Advertisement

Improving and Expanding Engineering Education in the Middle East and Africa Using Mobile Learning Technology and Innovative Pedagogy

  • Yacob AstatkeEmail author
  • Jumoke O. Ladeji-Osias
  • Petronella James
  • Farzad Moazzami
  • Craig Scott
  • Kenneth Connor
  • Abdurrahim Saka
Chapter

Abstract

Recent innovations in inexpensive and portable laboratory instruments have enabled new pedagogical approaches in the teaching of theoretical concepts and design practices in electrical engineering (EE). Faculty members at six universities in the USA have pioneered the use of these new tools to incorporate hands-on experimental activities into existing lecture courses. This has led to restructured EE courses with a focus on student-centered learning and not instructor-centered lectures. The goal of this effort has been to evaluate whether a more student-centered learning environment can stimulate a deeper understanding of EE principles and increase student engagement. The use of hands-on experiments started with an introductory electric circuits course and has expanded into physics, biology, and higher level EE courses. Several modes of instruction using this technology and pedagogy have been implemented at different institutions. In the blended approach, the classroom experience is a combination of lectures and hands-on activities using the mobile laboratory instruments to reinforce theoretical concepts. For the second instructional model, the inverted or flipped classroom, students are expected to read material at home, prior to their investigation of the concepts via hands-on activities in the classroom. A third model uses the portable laboratory instruments to complete hands-on activities outside of the classroom as homework problems, design projects, and/or a nontraditional laboratory component.

This chapter presents our experiences and results with developing and delivering the first completely online electrical and computer engineering curriculum in the State of Maryland using portable laboratory instruments. The use of these state-of-the-art technologies and collaborations between higher education institutions in the Middle East and North Africa can provide cost-effective and targeted training to college and university teachers while they remain in their native countries. They will, in turn, be in a position to educate and produce graduates that can best meet the need for trained engineers to address national challenges. Preliminary results from our current collaboration with five universities in Ethiopia will illustrate how cooperation and collaboration can be very beneficial to higher education institutions in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.

Keywords

MENA Online learning Online course delivery Mobile studio board Electrical and computer engineering laboratories Synchronous online delivery Asynchronous online delivery Assessment framework 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC), the Department of Education, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Smart Lighting Engineering Research Center (ERC) at RPI for their financial support.

