Assessment Results Of A Senior Design Capstone Course

In Review of Educational Research, published by the National Institute for Science Education of Madison, Wisconsin, Springer, Stanne & Donovan report on a metaanalysis conducted during 1998-1999. In their paper entitled Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering and technology, they conclude that small-group learning promotes greater student achievement, increases retention in courses, and promotes favorable attitudes toward the course material. (Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999). Sharan & Sharan also stress the importance of cooperative learning methods incorporated into the traditional classroom and recommends group investigation. (Sharan & Sharan, 1994). Many educators believe that in order to lead in a postmodern world, students need flexibility and problem-solving skills more than they need to master any particular body of information (Saxe, 1988; Senge, 1990; Sims, 1995). In this short paper the authors describe how the above principles have been successfully utilized to conduct the Senior Design Capstone Course. This is a very short paper and mainly focuses on the mechanics of assessment. The authors also provide results of assessment documentation and offer suggestions for continuous quality improvement. Introduction Traditional methods of instruction may not be very resourceful in service learning courses pertaining to engineering disciplines. Student learning styles are completely different and instructors have to accommodate new and different learning strategies (Schmeck, 1988). The instructor responsible for Senior Design Capstone course is charged with the responsibility of creating an active learning environment. The instructor may have to utilize some innovative modern technology to design develop and present interactive lecture demonstrations (Sokoloff & Thornton, 1997). Herein the instructors should utilize Silberman’s guide. He offers several suggestions in his famous book, Active learning: 101 strategies to teach any subject (Silberman, 1996). Tom Angelo and Patricia Cross have provided a number of exhaustive and detailed methods as to how classroom assessment can be effectively carried out (Angelo and Cross 1993). Anthony Grasha (1990) has compared traditional versus naturalistic approaches to the assessment of learning styles and comments about the benefits they offer. Grasha’s 1996 book, Teaching with Style, offers an innovative and user-friendly guide to enhancing teaching and learning processes. Further, it provides a unique and comprehensive approach to helping college faculty in all disciplines enhance the quality of their teaching. New Paradigm Clifford Young and Laura Young of California State University, San Bernardino argue that a new paradigm for assessment must be constructed to measure the success of new kinds of educational practices. Their research involved comparing students' P ge 12291.2 responses to a selected course when taught in two different methods. Young and Young used two survey instruments, the Instruction Model-Learning Model Questionnaire (IMLMQ) and the Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness (SETE) and concluded that neither instrument effectively measured the kinds of learning that needs to be effectively promoting a learning paradigm (Young & Young, 1999). One must recognize the fact that assessment practices throughout the country are in a state of rapid transition. The main goal is to make a difference in the quality of student learning and to help the local civic community whenever appropriate (AAHE Assessment Forum, 1992). Furthermore, it is important to assess this difference and document it. Newer assessment practices are being developed and are intended to be more authentic, that is, to involve students in the actual or simulated performance of a task (Linn, Baker, & Dunbar, 1991). Susan Brookhart also discusses the implications of the Art and Science of Classroom Assessment and stresses that instructors should not fail to notice the missing part of pedagogy (Brookhart, 1999). However, it is very important to recognize the fact that assessing student learning in these Senior Design Capstone courses presents new problems for the instructor (Magill & Herden, 1995). It is no longer possible to equate the process of education with the product (Barr & Tagg, 1995) and thus to assess learning by giving multiple-choice tests on content. Students wonder whether they are learning anything that actually will serve them in the workplace. It is well known that there is a need to document the successful nature and effectiveness of outcome assessment. Need and Necessity The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) mandate and require a Senior Design Capstone course as a part of the four-year Engineering or Engineering Technology curriculum. The regional campuses of Miami University have been offering Associate Degree Programs in Mechanical and Electrical disciplines for a long time. Over the last decade, the decision was made to offer four-year engineering technology programs in electromechanical as well as mechanical disciplines. As a result, the Department of Engineering Technology had to design and develop an yearlong four credit hour, two-semester course entitled ENT 497498. This was accomplished in 1996, and was designed to conform with the requirements of ABET. (Narayanan, a, b, c, d, e). Later, the Liberal Education Council of Miami University recognized this sequence as an approved Miami University Capstone (MPC) Experience. The actual Miami University Catalog description of the newly designed course is given below: Miami University Catalog Course Description MPC 497-498 Senior Design Project (2, 2): Student teams conduct major open-ended research and design projects. Elements of the design process including establishment of objectives, synthesis, analysis, and evaluation are integral parts. Real-world constraints such as economical and societal factors, marketability, ergonomics, safety, aesthetics, and ethics are also integral parts. P ge 12291.3 497: feasibility studies performed; 498: implementation, testing, and production of design. Includes guest lecturers, team presentations, team building sessions, team meetings, and guided discussions relating to design. The course consists of continuous interaction with faculty and outside professionals. Prerequisite for this course are: senior standing in engineering technology or permission of instructor. The Development Phase The first 2-credit hour course, ENT 497 is normally offered during the fall semester and mainly focuses on exploring various possibilities that may be available to the student group. New horizons and different venues may offer challenging opportunities for the Senior Design Project students. In addition to conducting the necessary feasibility studies, the students are also required to effectively participate in a set of guest lectures and discussions that mainly focus on nine important aspects. Effective participation includes successful completion of relevant homework assignments and submission of appropriate research report. (Narayanan, 1994-2004). The final 2-credit hour course, that follows ENT 497 is ENT 498, and is normally offered during the spring semester. This course is mainly devoted to completing the chosen project successfully. It primarily focuses on design, development, fabrication, testing, and production of a prototype design. In other cases it may devoted to the actual implementation and execution of the project. Alexander Astin, Eyler & Giles, Honnet & Poulsen, and several other researchers have indicated that service to a community adds value to the learner’s educational objectives and accomplishments. (Astin, 1982, 1993, 1996, 1999; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Honnet & Poulsen, 1989). Furthermore, it is quite apparent that students learn best when they are provided with an opportunity to utilize their knowledge to help a select community. Some student groups may choose this track. They may take up a Senior Design Project that is oriented towards helping a community project or a high school robotics competition. Regardless, it will be oriented towards Engineering and Applied Engineering Technology (Johnson and Johnson, 1981). For example, the community project may involve building a small bridge across a creek. The success of the project is evaluated three-fold. Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, Appendix D and Appendix E indicate how the project is graded, assessed and evaluated. Evaluation The first stage consists of a self-evaluation in the form of a reflective essay. Each student member of the group is required to prepare and submit a separate, individual, 4 to 5-page write-up explaining his or her experience over the four credit hour course. The student members are expected to identify their contributions as well as comments on the contribution of fellow members of the particular group in question (Edgerton, Hutchings, & Quinlan, 1991; Forrest, 1990; P ge 12291.4 Cerbin, 1994). They are also expected to discuss merits and demerits of the project in additions to strengths and weaknesses of the team members (Cambridge and Williams, 1998). This is of course evaluated by the instructor and contributes towards the overall grade for the course (Nelson, 1989, 1991 November, Perry, 1970, 1981, 1984). The second stage consists of external evaluations. Several different questionnaires have been generated and utilized to obtain feedback from external reviewers and judges on a variety of aspects of the Senior Design Project (Appendix B, C, D & E). Their comments are again consolidated and tabulated. These may be recorded, reviewed, evaluated, graded or assessed. (Likert 1932). These evaluations are based on a review of the Project Design Notebook, Course Portfolio, Oral presentations, and project display. This also will be graded and subsequently contribute towards the students overall grade for the course. Finally,