Download - American Society for Engineering Education New England Section Annual Conference 17 March 2006
Refocusing on the Operational Level of Pedagogy:Refocusing on the Operational Level of Pedagogy:A Military Analogy for Bridging A Military Analogy for Bridging
Educational Strategy and Classroom TacticsEducational Strategy and Classroom Tactics
American Society for Engineering EducationNew England Section Annual Conference
17 March 2006
MAJ Ernest Y. WongDepartment of Systems Engineering
United States Military Academy
Slide 2 of 12
The United States Military Academy
The United States Military AcademyDepartment of Systems Engineering
- Serving the Academy & the Army since 1989 -
Department of Systems Engineering
- Serving the Academy & the Army since 1989 -
Diverse Faculty Academic Programs
State of the Art Facilities
Systems Engineering * Operations Research
Engineering Management * Information Engineering Systems Management
Systems Engineering * Operations Research
Engineering Management * Information Engineering Systems Management
39 Faculty (33 military, 6 civilian)15 Ph.Ds (+ 3 ABD) and 49 M.S.All military career fields represented4 White House Fellows in 11 yearsNationally recognized Academic & Research Programs
39 Faculty (33 military, 6 civilian)15 Ph.Ds (+ 3 ABD) and 49 M.S.All military career fields represented4 White House Fellows in 11 yearsNationally recognized Academic & Research Programs
Integrated laboratories:• Combat Simulation Lab (CSL)• Systems Methodology & Design Lab(SMDL)• Acquisition Management SystemsDesign (AMSD) Lab• Computer Aided Systems Engineering (CASE) Labs• Information Visualization Lab (IVL)
Integrated laboratories:• Combat Simulation Lab (CSL)• Systems Methodology & Design Lab(SMDL)• Acquisition Management SystemsDesign (AMSD) Lab• Computer Aided Systems Engineering (CASE) Labs• Information Visualization Lab (IVL)
Military Experience
Academic Expertise
Unique Capabilities
* ABET Accredited
Slide 3 of 12
Methods CourseMethods Course
SE350SE350
Design Course
SE450
Introductory Course
SE300
Crawl
• Introduces non-Engineering majors to a systematic problem solving framework• Acquaints undergraduate students to engineering concepts and terminology
--Stakeholder Analysis--Problem Definition--Value Hierarchy--Alternative Generation--Cost Benefit Analysis--Pareto Principle--Functional Decomposition--Assessment & Control
Walk Run
• Builds upon the mathematics and basic science concepts learned in the undergraduate core curriculum• Introduces non-Engineering majors to various quantitative
methods• Focuses on the application of economic, deterministic, and stochastic
models
• Develops student teams capable of helping satisfy client needs and proposing solutions to actual problems
--West Point Cemetery --Army/Navy Game Site--Cadet Summer Training--Cadet Ethics Training--Post 9/11 Traffic Flow--Officer Branch Selection--Army UAV Cmd & Cntl--Soldier Pre-Deployment Tng
--Decision Analysis (Risk and Uncertainty)--Engineering Economy (Time Value of Money)--Optimization Techniques--Forecasting--Spreadsheet Modeling--Monte Carlo Simulation
Core Systems Engineering Sequence Model
Slide 4 of 12
Educational Strategy, Operations, and TacticsClassrooms that educate, train, and inspire students
towards higher levels of cognitive functions
StrategyGeneral direction and overall plan
of the educational vision
TacticsEmployed techniques
and procedures for classroom interaction
& communications
OperationsContent and processes that bridge theoretical
concepts with practical knowledge
WHY?WHY?WHAT?WHAT?
HOW?HOW?
