AC 2012-5561: ASSESSMENT OF DISCOVERY APPROACH

Dr. Mysore Narayanan, Miami University

Mysore Narayanan obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Liverpool, England in the area of electrical
and electronic engineering. He joined Miami University in 1980 and teaches a wide variety of electrical,
electronic, and mechanical engineering courses. He has been invited to contribute articles to several ency-
clopedias and has published and presented dozens of papers at local, regional, national, and international
conferences. He has also designed, developed, organized, and chaired several conferences for Miami
University and conference sessions for a variety of organizations. He is a Senior Member of IEEE and is
a member of ASME, SIAM, ASEE, and AGU. He is actively involved in CELT activities and regularly
participates and presents at the Lilly Conference. He has been the recipient of several Faculty Learning
Community awards. He is also very active in assessment activities and has presented more than thirty
five papers at various assessment institutes. His posters in the areas of assessment, Bloom’s Taxonomy,
and Socratic Inquisition have received widespread acclaim from several scholars in the area of cogni-
tive science and educational methodologies. He has received the Assessment of Critical Thinking Award
twice and is currently working towards incorporating writing assignments that enhance students’ critical
thinking capabilities.

Page 25.225.1

American
c Society for Engineering Education, 2012
 Assessment of Discovery Approach

Abstract

An instructor’s responsibility is to create and promote an active learning environment in

which the learners themselves participate and take the center stage with the process of
knowledge acquisition. Obviously this reduces students’ dependence on the professor.
Furthermore, the instructor must encourage the establishment of a dynamic dialog that requires a
deeper level of processing. We all agree on the fact that almost all professors ask the students to
take ownership of their own learning. The discovery approach used by the author tries to build
on these principles to establish an innovative instructional design by marrying content with
presentation style in theory as well as in practice. Utilizing real-world problems as a stimulus for
student learning is not at all new and has been in practice for a very long time. Educators have
understood that scholars have defined problem-based learning as minds-on, hands-on, focused,
experiential learning. Instructors have also been encouraged to act as cognitive coaches who can
nurture an environment that can support open inquiry. The author was inspired by the unique
ideas presented by these scholars and researchers. He has tried to build on such intelligent ideas
to develop a discovery approach of instructional technique. Discovery approach aims to help
the students to accomplish more and achieve independence instead of interdependence. The
author has tried to successfully utilize some of the scholarly ideas of leading researchers while
implementing the development of discovery approach into his current classroom activities. In
this presentation, the author describes how he has incorporated the principles of Socratic
inquisition to assist the adaptation of the discovery approach. He also presents analyses of the
feedback data he has collected and provides guidelines for continuous improvement.

Introduction

Carnegie scholar, William Cerbin is the director of the center for effective teaching and
learning, at the University of Wisconsin – LaCrosse. Cerbin, who is a professor of psychology
is a widely recognized expert in the area of cognitive science and language development.
Cerbin is of the opinion that one of the most unfortunate consequences of a summative emphasis
is that it inhibits open and productive discussions about teaching; in essence, it marginalizes the
types of activity that could lead to better teaching (Cerbin, 1992 & 1996). Educators Clifford O.
Young, Sr., & Laura Howzell Young of California State University, San Bernardino have argued
that a new paradigm for assessment, a learning paradigm, must be constructed to measure the
success of new kinds of educational practices (Young & Young, 1999).

Provost David L. Potter of George Mason University recently chaired a joint task force
and presented an exhaustive report entitled “Powerful Partnerships : A Shared Responsibility
for Learning.” One of the main goals of this report was to make a difference in the quality of
student learning. Furthermore, it is important that the instructor assesses this difference and
documents it for the implementation of continuous quality improvement (Potter, 1998).
Aubrey Forrest of Emporia State University says that student portfolios, which document
Page 25.225.2
learning in more detail, seldom reveal how teaching has effectively contributed to students'
progress (Forrest, 1990).

Russell Edgerton has been recognized as a leading expert on undergraduate higher

education for the past thirty years and is the recipient of honorary doctor of humane letters
degree from IUPUI. Edgerton indicates that teaching portfolios may contain evidence of
students' learning, but such information is optional, and when included, it may be only one of
many pieces of material (Edgerton, Hutchings & Quinlan, 1991). Pace University distinguished
professor Peter Seldin, also supports this and stresses that the interplay between the instructor
and the learner should be carefully observed and monitored (Seldin, 1991).

Michael Scriven is a Distinguished Professor at the School of Behavioral and

Organizational Sciences at Claremont Graduate University. Dr. Scriven was also a Whitehead
Fellow at Harvard University and the recipient of the American Evaluation Association's
Lazarsfeld Medal for contributions to evaluation theory. Dr. Scriven says that evaluators need a
few special empirical research skills along with a range of evaluative skills. The repertoire of
empirical skills mainly includes those used for social science research, with its emphasis on
hypothesis testing (Scriven, 2002).

As Director of Research and Professional Development at the Center for Critical

Thinking and Chair of the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, Dr. Richard Paul
is an internationally recognized authority on critical thinking. Dr. Paul has written books for
every grade level and has done extensive experimentation with teaching tactics and strategies,
and devising, among other things, novel ways to engage students in rigorous self-assessment.
The author has largely benefited from the principles of Socratic Taxonomy outlined by Richard
Paul. The author incorporated several ideas from this outline while he experimented with the
discovery approach. Richard Paul’s Taxonomy of Socratic Questions is very well known and is
reproduced in Appendix J (Paul, 1995).

All these researchers have certain specific themes in common. They all essentially stress
the importance of pin pointing the problems and effectively resolving those problems at their
infancy. Another similarity is to create the provision of a dynamic partnership in order to break
down the barriers between the instructor and the learner. Some researchers have also suggested
that the learners should not the held responsible for poor quality (Saxe, 1990). Instead, the
structure of the system and the mechanics of management must be blamed for inadequate
knowledge acquisition and unacceptable performance outcomes (Senge, 1990).

