Integrating Calculus, Chemistry, Physics and Engineering Education through Technology Enhanced Visualization, Simulation and Design Cases and Outcomes Assessment

A proposal to the GE Fund -- Learning Excellence Initiative

1.0 Introduction

The Colleges of Chemistry and Engineering at UC Berkeley have been at the forefront of curricular reform and use of information technologies to improve undergraduate instruction with separate programs in each of our units [1,2]. Physical Sciences has also won an NSF grant to implement intensive sections and train associated graduate student instructors in lower division chemistry, math and physics courses [3]. Currently none of these major efforts are integrated on campus, as their funding is restricted to targeted disciplines and specific programmatic goals. This proposal is the first in which Chemistry and Engineering join with the Departments of Physics and Mathematics to work on systematic curricular reform by coordinating calculus instruction with chemistry, physics and engineering in a manner that involves the intellectual development of related curricular content and pedagogies, cross-departmental assessment, and an integrated instructional technology plan. The previous grants provide the departmental foundation for reform -- whereas the GE Fund will greatly leverage these efforts and provide the integrating enabler, interdisciplinary components, interdisciplinary student outcomes assessment and faculty/instructor training.

2.0 The Problem

For over ten years, the need for curriculum reform in calculus-based disciplines has been well-recognized. Reports have been issued by the National Research Council [4-5], the National Science Foundation [6-8], the professional societies [9-10] and industry [11-13] describing how the current curriculum fails to serve its students effectively and the industry that employs them. The major problem areas are clear.

Students: The present system turns many students away from math, physical sciences and engineering because they perceive the courses as difficult, boring, and irrelevant to their own lives. They feel there is no room for creativity in the learning process and little room for personal participation in these classes [14-15]. For example, even though many students in introductory math, physics and chemistry courses are engineering majors, the courses often seem to be aimed at the small number math, physics and chemistry majors. Many schools consider physics a "gatekeeper" or "weeder" course. Recent work by Seymour and Hewitt [14] and Tobias and Hake [15] report that lack of interest in science is one of the top factors contributing to students' switching out of engineering. One quote from a student in the Seymour and Hewitt [14; p. 64] ethnographic study sums up the situation:

The first two years are so dull -- at least the introductory courses in physics. I mean, they have absolutely nothing to do with what you'll be doing later. That's why I'm afraid you might be losing good students from engineering that are really qualified and have the intelligence . . . There are ways to make their introductory material interesting so that it doesn't drive away good people through boredom.

The students who remain interested in science and engineering take narrow and discipline-oriented courses; they often fail to see the connections between concepts in calculus and chemistry, physics, and engineering. Case study work, problem-solving abilities, the interfaces between disciplines, and the connections to current scientific and engineering research and societal problems are rarely emphasized. Successful science and engineering students complain that they do not have time to understand all of the course material presented to them and must resort to memorizing to do well in a course. The sheer volume of material covered in a semester of introductory calculus, chemistry and physics discourages the development of critical and integrative thinking skills needed for research and professional practice. Moreover, students have few strategies for diagnosing their own learning weaknesses and monitoring their own understanding.

Faculty: Many, if not a majority, of faculty still employ traditional teaching styles that are not challenged either through the development of cross- disciplinary approaches or exposure to new techniques in pedagogy, technology, or curriculum development. As a result, students often lack motivation. They feel there is no room for creativity in the learning process and little room for active participation in class. Professors complain that despite their efforts to prepare interesting lectures their students are not engaged.

Current teaching methods do not usually incorporate modern information systems technology and do not prepare students to utilize future technologies and to develop autonomous learning skills. Blackboard and chalk are still the most common means for presenting math and science concepts, yet much of this subject material cannot be accurately depicted by a two-dimensional "still-life." While the use of innovative, computer-assisted learning is growing, it is still not typically used because faculty have not been given the training or assistance to use it properly.

Lack of instruments for quality feedback on student learning: Faculty members typically rely on tests to gauge student performance. Too often, they find too late that students have not learned as expected. Faculty need ways to get a continual flow of accurate information about how their students are doing throughout the semester. They need to incorporate into their teaching ongoing assessments of student learning, such as short in-class assignments, "minute papers," concept connections, small group work, learning journals, and other active learning strategies. They also need instruments to help them assess whether student learning in one class is providing the foundation and integrative skills needed for the next class, and ultimately for professional practice and lifelong learning.

3.0 Goals and Approach

Our ultimate goal is to improve student learning and motivation in lower division (freshman/ sophomore) math and science courses by connecting the abstract material in the traditional curriculum to design and analysis problems whose solutions are realized through computer-based animations, simulations and interactive multimedia design cases. Classroom examples, take-home problems, and intensive sections/small study group problems will be designed so that solutions can be observed visually through simulations and animations that illustrate the power of analysis and simulation to verify and visualize physical systems. These will be coupled with "order of magnitude" analyses so that students can estimate whether their answers are reasonable. These problems will link to more in-depth multimedia modules and hands-on exercises which demonstrate how mathematical and physical principles are applied to create physical artifacts and engineering designs. The development of tested curricular modules will be coupled with a critical overview of material covered in the relevant lower division courses and a move to optimize both their content and process of instruction.

