This article was downloaded by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] On: 09 September 2015, At: 02:50 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
Sports Biomechanics Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rspb20
Teaching undergraduate biomechanics with Just-in-Time Teaching a
Jody L. Riskowski a
Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK Published online: 08 May 2015.
Click for updates To cite this article: Jody L. Riskowski (2015) Teaching undergraduate biomechanics with Just-inTime Teaching, Sports Biomechanics, 14:2, 168-179, DOI: 10.1080/14763141.2015.1030686 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2015.1030686
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Sports Biomechanics, 2015 Vol. 14, No. 2, 168–179, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2015.1030686
Teaching undergraduate biomechanics with Just-in-Time Teaching
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
JODY L. RISKOWSKI Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK (Received 16 April 2014; accepted 12 January 2015)
Abstract Biomechanics education is a vital component of kinesiology, sports medicine, and physical education, as well as for many biomedical engineering and bioengineering undergraduate programmes. Little research exists regarding effective teaching strategies for biomechanics. However, prior work suggests that student learning in undergraduate physics courses has been aided by using the Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT). As physics understanding plays a role in biomechanics understanding, the purpose of study was to evaluate the use of a JiTT framework in an undergraduate biomechanics course. This twoyear action-based research study evaluated three JiTT frameworks: (1) no JiTT; (2) mathematics-based JiTT; and (3) concept-based JiTT. A pre- and post-course assessment of student learning used the biomechanics concept inventory and a biomechanics concept map. A general linear model assessed differences between the course assessments by JiTT framework in order to evaluate learning and teaching effectiveness. The results indicated significantly higher learning gains and better conceptual understanding in a concept-based JiTT course, relative to a mathematics-based JiTTor no JiTT course structure. These results suggest that a course structure involving concept-based questions using a JiTT strategy may be an effective method for engaging undergraduate students and promoting learning in biomechanics courses.
Keywords: Pedagogical issues, post-secondary education, teaching/learning strategies, effective learning, science education
Introduction Biomechanics and movement science are rapidly growing fields in academia and industry. It is a vital component of several undergraduate programmes, including kinesiology, sports medicine, physical education (Hamill, 2007; Ives & Knudson, 2007), and biomedical and bioengineering (Ghista, 2000). The primary purpose of teaching within the field of biomechanics is to develop the cognitive and practical breadth required to function as competent practitioners within the chosen field. Through the academic process at the undergraduate level, programmes often provide students with broad educational experiences, assisting them to develop generic skills such as independent learning, teamwork, responsibility toward other people, and problem solving abilities. Undergraduate Correspondence: Jody L. Riskowski, Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, 70 Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, E-mail: [email protected] q 2015 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
Teaching undergraduate biomechanics
169
biomechanics and movement sciences courses provide a foundational level for understanding the function of the physical body in movement tasks (e.g., locomotion, throwing). Through these courses students learn the principles of human movement as they relate to physical function and mobility in activities of daily living, sports, and pathological conditions. The interdisciplinary study of biomechanics typically encompasses principles of classical mechanics, motor control, neural control, and anatomy (Knudson, 2006; Knudson, Bauer, & Bahamonde, 2009), and many of the challenges faced in learning biomechanics centre around understanding physics and mathematics as it relates to human motion (Garceau, Ebben, & Knudson, 2012). Advances in our understanding of effective teaching and learning within the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) over the last few decades provided an opportunity to improve teaching quality. Within the field of engineering and physics, Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT) has been promoted as an effective teaching strategy for reaching undergraduate students within these disciplines (Marrs, Blake, & Gavrin, 2003; Simkins & Maier, 2010, pp. 79 –179). JiTT is a teaching strategy that utilises blended learning, also known as hybrid, flipped, or mixed learning, to combine online and face-to-face instruction, and includes didactic and delivery methods using web-based technology (Driscoll, 2002). With JiTT, students respond to instructor-posted questions that address the subsequent classroom concepts and material in an online learning management system (e.g., Blackboard) and are based on student reading or other pre-class preparation prior to the start of the class (Marrs & Novak, 2004). The questions posted when using a JiTT framework by the instructor can either be mathematical (i.e., requiring calculations), or conceptual (i.e., addressing how concepts relate). Student responses to these questions allow the instructor to evaluate the students’ current understanding of concepts or abilities in performing biomechanical calculations, and these responses provide an opportunity for the instructor to adapt the subsequent classroom teaching and activities to meet students’ level of understanding (Figure 1). Students respond to the JiTT questions outside of class time and are based on current understanding as a means for the instructor to gauge misconceptions and level of knowledge of the material (Simkins & Maier, 2004). With JiTT improvements in student learning biology showed a 21% improvement in student learning relative to classrooms without JiTT (Moravec, Williams, Aguilar-Roca, & O’Dowd, 2010). Improvements in learning with JiTT encompass several factors, including increased student study outside of the classroom, lowrisk, high-challenge environments that promote student conceptualisation, frequent student
Figure 1. Steps and teaching model of JiTT.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
170
J.L. Riskowski
assessment, and quality student – faculty interaction (Astin, 1993; Douglas, Iverson, & Kalyandurg, 2004; Riskowski, Todd, Wee, Dark, & Harbor, 2009). Despite a number of studies addressing student learning in biomechanics, (Garceau et al., 2012; Hsieh & Knudson, 2008; Knudson, 2006; Knudson et al., 2003; Sanders & Sanders, 2005), it is unclear if differences in teaching strategies can affect student learning and performance in biomechanics (Knudson, 2013). Moreover, given the complexities of teaching biomechanics and given biomechanics have a strong mathematics component (Garceau et al., 2012), it is unclear whether a mathematically-oriented JiTT (i.e., students respond to mathematic questions regarding biomechanics) or a concept-based JiTT (i.e., students respond to questions regarding how biomechanics concepts relate to each other or how biomechanical concepts affect ‘real-life’ situations) would be a more effective teaching strategy for biomechanics. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate how different JiTT models, which included a mathematical or modified JiTT, conceptual JiTT, and No JiTT, would affect student learning in undergraduate biomechanics, with secondary subgroup analyses into student learning by demographic populations. It was hypothesised that the teaching model that focused on mathematics would perform better in the mathematics assessment relative to other teaching models, whereas the teaching model that focused on relations between topics learning would have stronger performances in concept mapping, relative to the other teaching models. Methods This study was a longitudinal research assessment to determine the efficacy of the JiTT method. This study occurred over two years in a senior-level undergraduate biomechanics course. This course is a required course for all kinesiology students at the university. This study was approved by the University of Texas at El Paso Institutional Review Board, and all participants signed university-approved consent forms prior to the start of data collection. Participants The participating kinesiology students had either an exercise science or a physical education degree concentration and had taken at least four kinesiology courses prior to commencing this course. All students in the biomechanics courses were invited to participate, and the results of the study were not evaluated until the conclusion of the study. Students self-reported age and if they were a first-generation student, defined as the first in their nuclear family (i.e., parents and siblings) to attend a four-year college or university. Participating students also self-identified gender, ethnicity as either Hispanic or nonHispanic, and language spoken at home. Language spoken at home was dichotomised as either ‘primary English’ or ‘non-primary English.’ Individuals who reported speaking mostly or only English in their home were ‘primary English’ speakers. ‘Non-primary English’ speakers were those who reported speaking an equal mix of English and another language, mostly another language, or only another language in their home. Biomechanics course There were two biomechanics courses per semester for a total of eight courses over the two years (Table I). These courses met for an hour twice a week for 15 weeks, with an additional week for the final examination period. Eleven of the 16 weeks had an additional two-hour laboratory class to augment the classroom work.
