Learning Logistics: a case study

1
Learning Logistics a case study
Reflectir Bolonha Reformar o Ensino Superior, 29
Abril 2003

• José Fernando Oliveira
• Maria Antónia Carravilla

Departamento de Engenharia Electrotécnica e de
Computadores
2
Summary

• Motivation
• Logistics course
• Some basic assumptions
• Course organisation
• Students organisation
• Classes
• Assessment
• Final comments

3
Motivation

• Far from being a place of inspiration, the
  lecture theatre is often the graveyard of
  motivation.

Sir Graham Hills and David Tedford. The
education of engineers The uneasy relationship
between engineering, science and technology.
Global Journal of Engineering Education, 6(3),
2002.
4
The Logistics course

• Last semester of the degree in Computers and
  Electrical Engineering
• Optional course
• It runs in parallel with the final seminar
• One block of 4 hours per week (Friday after
  lunch), 14 weeks
• It has been offered in the last 3 years

5
Some basic assumptions

• More important than what students learn is how
  they learn
• At this stage of the degree soft skills are as
  important as technical skills
• Students work very much if they are motivated and
  if they are correctly rewarded for their work

6
The course organisation

• No lectures! (not even one)
• 1 week for start-up
• 5 themes are assigned to students (10 weeks)
• Origins and history of Logistics, Logistics
  activities, the Logistics chain, Logistics and
  e-commerce
• Location and layouts
• Distribution and transportation
• Warehouses and materials movement
• Logistics and Just-in-time

7
The course organisation

• For each theme (2 weeks cycle)
• Bibliography research
• Study of the theme
• Presentation preparation
• Oral presentation in class
• Invited talks presentation of real world
  Logistics problems and solutions by experienced
  practitioners, e.g.
• Software ERP JDEdwards, by DoIt company.
• SOGENAVE a food distribution company
• The year 2000 toys campaign of Modelo Continente
• The launching of Optimus prepaid mobile phones
• Course evaluation by the students

8
Students organisation

• Students are organized in large groups
  (typically 4 groups with 4 to 5 elements each)
• Cooperation is promoted
• Team work is trained and reinforced
• Each group has a leader that has to
• Organise and assign tasks to each group element
• Students within a group are not supposed to work
  on everything
• A well-organised work distribution is desired
  and valued by the teachers
• Take decisions on what to include in the final
  presentation
• Give the presentation in the class

9
Students organisation

• Groups
• change for every theme
• are not known in advance
• are defined by the teachers
• so that
• arrangements among students are not possible
• students are trained to work with anyone, the
  colleagues they like more and the ones they like
  less
• All students have the chance/obligation to act
  as leaders

10
The 2 weeks cycle for each theme

• At the end of the class students are informed of
• the groups constitution for the next theme
• who will be the leaders
• which topics of the theme each group should cover
• Typical topics are
• Basic concepts related with that theme
• Strategic approaches
• Quantitative approaches algorithms
• Real world problems/applications/software

1st week
2nd week
11
The 2 weeks cycle for each theme

• Students arrange a first meeting of each group
• In that first meeting they usually agree on a
  first bibliography research, done by all the
  elements
• After having a general perspective of the topic
  they decide on which aspects should be
  emphasised, divide tasks and repeat the research

1st week
2nd week
12
The 2 weeks cycle for each theme

• One week after, the group leaders meet with the
  teachers the leaders meeting
• In this meeting
• Each leader
• Explains how tasks were divided among the group
  members
• Presents the plan of the presentation of his
  group
• The teachers
• Evaluate if the students have correctly focused
  on the topic and help them to correct their
  approach
• Suggest additional literature if necessary
• All together
• Detect overlaps between groups and try to
  eliminate them
• Exchange sources of information

1st week
2nd week
13
The 2 weeks cycle for each theme

• During the second week
• The leaders organise with their group the last
  stage of the work
• The presentation is prepared and rehearsed
• Teachers keep available to answer questions,
  suggest alternative bibliography, etc.
• Finally, in the end of the week the class with
  all the students and the two teachers present
  takes place

1st week
2nd week
14
The class

• 1 hour for each group
• 10 minutes for set-up
• Presentation of 25 minutes by the leader
• 25 minutes for discussion with the colleagues
  and the teachers
• Students of the other groups ask questions and
  discuss choices made by each group
• I am very curious to see how they have tackled
• I am looking forward to see what they have
  valued.

1st week
2nd week
15
The class

• 25 minutes for discussion with the colleagues
  and the teachers
• Teachers discuss the subjects, ask the leader and
  the other members of the group about the
  presentation and the topic itself in order to
• Highlight important aspects of the subjects that
  had not been properly highlighted
• Complement the information passed in the
  presentation
• Correct mistakes
• Evaluate the participation of each group member
  in the work

16
The class

• 25 minutes for discussion with the colleagues and
  the teachers
• The performance of the leader while giving the
  presentation, and the presentation design (e.g.
  legibility) are commented by the teachers and
  some advise is given.
• The slides are corrected and published in the web
  site of the course.
• Crucial to have 2 teachers present to moderate,
  motivate and control this process.

17
The class

• All students must be present at the class
• If a student is absent he will not have a mark
  for the work that his group presented
• If a student arrives late and does not attend the
  presentation of one group
• he will have to write a resume of that
  presentation
• otherwise he will have a 25 penalty for each
  presentation he did not attend
• A justified absence can be compensated by an
  individual written monograph about the theme (all
  topics) of that class.

100 of attendance!!
18
Assessment

• Final written examination 25.0
• 1 hour
• Multiple choice 2 development questions
• Questions regard only the material (presentation
  slides) produced by the students (? 30 slides x 4
  groups x 5 themes)
• Themes presentations 62.5 (12.5 for each
  theme)
• Evaluation criteria
• Focus
• Completeness
• Originality in the bibliography / cases /
  examples used for the presentation (not suggested
  by the teachers)
• Technical correctness
• Quality of the material used in the presentation
• All students of one group have the same mark
• Collective responsibility

19
Assessment

• The marks regarding each presentation are
  announced a couple of days after the class, so
  that students can have a clear and quantitative
  feedback of their performance and work quality

20
Assessment

• Leaders performance and participation during
  classes 12.5
• Presentational skills
• Assessed by the teachers
• Leadership qualities and behaviour
• Assessed by the students
• Students fill-in a questionnaire where they make
  a pairwise comparison of all their leaders
• By using a decision aiding tool it is possible,
  based on all evaluations, to reach a rating for
  each student
• The number of levels used in the rating is
  controlled by the level of confidence of the
  statistics test used
• Active participation in classes in which he is
  not the leader

21
Results of the last year
22
Course pedagogical assessment

• In the Faculty of Engineering a standardised
  pedagogical course assessment is run every year
  for each course.
• Students fill-in an inquiry concerning both the
  course and the teachers pedagogical performance.
• difficulty level,
• required time and effort,
• students interest on the topics,
• quality and accessibility of bibliography,
• assessment adequation.
• In the year 2001/2002 the Logistics course had
• an average evaluation of 4,92 (in a maximum of 5)
  
• was rated within the top 2.5 courses of the
  Computers and Electrical Engineering degree.

23
Final comments

• Each year, students are encouraged to give
  suggestions regarding the course implementation
• Changes suggested by the former students and by
  our own experience, were introduced each year
• Unexpected for the students
• Rewarding for the teachers
• It would not work at all with just one teacher
  present in class