First-year Integrated Curriculum Projects - Summary
 

Introduction

This page provides supplemental information for the paper

Froyd, J.E., and Ohland. M.W. (2005) Integrated Engineering Curricula. Journal of Engineering Education, 94:1

The programs listed in the table below are integrated engineering curricula that satisfy the following criteria:

  • Faculty members from multiple disciplines collaborate in developing and implementing the curricula. This excludes the incorporation of material from other disciplines into courses by faculty from a single discipline, the incorporation of tools into courses by faculty from a single discipline, and capstone design projects restricted to a single discipline.
  • Projects must report assessment data to ascertain the degree to which a project has affected some student outcome (e.g., retention or performance).
  • Students in the program must enroll in courses from different disciplines (e.g., engineering and physics) or enroll in a course that combines courses from multiple disciplines.

 

PROGRAM

(Freshman) SUBJECTS COVERED

FEATURES

COORDINATION
OF TOPICS

FORMAT/ ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT AND RESULTS

Ref.

Arizona  State University

Freshman Integrated Program in Engineering (FIPE)

Physics, Physics Lab, Calculus, Engineering Design, English Comp.

Weekly journal assignments evaluated by faculty team; Harvard reform calculus

Coordination of linked topics for integrated (but separate) lectures; coordinated assignments, projects, exams

Student teams; structured cooperative and active learning environment

No attrition in pilot (all 31 students took final exam); failure rate in first semester markedly lower than for students enrolled in traditional program; participants earned scores 30 percent higher than traditionally taught students on the Force Concepts Inventory. (Roedel et al. 1995) Force Concepts Inventory & Mechanics Baseline Test (pre and post); CA Critical Thinking Skills Test, Form A, (pretest); CA Critical Thinking Skills Test, Form B, (posttest); Learning Styles Survey; +/∆ Process checks (weekly or bi-weekly); 3 special questionnaires.

[8]-[17]

Colorado School of Mines

Connections

Calculus, chemistry, physics, economics, geology, Engineering Practices Introductory Course Sequence, and inter-disciplinary humanities course

Emphasis on process over content; development of a learning community

Series of integrated project modules; students and faculty look for appropriate connections among diverse disciplines

Integrated series of active-learning project modules and seminars

Five- and six-year follow-up data for some cohorts reported in 2001; graduation rates significantly higher than other freshmen. 72% of men and 81% of women in 1994 cohort graduated in five years following compared to 55% of males and 59% of females in the CSM cohort. The subsequent 1995 cohort was even better. (Olds & Miller, 2001).

Entering test scores (SAT, ACT), graduation rates, & grade point averages as compared to students’ entire class; Mailed questionnaire asking for student feedback

Graduation rates for the Connections participants higher than for other freshman students entering CSM. The difference is greatest (and statistically significant) for the second (1995-96) cohort, in which 84% of Connections participants graduated within 6 years, compared to only 60% of the CSM cohort.

[83]-[86]

Drexel
University

Enhanced Educational Experience for Engineering Students

(E4)

Calculus, physics (mechanics, heat, light, sound), chemistry, biology, intro. to engineering, humanities, programming

Ten-fold increase in the number of hours spent in eng. over traditional curriculum.

Subjects organized into four integrated course sequences using common schedules and integrated syllabi

Presentations, homework assignments, quizzes, written exams integrated & coordinated by faculty team; 4 hrs. of engineering labs per week

Students developed excellent / outstanding levels of communication, laboratory, and computer skills (Quinn, 1995) Improved retention and rate of progress, particularly among women and minorities. GPAs improved over traditional program. 10-fold increase in number of hours devoted to engineering in the first year; at least 10 design / project experiences, (none in traditional)

Various classroom assessment approaches measuring laboratory skills, design project peformance; critiques of written and oral presentations, as well as homework, quizzes and examinations typical of other courses. (Quinn, 1993; p. 201). Valentine, Arms, and Weggel (2001) advocate the use of focus group discussions, journal-writing and analysis, and self-and peer evaluations.(p. 11)

[87]-[99]

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Integrated Curriculum in Engineering (ICE)

Calculus, engineering physics, introduction to aerospace engineering, and composition & literature

Communica-tion among faculty. Members become close friends; good flow of constructive criticism.

Projects w/ faculty supervision faculty  from engineering math, physics humanities.

Active learning, student & faculty teams. Permanent teams.

Improvements to rate of attrition” higher than control group. By the researchers. “by the eighth semester [Spring 2001], the gap [in retention]was 13 percent” (Watret & Martin, 2002; p. 6).  GPA, retention rates within the program, and retention in the university using the ICE population and control comparison groups

[104]

Louisiana Technological University

College of Engineering and Science (COES) Freshman Integrated Curriculum

Engineering, mathematics, chemistry, English, physics, and a program-specific elective

32 semester-hour freshman program is completed consecutively within the Fall, Winter, and Spring terms; coordinates w/sophomore program

Some classes team-taught. Most are structured as separate, learner-centered courses with coordinated coverage of topics

Collaborative learning environment with heavy faculty mentoring

For 1997-98 academic year: 69.2 percent of participating students earned grades of A, B, or C in Precalculus, as compared to 63.2 percent of students in the traditional program.  Calculus I & II: 92.0 percent and 95.5 percent respectively of students in the integrated program earned final grades of A, B, or C, versus 49.1 percent and 36.9 percent of those in the traditional curriculum. 

Comparisons of final grades Chemistry and physics: students in the integrated program outperformed the traditional students as follows: for Chemistry I, 84.6 percent versus 61.5 percent; for Chemistry II, 96.0 percent versus 64.3 percent; Physics I, 87.0 percent versus 76.3 percent.  Similar results followed the 1998-99 academic year.

[105]

North Carolina State University

Integrated Mathematics, Physics, Engineering, and Chemistry (IMPEC)

Harvard reform calculus, chemistry, engineering, physics (mechanics)

36 students attend all classes in the same classrm. (ex. Chemistry lab); instructors team-teach but only 1 teacher in the room at a time

Collaborative workshops held several times per semester in which all professors are present to discuss a topic that involves all disciplines

Students work in permanent teams; some lecture but mostly collaborative, experiential learning strategies are used

1995-1996: retention rate 69 percent remained in program (compared to 50% in the previous year when no comparison group was available), compared to 52% for traditional (Felder et al., 1998). Longitudinal data against matched comparison group are not significant.

Pre-admission data (incl. SAT scores); PFEAS survey; Force Concept Inventory; final exam problems in calculus, chemistry, and physics; Open-end questions on mid- and end-semester surveys; written and oral project reports; passing rates in calculus and science courses; first-year GPA; first-year retention

[79]-[81]

Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

Integrated First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics (IFYCSEM)

Calculus, mechanics, statics, electricity and magnetism, computer science, chemistry, engineering design & engineering graphics

All students required to have laptop computers as condition of enrollment

subjects integrated into one course per semester for each of 3 terms: math, physics, & chemistry;

Experiential learning techniques used; student collaborative teams

Improved performance of IFYCSEM program improved slightly more than traditional. Significant differences in study time between males (11-15 hours per week) and females (16-20 hours per week) students.  Survey: course valuable a lot of work.FCI and MBI scores showed females start at a disadvantage.

Student self-report survey, Mechanics Baseline Inventory; Forced Concept Inventory; and Forced Concept Inventory gain between pretest and posttest analyzed in light of pre-admission SAT scores and gender

[18]-[33]

Texas A & M University

Course Clustering Program

Calculus, physics, chemistry, English, and introductory engineering problem solving.

Students must complete 27 credit hours of fundamental courses to be eligible for the sophomore-level science and engineering curriculum.

3 successive clusters: Pre-calculus semester
(2 options); Calculus one semester
(2 options); & Calculus 2 semester (3 options).

Grouping of first-year math, science, engineering courses in a cluster. Integrated syllabi. Student teams, active/collaborative learning environment.

1998 and 1999 cohorts made faster progress in the curriculum than non-clustered students. 1994-95 cohort 72% retention rate for women (66% for comparison group).  95% of underrepresented minorities were retained ( 66% for comparison group).

Enrollment data; Focus groups; Freshman assessment tests / survey results; Mechanics Baseline Test; Force Concept Inventory; CA Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory; General survey; surveys of communication, teaming, life-long learning; goals, personal progress. Chemistry bridge survey, exit survey

[34]-[50]

The Ohio State University

 

Gateway

 

Introduction to Engineering

 

Freshman Engineering Honors

2 consecutive courses in eng. basics plus graphics, problem-solving, hands-on labs, a design-and-build project, report-writing, oral presentations.

All freshmen entering engineering are required to take IE (unless they qualify for FEH)

FEH for calculus-ready students. IE has two-course sequence in pre-calculus, beginning calculus, & Newtonian concepts before students take the first calculus-based physics course.

Interactive lecture/lab/study table format, student teams, active/collaborative learning strategies

As of 1999 “the program has a solid track record of positive results in retention, reducing time to major, grade point average, and co-op/internship participation” (Demel et al., 1999, p. 1).

(1) Student performance measured by course evaluations, oral presentations, lab reports, written tech. reports; standard testing methods; course grades. (2) Quality of instructional material measured by course evaluations, classroom observations, weekly team meetings (that incl. faculty and TAs). (3) Basic visualization skills meas. by Purdue Visualization Test (pre and post). (4) Student attitudes measured by comments on course evaluations, focus group, and Pittsburgh Freshman Attitudes Survey (pre and post). (5) Faculty attitudes measured by weekly team meetings and quarterly written evaluations. (6) ABET competencies measured by course evaluations and electronic journals. (7) Communication measured by feedback on outlines, drafts, lab reports, project reports; observation, feedback, and scoring of oral presentations; support from Technical Communications Resource Center. (8) Teamwork Skills measured by team building workshops, exercises, team evaluations, course evaluations. (9) Retention: monitoring enrollment through Registrar’s office, the College of Engineering's database, and nightly reports; consultation with advisors; intervention strategies as needed.

[100]-[103]

University of Alabama

 

First-Year Integrated Curriculum

 

Teamwork, curriculum Integration, and Design in Engineering

(TIDE)

Chemistry; English composition; Foundations of Engineering;

Calculus and

Social Science elective (for calculus-ready students only)

Math admission exam determines student’s placement in either calculus-ready or pre-calculus-ready curriculum

Students attend all classes in their core subjects with the same cohort of 20 fellow participants. Faculty teaching core subjects meet weekly to assure coordination of topics.

