John T. Demel

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.

Incorporating writing in engineering classes and engineering in writing classes

For more than a quarter of a century, educators and employers have been concerned about the writing ability of young men and women graduating in engineering and engineering technology. Research over the years indicates that while writing skills are important for the successful engineer, these skills among most graduating engineers are inadequate. Many schools require discipline-specific writing courses in addition to the university required composition course. Writing ought to be a working part of all phases of an engineering students education. In this paper the authors suggest ways engineering and writing faculty can integrate communication skills into the educational programs of engineering and technology students in an effort to make those communication skills relevant to the students.

Cultivating Problem Solving Skills via a New Problem Categorization Scheme

When one looks at STEM disciplines as a whole, the need for effective problem solving skills is a commonality. However, studies indicate that the bulk of students who graduate from problem‐solving intensive programs display little increase in their problem solving abilities. Also, there is little evidence for transfer of general skills from one subject area to another. Furthermore, the types of problems typically encountered in introductory STEM courses do not often cultivate the skills students will need when solving “real‐world” problems. Initial efforts to develop and implement an interdisciplinary problem categorization matrix as a tool for instructional design are described. The matrix, which is independent of content, shows promise as a means for promoting useful problem‐solving discussion among faculty, designing problem‐solving intensive courses, and instructing students in developing real‐world problem solving skills.

Changing the core-changing the culture

The Gateway Coalition was founded by a set of schools willing to work together for engineering education change and funded through the NSF. The Coalition projects are divided into Curriculum and Instructional Development (CID) Educational Technology and Methodology Evaluation and Quality Assurance (EQA), and Human Potential Development (HPD). A portion of the project has dealt with improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the engineering core and, thus, retention. Drexels E/sup 4/ (An Enhanced Educational Experience for Engineering Students) program was the model for changing the core and the other schools are adapting E/sup 4/ for their campuses and their cultures. The E/sup 4/ approach puts an emphasis on engineering early and includes design and hands-on laboratory experiences. This requires a change in the current culture and the current practice of engineering education and, as part ofthe Coalition, will provide the impetus for change. The Gateway Coalition activities at Ohio State are focused on improving engineering education through engineering education research and development. A portion of the faculty are now working together in ways that they have not done before. As a team of teachers developing and teaching in the pilot, they are working with a group of students. They are communicating across departmental and college boundaries and are discovering mutual interests among colleagues. The Coalition provides colleagues beyond the boundaries of Ohio State in the other Gateway schools and in engineering education in general.

Work in progress - Comparing the use of a graphical programming language to a traditional text-based language to learn programming concepts

Programming has traditionally been taught using a text-based language where the students use an editor to type in language statements. The program is then compiled or interpreted using system commands. In these courses there are programming concepts that we want students to learn, such as declarations, math operations, loops, conditional statements, arrays, file manipulation, functions, etc. This project will attempt to determine the effectiveness of a graphical programming language (icon based) where a computer program is constructed with graphical icons. The test bed for this project will be Engineering H192 (Engineering Fundamentals and Laboratory II) at Ohio State. This course is the second course of a three-course sequence for first-year honors engineering students. The languages for this course are C/C++ and MATLAB. The course is taught to eight sections of 36 students. For a pilot section of H192, the C/C++ problems and the instructor notes will be re-written for the graphical icon development environment. The remaining sections will be the control group. A concept inventory will be completed by all students in the pilot and control sections at the beginning and at the end of the quarter. This work will begin in Winter Quarter 2007 and will be completed at the end of Winter Quarter 2008. This project is being funded by the National Instruments Foundation.

Student Categorization of Problems—An Extension

As part of gathering baseline data for a study on problem categorization, first‐year engineering honors students who had recently completed a two‐quarter sequence in physics were interviewed. The primary task in this interview was much like the problem categorization study described by Chi et al. There were, however, at least two distinct modifications: 1) in addition to the problem statements, solutions were included on the cards to be sorted 2) the problems were written such that they could also be grouped according to the nature of information presented in the problem statements and/or the number of possible solutions. The students in this baseline study, although similar in background to the novices described by Chi et al., in many ways performed more like experts. Several possibilities for this behavior are discussed.

An honors program for freshman engineering students: development and long term evaluation

Summary form only given. In 1993, under funding provided by the NSF Gateway Engineering Education program, The Ohio State University College of Engineering (Department of Engineering Graphics) initiated an innovative freshman program with an emphasis on hands-on labs, teamwork, and concentrated design-build projects. This program was adapted from the Drexel E4 program that was developed under an earlier NSF curriculum grant and from other Gateway schools. The program is now a permanent part of the College, and is serving as a recruiting tool for highly talented students. Since its inception, the program has maintained an ongoing database of student characteristics and academic performance. Each participating group has been matched to a nonparticipating control group. Now in its sixth academic year, the program has a solid track record of positive results in retention, reducing time to major, grade point average, and co-op/internship participation. The College has the ability to analyze level of participation in the program, in co-op and internships, in industry and/or graduate school, as well as extra-curricular participation and graduation rates (i.e., time to graduate). Norm referenced data has also been collected to compare student performance with students at other major engineering institutions. This paper describes the program components developed by faculty and graduate students in Engineering, Physics, and Math, plus the results of assessment and longitudinal tracking.