Teaching undergraduate biomechanics
171
Table I. Teaching framework by semester. Year 1 Course period Morning course Evening course
Fall No JiTT No JiTT
Year 2 Spring No JiTT No JiTT
Fall Math-JiTT Con-JiTT
Spring Con-JiTT Math-JiTT
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
Note: JiTT, Just-in-Time Teaching; Con-JiTT, concept-based JiTT; Math-JiTT, mathematics-based JiTT.
Students who took the course in the first year were taught without using web-based questions or JiTT (no JiTT). During the study’s second year, the biomechanics courses had web-based questions. In this second year, one course each semester used online conceptbased questions, while the other used simple, factual web-based questions as a mathematicsbased JiTT method, such as:
Concept-based JiTT question – On a kick-off, a football is kicked at 10 m/s at 288, which component will have greater velocity? (a) The vertical component. (b) They will be the components will be the same. (c) The horizontal component. (d) Not enough information to answer. Mathematics-based JiTT question – On a kick-off, a football is kicked at 10 m/s at 288, what is the vertical velocity? (a) 4.7 m/s. (b) 2.8 m/s. (c) 8.8 m/s. (d) Not enough information to answer.
During the conceptual-based JiTT and mathematics-based JiTT classes, students took weekly on-line quizzes, which were due one hour prior to the start of the class. Feedback from these quizzes was available to students after all students had taken the quiz or after the subsequent class. The instructor was able to review student performance on the quizzes at any time in order to determine classroom needs for the subsequent class.
Assessment of student learning Two assessments were used to evaluate student learning over the biomechanics course: (1) biomechanics concepts inventory (BCI), and (2) biomechanics concept mapping. In assessing learning in these two assessments allows an understanding of students learning achievement via the BCI and students understanding of how concepts relate. These two styles of assessment have been shown to have a weak correlation and are method for extracting students’ depth of understanding (I˙ngec , 2009). The primary outcome from this study is the combined percentage of maximum possible (POMP) score for the combined assessments (Cohen, Cohen, Aiken, & West, 1999). Biomechanics concept inventory. The BCI assumes prerequisite competency in anatomy, anatomical terms, muscles and joint movements, graph interpretation, and algebra. It assesses the biomechanical competencies of muscle mechanical characteristics, motor unit recruitment and EMG, linear and angular kinematics and kinetics, and fluid mechanics, all with application to qualitative analysis of human movement (Knudson, 2006; Knudson
172
J.L. Riskowski
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
et al., 2003). The BCI is a summative assessment that has 24 multiple-choice questions centred on the biomechanics competencies, which may be qualitative or quantitative. Biomechanics concept map. Concept maps are visual organisation and representation of knowledge within a domain, and they demonstrate concepts and ideas as well as the relations among them. Concept maps are created by writing key words and drawing arrows between the ideas that are related, with a short description by the arrow to explain how the concepts relate (Novak, 1990). Concepts maps are a means for assessing student’s understanding of science concepts (Novak, 1990) and assessing teaching effectiveness (Barenholz & Tamir, 1992; Reeves, 2000). Further, concepts maps are often referred to as a formative assessment as they are low-risk activity that assesses the structural complexity of the relationships between terms and evaluates higher-level thinking (Rice, Ryan, & Samson, 1998; Turns, Atman, & Adams, 2000), without increasing anxiety or stress that strict correct–incorrect assessments, such as multiple-choice questions, may (Jegede, Alaiyemola, & Okebukola, 1990). For the biomechanics concept map assessment, the terms chosen for the mapping exercise were acceleration, biomechanics, displacement, distance, dynamics, force, impulse, inertia, kinematics, kinetics, momentum, power, rotation, scalar, speed, statics, time, torque, vector, and velocity (Figure 2a). A relational scoring system was used to evaluate students understanding between biomechanics concepts, with 0 being the minimum score and the maximum score defined as the highest scored achieved by the students (McClure & Bell, 1990; McClure, Sonak, & Suen, 1999). This scoring system assigns a value of 0 –3 to each association the student demonstrates on his or her concept map (Figure 2b). A single rater scored all the concept maps at the conclusion of the study. Data analysis Means and standard deviations or frequencies were used to describe student demographics and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Kruskal– Wallis test were used to evaluate student demographics between the JiTT styles. Parametric statistics were used in continuous data (e.g., student age), whereas non-parametric data were used in count data (e.g., gender, language). Parametric data were normally distributed as assessed by the Shapiro –Wilk test (Shapiro & Wilk, 1965).
Figure 2. Example of (a) biomechanics concept map and (b) relational scoring method.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
Teaching undergraduate biomechanics
173
To assess student learning, students undertook both assessment models (i.e., BCI and concept map) at the start and conclusion of the biomechanics course. Pre-course and postcourse scores were evaluated, and the scores were converted into POMP scores for statistical analysis (Cohen et al., 1999), which provides a single number to assess student gains in learning. The maximum score for the BCI was 24, and for the concept maps the maximum score was defined as the highest score out from all the student responses (McClure & Bell, 1990; McClure et al., 1999). The primary outcome was the combined BCI and concept map POMP score, and a general linear model with Tukey’s honest significant difference was used to assess learning gains between groups, with the referent the students in the no JiTT group. This statistical model was also used to evaluate differences in learning gains within each assessment style by subgroup populations based on gender, Hispanic ethnicity, and primary English language. All statistical analyses were conducted using the SAS statistical analysis package, version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Alpha was set to p # 0.05 for all analyses. As there was no p-value adjustment for the subgroup analyses, the upper bound experimental type I error rate is 0.26 per assessment model and 0.48 when evaluating both assessment models. Results Over the two-year period there were eight biomechanics courses taught, which included 283 students, of which 40% were women, 71% were self-identified as Hispanic, and 36% spoke mostly or only Spanish or another language at home, denoted as non-primary English speaking students. Between the JiTT groups, there were no significant demographic differences or differences in the pre-course BCI or concept map scores (Table II). The primary outcome was the combined BCI and concept map showed a net POMP mean score of 71.6 ^ 10.4, 88.1 ^ 7.4, and 102.9 ^ 9.6 for the no JiTT, mathematics-based JiTT, and concept-based JiTT, respectively, with the mathematics-based JiTT (p , 0.001) and concept-based JiTT (p , 0.001) outperforming the no JiTT. The minimum and maximum of the combined POMP score for each teaching style were 3.8 and 128.0 for the no JiTT group, 3.8 and 147.2 for the mathematics-based JiTT group, and 6.1 and 153.8, respectively. BCI scores BCI scores at the start of the course were similar between all three groups, and the average score of all participating students was 28.0 ^ 7.4% or approximately seven questions were correct, whereas at the conclusion of the course, the average score was 56.8 ^ 8.9% or approximately 13 correct questions (Figure 3a). All three teaching methods led to significant gains, and as a POMP, which accounts for the pre-course BCI score, the POMP gain was 39.9%. Students in the no JiTT courses increased their BCI scores 34.0% (range: -5.2% to 56.3%), while students in the mathematics-based JiTT and concept-based JiTT improved 43.2% (range: -3.2% to 63.6%) and 50.3% (range: -3.8% to 70.3%), respectively. Comparing between courses, the mathematics-based JiTT and concept-based JiTT courses had significantly greater gain (p ¼ 0.041; p ¼ 0.023, respectively) in BCI relative to the no JiTT course. Between the concept-based JiTT and mathematics-based JiTT courses, students in the concept-based JiTT courses had significantly higher (p ¼ 0.035) post-BCI scores than students in the mathematics-based JiTT courses. In a subgroup analysis, there were differences in BCI score within teaching style between ethnicities as well as between the two language classifications (i.e., primary or non-primary
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
174
J.L. Riskowski
Figure 3. Normalised gains on the (a) Biomechanics Concept Inventory (BCI) and (b) biomechanics concept map by teaching style, with subgroup population gains. Data are presented in the supplemental material. JiTT, Just-inTime Teaching; Con-JiTT, concept-based JiTT; Math-JiTT, mathematics-based JiTT.
