Published Journal Papers Brochures Monthly Newsletter
 
 
 
 
 
Journal Papers
 

The following is a list of all publications generated by the Foundation Coalition, listed by author. These documents require the use of the Adobe Acrobat software in order to view their contents.

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

F

1988

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

1989

  • Winkel, B., Froyd, J.E., 1989, “An Integrated First-Year Engineering Curriculum,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.
  • Froyd, J.E., 1989, “Integrated Curriculum in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics: Trial By Fire,” Proceedings of the Conference on New Approaches to Undergraduate Engineering Education.

1992

  • Glover, C.J., Lunsford, K.M., Fleming, J.A., 1992, “TAMU/NSF Engineering Core Curriculum Course 1: Conservation Principles in Engineering,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: In an effort to encourage new approaches to teaching engineering, the National Science Foundation has supported the development of four new courses at Texas A&M University build a solid TAMU). These new courses are designed to foundation for further engineering study and practice and are intended to replace the content normally taught in a set of "core" engineering science courses. This paper addresses key elements of one of these new courses (Course 1). Other elements of the program are discussed elsewhere.

    Course 1 is the keynote course of this four-course sequence. As such it has our primary objectives, 1) to present the unifying structure of engineering and science, 2) to develop the basic equations of engineering for macroscopic systems, 3) to provide experience with applying fundamentals to problems in traditional areas, and 4) to present the big picture. Additionally, it serves to provide a transition from physics, chemistry, and mathematics to engineering.

    In this course we try to open the students’ eyes to the vast amount of understanding that can be achieved simply by counting a variety of extensive properties for a variety of systems. From this perspective our primary goal throughout the course is to move the students to a point of view that in approaching problems, whether they are problems they have seen before or not, they should do so from a perspective of applying the laws and of counting extensive properties. We believe that if they approach problems by asking “What does counting mass (energy, linear momentum, angular momentum, charge, entropy, mechanical energy, thermal energy, electrical energy, etc.) tell me?“, then they can have a very strong foundation for approaching new problems in a creative and conceptual way.

1993

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

1994

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

1995

  • Frair, K., 1995, “An Integrated First Year Curriculum at the University of Alabama: Problems and Solutions,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.
  • Froyd, J.E., 1995, “Building Effective Industrial Relationships: The Foundation Coalition Experience,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: The focus of industrial relationships for the Foundation Coalition in its first two years has been different by design at the coalition level and the individual institutional level. At the coalition level a National Advisory Board, comprised primarily of strategic level people from industry, education, and government, was formed with a broadly defined role that includes providing input relevant to Coalition vision and long-range strategic directions; providing input on desired student outcomes to guide curriculum development; and helping promote acceptance and support of curriculum change among the various affected constituencies (industry, the broad engineering community, accreditation agencies, government agencies, faculty, and students). Of the 18 current Board members, 14 are from industry. The Board has provided assistance to this point in defining student outcomes, strategic planning, budgeting, and locating internships for Coalition students. Future plans are to involve the Board more in development efforts to obtain financial matching support from industry and private foundations.

    At the institutional level industry interactions have focused on specific activities to bring industry personnel (including, but not limited to, members of the Advisory Board) to campus and vice versa, i.e., to give students and faculty the opportunity to visit various industries, particularly those that employ the graduates of Foundation Coalition schools. The industry visitors have been especially helpful in establishing and increasing support for the Coalition goals and programs among students and faculty at individual institutions. Some of the industry visits arranged by individual schools have been expanded when appropriate to include representation from multiple Coalition schools.

    The Coalition continues to attempt to expand and better utilize the industrial interactions outlined above, particularly its interactions with the National Advisory Board, which has already proven to be a valuable resource, but one somewhat under-utilized to this point.

  • Frair, K., 1995, “Curriculum Integration at the University of Alabama,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    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.

  • Froyd, J.E., 1995, “Integrated, First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics - A Ten-Year Process,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    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.

1996

  • Anderson, C., Bryan, K., Froyd, J.E., Hatten, D., Kiaer, L., Moore, N., Mueller, M., Mottel, E., Wagner, J., 1996, “Competency Matrix Assessment in an Integrated, First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: The Integrated, First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics (IFYCSEM) at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology integrates topics in calculus, mechanics, statics, electricity and magnetism, computer science, general chemistry, engineering design, and engineering graphics into a three course, twelve-credit-per-quarter sequence. In 1995-96, faculty teaching IFYCSEM unanimously agreed to move toward a competency matrix assessment approach advocated by Lynn Bellamy at Arizona State University. Using a competency matrix, faculty establish a two-dimensional grid. Along the vertical dimension of the grid, faculty list the topics and techniques with which they believe students should become facile. Along the horizontal dimension are the levels of learning according to Bloom's taxonomy: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation. For each topic in the vertical dimension faculty establish the desired level of learning associated with a grade: A, B, or C. For each quarter in 1995-96, the resulting matrix contained about 500-600 elements or blocks. When a student has demonstrated a level of learning for a particular topic, the student marks the block as earned and enters in the competency matrix a reference to his/her portfolio showing where the supporting document may be found. Students maintain their own portfolios and competency matrices and at the end of each quarter students submit their competency matrix along with a portfolio as documentation. Faculty assign a grade based on the competency matrix.

    We present detailed descriptions of the rationale and process. Next, we discuss advantages and disadvantages, including feedback from both faculty and students. Finally, we discuss possible improvements for future implementation.

  • Frair, L., Dilbaghi, B., 1996, “Multimedia Development for Engineering Design Projects,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: In conjunction with the NSF-funded Foundation Coalition at the University of Alabama selected engineering freshman students are required to study, analyze and suggest solutions for several engineering design projects. These projects were contributed by engineering faculty from various disciplines. This was to ensure that entering students were exposed to a broad range of engineering discipline material. These projects emphasized teaming, creativity, engineering proactive and communication. Initially these projects were presented to the students on paper and responses were primarily paper-based.

    This study investigated the creation of a multimedia framework for such engineering design projects. It was found by examining the structure and composition of these design projects that much commonality existed. Based on these findings a suggested general methodology was developed for the production of multimedia versions of present and future freshman engineering design projects.

    This paper describes the process followed in developing a suggested general methodology for the production of multimedia-based engineering design projects. Several multimedia versions are described and illustrated.

  • Frair, K., Froyd, J.E., Rogers, G., Watson, K.L., 1996, “The Foundation Coalition: Past, Present, and Future,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: The Foundation Coalition (FC) was funded in 1993 as the fifth coalition in the National Science Foundation's Engineering Education Coalitions Program. The FC has as its vision a new culture of engineering education: students and faculty working in partnership to create an enduring foundation for student development and life-long learning. The member institutions - Arizona State University (ASU), Maricopa Community College District (MCCD), Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (RHIT), Texas A&M University (TAMU), Texas A&M University - Kingsville (TAMUK), Texas Woman's University (TWU), and the University of Alabama (UA) - are developing improved curricula and learning environment models that are based on four primary thrusts: integration of subject matter within the curriculum, improvement of the human interfaces that affect educational environments, technology-enabled 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 the increasingly complex, rapidly changing societal problems that demand

    1) Increased appreciation and motivation for lifelong learning

    2) Increased ability to participate in effective teams

    3) Effective oral, written, graphical, and visual communication skills;

    4) Improved ability to appropriately apply the fundamentals of mathematics and the sciences

    5) Increased capability to integrate knowledge from different disciplines to define problems, develop and evaluate alternative solutions, and specify appropriate solutions

    6) Increased flexibility and competence in using modern technology effectively for analysis, design, and communication

    As part of the FC strategic planning process, seven measurable objectives have been established to guide our activities over the remaining years of the grant period (1993-1998). Our objectives, and therefore activities, have not been of equal priority every year, and priorities are established each year as part of the budget allocation process. Three objectives that we have focused on a great deal thus far and that will be dealt with here are: Lower-Division Curricula, Assessment/Evaluation, and Institutionalization.

1997

  • Farbrother, B., 1997, “A New Approach to Electrical and Computer Engineering Programs at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

    Abstract: Two new degree programs are now being offered by the department of Electrical & Computer Engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. The new Bachelor's programs in Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering, are the result of a top-down curriculum design process which took several years to complete.

    ‘Renaissance Engineers’ are engineers who will be able to prosper in the workplace of the twenty-first century. We all agree that many changes took place in the workplace during the 1990's which are certain to continue. In order to produce graduate engineers with the appropriate skills for this new environment it is necessary to change the process by which they are trained. The conference presentation will include a discussion of the factors affecting curriculum development, a program overview, and also address departmental issues pertaining to the process of curriculum re-structuring.

  • Froyd, J.E., 1997, “Competency Matrix Assessment for First-Year Curricula in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics and ABET Criteria 2000,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    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.

  • Frair, L., Rogers, G., 1997, “Evolution and Evaluation of an Integrated, First-Year Curriculum,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    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.

  • Frair, K., Watson, K.L., 1997, “The NSF Foundation Coalition: Curriculum Change and Underrepresented Groups,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

    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.

1998

  • Frair, L., Matson, J.O., Matson, J.E., 1998, “An Undergraduate Curriculum Evaluation with the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: An undergraduate curriculum committee has developed the use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for the evaluation of alternative curriculum designs. The hierarchy consists of four levels of interaction - from the top most objective through affected parties (students, faculty, employers, etc.), curriculum components (design, science, math, etc.), to curriculum alternatives at the bottom. An internet web site has been designed and is being implemented to collect AHP judgments from the affected parties. This collected information can then be used to rank the various curriculum alternatives generated by the committee and others.

    AHP can be characterized as a multi-criteria decision technique in which qualitative factors are of prime importance. A model of the problem (undergraduate curriculum design) is developed using a hierarchical representation. At the top of the hierarchy is the overall goal or prime objective one is seeking to fulfill. The succeeding lower levels then represent the progressive decomposition of the problem. Knowledgeable parties complete a pair-wise comparison of all entries in each level relative to each of the entries in the next higher level of the hierarchy. The composition of these judgments fixes the relative priority of the entities at the lowest level (curriculum alternatives) relative to achieving the top-most objective.

    A description of AHP development for this curriculum design problem is provided. The implementation of an internet web site to collect the AHP judgments is detailed. Finally the combination of the various AHP inputs for the ranking of the curriculum alternatives is discussed.

  • Al-Holou, N., Bilgutay, N.M., Corleto, C.R., Demel, J.T., Felder, R., Frair, K., Froyd, J.E., Hoit, M., Morgan, J.R., Wells, D.L., 1998, “First-Year Integrated Curricula Across Engineering Education Coalitions,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: The National Science Foundation has supported creation of eight engineering education coalitions: Ecsel, Synthesis, Gateway, SUCCEED, Foundation, Greenfield, Academy, and Scceme. One common area of work among these coalitions has been restructuring first-year engineering curricula. Within some of the Coalitions, schools have designed and implemented integrated first-year curricula. The purpose of this paper is to survey the different pilots that have been developed, abstract some design alternatives which can be explored by schools interested in developing an integrated first-year curriculum, indicated some logistical challenges, and present brief descriptions of various curricula along with highlights of the assessment results which have been obtained.

  • Richardson, J., Corleto, C.R., Froyd, J.E., Imbrie, P.K., Parker, J.K., Roedel, R.J., 1998, “Freshman Design Projects in the Foundation Coalition,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: Many talented engineering students abandon engineering before taking a single engineering course. Herded into large sections of “pre-engineering” mathematics, chemistry and physics courses, many students prove themselves academically but walk away from engineering, disillusioned. Numerous schools have instituted freshmen engineering courses to retain some of these capable but disinterested students in the engineering program. Freshman engineering courses spark students’ interest by showing students that engineers communicate, lead, and create as well as analyze. One of the most successful ways of showing first-year students the diversity of skills needed to practice engineering is through freshman design projects.

