Textile Teaching & Learning Initiative

Eileen Armstrong-Carroll, Brian George, Matt Dunn and Christopher M. Pastore
School of Textiles Philadelphia University

John Pierce
School of Health and Sciences Philadelphia University

URL Address: http://fibers.philau.edu/I99P01/index2.html

PROJECT GOALS

This project is designed to determine the most effective methods for teaching textile programs. In this project we will build on existing techniques, especially ones that are not as routinely used in textile education. We will explore and develop these techniques in the context of textile education, with its particular requirements. Some example requirements are the need to understand complex machinery, the difficulty in teaching both team building and leadership as well as engineering skills, the need for extensive hands-on techniques that can be used to effectively communicate with and impart knowledge to students. The goal is that implementation of these teaching methodologies will better prepare students to be productive and dynamic members of the textile industry.

ABSTRACT

We are evaluating the effectiveness of several instructional methods including chapter reading, formatted discussions, learning aids, and group projects. The methods selected are targeted to improve higher order cognitive skill development in an introductory textile course. In addition, we are receiving responses from our trial industry survey. The survey will be revised and mailed to NTC industry partners for their feedback. The survey will be used to incorporate industry input into the final phase of this project where we will demonstrate how the developed instructional methods increase learning of skills that are important in the workplace.

BACKGROUND

We are assessing the current instructional approaches used for various textile courses. Evaluation considerations include the relative amount of higher and lower order cognitive skill development in a course, the learning styles and temperaments of our students, and the attributes that the textile industries value in their future employees. We found that as with most universities, lower order skills tend to dominate introductory courses and by senior year, the course structures almost exclusively foster higher order skills building (1). The instructional methods being developed will increase the amount of higher order skill building associated with introductory courses, without sacrificing course content, if possible.

ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING STYLE AND TEMPERAMENT

We have finished our analysis of data on the learning styles and temperaments of students in various textile degree programs. Students from 5 textile degree courses as well as some introduction to psychology students have completed a learning style and temperament homework assignment, located at http://pirn.philau.edu/learning.html. Each assessment tool, available from different pedagogy websites, contains a series of questions; when these questions are answered, a student's learning style or temperament is determined.

Different learning style assessments have been used. The assessment from hcc.hawaii.edu classifies learners as visual, auditory, or tactile. The assessment from silcon.com classifies learners as visual/nonverbal, visual/verbal, auditory, and kinesthetic. These assessments differ by using tactile in one case and kinesthetic in the other and by silcon.com's subdivision of visual learners. Tactile learners benefit from handling manipulatives and kinesthetic learners benefit from performing actions that portray the concepts being taught. Although these two styles are more closely related than the visual or auditory learning styles they are distinct. Visual learners learn best when information is presented visually (nonverbal) and in a written language (verbal) format. When student scores high as both a nonverbal and verbal visual learner they are classified as visual both types. Auditory learners benefit from listening to a lecture or classroom discussion. When a student has close high scores in two or more styles, their style is labeled as mixed. In part because of the differences in learning classes with the two different assessments, 17% of the students are classified with different learning styles. Another 17% of the students are classified in different but related ways (for example as a visual learner with the hcc.hawaii.edu method and a mixed learner with the silcon.com method but with high scores under visual/nonverbal and/or visual/verbal classes).

Figure 1 shows the learning styles by major for the silicon.com assessment. Two students from the psychology class with textile related majors have been added to the pool of students. Two majors, Fashion Management and Textile Marketing, are not listed since there were less than 5 students in these majors. There were 5 to 11 students in the listed majors. One half of the Textile Engineers' learning styles differ according to the different assessments. Textile Marketing & Management, Textile Engineering, Fashion Apparel Management, and Fashion Design majors have the highest concentration of visual learners. Except for Textile Technology, Textile Design, and Textile Engineering, 10-20% of the students has a tactile learning style. Except for Textile Engineering, Interior Design, and Fashion Design, 10-30% of the students has a kinesthetic learning style. By at least one measure, except for Textile Marketing & Management and Textile Technology, 10-20% of the students have an auditory learning style. For instructional strategies, this information demonstrates the benefit of supplementing lecture with visual aids, manipulatives, and laboratory activities.

