Finally Getting It

This post is the result of a conversation I had with my engineering supervisor a couple of weeks ago with regards to my thesis. One of his concerns is that for an engineering audience, I must make sure that it is "technically sound". Now at the time I was thinking "This is a more of a qualitative study, what does he mean by "technical"? Is he talking about analysis of data? Well the data I am analyzing is from interviews. Now, after running this over in my head, I think that I finally get what he was talking about. Engineering is a positivist field. Almost everything is fairly black and white. In order for this (or any other) qualitative study to gain acceptance, it must be firmly grounded in theory and practice. I must be sure that the analysis of the text follows a proven methodology and that the theories I am presenting are also backed up by other research. At least I am hoping this is what he meant!!??
I think that one of the hurdles that engineering education researchers must overcome is the fact that many of the theories have never been proven in the engineering context. While various approaches and methods have been tried with individual classes, there is very little to support the idea that these create better engineers. I have found little in the way of follow-up that says that students exposed to these alternative methods perform better in the work-force. An example is the new Olin College which is heavily based on hands-on, constructivist principles and teaching methodologies. But only recently have their graduates entered the work force and there as of yet, been little to show they are superior to graduates from other engineering schools. What I think needs to happen in order for engineering faculties to buy into these new methodologies is concrete proof that they do work. A long term effort must be made that follows students through a "new" curriculum and after to see how they do perform. Only then will engineering educators begin to see the value of the change.

Continuing Forward

Well, things still seem to be going in the direction I want...It's about time! I have focused my topic to look at the attitudes of engineering faculty with respect to teaching and learning and engineering education. Specifically I will be looking at how the attitudes and teaching strategies/methods of engineering faculty are affected by educationally focused faculty development. What effect does participation in educationally focused workshops, seminars, conferences, etc. have on engineering faculty's attitudes towards engineering education? The intended result is to show the positive(??) effects of faculty development and to make engineering faculty aware of these benefits. Also, to make engineering faculty aware of the importance of having a (strong?) foundation in education in order to become more effective teachers. Show that engineering education is about more than just lecturing and note-taking and that there are more effective teaching strategies available.

I guess that my biggest frustration with engineering education (especially here in Canada) seems to the complete disregard for engineering education! It seems that few engineering faculty care to take the time and effort required to understand what it is that they do - namely teach! And university administrators are little help because the main requirements for hiring, promotion, and tenure are all related to research, i.e. publications, grants, conference presentations and the like. Let's face it, research into engineering education does not bring in the "big bucks" or the high profile as other forms of research, so it is dis-regarded as unimportant. Industry continues to complain about a lack of many skills (communication, team-work, business, etc) in new graduates, but I think they have gotten so used to the fact that this is what they get that they simply incorporate their own training programs/procedures to deal with it. It's like "Ok, this is what we will get, so let's just deal with it" instead of pressuring universities to do something about it. Despite various reports calling for a change (Boyer, NAE) little seems to be being done in Canada. Is it because we are simply waiting to see how things turn out with our neighbour to the south? We seem to be stuck in this mode of following and not innovating in this area. Very frustrating...

Ok, I'll step off my soapbox now...

Another shift

Well, here we go again, but this time I think I have found the path. While it is not fully finalized yet, I have the basic framework and direction and it fits in with my goal of researching engineering education and faculty training/development. It has also prompted a interesting discussion with one of my faculty advisors. While I can't really post the exact commentary, it has been interesting. We both seem to have the same basic view of engineering education, but I think the approaches are a little different. As I said, interesting...

I am a little (OK, a lot) more satisfied with the direction I am heading now. As I said, it fits in more with my interest in engineering education and the belief that the systems needs to be changed. I also believe that faculty are the key to this change, but they must be given the knowledge in order to make informed decisions about which direction this change should take. I believe that if they can see the difference that a change in methodology in teaching can take, then they will better understand what needs to be done with the system as a whole. All faculty have an opinion about teaching and learning, but many don't have the slightest clue when it comes to trying to change. They may be the smartest person when it comes to electrical, or civel, or chemical engineering, but they don't have the slightest idea how to get there ideas across in a meaningful way.

Another major complaint is that of student motivation. This is a very difficult problem to deal with and can be very draining for faculty. But, I think that if faculty were given more knowledge and tools, then they would be better able to deal with this issue. At least they would have a better chance at connecting with a majority of students instead of the minority.

So then the questions becomes, if faculty are given the knowledge and tools, what do they do with them? Do they try to change and be innovative or do they simply say "That's nice" and then go back to what they were doing...focus on research, forget about effective teaching?

Keeping this up

Well, in the hopes of keeping up some consistency, I decided to write a short note today. There are two themes today, relevant to my research and one not.

With regards to my research, I have been looking at the assessment of work-placed learning in addition to the evaluation of an internship program. I'm not yet sure of the exact direction of this, but I think the two will be related. I am looking at a program evaluation with the emphasis on Outcomes and Impacts. As many have stated, the assessment of students in a work environment is very difficult. An article by Toohey and Ryan (1996) does a good job of looking at the literature of the time and determining the effectiveness of the methods used. I always find it interesting (and somewhat gratifying) when I can see the connections between the literature and environment I am looking at or in. The issue now is what has changed and what has not. After reviewing the article, I find distinct parallels between their descriptions and the program I am looking at. Another avenue for examination is assessment in ill-structured domains which is what most work environments are.

