Venturing into Discipline-specific Activities for Different Sections of the Same Introductory Engineering Design Course

Amanda Christine Bordelon; Susan L. Thackeray; Sean S. Tolman; Jane M. Loftus

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access
Location: Virtual On line
Publication Date: June 22, 2020
Start Date: June 22, 2020
End Date: June 26, 2021
Conference Session: First-Year Programs: Major Choice
Tagged Division: First-Year Programs
Page Count: 11
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--35486
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/35486
Download Count: 447

Paper Authors

biography

Amanda Christine Bordelon Utah Valley University orcid.org/0000-0003-2616-6730

visit author page

Amanda Bordelon, PhD, P.E. joined Utah Valley University's faculty in the new Civil Engineering program in August 2018. She has all of her degrees in Civil and Environmental Engineering emphasized in transportation infrastructure and construction materials at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Illinois BS 2005, MS 2007 and PhD 2011. She was also formerly a faculty member at University of Utah for 7 years teaching civil materials and concrete testing. Her research has been in fiber-reinforced concrete overlay pavement design and has tinkered in specialty concrete materials and evaluating test methods that assess quality of constructed materials. She is currently actively involved in professional societies and committees through the American Concrete Institute National and Intermountain Chapter, Transportation Research Board, and International Society for Concrete Pavements. She enjoys leading hands-on laboratory learning of how construction materials are made and helping the new civil engineering students learn the tools to design roadway infrastructure.

visit author page

biography

Susan L. Thackeray Utah Valley University

visit author page

Dr. Susan L. Thackeray is tenured-track faculty in the College of Engineering and Technology at Utah Valley University. She is recognized through multiple awards for her research in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Susan holds a fellowship with Stanford University and a doctorate from Northeastern University, Boston.

visit author page

biography

Sean S. Tolman Utah Valley University

visit author page

Sean S. Tolman is an Associate Professor in the Mechanical Engineering Program at Utah Valley University in Orem, UT. He earned his BSME degree at Brigham Young University in 2002 and a MSME degree from the University of Utah in 2008 before returning to BYU to pursue doctoral studies completing a PhD in 2014. He spent 8 years working in the automotive safety industry specializing in forensic accident reconstruction before becoming a professor. He teaches courses in engineering design and solid mechanics.

visit author page

biography

Jane M. Loftus Utah Valley University

visit author page

Jane Loftus is an Associate Professor in the Department of Developmental Mathematics and an Affiliated Faculty member for the Department of Engineering at Utah Valley University, Orem, Utah. She received her B.S. in Applied Mathematics from the University of Paisley, Scotland. She then moved to Utah where she received her M.S. in Mathematics and her Ph.D. (ABD) in Electrical Engineering from Brigham Young University, Provo Utah. In addition to working in industry in product development Jane is involved in ongoing research of image reconstruction and is currently working on research in the field of fMRI imaging in conjunction with Dr. Neal Bangerter at Imperial College, London, UK.
Jane recently became a Fellow of the HEA and is a strong advocate for experiential and engaged learning.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

This complete evidence-based practice paper will describe two approaches implemented of a design-based introduction to engineering course: a discipline-specific and a generalized mechanical engineering approach. The Introduction to Engineering course is a three hour per week hands-on design class with the goal of providing students with the feeling of what engineering is like through engaging activities related to engineering and developing skills like teamwork, communication, and following a design process. There has been conflicting agreement on whether this type of class would excite, prepare, or retain more students if it were delivered as a discipline-specific versus as a universal cross-disciplinary version.

