Cseet09 Tutorial Presentation


Published on

Tutorial presented at IEEE CS conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET\'09) at Satyam, Hyderabad

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Cseet09 Tutorial Presentation

  1. 1. Enriching the C lt th Culture of f Software Engineering Education through Theories of Knowledge and Learning Sanjay Goel http://www.linkedin.com/in/sgoel LinkedIn Group - Computing Education Jaypee Institute of Information Technology University, India sanjay.goel AT jiit.ac.in, goelsan AT yahoo.com S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  2. 2. My Papers on Engineering Education 1. Arora Ritu and Goel Sanjay (2009), Software Engineering Approach for teaching development of scalable enterprise applications CSEET ’09 IEEE. applications, 09, IEEE 2. Goel Sanjay (2008), Successful Teaching methods for engineering education with reference to the Indian IT industry, Accepted, Journal of STEME, USA. 3. Goel Sanjay and Kathuria Vanshi (2008), A Novel approach for pair programming, Accepted, Journal of IT Education, USA. 4. Goel Sanjay (2006), Do Engineering Faculty Know What’s Broken? The National Teaching & Learning Forum, Vol 15 Number 2, USA 5. Goel Sanjay (2006), Competency Focused Engineering Education with Reference to IT Related Disciplines: Is Indian System Ready for Transformation? Journal of Information Technology Education, USA Education 6. Goel Sanjay (2006), Investigations on required core competencies for engineering graduates with reference to the Indian IT industry, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol 31 Issue 5, October, Taylor & Francis, UK. 7. Goel Sanjay and Sharda Nalin (2004), What do engineers want? Examining engineering education th i i d ti through Bl h Bloom’s t ’ taxonomy, C f Conference of Australasian fA t l i Association of Engineering Education, September, 2004, Australia. 8. Goel Sanjay (2004), What is high about higher education : Examining Engineering Education Through Bloom’s Taxonomy, The National Teaching & Learning Forum, Vol. 13 Number 4, pp 1-5, USA. 9. Goel Sanjay (2003), Activity based flexible credit definition, Tomorrow’s Professor, Stanford University, USA S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  3. 3. Abraham Lincoln's Letter to his son's Teacher He will have to learn, I know, that all men are not just, all men are not true. But teach him also that for every scoundrel there is a hero; that for every selfish Politician, there is a dedicated leader... Teach him for every enemy there is a friend, friend It will take time, I know; but teach him if you can, that a dollar earned is of far more value than five found... Teach him to learn to lose...and also to enjoy winning. Steer him away from envy, if you can, teach him the secret of quiet laughter. can laughter Let him learn early that the bullies are the easiest to lick... S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  4. 4. Abraham Lincoln's Letter to his son's Teacher Teach him, if you can, the wonder of books...But also give him quiet time to ponder the eternal mystery of birds in the sky, bees in the sun, sun and the flowers on a green hillside. In the school teach him it is far honorable to fail than to cheat cheat... Teach him to have faith in his own ideas, even if everyone tells him they are wrong... Teach him to be gentle g with gentle people, and tough with the tough. Try to give my son the strength not to follow the crowd when everyone is getting on the band wagon... Teach him to listen to all men... but teach him also to filter all he hears on a screen of truth, and take only the good that comes through. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  5. 5. Abraham Lincoln's Letter to his son's Teacher Teach him if you can, how to laugh when he is sad... Teach him there is no shame in tears, tears Teach him to scoff at cynics and to beware of too much sweetness... Teach him to sell his brawn and brain to the highest bidders but never to put a price tag on his heart and soul. price-tag soul Teach him to close his ears to a howling mob and to stand and fight if he thinks he's right. Treat him gently, but do not cuddle him, T hi lbd ddl hi because only the test of fire makes fine steel. Let him have the courage to be impatient... let him have the patience to be brave. p Teach him always to have sublime faith in himself, because then he will have sublime faith in mankind. This is a big order, but see what you can do... g , y He is such a fine fellow, my son! S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  6. 6. Concern • Motivation question: How to address the gap between the desired objectives and current quality of software engineering education ? • Our question: What is the gap? S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  7. 7. ‘Graduateness’ John Henry Newman (1852), UK distinguished such attributes as being able, 'to see things as they are, to go right to the point, to disentangle a skein of thought, to detect what is sophistical, and to discard what is irrelevant . . . to fill any post with credit and to master any subject with facility.'' i h di d bj i h f ili These, equipped a graduate to 'accommodate himself to others . . . to throw himself into their state of mind, how mind to bring before them his own, how to influence them, how to come to an understanding with them, how to bear with them'; ' . . . to be at home in any society . . . [to have] common ground with every class . . . [to know] when to speak and when to be silent . . . to ask a question pertinently . . . [to] be able to converse and gain a lesson seasonably . . . [and to enjoy] the repose of a mind that lives in itself, while it lives in the world' S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  8. 8. ‘Graduateness’ Robbins Report, 1963, UK purposes of higher education f hi h d ti not simply py the 'instruction of skills suitable to play a part in the general division of labour' and 'the advancement of learning‘, but also as, 'to promote the general powers of the mind . . . and transmit . . . a common culture and common standards of citizenship' S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  9. 9. Curriculum of Modern Education, J.F. Bobbitt, 1941 • emphasis on the importance of general education, • inability to predetermine future lives and roles of students, • the necessity for schools to develop individuals’ intellect rather than to train them for work, • a respect for many of the classic authors of “great books” S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  10. 10. Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence Linda S. Gottfredson (Intelligence ,2003) S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  11. 11. Four Perspectives on Professional Expertise, Kennedy, 1987 y, • [specialized] Skill: specific tasks that the professional must perform. overlooks the decisions about whether and when to use specific skills, the theory and principles relevant to the profession and analytic capacity. profession, capacity • Application of theory or general principles: how practitioners will handle situations using theory and principles by treating particular cases as examples of known categories. overlooks the decisions about whether and when to apply theory and general principles principles. • Critical analysis: prescribes how practitioners will examine and interpret situations using their critical analysis skills. overlooks codified knowledge, can narrow practitioners’ perspective so that they cannot embrace alternative perspectives, and does not i di d indicate how the practitioner should act on his or her analysis. h h ii h ld hi h li • Deliberate action: how practitioners will analyze situations in the context of action, emphasizing the interaction between analysis and action and how ideas and goals are altered by context. requires a highly developed sense of purpose, which is the y q gy p pp , criterion for judging both ideas and action. Suffers from the biases in human judgment Kennedy, M. M. (1987). Inexact sciences:Goel, CSEET' 09 S. Professional education and the development of expertise. Review of Educational Research
