Asee peer logo

Engineering Students For The 21 St Century

Download Paper |

Conference

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Location

Chicago, Illinois

Publication Date

June 18, 2006

Start Date

June 18, 2006

End Date

June 21, 2006

ISSN

2153-5965

Conference Session

Emerging Trends in Engineering Education Poster Session

Page Count

14

Page Numbers

11.576.1 - 11.576.14

DOI

10.18260/1-2--860

Permanent URL

https://peer.asee.org/860

Download Count

76

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Charles Bunting Oklahoma State University

visit author page

Charles Bunting received his Ph.D. from Virginia Tech in 1994. His interests are in Electromagnetic characterization and application of reverberation chambers, computational electromagnetics, and analysis of optical and microwave structures using numerical methods. Currently he teaches at both the undergraduate and graduate level, developing hands-on approaches to teaching electromagnetics.

visit author page

biography

Alan Cheville Oklahoma State University

visit author page

Alan Cheville is an associate professor of electrical engineering at Oklahoma State University. Starting out along the traditional tenure path as a researcher in THz ultrafast opto-electronic devices, his interests are shifting to the larger problem of engineering education. Dr. Cheville is currently engaged in several curriculum reform efforts based on making engineering more relevant to students and emphasizing student development to an equal degree as content.

visit author page

Download Paper |

Abstract
NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract

Engineering Students for the 21st Century: An ongoing case study in curriculum reform at a large state university

Introduction

This paper presents a case study of Engineering Students for the 21st Century (ES21C), an ongoing effort to reform the undergraduate electrical engineering program at Oklahoma State University (OSU). OSU is a large, research intensive, land grant institution with approximately 20,000 students. The School of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECEN) enrolls approximately 400 undergraduate students, primarily Oklahoma residents. The engineering program is similar to programs at peer institutions, with a two year pre-engineering curriculum followed by a two years of discipline-specific courses. Most students take five years to graduate, and the graduation rates of students entering the program as well as student diversity are below national averages. The faculty teaching load is higher than that at many peer universities, and reward and promotion is tied closely to research. Before the reform effort reported here, there had been no major changes to the electrical engineering curriculum in over a decade.

This paper is organized chronologically. The first section reports on the initial reform effort using a trial model that involved five courses that replaced lecture with case studies1,2, problem based learning3, and a modified form of team learning4,5. The second section of this paper discusses how ECEN is beginning implementation of more comprehensive reform to emphasize student development. The comprehensive reform, funded through a National Science Foundation Department Level Reform Implementation award, avoids many of the pitfalls and errors made in the initial reform effort.

Preliminary Curriculum Reform Efforts

In late 2002 curriculum reevaluation was started through support of a National Science Foundation Planning Grant for Department Level Reform of Engineering Education. The reform effort was based on the hypothesis that learning was enhanced when engineering courses were relevant to students’ existing preconceptions of engineering, and students’ experiences in the classroom match their preconceptions. Relevance was created by focusing reform around three goals. First, student engagement and attitude would be improved by changing courses from a traditional lecture format to one which emphasized in-depth analysis of authentic problems by student teams. Reformed courses sacrificed breadth of coverage for depth of understanding. The second goal was to make students more independent learners who relied less on the instructor for understanding and more on peers, books, or computer models. Courses reduced the emphasis on summative evaluation, and replaced it with formative evaluation. The third goal was to provide experiences that mimic the environment of practicing engineers by incorporating team projects emphasizing communication and peer evaluation.

Bunting, C., & Cheville, A. (2006, June), Engineering Students For The 21 St Century Paper presented at 2006 Annual Conference & Exposition, Chicago, Illinois. 10.18260/1-2--860

ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2006 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015