Volume 3, Issue 12, December – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

Teacher’s Perception of a Blended Thermodynamics

Course
K V Muralidhar Sharma Dr. S G Gopala Krishna Dr. N. Kapilan
Department of Mechanical Engineering Professor and Director Professor and HOD
Jyothy Institute of technology Nagarjuna Group of Institutions Dept. of Mechanical, NCET

Abstract:- There is ample research evidence [01] to claim Songer, 1991), Students’ conceptual difficulties about several
that thermodynamics is one of the difficult subjects to thermodynamic ideas such as heat and temperature (Sozbilir,
learn as well to teach. Though there are good number of 2003b), energy (e.g., Duit, 1987; Goedhart & Kaper, 2002),
research contributions in analysing different reasons and equilibrium (e.g., Banerjee, 1995; MacDonald, 1990;
different possible solution approaches [02], learning Thomas, 1997, Van Driel & Gräber, 2002) and the second
difficulties in thermodynamics is still a concern at large law of thermodynamics (e.g., Duit & Kesidou, 1988; Kesidou
[03]. In spite of emergence of online learning systems, & Duit, 1993)
number of IT based models in thermodynamics and their
reported success in enhancing the learning gain and some Solution approach has begun well in the early
limited efforts in developing a blended learning eighteenth century (1824) when Sodi Carnot the famous
environment, the effective and efficient precipitation of physician who invented the heat engine has attempted the
online or blended thermal learning systems is not evident. analogy approach. But it is surprising to note that the
It is especially true in the traditional, teacher centric, time research exploration of why the learning problems occur
table driven, university affiliated technical institutions in continues even now [5]. To quote an example, in 2015
the developing countries where the teacher’s role is researchers in Ethiopian University reported a number
pivotal. many of the existing thermal learning systems learning difficulties in thermal related areas like lack of
have either overlooked or failed to effectively integrate fundamental thermodynamic concepts, memorization of laws
the pain points of practicing thermal teachers. At the and statements without understanding, inappropriate
same time even the practicing teachers need to get overgeneralization, confusion of fundamental ideas, defining
acquainted with the essential features of blended system fundamental ideas according to their usage in everyday
so that they can effectively utilise the LMS. This work is language, etc.
the first step in understanding the gap between the
requirements of an effective LMS and teacher's idea of II. THERMODYNAMICS:
what makes an LMS an effective one. Teacher’s SOME OF THE SOLUTION APPROACHES
perception was measured in a Likert scale through a set
of 16 questions and evaluated. A good number of fruitful attempts have been made
since 60s in analyzing the cause and developed systems and
Keywords- Student Centric Learning, Teacher Centric strategies for thermal related topics. Scenario approach[6],
Learning, Thermodynamics, Blended Learning, LMS. Video based learning [7], interactive learning system[8] ,
Online homework system[9], Day to day events based
I. THERMODYNAMICS: learning approach[10], simulation approach[11], CBI based
LEARNING DIFFICULTIES AND SOME REASONS learning systems[12] , Project based problem driven
approach[13], Fallacy approach, Simulation approach[14],
A comprehensive understanding of the problem is Video game based learning[15], bilingual learning [16] and
essential pre-requisite before attempting a solution. From the many more. Some thermal and related learning systems also
review of literature it is clear that there are enough learning have been developed like Thermo CD[17], Cycle Pad[18],
difficulties in thermodynamics. Some literature is also Australian award winning power plant website[19],
available to understand why these difficulties occur and with eBook[20] etc
some possible remedial approaches.
In spite of an impressive and high promising beginning
There is huge inventory of research on learning the, the growth of online courses has began to fall by 2005,
difficulties associated with thermodynamics from elementary especially in engineering programs (Allen, Artis, Afful-
to undergraduate level. Some of the studies include - student Dadzie, & Allam, 2013; Kinney, Liu, & Thornton, 2012;
conceptual difficulties of heat and temperature (e.g., Bourne, Harris, & Mayadas, 2005). Most of the teachers are
Erickson, 1979; Brook, Briggs, Bell & Driver, 1984; 1980; hesitant to attempt to teach difficult subjects, such as
1985; Grayson, Harrison & Treagust, 1995; Harrison, engineering and mathematics and thermodynamics online.
Grayson &Treagust, 1999; Lewis & Linn, 1994; Linn & (Bourne et al., 2005; Kinney et al., 2012).