  12. 12. Professional Competencies Expected of College Graduates • A. Traditional Professional Competencies 1. Conceptual Competence: Understanding the theoretical foundations. 2. Technical Competence: Performing required skills. hi l f i i d kill 3. Integrative Competence: Melding multiple competences to make informed judgments about appropriate professional strategies to be employed in practice. 4. Career Marketability: Marketable through education and training • B. Liberal Professional Competencies 1. Communication (Interpersonal) Competence: 2. Contextual Competence: examining the context from a variety of view points – e.g. historical, economic, psychological, political, philosophical etc. hi il i h l i l li i l hil hi l 3. Adaptive Competence: extension of integrative competence: propensity of modify, alter, or change elements of professional practice. 4. Critical Thinking 5. Leadership Capacity ppy • C. Attitudes 1. Professional Identity 2. Professional Ethics 3. Scholarly Concern for Improvement 4. Motivation for Continued Learning 5. Aesthetic Sensibility Stark, Joan and Malcolm A. Lowther. S. Goel, CSEET' 09 Common Ground in Liberal and 1989. quot;Exploring Professional Education.quot;
  13. 13. SPINE: Successful Practices in International Engineering Education, Bodmer, Leu, Mira, & Rütter, H., 2002 • 10 universities (MIT, CMU ETH Zurich Ecole Centrale Paris, Imperial college etc.) and 34 (MIT CMU, Zurich, Paris etc ) companies (IBM, ABB, Philips, Schumburger, Siemens, UBS AG, etc.) of Europe and USA. • 543 professors, 1372 engineers and 145 managers. – Th hi h t rated engineering competencies, b th by professors and engineers were The highest t d i i t i both b f d i analysis/methodological skills, basic engineering proficiency, and problem solving skills. – Engineers and Professors also agree on the lowest rated competencies: development know-how and practical engineering experience. – Very important general professional competencies include communication skills, English language skills, teamwork abilities, presentation skills, and leadership skills. – Medium importance was assigned to general professional competencies of social skills, ability to maintain and develop a broad general education, and management of business processes and administration. –GGeneral professional competencies of marketing, finance, and other l l fil ti f k ti fi d th language skills were rated as kill td lesser important. – All three groups regarded law as least important general professional competency. – Engineers rated specialized engineering proficiency and research know-how as lesser important engineering competencies. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  14. 14. ABET, 2001-02 Abilities each engineering graduate must have a. Ability to apply knowledge of math, science, and engineering b. Ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as analyze and interpret b Abilit t d i d dt i t ll l di t t data. c. Ability to design a system, component or process to meet desired needs. d. Ability to function in multidisciplinary teams e. Ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems f. Understanding professional and ethical responsibilities g. Ability to communicate effectively h. h Understanding the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context i. Recognition of need and ability to engage in life-long learning j. Knowledge of contemporary issues k. k Ability to use the techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for techniques engineering practice. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  15. 15. Comparative analysis of some common competencies identified by some accreditation agencies y g Competency Position in the respective list ABET UK-SPEC, IES, EA, JABEE, Avg ’01 ‘03 ’04 ‘05 ‘04 1 Ability to apply knowledge 1 2 1 1 3 1.6 2 Design skills. 3 2 3 5 5 3.6 3 Problem solving skills. 5 - 4 4 4 4.25 4 Technical competence. 11 1 5 3 4 4.8 5 Ability to work in multidisciplinary teams. 4 4 9 6 1 4.8 6 Communication skills. 7 4 6 2 6 5 7 S iti it towards global, societal, and Sensitivity t d lbl itl d 8 5 8 7 2 6 environmental issues. 8 Sensitivity towards ethical and professional 6 5 10 9 2 6.4 issues. 9 Readiness for life-long learning. 9 5 7 10 7 7.6 S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  16. 16. NBA, India – Oct, 2008 Generally, the engineering programmes must demonstrate their graduates have following capabilities: bili i a. Graduates will demonstrate knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering. b. Graduates will demonstrate an ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems. c. Graduate will demonstrate an ability to design and conduct experiments, analyze and interpret data. d. d Graduates will demonstrate an ability to design a system, component or process as system per needs and specifications. e. Graduates will demonstrate an ability to visualize and work on laboratory and multi- disciplinary tasks. f. f Graduate ill d G d t will demonstrate skills to use modern engineering tools, software and t t kill t d i itl ft d equipment to analyze problems. g. Graduates will demonstrate a knowledge of professional and ethical responsibilities. h. Graduate will be able to communicate effectively in both verbal and written form. y i. Graduate will show the understanding of impact of engineering solutions on the society and also will be aware of contemporary issues. j. Graduate will develop confidence for self education and ability for life-long learning. learning k. Graduate who can participate and succeed in competitive examinations. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  17. 17. What Competencies Should Undergraduate Engineering Programs Emphasize? PhD Thesis, Honor J. Passow, The University of Michigan, ‘08 2008 S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  18. 18. IEEE-CS & ACM, 2001-02 Abilities each computer science graduate must have • System-level perspective System level perspective. • Appreciation of the interplay between theory and practice. • Familiarity with common themes. • Significant project experience. • Adaptability. • Communication. • Teamwork. • Numeracy. Numeracy • Self-management. • Professional development. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  19. 