Building a Comprehensive, Effective, and Successful 1 st -year Engineering Program

Building a Comprehensive, Effective, and Successful

1st-year Engineering Program

Rick Freuler

First-year Engineering Program

Engineering Education Innovation Center

Freuler.1@osu.edu

30 March 2012 KEEN 2012 Regional Conference 2

The "Roadmap" for Today

• Who is this guy, anyway• Introduction & background• Early program details• Current program description• The “Freshman Cornerstone”• Observations, Lessons Learned, Impacts• Summary

Who Is This Guy Anyway?

• Rick Freuler is– Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors

(FEH) Program Director, Engineering Education Innovation Center

– Professor of Practice in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

– ASEE First-year Programs Division Chair– 44th Year Student of Engineering (I was

there for the 1968 football season and Rose Bowl.)

Introduction

• OSU’s First-year Engineering Program initially developed over an 11-year period from 1992 through 2003

• Arose from concern about student retention in engineering– In 1988 the retention to a degree in Engineering at

Ohio State was only 38%

• Survey of Ohio State alumni in industry• Ohio State part of Gateway Coalition– Agreed to adapt or adopt the Drexel E4 model

Early Efforts

• The Drexel E4 Program –– Combined Chemistry with Biology – Combined Math with Physics. – Engineering had both a lecture portion and a

hands-on lab portion.

– Humanities were combined with communication, both technical and non-technical components.

• E4 Program Results -– >60% retention results and feedback co-op

employers was very positive.

OSU's "Gateway" Program

• OSU adaptation of Drexel's E4 involved select and dedicated faculty from two Colleges (ENG and MPS)

• Engineering Mechanics combined with Math– Accelerated Calculus– Statics, Particle Dynamics, Rigid Body

Dynamics• Engineering Graphics, Programming• Engineering hands-on lab each quarter

Current OSU First-Year Engineering Program

• First-year Engineering now offered in four course sequences for first-year students:– Fundamentals of Engineering (FE)

– Fundamentals of Engineering for Scholars (FES)

– Fundamentals of Engineering for Transfers (FET)

– Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors (FEH)

• All sequences include hands-on labs, with engineering "up-front" and team-based design/build introduced early and often

Early Timeline for 1st-Year Program

Year Activity (Students)• 1992 Planning for Gateway• 1993 Pilot 1 (30)• 1994 Pilot 2 & 3 (38 & 65)• 1995 Pilot 4 & 5 (37 & 64)• 1996 Pilot 6 (64)• 1997 FEH Approved (71)• 1998 FEH (105)• 1999 FEH (173)• 2000 FEH (218)• 2001 FEH (252)• 2002 FEH (250) …

• 2011 FEH (452)

Year Activity (Students)

• 1997 Planning for FE• 1998 Pilot 1 (105)• 1999 Pilot 2 (275)• 2000 FE Approved (681)• 2001 FE (~800)• 2002 FE (~1,050) …

• 2011 FE/FES (~1,700)

First-year Engineering Program Enrollment Trends

Yes…There is a Well Defined First-Year Engineering Honors Program• 1st year program option

offered only for University Honors designated students

• A tightly-coupled year-long course sequence in engineering fundamentals

• Coordination among the core first-year classes of engineering, math, and physics

30 March 2012 10KEEN 2012 Regional Conference

Comparing First-Year Sequences

FEH• Emphasis on hands-on

learning and design• Coordination among the

FEH core classes • More challenging• Students take a 3-course

sequence of Honors Engineering (ENG H191, ENG H192, & ENG H193)

• 12 credit hours

FE/FES• Emphasis on hands-on

learning and design• No coordination among

any freshman classes• Challenging• Students take a 2-course

sequence of engineering (ENG 181 & ENG 183) and usually EG 167

• Usually 10 credit hours

Yes…You Will Get Connected to the Engineering Faculty in the First

Year• First-year engineering courses are taught by

faculty• Hand-picked from among the departments in

the College

• These represent the some of the best researchers & teachers

• Instructional team includes graduate and undergraduate students

Yes…You Are Going to Design and Build During the First Year!

• Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors (FEH)– Autonomous Robot

Design– Nanotechnology

• Fundamentals of Engineering (FE/FES)– Rollercoaster Design– Nanotechnology– Advanced Energy

Vehicle

Cornerstone Design Projects

FE Roller-CoasterFE/FES Advanced Energy Vehicle

FEH Robot

FEH/FE Nanotechnology

Cornerstone Common ElementsTypical Project Goals

Students will have…• Hands-on engineering design/build experience• A team-based project with peer evaluation• Laboratory activities

– Measure, record, analyze, and present– Build, test, modify, test, demonstrate, and report

• Multiple opportunities to improve – Self-learning ability– Ability to work with a team– Ability to communicate effectively

Cornerstone Common ElementsTypical Learning Objectives Students will…

• Complete a term-length, design-build project which serves as a cornerstone experience

• Be able to visualize and present objects in systems in three-dimensions

• Develop professional skills for success in engineering

• Have an introductory level of knowledge of project management

Assessing the Design Experience

• Elements of the design experience– Identifying solution options– Identifying constraints– Performing research– Performing analysis– Evaluating analysis (making a decision)– Implementing design decision– Performing project management

