Session 13c3 Teaching Electroscience Using Computer-Based Instruction Nizar Al-Holou, Ph.D. and J. A. Clum, Ph.D. University of Detroit Mercy 4001 W. McNichols Rd. Detroit, MI 48219-0900
[email protected] Abstract- This paper will outline our experience associated with teaching college level Physics and Electric Circuits to non-traditional students using specially designed and locally produced Computer-Based Instruction tools. The CBI tool is one part of a significant educational experiment involving a major curriculum development effort and an attempt to integrate experiential activities from a production work environment with academic degree granting programs. This paper concentrates on just the CBI portion of our experiment in an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of that one factor in the overall experiment. Even though our CBI development plans have been very ambitious with the aim that the CBI tools will be able to stand alone without a textbook, we used a textbook as a supplement. As outlined in the syllabus for each course, the student should work on the CBI module, review the textbook, and then meet with the instructor to review the basic concepts and discuss problem solutions. We will especially discuss how the role of both the instructor and the student are significantly affected in CBI compared to more traditional instructional methods. Of major concern is how to meet the expectations of students conditioned by prior exposure to the traditional methods.
Introduction Students come to any learning activity with different backgrounds, intelligence, motivation, and learn through different learning styles. Students can be classified as active, visual, inductive, sensor, and sequential [1-2]. Moreover, instructors have different teaching styles [3]. In a traditional classroom, students are limited to paper-based material that is presented in sequential order according to the instructor’s perception of the subject [4]. Moreover, instructors view students as empty minds that need to be filled with knowledge and facts [5]. Many studies have documented that traditional classroom teaching is not the best approach to teach college students [6-9]. Therefore, a new innovative teaching pedagogy is needed. As a result, educational institutions have started new approaches to enhance student learning [10-14]. These approaches can be classified as computer-based instruction (CBI), distance learning, and web-based delivery. Computerbased instruction, the topic of this paper, integrates text, graphics, audio, video, and animation.
Computer Based Instruction (CBI) is a computer-enabled combination of on-screen text, graphics, images with digitized sound, voice, photographs, and motion video-in-a-window [15]. Key features incorporated into CBI development packages are a logical and user-controlled interactive flow of information based on sound instructional theory, screen “buttons” for functionality, and navigational tools [16]. CBI can offer an extremely efficient and cost-effective approach for both instructional development and delivery. Although “up front” development time/cost is high, delivery economies include a single message deliverable in multiple and customizable ways, thus allowing minimal interruption of work schedules for both students as well as employee training, and eliminating or greatly reducing the need to travel to school or training center sites. However, perhaps most importantly, it gives instructors the ability to develop encapsulated elements of their courses “off line,” that is, in their offices instead of traveling to different sites and repeating the same information. During our development of CBI modules, we have used Macromedia’s Authorware Professional tool. Macromedia’s Authorware Professional has a number of useful features that made it our original choice for an authoring tool [17, 18]. Authorware 3.5 is an object-oriented authoring tool that supports the incorporation of text, graphics, animation, audio, and video. It is an Iconic/Flow Control paradigm that is a powerful authoring platform for rapid prototyping. For example, see Figure 1 which shows a sample screen from Module 1, Electrostatics. The CBI learning model views faculty and students as partners in the learning process to build their knowledge. The relationship between instructor and students is critical to the success of the learning process. The role of the instructor in a CBI environment is to be a facilitator, a partner, and a coach rather than a lecturer. As such, the learning and teaching occur in a social interaction environment. As quoted by John Prados, the Editor of the Journal of Engineering Education, “the instructor gives up the role of ‘sage on the stage’ and becomes the ‘guide at the side’.” [19]
Engineering Education for the 21st Century (An Experiment): In the early 1990s a partnership of academic, industrial and institutional organizations came together to propose to the
0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 13c3-24