Researchers have further indicated that a course portfolio should be treated essentially,
like a manuscript of scholarly work in progress. In other words, a course portfolio can be
deemed as a work that explains what, how, and why students learn or do not learn in a course
(Sims, 1992). One can also identify the importance of providing appropriate guidance and
relevant training to the instructor as well as the student learner. These ideas lead us to the
design and development of innovative instructional techniques as described below.
Page 25.225.3
The Five Principles

Discovery approach has largely benefited from the introduction of computer technology
in to everyday classroom activities. The design, documentation and delivery of educational
material has undergone a revolutionary process and this has proved to be very beneficial for the
instructor as well as the student (Allen, et.al., 1996). Typically, the process of designing and
developing classroom course curriculum content – not to mention, modifying content – could be
effectively streamlined in a productive electronic environment. This has enabled the educators
to examine the reusability of products. Furthermore, rapid development tools have facilitated
the learners to admire and appreciate state-of-the-art technological innovations (Boyer, 1990).
Discovery approach can be successfully implemented if an instructor intelligently incorporates
and follows the five principles outlined below (Narayanan, 2010).

DEFINE: First, the instructor must clearly define the objectives of the course in question. In
addition, the instructor should also provide the students with a detailed plan and the path traced
for attaining these goals. Such a structure will prepare the students to admire and handle the
course with great enthusiasm and creative productivity.

DESIGN: Secondly, the instructor should design learning modules that can generate
interest and motivate the student body towards becoming metacognitive learners. In other
words, one should be able manage one’s own learning. Any selected module should build on the
previous module, thereby creating and supporting a value-added mechanism. The objective is
to add to the knowledge base the students already possess. Ultimate goal should be that
students should learn, “How to Learn.”

DEVELOP: Third, the course should be structured and developed in a systematic manner so
that the learner can appreciate the fact that the course is being built on the previous knowledge
acquired. For example, knowledge of physics and mathematics must be effectively utilized in a
mechanics course. It is important to recognize that a methodical approach has always been the
principle behind solid fundamental knowledge acquisition.

DEPLOY: Once the first three ideas have been secured in place, it is now necessary to
implement them at the required level with appropriate advantage. Here, the instructor should
utilize multiples modes of delivery techniques. Such methods have been suggested by Fleming
and Mills (Fleming and Mills, 1992). Lectures, Reading, Writing, Visual Aids, Tactile and
Kinesthetic modes of delivery help to reach students with diverse learning skills.

DECIDE: Finally, there should be separate assessments of the course, the curriculum, the
student body, the instructor and the discovery approach. In particular, the techniques used
should specifically study the impact of the discovery approach on the learning environment. It is
important to conduct separate assessment of all the above-mentioned five. Once the five sets of
data are analyzed, examined and placed in their appropriate context, one can judge the impact of
student learning based on the discovery approach as a whole (Narayanan, 2007 & 2008).
Page 25.225.4
Discovery Approach Methodology

Discovery approach encourages the students to learn the facts, develop the skills and
acquire the knowledge by actively working with the information gathered. The instructor
encourages the learners to generate modules that demonstrate students’ creativity. Most of the
learners are indeed thrilled at this methodology because the students are no longer passively
receiving information (Linn, Baker & Dunbar, 1991). Instructors, who establish a dynamic
learning environment in the classroom, provide the students with an opportunity to take
ownership over their own learning. Students will have the ability to make strong connections
between concepts and concrete ideas with positive teacher-student and student-student
interaction. Researchers have acknowledged the fact that problem based learning is an effective
method that can improve students’ critical thinking capabilities. However, it must also be
recognized that these active learning methodologies do necessarily require additional work on
the part of students as well as faculty (Barrows, 2000). A pioneer in the area of problem-based
learning, McMaster University Professor Emeritus, Dr. Donald R. Woods describes a
curriculum that is significantly different from the traditional discipline centered curriculum
(Woods, 1994).

Discovery approach aims to march a step further, when compared with problem-based
learning. Here the instructor may benefit from the ideas provided by Intel Education.

(http://www.intel.com/education/designprojects/)

1. Authentic project work puts students in the driver's seat of their own learning.

2. Instructors should take advantage of curriculum developed by teachers in a large

collection of Unit Plans that integrate technology.

3. Models of meaningful classroom projects that integrate instruction in developing critical

thinking skills provide the learners with an opportunity to enhance their knowledge.

4. Tools and strategies for developing one’s own exemplary technology-supported learning
should always receive encouragement from the instructor

5. It is important to learn how project-based units can effectively engage students in meaningful
work and promote higher-order thinking.

6. It is necessary to see how questions and ongoing assessment keep project work focused on
important learning goals.

7. One needs to gather ideas from a collection of exemplary Unit Plans and design one’s own
technology-rich teaching plan.
Page 25.225.5

One can conclude that learning has taken place when the instructor observes a change of
learner behavior (Keefe, 1988 & 1991)). This learner behavior must be the result of what has
been experienced in the process of instruction (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). It is also
important to identify that in order to develop a sense of agency, student affairs professionals
must possess four dimensions of learning that specify desired outcomes: cognitive competence,
intrapersonal competence, interpersonal competence, and practical competence (Baxter Magolda,
2001 & 2004). The ultimate objective of discovery approach should actually be to promote
creative learning accomplishments; not just to document teaching techniques.

Discovery Based ISD

Modern technology provides ample opportunities for the scholars who may want to
experiment with the discovery approach. Technology should not be viewed just as a growing
trend; rather it must be intelligently implemented as a valuable instructional tool that can
accommodate diverse learning styles of 21st century students (Watkins, 2005). The degree of
processing speed, accuracy and retention that an individual is able to accomplish when
encountering information depends upon to what extent the medium in which information
presented matches his or her learning style (Barbe & Milone 1980 and 1981). It is important to
acknowledge that students learn better when alternative modes of information processing are
made available at college campuses (Grasha, 1996). One can recognize that the learning style of
an individual student only by observing his/her overt behavior (Keefe 1987).

One may recall that instructional systems design, abbreviated, ISD was made popular by
Walter Dick and Lou Carey whose famous quote is: “You can’t provide a solution until you
know what the problem is.” The system that Dick and Carey proposed was ADDIE. The term
ADDIE is an acronym for Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. In
ADDIE, the completion of one step is logically fed into the one immediately after it (Dick &
Carey, 1996). Dick & Carey’s ADDIE system has been outlined and explained in Appendix I.

Instructors will be able to generate innovative ideas that can lead to effective classroom
instructional strategies that can promote a vibrant interaction between the instructor and the
learner. President of edCetra Training Company, Reuben Tozman says: Instructional systems
design is the reference used to describe a systematic approach to the design of instruction. A
systematic approach implies a logical application of discovery, testing, and creating solutions.
ISD also refers to the methodical application of a process each and every time the creation of
instruction is required (Tozman, 2004).

In a discovery approach, knowledge-based mastery of necessary functional skills needs to

be stressed. Harvard University Professor Howard Gardner promotes what is known as
education for understanding. Further, one should make sure that the assessment and evaluation
is completely holistic (Gardner, 1993). This ensures that student success outcomes are exactly
determined and is measured accurately (Armstrong, 1994). Many scholars have also
recommended and supported a value-added concept of education by doing assessments before,
during, and after a course (Barr & Tagg, 1995). In his book Learning Paradigm College John
Tagg identifies essential features for generating such a paradigm and provides a flexible guide
and a blueprint for implementing specific changes (Tagg 2003).
Page 25.225.6
 It is important that the aims and objectives of discovery approach are reflected in every
aspect of the learning environment created. The creative new approach should document
accomplishments at the upper levels of Bloom's Taxonomy Triangle (Bloom, 1956 & 1976;
Boud & Feletti, 1991). Scholars in the area of cognitive science and educational psychology
have identified four features that clearly separate a problem-based curriculum from a traditional,
topic-based curriculum (Nickerson, et. al. 1985).

Assessment Procedure

Assessment of the Discovery approach was carried out by the author using several
proven, well established and widely recognized tools (Rowntree, 1977).

Sample quizzes, homework assignments, examinations, written reports were graded on a

holistic basis using likert scale principles. These were recorded in a tabular form using an excel
spreadsheet. A matrix was generated to document grading and analysis. A sample excel table
for grading one student’s single homework assignment quiz is shown in Appendix E.

It is necessary to generate separate matrix tables for each student. This is also indicative
of the fact that different matrix tables have to be created for different quizzes and separate
individual reports. Finally, all these data have to be consolidated into a single spreadsheet.
One should recognize that this will be a fairly labor intensive, time consuming activity.
However, if proper tables are generated in advance, one can easily streamline the task on hand.

The author chose to identify and assess seven Primary Traits. A separate matrix was
generated to document these seven traits chosen. These traits were then further identified in the
chosen quiz that was being assessed. When the quiz was graded, the author documented a likert
scale grade for each of the traits that was being assessed. As mentioned earlier, this has been
shown in Appendix E.

Data collected from this matrix were later incorporated into a master spreadsheet and
appropriate tables were generated for each student. Data from this master spreadsheet were
further consolidated into a larger excel table. This was important, because such a master
spreadsheet could present the researcher with a bigger picture. The ultimate objective was to
study how the students were responding to the introduction of the discovery approach. The
larger spreadsheet, which consolidates all the data collected is shown in Appendix F.

The principle must be to utilize a variety of instructional tools to communicate with

students who may prefer to have different learning styles. The author has utilized World Wide
Web and Interactive Video Distance Learning extensively in addition to other teaching
techniques. W.W.W. and I.V.D.L. actually supplement other routinely used audio visual
techniques such as power point presentations, interactive tutorials, problem-solving sessions,
written research reports, peer group discussions, poster presentations etc (Kolb, 1985).

The important aspect here is to move away from a teaching paradigm to learning
Page 25.225.7

paradigm that is based on the discovery approach.

 The principles assessment methodology can be summarized as follows.

1. The participants should be capable of generating or selecting an assessment plan, that is

productive and that is best suited for their chosen discipline.

2. The participants should make a choice of developing a set of rubrics that can be
effectively utilized in administering their assessment procedures.

3. The participants are required to finally generate a set of graphs that can provide them
with appropriate feedback pertaining to student learning capabilities.

It is quite common for colleges and universities to offer several types of precollege-level
courses. These types of courses are basically designed to teach the essential academic skills that
are necessary for success in some chosen upper level courses (Brier, 1984). For example, a pre-
calculus course may be necessary for a group of students who may be quite competent in English
literature. Another example would be a technical writing course that could help scientists,
mathematicians and engineers with their journal publications.

Implementation

For the implementation of the discovery approach, the author tried to address eight
important questions while he tried to design a new course curriculum content. The
author has previously used a similar approach in other research projects to obtain
meaningful results.

1. What should be counted as appropriate goals and accomplishments in an undergraduate

engineering course that has a significant laboratory component?

2. Does the discovery approach practices utilized by the instructor providing reasonably
acceptable paths toward accomplishing the specified learning goals in the chosen course?

3. What do students actually accomplish in the designed course and the laboratory
exercises? How has discovery approach helped them in meeting their learning goals?

4. How has the instructor’s organizational techniques contributed towards students'

intellectual development and progress?

5. Has the discovery approach methodology effectively responded to address students'

learning difficulties?

