Recent Advances in Engineering Education at ASU by miu18724


									Recent Advances in Engineering
       Education at ASU
      Professor Avinash C. Singhal, P.E., Sc.D.
      Arizona State University, Tempe AZ, USA
                  Peter Neubauer
        Undergraduate Engineering Student
          Arizona State University, Tempe

                   January 1999
•Education involves two primary components:
teaching and learning.
•Some ASU Engineering faculty have consciously built
quality aspects into the course using a student
learning assessment known as Levels of Learning.
•The concepts of expectations documents and
checklists, are examined in detail with the idea of
bringing this concept to other higher level
engineering courses.

                       ASU 1999: ACS/2
    Several faculty members at Arizona State University have
    always been intrigued by the idea of implementing "quality
    and excellence" in the engineering education, viz. :
   How to introduce quality and excellence in a course such as
    ECE 100, and
   Find a “magic pill” that can be used to build excellence into
   This paper will explore various methods and approaches
    necessary to produce quality in both education and the
    learning levels of students.

                             ASU 1999: ACS/3
   Total quality management and quality in the
    work place are not necessarily the same as
    quality in education.
   Quality is demonstrated by a set of
    distinguishing attributes and characteristics.
   Excellence is superior quality.

                       ASU 1999: ACS/4
Profile of the Modern Student
   Many students hold a part-time or even a full-time job while
    attending school.
   Some students are trying to support families.
   Students come from diverse backgrounds and have different
    learning styles and needs.
   These and other pressures detract from the time that a
    student can devote to learning.
   Students tend to poorly utilize resources such as class time,
    professor office hours, study guides, and textbooks.
   Textbooks are often difficult for the average student to
    comprehend. Examples are frequently too simple to be useful
    on more complex problems.
                             ASU 1999: ACS/5
                                                                     Percentage of Engineers Who Lack
    More than 30%                                                             Expected Skills
         of new
    engineers lack
                                     Percentage of Engineers

       knowledge                                               35%
      expected by                                              30%
       industry in                                             25%
     areas such as                                             20%
    quality control,                                           15%
      or computer
                                                                      Quality Control Manufacturing       Computer
Maul, Gary; “Engineering Students Not Learning Job                                                       Applications
Skills in College,” Ohio State University, Industrial
                                                                                           Skill Areas
Engineering, (funded by NSF), Materials Performance,                     ASU 1999: ACS/6
v.34 March, 1995 p 14.
      Assessment of Student
   Homework product assessment:
1. Students need to become familiar with the new method
   used to assess work products,
2. This assessment process focuses on the quality of the work
3. Past student data from ECE 100 is used to establish the
   impact the method of grading/assessment has upon the
   quality of student 'learning'.

                           ASU 1999: ACS/7
  Three new programs promoted by other
  organizations have been examined in an
  attempt to find the best method of education.

1. Drexel University E4 Project
2. Arizona State University ECE100 Course
3. The Gateway Engineering Education Coalition

                      ASU 1999: ACS/8
  Arizona State University
    ECE 100 Curriculum
The General Process
 Some engineering faculty have built the quality
  aspect into the curriculum by undertaking a five
  step assessment process.
 Submitted work products, session activities, and
  session participation are assessed according to
  this Five Step Assessment Process.
 The terms meets expectations, exceeds
  expectations, or needs improvement are
  assigned to each product, activity, or session.
                      ASU 1999: ACS/9
   Quality cannot be defined but can be
    recognized when it is present.
   Quality is determined by the teacher, not the
   It is only possible to do your job well when
    you understand what is expected.
   Everyone wants to, and can, do quality work.