IJISRT18DC370 www.ijisrt.com 320

Volume 3, Issue 12, December – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Why the online learning has not taken over by the IV. HYBRID LEARNING AND
traditional learning system? That too In spite of emergence of THE CHALLENGES
a number of ICT based models and their reported success in
enhancing the learning gain, not only in thermal related As early as 2002, the president of Pennsylvania State
subjects but in almost every engineering subject as well. To University stated that “hybrid instruction is the single
what extent the traditional learning has taken over by ICT greatest unrecognized trend in higher education today”
based technology enhanced learning? Why it is still the (Young, 2002, p. A33). Similarly, in 2003, the American
traditional Teaching Learning system that is dominating the Society for Training and Development identified blended
engineering institutions. These are the relevant worthy learning as among the top 10 trends to emerge in the
research questions not yet comprehensively attempted. knowledge delivery industry (Rooney, 2003).

III. BLENDED LEARNING SOLUTION “How much to blend, to be a real blend?” Is the
APPROACH IN THERMODYNAMICS operational question very essential for any researcher
attempting to develop a LMS in a blended environment.
Though the absence of a clear cut specific & Barbara, Yukie Toyama et al attempted this research question
universally acceptable definition in the literature continues in 2013 and evolved an operational definition recommending
even now [2013 Blended Meta analysis], Elearnspace’s a minimum of 25% as the “substantial portion” for the
definition (2005) “integration of face-to-face classroom blended environment.
instruction learning with distance/e-learning” is a good
reference to begin with. What is more important in designing Learning technology center at University of Wisconsin
a blended environment is in its pedagogical strategy to “Gain has identified three challenges facing the hybrid learning. 1.
the best of both worlds (traditional and ICT) and creates an Creating a formal FDP for teaching hybrid courses,
improved learning experience for the student”. The 2.Redesigning and the time factor involved and 3.Preparing
pedagogical strategy of a blended learning environment is students to effectively learn from a hybrid course. When the
based on the assumption that “there are inherent benefits in teachers were given the details of this study report some of
face-to-face interaction” and “there are advantages to using them were changed their evaluation from 2 to 4. This is a
online methods”. Researchers have claimed that such an clear indication of the need to understand the teacher’s
environment promotes student-centered learning and perception and to orient, if required.
encourages increased student interaction (Carmody & Berge,
2005; Davies & Graff, 2005; Gallini & Barron, 2002). V. METHODOLOGY

Patuakhali Science and Technology University, Thermal practicing Teachers (who are handling basic
Bangladesh have developed a website to learn in the Blend thermodynamics and those who have earlier handled the
mode in local language adopting Self Regulated Learning subject) were apprised about the proposed work and their
(SRL) strategy in 2014[4]. individual responses to the set of questionnaires collected.
Questionnaires were broadly classified into two categories.
Stubbs, Martin et al designed a Blend to cater to the (a)Information about the teacher’s acquaintance of a
specific needs for first year module. The pedagogical strategy Blended/Online learning system (b) Teacher’s awareness of a
adopted was “the tutor as expert of last resort”. This was blended/hybrid learning systems.
designed in by allowing access to tutors only for those
students who had engaged with the online environment. Table 1 gives details of acquaintance parameters. These
are the essential prerequisite information before trying to
Though there are a good number of “blended learning” understand a teacher's perspectives of a blended thermal
success stories to refer in different engineering subjects learning system. Evaluation of each of the 7 parameters was
across the globe, almost nil in Engineering thermodynamics. done in a Likert scale of 0 to 9. A "0" evaluation for question
This brightens the relevance, importance and worthiness of 7 means that in the teacher's perception it is extremely
the present work. But the absence of well established IMPOSSIBLE to practically implement a blended learning
research illustrations, guidelines and norms to fall back is an course for engineering thermodynamics.
equal risk as well.

IJISRT18DC370 www.ijisrt.com 321

Volume 3, Issue 12, December – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Sr. No Acquaintance Parameters Your Evaluation
1 Are you using any blended/Hybrid learning system? 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
2 Your awareness and exposure of an online learning system 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
3 Your awareness and exposure of a Blended / Hybrid learning system 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
4 You are willing to implement a Blended / Hybrid learning system 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
5 How do you rate the thermal learning management system/Course you 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
have experiences?
6 Do you need some exposure/training/orientation is required for effective 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
implementation from your end?
7 Do you Strongly feel that it is not practically implementable for our 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
circumstances
Table 1:- Evaluation Format of Teachers Acquaintance of a Blended Thermal Learning System