6. Does the teacher revise his discovery approach methodology to address such problems
encountered by the students?

7. What impact does this type of discovery approach have on students' life-long learning
Page 25.225.8

attitudes?
 8. Does the discovery approach help the students to develop the ability to “learn, how to
learn.”

One must remember that the ultimate goal of the discovery approach, however, is to
deliver the needed information to learners in the best possible manner, that suits the receiver’s
optimum learning style.

The author also strongly recommends and encourages students to utilize the resources
that are readily available at the university, such as University Library, Divisional Documents,
Departmental Research Reports, Computer Laboratory, Writing Center, etc.

1. The procedure followed by the author while conducting this study is shown in a symbolic
form in Appendix A. The author has used a similar approach in many of his other
research publications and has found the procedure to be very effective.

2. Analysis of data utilized Washington State University’s Critical Thinking Rubric. This
rubric has helped the instructor effectively address and assess the discovery approach and
multiple dimensions of learning. The rubric has been reproduced in Appendix B.

3. The data obtained was based on Likert Scale and was tabulated and recorded using an
excel spreadsheet. The scale is named after its inventor, psychologist Rensis Likert
and is the most w idely used approach to scaling responses in survey research.
Principles of Likert Scale are outlined in Appendix C.

4. Anthony F. Gregorc is best known for his theory of a Mind Styles Model and Gregorc
Style Delineator. Discovery approach was strongly influenced by Gregorc’s Mind
Styles Model. Dr. Gregorc's powerful and widely used instrument is shown in
Appendix D.

5. The data collected has been tabulated using an excel spreadsheet. A sample excel table
for one student’s quiz has been reproduced in Appendix E.

6. A consolidated master spreadsheet excel table that was generated using data collected
from various students has been reproduced in Appendix F.

7. A bar graph was generated to facilitate analysis and this is shown in Appendix G.

8. Summary of some of the selected characteristics of discovery approach and discussion of

the bar graph and results has been recorded in Appendix H.

9. Richard Paul’s Taxonomy of Socratic Questions system has been outlined and explained
in Appendix I.
Page 25.225.9
Analysis

Generation of a well designed bar chart provides the instructor proper guidance with
visual data analysis. Important strengths and weaknesses can be easily identified using the bar
chart. The author wanted to assess seven characteristics. These were selected using a variety of
criteria, such as accreditation guidelines, liberal education principles, leadership qualities, critical
thinking and lifelong learning requirements. Other researchers may choose a totally different set
of characteristics that could be fruitful from their point of view.

Referring to the bar chart shown in Appendix H, one can make these observations.

Discovery Approach Delivers Content:

This was the first and foremost criteria. The author wanted to make sure that appropriate
material was covered at the necessary depth as well as the required breadth. The subject matter
studied was engineering mechanics: statics. It was essential that the students acquired a very
strong foundation of the fundamental principles. Statics is used as a very important foundation
course for a variety of subsequent topics such as strength of materials, dynamics, fluid
mechanics, machine elements, machine design, manufacturing processes, etc. It is observed
that this category recorded the maximum possible score of 5 on the Likert scale. This
indicates that the instructor did cover the material. The author is extremely pleased with this
result. It must be reiterated that no new instructional technique should be introduced while
sacrificing needed course content.

Discovery Approach Reinforces Knowledge:

This criterion closely follows the first criteria. Scholars in the area of cognitive science and
educational methodology stress the importance of a strong foundation more commonly identified
as declarative learning. Building up on student’s strengths ultimately leads to successful
learner accomplishments in subsequent tasks. A respectable Likert scale score of 4 has been
recorded for this characteristic. The author is fairly satisfied with this result. However, he has
decided to gather more feedback from students as to how this can be improved. The author
wants that this category should also achieve the maximum possible score of 5 on the Likert
scale.

Discovery Approach Promotes Integration:

This category has recorded an average Likert scale score of 3 which is not acceptable from the
authors point of view. Professional and technical students must learn to integrate the laws of
physics and rules mathematics in to their engineering design methodologies. Evidently the
instructor has not provided enough tools to accomplish this. The author assumes and accepts
responsibility for not having implemented certain strategies that could have forced the learners to
appreciate the importance of integrating previously acquired knowledge. The author has
decided to design and develop more reading assignments and homework problems that focuses
Page 25.225.10

on this issue. The author wants to improve this score to at least 4 initially.
Discovery Approach Develops Communication Skills:

Engineers need to proficient not only in technical knowledge, but also be proficient in
communication skills. This encompasses all the three, namely verbal, visual and vocal. The
author designed ten writing assignments with the help of Miami university’s writing center.
These were aimed at developing students’ written communication skills. The author required
the students to generate and present a power point presentation on the subject matter of bridge
design. The objective was to develop and reinforce students’ visual and vocal communication
skills. It is observed that this category also has recorded a respectable score of 4 on the Likert
scale. The author was fairly pleased with students’ performance in the area of communication
skills. The author is examining certain new ideas that could perhaps improve this score to the
maximum possible level of 5 on the Likert scale.

Discovery Approach Creates Challenges for the Learners:

Effective educators want to challenge the learners at their appropriate skill level. Here, the
objective is to ensure that the students are not bored with some routine plug-and-chug
problems. At the same time, the task presented to the student must not exceed learner’s
competency levels. Students will soon be frustrated if one tries to demand far in excess of what
is really required and reasonable. This category has recorded a low Likert scale score of 2
which is considered totally unacceptable. This shows that the students do indeed have great
potential to tackle much more complex problems that involve sophisticated engineering
methodologies and mathematical techniques. The author has not created an environment
wherein the students have been challenged enough. This leads the author to arrive at one
possible conclusion. Raise the bar higher. The author must strive hard to improve this score
initially to at least 3 initially, later to 4 and ultimately to 5.

