TRANSPORTATIO ato]. ee)] 0) Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2199 : Research and Education © 2010 = TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARI OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMETRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD ‘OF THE NAROMAL ACADEME TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORDS, which tre published threughout the year, consist of colec- tions of papers an specific transportation medes erd Subjectareas Esch Record is classified according to the subscriber category or categories covered by she papers published in that volume, Tho views expressed in papers published in the Trensporeation Research Record eerie are those of the authors ‘and do nck necassariy reflec: the views cf the paer Feview connmitzee(e), the Transportation esearch ‘Board, the National Rssearca Counc, of the spr: tore of TAB activities, The Transporcation Researeh Board does not endorse products or manufacturers, trade and manufacaurers' names may appear i @ Recor paper aniy if trey are considered assent PEER REVIEW OF PAPERS: Ali popers publishad in the Transportation Research Record series have been reviewed end accapted for nubleation through the Tranaporeaton Flesearch Board's peer review pracase establishes according to procedures: Spproved by the Governing Board of the Netional Plesearch Counel Papers are refereed by the TRB standing committses igentiied on gage ii of esch Rocord. Reveners are selected from amang com rites members and other cutside experts. The {Transportation Regeerch Board recuiras 3 mmnimum of hres review, @ decision is based on reviewer com ments ané resukant auther ravesion. For datas about the poor review process, soe the mformation on che inaide back cover THE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD PUBLICATION BOARD, comprising @ crass eoction ftransportabon disciplines and with saual represen {ati from the academic and practioner commun ties, asgures thet the qualgy of the Transportation Fesoarch Record: Journsl of the Transportation Research Board enc the TRE paper peer review provass ¢ consistant wth that of a peer-reviewed eSentiic journal. Members frorn he acadiernc com tmuniy make decisions on granting tenure; all ae: demic and practitioner members nave authored pepers published i peer reviewed journals and = Fave petticipated in the TRE peer reviaw process. ‘TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD PUBLI- CATIONS may be ordered creer from te TRE use ress Difice, through the internet at wor. TRB.ora, Sr by annual subscription thraugh orgerizetionsl ar indvidual afifation with TAB, Affilates ond library Subscribers ers eligible for substantial discounts, For further informavion. contact the Transperta- tion Reseerch Board Business Office, SOO Fifth Sersoe, NV, Washington, DIG 20001 (telephone 5p2.934-9213, fax 2023842519; or email ‘TABsaleo@na6 edt ‘TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD PAPERS ONLINE: The TAR Journal Online website provides Sleckronic access t the full text of capers that nave Geen published in the Trensportation Reseerch Record sores singe 1896 The sta is updated as row ecard papars become available, Ta search SSostraets and toting subecripcion and pricing infor ‘ration, ga to wa. TRB. ory/TRAGatre ‘TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOAR! 2010 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE iL (Chair Miche Moers Oster 0 Transportation, Neh Cental Texas Coun of Goverment Acros Frecpates nel deren esis Mary andthe Hiway Adiccion, Batmore aces Dipctort Robert E Samer, Je Taapartucdn Research Boe en trerm etn Ore rea Tp hon Dba bt sce Ve Loe. en Sent Corps ca Fame ats, Det oc apne. Bee seen ee roles afore mn. Mane ane am Rn, ct sconce Een stern ea dean pee Nera Deen thar, Canal SE oe cman ee ireusp ci eS on ME ae ere rc Gages Enos Scns oy Dit nt reste ore mans Cacl eevee Ca yb Ao ae Mi Petr H Appel Adminstat: Rexeach and imate Technol Alminitraton, US Deprmei anponion exec) “Foca Babbite Admire Reel Asiaton fdseiaton US. Depumento Turspeutcn Gsorge Beant Pri A verio rte: Fog Secretary. Aealeny FE nme. Ferro, Ads, Peder Morr Cae Lise) Gab. Chisk ssi of Tensporation Baro an aa US, Depa te er, [dwar B Harberger. Pres Ink C Horlay, Exoriee De “Wosvepn DE ex utes! vid. Matsuda Depaty Absa ‘Vice MMe. Adisraoy,Ftal Highoay fii Wha tae. Pei Ameo Pic Tangfrtio Asotin, Wastin, DC. tev Pac Cha 92) -purlostonie Unde Secrtsy fr Segoe ant Tshoony US; Depunman of Hori Ssai (x fi Free rapp coun, L's Chas Guy, Comranip, US. Coat Gus US, Deparment Homelad Ccgihin L Quarterman. Administ, pline nd Hazardous Miter Safety Adminsation Us Deporte Tanportaton ex fea Peer oi Rogol hdatasme Fao Trac Adprin U.S- Depa! f Tarpon ec Dung Stiekland Noir: Nana ighwa} Tle Seley Admmsration, US, Deprinet eee Sa Alounusio Fede Railou! Adfiisnatio. 5, Deptt of Texsporaton of att TeeuenbergAvsnum Seren fr Tasssporafo Poly. US. DepcareneTrrspertaon ex io! Robert L,Van antrer (L.-Genel.U5. Ann) Cif ef Eiger and Coranding Gener US, Army ‘Cops oF Exsiees Waiagten. DC. (exo) rh ose, Sy. Geog Poesia of Bow York Cavers mn U/S, Depot Tesi C60. Ava on aie, ane ‘enn Anson of Sse tay ame Teaspo ron US Depts Tygon raion US Doan Ts onanTRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2199 Research and Education 2010 A Pel TRANSPORTATION‘Transportation Research Record 2198 ISSN 0361-198 ISBN 975-0-300.16075.9 Subscriber Categories Highways: public wensporation pedestrians and Diy wesearcy transporabon, general education and ining, adinstration asc ned i the Unitd States of America ‘TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD PUBLICATION BOARD © Mckee! Walton, PRD, PE, Emest H. Cockrell Centennial hai In Engincessaa so Professor of Civil Ensiacerig, University of ‘Aastn (Cocke) Mary Lynn Tater, PRD, Director, Office of Transporation Foley “Sucies, Fedora Highway Adminstration, Washington, D.C (Cochin) Dantel Brand, SB. SM, PE, Consul, Lyme, New Hampsbor Mary R. Bovks, BOT, MBA, PRD, William A. Black Chair of ‘Commerce, Dalhousie Univesity, Hala, Nova Soota, Canada (Charles & Howard, fe, MRP, Diector, Transporation Pianaing, ‘Puget Sound Regional Council, Seale, Washington ‘Tuer J Reunietovskd, PEng, Mazage, Materials E "Research Office, Ontaro Ministy of Transporton, 7 Michael D. Meyer PND, PE, Fredrick 8, Dickerion Profesioe, School of ‘Chil and Envsonmental Engineering, Georgi Instat of Technol ‘Alana ‘Sandra Rosenbloom. MA. PRD, Profesor of Panning, Univesity of ‘srzona, Fueson urate © Stan, PRD, PE, Oon Disinguishe Profesor, Schoo! of ‘Cit Engineering, Purdue Univers, West aleve, Indiana 1 David Suits MSCE, Executive Decor. North American Geosyatbctes Sociry, Albany, New York Peer Review of Transpartation Research Record 2199 POLICY AND ORGANIZATION GROUP. (Cynthia Jane Burbank. Paso Brisekerhof, ne, (Chir) Manogement and Leadefstip Section ‘Basbars Man, Helena, Monbana (Chai) Management and Prodtity Commitee Manag pork Penayean}s Denese: of Treaprason «Chai Wn oui hturen Ef ase fa 2, Hacer, Dennis Gost aa Fite ute, abiney Kane, Nick Manel Byars Pak Ne elton DLS Reber En Reser. Stephane Ret ip WeSite Stren hn Wik, Race! Haris Wiser, Connie P Yes, Any 2nas Research and Eduestiog Section uname Car; Diuic Defament of Tansporation (Coca, ReneS lin Canforap Deparment of anspor (Cohas Conduct of Resesrch Committee Jason J Bitter, University df Wisconsin, Madison (Cocks). Bilan Taomss Harder 8. Harder tne, (Cochin Alberto Altai ‘ictus R Bonin Patric (Casey, Nancy L.Chrlund, Rick Colin Deni € Donvel Debra S]lston. Monique R. Evans, Jenifer MV Puch, Gary A Frederick, Hija T- Hagedom. Kathryn Harington-Hushes, Te Beer K singer, Kelly feone, Josef Mikal, Elen M. Oran, Matis Pacill Steve Philp, Linda . Preiser, Edvard J. Seymoar Sue. Suck | ‘Transportation Educatipn and Training Committee Gresory P Bene, Parsons Bpskerhof, Ine. (Coehait), Chanda R. Bhat. Carecety of Tents, AustinfCochai), Aska W. grav, Michel Aver, Jota Cellos, William | DaWit IH, Cssama Abd Elman, Naveen lors Vick). Glent Susi L. Handy. Alyoh N. Horton, Fredacik Hugo, Thomas F Humphesp, Michaet Fyfe Parra { Lees, Shast NNarbiagn, Emily Parkas Pete M. Schrien James T. Self, Gary B ‘Thomas, Mele S, Toole) | Maranne Verieris, Charlene Wilder Peet oomote a he enc of eich pape. Tee tedumcarora! unit tfice and members reas of December 21, 2008 ‘Transportation Research Board Statt imberly Fisher Assofate Division Director, Teansponation Planning roan R Morgan. Senior Plogeam Associate ‘Mary Kiss, Senor Prozsah Associate Marie Misozt, Senior Pppram Office and Transportation Poy and ‘Grsanization Specialist Matthew & Miler. SenigeProgram Associate ‘Mark Norvao, Diveetor.T/shaieal Activities Division Padtiations Oe Susan Pesan and DebedP. Davis, Eaters: Cao! Tak, Production eur Mary MeLaughin Prootreder: Claudia Sais. Manusexipt Preparer | Ann Petiy, Mansging itor, Juoita Geen, Prodaion Manager Pyts Berber, Publishiag)Amimstaor- Jeanie J, Weeks, Manuscript Prspartion ManagerTHE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine | “The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self perpetuating society of distinguished sctol- rs engaged in Scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology land to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to if by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has @ mandate that requires it to advise the federal goverament on peientitic and techni cal matte. Dr Ralph 3, Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Seiences, “The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter ¢f the National Acad- cemy of Sciences, as parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomouy in its administration land in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences ne responsibility for aulvising the federal government, The National Acadesny of Engineering also sponsors yngineering programs timed at meeting national needs. encourages education and cesearch, and recognizes Fhe Superior achieve- sents of engineers, Dr, Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engipeering. ‘The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by dhe National Academy of Spiences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of poligy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acs under the responsibility given to the Nationa} Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser 10 the federal government andfon its own initiative, te identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey) V. Finebee is president of the Inctitate of Medicine | ‘The National Research Council was organized by the Nasional Academy of Sciencgp in 1916 to associate eer eer une snd clog wae Aruenys purpose a futforng kaos lage ad fudvising the federal government’ Functioning in accordance with general policies defprmined by the Acad fm, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National peademy of Sciences snd the National Academy of Engineering in providing services tothe government, th public, and the sien tiffe and engineccing communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Aqsdemies and the last tute of Medicine. Dr Ralph J. Cicerone aag De Charles M, Vest are chait ard vife chair, respect of the National Research Council | “The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of Ge National ffescarch Conneil. mission of the Transportation Research Board is 10 provide leadership im transporfation innovation and progress though researck and information exchange, conducted within a sewing that objective, interdisci Dlinary, and multimodal. The Board's varied activities annually engage about 7,008} engineers, scientists, nd her transportation researchers and practitioners from the pubic and private seqors and academis, all Of whom coatnibute their expertise in the pablic interest, The program is supported py state wansportation ‘epartments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the| U.S. Department of ‘Transportation, and other organizations end individuals interested in the developrpent of transportation www. TRB.org | www, | | nationpl-academies.org‘TRB SPONSORS* “Transportation Departments ef the 50 States and the Diswict, of Columbia Federal Government USS. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Federal Highway Administation Federal Motor Carrer Safety Administration Federal Railrosd Administration Federal Transit Administation National Highway Traffic Satety Administration Research and Innovative Technology Administration Bureau of Indian Affairs tology Directorate, ‘of Homeland Security US. Anny Comps of Engineers US. Coast Guard Nongovernmental Organizations ‘American Association of State Highway and Transporation Officials American Public Transportation Association American Transportation Research Institute Association of American RailroadsTRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD I Journal af the Transportation Research Board, No. 24199 | | | | Contents | Foreword vii ‘Student Understanding of Sight Distance in Geometric Design: A Beginning Line of Inquiry Brock Andrews, Shane Brown, Devlin Mentfort, and Michael P. Dixon 4 Comparison of Lecture- and Problem-Based 3 Learning Styles in an Engineering Laboratory Daniel J: Hartman and Mayrai Gindy Process for Improving Design of Transportation 18 Curriculum Materials with Examples Michael Kyte, Michael Dixon | Ahmed Abdel-Rahim, and Shane Brown | Development and Deployment of Traffic Control Game: 28 Integration with Traffic Engineering Curriculum for Teaching High School Students Chen-Fu Liao, David 8. Glick, Shawn Haag, and Gina Baas j | | | | ap Outsourcing Decision Making in Public Organizations: | Proposed Methodology and initial Analytic Results from a Department of Transportation Robert J. Eger ill and Subheshish Samedder 37 ‘Toward Performance Measures for Road Infrastructure 48 Research Programs: Australian Experience Mike Shackleton and Willa Youngi Foreword | | | “he 2010 senesftheFansporaton Research Record Journal ofthe Transposon Resear sfthe consists of approximately 900 papers selected from 3,700 submissions after rigorous peer ev lard pect review foreach paper published inthis volume was cooadinated by the committe acknowleflsed the end of the text members ofthe reviewing committees forthe papers in ths volume are on page it | ‘Asitional information about the Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transpor Aewearch Board series andthe pose review proces appedrs on te inside back cover. TRE apprecia tables in this volume have been converted from Note: Many of the photographs, figures, a to grayscale for printing. The electron TRROnline, retain the color versions of photographs. figutes, and tables as origi for publication iy sub terest shown by authors in offering their papers, and the Board looks forward 0 future submission sted the © files of the papers, posted on the web at www.TRB)org/ itedMeasurement Conversion Factors “To.convet fom the uit inthe ist columa to the anit inthe seeond column, multiply by bic cotuan Curomery tne _—_s1 Factr srunt —_|___ Chrwmary ti ocor ing twat inches ‘allimeters a4 ‘rullimeters | inges feet weiss om mes | yards freee oats wes vhs mks lowates tel somes miles rt res ‘aver EEE | sea neies Tqunaitieses SS anc nilisens wpa nches or Sure fot Shur eters oops Shuwencer | spas fest iores Soar are ‘hare mete 0836 Stacmees | sfreyands tise ses hectares tomes 7 aa sae Seu ones Saute lone shite aes 96 Yotume re Vouune | ae salons tea Ties floes be et cab es uns crews | che fee cables cate wee ores | cbiemetes | foveyas # Mas Mes ouees a a al oa pounds tegrans oust tibgrams 2205 rts or ser | estas aoe Tiominaion lumina | canes io ware tue Sandie | featambe cond per tarde | hime 320 Savarese Jesanbers | Force and Frese orStes a Force and Presur or Sides 7 poundtoree wearene aa5 pevaas Pel pee octece per ioe | wet por ‘uae inch dilopascl oa | Pees Femperaure im Tenperatard Toconer Fahri temperate Cio Cabs {To unvet Cabs enpefre CC) Faeroe | temperature CC). ase te foleing foal ature GF. wee the flowing formu: TRB Transportation Research Board sae ors | eee Abbreviations Used Without Defiitions aASHO Armen Assocation of State Highvay Oa | SASMPo ARSTEanasociaton ofS ighuoy and frsprt>n fs RCRD AupursCoopertve Reseat Posn Apter bute Tonepenaon Secon | | REL AMEN Soteeyor Chu eng | | RSGNARCESR Sone orcesing and teal known by sprviton ot) | FAA Federal Aviation Administration 1 FIA Feel Highway Asminitation EMSA Federal Motor Caner Safty Adminsetin FRA Fed Ral minstation FIA Fedoul HenieAdminston | TAPE thor ct Electseal an Elestonice Engines {S0) Inertial Oganiztn for Seanez Te suet ansparion npn NASA_ Natonel Aconaie an! pce aminstaton NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administralion Klin Reseach 0 Imovaive Terioloey Adma}aton SAE Society of Automotive Engineers | Shee Stactc Highway Reach ogam | TER Thank Coopentve Reseach Postam—|in Geometric Design A Beginning Line of Inquiry | | Student Understanding of Sight Distance Brack Andrews, Shane Brown, Devlin Montfort, and Michael P. Dixon Although a tude in macip {ating equations and variables within academic environments, research consistently shows that they lack conceptual understanding the deficit ‘ccountsfor thei dificult in choosing appropriate equations or under= Standing the basic phenomena that undergird such equations Tis study Investigntes undergraduate understanding of sight distance and stopping ‘sight distance in introductory transportation courses, Although sight dlistanceand stopping sigh distance are fundamental concepts in trans- portation engineering, stidents demonstrate considerable difficulty ‘understanding these concepts and often rely on previous experience «or preferred equations without clating them to specie phenomena of intrest. Suggested approaches ae offered for transportation engineering ‘educators to improve thelr students’ conceptual understanding. Shitentunderstanding of engineering and ihe under ying physicals {ences isa topic of increasing interest to engineering educators, Recent researc indicates that despite high passing rates in most universities many students do not comprehend science-course content in a deep ‘ormesningful way (/-7), A report fom the National Research Coun: cil has identifies this lack of deep understanding—also called com: ceptual understanding—as a high-priority problem facing science, technology. engineering, ane mathematies (STEM? indsties. edu ‘ators, and researchers. Although conceptual trerstanding is vital forapplying science or math to tezl-world problems, esearch on st dent understanding of engineering subjects is nascent. To ackitess his problem, this sudy investigated stodenis’ conceptual understanding Of Fundamental geometric design concepts Although geometsie design is typically only a small subset ofthe mterial presented in most intcoductory transportation engineering courses, it plays asigificant ole in the comprehension of transporta- tion engineering fundamentals. Transportation engineering students reed t0 understand fully such concepts of geometric design as sight distance (SD). stopping sight distance (SSD), and the design of hor ‘zontal and vertical curves and elements common zoal streets, roads, and highways (8), Sight distance is defined asthe length of the road ‘way ahead that is visible co the driver (8). AASHTO classifies SSD as “the sum of two distances: the distance traveled by the vehicle B Ancrang, San Hal BTS: §. Grown, ben Hal 101; and O. Monit. Sinan Fal 123, Geert of Sul ac Enironeetal Eagracrg. Wacington Site Unversity, Pulman, WA 9184. MP. Cush, Depsrtrnt a Cal Engineering, Urwersey of kin: Moscna, Id 83869, Coresoandng aiaher shane Era srerebrown@wsu Tesnopertavin acearch Racor ia! of tho Transprtation estar 80 ‘i 2189, Tranegratan Research Bree tr Naural cadeies, Wastin, OC, 2010. 