See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289559127

A Case Study in Active Learning: Teaching Undergraduate Research in an

Engineering Classroom Setting

Article in Engineering Education · December 2013

DOI: 10.11120/ened.2013.00014

CITATIONS READS

15 2,050

3 authors, including:

Michelle L. Pantoya
Texas Tech University
271 PUBLICATIONS 6,736 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Michelle L. Pantoya on 24 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CASE STUDY

A Case Study in Active Learning: Teaching

Undergraduate Research in an Engineering
Classroom Setting
Michelle Pantoya,1 Patrick C. Hughes2 & Jennifer S. Hughes3
1
Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409
2
Associate Professor, Department of Communication Studies, Associate Vice Provost, Undergraduate
Education and Student Affairs, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409
3
Director, Office of Planning and Assessment, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409

Corresponding author:
Patrick C. Hughes, Associate Vice Provost, Undergraduate Education, Box 45022, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, TX 79409–5022
Email: [email protected], Phone: +1 (806) 834–1679

Abstract
Exposing undergraduate engineering students to research provides an opportunity to
assess students’ interest in research. Developing research skills at an undergraduate level
promotes increased understanding of the basic concepts taught through textbook
instruction and provides an awareness of industry relevant issues. This study reports on the
introduction of engineering research to undergraduate students in a classroom
environment. The course was designed around technical experiments inspired by Michael
Faraday’s lectures from The Chemical History of a Candle. Fourteen engineering
undergraduates enrolled in a Special Topics in Mechanical Engineering course at a large
southwestern university participated in five problem-based learning activities that engaged
students using interactive, hands-on lessons and activities designed to teach the research
process. Based on student assessments, the lessons learned from this experience revealed
students understood the practice of research after only three activities yet, the last two
activities provide valuable repetition that reinforce the research concepts and allowed for
students’ critical reflection on research processes. Also, only 20% of the students reported
enjoying research enough to pursue graduate school, all of which would commit to a PhD
rather than a master’s degree.

Keywords: undergraduate research curriculum, engineering research, active learning,

science, Michael Faraday

“There is no more open door by which you can enter into the study of natural
philosophy than by considering the physical phenomena of a candle.” —
Michael Faraday

Introduction
During the fall of 2011, we began this case study to understand the impact of exposing
undergraduate students to research early in their engineering studies. We designed the

© 2013 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 0, Issue 0 (Month 2013)

The Higher Education Academy 1 doi:10.11120/ened.2013.00014
course ME 4330, Special Topics in Mechanical Engineering, to provide students with a basic
yet broad understanding of the research endeavor. The methodology for the course
includes teaching research using a problem-based learning pedagogy that engages
students using interactive, hands-on lessons and activities. Students conducted five
technical experiments inspired by Michael Faraday’s lectures from The Chemical History of
a Candle. These experiments are the basis for guiding students through each component of
the research process, including project planning, investigating background literature,
designing and conducting experiments, analyzing results, documenting processes, and
ultimately reporting and presenting findings. The primary objective for the course is to
introduce students to the research process and develop the knowledge and skills necessary
for future research regardless of the specific application.

Rationale
Over two decades ago, The Boyer Commission Report on the undergraduate experience in
America (1987/1990) challenged higher education to teach students to think intellectually
and critically about important public issues and to develop their skills to address real-life
problems (Bransford et al. 1999). In response to these challenges, colleges and universities
have implemented a variety of experiential practices to broaden students’ experiences
while applying knowledge gained in the classroom. These approaches have many different
names: engaged learning, experiential learning, active learning, applied learning, or
discovery-based learning. However, active learning is considered the best term to describe
these practices (Bonwell and Eison 1991). The goal of active learning is to improve student
success through a deliberative intersection of applied curricular and co-curricular learning
objectives. The models have been defined as ‘activities that engage the learner directly in
phenomena being studied’ (NSIEE 1990), ‘providing opportunities for students to
meaningfully talk and listen, write, read, and reflect on the content, ideas, issues, and
concerns of an academic subject’ (Meyers and Jones 1993), and, perhaps most succinctly,
as ‘learning by doing’ (Smith 2011).
Over a century ago, Michael Faraday’s lectures on The Chemical History of a Candle (1993)
were delivered to an audience of young people at the Royal Institution in London, England.
Every year beginning in 1826 a professor was bestowed the privilege of delivering a course
of lectures for children around Christmas time, such that the series was titled Christmas
Course of Lectures Adapted to a Juvenile Auditory. This successful form of outreach
inspired children and future scientists by providing them with a fundamental understanding
of scientific inquiry. Many topics have been covered in the continuing series, but The
Chemical History of a Candle remains a favorite, and the lectures have been documented
word-for-word in The Chemical History of a Candle originally published in 1861. The
timeless demonstrations and discussions from this book provide the jumping off point for
research activities in our new engineering research course.
In the 1800s natural philosophy was the term used to describe science, which is based on
observing and understanding our natural world. Engineering is an extension of science
because engineering uses scientific understandings in order to change the natural world
and place more emphasis on problem solving and design rather than scientific inquiry.
Along these lines, technologies can be described as all the things engineers create.
Because scientific inquiry is the basis from which engineering design is inspired,
incorporating a scientifically-based engineering research course enables students to see
how their practices integrate science and engineering and how their research may
contribute to the development of a new technology.
Integrating scientific inquiry learning experiences into engineering design classroom
activities affords students an opportunity to acquire and use scientific skills that