English speaking); there were no significant difference by gender in BCI gains. Within the concept-based JiTT course, students who were non-primary English speakers had a 54.8% BCI score increase, significantly higher than the 49.2% gain of students who were primary English in the home (p ¼ 0.032). Between courses, gains noted by students who were nonTable II. Student demographics and pre-course scores.
Age, years Female Hispanic First-generation student Non-primary English spoken at home Physical education concentration Pre-BCI POMP score, % Pre-concept map POMP score, %
All students (N ¼ 283)
No JiTT students (N ¼ 137)
Math-JiTT students (N ¼ 79)
Con-JiTT students (N ¼ 67)
p-value
25.2 ^ 1.6 114 (40) 200 (71) 177 (63) 92 (33) 116 (41) 28.3 ^ 7.4 10.7 ^ 3.2
25.2 ^ 1.4 56 (44) 99 (78) 84 (66) 50 (39) 51 (40) 29.4 ^ 6.7 11.2 ^ 2.9
25.4 ^ 1.7 34 (49) 54 (78) 51 (74) 25 (36) 37 (54) 26.2 ^ 7.9 9.8 ^ 3.9
24.8 ^ 1.9 24 (42) 47 (82) 42 (74) 17 (30) 28 (49) 27.4 ^ 8.4 10.8 ^ 3.0
0.109 0.654 0.877 0.443 0.471 0.163 0.104 0.099
Note: Physical education concentration refers to number of student choosing physical education as the primary degree s/he was seeking. Data presented as N (%) or mean ^ standard deviation (SD). BCI, biomechanics concept inventory; JiTT, Just-in-Time Teaching; Con-JiTT, concept-based JiTT; Math-JiTT, mathematics-based JiTT; POMP, percentage of maximum possible; SD, standard deviation. p-values are provided as a means for determining if cohort effect existed between teaching styles.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
Teaching undergraduate biomechanics
175
primary English speakers in the concept-based JiTT were significantly higher than those in the no JiTT (28.3% BCI score increase) and mathematics-based JiTT (35.8% BCI score increase) courses (p ¼ 0.010; p ¼ 0.043, respectively). Further, the concept-based JiTT is the only course that brought parity (p ¼ 0.432) in final BCI scores between primary and non-primary English speakers, as students who were primary English speakers in the mathematics-based JiTT (p ¼ 0.031) and no JiTT (p ¼ 0.021) outperformed the students who were non-primary English speakers. Those of Hispanic ethnicity had a 50.2% gain post-course in the concept-based JiTT course, whereas non-Hispanic students had a gain of 47.4% (p ¼ 0.132). The gains noted by Hispanic students in the concept-based JiTT course were significantly higher than those in the no JiTT (38% BCI score increase) and mathematics-based JiTT (46.9% BCI score increase) courses (p ¼ 0.026; p ¼ 0.034, respectively). In addition, final BCI scores between Hispanic and non-Hispanic students were similar (p ¼ 0.392) in those in the concept-based JiTT, whereas the non-Hispanic students had higher final BCI scores in the mathematicsbased JiTT (p ¼ 0.024) and no JiTT (p ¼ 0.009) than the Hispanic students in these courses. Biomechanics concept map The maximum score on the concept map exercise was 30, and at the start of the course, the average score for all participants was 11.0 ^ 3.2 for a POMP score of 36.1% (Figure 3b). All three teaching methods led to significant gains on the post-course evaluation as the average POMP gain for all students was 41.1%. Students in the no JiTT courses had a 37.3% increase (range: 3.3 – 53.6%), while students in the mathematics-based JiTT and conceptbased JiTT courses had statistically higher gains of 44.8% (range: 3.3 –67.1%) and 53.4% (range: 6.7 –73.5%), respectively. Between JiTT groups, students in the concept-based JiTT courses had significantly higher (p ¼ 0.035) post-course concept maps scores than students in the mathematics-based JiTT courses. In a subgroup analysis, there were differences in gains in concept map score within the courses. Women in the no JiTT course showed greater gains in the concept map, relative to the men in the course (p ¼ 0.023). Further, within the no JiTT and concept-based JiTT courses non-Hispanic students had greater gains in concept map score relative to the nonHispanic students in the class (p ¼ 0.032; p ¼ 0.022). Similarly, within the no JiTT and concept-based JiTT courses primary English speaking students had greater gains in concept map score relative to the non-primary English speaking students in the class (p ¼ 0.027; p ¼ 0.020). There were no significant differences in the gains between student populations within the mathematics-based JiTT courses. Discussion and implications The purpose of this study was to assess how different teaching models affect student learning in an undergraduate biomechanics course. This study showed stronger learning gains in the students who were in JiTT courses relative to the no JiTT courses. Between the JiTT models, students who were in the concept-based JiTT courses showed greater gains than those in the mathematics-based JiTT courses. Student populations within the concept-based JiTT classes that tended to see the highest gains in the summative assessment of the BCI were Hispanic students and non-primary English language speakers, whereas Hispanic or nonprimary English language students in the mathematics-based JiTT and no JiTT classes showed similar gains relative to their counterparts. Further, students who were non-Hispanic
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
176
J.L. Riskowski
or primary English showed significantly higher gains in their biomechanics concept map score in the no JiTT and concept-based JiTT classes but not in the mathematics-based JiTT classes. The implications of this research suggest that a concept-based JiTT structure may improve summative assessment scores, but other teaching strategies may be necessary to improve formative assessment scores in student populations that are typically underrepresented in US higher education, such as students of Hispanic ethnicity and those who are non-primary English speakers. From this study, the JiTT strategy was found to be effective in helping students to achieve greater understanding of biomechanical competencies as noted by the improvement in BCI and concept map scores. Prior work suggests that improvement in BCI scores within US introductory biomechanics classes is approximately 13% (Knudson, 2006), whereas within the physics field, improvement with traditional physics instruction is approximately 20% (Hake, 1998; Meltzer & Manivannan, 2002). In this study, student gain without JiTT was 30%, and gain with mathematics-based JiTT was 38% and with concept-based JiTT the gain was 50%, results in line with prior work assessing traditional lectures versus more active learning strategies (Meltzer & Manivannan, 2002; Prince & Felder, 2006; Puttisanwimon, Rakkapao, & Pengpan, 2013). In evaluating changes in the biomechanics concept mapping, there was a 37% improvement for those in the no JiTT courses, 45% for those in the mathematics-based JiTT courses, and 53% for those in the concept-based JiTT courses. As an increase in scores for concept mapping suggests deeper, more meaningful personal knowledge (Ifenthaler, 2010; Walker & King, 2003), the results from this study suggest that students who were in the concept-based JiTT had better grasp of the material and understood the relations between biomechanics concepts. Together results from the BCI and biomechanics concept map suggest that JiTT, and more specifically concept-based JiTT, may assist students in retrieving biomechanics facts and procedures, while also providing a means for helping students to understand patterns between concepts. In understanding while differences may exist between the JiTT courses (i.e., conceptbased JiTTand mathematics-based JiTT), it is important to address knowledge development within the teaching structure. Students in the mathematics-based JiTT were presented with mathematical questions that required specific formulae to be used, and throughout the course students were conditioned to use the formulae to answer the questions. Students in the concept-based JiTT were presented questions that challenged their understanding of relations of the different biomechanics concepts. None of the questions in the concept-based JiTT required a calculator. However, responses to the concept-based JiTT question could be evaluated by using a calculator to see whether the student’s understanding was correct. The mathematics-based JiTT questions conditionalised the idea that formulae assisted in solving problems, which might have hindered their development to recognise and understand patterns within the concepts (Simon, 1980). The concept-based JiTT classes focused on relations between concepts and pattern-recognition, a necessary skill for developing authentic problem-solving and understanding (Bransford, Franks, Vye, & Sherwood, 1989), which at times allowed for calculations to be used to check understanding. Over the course, the natural integration between concepts and mathematics that students in the conceptbased JiTT classes were exposed to may explain the improved performance on the BCI and concept map, relative to the other teaching styles. The present study has a number of strengths and limitations. First, it may be that frequent ‘testing’ or questioning improves testing ability, which is to say that students who were in the concept- and mathematics-based JiTT courses had more opportunities to practice taking ‘tests’, so their BCI scores would improve. While this may explain benefits of the JiTT course structure beyond traditional instruction in undergraduate biomechanics, it does not explain
