Student Self-Assessment in Upper Level Engineering Courses

Download PDF
5 downloads 3181 Views 42KB Size Report
Comment
Student Self-Assessment in Upper Level Engineering Courses. Diane T. Rover and P. David Fisher. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
Student Self-Assessment in Upper Level Engineering Courses Diane T. Rover and P. David Fisher Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824-1226 Abstract - Faculty cannot ensure that educational program objectives and course learning objectives are being met unless both students and faculty become involved in the process of assessment and evaluation. In two senior-level courses, we are addressing these issues through course learning models that directly involve students via reflection, discussion, empowerment, and ownership in the course. The relevance of the learning model to real-life, industrial experiences is underscored as well. Our approach includes a student journal, an engineering workbook, a self-assessment report, and a student management team, as well as periodic surveys throughout the semester. These various instruments form a set of selfassessment tools that provide documentation related to the following issues. Do students have the correct background and preparation for the course? Do students understand the course learning objectives? Are students fulfilling these learning objectives? Are there ways to improve the course during the current semester? Are there ways to improve the course in future semesters? This paper describes the processes used to develop and administer these student self-assessment instruments. It presents some results of this assessment process, and it demonstrates how this assessment process is being used to improve these courses, as well as the electrical and computer engineering academic programs.

Introduction Faculty members at Michigan State University (MSU) have spent the past three years preparing for the 1998-99 ABET accreditation cycle. Self-study reports will be submitted in the summer of 1998, and all of the undergraduate engineering programs will be evaluated under ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 (ABET 2000) [1]. Our interpretation of ABET 2000 led us to define our constituent groups and to involve them in the establishment of educational program objectives and in the development and implementation of a system of outcomes-assessment processes. The goals of this system are to demonstrate achievement of program outcomes and to acquire information that could be used to improve the effectiveness of the program(s). The constituent groups we identified for the electrical engineering and computer engineering programs are students currently in the programs, faculty

members, academic staff, alumni, employers of our students and our corporate sponsors. A primary shift in ABET 2000 is toward program objectives and program outcomes assessment. We concluded early on that directly linked to program objectives and program outcomes are the learning objectives for individual courses in the program and the need for outcomes assessment within specific courses to demonstrate that these learning objectives are being satisfied. Hence, we set out to develop and publish educational program objectives for the electrical engineering (EE) and computer engineering (CpE) programs [2], [3]. The faculty then developed learning objectives for each engineering course for which it was responsible [4]. The faculty then mapped the course learning objectives into the educational program objectives to determine if there was adequate coverage of educational program objectives in the students' programs of study. Where weaknesses were identified, plans were developed to overcome them. Although this was an important exercise, it only dealt with faculty claims about course content. What remained was assessing outcomes within specific courses and demonstrating that course learning objectives were in fact being met. This paper focuses only on a subset of the overall outcomes-assessment system; namely, the interactions between faculty and students within a specific course. Traditionally, course descriptions and syllabi describe topics covered in the course but do not identify course learning objectives. Our first challenge thus was to develop these course learning objectives and make them accessible to our students. We did this by publishing them at the course web sites— e.g., see references [4]-[6]. As we began to explore ways to assess student outcomes within a given course, we came to a couple of important conclusions. First, this could become a very time-consuming added burden for the faculty. And, second, traditional course learning models do not actively engage students to focus on what is to be accomplished in the course. This in turn makes it difficult to document what students have learned and how this learning experience actually meets course learning objectives and educational program objectives. Cooperative learning groups are one aspect of change. But, without active student involvement in group processing and selfassessment, opportunities for significant continuous improvement are diminished. These conclusions led us to

changing the learning model in two upper-level courses. This new learning model directly involves students via reflection, discussion, empowerment, and ownership in the course. The relevance of the learning model to real-life, industrial experiences is underscored as well.

