This paper investigates the class attendance of second year, third year and fourth year students and

their overall performance at the school of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering in Dublin

City University (DCU). An investigation was recently conducted into the delivery of different

module which was presented to a group of second year, third year and fourth year engineering

students at DCU. Attendance in the class was recorded and the continuous assessment results and

the final overall performances were investigated with their attendance. Student performance on

Strength of materials – part 1 (SM1), Strength of materials part - 2 (SM2), Mechanics of Materials

and Machine (MMM) and Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Processes (AMMP) modules

are presented in this paper. This paper presents an examination of some of the factors affecting the

overall results of these students. Factors evaluated include attendance of the student, as well as

individual performance in continuous assessment and examination. Overall attendance at the

lecture, the organised seminar series, and practical work were recorded. Results indicate a direct

link between attendance and marks awarded. Students with higher attendance achieved better

grades

Brabazon, Dermot

Looney, Lisa

Naher, Sumsun

English

DCU Online Research Access Service

International Symposium for Engineering Education, 2008, Dublin City University, IrelandAFFECTS OF STUDENT ATTENDANCE ON PERFORMANCE IN UNDERGRADUATE MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING MODULESS. Naher, D. Brabazon and L. LooneySchool of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Dublin City University.E-mail: sumsun.naher@dcu.ie ABSTRACTThis paper investigates the class attendance of second year, third year and fourth year students and their overall performance at the school of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering in Dublin City University  (DCU).  An investigation was recently conducted into the delivery of different module which was presented to a group of  second year, third year and fourth year  engineering students at DCU. Attendance in the class was recorded and the continuous assessment results and the final overall performances were investigated with their attendance. Student performance on Strength of materials – part 1 (SM1), Strength of materials part - 2 (SM2), Mechanics of Materials and Machine (MMM) and  Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Processes (AMMP) modules are presented in this paper. This paper presents an examination of some of the factors affecting the overall results of these students. Factors evaluated include attendance of the student, as well as individual  performance  in  continuous  assessment  and  examination.  Overall  attendance  at  the lecture, the organised seminar series, and practical work were recorded. Results indicate a direct link between attendance and marks  awarded.  Students  with  higher  attendance achieved better grades. INTRODUCTIONUndergraduate engineering education has ‘changed very little over the last half of this century’ [1]. Regular reviews have taken place in many countries, but these have tended to focus on the subject content of degree courses, and its relevance to the needs of engineering employers [2]. However in 1990s, pressure for more radical changes began to build, for instance, in United Kingdom [3], Australia [4], the United States [5] and New Zealand [6, 7]. The motivation was a perceived need to improve the level of understanding by student, analyse their different learning styles and to examine ways in which student could get  a deeper understanding of the required concepts in engineering. The ability to produce engineering graduates with educational standards comparable to  the best  in  the  world  is  critical  to  sustained  economic  growth  with  regard  the  formation, retention  and  attraction  of  high  value  added  companies.  Not  only  changing  the  learning environment, modern engineering education is so far enrich with full of resources, like e-learning facilities, web-based resources, distance learning and virtual learning. Most of these are for mature students who have self learning capacity.Researcher found that the first year in college is a time for adjustment and turmoil for many late adolescents [8]. Some experience difficulties sufficient to cause them to drop out [9]. Academic performance and retention of college students has been studied extensively and theoretical models developed  to  describe  various  factors  affecting  college  students’  adjustment  and  academic performance [10-14]. So, it is obvious that to have a proper learning environment it is necessary to investigate properly what are the point which effects student learning. In Ireland researcher from International Symposium for Engineering Education, 2008, Dublin City University, Irelandall engineering discipline is now widely focusing on the student learning style, motivation, factors effecting  and  how to  improve  it  from  the  present  situation.  These  studies  discusses  current knowledge about  effective teaching and learning in  higher  education  and the implications  for undergraduate engineering education. METHODOLOGYStrength of MaterialsStrength  of  Materials  is  relatively  traditional  second year  module  for  mechanical  engineering students. Strength of material studied for  the Computer Aided Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering (CAM) degree and the Business and Manufacturing Engineering (BME) degree and also the Medical Mechanical Engineering (MEDM) students in their second year. In their first semester they do the first part of strength of materials (SM1) and in the second semester they do the second part of strength of materials (SM2). Each of SM1 and SM2 is a five full five credit course in each semester. The final exam accounted for 80% of the overall marks and 20% of the marks were awarded on the basis of the