Minutes May 6, 2010 CPACE II

Date: May 6, 2010                                        

 Time: 11:30 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.


  • MSU: Mark,  Jon, Abdol, Daina, Claudia
  • LCC: Louise
  • SAMPI: Mary Anne

0.5) Minutes from April 15, 2010: No change to the minutes.

1) Meeting with Cascade:

-         Daina will have a meeting with Susan the expert who will comment on the bio-sand water filtration problem. After this discussion a set of questions from Cascade will be prepared for this problem.

-         The group will review all the questions prior to the conversation with Cascade to make sure that we are getting all the computational components that we need to design the instruction.

2) Highlights; some ideas about potential themes:

-         Industry partnership; specifically around the development of authentic problems that are industry-based.

-         Turn the industry report into a highlight.

-         We will share these ideas with CSW to define something more concrete.

NUE: (Not in the agenda)

-         Jon and Daina prepared a letter of support for a new NUE (nanotechnology-undergrad education) proposal (an NSF program). They are creating modules related to nano-clays. Daina proposes to collaborate with them to get our computational piece included in their modules. We could also use their modules to develop our computational problems.

3) Evaluation:

-         The rubric is used to review student work for evidence of computational 'FITness' and it is the same rubric that we used to categorize student data. We would take this rubric and get it to the IRB for preliminary submission and hope to get the exempt status so that we can then modify it later.

-         Neeraj will get us some existing student work from the capstone projects to see how the rubric works and how do we need to modify it. We could do the same thing with CHE.

-         The rubric is not to grade the students but as a metric of how much is computation reflected in their capstone and if it was applied appropriately. The metric should reflect strength of problem solving that would make it applicable areas out of computer science.

-         We need to consider that we might not be able to test the seniors capstone projects at the end of the project because there will be no time. Neeraj suggested a sophomore level course that is a sort of preliminary introduction to what they do in the capstone. This is other place where we can potentially apply this.

-         Notwithstanding that we will not roll this all the way to the capstone this is no new material for capstone students; computation is not part of the instruction in capstone. We should find evidence of computation at this level and at this level we should see a change in the preparation after our intervention.

-         This is a rubric that could be applicable at all levels. We may only see some of these aspects at any given level. When we look at the distribution in the employer data it is not uniform there are aspects like modeling and abstraction that are really important for engineers. Ideally the proportions that we find in the student data are aligned to the proportions that we found in our employer data.

-         We will use the revision that Louise sent and Mark will start the IRB.

SRI make-up meeting:

-         The meeting did not go well. I think it had to do in part with the fact that the evaluator from SRI got very frustrated about the almost hour and half late start of the meeting. Also the fact that I was not physically there.

-         He did not like the idea of the capstone and could not see that we were doing a quasi-experimental approach no matter what I said to him.  He thinks that my role as evaluator was to force you to do things weather you wanted or not.

-         I questioned him about CT and he thought we should do a concept map because we did not know what we were doing. I kept telling him that I was looking at a concept map in the proposal but he was not listening.

-         He mentioned that he was doing site visits and it sounded like he was coming to us.

-         I chatted with M. Jeness and he was not concerned about it he though it will not have much impact on the final product but I remained concerned.

-         He offered to send me an electronic copy of the notebook that summarizes all the evaluation plans.

-         Mark:  The experimental design is random but we do not do that in education. The idea of the quasi- is can we come up with a design that comes close? As an example if we were to compare student performance in the capstone courses now with students capstone courses later other things would be reasonably equal.

-         The difference is that we are doing engineering and the other projects are not. They are doing general computer literacy but most of it is computer science. They need to fit all the data together.

4) Summer availability:

-         CPACE meetings moved to Tuesdays 10:30 - 12.

-         Discussion about schedules and possible times.

-         Claudia will organize this and get an availability table for everyone to sign up.

Workshop dates:

-         July 20-23

-         Need location and time.

-         Not clear about the planning beforehand.

-         Need to plan who we need to invite. We will coordinate this with Jim. Mary Anne needs to do surveys and evaluation planning she needs to coordinate with Jim he might have some evaluation parts in his modules.

5) Moving forward:

-         First we need to have all the process down with EGR 102 we still do not have this. We need to meet with the new instructor and all get on the same page.

  • To organize 102 we need to start very soon and meet weekly and just concentrate on moving this forward. All the team should meet perhaps not CSW and SAMPI and Neeraj and Daina can be peripheral.