Session F4C PERSPECTIVES ON LEARNING IN A CAPSTONE DESIGN COURSE Diane T. Rover1 Abstract A new course learning model was developed for our capstone design course in computer engineering, ECE 482 - Capstone: Computer System Design. It has been delivered during six semesters, each providing a set of new experiences and an array of lessons learned. Students, employers, and educational researchers have recognized the benefits of the course. Despite the positive outcomes, key questions and obstacles remain that impact sustainable reform in the capstone design experience. In this paper, we chronicle the experiences and lessons from the perspectives of the faculty and students involved with the course. We focus on the learning model, including its implementation, adaptation, impact and perception. Index Terms assessment, capstone design, cooperative learning, cross-functional teaming.
INTRODUCTION At the 1997 Frontiers in Education Conference, we reported on a new course learning model based on cross-functional teaming for our capstone design course in computer engineering (CpE). [[7]] Since Summer 1997, the course, ECE 482, Capstone: Computer System Design, has been delivered during six semesters. Course revision began with a process of benchmarking major engineering design experiences and development of a set of learning objectives. The crossfunctional teaming model supports these objectives. Under cross-functional teaming, students are grouped into two sets of interdependent teams, design teams and skill teams. While the concept of the skill team has been one of the most notable and exemplary features of the course, its practical implementation has been one of the most challenging. The learning objectives place emphasis not only on engineering design but also on the process, which involves decisionmaking, communication, project management, teamwork, and documentation. The many facets have been integrated throughout the course. Although feedback from former students resonates with appreciation of the multifaceted approach, motivating students during a course to invest their effort outside of the technical tasks of a design project is very difficult. Through the first five semesters of the course, it was team-taught by two instructors. It has now transitioned to an instructor and team facilitators. The relationship of the course management model to the learning
model is not trivial, and the effect of the transition remains unclear. This paper reviews these issues from the perspectives of faculty and student experiences in the course.
COURSE DEVELOPMENT In preparation for seeking first-time ABET accreditation of the computer engineering program under Engineering Criteria 2000 [[1]] for the 1998-1999 accreditation cycle, a thorough review of the CpE program was undertaken. One result was the revision of the ECE 482 capstone design course, a course required for all computer engineering majors and taken by a number of electrical engineering majors. The first step involved benchmarking of capstone engineering design courses. At the same time, the CpE program objectives were crafted. These activities led to the development of learning objectives for ECE 482, followed by course learning and management models. Benchmarking Engineering Design The benchmarking study investigated how ABET’s major engineering design requirement was interpreted and how different institutions met this requirement. Some programs identify a specific course in which students gain their major/capstone engineering design experience; others identify a sequence of courses; and still others point to the curriculum as a whole. Some programs rely heavily on industrial sponsors; others have little or no formal involvement with industry on student design projects. While most programs contain some form of major design project, considerable variability occurs with teaming, oral and written communications, realistic design constraints, and engineering ethics. Through this study, we identified a number of ways to improve the capstone design experience. In addition, an Employer Stakeholder Focus Group made a number of important observations and recommendations regarding program objectives and the capstone design course [[6]]. Program Educational Objectives and Course Learning Objectives The CpE program objectives were developed in consideration of Criterion 3 of ABET EC 2000 [[1]] as well as the mission of MSU and the needs of its constituents. The
1
Diane Rover, Michigan State University, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, East Lansing, MI 48824,
[email protected] This work was sponsored in part by NSF grants CDA-9700732 and ACI-9624149.
