AC 2010-610: EMPORIUM BASED REDESIGN OF STATICS: AN INNOVATIVEAPPROACH TO ENHANCE LEARNING AND REDUCE COSTS

Masoud Rais-Rohani, Mississippi State UniversityMasoud Rais-Rohani is a Professor of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics. Heteaches courses in aircraft structures, structural mechanics, and design optimization, and hisprimary research activities are in the area of structural and multidisciplinary design optimization.

Andrew Walters, Mississippi State UniversityAndrew Walters is an instructor in the Department of Aerospace Engineering. His primary area ofteaching is undergraduate engineering mechanics courses such as Statics, Dynamics, andMechanics of Materials. Prior to joining Mississippi State, he worked at NASA Marshall.

Anthony Vizzini, Western Michigan UniversityAnthony Vizzini is Dean of the College of Engineering at Western Michigan University. Hepreviously served as Head of Aerospace Engineering at Mississippi State University. His areas ofteaching and research are focused on the mechanics and damage tolerance assessment ofpolymer-matrix composite materials.

© American Society for Engineering Education, 2010

Page 15.456.1

Emporium Based Redesign of Statics: An Innovative Approach to

Enhance Learning and Reduce Costs

Abstract

This paper describes a new approach for teaching Statics that is also applicable to other multi-

section engineering courses with large enrollments. The redesign effort is based on NCAT’s

emporium model whereby students are introduced to the course contents via asynchronous online

delivery method outside of class and work on assignments and conduct experiments with

physical models inside of class (emporium) under the guidance of the instructor along with a

cadre of learning assistants. During the pilot phase, students were separated into control and

experimental groups, which allowed a formative assessment of the learning outcomes and

comparison of the traditional and emporium approaches. The results of the pilot phase along with

the preliminary results of the full implementation phase show that the emporium approach has

led to moderate improvements in the learning outcomes along with significant reduction in

instruction costs. As for the students’ level of satisfaction with the emporium model, the opinions

were rather mixed during the transition period with a growing tilt toward the new approach.

Introduction

Engineering Mechanics I or Statics is a sophomore-level course covering such topics as

equilibrium of concurrent and non-concurrent force systems in two- and three-dimensional

space, force-moment relationship, friction, analysis of truss and frame structures, and area

moments of inertia. For many engineering disciplines—such as Aerospace, Biological,

Chemical, Civil, and Mechanical—Statics serves as a prerequisite for more advanced mechanics

courses including Dynamics, Fluid Mechanics, and Mechanics of Materials. Students who have

trouble with Statics often face great difficulty learning the more advanced concepts in

subsequent courses.

In an effort to enhance learning, many educators have successfully developed and integrated

multimedia and computer technology in Statics instruction.1-4

Some of these tools are used to

enhance the traditional (face-to-face) lecture format whereas others provide a framework for

fully Web-based (online) or blended delivery of the course content. Although these tools help to

diversify the delivery of instructional materials, the pedagogical paradigm of lecture-based

instruction (on campus or distance) remains the same.

Despite students’ mixed opinions, most studies suggest that Web-based instruction is as effective

as traditional face-to-face lecture approach. One particular study5 concluded that even though

students preferred their experience in the face-to-face course, there was no significant difference

in the learning outcomes of the two methods of instruction. Another comparative study6 showed

a small increase in the students’ performance in the Web-based class, but concluded that the

improvement could be attributed to the slightly higher grade point average (GPA) of the students

in the Web-based course. After a thorough survey of many comparative studies reported in the

literature, Olson and Wisher7 found that Web-based instruction can actually improve student

Page 15.456.2

performance. Their report also suggests that the level of improvement could increase with future

advances in technology. When it comes to knowledge acquisition, there is growing evidence that

a Web-based class is in no way inferior to a traditional face-to-face course. However, in terms of

students’ satisfaction with their educational experience, the face-to-face interaction gives the

traditional approach a clear advantage over an online or distance instruction.8

Guided by the innovative approaches developed by the National Center for Academic

Transformation (NCAT), several nation-wide initiatives were implemented to redesign

traditional lecture-based courses.9 The so-called Supplemental, Replacement, Emporium, Online,

and Buffet models offer different methods of content delivery and learning assessment for greater

flexibility in matching a redesign approach to the course subject. Their suggested readiness

criteria9 help identify the course that is suitable for redesign with the highest chance of success.

Each redesign effort consists of a pilot phase and a full implementation phase. The redesign

initiatives at different institutions have so far targeted such subjects as biology, psychology,

history, statistics, mathematics, chemistry, literature, and fine arts. To our knowledge, the present

initiative represents the first effort at redesigning an engineering course according to NCAT

guidelines.

The majority of the course redesigns managed by NCAT have shown an increase in student

learning outcomes as well as a reduction in instruction costs.9 One of the more successful course

redesigns has been the Math Emporium at Virginia Tech. The redesign effort, which began in

1997, targeted several math courses ranging from basic algebra to calculus and linear algebra. As

noted by Mills,10

the Virginia Tech redesign offered both performance enhancement and cost

reduction. The obvious similarities between these math courses and Statics is that they are

predominately problem-solving courses. The closest example we have found to implementing

the emporium model to Statics is the effort led by Dollar and Steif.11

Their “inverted classroom”

approach has some similarities with the emporium model as most of the course content is

delivered online prior to students attending class. However, their approach differs from a true

emporium model in that a portion of course content is still delivered through face-to-face

classroom lectures and students work on assignments in an unstructured setting.

The effort described in this paper began in response to an initiative from the Board of Trustees of

Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL) in the State of Mississippi. The process included an

orientation program for redesign teams from different state institutions, technical assistance by

NCAT, submission and assessment of institutional readiness, invitation to develop proposals,

proposal development workshop, as well as the final review and selection of proposals for the

two-phase implementation. Through guidance from NCAT, the plans for pilot and full

implementations were finalized, with each accompanied by rigorous assessment plan to

demonstrate the outcomes achieved in the redesign process.

