ECUE MEETING

1
E-CUE MEETING

• Monday, April 26, 2004

2
E-CUE AGENDA April 26, 2004

• Mechanical Engineering Alumni Study (Professor
  Warren Seering and Kristen Wolfe)
• Workload and Learning Faculty interviews for
  ideal subjects, 2.005/2.006 and 6.004

3
Best-practice in MIT undergraduate engineering
education

• Juniors and seniors in 3 departments completed
  written survey regarding workload and learning.
• Mechanical Engineering 45 respondents (30
  response rate)
• Chemical Engineering 80 respondents (43
  response rate)
• EECS 105 respondents (20 response rate)
• Will improve response rates in Fall 2004 survey
  of larger group with formal online survey
• Focus groups supplemented written survey data
• Students were asked to identify subjects in which
  workload was high AND the teaching/ learning
  process supported learning Faculty interviews of
  subjects identified as best-practice were carried
  out.

4
(HIGH) Workload and learning Behind the scenes
in best-practice subjects

• 2 subjects identified by Mechanical Engineering
  students 2.005/ 2.006 series (Thermal Fluids I
  and II)
• 1 core subject identified by EECS students 6.004
  (Computation Structures)

5
THE IDEAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING LEARNING
EXPERIENCE STUDENT PERCEPTIONS of 2.005/ 2.006

• 2.005/ 2.006 Thermo-fluids I and II
• Lecture and learning goal clarity
• Continuity in learning goals, concepts, books(!)
  between 2.005 and 2.006 theory and lab content
• One year of continuity helped student absorb
  and reinforce learning of complex
• Lectures presented concepts verbally and
  numerically
• Labs visually reinforced concepts with visual,
  hands on representations
• Though sometimes too much was due at one time,
  problem sets and lab write-ups were clearly
  connected
• Students were given many types of problems and
  examples to illustrate concepts. They were given
  many opportunities to try out problem solving in
  psets and labs.
• A design project that was not just an add-on,
  waste of time! You really had to design
  something!
• Engaged, approachable instructors made me want
  to work really hard. I felt that they really
  cared if I learned the material!

6
2.005/2.006

• 2.005/ 2.006 Thermal Fluids Engineering I and II
  
• http//stellar.mit.edu/S/course/2/sp04/2.005 and
• http//stellar.mit.edu/S/course/2/sp04/2.006
• Integrating knowledge areas is key feature.
• From website The guiding pedagogical principle
  behind this curriculum reform in thermal-fluid
  science, is that fluid mechanics, heat transfer
  and thermodynamics are intimately connected to
  each other, and that the material should be
  presented as such (for example, the common dorm
  room 'cube refrigerator' relies on the
  thermodynamics of the 'Rankine cycle' to provide
  refrigeration, but the design of the actual
  mechanical system that implements this cycle
  relies on the calculation of the heat transfer
  from the cooling fins and coils and pressure
  changes of the refrigerant in the metal tubing
  and compressor).

7
Instructor interviews 2.005/ 2.006 - 1

• Professors John Brisson and Gareth McKinley (key
  subject designer, Ernie Cravalho not available at
  press time!)
• 2.005/ 2.006 development key to success of class.
  
• Classes were developed as part of curriculum
  revision a few years ago. Key goal of revision
  was to integrate knowledge areas so that students
  could more easily create intellectual bridges
  between theory and practice.
• Prior to this class, students could only solve
  simple numerical problems in each knowledge area.
  Goal was to enable students to solve complex,
  real-world problems that integrated knowledge
  areas.
• Fundamentals-oriented class, 2.005, integrates
  fluid mechanics, heat transfer, and
  thermodynamics.
• Students learn the building blocks of thermal
  fluid systems. Simple applications provide
  concrete examples to support learning.

8
Instructor interviews 2.005/ 2.006 - 2

• In 2.005, instructor presents theory as a
  toolkit of integrated concepts for solving
  practical problems.
• Concepts are presented with clear examples in
  class.
• Problem sets use toolkit concepts in solving
  real-world problems.
• Example design a system to measure acidity of a
  battery.
• Example design a solar panel with battery for
  power generation.
• Applications-oriented class, 2.006, follows 2.005
  to reinforce fundamentals through analysis of
  complex power systems.
• Students put blocks (learned in 2.005) together
  in analysis of complex applications.
• Both subjects consciously balance time spent on
  fundamentals and applications. For example, in
  2.006 every 2 hours of theory are balanced with
  1 hour of applications presentation and
  discussion.
• 2.005 and 2.006 are designed as a set. Students
  review 2.005 material at beginning of 2.006.

9
Instructor interviews 2.005/ 2.006 - 3

• Grades and grading in 2.005/ 2.006
• Psets and design project are 15 or 20- graded
  by undergrad graders
• Quizzes are 40- or 45 graded by faculty
• Final exam is 40- graded by faculty
• Teaching methods
• Faculty have to think about material in a new way
  to teach the class. Most faculty learned thermo,
  heat transfer, fluid mechanics separately. Its
  difficult to teach material as integrated.
  Faculty need to be trained.
• Faculty are excited about subject, show they work
  hard on teaching class and office hours with
  students.
• Students are given the feeling theyre important
  to instructors.
• Very motivating for students to work hard.
• While not hands-on, students take trips to power
  plants in 2.006. Then address these systems in
  class and in homework.
• Time! Time spent in subject preparation and time
  with students is high. 6-8 hours prepping for
  each lecture. Significant office hours.

10
6.004 was considered as nearly the ideal
learning experience by many. Why?

• 6.004 Computation Structures
• Lecture clarity/ students wanted to go to lecture
  even though they were tired
• Lab assignments were clear and carefully
  structured
• Lab equipment worked
• Lab grading was fair if a student carefully
  demonstrated mastery for each lab,
• But workload seemed low relative to other
  subjects since factors related to high perceived
  workload were missing
• Students felt guilty about this learning
  experience since they didnt suffer!

