Session 13b1 C.A.M. A Tool for Evaluating and Adjusting Engineering Curriculum

C.A.M.© : A Tool for Evaluating and Adjusting Engineering CurriculumUmid R. NejibCollege of Arts, Sciences, and Professional StudiesWilkes UniversityWilkes-Barre, PA 18766Abstract - We are entering the new century in the midst of a technological revolution potentially more profound in its impact socially, politically, economically, and educationally than the industrial revolution of the last century. The ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 is an attempt to address these imperatives. It is evident that in order to develop a meaningful assessment tools for student outcomes, the program outcomes must first be articulated and understood. This is further complicated by the fact that the engineering curriculum requires continued review and adjustment in response to the rapid changes. To meet the challenge efficiently and effectively, it is proposed that an educational philosophy favoring an integrated approach to curriculum development and structure addressing an educational imperative be considered. The key component is the development of the Curriculum Attribute Matrix (C.A.M. ©). The end result of this pseudo-quantitative tool reflects the collective contributions of the existing courses/labs to the attributes (outcomes) of a specific program. The faculty, through appropriate syllabi changes rather than major curriculum overhaul, can make the necessary adjustments. This paper presents the methodology and the data of this process using an existing engineering programBackgroundWe have scarcely begun to identify the implications of the new technological revolution and adapt our institutions to change, although the first massive repercussions already have been felt with diminishing geographical boundaries, a highly diverse work force, an elevated educational profile, and rapid communication and dissemination media. Accordingly, an engineer must be technically competent, must offer competent public service for the benefit of society, and have a positive outlook of the changing world and its values. In fact, the history of engineering is closely linked to the history of the human race. It is, therefore, no surprise that the engineering profession is closely linked to the needs of society [1].No individual can be content or happy unless the society he or she lives in is in an optimistic and progressive mode. Educators are busy finding solutions within the confines of universities to demonstrate intellectual leadership. In most instances these solutions are in the form of course(s) added to the curriculum. The model of a university that creates an elitist culture has not been very successful in preparing scientists and engineers to meet the societal needs and advance the frontiers of knowledge.Similarly, a program advocating the delivery of good engineering education exclusively through discrete curriculum augmented by “high-tech” delivery system is pursuing “virtual” reality. Such an approach to curriculum design will be hard pressed to keep pace with the rapid expansion and changes in discovery; and the swiftness by which these discoveries are disseminated. The continued pressures on the faculty to maintain the viability of the curriculum will ultimately result. It then follows that the product of these programs will be engineers who lack the ability and knowledge to meet the societal and industrial demands. The dichotomy presents itself in the most classical form: a conflict between traditional structure and reality. The discrete framework for an engineering curriculum invites fragmentation of the learning process and cannot meet the needs of today’s changing “global order.” A need to reevaluate traditional curriculum design has become apparent.Redefining the format and the content of an educational program is not a simple task given the fact that traditional formal engineering education is the outcome of the western industrial revolution. Fortunately, the same tradition provides the premise to initiate these changes: progress. Progress is an excellent catalyst; it can stimulate science and engineering educators to seek alternatives rather than edit tradition. One such alternative is an instructional strategy based on the concept of “Dynamic Learning”, which has three components: Integrative Curriculum (IC), Societal and Industrial Interaction (SII), and Flexible Structure (FS). Taken together, the three components emphasize that technological professionals must learn not only how to create and manage technology, but to assess and manage the social and human consequences of that technology.Integrative CurriculumThe traditional approach to curriculum design has been to identify a set of courses and requirements which, when successfully completed, should produce graduates who possess the knowledge and ability to function as engineers. Curricula changes are conducted through the addition, deletion, and sometimes content modification of the courses. The relationship between the various courses is tenuous at best with the exception of what is termed as pre-requisite.Given the rapid expansion of the knowledge-base; the modification of this type of curriculum tends to crowd the 4-year requirements and place heavy demand on the students, faculty, and resources; forcing them to prioritize the course work. This prioritization usually results in slowly, but definitely may erode content, narrow focus, and in certain cases discourage creativity.An integrative approach to the