    The authors have each selected three of their favorite freshman design projects (a total of fifteen projects) and posted detailed descriptions on the web (www.foundation.ua.edu/projects). For those interested in learning a little background about the freshman programs in which these projects were used, please read on. This paper provides: a brief description of the freshman programs at each school (the schools are participants in the NSF-sponsored Foundation Coalition), short summaries of each project, and answers to frequently asked questions about freshman design projects.

  • Froyd, J.E., 1998, “Improving Learning as an EC2000 Process,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: Criterion 2, Program Educational Objectives, of the Basic Level Accreditation Criteria for Engineering Criteria 2000 states: "Each engineering program for which an institution seeks accreditation or reaccreditation must have in place (a) detailed published educational objectives that are consistent with the mission of the institution and these criteria (b) a process based on the needs of the program’s various constituencies in which the objectives are determined and periodically evaluated (c) a curriculum and process that ensures the achievement of these objectives and (d) a system of ongoing evaluation that demonstrates achievement of these objectives and uses the results to improve the effectiveness of the program." Briefly, part (a) states know where your educational institution is going. Part (b) requires a documented process for determining your direction. Part c) states that your must be able to determine whether or not you are heading in the direction in which you indicated. Finally, part d) says you must use the feedback from part c) to improve the effectiveness of your program. Let's carefully consider part d).

  • Fletcher, S., Anderson-Rowland, M.R., Blaisdell, S., 1998, “Industry Involvement in the Women in Applied Science and Engineering (WISE) Recruiting and Retention Programs,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: Abstract - Industry has recognized that the employment of women and minorities is critical in maintaining a diverse and progressive engineering environment. Concurrently, the increasing need for universities to produce engineers from diverse backgrounds has brought about the need for special programs that encourage the retention and development of underrepresented groups. Usually, only minimal funding is provided at an institutional level. However, the financial need of these programs has rapidly increased causing university diversity programs to seek external support. The coupling of industry and university programs has brought about a mutually beneficial relationship that maximizes the educational experience for both the present and the prospective engineering student.

    Industry has played a significant role in the Women in Applied Science and Engineering (WISE) recruitment programs. For example, industry has offered financial support, sponsored company tours, and initiated the participation of engineers to serve as educators and speakers for both middle school and high school summer programs. In addition, industry has played a significant role in WISE retention programs including the multi-tiered Mentor Program and on-site Shadow Program. These programs foster relationships between students and engineers and help bridge the gap between education and employment. Finally, industry members have further strengthened collaborative efforts by serving on the WISE industry advisory committee and participating as industry panel members at various events.

    An overview of WISE programs that involve industry support will be presented as well as a discussion of the impact industry has made on these particular programs. In addition, the mutual benefits of industry supported precollege recruitment and college retention programs will be discussed.

  • Kiaer, L., Mutchler, D., Froyd, J.E., 1998, “Laptop Computers and the Integrated First-Year Curriculum at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology,” Communications of the ACM, 41:1, 45-49.
  • Frair, K., Cordes, D., 1998, “Sharing Innovation: The NSF Foundation Coalition,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    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 sixth year of a ten-year project. At the end of the first five-year funding period, the Coalition underwent some restructuring, and now includes 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 or are developing improved curricula and learning environment models that are based on four thrusts: integration of subject matter within the curriculum, cooperative and active learning, technology-enabled learning, and continuous improvement through assessment and evaluation. A primary objective for the next five years is the sharing of Foundation Coalition-developed innovations with the rest of the engineering education community.

    In order to better reach the engineering education community at large, we will establish a Foundation Coalition “virtual repository.” The repository will provide a database of specific information regarding Foundation Coalition activities. Users can use this repository to quickly and easily identify one or more contact people who are available to provide assistance, advice, and expertise on questions that they might have regarding a Foundation Coalition innovation or activity. It will utilize a web-based search engine that allows people to ask questions such as “Where do I find out who could come give a workshop on teaming in upper-division courses?” or “Who can I talk to about getting under-represented women better involved in our Foundation Coalition -courses?” We will track the use of the repository to see what questions people are asking in order to continuously improve our sharing mechanisms.

    In addition, we will focus on directed dissemination/sharing through an expanding network of Affiliate campuses, a concept new to the Foundation Coalition. Partner and Affiliate campuses will equally share the responsibility associated with the transfer of Foundation Coalition concepts and ideas.

    Affiliate campuses, as members of the Foundation Coalition, are very interested in the directions that the Foundation Coalition has established, but they have not committed to a broad spectrum of curriculum restructuring activities and their institutionalization. Instead, they focus on a narrower set of activities that are most appropriate to their own individual campus. To facilitate exchange between the Foundation Coalition partner campuses and Affiliate campuses, each Affiliate campus will work directly with one specific partner campus. In addition, the partner campus will be responsible for evaluating the performance of its Affiliate campus(es) with respect to their stated goals. Each of the Affiliate campuses has agreed that they will

    1) Study, implement, and adopt the Foundation Coalition products and processes that are appropriate to their needs,

    2) Provide resources that will enable Affiliate faculty to be able to participate in the study and implementation of Foundation Coalition products and processes,

    3) Share the results of their work with the engineering education community, and

    4) Participate in Foundation Coalition assessment and evaluation activities to evaluate the effectiveness of their Foundation Coalition programs.

  • Barrow, D., Fulling, S., 1998, “Using an Integrated Curriculum to Improve Freshman Calculus,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

    Abstract: This paper addresses the following question: What are some of the ways that the beginning calculus course for engineers can be improved, if it is part of an integrated curriculum that also includes physics, engineering, and chemistry courses? The authors have had the opportunity to participate in such an integrated curriculum at Texas A&M for the past two to four years. Several major changes were made in the first-year calculus sequence in order to present various topics at the times they were applied in other courses. We have found that these changes not only serve the needs of the partner disciplines, but also provide a more unified and coherent treatment of some topics from the point of view of mathematics itself. Vectors, parametric curves, line integrals, and especially centers of mass and moments of inertia are topics that students traditionally find difficult, unmotivated, or confusing because of inconsistent notation or terminology in different courses; covering them “early” actually improves their presentation. Other topics, such as multiple integrals, orthonormal bases, ordinary differential equations, and numerical approximation of derivatives and integrals, can be introduced in a motivated way in preparation for their more in-depth treatment in later years. Following “learning cycle” and “learning style” ideas, we have made an effort to provide more motivation and practice within the mathematics course; but the most effective and efficient motivators and practice fields are coordinated courses in other disciplines where the mathematics is actually used.

