Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T00:51:07.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 10 - Curriculum Design in the Middle Years

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

Susan M. Lord
Affiliation:
University of San Diego
John C. Chen
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Aditya Johri
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Barbara M. Olds
Affiliation:
Colorado School of Mines
Get access

Summary

Introduction

This chapter aims to call attention to the “middle years” of engineering study, which are often overlooked from a research perspective. There have been tremendous efforts over the past two decades focused on the first year and final year of engineering education. Although there have been efforts targeted at the middle years, which we summarize in this chapter, we argue that there is a need for more attention and research-driven innovations for these formative years for the emerging engineer.

The second and third years of engineering study are times when students are focused on their specific engineering disciplines, beginning with the foundational engineering sciences and leading to discipline-specific core courses. Our goal is to highlight creative and successful efforts in these years. We hope this can inspire other instructors to use these examples as models for adaptation to their own disciplines and courses. We focus on several major engineering disciplines, but deliberately leave out computer science because at many institutions this department may not reside in the engineering school. Furthermore, we do not review the myriad literature related to distance and online learning, service-learning, or cooperative education. Our intended audience includes new engineering faculty, all engineering faculty interested in curriculum reform, and engineering education researchers, including graduate students pursuing this field of study. Finally, given our space limitations, we admittedly take a narrow view in focusing primarily on work in the United States.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ABET. (2010). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Baltimore, MD: ABET, Inc.Google Scholar
American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). (1987). A national action agenda for engineering education. Report of the ASEE Task Force on a National Action Agenda for Engineering Education. Washington, DC: ASEE.Google Scholar
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longmans, Green.
Borrego, M. (2007). Development of engineering education as a rigorous discipline: A study of the publication patterns of four coalitions. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., & Hall, T. S. (2010). Diffusion of engineering education innovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in U.S. engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J., Vye, N., & Bateman, H. (2004). Creating high quality learning environments: Guidelines from research on how people learn. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Brawner, C. E., Camacho, M. M., Lord, S. M., Long, R. A., & Ohland, M. W. (2012). Women in industrial engineering: Stereotypes, persistence, and perspectives. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(2), 228–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bright, A., & Phillips, J. R. (1999). The Harvey Mudd engineering clinic past, present, future. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(2), 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruff, D. (2007). Clickers: A classroom innovation. NEA Higher Education ADVOCATE. Retrieved from
Chen, J. C., Kadlowec, J. A., & Whittinghill, D. C. (2008). Using handheld computers for instantaneous feedback to enhance student learning and promote interaction. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(3), 616–624.Google Scholar
Chen, J. C., Whittinghill, D. C., & Kadlowec, J. A. (2010). Classes that click: Fast, rich feedback to enhance student learning and satisfaction. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, K. C, Vanasupa, K., London, B., Harding, T., Savage, R., Hughes, W. & Stolk, J. (2009). Creating a project-based curriculum in materials engineering. Journal of Materials EducationGoogle Scholar
Cheville, R. A., & C. Bunting, C. (2011, Summer). Engineering students for the 21st century: Student development through the curriculum. Advances in Engineering Education, 1–37.Google Scholar
Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, 49(2), 3–6.Google Scholar
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.Google Scholar
Crews, T. B., Ducate, L., Rathel, J. M., Heid, K., & Bishoff, S. T. (2011). Clickers in the classroom: Transforming students into active learners. Research Bulletin 9, Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from
Dahm, K., Newell, J. A., Harvey, R., & Newell, H. (2009). The impact of structured writing and developing awareness of learning preferences on the performance and attitudes of engineering teams. Advances in Engineering Education, 1, 1–17.Google Scholar
Daley, B., Lovell, M. R., Perez, R. A., & Stern, N. E. (2011). Using concept maps within the product design process in engineering: A case study. In Moon, B. M., Hoffman, R. R., Novak, J., & Canas, A. (Eds.), Applied concept mapping: capturing, analyzing, and organizing knowledge (pp. 229–252). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Dochy, F., Segers, M., VandenBossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning & Instruction, 13(5), 533–568.CrossRef
Duderstadt, J. J. (2008). Engineering for a changing world: A roadmap to the future of engineering practice, research, and education. The Millennium Project, The University of Michigan. Retrieved from
Engel, R. S., & Giddens, D. P. (2011). From our reading list to yours: A summary of key reports. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 220–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education: A status report for the National Academics National Research Council Board of Science Education. Retrieved from
Felder, R. M. (1987). On creating creative engineers. Engineering Education, 77, 222.Google Scholar
Felder, R. M. (1995). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. IV. Instructional methods and student responses to them. Journal of Engineering Education, 84(4), 361–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78, 674.Google Scholar
