Brown Bag Meeting

1. College of Engineering, Computer Science, and Technology Brown Bag Meeting Instructional Delivery Models Task Force: Progress Report Presentation to the Faculty and Staff of the College of Engineering, Computer Science, and Technology June 4, 2009

2. Formation of the task force (December 2008 Town Hall Meeting) • Context: conversion to semesters • Dean called it the “watershed” approach • Use this opportunity to completely re-envision and reinvent our curriculum. • Goal • Develop programs that are years ahead of their time and the envy of our colleagues nationwide.

3. Formation of the task force (cont’d) • Factors to consider • New Approaches to Teaching and Learning • New Strategies for Student Success and Retention • Expanded Use of Common Cores • Sustainable Courses • Adaptable/Nimble Programs • Design and Project-Based Learning • Writing Across the Curriculum • Combined Ethics/Writing/Economics Course • Current and Future Accreditation

4. Task force charge and membership • Task force charge: • To look at innovative models and techniques for delivering an up-to-date and exciting ECST curriculum to our students (regardless of the conversion issue) • Task force members: • Don Maurizio – College (moderator) • Russ Abbott – Computer Science • Jai Hong – Technology • Crist Khachikian – Civil Engineering • Trinh Pham – Mechanical Engineering • Nancy Warter-Perez – Electrical Engineering

5. Our Approach • The data • What we learned from the data • Strategies for effective pedagogy • Where does the task force go from here?

6. Gathering the data • Three first-time freshman cohorts (2001-3) • Thanks to the Student Support Services Staff • Data from Institutional Research • All ECST students who took the following core courses Fall 2004: CE/ME 201, 205, 208 CS 190, 201-3 ME 323 MATH 206-9, 215; EE 204, CS 242 Physics 211-3 • Recorded all grades for that quarter • Tracked ≤ C- students back 2 years thru W09

7. Disclaimer • The data may be open to a number of interpretations. This presentation will focus primarily on the data without attempting to draw conclusions from it. Focus on “what” and “how many” and not on the “why”

8. Question #1 • What is the distribution between first-time incoming freshman and transfers in ECST? • Of these students, what % persist through the 1st year?

9. Mid-Year dropouts Freshmen Transfers End in good standing End in difficulty ECST ECST ECST Freshman and transfer student data (average data 1998-2002) n = 450 n = 193 n = 123 Distribution of freshman and transfer students 1st year persistence 1st-time freshman transfer

10. Question #2 • On average, how long does it take an incoming freshman to graduate from our programs?

11. Cumulative Student Graduation Rates Information about students who took 7 years or more to graduate was not available

12. Question #3 • On average, how many students repeat a course from the list below at least once? twice? three times?... CE/ME 201, 205, 208 CS 190, 201-3, 242 ME 323 MATH 206-9, 215 EE 204 Physics 211-3

13. .  Excluding all W, WU, I, IC, and U data, the following table tries to represent the data to answer this question: * represents standard deviation value.  Overall course repeat rate *represents standard deviation - Excluding all W, WU, I, IC, and U data

14. Question #4 • What are student GPAs for when taking the courses: • For the 1st time? • Repeated for the 1st time? • Repeated for the 2nd time? • … CE/ME 201, 205, 208 CS 190, 201-3 ME 323 MATH 206-9, 215; EE 204, CS 242 Physics 211-3

15. GPA as a f(attempt)… 5644

16. More Information – student surveys • Conducted a student survey in a number of courses to address the following prompts: • Which courses were difficult? Why? • Which courses were enjoyable? Why? • Level of exposure to research/design • et cetera… Courses about which students were surveyed: CE/ME 201, 205, 208, 303 EE 204, 244, 304, 332, 334, 336 CS 201-3, 242, 312, Math 206-9, 215 Phys 211-3

17. Survey Results (n = 79) Student profile Student employment

18. Question #5 • Which courses were ranked as the most difficult? Courses included in survey: CE/ME 201, 205, 208, 303 EE 204, 244, 304, 332, 334, 336 CS 201-3, 242, 312 Math 206-9, 215 Phys 211-3

19. Difficulty Ratings of Courses Easy to hard: CS 201, 202, 203, 312 Math 206, 209, 207, 208 (b) Hard to easy: CE/ME 201, 205, 208, 303

20. Question #6 • What did students say about why those courses were difficult?

21. Reasons for marking “difficult” Student not responsible Student responsible

22. Question #7 • Students also identified courses they particularly liked or learned the most from • What reasons did they give for these selections?

23. Why students like particular courses

24. Student response to the prompt: I learn best when…

25. What we learned • Many students repeat many courses • For those who repeat the average repeat rate was 3; a few repeated 9-11 times (with Ws and other “non-grades”) • Repeating courses does not improve performance • Graduation Rate: ~20% in 6 years • Courses were ranked as difficult because 1) material was difficult; 2) material was confusing; and 3) material wasn’t presented well • Students enjoy classes because 1) the topic interests them; and 2) they like the teaching style

26. Effective Pedagogy • Learning Styles (Modalities) • Auditory – Learn by hearing Efficacy* • Visual – Learn by seeing • Kinesthetic/Tactile – Learn by doing Tell me and I forget. Show me and I remember. Involve me and I understand. (John Gay) * Varies by individual

27. Effective Pedagogy • Active and Cooperative Learning • Active Learning – Learning by doing • Coop. Learning – Learning by working in teams • Project Based/Contextual Learning • Students are given a problem to solve • The problem contains the essential elements of the subject (at that point in the program) • The solution is tangible and open-ended

28. Modest modifications • In-class active learning/reflection • In class reflection (e.g., minute paper, muddiest point, etc.) • In class assessment • New pedagogical technologies (e.g., clickers) • Broader modifications • Connecting labs and recitations to lecture courses • Group/team projects • Integrate MEP model into programs

29. Bold Idea • Integrated Thematic approach – from freshman year to graduation • Integrated and contextualized math and science blocks • Writing/communication, ethics, and professionalism across the curriculum • Design across the curriculum • Project- and team-based learning

30. Theme approach 1. Overarching grand challenge: e.g., global warming, peak oil, … • Multiple “challenges” running simultaneously • Freshman introduced to challenge • Courses oriented toward the challenge • Common core courses • Specialized higher-level • Senior/MS projects make an advance with respect to the challenge.

31. Theme approach 2. Ongoing enterprise that produces a product: e.g., high mileage car, academic software, virtually any open source software or engineering product, … • Students (at all levels) enter enterprise as interns • Just-in-time learning: academic material is learned in small increments as needed for the current task • Students advance in the enterprise as they progress through their college/graduate career • Senior/MS projects make a significant contribution to the enterprise’s product

32. Theme approach 3: Adoption of one or more “signature” technologies: e.g., environmental tech, robotics, bioinformatics, energy tech, social computing, urban engineering, green tech , computer gaming, transportation tech, modeling and simulation, educational tech, … • Courses oriented towards the technology. • Technology must be broad enough to support this. • Senior/MS projects develop a significant product or result that uses or contributes to the technology. • Can be conceptualized as an alternative view of the “grand challenge” approach

33. Where do we go from here? • Preliminary report to the Dean in a few weeks • Continue to develop and refine model