With an eye on supporting Samueli School faculty who are planning for a new era of post-pandemic instruction, Interim Associate Dean Brett Sanders asked our Professors of Teaching how they would be implementing courses in the coming year. Here are the responses we received:

Professor Christine King:
I am planning to offer a new course in Spring 2022 – BME 195: Biomedical Engineering Design: Addressing Unmet Clinical Needs. This course will introduce biomedical engineers and engineers interested in medicine to the non-technical aspects of medical device development, namely unmet clinical needs identification and evaluation. Unlike traditional unmet needs finding or clinical immersion courses, this new course will allow students to tour medical spaces and witness clinical procedures at the UCI Medical Center through virtual reality in both 360 degree and first person view to be able to immerse themselves in a clinical environment. In addition, through in-class assignments, a group project, and several online learning modules, student engineers will learn how teams identify and evaluate unmet clinical needs to determine the potential improvements to an existing or novel device. The major learning outcomes of this course are:

1. Students will understand the technical requirements for medical device design, including how to use human centered engineering approaches and how to evaluate the potential commercialization of solutions through market analyses and business strategies.
2. Students will learn how to identify unmet clinical needs in various medical fields, evaluate these unmet needs to develop novel solutions, and learn how to professionally communicate a proposed invented or innovative solution to an unmet clinical need.
3. Students will be able to identify and evaluate global, cultural, social, economic, and environmental factors that are important in medical device design and the lifecycle of the product.
4. Students will learn how to apply knowledge of regulatory, intellectual property, and global, cultural, environmental, and economic factors that impact their solution to a chosen unmet clinical need.
5. Students will learn how to communicate solutions of unmet clinical needs to a wide range of audience and forums, including fast pitches, technical presentations, and technical reports.

In order for students to be able to accomplish the above learning outcomes, I plan to host live zoom lectures with physicians, engineers, and scientists, as well as perform virtual reality modules and assignments to remotely perform clinical immersion. The breakdown of teaching is divided as follows:

Synchronous Remote: 3 hours per week (zoom lectures with physicians and instructors)
Asynchronous Remote: 5-7 hours per week (virtual reality learning modules and assignments)

Students will learn to work in teams remotely to develop an on-paper solution and go-to market strategy to an unmet clinical need after evaluating needs in regards to regulatory, intellectual property, and global, cultural, environmental, and economic factors. Sample videos and virtual reality learning modules of clinical procedures can be found here.

Professor Natascha Buswell:
I am teaching MAE 10: Introduction to Engineering Computations. The learning objectives are given below:

1. Apply common coding techniques for script-based languages (MATLAB) to engineering and design problems
2. Describe a variety of programming tools and their uses as engineering tools
3. Apply common coding tools to an engineering problem relevant and of interest to them
4. Understand and describe the importance of diversity in the design and use of engineering computational tools
5. Describe the elements of effective teams and learn to work with others to solve engineering problems

Of particular importance are the last two learning objectives about diversity in design and working on inclusive teams. My previous blog post describes how I introduce the topic of product and process diversity in my engineering classes, and have made consideration of diversity a component of MAE 10 as well.

The course typically meets twice a week for lecture (for a total of 2 hours and 40 minutes) with one 50-minute discussion section. Moving forward, I designed the course to have one synchronous class session that meets for 80 minutes, and over 7 hours of optional “open office hours” that take place during the second lecture time and during the discussion sections. These office hours are open to all students and will have at least one teaching assistant and seven learning assistants at each session.

I wanted the requirement of attending synchronous sessions to be low, but especially valuable to the students. To realize this goal, I set up a large instructional team with two graduate teaching assistants and fourteen undergraduate learning assistants. There is also a LARC tutorial leader that offers additional tutoring support to students for a fee. During our synchronous class session, I employ an active learning approach. I present mini-lectures on a topic, and then place students in breakout rooms with a learning assistant so that they can practice applying what they just learned to a real problem. The students are learning MATLAB, an engineering software tool, so the content is easily taught and learned in this remote setting. Every student has MATLAB on their computer (since UCI provides free MATLAB licenses to all students). 

The motivation for the open office hours was to create ample opportunities for students to work through problems and get individualized feedback from instructors, and to offer a high degree of flexibility with office hours scheduled at various times throughout the week.

The main assessment for this course is a series of five quizzes. The quizzes are timed and take an hour to complete, yet can be taken any time during a 24 hour period to accommodate students in different time zones or preferences. For example, being able to take the quiz in the morning is important for students who celebrate Ramadan, since they can take the quiz before or after fasting. The quizzes will each cover two weeks worth of material, ask students to apply their knowledge in a coding example, and ask a series of open-ended conceptual questions.

I plan on being strategic and pragmatic when it comes to holding in-person class meetings in the future. I am really starting to think about what aspects of teaching and learning benefit from being physically in the same space and which ones are enhanced by virtual options. Informally connecting with students before and after class, working on problems in small groups, and building and testing (often at the heart of engineering laboratories and projects) need to happen in person. I believe that learning is inherently social, so I am already looking forward to being in a classroom with students again. However, I don’t think everything needs to be in person, and I especially want to consider my students with accommodations. I will always allow students to attend class virtually. My goal for learning is that it should not be a stressful experience, and the pandemic has shown me how to design courses while accounting for incredible stressors in mind. I am excited to create more inclusive learning environments moving forward.

Professor Joel Lanning:
The course I am planning is CEE 155: Structural Steel Design – a 4-unit senior-level elective. I described this course in a previous SUSA blog post, but in short, this course covers the design methodologies for basic structural steel members in civil structures (e.g., beams and columns in buildings and bridges). It is a typical senior-level engineering technical elective with a heavy reliance on student’s prerequisite competency. Course work typically consists of standard engineering problem solving homework assignments, readings, a group design project, and two exams all while referencing industry-specific design manuals and building standards/codes.

In the past, this course was taught with two 80-minute in-person lectures and one 50-minute in-person discussion session each week. Taking advantage of the new ALP building, my lecture hours periods were divided between 60% traditional lecturing and 40% active learning. Students were clearly engaged under this model, but I struggled to have enough time to carry out active learning activities and still make it through all the lecture material.

In Fall 2021, I plan to: (1) retain the in-person contact hours in ALP, (2) rely on asynchronous instruction (lecture videos recorded during 2020-21 remote teaching) to cover much of the traditional lecture material, and (3) devote more time to an active learning model that is structured around a flipped course structure (where students are tasked with watching recorded material before each in-person class session). Furthermore, those students who can’t be on campus will be able to participate remotely in the active learning sessions to the extent permitted by technology in the classroom. Discussion sessions held in-person with a TA (not everything must be flipped and active).

The scheduled in-person “Lecture” will be replaced with “Workshops” and will consist of a 50/50 blend of qualitative conceptual and quantitative problem-solving activities. Workshop activities will include:

1. Poll Everywhere questions, including one to start the day’s conversation to connect with the pre-workshop assignments (qualitative and quantitative)
2. Mini demonstrations/mini labs (qualitative) focused on teaching important concepts to build upon pre-workshop assignments and connect the workshop activities to the pre-workshop lecture videos. Specifically, these low-cost interactive mini-demos are described in this ASEE Conference paper (in case you would like more info).
3. Group problem solving sessions (quantitative) to serve as high-impact practice corresponding to the week’s homework assignments.
4. Group mini projects centered around online learning tools or structural engineering software (qualitative and quantitative)

I do also anticipate needing to take some time to answer questions and to supplement the pre-workshop lecture videos with a bit of traditional lecturing.

The plan for the weekly workflow is summarized in Figure 1. Maintaining the workflow and course structure will likely be critical to the success of this format. Therefore, I will need to get students’ buy-in through heavily emphasizing the benefit of this format. For instance, if students do not carry out their pre-workshop assignments, they will be left behind and might struggle to catch up. This important point will need to be very clear to the students. However, by maintaining the TA discussion as a traditional Q&A and example session, it will act as a bit of a safety net.

Another challenge I foresee is not allowing Workshops to be overcome with questions on reviewing previous material. Rather, Workshops need to nearly always be moving forward. In the past, I have faced additional pressure on my lecture time by answering too many questions during lecture time. So, for me personally, it will take discipline to be sure to shift these questions to my office hours.

“What about homework?” I will be abandoning traditional homework. Not only is it a huge time commitment to grade (in a meaningful way), but as we have all learned during COVID teaching, summative assessment of students in an uncontrolled environment is inequitable. Further, the time commitment for students in this new format are substantial already.

Abandoning traditional homework should help with student buy-in as well. I will, however, post previous homework assignments and their solutions to provide copious amounts of examples that students can use to study with. But, all in all they will certainly be working “at home”… and in the classroom!

More Resources

The Division of Teaching Excellence and Innovation now offers Transition to Post-Pandemic Teaching which provides guidance and resources for faculty planning at UCI.

Author: Anna Grosberg

Anna Grosberg is an Associate Professor in the Department of Biomedical Engineering.

Contact: grosberg@uci.edu

Gradescope to the Rescue

After grading 150+ final exams online through Canvas last year, and working through each exam to give (partial) credit, I couldn’t imagine continuing the same way for another year of remote instruction. It was far too time consuming! A new tool – Gradescope – came to my rescue. In fact, grading is now easier and faster than it ever was with in-person instruction.

I see four main benefits to grading on Gradescope:

1. It allows instructors to grade question by question, and there are shortcuts to go to the next ungraded exam. Instructors no longer spend time flipping pages.
2. Instructors can create rubrics that facilitate both grading and feedback. And if the rubric needs to be changed at any time, updates are automatically applied to all students. This supports greater consistency with points and fairness to all the students, which is always a challenge when assigning partial credit.
3. Instructors can create comments with a text box, and the same comment can be used over and over where applicable – so students get directed feedback.

4. Regrade requests are much easier to handle through Gradescope than by email or in person. The system allows the student to post a query in the context of the rubric, and provides a simple mechanism for communicating a response.

Types of exams/quizzes for which Gradescope is a good choice

Gradescope is ideal for instructors who normally grade by hand, for providing partial credit, and for giving personalized feedback to students. For tests with multiple choice questions or a numerical answer that is either correct or incorrect, the Canvas quiz tool is a better choice. To get the most out of both tools, faculty can split exams into two parts – a correct/incorrect portion (multiple choice and numerical answer questions) on Canvas, and a long form part on Gradescope where students get partial credit and personalized feedback.

Tips on setting up a Gradescope Quiz or Exam

Some of the best options for setting up assignments are counterintuitive. Here are some tips and best practices I picked up this quarter:

• Set up the exam as a “Homework Assignment” instead of an “Exam/Quiz”. This allows students to submit work that is variable in length and will spare instructors from dealing with students who have trouble following page numbering instructions.

• Enable the “Template Visibility” feature to allow students to download the template and access exam/quiz questions.

• Instructors can add themselves as a student using a non-UCI email and experience taking the exam.

While transitioning to remote instruction has presented a lot of challenges, discovering Gradescope has been my silver lining. Next year, I’ll be scanning and uploading written exams so I can continue using Gradescope.

I look forward to learning about the silver-lining you found!

Author: Natascha Trellinger Buswell

Natascha Buswell is an Assistant Professor of Teaching in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.

Contact: nbuswell@uci.edu

My reckoning that I needed to start teaching about diversity

In June 2018, I was at the ASEE conference and Dr. Donna Riley (starting at 17 minutes in this video) told the room, “we are already teaching diversity in our classrooms.” Before I could complete my thought, that no, actually I don’t have a diversity assignment or lesson in my class, she continued:

“What we teach is silence. And when we say nothing, we are teaching our students that diversity has no place in engineering. That we can’t even talk about it. And so while we think we are remaining neutral, there is actually a null-curriculum that’s going on that is quite damaging to our students.”

I couldn’t stop thinking about Dr. Riley’s words. However, it wasn’t until the following Spring 2019 Quarter that I finally created an assignment that addressed diversity in my mechanics of materials course. I decided to start by addressing product design and how many products fail to consider diverse users. There are many, many examples (I introduced the assignment by telling my students about the first female crash test dummy (which was implemented in 2011)) and my assignment was straightforward: Find an example of a product that fails to consider diversity in its design. Describe the product and describe how it could be re-engineered to be more inclusive of diverse users. The students found great examples, some of which I have listed below.

• Facial recognition software that do not work for Black people
• Automatic soap dispensers which do not work for people with dark skin
• Video game controllers that are intended for people with two hands with functioning thumbs and index fingers
• Health tracking apps that did not initially track menstruation, despite being advertised as an expansive health app

My next step is to expand on this assignment to address even more uncomfortable aspects of diversity and inclusion. Yes, talking about diversity can be uncomfortable; however, it is a good reminder that if you have been able to get away without talking about diversity, you are privileged. Studies show that people from Black and Brown communities talk about race with their children as a matter of necessity.

In future assignments, I will have students research an engineering company or field and learn about its demographics. My goal here is for students to recognize WHY so many products make it to production and implementation without fully considering diversity. It’s largely because our products are mostly designed for and by white men. This is one reason we need our diverse students to be celebrated and welcomed into engineering.

Tips for how can you add diversity into your engineering course

An assignment: Whatever engineering class you teach, product and process diversity (or rather, lack thereof) is a part of it. The current events surrounding vaccination plans is a great example of a process that does not consider diversity. As I described above, find one example to get students started and then see what your students come up with.

Throughout your course structure: While including an assignment that addresses diversity directly is a great first step, the structure and foundation of engineering courses need to consider equity, diversity, and inclusion too. Here are some ways you can consider diversity right away to make your students feel more included.

• Drop one homework/quiz/etc., score for everyone. Many professors state in their syllabus that late assignments or make-ups are not accepted for any reason. While I encourage all instructors to consider the implications of such a policy (how might no late assignments affect students who work or have kids differently?), I especially encourage instructors to avoid making exceptions for students who ask for them (I talk about this problematic notion in a recent paper). As a student who never asked for extensions in undergrad (after all, the syllabus said no exceptions), it is inequitable to only grant extensions to students who ask for them. If you say no exceptions, that should really mean no exceptions. Even better, though, is to provide one dropped homework grade for everyone, no matter the reason.
• Specify what counts as an excused absence. Include syllabus statements about what counts as an excused absence or reason for makeup exams. Student athletes often need to take exams at different times, but immigration related absences are almost never mentioned in course syllabi. When I took the DREAM Center’s training to become an UndocuAlly, I heard from a student who took a zero on an exam because she had to miss it in order to attend an immigration related court hearing. She didn’t think her instructor would consider this a legitimate reason to reschedule her exam since it wasn’t mentioned in the syllabus.

Be brave enough to learn about diversity from your students

My guess is that the past year, with the pandemic and national racial reckoning, has made it clear to many of us that diversity needs to be a topic of discussion in our school of engineering. A few weeks ago, Amanda Gorman’s inaugural poem touched me deeply. In it, she says:

For there is always light
If only we’re brave enough to see it
If only we’re brave enough to be it

Similarly, as teachers, we need to be brave enough to learn from our students and to make mistakes along the way. The next generation will inherently see things differently than the current, especially with respect to diversity and inclusion. We need to understand that diversity is a professional competency for engineers. We need to make space for our students to cultivate their ideas and bring them forth, rather than only teach what we currently know. If we want to do something we’ve never done before, we need to do things we’ve never done before. If we want the next generation of engineers to thrive in an equitable and diverse field of engineering, we need to open up to discussions about diversity issues.

So I challenge you: Ask not only what you can teach your students, but what you can learn from them. Celebrate your students’ fresh perspectives and diverse views. Open your eyes to the new ways they can imagine the field of engineering.

Additional Resources

It can be overwhelming to get started. Here are some UCI resources to help you become a more inclusive educator:

• IDEAA (Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Anti-Racism, Access) – includes videos, readings, and resources about allyship.
• Office of Inclusive Excellence – Take the Pledge to build a culture where Black people thrive at UCI.
• DTEI Anti-Racist Reading List – A collection of research in developing anti-racist education tools.

And a couple more eye-opening reads:

• Stevens, K. R., Masters, K. S., Imoukhuede, P. I., Haynes, K. A., Setton, L. A., Cosgriff-Hernandez, E., … & Eniola-Adefeso, O. (2021). Fund black scientists. Cell.Fund Black.
• McGee, E. O. (2020). Interrogating structural racism in STEM higher education. Educational Researcher, 49(9), 633-644.

Author: Brett F. Sanders

Brett Sanders is a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Urban Planning and Public Policy and Interim Dean of Undergraduate Student Affairs for the Samueli School.

Contact: bsanders@uci.edu

An Unpleasant Fall Quarter Surprise

Courses in several Departments had exams impacted by Chegg during the Fall quarter. Chegg is an online resource that allows users to post any technical question (or problem) and then wait for an answer (solution). While taking an exam, a typical incident of academic misconduct begins with a student who creates a screen-shot of an exam question and uploads it to Chegg as an image file. Within a matter of minutes to hours, an answer to the question is posted by another user or agent of Chegg – and becomes available to paid subscribers. Furthermore, any text or math that appears in the image is identified and extracted, and then a text version of the question is generated and available for search engines like Google. If a student who is taking the test simply cuts and pastes an exam question into Google, a link to the solution available on Chegg will appear if it’s been solved – and will be accessible to those who are subscribers. Hence, academic misconduct continues when students search for answers to test questions and view posted solutions. The most common mode of cheating involves students who panic when they don’t know how to solve a problem and they resort to an online search.

During mid-Fall quarter, as I was providing assistance to two faculty who had exams compromised by Chegg, I wondered whether the course I was teaching (ENGRCEE 170) was also impacted. I concluded that it was not – but I would later learn that I was wrong and that I was searching the wrong way. I made the mistake of searching Chegg based on the course name and course number – what I needed to be doing was searching Google based on the full text of each question that appeared on my exam.

Evidence of academic misconduct only appeared to myself and TAs when we graded the final exam and noticed solution patterns that: (a) were wrong and (b) used equations and notations that we did not teach in class and did not appear in our book. Shortly thereafter, one of my TAs found one of our final exam questions on Chegg – and then the house fell down – nearly all of the exam questions had been posted on Chegg along with solutions.