Students sit in 4-person teams around computer-equipped tables. Lecture mixed with short team exercises; students collaborate on team design projects.

The TIDE program was inaugurated in 1999. It is a revised version of an earlier curriculum developed by the Foundation Coalition.  “Outcomes” are described in terms of lessons learned: Student motivation was markedly greater than among those who attended the traditional curriculum;

The quality of the programming assignments was significantly higher;

Linkages between various topics was not exploited to its fullest extent (because of time constraints);

Lack of continuous focus on programming throughout the semester seemed to hurt the students’ software development skills; The first offering of the

integrated computing curriculum had attempted to pack too much material into too short of a time frame.

Specific metrics were not given in any of the sources. There was only the following general statement (taken from the UA on-line catalog) alluding to enrollment data: “The FC schools have seen 10% to 25% improvement of retention of first-year students in engineering and, in many cases, even greater improvements in the retention of women and underrepresented minorities” (page 1 under “Many Students Involved”).

[52]-[72]

Univ. of
California, Berkeley

New course, “Animating Physics,” combined skills from engineering, math, physics, & computing

Students design, plan, program, & implement animations of physical phenomena (their choice)

Faculty from math, physics, & engineering depts. meet regularly to discuss course content and coordinate their efforts

Student collaborative teams

Response data being classified into a total of eight categories, and then separated further according to pedagogical and epistemological points of view.

Interviews conducted with 70 engineering undergraduates. Data are still being analyzed (McKenna et al. 2001). Purpose of the research: to probe for hard evidence that integrative learning truly does improve student learning.

 

University of Florida

Knowledge Studio

Math

Physics, Chemistry

Engineering

Students clustered into a certain sections of regularly offered courses. Social events and program meetings help strengthen the cohort.

Faculty work as interdisciplinary team, coordinating topics across classes including special integrated assignments. The classes reinforce each other.

Special computer classroom available to program students and faculty during and outside of class.

Students stated that FIGs were “successful.” 80% “saw strong connections”; 75% felt that the FIG helped them understand the materials; however some disliked the perceived loss of control over their schedules. Majority of students strongly agreed that “I feel comfortable using my skills in math & physics,” and that “I feel comfortable explaining and defending the solutions.” (Shetty & Alnajjar, p. 9)

Surveys

[82]

University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth

Integrated Math, Physics and Undergraduate Laboratory Science, English and Engineering

(IMPULSE)

31-credit first year (2-semester) curriculum: Physics, applied science & engineering, chemistry, critical writing and reading; patterned after Texas A&M and other Foundation Coalition models

Engineering design course in both semesters; physics courses patterned on Dickinson College Workshop Physics model; specific list of guidelines for calculus instruction

 

Faculty work as interdisciplinary team; collaborate in the organization of topics, assignments, and presentations, so that the learning experiences within all the courses are mutually reinforcing

Integrated subject matter, student teamwork, and hands-on technology-assisted cooperative learning. 48 students, divided into permanent teams of 2 to 4 members, take all courses together in same room (exc. chemistry wet lab)

Students’ grades are up, and they “are retaining more of the information they’ve learned, almost to the point that they are on the level of students in the Honors College” (Fedele, 2003; p. 2).   

No metrics specified.

[73]-[78]

Univ. of Pittsburgh

Freshman Engineering Program

Math, chemistry, physics, humanities, social sciences, civil and environmental engineering

Cultivating a community atmosphere through use of student teams, counseling, mentoring by upperclassmen

(No available data)

Student teams collaborate to solve hands-on, real-world engineering problems and are supported by culture that is deliberately learner-centered.

Over 87% of 377 respondents stated that they would seriously consider hiring graduates of the program. 67% stated that in most cases a more interdisciplinary education program would better serve their needs; and 87% recommended that the university should proceed with introducing the program.

The manufacturing industry (e.g., potential employers) in Ontario was surveyed in 1997.

[106]

 


References for Further Information:

References Discussing Integrated Curricula at Multiple Institutions

[1]        Frair, K., and Watson, K., "The NSF Foundation Coalition: Curriculum Change and Underrepresented Groups,” Proceedings, 2000 American Society of Engineering Education National Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: The Foundation Coalition was funded in 1993 as the fifth coalition in the National Science Foundation's Engineering Education Coalitions Program. The member institutions are developing improved curricula and learning environment models that are based on four primary thrusts: integration of subject matter within the curriculum, cooperative and active learning, technologyenabled learning, and continuous improvement through assessment and evaluation. The Foundation Coalition partners draw on their diverse strengths and mutual support to construct improved curricula and learning environments; to attract and retain a more demographically diverse student body; and to graduate a new generation of engineers who can more effectively solve increasingly complex, rapidly changing societal problems. The improvement of recruitment and graduation of traditionally underrepresented groups is an integral part of the Foundation Coalition strategic plan. This paper discusses Coalition projects to date and other efforts focused on increasing the participation of underrepresented groups in engineering education.

[2]        Froyd, J., and K. Frair, “Theoretical Foundations for the Foundation Coalition Core Competencies,” Proceedings, 2000 American Society of Engineering Education National Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: The Foundation Coalition was funded in 1993 as the fifth coalition in the National Science Foundation's Engineering Education Coalitions Program, and is currently in the seventh year of a ten- year project. The member institutions have changed since its formation and now include Arizona State University, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Texas A&M University, Texas A&M University - Kingsville, the University of Alabama, the University of Massachusetts - Dartmouth, and the University of Wisconsin. All campuses have developed improved engineering curricula and learning environment models and have incorporated those models into their institutional fabric. As part of its strategic plan, the partner campuses in the Foundation Coalition have focused their efforts on improving their competence in seven theories of pedagogy; these seven pedagogical theories are referred to as the core competencies of the Foundation Coalition. The seven core competencies are 1) curriculum integration, 2) cooperative and active learning, 3) teamwork and collaboration, 4) technology- enabled learning, 5) assessment-driven continuous improvement, 6) recruitment, retention, and graduation of women and underrepresented ethnic minorities, and 7) management of change. Once proposed as core competencies, the Foundation Coalition must answer at least one question. What are the theoretical foundations that suggest these seven core competencies will positively impact engineering education? The paper will review the literature to provide the theoretical foundations that indicate increasing abilities in these seven core competencies will positive impact engineering education.

[3]         “Faculty Survey,” <http://www.eas.asu.edu/~fcae/Insturments/Faculty%20Survey/facultysurvey.htm>, accessed August 19, 2004.

[4]        Clark, M.C., J. Froyd, P. Merton, and J. Richardson, “The Evolution of Curricular Change Models Within the Foundation Coalition,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 93, No. 1, 2004, pp. 37-47.

Abstract: This paper examines one aspect of the curricular change process undertaken by the Foundation Coalition (FC); specifically, how understanding about curricular change held by the FC leaders evolved as they moved through the process of establishing a new curriculum at their institutions. The initial change model was similar to that used for product development and emphasized the role of a pilot program. However, as the curriculum moved beyond the pilot stage to adoption and full-scale implementation, and then into the final stage where sustaining the new curriculum was the focus, the change model became more complex. Those complexities reflect a parallel evolution in their understanding of what constitutes a curriculum, from their initial conceptualization of it as a product to be carefully designed towards an understanding of it as a dynamic entity whose growth must be sustained.

[5]        Clark, M.C., Revuelto, J., Kraft, D., Beatty, P., 2003, “Inclusive Learning Communities: The Experience of the NSF Foundation Coalition,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

Abstract: We see the powerful ways in which the inclusive learning community structure works to shape and support the learning of the students in the Foundation Coalition programs. Many different kinds of student learning are evident in our interview data. A major benefit for students is learning to work in teams, and while all of them spoke of the difficulties involved, they also talked at length about how they've learned to deal with those problems. Their attitude towards teaming is positive-they see how it benefits their learning, and they recognize that this experience will be an asset when they begin their careers. Another aspect of learning is figuring out how they learn best, and in the interviews we heard them trying to discover their own style. All recognize that memorization alone is not a useful strategy and that they learn through application of concepts. Connected to their personal learning experience is learning how to get help. We saw a clear order: they first turn to their peers, either within the team or cohort, or from among their other friends; if they need further help, they seek out a TA or a tutor; if they still have questions, they go to their professors. This was not a negative statement about faculty but rather a positive statement about their peers. Students are readily available to one another; they feel safe letting their peers know they don't know something; and they find other students effective teachers. Faculty still play an important role in student learning, however. Students expect and highly value good teaching, and they discover quickly that going to class is essential to their learning. Another dimension of student learning is related to surviving in college. Most of the students were shocked at how much more challenging college is than high school, and they all talked about basic things they've had to learn in order to make it. Highest on their list is developing self-discipline and learning time management skills. Finally, when discussing how they're learning to master the material, the students talked at some length about learning how to think like engineers. What this means to them is understanding how and why a particular concept works, and developing the skills of critical analysis that will enable them to understand the problem and explore possible solutions from multiple angles. Taken together, these findings lead to a simple conclusion- cohorts work-and they do so because they make it possible for various communities to be created. It is probably a stretch to call the entire cohort itself, especially when these are large, a learning community, but it clearly does create the possibility, even the probability, that real communities can form. Students connect with other students because they're in this contained group, trying to succeed in a difficult program, and they quickly recognize that they have a better chance of succeeding if they reach out to one another. And they succeed in great part because the cohort structure facilitates and enables their learning.

Integrated Curricula References

[6]        Al-Holou, N., N. Bilgutay, C. Corleto, J. Demel, R. Felder, K. Frair, J. Froyd, M. Hoit, J. Morgan, and D. Wells, “First-Year Integrated Curricula Across Engineering Education Coalitions,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 88, No. 4, 1999.

Abstract: The National Science Foundation has supported creation of eight engineering education coalitions: ECSEL, Synthesis, Gateway, SUCCEED, Foundation, Greenfield, Academy, and SCCME. One common area of work across the 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 fourfold: 1) to review the different pilot projects that have been developed; 2) to abstract some design alternatives that can be explored by schools interested in developing an integrated first-year curriculum; 3) to indicate some logistical challenges; and 4) to present brief descriptions of various curricula along with highlights of the assessment results that have been obtained.

