Expanded Advice from Coordinators of Large-enrollment First-year Engineering Courses

This paper expands upon the coordination experiences and best practices of faculty coordinators within the Department of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech, some of whom have been managing large enrollment introductory engineering courses for several years1. Since 2012, enrollment has increased from 1200+ to 1700+ students. In fall 2013, the courses underwent a significant change in curriculum and the format of the delivery to students. New challenges for coordination arose due to increasing enrollment, technologyrelated modifications, significant alterations to the curriculum, and availability of lab resources for prototyping and testing. Also, the department piloted a way to increase instructor autonomy while considering the role of coordination. This paper addresses some of the basic issues that those teaching common courses have such as fairness across sections and orientation of new instructional staff 2; the focus is on experiences and practices that address more recent changes to the course. The authors aim to describe strategies to enhance the quality and efficiency of the management of curricular content, training of personnel, and overall logistics that other course coordinators may find useful. Introduction The term course coordinator may have different meanings in the literature. Some authors use it to describe a person who is in charge of a course that may or may not include multiple sections of the course. Others use the term to describe a person who oversees a course that is taught modularly by multiple faculty. To some, the terms appears to mean anyone who develops curriculum for a program or course. We will use course coordinator to describe someone who in charge of a team of instructors teaching the same common material across multiple sections. Our literature review found limited supporting information specific to course coordination. A few publications focus on course coordination in engineering courses 3, 4 and nonengineering courses 5, 6,7 and incentives for coordination 8. Ladyshewsky, et. al, acknowledge the stressful demands of the role of course coordinators and the leadership skills necessary to be a successful course coordinator 9. Hill, et. al, describe development sessions that can aid in improving the leadership skills of course coordinators 10. Timpe provides newly assigned college of pharmacy course coordinators a number of keys items to consider including communication with students and colleagues, finding a mentor and assessment 11. Bullock, et. al, describe a list of guidelines that course coordinators can give to new instructors to reduce time spent on problems that can be avoided 12. Strong, et. al, note grade differences between coordinated and noncoordinated course sections and the impact of coordination on matriculation 4. Most relevant to this paper, in 2009, Thompson, et. al, provide details of a model of coordination that worked for their firstyear engineering course 3. This paper adds to the body of knowledge with respect to best practices for course coordination, particularly with respect to information sharing among the instructional team, common test writing, strategies for training and mentorship, and management of supplies, lab access and prototype testing. This paper focuses on recommendations based on personal experiences by four faculty, two of whom have 10+ years of course coordination experiences and two of whom have less than 3 years of course coordination experience. While some suggestions are being implemented in spring 2016, most of the challenges, solutions and lessons learned that are presented in this paper are based on firstyear course offerings at Virginia Tech in 2015. Background Within the last three years, our department has undergone a significant review and revision of the curriculum of its large enrollment firstyear engineering courses. In the “on” semester of our course, the format is two weekly 75 minute meetings of 30seat sections. In the “off” semester, the format is one weekly 75 minute meeting of 120seat sections and one weekly 75 minute of 30seat sections. In fall 2015, enrollment in the “on” semester sections is ~1750 students while the “off” semester sections consists of ~300 students. EngE 1215: Foundations of Engineering I This course focuses on engineering as a profession, problem solving skills, data analysis, and algorithm development. New changes to our course include the addition of product archaeology; increased emphasis on information literacy; incorporation of Arduinos and ultrasonic sensors to collect experimental data; and use of Arduinobased robots with infrared sensors to teach programming concepts and feedback systems. Product archaeology has been used to understand global, economic, environmental and societal factors that go into product design 13,14; we used this approach to not only discuss design considerations but also to teach information literacy. In fall 2015 (onsemester), there were 22 instructors (12 faculty and 10 graduate teaching assistants (GTAs)); of these, less than half had taught the class prior to fall 2015. In spring 2016, there are 4 instructors (1 faculty and 3 GTAs);of these half have not taught this course before and one is new to the Virginia Tech this semester. EngE 1216: Foundations of Engineering II The second course in the firstyear sequence continues to introduce general engineering students to the engineering profession. This course focuses on engineering design, mathematical modeling, contemporary software tools, and professional practices and expectations (e.g., communication, teamwork, and ethics). During the most recent curricular revision, there is increased emphasis on ProjectBased and ProblemBased Learning and mathematical modeling. In fall 2015 (offsemester), there were 5 instructors (1 faculty, 4 GTAs); of these, three quarters had taught the course previously. In spring 2016 there are 23 instructors (12 faculty, 11 GTAs); of these, half have not taught this course before, and two are new to Virginia Tech this semester. Training and mentorship Tables 1 and 2 describe challenges related to training a number of new instructors while being cognizant that instructors come from a wide variety of teaching experiences and familiarity with the course being taught. Other issues arise when second semester instructors are new to the university, as training is not as indepth in the prespring as it is in the prefall semester due timing issues and a lack of overall need. However, having a few brand new instructors complicates the information transfer and increases the training demand in a shortened time span. Table 1 addresses presemester training issues, while Table 2 focuses on continual training issues throughout the course. Table 1. PreSemester Solutions to Training and Mentorship Challenges and Lessons Learned Challenges faced Our solution Lessons learned GTAs and faculty contracts started a week prior to the start of classes, thus limiting training options. We provided concise training in a threeday bootcamp. It provided an overview of policies, the course project, the learning management system, and university online recordkeeping systems, as well as prepared instructors to teach the first two weeks of course content. Instead of relying on coordinators to do all training, departmental experts led some sessions. This reduced monotony for attendees and leveraged expertise of colleagues. We found that if bootcamp is optional, those missing training are behind. Instructors had a wide variety of background knowledge of our course content and policies. Deliberate decisions were made on which bootcamp training sessions had to be attended by all instructors, only new instructors, and only returning instructors. In fall 2015, we allowed returning faculty the option of skipping training; in retrospect, all instructors should attend all training meetings thus sparing coordinators from readdressing questions posed during meetings. New faculty hires and GTAs are required to have additional training and orientation from the university. In weeks leading up to semester training, we hired a training coordinator (not the course coordinator) to schedule course specific training that did not conflict with Human Resources training, Graduate School training, graduate student orientations, etc. Some institutions may provide TA training. If so, it is important to understand what that training entails to avoid redundancy. New Spring instructors had missed Fall training that is not repeated. An experienced person, who is not the coordinator, is assigned to mentor new instructors and answer procedural questions. Consider holding additional training presemester to cover issues addressed in the fall directed towards new instructors. By implementing a presemester training program and preparing all instructors with knowledge on general university, departmental and course procedures prior to the start of the semester, many issues are resolved and instructors can focus on students and student learning. In addition, we try to cover the first two weeks of course material as well as an overview so that instructors are prepared for classes and to answer student questions. Table 2. During Semester Solutions to Training and Mentorship Challenges and Lessons Learned Challenges faced Our solution Lessons learned GTAs and faculty needed different resources due to differences in time commitment, experience, and evaluation. Our department assigned a faculty member to act as a liaison to GTAs. This person conducted informal observations of GTAs, coordinated the formal observations of GTAs, and was the initial point of contact for GTA questions related to the course. Midsemester, the liaison met with each GTA to discuss concerns about the course or students. This person needs to consider ways to be easily available for private meetings with GTAs as some GTAs needed to discu