Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration January 24, 2006 Developing a Corporate Feedback...

Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration January 24, 2006

Developing a Corporate Feedback System for Use in Curricular ReformThe Use Process Stability Principles in the analysis of Engineering Curricula based on Cooperative Education

Kettil Cedercreutz, Associate Provost and Director

Cheryl Cates, Associate Director

The UC FIPSE Project

Part One

OverviewCo-op at UC

F W S S F W S S F W S S F W S S F W S

Freshmen Sophomore Pre-Junior Junior Senior

Progressive Learning Objectives

Foundation

Exploration

Professional Contribution & Change Generation

51 2 3 4

5/6

1 2 3 4

6Section

I



Section II

Alternating Sections

DAAPEngineering

Arts and Sciences

Business

Applied Science

One Stop Structure

1,500 Companies

Professional Practice

Academic Division

Professional Practice24 Faculty

Feedback and Continuous Improvement

F W S S

1 2

F W S S

3 4

F W S S

5 6

F W S S F W S


Employer Feedback

1 2 3 4 5 6

Continuous Improvement

Reporting

Other Feedback

Curriculum & Pedagogy

Gathering the Data

Photo Courtesy of Nokia

Assessment Instrument I

Assessment Instrument II

Assessment Instrument IIIFocus Groups

Measured Parameters (AI I):

Developed in Relation toABET a…k

A COMMUNICATION:

- Speaks with clarity and confidence - Writes clearly and concisely - Makes effective presentations - Exhibits good listening and questioning skills

B CONCEPTUAL/ANALYTICAL ABILITY: - Evaluates situations effectively - Solves problems/makes decisions - Demonstrates original and creative thinking - Identifies and suggests new ideas

C LEARNING/THEORY AND PRACTICE: - Learns new material quickly - Accesses and applies specialized knowledge - Applies classroom learning to work situations


D PROFESSIONAL QUALITIES:

- Assumes responsibility/accountable for actions - Exhibits self-confidence - Possesses honesty/integrity/personal ethics - Shows initiative/is self-motivated - Demonstrates a positive attitude toward change

E TEAMWORK: - Works effectively with others - Understands and contributes to the organization’s goals - Demonstrates flexibility/adaptability - Functions well on multidisciplinary team

F LEADERSHIP: - Gives direction, guidance and training - Motivates others to succeed - Manages conflict effectively



G TECHNOLOGY: - - Uses technology, tools, instruments and information - Understands complex systems and their interrelationships - Understands the technology of the discipline

H WORK CULTURE: - Understands and works within the culture of the group - Respects diversity - Recognizes political and social implications of actions

I ORGANIZATION/PLANNING: - Manages projects and/or other resources effectively - Sets goals and prioritizes - Manages several tasks at once - Allocates time to meet deadlines

J EVALUATION OF WORK HABITS: - - Professional attitude toward work assigned - Quality of work produced - Volume of work produced - Attendance - Punctuality

Assessment Instrument II Objectives:

A Questions by discipline

C Questions focused on curricular issues

D Questions asked before and after curricular change

B Questions asked only for short period




Assessment Instrument IIIFocus Groups

Assessment Instrument III Objectives:

A Focus Groups by discipline

C AI II data provides focus group direction

D Provides direction to departments

B Questions focused on curricular issues from AI II

Embarking on a New Paradigm

Input

Outcome

Action

Output

Input

Outcome

Action

Output

Process Development

Cycle

Operational Cycle

Adaptive Cooperative Education

Discussion Where are you on your campus?

Update on Results

Part Two

ProcessStability Analysis

GradingScale

Un

satis

fact

ory

1

Go

od

4

Sa

tisfa

cto

ry

3

Po

or2

Exc

elle

nt

5

IndicateProblem

AcceptablePerformance

3 4

Section I



Change

Δ Learning

Results Lost in Noise !!!