[7]        Ohland, M.W., R.M. Felder, M.I. Hoit, G. Zhang, and T.J. Anderson, “Integrated Curricula in the SUCCEED Coalition,” Proceedings, Proceedings, American Society for Engineering Education Conference, 2003.

Abstract: In the study of organizational behavior, several linkages have been made between organizational change and organizational culture. One link suggests that a "strong" culture is a prerequisite for corporate success, and attaining "excellence" often requires culture change. In the study of change in higher education, there have been suggestions that an institution must have a "culture" that facilitates change, and that change strategies are often shaped by organizational culture. Recently, as presented in the 2003 ASEE conference, Godfrey1 made a considerable contribution to understanding the culture of engineering education by providing a theoretical model that may assist change leaders in understanding the dimensions of their own school's engineering education culture. She suggests that if the espoused values inherent in any proposed change do not reflect the existing culture at an "operational level," change will be difficult to sustain. In the Foundation Coalition (FC) we have been studying the change processes FC partner institutions went through to restructure freshman and sophomore curricula. The six diverse FC institutions attempted major curricular changes based on an identical set of principles using similar change models. We noticed that similar change strategies produced different results. Using two examples from the same institution from our study, this paper will examine change strategies through the framework of organizational culture, a framework in which engineering education culture is subsumed. In showing how organizational culture was a critical variable in curricular changes undertaken by one FC institution, we will show how essential cultural analysis is to any change attempt.

Arizona State University—Freshman Integrated Program in Engineering

[8]        Evans, D., “Curriculum Integration at Arizona State University,” Proceedings, 1995 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract The freshman and sophomore integrated curricula developed at Arizona State University under the auspices of the NSF-funded Foundation Coalition are briefly described. The freshman program is currently in a second generation pilot while the sophomore program is in a first generation pilot. Problems encountered in designing and implementing such curricula are discussed as are possible solutions where they have been found.

[9]        Roedel, R.J., M. Kawski, B. Doak, M. Politano, S. Duerden, M. Green, J. Kelly, D. Linder, and D.L. Evans, “An Integrated, Project-Based, Introductory Course in Calculus, Physics, English, and Engineering,” (Web) Proceedings, 1995 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: Arizona State University is a member of the NSF- sponsored Engineering Education Coalition known as the Foundation Coalition. This paper describes the development of an integrated introductory course delivered to freshman engineering students at ASU in the Fall '94 semester as a part of the Foundation Coalition program. The course combined and integrated material from introductory courses in calculus, physics, English composition, and engineering, normally taught in a stand-alone format. The calculus used in this course was based on the ``Harvard reform model'' and include d a review of functions, the derivative, the definite integral, and application of these topics to physics and engineering problems. The physics was mechanics-based, with emphasis on kinematics, dynamics, conservation principles, rotational motion, and re lativity. What differentiated this integrated package from versions found at other institutions in the Coalition was (a) the inclusion of English composition, and (b) the project-based introduction to engineering. In this integrated course, the students learned to organize and develop ideas for both technical and general audiences. In addition, they learned the use of rhetorical principles with readings from the philosophy of science, engineering case studies, and so on. The over-arching framework for the class was the use of engineering projects to teach design and modeling principles. The three projects incorporated the calculus and physics that had been learned to date in the class. The first utilized kinematics and curve-fitting to functions to design and build a simple projectile launcher; the second employed dynamics and numerical integration to design and build a bungee drop system; and the third project, which also served as the final exam, used rotational motion concepts and a data acquisition system to identify the shape and material of a hidden object. The integrated course also employed considerable use of computers in an active learning environment that stressed teaming and other quality tools.

[10]     Duerden, S.J. and M. Green, “Enhancing Freshman Engineering Education: Integrating Freshman English Composition with Engineering, Math, Physics, & Chemistry,” (Web) Proceedings, 1995 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: In response to the need for changes in engineering education, six national coalitions funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) have been formed. Although all of the institutions in each coalition are working to improve engineering education, Arizona State University, in the Foundation Coalition, is only one of three institutions integrating English into the freshman year curricula along with math, science and engineering ``(Freshman Integrated Program in Engineering'' or FIPE). This integration reflects a new paradigm in academia, a paradigm in which participants cooperate in a community whose goal is continuous improvement and mutual support rather than competition for limited resources and disciplinary separatism. However, in order to integrate English into an engineering curriculum at Arizona State University, we had to develop new ways of structuring and delivering English. In our program, students have benefitted from integrated course content, a wider range of papers that more closely match their future educational and professional tasks, and assignments that reinforce the need to communicate as engineers with both technical and nontechnical audiences. Furthermore, the faculty (other than English) have enjoyed the positive reinforcement of writing skills that the English faculty have been able to bring to the students. In this paper, we will explain the purpose and goal of such integration, the commitment and planning necessary for this to work, areas of integration, advantages, and overall results of the first year of teaching an integrated syllabus.

[11]     Doak, B., J. McCarter, M. Green, S. Duerden, D.L. Evans, R.J. Roedel, and P. Williams, “Animated Spreadsheets as a Teaching Resource on the Freshman Level,” (Web) Proceedings, 1996 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: Computer animation can serve as a powerful teaching tool. Too often, however, interactive computer animation degenerates into a video game, with students blithely entering data and enjoying "gee-whiz" graphics while managing to ignore completely the underlying physics and math - the understanding of which is the actual intent of the animation! Such unfocused trialand- error engagement can be largely avoided if the animation is introduced as a tool rather than as a "black box." Spreadsheets lend themselves very well to this. One simple, easily-understood macro to "step" time is all that is required. Graphs based on formulas referencing this time immediately become animated. If the student has entered and understood the spreadsheet formulas in the first place, the animation is a completely natural extension of a familiar tool. The visual impact is just as great as with more sophisticated animation but is a natural outgrowth of the underlying physics and math rather than being simply the output of a "black box."

[12]     Roedel, R.J, D.L. Evans, B. Doak, M. Kawski, M. Green, S. Duerden, J. McCarter, P. Williams, and V. Burrows, “Use of the Internet to Support an Integrated Introductory Course in Engineering, Calculus, Physics, Chemistry, and English,” (Web) Proceedings, 1996 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: Arizona State University has been offering an introductory course that integrates engineering design and modeling, calculus, physics, chemistry, and English through the Foundation Coalition, an Engineering Education Coalition sponsored by the National Science Foundation. One of the critical components of courseware developed through the Foundation Coalition is the infusion of technology enhanced education. This paper will describe the use of the Internet, through the World Wide Web and through videoconferencing, to support this introductory course. It is interesting to note that the success of Internet usage is directly tied to the performance of the net. That is, when Internet traffic or bandwidth problems arise, both the students and the faculty become less enthusiastic about using the technology.

[13]     Evans, D., B. Doak, S. Duerden, M. Green, J. McCarter, R.J. Roedel, and P. Williams, “Team-Based Projects for Assessment in First Year Physics Courses Supporting Engineering,” (Web) Proceedings, 1996 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: Two team-oriented, project-based exercises developed and used for student assessment in an integrated freshman program are described. These projects allow assessment of student progress toward meeting desirable student outcomes such as ability to work in teams, ability to communicate, and able to apply science and engineering to the solution of problems. One project involves measurement of the velocity of a projectile; the other one involves the measurement of the ambient magnetic field strength. Lists of parts supplied to each student team are include as are photos and sketches of the more complex pieces of equipment. Student comments and faculty roles are also discussed.

[14]     Green, M., and S. Duerden, “Collaboration, English Composition, and the Engineering Student: Constructing Knowledge in the Integrated Engineering Program,” (Web) Proceedings, 1996 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: To meet the needs of today's engineering students in a global technology-based environment, programs like the Freshman Integrated Program in Engineering (FIPE) must produce engineers who can work creatively in teams. Our program must also produce students who can think critically about engineering, who can construct knowledge in teams, and who can do so both through talking and through writing. To meet this goal, we present writing as problem-solving thereby helping students to construct knowledge about issues and ethical dilemmas in engineering through writing. Hence, English composition can enhance and reinforce the construction of knowledge that is occurring in other classes the students take. If the composition teacher ties collaborative writing tasks to engineering issues and ethical dilemmas, the students will benefit in two ways: from the practice they gain in collaborative writing before they take more senior technical writing classes and from the ability to explore issues and ethics that other classes may raise but do not have time to thoroughly develop. One example of a collaborative writing task on which students collaborate from invention to final revision is the team research paper our students write on a technological versus a social fix to a problem they choose to study. Our paper will briefly address the composition theory behind collaborative writing and then show how students can collaborate on such a paper from invention to revision. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation through the Foundation Coalition under Cooperative Agreement EEC92-21460.

[15]     Roedel, R.J., M. Green, J. Garland, B. Doak, J. McCarter, D.L. Evans, and S. Duerden, “Projects That Integrate Engineering, Physics, Calculus, and English in the Arizona State University Foundation Coalition Freshman Program,” (Web) Proceedings, 1997 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: The Foundation Coalition at Arizona State University has been offering a novel first year program in engineering for the last three years.[1-5] This program integrates coursework in English composition and rhetoric, calculus, freshman physics, and introductory engineering concepts through student projects. The projects increase in complexity as the term progresses, to keep pace with students' increasing knowledge of science and engineering. The purpose of this paper is to describe the projects, the process used to deliver them, and their impact on the learning in this class.

[16]     Duerden, S., J.M. Graham, J. Garland, B. Doak, J. McCarter, R.J. Roedel, D.L. Evans, and P. Williams, “Scaling Up Arizona State University’s First-Year Integrated Program in Engineering: Problems and Solutions,” (Web) Proceedings, 1997 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: This paper discusses how scale-up from a pilot of 32 students to 80 students affected the integrated delivery of material in English composition, physics, and engineering to a cohort of freshman engineering students. It also discusses how collaborative learning and projects were structured to fit 80 students, the effects of class size on student-to-student interaction and student-to-faculty interactions in and out of the classroom, and what modifications were made to the classroom facilities to accommodate these projects. Although there were some detrimental effects accruing to the scale-up, for the most part, student performance was unaffected or slightly improved.