0-7803-6424-4/00/$10.00 © 2000 IEEE October 18 - 21, 2000 Kansas City, MO 30 th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F4C-14
Session F4C program emphasizes integrated-circuit and information technologies in computing and control. It leverages the scholarly and curricular strengths of the ECE and CSE Departments and is characterized by a focus on embedded systems. Program objectives state that graduates should be able to: (A) understand, analyze, and design hardware and software systems and components; identify and solve computer engineering problems; design and conduct laboratory experiments to investigate and test the characteristics and dynamics of systems and components; be proficient in the use of modern computer engineering techniques and tools; (B) be proficient in the oral and written communication of their work and ideas; learn and work independently; participate effectively within and across disciplinary groups and understand the value of teaming; understand the technical and professional qualities of an engineer that are valued in today's workplace; understand contemporary issues relevant to the practice of computer engineering; understand the global and societal impact of engineering problems and solutions; and be prepared for a lifetime of continuing education. For the sake of discussion, these objectives are partitioned into sets A and B, with set A oriented technically, and B, professionally. While these objectives are achieved across the curriculum, a capstone design course has the potential to cover all of them with varying emphasis. The selection of course learning objectives indicates which program objectives are covered, and the implementation of the learning objectives in the course model determines the relative emphasis toward particular program objectives. The learning objectives for ECE 482 complement the topics listed in the course description: Major engineering design experience involving embedded systems to control processes. Contemporary hardware/software design tools and practices. Engineering standards. Cross-functional teaming. Oral and written communications. Lifelong-learning skills. The objectives delineate specific team and individual activities and are associated with program objectives in both sets A and B. The reader is referred to the complete list of learning objectives. [[4],[5]] Course Learning Model To support the scope of its new learning objectives, the course needed a richer learning model than a traditional lecture-laboratory course. Cross-functional teaming (CFT) is a team-based course learning model that was developed as the foundation for ECE 482 [7]]. In ECE 482, teaming is essential to accomplish the course learning objectives and complete a project. Design-team formation is a structured process that takes into account students' background and interests so as to create teams with the requisite diversity of expertise and perspective. Diversity of expertise is also
developed just-in-time during the course through the use of CFT. Cross-functional teaming partitions students into two sets of interdependent teams, “design teams ” and “skill teams”. Design teams are formed for the entire semester. Each of these teams works on a specific engineering design project as part of a single company’s engineering staff (Spartan Embedded Technologies, SET) to meet a customer’s needs. Skill teams are formed from representatives of each design team. As the name implies, skill teams learn specific skills needed to ensure success within the individual design projects. For example, a skill team may focus on project management or on a computer-based design/test tool. Skills brought back to design teams must be shared with other members. Skill teams are highly focused, and the intent is to foster self-directed learning, so as to reinforce both lifelonglearning as well as learning by teaching others. The interaction facilitated by skill teams that cross design-team boundaries has been a key aspect of the teaming experiences gained by the students. The CFT model was designed in accord with two learning paradigms: formal cooperative learning, as described by Smith and Waller, in which students work together in base groups to maximize their own and each others’ learning [[11]]; and cooperative jigsaw strategy, by Aronson et al., in which specialized teams are formed from representatives of base groups [[3]]. Moreover, the CFT course learning model is representative of what students will encounter in industry. For example, Ward has documented the formation of “study groups” to facilitate staff professional development through self-directed learning. [[12]] The function of the skill teams in ECE 482 has been twofold: professional and communication skills in support of the engineering design process; and technical skills within subdisciplines of electrical and computer engineering. The expertise of a skill team is comprised of prior knowledge learned by members in other courses and of just-in-time knowledge learned specifically to meet the needs of the design project. Typical professional or communication skill teams include project/course management, document preparation, and web development. Technical skill teams have ranged from sensor interfacing to software engineering. The model provides some class-wide cohesion among design teams by leveraging their common threads through CFT. Students are introduced to strategies for effective teaming, group processing, and self-assessment. [[2],[8]] Course Overview Associated with the set of course learning objectives is an on-line Course Plan, which describes on a week-by-week basis the course’s Meeting Outlines, Assignments, Deliverables, and Milestones. [[5]] The Milestones portion of the Course Plan links the course learning objectives with
0-7803-6424-4/00/$10.00 © 2000 IEEE October 18 - 21, 2000 Kansas City, MO 30 th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F4C-15
Session F4C the lectures, assignments, deliverables, and design projects. The milestones and course learning objectives are explicitly discussed on a weekly basis during class meetings. In the first week of the semester, students begin journals to be used as engineering workbooks and for personal self-assessment. Design teams submit proposals for design projects in response to a request-for-proposals (RFP). During the term, teams spend considerable time on written and oral communication, including reports, demonstrations, and web sites. Design projects are taken from requirements to implementation, either by designing a new system or by reengineering an existing one. In some cases, students from previous terms act as consultants on existing products. Traditional lecturing is used sparingly, in as few as four class meetings. Guest speakers, often of greater interest to the students, are typically used in at least four class meetings. Topics have included product accessibility for persons with disabilities and intellectual property. Reading assignments and student reflection on the readings comprise a significant means of learning beyond the experiential learning through projects. Students review the readings in small-group, design-team, and class discussion; and by writing in their journals. The readings are relevant to design projects, thus engaging the students’ interest. The students read about embedded systems from contemporary technical literature. Students also read about and discuss engineering ethics, including hardware and software quality. Computer and communication standards and their importance is another discussion topic, highlighting the many standards that students encounter in their embedded system design projects. The first readings deal with teaming, introducing students to practical information that helps their teams work effectively. The combination of learning about teaming and using teams to learn (i.e., as cooperative learning groups in the classroom) si integral to the CFT model. Student performance in the course is evaluated based on meeting team and individual learning objectives. Both team and individual deliverables are submitted regularly. Students receive feedback from the instructor and in some cases from other students. For example, design-team presentations are an opportunity for students to improve their communication skills not only through presenting but also by having them critique other presentations. Students use several selfassessment tools, including surveys [[8]]. Course Management Model During the first five offerings of ECE 482, it was team-taught by the two instructors who developed the CFT model. ECE 482 is a four-credit course with three lecture hours (class meeting times) and a three-hour lab (team meeting time). The co-instructors shared the teaching load, provided overall
planning and direction for the course, jointly led the class meetings, and provided guidance to the design and skill teams. Each instructor took responsibility for supervising half of the design-team projects. A common laboratory time was scheduled for all students so teams could meet and plan activities or work on their tasks. Students, however, had unlimited access to the laboratory. As of the sixth offering for Fall 1999, the course management model was changed by the ECE Department to involve other ECE faculty in the instruction of the course and supervision of design projects. In this model, the responsibilities were partitioned among a course instructor (or coordinator) and design-team facilitators. The lecture load was credited to the coordinator; and each facilitator was credited for part of the laboratory load. Responsibilities assigned to the course coordinator ranged from managing the course on a day-to-day basis to evaluating student performance, assigning student grades, and assessing course outcomes. Responsibilities assigned to a team facilitator ranged from meeting weekly with the team to reviewing team progress and serving as a mentor for the team on professional aspects of the course.
STUDENT PERSPECTIVE From Summer 1997 through Fall 1999, 168 students completed ECE 482. Feedback from students was collected regularly while they were taking the course. In addition, it was not uncommon for students to send unsolicited feedback by email to the instructors with comments about ECE 482 after they had graduated. To get a more representative and focused set of data, we distributed a survey to the 168 students in Spring 2000. The survey was sent by electronic mail. University email accounts are maintained by MSU for all graduates. Only eight of the email addresses had delivery errors, although actual receipt rate of the survey is unknown. The response rate, however, was nearly 30%, including 25% for Summer 1997 students, 36% for Fall 1998, and only 19% for Fall 1999. Of the respondents, 41% received CpE degrees; 57%, EE; and 5%, computer science (dual degrees account for exceeding 100%). 15% are female. In addition, 15% are African American or Black; 13%, Asian; 2%, Hispanic or Latino; 2%, Pacific Islander; and, 65%, white. Note that 2% represents one response. Over 20% are enrolled in a graduate degree program. Three of the respondents reside in countries from Europe to Asia. A relatively large number of graduates are employed by automotive companies in Michigan, such as Ford and General Motors. A similar number are employed by computer and communications companies such as IBM and Motorola, among others. Several are employed by government and academic institutions and small engineering firms.
0-7803-6424-4/00/$10.00 © 2000 IEEE October 18 - 21, 2000 Kansas City, MO 30 th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F4C-16
Session F4C 1. 2. 3.
