Jeffrey E. Froyd

Five Major Shifts in 100 Years of Engineering Education

In this paper, five major shifts in engineering education are identified. During the engineering science revolution, curricula moved from hands-on practice to mathematical modeling and scientific analyses. The first shift was initiated by engineering faculty members from Europe; accelerated during World War II, when physicists contributed multiple engineering breakthroughs; codified in the Grinter report; and kick-started by Sputnik. Did accreditation hinder curricular innovations? Were engineering graduates ready for practice? Spurred by these questions, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) required engineering programs to formulate outcomes, systematically assess achievement, and continuously improve student learning. The last three shifts are in progress. Since the engineering science revolution may have marginalized design, a distinctive feature of engineering, faculty members refocused attention on capstone and first-year engineering design courses. However, this third shift has not affected the two years in between. Fourth, research on learning and education continues to influence engineering education. Examples include learning outcomes and teaching approaches, such as cooperative learning and inquiry that increase student engagement. In shift five, technologies (e.g., the Internet, intelligent tutors, personal computers, and simulations) have been predicted to transform education for over 50 years; however, broad transformation has not yet been observed. Together, these five shifts characterize changes in engineering education over the past 100 years.

Estimates of Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies in Core Electrical or Computer Engineering Courses

Many research-based instruction strategies (RBISs) have been developed; their superior efficacy with respect to student learning has been demonstrated in many studies. Collecting and interpreting evidence about: 1) the extent to which electrical and computer engineering (ECE) faculty members are using RBISs in core, required engineering science courses, and 2) concerns that they express about using them, are important aspects of understanding how engineering education is evolving. The authors surveyed ECE faculty members, asking about their awareness and use of selected RBISs. The survey also asked what concerns ECE faculty members had about using RBISs. Respondent data showed that awareness of RBISs was very high, but estimates of use of RBISs, based on survey data, varied from 10% to 70%, depending on characteristics of the strategy. The most significant concern was the amount of class time that using an RBIS might take; efforts to increase use of RBISs must address this.

First-year integrated curricula across engineering education coalitions

The National Science Foundation has supported creation of eight engineering education coalitions: Ecsel, Synthesis, Gateway, SUCCEED, Foundation, Greenfield, Academy and Scceme. One common area of work among these coalitions has been restructuring first-year engineering curricula. Within some of the Coalitions, schools have designed and implemented integrated first-year curricula. The purpose of this paper is to survey the different pilots that have been developed, abstract some design alternatives which can be explored by schools interested in developing an integrated first-year curriculum, indicated some logistical challenges, and present brief descriptions of various curricula along with highlights of the assessment results which have been obtained.

Faculty Learning Communities

Professional development for teaching frequently focuses on methodology and strategy. Information and opportunities to practice techniques are often offered in onetime, interactive workshops. However, one-shot faculty development opportunities are not designed to address a critical element of the faculty role in the learning/teaching dynamic-individual beliefs, experiences, and research regarding learning. Faculty Learning Communities (FLC) is a collaborative initiative at Texas A&M University in which interdisciplinary groups of participants examine learning. The format includes ninety-minute weekly meetings over an academic year, recommended readings on learning, reflective journaling, and individual and collaborative tasks. FLC provides an opportunity to explore learning from multiple perspectives. This process validates what participants know, while supporting the development of a common language and theoretical foundation from which to dialogue. The sustained nature of the interaction provides an increased sense of connectedness and community. Through participation in FLC, faculty members draw ideas, energy and perspective from their exchange that they incorporate into their thinking about, and practice of learning and teaching.

Understanding and improving faculty professional development in teaching

Various entities within and related to higher education offer activities designed to promote professional development of faculty in the area of teaching. A critical challenge to these efforts is the lack of understanding of the actual process of faculty development in teaching. Insight into what faculty members believe about learning, assessment, and teaching, and how those views change, would assist efforts to improve faculty development opportunities. This paper describes the current status of assessment of faculty professional development activities related to teaching. Working from this foundation, it suggests how to improve assessment strategies and begin the process of measuring the impact of specific program activities on faculty beliefs and practices. In addition, it describes ways of investigating and drawing conclusions about professional development process paths in the area of teaching, variables that influence and enhance development trajectory, and roles of various types of faculty development activities in this process.