[17]     Duerden, S., M. Green, J. Garland, B. Doak, J. McCarter, R. Roedel, D. Evans, and P. Williams, “Trendy Technology or a Learning Tool? Using Electronic Journaling on Webnotes for Curriculum Integration in the Freshman Program in Engineering at ASU,” (Web) Proceedings, 1997 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: Lately, technology has transformed our world, with millions of users negotiating everything from purchasing goods to accessing research. The pressure to embrace this technology has grown to the point that even in the composition classroom, instructors are exploring ways to most profitably use it. Given the growth and commercialism of the World Wide Web (WWW), it is not always easy to distinguish the hype from the useful. However, one worthwhile application is WebNotes,[1] a commercial, WWW-based electronic forum software product that has become a powerful journaling tool for fostering connections, delivering information, and creating an online community in and out of the classroom. In our first two iterations of the NSF Foundation Coalition integrated program for first-year students at Arizona State University, we used journaling to encourage students to connect their classes by explaining math, physics, or engineering concepts to the non-specialist (English teachers), discussing teaming and teaming issues, and providing feedback. Before the use of WebNotes, the English teachers collected the journals and passed them on to the other faculty members, usually in the space of one week, causing many logistical problems. With Webnotes, students now write entries in a word processing program, which encourages them to check spelling and grammar, and then they paste them into a WebNotes forum. The faculty can then read the entries at their convenience and respond to each student via e-mail. These entries can be kept hidden from other students until or unless the moderators (faculty) choose to release them. Assessment of student responses to this form of journaling, in the form of anecdotes and a survey, has been very positive. Students like the individual and immediate responses they receive via e-mail -- always a popular form of communication with students. Moreover, they appreciate the fact that multiple faculty may read a single entry. As a learning tool, an integration tool, and a feedback tool, this technology has proved that technology is not simply ¡°trendy.¡± Sometimes it really can enhance learning and communication.

Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology—Integrated First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering and Mathematics (IFYCSEM)

[18]     Winkel, B., and J. Froyd, J., “A New Integrated First-Year Core Curriculum in Engineering, Mathematics and Science: A Proposal,” Proceedings, Frontiers in Education Conference, 1988.

[19]     Winkel, B., and J. Froyd, “An Integrated First-Year Engineering Curriculum,” Proceedings, American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference, 1989, pp. 466–468.

[20]     Froyd, J., “Integrated Curriculum in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics: Trial By Fire,” Proceedings, Conference on New Approaches to Undergraduate Engineering Education I, Engineering Foundation, 1989.

[21]     Froyd, J., B.J. Winkel, J. Fine, and E.A. Mottel, “An Integrated, First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics: Experiences, Accomplishments, and Future Plans,” Proceedings, Conference on New Approaches to Undergraduate Engineering Education III, Engineering Foundation, 1991, pp. 47–59.

[22]     Froyd, J., B.J. Winkel, and J. Fine, “Engineering Education Renovation: Do We Go It Alone?” Proceedings, Conference on Engineering Education: Curriculum Innovation and Integration, Engineering Foundation, 1992.

[23]     Winkel, B.J., and J. Froyd, “An Integrated, First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics: Progress, Pitfalls, and Promise,” Proceedings, Frontiers in Education Conference, 1992, pp. 557-562.

[24]     Froyd, J., G. Rogers, and B. Winkel, B., “An Integrated, First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics: Innovative Research in the Classroom,” Proceedings, National Heat Transfer Conference, 1993.

[25]     Winkel, B.J., and G. Rogers, “Integrated, First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Nature, Evolution, and Evaluation,” Proceedings, American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference, 1993, pp. 186-191.

[26]     Winkel, B.J., and G. Rogers, “Report of Conference on Assessment and Evaluation of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Curricula,” Proceedings, Frontiers in Education Conference, 1993, pp. 367-371.

[27]     Froyd, J., “Integrated, First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics—A Ten-Year Process.” (Web) Proceedings, 1995 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: The Integrated, First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics (IFYCSEM) restructures first- year courses in calculus, mechanics (physics), engineering statics, electricity and magnetism (physics), computer science, chemistry, engineering graphics, and engineering design to create a three-course, twelve-credit-per-quarter sequence. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology has offered IFYCSEM to a portion of the entering class since 1990. The present paper traces the process through which the IFYCSEM program has been developed and identifies ways in which the development process may have been improved.

[28]     Rogers, G., and J. Sando, J., “A Qualitative, Comparative Study of Students’ Problem Solving Abilities and Procedures,” (Web) Proceedings, 1996 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

[29]     Anderson, C.W., K.M. Bryan, J. Froyd, D. Hatten, C.L. Kiaer, N.E. Moore, M.R. Mueller, E.A. Mottel, and J.F. Wagner, “Competency Matrix Assessment in an Integrated, First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics,” (Web) Proceedings, 1996 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 19, 2004.

[30]     Froyd, J., and G. Rogers, “Evolution and Evaluation of an Integrated, First-Year Curriculum,” (Web) Proceedings, 1997 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 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-Hulman's experience has helped encourage other institutions to offer prototype firstyear curricula modeled upon IFYCSEM. These institutions include Rose-Hulman¡¯s partners in the Foundation Coalition: Arizona State University, Maricopa Community College District, Texas A&M University, Texas A&M University at Kingsville, Texas Woman's University, and the University of Alabama. The paper will summarize goals of the curriculum, 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 development of an Institute-wide first-year program.

[31]     Froyd, J., “Competency Matrix Assessment for First-Year Curricula in Science, Engineering and Mathematics and ABET Criteria 2000,” (Web) Proceedings, 1997 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 will encourage institutions, departments and individual faculty to rethink their approaches to assessment and grading. A competency matrix approach is offered as an alternative to more commonly used points and percentages schemes. The competency matrix approach combines goals, objectives, and topics with the levels of learning as described in Bloom's taxonomy to create a two-dimensional matrix which summarizes performances expected from students. The interdisciplinary faculty team which offered the Integrated, First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering and Mathematics used a competency matrix assessment process for assigning grades in the 1995-96 academic year. Their experience was described in a paper for the 1996 FIE Conference. In general students were very positive about the competency matrix approach and faculty thought the many positive aspects outweighed possible drawbacks. Based on positive student response and faculty experience, the faculty team voted to use the competency matrix approach in 1996-97. For 1996-97 two major student concerns were addressed. First, students were concerned about how they stood during the quarter with respect to grades. Second, students were concerned about students intentionally misrepresenting their portfolio and competency matrix. Approaches for addressing these concerns will be described. This paper will summarize the process through which the competency matrix was developed, modified, and applied. Improvements to the approach which were adopted for 1996-97, student response and faculty experience will be described. The possible role of a competency matrix approach in satisfying the ABET 2000 accreditation criteria will be described.

[32]     Yamamoto, T., “A Comparison of the Quality of Integrated Freshman-year Curriculum for Science, Engineering and Mathematics with a Conventional Curriculum,” ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 436 359, 1998.

[33]     Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Summative Report,” accessed January 30, 2003, p. 3.

Texas A&M University—Freshman Integrated Program

[34]     Watson, K., and M. Anderson-Rowland, “Interfaces Between the Foundation Coalition Integrated Curriculum and Programs for Honors, Minority, Women, and Transfer Students,” (Web) Proceedings, 1995 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: The Foundation Coalition includes seven institutions: Arizona State University, Maricopa Community College District, Rose- Hulman Institute of Technology, Texas A&MUniversity, Texas A&MUniversity-Kingsville, Texas Woman's University, and the University of Alabama. All of these institutions are in the process of developing an engineering curriculum that incorporates the integration of courses, the utilization of active and cooperative learning in the classroom, and the use of technology in the classroom to enhance the level and sophistication of content and problems approached. During the 1994-1995 academic year all of these institutions piloted a freshman curriculum that involved various levels of integration of the courses that students take. Typically, this involved the integration of Physics, Calculus, English, Engineering Design Graphics, Chemistry, and Engineering Problem Solving over both semesters of the freshman year. In addition the students took Humanities or Social Science electives. One of the goals of this Coalition is to increase the enrollment and support of women and underrepresented minorities.this paper describes several conflicts which the integrated approach created for students in special programs in the College of Engineering, such as those for Honors, Minority, Women, and Transfer students. Most of these programs have existed for many years in the College, and have activities with proven records for enhancing the educational experience and retention in Engineering. These conflicts are described and some of the initial strategies for resolving the conflicts are presented, as well as plans for assuring that these programs work together effectively as the integrated program expands and becomes institutionalized. Resolving these conflicts is a challenge the integrated curriculum must meet in order to be effective for a large number of students at a public institution.

[35]     Willson, V., T. Monogue, and C. Malavé, “First Year Comparative Evaluation of the Texas A&M Freshman Integrated Engineering Program,” (Web) Proceedings, 1995 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: The paper documents the first year process and product evaluation of the NSF-sponsored Foundation Coalition (FC) project at Texas A&MUniversity designed to integrate five courses taken by most freshman engineering students: physics, engineering design, calculus, English, and chemistry. In addition to the curriculum integration, the project emphasized cooperative learning, teaming, technology applied to learning, and active learning. One hundred students of the entering freshman engineering students who were calculus-ready were invited on a first-come, first-served basis to participate; all qualified women and minorities who applied were accepted, and others were accepted on a waiting list in order of application. Entry characteristics indicated that the students did not differ from the freshman class. FC student achievement in physics and calculus and attitudes toward Coalition engineering goals were assessed both fall and spring. Separate comparison groups were selected fall and spring. Results indicated that the FC group scored almost identically to the comparison group on the initial testing. For the spring testing the FC group outscored the comparison group statistically on the physics and calculus tests, and all scales of the California Critical Thinking Test except Analysis (no difference). Student attitudes improved for the value of homework, lifelong learning, and decreased in their overall evaluation of engineering. On science, technology, teamwork, communication, and problem-solving there were no significant changes in attitude. The process evaluation focused on the difficulties and successes in integrating five different subjects and seven faculty members with different curriculum demands, along with changing pedagogy based on cooperative learning, teaming, active (non-lecture oriented) teaching, and technology infusion. Technology infusion was difficult for some faculty to implement due to the demands of both teaching and project development. Changing over from lecture also proved difficult for most faculty, while the integration of content proved feasible, albeit with much work.

