Embedded Files
All structures, in order to ensure their safety, must satisfy equilibrium, load displacement, and compatibility of displacement requirements. When we are analyzing a statically indeterminate structure, there are two different approaches to satisfy these requirements: the force method and the displacement method.
The force method is based on identifying the unknown redundant forces and then satisfying the structure’s compatibility equations, while the displacement method works the opposite way. It first requires satisfying equilibrium equations for the structure through writing unknown displacements in terms of the loads by using the load-displacement relation. Then these equations are solved to find displacements and once the displacements are obtained, the unknown loads can be determined. The slope-deflection method, which is one of the displacement methods, is a component of the CE 461 syllabus and I selected it for my teaching project topic.
Backwards Design Process
Backwards Design Process
Backwards design is a process that teachers can use to design course materials and instructional methods to achieve specific predefined learning objectives. The backwards design begins with identifying and listing the learning objectives of the unit/course and then proceeds backwards to create teaching materials (including lectures, presentations, in-class examples, homework assignments, quizzes, projects, and etc.) to achieve those desired objectives. The process that I went through for backwards design for this unit are as follows:
The results of the above process are described in the next two sections.
Learning Objectives
Learning Objectives
At the end of this unit, students will be able to:
Assessment Approach and In-class Content
Assessment Approach and In-class Content
For each of the learning objectives (L.O.), I designed an assessment method. I applied homework assignments and in-class quizzes as summative assessment tools. Also, to link the newly defined learning objectives with teaching materials and in-class activities, I revised in-class examples with minor changes. Additionally, I added a new in-class example, group work, and a formative assessment to in-class work to ensure that desired learning objectives will be achieved. A summary of the assessment methods and their descriptions, as well as associated in-class activities, are tabulated as below:
In-class Schedule
In-class Schedule
As it was determined in the syllabus, five sessions were dedicated to this unit. The instructor decided to use the first session to give the lectures and I was responsible for the other four sessions. I used three of these sessions for in-class problem solving and the fourth one for the group work using the MOLA Structural Kit. A detailed schedule was designed for the session. At the beginning of each session, a short quiz was taken. I designed these quizzes and each of them was directly related to one of the learning objectives. During the first three problem-solving sessions, students worked on in-class examples individually. They were allowed to collaborate with their tablemates while the UGTFs and I walked around. At the end of the first session, I asked the students to work individually to find the main steps of the slope-deflection method based on their practical experience of solving the first-in-class example; then, they had an opportunity to work as a group and share their individual work to develop a group flowchart/strategy. They submitted their individual work for formative assessment and kept their group’s work for solving the second example. At the end of the second session, students had one more chance to develop their own flowchart and to revise their group’s work based on the practical experience of solving the second example. Their individual work was collected again for formative assessment.
For the fourth session, I provided students with a series of three-member frames subjected to a horizontal or vertical point load with various support and joint restrains. First, I asked them to work as a group to predict the deflected shape of the given frames; then, they validated their prediction using the MOLA Structural Kit. Finally, they determined both the degrees of freedom and indeterminacy for each frame and discussed the results to make a conclusion about the selection the more time-efficient for analysis of indeterminate structures.
During one of the 8:00 AM sessions, I played a 5-minute stretching video and asked students to join me and stretch if they liked. I think it had a positive effect on the students’ engagement during problem-solving and most of them liked it.
During my first and second practicum sessions, the class was observed through the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS)[2] instrument. The results’ details can be found here; however, two bar charts which show the percentages of activities are provided. In summary, the percentages confirm that the class was led in a student-centered approach.
1st Session
1st Session
2nd Session
2nd Session
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse