1 / 31

Brown Bag Meeting

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.

sybil-gibbs
Download Presentation

Brown Bag Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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: • Russ Abbott – Computer Science • Jai Hong – Technology • Crist Khachikian – Civil Engineering • Trinh Pham – Mechanical Engineering • Nancy Warter-Perez Electrical Engineering • Don Maurizio – College

  5. Outline of Presentation • The Problems • Lessons From the Data • Teaching and Learning • Simple Interventions • Bold Ideas • Where does the task force go from here?

  6. The Problems • High failure rate • Long time to graduation • Lack of preparation for higher level courses • High “wash-out” rate • Faculty workload

  7. Gathering the data • Look at three first-time freshman cohorts (2001-3; thanks to the Student Support Services Staff) • General data from Institutional Research • Identified 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

  8. Mid-Year dropouts Freshmen Transfers End in good standing End in difficulty ECST ECST ECST “Demographics” from IR n = 450 n = 193 n = 123 1st-time freshman transfer

  9. ECST vs. Univ graduation rates

  10. First-Time Engineering (only) Freshman Data Number of students 6-year Graduation Rate Year of Entrance into Engineering Programs

  11. Specific Course Data Format

  12. Overview of data

  13. Distribution of 1st attempts

  14. Distribution of 3rd attempts

  15. Grade dist. – % of Grades ≤ D+

  16. GPA as a f(attempt)… 5644

  17. .  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.  Closer look at the data… *represents standard deviation - Excluding all W, WU, I, IC, and U data

  18. 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 difficult? Why? • Level of exposure to research/design • Satisfaction with curriculum • et cetera…

  19. Survey Results – “demographics”79 respondents total

  20. Rate difficulty of core courses

  21. Reasons for marking “difficult”

  22. Why students like particular courses

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

  24. Level of Satisfaction

  25. Types of design/research experience

  26. What did design/research improve?

  27. What we learned • Many students repeat many courses • Average repeat rate was 3; a few repeated 9-11 times (with Ws and other “non-grades”) • Graduation Rate: 10-15% in 6 years • Students like and learn best with projects

  28. Effective Pedagogy • Learning Styles • Active and Cooperative Learning • Project Based/Contextual Learning

  29. Simple Interventions • Connecting labs and recitations to lecture courses • Group/team projects • Integrate MEP model into programs

  30. Bold Ideas • Total Context Model – from freshman year to graduation • Project Based • All students are in teams • All traditional courses support and feed-into the project • Transfer student join the teams that are already running

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

More Related