I contacted Chegg to request a report of users who posted exam questions and viewed the solutions, and to request that they remove the material. Within a few days, I received reports for both of the midterm exams, as well as the final exam. This revealed the UCInetIDs of several students in the course, UCInetIDs of students not in the course, and users with ghost email addresses. To complete the investigation of students who were involved, I worked with several campus offices (Privacy, Student Conduct, Campus Counsel, and Student Affairs) to get approval for OIT to trace the IP addresses of the students who used Chegg. OIT can cross-reference the IP addresses provided in the Chegg report against the IP addresses of students who logged in to take the exam (based on the class roster), but only after an approval process for ensuring privacy protections. Alas, the investigation took quite a bit of time and the results have now been submitted to the Office of Academic Integrity and Student Conduct for (possible and likely) disciplinary action. The investigation showed evidence that 11 students engaged in cheating out of a total of 167 students in the class.

So What’s the Point?

We are stuck in this awful situation for the foreseeable future. UCOP has chosen not to take action against these companies, and individual instructors don’t have the resources to fight and win this battle. This really goes beyond any university. It strikes me that schools across the country at all levels ought to be working together to force government to better regulate these companies. Recently, Chegg created something called Honor Shield, which is a non-starter for me. It asks instructors to upload whole exams to their website so Chegg can check to see if users are submitting questions from exams. Are you ready to turn over all your exams to Chegg? Good grief.

We are left taking steps to discourage and minimize exam interference. (I think “prevent” is too strong of a word.) Some of you are using tools like the Lockdown Browser and I’d be curious to hear how that is going. I elected not to use that in my class over concern for (disadvantaged) students who were having various challenges with hardware and software – just staying online can be a challenge for many students. And overall, I just hate making life more difficult for the vast majority of students in order to control misconduct by a small minority of students.

One thing that I recommend to faculty is an announcement and/or statement on the syllabus that the university has the investigative power to identify cheaters based on the IP address used to access an exam.

Another important reminder for students is that ethics is a foundation of our profession.

And yet another important point is that Chegg solutions are frequently wrong! Imagine this: paying $20 a month to have access to solutions to problems that are wrong and provide strong and clear evidence of cheating to the university. In addition to students, I suspect parents might be interested in hearing this message, especially when graduation is delayed and education costs go up tens of thousands of dollars.

Nevertheless, my final point is to not over-react and make life too difficult for the majority of the students out of concern for a small minority. Of course, finding the right balance is always tough and variations in approaches can be expected by the instructor and course.

Available to Help

I’ll close by saying that I’m available to help: (a) I have a Chegg account so I can show instructors posted solutions to problems, (b) I have a Dean’s letter that I can share with faculty for use in requesting a report from Chegg, and (c) I’d be happy to chat with you and provide guidance and suggestions if your course is impacted.

And on we go….

Author: Christine King

Christine King is an Assistant Professor of Teaching in the Department of Biomedical Engineering.

Contact: kingce@uci.edu

What is a learning assistant?

The Certified Learning Assistants Program (CLAP) is a peer facilitation program designed to increase student learning through in-class support by undergraduate near-peers. Learning assistants are able to improve content knowledge of students and themselves beyond teaching assistants or lab assistants, as they receive pedagogical training to effectively facilitate active learning in a variety of classroom settings – lectures, discussions, labs, and recently, Zoom. They make classrooms become more collaborative, student-centered, and interactive by reducing instructional team to student ratios. They provide instructors with assistance in reflection of the course and student learning through collaborative interaction during weekly planning sessions among instructors and teaching assistants. An overview of the types of learning assistant activities and responsibilities is outlined in Figure 1.

Figure 1:

Overview of the activities and responsibilities: practice – facilitating interactions with students, content – attending weekly planning meetings with the instructional team, and pedagogy – attendance of a pedagogy course in evidence-based instruction and active learning.

How were learning assistants used in engineering courses during in person instruction?

During in-person instruction, learning assistants were utilized in several engineering courses by facilitating active learning activities during lectures, problem-based learning and project-based learning during discussion sections, and experimental procedures and safety in laboratories. For instance, Dr. Botvinick, professor of BME 60A: Engineering Analysis/Design: Data Acquisition, was an early adopter of the learning assistant program since 2018, where he utilized learning assistants to facilitate the hands-on projects that were developed during discussion times. In lecture, he was able to optimize the room layouts (e.g. Anteater Learning Pavilion) using learning assistants by having a learning assistant for each table and team group. Specifically, during in-class activities:

 “[Learning Assistants] went from table to table during mini-hackathons where students raced to see who could program the fastest. In discussion sections, the learning assistants walked around from group to group to help on their build projects throughout the course.”