Results of the following questions are listed in Table I. How satisfied were you with ECE 482 at the end of the course? As you look back now, how satisfied are you with the capstone engineering design experience of ECE 482? In your career thus far, to what extent has ECE 482 provided valuable experience or training? TABLE I
STUDENT SATISFACTION WITH ECE 482 (%) Question / 1 2 Response Very Satisfied 55 48 Very Valuable Satisfied 39 48 Valuable Neutral 4 2 Somewhat Valuable Dissatisfied 2 2 No Difference Very Dissatisfied 0 0 Not Valuable
3 30 46 15 2 2
A breakdown of responses term-by-term shows a concentration of all or most as "Very Satisfied" for Spring 1998 and Fall 1998. The slight shift from "Very Satisfied" to "Satisfied" between Questions 1 and 2 is primarily due to Summer and Fall 1997 responses, i.e., to the least recent graduates. The distribution of responses is similarly skewed for Question 3, with "Very Valuable" being mo re common for recent graduates. However, Fall 1999 is an exception, having no "Very Valuable" responses. Results of the following questions are listed in Table II. 4. All students in ECE should take a capstone design course with a course model similar to that of ECE 482. 5. Students from multiple engineering majors should work together on capstone design projects. 6. Projects in ECE 482 should be sponsored by a customer from industry. TABLE II STUDENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ECE 482 (%) Question / 4 5 6 Response Strongly Agree 65 41 31 Agree 24 35 26 Neutral 9 20 39 Disagree 2 4 4 Strongly Disagree 0 0 0
Question 4 is relevant since the ECE Department offers another type of capstone design course that emphasizes program objectives from set A, similar to a traditional upperlevel engineering design course. Interestingly, Fall 1999 is again an exception, having only one "Strongly Agree" response. One student commented: "I was more interested in taking one of the other EE capstones … I did learn a lot about standards (… in ECE 482) but every capstone within
ECE should be (teaching) that anyway." With respect to Question 5, ECE 482 has included projects with mechanical engineering during several terms. The responses are nearly evenly distributed regardless of term, and students were both positively and negatively influenced by participating in or observing interdisciplinary projects. Those who disagreed cite the additional time required for interdepartmental collaboration and also the diversity that already spans the ECE disciplines. The distribution on Question 6 across the first three terms is similar to that for Question 5; however, for the last three terms, the responses shift toward "Neutral". By choice, we have enlisted relatively few external customers of projects in ECE 482, all during the last three terms. In this case, students seem to be influenced less positively by participating in or observing externally-sponsored projects. The survey also asked students several open-ended questions. Responses are summarized and excerpted. What did you learn in ECE 482 that has proven to be beneficial? A majority of the responses identify teamwork, communication skills, and problem-solving. • Cross-functional teaming skills … (have helped) when interfacing production with engineering staff. • Helped me to deal with working on a small team with different (sometimes conflicting) personalities. • How to follow a design project from concept to completion. • Explaining/presenting complex material. • Communicating technical issues and being able to multitask. I use both on a daily basis. • It increased my expectations for my first job. I left my first job because my expectations were not being met. ECE 482 also gave engineering students a chance to be creative, which is almost nonexistent in other engineering classes. • That I can learn to successfully carry out part of a project requiring skills that I didn't previously have. • Not just teaming, but experience with "unguided" problem solving. • Learning things on-the-fly to solve real problems . • How to listen, accept, and accommodate the ideas, schedules, etc. of the people I work with. • Cross-functional teaming has played a role in my career thus far. I was able to draw upon my experiences from 482 during a department re-organization. My knowledge and ideas helped shape the new team, which has proved very successful. • Being in the service business, I understand that technical skills get you started in projects, but it takes communication skills to get the job done right. ECE 482 really developed these important skills. • Having a strategic goal, surviving under pressure.
