Transcript Document

Engineering Classrooms
Before and After Innovation
Jeff Froyd, Texas A&M University
[email protected]
David Cordes, University of Alabama
[email protected]
Ron Roedel, Arizona State University
[email protected]
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Workshop Overview
• Introduction (25 min)
– What do you want to accomplish?
• What Other Institutions Have Done (20 min)
• Classroom Transformation (40 min)
– Where are we now?
– Where do you want to be?
• Other Issues and Considerations (30 min)
• Wrap-up (5 min)
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Part 1: Introduction
• Team Formation ( 5 minutes)
• Team Discussion (5 minutes)
• Team Reports (10 minutes)
– Establish Basic Workshop Goals
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Introduction: Team Formation
• Self-Organize into four-person groups
– Emphasize institutional and departmental
diversity
– No more than one institutional
representative per team
– Introduce yourselves (name & institution)
within the group
– Group representative will introduce group to
workshop
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Introduction: Team Discussion
• Within your group: discuss the following
questions among yourselves
– What do you mean by “technology in the
classroom”?
– Why do you want to use technology in the
classroom?
– How can you use technology in the classroom?
– What will students gain by using this technology?
– What should be the workshop objectives?
• Appoint a reporter to share group results
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Why use technology?
• Need something to enhance the classroom experience, add
value
• Have interactive environments (students can see things
virtually), expands classroom (communicates with students
outside classroom), research & information tool
• Integration of classroom materials & outside materials
(simulation), tap in and see what students are thinking (ask
question,see where they are)
• Engage students in critical thinking activities, use collaborative
learning technologies
• Getting students involved in an active way in their learning,
technology can aid overall learning experience, help retention
• Students learn differently (most stimulus is visual), if you don’t
use technology you might not be able to keep them motivated
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
What do you mean by tech.?
• 70% powerpoint & internet, simulation
• Wireless laptops
• Anything interactive (not powerpoint), instant access to
information
• Tools used to engage students and learning, still have
some campuses that are introducing powerpoint as a tool,
others have internet capabilities at each station
• Blurring of the definition of laboratory and lecture, use of
computing and peripherals, added materials (ball &
measuring tape, video tape physics experiment, take data
using peripherals, etc.)
• Software or tools that are dedicated for our
course/application (access to this)
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Part 2: What others have done
Short (20 minute) information dump
• Background Information
– one-page introduction to technology-enabled learning
• Representative Foundation Coalition efforts
–
–
–
–
–
Arizona State University
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Texas A&M University
University of Alabama
University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth
• Other initiatives
– Drexel’s EE laboratories
– RPI’s studio model
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
New Classroom Environments
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Arizona State University
• Classroom layout & equipment
– Designed for 80 students, uses tables
– Each table holds four students and two computers
– Instructor console with projection system
• Software & Applications
– Maple, Excel, video capture software, etc.
• Audience
– Freshman engineering students
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Rose-Hulman Institute of Tech
• Classroom layout & equipment
– Every student purchases a notebook computer as an
entering student (model is specified by institution)
– Over 20 classrooms have been equipped with network and
power connections to support notebook computers
• Software & Applications
– Maple for calculus and differential equations
– Working Model and Maple for dynamics
– Physics labs use notebooks for data acquisition and
analysis (Excel)
• Audience
– All engineering students and classes
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Texas A&M University
• Classroom layout & equipment
– Remodeled about 10 classrooms for first-year and sophomore
engineering courses
– One computer per two students
– Departments have constructed their own classrooms, more are planned
• Software & Applications
– Microsoft Office, Maple, AutoCAD, Engineering Equation Solver (EES),
Internet access
– EE has students design, simulate, construct, measure and compare
behavior of circuits. Class uses NI hardware and software.
• Audience
– Freshman and sophomore engineering students
– Specialized classes in specific disciplines
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
CVLB 319: ENGR 112 Team Layout
Sections 501 - 503
3
22
11
4
19
20
12
23
Windows
21
24
Windows
17
16
15
7
6
5
14
18
1
8
9
2
Doors
Screen
10
Doors
13
Screen
Podium
University of Alabama
• Classroom layout & equipment
– Remodeled four different classrooms
– Tables for four, one computer per two students
– Departments constructing their own classrooms
• Software & Applications
– Microsoft Office, compilers, FORTRAN, Maple
• Audience
– Freshman engineering students
– All students in introductory computing sequence
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Alabama Classroom Layout
• Several classroom formats exist
– All have computers at student desks, instructor
console, projection system
– Primarily used for lower-division classes
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth
• Classroom layout & equipment
– Remodeled three classrooms with tables that seat
four students and have two computers.
• Software & Applications
– Maple and Excel
– Based on Studio Physics model (RPI), students
perform physics and chemistry experiments in the
classroom, acquire, display and analyze data.
• Audience
– Freshman & sophomore engineering majors
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
RPI – Studio Classrooms
• Classroom layout & equipment
– Tables with two students (one computer)
– Student
• Using computer faces away from instructor
• Listens to lecture facing away from computer
• Philosophy
– Integrate classroom (lecture) with laboratory
(experiments, acquire/display/anayze data)
• Audience
– Mathematics, sciences, engineering students
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
RPI Classroom Layout
• Students face instructor during lecture
– Away from computers
• Student away from instructor when using
computers
– Instructor can
see monitors
easily
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Drexel Classrooms
http://www.educatorscorner.com/education/case_studies/drexel.shtml
• Laboratory layout & equipment
– Laboratory bench for two students (one computer)
– Suite of measurement equipment with computer control
– First-year and sophomore students
• Perform experiments and laboratory projects for three hours each
week
• Philosophy
– From the start students work with current equipment and
explore stimulating physical phenomena
• Audience
– Engineering students
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Other Innovations?