11
Instructor interview 6.004 - 1

• Professor Chris Terman of EECS. (Designed subject
  with Professor Stephen Ward of EECS.)
• Introduces students to how computers work.
  Everyone wants to know this so the topic is
  already motivating to students.
• Emphasizes structural principles common to wide
  range of digital systems.
• Introduces engineering of digital systems
  including design implementation strategies and
  functioning of internal components.
• Emphasizes hands on learning in understanding of
  components that make up digital systems through
  series of 10 labs that culminate in major design
  project.
• Well designed website supports student learning.
  Tutorial problems let students work problems on
  their own time. Problems are not graded.
  http//6.004.lcs.mit.edu/6.004

12
Instructor interview 6.004 - 2

• Designed subject with 3 issues in mind
• real world engineering design
• something for everyone in demonstrating
  performance
• sophomore readiness for complex engineering
  subject.
• Instructors have fine tuned the class over years
  by reading student comments on surveys.
• Real world design many subjects have students
  complete only small, simple portion of an
  engineering project. In 6.004, students start
  from scratch, learn about all components in a
  digital system and design one by the end of the
  subject.

13
Instructor interview 6.004 - 3

• Carefully structured subject brings students
  through
• methodologies of digital system design
• how each component works are presented in lecture
  and reinforced in 10 lab projects
• students are tested in 5 quizzes spaced over term
  
• and final project brings it all together.
• Grading is absolute! Students need to achieve a
  certain number of points to get an A. Students
  who prefer exams or hands on project work can
  still demonstrate proficiency.
• Timing is everything! Lectures, labs, exams are
  all coordinated.
• Staffing is everything! Office hours are held in
  labs rather than in faculty offices so there is a
  focus on students.

14
STUDY RESULTS TO DATE REAL AND PERCEIVED
WORKLOAD IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL
ENGINEERING, AND EECS
15
WORKLOAD FACTORS-1
16
WORKLOAD FACTORS- 2
17
Problem sets- frequency and grading
18
Assessment of performance student preferences
19
Learning and Performance Student Perceptions

• Students differed markedly in their perceptions
  of how exams and problem set grades reflected
  their individual learning
• Some felt only exams were valid measures of their
  own performance
• Others felt that only psets were valid measures
• Key issues included test taking ability, fear of
  tests, time limits of tests, poorly written
  exams, difficulty of exam versus pset questions
• Bottom line Different types of learners need
  different forms of assessment to demonstrate
  performance
• Students can work very hard studying for exams or
  completing problem sets and feel, at the end,
  that their effort is not always rewarded
  appropriately
• Sense of lack of fairness and clarity in exam and
  pset writing also a factor in student perceptions

20
Reflection and learning student perceptions

• . On average, I only review material before an
  upcoming exam 65 mech eng respondents, 78
  EECS 6-2 respondents
• On average, I review material before and during
  problem set completion 14 Mech eng respondents,
  11 EECS 6-2 respondents
• No time to review! Its on to the next
  assignment!
• When workload is lower, students agreed that they
  will spend more time reviewing material

21
What would you do given a lower academic workload?
22
MOTIVATION, WORKLOAD

• Focus group students in Mech Eng, like EECS, were
  deeply committed to learning engineering. Many
  planned on working in or continuing education in
  engineering.
• This motivation led students to work many hours
  in learning theory, completing labs and design
  projects.
• Departments with many lab or design subjects were
  not appropriately balancing these subjects with
  other subjects.
• For the students with highest workload, for
  students who were not as capable at absorbing
  knowledge at a high pace, and students who were
  not great test takers, there was a sense of
  frustration that though capable, the system
  worked against them.

23
Relationship of student workload to curriculum
and assessment
Curriculum (clarity of goals, content, teaching
methods, assignments, student/ faculty
interactions)
Individual student characteristics risk taker,
grade driven, learning style, social, career goals
Student workload real and perceived
Assessment methods (types, frequency, performance
as reflection of learning)
24
Types and frequency of assessment are key psets
versus exams
Risk taker Not afraid of exams
Grade driven some students feel performance is
paramount- and realize that this can be at the
expense of learning
Reworking the issue of psets and copying to
ensure psets reflect individual performance
Individual student characteristics hands on
learner, risk taker, grade driven, learning
style, social, career goals
Learning style some students absorb new
knowledge and problems and slower pace they must
complete all problems (and more) to feel
comfortable with new material
Clarity of content and problem solving methods,
frequency of assignments in high pace classes
is crucial
25
Sometimes there can be too much of a good thing.
Design and labs, while the most motivating
learning experiences, are also the most time
consuming. Ensure that large group active
learning experiences are clear, efficient.
Balance these experiences with theory subjects
and needed ability to manipulate concepts, math,
equations
Realistically, everybody learns more with visual,
hands on learning
Individual student characteristics hands on
learner, risk taker, grade driven, learning
style, social, career goals
Instructors can engage class in material in both
lectures and assignment feedback.
Social preference for group work connection
with instructors
Career goals engineering or not research or
not motivated students learn by whatever means
available!
Motivated students work harder anyway engage
them in activities that illustrate relevance.
26
(No Transcript)
27
Next steps.

• Ultimate goal? develop a comprehensive teaching
  / learning model that identifies key factors for
  faculty and that is appropriate to MIT
  engineering students.

28
SoE education website

• According to DUE, instructors rarely use learning
  objectives as part of surveys
• Do faculty actually write any learning
  objectives?
• http//web.mit.edu/engineering/ecue
• How might the SoE website be used to improve
  writing and use of learning objectives as a
  learning tool?
• If we build Workload findings into site?