Lessons Learned: Implementing the Case Teaching Method in a Mechanical Engineering Course

Background Case studies have been found to increase students' critical thinking and problem‐solving skills, higher‐order thinking skills, conceptual change, and their motivation to learn. Despite the popularity of the case study approach within engineering, the empirical research on the effecti...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.) Vol. 99; no. 1; pp. 55 - 69
Main Authors Yadav, Aman, Shaver, Gregory M., Meckl, Peter
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.01.2010
Subjects
Case Studies
case-based instruction
College students
conceptual understanding
Court decisions
Engineering Education
Independent study
Learning Processes
mechanical engineering
Problem solving
R&D
Research & development
School Holding Power
Student Motivation
Teaching methods
Thinking Skills
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Background Case studies have been found to increase students' critical thinking and problem‐solving skills, higher‐order thinking skills, conceptual change, and their motivation to learn. Despite the popularity of the case study approach within engineering, the empirical research on the effectiveness of case studies is limited and the research that does exist has primarily focused on student perceptions of their learning rather than actual learning outcomes. Purpose (Hypothesis) This paper describes an investigation of the impact of case‐based instruction on undergraduate mechanical engineering students' conceptual understanding and their attitudes towards the use of case studies. Design/Method Seventy‐three students from two sections of the same mechanical engineering course participated in this study. The two sections were both taught using traditional lecture and case teaching methods. Participants completed pre‐tests, post‐tests, and a survey to assess their conceptual understanding and engagement. Results Results suggested that the majority of participants felt the use of case studies was engaging and added a lot of realism to the class. There were no significant differences between traditional lecture and case teaching method on students' conceptual understanding. However, the use of case studies did no harm to students' understanding while making the content more relevant to students. Conclusions Case‐based instruction can be beneficial for students in terms of actively engaging them and allowing them to see the application and/or relevance of engineering to the real world.
Bibliography:ArticleID:JEE1042
istex:ED7109D9800A0BF2A25466283CCE7E32388D3461
ark:/67375/WNG-3KWHZBZJ-8
Peter Meckl obtained his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from MIT in 1988. He joined the faculty in the School of Mechanical Engineering at Purdue University in 1988, where he is currently a professor. Dr. Meckl's research interests are primarily in dynamics and control of machines, with emphasis on vibration reduction and motion control. His teaching responsibilities include undergraduate courses in systems modeling, measurement systems, and control, and graduate courses in advanced control design and microprocessor control. Dr. Meckl was selected as an NEC Faculty Fellow from 1990 to 1992. He received the Ruth and Joel Spira Award for outstanding teaching in 2000. He is a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE).
Aman Yadav is an assistant professor of Educational Psychology at Purdue University. His research focuses on the use of case‐based instruction and problem‐based learning in STEM disciplines. In addition to his Ph.D. in Educational Psychology and Educational Technology, Dr. Yadav also has Bachelors in Electrical Engineering and Masters of Science in Electrical Engineering. Dr. Yadav has undertaken both quantitative and qualitative research projects and has a strong familiarity with both types of analyses.
Greg Shaver is an assistant professor of Mechanical Engineering at Purdue University. He is also a graduate of Purdue University's School of Mechanical Engineering, having obtained a Bachelor's degree with highest distinction. He holds a Masters degree and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University. His research interests and background include the modeling and control of advanced combustion processes. Greg is an active member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineering (ASME), participating in the ASME Dynamic Systems and Controls Division and the ASME Automotive and Transportation Systems Panel. He is the editor of the 2007 International Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC) Symposium on Advances in Automotive Control, and is a recent recipient of the Kalman award for the best paper published in the Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control.
ISSN:1069-4730
2168-9830
DOI:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01042.x