USNA Aerospace Curriculum Implementation

1
USNA Aerospace Curriculum Implementation

• CAPT Rob Niewoehner

2
Timeline

• Spring 03- joined CDIO
• Summer 03- Faculty proficiency survey
• Fall 03- Hurricane Isabel
• Spring 04
• Stakeholder Proficiency Survey
• Curriculum Benchmark

3
1. Principle that CDIO is the Context
Existing faculty TL competence
Existing learning spaces
Existing curriculum
Existing assessment evaluation
2. CDIO Syllabus survey and learning objectives
Survey of assessment and program evaluation
Faculty survey on teaching, learning and
assessment
Curriculum benchmarking
Lab/workshop space survey
Identify best practice and possible innovation
Identifying opportunities to improve TL
Design curricular assignment of CDIO topics
Design workshops and usage mode
Design assessment evaluation framework
10. Enhance faculty competence in teaching and
learning, and in assessment
9. Enhance faculty competence in personal,
interpersonal and system building
6. Workshop development
12. Program evaluation
3. Curricular Design
7. Authentic learning experiences
4. Introductory course
8. Active learning
11. Student assessment
5. Design-build courses
Program operation and student learning
4
Program Mission

• Provide the Navy and Marine Corps with
  engineering graduates capable of growing to fill
  engineering, management and leadership roles in
  the Navy, government and industry, maturing their
  fascination with Air and Space systems.

5
Program Vision

• Mission fulfilment requires a program throughout
  which Midshipmen Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate
  complex mission-effective aerospace systems in a
  modern team-based environment.

6
Obstacle to Implementation

• Tight Design Space
• 4 years (3 in engineering)
• Competing demands on Midshipman time
  (professional and athletic)
• Competing academic demands (Navigation,
  seamanship, law, etc.)
• CDIO Syllabus is overwhelming in scope and detail
  (swallowing a whale?)

7
Swallowing the whale

• Academics is not an isolated component of an USNA
  midshipmans experience.
• Professional and athletic training contribute to
  fulfillment many CDIO syllabus objectives
  (leadership, teamwork, personal attributes,
  ethics, global awareness)

8
Adapting the Syllabus

• Syllabus adapted to the institutional mission and
  culture
• MIT 4.2.3 Recognize entrepreneurial
  opportunities that can be addressed by
  technology
• USNA 4.2.3 Recognize naval mission opportunities
  that can be addressed by technology (Seapower
  21)

9
Adapting the Syllabus

• Syllabus adapted to the institutional mission and
  culture
• MIT 4.3.1
• Identify market needs and opportunities
• Elicit and interpret customer needs
• USNA 4.3.1
• Identify fleet needs and opportunities
• Identify the stakeholders/customers of naval
  aerospace systems

10
Proficiency Survey

• Conducted with faculty in June 03 using
  spreadsheet format from May mtg and protocol
  described in syllabus report (Medium Survey)
• Conducted with govt/industry stakeholders Spring
  04 using KTH-designed website (Full Survey)
• Neither survey used percentile questions

11
2.x-4.x Skills
12
Personal skills- 2.x.x
13
2.4.2 Perseverance IRM
14
Interpersonal skills- 3.x.x
Teams
Communications
15
System-build skills- 4.x.x
16
Syllabus refinement

• Industry/faculty results merged
• Learning objectives defined
• Items with wide variations between faculty and
  industry treated case-by-case

17
Proficiency Survey Instrument

• Consistent detail level mandatory (Full)
• Industry/work categories didnt apply to us
• Survey participant needs to have the five point
  scale constantly in view
• Level four detail required for clarity
• Available through help button
• I recommended participants print a syllabus for
  reference
• Data reduction requires only modest spreadsheet
  effort
• Level 2 data 2.x-4.x reports all 3s.

18
Benchmarking

• Datas in, but lots of work to do yet

19
Benchmarking Results

• Claim to introduce or teach all 2.x.x skills
• 3.x.x skills presume introduction in Core
• 4.x.x most chaotic
• Taught on one track, absent from other
• Utilized, but never taught or introduced
• Some never touched
• Faculty awareness of curriculum lower than
  expected

20
Benchmarking Process

• Vague terms (Introduced, Taught, Utilized).
  Needed a priori consensus among participants on
  definition of terms
• When course is taught by a team, the team should
  complete the survey together
• Results require a lot of discussion. We should
  have started with the discussion rather than the
  survey.

21
Benchmarking Web Instrument (input)

• Need to attempt one course in one sitting
• Instrument forces you to identify either prior
  introduction, or subsequent utilization. Why?
• Individual faculty may not know
• May appear before/after in multiple courses
• 80 of survey time reqd for weak data of limited
  use

22
Benchmarking Web Instrument (output)

• Too hard
• Data format too wide for Excel spreadsheet
• Requires hours of moving data rows/cells
• Poor instructions for data interpretation
• Dont understand the purpose/value of 80 of the
  data columns

23
Benchmarking Philosophy

• If assessment is focused on outcomes, why are we
  benchmarking inputs?
• If we have a suitable scale for expressing
  desired proficiency at the output, why are we
  using a different scale to benchmark?

24
Next Steps

• Reality Check- Are we really teaching to as many
  objectives as weve asserted?
• Core benchmark/validation
• Assignment of Syllabus items to courses
• Includes topical flow-down
• CDIO outcomes and targeted proficiencies will be
  listed in course policy statements at beginning
  of semester (goal)

25
1. Principle that CDIO is the Context
Existing faculty TL competence
Existing learning spaces
Existing curriculum
Existing assessment evaluation
2. CDIO Syllabus survey and learning objectives
Survey of assessment and program evaluation
Faculty survey on teaching, learning and
assessment
Curriculum benchmarking
Lab/workshop space survey
Identify best practice and possible innovation
Identifying opportunities to improve TL
Design curricular assignment of CDIO topics
Design workshops and usage mode
Design assessment evaluation framework
10. Enhance faculty competence in teaching and
learning, and in assessment
9. Enhance faculty competence in personal,
interpersonal and system building
6. Workshop development
12. Program evaluation
3. Curricular Design
7. Authentic learning experiences
4. Introductory course
8. Active learning
11. Student assessment
5. Design-build courses
Program operation and student learning
26
3.2.3 Written Communications Flow (4.2/4)
Core
Aero/Astro
Aero
Astro
Eng Rhetoric Literature
4/c
EA203/204
Elements of technical writing (proficiency 1-2)
3/c
Ethics
Western Civilization
Aero Structures
Wind Tunnels
Astro I
2/c
Scientific reporting (proficiency 2-3)
1/c
Flight Test
Air/Spacecraft Design
Space System Lab
Style, grammar, WP, Argumentation
Engineering report writing (proficiency 3-4)