C. Project Description
I. Results from Prior NSF Support
CCR-0096176
1/1/00-8/15/02 $399,267
PIs: Terri Fiez and Karti Mayaram
Developing modeling, simulation, and design approaches for reducing device noise,
substrate noise coupling, and supply noise coupling is critical for integrated
circuits that combine analog, digital and RF circuitry. This research explores
the noise in analog/digital/RF chips and seeks to understand the contributions
of each of these three noise sources within the context of voltage controlled
oscillators (VCOs). The VCO is a good platform for this study since it presents
one of the most challenging aspects of RF and mixed-signal designs. Low phase
noise VCO and low jitter ring oscillator designs are being investigated with
a focus on (1) detailed parasitic modeling of the tank circuit elements for
RF applications, (2) inclusion of noise due to the active elements, and (3)
coupling noise from the substrate and power supply. Simulation and design techniques
are developed to predict and reduce these noise sources. Many fabricated ring
oscillators have been measured to determine the noise contribution due to supply
coupling and substrate noise coupling [2,4]. An approach of optimizing the design
of the ring oscillator is developed and described in [2, 5].
A second aspect of this research is to develop efficient models for predicting substrate coupling in mixed-signal integrated circuits. The model is scalable with dimension and component spacing. It has been developed for heavily-doped substrates and it is currently being extended to lightly-doped substrates [1,3,6,7]. This model is the basis for a CAD tool that is being developed for pre-design floor planning and post layout verification in mixed analog/digital/RF integrated circuits.
[1] D. Ozis, K. Mayaram, and T. Fiez, "An Efficient Modeling Approach for Substrate Noise Coupling Analysis," ISCAS 2002, May 2002.
[2] N. Barton, D. Ozis, T. Fiez, and K. Mayaram, "Analysis of Jitter in Ring Oscillators Due to Deterministic Noise," ISCAS 2002, May 2002.
[3] D. Ozis, T. Fiez, and K. Mayaram, "A Comprehensive Geometry-Dependent Macromodel for Substrate Noise Coupling in Heavily Doped CMOS Processes," CICC 2002, pp. 497-500, May 2002.
[4] N. Barton, D. Ozis, T. Fiez, and K. Mayaram, "The Effect of Supply and Substrate Noise on Jitter in Ring Oscillators," CICC 2002, pp. 505-508, May 2002.
[5] Nathen Barton, M.S. Thesis: "Prediction of Phase Noise and Jitter in Ring Oscillators," March 2002.
[6] Dicle Ozis, M.S. Thesis: "An Efficient Modeling Approach for Substrate Noise Coupling Analysis with Multiple Contacts in Heavily Doped CMOS Processes," Aug. 2001.
[7] Aline Sadate, M.S. Thesis: "A Substrate Noise Coupling Model for Lightly Doped CMOS Processes," Dec. 2000.
II. Introduction
As our Nation proudly proclaims that we lead the world in the development and
utilization of new technologies, a growing proportion of our population has
inadequate preparation to fully participate in the technologically advanced
world of today [1]. If the United States is to maintain its leadership position
in the competitive global economy, effective education systems that promote
motivated learning, the ability to apply fundamental concepts in practice, and
the creative problem solving process are essential [2]. The National Academy
Press publication on transforming undergraduate education summarized the need
as [1]:
"…improving SME&T (science, math, engineering and technology) education, particularly at the undergraduate level, could be a critical means for closing the gap."
A key step to bridging this gap is to provide authentic engineering experiences for undergraduates as early as possible in their academic careers [1]. Additionally, these experiences must represent those practiced in the profession and continue throughout the four-year undergraduate program.
Efforts to promote systemic renewal of engineering education have primarily focused on two approaches. One approach enhances the first two years of engineering education [3]. Classes in math and physics are coordinated with introductory engineering offerings to enhance the integration of the math, science and engineering courses as well as promote communities of learners. The second approach is the modification of single courses within a curriculum. Many innovative course enhancements have been developed over the years that have resulted in increased or improved student learning [4-6].
