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