An Integrated First-Year Engineering Curriculum at North Carolina State University

Richard M. Felder, Department of Chemical Engineering
Leonhard E. Bernold, Department of Civil Engineering
Ernest E. Burniston, Department of Mathematics
John E. Gastineau, Department of Physics
J. Ben O'Neal, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
North Carolina State University

Abstract:

Curriculum Structure and Instructional Design

An experimental freshman engineering curriculum called IMPEC (Integrated Mathematics, Physics, Engineering, and Chemistry) is being developed and tested by a faculty team at North Carolina State University. The development is a megaproject of the National Science Foundation sponsored SUCCEED Coalition. The goals of the curriculum are to provide (1) motivation and context for the fundamental material taught in the first-year mathematics and science courses; (2) a realistic and positive orientation to the engineering profession, and (3) training in the problem-solving, study, and communication skills that correlate with success in engineering school and equip individuals to be lifelong learners.

The curriculum was taught by a team of professors-one from Mathematics, one from Physics, and two from Engineering. In the Fall 1994 semester, the students took the first courses in calculus and physics (mechanics) and a one-credit engineering course. In the Spring 1995 semester, those continuing in the sequence took the second courses in calculus and physics (electricity and magnetism) and a second 1-credit engineering course.

IMPEC is one of a number of integrated programs being developed around the country. In contrast to other curricula in which courses are merely coordinated, IMPEC features a full integration of the disciplines. A single computer-equipped classroom serves for all class meetings (except for chemistry wet-labs) and a single block of time is reserved daily for IMPEC. In addition, a combination of proven instructional methods has been adapted to the curriculum, including cooperative learning, lecture-lean activity-based class sessions, and extensive use of computer simulations. The Harvard Calculus text includes many real-world problems, and the physics texts require extensive participation of the students with their workbook-like style.

The principal features of the 1994-95 curriculum were as follows:

• Fundamental mathematical and scientific material was presented on a ``just-in-time'' basis, after the need for the material to solve real-world problems had been established.

• The IMPEC classroom was equipped with networked PCUs with real-time data acquisition capability. A ``hands-on'' approach that emphasized in-class experimentation provided the basis for the physics instruction, and a symbolic mathematics application program (MAPLE) was used for data analysis in all subject areas. The calculus and physics courses used common notation, common software applications, joint homework assignments and (except for the final examination) joint tests. Computer simulations complemented physical experimentation.

• The engineering courses included field trips, skill training sessions, and laboratory exercises. Both courses culminated with design projects done in teams. In the first semester, the students designed and built a model of an automobile steering and suspension system, and in the second they designed and built an electronic device with a practical application (e.g. an automatic night light or a window-mounted burglar alarm). Successful completion of the projects required application of principles being taught concurrently in the calculus and physics courses. The teams produced written and oral project reports which included explicit statements of how they used principles and ideas from calculus and physics in their work.

• There was a nominal schedule stating which courses (math, physics, and engineering) met during which hours, but the actual schedule changed every week according to which topics were to be emphasized. Most class periods were taught by individual IMPEC faculty members, but several times during each semester ``workshops'' on specific topics (e.g. statistical analysis and angular motion) were team-taught by the full faculty. For example, an RC circuit workshop brought together concepts of electric field, electric potential, energy, differential equations, computer data acquisition, and engineering applications of timers.

• The course instruction made extensive use of active (experiential), cooperative (team-based) learning, de-emphasizing (but not completely eliminating) formal lecturing and individual competition for grades. All laboratories and most homework and in-class activities were done by teams of students. Exercises were set up to provide for both positive interdependence and individual accountability, and periodic self-assessment of team functioning was required.

• Homework and examinations contained a mixture of closed (single-answer) problems that tested understanding of specific methods and skills and open-ended multidisciplinary questions that tested the students' creativity and ability to integrate the full range of course material.

The existence of IMPEC was announced to several hundred randomly selected incoming freshmen and thirty-eight students enrolled for the sequence. Two students dropped it almost immediately; nine got D's or F's in one or another of the sequence courses; seven passed the first semester but chose not to enroll in the second one (primarily due to the nonstandard nature of the course sequence-most engineering students do not take the second-semester physics course in their first year); and 18 successfully completed the two-term sequence.

Evidence from a variety of assessment measures suggests that the quality of learning was high relative to that for students in the standard first-year courses, although problems certainly existed. (We will report detailed program assessment and evaluation results elsewhere.) The final engineering project reports and presentations were surprisingly good, and by their own assessment, participating in the course sequence helped confirm the choice of engineering as a major for a large fraction of the students who successfully completed it. Class attendance was quite high, perhaps owing to the active nature of the class environment. The students seemed particularly appreciative of the ``hands-on physics'' component of the curriculum, and a number reported that their extensive use of the computer as a tool for calculations and report-writing gave them reputations as experts on computer applications among their non-IMPEC classmates. They objected to our occasionally unclear expectations and about the excessive time demands imposed by the sequence, particularly the engineering courses. Some of those intending to pursue chemical or materials engineering degree programs complained about the difficulty of taking the required second semester of chemistry while following the experimental curriculum, and some expressed dissatisfaction that the orientation to the different branches of engineering came too late in the program to help them with their choice of a major.

In the second year of the project, we have dropped the second semester of physics and are teaching introductory chemistry in the first semester and introductory physics in the second, paralleling the standard first-year engineering curriculum. Now that we have a better idea of the students' needs and capabilities, we will be more realistic about our demands and clearer in communicating our expectations. In particular, we will scale down the time demands of the engineering course and provide earlier and more extensive orientation to the different branches of engineering. The level of integration among the disciplines represented will increase, as will the use of instructional software. We will also formalize our assessment and evaluation protocols to a much greater extent, including setting up a control group consisting of students who could not participate in IMPEC because we had to limit enrollment to the number of seats in the classroom.

Obstacles to an Integrated Curriculum

From our own experience and from discussions with colleagues at other institutions engaged in similar efforts, we have come up with the following list of obstacles to the successful implementation of an integrated curriculum.

Student-related problems

• lack study skills, problem-solving skills, test-taking skills, team skills, and communication skills. These skills are important ingredients of success in all engineering curricula but are particularly crucial in some experimental curricula; if skill training is not provided, frustration and failure may result.
• feel resentment if they perceive that they have to do more than their classmates in a traditional curriculum. In many experimental curricula this perception is grounded in reality: professors often begin with unrealistic expectations of the students and/or serious underestimates of the amount of time required to complete the experimental assignments.
• don't like open-endedness and ambiguity but want everything to be black and white. In their view, instructors' expectations should be clearly defined, and all information needed to complete all assignments should be explicitly presented in lectures. Moreover, all problems should have one and only one answer, which it is the instructor's responsibility to know and their job to find.
• resist mandatory group work. Relatively introverted students prefer to work alone, and bright students resent being slowed down and possibly having their grades lowered by academically weak or irresponsible teammates.
• being human, resist any change from what they are used to.

As we will later suggest, these problems are not insurmountable, but solving them takes time and practice. Unfortunately, since student evaluations are an important component of experimental program assessment and evaluation, the almost inevitable occurrence of the problems may be enough to doom fundamentally sound programs in their initial stages.

Faculty-related problems

• don't welcome additional demands on their time, since they're already seriously overextended. They really don't like additional demands on their time for which they get no reward, tangible or otherwise.
• are reluctant to deviate from the standard course syllabus for fear the students will miss something important.
• feel uncomfortable about having someone from another discipline telling them anything about how they should teach their subject.
• don't understand the skill levels of typical undergraduates (especially freshmen) and either set unattainable standards or set high but attainable standards and fail to provide the skill training that would enable the students to meet them.
• feel pressure not to get involved with innovative teaching approaches, fearing that they will be distracted from their research or that they will be accused of ``coddling'' or ``spoon-feeding'' the students.
• may not fully understand or subscribe to the nontraditional instructional methods that characterize the new curriculum, and so may not implement them effectively.
• being human, resist any change from what they are used to.