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
Teaching undergraduate biomechanics
177
the benefit of concept-based JiTT over the mathematics-based JiTT course structure. It is possible that the advantage of concept-based JiTT is an artifact of the conceptual nature of the assessment models. This effect of teaching strategy to assessment style should be further explored. Further, as this was a two-year project, the classroom instructor was developing as an instructor over the study. Again, this may explain the difference between the Year 1 no JiTT course outcomes in relation to the Year 2 JiTT course outcomes; however, it does not explain the differences between the mathematics-based JiTT and concept-based JiTT classrooms. As such, this study would suggest that concept-based JiTT courses can provide strong teaching framework within the biomechanics field. Moreover, this study was an exploratory evaluation into the use of JiTT in biomechanics, particularly as it relates to the individual assessment scores and subgroup analyses. Given the upper bounds of the type I error rate is 0.26 per assessment model and 0.48 for the combined subgroup analyses of the assessment models, the results from the individual assessments and of the subgroup analyses should be used with caution. Nonetheless, this study highlights the need for future work evaluating teaching style on student learning in diverse classrooms. Strengths of this study would include its cross-over study design in the second year to evaluate the difference in JiTT courses as well as its student population. The students in this study were from a diverse background, which included being of non-traditional university age, non-primary English speakers, and being first-generation university students. As such this study provides a thorough evaluation into the effects of learning biomechanics within a JiTT structure and provides evidence that concept-based JiTT can improve biomechanics understanding. However, cross-cultural studies evaluating if results are similar in other student populations are needed to determine if these results are more widely generalisable. Conclusion The present study suggests that frequent concept-based questioning of student through the concept-based JiTT framework can positively improve student learning in undergraduate biomechanics. Thus, there is a need to develop biomechanics material that centre on this type of teaching—one that utilising frequent testing outside of the classroom as well as timesensitive activities in the classroom that provide students opportunities to correct misconceptions they have. As biomechanics is often defined by particular constructs and models that make it abstract to student, using a concept-based JiTT curriculum may encourage students to study and discuss the classroom material at deeper level than what the no JiTT and mathematics-based JiTT could provide. Supplemental data Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14763141. 2015.1030686. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. References Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
178
J.L. Riskowski
Barenholz, H., & Tamir, P. (1992). A comprehensive use of concept mapping in design instruction and assessment. Research in Science & Technological Education, 10, 37–52. Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. (1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can’t be told. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 470–497). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1999). The problem of units and the circumstance for POMP. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 315–346. Douglas, J., Iverson, E., & Kalyandurg, C. (2004). Engineering in the K-12 classroom: An analysis of current practices and guidelines for the future. Washington, DC: American Society of Engineering Education Engineering K12 Center. Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning: Let’s get beyond the hype. E-Learning, 3, 54–55. Garceau, L. R., Ebben, W. P., & Knudson, D. V. (2012). Teaching practices of the undergraduate introductory biomechanics faculty: A North American survey. Sports Biomechanics, 11, 542–558. Ghista, D. N. (2000). Biomedical engineering: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 19, 23– 28. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64– 74. Hamill, J. (2007). Biomechanics curriculum: Its content and relevance to movement sciences. Quest, 59, 25–33. Hsieh, C., & Knudson, D. (2008). Student factors related to learning in biomechanics. Sports Biomechanics, 7, 398–402. Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 81–97. I˙ngec , S¸. K. (2009). Analysing concept maps as an assessment tool in teaching physics and comparison with the achievement tests. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1897–1915. Ives, J. C., & Knudson, D. (2007). Professional practice in exercise science: The need for greater disciplinary balance. Sports Medicine, 37, 103–115. Jegede, O. J., Alaiyemola, F. F., & Okebukola, P. A. O. (1990). The effect of concept mapping on students’ anxiety and achievement in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 951– 960. Knudson, D. (2006). Biomechanics concept inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 103, 81–82. Knudson, D. (2013). Physics and biomechanics wducation research: Improving learning of biomechanical concepts. Paper presented at the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports, Taipei, Taiwan. Knudson, D., Bauer, J., & Bahamonde, R. (2009). Correlates of learning in introductory biomechanics. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 108, 499–504. Knudson, D., Noffal, G., Bauer, J., McGinnis, P., Bird, M., Chow, J., . . . Abendroth-Smith, J. (2003). Development and evaluation of a biomechanics concept inventory. Sports Biomechanics, 2, 267–277. Marrs, K. A., Blake, R., & Gavrin, A. (2003). Use of warm up exercises in Just-in-Time Teaching: Determining students’ prior knowledge and misconceptions in biology, chemistry, and physics. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33, 42–47. Marrs, K. A., & Novak, G. (2004). Just-in-Time Teaching in biology: Creating an active learner classroom using the Internet. Cell Biology Education, 3, 49–61. McClure, J. R., & Bell, P. E. (1990). Effects of an environmental education-related STS approach instruction on cognitive structures of preservice science teachers (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341,582). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. McClure, J. R., Sonak, B., & Suen, H. K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 475 –492. Meltzer, D. E., & Manivannan, K. (2002). Transforming the lecture-hall environment: The fully interactive physics lecture. American Journal of Physics, 70, 639 –654. Moravec, M., Williams, A., Aguilar-Roca, N., & O’Dowd, D. K. (2010). Learn before lecture: A strategy that improves learning outcomes in a large introductory biology class. Cell Biology Education—Life Sciences Education, 9, 473–481. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 937–949. Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 123 –138. Puttisanwimon, S., Rakkapao, S., & Pengpan, T. (2013). Assessment of the Just-in-Time-Teaching approach on the newtonian mechanics concept by using the model analysis technique. Paper presented at the International Conference on Physics Education, Prague, Czech Republic.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
Teaching undergraduate biomechanics
179
Reeves, T. C. (2000). Alternative assessment approaches for online learning environments in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23, 101– 111. Rice, D. C., Ryan, J. M., & Samson, S. M. (1998). Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: Must different methods compete? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1103–1127. Riskowski, J. L., Todd, C. D., Wee, B., Dark, M., & Harbor, J. (2009). Exploring the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary water resources engineering module in an eighth grade science course. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25, 181–195. Sanders, R., & Sanders, L. (2005). Biomechanics teachers can be animals. Sports Biomechanics, 4, 245–268. Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52, 519– 611. Simkins, S., & Maier, M. (2004). Using Just-in-Time Teaching techniques in the principles of economics course. Social Science Computer Review, 22, 444–456. Simkins, S., & Maier, M. H. (2010). Just-in-Time Teaching: Across the disciplines, across the academy. Sterling: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Simon, H. A. (1980). Problem solving and education. In D. Tuma & F. Reif (Eds.), Problem solving and education: Issues in teaching and research (pp. 81–96). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Elbaum. Turns, J., Atman, C. J., & Adams, R. (2000). Concept maps for engineering education: A cognitively motivated tool supporting varied assessment functions. IEEE Transactions on Education, 43, 164–173. Walker, J. M., & King, P. H. (2003). Concept mapping as a form of student assessment and instruction in the domain of bioengineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 92, 167– 178.
