Skip to site navigation

Department of Mechanical, Aerospace & Nuclear Engineering - School of Engineering & Applied Science

The Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering (MANE) held its first "Conversation about Teaching" on January 31, 1997. Nearly all the department were there (some 40 faculty) for a discussion which went on for about 11/4 hours. Casual discussion continued among small groups up-and-down the halls for another hour or so. The full meeting was spirited and open. We may continue it as part of next week's Department meeting.

Taylor Beard and Jeff Morton took notes and I (Townsend) made jottings on a flip chart. The following is a compilation of theses notes. We started with a handout summary, and I made a few opening comments based on various statements of purpose from Rebecca Kneedler and Carl Herakovich. Periodically, someone would interject observations and methods used by other departments and this would stimulate new conversations. It went along quite well; people are interested and concerned.

We tried to address teaching in the context of the principal areas identified for the "Conversation": evaluation, development and incentives. A real emphasis on teaching depends upon efforts in developing teaching showing up significantly in promotion and tenure, pay raises, and other rewards, such as resources and opportunities, which are relatively easy to access. The issue of incentives and what is good teaching (evaluation) arose several times. MANE uses the SEAS evaluation form and a departmental graduating senior questionnaire. The former is not held in high regard, for two reasons: we question that it asks the right questions (for example, actual learning accomplished); and the average-standard deviation data-reduction method automatically puts half the faculty "below average." There was considerable criticism of the questionnaire. The Departmental survey provides some insights, but it has addressed the program and students motivations rather than focus on teaching effectiveness explicitly. In the past, we have had "End of Course Memos" which have been of varying use - mainly when a new instructor takes over a class for accreditation. Possibly this concept should be re-vitalized.

We seem to see incentives stimulating better evaluations which will then encourage development of better teaching. The incentives are pretty easily identified. As to evaluation, we have to evaluate content of the teaching, not just style, or the personality and popularity aspects. We want to evaluate learning. Peer review of teaching is called for in the SEAS Strategic Plan, but its implementation has been slow. We understand that some departments are doing this. We still have questions on making it work, valuable, and consistent - particularly in a large, multi-disciplinary department. It has to be broadly-based, not just sitting in on colleagues' classes. We talked about a Departmental Teaching Committee, which would look at the courses and means of evaluating them according to the specific "course mission," and which would develop an institutional memory about courses. It would presumably include review of courses and instructors and make recommendations about rotating instructors, class size, materials, assistance (such as graders and TAs). We also talked about providing mentors, although this seems more to getting younger faculty promoted, tenured and promoted again.

We talked at length about "models" of teaching. Most of our courses are very dense in scientific, technological and mathematical topics and their application. Some of our classes are quite large, and many are quite small (undergraduate electives and graduate courses, some of which we feel we have to offer). Most of our teaching seems to be pretty conventional, although some courses have considerable use of computers in the classroom. Still, we discussed possible methods of using case studies (most for design and for problems, since they involve application). Bob Ribando has developed a considerable studio-teaching program. (Visit Cabell 210, TW 2-4.) It is important to make the material relevant to "real Life" - bring in actual events and relate them to the material. This is clearly easier done in some courses than others. It was suggested that more case studies, or "war stories," could be useful, as could be introducing research problems. Do we need more motivational speakers? Maybe we need more people who are primarily teachers. Another model suggested would be along the medical grand rounds approach. However, case studies often are not relevant or do not address fundamental knowledge needed for the field. We also have to be attentive to inefficiencies and faddishness. One thing is better coordination and integration - i.e., better linking - between classes. This is a structural aspect that is now being addressed in MANE.

We talked at some length about teaching workshops, especially for current graduate students, who would then be paired with a course and/or professor and teach. (Expansion of existing programs, but greater access.) Professor Norris was in such a program at Georgia Tech, and her paper is attached to this.

Some final "cut-to-the-chase" questions came up. Do we (MANE) have a problem with our teaching? We need to evaluate our effectiveness better - but how? Thirdly, to what extend is this a management problem at the various levels of University administration? It has to be clear that incentives (rewards) will be forthcoming for good teaching; if so, the emphasis on developing good teaching will follow.

In some of the small-group follow-on discussions, more valuable points were made. A Major aspect of good teaching is the enthusiasm of the teacher. We can get stale and we can forget what the students haven't learned. Maybe we should move faculty around more. ME (particularly) and AE (and maybe other departments) may have a systemic (or structural problem. Our 3rd year is a killer. Maybe the students have had it too easy in the first two years, but clearly the third year is very, very busy and difficult. Many students then are just exhausted and have a negative attitude, so the fourth year courses get very critical ratings. So, to some extent, our evaluations may be tainted. Finally, the management aspect arose (again): management (leadership) will strongly influence the emphasis on improvement of teaching.

Prepared by M.A. Townsend, with notes from J.T. Beard and J.B. Morton