19. IEEE-CS & ACM, 2004 Abilities each software engineering graduate must have – show mastery of the software engineering knowledge and skills, and professional issues necessary to begin practice as a software engineer; – work as an individual and as part of a team to develop and deliver quality software artifacts; – reconcile conflicting project objectives, finding acceptable compromises within limitations of cost, time, knowledge, existing systems and organizations; cost time knowledge systems, – design appropriate solutions in one or more application domains using software engineering approaches that integrate ethical, social, legal, and economic concerns; – demonstrate an understanding of and apply current theories, models, and techniques that provide a basis for problem identification and analysis, software design, development, implementation, verification, and documentation; – demonstrate an understanding and appreciation for the importance of negotiation, effective work habits, leadership, and good communication with stakeholders in a typical software development environment; and – learn new models, techniques, and technologies as they emerge and appreciate the necessity of such continuing professional development. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  20. 20. IEEE-CS, ACM, & AITP: 2004 Abilities each IS graduate must have • Analytical and critical thinking: organizational problem solving, ethics and professionalism and creativity. • Business fundamentals. • Interpersonal, communication and team skills. • Technology. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  21. 21. Computing Accreditation commission, ABET, 2004 Abilities each computing graduate must have p gg a. use and apply current technical concepts and practices in the core information technologies; b. b the ability to analyze identify and define the requirements that must be analyze, satisfied to address problems or opportunities faced by organizations or individuals; c. design effective and usable IT-based solutions and integrate them into the user environment; d. assist in the creation of an effective project plan; e. identify and evaluate current and emerging technologies and assess their applicability to address the users’ needs; f. f analyze the impact of technology on individuals organizations and society individuals, society, including ethical, legal, security and global policy issues; g. demonstrate an understanding of best practices and standards and their application; h. h demonstrate independent critical thinking and problem solving skills; i. collaborate in teams to accomplish a common goal by integrating personal initiative and group cooperation; j. communicate effectively and efficiently with clients, users and peers both verbally and in writing using appropriate terminology; and writing, k. recognize the need for continued learning throughout their career. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  22. 22. How Bell Labs creates star performers. Kelley R. and Caplan J. Harvard Business Review, y p , July-August 1993. • Comparative study of star and average performer at Bell labs which showed that – taking initiative was ranked as the most important strategy by star p g p gy y performers, while it was least important for average performers. – ability to give good presentations was a core strategy for average performers, while it was peripheral for the top engineers. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  23. 23. Competencies of Exceptional and Non-Exceptional Software Engineers Turley and Bieman, Journal of Systems and Software, Jan 1995 SEs at HP, Common/NO or v. small difference/ > in Expert/ > in Non expert Task Accomplishment Competencies Personal Attributes • Leverages/Reuses Code • Driven by Desire to Contribute (3) • Uses Methodical Problem Solving • Pride in Quality and Productivity • Mastery of Skills & Techniques (4) • Enjoys challenge of assignment - sense of fun • Writes/Automates Tests with Code • Lack of Ego • Prior Experience • Perseverance • Obtains Necessary Training/Learning • Desire to Improve Things • Uses Code Reading • Pro-active/Initiator/Driver Pro active/Initiator/Driver • Use of New Methods or Tools • Maintains “big picturequot; View (5) • Schedules and Estimates Well • Desire to Do/Bias for Action • Use of Prototypes to Asses Design • Thoroughness - Methodical , Organized, • Possesses Unique Domain Knowledge Cau ous Cautious • Uses Structured Techniques for Communication • Driven by a Sense of Mission • Exhibits & Articulates Strong Convictions (3) Situational Skills Competencies • Mixes Personal and Work Goals • Concern for Reliability & Quality • Pro-active Role with Management (2) g () • Focus on User or Customer Needs • Thinking - Strong Analytic Skills Interpersonal Skills Competencies • Emphasizes Elegant and Simple Solutions • Seeks Help (1) • Innovation • Team Oriented • Attention to Detail • Helps Others (1) • Design Style • Willingness to Confront Others (4) • Responds to Schedule Pressure by Sacrificing CSEET' 09 S. Goel, Parts of the Design Process (2)
  24. 24. Investigations on required core competencies for engineering graduates with reference to the Indian IT industry, Sanjay Goel, European journal of engineering education, Vol 31, 2006 54 engineers and managers working with an average experience of 7.5 years. i d ki ith i f75 No Competency Figure of Merit 1 Problem solving 10.0 2 Analysis M th d l i l kill A l i / Methodological skills 8.8 88 3 Basic engineering proficiency 8.5 4 Development know-how 8.2 5 Teamwork skills 8.2 6 English Language skills 7.6 7 Presentation skills 7.5 8 Practical engineering experience 7.3 9 Leadership skills 7.3 10 Communication skills 7.2 11 Ability to develop own engineering expertise 6.5 12 Research know-how 6.2 13 Ability to develop a broad general education 5.9 14 Awareness of environmental issues 5.7 15 Social skills 5.3 S. Goel, CSEET' 09 16 Specialized engineering proficiency 5.1
  25. 25. Investigations on required core competencies for engineering graduates with reference to the Indian IT industry, Sanjay Goel, European journal of engineering education, Vol 31, 2006 54 engineers and managers working with an average experience of 7.5 years. No Competency Figure of Merit 17 Project management skills 4.9 18 Management of business process and administration skills 4.6 19 Sensitivity towards socio-economic aspects for sustainable 4.2 technological development 20 Finance 3.8 21 Marketing 3.2 22 Law 2.6 23 Other language skills gg 2.4 S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  26. 26. Competency Focused Engineering Education with Reference to IT Related Disciplines: Is the Indian System Ready for Transformation? Sanjay Goel, Journal of Information Technology Education Volume 5, 2006 jy , gy , Attitudes and perceptions Productive Meaningful usage, extension, habits of and acquisition of knowledge mind a. System-level perspective (including Knowledge a. Attention to detail. a. Ability to apply knowledge. integration, consideration for multilateral viewpoint, b. Critical thinking. b. Design skills. and User centeredness). c. Creativity and idea c. Problem solving skills. b. b Ability to work in homogeneous, homogeneous initiation. initiation d. Technical d T h i l competence. t multidisciplinary, multi-locational and multicultural d. Numerical ability. e. Decision making skills teams. f. Analytical skills. c. Sensitivity towards global, societal, g. Research skills. environmental, moral, ethical and professional issues and sustainability. h. Constructive criticism d. “Be the customer” Mentality i. Experimentation skills. e. Listening. j. Communication skills. f. Readiness for lifelong learning. k. Project planning and management. g. Entrepreneurship. l. Organizational skills h. Ability to assist others through mentoring and m. Persuasion skills. philanthropic donations. n. Mentoring skills. i. Perseverance. o. Knowledge of contemporary g p y j. Sense of urgency and stress management. issues. k. Adaptability and ability to multi-task. p. Wealth creation skills. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  27. 27. IT professionals wrt Software services work Importance of Competency as Perceived by software engineers (71 engrs in 33 companies with exp 1-22 yrs, avg exp = 5.4 yrs) 1 Ability to work in teams. Existential (>90/100) 2 Perseverance, commitment, and hardwork. Critical (70-80) 3 Listening skills. Obligatory (60-70) S. Goel, CSEET' 09 Unpublished research by Sanjay Goel, 2007