Course Learning Model Active learning has become a goal in education in general, and the relevance to engineering education is welldocumented. Active learning involves both student involvement in their engineering education experience as well as student reflection and self-assessment about their learning. Landis refers to a model by Astin that proposes the quality of students’ education is directly related to their involvement [7]. Landis proposes that we promote involvement by “engineering better engineering students” by helping them develop successful skills and behaviors. For example, we should promote student behaviors such as interaction with peers and interaction with faculty. His stepby-step process asks students questions, provides students with information, and requires students to practice and reflect on the behaviors. One approach to student involvement is cooperative learning. As described by K. A. Smith and A. A. Waller, it focuses on the use of small instructional groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each others’ learning [8]. With formal cooperative learning groups: • members are responsible for their own and each other’s learning with a focus on joint performance; • members hold themselves and others accountable for high-quality work; • groups are formed for a clearly stated purpose with well understood tasks and time schedules; • members promote each other’s success and assist each other in learning; • teamwork skills are emphasized; and • groups evaluate themselves and how effectively members are working together; continuous improvement is stressed. With a cooperative learning model, the teacher’s role as a stand-up lecturer is diminished. In fact, E. Mazur suggests that the principal role should be one of listening and questioning [9]. By asking the right questions at the right time, the teacher facilitates student learning and thus the achievement of course learning objectives. Moreover, such a course learning model is representative of what students will encounter in industry. For example, Ward has documented the formation of “study groups” to facilitate staff professional development through self-directed learning [10].

In addition, ABET 2000 has focused attention on multidisciplinary teaming, including processes of effective teams and team-based course models [12]. For example, we have reported on “cross-functional teaming” in our capstone computer-engineering course, whereby students are grouped into two sets of interdependent teams, “design teams” and “skill teams” [13]. Beyond student involvement, student reflection and self-assessment are essential to an active learning model that enhances students’ success. One tool for selfassessment and reflection, popular in elementary and secondary schools and emerging in higher education, is the student portfolio [14, 15]. Sharp highlights several uses of portfolios in her excellent article [15], including student self-assessment. She points out that “portfolios work best when designed to include student involvement and learning-centered evaluation;” and that a portfolio provides the professor and student with a “means to assess the student’s progress in the course.” Moreover, students learn by assessing their portfolios, through reflection and narrative describing portfolio artifacts. For example, she states that a student essay reflecting on the portfolio and progress toward learning goals is an excellent tool. One of her conclusions is that student assessment and student narratives are the most important element to reach learning goals via the portfolio. The Internet may provide valuable support for portfolios [16]. Student assessment and narratives are also essential to learning the engineering design process and developing teaming competencies and skills [11]. Lewis et al. state that students learn teaming skills when they practice those skills and reflect upon their own and others’ performance as team members. One way to assess student teaming is via student ratings of team processes. Another way is through the use of “journaling,” in which students respond regularly to a series of questions about teaming. Journaling assignments not only provide timely information to instructors about what is happening on student teams, they also promote reflective learning. Journaling questions that focus on teaming issues reinforce that a course places value in effective teaming, not only the final product. Our approach to student self-assessment includes a student journal, a self-assessment report, a student management team, and use of the Web. The journal documents: the evolutionary development of the student’s knowledge and understanding of course subject matter; how well the student was able to fulfill course learning objectives; student participation in class and team activities; and, finally, establishes individual accountability in group learning. Writing regularly in the journal stimulates the student to reflect on what has been accomplished to date and what remains to be accomplished. Faculty read all or a sampling of the journals regularly throughout the course,

providing feedback to students, evaluating students, and continuously improving the course. Near the end of the course, each student submits a selfassessment. By preparing this report, students evaluate their learning in the course and prepare themselves for the next stage in their professional growth; this is done by reflecting on and responding to a series of questions: How have I satisfied the learning objectives in this course? What is the impact of this course on my career objectives and professional goals? What have been the major factors in my life that brought me to where I am today? What are my primary strengths and weaknesses? Where would I like to be professionally five years after graduation? What lifelonglearning steps must I plan to undertake in order to achieve this five-year professional goal? Students are introduced to career planning as they prepare this report. The purpose of a student management team is to improve the classroom learning environment and course quality [17, 18]. A team is a means to vest students with more responsibility for the success of their own education. The emphasis is not upon the professor directing and controlling the students, but rather upon the students themselves making informed decisions about individual, group, and class activities and the assessment of achievements. A team is formed of several students early in the term and meets weekly. The professor provides the initial task. The team maintains a log of suggestions, actions, and progress, which is retained by the professor at the end of the term. A course Web site serves a variety of functions as an electronic repository for course information, lectures, assignments, and resources. However, expanding Web technology is enabling a site to support (1) enhanced communication between student and instructor and among students, thus promoting student involvement; (2) on-line methods for submitting, presenting, and evaluating student work, which assist with student self-managed learning; and (3) on-line evaluations to collect and process student feedback, allowing for student reflection. These approaches have been used successfully in several different types of courses, impacting both students and faculty. Students have a means to focus on progress toward course learning objectives, and faculty members have a means to evaluate both students and the course. This paper presents some results of this assessment process, and it demonstrates how this assessment process is being used to improve specific courses, as well as the electrical and computer engineering academic programs.

