Impact of step-based tutoring on student learning in linear circuit courses

Development of a placement exam to increase student success in a junior level circuits and systems class

“…While being able to answer updated the exam questions correctly should lead to increased student success, is using the exam as a placement exam worth the cost? Only two other universities use an exam like this [1,2] and maybe it would better to increase student success by adopting other strategies, such as increasing student attendance [10][11][12][13], providing supplemental instruction [14,15], improving teaching/tutoring with online assignments [16,17], or increasing student engagement [17][18][19][20] The exam could be part of a directed self-placement system in which students have to demonstrate a willingness to do the work to stay enrolled in the systems class [21]. If the homework assignments during the first three weeks of class were automatically graded, the online grades and the MyOpenMath analytics could be used to better advise students.…”

Interactive Editing of Circuits in a Step-based Tutoring System

“…Specifically, step-based systems caused improvements of 0.76σ, compared to 0.31σ and 0.79σ for answer-based systems and human tutors, respectively (σ denotes standard deviation) [1]. Previously, we have described a step-based tutoring system in the domain of linear circuit analysis, which is a crucial gateway course in the education of both electrical and many nonelectrical engineers [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. This system features automatic problem generation, where an unlimited number of unique circuit diagrams (not just element values) are created for every user.…”

“…(Surveys and post-tests were not used in this case.) This comparison was repeated in Fall 2015 with addition of a survey and post-test, finding a 0.72σ improvement in average post-test scores on nodal analysis when using Circuit Tutor from 49% to 72% (p < 0.05) and no significant difference on mesh analysis (corresponding post-test scores of 65% and 71%) (p = 0.38) [8,9]. The survey showed 86% of students preferred the step-based system and only 9% preferred the commercial answer-based system, and 94% felt the step-based system taught them more effectively and only 3% felt that way about the publisher system [8,9].…”

“…This comparison was repeated in Fall 2015 with addition of a survey and post-test, finding a 0.72σ improvement in average post-test scores on nodal analysis when using Circuit Tutor from 49% to 72% (p < 0.05) and no significant difference on mesh analysis (corresponding post-test scores of 65% and 71%) (p = 0.38) [8,9]. The survey showed 86% of students preferred the step-based system and only 9% preferred the commercial answer-based system, and 94% felt the step-based system taught them more effectively and only 3% felt that way about the publisher system [8,9]. Another classroom-based experiment at a large private university in Fall 2014 found a 0.97σ improvement (p < 0.001) in post-test scores (using pre-test scores as a covariate) using the step-based system in comparison to using paper exercises to teach concepts of series-parallel relationships [9].…”

“…The survey showed 86% of students preferred the step-based system and only 9% preferred the commercial answer-based system, and 94% felt the step-based system taught them more effectively and only 3% felt that way about the publisher system [8,9]. Another classroom-based experiment at a large private university in Fall 2014 found a 0.97σ improvement (p < 0.001) in post-test scores (using pre-test scores as a covariate) using the step-based system in comparison to using paper exercises to teach concepts of series-parallel relationships [9]. However, reliable results could not be obtained for nodal or mesh analysis in that case due to the lack of random assignment and large differences in pre-test scores.…”