1-8 oa 10.s14172188.01 from he insta diver fsa obec necesiating atop the ina hat th ake oe plied andthe dstance needed 9 op vcs rome avant fire aplication begins”) The foes Yin tem est eshte concepual uderstniing of hese inducer gednetie Sif emcee denonstaionieriens wrth (oat to bic wnesites | CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING tough here so nivel dfinion forthe pre “concept understanding,” Margolis ahd Laurence describe it as an understand impotihe pesidners undying colelaton nein the con reactance nfesaryanbrponsandeange of etsoable ves SRE. Therefore chreeprn understanding o opie can Febery he scribed af "useful owe” of tat sbyect Bir caine of know ge ui tcarcterzng how sla Jenson ss aps ha kerf to content oui ot whi it Certeuned i) Although studens" computor sbiis Rave deen shown io develop oft uanignve problem-based home wor, cures [and exe eonceptal vdertanding smote Si tea to develdp and anscls Reseach show that ony ues wo do well net cous and on standardized exam ae not ate to expat fundamefes!pheeomena or answer qualitative Theos] a sncefon wtih vost cosinor eden cence oie. suf at nial we te erton Girt Preval rscuch hf shen hatte eptaton of ie expet ees corel cay ing ent aac Th estas physics students difficulties for example, Lising and Elby toned sates who wor unableto apply a knowledge based ‘on experiences to problem4 encountered in the classroom or lab (/: : semologial belt ina division bene demic knoledge (2), Hammer sim thay angus thal sents by have diferent bei about bere vad Knowledge canes fom, afd maynatrally discoune ite experiences 29) Lie esearch has amined how engineering student te Sxpeences agate cofepul understanding despite apoied ature of math ne scence engineeing daphne PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING Systematic investigations By Evans etal, (14). Hake (2), and Halloun and Hestenes{3) relied oh multiple-choice concept inventories assess conceptual undersfandiag. The primary goal of emptoy'concept inventories is 10 evaluate whether a person has @ suesinet and accurate working knowledge ofa particular se of concepts (75) ‘These concept inventories present students with conceptual ques- tions containing the correct answer as Well as common distactors incorrect answers based on common student views, Halloun and Hestenes developed the fist of these instruments, called the Force ‘Concept inventory (ECD. Here the FCI was usedto investigate feesh- ‘man knowledge of the most basic introductory physics concepts (3) Because most students were able to perform Newtonian-based eal culations successtully on theic homework, Halloun and Hestenes pected near-perfect results on the FCI, Surprisingly, FCI results showed that most students did not truly understand fundamental mncepts covered in theit STEM courses. In addition, students con- sistently preferred non-Newtonian-based explanations for common physical pheaomena: “Students initial qualitative, common-sense beliefs about motion and causes have a large effect on performance in physics, but conventional instruction induces only a small change in those bolifs" (3) Instructors offen encounter this dstineion When students who are successful at performing complex calculations in thelr homework cannot answer ostensibly simple questions about the nature ofthe topie studied (3), Inthe field of engineering education, the FCT methodology and findings inspired the Foundation Coalition to develop concept Inventories in 13 different areas, including strength of materials stat les, fluid mechanics. chemistry, and heat ianster (76). Preliminary results from the engineering-specitic fields of statics and thermo- dynamics imply that student conceptual understanding of engineering topics sas low as observed in other STEM areas (6,17) ‘Trowbridge and McDermott created the Physics Education and, Research Group (PERG) 1 explore how introductory physics students think about kieties and kinematics (5). Kinetic apd kinematic con- cepts, like motion, speed, acceleration, and forces that cause motion, sare ntjor concepts taught in high school ané introductory college level physics courses. Using the individual demonstration interview fas the primary data source, PERG researchers identified specitic problems thut students had with these concepts, PERG researchers conducted one-on-one demonstration interviews with students using ‘motion asks developed by Piaget to explore how introductory eal lege physics students think about kinematics (78), Inerviews were centered on eliciting verbal responses from students t characterize and describe their thought process in problem solving, Although the demonstration interview-based vesearch conducted by McDermott and PERG was originally motivated by a strang sire 1o increase student comprehension in introductory physics, this approach also works well in other mote advanced science-based courses (/9). A primary goal of ou research is toinvestigae the level of student conceptual understanding of to primary geometric design centeia, SD and SSD, through the use of demonstration interviews. PURPOSE OF STUDY ‘Tais study isthe firstinvestigation of students’ conceptual under: standing of fundamental concepts in transportation engineering; itaims to improve engineering education, This study builds on extensively validated research methodologies identified as criti- cal by the National Research Council, and is funded extersively by the National Science Foundation, Because of the lack of research ‘on how to improve engineering sucents” conceptual understanding of transportation engineering the fist ask isto evaluate their exist. ing understanding. As exemplified by previous work. the in-depth “Transportation Reseorch Record 2199, demonstration interviews required for this type of investigation are ‘most effective when focused on only a few concepts (15, 19-2). Since SD and $SD are central to many aspecis of transportation engineering, these related concepts were chosen as the focus of the RESEARCH METHODS To discover and characterize thoroughly students’ conceptual under standing ofthese concepts, qualtrive interview and analysis method: logies were employed. Qualitative methods allow the exploration and detailed description of stedents' understandings and mental feameworks in transportation engineering, Qualitative research is ccancerned with the meaning and the processes underlying phenory- as distinct from a quantitative means of counting or measuting phenomena (22, 23). Sample Selection Participants in this investigation were enrolled in the spring 2009 semesterof Ineoduction to Transporation Engineering at Washington State University (WSU) or the University of Kaho (U-Idaho). The ‘combined ensoltment for both courses is roughly 00 students. Both classes ae introductory undergraduate courses that includ two 10 three weeks of coverage per semester on geometeic design topics. Instructors for both courses covered geomettic design content roughly three weeks before indent inrerviewing began Similar co quantitative studies’ use of random sammpling 0 avoid bias in thei analyses, qualitative studies use purposaful sampling to ensure that the daa collected will be meaningful (22). The tert “eit Jal ease” refers to an individual or group that, when studied, can sed light on the status of the context or system in which they ate & participant Critical cases are aot meant to be representative