At the NSF Engineering Education Innovators' Conference, Dr. Bordogna's keynote address identified the need to educate engineers that will be enablers to "wealth creation" rather than simply be a commodity on the global market [7]. He articulated that innovation skills are key:
"Engineers must be enabled to grasp the opportunities for innovation rather than simply contribute to enhancing productivity… Innovation, especially through engineering enterprise, is at the core of a healthy economy."
Additionally, he identified a major challenge with the existing structure of engineering education. With most curricula consisting of separate (sometimes seemingly disconnected) courses, graduates may find it difficult to make the connection between the various topics within the curriculum. As he described:
"…education appears to ignore the need for connections and for integration - which should be at the core of an engineering education."
Our approach to integrating the curriculum is to use a platform for learningTM [8]. Beginning in the freshman year, students build on the platform so that subject areas become connected and students have a context for their learning similar to what practicing engineers experience in their profession. As students take courses throughout the program, they apply their knowledge to this platform so that it becomes a representation of what they have learned and how the various topics they have learned are connected.
A key part of developing this curriculum is also enhancing our stakeholder-defined goals and outcomes. Surveying the industry, faculty, students and alumni, we have defined several important outcomes. Three of these are the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) outcomes required of all engineering programs: breadth, depth and professionalism. Additionally, our constituents have identified innovation, trouble-shooting, and community building as outcomes that current and future engineers must demonstrate [9,10]. The proposed curriculum will be designed to specifically enhance these outcomes and, as part of our evaluation, we will determine if and how much the platform for learning curriculum improves each of these outcomes.
III. Project Description
A. Introduction
Integrating the engineering curriculum and enhancing the innovation experiences
in the undergraduate programs at Oregon State University is an important aspect
of our strategy in the College of Engineering to achieve top-25 status. We are
2 years into a 10-year strategic plan (funded by the legislature and private
donations) that is focused on three goals [11]:
The commitment to educate "work ready" engineers is based on three strategies:
Thus, this effort to transform our engineering curriculum is endorsed and supported by the engineering leadership including the OSU President, the Engineering Dean and all the engineering department heads.
OSU's College of Engineering has seen very significant changes in recent years. Our current dean, Ronald Adams formerly a VP with Tektronix, was hired less then four years ago. Since his arrival, he has hired new department heads in all but Mechanical Engineering. The finalists for this position have just been interviewed and we will have a new department head in mechanical engineering by September. With a clear vision defined and changes in leadership, the faculty, staff and students are aligned behind the top 25 initiative. The dean has also worked with the industry, legislature and alumni to secure the necessary support through a financial investment. In the last biennium, this has resulted in $55 million in private donations and $25 million in a state-funded investment. Part of this funding will be used to construct a new engineering building that will house Electrical & Computer Engineering and Computer Science.
The people of the college are energized by the progress we have made so far and the opportunities ahead of us. For the first time in nearly a decade, the college is increasing its faculty size and the college is now the 23rd largest undergraduate engineering program in the nation. Additionally, the excitement for discovery through collaborative research endeavors has sparked. In the last two years, research expenditures have increased by 50% - most of which has come from efforts of several faculty from different departments working together. The college is also collaborating with the College of Business to create an entrepreneurial program for engineers. This will be further enhanced by an entrepreneurial residence that will be in one of the renovated historic buildings on campus.
The drastic amount of change surrounding the College of Engineering in the form of new faculty, new department heads, and a relatively new dean coupled with the changing nature of engineering has created a terrific environment for truly revolutionary change in the education of young engineers at Oregon State University.
B. Initiating Change
The effort funded by this proposal will be focused on transforming Electrical
and Computer Engineering (ECE) and Mechanical Engineering (ME). These are the
two largest undergraduate degree programs within the College of Engineering.
