Textile Teaching & Learning Initiative

Eileen Armstrong-Carroll and Christopher M. Pastore
School of Textiles -- Philadelphia University

Christopher Dougherty
Office of Graduate and Continuing Studies -- Philadelphia University

John Pierce
School of Health and Sciences -- Philadelphia University

URL Address: http://fibers.philau.edu/ntc/I99P01/index2.html

PROJECT GOALS

The Educating the Educators project is designed to determine the most effective methods for instruction in textile programs. In this project, we build on existing pedagogical techniques, especially ones that are not as routinely used in textile education. We explore and develop these techniques in the context of textile education, with its particular requirements. The project seeks to better prepare students to be productive and dynamic members of the textile industry through the implementation of these teaching methodologies.

ABSTRACT

NTC industry partners have been surveyed on work skills that they find critical and trade-offs they would be willing to make to enhance development of these competencies in an academic environment. Industry survey results are being incorporated into our evaluation of instructional methods. The project has identified the ways in which chapter reading, formatted discussions, learning aids, group projects, and other instructional methods increase learning of work skills are being identified. Findings will be incorporated into a web-based resource for instructors in the textile fields.

BACKGROUND

The project was initiated with the assessment of current instructional approaches used for various textile courses. Evaluation considerations included the relative amount of higher and lower order cognitive skill development in a course, as well as the learning styles and temperaments of our students. We found that as with most universities, lower order skills tend to dominate introductory courses and by senior year, the course structures almost exclusively foster the development of higher order skills (1). The instructional methods developed through this project increase the amount of higher order skill building associated with introductory courses, without sacrificing course content, if possible. Learning style and temperament data demonstrate the uniqueness of the students gathered in a textile classroom. It is important for the instructor to realize that especially with textiles, no one learning style or temperament predominates (2). The important consideration in terms of learning styles is to compare them with current instructional approaches and identify strategies that address the whole range of learning styles and temperaments.

INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES

The instructional methods evaluated through this project include chapter reading, formatted discussions, learning aids (demonstrations and objects which illustrate concepts), and group projects. Results of the study on chapter reading have been documented (3). Data analysis of results from our studies of formatted discussions and group projects is ongoing. The ability of these methods to teach valuable work skills is also being studied.

Formatted Discussions:

When polled, 76% of our introductory textile students stated that they would prefer that at least 20% of class time to be spent in discussions. From a pedagogical perspective, discussions are important since they develop higher order cognitive skills (HOCS) by helping students learn creative thinking and problem-solving skills, as well as how to synthesize information and reach conclusions. However, this method is a challenge to use in introductory classes, which attempt to optimize learning of the basic factual knowledge of a field.

The researchers reviewed literature on teaching, which described helpful techniques for creating a classroom environment that fosters discussions (4-6). However, the need to achieve these benefits in a minimal amount of time was not addressed. Therefore, the researchers had to develop a formatted discussion method for use in introductory textile classes that enable the benefits of discussions to be achieved in a minimal amount of time so the amount of content covered in the class does not need to be diminished.

With the discussion format, a question was posed to the class such as "What natural fiber would you use for a tablecloth in an expensive Scottish restaurant?" Students divided themselves into small groups and discussed the question for a few minutes. Then the class discussed the question as a whole, exploring the different options. This method has been used with spring and fall 2000 semester introductory textile course students. Four to five formatted discussions were conducted in each class, excluding control classes. A discussion record form was developed in order for the professor to capture each formatted discussion experience. An observer, trained in pedagogy, was present during some of the discussions and worked with the professors, reviewing the discussion process. One modification made as a result of these reviews was to reduce the size of the small discussion groups from 3-4 to 2 student dyads. With 2 person dyads, students felt more comfortable sharing ideas and it was less likely for one student to monopolize discussions. The two person groups also seemed to produce a wider variety of responses to the question, as students seemed less likely to rely upon a dominant group member to supply an answer.

We constructed a survey to obtain student feedback. The survey used in spring 2000 was created to gather preliminary data and refine the reliability of the survey instrument. The Cronbach's Alpha Internal Consistency Reliability Coefficient for the survey as a whole was 0.88, which is very good for an affective instrument (7). The results described here (8) BRIAN are from the spring 2000 survey; this survey represents the opinions of 43 students. Except for one statement, the survey used Likert scales with 5 choices. The scale ranges addressed frequency (always, usually, about half the time, seldom, never) or agreement (strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, strongly disagree).

Factors that influence how greatly discussions develop HOCS have been associated with the professor and the self-awareness of each student. The professor promotes HOCS by not looking for just one answer to a question, welcoming disagreement, tolerating different opinions and allowing challenges to his point of view. As shown in Figure 1, the professor was very successful at meeting these goals. The only element for which there was a significant negative response was "Our instructor is not looking for just one answer to a question", where 11% of the students disagreed. This may be due to the fact that in some instances actual products were discussed and the reasons behind the use of specific materials were explained, which may have aided the idea that there is only one answer to the questions. From the student's perspective, discussions were extremely successful at developing their HOCS. As shown in Figure 2, all the students felt that the discussions increased their understanding of the course material at least half the time. In addition, the discussions spurred them to think more about the course material at least once.

