Paper ID #8743

Review of a First-Year Engineering Design Course

Dr. Lydia Prendergast, Rutgers, School of Engineering

Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs and Engineering Education

Prof. Eugenia Etkina, Rutgers University

I am a professor of science education at the Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University.

Page 24.1054.1

c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014

 Review of a First-Year Engineering Design Course
Abstract
Research shows that the first year experience affects retention and success of engineering
students. Many studies document positive effects of interventions that involve active learning
approaches. In this paper we summarize the factors affecting retention and satisfaction in
engineering, provide an overview of active learning methodologies, and describe an intervention
that combines three of such methodologies (project-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and
collaborative learning) in a first-year introduction to engineering course at Rutgers – School of
Engineering, a mid-sized engineering institution. The course had positive effects on retention and
satisfaction of engineering students. Specifically we found that three-year retention increased by
19%; and students reported higher satisfaction with their experiences compared to the students
enrolled in a traditionally taught introduction to engineering course. These findings support
previous studies that an engaging first year experience can have dramatic effects on the future
engineers and offer some practical recommendations for the institutions that consider similar
reforms.

I. Introduction
An engaging first-year engineering experience is crucial in encouraging excitement, retention,
and satisfaction in engineering.1,2 The development of an engaging experience often involves
instructional reforms, specifically the introduction of active learning. Hake defines active
learning or interactive engagement as: methods designed at least in part to promote conceptual
understanding through interactive engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on
(usually) activities which yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or
instructors, all as judged by their literature descriptions.3 Project-based courses and other active
learning-based strategies are becoming increasingly common interventions used to improve
retention and student satisfaction in engineering programs across the nation.4,5,6 Educators and
practitioners use various active learning methodologies in reforming the first year curriculum.
With several available active learning methods, choosing one or more specific reform methods,
implementing them, and assessing their effectiveness can be a complex task.7,8

It is common for engineering institutions to have liberal arts subjects such subjects as calculus,
physics, chemistry, and other general education requirements dominate the first year engineering
curriculum, leaving students with very little exposure to engineering and a lack of opportunity
for seeing engineering as a dynamic field. In order to increase engineering exposure, to improve
retention, and make a connection between the first year courses to engineering practice, we
created an interactive project-based engineering design course, called Engineering Exploration,
at Rutgers University – School of Engineering (RU-SOE) as a replacement to the traditional
first-year introductory course.9,10 The traditional course is an attendance based lecture type
course that surveys the engineering majors. We found that for students who took the Engineering
Exploration course instead of the traditional course, that three-year retention increased by 19%;
and students reported higher satisfaction with their experiences.
Page 24.1054.2
The goals of this paper are to document the effects of the Engineering Exploration course on the
first year engineering students who took it, and to understand why the course affected student
persistence in and satisfaction about engineering the way that it did.

II. Literature Review

In this section we will explore the elements needed to create a dynamic engineering learning
experience including: what engineers need to learn, factors affecting retention, active learning
reform pedagogies, the engineering design process, and communication of ideas.

What Engineers Need to Learn: Engineers must be problem solvers, creative thinkers, and
leaders in order to be successful in the profession.11 For this to happen, students need to stay in
engineering programs, be pleased with their choice of major, and develop engineering
identity.12,13,14 According to ABET’s criterion for accrediting engineering programs, all programs
seeking accreditation must demonstrate that they satisfy the General Criteria for Baccalaureate
Level Programs, including Student Outcomes and Curriculum. Criterion 3- Student Outcomes
indicates that future engineers should develop mastery of the traditional STEM concepts, the
foundations of the engineering design process, and professional skills like team work, leadership,
and communication before they enter the workforce.15,16,17,18,19 ABET’s Criterion 3 addresses the
traditional STEM related skills (a-e) and professional skills (f-k).

ABET Criterion 3. Student Outcomes: The program must have documented student outcomes
that prepare graduates to attain the program educational objectives.

(a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering;

(b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data;
(c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic
constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety,
manufacturability, and sustainability;
(d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams; and
(e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
(f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility;
(g) an ability to communicate effectively;
(h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global,
economic, environmental, and societal context;
(i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning;
(j) a knowledge of contemporary issues;
(k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for
engineering practice.

Additionally, Criterion 5-Curriculum states that: Students must be prepared for engineering
practice through a curriculum culminating in a major design experience based on the knowledge
and skills acquired in earlier course work and incorporating appropriate engineering standards
and multiple realistic constraints. Therefore an engineering experience that introduces the
students to the practice of engineering should speak to the acquisition and use of traditional
Page 24.1054.3

skills, development of professional skills, and the fluency of the engineering design process.
With these learning goals in mind, engineering educators are challenged to design curricular
interventions that will help students develop these requisite skills. In the development of such a
curricular intervention, it is important to understand that attrition can negatively impact the
quality and quantity of qualified students pursuing engineering.

Factors affecting persistence in engineering: Attrition is a serious problem in engineering

education. NSF reported a national engineering graduation rate of 60% for the students who start
in engineering major and graduate with an engineering degree.20 This means that nearly half of
the students who set out to pursue engineering never achieve that goal. In order to increase the
quality and quantity of qualified engineers entering the workforce, this figure needs
improvement. Several factors affect persistence in engineering. Some of those, such as curricular
rigor and the development of engineering community relate to the educational process.21 Others,
such as race, gender, and interest in other fields depend on a particular student.22,23,24
Engineering identity and self-efficacy are the factors that are influenced both by an individual
student and the educational process.24,13 The first year curriculum is where many universities
start tackling all of these retention-related factors.4,25,26,27 Developing experiences in the first year
that actively engage the student in learning, such as an integrated curriculum, updated teaching
methods, or a cornerstone course, can be used to counteract attrition by improving the
educational process and addressing issues related to student specific variables.28,29,30,31,32
Educational experiences that engage the student in learning include active learning pedagogies.

Active Learning Pedagogies: Teaching and learning methods need to evolve to meet the needs of
today’s students. Traditional or deductive teaching methods like lecturing (or chalk and talk) and
routine problem solving have been in place for centuries, and have been shown to be ineffective
in helping students learn.3,25,30,33,34 Conversely, inductive or active learning pedagogies are likely
to be more effective.35 Active learning is an instructional style where the student is actively
engaged in constructing her/his own knowledge in an environment created by the instructor as
opposed to passively listening to the instructor transmitting the new knowledge. Active learning
reform strategies including inquiry-based learning, case-based teaching, problem-based learning,
project-based learning, collaborative learning, and integrated curricula are described below.

Inquiry-based learning is based on the investigation scientific or engineering questions,

scenarios or problems. Those ‘inquiring’ will identify and research issues and questions to
develop their STEM knowledge or solutions, guided by an instructor. Inquiry-based learning
activities are designed for students to investigate, apply prior knowledge, examine, broaden
conceptual knowledge, and to assess the growth of developing new knowledge.36,37,38,39 Inquiry-
based learning is most effective when students are able to make a connection between their
learning and real life applications.40,41

Using an authentic engineering scenario provides a connection between STEM concepts and life.
Case-based learning is where students analyze accounts of real world STEM related problems.
In the process of analyzing this highly contextualized problem, underlying scientific concepts
comes into play.42 In some instances, students work together in case-based learning.
Additionally, institutions with custom facilities can use case-based learning to construct
authentic engineering problems.43
Page 24.1054.4

The acronym PBL refers to one of two often confused active learning strategies: problem or
project based learning. Problem-based learning is where students work in teams on open-ended
ill-structured problems in order to identify learning outcomes and needs. Instead of a traditional
professor, who would normally provide ample un-contextualized information, the professor acts
as a facilitator as the learners tackle the contextualized problem. Solving this problem could be a
pencil-paper activity, it could include working out a logistical or technical issue, or it could
include doing engineering related research to determine solutions.44,45,46 With problem-based
learning, students could work independently, in pairs, or in groups.

