Session 11a7 Transforming Engineering Service Courses P. David Fisher Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering James S. Fairweather Educational Administration—Center for the Study of Advanced Learning Systems Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824-1226 Abstract - Engineering science core courses represent the initial exposure to engineering for many students and form the foundation for degree requirements for each undergraduate engineering major. This paper examines our strategies, progress and findings related to an important subset of the engineering science core courses, namely, engineering service courses. We are investigating strategies for augmenting these courses with innovative instructional approaches, including cross-disciplinary experiences in teamwork, design and the use of advanced teaching technologies such as the Web. Project goals include (1) improving the quality of the undergraduate student experience, (2) encouraging faculty use of innovative instructional techniques and (3) systemic change by institutionalizing these reforms in the curricula. Evaluation activities focus on student outcomes, faculty development and issues related to the systemic reform of these courses.
Introduction Faculty members at Michigan State University (MSU) spent more than three years preparing for the 1998-99 ABET accreditation cycle under ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000) [1]. Self-study reports were submitted in the summer of 1998 and a team of program evaluators visited the campus in the fall of 1998. One important early outcome of MSU’s self-study process was the formation of a College of Engineering ABET 2000 Task Force [2]. This task force had representatives from each of the eight undergraduate engineering programs scheduled for an accreditation review. During its deliberations, this task force came to recognize that engineering service courses were often overlooked—or even discounted—in terms of their potential educational value. This conclusion became very evident when the faculty began the process of documenting how educational program objectives were actually being achieved within specific undergraduate engineering programs. By and large, members of MSU’s engineering faculty viewed engineering service courses primarily as a longstanding engineering curricular mandate. This Engineering Topics curricular-content requirement is concisely stated as follows in a recent addition of ABET’s
Criteria for Accrediting Programs in Engineering in the United States [3]: “In order to promote breadth, the curriculum must include at least one engineering course outside the major disciplinary area.” The task force began to look beyond this cryptic requirement to add breadth to engineering programs and asked the following important question: How might engineering services courses at MSU be transformed so that they genuinely impact the educational program outcomes mandated in EC2000’s Criterion 3 [1]? Upon first consideration of this question, one EC2000 program outcome—i.e., “(d) an ability to function of multidisciplinary teams”—immediately stood out above all others. Engineering science service courses traditionally bring together, in one classroom/laboratory, a mix of students from different engineering majors. For example, every undergraduate engineering major has been represented during the past couple of years in ECE 345— Electronic Instrumentation Systems [4]. Moreover, the course itself is intended to introduce non-electrical and noncomputer engineering majors to core topics related to the application of electric circuits, electronics and instrumentation to the monitoring and control of physical processes encountered by these future engineers. Within the ECE 345 lecture and laboratory learning environment, engineering students from a diverse set of technical backgrounds would quite naturally have the opportunity to interact with each other on multi-disciplinary teams. Moreover, one specific learning objective of the course itself might include improving upon the ability of non-electrical and non-computer engineers to function on engineering teams that contain electrical and computer engineering majors. Once this linkage was understood, we came to recognize that these types of teaming experiences could in extend beyond the service course itself and into major engineering design experiences that involved interdisciplinary teams. For example, mechanical engineering students often need to incorporate electronic sensors, actuators, annunciators, signal processing, data logging, computers and electronic instrumentation into their senior design projects. This important observation led to two additional questions:
0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 11a7-13
Session 11a7 •
Could sustainable linkages be developed between engineering service courses and inter-disciplinary major engineering design experiences? Could capstone design teams be realistically formed using engineering students from multiple majors whose only common bond would be the material contained in service courses?
related to engineering core courses. Hence, each service course stands on its own merits within an individual academic program. Various engineering programs require some of these courses, while others treat them as electives. The current thrust of this educational research project focuses on reforming the following three engineering science core courses.
The remainder of this paper describes how an interdisciplinary team of faculty and graduate students at MSU has begun to tackle these issues. The team is composed of faculty and graduate students from three departments in the College of Engineering—i.e., Civil and Environmental Engineering, Computer Science and Engineering and Electrical and Computer Engineering— and from the College of Education’s Center for the Study of Advanced Learning Systems. Overarching goals for this project include:
CSE 131: Introduction to Technical Computing—This course is offered by the Department of Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) and is required for students in nine of the eleven undergraduate engineering programs at MSU. Students are introduced to engineering problem solving, computing systems, word processing, spreadsheets, scientific computing and programming languages.