After examination of the five redesign models, we concluded that the emporium model is most

suitable for Statics. The face-to-face communication elements retained in the emporium model

gives it an advantage over the fully online model when it comes to student satisfaction with the

learning environment. As with all the previous redesign efforts, we are pursuing two goals: 1)

enhance learning outcomes and 2) reduce instructional costs. In this paper, we describe details of

our redesign effort along with results of the pilot and full implementation phases of Statics

Page 15.456.3

redesign at Mississippi State University. We also discuss the results of a survey to highlight the

views of students on the redesign initiative and our implementation of the emporium approach,

in particular.

Performance Trends

On average, four sections of Statics are offered in the spring, two in the summer, and seven in

the fall semester with multiple instructors in each term. Over a four-year period from Fall 2001

to Spring 2005, 1024 students took Statics at Mississippi State University and received a letter

grade (A, B, C, D, F, or W). Table 1 shows the numbers of students under success and failure

columns for each semester. The number of students in the fall semester, the traditional start of an

academic year, tends to be higher than the other academic terms. While 762 (74%) successfully

completed the course, 225 (22%) either failed or passed it with a grade of D. The number of

students who withdrew from the course with a grade of W made up a very small portion (~4%).

Although a grade of “C” or better in Statics is required before a student is allowed to take a

higher-level Engineering Mechanics (EM) course (i.e., Dynamics, Fluid Mechanics, or

Mechanics of Materials), the proportion of retakes was slightly less than 26% over the same

period as some students with a grade of D in Statics did not need to take the subsequent EM

courses.

Generally speaking, the lack of success in this course has broad implications for the students as

well as the individual departments, college of engineering and the university. Another

complicating factor is the rise of student enrollment in a time of stagnant or shrinking resources.

Therefore, the transition from the traditional to an emporium approach could satisfy two needs:

maintain or improve the students’ success rate in the course while reducing the cost of teaching

multiple sections of the course in each semester. Under the proposed model, one instructor with

multiple learning assistants would replace multiple instructors that require between 1.0 to 1.75

FTE to teach multiple sections of the course. Moreover, this redesign would decrease the

dependency on multiple tenured or tenure-track faculty to teach several sections of the same

course allowing the use of these resources in more advanced classes especially at the graduate

level.

Table 1 Success and Failure in Statics Over a Four-Year Period

Term Success (A, B, or C) Failure (D, F, or W)

Fall 2001 105 (66%) 55 (34%)

Spring 2002 62 (67%) 31 (33%)

Summer 2002 21 (88%) 3 (13%)

Fall 2002 107 (75%) 35 (25%)

Spring 2003 67 (76%) 21 (24%)

Summer 2003 11 (79%) 3 (21%)

Fall 2003 124 (75%) 42 (25%)

Spring 2004 76 (83%) 16 (17%)

Summer 2004 23 (82%) 5 (18%)

Fall 2004 118 (79%) 32 (21%)

Spring 2005 48 (72%) 19 (28%)

Total 762 (74%) 262 (26%) Page 15.456.4

The Emporium Model

In the emporium model, the entire course content is delivered asynchronously online or through

other computer based media outside the regular class periods. The advantage of computer-based

content delivery is that students receive the instructional material on as-needed basis and can

review a topic multiple times until they understand it. However, unlike the online model,

students in an emporium course attend class, but instead of listening to lecture, they perform

individual or group activities under the guidance of the course instructor. The principles of active

and collaborative learning are reinforced while providing students with more frequent feedback

on their learning outcomes assessments.

Another feature of the emporium model is that a single instructor teaches a multi-section course

with relatively large enrollment. Of course, the role of the instructor is changed from one whose

principal task is to give lectures to one who coordinates the delivery of course content, manages

the emporium activities, and responds to students’ questions. As such, a more consistent

learning experience is provided to the students in different sections of the same course as

students work toward reaching the uniformly specified learning milestones. Another important

consideration is that the emporium model can accommodate a larger number of students per

course section than the traditional approach because during the emporium sessions the instructor

is assisted by a group of learning assistants (graduate teaching assistants or peer tutors) that help

provide a timely response to the students’ questions.

The major cost reduction offered by the emporium model is indeed due to having a single

instructor assigned to all sections of the same course. The assumption is that the cost of a single

instructor is less than the total cost of multiple instructors (at different ranks and pay scales)

assigned to the same task. Although the emporium requires the addition of multiple paid learning

assistants, the cost is significantly less than that of salaried instructors.

Five Guiding Principles of Successful Course Redesign

For a course redesign to be successful, NCAT9 recommends five guiding principles that promote

both learning improvements and tangible cost reductions. As part of our redesign initiative, we

attended the recommended NCAT workshops and received planning resources to help identify

the key elements of technology-supported active learning strategies. With the course subject and

the selected redesign model in mind, we followed each guiding principle in the manner noted

below.

1. Redesign the Whole Course

Statics is traditionally taught as a 3-hour credit course using a lecture format. Besides

introducing various topics, the instructor also works example problems that clarify mechanics

concepts while describing the analysis procedure. Much of the learning, however, occurs outside

of class as students master the material by working homework problems. Our course redesign is

based on three integrated activities that can be categorized as: 1) pre-emporium, 2) emporium,

and 3) post-emporium, where the word “emporium” refers to “class”. While emporium activities Page 15.456.5

are conducted inside the classroom (emporium hall) during the regularly scheduled class periods,

the pre- and post-emporium tasks are performed before and after these periods.

All course content is introduced via Web-based learning tools as part of pre-emporium activities.

