College of Engineering, Computer Science, and Technology
Instructional Delivery Models Task
Force: Progress Report
Presentation to the Faculty and Staff of the
College of Engineering, Computer Science, and Technology
June 4, 2009


Context: conversion to semesters
Dean called it the “watershed” approach
 Use this opportunity to completely re-envision and
reinvent our curriculum.

Goal
 Develop programs that are years ahead of their
time and the envy of our colleagues nationwide.

Factors to consider









New Approaches to Teaching and Learning
New Strategies for Student Success and Retention
Expanded Use of Common Cores
Sustainable Courses
Adaptable/Nimble Programs
Design and Project-Based Learning
Writing Across the Curriculum
Combined Ethics/Writing/Economics Course
Current and Future Accreditation

Task force charge:
 To look at innovative models and techniques for delivering
an up-to-date and exciting ECST curriculum to our students
(regardless of the conversion issue)

Task force members:






Don Maurizio – College (moderator)
Russ Abbott – Computer Science
Jai Hong – Technology
Crist Khachikian – Civil Engineering
Trinh Pham – Mechanical Engineering
Nancy Warter-Perez – Electrical Engineering




The data
What we learned from the data
Strategies for effective pedagogy
Where does the task force go from here?

Three first-time freshman cohorts (2001-3)



Thanks to the Student Support Services Staff
Data from Institutional Research
All ECST students who took the following core
courses Fall 2004:
CE/ME 201, 205, 208
ME 323
EE 204, CS 242
CS 190, 201-3
MATH 206-9, 215;
Physics 211-3
 Recorded all grades for that quarter
 Tracked ≤ C- students back 2 years thru W09

The data may be open to a number of
interpretations. This presentation will focus
primarily on the data without attempting to
draw conclusions from it.
Focus on “what” and “how many”
and not on the “why”
7


What is the distribution between first-time
incoming freshman and transfers in ECST?
Of these students, what % persist through the
1st year?
8
Distribution of freshman and
transfer students
1st year persistence
ECST
n = 450
ECST
n = 193
ECST
n = 123
11%
54%
10%
8%
46%
Freshmen
Transfers
81%
13%
77%
1st-time freshman
transfer
Mid-Year dropouts
End in good standing
End in difficulty
9

On average, how long does it take an
incoming freshman to graduate from our
programs?
10
35%
Information about students who took 7 years
or more to graduate was not available
1,307
257
30%
23
25%
173
20%
72
119
15%
78
28
10%
5%
4yrs
5yrs
6yrs
EGRE BS
ITEC BS
FPAT BS
ME BS
EE BS
CS BS
CE BS
0%
Univ.
1st Time Freshman Graduation Rates
40%

On average, how many students repeat a
course from the list below at least once?
twice? three times?...
CE/ME 201, 205, 208
ME 323
EE 204
CS 190, 201-3, 242
MATH 206-9, 215
Physics 211-3
12
. Excluding all W, WU, I, IC, and U data, the following table tries to represent the data to answer this question:
* represents standard deviation value.
Repeat Cycle
1st time taking
Repeat 1
Repeat 2
Repeat 3
Repeat 4
Repeat 5
# of
students
1708
879
399
156
64
22
% of
previous
repeating
0
51%
45%
39%
41%
34%
% of original
cohort
repeating
0
51%
23%
9%
4%
1%
Average # of
grades/student
3.4 ± 2.3*
1.7 ± 1.0
1.3 ± 0.6
1.1 ± 0.3
1.09 ± 0.3
1.05 ± 0.2
*represents standard deviation
- Excluding all W, WU, I, IC, and U data
13

What are student GPAs for when taking the
courses:
 For the 1st time?
 Repeated for the 1st time?
 Repeated for the 2nd time?
…
CE/ME 201, 205, 208
ME 323
EE 204, CS 242
CS 190, 201-3
MATH 206-9, 215;
Physics 211-3
14
2.5
2
GPA
1.5
5644
1
0.5
1103
324
107
46
3rd Grade
4th Grade
5th Grade
0
1st Grade
2nd Grade
Attempts
15

Conducted a student survey in a number of
courses to address the following prompts:
 Which courses were difficult? Why?
 Which courses were enjoyable? Why?
 Level of exposure to research/design
 et cetera…
Courses about which students were surveyed:
CE/ME 201, 205, 208, 303
EE 204, 244, 304, 332, 334, 336
CS 201-3, 242, 312,
Phys 211-3
Math 206-9, 215
16
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Senior
Student profile
Junior
Sophomore
Freshman
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0 hours a week
Student
employment
0-10 hours a week
11-20 hours a week
21-30 hours a week
>30 hours a week
17