[36]     Barrow, D., W. Bassichis, D. DeBlassie, L.J. Everett, P.K. Imbrie, and M.M. Whiteacre, National Science Foundation Ad Hoc Task Force “An Integrated Freshman Engineering Curriculum, Why You Need It and How to Design It.” (Web) Proceedings, 1995 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: The Foundation Coalition (FC) is a seven school coalition working to define the undergraduate engineering curriculum for the next century. One goal of the project is to produce a technology rich, active learning environment for undergraduate engineers. There are three facets to the FC curriculum development philosophy at A&M: Curriculum Integration, Technology Utilization, Active/Cooperative Learning and Teaming. This paper discusses these facets and highlights the Texas A&MFreshman Curriculum Integration Team's (TAFCIT) achievements over the last year. Curriculum integration means typical first year courses (Engineering Problem Solving, Calculus, Graphics, Physics and English) are tightly coordinated to form a mutually supportive environment. Although students receive individual credit in each course, the courses are truly co-requisite. Each course strives to bring relevance to the others, often presenting different aspects of a common problem. Material presentation timing provides students with a ``need to know before knowledge'' sequence. Information and skills introduced in one course are promptly and regularly espoused in at least one other. This paper will discuss the philosophy and motivation behind an integrated curriculum and the process used in its development. The paper will continue with a discussion on classroom implementation including how to develop lesson plans, schedule classes, gather and use student feedback. Although the first year is not yet complete, we will give some preliminary results, and discuss our plans and concerns.

[37]     Morgan, J., “A Freshman Engineering Experience the Foundation Coalition at Texas A& M University,” Proceedings, Eighth Annual TBEEC Conference on Learning With Technology, 1996.

[38]     Bolton, B., and J. Morgan, “Engineering Graphics in an Integrated Environment,” (Web) Proceedings, 1997 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: This paper focuses on the freshman year of the Foundation Coalition program at Texas A&M University. The curriculum includes chemistry, English, engineering, math and physics taught in an integrated just in time fashion using technology and delivered in an activecollaborative environment to students working in teams of four. Through our thrusts of integration, teaming, active learning and technology we hope to produce engineers who can solve increasingly complex problems more effectively. Graphical analysis, not generally taught or used by engineering students, has provided the best avenue for integration of graphics into the freshman Coalition environment. Graphical analysis techniques introduce CADD (Computer Aided Design and Drafting) to the student in a manner that teaches graphical fundamentals and at the same time is relevant to topics addressed in other course work. Examples include: ¡¤ Graphical solutions to vectors are used to introduce the concept of coordinate systems and scale. Students use CADD to solve vector problems, which are expanded to include statically determinant truss problems. Using a graphical method reinforces the concepts introduced in the problem solving technique and adds insight into the precision of engineering calculations and drawings. ¡¤ Traditional topics in descriptive geometry have been replaced with an introduction to 3D model development. The goals of this change are to improve student visualization skills and to provide the student with tools that reinforce other subject in the coalition. Area and mass properties generated by a CADD package are used in the chemistry, engineering, math, and physics classes. CADD packages provide unique tools for accomplishing these tasks and give new life graphics topics. Another area where graphics provides a valuable interface is in developing communication skills. Integrated technical reports, produced by student engineering design teams, include technical content (graded by science, mathematics, and engineering faculty) and are submitted to English.

[39]     Morgan, J., “A Freshman Engineering Experience.” (Web) Proceedings, 1997 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: This paper represents an overview of the freshman year of the Foundation Coalition program at Texas A&M University. Future directions of this program, taught in groups of one hundred, are highlighted. The curriculum includes chemistry, English, engineering, math and physics taught in an integrated just in time fashion using technology and delivered in an activecollaborative environment to students working in teams of four. Through our thrusts of integration, teaming, active learning and technology we hope to produce engineers who can more effectively solve increasingly complex problems. This enhanced problem solving skill demands: ¡¤ increased appreciation and motivation for life-long learning; ¡¤ effective oral, written, graphical, and visual communication skills; ¡¤ increased capability to integrate knowledge from different disciplines to define problems, develop and evaluate alternative solutions; and ¡¤ increased flexibility and competence in using modern technology effectively for analysis, design, and communication. Information on learning styles and performance of students is presented and compared to that of the students in the traditional freshman engineering program at Texas A&M University.

[40]     Ackerman, C., and V. Willson, “Learning Styles and Student Achievement in the Texas A& M Freshman Foundation Coalition Program,” presented at the Southwest Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Austin, Texas, 1997.

[41]     Imbrie, P.K., C.O. Malavé, and K. Watson, “Pedagogy versus Reality: How Past Experiences Can Be an Effective Modeling Tool to Successfully Deploy Curricula Changes,” (Web) Proceedings, 1997 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: The National Science Foundation has sponsored a number of Engineering Education Coalitions to help develop innovative and progressive methods for delivering the undergraduate engineering curricula of the 21st century. However, if past performance is any indication of future success, adoption of this common courseware by noncoalition institutions will be met with limited success primarily because implementation issues are not thoughtfully considered. This paper details the various "stages" that most, if not all, academic institutions that wish to implement large-scale changes in their current curricula must successfully navigate. The implementation stages to be presented include: 1) historical innovation review; 2) course development and deployment in pilot form; 3) obtaining faculty buy-in; 4) considering the administrative details; and 5) managing the transition. The experiences and processes developed herein are based upon work that has been done at Texas A&M University which is a large public ¡°top tier¡± research institution and a member of the ¡°Foundation Coalition.¡± The paper also describes how Quality Functional Deployment methods can be used to identify and circumvent potential problem areas in the institutionalization process.

[42]     Malavé, C.O., J. Rinehart, J. Morgan, R. Caso Esposito, and J. Yao, “Inclusive Learning Communities at Texas A&M University—A Unique Model for Engineering,” (Web) Proceedings, 1999 First Conference on Creating and Sustaining Learning Communities: Connections, Collaboration, and Crossing Borders, accessed August 19, 2004.

[43]     Everett, L., P.K. Imbrie, and J. Morgan, “Integrated Curricula: Purpose and Design,Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 89, No. 2, 2000, pp. 167-175.

Abstract: This paper has two objectives: 1) to define, describe, and discuss integrated programs and their advantages with regard to student and faculty outcomes, as well as student retention; and 2) to describe a design process used to successfully develop and deploy an integrated first year curriculum. This paper details the results of the design process and the content of the first year integrated program implemented by the College of Engineering at Texas A&M University. The curriculum integrates the first year components of calculus, chemistry, engineering graphics, English, physics, and problem solving.

[44]     Fournier-Bonilla, S., K. Watson, and C. Malavé, “Quality Planning in Engineering Education: Analysis of Alternative Implementations of a New First-Year Curriculum at Texas A&M University, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 89, No. 3, 2000, pp. 315-322.

[45]     Morgan, J., J. Rinehart, and J. Froyd, “Industry Case Studies at Texas A&M University,” Proceedings, American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference, 2001, pp. S1A13-S1A16.

Abstract: In the Dwight Look College of Engineering at Texas A&M University, the college and industry have partnered to present classroom case studies, model the engineering profession, support curricular efforts, and offer student workshops. Many faculty members bring industry into the classroom in senior or capstone design classes, but NOT in meaningful ways at the freshman level. An important difference in the TAMU partnership with industry is that efforts are focused on first-year students. Both partners are working to prepare the very best engineers possible, and there is a growing group of industry teams who come to campus several times each semester to offer different services for different levels of students. This paper will concentrate on the case studies that industry partners prepare and present.

Case studies are an effort to demonstrate "real world" engineering to currently enrolled engineering students. Companies usually send a team of 2-8 engineers who spend their day with students in an engineering course, typically a first semester, freshman engineering course. This team typically presents a 15-20 minute overview of a problem encountered in their company or industry. Students break into assigned teams, generate possible solutions to the problem, and then student teams present their solutions to the class. In the discussion that follows, the industry
team presents the solution selected at their company and reviews the major contributing factors to the decision. In addition, the students are able to enter into a question and answer period with engineers from industry about their work environment, greatest challenges, rewards, etc. Companies that have presented case studies include Accenture, Applied Materials, Compaq Computer, Exxon Mobil, FMC, Lockheed-Martin, Motorola, Texaco, and TXU. As an example of the scope of the project eight companies presented case studies to almost 2,000 students during the 1999-2000 school year. The paper will describe the process for organizing case studies, examples of actual case studies, benefits for the students, benefits for the companies, and obstacles that are being overcome.

[46]     Fournier-Bonilla, S.D., K. Watson, C. Malavé, and J. Froyd, J., “Managing Curricula Change in Engineering at Texas A&M University,” International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2001, pp. 222-235.

Abstract: Growth and change have characterized American higher education for a long time. Ideas for academic change have been proposed by nearly everyone, from students and faculty members to deans and university presidents, responded to by a wide array of decision-makers, and implemented within diverse administrative arrangements. Since change is omnipresent, it is important to recognize its impact on overall organizational performance. By understanding change and increasing their capacity to create their own futures, universities can continue to equip their students for the rapidly changing, highly competitive environments in which they will practice.

The present paper describes a change management model developed and used by the Dwight Look College of Engineering at Texas A&M University during the implementation phase of their new engineering curricula. As applications of the model the paper offers two case studies of significant curriculum change: first-year and sophomore curriculum restructuring. The change model synthesizes earlier change management models and our experience with the two major curriculum changes. Our case studies and curriculum change model may help other institutions undertaking significant curriculum change
.

[47]     Caso, R., C. Clark, J.E. Froyd, A. Inam, A.L. Kenimer, J.R. Morgan, and J. Rinehart, “A Systemic Change Model in Engineering Education and Its Relevance for Women,” (Web) Proceedings, 2002 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: The paper will present the experience at Texas A&M University (A&M) in institutionalizing its first-year and sophomore curricula using learning communities (LC) as the underlying concept. In 1998-99 academic year, A&M completed the transition from pilot curricula to new first and second year engineering curricula for every student. As the foundation for new curricula, A&M developed LCs. At A&M, a LC is a group of students, faculty and industry that have common interests and work as partners to improve the engineering educational experience. LCs value diversity, are accessible to all interested individuals, and bring real world situations into the engineering classroom. The key components of A&M engineering LCs at are: (1) clustering of students in common courses; (2) teaming; (3) active/cooperative learning; (4) industry involvement; (5) technology-enhanced classrooms; (6) peer teachers; (7) curriculum integration; (8) faculty team teaching; and (9) assessment and evaluation. This presentation will use both quantitative and qualitative assessment methods to try and understand how LCs have affected student retention, performance, and learning experience.

[48]     Morgan, J., and A.L. Kenimer, “Clustering Courses to Build Student Community,” Proceedings, Frontiers in Education, 2002, S1A-13─S1A-16.

