OUTCOMES-BASED TEACHING AND LEARNING STRATEGIES FOR

THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING PROFESSOR

Andres Winston C. Oreta, D. Eng. F. ASEP
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

ABSTRACT: In outcomes-based education (OBE), the design of the curriculum, syllabus,
teaching and learning strategies, and assessment should be constructively aligned with the
student performance, which are called outcomes. To effectively ensure that the course
learning outcomes are achieved, the students must be engaged in the learning process. The
engineering instructor must not simply resort to blackboard teaching but must employ
innovative teaching and learning activities that will stimulate the minds of the students and help
them create and integrate knowledge about the course content and intended learning outcomes.
With the aid of multimedia equipment which is now readily available in the classrooms at
DLSU-Manila, various multimedia and internet resources power point lectures, video showing
using you tube and slide shows can complement chalk and blackboard lectures. This paper
presents some teaching/learning activities (TLAs) and assessment tasks (ATs) used in the
delivery of structural engineering courses. Specific examples are presented to illustrate how
various TLAs and ATs can be used in the classroom to address learning outcomes in structural
engineering courses.

KEYWORDS: Outcomes-Based Education, Engineering Education, Structural Engineering,
Learning Outcomes, Assessment

1. INTRODUCTION

Outcomes-Based Education is an educational model in which the curriculum and pedagogy and
assessment are all focused on student learning outcomes (Driscoll & Wood 2007 p.4).
Outcomes-Based Education is now accepted as a framework in the accreditation of Engineering
Programs. The ABET in the US adopts its Engineering Criteria, which basically follows the
OBE framework. Similarly, the Washington Accord, which recognizes substantial equivalence in
the accreditation of qualifications in professional engineering for the member countries, also
adopts similar criteria. As a result, various studies have been conducted by engineering educators
on how to effectively implement the OBE framework in engineering schools. It is a new
paradigm in engineering education which is aimed at improving learning (Biggs 2003) and to
meet accreditation needs (Felder & Brent 2003). In the Philippines, the Commission on Higher
Education and the Philippine Technological Council (PTC) takes the lead in promoting OBE as
the framework for the accreditation of engineering programs.
The key to OBE is the achievement of outcomes. In OBE, the outcomes are first defined and
then the design of the curriculum including the teaching/learning activities (TLAs) and
assessment tasks (ATs) follow. Each engineering program has a set of program or student
outcomes (SOs). Program or student outcomes are narrow statements that describe outcomes

This is an updated version of the paper, Exploring a variety of teaching and learning activities to address
learning outcomes in structural engineering courses presented at the International Conference on Civil
Engineering Education (ICCEE2012), Nov. 9-10, 2012 DLSU, Manila. Updated for the International Conference
on SPACE 2014, April 24-25, Organized by ASEP & PICE-Makati

(knowledge, skills, abilities, values) of what students are expected to know and be able to do by
the time of graduation. In the Philippines, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) has
listed the program outcomes for each
engineering program. For the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
(BSCE), CHED created the corresponding
Policies and Standards (CHED CMO 29
s2007) and in Article III, Section 4.2 the
program outcomes are listed as shown in
Table 1. Student outcomes is now used
by ABET and ACBET replacing the term
program outcomes. These two terms
when used in this paper will have the same
meaning.

The Bachelor of Science in Civil
Engineering (BSCE) program follows a
curriculum with a set of courses which a
student must complete or pass in order to
earn a specific degree. In OBE, the course
learning outcomes of each course is at the
bottom level in the hierarchy of outcomes.
To assure the achievement of SOs, the
course learning outcomes (LOs) must
specify tasks, skills, knowledge and values
that students must achieve upon
completion of the course. The LOs must
also be aligned with specific SOs to assure
the attainment of the outcomes at the
program level. Since the definition of
outcomes cascade from top to bottom, the curriculum design
will also follow the same direction from program to course
level. Delivery of instruction and assessment, on the other
hand, is carried out from bottom to top. The course is the
basic element which comprises a program. The LOs are the
key in the design of the course content, selection of
teaching/learning activities (TLAs) and adoption of
assessment tasks (ATs). To effectively ensure that the course
learning outcomes are achieved, the students must be
engaged in the learning process. The OBE principle which
states whats important is not what you teach, its what they
learn should be a guiding principle in the selection of
TLAs. Thus, the teacher must not simply resort to chalk and
blackboard teaching but must employ also innovative and
student-centered teaching and learning activities that will
stimulate and challenge the minds of the students to create
Figure 1. Blooms Taxonomy
of Thinking Skills
http://educationaljargonschs.wikispaces.co
m/Bloom's+Taxonomy+(revised)
Table 1. CHED BSCE Program Outcomes
A graduate of the Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
(BSCE) program must attain:
(a) An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics,
physical sciences, engineering sciences to the
practice of civil engineering.
(b) An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well
as to analyze and interpret data
(c) An ability to design, build, improve, and install
systems or processes which meet desired needs
within realistic constraints.
(d) An ability to work effectively in multi-disciplinary
and multi-cultural teams.
(e) An ability to recognize, formulate, and solve civil
engineering problems.
(f) An understanding of the effects and impact of civil
engineering projects on nature and society, and of
the civil engineers social and ethical responsibilities
(g) Specialized engineering knowledge in each
applicable field, and the ability to apply such
knowledge to provide solutions to actual problems.
(h) An ability to effectively communicate orally and in
writing using the English language.
(i) An ability to engage in life-long learning and an
acceptance of the need to keep current of the
development in the specific field of specialization.
(j) An ability to use the appropriate techniques, skills
and modern engineering tools necessary for the
practice of civil engineering.
(k) A knowledge of contemporary issues
and integrate knowledge about the course content and intended learning outcomes. TLAs must
be aligned with the course learning outcomes and the student outcomes. TLAs must also address
the different levels of Blooms Taxonomy of cognitive thinking (Figure 1) the lower level
thinking skills (remembering, understanding, applying) and the higher level thinking
skills (analyzing, evaluating, and creating.) The challenge to educators according to
Biggs and Tang (1999) is addressing the full range of higher levels of cognitive skills resulting
to a deep approach in learning. When using a deep approach, students use the full range of
desired learning activities; they learn terminology, they memorize formulae, but move from there
to applying these formulae to new examples (Biggs and Tang (1999). Felder and Brent (2004)
also noted that the best way to facilitate the development of higher-level skills is to include
high-level tasks in learning objectives, share them with the students in study guides for exams,
give illustrations and practice in class and more practice on assignments; and then put the high-
level questions on the exams. The only way people acquire skills is through practice and
feedback.

This paper explores some TLAs and ATs as applied by the author in the structural engineering
courses. With the aid of multimedia equipment which is now readily available in the classrooms
at DLSU-Manila, various multimedia and internet resources power point lectures, video
showing using YouTube and slide shows are explored to enhance blackboard lectures.
Examples of classroom activities are also presented to illustrate how a teacher can become both a
source of knowledge and a facilitator of knowledge.

2. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING COURSES AND OUTCOMES

The DLSU BSCE curriculum consists of 219 academic units - 30 units of which are related to
structural engineering (STE) including the ten units of structural engineering specialization
courses as shown in Table 2. The common STE courses include the subjects on Theory of
Structures (8 units for lectures and 2 units for lab), Structural Design for RC, Steel and Timber
(8 units for lectures and 2 units for lab) and the STE specialization courses like Earthquake
Engineering (3 units), Bridge Engineering (3 units), Prestressed Concrete Design (3 units) and
Structural Design of
Buildings (1 unit lab).

