First-year Integrated Curriculum Projects

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. M^cCarter, 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. M^cCarter, 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. M^cCarter, 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.