Developing a Corporate Feedback System for
Use in Curricular Reform
The Use Process Stability Principles in the analysis of
Engineering Curricula based on Cooperative Education
Conference for Industry and
Education Collaboration
January 24, 2006
Kettil Cedercreutz, Associate Provost and Director
Cheryl Cates, Associate Director
Part One
The UC FIPSE
Project
Overview
Co-op at UC
Progressive Learning Objectives
Professional Contribution & Change Generation
Exploration
Foundation
F
W
S
S
Freshmen
F
W
S
S
Sophomore
F
W
S
S
Pre-Junior
F
W
S
Junior
S
F
W
S
Senior
Alternating Sections
Section
II
1
1
2
2
3
3
5/6
4
4
5
6
Section
I
F
W
S
S
Freshmen
F
W
S
S
Sophomore
F
W
S
S
Pre-Junior
F
W
S
Junior
S
F
W
S
Senior
One Stop Structure
Professional Practice
Arts and Sciences
Academic Division
24 Faculty
Professional Practice
Feedback and Continuous Improvement
Other Feedback
Continuous
Improvement
Reporting
6
3 4 5
2
1
Curriculum & Pedagogy
Employer Feedback
F W S
S
Freshmen
1
2
3
4
5
6
F W S
S
F W S
S
F W S
S
Sophomore
Pre-Junior
Junior
F W S
Senior
Gathering
the Data
Assessment Instrument III
Focus Groups
Assessment
Instrument II
Assessment
Instrument I
Photo Courtesy of Nokia
Measured Parameters (AI I):
Developed in Relation to
ABET a…k
Measured Parameters (AI I):
A COMMUNICATION:
- Speaks with clarity and confidence
- Writes clearly and concisely
- Makes effective presentations
- Exhibits good listening and questioning skills
B CONCEPTUAL/ANALYTICAL ABILITY:
- Evaluates situations effectively
- Solves problems/makes decisions
- Demonstrates original and creative thinking
- Identifies and suggests new ideas
C LEARNING/THEORY AND PRACTICE:
- Learns new material quickly
- Accesses and applies specialized knowledge
- Applies classroom learning to work situations
Measured Parameters (AI I):
D PROFESSIONAL QUALITIES:
-
Assumes responsibility/accountable for actions
Exhibits self-confidence
Possesses honesty/integrity/personal ethics
Shows initiative/is self-motivated
Demonstrates a positive attitude toward change
E TEAMWORK:
- Works effectively with others
- Understands and contributes to the organization’s goals
- Demonstrates flexibility/adaptability
- Functions well on multidisciplinary team
F LEADERSHIP:
- Gives direction, guidance and training
- Motivates others to succeed
- Manages conflict effectively
Measured Parameters (AI I):
G TECHNOLOGY:
- Uses technology, tools, instruments and information
- Understands complex systems and their interrelationships
- Understands the technology of the discipline
-
H WORK CULTURE:
- Understands and works within the culture of the group
- Respects diversity
- Recognizes political and social implications of actions
I ORGANIZATION/PLANNING:
- Manages projects and/or other resources effectively
- Sets goals and prioritizes
- Manages several tasks at once
- Allocates time to meet deadlines
J EVALUATION OF WORK HABITS:
- Professional attitude toward work assigned
- Quality of work produced
- Volume of work produced
- Attendance
- Punctuality
-
Assessment
Instrument II
Assessment
Instrument I
Photo Courtesy of Nokia
Assessment Instrument II Objectives:
A Questions by discipline
B Questions asked only for short period
C Questions focused on curricular issues
D Questions asked before and after curricular change
Assessment Instrument III
Focus Groups
Assessment
Instrument II
Assessment
Instrument I
Photo Courtesy of Nokia
Assessment Instrument III Objectives:
A Focus Groups by discipline
B Questions focused on curricular issues from AI II
C AI II data provides focus group direction
D Provides direction to departments
Embarking on a
New Paradigm
Adaptive Cooperative Education
Process
Development
Cycle
Input
Action
Output
Outcome
Operational
Cycle
Input
Action
Output
Outcome
Discussion
Where are you on your campus?
Part Two
Update on
Results
Process
Stability Analysis
Excellent
Good
Poor
Unsatisfactory
Grading
Scale
5
4
3
2
1
Indicate
Problem
Acceptable
Performance
Low n Values ⇒
Results Lost in Noise !!!
Change
Δ Learning
4
3
Section
I
F
W
S
S
Freshmen
F
W
S
S
Sophomore
F
W
S
S
Pre-Junior
F
W
S
Junior
S
F
W
S
Senior
Coding of Data
Acad. Year:
2003/04
Class of:
Quarter:
U
2007
2006
2005
2004
F W S U
F W S U
F W S U
F W S
Three Year Stability / Major A / Engineering
01/02
2005
2004
02/03
2003
2002
U F W S U F W S U F W S U F W S
2006
2005
03/04
2004
2003
2007
2006
2005
U F W S U F W S U F W S U F W S
U F W S U F W S U F W S U F W S
Mean
4.19
4.12
4.18
Stnd Dev
0.73
0.75
0.76
Process
Stable
Statistical
Uncertainty ≈
± 0.10
2004
Means:
4.16 ± 0.04
MAJOR A / Engineering
Three Year Rolling Average
Mean
4.28
4.31
70
N:
n:
Ret:
Uncert:
4.03
3.97
88
191
148
Sophm.