1999

  • Pendergrass, N.A., Kowalczyk, R.E., Dowd, J.P., Laoulache, R.N., Nelles, W., Golen, J.A., Fowler, E., 1999, “Improving First-year Engineering Education,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth (UMD) began a successful, thirty-one credit, integrated first-year engineering curriculum in September 1998. The program was modeled after many of the most effective and innovative programs in the NSF-sponsored Foundation Coalition as well as from other universities and colleges. The new program at UMD includes

    1) integrating the introductory sequences in physics, calculus, chemistry, English and engineering

    2) teaching and using teamwork among students and faculty

    3) using a specially designed technology oriented classroom

    4) using active and cooperative learning methods

    5) encouraging formation of a community of students by block-scheduling classes and grouping students in the dorms

    6) reducing the cost of delivering courses by making more efficient use of instructional time

    7) using careful assessment to evaluate performance.

    This paper describes the new curriculum, some of the practical considerations in its design, and the way it has functioned. It will also give a detailed snapshot of assessment results after one semester of operation. Additional assessment data on the second semester will be provided in the presentation and upon request.

  • Cornwell, P.J., Fine, J.M., 1999, “Integrating Dynamics throughout the Sophomore Year,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

    Abstract: At Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, the sophomore year curriculum primarily concentrates on engineering science material that is traditionally covered in courses such as Dynamics, Thermodynamics I, Fluid Mechanics and Circuits I. In the 1995-96 academic year, as part of the NSF sponsored Foundation Coalition, this material was repackaged for several majors into a new sequence of courses called the Sophomore Engineering Curriculum (SEC) where the concepts of conservation and accounting permeate the courses and are used to tie the subjects together. The mechanics material, traditionally taught in a dynamics course, has been distributed throughout the curriculum and is taught in a unified framework with the other engineering science material. From its inception, this curriculum has been required for all electrical engineering majors and computer engineering majors, but in the 1998-1999 academic year this curriculum was required for all mechanical engineering majors as well. Previous assessment results indicated that students taking the new curriculum performed better on a standardized test compared to students who took a traditional dynamics course. In this paper we will discuss how the mechanics material is distributed throughout the year and what difference, if any, there is in the performance of electrical, computer, and mechanical engineering students.

  • Cordes, D., Evans, D.L., Frair, K., Froyd, J.E., 1999, “The NSF Foundation Coalition: The First Five Years,” Journal of Engineering Education, 88:1, 73-77.

    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-Arizona State University, Maricopa Community College District, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Texas A&M University, Texas A&M University - Kingsville, Texas Woman's University, and the University of Alabama - have developed improved curricula and learning environment models that are based on four primary thrusts: integration of subject matter within the curriculum, cooperative and active learning, technology-enabled learning, and continuous improvement through assessment and evaluation. This paper discusses the first five years of Coalition activities and major accomplishments to date.

2000

  • Fowler, E., Sims-Knight, J.E., Pendergrass, N.A., Upchurch, R.L., 2000, “Course-based Assessment: Engaging Faculty in Reflective Practice,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: The College of Engineering (COE) at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth has begun to implement course-based assessment as part of our curricular continuous improvement program. The targeted faculty are those who are developing innovative courses supported by the Foundation Coalition (FC), a collaborative project funded by National Science Foundation. We began in Spring, 1999, and have since tried five different strategies—taking faculty to a two-day assessment workshop, a general lecture on embedding an assessment-based continuous improvement loop into courses, a written set of guidelines, individual meetings with faculty, and an interactive half-day workshop. We discovered that faculty accept and implement assessment-based continuous improvement in their classes once they understand that (a) it is in their control, (b) it can be done in ways that are cost-effective in terms of time, and (c) that it can reduce frustration in teaching because it makes visible aspects of courses that can be improved.

  • Froyd, J.E., Penberthy, D., Watson, K.L., 2000, “Good Educational Experiments are not Necessarily Good Change Processes,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: Design, problem solving, and scientific discovery are examples of important processes for which engineers and scientists have developed exemplary process models, i.e., a set of widely accepted procedures by which these functions may best be accomplished. However, undergraduate curriculum transformation in engineering, that is, systemic change in pedagogy, content, and/or course structure, lacks a widely recognized process model. In other words, engineering faculty members do not widely and explicitly agree upon a set of assumptions and flow diagrams for initiating, sustaining and integrating curriculum improvement. The two-loop model that is described in conjunction with the EC2000 criterion (http://www.abet.org/eac/two_loops.htm) provides a flow diagram that integrates assessment, evaluation and feedback processes. However, the two-loop model does not provide a set of assumptions and flow diagrams for quantum actual change or improvement. To initiate discussion of models for the curriculum change process, hereafter referred to as change models, this paper examines three change models and advocates the organizational change model.

  • Pendergrass, N.A., Laoulache, R.N., Fortier, P.J., 2000, “Mainstreaming an Innovative 31-Credit Curriculum for First-Year Engineering Majors,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    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.

  • Cornwell, P.J., Fine, J.M., 2000, “Mechanics in the Rose-Hulman Foundation Coalition Sophomore Curriculum,” International Journal of Engineering Education, 16:5, 441-446.