© 2013 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 0, Issue 0 (Month 2013)

The Higher Education Academy 2 doi:10.11120/ened.2013.00014
 M. Pantoya et al.

compliment engineering design practices, which allows students to apply prior knowledge
with problem-solving abilities (Behar-Horenstein and Johnson 2010). “While there is no
single ‘right’ approach, research has begun to show that linking the nature of science to
process skills instruction can be effective” (Bell et al. 2004). This undergraduate research
case study models the classroom-based approach for successful teaching of research. This
is one approach to accommodating an increasing undergraduate student population that
show interest in graduate school; with the motivation of guiding students toward more
informed decisions regarding their graduate educational goals that would include research.
While the number of students within this case study course is 14 and may appear small,
usually undergraduate students are exposed to research through the mentoring of a faculty
member on a more individualized basis. So, the student to teacher ratio in this classroom
case study is a lot higher than the traditional one-to-one experience. Also, the class size
could easily be larger than experienced here because the cost of the activities is minimal
(or could be designed to be minimal).

Description of Experiments
The primary text for this course was Michael Faraday’s lectures from The Chemical History
of a Candle (1993). Each experiment was tied to an individual lecture, and the book
provided an excellent source for classroom discussion. The curriculum followed a repetitive
process of:
 Discussing reading assignments.
 Teaching components of the research process. Lecture topics included maintaining a
laboratory notebook; investigating background literature; identifying scientific questions
and understanding their application to engineering design and technology;
understanding the relationship between others’ research and your own; understanding
the scientific method and the engineering design process; composing an abstract,
introduction, approach and methodology; presenting results; presenting an analysis of
results in a discussion; composing a conclusion; utilizing different referencing
techniques; exploring approaches for dissemination of research; and composing a
presentation. Technical Writing for Engineers and Scientists by Leo Finkelstein
supplements many of these lectures.
 Teaching fundamental technical concepts associated with each experiment. For
example, for the capillary action experiment, the lecture’s learning objective centered on
the laws governing capillary flow and assessing parameters that will impact capillary
action.
We will describe briefly the course experiments and the key ideas that emerged from the
case study. The topics for these experiments included capillary flow, incandescence,
hydrogen gas generation, and electrolysis. As a supplement, an analytical study also was
designed that taught students the Buckingham pi theorem, a commonly used theorem that
allows an experimentalist to scale down large projects and reduce the number of variables.

Experiment 1: Capillary action

The purpose of Experiment 1 was to demonstrate that capillary action is responsible for the
delivery of fuel to the flame of a candle. The technical objective was to investigate the effect
of porosity on a substance’s ability to perform capillary action. In Faraday’s first lecture, he
discussed the manner in which the candle wax is delivered to the flame of a candle and
later demonstrated the process using a block of salt and colored water. Faraday understood

© 2013 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 0, Issue 0 (Month 2013)

The Higher Education Academy 3 doi:10.11120/ened.2013.00014
that capillary action was the process that prompted the delivery of molten wax (fuel)
through the wick to the flame.
Inspired by Faraday’s capillary action demonstrations, similar experiments were designed
to measure the height of capillary flow through tubes with different diameters or filled with
materials (i.e., salt) with different porosity and permeability. In this way, students examined
porosity as defined by a material’s ability to absorb or desorb liquids by capillary action.
Students then described the mechanism by which capillary action operates through a
balance of forces acting on a liquid and the properties of materials that may affect this
mechanism. Students concluded by designing a new experiment prompted by their
understanding of the science of capillary flow. In this way, science was linked to the
engineering design of an experiment inspired by the application of science to the
development of a new technology.

