Enhancing the mechanical engineering program of thai nguyen university through redesigned learning outcomes

CANDIDATE: PHAM VAN HUNG ENHANCING THE MECHANICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAM OF THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY THROUGH REDESIGNED LEARNING OUTCOMES Specialty: Educational Management DISSERTATION SU

THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY SOUTHERN LUZON STATE UNIVERSITY

Socialist Republic of Vietnam Republic of the Philippines

DEM CANDIDATE: PHAM VAN HUNG

ENHANCING THE MECHANICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAM

OF THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY THROUGH REDESIGNED

LEARNING OUTCOMES

Specialty: Educational Management

DISSERTATION SUMMARY OF EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT

THAI NGUYEN, 2014

The study was done at:

INTERNATIONAL GRADUATE STUDY PROGRAMS,

THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY

Scientific supervisor:

The peer review 1: The peer review 2: The peer review 3:

The dissertation is defended to the Panel of Experts at:

Dissertation can be found at:

- National Library;

- Learning Resource Center, Thai Nguyen University;

- Library of International Training and Development Center;

- Library of Southern Luzon State University, Philippines

Chapter I INTRODUCTION

In recent years, in Vietnam the scale of development of training has increased significantly Providing accountability data and consumer information on the quality of teaching and learning have been increasing pressures on the HEIs Thai Nguyen University

is fully aware of the importance of training to meet the social needs and international integration Since 2008, the University has directed its members in making plans to provide quality training The University has organized training courses on formulating learning outcomes for its member colleges and units However, in the implementation process, the consultation of the employers and alumni as well as other stakeholders has not been focused and the learning outcomes of some programs were at the following three types (1) too high to achieve and (2) too low that does not meet with the requirements of the present socio-economic development and (3) some are too general which do not provide basis for the development

of the program It is for this reason that this study is very imperative

in Thai Nguyen University

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

FACULTY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

The Faculty of Mechanical Engineering (TFME) is one of the largest and oldest departments of the Thai Nguyen University of Technology It is responsible for the training of highly qualified technicians to meet the needs of industrialization and modernization

of the country and the need to integrate with the world In addition, the faculty organizes and implements scientific research, applying the results in production for engineering as well as other fields

THE MECHANICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAM (MEP)

The MEP was designed and formulated based on regulation

of the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training The contents

of the program were initially designed by some of the experienced senior lecturers of the University The contents of the program have been modified recently due to the Vietnamese policy to import the programs of developed countries and the MEP has imported some of

the course contents of the Mechanical Engineering program of University of Buffalo, USA

However, after 2 completed 5-year-course training, the program has shown some problems that need to be fixed First, many graduates have to attend further training of 4-6 months before finding

a job according to the results of the survey by the university Most graduates lack the necessary skills such as team work and communication, besides they lack practice to work in a new environment, it takes a lot of time for them to be familiar with the new situations Second, with regard to the course contents of the program, the logistics among subjects is not properly arranged, some can be cut down or cut off without affecting other subjects while these subjects do not directly provide expected output knowledge and skills Third, the schedule and program specifications of some modules are not suitable to the needs of the students especially those that require the students’ skills The learning outcomes are not specified to develop suitable program specification

Using the modern theory in developing a program, the Faculty should start from the learning outcomes that are designed based on the demand of the society, employers, alumni and other stakeholders of the program It is for this reason why the learning outcomes of the MEP should be redesigned to start the enhancement

of the MEP

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1 Determine the importance of draft learning outcomes items of the Mechanical Engineering Program in terms of:

1.1 Disciplinary Knowledge and Reasoning

1.2 Personal and Professional Skills and Attributes

1.3 Interpersonal Skills: Teamwork and Communication 1.4 Applying Knowledge to Benefit Society

2 Evaluate the current status of learning outcome topics and the expected LO topics of MEP by:

2.1 Alumni 2.2 Faculty

2.3 Graduating students 2.4 Employers

3 Redesign the learning outcomes for the MEP

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study was conducted to develop the learning outcomes for Mechanical and Engineering Program in order to meet the requirements of the society and the international integration Hence, this study would be beneficial to the Administrators, Teachers/ Professors, Students, Employers and Future researchers

SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

The study was implemented in Faculty of Mechanical Engineering - College of Engineering - Thai Nguyen University with the involvement of 250 students who are in the final year and going

to graduate in June, 2013; 50 faculty who are teaching in the program; 100 enterprises representatives; 100 alumni of the MEP