•
• • •
Improve the quality of the undergraduate student experience. Encourage faculty use of innovative instructional techniques. Ensure systemic change by institutionalizing these reforms in the curricula.
Evaluation activities focus on student outcomes, faculty development, institutionalization and dissemination.
MSU’s Engineering Service Courses At this time, there are eleven undergraduate engineering programs in the College of Engineering at Michigan State University [5]: • Biosystems Engineering, • Chemical Engineering, • Civil Engineering, • Computer Engineering, • Computer Science, • Electrical Engineering, • Engineering Arts, • Engineering Mechanics, • Manufacturing Engineering and Business Management in Engineering, • Materials Science and Engineering and • Mechanical Engineering.
CE 280: Introduction to Environmental Engineering— This course is offered by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) and is required for students in three engineering majors, as well as in Environmental Science (College of Agriculture and Natural Resources). It is a technical elective for students in the other engineering majors. Students are introduced to the elements of hydrology; groundwater and surface water supply and contamination; treatment systems for drinking water, wastewater, air, solid waste and hazard waste—including radioactive waste. EE 345: Electronic Instrumentation and Systems—This course is offered by the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) and is required by students in four engineering majors. Five other programs designate it as an elective course. Electrical engineering and computer engineering majors are not allowed to receive credit for taking this course since they are required to take a more in depth sequence of courses. Students are introduced to electrical and electronic components, circuits and instruments. The circuit laws are applied to dc, ac, and transient circuit applications. Students are also introduced to digital logic fundamentals and gain experience in designing, building and testing simple logic circuits. A three-hour/week laboratory provides active learning experiences for the students. In all, there are six core courses in the College of Engineering. The other three courses are:
ME 201: Thermodynamics—This course is offered by the Although students may declare a preference for one of these Department of Mechanical Engineering (ME) and is majors as freshman, students are not formally admitted into required by students in four engineering majors. Others may the College of Engineering or into a specific academic take it as an elective course. Students are introduced to the program until they reach junior status. Because of this, basic concepts of thermodynamics; ideal gases and there is no common freshman engineering experience. compressible substances; the theory and application of the Moreover, there is no specific graduation requirement 0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 11a7-14
Session 11a7 first and second laws of thermodynamics; entropy and Carnot efficiency.
MSM 211: Mechanics of Deformable Solids—This course is offered by the Department of Materials Science and Mechanics (MSM) and is required by students in six engineering majors. Others may take this course as an elective course. Students are introduced to tension, compression and shear stresses; axially loaded bars; torsion of circular shafts; beam theory; and combined stresses. Although these latter three engineering services courses are not the currently the primary focus of this educational research project, lessons learned will be applied to these service courses.
learning to use group instruction, portfolio assessment, and open-ended design exercises. He found these practices both more time consuming than the traditional lecture format and more effective in enhancing student learning. Students, other faculty members and staff from industry found student preparation in design and problem solving exceeded that of students taking the traditional course. Yet the departmental faculty rejected a petition to revise the traditional course format permanently because of the extra time commitment and the belief that such an investment was not important in promotion and tenure decisions. The faculty who taught the course the following year reverted to the traditional lecture format [7]. The failure to institutionalize instructional innovations reflects an inadequate theoretical framework to connect faculty work with student learning. Seldom do efforts to promote learning take a systemic approach [8] [9], that is, the interrelationships among the array of external, institutional, departmental, and individual factors influencing academic departments, faculty work, and student learning. In this project, we started with the larger systems perspective from the beginning and organized our reform efforts accordingly.
