Capstone Planning Meeting: Aug. 1, 2006

Attending: Steve Beyerlein, Don Elger, Tom Hess, Brian Johnson

Recorder: Brian

Suggestion at the start of the meeting to target post meeting assessment on mindset for assessment and development of shared understanding.

  • Don provided an overview helping define terms, especailly development of shared understanding (criteria—understanding other people’s point of view, speaking clearly).
  1. Capstone deliverables handout. Similar to previous version. Dates changed slightly. Added team meeting review just after team formation.
  • Question: when will logbooks be collected: project learning review and after design review (maybe). Steve mentioned that logbooks part of regular meeting practice. Need a collection before midterms—perhaps add a time of website review.

As part of team meeting review add something about “discoveries from logbooks” to regular team meeting. Some discussion about logbook practices to bring everyone to same point. Getting students to use logbooks: put onus on the students. Have more frequent dates where they demonstrate. Perhaps have intructors meet together for grading an early collection to get to be more consistent among students.

Add more dialog in regular meetings to get them to share what they are doing with info from their logbooks. Instructors need to use own logbooks. Push students right amount.

  • Question about course assessment—Steve mentioned doing it in first session of screen.
  • Steve will work on an outline for 2nd semester.
  • Note for Joe Law: Steve will try to attend second semester ECE class periodically.
  • Question: Is web site review during a team meeting? Steve—do it during class as a peer review. Organized by instructors on a specific date. For each deliverable add how it is done (similar as for things during instructor/team meetings).

Put this on web site under a link for deliverables (instead of schedule). Link to detailed documents beyond the bullets here.

  • Should we have a form students fill out when turn in logbooks—maybe have them tab things to show the organization. It needs to add value for the students, not just for instructors. Maybe an assessment section based on criteria for a logbook (identify their 2 best strengths, 2 best improvements, and goals for the next phase.). Gives them more ownership. Don will take the lead on forms to go with this.
  • Good discussion-15-20 minutes works better than 10 for future meeting planning.
  1. Performance criteria/roles for instructors/Performance criteria/roles for mentor
  • Who is in charge of mentors and grades them. TA’s report to Steve or instructors they are working with. Need shared understanding of responsibilities. Each one is paid 10 hrs/week, about $6k for whole year, 2 teams (for view, 1 team = $1500/semester for mentor). Most on research other half time.
  • Can instructor work with a team assign responsibilities to mentors. Last year more projects than mentors, so there was some rotation with mentors.
  • Some that mentors need to do that not specific to teams (safety, equipment). The mentors do more of their training up to date of website review and get more involved. Student teams need to consider mentor schedules. Expect mentor to attend meetings and be available to schedule shop work (they typically have 2 teams, 5 hrs/week per team).
  • Try to have a scheme where teams are aware of their mentors and their mentor’s schedule. Maybe mentor meet with instructor for a few minutes each week for a status review.
  • Also need time to prepare and teach the workshops they present during the semester.
  • Maximum load for a TA is 3 projects (if have more than 10 hrs/week).
  • Action: Brian follow up with Brice Quirl.
  • Action: Brian ask Richard if he have a graduate student as mentor for his project.
  • Question: Will Brice do a second team? How does his second team ending in fall work?
  • Other models: students who are available as a resource.
  • What students need to know about mentors?  need to know how many hours a week they are available.
  • What do (instructors) we need to know about mentors?
  • What do students expect from faculty?  performance criteria approach.
  • Do we decide to do same number of projects we have mentors for? Mentors paid in combination with department funds and industry projects.
  • Should mentors listen in on early meetings. At least meet the team. Meetings 1 hour or do the best we can in a half hour? Graduate students attending meetings from start? Better connection with team. Could they help develop project management framework from a team (if they are able to)? We may not be paying them enough for that.
  • Not one size fits all. Help set culture perhaps help answer questions.
  • Clear discussion with mentors before meet with team. Ave 5 hours/week. Listen in on regular team meeting. Roles negotiated between team instructor and mentor based on the needs of the project.
  • Action: Steve: Add BAE more specifically in Roles and Responsibilities page (entire syllabus)
  • The course learning contract gives expectations for instructor/mentor. If work into the course assessment to help refine these.
  • Don—we need to some peer coaching of each other. Work on our own project management.
  • Open loop: Wordsmithing on Course learning contract. Perhaps get Bob Carson involved observing meeting. Start using these ourselves and refine based on these.
  • Should label on Course Learning Contract change? Maybe “Course Expectations”  in the syllabus.
  • Roles and responsibilities sheet: add the 5hrs/week per projects for mentors including meetings and training?
  • Quick discussion about updating syllabus to include BAE on first couple pages.
  • Mentors in capstone design sheet under resources on web page.
  1. Midterm assessment questions
  • At end of summer or beginning spring semester course assessment workshop.
  • Snapshot on Thursday 11:00-12:15 Thursday, then 40-45 for assessment workshop.
  • Crossing the teams for this assessment—different mix of experiences

Future meeting topic: How can instructor know enough of what is going on with a team without taking too much of their time or slow them down

  1. Assessment

(S) Don’s overview of shared understanding

(S) Guided discussion when covering lists of topics so everyone doesn’t say “looks good”. Feedback takes time to process—make sure discussion of item allows incubation time.

(Improvement) If there are particular things we want feedback on, they should be highlighted. With any document for review have prompts in some way.

(S) Shared understanding built up by working together over team

Insight: shared understanding leads to enjoyable meetings. Allowing enough time for discussion to allow shared understanding.

(S) We’re getting an assessment mindset—improve it a little bit and go on—don’t over analyze

(S) Modeling and living assessment mindset. Being consistent.

(S) A couple meetings to get back into mindset after a longer break (e.g. early in the summer). Build more from week to week. Action items clearer and fresher

(Insight) When you live the mindset you expect from the students pushback is less of a problem. Same with assessment learned by doing for new members of group.

Next meeting: August 17, follow up on activities development for early Fall semester.

Suggestion for future meeting: invite Don Blakketter and Jon Van Gerpen to one of our meetings.