Figure 1: Student work from ME39C: A Multimedia Case of a Building Design
Sherry Hsi
Science & Mathematics Education Group
4533 Tolman Hall
University of California at Berkeley, CA 94720
hsi@garnet.berkeley.edu
Alice M. Agogino
Department of Mechanical Engineering
5136 Etcheverry Hall
University of California at Berkeley, CA 94720
aagogino@euler.berkeley.edu
Submitted for review for presentation at FIE'95 (IEEE/ASEE Frontiers in Engineering Education) Conference
This paper describes our experiences teaching a freshman design course ME39C using multimedia case studies of engineering design, multimedia tools, and the Internet. Students, in mixed-ability groups, learn design process and practice through reviewing engineering cases on CD-ROM, and using software tools to develop a multimedia case of their own. The curriculum, although having theoretical bases in education research, is highly governed by practical concerns such as rapidly changing technologies, different background experiences of students, and the grading of open-ended work. The course is also driven by new developments in technology and the changing demands of students. In three years, a five person seminar course has evolved into a laboratory of thirty, changing the nature of learning, teaching style, and quality of student work in both positive and negative ways. We describe this course as it progressed from an experimental course to an institutionalized one. Our experiences confirm our belief that curricula should be designed to promote scaffolded knowledge integration by encouraging students to become more autonomous learners while capitalizing on collaboration and social aspects of learning. Moreover, curricula should be continuously refined and updated to meet the needs of students and reflect advances in technological development toward better preparation in engineering.
The creation of this course was originally sponsored by Synthesis, an NSF Engineering Education Coalition, whose goals are to reform engineering curricula by improving students in the following areas: 1) multidisciplinary, open ended problem solving, 2) industry practice, 3) experimental design and hands-on work, 4) multimedia delivery and communication, and 5) collaboration and team work.
As instructors, we hoped to create an engineering course that: 1) promotes student interest in engineering by demonstrating industrial relevance and engineering practice through multimedia, 2) builds students' research, team work, and communication skills, and 3) engages students in creativity, design process, and active thinking. Moreover, we hoped to provide a small cooperative environment for first year students with a high teacher-to-student ratio contrary to mostly large lectures courses in the first two years.
The scaffolded knowledge integration framework guided the design of our instruction. A key feature of the scaffolded knowledge integration framework is to select goals that build on student intuitions, encourage knowledge integration, and foster life long learning as a continuous process. This approach advocates instruction and integration activities that build on students everyday experiences, encourage autonomous learning, and provide social supports as needed. Another feature of the SKI approach to learning emphasizes the diversity of methods and repertoire of strategies toward learning rather than assuming that there is a single right answer or a single best path for solving a problem.
While the SKI framework advocates that students learn to be independent and autonomous, this approach also recognizes that students need guidance to make thinking visible and explicit. Similar to cognitive apprenticeships, learners first observe the activity of more expert individuals who struggle with problems, demonstrate problem solving processes, and explain their thinking, before practicing this new knowledge in a similar setting [Brown, Collins, & Duguid].
Learning to learn from others or collaborative learning has shown positive results for solving problems, accomplishing work, and sharing ideas in a group. In a collaborative learning environment, peers can help scaffold understanding, contribute to the groups' expertise, and distribute responsibility for learning and remembering knowledge (Palinscar and Brown, 1984;). Peers are also more likely to help another peer in comprehension since they are having the same difficulties. In collaborative learning environments, instructors are not expected to know the "right" answer, nor serve as the sole authority on knowledge, but seen as a facilitator in the knowledge construction process.
We encouraged students to build on their design intuitions, prior experiences in computers, and interests in engineering, as well as provided opportunities for students to express their viewpoint. Students were told they did not need prior computer experience, only an interest in engineering or technology.
In the Fall of 1992 and 1993, the class initially attracted 5 and 7 students respectively. Instruction was more informal and similar to tutoring in groups. Students first viewed several multimedia cases including the Proprinter and Human Powered Vehicle Case, then worked on constructing parts of a an existing case on bicycle dissection. Student researched and collected their own content, then used tools such as HyperCard(TM) or Toolbook(TM), a video camera, and a flatbed scanner to incorporate them into a multimedia case. Grades were assigned based on participation, quality of work, and a final presentation given to faculty and friends.
Two years later, over 70 students wanted to enroll in our course. This might be reflection of the interests of students toward computers and multimedia or students knowing what they need to succeed as future engineering students. Students working in pairs or groups were responsible for learning electronic mail, building a home page on the World Wide Web, and designing a multimedia case of at least 10 screens (see example in Figure 1). (Note: A syllabus and samples of student work are available on the World Wide Web at URL: http://synthesis6.me.berkeley.edu/ME39C/
Larger course size introduced many challenges for instruction. The coordination of multimedia equipment such as cameras, CD-ROM drives, and computer failures were problematic. Multiple instructors and teaching assistants were recruited in an effort to maintain a high teacher-to-student ratio. One co-instructor was an upper division undergraduate student who wanted to enroll in the course, but was disappointed to find that it was limited to lower division students. Team teaching meant scheduling more planning meetings for instructors. A formal grading procedure was needed to assess student work. With multiple open-ended projects to assess at the end of the semester, alternative assessment methods had to be designed such as recruiting a panel of volunteers from multimedia industry, instructional designers, and engineering professionals to grade final presentations. Students were also responsible for writing self evaluations as well as rating peers in their group.