Collectively, the STE
courses address the
entire CHED BSCE
program outcomes as
shown in Table 2.
However, if the
courses are taken
individually, each STE
course addresses
specific SOs either
substantially (X) or
partially (O). For example the lecture course in Theory of Structures address directly and
substantially the SO-(a): An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, physical sciences,
Table 2. Alignment of STE Courses with Program Outcomes

X substantially addressed O - partially addressed
engineering sciences to the practice of civil engineering and SO-(e): An ability to recognize,
formulate and solve civil engineering problems. The computed-aided Structural Analysis
course, aside from addressing SO-(a) and SO-(e) also addresses SO-(j): An ability to use the
appropriate techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for the practice of civil
engineering. The Theory of Structures laboratory addresses specifically SO-(b): An ability to
design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data and SO-(d): An
ability to work effectively in multi-disciplinary and multi-cultural teams. Structural design
courses address considerably SO-(c): An ability to design, build, improve, and install systems or
processes which meet desired needs within realistic constraints and SO-(j). The STE
specialization courses focuses on SO-(g): Specialized engineering knowledge in each
applicable field, and the ability to apply such knowledge to provide solutions to actual
problems and SO-(j). Laboratory courses usually address the student outcomes on teamwork
since the experiments and projects are usually accomplished by a group. The other student
outcomes on communication skills, life long learning and contemporary issues are also addressed
by the STE courses partially by selecting appropriate teaching/learning activities and assessment
tasks.

3. TEACHING/LEARNING ACTIVITIES AND ASSESSMENT TASKS

The course syllabus is a guide or map on how to achieve the student outcomes. An important
part of the syllabus is the Learning Plan where appropriate TLAs are listed for each meeting to
guide the instructor on the course delivery. To realize the attainment of the outcomes, we must
be guided by the Constructive Alignment Principle (Biggs 2003) which is an OBE principle that
emphasizes the need to set up an environment that maximizes the likelihood that students will
engage in the activities designed to achieve the intended outcomes. Hence, aside from the
chalk and blackboard mode of delivery, I explored and experimented on a variety of TLAs in
the delivery of course content and in the honing of students skills to achieve the LOs.

Classrooms at DLSU are now equipped with multimedia
equipment connected to the internet. Hence instructors
can used both blackboard and multimedia in their
lectures. Using the multimedia equipment, the instructor
can design activities that will engage the students to
construct learning and reinforce the chalk and
blackboard lectures. In the succeeding sections, I will
describe examples of the TLAs used in my classes in
Theory of Structures and Earthquake Engineering.

3.1 Gobbets
A gobbet is an extract of text, a passage of literature, an
image, a cartoon, a photograph, a map or an artifact
provided as a context for analysis, translation or
discussion in an assessment (Chan 2008). The
students task is to identify the gobbet, explain its context,
say why it is important, what it reminds them of or
Figure 2. Gobbet for a Simple
Beam
http://kristenhutchinson.wordpress.com/
L
W
whatever else you would like them to comment on (Biggs and Tang 1999). Gobbets are usually
used for assessment. In my case I applied the method by the gobbet using images for assessment
of the students knowledge of basic concepts.

In my first meeting in Theory of Structures-I, as my review of basic concepts in Statics and
Mechanics of Deformable Bodies, I displayed an image of a beam bridge (Figure 2) and posed
the problem to the students: if you are required to design a simple beam bridge to cross a river,
what information would you gather to accomplish your task and how would you use the
information? The responses from this gobbet include span length, beam material, weight of the
person(s), number of persons crossing the bridge at one time, shape and size of the beam, soil
type at the beam ends and cost. After listing their responses, I asked them on how the items in
the list will be used in the analysis and design of the beam bridge. From this exercise, the
students were able to reflect and learned about the relationship of the listed items to concepts in
Statics and Mechanics of Deformable Bodies.
A beam bridge can be modelled as a simple beam with length, L and the weights represented as
concentrated loads
Analysis means solving for reactions and maximum internal forces moment and shear
The type of material will specify the material strength (allowable stresses) and mechanical properties
(modulus of elasticity)
Designing the beam means determining the shape and size of the beam
Various types of design can be done for comparison (strength, cost)