Assessing the Design Experience

• Survey to gather data on time spent and iterations on activities• Anonymous• No effect on grades• Weekly updates

• Student teams were asked to indicate:

• Amount of time spent• Number of participants• Number of times revisited

Observations & Lessons Learned

% Total Time Spent - AEV• Reasonably full set of activities for most any design project

• Measureable amount of exposure to each design activity

• No less than 8% time in any one activity

15%10%

% TOTAL TIME SPENT

ProjectManagement

ImplementDesign Decision

Evaluate Analysis

Perform Analysis

Perform Research

IdentifySolution Options

Identify Constraints

Observations & Lessons Learned

• More complex design projects require more visits and revisits to specific design activities

• Such multiple visits highlight and reinforce the iterative nature of design

Weekly Visits - ROBOT

Impact of First-year Engineering Program on Retention to Degree

Cornerstone Design Projects

FE Roller-CoasterFES Advanced Energy Vehicle

FEH Robot

FEH/FE Nanotechnology

Summary

A First-year Engineering Program that is

• Comprehensive

• Effective

• Successful

Comprehensive

• Uniformly required of all students in all COE majors

• Four sequences to accommodate all students– University Honors students– University Scholars students– Standard track students– Transfer students

• Variety of hands-on lab activities and cornerstone projects to appeal to all majors

• Portable to OSU regional campuses

Effective

Students-• Have a good understanding of what

engineering is all about• Have a positive attitude toward engineering• Are better informed when selecting a major• Are better prepared for entry into their major• Receive a foundation on which to build rest of

college career in engineering• Get connected to other students, faculty, the

College, and the profession

Successful

• Retention of students into second year is up• 6-year graduation rates are up (to ~60%)• Helps recruit the better and the best students• Acknowledged as one of the top first-year

programs in the country• Industry recognizes the teamwork and

leadership skills developed in students • Industry is now contributing advancement

funding & gifts-in-kind to the 1st-year program

Acknowledgements

• NSF funded the Gateway Engineering Education Coalition for early development

• Ohio State’s College of Engineering for support, equipment, and renovated space

• All of the faculty, staff, and students who contributed to the program development

• All of the EEIC faculty, staff, and students who teach and facilitate program delivery

Comments or Questions and Contact Info

Rick FreulerFundamentals of Engineering for HonorsFreuler.1@osu.edu

Bob GustafsonEngineering Education Innovation CenterGustafson.4@osu.edu

Cliff WhitfieldFES AEV Design Project CourseWhitfield.22@osu.edu

OSU first-year Engineering classrooms

Space RenovationSummer 2000 & Summer 2001

Existing space was renovated to produce

• One 72 seat computer classroom

• Three 36 seat computer classrooms

• Three hands-on labs - each with 9 benches for 9 teams of 4 students

30 March 2012 KEEN 2012 Regional Conference

Classrooms and Laboratory Rooms

• In the classroom two students sit side-by-side and across from two other students

• Provides for teams of 4 students, each with easy individual access to a computer

Classrooms – 36 Seats or 72 Seats

Laboratory Rooms – 36 Students

72 Seat Classroom – Isometric View

The FEH Robot design project

Key Features of the FEH Robot Design-Build Project

• There is a new robot scenario and obstacle course each year

• There is an alternative project each year

• Both students and faculty have input to team selection

• Students work in four person teams and develop their own working agreements

• The robot competition is done in public – arena or field house is rented

• Design-build project uses skills and knowledge developed in earlier quarters

• Project planning, management, and documentation are key concepts

• These elements constitute about 80 percent of grade; 20 percent is on robot performance

• Final report has a solid model and dimensioned drawings

• Weekly review by teaching team of robot and project notebook

• Peer evaluation at 4th, 7th, and 10th week

• Peer evaluation affects course grade

• Documentation includes progress report, draft and final written reports, project notebook, and oral presentation

• Math, Physics, and Engineering faculty meet weekly

Robot Competition Venue

The Individual Competition

– Gauge performance vs. other teams

– Used to seed teams in final competition

– Motivates students to make last-chance revisions

• Individual (8th week of class)

The Final Competition

• Head-to-head (9th week of class)video

Team Project Oral Presentation

Observed Success: Some Statistics

Based on comparison with a matched control group, those who complete FEH will usually:

• Start into their majors 1 quarter earlier• Graduate in 4.3 rather than 4.8 years• Participate in a co-op or internship (80% of

FEH versus 50% of control)• Be more likely to become leaders in student

organizations (FIRST)

Observed Successes: Entry to Major

Quarters to Major

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Number of Quarters Enrolled

Control

Observed Success: More Statistics

Based on comparison with a matched control group, those who complete FEH will usually:

• Have better grades in subsequent math

and physics courses

• Have higher GPAs with an upward trend after three quarters

• Be more likely to stay with engineering

Observed Successes: Retention In Engineering Results

Retention of FEH Students in Engineering

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior 5th Year

Year in School

2001-02 FEH

2000-01 FEH

1999-00 FEH

1999-00 Control

1998-99 FEH

1998-99 Control

1988 Baseline

FEH Enrollment GrowthFundamentals of Engineering for Honors

Students Enrolled

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Recognition and Industry Response