In the next phase a set of 16 questions are given to each thermodynamics course that I have taught for effective
of the teacher. Please refer table 2 for the set questions posed. implementation for the course " means that in the opinion of
Responses was measured in a Likert scale of 0 to 9. It is this teacher PEDAGOGY has ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE in
ensured that no teacher responds to this second set of effective implementation of the course. These responses are
questions without responding to the first set of questions the pre-evaluation of the teacher’s perceptions of a blended
shown in Table 1. A "0" evaluation to the question number 7 learning system.
"Importance of Pedagogy in designing a basic

Sr. No Teacher's Perception Evaluation

1 This does not provide any opportunity for me the intellectual capability 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
2 This does not provide any opportunity for my style of teaching. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
3 Assignments in online / Blended is not a practically implementable 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
4 PROBLEMS cannot be solved online 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
5 Monitoring students not possible 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
6 University does not recognize the course 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
7 Importance of Pedagogy in designing a basic thermodynamics course that 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
I have taught for effective implementation for the course
8 Importance of technological tools in designing a basic thermodynamics 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
course that I have taught for effective implementation for the course
9 Importance of learning theorem in designing a basic thermodynamics 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
course that I have taught for effective implementation for the course
10 Redundancy is one of the major Issue 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
11 Who benefits the Most – Academic Slow Learner 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
12 Who benefits the Most – Academic Mediocre 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
13 Who benefits the Most – Academic performers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
14 Student vs Teacher centric design 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
15 Is it possible to use recorded videos for active learning 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
16 How effectively the discussion forums can be used in collaborative 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9
learning without much diversion
Table 2:- Evaluation Format of Teachers Perception of a Blended Thermal Learning System

VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

First part of the evaluation response in terms of the central tendency is shown in Table -3. This gives an idea of where a common
practicing thermal teacher stands as for as each of the acquaintance parameters are concerned.

IJISRT18DC370 www.ijisrt.com 322

Volume 3, Issue 12, December – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165

Sr. No Acquaintance Parameters Mode

1 Are you using any blended/Hybrid learning system for your regular course? 0
2 Your awareness and exposure of an online learning system 5
3 Your awareness and exposure of a Blended / Hybrid learning system 2
4 Your willingness to implement a Blended / Hybrid learning system 4
5 How do you rate the thermal learning management system/Course you have experiences? 3
6 Do you need some exposure/training/orientation for effective course implementation? 6
7 Do you Strongly feel that it is not practically implementable for your classroom 2
Table 3:- Central Tendency of the "Acquaintance Status" of a Thermal Practicing Teacher

 Most of the practicing teachers have rated the h-LMS the Though there is in some awareness of online/blended courses
hybrid or blended learning system they have experienced in thermodynamics amongst the engineering college teachers,
as poor (Mode 2) specific exposure to the usage in their classroom is less.
 Most of the teachers feel uncomfortable in using any of Blended system usage is less popular in comparison to the
the existing online courses irrespective of their content online learning. It is very clear that in spite of fair awareness
quality. about at least one of the thermodynamics learning system
 Many of the teachers are acquainted with at least some of almost none of them are at present using a blended learning
the technological strategies and their importance in system in their class. It is also surprising to note that there is
running a successful course. fairly a good inclination to get trained but not to implement
 Interestingly most of the teachers have shown little in their class rooms. This could possibly explain through the
inclination in getting acquainted with pedagogical response Q7. There is a strong perception that it is not
strategies and learning theorems adopted in developing practically implementable under their specific situations.
the learning contents.
The second stage is broadly designed to address the
It is interesting to note that more than 85% of reasoning behind the practicing teacher’s perception. This
respondents expressed their awareness of any one of the possibly gives a right insight about "Why these problems
learning courses in thermodynamics either online or blended. exist?"

Sr. No Teacher's Perception Parameter Mode

1 This does not provide any opportunity for my intellectual capability 8
2 This does not provide any opportunity for my style of teaching. 7
3 Assignments in online / Blended is not a practically implementable 8
4 PROBLEMS cannot be solved online ( 0 = Very much possible , 9= Extremely impossible) 8
5 Possibility of Monitoring students academic progress ( 0 = possible, 9= Impossible) 7
6 Willing to implement effectively
- only if the University/Institution recognize the course 4
- Even without the mandate 3
7 Importance of Pedagogy in designing a basic thermodynamics course that I have taught for effective
2
implementation for the course
8 Importance of technological tools in designing a basic thermodynamics course that I have taught for effective
2
implementation for the course
9 Importance of learning theorem in designing a basic thermodynamics course that I have taught for effective
2
implementation for the course
10 Redundancy is one of the major Issue 7
11 Who benefits the Most – Academic Slow Learner 3
12 Who benefits the Most – Academic Mediocre 5
13 Who benefits the Most – Academic performers 8
14 Student vs Teacher centric design.
3
Teacher centric – 0 , Student centric – 10 ,
15 Is it possible to use recorded videos for active learning 2
16 How effectively the discussion forums can be used in collaborative learning without much diversion 4
Table 4:- Comparison of Pre Evaluation and Post Evaluation of a Thermal Practicing Teachers Perception

IJISRT18DC370 www.ijisrt.com 323

Volume 3, Issue 12, December – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
In the perception of a practicing teacher any shift from Most of the teachers are not acquainted with the typical
the traditional teaching to Blended learning greatly deprives features of different LMS like pedagogy, technology and
them of their intellectual capability and their own style of learning theorems and its relevance. Redundancy is one of
teaching (Mode of 8 & 7 respectively). the practical problem faced by a thermal teacher wherein he
has to use other's (Probably contents prepared by domain
Only the traditional system in their view can effectively experts like from IITs) contents. In most of the cases a
solve thermodynamic problems, monitoring the students teacher will be redelivering the same contents in his own
progress is best possible only in the traditional learning style and adapting to his specific focused needs.
environment and the teacher cannot use blended learning
system for assignments (Mode of 8, 7 and 8 respectively). Practicing teachers think that the classroom discussions
Only the physical face-to-face interaction of the student are totally focused on any one specific thermodynamics topic
could ensure his academic progress monitoring especially in unlike the other collaborative platforms like facebook and
subjects like thermodynamics. alike networking, wherein the group’s discussions are largely
unfocused.A similar inference can be drawn for response 15
Practicing teachers think that only the academically that deals with active learning element. A teacher is more
performing students have the maxim benefit from the influenced by the Thermodynamic learning videos that they
blended learning system where as the teacher centric are generally exposed to and aware of. Most of the videos are
traditional methods is the "RAMA BAANA" for the too long to retain even the attention of the student or even if
academically non-performing students. The benefit for the some such videos are available both in youtube and other
mediocre standing in-between (Mode of 3, 5 and 8). thermodynamics learning systems, they are not developed
with the built in design to incorporate the active learning
Response 16 deals with the learning management strategy into it.
systems ability to handle a collaborative learning
environment. This is the net effect of the learning system’s “Student centric learning” is one of the conceptual
capability to handle active learning. Thermal practicing shifts in the strategy the contemporary technical education
teacher’s opinion of “discussion forums” in an online system must adopt. This is one of the key strategies which is
platform has more diversifying effect and assists less in not understood properly by most of the thermal teachers and
active learning. wrongly understood by many. Only the teachers actively
involved in educational research or innovative practice have
Redundancy is one of the major concerns of the teacher. the complete operational clarity of "Student centric, Content
(Mode 7) Most of the teachers who have used some of the centric and community centric” design. But most of the
other learning systems encountered this problem.This practicing teachers are thoroughly misunderstanding the
problem is common for teacher handling any subject in "Student Centric" as "minimised role or the marginalized
technical universities due to its time table driven feature, importance of a teacher". Unfortunately even some of the
limited teaching hours available , absence of students for educational administrators are also guided by this perception.
reasons beyond the quality of teaching etc. This problem of
redundancy is specifically true for thermal teacher. In Many practicing teachers expressed the apprehension
student's perception thermodynamics is one of the most that a full-fledged implementation of such a system may be
difficult subjects to learn. This is a global phenomenon. misused from the management in either replacing them or
Abstractness of the course is the added pain. giving additional responsibility.

Question 14 was about the practicing teacher’s choice The lack of awareness and lack of exposure on content
between student centric and teacher centric instructional specific pedagogical, technological & learning theorems
delivery system.Most of the practicing teacher think that only could also be the influencing factors.
a teacher centric thermodynamic learning system could
deliver an effective learning outcome. These findings are in line with the earlier research
recommendations of a "full fledged redesign" and "need of
The last perceptional parameter is the recognition & training courses for the tutorial assistants."Further the study
"mandate to implement” Q6, certainly the most important has clearly indicated a strong need to properly orient the
one, because of its inseparable dependency on all other practicing thermal teachers about the design parameters and
factors. Most of the practicing teachers are unwilling to only a content and context specific orientation will enable the
implement a blended learning system even if it is mandated reaches ineffective and efficient utilisation of a
by the authorities. Thermodynamic blended learning management system.

