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

• Bellamy, L., McNeill, B., Bailey, J., Roedel, R.J., Moor, W., Zwiebel, I., Laananen, D., 1995, “An Introduction to Engineering Design: Teaching the Engineering Process Through Teaming and the Continuous Improvement Philosophy,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: In this paper we describe a first year required course in engineering design, initiated at ASU in the Fall '94 semester. The organizing thread and philosophy for the course is the process of engineering, utilizing teaming and continuous improvement, based on Deming's fourteen points. Process is defined as a collection of interrelated tasks that take one from input to output in the engineering environment.

  The course has three components: Process Concepts, Design Laboratory, and Computer Modeling. In the concepts section, the emphasis is on a problem solving heuristic similar to the Deming Plan-Do-Check-Act process or the Boeing Seven Step problem solving process. The concepts section meets once a week for two hours in a large, multimedia classroom with a center podium and tables for teams of four students. The capacity of the concepts class is 120 students.

  The design laboratory component of the class has two main portions: (1) A Mechanical Dissection and Reassembly of an Artifact, in which the reassembly process is developed, documented, and evaluated using community volunteers for testing, and (2) An Artifact Design for Reproducible Performance, in which an object is designed, constructed, and evaluated. In the Fall '94 semester, students dissected a telephone for the reassembly process and constructed a mouse trap powered model airplane launcher for the artifact design process.

  In the computer modeling component of the course, students learn how to develop models conceptually and then evaluate these models with Excel spreadsheets and TKSolver. Nine different computer models are generated and evaluated in this portion of the course, which meets in a computer classroom which contains approximately 25 computers.

  The class combines active learning and technology enhanced education. More details of the course content and the assessment and evaluation of the student performance will be described in the talk.

• Willson, V.L., Monogue, T., Malave, C.O., 1995, “First Year Comparative Evaluation of the Texas A&M Freshman Integrated Engineering Program,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: The paper documents the first year process and product evaluation of the NSF-sponsored Foundation Coalition (FC) project at Texas A&MUniversity designed to integrate five courses taken by most freshman engineering students: physics, engineering design, calculus, English, and chemistry. In addition to the curriculum integration, the project emphasized cooperative learning, teaming, technology applied to learning, and active learning.

  One hundred students of the entering freshman engineering students who were calculus-ready were invited on a first-come, first-served basis to participate; all qualified women and minorities who applied were accepted, and others were accepted on a waiting list in order of application. Entry characteristics indicated that the students did not differ from the freshman class.

  FC student achievement in physics and calculus and attitudes toward Coalition engineering goals were assessed both fall and spring. Separate comparison groups were selected fall and spring.

  Results indicated that the FC group scored almost identically to the comparison group on the initial testing. For the spring testing the FC group outscored the comparison group statistically on the physics and calculus tests, and all scales of the California Critical Thinking Test except Analysis (no difference). Student attitudes improved for the value of homework, lifelong learning, and decreased in their overall evaluation of engineering. On science, technology, teamwork, communication, and problem-solving there were no significant changes in attitude.

  The process evaluation focused on the difficulties and successes in integrating five different subjects and seven faculty members with different curriculum demands, along with changing pedagogy based on cooperative learning, teaming, active (non-lecture oriented) teaching, and technology infusion. Technology infusion was difficult for some faculty to implement due to the demands of both teaching and project development. Changing over from lecture also proved difficult for most faculty, while the integration of content proved feasible, albeit with much work.

• Malave, C.O., Dickson, M.A., 1995, “Foundation Coalition Strategies in Manufacturing Education,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: The main thrusts of the NSF sponsored Foundation Coalition are: (1) use of teaming in the classroom, (2) use of cooperative learning, (3) use of technology in the classroom, and (4) development of new assessment and evaluation tools. This presentation will address the application of the Foundation Coalition strategies to a course in manufacturing systems modeling. The course is a required senior level course for all industrial engineers. The presentation will show how teaming and cooperative learning techniques have been used effectively to enhance the learning experience of students. Experiences using innovative [and controversial] classroom evaluation techniques such as team exams, homework defenses, student portfolios, and academic journals will also be addressed. Also, the use of a process journal to monitor the teaming experience of students is presented as the basis for effective evaluation of teams. As part of the effective use of technology, this presentation will demonstrate how electronic mail and computer simulation models are used to enhance the classroom experience. The presentation will summarize over two years of experience in the evolution of the manufacturing systems modeling course.

1996

• McInerny, S., Stern, H.P., Haskew, T.A., 1996, “A Multidisciplinary Junior Level Course in Dynamic Data Acquisition,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: This paper describes a Junior-level multidisciplinary laboratory course concerning industrial applications of dynamic data acquisition and analysis. The course, developed as part of the NSF Foundation Coalition and initially targeted for electrical, mechanical, and industrial engineers, consists of four weeks of introductory material followed by four modules, each concerning a specific application of signal acquisition and analysis. The modules emphasize qualitative understanding of concepts and are designed to illustrate the principles involved in data acquisition and analysis, to demonstrate industrial applications of engineering concepts, to exploit the varied experiences of the individuals within the multidisciplinary student teams, and to introduce students to the equipment and processes necessary to take meaningful measurements and interpret their significance. Each application-specific module is designed to be independent, and the modules may be taken in any order. By employing a modular structure, the class can be easily modified in the future to accommodate additional disciplines, such as aerospace engineering.

• Doak, B., McCarter, J., Green, M., Duerden, S., Evans, D.L., Roedel, R.J., Williams, P., 1996, “Animated Spreadsheets as a Teaching Resourse on the Freshman Level,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: Computer animation can serve as a powerful teaching tool. Too often, however, interactive computer animation degenerates into a video game, with students blithely entering data and enjoying "gee-whiz" graphics while managing to ignore completely the underlying physics and math - the understanding of which is the actual intent of the animation! Such unfocused trialand- error engagement can be largely avoided if the animation is introduced as a tool rather than as a "black box." Spreadsheets lend themselves very well to this. One simple, easily-understood macro to "step" time is all that is required. Graphs based on formulas referencing this time immediately become animated. If the student has entered and understood the spreadsheet formulas in the first place, the animation is a completely natural extension of a familiar tool. The visual impact is just as great as with more sophisticated animation but is a natural outgrowth of the underlying physics and math rather than being simply the output of a "black box."

• McCartney, M.A., Anderson-Rowland, M.R., 1996, “Building a Pipeline of Future College Engineering Students,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: As part of Arizona State University's (ASU) K- 12 outreach effort to increase the number of qualified minority students entering the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences (CEAS), the Office of Minority Engineering Programs (OMEP) has developed a collaborative effort with engineering faculty to expose high school students interested in math and science to the excitement of an engineering discipline.

  Underrepresented minority students and their teachers from eight high schools that participate in the Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA) Program, supported through OMEP, were invited to participate in a "willing worker" engineering assembly project in the ECE 100: Introduction to Engineering Design class. Their teachers who participated were MESA Program advisors. In Spring 95, forty enthusiastic high school students joined college students to get a first hand look at "life as an ASU engineering student." The comments from all parties involved were so positive that Dr. Barry McNeill, Assistant Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, invited 110 students to the classroom in the Fall of 1995.

