ECUE MEETING

1
E-CUE MEETING

• Monday, February 23, 2004

2
E-CUE AGENDA February 23, 2004Workload and
Learning Understanding the Issues in MIT
Engineering Education, Part 2

• Understanding and quantifying student perceptions
  of workload and learning
• Clarifying study goals
• Workload and learning study results from
  Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, and
  Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
• Making sense of data to date
• Discussion/ actions
• SoE engineering education website
• http//web.mit.edu/engineering/ecue
• Member suggestions to encourage faculty use

3
ECUE WORKLOAD STUDY WHY BOTHER? WHATS ECUES
ROLE?

• It started with an ECUE members simple question
• Why arent students going to lecture?
• Goal How can we improve the quality of MITs
  undergraduate engineering education by
  identifying factors that promote or hinder
  efficient learning for all?
• Workload perceptions is the issue! What factors
  make a student feel that
• Some work is a waste of time in terms of
  learning.
• Some work, even if done well, is not rewarded.
• These factors exist regardless of whether
  workload is high or low.
• As one student said (as part of this study)
  Its a badge of honor to work hard.

4
REVISED WORKLOAD SURVEY

• Additional questions on
• Work hours per week outside of class
• Expanded set factors that determine perceptions
  of workload
• Assessment preferences
• Teaching/ learning preferences
• Spending free time

5
STUDY RESULTS TO DATE REAL AND PERCEIVED
WORKLOAD IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL
ENGINEERING, AND EECS
(1) Sample includes juniors, seniors in
engineering. Only Mech eng showed significant
difference in juniors and seniors avg hours/week
outside of class juniors worked more hours on
average than seniors. Data breakdown available
from bamaasi_at_mit.edu.
6
WORKLOAD FACTORS-1
7
WORKLOAD FACTORS- 2
8
Problem sets- frequency and grading
9
Assessment of performance student preferences
10
Learning and Performance Student Perceptions

• Students differed markedly in their perceptions
  of how exams and problem set grades reflected
  their individual learning
• Some felt only exams were valid measures of their
  own performance
• Others felt that only psets were valid measures
• Key issues included test taking ability, fear of
  tests, time limits of tests, poorly written
  exams, difficulty of exam versus pset questions
• Bottom line Different types of learners need
  different forms of assessment to demonstrate
  performance
• Students can work very hard studying for exams or
  completing problem sets and feel, at the end,
  that their effort is not always rewarded
  appropriately
• Sense of lack of fairness and clarity in exam and
  pset writing also a factor in student perceptions

11
Reflection and learning student perceptions

• Students reported on how often they reviewed
  subject material during the term
• On average, most students reported only reviewing
  subject material before an upcoming exam 65
  mech eng respondents, 78 EECS 6-2 respondents
• On average, few students reported reviewing
  subject material before and during problem set
  completion 14 Mech eng respondents, 11 EECS
  6-2 respondents
• Student comment No time to review! Its on to
  the next assignment!
• When workload is lower, students agreed that they
  will spend more time reviewing material

12
What would you do given a lower academic workload?
13
THE IDEAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING LEARNING
EXPERIENCE STUDENT PERCEPTIONS

• 2.005/ 2.006 Thermo-fluids
• Many features in common with 6.004, and more
• Lecture and learning goal clarity
• Continuity in learning goals, concepts, books(!)
  between 2.005 and 2.006 theory and lab content
• One year of continuity helped student absorb
  and reinforce learning of complex
• Lectures presented concepts verbally and
  numerically
• Labs visually reinforced concepts with visual,
  hands on representations
• Though sometimes too much was due at one time,
  problem sets and lab write-ups were clearly
  connected
• Students were given many types of problems and
  examples to illustrate concepts. They were given
  many opportunities to try out problem solving in
  psets and labs.
• A design project that was not just an add-on,
  waste of time! You really had to design
  something!
• Engaged, approachable instructors made me want
  to work really hard. I felt that they really
  cared if I learned the material!

14
MOTIVATION, WORKLOAD

• Focus group students in Mech Eng, like EECS, were
  deeply committed to learning engineering. Many
  planned on working in or continuing education in
  engineering.
• This motivation led students to work many hours
  in learning theory, completing labs and design
  projects.
• Students felt that departments with many lab or
  design subjects were not appropriately balancing
  the workload of these subjects with other
  subjects.

15
Diversity and workload

• For students who were not as capable at
  absorbing knowledge at a high pace, and students
  who were not great test takers, there was a sense
  of frustration that though capable, the high
  workload sometimes worked against them.
• Some students, however, noted that, given the
  significant curricular flexibility in some
  departments, they could, once core subjects were
  complete, individually choose subject types and
  workload appropriate to their needs.

16
Relationship of student workload to curriculum
and assessment
The 2 factors shaping workload are curriculum and
assessment methods. Individual students react to
a given workload in different ways.
Curriculum (clarity of goals, content, teaching
methods, assignments, student/ faculty
interactions)
Individual student characteristics hands on
learner, risk taker, grade driven, knowledge
absorption, social, career goals
Student workload real and perceived
Assessment methods (types, frequency, performance
as reflection of learning)
17
How might we take into account individual
learning needs without and maintain the needed
high workload of engineering education?
Types and frequency of assessment are key psets
versus exams
Risk taker Not afraid of exams
Grade driven some students feel performance is
paramount- and realize that this can be at the
expense of learning
Reworking the issue of psets and copying to
ensure psets reflect individual performance
Individual student characteristics hands on
learner, risk taker, grade driven, knowledge
absorption, social, career goals
Knowledge absorption some students absorb new
knowledge and problems and slower pace they must
complete all problems (and more) to feel
comfortable with new material
Clarity of content and problem solving methods,
frequency of assignments in high pace classes
is crucial
18
Sometimes there can be too much of a good thing.
Design and labs, while the most motivating
learning experiences, are also the most time
consuming. Ensure that large group active
learning experiences are clear, efficient.
Balance these experiences with theory subjects
and needed ability to manipulate concepts, math,
equations
Hands on learner Realistically, everybody learns
more with visual, hands on learning
Individual student characteristics hands on
learner, risk taker, grade driven, learning
style, social, career goals
Instructors can engage class in material in both
lectures and assignment feedback.
Social preference for group work connection
with instructors
Career goals engineering or not research or
not motivated students learn by whatever means
available!
Motivated students work harder anyway engage
them in activities that illustrate relevance.
19
Next steps.

• Ultimate goal? develop a comprehensive teaching
  / learning model that identifies key factors for
  faculty/instructors and that is appropriate to
  MIT engineering students.

20
SoE education website

• http//web.mit.edu/engineering/ecue