An Exploratory Study of the ODL Course in Structural Engineering

Stella M. Mlasi

and R. Naidoo

Department of Civil & Chemical Engineering, University of South Africa, c/o Christiaan de Wet & Pioneer Avenue,

Florida, Johannesburg, South Africa

Institute for Open & Distance Learning, University of South Africa, 1 Preller Street, Muckleneuk, Pretoria, South Africa

Keywords: Module, Structural Steel, Open Distance Learning, Pass Rates, Interventions.

Abstract: The study was conducted on a structural steel design module taught via distance learning mode at the

University of South Africa, UNISA. Structural steel design is part of structural engineering under the broad

field of civil engineering. It is very challenging for students to learn or study structural steel design in an open

distance learning (ODL) environment; because students struggle to put concepts in the correct perspective

without any assistance. This lead to few but major challenges such as poor pass rates, graduates with low

confidence and lack of quality skills and decision-making. In addressing these challenges, few interventions

were introduced including improving communication and teaching methods, redesigning study materials and

prescribing up to date books. The interventions were implemented progressively from the year 2013 up to

date, and the outcomes measure was the examinations. The examination results showed that the pass rates has

been improving annually after 2013, with the overall pass percentages increasing and the number of

distinctions increasing from 0 to 6. This implies that the intervention that were implemented are effective but

needs to be applied strategically.

1 INTRODUCTION

Engineers think from the abstract to the concrete and

vice versa. The learning of concepts and strategies are

essential in engineering teaching, learning and

assessments. Engineering students frequently use

strategies influenced by the instructional method and

assessment procedures (Heywood, 2000).

Engineering knowledge is changing hence lecturers

should establish new approaches to engineering

education. The approaches must encourage deep or

surface approaches to learning. Assessments used can

have a harmful or less than positive effect on learning

because they cause surface learning. Engineers

require a variety of learning styles when they are

engaged in projects due to both convergent and

divergent thinkers. Spatial ability is important in

engineering design. Engineers need to be able to

visualize. Learning style may be in conflict with the

style of teaching to which we are exposed.

Consequently teaching and learning styles should be

matched. The nature of engineering learning suggest

variety of styles. Consequently teachers may have to

change their teaching styles.

In the United Kingdom another type of student

approach to learning was identified (Entwishle,

1979). The strategic approach described the class of

student who tried to manipulate the assessment

procedures to her/his own advantage by combining

her/his efforts to the reward system as they see it. It is

extrinsic and achievement motivation. Kneale (1997)

believed that there was an increase in strategically

motivated students in British universities. Strategies

adopted are indicative of the different perceptions of

what students believe is wanted from them by their

teachers in order to measure their performance.

(Wilson, 1981). The preknowledge concept is

important in students learning orientation. Teaching

and assessment strategies used can influence the

orientation that students take to deep and surface

learning. Clearly, if students are to overcome the

misconceptions they have about concepts, then a deep

learning approach will have to be encouraged. In this

situation a traditional lecture approach, however good

the lecturer, may not be adequate.

Engineering is particularly suited to holistic

assessment because of its desire to simulate the real

world that students will meet when they exit from

their courses. Project work has been introduced,

246

Mlasi, S. and Naidoo, R.

An Exploratory Study of the ODL Course in Structural Engineering.

DOI: 10.5220/0006751302460251

In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2018), pages 246-251

ISBN: 978-989-758-291-2

laboratory methods have changed and continue to

change because of technological advances. These

caused changes in curriculum content. The normal

traditional tests does not connect to the real world.

This review article is written in order to present

feedback from the interventions that were

implemented in a module that was not yielding good

results. The module is called Structural steel and

timber design, facilitated both online and on print by

the Civil Engineering Department at the University of

South Africa, UNISA, which is an open distance

learning institution. The module contents cover the

application of all the concepts and theories learned in

the earlier days of ones career in civil engineering. In

South Africa, the design decisions are guided by the

South African National Standards (SANS) published

codes and the engineering and environmental

sciences and as well as social needs. This full year

module is on the exit level of a three year Civil

Engineering Diploma and it is actually a two in one

module, which comprise two components: Structural

steel design & Structural Timber design.

The basic knowledge for structural steel and

timber design is defined by:

 Memorizing and understanding definitions,

equations, etc.

 Applying equations and procedures;

 An understanding of the concepts and

procedures involved;

 A more complete understanding of the

phenomena involved.

Vuc, Baloi and Litcanu (2015), Olds, Moskal and

Miller (2005) explain two assessment methods in

engineering education as 1) descriptive studies and 2)

experimental studies. The assessment or examination

results used in this paper can be classified as

experimental data and the techniques were

quantitative.

In 2001, the authors Anderson & Krathwohl

(2001) published a revised Bloom’s taxonomy that

covers six levels of educational objectives. The

module structural steel and timber design educational

objectives are covered by two of the six, that is

analysing and applying. For the module under

consideration, analysing involves examining the

structure (of steel or timber) or its components to

determine their capacity and then organising the

design steps logically. On the other hand, applying

involves using the acquired knowledge from other

modules such as theory of structures and structural

analysis.