Through use of near-peer facilitation from learning assistants in these environments, Dr. Botvinick found that students have become more confident and engaging in the classroom, particularly during the first few weeks of the course.

How are they being used now during remote instruction?

In an online setting, Dr. Botvinick transferred the learning assistant model into distinct breakout sections in Zoom. He noticed that in the first two discussions, before group projects were started and students were introducing themselves to the software through problem sets, that “students seemed to be more comfortable talking to the learning assistants over me to ask questions. They have been very helpful by serving as a confidence booster or engagement advocate by assisting students with asking questions in the new online format”.

In addition to use of learning assistants in breakout rooms on Zoom, instructors have also utilized learning assistants to guide discussion board posts on Canvas, provide study support on remote software programs such as Slack and Discord, and provide advice by allowing students to use the discussion forum on Canvas to interact with learning assistants during team-based coursework.

So why use Learning Assistants?

Near-peer facilitation from students who are formally trained in active learning pedagogy by UCI instructors will improve engagement and student learning both remotely and in-person. According to Joshua Arimond, Lead Coordinator of the Certified Learning Assistants Program:

“We’re hearing from a lot of professors that they’re feeling the pressure to be super creative and innovative in their remote instruction course design.  It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to recruit a team of undergraduate Learning Assistants to facilitate productive discussions in breakout rooms, engage students in discussion boards, or foster a more student-centered, remote learning experience.”

The concept of facilitating discussions and learning in a remote setting is even more imperative for undergraduate engineering students, as engineers are very active learners, and require near-peer learning to develop the technical skills required of the field.

For more information:

General Information
Faculty Information

Interested in adopting learning assistants in your classroom? Contact me! The Learning Assistant Faculty Advisor for the Henry Samueli School of Engineering: kingce@uci.edu

Author: Joel Lanning

Joel Lanning is an Assistant Professor of Teaching in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

Contact: joel.lanning@uci.edu

What course/lab are you planning/delivering?

ENGRCEE 155 – Structural Steel Design

The class teaches students to design steel structures (Figure 1). It covers relevant theory and procedures for drawing diagrams and figures, determining controlling design forces, and selecting appropriate shapes and sizes of steel members and their connections.

Figure 1:

A typical steel framed building under construction.

What are the main instructional goals?

The goals of this class are two-fold: to teach students how to use the specifications for steel design by the American Society of Steel Construction (AISC), which are required in practice, and to give students a strong connection between theory (engineering mechanics and strength of materials) and design (specific equations and procedures).

What steps are you taking to achieve these goals during the COVID-19 pandemic?

To achieve course goals in a conventional classroom environment, my lecturing style involves a lot of face-to-face engagement. I move around the room to make sure everyone can hear me and pick up on my body language, and so that we can exchange nonverbal communication and cues. I also draw figures on the board, bring demonstrations to class, and use multiple projected visuals. Figure 2 shows how a hands-on demonstration is paired with a visual projected on a screen behind me.

Figure 2:

In-person lecture with demonstrations and multiple projected visuals (others are out of view).

To support a similar type of instructional style for online delivery, I adopted the “light board” (or Learning Glass), which is available from UCI DTEI. This tool retains many of the in-person lecturing attributes I value, and is crafted in a professional studio (Figure 3). The instructor faces the camera while writing on a glass surface, which is illuminated along its edge trapping the light. When markers are used on the glass, the light escapes, making the markings vivid. Note that the camera is on the opposite side of the glass, so the writing will appear backwards until the video is flipped in post-production so the viewer is able to see the instructor and read what they are writing.

This technology supports several nice features: I can point and gesture, draw/write, and deliver nonverbal cues, making the experience much more personal. A major drawback, however, is that the DTEI studio cannot be used during the pandemic due to contagion risks. Additionally, this technology can only be used for asynchronous content delivery.

Figure 3:

Light board lecture video recorded in the DTEI studio that uses a very large board and professional lighting (above), video (left). Example of the studio set up.

To bring this type of teaching technology to my synchronous live-streamed Zoom lectures, I developed my own low-cost light board and ad-hoc studio (Figure 4). My light board is mostly made from 2×8 wood boards that I had around the house, and LED strip lights. You’ll need a camera that isn’t attached to your computer because your screen will reflect on your plexiglass and show up in your video feed. I am using an inexpensive external webcam and a simple free application, manycam, that can flip (mirror) the video feed in real time so that students can see the writing in the correct direction. This app also allows you to do picture-in-picture for your video feed.

Figure 4:

Low-cost light board and makeshift studio.