Experiment 2: Luminance
The objectives of Experiment 2 included (1) recognizing the difference between reactants
and products, (2) comparing the brightness of various solid materials and (3) investigating
luminance by adding solid particles that influence a flame’s brightness. In his second
lecture, Faraday explained that solid, particulate matter released from the fuel and heated
to a point of incandescence provides the flame’s brightness. For example, a bright yellow
flame is the result of carbon luminescence at high temperatures. Some of Faraday’s
demonstrations were modified into experiments performed using a flux meter to measure
the luminance of various solid materials heated to high temperatures using a 6-volt battery
connected in series to different wire materials (e.g., iron and magnesium). The concept of
illuminance, which describes the intensity of light that falls onto a surface, was introduced
and measured.
As in the previous activity, Experiment 2 was followed by the paper-and-pencil design of a
new experiment prompted by students’ understanding of luminance. The engineering
design of an experiment was discussed in greater detail, and students identified how their
understanding of luminescence would improve an existing technology. Then students
identified tasks related to the engineering design process. Because this activity was a
paper-and-pencil activity, students physically did not execute their engineering designs of
the new experiments.

Experiment 3: Hydrogen gas generation

In Faraday’s third lecture, he demonstrated that water is a product of the combustion in a
candle. Using a simple apparatus, Faraday was able to condense water from the vapors
produced by a flame, even though water is absent from every part of the candle. Essentially
Faraday distinguished between reactants and products and showed that hydrogen evolves
in the products of combustion and then condenses with oxygen in the air to form water.
In Experiment 3, students generated hydrogen gas from various reactions; when the gas
contacted a cool surface, it condensed with oxygen in the air to form water droplets. The
hydrogen generation reaction was comprised of magnesium wire reacting with acetic acid
(i.e., vinegar). Next, students altered the reactant concentrations and studied the rate at
which hydrogen gas was produced. As in the previous two experiments, students designed
an experiment to demonstrate a facet of the technical concepts learned. Again, this activity
was a paper-and-pencil design activity.

© 2013 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 0, Issue 0 (Month 2013)

The Higher Education Academy 4 doi:10.11120/ened.2013.00014
 M. Pantoya et al.

Experiment 4: Hydrogen in the candle

Experiment 4 further reinforced the concept of reactants and products. Water can be
decomposed into two elements, hydrogen and oxygen, using electrolysis. The purpose of
this experiment was to investigate how electrolyte concentration affects the rate of
hydrogen and oxygen production as well as the resistivity of an electrolytic cell. In his
fourth lecture, Faraday conducted a series of experiments to demonstrate that the same
hydrogen produced from the combustion process occurring in a candle could be extracted
from the water formed when it condenses on a cold surface. He achieved this by
electrolyzing water and then experimenting with the gases released from the anode and
cathode. Compared to the hydrogen tests in his previous lecture, Faraday showed that one
of the electrodes was releasing hydrogen while the other was releasing oxygen. For this
experiment, students used sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) to create an electrolyte. The
electrodes were made from stainless steel and were connected to a 9-volt battery. By using
an ammeter connected in series with the circuit and knowing the supplied voltage, the
resistivity of the electrolyte could be calculated using Ohm’s Law. Students concluded with
a pencil and paper design of an experiment that extended the concepts established in this
activity.