The second example of a gobbet exercise (Figure 3) which I called Scaling an Earthquake was
applied in the Earthquake Engineering course (STEQUAK). One of the learning outcomes of the
course is familiarization with the PHIVOLCS Earthquake Intensity Scale (PEIS). A series of
photos were displayed to the class and the following problem was posted: You are tasked to
determine the intensity of the earthquake using PEIS. Assign the intensity scale for each photo.
Explain your answer. In this exercise, the students have to read and understand carefully the
descriptors for each intensity scale in PEIS and relate them to the photos.


http://woldcnews.com/
http://www.riskmanagementmonitor.com
Figure 3. Gobbets on Scaling an Earthquake
Assign the seismic intensity scale for each photo and
explain.

Figure 4. Post-Earthquake Assessment
[ ] Safe [X] Limited Entry [ ] Unsafe
The damage CHB wall which can be retrofitted does
not affect the main structural system (columns and
beams). Entry should be limited to the undamaged
areas because of possible collapse of wall.
ASEP DQRP
Another gobbet in my Earthquake Engineering class was included in an exam to assess the
students understanding of structural failure due to earthquakes. This is an exercise on post-
earthquake evaluation usually conducted by structural engineers (ASEP) after the occurrence of
an earthquake. The students are shown photos of a building damaged due to earthquake. A
description of the observed damage is also given. The students are required to assess the
condition of the building based on the photos and description and recommend the appropriate
post-earthquake posting (Safe, Limited Entry or Unsafe). Figure 4 shows a photo of a damaged
on-story building with the corresponding assessment of a student.

How can gobbets be applied using text instead of images? One possible application of
gobbets using text is in the interpretation of the design codes like National Structural Code of the
Philippines (NSCP). Design codes are
ambiguous and are not very easy to
understand. A provision of the NSCP may be
given (e.g. seismic detailing of RC columns)
and the students will be required to interpret
the provision by drawing sketches of how a
column should be detailed (spacing of hoops,
minimum dimensions, etc) for earthquake
resistant design.

In these examples of gobbets using images
and/or text, students are challenged to reflect
about the picture or text and think about the
relevance of the image or text to the concepts
in the course In general, gobbets can address
higher-order cognitive abilities such as
analyzing concepts and their relationships to
each other.

3.2 Slide Show Presentations
I created a number of slideshow presentations
where images or pictures with background
music and text are displayed. In my
Earthquake Engineering course, one of the
learning outcomes is that the students will be
able to describe the various hazards due to
earthquakes and ways of mitigating the
effects of these hazards. To help the students
address this learning outcome, I present a set
of video presentations on Understanding
Earthquakes and Disasters (Oreta 2009).
The main focus of the photo-video
presentations (Figure 5) is the impact of
earthquake hazards ground shaking, surface rupture, liquefaction, tsunami, landslides to the
community and infrastructures. By presenting the effects of earthquakes, the students will


QuakeBasics


Buildings: Shake,
Rattle & Roll

Bridges are Falling Down


On Shaky Ground

Learning Lessons:
Luzon 1990 Earthquake


Beware of Tsunami


Disasters & Development

Preparing for the Big One

Figure 5 Understanding Earthquakes &
Disasters Photo-Video
http://digitalstructures.blogpsot.com.
understand their vulnerability to the different types of seismic hazards. And by knowing ones
vulnerability, mitigation actions can be done to avoid a disaster. The photo-video presentations
can also be viewed by the students through the internet at http://digitalstructures.blogpsot.com.

3.3 Online Video and Tutorials
A video presentation captures the attention and creates interest on the students about the subject
matter. In my classes, I usually present full length movies by Discovery (e.g. Engineering the
Impossible), National Geographic (e.g. featured movies on recent earthquakes) and DVDs
about engineering marketed by Insight Media (http://www.insight-media.com/) like the 20
minute DVD on Structures. Commercial videos are quite expensive though DVD price
ranges between US$ 119 to US$289 for a program running for about 20 min to 40 min.

The internet is a rich resource of free video presentations and tutorials. Various sites like
YouTube and many social networks share interesting video and tutorials which can be used in
the classroom. Since the multimedia equipment at DLSU are connected to the internet, online
video presentation is accessible and provides a more enriching experience to the students.
Examples when I used online presentations are described below:
In my lecture about the solution of the equation of motion of a single degree of freedom
(SDOF) system in structural dynamics, I presented a tutorial on differential equations from
the site: http://khanacademy.com. I refer them to view the tutorials for their review on
differential equations.
In comparing the behavior of SDOF systems
with different periods I present a shaking table
test from YouTube as shown in Figure 6(a).
In illustrating the effect of external forces like
wind on structures, I present the Tacoma
Bridge failure from YouTube as shown in
Figure 6(b).

(a) (b)
Figure 6. YouTube Videos
(a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV_UuzEznHs&playnext=1&list=PL2ADDAC9B294A5593&feature=results_main
(b) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mclp9QmCGs

Figure 7. Visual Basic Applications
http://mysite.dlsu.edu.ph/faculty/oretaa
When reviewing Mechanics of Materials in my Theory of Structures class, I sometimes
present the animations and games from MecMovies (http://web.mst.edu/~mecmovie/.
Materials.

3.4 Software Demonstrations
Simple software applications and games developed by undergraduate civil engineering students
may be used to enhance the teaching and learning of the basic civil engineering courses (Oreta
2007). In reviewing concepts in Theory of Structures, the students are referred to try Visual
Basic applications created by DLSU students that are uploaded at my DLSU website. The
students run the program and compare their manual calculations with the computer output. They
can also use the program for parametric studies. Examples of software (Figure 7) available in
the website which are discussed in the course on Theory of Structures are:
Elastic Stress of a Beam
Elastic Deflection of a Beam
Curved Beams
Unsymmetrical Bending

3.5 Open-Ended Problems
Problem solving is one learning activity that is extensively employed by engineering educators.
Problem-solving is defined as a process used to obtain a best answer to an unknown or a
decision subject to some constraints (Mourtos 2004). Through problem solving students learn to
apply the theoretical equations in both hypothetical and real-world scenarios. Assigning problem
sets provides students the opportunity to test their understanding of the theory and concepts. The
type of problems assigned to students addresses various levels of thinking and outcomes.
Traditionally, problems are designed with given parameters and students are required to
determine an unknown quantity. The solution usually involves substitution of known values to
an equation to solve for the unknown parameter. Problems of this type are said to be close-
ended. Close-ended questions usually have a unique answer and the procedure of obtaining the
answer is limited or straight-forward. Close-ended problems address lower levels of thinking
(based on Blooms taxonomy) like remembering, understanding and applying and some
higher mode of thinking like analyzing.

To address higher levels of thinking like evaluating and creating and transformative
outcomes experienced in the real-world, open-ended questions should also be included in the
problem sets. Sobek and Jain (2004) emphasized the need for open-ended problems. Employers
look for engineers who are effective at solving open-ended problems. Engineering accreditation
demands evidence that students can tackle open-ended problems proficiently. Open-ended
problems address considerably the student outcomes on an ability to recognize, formulate, and
solve civil engineering problems and an ability to engage in lifelong learning. Open-ended
questions are usually ill-defined and there may be more than one valid approach to obtain the
solution. As a matter of fact, the solution may not be unique because of varying assumptions
made regarding some parameters. Mourtos (2004) noted in their study that traditional exercises
(close-ended) found in most engineering texts, although useful, do not adequately prepare
engineering students for real-world problems. Students seem to have great difficulty approaching
these (open-ended) problems; however, they also seem to enjoy the challenge and perform
reasonably well if given proper guidance.