If discussion is tightly managed, it is possible to use formatted discussions even in an introductory course with much content that needs to be covered for subsequent courses. Generally, the students responded positively to these discussions. All the students interacted within the small groups, which allowed students to share their knowledge and thus arrive at a suitable answer. The fact that all distinct answers were considered separately allowed the students to see that there is no particular right or wrong answer for many problems, as long as the answer can be justified. These discussions also allowed some misunderstandings to be uncovered which can be rectified in class. The survey responses indicate that HOCS are developed with this method, which can also help break up the monotony of lecture and motivate students to become involved in learning the material.

Group Project:

We discussed the textile survey curricula with former students and colleagues to determine how we could improve student learning. In addition, since the field of textiles incorporates several different areas, such as fibers, yarns, fabrics, dyes, and finishes, we were looking for an opportunity to expose students to products which contained a majority of these materials. Group projects were mentioned several times, with former students indicating that they learned a lot about textiles as well as how the basic components of textiles are converted into finished products.

A review of the literature provided us with a checklist of elements that could increase the success of a group project (11-14). All textile survey students in the fall 2000 semester performed group projects. These projects involved choosing a textile product and identifying the fiber(s), yarn and fabric construction, and possible dyes and finishes used to produce this product. Additionally, the groups identified why specific materials were utilized in product as well as give alternatives to the materials used. Examples of materials chosen by the classes include: umbrellas, jeans, diapers, and artificial arteries.

The professors teaching these survey classes utilized two different approaches. Three classes turned-in one report at the end of the semester which provided details of the entire project, while the two other classes turn-in three smaller reports throughout the semester, which will addressed the same topics. The professors worked with the university "Writing Across the Curriculum" specialist. This specialist conducted an in-class writing and team building seminar to further assist the students.

The professor who assigned the class one long project did so with the idea that the students would grasp the "big picture" of the role of textiles in finished products as well as how fibers were converted to yarns, which were converted into fabrics, which were then converted to finished products. He felt that this project was generally successful in that in their papers, the students generally seemed to grasp the roles of the different processes while understanding the relationships between the different materials involved in the finished product. However, in several groups it appeared that individual group members wrote separate sections and compiled the report at the end, rather than writing the report as a group, which was the desired result. In this case, it may be that the students did not achieve the desired outcome as previously described. The professor asked for feedback from group members in order to determine the participation of the members as well as to assess the effectiveness of the project. Many students indicated that they learned a lot about the textile industry that they would not have otherwise learned, and therefore, the professor feels that this project was successful.

The professor who assigned multiple reports throughout the semester did so with the idea that the students would improve their writing skills with each successive report, and not procrastinate until the end of the semester to complete the project. However, he discovered that the students seemed to become less interested in the project with each new report, and as a result the students appeared to take each new report less seriously and perform a less thorough search of the literature and as a result, turn in inferior reports. Also, students who did not participate in the first report often continued this lack of activity throughout the semester, therefore placing more of a burden on the other group members. Overall, the professor involved in this project feels that this type of project is not appropriate for an introductory textile class.

To obtain information other than the feedback from the professors, we conducted a survey to obtain student feedback. The survey had a section that had the same agreement Likert scale that was used for the discussion surveys. In addition, the students were asked, "If you could have done anything different with this assignment what would it be?" and "If you could change this assignment what would you change?" The responses were helpful in three main areas: identification of areas where students had problems, people-related issues, and impact of one versus three paper requirement. There are three main areas where students felt they were deficient: knowledge of use to effectively use the library and the internet, time management skills, and guidelines on topic selection.

The instructors assigned the groups and there were many scheduling conflicts. Many students suggest allowing the students to pick their own groups. Although there is the potential drawback that students would constantly pick the same groups, since this is usually a freshmen course, most groups would be working together for the first time. An additional solution could be to account for geographic proximity when grouping people. Other common group dynamic responses were a desire for better group communication and a regret that the group did not meet more frequently.

Although splitting the project into three papers did not eliminate time management problems, the staggered deadlines helped. A few people in the classes with one paper recommended submission of a draft or progress reports next time. With one group, the three papers, give an opportunity for some members to increase their level of effort after the first report.

The survey also poled the students on how the group project helped developed their ability to work with others as well as develop their HOCS. Problem solving and decision-making skills as well as consideration of more than more approach for a task were assessed. As Figure 3 shows, there was a broad range of responses for each statement. In all cases approximately 65% of the students were divided between agree and undecided, with about 20% of the students disagreeing. Hopefully refinements made in the logistics of the group project for the winter 2001 semester have narrowed the ranges of responses.

WORKPLACE SKILLS SURVEY RESULTS

To determine the relative importance of work skills that demanded HOCS, surveys were sent to 286 NTC industry partners; 31 responses were received. The survey had 3 sections. The first section asked for a level of satisfaction rating with the initial skill level of new employees. The second section asked the respondents to rank the five skills they found most important. The last section asked the respondents to make a trade-off on what skills they wished emphasized at the expense of traditional curriculum elements.

