A Perspective on Building an Electrical Engineering Undergraduate Online Education Program
ByCraig J. Scotta, Petronella Jamesa, Yacob Astatkea, Jumoke Ladeji-Osiasa, Farzad Moazzamia, Kofi Nyarkoia
aMorgan State University
Abstract
Over the past three years, we have been investigating the use of inexpensive, highly portable instrumentation to facilitate our lab requirements. As a result of this enabling technology, an online program targeted toward completing the second two years of an undergraduate electrical engineering degree is being piloted at our institution. Nearly 109 students have participated in this study. A two-plus-two approach avoids the need for an institution wide conversion of all required courses. Special care must be taken, however, to assess a student’s ability to work independently and to assess whether or not they have reasonable expectations of the degree of time management and persistence needed to satisfactorily complete their coursework online. In this article, we detail the curriculum changes, how the formats of both laboratory and non- laboratory courses were modified, and the process of recruiting and certifying faculty to teach these courses.
Introduction
This article is a reflection of our experiences in developing, piloting and delivering a completely online Electrical and Computer Engineering program. With the rapid evolution of communication and computer technologies, the number of online engineering programs has also grown substantially. The online student is typically a lifelong learner, more concerned with commuting and non-academic responsibilities, and motivated to complete assignments individually.[i] Moreover, graduate courses are usually more content and design centered with less needs for laboratory experiences.[ii] Undergraduate programs are considerably less available owing to a significant laboratory experience requirement.
Recent innovations in inexpensive and portable laboratory instruments during recent years have enabled new pedagogical approaches to be applied toward the teaching of theoretical concepts and design practices in Electrical Engineering. A small number of Electrical Engineering programs have taken advantage of these new tools to incorporate hands-on experimental activities into existing lecture courses. This new approach has led to the implementation of new restructured EE courses that utilize problem-based learning with a focus on student-centered learning rather than instructor-centered lectures. As an extension to this pedagogy, we have been successful in developing and teaching completely online electrical engineering courses with laboratory components. [iii] While our primary motivation is to provide a quality education to those who would not otherwise be in a position to pursue one, reaching out to students that inhabit areas with little post-secondary infrastructure has meritorious implications. This reasoning can be extended not only nationally but also to restricted global communities.
A common trend for many students is for them to accomplish their General Education requirements at a community college. If available, some lower-division discipline specific courses may also be taken at a two-year institution. In this article, we discuss our experiences in implementing the upper-division portion of an electrical engineering program designed to complement the needs of a student acquiring an Associate degree in this area. The major areas of consideration include curriculum design, course design, and program assessment.
Curriculum Design
The primary reasons for delivering undergraduate courses and programs online are to allow our campus to expand enrollment beyond the limitations of available classroom space, and to reach student learners that would not otherwise come to campus. Morgan State University is in the process of expanding in liberal arts and the general sciences areas but it may be some time before all the General Education and University requirements for our program are offered fully online. This is where the synergy between two-year and four-year institutions can be leveraged to minimize cost and duplication associated with bringing up a fully online program. Likewise, negative experiences with lower‐division undergraduate students having poor success rates in online courses can be abated owing to the experience gained in pursuing general studies at a two-year institution.
The current plus-two program at Morgan requires 65 credits of courses beyond those taken at a two year institution, consisting of 18 credits of lab augmented core courses, 15 credits of non-lab based core courses, 12 of 21 credits of elective courses, and 20 credits of non-electrical courses.
The salient features of this curriculum sequence are that it:
· Allows completion of all laboratory courses online
· Allows students at a two year college to obtain a BSEE in electrical engineering by completing the third & fourth year without having to leave the area
· Is designed for graduates of the associate degree in electrical engineering
· Allows non-ASE graduates to take lower division EE courses without having to come to the 4 year institution beforehand.
· Allows students to complete the ECE curriculum part-time or full-time, online or face-to-face
· Allows a maximum of seventy (70) credit hours from a community college or 4-year institution towards fulfillment of the minimum one hundred thirty-three (133) credit hours required for baccalaureate completion.
Course Design
The course building phase was sustained over a two year period following a strategy of completing the most challenging core laboratory courses and then turning our attention to building the core non-laboratory courses. Near the end of the building phase the elective courses and non-electrical engineering courses were considered.
All courses offered within this program require certification using the “Quality Matters (QM)” standard rubrics.[iv],[v] This rubric outlines many of the practices that are generally accepted for teaching engineering courses and includes some items that are critical for an online student’s success. In addition, any online instructor must also receive certification either as a builder or online teacher using a similar rubric for evaluation. This required in most instances that instructors commence and complete these certification requirements during the instructional phase of a semester. This was not only challenging and demanding for the instructors, but contributed in large measure to an extended building phase for the scheduled courses.
The certification rate for faculty and adjuncts averaged 67%, with 22 instructors completing certification during the 3-year online program initiation and piloting phase (Table 1 ). Sixteen (16) instructors completed the 9-week online course design (OCD) module, and six (6) completed the 7-week teach online (TO) certification. Instructors who successfully completed the OCD module were certified for both course design and teaching online.
Table 1 Total Instructor Certification
Methods to use collaborative software applications such as Adobe Connect™ for remote lab demonstration[i] were conceived and tested. All of the laboratory classes require demonstrations by the students. Sharing live video and simulations via remote desktop proved to be an innovative solution to address this requirement. An example interactive electric circuits laboratory session is shown in Figure 1 . Course developers were instructed on how to use the system for lecture capture and storage on Blackboard™ and using Adobe Connect™ for collaborating. For courses with laboratory components, the course developers were also required to train on the use of the Mobile Studio™ technology[ii]. At present, the Analog Discovery board is being phased-in to replace the Mobile studio boards.
