|
| June 2008 | Subscribe |
Our Sponsors:
|
In This Issue:
|
II. Congressional Hotline |
|
SENATE REPUBLICANS PULL PLUG ON ENERGY BILLAmericans may be playing $4 a gallon for gas, and oil prices may be flirting with $140 per barrel, but the U.S. Senate this month couldn't move beyond partisan bickering to enact an energy bill that would have raised money to fund new technologies and production. The Democratic-backed bill was stymied after a majority of Senate Republicans voted to keep the bill from the floor (six Republicans did vote with the Democrats, however). The bill would have rolled back $17 billion in tax breaks to the oil industry and hit big oil companies with a windfall profit tax if they didn't invest in research for new sources of energy. Republicans, backed by the Bush White House, claimed the proposal would further boost the cost of gasoline at the pump and discourage the production and exploration of domestic sources of oil. LAWMAKERS MAY OK WAR FUNDS BY MONTH'S ENDThe Democratic-controlled Congress hopes to approve funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before the July 4 recess, but is squabbling with the Bush administration over whether the bill should also include billions of dollars for nonwar projects. The House is considering a Senate-approved measure that would pony up $165 billion for the wars, enough to last until early 2009. But the bill also includes $52 billion to fund a new GI education bill for 10 years and billions more for Gulf Coast reconstruction, home-heating assistance and an extension of jobless benefits. The White House wants legislation that funds the wars only. But Democrats say a spending bill must also address pressing domestic issues. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expects a compromised can be reached before the upcoming holiday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, however, says there's no rush, that there is enough funding to cover the military efforts through the end of July. |
III. Teaching Toolbox |
|||
Inspired LeadershipBy Alice Daniel Skills imparted at a seminary prove useful in preparing graduate teaching assistants at Oregon State.You might think graduate students make better teaching assistants than undergrads, just by virtue of their maturity and greater knowledge. Not so at Oregon State University's School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science—at least, not before last year. “Our undergraduates would take command of the classroom, execute ideas, and understand their responsibility to the students,” says Donald Heer, the school's educational research and development coordinator. “Our graduate TAs didn't have that same understanding.” Why the difference? Undergraduate TAs learn and teach in a comprehensive laboratory program called TekBots, which gives students a four-year, hands-on view of different electrical engineering technologies through robotic design. Just one year ahead of their charges and close to them in experience, the TAs understand what students need. And because they are readily familiar with the lab requirements, they have confidence in their own leadership and in their ability to execute ideas.
It´s a useful framework: Students get strong mentors, and the TAs hone the soft skills necessary to be leaders, both in the classroom and, later, in the professional world. TekBots, however, is specifically for undergraduates. The majority of graduate TAs—who come from other universities or even other countries—hadn´t encountered an undergraduate program like TekBots that emphasizes leadership skills. “We needed to give them the leg up that our undergraduate students had,” says Heer. Thus began a new, 10–week graduate course called Leadership Training for Teaching Assistants. The course provides a rare, if not unique, level of training for the generally young instructors who are relied upon to share the teaching load at America´s colleges and universities. Lessons from a SeminaryWhile based in part on TekBots, the course also draws on concepts learned an intellectual world away. Its creator, Marjorie Plisch, veered off the usual engineering trajectory between college and graduate school to attend Multnomah Biblical Seminary in Portland. She found that the kind of training in teaching, communication and mentoring offered there could be applied effectively in engineering classrooms and labs. Plisch, who now works on ultra-high-speed data converters for National Semiconductor, developed the course while doing research for her MS in electrical engineering at Oregon State. She taught the first class in the fall of 2006. The TA training serves both undergraduates and graduate students, Plisch says: Not only are well-equipped TAs able to teach, but they can also provide more time for one-on-one contact than most professors. As a result, TAs may help schools correct the poor retention rates that have plagued engineering programs and worried industry. For graduate students, the experience of being a TA gives them a chance to acquire the leadership experience that will serve them well in their future careers.