• College of Engineering gave FEH the Boyer Award for Excellence in Teaching Innovation

• Several FEH instructors have been awarded the MacQuigg Award for Teaching Excellence

• Industry involvement– Example: P&G Product Launch exercise– Example: Alcatel-Lucent lectures to all sections

each year– Industry willing to take FEH students after first

year for Co-op and Internship

Recognition and Industry Response

• Companies which have been involved:– Alcatel-Lucent, American Electric Power,

Arvin Meritor, Autodesk, Caterpillar, DaimlerChrysler, Eaton, Exxon-Mobil, Ford, Honda, Lockheed-Martin, Mabuchi, Microsoft, National Instruments, Procter & Gamble, Raytheon, Shell, and Texas Instruments

• Ohio State President has attended robot competition

HOW the FEH H193 Robot project COURSE WORKS

Teaching ENG H193

• Lecture sessions– Include design techniques, calculations,

documentation methods, reporting methods, laboratory tools and techniques

– Less than 1/3 of class meeting time

• Lab sessions– Occupies majority of class time– Professor, graduate (GTA), & undergrad

teaching assistants (UTA) available to answer questions

Operational Details

• Scenario / Project specification

• Robot course

• Robot controller

• Materials made available to students

• Capable support systems

The Scenario

• Changed each year• Developed by team

of faculty, GTAs and UTAs

• Involves simulation of a real world problem

• Robots introduced as solution to problem

• Revealed on 1st day

Project Specifications

• Designed to allow creativity within specific constraints

• Developed using a team approach– Faculty members & TAs

– TAs provide input via past experience

The Robot Course

• Built by UTA “Course Team”

• Constructed during first twoquarters

• Materials and quality of construction determine project level of difficulty

– Driving surfaces, ramp location and materials, electrical components

– Keep difficulty uniform throughout course

– Production-quality working drawings

• Monitor wear on course during use

• Set up course on competition day

The Robot Course - 2003

The Robot Controller

• MIT Handy Board– 68HC11 CPU (2 Mhz)

– 32k RAM

– 16 inputs (digital/analog)

– 4 motor outputs

– 16 x 2 LCD Screen– Programmed via Interactive C – similar to Java VM

• Interpreted execution• Multitasking

The “Company Store”

• Primary outlet for parts and supplies– Structural materials, motors, gears,

wheels, electrical components, sensors– Open during most open lab times

• Catalog distributed to students and available online

• Staffed by UTAs• Team budget & store inventory are

tracked via online web application

The Support Systems

• Open labs & "Company Store"– At least two UTAs and one GTA

• Normal class time– Two UTAs, one GTA, one faculty member– More TAs typically intersect in adjacent rooms

• Instructional Lab Supervisors – Available during day

• Machine shop – Use of tools and training via UTA

The Support Systems

• Online – Message board or AIM

staffed by GTAs

• Weekly staff meetings– Include Math, Physics,

Statics, & Eng staff– Coordinate activities to

not overload students

• Weekly anonymous student journals

• Weekly progress reviews with teams

In Summary…

– Comparable to junior-or senior-level project

– Experience beneficial throughout collegiate career and beyond

• Operational supportvia past students

• Continuous feedback via present students

• H193 provides an exciting hands-on design/build experience

• ENG H193 is a unique first-year experience

Building a Comprehensive, Effective, and Successful 1 st -year Engineering Program

Documents

Transcript of Building a Comprehensive, Effective, and Successful 1 st -year Engineering Program

Effective Techniques for a Successful PR Campaign

Effective Practices for Successful Learning Communities

A Comprehensive Approach to Effective Character Education

Vtiger to Highrise Migration: Comprehensive Guide for Successful Switch

George Mason University College of Education and Human ... · teachers with a comprehensive overview of effective approaches to planning, implementing, managing, and assessing successful

Effective and Comprehensive CBRN Security Risk Management ...

Comprehensive Strategies for Effective Brain Drug Delivery

The Most Comprehensive, Convenient and Cost-Effective ...

Successful Projects Require Effective Communication

Building and Sustaining Effective and Successful ...media.news.health.ufl.edu/misc/cod-oralhealth/docs/conferences/20… · Building and Sustaining Effective and Successful Coalitions

Measures of Effective Comprehensive Community Action

Effective communication for successful campaigns

Mission Statement Provide comprehensive, cost-effective, … · 2018. 11. 13. · Mission Statement Provide comprehensive, cost-effective, compassionate healthcare for our diverse

CHRONIC MEDICATION COMPREHENSIVE FORMULARY Effective …

Highly Effective Habits Of Successful Lifelong Learners

Successful Planning = Effective Engagement and Delivery - PAS

EFFECTIVE METHODS FOR SUCCESSFUL INFORMATION …

Effective Teaching Requires Comprehensive Reaction Databases

Integrating effective testing & automation for successful ... · Integrating effective testing & automation for successful adoption of DevOps ... Hardware/embedded ... Testing framework

Successful Cost Effective Bidding