curriculum is similar in its approach to the design process. First you define the product (in this case the outcomes), and then you proceed to develop the components (in this case the content). In addition, this curriculum is characterized by the fact that at the early stages of the program, the students follow a well-articulated outline of courses, labs, and activities. However, the students’ responsibilities vis-à-vis learning, increases as they progress through the program.The attributes or the outcomes as defined here are those characteristics and skill acquired upon graduation from a specific program of study. The attributes should be developed by the appropriate constituencies of the institution. The critical question at this point is not whether there is a need to move into an integrated approach to curriculum structure; but how can this be accomplished? An inherent difficulty associated with the transition into ABET 2000 Criteria.The AttributesTo initiate the transition and minimize the agony, program attributes (if you prefer the overused word outcome) must first be defined. In any event, the focus at this stage is the curriculum and not the individual course. Defining the attributes is probably the most difficult and time-consuming part of this undertaking. The faculty must avoid the trap of assuming that course titles are synonymous attributes. Attributes are divided into two categories: college/school-wide and program specific. The first should be developed by the college/school leadership team and applies to all programs, while the second is developed by the respective department and applies to a given program.It should be pointed out that this is a multi-dimensional process and requires sensitivity and good management on the part of the dean and the department/program chairs/directors to assure meaningful cooperation and information exchange between all constituencies of the unit. On the other hand, it should be accepted by everyone that perfection in defining the attributes is not a goal -- and that the attributes must be revisited and periodically re-evaluated. It is not a bad idea to set a deadline for the process, and keeping in mind to limit the number of attributes. Historically, ten is known to be a good limit!In one institution, the college/school attributes (the A attributes), which are the same for all programs offered, were defined by the following:A1.Creative problem solving, and constructive reasoning A2.Effective and clear verbal skillA3.Effective and clear writing skillsA4.Ethical standards & professionalismA5.Historical/Practical knowledge of scientific methods and safetyrmation retrievalA7.Life-long learning/professional growthA8.Multi-disciplinary experienceA9.Sciences/math interrelationshipsA10.Teamwork, collaborative effort, leadershipA11.Translate knowledge into research, experimentation, and applicationse of computer in problems and designThe program attributes (the B attributes) in this case the electrical engineering program were as follows:B1. AC/DC circuit analysis & transientsB2.Design concepts and projectsB3.Digital signals and systemsB4.Electromagnetics - high frequencyB5.Electromagnetics - theoryB6.Electronic communicationsB7.Electronic devicesB8.Energy conversion and sensorsB9.Engineering managementB10.Feedback systems and usesB11.Measurement and data acquisitionB12.Probability and statistics and usesB13.Quantitative methodsB14.Semiconductor physics, fabricationB15.Software utilization, programmingOn the other hand, the mechanical engineering program attributes were identified to be:B1.Design concepts and projectsB2.Electric and electronic circuits and devicesB3.Energy systemsB4,Engineering managementB5.Manufacturing process and robotics.B6.Material properties and selectionB7.Measurement and data acquisitionB8.Mechanics of motion and fluid systemsB9.Numerical methods and simulationB10.Probability and statisticsB11.Quantitative methodsB12.Software utilization and programmingB13.System analysis and designB14.Thermal science and systemsAnd the attributes for the computer science program were found to include:B1.Abstract Data Types / Object Oriented DesignB2.Analysis of Algorithms / Program testingputer scripting languagesB4.Concepts of direct access mappingB5.Concepts of distributed computer systemsB6.High level to machine language translationB7.Concepts of theoretical computer scienceB8.Define information system requirements and needs B9.Design and construction of computer programsB11.Discrete and continuous modeling and simulationB12.Features and applications of artificial intelligencermation systems designB14.Internal hardware structure (computer architecture) B15.Logical ordering methods (linked lists)B16.Machine level language concepts and instruction set B17.Mathematical concepts of computer graphicsB18.Program in a high level imperative languagerge scale program design and managementB20.Top Down Design / Structured ProgrammingB21.Understanding programming language conceptsExamining these attributes shows that the Computer Science is closer to being a list of courses than being phrases articulating program outcomes. This should be expected and the faculty is encouraged to review and streamline these attributes.Curriculum Attributes Matrix – C.A.M.©The objective of the Curriculum Attributes Matrix, C.A.M.©, is to ease the transition from discrete curriculum to an integrated one. It should simplify the assessment of individual courses and the contributions of the various courses to the curriculum as whole. What is more important is know what the existing program is accomplishing. This understanding of the curriculum can be easily masked by the continued changes of courses and course content.C.A.M.© is a two dimensional table. The attributes are defined on one axis and program courses/labs label the second. To assure better and focused analysis, the program courses/labs are divided into three categories. Thus for a given discipline, these are -- Required Program courses (RP): includes all courses identified and specifically listed as a requirement; Elective Program courses (EP): includes all other courses in the decline; and Required Non-Program courses (NRP): includes all courses outside the discipline but are specifically listed as a requirement in the program. In the case of electrical engineering program, RP are the electrical engineering courses listed as a requirement, while the EP represent all other electrical engineering courses which may be used as electives. The NRP courses are all non-electrical engineering courses, which are an explicit requirement for the electrical engineering program. These may include math, mechanical, computer science, physics, English etc. [2].It should be stressed that each table must be completed independently, and that all of the CAM three tables should constructed and completed by the program faculty only. The faculty rates the contribution of a given course/lab to all of the attributes using a uniform criteria for the level of contribution. It is understood that exact contribution of a given course to a given attribute is not a realistic expectation. Accordingly, a scale of 0-to-4 has been selected, where 0 represents no contribution, 1 represents the contribution to be within the 5% to 25% range. That is to say that the course/lab contributes between 5 and 25 percent of its time/activities/content etc. to that specific attribute. The wide range in defining these contributions is intentional; knowing that there are overlaps between attributes as well as between courses. The objective is to develop an understanding and not to place the course and the faculty in an academic straitjacket. Similarly, 2 represent the 26% to 50% range contribution, 3 represents the 51% to 75% range, and 4 represent the 76% to 100% range. A typical table for an electrical engineering RP table is detailed in Table 1 on the next page.The list of courses is represented by their respective designated numbers. In this case for example, EE-211/212 are the circuit analysis courses, and EE-251/252 are the electronic courses. There are independent lab courses such as EE-283/254/381/382, which are the measurement, electronics, solid state, and communication labs respectively. The number of hours per week (H/K) rather than the credit hours are being used due to the fact that in many cases credit hours do not reflect contact hours. Consider the example of a course that has a build-in laboratory or a stand alone laboratory course. These are given in the row with the H/W header.The gray areas in Table 1 designate calculated data. The information necessary for the assessment and review of the individual course/lab and/or the program curriculum as a whole is given in the row and columns designated by NC% and NA%. These represent Normalized Courses contribution percentage and Normalized Attributes contribution. For example the NC% of the course EE-391/2, the Senior Project, shows a total contribution a of 13% to the A-attributes and 5% to the B-attributes. On the other hand, the NA% for attribute A3 is 3% and for B15 it is 11%. Both the NC% and the NA% totals 100%, which is the full curriculum. Accordingly, Table 1 is a numerical summary of outcomes of individual courses or the collective outcome of the existing curriculum.In many instances the faculty were surprised by what CAM reveals. The example given in Table 1 shows that the program attribute Probability, Statistics, and Uses (B12) has a NA% of only 2% when the faculty thought that they had a much higher focus on the subject area – an NA% of at least 4%. On the other hand, the faculty was pleased to find that Creative Problem Solving, and Constructive Reasoning (A1) has an NA% of 17% which close to what they were hoping to achieve.Furthermore, the NC% of Advanced Communication Lab (EE-382) has an almost identical NC% of 22% and 21 to both the A and the B attributes respectively. Also the NA% of Measurement and Data Acquisition (B11) is somehow on the low end of only 3%. These results indicate that the program and/or the department have placed a heavy demand on EE-382 course, and on the faculty member aswell as the students. Furthermore, the program is known to be very much hands-on, which was not reflected in the NA%of B11. This is a case where C.A.M.