Evolution Of Freshman Software Tools Class

Three years ago, the Leonard C. Nelson College of Engineering replaced a traditional programming course for engineers with an applied software tools course. This course was expected to better prepare the students for later courses as well as develop skills that would be useful in their professional careers. Students learn the basics of Excel, Mathcad, and Visual Basic for Applications programming while using them for engineering applications. While the content of the course has not changed significantly since its inception, the delivery has. Much of this change in delivery was driven by student retention. Almost half of the students either dropped the course or earned less than satisfactory grades when the course was first offered. Subsequent modifications have greatly improved retention and student performance without compromising the quality of the course. The paper will focus on the initial design of the course, the retention issues that developed, and the modifications to course delivery that were made to address these issues. Grading policy, structure of the course content, and active learning exercises were keys to improvement. We will show how changes in these facets of course management led to better course outcomes. The paper also discusses the effects of prior computer experience and mathematics preparation on the retention problem. Purpose of the course The software tools course was designed as a replacement for a traditional computerprogramming course. Like many other engineering programs, instruction in a programming language had been required for all engineering majors at the West Virginia University Institute of Technology (WVU Tech), and was offered during the freshman year. This course was taught by the Computer Science faculty, and used C++ as the programming language. Principle topics of this course were language syntax, logic structures, and program development. At the end of the course, students were to have a rudimentary knowledge of programming concepts and the ability to write programs that may be needed in later classes. There was also a general belief among the faculty that the process of learning a programming language would develop logical thinking skills. However, dissatisfaction with the programming course began to develop within several of the engineering programs. Faculty members observed that the programming course was not meeting the needs of the students in terms of providing instruction for computer software they would use later in the curriculum. The course instructors outside of the Computer Science and Computer Engineering/Electrical Engineering programs were not requiring the students to write programs. The faculty that were making use of computer-aided problem solution employed spreadsheets, simulation software, and packages such as Mathcad or Matlab. The situation was similar to what has been found in a national survey of Mechanical Engineering programs.[1] However, the students’ lack of training with software tools meant that course time had to be devoted to providing such instruction. Unfortunately, other common outcomes were that software was not used as effectively as it could have been, or was not used at all. Jones[2] observed a similar 40 COMPUTERS IN EDUCATION JOURNAL COMPUTERS IN EDUCATION JOURNAL 41 pattern at ten other institutions. A number of faculty members were unwilling to sacrifice course time to provide instruction in the use of software. Faculty also noted that the programming instruction was not having any noticeable effect on the development of logical thinking or problem solving. This is also not a novel observation and has been discussed at length by Urban-Lurain and Weinshank.[3] However, recognition of this fact removed a primary rationale for the programming course. Advisory boards for Chemical, Civil and Mechanical Engineering were urging a focus on the use of software packages instead of programming. Their reasoning was that almost all engineers make use of computers and software in their work, but only a limited number actually write programs. This view was in agreement with recent surveys concerning skills needed by industrial practitioners.[4,5] All three boards recommended that the programming course be converted into a software applications course. The advisory board members also expressed the opinion that such a course would be most helpful in meeting ABET 2000 criterion (k) [6], which requires program graduates to demonstrate “ an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.” However, there was an additional reason for changing the freshman computer class. For many years the college of engineering has grappled with retention of students during the freshman year. One issue that the faculty felt was important was the lack of contact between engineering faculty and engineering students during the first year. Thus, students leave engineering programs without having experienced any facet of engineering. It was desired to teach a course that would give engineering faculty contact with engineering students early in their program of study, and introduce these students to engineering concepts. Motivated by the recommendation from their advisory board, the Civil Engineering department wanted to drop the programming course from their curriculum and develop a new one for their majors. Since the Chemical and Mechanical Engineering departments also desired a similar change, the department chairs decided to develop a common course that would replace the programming course. The Electrical Engineering department decided to retain the programming course for their majors, but the Chemical, Civil, and Mechanical Engineering departments included the new course in their curricula. This replacement was made in the fall semester of 2002. The course was initially offered via several reserved sections of the old programming course, but a new designation as GENE 111 Software Tools for Engineers was provided in the spring 2003 semester.