[49]     Morgan, J., J. Rinehart, C. Malavé, A. Kenimer, J. Froyd, R. Caso, and C. Clark, “Can Systemic Change Really Help Engineering Students from Under-Represented Groups?” Proceedings, International Conference on Engineering Education, 2002.

[50]     Year 7 Report—Many Students, Involved,” accessed August 19, 2004

Texas A&M University Kingsville—Integrated First-year Curriculum

[51]     Corleto, C.R., J.L. Kimball, A. Tipton, and R.A. MacLauchlan, “The Foundation Coalition First-year Integrated Engineering Program at Texas A&M University-Kingsville: Development, Implementation, and Assessment,” Proceedings, Frontiers in Education Conference, 1996.

University of Alabama—First-year Curriculum

[52]     Frair, K., “An Integrated First Year Curriculum at the University of Alabama,” Proceedings, Frontiers in Education Conference, 1994.

[53]     Frair, K., “Curriculum Integration at the University of Alabama,” (Web) Proceedings, 1995 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: This paper describes the call for systemic change in engineering education that has been issued by various groups; how that is being addressed within one Foundation Coalition (FC) member, the University of Alabama; and, in conclusion, the FC strategic planning process that has been used as part of our effort to implement change.

[54]     Izatt, J., D. Cordes, A. Hopenwasser, C. Laurie, and J. Parker, “An Integrated Freshman Year Engineering Course,” American Association of Physics Teachers Meeting, Spokane, Washington, 1995.

[55]     Nikles, D., “General Chemistry for an Integrated Freshman Engineering Curriculum,” American Institute of Chemists National Meeting, Charlotte, North Carolina, 1996.

[56]     Nikles, D., D. Cordes, A. Hopenwasser, J. Izatt, C. Laurie, and J. Parker, “A General Chemistry Course Sequence for an Integrated Freshman Year Engineering Curriculum,” Gordon Research Conference, Ventura, California, 1995.

[57]     Nikles, D., D. Cordes, L. Frair, A. Hopenwasser, J. Izatt, C. Laurie, and J. Parker, “A General Chemistry Sequence for an Integrated Freshman Year Engineering Curriculum.” American Chemical Society National Meeting, Division of Chemical Education, Chicago, Illinois, 1995.

[58]     Parker, J., D. Cordes, D. Nikles, A. Hopenwasser, C. Laurie, and J. Izatt, “Teaming in Technical Courses,” (Web) Proceedings, 1995 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: The University of Alabama is one of seven school participating in the Foundation Coalition, a partnership looking at curriculum integration, human-interface issues (active and cooperative learning), and technology-enabled education within the undergraduate engineering curriculum. As a result, the 1994-1995 academic year saw a completely new curriculum being prototyped for a class of 36 volunteer students within the College. The curriculum in question provides an integrated 13- hour sequence of Calculus, Physics, Chemistry and Engineering Design for the students. One of the central themes to this sequence is the concept of teams and teaming. Students work in teams of four students throughout this course sequence. These teams operate as a unit for all classes, mathematics recitations, physics and chemistry laboratories, and all engineering design projects. As this is the first significant, large-scale, curriculum-wide implementation of teaming within the College, a number of strategies for how to proceed were identified (and attempted). Concern was placed on ensuring that students gain both the ability to function effectively within a team environment and also demonstrate their own individual ability to perform the task in question. This paper examines the processes by which teaming is performed within the integrated freshman year of the Foundation Coalition. It looks at successes that have been realized, and also point out techniques that should not be repeated. The authors summarize their opinions about the strengths (and weaknesses) of the process, as well as identifying the principal ``lessons learned'' for both future semesters of this curriculum and other individuals interested in incorporating teaming into their own courses. In addition, the authors comment on the similarities (and differences) between freshmen students and upper-level engineering students with respect to teams and teaming.

[59]     Parker, J., D. Cordes, C. Laurie, A. Hopenwasser, J. Izatt, and D. Nikles, “Curriculum Integration in the Freshman Year at the University of Alabama─Foundation Coalition Program,” (Web) Proceedings, 1995 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: The University of Alabama presented its first set of freshman year courses as part of the NSF sponsored Foundation Coalition during the 1994-1995 academic year. The three major thrust areas of this coalition are: (1) curriculum integration, (2) technology-enabled education, and (3) human interface issues (learning styles, active and cooperative learning). The focus of this paper is on the integration aspects of the freshman year engineering, mathematics, and sciences curriculum. Most freshman level mathematics, chemistry, and physics courses are taught in isolation from each other. Students respond by "compartmentalizing" their technical knowledge without awareness of the connections between subjects. The traditional "cafeteria" style process for selection of courses further componds the problem. Most engineering programs view the "output" of the freshman math and science courses as the "input" into their courses. Consequently, there is relatively little interaction on the education level between engineering professors and their colleagues in the math and science departments. As a result, most engineering programs lose many students during the freshman year. Our solution to this problem is an integrated set of courses for all engineering majors in chemistry (CH 131/132), engineering (GES 131/132), mathematics (MA 131/132), and physics (PH 131/132), which must be taken together. The authors of this paper were the instructors for the initial offering of the courses mentioned above. The paper will focus on several specific examples of curriculum integration that have been attempted, along with observations about the success of the program. The Foundation Coalition consists of the following: Arizona State University, Maricopa Community College District, Rose- Hulman Institute of Technology, Texas A&M University, Texas A&M University - Kingsville, Texas Women's University, The University of Alabama.

[60]     Parker, J., D. Cordes, and J. Richardson, “Engineering Design in the Freshman Year at the University of Alabama─Foundation Coalition Program,” (Web) Proceedings, 1995 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: A pair of courses, GES 131 & 132 (Foundations of Engineering I & II), form the two semester engineering component of Foundation Coalition's integrated freshman year at The University of Alabama. These courses replace two existing freshman engineering courses which are devoted to computer programming (FORTRAN) and engineering graphics. In order to present a more realistic and interesting introduction to engineering as a profession, the courses focuses on the engineering design process. Both courses are organized around four three-week long "design" projects. The projects are selected from a variety of areas, covering the breadth of engineering disciplines taught at UA. The design projects also complement the current subject matter of the integrated math, chemistry, and physics courses. For example, while both physics and chemistry are introducing the ideal gas law, the engineering project involves the design of a CNG (compressed natural gas) tank for an automotive application. Each design project requires a team report, in written and (sometimes) oral form. The students are introduced to a variety of computer tools to aid their presentation of reports, such as word processors, spreadsheets, and presentation packages. Student access to the Internet (for data collection) and e-mail (for communication) is also provided. This paper provides an in-depth examination of the first of these two courses. It includes a brief overview of the relationships that exist between the integrated courses in the freshman year, a detailed examination of the nature and scope of the design projects included within the course, and feedback from both faculty and students on the merits of the approach.

[61]     Cordes, D., and A. Parrish, “Active Learning in Technical Courses,” Proceedings, National Educational Computing Conference, 1996.

[62]     Harrell, J.W., and J.R. Izatt, “Freshman Engineering Physics in the Foundation Coalition at The University of Alabama,” Proceedings, International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, 1996.

[63]     Izatt, J. R., J.W. Harrell, and D.E. Nikles, D. E., “Experiments with the Integration of Physics and Chemistry in the Freshman Engineering Curriculum,” (Web) Proceedings, 1996 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: For the past three years as a member of the NSF Foundation Coalition The University of Alabama has been developing an integrated freshman engineering curriculum. We describe here our experiments with integrating topics in physics and chemistry. Examples include error analysis and statistics, molecular collisions and the gas laws, wave interference and the analysis of crystal structure, and the Bohr model and the periodic table. The curriculum makes extensive use of computer tools such as Maple, Excel, and Interactive Physics, and teaming techniques are employed. We assess the merits and limitations of these attempts at integration.

[64]     Parker, J., J. Richardson, and D. Cordes, “Problem Solving and Design in the Freshman Year: The Foundation Coalition,” Proceedings, American Society for Engineering Education Southeastern Section Conference, 1996.

[65]     Harrell, J.W., and J.R. Izatt, “Freshman Physics in the NSF Foundation Coalition,” Newsletter of the Forum on Physics Education of the American Physical Society, 1997.

[66]     Richardson, J., and J. Parker, “Engineering Education in the 21st Century: Beyond Lectures,” Proceedings, International Conference on Engineering Education, 1997.

[67]     Cordes, D., Parrish, A., Dixon, B., Pimmel, R., Jackson, J., and Borie, R., “Teaching an Integrated First-year Computing Curriculum: Lessons Learned,” (Web) Proceedings, 1998 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: This paper describes an integrated first year curriculum in computing for Computer Science and Computer Engineering students at the University of Alabama. The curriculum is built around the basic thrusts of the Foundation Coalition, and provides an interdisciplinary introduction to the study of computing for both majors.

[68]     Cordes, D., A. Parrish, B. Dixon, R. Borie, J. Jackson, and P. Gaughan, “An Integrated First-Year Curriculum for Computer Science and Computer Engineering,” (Web) Proceedings, 1997 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: The University of Alabama is an active participant in the NSF-sponsored Foundation Coalition, a partnership of seven institutions who are actively involved in fundamental reform of undergraduate engineering education. As part of this effort, the University of Alabama has developed an integrated first-year curriculum for engineering students. This curriculum consists primarily of an integrated block of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and engineering design. The engineering design course is used as the anchor that ties the other disciplines together. While this curriculum is highly appropriate (and successful) for most engineering majors, it does not meet the needs of a computer engineering (or computer science) major nearly as well. Recognizing this, the Departments of Computer Science and Electrical and Computer Engineering recently received funding under NSF¡¯s Course and Curriculum Development Program to generate an integrated introduction to the discipline of computing. The revised curriculum provides a five-hour block of instruction (each semester) in computer hardware, software development, and discrete mathematics. At the end of this three-semester sequence, students will have completed the equivalent of CS I and CS II, a digital logic course, an introductory sequence in computer organization and assembly language, and a discrete mathematics course. The revised curriculum presents these same materials in an integrated block of instruction. As one simple example, the instruction of basic data types in the software course (encountered early in the freshman year) is accompanied by machine representation of numbers (signed binary, one and two¡¯s complement) in the hardware course, and by arithmetic in different bases in the discrete mathematics course. It also integrates cleanly with the Foundation Coalition¡¯s freshman year, and provides a block of instruction that focuses directly upon the discipline of computing.