1.1 Theoretical Framework

1.1.1 Connectivism

Connectivism is a learning theory that describes

complex learning in a complex changing social digital

world. Learning occurs through connections within

networks. The theory uses the concept of a network

with nodes and connections to define learning.

Learners recognize and interpret patterns. Learners

are integrated by the diversity of networks, strength

of ties and their context. Learning is a process that

occurs within wide environments of shifting core

elements – not entirely under the control of the

individual. Learning is focused on connecting

specialized knowledge states and creates a

community of practice. Connectivism is driven by the

cognition that decisions are based on rapidly altering

foundations. New information is frequently being

acquired. Discrimination between important and

unimportant information is vital. The ability to

recognize when new information alters the cognition

based on decisions made yesterday is also critical.

Siemen's Principles of connectivism: (Siemens,

2015)

• Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of

opinions.

• Learning is a process of connecting

specialized nodes or information sources.

• Learning may reside in non-human

appliances.

• Capacity to know more is more critical than

what is currently known.

• Nurturing and maintaining connections is

needed to facilitate continual learning.

• Ability to see connections between fields,

ideas, and concepts is a core skill.

• Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge)

is the intent of all connectivist learning

activities.

Decision-making is itself a learning process.

Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming

information is seen through the lens of a shifting

reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be

wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information

climate affecting the decision.

An Exploratory Study of the ODL Course in Structural Engineering

247

1.2 Syllabus

The syllabus comprises structural loading (load

patterns, load factors, limit state designs and

analysis), design of structural elements such as

beams, compression and tension members,

connections and base plates.

The assessment comprises of one multiple choice

questions assignment, one or two written assignments

in the same format as the examination; and this is

done in order to give the students a fair opportunity to

show how much they know the subject.

This paper focuses only on the results from the

examination and not the assignments. The

examinations are venue based and students adhere to

the set rules. However, the assignments are conducted

at a distance and at the convenience of the students;

therefore the results will not necessarily indicate that

the students showed their sole potential without any

help from other people or resources. Although the

module has been facilitated over the previous years,

the results presented in this paper date back from the

year 2013 to 2016; because this is the period during

which different interventions were introduced. The

interventions were introduced in order to improve the

quality of knowledge and skills students acquire, the

confidence of graduates thereafter, pass rates, design

concepts based on what the industry needs as well as

promoting the course itself to make it interesting and

fulfilling to the students. The interventions were

teaching and communications in which concepts were

introduced and explained one at a time, summarized

teaching notes and introducing new up to date

textbooks:

The nature of the structural steel and timber

design module is that, the science is derived from

structural analysis, theory of structures and materials;

and then followed by uncountable complex design

steps. The theory of structures and materials covers

topics such as the sectional properties, stress and

strain calculation, computing reaction forces and

member forces in pin-jointed trusses. The structural

analysis involves analysing determinate and

indeterminate structures with regard to the applied

bending, axial and shear forces, which cause the

structure to deform within the limits or fail by yield

or collapse. Structural steel and timber design module

involves the design of flexural or bending members

likes beams, slabs and beam-columns, compression

members such as columns and struts, trusses and

connections; and all these can be made from either

steel or timber.

In the ODL environment for almost all the

modules, there could be or not at all the learning and

teaching arrangement. Felder and Silverman (1988)

describe learning as a two-step process that involves

the reception of information and processing of

information. This is true, and for engineering students

it might be a prolonged process especially in the ODL

environment; because most of the concepts in

engineering are hard to conceive and interpret. ODL

students are self-taught and follow different styles or

methods within the time constraints that they choose

themselves. It is therefore easier for the lecturer,

assessor or the module coordinator to interpret the

effectiveness of the learning styles and methods from

the results of the assessments, in this case

examination results.

2 METHODOLOGY

The module outcomes are: that the students should

have a thorough understanding of structural loading,

be able to design structural steel and timber elements

such as beam, columns, connections and trusses and

tension members at the end of the academic year.

The sketch in Figure 1 summarises the stages that

students go through when studying the structural steel

and timber design. All the three stages are equally

important and lead to the outcomes of the module.

The assignments results contribute towards the

students’ final mark in the range of 20 to 30% and the

examination covers 70 to 80%; and this is done to

encourage them to keep up with the studies through

to the examination stage. The students who failed to

pass are given the opportunity to write supplementary

examination, provided they satisfy the given criteria.

The graphs plotted under the results and discussion

sections below include both actual and supplementary

examinations.

CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

248

Figure 1: Learning stages.

3 RESULTS

Figure 2: Annual pass rate.

Figure 3: Annual intakes and pass rates.

100

2013 2014 2015 2016

% Passed

Years

100

120

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Number of students

Time (Years)

Written exams Passed

Module Outcomes

An Exploratory Study of the ODL Course in Structural Engineering

249

Figure 4: Breakdown of pass percentages.