A significant effort is already underway in ECE and we hope to leverage this
progress to help ME move quickly to dramatic reform. Our long-term plan is to
help all other departments within the college make lasting and significant educational
reform. Before describing the fundamental changes we expect to make in these
programs, we first provide background on how change is occurring within ECE.
Graduate students and faculty from Math and Science Education are participating
in the ECE reform group. They are studying the process being used to make changes
and they are developing an understanding of what components are needed to transfer
this technology to other departments (either within our university or to other
universities). The first publication summarizing their findings will be submitted
in August 2002.
The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering began re-evaluating its curriculum and teaching effectiveness in 1999. The effort began very simply by asking how the program could be delivered much more effectively to the students. The first change involved targeting top faculty to lower division courses. One challenge with this is that often faculty view teaching large, lower division courses as a punishment rather than a privilege. To change this thinking, it was communicated to the faculty that the top faculty (very often they are also the best researchers) would have "ownership" of these key courses. Student evaluations of the faculty within ECE went from approximately 25% of the courses/faculty rated below 75% to typically 90% with better than 75%. Very quickly, the student attitude within the department took on a very positive outlook.
In parallel with this effort, the department began to evaluate ways to create compelling learning experiences especially in the lower division courses so that these could be built on later in the curriculum. One course the department focused in on was the introductory electrical and computer course. In this course, students learned about basic electronics and then constructed a Graymark robot to reinforce the fundamentals [6]. Students found working on "real hardware" exciting but that excitement quickly subsided when they realized that would be the end of the fun since there were no follow-up courses of this nature. This course increased the number of incoming freshmen and attracted top students, however, it didn't necessarily translate to more or better students entering the junior year.
Informally, a small group of faculty and instructors started talking about what could be done to bring engineering to life throughout the entire program. This discussion led to pilot course that would follow the freshmen orientation. In this pilot course, students could continue to build on their robot by learning more about basic electronics and adding whiskers to the robot. With the whiskers, the robot would backup, turn and move forward again. Fifty of the two hundred students signed up for this option. The feedback from the students was very positive.
The small group of faculty and instructors were then joined in discussion by a few graduate and undergraduate students (these were teaching assistants for the orientation class and the pilot class). Together they discussed what was learned and what the next steps should be. From this, they developed the idea of building on this platform throughout the four years. The idea would be to add layers to the robot as the students progressed through their program. These layers would represent the new knowledge they had acquired and also help to illustrate how what they had learned inter-related.
With this idea and an initial pilot completed, a few faculty approached Tektronix about supporting this innovative approach to curriculum reform. After developing the ideas further and identifying how this platform would be used to enhance fundamentals at each level in the ECE curriculum, Tektronix provided $500k over four years in seed funding to kick off this effort. With this funding, the ECE department engaged 5 undergraduates, one graduate student, and a post-doctoral researcher. Several faculty were committed to making this happen and invested significant amount of time.
This effort began last summer with a group of small group of ECE students and faculty. It has now expanded to include faculty and graduate students from Math and Science Education, one retired entrepreneur, a former section manager from HP, a program coordinator and a technician. Most of these participants are volunteers that believe in the vision and the potential impact of rethinking the entire curriculum.
The initial plan involved building on the platform for learning - currently a robot we refer to as TekBotsTM. Each student begins the freshman year in an orientation class where ECE fundamentals are presented in lecture and then brought to life as students apply these fundamentals to construct their individual robot or TekBot. The topics in the class are very closely aligned with what the students apply in the lab. Unlike the previous version of the class [6], topics are presented in class as they are applied in the lab. As students progress through their four-year program, they are exposed to more complex theoretical principles in ECE and add new capabilities to their TekBot. This connects the theory from one course to another and provides opportunities for applying the theory into practice.