• Open forum with all participants
– What schools are doing innovative activities?
• Ohio State, $1million to renovate classrooms
• Each room holds 36 to 72 students
• 1200 entering engineering students each year
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Part 3: Transformation
• What is the status quo at your
institutions?
– Team discussion, then report to entire group
– 15 minutes
• Where do you want to be?
– Team discussion, then report to entire group
– 25 minutes
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
The Status Quo
• As a team, define the “typical”
engineering classroom at your
institutions
– Be as specific as possible
– Select a different reporter from last time
Did not do, lack of time
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Where do you want to be?
• As a team, list things you would like to be
able to do in your classes that you
currently cannot (what is your ideal
classroom for the Fall of 2002)?
– Describe how your new activities would
benefit students and their learning
– Describe the resources (besides $$$) that
would be required to realize your visions
– Select a different reporter from last time
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Ideal Classroom report #1
• Computer on every desk, instructor has ability to
bring up student’s monitor, “green kill button”
• Good content, don’t have the resources to
develop content on our own, need access to this
content
• Access to lab demonstration materials, instructor
can demonstrate
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Ideal Classroom report #2
• Computers in room for every student, display
video, access to network, linked to central server
to ensure uniformity, video-conferencing is
available
• Not a “testing” model, but a more “hands-on”
approach to learning – using teaming and
cooperative learning, video-conferencing to work
with different sites for enhanced learning
• Make groups dependent on each other
• Dynamic process in the classroom, not a static
situation
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Ideal Classroom report #3
• Integrate all the software through the web
(integrated into a single user interface)
• “Seamless”
• Faculty need support, should get more than
“brownie points” for doing this, need time to
learn and absorb this material, need
infrastructure to support faculty learning
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Ideal Classroom report #4
• Converting “old” facilities into the current
concept (increase size of tables, etc.)
• Lots of interest in wireless laptops
• Experimental classrooms that would allow testing
and development of new ideas (best of breed)
• Notion that we are moving faster (faculty), not
enough good materials in upper division to utilize
this technology (situation might be improving,
especially in certain areas)
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Ideal Classroom report #5
• Look for a system that has good flexibility to create the appropriate
learning environment (leads – Utah State model)
• Learning should be an enjoyable feature of the new technology
• Northwestern would like to see this new technology blend with upperlevel courses, give students a real tool for developing research skills
and give them tools needed for upper division. Would like to see a
system of connectivity between institutions (for dissemination)
• Virginia Tech wants the new lab to be “convenient” to the faculty,
walk in and set up the class any way you would like (flexibility)
• Fairfield wants faculty using this for authentic assessment
• Clemson is using “IMMEX” software (originally for medical schools),
want to look at how students do problem solving, if you design a
problem in this environment, the software tracks how the students
“solve” this problem – can see different types of problem solvers, can
monitor their progress and intervene in a timely manner as needed
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Ideal Classroom report #6
• Want to provide an environment for active,
collaborative learning that is technological
enhanced. Should allow students to be active
participants, and tailor environment to their use
• Would demand the existence of an IT staff, plus
an “education” staff, plus a “content” staff to
develop materials. Will cause staffing increases
on campus.
• Saw need for tools/resources in course design
• Saw need to get this information out to faculty (all
the faculty)
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Part 4: Other Critical Issues
• Classroom Design (10 minutes)
– Layout, cost, etc.
• Classroom Utilization (10 minutes)
– Classroom control, faculty training, etc.
• Administrative concerns (10 minutes)
– Hardware acquisitions, software licensing, etc.
Goal: Help you identify potential
roadblocks before they occur
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Classroom Design Issues
• Potential Classroom Design Issues
– Rooms available for renovation
– Physical layout considerations
– Equipment (cost, size, location, power, HV/AC)
– Time (takes more than one summer to build)
Identify “the top 5” issues from your team
Report out
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Classroom Utilization Issues
• Effective Classroom Utilization Issues
– Faculty support and education and development
– Scheduling
– Monitoring & after-hours access
– Maintenance & upgrade time availability
Identify “the top 5” issues from your team
Report out
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
Administrative Issues
• Potential factors to consider
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Institution’s computing policies
Software licensing (share electronic resources)
Purchase, replacement & upgrade costs
Support staffing
Clear plan for what they are doing with technology
Impact on T&P process
Assess the results (is better learning taking place?)
How to get financial support from State or outside sources?
Identify “the top 5” issues from your team
Report out
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC
List of Participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Roxanne Jacoby, [email protected]
•
Dyke Stiles, [email protected]
Lorcan Folan, [email protected]
•
Richard Weber, [email protected]
San Aung, [email protected]
•
Mesut Muslu, [email protected]
Phillip Thompson, [email protected]
•
Thomas Harris, [email protected]
John Carpinelli, [email protected]
•
Kuei-wu Tsai, [email protected]
Laurie Sherrod, [email protected]
•
Dave Edwards, [email protected]
Melanie Cooper, [email protected]
•
Brian Storey, [email protected]
Glenda Scales, [email protected]
•
Derome Dunn, [email protected]
John Minor, [email protected]
•
Suku Sengupta, [email protected]
Anuj Chauhan, [email protected]
•
Gayle Ermer, [email protected]
Paul Fortier, [email protected]
•
Stephen Myers, [email protected]
Robert Gustafson, [email protected]
•
Babu Joseph, [email protected]
Raj Mutharasan, [email protected]
Rob Linsenmeier, [email protected]
Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC