GC 2012-5621: DEVELOPMENT OF A TEACHING LEARNING CENTRE

AND ONGOING FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS - A CASE STUDY

Dr. Prasad Edamana, Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IIT M), India

Dr. Prasad Edamana is an Assistant Professor working at Department of Chemistry, Indian Institute of
Technology Madras (IIT M) since 2006. He did doctoral study at NIIST, Trivandrum, India during 1995-
2000. Subsequent to his Ph. D. program, Dr. Prasad had carried out post-doctoral study at Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, TX and University of Bonn, Germany. Dr. Prasad has published around thirty
research papers in peer reviewed journals of Chemistry. At present, Dr. Prasad guides ten graduate
students in his research group. Dr. Prasad is deeply interested in developing novel teaching/learning
methodologies and hence an active member of the core group of Teaching Learning Centre (TLC) at
IIT Madras. He has participated in all the Faculty Development Programs conducted at IIT Madras. Dr.
Prasad’s main interests in teaching learning processes are taxonomy of cognitive levels and metacognition.

Prof. Ajit Kumar Kolar, Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Professor Ajit Kumar Kolar is a Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Insti-
tute of Technology Madras, India, with teaching and research interests in the area of Energy. He is the
Chairman of the Centre for Continuing Education which organizes continuing education programs for en-
gineering college teachers and industry professionals, nationally and internationally. He is also in charge
of the newly formed Teaching Learning Centre, arguably the first such centre among the institutes of
higher technical education in the country. The Centre has organized programs which enhance the teach-
ing learning process among the faculty and students of the Institute, like the Faculty Development and
Teaching Assistant Training Programs. He is also Professor in Charge of the IIT Madras Heritage Centre
and founder-convener of the IIT Madras Energy Forum.

Prof. Pramod S. Mehta, Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Professor Pramod S. Mehta is presently a senior professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, specializing in the research areas of Combustion, Bio-fuels, Au-
tomotive Pollution, and IC Engines. He has extensive teaching experience of more than thirty five years
in top engineering institutes in the country, namely, the Banaras Hindu University, University of Roorkee,
NIT (Jalandhar) and IIT Madras. He is a former Director of the National Institute of Technology, Jaland-
har, India. He is known for his passionate teaching of fundamental thermal subjects. He is extremely
interested in Teaching Learning Processes and has taken a leading role in the activities of the Teaching
Learning Centre at IIT Madras. He has been instrumental in organizing training programs for Teaching
Assistants in IIT Madras.

Dr. Sujatha Srinivasan, Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Dr. Sujatha Srinivasan is an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the
Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IIT-M). Her earlier innings at IIT-M was as a B.Tech student from
1988-1992. Sujatha obtained her MSME from the University of Toledo, worked in industry developing
prosthetic components for about 8 years, and then earned her PhD from the Ohio State University before
heading back to IIT-M. Her research interests are in biomechanics and mechanisms with a focus on de-
veloping assistive devices and products for rehabilitation needs. Sujatha enjoys teaching and learning and
is an enthusiastic participant in the activities of the Teaching-Learning Centre at IIT-M.

Dr. Jefferey E. Froyd, Texas A&M University

Jeffrey E. Froyd is a TEES Research Professor and the Director of Faculty Climate and Development at
Texas A&M University. He served as Project Director for the Foundation Coalition, an NSF Engineering
Education Coalition in which six institutions systematically renewed, assessed, and institutionalized their
undergraduate engineering curricula, and extensively shared their results with the engineering education
community. He co-created the Integrated, First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering and Mathe-
matics at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, which was recognized in 1997 with a Hesburgh Award

American
c Society for Engineering Education, 2012
Certificate of Excellence. He has authored or co-authored over 70 papers on engineering education in ar-
eas ranging from curricular change to faculty development. He is collaborating on NSF-supported projects
for (i) renewal of the mechanics of materials course, (ii) improving preparation of students for Calculus
I, (iii) systemic application of concept inventories. He is currently an ABET Program Evaluator and a
Senior Associate Editor for the Journal on Engineering Education.

