CES Selector is the industry standard tool for materials selection and graphical analysis of materials properties; used to innovate and evolve products, quickly identify. Granta Design is the leading provider of materials information technology – software to manage and apply information about engineering materials. Materials Selection. CES Selector provides a suite of software tools and materials property data to support systematic materials selection. CES Selector lets you combine consideration of engineering, economic, and environmental properties. Get materials choices right first time during early-stage product development,.

Abstract The Cambridge Engineering Selector (CES) EduPack software has been used in undergraduate teaching at the University of Birmingham since 2006 for materials selection courses with small class sizes (typically 15 – 55 materials engineering students). In 2007 the software was introduced to first year undergraduates across the School of Engineering via an existing large class module (>300 students). In introducing the software it was required that the module contact time was not increased; independent learning was promoted and the existing syllabus was maintained. Thus the software was demonstrated within lectures and made available on the engineering computer clusters and via a CD available for personal student use. At the time of its introduction no exercises requiring its use had been developed or embedded in the course. Student feedback indicated that approximately 74% of students used the software to support their learning, although 94% stated that they recognised its potential as a beneficial tool.

The main barrier preventing its use was unfamiliarity with the software and many students (34%) expressed the need for additional support classes. In response to the results, tutorial style questions based on the software were developed for the class of 2008, along with step-by-step guidance on how to answer them. Some lecture content was also compromised in order to allow discussion in class. An increased number of students chose to use the software during the lecture course (77%), with others indicating they would use it for revision and, unlike the 2007 cohort, the 2008 students commended its ease of use (35%). Introduction Textbooks have long been a traditional choice of teaching aid. They are usually written in such a style as to guide students step-by-step through the development of ideas and concepts from the basic to the more complex and as such are usually thorough and self-explanatory and thus require little additional support. Over recent years, as IT has become embedded in almost all aspects of life and demands from employers for computer-literate graduates have increased, the use of software to support learning is fast becoming commonplace.

Universities have accepted that students need access to appropriate information technology facilities but, perhaps too often, university lecturers and other senior decision makers fail to recognise that IT skills, like all other skills, need to be acquired and that their acquisition requires careful planning and appropriate levels of support ( Landmark College Institute for Research and Training ( 2006) Challenges to incorporating AT. Available from [accessed 3 April 2009]. ( 1997) Open learning and IT skills acquisition in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (1), 64- 65. IT skills can be considered as the ability to understand what your computer can do and how it does this and then being able to get your computer to do what you want it to do ( Still J. ( 2001) What is IT? What are IT skills?

Available from _it_skills.html [accessed 3 April 2009]. Often the basic IT skills required to facilitate the use of generic applications such as word processing and spreadsheets are taught at school and then refreshed at university, either by being integrated into the degree course within the first year or through IT support courses offered by the library and information services. Unless the software forms an integral part of the course (e.g. Design software such as CAD-CAM), no specifically tailored support tends to be offered for subject-specific software, but in some institutions, other than making the hardware and software available, little support is offered and students are left to find out how to make use of it by themselves ( Rowley J. ( 1997) Open learning and IT skills acquisition in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (1), 64- 65., ). In this case, due to an increase in the software available over the years, it would be difficult and impractical to give taught guidance on each.

However, an unfamiliarity with IT resources and lack of support may deter many students from taking advantage of a potentially very beneficial resource. Using appropriate software is an interactive mode of learning and thus an increase in development, and a lecturer’s decision to use subject-specific software can be related to the realisation that students learn more effectively when they actively participate in the learning process ( Bonwell C.C. And Eison J.A. ( 1991) Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. In ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.

Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. Sivan A., Leung R.W., Woon C. And Kember D. ( 2000) An implementation of active learning and its effect on the student learning. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37 (4), 381- 389. Goodhew P., Murphy M.

And Mannis A. ( 2006) Student attitudes to active learning. Engineering Education Conference 2008, 24-26 July 2006, Liverpool, UK. Also, where textbooks had previously been the main source of learning, software learning offers an alternative approach. As learning styles vary amongst students ( Davis C. And Wilcock E.

( 2003) Teaching materials using case studies. Available from [accessed 3 April 2009].

), by offering an alternative approach students can choose the learning style that best suits their individual needs. Despite its obvious advantages, some students will find using software difficult and may dislike it (e.g. Those that are unfamiliar with computers or have certain disabilities that restrict/impede their use of computers). Others may not use the software if it is not compulsory to do so (for instance, as part of laboratory classes) or if there is no associated summative assessment. Research has shown that students are often motivated by the need to attain marks and if no such reward is offered for their efforts they are less likely to participate ( Case J.

( 2007) Alienation and Engagement: exploring students’ experiences of studying engineering. Teaching in HE, 12 (1), 119- 133. ( 2001) Alternative perspectives on the student experience: alienation and engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 26 (1), 7- 19.

( 2009) A discussion of the concept of ‘student-centred’ learning and teaching in the context of engineering. Birmingham Education, Theory and Action, in press. The Department of Metallurgy and Materials at the University of Birmingham has used a subject-specific software package, the Cambridge Engineering Selector (CES) EduPack, in its teaching since 2006 and its usefulness amongst students has been monitored via questionnaires given at the end of the teaching period. This paper discusses the way in which the CES EduPack software has been used and highlights problems that deter students from using it, or indeed any subject-specific software, within their learning. CES EduPack as an educational tool CES EduPack software incorporates a textbook-style data resource on materials, manufacturing and shapes of approximately 3000 materials with a materials selection tool that allows the selection of particular materials, based on their properties, by plotting graphs, inputting property criteria data or by selecting specific manufacturing and forming processes that the material should be able to undergo.

There are three levels to the database, each one containing information about a greater number of materials and in greater detail than the preceding level. It is a very valuable tool to students from a wide range of engineering disciplines as well as materials and physics. The software has been used in a range of contexts from a visual and informative supplementary aid in the lecture theatre to a tool to assist and encourage independent learning ( Granta Design Limited ( 2008) CES EduPack - customer reports and reviews. Available from [accessed 3 April 2009]. Lecturers and students all over the world have been impressed by the suitability of the CES software for all levels from first year degree students through to highly qualified designers and engineers ( Granta Design Limited ( 2008) CES EduPack - customer reports and reviews.

Available from [accessed 3 April 2009]. The incorporation of CES EduPack to teaching at the University of Birmingham The University of Birmingham has used the software in undergraduate teaching since 2006. Initially the software was used as the basis for a materials selection module taught to small classes (first and second year undergraduates studying materials engineering with a typical class size of 55 and second year undergraduates studying biomedical engineering with a typical class size of 15). These courses were originally developed based on materials selection processes using textbook resources that have subsequently been supplemented and/or replaced by the CES EduPack software. Therefore the software forms a major part of the course and has been explicitly taught during computer sessions.

The Director of Teaching and Learning for the School of Engineering and the Teaching Committee felt it was appropriate that all engineering students should become familiar with the software at an early stage of their undergraduate studies as it would form an excellent resource for students throughout their course, for example for use during project work and to support case studies. During the formation of the School of Engineering in 2003, several large class size modules had been developed to introduce common teaching to first year undergraduate students from across the different engineering disciplines. Environmental Science Toward A Sustainable Future 11th Edition Notes. One such module, entitled ‘Properties and Applications of Materials (PAM)’, which had a class size of approximately 300 and was designed according to requirements by the participating engineering departments (Chemical, Civil, Mechanical and Materials, including biomedical and sports topics), was identified as the ideal platform from which to launch the CES software. However, in implementing the software in large class size teaching, there were several criteria that had to be met: • the expense of teaching (other than the purchase of the software licence) was not to be increased (i.e. The number of contact hours and the number of assessed coursework elements were not to be increased) • the software was to be available to students on a course with a class size in excess of 300 • independent learning was to be promoted.