In project-based learning, often confused with problem-based learning, students complete a

project, typically in a group, that is well-defined, semi-defined, or ill-defined. 47 The project is
something tangible and must use a hands-on approach.46,48,49 Project-based learning can be very
exciting for students. With this type of learning strategy, working on a project goes hand-in-hand
with collaborative learning. 39 Students in a team work together to identify: what they already
know, what they need to know, and what resources are needed to produce a feasible solution.50
This excitement of project-based learning also comes with realistic price tags including: small
section sizes, financial costs of the projects themselves, engaging instruction, challenges of
group dynamics, and more.

The decision to have students work with each other, as noted in case-based learning and PBL,
can have considerable and lasting effects. Collaborative learning is a strategy where the
classroom activities are organized into academic and social learning experiences, where students
work together towards solving a particular goal. Collaborative learning is designed to be, as the
name suggests, collaborative rather than the competitive nature of individual learning. In this
method, students learn in part by benefitting from each other’s knowledge and ideas.51,52,53
Collaborative learning can assist in the development of engineering community and engineering
identity. Owing to students’ individual differences in personality, skills, and abilities, the design
and management of collaborative learning is complex with several benefits and challenges.
54,55,56,57
Collaborative learning is often used in conjunction with case-based learning, project-
based and problem-based learning.

Many times, when solving a problem or project, several STEM concepts could be involved
concurrently. Another method of reform includes combining content knowledge from several
subjects at the same time. An integrated curriculum is one where math, science, engineering, and
sometimes English courses are taught in an ‘integrated’ format. These courses may be taught
together as combined courses, or taught separately, but with corresponding content.6 For
example, in a math course, vector addition may be introduced just prior to vectors in the physics
course. Often in integrated curricula, the introductory engineering course spans all subjects
(engineering, math, science, English, art, etc.). An integrated engineering curriculum refers to the
combination of disciplines concerning course content, learning outcomes, and/or projects.58
When designing a dynamic engineering learning experience, in addition to using active learning
strategies, it is important for engineering students to develop mastery of the engineering design
process.

The Engineering Design Process: Engineering by definition is the application of scientific and
mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of
Page 24.1054.5

efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems. The application of the
science and math conceptual knowledge to solve a problem is a part of the engineering design
process.2,6,48,59 Engineering design begins with the identification of a design problem, followed
by translation into required science/math concepts, see Figure 1. At this point, the critical step
occurs of applying the STEM concepts to fit within the engineering design constraints. This step
is critical because it is the science (or math) that drives the engineering design decision, as
opposed to ‘guess and check’. Once the scientific concepts have been used to drive the
engineering design decision, a physical model is formulated. The mastery of and comfort in
using the engineering design process is a requisite skill for engineering students to cultivate, as it
is a fundamental element of a successful engineering career.60,61 Lastly, engineers must
demonstrate their depth of knowledge by communicating their ideas and design decisions to their
relative audience.

Communication of ideas and professional skill

development: The philosophies of Engineering
Education began to grow and drastically
transform in the mid 1990’s, valuing a more
wholesome engineer. Surely the focus continues
to include the traditional solidly rooted STEM
skills, but also includes professional
development skills such as: communication,
teamwork, global and ethical awareness, and
skills for life-long learning.12 In addition to
learning the foundations of design, helping future
engineers master such professional skills as team
work, leadership, and communication before
they enter the workforce is key.15,16,17
Communication of ideas in engineering takes the
form of lab reports, technical papers, research
papers, and oral presentations. The
communication of ideas in written and oral Figure 1. Engineering Design Process
format is a culmination and demonstration of the
depth of conceptual and process level understanding of STEM concepts and the engineering
design process.18,19

III. Chosen Reform

As there are many options when designing an engineering learning experience, choosing
appropriate reform measures must be done with careful thought and logistical planning. At RU-
SOE, we assessed the traditional introductory course, examined logistical constrains, and chose
reform measures for a new course.

Traditional Course: The traditionally taught course, called Introduction to Orientation Lectures,
is currently the required survey course in the engineering curriculum. The course is in the format
of eight 1hr 20min attendance-based seminars where a faculty member from each engineering
department talks to the students about that specific engineering major. The course is held in a
lecture hall, serving over 100 students in each section. With each seminar, the faculty member
Page 24.1054.6

uses a slide show as a visual descriptive aid. This attendance based course is worth 1cr and is
graded as ‘pass’ or ‘no-credit’. The traditional lecture format is a cost effective method to
provide a large group of students with basic information about the available engineering majors.
However, the traditional lecture format is a completely passive experience for students. The
passive lecture style in conjunction with the purely attendance-based course grade can lead to
inattention, boredom, and attrition, as referred to by Ercolano as “Sleep 101”.62 This traditional
lecture style seminar course requires pedagogical enhancement in order to address concerns
related to retention, academic success, satisfaction, and the needs of the engineering workforce.

Reformed Course: The goals of Engineering Exploration are threefold: to introduce students to
the different engineering majors, to counteract factors relating to attrition, and to prepare
students for success in engineering. To achieve these goals, we designed Engineering
Exploration with a combination of active learning strategies. This new course borrows elements
from project-based learning, inquiry-based learning, collaborative learning, and in part from an
integrated curriculum. Additionally, the engineering design process is an integral component in
the curriculum. Engineering Exploration utilizes discipline-based design projects to introduce the
various engineering majors to the students and incorporate scientific driven design within
engineering constraints.

We chose semi-structured project-based collaborative learning approaches for the hands-on

nature that facilitates engagement and increased learning potential. Project-based learning can be
well-defined, semi-structure, or ill-defined. Well-defined projects, while easier to facilitate, can
leave the students with a lack of development of their own approaches to solving the problem at
hand. Engineers need to be self-starters, capable of working independently and in groups, and
able to think out of the box. Ill-defined projects would work well in this regard. However ill-
defined projects would require that ample supplies and equipment be available to accommodate
the broad spectrum of solutions. Semi-structured projects allow the students to generate the
approach and do relevant conceptual research which are both needed to solve the problem. The
semi-structured projects typically have a few valid outcomes which ensure that certain STEM
concepts will be addressed. With only a few valid outcomes, the semi-structured approach also
narrows the required supplies and equipment. Students working in groups allows for them to
learn from each other and build off of individual strengths. This provides for demonstration of
individual strengths, supports the increase in overall knowledge of the group, and nurtures
collaboration.

The discipline-based engineering design projects are contextualized within realistic engineering
problems. The discipline-based nature exposes the students to the various engineering majors.
The contextualization of the engineering problem with an authentic topic is important in
generating interest in a real world engineering issue. This enables students to develop a sense of
importance and knowledge about the impact that their education and career can have on the
world. As students move through the project, they will come to certain scientific or mathematical
concepts that are required to continue. A common term for this concept that is used for adult
learners is ‘the need to know’, which was developed by Malcolm Knowles.63 The design projects
require the use and application of scientific concepts. Only with the understanding of the relevant
concepts, will students be able to make the important engineering design decisions and complete
the project. Understanding that science drives engineering design is important in relating their
Page 24.1054.7

first-year core courses in science and mathematics to their future coursework in engineering.
Each project concludes with some form of communication, usually in the form of a technical
report and an oral presentation. The technical report is modeled after a scientific research paper.
While the Engineering Exploration curriculum does not purely model and integrated curriculum,
several relevant topics are addressed simultaneously. An example of the curriculum integration is
the use of scientific concept knowledge, the engineering design process, and technical writing all
within one project. The use of technical writing also ties into the first year writing requirement
for all engineers. Students must utilize initiative, design, testing, analysis, cycle revision,
communication, and teamwork. Group projects that are framed as contextualized engineering
problems which require the application of scientific concepts in order to make engineering
design decisions, followed by communication of these ideas comprise the backbone of the
Engineering Exploration curriculum.

