1. Overview

Engineering Materials is an essential module for students in the Business Process and Quality Engineering diploma at Ngee Ann Polytechnic.

I remembered my days as a student when I found it difficult to study this module because it was mainly descriptive and required a great deal of memorizing work.

My interest in Engineering Materials eventually grew when I worked in the navy and a local shipyard, where I needed to learn how to select the most appropriate material for an engineering application. My past experiences and difficulties in this area motivated me to try to develop a pedagogy that uses today’s technology and knowledge in brain-based teaching methods to help students enjoy learning about materials and how to apply it in the real world.

2. Developing Interest Through Technology and Learner-centred Learning

My first task was to upgrade myself in learning how to apply the various new technologies or software that could be used as part of my teaching. I challenged myself to design a series of brain-based exercises and assignments that could intrigue and sustain the students’ interests.

Additional efforts must also be made to ensure that the element of fun is part of the work assignment.

Below is a brief explanation of the key learner-centred learning-based activities that make up the innovative learning methodology of the Engineering Materials module.

Seeding a Learner-centred Learning Mindset (1st Week)

To prepare the students for learning in a “Learner Centred” classroom, I prepared a mind-map of what the students can expect to learn and the methods of learning that this module would employ.  (See Figure 1)

Figure 1 – Learner-centred Learning Methodology (Click image to see full size.)

Through the 16 weeks, I employed a variety of learning tools to help students be more active in their own learning process.

As students began to be open to the learner-centred learning mindset, I would use a variety of teaching techniques throughout the semester to help students be more active in their own learning. These techniques require students to take more ownership of the learning process as they are often asked to discover, analyse, synthesise, and to make justifications for their own conclusions. These activities all come together to help develop the students’ knowledge & skills in this module.   Examples of these learning activities are listed below.

a. Innovative Use of Magnets as an Aid for Identifying Some Metals (1st  - 16th Week)

From my past industrial experience, I explained the value of using magnets as a means of broadly identifying metals as being either ferrous or non-ferrous and also to differentiate common stainless steels from other types of stainless steels. Common stainless steels are austenitic in nature (they have high tensile strength and low carbon content) and are generally non-magnetic as compared to other types of stainless steels.  

b. Experiential Learning Journey in Engineering Materials (5th and 6th Week)

Students were taken on an experiential learning journey exercise outside their classroom during the 5th and 6th weeks. They needed to use magnets to help them uncover the identity of some commonly used metals.

When students were told that they would be going out of the Materials Laboratory to learn more about materials, they were excited. To capitalize on this high level of interest and excitement, I required each student to fill up a simple worksheet of at least three other materials that they discovered during the outdoor session. They were also encouraged to ask questions and to use magnets to help them distinguish between ferrous and non-ferrous materials as well as to detect products that use austenitic stainless steel materials. Each student was required to explore Internet sources for relevant technical information regarding the engineering material chosen. In addition, a short quiz was conducted at the end of the “Learning Journey” to gauge the students’ interests and attention in the exercise.

I observed that most of the students liked the outdoor activity as they got to see and learn more about engineering materials in-situ rather than from textbooks. From the feedback obtained, students also found it exciting to learn more about the materials they were assigned during the “Learning Journey”, as they had to go beyond the textbooks to learn more about it.

c. Presentation for Mini-project 1 (Innovative Idea) (1st to 7th Week)

To kick start the assignment, I briefly explained that since the students would be graduating as engineers, they would have to learn how to select materials when making products.

Each student needed to come up with at least three innovative ideas which could solve certain problems. They would then brainstorm within the group for the best idea and solution to the problem. The project with the most innovative idea would then be selected to enter the Tan Kah Kee Young Inventor’s Award (TKKYIA).

Every student in the group was required to present their part of the project so that everyone would have an opportunity to communicate their ideas to others.

Figure 3: Photos showing students in action with their innovations.

