Use of educational technology in manufacturing engineering and technology education

Session M2G

978-1-4244-4714-5/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE October 18 - 21, 2009, San Antonio, TX 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference M2G-1

Use of Educational Technology in Manufacturing Engineering and Technology Education

Henry Kraebber, James Lehman

Purdue University, [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract - Educational technology offers capabilities that may enhance undergraduate education in engineering and technical fields. This study surveyed manufacturing educators to determine what educational technologies are being used, the factors that affect the adoption of the technologies, and their perceived impact. Faculty members in manufacturing education have high relative intensity of concern and awareness for new educational technologies along with strong concerns about the time and resources related to the use of educational technology in manufacturing education. Expanded use of educational technology in the future may help create student interest in manufacturing and technical education. Increased incentives to support the use of educational technology tools can increase the productivity and reach of educational programs. The information collected establishes a baseline of current usage that can help identify opportunities for faculty expand the use of educational technologies that can help manufacturing education meet the challenges of the future. Index Terms – Educational technology, manufacturing, technology use.

SURVEY OF MANUFACTURING EDUCATORS

Competitive challenges of the world economy have placed great pressure on engineering educators to develop new curricula and ensure students gain skills and abilities that will sustain them in their future careers. The Gathering Storm report makes it clear that change is needed; however, understanding the current situation is important before making any changes. The well documented theoretical model of the diffusion of innovations [1] and the Concerns Based Adoption Model [2]-[4] provide a framework that supports the research. The survey of manufacturing educators captured important baseline data on the use of educational technologies in undergraduate manufacturing classes.

Educational technology broadly describes computer-based systems used to prepare and deliver educational content to learners. These technologies include commonly used tools for word processing, spreadsheet calculations and presentation graphics. Emerging educational technologies include course management systems and classroom management systems.

No information about the use of educational technology in manufacturing education was found in the literature. In fact, there was little information available to identify the institutions that teach manufacturing and the faculty members that deliver the educational content. This study was designed to target the specific group of institutions and the faculty members that teach in accredited manufacturing engineering or engineering technology degree programs. 118 accredited undergraduate manufacturing engineering and technology programs in the United States were identified. A survey including 28 primary items and a total of 110 responses was completed in the spring of 2008 [5]. The survey was distributed electronically to manufacturing educators at the target institutions. The data analysis was conducted on usable surveys from 97 (20.9%) participants in the identified pool of 465 manufacturing educators at 56 (47.5%) of the institutions included in the survey.

SURVEY FINDINGS

Educational technology tools were used by 80.2% (n=77) of reporting faculty members for teaching classes in a “face-to-face” format with students in the classroom, and 13.5% (n=13) for face-to-face plus distance technologies to reach additional class sites. Only 3.1% (n=3) of the respondents reported delivery using asynchronous distance education methods. The use of educational technology tools was reported to take place in classrooms and laboratories most of the time. Use outside scheduled class or lab times was only reported by 8.2% (n=8), and no use by 2.1% (n=2). Most responding faculty members indicated that they had experience with educational technology. Sixty-six percent (n=62) reported being involved with educational technology for five years or more. The percentage reporting one year of educational technology use was 3.2% (n=3) with those reporting never at 5.2% (n=5). More than 80% (n= 81) reported 3 or more years of involvement with educational technology and considered themselves to be proficient at the intermediate or higher level. Just over 55% (n=53) reported that they had received formal training regarding educational technology in workshops or courses. The mandatory use of educational technology was reported by

Session M2G

978-1-4244-4714-5/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE October 18 - 21, 2009, San Antonio, TX 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference M2G-2

Survey Responses Summary Use of Features of Software Tools Ranked by Mean Score*

Educational technology software tool

1 Not at

all

2 A little

3 Some

4 High

5 Very high

Mean SD

Course management systems 10.3% n= 10

11.3% n=11

9.3% n=9

23.7% n=23

45.4% n=44

3.84 n=97

1.38

Spreadsheet software 1.0% n=1

8.3% n=8

29.2% n=28

35.4% n=34

26.0% n=25

3.79 n=96

0.97

Internet browsing for class information

6.2% n=6

11.3% n=11

23.7% n=23

32.0% n=31

26.8% n=26

3.62 n=97

1.17

Design software (CAD, PDM-PLM)

