For the past several years the University of Queensland has been engaged in teaching first year engineering in the âflipped classroomâ mode. What is somewhat different is that given the sizes of first year classes in Australia, this has been a bit more involved in several dimensions, including scale. These flipped classes are large: 1100-1200 students in size. The lead faculty for these efforts has been Assoc.Profs. Carl Reidseman and Lydia Kavanagh. Iâve been partnering with them to develop some of the learning technologies and analytics. The following is authored by Carl, Lydia and myself.
Background – University of Queenslandâs Flipped Classroom Project (Re-Imagining Engineering Education)
Curriculum design for the Flipped Classroom in First Year Engineering for 1200 students at the University of Queensland began back in the middle of 2011. Preparation started with a whistle-stop tour through NC State to talk to Bob Beichner (Scale-Up) and Rich Felder (Cooperative Learning and Active Learning); up to Olin College to see Rick Miller and his team (Olin Workshop and Design) and then back to Australia via a short stop at Purdue to see David Radcliffe and Robin Adams (Massive First Year Cohorts and Design). In essence, we did our homework in preparation for designing the Flipped Class pedagogical model that we are now using with our students.
The Courses
Students at UQ begin their first year taking ENGG1100, Engineering Design
The first semester course is a tightly organised 13 week keystone design course where students learn to work in teams of 6 from a written design briefs leading to a hands on build of a physical prototype that is tested in the final week in a competitive Demo Day. These prototypes are built using a new space we created named the Student Technology Centre equipped with 23 industry quality steel work benches and a rack of hand tools all sponsored by industry. There are 4 major projects aligned to key discipline areas in Engineering (ie; Mech/Aero/Mechatronics; Civil; Chemical; Minining). Course objectives address traditional theory, team skills, communication, ethics, project management, design process, professional engineering and so on.
The second semester course, ENGG1200, Engineering , Modeling and Problem Solving, builds from the first course (indeed, Lydia and I swap between the course coordinator and co-coordinator roles) and is intended to take the students further into the engineering design process focusing on the defining characteristic of what it means to be an engineer “Engineers Solve Problems”. The level of abstraction increases, with emphasis on design process theory and application.
The Activities
Students move from conceptual design with semi-quantitative feasibility calculations in the first semester to a lower level of abstraction (while retaining the former). This requires more detailed design; application of mathematical models of system behavior; Newton’s Laws [statics, dynamics, momentum and energy]; electrical circuits; fluid flow; heat transfer; Hooke’s Law, stress and strain; to predict the performance of the design in the final demo of the course. Students learn Computer Aided Design (CAD) to model the structural configuration of components and assemblies as well as simulation software (Matlab Simulink) to model the behaviour of the structural assemblies they are designing.
To demonstrate the power of modeling we need the students to design and build dimensionally accurate components. Industry funding purchased eight 5-axis CNC machines located in the Student Technology Centre along with workbenches and handtools. Each of the four projects require the students to produce CAD files controlling their machining. These components are integral to sub-assemblies tested in the demonstration rigs in the final week.
ENGG1100 and 1200 have the same project topic areas. ENGG1200 projects have an accurately controllable test rig into which students assemble their components and sub-assemblies. For example, the Mechanical/Aero/Mechatronics design project has a 3 metre long servo driven linear bearing that can accelerate to 10 m/s and back to 0 in 2.5 metres. The bearing head has a torsion spring to which students assemble a throwing arm. They must program the servo motor to achieve a known trajectory for a tennis ball over a wall placed at a variable distance from the end of the rig. Other projects are equally challenging, beyond the mathematical description capabilities of first year students but within the abilities of the simulation software. An explanation of the rationale for these authentic and immersive learning tactics is another topic.
The final way in which we extended the course objectives has to do with what this post has been discussing and that is student preparation. Bob originally asked what kind of learning activities do you use? This varies for us but can loosely be described as voluntary attendance at workshops that focus on application (as Kathy mentioned). We puzzled quite a bit over how to ensure that students would attend and stay engaged with the practical activities after they had worked through the weekly concepts online. We decided to use a combination of team peer assessment (negative peer marking for social loafing) and engaging designing activities designed to be fun as we could. One weeks theory and practice on Hooke’s Law in Materials through modeling and problem solving serves as an example. Students work through 5 short 5 minute videos on concepts underpinning Hookeâs Law with randomly assigned formative quiz questions. Sections of a textbook are put up online for readings and, if some students are really motivated, additional links to sites are posted to extend their knowledge. There is a 1.5% summative quiz (of similar questions) at the end of the week to drive motivation. Students should do this before their active learning workshop but this is pretty inconsistent during the first part of the term.