Sports Biomechanics Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rspb20
Teaching undergraduate biomechanics with Just-in-Time Teaching a
Jody L. Riskowski a
Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK Published online: 08 May 2015.
Click for updates To cite this article: Jody L. Riskowski (2015) Teaching undergraduate biomechanics with Just-inTime Teaching, Sports Biomechanics, 14:2, 168-179, DOI: 10.1080/14763141.2015.1030686 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2015.1030686
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Sports Biomechanics, 2015 Vol. 14, No. 2, 168–179, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2015.1030686
Teaching undergraduate biomechanics with Just-in-Time Teaching
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
JODY L. RISKOWSKI Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK (Received 16 April 2014; accepted 12 January 2015)
Abstract Biomechanics education is a vital component of kinesiology, sports medicine, and physical education, as well as for many biomedical engineering and bioengineering undergraduate programmes. Little research exists regarding effective teaching strategies for biomechanics. However, prior work suggests that student learning in undergraduate physics courses has been aided by using the Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT). As physics understanding plays a role in biomechanics understanding, the purpose of study was to evaluate the use of a JiTT framework in an undergraduate biomechanics course. This twoyear action-based research study evaluated three JiTT frameworks: (1) no JiTT; (2) mathematics-based JiTT; and (3) concept-based JiTT. A pre- and post-course assessment of student learning used the biomechanics concept inventory and a biomechanics concept map. A general linear model assessed differences between the course assessments by JiTT framework in order to evaluate learning and teaching effectiveness. The results indicated significantly higher learning gains and better conceptual understanding in a concept-based JiTT course, relative to a mathematics-based JiTTor no JiTT course structure. These results suggest that a course structure involving concept-based questions using a JiTT strategy may be an effective method for engaging undergraduate students and promoting learning in biomechanics courses.
Keywords: Pedagogical issues, post-secondary education, teaching/learning strategies, effective learning, science education
Introduction Biomechanics and movement science are rapidly growing fields in academia and industry. It is a vital component of several undergraduate programmes, including kinesiology, sports medicine, physical education (Hamill, 2007; Ives & Knudson, 2007), and biomedical and bioengineering (Ghista, 2000). The primary purpose of teaching within the field of biomechanics is to develop the cognitive and practical breadth required to function as competent practitioners within the chosen field. Through the academic process at the undergraduate level, programmes often provide students with broad educational experiences, assisting them to develop generic skills such as independent learning, teamwork, responsibility toward other people, and problem solving abilities. Undergraduate Correspondence: Jody L. Riskowski, Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, 70 Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, E-mail: [email protected] q 2015 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
Teaching undergraduate biomechanics
169
biomechanics and movement sciences courses provide a foundational level for understanding the function of the physical body in movement tasks (e.g., locomotion, throwing). Through these courses students learn the principles of human movement as they relate to physical function and mobility in activities of daily living, sports, and pathological conditions. The interdisciplinary study of biomechanics typically encompasses principles of classical mechanics, motor control, neural control, and anatomy (Knudson, 2006; Knudson, Bauer, & Bahamonde, 2009), and many of the challenges faced in learning biomechanics centre around understanding physics and mathematics as it relates to human motion (Garceau, Ebben, & Knudson, 2012). Advances in our understanding of effective teaching and learning within the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) over the last few decades provided an opportunity to improve teaching quality. Within the field of engineering and physics, Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT) has been promoted as an effective teaching strategy for reaching undergraduate students within these disciplines (Marrs, Blake, & Gavrin, 2003; Simkins & Maier, 2010, pp. 79 –179). JiTT is a teaching strategy that utilises blended learning, also known as hybrid, flipped, or mixed learning, to combine online and face-to-face instruction, and includes didactic and delivery methods using web-based technology (Driscoll, 2002). With JiTT, students respond to instructor-posted questions that address the subsequent classroom concepts and material in an online learning management system (e.g., Blackboard) and are based on student reading or other pre-class preparation prior to the start of the class (Marrs & Novak, 2004). The questions posted when using a JiTT framework by the instructor can either be mathematical (i.e., requiring calculations), or conceptual (i.e., addressing how concepts relate). Student responses to these questions allow the instructor to evaluate the students’ current understanding of concepts or abilities in performing biomechanical calculations, and these responses provide an opportunity for the instructor to adapt the subsequent classroom teaching and activities to meet students’ level of understanding (Figure 1). Students respond to the JiTT questions outside of class time and are based on current understanding as a means for the instructor to gauge misconceptions and level of knowledge of the material (Simkins & Maier, 2004). With JiTT improvements in student learning biology showed a 21% improvement in student learning relative to classrooms without JiTT (Moravec, Williams, Aguilar-Roca, & O’Dowd, 2010). Improvements in learning with JiTT encompass several factors, including increased student study outside of the classroom, lowrisk, high-challenge environments that promote student conceptualisation, frequent student
Figure 1. Steps and teaching model of JiTT.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
170
J.L. Riskowski
assessment, and quality student – faculty interaction (Astin, 1993; Douglas, Iverson, & Kalyandurg, 2004; Riskowski, Todd, Wee, Dark, & Harbor, 2009). Despite a number of studies addressing student learning in biomechanics, (Garceau et al., 2012; Hsieh & Knudson, 2008; Knudson, 2006; Knudson et al., 2003; Sanders & Sanders, 2005), it is unclear if differences in teaching strategies can affect student learning and performance in biomechanics (Knudson, 2013). Moreover, given the complexities of teaching biomechanics and given biomechanics have a strong mathematics component (Garceau et al., 2012), it is unclear whether a mathematically-oriented JiTT (i.e., students respond to mathematic questions regarding biomechanics) or a concept-based JiTT (i.e., students respond to questions regarding how biomechanics concepts relate to each other or how biomechanical concepts affect ‘real-life’ situations) would be a more effective teaching strategy for biomechanics. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate how different JiTT models, which included a mathematical or modified JiTT, conceptual JiTT, and No JiTT, would affect student learning in undergraduate biomechanics, with secondary subgroup analyses into student learning by demographic populations. It was hypothesised that the teaching model that focused on mathematics would perform better in the mathematics assessment relative to other teaching models, whereas the teaching model that focused on relations between topics learning would have stronger performances in concept mapping, relative to the other teaching models. Methods This study was a longitudinal research assessment to determine the efficacy of the JiTT method. This study occurred over two years in a senior-level undergraduate biomechanics course. This course is a required course for all kinesiology students at the university. This study was approved by the University of Texas at El Paso Institutional Review Board, and all participants signed university-approved consent forms prior to the start of data collection. Participants The participating kinesiology students had either an exercise science or a physical education degree concentration and had taken at least four kinesiology courses prior to commencing this course. All students in the biomechanics courses were invited to participate, and the results of the study were not evaluated until the conclusion of the study. Students self-reported age and if they were a first-generation student, defined as the first in their nuclear family (i.e., parents and siblings) to attend a four-year college or university. Participating students also self-identified gender, ethnicity as either Hispanic or nonHispanic, and language spoken at home. Language spoken at home was dichotomised as either ‘primary English’ or ‘non-primary English.’ Individuals who reported speaking mostly or only English in their home were ‘primary English’ speakers. ‘Non-primary English’ speakers were those who reported speaking an equal mix of English and another language, mostly another language, or only another language in their home. Biomechanics course There were two biomechanics courses per semester for a total of eight courses over the two years (Table I). These courses met for an hour twice a week for 15 weeks, with an additional week for the final examination period. Eleven of the 16 weeks had an additional two-hour laboratory class to augment the classroom work.