This video explains how to build your own light board and studio. The developer built a much simpler light board than mine (highly recommend) and used a much more elaborate studio (which I do not recommend). Importantly, the video description contains a list of all components with Amazon links. In total, it will cost about $100, mostly depending on the price of the plexiglass. I do not advise plexiglass less than 1/4” thick. Also, the acrylic cleaner listed is a good idea to get.

From using the light board in the DTEI studio, I’ve learned a few key things to make my videos (and now Zoom lectures) a little more engaging and effective. First, it’s important to try to leave space for your face – don’t underestimate the effect your facial cues and expressions make on communication. Your lighting is critical as well. I also like to try to keep the same types of information in the same general place on the screen from lecture to lecture. Steps in a process are in the upper right corner of the screen and problem prompts in the upper left. Finally, for online content it’s always a good idea to limit videos to no more than 15-20 minutes. To create higher quality recordings, have Zoom record locally first, rather than to your Cloud, and then upload on Yuja or YouTube.

Overall, the smaller board size, lower quality video, and shooting out of my garage will all present challenges, but the functionality that it provides me is a perfect fit for my teaching style.

Figure 5:

Screen shot after flipping the video using manycam video streaming software.

What’s one thing you would want other instructors to know based on your experience?

There are many ways to teach online, so use what works with your personality and teaching style.

Author: J. Michael McCarthy

J. Michael McCarthy is a Professor in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.  Prof. McCarthy attended Summer Faculty Working Groups facilitated by The Division of Teaching Excellence and Innovation (DTEI) and worked with Changwei Chen, a DTEI fellow, to prepare for on-line course delivery with an on-campus fabrication laboratory. DTEI Working Groups are made up of 4-5 faculty involved in course planning who meet on a weekly basis to share ideas and get feedback and recommendations from DTEI experts.

Contact: jmmccart@uci.edu

What course are you planning?

ENGRMAE 183 – Kinematic Synthesis of Mechanisms.

Figure 1

Prototype of a mechanical walker.

What are the main instructional goals?

I am updating this class to adopt a project-based approach for Spring of 2021 and a new textbook that I developed, Kinematic Synthesis of Mechanisms: a Project-Based Approach (MDA Press 2019). While visiting Professor Bernard Roth at Stanford, I taught a similar class where I tested the project-based approach, and it helped me to develop this new book. The project-based approach allows instruction to shift reliance away from more theoretical textbooks such as Geometric Design of Linkages (Springer, 2011), which consists of equations from beginning to end.

What steps are you taking to achieve these goals during the COVID-19 pandemic?

My experience with the DTEI Summer Faculty Working Group has given me the confidence to teach a majority of the class on-line in with a combination of synchronous and asynchronous materials. I have prepared a number of videos with the help of an excellent team of undergraduate and graduate students that walk the students through the basic techniques that yield innovative designs and digital prototypes. 

Figure 2

Digital prototype of a mechanical walker.

The main challenge I face is constructing physical prototypes (Figure 1) with a class that could be over 60 students.  A team of undergraduate and graduate students together with Ben Dolan of the Institute for Design and Manufacturing Innovation, and volunteer consultants Ron Kessler and Brandon Tsuge, have helped define a procedure for the on-line purchase of component parts and manufacture using laser cutters and 3D printing. This procedure results in something the student designers can assemble.

The plan is to divide the class into three person teams and have them design a part by part digital prototype of a mechanical walker (Figure 2), and then generate a parts list for purchase and drawings for manufacture.  I will obtain the purchased parts and Ben Dolan will make the manufactured parts.   Then I will schedule ET302 for use by each team one at a time for assembly of their walking machines.  This will limit the density of people in the space and work within the campus guidelines for return to campus.

What’s one thing you would want other instructors to know based on your experience?

My main message is that is takes hours of preparation to provide students with the opportunity to learn new material and to be creative with its application in a combined on-line and project-based learning format.  

I have developed hours of video demonstrations as well as an ever changing set of notes.  And I have spent much of the summer working with my volunteers to identify parts and fabrication methods to make it easy to remotely design and manufacture the walker components, so the project teams meet only to assemble their mechanical walker  I am very grateful to colleagues in the DTEI Summer Faculty Working Groups, my DTEI fellow, and my team of undergraduate, graduate students and volunteers, who have helped me every step of the way.  I plan to practice further on a small group of graduate students in Fall 2021, so that I can successfully and safely guide undergraduate students in Spring 2021 in the design and fabrication of a set of unique walking machines, following campus requirements during this pandemic.

Authors: Ariane Jong, Esther Cookson and Daniel Kahl.

The authors are MS/PHD students in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and will be Teaching Assistants this coming year for a two-course sequence on fluid mechanics and water resources engineering. Ari and Daniel were also appointed as DTEI fellows in summer of 2020.