Since at Mississippi State University all engineering students are required to own laptops with

free on-campus access to the Internet, no additional burden is placed on students in this regard.

With the course content divided into nearly two dozen modules, the amount of material students

need to study in each pre-emporium period would require about the same amount of time spent

in class listening to a lecture. Pre-emporium activities consist of reading a particular section of

the e-textbook, following the specified hyperlinks to watch tutorial video clips describing each

Statics concept and the solution to a number of example problems, and working one or more

exercise (practice) problems prior to attending class (emporium). To encourage compliance, a

portion (12% to 15%) of the course grade is tied to the pre-emporium activities. If students have

a question about a topic covered during the pre-emporium, they have the opportunity to ask the

course instructor during emporium as well as regular office hours.

In our implementation of the emporium model, we require students to attend class (emporium) at

regular intervals as in a traditional course to accommodate their daily schedule of the multiple

courses they may be taking in a given semester, but instead of listening to a lecture, they work on

assignment problems or perform experiments with physical models that reinforce what they have

studied in the prior portion of the course. The instructor and a cadre of Learning Assistants

(LAs) are present to provide a timely response to students’ questions. All quizzes are also taken

during regular emporium periods with each covering a smaller portion of the course than in a

traditional lecture format.

Since a typical 50-minute (Monday, Wednesday, Friday) or 75-minute (Tuesday, Thursday)

emporium period may not be enough for all students to completely work all the emporium

assignment problems, students are given an opportunity to return later in the same or the next

day to complete the unfinished problems in what we call post-emporium sessions.

2. Encourage Active Learning

Activities in the emporium focus principally on solving problems towards deeper understanding

of the course contents. Students work assignment problems on paper and submit their results

online for a prompt feedback. While the same set of problems is assigned to all students, the

numbers in each problem are algorithmically assigned (different) to encourage students to work

on their own problems, although peer interaction is allowed and indeed encouraged.

Hands-on laboratory activities with physical models that occur approximately once every two

weeks help reinforce concepts introduced in the course. For each experiment, students are

divided into teams of three to four and given one or two problems that they first have to solve

using hand calculations. They then set up a physical model for the same problem, measure the

unknown quantities and compare their experimental results with their calculated values. Each

experiment and accompanying analysis is treated as a separate assignment and graded

accordingly. Page 15.456.6

3. Provide Students with Individualized Assistance

Although our course redesign model explicitly places the responsibility for learning on the

students, we are simultaneously increasing support for them. One of the key components to our

approach is the utilization of undergraduate LAs as peer tutors in the emporium. The LAs extend

the reach of the course instructor (coordinator) by providing guidance when students have

difficulty working a problem. As part of their training, LAs learn how to respond to such

questions as “How do you work this problem?” by directing students to the correct path toward

solving each problem without giving away the solution. This is to encourage students to stay on

task and successfully complete all the assigned problems. One LA per workstation (eight

students) is found to be adequate to ensure that students receive timely assistance. The course

coordinator is present during all emporium and part of post-emporium sessions and maintains

regular office hours.

While a regular class size that can accommodate the number of students registered in the largest

section of the course is sufficient for the emporium sessions, a larger space is required for the

post-emporium. This required an initial investment in the infrastructure when we adopted this

redesign model.

4. Build in Assessment with Prompt (Automated) Feedback

In our emporium model, students receive automated feedback for the emporium assignments,

and have four opportunities to submit the correct answer to a given problem to receive credit. We

recognize that the simple automated response “your answer is correct” or “sorry try again” is not

adequate. However, this actually highlights an important aspect of our redesign. Since the

students work the assignment problems inside the emporium where help is available, they can

get assistance from a knowledgeable person who can see what the students are actually doing as

opposed to a general hint that a computer-based system4 can provide.

Due to the limited capability of online assessment tools, and the need to assign partial credit for

the correct portion of each solution, the in-class quizzes continue to be graded manually and

returned to the students at the next emporium session. Similarly, the final exams are also graded

manually. Students in all sections of the course are given common assignments, quizzes and final

exam. This ensures uniformity of learning assessment across multiple sections.

5. Ensure Sufficient Time on Task and Monitor Student Progress

For lower-level courses such as Statics, it is necessary to maintain a certain level of structure and

discipline to ensure that students stay on task and study the modularized content in a timely

fashion.

We use existing capabilities of our course management system Blackboard Vista, myCourses, to

deliver content, monitor student access of online pre-emporium tasks, as well as present and

grade emporium assignments. To monitor time on task and student progress, all emporium

assignments are done inside the emporium hall. We keep an attendance record in the emporium

and monitor time spent in the post-emporium sessions by each student. The course instructor and

Page 15.456.7

LAs help students stay on task while in the emporium. As for the pre-emporium activities, we

have not yet found an effective way to ensure that when students access an assigned Web site,

they are actively studying the content. However, since the likelihood of success in this course is

rather low for the students who do not follow the pre-emporium activities, we believe that most

of the students make a serious effort to understand the content before attending emporium.

Fig. 1 Students working on assignment problems in the emporium.

Fig. 2 Students conducting experiments with physical models in the emporium.

Page 15.456.8

Figure 1 shows photographs of students working on emporium assignments with the instructor

and his learning assistants responding to questions. Figure 2 shows students working with two

different physical models in the emporium hall. Each physical activity requires students to first

work the associated problem using the analysis techniques learned in the course.

Learning Materials

In a lecture-format course delivery, students rely on the instructor as the primary source and

conveyor of knowledge with the textbook serving as the repository of materials covered in the

course. The textbook also serves as the primary source for example and homework problems as

well as test questions. Students rely on their lecture notes to recall topics covered in each class

while interacting with the instructor in and outside of classroom to seek help on a specific topic.

Homework assignments are used to enhance learning and to identify areas of deficiency, with

tests and final exam as the principal assessment tools. Both the content and method of delivery

are vitally important in this course.

In our course redesign, we use three primary sources of learning materials that include: 1) online

resources, 2) textbook, and 3) experiments using physical models.

Online Resources

With the elimination of formal classroom lectures, the role of the instructor has shifted from

delivering content through lectures to responding to questions and more direct interaction with

the students in the emporium setting. However, for various reasons, most students cannot fully

understand the course content by simply reading the textbook. They need someone to “explain”

the content, guide them through specific solution steps, and facilitate their understanding of

important concepts. Therefore, if not through formal lectures, the explaining part has to be done

through other means.

We initially anticipated recording actual classroom lectures delivered by the faculty experts on

the redesign team, and making them available for the students to access online. However, we

recognized the shortcomings of this approach and sought an alternative. We found a commercial

site Your Other Teacher (YOT) (yourotherteacher.com) that specializes in online content

delivery of math, physics, and engineering mechanics courses including Statics. They offer pre-

recorded tutorial lectures as well as step-by-step solutions to a number of example problems that

are available for their users to access for a nominal fee. What makes the contents on this site

appealing is that the tutorial and problem solving clips show the instructor’s hand writing on a

tablet accompanied by the instructor’s oral description of the activity. This is far superior to the

mere video/audio recording of an actual lecture in a classroom setting. Through direct

communication with the company, we were able to have access to their entire collection of

course materials for Statics and to also experiment with their content delivery technology by

recording a problem solving session. We found the technology easy to use and as such we may

be able to add content whenever necessary. Another interesting aspect of the content offered by

this company is that they can adjust the listing of materials to match the table of contents of a

number of textbooks currently on the market. This feature offered additional flexibility in terms

of textbook selection.

Page 15.456.9

The Web site, Virtual Laboratory for the Study of Mechanics (VLSM), is another learning

resource that is available for public use at www.ae.msstate.edu/vlsm. In addition to tutorial notes

on individual topics, VLSM also contains a number of LiveMath® example problems that allow

the user to change the values of input parameters and immediately see the changes trickle down

through the solution sequence and the updated results. All the analytical equations that are used

in the formulation and solution of each problem are clearly shown. In addition, VLSM includes a

number of Test Your Knowledge exercises. Students are asked to work each exercise and input

the answers. Immediate feedback is provided if the answer is correct. More importantly, if the

answer is wrong, a hint is given to help the student arrive at the correct answer. Three different

hints are given for three unsuccessful attempts at answering the question, with the final hint also

accompanied by a hyperlink to the solution. The collection of Flash animation clips in VLSM

helps the student’s understanding of such topics as the parallelogram law, decomposition of a

vector into its Cartesian components, and description of reaction forces and moments in 2- and 3-

dimensional supports.

Textbook

The textbook currently used in this course is Engineering Mechanics: Statics, 6 ed., by J. L.

Meriam and L.G. Kraige (published by John Wiley and Sons). Students can purchase an

electronic copy of the textbook and print the portions they wish to have on paper. We also make

use of the WileyPlus system that contains a large collection of exercise problems that can be

assigned and graded online.

Experiments with Physical Models

Research12-17

shows that through interaction with physical models, students can significantly

enhance their understanding and retention of topics presented in an engineering course such as

Statics. We purchased multiple sets of laboratory-style models from PASCO Scientific

(www.pasco.com) that are suitable for experiential learning of difficult topics in Statics. The list

of physical models and related experimental activities is given below.

1. Tension Protractor for measuring tension and angle of a cable in a multi-cable loading

system.

2. Super Pulley Force Table for accurate description of equilibrium, vector addition, and

resolution of vectors into their components.

3. Introductory Mechanics System for conducing 15 different experiments including simple

machines, friction, moments associated with parallel and non-parallel force systems.

4. Equal Arm Balance for describing the relationship between forces and moments.

5. Truss Modeling and Loading System for modeling and loading of various truss structures

and direct measurement of force in each member using electronic instrumentation.

All physical experiments are tied to a subset of assignment problems so students can verify the

validity of their hand calculations while gaining deeper understanding of the Statics concepts.

Page 15.456.10

Course Management

Materials posted on myCourses include the course syllabus, a daily schedule of activities in the

emporium for the entire semester, and a list of additional “suggested” problems from the

textbook. myCourses is also where students access the pre-emporium assignments with each

comprised of content from one or all different learning resources. Almost all pre-emporium

assignments contain a note directing students to particular pages in the textbook for them to

read/study.

Most pre-emporium assignments contain links to online instructional videos at YOT

(yourotherteacher.com). Many pre-emporium assignments also contain direct links to a particular

section of VLSM. myCourses provides the capability for the course coordinator to track

students’ usage and time spent on each link. It also provides an online gradebook where students

can access and monitor their grades.

Emporium activities include solving 3 to 5 assignment problems on the topics covered in a prior

pre-emporium session, conducting hands-on laboratory experiments in groups of 2-5 students,

and taking quizzes. The assignment problem sets are created using the online homework system

on WileyPlus, the interactive course management Website associated with the textbook

(wileyplus.com). WileyPlus algorithmically generates different problem values for each student.

Students access the assignments, work the problems, and submit their answers online. WileyPlus

provides immediate feedback on whether a submitted answer is correct. After submitting the

second incorrect answer, WileyPlus provides a link to the relevant section in the e-textbook.

Students have opportunities to correct their mistakes and resubmit their answers in four attempts

per problem. The course coordinator and LAs are available to provide help during this process.

The grades for each assignment are automatically stored in the gradebook on WileyPlus. Other

resources available to the students on WileyPlus include a complete online version of the

textbook, additional example problems, and other tutorial aids.

