Back to Table of
Contents
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION CENTER FOR ADVANCED
CEMENT-BASED MATERIALS
In 1987, the National Science Foundation created the Science and Technology Centers Program. Since then 25 such centers have been awarded, covering a broad range of disciplines. The Centers Program was established to provide long-term funding for research in areas which require interdisciplinary and interinstitutional collaboration. In addition to this long-term strategic approach to research, the Centers are chartered to engage in educational activities and technology transfer with industry. The educational components of the Centers are as broad in scope and focus as are the areas of research. The Center for Advanced Cement-Based Materials' (ACBM) model for promotion of education spans pre-college through graduate studies, although, integration of research and interdisciplinary studies into the undergraduate curricula has been a focus of the program. Moving research-based advances from graduate laboratories into undergraduate coursework and promoting undergraduate research activities provide examples. Collaborative efforts and coalitions between ACBM, faculty members from around the country and industry partners provide the vehicles for dissemination and continuation of critical activities necessary to make systemic changes in undergraduate education.
In 1987 the National Science Foundation (NSF) Science and Technology Centers (STC) program was created. Since then 25 STCs have been established. The range of disciplines cut across the sciences and engineering fields and are represented by topics as diverse as superconductivity, weather research, computational mathematics, astrophysics and cement-based materials. The overarching objectives of these centers is three-fold1:
The 25 Centers also represent a diverse group with respect to the approaches which have been taken to meet these objectives. While all focus on basic research, the degree of interdisciplinary interaction, industrial collaboration and types of educational activities vary considerably. This report focuses on the Center for Science and Technology of Advanced Cement-Based Materials (ACBM) and the approach taken at ACBM to integrate research and education to promote curricular change in the undergraduate Civil Engineering course of study.
INTEGRATING RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
Integration of research and education can take many forms. In a recent NSF competition for Recognition Awards for the Integration of Research and Education the NSF has challenged the major research institutions in this country to help define integration of research and education through examples of exemplary achievement in those endeavors 2. While the program solicitation does not directly define integration of research and education it does point to one significant and critical characteristic:
the importance in educating today's students in a discovery-rich environment, i.e. emphasizing the use of inquiry in learning.
In addition to this characteristic the following may also be considered as general guidelines:
These characteristics can manifest through many activities. For example, an individual faculty may incorporate aspects of his/her own research into lectures or laboratories for undergraduate or graduate students. This simple form of integration moves research knowledge into the hands of the student. Creating research experiences for undergraduate students is also a form of integration of research and education. Such experiences provide opportunities for undergraduates to engage in knowledge creation and promotes independence as well as scientific growth.
By-and-large the undergraduate course of study neither reflects recent research-based advances nor opportunities to engage in the process of new knowledge creation. For the most part, the undergraduate course of study in engineering involves learning the basic science, mathematics and practices necessary to convert such into applications. This is typically achieved through lectures and a minimal number of laboratories. While this picture is changing, the mode of delivery for this course of study remains mostly passive.
A 1995 study jointly conducted by the Portland Cement Association and ACBM suggests that Civil Engineering Students receive minimal training in the materials science aspects of concrete materials 3, 4. Altering the perception of teaching on materials science aspects of concrete has been a major emphasis of ACBM since 1993. While there are many barriers to making changes, there are also vehicles for overcoming such obstacles. Among the most frequently cited obstacle is time in the already overloaded curriculum. In addition, the availability of good ready-made resources for teaching also presents barriers to introducing new course content. In fact, lack of resources is reported as being the most frequently cited obstacle to improving upon or chan~in~ the status quo in undergraduate education 5.
At this time ACBM has several objectives related to integration of research and education including providing interdisciplinary studies for undergraduates, influencing course content on a National scale and promoting inquiry in undergraduate laboratory activities.
DISSEMINATING INFORMATION AND FORMING COALITIONS
Creating resources, training faculty and disseminating information is the focus of considerable activity at ACBM. Identification of-and-with the needs of faculty is critical to successfully influencing course content. Technology is ever evolving. For engineering faculty this demands that course curricula evolve also. Demands on faculty time, however, can contribute to stagnation in course content. By providing resources which are readily available, inexpensive, and training programs on the use of such resources, it is possible to provide a form of continuing education and a vehicle for creating excitement about new course content.
Since 1993 ACBM has co-sponsored, along with the National Science Foundation and industry supporters, a faculty enhancement program called Teaching the Materials Science, Engineering and Field Aspects of Concrete 6. This project, originally funded by the NSF for three years, has grown in industrial support and now in its fifth year is cosponsored by ACBM and industrial partners. Key elements of the program include:
While directly influencing curricular content may be difficult, indirectly influencing it is not. The objective of this program has been to address the most common obstacle to curricular change, that of the lack of readily available resources. By placing good resources in the hands of faculty around the country, we hope to indirectly improve the quality and possibly even the quantity of time spent on topics important to the success of students in practice and of the industry as a whole.