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Foor, C. E., & Walden, S. E. (2009). “Imaginary engineering” or “re-imagined engineering”: Negotiating gendered identities in the borderland of a college of engineering. NWSA Journal, 21(2), 41–64.Google Scholar
Fortenberry, N. L. (2006). An extensive agenda for engineering education research. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(1), 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D. M., Pillay, R., Tjatindi, R. L., & Case, J. M. (2007). Enhancing the learning of fluid mechanics using computer simulations. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 381–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freire, P. (2006). Pedagogy of the oppressed, 30th Anniversary ed. New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
Froyd, J. E. (2005). The engineering education coalitions program. In National Academy of Engineering (Ed.), Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the new century (Appendix A, pp. 82–97). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Froyd, J. E. (2008). White paper on promising practices in undergraduate STEM education. Commissioned paper presented at NRC Workshop on Evidence on Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education. Retrieved from
Froyd, J. E., & Ohland, M. W. (2005). Integrated engineering curricula. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallucci, K. (2007). The case method of instruction, conceptual change and student attitude. Doctoral dissertation, Science Education, North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
Godfrey, E. G., & Parker, L. (2010). Mapping the cultural landscape in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregson, P. H., & Little, T. A. (1999). Using contests to teach design to EE juniors. IEEE Transactions on Education, 42(3), 229–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harb, R. E., & Terry, J. N. (1993). Kolb, Bloom, creativity, and engineering design. In Proceedings of the 1993 ASEE Annual Conference, Urbana, IL.Google Scholar
Hartman, H., & Hartman, M. (2006). Leaving engineering: Lessons from Rowan University's College of Engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(1), 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holloway, B. M., Reed-Rhoads, T., & Groll, L. M. (2010). Defining the “sophomore slump” within the discipline of engineering. In Proceedings of the Global Colloquium on Engineering Education, Singapore.Google Scholar
Holloway, B. M., Reed-Rhoads, T., & Groll, L. (2011). Women as the miner's canary in undergraduate engineering education. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
Hunter, M. S., Tobolowsky, B. F., & Gardner, J. N. (Eds.) (2010). Helping sophomores succeed: Understanding and improving the second-year experience. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hussmann, S., & Jensen, D. (2007). Crazy Car Race Contest: Multicourse design curricula in embedded system design. IEEE Transactions on Education, 50(1), 61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johri, A. (2010). Creating theoretical insights in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 183–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadlowec, J., Bhatia, K., Chandrupatla, T., Chen, J., Constans, E., Hartman, H.,… Zhang, H. (2007). Design integrated in the mechanical engineering curriculum: Benefits and assessment of the engineering clinics. Transactions of the ASME: Journal of Mechanical Design: Special Edition on Design Education, 129(7), 682–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolar, R. L., Muraleetharan, K. K., Mooney, M. A., & Vieux, B. E. (2000). Sooner City – Design across the curriculum. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(1), 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolar, R. L., Sabatini, D. A., & Muraleetharan, K. K. (2009). Sooner City: Reflections on a curriculum reform project. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2009(119), 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kotys-Schwartz, D., Knight, D., & Pawlas, G. (2010). First-year and capstone design projects: Is the bookend curriculum approach effective for skill gain? In Proceedings of the 2010 ASEE Annual Conference, Louisville, KY.Google Scholar
Lattuca, L. R. (2006). Learning to change: A study of NSF-funded planning grants for educational innovation. In Proceedings of the 2006 American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., & Volkwein, J. F. (2006). Engineering change: A study of the impact of EC2000. Baltimore, MD: ABET, Inc.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, J. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, A., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In Kelly, A. & Lesh, R. (Eds.), The handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591–646). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Litzinger, T. A., VanMeter, P., Firetto, C. M., Passmore, L. J., Masters, C. B., Turns, S. R.Zappe, S. E. (2010). A cognitive study of problem solving in statics. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 337–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohmann, J. R., & Jamieson, L. H. (2009). Creating a culture for scholarly and systematic innovation in engineering education: Ensuring U.S. engineering has the right people with the right talent for a global society, Washington, DC: ASEE. Retrieved from
Lord, S. M. (2009). Integrating effective ‘Writing to Communicate’ experiences in engineering courses: Guidelines and examples. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 196–204.Google Scholar
Lord, S. M., & Camacho, M. M. (2007). Effective teaching practices: Preliminary analysis of engineering educators. In Proceedings of the 2007 Frontiers in Education Conference, Milwaukee, WI.Google Scholar
Lord, S. M., & Finelli, C. J. (2010a). Guest editorial for Special issue on applications of engineering education research – Part 1. Developing engineering competencies. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(4), 746–747.Google Scholar
Lord, S. M., & Finelli, C. J. (2010b). Guest editorial for special issue on applications of engineering education eesearch – Part 2. Building engineering communities. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(5), 1031.Google Scholar