I think working in a small group environment where a professor is available is valuable for any student, especially freshman. [ME39] is a refreshing change when compared to [large freshman classes]. The biggest difference is [ME39] is fun. I feel working in this environment has given me a inquisitive outlook towards engineering that I have been able to take back to my other classes. My experiences in [ME39] have made me a better student in all my classes.
However, when the course grew to 30 students, students had these mixed comments where collaborative, scaffolded model of learning approaches seemed to work for some.
DISLIKES:
"Things seemed kind of disorganized."
"Too many students" "Each person gets less attention."
LIKES:
"Before, I thought that the instructors were too ambiguous, and that I was left on my own to work, but when I asked people to help me, it was all made clear".
"Working with different levels of users."
"Being able to use our own ideas".
"Didn't assume we were all computer prodigies."
"I like the freedom we have to explore..."
In general, students were excited about learning because of the technology and the freedom to explore an engineering topic of their choice. Students also felt the course provided valuable experience with technology not found elsewhere in the curricula and contributed to their engineering preparation. This student essay describing the qualities of a future engineer reflects her understanding of multifunctional teams, and the importance of working in multidisplinary teams. She "teamed" with an engineering student to produce the case study illustrated in Fig. 1.
The Future Engineer. . .
As a student outside the College of Engineering, my insight into the future of engineering is limited. I do know that an engineer of the future will have to be more people-oriented in design and be able to communicate well with others.
In a field where one must design and manufacture structures, machines, and systems, math and science are obviously stressed. While the function of a product or system plays a key role in the design, it should not be the sole purpose. Design should always have people in mind....As an architecture major, I envision myself working with engineers, particularly civil engineers. My job would be made easier with engineers that communicate (which is a two-way street) well. I hope engineers realize that structure and support are not the only components in a building. People and how they feel about a place, interact with others, and function within a setting must be considered.
With all the complexities and people involved in the design of a building (civil engineers and builders, rules and regulations of structures) a client's needs and wants may be lost in the shuffle; being the client's voice, the channel in which her or his needs are implemented is a major duty of an architect. I see the future engineers improving in what architects specialize: designing with people's needs as a forefront and communicating well with a variety of people.
In an essay assignment, one female student in the class writes about the value of early exposure to engineering:
Do I like Mechanical Engineering? Well, tell you the truth, I am not sure yet. The
classes I have taken at Berkeley so far have been basic science classes that do not
specifically talk about Mechanical Engineering. I only know that I like picking up
things or just looking at things around me and try to figure out how they work.
While admiring the innovative application of technologies and clever designs, I
also wonder if there are any disadvantages about it and ways to be more efficient.
This ME 39C seminar really interested me. Before taking this class, I had the
stereotypical impression that mechanical engineers only work at machine shops
dealing with hard, cold, and gigantic equipment. I never knew that the world now
is so different from how it was a few years ago. The exchange of information
today is instant and global. Multimedia has a very high potential for further
development, and this can be part of the Mechanical Engineering discipline!
Figure 1: Student work from ME39C: A Multimedia Case of a Building Design
In summary, an experimental engineering course based on the scaffolded knowledge integration framework was designed and institutionalized. Curricula emphasized student construction of understanding through developing a multimedia case, computer literacy, and teamwork. Scaling-up from a small collaborative computer-based learning environment to a class of thirty posed challenges. As the course grew in size, we strived to maintain the objectives of a friendly, cooperative environment. The use of graduate and upper division undergraduate student co-instructors allowed us to scale up the size of the class while still maintaining much of the intimate qualities of the smaller class.
Based on a range of assessment instruments, we found that students were learning teamwork skills and engineering practices, both through viewing case studies as well as through their own experiences in a hands-on environment. Case studies development was an excellent way to introduce students to engineering concepts and the design process.
Recommendations
The authors gratefully acknowledge our co-instructors for the Fall 1994 offering of the Multimedia Case Studies of Engineering Design course at UC Berkeley, Brandon Muramatsu and Jennifer Moriarty. All co-instructors provided mentoring and instruction. In addition, Brandon led the PC courseware instruction and Jennifer the HTML authoring.
References
1 Brown, J.S., Collins, A., and Duguid, P. "Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning," Educational Researcher, (18), 32-42, 1989
2 Brown, A. L. and Palinscar, A.S. Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, Learning, and Instruction (pp. 393-451). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. 1989
3 Carlstrom, C. M. "Development, Testing and Assessment of the Cyclone Grinder Multimedia Case Study," MS Project Report, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, Oct. 11, 1993.
4 Evans, J. "Multimedia Case Studies for Teaching Best Design Practices," MS Project Report, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, 1992
5 Hsi, S. and Agogino, A., "The Impact and Instructional Benefit of Using Multimedia Case Studies to Teach Engineering Design" Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3 (3/4), 351-376, 1994
6 Hsi, S. and Hoadley, C. M. "On-line Assessment of Curricula using the Multimedia Forum Kiosk" paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Researcher Association, San Francisco, April, 1995 (available from authors)
7 Harel, I., and Papert, S. "Software Design as a Learning Environment." Interactive Learning Environments; 1(1):1-32, 1990
9 Linn, M. C. "Designing Computer Environments for Engineering and Computer Science: The Scaffolded Knowledge Integration Framework, Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1995.