  28. 28. IT professionals wrt Research or product development work in large or midsize companies p g p Importance of Competency as Perceived by software engineers Ability Abilit to work in teams ork teams. 1 Existential (>90/100) 2 Ability to apply knowledge. Perseverance, commitment, and hardwork. Pivotal (80-90) (80 90) 3 Accountability and responsibility. 4 5 Analytical skills. Critical (70-80) 6 Problem solving skills. 7 Research skills. Integrity and authenticity. 8 9 Critical thinking. Obligatory (60-70) 10 Design skills. 11 Technical T h i l competence. S. Goel, CSEET' 09 Unpublished research by Sanjay Goel, 2007
  29. 29. IT professionals wrt Research or product development work in small companies p p Sno. Competencies Perseverance, commitment, and hardwork. Existential (>90/100) 1 Accountability and responsibility. A bili d ibili 2 3 Ability to apply knowledge. Pivotal (80-90) 4 Problem solving skills. 5 Research skills. 6 Attention to detail. 7 Analytical skills. Critical Integrity and authenticity. 8 (70-80) Readiness for lifelong learning. 9 10 Technical competence. Quality consciousness and pursuit of excellence. 11 Obligatory 12 Critical thinking. (60-70) 13 Design skills. S. Goel, CSEET' 09 Unpublished research by Sanjay Goel, 2007
  30. 30. Endorsements of software engineers Attitudes & Values Habits of mind Knowledge & Skills Cheerful, Hard working, Creative, Detail Technical Knowledge, Integrity, Team spirit, g y, p, Oriented, Inquisitive, ,q , Versatile, , Cooperative, Punctual, Ambitious, Meticulous, Flexible. Problem Solving Passionate, Dedicated, Efficiency Team Building and Player, Social, l S i l Balanced, d Communication skills C ii kill Commitment, Personable, Challenge See e , esu Oriented Seeker, Result O e ed Responsiveness Self Motivated, Understanding of business Motivator Processes Ethics, Trustworthy, y Quick Learner, Managerial skills g Customer Oriented, Take Something in one’s stride, Risk Taker, Tenacious, Taker Tenacious Analytical Skills Presentation Skills Unpublished research by Sanjay S. Goel, CSEET' 09 Goel, 2009
  31. 31. Taxonomy of Knowledge Types Anderson et al, 2001 • Factual knowledge: terminology and details g gy • Conceptual knowledge: classifications, principles, theories, models • Procedural knowledge: knowing both how and when to use specific skills and Methods kill d M th d • Meta-cognitive knowledge: self-knowledge and both how and when Meta cognitive self knowledge to use cognitive strategies for learning and problem-solving S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  32. 32. Metacognition, Huitt, W. (1997) Knowledge about one's own cognitive system; thinking about one's own thinking; one s Includes thoughts about • what we kno or don't kno and hat e know know • regulating how we go about learning S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  33. 33. Metacognition, NCREL, 1995 METACOGNITION consists of three basic elements: Before - When you are developing the plan of action, ask yourself: • What in my prior knowledge will help me with this particular task? • In what direction do I want my thinking to take me? • What should I do first? • Why am I reading this selection? • How much time do I have to complete the task? During - When you are maintaining/monitoring the plan of action ask yourself: action, • How am I doing? Am I on the right track? • How should I proceed? • What information is important to remember? • Should move Sho ld I mo e in a different direction? • Should I adjust the pace depending on the difficulty? • What do I need to do if I do not understand? After When Aft - Wh you are evaluating th plan of action ask yourself: l ti the l f ti k lf • How well did I do? • Did my particular course of thinking produce more or less than I had expected? • What could I have done differently? • How might I apply this li of thi ki t other problems? H i ht l thi line f thinking to th bl ? • Do I need to go back through the task to fill in any quot;blanksquot; in my understanding? S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  34. 34. Taxonomy of Knowledge Types Carson, Carson 2004 • Empirical Knowledge: of physical environment through senses. Experience memory (pattern) uses symbolic representation • Rational Knowledge: of proportional relationship between parts of something. Abstract, relational and quantitative. Content and process. Maths, Logic. • Conventional Knowledge: of creations of human imagination agreed by a culture. g g g y language, notations, protocols, rules, law, procedures. acquired through social induction. Do not depend upon empirical observation or logic for validity. • Conceptual Knowledge: of patterns and other coherent assemblies – p g p grammatical structures, scientific theories, design. • Cognitive Process: thinking strategies – mental routine, heuristics, algorithms and other learned processes for thoughtful act. • Psychomotor Knowledge: Body control • Affective Knowledge: one’s felt state- emotional and aesthetics dimension. Art. Through conversation to explore, define, and standardize affective experiences. • Narrative Knowledge: of human conditions with human perspective. Humanities perspective Humanities. • Received Knowledge: spiritual side of human experience and life. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  35. 35. Defining Intelligence Ratings of 1,020 experts on the elements of intelligence 1. Abstract thinking or reasoning ( g g (99.3%) ) 2. Problem-solving ability (97.7%) 3. Capacity to acquire knowledge (96.0%) 4. Memory (80.5%) 5. Adaptation to one’s environment (77.2%) 6. Mental speed (71.7%) 7. 7 Linguistic competence (71%) 8. Mathematical competence (67.9%) 9. General knowledge (62.4%) 10. 10 Creativity (59 6%) (59.6%) 11. Sensory acuity (24.4%) 12. Goal-directedness (24%) 13. 13 Achievement motivation (18 9%) (18.9%) S. Goel, CSEET' 09 (Sattler, 2001, Assessment of Children)