[69]     Richardson, J., J. Parker, and D. Cordes, “The Foundation Coalition Freshman Year: Lessons Learned,” (Web) Proceedings, 1996 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: Three years ago, mathematics, science, and engineering faculty at the University of Alabama (UA) designed a new set of freshmen courses which integrate science and engineering topics, promote active learning, and incorporate computer tools. The new courses have now gone through two cycles (1994-95 and 1995-96 academic years). The original goals of the new courses are presented followed by discussions of some of the advantages and disadvantages of the approaches.

[70]     Dantzler, J., J. Richardson, and K. Whitaker, “Carry-Over Effects of a Freshman Engineering Program as Identified by Faculty Ratings,” Proceedings, American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, 2002.

Abstract: For seven years, The University of Alabama¡¯s College of Engineering has presented incoming freshmen with the opportunity to participate in a non-traditional first year program called TIDE (Teaming, Integration, and Design in Engineering). Components of TIDE that differ from the traditional first year program are cohort grouping, cooperative learning, team design projects, and an emphasis on written and oral communication. Student record data indicates that the program has improved retention in the engineering program but has had minimal effect on achievement. Anecdotal evidence from follow-on teachers, however, suggests that the TIDE program may have soft skill carry-over effects. Upper- class engineering students who participated in the TIDE program may exhibit more confidence, better communication skills and greater team skills than their traditional program counterparts. To test this hypothesis, engineering faculty who teach downstream design courses that rely heavily on student soft skills were asked to rate past students on a variety of dimensions. Each rater was presented with a list of their past students matched on high school GPA and ACT/SAT scores. These students were not identified to the raters as either TIDE or traditional students. Ratings for each skill were completed on a rubric-style scale designed to ensure consistency of rating meaning across raters. All data was collected during the 2000- 01 academic year. A discussion of the analysis and implications will be presented.

[71]     Richardson, J., and J. Dantzler, “Effect of a Freshman Engineering Program on Retention and Academic Performance. Proceedings,” Proceedings, Frontiers in Education Conference, 2002, pp. S2C16-S2C22.

[72]     University of Alabama College of Engineering, “Engineering Student Services,” accessed September 21, 2004.

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth—Integrated Math, Physics, Undergraduate Laboratory Science Engineering (IMPULSE)

[73]     Pendergrass, N.A., R.N. Laoulache, J.P. Dowd, and R.E. Kowalczyk, R.E., “Efficient Development and Implementation of an Integrated First Year Engineering Curriculum,” (Web) Proceedings, 1998 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: In September 1998, the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth (UMD) began a pilot version of a fully integrated first year engineering curriculum totaling 31 credits. The new curriculum is cost-effective and has a high probability of successfully improving the learning of engineering freshmen as well as their retention. This paper outlines strategies that brought the new curriculum efficiently into being and helped to assure its success. Many of these were learned by studying work done in the NSF-sponsored Foundation Coalition as well as at other schools. Where possible, we have built on the best work of those who have already developed successful, innovative teaching methods and curricula. The paper briefly outlines the courses and teaching methodology in the new integrated curriculum. It also describes the studio classroom and equipment that have been optimized for hands-on, technology- assisted learning.

[74]     Pendergrass, N.A., R.E. Kowalczyk, J.P. Dowd, R.N. Laoulache, W. Nelles, J.A. Golen, and E. Fowler, “Improving First-year Engineering Education,” Proceedings, Frontiers in Education Conference, 1999, pp. 13c2-6─13c2-11.

[75]     Dowd, J.P., R.N. Laoulache, and N.A. Pendergrass, “Project IMPULSE: Teaching Physics In An Integrated Studio Based Curriculum For Freshman Engineering Majors,” Proceedings, American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, 1999.

[76]     Pendergrass, N.A., R.N. Laoulache, and P.J. Fortier, “Mainstreaming an Innovative 31-Credit Curriculum for First-Year Engineering Majors,” (Web) Proceedings, 2000 Frontiers in Engineering Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: In September of 1998, the College of Engineering at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth piloted an innovative, integrated, first-year curriculum that dramatically changed 31 credits across two semesters. Preliminary assessment data was very encouraging after the first semester of operation and the team started an effort to adopt it. A storm of intense resistance and controversy erupted, however, catching nearly everyone by surprise. Argument, rational and seemingly irrational, threatened to eclipse the benefits of the new program and could have easily led to its termination. In retrospect, the nature of the controversy and opposition was predictable. With earlier understanding of responses, adoption would still have been resisted and people would have disagreed but the team would have been better able to respond productively. This paper will present the story of the adoption of the IMPULSE program so that others can learn from our experiences. It will focus on the process that led to rapid adoption of the new curriculum and will point out important steps and pitfalls. The paper will include discussion of the important, and predictable, human reactions that were seen. We could not make progress until these were appreciated. Human reactions had to be understood and worked with. We hope that our experiences will encourage and help others to become more aware of the human factors that often dominate change processes. Index Terms ¡ª Academic change management, first-year engineering curriculum, integrated courses, program assessment.

[77]     Pendergrass, N.A., R.E. Kowalczyk, J.P. Dowd, R.N. Laoulache, W. Nelles, J.A. Golen, and E. Fowler, “Improving First-Year Engineering Education,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 90, No. 1, 2001, pp. 33-41.

[78]     Pendergrass, N.A., R.N. Laoulache, and E. Fowler, “Can An Integrated First-Year Program Continue To Work As Well After The Novelty Has Worn Off?(Web) Proceedings, 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth (UMD) began a successful, integrated, first year engineering curriculum in September 1998. This new program dramatically changed the freshman year and was initially very successful. Data from the first year pilot program was very positive. Assessment showed that it 1. more than halved the attrition rate of first-year engineering students 2. nearly doubled the percentage of students passing two semesters of physics on schedule 3. increased the percentage of students passing calculus on schedule by 40% 4. increased performance of students on common final exams in calculus by more than a grade point and a half, despite having a significantly higher percentage of students actually take the final. By September 1999, the new curriculum had become the required program for approximately 80% of first-year engineering majors at UMD. Expansion produced some unexpected challenges and the paper will show assessment data indicating both positive and negative changes in performance in various aspects of the program. We will give insight into the problems and opportunities that developed as the program grew. We will also describe how assessment provided feedback to help decision making.

North Carolina State University—Integrated Math, Physics, Engineering, and Chemistry (IMPEC)

[79]     Felder, R., R. Beichner, L. Bernold, E. Burniston, P. Dail, and H. Fuller, “Update on IMPEC: An Integrated First-year Engineering Curriculum at N.C. State University,” (Web) Proceedings, 1998 American Society for Engineering Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: An integrated freshman engineering curriculum called IMPEC (Integrated Mathematics, Physics, Engineering, and Chemistry Curriculum) has undergone three years of pilot-testing at North Carolina State University under the sponsorship of the SUCCEED Coalition. In each semester of IMPEC, the students take a calculus course, a science course (chemistry in the first semester, physics in the second), and a one-credit engineering course. The curriculum is taught by a multidisciplinary team of professors using a combination of traditional lecturing and alternative instructional methods including cooperative learning, activity-based class sessions, and extensive use of computer simulations. The goals of the curriculum are to provide motivation and context for the fundamental material taught in the first-year mathematics and science courses, a realistic and positive orientation to the engineering profession, and training in the problem-solving, study, and communication skills that correlate with success in engineering school and equip individuals to be lifelong learners. This paper summarizes program assessment and evaluation results and describes plans to export features of IMPEC into the regular first-year engineering curriculum.

[80]     Felder, R, E. Burniston, J. Gastineau, L. Bernold, and P. Dail, “Team Teaching in an Integrated Freshman Engineering Curriculum,” (Web) Proceedings, 1996 American Society for Engineering Education Conference, and “IMPEC: An Integrated First-year Engineering Curriculum,” both accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract1: Team teaching usually involves the back-and-forth trading of lecturing between two instructors. The present example illustrates a looser sideby- side collaboration consisting of a first year rhetoric, based upon readings, poetry, and videos in technology, literature and history, and a ¡°hands-on¡± laboratory centered around consumer electronics. The effect achieved is a bridging of the ¡°two cultures¡± by viewing technology through alternating sets of glasses.
Abstract2: Traditional engineering curricula are highly compartmentalized. Fundamental mathematics and science courses and engineering courses are generally self-contained, with few connections being made to related courses in other disciplines or even the same discipline. Real engineering problems, on the other hand, invariably involve information and skills associated with a variety of engineering, mathematics, and physical science courses. When students do not understand the interrelations between different subjects, they tend to be less motivated to learn new subject matter and consequently less able to solve realistic problems. Recognizing this problem, several universities have recently developed first-year engineering curricula that include multidisciplinary integration. This paper reports on one such effort currently under way at North Carolina State University sponsored by the National Science Foundation SUCCEED Coalition. In the new curriculum, designated as IMPEC (Integrated Mathematics, Physics, Engineering, and Chemistry), elements of engineering design and operations are brought into the first year and integrated with introductory calculus and science courses. The goals of the curriculum are to provide (1) motivation and context for the fundamental material taught in the first-year mathematics and science courses; (2) a realistic and positive orientation to the engineering profession, and (3) training in the problem-solving, study, and communication skills that correlate with success in engineering school and equip individuals to be lifelong learners.

[81]     R. Beichner, L. Bernold, E. Burniston, P. Dail, R. Felder, J. Gastineau, M. Gjertsen, and J. Risley, “Case Study of the Physics Component of an Integrated Curriculum,” Physics Education Research, supplement 1 to the American Journal of Physics, Vol. 67, No. 7, 1999, pp. S16-S24.

University of Florida—Knowledge Studio

[82]     Hoit, M.I., and M.W. Ohland, “Integrating the First Two Years of Engineering Education,” (Web) Proceedings, 1996 American Society of Engineering Education, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: The University of Florida (UF) is conducting an integrated engineering education experiment (covering the first two years of engineering education) for the Southeastern University and College Coalition for Engineering EDucation (SUCCEED), one of the National Science Foundation¡¯s Engineering Education Coalitions. The guiding purpose of this effort is to provide students the same benefits that have been achieved through total program integration while avoiding some major drawbacks of such schemes, such as significant changes in program administration. We propose a model different from the total integration model, which has dominated curriculum reform research. In our model, course and department frameworks remain intact. Instead, we are changing the way faculty teach and the way students' time is structured to increase learning efficiency. We have 100 students enrolled in the program and plan to work with them for two years. Special sections of Calc I and Chemistry I were taught in the Fall semester of 1995. Sections of Calculus II, Chemistry II and Physics I are in progress during Spring 1996. These special sections are reducing the dependence on lecture and relying more on active and group learning models. More ¡°studio¡± classes are being used to improve learning.

