Overview of the Texas A&amp;M /NSF Engineering Core Curriculum

Glover, Charles J.; Erdman, C.A.

doi:10.1109/fie.1992.683419

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Integrated engineering science curricula typically substitute several multidisciplinary engineering science courses for traditional engineering science courses. At Texas A&M University, four-course [114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123] and five-course [124] core engineering science curricula were developed to replace traditional sophomore engineering science courses [75]. Faculty members in electrical and computer engineering and mechanical engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology constructed a five-course sequence, referred to as the Sophomore Engineering Curriculum, over three quarters in the sophomore year to replace required core engineering science courses that were spread over the sophomore, junior, and senior years [127][128][129][130][131][132][133].…”

Section: Sophomore Integrated Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Engineering Curricula

Froyd

Ohland

2005

Journal of Engineering Education

262

220

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing emphasis on interdisciplinary research and education requires researchers and learners to build links between distinct disciplines. In engineering education, work on integrated curricula to help learners build connections between topics began with three programs in 1988. Integrated curricula have connections to a larger movement in higher education—learning communities, which help learners to build interdisciplinary links and social links within a community. Integrated engineering curricula have provided concrete assessment data on retention and student performance to augment research on learning communities. While innovators in both movements have offered many prototypes and gathered many data, goals and results from programs implemented to date are not sufficiently well defined to guide the design and implementation of programs at other institutions. This paper discusses the importance of integration, reviews accomplishments to date, draws conclusions by analyzing those accomplishments, and suggests future initiatives.

show abstract

Section: Sophomore Integrated Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Engineering Curricula

Froyd

Ohland

2005

Journal of Engineering Education

262

220

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the second year, FC schools would implement the freshman pilot and simultaneously design a pilot sophomore curriculum. The curricula for these "foundation years" were modeled on two already existing programs: the Integrated, First-year Curriculum in Science, Engineering and Mathematics [9] that was initiated at RHIT in 1990, and the Sophomore Core Engineering Curriculum [10][11][12][13][14][15] that was initiated at TAMU in 1989. During the third year of the grant (the 1995-96 academic year), each FC partner intended to improve its first-year curriculum pilot, implement a sophomore curriculum pilot, and prepare plans for pilots of a junior curriculum in one or more engineering major(s).…”

Section: The Evolving Model Of Changementioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolution of Curricular Change Models within the Foundation Coalition

Clark

Froyd

Merton

et al. 2004

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines one aspect of the curricular change process undertaken by the Foundation Coalition (FC); specifically, how understanding about curricular change held by the FC leaders evolved as they moved through the process of establishing a new curriculum at their institutions. The initial change model was similar to that used for product development and emphasized the role of a pilot program. However, as the curriculum moved beyond the pilot stage to adoption and full‐scale implementation, and then into the final stage where sustaining the new curriculum was the focus, the change model became more complex. Those complexities reflect a parallel evolution in their understanding of what constitutes a curriculum, from their initial conceptualization of it as a product to be carefully designed towards an understanding of it as a dynamic entity whose growth must be sustained.

show abstract

“…The second year model centers around the engineering sciences and presents a unified approach to engineering science based on an earlier curriculum project. 3,4 The second year TAMUFC model was designed to be common across engineering majors and consists of studies in momentum, energy, continuous media, materials, and electronics. The closest match to these classes taken from a traditional curriculum would be statics/dynamics, thermodynamics, material science, strength of materials, and electrical circuits.…”

Section: A Curriculum Integration Definedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Curricula: Purpose and Design

Everett

Imbrie

Morgan

2000

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper has two objectives: 1) to define, describe, and discuss integrated programs and their advantages with regard to student and faculty outcomes, as well as student retention; and 2) to describe a design process used to successfully develop and deploy an integrated first year curriculum. This paper details the results of the design process and the content of the first year integrated program implemented by the College of Engineering at Texas A&M University. The curriculum integrates the first year components of calculus, chemistry, engineering graphics, English, physics, and problem solving.

show abstract

Overview of the Texas A&M /NSF Engineering Core Curriculum

Cited by 13 publications

References 3 publications

Integrated Engineering Curricula

Integrated Engineering Curricula

The Evolution of Curricular Change Models within the Foundation Coalition

Integrated Curricula: Purpose and Design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About