FINAL REPORT of Activities on the for NTID’s and of Hearing … NTID... · 2012-02-15 · 1 FINAL...
Transcript of FINAL REPORT of Activities on the for NTID’s and of Hearing … NTID... · 2012-02-15 · 1 FINAL...
1
FINAL REPORT
Development of Experiential Activities on the Toyota Lab for NTID’s Deaf and Hard‐
of‐Hearing Student Population
Principal Investigators
Andres L. Carrano (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, COE) Wendy A. Dannels (Department of Engineering Studies, NTID) John Kaemmerlen (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, COE) Dino Lauria (Laury) (Department of Engineering Studies, NTID)
[1] SUMMARY
This proof‐of‐concept proposal seeks to lever collaboration between COE and NTID faculty to adapt, incorporate and deliver a 2‐part series of experiential activities into one course (with 8‐10 sections) for NTID’s associate degree programs in engineering studies. These activities, currently offered only to COE engineering students, utilize active and collaborative learning principles within the state‐of‐the‐art Toyota Production Systems Lab located in COE, to emphasize the skills of problem solving and continuous improvement, and team building. These activities are typically staged on a real assembly line for automotive components and take place during a “live” production run where the students perform as operators and systems analysts. According to industry feedback, hands‐on exposure to the material and experiences in the lab by the NTID student population will provide them with tools, skills and techniques that are valued by prospective employers. Additionally, it is expected that the delivery format, which heavily relies on active/collaborative learning approaches, will be particularly attractive to deaf and hard‐of‐hearing students. A video and pictures of the facility and some of the activities can be found in the lab website at: www.rit.edu/ToyotaLab (use windows media player).
[2] PROPOSAL
The target audience for this proposal was comprised of first year students entering the “Engineering Fundamentals” course (0813‐220) during the AY 2010‐2011. This course is offered by the Department of Engineering Studies in the National Technical Institute for the Deaf. This is a required course for deaf and hard of hearing students who will be pursuing their technical associated degrees in AT, CADT, CIMT, or NAMA. This course is offered every Fall and Winter in several sections (6‐8 sections with 8‐10 students each). Finally, there may be the occasional deaf and hard of hearing student from the NAPE (NTID Pre‐BACC program) who could also benefit this type of activity. The total number of students who will participate in the proposed activity falls in the range of 45‐60 students. This is the cumulative number for the academic year (among several sections in both Fall and Winter). This proposal aims to incorporate innovative lab experiences that will facilitate and enhance the delivery and retention of some of the current course objectives as well as of additional ones. The specific cognitive skills targeted by the proposed activity are knowledge, comprehension and application on Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom and Krathwohl, 1956) on the following topics:
A specific problem solving methodology (PDCA)
A continuous improvement framework (Toyota House)
Technical Communication (A3 proposal)
Teamwork
2
Systemic thinking The activities in the lab involve experiential approaches, that is, exposing the students to a situation on a real assembly line and asking them to perform. This delivery format, used for nearly 10 years in the Toyota lab, has proved to be extremely effective with engineering students. One of the reasons for this success is because this approach is soundly rooted in proven learning approaches of active learning and collaborative learning. Active learning involve activities that engage students into an activity, besides listening to a lecture and taking notes, that help them learn and apply course material. Essentially, active learning is a learn‐by‐doing approach that results in one of the highest percentages of knowledge retention (Dale, 1972). The “cone of learning” approach developed by Dale (1972) shows that the highest percentage of knowledge retention (measured after two weeks) is achieved when students participate in a hands‐on activity. Cooperative learning is a process whereby students interact with one another while they learn and apply course material. Some of the benefits of cooperative learning that have been realized include improved student‐faculty and student‐student interaction, higher information retention, improved teamwork, better development of interpersonal and communication skills, better attitude towards subject matter, and lower levels of anxiety (Felder and Brent, 1994). Johnson et al. (1991), found that one of the reasons for the higher retention achieved in cooperative learning approaches is due to the process of cognitive rehearsal, in which students, like professors, learn best when they teach the subject to one another. With proper adaptation of the material, it is expected that this delivery format will be particularly attractive to deaf and hard‐of‐hearing students. One of the team members on this proposal, Wendy Dannels, has had significant experience teaching lean concepts to these audiences (Department of Defense, 2010). Similar experiences delivered in engineering courses have helped students secure co‐op and permanent job opportunities. It is anticipated that students, enriched by this hands‐on experience on key skills, will become more attractive to prospect employers. Additionally, the active and collaborative learning approach is likely to foster an enhanced retention of knowledge on the participants.
[3] APPROACH
Consistent with the approach described in the grant proposal, the following process was followed: Summer 2009‐2010
The NTID investigators spent time in the Toyota lab becoming familiar with the environment. This includes familiarization with the lab equipment and procedures and practice‐runs of the lab experiences.
The four investigators met to develop consensus of the objectives of this effort, review contextual issues (e.g. student backgrounds), develop the specifics of the approach and further define the timeline.
The specific content to be delivered in the two labs and the lecture session was developed and adapted.
A rubric assessment tool was developed (see appendix I)
A detailed instructional plan was developed (see appendix II)
Fall 2010‐2011:
The specifics of the lab exercises to be used were presented to three NTID instructors in “train the
trainer” sessions, conducted in the lab.
The expectations of the graduate student lab assistants were communicated.
3
Delivery of first series of lab/lecture: The first delivery of the lab and lecture exercises occurred in fall quarter 2010‐1 to 4 sections of students. In the first week, there were lab sessions, then lecture sessions. Following the lab sessions, the ISE instructors and lab assistants met, compiled a set of observations and suggestions for improvement for the lab exercise in the 2nd week, and communicated those to the NTID instructors. Those were incorporated as appropriate into the 2nd lab exercises.
Administration of rubric and collection of qualitative feedback was completed.
Brainstorm and debrief meeting with instructors: At the end of fall quarter, the ISE instructors and NTID instructors held a debrief meeting to discuss positive and negative aspects of the process and results to date, and agreed to changes for the winter quarter “round 2”. Changes to content and delivery methods were made as appropriate (the changes were not significant as the student feedback overall was very positive as described below).
Winter 2010‐2011
Delivery of lab experiences to NTID students by a team of NTID/COE instructors: the second delivery occurred in the same sequence of lab, then lecture, then lab again, over 3 sessions. In this quarter, only one section of the class opened to the students.
The rubric was administered and qualitative feedback was collected.
Several meetings in which the instructors met to discuss survey results and share their observations and experiences.
The investigators reviewed the results from rubric assessment and compared them with previous quarter.
A short summary containing feedback and improvement suggestions was written.
Spring AY 2010‐2011
Instead of writing a journal article, two of the investigators wrote a follow‐up proposal, based on the results and experience gained through this PLIG effort, to the National Science Foundation. At the time of writing of this final report, the outcome of that process had still not been announced.
[4] RESULTS
Number of participants:
KGCOE instructors – 2 (A. Carrano and J. Kaemmerlen)
NTID instructors – 3 (W. Dannels – Co‐Pi), Ron Till and Marcus Holmes
Lab assistants – 3 (all KGCOE‐ISE graduate students)
NTID students – 32 (spread over 5 sections in two academic quarters)
Assessment of Impact: The grant proposal identified four major topics being focused on that needed to be evaluated via the rubric and/or follow‐up debriefing. The four areas and a summary of specific results are:
Application of a problem solving methodology (Plan‐do‐check‐act) – the students were shown and practiced a methodology called “A3 problem solving”
Application of a continuous improvement framework – the students were given the expectation of improving the performance of the production line from the initial results they obtained, so they had to develop ideas, get agreement in teams, try them, and evaluate the results while in the lab
4
Ability to work in teams – the lab exercises were all team based. The NTID instructors did a good job of making sure students tried different roles during the exercises, and that decision making was done by consensus as much as possible
Development of systems thinking skills – the lab assistant who supported the effort in the “2nd round” (winter quarter) commented that the students interacted with her (with the support of a sign language interpreter) during the continuous improvement portion of the lab much more than the groups had in fall quarter, which was a good improvement and produced better performance
Student survey results: In the proposal, it was stated that we would collect student feedback using a rubric assessment. We developed and used a 5 question survey in both quarters. In the second quarter, although the sample size was very small, survey responses averaged a 4.0 or better on a 1 to 5 scale.
The detailed student response for the three of the most meaningful questions is plotted in the next figures:
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Unsatisfactory Below Average Neutral Above Average Outstanding
How would you rate your experience in the Toyota lab?
Section E
Section D
Section C
Section B
Section A
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Poorly designed below average Neutral Above Average Outstanding
Which rating best describe the quality of the exercises?