Achieving Sustainable Reform
Course Transformation Process
Two tenets form the core of most traditional efforts to encourage educational innovations in engineering, science and mathematics:
We next describe how these systemic change principles are being applied to the process of transforming of one of the engineering service courses—i.e., ECE 345: Electronic Instrumentation and Systems. While seeking ways to achieve sustainable reform with this and other service courses, we also wanted to document and evaluate the process used so that we could provide an insightful set if responses to the following question: “How can an institution bring about sustainable educational reform within its engineering service courses?” In short, one of our goals is to document what worked, what didn’t work and what institutional changes would be required to reduce or eliminate the impediments to succeed with this reform. The starting point—and justification—for this transformation process was with the findings and recommendations of the College of Engineering’s EC2000 Task Force [2]. This task force identified service courses within the College of Engineering as one of the areas specifically targeted for curricular improvement based upon ABET’s Engineering Criteria 2000 [1]. The analysis and rationale for this recommendation were contained in the various engineering-program self-study reports submitted to ABET as part of EC2000 accreditation process. Members of the College of Engineering faculty were informed about this curricular-improvement plan at two levels:
MSM 205: Statics—This course is offered by the Department of Materials Science and Mechanics (MSM) and is required by students in six engineering majors. Others may take it as an elective course. Students are introduced to vector description of forces and moments; two and three-dimensional equilibrium of particles and rigid bodies; the analysis of trusses, frames and machines; Coulomb friction.
• •
The key to improving teaching and learning lies with improving instructional practice in the classroom. Successful innovations take place in a sequential manner, starting with development, moving toward implementation and testing, assessing effectiveness, and culminating in dissemination and institutionalization.
Strategies based on these tents have had marginal success and limited evidence of institutionalization of innovations even when effective. A recent evaluation of the many projects funded by the NSF Undergraduate Course and Curriculum Development Program demonstrated a positive effect for many instructional innovations with limited evidence of dissemination and adoption of innovations beyond the principal investigator, much less beyond the host institution [6]. The NSF recently issued a Systemic Reform Effort to institutionalize innovations, implying that its traditional programs to reform teaching and learning did not achieve sustainability. Consider the case of the engineering professor determined to incorporate active learning principles into a traditional course. This professor invested many hours in
0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 11a7-15
Session 11a7 •
•
Each fall, most departments have faculty retreats. At these retreats faculty were introduced to the findings and recommendations contained in the self-study reports, including the College of Engineering’s rationale and plans to transform its engineering service courses. At the first regularly scheduled meeting of the College of Engineering faculty following the submission of the self-study report, this same message was taken to the faculty as both an information item and for discussion.
These types of information exchanges with the faculty will continue throughout the process of transforming the engineering service courses. We believe this approach is essential to achieve long-term success since all constituent groups must be involved in the course-transformation process. Moreover, these constituents must ultimately buy into the goals and objectives of the reform. Specific activities associated with individual service courses depended upon the nature of the individual courses. What follows is a brief outline of the principal steps in the course-transformation process that have been taking place with respect to ECE 345: Electronic Instrumentation and Systems. Each of these steps was undertaken with the goal of achieving sustainable reform of the course. The overall process could be viewed as consensus building among the various service-course constituent groups. Assessing the Existing Course—We began by assessing the existing course to gain an understanding as to the content of this course, as well as how advanced courses in engineering topics built upon this material. We accomplished this task by reviewing the course syllabus, the course learning objectives, the textbook, the laboratory manual and examples of student work. We also consulted the university’s catalogs to gain an understanding as to how engineering programs use this material in advanced courses in engineering topics. The most important observation here dealt with how engineering programs were actually using this material in advanced engineering-topics courses. •
•
Some academic programs required the course while others just identified it in a list of technical electives needed to fulfill ABET’s engineering topics’ breadth requirement—i.e., “the curriculum must include at least one engineering course outside the major disciplinary area” [2]. These academic programs made no formal use of ECE 345 course topics in follow-up courses. Only two advanced engineering-topics courses have ECE 345 listed as a prerequisite. However, in both cases, these were elective rather than required courses.
