Category — (4) Course Syllabi and Reflections

4.1) Course Syllabi

I teach a large core course in Mechanical Engineering for 3/4th year students on mechanical vibrations (MECH 364). Provided here are two course outlines for this course.  MECH364-2011-WT1-Outline  is the most recent (2011) one and Mech 364-2009-WT1-Outline is for the same course taught in 2009.

Superficially, one can notice a substantial change in both the structure and  the content of the outline. However, a more in-depth comparison requires a framework and a context.

4.2) Reflections

The change in structure is primarily driven by the following two over arching considerations: (a) a clear  outline portraying how each learning component/activity  is addressing the overall course objectives; (b)  concise outline so that the information can be accessed with ease. In this regard a minimalist approach is taken to achieve conciseness without foregoing clarity. One can notice how these criteria have influenced the current course outline.

The two syllabi can be compared  with respect to the following criteria

1. Logistics: Both contain logistical information related to the course. However, the recent one is more concise. My practice has been to print the 2-page course syllabus on a blue sheet and hand it to the students in the very first class. This course syllabus will be referred to as the blue sheet throughout the class for easy recollection and access by the students. The old syllabus is extensive which makes the access off needed information (such as what is TA’s email? when are the exams?) a little difficult. Overall, the new syllabus appears to be more accessible in this regard.
2. Learning objectives: Both syllabi contain course learning objectives. However the recent syllabus relates the learning objectives explicitly to the learning activities. Moreover, the new syllabus contains a “read” and “do” part associated with each topic.
3. Assessment methods:  The new syllabus contains explicit information about the assessment such as when do exams take place and grading scheme for the course. It may be notices that weekly home works are introduced in the new syllabus to promote continuous engagement and reflection on the course matter throughout the course. This is implemented to avoid exam “bottle-neck” learning. Another noticeable feature with the new syllabus is the separation of  formative (home works) and summative (midterms and final) assessments.
4. Learner-friendly:  The new syllabus is more learner friendly than the old one with respect to the above three criteria.
5. Scope for improvement:   Students get a somewhat vague indication of their responsibilities in this course, in the form of suggestion on page 2. Perhaps  explicitly stating their responsibilities  and my responsibilities can be considered.

4.3) Bloom’s Taxonomy

An analysis of the learning objectives in the framework of Bloom’s taxonomy is interesting. The course objectives in the new syllabus are as follows.

i) Develop lumped parameter models of mechanical systems; ii) Formulate equations of motion using free-body-diagrams and energy methods; iii) Solve for vibration response; iv) Design counter-vibration measures: absorbers, isolators, and system modification; v) Understand working principles of vibration measurement devices.

It is apparent that the objectives i), ii)  and iv) fall under the synthesis category while the objective iii) falls under application/analysis categories and v) falls under comprehension category. It is interesting to see the higher level course objectives. The reason is that this course requires synthesis of ideas and principles from the knowledge acquired in other courses  (solid mechanics, dynamics, kinematics). In fact this is the main challenge for students: to recall prior knowledge in order to apply and synthesize in the context of vibration problems. In this sense the lower level knowledge and comprehension are implicit.

References

1. Bloom, B.s. (Ed.), Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., and Krathwohl, D.R., 1956, Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: DAvid McKay.
2. Krathwohl, D., 2002,  A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview, THEORY INTO PRACTICE, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 212-218.