continuous assessments. Students’ regular attendances were taken. In 2008 there were 50 students in the first semester class and 56 students were in the second semester class.Mechanics of Materials and Machine Mechanics of Materials and Machine studied for the Mechatronic Engineering (ME) degree third year. Mechanics of Materials and Machine is a full five credit course half of which is focused on mechanics of materials like fracture, fatigue, creep and the other half of the module is focused on mechanics of machine. The final exam accounted for 80% of the overall marks and 20% of the marks were awarded on the basis of the continuous assessments. Students’ regular attendances were taken. In 2007 there were 13 students in the class and in 2008 there were 14 students were in the class.Advanced Materials and Manufacturing ProcessesAdvanced Materials and Manufacturing Processes studied for the Computer Aided Mechanical and Manufacturing  Engineering  (CAM)  degree  and  the  Business  and  Manufacturing  Engineering (BME) degree in fourth year.  The advanced materials and manufacturing processes module is a full five credit course half of which is focused on materials and half on advanced manufacturing processes.  The  advanced  materials  part  covers  glass  and  ceramics,  bio  materials,  materials characterisation, crystallography, and composites. The advanced manufacturing part of the course covers  welding,  design  of  experiments,  laser  processing,  electron  beam processing,  and rapid manufacturing. Both parts of the courses include elements of research currently being undertaken within the Materials Processing Research Centre at DCU. As an example of this the students had to submit a continuous assessment reports on materials characterisation techniques for glasses and ceramics and on a high temperature and shear rate capillary viscometry laboratory experiment which they conducted. Some seminars complementing the course content were given by final year PhD  students  and  postdoctoral  researchers  within  the  School.  The  final  examination  and continuous assessment were split equally between the materials and processes sections.  The final exam accounted for 60% of the overall marks and 40% of the marks were awarded on the basis of the continuous assessments.  Students’  regular  attendances  were  taken.  In  2007 there were  25 students in the class and in 2008 there were 22 students were in the class.International Symposium for Engineering Education, 2008, Dublin City University, IrelandRESULTSTable 1 shows Percentage of students which attended at the specified percentage levels for the three modules during 2006/07 and 2007/08. Table 1 Percentage of students which attended at the specified percentage levels for the three modules during 2007 and 2008. % students attended in the classAttend.SM1-07/08SM2-07/08MMM-06/07MMM-07/08AMMP-06/07AMMP-07/080-20 6 20 7 7 4 -20-40 20 28 29 32 24 2040-60 40 45 43 40 20 2460-80 26 5 14 14 28 3480-100 6 2 7 7 24 22Students  were  attributed  an  overall  attendance  level  of  either  0-20,  20-40,  40-60,  60-80,  or 80-100%.  The first  two column of  this  table  is  representing the percentage  attendance of  the student  in  second year  module.  40-60% is  the maximum level  of  attendance for  second year students for 07/08 year. The similar trend is observed in third year students. From this table, it is clear that fourth year students have more tendencies to be in the class than any other years. The percentage attendance of student and their marks on 2007/08 for strength of materials can be seen in  Table 2.  From this  table it  is  clear  that,  in  strength of  materials  – part  1,  higher the attendance higher the marks obtained. The highest marks obtained in both continuous assessment and examinations are by students who fall in the group of 80-100% attendance.  The similar results are evident for the strength of materials – part 2 students.  Strength of materials part 1 results are better than part 2, it  is may be because of the more mathematical content in part 1 and more theoretical in content in part 2.Table 2 Percentage attendance of student and their marks on 2007/08 for SM%  AttendanceTotal Marks_MS1Cont. Assmt_MS1Exams Marks_MS1Total Marks_MS2Cont. Assmt_MS2Exams Marks_MS20-20 24 17 26 4 21 A20-40 46 61 44 51 62 4940-60 57 66 52 60 68 7760-80 69 75 66 73 65 8080-100 83 80 84 76 74 76The percentage attendance of student and their marks on 2007/08 for mechanics of materials and machine can be seen in Table 3. From this table it is clear that, in 2007/08, higher the attendance higher  the  marks  obtained.  The  highest  marks  obtained  in  both  continuous  assessment  and examinations are by students who fall in the group of 80-100% attendance.  The similar results are evident for the 2006/07. One important observation from this table can be noted that the tendency International Symposium for Engineering Education, 2008, Dublin City University, Irelandof being absent in the examination and also in the lack of participation of the class work and report submission  are observed among lower attendance group. In this table ‘A’ stands for absence.Table 3 Percentage attendance of student and their marks on 2006/07 and 2007/08 for MMM%  AttedenceTotal Marks-2007/08Cont. Assmt -2007/08Exams Marks-2007/08Total Marks-2006/07Cont. Assmt -2006/07Exams Marks-2006/070-20 A A A 13 65 A20-40 A A A 36 44 3440-60 55 69 50 58 65 5660-80 54 74 50 45 60 5280-100 53 77 47 65 53 68Finally, the percentage attendance of student and their marks on 2007/08 for advanced materials and manufacturing processes can be seen in Table 4. From this table it is clear that, in 2007/08, higher the attendance higher the marks obtained. The highest marks obtained in both continuous assessment and examinations are by students who fall in the group of 80-100% attendance.  