Teaching Portfolio

I decided to begin the task of compiling the teaching material, products and data presented in this document shortly after a seminar on Developing a Teaching Portfolio I attended at AUB in November, 2003. I credit that seminar for breaking the initial “dread” and inertia, which had prevented me from starting what seemed to be such a daunting task earlier.

Early on I was confronted with the following questions, which I had to face and answer:

The answers to these questions would determine the general approach to be adopted, material to be included and the presentation format: Should I write a document directed to “others”, peers and colleagues, for evaluation and critique, or should it be an inward looking, personal compilation of my teaching experience, reflecting a less formal, more “forgiving” text and format, one which allows for reflection and self-assessment as a priority?

After much thought, discussions and uncertain beginnings, I decided to try to meet both needs. The teaching portfolio presented herein is an attempt at sharing some of the highlights of my teaching career to date, with supporting documents, data and analyses organized for simplicity and ease of access. It is also a personal, still evolving work, which includes reflections on past achievements and shortcomings, taking stock of where I am today as a teacher, as well as looking ahead to future challenges and possibilities (goals, tools and improvements).

The whole art of teaching is only the art of awakening the natural curiosity of young minds for the purpose of satisfying it afterwards.

When I made my choice of a career in academia, my decision was shaped in part by a love and enthusiasm for teaching. That favorable disposition for teaching was the result of numerous positive experiences with university professors whom I came to respect and admire, and a modest, all be it rewarding stint, as a Teaching Assistant in graduate school.

Over the years my definition of successful teaching has evolved from an intuitive feel for what works and what does not, to a set of headings or guidelines which I have come to adopt as my own method style and approach.

Teaching is an act of passion. Enthusiasm and excitement about the material delivered is contagious. I have found that students respond positively to topics delivered in such a manner; their curiosity is peaked and their interest in actively participating in the learning process is heightened. The prototypical students entering the FEA have, in their majority, been accustomed to a passive mode of learning throughout their secondary school years, trained to listen, learn by repeating and emulating, and rarely questioning. Engaging the students directly, involving them and challenging them are means to break them out of that mold.

One cannot be a good teacher without developing the ability to communicate with clarity and simplicity, material which can at times be quite tedious and complex. My approach is to attempt to break down such topics to manageable components, gradually building layers of knowledge.

Knowledge of current trends, methods in analysis and design, construction techniques, equipment, interesting challenges and exciting achievements in the field are essential elements in a professional education setting. To the extent possible, I tend to draw on research activities I am involved in or aware of, and bring the outside world into the classroom through actual case studies from on-going or recent projects. Engineering students should always be aware of the "big picture": how and where the elements they are learning fall in the overall context.

I am a firm believer in the benefits of hands-on course projects, particularly for upper level undergraduates (3^rd and 4^th year students). I am committed to always encourage and challenge my students to learn by doing, trying, and experimenting. The environment created by such projects, the inevitable discussions, questions, problems and set-backs, creative-and at times ingenious-solutions are wonderful to witness and participate in. I have tried to document some of the achievements in this area in the relevant sections of this portfolio.

The interaction with students outside the classroom setting is in many ways its own reward and an extension of the teaching process. I strive to set a high standard of integrity and professionalism, without creating unnecessary barriers between myself and my students. Being always accessible, helpful when and where possible and showing genuine concern and commitment to issues which are of importance to students, is an intrinsic part of my role as a teacher. I have always been eager to share in group activities (soccer tournaments, outings,…) and the rapport that is built as a result has been extremely rewarding.

Inevitably, with time, my teaching style, approach and philosophy will evolve and change to adapt to new needs and technologies and will have to succumb to the limitations of “old-age”: I don’t think I will be able to keep up on the soccer field for much longer.

My teaching and advising responsibilities since joining AUB are summarized in the following table.

q 7 Graduate courses (3 of which are open to undergraduates as upper level electives and one is a special projects GR course).

q 9 Undergraduate courses (2 of which involved course coordination with minimal lecturing, 1 as a guest lecturer for one or two weeks, and 1 as a special UG project course)

Consistently, my teaching load has consisted of at least two 3Cr. courses per semester (typically one graduate and one undergradaute). The number of students in these courses varied from 5 to 10 students as a minimum in graduate courses to more than 150 for some sophomore level classes (detailed breakdown of student numbers for every course is available in the summary table). An analysis of the number of students per courses as a function of occurrence is included in the following graphs.

