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

1995

• Roedel, R.J., Kawski, M., Doak, B., Politano, M., Duerden, S., Green, M., Kelly, J., Linder, D., Evans, D.L., 1995, “An Integrated, Project-based, Introductory Course in Calculus, Physics, English, and Engineering,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: Arizona State University is a member of the NSF-sponsored Engineering Education Coalition known as the Foundation Coalition. This paper describes the development of an integrated introductory course delivered to freshman engineering students at ASU in the Fall '94 semester as a part of the Foundation Coalition program.

  The course combined and integrated material from introductory courses in calculus, physics, English composition, and engineering, normally taught in a stand-alone format. The calculus used in this course was based on the ``Harvard reform model'' and include d a review of functions, the derivative, the definite integral, and application of these topics to physics and engineering problems. The physics was mechanics-based, with emphasis on kinematics, dynamics, conservation principles, rotational motion, and re lativity.

  What differentiated this integrated package from versions found at other institutions in the Coalition was (a) the inclusion of English composition, and (b) the project-based introduction to engineering. In this integrated course, the students learned to organize and develop ideas for both technical and general audiences. In addition, they learned the use of rhetorical principles with readings from the philosophy of science, engineering case studies, and so on.

  The over-arching framework for the class was the use of engineering projects to teach design and modeling principles. The three projects incorporated the calculus and physics that had been learned to date in the class. The first utilized kinematics and curve-fitting to functions to design and build a simple projectile launcher; the second employed dynamics and numerical integration to design and build a bungee drop system; and the third project, which also served as the final exam, used rotational motion concepts and a data acquisition system to identify the shape and material of a hidden object.

  The integrated course also employed considerable use of computers in an active learning environment that stressed teaming and other quality tools.

• Griffin, R.B., Everett, L.J., Keating, P.B., Lagoudas, D., Tebeaux, E., Parker, D., Bassichis, W., Barrow, D., 1995, “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.

1996

• Parker, J.K., Midkiff, C., Kavanaugh, S., 1996, “Capstone Design at the University of Alabama,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: The mechanical engineering program at the University of Alabama has had a two-course capstone design sequence (the Design Clinic) since the late 1970's. Although several changes have been incorporated over the years, the use of external industrysponsored projects has remained a constant. Students participate in a common, competitive design project during the first two-thirds of the first course (ME 489). During the last third of the first course and the entire second course (ME 490), each team of three or four students works on a single, extended external project. This paper focuses on the extended design activity.

  The overall organization of the course sequence and projects, including faculty support options and the process used to select student project teams, is outlined. We describe our various sources of projects, along with some of the possible advantages and disadvantages of each. Financial considerations for the course sequence and the impact of finances on project selection are also covered.

  Finally, brief descriptions of several recent projects are given. Interested faculty members should be able to use these suggestions in the development of their own senior design courses.

• 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.

• Kagan, A., Richards, T., Adu-Asamoah, R., 1996, “Multimediated Curricular Development Applications,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: This study approaches the issue of integrated system and management applications within the engineering curriculum using Multimediated technologies for classroom delivery. Three components of the technology are used in this approach: 1) Client/server systems are used to build information literacy across the engineering curriculum, 2) Multimediated applications and examples including the use of the Internet for functional management related topics within the systems curriculum are developed, and 3) Expanded use of rapid data retrieval applications for image storage and graphical application development are implemented.

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

  Abstract: This paper presents a first year integrated engineering curriculum that was implemented at Texas A&M University-Kingsville in the 1995-96 academic year. The curriculum is the result of the efforts by the Foundation Coalition, a National Science Foundation sponsored engineering coalition of 7 institutions around the United States. The goal of the Colaition is to implement curriculum reform in engineering education. In line with the goals of the Foundation Coalition, this curriculum was designed to incorporate changes in four major thrust areas: curriculum integration, technology enabled learning, human interface development, and assessment, evaluation and dissemination. Traditional first year courses in Science, Engineering, Math, and English, have been modified such that topics are delivered based on a predefined sequence which emphasizes basic skills and thematic concepts rather than discipline boundaries, and problem solving strategies, and design. Active learning, or collaborative learning, is also being used in the classroom.

