Board 271: Engineering Instruction Action Team (E-IAT): Improving Teaching Methods in Engineering

Robert A Baffour; Adel W. Al Weshah; Eliza A Banu; Ramana Pidaparti; Kun Yao; Barbara Norton McCord; Adam Wineland

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Baltimore , Maryland
Publication Date: June 25, 2023
Start Date: June 25, 2023
End Date: June 28, 2023
Conference Session: NSF Grantees Poster Session
Tagged Topic: NSF Grantees Poster Session
Page Count: 9
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--42729
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/42729
Download Count: 151

Dr. Al Weshah is a lecturer in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering in the College of Engineering at the University of Georgia. He is also affiliated with the Engineering Education Transformational Institute (EETI). His engineering educational research interests include remote labs and developing innovative instructional materials and techniques.

visit author page

biography

Eliza A Banu University of Georgia

visit author page

Dr. Eliza Banu has a Bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering from Polytechnic University of Bucharest and completed her Ph.D. program in Mechanical Engineering at Auburn University in 2014. She is serving at the editorial assistant for the Journal of S

visit author page

biography

Ramana Pidaparti University of Georgia

visit author page

Ramana Pidaparti, is currently a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at VCU. Dr. Pidaparti received his Ph.D. degree in Aeronautics & Astronautics from Purdue University, West Lafayette in 1989. In 2004, he joined the Virginia Commonwealth University as a Professor of Mechanical Engineering. He has taught previously at Purdue University campus in Indianapolis (IUPUI). He has taught several courses in design, mechanics of materials, optimization, and directed many interdisciplinary projects related to design. Dr. Pidaparti's research interests are in the broad areas of multi-disciplinary design, computational mechanics, nanotechnology, and related topics. Dr. Pidaparti has published over 250 technical papers in refereed journals and conference proceedings. Dr. Pidaparti received a Research Initiation Award from the National Science Foundation and the Young Investigator Award from the Whitaker Foundation. He is a member of Tau Beta Pi, Sigma Gamma Tau, and Who's Who societies. He is a member of professional societies including AIAA (Associate Fellow), AAAS (Fellow), ASME (Fellow), RAeS (Fellow), and ASEE (member). Dr. Pidaparti will move to University of Georgia in January 2014 as a professor of mechanical engineering.

visit author page

biography

Kun Yao University of Georgia

visit author page

Kun Yao received the B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in physical electronics from Peking University, Beijing, China, in 2002 and 2008, respectively. From 2008 to 2012, He worked at the University of New Orleans and the University of Georgia as a Postdoctoral Researcher. He joined the College of Engineering at the University of Georgia in 2012, working as a lecturer and cleanroom core facility manager.

visit author page

biography

Barbara Norton McCord P.E. University of Georgia

visit author page

All three degrees are in Mechanical Engineering. I have worked in various places in industry for about 10 years, plus some academic research. I have taught for twenty after that. I am currently a full-time lecturer at University of Georgia.

visit author page

author page

Adam Wineland University of Georgia

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Purpose: The University of Georgia Department and Leadership Teams for Action, or DeLTA, is an NSF project that aims to help students develop STEM knowledge and skills. The project brought together more than 50 University of Georgia faculty members in science, technology, engineering, and math to collaborate on a comprehensive research project that seeks to transform STEM education on campus and at research universities nationwide. To facilitates this process, seven faculty level Instructional Action Teams (IATs) were created, and Engineering was one of such teams. This paper presents the key activities and findings conducted under the two key projects by the engineering IAT. The purpose of the first project was to investigate how Test Blueprints enhance assessment for different engineering courses. The second project evaluated student self-assessment as a tool to enhance students learning experience. Methods: The Test Blueprint project involved Five engineering faculty who teach 5 independent courses. Various Test Blueprint models were reviewed, and each faculty developed a suitable Test Blueprint to evaluate assessment instruments they had used for their course prior to participating in the project. The Test Blueprints were strictly based on the learning outcomes of each participating course. The ABET criteria on student learning outcomes played a significant role in developing the outlines of the Test Blueprints for this study. The participating faculty compared their Test Blueprints to their previous exams and identify how adequately their prior course assessment have included the major student learning outcomes. The Blueprints were then used to develop future assessments. Nine faculty members were involved in the self-assessment study. After reviewing several self-assessment models, faculty decided to adopt models that suited the mode of their class. Assessment and analysis methods varied from faculty to faculty. However, the group developed a unified self-assessment questionnaire that was administered by all the participating faculty at the end of the study period. Results. The study on Test Blueprints provided a guided way of properly preparing assessment material to capture the intended learning outcomes of the course. Test Blueprints clearly showed across all courses that, faculty were missing some important learning outcomes when their assessments were not guided by a Test Blueprint. It was also evident that Test Blueprints varied significantly depending on the nature and the delivery mode of the course. On self-assessment, across the seven courses, the results of student perception on self-assessment were consistent. The items with the highest ranked means include doing self-assessment to improve on future assignments (5.52/7), using self-assessment to avoid mistakes made in previous assignments (5.91/7) and understanding the connection between course materials (5.97/7). The least ranked item is the willingness to do self-assessment without any incentive (3.81/7). The results show that self-assessment kept the students engaged in the course, but they will only self-assess if incentivized to do so. Implications of both interventions for enhancing learning and pedagogy are discussed.

