Engineering Classrooms Before and After Innovation

1. Engineering ClassroomsBefore and After Innovation Jeff Froyd, Texas A&M University froyd@ee.tamu.edu David Cordes, University of Alabama cordes@cs.ua.edu Ron Roedel, Arizona State University r.roedel@asu.edu

2. Workshop Overview • Introduction (25 min) • What do you want to accomplish? • What Other Institutions Have Done (20 min) • Classroom Transformation (40 min) • Where are we now? • Where do you want to be? • Other Issues and Considerations (30 min) • Wrap-up (5 min)

3. Part 1: Introduction • Team Formation ( 5 minutes) • Team Discussion (5 minutes) • Team Reports (10 minutes) • Establish Basic Workshop Goals

4. Introduction: Team Formation • Self-Organize into four-person groups • Emphasize institutional and departmental diversity • No more than one institutional representative per team • Introduce yourselves (name & institution) within the group • Group representative will introduce group to workshop

5. Introduction: Team Discussion • Within your group: discuss the following questions among yourselves • What do you mean by “technology in the classroom”? • Why do you want to use technology in the classroom? • How can you use technology in the classroom? • What will students gain by using this technology? • What should be the workshop objectives? • Appoint a reporter to share group results

6. Why use technology? • Need something to enhance the classroom experience, add value • Have interactive environments (students can see things virtually), expands classroom (communicates with students outside classroom), research & information tool • Integration of classroom materials & outside materials (simulation), tap in and see what students are thinking (ask question,see where they are) • Engage students in critical thinking activities, use collaborative learning technologies • Getting students involved in an active way in their learning, technology can aid overall learning experience, help retention • Students learn differently (most stimulus is visual), if you don’t use technology you might not be able to keep them motivated

7. What do you mean by tech.? • 70% powerpoint & internet, simulation • Wireless laptops • Anything interactive (not powerpoint), instant access to information • Tools used to engage students and learning, still have some campuses that are introducing powerpoint as a tool, others have internet capabilities at each station • Blurring of the definition of laboratory and lecture, use of computing and peripherals, added materials (ball & measuring tape, video tape physics experiment, take data using peripherals, etc.) • Software or tools that are dedicated for our course/application (access to this)

8. Part 2: What others have done Short (20 minute) information dump • Background Information • one-page introduction to technology-enabled learning • Representative Foundation Coalition efforts • Arizona State University • Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology • Texas A&M University • University of Alabama • University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth • Other initiatives • Drexel’s EE laboratories • RPI’s studio model

9. New Classroom Environments

10. Arizona State University • Classroom layout & equipment • Designed for 80 students, uses tables • Each table holds four students and two computers • Instructor console with projection system • Software & Applications • Maple, Excel, video capture software, etc. • Audience • Freshman engineering students

11. Rose-Hulman Institute of Tech • Classroom layout & equipment • Every student purchases a notebook computer as an entering student (model is specified by institution) • Over 20 classrooms have been equipped with network and power connections to support notebook computers • Software & Applications • Maple for calculus and differential equations • Working Model and Maple for dynamics • Physics labs use notebooks for data acquisition and analysis (Excel) • Audience • All engineering students and classes

12. Texas A&M University • Classroom layout & equipment • Remodeled about 10 classrooms for first-year and sophomore engineering courses • One computer per two students • Departments have constructed their own classrooms, more are planned • Software & Applications • Microsoft Office, Maple, AutoCAD, Engineering Equation Solver (EES), Internet access • EE has students design, simulate, construct, measure and compare behavior of circuits. Class uses NI hardware and software. • Audience • Freshman and sophomore engineering students • Specialized classes in specific disciplines

13. CVLB 319: ENGR 112 Team Layout Sections 501 - 503 Windows Windows 20 19 21 24 23 22 Podium Screen Screen 18 17 16 15 14 9 13 11 10 12 8 7 6 5 3 2 4 1 Doors Doors

14. University of Alabama • Classroom layout & equipment • Remodeled four different classrooms • Tables for four, one computer per two students • Departments constructing their own classrooms • Software & Applications • Microsoft Office, compilers, FORTRAN, Maple • Audience • Freshman engineering students • All students in introductory computing sequence

15. Alabama Classroom Layout • Several classroom formats exist • All have computers at student desks, instructor console, projection system • Primarily used for lower-division classes

16. University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth • Classroom layout & equipment • Remodeled three classrooms with tables that seat four students and have two computers. • Software & Applications • Maple and Excel • Based on Studio Physics model (RPI), students perform physics and chemistry experiments in the classroom, acquire, display and analyze data. • Audience • Freshman & sophomore engineering majors

17. RPI – Studio Classrooms • Classroom layout & equipment • Tables with two students (one computer) • Student • Using computer faces away from instructor • Listens to lecture facing away from computer • Philosophy • Integrate classroom (lecture) with laboratory (experiments, acquire/display/anayze data) • Audience • Mathematics, sciences, engineering students

18. RPI Classroom Layout • Students face instructor during lecture • Away from computers • Student away from instructor when using computers • Instructor cansee monitorseasily

19. Drexel Classroomshttp://www.educatorscorner.com/education/case_studies/drexel.shtml • Laboratory layout & equipment • Laboratory bench for two students (one computer) • Suite of measurement equipment with computer control • First-year and sophomore students • Perform experiments and laboratory projects for three hours each week • Philosophy • From the start students work with current equipment and explore stimulating physical phenomena • Audience • Engineering students

20. Other Innovations? • Open forum with all participants • What schools are doing innovative activities? • Ohio State, $1million to renovate classrooms • Each room holds 36 to 72 students • 1200 entering engineering students each year

21. Part 3: Transformation • What is the status quo at your institutions? • Team discussion, then report to entire group • 15 minutes • Where do you want to be? • Team discussion, then report to entire group • 25 minutes

22. The Status Quo • As a team, define the “typical” engineering classroom at your institutions • Be as specific as possible • Select a different reporter from last time Did not do, lack of time

23. Where do you want to be? • As a team, list things you would like to be able to do in your classes that you currently cannot (what is your ideal classroom for the Fall of 2002)? • Describe how your new activities would benefit students and their learning • Describe the resources (besides $$$) that would be required to realize your visions • Select a different reporter from last time

24. Ideal Classroom report #1 • Computer on every desk, instructor has ability to bring up student’s monitor, “green kill button” • Good content, don’t have the resources to develop content on our own, need access to this content • Access to lab demonstration materials, instructor can demonstrate

25. Ideal Classroom report #2 • Computers in room for every student, display video, access to network, linked to central server to ensure uniformity, video-conferencing is available • Not a “testing” model, but a more “hands-on” approach to learning – using teaming and cooperative learning, video-conferencing to work with different sites for enhanced learning • Make groups dependent on each other • Dynamic process in the classroom, not a static situation

26. Ideal Classroom report #3 • Integrate all the software through the web (integrated into a single user interface) • “Seamless” • Faculty need support, should get more than “brownie points” for doing this, need time to learn and absorb this material, need infrastructure to support faculty learning

27. Ideal Classroom report #4 • Converting “old” facilities into the current concept (increase size of tables, etc.) • Lots of interest in wireless laptops • Experimental classrooms that would allow testing and development of new ideas (best of breed) • Notion that we are moving faster (faculty), not enough good materials in upper division to utilize this technology (situation might be improving, especially in certain areas)

28. Ideal Classroom report #5 • Look for a system that has good flexibility to create the appropriate learning environment (leads – Utah State model) • Learning should be an enjoyable feature of the new technology • Northwestern would like to see this new technology blend with upper-level courses, give students a real tool for developing research skills and give them tools needed for upper division. Would like to see a system of connectivity between institutions (for dissemination) • Virginia Tech wants the new lab to be “convenient” to the faculty, walk in and set up the class any way you would like (flexibility) • Fairfield wants faculty using this for authentic assessment • Clemson is using “IMMEX” software (originally for medical schools), want to look at how students do problem solving, if you design a problem in this environment, the software tracks how the students “solve” this problem – can see different types of problem solvers, can monitor their progress and intervene in a timely manner as needed

29. Ideal Classroom report #6 • Want to provide an environment for active, collaborative learning that is technological enhanced. Should allow students to be active participants, and tailor environment to their use • Would demand the existence of an IT staff, plus an “education” staff, plus a “content” staff to develop materials. Will cause staffing increases on campus. • Saw need for tools/resources in course design • Saw need to get this information out to faculty (all the faculty)

30. Part 4: Other Critical Issues • Classroom Design (10 minutes) • Layout, cost, etc. • Classroom Utilization (10 minutes) • Classroom control, faculty training, etc. • Administrative concerns (10 minutes) • Hardware acquisitions, software licensing, etc. Goal: Help you identify potentialroadblocks before they occur

31. Classroom Design Issues • Potential Classroom Design Issues • Rooms available for renovation • Physical layout considerations • Equipment (cost, size, location, power, HV/AC) • Time (takes more than one summer to build) Identify “the top 5” issues from your team Report out

32. Classroom Utilization Issues • Effective Classroom Utilization Issues • Faculty support and education and development • Scheduling • Monitoring & after-hours access • Maintenance & upgrade time availability Identify “the top 5” issues from your team Report out

33. Administrative Issues • Potential factors to consider • Institution’s computing policies • Software licensing (share electronic resources) • Purchase, replacement & upgrade costs • Support staffing • Clear plan for what they are doing with technology • Impact on T&P process • Assess the results (is better learning taking place?) • How to get financial support from State or outside sources? Identify “the top 5” issues from your team Report out

34. Roxanne Jacoby, jacoby@cooper.edu Lorcan Folan, folan@poly.edu San Aung, sha99@tulane.edu Phillip Thompson, thompson@seattleu.edu John Carpinelli, carpinelli@njit.edu Laurie Sherrod, laurie@clemson.edu Melanie Cooper, cmelani@clemson.edu Glenda Scales, gscales@vt.edu John Minor, jminor@clemson.edu Anuj Chauhan, chauhan@che.ufl.edu Paul Fortier, pfortier@umassd.edu Robert Gustafson, gustafson.4@osu.edu Raj Mutharasan, raj.mutharasan@coe.drexel.edu Rob Linsenmeier, r-linsenmeier@northwestern.edu Dyke Stiles, dyke.stiles@ece.usu.edu Richard Weber, rweber@fair1.fairfield.edu Mesut Muslu, muslu@uwplatt.edu Thomas Harris, thomas.r.harris@vanderbilt.edu Kuei-wu Tsai, kutsai@email.sjsu.edu Dave Edwards, edwardsdc@flo.tec.sc.us Brian Storey, brian.storey@olin.edu Derome Dunn, derome@ncat.edu Suku Sengupta, ssengupta@umassd.edu Gayle Ermer, germer@calvin.edu Stephen Myers, scmyers@uncc.edu Babu Joseph, joseph@che.wustl.edu List of Participants