Discovery Approach Helps Diverse Learners:

Researchers have indicated that problems related to learning most frequently are not related to
the complexity of the subject matter. The degree of processing speed, accuracy, and retention
that an individual is able to accomplish when encountering information depends upon to what
extent the medium in which information presented matches the student’s learning style.
Educators must be able to successfully address the needs of the individual by relating their own
teaching style to the learning style of the individual student. The author wanted to focus on a
well established fact that student learning is actually an interactive process that takes place in an
educational environment established specifically to promote and enhance knowledge in a
discovery atmosphere. This category also has recorded an unacceptable Likert scale score of 2
which indicates that the author’s approach is not working. The author has decided to obtain
some productive feedback from The Learning Center at Miami University, which is equipped to
provide academic support services for a variety of student needs.

Discovery Approach Supports Critical Thinking:

Page 25.225.11

Michael Scriven & Richard Paul have defined Critical thinking as the intellectually disciplined
process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or
evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection,
reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action (Scriven & Paul, 2010). This
category has recorded an average Likert scale score of 3 and the author considers this to be
unacceptable. Engineers need to become very good critical thinkers. Industry needs
professionals who are capable of examining a problem critically to arrive at justifiable solutions.
Engineers are faced with different scenarios every day and are required to draw significant
conclusions based on their evaluations. A traditional strength of Miami University is that its
heavy emphasis on liberal education. Miami University was founded on the belief that a liberal
education provides the best possible framework for life in a changing world. The author will try
to extract some creative ideas out of Miami Plan for Liberal Education. Hopefully this would
help him to promote critical thinking in his future endeavors.

Conclusions and Continuous Improvement

It is important to emphasize that the above research activity is only partially complete.
The above mentioned discussions are not meant to be all conclusive. In reality, they try to
provide a starting point for a newly proposed instructional activity. This paper mainly
concentrates on providing the instructor with the necessary background pertaining to practicing
discovery approach. It is important that pertinent theoretical aspects must be discussed during
lecture meetings and problem solving tutorial sessions. At present, the author is trying to design
various hardware laboratory projects to supplement the discovery approach methodology of
teaching. When student groups work on their experimental projects, they will understand and
appreciate the needs and necessities of laboratory measurement techniques. They will also be
able to effectively utilize and apply the knowledge gathered and gained during the lecture
classes, study sessions, and in a variety of courses.

There is plenty of work to be carried out and the author tries to obtain feedback from the
students and faculty at regular intervals. Washington State University’s Critical Thinking Rubric
has proved to be extremely valuable in documenting the effectiveness of systematic use of
discovery approach. This has helped the instructor address perceptual dimensions of learning
most students acknowledge and appreciate. This will give the instructor proper guidance for
moving in the right direction.

Furthermore it should be recognized that each topic or subject matter may be different and
the difference may be huge and significant. Each instructor’s delivery style is different and one may
even arrive at two different sets of data for the same subject and topic when two different instructors
are involved. The author agrees and understands that these data may vary significantly depending
upon subject matter, instructor’s delivery styles, material content, discipline, student body, etc. It is
possible that Visual and Kinesthetic modes of learning may be preferred by students engineering
disciplines. Such assessment data provides the instructor to make appropriate changes in the manner
in which the course is developed and may necessitate changes in the Discovery Approach of
Instructional Delivery Styles (Narayanan, 2007).
Page 25.225.12
Acknowledgements

Dr. Mysore Narayanan is extremely grateful to the Center for the Enhancement of Learning
and Teaching and Committee for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching for granting him the
award: Faculty Learning Community to Accentuate Performance in Student-Centered Learning. Dr.
Narayanan also thanks Dr. Milt Cox, Director of Center for the Enhancement of Learning and
Teaching at Miami University for his valuable suggestions and guidance. The author is extremely
grateful to Dr. Gregg W. Wentzell, Managing Editor for the Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching for his invaluable input. The author also thanks Dr. Paul Anderson, Director, Roger and
Joyce Howe Center for Writing Excellence for his valuable guidance and encouragement

Page 25.225.13
References:

Armstrong, Thomas. (1994). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Barrows, Howard S. (2000). Problem-Based Learning Applied to Medical Education. Springfield, IL: SIU
School of Medicine.

Barrows, H. S. (1996). “Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview.” In L.Wilkerson & W.
H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 3-12). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barbe, Walter B. , Milone, Michael N., Jr. (1980). Modality. Instructor, 89, 44-47.

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, John (1995, November/December). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for
undergraduate education. Change, 13-24.

Baxter Magolda, M. B., & King, P. M. (Eds.). (2004). Learning partnerships: Theory & models of practice to
educate for self-authorship. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote
self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Bloom, B. (1956). A taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.

Bloom, B. (1976). Human characteristics and student learning. New York: McGraw Hill.

Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1991). The Challenge of Problem-based Learning. London: Kogan.

Boyer, Ernest (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Boylan, H. R. (2002). What Works: Research-Based Best Practices in Developmental Education. Boone, NC:
National Center for Developmental Education.

Cambridge, Barbara (1999). The scholarship of teaching and learning: Questions and answers from the field.
AAHE Bulletin, 3, 7-10.

Cerbin, William (1993). Fostering a culture of teaching as scholarship. The Teaching Professor, 7(3), 1-2.

Cerbin, William (1996). Inventing a new genre: The course portfolio at the University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse.
In P. Hutchings, Making Teaching Community Property (pp. 52-60). Washington, D. C.: American Association of
Higher Education.

Cross, K. Patricia & Steadman, M. H. (1996). Classroom research: Implementing the scholarship of teaching.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cutler, W. W. (1997). The history course portfolio. Perspectives. 35(8), 17-20.

Dantonio, M. (1990). How can we create thinkers? Questioning strategies that work for teachers. Bloomington,
Indiana: National Educational Service.
Page 25.225.14

Dick, W. & Cary, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Edgerton, R, Hutchings, P, Quinlan, K. (1991). The teaching portfolio: Capturing the scholarship in teaching.
Washington, D. C.: American Association for Higher Education.