4.0 Building on Accomplishments in Mathematics, Science and Engineering Curricular Reform

Such an ambitious undertaking at one of the world's premier research universities would not be possible if we were not able to build on the accomplishments of others and those of our own faculty and infrastructure. We are driven by the primary goal of improving student learning along many dimensions. We are cautious of bold predictions that Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) will reduce overall costs in education. But one major efficiency will be realized by building on the best work of others.

Thanks in large part to NSF funding for the Core Mathematics Consortium (Grant No: NSF-USE-895-3923 and NSF-DUE-935-2905) first-year calculus education is changing [16]. Students are learning single and multivariable calculus from four perspectives -- verbal, geometrical, numerical, and algebraic. Formal definitions of mathematical concepts and procedures for manipulating variables evolve from the investigation of practical problems. A multi-university network of physics, chemists, and engineering faculty are developing and sharing ideas about what and how physical sciences should be taught. We will build on the accomplishments and the network of others involved in physics reform -- e.g., R.R. Hake [17], the CUPLES participants [18] and Leonard [19], chemistry reform [20-21] and previous work funded by the GE Fund/Foundation in chemical engineering design [22] and instructional technology [23].

The proposed grant outlined below will also be greatly leveraged by two NSF-funded national curricular reform efforts with headquarters at UC Berkeley -- the Synthesis Undergraduate Engineering Education Coalition [1] and the ModularChem Consortium (MC2) [2]. Both Synthesis and MC2 enjoy broad geographic diversity; a balance in size, mission, and institutional type; and a strong record of collaboration. Most of the multimedia case studies presented in this proposal have already been developed or are under development, entirely with funds from NSF and matching partners. In part, the GE Fund grant will allow us to extend or modify the development of this multimedia courseware to accomplish the broader integrative goals outlined in the proposal.

Synthesis (www.synthesis.org) is comprised of eight diverse educational institutions whose mission is to reform engineering education by developing new curricular and pedagogical models that integrate multidisciplinary content, teamwork and communication, hands-on and laboratory experiences, open-ended problem formulation and solving, and examples of "best practices" from industry. Synthesis has produced multimedia courseware that integrates the diverse analytic, design, experimental and intuitive skills that are required by a practicing engineer. This material can be readily transferred and adapted to different student and campus needs utilizing NEEDS (National Engineering Education Delivery System - http://www.needs.org/), an entirely new courseware development and distribution system that provides widespread Internet access to a growing multimedia courseware database.

The mission of the ModularChem Consortium (MC2) is to develop new curricula, multimedia materials and methods which will enhance the appreciation and learning of chemistry. To accomplish this mission, a modular approach to teaching chemistry in the first two years of the undergraduate curriculum is being developed and evaluated. The modules, typically 2-4 weeks of classroom or laboratory materials, present fundamental chemistry to students in the context of a real-world problem or application and emphasize the links between chemistry and other disciplines. (www.cchem.berkeley.edu:8080)

5.0 Program Plan

We propose to the GE Foundation a grant of $450,000 to enhance the learning experience of a large number of Berkeley students. We will restructure our lower division courses and develop and implement Technology Enhanced Learning models using animation/ visualization/ simulation/ design cases as integrating mechanisms for calculus/ chemistry/ physics/ engineering in lower division undergraduate education at UC Berkeley. We will accomplish this by enabling interdisciplinary teams of key faculty, lecturers, and graduate students instructors, to be known as GE Faculty Fellows, who will work together to accomplish five significant goals:
  1. develop meaningful interdisciplinary collaborations specifically aimed at changing teaching and learning styles in math, physical sciences and engineering;
  2. transform and enhance pedagogical styles in these disciplines ;
  3. design integrating physics, chemistry, engineering and mathematics curricula and courseware;
  4. capitalize on instructional technology to improve student learning; and
  5. conduct educational studies to measure the impact of the changes, with a focus on measuring student learning outcomes as needed by the disciplines involved.

5.1 Develop meaningful interdisciplinary collaborations specifically aimed at changing teaching and learning styles in math, physical sciences and engineering.

Through this initiative, teams of faculty members, instructors, and graduate student instructors from mathematics, chemistry, physics, engineering, and education will share curricular ideas and work together to revise existing courses, explore common curriculum modules that cut across courses, and work on collaborative teaching methods. We are targeted key gateway courses to students in engineering and physical sciences. These courses are key to retention and have high enrollments, totaling over 2,200 students each year.