15.5% n=15

10.3% n=10

14.4% n=14

19.6% n=19

40.2% n=39

3.57 n=97

1.48

Charting and graphing software 10.4% n=10

16.7% n=16

28.1% n=27

30.2% n=29

14.6% n=14

3.22 n=96

1.20

Manufacturing software 22.9% n=22

12.5% n=12

15.6% n=15

24.0% n=23

25.0% n=24

3.14 n=96

1.51

Course specific web sites 17.5% n=17

15.5% n=15

28.9% n=28

17.5% n=17

20.6% n=20

3.11 n=97

1.37

Statistical analysis software 22.9% n=22

18.8% n=18

33.3% n=32

14.6% n=14

10.4% n=10

2.73 n=96

1.26

Grade book and grade management software

37.1% n=36

15.5% n=15

11.3% n=11

17.5% n=17

18.6% n=18

2.69 n=97

1.57

Simulation software 40.6% n=39

21.9% n=21

14.6% n=14

14.6% n=14

8.3% n=8

2.30 n=96

1.35

Engineering analysis software 36.8% n=35

27.4% n=26

16.8% n=16

10.5% n=10

8.4% n=8

2.27 n=95

1.29

Mathematical software 42.7% n=41

19.8% n=19

19.8% n=19

11.5% n=11

6.3% n=6

2.19 n=96

1.28

Operations software (ERP, MRP) 51.6% n=49

22.1% n=21

22.1% n=21

1.1% n=1

3.2% n=3

1.94 n=95

1.02

Electronic “office hours” 61.5% n=59

15.6% n=15

14.6% n=14

3.1% n=3

5.2% n=5

1.77 n=96

1.14

Video conferencing or collaboration systems

61.5% n=59

21.9% n=21

9.4% n=9

6.3% n=6

1.0% n=1

1.69 n=96

0.96

Student polling systems 64.6% n=62

19.8% n=19

7.3% n=7

3.1% n=3

5.2% n=5

1.68 n=96

1.1

Classroom interaction systems 83.2% n=79

7.4% n=7

4.2% n=4

3.2% n=3

2.1% n=2

1.36 n=95

0.87

* Mean score calculated from a 5-point Likert-type scale

only 14% (n=13) of the respondents. The use of educational technology was rated as having high or very high value as an input to promotion and tenure by 16.5% (n=16). The use of educational technology was rated as having high or very high value in merit pay decisions by 10.3% (n=10).

Faculty respondents selected the description of a characteristic of their adoption of educational technology for teaching. The pool of responders for this study provided much different responses than the traditional pattern of adoption documented by Rogers [1]. Rogers’ model places

Session M2G

978-1-4244-4714-5/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE October 18 - 21, 2009, San Antonio, TX 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference M2G-3

less than 3% of the responders in the venturesome risk taker category. More than 19% (n=18) of this faculty group placed themselves in the venturesome category with respect to educational technology.

The manufacturing specific technology with the highest use was computer-aided design (CAD) software (mean = 3.57 on a 5-point scale, with high and very high usage reported by 59.8%, n=58). Cost may be one factor that limits more widespread use of CAD. Software licenses for industrial CAD systems such as CATIA and ProEngineer sell for well over $3000 per seat per year. Colleges and universities depend on license gifts and special pricing allowances to reduce the high license costs. Autodesk Corporation, a leader in CAD and design systems, offers a free license of their design packages to enrolled students making the software more accessible for student use. The Autodesk Student Engineering and Design Community reported over 250,000 members in September 2008 [6] with many students taking advantage of free software downloads.

Use of manufacturing system software was reported by less than 50% of manufacturing educators. This is not a surprise due to the high cost to implement and operate these large operation systems. The use of Material Requirements Planning (MRP), Manufacturing Resource Planning (MRP2) or Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software in manufacturing classes is not a requirement. The concepts of MRP, MRP2 and ERP can be discussed and the logic of the systems studied without hands-on activities using the software. However, teaching with real industrial grade software and hardware systems can bring the discussion of manufacturing systems to life and demonstrate key issues that system users must address in order to achieve the desired return from their substantial investments [7]-[8]. Unfortunately, the setup, operation and maintenance of a formal manufacturing system for ERP education require a significant time and resource commitment from faculty members and information technology personnel.

Course management systems are relative newcomers in manufacturing education. The use of course management systems was reported at high or very high levels by 69.1% of the respondents. Course management software (mean = 3.84 on a 5-point scale) spreadsheet software (3.79), and Internet browsing for class information (3.62) levels fell between the levels for the general tools and computer-aided design. Faculty members reported using course management systems more than spreadsheets for problem solving or design software, both key tools of manufacturing engineering. This is somewhat surprising.

Course management systems can increase the amount of feedback provided to students and improve the timeliness of feedback. CMS systems help faculty supplement lecture materials, increase student contact, provide more interactive materials and address diverse student learning styles [9]. Course management tools may become the next tool to develop high and very high usage of more than 80% of manufacturing educators.

Distance education is another area of reported ongoing innovation that was not considered to be educational technology. Distance education (not in association with a face-to-face delivery) was reported to be a very small part of the manufacturing courses delivered (3.1%, n = 3). Hybrid course designs that use face-to-face delivery plus distance delivery to a remote location had higher usage responses (13.5%, n=13), but were still well below the face-to-face delivery (80.2%, n=77).

High or very high usage of student polling systems was reported by only 8.3% (n=8) of the respondents, electronic “office hours” by only 8.3% (n=8), video conferencing or collaboration systems by 7.3% (n=7), and classroom interaction systems by 5.3% (n=5). Overall the survey responses show use of the emerging educational technologies to be relatively low.

The survey results provide a base-line snapshot of educational technology usage by manufacturing educators in the spring of 2008 that may be used for comparison to future usage studies. The results suggest that this group, while frequent users of general technology tools, is not as innovative as they think. Word processing, electronic mail, presentation software and spreadsheets for grades are established technologies, not on the cutting edge.

Several survey items addressed the factors that manufacturing educators perceived encouraged or inhibited the adoption and implementation of educational technology. Faculty respondents reported as important or very important (67% or greater) each of eight factors that impact the adoption and use of technology (see item 7 summarized in Table 11). The amount of time required for learning about new technologies and implementing them in classes were the major influencing factors reported. The responses show faculty concern and awareness of these resource issues that impact the adoption and implementation of educational technology in manufacturing classes.

Survey responses show that educational technology is important to manufacturing faculty members and adds value to their classes, but its use comes with a price to be paid in time and other resource trade-offs. Incentives were not provided for the majority of the responders in any of the incentive categories studied. In addition, more than 50% of the responders reported that three incentives (faculty release time, grants and sponsored program awards and contributions to promotion and tenure) were of high value or essential, but were not provided.

The majority of respondents have received formal training regarding educational technology in workshops or courses (55.2%, n = 53). However, eighty-two percent (item 9, n = 76) reported that they did not have release time to implement and use educational technology in their classes. Similarly, 78% (n = 71) reported no graduate teaching assistance support, and 76% (n = 68) reported no clerical support. Thirty-five percent (n = 32) did report that grants or sponsored program awards were provided to support educational technology. The survey did not, however, capture information about how respondents implemented the

Session M2G

978-1-4244-4714-5/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE October 18 - 21, 2009, San Antonio, TX 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference M2G-4

new technology in their classes. The survey did not capture information about the levels of technical and pedagogical support that were provided.

The majority of respondents reported that the use of educational technology was not mandated by their administrations. Therefore, the reported lack of incentives and supporting resources that would encourage the use of educational technology is not surprising. The use of educational technology in manufacturing education is most often a personal choice of the faculty member. The picture that emerges from the responses suggests faculty members receive some training but little support for educational technology. Clearly, if progress is to be made, institutions will need to start providing the needed resources and incentives.

Class style (face-to-face, face-to-face plus remote, or distance learning) did produce responses with significant differences in mean total usage scores; however those differences were not a surprise. Classes that are taught at a distance, or that have a distance delivery component plus a face-to-face component, can be expected to involve higher levels of educational technology and generate the higher total mean usage scores. Educational technology is the enabler of computer-based distance education. It is not surprising to see significant differences in the mean total usage score values that indicate more use of educational technology in classes with a distance education component. However, the number of faculty members reporting the use of distance education technologies (3.1%, n = 3) and those who teach a face-to-face class with a remote class section (13.5%, n = 13) was fairly low.

The respondents in this study showed their awareness of educational technology (high stage 0) and concern for the management related issues of time and their ability to do what is required to use the educational technology (second high stage 3). The profile also indicates that the group had ideas about how the innovation (educational technology) could be improved, and that improvement could be a return to old practices (tailing-up of the relative intensity in stage 6) [2]. The respondents in this study seem to be concerned about how the use of educational technology will impact them personally.