Experiment 5: Buckingham pi theorem

As opposed to a hands-on experiment, the purpose of Experiment 5 was to engage
students’ analytical skills. This pencil-and-paper activity introduced the Buckingham pi
theorem to students as a means to reduce the number of variables used when designing an
experiment. Say, for example, a student wanted to understand what determines the
diameter of a droplet of water steadily leaking from a household faucet. Upon first
observation the student would note several parameters that could affect the droplet’s
diameter. For instance, one might assume the diameter is a function of faucet pipe
diameter, gravity, fluid density, fluid viscosity, and pressure in the faucet pipe. Thus, the
equation necessary to describe precisely the droplet diameter would be dependent on five
different variables. One would have to vary one parameter at a time while holding all others
constant, observe the parameter’s effect on the diameter, and then repeat this task for all
possible combinations. Hundreds or even thousands of experiments must be run, and the
data acquired would be immense and difficult to compile. As a result, the process of
describing the diameter of a droplet of water leaking from a faucet would be expensive and
time consuming.
The Buckingham pi theorem allows experimentalists to group parameters of a system like
the leaky faucet into several dimensionless numbers, or pi groups. These pi groups contain
several parameters of the experiment that, when any of these parameters are varied,
changes the value of the dimensionless number. Experimentalists then can plot this
number against the measurable droplet diameter. The benefit of this theorem is that
experimentalists can focus on how the value of each pi group affects the droplet diameter
rather than trying to observe the many possible combinations of the original five variables.
Another immensely beneficial property of the Buckingham pi theorem is that it allows
scaling. Since each pi group is dimensionless and is a particular combination of
parameters, experimentalists are concerned only with how the pi group’s value relates to
their subjects of study. This aspect makes it possible to assume that the relationship each
dimensionless number has to the parameter of interest is always true no matter how big or
small the system is—as long as all geometric dimensions of each system are similar
proportionally. This fact allows designers to build small-scale models of their products for
testing rather than actually building full-scale models.

© 2013 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 0, Issue 0 (Month 2013)

The Higher Education Academy 5 doi:10.11120/ened.2013.00014
Method
Participants
Fourteen undergraduates (13 males and 1 female; 11 seniors and 3 juniors) from a
southwestern university in the United States enrolled in a Special Topics in Mechanical
Engineering course participated in the study. All students had completed the prerequisite
courses: Heat Transfer and Fluid Mechanics. Following each activity, students completed a
nine-item, open-ended questionnaire, which assessed students’ self-reported levels of
engagement during the activities, attitudes toward and level of understanding of the
scientific method, level of comfort with conducting primary research and their perceived
usefulness of the research resources (e.g., laboratory notebook) (see Table 1). Analytical
induction procedures recommended by Strauss and Corbin (1990) were used during an
initial reading of the responses to each question in the questionnaire for an overall
impression of the data and to gain familiarity with the student responses. Following this
initial reading, the researchers coded the students’ responses into small units which
identified students’ learning experiences during the active learning activities. Then, these
units were coded into themes. Data analysis continued until saturation, or when similar
themes in coding emerged (Strauss and Corbin 1990). The following student learning
themes emerged (see Table 2): (1) Preference for Teamwork, (2) Documentation of Student
Learning, (3) Expression of Learning Gains, (4) Increased Confidence with Conducting
Primary Research, (5) Application to “Real World” Problems and Phenomena, and (6)
Increased Critical Thinking Skills.

Table 1 Survey Items for Student Assessment of Content Understanding and Active Learning While
Conducting Primary Research in Engineering.

1. This course developed an understanding of research methodologies through engaged/active

learning assignments. Please list three of your most significant knowledge gains regarding the
practice of research.
2. Do you have a different perception or understanding of what research is after taking this course
than prior to taking this course? What is your understanding of research now?
3. Do you feel more or less confident in your ability to conduct and pursue research than prior to
taking this class?
4. Do you feel more or less motivated to pursue or conduct research in your future school or
professional plans?
5. What do you feel is the importance of the laboratory notebook in doing research? Identify if you
felt the laboratory notebook was Very Important/Moderately Important/Not Important and please
explain why.
6. How did your use of the laboratory notebook change throughout the semester?
7. Did you prefer to work in groups or individually on the active learning components of this course?
Has that decision changed the outcome of your experience and/or knowledge gains?
8. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being most confident, where does your research confidence level fall?
Where did it fall prior to this class?
9. For this course, can you reflect on any activities or experiences that you either may have liked to
see or see differently?

© 2013 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 0, Issue 0 (Month 2013)

The Higher Education Academy 6 doi:10.11120/ened.2013.00014
 M. Pantoya et al.