The workshop requires the students break into two groups of three, with one group arriving in the STC to record data from the tensile testing of 3 unknown material samples (steel, aluminum and brass). We have 15 new university design and built hand operated 10kN tensile testers splitting the workshop into two parts, primarily to allow all 1200 students an opportunity to experience the joys of tensile testing materials. Once the sub-team has their data they head back up to the workshop where the other sub-team has been creating an Excel model to calculate the deflection of a cantilever beam. The solution to the problem is dependent on the tensile testing sub-team having data that allows the team to determine Young’s Modulus and thus the identification of a weapon. This weapon was used in a murder and the students are acting the role of forensic engineers. The engineering team first to solve the mystery wins the prize, usually a few chocolates and the accolades of their peers.
Reflection
A series of written reflections centred around exploring (and reinforcing) the process of “owning their learning” overlays these activities. We assert this is a core competency of all engineers (knowledge of self and critical reasoning). Students do five 300 word written reflections throughout the course beginning with âsetting your learning goalsâ and finishing with âdid you achieve your learning goals?â. These are done online and visible to a student’s team members. Each of the team members must provide feedback (critique constructively) to one submission from their team as part of the complete task. We have 30 undergraduate markers who give detailed feedback to the students with a 4 day turnaround. Academics moderate the overall process.
Both courses are project-based design oriented with Associate Professors Lydia Kavanagh and Carl Reidsema swapping course coordinator roles throughout the year. They represent the Engineering Faculty/Department which runs the first year courses on behalf of the various Schools. They are the only two full-time (tenured) academics responsible for the design/implementation and operation of the course.
Students are allocated into teams of 6 which makes for around 200 teams. Each project has on average 300 students assigned to it. The projects have 2-3 (total 8-12) project leaders (Postgrads but sometimes young academics) who are in turn responsible for up to 4 undergrad tutors each. The Postgrads and Undergrads are paid casual hourly rates.
We have replaced the 1 hour (centralising/common topic) lectures which used to have to be run 3 times (as our largest lecture theatres hold up to 400 students) with massive active learning (collaborative not cooperative) workshops of 600 students in the UQ Centre Exhibition Hall. These workshops have the two course coordinators (Lydia and Carl) running them with the assistance of 3 of the most senior PostGrad Project leaders. This allows for a student/staff ratio of 120:1. Student attendance throughout the year is nearly 95% as opposed to lectures which are on average 50% attendance.
The courses differ slightly with respect to the way the 4 x 300 student project groups are facilitated and the degree to which the online systems and resources deliver content in the flipped class mode. If we take the second semester course ENGG1200 which was the first course to be flipped and as such is the source of change to ENGG1100 as an example:
Over the first 6 weeks, students learn engineering materials science concepts by first watching a series of weekly concept videos, reading specific textbook sections and practicing with formative online quizzes. They then attend a 2 hour active learning workshop covering the concepts for that week. They finish the week by completing a short summative online quiz. The active learning workshops are run by a combination of one senior (School appointed) academic with 2 tutors.
Simultaneously over the first 6 weeks students also learn about engineering problem solving through a hands-on workbook approach within a 2 hour active learning worksop. This part of the course is not supported by online podcasts, however workshop preparation is expected and maintained though a team peer assessment system. These workshops are facilitated by the Senior Project leaders with the support of 2 tutors . Both the materials and problem solving workshops take place within tutorial rooms holding up to 15 teams of 6.
In Week 7, students sit for a mid-term examination on both engineering materials and problem solving.
Over the Weeks 7-9, student teams are split into two sub-teams. One sub-team learns to use a CAD system to develop a structural model of their proposed design solution while the other sub-team learns to use MatLab to develop a behavioural model of their proposed design solution. The two sub-teams are brought back together for a combined model test in Week 10. The structural model is machined in one of the 8 5-axis CNC machines allocated to the student technology centre or otherwise, waterjet cut by the department workshop group. Students collect their components in Week 10 and from this point on, the students are building, testing and refining their manufactured design components for a final Week 13 demonstration day. “
Carl’s contact info directly is below. I’m curious as to what others think about this as we have’t seen many examples of this kind of activity tried at this scale. Experimenting like this is to some extent an artifact of the Australian system that, IMHO, makes it difficult to trial pedagogical changes in smaller sections because it runs against the cultural concern that treating different cohorts differently introduces potential inequity that is an unacceptable risk in the students’ experience.
Carl’s contact data:
Associate Professor Carl Reidsema
B.E., MEngSci, PhD, MIEAust
Director of Teaching and Learning (Engineering)
Engineering Design Education
School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering
Room 311 Mansergh Shaw
Faculty of EAIT
University of Queensland