I have developed or actively participated in developing the following courses which had not been part of the CEE curriculum:

q CIVE 200 Perspectives in Civil Engineering – 1^st year introductory course/seminar (Contributed in developing the course-2004).

q CIVE 320L Construction Materials – 2^nd year course which includes lab- supervised construction experience and

q CIVE 732 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering – Graduate course covering aspects of earthquake engineering related to soils, site specific response and geo-hazards (2001).

q CIVE 631 Environmental Geotechnics – Graduate course covering aspects of waste management, landfill design, clean-up and remediation of contaminated sites from a geotechnical engineering perspective. (2003-2004)

I have completely re-structured and revised the following courses in relation to the ABET accreditation curriculum revision effort:

q CIVE 431 Soil Mechanics and Laboratory – 3^rd year required course which used to be covered in two separate courses. The material was revised, modified and updated.

q CIVE 530 Foundation Engineering – 4^th year required course, which used to be: soil mechanics and foundations. The course was re-structured, revised and updated.

The following students have or are currently working on their Master’s theses under my supervision:

q Mounia Bedran, “A Geographically Referenced Model of the Beirut Metropolitan Region (BMR) Incorporating Pertinent Geotechnical Properties”, graduated in February 1997.

q Joseph Bassil, “Evaluation of the Geotechnical Properties and Engineering Behavior of Lebanese Marls”, graduated in May 1997.

q Ricardo Khoury (Co-Supervisor Prof. Mutassem El-Fadel), "Sea-Water and Leachate Re-circulation Effects on Physico-Chemical Processes in Municipal Solid Waste", graduated in February 1999.

q Elie Awwad (Co-Supervisor Prof. Mounir Mabsout), "Finite Element Analysis of Embedded Precast Concrete Culverts", graduated May 1999

q Sophie Ghanimeh, “High Performance Earthen Landfill Covers for Arid and Semi-Arid Regions” Sophie Ghanimeh, graduated in February 2004.

q Samer Hassan, “Slope Stabilization Using Piles-An improved design methodology”, graduated in June 2005.

q Makram Ghousseiny, “Finite Element-Based Design Methodology for Buried Infrastructure Pipes”, graduated in June 2005.

q Fadi Freiha, “New Parameters Introduced to the Shear Strength Estimation of Discrete Randomly-Distributed Fiber-Reinforced Sands”, expected to graduate in September 2005.

q Maha Saleh, “The Effect of Fines on the Liquefaction Resistance of Sands during Earthquakes”, expected graduation in October 2005.

q Aline Kahwaji, “Finite-Element-Based Revision of the Bearing Capacity Factors for Footings on Slopes”, expected graduation in December 2005.

In addition to the above, I have served as an active committee member of 28 Master’s students in the areas of structural, transportation and environmental engineering.

I have been appointed as the faculty supervisor for the Soil Mechanics Laboratories since joining AUB. In that capacity I am involved in teaching and research activities which take place in those labs.

In addition to the regular teaching responsibilities outlined, I was designated as the academic student advisor for an average of ~40 to 60 undergraduate students every year.

Other advising/mentoring activities relevant to counseling, career orientation, admission to graduate schools abroad and scholarships, and continued long-term contact with graduates of our program are covered in section 6.0 of this portfolio under Teaching-Related Activities.

In addition to my service on committees related to academic matters and student services, I have served as faculty advisor to two activities/events in which I take great pride and satisfaction given their nature, the working relation and commitment to success shared with students involved, and the substantial proceeds generated for financial aid: USFC annual graduation party (1997-2002) and the CEE gala dinner (2002-03).

Geotechnical engineering is a challenging and very interesting field. The challenges are due to the complexities associated with the material geo-engineers deal with (soil/rock) in all its natural variability and heterogeneity, and to a greater extent, to the large number of engineering applications associated with it. In essence, anything built on soils/rocks or with soils/rocks lies in the realm of the geo-engineer. Course topics vary widely as a result, from foundation design to pavement design, earthquake engineering to geo-environmental applications. (ref. to Appendix-A for course outlines).

