Minutes January 20, 2011

CPACE Minutes Jan 20, 2011

MSU: Jon,Mark, Abdol, Neeraj, Daina, Claudia

LCC: Louise

CSW: Cindee, Kysha


1) EGR 102 and LCC calc implementation status:

-      Louise is implementing a project in her numerical methods course. There was a survey. The course had 10 students. Louise talked about the project. The students got the data [river data] from the web. (Detailed information including the problem and a sample from one of the groups: https://sites.google.com/a/msu.edu/msu-cpace/home/project-meetings/minutes-january-20-2011/numerical-methods-course-lcc-fall-2010).

-      This was not a modeling question but a data transformation question, data representation question getting it represented in MATLAB and intensive at making graphs.

-      Pre and post surveys were also piloted in this course.

-      Note: there was a discussion about the SIRs forms (not recorded for confidentiality purposes). The issue revolves around the fact that students do not see the value of learning about certain things: "Why do I need to know about MATLAB, the computer does this for me" 'Why am I doing this" Is this an issue related to the demographic characteristics of our students? (Like age).

-      One of the observations from the LCC experience is that the students seemed in tuned with the problem because it was a local issue, relevant to them. The definition of authentic problem has to include the student perspective.

-      They developed a curve that was simple to do once they had the data in place. The second part of the project was more open-ended and still plot-intensive.

-      For EGR 102 Jon talked to Ron (current instructor) and Tim. Ron does a lot of modeling; he has APs that involve modeling. The proposed path is for Ron to propose a set of problems and we look at them and define it and run with it.

-       The TAs [who execute] need to be comfortable with the problems in advance with enough time for them to feel comfortable. TAs need to have a good amount of instructional support so that they feel comfortable.

-      Idea: Can implement a guide for the TAs.

-      What is the status of the subset of [small] problems that we said we were going to do for 102? I think this is still a good idea to keep in mind for the other courses.

-      Do we want to do both types of problems this term? We have other semesters of example steady state instruction when we can implement.

-      We can offer this option to the 102 folks and talk about it at the next meeting.

-      The meeting is being set up ASAP.

2) Review schedule for target courses

            - Strategy to accomplish goals to keep on-time.

            - Regular meeting schedule

-      CHE 210 prerequisites:

(MTH 235 or concurrently) and ((CSE 131 or concurrently) or (EGR 102 or concurrently) or (CSE 231 or concurrently)) and CHE 201

-      We still do not have the rubrics to evaluate these things. We need to work on this

-      We need to align the computational objectives to the rubrics. When we did the workshop we did an example of the rubrics that were aligned to the desired computational outcomes and common to all courses to a point then each course will have a part of the rubric that is specifically aligned to course objectives.

-      We start with the instructional goals and then build the rubrics around the objectives and then the rubric becomes what is the evidence that they can do that.

-      We want to provide support for learning these computational things in the course but we also want to expect or demand that they carry this information forward and get evidence of transfer.

-      In civil there is no computational prerequisite.CE221 Statics prerequisites (PHY 183 or PHY 183B or PHY 193H) or (PHY 231 and PHY 233B)}

and ((MTH 234 or concurrently) or (LB 220 or concurrently) or (MTH 254H or concurrently)). CE 305 pre-requisites: (ME 222 and CE 271 or concurrently). CE 321: (MTH 234 or MTH 254H or LB 220) and CE 221 and ((BE 230 or concurrently) or (CE 271 or concurrently)).

-      This is important to know because in terms of expectations that they learn in previous courses and carry that knowledge forward.

-      The guess is that the advisers stress that they need to have EGR 100 and 102 before taking the advanced courses. Claudia will ask Wendy this question to have data at hand.

-      In CE 221 Neeraj will engage the instructor Gilbert.

-      To move forward the proposal is to meet as subgroups and then meet once a month as a whole group. Teams:

           o   Neeraj, Mark in CE

           o   Daina and Abdol in CHE

           o   Louise, Jon in EGR 102

           o   Mark, Claudia, Jon, Cindee for issues concerning CSW

3) Authentic Problems:

               - Status of contacts with companies

               - Next steps and time-line

-      Cindee reviewed the collection process document which has the AB members input incorporated.

-      Need to be clear about who is the target group.

          o  AB members

          o  Employers from CHE and CE who had been interviewed

-      Create a template to use with employers as a way to focus the employer about what we think an AP should be.

-      In the process we have CSW doing the first outreach. Daina can move forward to reach out to AB members. If there is another employer outside of the AB then we can pursue that as well.

-      If the disciplinary faculty has someone in mind for AP outreach they can do the first contact and then get CSW involved.

-      It is important that these new targets know that they will be part of a network and that has to be clear in the initial communication. Daina [as an example] would continue to keep the employer outreach and connected to the network. If there are new or different things then CSW can be the conduit.

-      This [process] is still in a piloting phase and perhaps the process as is now is for the next phase when we are more settled in a process. Even in this piloting phase we need to keep in mind that the AB are there and we need to keep them engaged and use them and also that time is of the essence.

-      In the subgroup we can map out what is going on at the different fronts in terms of the outreach.

-      Cindee had a conversation with Jamie (Bordener) he has two tangible employers, Ash Stevens they are involved in drug manufacturing and hire CHE ENG, also a CE company headquartered in Detroit. These came out of the AB meeting.

-      Claudia to organize subgroup meeting with CSW.