Session 13c3 National Science Foundation (NSF) the formation of the Greenfield Coalition for New Manufacturing Education (GC). That program had its roots in a study conducted by the Society for Manufacturing Engineers (SME) [20], and the educational and manufacturing operations of an organization which has strived for social justice in the Detroit community for over three decades, Focus:HOPE. A major impetus for the program derived from the expanding operations of Focus:HOPE. The fundamental social justice goal of Focus:HOPE had evolved additional roles for the organization including the fostering of community economic development. This led to the establishment of educational and training programs for community members. As the organization sought to provide an economic base with the community for future development, it recognized that the control of that development lay in creating a skilled workforce. This led to the development of a comprehensive educational program from basic skills development, to machinist training (the Machinist Training Institute [MTI]), to the degree programs related to the manufacturing operations (Associate of Science in Manufacturing Engineering Technology - Lawrence Technological University, Bachelor of Manufacturing Engineering Technology - Wayne State University, Bachelor of Manufacturing Engineering (BMfgE) - University of Detroit Mercy). That desire for change at the community level received a timely boost from several studies on engineering education in general and manufacturing engineering education in particular. The SME study [20] is one of a number of studies by professional engineering societies and government organizations such as the National Science Foundation, which have pointed to the need for a restructuring of undergraduate engineering education in the United States [21,22]. In particular, those studies emphasized the need for redirection in engineering education. They also pointed to specific changes desired to meet national needs in areas such as computer-aided engineering, manufacturing, materials, mechatronics, nanotechnology, etc. [21,22]. The SME study more narrowly focused on the manufacturing engineering education needs and attempted to offer a new paradigm for manufacturing engineering education. Some of the specific recommendations from that report embodied in the proposed program were: i) the need for more experiential content in the curriculum; ii) an increase in the integration of design with manufacturing, i.e., the computerization of the sequence from design to product; iii) development of a strong analytical base including computer applications as well as programming skills, and, mathematical and statistical methods; iv) more emphasis on team work activities, and more interdisciplinary team activities; v) development of an understanding of quality tools and
concepts of the role of systems in product realization. Within some of the studies of engineering education that spelled out new directions for curricular emphasis were found equally compelling recommendations for changing the ways engineering education is provided. Especially notable is that emphasis be given to a more learner-centered educational process with less directive modes of instruction, (e.g., lecturing), to more assistive modes, especially those that involve computer based instruction. A quote from one study report [20] will serve to illustrate the shift. “...four aspects critical for engineering education: students, faculty, experiential learning, and curricula.” This statement shows the shift that is occurring with reference less on content (curricula) to more on the students and how they are able to develop mastery, or competencies (note also that one of the four foci of the study discussions is experiential learning).
The UDM/GC Bachelor of Manufacturing Engineering Degree Model The model that embodies these objectives is the BMfgE degree program based on the GC experiment and conferred by UDM. The specific educational model employed is based on extensive use of three unique features: - experiential learning: combines the practice of engineering in an operational production facility with the learning of engineering theory and methods related to those operations. Additionally, there is a major requirement for all BMfgE candidates to generate a portfolio documenting their job rotations and the integration of those rotations with the academic program, i.e., how the academic program and job rotations synergistically interact. - modular, computer based instruction: the use of sophisticated computer models and multi-media learning materials to augment faculty/student interactions and to support student initiated learning. It is important to note that not just the engineering/technical content, but the entire curriculum, including the Liberal Arts has been created using these new curricular models, with faculty from partner institutions in Communications, Economics, Ethics, History, Philosophy, Performing Arts, Political Science, and Religious Studies actively working with curriculum and instructional designers to produce computer based modules in their respective fields. Additionally, typical course content of an engineering program such as physics has been restructured into segments that provide a closer match to the experiential job rotation activities, i.e, Mechanophysics, Electroscience, Thermoscience which are based on using engineering applications to drive the need to learn and understand the fundamentals. For example, the concepts of static discharge in computer systems, or, the effects of coefficient of thermal expansion on determining set-up tolerances in machining, or,
0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 13c3-25
