Teaching Engineering Software in Higher Education How to encourage a deep approach to learning

Konrad Wilkens, Blanca Andres, Miguel Meque Uamusse, and Hossein Hashemi

Introduction to Teaching and Learning in Higher Education June 2014

ii

Table of Contents

1. Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

3. Teaching methods in Higher Education ....................................................................................... 2

3.1. Lecture Method ............................................................................................................................ 2

3.2. Cooperative Method ..................................................................................................................... 2

3.3. Demonstration Method ................................................................................................................. 2

3.4. Discussion Method ....................................................................................................................... 3

3.5. Computer-Based Method .............................................................................................................. 3

3.6. A Way Forward ............................................................................................................................ 3

4. The Case Study ............................................................................................................................ 4

4.1. Background .................................................................................................................................. 4

4.2. Goal ............................................................................................................................................. 4

4.3. Description ................................................................................................................................... 4

4.4. Home Assignments ....................................................................................................................... 5

4.5. A Course at Three Different Levels ................................................................................................ 5

4.6. A Student’s Perspective ................................................................................................................. 5

4.7. Examination of Methods Used in the Course. ................................................................................ 9

5. Conclusion/Further Recommendations ..................................................................................... 10

6. References .................................................................................................................................. 11

1

1. Abstract

Teaching computer software in higher education is common these days and even more in technical universities such as LTH. Students will use these tools further on in their professional carriers and a good command of them will help the students succeed as engineers/scientists. This report aims to describe some of the problems faced when teaching computer software and highlights possible methods available in order to achieve a deeper understanding by the students. For this purpose a case of study is presented where different methods are applied. The course presented is critically analyzed and includes a description from the student point of view. Some conclusions and recommendations on how to improve teaching computer software are also included.

Keywords: Teaching Methods, Teaching Software, Deep Approach

2. Introduction

Engineering that requires the use of computer software is a special discipline. It is a mix of three kinds of abilities: Engineering and Computer Sciences knowledge, software development methods, and management and communication skills. The industry requires professionals with the three abilities mentioned above, but engineering software is usually taught by means of traditional methods (for example Lectures and “Toy” Practical Projects) sometimes with small changes in these methods [1]. Practical projects are also highlighted by Stiller and LeBlanc [2], though some of the skills required by engineers are not completely developed by using this method. Wankat and Oreovicz [3] proposed some methods for teaching engineering in a broad sense, including lectures and practical projects; although most of these methods are rarely used in the teaching of engineering software and the traditional lecture is still the most common method used.

From the students perspective it may be hard to acquire a deep understanding in the use of software by traditional methods such as the lecture. Students need training on the specific methods in order to identify the correct procedures and practices to follow, and they need to understand the limitations of the software [4]. The use and development of software during a students learning process is fundamental if a deep approach is desired to be achieved by the students. This project aims to analyse some of the issues faced when teaching computer software, how to implement a deep approach to learning in this kind of teaching and what are the outputs acquired by the students. For this the procedure followed in this report, consists of the review and analysis of a case study. The case studied is a course named ‘Evaluating measurements with MATLAB’ that three of the four members of the group followed last semester. The report is an illustration on how different

2

methods may be implemented and also includes a brief examination of these methods. For this purpose, the report includes a general review of teaching methods in education in chapter 3. In the third section the case study is presented, firstly the case study is presented were a description of the course and the student perspective on the outcome of the learning is described. In the following section concepts of teaching such as deep/surface approach [5], constructive alignment [6] are related to the case studied. Finally, conclusions and possible recommendations are included in the last chapter (chapter 5) that may help to address any issues raised in chapter 4.

3. Teaching methods in Higher Education In this section we will describe briefly some of well-known teaching methods as suggested by [3], known as; the lecture method, the cooperative method, the demonstration method, the discussion method, and finally computer-based method.

3.1. Lecture Method

The traditional and broadly used method is the lecture method. Lecture method takes the form of presentation. The instructors should know how to organize and present the lecture. Moreover, they must understand the drawbacks and the advantages of this method. This method is used to introduce new topics, present graphical subjects, summarize ideas, present coding, and display the main points of the lecture, showing the relation between the theory and the practice. To add some interactivity, we can combine the lecture method with other teaching methods like the discussion method.

3.2. Cooperative Method

An attractive strategy of teaching is to have the students working together in groups during the session. This is the concept of the cooperative method. Several researches on this method indicate: the increasing of their participation, improve their communication, augmenting their knowledge, encouraging their development of the social skill, increasing their independence and simply facilitates their effective learning. In a cooperative method, one classroom may share by more than one instructor and these instructors will share all responsibility including managing groups, planning, coaching, tutoring and grading. In this method, it’s important to take into consideration the subsequent points: the size of each group, the selection and the distribution of each task and the choice of each student in its appropriate group.

