Active/Collaborative Learning Student Teams Integrating Technology Effectively Women and Minorities Assessment and Evaluation EC2000 Emerging Technology Foundation Coalition Curricula Concept Inventories
 
 
 
 
 
A Unified Framework for Engineering Science: Principles and Sample Curricula
 

Sophomore Engineering Curricula		 Introduction  Conservation and Accounting Framework Curriculum Structure: Texas A&M four-course structure Curriculum Structure: Texas A&M Five-Course Structure
Curriculum Structure: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Sophomore Engineering Curriculum Example Problems

Student Performance/Faculty Reactions

 Conclusions

III. Curriculum Structure: Texas A&M four-course structure
Now that the conservation and accounting framework has been described, this section and the following two sections will describe three different curricular structures which have been developed to help students learn engineering science via the conservation and accounting framework. The first two structures were developed at Texas A&M University and the third structure was developed at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. The three diverse structures will hopefully help readers to envision the different ways in which students may study engineering science with the conservation and accounting framework.
The original program, begun as a pilot project in September 1988 and supported by a Course and Curriculum Development grant from the National Science Foundation, had the following goals [2]:

  1. To develop a stronger, principle-oriented engineering core program,
  2. To develop a program that would be applicable to all or most engineering disciplines.
  3. To strengthen undergraduate design education.
  4. To give students a better ability to transfer concepts across disciplinary lines.
  5. To relieve pressure on 4-year curricula.
  6. To foster a greater degree of creativity among students.

The original program developed four sophomore level courses each with their own textbook. All the courses were based on the unifying theme of conservation. The first course, ENGR201, in the original series was titled "Conservation Principles in Engineering" [4,5] and presents the unifying structure applied to macroscopic systems in a variety of "traditional" areas. The second course, ENGR202, was titled "Properties of Matter" [6,7] and presented a method for understanding material behavior in light of the conservation framework. The third course, ENGR203, was titled "Understanding Engineering Systems Via Conservation" [8,9] and applies the conservation framework to complex interdisciplinary problems. The fourth and final course, ENGR204, was titled "Conservation Principles for Continuous Media" [10,11] which essentially emulated the first course with application to infinitesimally sized systems. Together, the four-course sequence was referred to as "ENGR 20x."
The original program laid the groundwork to achieve all six goals; however, they were not all achieved by the end of the first development. In particular, the courses from the first project, which officially ended in 1993, were not widely accepted at TAMU. Some of the more important advantages and disadvantages of the first project include the following [12]:

  • Four courses and four textbooks were developed and taught for several years.
  • Twenty faculty members from seven departments became involved in the program.
  • Dissemination workshops were presented to faculty members from more than twelve universities. Some of these universities (University of Virginia, University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa, Rose Hulman Institute of Technology, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, and Arizona State University) have implemented similar courses. Others are considering adoption.
  • The courses were adopted by the Industrial, Electrical, Petroleum, and Civil engineering departments at Texas A&M.
  • "Traditional" knowledge was enhanced in the new curriculum. Based on exams similar to the Fundamentals in Engineering exam, the mean core student scored 55% ±5% while a comparable (in GPR and SAT) group from the "traditional" curriculum scored 49% ±5%.
  • The main difference between the "control" group of students and the experimental group is the control students had completed several junior courses whereas the experimental group had only completed the sophomore courses. More detailed testing demonstrated that the experimental group performed worse in statics (65% ±6% to 78% ±6%), better in dynamics (51% ±8% to 35% ±8%), and statistically the same in thermodynamics (66% ±7% to 66% ±7%).
  • Student reported performance in advanced courses was satisfactory. Most students felt confident and said they believed they understood material much better than other students did.
  • The burden of teaching the courses was left on the shoulders of very few faculty members. This was in part due to the radical departure from "traditional" single discipline courses.

References

  1. Grinter, L.E. (Chair), Report on Evaluation of Engineering Education, American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, DC, 1955.
  2.   Harris, Eugene M. DeLoatch, William R. Grogan, Irene C. Peden, and John R. Whinnery, "Journal of Engineering Education Round Table: Reflections on the Grinter Report," Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 69-94 (1994) (includes as an Appendix the Grinter Report, issued in September, 1955).
  3. Glover, Charles, J., and Carl A. Erdman, "Overview of the Texas A&M/NSF Engineering Core Curriculum Development," Proceedings, 1992 Frontiers in Education Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, 11-14 November 1992, pp. 363-367
  4. Glover, Charles J., K. M. Lunsford, and John A. Fleming, “TAMU/NSF Engineering Core Curriculum Course 1: Conservation Principles in Engineering,” Proceedings, 1992 Frontiers in Education Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, 11-14 November 1992, pp. 603-608
  5. Glover, Charles J., K. M. Lunsford, and John A. Fleming, Conservation Principles and the Structure of Engineering, 3rd edition, New York: McGraw-Hill College Custom Series, 1992
  6. Pollock, Thomas C., “TAMU/NSF Engineering Core Curriculum Course 2: Properties of Matter,” Proceedings, 1992 Frontiers in Education Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, 11-14 November 1992, pp. 609-613
  7. Pollock, Thomas C., Properties of Matter, 3rd edition, New York: McGraw-Hill College Custom Series, 1992
  8. Everett, Louis J., “TAMU/NSF Engineering Core Curriculum Course 3: Understanding Engineering via Conservation,” Proceedings, 1992 Frontiers in Education Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, 11-14 November 1992, pp. 614-619
  9. Everett, Louis J., Understanding Engineering Systems via Conservation, 2nd edition, New York: McGraw-Hill College Custom Series, 1992
  10. Glover, Charles J. and H. L. Jones, “TAMU/NSF Engineering Core Curriculum Course 4: Conservation Principles for Continuous Media,” Proceedings, 1992 Frontiers in Education Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, 11-14 November 1992 Conference, pp. 620-624
  11. Glover, C. J. and H. L. Jones, Conservation Principles for Continuous Media, 2nd edition, New York: McGraw-Hill College Custom Series, 1992
  12. Erdman, Carl A., Charles J. Glover, and V. L. Willson, “Curriculum Change: Acceptance and Dissemination,” Proceedings, 1992 Frontiers in Education Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, 11-14 November 1992, pp. 368-372
  13. B. A. Black, “From Conservation to Kirchoff: Getting Started in Circuits with Conservation and Accounting,” Proceedings of the 1996 Frontiers in Education Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, 6-9 November 1996
  14. Griffin, Richard B., Louis J. Everett, P. Keating, Dimitris C. Lagoudas, E. Tebeaux, D. Parker, William Bassichis, and David Barrow, "Planning the Texas A&M University College of Engineering Sophomore Year Integrated Curriculum," Fourth World Conference on Engineering Education, St. Paul, Minnesota, October 1995, vol. 1, pp. 228-232.
  15. Everett, Louis J., "Experiences in the Integrated Sophomore Year of the Foundation Coalition at Texas A&M," Proceedings, 1996 ASEE National Conference, Washington, DC, June 1996
  16. Richards, Donald E., Gloria J. Rogers, "A New Sophomore Engineering Curriculum -- The First Year Experience," Proceedings, 1996 Frontiers in Education Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, 6-9 November 1996
  17. Heenan, William and Robert McLaughlan, "Development of an Integrated Sophomore Year Curriculum,” Proceedings of the 1996 Frontiers in Education Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, 6-9 November 1996
  18. Mashburn, Brent, Barry Monk, Robert Smith, Tan-Yu Lee, and Jon Bredeson, "Experiences with a New Engineering Sophomore Year,” Proceedings of the 1996 Frontiers in Education Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, 6-9 November 1996
  19. Everett, Louis J., "Dynamics as a Process, Helping Undergraduates Understand Design and Analysis of Dynamics Systems," Proceedings, 1997 ASEE National Conference,
  20. Doering, E., “Electronics Lab Bench in a Laptop: Using Electronics Workbench to Enhance Learning in an Introductory Circuits Course,” Proceedings of the 1997 Frontiers in Education Conference, November 1997
  21. Cornwell, P., and J. Fine, “Mechanics in the Rose-Hulman Foundation Coalition Sophomore Curriculum,” Proceedings of the Workshop on Reform of Undergraduate Mechanics Education, Penn State, 16-18 August 1998
  22. Cornwell, P., and J. Fine, “Mechanics in the Rose-Hulman Foundation Coalition Sophomore Curriculum,” to appear in the International Journal of Engineering Education
  23. Cornwell, P. and J. Fine, “Integrating Dynamics throughout the Sophomore Year,” Proceeedings, 1999 ASEE Annual Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina, 20-23 June 1999
  24. Burkhardt, H. "System physics: A uniform approach to the branches of classical physics." Am. J. Phys. 55 (4), April 1987, pp. 344–350.
  25. Fuchs, Hans U. Dynamics of Heat. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996.

Back
© 2001 Foundation Coalition. All rights reserved. Last modified