This study is consistent with previous studies of faculty members in other disciplines. The study confirms the expected high penetration of word processing, spreadsheets and presentation graphics. The high use of course management systems is evidence that new technologies are being adopted and used by manufacturing educators. The low reported use of electronic tools for collaboration with students and other faculty members, classroom interaction systems and student polling systems was not a surprise based on the experience of the authors.

IMPLICATIONS

The results of this survey should be of interest to the manufacturing faculty members and to the leaders of manufacturing programs. The results provide insight into

the use of educational technology in manufacturing education and the concerns of the manufacturing educators. This research may have implications for the identification of manufacturing educators, creating student interest in manufacturing, tracking changes in educational technology use, and providing incentives for educational technology. The results can help educators and administrators understand current practices and plan for future changes and systems. The competitive challenges facing manufacturing in the United States are real and growing. Teaching manufacturing with technology can help us develop a new competitive advantage that will keep manufacturing a vital part of our economy [10]-[11].

Information about the expanding use of educational technologies among manufacturing educators could help make manufacturing related programs become more interesting to future students. Teaching with computer-based tools may be attractive to students, help them learn and keep them interested in manufacturing. Computer technology is a critical enabler of advanced manufacturing. The use of technology to present material in ways that builds student interaction and interest may help attract and keep students interested in learning about manufacturing. Teaching with technology can build and hold students’ interest and help them develop computer skills that will help them succeed in the workplace, problem-solving, collaborating and continuing to learn.

LOW USE OF EMERGING EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

Classroom management and interaction systems may follow course management systems as another technology that will impact teaching in manufacturing. Engaging students in learning with the Internet and web-based searches and interacting with the instructor and class members to create and present knowledge and information may be other areas of expansion and development of the use of educational technology in manufacturing education.

Continued tracking of the use of emerging technologies can help faculty and administrators understand the process of change and innovation. For example, the usage of course management systems is growing and nearing the usage level of the more general technologies of electronic mail, word processing, spreadsheets and presentation software. The low reported usage of emerging technologies for electronic interaction and collaboration should be a concern for administrators looking for ways to enhance their faculty members and their teaching and collaboration skills. Future tracking of the use of technologies can provide important data for program benchmarking.

LACK OF INCENTIVES AND COMMITMENT TO USING EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

The survey responses showed the adoption of educational technology in manufacturing programs is happening, even if incentives are not present. However, it seems likely that the use of technology is not where it could be if proper

Session M2G

978-1-4244-4714-5/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE October 18 - 21, 2009, San Antonio, TX 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference M2G-5

incentives, including training, access, and support resources were provided to faculty members. Administrators need to understand the benefits of educational technology and the opportunities it can provide to improve the attractiveness of manufacturing programs. They must also understand the concerns of the faculty related to educational technology and provide the needed resources and incentives that encourage the adoption and use of innovative teaching technologies.

Institutions should establish plans that provide resources to develop the emerging technologies such as course management systems to exploit their capabilities and features. Classroom interaction systems in conjunction with other tools and technologies can help faculty members attain new levels of interaction and communication with their students. However, radical changes in class delivery techniques that incorporate more interaction and student participation will require faculty members to receive training to teach in this new manner.

Administrators must look ahead, anticipate changes in technology and enabling systems and provide resources and incentives that will encourage and support faculty members as they prepare.

USING EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TO EXPAND FACULTY REACH AND INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY

The reported delivery of manufacturing classes using distance education was low. Only 13% of respondents used the combination of face-to-face with remote class sites. True distance delivery was only reported by about 3% of the respondents. Manufacturing courses often require hands-on lab experiences with machines and systems that cannot be placed at remote teaching sites or duplicated at a distance. These requirements may have taken many classes out of consideration for distance delivery and remote access. Simulation and modeling technology that may be used to provide alternative learning experiences for students was reported to have high or very high use by only about 24% of the respondents. There may, therefore, be reluctance on the part of the faculty members to the use of educational technology tools and simulation techniques to deliver manufacturing courses at a distance. Overall the respondents' reports show a lack of knowledge/preparation related to the technologies that support distance education and electronic collaboration. Administrators should work with faculty members to address concerns, provide training and resources that will support the adoption and implementation of educational technology.