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

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

1997

• Jung, I., Ku, H., Evans, D.L., 1997, “A Network-Based Multimedia Computerized Testing Program,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

  Abstract: In this paper, we describe a network-based, multimedia, Quizzer or testing tool that has been developed for authoring and delivering electronic quizzes/tests. We demonstrate this tool and compare it with traditional paper-based tests. The tool has been classroom tested and will be available for potential users.

  Quizzes are easily constructed, updated or built from test item databases by using this tool. Graphics (using several graphics file formats) for questions and/or answers are easily incorporated as are digital video clips (AVI files). This tool is well suited for pre- and postexams, student assessment, and self-evaluations.

• Gunn, W., Corleto, C.R., Kimball, J.L., 1997, “The Portfolio as a Tool to Evaluate and Assess the Effectiveness of a First-Year Integrated Engineering Curriculum,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: This paper presents the results of using an across-the-curriculum portfolio as one means to assess the effectiveness of the First-Year Integrated Engineering Curriculum (FYIEC) at Texas A&M University-Kingsville.

1998

• Pendergrass, N.A., Laoulache, R.N., Dowd, J.P., Kowalczyk, R.E., 1998, “Efficient Development and Implementation of an Integrated First Year Engineering Curriculum,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: In September 1998, the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth (UMD) began a pilot version of a fully integrated first year engineering curriculum totaling 31 credits. The new curriculum is cost-effective and has a high probability of successfully improving the learning of engineering freshmen as well as their retention.

  This paper outlines strategies that brought the new curriculum efficiently into being and helped to assure its success. Many of these were learned by studying work done in the NSF-sponsored Foundation Coalition as well as at other schools. Where possible, we have built on the best work of those who have already developed successful, innovative teaching methods and curricula.

  The paper briefly outlines the courses and teaching methodology in the new integrated curriculum. It also describes the studio classroom and equipment that have been optimized for hands-on, technology-assisted learning.

• Garcia, A., Keller, G., McHenry, A., Begay, F., 1998, “Enhancing Underrepresented Student Opportunities Through Faculty Mentoring and Peer Interactions,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

  Abstract: During the past seven years, an alliance of colleges and universities within Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Western Texas along with professional organizations, government laboratories, educational organizations, and corporations has been committed to one of the most challenging goals in higher education: increasing the number of African American, American Indian, and Hispanic bachelor degrees in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. This alliance, known as the Western Alliance to Expand Student Opportunities (WAESO), has relied heavily on engaging students in academic and research activities outside the classroom involving science and engineering faculty and student peers in order to improve retention and increase graduation rates of underrepresented students.

  Over the past six years we have had 4,251 student participations within our alliance activities which include: (1) peer study groups; (2) summer bridge programs; (3) faculty-directed undergraduate students research; and (4) graduate preparation, mentorships, and research conference participations. In order to provide such a large number of student participations, our alliance calls upon over 500 resource individuals at 75 campuses and organizations where approximately 85% are scientists, engineers, and other faculty, and 15% are administrators. This paper will present our strategies for: (1) engaging science and engineering faculty and students in these activities which depends upon inter-institutional cooperation; (2) documentation of student information and student outcomes; and (3) institutionalization of these activities through the use of the Internet and through faculty development.