3.1 Admission, Dropout and Success

Rate

During the year 2013, there were 48 admitted

students, and the number went up to 55 in 2014, a 100

in 2015 and dropped back to 91 in 2016. Two students

dropped out in 2013, none in 2014, two in 2015 and

only one in 2016. So generally, the module has a very

low dropout rate, which is not often the case for

difficult subjects such as this at many universities.

The success rates of the modules will be presented

and discussed under the results and discussion later in

this paper.

4 DISCUSSION

Figure 2 shows a graph of an annual pass rate for the

module structural steel and timber design. The

percentage incorporate the number of students who

wrote the examination and passed, those who failed

and were granted supplementary examination and

passed. The 2013 average results resemble more or

less the results from the previous years, before the

above mentioned interventions were introduced. The

written lecture notes were introduced first in the year

2013, and the prescribed books of the previous years

were changed to be a recommended (which means

any student was not forced to possess them). Since the

prescribed books have been for longer, students still

adhered to it when preparing for the 2014 and 2015

examinations, which were rather based on the written

notes. The contents and the standard were still the

same as the book, but the approach and style of asking

questions were improved. Hence, it took about two to

three years to get students used to the style and

approach in the notes. The average results for the

years 2014 and 2015 were therefore not impressive.

Presented in Figure 3 is the number of students

admitted annually for and passed the examination. In

2013, there were 48 students and 21 of them passed;

the number increased to 55 in 2014 and 21 of them

passed; a 100 students in 2015 and 34 of them passed

and of 91 students in 2016 about 58 passed. The

lower numbers in 2013 and 2014 led to the

accumulation of students as most of those who did not

pass will re-register for the following year.

However, it can been seen from Figure 3 that the

number of students passing the examination is

increasing annually but not with the same percentage.

The gap or difference between the number of students

who got admitted and those who passed the

examination is those who failed or chose not to write.

The number of students who passed the examination

was further broken in four groups in order to see the

actuality and worth of the results. The groups were 0

– 39%, 40 – 48%, 49 – 69% and 70% or above. From

Figure 4, it is particularly encouraging that in 2016

the 0 – 39% group was the least compared to the

previous years. In the same year, the both the 40 –

48% and 49 – 69% groups has increased in numbers;

and that shows that the understanding of course

material has improved, quality of ideas and decision

making when writing the examination has increased.

The number of distinctions has been increasing yearly

from 0 to 6 in 2016.

Due to the complexity of the module, the students

need to be aware of certain things that are not

included in the syllabus (such as analysing the

structure and deducing necessary information to help

100

2013 2014 2015 2016

Pass rate (%)

Time (years)

0 - 39 % 40 - 48 % 49 - 69 % 70%

CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

250

in the design process, calculating forces and stresses,

as well as having a substantial knowledge of steel

properties). The results presented in Figure 4 was

therefore not taken for granted as they prove that the

effort was extraordinary.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The intervention that were introduced made the

module delivery to be effective and efficient. The

average results improved annually and it was also

found that the number of average performing students

whose results falls in the 49 to 69% increased by 15%.

The number of distinctions increased from 0 to 6 in a

space of four years. In conclusion, it is convincing

that the interventions must be kept and improved for

the better, as the next goal is to reduce the number of

students whose results falls between 0 and 39%.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the University of

South Africa for the data used in this paper and

funding they have provided for the work to proceed.

REFERENCES

Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R., 2001. A taxonomy for

learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives,

Longman. New York

Entwistle, N. J., Hanley, M., and G. Ratcliffe (1979).

Approaches to learning and levels of understanding.

British Educational Research Journal, 5,99-114.

Felder, R.M. & Silverman, L.K., 1988. Learning

and teaching styles in engineering education,

Engineering Education, 78 (7), pg 674 – 681

Howell, D.C., 2004. Fundamental statistics for the

behavioural sciences, Brooks/Cole – Thomson

Learning Inc. Belmont, USA, 5

edition

Heywood, J (2000). Assessment in Higher Education

Student Learning, Teaching, Programmes and

Institutions. Jessica Kingsley, London

Kneale, P (1997). The rise of the ‘strategic student’. How

can we adapt to cope? In S. Armstrong, G. Thompson

and S. Brown (eds.). Facing Up to Radical Change in

Universities and Colleges. Kogan Page, London.

Olds, B.M, Moskal, B.M & Miller, R.L., 2005. Assessment

in engineering education: Evolution, approaches and

future collaborations, Journal of Engineering education,

Vol (11) pg 13 – 25

Siemens, G. (2015). Connectivism: A learning theory for

the digital age, Https://members.educause.edu

(Accessed: October 2017)

University of South Africa (UNISA), 2015. My Modules @

Unisa: Information, codes and purposes, University of

South Africa, Pretoria

Vuc, G, Baloi, F, Litcanu, M, (2015) Adapting Methods of

Student Evaluation and Grading in Electrical Power

Engineering. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences

191, 147 – 151.

Wilson,(1981). Wilson, J. D (1981). Student Learning in

Higher Education. Croom Helm, Beckenham

An Exploratory Study of the ODL Course in Structural Engineering

251