PreJr.
Jr.
= Filed Returns
Sr.
01/02
2005
U
F
W
2004
S
U
F
W
2003
S
U
F
W
2002
S
U
F
W
S
02/03
2006
U
F
W
2005
S
U
F
W
2004
S
U
F
W
2003
S
U
F
W
S
03/04
2007
U
F
W
2006
S
U
F
W
2005
S
U
F
W
2004
S
U
F
W
S
612
497
81%
≈ 0.10
Absolute Needs
Calibration & Linearity
Important
Relative Needs
Stability Important
Linearity Less Important
Approach must not Focus on Minutia
Approach must be Process Oriented
Approach must have Strategic Dimensions
There is no short cut to Quality
Process
Stability
Analysis
Analysis
Methodology
Process Stability Analysis
Mean / Standard Deviation Matrix
Standard Deviation
Medium
Low
Mean
High
Low
Medium
High
Systematic
Improvement
STD
Systematic
Deterioration
Serendipitous
Improvement
Increased
Decreased Mean
Decreased
Increased Mean
Delta Mean Chi STDV Matrix
STD
Serendipitous
Deterioration
Preliminary
Findings
MAJOR A / Engineering
EXIT LEVEL
Mean
4.7
Integrity
Attendance
4.6
Works
Effectively
4.5
Punctuality
4.4
4.3
Speaking
Project
Mgmnt
4.2
Writing
Sets
Goals
Guidance
Of others
4.1
Conflict
Mgmnt
4.0
Motiv.
Others
3.9
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
Standard Deviation [Chi]
Major 1 / Business
EXIT LEVEL
Mean
4.90
Punctuality
4.70
Initiative
4.50
Series1
4.30
4.10
3.90
Conflict
Mgmnt
3.70
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
Standard Deviation [Chi]
Major A / Engineering
Mean
EXIT LEVEL
4. 9
4. 7
4. 5
4. 3
4. 1
3. 9
3. 7
3. 5
0. 50
0. 55
0. 60
0. 65
0. 70
0. 75
0. 80
Standard Deviation [Chi]
Major A Engineering
Entry
Mean
4. 9
4. 7
4. 5
Attendance
Integrity
Works
Effectively
4. 3
Punctuality
Initiative
4. 1
Speaking
Project
Sets
Mgmnt
Writing
Conflict
Guidance
Goals
Motiv.
OfMgmnt
others
Others
3. 9
3. 7
Task
Mgmt
3. 5
0. 50
0. 55
0. 60
0. 65
0. 70
0. 75
0. 80
Standard Deviation [Chi]
Major A Engineering
Entry / Exit
Mean
4. 9
4. 7
4. 5
4. 3
4. 1
3. 9
3. 7
3. 5
0. 50
0. 55
0. 60
0. 65
0. 70
0. 75
0. 80
Standard Deviation [Chi]
Major 1
Business
Exit Profiles
[Optional]
Mean
Major A
Engineering
[Mandatory]
Mean
4.9
4.9
4.7
4.7
4.5
4.5
4.3
4.3
4.1
4.1
3.9
3.9
STD
3.7
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
More Homogeneous
Population
Specialized
Curricular Focus
STD
3.7
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
More Heterogeneous
Population
General
Curricular Focus
0.70
Major
1 / Engineering
Civ & Env Eng Change
Change
0.60
0.50
0.20
0.10
-0.15
Decreased
-0.10
STD
-0.05
CHI STD
Mean
0.30
Series1
Increased
MEAN
0.40
0.00
0.00
Increased
0.05
STD
0.10
Major
1 / Engineering
Civ & Env Eng Change
Change
0.60
Sets
Goals
MEAN
Curriculum
Initiated
Learning
Writing
Professionalism
0.50
0.40
0.30
New
Ideas
Student
Initiated
Learning
Series1
Speaking
0.20
Conflict
Mgmnt
Learns
Quickly
0.10
-0.15
-0.10
0.00
0.00
-0.05
CHI STD
0.05
0.10
Summary:
- All Parameters Go Up
- Approach can be developed into Program Fingerprint
- Apples and Oranges
- Every “Set of Employers” has its specific value system
- Instrument is Relative
- Can be used to Map Best Practices
Discussion
Where do we go from here?
Cincinnati
April 23 – 26, 2005
University of Cincinnati
FIPSE Symposium
Cincinnati
April 25 – 26, 2005
Teams By Invitation Only
Some Funding Available
Dean Herman Schneider
1872 -1939
Developing a Corporate Feedback System for
Use in Curricular Reform
The Use Process Stability Principles in the analysis of
Engineering Curricula based on Cooperative Education
Conference for Industry and
Education Collaboration
January 24, 2006
Kettil Cedercreutz, Associate Provost and Director
Cheryl Cates, Associate Director