Project Proposal On Developing suitable pedagogical methods for various classes, intellectual calibers and research in elearning

Submitted to The Department of Higher Education Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India

Detailed Project Report

Date 14th April, 2009

Prof. Anup K Ray IIT, Kharagpur

Email: akray@cet.iitkgp.ernet.in

PROFORMA FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS UNDER THE SCHEME OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT DURING 20082009 PART-I Information relating to department/Institute

Sl. No 1 Name of Institute with complete address

Indian Institute of technology, Kharagpur Kharagpur 721302 IIT Kharagpur will anchor this National Mission Project. Even During the pilot phase of this project IIT, Kharagpur will be joined by faculty members/ from IITM,IITB,IITK,IITD, IITR, IIIT Allahabad, IIIT Bangalore, NIT Rourkela, BESU Shibpur, NITTTR Kolkata, Jadavpur University, BHU, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University and experts form Infosys Technologies, Wipro, CMERI ,NBA ,NAAC, IGNOU And Other Internationally Acclaimed Excepts From India And abroad. Developing suitable pedagogical methods for various classes, intellectual calibers and research in e-learning. 3.1 Centre for Educational Technology, IIT Kharagpur -Pedagogy, e-learning, technology enhanced learning 3.2 Continuing Education Programme, IIT Kharagpur 3.3 E & ECE, CE, ME, EE, Chem E, & CSE Department IIT Kharagpur 3.4 Others (as mentioned above)

2 3

Title of the Research Project Department/Board Area

: :

Major areas of research in the Department

4.1

Pedagogy, E-learning Technology Enhanced Learning at CET IIT Kharagpur

4.2 All engineering, science & engineering 2

education 5 Names & Designation of Principal Researches in 5.1 Dr. Anup K. Ray -Prof. & Chairman, CET the major areas and list of publication during last till 2005 (Principal Investigator) Professor, 5 years based on work done in the Department CET till 2008 Visiting Faculty from March, : 2008 5.2 Dr. Ajay Chakraborty Dean, Continuing Education IIT Kharagpur & Professor, E & ECE Department 5.3 Dr. Bani Bhattacharya (CO PI) Asst. Prof. CET,IIT Kharagpur 5.4 Dr. A. Mohanty (CO PI) Asst. Prof. CET, IIT Kharagpur 5.5 Dr. S. Sengupta (CO PI) Prof. E & ECE Department, IIT Kharagpur 5.6 Dr. S. K. Bhattachaya (CO PI) Prof. Civil Engg Department, IIT Kharagpur 5.7 Dr. G. Saha (CO PI) Asso. Prof. E & ECE Department, IIT Kharagpur 5.8 Dr. S. Mahapatra (CO PI) - Asso. Prof. E & ECE Department, IIT Kharagpur Publications : More than 100 over last 5 years 5.9 More than 100 faculty and experts from other institutions / industry in India and abroad. 6 7 8 9 Is it Inter-disciplinary Project? Is it Inter-Institutional Project? Is any Industry/User agency participating? : Yes : : Yes Yes ( The user agency includes all higher education institutions, universities as well as industry)

Brief of completed and or ongoing research 9.1 NPTEL Phase 1 Prof. A.K. Ray (PI) & Dr. B. projects supported by MHRD/AICTE in the Bhattacharya were TEL coordinators at IIT Department during last 5 years. : Kharagpur 9.2 Several other projects have been executed by 3

many of the other participating departments / institution

PART-II

Information relating to department/Institute

Sl. N0 .

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Name Designation Age Educational Qualification Areas of specialization Experience (Teaching & Research) Selected list of papers published (Dr.) ANUP KUMAR RAY Visiting Faculty, IIT Kharagpur 66 Years B Tel E, Phd, FIE, FIETE Educational Technology, E-learning Pedagogy, Video Systems Engineering Over 40 Years (India + Abroad) 28 in ET related areas * Pl see short CV attached. JOINT PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR PROF. AJAY CHAKRABORTY [Ex-Officio, Dean CEP] Dean, CEP 56 Years B Tech (Hons), M Tech, Ph.D. Electromagnetics 32 Years Related to engineering education : 10 Total in Ref. Journals : 105 * Pl see short CV attached.

10 (a)

10 (b)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Name Designation Age

Educational Qualification Areas of specialization Experience (Teaching & Research) Selected list of papers published

11.

In case it is a joint project with other Institution, It is a joint project as stated under Sr 1, Part 1. research labs and industries, name(s) of Abbreviated list of participants. participating investigators. 11.1 Jadavpur University (a) Prof. Samar Bhattacharya, Director, School of ET, JU & Others 11.2 BHU (a) Prof J.N. Sinha CSE Department, IT BHU (b) Prof. A.K. Tripathi Head, Computer Center, IT BHU 11.3 IITM (a) Prof Mangal Sunder Krishnan Professor Chemistry Department, NPTEL Coordinator] and others . 6 11.4. IITB (a) Prof. Sridhar Iyer - Asso. Professor . CSE Department, IITB

(ANUP KUMAR RAY) (NAME & SIGNATURE OF THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR)

PART-III About Research Project

Sl. No. 15 (a) Summary of the Project (in brief) This is the pilot phase of the National Mission Project Developing suitable pedagogical methods for various classes, intellectual calibers and research in e-learning to be anchored by IIT Kharagpur (MHRD letter DD No F 5-66/2006-DL data 12th Oct,2006). The Pilot Phase of the project is expected to generate a report covering review of recent researches, developments, issues and trends in university level engineering and liberal education system with special emphasis on the pedagogic aspects of e-learning and technology enhanced learning design covering the needs of learners with differing abilities, expectations and socio cultural background. The report would identify some of the key areas where further pedagogic research and development may be taken up to address the needs of these sectors, particularly in the Indian context. The first report is expected to be ready after 6 months from the start of the project. The pilot project will expose a large number of faculty members drawn from various institutions across the country to good teaching-learning practices to prepare them for taking up challenging curriculum development tasks posed by Indias wish to become a Washington Accord Signatory State. It is expected to build up the necessary expertise, infrastructure, appropriate curriculum development methodology including assessment and evaluation tools for use with modern learning outcome based curricula for higher education. Collaborative ICT tools are proposed to be used for networking , training and developmental purposes in due course of time.

(b)

Justification, importance of project, etc.

The conventional approach to teaching-learning, the teacher transferring her knowledge and skills, in small to medium size classroom settings appeared to be the most effective and time-tested method until recently. Historically the access to high quality education was restricted to students from the privileged section of the society. This process of restricted admission ensured smaller class room sizes, similar socio economic student backgrounds and in general far less disparate groups of learners than is the case today. This has given rise to a situation very different from the days when conventional education sufficed to serve the society. It is becoming increasingly clear, that the knowledge, skills and attitudes that the graduates of the 21st century need to be equipped with, are far more demanding, varied and better articulated than in the past. Mere domain knowledge in ones chosen field of study will not suffice. We must recognize that imminent and major changes are required in the design and delivery methods of our higher education system. We need to articulate the goals of all our higher education programmes, be it technical or general education. This is essentially the broad vision of a programme that determines everything else: curriculum, faculty, assessment and evaluation, learning resources, pedagogic issues, physical and ICT infrastructure, institute environment, built-in systemic mechanism for quality assurance and continuous quality improvement. India became a provisional member of the Washington Accord (WA) in 2007. In the later part of 2009, India is expected to make a Review Request to the WA Secretariat to begin the process of becoming a full signatory. The process is complex and requires a great deal of preparation and major up gradation of our pedagogic and curricular processes. The guidelines outlined in section C of the WA document lists Graduate Profile Exemplars of all the three accords. WA lists 13 attributes, which are discipline independent, many being skills and 8

attitudes required to deal with life in the 21st century. Section C describes these attributes, fairly precisely in terms of learning outcomes and also distinguishes between different types of problem solving abilities and engineering activities. Guidelines to WA signatories given under section C, also includes under subsection 7, a set of principles termed Principles of Good Practice for Accord Signatories Working Internationally. In anticipation of extensive use of Online and Web-based Instruction and Programs by the WA signatories, guidelines on Quality Assurance of Online and Web-based Instruction and programs have been specifically included as principle 3. Designing and teaching courses to satisfy WA accord requirements is likely to need a sustained and major effort during the next few years. The recently announced National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technologies and more specifically, the provision for the project on Developing suitable pedagogical methods for various classes, intellectual calibers and research in elearning appears to have been tailored to carry out this gigantic task. It is interesting to note that over the last few decades, the emphasis in educational policies in almost all the developed nations has shifted from the survey of discipline type curricula to clearly identified learning outcomes based curricula followed by application of well researched pedagogic principles in the implementation of the curricula. The vision for student learning does not preclude the inclusion of disciplinary surveys, but it certainly can not be enacted by a general education program that is restricted to such studies alone. And, more constructively, it points us toward the power and value of integrative educational practices: vertical rather than foundational designs for general education; big questions studied across multiple courses that help the students gain insight into the wide world; a strong emphasis on practicing and demonstrating advanced intellectual and practical skills; engagement with significant ethical, civic and societal questions, both enduring and contemporary; integrative assignments and 9

experiences, anchored at progressively more advanced points across both general and specialized studies .These generic process skills may be written in terms of specific learning outcomes, as shown below: At the end of the programme of study the student should be able to: think critically and be able to analyze and solve complex, real-world problems find, evaluate and use appropriate learning resources work cooperatively in teams and small groups demonstrate versatile and effective communication skills, both verbal and written use content knowledge and intellectual skills acquired at the university to become continuing learners pedagogic principles in the implementation of the curricula. Transparency, accountability and quality assurance are key concepts in this new regime. Adoption of educationally meaningful assessment strategies has special importance in this approach. The three international accords covering, different levels of secondary technical education mentioned above, stand testimony to these developments. The same trend is also clearly visible in the general higher education (HE) sector. Barbara J Dutch et al. make a strong case in favour of reforming the traditional teaching learning methods when they quote from the Carnegie Foundations report, Reinventing Undergraduate Education : A Blueprint for Americas Research Universities (1998). traditional lectures and note-taking were created for a time when books were scarce and costly and teaching to a large number of students was an efficient means of transferring Knowledge In their view lecturing is still efficient and has persisted as the traditional teaching method, largely because it is familiar, easy and how we learned. It does little, however, to foster development of process skills to complement the content knowledge.

10

(c)

Details of the work already done by Principal Investigator in this area :

PI has spent over 30 years in this and related filed, conducting teaching, research, development and consultancy at national and international level. The list of references attached along with this report indicates the amount of background reading which the PI and his group has done in recent months.

16. 17.

Total amount required:

Rs 5.00 Core for pilot phase Period: 6 months from start of project

(a)

Recurring budget (not more than 30%) of the proposal along with item-wise breakup (Man power, Contingency, Consumable, Travel, Miscellaneous year wise breakup. S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4 Item Research Assistant Contingency Travel Miscellaneous Amount Lakhs Duration Total per year Amount(Lakhs) 6 34.0 months 6 26.0 months 6 40.0 months 6 100.0 months

(b)

Detailed breakup of non-recurring items (with the equipment to be procured along with cost) Item Servers, PCs, Printers, Scanners, Photocopiers, Video Conference Facilities at multiple campuses, consoles and other audio video equipment Amount(lakhs) 300.0

S. No.

* no building construction is not permitted

11

18

Summary sheet (common for all the 3 schemes) SUMMARY SHEET

1 2

Name of the Institution Title of the Project

: :

Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur Developing suitable pedagogical methods for various classes, intellectual calibers and research in e-learning. Centre for Educational Technology IIT Kharagpur Anchor Institution Rs Five Crores NIL

3 4 5 6

Name of the Department Cost of the Project Amount released earlier if any

: : :

Utilization position in respect of grants released earlier (upto-2001) for various projects (Details to be given projectwise) N/A (i) Fully spent N/A N/A

(ii) Unspent, proposal to utilize it

7 8

Reasons for unspent balance

N/A

Name of the Principal Investigator Dr. ANUP KUMAR RAY responsible for implementation of the Project.

12

13

(ANUP KUMAR RAY) (NAME & SIGNATURE OF THE PRINCIAPAL INVESTIGATOR)

For Office Use Only 1. 2. Name of the Area : Recommendations: a. Approved b. Not approved c. Deferred Amount (Rs._____________ in lakhs) d. Transferred to area 3. Remarks, if any (common for all the 3 schemes)

1.

19.

Certified (i) that the Principal Investigator is due to retirement during the currency of this project. (ii) that the Principal Investigator is a regular employee of this Institution. However in case he/she proceeds sabbatical/resigns/proceeds VRS etc., the Institute will ensure to replace PI by a compatible academician to ensure that without any brake whatsoever, project will be completed within the stipulated period of 2 years. that it will be ensured that the implementation will be carried out on mission mode with no time or cost over run and we are aware that ministry will neither provide any extension of time nor additional funding. that no over heads will be charges by the Institution for this project and all facilitation including other essential/infrastructure support like air-conditioning etc. will be provided by the Institution.

(iii)

(iv)

Seal of the Institution

Signature of Head of the Institution

(Name)

Detail Project Report 1. Objective Generate a report covering developments, issues and 14 review of recent researches, trends in university level