Course Overviews EE 410— Digital Electronics [5] The course learning objectives state students will learn about the design and layout of complex digital integrated circuits using contemporary methods and tools. At the completion of this course, each student will have actively participated as a member of a design-project team. Each team will design a complete integrated-circuit chip. This chip will be specified, designed, verified, and documented in such a way that its description could be sent out to a silicon foundry for fabrication, and the packaged chip returned for testing and use by other circuit and system designers. At the completion of this course, each student will have demonstrated proficiency in: 1. understanding and applying CMOS theory, device technology and standards; 2. analyzing and synthesizing CMOS circuits; 3. understanding and use of layout rules, rule checking, circuit extraction, circuit characterization, functional verification and performance verification; 4. understanding of the overall process used to develop a CMOS subsystem; 5. understanding and manipulation of VLSI circuit-design methods; 6. understanding and application of VLSI circuit-design constraints; 7. understanding and use of VLSI CAD tools; 8. ability to design a packaged digital integrated circuit. Associated with this set of course learning objectives is an on-line Course Plan, which describes on a week-by-week basis the course’s Reading Assignments, Homework Assignments and Milestones. This course plan is published at the course Web site and often referenced during class discussion [5]. The reading assignments are traditional assignments from two textbooks. But the homework assignments have several important differences from traditional homework assignments. These are summarized below: 1. Students are required to maintain Journals throughout the semester, and the course instructor reviews these three times during the semester. 2. Students are required to maintain Engineering Workbooks throughout the semester, and these, too, are reviewed and evaluated three times during the semester by the course instructor. 3. On a weekly basis, Questions appear at the Web site, and students are required to answer these in their journals and/or workbooks.

4.

Also, on a weekly basis, Homework Assignments appear at the Web site, and students are required to complete these and place them in their workbooks. 5. Four Project Assignments are made during the course, and students need to report on progress in their journals and workbooks. 6. There is an in-class, open-book final examination that counts 25% of the final grade. The journals and workbooks, the homework, and the projects each count 25% also. 7. Finally, there are two sets of student surveys conducted during the semester— a monthly student satisfaction survey and a final course-instructor evaluation, with the latter being mandated by MSU. Readers are encouraged to review the current course Web site for more detailed information about the course assignments. The projects are hierarchically structured. The goal of the first project is to design and lay out a PMOSFET and an N-MOSFET. The goal of the second project is to use these transistors to design and lay out a CMOS inverter and a ring counter. For the third project, students break into teams to design and lay out various logic cells— e.g., gates, latches and flip flops— that are placed in a “standard-cell library” for class use in project four. These cells are documented so they can be reused by others. Each student must also have a demonstration reviewed and evaluated by three other students. These students in turn must use the documentation to test the functionality and performance of the cell before it is approved for placement in the cell library. In the final project, students use cells from the cell library to design small-scale digital integrated circuits— e.g., counters, shift registers and decoders— to meet pre-specified functionality and performance criteria. The Milestones portion of the Course Plan links the course learning objectives with the lectures, the reading assignments, the homework assignments, the projects, the various deliverables, demonstrations, and the final examination. The milestones and course learning objectives are explicitly discussed on a weekly basis during class lecture periods. It is now a worthwhile exercise to return to the course learning objectives for EE 410 and visualize how each learning objective is actually fulfilled and documented through student work. This documentation then has three purposes. First, it is needed to evaluate individual student work for purposes of assigning a final grade. Second, samples of this student work will be needed to demonstrate that the course outcomes are consistent with the stated course learning objectives. And, finally, through these documents, plans can be made to improve the course during the semester or in future semesters.