This will be accomplished through the creation of a group of GE Faculty Fellows, who will form into interdisciplinary teams to reexamine lower-division "gateway" courses. These Fellows will work with participating departments to revise the content and pedagogy of existing course sequences in math science and engineering and design new interdisciplinary modules. Faculty Fellows will be selected from departmental nominations with approval by an interdisciplinary advisory committee, attend summer and academic year workshops and seminar series, form a cross-disciplinary community of teaching scholars, participate in on-going curricular development and discourse during the academic year, and serve as resources on teaching and learning for their departments. The result of this three-year program will be to "mainstream" the new curricular innovations, new teaching methods, and additional assessment techniques so that student learning in the crucial "gateway" courses is significantly improved.

Interdisciplinary teams for lower division gateway courses and articulated Engineering courses (i.e., those that require gateway courses be taken previously or at the same time) will be invited to apply for the GE Faculty Fellows program. After a rigorous and competitive process, a small group of five-ten will meet in summer and academic-year seminars and workshops to develop the cross-disciplinary aspects of current courses; optimize the content of current courses; develop interdisciplinary case studies, open ended problems, and curricular modules; and develop effective pedagogy and assessment of student learning. Teams would comprise, for example, several faculty members from different disciplines at all levels, or a faculty member teamed with instructors and/or GSIs from different departments. Fellows will receive a summer stipend, research assistance for curriculum development, and student technology assistance. An Advisory Committee comprising faculty, department chairs, students and representatives from industry will provide guidance, particularly in the early phases of the program, including selecting the Fellows. Fellows will meet during the semester they are teaching their revised courses to share tips and ideas and troubleshoot problems.

We will make the Fellows program prestigious and well accounted for in our faculty and instructor promotion and evaluation process. With the leadership of the deans and department chairs, we will promote the program so that it is viewed as an honor for those who are selected. In support of this, we have the commitment of participating Department Chairs and Deans to highly value Fellows participation when decisions are made about faculty merit and promotions (see letters of support in Appendix A). The involvement of instructors and GSI's, in addition to faculty, are important in this process as they will become the faculty of the future.

5.2 Transform and enhance pedagogical styles in these disciplines

. Science and technology teaching is most effective when it captures methods scientists and engineers use: manipulating materials and hardware, exploring phenomena through hands-on laboratories, actively observing phenomena, and discussing, debating, and challenging different interpretations and possible applications. Research shows that students learn more, retain knowledge longer, and enjoy their courses better when they are active participants in the learning process. Yet most faculty fail to incorporate active learning strategies in their courses. We believe that faculty/instructor development and technology enhanced instruction are the key enablers for our curricular and pedagogical goals. Modern hypermedia user-interface design encourages the kind of integration and connection linking that we envision. But multimedia courseware development must be coupled with faculty and instructor training in the appropriate use of technology and in new research on pedagogy and learning styles.

Through the summer and academic year seminars, workshops, and on-going collaborations, Fellows will begin to implement new instructional techniques such as collaborative learning strategies, self-directed learning methods, classroom assessments, peer instruction, team teaching, and student inquiry processes. The emphasis will be on exploring and instituting pedagogical strategies that provide Fellows with ongoing feedback on how well students are learning the material. They will explore effective assessment techniques for monitoring student progress throughout the class, including on-line assessments, and electronic discussion strategies (e.g., use of e-mail, electronic bulletin boards or on-line discussion software).

The most effective model for structured study groups is the math/science workshop model developed by Uri Treisman for the Professional Development Program (PDP) at the University of California, Berkeley. Participating minority students earned on the average one letter grade higher in their math and science courses than non-participating minority student. In addition, they exceeded the average grades achieved by white student in the same courses.

-- Zimmer, et al., [43: pp. 49,52]

Key to the GE Fellows program is the concept of recruiting teams of Fellows who are interested in teaching a revised course together during the academic-year. These instructors will be using learning approaches that have had demonstrated success. These will include techniques involving peers, such as cooperative learning [24-25], facilitated group learning [26-27], and peer instruction [28], as well as techniques for improving independent and individual learning, such as reflection, self-explanation, and self-assessments [29-31]. Berkeley faculty in the School of Education are world leaders in research in these areas and their expertise will be part of the faculty/instructor development and assessment efforts (e.g., [32-37]). To transform teaching and traditional pedagogical styles, we will capitalize on past work in the Synthesis Coalition [1, 37-39], the MC2 [2] and others (e.g., [14-23, 40-42]). We build on the success of the intensive sessions [26-27, 43] of the Professional Development Program (PDP), Minority Engineering Programs (MEP), Physics Scholars Program and the Chemistry Scholars Program as well. These programs emphasize collaborative group learning and active learning models with carefully crafted curriculum materials designed to engender student-initiated inquiry and scientific thinking, and develop the foundation for autonomous learning in our first and second year math, science and engineering students. Finally, we will rely heavily on the a compendium of best teaching practices and tools for evaluating teaching, and exemplary practices developed through UC Berkeley's Office of Educational Development under the direction of Assistant Vice Chancellor Barbara Davis [44-46].