of the population they are taken from Instead, dey ate groups or inividu als positioned in suc a way chaca description of them also describes some aspect of the lager population. In this study, the purpose sample, of critical case, consisted of students from various levels of academic achievement in an intracactry transportation course. Eighteen students participated in this study, all on @ volontacy basis. Instructors for both courses provided a ranked list of students, based on course grade, with a course grade of C or beter, Specific ‘grades were kept confidential. Course grades were fairly well dstib- ted in the sample, with six students in the upper third, seven in the ‘uid, and five inthe lower thied, Participants were chosen purpose: fully to represent a range of academic achievement, which allowed for direct inferences to be made snout the laeges population of en neering students at these and similar universes, Sample selection ‘was done by the research adviser (State Brown) snd student infor mation was not shared with the primary researcher (Brock Andrews) tw avoid bias during iterviews and data analysis, Development of interview Materials Interview materials included the protocol and geometric design problems. These proble:ms included typical homework-like pro Jems as well as open-ended design-type problems. Three civil engi neering professors who had tought the introductory course within the past year at WSU or the University of lowa reviewed all prob lems and helped identify the concepts needed to solve the problem.Andraws, Brown, Montiort, and Oixen a TABLE 1 Summary of Interview Problems ond Questions Key Careopts Figures Interview Questions SD. ssp i What s geometric desige? What does geomete design mean you? x OX 2 \What comes to ering when you heac te erm “sightcisance” (SD)? Howis—X the concept of sight distance ase in highway design? 3 Explain the em “stopping sight distance” (SSD), x 4 Dingram showing two unconnected tangent ads. How you would design a horizontal curve to connect he tangent roadways? XX 5 Diagram showing «vehicle waveing tough How would you determine the divers escion time? Does reaction ie x horizontal curve, with an obsiruction gear the vary fromtive a diver? end of he eu Does the SSD change from driver o driver? Doe the obstruction affet the drwer's seation 6 The same horizontal uve ss in Problem was Predict whether the driver's SSD wouldchange ftom Problem $,tfso,isit XX. resented excepe a bung was intodced large or smaller than the SSD in Problem 57 Inside the curve locking the diver s view of the obstruction arth end ofthe curv. 7 ‘A diferent diagram of ahevizoatal curve where How would you calulate the drive's SSD Whit variables would hewsefol XX house inside the curve createda sigh restric: to know ian SSD calculation? tien Zo the deve. the rosa sight off (FSO) ~6 enters, and the eas (R) = 350 meters can you perfor a calculation for he driver's SSD” le vehicle velosity = 1105imvn, R= 380 meters, and HSO = 6 meters. on you determine i his curve i sae forthe river the given desta peed? 8 Diagram of wo vnconnected, ronpetlle How would you connect the (wo roadways with vertical curves) x oadays, ° Two sar diagrams were used, The fisishowed Predict which vehicle would have the gtewer SD. What variables affect SD? x: ‘sina passenger caraveling over acres Calculate the SD fore passenae car and te sorituck i valucs for kiver ‘vemical curve with as oostnction near een aig, obstraction height curve length. end canget grader ‘ofthe curve. The second showed alargerseaui Dig your predictions match your calculations? track the exace same cre location se the passenger ca, with the same cbstction Tocaton a wel, Enid of interview Total eovernge oon ‘ted misleading aspects, and provided suggestions for refinement. From an initial pool of 25 questions eine were chosen to maximize question-to-concept mapping on SD and SSD topics. Questions in the imerview protocol were carefully structured to encourage dis cussion and gain insight into studeats' thought processes (24) in the pplication of fundamental concepts of geouetcic design (19). All Participants were presented withthe same st of interview problems and interview questions, as summarized in Table |. Some questions ‘oly warranted verbal explanations (2.8. Questions 1 through 3), while others were accompanied ay figures. These typically asked Students to discuss their thought processes regarding SD and SSD 85 well as o perform calculations (¢ g., Questions 7 and 9) Interview Procedure Following McDermott and PERG, the interviews were based on Piaget's clinical interviewing methods (151 with the goal of charac- ‘erizing conceptual understanding of SD and SSD. Typical clinical interviews are refective and slow. Instruction is rere, and judgment ‘om subjocts responses is withheld (JO). The tone ofthe interview was largely casual and informal, with suficient process time between ‘question and response for both the interviewer and interviewee to reflect (0. 15, 9), Students were encouraged to think outloud, write down affirming statements, and clarify any questions. Interviews \Were audio-tecorded for later transcription, and lasted appeoximacely 300 45 minutes. In chinical interviews, probing questions are critical, because the interviewer cannot guess what the participant knows or how that knowledge is organized. These probing questions futher elucidated students’ understanding of geometric design. The order and timing of verbal questions were organized to facilitate this exploration, While ‘linical interviews are less developed, rationalized, ancl codified tan their quantitative counterparts, chey offer valuable techniques a8 4 means of scientific data collection (15. 25-27), Data Analysis ‘Studect interviews were audi-tevorded, and inerview packets were collected to record student notes. sketches, and calculations. tn the frst stage of analysis. the primary researcher (Andrews) read through the transcripts multiple times while coding pertinent student state ‘ments. Data were organized into categories, and new information was compared with previously organized categories, which required a substantial amount of time. This analysis followed an itezpretive perspective, reducing the databy focusing onthe belief, views, and assumptions of the participants ‘This qualitative analysis relied on an erative process of coding and categorizing data. Each coding iteration iavalved more interpretationthan the last. Examples of first-pass codes are Road Conditions, which Jobeled any student comments about road conditions, and Homework, which labeled any references to previous homework. For the next set of codes, and for each iteration after that, the previous level of ‘codes was grouped, cefined. and examined for internal consistency, Covfs tnat were found noro reer ta student beliefS and understand ing were eliminated ateach stage. By the end of the analysis, 2S codes were reduced to three primary themes. Instead of representing ideal knowledge, the goal ofthis pat ofthe analysis was to determine what the participants knew, and how thot knowledge influenced the way they reasoned and solved problems (25), Daring the coding process, it was important to distinguish state~ ments indicating mature understanding from those demonstrating ‘weak conceptual development. Responses indicating mature under standing tend 0 be internslly consistent and consistent with observ- ible phenomena: they could be used in communications with others inthe iscipline (23). Because experts in transportation engineering (represented in this study by engineering faculty at WSU and {daho} share internally and extemally consistent knowledge structures of transportation engineering, experts’ understanding was used as a guideline in examining students’ understanding ‘Tae applicability ofthe results othe sample from which the par: ticipants were drawn depends on datz saturation, Saturation occurs when in the analysis of an interview, no new codes or themes are Found in addition 20 those in the previous interviews analyzed. La ‘other words, regardless of the order of analysis ofthe interviews, coves generated during analysis ofthe frst interviews were sufficient to characterize completely the final few interviews. RESULTS ‘Thvee ofthe 18 students incerviewed performed exceptionally wellon all aspoets of te interview and displayed conceptual understanding (of SP aad SSD. These students also had the highest course grades. "These sudents cowectly linked their personal experiences withthe ‘concepts of SD and SSD. correctly defined the concepts identified evant variables in the open-ended questions, and answered all ‘ealculation-based questions correctly. The resus presented below largely deseribe the remaining 15 stodents interviewed. For these students, there was no relation between couse grade and interview performance. Personal Experience Individual driving experiences played a crucial role in how students ‘thought about geometric design criteria. Some students were able to ‘capitalize on personal experiences, linking them successfully to theit ‘conceptual framework of geometric design, Most students indicated they had fet the negative effets centripe: driver, with comments such as, “You wouldn't want to experience fone of those roller-coaster feelings. That's the thing with vertical curves.” Students openly discussed personal experiences with envi ronmental fators and how they influenced braking distance: "Obvi cwsly, if the eadvay is in ideal condition (dry, smooth surtace) it's joing tobe safer than a wet, slippery surface, or an iey one, ori it's gravel. There's going ro be a higher chance of the brekes sliding.” ‘This paricipan: went onto link his own driving experiences to SSD: I it's snowing and its really slick out, and you think tit you're fine bur really you're not. you have the Same rezction time, but the ‘acceleration has on the ‘Teansportavian Research Record 2199 distance that it sotually takes your car Co stop is going to be greater than wht you thin it's going to be in normal conditions.” ‘Other students failed fo connect theie unique driving experiences to the information they had been presented while discussing fupda- mental geometric design evtera. Otten, these students struggled to differentiate SD from SSD, which will be discussed more thoroughly in te following sections. These students had ample opportunities to form their own understanding of both SD and SSD, whether in class, cn homework and tests, in the interview, aud from their personal driving experiences, Yet they consistently reverted 0 their initial preconceptions of SD and SSD, often erroneously combining bot views into one concept. They were unsuccessful in providing proper Aefintions of SD and SSD, even though their personal experiences told different story For example, when asked, “What comes to mind when thinking about sight distance?” one student responded, “Sight distance? Um, 1et's see. Stopping sight distance usualy comes to ming.” When fur ther probed to discuss how transportation engineers use the concept ‘of SD in highway design, she continued to define SD in terms of SSD: “Idon’t know much more than what Ljust sad, [t's used te kind ‘of find the distance youcan safely stop. .and you sta posted speed ‘based on that" Although she was confused about the Gistinetion berween SSD and SD, later in che interview she drew on personal experiences traveling over vertical curves toillustrate the importance of SD in highway design: Pa want to feel somforabla... And hat, forget shat the vale is but the wide-open clearance. The dnvers won't feel comforabie svancuvering the cuve if tey can ony See 20 oF 30 feet in font oF them with stat fa thee way. DeFritely sepoing sight aisaace {Somes nt playin nigh and dey ya sting Here athe es Sta vertca curve}. yousan see the botloms tecirvedanng hea Tut ac night you wot be able ro see tha she implies that an ‘general, this notion is corte ‘When discussing differences in SSD during night ad day, se clearly used personal experiences while driving at aight co shape how she thought that SSD and SD played into vertical and horizontal curve design. Yet with al of tis student's experience. she failed to sep- ‘rate adequately and compartmentalize her understanding of hota ‘SD and SSD. By trying to combine the two concepss she limited her potential understanding of each, Tn another example of how students combine SSD and SD into ‘one coneepr, the interviewer asked, "What comes to mind when you think of sight distance?” One student answered, “I think how far ahead of me I can see an object, Like if there's a rock in the road, hhow far ahead of me [can see that object and be able to react to stop.” The inteviewer then asked, "So what about SSD then? What does that mean to you” and the student responded. "Una ihe same. White he went on to describe SSD generally and what variables \woold be useful in a calculation, he progressed through the inter view believing that SSD was the sameas SD. Yet within tae context ‘of personal experiences i¢ was obvious that he hat! observed how veiele height affects SD and not SSD: Te depencs on how tll your vehicle i. cause each gorson when they sit inthe vehicle when you're siting fn a Corvee, you're realy low tothe ground. And if you're in sei. you're up high and Sorte woing be able se ie obstacle sone “The students quoted above, a5 well as 2 could not adequately answer the questions: “What is sight dst other pardeipanrs,narews, Brown, Mentor, ad Oxon snd "How is sight distance used in highway design?” Yet they on sistently referred to the importance of providing ample SD ducing ‘iscussions of their personal experiences of driving ver vertical ‘curves or through horizontal curves (either at ight or during the ay). Clearly, some students preferred to think of SD and SSD ‘within the conceptual framework they had created based on their personal driving experiences. However, otter students disregarded their personal experiences as drivers, displaying considerable mis understaralings about SSD and SD. In any roadway design scenario, iis essential to provide more SD than SSD. In this manner, cars ‘Should ideally be able to stop before hitting any obstructions waran ing stoppage (8). If students fil to distinguish SD from SSD, how are they able to meet this Fundamental requirement? Extensive research investigating conceptual undecstarding consistently shows, that without direcily addressing these misunderstanding, there is litle opportunity for students independently c resolve their contu- sion between SD and SSD (19, 20, 28. Equations out of Context Although the development ofthe interview protocel Focused largely ‘9n maximizing verbel responses to questions based on geometric design criteria like SD, SSD, and curve desiga, «few calculation bused questions were also included. The combination of questions ‘warranting verbal responses with calculation-based problems fol- lowed the methodology used inthe vast body of research conducted to investigate conceptual understanding of sich STEM couses 2s physics, thermodynamics, and calculus (3,15, 21, 28. By offering booth verbal and caleulation-based options, stadents who were more comforable taking about geometric design criteria had the same opportunities to justify theic knowledge as the other students whe preferred working in terms of calculations. From the analysis and ‘coding of the student interviews, it became evident that some sti dents demonstrated considerable difficulty in bork solving problems and verbalizing definitions for SD and SSD, Often these students were incapable of solving caleulation-based problems Although ths was not surprising—it was expected that not every student would be able to perform all he calculations successfully — ‘what was unforescen was a tremendous reliance on equations an previously performed homework problems to solve unfamiliar prob. lems. PERG investigations of student understanding ofthe concepts of velocity and acceleration in one dimension found that many stu dents were unable to acquire a working understanding of such con- cepts even winen they had memorized the relevant formulas. Even in simple physics problems, these students chose equations based ‘on convenience instead of meaning, and they had trouble discrim- inating between the concepts of velocity and seceleration (5) The same dependence on equations out of context and consequent lack of problem-solving capabilities was observed during the interviews fortis sway, Equation and Variable Requests As previously discussed, many students struggled through caleula- ‘ions during the interview. An equation sheet with tree equations and definitions of variables wes provided to all patcipants. These equa tions encompassed the calculation-based questions and could be used {solve all questions in the interview protocol These equations were also directly om the coursework inthe Introduction to Transport. tion Engineering courses in whic all participants were ensolled, The calculations ypicaly involved solving fo ether SD or SSD values, but no unfamiliae concepts were incorporated into the questions. Even with the equations provided, is was common for students ‘oask for additional variables and equations. A few students even requested charts or tables before they could determine answers for ‘these calculation based problems. Of these three requests (equations. variables, andl tables or charts). it was most common for students to Justify thir inability to perform calculations because an equation they had used previously was not provided—for example, “If [remem bred... the equation, Pd probably be abe to figure it out... but € really don’t remember.” Again, the equation sheet provided could hhave been used to solve the question the siudeat was facing ‘When asked to solve for SSD, it was typical for students to revert immediately to equations they had used previously in homework or inclass: Ituerviewer: You can see ia this picture thatthe driver is traveling slong a horizontal curve, and he noes the obstruction ‘head Can you discus the SSD” Saudent: Oh. 1 fet like snot very good st equctions, IWerviewer That's okay. ‘Student There's equation that gives you your eaeton tne, your etepton tims. Oh, yeah, thee wera lew equations Later, when asked to discuss how she would actually perform acal- culation forthe SSD, this student gave a similar answer: ‘tudes, Ui. OK esse. dont realy remember know you vould need, like, the leagth...- Oh, ink you wale seed. don't wally serember the equation, kom {here's bike yee perception tte to tect Dean remember ver) well. Think I'm doing it rons Imerviewer: That's okay. You can walk me throwgh wie you shaking Student: OK wel Iwas sure if. Se, tee be bras. ie, [dont emember if is she equation ve used in clase ‘This imeraction again suggests tha this student was evalvating the Usefulness of equations based on unproductive criteria, Ste Was pre vented from moving forward in problem-solving. even when pro- vided with the pertinent equation, because she was unsure if the equation provided was “used in class.” Reliance on eur-of-contest equations heavily influenced how another participant thought about a different problem: "Y would think that stopping sight distance and the radius of the vertical curve were interconnected, But I can't remember the equations for those.” Surprisingly, given the Fact that stadents seemed to apply equse fions to problems somewhat haphazardly, many considered equ ‘ions a8 central to cheir understanding of SD and SSD. For example, ‘one student was asked to "discuss the SSD, How would you deter mine the reaction time?” He responded, “Well, there's a standard reaction time, obviously you will have. T haven't realy seen any ‘equations for this type of scenario, But I thought it was based on @ straight line... Yeah [ remember. like, there's table where you ‘can go find road conditions. so you can look up and find the concept ‘and equations, stuff like that” This students frst reaction to the problem was uncertain, indicating that he didn’t have a clear undec: standing of the problem or question. Ir was unlikely theta table pro- viding both the “concept and equation” existed, but it was interesting thar this student expected to be able to look up 4 form of conceptual understandiag in a table Without sufficient concept development, sudenis ae lefttosolve probiems based on a fow variables they vaguely remember fromsuch