  36. 36. Multiple Intelligences, Howard Gardner, 1983, 1999 • Linguistic-Verbal Intelligence – read, write and communicate with words. , • Logical-Mathematical Intelligence – reason and calculate, to think things through in a logical, systematic manner. • Visual-Spatial Intelligence – think in pictures, visualize a future result. To imagine things in y p , g g your mind's eye. y • Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence – use your body skillfully to solve problems, create products or present ideas and emotions. • Musical Intelligence – make or compose music, to sing well, or understand and appreciate music. To keep p , g , pp p rhythm. • Interpersonal (Social) Intelligence – work effectively with others, to relate to other people, and display empathy and understanding, to notice their motivations and goals. This is a vital human intelligence. • Intrapersonal Intelligence It l I t lli – self-analysis and reflection–to be able to quietly contemplate and assess one's accomplishments, to review one's behavior and innermost feelings, to make plans and set goals, the capacity to know oneself. • Naturalist Intelligence – recognize flora and fauna, to make other consequential distinctions in the natural world and to use this ability productively. • Existential Intelligence to tackle deep q p questions about human existence, such as the meaning of life, why do we , g , y die, and how did we get here S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  37. 37. Stages of Intellectual Development, W.G. Perry, 1970 • Two Central interwoven dynamics: – Confronting and coping with diversity and multiples: • Multiple opinions about a given subject or issue (1-3); • Multiple contexts/perspectives from which to understand or analyze issues or arguments (4 - 6); • Multiple Commitments through which one defines his or her values and identity (7 - 9). – Evolution of meaning making about learning and self self” • Knowledge is seen as increasingly conjectural and uncertain, open to (and requiring) interpretation • Role of the student -- moving from a passive receptor of facts to an active agent in defining arguments and creating new knowledge. • Role of the teacher -- moving from an Authority as the source of quot;Truthquot; to an authority as a resource with specific expertise to share share. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  38. 38. Stages of Intellectual Development, W.G. Perry, 1970 S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  39. 39. Perry Levels Perceptions of Perceptions of Perceptions of Perceptions Ability to Make Knowledge Solutions self Responsibility Teacher’s Commitments Responsibility Dualism - Knowledge is a There is a single receive Experts are faith in, and a concrete thinkers set of truths truths. correct solution explanations of authorities with an commitment to to, who believe things to every problem. knowledge and ability to explain truth and are right/wrong, become uneasy and give me correct knowledge as it we/they, when asked to think answers. is stated by good/bad. independently, draw genuine conclusions, or give authorities. my points of view. it f i Multiplicity - Knowledge is a There is no one listen to experts, Experts explain feel no need to recognize that matter of right solution to a but have a right to course material to commit to any diversity in educated problem, because my own opinions. me and express specific belief or thinking exists. opinion. all are equally their opinions. mode of Uncertainty valid. valid thinking. thinking prevails because all opinions are valid. Relativism - Knowledge is not Ambiguity is part make comparisons Based on their feel there is a p perceive that all universal, but a , of life defend to distinguish g experience, experts p , p need for some knowledge is matter of own position on between weak and teach procedures form of personal relative, and that context and problem solutions strong evidence in and analytic commitment. they need to situation. What based on determining methods to help orient themselves is true in one evidence. knowledge. me reason and based on situation may be compare evidence. false in another. alternatives. Commitment - Knowledge is There are many learn and integrate Experts are mentors feel the need to develop the need constructed solutions to each new knowledge with that challenge my make to take positions from experience, problem; some what I already assumptions to commitments, and commit to what is learned are better, and know. support my especially a personal them. from others, and , some are worse. learning. g from reflective Take a stand on commitment thinking. issues based on to learning. my personal values and Goel, S. CSEET' 09 analysis.
  40. 40. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  41. 41. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  42. 42. What kind of learning experiences caused the f d h forward movement? d ? • Unexpected results. • Questions regarding evidence and choice. • Variety of Observation. • Absence of satisfactory answers from authority authority. • Assignment at Bloom’s higher level, application in new context. • Engagement in Reasoning. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  43. 43. Intelligence as developing expertise, Sternberg, 1997 i S b 199 • Developing expertise – Ongoing process of the acquisition and consolidation of a set of skills needed for a high level of mastery in one or more domains of life performance. – Interrelated Elements • Meta-cognitive skills • Learning skills • Thinking skills • Knowledge • Motivation • Domain specificity of elements • Analytical shows more domain generality than creative and practical S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  44. 44. Intelligence as developing expertise, Sternberg, 1997 i S b 199 S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  45. 45. Implicit Theories of Intelligence, Creativity, and Wisdom, Sternberg,1985 , g, Intelligence Creativity Wisdom •Creative Intelligence + Creative •Problem Solving, P bl S l i •Intelligence + I t lli •Verbal Comprehension, knowledge, persistence, risk •Sagacity: listening, weigh •Reasoning, taking, willingness to grow advice, deal with different kind of •well informed, inquisitive •Non-entrenchment (ability and people, •Balance information willingness to go beyond •Good J d e t G d Judgment •Goal oriented ordinary limitations of self and •Thoughtful decision making •practical and worldly environment and act in •Experience concerns unconventional and even •perceptive dreamlike ways) •Freedom of spirit and unwillingness to be bound by the canons of society •Aesthetic taste and imagination •Inquisitiveness and intuitiveness S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  46. 46. Wisdom-Intelligence-Creativity, Sternberg,1990 Aspect A t Intelligence I t lli Creativity C ti it Wisdom Wi d Motivation To know and to use what is To go beyond what is To understand what is known known known and what it means Knowledge Recall, analysis and use Going beyond what is Understanding of its available presuppositions and meaning as well as its limitations Processes Automatization of Applied to novel tasks Understanding of what is procedures for solving automatic and why. formal well structured concerned with framing and p problems resolving problems of real life – gp ill structured, uncertain, involving conflict of values Personality Eliminating ambiguity and Tolerance of ambiguity Understanding of ambiguity overcoming obstacles and and obstacles within redefinition of conventional framework obstacles S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  47. 47. Sternberg Successful intelligence is Wisdom is 1) th ability t achieve one’s goals i lif the bilit to hi ’ l in life, 1) th application of tacit as well as the li ti f t it ll given one’s socio-cultural context; explicit knowledge as mediated by values toward the achievement of a a) identifying meaningful goals; common good b) coordinating those goals in a 2) through a balance among (a) meaningful way so th t th f i fl that they form a intrapersonal, (b) interpersonal, and coherent story of what one is (c) extra-personal interests seeking in life; and, 3) over the (a) short term and (b) long c) moving a substantial distance along term the path toward reaching those goals. 