IJISRT18DC370 www.ijisrt.com 324

Volume 3, Issue 12, December – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
VII. SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK Exposition 2011, January (pp. 259-268). American
Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Evaluation without exposure may not give a valid [12]. Edward E Anderson, Roman Taraban, M. P. Sharma,
inference and hence an evaluation process after “h-LMS” “Implementing and assessing Computer Based Active
orientation could be the next stage in understanding a Learning Materials in Introductory Thermodynamics”,
teacher’s perception. Study need to be carried out with larger International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 21,
sample size and followed with t-test for significance of no. 6, pp. 2005, 1168-1176
results. [13]. Dr. Alfred Carlson, “Using problem based learning to
teach Thermodynamics: The Good, The Bad and the
REFERENCES Ugly Paper 2005 – 2092.” ASEE Conference 2005.]
[14]. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R. O. B. E. R. T., &
[1]. Dukhan N., “The worldwide engineering students’ Baki, M. “The effectiveness of online and blended
meager performance in thermodynamics”, QScience learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical
Proceedings (Engineering Leaders Conference 2014) literature”. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 2013, 1-
2015:17. 47.
[2]. Smith, T. I., Christensen, W. M., & Thompson, J.R., [15]. Junglas, P., “Teaching Thermodynamics using
“Addressing student difficulties with concepts related to simulations”. In 10th Baltic Region Seminar on
entropy, heat engines and the carnot cycle”. In M. Engineering Education, Szczecin, Poland 2006, (pp. 4-
Sabella, C. Henderson, & C. Singh (Eds.), AIP 6).
Conference Proceedings, 2009, (Vol. 1179, No. 1, pp. [16]. Coller, B. D., & Shernoff, D. J., “Video game-based
277-280). AIP. education in mechanical engineering: A look at student
[3]. Richard M Felder et al , “A longitudinal study of engagement”. International Journal of Engineering
Engineering students performance and retention . Education, 25(2), 2009, 308.
Comparison with traditionally taught Students, Journal [17]. Tang, Zhihong, et al. "Application and Effectiveness of
of Engineering Education, October 1998. a Multimedia and Network Technology in Engineering
[4]. Kesidou S, Duit R., “Students’ conceptions of the Thermodynamics Bilingual Education." Intelligent
second law of thermodynamics – an interpretive study”. Ubiquitous Computing and Education, 2009
J. Res. Sci.Teach. 1993; 30(1):85–106. International Symposium on. IEEE, 2009.
[5]. Melaku Masresha Woldamanuel et al , “Students’ [18]. Baratuci, W. B., & Linse, A. R., Thermo-CD-An
conceptual Difficulties in Thermodynamic”, Chem Sci “Electronic Text For The Introduction To
Rev Lett 2015, 4(13), 299-309. Thermodynamics Course”. 2003, Page, 8, 1.
[6]. Patrick A Tebbe, Stewart Ross, Jeffrey R. Pribyl, [19]. Forbus, K. D., & Whalley, P. B., “Using qualitative
“Work in Progress – Engaging students in physics to build articulate software for thermodynamics
Thermodynamics with Engineering Scenarios”, 40th education: A preliminary report. Interactive Learning
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T4G-1, Environments”, 5(1), 19-32. (1998).
October 2010, 27-30, Washington, DC. [20]. Ulloa, C., Rey, G. D., Sánchez, Á., &Cancela, Á.,
[7]. Abulencia, J. P., Vigeant, M. A., & Silverstein, D. L., “Power Plants, Steam and Gas Turbines
“Using video media to enhance conceptual learning in WebQuest”. Education Sciences, 2(4), 2012, 180-189.
an undergraduate thermodynamics course”, age, 23, 1., [21]. Greta C Kelly., “A Powerful Virtual Learning
c, American Society for Engineering Education, 2013. Environment”, Teaching and Educational Development
[8]. Meirong Huang and Kurt Gramoll., “Online Institute The University of Queensland, Australi, 2002.
Interactive Multimedia for Engineering
Thermodynamics”, Aerospace and Mechanical
Engineering University of Oklahoma, Salt Lake City,
UT, ASEE Conf., 2004 June, 20 – 23.
[9]. Roman Taraban, Edward E Anderson, Matthew W
Hayes, M P Sharma, “Developing on-line homework
for Introductory Thermodynamics”, Journal of
Engineering Education, July 2005.
[10]. K V Muralidhar Sharma, Dr. S.G.Gopalakrishna and
Dr.N. Kapilan “Context Based Learning in Basic
Thermodynamics Through Day to Day Events”,
Manuscript accepted for publication.
[11]. Dartnall, W. J., & Reizes, J. A. “Molecular dynamic
computer simulation models for teaching
thermodynamic principles”. In ASME 2011
International Mechanical Engineering Congress and

IJISRT18DC370 www.ijisrt.com 325