INTERDISCIPLINARY TRAINING FOR UNDERGRADUATES
It is no secret that the work force is an interdisciplinary (involves interaction between the engineering disciplines, sciences and mathematics) and cross-disciplinary (involves interaction between technical and non-technical disciplines, i.e. engineering, economics and marketing) environment. In fact, the face of academia is rapidly changing as well with more-and-more emphasis being placed on interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research 7. Training for undergraduates as well as graduates must follow suit. The STC is an ideal environment to foster this cultural change in education since most STCs have interdisciplinary structures.
In an effort to take advantage of the interdisciplinary network existing at ACBM, to promote undergraduate education, we established along with the Civil Engineering Department at Northwestern University an interdisciplinary research experience program for undergraduates. The program is funded through the NSF Division of Undergraduate Education Research Experience for Undergraduate (REU) program. Funded since 1996 the new site, called Interdisciplinary Team Research in Civil Engineering Materials, is an experiment in education as well as a site for offering students research experience. Details of the first year of activities have been reported by Biernacki and Dowding 8. In summary, the objectives are to offer students a research experience which integrates disciplines from within engineering, the sciences and mathematics and to promote team interaction between students. Student teams are formed which focus on a thematic topic. Past topics include Processing Concrete, Microbial Attack on Concrete and Transport Properties of Concrete. While traditional REU programs typically involve students in ongoing research, they also have a tendency to focus on the individual contribution.
Although students may be integrated into an existing team activity, that activity is usually driven by graduate research and so the undergraduate is thrust into the graduate research environment. In the present team-oriented program, students are able to develop a peer relationship with other undergraduate students of different disciplines and work toward a common goal.
Several team structures were used during the first year with varying degrees of team interaction and levels of project integration. In the first year of activities, students were motivated by team interaction when individual projects were well coordinated and had a central objective. Team interaction appeared to be diffuse and poorly organized when projects were more remotely related and students found little advantage of meeting as a peer group when projects were not related. Research scientists and engineers work in many types of teams, some having more and some having less structure. While students seem to feel comfortable in well structured teams they are less comfortable when individual objectives cannot be linked to a team objective. Much more research on undergraduate team interactions needs to be done. This small pilot study offers a mere glimpse into structuring undergraduate interdisciplinary teams.
INQUIRY IN UNDERGRADUATE EDUCAITON
The recent report by the Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and Human Resources called Shaping the Future - New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology states that the goal [the "imperative"] for undergraduate science education is,
"All students have access to supportive, excellent undergraduate education in science... and all students learn these subjects by direct experience with the methods and processes of inquiry" 4
So what is this inquiry? We all know the answer even if we do not realize it. Inquiry is the process by which scientists (engineers being included as scientists) acquire new knowledge. Inquiry involves making observations, posing questions, reviewing what is already known about something, planning and designing experiments and investigations, conducting experiments, using tools and gathering information, analyzing and interpreting the information, proposing answers and explanations for observations, making predictions and communicating the results of the work 9.
Our challenge is to promote students' learning through the "process of inquiry". While inquiry is the approach which all scientists use to reveal the nature of our world, it is strange that frequently it is not the process we have preferred to use (come to use) to instruct students in learning science.
We must be careful not to confuse inquiry with activities which on the surface may appear to be inquiry-based. It is easy and tempting to include all forms of hands-on activities as being inquiry-based. This, however, is not true. Following instructions and step-by-step laboratory cook books are not inquiry while they are hands-on The design of good inquiry-based activities requires considerable forethought about how questions are asked and how the problem is stated. Take for example the following two alternative ways of asking a similar question concerning the addition of discontinuous reinforcing materials (fibers) to a concrete mix:
A: Would you place the fibers in concrete before adding water or after?
B: What is the best way to uniformly disperse fibers in concrete?
Version (A) is somewhat leading and restrictive and suggests an answer indicating that the answer is somehow binary, i.e. the reinforcement should be added before mixing along with the other ingredients or after the other ingredients have been mixed. Version (B) on the other-hand is more opened and offers the student opportunity to consider many more alternatives and to think for themselves. In essence, question (B) offers a better inquiry-based framework. While this is a simple example, it illustrates that as instructors we need to give due consideration to how we are asking questions, how we structure activities and what outcomes we desire.
In the lecture oriented course of study the instructor is a source of factual knowledge and the student is a sink 10. Through this form of instruction the student is expected to learn through passive participation. The locus of control is with the teacher. Through active learning methodologies, such as inquiry, the locus of control shifts from the teacher to the student 11. This shift requires not only faculty dedicated to the effort but also willing students and support from the institution. Modell reports that "to create a successful active learning environment, both faculty and student must make adjustments to what has been their respective traditional roles..." 12. Many students expect to go to class and have a lecture delivered to them or to laboratory where they will follow a set of instructions which lead to some expected prescribed result. When faced with the open-ended and less structured nature of inquiry-based activities they may at first be apprehensive. Research, however, on active learning methodologies indicates that the benefits to students outweigh the shot-lived start-up expenses l3.