“Tactics is the art of using troops in battle; strategy is the art of using battles to win the war.”--Carl von Clausewitz
Slide 5 of 12
Military Strategy, Operations, and Tactics
All Three Help Commanders:• Visualize a logical flow of
operations• Allocate resources• Assign tasks
The U.S. Army’s Field Manual Number FM 3-0, Operations
FM 3-0, Operations, states:• The levels have “no finite limits
or boundaries between them” • The “interdependent
relationship of all three” helps achieve military victory
Slide 6 of 12
Operational Initiatives to Help BridgePedagogical Strategy & Classroom Tactics in SE350
Distribution for Return on $1000 in All 24
Assets/J33
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
Mean=0.1753421
-0.3 -0.05 0.2 0.45 0.7
@RISK Student VersionFor Academic Use Only
0000
-0.3 -0.05 0.2 0.45 0.7
7.29% 87.71% 5% 0 .3751
Mean=0.1753421 Mean=0.1753421
3. Monte Carlo Simulation—Actual Investment Ideas• Make course material relevant• Excite students into doing “what-if” analyses• Illustrate math concepts
- Understanding histograms & risk- Central Limit Theorem & diversification
2. Engineering Economy—Personal Finance Project• Stimulate interest • Provide post-graduation financial awareness• Leverage spreadsheet modeling for real-world problems
- Model loan payments- Understand credit cards and credit card debt- Examine future income streams- Examine anticipated living expenses- Analyze inflation
Total Expenses
-500.00
0.00
500.00
1000.00
1500.00
2000.00
2500.00
3000.00
3500.00
4000.00
4500.00
5000.00
5500.00
6000.00
6500.00
Aug-94Mar-95Oct-95May-96Dec-
Jul-97Feb-98Sep-
Apr-99Nov-99Jun-00Jan-01Aug-01Mar-02Oct-02May-03Dec-
Jul-04Feb-05Sep-
Apr-06Nov-06
1. Spreadsheet Modeling—Federal Income Taxes• Introduce tax filing requirements• Show practical purpose for spreadsheets• Demonstrate spreadsheet as a management tool
Slide 7 of 12
Course - SE350 (Spring 2005) Answers: [5] S trongly Agree [4] Agree [3] Neutra l [2] Disagree [1] S trongly Disagree
Answer [5]
Answer [4]
Answer [3]
Answer [2]
Answer [1] (no rsp)
A1. This instructor encouraged students to be responsible for the ir own lea rning. 42 (42%)
48 (48%)
9 (9%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
A2. This instructor used effective techniques for lea rning, both in class and for out -of -class assignments.
37 (37%)
48 (48%)
12 (12%)
2 (2%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
A3. My instructor ca red about my learning in this course. 43 (43%)
49 (49%)
6 (6%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
A4. My instructor demonstrated respect for cadets as individua ls. 56 (57%)
37 (37%)
5 (5%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
A5. My fe llow students cont ributed to my lea rning in this course. 36 (36%)
42 (42%)
14 (14%)
5 (5%)
2 (2%)
0 (0%)
A6. My motivation to lea rn and to continue lea rning has increased because of this course. 29 (29%)
41 (41%)
17 (17%)
9 (9%)
3 (3%)
0 (0%)
B1. This instructor stimulate d my thinking. 35 (35%)
49 (49%)
12 (12%)
3 (3%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
B2. In this course, my critical thinking ability increased. 33 (33%)
44 (44%)
16 (16%)
5 (5%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
B3. The homework assignments, papers, and projects in this course could be complete d within the USMA time guide line of two hours prepara tion for each class a ttendance .
32 (32%)
54 (55%)
10 (10%)
3 (3%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
C1. This course helped me lea rn to use the engineering design process to design, manage or reengineer systems or processes .
32 (32%)
45 (45%)
16 (16%)
4 (4%)
2 (2%)
0 (0%)
C2. This course taught me to communica te effective ly both orally and in writing. 32 (32%)
29 (29%)
30 (30%)
8 (8%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
C3. This course improved my ability to solve rea l -world problems through qu antitative techniques.
28 (28%)
53 (54%)
13 (13%)
4 (4%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
C4. This course provided me with practica l, problem -solving experiences applicable to my future as an Army office r.
34 (34%)
44 (44%)
14 (14%)
5 (5%)
2 (2%)
0 (0%)
C5. Course exercise s and designs improved my ability to model, ana lyze , or prototype rea l-world problems or systems.
30 (30%)
54 (55%)
11 (11%)
3 (3%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
Summative Student Feedback in SE350
Slide 8 of 12
• “I see a lot of potential for Excel.”• “I thought the projects were very applicable.”• “I liked learning how to use the simulation models.”• “I really liked the systems modeling and design
portion of the course—it was straight-forward and
applicable.”• “I liked the projects; they gave me a chance to actually
figure out which course of action to take instead of me
knowing exactly which decision making process to
use.”• “I wish I had more of these projects.”• “I wish I had majored in Systems Engineering instead
of xxxxxxxx.”
Formative Student Feedback in SE350
Slide 9 of 12
Goal of Systems Engineering at USMA
“We are preparing graduates who are scientifically literate and capable of applying mathematical, engineering, and computational modes of thought to the solution of complex problems.”
--Dean, USMA
Slide 10 of 12
Pros and Cons of the Military Setting for Class
Pros• Standardized Curriculum
--Core courses
--Technology baseline• Common graduation prospects
--Duties and responsibilities
--Military environment
--Role as Second Lieutenant
Cons• Standardized Curriculum
--Core courses
--Technology baseline• Common graduation prospects
--Duties and responsibilities
--Military environment
--Role as Second Lieutenant
An inscription dedicated to Dennis Hart Mahan, An inscription dedicated to Dennis Hart Mahan, Professor of Engineering at the United States Military Professor of Engineering at the United States Military Academy from 1832 to 1871, describes him as “a man Academy from 1832 to 1871, describes him as “a man who emphasized that who emphasized that theoretical knowledgetheoretical knowledge should be should be applied with applied with common sensecommon sense.”.”
Slide 11 of 12
Operational Context—The Bridge Between Strategy and Tactics