equations It isnot surprising, thea, tha these three participants could not calculate SSD when presented wich a sintaion and pro- vided withthe equations. As these students demonstrated, poor con- ceptual understanding of SD and SSD in conjunction with partly rorized equations makes solving new problems difficulk Problem Reliance Altnough these three students unsuccessfully incorporated equa~ ‘hops into their conceptual framework of SD and SSD, otter students shaped their understanding of geometric design criteria around problems they bad previously calculated in class, I an unfarnilia, ealeulation based problem was presented (as in Questions 7 and 9), these students labored to compute acceptable answers, They often requested additional variables, like those in their homework or test problems, before setting out to solve the nes questions from the interview protocol. Further, students whe requested additional vari- ables often had no justification for why these would be important ia such a calculation: Inveciewer: So how would you determine the stoping sight stan! Student: You obviously want your radius of iengih thee. And | now you san work between thove Seo = [ibirk ot inside angle would probably be Reta verviewer: Why is ur? Shideet! Bacusse that might help yoe wo determine... {don"t ow I'm trying to ememer the eqrtion far It seems chat even iPa value for the inside angle were provided (as this student requested), he would still strain to obtain an answer for this problem, because he had no justification for why ie would be impertanr ta kaow the inside angle value. and Further, no equation 2 plugit ino, He just knew that should be provided, likely because coblems he had previously calculated in class provided this value. fo dffercet interview, requests for variables again controlled the student's ability to solve forthe SSD. While talking through the problem, he reasoned: Okay. Some [Radius]. Mightuethis...thave R. And SO thorzon talsighvodset| so loa ike Pde let sacle the SSD. ern ‘ing this equation... From what Pvc done inthe homework, (always {alte the SSD and thea fot he HO from at So, take tat ek Theca'The able caeuaet ine SSD} want the sped st. Even when the speed was introduced inthe next section af this prob- lem (Question 7), this studeat was unabie to solve the problem ane make predictions as to whether the horizontal curve was safe for the driver. As the interviewee inferced, because this problem was not Tike the ones that he had performed in his homework (always cal- culated the SSD and then [got the HSO from that"), he concluded that he couldn’t calculate the SSD. ‘The participants quoted above had very poor understandings of SD. and SSD. They thought of SD and SSD as a single concept, wrongly ‘combining both into one view within their conceptual frameworks. ‘Without adequate understandings of what SD and SSD are, as Well as how they difer, these students showed thar hey were incapable of cal- culating answers for Questions 7 and 9. As they demonstrated, weak ‘conceptual development of SD and SSP provided lite oppartnity 10 (hink about the problem critically. Because they lacked the ability to ‘anon their knowledge of SD and SSD—iferentating them and applying them to contents outside of those fresente in class—-they ‘were le with ew problem-solving options. Therefore, many stadenis Immediately began solving new questions with reliance en tables, ‘Teaneportation Research Ford 2189) chars, equations, or problems they previously had encountered o¢ remembered, As they found ont, without these elements, they lacked the ability to determine reasonable answers. Sight Distance Versus Stopping Sight Distance ‘While it seems problematic hat some stadenss demonstrated poor computational abilities based on theirheavy reliance on equations, previously calculated problems, or personal experiences, students displayed some correct understating fo other questions inthe inter view protocol, Every participant was.sked the same set of three ques. tions designed to gain insight into thee thought processes regarding variables that affect SD and SSD. ‘The first of these questions asked the interviewee to explain perception-ceaction time and to discuss whether reaction time changes from driver to driver or if it remains the sarke. AASHTO. defines reaction time as “the interval from the instant thatthe driver recognizes the existence of an obstacle on the roadway ahead that necessitates braking to the instant that the driver actually applies the brakes" (8), Of the 18 students interviewed, 15 comectly believed that reaction time would vary from dever to dever. Often, their answers wore based on age, eyesight, and driver awareness and how those differences affected reaction time. Invervewer: So you mentioned reaction tite being a average, So oes that ever vary from person to person or Is going toe the same om person ta person” Srudeor: Ue. a loco tes young people are aie to stop oF react within ikea second. A drunk driver akes $s fonds, Am old person thes oe Ssesones Or you can be on yout cl phone anatake 7 econds Sothere'saloto ‘arubily ere Sill, 1wo students believed reaction time was constant forall ¢ ‘One said, “Tguessit depends on what standards you’ reusing. Bu saying it probably, it should be the same [rom diver to diver) Another participant stated, "from what f've, from what we've Went ‘over in class, i's just a standard. { don’t know. Probably some kind of survey was taken oni.” AASHTO recommends a design average reaction time of 2.5 sin its highway design manual, but this value does not encompass all possible resction times (8). ts an averag nota concrete standard. These students failed 1think critically about reaction time. Theres litle doubt tha: they have encountered driving experiences in which their personal reaction time Auctuated. If 50, how woud it be possible far al divers to ave the same reaction time, across all possible driving scenarios? Intuitively, it does not make sense ‘When asked 1 predict whether every vehicle traveling through a horizontal curve Would have the same SSD, most of the students {gave correct answers. Vehicle performance (braking mechenisms, deceleration rates), roadway conditions (wet versus dry road sur” face, frictional requirements), and driver attentiveness (reaction (ime) area few factors that dramatically change SSD for driver © river (8). Fourteen of the 18 interview panicipants predicted that ‘SSD would change bused on these factors. However, the remsining four participants failed to make the correct assumption, One student ‘equestedn additional equation before forming an opinion on SSD: Tnerviewer: Would the stopping sieht distance change for differen eicles, ais ealways going tobe the same?” Student: My guess i that Ht would Be the same, but Fhave to cally Look at the equation for