  Throughout the semester, the college engineering teams studied various consumer products. The study required that the products be taken apart. As the final phase of the project, the high school "willing workers" were to reassemble the products using assembly instructions created by the engineering teams. If specifications were well developed, the products were reassembled and operative. If specifications were not adequate, university students had an opportunity to assess weak points in their plans.

  Overall, the program provided a win-win situation for both university and high school programs. As a result of the experience, several students have inquired about application to ASU. High school teachers had an opportunity to discuss curriculum strategies with faculty which they hope to implement in their future math, science and English classes.

• 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.

• Malave, C.O., Watson, K.L., 1996, “Cultural Change at Texas A&M: From the Engineering Science Core to the Foundation Coalition,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: This paper describes a curriculum innovation process at Texas A&M - College Station (TAMU) with emphasis on the Foundation Coalition project. Lessons learned from the Engineering Science Core project - a predecessor to the Foundation Coalition (FC) at Texas A&M funded under the NSF Undergraduate Curriculum Program - will be presented. The paper looks at faculty, administrator and student “buy-in” to the program and at curriculum development strategies that have been implemented on the TAMU campus. The processes developed for successful institutionalization of the Foundation Coalition programs will be presented.

• Heenan, W., MacLauchlan, R.A., 1996, “Development of an Integrated Sophomore Year Curriculum,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: The Foundation Coalition at Texas A&M University- Kingsville formed a second year team to develop an integrated engineering sophomore year curriculum. The team consisted of ten faculty members from all the engineering disciplines plus physics and mathematics. Six of the faculty were senior faculty. The team operated using weekly (1-2 hour) workshop sessions. The principles of teaming were applied and the team followed a code of cooperation. This paper discusses the results from the teaming effort and the curriculum that evolved..

• Mashburn, B., Monk, B., Smith, R., Lee, T., Bredeson, J., 1996, “Experiences with a New Engineering Sophomore Year,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: This paper discusses first-year experiences in the implementation of a new engineering sophomore year at The University of Alabama (UofA). This curriculum development process is a part of The National Science Foundation’s Foundation Coalition (FC) Program at UofA. To provide background for the new sophomore year, the paper discusses the philosophy behind the UofA FC effort. This philosophy focuses on improving the classroom culture of engineering education. This is to be accomplished through teaming, course integration, and technology enabled classrooms. With this philosophy as a starting point, the paper discusses new course objectives, the course development process, and firstyear results. The course development process includes discussion of faculty input procedures, input from other FC campuses, and related experiences from the UofA FC freshman year. The paper describes four new courses that resulted from this development process. In conjunction with FC philosophy, these courses integrate mathematics and engineering, and introduce teaming and technology into the classroom. Results from the first year are discussed, including quantitative assessment, student journal comments, instructor impressions, and departmental reactions. Particular attention is paid to how the classroom is affected by team assignments and in-class computer use. Concluding comments include pros and cons of the new sophomore year, and plans for its refinement in the coming years.

• Blaisdell, S., Middleton, A., Anderson-Rowland, M.R., 1996, “Re-engineering Engineering Education to Retain Women,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: In order to maintain and increase enrollment in engineering, engineering must, not only include, but actively recruit, women. However, engineering programs cannot stop there. Research indicates that more students leave than graduate with an engineering degree, and women are more likely to switch out of engineering than men.

  The Women in Applied Science and Engineering (WISE) Program at Arizona State University was founded to improve the retention and recruitment of women in the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences (CEAS). Toward that end, the WISE Program has developed a systematic approach to retain women in CEAS. These programs are discussed in detail. The climate survey, which was conducted to determine students' needs, and upon which many of the programs were derived, is discussed. Pre and post retention figures, and other assessment information, are presented.

• Evans, D.L., Doak, B., Duerden, S., Green, M., McCarter, J., Roedel, R.J., Williams, P., 1996, “Team-Based Projects for Assessment in First Year Physics Courses Supporting Engineering,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: Two team-oriented, project-based exercises developed and used for student assessment in an integrated freshman program are described. These projects allow assessment of student progress toward meeting desirable student outcomes such as ability to work in teams, ability to communicate, and able to apply science and engineering to the solution of problems. One project involves measurement of the velocity of a projectile; the other one involves the measurement of the ambient magnetic field strength. Lists of parts supplied to each student team are include as are photos and sketches of the more complex pieces of equipment. Student comments and faculty roles are also discussed.

• Adams, S., Watson, K.L., Malave, C.O., 1996, “The Foundation Coalition at Texas A&M University: Utilizing TQM and OD to Manage Curricula Change,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: The Foundation Coalition is developing and implementing significant changes in how first and second year college engineering, mathematics, science and English courses are taught. These efforts incorporate strategies which have been explored at many institutions, such as: integrating content across course boundaries, delivering instruction in active and cooperative environments, and utilizing technology more effectively as a teaching tool.

  In the early 1980’s U.S. Industrial Forces realized that in order to maintain, and in some cases regain, a competitive edge in the marketplace, changes would have to be made in the way business was conducted. A number of companies introduced these changes through the principles of Total Quality Management (TQM).

  TQM is an approach to improve broad-based quality processes in an organization by total customer focus and continuous process improvement. Some would argue that while TQM has been beneficial in improving quality and increasing productivity, it has not been as effective in facilitating changes in individual philosophies or major corporate philosophies. Therefore, many academic institutions have developed a level of frustration in attempting to depend on TQM as the sole tool for driving broad changes.

  Organizational Development (OD) is another strategy used by industries in transition. It is focused on changing the climate and culture of an organization. OD places strong emphasis on team development through collaborative problem solving, openness in expressing emotional as well as task oriented needs, developing a tolerance for conflict, and asks that individuals conduct periodic self-assessment.

  This paper examines the fundamentals of TQM and OD and compare similarities and differences of each principle. TQM principles are particularly useful in assessing the effectiveness of curriculum innovation at a research university. OD principles are important in facilitating paradigm shifts in the attitudes of faculty, staff and students from a traditional curriculum to an innovative integrated curriculum.

• 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

• Morgan, J.R., 1997, “A Freshman Engineering Experience: The Foundation Coalition at Texas A&M University,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

  Abstract: This paper represents an overview of the freshman year of the Foundation Coalition program at Texas A&M University. Future directions of this program, taught in groups of one hundred, are highlighted. The curriculum includes chemistry, English, engineering, math and physics taught in an integrated just in time fashion using technology and delivered in an activecollaborative environment to students working in teams of four. Through our thrusts of integration, teaming, active learning and technology we hope to produce engineers who can more effectively solve increasingly complex problems. This enhanced problem solving skill demands:

  1) increased appreciation and motivation for life-long learning;

  2) effective oral, written, graphical, and visual communication skills;

  3) increased capability to integrate knowledge from different disciplines to define problems, develop and evaluate alternative solutions; and

  4) increased flexibility and competence in using modern technology effectively for analysis, design, and communication.

  Information on learning styles and performance of students is presented and compared to that of the students in the traditional freshman engineering program at Texas A&M University.