• Daniels, P., Kerns, S., Watson, K.L., 1998, “Evaluating Engineering Programs Under ABET EC2000 Criteria: A Perspective from ABET Program Visitors,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: The authors served as the three electrical engineering program evaluators for ABET pilot visits during 1997, using the new EC2000 criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Under these new accreditation criteria, the changes in the program visitors' role are significant. In particular, the visitors must explore the processes institutions use for developing objectives and outcomes, and the evidence they offer as indicators of the success of their programs in achieving their objectives. The evaluator must consider whether the indicators chosen actually reflect the program status. Processes must be in place for setting objectives and outcomes, developing curricula from these objectives and outcomes, evaluating the results, and utilizing the information gained from the evaluation for appropriate refinement of the program. In each step the institution should show that they involved the significant constituents of the program.

  The evaluator's task is to consider if the educational objectives of the program are well articulated and accessible to constituents, and then determine if the program has provided evidence that it is achieving its objectives. The institution must provide evidence that the program's and ABET's student outcomes are also being achieved. The professional development criterion does not require that a program present materials on all courses. Instead, the program must show that it has sufficient indicators of the outcomes that exist and that it is effectively monitoring these indicators. Faculty must be sufficient in size, skills, and morale to support the other criterion of the program. Similarly, institutions must demonstrate administration, financial resources, program facilities support the objectives, outcomes, and development goals for the program's student body.

• 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.
• Watson, K.L., Daniels, P., Kerns, S., 1998, “Preparing Engineering Programs Under ABET EC2000 Criteria: Recommendations for Institutions,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: The authors served as the three electrical engineering program evaluators for ABET pilot visits during 1997, using the new EC2000 criteria for accrediting engineering programs. The programs visited varied greatly in size, institutional setting, student profile, and mission. In preparing for and making these visits, the authors gained insight into the processes and products programs must develop or refine for successful accreditation under EC2000 criteria. Specific ideas for implementation of EC2000 processes and effective methods for presentation of the assessments and evaluations for each criterion are presented. These ideas focus on affecting and realizing changes guided by the new accreditation standards. Particular emphasis is placed on the process of defining and disseminating educational objectives for programs through involving the program's constituents and maintaining coherence with the institutional mission.

  It is important for institutions to show evidence that program objectives are published and accessible to their constituent bodies, and that the process for developing and refining these objectives is documented. The program must also demonstrate that the student outcomes identified for the program are clearly linked to both program educational objectives and ABET's EC2000 Criterion 3. Programs may not simply provide data gathered about outcomes to an evaluator. Rather, programs must demonstrate, based on these data: a) evaluation of outcomes within an inclusive perspective reflecting the breadth of the particular program; b) documentation that the desired outcomes are present and significantly relevant to the program's objectives; and, c) effective utilization of assessment results appropriately to modify and improve the program.

  A program must present its evaluator with the processes, indicators, and evidence that indicate their graduates are gaining sufficient professional development in the program, and with evidence that appropriate student advising and monitoring exists and is effective. The program must also demonstrate that its faculty has sufficient population, skills, and development activities to provide appropriate support for achieving its educational objectives, outcomes, and professional components; faculty adequacy is demonstrated through its service to the student body of the program. Facilities, institutional support, and financial resources must also be documented in a manner which demonstrates their sufficiency for meeting program objectives.

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.

2001

• 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.

• Adair, J.K., Reyes, M.A., Anderson-Rowland, M.R., Kouris, D.A., 2001, “Workshops vs. Tutoring: How ASU's Minority Engineering Program is Changing the Way Engineering Students Learn,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: For the past five years, the Minority Engineering Program in the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Arizona State University (ASU) has channeled retention efforts through their Academic Excellence Program. This program housed two components: peer tutoring and mentoring and group workshops. While both produced successful retention rates among minority students within the College, both students and faculty strongly expressed a need for a more structured and intensive program to assist engineering students with the more challenging courses. In fall of 2000, ASU’s MEP remodeled their efforts at retention and created the Academic Excellence Workshop program. The workshop program replaces tutoring and mentoring programs with weekly workshop sessions. This non-traditional approach to academic support has necessitated a change in paradigm for staff, faculty, and students. The response to this change has been promising. This paper will discuss the AEW program structure and how the workshop concept has been promoted to students and faculty.