References

  1. ABET Website. (2014). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs, 2013–2014. http://www.abet.org/DisplayTemplates/DocsHandbook.aspx?id=3149. Accessed 23 May 2014.
  2. Academic Partnerships. (2014). Kure collaboration model. http://www.academicpartnerships.com. Accessed 28 May 2014.
  3. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). (2005). http://main.abet.org/aps/Accreditedprogramsearch.aspx.
  4. Al-Harthi, A. S. (2010). Cultural differences in transactional distance preference by Arab and American distance learner. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Journal, 11, 257–267.Google Scholar
  5. Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. The Sloan Consortium.Google Scholar
  6. Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States, 2011, The Sloan Consortium, 23 May 2014.Google Scholar
  7. Almarshoud, A. F. (2011). The advancement in using remote laboratories in electrical engineering education: A review. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(5), 425–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Altarawneh, H. (2011). A survey of e-learning implementation best practices in Jordanian government universities. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 4(2), 9–17.Google Scholar
  9. Astatke, Y., & Mack, P. L. (1998a). Creating a distributed learning environment using WebCT. ASEE 1998 Annual Conference, Seattle, WA, June 28–July 1.Google Scholar
  10. Astatke, Y., & Mack, P. L. (1998b). Are our students ready for asynchronous learning networks (ALN). ASEE middle Atlantic section regional conference, Howard University, Washington, D.C., November 6–7.Google Scholar
  11. Astatke, Y., Scott, C., & Ladeji-Osias, J. (2011a). Electric circuits online—towards a completely online electrical engineering curriculum. 2011 American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
  12. Astatke, Y., Ladeji-Osias, J., Scott, C. J., Abimbola, K., & Conner, K. (2011b). Developing and teaching sophomore level electrical engineering courses completely online. Journal of Online Engineering Education, 2(2), Article 4.Google Scholar
  13. Astatke, Y., Moazzami, F., Scott, C., & Ladeji-Osias, J. (2013a). Using online video lectures to enhance ECE courses. Brooklyn: New York City College of Technology.Google Scholar
  14. Astatke, Y., Scott, C., & Ladeji-Osias, J. (2013b). Improving ECE education in Sub-Saharan African countries using the mobile studio technology and pedagogy. Proceedings of the 2013 American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  15. Bach, S., Haynes, P., & Smith, J. L. (2007). Online learning and teaching in higher education. Social Science Computer Review, 19(4), 221.Google Scholar
  16. Baepler, P., & Murdoch, C. J. (2010). Academic analytics and data mining in higher education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(2), Article 17.Google Scholar
  17. Benchicou, S., Aichouni, M., & Neharic, D. (2010). E-learning in engineering education: A theoretical and empirical study of the Algerian higher education institution. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(3), 325–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bonk, C. J. (2004). The perfect E-storm: Emerging technologies, enhanced pedagogy, enormous learner demand, and erased budgets. London: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.Google Scholar
  19. Chapman, D. W., & Miric, S. L. (2009). International review of education. Education Quality in the Middle East, 23, 311–344.Google Scholar
  20. Conner, K. et al. (2011). Multi-institutional development of mobile studio based education and outreach. 2011 American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
  21. Coursera. (2014). Take the world2019’s best courses, online, for free. https://www.coursera.org/. Accessed 23 May 2014.
  22. Dale, C. (2007). Strategies for using podcasting to support student learning. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 6, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Digilent Analog DiscoveryTM. (2013). USB Oscilloscopes, Function Generators, & Instruments. http://www.digilentinc.com/Products/Catalog.cfm?NavPath=2,842&Cat=17. Accessed 23 May 2014.
  24. Educause Learning Initiative. (2014). Things you should know about lecture capture. http://www.educause.edu/ELI/7ThingsYouShouldKnowAboutLectu/163555. Accessed 23 May 2014.
  25. EdX. (2014). Take great online courses from the world’s best universities. https://www.edx.org/. Accessed 23 May 2014.
  26. Endean, M., Bai, B., & Du, R. (2010). Quality standards in online distance education. International Journal of Continuing Education Lifelong Learning, 3(1), 53–71.Google Scholar
  27. Harley, D., Henke, J., Lawrence, S., & McMartin, F. (2003). Costs, culture, and complexity: An analysis of technology enhancements in a large lecture course at UC Berkeley. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  28. Hendricks, R. W., Lai, K. M., & Webb, J. B. (2005). Lab in a box: Experiments in electronic circuits that support introductory courses for electrical and computer engineers. ASEE Annual Conference. http://www.asee.org. Accesses 23 May 2014.