In addition, another main constraint was that the module had an existing syllabus, developed in consultation with the participating engineering departments, which was to be maintained and within which there was only a small amount of materials selection content. Due to the class size and the constraints of not increasing teaching time and costs it was not practical to substitute any lecture time with computer laboratory sessions. Hence, the approach adopted was to demonstrate the software within the lectures, make it available on the engineering computer clusters and provide CD ROMs so that it was available to students for use in their own time and on personal computers. However, as the availability of the software and the decision to introduce it coincided with the start of the teaching session, other than demonstrating its functionality and making repeated references to how it could be used to support specific topics in the course, no formal selection exercises were developed to support the students. A limited number of data collection exercises using CES EduPack were suggested.

Students studying the Design and Professional Skills (DPS) module in the second semester of the first year of their materials engineering degree course received further teaching using the CES EduPack software. During this module they carried out materials selection exercises using the software and received formal teaching during computer-based classes on how to use it. Outcomes from the initial software introduction To determine their response to the introduction of the software, questionnaires administered during a lecture and discussions with the students were carried out. 127 questionnaire responses (tick box responses and written comments) were received and informal feedback was obtained from lecturers following small group tutorial discussions routinely held in the department (approximately 20 students). It was found that although use of the software was optional, 74% of students chose to use it during the teaching session and for revision.

In addition, 94% of students who returned the questionnaire recognised the potential of the software as an effective and beneficial tool, irrespective of whether they used it to support their learning in the PAM module. The main barrier was found to be unfamiliarity with the software and many students expressed the need for support classes where help could be readily available. This result reflects the fact that 70% of students who had prior exposure to using subject-specific software, for example at school, had been formally taught its use and 65% of these had been required to use it for homework. Correspondingly, those students that did have formal teaching on the CES EduPack software in other modules (e.g.

DPS) were most comfortable with its use and thus were more likely to have used it optionally within PAM and commend it. Thus the main deterrent for using CES EduPack was not necessarily associated with the software itself, more that students wanted to be shown how to use it, which can be related to the prescriptive style of teaching that students are typically exposed to during their pre-university schooling. These findings echo those of different researchers who have emphasised that the acquisition of IT skills and the use of specific software packages require carefully managed guidance and assistance, otherwise there is a danger that the effects may be worse than not having the software at all ( Rowley J.

( 1997) Open learning and IT skills acquisition in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (1), 64- 65., ). A significant number of students (17%) even requested that the use of the software be made compulsory, which substantiates the ideas of Mann S.J. ( 2001) Alternative perspectives on the student experience: alienation and engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 26 (1), 7- 19., and Case J. ( 2007) Alienation and Engagement: exploring students’ experiences of studying engineering. Teaching in HE, 12 (1), 119- 133., that students’ immediate motivation for participation does not arise from a personal desire to learn but more from to the requirement to attain marks.

In support of this, Quinn A. ( 2009) A discussion of the concept of ‘student-centred’ learning and teaching in the context of engineering. Birmingham Education, Theory and Action, in press. Also showed that students are more likely to engage with their learning if it is rewarded. This work demonstrated that student attendance was higher in classes that had class tests (contributing 1% of the total module mark) and those in which guidance was given on a coursework element (that was to form 20% of the total module mark) than those classes with no link to any summative assessment. However, at Birmingham it was felt that showing students how to use the software and making its use compulsory would defy the goal of promoting independent learning.

Additional support tools for software use and its outcomes One method that has been suggested in the literature as a balance between providing help to students and encouraging independent learning is the use of workbooks, which the students are required to complete before the class sessions ( Scott J., Buchanan J. ( 1997) Reflections on student-centred learning in a large class setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (1), 19- 30., ).

This involves the students being seated in groups so that they can discuss questions and answers collaboratively during the class sessions. This approach has been used in the University of Waikato in New Zealand, with class sizes of approximately 250, to support independent learning in the discipline of management systems ( Scott J., Buchanan J. ( 1997) Reflections on student-centred learning in a large class setting.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (1), 19- 30., ). This method was considered as an approach to support the use of CES EduPack (i.e.

