Minutes July 27, 2010 CPACE II

Minutes July 27, 2010 

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

CSW: Cindee, Kysha

LCC: Louise

SAMPI: Mary Anne 

1) Workshop summary

  • No major comments about the summary. Neeraj read the web postings and he will e-mail if he has questions.
  • Could prepare a paper about the workshop materials as part of our process. The role of the workshop as part of a larger picture. We want to write about the structure of the workshop and the framing and the goals. Something like the paper that Jim prepared for the NRC. What should be generalizable of all the literature that Jim gave us around this things and what is different in higher Ed. What are the affordances in Eng.? (for example ABET related issues).
  • As we start to allocate our efforts and move forward it is important to come back to these principles (that we identified in the workshop) and help us situate in the bigger picture.
  •  Important to define milestones as we move forward in the project.

        o Growing the definitions of success beyond 'improving the computational thinking in outgoing students in capstone courses'

        o Engage X number of faculty members in curricular reform

        o It is not just the instructional product or assessment of student's outcome.

        o For 102 the definition of success will be different than that of disciplinary courses.

        o Build up data collection streams is also a success.

  • Important to consider that for the capstone course they do not have explicit computational outcomes.

        o There are multiple levels and ways at which they are graded. There is a lot of individual grading and there is the team grade.

        o We could approach the capstone instructors and ask to see the rubrics and identify the places where we can look for CT. 

2) Next steps

  • Collect AP:

       o We need to get concrete things to provide materials for EGR 102. It is already too late to collect AP. From the three AP that we have from Cascade two have been discarded.

       o We need to have a rubric in the case of 102 a more general one.

       o In EGR 102 we need to define what the students need to get ready to solve the AP. This has to be integrated.

       o  Look at the content in 102 and identify the issues that we need to address in the context of the CT that we want to provide. Define the issues that need to be addressed and the elements that need to be incorporated (or made more explicit) through the course, then prepare the material and offer this to the faculty, let the faculty decide how to deliver it on the course. Look at how they react.

  • We will have a meeting with the EGR faculty (Jamie will set it up). The idea is to get True-Believers (TB).Tentative agenda:

      o We will present  some options in terms of the AP issue:

           a) The bio-filtration problem:

                -  Jon will talk with Tom to get more input about this particular problem.

                -  We will offer to recycle a problem (CT lens provided by us)

           b) We will offer other problem ideas:

                -  Entropy/Chaos (something ???)

      o We will test the water in terms of the rubric that they currently use to assess the end of the semester problem.

  • Cindee reviews AP Generation Process (based on pilot with Cascade)

      o We need a target number of Employers and AP

          - How many and for what? When?

          - Start with AB members and follow with employers that we interviewed

          - We need to triangulate & get a more focused effort moving forward

          - Will come back to it more focused during the next meeting