Figure 8 show two
examples of open-ended
problems given in the Theory
of Structures course. The first
problem is related to analysis
of beams due to
unsymmetrical bending.
Deciding on the most
effective set-up of the Z-
section whether upright or
inverted would require
application of concepts in
moment of inertia,
equilibrium, bending moment and elastic bending stress analysis. There are various ways of
justifying the correct answer for the most efficient cross-section. The second problem is on the
analysis of composite on non-homogeneous sections. This problem has many solutions since
various arrangements of the composite section made of steel and wood can be devised. This
problem challenges the students to recommend a practical and realistic composite section to
replace a given I-section. Open-ended problems are challenging to the students and also to the
faculty. Open-ended problems take a considerable time for preparation and checking. However,
the impact to learning may be worth it.

3.6 Open-Ended Experiments
A Theory of Structures Laboratory was introduced in the DLSU BSCE curriculum in 2010
where Modular Structures Equipment is used in the experiments (Oreta 2011). The laboratory
course complements lectures in Mechanics of Deformable Bodies and Theory of Structures. This
course aims to enhance the understanding and mastery of important concepts in stress and
structural analysis through laboratory experiments. When I handled the course the first time,
students were required to perform traditional or standard type of experiments. In the standard
mode, the objectives and procedures are given like a recipe which the students follow from
data gathering, data presentation, data analysis and writing conclusions.

Felder and Brent (2003) noted that in traditionally designed experiments students can certainly
conduct the experiments, but whether they can claim to have done anything meaningful by way
of analyzing and interpreting data is a matter of opinion, and experimental design has clearly not
entered the picture. Hence, it was suggested that open-ended experiments should be
conducted more to improve the learning experience and to address substantially the outcome on
an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data. In




(a)


(b)
(a) Purlins are beams designed to carry roof
loads. You are tasked to design a Z-shaped
steel section. How would you install the
section to maximize the moment capacity
of the beam?
(b) A simple beam with length, L and carrying
a uniform load, w has an I-section made of
brass. If you were to replace the I section
with a composite section made of steel and
wood, recommend the dimensions and
arrangement of the composite section
which has the same moment capacity of
the as the brass section.

Figure 8. Examples of Open-Ended Problems

Open-Ended Experiment No. 1
Using the STR4, determine experimentally the modulus of
elasticity (E) of two types of beam materials provided in the lab
(steel, brass or aluminum). Compare with the nominal values of
E.

Open-Ended Experiment No. 2
Using the STR4, estimate the location and magnitude of the
maximum deflection of a simple beam when the applied load P
(or loads) is/are not symmetrical. Show the location of
maximum deflection graphically.

STR4

Figure 9. Examples of Open-Ended Experiments (Theory of Structures Laboratory)
open-ended experiments, you provide the objective and it would be up to the students to design
the experiment (choose experimental conditions, specify how many runs to carry out at each
condition and the data to be collected, plan the data analysis to be carried out), run it and collect
the data, perform the data analysis and interpretation, draw conclusions, and prepare and submit
the report (Felder and Brent 2003).

The following year, a number of open-ended experiments were introduced in the Theory of
Structures Laboratory. Figure 9 states the objectives of the open-ended experiments using the
STR4 for deflections of beams and cantilevers. Comparing the outputs and feedback between the
standard and open-ended experiments, obviously the students had more difficulties and errors in
the open-ended mode and it took them a longer time in performing the later since this may be
their first time to experience this approach. However, the group members were more engaged in
the activity specifically in the experimental design stage unlike in the standard mode where they
just focused on data gathering. I believe they were challenged to use their higher modes of
thinking and team work was demonstrated. When asked in a survey to compare their experience
between the two types of experiments, about one-third suggested that more open-ended
experiments should be included in the course. The students feedback on the open-ended
experiments include both positive and negative remarks like challenging, develops critical
thinking and decision making, help students learn by themselves, test the learners
understanding of concepts, improved teamwork, difficult, and time consuming.

3.7 Group Research and Oral Reporting
To address the student outcomes on life long learning, team work and effective
communication, a group research and report is an appropriate learning and assessment activity.
A library and internet research will engage the students to finding new information related to the
course and the reports would give
them the opportunity to demonstrate
their oral communication and
presentations skills using
multimedia.