© underlines to the faculty a situation in need of their attention and review.Table 1. Required Program Courses (EE Courses)In a similar fashion, the Non-Program Required (NRP) table is constructed. The course listing is assigned the top axis while the attributes occupy the vertical axis. The main difference here is that this table is developed in three steps. The first step is for the program faculty, in this case the electrical engineering faculty, to rate the contribution of each of the courses/labs to every attribute. Thus generating a table similar to Table 1. The rating at this step represents the electrical engineering faculty understanding on how this course/lab will contribute to their curriculum. This rating is usually based on the syllabus provided the acquired knowledge, and their perception of the specific course.The second step is to solicit the faculty of the department offering the course to provide the rating. If this rating is far off from the one recorded by the electrical engineering faculty, then a meeting is scheduled between both faculties to discuss the differences. This is a key step in the sense it brings about what is expected of a given course by one set of faculty to the attention of those providing the course. While syllabi do provide an insight, it does not replace the communication between both sets of faculty. This communication is one of the corner stones toward structuring an integrated curriculum.The final step is for the electrical engineering faculty to edit its initial rating based on discussions with their colleagues. The resulting rating is then represented in a table and the NC% and the NA% is calculated. Table 2, which isshown on the next page, is an example for the NRP table. Itis interesting to note that the Electricity & Magnetism course (PHY-202) contribute heavily to the curriculum so does the mathematics sequence MTH. While the physics courses contribute to both attributes the math courses fail to contribute to the A-attributes. Maintaining a dialogue with mathematics faculty can alleviate this deficiency.Table 2 Required Non-Program Courses (EE program)Furthermore, it can be seen that the English courses ENG-101/102, the Societal Impact course SOC-391/392, the Ethics and Professionalism course SSE-202 indicate no contribution to the B-Attributes. It should be noted that there is a writing intensive requirement throughout the engineering curriculum. Furthermore, the SSE-202 is taught by an electrical engineering faculty; and that the SOC-391/92 is a course intended to bridge technology and the management of technology to society including government regulatory guidelines. It is possible to argue at this time that some of the de-emphasis experienced is due to the format and the attitude used by the respective faculty. It is also an early warning to the department to pay attention and closely monitor these learning experiences. It would be interesting to compare the response of two departments. While the comparison may not be response to the A-attribute of the NRP will be considered. Table 3 the outcome of the mechanical engineering faculty completing that part. Examine Table 3 and the top part of Table 2 show an interesting point. That in spite of the diverse preparation and background of the faculty, the similarities in their conclusions and opinions far exceed their differences. For one, the EE RNP courses is almost the same as the ME RNP, eighteen and seventeen respectively of which fifteen courses are the same. Reviewing the NC% and the NA% show thehigh number of similarities [3].The mechanical engineering faculty concluded that the cumulative contributions of RNP courses to the A12 attribute, use of computer in problems and design, is meaningful and good (NA% of 12%). But, they see the contribution of the Computer Programming course (EE-145) to have much less impact on the A-attributes (NC% of 2%).Table 2 Required Non-Program Courses (ME program) – A-AttributesConclusionsThe challenge of ever-changing technology and societal needs will necessitate the implementation of a dynamic learning environment. The Curriculum Attributes Matrix, C.A.M.©, is a tool that makes it possible to summarize the curriculum as a whole vis-à-vis its outcomes. The C.A.M.© baseline outlines the current curriculum based on the definition of attributes/outcomes/objectives by the program faculty. C.A.M.© will display areas of over- or under-emphasis, and the adjustments can be made to address the imbalances observed. The difficult part is to articulate the B-Attributes and avoid making synonymous to a course listing.As in a design process, envisioned curriculum emphasis starts by re-defining an attribute(s). From there, the faculty can decide on which courses to delete, add, or modify to meet the desired changes. At the same time it they will be able to see how the curriculum is meeting the objectives. In developing the RNP table, the program faculty should attempt to interact with the appropriate discipline to assure a communication link, which in many cases tends to disappear.As was shown that the C.A.M.© tables reflect the opinion of faculty as it pertains to the contribution of courses to the attributes. What is interesting is that faculty of various disciplines have more common views than disagreements.AcknowledgementsI am indebted to many of my science and engineering colleagues who acknowledged the need for an integrated approach to the learning environment in general and the curriculum in particular. Their efforts in making this undertaking a reality is here by acknowledged.References1)Nejib, U.R., “Integrating Values and Knowledge inthe Preparation of Scientists and Engineers,”Proceedings of the International Conference on Values and Attitudes in Science and Technology, September 3-6, 1996, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.2)Nejib, U.R., (1996), “The Evolution of EngineeringEducation into the 21st Century: The Wilkes Approach.” Proceedings of the PCM ’96 Pacific Conference on Manufacturing ‘96, October 29-31, 1996, Seoul, Korea.3)Nejib, U. R., “CAM: A Tool for Designing andEvaluating Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering Curriculum,” Proceedings of the PCM ‘98 Pacific Conference on Manufacturing, November3-7, 1998, Brisbane, Australia.。