In the junior year, students will experience how electromagnetics, signal processing and electronics are connected through the platform. By the end of the four-year program, students will have created customized, internet-controlled, wireless robots. Thus, this curriculum has forced the ECE reform group to rethink the content and order of all of the courses because instead of single point projects, the TekBot becomes the integration platform for learning and the platform for demonstrating the inter-relationship of courses.
Over the last year, the ECE reform group has thoroughly enjoyed working together. One side project developed by two of the freshmen on the team was a BeaverBot (OSU Beavers)! After developing a "cute" beaver body for the newly created hardware robot, another student programmed in the fight song and synchronized the BeaverBot movements to the music.
The weekly discussions often question why certain courses and topics are taken before or after other courses. One example of a course that will change significantly as part of this effort is the microprocessor course. In the current curriculum, students take it at the end of the junior year. However, when the platform for learning is used in the curriculum, it becomes clear that this course should be taken before the junior courses since topics such as signal processing and electronics will leverage the microprocessor capability on the robot. The ECE reform group always asks what concepts need to be taught first and then they evaluates if and how the TekBot can be used to enhance these courses.
A key part of developing this curriculum is also building on the stakeholder-defined goals and outcomes. The curriculum is being designed to specifically enhance these outcomes including breadth, depth, professionalism, trouble-shooting, innovation, and community building. The evaluation is discussed in more detail in a later section.
In the first year of this effort, the ECE reform group has implemented two courses in the new curriculum, piloted two junior courses and begun development on a sophomore course. From this experience, the group has gained an appreciation for the magnitude of the project. The two courses that have been implemented both have more than 200 students in the lecture and the labs. The second course is a digital logic design class. Some students in the course did not have the pre-requisite so accommodation had to be made for these students. Both of these courses will be revised over the summer to take into account improvements that were identified by the instructors and teaching assistants.
Additionally, the ECE reform group would also like to make the TekBots platform useful for other engineering departments. This summer, Mechanical Engineering and ECE will work together to modify the platform (and develop the corresponding labs) so that the ME orientation can begin to explore the platforms for learning approach. ECE's experience so far has reinforced the need to understand the core values and then get started because a few improvements cycles will be needed.
In addition to engineering classes using this platform, two art classes have adopted this platform. Last Spring Art 371 - Creative Art Projects used the TekBot as the basis for their course. A multimedia CD was developed by a student in the art class that is now used for recruiting students into ECE. Additionally, an art show in the fall showcased the other developments in this class including a T-shirt design, TekBot Maze, various wall art artifacts, among other things. This Spring, the art class is developing a laser show using the TekBots platform.
C. Planning Grant Approach
In this planning grant, we will develop comprehensive curriculum reform plans
for ECE and ME based on the platform for learning concept. Our hope is to make
this a college-wide effort once we have a better grasp on how and what changes
are needed for the two largest departments. The changes initiated in ECE have
already been described. So in this section, the unique attributes of ME will
be described. This section concludes with an the overall guiding objectives.
Over the past 20 years, the Mechanical Engineering program at Oregon State University has evolved relatively slowly with most curriculum changes consisting of fine-tuning. The result is a highly refined mechanical engineering curriculum that is largely similar in structure to the curriculum of 20 years ago. In the language of nonlinear optimization, our program has converged to a local maximum. The problem with this approach is that the topology of the problem is continuously changing so the optimal manner to operate a program today is different than the optimal manner to operate a program of 20 years ago. Moreover, unless sufficiently large changes in the program are introduced, the program will stay attracted to the same local maximum. Significant program improvements are only possible when daring program changes are investigated. With this in mind, our approach to developing a new mechanical engineering program is to start from a clean sheet of paper rather than developing ideas to modify the current mechanical engineering program. Both of the ME department head finalists specifically applied to OSU because of the opportunity to re-think the curriculum. Thus, we are confident that the new department head will not only support this effort but also help to lead it.