Low n Values ⇒

Coding of Data

U F W S U F W S U F W S U F W S

2007 2006 2005 2004

2003/04Acad. Year:

Class of:

Quarter:

Three Year Stability / Major A / Engineering

2007

U F W S

2006 2005 2004

U F W S U F W S U F W S

03/04

2006

U F W S

2005 2004 2003


02/03

2005

U F W S

2004 2003 2002


01/02

Mean Stnd Dev

4.190.73

4.120.75

4.180.76

Statistical Uncertainty ≈

± 0.10

Process

Stable Means: 4.16 ± 0.04

2005

U F W S

2004 2003 2002


01/02

2007

U F W S

2006 2005 2004


03/04

2006

U F W S

2005 2004 2003


02/03

4.31

3.974.03

4.28

MAJOR A / EngineeringThree Year Rolling Average

Sophm. PreJr. Jr. Sr.

N: 612n: 497Ret: 81% Uncert: ≈ 0.10

Mean

88 191 148 70 = Filed Returns

Absolute Needs Relative Needs

Calibration & Linearity Important

Stability Important Linearity Less Important

Approach must not Focus on Minutia

Approach must be Process Oriented

Approach must have Strategic Dimensions

There is no short cut to Quality

ProcessStabilityAnalysis

Analysis Methodology

Hig

hM

ediu

mL

ow

HighMediumLow

Standard Deviation

Mea

n

Process Stability AnalysisMean / Standard Deviation Matrix

I d e a l !!!

Delta Mean Chi STDV Matrix

Systematic Improvement

SerendipitousImprovement

SystematicDeterioration

SerendipitousDeterioration

Decreased STD Increased STD

Incr

ea

sed

Me

an

De

crea

sed

Me

an

Preliminary Findings

3.9

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75

MAJOR A / EngineeringEXIT LEVELMean

Standard Deviation [Chi]

Punc-tuality

Attendance

ConflictMgmntMotiv.

Others

SetsGoals

Integrity

WorksEffectively

Writing

Speaking

Guidance Of others

ProjectMgmnt

3.70

3.90

4.10

4.30

4.50

4.70

4.90

0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6

Series1

Major 1 / BusinessEXIT LEVEL

Mean


Punc-tuality

ConflictMgmnt

Initia-tive

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

4.5

4.7

4.9

0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80

Major A / EngineeringExit Profile

Major A / EngineeringEXIT LEVELMean


3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

4.5

4.7

4.9

0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80

Major A EngineeringEntryMean


Punc-tuality

Attendance

ConflictMgmnt

IntegrityWorks

Effectively

Writing

Speaking

Initiative

TaskMgmt

Motiv.Others

ProjectMgmnt

Guidance Of others

SetsGoals

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

4.5

4.7

4.9

0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80

Major A EngineeringEntry / ExitMean


Major A/ Engineering

Entry Profile

Major A / EngineeringExit Profile

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

4.5

4.7

4.9

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

4.5

4.7

4.9

0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

Major A Engineering

[Mandatory]

Major 1Business[Optional]

More Homogeneous Population

More Heterogeneous Population

Specialized Curricular Focus

General Curricular Focus

MeanMean

STDSTD

Exit Profiles

Civ & Env Eng Change

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

-0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10

CHI STD

ME

AN

Series1

Major 1 / EngineeringChange

Decreased STD Increased STD

Incr

ea

sed

Me

an

Civ & Env Eng Change

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

-0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10

CHI STD

ME

AN

Series1Writing

SpeakingConflict Mgmnt

NewIdeas

SetsGoals

Professi-onalism

LearnsQuickly

Major 1 / EngineeringChange

CurriculumInitiatedLearning

StudentInitiatedLearning

Summary:

- All Parameters Go Up

- Approach can be developed into Program Fingerprint

- Apples and Oranges

- Every “Set of Employers” has its specific value system

- Instrument is Relative

- Can be used to Map Best Practices

Discussion Where do we go from here?

CincinnatiApril 23 – 26, 2005

Dean Herman Schneider1872 -1939

University of CincinnatiFIPSE Symposium

CincinnatiApril 25 – 26, 2005

Teams By Invitation Only

Some Funding Available

Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration January 24, 2006

Developing a Corporate Feedback System for Use in Curricular ReformThe Use Process Stability Principles in the analysis of Engineering Curricula based on Cooperative Education

Kettil Cedercreutz, Associate Provost and Director

Cheryl Cates, Associate Director

Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration January 24, 2006 Developing a Corporate Feedback...

Documents

Transcript of Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration January 24, 2006 Developing a Corporate Feedback...