The task of teaching this particular subject and allowing students to gain a sound understanding of basic principles along with a measure of confidence when dealing with geotechnical engineering problems is equally challenging. Addressing some of these challenges is not simple, yet it is by no means unattainable. In the following sections I attempt to present in as clear and as concise a manner as possible, the elements of the teaching methodology I have adopted and settled on after many iterations and variations.

The essential elements of my teaching approach are the following: Lectures, assignments, exams, CAL tools-technology, field trips and course projects:

"The lecturer should give the audience full reason to believe that all his powers have been exerted for their pleasure and instruction. "

I believe that lectures are the basic building block of the teaching/learning experience. They are indispensable elements of the process and should be given the level of effort and care in preparation and delivery corresponding to their importance.

Typically, I start every one of my courses with what I call a lecture No. 0. In such lectures I present and overview of the material which will be addressed in the course and its relevance to real-world applications, using illustrations and photos. Two examples of such lectures (one for an entry-level undergraduate course and the other for an upper level graduate elective) are included in Appendix-B. In my regular lectures I strive to fulfill the following requirements/guidelines:

q Cover the fundamentals and the basics. There is no way around that. Without a good and solid base of knowledge in a given area, the teaching/learning process is flawed.

q Always try to relate the material taught to real-life examples, and place it in proper context using case studies where applicable.

q To the extent possible, rely on visual aids. In geo-engineering in particular, a picture is often “worth a thousand words”. Over the past years, I have amassed a large library of slides (over 3000) and videos related to geotechnical principles, technologies, projects, failures, etc. Currently I am in the process of digitizing the library in order to share it with students and interested colleagues.

Assignments are typically given on weekly basis. They test and train students in a series of relatively small tasks, building towards larger assignments and/or projects. Whenever possible, practical assignments are framed within a real-world context involving actual practical problems. Example assignments are included in Appendix-C.

Over the years, I have realized that the best way to gauge or test the level of knowledge of students in the various courses I have taught in geotechnical engineering, is to rely on a number of questions of various types and varying levels of challenge. I believe that exam models based on one or two long or drawn out problem are not as effective. A number of exams (quizzes, midterms and finals are included in Appendix-C).

I have come to rely increasingly on technology to complement my teaching methods. Tools regularly introduced in this context range form lecture delivery (PowerPoint presentations) to course management through WebCT (used in more than 10 courses to date –ref. to Appendix-A), to interactive computer aided learning (CAL) and specialized design and analysis software.

My experience with CAL in particular has been very rewarding. We have reached the point where I rely on web-based tutorials produced by students as part of their course project to teach future classes. Such efforts have been documented and published (ref. section 6.0).

Every effort is made to use case studies and field trips in communicating the realities of civil engineering and geotechnical principles, techniques and challenges. Over the past three years I have taken students in groups as large as 40 to Dam construction sites (Shabrouh), Sea reclamation development (Port of Tripoli), Landfill remediation (Normandy), Shoring and excavation works (Downtown Beirut) among others. Pictures and lectures which document select field trips are included in Appendix-D. It is important to note here, that with large class sizes, such activities are difficult, both logistically and from a safety perspective.

If I were to name the most effective learning method for geo-engineering education, I would say without hesitation: course projects! They are also in all probability, the most rewarding for both teacher and student.

Very early on in my teaching career I realized the value of involving students in significant term projects in my senior and graduate elective classes. It is by trying and exploring in this context that I found that I could challenge students most, and get them to respond creatively and enthusiastically. The class projects are group projects, which culminate in an end of semester official formal presentation, to which outside guests are invited. ,

q Studies of actual projects, including analysis and assessment using analytical or numerical tools.

q Laboratory work, which may involve testing, modeling, or designing and building equipment as necessary, to explore certain geotechnical applications.

A comprehensive compilation of all course projects generated for the past 3 years is included in Appendix-E in the form of Class-Summary-CDs. The CDs include all course project materials (from all students), along with all the provided electronic copies of manuals, lectures, design software, etc. Once compiled at the end of every semester the CDs are then made available for students to copy and keep for future reference.

