Table Of ContentINFORMATION TO USERS
This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document.
While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this
document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of
the original submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the
missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with
adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and
duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black
mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the
copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred
image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the
upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from
left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary,
sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and
continuing on until complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest
value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be
made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the
dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at
additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog
number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.
University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
A Xerox Education Company
13-8824
.E3 White, John Ritchie, 1907-
1945 A comparison of the group-laboratory
.'755 and the lecture-demons tration methods
in engineering instruction; an experi
mental investigation at the college
level in the area of the physical prcjer
ties cf the common engineering materials
in the testing laboratory... New Verh
1943.
xiv,338 typewritten leaves, illus.,
tables,diagrs.,forms. 29cm.
Thesis (Ph.D.' - New York university,
School of edu- cation, 1943.
£:s next card ijsi
.
2 13-8824
LD3907
,E3 White, John Ritchie, 1907- A com-
1943 parison of the group-laboratory and
.'.735 the lecture-demonstration methods in
engineering instruction... 1943.
(Card 2)
Vita.
Bibliography: p.222-232.
"Reference material for student use":
p.334—335.
B4881
Shell List
Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
I ZfaMis M iiyiBi
.... SEP 28 1949
A COMPARISON OF THE GROUP-LABORATORY AMD THE LECTURE-
DEMONSTRATION METHODS IN ENGINEERING INSTRUCTION
An Experimental Investigation at the College Level in the
Area of the Physical Properties of the Common Engineering
Materials in the Testing Laboratory.
JOHN R. WHITE
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in the School of Education of
Nev York University.
1943
PLEASE NOTE:
Some pages may have
indistinct print.
Filmed as received.
University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company
To my wife, Ruth,
without whose cooperation and understanding
this study would not have been completed.
B 4881
11
I
P R E F A C E
The writer for many years has been a teacher of
civil engineering and as such has been connected with the
materials testing laboratory in various capacities. It is
indeed an uncommon procedure for an engineer to pursue grad
uate work in the school of education and to be interested in
determining methods for the improvement of instruction in
engineering. As a student, however, it became apparent
that many instructors in engineering were themselves fully
versed in factual information but lacked the ability to im
part this knowledge to the student. This belief became in
creasingly evident in later contacts with teachers of en
gineering. It is the writer»s firm conviction that more
teachers in this field should familiarize themselves with the
various methods of student instruction. It is hoped that more
engineering instructors will evaluate their present methods of
teaching from the standpoint of student comprehension as in
dicated by objective tests.
To those of the Faculty of New York University who
offered a helping hand in this study, my sincere gratitude
and appreciation is expressed. Especially is that apprecia-
iii
tion due to the members of my dissertation committee.
Professor C. J. Pieper, its chairman, was a constant source
of vise council and helpful inspiration. Professor P. V.
West continued to be the guide in the formation of a proper
statistical approach. Professor A. P. Myers aided with his
constructive criticism.
In addition, my grateful appreciation must be ex
tended to those members of the Faculty of the College of the
City of New York vho were a fruitful source of cooperation
in the evaluation of tests and the collection of data.
Specifically, Professor E. B. Smith, Department of Mechanical
Engineering; Mr. G. J. Clemons, Drafting Department; Profes
sor C. A. Marlies, Department of Chemical Engineering; Mr.
A. H. Wing, Department of Electrical Engineering; and Messrs.
J. V. Bauer, L. W. Engler and L. C. Pope, Department of Civil
Engineering, deserve mention.
To Professors William Allan and J. S. Peck, Department
of Civil Engineering, must go my thanks for encouraging me in
this project and for making it possible for me to carry it
through in conjunction with my regular classroom vork.
My graduate vork at Kev York University has been of
inestimable value and I sincerely Intend that the completion
iv
of this dissertation vill not mean a complete severance of
my connections with this institution of higher learning.
J. R. V.
Nev York, 1943.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapters Subject Page
I The Problem....... 1
Statement of the Problem 1
Definition of Terms 1
Scope and Delimitations of the Problem 4
Need for the Study 6
II Development of Materials Testing............. 17
Development of Laboratories 17
Pre-Scientific Period 17
Early Scientific and Industrial Period 18
Educational Applications 27
Development of Educational Objectives 34
Present Testing Machines and Instruments 47
Machines 47
Instruments 56
Summary of Materials Testing 58
III Related Studies............................ 61
Evaluations of Lecture-Demonstration
and Laboratory Methods t 62
Biological Science 63
Physical Science 70
Chemical Science 72
General Science 81
Engineering Science 86
Opinions on Theories 86
Inadequate Research 89
Scientific Research 95
Summary of Related Studies 101
IV Procedure in Collecting Data............... 104
Description of the Classes 104
Description of Machines Used in this
Experiment 106
Description of Strain Measuring Instruments
Used in this Experiment 109
Description of Teaching Methods 112
The Group-Laboratory Method 114
The Lecture-Demonstration Method 115
vi
TABLE OP CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapters Subject Page
IV Description of Experiments 119
Construction of Tests 120
Selecting Content 120
Selection of Jurors 121
Construction of the Written Tests 122
Construction of Practical Examination 125
Construction of the Student Judgment
Questionnaire 127
Administration of the Tests 128
The Validity and Reliability of Tests 130
Equation of the Groups 133
Equality of Groups 135
Absolute Averages 135
Thurstone Psychological Examination 136
C. E. 110 Grades 137
Written Pre-Test 138
Critical Ratios 145
Summary of Steps 148
V Treatment and Analysis of Data............. 151
Relations betveen the Variables Used for
Testing Equality 151
Comparison of Groups on Basis of Written
Test Results 155
Analysis of Distribution 157
Analysis of Gains 162
Comparison of Distributions 163
Relation to Non-Experlmental Variables 166
Comparison of Groups on Basis of Delayed -
Recall Written Test Results 168
Analysis of Distributions 169
Analysis of Gains 174
Relation to Non-Experlmental Variables 178
Comparison of Groups on Basis of
Practical Test Results 179
Difference in Central Tendency 181
;; Comparison of Distributions 189
Relation to Non-Experlmental variables 198
Relation of Progress on Practical and
Written Tests 199
Student Opinion of Method of Instruction 201
vii