Assessment of Experiments
Experiment 1
Overall, students described meaningful learning experiences as a result of the assessment
strategies used for Experiment 1. Two predominant themes emerged in this experiment.
First, students perceived the use of the lab notebook as a significant tool for enhancing
their learning. Second, qualitative findings suggest a preference for group synergy over
individual work.
In Experiment 1, students remarked about their three most significant learning gains from
participating in this experiment. Overall, students shared their comments related to the
complexity of the capillary action phenomenon. For example, one student shared the
following: “I have a slightly better understanding of capillary action. This was a good
experiment that allowed me to focus on the lab notebook.” Another student remarked on
the following three knowledge gains: “Capillary action in a small tube (hadn’t seen
before).” Interestingly, several students listed the use of their lab notebook as a meaningful
learning gain. Of the 14 students who completed Experiment 1, 10 had never used a lab
notebook prior to this course. On the whole, students remarked positively about the use of
a lab notebook.
Furthermore, two students remarked about how this experiment was relevant to “everyday
occurrences (such as candles).” Another student reported insight into the importance of
materials indicating “how capillary flow works, how quickly it works depending on material
make up, and its relation to real world examples.”

Experiment 2
For Experiment 2, students overwhelmingly chose to work in groups. One student
remarked that “any discussion about the experiment is wonderfully beneficial. Being able
to figure out problems ahead of time is also helpful.” Another student said that he/she
chose to work in a group “to gain the perspectives of my group members as opposed to
mine.” Three students said that working in groups was easier because “it was easier with
more hands.”
Anecdotally, students listed their learning gains more systematically and succinctly in
Experiment 2 than in Experiment 1. For example, one student wrote the following: “1. Wax
vapor travels through a tube. 2. Weak batteries don’t offer weaker light necessarily (perhaps
light is outside of visible threshold) 3. Light output is difficult to measure well (not stable).”
Another student wrote: “1. You can light vapors off of a candle. 2. That metals can
illuminate from heat alone. 3. That batteries run in-series die very quickly.”
To conclude, the findings from Experiment 2 illustrated a clear preference for working in
groups. Students also seemed to develop an ability to self-assess their own learning gains.
In terms of critical thinking development, this is an important observation and thus
noteworthy.

Experiments 3 and 4
Overall, students remarked about the usefulness of their lab notebooks. This is the most
dominant theme from Experiments 3 and 4. At this point, most of the students commented
about improved recordkeeping skills. For example, the following feedback demonstrated
students’ recordkeeping behaviors:
Has improved and given me the opportunity to re-exhibit the lab in my mind to
make more assumptions or to see exactly what might have caused the response
of the test. . . My skill is improved. My setup experiment skill also improved. . .

© 2013 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 0, Issue 0 (Month 2013)

The Higher Education Academy 7 doi:10.11120/ened.2013.00014
 In experiment 3, measured quantities of water height and volume change in the
gas contained had to be recorded. Rather in experiment 1 and 2, observations
of the action that took place [were] recorded and analyzed for reasoning. . .I was
more thorough and descriptive in my annotations, as well as including detailed
sketches of the experimental set up. I also asked questions about things I
observed but didn’t understand or [was] more curious about.

A second emergent theme from Experiments 3 and 4 is an overall self-reported increase in

confidence. Most students shared informal information about what they would have done
differently in previous or future experiments. For example, one student reported:
Yes, I believe . . . getting the chance to learn from the mistakes being made has
helped me to be more meticulous in how the experiment is being done. Has
helped with how I record my data in that it does not matter how many pages I
use but to rewrite it nice and neatly to understand what was done.

A third emergent theme from Experiments 3 and 4 appeared to be the use of more
technical language. When asked what he/she would have done differently in Experiment 4,
a student remarked that he/she would have “done more trials to obtain more accurate
results.” In Experiment 4, when asked about recordkeeping, a student said that ‘it goes
more in depth and schematics are more detailed.’ Another student said that his/her
recordkeeping skill ‘has become more elaborate to explain what is happening and all
valuable information and adjustments were recorded.’