In summary I view the course project as all benefits with no down sides (except possibly for the amount of additional effort and time for follow-up and supervision J):

q It allows me to interact with students in small groups. I get to know them better, gauge their strengths and weaknesses and identify their interests.

q Projects result in a measure of self-confidence, generated through the successful completion of a comprehensive set of tasks, bringing an idea from concept, to implementation to final testing.

q Group projects strengthen teamwork skills, technical writing, and oral presentation skills.

q They provide an avenue for exploration and creativity. The examples are many, but some stand out given their simplicity and ingenious solutions. One such example is provided in Appendix-E, where students used a hand held electric razor to construct a working and very convincing prototype for a deep vibratory compaction machine.

The only real measure of whether we as teachers have succeeded in achieving our stated goals and objectives is through student feedback. It is in essence the only measure that “counts”. Student perceptions in this respect are as important as “facts”, sometimes more so. A number of elements have been suggested as impinging on the objectivity of student evaluations and their reliability, but I believe that on average, a good performance by the teacher will be noted by a reasonable agreement amongst the majority of the respondents, and the inverse is also true.

The Faculty of Engineering and Architecture used at least two different assessment questionnaires in the period between 1993 and 2001, one was on a scale with a maximum grade of 3.0, while the second had a maximum score of 4.0. Since 2001, the FEA adopted the university-wide OIRA administered forms, with a completely new set of questions and which are graded over 5.0.

In compiling the data presented in this section, I have normalized all scores to the OIRA scale for comparison. All available evaluation scores are listed in tabular format. It is important to note that some data are missing and could not be obtained from OIRA in time for the preparation of this updated section.

Finally, I need to point to the on-going ABET accreditation process which involved the preparation and administration of targeted and course-specific questionnaires, based on the desired course outcomes. I have been compiling and analyzing the ABET data in all my courses for the past two years. They are very useful assessment resources, relying on a numbered scoring system (over a scale of 4.0) along with comments and suggestions. However, I am not including them in the summary results and analyses presented herein, since they were not centrally collected and administered. I include them for reference in Appendix-F, along with all other evaluation data.

The data presented in the previous tables is analyzed and interpreted in the following manner:

q First, the variation of the average yearly scores for all courses (graduate and undergraduate) is plotted. (Figure 1)

q A similar plot is generated for graduate courses only, for comparison. (Figure 1)

Figure. 1

q The score with all courses taken into account indicates values ranging between 3.9 and 4.3. The year 95-96 appears as minor exception with a value of 3.8 for all courses. This is due to partially to the fact that the data for the Spring of that year is missing and that the CIVE033 undergraduate course for that summer which included 82 students yielded a relatively low score of 3.3.

q The scores of the last three years have been updated to include the Fall and Spring 2004-05 results which have just been reported by OIRA. The performance for that period appears to be steady overall (~4.2 all courses combined) with a possible improving trend for graduate courses.

q The effect of class size is analyzed / highlighted by plotting the mean score for each course against class size. (Figure 2)

q The effect of class size is also explored through plotting the average score for all courses with class sizes up to 25, 25 to 50 and above 50 students respectively.

q Figures 2 and 3 show a significant correlation between class size and average score for the class. This observation confirms earlier reported data from other colleagues, and falls within the expected trends.

Figure. 2

Figure. 3

In the past years I have had the opportunity to contribute to, and serve on, a number of committees related to student services, academic and curriculum development and accreditation:

Self-study report for ABET (Accreditation Board for Eng’g and Technology) (2004).

I have attended a number of seminars and workshops offered through AUB on teaching excellence, advising and the preparation of teaching portfolios. I am in constant search for new materials and methods which would be of use in my classes. As such, I am in continued contact with colleagues from my “PhD days” who hold professorial positions at a number of Universities in the US and the UK (Berkeley, Purdue, UT Austin and Cambridge) comparing notes and exchanging ideas.

Following a visit with Dr. K. Soga at Cambridge University during a faculty development leave, I got interested in the area of Computer Aided Learning (CAL) as applied to geotechnical engineering. Since, I have worked on a number of topics mostly with undergraduate students which have resulted in the following publications:

Sadek, S. and Khoury G. (2000) "Soil and Site Improvement Guide: An Educational Tool for Engineered Soil Improvement Solutions". International Journal of Applied Engineering Education, V.16 No.6, pp. 499-508.

