Presentation to the Faculty and Staff of the College of Engineering, Computer Science, and...
-
Upload
mark-sherman -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
2
Transcript of Presentation to the Faculty and Staff of the College of Engineering, Computer Science, and...
Presentation to the Faculty and Staff of the College of Engineering, Computer Science, and Technology
June 4, 2009
Brown Bag Meeting
College of Engineering, Computer Science, and Technology
Instructional Delivery Models Task Force: Progress Report
Formation of the task force (December 2008 Town Hall Meeting)
Context: conversion to semesters Dean called it the “watershed” approach
Use this opportunity to completely re-envision and reinvent our curriculum.
Goal Develop programs that are years ahead of their
time and the envy of our colleagues nationwide.
Formation of the task force (cont’d)
Factors to consider New Approaches to Teaching and Learning New Strategies for Student Success and Retention Expanded Use of Common Cores Sustainable Courses Adaptable/Nimble Programs Design and Project-Based Learning Writing Across the Curriculum Combined Ethics/Writing/Economics Course Current and Future Accreditation
Task force charge and membership
Task force charge: To look at innovative models and techniques for delivering an
up-to-date and exciting ECST curriculum to our students (regardless of the conversion issue)
Task force members: Don Maurizio – College (moderator) Russ Abbott – Computer Science Jai Hong – Technology Crist Khachikian – Civil Engineering Trinh Pham – Mechanical Engineering Nancy Warter-Perez – Electrical Engineering
Our Approach
The data What we learned from the data Strategies for effective pedagogy Where does the task force go from here?
Gathering the data
Three first-time freshman cohorts (2001-3) Thanks to the Student Support Services Staff
Data from Institutional Research All ECST students who took the following core
courses Fall 2004: CE/ME 201, 205, 208 CS 190, 201-3ME 323 MATH 206-9, 215; EE 204, CS 242 Physics 211-3
Recorded all grades for that quarter Tracked ≤ C- students back 2 years thru W09
Disclaimer
The data may be open to a number of interpretations. This presentation will focus primarily on the data without attempting to draw conclusions from it.
Focus on “what” and “how many”and not on the “why”
7
Question #1
What is the distribution between first-time incoming freshman and transfers in ECST?
Of these students, what % persist through the 1st year?
8
Freshman and transfer student data (average data 1998-2002)
9
46%
54%
ECSTn = 450
Freshmen Transfers
8%
81%
11%
ECSTn = 193
13%
77%
10%
ECSTn = 123
1st-time freshman transfer
Mid-Year dropouts
End in good standing
End in difficulty
Distribution of freshman and transfer students
1st year persistence
Question #2
On average, how long does it take an incoming freshman to graduate from our programs?
10
Cumulative Student Graduation Rates
Uni
v.
CE B
S
CS B
S
EE B
S
ME
BS
FPAT
BS
ITEC
BS
EGRE
BS
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
4yrs 5yrs 6yrs
1st T
ime
Fres
hman
Gra
duati
on R
ates 1,307
72
257
173
119 28
23
78
Information about students who took 7 years or more to graduate was not available
Question #3
On average, how many students repeat a course from the list below at least once? twice? three times?...
12
CE/ME 201, 205, 208 CS 190, 201-3, 242ME 323 MATH 206-9, 215EE 204 Physics 211-3
Overall course repeat rate
Repeat Cycle# of
students
% of previous repeating
% of original cohort
repeating Average # of grades/student
1st time taking 1708 0 0 3.4 ± 2.3*
Repeat 1 879 51% 51% 1.7 ± 1.0Repeat 2 399 45% 23% 1.3 ± 0.6Repeat 3 156 39% 9% 1.1 ± 0.3Repeat 4 64 41% 4% 1.09 ± 0.3Repeat 5 22 34% 1% 1.05 ± 0.2
13
. Excluding all W, WU, I, IC, and U data, the following table tries to represent the data to answer this question:* represents standard deviation value.
*represents standard deviation- Excluding all W, WU, I, IC, and U data
Question #4
What are student GPAs for when taking the courses: For the 1st time? Repeated for the 1st time? Repeated for the 2nd time? …
14
CE/ME 201, 205, 208 CS 190, 201-3ME 323 MATH 206-9, 215; EE 204, CS 242 Physics 211-3
GPA as a f(attempt)…
15
1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Attempts
GPA
1103 324 107 46
5644
More Information – student surveys
Conducted a student survey in a number of courses to address the following prompts: Which courses were difficult? Why? Which courses were enjoyable? Why? Level of exposure to research/design et cetera…Courses about which students were surveyed:
CE/ME 201, 205, 208, 303 EE 204, 244, 304, 332, 334, 336CS 201-3, 242, 312, Math 206-9, 215Phys 211-3
16
Survey Results (n = 79)
17
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
0 hours a week
0-10 hours a week
11-20 hours a week
21-30 hours a week
>30 hours a week
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Student profile
Student employment
Question #5
Which courses were ranked as the most difficult?