Session 13c3 the angular momentum transfer in a gear system design, are all used to set the stage for learning the relevant principles from physics. - teacher as coach: a shift in the student/faculty relationship, which moves a greater part of the responsibility for initiation and focus of the learning activities to the student Development of curriculum and course modules by the five university partners emphasizes the interweaving of degree requirements rather than a typical rigid hierarchical structure such that all degree programs (associates, bachelor of technology and bachelor of manufacturing engineering) embody content which will create a graduate in great demand by industry. While the educational model and methods of this program are unique, the curriculum has been developed so that it fulfills all of the requirements of normal undergraduate programs of UDM and the accreditation requirements of the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET). In fact, ABET has sent a preliminary team to provide advice on accreditation issues. The student body for this program is also unique in that the average age has been higher (over 25) and most students (over 95%) are African-American. Many of the students were "disenfranchised" from the educational pipeline, returning after working in a variety of non-technical jobs. In effect, this program is a model for empowering inner-city minorities by providing high level technical skills and education. The ultimate objective of this program is to create a BMfgE graduate who is uniquely sought after as a manufacturing professional. In that regard, we note that the concepts underlying the development of a globally competitive High Performance Work Organization (HPWO) espoused in by Marshall & Tucker [23] depend on establishing new educational paradigms such as that provided by the Greenfield Coalition. Of special interest in the Marshall & Tucker discussion is that the most effective educational processes have been those that explicitly tie experiential and academic activities. It is also interesting to note that their view of US education’s failure is due to its application of the ‘manufacturing model’ to the educational process, i.e., that the emphasis has been on quantitative ‘production’ factors such as student/teacher ratios, rather than ‘productivity’ where the quality of the ‘product’ is of prime importance. In the Greenfield model of computer based instruction, it is possible to employ less kinetic models of educational progress; more responsibility for accomplishment is shifted to the student’s learning rate and the development of mastery/competencies rather than a typical chronologically constrained, instructor controlled event.
Computer-Based Modular Instruction There are difficulties associated with using the traditional classroom system for non-traditional students. Such
difficulties include traveling distance between the work place and the university; interruption of work schedules; and difficulty presenting the latest information and technology. American industry has initiated cooperation with universities to build modular educational programs that allow employees to continue their education and thus increase the company’s competitive edge. The National Science Foundation has funded several coalitions around the country, such as Greenfield, NEEDS, Gateway, ECSEL, Foundation, SCCEME, SUCCEED, and Synthesis to evaluate new teaching pedagogies, develop, disseminate, and apply high-quality curriculum for traditional and non-traditional students [24]. The Greenfield Coalition has, as a part of its challenge, chosen to develop and bring “multimedia”-enhanced (the computer-enabled combination of text, video, and sound) courseware into the classroom to enhance the learning of a unique student population.
ElectroScience Modules and Curriculum Development Electrostatics, Electromagnetics, and Electric Circuits are not easy subjects for engineering students, especially non-EE majors. It was an obvious opportunity for computer-based instruction (CBI) to be used to make it more interesting, and easy to understand. The “Principles of Electrical Engineering and Physics (Electroscience)” knowledge area is designed to cover the areas of Electrophysics (electrostatics and electromagnetism) and the Principles of Electrical Engineering to provide candidates with enough background to take subsequent courses, such as Electrical Machines, Sensors and Instrumentation, and Control systems [25]. Moreover, it should provide knowledge relevant to the manufacturing/production environment of our students. In addition, this courseware will achieve the depth of knowledge required to make it useful for supporting the educational efforts in this field at other sites in the academic community. The electroscience curriculum currently consists of ten CBI modules. The first electroscience course sequence consists of three semester credit hours (GCS 231 Electrostatics; GCS 232 - DC Circuits; GCS 233 Electromagnetism) and is required at the Associates degree level. Four modules cover the physics background needed (Modules 1, 4, 5, and 6) and represent two credit hours, GCS 231 and GCS 233, respectively. Two modules (2 and 3), equivalent to one credit hour, represent the DC Circuits portion of a typical Principles of Electrical Engineering course.