AN EXPERIMENT IN THE USE OF INQUIRY IN AN UNDERGRADUATE LABORATORY
In a recent experiment conducted by the authors in a course titled Properties of Concrete, the laboratory was completely revised to incorporate elements of inquiry and active learning as described above. Historically, this course has been a lecture with a traditional laboratory activity and a traditional term paper project. The lecture covered a comprehensive cross-section of topics ranging from cement chemistry to fracture mechanics of concrete. The traditional laboratory involved concrete mix design wherein students designed a concrete mix using a given set of ingredients and admixtures. Each student specified their own formulation which after curing were tested by a prescribed method The results were compared and students submitted a brief laboratory report which included answering a predetermined set of questions and completing a mix formulation sheet.
In the present course structure the lecture content has not been altered. The laboratory, however, has been changed so that the student assumes responsibility for their learning and the faculty becomes a facilitator of learning. First and foremost, students work in teams. Furthermore, teams have a focus topic to work on and no two teams do the same experiment. Students are given a choice of which team they wanted to work in based on their interest in the topic. Several topics are suggested with broad reaching experimental objectives which are simply stated and deliberately open-ended. This term experimental topics and objectives included:
No further formal instructions were given. Students were simply instructed to use resources from the course lecture or independent research to define a focused scope for laboratory study, design an experiment to test a hypothesis, implement in the laboratory, analyze and report the data in the form of both a written and oral laboratory report. All of which was to be done as a team effort. Reports were team written and oral presentations were team projects.
With the open-ended laboratory objectives as stated, students were in no way directed on how to approach the problem. The lecture provided basic information and theory, yet it was left to the initiative of the students to discover through inquiry how to piece together information based on classroom notes, published literature and the experience of others in their team including their faculty or graduate team advisor. No specific materials or material proportions were suggested. No specific test methods were recommended. Student choices were limited only by the availability of materials and test methods and practicality of conducting experiments in the brief time frame of a ten-week academic quarter.
With this approach came many challenges including coordination of laboratory resources and added responsibility for students to independently schedule and direct their own work. It was clear that students viewed this as a somewhat different sort of experience than they were accustom to. Students who ordinarily expect a laboratory manual to step-them through the experiment were faced with defining their own experiments. This transition, however, was short-lived with students quickly gathering their own focus and within the course of several team meetings, the teams were well on their way to conduct meaningful laboratory activities.
In the end each team presented an oral laboratory report. The results were beyond our expectations for a first time effort. Their reports indicated that teams were well integrated with all students contributing (teams consisted of four students each). The depth of inquiry was exemplified by the review of existing literature. Hypothesis were well defined and focused in view of given time constraints and results were well analyzed and articulated. Student comments were very positive although the amount of work was felt to be greater than typical and expected.
SUMMARY
Integrating research and education takes many forms. The Science and Technology Center mode is an ideal environment for promoting activities which create linkages between learning and research, foster interdisciplinary activities for undergraduates, cultivate inquiry in the curriculum and offer resources and training for faculty to make an impact on a national scale. Identifying the obstacles which inhibit curricular change and understanding the needs of faculty are critical to making an impact. The change in the curriculum must be accompanied not only by content but also evolution in teaching practice. As we, the community of educators, begin to retrain ourselves to pose questions and create activities which enable students to learn by using the process of inquiry we must challenge ourselves and our students to conduct experiments in education. These experiments will lead us to a new pedagogy which will become the expected mode rather than the exception.
1 National Science Foundation, NSF Science and Technology research Centers: Program Solicitation, Washington, DC (1989).
2 Recognition Awards for the Integration of Research and Education, National Science Foundation Proposal Solicitation (1996).
3 Survey of Civil Engineering Colleges and Universities - An Evaluation of the Current State of Teaching Concrete in Civil Engineering Departments, Portland Cement Association, June 1995. For a complete copy write to PCA, Market Research Department, 5420 Old Orchard Rd., Skokie, IL 60077-1083, A brief summary is also available at http://www.civil.nwu.edu/ACBM.
4 J. J.Biernacki, D. A. Lange, Educational Program Highlights the Materials Science Aspects of Concrete, Concrete International, 71-74, vol. 18 no. 12 (December 1996).
5 Shaping the Future - New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology, Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and Human Resources, NSF Document No. 96- 139 (1996).
6 M. Cohen, S. P. Shah, J. F. Young, Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement Workshop: Teaching the Materials Science, Engineering and Field Aspects of Concrete, Final Report of NSF Grant Award No. DUE-9255467 (1996).
7 D. M. Hicks, J. S. Katz, Where is science going?, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Autumn 1996 v21 n4 p379(28) .
8 J J. Biernacki, C. H. Dowding, Interdisciplinary Team research with Undergraduates, Proceedings of the ASEE 1997 Annual Conference (June 15-17, 1997).
9 National Science Education Standards, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington DC, fourth printing (October 1996).
10 Active Learning in Large Class Settings, Conference Report, American Journal of Physiology, vol. 269, no. 6, no. 3, pp. S73 (December 1995).
11 P. K. Rangachari, Active Learning: In Context, American Journal of Physiology, vol. 268, no. 6, no., pp. S75 (June 1995).
12 H. I. Modell, Preparing Students to Participate in an Active Learning Environment, Advances in Physiology Education, vol. 15, no. 1 (June 1996).
13 D. W. Johnson, R. T. Johnson, Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research, Interaction Book Company, Edina, MN (1989).