Our intent is to help Fellows develop a learner-centered culture within their courses. We anticipate that over the three-year grant period, more than 3,000 students would be exposed to these new learning techniques. As these techniques are "mainstreamed," we expect to be able to document improved student learning for the more than 2,200 Berkeley students taking these courses each year.

5.3 Design integrating physics, chemistry, engineering and mathematics curricula and courseware and capitalize on instructional technology to improve student learning.

We propose to use an open-ended problem-solving framework in presenting lower division students with exercises that demonstrate the integration of calculus, physics, and chemistry as fundamental components of science and engineering practice. Open-ended problem-solving generally starts with a simple model for the system under study. Assumptions are examined and results checked to determine if an answer to the problem has been obtained or if further study using a more complex model is warranted. In many cases, experimental work will be needed to resolve important issues. This approach shows students that solving problems of practical importance requires knowledge from many domains. Thus it promotes integrative thinking across domains and complements rather than replaces traditional assignments.

Within our problem-solving framework we will establish the dual roles of calculus as the language needed to express models of physical systems as well as the means of establishing relationships among variables. Computation is introduced naturally as the means of producing answers within the framework of a problem. The essence of the pedagogy in using this approach is to start with a very simple physical or chemical principle that can be connected to products for which case studies are available. The initial studies draw upon computational resources while remaining conceptually straightforward. As students are introduced to more material in the math and science courses, the models used within the framework can become more sophisticated. Using the case studies or hands-on experiments, students can compare results from their models to actual experimental data for assessment of the predictive value of the models. These data will be the inputs to visually stimulating animation and simulation exercises.

Fig. 1: Kolb's model of experiential learning. Integrative learning is promoted by cycling through four different cognitive modes [49].

Science and engineering problems will be presented within this problem-solving framework and used in instructional settings that build on constructivist, learning style sensitive, experiential learning pedagogical models [47-49]. The Kolb model [49] of experiential learning (Fig. 1) is of particular importance to the physical sciences and engineering as it is designed to promote integrative learning by cycling students through four cognitive/ experiential modes that are key to success in professional practice: reflective observation, active experimentation, concrete experience, and abstract conceptualization. Both constructivist and experiential models are appropriate for TEL as they accommodate learning style differences and promote the autonomous learning skills needed to prepare students for lifelong learning.

Examples of this problem-solving framework are presented below, beginning with the physics of a force acting on a mass with connections to feedback control. This basic physical principle connects to representative case study areas, the computer disk drive and the automotive airbag. The GE Fund will allow us to extend these cases and others developed by Synthesis and MC2 (which are currently only being used in courses in the Colleges of Engineering and Chemistry) for use in interdisciplinary curricular modules in calculus and physics instruction.

Mechanical Motion and Actuation Example. An overarching theme in engineering design is the precise placement of a mass by applying an external force. The necessary physical concepts of simple mechanical systems are typically introduced during a student's first semester in physics, thus it will be possible to create a setting in either physics or mathematics courses where the students can integrate their knowledge of physics and calculus to approach the problem. The general idea is to introduce this problem initially in an abstract way to show that solutions for position and velocity of the mass can be generated for arbitrarily complex force vs. time inputs. The pedagogical purpose of this exercise is to establish the modeling technique and the connection of the mathematical concept of a derivative to the physical concepts associated with conservation of momentum. The next step is to introduce the concepts of feedback control and show that velocity and/or position control can be done rather simply, and that the solution techniques already established continue to work without any significant change even when the problem becomes more complicated. Nonlinearity enters this part of the problem very naturally in that it makes physical sense that there is a maximum force that any real device can actually exert, so actuator saturation can be included in the simulation. Once the control problem has been explored enough to know that feedback control works, has stability limits, etc., engineering questions about system performance can be posed -- e.g., actuator sizing to meet certain specifications, controller tuning for best stabilization time, minimum overshoot, or other similar criteria. Numerical analysis is introduced immediately so that students are not limited in the scope of problems they can tackle. The mathematical development of this framework and how it might be integrated with Matlab(TM) exercises in provided in Appendix B.

Fig. 2: The multimedia case study of the disk drive under development highlights engineering design, manufacturing processes, competitive practices in industry and research challenges. The GE grant will allow us to integrate this case with principles from calculus, physics and chemistry.

