OUTCOMES-BASED TEACHING AND LEARNING STRATEGIES FOR THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING PROFESSOR∗

Andres Winston C. Oreta, D. Eng. F. ASEP De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

ABSTRACT: In outcomes-based education (OBE), the design of the curriculum, syllabus, teaching and learning strategies, and assessment should be “constructively aligned” with the student performance, which are called “outcomes.” To effectively ensure that the course learning outcomes are achieved, the students must be engaged in the learning process. The engineering instructor must not simply resort to blackboard teaching but must employ innovative teaching and learning activities that will stimulate the minds of the students and help them create and integrate knowledge about the course content and intended learning outcomes. With the aid of multimedia equipment which is now readily available in the classrooms at DLSU-Manila, various multimedia and internet resources – power point lectures, video showing using you tube and slide shows – can complement chalk and blackboard lectures. This paper presents some teaching/learning activities (TLAs) and assessment tasks (ATs) used in the delivery of structural engineering courses. Specific examples are presented to illustrate how various TLAs and ATs can be used in the classroom to address learning outcomes in structural engineering courses. KEYWORDS: Outcomes-Based Education, Engineering Education, Structural Engineering, Learning Outcomes, Assessment

1. INTRODUCTION Outcomes-Based Education is an “educational model in which the curriculum and pedagogy and assessment are all focused on student learning outcomes” (Driscoll & Wood 2007 p.4). Outcomes-Based Education is now accepted as a framework in the accreditation of Engineering Programs. The ABET in the US adopts its “Engineering Criteria”, which basically follows the OBE framework. Similarly, the Washington Accord, which recognizes substantial equivalence in the accreditation of qualifications in professional engineering for the member countries, also adopts similar criteria. As a result, various studies have been conducted by engineering educators on how to effectively implement the OBE framework in engineering schools. It is a new paradigm in engineering education which is aimed at improving learning (Biggs 2003) and to meet accreditation needs (Felder & Brent 2003). In the Philippines, the Commission on Higher Education and the Philippine Technological Council (PTC) takes the lead in promoting OBE as the framework for the accreditation of engineering programs. The key to OBE is the achievement of outcomes. In OBE, the outcomes are first defined and then the design of the curriculum including the teaching/learning activities (TLAs) and assessment tasks (ATs) follow. Each engineering program has a set of program or student outcomes (SOs). Program or student outcomes are narrow statements that describe outcomes ∗This is an updated version of the paper, “Exploring a variety of teaching and learning activities to address learning outcomes in structural engineering courses” presented at the International Conference on Civil Engineering Education (ICCEE2012), Nov. 9-10, 2012 DLSU, Manila. Updated for the International Conference on SPACE 2014, April 24-25, Organized by ASEP & PICE-Makati

(knowledge, skills, abilities, values) of what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. In the Philippines, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) has listed the program outcomes for each engineering program. For the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering (BSCE), CHED created the corresponding Policies and Standards (CHED CMO 29 s2007) and in Article III, Section 4.2 the program outcomes are listed as shown in Table 1. “Student outcomes” is now used by ABET and ACBET replacing the term “program outcomes.” These two terms when used in this paper will have the same meaning.

The Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering (BSCE) program follows a curriculum with a set of courses which a student must complete or “pass” in order to earn a specific degree. In OBE, the course learning outcomes of each course is at the bottom level in the hierarchy of outcomes. To assure the achievement of SOs, the course learning outcomes (LOs) must specify tasks, skills, knowledge and values that students must achieve upon completion of the course. The LOs must also be aligned with specific SOs to assure the attainment of the outcomes at the program level. Since the definition of outcomes cascade from top to bottom, the curriculum design will also follow the same direction from program to course level. Delivery of instruction and assessment, on the other hand, is carried out from bottom to top. The course is the basic element which comprises a program. The LOs are the key in the design of the course content, selection of teaching/learning activities (TLAs) and adoption of assessment tasks (ATs). To effectively ensure that the course learning outcomes are achieved, the students must be engaged in the learning process. The OBE principle which states “what’s important is not what you teach, it’s what they learn” should be a guiding principle in the selection of TLAs. Thus, the teacher must not simply resort to “chalk and blackboard” teaching but must employ also innovative and student-centered teaching and learning activities that will stimulate and challenge the minds of the students to create

Figure 1. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Thinking Skills

http://educationaljargonschs.wikispaces.com/Bloom's+Taxonomy+(revised)

Table 1. CHED BSCE Program Outcomes A graduate of the Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering (BSCE) program must attain: (a) An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics,

physical sciences, engineering sciences to the practice of civil engineering.