Experiment 5
Experiment 5 revealed that students’ perceptions of research changed significantly as a
result of active learning strategies within the classroom. Interestingly, students remarked
that they were more confident pursuing research now than before taking the course.
Samples of student responses included: “I have a better understanding of research steps
to flow. Before, I did not have a strong understanding of the order of research”, “‘More
confident that it’s not my thing”, “More, although my lack of creativity hinders my
confidence a little bit”, “Yes, I understand research is difficult but rewarding”, and ‘How to
conduct [an] experiment and how to take detailed notes.”
When asked whether students felt more or less confident in their ability to conduct and
pursue research than prior to taking the class, 100% (14 of 14) responded that they felt
more confident. Students also self-reported their exposure to research as a positive
experience, even if they were uncertain as to whether they would pursue their own line of
research. Students also realized that research is rigorous and time-intensive. Therefore, it is
clear that undergraduate exposure to engineering research is impactful. For example,
students made the following comments when asked if they felt more or less motivated to
pursue or conduct research in their future: “I don’t necessarily feel motivated to conduct
research as it is very demanding; however, I now feel confident I can conduct research”,
‘I feel more motivated now in pursuing or conducting research”, ‘I feel the same. Although
I’d say that my interest in it is a little higher now than before, but it was never something
I wanted to pursue in the first place”, “I feel more motivated. I was not even considering
going to graduate school before this class. It is now definitely an option”, and “Yes I do
have a different perception. I’ve never liked research but after taking this class and speaking
with grad students I’m strongly considering [graduate school].”
For each experiment, students were asked to list the three most significant knowledge
gains. As the following chart demonstrates, students were able to list their learning gains
more clearly and succinctly at the conclusion of the semester (Experiment 5) than they
were at the beginning of the semester (Experiment 1). These comments suggest that

© 2013 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 0, Issue 0 (Month 2013)

The Higher Education Academy 8 doi:10.11120/ened.2013.00014
 M. Pantoya et al.

students were able to define a broader research skill set rather than a singular skill that was
relevant to one experiment only. Because of students’ exposure to research, they were able
to assess the development of their own research skills.

Table 2 Representative Themes of Undergraduate Descriptions of Learning From Conducting Primary

Research in Engineering.

Experiment Representative Comments

Experiment 1 That rock salt did not absorb as much as I expected. It was cool to use capillary
tubes and see surface tension. I found the rate at which water climbed the salt
capillary interesting, very fast at first, and then a steady rate after.
That the bigger the tube the less liquid it picked up, that the course salt does not
absorb liquid as well as the fine salt. And how much time it takes the fine salt to
absorb all the water that it can.
Experiment 2 The way a flame burns. Differences in the light intensity of flames.
How hard it is to light the vapor, ease of producing visible carbon, the attributes
of each metal’s ability to glow.
Experiment 3 That a combustion of fuel creates water as a product. Creation of hydrogen gas
from magnesium and acidic acid is produced very quickly. That the chemical
reaction of the metals and acidic acid also created heat.
The reactions between the vinegar and magnesium. Reaction times of different
materials.
Experiment 4 Different concentrations of baking soda produce different volume of H+O2 from
water, electric current can cause separation, the oxygen part produced is always
half of the hydrogen.
How the change of the solution concentration affects the rate of gas produced.
How the amps passing through the battery and electrodes cause the reaction in
the solution. How quickly each solution produces oxygen.
Experiment 5 How to write a formal lab report. Learning how to write a literature review (and
conduct one). How to keep a lab notebook.
How to conduct experiment. How to take detailed notes.
I know how to do research. Improve my organization and logic thinking.
Improve my confidence to communicate with a group.
Understanding the process behind conducting research. More confidence in
asking/finding answers to problems. Confident in article writing for research.
Literature review/introduction. Writing process of report. Condensing
observations of experiment.
It allowed me the opportunity to become mentally prepared in researching. Also
gave me insight into learning how to prepare a research project. It gave me the
opportunity to learn what to look for in what it is that is being researched to
create an understanding of how it can be useful.

Reflections and Conclusion

The purpose of the study was to examine students’ descriptions of their learning
experiences after participating in five technical experiments inspired by Michael Faraday’s
lectures from The Chemical History of a Candle. Based on student descriptions, the
students’ self-reported understanding of the practice of research emerged after three
activities. That is, while students reported gaining sufficient understanding of the research

© 2013 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 0, Issue 0 (Month 2013)

