Challenges of unusually many under-prepared electrical engineering students Error Minding Gaps within the Bubble Presenter: Simon Winberg Department of Electrical Engineering University of Cape Town

Bubble in the intake Department of Electrical Engineering had a 49% increase in 1 st year students in 2009 from previous years (expected students: 180, actual: 260) Many of these students were under-prepared… and so were we. We’ve dubbed the problem “The Bubble” RSA students Foreign RSA students Foreign RSA students Foreign RSA students

Case study of a 1 st year course ‘Computing for Electrical Engineers’ – Students with weaker computing and/or problem-solving abilities Students learn to: – Use computers to solve basic electrical engineering problems – Use spreadsheets to check solutions – Write reports 2009 Class – Expected 85, actual 167 – 88% increase from 2008

Objectives of the study Focus on artefacts and written material produced, using a quantitative approach (instead of surveys and interviews) Identify areas of strength and weakness Identify main learning challenges (‘gaps’) in the activities and work done in the course Determine: How does 2009 compare to 2008? Did gaps & strengths change? Did the 2009 students improve?

Methodology: Gaps Modelling 1.Identify main knowledge areas based on syllabus documentation 2.Determine leaning activities & work involved, how these fit to syllabus 3.Rate strong and weak knowledge areas based on analysing exams, reports, etc. 4.Visually model* results to spot general patterns and trends Ideas adapted from Novak and Cañas (2008) and Miller, Imrie et al. (1998) *Spinuzzi’s (2002) genre ecology mapping technique

Gap models – 2008 class

Summary Strengths 1.Office software 2.General Internet 3.Some advanced technical techniques 4.Essential C programming 5.Identifying tasks suitable for computer- based solution Weaknesses 1.Applying advanced techniques 2.Debugging code 3.Understanding requirements

Gap models – 2009 class

Summary Strengths 1.Office software 2.Online collaboration 3.Programming language syntax and semantics 4.Essential Python programming 5.Identifying tasks suitable for computer- based solution Weaknesses 1.Effective, logical solutions 2.Writing/explanation 3.Understanding requirements

Comparing 2008 and 2009 Strengths – 2008 better at general web-use; 2009 used more collaboration tools – 2008 students generally stronger at conceptualising projects – 2009 students not as proficient in extending examples to other contexts

Comparing 2008 and 2009 Weaknesses / main gaps – 2009 more difficulty conceptualising – 2009 misinterpreting questions more often – 2009 difficulties writing explanations – Both years: C programming difficulties

Skills mapping analysis: Progression analysis Easier Very difficult Difficult High Basics Low Basics

How gaps were addressed Logistic aspects easier to address Difficulties: – Conceptualisation & program design – Explaining concepts – Misunderstanding questions – difficult to fix Interventions: – Extra tuition sessions, more opportunity for face-to-face tutoring, added online support – Breaking complex project into two smaller projects, better explained and illustrated

Skills mapping analysis: Final placement 127 passed (85%) 23 failed (15%) 17 transferred/dropped 2008 (9% failed) 2009 results