In contrast to the traditional course, Engineering Exploration has a much richer and engaging
curriculum. Engineering Exploration is a 3 credit course and bears a letter grade. Student work is
assessed both in group format and individually. This allows students to shine individually and to
support each other to have success as a group. The class size is approximately 32 students per
section, as opposed to the 100+ of the traditional course. A summary of both courses can be seen
in Table 1.
Table 1: Traditional vs. Reformed Course
Course Traditional Course Reformed Course
structure Orientation Lectures Engineering Exploration
Credits 1cr 3cr
Grading Pass/No-credit Graded (A through F)
Style Lecture/seminar Project based
Class type Lecture hall Group based classroom
Class size 100-150 32

IV. Curriculum
In this section, we will review the projects used in Engineering Exploration, a sample of one of
the projects, a sample of the technical writing.

Projects: As noted in the previous section, each project follows the same basic regiment, namely:
the group project is framed as a contextualized engineering problem which requires the
application of scientific concepts in order to make engineering design decisions, followed by
communication of these ideas. This is the backbone of the Engineering Exploration curriculum.
In the Engineering Exploration curriculum, there are there are 4-5 projects completed each term.
Below is a list (A-H) of the projects that were used in the course at some point.

A. Bridge construction: construct a bridge out of balsa wood to withstand highest load.
B. Building construction: construct a building out of balsa wood to withstand largest
earthquake tremors (simulated via unidirectional shake table).
C. Circuit design: design a basic circuit with resistors to match specified design constraints.
D. Reverse engineering a coffee maker: dissect a coffee maker to understand how it works as
well as perform a heating efficiency comparison on two different models of coffee makers.
Page 24.1054.8

E. Mousetrap racecar design: design a car powered by a mousetrap to go the fastest or furthest.
F. Solar panel circuit design: design a circuit (resistors) that will optimize power output of a
solar panel.
G. Stress/strain data analysis: analyze stress strain data in excel to find the approximate
modulus of elasticity value.
H. Blood pressure analysis: collect real-time blood pressure data and analyze it in Excel to
determine typical BP and other variables, relating them to biomedical applications.

As the semesters progressed, we gained useful in-class experience of how the course runs. With
our classroom experience and student feedback, we modified the projects and activities to
maximize the effects of the course.7,8 A summary of the projects completed in each term that the
course has been offered is seen in Table 2.

Table 2: Summary of Engineering Exploration Projects by semester

Semester Projects
Fall 2009 Bridge, Circuits, Reverse Engineering, and Mousetrap Car.
Fall 2010 Building, Circuits, Solar Panel, Mousetrap Car
Spring 2011 Building, Circuits, Solar Panel, Mousetrap Car
Fall 2011 Building, Data Analysis, Circuits, Blood Pressure, Mousetrap Car
Fall 2012 Building, Data Analysis, Circuits, Blood Pressure, Mousetrap Car
Spring 2013 Building, Data Analysis, Circuits, Blood Pressure, Mousetrap Car
Fall 2013 Building, Data Analysis, Solar Panel, Blood Pressure, Mousetrap Car

Project Example: While some projects were modified or changed completely, the backbone of
the student projects remained the same. For each project, the students receive a description of a
project or problem, which was written based on an authentic engineering topic. The problem is
framed as a hypothetical real life scenario within an authentic engineering topic. The
contextualized description used in each project is in paragraph format, and takes between 3 and
10 sentences. The Circuit Design Project involves students designing an interfacing circuit made
of resistors to have an equivalent resistance of a specified value. Details of this project are in
Figure 2.

The contextualized description for this project gave the students a glimpse of the types of higher-
level projects that might be involved in Electrical Engineering. Due to the varying levels of
exposure to electricity, students complete a set of structured activities prior to attempting this
project, some in class and some at home. These activities provide them with basic knowledge of
a circuit and electricity. See the appendix for the complete project. In designing this circuit,
students had to utilize physics concepts within engineering constraints. Borrowing from
principles of problem-based and collaborative learning, in this semi-structured project, in groups,
students were expected to make a self-assessment of what they already knew, what they needed
to know, and where to go to find obtain information needed to solve the problem.

There are multiple expected outcomes that students can use in their design of the semi-structured
project, but they do not have to use any particular design element or any combination of design
elements. Also, because the class is not held in a laboratory with specialized equipment,
students’ design decisions are limited by the supplies that we provide. With these supplies, there
Page 24.1054.9

are still several design modifications that the students can choose. These limitations and
constraints can be considered engineering constraints. In a real life situation in engineering, there
are always constraints. Where applicable, we include ‘useful terms’ in the project description as
a means to add a layer of scaffolding. The use of these useful terms and the availability of certain
supplies are meant to help steer the students down the path of one or more possible design
considerations. The students are expected to conduct individual and collaborative research and
inquiry into basic circuits and the physics concepts involved. Upon completion of the project,
students demonstrate their depth of comprehension by communicating what they have learned.
The communication is in the form of a group presentation and technical report detailing the
entire project. The technical paper is similar to a scientific research paper.

Background
Comvision is the largest cable company that supplies cable services to hospitals for patient rooms. In
many hospitals, cable tv service is run from an outdoor antenna to several locations in the building.
The standard cables used in the past were 300 cables. However, recent TVs have a 40 to70 cable
connection, depending on the brand. If the resistance of incoming cable does not match what the TV
cable connection requires, ghosts of previous images will linger on the TV screen making it impossible
to watch the TV. One obvious solution to the problem is to replace all the 300 cables in the building
cables that are 40-70. This is expensive. A smart solution is to design an interfacing circuit
between the 300 cable and the TV. Comvision is hosting a competition for the best circuit design.
The best design wins the contract and receives a permanent job offer from Comvision.

Project Design
In the figure given below, the dotted box represents the interfacing circuit between the cable and the
TV. Terminals ‘a’ and ‘b’ are to be connected to the TV and terminals ‘c’ and ‘d’ are to be connected
to the cable coming from an outdoor antenna. Assuming that the interface box is already connected to
the cable coming from an outdoor antenna, the resistance of 300 between the terminals c and d is the
equivalent resistance of the cable.

Design the interfacing circuit such that the equivalent resistance REq between the terminals ‘a’ and ‘b’
is a value between 40-70 (exact figure given by instructor).

Design Constraints: The terminal b cannot be interconnected to terminal d, They need to be distinctly
different. The terminals a and c can be interconnected. The interfacing circuit needs to be electrically
symmetrical. Below are examples that satisfy the design constraints.

Figure 2. Circuit Design Project

Page 24.1054.10
Communication: Communication of ideas is a key aspect to professional skills that are needed
for today’s engineer. In Engineering Exploration, students finish their project with an oral
presentation and/or a technical report. The presentations and technical papers are the dominant
form of assessment in this course. The assessment component is included in the project
description and reads as follows:

 Each group will be evaluated in terms of the circuit design calculations.

 Each team will make a group presentation describing project specifications, concepts, data,
and conclusions that describe how it works, why it works, and physics/math involved.
 Each group member will write their own technical report detailing all of the information
about this project, requirements, limitations, design modifications with relevant math/science
concepts, pictures, diagrams, etc.

In the papers and presentations, students must indicate the scientific concept that supports their
design decisions. For example, when solving for unknown resistor values in a complex circuit,
students must have a firm understanding of series and parallel circuit calculations. The oral
presentation mirrors the technical report, including all elements of the report, but in a
summarized format. Figure 3 shows an excerpt from a student’s technical paper. Students are
given a rubric before writing the report (see the Appendix). This same rubric is used in assigning
a number grade for the assignment.

The equivalent resistance of the two resistances in parallel is less than either of the two
resistances, so a interfacing circuit can be used to reduce the resistance from 300Ω
between C and D to 40Ω between A and B. The circuit that is being used for this interface
works with resistor R1 and 300 Ω being in series. Both of these together are in parallel
with R2 which together are in series with another R1 resistor.

By writing a mathematical equation, there can be found a pair of values appropriate for
the two unknown resistances shown in figure 5. Using Ohm’s Law and the rules for series
and parallel portions of a circuit, the equation: +R1 = 40 describes the value
of the two unknown resistances when interfacing between 300Ω and 40Ω. Two values
that have been experimentally verified to satisfy this equation are R1=10Ω and
R2=33.2Ω.

Figure 3. Excerpt of a student technical paper.

With the curricular design stepped in active learning pedagogies, a cohort of students is able to
take Engineering Exploration in their first year. In the next sections, we will describe the
instruction and student recruitment processes.
Page 24.1054.11

V. Instruction
In Engineering Exploration, the instructional staff includes a primary instructor and class aides.
Class aides are current engineering students who are in their junior year or above. Class aides
can also be graduate students. Prendergast (Author 1) was the primary instructor at the inception
of this course. Even with the updated instructional strategies and project nature, the curriculum
design of this course is one that is transferrable to others without much difficulty. There have
been four instructors of Engineering Exploration to date. Table 3 lists the different instructors
and their educational background at the time of instruction.

Table 3: Instructional Staff

Instructor Highest Degree Held
Instructor 1 M.S. in Industrial Engineering
Instructor 2 M.S. in Industrial Engineering
Instructor 3 B.S. in Civil Eng’g
Instructor 4 Ph. D. in Chemical Engineering

The degrees held by the instructors vary from BS to PhD in Engineering. The conceptual content
of Engineering Exploration is challenging enough for a first-year student. This in addition to the
structure of the semi-defined projects provides a structure for a person with bachelor’s level
knowledge in engineering to be well prepared conceptually to teach Engineering Exploration.
Grading is done by both class aides and by the primary instructor. Specific to the writing
component, the class aides grade the rough draft, and the instructor grades the final draft. During
the pilot phase, this grading structure works well. If the course expands, the grading structure
may need modification in order asssess larger numbers of students effectively. During the pilot
phase, Engineering Exploration is a voluntary course. In the next section, we will describe the
student recruitment process.

VI. Student Recruitment

Out of approximately 700 new first-year students each year, only a small cohort of students are
able to take Engineering Exploration during this pilot phase. In the engineering population, there
are approximately 100 high achieving students who are in the Engineering Honors Program, and
there are less than 100 students who place below calculus. During the pilot phase, we chose not
to select students for Engineering Exploration from those two cohorts. These two factors,
calculus placement and not being in the Honors Program, are the only academic criteria used in
selecting the students. This cohort of ~500 ‘standard’ first-year students is surveyed before they
start school and asked if they want to take Engineering Exploration. The positive response rate
within a 2 week period is 200-300. The factors used to select students from this cohort are:
submission timestamp, gender, and ethnicity. Enrollment has ranged from 24-48 students. These
24-48 students are selected to take Engineering Exploration representing the demographics of the
general student population, with a slightly higher representation of women and URM’s, see
Table 4.
Page 24.1054.12
 Table 4: Demographics - Engineering Exploration (EE) vs. School of Engineering (SOE)
Cohorts N(EE)=137 %age N(SOE)=3249 %age
Female 55 40% 565 17%
Male 82 60% 2684 83%
White 54 40% 1488 46%
Asian 35 26% 1148 35%
URM 46 34% 456 15%
African-American 18 13% 166 5%
Latino 27 20% 286 9%
Native-American 1 <1% 4 <1%
Other 2 <1% 157 5%
Note: URM - African American, Latino, Native American

During the pilot phase of Engineering Exploration, participation in the course is voluntary. We
reviewed SAT scores for the those who took the course vs those who did not to see if there was
any correlation between students who took Engineering Exploration and SAT. The results are
shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Average SAT scores

Cohort Math SAT Critical Reading Total SAT
Engineering Exploration 664 568 1231
School of Engineering 666 578 1243
T-test* 0.88210 0.32194 0.54028
* Student T-test, two-tailed, p-value <.05 considered statistically significant.

What is interesting is that there is no statistical difference between SAT scores for either of the
groups. In fact, just by the numbers, the Engineering Exploration cohort has slightly lower SAT
scores than the general student body. Even still, selecting students that already want to take the
course could present some pre-existing motivational factors. Another selection option was to
randomly select students to take the course and give them the option to switch out. However,
with the full curriculum, project based nature, and group work format, it would be quite
disruptive to have students moving about. Unfortunately, data from the group of students who
wanted to take the course but were not selected has been maintained only since the fall 2012
semester. We have future plans to study the effects of the students who wanted to take the
course, but were not selected, to see if there is any correlation between implemented reform,
motivation, and retention.

VII. Findings: Traditional Course vs. Reformed Course

In this study, we conducted analyses to assess to what extent Engineering Exploration has on
retention and student satisfaction. These areas will be explored in this section.

Retention: The One, Two, and Three Year retention figures for the entire School of Engineering
were obtained from the Office of Institutional Research (OIR-the university’s official data
generation office). The school-wide figures measured students who started in engineering and
Page 24.1054.13

remained in engineering after one, two, and three years. Correspondingly, we calculated the
same 1, 2, and 3 yr retention figures for those students who took Engineering Exploration. As
mentioned earlier, Engineering Exploration students are chosen from the cohort of students who
place into calculus and who are not a part of the Honors Program. The data from the OIR
includes Honors students and student who placed remedially in upon entering RU-SOE.
Retention of Honors students is tracked by the Honors Program Director at this institution.
Average 1, 2, and 3yr retention of Honors students and for the entire student body is shown in
Table 6.

Table : Retention of School of Engineering and Honors students

Retention SOE (N=520 to750) Honors (N =77 to 90)

1 yr 2.53% >95%
2 yr .10% >95%
3 yr 1.35% >95%

Over the past decade, retention of Honors students has averaged from 96-98%. In Fall 2011, out
of 665 incoming first-year students there were 90 Honors students. Retention of remedially
placed students is unfortunately not tracked. Since we know retention of Honors students, the
overall school retention rate, and the number of students placed remedially, we can see if honors
students and remedially placed students skew the data in comparison to non-honors/calculus
placed students (like those who take Engineering Exploration). The non-honors/calculus placed
students will be called the ‘standard’ cohort. Using a simple weighted average calculation, where
x is the retention of standard cohort, y is the retention of the remedially-placed cohort, and 98%
honors retention, yields the following equation:

90 .9 4 5x 110y
=. 0
5

The 3rd year retention rate of SOE is 61.35%, hence an estimated value of 60% was used above.
For the sake of covering the case of a higher school retention rate, 70% was also considered as a
second scenario. One might expect that the retention of a remedially placed student would be
lower than the school average. In order to account for all scenarios, we will use y values of 40%,
50%, 60%, and 70%, which are values that are below, equal to, and above the school average
retention. From the equation, the retention of non-honors/calculus-placed students (called the
standard cohort) would be 57%, 55%, 53%, and 50% respectively. The retention rate calculation
of the standard cohort (x1, x2) is shown in Table 7.

The calculated retention figures of the standard cohort suggest that regardless of the retention of
remedially placed students, retention of the standard cohort is typically lower than the school
average. In only one case (where remedially-placed retention is 40% and SOE retention is 70%),
does the standard cohort retention rise above the school average. However in all other cases, the
unknown retention of the remedially placed students will be offset by the much higher than
average retention rate of the honors cohort. What can be drawn from this is that any positive shift
in retention that is found for the Engineering Exploration cohort can be trusted as a positive shift.
Page 24.1054.14
 Table 7: Retention Calculation of Standard Cohort based on SOE retention.
Remedial Remedial Remedial Remedial
SOE N
Retention Retention Retention Retention
Student Body 665
40% 50% 60% 70%
Honors 90 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Remedial Retention (y) 110 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
Standard Retention (x1)
465 0.57 0.55 0.53 0.50
(SOE retention 60%)
Standard Retention (x2):
465 0.72 0.69 0.67 0.65
(SOE retention 70%)

Pre-existing motivational factors of the students who were interested in taking Engineering
Exploration need further study. Additionally, any lower shift in retention will also need further
study. The retention analysis was completed at the end of the spring 2012 semester. Table 8
shows course enrollment by semester.

Table 8: Enrollment by semester (N 137)

Semester Enrollment
Fall 2009 1 section, 24 students
Fall 2010 2 sections, 48 students
Spring 2011 1 section, 17 students
Fall 2011 2 sections, 48 students
Fall 2012 1 section, 32 students

Gender and ethnicity sub-cohorts are also included in the retention analysis. In this study, URM,
or under-represented minority, is defined as a grouping of African-American, Hispanic, Latin,
and Native-American. The 3yr retention figures for Engineering Exploration are only based on
one section (the fall 2009 course), as that was the first time the class was offered. A summary of
the retention and gpa data is found in in Tables 9 through 13. Retention rates are defined as
students who start in RU-SOE and remain in RU-SOE. SOE stands for School of Engineering.
EE stands for Engineering Exploration.

Table 9: Retention of SOE vs. EE

SOE EE Percent
Retention
overall overall Change
1 yr 82.53% 89.58% +7.05%
2 yr 68.10% 86.36% +18.26%
3 yr 61.35% 80.21% +18.86%

Table 10: Retention of SOE Female vs. EE Female

SOE EE
Retention Change
female female
Page 24.1054.15

1 yr 83.67% 91.70% +8.03%

2 yr 69.28% 85.61% +16.33%
3 yr 64.76% 82.58% +17.82%
 Table 11: Retention of SOE URM vs. EE URM
SOE EE
Retention Change
minority minority
1 yr 80. 10% 80. 31% +0. 02%
2 yr 66. 47% 74. 07% +7. 60%
3 yr 57. 95% 55. 56% -2. 40%

Table 12: Retention of EE Male vs. EE Female

EE EE
Retention Change
male female
1 yr 87. 59% 91. 70% +4. 11%
2 yr 83. 97% 85. 61% +1. 64%
3 yr 77. 56% 82. 58% +9. 02%

Table 13: Retention of SOE Male vs. SOE Female

SOE SOE
Retention Change
male female
1 yr 82. 38% 83. 67% +1. 29%
2 yr 67. 89% 69. 28% +1. 39%
3 yr 60. 72% 64. 76% +4. 04%

The retention rates indicate for the overall analysis that that retention of the Engineering
Exploration retention was higher in all cases, with one exception. In Table 11, the 3rd year URM
retention rate is lower than the school average. We are not certain if this is indicative of anything
correlating to Engineering Exploration or if there is not enough URM data in the Fall 2009
cohort to be an accurate representation of URMs as a whole. Since Engineering Exploration
appears to help most students, it is possible that reasons behind attrition for minority students
may be different than non-minority students, and are possibly not addressed in this course. As
there is more data available, we will continue to analyze all cohorts, in particular the URM
cohort.

In addition to retention and project oriented courses, there are other areas in the first-year
curriculum that are important to students. We also conducted student interviews to document
their views concerning what worked well for them and what concerns they had in their first-year
college experience. The results of these interviews will be explored next.

Student Satisfaction and Concerns: The student interviews were conducted to find out some
information about their experiences in the School of Engineering. The interviews were not
associated with the course in any way. The interviewers had no connection to the course, to the
School of Engineering, or to any of the course instructors. Students chose to be interviewed on a
voluntary basis. Of those who volunteered, eight students took Engineering Exploration and four
students took the standard course. A summary of four of the questions are shown in Table 14.
Page 24.1054.16

When students were asked which course was most valuable in their first year, 7 out of 8
(Engineering Exploration cohort) listed Engineering Exploration. For those who took the
standard course, none of them listed the standard intro course. When asked what skills they
learned from the intro course, the Engineering Exploration cohort all listed one or more skills.
The standard course cohort all listed that no skills were acquired. Lastly, when the students were
asked about changes that they felt should be made to the first year curriculum, all of the standard
course cohort indicated that the Intro to Orientation Lectures course should be updated to include
more hands on activities and engaging instruction. The Engineering Exploration cohort noted
that they wanted to reduce class sizes, move 2 courses to the sophomore year (in essence reduce
the credit load), and to have even more hands on experience.
Table 14: Interview Summary
Question Standard Intro Course Engineering Exploration cohort
cohort (n=4) (n=8)
st
Most valuable 1 yr 4 : Programming 7: Engineering Exploration
course. 1: Programming and Calculus 2
Usefulness of the 2: discouraging 4: helpful
intro course in 1: not useful 3: supported existing choice
major selection 1: helpful if lecturer was 1: n/a – question not asked
good
Skills learned from 4: none 8: yes for one or more skill: math/science
Intro course. application to solve engineering problems,
math/science concepts, work ethic, group
work, time management,
registration/scheduling, social/study network.
Changes should be 4: revamp the intro to 4: even more hands-on experience.
made to the 1styr engineering course to 2: move two core courses to the 2nd year
curriculum? include hands-on 1: smaller class sizes
activities and better 1: scheduling exams differently
instruction

The retention analysis was reinforced by the results of the interviews. These results indicate that
the existence of a dynamic first year experience produces beneficial outcomes throughout the
engineering education. Our collaborative efforts between engineering and education and
continued assessment have been a benefit to the quality of engineering education at this
institution.

VIII. Discussion - Engineering Exploration vs. Other 1st Year Reform

The goals of this paper are to document the effects of the Engineering Exploration course on
undergraduate engineering students and to understand to what extent and why the course affected
student persistence in and satisfaction about engineering the way it did. We propose that the the
curricular design of Engineering Exploration, the increased retention, and increased satisfaction
of the students who took it are certainly correlated. The project and collaborative based nature of
the course (as opposed to lecturing) requires maximum engagement on the part of the students.
Additionally, requiring as a part of the project structure that students support their design
decision with conceptual reasoning, as opposed to guess and check, requires the students to
Page 24.1054.17

search for and obtain full conceptual understanding. Last, but not least, for a student to express
(verbally or in writing) their conceptual knowledge and how it applied to the practical solution of
the problem demonstrates the depth of understanding of the problem, concepts, and its solution
as a system of integrated parts. In addition to the reform analysis at RU-SOE, a retention
comparison will also be made to three universities that have reformed their first year engineering
course.

Other institutions have instituted first-year reform measures with increased retention results. We
designed the curriculum of Engineering Exploration to include a combination of reform
measures. The three institutions used in the comparison each have some elements of reform that
are common to that of Engineering Exploration. At the University of Florida 25, their lecture
course was converted into a laboratory format where students rotate to different labs/projects in
the various majors. They reported 3 and 4 year retention increases from 34% (lecture course) to
51% (lab course). Their percentage increase is similar to that found in this study. However their
overall retention rates are much lower than at RU-SOE, as our 3-yr retention rates are 61%
(lecture) and 80% (Engineering Exploration). The new lab course at the University of Florida,
while a marked improvement, still contained a fair amount of traditional instruction, leaving the
students less engaged than they could have been. The minimal lecturing in the Engineering
Exploration course could play an integral role in maximizing retention.

At the University of Denver, the Engineering and English departments collaborated and linked
an Engineering Concepts course with a Critical Writing course in order to be in line with
communication abilities that are noted in EC 2000.18 This linkage is also a pedagogical element
that we used in Engineering Exploration, where the two of the projects conclude with a
comprehensive technical paper. At the University of Denver, this course linkage resulted in a
huge 30% increase in 1st year retention from 53% to 83%. Two and three year rates were not
given. Faculty at University of Denver noted the reasons behind huge retention increase to be
student engagement and community development. Their results are remarkable for their
institution. Their percentage increase in the first year is much higher than what was found in this
study (30% vs. 7% increase). However their overall retention is still below our figures: 83% vs.
90%. It would be interesting to see their 2yr and 3yr retention rates for comparison. Engineering
Exploration appeared to have a larger impact on retention in the 2nd and 3rd years.

At the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, their reform measure was to integrate the first
year curriculum to include conceptual information, team-work, active learning, and a technology
oriented space.43 They experienced a 21% first year retention rate increase, from 62% to 83%.
The results here are similar to the other universities mentioned in that the percent increase is
higher than this study, but the actual retention rate is not as high as in this study at Rutgers
University.

Institutions across the nation that have implemented reform measures to increase retention,
success, and student satisfaction are commendable. In many cases, it is important to look past the
first year in order to determine longer term effects. When comparing Engineering Exploration to
these other institutions, it seems clear that the effects of Engineering Exploration spanning past
the first year are substantial. It is unclear if the 2nd and 3rd year effect was similar at other
institutions. We would attribute the marked increase in retention, especially in the 2nd and 3rd
year, for students who took Engineering exploration to the design of the Engineering Exploration
Page 24.1054.18

curriculum, in particular, the combination of active learning methods used. Engineering

Exploration not only exposes students to the various fields, but also provides students with the
academic and professional skills needed to succeed in a rigorous engineering program. I will
continue to work with the administration to foster a better future for engineering students at
Rutgers University.

IX. Future Implications

Cornerstone courses like Engineering Exploration have proven to be an asset to an institution’s
retention, success, and satisfaction at other institutions, similarly to what has been found atRU-
SOE.4,25,26 We support and encourage expanding this course to all first year students.
Prendergast, author 1, has recently begun efforts in this vein. We will continue to revise and
enhance the curriculum to make the experience the most beneficial for the students. In addition,
we plan to develop a video library of engineering related topics. One topic will be a virtual tour
of each engineering department and of senior design courses. It is not feasible logistically to take
all students on a tour of each department. However with a virtual video library, all students
would have the opportunity to see each department. Another feature of the video library will be
to create a portfolio of experiments and problems that elicit various concepts and components
that relate to each engineering major. Etkina (author 2) has created such a library for Physics.64
Creating these virtual experiments can also help the current situation of not having a real lab
space. Experiments can be conducted and videotaped in labs where most students do not have
access. Accompanying projects or problems can then be created and available for all students to
use.

In order to continue to have a successful course curriculum in any subject, including an

engineering project-based course, it is crucial to continue assessment, maintenance, and
adaptation to fit the evolving needs of future engineers. Not surprisingly, this philosophy is
consistent with ABETs’ criteria for a successful and current engineering curriculum. Out of all of
the theoretical and practical variables involved in creating and maintaining Engineering
Exploration, it is the collaboration between education and engineering that has been the most
essential and beneficial asset in this process. With such collaboration, this endeavor has
undoubtedly been more successful, merging the breadth and depth in science education research
with the vast field of engineering. We have learned a great deal from this experience and
continue to assess the effectiveness of our reform measures in Engineering Exploration. The
experiences that we have had through this process will help guide us in engineering education
reform in other courses in the future.

References:

1 Ercolano, V. (1995, September). From sleep 101 to success 101. ASEE Prism, 24-29.
2 Ercolano, V., “Designing Freshman,” ASEE Prism, April 1996, pp. 20-25
3 Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of
mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, January, 66(1)
4 Tezcan, J., Nicklow, J., Mathias, J., Gupta, L., & Kowalchuk, R. (2008) An InnovativeFreshmen
Engineering Course to Improve Retention. ASEE 2008.
5 Sheppard, S. and Jenison, R., “Examples of Freshman Design Education.” International Journal of
Page 24.1054.19

Engineering Education, 13 (4), 1997, 248-261.

6 Carlson, L. E. and Sullivan, J. F., “Hands-on Engineering: Learning by Doing in the Integrated Teaching and
Learning Program. ” International Journal of Engineering Education, 15 (1), 1999, 20-31.
7 Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
8 Bell, P. (2004). On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education. Educational
Psychologist,39(4), 243-253.
9 Prendergast, L. (2013). Retention, Success, and Satisfaction of Engineering Students Based on the First-Year
Experience. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
10 Prendergast, L. (2009). Albertalli Engineering Exploration. Retrieved from
http://soe.rutgers.edu/oaa/engineering-exploration
11 National Academy Press. National Academy of Engineering. (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020.
Washington D. C.: National Academy Press.
12 ABET, Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, Baltimore, Md.: Engineering Accreditation
Commission, Oct 30, 2010. See http://www. abet. org/Linked%20Documents-
UPDATE/Program%20Docs/abet-eac-criteria-2011-2012. pdf#search=%22engineering%20criteria%22
13 Kittleson, J. & Southerland, S. (2004). The role of discourse in group knowledge construction: A case study
of engineering students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (3), 267-293.
14 NSF Directorate for EHR Review of Undergraduate Education, “Shaping the future: New expectations for
undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology,” May 199 .
15 Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. (2011, October 29). Retrieved from
http://www.abet.org/uploadedFiles/Accreditation/Accreditation_Process/Accreditation_Documents/Current/
eac-criteria-2012-2013. pdf
16 Hall, D., Cronk, S., Brackin, P., Barker, M., Crittenden, K. (2008) Living with the Lab: A curriculum to
Prepare Freshman Students to Meet the Attributes of “The Engineer of 2020”. ASEE 2008.
17 Ideas to innovation (i2i) learning laboratory. (n. d. ). Retrieved from https://engineering. purdue.
edu/ENE/Academics/i2ilab.
18 Lengsfeld, C., Edelstein, G., Black, J., Hightower, N., Root, M., Stevens, K., & Whitt, M. (2004).
Engineering concepts and communication: a two-quarter course sequence. Journal of Engineering
Education, January, 79-85.
19 Yalvac, B., Smith, H., Troy, J., & Hirsch, (2007). Promoting advanced writing skills in an upper-level
engineering class. Journal of Engineering Education, April, 117-128.
20 National Science Foundation. (n.d.). Retention of the best science and engineering graduates in science and
engineering. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf99321/text.htm
21 ASEE. (2012, August 27). Going the distance. Retrieved from http://www.asee.org/retention-project
22 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, July,
185-207.
23 Litzinger, T., Wise, J., & Lee, S. (2005). Self-directed learning readiness among engineering undergraduate
students. Journal of Engineering Education, April, 215-221.
24 Lichtenstein, G., McCormick, A., Sheppard, S., & Puma, J. (2010). Comparing the undergraduate experience
of engineers to all other majors: Significant differences are programmatic . Journal of Engineering
Education, October.
25 Hoit, M., & Ohland, M. (1998). The impact of a discipline-based introduction to engineering course on
improving retention. Journal of Engineering Education, January, 79-85.
26 Porter, T. and Fuller, H. A New “Contact-Based” First Year Engineering Course. Journal of Engineering
Education. October 1998.
27 Kemppainen, A. & Hamlin, A. (2009). Using Engineering Design as a Retention Tool for First-Year
Engineering Students. ASEE 2009
28 Mendez, G., Buskirk, T., Lohr, S., & Haag, S. (2008). Factors associated with persistence in science and
engineering majors: An exploratory study using classification trees and random forests. Journal of
Engineering Education, January, 57-70.
29 Olds, B., & Miller, R. (2004). The effect of a first-year integrated engineering curriculum on graduation rates
and student satisfaction: A longitudinal study students who were in the integrated curriculum had higher
graduation rates than students not in the program. Journal of Engineering Education, January, 23-35.
30 Felder, R., Felder, G., & Dietz, E. (1998). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and
Page 24.1054.20