We concluded from this assessment that strong linkages do not currently exist between ECE 345 and advanced engineering topics courses. Reasons for this situation needed to be explored further. Moreover, we needed to explore whether or not stronger linkages would strengthen these programs. Placed in the context of the call for multidisciplinary major engineering design experiences, it would appear that stronger linkages are justified. For example, the mechanical engineering program requires ECE 345 for all of its majors and yet the mechanical engineering capstone design course—ME 481: Mechanical Engineering Design Projects—, which is also required of all mechanical engineering majors, does not have ECE 345 as a prerequisite [5]. However, many of the design projects in this course traditionally draw heavily upon core topics in ECE 345. In the future, we will explore with mechanical engineering faculty the possible advantages of developing stronger links between ECE 345 and ME 481. Benchmarking Other Institutions—We conducted a webbased search of other similar courses at other institutions. This benchmarking process led us to the following general observations: • • •
Some institutions offer a separate service course in electrical-engineering topics for non-majors (as is the case at MSU) while others do not. Some are two semester courses; however, most are just one semester in length. Some require a laboratory as an integral part of the course (as is the case at MSU). Some, however, have a lecture with no laboratory experience. In some cases, there was a lecture course with a separate laboratory course as an option. At these institutions, some academic programs just required the lecture while others required both the lecture and laboratory.
These differences have caused us to question our own course instructional model. It is currently a three-credit course with two 50-minute lectures per week and one threehour laboratory per week. As we interact with the department curriculum committees in the College of Engineering, we discuss our instructional model, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of other models we encountered during our benchmarking process. Meeting with Department Chairs—In parallel with this benchmarking activity, we met individually with most of the engineering department chairs. The purpose of these meetings was as follows:
0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 11a7-16
Session 11a7 •
• •
We wanted to assess their understanding of ECE 345 in the context of the course’s content and the course’s relationship to academic program(s) in their department. We wanted to identify key faculty in the various engineering departments who might be interested in actively participating in the course reform process. We wanted to identify and then contact the chairs of the various undergraduate curriculum committees.
In general, department chairs had only a marginal awareness of the course’s content or its relationship to other courses in the academic program. They did, however, have a sense that the course has existed to help meet ABET’s breadth requirement for engineering topics [2]. Meeting with Faculty and Curriculum Committees—Key faculty identified by the department chairs were contacted and virtually all but one curriculum committee has been visited. These meetings all had multiple purposes: • • • •
•
We wanted to inform them about the course reform process and master plan. We wanted to receive feedback from them about the existing course. We wanted to inform them about lessons learned to date about the course. We wanted to solicit their help in carrying through with the course-reform process.
These interactions have proven to be very beneficial in the context of all for of the above stated objectives, and these committees will be kept in the loop as the plan progresses to transform ECE 345. Meetings with Key ECE Department Personnel—ECE 345 is a service course that is not taken by electrical or computer engineering majors. However, it became apparent early in the course reform process that the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering’s (ECE’s) chairperson, the department’s faculty and the department’s technical support staff would all play significant roles in bringing about sustainable reform in ECE 345. •
•
The department chairperson allocates general-fund resources to the course and laboratory, makes teaching and teaching-assistant assignments and could provide incentives for faculty members to become actively involved with both the transformation and teaching of the course. Traditionally, this service course has been taught by a single faculty member semester after semester. Moreover, both the course learning objectives and
course content of ECE 345 have remained relatively constant in recent years. However, during this same period of time, some very significant changes have taken place directly related to this course—e.g., the technologies associated with electronic instrumentation systems, the expectations of employers of engineering graduates and the expectations within engineering education, as expressed by ABET’s Engineering Criteria 2000 [1]. We recognize that fundamental to sustainable reform would be the involvement of multiple members of the department faculty, much like multiple faculty are actively involved in the various areas of specialization within the department. Although these faculty member have not yet been identified, the department chair has called several meetings of groups of selected faculty members to discuss the need for new levels of faculty participation in this course. The department’s technical support staff is responsible for the day-to-day operation of all of the department’s instructional laboratories, including ECE 345. They view this course as a special challenge because of its very large enrollment and the background and experience of students taking the course. Basically, without regard to course content, course learning objectives or course outcomes, this technical staff measures the course’s success almost exclusively in by how efficiently they can manage the laboratory within a given week and from semester to semester. They also highly value a low-maintenance operation. As plans are developed to transform laboratory experiences in ECE 345, the department’s technical staff must be involved throughout the planning process, and their needs and expectations must also be met in order to ensure longterm success of any course-transformation plans.