In the Earthquake Engineering
course, a group research was one of
the requirements and also
assessment task employed. A rubric
on the assessment of the group
research and report is shown in
Table 3. In the group research, each
group was given a problem to
address. For example one group was assigned this problem: How can we improve the seismic
performance of a building with vertical irregularity due to a soft-story? Then the group has to
present in class orally by answering the key questions below:
What is the problem about? Describe with images and/or video.
What is/are the solution? Describe the various solutions with images and/or video.
What is the conclusion? Describe the lessons learned from the research.


Figure 10. A scene in a video created by students
http://www.youtube.com/my_videos_edit?ns=1&video_id=G_tJcy2nD8s
The group reports were very informative some are animated. Most of the groups created short
video presentations about their topic. The video presentation complements the oral report using
power point slides. Some video presentations demonstrated the creativity of the students such as
the video in Figure 9 which is about a soft story building and retrofitting methods.

3.8 On-Site Exercise
Applying the tools learned in the classroom in
the real-world scenario is the best approach to
test the students understanding of the concepts
and develop their skills. One topic in
Earthquake Engineering is the rapid visual
screening (RVS) of existing buildings for
potential seismic hazards. The FEMA-154
approach which is also adopted in the
Philippines served as our reference. As part of
the outcomes assessment, the students were
required to apply the FEMA-154 RVS on
existing buildings in the DLSU campus. Each
student was assigned a building to inspect and
complete the FEMA-154 form (Figure 11). The
exercise addresses a learning outcome of the
course on describe the basic principles of
earthquake-resilient design of structures
which partially addresses the program outcome
on an ability to design, build, improve, and
install systems or processes which meet desired
needs within realistic constraints.
Through this exercise, the students first have to
review the FEMA-154 RVS procedure and then
go to the building site and conduct a sidewalk survey visual inspection from the outside.
They also interviewed the campus building administrators to inquire about some information
about the buildings like year built and lot area.


Figure 11. RVS output of a student
Table 3. Rubric for Assessment of Group Research and Report in Earthquake Engg
CRITERIA EXEMPLARY
3-4
SATISFACTORY
2-3
DEVELOPING
1-2
BEGINNING
0-1
RATING
Content of
Research
(40%)
The research is extensive,
complete with facts,
figures, images and video.
The research
satisfactorily covers the
assigned topic.
The research lacks
some important
information.
The research is
incomplete. There is
minimal coverage of the
assigned topic.

References
(20%)
The research cited sources
and references.
Authoritative sources are
used.
The research cited
sources and references.
Some information
that requires
referencing not
cited.
Important information
not cited.

Oral
Presentation
(40%)
Slides and video are used
effectively and designed
properly. The oral reports
are clear, interesting and
informative.
Slides and video are
used effectively. The
oral reports are clear
and easy to understand.
Some slides and
video are not
necessary. Some
reporters are not
clear in their
presentation.
Ineffective use of slides
and video. Poor
reporting.

3.9 Hybrid Problem Solving
In the course on Matrix Theory of Structures, students are required to model and analyze
structures with large degrees of freedom. This course address the student outcomes on the
solving civil engineering problems using modern engineering tools. To address these
outcomes, individual and group problem sets are assigned to the students where they model and
analyze statically indeterminate trusses, beams, frames and grids using a combination of manual,
semi-manual/computer-aided and software tools (Figure 12). In the manual computation,
students demonstrate their understanding of the applicable theory and matrix equations. The
semi-manual phase requires the students to use Mircosoft Excel to perform the matrix operations
needed to solve the displacements, reactions and member forces of structures. This phase is
semi-manual since students input the values of the elements of the matrices and then perform the
operations like matrix inversion, transposition and multiplication using Excel functions. To
verify their results, the structural analysis software, GRASP (for 2D) and SAP2000 (for 3D) are
used. Through this exercise, students reconcile the theory and the computer-aided solutions.

