: A Qualitative Evaluation Study  Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia. 10.18260/1-2--22680

\bibitem{asee_peer_22680}
  Huett, K. C., \& Kawulich, B. B., \& Raju, P., \& Sankar, C. S. (2013, June), \emph{Use of Multimedia Case Studies in an Introductory Engineering  Course at Two Southeastern Universities: A Qualitative Evaluation Study}
  Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia.
  10.18260/1-2--22680

Kimberly C. Huett, Barbara B. Kawulich, P.K. Raju, and Chetan S Sankar.  "Use of Multimedia Case Studies in an Introductory Engineering  Course at Two Southeastern Universities: A Qualitative Evaluation Study".  2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia, 2013, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2013.  https://strategy.asee.org/22680 Internet.  08 Jun, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_22680}
  Kimberly C. Huett, Barbara B. Kawulich, P.K. Raju, and Chetan S Sankar.
  "Use of Multimedia Case Studies in an Introductory Engineering  Course at Two Southeastern Universities: A Qualitative Evaluation Study".
  \emph{2013 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia, 2013, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2013.
  https://strategy.asee.org/22680 Internet.  08 Jun, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_22680
author = "Kimberly C. Huett, Barbara B. Kawulich, P.K. Raju, and Chetan S Sankar"
title = "Use of Multimedia Case Studies in an Introductory Engineering  Course at Two Southeastern Universities: A Qualitative Evaluation Study"
booktitle = "2013 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2013"
month = "June"
address = "Atlanta, Georgia"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://strategy.asee.org/22680}
number = {10.18260/1-2--22680}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -          Use of Multimedia Case Studies in an Introductory Engineering                   Course at Two Southeastern Universities:                        A Qualitative Evaluation Study        It has been suggested that changes in the classroom environment and nature of instructionmay positively affect student learning of introductory engineering concepts (Mayo, 2007). Inresponse to recent calls to improve engineering instruction (Bernold, Spurlin, & Anson, 2007;NAE, 2005), an interdisciplinary team of researchers in engineering, business and education;course instructors; graduate students; and instructional designers in the private sector workedtogether over a three-year period to improve the introductory engineering courses offered at twouniversities in the Southeast: the first being a large public university and the second anhistorically black university. Course improvements initiated by the team included curriculumchanges, such as incorporating multimedia case studies and serious games, both of whichprovided the potential for cost-effectiveness and broader appeal (Mayo, 2007).        Employing an action evaluation approach (Rothman, 2009) to facilitate continuous datacollection and feedback for improvement in subsequent iterations of the course, a team ofexternal researchers collected qualitative data from students through open-ended surveys andfocus groups to determine the effectiveness of the instructional methods. Data were collected andanalyzed after each semester, and results were disseminated to the larger team to guide coursemodifications for the next semester.       This qualitative action evaluation study focuses on the third year of the study, whichrepresents the culmination of course improvements that were made to the introductoryengineering course from fall 2009 to spring 2012.        Using an expanded 3P model (Biggs & Moore, 1993), the 4P model (presage, pedagogy,process, and product) provided a theoretical framework for the three evaluation questions thatguided the research. The questions focused on students’ perceptions of the value and nature ofinstructional methods and group work in the course and on the strengths and areas forimprovement they perceived as needed. Students were assigned to course sections thatincorporated multimedia case studies (i.e., Chick Fil A, Della, STS 51-L, and Mauritius casestudies) or were assigned research topics as round table discussions.        In fall 2011, after completing the course in which multimedia case studies were used, 102students responded to a post-semester survey and 64 participated in focus groups to share theirprior engineering experience, preferred teaching styles, preference for working alone or ingroups, suggestions for improving the course, perceptions about what portions of the course wereinteresting and helpful to learning and about its potential for their future work, among others.        In spring 2012, after completing the course, 110 students responded to the survey, 36 ofwhom had been exposed to the multimedia case studies and 74 of whom had used assignedtopics in roundtable discussions. Of the 36 students using multimedia case studies, nine studentsparticipated in focus groups; of the 74 students using assigned topics in roundtable discussions,15 students participated in focus groups.        Data were analyzed, using a thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006), whereapplicable; however, in instances where data were one or two word responses and thematicanalysis was not possible, frequency counts were conducted to provide some analytic discussionof the data.       Findings indicate that students’ prior experience with case studies influenced how theyperceived the use of multimedia cases. Students at both universities indicated that case studieswere beneficial. Other findings illustrated that what they found to be interesting was notnecessarily what they found to be helpful to their learning. Coursework was deemed to beimportant to their future work environments and coursework, particularly with learningcommunication skills and in group work.        The results will also include student perceptions of the larger course (e.g., the use of thelecture format, hands-on design projects, and group work, etc.), as these are relevant to the wayin which students perceived and talked about their experiences with specific study conditions.The study will include recommendations and discussion related to design considerations inintroductory engineering courses.                                            ReferencesBernold, L. E., Spurlin, J. E., & Anson, C. M. (2007). Understanding our students: A       longitudinal-study of success and failure in engineering with implications for increased       retention. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(3), 263-274. Retrieved from       http://search.proquest.com/docview/217947918?accountid=15017Biggs, J.B., Moore, P.J. (1993). The process of learning (3rd ed.). Sydney: Prentice Hall.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in       Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oaMayo, M.J. (2007). Games for science and engineering education. Communications of the ACM,       50(7). Retrieved from http://www.cs.vu.nl/~eliens/archive/science/p30-mayo.pdfNational Academy of Engineering (NAE). (2005). Adapting engineering education to the new       century: Educating the engineer of 2020. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy       Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11338Rothman, J. (2009). Action evaluation: A new method of goal setting, planning and defining       success for community development initiatives. Retrieved from       http://www.ariagroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Action-Evaluation-A-New-       Method.pdf
AU  - Kimberly C. Huett
AU  - Barbara B. Kawulich
AU  - P.K. Raju
AU  - Chetan S Sankar
CY  - Atlanta, Georgia
DA  - 2013/06/23
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Use of Multimedia Case Studies in an Introductory Engineering  Course at Two Southeastern Universities: A Qualitative Evaluation Study
UR  - https://strategy.asee.org/22680
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--22680
ER  -