Marchese, A. J., Ramachandran, R. P., Hesketh, R. P., & Schmalzel, J. L. (2003). The compet-itive assessment laboratory: Introducing engineering design via consumer product benchmarking. IEEE Transactions on Education, 46(1), 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchese, A. J., Schmalzel, J. L., Mandayam, S. A., & Chen, J. C. (2001). A venture capital fund for undergraduate engineering students at Rowan University. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(4), 589–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehta, Y., & Sukumaran, B. (2007). Integrating service learning in engineering clinics. International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, 2(1), 32–43.Google Scholar
Moon, B. M., Hoffman, R. R., Novak, J., & Cañas, A. (Eds.). (2011). Applied concept mapping: Capturing, analyzing, and organizing knowledge. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
National Engineering Education Delivery System (NEEDS). ; (Accessed August 13, 2012). Also, more information can be found through publications archived by the coalitions.
National Research Council (NRC). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school, Expanded edition. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.), with additional material from the Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of education assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.), Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Newell, J. A., Marchese, A. J, Ramachandran, R. P., Sukumaran, B., & Harvey, R. (1999). Multidisciplinary design and communication: A pedagogical vision. International Journal of Engineering Education, 15(5), 376–382.Google Scholar
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Pellegrino, J. W. (2006). Rethinking and redesigning curriculum, instruction and assessment: What contemporary research and theory suggests. Paper commissioned by the National Center on Education and the Economy for the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce.
Polya, G. (2004). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 533–568.Google Scholar
Prince, M. J., Vigeant, M., & Nottis, K. (2009). A preliminary study on the effectiveness of inquiry-based activities for addressing misconceptions of undergraduate engineering students. Education for Chemical Engineers, 4(2), 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, M., Vigeant, M., & Nottis, K. (2010). Assessing misconceptions of undergraduate engineering students in the thermal sciences. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(4), 880–890.Google Scholar
Quinn, R. G. (1993). Drexel's E4 Program: A different professional experience for engineering students and faculty. Journal of Engineering Education, 82(4), 196–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramachandran, R. P., & Marchese, A. J. (2002). Integration of multidisciplinary design and technical communication: An inexorable link. International Journal of Engineering Education, 18(1), 32–38.Google Scholar
Reed-Rhoads, T., & Imbrie, P. K. (2008). Concept inventories in engineering education. National Academies Board on Science Education, Evidence on Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Commissioned Papers. Retrieved from
Riley, D. (2003). Employing liberative pedagogies in engineering education. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9(2), 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, D. (2011). Engineering thermodynamics and 21st century energy problems: A textbook companion for student engagement. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.Google Scholar
Safoutin, M. J., Atman, C. J., Adams, R., Rutar, T., Kramlich, J. C., & Fridley, J. L. (2000). A design attribute framework for course planning and learning assessment. IEEE Transactions on Education, 43(2), 188–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, R., Chen, K. C., & Vanasupa, L. (2007). Integrating project-based learning throughout the undergraduate engineering curriculum. Journal of STEM Education, 8, 1–13.Google Scholar
Sheppard, S., Gilmartin, S., Chen, H. L., Donaldson, K., Lichtenstein, G., Eris, ÖToye, G. (2010). Exploring the engineering student experience: Findings from the Academic Pathways of People Learning Engineering Survey (APPLES). Technical Report CAEE-TR-10-01. Seattle, WA: Center for the Advancement for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
Sheppard, S., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. (2009). Educating engineers: Designing for the future of the field. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Somerville, M., Anderson, D., Berbeco, H., Bourne, J. R., Crisman, J., Dabby, D.,…Zastavker, Y. (2005). The Olin Curriculum: Thinking toward the future. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(1), 198–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steif, P. S., Lobue, J. M., & Kara, L. B. (2010). Improving problem solving performance by inducing talk about salient problem features. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(4), 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stice, J. E. (1976). A first step toward improved teaching. Engineering Education, 66, 394.Google Scholar
Streveler, R. A., Smith, K. A., & Pilotte, M. K. (2011). Workshop – Aligning content, assessment, and pedagogy in the design of engineering courses. In Proceedings of the 2011 Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, SD.Google Scholar
Turns, J., Atman, C. J., & Adams, R. (2000). Concept maps for engineering education: A cognitively motivated tool supporting varied assessment functions. IEEE Transactions on Education, 43(2), 164–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volkwein, J. F., Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., Strauss, L. C., & Sukhbaatar, J. (2004). Engineering change: A study of the impact of EC2000. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3), 318–328.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1997). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Yadav, A., & Koehler, M. J. (2007). The role of epistemological beliefs in preservice teachers’ interpretation of video cases of early-grade literacy instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 335–361.Google Scholar
Yadav, A., Shaver, G. M., & Meckl, P. (2010). Lessons learned: Implementing the case teaching method in a mechanical engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yildirim, T. P., Shuman, L., & Besterfield-Sacre, M. (2010). Model-eliciting activities: Assessing engineering student problem solving and skill integration processes. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(4), 831–845.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×