                      ASU 1999: ACS/10
         Types of Quality
1. Expected quality: These are basic
  characteristics that the instructor assumes are
  present in generally similar work products.
2. Revealed quality: These are items that
  instructors talk about when describing what
  would make a work product better.
3. Exciting quality: These are characteristics
  which make the work product outstanding or
                      ASU 1999: ACS/11   Requirements Demonstration
      Needs vs. Satisfaction
REQUIREMENT      NOT                  PRESENT        EFFECT OF
               PRESENT                                 MORE

  Expected    Dissatisfaction              Unaware    No effect

  Revealed    Dissatisfaction         Satisfaction    Increased

   Exciting     Unaware               Satisfaction    Increased

                        ASU 1999: ACS/12              Requirements Demonstration
Conclusions - Assessment

           ASU 1999: ACS/13
                        Gateway Works, Gateway Engineering Education Coalition. 1998.
       ASU Special Grading
                     A work

                   Does it Meet

                                   Work Product

 Expectations     Does it Exceed
     M            Expectations?


                ASU 1999: ACS/14
Five Step Assessment Process
 1. Faculty set expectations using checklists before
    assigning homework.
 2. Students do the homework and make a self-
    assessment using the checklists.
 3. Homework is assessed for meeting quality standards,
    and then reassessed for achieving an exceeds.
 4. If the student‟s work does not meet expectations,
    they are given a second opportunity to convert their
    „needs improvement‟ to „meets.‟
 5. Homework cannot achieve „exceeds‟ during a second
                         ASU 1999: ACS/15
Needs Improvement and Exceed
    All parts of the work product must meet
     expectations otherwise it will receive “needs
    There is no “partial credit.”
    Expectations must be met before a student
     should try to exceed expectations.

                        ASU 1999: ACS/16
       Needs Improvement -
   When a product is assessed as “needs
    improvement,” the student has one week to
    correct the problems and resubmit the
   A resubmitted work product cannot receive
    an exceeds.
   A work product may only be resubmitted

                     ASU 1999: ACS/17
      Exceeding Expectations
   It is not possible to define in advance a work
    product that exceeds expectations.
   The instructor can recognize when
    expectations have been exceeded.
   Determining what features may excite the
    teacher is a trial and error process.
   Repeating the same exciting feature can only
    earn a “meet.”

                       ASU 1999: ACS/18
A checklist ...
 … reduces the possibility of multiple
  interpretations with written and/or oral
 … is a collection of Yes/No questions that
  enumerate the 'Expectation Requirements'.
 … is always complete and cannot be changed
  after it is issued.

                   ASU 1999: ACS/19
      Creation of Checklists
1. List the learning objectives for the
2. List all the characteristics that must be present
  in the homework for a student to demonstrate
  that the learning objective has been met.
3. Refine the list until it contains only definitive
  Yes/No questions. In some cases, the checklist
  may contain a scale to rate a given trait of a
  work product.
                       ASU 1999: ACS/20
Work Product Being Evaluated:         Modeling Assignment #1
                             Sample Checklist
Expected Requirements
Yes     No                                       Checklist Item
              1. Are the grammar, punctuation, and spelling reasonable (no more than 10 mistakes)?
            2. Does the context come at the beginning of the work and does it make the purpose
                of the work clear?
            3. Does the discussion come at the end of the work and does it reflect on the work that
                was done?
Revealed Requirements
Definitions                 No work        Work is       Work is         Very well done   Exceptionally
                            present        present       present,                         done
                                                         complete, and
                                  1              2             3               4                5
Heuristics                  No work        Work is       Work is         Very well done   Exceptionally
                            present        present       present,                         done
                                                         complete, and
                                  1              2             3               4                5
Exciting Requirements
Wow     OK                                       Checklist Item
Comments on quality of exciting requirements and/or how they might be improved.

                        Results of Initial Assessment
                          E, all Yes’s for Expected Requirements, all 3’s or better for Revealed
                             Requirements, plus either mostly 5’s for Revealed Requirements or
                             more than one Wow for Exciting Requirements
 E      M      NI     NCE M, all Yes’s for Expected Requirements, all 3’s or better for Revealed