2002

• Krause, S.J., Decker, J.Ch., Niska, J., Alford, T.A.., Griffin, R.B., 2002, “A Materials Concept Inventory for Introductory Materials Engineering Courses,” National Educators Workshop.
• 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.

• Kenimer, A.L., Morgan, J.R., 2002, “Building Community through Clustered Courses,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

  Abstract: The Dwight Look College of Engineering typically enrolls 1400 to 1700 starting freshmen each year. The majority of these freshmen take their first-year math, science and engineering courses as a cluster. A cluster is a collection of approximately 100 students who have the same schedule for a group of three or four courses. These courses have some overlap in (or connection between) subject matter.

  Each course uses a teaming concept, with engineering dividing the students into teams of four, and math and science using lab partners. Since team assignments are not necessarily consistent between courses, a student may work in teams with several students from within the cluster who are not part of their engineering team. Consequently, even though the freshman class as a whole is quite large, common course scheduling and the use of teams within individual courses promote the development of a small community atmosphere.

  There is much evidence of this community effect:

  1) student progress towards completing key freshman-level courses,

  2) the development of friendships between students and formation superteam study groups, which include members from several individual course teams,

  3) the choice of students to continue clustering into upper level courses (requiring they take initiative to establish a clustered course schedule), and,

  4) improved student retention for several cohorts.

  Moreover, since student attitudes about teaming and academic assistance are more positive with course clustering, students are generally more satisfied with their first year experience in the college.

  This paper examines the impact of community building on student interaction and attitudes as related to cluster. In addition, it evaluates faculty perceptions and experiences with clustered courses.

• 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.

• Morgan, J.R., Kenimer, A.L., 2002, “Clustering Courses to Build Student Community,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: The Dwight Look College of Engineering typically enrolls 1400 to 1700 starting freshmen each year. The majority of these freshmen take their first-year math, science, and engineering courses as a cluster. A cluster is a collection of approximately 100 students who have the same schedule for a group of three or four courses. Even though the freshman class as a whole is quite large, common course scheduling and the use of teams within individual courses promote the development of a small community atmosphere. There is much evidence of this community effect. First, clustered students generally progress more quickly through key freshman-level courses. Second, students develop strong friendships within their clusters and are likely to congregate in large groups for study and to continue clustering by coordinating their course schedules for following semesters. Finally, first and second year retention of students in clustered courses is frequently greater than for nonclustered 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.

• Pimmel, R.L., Karr, C.L., Todd, B.A., 2002, “Instructional Modules for Teaching Written, Oral, and Graphical Communication Skills to Engineering Students,” Proceedings of the ASEE Southeastern Section Conference, Gainesville,= FL, April 2002.

  Abstract: EC 2000 requires that engineering students learn and demonstrate an ability to communicate effectively, which in an engineering environment implies oral, written, and graphical communication skills. The already overcrowded curriculum and pedagogical considerations make adding communications courses unacceptable. We prepared three short instructional modules suitable for teaching these skills in any engineering course as a part of a more extensive program to develop instructional modules in several EC 2000 skill areas. Each module uses three 50-minute classes and relies on active-cooperative learning strategies and Internet-based resources. Instructional material includes PowerPoint slides, in-class team activities, homework assignments, and an instructor guide. We have tested each module in an evaluation program where a faculty member who did not develop the module taught it to approximately ten students. These data showed improvement in the students' confidence in their ability to complete tasks identified in the module's learning objectives. They also indicated that the learning objectives were clear and supported by the material; that the justifications were clear and convincing; and that the lecture material, team activities, and assignments were appropriate.

• 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.

• Morgan, J.R., Kenimer, A.L., Kohutek, T., Rinehart, J., Lee, M., 2002, “Peer Teacher From an Instructor's Perspective,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: Following a pilot program during the 2000-2001 academic year, the Dwight Look College of Engineering at Texas A&M University placed a peer teacher in every section of every first-year engineering course starting in fall 2001. Seven upper division “peer teachers” were assigned to eight of the first year engineering learning communities. The peer teachers were part of a teaching team: 1 problem-solving faculty; 1 graphics faculty; 1 graduate teaching assistant; and 1 undergraduate peer teacher. The peer teachers attended the engineering class; offered academic support two evenings a week on calculus, physics, chemistry and engineering; and served as mentors and guides for the first year students in their particular community/ course cluster.

  The pilot program was successful in improving the overall section GPA (2.85 with peer teacher and 2.61 without peer teachers). There was also a positive, significant difference in how the students interacted with the faculty, graduate teaching assistants, and their team members.

  Although the peer teachers are only part of a larger effort (including more active learning, use of teams and technology, course clustering, etc.), it is clear that they have contributed greatly to the success of our students. This paper will present the implementation of the program and evidence of its success.

2003

• Kenimer, A.L., Morgan, J.R., 2003, “Active Learning Exercises Requiring Higher-order Thinking Skills,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

  Abstract: As active learning becomes accepted in engineering classrooms, more and more faculty members are using in-class exercises. While these exercises are instrumental in helping students gain experience with concepts and processes covered in class, they typically allow students to perform satisfactorily while thinking and working at the lower levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (e.g., knowledge, comprehension, application). Term projects often are used to help students develop higher-order thinking skills and to bring design concepts into engineering courses. However, because projects have greater scope and larger work requirements, it is difficult to fit more than one or two projects into a semester-long course. Further, most students and many faculty view these longer-term assignments as mostly out-of-class work. While comprehensive and very worthwhile, these term projects are both burdensome to complete and cumbersome to grade. Hence, neither faculty nor students would relish increasing the number of these all-encompassing design projects attempted per semester. This paper describes efforts to develop and implement in-class exercises that encourage students to engage in higher-order thinking skills. The in-class exercises were developed to require only 10 to 30 minutes of class time, to be easy to grade, and to require meaningful work from the student. The exercises were developed for and implemented in upper-division courses in civil engineering and biological and agricultural engineering at Texas A&M University. Methods used to develop the in-class exercises, examples of specific exercises used, and results of their implementation are discussed.

• Haglund, D.K.., Kushner, J., Martin, J.K.., 2003, “Developing a Philosophy of Practice: A New Approach to Curricular Evolution in Engineering Education at the University of Wisconsin Madison,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

  Abstract: In sharp contrast to previous prescriptive curricula specified by ABET, the ABET EC2000 is remarkably flexible in allowing engineering departments to determine the content of their curriculum and the methods used to teach those courses. The change to ABET EC 2000 should provide opportunity for departments to produce improved and responsive curricula for their students. By setting goals and measuring outcomes, ABET EC2000 is a framework for assisting departments to engage in a process of continuous review of their curriculum. This flexibility extends also to a distinct lack of structure for the method a department should use in their process of continuous review.

  This paper addresses the concerns of how to help a department move from where it is to where it can engage in regular and continuous curricular review. Models of curricular and organizational change suggest that practical realities must be considered for real change to be embedded. We describe a four-step process involving feedback that may be useful. And finally, we describe examples of implementation that details what we have done at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and what we have learned from the experience.

• Krause, S.J., Decker, J.Ch., Niska, J., Alford, T.A.., Griffin, R.B., 2003, “Identifying Student Misconceptions in Introductory Materials Engineering Classes,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

  Abstract: Numerous student misconceptions in an introductory materials engineering class have been identified in order to create a Materials Concept Inventory (MCI) to test for the level of conceptual knowledge of the subject matter before and after the course. The misconceptions have been utilized as question responses, or “distracters”, in the multiple-choice MCI test. They have been generated from a literature survey of assessment research in science and engineering in conjunction with extensive student interactions. Student input consisted of: weekly short-answer, open-ended questions; multiple-choice quizzes; and weekly interviews and discussions. In a simplified way, the questions tied fundamental concepts in primary topical areas of atomic structure and bonding, band structure, crystal geometry, defects, microstructure, and phase diagrams to properties of materials in the families of metals, polymers, ceramics, and semiconductors. A preliminary version of the MCI test was given to students in introductory materials courses at Arizona State University (ASU) and Texas A&M University (TAMU). Results showed conceptual knowledge gains between 15% and 37% between course pre-test and post-test scores. This lower gain score, as shown by Force Concept Inventory work, is typical of traditionally delivered, lecture-base instruction. Scores from 30% to 60% are moderate gains and are often evidenced in courses using active learning methods. Early results of the MCI showed differences between ASU and TAMU on some questions. It appears that they may be due to curricular and course content differences at the two schools.

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

  Abstract: This qualitative study examines the experience of cohorted students in the Foundation Coalition curricula. These cohorts serve as inclusive learning communities that function in multiple ways to enhance student learning. Elements of their learning include learning to work as a team; discovering how they learn best; figuring out the most effective ways to get help; learning to survive in college; and learning how to think like engineers. We conclude that the cohort experience is a powerful facilitator of student learning.

• Evans, D.L., Gray, G.L.., Krause, S.J., Martin, J.K.., Midkiff, C., Notaros, B.M., Pavelich, M., Rancour, D., Reed-Rhoads, T., Steif, P., Streveler, R., Wage, K.E., 2003, “Progress on Concept Inventory Assessment Tools,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: The Foundation Coalition and others have been working on the development of Concept Inventory (CI) assessment instruments patterned after the well-known Force Concept Inventory (FCI) instrument of Halloun and Hestenes. Such assessment inventories can play an important part in relating teaching techniques to student learning. Work first got started two years ago on CIs for the subjects of thermodynamics, solid mechanics, signals and processing, and electromagnetics. Last year work got under way on CIs for circuits, fluid mechanics, engineering materials, transport processes, and statistics. This year work began on chemistry, computer egineering, dynamics, electronics, and heat transfer. This panel session will discuss the progress on these concept inventories. More importantly, the panelists will discuss the early student data that are emerging from the process of continuous improvement of the instruments. Results will be compared to the data collected by Hake that are segregated by how the content was managed and delivered (e.g., "traditional" lecture mode compared to the "interactive engagement" mode, as defined by Hake). Discussions of effective practices for use in the development of CIs will also be discussed.

• Kenimer, A.L., Lacey, R., 2003, “Teaming Freshmen with Seniors in Design,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

  Abstract: The Department of Biological and Agriculturual Engineering at Texas A&M University offers design-focused courses for freshman and senior engineering students. The senior-level courses constitute the curriculum’s capstone design experience. Seniors work in teams of three or four on a design project suggested by industry clients. Many of these same projects are used in the freshman-level course. These projects are used to introduce freshmen and lower-division transfer students to the engineering design process and to illustrate job possibilities available to program graduates. A unique aspect of the freshman and senior design courses, and the focus of this paper, is the inclusion of seniors in the freshman design teams. These seniors assume the role of “senior leader” and serve as managers and mentors. As managers, senior leaders answer questions that the freshmen may have about their design projects or the design process. Senior leaders also facilitate group discussions and act as mediators during times of team turbulence. Finally, senior leaders provide a weekly performance evaluation for each of their freshman team members. Beyond their management responsibilities, many senior leaders provide mentoring to the freshmen in their teams. Senior leaders provide freshmen with information about instructors, summer internship opportunities, departmental laboratory and computer resources, and student clubs, among other topics.

  Placement of senior leaders in freshman design teams yields numerous benefits. Seniors get an opportunity to obtain management experience before graduation. Freshmen get an opportunity to meet others in their major and to receive much greater mentoring than can be provided through traditional instructor/student contact.

  This paper describes the process through which senior/freshman teaming is achieved in these courses. In addition, the paper explores freshman, senior, and instructor reactions to the program.

• Krause, S.J., Decker, J.Ch., Griffin, R.B., 2003, “Using a Materials Concept Inventory to Assess Conceptual Gain in Introductory Materials Engineering Courses,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: A materials concept inventory (MCI) has been created to measure conceptual knowledge gain in introductory materials engineering courses. The 30-question, multiple-choice MCI test has been administered as a pre- and post-test at Arizona State University (ASU) and Texas A&M University (TAMU) to classes ranging in size from 16 to 90 students. The results on the pre-test (entering class) showed both "prior misconceptions" and knowledge gaps that resulted from earlier coursework in chemistry and, to a lesser extent, in geometry. The post-test (exiting class) showed both that some "prior misconceptions" persisted and also that new "spontaneous misconceptions" had been created during the course of the class. Most classes showed a limited, 15% to 20%, gain in knowledge between pre- and post-test scores, but one class, which used active learning, showed a gain of 38%. More details on these results, on differences in results between ASU and TAMU, and on the nature of students' conceptual knowledge will be described.

2004

• Pavelich, M., Jenkins, B., Birk, J., Bauer, R., Krause, S.J., 2004, “Development of a Chemistry Concept Inventory for Use in Chemistry, Materials, and Other Engineering Courses,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, 2004–1907.

  Abstract: Concept Inventory (CI) is the label given to an exam that explores students' mental models, their qualitative images, of how science and engineering work. Data support that students can often solve mathematical problems in a course but have poor or incorrect mental models about the fundamental concepts behind the mathematics. For example, a student may be able to recall, or deduce, and then apply the proper equation to solve a problem but may not answer a qualitative, conceptual, question correctly. We teachers would like students to be able to understand and correctly answer both questions. However, our traditional college curricula emphasize the quantitative type exercises and simply assume that student success on these implies strong conceptual mental models that would have them answer the qualitative question correctly. Data 1 from the well researched physics CI, the Force Concept Inventory by Hestenes, show that this assumption is not good. Most students who succeed in our science and engineering courses still have seriously immature or outright incorrect mental models about the subjects they have studied. Their concept understanding is much weaker than it should be. This paper describes the ongoing work on the development and testing of a Chemistry Concept Inventory (ChCI) meant to help faculty determine the extent of misconceptions about chemistry that students might carry into their engineering courses. The ChCI is also meant to serve as an evaluation instrument for chemistry or engineering faculty members who devise new ways of teaching designed to repair students' misconceptions and strengthen their correct mental models of chemistry. The work reported here was primarily done by co-author Brooke Jenkins as part of her Masters research in Chemical Education.

• Krause, S.J., Tasooji, A., Griffin, R.B., 2004, “Origins of Misconceptions in a Materials Concept Inventory from Student Focus Groups,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

  Abstract: A Materials Concept Inventory (MCI) that measures conceptual change in introductory materials engineering classes uses student misconceptions as question responses, or “distracters,” in the multiple-choice MCI test. In order to understand the origin of the misconceptions, selected sets of questions on particular topics from the MCI were discussed and evaluated with student focus groups. The groups were composed of six to ten students who met for two hours at the beginning of a semester with two “new” groups that had not taken the introductory materials course and two “prior” groups of students that had taken the course. Two examples of questions from one of the sets of topics that were discussed are presented from two areas of the thermal properties of metals. It was found that the logic and rationale for selection of given answers which were misconceptions arose from a variety of sources. These included personal observation, prior teaching, and television shows, as well as other sources. Some discussions led to suggestions of possible interventions for improving student learning and conceptual knowledge of a topic. Implications of the results and suggestions for possible improvements in teaching of introductory materials classes are discussed.