Two of the other assessments examine temperament as well as individual learning style. For analysis of this data, students with related majors are grouped together (Table 1). The NCSU assessment (www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSdir/ilsweb.html) evaluates active versus reflective (Figure 2), sensing versus intuitive (Figure 3), visual versus verbal (Figure 4), and sequential versus global (Figure 5) thinking styles. NCSU results are plotted on a bipolar scale. Students that display no strong tendency towards one of the poles are considered neutral since they possess strong attributes of both elements. Students who are active learners benefit from laboratories and independent projects. Reflective students perform well in traditional learning environments. Surprisingly neutral or reflective are the predominant learning types, even in more "hands on" fields. Students who are sensing recall details easily while intuitive learners retain knowledge of process/procedures better than details. Except for psychology and business, intuitive thinkers are in the minority. Since sensors relate information to the "real world" they may have problems with abstract concepts, knowing how a concept applies in practice would be helpful for these students. The verbal classification includes auditory and visual/verbal learners. The visual classification is similar to the visual class with hcc.hawaii and the visual/non-verbal classification of silcon. As with the NCSU assessment, fashion students have a relativity low frequency of visual learners. Global learners comprehend information more by understanding the "big picture". Sequential learners are more comfortable when a process is broken down into a series of steps. Psychology students are most likely to be global thinkers and business students are most likely to be sequential thinkers. An effective approach for reaching both global and sequential learners in a lecture is to begin with a brief synopsis of lecture content and follow with a detailed, sequential explanation.

The other assessment that examines temperament is the keirsey assessment (keirsey.com/cgi-bin/keirsey/newkts.cgi). This assessment measures extrovert versus introvert (Figure 6), intuitive versus sensing (Figure 7), feeling versus thinking (Figure 8), and judgmental versus perspective tendencies (Figure 9). Surprisingly psychology students are the most introverted. Fashion students are the most extroverted. Introverts may be intimidated by large group class discussions and may not participate, small group discussions can help increase participation by introverts. Interestingly, while business students are most likely to be intuitive according to the nscu assessment, all the business students are sensing with the keirsey assessment. The kiersey assessment ranks the psychology students as 90% intuitive but has only a 0 to 30 % intuitive ranges for students in the other fields of study. As expected psychology students are most likely to have a feeling temperament. Feeling temperaments are more in tune with the aesthetic aspects of textile related careers and the nuances of working relationships among team members. Thinking temperaments approach information from an analytical perspective and tend to be good problem solvers. For most fields the majority of the students are judgmental, except for psychology students. A judgmental temperament views information in "black and white" terms and may have difficulty appreciating the nuances of areas such as fashion forecasting. A perceptive temperament may become lost in the nuances of a problem and have difficulty deciding on a course of action.

Study strategies for improving learning are also listed in some of the websites. The students have selected strategies, which they felt are effective for them. Table 3 lists these strategies, the frequency with which they are listed, and the type of learning that they reinforce. Flashcards, a visual learning strategy, is by far the most popular strategy. The other popular strategies, hands-on examples, discussing with others, re-writing notes & adding recollections, and highlighting, draw on all the different learning styles.

The learning style and temperament data demonstrates the individuality of the students gathered in a textile classroom. It is important for the instructor to realize that especially with textiles, no one learning style or temperament predominants. The emphasis in analyzing these results is to compare these results with current instructional approaches and identify strategies that address the whole range of learning styles and temperaments.

INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES

The instructional methods being evaluated include chapter reading, formatted discussions, learning aids ("show and tells" and objects which illustrate concepts), and group projects. Visual/Verbal learners can benefit from chapter reading. Oral learners can benefit from formatted discussions. Learning aids benefit tactile and kinesthetic learners.

Chapter Reading

We explored the advantages of required writing assignments designed to promote the reading of chapters prior to the lecture in which the material was discussed. Students in an introductory textile class were assigned to small discussion groups and instructed to write a summary of the main points of the chapter prior to lecture presentation. An end-of-the-semester evaluation was used to evaluate the success of these assignments in promoting active learning in the class participants. The goals of this approach were to encourage students to read lecture-related chapters prior to class, to engage in active participation in discussion groups, and to help foster a sense of cohesion among group members.

