Standing on Our Heads How Teaching Engineering Design Looks Different from a TBL Perspective Peter Ostafichuk Antony 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 Instructor Interaction Knowledge Skills Judgment Conventional TBL

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) Term 1 (Sept-Dec) Term 2 (Jan-Apr) MECH 223 (4 weeks) MECH 223 (3 weeks) MECH 222 (7 weeks) MECH 220 (4 weeks) MECH 221 (10 weeks)

MECH 223: Introduction to Design

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 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 CategoryBehaviourActivityEvaluation Knowledge Recall, recognize, understand Readings, quizzes, tutorials Multiple- choice, short-answer Skills Use/apply knowledge Tutorial and in-class exercises Short- answer, simple tasks Judgement Solve 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 exercises Knowledge 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

Effectiveness of TBL

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

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 Crash Course Readings Design Challenge Constraint ID Component Familiarization Prep for Challenge Team Work Printer Disassembly

TBL Theory Engagement maximized by making clear decision –Three Ss: 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) Fixed Pivots Rollers Fully Lowered Fully Raised 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 ( 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 Schedule DescriptionWeekEvaluation Part 1 Project #1 1- 2Practice iPeer 3iPeer 1 4iPeer 2 Break 5iPeer Part 2 Project # iPeer 4 15iPeer 5 Exams16iPeer 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 Modules 1: 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