Students working with the software in their own time and any questions they may have being discussed in the class sessions). However, a limitation of this technique is the time-consuming necessity of devising a workbook. To be able to provide the necessary help and support without increasing the cost of teaching was a significant challenge.

As a solution to this problem, in order to best meet the requirements of students and to remain within the limitations of the criteria set in introducing the software, tutorial style questions using the CES EduPack were devised so that students could work through the examples at their own pace using the detailed instructions. Answers (including screen shots and step-by-step instructions for the initial exercises) were also provided as necessary support and guidance to students. These were introduced as ‘homework’ exercises throughout the course. Whilst not assessed, the exercises were strongly recommended and were discussed in the lectures. Some course content was also compromised within the lecture periods to enable a little more time to be dedicated to discussing the use of CES EduPack, giving students the opportunity to ask questions about the software. No additional classes or summative assessments were used and independent learning was still encouraged (as students were required to use the CES EduPack software in their own time to complete formative assignments).

The tutorial questions and the full worked solutions and guidance notes for using the software were developed through teaching assistant support which was funded by a teaching fellowship grant. Therefore, whilst the cost of teaching was not increased (there were no additional contact hours or assessed assignments), there was considerable time investment and cost incurred in developing the support resources specific to the PAM module. However, this is thought to be less than the time and cost required to develop a full workbook approach as suggested by Scott J., Buchanan J. ( 1997) Reflections on student-centred learning in a large class setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (1), 19- 30.,.

Questionnaires administered at the end of term (of which 106 were returned) showed that a greater percentage of students (77%) chose to use the software, with additional students indicating that they would use it for revision. Students also gave feedback ( Coates L. ( 2007) Minutes from Student/Staff Committee meeting No- ST.0607.03 (19/0207). School of Engineering, University of Birmingham. ) that they had planned to use the material during revision, even if they had not used it during the year. This reinforces the idea that students can be considered ‘as “investors” in an economic system in that they are seeking the greatest reward per unit of “effort” being expended’ ( Quinn A.

( 2009) A discussion of the concept of ‘student-centred’ learning and teaching in the context of engineering. Birmingham Education, Theory and Action, in press. A significant number (35%) commented on the software’s ease of use.

In the previous year no such comments were made and, correspondingly, the number of students citing the software’s difficulty of use as a reason not to use it was reduced. However, the main barrier to using the software was still unfamiliarity (i.e. Not having sufficient practise in using it). This proportion decreased slightly from 37% for the 2007 cohort to 34% for the 2008 cohort.

With the additional support provided in 2008, the percentage of students requesting additional training on using the software also reduced slightly from 34% to 29%. This suggests that a reasonable number of students continued to feel the need for formal teaching on the software, confirmed by the written comments on the questionnaire where students specifically requested this. This is believed to be partly because use of the support resources was optional and partly because some students had low confidence in computer use, even when guidance was provided. Informal discussions with students support these theories. Where the CES EduPack has been used in small classes (.

Summary This paper discussed the introduction of the CES EduPack software for materials selection to first year undergraduate engineering students in a large class size module (>300 students). Skyrim Legendary Edition Steam Key Generator. Introducing subject-specific software to large classes can pose a significant challenge which cannot be successfully overcome without investing in support for students and guidance on its use. Even with the highest level of support, there will be students who do not use (and therefore do not benefit from) the software for a variety of reasons, including lack of knowledge about or confidence in using computers; disabilities; and conflict with preferred learning style. Various constraints made it necessary to introduce the software without significantly altering the existing syllabus or increasing the teaching contact time. It was found that the development of self-learning case study exercises and tutorial questions with step-by-step guidance was necessary to support students in becoming familiar with the software.

A significant number of students continued to request formal teaching via tutorials and computer classes, though it was felt that this was partially indicative of a reluctance on the part of some students to undertake non-assessed activities.