Search for: All records

This Research-to-Practice Full Paper describes the implementation of integrated reflective activities in two computer engineering courses. Reflective activities contribute to student learning and professional development. Instructional team members have been examining the need and opportunities to deepen learning by integrating reflective activities into problem-solving experiences. We implemented reflective activities using a coordinated framework for a modified Kolbian cycle. The framework consists of reflection-for-action, reflection-in-action, reflection-on-action, and composted reflections. Reflection-for-action takes place before the experience and involves thinking about and planning future actions. Reflection-in-action takes place during the experience while actively problem-solving. Reflection-on-action takes place after the problem-solving experience. Composting involves revisiting past experiences and reflections to inform future planning. We describe the reflective activities in the context of the coordinated framework, including strategies to support reflection and increase the likelihood of engagement and success. We conclude with an analysis of the activities using the CPREE framework for reflection pathways. 

This Research-to-Practice Full Paper presents the redesign of a course project to promote student professional formation in engineering in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at Iowa State University. This is part of a larger effort to redesign core courses in the sophomore and junior years through a collaborative instructional model and pedagogical approaches that promote professional formation. A required sophomore course on embedded computer systems has been assessed and revised over multiple semesters. The redesign of the project was initiated with the purpose of promoting student professional formation, interest, autonomy and innovation, and it was undertaken using a collaborative process. This paper describes the course, final project, redesign process, assessment, results and future work. Several conclusions from the research may be useful to other educators. A small change to the course project yielded positive effects in interest and autonomy and may influence longer term effects of the project. There was evidence of difference in engagement with the project. The difference observed was not only due to option selected by students but why students selected the option. 

This work-in-progress research paper explores the intersection of cross-functional teamwork and design thinking within the course design process through collaborative autoethnography. Collaborative autoethnography uses individual and dialogic reflections to provide a detailed and nuanced exploration of experiences within a culture (e.g., a course design team) and generate insights that might inform broader community of individuals who experience related cultures. In this study, we investigate how individual educators attempt to shape and are shaped by a unique team course design process in electrical and computer engineering. The participant-researchers in this study are three electrical and computer engineering faculty members and one engineering education researcher who have participated in a six-semester-long course redesign effort. The effort has emphasized building and utilizing a new cross-functional team approach, imbued with design thinking strategies, to support improved professional formation and student-centeredness within an embedded systems course for electrical and computer engineering students. In this study, data collection and analysis were integrated and iterative. This process engaged cycles of setting writing prompts, individual writing, group discussion and reflection, and setting new writing prompts. This process was repeated as participant-researchers and the team as a whole refined their insights, explored emergent topics, and connected their observations to external research and scholarship. The autoethnographic process is ongoing, but five themes have emerged that describe key features of the team course design process and experience: (1) uncertainty, (2) navigating the team, (3) navigating the self, (4) navigating the system, and (5) process. The paper features a collection of participant-researcher reflections related to these emergent themes. 

The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at a large Midwestern University is seeking to enhance undergraduate engineering education through a combination of programmatic efforts to create departmental change. Three distinct programs aim to transform ECE education through collaborative course design, enhancements to the department climate, and increases in the opportunities for underrepresented undergraduate engineering students. Due to the integrative and corresponding programmatic goals, it was vital to develop a unified evaluation in line with the program evaluation standards (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). Further, the interaction of multiple programs necessitated evaluating goal attainment at both the programmatic and departmental levels to determine not only the effects of individual programs but also to examine the broader effect of the interaction of multiple ongoing programmatic efforts to enhance engineering education. To facilitate this process, program team members developed comprehensive lists of ongoing activities designed to create change in the department within each program. Evaluators worked with the program teams to theme and cluster activities into similar groups. To understand how each cluster of activities was positioned to create departmental change and revolutionize engineering education, the evaluators and team members then attempted to identify how each cluster of activities worked as change strategies within the model by Henderson, Beach, and Finkelstein (2011). Thus, evaluators were able to identify over twenty distinct clusters of change activities working as change strategies within the four pillars of the change model: Curriculum and pedagogy, reflective teachers, policy, and shared vision. Positioning activities within this model allowed the evaluators and team members to 1) Better understand the broad scope of departmental activities and change strategies, 2) Identify strengths and challenges associated with their current efforts to transform engineering education within the department, and 3) Develop and integrate ongoing evaluation efforts to further understand both the programmatic and interactive effects of having multiple programs designed at facilitating departmental change and enhancing engineering education. The model for understanding department change and the approaches within that model that are being used to transform ECE education will be presented. We will further explain how the change model approach facilitated evaluating each program and the interactive effects of the combined programmatic efforts within the program evaluation standards of utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy (Yarbrough et al., 2011). Specific programmatic and interactive evaluation approaches will be discussed. References Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952-984. Yarbrough, D. B., Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Caruthers, F. A. (2011). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Changing Electrical and Computer Engineering Department Culture from the Bottom Up: Action Plans Generated from Faculty Interviews We prefer a Lessons Learned Paper. In a collaborative effort between a RED: Revolutionizing Engineering and Computer Science Departments (RED) National Science Foundation grant awarded to an electrical and computer engineering department (ECpE) and a broader, university-wide ADVANCE program, ECpE faculty were invited to participate in focus groups to evaluate the culture of their department, to further department goals, and to facilitate long-term planning. Forty-four ECpE faculty members from a large Midwestern university participated in these interviews, which were specifically focused on departmental support and challenges, distribution of resources, faculty workload, career/family balance, mentoring, faculty professional development, productivity, recruitment, and diversity. Faculty were interviewed in groups according to rank, and issues important to particular subcategories of faculty (e.g., rank, gender, etc.) were noted. Data were analyzed by a social scientist using the full transcript of each interview/focus group and the NVivo 12 Qualitative Research Software Program. She presented the written report to the entire faculty. Based on the results of the focus groups, the ECpE department developed an action plan with six main thrusts for improving departmental culture and encouraging departmental change and transformation. 1. Department Interactions – Encourage open dialogue and consider department retreats. Academic areas should be held accountable for the working environment and encouraged to discuss department-related issues. 2. Mentoring, Promotion, and Evaluation – Continue mentoring junior faculty. Improve the clarity of P&T operational documents and seek faculty input on the evaluation system. 3. Teaching Loads – Investigate teaching assistant (TA) allocation models and explore models for teaching loads. Develop a TA performance evaluation system and return TA support to levels seen in the 2010 timeframe. Improvements to teaching evaluations should consider differential workloads, clarifying expectations for senior advising, and hiring more faculty for undergraduate-heavy areas. 4. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion – Enact an explicit focus on diversity in hiring. Review departmental policies on inclusive teaching and learning environments. 5. Building – Communicate with upper administration about the need for a new building. Explore possibilities for collaborations with Computer Science on a joint building. 6. Support Staff – Increase communication with the department regarding new service delivery models. Request additional support for Human Resources, communications, and finance. Recognize staff excellence at the annual department banquet and through college/university awards. 

Today's engineers' needs are evolving rapidly as the information and technologies that compete for their attentions. At the same time, our institutions and systems are stretched to their limits to keep up with the changing demands of the times. There is, especially, a need to sustain reflective integration of social and technical knowledge into the future generations of engineering, to make engineers more humane, in order for them to generate technological solutions that are more human-centric. Addressing such needs requires new approaches to teaching and designing engineering courses. Any advancement in the education sector from here forward requires a new thinking paradigm that can be applied in large-scale systematic reform of education: design thinking. This paper outlines means to use design thinking as the foundational methodology for transforming a traditional electrical and computer engineering department into an agile department where design thinking, systems thinking, professional skills and inclusion are promoted, and collaborative, inquiry-driven processes are stimulated to create and sustain new ways of thinking, interacting, teaching, learning and working. 

Electrical and computer engineering technologies have evolved into dynamic, complex systems that profoundly change the world we live in. Designing these systems requires not only technical knowledge and skills but also new ways of thinking and the development of social, professional and ethical responsibility. A large electrical and computer engineering department at a Midwestern public university is transforming to a more agile, less traditional organization to better respond to student, industry and society needs. This is being done through new structures for faculty collaboration and facilitated through departmental change processes. Ironically, an impetus behind this effort was a failed attempt at department-wide curricular reform. This failure led to the recognition of the need for more systemic change, and a project emerged from over two years of efforts. The project uses a cross-functional, collaborative instructional model for course design and professional formation, called X-teams. X-teams are reshaping the core technical ECE curricula in the sophomore and junior years through pedagogical approaches that (a) promote design thinking, systems thinking, professional skills such as leadership, and inclusion; (b) contextualize course concepts; and (c) stimulate creative, socio-technical-minded development of ECE technologies. An X-team is comprised of ECE faculty members including the primary instructor, an engineering education and/or design faculty member, an industry practitioner, context experts, instructional specialists (as needed to support the process of teaching, including effective inquiry and inclusive teaching) and student teaching assistants. X-teams use an iterative design thinking process and reflection to explore pedagogical strategies. X-teams are also serving as change agents for the rest of the department through communities of practice referred to as Y-circles. Y-circles, comprised of X-team members, faculty, staff, and students, engage in a process of discovery and inquiry to bridge the engineering education research-to-practice gap. Research studies are being conducted to answer questions to understand (1) how educators involved in X-teams use design thinking to create new pedagogical solutions; (2) how the middle years affect student professional ECE identity development as design thinkers; (3) how ECE students overcome barriers, make choices, and persist along their educational and career paths; and (4) the effects of department structures, policies, and procedures on faculty attitudes, motivation and actions. This paper will present the efforts that led up to the project, including failures and opportunities. It will summarize the project, describe related work, and present early progress implementing new approaches. 

The percentages of women in undergraduate electrical and computer engineering programs at Iowa State University averages below the national average. An external assessment of diversity and inclusion provided an impetus for faculty, staff and administrators to discuss issues, focus on specific areas, and collaborate on planning. In particular, the department has teamed up with the university's Program for Women in Science and Engineering to better integrate their programs with departmental activities. This has resulted in an enhanced student experience model being designed for undergraduate ECE women. The model leverages effective practices including learning communities, leadership and professional development, academic support and advising for the ISU Engineering Basic Program, academic preparation for the ECE field, and state and national resources for inclusive ECE career awareness, recruiting and teaching. The WI-ECSEL Initiative has been designed to improve diversity and inclusion in Iowa State's electrical, computer, and software engineering programs; improve educational pathways including transfer transitions from community colleges; provide a supportive and integrated student experience; establish a community of practice for faculty; and use research to inform practice.