Citation
Format

Baffour, R. A., & Al Weshah, A. W., & Banu, E. A., & Pidaparti, R., & Yao, K., & McCord, B. N., & Wineland, A. (2023, June), Board 271: Engineering Instruction Action Team (E-IAT): Improving Teaching Methods in Engineering Paper presented at 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Baltimore , Maryland. 10.18260/1-2--42729

TY - CPAPER
AB - Purpose: The University of Georgia Department and Leadership Teams for Action, or DeLTA, is an NSF project that aims to help students develop STEM knowledge and skills. The project brought together more than 50 University of Georgia faculty members in science, technology, engineering, and math to collaborate on a comprehensive research project that seeks to transform STEM education on campus and at research universities nationwide. To facilitates this process, seven faculty level Instructional Action Teams (IATs) were created, and Engineering was one of such teams. This paper presents the key activities and findings conducted under the two key projects by the engineering IAT. The purpose of the first project was to investigate how Test Blueprints enhance assessment for different engineering courses. The second project evaluated student self-assessment as a tool to enhance students learning experience.
Methods: The Test Blueprint project involved Five engineering faculty who teach 5 independent courses. Various Test Blueprint models were reviewed, and each faculty developed a suitable Test Blueprint to evaluate assessment instruments they had used for their course prior to participating in the project. The Test Blueprints were strictly based on the learning outcomes of each participating course. The ABET criteria on student learning outcomes played a significant role in developing the outlines of the Test Blueprints for this study. The participating faculty compared their Test Blueprints to their previous exams and identify how adequately their prior course assessment have included the major student learning outcomes. The Blueprints were then used to develop future assessments.
Nine faculty members were involved in the self-assessment study. After reviewing several self-assessment models, faculty decided to adopt models that suited the mode of their class. Assessment and analysis methods varied from faculty to faculty. However, the group developed a unified self-assessment questionnaire that was administered by all the participating faculty at the end of the study period.
Results. The study on Test Blueprints provided a guided way of properly preparing assessment material to capture the intended learning outcomes of the course. Test Blueprints clearly showed across all courses that, faculty were missing some important learning outcomes when their assessments were not guided by a Test Blueprint. It was also evident that Test Blueprints varied significantly depending on the nature and the delivery mode of the course. On self-assessment, across the seven courses, the results of student perception on self-assessment were consistent. The items with the highest ranked means include doing self-assessment to improve on future assignments (5.52/7), using self-assessment to avoid mistakes made in previous assignments (5.91/7) and understanding the connection between course materials (5.97/7). The least ranked item is the willingness to do self-assessment without any incentive (3.81/7). The results show that self-assessment kept the students engaged in the course, but they will only self-assess if incentivized to do so. Implications of both interventions for enhancing learning and pedagogy are discussed.

AU - Robert A Baffour
AU - Adel W. Al Weshah
AU - Eliza A Banu
AU - Ramana Pidaparti
AU - Kun Yao
AU - Barbara Norton McCord P.E.
AU - Adam Wineland
CY - Baltimore , Maryland
DA - 2023/06/25
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Board 271: Engineering Instruction Action Team (E-IAT): Improving Teaching Methods in Engineering
UR - https://peer.asee.org/42729
DO - 10.18260/1-2--42729
ER -