The similar results are evident for the 2006/07. One optimistic observation from table 4, is that there are no student in the 0-20% attendance level. All the students are over 20% attendance. There were only one student fail in year 06/07 among 25 student and there were no failing was recorded in 07/08 among 22 students. It is also noticeable that students overall performance is better in 07/08 than 06/07.Table 4 Percentage attendance of student and their marks on 2006/07 and 2007/08 for AMMP%  AttedenceTotal Marks-2007/08Cont. Assmt -2007/08Exams Marks-2007/08Total Marks-2006/07Cont. Assmt -2006/07Exams Marks-2006/070-20 - - - 49 48 5020-40 42 46 45 52.36 46 41.540-60 57 63 53 51.78 59 47.160-80 70 65 65 54.74 58 50.480-100 72 75 73 71.6 75 69.5DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONIn most cases percentage marks obtained in continuous assessment are higher than the percentage marks  obtained in  the exam.  Good continuous assessment  performance  did not  automatically indicate good exam performance and vice versa. One student who secured 83% marks in strength of materials part 1, with a 80-100% in first semester, with 40-60% attendee this same student in the second semester was straggling to pass strength of materials part two. It would be interesting to investigate why he didn’t attend the second semester class as much as he did in first semester. Despite  all  the  notes  available  in  the  moodle,  he  was  unable  to  reach  the  same  level  of understanding.International Symposium for Engineering Education, 2008, Dublin City University, IrelandThe  author  considers  that  aspects  of  the  traditional  model  of  engineering  education,  such  as widespread use of lecturers, the overcrowded content and the assessments methods used, do not lead  to  high  quality  learning.  In  addition,  there  is  evidence  that  the  overloaded  content  of engineering courses leads to many engineering students taking an instrumental approach to their studies. This is marked by a motivation to pass exams in order to obtain a degree (and hence a job), rather than being driven by an interest in learning [17]. Get rid of some extra syllabus, give the module a more realistic content. These authors has researched this and made some amendment in all these three module discussed in this paper.  To achieve improved learning, the course content delivery structure needs to be reviewed on a regular basis and made as clear as possible. In reality if engineering educators are to meet the goals of  increased  student  numbers  and improved teaching methodologies,  a  readily  implementable system of Continuous Improvement (CI) needs to be an integral part of engineering programme structures [18, 19]. Methods that have been shown to be effective in improving content delivery include            . blended learning and access to the latest technology for facilitator and students These               methodsalso encourageand in many casesrequire studentattendancewhich hasbeenfoundhere         .to be strongly correlatedto their level of learningREFERENCES1. P. Turner, The winds of change for engineering education in Australia, 7th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education, Melbourne (10-13 December 1995) p459.2. Ibid, pp459-4633. J. J. Sparkes, the future of first-degree engineering courses in the United Kingdom, Int. J. Eng. Edu, 9, 1, 1993, pp. 84-89.4. J.M. Simmons, The new environment for engineering education, Australasian, J. Eng. EDuc., 6, 2, (1995) pp. 169-174.5. D. G. Elms, Formation of the newengineers, AEESEAP J. Eng Educ, 22, 2, 1992, pp.1-5.6. J.  J.  Sparkes,  Engineering  education  in  a  world  of  rapidly  changing  technology, AEESEAP/FEISEAP/IACEE Int. Conf. Engineering Educaiton, Singapore (10-12 Nov., 1993). Pp1-11.7. A. K. Ditcher, Effective teaching and learing in higher education, with particular reference to the undergraduate education of professional engineers, Int. J. Engng Ed. Vol 17, No. 1, pp. 24-29, 2001, Printed in Great Britain. 8. D.  W Chickering  and  L.  Reisser,  Education  and  Identity  (2nd edition).  Jossey-Bass,  San Francisco (1993).9. E. Erikson, Identity and the life cycle, Phychological Issues Monograph, 1, 1 (1959) pp. 1-171.10. D.  E.  Gerald,  Projections  of  Education  Statistics  to  2003,  national  Centre  for  Education Statistics, Washington, D. C. (1992).11. A.  W.  Astin,  What  matters  in  college?  Four  Critical  Years  Revisted,  jossey-Bass,  San Francisco (1993).12. E. T. Pascarella and P. Terenzini, How College Affects Students. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1991).13. W. E. Sedlacek,  Employing noncognitive variables in admitting students of color,  in I.  H. Johnson and A. J. Ottens (eds.) Levelling the playing Field: Promoting Academic Success for students of color,  New Directions for student Service,  No. 74,  Jossey-Bass,  San Francisco (1996) pp. 79-91.International Symposium for Engineering Education, 2008, Dublin City University, Ireland14. V.  Tinto,  Leaving  college:  Rethinking the  Cause  and Cures  of  student  Attrition  (2nd ed.) university of Chicago Press, Chicago (1993).15. S. Naher, D. Brabazon, and L. Looney, Investigation of factors affecting the learning of final year advanced materials and manufacturing students. International Symposium for Engineering Education, ISEE-07, 17-19th September, 2007, Pages 207-212, Dublin City University, Ireland.16. Caitríona N í She′ , and L. Looney, Facilitating active learning in the classroom. International Symposium for Engineering Education,  ISEE-07, 17-19th September, 2007, Pages 173-179, Dublin City University, Ireland.17. P. Ram sden, Learning to teach in higher education, Routledge, London (1992).18. Jorgensen, F., and Kofoed, L., Integrating the development of continuous improvement and innovation capabilities into engineering education, European Journal of engineering education. Vol 32, No. 2, May 2007, 181-191.19. Tseng,  J.,  Tsai,  W-L.,  Hwang,  G-J.,  and  P-H.,  An  efficient  and  effective  approach  to developing engineering e-training courses, Journal of distance education technologies, 59(1), 7-5, January-March 2007.