0-7803-6424-4/00/$10.00 © 2000 IEEE October 18 - 21, 2000 Kansas City, MO 30 th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F4C-17
Session F4C Do you recommend improvements to learning objectives, learning experiences, or deliverables? A few responses echo this one: "No, the class is built on a really great idea." However, a recommendation made several times deals with ensuring that individual team members are held accountable for their performance in the classroom and laboratory. This was cited from a couple of perspectives: by a "proficient" student who sees other students coasting as part of a team; and by an "earnest" student who sees other students dominating a team project. Respondents reiterate several suggestions for omitting project documentation. The amount of documentation in the course has varied from termto-term, partially due to student feedback. Finally, respondents recommend that we continue to strive for the "real-life" quality of the course, for example, by bringing alumni in to speak about their careers or by selecting specific audiences for presentations. Do you have a favorite memory from ECE 482? Studentstudent and student-faculty interactions as well as project success are typically recalled, sometimes humorously. • The final presentations were most memorable for me. By the end of the course, we were all like a big ECE 482 family. • Can't remember any at the moment but I do have flashbacks every now and then. • I don't really have a "favorite memory" from ECE 482 -but sitting in the ECE 482 lab is my ONLY memory from that semester. • The course was consistently more enjoyable than any course I've taken, on a day-to-day basis. • "If you are not writing 95% of the time, you are not writing enough..." hehehehehe… (Note: This is slightly misquoted by the respondent but is referencing a statement taken from our employer focus group to motivate students about communication skills.) • Working with the people in our group as a team, rather than a group of students working on a project • Working with the (faculty) facilitators on a different level than usual • It was a satisfying experience to see my group and other groups present a finished product after spending so many long hours in the lab together. That rewarding feeling is the best part of engineering. • It was different from other courses. • No one particular moment stands out, just a general sense of pride in what my team and I accomplished. • Going from the worst team to ever take the class to successful completion and presentation of the project • The long, late-night work sessions (and the chair races down the corridor!) • Walking into the 24-hour lab at 2 or 3 in the morning, seeing people working that early (or late?) while having
fun and bantering about anything and everything … in a couple hours, (the instructor) would walk by to say good morning. • I enjoyed the "tag team" approach by (the coinstructors). It was like taking the course twice, drawing on each prof's inputs. • It was one of the most difficult and most enjoyable classes I've had at MSU. There were times when I hated it and times when I loved it. One comment summarizes the strong relationship of ECE 482 to the educational program objectives from set B: "I left the class with a greater confidence in my non-technical skills. Teamwork, oral presentations, written reports, research, leadership, goal-setting, and multitasking, to name a few. When asked what set me apart from other engineers in my job interview, I answered with a few from that list. (On my job) I use a subset of the technical skills that I learned at MSU, but I use ALL of the non-technical skills. I still work on these skills, but ECE 482 gave me a great foundation on which to build."
FACULTY PERSPECTIVE Although faculty have not been surveyed formally regarding their views about ECE 482, several perspectives are evident. The developers of the course model point to teaming as a core element of the course and each student's learning experience. Teaching and learning have been most effective when teaming extends beyond the design project into the day-to-day classroom activities and student interactions; that is, when teaming translates to cooperative learning. When cooperative learning is used in the classroom, students communicate and build relationships, develop and improve their social skills, and gain an appreciation for the value of teaming. Teamwork on the design project is enhanced when cooperative learning is used in the classroom. Students are active and empowered in the course and in their own learning. Students feel a sense of belonging to and ownership of their team, their "company" (SET), and hence the course. There is an understanding of mutual goals of success for individuals, teams, and the course. Moreover, students learn by watching other teams. This includes teams of students as well as faculty and staff. With team-based activities in the classroom, students observe how other teams collaborate, make decisions, etc. The co-instructors also set an example for the students by virtue of their own interaction. On one hand, educators have acknowledged the cooperative learning underpinnings of the course. For example, the CFT model has been a focal point in a workshop for MSU faculty co-led by Karl Smith [[10]]. On the other hand, the ECE 482 course model is an enigma to many faculty and administrators who are not familiar with active learning
0-7803-6424-4/00/$10.00 © 2000 IEEE October 18 - 21, 2000 Kansas City, MO 30 th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F4C-18
Session F4C paradigms. There is, in effect, a pedagogical gap. Even faculty who advocate team-based capstone design may not understand the multifaceted features of the course that support student learning. For example, a number of questions arose in the transition to team facilitators. Most facilitators did not select the teaching assignment by their own choice, and there was little incentive/reward to engage in the course model. Facilitators were predisposed to assume a narrow, technical role with limited student evaluation and mentoring. They questionned the benefit of reviewing individual work of team members such as journals, and yet later in the term, questionned how to assess individual student performance separate from the team as a whole. In addition, most facilitators were impatient with the technical progress on the design projects, not recognizing the professional skills being learned by students during the first few weeks of the term -skills that would not only help students complete their technical tasks but also fulfill educational objectives. They questionned the time spent writing proposals and preparing presentations. Although a capstone design course is expected to require more resources than a typical course, a model that involves multiple faculty is viewed as expensive. The coordinator/facilitator management model represents an increase in faculty load allocated to the course compared to a traditional single-instructor model, since faculty instead of TAs are assigned the laboratory sections. However, under the co-instructor model, the faculty load is comparable with traditional capstone design courses in the department based on number of students enrolled. In the context of a particular implementation, the costs must be weighed against the benefits.