The development of learning outcomes was based on a literature review of relevant formulation of mechanical engineering learning outcomes, engineering program accreditation standards, standards of engineer, using questionnaires, expert discussions and consultation with stakeholders of the program The questionnaire was built to serve the research process

The timeframe for the study was from February 2013 to July

2013

Chapter II REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND STUDIES

In this chapter, the following were discussed: the literature and studies of the learning outcomes, the roles of the learning outcomes in developing the curriculum and the program, how to formulate the learning outcomes of a program, graduate criteria and the engineer criteria of some organizations

Learning outcomes

“Learning outcomes describe what a learner is expected to know, understand and be able to demonstrate after successful completion of a process of learning They are statements of concrete

and verifiable signs that witness/ certify how the planned competences, including the required levels of knowledge are being developed or acquired”3

Types of learning outcomes

With regards to learning outcomes, different writers have different classifications of learning outcomes The most common classification is the two types of LO – they are cognitive outcomes: the recall or recognition of knowledge and to the development

of intellectual abilities and skills (Posner, 1992) and cognitive outcomes: beliefs or certain values (Ewell, 2005)

non-Learning outcomes and outcomes-based approaches

Learning outcomes and outcomes-based approaches’ have a strong impact on curriculum design, teaching, learning and assessment, as well as quality assurance They constitute an important part of modern approaches to higher education and the reconsideration of such vital questions as to what, who, how, where and when we teach and assess

The role of learning outcomes in program design and improvement

The learning outcomes are used to set the schedule of training activities - mapping to develop learners’ thinking and other necessary skills The roadmap starts from the fundamental to advanced knowledge in science and technology Learning outcomes are the direction and destination of teaching and learning Learning outcome is the basis for the design of teaching content, teaching strategies, and selection of appropriate and effective methods and assessment tools Learning outcome helps institutions to determine requirements of human resources (faculty, staff), financial resources and other resources

The different between learning outcomes and learning objectives

Learning outcomes and objectives are more difficult to distinguish as objectives can be written in terms of learning outcomes 14 In general, in comparison to program objectives, LOs are detailed statements of what learners should know and be able to

do by the time they graduate and program objectives are description

of the competences of the graduate some years after their graduation

17

How to write Learning outcomes

The learning outcomes will be developed under consideration of many variables including: qualifications frameworks, external reference points, past experience, subject benchmark statements, employer requirements, student feedback, qualifications descriptors, etc And the Bloom’s taxonomy and corresponding verbs are often used to write learning outcomes

Engineer standards/ criteria

In Vietnam, Vietnamese Law of Education and Law of Higher Education state the general competence of a graduate of higher education All over the world, the learning outcomes of graduated engineer which are stated in the Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs by Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology; EUR-ACE Framework Standards for the Accreditation

of Engineering Programs (2005) and Boeing's desired attributes of an engineer (Boeing, 1996) include knowledge, skills and attributes the followings: A good understanding of engineering science fundamentals; design and manufacturing processes; A multi-disciplinary, systems perspective; A basic understanding of the context in which engineering is practiced; Good communication skills; High ethical standards; An ability to think both critically and creatively - independently and cooperatively; Flexibility; Curiosity and a desire to learn for life; A profound understanding of the importance of teamwork

CDIO Initiative

The CDIO™ INITIATIVE 25 is an innovative educational framework for producing the next generation of engineers CDIO is the framework for curricular planning and outcome-based assessment CDIO Syllabus, a statement of undergraduate engineering education goals, and a set of 12 Standards designed to help achieve the goals The Standards address program philosophy, curriculum development, design-build experiences and workspaces, new methods of teaching and learning, faculty development, and

assessment and evaluation The Syllabus provides the answer to the question of what skills, knowledge, and attitudes should engineering graduates should possess

RESEARCH DIAGRAM

Figure 1 The schematic presentation of the study to develop the learning outcomes which meet the requirements of the society and

international integration Chapter III METHODOLOGY

This chapter dealt with the locale of the study, research design, population and sampling, data gathering procedures, and statistical treatment used in the study

LOCALE OF THE STUDY

This study was conducted in the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering – College of Engineering - Thai Nguyen University – Thai Nguyen Province – Vietnam to collect the ideas of teachers and students about the present level of competences of the students, the importance of each outcome and the desired learning outcomes