• Heenan, W., MacLauchlan, R.A., 1997, “Development and Implementation of an Integrated Engineering Curriculum for the Sophomore Year,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: In 1995-96 the Foundation Coalition at Texas A&M University - Kingsville (TAMUK) formed a second year team to develop and implement an integrated engineering curriculum for the sophomore year. The team has consisted of ten faculty members from all the engineering disciplines (CE, CHE, EE, IE, ME, and NGE) plus physics and mathematics. Six of the faculty are senior faculty. The team has operated on weekly (1- 2 hour) workshop style sessions for both the planning and the implementation phases of this work. The team has followed a code of cooperation and continues to practice the principles of teaming.

  The team used the Affinity Process to group sophomore topics and the Modified Nominal Group Technique to prioritize the topics in an effort to develop a curriculum. The resulting sophomore curriculum consisted of four courses (13 semester hrs) in the first semester and three courses (9 semester hrs) in the second semester. It builds upon the integrated engineering curriculum which has been developed for the freshman year by the Foundation Coalition at TAMUK.

  First offered in the fall of 1996, the courses for the first semester sophomore year were: Integrated Engineering Systems I (3 hrs + 1 hr design lab), Integrated Mechanics I (3 hrs), Integrated Physics II, (4 hrs), and Integrated Mathematics III, (3 hrs). The second semester courses were : Integrated Engineering Systems II, (3 hrs + 1 hr design lab), Integrated Mechanics II, (3 hrs), and Integrated Mathematics IV, (3 hrs). Results of the 1996-97 implementation of the courses are described, as well as the design and use of a specialized modern technology enabled classroom for cooperative/active learning.

• Bolton, R.W., Morgan, J.R., 1997, “Engineering Graphics in an Integrated Environment,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: This paper focuses on the freshman year of the Foundation Coalition program at Texas A&M University. The curriculum includes chemistry, English, engineering, math and physics taught in an integrated just in time fashion using technology and delivered in an activecollaborative environment to students working in teams of four. Through our thrusts of integration, teaming, active learning and technology we hope to produce engineers who can solve increasingly complex problems more effectively.

  Graphical analysis, not generally taught or used by engineering students, has provided the best avenue for integration of graphics into the freshman Coalition environment. Graphical analysis techniques introduce CADD (Computer Aided Design and Drafting) to the student in a manner that teaches graphical fundamentals and at the same time is relevant to topics addressed in other course work. Examples include:

  1) Graphical solutions to vectors are used to introduce the concept of coordinate systems and scale. Students use CADD to solve vector problems, which are expanded to include statically determinant truss problems. Using a graphical method reinforces the concepts introduced in the problem solving technique and adds insight into the precision of engineering calculations and drawings.

  2) Traditional topics in descriptive geometry have been replaced with an introduction to 3D model development. The goals of this change are to improve student visualization skills and to provide the student with tools that reinforce other subject in the coalition. Area and mass properties generated by a CADD package are used in the chemistry, engineering, math, and physics classes. CADD packages provide unique tools for accomplishing these tasks and give new life graphics topics.

  Another area where graphics provides a valuable interface is in developing communication skills. Integrated technical reports, produced by student engineering design teams, include technical content (graded by science, mathematics, and engineering faculty) and are submitted to English.

• Imbrie, P.K., Malave, C.O., Watson, K.L., 1997, “From Pedagogy to Reality: The Experience of Texas A&M University with the Foundation Coalition Curricula,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.
• Haskew, T.A., Stern, H.P., McInerny, S., 1997, “Industrial Applications of Dynamic Data Acquisition - First Semester Experiences in a Multidisciplinary Laboratory Course,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education.

  Abstract: A junior-level multidisciplinary laboratory course centered around industrial applications of dynamic data acquisition and analysis is described. The course was developed with funding from an NSF Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement (ILI) grant and is offered as a NSF Foundation Coalition (FC) course. It is also open to traditional engineering students. In the course, teams of four (maximum) students are drawn from more than one discipline and with complementary interests and skills. It is intended that the associations developed within and amongst the teams will enable cooperative, multidisciplinary design projects in the senior year.

  The course consists of four weeks of introductory material followed by four laboratory modules, each concerning a specific application of signal acquisition and analysis. Currently, these modules include speech encoding and enhancement, machinery sound power measurement, machine condition monitoring, and motor condition monitoring. Each module is designed to be independent and the modules may be presented in any order. The course concludes with a culminating design project. Three instructors are involved in teaching the course, one from Mechanical Engineering and two from Electrical Engineering.

  In this paper, information on the course structure, content, hardware and software is provided. Problems encountered in the first semester are recounted and adjustments to the course structure are suggested to address these problems.

  Some of the problems are common to any new laboratory course. Other difficulties are unique to the structure of this FC course, including those associated with multi-disciplinary team teaching, and technology enabled education. Methods of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of instruction are proposed. Despite start up difficulties, the Fall 1996 student reviews were highly enthusiastic. There has students demand for the course to offered again in the Fall 1997 semester.

• McCartney, M.A., Reyes, M.A., Anderson-Rowland, M.R., 1997, “Internal and External Challenges for Minority Engineering Programs,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

  Abstract: The Office of Minority Engineering Programs (OMEP) in the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences (CEAS) at Arizona State University (ASU) is a growing support system for underrepresented minority students and others. Nearly 500, approximately 14%, of the undergraduate students in the CEAS are underrepresented minorities (African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans). During the Fall 1995 semester, the OMEP served over 300 students, including 13.5% non-minority. The OMEP is composed of a Director, Minority Engineering Program (MEP) Coordinator, Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA) Program Coordinator, an Administrative Assistant, a half-time graduate assistant, and two undergraduate part-time students, as well as student tutors and MESA liaisons. The OMEP reports to and is strongly supported by the CEAS Associate Dean of Student Affairs and Special Programs.

  None the less, there are internal challenges for the survival of the OMEP. The MEP, along with the Women in Applied Science and Engineering (WISE) Program, has been asked by the University for an accounting of its program and whom they serve. The OMEP budget is continually reviewed to “prove” that the program is making a difference. Not all are convinced that colleges should be funding K-12 educational support programs such as MESA. The Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) has proposed eliminating scholarship funding for minority students. The ABOR has also discussed the necessity for and legality of diversity programs during public hearings over the past two years.

  The external challenges for the survival of the MEP come primarily from the national review of affirmative action policies associated with presumed preferential treatment of minority students. Perceptions that a great amount of resources are designated to only a few selective students needs close review if minority support programs are to survive. Since the CEAS works very closely with industry, the OMEP must keep pace with the changing work force needs of the future if we are to remain a competitive resource for strengthening the economy.

  ASU is making progress towards increasing diversity and quality through campus wide efforts that are based on twenty recommendations made by a 1994 task force. ASU recognizes that campus diversity is needed for an educated citizenry and for international competitiveness. ASU is dedicated to developing and to supporting additional programs to improve student preparation for university success. ASU recognizes that any such programs must be outcome based and have commitment from top management. The OMEP model strongly aligns with the diversity objectives and strategies of the university.

  This paper discusses how the OMEP at ASU is answering the internal and external challenges through an expansion of their services to make a positive impact.