For most of the work skills there was a broad range of responses for levels of satisfaction. However, there was a predominant or strong doublet response for the following work skills (Table 1). At least 10% of the respondents were not satisfied with these work skills: creative thinking, decision-making and analytical ability, self-directed learning, problem-solving, and leadership. Creative thinking had the highest percentage of not satisfied responses, 17%.

The respondents were then asked to rank their 5 most desirable general work skills. The results were examined by weighted ranking, percent of time chosen, and percent of time ranked most important (Table 2). Overall problem solving was the most valued work-skill. However, when chosen as a top five skill by a respondent, leadership was most often ranked as the most important work-skill. Only one respondent ranked computer proficiency as a top five work-skill.

The last section asks, "If university curricula were modified to emphasize non-traditional skills, time spent teaching traditional skills may need to be diminished. What trade-offs do you find acceptable in emphasizing the following skills? Place an X on the appropriate level."

Examples:

This series of questions compared traditional with non-traditional curriculum elements. The mean responses for these questions ranged from no change in emphasis to emphasize a certain non-traditional skill somewhat over a traditional one. The choice to emphasize one skill significantly more than the other was selected infrequently by the respondents. The cases in Figure 4 contain a question with the narrowest range and a question with a broad response range. The values below the graphs are %response. Besides possessing the narrowest range, the choice of emphasizing problem solving compared to factual textile knowledge had the most definitive response.

Factual Textile Knowledge	(00) ----- (03) ----- (16) ----- (65) ---- (16)	Problem Solving
Hands-On Textile Experience	- (06) ---- (23 ) ---- (19 ) ---- (39 ) ---- (13)	Decision Making and Analytical Ability

Comparing the values for the mean, mid-range, and mid-quartile measures of center, the most definitive cases for which the respondents called for an emphasis of work skills over traditional skills were:

The distribution of answers was broad for all comparisons of work skills with Calculation, Testing, Evaluation and/or Design Methods. The most definitive cases for which the respondents called for no change in relative emphasis of work skills over traditional skills were:

Overall, creative thinking, problem solving, and decision making/analytical ability are the work skills for which there is a significant not satisfied response, a high ranking as an important skill, and the choice to emphasize these work skills over traditional curriculum elements. Manufacturing and economic factors should also be given a stronger emphasis.

FUTURE EFFORTS

For the final year of the project we are concentrating on developing a website of Guidelines for Educating the Educators. This website will be targeted to academics in the NTC consortia. The website will help them learn about different teaching and learning styles. Different instructional methods for increasing HOCS and work skills development will be presented, along with examples that are relevant of textile-related degree programs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sohail Sikander (undergraduate) and Amer Yusuf (graduate) are students working on this project.

REFERENCES

1. NTC annual report for I99-P1, "Educating the Educators", October 1999.
2. NTC annual report for I99-P1, "Educating the Educators", October 2000.
3. John D. Pierce, Brian R. George, Eileen Armstrong-Carroll, Matthew Dunn, and Christopher M. Pastore, "Using Pre-Lecture Reading Assignments to Promote Active Learning and Critical Thinking in an Introductory Textile Class" was submitted to Clothing and Textiles Research Journal.
4. Fassinger, P.A., "Understanding Classroom Interaction: Students' and Professors' Contributions to Students' Silence", Journal of Higher Education, Vol 66, No.1, pg 82-96, 1995.
5. Nunn, C.E. (1996). Discussion in the college classroom: Triangulating observational and survey results. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 243-266.
6. Reynolds, K.C., & Nunn, C.E. (1998). Engaging freshmen in classroom discussion: Interaction and the instructor techniques that encourage it. Journal of the First-Year Experience, 10, 7-24.
7. Gable, R.K. and Wolf, M.B., Instrument Development in the Affective Domain, 2nd edition, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.
8. Brian R. George, John D. Pierce, Eileen Armstrong-Carroll, Matthew Dunn, and Christopher M. Pastore, "Promoting Active Learning in Introductory Textile Classes", selecting journal for submission.
9. Tanyel, F. & Mitchell, M.A., "The Skill Set for Success of New Business School Graduates: Do Prospective Employers and University Faculty Agree?" Journal of Education for Business, Vol 75, No. 1 pg 33-7, 1999.
10. Wihelm, W.J., "A Delphi Study of Entry-Level Workplace Skills, Competencies, and Proof-of-Achievement Products," Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, Vol 41, No. 2, pg 105-22, 1999.
11. Telzrow, C.F., McNamara, K., and Hollinger, C.L. "Fidelity of problem-solving implementation and relationship to student performance." The School Psychology Review, 2000: 29, 3, 443-661.
12. Colbeck, C.L., Campbell, S.E., and Bjorklund, S.A. "Grouping in the dark: what college students learn from group projects." The Journal of Higher Education, 2000: 71, 1, 60-83.
13. Bento, R.F. "Creating the conditions for successful teamwork in college courses: a systems approach to teamwork design decisions." College Student Journal, 1997: 31, 3, 137-144.
14. 1Metheny, D., and Metheny, W. "Enriching technical courses with learning teams." College Teaching, Winter 1997: 45, 32-35.