“While graduate students are expected to [become] leaders in industry and academia, their training is often restricted to the technical arena,” says Plisch. “This doesn´t prepare them for the variety of leadership challenges that they will face. Being a TA is an excellent opportunity to apply the lessons of leadership without adding another item to the already busy schedule of a graduate student.” In her course, TAs are taught that they must embrace both the privileges and responsibilities of leadership. It's a privilege, says Plisch, to be able to change the way a class is run or to facilitate relationships between students, such as with an ice-breaker exercise at the beginning of lab. But there are also responsibilities. TAs must learn how to resolve conflicts, initiate projects, and provide guidance. For these tasks, they need communication skills. To help TAs acquire these skills, the course organizes participants into groups of three, or triads. Each student takes a turn as the observer, counselor (TA) or counselee (student) when addressing a conflict or discussing an idea. The triad provides students with more “airtime” than in the traditional lecture setting. In addition, listening skills, such as paraphrasing what the student says before addressing a comment or question, are practiced. Intensive leadership training for TAs is unusual in graduate schools, especially in the form of a semester- or quarter-long course, says Heer, who supervised Plisch in developing the course. He surveyed the top 20 graduate schools in electrical engineering and found that half offered no training, five had an orientation seminar, and the remainder offered only multiday courses. Leadership takes PracticeTerri Fiez, director of the school of electrical engineering and computer science and Plisch's graduate adviser, believes students thrive on leadership training. “I'm a really strong believer in leadership development,” says Fiez. “Unless you practice it, you don't learn it. But if you give students basic skills and they get a chance to practice and use them, they'll just continue to build on them. That's what we're trying to do here.” For graduate students from outside the United States, the course opens a window on behavior in the American workplace. “How we [in the United States] operate in terms of business and academia might be very different for some students,” says Fiez. “A significant amount of time in the course covers how we work together, how we teach things. Students learn culturally how to be a certain kind of mentor.”
One quality the course seeks to instill in students—and one that may require an adjustment on the part of students from abroad—is personal initiative. Graduate students are taught to view their professors, and even their students, as customers—and to keep the customer satisfied. “They need to learn to be proactive about helping that customer rather than waiting for someone to tell them what to do,” she says. The very definition of leadership may vary among students from different national or cultural backgrounds, notes Matt Shuman, a graduate student in electrical engineering who is teaching the Leadership Training for Teaching Assistants course this year. In some countries, leadership is very hierarchical and initiative comes from the top, while in the United States, initiative is expected at a variety of levels, both in industry and academia. He says the course acquaints students with how leadership is defined in the United States and what is expected of them as leaders in the classroom. Case studies ExploredHannes Hapke, a graduate student from Germany, says that in his country, the whole notion of leadership still carries a negative association with the Third Reich. “There are no real translations of the word ‘leadership’ in German. When we talk about it, we use the English word.” He adds, “Germans are more structured and more hierarchical, but on the other hand, people are afraid of being a strict leader. American people have a broader view and a better idea how to lead people. It's not a problem to be a leader here.” In addition to taking leadership training, Hapke is enrolled in an organizational behavior course, which also focuses on leadership and how to handle conflict but in a very theoretical manner. In comparison, Hapke says, “the leadership class offers a hands-on, practical approach.” Students not only discuss case studies but apply them to their own situations as TAs. They also practice introducing themselves and interacting with students on the first day of lab. Hapke followed some of the suggestions from the class but didn't have his students introduce themselves. “I didn't do what Matt told me, but I realized later it would have been better if I had done it,” he says. “The students feel more comfortable when I talk to them in person using their name. For me, it's a process, as well. Every time I do the lab, I try to improve.” Classroom collaboration is emphasized, says Shuman. “I teach them that the classroom is interactive and it's important to create a collaborative environment. It's not just professor to students.” He also incorporates basic teaching tips. These include moving about the classroom, especially when new ideas are introduced. “If you're just standing up in front of an audience, they'll fall asleep,” says Shuman. While it is still too early to make a concrete assessment of the course, Heer says he has worked with a few of the graduate students who have taken leadership training, and he's noticed a change in their ability to become motivated. “One of the hardest things for a faculty researcher is when you have a graduate student who doesn't aggressively pursue information from you. Some of the students who had not been pursuing information now have more initiative,” he says. The course also provides a safe zone for graduate students who have never taught a lab to express themselves and to ask for advice, encouragement, or even collaboration on an idea. “If you're more comfortable about what you're doing, you'll do it better, as a leader,” says Shuman. |
IV. JEE Selects |
|
China's Learning CurveBy Mei-yung Leung & Xinhong Lu What works in mainland universities may not be as effective in Hong Kong.Since the 1990s, China has attracted considerable global attention with its rapid economic development and the expansion of its higher education system. Starting in 1999, China transitioned from a system geared to educating the elite to one that reaches a broader population. To cope with growing numbers of students, the country has had to expand university faculties by adding young and comparatively inexperienced instructors. When these new teachers are paired with students who are often passive rote learners, the result is a challenging teaching and learning environment.