The business model of education that provides educational services on demand to a broader consumer base to produce a sustained competitive advantage may not be viewed favorably by faculty members. Online delivery offers the opportunity to serve more students without the demand for increased physical space and with the potential for generation of new revenue. There are cases when online delivery is best and others when face-to-face delivery is superior; however there are competitive advantages when

programs offer both. New opportunities are created when computer and Internet-based technologies are combined with traditional classroom education. Student interest and interaction may be increased. Presentations of foundational concepts can be captured and delivered electronically allowing students to replay and repeat difficult or complex topics. Class time can be opened up for more effective teaching and learning activities and discussions that strengthen the classroom experience [12]-[13].

SUMMARY

The results show that the established and some of the emerging educational technologies have found their way into the manufacturing education classroom. The widely used established technologies include word processing, electronic mail, spreadsheets and presentation graphics. The use of emerging technologies for course management and collaboration and the use of the Internet was also reported by more that 60% of the respondents. Emerging technologies such as classroom interaction systems were, however, only reported by about 5% of the respondents. Educational technology is not a barrier to learning or enhanced teaching in manufacturing programs. Educational technology is not a fad; it is the future. The manufacturing educators at the accredited programs are experienced with educational technology and are beginning to adopt and implement several of the emerging technologies. The technical and computer background needed in manufacturing supports faculty in the adoption and use of computers and educational technology systems in their classes and laboratories.

Adopting and implementing educational technology in manufacturing education is a process that follows patterns that have been well documented [1]-[3]. The research models provide a framework for study, analysis and understanding of the innovation and change process. Understanding the concerns of the faculty members about an innovation (educational technology) can improve the process of adoption and implementation. Educational technology may not be a magic bullet that enables education reform, but it is already an important part of manufacturing education. The continued success of the economy of the United States depends on a strong and vital manufacturing sector. Continued development of educational technology that increases student interaction, participation and engages students in the learning process is important to attract and retain students in science, technology and math programs and the related manufacturing education programs at colleges and universities in the United States.

LIST OF REFERENCES

[1] Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). The Free Press. New York, 1995.

[2] Hall, G. E., George, A. A. & Rutherford, W. L. “Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for the use of the SoC questionnaire”. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 147 342), 1977.

Session M2G

978-1-4244-4714-5/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE October 18 - 21, 2009, San Antonio, TX 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference M2G-6

[3] Hall, G. E. & Hord, S. M. “Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes, 2nd Ed”. Pearson Education, New York, 2006.

[4] Hord, S., Rutherford, W., Huling, L. & Hall, G. “Taking charge of change, revised edition”. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, Austin, TX, 2006.

[5] Kraebber, H. W. “Educational technology use in manufacturing education”. Purdue University dissertation. UMI Microform, 2008.

[6] Autodesk Corporation. Student Engineering and Design Community, 2008. Retrieved Tuesday, September 9, 2008 from http://students6.autodesk.com/?nd=newdesign2

[7] Kraebber, H. W. “Teaching hands-on MP&C utilizing a commercial software package”. 1992 Special Academic Program Proceedings, Montreal (p33-37). Falls Church, VA: Education and Research Foundation, American Production and Inventory Control Society, 1992.

[8] Kraebber, H. W. “Teaching MP&C on campus using an “industrial grade” system”. Industrial Engineering, 25(7), 1993, 61-64.

[9] Morgan, G. “Faculty use of course management systems”. ECAR Key Findings. Educause Center for Applied Research May 2003. Retrieved Saturday, June 23, 2007 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ecar_so/ers/ERS0302/ekf0302.pdf

[10] National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and

employing America for a brighter economic future. The National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 2007.

[11] U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations, Washington, D. C., 2005.

[12] Creighton, J. V. & Buchanan, P. “Toward the e-campus: Using the internet to strengthen, rather than replace the campus experience”. Educause Review. 36(2), 2001, 12-13. Retrieved Sunday, September 7, 2008 from EBSCO Host Academic Search Premier.

[13] Jackson, S. A. “Ahead of the curve: Future shifts in higher education”. Educause Review. 39(1), 2004, 10-18. Retrieved Sunday, September 7, 2008 from EBSCO Host Academic Search Premier.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Henry Kraebber Professor, Manufacturing Engineering Technology, Purdue University College of Technology, [email protected] James Lehman, Professor and Head, Curriculum and Instruction, Purdue University College of Education, [email protected]