retention V. comparisons with traditionally-taught students. Journal of Engineering Education, 87 (4), 469-
480.
31 Felder, R., Forrest, K., Baker-Ward, L., Deitz, E., & Morh, P. (1993). A longitudinal study of engineering
 student performance and retention I. Success and failure in the introductory course. Journal of Engineering
Education, 87 (2), 15-21.
32 Felder, R. (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.
33 Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. (2 ed. ). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
34 Oh, P. S. (2010). Characteristics of abductive inquiry in earth science: An undergraduate case study. Science
Education, 95 (3), 409-430.
35 Burton, J. D.,and White, D. M., "Selecting a model for freshman engineering design," Journal of
Engineering Education, vol. 88, 1999.
36 Etkina, E., & Van Heuvelen, A. (2001). In Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference
(pp. 17-20). Rochester, NY.
37 Furtak, M. "The Problem with Answers: An Exploration of Guided Scientific Inquiry Teaching." Science
Education. 90.3 (2006): 453-467.
38 It's About Time. (2011). Active physics. Retrieved from http://its-about-time.com/htmls/ap.html
39 Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project based science. . Elementary
School Journal, 97(4), 341-358.
40 Schwab, J. 1966. The Teaching of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
41 National Institute for Health. (2005). Doing Science: The Process of Science
Inquiry. http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih6/inquiry/guide/info_process-a.htm
42 Yadav, A., Shaver, G., & Meckl, P. (2010). Lessons learned: Implementing the case teaching method in a
mechanical engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, January, 55-69.
43 Pendegrass, N., Kowalczzyk, R., Dowd, J., Laoulache, R., Nelles, W., Golen, J., Fowler, E. (2001).
Improving first-Year Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering Education. January 2001.
44 Dichter, A. (2001). Effective teaching and learning in higher education, with particular reference to the
undergraduate education of professional engineers. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17 (1),
24-29.
45 Woods, D.,Hrymak, A., Marshall, R., Wood, P., Crowe, C., Hoffman, T., Wright, J., Taylor, P.,Woodhouse,
K., and Bouchard, C. (1997). Developing Problem-Solving Skills: The McMaster Problem Solving Program.
Journal of Engineering Education, 86(2), 75–91.
46 Aglan, H. A. and Ali, S. F., "Hands-on experiences: an integral part of engineering curriculum reform,"
Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 85, 1996.
47 Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and
research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, April, 1-16.
48 Cronk, S., Hall, D., & Nelson, J. (2009). Living with the lab: a project-based curriculum for first-year
engineering students. Proceedings of the 2009 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference.
49 Giralt, F., Herrero, J., Grau, F., Alabart, J., & Medir, M. (2000). Two way integration of engineering
education through a design project. Journal of Engineering Education, April, 219-229.
50 Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in
systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools.Educational
Psychologist, 35(3), 149-164.
51 Benson, L., Orr, M., Biggers, S., Moss, W., Ohland, M., Schiff, S. (2010) Student-Centered Active,
Cooperative Learning In Engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education 26(5), 1097-1100.
52 Felder, R., & Brent, R. (2001). Effective strategies for cooperative learning,” the journal of cooperation and
collaboration in college teaching. Journal of Cooperation & Collaboration in College Teaching, 10 (2), 69-
75. Retrieved from www. ncsu. edu/felderpublic/Papers/CLStrategies (JCCCT).
53 Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Educational psychology. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
54 Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Stanne, M. (2000, May). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis.
Retrieved from www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods. html
55 Oakley, B., Felder, R., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of
Student Centered Learning, 2 (1), 9-34. Retrieved from www. ncsu. edu/felder-public/Papers/Oakley-paper
(JSCL). pdf
56 Smith, K. A., S. D. Sheppard, D. W. Johnson, and R. T. Johnson, R. T., “Pedagogies of Engagement:
Page 24.1054.21

Classroom-Based Practices,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94, No. 1, 2005, pp. 7–101.
57 Chiu, M. M. (2004). Adapting teacher interventions to student needs during cooperative learning. American
Educational Research Journal, 41, 365-399.
58 Froyd, J. E., & Ohland, M. W. (2005). Integraded engineering curricula. Journal of Engineering Education,
94 (1), 147-164.
59 Dym, C., Agogino, A., Eris, O., Frey, D., & Leifer, L. (2005). Engnieering design thinking, teaching, and
learning. Journal of Engineering Education, January, 103-120.
60 Ernst, N., Brickley, S., Bailey, R., & Cornia, J. (2006). Effects of First-Year
61 Froyd, J., Srinivasa, A., Maxwell, D., Conkey, A., Shyrock, K. A Project-Based Approach to First-Year
Engineering Curriculum Development. (2005). 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.
62 Ercolano, V., “From Sleep 101 to Success 101,” ASEE Prism, September 1995.
63 Knowles, M. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species. (3rd ed.). Houston: Gulf Publishing.
64 Etkina, E. (2001). Physics teaching technology resource. Retrieved from http://paer.rutgers.edu/pt3/.

Page 24.1054.22
APPENDIX

Circuits project and activities – Electrical Engineering

 Demo-activity (*light a light bulb with 2 wires and a battery).

 Reconstruct the above set-up* and other listed below via an on-line simulation. Answer
questions (http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/circuit-construction-kit-dc):
 battery+bulb*
 battery only
 battery+resistor

Questions:
 Define electrical current, voltage, and resistance.
 On the simulation, identify items on simulation: current, voltage, resistance.
 Are there any similarities or differences between a light bulb and a resistor? Explain.
 Why do balls go faster when there’s no bulb/resistor?
 What does a bulb/resistor do in the circuit?

 Find a diagram of simple series circuit and a simple parallel circuit (with only resistors).
Draw each of them below.

 Using the on-line simulation, make 2 circuits: A. 2 resistors in series and battery. B. 2
resistors in parallel and battery.
 What happens to voltage and current when they are in series vs. parallel?
 Using bulbs instead of resistors, predict the brightness of the bulbs in these cases.
 Construct the circuits with bulbs and test your prediction.

What happens to each part of the circuit Current Voltage Bulb

when in: brightness
Series
Parallel

 Based on your knowledge of the elements in a circuit, using an analogy, relate each element
to the elements of people running on a track.
Page 24.1054.23

Parts of an electric circuit Parts of a system: people running on a

track
Moving Electrons
 Battery
Connecting wires
Light bulb Hurdle
Light bulbs in series, bulb dimmer
Light bulbs in parallel, bulb brighter
Batteries in series, bulb brighter
Batteries in parallel, bulb same
brightness

Conceptual Background
Our aim in this project is to design a simple interfacing circuit. Before we introduce the design
project and a method of achieving our design goal, we need some background information. The
needed background and the details of design are given below step by step. At first, we need to
learn a property of a resistor, namely that it presents what is known as electrical resistance to a
flow of current. For this reason, often the words ‘resistor’ and ‘resistance’ are used
interchangeably. Once we learn about resistance, we proceed to learn how two resistances
connected in series can be thought of as one equivalent resistance. Similarly, we will learn how
two resistances connected in parallel can be thought of as one equivalent resistance. These
concepts will then lead us to a simple design problem.

Step 1: (Concept of Resistance and Ohm’s law) A resistor is a two terminal element used almost
in every electrical circuit. It presents resistance to the flow of an electrical current. The value of
resistance is measured in Ohms whose symbol is Greek letter Omega,  . Ohm’s law states that
v = Ri where v is the voltage in Volts across the resistance R and i is the current in Amperes
through R. The figure below depicts a common representation of a resistance in a circuit.

Resistance is akin to friction. Often friction is considered as an undesirable element. In

automotive travel, friction presented by the road surface is the cause of loss of energy since it
opposes the motion (or flow) of the vehicle. On the other hand, icy roads with no friction or
reduced friction can be dangerous. You may have experienced that it is difficult to control the
motion of a vehicle on icy roads. The lesson here is that a controlled amount of friction, and
similarly resistance in electrical circuits or elsewhere is indeed desirable. An appropriately
controlled flow of current is the goal of all circuit designers. Circuit elements including
resistance values are designed properly to control the flow of various currents in a circuit.

Step 2: (Two resistances interconnected in series) Figure below shows the interconnection of
two resistances in series. As seen in the figure, one terminal of the first resistance is connected to
one terminal of the second resistance so that the current, i, flowing in both the resistances is the
Page 24.1054.24

same. The other two terminals one from each resistance form the external terminals of the
connection. One can view both the resistances interconnected together in series as one equivalent
resistance. Then, the equivalent resistance between the terminals A and B is given by: REq = R1
+ R2. (Because v = iREq = v1 + v2 = i(R1 + R2).)

The above equation says that two resistances interconnected in series is equivalent to a single
resistance having a value as the sum of two resistances, REq = R1 + R2. Note that the
equivalent resistance of two positive resistances in series is greater than either of the two
resistances.

Step 3: (Two resistances interconnected in parallel) Figure below shows the interconnection of
two resistances in parallel. As seen in the figure, a pair of two terminals one from each resistance
are connected together to form a node or a joint terminal, and similarly another pair of two
terminals one from each resistance are again connected together to form another node. Both of
these nodes form external terminals. In this case, the voltage v across each resistance is the same,
however a current i flowing into a node divides itself into two parts i1 and i2. One can view both
the resistances interconnected together in parallel as one equivalent resistance. Equivalent
resistance of two resistances interconnected in parallel (that is, the resistance between the
terminals A and B) is given by

The above equation says that two resistances interconnected in parallel is equivalent to a single
resistance having a value equal to the product of two resistances divided by their sum, as noted in
the equation above. Note that the equivalent resistance of two positive resistances in parallel
is less than either of the two resistances.

Two resistances interconnected in series as in Step 1 and similarly two resistances interconnected
in parallel as in Step 2 form the basis of our design problem.
Page 24.1054.25
Guided Classroom problems:
Solve Req for these circuits where:

R1= 50 R2= 2k R3= 40 R4= 3k

R5=10 R6= 75 R7= 20k R8= 15
R9= 35 R10= 100 R11= 95 R12= 20

1. 4.

2.

3. 5.

Page 24.1054.26
 What is a solderless breadboard (pic below)? How is the breadboard constructed underneath
the plastic covering with the holes (draw a picture or provide a picture)?

 Draw 2 resistors in series on a  Draw 2 resistors in parallel on a

breadboard? breadboard?

 Construct the following two scenarios on a breadboard with actual resistors and a multi-
meter. (Note: you will not use a voltage source). Calculate the equivalent resistance of each
circuit. Compare the calculated results with the measured results using the multi-meter.
Circuit Circuit diagram Calculated Req Measured
configuration (with R values shown) (with calculations) Req
Two resistors in
series

Two resistors in
parallel

A complex
circuit (similar to
#4 in the
example
problems)

(the next page is the actual project)

Page 24.1054.27
 What’s Inside the Black Box?

Background
Comvision is the largest cable company that supplies cable services to
hospitals. In many hospitals, cable tv service is run from an outdoor
antenna to several locations in the building. The standard cables used in
the past were 300 cables. However, recent TVs have a 40 to70
cable connection, depending on the brand. If the resistance of incoming
cable does not match what the TV cable connection requires, ghosts of
previous images will linger on the TV screen making it impossible to
watch the TV. One obvious solution to the problem is to replace all the
300 cables in the building cables that are 40-70. This is
expensive. A smart solution is to design an interfacing circuit between
the 300 cable and the TV. Comvision is hosting a competition for the
best circuit design. The best design wins the contract and receives a
permanent job offer from Comvision.

Design
Consider the figure given below where the dotted box represents the interface between the cable
and the TV. It contains the interface circuit. The terminals ‘a’ and ‘b’ are to be connected to TV
and the terminals ‘c’ and ‘d’ are to be connected to the cable coming from an outdoor antenna.
Assuming that the interface box is already connected to the cable coming from an outdoor
antenna, the resistance of 300 between the terminals c and d is the equivalent resistance of the
cable.

The mathematical design problem can then be expressed as follows: Design the interface circuit
that should be in the dotted box such that the equivalent resistance REq between the terminals ‘a’
and ‘b’ is between 40 and 60 (exact figure given by the instructor).

Constraints: The terminal b cannot be interconnected to terminal d, They need to be distinctly

different. The terminals a and c can be interconnected. The circuit designed need to be
symmetrical.

Below are two examples that satisfy the design constraints:

Page 24.1054.28

Assessment Homework
Each project will be evaluated in terms of the circuit Read 3 project papers and summarize main points (1
design, technical paper, and oral presentations. Each team paragraph per paper). This assignment is to be
member should keep record of project specifications, included in the final draft of the technical paper and
concepts, and conclusions. will not be collected separately.
 28

Technical Writing Grading Rubric

Section (pp) Areas to be covered Adequate Needs Inadequate Missing

improvement
Abstract A condensed version of the main technical paper that highlights the major points
(¼-½ pg) covered (including the results), and reviews the writing's contents in abbreviated form.
In the abstract, the reader should understand at a high level everything that is
contained in the main body of the paper. 15 11 7.5 0
Introduction A detailed description of the problem at hand.
(½ to 1 pg) 10 7.5 5 0
Concepts Write your paper as if a high school student (stranger to Eng’g Expl) was reading it
(1 to 3 pgs) and you did not know their level of expertise in the subject at hand (ex.
physics/electricity). Describe well the math and science concepts used. 15 11 7.5 0
Design and Detail of your plan or design to solve this problem. If there are any constraining
Constraints factors as designated in the project write-up, include them in this section.
(½ to 2 pgs) 15 11 7.5 0
Results and Describe the results and any limiting factors encountered while carrying out the
Limitations project.
(½ to 2 pgs) 15 11 7.5 0
Conclusions Summary of the outcome of the project
(½ to 1 pg) 10 7.5 5 0

Grammar and Mechanics

Tense Technical papers are written in the passive tense, meaning you cannot use the 1st, 2nd,
or 3rd person (no I, we, the group, our, one, etc.)
Acceptable: “the solar panel was tested” vs.
Unacceptable: “the group tested the solar panel” 10 7.5 5 0
Font, format, 12 font, double spaced. Figures, Diagrams, Charts labeled clearly and referenced in
and, the text. Your paper should read fluidly. Each of the sections listed above should be
cohesive- addressed and should be connected in your text. When you transition from one section
ness to another, you should have some text leading into the next section. Always reread
your paper; check for grammar, spelling, and cohesiveness. 10 7.5 5 0
TOTAL 100 75 50 0

Page 24.1054.29