standing on our heads how teaching engineering design looks different from a tbl perspective peter...
TRANSCRIPT
Standing on Our HeadsHow Teaching Engineering
Design Looks Different from a TBL Perspective
Peter OstafichukAntony Hodgson
University of British Columbia
Objectives
• To share our approach to TBL and our TBL experiences with you
• To outline two areas where we have faced challenges so:– you are aware of these potential problems– we can discuss/share ways to address these issues
“Standing on Our Heads”?
Value of InstructorInteraction
Knowledge
Skills
Judgment
Conventional TBL
Part 1: TBL in MECH 223
Part 1: TBL in MECH 223
• Some background on our course• Some of our approaches in TBL
– Team Formation– Assigned Readings– Learning Taxonomy – Module Structure– Group Dynamics Workshops
• Some feedback from students
Mech 2• New second year curriculum at UBC• 120 students• Fully integrated and team-taught
MECH 223 (4 weeks)
MECH 223 (3 weeks)
MECH 222
(7 weeks)
MECH 220 (4 weeks)
MECH 221 (10 weeks)
Te
rm 1
(S
ep
t-D
ec)
Te
rm 2
(Ja
n-A
pr)
MECH 223 (4 weeks)
MECH 223 (3 weeks)
MECH 222 (7 weeks)
MECH 220 (4 weeks)
MECH 221 (10 weeks)
MECH 223: Introduction to DesignMONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
8 00
8 30
9 00
9 30
10 00
10 30
11 00
11 30
12 00
12 30
13 00
13 30
14 00
14 30
15 00
15 30
MECH 223
Tutorial Tutorial Tutorial
Special EventTeam Meeting Team Meeting
Class
Computer Lab
Tech. Comm.
Design Lab
ClassClass Tech. Comm.
Tutorial
Construction Lab
Class
Class
ClassClass
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Team Formation• 20 teams of 5-6 formed by instructors• Heterogeneity maximized by distributing
– GPA and program streams– Myers-Briggs personality types– Male/Female balance– Machining, software, and communication abilities– Access to vehicle, laptop, and hand tools– Geographic area
• 5 teams together form a division; we encourage collaboration within divisions
Assigned Readings
• Readings of 30-60 pages per module• Drawn from various sources (10 different texts)• Each reading section is clearly identified as:
– Required: minimum expected reading; heavy emphasis on RAP quiz
– Recommended: additional reading/examples to help clarify concepts; light emphasis on RAP quiz
– Beneficial: supplementary readings to help with projects and professional development; minimal emphasis on RAP quiz
Learning Taxonomy
Category Behaviour Activity Evaluation
KnowledgeRecall,
recognize, understand
Readings, quizzes, tutorials
Multiple-choice,
short-answer
SkillsUse/apply knowledge
Tutorial and in-class
exercises
Short-answer,
simple tasks
JudgementSolve open-
ended problem
Discussions, assignments,
projects
“Engineering essay”
questions
Module Structure
Readings
RAP
Course Project
In-class activities
Out-of-class exercise
Debriefing
In-class
Out of class
Tutorial exercisesKnowledge
Skills
Judgment Repeated 6 times
Group Dynamics Workshops
• Two workshops (~3 hrs ea.) to raise awareness and give tools teams can use
• Workshop 1 – start of first half of course– Introduction to Myers-Briggs (MBTI)– Demonstrations, strengths/weaknesses of types– Problem solving model for teams using MBTI types
• Workshop 2 – start of second half of course– Feedback/reflection from first project– Simulated group activity with independent observer– Techniques for addressing group conflict
Student Feedback
• We use online surveys in our course to complement the formal evaluations
• Survey details:– Optional– Anonymous– Includes questions on TBL– Response rate 40-65%– Quantitative & qualitative
Preference for TBL vs Conventional
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
StrongTBL
Mild TBL
Neutral MildConven'l
StrongConven'l
Average
2005
2006
2007
Effectiveness of TBL
0 2 4 6 8 10
LearningContent
DevelopingTeam Skills
EnjoyingCourse
Average 2005 2006 2007
Student Feedback
• If readings are too long, some students stop doing them altogether
• There is a need for lectures (“mini-lectures”) – Students are not prepared to jump into exercises
based on readings alone– Many students want lectures to build confidence
with material
• With too many team activities, some students lost motivation to engage with team
Part 2: Our ‘Bleeding Edge’
Part 2: Our ‘Bleeding Edge’
Two major issues:• Class discussion after extended assignments• Peer feedback
Pattern:• Introduce issue (5 min)• Choose best approach (5 min)• Report choice and debrief (5 min)
Extended Assignment Example
Tutorials:
RAP CrashCourse
Readings
DesignChallenge
Constraint ID
ComponentFamiliarization