    Abstract: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology implemented a new sophomore curriculum starting in the 1995?96 academic year. The sophomore year curriculum primarily concentrates on engineering science material that is traditionally covered in courses such as Dynamics, Thermodynamics I, Fluid Mechanics, and Circuits I. At Rose-Hulman this material has been repackaged into a new sequence of courses where the concepts of conservation and accounting permeate the courses. The purpose of this paper is to discuss how the mechanics material has been distributed throughout the curriculum and how it is taught in the framework of conservation and accounting. Assessment results will also be presented.

  • Fournier-Bonilla, S.D., Watson, K.L., Malave, C.O., 2000, “Quality Planning in Engineering Education: Analysis of Alternative Implementations of New First-year Curriculum at Texas A&M University,” Journal of Engineering Education, 89:3, 315-322.

    Abstract: In general terms, traditional strategic planning may be described as a mechanism for generating a set of targets and approaches for achieving the established purpose of an organization. For it to be effective, a strategic plan must serve as the basis for creating a set of well-defined operations that align with the organizational goals and strategies. Because the task of generating an effective plan requires knowledge, time, patience, and persistence, not all organizations are prepared to devote the time and energy that is required to produce a meaningful plan. It is the intent of this paper to describe an approach to quality planning which was used to make major curricular changes in the first-year engineering education program at Texas A&M University. The planners' intention in this instance was to apply quality function deployment matrices, systems engineering concepts, quality management principles, and multi-attribute utility analysis to the evaluation of curriculum alternatives in an effort to make the planning process less complex and more systematic.

  • Froyd, J.E., Watson, K.L., 2000, “Systemic Improvement in Engineering Education,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

    Abstract: The paper describes a strategic objective of the Foundation Coalition: systemic improvement. First, a definition for systemic improvement is proposed. Second, a brief overview of change is described to promote the idea that curriculum change is a very complex process. Third, a list of tasks that can lead to systemic improvement is offered.

2001

  • Pendergrass, N.A., Laoulache, R.N., Fowler, E., 2001, “Can an Integrated First-Year Program Continue to Work as Well After the Novelty Has Worn Off?,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

    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.

  • Froyd, J.E., 2001, “Developing a Dissemination Plan,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: Each proposal to the National Science Foundation (NSF) seeking support for improving engineering education must include a plan for disseminating the innovations and results that a funded project will generate. Authors may select from a variety of tactics: papers published in archival journals, conference papers, workshops, web sites, multimedia CD-ROMs, books, conference exhibits, etc. Despite the wide variety of available tactics, dissemination plans often fail to account for the behavior of the faculty members that dissemination plans are designed to reach. Faculty members, like all people, make changes in stages instead of moving from preawareness to action in one giant step. Various models with different numbers of stages and a diverse selection of names and characteristics of the various stages have been offered. Despite the assortment of individual change models, the kernel truth that faculty members change in stages and that effective dissemination plans are designed to facilitate transitions one stage at a time should not be overlooked. The paper will present a six-stage model for individual change that has been employed in several industrial marketing plans: pre-awareness, awareness, interest, search, decision, and action. Characteristics of an individual at each stage in the change model will be presented. Once the nature of an individual at each stage is better understood, then appropriate dissemination tools that can help an individual move from one stage to the next will be explored. Exploration of tools will emphasize the observation that tools that are appropriate at one stage may be ineffective for individuals at a different stage. Hopefully, the individual change model and exploration of appropriate dissemination tools will help faculty members develop more effective dissemination plans.

  • Merton, P., Clark, M.C., Richardson, J., Froyd, J.E., 2001, “Engineering Curricula Change Across the Foundation Coalition: How They Succeeded, What They Learned,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

    Abstract: The National Science Foundation (NSF) funded the engineering education coalitions program to profoundly change the culture of engineering education. The culture of engineering education encompasses not only the way an engineering curriculum is prepared and shared with students, but also the processes through which engineering curricula grow and improve. Therefore, the Foundation Coalition has undertaken a qualitative research project that examines processes through which coalition partners have initiated and attempted to sustain curricular change. It is important to emphasize that the focus of the study is the process of curricular change, not content of new curricula. The project is organized as series of six qualitative case studies that examine curricular change at each of the partner institutions. Data for each case study is collected through interviews of approximately twenty key faculty and administrators as well as review of relevant documentation. Each case study identifies critical events and salient issues involved in that process, as well as valuable lessons each institution learned from their experience. To date, interviews have been conducted at four the six institutions, but the present report will be based on data from the first three institutions at which interviews have been completed.

    To date, several themes have emerged from analysis.

    1) Each of the institutions initiated curricular improvement by developing a pilot program and offering it to a relatively small number of students. Initiating improvement via pilot programs is well-accepted developmental strategy for engineering artificial systems, but it offers benefits and presents challenges in an educational environment. Expanding from a pilot curriculum to a curriculum for an entire college of engineering also presents challenges in terms of faculty development and facility costs. Pilots should be planned both to study the proposed improvements as well as to support eventual adoption across the entire college.

    2) Building support for curricular improvement within and beyond the College of Engineering required significantly more design and effort than anticipated by the change leaders. Based on the interviews, building support requires widespread communication, selection of influential faculty, political strategizing and assessment data. Communication plans require substantial up-front investment in addition to the efforts required to implement the plans.

    3) The emphasis on research in most institutions presents significant obstacles for those who want to play an active role in curricular improvement.

    Our study demonstrates that effecting major change in engineering curricula is a complex process but one that can succeed with careful planning and sustained effort. It is our hope that the experience of the partners of the Foundation Coalition will be helpful to other engineering programs as they plan for curricular change.

  • Merton, P., Clark, M.C., Richardson, J., Froyd, J.E., 2001, “Engineering Curricular Change Across the Foundation Coalition: Potential Lessons from Qualitative Research,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: The National Science Foundation (NSF) funded the engineering education coalitions program to profoundly change the culture of engineering education. The culture of engineering education encompasses not only the structure of an engineering curriculum and the methods between students and the curriculum, but also the processes through which engineering curricula grow and improve. Therefore, the Foundation Coalition, one of eight engineering education coalitions, has undertaken a qualitative research project that examines processes through which coalition partners have initiated and attempted to sustain curricular change. It is important to emphasize that the focus of the study is the process of curricular change, not content of new curricula. The project is organized as series of six qualitative case studies that examine curricular change at each of the partner institutions. Data for each case study is collected through interviews of approximately twenty key faculty and administrators as well as review of relevant documentation. Each case study identifies critical events and salient issues involved in that process, as well as valuable lessons each institution learned from their experience. Interviews have been conducted at six institutions and case study reports have been prepared for three of the six institutions.