Contact: arianej@uci.edu, cooksone@uci.edu, dkahl1@uci.edu

What course/lab are you planning?

We are planning the hands-on laboratory component of a two-course sequence: Introduction to Fluid Mechanics (ENGRCEE 170) and Water Resources Engineering (ENGRCEE 171). 

Figure 1

A kit delivered to students includes plastic fittings, rubber washers, and tubing so students can create physical models of water reservoirs and distribution systems at home.

What are the main instructional goals?

This course sequence introduces students to fluid mechanics (including mechanisms and conservation principles for mass, momentum and energy transport) and the application of these principles for analysis and design of water resources systems such as water supply systems and drainage systems.

Hands-on learning experiences are included to bring theory and problem-solving to life and allow students to contemplate the limitations of theory and grapple with the challenges of measurement errors. Additionally, these experiences aim to give students an opportunity to be creative by designing a system to meet a specific need. Specific learning outcomes include knowledge of measurement techniques, analyzing data, merging theory/models with data, designing water systems and report preparation.

What steps are you taking to achieve these goals during the COVID-19 pandemic?

With input and guidance from Professors Russell Detwiler and Brett Sanders, and inspired by the use of kits for at-home labs in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, we designed a new set of laboratory assignments that students can do at home with a kit to achieve the hands-on learning goals of the class. The experimental kit includes an assortment of low-cost supplies like plastic nozzle fittings, rubber washers, and tubing, which students will combine with 2-liter plastic bottles to create physical models of water networks with reservoirs, pumps, and pipelines (Figure 1).  The kit also includes a small submersible pump and a measuring tape, and students can use smart phones as timers for measurement purposes. The purchase and delivery of these kits to each student was made possible by a sponsorship from the Irvine Ranch Water District.

In the first course, ENGRCEE 170, students will collect data on water level, flow velocity, and discharge and use these observations to develop, calibrate, and validate a simulation model.  The model is then used to make a prediction on a system with different dimensions. Hence, the main goal here is for students to grapple with concepts of measurement error, structural model error, and uncertainties in predictions.

Figure 2

The kits allow students to build and test physical models of water system networks including reservoirs, pipelines and pumps.

In the second course, ENGRCEE 171, students will use the test kit to build water networks consisting of multiple reservoirs and pipelines that are interconnected in different ways with tubing.  From week to week, the system configuration will change allowing students to test different hypotheses about flow of water in network systems. Eventually, the students will configure a network that models a simplified water distribution network including a submersible pump (Figure 2). Data collected from this system will then be used for system modeling with software developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for water supply system analysis and design, EPANET. These experiences will allow students to deepen understanding of network concepts such as “flow in parallel” and “flow in series.” Students will also gain experience using software that is widely used in practice and experience learn how well software can reproduce what is observed with measurements.

What’s one thing you would want other instructors to know based on your experience?

DTEI training emphasized that you can never really know what kind of circumstance a student might be in, or what factors may be affecting their capacity to learn from home during this time.  Consequently, we each spent time building these systems at home with careful consideration to the resources that would be needed, including tools, supplies and guidance. We also tested out different experimental procedures to find the best approach, and we prepared a set of instructional videos for guidance. Hence, our first message we’d like to share is that it’s important to consider the types of resources (tools, water supply, etc.) that students are likely to have at home, and its valuable to test lab procedures in several different household settings so methods can be optimized before assigning them to the class.

The second point we want to emphasize is that at-home labs present students an opportunity for greater autonomy and responsibility in a creative process, and for making critical design decisions. In our Department, most class projects involve teams and there is no shortage of opportunities to gain experience in teamwork. However, when students work in teams, the level of engagement of students is variable leading to a type of inequity where some students gain much more experience than others. We plan to survey student attitudes about the experience at the end of the quarter and learn more about the pros and cons of this approach.

Acknowledgement

Sponsorship of the at-home labs by the Irvine Ranch Water District is gratefully acknowledged.

The COVID-19 pandemic has put enormous stress on the lives of people around the world, forcing changes in our work, lifestyles, studies, and everything imaginable. In these times, delivering engineering education in line with our core tenets of human connections, experiential learning and diversity poses enormous challenges. The purpose of this blog is to communicate the creative activities taking place at the Samuel School to fulfill our mission. We aim to inform instructors and staff across the School with potentially useful ideas and information, and share best practices. We also aim to share student experiences that are helping the Samueli School to achieve its goals. We are a team! If you are interested in sharing your experience on this blog, please contact me.

Brett Sanders, Ph.D
Interim Associate Dean of Undergraduate Student Affairs
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Professor (wos) of Urban Planning and Public Policy
bsanders@uci.edu