Assessing Student Perceptions—In addition to developing traditional tests of student competence, we created a list of desired student outcomes based on active and collaborative learning principles [10] [11]. We are in the process of determining how well the revised courses achieve these outcomes. We also will follow students over time to determine longitudinal effects. Finally, we will combine these quantitative measures with student interviews to determine the relationships between instructional practices and student learning outcomes.
Discussion Some of our lessons learned to date include the following. •
Modify student assessments to distinguish between learning objectives obtainable within a given course
0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 11a7-17
Session 11a7 and those transcending a single course. For example, the ability to use a particular instrument is an outcome specific to EE345 whereas the ability to use design skills effectively transcends several courses and requires a longitudinal investigation of student learning. Identify learning objectives requiring reinforcement in subsequent or parallel courses. Find the relevant faculty teaching these related courses and work with them to make sure that they: (a) contribute relevant problems sets and (b) make use of the examples, principles and experiences developed in the innovative courses. Meet with department chairs to make sure that they assign faculty sympathetic to the classroom innovations to teach them in subsequent cycles. Focus on increasing faculty buy-in before they teach the innovative classes. Work with faculty in other departments and programs to identify the appropriate place for service courses in their curricula, and to identify faculty who should coordinate learning experiences with the service course faculty. As part of the dissemination process, attend collegewide faculty meetings to describe the course innovations. Benchmark with faculty in other programs and institutions to see whether or not the problems confronted by participating faculty are unique to the home institution or are common to engineering education. From the very beginning of the change process, incorporate strategies and plans for dissemination and institutionalization. Adopt a longitudinal perspective for implementing curricular innovations and for assessing project outcomes. Short-term perspectives reinforce the use of existing or traditional materials and limit the participation to a small group of faculty members.
provided by Mr. Nathan Robinson in collecting the data for the ECE 345 benchmarking process and Ms. Lisa Haston for assisting in the assessment of student perceptions regarding ECE 345. Also, the authors would like to acknowledge the important comments made by the two other principal investigators involved in the project: Dr. Susan Masten, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and Dr. Jon Sticklen, Department of Computer Science and Engineering. This work was supported in part by the General Electric Fund through a grant entitled “Reforming the Early Undergraduate Engineering Learning Experience.”
Our long-term goals are to reform other engineering service courses at MSU and to start the transformation of the entire undergraduate engineering education experience. At this time next year we expect to offer a national workshop to assist interested parties from other institutions in reforming their engineering service courses. Individuals interested in obtaining more information about this workshop are encouraged to contact James S. Fairweather by e-mail at
[email protected].
7) Fairweather, J., Faculty Work and Public trust: Restoring the Value of Teaching and Public Service in American Academic Life, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1996.
•
•
•
• •
• •
Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance
References 1) ABET Engineering Criteria 2000, http://www.abet.ba. md.us/EAC/eac2000.html. 2) Fisher, P. D., Assessment Process at a Large Institution, Proc. of the 1998 ASEE Annual Meeting and Exposition, Seattle, WA, June 28-July 1, 1998, CD-ROM. 3) Criteria for Accrediting Programs in Engineering in the United States: Effective for Evaluations During the 1998-99 Accreditation Cycle, Engineering Accreditation Commission, Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Baltimore, MD, pp. 5-7. 4) Course Syllabus for Electronic Instrumentation Systems (ECE 345), Michigan State University, http://www.egr.msu.edu/ece/Information/Academics/ Courses/Syllabi/ECE345_syllabus.html. 5) Undergraduate Degree Programs in the College of Engineering, Michigan State University, http://www.egr.msu.edu/ugs/degree1.htm. 6) Eiseman, J. and Fairweather, J., Evaluation of the NSF Undergraduate Course and Curriculum Development Program: Final Report, Washington, D.C.: SRI International, 1996.
8) O’Banion, T., A Learning College for the 21st Century, Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1997. 9)
Senge, P. and Associates, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, New York: Doubleday, 1990.
10) Angelo, T. and Cross, P., Classroom Assessment Techniques: Handbook for College Teachers, 2nd ed.,
0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 11a7-18
Session 11a7 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993. 11) Weimer, M., Improving College Teaching: Strategies for Developing Instructional Effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.
0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 11a7-19