                                   ASU 1999: ACS/21                                                       Checklist Example
     Sample Expectations Document
Problem Statement
  Your company’s product is assembled in a two stage system. Station A assembles the first part, while
Station B finishes the assembly and packages the product for shipping. Station A takes anywhere between 30
and 40 minutes to complete its part of the assembly. Station B takes between 36 and 48 minutes. The
distribution of both of these times is completely random. Station A operates continuously, that is it starts
assembling a new product immediately after having completed the previous one. Completed items from
Station A are placed on a counter for Station B to finish the product. Station B can start as soon as it finishes
packaging its current product as long as there are items from Station A on the counter. Station A is shut down
for malfunctions and maintenance for a week at a time twice in 75 weeks. Station B is shut down for
malfunctions and maintenance for a week at a time once in 40 weeks.
1. Define and describe, in terms of your own model, the terms:
   Stochastic Models
   Probability
   Simulation
   Risk
2. Make a list of the heuristics from Chapter 5 that you found useful.
3. Develop a model to solve the above problem, explaining what you did and the logic behind it. Develop an
   EXCEL spreadsheet to execute the model.
4. What is the annual production rate for the current system? Do you recommend buying the new machine B?
                                                ASU 1999: ACS/22
                                                                                                 Expectation Document
5. How much variability was there in your answer?
ASU Special Grading

      ASU 1999: ACS/23
   Assessment and Grades
Number of Exceeds:                         Number of Need

  Number of No                              Number of Class
   Submittals:                           Participation Problems:
       0                                            0

                 Final Letter Grade:

                      ASU 1999: ACS/24
            Negative Reactions
   Since we give the students the right to self-assess
    the product, one unwanted side effect is that the
    students usually build up an unrealistically high
    expectation of their own grade on the product.
    Thus, the real grade is usually a letdown.
   As a result, a few students show their frustrations,
    and this requires proper handling by the faculty

                          ASU 1999: ACS/25
    Teaching Methods and
 Student Retention of Material
A survey of                                            5%
previous ECE

100 students
                              Reading                 10%

reveals that                 Audio-Visual             20%

interactive                  Demonstration            30%
teaching                    Discussion Group          50%
methods are the             Practice by Doing         75%
most effective.       Teach Others / Immediate Use    90%

                  ASU 1999: ACS/26
   Student Rating of Teaching
This survey of
                                      Videos 4%               Modeling
400 ECE 100
students per               6%

year over 8 years                                                                       Lab Projects
shows the            Lectures

techniques and
                                                                         Lab Projects


materials that      Textbook
students felt
were most useful
for the learning         Design

process (ECE            Notebooks
100/ASU course,                        HTMI


                                                              Work Products
surveys, 1990-                                 12%

98).                   ASU 1999: ACS/27
             ASU ECE100 Goals
   Each student will begin to be a self-regulated learner.
   While students at the freshman level cannot be
    expected to solve actual engineering problems, they
    can practice the problem solving skills necessary for
    future classes.
   Teams can be a tremendous help and can actually
    eliminate many frustrations.

                                              Bellamy, L; McNeill, B.; Singhal, A.C.; A New Approach to
                           ASU 1999: ACS/28   Engineering Education, Arizona State University, 1997.
        Levels of Learning
   There are six major categories that classify
    an individuals‟ learning. In order of
    increasing complexity and learning, these are
    Knowledge, Comprehension, Application,
    Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation.
   The ECE 100 faculty used these categories to
    define the educational goals for the students.

                       ASU 1999: ACS/29
          ASU ECE100 Summary

   All course assignments must be clearly and
    completely defined.
   Each assignment is assessed based on compliance
    with these clearly stated expectations.
   Many individuals, both faculty and students, find the
    assessment system challenging.

                          ASU 1999: ACS/30
        Drexel‟s E4 Project

   E4 is short for An Enhanced Educational
    Experience in Engineering.
   The E4 Project is the basis for the five year
    engineering program at Drexel University in

                       ASU 1999: ACS/31
                        E4 Goals
This program emphasizes, among other things:
1.The unifying and interdisciplinary aspects of
2.The importance of computer technology as an aid
  to learning
3.Teamwork and practical experience
4.The importance of continuous and vigorous
  lifelong learning
5.The role of the engineer in the competitive global
  economy                          Donald H. Thomas and Alan Lawley, “Drexel’s E4
                                 ASU 1999: ACS/32   Project,” JOM, March 1991, p.33-34.
         Retention Rate
                       Retention Rate for the School
  During the first        of Engineering (Drexel)

year, the student     90%
retention rate for    70%

   the school of      60%

 engineering was      40%
   90%. This is       20%
almost 40% more         0%
                               National Average       Drexel's E4
than the national                                      Program