5. CONCLUSION
This paper presented a variety of examples on Teaching/Learning Activities (TLAs) and
Assessment Tasks (ATs) employed in some structural engineering courses. The various
strategies were explored to enhance the delivery of instruction and to experience the practice of
the principles of outcomes-based education (OBE) which focuses more on what students do to
learn and achieve course learning outcomes. The examples illustrate how OBE can be
implemented in the civil engineering undergraduate program. The effectiveness of these TLAs,
though, needs to be evaluated to further improve course delivery, implementation and
assessment.

Since OBE is a new paradigm in engineering education, then full implementation of OBE takes
time. By understanding and recognizing the OBE principles, the faculty members outlook


Figure 12. Matrix Solution of a Truss using manual, computer-aided (Microsoft Excel)
and software (GRASP) tools
becomes more focused on addressing outcomes than simply delivering course content. The
engineering faculty members should gradually employ the OBE principles in the classroom from
syllabus writing, course delivery to course assessment to appreciate the outcomes-based teaching
and learning. The faculty should be reminded that we learn only by doing.

REFERENCES

Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University, McGraw-Hill Open University Press

Biggs, John (2003). Aligning Teaching and Assessing to Course Objectives, Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education: New Trends and Innovations, University of Aveiro, 13-17 April 2003

Blooms Taxonomy. http://educationaljargonschs.wikispaces.com/Bloom's+Taxonomy+(revised)

Chan C. (2008) Assessment: Gobbets, Assessment Resource Centre, University of Hong
Kong [http://arc.caut.hku.hk]: Available: Accessed: 8/27/2012

CHED CMO 29 s2007: http://www.ched.gov.ph/chedwww/index.php/eng/Information/CHED-Memorandum-
Orders/2007-CHED-Memorandum-Orders

Driscoll, A. & Wood, S. (2007). Outcomes-based assessment for learner-centered education, Stylus Publishing, Inc.

Felder, Richard and Brent, Rebecca (2003). Designing and Teaching Courses to Satisfy the ABET Engineering
Criteria, Journal of Engineering Education, 92 (1), 7-25 (2003)

Felder, Richard and Brent, Rebecca (2004). The ABCs of Engineering Education: ABET, Blooms Taxonomy,
Cooperative Learning, and so on, Proc. 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference &
Exposition

FEMA-154. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (March 2002). Rapid visual screening of buildings for
potential seismic hazards: A handbook. 2nd Ed. (ATC-21). Washington, D.C.

MecMovies: Mechanics of Materials by Timothy A. Philpot, http://web.mst.edu/~mecmovie/

Mourtos, N. et al. (2004). Open-ended problem solving skills in thermal-fluids engineering, Global Journal of
Egg Education, UICEE

Oreta, A. (2006). Producing multimedia presentations to enhance engineering education, Proceedings
International Civil Engineering Education Congress 2006 (ICEEC 2006) and the 7th National Civil Engineering
Education Congress 2006 (7
th
NCEEC), UAF, Angeles City, Pampanga

Oreta, A. (2007). Computer-Based Games and Software in Civil Engineering as Educational Tools, Science &
Technology Congress, July 4, 2007, De La Salle University-Manila

Oreta, A. (2009). Understanding Earthquakes and Disasters: Photo-Video Presentations for Public Awareness and
Education, 14th Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines International Convention, May 21-22, 2009
ISSN 1656-7757 pp. 235-243

Oreta, A.W.C. et al (2011). Theory of Structures Laboratory in the CE Curriculum: Understanding Structural
Behavior through Laboratory Experiments, 15th ASEP International Convention, Sept. 28-29, 2011, Dusit Thani
Hotel

Sobek, D and Jain V. (2004). The Engineering Problem Solving Process: Good for Students? Proc.2004
American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference & Exposition

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Andres Winston C. Oreta, D.Eng. is a professor in civil engineering at the De La Salle University, Manila,
Philippines. He is a fellow of the Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc. (ASEP) and a life
member of the PICE (Manila Chapter). Website: http://mysite.dlsu.edu.ph/faculty/oretaa. Blogsite:
http://digitalstructures.blogspot.com. Email: andyoreta@yahoo.com.