Sadek S. and Freiha F. (2004) “The use of Spreadsheets for the Seismic Design of Piles” Journal of Spreadsheets in Education eJSiE, Volume 1 No.3 pp. 142-167.

Sadek S. and El-Khoury M. (2005) “The ABCs of Soil Nailing: An Integrated Tutorial and Knowledge-Base Approach to Teaching Design. Accepted for Publication, International Journal of Engineering Education.

The use of case studies as a teaching tool has also been incorporated in my teaching method and an early example of such an effort in collaboration with Dr. El-Fadel (CEE) resulted in the following publication:

Sadek S. and El Fadel, M. (2000) "Reclamation of a landfill along the Mediterranean coast: A waste management application decision case study" Journal of Natural Resources and Life Science Education, V. 29 pp.155-161.

In the past year I have had the occasion to serve as one of the reviewers for Mc Graw Hill for a teaching textbook titled The Engineering of Foundations. We have gone through two drafts of the text and the book should be out in time for the coming academic year 2005-2006.

I consider this responsibility to be one of the more challenging and rewarding aspects of being a university professor. It is in this capacity that advising transcends the short term academic planning to tackle decisions which impact futures, careers and life directions.

I have been fortunate to gain the trust and respect of students over the years. They have come to seek answers to questions about careers and which schools to apply to for graduate studies. I have always been open and enthusiastic about helping in the preparation of their applications, writing recommendation letters and at times using personal direct contacts to inquire about, and at times secure, financial assistance for promising students. One my proudest days came when in 2003 four of our students were accepted into the Geo-Engineering program at Berkeley. Three ended up actually joining the group, in a total class of about 25 graduate students from all over the world.

The interaction with students outside the classroom setting is in many ways its own reward and an extension of the teaching process. Whether it is through a casual conversation in the FEA cafeteria or an animated discussion in the office on topics some related to engineering, and others far removed, or lending a hand with words of encouragement in the lab on a particularly frustrating project, or through participating in a “friendly” soccer game, I enjoy and derive great satisfaction from the opportunity all these activities allow, to better engage and know the students. The goodwill and enthusiasm generated by the accessibility, participation, and genuine interest I show, is translated into a more effective and rewarding teaching experience.

Students are not shy when it comes to sharing their views and giving needed feedback. In the CEE Department, the annual gala started in 1996, has become an occasion in which students tell us how they regard each and every one of us, by means of short skits, comments and even songs! (All in good humor of course). A student magazine is also published and distributed for that occasion. I include a couple of excerpts to illustrate the points I made earlier:

In the past few years I have served as the only faculty member in the area of Geotechnical Engineering in the CEE Department. As such, I have faced a number of problems, some related to practical limitations involving course load, electives and responsibilities, and others stemming from the absence of a colleague who would enrich the teaching and research environment through continued discussion and collaboration. Recruiting one more faculty member in the geotechnical area is an important goal that needs to be pursued by the CEE Department. This would allow us to offer more graduate-level elective courses, meet the growing demand from students wanting to pursue graduate studies in this field and allow us to build a richer program.

I will continue the emphasis placed on projects and case studies, as I have experienced the positive impact such an approach can have on students in terms of increased self-confidence and increased enthusiasm about their chosen field of study, as evidenced in the course evaluation and feedback.

Other changes related to the overall engineering curriculum and the program as a whole should be envisaged and are actually in the process of being given serious study and consideration at the Departmental and Faculty levels.

Finally, in the past 6 months I have begun to explore the possibility of organizing and proposing a new upper level undergraduate elective in the emerging area of geotechnical monitoring and instrumentation. I have attended a specialized workshop (by invitation), organized by the Cambridge-MIT Institute in September 2005 on “Innovations in Monitoring and Management of Ageing Infrastructure”. In line with this plan I have given a graduate seminar presentation entitled “Advances in Instrumentation for Monitoring Geotechnical Works” (April 7, 2005). The envisaged course can create an avenue for cooperation between civil engineers, electrical and communication and mechanical engineers interested in the future of wireless and miniaturized instrumentation.