Draft LOs level 2

- College vision;

- MEP’s objectives

- National and International accreditation standards;

Survey on draft LOs level 3

In order to collect information and suggestions as well as other ideas

of the alumni and the employers about the learning outcomes, the study was carried out at the organizations, factories and institutions where the alumni work

POPULATION AND SAMPLING

Population

• Industry’s representatives: enterprise representatives (or enterprises) who hire graduating engineers from the Mechanical Engineering Program (MEP), head of the technical division, head of the marketing division and director and vice director of enterprise

We focused on the enterprises in Thai Nguyen Province

• Alumni: alumni who graduated from the MEP and had more than two years of working experience

• Undergraduate students: the senior students of or alumni who just graduated from the MEP

• Academic staff: senior lecturers that had a teaching experience of at least 10 years and been responsible for teaching the advanced engineering programs

Sampling

For the pilot survey, the number of alumni who are working

in Thai Nguyen Province (20), enterprises (20), teachers (20) and

students (30) in their final year

For the real survey, since the number of graduates from the MEP who kept in contact with the College was limited, so that we incuded in the survey were the alumni who were working in Thai

Nguyen Province (100), enterprises (100), teachers (50) and students (250) in their final year

INSTRUMENTATION

The research employed a survey type questionnaire to determine the attitudes of school administrators, employers, alumni and graduating students The questionnaire was composed of three parts:

Part I Letter to the respondents

Part II Personal information

Part III Guidance on answering the questionnaire which includes the following:

- Level of importance, 4 level scales (a-b); from “not important to very important”

- Current proficiency level, 6 level scales (0-5);

- Intended proficiency level, 6 level scale ( - );

Scales for the proficiency level were as follows:

0/ Do not know or possess

1/ To have experienced or been exposed to

2/ To be able to participate in and contribute to

3/ To be able to understand and explain

4/ To be skilled in the practice or implementation of 5/ To be able to lead or innovate in

The explanation for the researcher using these six scales is as follows: In order to define specific learning objectives at a level commensurate with the proficiency rating, a correspondence must be developed between Bloom’s taxonomy and the activity based proficiency scale By considering the levels of cognitive, affective,

Learning

outcomes

topics

Level of importance

Current proficiency level

Intended proficiency level

1.1.1 …… a B c d 0 1 2 3 4 5      

and psychomotor skills that underlie a certain activity based proficiency, a correspondence can be drawn In fact, there is no cognitive skill associated with the first proficiency level, “to have experienced or been exposed to.” The second level, “participation,” implies at least “knowledge," the first Bloom level in the cognitive domain “Comprehension," as defined by Bloom, specifically includes “explaining.” Likewise, “skill in the practice” arguably implies the ability to “apply knowledge” and “analyze." Finally, the ability to “lead and innovate” requires an ability to “synthesize and evaluate.” Similar approximate correspondences can be drawn to the affective and psychomotor domains

STATISTICAL TREATMENT

The reliability of the assessment tools of different group of respondents was examined as follows: Student, Alumni, Employer and Teacher by using:

Chapter IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results of the study Analysis and interpretation are also given in the discussion The researcher’s acceptance or rejection of hypothesis given is also provided in the light of findings generated

4.1 The importance of each learning outcome topic under the view of the four main stakeholders of the MEP

4.1.1 The importance of each learning outcome topic under the view of the students

All the topics under the Disciplinary knowledge and reasoning are considered as important in the learning program, and it

is necessary to have them in the learning outcomes of the MEP Among the topics surveyed, the topics belong to the group of

Knowledge of underlying mathematics and sciences have the

important level which is a bit lower than in the groups of Core

engineering fundamental and advanced knowledge Topics related to Other Supplement Subjects get lower rate than those in other groups

Regarding the Personal and Professional Skills and Attributes, most of the topics have the important level of above 2 ranging from 2.11 to 2.37 which means they are important to very important in the learning program outcomes The only topic which has the important level less than two is 2.1.4 Analysis With Uncertainty (1.97)

As interpersonal skills: Teamwork and communication is concerned, the students are also concerned about the skills of teamwork and communication which reflect the reality that the graduates should possess those skills to be successful in their jobs

In relation to the CDIO skills which are conceiving, designing, implementing and operating systems in the enterprise, societal and environmental context, the students considered those topics to be included in the learning outcomes as important The important weighted means (WM) were from 1.94 to 2.20 It can be