We will start this process by creating a mechanical engineering program renewal team consisting of a relatively small group of faculty, students and industry representatives. A larger advisory board will be created to test the ideas and will include individuals including: mechanical and electrical engineering faculty, faculty from other universities, leadership from the college of engineering, practicing mechanical engineers, engineering managers, students, and alumni. This diverse group of individuals will form the mechanical engineering program renewal team. We envision the mechanical engineering renewal team to be an inclusive group with some members involved in varying degrees. For faculty members with significant involvement in the renewal team, salary and/or course release support will be provided.
The team will first identify existing best practices used by other undergraduate mechanical engineering programs across the country including our current mechanical engineering program. Initial input from industry, alumni, other university faculty will be initially gathered from a written survey. Additionally, a sequence of focus groups/brainstorming sessions will be conducted to further identify elements of an excellent mechanical engineering program. After current best practices are identified, subsets of the renewal team will conduct brainstorming sessions to generate new mechanical engineering program concepts. The collection of ideas from identifying current best practices and new ideas will be distilled and distributed to the renewal team.
The mechanical engineering program renewal team will then begin the design stage of the process where the ideas generated above will be used to develop a new mechanical engineering program.
Renewal of the ECE and ME programs at Oregon State University will require the inspired ideas of many different groups of individuals. The efforts will be guided with the following key values.
1. Focus on Engineering Fundamentals
As we look toward the future, rapid discovery of new knowledge and rapid development of new technology point to a rapidly changing engineering environment. Constant change is pervasive. A program that emphasizes engineering fundamentals balanced with engineering applications provides a robust base for the engineer enabling him or her to more readily embrace new technologies and new applications in the workplace. In the curriculum reform groups, the topics that constitute the appropriate set of engineering fundamentals for each discipline must be addressed. While it will be straightforward to form a consensus on whether some topics are fundamental or not, other topics will not be so easy. In some cases, one person's idea of a fundamental engineering concept is another person's advanced application.We feel all students should demonstrate competency in their knowledge and application of engineering fundamentals. Graduates of an excellent engineering program must have a demonstrated mastery of engineering fundamentals. Thus, we will explore the idea of a capstone engineering fundamentals course or a competency test before graduation. The purpose of this course/test will be to verify their mastery of basic engineering fundamentals as well as their ability to apply these same concepts to engineering problems.
2. Focus on Platforms for Learning
Using the platform for learning, concepts introduced in the curriculum become real and are connected in much the same way they are in engineering practice. Currently, a robot platform is used as the platform for learning. However, there are other possible platforms that may have advantages depending on what is being emphasized. Initially, ECE and ME will explore using a robot platform. An industry and a community college focus group brought up the possible desire to change platforms at the junior year. One possibility may be to introduce a PDA type device where students can add sensors and computational capability.3. Focus on Industry Needs and Research Connections
Over the past 30 years, the electronics revolution has spawned the design of an incredible set of new products that integrate mechanical and electrical components and has given birth to the field of mechatronics. The integration of mechanical and electrical components to develop complex devices has become standard design practice and will increase in the future with further incorporation of small and rugged microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) powered by microtechnology based energy chemical systems (MECS). Thus, our new mechanical engineering program will prepare graduates in the field of mechatronics and expose our ECE students to the mechanical aspects of electrical-mechanical systems. A key aspect in developing a strong mechatronics curriculum is integration of specific curriculum items in mechanical, electrical, and computer engineering. Under support from this grant, the mechanical engineering department and the electrical and computer engineering department will work together toward this goal.The college of engineering currently has a strong research initiative in the area of MECS and the design of the new mechanical engineering program will leverage this effort to connect our instructional and research efforts. Other research strengths within the college will also be connected with the new curriculum.