The hands-on laboratory experiments done inside the emporium hall during the semester include

the following topics:

1. Resolution and addition of 2-D force vectors

2. Moment of a force about a point (2-D)

3. Equivalent loading systems (2-D)

4. Equilibrium (2-D)

5. Truss – method of joints and method of sections

6. Centroid / Center of mass

7. Friction

Results of the Pilot Phase

In spring 2009 semester, we conducted the pilot phase of the redesign to draw an initial

comparison in the performance of students in the traditional classroom with those in the

emporium. We chose the parallel-sections approach. Of the four sections of Statics offered that

semester, two were chosen as the control group and two as the experimental group. To prevent

students with bias towards the traditional or the emporium approach from congregating in a

Page 15.456.11

particular section, no prior announcement was made about the sections that would serve as the

experimental group. All four sections were taught by the same instructor to maintain a balance in

the teaching style experienced by the students in each group. The class schedule for the two

sections forming the traditional group was Tuesday and Thursday for 75 minutes each while the

two emporium sections met three times a week for 50 minutes each. While the students in each

group received identical tests or quizzes, the problems were similar but not identical for the two

groups, partly because of the time difference. All students in both groups took a common final

exam to facilitate the formative assessment of the outcome.

Students in the control group (traditional approach) received classroom instructions and had

access to the online companion to the textbook. However, they were not expected nor required to

use any source other than the textbook and their class notes. For the students in the experimental

group (emporium approach), they used an array of online resources mentioned previously. The

homework assignments in the control group included both manually graded problems and

automatically graded online problems. However, students in the experimental group used only a

computer-based grading system. As such, they had up to four attempts to submit the correct

answer to each assignment problem within the specified timeframe. In addition to working

assignment problems, students in the emporium group also conducted hands-on experiments

using physical models.

The two prerequisite courses for Statics are Calculus II and Physics I, with a minimum grade of

C required in each course. As for gender distribution, the traditional group consisted of 11

(~19%) female students while the emporium group consisted of 10 (~19%).

Table 2 gives the summary of performance in each group. The individual scores represent the

mean values for each population with the corresponding standard deviations shown in

parentheses. The last column shows the percentage of students making A, B, or C in each group.

The grading system for each group is shown in the footnote to Table 2. The numbers in

parentheses indicate the quantity in each case. In the emporium class, there were 24 problem-

solving assignments that included two drop grades plus 6 hands-on experiments. While the

students in the traditional course took 3 tests with no drop grade, those in the emporium took 7

quizzes with one drop grade.

Table 2 Assessment of Performance in the Pilot PhaseApproach Student

Population

Assignment

Score

Test Score Final Exam

Score

Overall Score A-C/Total

Traditionala

57 72.8 (22.7) 66.3 (17.6) 64.7 (19.6) 64.8 (19.5) 49%

Emporiumb

53 90.1 (14.4) 79.4 (13.1) 67.7 (15.8) 80.6 (14.0) 91%aGrading system: 15% assignments (8), 55% tests (3), 30% final exam.

bGrading system: 15% pre-emporium tasks (32), 20% emporium assignments (24+6), 40% quizzes (7), 25% final

exam.

A t-statistic of the two student populations assuming either equal or unequal variances showed an

insignificant difference between the final exam scores while the differences in the assignment

and in-class test scores were statistically significant at 95% confidence level. Given the students’

performance in quizzes and assignments, we had expected a better performance on the final

exam by the emporium group. The overall scores cannot be fairly compared due to differences

Page 15.456.12

in the credit assigned to the various activities in the course. Generally, there appears to be less

scatter among the individual grades in the emporium (experimental) group than the traditional

group.

The recorded average number of absences for the traditional group was 4.0 (st. deviation = 4.4)

and for the emporium group was 4.7 (st. deviation = 5.5). It is important to note that for the

traditional group attending class only two days a week, an absence means loss of instruction and

possibly understanding of the subject covered in that lecture period. The average of 4 absences

translates into an average attendance rate of 86.1%. For the emporium group, a student is marked

absent if missing an emporium session. However, this does not have the same impact as absence

in the traditional course since students study the course content outside of the emporium.

Moreover, they can return to post-emporium to complete the required emporium assignments.

The average of 4.7 absences translates into an average emporium attendance rate of 88.8%.

The last column in Table 2 shows the ratio of students making grades of A through C to the total

number (population) of students receiving grades of A through F in each group. The total

number does not include those who withdrew from the course and received a grade of “W”.

Although the ratio of students making grades of A through C (success rate) in the experimental

group was 86% higher than that in the control (traditional) group, the difference cannot be totally

attributed to the emporium approach. For reference, the success rate for students in the time

period reported in Table 1 was approximately 77% (excluding the W’s), which is a better

indicator of students’ performance in a traditional Statics course than that in Table 2. While 85%

of the course grade in the traditional group was based on performance on tests and the final

exam, for the emporium group that portion was reduced to 65%. Other factors contributing to the

observed differences may include the overall students’ attitude toward the course and their level

of preparation in the prerequisite calculus and physics courses.

Table 3 Samples of Survey Questions and Responses in the Pilot PhaseStudent Attitude Score (%)

1. Overall, I like the emporium approach better than the traditional lecture approach. 77.1

2. I believe that I learned the material better using the emporium approach than the traditional

approach.

76.5

3. Working the emporium assignments helped me learn the material. 97.2

Enhanced Outcomes

4. I worked more problems in this course than I did in a traditional lecture course. 86.1

5. It was beneficial to work the assignments in the emporium where help was available. 100.0

6. I believe that the hands-on experiments helped me understand the concepts more thoroughly. 80.6

Impact of Learning Assistants

7. The number of student assistants was adequate in order to receive help. 86.1

8. The student assistants were knowledgeable and helpful. 94.3

Table 3 provides a summary of feedback received from the students in the emporium group in

three separate categories as noted in the table. The scores in column 2 represent the portion of the

respondents that either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.

Feedback from the students also revealed that some of them consider the post-emporium

activities as burdensome and extra coursework. They would prefer to complete the remaining

Page 15.456.13

problems at home instead of the emporium, which would defeat one of the most important

aspects of the course redesign.

Based on the results of the pilot phase, we made a few changes including the reduction of credit

for pre-emporium and emporium activities and increased credit for the quizzes. All other aspects

of the emporium model remained the same in the full implementation phase.

Results of the Full Implementation Phase

All seven sections of Statics in Fall 2009 semester were taught using the emporium approach. A

single instructor taught all the sections with assistance by one Graduate Teaching Assistant

(GTA) and five undergraduate LAs. The primary task of the GTA was to keep a log of students

entering and leaving the emporium and to provide each student access to the online emporium

assignments. He also was present during all the post-emporium sessions.

Assessment was based on each student’s online access for pre-emporium activities, average

grades on about two dozen emporium assignments, six in-class quizzes, and the final exam.

While it was possible to track the date, time, and duration of students’ pre-emporium activities, it

was impossible to know if the students were watching the entire pre-recorded tutorials or

studying the online content and assigned portion of the textbook. However, the students who did

not comply with the rigor of pre-emporium activities would not do well on the emporium

assignments or quizzes as will be noted later.

Regular emporium sessions were the daily class period with four additional hours of post-

emporium made available five days a week. If a student was unable to complete the emporium

assignments during the regular session, he/she would need to return in the afternoon (as often as

necessary) to complete the remaining problems until the next emporium assignment was issued.

This caused some difficulty for some students as they were not accustomed to the regimen of

working on assignment problems at a specific time and place. However, for the emporium

approach, assisted learning environment is a major element of the redesign.

Table 4 Assessment of Performance in the Full Implementation PhaseSection

(Population)

Pre-emporium

Score

Assignment

Score

Quiz Score Final Exam

Score

Overall

Score

A-C/Total

1 (36) 92.2 86.5 75.8 69.3 76.2 78%

2 (35) 95.8 90.1 76.5 67.2 78.5 74%

3 (35) 92.4 84.4 77.1 62.9 76.2 74%

4 (30) 94.8 85.3 75.0 64.7 76.1 70%

5 (32) 101.1 91.5 84.1 73.3 84.8 97%

6 (29) 94.2 83.9 67.4 53.2 69.1 59%

7 (31) 92.2 78.2 69.4 56.0 69.9 55%

Overall 94.6 (17.5) 86.0 (17.4) 75.2 (16.3) 64.1 (20.3) 76.0 (16.4) 73%

Grading system: 12% pre-emporium tasks (32a, 24

b), 18% emporium assignments (24+6

a, 17+5

b), 45% quizzes (7

a,

5b), 25% final exam.

aMonday-Wednesday-Friday Sections.

bTuesday-Thursday Sections.

Examination of the grades in the two prerequisite courses showed an average GPA of 3.1 (0.91)

in Calculus II and 3.0 (0.80) in Physics I for the combined total of 228 students taking Statics in

the fall semester. The parenthetical values represent the standard deviation associated with each

Page 15.456.14

average. As mentioned earlier, students need to earn a grade of C or better in the two

prerequisites before taking Statics. Among the total population, 20 students (~9%) were taking

Statics for the second time, 25 had taken Calculus II more than once, and 38 had taken Physics I

more than once. The population consisted of 186 (82%) male and 42 (18%) female students.

The results in Table 4 represent the average scores for 228 students who completed the course

with grades A through F in seven different sections of Statics, all taught by the same instructor

using the emporium model. The grading system is shown in the footnote to Table 4. The overall

average score and the success rate are also shown. The overall success rate of 73% is very close

to the historical trend in Table 1 at 77% (excluding the W’s). However, if we were to treat

sections 5 and 7 as outlier, the average success rate improves to 77%, which is essentially the

same as the baseline performance in Table 1. Comparing the actual cost of teaching 7 sections of

Statics in fall 2008 to the cost of teaching the same number of sections in fall 2009, we observed

a savings of 19%, which is significant. This is a work in progress and we believe that the level of

improvement in the learning outcomes will gradually grow in the future towards the same level

of improvement observed in teaching costs. As we continue the redesign experiment, we intend

to identify and alleviate shortcomings that can help enhance the learning outcomes.

A closer examination of the students in Sections 5 and 7 representing the best and the worst

performance in Statics (Table 4) showed that those in Section 5 had an average GPA of 3.32

(0.91) in Calculus II and 3.32 (0.79) in Physics I whereas those in Section 7 had an average GPA

of 2.81 (0.98) in Calculus II and 2.58 (0.85) in Physics I. The level of preparation in the

prerequisite courses is clearly reflected in the students’ success rate in Statics.

Table 5 Samples of Survey Questions and Responses in the Full Implementation PhasePre-Emporium Activities Score

1. The pre-emporium activities adequately prepared me to do the emporium assignments. 2.92 (1.15)

2. The pre-emporium activities helped me do well on quizzes. 2.79 (1.19)

3. Overall, the pre-emporium activities helped me understand the topics covered in Statics. 3.27 (1.20)

4. The time limit specified for completing each pre-emporium assignment was generally adequate. 3.71 (1.20)

Emporium and Post-Emporium Activities

5. It was beneficial to work the emporium assignments in the emporium where help was available. 3.53 (1.16)

6. The emporium hall provided an adequate environment to work on assignments. 3.75 (0.91)

7. I was able to complete 50% or more of the assignments during the emporium sessions. 3.30 (1.26)

8. The hands-on laboratory exercises helped me more thoroughly understand the Static concepts. 3.61 (1.14)

9. What is the approximate total number of times you attended the post-emporium sessions during

the semester in order to complete the emporium assignments?