Delivery of the Course Content The major concern with the Greenfield Curriculum development has been whether the candidates and the faculty
0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 13c3-26
Session 13c3 could adapt to the proposed instructional methods, i.e, successfully adopt the learner-directed format relying on the computer-based instruction rather than the instructor-directed format of the lecture. Computer based instruction (CBI) delivery is different from traditional classroom teaching. The instructor’s role must change from an instructor-directed to learner-directed setting. For the first delivery, the developed CBI modules were used as the main resource and a textbook as a supplement. The details of that first offering, described in an earlier report [26], indicated that about 40% of the candidates were comfortable with the CBI as a major learning tool. Students evaluated this method of delivery at the end of each module. The results from the two questions directed toward multimedia delivery were: Are computer-based instructions useful? Are computers easy to learn and use? The response to these questions was 3.8/5.0 and 4.2/5.0 respectively. From the relevant comment sections on perceptions of instructional effectiveness the following comments were relevant to the use of the CBI tools: What aspects of this module/course were most effective? Nearly 30 percent felt the modules were the most effective while about 15 percent stated lectures were most effective. What Changes would you suggest? More than 50 percent requested more experiential content, either in case studies, or via a laboratory component.
The Feedback Loop in Module Development Based on those earlier evaluations revised versions of the modules are now in use. This report concludes with a preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of the revised modules. It is based on an offering of GCS 231-233 which purposely alternated between a textbook/lecture/module format (GCS 231) and a module/tutorial format (GCS 232) for the first two segments of the sequence. The current evaluation used a questionnaire survey given to the most recent class in the GCS 231-233 course sequence during January - April 1999. Overall the results are similar to the earlier survey in that the students are still not completely comfortable with the learner-directed format that the CBI modules are meant to foster. Partly, that is due to the need for the CBI tool itself to be more “attractive” to capture the attention of the learner. However, it is also apparent that the learners are still instructor dependent and have not yet reached a confidence level that allows them to direct their own learning. For example, comments were made such as, “...modules helped, but working problems and explanations of instructor were most helpful”, and, “...make modules more interactive”.
Conclusion An Electroscience curriculum component has been delivered as part of the Greenfield Coalition program to Focus: HOPE candidates using CBI. During the delivery, a textbook has been assigned as a supplement. The quality of the CBI modules has been improved by adding more animation, video/audio clips, examples, and real-world case studies as suggested in the students’ previous delivery evaluation. The students are still not completely comfortable with the new learner-directed format that the CBI modules are meant to foster. Rather, there is still a substantial reliance on the instructor to direct learning. Nine CBI modules have been completed and used for delivery. We are in the process of completing the last CBI module, Introduction to Digital Logic, while integrating some more real-world case studies. Finally, the CBI development is labor intensive, and requires more continuous improvement and updates than anticipated.