• Imbrie, P.K., Malave, C.O., Watson, K.L., 1997, “Pedagogy versus Reality: How Past Experiences Can Be an Effective Modeling Tool to Successfully Deploy Curricula Changes,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: The National Science Foundation has sponsored a number of Engineering Education Coalitions to help develop innovative and progressive methods for delivering the undergraduate engineering curricula of the 21st century. However, if past performance is any indication of future success, adoption of this common courseware by noncoalition institutions will be met with limited success primarily because implementation issues are not thoughtfully considered. This paper details the various "stages" that most, if not all, academic institutions that wish to implement large-scale changes in their current curricula must successfully navigate. The implementation stages to be presented include: 1) historical innovation review; 2) course development and deployment in pilot form; 3) obtaining faculty buy-in; 4) considering the administrative details; and 5) managing the transition. The experiences and processes developed herein are based upon work that has been done at Texas A&M University which is a large public “top tier” research institution and a member of the “Foundation Coalition.” The paper also describes how Quality Functional Deployment methods can be used to identify and circumvent potential problem areas in the institutionalization process.

• Roedel, R.J., Green, M., Garland, J., Doak, B., McCarter, J., Evans, D.L., Duerden, S., 1997, “Projects that integrate engineering, physics, calculus, and English in the Arizona State University Foundation Coalition freshman program,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: The Foundation Coalition at Arizona State University has been offering a novel first year program in engineering for the last three years.[1-5] This program integrates coursework in English composition and rhetoric, calculus, freshman physics, and introductory engineering concepts through student projects. The projects increase in complexity as the term progresses, to keep pace with students' increasing knowledge of science and engineering. The purpose of this paper is to describe the projects, the process used to deliver them, and their impact on the learning in this class.

• Duerden, S., Graham, J.M., Garland, J., Doak, B., McCarter, J., Roedel, R.J., Evans, D.L., Williams, P., 1997, “Scaling Up Arizona State University's First-Year Integrated Program in Engineering: Problems and Solutions,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: This paper discusses how scale-up from a pilot of 32 students to 80 students affected the integrated delivery of material in English composition, physics, and engineering to a cohort of freshman engineering students. It also discusses how collaborative learning and projects were structured to fit 80 students, the effects of class size on student-to-student interaction and student-to-faculty interactions in and out of the classroom, and what modifications were made to the classroom facilities to accommodate these projects. Although there were some detrimental effects accruing to the scale-up, for the most part, student performance was unaffected or slightly improved.

• Reyes, M.A., McCartney, M.A., Anderson-Rowland, M.R., 1997, “Transferring the Knowledge in a Bridge Program: Engineering Students Become Coaches,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

  Abstract: A unique, very successful summer bridge program was held for incoming underrepresented minority freshman and transfer engineering students at Arizona State University (ASU) during the summer of 1996. The Minority Engineering Program (MEP) Summer Bridge Program was a two week residential program designed to ensure academic success for the 44 student participants. The program was supported by a grant from the Coalition to Increase Minority Degrees and ASU’s College of Engineering and Applied Sciences (CEAS).

  Unlike typical Bridge Programs taught by faculty and staff, the curriculum for this program was delivered by undergraduate engineering students. Three students, two women and one man, formed “Dream Team I” for the curriculum development and delivery for each day from 8:00 am to 5:00 p.m., when the dinner hour began. The evening hour activities from 6:00 p.m. until midnight were developed and supervised by “Dream Team II”, composed of four additional undergraduate students, three males and one female, who were selected from the three underrepresented minority societies, AISES, NSBE and SHPE.

  The program content was developed by both teams, with the support of the Director and the Program Coordinator of the CEAS Minority Engineering Program (MEP) and a faculty member. In particular, the curriculum was designed by Dream Team I in consultation with a CEAS Associate Professor. The coach professor met with the students on several occasions to plan the program, made himself available as a consulting coach during the first week of the program, and allowed the students full autonomy over the instruction during the second week.

  The curriculum team determined that the students would be teamed to develop a Web Page to be presented at the conclusion of the program. After each module, the curriculum team reconvened to discuss progress and to make modifications for the following sessions. At their own initiative, each day, the two dream teams met during dinner in a transition meeting to evaluate student progress in the program and to better plan for the evening’s activities.

  The participants related very well to instructor “peers”. The instructors had credibility since they had been through the same type of curriculum. Student evaluations of the program were extremely positive with particularly high points for the instruction portion of the Web Page development. Although the student instructors taught teaming, at the same time, they were forced to learn a lot about teaming and teaching. They had several conflicts to resolve among themselves. One is now considering teaching as a career. Curriculum team members continued to tutor students after the program creating a support structure for the students.

• Duerden, S., Green, M., Garland, J., Doak, B., McCarter, J., Roedel, R.J., Evans, D.L., Williams, P., 1997, “Trendy Technology or a Learning Tool? Using Electronic Journaling on Webnotes for Curriculum Integration in the Freshman Program in Engineering at ASU,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: Lately, technology has transformed our world, with millions of users negotiating everything from purchasing goods to accessing research. The pressure to embrace this technology has grown to the point that even in the composition classroom, instructors are exploring ways to most profitably use it. Given the growth and commercialism of the World Wide Web (WWW), it is not always easy to distinguish the hype from the useful. However, one worthwhile application is WebNotes¥,[1] a commercial, WWW-based electronic forum software product that has become a powerful journaling tool for fostering connections, delivering information, and creating an online community in and out of the classroom. In our first two iterations of the NSF Foundation Coalition integrated program for first-year students at Arizona State University, we used journaling to encourage students to connect their classes by explaining math, physics, or engineering concepts to the non-specialist (English teachers), discussing teaming and teaming issues, and providing feedback. Before the use of WebNotes¥, the English teachers collected the journals and passed them on to the other faculty members, usually in the space of one week, causing many logistical problems. With Webnotes, students now write entries in a word processing program, which encourages them to check spelling and grammar, and then they paste them into a WebNotes¥ forum. The faculty can then read the entries at their convenience and respond to each student via e-mail. These entries can be kept hidden from other students until or unless the moderators (faculty) choose to release them. Assessment of student responses to this form of journaling, in the form of anecdotes and a survey, has been very positive. Students like the individual and immediate responses they receive via e-mail -- always a popular form of communication with students. Moreover, they appreciate the fact that multiple faculty may read a single entry. As a learning tool, an integration tool, and a feedback tool, this technology has proved that technology is not simply “trendy.” Sometimes it really can enhance learning and communication.

1998

• Mowafy, L., 1998, “A Modular Approach to Semiconductor Curriculum Development,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

  Abstract: It has been estimated that by the year 2000, the U.S. semiconductor manufacturing industry will need over 40,000 new workers (120,000 workers worldwide). Most of these workers will have earned a two-year technical degree from a community college or technical school. The unprecedented demand for degreed technicians in semiconductor manufacturing has caused competitors to join forces in assisting educators in developing their workforce. Through SEMATECH and SEMI/SEMATECH, the national consortia of semiconductor manufacturers and their suppliers, industry representatives are actively encouraging and helping community colleges convert existing electronics or industrial technology programs into Semiconductor Manufacturing Technician (SMT) programs. These new programs require knowledge, skills, and abilities not found in most existing programs. As a result, educators are pressed to design and implement whole curricula seemingly overnight.