(b) An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data

(c) An ability to design, build, improve, and install systems or processes which meet desired needs within realistic constraints.

(d) An ability to work effectively in multi-disciplinary and multi-cultural teams.

(e) An ability to recognize, formulate, and solve civil engineering problems.

(f) An understanding of the effects and impact of civil engineering projects on nature and society, and of the civil engineers’ social and ethical responsibilities

(g) Specialized engineering knowledge in each applicable field, and the ability to apply such knowledge to provide solutions to actual problems.

(h) An ability to effectively communicate orally and in writing using the English language.

(i) An ability to engage in life-long learning and an acceptance of the need to keep current of the development in the specific field of specialization.

(j) An ability to use the appropriate techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for the practice of civil engineering.

(k) A knowledge of contemporary issues

and integrate knowledge about the course content and intended learning outcomes. TLAs must be aligned with the course learning outcomes and the student outcomes. TLAs must also address the different levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy of cognitive thinking (Figure 1) – the lower level thinking skills (“remembering,” “understanding,” “applying”) and the higher level thinking skills (“analyzing,” “evaluating,” and “creating.”) The challenge to educators according to Biggs and Tang (1999) is addressing the “full range” of higher levels of cognitive skills resulting to a “deep approach” in learning. “When using a deep approach, students use the full range of desired learning activities; they learn terminology, they memorize formulae, but move from there to applying these formulae to new examples” (Biggs and Tang (1999). Felder and Brent (2004) also noted that “the best way to facilitate the development of higher-level skills is to include high-level tasks in learning objectives, share them with the students in study guides for exams, give illustrations and practice in class and more practice on assignments; and then put the high-level questions on the exams. The only way people acquire skills is through practice and feedback.” This paper explores some TLAs and ATs as applied by the author in the structural engineering courses. With the aid of multimedia equipment which is now readily available in the classrooms at DLSU-Manila, various multimedia and internet resources – power point lectures, video showing using YouTube and slide shows – are explored to enhance blackboard lectures. Examples of classroom activities are also presented to illustrate how a teacher can become both a source of knowledge and a facilitator of knowledge.

2. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING COURSES AND OUTCOMES

The DLSU BSCE curriculum consists of 219 academic units - 30 units of which are related to structural engineering (STE) including the ten units of structural engineering specialization courses as shown in Table 2. The common STE courses include the subjects on Theory of Structures (8 units for lectures and 2 units for lab), Structural Design for RC, Steel and Timber (8 units for lectures and 2 units for lab) and the STE specialization courses like Earthquake Engineering (3 units), Bridge Engineering (3 units), Prestressed Concrete Design (3 units) and Structural Design of Buildings (1 unit lab). Collectively, the STE courses address the entire CHED BSCE program outcomes as shown in Table 2. However, if the courses are taken individually, each STE course addresses specific SOs either substantially (X) or partially (O). For example the lecture course in Theory of Structures address directly and substantially the SO-(a): “An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, physical sciences,

Table 2. Alignment of STE Courses with Program Outcomes

X – substantially addressed O - partially addressed

engineering sciences to the practice of civil engineering” and SO-(e): “An ability to recognize, formulate and solve civil engineering problems.” The computed-aided Structural Analysis course, aside from addressing SO-(a) and SO-(e) also addresses SO-(j): “An ability to use the appropriate techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for the practice of civil engineering.” The Theory of Structures laboratory addresses specifically SO-(b): “An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data” and SO-(d): “An ability to work effectively in multi-disciplinary and multi-cultural teams.” Structural design courses address considerably SO-(c): “An ability to design, build, improve, and install systems or processes which meet desired needs within realistic constraints” and SO-(j). The STE specialization courses focuses on SO-(g): “Specialized engineering knowledge in each applicable field, and the ability to apply such knowledge to provide solutions to actual problems” and SO-(j). Laboratory courses usually address the student outcomes on teamwork since the experiments and projects are usually accomplished by a group. The other student outcomes on communication skills, life long learning and contemporary issues are also addressed by the STE courses partially by selecting appropriate teaching/learning activities and assessment tasks.