American
c Society for Engineering Education, 2012
 Development of a Teaching Learning Centre and On-going Faculty
Development Programs - A Case Study

Abstract

Faculty development is a core strategy in continuing efforts to transform engineering education

at any institution. Collaborations can strengthen faculty development initiatives, since the home
institution has significant knowledge about its faculty members and the on-going dialogue about
teaching and learning, while another organization can contribute expertise and experience that
the home institution may lack. In this paper, faculty members at the Indian Institute of
Technology Madras (IIT-M), India, a fifty-year old Institute of National Importance with an
international reputation, and the Institute for Engineering Education and Innovation (IEEI) and
the Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE) at Texas A&M University, USA, describe their on-
going collaboration which started in 2009. One visible result of their collaboration has been the
founding of a Teaching-Learning Centre (TLC) to establish sustainable activities for faculty
development in IIT-M. The TLC, which emerged from faculty conversations about continuing
efforts to improve teaching, will hopefully enhance efficiency of course delivery and raise
interest and motivation levels of students in understanding engineering and science subjects.

As another concrete result of the collaboration, 3 three-day Faculty Development Programs

(FDPs) and a one-week faculty interaction program, the first of their kind at IIT-M, were
conducted for IIT-M faculty members from December 2009 to December 2011, initially by a
team of experts from the CTE, and later by a joint team of Texas A&M and IIT-M faculty
members. After due familiarization with the novel ideas on course delivery, taught and discussed
during these programs, some of the IIT-M faculty members have applied a framework using a
course delivery cycle to their classes.

It was observed that twenty percent of the FDP participants methodically incorporated these
pedagogical aspects in their teaching practices. Experiences of the faculty members in terms of
the three principal thrusts of the FDP: (i) constructing learning outcomes, (ii) adopting active and
cooperative learning methods and (iii) implementing formative plus summative assessment
strategies are analyzed to understand how they implemented these thrusts through pedagogical
approaches appropriate to the IIT-M ethos, which is characterized by a large student population
of diverse socio-economic-cultural backgrounds. Also, issues related to varying set of
instructions to a diverse group of students are identified and possible solutions are discussed for
further action to sustain the TLC activities for the benefit of the teaching-learning process in IIT-
M.

Key words: faculty development program, teaching learning center, course delivery cycle,
engineering and science education

Introduction

Today, amidst research findings on learning and increasing expectations of tertiary education
graduates, assertions that faculty members in higher education teach how they were taught
continue to summarize classroom observations around the world1,2. Content delivery via lecture
continues to be the mainstream teaching approach, despite calls for a significant paradigm shift
from “teacher centric passive delivery” to “learner centric active learning”3,4. To accelerate the
paradigm shift, Faculty Development Programs (FDPs) are fast becoming an integral part of
initiatives to enhance faculty advancement with respect to teaching4-6. Further, FDPs have been
shown to influence the willingness of participants to adopt more “learner centric active learning”
teaching approaches7-10. Some of the successful models were developed in engineering8,11.

In India, initiatives for “teaching pedagogy” and curriculum development for school education
have existed since the 1960s. There have been formal courses for teacher education culminating
in degree programs like Bachelor in Education and Masters in Education offered by several
universities and institutions and considered essential for teacher recruitment in schools. Since
1960s, bodies like the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) and the National Council
for Education Research and Training (NCERT) have also been playing a significant role in
building teaching capacity and curriculum development. More recently, roles for distance
education and information communication technologies (ICT) in teacher education are being
explored. Establishment of several National Institutions of Technical Teachers’ Training and
Research (NITTTRs) has paved the way for quality improvement of technical education at
diploma/polytechnic level. The general consensus is that they have provided good results.
However, there is a lack of well-structured FDP for engineering and technology education in
India. In the higher engineering and technology education sector, the idea of the FDP remained
neglected possibly due to twin perceptions: (i) a philosophical belief that this activity belongs to
social scientists and is less relevant to engineering educators, and (ii) “hard disciplines [e.g.,
engineering] place greater importance [than soft disciplines] on student career preparation and
emphasize cognitive goals such as learning facts, principles and concepts [i.e., content]”12. A
large percentage of engineering faculty members still believes that “subject knowledge” is the
only criteria for becoming an effective teacher in engineering institutions.