                                         Donald H. Thomas and Alan Lawley, “Drexel’s E4
                     ASU 1999: ACS/33    Project,” JOM, March 1991, p.35.
     Integrated Curriculum
   The curriculum seeks to couple science and
    mathematics with engineering.
   A single course integrates both calculus and
    physics while another teaches both chemistry
    and biology.
   “Science and math are introduced as needed,
    on a just-in-time basis, to solve real
    engineering problems.”

                      ASU 1999: ACS/34
                                                         Computers and
                                                          computational tools are
                                                          central elements to
                                                          Drexel‟s Curriculum.
                                                         This animation was
                                                          created by a freshman
                                                          in their engineering

Gateway Works, Gateway Engineering Education
Coalition. 1998.                               ASU 1999: ACS/35
    Drexel‟s E4 Project Summary
   The traditional classes are integrated to reduce
    redundant teaching.
   The use of technology is emphasized for all
   The program seeks to establish “a strong
    foundation in basic science, mathematics, and the
    fundamentals of engineering.”

                        ASU 1999: ACS/36
                E4                      vs                 ECE 100
    A traditional grading system is          A grading system that emphasizes quality
     used.                                     through the use of terms like „meets
    Group presentations and                   expectations,‟ „exceeds expectations,‟ and
     studying are encouraged.                  „needs improvement‟ is used. Assignments
    The use of technology is                  are clearly and explicitly defined with
     integrated with the curriculum.           expectation documents and checklists.
    The curriculum for art, science,         Team work and team projects are
     and engineering disciplines are           emphasized.
     tightly integrated.                      A special section emphasizes modeling with
                                               computer technology.
                                              Another special section tightly integrates
    Conclusion - A new program
    that integrates the best parts             science, art, mathematics, and engineering
    from each plus new ideas is                courses.

                                        ASU 1999: ACS/37
      Conclusions: Checklists-
   The checklists used in ECE100 are still under
   The application of checklists outside the ECE100
    curriculum seems very limited.
   Effective assessment and evaluation is necessary for
    each class, individual student, and curriculum.
   Clearly defined expectations, like those found in the
    ASU ECE 100 course, are important and effective
    since the student knows exactly what is expected.
                          ASU 1999: ACS/38
    Conclusions - Assessment

   A new assessment method that is based on clearly defined
    expectations and a traditional point system seems to be ideal.
   Any assessment system should be constantly evaluated and refined. An
    expectation document is useful to build quality into education.
   An expectation document is useful to build quality into education.
   More development is needed to convert quality oriented grade to
    traditional „A‟, „B‟, „C‟, and „D‟ grades.
   The meets expectations, exceeds expectations, or needs improvement
    system currently used by the ASU ECE100 course seems inadequate.
   This approach produces significant frustrations and objections in many
    students, graders, and instructors.

                                ASU 1999: ACS/39
            Internet Technology
   Authoring material based on new technology requires a monumental
    effort on the part of the faculty.
   Internet technologies are intimidating to a large number of faculty.
   It is not a question of when or if, it is a question of how soon.
   Multimedia presentations offer a multitude of teaching possibilities.
   The Internet has destroyed the time constraints associated with
    traditional university courses.
   E-mail offers a direct link between students, instructors, and industry
   By offering instruction via the Internet, a “24 hour” campus can be
    created. This will allow students to learn at any time, from any place,
    and at any pace.

                                  ASU 1999: ACS/40
          Conclusions -
      Internet Technology

   The Web provides complete independence.
    A student can learn from any place, at any
    time, and at any pace.
   Web and Internet technologies are here to
   Book publishers are quickly converting to
    Web technology.