3.63 (1.17)

10. On average, how many hours did you stay each time you attended a post-emporium session? 1.69 (0.69)

Emporium Versus Traditional Lecture Approach

11. The combined pre-emporium activities were equally or more effective in teaching me the

material in this course than the traditional lecture approach.

2.45 (1.29)

12. I benefited from the regimen of working assignment problems at a specified time and place. 2.88 (1.27)

13. I devoted more time working problems than I would have if the course was taught using the

traditional approach.

3.17 (1.39)

14. I liked the more frequent quizzes with each covering less material. 4.05 (1.11)

15. Overall, I like the emporium approach better than the traditional lecture approach. 2.49 (1.34)

In the anonymous survey conducted near the end of the fall semester, 179 students (~79%)

responded to a total of 38 questions focused primarily on the pre-emporium, emporium, and

post-emporium aspects of the course. In Table 5, samples of survey questions and the average

Page 15.456.15

score of responses are shown. For all statements except numbers 9 and 10, students’ responses

ranged in the scale of 1 to 5 from strongly disagree to strongly agree. For question 9, the scales 1

through 5 corresponded to 4 or less, 5 to 8, 9 to 12, 13 to 16, and 17 or more, respectively. For

question 10, the scales 1 through 4 corresponded to one hour or less, two hours, three hours, and

four or more hours, respectively. The mean scores along with the standard deviations (in

parentheses) are shown.

Table 6 provides samples of comments received from students on the survey forms submitted at

the end of the fall semester. This is not an exhaustive list but a sample that captures positive,

negative and neutral sentiments of the students taking Statics using the emporium model.

Table 6 Samples of Student Comments Following the Full Implementation PhasePre-Emporium Activities

• “It is pretty good the way it is.”

• “To succeed, students must watch the videos.”

• “The textbook was not very useful compared to the videos and the VLSM tutorials were good for summing up

briefly the materials covered in different chapters.”

• “Please abandon this method. Gradewise I'm doing fine but I would find it more helpful to be taught in class

& do the emporium outside of class.”

• “The guy on the video spoke and wrote too slow and wasted twice the amount of time needed to explain the

material. The book doesn't contain enough worked examples to teach us how to work problems. VLSM

sometimes wouldn't open and taught me nothing.”

Emporium and Post-Emporium Activities

• “I thought the emporium was set up good.”

• “Emporium was overall good. Teaching assistants were excellent. Did not really care for having to spend so

much time outside of class in the classroom completing emporium assignments. Should be able to work on

them anywhere.”

• “The problems were more intense than what we learned in the videos.”

• “The afternoon sessions were not easy to attend. This class would have been much more tolerable if we had

the option to finish assignments on our own time.”

• “I rarely finished the emporium assignments in class and I don't like having to come back in the afternoon. To

make this simpler, half of the problems should be due in class, and half should be able to be finished at home.”

Emporium Versus Traditional Lecture Approach

• “Teaching this class as an emporium greatly helped me understand the material better as well as allowed me

easy access to help when I needed it. I hope that I will be able to take dynamics this way. Having the videos

to refer back to and pause and review when I didn't understand REALLY helped me learn the material.”

• “I have taken this class in both ways. The emporium style was much more effective and I feel I learned a

great deal more this time.”

• “I liked the frequent quizzes, and I think the emporium helped a lot.”

• “This approach does a good job. I like having the videos to refer to but I would like a few classes where I

actually got to watch a teacher work problems.”

• “I prefer traditional lecture to Emporium. The Emporium assignments should be able to be completed at the

students' leisure whenever they want to complete it. I did not agree with having a specific place and time to

work assignments.”

• “I learn better by listening to teacher during class rather than listening to a computer on my own time with

dorm distractions.”

• “We pay teachers to teach. With the emporium style that is not the case. A video is not the same as a teacher

and not near as effective. The Emporium style is not fair at all and must be done away with.”

Page 15.456.16

Although we purposefully tried to capture the diverse points of view in Table 6, we have

identified some factors that impacted students’ attitudes that are worth highlighting. For

example, all students received instructions at the beginning of the semester on the proper ways to

access and use each online resource. Students who spent a lot of time in the post-emporium were

typically those who did not complete the pre-emporium activities prior to attending the next

emporium session as required. As a result, they had a tough time finishing the assignments in the

allotted time and needed the extra visits to the post-emporium to complete their assignments.

Overall Impressions of Statics Redesign

Based on our redesign experience and the anecdotal evidence we have gathered from the

students, we have made a list of advantages and disadvantages of the emporium and traditional

models for teaching and learning Statics.

Table 7 Comparison of the Traditional and Emporium Models for Teaching StaticsMethod Advantages Disadvantages

Traditional • Live delivery of the course content by an instructor

• Similarity with how most other college courses are

taught

• Opportunity to ask questions during lectures (as

new content is introduced)

• Can be implemented without computer or other

advanced technologies

• Requires a basic classroom

• Smaller sets of tests and assignments to grade

• Over reliance on the instructor to instill

knowledge of the subject

• Missing a lecture can negatively impact

learning

• Few quizzes to avoid losing too many lecture

periods

• Few or no hands-on activities

• Unstructured assignments

• Inconsistency in diversity and the degrees of

difficulty of assignment and exam problems

in different sections of the course

• Inconsistency in the grading system in

different sections of the course

• Diversity in teaching styles and coverage of

course syllabus in different sections of the

course

• Multiple salaried instructors at different pay

scales

Emporium • Diversified presentation of course content with

computer technology

• Eliminates the pressure of note taking during live

lectures

• Ability to review pre-recorded instructional videos

multiple times

• Common assignment, quiz and exam problems in

different sections of the course

• Structured sessions to work on assignments under

the guidance of the instructor and learning

assistants

• More frequent quizzes covering less content in each

quiz

• Hands-on experiments with physical models

• Increased opportunity for active and collaborative

learning exercises

• Reduction in instructional costs

• Requires access to a personal computer

• Need for adjusting to a new (unfamiliar)