EE 482— Capstone: Computer System Design [6] Program educational objectives had a significant impact upon the development of the learning objectives for the revised capstone course in computer engineering. The objectives state that students will learn about embedded systems i.e., electrical systems that contain embedded computers to control processes. At the completion of this course, each student should have actively participated as a member of an engineering design team and made significant contributions to achieving the team’s stated goal and objectives. Each design project should involve the collaborative development and evaluation of a product that contains an embedded computer. Specific team activities include: 1. proposing an engineering design project that has clearly stated design criteria, including realistic constraints; 2. sharing in the day-to-day design activities and management of the project; 3. sharing in the presentation of oral and written progress reports; 4. sharing in the demonstration of results at key milestones during the life of the project; and 5. evaluating the project’s progress and outcomes against a clearly articulated set of criteria. Individual students should build a number of technical, professional, and communication skills, including: 1. describing and understanding the principal characteristics of a generic embedded system; 2. understanding the need for hardware and software standards and, moreover, accessing relevant standards and interpreting their meaning and application; 3. delineating the principal design criteria and constraints for an embedded system— e.g., cost, size, power, environmental factors, reliability, safety, maintainability, and reusability; 4. describing and understanding the overall engineering design process— e.g., project justification, identification of constraints, establishment of design criteria, establishment of timetables, the partitioning of work, project monitoring, and project evaluation; 5. describing and understanding contemporary industry practices and trends with respect to embedded systems and embedded system design; 6. describing, understanding, and applying key tools used in the overall embedded system design process; 7. understanding the benefits and potential problems of teaming, describing qualities and processes of effective teams, and describing the role of teamwork in system design;

8.

acquiring and understanding information contained in contemporary technical literature— e.g., trade journals, magazines, books, conference proceedings, and supplier literature— about embedded system hardware components, software, design tools, thirdparty suppliers, etc.; and 9. browsing the web to acquire information about embedded system hardware components, software, design tools, third-party suppliers, etc. Associated with this set of course learning objectives is an on-line Course Plan, which describes on a week-by-week basis the course’s Meeting Outlines, Assignments, Deliverables, and Milestones. The Milestones portion of the Course Plan links the course learning objectives with the lectures, assignments, deliverables, design projects, demonstrations, and presentations. The milestones and course learning objectives are explicitly discussed on a weekly basis during class meetings. Design-project teams are put into a context of a single company’s engineering staff meeting a customer’s needs. The company, Spartan Embedded Technologies, issues a request-for-proposals (RFP) and the design teams submit proposals for design projects in response to the RFP. During the term, teams spend considerable time on written and oral communication, including progress reports, technical reports, final reports and demonstrations, and Web sites. Design projects are taken from requirements to implementation, either by designing a new system or by reengineering an existing one. In some cases, students from previous terms act as consultants on existing products. One of the first team projects in the course has involved a ping-pong ball system with sensors and actuators to emulate a fluid-flow control system: a ping-pong ball in a tube is controlled by airflow through a fan and its position is sensed. Projects have centered on use of tools and technologies such as LabVIEW, in-system programmable logic, 68HC11 microcontrollers, StateCharts, etc. In addition, projects have involved the use of the Web for remote monitoring and control of the embedded system, thus broadening the scope to distributed systems and requiring more advanced development strategies such as hybrid prototyping. Teaming is essential to accomplish the course learning objectives and complete a project. Our team-based course learning model, referred to as “crossfunctional teaming,” partitions students into two sets of interdependent teams, “design teams” and “skill teams” [13]. Design teams are formed for the entire semester. Each of these teams works on a specific engineering design project. Skill teams are formed from representatives of each design team. As the name implies, these teams learn specific skills needed to ensure success within the individual design projects. Skill teams are highly focused, and the intent is to foster self-directed learning in the interests of lifelong-learning as well as learning by teaching