4. Program Structure Based on Curriculum Threads
An engineering program as experienced by the student is a sequence of experiences that take the student from some starting point to a professional engineer. We envision an engineering program structure that is based on the idea that engineering education is a set of experiences encountered over the duration of the student's program of study. With this in mind, the overall construction of the program is based on defining a set of experiences the student will encounter during his or her program. We call experiences with a common connected theme "competency threads." The NSF planning grant will develop a detailed and complete set of competency threads for the new ME and ECE programs at Oregon State University. Example threads include: engineering fundamentals, science fundamentals, mechanical engineering topics, electrical engineering topics, computer engineering topics, engineering practice, computing, writing, troubleshooting, quality control, innovation, community building, etc.As the student moves through the ME and ECE programs, they simultaneously move through the curriculum threads. Each competency thread evolves the student from some basic capability at the input to the thread to an advanced capability at the output of the thread through a well throughout progression of experiences. The curriculum is then not just a set of courses that the student must take to graduate but is rather a set of desirable experiences that collectively, over the entire program of the student, produces a highly competent young engineer. This type of overriding program structure provides a natural way to assess specific program objectives in a detailed manner. This type of structure also suggests alternative and new curriculum elements that best bring the student through a thread. Rather than asking ourselves what new courses we need to offer to incorporate an emerging need, we can ask ourselves what is the best set of experiences we can provide to the student to bring him or her from some known initial capability to a stated final competency. For example, a component of satisfying the engineering practice thread might be serving as apprentice for local engineers and/or faculty at Oregon State University. By viewing the ME and ECE curriculum as a set of experiences as opposed to a set of courses, faculty are freed from having to pigeon hole desired curriculum elements into standard lecture or laboratory courses and able to employ the most sensibly methods to achieve a learning objective.
D. Education Environment
Innovations that characterize the educational elements of the Platforms for
Learning program are grounded in social learning theory [20, 22] and is informed
by psychological research in situated cognition [14, 23]. Under this view, learning
environments are organized to foster student learning by teaching them how to
participate in communities of engineering practice. Platforms for Learning structures
student learning within a community of professionals engaged in solving real
engineering problems. The platform promotes development of a community of students
and instructors involved in innovation and trouble shooting the robot and integrates
the student learning within a community of learners across the laboratory and
lecture.
Learning that is situated in real work within a community of learners support the development of students' personal identities as capable and confident learners and knowers [18, 20]. Within the community created by the TekBots environment students engage in formulating and evaluating questions, problems, conjectures, arguments, and explanations, as aspects of the social practices characteristic of professional engineers. Students learn to use a rich variety of social and material resources for learning that contribute to socially-organized problem-solving activities, as well as to engage in concentrated individual efforts.
The Platforms for Learning community also supports the development of students' personal identities as capable and confident learners and knowers. Group problem-solving, instructor modeling, and direct feedback from hands-on work with the platform complement and reinforce differences in patterns of social interaction and in expertise brought by a diversity of students. This feature of the Platforms for Learning makes the program supportive of women and minorities. The under-riding social learning theory makes the learning environment safe for conjecture, innovation, and participation by a broad group of students.
The curriculum uses sequences of learning activities that are organized with attention to students' progress in a variety of professional practices reasoning, cooperation, learning in depth as well as breadth, innovation, and trouble-shooting. Course and project design promotes participation in characteristic discourse in engineering and to use the representational systems and tools of engineering to focus on the distinctive values and limitations of these practices. Learning activities designed around the robot focus on problematic situations that are meaningful in terms of students' experience and in which concepts and engineering principles and content are embedded. Platforms for Learning provides substantial projects, long-term social learning environment that supports in-depth learning.
Innovations that characterize the Platform for Learning program are consistent with national reform in science and mathematics education K-16 [13, 12, 17, 9]. The program is a model of pedagogy and curriculum that could be adapted for use with prospective teachers from elementary through high school. Current implementation of national standards has focused on traditional content in science and mathematics to the exclusion of principles of technology and engineering design [13]. The design and development of the Platform for Learning program promotes a vision for new content that would more fully promote national standards in K-16 science and mathematics and present the challenging and creative field of engineering to a broader group of students. This extension would create more opportunities for women and minorities to become interested and prepared for entry into engineering programs.