Forrest, Aubrey (1990). Time will tell: Portfolio-assisted assessment of general education. Washington, DC:
AAHE Assessment Forum. American Association for Higher Education.

Gardner, Howard (1993). Frames of mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (10th anniversary edition). New
York: Basic Books.

Grasha, A.F. (1996). Teaching with style. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance Publishers.

Keefe, J. W. (1991). Learning style: Cognitive and thinking skills. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary
School Principals.

Keefe, J. W. (1988). Profiling and utilizing learning style. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School
Principals.

Keefe, J. W. (1987). Theory and practice. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Kolb (1985). Learning Styles Inventory. Boston, MA: TRG, Hay/McBer Training Resource Group.

Linn, R., Baker, E., & Dunbar, S. (1991). Complex, Performance-based Assessment: Expectations and Validation
Criteria. Educational Researcher, 20 (8), 15-21.

Narayanan, Mysore (2007). Assessment of Perceptual Modality Styles. Proceedings of 114th ASEE National
Conference, June 24-27, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Narayanan, Mysore (2008). Assessment of Water Conservation Education. Proceedings of World Environmental
and Water Resources Congress 2008, May 12- 16, 2008. Honolulu, Hawaii. (ASCE.)

Narayanan, Mysore. (2010). Assessment of Problem-Based Learning. ASEE 117th Annual Conference and
Exposition, Louisville, KY. June 20–23, 2010. Paper # AC 2010-15.

Nickerson, R.S., Perkins, D.N., Smith, E.E. (1985). The Teaching of Thinking. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale, NJ, London.

Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from 20 years of
research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Paul, Richard (1995). Critical Thinking: How to Prepare Students for a Rapidly Changing World. Tomales, CA:
Foundation for Critical Thinking .

Rowntree, D.(1977). Assessing Students: How Shall We Know Them? New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

Ryan, K. & Cooper, J. (2004). Those Who Can, Teach (10 ed). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Saxe, S. (1990, June). Peer influence and learning. Training and Development Journal, 42 (6), 50-53.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York:
Doubleday.

Sims, R. R. (1992, Fall). Developing the learning climate in public sector training programs. Public
Personnel Management, 21 (3), 335-346.
Page 25.225.15

Scriven, Michael (2002). An overview of evaluation theories. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 1(1), 61-69.
Scriven, Michael & Paul, Richard (2010) http://www.criticalthinking.org/

Shulman, L. S. (1993). Teaching as community property: Putting an end to pedagogical solitude. Change 25(6), 6-7.

Seldin, Peter (1991). The teaching portfolio. Bolton, MA: Anker.

Tagg, John (2003). The Learning Paradigm College. Bolton, MA: Anker.

Walker, S. (2003). Active learning strategies to promote critical thinking. Journal of Athletic Training, 38(3),
263-267.

Woods, Donald R. (1994). Problem-based Learning: How to Gain the Most from PBL. Hamilton, Ontario,
Canada: Donald R. Woods Publisher.

Wilkerson, L., & Gijselaers, W.H. (Eds.) (1996). Bringing Problem-Based Learning to Higher Education: Theory
and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers

Young, C. O., Sr., & Young, L. H. (1999). Assessing Learning in Interactive Courses. Journal on Excellence in
College Teaching, 10 (1), 63-76.

Additional Reference Sources:

Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and
implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68 (1), 52-81.

Allen, D. E., Duch, B. J., & Groh, S. E. (1996). “The power of problem-based learning in teaching introductory
science courses.” In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher
education: Theory and practice (pp. 43-52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Arámbula-Greenfield, T. (1996). Implementing problem- based learning in a college science class: Testing
problem-solving methodology as a viable alternative to traditional science-teaching techniques. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 26 (1), 26-30.

Page 25.225.16
APPENDIX A: Methodology used by the author.

Generate Bar 1 Design and

Graphs & Develop
Continuous Discovery
Improvement Modules

5
2

Analyze Data Discover

Collected using Multiple Modes
W.S.U. Rubrics of Delivery
Techniques

4
Student 3
Assignments
Quizzes and
Examinations

The author has previously used a similar approach in other research and other ASEE publications
Page 25.225.17
 Approve
Assessment
Assignment

Select
W.S.U.
Continuous Rubric
Improvement

Procedure Summarize
and Analyze
Draw
Significant Followed by Data
Conclusions
the Author

Synthesize
Support What Data is
from Exhibiting
Literature
Survey
Generate
Informative
Graphs
Page 25.225.18
APPENDIX B : Critical Thinking Rubrics (Courtesy of W.S.U., Pullman, WA)

Rubrics based on Likert Scale

5 Has demonstrated excellence. Has analyzed important data precisely.

Has provided documentation. Has answered key questions correctly.
Evidence of critical thinking ability. Has addressed problems effectively.
Very good performance Has evaluated material with proper insight.
Has used deductive reasoning skills.
Has used inductive reasoning skills.
Has employed problem solving skills.
Has discussed consequences of decisions.
Has been consistent with inference.

3 Has demonstrated competency. Data analysis can be improved.

Adequate documentation. More effort to address key questions.
Critical thinking ability exists. Need to address problems effectively.
Acceptable performance. Expand on evaluating material.
Improve deductive reasoning skills.
Improve inductive reasoning skills.
Problem solving skills need honing.
Must discuss consequences of decisions.
Has been vague with inference.

1 Poor, unacceptable performance. Absence of analytical skills.

Lacks critical thinking ability. Answers questions incorrectly.
Addresses problems superficially.
Lacks documentation.
Inability to evaluate material.
Shows no deductive reasoning power.
Inductive reasoning power non existent.
Poor problem solving skills
Unaware of consequences of decisions.
Unable to draw conclusions.