In all, students of three sections (two in the fall semester, one in the spring) of the introductory textile course, Survey of the Textile Industry, participated in this investigation. Each section was taught by the same instructor, a second-year full-time assistant professor of textile engineering. In the fall semester, students were assigned to small discussion groups consisting of three members. Each group was instructed to prepare a suitable chapter summary that contained the essential points of that reading for each chapter of the textbook. Division of labor of the assignment was determined by the participants of each group. Chapter summaries were due prior to presentation of that topic in lecture, were graded for completeness of content, and contributed 5% in calculation of the final grades for the class.

At the end of the semester, students completed an evaluation of the effectiveness of the chapter summary assignment. In the two fall sections, a total of 44 evaluations of the chapter reading assignment were completed and returned. The results indicated that some, but not all, goals of the project were achieved. The three strongest impacts observed were increased textbook reading, improved study strategy techniques, and greater understanding of the classroom concepts. Thus, whereas only 19% of respondents reported "usually reading the textbooks prior to lecture in most of my classes", 60% of respondents reported reading some or all of a chapter prior to lecture because of the writing assignment. Although the majority of the students did not change their approach to chapter reading in response to this assignment, 26% of respondents that read the textbook reported a change in the way they approached textbooks, indicating that they now use textbooks as a resource to identify and clarify key concepts. In all, over 50% of students that read the book used an effective strategy of first skimming and then reading in-depth.

The assignments clearly fostered a greater connection with the material (see Figure 1). By strong majorities, students that read the text reported that pre-reading of chapters gave them increased understanding of course lecture topics (77%), aided them in developing associations between course concepts and their own experiences (73%), and greatly increased their ability to understand the relationship among different course concepts (84%).

Unfortunately, this intervention was less successful in promoting out-of-class discussions. The use of chapter writing assignments did not foster a sense of classroom cohesion nor did it encourage the discussion of concepts among members of a group. No respondent reported writing summaries as a group project; rather, each group member assumed primary responsibility for a summary component reflecting a particular section of the chapter. That is, each group divided the chapter into sections by either concept or section (21%), page numbers (57%), or whole chapters (23%) with each group member submitting an individual review of his or her own section. In the worst-case scenario, members of groups that divided the assignment by chapter successfully completed their portion of the assignment by reading as little as every third chapter. Only 7% of respondents reported reviewing the summaries as a group prior to submission.

A series of Pearson r correlations were performed, comparing the final grade for the course with responses to each of the ten questions comprising the evaluation. No significant correlation emerged for nine of the comparisons, leading to the conclusion that study strategy differences in the use of the chapter summaries did not significantly determine class outcome. The exception was a question concerning the use of chapter summaries as study aids for examinations. In addition to being an avenue for the exposure of information prior to lecture, chapter summaries were also used by 43% of respondents to review for tests. Surprisingly, the responses to this question were negatively correlated with grade (r= -.404, p < 0.012). This finding was evidently due to the tendency of the poorer students to use the summaries not as a complement to textbook reading and lecture notes, but as a substitute for these activities. Thus, the students (9%) that used the summaries to the exclusion of other class material had mediocre to failing grades. Since test questions were drawn from lectures that were based on resources from other sources, reliance on the summaries as a sole means of study was not the most effective studying strategy. In contrast, 8 of the 10 A students used class notes and/or the textbook, as opposed to the summaries, as the primary focus of study. Clearly, summaries, which were not intended to serve as a primary study source for examinations, worked most effectively as a mechanism to introduce students to topic content prior to lecture and as a supplemental source for studying.

Given that students failed to use the assignment to engage in active discussion groups and some students failed to complete the summary assignments at all, the requirements for the assignment were modified for the spring semester classes. Now, all students were required to complete a chapter summary individually for all chapters of the textbook. Other particulars of the assignment remained unchanged. Assignments were collected prior to the start of lecture, graded for completeness of content, and contributed 5% toward the final grade. Students again completed an end-of-the-semester evaluation modified to reflect the changes introduced to the assignment.

Results from the Spring, 2000, semester were consistent in achieving goals similar to the previous semester. Of 31 respondents, 61.3% reported reading most or all of the chapters for this particular class, contrasted with only 29.0% reporting the same amount of reading for their other classes. Despite the increased reading observed in this section, comparatively few respondents noted a change in how they approach textbook assignments, with only 16.1% reporting that they "now identify key concepts by first skimming and then reading for depth".