Students were excited that the successful completion of their mini-project provided them with the opportunity to participate in the TKKYIA. They found the project challenging and they learned more about materials than what could be taught to them in a normal class lecture.

d. Using Multi-media as a tool for learning: Mini-project 2 (Movie)  (9th to 16th Week)

Another creative way to engage students in discovery and learning is to ask them to “create” a product based on their knowledge and skills. For this project, students were first assigned to an existing product such as an aluminium can, 7.62mm round ammunition, plastic bags, coins or a porcelain bowl. Their assignment was to research it from the point of view of the materials that are used to make it as well as the manufacturing production process. The goal was to produce a short, 5-min movie clip of the production process of the product. This assignment was done in groups of 4 or 5 students.

Some of the learning movies created by the students can be viewed from the following links:

1. Manufacturing Process of Plastic Bags
2. Making of Porcelain Bowl
3. Commentary on Tempered Glass

Feedback showed that students learned more than what the basic course could teach them as they had to explore the Internet for additional relevant materials. Some groups also found time to make their own arrangements to visit actual factories or museums on their own to see and film the production process or take photos of the product in various stages of manufacture. Attached photos show some factory visits arranged by the students themselves.

Figure 4 – Joanne Chua Pui San,(in pink) interviewing the Factory Supervisor (in red) on the Manufacture of Tempered Glass. Other students in the picture are Dayna Lam Man Ning and Fu Yong Huang (in black T-shirt).

All groups concurred that although the process was long, they enjoyed doing the mini-project. They also learnt to work as a team and to some, became “more curious to discover the world of materials”.

3. Analysis and Summary of Student Feedback

The results of six survey groups conducted between August 2007 and August 2008 is summarised in Appendix 1. The initial learner-centred learning studies started off with only Groups A and B, while the surveys on Groups C to F were conducted in subsequent semesters so as to validate the design model. A total of 91 students were involved in the actual implementation and subsequent validation process of the learner-centred learning design methodology. The “Strongly Agree” and “Agree” responses are grouped together as a single data point for each group of students and are tabulated.

Sample written responses to the open-ended questions in the surveys are included (see Appendix 2) to give an overall picture of the feedback obtained.

4. Conclusion and Future Development

The successful implementation of the learner-centred learning approach to the teaching of Engineering Materials has greatly encouraged me to embark on further learner-centred learning-designed modules that would benefit students of the new age. I am definitely excited by the highly positive learning results and would like to share with colleagues how to implement this teaching methodology into the classroom environment.

For future development, I am currently conducting preliminary studies and a pilot-run on another module, “Chemical Logistics” that I am teaching with other colleagues. Preliminary indications are that the teaching and learning pedagogy as developed for the Engineering Materials module is effective in the classroom, because it is brain-based and learner-centred.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank colleagues in the School of Multidiscipline Engineering, iMedia Centre and the Teaching and Learning Centre for their support in the development of this project.

Author

Lim Choon Boo, Multidiscipline Engineering (MDE) Division, School of Engineering

First published September 2001.

Too little of our teaching in higher education is focused on nurturing students’ ability to think in creative ways. As a result, an educational system that should train students to become independent thinkers ends up creating individuals who readily conform to prevailing thought, individuals who take a reactive rather than a proactive approach to problem solving, and individuals who would rather follow than lead.

The educational experiences of many young people conditions them to take a passive approach to the learning process. They learn that the way to earn good grades and to make it through school successfully is to memorize information and to recall this information when called upon. Thus teachers often treat students as simple input-output systems; we pump information in, assess the information that comes out and do not concern ourselves with the extent to which the information has been internalized. This presents a serious threat to society. We are in danger of producing a generation that is unable to engage in higher-order thinking skills; a generation that becomes trapped too easily by their own knowledge and are unable to challenge their own assumptions so that new knowledge can be created.