Emergence of for-profit employers in faculty development

During the last decade in India, major employers of engineering graduates have observed in their
recruitment drives that while thousands of students graduated with an engineering degree, only
about 20% or less, were really “employable” directly. An analysis revealed that the root cause of
this lack of “quality graduates” was the paucity of “trained” teachers, who are expected to ensure
“quality” education. Consequently, major for-profit employers have initiated programs in faculty
development. For example, WIPRO Technologies has initiated well-designed programs, e.g.,
Mission10X, for training engineering college teachers with respect to pedagogical aspects of the
teaching-learning process. Infosys Ltd has actively participated in the Indo-US Collaboration for
Engineering Education (IUCEE) program. Both Mission10X and IUCEE focus on faculty
development across the engineering programs in India. However, training engineering college
teachers across the large number of engineering programs in India is a huge task that requires
multiple efforts across the diverse engineering disciplines.

Changes in the context for engineering education in India, e.g. greater diversity in backgrounds
and preparation of the students entering engineering education, greater numbers of engineering
programs, more alternatives in technologies for content delivery13, and research findings on how
people learn14,15, have catalyzed dialogue about teaching-learning processes. Significant changes
required in the present system for evolving the right mix of solutions to enhance the efficiency
and effectiveness of teaching-learning process warrants a focused and dedicated effort in the
creation of content and its delivery, pedagogy, and effective student-teacher interaction.

Generating Initial Interest in Faculty Development at Indian Institute of Technology-

Madras

At the Indian Institute of Technology-Madras (IIT-M), similar to other institutes of higher

engineering education in India, undergraduate and graduate teaching is a core activity and
considerable faculty time is spent on teaching the growing population of students from diverse
academic, socio-economic, and cultural backgrounds. In all the Indian Institutes of Technologies
(IITs), effective teaching has been posing a challenge. The following are some of the systemic
reasons for this:
 Current emphasis on content (curriculum and syllabi) and content coverage (instruction-
centered teaching) as opposed to what students have learned and their preparation for future
learning (learner-centered teaching). Issues of content coverage, particularly when an
alternative approach to teaching is the topic of conversation, are raised across disciplines16-19.
In Teaching Tips, a well-respected book on teaching, now in its 13th edition, the authors
write “Although it may seem irrational to cover material when students are not learning from
it, one should not underestimate the compulsion one feels to get through one’s lecture
notes”20.
 Summative assessment is accomplished almost exclusively through timed, closed-book (with
occasional open-book) examinations.
 Feedback from employers (mentioned above) about their expectations for engineering
graduates and faculty intentions about the knowledge students will learn in an engineering
program appear to be disconnected in several key aspects.
In addition to teaching, IIT-M faculty members are expected to be active also in research and/or
consultancy in their area of expertise. Multiple expectations and uncertainty about priorities
among these expectations have made it hard for faculty members to determine appropriate
emphases with respect to development of their teaching. Some of the implications for these
multiple expectations and uncertainty about priorities among these expectations include the
following:
 Expectations for quality with respect to teaching (and research) have been emphasized in a
limited manner through the annual Young Faculty Recognition Award, but consequences for
failure to meet these expectations are not defined.
 Faculty members have not kept pace with research and development in teaching and learning.
Part of the challenge is that research findings in teaching and learning are spread across
multiple disciplines, e.g., psychology, education, cognitive science, neuroscience, and
sociology.
 Time-efficient ways for members to learn about research and development in teaching and
learning and then design approaches to incorporate these findings into their teaching have not
been offered.
 Faculty members perceive reduction of motivation among students for learning, which may
have been caused by the systemic shortcomings
Under the circumstances, it is becoming increasingly difficult for teachers to motivate students to
concentrate on understanding the basics in a subject and sustain their interest in problem solving
for attaining higher learning levels. A formal process of student feedback at the end of the
semester has been one mechanism in place at the IITs to evaluate the course as well as the
teacher. It is felt that in the absence of a formal exposure to the teaching-learning processes, this
feedback serves only a limited purpose to judge the feedback in terms of style of
teaching/content of the course material/delivery without ideas for possible improvement
strategies. This realization called for a structured FDP at IIT-M for familiarizing faculty with the
pedagogy and other skills concerning effective teaching-learning processes.

Initial Faculty Development Programs at IIT-M

The idea of the FDP at IIT-M emerged from conversations among faculty members who strongly
felt the absence of knowledge of teaching and learning in planning of their courses. Faculty
conversations about teaching and learning were complemented by simultaneous conversations
among the IIT-M administration with experts in faculty development from Texas A&M
University. From conversations within the administration emerged a conviction that assistance in
faculty development was needed. IIT-M faculty members needed access to state-of-the-art,
research-supported findings on teaching and learning. Research-supported findings would
facilitate acceptance of these finding by IIT-M faculty members. Since there was a lack of this
expertise in India, IIT-M decided to seek faculty development expertise from abroad. From these
parallel, synergistic sets of independent conversations, among faculty members as well as
administrators, emerged a decision to implement a FDP at IIT-M.

With joint faculty and administrative support, the first ever FDP at IIT-M was held in December
2009, facilitated by a team of three experts from Texas A&M University. Thirty-two (32) entry-
level faculty members, mostly from the science and engineering departments, voluntarily
participated. Feedback from participating faculty at the end of the program was quite positive.
Constant post-FDP interaction among the participants generated great enthusiasm for
implementing the ideas presented during the program in their courses. Thus some of the faculty
members used a course delivery cycle (i.e., prepare course learning outcomes, design a course
assessment plan, design learning activities, evaluate student learning, prepare revisions for the
next time the course is taught) for implementation in their respective courses in the following
semester and systematically implemented their newly learned teaching strategies.

Faculty members who applied approaches from the FDP also nucleated to form a “core” team
that met to continue regular discussions on pedagogical teaching strategies based on their day-to-
day classroom experiences. Periodic meetings among the core team members resulted in a
consensus to conduct a FDP for engineering college teachers, not from IIT-M, who are studying
in IIT-M for their higher degrees under a nationally-sponsored scheme called the Quality
Improvement Program (QIP). The core team organized this event, which was attended by 24
participants, during August 2010. This event provided an opportunity for the core team members
to apply their insights acquired during the 2009 FDP to develop teaching methodologies
appropriate to Indian contexts and adapt their “teaching pedagogy” accordingly. The core team
increased their self-confidence in conducting their own FDP.
The overall experience gained in the QIP was put to practical use in the organization of the
second FDP held for IIT-M faculty members in December 2010 in collaboration with the Texas
A&M team. The IIT-M core team members contributed to the program by sharing their
experiences of implementing the teaching-learning processes. After the second FDP, some more
faculty members joined the core team and planned another FDP for a fresh group of 24
engineering college teachers on deputation at IIT-M during August 2011. Based on feedback of
the second QIP participants, the program was quite successful.

Development of Teaching Learning Centre (TLC)

These FDPs conducted at IIT-M on teaching and learning created enthusiasm and awareness on
the significance of such programs which generated interest in fostering further faculty
development activities to make them sustainable. During the processes of organizing the FDPs at
IIT-M, some of the core team members were invited to other government and private
engineering colleges to demonstrate teaching and learning methods to their teaching faculty. This
exercise provided an opportunity for core team members to develop their ability to conduct such
programs. The core team members also availed themselves of opportunities to attend national
meetings on education related topics where teaching pedagogy was the focus. In these meetings,
the experiences of new teaching methods for enhanced learning implemented at IIT-M were
presented as a model for emulation at other Indian universities.

This core group of about 15 faculty members from among the participants of the 2009 and 2010
FDPs gradually evolved into a strong, cohesive and committed group that recommended
establishment of a Teaching-Learning Centre (TLC) dedicated to overall enhancement of
teaching-learning processes at IIT-M. From their initiative and with the full cooperation and
support of the leadership and administration, the Centre was founded in August 2011.

The Vision of the TLC is to be a Centre of Excellence and Innovation in teaching-learning

processes for a new and sustainable paradigm in higher technical education with the highest
professional and personal qualities at the service of the nation. The Mission of the Centre is:
 To foster implementation of research-based, scientifically-proven, and innovative teaching–
learning methodologies /technologies across IIT-M
 To motivate teachers and students towards an efficient and enjoyable educational interaction
 To develop a pool of world-class educators
 To address issues in the broader spectrum of education based on resources ranging from our
philosophical heritage to modern psychology
 To facilitate a productive educational environment
 To create synergy among teachers, students and experts by facilitating continuous and
seamless interaction
 To instill respect and love for life-long learning

The third FDP was held during December 2011 by the TLC wherein the core team members
made substantial contributions in the planning and session delivery along with an expert from
Texas A&M. Following that event, a one-day program for ‘Training-the-Trainers’ was also
conducted by the Texas A&M expert. The participants were primarily IIT-M faculty members
who participated in the core team. Topics for the workshop were (i) scaffolding, (ii) seven
principles from How Learning Works15, (iii) metacognition, and (iv) transfer. The Texas A&M
expert also conducted “microteaching” consulting sessions. For each session, an IIT-M faculty
member who volunteered would video-tape segment of a classroom meeting. The faculty
member and consultant would meet for one-hour conversation to talk about observations and
ideas based on the video. This was highly appreciated by the participants.

Data Acquisition and Analysis

In order to analyze the impact of the various FDPs conducted in association with Texas A&M,
feedback from the ninety participants of the FDPs was requested to have a database to facilitate
future activities. One-fifth of the FDP participants responded to the questionnaire that asked:
(a) To what extent had participants incorporated learning outcomes for their courses and
reflections about applying learning outcomes in teaching–learning processes?
(b) To what extent had participants incorporated ‘active and cooperative learning methodologies’
and reflections on its application?
(c) To what extent had participants designed an assessment plan for their course and reflections
about its use?
One fifth of the faculty responded to the questionnaire. The following paragraphs illustrate how
various ideas that were emphases of the FDP were being applied by participants:
(1) Learning outcomes
(2) Active and cooperative learning
(3) Assessment
(4) Minute papers.

(1) Learning Outcomes: All faculty members who responded have attempted to write
learning outcomes (LOs) for their courses and shared them with the students at the start of
course. This suggested that respondents thought the discipline of learning outcomes was
appropriate and valuable for their courses. It also suggests that survey respondents were not
representative of the 90 FDP participants; instead, it suggests that only FDP participants who
were applying some of the ideas from the FDP responded to the survey. LOs for 20 courses
[undergraduate (UG), post graduate (PG), and mixed students group (7 UG, 7 PG, 4 mixed and 2
doctoral)] were available from this feedback. Most faculty members stated that writing LOs
helped them prepare course content, delivery and assessment plans. Typical examples of LOs
written by faculty members are provided in the Appendix.

Twenty faculty members using learning outcomes in their courses suggests that a paradigm shift
in teacher preparation for the course is occurring. Student anecdotal responses to these changes,
mostly collected orally by the faculty members who responded to the questionnaire, suggests that
although a large number of students were positive, a fraction of students were indifferent.
Interestingly, there was no negative feedback on LOs from any of the students. Some of the
faculty members took the opportunity to explain the purpose of LOs to the students in their very
first lecture; and student responses suggested they appreciated faculty efforts to bring in positive
change in teaching–learning processes.

(2) Active and Cooperative Learning: During the FDPs, the faculty participants were
introduced to various active and cooperative learning (ACL) methods21; think-pair-share22,
bookend lecture23, e-techniques, projects, and jigsaw24. The most common methods that faculty
members used were the bookend lecture and project methodology. However, some faculty
members tried e-techniques and the jigsaw method in their courses. Anecdotal/oral feedback
from undergraduate students indicated that the project mode proved more effective in motivating
students’ learning. The group discussion method, wherever tried, was hindered by the classroom
seating arrangements that are classic students-in-rows-facing-a-lectern types. This arrangement
makes it difficult for faculty members to move around the classroom and observe students
interacting. In a self-study course for a class of 15 senior-level students, a faculty member used
the jigsaw method successfully and students were positive about its application. The class was
divided into 5 groups and each group was assigned a portion of the course material. Students
worked in the group to learn the material assigned and each student prepared notes for his/her
sub-portion and conducted lectures for the rest of the class. In this manner, each group became
an expert on one topic and helped the others learn that topic. The performance of the students in
the final exam for this course was significantly better than that for the traditional classroom
version. More material could also be covered in this format where the students took
responsibility for their learning.

In large undergraduate classes of about 80 students, student feedback indicates that the use of
teams for tutorial sessions fosters a positive learning experience. In these sessions, the instructor
and one or two teaching assistants are present to answer questions but the students are able to
work in a largely self-sufficient manner within their groups. Despite competitiveness inherent in
students at IIT-M, it emerged that students are interested in and find it fruitful to be a part of a
learning group where they share the knowledge among their peers rather than being passive
learners.

(3) Assessment: From responses received, it is evident that changes in assessment

procedures from what is usually recommended in the IIT system have not occurred. Factors that
hinder this shift are the large classes and the lack of trained TAs who can reduce the additional
workload (or its perception) on the instructor that formative assessment may require. The usual
assessment pattern uses a summative assessment procedure that consists of two periodical
quizzes during the course and an end-of-semester examination. However, some faculty members
enthusiastically used minute papers25, quizzes through Moodle software, and assignments
without marks as their formative assessment procedures. Oral feedback from students reveals
that they liked formative assessment, whenever tried by the teachers, and thought it led to
improved performance in examinations.

(4) Minute Papers: Faculty experiences with using minute papers clearly suggest that there
is a definite lack of interest among students in writing minute papers at the end of each class. To
overcome this difficulty, some faculty members planned a schedule of receiving the minute paper
at the end of a topic, instead of at the end of each teaching session. This has been a new feature
in the Institute and requires planning and adaptation time. One instructor, who collects feedback
at the end of each course using a questionnaire, found that even in classes where the students did
not regularly turn in minute papers, they indicated that it was a useful instructional technique
because they felt they could exercise the option whenever they felt the need. This instructor
found the minute paper very useful, not only for dealing with fuzzy topics in a timely manner but
also because it generated some thought-provoking questions from the students, some of which
she then included in assignments or tests.

The survey results indicate that writing LOs for courses assist faculty in content preparation and
assessment planning. Systematically introducing ‘breaks’ in the lecture, involving students in
cognitive activities appropriate to the lecture content seems to have a great impact in the learning
process and is appreciated by the students. The minute paper was attempted as a formative
technique with limited success due to the lack of enthusiasm from students and their lack of
awareness about positive impact on their learning. More efforts are required to sustain
enthusiasm among students regarding minute paper feedback.

Collaboration

The collaboration between IIT-M and the Texas A&M has proven to be very successful. It should
be noted that IIT-M (like other Institutes in the country) did not have much knowledge about
research on learning and teaching, and little experience in organizing FDPs to enhance the
teaching-learning processes. A few of the faculty members who joined the Institute in the past
few years had been exposed to “effective teaching” programs while doing their doctoral work
abroad, mainly in the US universities. But their limited experience could not be transformed into
a sustainable Institute-wide program. The Institute needed education experts with research and
teaching background and practical experience in organizing FDPs to enthuse and excite the IIT-
M faculty members, especially the new faculty who will serve the Institute for the next 30-35
years, to learn and practice proven teaching pedagogy. The experts from Texas A&M, in less than
three years of on-going interaction, have addressed this need. They have greatly impressed the
IIT-M faculty with their knowledge, experience and ability to communicate, and established a
rapport with the young faculty members of the Institute. The collaboration has truly laid a strong
foundation for the sustainability and success of the TLC efforts in enhancing FDPs at IIT-M.

Immediate Upcoming Programs

The TLC core team has recognized the importance of disseminating its knowledge and
experience acquired over the last three years to larger groups and hence a FDP will be conducted
for engineering college teachers shortly. This will be the first such program by IIT-M. Also the
core team will organize a Training Program for thirty IIT-M teaching assistants, many of whom
are likely to become faculty members and influence teaching–learning processes on their own.
Based on the experience of the last three years, the TLC core team was emboldened enough to
organize a training program for engineering college teachers to improve their self-awareness and
realize higher goals in education, and will repeat this program in June 2012.

Conclusion

The collaboration with education experts from Texas A&M University has proven fruitful for
IIT-M in (i) generating awareness and interest in “teaching methodologies”, (ii) preparing
approximately 90 faculty members through a three-day FDP, (iii) developing a core team of
about 15 dedicated faculty members committed to take the process forward, and finally (iv)
enabling the establishment of a Teaching Learning Centre, arguably the first of its kind in the
institutes of higher engineering education in India. Support from the IIT-M leadership is essential
for the success and sustainability of the FDPs. There is a realization among IIT-M faculty
members who have attended the FDPs that practicing the new teaching methods would enable
them to don a new role as ‘learning facilitators’ rather than the traditional role of ‘knowledge
providers’, which in turn would enhance students’ preparedness to take their cognitive activities
through higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy26. On the other hand, the very fact that only 20% of
the total number of FDP participants responded to the feedback regarding the impact of FDP on
their teaching indicates that many faculty members might lose, over the course of time, the initial
enthusiasm generated while attending the FDP. It is realized that systematically planned follow-
up meetings and constant interaction among the participants, through the newly formed TLC, is
essential to sustain their enthusiasm and motivation to take forward the pedagogical approaches
in teaching-learning.

Bibliographic Information
1. Cross, K.P., Classroom research: Implementing the scholarship of teaching. American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education, 1996. 60(4): p. 402-407.
2. Gardiner, L.F., Why we must change: The research evidence. Thought and Action, 1998. 14(1): p. 71-88.
3. Barr, R.B. and J. Tagg, From teaching to learning -- A new paradigm for undergraduate education.
Change, 1995. 27(6): p. 12–25.
4. Gillespie, K.J., D.L. Robertson, and L.L.B. Border, eds. A guide to faculty development. 2010, Jossey-Bass:
San Francisco, CA.
5. Sunal, D.W., et al., Teaching science in higher education: Faculty professional development and barriers to
change. School Science and Mathematics, 2001. 101(5): p. 246–257.
6. Henderson, C., N. Finkelstein, and A. Beach, Beyond dissemination in college science teaching: An
introduction to four core change strategies. Journal of College Science Teaching, 2010. 39(5): p. 18-25.
7. Brawner, C.E., et al., A survey of faculty teaching practices and involvement in faculty development
activities. Journal of Engineering Education, 2002. 91(4): p. 393–396.
8. Felder, R.M. and R. Brent, The National Effective Teaching Institute: Assessment of impact and
implications for faculty development. Journal of Engineering Education, 2010. 99(2): p. 121-134.
9. Henderson, C., Promoting instructional change in new faculty: An evaluation of the physics and astronomy
new faculty workshop. American Journal of Physics, 2008. 76(2): p. 179-187.
10. Steinert, Y., et al., A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching
effectiveness in medical education: BEME Guide No. 8. Medical Teacher, 2006. 28(6): p. 497-526.
11. Brent, R., et al., Engineering faculty development: A multicoalition perspective, in ASEE Annual
Conference & Exposition. 2000, ASEE: St. Louis, MO.
12. Neumann, R., Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 2001. 26(2):
p. 135-146.
13. Bates, A.W., Technology, e-learning and distance education. second ed. 2005, New York, NY: Routledge.
14. National Research Council, How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. 1999, Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
15. Ambrose, S.A., et al., How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. 2010, San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16. Weimer, M., Focus on learning, transform teaching. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 2003.
35(5): p. 48-54.
17. Ironside, P.M., "Covering content"and teaching thinking: deconstructing the additive curriculum. Journal of
Nursing Education, 2004. 43(1): p. 5-12.
18. Froyd, J.E., White paper on promising practices in undergraduate STEM education, in Workshop on
Evidence on Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM) Education. 2008, Board on Science Education, The National Academies: Washington, DC.
19. Anthony, S., et al., The ChemLinks and ModularCHEM consortia: Using active and context-based learning
to teach students how chemistry is actually done. Journal of Chemical Education, 1998. 75(3): p. 322-324.
20. Svinicki, M. and W.J. McKeachie, McKeachie's teaching tips: Strategies, research and theory for college
and university teachers. thirteenth ed. 2011, Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
21. Johnson, D.W., R.T. Johnson, and K.A. Smith, Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. 3rd
ed. 2006, Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
22. Lyman, F., The responsive class discussion, in Mainstreaming Digest, A.S. Anderson, Editor. 1981, College
of Education, University of Maryland: College Park, MD.
23. Smith, K.A., et al., Pedagogies of engagement: classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering
Education, 2005. 94(1): p. 87-101.
24. Aronson, E. and S. Patnoe, The jigsaw classroom: Building cooperation in the classroom. 2nd ed. 1997,
New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
25. Stead, D.R., A review of the one-minute paper. Active Learning in Higher Education, 2005. 6(2): p. 118–
131.
26. Anderson, L.W. and D.R. Krathwohl, eds. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of
Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Complete Edition. 2001, Longman: New York.
 Appendix: Learning Outcomes for Selected Courses Designed
by Faculty Members Who Attended FDP
CE 4410: Structural Masonry (Undergraduate Course, Instructor: Dr. Arun Menon)