Figure 1. Interactive Online Laboratory Session Using Mobile Studio Technology
Assessment
Not only is there a need for an ability to offer laboratory courses online, but there is a parallel need for assessment tools that allow the collection and analysis of course outcomes and objectives, in a seamless manner. A web-based assessment system might have more potential in terms of access and flexibility for teachers and administrators in terms of overall effectiveness and efficiency of producing “Learning Analytics”[i]. Various approaches specifically geared toward helping programs document and measure ABET EC2000 program educational objectives and outcomes exist [ii],[iii] but few such as Blackboard Learn and TK20 feature a fully electronic, rubric based approach that integrate well with existing student information systems[iv]. The philosophy driving the approach in this effort is to allow the instructor to focus on course outcomes via embedded problems and laboratory exercises while the program outcomes are derived from a mapping between the two levels. Subsequently, examining performance metrics and taking a proper course of action are conveniently done at all levels of administration.
During the course test and evaluation the effectiveness of the modified curriculum was periodically assessed using surveys, interviews, and course outcomes. Subsequently, the remaining courses were offered and the evaluation information gathered to serve as a basis for continual improvement and the development of best practices. During this development phase, over 147 seats were occupied. In most cases for a course pilot rollout, the initial modality was face-to-face followed by a gradual transition to a fully online format. This allows a new online instructor to adapt to the different modality of online pedagogy.
For most aspects, the student’s perception was found to be slightly lower during the initial piloting for the laboratory based classes as compared to the non-laboratory based courses. There appeared to be some frustration at the onset of the class owing to a quick ramp-up on the use of the Mobile Studio boards and the transition from conventional laboratory equipment. Developing better pre-course tutorials on using this technology has addressed this problem.
Information was sought to gather information pertaining to the equivalency of achieving learning outcomes in this environment. Figure 2 shows that in most cases the performance of students in the online section is roughly equivalent to that of the face to face cohorts, for the sections evaluated.
Figure 2. Online versus F2F student outcomes comparison
Lessons Learned/Best Practices
There are a few lessons learned from the implementation and piloting of these undergraduate courses:
· A two-plus-two electrical engineering program benefits from the cooperation of two-year colleges by offering at least some of the sophomore courses outside of the four-year institution. This approach also allows four-year institutions to focus resources on the upper-level core and elective courses.
· Some type of certification process is essential for maintaining a consistent standard of quality.
· It is optimistic to have faculty build and teach courses, especially when adjunct instructors are involved on a part time basis. It is a good practice then to pair seasoned faculty with adjuncts or junior faculty, if this approach is used.
· Online programs offer a unique opportunity to offer courses during the summer, giving the students an extra window to stay on track and meet their graduation goals.
· Pre-course training on specialized laboratory equipment and software is important to keep the pace of online learning manageable.
The course design and building phase is extremely integral to developing a successful online program. It is important to create high-quality online courses to protect the university’s brand which means faculty need the time and training, and support to plan and design courses that will be both rich in content and instructional strategies, with a variety of multimedia tools and technologies to encourage student engagement and learning.
Summary
As a result of this implementation, with special care and proper resources, conducting a fully online program appears to be a viable endeavor. It is markedly different in terms of the pedagogy, instructional tools and administrative overhead required. We have discovered the modality of hybrid course delivery is preferred over fully online participation by a majority of our students. There are many reasons to offer courses fully online and some are very compelling such as travel restrictions and family obligations. Our experience in developing, piloting and delivering a completely online Electrical and Computer Engineering program indicates that adding a fully online option provides a very practical compliment to traditional brick and mortar course venues.
[1] J. Dutton, M. Dutton, J. Perry, “How Do Online Students Differ from Lecture Students?” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 6, (1), July. 2002: 1-20
[1] J. Bourne, D. Harris, F. Mayadas, Journal of Engineering Education , 9, 2005: 131-146
[1] Y. Astatke, J. Ladeji-Osias C. J. Scott, “Developing and Teaching Sophomore Level Electrical Engineering Courses Completely Online”, Journal of Online Education, 2, (2), 2011.
[1] http://www.qmprogram.org/rubric
[1] L. Ragan, C. Sax, “Defining and Implementing Quality Assurance Standards in Online Courses”, EDUCAUSE 2005, October 18–21 in Orlando, Florida.
[1] Y. Astatke, C. J. Scott, J. Ladeji-Osias, “Electric Circuits Online: Towards a Completely Online Electrical Engineering Curriculum”, American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, 2011
[1] D. Millard, M. Chouikha, and F. Berry, "Improving Student Intuition via Rensselaer‛s New Mobile Studio Pedagogy", ASEE 2007 Annual Conference, Honolulu, HW, June 2007.
[1] P. Baepler, and C. J. Murdoch, “Academic analytics and data mining in higher education”. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4 (2), July 2010.
[1] McGourty, Jack, Kevin Scoles, and Stephen Thorpe. "Web-based course evaluation: comparing the experience at two universities." Frontiers in Education, 2002. FIE 2002. 32nd Annual. (1) IEEE, 2002.
[1] Buzzetto-More, Nicole A., and Ayodele Julius Alade. "Best practices in e-assessment." Journal of Information Technology Education 5 (1) , 2006: 251-269.
[1] Williams, J. M. "Evaluating What Students Know: Using the RosE Portfolio System for Institutional and Program Outcomes Assessment." Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on 53.1 2010: 46-57.