  In response to the urgent need for curricula and materials, as well as faculty development opportunities, the Maricopa Advanced Technology Education Center (MATEC) has been established under sponsorship of the National Science Foundation to create and maintain a national resource center for developing, managing, evaluating, and distributing educational materials for SMT programs nationwide. These products are to be characterized by their balance of practical knowledge with mathematical and scientific understanding, relevancy to industry workforce needs, and adaptability under rapid technological change. To meet the challenge, MATEC is creating a curriculum development system that allows individual institutions opportunities to transition successfully from existing programs as well as service local industry partner needs. The key features of this system are: 1) the curriculum is modular in design and based on workplace competencies and, 2) it is delivered to faculty electronically with an accompanying electronic performance support system.

• Morgan, J.R., Bolton, R.W., 1998, “An Integrated First-year Engineering Curricula,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: Abstract: The Foundation Coalition (FC) Program at Texas A&M University includes chemistry, English, engineering, math and physics taught in an integrated two semester sequence using technology and delivered in an active-collaborative environment to students working in teams of three and four. A unique feature of the courses taught at A&M is the close coordination of subject matter maintained by the first-year faculty teaching team. Topics covered in each discipline are discussed in weekly meetings and efforts are made to teach and reinforce concepts across subject lines.

  The FC engineering component is taught as an integrated problem-solving/graphics course spanning both semesters of the first-year. Interdisciplinary series of class exercises and comprehensive design projects replace traditional standalone lectures and are used to introduce freshmen engineering students to design, problem solving and graphical analysis. Several instructors with varying engineering backgrounds team-teach the entire course. Each tends to focus on their area of expertise but also cross over when needed to insure complete coverage of course material. Engineering content includes topical examples to reinforce and be reinforced by other FC disciplines. The engineering component of the curriculum emphasizes development of basic engineering problemsolving, visualization, and communication skills and has the following as central goals:

  1) to provide the student with the necessary skills to perform effective problem solving;

  2) to introduce the students to some of the basic engineering tools;

  3) to help the student develop a logical thought process;

  4) to enable the students to have better spatial analysis skills;

  5) to help the students develop appropriate sketching skills; and

  6) to teach the students how to read and/or interpret technical presentations.

  The paper addresses some of the challenges encountered in an integrated program (such as, students with previous college credit in one or more area, and students with differing levels of academic preparation). We believe that our thrusts of integration, teaming, active learning and technology will produce engineers who can solve increasingly complex problems more effectively.

• Whiteacre, M.M., Malave, C.O., 1998, “An Integrated Freshman Engineering Curriculum for Pre-calculus Students,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: For the last five years, Texas A&M has been a member of the National Science Foundation's Foundation Coalition whose goal is to improve engineering education by stressing the connections among engineering, the sciences, and the arts. This was accomplished by integrating the concepts from calculus, physics, chemistry, English, and engineering beginning at the freshman level. One of the major impediments to expanding the program to all engineering students was how to handle non-standard students (i.e. those who had credit is some of their courses, or those who were not ready to take certain classes). At Texas A&M, these “non-standard” students comprise about 40% of the incoming freshman class, with the majority to these being deficient in mathematics, thus not being ready to enroll in college calculus.

  To address these students, in the spring of 1996, Texas A&M began to develop a modified curriculum whose goals were still the integration of material across the freshman classes. This program was implemented in the fall of 1996, refined during that year and is currently being used for some of the freshman who enrolled in the College of Engineering this year and who were deficient in calculus. Beginning in the fall of 1998, all incoming freshmen engineering students who are not ready to enroll in calculus will be enrolled in this program. This paper will address the design and implementation of the “pre-calculus” track program at Texas A&M.

• 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.

• McNeill, B., Bellamy, L., 1998, “Assessment for Improvement in the Classroom,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

  Abstract: Masaaki Imai, in his book Kaizen1, pointed out that unless a company continually strives to improve the quality of their products, the products’ quality will decline over time, even if the products start out as first in class. The same is true for educational courses; unless we continually work at improving the quality of a course, the course’s quality (effectiveness) will decline over time. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies as much to courses and products as it does to heat engines.

  There are a number of different continuous improvement processes (e.g., Plan Do Check Act). In its simplest form, the continuous improvement process is a cycle made up of the following three steps:

  1) define a course, 2) assess the course, and 3) modify the course returning to step 2.

  The authors of this paper have developed, assessed, and modified four major courses during the last five years (Introduction to Engineering Design, Intermediate Design Methods, Understanding Engineering Systems : Computer Modeling and Conservation Principles, Thermodynamics).

  This paper presents our current thinking about the continuous improvement process and provides some of the tools and techniques we are currently using. The paper will discuss, in order, the three steps of this process.

• 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.

• 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.

• Sathianathan, D., Sheppard, S., Jenison, R., Bilgutay, N.M., Demel, J.T., Gavankar, P., Lockledge, J., Mutharasan, R., Phillips, H., Poli, C., Richardson, J., 1998, “Freshman Design Projects: Lessons Learned in Engineering Coalitions,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: NSF established the Engineering Education Coalition programs for the purpose of creating systemic changes in engineering education. Coalitions are groups of institutions of higher learning who work collaboratively to achieve their coalition's mission. The first Coalition program was established in 1990. There are now eight Engineering Education Coalitions representing some 59 Universities (roughly 20% of all of the undergraduate institutions in the United States).

  Most coalitions have developed freshman design projects to increase the interest of new engineering students and to begin the integration of design across the curriculum. These activities are multi-week project approach, where students are engaged in hands-on experimental learning. The projects require that the members of the team must work together to complete the task. The multi-week projects dominate the course and the project theme motivates both the fixed and the flexible content covered during the course.

  This special session will discuss the various types of freshman design projects used and lessons learned by the Engineering Coalitions. Short presentations from the various coalitions will review what has been done and the lessons learned. The sessions will be interactive, involving the audience in the discussion of these lessons learned. A list of projects used in the coalitions along with a list of publications will be made available.

• Reyes, M.A., Anderson-Rowland, M.R., McCartney, M.A., 1998, “Freshman Introductory Engineering Seminar Course: Coupled with Bridge Program Equals Academic Success and Retention,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: Arizona State University's (ASU) Office of Minority Engineering Programs (OMEP) has hosted the Minority Engineering Program (MEP) Summer Bridge Program for the past two years. The purpose of the program is to promote greater awareness of and recruit potential candidates to the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences (CEAS) at ASU. The program content and curriculum were designed to prepare underrepresented ethnic minority students for success in the College at ASU. The program focused on building community and utilized undergraduate student role models as instructors, while the curriculum focused on engineering design, technical communications, and a design project. Academic scholarships were awarded to all participants based on a team design project competition.

  The Summer ’96 program participants were encouraged to participate in the MEP Academic Success Seminar course offered in the Fall ’96. Twelve of the 43 participants chose to do so. Since the instructor for the course was also the director of the bridge program, the MEP used this as an opportunity to continue building community, reduce student isolation, and monitor student progress throughout the semester. In fact this is exactly what occurred with those who participated, however, continuing all these facets was difficult with the remaining 31. Therefore, the following year, the Summer ’97 program participants were required to participate in the course as a stipulation to receive their scholarship. As a result, all 38 participants chose to register for the seminar course or the Foundation Coalition Match program at ASU.