For this study, students were assessed with a Likert-based survey asking questions about how they felt the class prepared them or engaged them for a career in engineering and if they planned to remain in their program. The survey was given at the end of the semester they took their respective Introduction to Engineering course. Statistical p-values were calculated from the Likert scores with respect to the discipline area of the student, the instructor, the semester, and the demographics of the student class population. The course was delivered in one semester as a generalized mechanical-engineering focused design approach and then in a second semester as the three discipline-specific (civil, electrical, and mechanical) approaches. The course was co-taught by three instructors (from civil, electrical, and mechanical), and for the generalized mechanical approach all three instructors gave the same lectures, assignments, and in-class activities. In both semesters, the core of the course involved having students complete a group design process and individual written reports. In the generalized mechanical approach, students also have lectures and assignments related to learning Excel, SolidWorks, hands-on machine tools, and electrical wiring scenarios using Arduinos. In the civil-specific approach, for example, the students learned AutoCAD instead of SolidWorks, and performed activities and assignments such as building a truss, testing water quality, performing a traffic study, and attending a public planning commission meeting instead of using Arduinos. The students were unfortunately not notified during registration of which discipline-specific version they enrolled in, so all three sections in both semesters had a distribution of the student’s preferred programs.

The survey results after 1 semester of each delivery method (114 students completing the survey from both semesters) did not show any statistical difference between the discipline-specific and the generalized version of the course. The survey regardless of which approach was delivered did verify that 65% of the students felt it was engaging, 72% said it increased their interest in a career in engineering, and 84% stated they plan to continue in their respective program. The plan is to continue with the discipline-specific versions of the course for at least another year to gather additional statistical data. The survey is also intended to be sent out to the same students in their junior year to re-evaluate how they felt the introductory course engaged and prepared them for their remaining courses.

Citation
Format

Bordelon, A. C., & Thackeray , S. L., & Tolman, S. S., & Loftus, J. M. (2020, June), Venturing into Discipline-specific Activities for Different Sections of the Same Introductory Engineering Design Course Paper presented at 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual On line . 10.18260/1-2--35486

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - This complete evidence-based practice paper will describe two approaches implemented of a design-based introduction to engineering course: a discipline-specific and a generalized mechanical engineering approach.  The Introduction to Engineering course is a three hour per week hands-on design class with the goal of providing students with the feeling of what engineering is like through engaging activities related to engineering and developing skills like teamwork, communication, and following a design process.  There has been conflicting agreement on whether this type of class would excite, prepare, or retain more students if it were delivered as a discipline-specific versus as a universal cross-disciplinary version.  

For this study, students were assessed with a Likert-based survey asking questions about how they felt the class prepared them or engaged them for a career in engineering and if they planned to remain in their program.  The survey was given at the end of the semester they took their respective Introduction to Engineering course. Statistical p-values were calculated from the Likert scores with respect to the discipline area of the student, the instructor, the semester, and the demographics of the student class population.  The course was delivered in one semester as a generalized mechanical-engineering focused design approach and then in a second semester as the three discipline-specific (civil, electrical, and mechanical) approaches.  The course was co-taught by three instructors (from civil, electrical, and mechanical), and for the generalized mechanical approach all three instructors gave the same lectures, assignments, and in-class activities.  In both semesters, the core of the course involved having students complete a group design process and individual written reports.  In the generalized mechanical approach, students also have lectures and assignments related to learning Excel, SolidWorks, hands-on machine tools, and electrical wiring scenarios using Arduinos.  In the civil-specific approach, for example, the students learned AutoCAD instead of SolidWorks, and performed activities and assignments such as building a truss, testing water quality, performing a traffic study, and attending a public planning commission meeting instead of using Arduinos.  The students were unfortunately not notified during registration of which discipline-specific version they enrolled in, so all three sections in both semesters had a distribution of the student’s preferred programs.  

The survey results after 1 semester of each delivery method (114 students completing the survey from both semesters) did not show any statistical difference between the discipline-specific and the generalized version of the course.  The survey regardless of which approach was delivered did verify that 65% of the students felt it was engaging, 72% said it increased their interest in a career in engineering, and 84% stated they plan to continue in their respective program.  The plan is to continue with the discipline-specific versions of the course for at least another year to gather additional statistical data.  The survey is also intended to be sent out to the same students in their junior year to re-evaluate how they felt the introductory course engaged and prepared them for their remaining courses.

AU  - Amanda Christine Bordelon
AU  - Susan L. Thackeray 
AU  - Sean  S. Tolman
AU  - Jane M. Loftus
CY  - Virtual On line 
DA  - 2020/06/22
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Venturing into Discipline-specific Activities for Different Sections of the Same Introductory Engineering Design Course
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/35486
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--35486
ER  -