Teaching undergraduate biomechanics
171
Table I. Teaching framework by semester. Year 1 Course period Morning course Evening course
Fall No JiTT No JiTT
Year 2 Spring No JiTT No JiTT
Fall Math-JiTT Con-JiTT
Spring Con-JiTT Math-JiTT
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
Note: JiTT, Just-in-Time Teaching; Con-JiTT, concept-based JiTT; Math-JiTT, mathematics-based JiTT.
Students who took the course in the first year were taught without using web-based questions or JiTT (no JiTT). During the study’s second year, the biomechanics courses had web-based questions. In this second year, one course each semester used online conceptbased questions, while the other used simple, factual web-based questions as a mathematicsbased JiTT method, such as:
Concept-based JiTT question – On a kick-off, a football is kicked at 10 m/s at 288, which component will have greater velocity? (a) The vertical component. (b) They will be the components will be the same. (c) The horizontal component. (d) Not enough information to answer. Mathematics-based JiTT question – On a kick-off, a football is kicked at 10 m/s at 288, what is the vertical velocity? (a) 4.7 m/s. (b) 2.8 m/s. (c) 8.8 m/s. (d) Not enough information to answer.
During the conceptual-based JiTT and mathematics-based JiTT classes, students took weekly on-line quizzes, which were due one hour prior to the start of the class. Feedback from these quizzes was available to students after all students had taken the quiz or after the subsequent class. The instructor was able to review student performance on the quizzes at any time in order to determine classroom needs for the subsequent class.
Assessment of student learning Two assessments were used to evaluate student learning over the biomechanics course: (1) biomechanics concepts inventory (BCI), and (2) biomechanics concept mapping. In assessing learning in these two assessments allows an understanding of students learning achievement via the BCI and students understanding of how concepts relate. These two styles of assessment have been shown to have a weak correlation and are method for extracting students’ depth of understanding (I˙ngec , 2009). The primary outcome from this study is the combined percentage of maximum possible (POMP) score for the combined assessments (Cohen, Cohen, Aiken, & West, 1999). Biomechanics concept inventory. The BCI assumes prerequisite competency in anatomy, anatomical terms, muscles and joint movements, graph interpretation, and algebra. It assesses the biomechanical competencies of muscle mechanical characteristics, motor unit recruitment and EMG, linear and angular kinematics and kinetics, and fluid mechanics, all with application to qualitative analysis of human movement (Knudson, 2006; Knudson
172
J.L. Riskowski
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
et al., 2003). The BCI is a summative assessment that has 24 multiple-choice questions centred on the biomechanics competencies, which may be qualitative or quantitative. Biomechanics concept map. Concept maps are visual organisation and representation of knowledge within a domain, and they demonstrate concepts and ideas as well as the relations among them. Concept maps are created by writing key words and drawing arrows between the ideas that are related, with a short description by the arrow to explain how the concepts relate (Novak, 1990). Concepts maps are a means for assessing student’s understanding of science concepts (Novak, 1990) and assessing teaching effectiveness (Barenholz & Tamir, 1992; Reeves, 2000). Further, concepts maps are often referred to as a formative assessment as they are low-risk activity that assesses the structural complexity of the relationships between terms and evaluates higher-level thinking (Rice, Ryan, & Samson, 1998; Turns, Atman, & Adams, 2000), without increasing anxiety or stress that strict correct–incorrect assessments, such as multiple-choice questions, may (Jegede, Alaiyemola, & Okebukola, 1990). For the biomechanics concept map assessment, the terms chosen for the mapping exercise were acceleration, biomechanics, displacement, distance, dynamics, force, impulse, inertia, kinematics, kinetics, momentum, power, rotation, scalar, speed, statics, time, torque, vector, and velocity (Figure 2a). A relational scoring system was used to evaluate students understanding between biomechanics concepts, with 0 being the minimum score and the maximum score defined as the highest scored achieved by the students (McClure & Bell, 1990; McClure, Sonak, & Suen, 1999). This scoring system assigns a value of 0 –3 to each association the student demonstrates on his or her concept map (Figure 2b). A single rater scored all the concept maps at the conclusion of the study. Data analysis Means and standard deviations or frequencies were used to describe student demographics and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Kruskal– Wallis test were used to evaluate student demographics between the JiTT styles. Parametric statistics were used in continuous data (e.g., student age), whereas non-parametric data were used in count data (e.g., gender, language). Parametric data were normally distributed as assessed by the Shapiro –Wilk test (Shapiro & Wilk, 1965).
Figure 2. Example of (a) biomechanics concept map and (b) relational scoring method.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
Teaching undergraduate biomechanics
173
To assess student learning, students undertook both assessment models (i.e., BCI and concept map) at the start and conclusion of the biomechanics course. Pre-course and postcourse scores were evaluated, and the scores were converted into POMP scores for statistical analysis (Cohen et al., 1999), which provides a single number to assess student gains in learning. The maximum score for the BCI was 24, and for the concept maps the maximum score was defined as the highest score out from all the student responses (McClure & Bell, 1990; McClure et al., 1999). The primary outcome was the combined BCI and concept map POMP score, and a general linear model with Tukey’s honest significant difference was used to assess learning gains between groups, with the referent the students in the no JiTT group. This statistical model was also used to evaluate differences in learning gains within each assessment style by subgroup populations based on gender, Hispanic ethnicity, and primary English language. All statistical analyses were conducted using the SAS statistical analysis package, version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Alpha was set to p # 0.05 for all analyses. As there was no p-value adjustment for the subgroup analyses, the upper bound experimental type I error rate is 0.26 per assessment model and 0.48 when evaluating both assessment models. Results Over the two-year period there were eight biomechanics courses taught, which included 283 students, of which 40% were women, 71% were self-identified as Hispanic, and 36% spoke mostly or only Spanish or another language at home, denoted as non-primary English speaking students. Between the JiTT groups, there were no significant demographic differences or differences in the pre-course BCI or concept map scores (Table II). The primary outcome was the combined BCI and concept map showed a net POMP mean score of 71.6 ^ 10.4, 88.1 ^ 7.4, and 102.9 ^ 9.6 for the no JiTT, mathematics-based JiTT, and concept-based JiTT, respectively, with the mathematics-based JiTT (p , 0.001) and concept-based JiTT (p , 0.001) outperforming the no JiTT. The minimum and maximum of the combined POMP score for each teaching style were 3.8 and 128.0 for the no JiTT group, 3.8 and 147.2 for the mathematics-based JiTT group, and 6.1 and 153.8, respectively. BCI scores BCI scores at the start of the course were similar between all three groups, and the average score of all participating students was 28.0 ^ 7.4% or approximately seven questions were correct, whereas at the conclusion of the course, the average score was 56.8 ^ 8.9% or approximately 13 correct questions (Figure 3a). All three teaching methods led to significant gains, and as a POMP, which accounts for the pre-course BCI score, the POMP gain was 39.9%. Students in the no JiTT courses increased their BCI scores 34.0% (range: -5.2% to 56.3%), while students in the mathematics-based JiTT and concept-based JiTT improved 43.2% (range: -3.2% to 63.6%) and 50.3% (range: -3.8% to 70.3%), respectively. Comparing between courses, the mathematics-based JiTT and concept-based JiTT courses had significantly greater gain (p ¼ 0.041; p ¼ 0.023, respectively) in BCI relative to the no JiTT course. Between the concept-based JiTT and mathematics-based JiTT courses, students in the concept-based JiTT courses had significantly higher (p ¼ 0.035) post-BCI scores than students in the mathematics-based JiTT courses. In a subgroup analysis, there were differences in BCI score within teaching style between ethnicities as well as between the two language classifications (i.e., primary or non-primary
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
174
J.L. Riskowski
Figure 3. Normalised gains on the (a) Biomechanics Concept Inventory (BCI) and (b) biomechanics concept map by teaching style, with subgroup population gains. Data are presented in the supplemental material. JiTT, Just-inTime Teaching; Con-JiTT, concept-based JiTT; Math-JiTT, mathematics-based JiTT.
English speaking); there were no significant difference by gender in BCI gains. Within the concept-based JiTT course, students who were non-primary English speakers had a 54.8% BCI score increase, significantly higher than the 49.2% gain of students who were primary English in the home (p ¼ 0.032). Between courses, gains noted by students who were nonTable II. Student demographics and pre-course scores.
Age, years Female Hispanic First-generation student Non-primary English spoken at home Physical education concentration Pre-BCI POMP score, % Pre-concept map POMP score, %
All students (N ¼ 283)
No JiTT students (N ¼ 137)
Math-JiTT students (N ¼ 79)
Con-JiTT students (N ¼ 67)
p-value
25.2 ^ 1.6 114 (40) 200 (71) 177 (63) 92 (33) 116 (41) 28.3 ^ 7.4 10.7 ^ 3.2
25.2 ^ 1.4 56 (44) 99 (78) 84 (66) 50 (39) 51 (40) 29.4 ^ 6.7 11.2 ^ 2.9
25.4 ^ 1.7 34 (49) 54 (78) 51 (74) 25 (36) 37 (54) 26.2 ^ 7.9 9.8 ^ 3.9
24.8 ^ 1.9 24 (42) 47 (82) 42 (74) 17 (30) 28 (49) 27.4 ^ 8.4 10.8 ^ 3.0
0.109 0.654 0.877 0.443 0.471 0.163 0.104 0.099
Note: Physical education concentration refers to number of student choosing physical education as the primary degree s/he was seeking. Data presented as N (%) or mean ^ standard deviation (SD). BCI, biomechanics concept inventory; JiTT, Just-in-Time Teaching; Con-JiTT, concept-based JiTT; Math-JiTT, mathematics-based JiTT; POMP, percentage of maximum possible; SD, standard deviation. p-values are provided as a means for determining if cohort effect existed between teaching styles.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
Teaching undergraduate biomechanics
175
primary English speakers in the concept-based JiTT were significantly higher than those in the no JiTT (28.3% BCI score increase) and mathematics-based JiTT (35.8% BCI score increase) courses (p ¼ 0.010; p ¼ 0.043, respectively). Further, the concept-based JiTT is the only course that brought parity (p ¼ 0.432) in final BCI scores between primary and non-primary English speakers, as students who were primary English speakers in the mathematics-based JiTT (p ¼ 0.031) and no JiTT (p ¼ 0.021) outperformed the students who were non-primary English speakers. Those of Hispanic ethnicity had a 50.2% gain post-course in the concept-based JiTT course, whereas non-Hispanic students had a gain of 47.4% (p ¼ 0.132). The gains noted by Hispanic students in the concept-based JiTT course were significantly higher than those in the no JiTT (38% BCI score increase) and mathematics-based JiTT (46.9% BCI score increase) courses (p ¼ 0.026; p ¼ 0.034, respectively). In addition, final BCI scores between Hispanic and non-Hispanic students were similar (p ¼ 0.392) in those in the concept-based JiTT, whereas the non-Hispanic students had higher final BCI scores in the mathematicsbased JiTT (p ¼ 0.024) and no JiTT (p ¼ 0.009) than the Hispanic students in these courses. Biomechanics concept map The maximum score on the concept map exercise was 30, and at the start of the course, the average score for all participants was 11.0 ^ 3.2 for a POMP score of 36.1% (Figure 3b). All three teaching methods led to significant gains on the post-course evaluation as the average POMP gain for all students was 41.1%. Students in the no JiTT courses had a 37.3% increase (range: 3.3 – 53.6%), while students in the mathematics-based JiTT and conceptbased JiTT courses had statistically higher gains of 44.8% (range: 3.3 –67.1%) and 53.4% (range: 6.7 –73.5%), respectively. Between JiTT groups, students in the concept-based JiTT courses had significantly higher (p ¼ 0.035) post-course concept maps scores than students in the mathematics-based JiTT courses. In a subgroup analysis, there were differences in gains in concept map score within the courses. Women in the no JiTT course showed greater gains in the concept map, relative to the men in the course (p ¼ 0.023). Further, within the no JiTT and concept-based JiTT courses non-Hispanic students had greater gains in concept map score relative to the nonHispanic students in the class (p ¼ 0.032; p ¼ 0.022). Similarly, within the no JiTT and concept-based JiTT courses primary English speaking students had greater gains in concept map score relative to the non-primary English speaking students in the class (p ¼ 0.027; p ¼ 0.020). There were no significant differences in the gains between student populations within the mathematics-based JiTT courses. Discussion and implications The purpose of this study was to assess how different teaching models affect student learning in an undergraduate biomechanics course. This study showed stronger learning gains in the students who were in JiTT courses relative to the no JiTT courses. Between the JiTT models, students who were in the concept-based JiTT courses showed greater gains than those in the mathematics-based JiTT courses. Student populations within the concept-based JiTT classes that tended to see the highest gains in the summative assessment of the BCI were Hispanic students and non-primary English language speakers, whereas Hispanic or nonprimary English language students in the mathematics-based JiTT and no JiTT classes showed similar gains relative to their counterparts. Further, students who were non-Hispanic
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
176
J.L. Riskowski
or primary English showed significantly higher gains in their biomechanics concept map score in the no JiTT and concept-based JiTT classes but not in the mathematics-based JiTT classes. The implications of this research suggest that a concept-based JiTT structure may improve summative assessment scores, but other teaching strategies may be necessary to improve formative assessment scores in student populations that are typically underrepresented in US higher education, such as students of Hispanic ethnicity and those who are non-primary English speakers. From this study, the JiTT strategy was found to be effective in helping students to achieve greater understanding of biomechanical competencies as noted by the improvement in BCI and concept map scores. Prior work suggests that improvement in BCI scores within US introductory biomechanics classes is approximately 13% (Knudson, 2006), whereas within the physics field, improvement with traditional physics instruction is approximately 20% (Hake, 1998; Meltzer & Manivannan, 2002). In this study, student gain without JiTT was 30%, and gain with mathematics-based JiTT was 38% and with concept-based JiTT the gain was 50%, results in line with prior work assessing traditional lectures versus more active learning strategies (Meltzer & Manivannan, 2002; Prince & Felder, 2006; Puttisanwimon, Rakkapao, & Pengpan, 2013). In evaluating changes in the biomechanics concept mapping, there was a 37% improvement for those in the no JiTT courses, 45% for those in the mathematics-based JiTT courses, and 53% for those in the concept-based JiTT courses. As an increase in scores for concept mapping suggests deeper, more meaningful personal knowledge (Ifenthaler, 2010; Walker & King, 2003), the results from this study suggest that students who were in the concept-based JiTT had better grasp of the material and understood the relations between biomechanics concepts. Together results from the BCI and biomechanics concept map suggest that JiTT, and more specifically concept-based JiTT, may assist students in retrieving biomechanics facts and procedures, while also providing a means for helping students to understand patterns between concepts. In understanding while differences may exist between the JiTT courses (i.e., conceptbased JiTTand mathematics-based JiTT), it is important to address knowledge development within the teaching structure. Students in the mathematics-based JiTT were presented with mathematical questions that required specific formulae to be used, and throughout the course students were conditioned to use the formulae to answer the questions. Students in the concept-based JiTT were presented questions that challenged their understanding of relations of the different biomechanics concepts. None of the questions in the concept-based JiTT required a calculator. However, responses to the concept-based JiTT question could be evaluated by using a calculator to see whether the student’s understanding was correct. The mathematics-based JiTT questions conditionalised the idea that formulae assisted in solving problems, which might have hindered their development to recognise and understand patterns within the concepts (Simon, 1980). The concept-based JiTT classes focused on relations between concepts and pattern-recognition, a necessary skill for developing authentic problem-solving and understanding (Bransford, Franks, Vye, & Sherwood, 1989), which at times allowed for calculations to be used to check understanding. Over the course, the natural integration between concepts and mathematics that students in the conceptbased JiTT classes were exposed to may explain the improved performance on the BCI and concept map, relative to the other teaching styles. The present study has a number of strengths and limitations. First, it may be that frequent ‘testing’ or questioning improves testing ability, which is to say that students who were in the concept- and mathematics-based JiTT courses had more opportunities to practice taking ‘tests’, so their BCI scores would improve. While this may explain benefits of the JiTT course structure beyond traditional instruction in undergraduate biomechanics, it does not explain