  The academic success of these students during their first semester is evaluated, compared, and correlated with several measures including 1) a comparative analysis of seminar course success between the students who participated in the bridge program and those who did not; 2) student’s scores on the university mathematics placement examination and the student’s class grade earned in their beginning mathematics class; and 3) the student’s use of the MEP support system (i.e. Tutoring program, Academic Excellence Program).

• 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.
• Anderson-Rowland, M.R., Reyes, M.A., McCartney, M.A., 1998, “MEP Summer Bridge Program: Mathematics Assessment Strategies,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

  Abstract: Arizona State University's (ASU) Office of Minority Engineering Programs (OMEP) has hosted two successful Minority Engineering Program (MEP) Summer Bridge Programs to promote greater awareness of and recruit potential candidates to the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences (CEAS). Through a collaborative effort, the two-week residential program was funded by the Western Alliance to Expand Student Opportunities and the CEAS Dean’s Office. The program content and curriculum were designed to prepare underrepresented ethnic minority students for success in the CEAS at ASU. The curriculum focused on engineering design, technical communications, and included a design project. Academic scholarships were awarded to all participants based on a team design project competition. The competition included the design of web pages, documentation in individual design notebooks, and a presentation to industry representatives and parents.

  During the summer of 1996, 44 students participated and completed the program. As a recruitment tool, the program was an overwhelming success with 43 of the 44 students completing the academic year (one chose not to because of the family’s financial situation). During the summer of 1997, 39 students also completed the program. Currently, 38 of the 39 from the 1997 program have enrolled in the CEAS (one choosing not to enroll because of problems with financial aid). During both programs, the students were given university mathematics placement examinations. The students were then advised to take either MAT 117: College Algebra, MAT 170: Pre-Calculus, MAT 270: Calculus with Analytic Geometry I, or more advanced classes based on their placement test results. However, students were not required to register for a mathematics course based on their exam score. The academic success of these students in their first mathematics course is evaluated relative to their placement score as well as their participation in an academic success seminar and use of the MEP tutoring program.

• Lim, C., Metzger, R.P., Rodriguez, A.A., 1998, “Modeling, Simulation, Animation, and Real-Time Control (MoSART) Environments: Tools for Education and Research,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: This paper describes a set of Microsoft Windows '95/NT, Visual C++, Direct-3D based software environments for simulating and visualizing several different dynamical systems. Different simulation and animation models may be selected by the user for each environment. Users are also able to alter model and controller parameters "on the fly" - thus allowing them to quickly examine different scenarios. The environments take advantage of Direct-3D to produce high-quality three-dimensional real-time animated graphical models of the systems. Real-time plotting and graphical indicators are also employed to help users abstract-out key phenomena. The environments also accommodate data exchange with MATLAB. Users may readily export simulation data to MATLAB and use the associated toolboxes for post-processing and further analysis. The MoSART environments are valuable tools for enhancing both education and research. Examples are presented to illustrate their utility.

1999

• McInerny, S., Stern, H.P., Haskew, T.A., 1999, “Applications of Dynamic Data Analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Education, 42:4, 276-280.

  Abstract: This paper describes a junior-level multidisciplinary laboratory course centered around industrial applications of dynamic data acquisition and analysis. The course was developed with funding from an NSF Instrumentation and Laboratory Improvement (ILI) grant and is offered as a NSF Foundation Coalition (FC) course. It is also open to traditional aerospace, electrical, industrial, and mechanical engineering students. In the course, teams of four (maximum) students with complementary interests and skills are drawn from more than one discipline. It is intended that the associations developed within and among the teams will enable cooperative multidisciplinary design projects in the senior year. The course consists of four weeks of introductory material followed by four laboratory modules, each concerning a specific application of signal acquisition and analysis. Currently, these modules include speech encoding and enhancement, machinary sound power measurement, machine condition monitoring, and motor condition monitoring. Each module is independent, so the modules may be presented in any order. The course concludes with a small design project. Three instructors have been involved in teaching the course, one from mechnical and two from electrical engineering.

• Malave, C.O., Rinehart, J., Morgan, J.R., Caso, R., Yao, J., 1999, “Inclusive Learning Communities at Texas A&M University-A Unique Model for Engineering,” Proceedings of the First Conference on Creating and Sustaining Learning Communities, Tampa, FL, March 10-13.

  Abstract: In Gabelnick’s, MacGregor’s, Matthews’ and Smith’s Learning Communities: Creating Connections Among Students, Faculty and Disciplines (1990) primer on "Learning Communities" it is acknowledged that the term Learning Communities is "a generic term for a variety of curricular interventions." Gabelnick, et al. approach greater specification with their own working definition of Learning Communities as entities which engage in "purposefully restructuring the curriculum to link together courses or course work so that students find greater coherence in what they are learning as well as increased intellectual interaction with faculty and fellow students." Given that neither the nature of the curriculum restructuring, nor the combination and nature of course and coursework links have been unequivocally circumscribed by these authors or by others who have contributed to the literature, it should not surprise us that the configurations and components of Learning Communities should differ across applications, or that similarly conceived, designed and implemented models should be identified by different names (i.e., learning clusters, triads, federated learning communities, coordinated studies, and integrated studies.)

  The Texas A&M University (TAMU) Dwight Look College Of Engineering (COE), has contributed to the profusion of Learning Community model variations and appellations by modifying and vastly expanding its well developed and successful National Science Foundation Coalition freshman program, into a fully institutionalized, universally implemented, freshman engineering program involving over 1100 students, and by adding the word Inclusive (e.g., Inclusive Learning Communities, ILC) to emphasize the importance of diversity, access and constituent ownership to the success of TAMU College of Engineering Learning Communities. TAMU has operationalized its working definition of Inclusive Learning Communities as follows: Fully accessible groupings of students, faculty, and employers with common interests who value diversity, and work collaboratively as partners, to improve the engineering education experience.

  TAMU operationalizes Inclusiveness by working to find new and more meaningful ways to include and engage all students, faculty, and industry in the educational process at a broad institutional level. One such way has been to more comprehensively involve industrial participation at all levels. Another way has been to focus on faculty rewards and systematic gathering of faculty feedback. To significantly increase the successful involvement of under-represented groups in the educational process, the COE has adopted an institutional policy of universalizing and enhancing access to programs and interventions which might at one time have been targeted to "special" groups. This same institutionalized commitment to Inclusiveness mandates that the TAMU COE guard against the inadvertent generation of small or exclusive academic groupings in which only a select few students can participate.

  This paper and presentation are offered as a framework for an evolving body of knowledge and practical experience. At this time, the framework contains information, representing snapshots of a work-in-progress: the current configuration and evolutionary status of the Inclusive Learning Communities implemented at TAMU in the College of Engineering. Mirroring the constant, reflective metamorphosing which characterizes the TAMU ILCs, the contents of this framework are also likely to have expanded and evolved by the time this presentation is delivered.

2000

• Willson, V.L., Ackerman, C.M., Malave, C.O., 2000, “Cross-Time Attitudes, Concept Formation, and Achievement in College Freshman Physics,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37:10, 1112-1120.

  Abstract: The relationships among science and engineering attitude, physics conceptual understanding, and physics achievement were explored for a population of college freshman engineering students over two semesters. Gender and SAT-Quantitative measures were included as exogenous variables in a longitudinal path analysis. Attitude was theorized to predict achievement contemporaneously and at the next time point, while conceptual understanding was theorized to predict physics achievement contemporaneously and at the next time point. Each at one time was theorized to predict scores at the next time. A sample of 200 freshman engineering students participating in an integrated curriculum were assessed in September, December, and April (with a loss of 64 students) with the Force Concepts Inventory (FCI), Mechanics Baseline Test (MBT), and a locally developed attitude measure. The observed model indicated that the FCI predicted attitude at time 1 with no other paths between them, that FCI at time 1 predicted MBT at time 1 and time 2, FCI at time 2 predicted MBT at time 3, and MBT at time 1 predicted FCI at time 2. Gender and SAT-Quantitative scores were predictive only of FCI and MBT at time 1. Results supported an interactive model of conceptual understanding and achievement, with attitude largely irrelevant to the process for this population.

• Everett, L.J., Imbrie, P.K., Morgan, J.R., 2000, “Integrated Curricula: Purpose and Design,” Journal of Engineering Education, 89:2, 167-175.

  Abstract: This paper has two objectives: 1) to define, describe, and discuss integrated programs and their advantages with regard to student and faculty outcomes, as well as student retention; and 2) to describe a design process used to successfully develop and deploy an integrated first year curriculum. This paper details the results of the design process and the content of the first year integrated program implemented by the College of Engineering at Texas A&M University. The curriculum integrates the first year components of calculus, chemistry, engineering graphics, English, physics, and problem solving.

• 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.

2001

• Courter, S.S., Lewis, D., Reeves, J., Eapen, J., Murugesan, N., Sebald, D., 2001, “Aligning Foundation Coalition Core Competencies and Professional Development Opportunities: A University of Wisconsin-Madision Case Study in Preparing a New Generation of Engineers,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: Faculty within the Foundation Coalition (FC) are working together to prepare a new generation of engineers by strengthening both undergraduate and graduate students’ educational foundations and helping them develop core competencies. The coalition links together six institutions: Arizona State University, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Texas A & M University, University of Alabama, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and University of Massachusetts- Dartmouth. Partner institutions are diverse in terms of size, age, public/private, student body characteristics, and experience in educational reform, but all share a commitment to the improvement of engineering education. With the goal of student learning in mind, the Foundation Coalition defines core competencies to be the abilities that educators must develop, continuously improve, and use in order to “create a new culture of engineering education that is responsive to technological changes and societal needs” – the FC vision. The core competencies are curriculum integration; cooperative and active learning; utilization of technology-enabled learning; assessment-driven continuous improvement; recruitment, retention, and graduation of women and under-represented minorities; teamwork and collaboration; and management of change. The University of Wisconsin-Madison helps faculty, staff, and teaching assistants develop and use these core competencies in myriad ways.

  This paper describes two professional development opportunities at the University of Wisconsin- Madison, College of Engineering: the New Educators’ Orientation (NEO) and the Teaching Improvement Program (TIP). While NEO introduces the core competencies, each TIP workshop incorporates one or more of the FC competencies. The program director and graduate student cochairs use the competencies to guide workshop selection and design. This paper traces the development of both NEO and TIP; the incorporation of the FC core competencies, vision, mission, student outcomes, and objectives; the impact on curricula as reported on evaluations; lessons learned; and plans for future professional development opportunities. Four case studies illustrate how graduate students, the next generation of engineers, develop the core competencies through professional development opportunities including TIP and NEO.

• Weckman, G.R., MacLauchlan, R.A., Crosby, J., 2001, “An Assessment and Evaluation of an Integrated Engineering Curriculum,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: The objective of this paper is to report a comparative analysis of student performance in a Traditional Engineering environment with Foundation Coalition (FC) students over a six year period of time at Texas A&M University–Kingsville (TAMUK). The FC is an engineering coalition funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The purpose of this program is to provide a means of improving current engineering programs in order to produce quality students that can meet the changing and demanding needs of their future employers. This analysis makes use of data provided by the Assessment and Evaluation (A/E) team at TAMUK. A commitment was made by TAMUK, along with six other FC partner institutions, to thoroughly assess and evaluate the work of students to provide a foundation that would ensure student development and life-long learning in engineering education.

• Richardson, J., Morgan, J.R., Evans, D.L., 2001, “Development of an Engineering Strength of Material Concept Inventory Assessment Instrument,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: This paper discusses development of an instrument for assessing undergraduate student understanding of fundamental strength of materials concepts. The instrument was modeled after the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) by David Hestenes and others. Like the FCI, the strength of materials concept inventory is brief, requires no computation and should be repeatable across broad student populations. The initial version of the instrument was tested on strength of materials students at the University of Alabama, Texas A&M University, and other institutions. A Beta version of the instrument will be available at the conference.

• Midkiff, C., Litzinger, T.A., Evans, D.L., 2001, “Development of Engineering Thermodynamics Concept Inventory Instruments,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: Preliminary instruments for the assessment of undergraduate engineering student understanding of fundamental thermodynamics concept are presented. The Thermodynamics Concept Inventory (TCI) instruments are patterned after the existing Force Concept Inventory (FCI) instruments. Numerous studies have supported the efficacy of pre- and post-course administration of the FCI as a means of assessing the effectiveness of educational reform activities. The objective of the work reported here is to develop similar instruments for the assessment of engineering thermodynamics. Like the FCI, the Thermodynamics Concepts Inventory (TCI) instruments should be brief, require minimal or no computation, should produce repeatable results across broad, diverse student populations, and should succinctly assess student understanding of fundamental thermodynamics concepts. The availability of such TCI instruments will allow faculty to compare the pre- and post-course performances of a class, to compare the performance of their class to that of classes at other institutions, and to evaluate the effectiveness of educational reform efforts. Although the preliminary (“beta”) versions of the TCI reported here are aimed at mechanical engineering students, they should be suitable for use in other engineering disciplines with slight modification. In mechanical engineering, it is common to teach thermodynamics in a two-semester sequence of courses. Consequently, two versions of the TCI are presented, an introductory version and a more advanced version for second-semester students. Sample questions from the TCI instruments are exhibited here, and results of preliminary testing of the inventory on small student populations are discussed. Beta versions of the TCI are available at the FIE conference. The authors are seeking interested faculty to conduct beta tests during the 2001-2002 academic year.

• 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.

• Moore, D.J., Berry, F., 2001, “Industrial Sponsored Design Projects Addressed by Student Design Teams,” Journal of Engineering Education, 90:1, 69-73.
• 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.

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.

• 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.

• Mayhew, J.E., Layton, R.A., 2002, “Killing Two Birds with One Data Acquisition System,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

  Abstract: An open-circuit wind tunnel is upgraded by adding a commercially-available data acquisition system used to teach students some basic concepts of data acquisition, instrumentation, calibration, and assessment of results. Student teams were given 30-60 minutes of hands-on instruction on how to acquire data using the system. Eight student teams participated over two quarters, performing calibrations of the load cells and angle-of-attack indicator, using the results of those calibrations to find the lift and drag of a model wing, and assessing whether the calibrations and confidence intervals found by the earlier teams were reliable. All teams served as “contractors” for us, helping us improve the quality of our wind tunnel while they learned. Key results for our students: learning how to set up and use a simple data acquisition system; making us aware of sources of uncertainty in the lift and drag measurements of our wind tunnel; learning when collecting more data helps decrease uncertainty and when it does not; and gaining experience in meeting our needs as customers. In our opinion, the project is readily implemented by an individual instructor or two and should be considered intermediate-level instruction in instrumentation and data acquisition, appropriate for implementation at the junior or senior level.

• 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.

• 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.

• Schweiker, M., Moore, D.J., Voltmer, D.R., 2002, “The Design of an Enhanced Curricular Evaluation + Portfolio (ECE+P) Software System,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: A process for curricular monitoring and providing feedback for the continuous improvement of curricula was presented recently by Moore and Voltmer. The original process was designed to include instructors, administrators, and external reviewers. A subsequent study of the existing software and enhanced capabilities led to an expansion of the vision and scope of the original evaluation process. The study precipitated the design of a new software system that expands the curricular monitoring to include the student. Improved interaction between the student and instructor as well as grading capabilities is included in the expanded system, the Enhanced Curricular Evaluation + Portfolio (ECE+P) system. An additional enhancement enables every student to store private files and create secure portfolios to which studenst can grant viewing rights to external guests. The ECE+P system was designed using a Unified Modeling Language (UML) software development tool that allows requirement change to be incorporated easily. The tool also provides system specifications that can be implemented using various platforms. A discussion of the ECE+P system and the UML tool will be included in the full paper and presentation.

2003

• Courter, S.S., Martin, J.K.., 2003, “2d and 3d Order Refinements/Improvements to an Experiential Design,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

  Abstract: A three-credit course for first-year students with the objective of providing an authentic engineering design experience and an introduction to engineering has been in place at the University of Wisconsin-Madison since 1994. From the inception, the course has been centered on real projects the students carry out in collaboration with bona fide clients.

  During the last eight years, the course has evolved through a series of refinements and improvements based on systematic evaluation and reflection. The basic concept and structure of the course remains the same; however, activities and assignments for the students have seen fundamental changes. For example, when the course was established, in addition to the weekly lab, there were two 1-hour lectures per week that involved all ~200 students. The educational objective of the lectures was to provide an introduction for the students to many different aspects of engineering and design ranging from discussions of engineering ethics and engineering and society to introduction to strength of materials and elementary electronics. As a result of observation of student response (in class, via discussion, and survey), numerous changes have been made to this format. Now, students attend one large group meeting per week where active learning is used in all the activities. Faculty share an example that demonstrates the desired educational concept, and then ask students to apply the concept with their peers to something of specific interest to them. The second lecture each week is now a small group meeting where the content is determined “just-in-time,” as the result of a formal method for determining what the students are most interested in learning to best complete their project.

  Other changes include

  • Incorporation of writing into all aspects of the course

  • Recognition that the design process is similar to the communication process

  • Peer review of presentations and writing

  • Philosophy in the types of projects that are selected and the clients that work best with the course and students

  • Forms of presentation by the student teams

  • Use of course notes

  • Means for development of a cohesive and functioning faculty team

  • Introduction of engineering majors and disciplines to students

  • Training and identification of responsibilities for the undergraduate assistants.

• Jacobi, A., Martin, J.K.., Mitchell, J., Newell, T., 2003, “A Concept Inventory for Heat Transfer,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: Students enter courses in engineering with intuitions about physical phenomena. Through coursework they build on their intuition to develop a set of beliefs about the subject. Often, their understanding of basic concepts is incomplete, and their explanations are not “correct.” Concept Inventories are assessment tools designed to determine the degree to which students understand the concepts of a subject and to identify the bases for misunderstandings. A cooperative effort between faculty at the Universities of Wisconsin and Illinois has been undertaken to develop a concept inventory for heat transfer. The process initiated with student identification of the conceptual problems rather than with faculty perceptions of student misunderstandings. Students then explored areas of conceptual difficulty and phrased questions that would test understanding of the concepts. Students working together with faculty developed a concept inventory for heat transfer. The presentation will report on the experience with using student groups and the resulting concept inventory.

• 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.

• 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.

• Martin, J.K.., Mitchell, J., Newell, T., 2003, “Development of a Concept Inventory for Fluid Mechanics,” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference.

  Abstract: Concept inventories are assessment tools designed to determine the degree to which students understand the concepts of a subject and to identify the misconceptions that students hold. The results of a concept inventory can be used to change the methods of instruction to overcome student misconceptions. A cooperative effort between mechanical engineering faculty at the Universities of Wisconsin-Madison and Illinois, Champaign-Urbana has been directed toward development of a Fluid Mechanics Concept Inventory (FMCI). Fluid mechanics typically follows thermodynamics in the sequence of courses in thermal sciences, involves both the mechanics and dynamics of fluids, and builds on basic physics and Newtonian mechanics. This paper describes the process used for development of the FMCI, the details of how we determined the content, and examples of actual content of the instrument itself.

• 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.

• Bowe, N., Taylor, L., Smith, K., Zuckerman, R., Moore, D.J., 2003, “Getting Engineers to Think and Act like Entrepreneurs,” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference.

  Abstract: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology is pioneering the education of undergraduate entrepreneurial engineers. Engenius Solutions is a program funded through a grant from the Lilly Foundation. The project, at Rose-Hulman, is offering capital and other resources to help undergraduate engineers understand what it takes to recognize opportunities and turn them into entrepreneurial ventures. Students, faculty, and staff are encouraged to submit ideas to Engenius Solutions for evaluation and review. Following an in-depth qualification procedure, those deemed to have potential are then given project resources including student project teams, prototyping support, work space, Intellectual Property support, and project management to help develop their idea. Engenius Solutions also provides financial, marketing, and business insight to assist their clients (students, faculty, staff) in taking ideas from concept to market. Future plans include accepting clients from outside the Rose-Hulman community. The program is driven by a core management team of four undergraduate students managing the program with limited oversight provided by a Board of Governors. The board consists of faculty and staff from multiple disciplines across the campus.

  This paper will present an overview of the program, including the management philosophy for both the funded program and the individual client projects. Also covered is a discussion of the underlying project objective—allowing students to run a project, with limited faculty oversight, in an effort to allow engineers to become better acquainted with the business world and more capable of effectively handling interactions between entrepreneurs and large companies. The main focus of the paper will be on the benefits and opportunities provided by allowing students to work on exciting new ideas and projects and on developing their own intellectual property in a multidisciplinary setting. Specifically to be included are the interactions among different engineering disciplines, interactions between engineering disciplines and business disciplines from other schools, and how this will enhance the overall engineering education.

• 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.

• 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.

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.

• 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.