On the personal side:

GO HABS GO !!
Downloaded from www.canadiens.com

Reference

Toohey, S.;Ryan, G. (1996) Assessing the Practicum, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol.21, No.3, pp 215-228

One last thing...

Go Habs Go !!!!!

Another Change in Direction...

Let's step back a moment and see what has transpired over the past 3 years. It started with the decision to go back to school and get a Master's degree. The purpose for this was so that I could continue to teach at a post-secondary level. I had been teaching for 5 years and decided that this is what I wanted to do. Unfortunately due to the politics etc, this was only an option if I upgraded my education. I had previously tried doing this online while working but I felt that it was too much at once.
I made the decision to get my degree in Electrical Engineering because that is the field I had been teaching in. I soon realized however, that the skills I had relied so many years ago had left me. I understood the concepts and could explain how things worked in a practical way, but the skills needed to prove these things mathematically were lost to meet. After struggling through 2 semesters, I made the decision to join my EE with education in the form of Educational Technology. I "created" the first ever inter-disciplinary degree with Electrical Engineering and Educational Technology. My next year was spent taking courses related to instructional design and research methodologies which I passed with flying covers. I felt that I had found my niche.
The next step was to decide on a direction for my thesis. I had some ideas coming in, but the trick was to make it relevant to both engineering and educational technology. Looking back now, I am not really sure what pushed me into the area of work experience, but I decided to look at what skills students were lacking for industry and how they could get them. This brought me to the engineering internship program. The direction wasn't really clear, but I met with the office to see what was possible. Well, this changed things again as they offered me a chance to work part time in the office. I jumped at the chance since I felt that this would provide me with a unique insight that would boost my thesis topic. While I wasn't wrong, it has provided me with valuable information, I'm not really sure it it was the best decision. I ended up falling into the same trap that I had before where I was trying to focus on too many things at once. Consequently, this resulted in my "mental block" and my inability to progress to the level that I expected with my research.
Now I am faced with the reality of almost starting over. Here is where I have been and here is where I am at with my ideas:

• Engineering education - I feel that the education we are providing to our engineering undergraduates is lacking. I don't believe that it is delivering the skills and attributes that industry is looking for. I also don't feel that universities provide faculty with the support and resources they need to make teaching a priority. They are more concerned with research and the prestige (and money!) it brings and less concerned with delivering effective education to its students.
  
• Program Evaluation - This is a new area for me, but one I feel is long overdue. This could have two focuses, the internship program or the engineering program. Both I feel are important and relevant and I feel that both need to be explored further. The hesitation I have is in the scope of the project. This could become very big very quickly.

My interests have gone from engineering to instructional design to engineering education to assessment to evaluation.

Where do I go from here? Stay tuned...

A Change in Educational Priorities

I've been doing a lot of reading lately related to learning theories along with what and how we should be teaching our students. I've also been looking at what people (engineers specifically) do in their work. What has become very obvious is the fact that we really don't need the majority of what we learn in school after say grade 5 or 6 except in a specialized way. Now I don't know how this might work, but a redesign and re-emphasis of the entire system may be in order. Now, although my focus has been on post-secondary engineering education, I have seen and read enough to realize that the same problems exist throughout the educational system.
In a study being done in Australia, James Trevelyan and his group are looking at what it is that engineers actually do in their everyday work. What they have found is that very few (even new grads) spend a lot of time applying their "technical" knowledge. The majority of an engineer's time is spent dealing with and interacting with people. Whether this be with co-workers or clients or suppliers, a large percentage of their time is taken up with this task. So this begs the question, what is it that we are really teaching and how relevant is it to the real world?
Part of what got me started on this was the book Understanding by Design by Grant Wiggins. It talks about the idea of "backward design" but what triggered these thoughts was the idea around the "essential questions". These are questions that are designed to stimulate inquiry and create a directions for an area of study. As I started thinking about the essential questions for engineering, it got me thinking about the curriculum and what it is that engineers really learn and do. My conclusion is that much of what they learn, they don't use in any real sense. While engineers do need an understanding of the principles, it is more important for them to be able to synthesize and analyze the information in order to determine potential effects of their decision making. So, while a solid understanding of engineering principles is important, what may be more important is an understanding of how the parts fit in with the whole. It's all about context and change. Change the context and it is likely that the whole system will change. This is where the education system fails miserably, especially in engineering. Most engineering faculty are researchers and scientists. Very few are educators or even understand the process of education. They teach the way they were taught, with an eye on the material and little or no outside support. Outside of a few cookbook type problems that are regurgitated year after year, there is little or no effort or thought put into the application of the material. Rote learning and memorization are the order of the day.
My idea is that we start with the first 5 or 6 years and teach our children the basics of life. This includes basic math, reading, writing, etc. From there we work on the higher order functions like self-directed learning and problem-solving. Let the students effectively pick their course of study but do it in a way that allows them to build on the knowledge they have. While this may seem somewhat ad-hoc and difficult to manage, I believe that once the students see the value in what they are learning and realize that they are somewhat in control of their own learning, then they will become much more productive and willing students. By forcing them to sit quietly in class while a teacher rambles on about meaningless facts, we are only inviting the dislike that many students feel for school. Lets face it, other than basic math, reading, and writing, how many of us use what we learned (or even remember what we learned) in grade school? The majority of what we use everyday is what we have picked up later on as a requirement for our jobs. Everything else we have picked up because we wanted to. We had a desire to learn more about arts, history, education, or whatever so we became willing and eager students of the subject. This is when true learning takes place; when we have interest and passion about a subject.