Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC Engineering Classrooms Before and After Innovation Jeff Froyd, Texas A&M University

Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC

Engineering ClassroomsBefore and After Innovation

Jeff Froyd, Texas A&M [email protected]

David Cordes, University of [email protected]

Ron Roedel, Arizona State [email protected]


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)


Part 1: Introduction

• Team Formation ( 5 minutes)

• Team Discussion (5 minutes)

• Team Reports (10 minutes)

– Establish Basic Workshop Goals


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


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


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


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)


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


New Classroom Environments


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


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


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

Screen

CVLB 319: ENGR 112 Team LayoutSections 501 - 503

Screen

Windows Windows

Podium

Doors Doors

412

21

311

20

210

19

91

131417 16

24 23

8 7 6 51518

22


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


Alabama Classroom Layout

• Several classroom formats exist– All have computers at student desks, instructor

console, projection system– Primarily used for lower-division classes


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


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


RPI Classroom Layout

• Students face instructor during lecture– Away from computers

• Student away from instructor when using computers– Instructor can

see monitorseasily


Drexel Classroomshttp://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


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


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


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


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


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



• 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



• 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



• 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)



• 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 upper-

level 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



• 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)


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 potentialroadblocks before they occur


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 teamReport out


Classroom Utilization Issues

• Effective Classroom Utilization Issues– Faculty support and education and development– Scheduling– Monitoring & after-hours access– Maintenance & upgrade time availability



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?



List of Participants• Roxanne Jacoby, [email protected]

• Lorcan Folan, [email protected]

• San Aung, [email protected]

• Phillip Thompson, [email protected]

• John Carpinelli, [email protected]

• Laurie Sherrod, [email protected]

• Melanie Cooper, [email protected]

• Glenda Scales, [email protected]

• John Minor, [email protected]

• Anuj Chauhan, [email protected]

• Paul Fortier, [email protected]

• Robert Gustafson, [email protected]

• Raj Mutharasan, [email protected]

• Rob Linsenmeier, [email protected]

• Dyke Stiles, [email protected]

• Richard Weber, [email protected]

• Mesut Muslu, [email protected]

• Thomas Harris, [email protected]

• Kuei-wu Tsai, [email protected]

• Dave Edwards, [email protected]

• Brian Storey, [email protected]

• Derome Dunn, [email protected]

• Suku Sengupta, [email protected]

• Gayle Ermer, [email protected]

• Stephen Myers, [email protected]

• Babu Joseph, [email protected]

Documents

Share the Future II: A Working Conference, March 18-20, 2001, Clemson, SC Engineering Classrooms Before and After Innovation Jeff Froyd, Texas A&M University