3. TEACHING/LEARNING ACTIVITIES AND ASSESSMENT TASKS The course syllabus is a guide or map on how to achieve the student outcomes. An important part of the syllabus is the “Learning Plan” where appropriate TLAs are listed for each meeting to guide the instructor on the course delivery. To realize the attainment of the outcomes, we must be guided by the Constructive Alignment Principle (Biggs 2003) which is an OBE principle that emphasizes the need “to set up an environment that maximizes the likelihood that students will engage in the activities designed to achieve the intended outcomes.” Hence, aside from the “chalk and blackboard” mode of delivery, I explored and experimented on a variety of TLAs in the delivery of course content and in the honing of student’s skills to achieve the LOs.

Classrooms at DLSU are now equipped with multimedia equipment connected to the internet. Hence instructors can used both blackboard and multimedia in their lectures. Using the multimedia equipment, the instructor can design activities that will engage the students to “construct” learning and reinforce the chalk and blackboard lectures. In the succeeding sections, I will describe examples of the TLAs used in my classes in Theory of Structures and Earthquake Engineering.

3.1 Gobbets A gobbet is “an extract of text, a passage of literature, an image, a cartoon, a photograph, a map or an artifact provided as a context for analysis, translation or discussion in an assessment” (Chan 2008). “The student’s task is to identify the gobbet, explain its context, say why it is important, what it reminds them of or

Figure 2. Gobbet for a Simple Beam

http://kristenhutchinson.wordpress.com/

L

W

whatever else you would like them to comment on” (Biggs and Tang 1999). Gobbets are usually used for assessment. In my case I applied the method by the gobbet using images for assessment of the students’ knowledge of basic concepts.

In my first meeting in Theory of Structures-I, as my review of basic concepts in Statics and Mechanics of Deformable Bodies, I displayed an image of a beam bridge (Figure 2) and posed the problem to the students: “if you are required to design a simple beam bridge to cross a river, what information would you gather to accomplish your task and how would you use the information? The responses from this gobbet include span length, beam material, weight of the person(s), number of persons crossing the bridge at one time, shape and size of the beam, soil type at the beam ends and cost. After listing their responses, I asked them on how the items in the list will be used in the analysis and design of the beam bridge. From this exercise, the students were able to reflect and learned about the relationship of the listed items to concepts in Statics and Mechanics of Deformable Bodies. • A beam bridge can be modelled as a simple beam with length, L and the weights represented as

concentrated loads • Analysis means solving for reactions and maximum internal forces – moment and shear • The type of material will specify the material strength (allowable stresses) and mechanical properties

(modulus of elasticity) • Designing the beam means determining the shape and size of the beam • Various types of design can be done for comparison (strength, cost)

The second example of a gobbet exercise (Figure 3) which I called “Scaling an Earthquake” was applied in the Earthquake Engineering course (STEQUAK). One of the learning outcomes of the course is familiarization with the PHIVOLCS Earthquake Intensity Scale (PEIS). A series of photos were displayed to the class and the following problem was posted: “You are tasked to determine the intensity of the earthquake using PEIS. Assign the intensity scale for each photo. Explain your answer.” In this exercise, the students have to read and understand carefully the descriptors for each intensity scale in PEIS and relate them to the photos.

http://woldcnews.com/ http://www.riskmanagementmonitor.com

Figure 3. Gobbets on “Scaling an Earthquake” Assign the seismic intensity scale for each photo and

explain.

Figure 4. Post-Earthquake Assessment

[ ] Safe [X] Limited Entry [ ] Unsafe “The damage CHB wall which can be retrofitted does not affect the main structural system (columns and beams). Entry should be limited to the undamaged areas because of possible collapse of wall.”

ASEP DQRP

Another gobbet in my Earthquake Engineering class was included in an exam to assess the students’ understanding of structural failure due to earthquakes. This is an exercise on post-earthquake evaluation usually conducted by structural engineers (ASEP) after the occurrence of an earthquake. The students are shown photos of a building damaged due to earthquake. A description of the observed damage is also given. The students are required to assess the condition of the building based on the photos and description and recommend the appropriate post-earthquake posting (Safe, Limited Entry or Unsafe). Figure 4 shows a photo of a damaged on-story building with the corresponding assessment of a student. How can gobbets be applied using text instead of images? One possible application of gobbets using text is in the interpretation of the design codes like National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP). Design codes are ambiguous and are not very easy to understand. A provision of the NSCP may be given (e.g. seismic detailing of RC columns) and the students will be required to interpret the provision by drawing sketches of how a column should be detailed (spacing of hoops, minimum dimensions, etc) for earthquake resistant design. In these examples of gobbets using images and/or text, students are challenged to reflect about the picture or text and think about the relevance of the image or text to the concepts in the course In general, gobbets can address higher-order cognitive abilities such as analyzing concepts and their relationships to each other.

3.2 Slide Show Presentations I created a number of slideshow presentations where images or pictures with background music and text are displayed. In my Earthquake Engineering course, one of the learning outcomes is that the students will be able to “describe the various hazards due to earthquakes and ways of mitigating the effects of these hazards.” To help the students address this learning outcome, I present a set of video presentations on “Understanding Earthquakes and Disasters” (Oreta 2009). The main focus of the photo-video presentations (Figure 5) is the impact of earthquake hazards – ground shaking, surface rupture, liquefaction, tsunami, landslides – to the community and infrastructures. By presenting the effects of earthquakes, the students will

QuakeBasics

Buildings: Shake,

Rattle & Roll

Bridges are Falling Down

On Shaky Ground

Learning Lessons:

Luzon 1990 Earthquake

Beware of Tsunami

Disasters & Development

Preparing for the Big One

Figure 5 Understanding Earthquakes &

Disasters Photo-Video http://digitalstructures.blogpsot.com.

understand their vulnerability to the different types of seismic hazards. And by knowing ones’ vulnerability, mitigation actions can be done to avoid a disaster. The photo-video presentations can also be viewed by the students through the internet at http://digitalstructures.blogpsot.com.

3.3 Online Video and Tutorials A video presentation captures the attention and creates interest on the students about the subject matter. In my classes, I usually present full length movies by Discovery (e.g. “Engineering the Impossible”), National Geographic (e.g. featured movies on recent earthquakes) and DVDs about engineering marketed by Insight Media (http://www.insight-media.com/) like the 20 minute DVD on “Structures.” Commercial videos are quite expensive though – DVD price ranges between US$ 119 to US$289 for a program running for about 20 min to 40 min. The internet is a rich resource of free video presentations and tutorials. Various sites like YouTube and many social networks share interesting video and tutorials which can be used in the classroom. Since the multimedia equipment at DLSU are connected to the internet, online video presentation is accessible and provides a more enriching experience to the students. Examples when I used online presentations are described below:

• In my lecture about the solution of the equation of motion of a single degree of freedom (SDOF) system in structural dynamics, I presented a tutorial on differential equations from the site: http://khanacademy.com. I refer them to view the tutorials for their review on differential equations.

• In comparing the behavior of SDOF systems with different periods I present a shaking table test from YouTube as shown in Figure 6(a).

• In illustrating the effect of external forces like wind on structures, I present the Tacoma Bridge failure from YouTube as shown in Figure 6(b).

(a) (b)

Figure 6. YouTube Videos (a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV_UuzEznHs&playnext=1&list=PL2ADDAC9B294A5593&feature=results_main (b) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mclp9QmCGs

Figure 7. Visual Basic Applications http://mysite.dlsu.edu.ph/faculty/oretaa

• When reviewing Mechanics of Materials in my Theory of Structures class, I sometimes present the animations and games from MecMovies (http://web.mst.edu/~mecmovie/. Materials.

3.4 Software Demonstrations Simple software applications and games developed by undergraduate civil engineering students may be used to enhance the teaching and learning of the basic civil engineering courses (Oreta 2007). In reviewing concepts in Theory of Structures, the students are referred to try Visual Basic applications created by DLSU students that are uploaded at my DLSU website. The students run the program and compare their manual calculations with the computer output. They can also use the program for parametric studies. Examples of software (Figure 7) available in the website which are discussed in the course on Theory of Structures are:

• Elastic Stress of a Beam • Elastic Deflection of a Beam • Curved Beams • Unsymmetrical Bending

3.5 Open-Ended Problems Problem solving is one learning activity that is extensively employed by engineering educators. “Problem-solving is defined as a process used to obtain a best answer to an unknown or a decision subject to some constraints” (Mourtos 2004). Through problem solving students learn to apply the theoretical equations in both hypothetical and real-world scenarios. Assigning problem sets provides students the opportunity to test their understanding of the theory and concepts. The type of problems assigned to students addresses various levels of thinking and outcomes. Traditionally, problems are designed with given parameters and students are required to determine an unknown quantity. The solution usually involves substitution of known values to an equation to solve for the unknown parameter. Problems of this type are said to be “close-ended.” Close-ended questions usually have a unique answer and the procedure of obtaining the answer is limited or straight-forward. Close-ended problems address lower levels of thinking (based on Bloom’s taxonomy) like “remembering”, “understanding” and “applying” and some higher mode of thinking like “analyzing”. To address higher levels of thinking like “evaluating” and “creating” and transformative outcomes experienced in the real-world, “open-ended” questions should also be included in the problem sets. Sobek and Jain (2004) emphasized the need for open-ended problems. “Employers look for engineers who are effective at solving open-ended problems. Engineering accreditation demands evidence that students can tackle open-ended problems proficiently.” Open-ended problems address considerably the student outcomes on “an ability to recognize, formulate, and solve civil engineering problems” and “an ability to engage in lifelong learning.” Open-ended questions are usually ill-defined and there may be more than one valid approach to obtain the solution. As a matter of fact, the solution may not be unique because of varying assumptions made regarding some parameters. Mourtos (2004) noted in their study that “traditional exercises (close-ended) found in most engineering texts, although useful, do not adequately prepare engineering students for real-world problems. Students seem to have great difficulty approaching these (open-ended) problems; however, they also seem to enjoy the challenge and perform reasonably well if given proper guidance.”

Figure 8 show two examples of open-ended problems given in the Theory of Structures course. The first problem is related to analysis of beams due to unsymmetrical bending. Deciding on the most effective set-up of the Z-section whether upright or inverted would require application of concepts in moment of inertia, equilibrium, bending moment and elastic bending stress analysis. There are various ways of justifying the correct answer for the most efficient cross-section. The second problem is on the analysis of composite on non-homogeneous sections. This problem has many solutions since various arrangements of the composite section made of steel and wood can be devised. This problem challenges the students to recommend a practical and realistic composite section to replace a given I-section. Open-ended problems are challenging to the students and also to the faculty. Open-ended problems take a considerable time for preparation and checking. However, the impact to learning may be worth it.

3.6 Open-Ended Experiments A Theory of Structures Laboratory was introduced in the DLSU BSCE curriculum in 2010 where Modular Structures Equipment is used in the experiments (Oreta 2011). The laboratory course complements lectures in Mechanics of Deformable Bodies and Theory of Structures. This course aims to enhance the understanding and mastery of important concepts in stress and structural analysis through laboratory experiments. When I handled the course the first time, students were required to perform “traditional” or standard type of experiments. In the standard mode, the objectives and procedures are given like a “recipe” which the students follow from data gathering, data presentation, data analysis and writing conclusions. Felder and Brent (2003) noted that in traditionally designed experiments students can certainly conduct the experiments, “but whether they can claim to have done anything meaningful by way of analyzing and interpreting data is a matter of opinion, and experimental design has clearly not entered the picture.” Hence, it was suggested that “open-ended” experiments should be conducted more to improve the learning experience and to address substantially the outcome on “an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data”. In

θ

(a)

(b)

(a) Purlins are beams designed to carry roof loads. You are tasked to design a Z-shaped steel section. How would you install the section to maximize the moment capacity of the beam?

(b) A simple beam with length, L and carrying a uniform load, w has an I-section made of brass. If you were to replace the I –section with a composite section made of steel and wood, recommend the dimensions and arrangement of the composite section which has the same moment capacity of the as the brass section.

Figure 8. Examples of Open-Ended Problems

Open-Ended Experiment No. 1Using the STR4, determine experimentally the modulus of elasticity (E) of two types of beam materials provided in the lab (steel, brass or aluminum). Compare with the nominal values of E. Open-Ended Experiment No. 2 Using the STR4, estimate the location and magnitude of the maximum deflection of a simple beam when the applied load P (or loads) is/are not symmetrical. Show the location of maximum deflection graphically. STR4