The Higher Education Academy 9 doi:10.11120/ened.2013.00014
process after three experiments, it is likely the last two experiments provided valuable
repetition which reinforced the research concepts and allowed for students’ critical
reflection on research processes. This finding supports Bloom’s steps of cognitive learning
which begin with knowledge development, application, and analysis and end in synthesis
and evaluation especially in engineering curricula (Swart 2010). Overall, the undergraduate
students’ participation in engineering research impacted them positively, though only
20% of the students reported enjoying research enough to pursue graduate school, all of
whom reported would commit to a PhD rather than a master’s degree. Additionally,
students’ perceptions of their own research skills improved through the use of active
problem-based learning strategies within the classroom as reflected in the students’
increase in their self-confidence to successfully conduct a research project.
Though this study was conducted in a course with 14 students, future studies on active
learning in engineering and other technical fields should consider adapting this approach to
larger courses with larger class sizes. Given large class sizes pose many barriers to
successfully implementing active learning projects, many educators have implemented
similar active learning projects in large classes using innovative instructional technology
and methods. For example, Efstathious and Bailey (2011) introduced Audience Response
Systems (ARS) to increase student participation in a large bioscience class showing a
significant increase in student discussion and level of knowledge. Others such
as Miller et al. (2012) and Parmelee et al. (2012) integrated group-peer models such as
Team-Based Learning and Peer Assisted Learning to facilitate active learning in their large
classes finding these resulted in increases in student accountability, class preparation,
and application of content to solve realistic problems. Even if educators do not incorporate
undergraduate research into their courses, integrating active learning assignments into
courses of any size is consistently shown to increase student-student and student-faculty
interactions and increase learning gains especially in courses in the STEM fields
(Knight & Wood 2006). Based on our findings, we see great potential in incorporating
active learning experiences such as undergraduate research into the Engineering
curricula. We recommend introducing an engineering research course elective into the
undergraduate engineering curriculum to provide students with exposure to the research
endeavor and be better informed about the demands and commitments they will encounter
in their graduate education.

Acknowledgements
M. Pantoya is grateful for support from the National Science Foundation under contract
DRL-12487, and encouragement from our program manager, Dr Edith Gummer.

References
Behar-Horenstein, L.S. and Johnson, M.L. (2010) Enticing students to enter into
undergraduate research: The instrumentality of an undergraduate course. Journal of
College Science Teaching 39 (3): 62–70.
Bell, R.L., Toti, D., McNall, R.L. and Tai, R.L. (2004) Beliefs into action: Beginning teachers’
implementation of nature of science instruction. In: Annual meeting of the association for
the education of teachers in science, Nashville, TN, September.
Bonwell, C. and Eison, J. (1991) Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the
Classroom—AEHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington DC: Jossey-Bass.
Boyer, E.L. (1987) College: The Undergraduate Experience in America. New York:
Harper & Row.

© 2013 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 0, Issue 0 (Month 2013)

The Higher Education Academy 10 doi:10.11120/ened.2013.00014
 M. Pantoya et al.

Boyer, E.L. (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate.

London: Taylor & Francis.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L. and Cocking, R.R. (1999) How People Learn: Brain, Mind,
Experience, and School. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Efstathious, N. and Bailey, C. (2011) Promoting active learning using audience response
system in large bioscience classes. Nurse Education Today, 32: 91–95.
Faraday, M. (1993) The Chemical History of a Candle. Atlanta: Cherokee.
Knight, J.K. and Wood, W.B. (2006) Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology
Education, 4: 298–310.
Meyers, C. and Jones, T.B. (1993) Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for the College
Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, V., Oldfield, E. and Bulmer, M. (2012) Peer assisted sessions (PASS) in first-year
chemistry and statistics courses: Insights and evaluations. Proceedings of The Australian
Conference on Science and Mathematics Education: 30–35.
(1996) National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy.
National Society for Internships and Experiential Education (NSIEE) (1990) Principles of
good practice in combing service learning. In J.C. Kendall and Associates, (eds.)
Combining Service and Learning: A Resources Book for Community and Public Service
vol. 1. Raleigh: NSIEE, pp37–55.
Parmelee, D., Michelsen, L.K., Cook, S. and Hudes, P.D. (2012) Team-based learning: A
practical guide. AAME Guide, 34: 275–287.
Smith, B. (2011) Active learning can reconnect college students. Lubbock Avalanche
Journal, 17 June, A15.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J.M. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.
Swart, J. (2010) Evaluation of final examination of papers in Engineering: A case study
using Bloom’s Taxonomy. IEEE Transactions on Education 53 (2): 227–262.

© 2013 J. Davies, Engineering Education, Vol 0, Issue 0 (Month 2013)

The Higher Education Academy 11 doi:10.11120/ened.2013.00014

View publication stats