Get documents about "Recent Advances in Engineering Education at ASU
Document Sample
Recent Advances in Engineering
Education at ASU
by:
Professor Avinash C. Singhal, P.E., Sc.D.
Arizona State University, Tempe AZ, USA
and
Peter Neubauer
Undergraduate Engineering Student
Arizona State University, Tempe
January 1999
Abstract
•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
Objectives
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
education.
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
Definition
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
Introduction
Percentage of Engineers Who Lack
More than 30% Expected Skills
of new
40%
engineers lack
Percentage of Engineers
knowledge 35%
expected by 30%
industry in 25%
areas such as 20%
quality control, 15%
manufacturing,
10%
or computer
5%
applications.
0%
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
Learning
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
product.
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
Sources
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 http://www.asu.edu/courses/ece100
Assumptions
Quality cannot be defined but can be
recognized when it is present.
Quality is determined by the teacher, not the
student.
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
excellent.
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
Satisfaction
Exciting Unaware Satisfaction Increased
Satisfaction
ASU 1999: ACS/12 Requirements Demonstration
Conclusions - Assessment
ASU 1999: ACS/13
Gateway Works, Gateway Engineering Education Coalition. 1998.
ASU Special Grading
A work
product
Need
Does it Meet
Improvement
Expectations?
NI
Work Product
Expectations
Meets
Expectations Does it Exceed
M Expectations?
Exceeds
Expectations
E
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
submittal.
ASU 1999: ACS/15
Needs Improvement and Exceed
Expectations
All parts of the work product must meet
expectations otherwise it will receive “needs
improvement.”
There is no “partial credit.”
Expectations must be met before a student
should try to exceed expectations.
ASU 1999: ACS/16
Needs Improvement -
Resubmission
When a product is assessed as “needs
improvement,” the student has one week to
correct the problems and resubmit the
product.
A resubmitted work product cannot receive
an exceeds.
A work product may only be resubmitted
once.
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
Checklists
A checklist ...
… reduces the possibility of multiple
interpretations with written and/or oral
instructions.
… 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
assignment.
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
correct
1 2 3 4 5
Heuristics No work Work is Work is Very well done Exceptionally
present present present, done
complete, and
correct
1 2 3 4 5
Exciting Requirements
Wow OK Checklist Item
1.
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
Requirements
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.
Expectations
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
Improvements:
2
2
Number of No Number of Class
Submittals: Participation Problems:
0 0
Final Letter Grade:
B
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
member.
ASU 1999: ACS/25
Teaching Methods and
Student Retention of Material
Retention
Rate
A survey of 5%
previous ECE
Lecture
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
Methods
Concepts
Journal
Quizzes
This survey of
3%
Videos 4% Modeling
18%
400 ECE 100
4%
Presentation
Sandwich
students per 6%
year over 8 years Lab Projects
shows the Lectures
7%
17%
specific
techniques and
Lab Projects
17%
materials that Textbook
8%
students felt
were most useful
for the learning Design
process (ECE Notebooks
8%
100/ASU course, HTMI
12%
HTMI
Work Products
13%
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
Pennsylvania.
ASU 1999: ACS/31 http://www.ece.drexel.edu/ECE/
E4 Goals
This program emphasizes, among other things:
1.The unifying and interdisciplinary aspects of
engineering
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%
80%
retention rate for 70%
the school of 60%
50%
engineering was 40%
30%
90%. This is 20%
10%
almost 40% more 0%
National Average Drexel's E4
than the national Program
Group
average.
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 http://www.ece.drexel.edu/ECE/
Technology
Computers and
computational tools are
central elements to
Drexel‟s Curriculum.
This animation was
created by a freshman
in their engineering
program.
Gateway Works, Gateway Engineering Education
Coalition. 1998. ASU 1999: ACS/35 http://www.ece.drexel.edu/ECE/
Drexel‟s E4 Project Summary
The traditional classes are integrated to reduce
redundant teaching.
The use of technology is emphasized for all
students.
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.
necessary.
ASU 1999: ACS/37
Conclusions: Checklists-
Expectations
The checklists used in ECE100 are still under
development.
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
representatives.
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
stay.
Book publishers are quickly converting to
Web technology.
ASU 1999: ACS/41
Virtual Labs
Students can
use
computerized
virtual labs to
perform many
experiments
and to
visualize
concepts and
principles
presented in a Virtual Lab Sample - A Generator
class.
ASU 1999: ACS/42
http://home.augsburg.baynet.de/walter.fendt/physengl/generatorengl.htm
Other Examples
Professor Siegfried Holzer (holzer@vt.edu)
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 (holzer@vt.edu)
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
ASU 1999: ACS/44
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
Conclusion
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
effort.
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
Acknowledgement
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,
1993.
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-
372.
17. Waks, Shlomo, A Methodology for Determining Engineering Curriculum Contents, Journal of
Engineering Education, July 1994, pp. 219-225.
ASU 1999: ACS/49
Related docs