Disk Drive Example. The next step is to tie this general force/motion problem specifically to our product-oriented cases, such as the design of disk drives (Fig. 2) and air bag actuation systems. Multimedia cases on these problems have been developed or are being developed by Synthesis and MC2, funded by the National Science Foundation and collaborating industries. The immediate connection to the disk drive is in head positioning, which is a specific example of the general position control problem posed above. This specific system provides initially for dimensionalization of the problem so that sizes, actual speeds, etc., have some reality for the students who can watch such systems actually work. It then connects to the electricity and magnetism section of physics by looking at the voice-coil actuator that is commonly used on these devices and examining its design, modeling, etc. Modeling of electric circuits, inductance, etc., comes in here, but takes exactly the same mathematical form as the mechanical models already used. Again, the concept of the derivative and its critical role in representing energetic relationships in physical systems is stressed. Its model can then be included with the mechanical model to get overall system performance. A further study can introduce mechanical compliance and thus resonance, a common problem in disk head positioners that arises because of the need to make them very light.

Automobile Airbag Chemistry Example. The design and operation of the automobile airbag system provides an interesting and relevant problem that integrates math, physics, and chemistry. To be able to design a functioning airbag system, one must understand the chemistry of gases and gas-forming reactions, the physics of acceleration and the forces involved in an impact, and the mathematics that aid the understanding and determination of the optimum rate of change of volume of the bag. The connections between change in momentum and potential for injury give students a view of reality that they can apply in many other situations as well. Studies of mechanical motion and actuation can be connected within a framework based on the chemistry and gas dynamics of the airbag which will result in a model predicting the expansion of the airbag. Students will also have data from actual airbags available for comparative analysis.

Fig. 3: The "virtual office" for the automotive airbag case.

Interactive multimedia software involving the chemistry of gas production in airbag systems is presently under development within the ModularChem Consortium. The software places students in a virtual office (Fig. 3) with a virtual laboratory (Fig. 4) to explore the chemistry of gas-forming reactions and pressure-volume-temperature relationships, as well as view video clips of airbag design and operation. Students can also dissect the airbag exploded and learn how it is constructed. Within the software package, the students are provided with assignments of increasing difficulty related to airbag design, with a major focus on the concepts of stoichiometry, balancing chemical equations, and the relationships between pressure, volume and temperature of gases.

Fig.4: The "virtual Laboratory" where students can simulate the air pressure dynamics and other physical/chemical effects.

Integration of the existing airbag module with math and physics will entail production of a new branch in the interactive courseware that will allow the student to explore the mathematical and physical relationships behind the rate of inflation of the airbag, as well as the force with which the airbag and the body of the driver collide. Sample questions to engage students in mathematics and physics include (1) curve shape analysis, (2) air bag dynamics, and (3) force analysis. See Appendix C for further development of these questions.

5.4 Conduct educational studies to measure the impact of the changes, with a focus on measuring student learning outcomes as needed by the disciplines involved.

The introductory courses in math, physics, chemistry, and engineering (Math 1A, 1B, 53, 54, Physics 7A, 7B and 7C, Chemistry 1A) and articulated Engineering courses (e.g., introduction to engineering science, circuits, statics, materials, mechanics of materials, freshman/sophomore computing) constitute big hurdles for students at UC Berkeley and are most in need of curriculum reform. Our goal is to link these curricula through the interdisciplinary course modules, such as the examples described in the previous section. The teams of GE Fellows will identify unifying scientific principles, mathematical concepts, and student learning activities that will better link the disciplines with the goal of helping students gain a better grasp of the subject matter.

Homework, too will change. For example, while homework and exam problems that have one "correct" solution are less time consuming to grade, these kinds of problems engender narrow perspectives, memorization, and the misperception that "all problems can be solved in 10 minutes". By encouraging Fellows to design meaningful learning assessments that emphasize conceptual understanding and problem-solving abilities, we can change the way students learn by modifying the outcomes used to measure success. Where appropriate, learning assessments and self-diagnostic exercises will be accessible through the Internet and World Wide Web to allow for immediate feedback to students, geography-independent access, and asynchronous learning. In addition, Fellows will gain the tools and techniques to conduct their own ongoing assessments of student learning during the course offerings.

Synthesis and MC2 both have in-depth formative and summative assessment plans in place which will form the basis for our cross-departmental assessment program, including student questionnaires, on-line assessment methods, portfolio analysis and involvement of students, staff, faculty and industry. The plans include data for benchmarking, and both formative and summative assessment involving industry. We will track student grades, retention rates in courses, enrollment rates in our majors and retention rates in majors between semesters. We will ask students about the adequacy of the coordination of material between lectures and section. We will ask students if they feel the technology-enhanced problem-solving approach was beneficial, whether the teaching style was effective, whether they worked collaboratively with other students outside of class more than for other courses, etc. Both the lecturers and the GSIs will be asked about the adequacy of support and effectiveness of communication between GSIs and the lecturer. Each individual department will also be conducting its own assessment of the impact of their program on student achievement and will be providing comparative data. In addition, students who have completed the new courses will be contacted a year after having completed the course and be queried concerning lasting impressions or affects of the course that they feel were significant. Other indicators of success include: student self-assessments, changes in student performance on complex projects via evaluation of portfolios of work on design and open-ended problems, number of classroom assessment techniques employed by faculty, and measures of student faculty satisfaction.