E. Education Evaluation
The evaluation of the Platforms for Learning curriculum will be designed to
provide multi-faceted formative and summative information about the major goals
and outcomes of breadth, depth, professionalism, troubleshooting, community,
and innovation. The ECE and ME departments currently collect evaluation information
about student performance and achievement of key ABET learning outcomes on a
course-by-course basis. This evaluation information provides a rich baseline
against which to evaluate the effectiveness of the Platforms for Learning program.
Course syllabi and assessments document both learning outcomes and student opportunity
to learn that describe clear targets in the ECE and ME programs that are aligned
with the ABET organization.
In addition, the evaluation will include development of an "audit trail" whereby the developing knowledge and skill base of students can be followed from course to course throughout the program [12]. In this model, the curriculum development will, as part of the planning and modification process, include a concerted effort to produce artifacts from the course design and implementation phases that provides information about the effectiveness of the learning activities. Specific tasks that address the integrated knowledge that students acquire as they engage in enhancing the platform will be designed and integrated into the assessments into both laboratory and lecture courses. The activities and the performance of the students will become part of the evaluation record that develops during implementation. Student responses contribute directly to an on-going revision process of the course and as examples of student work. The information that is developed as a natural outcome of students responding to the tasks becomes a trail that the instructor, the evaluator, and the curriculum reform team can follow to determine effectiveness. Observation, brief description, and post-activity reflection by the instructor and reform team using electronic communication (list serve and e-mail) will also be included in the formative evaluation.
Finally, the major goals of the program will be the focus of systematic evaluation. In particular, instruments that measure innovation [25] and creativity [26] will be updated and adapted to the specific disciplinary needs of ECE and ME. Additional instruments will be adapted and qualitative evaluation procedures will be designed to evaluate the effect of the platforms for learning curriculum on the various stakeholders including faculty, students, and teaching assistants. As part of an interdisciplinary process, the evaluation of the curriculum will be folded into the graduate research design seminars in the Department of Science and Mathematics Education in both qualitative and quantitative methodology as practicum experiences for SMED doctoral students who benefit from engaging in a collaborative evaluation environment.
Evaluation thus far has examined the effectiveness of the learning platform that includes lab activities and the actual robot. It has focused on the areas of depth of knowledge, community, and innovation. Breadth of knowledge and troubleshooting were eliminated from this preliminary study because the operational definitions involved aspects of the Platforms for Learning curriculum that have not yet been developed.
As mentioned previously, Tom Thompson (Ph.D. student and High School Science & Technology Teacher in Philomath, OR) and Larry Flick from Math and Science Education attend and record the weekly ECE curriculum reform meetings. They are currently evaluating the effectiveness of the TekBots platform in the ECE 271 & 272 classes. The lecture (ECE 271) consists of both ECE and CS majors while only ECE students take the lab (ECE 272). Thus, for this class there is a control group that can be used for comparison. The evaluation will examine the academic performance (based on each program learning objective).
Evaluation has used survey and exam scores as data sources. Innovation and community will be evaluated on pre- and post-surveys administered to the students in the ECE 271 class. The survey consisted of three parts. Part 1 is only on the pre-survey. It consisted of questions about demographics. The questions were chosen to separate CS students who are not taking the lab from ECE students who are taking the lab. Some demographic questions are included to check for correlation with other factors that are not directly connected to the laboratory instruction. For example, students who have worked in engineering jobs may have higher scores on innovation because of their previous job experience rather than their participation in the TekBots curriculum.
Part 2 of the survey focused on community. There are thirteen Likert scale statements related to leadership and mentoring. Students were asked to report on the frequency that each statement has occurred over the previous term. Although all the questions on mentoring and leadership had a basis in surveys meant for teachers, they were reviewed by a group of 8 students and faculty from ECE. Questions were then modified based on the feedback so that they addressed issues specific to engineering and the TekBots project.