    To date, several themes have emerged from analysis of the data.

    1) Each of the institutions initiated curricular improvement by developing a pilot program and offering it to a relatively small number of students. Initiating improvement via pilot programs is well-accepted developmental strategy for engineering artificial systems, but it offers benefits and presents challenges in an educational environment. Expanding from a pilot curriculum to a curriculum for an entire class in a college of engineering also presents challenges in terms of faculty development and facility costs. Pilots should be planned both to study the proposed improvements as well as to support eventual adoption.

    2) Building support for curricular improvement within and beyond the College of Engineering requires significantly more design and effort than anticipated by the change leaders. Building support requires insight into the processes of change. Communication plans that facilitate change require substantial up-frontinvestment in addition to the efforts required to implement the plans.

    3) Soliciting support beyond the College of Engineering requires interaction that is outside normal communication lines.

    Our study demonstrates that effecting major change in engineering curricula is a complex process that requires careful planning and sustained effort for success; however, what qualifies as success also changes from site to site. . is our hope that the experience of the partners of the Foundation Coalition will be helpful to other engineering programs as they plan for curricular change.

  • Pendergrass, N.A., Kowalczyk, R.E., Dowd, J.P., Laoulache, R.N., Nelles, W., Golen, J.A., Fowler, E., 2001, “Improving First-Year Engineering Education,” Journal of Engineering Education, 90:1, 33-41.

    Abstract: The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth (UMD) began a successful, thirty-one credit, integrated first-year engineering curriculum in September 1998. The program was modeled after many of the most effective and innovative programs in the NSF-sponsored Foundation Coalition as well as from other universities and colleges. The new program at UMD includes

    1) integrating the introductory sequences in physics, calculus, chemistry, English and engineering

    2) teaching and using teamwork among students and faculty

    3) using a specially designed technology oriented classroom

    4) using active and cooperative learning methods

    5) encouraging formation of a community of students by block-scheduling classes and grouping students in the dorms

    6) reducing the cost of delivering courses by making more efficient use of instructional time

    7) using careful assessment to evaluate performance.

    This paper describes the new curriculum, some of the practical considerations in its design, and the way it has functioned. It will also give a detailed snapshot of assessment results after one semester of operation. Additional assessment data on the second semester will be provided in the presentation and upon request.

  • Morgan, J.R., Rinehart, J., Froyd, J.E., 2001, “Industry Case Studies at Texas A&M University,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    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 focussed 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.

  • Fournier-Bonilla, S.D., Watson, K.L., Malave, C.O., Froyd, J.E., 2001, “Managing Curricula Change in Engineering at Texas A&M University,” International Journal of Engineering Education, 17:3, 222-235.
  • Fletcher, S., Newell, D.C., Newton, L.D., Anderson-Rowland, M.R., 2001, “The WISE Summer Bridge Program: Assessing Student Attrition, Retention, and Program Effectiveness,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: For participating university programs, summer bridge outreach has helped to significantly increase student retention in academic majors. For female engineering students, bridge programs not only serve an academic need, but also serve to foster networking relationships between students prior to starting the semester. The Women in Applied Science and Engineering (WISE) Summer Bridge Program was designed to prepare incoming female students for the transition from high school to the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences (CEAS). Since 1998, this program has offered academic reviews in courses such as mathematics, physics, and chemistry. In addition, computer-based curricula have been offered in Maple, Excel, and HTML to better prepare students for their freshmen introductory engineering courses.

    During the Fall 2000 semester, summer bridge participants from 1998, 1999, and 2000 were surveyed on program effectiveness. Survey categories included general information, WISE Bridge experience, WISE services, and additional information. Survey results indicated that a significant number of respondents were first introduced to engineering by a family member and subsequently, enrolled in engineering because of a strong aptitude for math and science. Students indicated that the WISE Bridge Program, as well as other services offered in the CEAS and at ASU, aided them in their first semester. In addition, WISE program services such as academic advising, mentoring, and tutoring were also mentioned as significant in first semester retention of these students.

    An overview of the WISE Summer Bridge Program will be presented as well as survey results from 1998, 1999, and 2000 participants. In addition, the paper will discuss the need for and impact of bridge programs specifically geared toward female engineering students as well as future projections of implementation and direction of student programs.

  • Fletcher, S., Newell, D.C., Anderson-Rowland, M.R., Newton, L.D., 2001, “The Women in Applied Science and Engineering Summer Bridge Program: Easing the Transition for First-time Female Engineering Students,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: The Women in Applied Science and Engineering (WISE) Summer Bridge Program is designed to prepare incoming female students for the transition from high school to the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences (CEAS) at Arizona State University (ASU). This program offers academic reviews in courses such as mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Computer-programming tutorials are also offered in Excel and HTML to better prepare students for their freshman introductory engineering course. Participants acclimate to the campus by receiving general information concerning the university, financial aid, and departmental advising. Students attending the program become familiar with the campus, have a head start on their freshman engineering classes, and have a chance to meet other female students.

    An overview of the WISE Summer Bridge Program will be presented as well as retention data for 1998 and 1999 program participants. In addition, the paper will discuss the need for and impact of bridge programs specifically geared toward female students. Further, the paper will investigate other life circumstances, such as level of involvement in student activities, living situation, and employment that impact retention of these students. Finally, future projections of implementation and direction of student retention programs will be explored.

2002

  • Caso, R., Clark, M.C., Froyd, J.E., Inam, A., Kenimer, A.L., Morgan, J.R., Rinehart, J., 2002, “A Systemic Change Model in Engineering Education and Its Relevance for Women,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

    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.