Courses included in survey: CE/ME 201, 205, 208, 303 EE 204, 244, 304, 332, 334, 336CS 201-3, 242, 312 Math 206-9, 215Phys 211-3
18
Difficulty Ratings of Courses
19
CE/ME 201CE/ME 205
Math 208CS 312
CE/ME 208Math 215Phys 213Phys 212
EE 336Phys 211
Math 207EE 332CS 203
Math 209EE 204CS 202EE 304
CE/ME 303EE 334CS 242
Math 206CS 201EE 244
Ver
y D
iffi
cult
Diffi
cult
Neu
tral
(a) Easy to hard: CS 201, 202, 203, 312
Math 206, 209, 207, 208
(b) Hard to easy: CE/ME 201, 205, 208, 303
Question #6
What did students say about why those courses were difficult?
20
The course material was very difficult
The material was confusing
The material was not presented well
There was too much material covered in the quarter
The instructor was a particularly difficult grader
The presentation style did not match my learning style
The professor’s expectations were unrealistic
I did not have enough time to study because of my personal obligations
I did not have enough time to study because of my work schedule
I did not put enough effort into learning the course material
I did not have enough time to study because I took too many classes
I was not adequately prepared
I’m used to a semester system; the quarter is too fast
I’ve been out of school for a long time and find it difficult to return
I did not have the prerequisites
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Reasons for marking “difficult”
21
Student not responsible
Student responsible
Question #7
Students also identified courses they particularly liked or learned the most from
What reasons did they give for these selections?
22
Why students like particular courses
23
I find the material interesting
I like the instructor’s style
The instructor is nice
The classroom environment was non-threatening so I could ask a lot of questions
The instructor encouraged discussion
The course included a lot of applications, which I like better than theory
The instructor provided a lot of help outside of the class
The reading material was relevant and high quality
The course included hands-on experiments
I know how to study better now
The instructor is easy
I use this material at work and, thus, am very familiar with the concepts
I have taken this course before either at CSULA or at another institution
The prerequisites really helped me better understand the material in this course
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
The material in the class interests me
The professor uses a lot of practical applications
I have time to study
I have a lot of opportunity to apply the material in a practical setting (e.g., homework, at work, et cetera)
The professor is available for help outside of the classroom
The professor uses in class projects to reinforce concepts
The professor uses term projects to reinforce concepts
I’m not working
The lecture course is combined with a laboratory course
My friend’s take the class with me
The professor’s approach is theoretical
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Student response to the prompt: I learn best when…
24
What we learned
Many students repeat many courses For those who repeat the average repeat rate was 3;
a few repeated 9-11 times (with Ws and other “non-grades”)
Repeating courses does not improve performance Graduation Rate: ~20% in 6 years Courses were ranked as difficult because 1) material
was difficult; 2) material was confusing; and 3) material wasn’t presented well
Students enjoy classes because 1) the topic interests them; and 2) they like the teaching style
25
Effective Pedagogy
Learning Styles (Modalities) Auditory – Learn by hearing Efficacy*
Visual – Learn by seeing Kinesthetic/Tactile – Learn by doing
Tell me and I forget. Show me and I remember. Involve me and I understand. (John Gay)
* Varies by individual
26
Effective Pedagogy
Active and Cooperative Learning Active Learning – Learning by doing Coop. Learning – Learning by working in teams
Project Based/Contextual Learning Students are given a problem to solve The problem contains the essential elements of
the subject (at that point in the program) The solution is tangible and open-ended
27
Modest modifications
In-class active learning/reflection In class reflection (e.g., minute paper, muddiest point, etc.) In class assessment New pedagogical technologies (e.g., clickers)
Broader modifications Connecting labs and recitations to lecture courses Group/team projects Integrate MEP model into programs
28
Bold Idea
Integrated Thematic approach – from freshman year to graduation Integrated and contextualized math and science
blocks Writing/communication, ethics, and
professionalism across the curriculum Design across the curriculum Project- and team-based learning
29
Theme approach 1. Overarching grand challenge: e.g., global warming, peak oil, …
Multiple “challenges” running simultaneously Freshman introduced to challenge Courses oriented toward the challenge
Common core courses Specialized higher-level
Senior/MS projects make an advance with respect to the challenge.
30
Theme approach 2. Ongoing enterprise that produces a product: e.g., high mileage car, academic software, virtually any open source software or engineering product, …
Students (at all levels) enter enterprise as interns Just-in-time learning: academic material is
learned in small increments as needed for the current task
Students advance in the enterprise as they progress through their college/graduate career
Senior/MS projects make a significant contribution to the enterprise’s product
31
Theme approach 3: Adoption of one or more “signature” technologies: e.g., environmental tech, robotics, bioinformatics, energy tech, social computing, urban engineering, green tech , computer gaming, transportation tech, modeling and simulation, educational tech, …
Courses oriented towards the technology. Technology must be broad enough to support this.
Senior/MS projects develop a significant product or result that uses or contributes to the technology.
Can be conceptualized as an alternative view of the “grand challenge” approach
32
Where do we go from here?
Preliminary report to the Dean in a few weeks Continue to develop and refine model
33