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
Teaching undergraduate biomechanics
177
the benefit of concept-based JiTT over the mathematics-based JiTT course structure. It is possible that the advantage of concept-based JiTT is an artifact of the conceptual nature of the assessment models. This effect of teaching strategy to assessment style should be further explored. Further, as this was a two-year project, the classroom instructor was developing as an instructor over the study. Again, this may explain the difference between the Year 1 no JiTT course outcomes in relation to the Year 2 JiTT course outcomes; however, it does not explain the differences between the mathematics-based JiTT and concept-based JiTT classrooms. As such, this study would suggest that concept-based JiTT courses can provide strong teaching framework within the biomechanics field. Moreover, this study was an exploratory evaluation into the use of JiTT in biomechanics, particularly as it relates to the individual assessment scores and subgroup analyses. Given the upper bounds of the type I error rate is 0.26 per assessment model and 0.48 for the combined subgroup analyses of the assessment models, the results from the individual assessments and of the subgroup analyses should be used with caution. Nonetheless, this study highlights the need for future work evaluating teaching style on student learning in diverse classrooms. Strengths of this study would include its cross-over study design in the second year to evaluate the difference in JiTT courses as well as its student population. The students in this study were from a diverse background, which included being of non-traditional university age, non-primary English speakers, and being first-generation university students. As such this study provides a thorough evaluation into the effects of learning biomechanics within a JiTT structure and provides evidence that concept-based JiTT can improve biomechanics understanding. However, cross-cultural studies evaluating if results are similar in other student populations are needed to determine if these results are more widely generalisable. Conclusion The present study suggests that frequent concept-based questioning of student through the concept-based JiTT framework can positively improve student learning in undergraduate biomechanics. Thus, there is a need to develop biomechanics material that centre on this type of teaching—one that utilising frequent testing outside of the classroom as well as timesensitive activities in the classroom that provide students opportunities to correct misconceptions they have. As biomechanics is often defined by particular constructs and models that make it abstract to student, using a concept-based JiTT curriculum may encourage students to study and discuss the classroom material at deeper level than what the no JiTT and mathematics-based JiTT could provide. Supplemental data Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14763141. 2015.1030686. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. References Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
178
J.L. Riskowski
Barenholz, H., & Tamir, P. (1992). A comprehensive use of concept mapping in design instruction and assessment. Research in Science & Technological Education, 10, 37–52. Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. (1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can’t be told. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 470–497). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1999). The problem of units and the circumstance for POMP. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 315–346. Douglas, J., Iverson, E., & Kalyandurg, C. (2004). Engineering in the K-12 classroom: An analysis of current practices and guidelines for the future. Washington, DC: American Society of Engineering Education Engineering K12 Center. Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning: Let’s get beyond the hype. E-Learning, 3, 54–55. Garceau, L. R., Ebben, W. P., & Knudson, D. V. (2012). Teaching practices of the undergraduate introductory biomechanics faculty: A North American survey. Sports Biomechanics, 11, 542–558. Ghista, D. N. (2000). Biomedical engineering: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 19, 23– 28. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64– 74. Hamill, J. (2007). Biomechanics curriculum: Its content and relevance to movement sciences. Quest, 59, 25–33. Hsieh, C., & Knudson, D. (2008). Student factors related to learning in biomechanics. Sports Biomechanics, 7, 398–402. Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 81–97. I˙ngec , S¸. K. (2009). Analysing concept maps as an assessment tool in teaching physics and comparison with the achievement tests. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1897–1915. Ives, J. C., & Knudson, D. (2007). Professional practice in exercise science: The need for greater disciplinary balance. Sports Medicine, 37, 103–115. Jegede, O. J., Alaiyemola, F. F., & Okebukola, P. A. O. (1990). The effect of concept mapping on students’ anxiety and achievement in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 951– 960. Knudson, D. (2006). Biomechanics concept inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 103, 81–82. Knudson, D. (2013). Physics and biomechanics wducation research: Improving learning of biomechanical concepts. Paper presented at the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports, Taipei, Taiwan. Knudson, D., Bauer, J., & Bahamonde, R. (2009). Correlates of learning in introductory biomechanics. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 108, 499–504. Knudson, D., Noffal, G., Bauer, J., McGinnis, P., Bird, M., Chow, J., . . . Abendroth-Smith, J. (2003). Development and evaluation of a biomechanics concept inventory. Sports Biomechanics, 2, 267–277. Marrs, K. A., Blake, R., & Gavrin, A. (2003). Use of warm up exercises in Just-in-Time Teaching: Determining students’ prior knowledge and misconceptions in biology, chemistry, and physics. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33, 42–47. Marrs, K. A., & Novak, G. (2004). Just-in-Time Teaching in biology: Creating an active learner classroom using the Internet. Cell Biology Education, 3, 49–61. McClure, J. R., & Bell, P. E. (1990). Effects of an environmental education-related STS approach instruction on cognitive structures of preservice science teachers (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341,582). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. McClure, J. R., Sonak, B., & Suen, H. K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 475 –492. Meltzer, D. E., & Manivannan, K. (2002). Transforming the lecture-hall environment: The fully interactive physics lecture. American Journal of Physics, 70, 639 –654. Moravec, M., Williams, A., Aguilar-Roca, N., & O’Dowd, D. K. (2010). Learn before lecture: A strategy that improves learning outcomes in a large introductory biology class. Cell Biology Education—Life Sciences Education, 9, 473–481. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 937–949. Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 123 –138. Puttisanwimon, S., Rakkapao, S., & Pengpan, T. (2013). Assessment of the Just-in-Time-Teaching approach on the newtonian mechanics concept by using the model analysis technique. Paper presented at the International Conference on Physics Education, Prague, Czech Republic.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:50 09 September 2015
Teaching undergraduate biomechanics
179
Reeves, T. C. (2000). Alternative assessment approaches for online learning environments in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23, 101– 111. Rice, D. C., Ryan, J. M., & Samson, S. M. (1998). Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: Must different methods compete? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1103–1127. Riskowski, J. L., Todd, C. D., Wee, B., Dark, M., & Harbor, J. (2009). Exploring the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary water resources engineering module in an eighth grade science course. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25, 181–195. Sanders, R., & Sanders, L. (2005). Biomechanics teachers can be animals. Sports Biomechanics, 4, 245–268. Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52, 519– 611. Simkins, S., & Maier, M. (2004). Using Just-in-Time Teaching techniques in the principles of economics course. Social Science Computer Review, 22, 444–456. Simkins, S., & Maier, M. H. (2010). Just-in-Time Teaching: Across the disciplines, across the academy. Sterling: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Simon, H. A. (1980). Problem solving and education. In D. Tuma & F. Reif (Eds.), Problem solving and education: Issues in teaching and research (pp. 81–96). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Elbaum. Turns, J., Atman, C. J., & Adams, R. (2000). Concept maps for engineering education: A cognitively motivated tool supporting varied assessment functions. IEEE Transactions on Education, 43, 164–173. Walker, J. M., & King, P. H. (2003). Concept mapping as a form of student assessment and instruction in the domain of bioengineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 92, 167– 178.