Colorado School of Mines—Connections

[83]     Olds, B., and R. Miller, “The Effect of a First-Year Integrated Engineering Curriculum on Graduation Rates and Student Satisfaction: A Longitudinal Study,” Journal of Engineering Education,” Vol. 93, No. 1, 2004, pp. 23-35.

[84]     Olds, B.M., and R.L. Miller, “Connections: A Longitudinal Study of an Integrated Freshman Program,” (Web) Proceedings, 2001 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: In this paper we present evidence that an experimental integrated freshman program piloted at the Colorado School of Mines from 1994-1996 led to significantly higher graduation rates and satisfaction with their undergraduate experience for the participating students. We begin with an introductory overview of the program, Connections, and its goals. Then we focus on the results of a recent follow-up study of students who participated in the program, concluding with our recommendations for engineering educators based on the results of this study.

[85]     Miller, R.L., and B.M. Olds, “Connections: Integrated First Year Engineering Education at the Colorado School of Mines,” (Web) Proceedings, 1995 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: We are developing and implementing the Connections program, an integrated series of active-learning based courses and seminars which will allow first-year engineering students to develop significant connections among their studies in humanities, social and physical sciences, and engineering. By connecting first-year courses via a series of interdisciplinary modules and developing the connections further in a seminar series, we allow students to discover the relationships among the humanities, science, and engineering disciplines they are studying. The result is students who are beginning to construct the ``big picture'' of engineering as a human enterprise, thereby appreciating the importance of liberal learning in their education, their profession, and their lives. This paper will describe the Connections structure including details of the Connections seminar and examples of Connections modules. We will also report preliminary evaluation results from Connections pilot courses taught during the 1994-95 academic year.

[86]     Olds, B.M., N.T. Middleton, and J.U. Trefny, “A New Core Curriculum for Engineering and Science Programs at the Colorado School of Mines,” (Web) Proceedings, 1998 International Conference on Engineering Education, accessed August 19, 2004.

Abstract: At the Colorado School of Mines we are in the fourth year of a comprehensive curriculum revision process. After refining our mission statement and graduate profile, we have developed and begun to implement a new undergraduate curriculum which features design-acrossthe- curriculum, a sequence of ¡°systems¡± courses, an enhanced and integrated humanities and social sciences component, and a distributed core. In this paper we describe the process and the products of our curriculum revision including our methods for phasing in the new curriculum and ensuring that continuous improvement is built in to it from the beginning.

Drexel University—Enhanced Educational Experience for Engineers (E4)

[87]     Quinn, R., “Implementing Large Scale Curricular Changes─The Drexel Experience,” (Web) Proceedings, 1995 Frontiers in Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: In 1988, Drexel University began a comprehensive experimental project designed to enhance its undergraduate engineering curriculum. The project called for the creation of a major paradigm shift in which the environment and all activities would focus on the students as emerging professional engineers with the faculty serving as their mentors. The primary objectives were to provide the student an integrated exposure, throughout the first two years, to a common core of elements which the faculty believe will be essential to successful practice in the next century. Achievement of these objectives required faculty to use and/or develop a combination of several different teaching methodologies and to totally reorganize the subject matter. In anticipation that the magnitude of these changes might cause difficulties, the experiment provided for a properly scaled, incremental approach with continuous evaluation and options to adopt or reject the new curriculum, in whole or in part, at the conclusion of the project. The results of the experiment were extremely positive. Student achievement and enthusiasm were high. Strong bonds were established with their faculty mentors from thirteen different departments who found the experience to be both challenging and rewarding. Consequently, the faculty approved a plan to revise the total curriculum of all engineering departments. Each department is now restructuring its upper division curriculum using the experimental program as the common lower- division core. Full scale implementation began with the entering class in 1994. The implementation of such fundamental, large scale changes is complicated by the diversity of the constituencies involved and beset with a variety of challenges and issues. These range over a broad spectrum from matters relating to academic and administrative authority, to faculty development and rewards, to the allocation of fiscal, physical and human resources. Some examples will be discussed in the session.

[88]     Bordogna, J., E. Fromm, and E.W. Ernst, “Engineering Education: Innovation Through Integration,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 82, No. 1, 1993, pp. 3-8.

[89]     Thomas, D.H., and A. Lawley, “Drexel’s E4 Project: An Enhanced Educational Experience in Engineering,” Journal of the Minerals Metals & Materials Society, Vol. 43, No. 3, 1991, pp. 32-37.

[90]     Quinn, R.G., “Drexel’s E4 Program: A Different Professional Experience for Engineering Students and Faculty, “ Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 82, No. 4, 1993, p. 196.

[91]     Quinn, R.G., “The E4 Introductory Engineering Test, Design and Simulation Laboratory,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 82, No. 4, 1993, p. 223.

[92]     Thomas, D. H., S. Carmi, and F.K. Tsou, “An Experiment in Reforming the Freshmen and Sophomore Engineering Curricula at Drexel University,” American Institute of Chemical Engineers Symposium Series, Vol. 89, No. 295, 1993, pp. 526-530.

[93]     Tsou, F.K., D.H. Thomas, and S. Carmi, “An Enhanced Engineering Program for Freshmen and Sophomores,” International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 8, No. 6, 1992, pp. 413-418.

[94]     Arms, V.M., S. Duerden, M. Green, M.J. Killingsworth, and P. Taylor, “English Teachers and Engineers: A New Learning Community,” International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1998, pp. 30-40.

[95]     Carr, R., D. Thomas, T.S. Venkataraman, A.L. Smith, M.A. Gealt, R. Quinn, and M. Tanyel, “Mathematical and Scientific Foundations in Engineering─An integrative Engineering Curriculum,” Journal of Engineering Education,  1995, pp. 137-150.

[96]     Valentine, A., V.M. Arms, and J.R. Weggel, “Assessing Innovative, Project-Based Learning In Drexel’s Freshman Core Curriculum,” (Web) Proceedings,2001  American Society for Engineering Education Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

[97]     Newdick, R., “E4: The Drexel Curriculum,” Engineering Science and Education Journal, Vol. 3, No. 5, 1994.

[98]     Jarvis, P.F., “The Drexel Curriculum: A Student’s Perspective,” Proceedings, American Society for Engineering Education Conference, Anaheim, California, 1995.

[99]     “Drexel’s Experiment Takes Hold,” American Society of Engineering Education Prism, December 1993, p. 14.

The Ohio State University—Gateway

[100]  Fentiman, A., J. Demel, R. Freuler, R. Gustafson, and J. Merrill, “Developing and Implementing an Innovative First Year Program for 1000 Students,” (Web) Proceedings, 2001 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: In the past decade, learning experiences for first year engineering students at Ohio State have evolved. This article provides an overview of that evolution with emphasis on the student experience in 2000. It will cover course topics, teaching staff, facilities, faculty development, assessment and feedback methodologies, and results to date. Two important factors in bringing about change were Ohio State¡¯s participation in the NSF-funded Gateway Engineering Education Coalition and substantial support from the Dean¡¯s office. Many subjects briefly discussed in this paper will be covered in more detail in separate papers presented at this and other conferences.

[101]  Freuler, R., A. Fentiman, J. Demel, R. Gustafson, and J. Merrill, J., “Developing and Implementing Hands-on Laboratory Exercises and Design Projects for First Year Engineering Students,” (Web) Proceedings, 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: During the past ten years, The Ohio State University¡¯s College of Engineering has moved from a series of separate freshman courses for engineering orientation, engineering graphics, and engineering problem solving with computer programming to a dual offering of course sequences in the Introduction to Engineering Program (IEP) and the Freshman Engineering Honors (FEH) Program. These new programs retain part of the traditional material but add in hands-on laboratory experiences that lead to design/build projects. Teamwork, project management, report writing and oral presentations have assumed important roles in this program. This paper describes the range of laboratory exercises employed, the design projects with the written reports and oral reports required, and the lessons learned in the transition to this dual offering freshman programs.

[102]  Demel, J.T., J.A. Merrill, A. Fentiman, and R.J. Freuler, “An Honors Program for Freshman Engineering Students: Development and Long Term Evaluation,” American Society of Engineering Education/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1999, p. 13c2-18.

[103]  Abrams, L.M., and A.W. Fentiman, “An Integrated Program to Recruit and Retain Women Engineering Students,” (Web) Proceedings, 2002 American Society of Engineering Education Conference and Exposition, accessed August 20, 2004.

Abstract: The need for efforts to recruit and retain women in engineering is well known, and many programs to bring women into the engineering profession have been proposed and implemented. Unfortunately, in spite of those efforts, the percentage of women in engineering schools and among practicing engineers continues to hover around 20% and 10%, respectively. At Ohio State, we undertake many of the recruitment programs that serve broad audiences, such as workshops, campus visits, and printed materials. In addition, however, we conduct programs that focus on recruiting women from high schools known to provide them with the skills necessary to study engineering and on integrating those programs with others designed to retain women who have chosen to study engineering. This paper documents the suite of recruitment and retention programs at Ohio State; several of which were supported, in part, by the Gateway Engineering Education Coalition.

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University—Integrated Curriculum in Engineering (ICE)
References to Other Integrated Programs

[104]  Watret, J.R., and C.J. Martin, “Longitudinal Assessment of the Integrated Curriculum in Engineering (ICE),” Proceedings, Frontiers in Education Conference, 2002, pp. S1A6-S1A11.

Louisiana Tech University—Integrated Engineering Curriculum

[105]  Nelson, J., and S. Napper, “Ramping Up an Integrated Engineering Curriculum to Full Implementation,” Proceedings, Frontiers in Education Conference, 1999, pp. 13c2-12─13c2-17.

University of Pittsburgh—Integrated First-year Curriculum

[106]  Fedele, J., “Integrated Curriculum Enhances Engineering, Math, Science Instruction: New High-tech Classroom Facilitates Teamwork, Active Learning,” accessed July 2, 2003.

 

Back