                     ASU 1999: ACS/41
                  Virtual Labs
Students can
virtual labs to
perform many
and to
concepts and
presented in a                      Virtual Lab Sample - A Generator
                       ASU 1999: ACS/42
                             Other Examples

                                                                  Professor Siegfried Holzer (
John C. Russ
                                                                  Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Materials Science and Engineering Dept.,
                                               ASU 1999: ACS/43
                                                                  Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Other Examples

                         Professor Siegfried Holzer (
                         Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
      ASU 1999: ACS/44
                         Blacksburg, Virginia 24061

   Pioneers and faculty leaders are needed to
    develop and author new material and
    demonstrations for engineering courses.
   While no universally accepted assessment
    method exists, a new, modern, assessment
    system needs to be developed that better suits
    the demands of professors and students.

                       ASU 1999: ACS/45
Final Note - Further Research
   Develop multimedia presentations including video
    demonstrations to augment the existing teaching
    methods used in other engineering courses. This is a
    monumental task that will require significant time and
   Use this technology, including interactive video
    capabilities, to perform experiments related to the
    mechanics courses in a virtual lab.
   Prepare a CD-ROM to distribute at technical
    presentations emphasizing quality and excellence
    achieved at ASU. Include video technology.
                           ASU 1999: ACS/46
 Financial support from CIEE/ASU
 Undergraduate students: Thomas
  Bowers, L. Hedayt, Jason Kajita, and
  Peter Neubauer
 Graduate Students: K. Ramanathan and
  N. Shah

                ASU 1999: ACS/47
                    Literature Cited

1. Altbach, Philip G., Kelly, Gail P., and Weis, Lois, Excellence in Education: Perspectives on Policy
   and Practice, New York, Prometheus Books, 1985.
2. Bellamy, L; McNeill, B.W.; Singhal, A.C.; A New Approach to Engineering Education, Arizona State
   University, Tempe, 1997.
3. Bloom, Benjamin C, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, 1984.
4. Campbell, W.E., Smith, K.A., New Paradigms for College Teaching, Interaction Book Company,
   Edina, MN, 1997.
5. Chickering, A.W. & Gamson, S.F., Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education,
   Wingspread Journal 9(2), 1987.
6. Culver, Richard S., Educating for Maturity:            Perry's Model for Intellectual Development,
   International Journal of Applied Engineering Education, 1987, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 457-463.
7. Goldberg, David E., "Life Skills and Leadership for Engineers", 1995, McGraw-Hill, NY.
8. Krathwohl, David R., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook II: Affective Domain, 1984.
9. Lawley, “Drexel‟s E4 Project,” JOM, March 1991, p. 35.

                                           ASU 1999: ACS/48
       Literature Cited (cont‟d)
10. Mangieri, John N., Excellence in Education, Fort Worth, Texas Christian University Press, 1985.
11. Maul, Gary; “Engineering Students Not Learning Job Skills in College,” Ohio State University,
   Industrial Engineering, (funded by NSF), Materials Performance, v.34 March, 1995 p 14.
12. McCormick, Betty, Quality and Education: Critical Linkages, New Jersey, Eye on Education,
13. McNeill, Barry W. and Bellamy, Lynn. Introduction to Engineering Design, The McGraw-Hills
   Publishing Companies, Inc. NY, 1998.
14. Pudlowski, Z. J., An Integrated Approach to Curriculum Design for Engineering Education,
   International Journal of Applied Engineering Education, 1987, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 11-26.
15. Singhal, A.C., Computer Modeling, Burgess Press, MN, ISBN 0-8087-99495, 1997.
16. Singhal, A.C., “Quality and Excellence in Engineering Education”, CIEE/CEAS Faculty
   Educational Improvement Final Report, ASU, 19 Dec 1998.
16. Smith, Karl A., Education Engineering: Heuristics for Improving Learning Effectiveness and
   Efficiency, International Journal of Applied Engineering Education, 1987, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 365-
17. Waks, Shlomo, A Methodology for Determining Engineering Curriculum Contents, Journal of
   Engineering Education, July 1994, pp. 219-225.
                                             ASU 1999: ACS/49

To top