Other problems

• Assessment and evaluation problems. Running a clean well-controlled educational study in a natural classroom setting is next to impossible. Student grades, retention, and attitudes depend on hundreds of interrelated factors, many of which are out of the instructor's control, and getting statistically significant results from classroom research studies may require tests on large populations over a period of years. As a result, assessment and evaluation of such programs often comes down to ``We tried it and we liked it and most of the students did too,'' which has limited convincing power and no scientific validity.

• Steep learning curves. Faculty members undertaking new teaching methods normally take several years to become adept at them. However, while professors have several years to develop their teaching skills under normal circumstances, experimental teaching programs are usually evaluated on the basis of their first one or two offerings, while the faculty is still learning how to do them. This fact makes assessment and evaluation that much more difficult.

• Heavy resource requirements. The features of innovative educational programs that make them more effective than traditional programs also tend to make them more expensive. The new programs may require smaller classes, more classroom space, renovation of existing classroom space, more faculty contact hours, more teachers, higher teaching loads on current faculty, and/or the purchase of computers, software, specialized audiovisual or experimental equipment, and classroom furniture. Some of the costs are associated with startup, but others require continuing funding.

• Lack of administrative support. Department heads and deans may not have educational reform high on their priority list, and may not be inclined to support innovative programs unless they can be shown to be less costly than traditional ones. Unfortunately, instructional effectiveness and cost effectiveness more often contradictory than complementary. Moreover, even administrators who are strong supporters of quality education are plagued by increasingly tight budgets, insufficient classroom space, and shortage of faculty and staff, making them reluctant to provide the resources needed to sustain programs once the funding agency support runs out. They may even find it hard to justify matching funds that may be required during the initial funding period.

• Difficulty of export. Programs that are highly successful when carried out by the skilled and enthusiastic professors who first develop them may not work well (or at all) in the hands of less committed or less fervent instructors.

What Does It Take to Make An Integrated Program Work?

Faculty commitment and skill

• good teachers who understand and subscribe to the program's philosophy, believe in its potential benefits, and can sell it to the students.

• good and frequent communication among the participating faculty members. (All the better if they also communicate with colleagues engaged in similar efforts on other campuses.)

• an enthusiastic and highly persistent program coordinator who understands the program philosophy and potential benefits and who can sell the program to administrators and outside funding agencies.

• patience and flexibility from the faculty members, especially during the initial stages of the program.

Suitable training of both students and faculty

• training of participating students in the study, teamwork, and communication skills needed to succeed in the experimental program.

• training of participating faculty in the specific teaching techniques and skills needed to make the experimental instructional approach work (including the provision of skill training to the students).

• open and frequent communications between faculty and students to detect and correct any perceived problems.

A convincing demonstration of program effectiveness

• an assessment and evaluation scheme capable of convincingly demonstrating the effectiveness of the integrated program.
• clear and positive evaluation results.
• either evidence that the demonstrated benefits can be achieved with existing institutional resources or a viable plan to raise the required additional support.

Institutional commitment

• external pressures to improve teaching and a university administration (or at least one highly placed administrator) committed to doing so.

• commitment to include the program in the regular institutional operating budget to the extent necessary to maintain it.

• incentives for faculty members to participate in the program-or at least the absence of disincentives.

Acknowledgments

IMPEC is supported by the National Science Foundation SUCCEED Coalition. We are indebted to John Hauser and John Risley for their contributions to planning the program and to Jackie Dietz, Gary Felder, Diane Hall, and Meredith Mauney for their help in designing and implementing the program assessment and evaluation.