We are fortunate to be working with Prof. Alan Schoenfeld, one of the nation's leaders in mathematical assessment [32-34] on the Advisory Committee to this project, along with Barbara Davis, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Student Life-Educational Development and author of numerous books and articles on teaching and assessment [44-46]. We will also recruit graduate students from our School of Education's programs in Mathematics, Science and Technology to serve as graduate student researchers associated with each team of Fellows. Dr. Flora McMartin, the Synthesis Coalition's Director of Assessment, will serve on the Fellows Advisory Committee. She is a Ph.D. graduate of UC Berkeley's School of Education with over 17 years in student services and program assessment in higher education. Here recent work in scalable techniques for portfolio outcomes assessment will be a valuable resources to the Fellows program.

6.0 Timeline.

We plan to begin designing the GE Fellows Program in Spring '97 and will seek nominations for GE Fellows to begin starting Summer '97. As both a "top down" and "bottom up" approach are needed for successful reforms at UC Berkeley, we can't predict ahead of time which courses will be targeted which year. This will depend on the faculty nominations and the Advisory Committee review. We will encourage faculty/instructor teams to focus on the freshman courses during the first two years and sophomore courses during the second and third year.

7.0 Institutional Support and Management Plan

As Deans of the two major units involved -- Physical Sciences and Engineering -- the Co-PIs are uniquely positioned to successfully complete this program. They will co-chair the Advisory Committee, which will be responsible for selecting Faculty Fellows and evaluating their progress. The Advisory Committee will be composed of Department Chairs, pro-active faculty with a successful track record in curricular reform, professional staff and student and industry representatives. A list of the membership of the Advisory Committee and their Curriculum Vitae are provided in Appendix D. The College of Engineering and the Synthesis Coalition will provide the administrative support for this proposal.

In addition, all major decisions which involve campus facilities and campus-wide plans for infrastructure support of instructional technology will be submitted to the Instructional Technology (IT) Committee of the Chancellor's Campus Committee on Computing Policy Board (CCCPB) for comment. This proposal has been reviewed by the IT Committee and the PIs have incorporated its feedback. Computer facilities to support the proposal will be made part of the overall strategic development plan for the IT Committee. The funds in this project will be leveraged by substantial computer-based studio and lab construction currently underway. The IT Committee is currently co-chaired by Alice Agogino (on the Advisory Board for this proposal) and J. W. (Jack) McCredie (the Associate Vice Chancellor for Information Systems and Technology).

8.0 Budget

The budget of $150,000 a year for three years would cover funding for Fellows, Graduate Student Researchers to assist the Fellows, student technology assistants, supplies and expenses, travel, and faculty development assistance. The funds will also support a cross-departmental Assessment Coordinator who will be supervised by the Co-PIs and serve on the GE Fellows Advisory Committee. A detailed budget is included in Appendix E.

9.0 Dissemination

All material in digital form will be made available on WWW servers and on the NEEDS (National Engineering Education Delivery System) database, an on-line database of and retrieval system for multimedia engineering courseware and other educational material. Where available there will also be links to on-line WWW versions of the courseware. All courseware will be submitted for evaluation by the NEEDS editorial review board. Finally, we will set up a Web site of best practices in promoting student learning in the sciences that emerge from the project. An annual report will be submitted to the GE fund in both paper form and electronic form on the WWW.

10.0 Summary

This GE Fellows initiative has arrived at an ideal time to initiate dramatic improvements in the quality of our undergraduate programs in calculus-based disciplines at UC Berkeley. It is the first time that key faculty from mathematics, chemistry, physics and engineering have joined forces to integrate and reform our curricula, using information technologies as the enabler. Our ultimate goal is to improve student learning and motivation in lower division (freshman/ sophomore) math and science courses by connecting the abstract material in the traditional curriculum to design and analysis problems whose solutions are realized through computer-based animations, simulations and interactive multimedia design cases. Our focus on "outcomes assessment" will steer our interdisciplinary teams of faculty/instructors/GSIs to reform curricula and teaching methods towards improved student learning and preparation for professional practice.

We are targeting gateway courses for engineering students which have a significant impact on retention and with large enrollments. The average annual enrollment for these courses is: 1,260 students in Math 1A, 1,600 students in Math 1B, 760 students in Math 53, 850 students in Math 54, 2,100 students in Chem1A., 800 students in Physics 7A, 650 students in Physics 7B and 500 students in Physics 7C. All of these courses are required for most Engineering majors; Engineering having approximately 500 freshman students and 400 sophomore students each year. During the period of the GE grant, we expect that at least half of these courses will be the focus of the Berkeley-GE Faculty Fellows projects along with articulating lower division courses in Engineering. As the curricular content and pedagogical practices are "mainstreamed," we will ultimately be able to document improved student learning for the more than 2,200 Berkeley students taking these courses each year.