Topics Learning outcomes

1 1 Introductory lecture  To list historical and modern masonry materials

Overview of masonry in ancient and  To trace development of masonry structures
modern times; Standards; Structural-  To define structural/functional design requirements
functional requirements  To list relevant codes

2 Masonry materials and  To list test methods for masonry materials

assemblages  To estimate strength and durability parameters and to
Properties and experimental testing compare with code requirements
(masonry units, mortars, grout,  To compare different code requirements
reinforcement and assemblages)  To identify parameters affecting strength and durability
3 Behavior of masonry assemblages  To describe the failure mechanisms under different types
Axial compression, flexure, shear of loads
and combined loading, deformation  To identify mechanical properties influencing behavior
characteristics under these loads and list respective experimental tests
 To determine strengths under failure modes
4 Design/analysis of masonry  To compute loads/combinations
members  To determine load capacities of structural members,
Design for axial compression estimate stresses
(concentric, eccentric); Flexure  To develop and use an interaction diagram
design of walls; P-M interaction,  To dimension members, determine percentage of
Shear wall design; beams, lintels, reinforcement
arches, pilasters - Unreinforced,  To summarize in a technical report and identify
reinforced, pre-stressed masonry; strengths and weaknesses of research
codes.

5 Constructional aspects  To identify construction methods/practices that affect

strength/durability of masonry
6 Design of masonry buildings  To identify critical design features
Single-story, multi-story load-bearing  To estimate the design loads/combinations
structures  To dimension and detail different structural components
 To propose design alternatives

CY5540: Introductory Biochemistry (Postgraduate Course, Instructor: Dr Nandita Madhavan)

 Identify the thermodynamic and kinetic parameters that affect a reaction
 Explain the effect of the reactant and reaction conditions on the reaction outcome
 Propose reasonable mechanisms for organic reactions
 Develop experiments to support your hypothesis
 Recognize basic and 3-dimensional structure of biomolecules such as carbohydrates, lipids,
proteins and nucleic acids
 Associate biological activity of biomolecules with their 3-dimensional structures
 Illustrate the various metabolism pathways in the body
 Predict enzyme catalysis mechanism based on structure.
 Distinguish between various pathways of enzyme action

ME1100: Thermodynamics (Undergraduate Common Core Course, Multiple Instructors)

The student should be able to:
 Formulate a system or control volume type analysis in practical energy conversion problems and apply energy/
mass balances correctly
 Represent various energy conversion processes using thermodynamic state diagrams
 Estimate property changes in substances through appropriate property relationships or property tables
 Evaluate the ideal and actual performance characteristics for various devices/ processes, by applying I and II
laws of Thermodynamics.

EE1100: Basic Electrical Engineering (Undergraduate Common Core Course, Multiple Instructors)
 Define different electrical quantities like potential, current, field, power etc. and derive one from the others
whenever possible
 Identify circuit components (R,L and C) and identify different configurations in which these components may
be connected to each other in a circuit
 Describe the fundamental physical laws governing the electrical quantities in DC & AC electrical circuits, DC
& AC electrical machines and electronic devices
 Systematically apply these laws to simple/moderately complex problems to solve for unknowns like currents,
voltages, impedances, speed, torque etc.
 Plot these solutions for different values of other known circuit parameters and arrive at a trend
 Use the solutions/plots to reason the working of an electrical system and distinguish between what is a logical
or absurd result
 Apply all of the above background to design a circuit for simple specified functionality
 Over a period of time, develop an intuition towards elementary analysis of electrical systems
 Apply this intuition and reasoning to observe and question the world around you (outside of the class)
 Communicate objectively with peers and other electrical engineers about your observations

CE 3040: Environmental Engineering (Undergraduate Course, Instructor: Dr Indumathi Nambi)

 Define water and waste water quality parameters and list the permissible limits set for each of them.
 Identify the appropriate treatment technology for water and waste water based on the quality of inlet water
 Design water treatment and wastewater treatment units