  29. International MOOC providers. (2014). The Chronicle of higher education. http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/american-mooc-providers-face-internationalcompetition/44637?cid=gn&utm_source=gn&utm_medium=en. Accessed 23 May 2014.
  30. James, P., Nyarko, K. P., Scott, C., Astatke, Y., & Ladeji-Osias. J. (2012). Maryland Association for Institutional Research (MdAIR). Assessment techniques and assessment of student learning outcomes. Baltimore.Google Scholar
  31. James, P. A., Craig, J. S., Astatke, Y., Ladeji-Osias, J. O., Partlow, L. E., Moazzami, F., & Nyarko, K. (2013). Performance assessment framework for measuring online student learning outcome. Proceedings of the 120th Annual Conference, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
  32. Joerns, J. L., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Review of educational research. Going the Distance with Online Education, 76(4), 567–605.Google Scholar
  33. Learning Management Systems. (2014). www.vedubox.com. Accessed 23 May 2014.
  34. Maiti, A., & Tripathy, B. B. (2013). Remote laboratories: Design of experiments and their web implementation. Educational Technology & Society, 16(3), 220–233.Google Scholar
  35. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & McTighe, J. (1993). Assessing student outcomes: Performance assessment using the dimensions of learning model. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria.Google Scholar
  36. Millard, D., Chouikha, M., & Berry, F. (2007). Improving student intuition via Rensselaer’s new mobile studio pedagogy. ASEE 2007 Annual Conference, Honolulu, HW.Google Scholar
  37. Monaco, M., & Martin, M. (2007). The millennial student: A new generation of learners. Athletic Training Education Journal, 2, 42–46.Google Scholar
  38. MOOCs Won’t Replace Business Schools. (2014). Harvard business review. http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/06/moocs-wont-replace-business-schools-theyll-diversify-them/. Accesses 23 May 2014.
  39. National Instruments. (2014). myDAQTM. http://www.ni.com/mydaq/. Accessed 23 May 2014.
  40. Oliver, R. (2003). Proceedings of the 16th open distance learning association of Australia Biennial Forum, Canberra. Exploring benchmarks and standards for assuring quality online teaching and learning in higher education, 1–13.Google Scholar
  41. Quality Matters. (2014). Quality matters program a national benchmark for online course design. http://www.qualitymatters.org. Accesses 23 May 2014.
  42. Ragan, L., & Sax, C. (2005). Defining and implementing quality assurance standards in online courses. Orlando: EDUCAUSE.Google Scholar
  43. Saba, F. (2005). Critical issues in distance education: A report from the United States. Distance Education Journal, 26(2), 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Salah, R. M., Alves, G. R., & Guerreiro, P. (2014). Porto: Reshaping higher education systems in the MENA region: The contribution of remote and virtual labs. 2014 11th international conference on remote engineering and virtual instrumentation (REV). doi:10.1109/REV.2014.6784265.Google Scholar
  45. Searchlight Performance Assessment Software. (2014). Insight at your fingertips. http://www.searchlightpa.com. Accessed 23 May 2014.
  46. Sözcü, Ö. F., & İpek, İ. (2013). Considerations for IEL courseware design and the next generation of elearning. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 6(4), 204–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Strauss, W., & Howe N. (2007). Millennials go to college (2nd ed.) Virginia: Life Course Associates.Google Scholar
  48. The Mobile Studio Project. (2014). Learning without limits. Mobile studio project. https://sites.google.com/a/mobilestudioproject.com/mobile-studio-project/. Accessed 23 May 2014.
  49. The Sloan Consortium. (2010). Class Differences: Online Education in the United States, 2010, 23 May 2014.Google Scholar
  50. The World Bank. (2008). MENA development report. The road not traveled. Education reform in the Middle East and Africa. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTMENA/Resources/EDU_Flagship_Full_ENG.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2004.
  51. Udacity. (2014). Thanks to UDACITY, I landed my dream job. https://www.udacity.com/. Accessed 23 May 2014.
  52. Weber, A. S. (2010). Review article: Effectiveness of web-based learning in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. The seventh international conference on eLearning for knowledge-based society, 16–17 December 2010.Google Scholar
  53. Williams, D., Jackson, J., Michaels, J., Auerbach, J., & Ferri, B. (2008). A program for distributed laboratories in the ECE curriculum. ASEE Annual Conference. http://www.asee.org. Accesses 23 May 2014.
  54. Yusuf, N. (2013). The future of global education. International Journal of Business and Economic Development, 1(3), 75–82.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yacob Astatke
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jumoke O. Ladeji-Osias
    • 1
  • Petronella James
    • 1
  • Farzad Moazzami
    • 1
  • Craig Scott
    • 1
  • Kenneth Connor
    • 2
  • Abdurrahim Saka
    • 3
  1. 1.Morgan State UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA
  3. 3.Yeni şafakIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations