Within a mechanical engineering curriculum, Statics is often a barrier course for students, as their performance in Statics can impact their overall academic success. Recent efforts to enhance students’ learning in fundamental engineering courses have included integrating learning assistants (LAs), undergraduate peers who have previously excelled in the course, into the course's instructional team. The purpose of this study is to explore one enactment of a Statics classroom with LAs, the interactions that characterize it, and the impact it has on the students and instructional teams. A qualitative case study of a statics course with LAs was conducted leveraging Kranzfelder and colleagues’ teaching discourse moves framework to deductively and inductively analyze the data collected. The value of having LAs within Statics was prevalent throughout the interactions and from the perspective of the LAs, instructors, and students. However, the LAs remained an untapped resources for many in the course. The results of this study have implications for mechanical engineering departments, Statics instructors and LAs, and research.
WingateKFerriAFeighK. The impact of the physics, statics, and mechanics sequence on student retention and performance in mechanical engineering. In 2018 ASEE annual conference & exposition proceedings, Salt Lake City, Utah, Jun. 2018, 31111.
2.
SteifPS. An articulation of the concepts and skills which underlie engineering statics. In 34th Annual frontiers in education, 2004. FIE 2004., Savannah, GA, USA, 2004, 559–564.
3.
VasquezHFuentesAFreemanR.Improving student retention and engagement in statics through online formative assessments and recitations. In 2012 ASEE annual conference & exposition proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, Jun. 2012, 25.753.1–25.753.14.
4.
BensonLBiggersSMossW, et al.Dapting and implementing the scale up approach in statics, dynamics, and multivariate Calculus. In, 2007 annual conference & exposition proceedings, Honolulu, Hawaii, Jun. 2007, 12.176.1–12.176.9.
5.
MarraRMRodgersKAShenD,et al.Leaving engineering: A multi-year single institution study. J Eng Educ2012; 101: 6–27.
WangMCHaertelGDWalbergHJ. What influences learning? A content analysis of review literature. J Educ Res1990; 84): 30–43.
8.
FenollarPRománSCuestasPJ. University students’ academic performance: An integrative conceptual framework and empirical analysis. Br J Educ Psychol2007; 77): 873–891.
9.
PavlacicJMBuchananEM. Using undergraduate learning assistants to aid in course redesign. Open Science Framework, preprint, 2017; 23(2): 1–18.
10.
TwiggCA. Improving learning and reducing costs outcomes from changing the equation.pdf. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning2013; 45): 6–14.
11.
ChiMTH. Active-Constructive-Interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Top Cogn Sci2009; 1): 73–105.
12.
MaganaAJVieiraCBoutinM. Characterizing engineering Learners’ preferences for active and passive learning methods. IEEE Trans Educ2018; 61): 46–54.
13.
SloanTJ. How learning assistants impact undergraduate STEM students. Grad Coll Bowl Green State Univ2020: 1–58.
14.
OteroVK. Nationally scaled model for leveraging course transformation with physics teacher preparation. College Park, MD: American Physical Society, 2015.
15.
SabellaMSVan DuzorAGDavenportF.Leveraging the expertise of the urban STEM student in developing an effective LA program: LA and instructor partnerships. in 2016 Physics education research conference proceedings, Sacramento, CA, Dec. 2016, 288–291.
16.
OrserDDukartKChoiC,et al.Utilizing peer learning assistants to improve student outcomes in an introductory ECE course. in 2020 ASEE virtual annual conference content access proceedings, virtual on lineJun. 2020: 35480.
17.
WendellKMatsonDGallegosH,et al.Board 53: Work in progress: Learning assistant ‘noticing’ in undergraduate engineering science courses. in 2019 ASEE annual conference & exposition proceedings, Tampa, Florida, Jun. 2019, 32372.
18.
KranzfelderPBankers-FulbrightJLGarcía-OjedaME,et al.The classroom discourse observation protocol (CDOP): A quantitative method for characterizing teacher discourse moves in undergraduate STEM learning environments. PLOS ONE2019; 14): e0219019.
19.
Kornreich-LeshemHBenabentosR,HazariZ, et al.The cognitive and affective roles of learning assistants in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics college classrooms: An exploration of classroom experiences and students’ metacognitive awareness and disciplinary identity. Sci Educ2022; 106:545–572.
20.
Herbel-EisenmannBASteeleMDCirilloM. (Developing) teacher discourse moves: A framework for professional development. Math Teach Educ2013; 1): 181–196.
21.
KrusselLEdwardsBSpringerGT. The teacher’s discourse moves: A framework for analyzing discourse in mathematics classrooms. Sch Sci Math2004; 104): 307–312.
22.
CreswellJWMillerDL. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Pract.Aug. 2000; 39): 124–130.
23.
MerriamSBTisdellEJ. Qualitative research : A guide to design and implementation, 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016.
24.
FeredayJMuir-CochraneE. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int J Qual Methods2006; 5): 80–92.
FlanaganJC. The critical incident technique. Psychol Bull1954; 51): 33.
27.
YinRK. Case Study research design and methods, vol. 5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1989.
28.
JickTD. Mixing qualitative and quantitative triangulation research methods. Adm Sci Q1979; 24: 602–611.
29.
PivkinaI.Peer learning assistants in undergraduate computer science courses. in 2016 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE), Erie, PA, USA, Oct. 2016, 1–4.
30.
LaudenbachJ. Teaching methods matter: A comparison of learning outcomes and persistence in STEM between traditional lectures and active learning using undergraduate learning assistants in introductory chemistry courses. Culminating Proj High Educ Adm2020; 38: 193.
31.
WilsonDMSummersLWrightJ. Faculty support and student engagement in undergraduate engineering. J Res Innov Teach Learn2020; 13: 83–101.
32.
AndradeMS. International students in English-speaking universities: Adjustment factors. J Res Int Educ2006; 5: 131–154.
33.
SalamonsonYEverettBKochJ,et al.English-language acculturation predicts academic performance in nursing students who speak English as a second language. Res Nurs Health2008; 31: 86–94.
34.
MejiaJRuizDPopovV, et al.Board 104: Asset-based practices in engineering design (APRENDE): Development of a funds-of-knowledge approach for the formation of engineers. in 2019 ASEE annual conference & exposition proceedings, Tampa, Florida, Jun. 2019, 32173.