Robert Fritz (1991), a composer, filmmaker and author, suggested that,

“The creative process has had more impact, power, influence, and success than any other process in history. All of the arts, many of the sciences, architecture, pop culture, and the entire technological age we live in exists because of the creative process” (p. 5).

In 1990 a study was published by the American Society for Training and Development. The main thrust of this nation-wide investigation was to identify the skills deemed necessary in today’s workplace. One of the seven basic skill sets identified by the research team was creative thinking and adaptability.

If creative thinking is considered to be critical to professional success, and I would further suggest that it is critical to success in one’s personal life, then institutions of higher education must sincerely consider the degree to which classroom experiences promote or undermine students’ creativity. In this fast-paced and ever-changing world we live in, creative thinking is not a mere luxury, it is a basic survival skill.

Let me be clear about my conception of creative thinking. Perhaps the most widely-held view of creative thinking is that it is the ability to produce original ideas that serve some purpose. That is unique ideas that solve a problem, create an opportunity, or produce some benefit (either tangible or intangible).

Noller (cited in Isaksen, Dorval, & Treffinger, 1994) used a formula as a way of defining creative behavior. This formula provides a useful framework for assessing how educational institutions perform in terms of producing students who are able to engage in creative thought. Noller’s formula is as follows:

C = fa(K, I, E)

In this formula ‘C’ represents creative behavior, which is a function (f) of the interaction among knowledge (K), imagination (I), and evaluation (E).

Thus for creative behavior to appear students must first master the knowledge of their particular discipline.

However, students cannot allow themselves, and we must do whatever we can to prevent them, from becoming trapped by their knowledge. I say this for several reasons. First, new information and ideas often quickly surpass what we know as fact today. Second, we need students to make contributions to their respective fields and not approach their discipline as if all the knowledge that can be created has been created.

To prevent this ‘in-the-box’ thinking we must encourage students to freely engage in the second part of this equation, that is imaginative thought. By the time most students enter higher education, the days of free imaginative thinking have been long gone. As educators we must awaken the imagination of all students. We must help them to look at problems from unique perspectives, to toy with ideas, and to be open to exploring unusual options.

Critical Thinking

Finally, to balance off original and imaginative thought, students must learn how to employ effective critical thinking. Critical thinking, for example, enables students to make more effective decisions about what original ideas to pursue. Also, effective critical thinking allows students to more skilfully identify problems and opportunities that are ripe for creative thought.

The ‘a’ in Noller’s formula stands for attitude. Without the proper drive the creative potential of an individual may go unrealized. Here we must ask ourselves the question as to whether our classroom environments enhance students’ motivation to think creatively or do we tend to undermine their drive to be creative?

In summary, if part of the mission of higher education is to advance society then it is absolutely necessary for us to take more seriously the issue of how well we produce students who can engage in creative thought. We must examine how well we nurture all three of the main ingredients in Noller’s definition. Without the appropriate balance of knowledge, imagination, and evaluation we may be in jeopardy of producing students who will not be the creative leaders of tomorrow.

References:

Carnevale, A. P., Gainer, Meltzer, A. S. (1990). Workplace basics: The skills employers want. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Fritz, R. (1991). Creating: A guide to the creative process. New York: Fawcett Columbine.

Isaksen, S. G., Dorval, K. B., & Treffinger, D. J. (1994). Creative approaches to problem solving. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Author

Gerard J Puccio, Ph.D.
Director of The International Center for Studies in Creativity
State University of New York College at Buffalo.

Our students can think creatively and solve problems. In the process, they can develop an interest in the subject. Many students will fight us, preferring their easy way out of memorization, trying to make us believe they can’t think creatively, but they can. This document is about personal experiences in getting students to think and understand.

Read the article:

» Getting Students to Think and Understand.pdf
(PDF, 130kb, 7 pages + 10 page appendix)

Author

Rick Ross was a Visiting Lecturer in the Electronic & Computer Engineering Department, Ngee Ann Polytechnic from 1998 to 2003.

First published September 2002.

Model Building and Learning

Learning is most meaningful when it is intentional. All human behavior is goal directed (Schank, 1994). That is, everything that we do is intended to fulfill some goal. When learners are actively and willfully trying to achieve a cognitive goal, they think and learn more because they are fulfilling an intention. The most intentional way of using technology to learn, I believe, is to build models of the phenomena that students are studying. Why? Because the models are representative of the theories that students are constructing about the world around them. Those theories are also known as mental models, so technology-based computational models reflect students’ mental models as they are being constructed.

It is quite common in maths, science, and engineering for students to use models in their learning. Most science textbooks present a model of some phenomenon for students to comprehend. They follow up the model with well-structured problems related to those models for learners to solve. This form of model-based reasoning cannot be as effective as model building because the students are not actually building the models. Model-building refers to student construction, manipulation, or testing of models relating to the phenomena they are studying.

Learning Outcomes

Model-building can focus on different kinds of learning outcomes. They can be used by learners to model domain knowledge, such as databases of cell types in the human body, semantic networks of concepts in economics, and microworlds for supporting construction of geometry theorems. Models can also represent different kinds of problems, such as systems modes chemistry problems, expert systems of troubleshooting problems, or spreadsheets of electrical engineering problems.

Students can also build models of systems, such as respiratory system, ecosystems, or species of animals. Tools such as databases and semantic networking tools are useful for building models of the semantic structure of knowledge domains. Finally, students can build models of the thinking processes that are required to perform some task, otherwise known as cognitive simulations. Expert systems can be used to represent the thinking required in different decision-making activities or systems models of strategies for organizing ideas.

Mindtools

The tools used to construct these models are otherwise known as cognitive tools, or Mindtools (Jonassen, 2000). Mindtools are software programs that provide multiple formalisms for representing knowledge. They engage different kinds of critical, creative, and complex thinking. Mindtools include semantic organization tools (databases, semantic networks), dynamic modeling tools (spreadsheets, expert systems, systems modeling tools, and microworlds), information interpretation tools and visualization tools, knowledge construction tools (multimedia production, hypermedia construction and linking, Web site production), and conversation tools (synchronous communication environments, asynchronous information tools, scaffolded computer conferences).

When Mindtools are used to build student models of understanding, those models can be used for student assessment, and as collaborative learning activities, planning and analysis tools, follow-ups to situated activity, and as conversation media. Mindtools for model building are effective because learners are designers engaged in constructing personal meaning that makes the learners intellectual partners with the technology. Mindtools use inexpensive, commonly available technologies; they can be applied to virtually any content domain; and they are readily learned.

Author

Dr. David Jonassen
Distinguished Professor, School of Information Science & Learning Technologies, University of Missouri-Columbia

Singapore Needs Thinkers

Singapore has a strong education system. However, the general perception is that Singapore education produces students who are “exam smart”, rather than critical and creative thinkers.

Singapore “must get away from the idea that it is only the people at the top who should be thinking, and [that] the job of everyone else is to do as [they are] told.”
(Prime minister Goh Chok Tong, 1997).

The economic well-being of the country depends on the people’s ability to cope with the changes brought about by globalization and the rapid development in technologies. Singapore believes that the learning of creative thinking is essential.

Use of IT to Support Thinking and Learning

Educational technologies have too often tried to do the thinking for learners, to act like teachers and guide the learning. However, the thinking and self-regulation of learning should be the responsibility of the learner, not the computer.

The appropriate role for a computer system is not that of a teacher/expert, but rather a “Mindtool”.

Constructivism

Rather than just telling students the answer, constructivist learning environments engage learners in knowledge construction through collaborative activities that embed learning in a meaningful context and through reflection on what has been learned through conversation with other learners.

For the full paper:

» The Role of ICT in a Constructivist Approach to the Teaching of Thinking Skills
(PDF, 200 kB, 19 pages)