others (since skills brought back to design teams must be shared with other members). One skill team, called the Management Skill Team, is similar in purpose to a student management team. However, not only does it assist with course management and improvement but also designproject management. Skill teams exist only as long as needed to accomplish a designated purpose. Students also have proposed and formed new skill teams as the need arose, i.e., students showed responsibility for creating and managing their own learning. The interaction facilitated by skill teams that cross design-team boundaries is a key aspect of the teaming experiences gained by the students. Reading assignments and student reflection on the readings comprise a significant means of learning beyond the experiential learning through projects. Students reflect on the readings by answering questions in smallgroup/design-team and class discussion, by making entries in their journals, and by submitting written article summaries via the Web. The readings are relevant to design projects, thus engaging the students’ interest. The students read about embedded systems from contemporary technical literature. Students also read about engineering ethics, including ethical considerations in hardware and software quality. Class discussion of ethics case studies involving embedded systems provide students with realistic scenarios and different perspectives. Computer and communication standards and their importance is another discussion topic, highlighting the many standards that students encounter in their embedded system design projects. Whenever students read an article, they are asked to consider how it relates to their design project and the course objectives. Student performance in the course is evaluated based on meeting team and individual learning objectives. Both team and individual deliverables are submitted regularly. Individual students must maintain a journal, in which they enter impressions of the course, descriptions of project progress and teaming experiences, and other narratives, as well as identify how they are fulfilling the learning objectives. The instructor reviews journals three times during the term, providing feedback to the students. At the end of the term, each student writes a summary professional self-assessment report. Individual accountability is reinforced through demonstrations, presentations (both formal and informal, by design teams and skill teams), inclass discussion, and individual technical assignments (e.g., an application note). Students and teams submit demonstration and project-milestone reports via the Web. The Web is used to help track student and team progress. Students are introduced to strategies for effective teaming, group processing, and self-assessment, including the periodic use of evaluation forms for the team leader, each member, and the team as a whole. Students evaluate their own and others’ presentations using surveys and their journals. Finally, there are two sets of student surveys

conducted during the semester— a monthly student satisfaction survey and a final course-instructor evaluation, with the latter being mandated by MSU. Readers are encouraged to review the current course Web site for more detailed information about the course.

Results and Conclusions Student self-assessment instruments, including a journal and/or workbook, self-assessment report, student management team, the Web, and surveys, have provided documentation to evaluate student preparation and achievement as well as to improve the course and program. The journal/workbook, management team, and surveys have indicated, directly and indirectly, how well-prepared students are to undertake course material. Student realization and achievement of learning objectives has been supported by the journal/workbook, self-assessment report, Web, and surveys. Via these, students reflect on the learning objectives and are more likely to take responsibility for their own learning with greater awareness. In addition to survey questions, we have held brief class discussions during the term to highlight and review the learning objectives. Student response has been favorable; students benefit from understanding the goals and how the assignments and other course work are a means to an end. The journals and workbooks typically have yielded the most detailed information, however, they require more time both by the student and the instructor. The surveys have provided useful information with varying overhead, depending on how the answers are processed. The management team can be an excellent tool to complement the written documentation. The reflection, in general, also has aided student problem-solving, giving opportunities to re-visit a topic or problem, possibly in a new context. For example, students have been very impressed with a guest speaker in EE 482 discussing handicapper-friendly products, recording this in their journals. Then, later in the course, several followed up by adding an accessibility feature to their design project or completing an assignment on accessibility. Just as students have varying learning styles, students have indicated varying preferences for these assessment tools. Overall, the tools have effectively increased student involvement and assessment in a course. The assessment process has been used to improve a course, both during and after the current semester. For example, in EE 410, student feedback during the semester led to additional lecture time and demonstrations on how to use software to model and analyze digital CMOS integrated circuits. Students were weaker than expected with these software skills. Also during the semester, the schedule for having teaching assistants available in the open laboratory was adjusted to accommodate the students' schedules. Students wanted more access to TAs in the evening and less

during the day. At the end of the semester, student feedback included recommendations for introducing more examples using the software earlier in the semester as well as expanding the use of the laptop computer and to demonstrate more examples in the classroom. Students also indicated that a video on the integrated circuit fabrication process was a valuable resource in the course since it provided a context for the IC design being done by the students. The students also suggested adding a fourth credit to the current three-credit course that formally recognizes a three-hour laboratory component. Course improvement in EE 482 during the semester has ranged from adding lectures/demonstrations to visit or re-visit topics of interest or concern, adjusting teachingassistant availability, and increasing interaction with specific students or teams to facilitate meeting the learning objectives. Student feedback at the end of the semester has led to the development of course and laboratory modules to support student usage of software tools, equipment, and technology in the laboratory. In addition, students have recommended adjustments in the course workload based on patterns of design-project activity. Students have also suggested improvements for the course Web site, including ways to make it easier to navigate and find information. Student teams in EE 482 are continuously reviewing aspects of the course and either implementing changes or recommending changes for present or future semesters. Program improvements have also ensued from the assessment. Some of these flow naturally as a consequence of the mapping between learning objectives and educational program objectives. That is, reinforcing the learning objectives facilitates meeting program objectives. However, program improvements have also resulted simply "by example," whereby improvements in one course set an example for improvements in other courses. Examples have been set via faculty, course content, and students. Teaching strategies and assessment methods used effectively by an instructor are often shared with other faculty. Content that corresponds to learning objectives in one course may be built upon in a subsequent course; assessment results from both courses enhance student learning in the broader curriculum. Finally, students come to realize the benefit of increased involvement, and their learning habits and expectations may carry over to other courses and extracurricular activities with faculty and students. Lastly, student assessment results become an important element of the educational program planning process. This paper has described how student involvement, self-assessment, and reflection have been integrated into the learning model in two upper-level courses. This new learning model directly involves students via reflection, discussion, empowerment, and ownership in the course. Student self-assessment has been used successfully in several different types of courses, impacting both students

