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

IV. Curriculum Structure: Texas A&M Five-Course Structure

While the new integrated course sequence appeared to satisfy the objectives listed above, it soon became apparent that changes in the course structure were needed for the following reasons:

• Too much material had been placed in the four course sequence,
• The four course sequence was too integrated and too optimistic as to how much material could be covered,
• To make the courses more palatable for both students and instructors, and
• A general need to reduce the total credit hours in most engineering programs.

Consequently, in 1995, changes were begun to restructure the courses by:

• Regrouping some course topics along more traditional lines but retaining the conservation framework (for example, "statics" and "dynamics" brought into one course, ENGR 211; thermodynamics brought into one course, ENGR 212),
• Dropping conservation of charge and developing conservation principles only in Cartesian and polar coordinates,
• Reducing credit hours from 4 (3 lecture - 2 recitation) to 3 (2-2),
• Incorporating the electrical circuits course, ELEN 306 (4-0) into the ENGR sequence as ENGR 215 (2-2),
• Adding cohorted sections for ENGR 211-212 and ENGR 213-214 which provided common student teams for the cohorted sections,
•   Added team design projects, and
• Added an administrative structure with a faculty coordinator and oversight committee for each course and overall supervision by the Associate Dean of Engineering.

The new Principles of Engineering course sequence still retains the conservation framework as the fundamental basis for all courses.  Course titles and broad topic areas are listed in Table 5.  ENGR 211 and 212 are taken during the first semester of the sophomore year while ENGR 213, 214 and 215 are taken the second semester of the sophomore year.  While ENGR 212 (thermodynamics), ENGR 213 (materials science) and ENGR 215 (electrical circuits) are most like their traditional counterparts, ENGR 211 and 214 are unique.  ENGR 211 provides the conservation for macroscopic systems (with application to statics and dynamics of rigid systems) while ENGR 214 addresses conservation principles for continuous media (with application to mass flow, heat transfer, stress, strain, torsion and beam bending).  Both ENGR 211 and 214 are vector based.  ENGR 211 and 212 require registration in Calculus III (MATH 251/253), while ENGR 214 and 215 requires registration in the differential equations course (MATH 308)

Initially, ENGR 211-214 was taught using the textbooks developed earlier for ENGR 201-204.  This proved to be unacceptable since topics for ENGR 211 were spread between the textbooks for ENGR 201 and 203.  In addition, portions of the ENGR 20x textbooks were no longer being covered.  Consequently, a new textbook was written for ENGR 214 and web-based notes were written for ENGR 211 (a formal textbook is currently being written).  Traditional textbooks for ENGR 212 and 213 are currently being utilized but are supplemented with instructor and web-based notes to incorporate desired conservation framework elements.

At Texas A&M, all of the ENGR 21x courses have been taught with relatively large section sizes (80-90 students) typically meeting twice a week for two hours per class meeting.  Most faculty have found that artificial separation of the four contact hours per week into lecture and recitation is not desirable and each will typically allocate the two hour block as needed to lecture and recitation.  In order to accommodate the large section size and the interactive nature of the classroom, a TA is always present to assist the instructor.  We have found that in ENGR 211 and 214, which contain a wide diversity of topics and requires considerable interaction between students and TA, the TA must be chosen carefully and must receive sufficient instruction in pedagogical issues related to teams, collaborative learning, etc., and the TA obviously must have good communication skills.  Likewise, the faculty teaching these courses must have some training in collaborative learning, team dynamics, use of technology in the classroom, etc.  Instructors generally require significant start-up times because of the non-traditional format for the 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, 3^rd 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