1

Teaching and Learning at Undergraduate Level at IIT B

A Diagnostic Study

Presentation based on report prepared byAshish PandeyVirendra Sethi

K Sudhakar

Faculty RetreatGulmohar, IIT Bombay, Mumbai

September 14-15, 2010

2

Background

• Informal discussions where various faculty members shared their concerns over level of motivation, inspiration, ethical standards, subject knowledge, employability of students (UGs in particular)

• No new revelations are expected• Formally capturing ‘what most may

know’ is the motivation

3

Methodology

• List of “Diagnostic Questions”• Sessions with

– Dean AP, Dean FA, (Dean SA)– PiC Placements, ARP, NSS– Student counsellor– Faculty

• Less than 5 years @IITB• More than 15 years @IITB

– Students• 1st and 2nd year• 4th and 5th year• Those who dipped in the performance

4

Key Findings - Faculty

Student Motivation• 60% of students do not demonstrate interest in

academics• Only 10% are highly motivated• 25% to 30% are focused on non-academic

activities• A good %age of students are not even motivated

by placement pullsReasons• Students see a career in non-engineering sector• Failure to create enough interest in core branch

5

Key Findings - Faculty

Student Performance• Most faculty feel ‘knowledge levels of passing out

students is not high enough’• Academic rigor at IITK and IITM is higher• (PGs are more interested in academics)

Reasons• Primary aim of UGs is a degree from IITB• Lack of interest accentuated by large class rooms

with poor infrastructure• Academic accomplishments are not adequately

rewarded

6

Key Findings - Faculty

Ethical Standards• Ethical standards of UG students – all

concur• Copying in assignments, projects• Bloated CVs

Reasons• Ethics nowhere emphasised• Assignments not formulated with clear

learning objectives and time availability

7

Key Findings - Faculty

Generic Issues/Reasons• Increasing class size is a constant

challenge• No explicit incentive for good teaching• Majority of (new) faculty focused on

research and less on teaching• Students are not clear of their objectives

8

Key Suggestions - Faculty

For Students• FacAd role to be rationalized• Message “knowledge is more important than

grades”• Help them set their objectives

For Faculty• Reduced administrative burden on (new) faculty• Faculty mentoring - Structured input to faculty on

pedagogy, course design• Handbook on “How to be a Good Teacher”

9

Key Findings - Students

Academics• First year kills it all : Class room environment not

conducive for interaction. Large class rooms with poor infrastructure

• No linking of ‘what is taught’ to ‘where applications lay’ for an engineer

• Why is ‘, ’ required!• No big picture of curriculum. Why HSS?• Poorly functioning labs, thoughtless experiments,

untrained TAs• Inability to handle freedom• Lack of interest in allotted branch

10

Key Findings - Students

Ethical Standards • Lopsided emphasis on grades

Tentative action points:• Better planned students’ orientation in the

beginning• Making the logic of sequence of the courses clear

in students mind• Better connection between real life challenges and

things being discussed in the class• Structured inputs on personal effectiveness and

leadership

11

Survey at Registration

No of faculty who particpated = 80

0

5

10

15

20

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% Students passionate about acads

No

of f

acu

lty w

ho

th

ink

so

12

Survey at Registration

• Ethical issues need addressing speedilyYes = 84No = 4No comments = 8

• There are things that faculty can do to improve thingsYes = 81No = 5No comments = 10