Development of a First-Year Engineering Course Classification Scheme

Kenneth Reid; Tyler J Hertenstein; Graham Talmadge Fennell; Elizabeth Marie Spingola; David Reeping

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Publication Date: June 23, 2013
Start Date: June 23, 2013
End Date: June 26, 2013
ISSN: 2153-5965
Conference Session: FPD 3: Research on First-Year Courses
Tagged Division: First-Year Programs
Page Count: 9
Page Numbers: 23.414.1 - 23.414.9
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--19428
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/19428
Download Count: 429

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Kenneth Reid Ohio Northern University

visit author page

Ken Reid is the Director of First-Year Engineering, Director of Engineering Education and an Associate Professor in Electrical and Computer Engineering and Computer Science at Ohio Northern University. He was the seventh person in the U.S. to receive a Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Purdue University. He is active in engineering within K-12, serving on the TSA Boards of Directors and over 10 years on the IEEE-USA Precollege Education Committee. He was named the Herbert F. Alter Chair of Engineering in 2010. His research interests include success in first-year engineering, introducing entrepreneurship into engineering, international service and engineering in K-12.

visit author page

biography

Tyler J Hertenstein Ohio Northern University

visit author page

Tyler is a sophomore studying engineering education at Ohio Northern University, where he currently resides as president and co-founder of a student chapter of ASEE. Previously, Tyler has co-authored two papers for the 2012 ASEE North-Central conference. At ONU, tyler is also involved in the Dean's advisory team, Alpha Lambda Delta, Phi Eta Sigma, the yearly STEM day, and Northern Engineers without Boundaries.

visit author page

author page

Graham Talmadge Fennell Ohio Northern University

biography

Elizabeth Marie Spingola Virginia Tech Department of Engineering Education

visit author page

lizabeth is a Junior at Ohio Northern University. She is the Project Manager of an organization at school that is designing and fabricating a model Mars Rover for a local museum. She is, also, has leadership roles in Phi Sigma Rho, the engineering sorority as ONU. Other organizations she belongs to include: SWE, ASME, Flute Choir, JEC and more.

visit author page

author page

David Reeping Ohio Northern University orcid.org/0000-0002-0803-7532

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Development of a First-Year Course Classification SchemeA proliferation of first-year engineering programs exists nationwide. These are often designedfrom scratch and tend to be “personal courses” – designed by instructors to cover what they feelis important. Therefore, while they may be prerequisites to second-year courses, first-yearengineering programs are not necessarily integrated into the curriculum. Further, since they areoften designed with little consideration for existing models, overall outcomes and content varywidely. This leads to, first, the issue of course developers “reinventing the wheel” as successfulmodels are not adequately disseminated. The problem is exacerbated by a lack of definition offirst year models: a developer may know what they want in a course, but how do they find acourse with similar outcomes with nothing more than “first-year engineering” as a description?Second, with little focus on specification of models for these courses, many courses become agrab bag of unrelated topics. The course meant to introduce engineering to a student may insteaddissuade them from continuing as they try to understand what engineering is.This paper will present results of an NSF project to define models of first-year engineeringcourses with associated outcomes. For example, courses may be best classified as engineeringdesign, engineering analysis, professional skills or some other classification system based oncourse outcomes.Results will be presented from a multifaceted approach. An analysis of approximately 30 syllabifor First-Year or Introduction to Engineering courses have been examined to identify course /learning objectives and any data on assessment methods, and these objectives grouped toestablish an initial classification scheme. A concurrent effort uses an Imen-Delphi procedure todefine and categorize expected outcomes and assessment methods in first-year courses. Multiplerounds of survey data will be collected and analyzed to build a similar classification scheme.Finally, an informal workshop will take place at a national conference to build consensus amonginterested parties; results from this workshop will be used to inform the Delphi study as itprogresses from the initial round to one where the classification scheme is identified andfinalized.After establishing the classification schemes, a workshop will be held in which participantsidentify assessment methods and gaps in those methods in assessing each component of theseintroduction courses.Specific goals include (1) categorize and define a classification scheme for first-year courses,including expected outcomes and assessment methods and (2) identify the assessment gaps.This paper will present results of the study, including results of the analysis of syllabi, the initialresults from the first workshop and results from the initial pass of the Delphi study, indicating aninitial classification scheme and identification of assessment methods and potential assessmentgaps.

Citation
Format

Reid, K., & Hertenstein, T. J., & Fennell, G. T., & Spingola, E. M., & Reeping, D. (2013, June), Development of a First-Year Engineering Course Classification Scheme Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia. 10.18260/1-2--19428

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -             Development of a First-Year Course Classification SchemeA proliferation of first-year engineering programs exists nationwide. These are often designedfrom scratch and tend to be “personal courses” – designed by instructors to cover what they feelis important. Therefore, while they may be prerequisites to second-year courses, first-yearengineering programs are not necessarily integrated into the curriculum. Further, since they areoften designed with little consideration for existing models, overall outcomes and content varywidely. This leads to, first, the issue of course developers “reinventing the wheel” as successfulmodels are not adequately disseminated. The problem is exacerbated by a lack of definition offirst year models: a developer may know what they want in a course, but how do they find acourse with similar outcomes with nothing more than “first-year engineering” as a description?Second, with little focus on specification of models for these courses, many courses become agrab bag of unrelated topics. The course meant to introduce engineering to a student may insteaddissuade them from continuing as they try to understand what engineering is.This paper will present results of an NSF project to define models of first-year engineeringcourses with associated outcomes. For example, courses may be best classified as engineeringdesign, engineering analysis, professional skills or some other classification system based oncourse outcomes.Results will be presented from a multifaceted approach. An analysis of approximately 30 syllabifor First-Year or Introduction to Engineering courses have been examined to identify course /learning objectives and any data on assessment methods, and these objectives grouped toestablish an initial classification scheme. A concurrent effort uses an Imen-Delphi procedure todefine and categorize expected outcomes and assessment methods in first-year courses. Multiplerounds of survey data will be collected and analyzed to build a similar classification scheme.Finally, an informal workshop will take place at a national conference to build consensus amonginterested parties; results from this workshop will be used to inform the Delphi study as itprogresses from the initial round to one where the classification scheme is identified andfinalized.After establishing the classification schemes, a workshop will be held in which participantsidentify assessment methods and gaps in those methods in assessing each component of theseintroduction courses.Specific goals include (1) categorize and define a classification scheme for first-year courses,including expected outcomes and assessment methods and (2) identify the assessment gaps.This paper will present results of the study, including results of the analysis of syllabi, the initialresults from the first workshop and results from the initial pass of the Delphi study, indicating aninitial classification scheme and identification of assessment methods and potential assessmentgaps.
AU  - Kenneth Reid
AU  - Tyler J Hertenstein
AU  - Graham Talmadge Fennell
AU  - Elizabeth Marie Spingola
AU  - David Reeping
CY  - Atlanta, Georgia
DA  - 2013/06/23
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Development of a First-Year Engineering Course Classification Scheme
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/19428
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--19428
ER  -