We see the Fellows as serving as catalysts for their departments, promoting curriculum change and learner-centered pedagogical approaches, and acting as resources to other faculty. These Fellows will lend their expertise to the development of other courses in their departments, multiplying the effects of the Berkeley-GE Fellows program. Although our proposed process of integrating the modular approach into the curriculum is step-wise and evolutionary, the resulting systemic changes will be revolutionary.

References

  1. Agogino, A. M. and W. H. Wood, "The Synthesis Coalition: Information Technologies Enabling a Paradigm Shift in Engineering Education," Keynote talk, Proceedings of Hyper-Media in Vaasa'94, pp. 3-10. The Synthesis URL is: http://www.synthesis.org/.
  2. The ModularChem Consortium URL is: http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu:8080/.
  3. Price, P. B. , "Improving the Gateway Courses in Chemistry, Mathematics, and Physics," NSF Grant, 1996.
  4. From Analysis to Action: Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology, Report of a Convocation, Center for Science Mathematics, and Engineering Education, National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 1996.
  5. Engineering Education: Designing and Adaptive System, Report of the Board on Engineering Education, National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 1995.
  6. "Educating Americans for the 21st Century: A Report to the American People and the National Science Board," National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 1983.
  7. NSF Alliance for Undergraduate Education, The Freshman Year in Science and Engineering: Old Problems, New Perspectives for Research Universities, NSF, 1990.
  8. "Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology. Report on its Review of Undergraduate Education to the Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources from the Advisory Committee to the NSF Directorate, April 30, 1996.
  9. ACM, "Educational Policies for National Survival, "A Statement of the American Chemical Society, American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1989.
  10. ASEE, Engineering Deans Council and Corporate Roundtable, Engineering Education for a Changing World, Oct. 1984.
  11. Bengelink, R. L. and J. H. McMasters, "An Industry Role in Enhancing Engineering Education," ASEE, 1994.
  12. National Society of Professional Engineers, "Engineering Education Issues: Report on Surveys of Opinions by Engineering Deans and Employers of Engineering Graduates on the First Professional Degree," NSPE Publication No. 3059, NSPE, 1420 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-2794, Nov. 1992.
  13. Smith, Jr., Clifford V., "Engineering Education for Global Competitiveness in the 21st Century, Proceedings of the Fourth World Conference on Engineering Education, Oct. 15-20 ,1995, (ed., Technology Based Engineering Education Consortium), 1995, 1, pp. 1-4.
  14. Seymour, E. and N. M. Hewitt, "Talking about Leaving: Factors Contributing to High Attrition Rates among Science, Mathematics & Engineering Undergraduate Majors: Final Report to the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation -- an Ethnographic Inquiry at Seven Institutions, Ethnographic and Assessment Research", Bureau of Sociological Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, April 1994.
  15. Tobias, S. and R.R. Hake, "Professors as Physics Students: What Can they Teach us?", American J. Physics, 6 (9), pp. 786-794, 1988.
  16. Tucker, A. C. and J. R. C. Leitzel, "Assessing Calculus Reform Efforts-- a Report to the Community", Mathematical Association of America, 1995.
  17. Hake, R.R., "Promoting Student Crossover To The Newtonian World," American Journal of Physics, 55 (10), October 1987, pp. 878-884.
  18. Wilson, J.M, and E.F. Redish, "The Comprehensive Unified Physics Learning Environment:" "Part I. Background and System Operation" and "Part II. The Basis for Integrated Studies," Computers in Physics, 6 (3), pp. 202-286, 1992.
  19. Leonard, N.E. and W.S. Levine, Using Matlab(TM) to Analyze and Design Control Systems, Second Edition, Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co, 1995.
  20. Smith, S. G. and L. J. Jones, "Images, Imagination, and Chemical Reality," J. Chem. Ed., 66, 1989, pp. 8-11.
  21. Illman, D. L., "Multimedia Tools Gain Favor For Chemistry Presentations, "Chem. Eng. News, May 9, pp. 34-40, 1994. (Note, the distribution of chemistry software has been greatly facilitated in the last 10 years by Journal of Chemical Education Software.)
  22. "Rethinking the Rules of Chemical Engineering Design," Engineering News, Spring 1996, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, College of Engineering. URL: http://www.ecs.umass.edu/enginnews/spring96/spring96_html/rethink.html.