Which courses were ranked as the most
difficult?
Courses included in survey:
CE/ME 201, 205, 208, 303
EE 204, 244, 304, 332, 334, 336
CS 201-3, 242, 312
Phys 211-3
Math 206-9, 215
18
(a) Easy to hard: CS 201, 202, 203, 312
Math 206, 209, 207, 208
Very Difficult
Difficult
(b) Hard to easy: CE/ME 201, 205, 208, 303
Neutral
CE/ME 201
CE/ME 205
Math 208
CS 312
CE/ME 208
Math 215
Phys 213
Phys 212
EE 336
Phys 211
Math 207
EE 332
CS 203
Math 209
EE 204
CS 202
EE 304
CE/ME 303
EE 334
CS 242
Math 206
CS 201
EE 244
19

What did students say about why those
courses were difficult?
20
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
The course material was very difficult
The material was confusing
The material was not presented well
There was too much material covered in the quarter
The instructor was a particularly difficult grader
The presentation style did not match my learning style
Student not
responsible
The professor’s expectations were unrealistic
I did not have enough time to study because of my personal…
I did not have enough time to study because of my work schedule
I did not put enough effort into learning the course material
Student
responsible
I did not have enough time to study because I took too many classes
I was not adequately prepared
I’m used to a semester system; the quarter is too fast
I’ve been out of school for a long time and find it difficult to return
I did not have the prerequisites
21


Students also identified courses they
particularly liked or learned the most from
What reasons did they give for these
selections?
22
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
I find the material interesting
I like the instructor’s style
The instructor is nice
The classroom environment was non-threatening so I could ask a lot of
questions
The instructor encouraged discussion
The course included a lot of applications, which I like better than theory
The instructor provided a lot of help outside of the class
The reading material was relevant and high quality
The course included hands-on experiments
I know how to study better now
The instructor is easy
I use this material at work and, thus, am very familiar with the concepts
I have taken this course before either at CSULA or at another institution
The prerequisites really helped me better understand the material in this
course
23
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
The material in the class interests me
The professor uses a lot of practical applications
I have time to study
I have a lot of opportunity to apply the material in a practical setting (e.g.,
homework, at work, et cetera)
The professor is available for help outside of the classroom
The professor uses in class projects to reinforce concepts
The professor uses term projects to reinforce concepts
I’m not working
The lecture course is combined with a laboratory course
My friend’s take the class with me
The professor’s approach is theoretical
24






Many students repeat many courses
For those who repeat the average repeat rate was 3;
a few repeated 9-11 times (with Ws and other “nongrades”)
Repeating courses does not improve performance
Graduation Rate: ~20% in 6 years
Courses were ranked as difficult because 1) material
was difficult; 2) material was confusing; and 3)
material wasn’t presented well
Students enjoy classes because 1) the topic interests
them; and 2) they like the teaching style
25

Learning Styles (Modalities)
 Auditory – Learn by hearing
Efficacy*
 Visual – Learn by seeing
 Kinesthetic/Tactile – Learn by doing
Tell me and I forget. Show me and I remember.
Involve me and I understand. (John Gay)
* Varies by individual
26

Active and Cooperative Learning
 Active Learning – Learning by doing
 Coop. Learning – Learning by working in teams

Project Based/Contextual Learning
 Students are given a problem to solve
 The problem contains the essential elements of
the subject (at that point in the program)
 The solution is tangible and open-ended
27

In-class active learning/reflection
 In class reflection (e.g., minute paper, muddiest point, etc.)
 In class assessment
 New pedagogical technologies (e.g., clickers)

Broader modifications
 Connecting labs and recitations to lecture courses
 Group/team projects
 Integrate MEP model into programs
28

Integrated Thematic approach – from
freshman year to graduation
 Integrated and contextualized math and science
blocks
 Writing/communication, ethics, and
professionalism across the curriculum
 Design across the curriculum
 Project- and team-based learning
29



Multiple “challenges” running simultaneously
Freshman introduced to challenge
Courses oriented toward the challenge
 Common core courses
 Specialized higher-level

Senior/MS projects make an advance with
respect to the challenge.
30




Students (at all levels) enter enterprise as interns
Just-in-time learning: academic material is
learned in small increments as needed for the
current task
Students advance in the enterprise as they
progress through their college/graduate career
Senior/MS projects make a significant
contribution to the enterprise’s product
31

Courses oriented towards the technology.
 Technology must be broad enough to support this.


Senior/MS projects develop a significant
product or result that uses or contributes to
the technology.
Can be conceptualized as an alternative view
of the “grand challenge” approach
32


Preliminary report to the Dean in a few weeks
Continue to develop and refine model
33