A Classification Scheme for “Introduction to Engineering” Courses: Defining First-Year Courses Based on Descriptions, Outcomes, and Assessment

A proliferation of first-year engineering programs exists nationwide. These are often designed from scratch and tend to be “personal courses” – designed by instructors to meet their preferred objectives. Therefore, while they may be prerequisites to second-year courses, first-year engineering programs are not necessarily integrated into an engineering curriculum. Further, since they are often designed with little consideration for best practices in introductory course design, overall outcomes and content vary widely. This leads to the issue of course developers “reinventing the wheel,” considering successful models are not adequately disseminated. The problem is further exacerbated by a lack of definition for first year models. Despite a developer knowing what they want in a course, he or she may not be able to find a course with similar outcomes with nothing more than "first year engineering" as a description. Through an NSF sponsored study, we have developed a classification scheme for first‐year engineering courses. Multiple methods of data collection were employed, including a focus group at a national engineering education conference and a survey of syllabi available on the Internet. A Delphi procedure was used to survey participants in multiple rounds toward building consensus on the classification scheme. A culminating workshop was held at a major conference in which the participants tested the scheme based on courses at their home institution. This paper presents the classification scheme and information of its development. The anticipated impact is that the scheme will allow universities, community colleges, funding agencies, etc. to use the developed classification scheme to accurately determine specific course content when considering credit awarded for transfers, to develop introductory engineering coursework, formulate course foci, and to identify and fund efforts toward appropriate assessment gaps. Methodology This project involves a study and the development of a classification scheme for courses meant to introduce engineering to first-year engineering students. Such courses are typically entitled “Introduction to Engineering” or similar; yet, this course title can describe fundamentally different courses. For instance, an introduction course with weekly presentations from different departments is fundamentally different than one with an outcome to cover programming skills. With the various nuances and contrasts in the content of “Introduction to Engineering” courses between universities, these classes should be classified differently. The lack of first year models only exacerbates the problem. Prior research in the first year of engineering has focused on an understanding of student success directly related to coursework, innovative curriculum design , and specific necessary components of the first year including a solid foundation in math. Brannan and Wankat looked P ge 2.24.2 at different components in the first year, including introductory courses. Little research to classify various first year engineering courses is available, although establishing a common framework seems to be a necessary step toward informing curricular reform and program development. Development of the Scheme Three separate methodologies were used to develop the classification scheme: analysis of syllabi, analysis of results of workshop discussion, and a culminating Delphi study. Using a multiple method approach allowed for different, iterative versions of the scheme to be created. As more information regarding course outcomes became available, gaps began to emerge. Due to the nature of the data collection, these inconsistencies were resolved and, as a result, completed a more accurate picture of first year engineering courses. Method 1: Analysis of syllabi In an effort to identify common concepts and student learning objectives, an Internet search of web sites from universities, colleges and programs was conducted for courses entitled “Introduction to Engineering”, “Engineering 1”, or courses with similar titles. A team of undergraduate research assistants was tasked with executing this Internet search and summarizing results in cooperation with the principal investigator during the 2012 spring semester. Researchers used common search engines to search for “introduction to engineering” and similar terms. When such a course was identified, an additional search for the course syllabus was completed. Each syllabus found was reviewed to ensure that the course was meant to apply as a common engineering course rather than a technically oriented, discipline specific course: for example, delineating between “Introduction to Engineering” and “Introduction to Electrical Engineering.” The Introduction courses may contain significant technical content (such as MATLAB programming), but must be either intended for students in multiple disciplines or have an interdisciplinary focus to be included in the analysis. Further, courses were not to be general orientation courses geared strictly toward understanding the culture of a university or a general introduction to university life – although again, these topics may appear in a course meant to introduce engineering. Finally, courses were not to be those that might introduce engineering to non-engineering majors, such as a “How Things Work” survey course. The team identified 28 syllabi that met the criteria. Each team member was assigned to review 14 (half of the syllabi), thereby reviewing each syllabus twice. Team members listed each outcome from all of the syllabi and developed a mind-map (or concept map) by grouping similar outcomes using post-it notes on a whiteboard. In the event of similar outcomes (for example, Programming in C++ and Computer Programming), group consensus was reached to determine whether the outcomes were identical. If judged to be identical, or for cases of absolutely identical outcomes, a count was maintained. The intent of this initial search was to develop a framework to guide formation of initial questions for and analysis of results for the upcoming Delphi study. The final scheme evolved from this concept map and served as the basis for the Delphi study results. P ge 2.24.3 Method 2: Analysis of results of workshop discussion A workshop for informal discussion of establishing the classification scheme took place at the Frontiers in Education conference in Seattle, WA in October 2012. A Catalyzing Collaborative Conversations (CCC) session was designed and organized jointly by Directors of First Year Engineering programs at Ohio Northern University and Virginia Tech. The session offered an opportunity to convene a community with a common interest in first-year engineering education and establish a set of existing and desired course outcomes for introduction courses as a group. The guided, informal discussion allowed for participants to submit their ideas; the collective ideas of the group then guided conversation toward the development or discovery of other ideas generated through the group discussion. Approximately 24 attendees were seated in groups of 6. Each group was tasked with having a discussion around a set of guiding questions distributed at the beginning of the workshop. In order to capture results, one attendee from each group was designated to serve as a recorder. While the initial intent was to allow a fixed time for small group discussion, then to bring the groups together and have a culminating discussion among the full group, the leaders opted to allow the conversations to conclude naturally, or to continue to (and past) the scheduled end of the session. The set of guiding questions for each group included: What are the objectives of the first-year engineering programs? Why isn’t there a common set of objectives for the first year engineering courses? What would we consider to be the best practices for first year engineering program? For example, should we teach Matlab/Excel rather that introducing students to the disciplines? If students were so successful in High School, why is there so much emphasis on success? What do we mean by success? Are there any of these objectives that are hard to assess? How might we assess them? Is there anything that we think should be a best practice that isn’t because it is too difficult to assess? In a similar fashion to the analysis of syllabi, the team of researchers created a concept map from the written comments. This prototype scheme ultimately supplemented the final version to fill in any gaps formed between the online syllabi and Delphi study. Method 3: Delphi Study The Delphi procedure was employed to engage a group of participants with a common interest to develop shared images based on three rounds of question development and information, with iterative feedback . The initial invitations to participate came from a list generated by a steering committee of faculty in first-year engineering programs, e-mail invitations to the listserve of the First-Year Program Division of ASEE, email invitations to all participants in the 2012 First-Year Engineering Experiences conference, and targeted e-mail requests sent to a variety of universities with first-year engineering programs identified through ASEE and through recent literature. Given a potentially large quantity of information from each round of online surveys P ge 2.24.4 and the eventual expected duplication of responses, a target of approximately 35 participants was selected . Thirty seven participants submitted their interest in participating and 31 participants completed the initial round of data collection while 24 completed second and third rounds. While the first round only consisted of the guiding questions from the workshop and prototype schemes, the second round included asking participants to examine a draft of a scheme developed from responses to the first round in addition to the first two preliminary schemes to ensure that all o