method of learning

• Large classroom to accommodate emporium

and post-emporium activities

• Availability of diverse and comprehensive

online content

• Monitoring and management of pre-

emporium, emporium, and post-emporium

activities

• Increased effort in manual grading of larger

sets of quizzes and hands-on experiments

• Acquisition of multiple physical models for

hands-on experiments

Page 15.456.17

In our interpretation of the traditional approach, we are considering multiple sections of the same

course taught by different instructors; each section is totally based on the lecture format with

minimal or no use of advanced technology or hands-on activities to enhance learning. Similarly,

we are considering our own implementation of the emporium model as the basis for this

comparison. The items listed in Table 7 are examples of advantages and disadvantages of each

approach in terms of knowledge acquisition as well as students’ preferences.

Given our experience with the pilot and full implementation phases of Statics redesign, we have

observed significant savings in the instructional costs and a promise for growing improvements

in the learning outcomes. If we consider all the emporium sections of Statics taught in spring and

fall 2009, we arrive at the overall success rate of 76%, which is comparable with the historical

trend in this course.

As with any drastic change in the pedagogical approach, there are always some initial challenges

that the educators and students need to overcome. We believe that we have made the right

choice in adopting the emporium model for Statics, and we are very optimistic about the future

prospects of this approach in this course and its potential application in our other multi-section

mechanics courses.

Conclusions

This paper described the experience with a complete redesign of Statics using the emporium

model. Through conversion of the instructional method from one based on traditional lecture to

one that relies on computer-based delivery of content, we were able to focus the ordinary class

period to one focused on individually-assisted active learning activities. With only two-semester

experience with the emporium model, we have identified areas of success as well as those that

need further improvement. Overall, the redesign provided the promised reduction in instructional

costs and showed promise for improving the student learning outcomes.

Acknowledgements

This work was partially funded by a grant from the Institutions of Higher Learning in the State of

Mississippi. We also would like to thank Donna Reese, Machaunda Bush, David Thompson, and

Thomas Hannigan for their contributions in the Statics redesign project at Mississippi State

University.

Bibliography

1. Jack, H., “A Paperless (almost) Statics Course,” Proceedings of the 1998 ASEE Annual Conference, Seattle,

WA, June 21-24, 1998.

2. Li, J. and Lee, M.Y., “Teaching Mechanics with Multimedia Tools,” Proceedings of the 1999 ASEE Annual

Conference, Charlotte, NC, June 20-23, 1999.

3. Gramoll, K., “Teaching Statics Online with only Electronic Media on Laptop Computers,” Proceedings of the

1999 ASEE Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC, June 20-23, 1999.

Page 15.456.18

4. Rais-Rohani, M., “VLSM: An Online Tutorial for Solid Mechanics,” Computers in Education Journal, Vol. XI,

No. 1, January-March 2001.

5. Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R., Shaik, N., and Palma-Rivas, N., “Comparative Analysis of Online vs. Face-to-

Face Instruction,” WebNet 99 World Conference on the WWW and Internet, Honolulu, HI, 1999. (ERIC

Document No. ED 448 722).

6. Jones, E. R., “A Comparison of an All Web-Based Class to a Traditional Class,” Paper presented at the Society

for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, San Antonio, TX, 1999. (ERIC

Document No. ED 432 286)

7. Olson, T. M. and Wisher, R. A., “The Effectiveness of Web-Based Instruction: An Initial Inquiry,”

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2002.

8. Mackey, K.R.M. and Freyberg, D.L., “The Effect of Social Presence on Affective and Cognitive Learning in an

International Engineering Course Taught via Distance Learning,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 99,

No. 1, 2010, pp. 23-34.

9. Twigg, C. A., “Improving Learning and Reducing Costs: New Models for Online Learning,” EDUCAUSE,

Sept./Oct. 2003. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0352.pdf

10. Mills, K., “Math Emporium – The use of technology has changed the way Virginia Tech’s introductory math

classes are taught,” National Cross Talk, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005.

11. Dollar, A. and Steif, P., “A Web-Based Statics Course Used in an Inverted Classroom,” Paper presented at the

ASEE 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition.

12. Vander Schaaf, R. and Klosky, J.L., “Classroom Demonstrations in Introductory Mechanics,” Journal of

Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 131, No. 2, 2005, pp. 83-89.

13. Vander Schaaf, R. and Klosky, J.L., “Show Me the Money! Using Physical Models to Excite Student Interest in

Mechanics,” Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference &

Exposition, Nashville, TN, June 22-25, 2003.

14. Schmucker, D.G., “Models, Models, Models: The Use of Physical Models to Enhance the Structural

Engineering Experience,” Proceedings of the 1998 American Society for Engineering Education Annual

Conference & Exposition, Seattle, WA, June 28-July 1, 1998.

15. Kresta, S.M., “Hands-on Demonstrations: An Alternative to Full Scale Lab Experiments,” Journal of

Engineering Education, Vol. 87, No. 1, 1998, pp.7-9.

16. Meyer, K.F., Ressler, S.J., Lenox, T.A., “Visualizing Structural Behavior: Using Physical Models in Structural

Engineering Education,” Proceedings of the 1996 American Society for Engineering Education Annual

Conference & Exposition, Washington, DC, June 23-26, 1996.

17. Sullivan, R. and Rais-Rohani, M., “Design and Application of a Beam Testing System for Experiential Learning

in Mechanics of Materials,” Advanced in Engineering Education, Vol. 1, No. 4, Spring 2009, pp. 1-19.

Page 15.456.19