Problem Solving and JIT Delivery of Skills In a First Year Engineering Technology Course

0
773

This paper reports on implementation of problem solving based instruction within a first year environmental engineering technology course. Class structure employs a combination of formal instruction, team-based problem solving, and just-in-time delivery of instructional content. Unlike other approaches to problem solving based instruction, the method suggested here employs a mix of traditional instruction, and on-going development of computer skills, in an organizational structure similar to that found in a small consulting firm. Course organization is facilitated by a scheme that provides a two hour class period and a three hour lab period each week. The class period provides the necessary time for student presentations of the previous week’s lab assignment and a brief introduction to the topic of study for the coming week. Assignments are presented to each team in the form of a memo to which are attached field data or drawings. Student teams must respond by memo, letter, or report within the time frame required. Results must be supported by computations, graphs, and other documentation. Three years of experience with the instructional format described above has shown a number of things useful in planning similar courses. First, course structure has a definite role in helping students to organize learning. Second, outside instructors provide motivation as well as instruction and should be an integral part of this type of teaching. Third, careful monitoring of team interaction is important to ensure that each team member both participates in and understands the solution. Finally, problem solving based instruction provides an excellent opportunity to develop in the student the confidence and pride fundamental to success both in college and in the workforce. Introduction The integration of lecture and laboratory exercises is an essential component of effective teaching. The laboratory environment provides a means for combining theoretical understanding with practical application. This format can be particularly effective in engineering technology courses where practical application of theoretical material is central to instruction. 1 Professor, Department of Industrial and Engineering Technology, Murray State University, Murray, KY 42071 2 Assistant Professor, Department of Industrial and Engineering Technology, Murray State University, Murray, KY 42071 2002 ASEE Southeast Section Conference 1 Apart from assisting in the learning process per se, laboratory exercises also function to introduce the student to the thought processes, analysis methods, and data presentation techniques used by engineering technologists. If an element of teamwork is built into the laboratory session, team members have the opportunity to function in much the same manner as they would on the job. Hence, it is possible to identify a socializing function for laboratory-based learning. During the past eight years, one of the authors (Kellie) has taught a basic environmental engineering technology course to first year students. The introduction of a laboratory component was tried in the second year in which the course was taught, and the format of the course gradually changed from a predominantly lecture-based course to a primarily laboratory-based learning experience employing just-in-time delivery of techniques needed to solve laboratory assignments. At the same time, much of the responsibility for learning has been shifted to the student. With the changes just noted, it was felt appropriate to review course structure and content and to address a number of questions felt to impact both the course itself and the student learning experience. Specifically, we investigated the following: (a) What role does a lecture component provide in the current instructional scheme? (b) How do students perceive the use of just-in-time delivery of instruction, particularly when guest instructors are employed? (c) How might the course be modified further to enhance the first-year learning experience? Previous Work The subject of the first-year learning experience has been addressed by a number of authors. Pendergrass, et al. (2001) describe the development at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth of an integrated first year program that they termed IMPULSE. The IMPULSE program employed integrated instruction in English, physics, calculus, chemistry, and engineering; used both active and cooperative learning methods; relied on block scheduling of student to maintain student grouping; and expedited learning by student and faculty teamwork. In addition, IMPULSE students had available to them a specially designed technology oriented classroom. In discussing course structure, Pendergrass, et al. relied on careful sequencing of topics in calculus to facilitate use of that subject in physics. The first chemistry course was revised to “keep student loads reasonable”, teaching assistants were used extensively, and IMPULSE students were even housed together to facilitate a sense of community. One point of particular interest to the authors of this paper was the use of the basic engineering course to teach Computer Aided Design (CAD) as a course component Comparison of the IMPULSE students with two control groups showed that the IMPULSE students earned more credits, attempted more credits, and earned more quality points than did the controls. In addition, the percentage of IMPULSE students taking final exams in physics, chemistry, and calculus were higher than control groups as were the exam scores earned by IMPULSE students. Turner (2001) discussed the use of project-based instruction to teach computing techniques at the U.S. Naval Academy. In his research, he notes that there appears to be a “performance penalty” as students attempted to integrate material from different courses that often appear to be independent areas of study. Turner (2001) used MATLAB as means to expedite learning while shifting emphasis from programming details, and employed a series of five different projects to replace the traditional 2002 ASEE Southeast Section Conference 2 instructional method formerly used in the course. Instruction in programming per se was shifted to a “just-in-time” format. In discussing reaction to the changed course format, Turner (2001) noted that students criticized the lack of a common text. Further, students had difficulty with the first assignment (as Turner noted, perhaps because it was the first), and lack of what were seen as “more realistic” problems. On the whole, Turner (2001) felt that the new format was a distinct improvement on traditional teaching of scientific computing. Whiteman and Nygren (2000) discuss the use of mathematical assistant software in instruction at the U.S. Military Academy. The use of such software allows for comparison between analytical results and experimental observations for predicting, refining, and designing solutions for engineering problems. This can directly impact standard, accepted methods of design and significantly benefit the overall learning process. Whiteman and Nygren (2000) note that a discrepancy appears to exist between methods employed in engineering practice and those taught in engineering education. While the use of mathematical assistant software in engineering practice has become the norm, the use of such in education has been less pronounced. Setting the premise for the incorporation of mathematical assistant software into the classroom, Whiteman and Nygren (2000) review three learning models. These include the Scientific Learning Cycle (based on work by Piaget), the Kolb Learning Cycle, and the Process Education learning model. Whiteman and Nygren (2000) note that each learning model includes an application and problem solving phase for which mathematical assistant software offers the capability to readily obtain results for many different problems. This shifts the focus from the mechanics of mathematics to other more uncertain aspects of problem solving. For example, students might run different solution scenarios based on a single mathematical model. Use of mathematical assistant software does not diminish the need for understanding of concepts and methodology. Reduced is the time required for tedious and complex calculations, allowing analysis of more complex problems and enhancing the relevance and motivation of the student. Whiteman and Nygren (2000) do note disadvantages to such software use, however, including reliance on trial and error problem solving rather than engineering analysis. They note that a balance may be achieved through testing which focuses on “critical thinking, problem formulations and interpretation of results, along with the ability to apply problem solving skills.” Wolf (2001) offers a discussion of engineering technology (ET) education and issues associated with defining curricula for ET programs. Based on his work for Boeing Corporation during a recent sabbatical, Wolf (2001) compares Boeing’s strategic response in manufacturing to that of current trends in education, and finds current education structures lacking. In particular, Wolf (2001) notes that “the cohort of students to whom the investment value [of an education] is paramount has been growing more rapidly than that of the so-called traditional students.” He describes this cohort as including transfer students, part-time students, and degree-completion students who he sees as being ill-served by the traditional four-year, full-time, day-school block. Indeed, Wolf (2001) describes the students with whom he works as having an average of 2.4 transcripts from other institutions at the time of admission to the ET program. Methods and Results Based on the foregoing work, the authors designed an evaluation of a single instructional module in a traditional fundamental environmental engineering technology course. Unlike the structured learning situation described by Pendergrass, et al. (2001), Murray State University makes