Figure 9. Examples of Open-Ended Experiments (Theory of Structures Laboratory)

open-ended experiments, you provide the objective and it would be up to the students to “design the experiment (choose experimental conditions, specify how many runs to carry out at each condition and the data to be collected, plan the data analysis to be carried out), run it and collect the data, perform the data analysis and interpretation, draw conclusions, and prepare and submit the report” (Felder and Brent 2003). The following year, a number of open-ended experiments were introduced in the Theory of Structures Laboratory. Figure 9 states the objectives of the open-ended experiments using the STR4 for deflections of beams and cantilevers. Comparing the outputs and feedback between the standard and open-ended experiments, obviously the students had more difficulties and errors in the open-ended mode and it took them a longer time in performing the later since this may be their first time to experience this approach. However, the group members were more engaged in the activity specifically in the experimental design stage unlike in the standard mode where they just focused on data gathering. I believe they were challenged to use their higher modes of thinking and team work was demonstrated. When asked in a survey to compare their experience between the two types of experiments, about one-third suggested that more open-ended experiments should be included in the course. The students’ feedback on the open-ended experiments include both positive and negative remarks like “challenging”, “develops critical thinking and decision making”, “help students learn by themselves”, “test the learner’s understanding of concepts,” “improved teamwork,” “difficult,” and “time consuming.”

3.7 Group Research and Oral Reporting To address the student outcomes on “life long learning”, “team work” and “effective communication,” a group research and report is an appropriate learning and assessment activity. A library and internet research will engage the students to finding new information related to the course and the reports would give them the opportunity to demonstrate their oral communication and presentations skills using multimedia. In the Earthquake Engineering course, a group research was one of the requirements and also assessment task employed. A rubric on the assessment of the group research and report is shown in Table 3. In the group research, each group was given a problem to address. For example one group was assigned this problem: “How can we improve the seismic performance of a building with vertical irregularity due to a soft-story?” Then the group has to present in class orally by answering the key questions below: • What is the problem about? Describe with images and/or video. • What is/are the solution? Describe the various solutions with images and/or video. • What is the conclusion? Describe the lessons learned from the research.

Figure 10. A scene in a video created by students

http://www.youtube.com/my_videos_edit?ns=1&video_id=G_tJcy2nD8s

The group reports were very informative – some are animated. Most of the groups created short video presentations about their topic. The video presentation complements the oral report using power point slides. Some video presentations demonstrated the creativity of the students such as the video in Figure 9 which is about a “soft story” building and retrofitting methods.

3.8 On-Site Exercise Applying the tools learned in the classroom in the real-world scenario is the best approach to test the students’ understanding of the concepts and develop their skills. One topic in Earthquake Engineering is the rapid visual screening (RVS) of existing buildings for potential seismic hazards. The FEMA-154 approach which is also adopted in the Philippines served as our reference. As part of the outcomes assessment, the students were required to apply the FEMA-154 RVS on existing buildings in the DLSU campus. Each student was assigned a building to inspect and complete the FEMA-154 form (Figure 11). The exercise addresses a learning outcome of the course on “describe the basic principles of earthquake-resilient design of structures” which partially addresses the program outcome on “an ability to design, build, improve, and install systems or processes which meet desired needs within realistic constraints.” Through this exercise, the students first have to review the FEMA-154 RVS procedure and then go to the building site and conduct a “sidewalk survey” – visual inspection from the outside. They also interviewed the campus building administrators to inquire about some information about the buildings like year built and lot area.

Figure 11. RVS output of a student

Table 3. Rubric for Assessment of Group Research and Report in Earthquake Engg

CRITERIA EXEMPLARY 3-4

SATISFACTORY 2-3

DEVELOPING 1-2

BEGINNING 0-1

RATING

Content of Research (40%)

The research is extensive, complete with facts, figures, images and video.

The research satisfactorily covers the assigned topic.

The research lacks some important information.

The research is incomplete. There is minimal coverage of the assigned topic.

References (20%)

The research cited sources and references. Authoritative sources are used.

The research cited sources and references.

Some information that requires referencing not cited.

Important information not cited.

Oral Presentation (40%)

Slides and video are used effectively and designed properly. The oral reports are clear, interesting and informative.

Slides and video are used effectively. The oral reports are clear and easy to understand.

Some slides and video are not necessary. Some reporters are not clear in their presentation.

Ineffective use of slides and video. Poor reporting.

3.9 Hybrid Problem Solving In the course on Matrix Theory of Structures, students are required to model and analyze structures with large degrees of freedom. This course address the student outcomes on the “solving civil engineering problems” using “modern engineering tools.” To address these outcomes, individual and group problem sets are assigned to the students where they model and analyze statically indeterminate trusses, beams, frames and grids using a combination of manual, semi-manual/computer-aided and software tools (Figure 12). In the manual computation, students demonstrate their understanding of the applicable theory and matrix equations. The semi-manual phase requires the students to use Mircosoft Excel to perform the matrix operations needed to solve the displacements, reactions and member forces of structures. This phase is semi-manual since students input the values of the elements of the matrices and then perform the operations like matrix inversion, transposition and multiplication using Excel functions. To verify their results, the structural analysis software, GRASP (for 2D) and SAP2000 (for 3D) are used. Through this exercise, students reconcile the theory and the computer-aided solutions.

5. CONCLUSION

This paper presented a variety of examples on Teaching/Learning Activities (TLAs) and Assessment Tasks (ATs) employed in some structural engineering courses. The various strategies were explored to enhance the delivery of instruction and to experience the practice of the principles of outcomes-based education (OBE) which focuses more on what students do to learn and achieve course learning outcomes. The examples illustrate how OBE can be implemented in the civil engineering undergraduate program. The effectiveness of these TLAs, though, needs to be evaluated to further improve course delivery, implementation and assessment. Since OBE is a new paradigm in engineering education, then full implementation of OBE takes time. By understanding and recognizing the OBE principles, the faculty member’s outlook

Figure 12. Matrix Solution of a Truss using manual, computer-aided (Microsoft Excel)

and software (GRASP) tools

becomes more focused on addressing outcomes than simply delivering course content. The engineering faculty members should gradually employ the OBE principles in the classroom from syllabus writing, course delivery to course assessment to appreciate the outcomes-based teaching and learning. The faculty should be reminded that “we learn only by doing.”

REFERENCES Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University, McGraw-Hill Open University Press

Biggs, John (2003). “Aligning Teaching and Assessing to Course Objectives,” Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: New Trends and Innovations, University of Aveiro, 13-17 April 2003

Bloom’s Taxonomy. http://educationaljargonschs.wikispaces.com/Bloom's+Taxonomy+(revised)

Chan C. (2008) “Assessment: Gobbets”, Assessment Resource Centre, University of Hong Kong [http://arc.caut.hku.hk]: Available: Accessed: 8/27/2012

CHED CMO 29 s2007: http://www.ched.gov.ph/chedwww/index.php/eng/Information/CHED-Memorandum-Orders/2007-CHED-Memorandum-Orders

Driscoll, A. & Wood, S. (2007). Outcomes-based assessment for learner-centered education, Stylus Publishing, Inc.

Felder, Richard and Brent, Rebecca (2003). “Designing and Teaching Courses to Satisfy the ABET Engineering Criteria,” Journal of Engineering Education, 92 (1), 7-25 (2003)

Felder, Richard and Brent, Rebecca (2004). “The ABC’s of Engineering Education: ABET, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Cooperative Learning, and so on”, Proc. 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition

FEMA-154. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (March 2002). Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: A handbook. 2nd Ed. (ATC-21). Washington, D.C.

MecMovies: Mechanics of Materials by Timothy A. Philpot, http://web.mst.edu/~mecmovie/

Mourtos, N. et al. (2004). “Open-ended problem solving skills in thermal-fluids engineering,” Global Journal of Egg Education, UICEE

Oreta, A. (2006). “Producing multimedia presentations to enhance engineering education,” Proceedings International Civil Engineering Education Congress 2006 (ICEEC 2006) and the 7th National Civil Engineering Education Congress 2006 (7th NCEEC), UAF, Angeles City, Pampanga

Oreta, A. (2007). “Computer-Based Games and Software in Civil Engineering as Educational Tools”, Science & Technology Congress, July 4, 2007, De La Salle University-Manila

Oreta, A. (2009). “Understanding Earthquakes and Disasters: Photo-Video Presentations for Public Awareness and Education,” 14th Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines International Convention, May 21-22, 2009 ISSN 1656-7757 pp. 235-243

Oreta, A.W.C. et al (2011). “Theory of Structures Laboratory in the CE Curriculum: Understanding Structural Behavior through Laboratory Experiments,” 15th ASEP International Convention, Sept. 28-29, 2011, Dusit Thani Hotel

Sobek, D and Jain V. (2004). “The Engineering Problem Solving Process: Good for Students?” Proc.2004 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference & Exposition

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Andres Winston C. Oreta, D.Eng. is a professor in civil engineering at the De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines. He is a fellow of the Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc. (ASEP) and a life member of the PICE (Manila Chapter). Website: http://mysite.dlsu.edu.ph/faculty/oretaa. Blogsite: http://digitalstructures.blogspot.com. Email: andyoreta@yahoo.com.