  23. "Technology Enhancing the Curriculum, "Bucknell University, http://www.ecs.umass.edu/enginnews/spring96/spring96_html/rethink.html and "Applying Learning Style Theory to the Research and Development of Electronic Classroom: Courseware with Non-Traditional Engineering Students," URL: http://spectrum.eg.bucknell.edu/~multi95/ge_proj_summary.html.
  24. Brown, A. L. and A.S. Palinscar, "Guided, Cooperative Learning and Individual Knowledge Acquisition," In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, Learning, and Instruction, Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1989, pp. 393-451.
  25. Slavin, R. E., Cooperative learning : student teams, (2nd ed.), Washington, D.C.: NEA Professional Library, National Education Association, 1987.
  26. Treisman, U., "A study of the Mathematics Performance of Black Students at the University of California, Berkeley (doctoral dissertation), University of California, Berkeley, 1985.
  27. Manly, P., "High Tech Study Group Project Offers New Learning Opportunities," Instructional Technology Program Newsletter, University of California, Berkeley, 5 (2), 1992.
  28. Mazur, E. (in production 1996). Peer Instruction: A User's Manual, Prentice-Hall.
  29. Bielaczyc, K., P. L. Pirolli and A. L. Brown, "Training in self-explanation and self regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving," Cognition & Instruction, 13(2), 1995, pp. 221-252.
  30. Chi, M. T. H., M. Bassok, M. W. Lewis, P. Reimann and R. Glaser, "Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems," Cognitive Science, 13, 1989, pp. 145-182.
  31. Corno, L., and E. B. Mandinach, "The Role of Cognitive Engagement in Classroom Learning and Motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 1989, pp. 88-108.
  32. Schoenfeld, A., Mathematical Problem Solving, 1985.
  33. Schoenfeld, A., "Assessment and Accountability: Where are we? What is our baseline?," in Making it Happen: First in the World in Mathematics and Science Education, Executive Office of the President, Washington D.C., 1995.
  34. Schoenfeld, A. H., "Beyond the Purely Cognitive: Belief Systems, Social Cognitions, and Metacognitions as Driving Forces in Intellectual Performance, "Cognitive Science, 7(4), 1983, pp. 29-363.
  35. diSessa, A. A, "Toward an Epistemology of Physics. Cognition and Instruction," 10 (2-3), 1993, pp. 105-225.
  36. Lewis, E. L., and M. C. Linn, "Heat energy and temperature concepts of adolescents, naïve adults, and experts: Implications for curricular improvements," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 1994.
  37. Linn, M.C., "Designing Computer Learning Environments for Engineering and Computer Science: The Scaffolded Knowledge Integration Framework," Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4 (2), 1955, pp. 103-126.
  38. Agogino, A. M. and S. Hsi, "Learning Style Based Innovations to Improve Retention of Female Engineering Students in the Synthesis Coalition," Engineering Education for the 21st Century: Proceedings of Frontiers in Education, FIE'95, (with S. Hsi), ASEE/IEEE, pp. 4a2.1-4a2.4. URL: http://pawn.berkeley.edu/~aagogino/fie95/FIE95.4a2.1.agogino.html.
  39. Agogino, A. M. and S. Hsi, "Scaffolding Knowledge Integration through Designing Multimedia Case Studies of Engineering Design," Engineering Education for the 21st Century: Proceedings of Frontiers in Education, FIE'95, (with S. Hsi), ASEE/IEEE, pp. d1.1-4d1.4. URL: http://pawn.berkeley.edu/~aagogino/fie95/FIEme39c.html.
  40. Mazur, E. , "Qualitative vs. Quantitative Thinking: Are we teaching the right thing? Optics and Photonics News, 3, 1992, pp. 38.
  41. Gunstone, R. F., C. R. Gray, and P. Searle, "Some Long-term Effects of Uninformed Conceptual Change," Science Education,, 76 (2 Apr), 1992, pp. 175-197.
  42. Halloun, I.A. and D. Hestenes, "The initial knowledge state of college physics students," American Journal of Physics, Nov. 1985, 53, (11), 1985, pp. 1043-55.
  43. Zimmer, J., R.B. Landis, M.M. McGee and P.C. Parker, "Realizing the Potential of Women and Minorities in Engineering: Four Perspectives from the Field," National Governors Association, Center for Policy Research, 1990.
  44. Davis, B. G., L. Wood, and R. Wilson, "A Berkeley compendium of suggestions for teaching with excellence, University of California, Berkeley, 1983.
  45. Davis, B. G., Sourcebook for evaluating teaching, University of California, Berkeley, 1988.
  46. Davis, B. G., Tools for teaching, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
  47. Hill, J. E., The educational sciences, Bloomfield Hills, MI: Oakland Community College Press, 1976.
  48. Hill, J. E., and D. N. Nunney, Personlizing education programs utilizing cognitive style mapping, Bloomfield Hills, MI: Oakland Community College Press, 1974.
  49. Kolb, D.A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984.

Table of Contents