An efficient and effective approach to developing engineering e-training courses,

Effective teaching and learing in higher education, with particular reference to the undergraduate education of professional engineers,

Employing noncognitive variables in admitting students of color,

Engineering education in a world of rapidly changing technology,

Facilitating active learning in the classroom.

Formation of the newengineers,

How College Affects Students. Jossey-Bass,

Identity and the life cycle,

Integrating the development of continuous improvement and innovation capabilities into engineering education,

Investigation of factors affecting the learning of final year advanced materials and manufacturing students.

Leaving college: Rethinking the Cause and Cures of student Attrition (2 nd ed.) university of Chicago Press,

Projections of Education Statistics to 2003, national Centre for Education Statistics,

sden, Learning to teach in higher education,

Sparkes, the future of first-degree engineering courses in the United Kingdom,

The new environment for engineering education,

The winds of change for engineering education in

What matters in college? Four Critical Years Revisted, jossey-Bass,

Affects of student attendance on performance in undergraduate materials and manufacturing modules

This paper investigates the class attendance of second year, third year and fourth year students and\ud
their overall performance at the school of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering in Dublin\ud
City University (DCU). An investigation was recently conducted into the delivery of different\ud
module which was presented to a group of second year, third year and fourth year engineering\ud
students at DCU. Attendance in the class was recorded and the continuous assessment results and\ud
the final overall performances were investigated with their attendance. Student performance on\ud
Strength of materials – part 1 (SM1), Strength of materials part - 2 (SM2), Mechanics of Materials\ud
and Machine (MMM) and Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Processes (AMMP) modules\ud
are presented in this paper. This paper presents an examination of some of the factors affecting the\ud
overall results of these students. Factors evaluated include attendance of the student, as well as\ud
individual performance in continuous assessment and examination. Overall attendance at the\ud
lecture, the organised seminar series, and practical work were recorded. Results indicate a direct\ud
link between attendance and marks awarded. Students with higher attendance achieved better\ud
grades

Name not available

This paper investigates the class attendance of second year, third year and fourth year students and
their overall performance at the school of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering in Dublin
City University (DCU). An investigation was recently conducted into the delivery of different
module which was presented to a group of second year, third year and fourth year engineering
students at DCU. Attendance in the class was recorded and the continuous assessment results and
the final overall performances were investigated with their attendance. Student performance on
Strength of materials – part 1 (SM1), Strength of materials part - 2 (SM2), Mechanics of Materials
and Machine (MMM) and Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Processes (AMMP) modules
are presented in this paper. This paper presents an examination of some of the factors affecting the
overall results of these students. Factors evaluated include attendance of the student, as well as
individual performance in continuous assessment and examination. Overall attendance at the
lecture, the organised seminar series, and practical work were recorded. Results indicate a direct
link between attendance and marks awarded. Students with higher attendance achieved better
grades

Irish Universities

http://doras.dcu.ie/693/1/naher_affects.pdf

Affects of student attendance on performance in undergraduate materials and manufacturing modules

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DCU Online Research Access Service

Name not available

Irish Universities