and faculty. Students have a means to focus on progress toward course learning objectives, and faculty members have a means to evaluate both students and the course. In particular, it facilitates documenting student learning and achievement, and obtaining feedback on ways to improve the course, both during the current semester and for future semesters. Despite the benefits, there are some drawbacks as well as room for improvement. One of the most notable drawbacks is the increased demand that assessment places on already limited time and resources of faculty and students, which has been cited for portfolios [15] and teaming [11]. We have noticed great variability in student self-assessment responses, and thus students need more detailed instructions as to what is expected. Finally, these concepts need to be pushed earlier into the curriculum.

Acknowledgments This work was sponsored in part by NSF grants CDA9700732 and ACI-9624149.

References 1) ABET Engineering Criteria 2000, http://www.abet.ba. md.us/EAC/eac2000.html. 2) Electrical Engineering Program, Michigan State University, http://www.egr.msu.edu/EE. 3) Computer Engineering Program, Michigan State University, http://www.egr.msu.edu/cpe. 4) Electrical Engineering Courses, Michigan State University, http://www.egr.msu.edu/EE/eecourse.html. 5) EE 410 Course Web Site, Michigan State University, http://www.egr.msu.edu/classes/ee410. 6) EE 482 Course Web Site, Michigan State University, http://www.egr.msu.edu/classes/ee482. 7) Landis, R.B., “Enhancing Student Success,” ASEE PRISM, American Society for Engineering Education, pp. 30-32 (November 1997). 8) Smith, K.A. and Waller, A.A., “Cooperative Learning for New College Teachers,” New Paradigms for College Teaching, edited by Campbell, Wm.E. and Smith K.A., pp. 185-209, Interaction Book Company, Edina, Minnesota (1997). 9) Mazur, E., Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (1997). 10) Ward, N., “Improving Technical Knowledge Through

Study Groups,” Raytheon E-Systems Falls Church, Software Development - East Conference, Washington, D.C. (October 1997). See also http://www.egr.msu.edu/classes/ee482/study.groups.ht ml. 11) Lewis, P., Aldridge, M.D., and “Assessing Teaming Skills Undergraduate Project Teams,” to Journal of Engineering Education, Assessment (1998).

Swamidass, P., Acquisition on appear in ASEE Special Issue on

12) Aldridge, M.D. and Lewis, P.M., “Multi-disciplinary Teams: How to Assess and Satisfy ABET Criteria,” Symposium on Best Assessment Processes in Engineering Education, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Terre Haute, Indiana (April 11-12, 1997), http://www.eng.auburn.edu/center/twc. 13) Rover, D.T., and Fisher, P.D., “Cross-Functional Teaming in a Capstone Engineering Design Course,” Proceedings of ASEE/IEEE 1997 Frontiers in Education Conference (November 1997). 14) Panitz, B., “The Student Portfolio: A Powerful Assessment Tool,” ASEE PRISM, American Society for Engineering Education, pp. 24-29 (March 1996). 15) Sharp, J., “Using Portfolios in the Classroom,” Proceedings of ASEE/IEEE 1997 Frontiers in Education Conference (November 1997). 16) Taber, M., Takle, E., and Fils, D., “Use of the Internet for Student Self-Managed Learning,” www.iitap.iastate.edu/gcp/teaching/manage.html. 17) Nuhfer, E.B., “Student Management Teams The Heretic’s Path to Teaching Success,” New Paradigms for College Teaching, edited by Campbell, Wm.E. and Smith K.A., pp. 103-126, Interaction Book Company, Edina, Minnesota (1997). 18) Schwartz, R.A., Improving Course Quality with Student Management Teams, ASEE PRISM, American Society for Engineering Education, pp. 19-23 (January, 1997).