4) to achieve a balance among (a) adaptation to existing environments, 2) by capitalizing on strengths and (b) shaping of existing environments, correcting or compensating for and (c) selection of new environments () weaknesses; 3) in order to adapt to, shape, and select environments; and, 4) through a combination of analytical, creative, creative and practical abilities abilities. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  48. 48. Logical categories of learning: Gregory Bateson, 1979 Context Assumptions Actions Results Single-Loop Learning Are we doing things right? Double-Loop Learning Are we doing the right things? Triple-Loop Learning How do we decide what is right? • Si l L Single Loop: Ch Change the A ti th Action • Double Loop: Change the Assumption • Triple Loop: Change the context and commitment S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  49. 49. • Learning 0: acts that are not subject to correction: specificity of response A conditioned response. No choice. Thoughtless action. does not contain components of trial and error • Learning I: Acquisition and Construction. revision of choice within a given set of alternatives: concerned with efficiency. E.g. Thermostate-boiler. Learning through reinforcement reward/ punishment. Learn about the external world. Following the Procedure and Rules. Making minor fixes or adjustments. Generalization from basic experiences. Reflexes and rote learning are behaviours of this level The by product of rote learning is a by-product level. habit. Are we doing things right? • Learning II: learning to learn. Reflection. Revision of sets from which the choice is to be made;, concerned with effectiveness. Understands how to create possible alternatives. ;, p Strategic level of thinking. New Insights and patterns. Challenging one’s own belief’s and assumptions. Nothing is sacrosanct, everything is open to question. Changing the Rules. Making major changes. About understanding self, constructivist approach to learning, learning is experiential. Contextualizing Learning I experiences. At this level we can observe the habits of reflex and rote learning to think about them and change them according to our will to g g g do so. As a by-product of this level of learning, habits of mind are created and give rise to character. Are we doing the right things? Can play intellectual games. • Learning III: learning to learn to learn. revision of set of sets. Change in the process of learning II Shift in understanding our context, values point of view and commitments II. context values, view, commitments. Profound reorganization of character. Self is no longer significant. Self is totally integrated, knowledge comes from within, knowledge comes from whole. Acquiring independent ability to generate learning strategies. Contextualizing Learning II. How do we decide what is right? • Learning IV: change in Learning III, probably does not occur in any living organism S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  50. 50. Conscious Competence Learning Stages Thomas Gordon, early 1970's 1970 s 1 - unconscious incompetence – not aware of the existence or relevance of the skill area – must become conscious of their incompetence before development of the new skill or learning can begin bi 2 - conscious incompetence – becomes aware of the existence and relevance of the skill – realises that by improving their skill or ability in this area their effectiveness will improve 3 - conscious competence i – can perform it reliably at will The skill is not yet 'second nature' or 'automatic' – should be able to demonstrate the skill to another, but is unlikely to be able to teach it well to another person – practice is the most effective way to move from stage 3 to 4. 4 4 - unconscious competence – the skill becomes becomes 'second nature' – it becomes possible for certain skills to be performed while doing something else, for example, else example knitting while reading a book – the person might now be able to teach others in the skill concerned 5 - re-conscious competence re conscious – Conscious of unconscious competence – fluency + articulation S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  51. 51. Teaching Socrates I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think think. Galileo You cannot teach a man anything. You can only help him to find it for himself. y p Einstein I never teach my pupils; I only attempt to provide t h il l tt tt id the conditions in which they can learn. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  52. 52. Learning retention rates: Some results • 5% Lecture • 10% Wh t we read What d • 15% What we see • 20% Audio-Visual • 20% What we see and hear • 20% What we hear Sources: • 26% What we hear • 30% What we see Bruce Nyland, 1950’s • 30% Passive Verbal Wiman and Mierhenry, 1960, 1969 • 30% Demonstration • 40% Wh t we di What discuss Standard Oil of NY • 50% Visual Receiving Socony-Vacuum Oil Company • 50% See and hear • 50% Discussion Group Dale and Nyland, 1985 • 70% Discuss with others Nyland/Dole, 1972 • 70% Active Receiving and Participating • 70% Say NTL Institute • 70% Say and Write James Stice, 1984 Seminar • 70% Say or Write • 70% S as they talk 0% Say h lk Gustafson, 1985 • 75% Practice by Doing Brady, 1989 • 80% Experience Personally • 80% What we experience directly or practice doing Glasser, 1990 • 90% Say as they do a thing Bruce Nyland, 2000 ld • 90% Say and perform a task • 90% Teach to others/Immediate Use S. Goel,•CSEET' What we attempt to teach others 90% 09 • 95% of what we teach someone else
  53. 53. What final year students think worked well for them during 4 years? y Highest ranked Pedagogical practices • Applying theories/concepts to practical p pp y g / p p problems/in new / situations. • Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components. d • Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships • Making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions • Understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from other’s perspective f th ’ ti • Have serious conversations with students of different background/ beliefs/opinions/values. • Challenging Examinations gg • Examine the strengths and weaknesses of their views • Put together ideas or conceptsCSEET' 09 S. Goel, from different courses • Tutor or teach other students