CONCLUSIONS The ECE 482 course model represents a step toward change in engineering education. Long-term use of the model and its relation to educational reform, however, remain to be seen. Wilson and Daviss identify the following features indicative of change in the classroom [[9],[13]]: cooperative learning; problem-based learning; electronic technologies; leveraging cognitive science; total quality learning, e.g., assessment; and faculty working collaboratively. The ECE 482 model has embodied these features. However, reform is contingent on faculty deciding to change the way they work with students. Three conditions are cited as essential to personal and organizational change. First, an attitude of experimentation, since change requires a trial-and-learn atmosphere. Second, common goals, because meaningful change requires everyone working together. And third, a collegial support network of faculty, students, and administrators; change is difficult and typically requires a group of colleagues who encourage one another. [[13]] In the end, both student and
faculty perspectives are critical to enhancing the capstone design experience.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Development of ECE 482 has been a collaborative effort with P. David Fisher.
REFERENCES [1] ABET Engineering Criteria 2000, http://www.abet.ba.md.us/EAC/eac2000.html. [2] Aldridge, M.D. and Lewis, P.M., “Multi-disciplinary Teams: How to Assess and Satisfy ABET Criteria,” Symposium on Best Assessment Processes in Engineering Education, Rose-Hulman, April 1997, http://www.eng.auburn.edu/center/twc. [3] Aronson E., The Jigsaw Classroom, Sage, 1978. [4] Computer Engineering Program , Michigan State University, http://www.egr.msu.edu/cpe. [5] ECE 482 Course Web Site, Michigan State University, http://www.egr.msu.edu/classes/ece482. [6] Fisher, P.D., “Employer Stakeholder Focus Group - A Case Study,” Symposium on Best Assessment Processes in Engineering Education, Rose-Hulman, April 1997, http://www.rosehulman.edu/Users/ groups/Assessment/Public/html/Symposium/ program.html. [7] Rover, D.T. and Fisher, P.D., “Cross-Functional Teaming in a Capstone Engineering Design Course,” Proc. of IEEE/ASEE 1997 Frontiers in Education Conference, November 1997. [8] Rover, D.T. and Fisher, P.D., “Student Self-Assessment in Upper Level Engineering Courses,” Proc. of 1998 IEEE/ASEE Frontiers in Education Conference, November 1998. [9] Smith, K.A., “What Does It Take to Change?, ” notes, 1999. [10] Smith, K.A. and Rover, D.T., “Designing Group Experiences that Work,” 9th annual MSU Lilly Teaching Seminars and Faculty Development Programs, Conversations about Active Teaching and Learning series, February 2000. [11] Smith, K.A. and Waller, A.A., “Cooperative Learning for New College Teachers,” New Paradigms for College Teaching, edited by Campbell, W.E. and Smith K.A., pp. 185-209, Interaction Book Co., 1997. [12] Ward, N., “Improving Technical Knowledge Through Study Groups,” Raytheon E-Systems, Software Development - East Conf., Wash., D.C., October 1997. [13] Wilson, K.G. and Daviss, B., Redesigning Education, Holt and Company, 1994.
0-7803-6424-4/00/$10.00 © 2000 IEEE October 18 - 21, 2000 Kansas City, MO 30 th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F4C-19