References 1. Felder, R.M., Reaching the Second Tier-Learning and Teaching in College Scince Education, Journal College Science Teaching, Vol. 23, no. 5, April 1993, pp. 286-290. 2. Felder, R.M., and L.K. Silverman, Learning and Teaching Styles In Engineering Education, Journal of Engineering Education, April 1988, pp. 574-581. 3. Azemi, A. Developing An Active Learning Environment With Courseware Approach, the IEEE FIE ? 97 Proceedings. 4. Carver, C.A, Howard, R.A., Lane, W.D., Enhancing student Learning Through Hypermedia Courseware and Incorporation of Student Learning Styles, IEEE Transaction on Education, Vol. 42, NO. 1, February 1999, pp. 33-38. 5. Ametrano, D., and T.M. Harkin, Making the Transition from Traditional Classroom Instructor to Coach In Computer-Based Instruction, Proceedings, 1999 ASEENCS Conference, ASEE-NCS, 1998, p. 248-251. 6. J.S. Rigden, D.F. Holcomb, and R. Di Stefano, The Introductory Physics Project, Physics Today, Vol. 46, April 1993, pp. 32-37. 7. Physics Today issue devoted to teaching undergraduate Physics, Vol. 44, Sept. 1991. 8. Pollio, H. R. What Students think About and Do in College Lecture Classes, Teaching-Learning Issues, No. 53, University of Tennessee, Learning Research Center, 1984. 9. McKeachie, W. Teaching tips: A Guide for the beginning College Teacher, Heath, 1986. 10. Burks Oaklay II, Helping Faculty Develop New Asynchronous Learning Enviroments, 1996 FIE Conference Proceedings.
0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 13c3-27
Session 13c3 11. Burks Oaklay II, Implementation of a virtual classroom in an introductory circuit analysis course, ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, V. 1, 1995, pp. 187-191. 12. Michael L. Swafford, C. Graham, D. J. Brown and T. N. Trick, Mallard: Asynchronous Learning in Two engineering Courses, 1996 FIE Conference Proceedings. 13. Mark A. Yoder, Sparking Life in a Circuits Classroom, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, the IEEE FIE 1993 Proceedings, pp. 128-130. 14. J. Brodersen, et al, The ELF Project: Creating the Future Laboratory, Vanderbilt University, the IEEE FIE 1993 Proceedings, pp. 227-279. 15. Vaughn, T., Multimedia: Making It Work, Second Edition, Osborne/McGraw-Hill, 1994, pp. 5-7. 16. Trumbull, D., Gay, G., and Mazur, J., Students Actual and Perceived Use of Navigational and Guidance Tools in a Hypermedia Program, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, vol. 24, 1992, pp. 315-328. 17. Nizar Al-Holou, and Timothy W. Savage, Selecting an Authoring Program for Undergraduate Engineering Computer-based Instruction, the IEEE FIE’95 Proceedings, pp. 4d1.13-17. 18. Nizar Al-Holou, Development of Electroscience Curriculum for Greenfield Coalition, the IEEE FIE’97 Proceedings. 19. Prados, J. W. It Will be Different, Editor’s page, The Journal of Engineering Education, 295, October 1997. 20. SME, Manufacturing Education for the 21st Century; Vol. I, Curricula 2002"; Vol. II, Compendium of International Models for Manufacturing Education; Vol. III, Proceedings of Preparing World Class Manufacturing Professionals, Conference, March 13-15, 1996. 21. Restructuring Engineering Education: A Focus on Change, NSF Workshop, April 1995. 22. New Challenges in Educating Engineers, Illinois Institute of Technology and NSF, June 10,11, 1991. 23. Ray Marshall and Marc Tucker, Thinking for a Living: Education and the Wealth of Nations, Basic Books Div. of Harper Collins pub., NY, 1992. 24. W. H. Wood, III A. M. Agogino, Engineering Courseware Content and Delivery: the NEEDS Infrastructure for Distance Independent Education, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, v. 47 n. 11, pp. 863-869, Nov 1996. 25. Nizar Al-Holou, “ Development and Delivery of Electroscience Curriculum for Greenfield Coalition,” Journal of Engineering Education, December 1998, pp. 599-605. 26. Nizar Al-Holou, and Nancy Bow, “Teaching Electrostatics Using Computer-Based Instruction,” American Society for Engineering Education-North Central, Detroit, MI, April 1998, pp. 119-123.
Acknowledgments -----------------------------------------------------------------------The project has been funded by NSF/Greenfield Coalition.
0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 13c3-28
Session 13c3
Figure 1. A Sample Screen from Module1, Electrostatics
0-7803-5643-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEE November 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 13c3-29