Consistent with the previous semester, students reported great benefits to pre-reading the chapters prior to lecture. Respondents reported that pre-reading increased the understanding of course concepts sometimes or often (58.1%), enabled them to develop associations between course concepts and real-world experiences (61.3%), and helped them to understand how different course concepts were related (seeing the "big picture"; 38.7%).

Perhaps reflective of the changes in the requirements of the assignment, students in the spring section reported using chapter assignments more extensively than did the students from the previous semester. More respondents (51.6%) acknowledged using the summaries prior to lectures and to review for tests in the Spring, 2000, section compared to the Fall, 1999, sections (43.0%). In contrast to the previous semester, only 3 students acknowledged focusing only on summaries as preparation for tests; two of these three had poor final grades (C-, F). Twelve respondents (38.7%) eschewed the use of summaries to prepare for examinations.

These results show the utility of a pre-lecture writing assignment in fostering a stronger connection with course material for students enrolled in an introductory Survey of the Textile Industry course. Students who completed the assignment reported gains in the synthesis and evaluation of the material, with further understanding of lecture concepts and their interconnections. Although no impact was observed on grades directly, these advances help further academic goals by aiding students in achieving a
greater understanding of the material, and by promoting the development of HOCS.

The professor felt that when the students did individual chapter summaries they were more prepared for class, especially discussions. Also, since each student had some knowledge of the material, they could
ask more meaningful questions. Students told the professor that although it was a lot of work, they thought that the summaries helped them in the long run. The professor thinks that the repetition of reading and then talking about course concepts in class helped them remember the talked about the material. While the professor doesn't think that the A students performed any better with these methods, he thinks these methods help border-line students. Also, fewer students fail the course than before, with the exception of the students who dindn't do any work. At a practical level, the gains evident in this work are an important demonstration of the feasibility of innovative teaching techniques to develop the analytical skills demanded by employers in the competitive textile industry.

Formatted Discussions

We reviewed pedagogic literature (2-4) that explored different approaches to optimizing the effectiveness of discussions. With this background we developed a formatted discussion method for use in introductory textile classes. This method helps the students learn creative thinking and problem solving, as well as how to synthesize information and reach conclusions. With the discussion format, a question is posed to the class such as "What natural fiber would you use for a tablecloth in an expensive Scottish restaurant?" Students break into small groups and discuss the question for a few minutes. Then the class discusses the question as a whole, exploring the different options. A discussion record form was developed in order for the professor to capture each formatted discussion experience. The most common method for evaluating this method is student feedback. We used formatted discussions in a winter 2000 textile survey class and constructed a questionnaire for student feedback. The data obtained is being analyzed using factorial analysis, ANOVA, and related techniques to determine its validity as an assessment method using established guidelines (5). The validated assessment tool will be used to obtain student feedback on formatted discussions used in Fall 2000 textile survey classes.

The validated assessment tool is just one element of our Discussion Evaluation Protocol. This protocol is our research design, which we developed based on lessons learned from the Winter 2000 class and best practices in behavioral research. A triangulated research design is being used with feedback from the professors, students, and a classroom observer (trained in pedagogy) being synthesized as part of the evaluation process. The pool of students is drawn from 5 textile survey classes, with 2 of these classes acting as controls (formatted discussions not used in these classes).

Learning Aids

We have begun using various learning aids to convey introductory concepts to first semester students. Among the concepts using learning aids have been:
- Fiber extrusion: Play-Doh "extruder"
- Yarn spinning: twisting of cotton balls
- Yarn texturing: hair crimper used on filament yarns
- Weaving: "human loom" created-students act as the warp, harnesses, and take-up
- Knitting: each student creates a chain stitch using twine
The effectiveness of these learning aids will be evaluated at the end of the Fall 2000 semester through student evaluations.

Group Project

We discussed the textile survey curricula with former students and colleagues to determine how we could improve student learning. In addition, we were looking for an opportunity to give them examples of products which incorporate the various aspects of the textile industry: fibers, yarns, fabrics, dyes, and finishes. The idea of group projects was mentioned several times. Former students who had similar projects indicated that they learned a lot about textiles and gained an understanding of how fibers are transformed into finished products.