  • Morgan, J.R., Froyd, J.E., Rinehart, J., Kenimer, A.L., Malave, C.O., Caso, R., Clark, M.C., 2002, “Can Systemic Change Really Help Engineering Students From Under-Represented Groups?,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education.

    Abstract: In 1998-99 academic year, A&M completed the first phase in the transition from pilot curricula to new first and second year engineering curricula for every student. Inclusive Learning Communities (ILC) form the foundation for new curricula. At A&M, an ILC is a group of students, faculty and industry that have common interests and work as partners to improve the engineering educational experience. These communities value diversity, are accessible to all interested individuals, and bring real world situations into the engineering classroom. The key components of an ILC at A&M are: (1) clustering of students in common courses (math, engineering, science); (2) teaming; (3) active/cooperative learning; (4) industry involvement in the classroom; (5) technology-enhanced classrooms; (6) undergraduate peer teachers; (7) curriculum integration; (8) faculty team teaching; and (9) assessment and evaluation. Based on the experience with its pilot curricula and the experiences since institutionalization in 1998-99, A&M believes that the new curricula based on the ILC concept offer a superior educational experience for engineering students. To demonstrate this conclusion, quantitative data on retention and progress toward graduation will be offered for all male and female students, as well as minority and non-minority students.

  • Layne, J., Froyd, J.E., Morgan, J.R., Kenimer, A.L., 2002, “Faculty Learning Communities,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: Professional development for teaching frequently focuses on methodology and strategy. Information and opportunities to practice techniques are often offered in onetime, interactive workshops. However, one-shot faculty development opportunities are not designed to address a critical element of the faculty role in the learning/teaching dynamic—individual beliefs, experiences, and research regarding learning.

    Faculty Learning Communities (FLC) is a collaborative initiative at Texas A&M University in which interdisciplinary groups of participants examine learning. The format includes ninety-minute weekly meetings over an academic year, recommended readings on learning, reflective journaling, and individual and collaborative tasks. FLC provides an opportunity to explore learning from multiple perspectives. This process validates what participants know, while supporting the development of a common language and theoretical foundation from which to dialogue. The sustained nature of the interaction provides an increased sense of connectedness and community. Through participation in FLC, faculty members draw ideas, energy and perspective from their exchange that they incorporate into their thinking about, and practice of, learning and teaching.

  • Penrod, L., Talley, D., Froyd, J.E., Caso, R., Lagoudas, D., Kohutek, T., 2002, “Integrating "Smart" Materials Into a First-Year Engineering Curriculum: A Case Study,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: Developments in materials science are creating new possibilities for engineering designs. For example, multifunctional materials, such as shape memory alloys (SMA) or piezoelectric materials are referred to as “smart” materials since designers can use properties of these materials to construct components of adaptive mechanisms. For example, researchers are using shape memory alloys (SMA) to build biomimetic systems that mimic the behavior of biological organisms such as fish or insects. The ability of SMA components to change shape in response to thermal or electrical stimuli considerably simplifies construction of biomimetic systems. As multifunctional materials are changing the practice of engineering, providing undergraduate students with exposure and experiences with these materials and their potential for new design options should be seriously explored.

    The proposed paper presents a narrative description of how material on SMA was integrated into a first-year engineering course and a first-year engineering project. Key partners, including an undergraduate engineering student working on a research experience and a first-year graduate student, will describe their roles in integrating material into a first-year engineering course that was taught in Fall 2001. Also, data describing the impact on students and faculty will be presented.

  • Richardson, J., Froyd, J.E., Clark, M.C., Merton, P., 2002, “Observations on Our Engineering Education Culture Based on 10 Years of Foundation Coalition Curricula Change Efforts,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: Faculty at universities participating in the Foundation Coalition (FC) developed innovative freshman and sophomore engineering curricula in the early to mid 1990s. Since that time, faculty and administrators at those institutions have worked to see the new curricula adopted as the standard curricula. The FC change effort, especially the adoption process, prompted out-of-the-ordinary responses from many faculty and administrators. The authors compare these responses across the FC institutions and attribute common responses to manifestations of our academic culture. Most interesting are the “invisible” aspects of our culture, the ways we think and act about which many of us are not even aware.

    Many of the authors’ observations on our academic culture seem, in hindsight, to be common sense. For example, faculty will be reluctant to teach an innovative course developed by a colleague down the hall. Yet FC faculty learned the hard way during the curricula reform effort about this and other aspects of academic culture. Additional characteristics of our culture described in this paper were gleaned from an analysis of the over 100 interviews of FC faculty and administrators recorded and transcribed as part of the authors’ on-going three-year research project.

  • Froyd, J.E., 2002, “The Foundation Coalition: An Agent in Changing Engineering Education,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education.

    Abstract: The Foundation Coalition (FC), one of eight engineering coalitions funded by the National Science Foundation, was established as an agent of systemic renewal for the engineering educational community. Arizona State University, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Texas A&M University, University of Alabama, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, and University of Wisconsin are the partner institutions that have focused on major curricular restructuring in the first two years of the engineering curriculum with downstream changes motivated by this restructuring. Restructuring has been guided by seven ideas that are informed by a number of theories about learning and change (for example, social learning theory and constructivist learning theory). The seven ideas, referred to as FC core competencies, are (1) active/cooperative learning, (2) student teams in engineering, (3) curriculum integration, (4) technology-enabled learning, (5) increasing participation of women and underrepresented minorities in engineering, (6) individual and organizational change, and (7) continuous improvement through assessment, evaluation, and feedback. The fundamental proposition on which the FC was created is that engineering curricula restructured to be consonant with the core competencies would improve retention and graduation rates, especially for women and underrepresented minorities, and improve the quality of engineering graduates, as defined by the characteristics preferred by employers of these graduates. The paper presents data-based narratives that help explore the extent to which the proposition has been demonstrated.

  • Froyd, J.E., Frair, K., 2002, “Theoretical Foundations for the Foundation Coalition Core Competencies,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

    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.

2003

  • Haag, S.G., Caso, R., Fowler, E., Pimmel, R.L., Morley, P., 2003, “A Systematic Web and Literature Search for Instructional and Assessment Materials Addressing EC 2000 Program Outcomes,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

    Abstract: The engineering accrediting body (ABET) has identified the skills and competencies in which engineering students are expected to be prepared by their engineering programs (EC2000, Criterion 3, a-k). These competencies include several often characterized as "soft," open-ended, or nontraditional (i.e., communication, teaming, awareness of global and social impact, etc.), which engineering faculty often profess feeling ill prepared to teach, and less prepared to assess, as classroom or programmatic outcomes. Typically, the traditional sources of engineering assessment tools and models (i.e., test suggestions from engineering texts and examination problems borrowed and adapted from other faculty members) are poor in resources addressing the "soft" ABET competencies. For these reasons a group of engineering educators and assessment and evaluation professionals from four NSF Engineering Foundation Coalition partner universities, undertook comprehensive, systematic Web and print literature searches and a survey of firsthand information about instructional and assessment materials being used to address the ABET a-k competencies. This paper confines itself to describing the methodology used and the results obtained in the systematic Web and literature searches. The paper discusses (1) the extent to which relevant instructional and assessment materials, for each particular ABET a-k category, were found to be publicly accessible online and in libraries; (2) the systematically cumulated impressions of investigators about the utility of the available materials; (3) the extent to which a-k instructional or assessment materials could be readily extrapolated from articles and presentation papers addressing ABET assessment; (4) the work undertaken to develop a Web-searchable database of categorized and annotated references to refer engineering educators to appropriate and available materials; and (5) the efforts to select, systematize and implement uniform methods for searching, documenting, classifying and compiling search information.

  • Clark, M.C., Froyd, J.E., Merton, P., Richardson, J., 2003, “Evolving Models of Curricular Change: The Experience of the Foundation Coalition,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

    Abstract: This paper examines one aspect of the curricular change process undertaken by the Foundation Coalition, namely how the understandings about change held by the FC leaders evolved as they moved through the process of developing and implementing a new curriculum. We show how those change models became more complex as they struggled with three major issues: the role of assessment data, the limitations of the pilot for gaining full-scale adoption of the new curriculum, and the need for structural change to sustain the new curriculum.

  • Fowler, D., Maxwell, D., Froyd, J.E., 2003, “Learning Strategy Growth Not What Expected After Two Years through Engineering Curriculum,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

    Abstract: As the pace of technological development continues to increase, consensus has emerged that undergraduate science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) curricula cannot contain all of the topics that engineering professionals will require, even during the first ten years of their careers. Therefore, the need for students to increase their capability for lifelong learning is receiving greater attention. It is anticipated that development of this capability occurs during the undergraduate curricula. However, preliminary data from both first-year and junior engineering majors may indicate that development of these competencies may not be as large as desired. Data was obtained using the Learning and Study Skills Inventory (LASSI), an instrument whose reliability has been demonstrated during the past fifteen years. The LASSI is a ten-scale, eighty-item assessment of students’ awareness about and use of learning and study strategies related to skill, will and self-regulation components of strategic learning. Students at Texas A&M University in both a first-year engineering course and a junior level civil engineering course took the LASSI at the beginning of the academic year. Improvements would normally be expected after two years in a challenging engineering curriculum. However, data on several different scales appears to indicate that improvements are smaller than might be expected.

2004

  • Merton, P., Froyd, J.E., Clark, M.C., Richardson, J., 2004, “Challenging the Norm in Engineering Education: Understanding Organizational Culture and Curricular Change,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

    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 validates change, and that change strategies are often shaped by organizational culture. Recently, as presented in the 2003 ASEE conference, Godfrey made a considerable contribution to understanding the culture of engineering education by prviding 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.

  • Simoni, M.F.., Herniter, M.E.., Ferguson, B.A.., 2004, “Concepts to Questions: Creating an Electronics Concept Inventory Exam,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, 1793.

    Abstract: Concept inventory exams are standardized tests that have been carefully designed to point out the common misconceptions that students have in a specific body of knowledge. We are currently developing an electronics concept inventory (ECI) exam for basic electronic circuits. In this paper, we present an example that is particular to the ECI to illustrate the general process that was used to select the core concepts and then create and revise questions. In addition, we address the current and future state of the ECI and invite open discussion to improve the content of the ECI.

  • Courter, S.S., Freitag, C., McEniry, M., 2004, “Professional Development On-line: Ways of Knowing and Ways of Practice,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

    Abstract: "Ways of Knowing and Ways of Practice" is an on-line professional development opportunity for faculty members and instructional staff at the University of Wisconsin Madison. This pilot distance learning experience occurred during spring semester 2003. The project was designed to help faculty (1) engage in reflection and continuous improvement of learning, both their own and their students', (2) facilitate conversations about teaching and learning in the process of building a learning community, (3) create a collaborative learning environment with faculty members and peers, (4) build confidence in curriculum development, including designing, guiding, and assessing learning, (5) learn with and about technology in the process of improving curriculum, and (6) connect teaching and research and bridge the gap between theory and practice. The twenty participants represented ten universities. A team of two from each university included one faculty person from engineering and one from another science, math, or computer science discipline. Specifically, the professional development opportunity explored ways of knowing, including theories of learning, learning styles, disciplinary and cultural perspectives and how they inform ways of practice, including both teaching practice and engineering practice. After an orientation in Madison, Wisconsin, the experience involved weekly on-line discussions based on readings, a personalized curriculum project, and approximately two to three hours per week commitment on the part of each participant. The Foundation Coalition funded this project. This paper highlights the assessment results of this pilot project and next steps based on analysis and reflection. A forthcoming minidocument will describe how to develop and implement a distance-based faculty development program.

 
 

Related Links:

Togel178

Pedetogel

Sabatoto

Togel279

Togel158

Colok178

Novaslot88

Lain - lain

Partner Links