|
|
Advanced
Technological
Education
|
|
|
| National Peer Review Report 1999
|
|
South Carolina Advanced Technology Education Center of Excellence
National Peer Review of Educational Technology Curricula
Madren Center, Clemson University
September 24-25, 1999
REPORT
Executive Summary
The South Carolina Advanced Technology Education Center of Excellence (SC ATE) is a statewide systemic initiative designed to increase the quantity, quality, and diversity of engineering technology students throughout the state’s 16 technical colleges. Funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the SC State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education, SC ATE is one of 11 NSF-sponsored Centers of Excellence in the nation. SC ATE is designing, pilot testing, and refining a one semester Technology Gateway pre-engineering technology curriculum and an ET Core first-year engineering technology curriculum. Both curricula use a problem-based, interdisciplinary, team approach to teaching and learning.
National Peer Review Process
As part of the SC ATE curricula development process, a panel of national experts was invited to review curricular materials for the Technology Gateway--Pre-ET and the ET Core first semester. The Curriculum Peer Review meeting took place September 24-25, 1999 at the Madren Center, Clemson University. South Carolina technical college faculty representatives who helped develop and pilot the materials were invited to the meeting to discuss the processes involved in integrating the content, explain their use of the curriculum materials, and answer the reviewers’ questions.
The following 11 persons served as national reviewers:
|
Arnold Packer, Johns Hopkins University |
|
David Baker, Rochester Institute of Technology |
|
Dave Hata, Portland Community College |
|
Doyle Davis, NH Community Technical College-Berlin |
|
Gary Simundza, Wentworth Institute of Technology |
|
James Barrott, Dean, Environmental Technology,
Chattanooga State Technical Community College |
|
James O’Neil, English Professor, Edison Community College |
|
Nan Peck, Speech Communications, Northern Virginia Community College |
|
Richard Satchwell, Coordinator, ImaST Center for Mathematics, Science, and Technology |
|
Robert Kimball, Chair, Mathematics and Physics Department,
Wake Technical Community College |
|
Susan Wood, Professor of Mathematics, J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College |
Outcomes
The expected outcomes of the national curricula peer review meeting focused on the transportability of the SC ATE curriculum materials and products to national audiences. The review achieved the following outcomes.
- The level of national interest/need for Pre-ET and ET Core curriculum frameworks and projects appears to be great. The problem-based learning strategies used in these curricula foster active involvement, stimulate interest, and increase application of the knowledge gained in the subjects.
- Potential out-of-state institutions for field testing and implementing SC ATE curricula were proposed by several of the reviewers.
- Successful formats for ET curriculum materials for national dissemination were suggested during the meeting. Specifically, reviewers cited the need for a set of objectives for each project, a competency matrix showing which competencies addressed which subject content, sections on possible adaptations for the scenarios and projects, examples of students’ graded work to provide assessment rubrics, and detailed instructor’s manuals.
- Critical factors related to national implementation of SC ATE curricular materials included the need to provide training in problem-based learning processes to the faculty at other implementing institutions.
- Evaluations of SC ATE curricular materials based on selected criteria was accomplished as reported below.
Summary of Peer Reviewers’ Ratings
Criteria: To what degree do all of the projects and materials considered together achieve the following:
| 5 = completely |
4 = mostly |
3 = somewhat |
2 = little |
1 = not at all |
|
Criteria |
Mean Ratings |
Mean Ratings |
| |
Technology Gateway – Pre-ET |
ET Core-Electrical Component |
|
Provide useful background information |
4.0 |
3.5 |
|
Projects cover knowledge and skills |
3.5 |
3.5 |
|
Projects improve on traditional instruction |
4.5 |
3.5 |
|
Facilitate student learning |
4.5 |
4.0 |
|
Meet discipline standards |
3.5 |
3.5 |
|
Clearly formatted materials |
3.5 |
3.0 |
|
Useful materials |
4.0 |
3.0 |
|
Accurate materials |
3.5 |
4.0 |
|
Integrate various disciplines |
4.0 |
4.0 |
|
Promote faculty teaming |
4.0 |
4.5 |
|
Prepares students for the ET Core (Pre-ET only) |
4.5 |
|
|
Meet needs of industry (ET Core only) |
|
4.0 |
Peer Reviewers’ Individual Ratings of Each Project
The reviewers were given a set of criteria with which to evaluate each curriculum project. Each person was asked to individually rate each project after discussing the following questions among the group members.
- Is the scenario appropriate and adequate to cover the set of competencies identified for the project?
- Looking at the competencies in relation to the scenarios, are the competencies appropriate?
- Are the competencies phrased appropriately using current terminology?
- Are all the competencies necessary; should competencies be added or deleted?
- To what extent does the scenario cover the appropriate breath of knowledge?
- How well does the scenario integrate knowledge and skills from the different disciplines?
- Does the scenario reflect real-world industry problems?
- What do you suggest adding to the scenario?
Criteria: To what degree do the individual projects achieve the following:
| 5 = completely |
4 = mostly |
3 = somewhat |
2 = little |
1 = not at all |
|
Criteria |
Technology Gateway – Pre-ET Projects—Mean Ratings |
ET Core Projects –
Mean Ratings |
|
Project |
#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
#4a |
#4b |
#5 |
#6 |
#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
#4 |
#5 |
|
Appropriate and adequate scenario |
3.8 |
4.2 |
3.0 |
3.8 |
3.0 |
3.7 |
3.0 |
3.8 |
4.2 |
2.6 |
4.2 |
2.8 |
|
Appropriate competencies |
4.0 |
3.8 |
3.2 |
3.7 |
3.0 |
3.7 |
3.3 |
3.5 |
3.8 |
2.8 |
3.8 |
3.0 |
|
Competencies phrased in current terminology |
4.3 |
3.6 |
3.5 |
4.2 |
3.3 |
4.0 |
3.5 |
3.0 |
4.0 |
3.6 |
4.0 |
3.6 |
|
Scenario covers knowledge and skills |
4.3 |
3.2 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
3.3 |
3.3 |
3.0 |
3.3 |
3.4 |
2.6 |
3.8 |
3.8 |
|
Integration of various disciplines |
3.8 |
3.6 |
4.5 |
4.5 |
2.8 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
3.2 |
3.4 |
3.2 |
3.7 |
3.6 |
|
Improve on traditional instruction |
4.3 |
4.2 |
4.3 |
4.3 |
2.5 |
2.8 |
3.5 |
4.0 |
3.8 |
2.4 |
3.8 |
3.0 |
|
Facilitate student learning better than traditional materials |
4.5 |
4.0 |
4.2 |
4.2 |
2.3 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
4.2 |
3.8 |
2.5 |
3.8 |
3.0 |
In general, ET Core projects #2: Current and #4: Capacitors were rated highest by the reviewers. On Project #2, 71% of the ratings indicated the project "mostly" or "completely" met the seven criteria. On Project #4, 79% of the ratings indicated the project "mostly" or "completely" met the seven criteria.
In general, the Pre-ET projects garnered higher ratings than did the ET Core projects. On Project #1, 81% of the ratings indicated the project "mostly" or "completely" met the seven criteria. Further, 74% of the ratings on Project #2, 69% of the ratings on Project #3, and 70% on Project #4 indicated the projects "mostly" or "completely" met the seven criteria.
Reviewers’ Quotes
"The ATE work in progress is exciting and very necessary. Great job!"
Richard Satchwell
"The ATE approach will, I hope, be the future of ET education. I particularly admire the Pre-ET program."
Arnold Packer
"The South Carolina ATE Center of Excellence is making great strides in offering innovative technician education at various technical colleges within the state."
Susan Wood
"Such a worthwhile undertaking that needs to be known by others. Some students learn so differently—and this project certainly will meet their needs."
Jim O’Neil
"The South Carolina ATE curriculum is clearly one of the best (and perhaps the very best) examples of a faculty-generated, integrated curriculum based on realistic industry-centered problem situations."
Gary Simundza
"It is apparent that faculty have grown professionally as they have worked to implement a new curriculum using an effective PBL (Problem Based Learning) strategy."
Robert Kimball
"How fortunate students and employers are that ATE graduates are prepared in both technical as well as collaborative communication skills."
Nan Peck
"An excellent program for community/technical colleges wishing to start an innovative, activity-based, problem-based learning approach to engineering technology designed with strong input from South Carolina’s national and international business community. Students learn through roll-play and scenarios based on real workplace experiences."
Doyle Davis
The full report, prepared by Dr. Patricia Cloud Duttweiler, Assistant Director, National Dropout Prevention Center, College of Health, Education, and Human Development, Clemson University, includes reviewers comments about each project reviewed.
|
|
|