Based on this dialog, we have required that all textile survey students in the fall 2000 semester perform group projects. These projects involve choosing a textile product and identifying the fiber(s), yarn and fabric construction, and possible dyes and finishes used to produce this product. Additionally, the groups must identify why these specific materials were utilized in this product as well as give alternatives to the materials used. Examples of materials chosen by the classes include: umbrellas, jeans, diapers, and artificial arteries.

Two different approaches are being utilized by the professors teaching these survey classes. Three classes will turn in one report at the end of the semester which will provide details of the entire project, while the two other classes will turn in three smaller reports throughout the semester, but which will address the same topics. The professors are working with the university "Writing Across the Curriculum" specialist. This specialist will conduct an in-class writing and team building seminar to further assist the students.

INDUSTRY SURVEY

In order to determine the workskills specifically valued by the textile industries, an industrial survey will be sent to NTC industrial partners. A review of workskill surveys (6-7) was conducted. Key workskills were identified and cross-referenced with teaching methods that can booster these skills. Addressing potential trade-offs between workskills and traditional curriculum elements was a key consideration in survey development.

Sample survey questions are shown in Figure 11. Currently, responses from a trial survey are being received. These responses will be analyzed and the revised survey will be sent out to NTC industry partners. These results will be used to assist textile professors in identifying cases where traditional curriculum elements such as factual knowledge; calculation, testing, evaluation and/or design methods; and hands-on textile experience can be diminished in order to create time for alternative instructional methods and assignments that foster development of workskills.

FUTURE EFFORTS

This term, we will complete our evaluation of the formatted discussion method. The group project idea is being developed this year, further development and preliminary evaluation of this technique will occur in the winter term. A research design protocol and validated affective instruments will be developed and used to determine the effectiveness of the group project. Course concepts that could benefit from learning aids are being identified and candidate learning aids are being considered.

The industry survey will be used to determine workskills that are important to NTC partners. We will use these results to develop a cross-reference of workskills, instructional methods, and trade-offs to assist textile professors in identifying cases where learning a workskill is crucial. In these cases traditional curriculum elements can be diminished in order to create time for alternative instructional methods and assignments that foster development of workskills.

PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

John D. Pierce, Jr., Brian George, Eileen Armstrong-Carroll, Matt Dunn, & Christopher M. Pastore, "Promoting Active Learning in an Introductory Textile Class through the Use of Chapter Summary Assignments", submitted to the Journal of College Science Teaching.

Brian George, John D. Pierce, Eileen Armstrong-Carroll, Matt Dunn, & Christopher M. Pastore, "Promoting Active Learning in Introductory Textile Classes" submitted to the Annual ASEE
(American Society for Engineering Education) Conference, June 2001.

Eileen Armstrong-Carroll, Brian George, John D. Pierce, Jr., Matt Dunn, & Christopher M. Pastore, "From Classroom to Workplace: Facilitated Learning of Desired Employee Attributes", submitted to the national Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration (CIEC) conference, January 2001.

Eileen Armstrong-Carroll, Brian George, John D. Pierce, Jr., Matt Dunn, & Christopher M. Pastore, "Innovative Instructional Methods for Textile Courses", ATAC Seminar Series presentation to Philadelphia University Faculty, October 2000.

REFERENCES

1. NTC annual report for I99-P1, "Educating the Educators", October 1999.
2. Fassinger, P.A., "Understanding Classroom Interaction: Students' and Professors' Contributions to Students' Silence", Journal of Higher Education, Vol 66, No.1, pg 82-96, 1995.
3. Nunn, C.E. (1996). Discussion in the college classroom: Triangulating observational and survey results. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 243-266.
4. Reynolds, K.C., & Nunn, C.E. (1998). Engaging freshmen in classroom discussion: Interaction and the instructor techniques that encourage it. Journal of the First-Year Experience, 10, 7-24.
5. Gable, R.K. and Wolf, M.B., Instrument Development in the Affective Domain, 2nd edition, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.
6. Tanyel, F. & Mitchell, M.A., "The Skill Set for Success of New Business School Graduates: Do Prospective Employers and University Faculty Agree?" Journal of Education for Business, Vol 75, No. 1 pg 33-7, 1999.
7. Wihelm, W.J., "A Delphi Study of Entry-Level Workplace Skills, Competencies, and Proof-of-Achievement Products," Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, Vol 41, No. 2, pg 105-22, 1999.