Laptop computers in an integrated first-year curriculum

A curriculum that integrates calculus, computer science, physics, engineeringdesign, chemistry, engineering statics, and engineering graphics into a year-long sequence of three 12-credit courses was introduced at Rose-HulmanInstitute of Technology during the 1990–1991 school term. The IntegratedFirst-Year Curriculum in Science,Engineering, and Mathematics (IFYC-SEM), taught by an interdisciplinaryteam of eight faculty members [2–4],was designed from the outset withextensive availability and use of com-puters as a cornerstone [3].

Evolution and evaluation of an integrated, first-year curriculum

Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, USA, is planning to offer a new first-year program for all entering students in the 1998-99 academic year. The new first-year program will build on seven years of experience with the Integrated, First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics (IFYCSEM). In IFYCSEM, faculty integrate topics in calculus, physics, chemistry, computer science, engineering design, engineering statics and engineering graphics into a year-long curriculum which emphasizes links among topics, problem solving and teams. These faculty have pioneered innovations in the areas of curriculum integration, technology-enabled education, cooperative learning and continuous improvement through assessment and evaluation. Rose-Hulmans experience has helped encourage other institutions to offer prototype first-year curricula modeled upon IFYCSEM. These institutions include Rose-Hulmans partners in the Foundation Coalition: Arizona State University, Maricopa Community College District, Texas A&M University, Texas A&M University at Kingsville, Texas Womans University and the University of Alabama. The paper summarizes the goals of the curriculum, the structure of the curriculum, significant innovations, student perceptions of the curriculum, summative assessment data, evolution of the program through formative assessment and continuous improvement, impact of IFYCSEM beyond Rose-Hulman and the development of an Institute-wide first-year program.

A Project-Based Approach To First-Year Engineering Curriculum Development

First-year engineering curricula are vitally important in improving the quantity and quality of engineering graduates. Many innovative approaches to first-year engineering curriculum development have been created and implemented over the past twenty years. Often, innovative approaches incorporate one or more engineering projects as learning experiences for first-year students. Further, problem-based and project-based pedagogical theories have offered the framework for many innovative learning experiences for engineering students in all four years of engineering curricula. As Texas A&M University improves its first-year engineering curricula, faculty members are re-examining the nature of the project-based learning experiences both to improve the learning experiences and to develop specifications for future project-based learning experiences. This paper presents the rationale behind the five specifications and offers experiences in developing and implementing the design projects for the prototype first-year engineering curricula. The paper also describes the assessment and evaluation plan as well as assessment data that has been analyzed to date

Good educational experiments are not necessarily good change processes

Design, problem solving, and scientific discovery are examples of important processes for which engineers and scientists have developed exemplary process models, i.e., a set of widely accepted procedures by which these functions may best be accomplished. However, undergraduate curriculum transformation in engineering, that is, systemic change in pedagogy, content, and/or course structure, lacks a widely recognized process model. In other words, engineering faculty members do not widely and explicitly agree upon a set of assumptions and flow diagrams for initiating, sustaining and integrating curriculum improvement. The two-loop model that is described in conjunction with the EC2000 criterion (http://www.abet.org/eac/two_loops.htm) provides a flow diagram that integrates assessment, evaluation and feedback processes. However the two-loop model does not provide a set of assumptions and flow diagrams for quantum actual change or improvement. To initiate discussion of models for the curriculum change process, referred to as change models, this paper examines three change models and advocates the organizational change model.

A new integrated first-year core curriculum in engineering, mathematics, and science: a proposal

The development of a first-year curriculum in engineering, mathematics, and science using a formal problem-solving methodology is considered. The objective for the first-year curriculum is presented and the present solution to the problem is examined. An alternative solution is also explored. The alternative approach first decomposes the curriculum into generic concepts and then focuses the expertise and energies of disciplines to illuminate the capacity of each generic concept to observe, describe, predict, and interact with the physical world. Generic concepts which have been identified in the first-year curriculum include data acquisition and analysis, problem-solving techniques, functional relationships, equilibrium, rate of change, force, work and energy, and momentum. The resulting new core curriculum builds on concepts which naturally span the disciplines of mathematics, computer science, chemistry, physics, graphics, and engineering design through classroom instruction, laboratory experiments, and extended projects, all designed to enable the students to build a stronger conceptual foundation for their future engineering education.<<ETX>>