Our study investigated relationships between different approaches to teaching and learning and student satisfaction. We focused on construction engineering education because it is a major program of study in China. In particular, we sought to examine the differences in teaching approaches between Hong Kong and mainland China, and their impact on the learning process. Due to an intertwined history with the United Kingdom, Hong Kong's educational programs have been modeled after the British system, while universities in mainland China have a significantly different educational heritage. The popular approach to teaching in mainland China remains a teacher-centered one. Hong Kong, by contrast, emphasizes both teacher-centered and student-centered strategies. Teaching can be considered a simple matter of transferring knowledge or shaping students, or it can be understood as a complex matter in which the teacher and student share a journey of mutual growth to gain knowledge and to develop. The former approach is teacher-centered, based on content-oriented instruction, while the latter is student-centered, using learning-oriented instruction. Learning, on the other hand, involves two main dimensions, motivation and strategies, each of which has various approaches. A student's motivation can be intrinsic—that is, engaging willingly in tasks; extrinsic—seeking to obtain a passing grade with minimal effort; or achievement oriented—seeking high marks. Similarly, learning strategies can be deep—that is, striving for meaning and understanding; surface—seeking rote knowledge; or achievement-oriented—applying any method to optimize final marks. Different learning motivations can produce different learning strategies or behaviors, and subsequently produce different learning outcomes. Our study revealed interesting differences in student reactions. In Hong Kong, where both teacher-centered and student-centered strategies are employed, teacher-centered instruction correlated with surface or achievement-learning strategies, while student-centered teaching correlated with deep learning strategies. This was not the case in mainland China, however. There, the predominant educational strategy, teacher-centered instruction, correlated with deep learning strategies. Indeed, students in the mainland Chinese programs, and especially those in what are considered the top 10 universities, were less satisfied with a student-centered orientation, as opposed to their counterparts in Hong Kong. For reasons not yet clear, it appears that mainland Chinese students are somewhat indifferent to teaching approaches and naturally employ deep learning approaches in their studies. Both teacher-centered and student-centered teaching approaches have their merits. The results of this study suggest that educators in mainland China can apply various teaching methods in the construction education process. Since the student-centered approach produces deep learning strategies in Hong Kong, and students there are generally satisfied with this approach, it is recommended that Hong Kong educators apply this approach through problem-based learning, interdisciplinary team projects and action learning. Mei-yung Leung is an assistant professor in the Department of Building and Construction at the City University of Hong Kong, People's Republic of China. Xinhong Lu is an associate professor in the School of Real Estate at Shanghai University, PRC. This article is adapted from “Impacts of Teaching Approaches on Learning Approaches of Construction Engineering Students: A Comparative Study between Hong Kong and Mainland China” in the April, 2008 Journal of Engineering Education. |
V. Fellowship/Scholarship Programs |
PostdoctoralThe Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Postdoctoral Fellowship Program. This program is open to U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents and offers a competitive stipend as well as insurance, relocation, and travel allowances. The program offers one to three-year postdoctoral fellowships designed to increase the involvement of scientists and engineers from academia and industry to scientific and technical areas of interest and relevance to the Navy. The program has a rolling admission. Go to: http://www.asee.org/nrl/. |
|
To unsubscribe from this newsletter, please reply to connections@asee.org with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line - please include the email address that you would like removed from the mailing list. This Newsletter was sent to you by: American Society for Engineering Education Managing Editor: Tom Grose
|