Part 3 of the survey focuses on innovation. It is evident from the written materials about innovation created by ECE and from discussions with faculty, the construct of innovation is different from the general construct of creativity that appears frequently in the literature. More specifically, ECE faculty consider innovation to be something that is specific to context so that it may be evident in one setting for an individual and not in another setting. This is consistent with the Kirton Adaptor-Innovator theory [25]. Kirton developed an instrument to measure innovation and has applied that instrument to a variety of groups including engineers. Sprecher [26] attempted to develop an operational definition of innovation and creativity in engineers. The work did not result in an instrument for measuring innovation, but it did provide a method for refining an operational definition for innovation. The process used by Sprecher was used for this project with the result being a set of questions chosen that allow participants in the evaluation to self-report on innovation.
Assessments of students' abilities to participate in communities of professional practice require that observations of that participation should be included in the assessments of students' learning [19]. Future evaluation protocols will include direct observation of lectures, recitations, and labs to assess substantive integration of content and cognitive goals of TekBots. In addition, individual interviews with instructors, graduate teaching assistants, and students will be conducted to assess consistency of program intent and delivery. Central to these protocols will be to answer the question, Do students recognize the intended goals and feel there is real opportunity to learn? Do graduate TA's share the same vision as faculty? Are faculty equally clear on how the goals should be implemented?
Consistent with the situated learning perspective are providing students with opportunities to participate in the formulation and conduct of assessment processes [19]. Student involvement in assessment practices facilitates students' development of mature judgment of and responsibility for their individual intellectual work and their contributions to the work of groups in which they participate. Evaluation methods will attempt to describe and document how closely students are integrated into the learning community.
F. Planning Grant Schedule
The one-year length of the grant will be dedicated to rethinking the ECE and
ME curriculums. A small group of faculty, students and industry people will
begin with a clean slate to determine the important technical threads within
the discipline. The 3 PI's will sit on both committees to be sure that there
is leverage between the two groups. The groups will spend 3 months exploring
what these core threads will be. In parallel with this, ECE and ME will work
together to introduce a new TekBot platform used by both ECE and ME freshmen.
To develop these labs and the necessary hardware will require several students
working on the project. We will seek additional funding for these students through
many sources available. A detailed plan for both ECE and ME will be developed
based on the needs in the 6 months following. The following 3 months will be
used to develop a plan for how changes will be made and developing proposals
for funding the activity.
G. Conclusion
The development of this program will involve creation of hardware for the TekBots
platform. This hardware will be made available to other universities through
a supplier. Some of the suppliers we are currently working with have already
expressed interest in packaging this hardware. The course materials will all
be available on the Internet. Additionally, we will also provide expert instruction
via video on key concepts on the web. For example, one of the top engineers
at Tektronix may be recorded describing how he/she created one of their leading
innovations.
The initial impact of this program is relatively high. The freshman and sophomore classes in ECE and ME typically have 200-250 and 100-150 students, respectively. Even the junior and senior courses have enrollments of more than 120 students in both disciplines. We see opportunities to expand the concept of a learning platform to other institutions as well as other disciplines. We are currently exploring opportunities with OSU's Computer Science department (which is planned to merge with ECE in the fall to create the School of EECS) to also use the platform for learning approach as a way to innovate their curriculum. Extending this even further, we have begun work with Chemical Engineering to explore the idea of a platform for learning based on a Chem Lab on a desktop.
With the platform for learning approach students will experience the connection between subject areas and, as a result, become graduates who are innovative in applying engineering fundamentals to a broad range of applications. In our College's strategic plan, we have set the goal of educating work-ready students. This hands-on approach enhances the educational experience by creating excitement among the students for what they are learning and how they will be able to immediately apply that knowledge when they enter the workforce.
|
School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 1148 Kelley Engineering Center |