  54. 54. What final year students think worked well for them during 4 years? Lowest ranked Pedagogical practices • Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods so they can be repeat them in pretty much the same form. • Mainly depend on text book and/or lecture notes. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  55. 55. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives: Cognitive Domain Level 1:Knowledge g (REMEMBERING) exhibits previously learned material by recalling facts, terms, p y y g basic concepts and answers. acquire, cite, define (studied definitions), derive, fill in the blanks, identify, label, list, name, obtain, p , y, ,, , , prove (studied theorem, studied method), recall, recite, recognise, reproduce, show (studied fact, studied method), and state. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  56. 56. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives: Cognitive Domain Level 2:Comprehension UNDERSTANDING): demonstrating understanding of facts and ideas by organizing, comparing, translating, interpreting, giving descriptions and stating main ideas. State a ideas problem in one's own words. arrange, associate, categorize, change, clarify, classify, compare, convert describe, discuss, distinguish, draw compare convert, describe discuss distinguish draw, exemplify, explain, illustrate, interpret, match, outline, rephrase, represent, restructure, rewrite, so t, su ep ase, ep ese t, est uctu e, ew te, sort, summarize, a e, tell, and translate. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  57. 57. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives: Cognitive Domain Level 3:Application (SOLVING CLOSED ENDED PROBLEM): Use a concept in a new situation or unprompted use of an abstraction. apply, calculate, compute, demonstrate, determine, estimate, estimate evaluate (computation), experiment, find, (computation) experiment find operate, practice, show (understanding fact in the direct co e o s ud ed context of studied material), solve, and transform. e ), so ve, d so . S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  58. 58. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives: Cognitive Domain Level 4: Analysis (LOGICAL ORDERING): Separates material or concepts into component parts so that its organizational structure may be understood. understood Distinguishes between facts and inferences. Solving Open ended Problems. analyze, conclude, contrast, debug, deduce, detect, differentiate, discriminate examine extend extrapolate differentiate discriminate, examine, extend, extrapolate, generalize, infer, justify, point out, predict, rearrange, se ec , spec y, es , d ve y. select, specify, test, and verify. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  59. 59. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives: Cognitive Domain Level 5: Synthesis (CREATING) Build a structure or pattern from diverse elements. Put elements parts together to form a whole, with emphasis on creating a new meaning or structure Creating unique structure. answers to problems. build, combine, comment, compose, constitute, construct, correlate, create, define (new things), design, develop, devise, document, formulate, implement, integrate, modify, organize, plan, prepare, present, produce, propose, construct a proof, reorganize report, revise, schedule proof reorganize, report revise schedule, sketch, and synthesize. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  60. 60. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Objectives: Cognitive Domain Level 6:Evaluation presenting and defending opinions by making critical i d d f di ii b ki ii l judgments about information, validity of ideas or quality of work based on knowledge base and a set of li f kb d k ld b d f criteria. appraise, argue, assess, decide, evaluate (the options), judge, question, review, revisit, standardize, validate, judge question review revisit standardize validate value, and weigh. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  61. 61. Modifications to Bloom s Taxonomy Bloom’s Florida Taxonomy of Cognitive Behavior y g (9 levels), 1967 • Knowledge g – Knowledge of Specifics – Knowledge of ways and means to deal with specifics –KKnowledge of universals and abstract ld fi l d bt t • Comprehension – Translation – Interpretation • Compare, summarize, conclude, show cause and effect relationship, relationship give analogy perform a directed task analogy, S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  62. 62. What kind of learning experiences as per Bloom’s taxonomy Bloom s resulted in deep learning for you? S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  63. 63. Ordered Verb Lists • What students think they get: yg calculate, explain, prove (studied theorem, studied method), define (studied definitions), write, solve, compute, show (studied fact, studied method), evaluate(computation), derive, state, describe, determine, find, analyse, j tif …. l justify, • What students think works well for them: design, analyse, understand, build, apply, adapt, implement, create, develop, demonstrate, validate, develop demonstrate validate define (new things) show (unstudied fact in things), the direct context of studied material) , illustrate, compare, enjoy, correlate, argue, research, evaluate (the options), ... • What professional engineers recommend: analyse, design, develop, implement, evaluate (the options), integrate, build, conclude, define (new things), acquire, demonstrate, justify, assess, organize, formulate, estimate, summarize, categorize, validate, document, standardise, identify, appraise, calculate, …. Sanjay Goel and Nalin Sharda, , What doS. Goel, CSEET' 09 Examining engineering education engineers want? through Bloom’s taxonomy. AAEE 2004
  64. 64. Rating Comparison What What What What students students students engineers Bloom think they get in think recommend levels get exams works well for them f th Knowledge 0.24 0.36 0.04 0.09 Comprehen- 0.24 0.16 0.11 0.10 sion Application 0.22 0.40 0.13 0.10 Analysis 0.14 0.04 0.15 0.19 Synthesis 0.14 0.05 0.46 0.38 Evaluation 0.02 0.00 0.11 0.15 Sanjay Goel and Nalin Sharda, , What doS. Goel, CSEET' 09 Examining engineering education engineers want? through Bloom’s taxonomy. AAEE 2004
  65. 65. Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome ( (SOLO) Taxonomy, Biggs and Collis, 1982 ) y, gg , • A framework for understanding that describes thinking processes in a scale of increasing complexity complexity. • Higher level embraces the previous level but adds something more. more •Q Quantitative Phase: Th amount of detail i response i i Ph The f d il in increases. • Qualitative Phase: The detail in the responses becomes integrated into a structural pattern S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  66. 66. SOLO Taxonomy • Quantitative Phase: The amount of detail increases. • Pre-structural – the student acquires bits of unconnected information that have no organisation and make no sense. – The task is not attacked appropriately and the performance is incompetent. p – Misses the point • Uni-structural – students make simple and obvious connections between pieces of i f i f information. F ti Focus on one conceptual issue or naming thi t li i things. – One or a few aspects of the task are picked up and used. – Correct solution of one part of more complex problem. –CCorrect answer t simple algorithmic problem requiring substitution of t to i l l ith i bl ii b tit ti f data into formula. – Identify, Memorise, Do simple procedure S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  67. 67. SOLO Taxonomy y • Quantitative Phase: The amount of detail increases. • Multi-structural – a number of connections are made, but not the meta- connections between them. Indicates understanding of boundaries but not of systems. y – Several aspects of the task are treated as if they were separate. – Correct solution to multiple part problem requiring substitution of data from one part to the next. – Enumerate, Classify, Describe, List, Combine, Do algorithms, Explain, interpret S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  68. 