3.3. Demonstration Method

The concept of this method is “learning by doing”. This method of teaching supplies the students a comprehensible image of the subject that must be learned. This method is suitable for teaching a skill because it covers all the necessary steps in an effective learning order. It refers to the capability of students to improve their skills by regularly repeating the same type of action. An

3

individual learns to calculate by calculating, to write by writing, to swim by swimming, and to drive by driving. This method allows the students to relate the principles and theories to a practical situation. This method is more relies on the student and consequences of an effective student participation and involvement than any other teaching method. The demonstration method requires a high degree of instructor skill and it’s limited to small group of students

3.4. Discussion Method

This method is very active contrary to the passive lecture method. Here the instructor presents information for only a short period of time, then engages them in open discussion for a while on particular issues related to the topic. This not only helps students participate more actively, it can also reveal to the instructor whether the students generally understand and relate to the material being presented. The target of the instructor is to draw out what the students understand, rather than to spend the class period telling them. The larger participation and the more dynamic a discussion leads to more efficiency in the learning process. All students in the group should contribute in the discussion and everyone should feel himself/herself as a part of this discussion. The instructor should take care of everyone in fair manner and should give them confidence, encourage them to ask questions and to answer them. Cynicism should never be used, since it inhibits the concentration of the participants and influences the group dynamics. Finally, the session achieves closure when the lecturer summarizes and consolidates main points from the lecture and discussion.

3.5. Computer-Based Method

This method is delivering instructional content and activities to students via computers. Here, computers are tools, which complete and strengthen the system; they are not alternatives that replace teachers in teaching process. In computer based method, computers are used to support education and instruction. Classroom instructor is the main entity that teaches the subject, and determined objectives and attitudes. In this method, an instructor can use computers in different periods, places and ways while teaching according to the characteristics of the students and the type of the subjects that will be teach.

3.6. A Way Forward

Each of the teaching methods presented in this section enhances a specific skill to be developed in the learning process. For instance, lectures help understanding concepts although if this teaching method is used alone students tend to lose focus and thus may only provide students with minimal knowledge i.e. surface approach. Combining different teaching methods is a way forward, if students are able to discuss in groups a specific topic or to develop new conclusions based on the concepts acquired they will achieve deeper learning in the subject and therefore we, as teachers, will better succeed in our goal of producing capable students.

4

4. The Case Study

In this section we will describe a course that was given to students in Autumn 2013/2014 in the Building Materials Department of Lund University.

Course Name: Evaluating measurements with MATLAB Lecturer: Lars Wadsö Number of credits: 4.5 ETCS Student type: PhD-students

4.1. Background

MATLAB was developed as a convenient computer tool to work with matrices (MATrix LABoratory), but it has found a very wide use in the scientific and engineering community. In this course the aim is to concentrate on what is useful when measured data has been collected and needs to be evaluated.

4.2. Goal

After completing this course the PhD-student should be able to use MATLAB to make advanced evaluations of his/her experimental data, including reading different data formats, making general curve fitting, optimization, simple simulations, Monte Carlo simulations, and tailoring graphics for publication.

4.3. Description

The course consists of approximately 13 lectures/seminars, each of 2 hours and 13 home assignments. Each lecture focuses on a specific topic with regards to MATLAB. Lectures are divided into sections, firstly, theoretical elements and features about the relevant topic for that lecture are explained. Next practical examples are given to illustrate the application of concepts described. Following this, short exercises relative to the given concepts are provided to the students, these are to be solved within the allocated class time. During these short exercises, the lecturer moves around the classroom, giving advice and help to any students that require this. Short exercises are handed out on lose paper, with a solution to the exercise on the backside. Towards the end of the class, the lecturer provides his solution to the exercise, and if any student develops a different method to solve the designated problem the lecturer may also present and discuss these. Finally, at the end of the class the lecturer gives out a specific home assignment, related to the topic of the class, that students must solve before the next class (i.e. in a week’s time).

5

4.4. Home Assignments

The designated home assignments consist of an exercise in which the concepts learnt could be applied to obtain a solution to a given problem. Each exercise states what the end result of the assignment should be; however no instructions on how to achieve this result are given. This potentially allows many different solutions to the assignment, as long as the end result is the same.

4.5. A Course at Three Different Levels

The PhD-students that take this course have very different pre-knowledge of MATLAB; therefore the lecturer has made it possible to take this course with quite backgrounds. To balance the needs of different participants the lecturer provides exercises on three levels for each topic. These levels are:

A. No previous experience with programming and/or MATLAB. B. Some experience with programming and/or MATLAB. C. Have worked quite a lot with programming and/or MATLAB.

At the beginning of the course, students must decide the level at which they think they are with regards to programming/MATLAB, either A, B or C. This helps them decide their goals for the course. In order to pass the course, students must solve all assigned home assignments at their specific level or higher.

4.6. A Student’s Perspective

At the beginning of the course, we are asked to assess ourselves as to what level we think we are at, with regards to previous experience using either MATLAB or other programing languages. This gives flexibility for the students wishing to attend this course. As allowing the students to decide their own level of capability at the beginning already makes us (the students) assess our own knowledge, and allows people with no or little experience to feel more comfortable, but also allows more advanced students to become more engaged in the course by taking the more advanced assignment levels. The implication of this choice at the beginning of the course relies on the fact that students attending the course, really want to attend, and are interested, i.e not just there because they need the credit points. Especially for students already with experience, they could easily take advantage and say they have no experience, and do the easiest tasks. However, the impression attained by using this concept of ‘choice’ seemed to work well, this may, however, be due to it being a PhD course and students attending appear to be there because they are interested, rather than just doing it for the credits. The title of the course implies that it will show the students how they can use MATLAB to help in evaluating measurements from experiments and other types of data they may attain during our PhD studies. However as this is a PhD course and the range of experiences with MATLAB and

6

or programming languages may be quite varied. For inexperienced students the course is really designed as an introduction to MATLAB, while others who have had experience before, the course is meant to show how MATLAB can typically be used for analysing data, or may act as a refresher. Once the students have made their choices, the lectures for the course we outlined in the following typical structure (excluding the first lecturer, as no assignment was set beforehand):

1. Solve/discuss previous assignment 2. Introduce new concepts 3. Assign a small ‘in-class’ problem 4. Allow students to attempt/solve the ‘in-class’ problem, while supplying help to students

if needed 5. Solve/discuss the ‘in-class’ problem 6. Assign new assignment (to be completed before the next weeks lecture)

1. At the beginning of the lecture, a review of the previous week’s home assignment

was performed. This involved the lecturer reiterating the assignments that were given (assignment A, B and C), then the lecturer would provide his solution to each of the assignments, discussing the various commands and methods he had implemented, students were also encouraged to ask questions during this presentation. Additionally, as the lecturer was explaining their chosen methodology, they would also show some methods (if they were different) in which students had solved the same problem. Doing this was a very good way to demonstrate the idea that there are many possible ways in which a problem/assignment could be solved, and as long as they did the required task, all are valid methods. This helped students to undertake a more deep approach when attempting the assignments, i.e. showing that there is not just one way to solve something, allowed students to think for themselves more, rather than just copying the methods the lecturer had discussed. Finally, in some cases, the lecturer may discuss how some methods may be ‘better’ than other ways, and why this would be the case. Doing this also gave students ways in which they could possibly (for the next assignment) improve their own methods, e.g. making them more efficient.

2. Introducing a new concept/command into the lecture was usually done by first

explaining the idea, giving some basic examples of how the concept/command works then followed this. Students are also encouraged to follow along using their own laptop computers. During this section, sometimes it could be a little confusing to understand what the lecturer was talking about, as some of the concepts were hard to explain and many students had no practical experience regarding the topics, and did not seem to relate to the exercises that were given after.

3. The lecturer, to help try and explain the concepts they had just discussed, would

assign a small, basic ‘in-class’ exercise, which the students would then try to solve themselves. The exercise was handed out on paper and usually involved 3-4 small tasks, the

7

first being a very basic operation, the second then built on top of the first, etc. the final task, which built on top of the previous tasks, usually combined the previous tasks into a more complex operation. The exercise involved using the concepts that had just been discussed, although as mentioned before, sometimes they were a little hard to relate to the concepts. Refer Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Example of short in-class exercise

4. Once the students were given the in-class exercise, they were given time to

attempt each task within, during this time, the lecturer would be free to give advice and help students if they were stuck, or needed guidance in the implementation of certain functions. When the exercise was given out, solutions to each task within the exercise were also given

8

on either the backside or a separate piece of paper. Doing this had both positive and negative implications, a positive aspect was; if students were stuck, they could ask the lecturer, however if they were helping someone else, students could get a ‘hint’ from the given solution. A negative side to this however, also meant that if student could not be bothered thinking for themselves, they could just copy the solution, therefore implementing a more surface approach to learning.

5. After an allocated time, the lecturer would stop students and then they would go

through the given exercise themselves in front of students, i.e. via a projector, solving the exercise on their own computer. This helped students that may have no finished the exercise or ran into problems as they could see one method of solving it step-by-step; the lecturer would also explain operations as they were doing it. Questions were also encouraged, however time restraints on the lecture sometimes meant that this section would have to be accelerated.

6. At the end of each lecture a home assignment was given out, these were basically,

more complex versions of the in-class exercises. Assignments simply outlined the task that needed to be performed; no constraints on methodologies were given, though assignments were usually based on concepts that were learnt in the lecture. Assignments were given at the three different levels (A, B and C, C being the most complex) and students had to complete, as a minimum, the assignment at their chosen level (e.g. A) however, students were also encouraged to attempt assignments at the other levels. As there was no single ‘correct’ answer to these assignments, students could find solutions in any way they saw fit. Students would then, once they had completed the task, asked to send their program file to the lecturer, they would then run the file and check to see if it looked correct. Feedback regarding the assignments was either an acknowledgement that it was correct, sometimes with feedback on possible improvements, or even questions asking how the student did a certain task, showing that the lecturer was learning things as well, or if the result was not quite ‘right’ the lecturer would provide helpful hints, and ask the student to re-do the task, until it was deemed satisfactory.

9

4.7. Examination of Methods Used in the Course. According to the teaching methods mentioned earlier in this report, the lecturer is this case used a combination of many methods of teaching during the course. In each session, the lecturer gave a short lecture (Lecture Method) mainly focused on a specific topic including different commands and their functionality in MATLAB following with an exercise related to the commands. In this section, students work in groups of 2 or 3 members (Cooperative Method) to come up with an idea to solve the problem. This significantly helped the students to be creative and also improved their skills by doing the in-class exercise immediately after the relevant lecture (Demonstrated Method). In some cases, at the end of the session if some students had come up with different solutions, then it was discussed shortly in the class (Discussion Method). According to the above, the lecturer implemented at least four different methods of teaching at a time; however, due to the limited time for each session the ‘Cooperative Method’ was not completely practiced during the class. As the students sometimes came up with different ideas to solve the in-class assigned problem, the lecturer always showed interest to discuss them in a way that the lecturer is also learning about different/creative methods of achieving the correct results. Owing to that, the lecturer followed the ‘Connected Knowing’ approach, which significantly motivated the students following the course and helped them to solve the out-of-class problems. As the designated home assignment was, somehow, related to the in-class problem, the students had a pre-knowledge about the outcomes that they are expected to get and as they had already chosen their level (A, B, and C), they were more likely felt confident, motivated and interested in doing the home assignments. Therefore, the teacher made a deliberate alignment between the planned learning activities and the learning outcomes. As a result, the ‘Constructive Alignment’ [6] was implemented in the teaching process in this course.

10

5. Conclusion/Further Recommendations

Combining teaching methods is an excellent way of implementing deep learning in students. Different teaching methods improve different skills in students and therefore traditional teaching should be combined with new pedagogical methods in order to get the best from our students.

The case studied in this report implements numerous different teaching methods and focuses on student´s capabilities depending on their previous experience on programming, giving flexibility to the range of students who can attend. As a result the learning outcomes are very satisfactory for the students; it provides them with many opportunities to implement the deep approach to learning, gives them an understanding of Matlab and sets the basis for further improvement. Some points that could be improved in the course, as raised in section 4.6, were mainly to do with helping to relate the concepts at the beginning of the class to other areas of the lecture, so students can better connect the various topics. A possible solution to this may be to use more examples of ‘real-life’ applications of the topics, to help provide a better picture of how the concepts can be implemented. In addition to this, another issue that was raised, was when the in-class exercises were handed out, the solutions to these were also immediately provided. Although, as pointed out in section 4.6, this could also have a positive by providing students a change to ‘peek’ at a solution if they are stuck and the teacher was busy helping other students, it also provides a easy opportunity for students to simply implement a surface approach, by just copying the provided solution. One suggestion that could counter this, without removing the positive aspects, may be to provide a ‘hints’ page instead of a solutions page initially. This would then still provide the needed help if the teacher is unavailable, but would stop students simply copying a given solution. Finally, another option that could assist the teacher, (especially when completing the in-class tasks, as the teacher may not be able to help everybody in the allocated time) is to divide the class into groups for solving in-class exercises so students can teach/learn from each other, this method can also enhances teamwork skills in students [3].

11

6. References

[1] Baker, A., Navarro, E., & van der Hoek, A. (2005). An experimental card game for teaching

software engineering processes. The Journal of Systems and Software, 75, 3–16.

[2] Stiller, E. & LeBlanc, C. (2002). Effective Software Engineering Pedagogy. Journal of

Computing Sciences in Colleges, 17(6), 124–134

[3] Wankat, P. C. & Oreovicz, F. S. (1993). Teaching Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill

[4] Ellestróm P.E. (2010). Practice-based innovation: a learning perspective. Journal of

Workplace Learning Vol 22 pp.27-40

[5] Marton, F. & Säljö R. (1976) On qualitative differences in learning. I-Outcomes and process.

British Journal of Educational Psychology 46, 4-11

[6] Biggs, J.B. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education,

32, 1-18.