Source: Critical Thinking Rubric, Washington State University, P.O. Box 644530,
Pullman, WA 99164 - 4530 USA.(2005) http://wsuctproject.wsu.edu/ctr.htm
Page 25.225.19
APPENDIX C: Principles of Likert Scale

Rensis Likert, the American educator and organizational psychologist was the founder of
University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. Likert is best known for his research on
management styles, development of Likert Scales and the Linking pin model (Likert, 1932).
Just like W. Edwards Deming, Likert’s books on theory of management were very popular in
postwar Japan during the sixties and seventies.

A Likert scale is often used in research surveys and questionnaires.

Likert scale is a type of psychometric response scale.

Likert Scale is perhaps the most widely used instrument in sociology research.

Likert scaling is referred to as a bipolar scaling method.

Presented with a statement, Likert scale attempts to measure and record either the
positive or the negative response provided.

While addressing and responding to a statement presented on a Likert scale

questionnaire, respondents indicate whether they

Strongly Agree (5),

Agree (4),

Remain Undecided (3),

Disagree (2)

Strongly Disagree (1).

It is important to emphasize the fact that these responses, 5 – 4 – 3 – 2 – 1

represent what is known as ordinal level of measurement.

This is much different from other scales such as ratio scale or interval scale.
Page 25.225.20

The Likert Scale represents a built-in, inherent order or sequence. For example:
Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.

Biggest to Smallest.

Maximum to Least.

Strongest to Weakest.

Tallest to Shortest.

Heaviest to Lightest.

Largest to Smallest.

Etc.

Numbers (1 to 5) are assigned to the responses received, however these numbers do not
indicate the magnitude of difference between the responses. One may recall that in case of ratio
scale or interval scale the magnitude of difference, indeed has a specific meaning attached to it.

The data is not continuous. Therefore it must be interpreted carefully. It is not

appropriate to generate or create a histogram using the data collected. Mean (average) values do
not have any meaning for interpretation. Furthermore standard deviation does not convey
anything. Therefore, the data are normally summarized using a median or mode. The author
prefers to use mode.

Source:

1. Likert Rensis (2004). Evaluation Cookbook, Learning Technology Dissemination

Initiative, Heriot – Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, Scotland.

2. Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of

Psychology 140, 55.

3. www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/ltdi/cookbook/info_likert_scale/printable.pdf
Page 25.225.21
APPENDIX D: Gregoric Style Delineator: Four learning styles

Discovery approach was strongly influenced by Anthony Gregorc’s Mind Styles Model.

Concrete Sequential (CS) These learners prefer direct, hands-on experience. They
exhibit extraordinary development of their five senses. They like touchable, concrete
materials, and orderly presentations. CS’s actually enjoy faculty meetings! They are
adverse to change and do not oppose tradition. They are habitual, punctual, and desire
perfection. You would not see a CS wear flashy colors or mismatched outfits. They are
organized, desire perfection, and give “practical” gifts.

Abstract Random (AR) These learners have a capacity to sense moods, and they
use intuition to their advantage. They prefer to learn in an unstructured environment such
as group discussions and activities. Faculty meetings are viewed as a time to socialize!
They prefer not to be restricted by unnecessary rules and guidelines. Because AR’s
continuously discharge energy, they may appear “hyper” when indeed they are not. AR’s
use hand and body movements when communicating. They dislike routine activities and
cold, unemotional people.

Abstract Sequential (AS) These learners have excellent abilities with written, verbal,
and image symbols. They like to read, listen, and use their visual skills. They are highly
verbal; therefore, you will never have a short conversation with an AS. They prefer a
sequential presentation that is rational and substantive or they consider meetings a waste
of time. AS’s are “fence straddlers” and highly skeptical.

Concrete Random (CR) These learners like to experiment using trial-and-error

approaches. They tend to jump to conclusions and prefer to work independently or in
small groups. They are gamblers and risk takers. CR’s may arrive late to meetings and
leave early if they feel the meeting is boring or going nowhere. Concrete Random
individuals are leaders, not followers. They love to take charge and be in charge. They
refuse to accept the words “don’t” or “can’t.” They thrive in a competitive atmosphere.
CR’s are not overly concerned with making impressions or going out of their way to win
over people. They are often the prime movers of change.

Source:

1. Gregorc, A. F., & Ward, H. B. (1977). Implications for learning and teaching: A new definition
for individual. NASSP Bulletin, 61, 20-26.

2. Gregorc, A. F. (1979). Learning styles: Differences which the profession must address. Reading
through content, 29-34.

3. Gregorc, A. F. (1979). Learning/teaching styles: Their nature and effects. Student learning
styles: Diagnosing & prescribing programs, 19-26.

4. Gregorc, A. F. (1984). Style as a symptom: A phenomenological perspective. Theory into

Page 25.225.22

Practice, 23(1), 51-55.

5. Gregorc, A. F., & Ward, H. B. (1977, February). A new definition for individual. NASSP Bulletin.
Appendix E. Matrix that was generated to document holistic grading and assessment analysis.

A sample matrix for one student’s single homework assignment report is shown here.

Subject: ENGINEERING MECHANICS: Statics.