Section E
Section D
Section C
Section B
Section A
5
As part of the effort, and based on a four‐page long article (A3 Medical Case), a 16‐minutes video clip being signed in American Sign Language was produced and captioned. Students were given the choice of watching the video or reading the material (1/3 read the case, 1/3 watched the video and 1/3 did both). This approach seemed to work well. Also, by providing the schedule of open lab hours, the TPS Lab gave NTID students the opportunity to work on their assignments independently went pretty well in the latter round. This is evidence that collaboration can be easily done between two colleges. Finally, the increased emphasis on safety substantially improved the learning experience for students in “2nd round”. (appendix V)
[5] CONCLUSIONS
This proposal showed the potential of experiential learning in deaf‐and‐hard‐of‐hearing students. The approach was well received and allowed for NTID students to experience engineering in a hands‐on manner. This increased their inclination to pursue a career in an engineering field. Also, this proposal fostered a cross‐college collaboration that would not have happened otherwise. The proposed activities currently take place on a given college (COE) and within courses that restrict participation to students outside engineering. However, the technically‐inclined NTID students greatly benefited from these experiences and would likely place themselves in a better position to secure a job or a co‐op. Toyota Motor Manufacturing & Engineering North America has expressed interest in attracting deaf and hard‐of‐hearing students who possess this type of knowledge and skills. More importantly, the success in this project served as a foundation to pursue external funding from the National Science Foundation's program Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. An NSF‐TUES proposal titled "Integration of experimental learning to develop problem solving skills in deaf and hard of hearing STEM students" was submitted on May 2011.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
No Some Neutral Yes Absolutely
Are you more encouraged to study engineering?
Section E
Section D
Section C
Section B
Section A
6
[6] REFERENCES
1. Bloom, B.S. and D.R. Krathwohl (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook 1, Cognitive Domain, Longmans, New York.
2. Dale, E. (1972). Audio‐Visual Methods in Teaching. 3rd Edition. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Austin, Texas, p. 235.
3. Felder, R.M., and R. Brent (1994). Cooperative learning in technical courses: Procedures, pitfalls, and payoffs. Report to the National Science Foundation (ERIC Doc. Reproduction Serv. No. ED 377038).
4. Johnson, D.W., R.T. Johnson and K.A. Smith (1991) Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom, 2nd Edition, Interaction Book Co., Edina, MN.
5. Department of Defense. “Performance Matters: Lean Training for Deaf Employees”. Lean Six Sigma program Office. January 2010. Page 10.
7
APPENDICES
8
APPENDIX I: Rubric Assessment Tool
9
APPENDIX II: Instructional Plan
10
11
12
APPENDIX III: Student survey data
13
14
15
APPENDIX IV: Faculty Evaluation Form
Faculty Observation Evaluation Form Date:______ Faculty:_____________
AREA ONE: Specific Problem Solving Methodology
Performance Criteria/Benchmark
Beginning 1 Developing 2 Accomplished 3 Exemplary 4
* Explain how the PDCA cycle works * Apply PDCA
Misidentify each letter of PDCA
Misinterpret one essential part of PDCA
Only minor PDCA information is lacking
Provide above average articulate thought ‐ explain PDCA perfectly
Student 1 ________ ________ ________ ________ Student 2 ________ ________ ________ ________ Student 3 ________ ________ ________ ________ Student 4 ________ ________ ________ ________ Student 5 ________ ________ ________ ________ Student 6 ________ ________ ________ ________ Student 7 ________ ________ ________ ________ Student 8 ________ ________ ________ ________ AREA TWO: Teamwork
Performance Criteria/Benchmark
Beginning 1 Developing 2 Accomplished 3 Exemplary 4
* Perform collaborative learning activities and share experience with others
One‐person show Less than half of team members participated
More than 3/4 of team members participated
Excellent team participation ‐ everyone contributes to the group effort
Team 1 ________ ________ ________ ________ Team 2 ________ ________ ________ ________ Team 3 ________ ________ ________ ________ Team 4 ________ ________ ________ ________
16
APPENDIX IV: Faculty Evaluation Form Data
17
APPENDIX V: Safety Documentation
Toyota Lab Safety Awareness Assignment
1. The first thing to do when you start the lab activity is: a. see if anyone else is there. b. put on safety glasses. c. ask if it is time to work. d. start the machine. 2. If you spill liquid on the lab floor, you should: a. step over it. b. use your safety glasses. c. wear heavy boots. d. tell the first responder (i.e. lab assistant) first and then clean it up. 3. Running in the lab is: a. OK, if you are alone. b. OK, if you are in a hurry. c. OK, never. d. OK, if the machines are off.
Use safety glasses Speed ≠ Quality ≠ Safety
Don’t launch pallets from the curve of the conveyor
Use ladder on Bays
Wear gloves when manipulating sharp objects
Don’t run!
Avoid placing head or hands under conveyor
TOYOTA PRODUCTION SYSTEMS LABSAFETY RULES
18
4. Eye protection is good because: a. it looks good. b. it helps you see in the dark. c. it can keep your face clean. d. it protects your eyes from foreign objects. 5. If you cut your finger, you should wait until the end of class to tell the instructor. a. True b. False 6. You should always lift heavy objects alone. a. True b. False Retrieved and modified per Ed S.’s sheet 12/01/10