68. SOLO Taxonomy • Qualitative Phase: The detail in the responses becomes integrated into a structural pattern • Relational – the students sees the significance of how the various pieces of information relate to one another. Indicate orchestration between facts and theory, action and purpose. U d h i d Understands h d how to apply the concept to a lh familiar problem. – The quantitative aspects become integrated into a coherent whole – El Elegant solution t complex problem requiring id tifi ti of variables t l ti to l bl i i identification f i bl to be evaluated or hypotheses to be tested. – Compare/contrast, Explain causes, Integrate, Analyse, Relate, Apply, Summarise, categorise Summarise categorise, outline distinguish • Extended abstract – at this level students can make connections beyond the scope of the problem or question, to generalise or transfer learning into a new situation. Relates an existing concept or p g p principle in such a way that p y they are able to handle unseen problems. – The previous integrated whole may be conceptualized at a higher level of abstraction and generalized to a new topic or area. – Solution that go beyond anticipated answer for ill-defined problems. – Create, Theorize, Generalize, Hypothesize, Reflect, Generate, Predict S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  69. 69. S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  70. 70. Learning? Theories • Connectionism (Thorndike, 1913) • Genetic Epistemology (Piaget, 1915) • Social Development Theory (Vygotsky, 1920’s) (Vygotsky 1920 s) • Gestalt Theory (Wertheimer, 1924). • Contiguity Theory (Guthrie, 1938) • Phenomenology ( g gy (Rogers, 1951), ) • Information Processing Theory (Miller, 1956) • Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Bloom, 1956) • Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger, 1957) • Originality (Maltzman, 1960) • Conditions of learning (Gagne, 1962) • Systems thinking (Emery and Trist, 1965) • Constructivist th C t ti i t theory (B (Bruner, 1966) • Structure of Intellect (Guilford, 1967) • Experiential learning (Rogers 1960’s) • Subsumption Theory (Ausubel 1960’s) (Ausubel, 1960 s) S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  71. 71. Learning? Theories • Intellectual and ethical development (Perry, 1970) • Androgogy (Knowles, 1970) • Levels of Processing (Craik and Lockart, 1970’s) • Attribution Theory (W i Att ib ti Th (Weiner, 1974) • Conversation Theory (Pask, 1976) • Double Loop learning (Chris Argyris, 1976) • Approaches to learning (Marton and Saljo, 1976) • Social learning Theor (Band ra 1977) Theory (Bandura, • Script Theory (Schank, 1970’s and 80’s) • Modes of Learning (Norman and Rumelhart, 1978) • Repair Theory (Brown and VanLehn, 1980) • Adult learning Theory (Cross, 1981) (Cross • Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) Taxonomy (Biggs and Collis, 1982) • Multiple Intelligence Theory (Gardner, 1983) • Component Display Theory (Merrill, 1983) • Triarchaic Theory of Intelligence (Sternberg 1970s and 80s) (Sternberg, • Learning Style and experiential Learning theory (Kolb, 1984) • Concept Mapping and Vee Mapping (Novak and Gowin, 1984) • Mathematical problem Solving (Schoenfeld, 1985) • Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller 1988) (Sweller, • Cognitive Apprenticeship (Collins et al 1987) S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  72. 72. Learning? Theories • Dimensions of learning (Marzano, 1988) • Style of Learning and teaching (Entwistle, 1988) • Minimalism (Carrol, 1990) • Situated Learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991) • Cognitive Flexibility Theory (Spiro et al 1992) • Capability (Stephenson 1992) (Stephenson, • Learner managed learning (Graves, 1993) • Learning By Design (Kolodner et al, 1995-2004) • Work-based learning (Gattegno, 1996; Hase, 1998). • Framework of Learning Stle (Vermunt, 1998) • Socialisation, Externalisation, Combination, and Internatisation (SECI) model (Noanaka ans Takeuchi, 1998) • Action learning (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1998) • Ergonagy (Tanaka and Evers, 1999) • Constructivist alignment ( gg 1999) g (Biggs, ) • Heutagogy (Hase and Kenyon, 2000) • Learning Style (Entwistle, 2001) • Story centered Curriculum (Schank, 2002) • Models of Interplay between Emotions and Learning (Kort, 2001) • Community of Practice Ellipse (Medeni, 2004) (Medeni • Spiral of experience based Action learning (SEAL) (Medeni, 2004) • Theories of Curriculum design S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  73. 73. Engineering Education Some International Journals … • Journal of Engineering Education, ASEE, since 1910 • European Journal of Engineering Education Taylor and Francis, since 1976 Education, Francis • The International Journal of Engineering Education, Dublin Institute of Tech., since 1985 • IEEE Transaction on Education, IEEE, since 1988 • Journal of Computer Science Education, Taylor and Francis, since 1990 • International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Springer, since 1990 Education Springer • Australasian Journal of Engineering Education. Australasian Association of Engineering education, since 1991 • The Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges, Archived by ACM, since 1991 g, y , • Engineering Science and Education Journal, IEE, since 1992 • Global Journal of Engineering Education, UNESCO International Centre for Engineering Education, since 1997 • Journal of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education, Auburn University, since 2000 • British Journal of Engineering Education, British Engineering Education Society, since 2000 • Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, ACM, since 2001 • Journal of Information Technology Education, Informing Science Institute, since 2002 • Journal of I f J l f Information Systems Education, AITP, since 2003 ti S t Ed ti AITP i • Online Journal of Global Engineering Education, University of Rhode Island, since 2006 • Advances in Engineering Education, ASEE, since 2007 S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  74. 74. Engineering Education Some International Journals • Journal of Learning Sciences, LEA since 1991 • Innovative Higher Education, Springer • Research i S i R h in Science Ed Education, S i ti Springer • Education and Information Technologies, Springer • Research in Higher Education, Springer • Higher Education, Springer g ,pg • International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning , Georgia Southern University • International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, International Society for Exploring Teaching and Learning y p g g g S. Goel, CSEET' 09
  75. 75. Engineering Education Some international Conferences and other Publications • Annual conference of ASEE, since 1894 ASEE • Annual Conference of SIGCSE, ACM, since 1970. • Frontiers in Education, ASEE & IEEE, since 1977. • Annual Conference of Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges, since 1985 • Annual Conference of Software Engineering Education and Training IEEE since 1988 Training, IEEE, • Annual Conference of Australasian Association of Engineering Education, since 1990 • Annual Conference on Informing Science and Information Technology Education, Informing Science Institute, since 2001 • Annual ASEE Global Colloquium on Engineering Education, since 2002 • Annual Conference of SIGITE, ACM, since 2003 • International Computing Education Research Workshop, ACM, since 2005 • The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), ISLS since 1992. • SIGCSE Bulletin, since 1969 • National Teaching and Learning Forum, Newsletter, USA, since 1991 • Prism, a magazine by ASEE, since 1998 • Tomorrow's Professor Listserv, Stanford University, since 2000 • SIGITE Bulletin, since 2005 S. Goel, CSEET' 09