QUIZ # 6: Seven questions addressed the following requirements:

Question # 1. Pertained to the mathematical analysis of a simple truss. (Content)
Question # 2. Required the application of laws of physics. (Reinforces Knowledge)
Question # 3. One needed to utilize the knowledge of chemistry of metals. (Integration)
Question # 4. A written research report of 400 words was required. (Written Communication Skills)
Question # 5. This problem was thought provoking and required three dimensional analysis. (Challenging)
Question # 6. Students had a choice to use Mathematics, MATLAB or EXCEL. (Diverse Learners)
Question # 7. Failure of a structural component was to be critically evaluated. (Critical Thinking)

STUDENT # X

THE DISCOVERY APPROACH MATRIX

RUBRIC COURTESY OF W. S. U.
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
PULLMAN, WA. 99164.
QUIZ # 6: STATICS 5 4 3 2 1
STR. AGREE

AGREE

DISAGREE

S. DISAGREE
UNDECIDED

1 Discovery Delivers Content √

2 Discovery Reinforces Knowledge √
3 Discovery Promotes Integration √
4 Discovery Develops Communication √
5 Discovery Creates Challenges √
6 Discovery Helps Diverse Learners √
7 Discovery Supports Critical Thinking √
Page 25.225.23
Appendix F:

Master Spreadsheet for Consolidating Data Collected from a Group of Students

GRA D I N G: QUI ZZES: 20%

H OM EWORK : 20%
EXA M # 1: 20%
EXA M # 2: 20%
FI N A L: 20%

Assessment of Discovery Approach

MEDIAN

MODE

AVG.
QUIZ # 6 ……… TOTAL xx STUDENTS # A B C . . . . X Y Z

THE DISCOVERY APPROACH MATRIX (CONSOLIDATED)

RUBRIC COURTESY OF W. S. U.
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
PULLMAN, WA. 99164.
LIKERT SCALE WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION :
(1 : Strongly Disagree; 5 : Strongly Agree)

Discovery Delivers Content 4 4 3 . . . . 4 3 3 5

Discovery Reinforces Knowledge 3 4 5 . . . . 5 5 5 4
Discovery Promotes Integration 5 4 3 . . . . 3 4 5 3
Discovery Develops Communication 3 3 5 . . . . 4 3 4 4
Discovery Creates Challenges 3 3 5 . . . . 5 4 4 2
Discovery Helps Diverse Learners 4 4 5 . . . . 5 4 5 2
Discovery Supports Critical Thinkings 4 3 4 . . . . 3 4 3 3

Data Collected & Consolidated by : Mysore Narayanan.

The data collected are ordinal: they have an inherent order or sequence, but one cannot assume that the respondent
means that the difference between agreeing and strongly agreeing is the same as between agreeing and being undecided.
Descriptive Techniques (Likert Evaluation Cookbook 2004)
Summarize using a median or a mode (not a mean); the mode is probably the most suitable for easy interpretation.
Express variability in terms of the range or inter quartile range (not the standard deviation).
Display the distribution of observations in a dotplot or a barchart (it can’t be a histogram, because the data is not continuous).
Page 25.225.24
Appendix G:

Bar Chart Analysis of Seven Selected Characteristics of Discovery Approach

LIKERT SCA LE A N A LYSIS.

5: Strongly A gree.
4. A gree.
3. Undecided.
2. Disagree.
1: Strongly Disagree.

Pl ease see pages 8 – 10 f or a compl ete descri pti ve anal ysi s of the bar chart data.

Page 25.225.25
Appendix H: Some Selected Characteristics of Discovery Approach

Context
Specific
Coordination
Delivers
Challenging Content and
and Diversity Develops
of Approach Knowledge
Acquisition

DISCOVERY
APPROACH

Encourages Promotes
Critical Integration
among
Thinking
Disciplines

Visual, Verbal
and Vocal
Communication
Skills
Page 25.225.26
Appendix I: Taxonomy of Socratic Questions

Richard Paul created a taxonomy of Socratic questions in support for problem based learning (PBL). The
taxonomy is not a hierarchy in the traditional sense. The categories build upon each other, but they do not
necessarily follow a pattern or design. One question's response will lead into another category of questioning not
predetermined by the facilitator.

In keeping with the problem based learning (PBL) philosophy, this aspect of the model is most conducive!
The role of the skilled facilitator is to keep the inquiry “train on track,” but, also, to allow participants to “travel to a
viable destination” of their own design. Paul suggests six types of questions that probe reasons and evidence:

1. Questions of Clarification
2. Questions that Probe Assumptions
3. Questions that Probe Reasons and Evidence
4. Questions about Viewpoints or Perspectives
5. Questions that Probe Implications and Consequences
6. Questions about the Question

A Socratic questioner should:

1. Keep the discussion focused.

2. Keep the discussion intellectually responsible.
3. Stimulate the discussion with probing questions
4. Periodically summarize what has been dealt with and what needs to be resolved.
5. Draw as many students as possible into the discussion.

Source : Paul, Richard, Critical Thinking: How to Prepare Students for a Rapidly Changing World, 1995.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REFOCUSSING QUESTIONS – Used when the student does not answer your initial question. Restate the student’s response,
and then restate your original question. For example: “You are telling me about the cause of depression”. I asked you about the
effects of depression. “What are some of the effects of depression?”

NARROWING THE FOCUS QUESTIONS – Used when the student is not responding to your question because they do not
understand the question or the content required to answer the question. Reword or reduce the amount of information in the
question. For example: Change the question: “What did you observe during the treatment session?” to “What can you tell me
about the client's motion available for getting dressed?”

CLARIFYING QUESTIONS – Used when the student's answer is unclear, or if you would like to help them put the answer into
different words. Do not give any further information, but ask the student to rephrase his/her response. For example: “What do
you mean by the client appears frustrated?”

VERIFYING QUESTIONS – Used when you would like the students to provide further information to support their answer. This
type of question helps establish the accuracy of the information and the level to which the student understands his/her response.
For example: “What did you see that made you say that the client has problems with muscle weakness?”

SUPPORTING QUESTIONS – Used to bring the student’s thinking out, and to help the instructor and student see how the
student is connecting and explaining information. This type of question asks the student to state why or what the basis is for the
answer that they gave. For example: “Why do you think that she is unsafe transferring into the tub?”
Page 25.225.27

Source: Dantonio, M. (1990). How can we create thinkers? Questioning strategies that work for teachers.
Bloomington, Indiana: National Educational Service.