Prep forChallenge
TeamWork
PrinterDisassembly
TBL Theory• Engagement maximized
by making clear decision– Three S’s:
Same problem, Single answer, Simultaneous report
• Minimal writing– Team writing usually done
in isolation; not engaging
Design Challenge• Purpose: to apply skills learned
and engineering judgment to realistic design problem (lifting chair for MS sufferers)
FixedPivotsRollers
FullyLowered
FullyRaised Mechanism students
focus on
Design Challenge
• Design mechanism• Spec & source components
– use laptops in class
• Minimize price
• Time allowed: – 2.5 class hours– 2 tutorial hours– all over ~6 calendar days
Commitment Time• Students hand in 2-3 page
writeup:– Price ($)– Clear sketches– Parts list (supplier, price,
main reason for selection)– Rationale for main choices– Summary of sizing calcs
• Post-It Note on blackboard showing price – lowest on left
Defend Design• Encouraged to prepare 1
or 2 overheads• Team with lowest price
leads off• Critiques based on:
– Incompleteness– Faulty design
• Profs note good points; pass to TAs for marking– Few marks
What Went Well• Variety of activities
maintained interest• “Waves” built• Simultaneous reporting• Respectful listening to
peers
Issues• Idle students
– Watching others work– Low parallelism– Disproportionate contribution
• One speaker at a time– Energy level drops– Hard to check other teams’
work
• Quality varies year to year– Same elements– Different ‘buy-in’, effort
Proposed Changes
Decide which is best strategy:1. Divide class for reporting (groups of 30)
2. After simultaneous reporting, require exchange of reports before debate
3. Use ‘Google Docs’ for interactive debate
4. Increase mark value for assignment
5. Your suggestion?
Discussion
Peer Evaluation
• Mandatory weekly peer evaluations • Conducted using iPeer online evaluation tool (
http://ipeer.apsc.ubc.ca)• Quantitative and qualitative
– Distribute points between team members (100 pts per student on average)
– Each student must include written comment about each other student
• Team marks multiplied by average iPeer scores to determine students’ grades
Peer Evaluation ScheduleDescription Week Evaluation
Part 1
Project #1
1 -
2 Practice iPeer
3 iPeer 1
4 iPeer 2
Break5 iPeer 3
6-12 -
Part 2
Project #2
13 -
14 iPeer 4
15 iPeer 5
Exams 16 iPeer 6
Peer Evaluation: Details
• One week to complete each evaluation • After each evaluation, students receive:
– their average score – randomly-ordered anonymous comments from
team mates
• Penalty for late evaluations– -20% for up to 3 days late– 0 for over 3 days late
• Team marks (55% of course) multiplied by average evaluation score
Peer Evaluation: What We Like
• System gives students ongoing feedback– Chance to change behaviour early– Incentive to continually contribute to team
• Numerous evaluations for each student – Better indication of performance through term– Lots of data on student (confidence in ratings ↑)– Can identify trends
• Automated system– Easy for us to set up– Easy for students to use
Peer Evaluation: Problems
For a small subset of the teams, three common problems have come to our attention:
1. Peer evaluations used to punish team mates after disagreements (or reward friends)
2. Some students/teams afraid of “rocking the boat” (give equal scores to everyone, even when contributions were not equal)
3. Students hesitant to use peer evaluation to give effective feedback (fear of retribution)
Proposed Changes
Decide which is best strategy:1. Only count final evaluation
2. Do not release peer evaluations until the end of term
3. Do not release numerical peer evaluation scores (release comments)
4. Reduce peer evaluation impact on final grade
5. Your suggestion?
Discussion
Thank you!
Questions?
Other Problems• RAP questions: difficult to strike balance
• IF-AT team test – cheating
• Resistance to reading
MECH 223 Course Modules1: Design Process
– Project management– Generating ideas– Evaluating ideas
2: Performance Eval.– Estimation– Prototyping– Design tools
3: Mechanisms– Mechanical components– Material selection– Forming and shaping
4: Refinement– Specifications– Uncertainty analysis– Optimization
5: Implementation– Design for manufacturing– Ergonomics– Mitigating risk
6: Broader Context– Innovation – Intellectual property– Societal role of engineers
Outline
• Use of TBL in MECH 223– Knowledge-skills-judgment learning taxonomy– Our approach to TBL– Student feedback
• Challenges we have faced– Managing an effective class debriefing/discussion – Use of peer evaluation
• Discussion/QA