2002-2043
Bringing About Marked Increases in Freshman Engineering Retention
John T. Demel, Robert J. Gustafson, Audeen W. Fentiman, Richard J. Freuler,
and John A. Merrill
College of Engineering
The Ohio State University
Abstract
During the past ten years, The Ohio State University's College of Engineering has moved from a
series of separate freshman courses for engineering orientation, engineering graphics, and
engineering problem solving with computer programming to a dual offering of integrated course
sequences in the Introduction to Engineering Program (IEP) and the Freshman Engineering
Honors (FEH) Program. These new programs retain part of the traditional material but add in
hands-on laboratory experiences that lead to reverse engineering and design/build projects. The
relational practices – teamwork and project management, along with report writing and oral
presentations and ethics have assumed important roles in this program. The programs are
designed to have faculty from all of the degree granting departments teach freshmen. These
programs were developed to improve the retention and early decision to stay or leave for new
freshmen and to lay a foundation to better address some of the ABET 2000 accreditation criteria.
Retention has improved markedly. This paper provides a brief description of the freshman
programs, a summary of changes accomplished, and the retention statistics for the College of
Engineering.
Introduction
In 1988, at The Ohio State University the retention of engineering students to the junior year
ranged between 40 and 50 percent. See Figure 1. This followed the national norms. In the early
1990’s the Ohio State College of Engineering became part of the NSF funded Gateway
Engineering Education Coalition. The other members of the Coalition were Drexel University,
Columbia University, Cooper Union, New Jersey Institute of Technology, University of
Pennsylvania, University of South Carolina, and Florida International University. One focus of
the Coalition’s efforts was to improve retention to the junior year by using Drexel’s integrated
E4 curriculum1 as a model to be adapted for use in the other Coalition schools. This paper
describes the key components of that adaptation and how they have affected retention at Ohio
State University. There are four papers in the ASEE 2001 Annual Conference Proceedings 2, 3,4,5
that describe the components of Ohio State’s First Year Engineering Programs in some detail.
1
Page 7.266.1
Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education
2002-2043
Figure 1. Retention of 1988 New First Quarter Freshman
Retention of 1988 Entering First Year Students (1050 students)
100.0%
Percent Retained
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Fifth Year
Academic Year
The Freshman Engineering Programs
Ohio State has two programs for their first year engineering students. The first one is the First
Year Engineering Honors (FEH) program. Students designated Honors by the University can opt
for the FEH program. The second one is the Introduction to Engineering Program (IEP) that is
required of all students as of Autumn 2001The FEH Program is a sequence of three courses of
four credits each. The first course (Autumn Quarter) covers Engineering Graphics and CADD.
It also has eight hands-on labs and one two-person design project. The second course (Winter
Quarter) is primarily a programming course and covers C with a little C++ and MATLAB. This
course has eight more hands-on labs. These 16 hands-on labs cover the various disciplines in the
College of Engineering. The third course (Spring Quarter) is a ten-week team design-buildcompete-document project. Most of the student teams design and build small autonomous robots
that have to perform a given series of tasks. The classrooms used for these courses are
technology enhanced such that each student has access to a computer and collaborative learning
is facilitated4. In the classroom portion of the course, each faculty member has two
undergraduate Peer Mentors (teaching assistants) who help when the students are working on
daily assignments do much of the grading. When the students go to the hands-on labs, the
teaching team consists of the faculty member, a graduate teaching (GTA) and two undergraduate
teaching associates. The class size is limited to 36. The students work in teams of two or four
depending on the assignment. In 2001-2002, there were seven sections (252 students) of this
course sequence. The sequence began in 1993 as part of the Gateway Engineering Education
Coalition efforts at Ohio State.
The Introduction to Engineering Program (IEP) is a two-course sequence (three credits each) that
is a derivative of the FEH program. Included in the first course are Engineering Graphics and
2
Page 7.266.2
Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education
2002-2043
CADD. There are nine hands-on labs, which include a model bridge design project. The second
course continues the instruction in CADD and Engineering Graphics and teaches an introduction
to MATLAB. The focus for the ten lab periods is a team design-build-document project where
the product has to meet written performance specifications. The documenting portion for both
the IEP and FEH programs includes progress reports, drafts and a final version of a written
project report, and an oral presentation. The classroom portion (72 students) has a teaching team
of one faculty member, two graduate teaching associates, and two Peer Mentors (undergraduate
teaching associates). When these students go to the hands-on labs, the class of 72 is split in half.
In each lab room are one faculty member, one GTA, and one Peer mentor to work with nine
teams of four students each. In 2001-2002, there were eight sections of 72 students of the first
course during Autumn Quarter and sections of the first course and sections of the seco nd
course in Winter Quarter. Nine sections of the second course are planned for Spring Quarter
2002.
Program Components
The programs were developed to incorporate features that had improved retention in other
programs or at Ohio State. There were no new features or components added that had not been
used before. It is believed by these authors that the combination of components provides the
students with motivation, information, an opportunity to get to know their classmates through
teamwork, skills that they will need for their careers (and help meet ABET 2000 guidelines),
information about the various disciplines, a chance to be creative, and, most importantly, that the
College through its personnel care about them and want to help them to succeed. They feel that
they are part of the College from the beginning.
Putting Engineering Up Front
Prior to the 1990s, many engineering programs had mathematics and science up front rather than
engineering. The students viewed courses that covered these subjects as barriers to get into
engineering. The Drexel E4 program put the emphasis on engineering – hands-on labs and
design up front - and the Ohio State development work has focused on doing this as well. From
the description given in the section above, it is obvious that these are a key component of the
First Year Engineering programs at Ohio State. Weekly and end of term assessment for both the
FEH and IEP programs show that the hands-on labs and the design projects are very important to
the students’ attitudes about learning engineering. Many of the Honors students make the
decision to attend Ohio State because of the robot project.
Teaching Engineering Tools for Co-op, Internships, and Upper Division Classes
The First Year Engineering Programs are focused on introducing the students to engineering, to
the engineering disciplines, and preparing the students for work in industry and for their upper
division classes. On the latter point, the students learn Engineering Graphics, CADD,
MATLAB, programming, how to take measurements in a laboratory environment, how to write
lab reports, how to plan, manage and document a design project and how to work on teams. The
reasons (ABET and sound preparation for their careers) for covering these topics are explained to
the students and help motivate them to do well.
3
Page 7.266.3
Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education
Mentoring
Mentoring has been proven to help retention by providing students with individuals who have
experience and knowledge about studying engineering 6. Undergraduate and graduate students
working as teaching associates (TAs) provide peer mentoring for the first year students. These
students work with the students during class and labs on a one-to-one basis and gain the students’
confidence so that they will ask questions and seek advice. The faculty members from across the
College get to meet the students early in their program of study. Learning names and getting to
know the students is a key task for these faculty members so that they, like the TAs gain the
students’ confidence.
Teamwork
Teams are used during the classroom periods, in the hands-on labs, and in the design projects.
Some teams change weekly, some change twice a quarter, and those for the ten-week design
projects are constant for the entire project. Instruction on effective teamwork is provided for the
students. The book Project Management and Teamwork 7 is one of the books required for the
course. Teamwork is important for helping the students know their classmates. Anecdotal
evidence from upper division students shows that the friendships and teamwork with these
friends extends into the Junior and Senior years. For some of those students, the friendships
continue into the workplace after graduation.
Faculty and Teaching Associates Selection
All of the faculty members are volunteers. The faculty members are recruited by the First Year
Engineering Programs. Communication skill, the ability to motivate the students through their
enthusiasm for their field, and the willingness to work on a team are all desired characteristics.
When they volunteer, the College on a release time basis pays them from their departments in the
same way that they are paid on a release time basis for doing research.
Graduate and undergraduate teaching associates (Peer Mentors) are recruited by posting notices
around the College and working with the advisors. When the students apply they turn a letter of
application and a resume. The applicants are chosen to be interviewed based on their letters and
resumes. During the interview process, the staff look for good communications skills (verbal
and written), a sincere interest in working with the students to help them succeed, a solid
technical background with expertise in engineering graphics and CADD, MATLAB and
programming, and hands-on laboratory experience. The faculty members and teaching
associates must be willing to come to education workshops to learn more about teaching and
learning.
Faculty and Teaching Associate Training and Communications
The First Year Engineering Program staff and faculty provide a four-day workshop for new
graduate teaching associates and peer mentors and a two-day workshop for the faculty. The
topics covered include cognitive development, learning styles, new teaching methodologies, how
to use the technology in the classrooms, and the course material including tutorials in using the
CADD package, MATLAB, and the lab exercises. There is a strong emphasis on how students
4
Page 7.266.4
Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education
learn and how much they can learn rather than how much material can be presented. In addition
to the workshops given prior to Autumn and Winter Quarters, there are weekly meetings of the
faculty and graduate students for each course. These meetings are to discuss problems that arise,
to designate which members on the teaching team are going to develop test questions, review test
questions, and set the criteria for grading. In addition, when a faculty member develops an exam
question and its solution, that faculty member grades that problem for all of the students in all of
the sections of the course. This ensures that the students are being treated fairly.
Program Materials
The College faculty members develop the materials for these courses and the program staff
refines the materials and mass produce the materials for the students and faculty members. A
common syllabus is used for these multiple section courses. Daily exercises, laboratory
exercises, design projects, and exams are done in common. A considerable amount of time is
spent making sure that all of the instructional materials have been tested and are presented in a
professional way. Teachers’ lecture notes are provided for the students in course packets and are
also available on the Web.
Assessment including Weekly Electronic Journals
Assessment was built in from the beginning for these two programs. There are end of the quarter
assessment instruments for the faculty teaching and for the programs’ content and materials.
There are also weekly (FEH) or bi-weekly (IEP) anonymous electronic journals so that there is
continuous feedback from the students during the quarter 8. Each faculty member gets her/his
students’ journal entries. Questions are posed for the students to answer that deal with various
aspects of the program. They are told that they can write about things that are not working well
(in their opinion) but they cannot just complain. They have to propose a solution to their
perceived problem. The faculty members review the summaries of the journals for the sections
that they are teaching. They go over the summaries with their students so that the students know
that their feedback is being considered. When students address problems that can be resolved
immediately, the faculty member tells the students what is going to be changed. If a solution
must wait until the next time the course is taught this is also related to the students. At the end of
the quarter the results are viewed by the First Year Program faculty and staff and are shared with
the teaching team members. The results of assessment are used for continuous program
improvement. The students’ participation in the program improvement is important in making
them feel part of the College.
Summary
The components discussed above are all ones that have proven to increase retention in one
program or another. They include engineering up front, hands-on labs, design projects,
teamwork, mentoring, use of regular faculty from a variety of engineering departments, careful
selection of graduate teaching assistants, careful selection of undergraduate teaching assistants
(peer mentors), faculty and teaching assistant educational workshops, weekly faculty meetings,
quality lecture, laboratory, and daily exercise materials, real time feedback through electronic
journals, and end of the quarter student evaluation of instruction and program content. From the
5
Page 7.266.5
Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education
journals and end of quarter course assessment we know that students like the hands-on labs and
design projects. We believe that these activities provide a balance for the more theoretical
mathematics courses that they are taking. Students also comment that they like the personable
teaching associates and faculty. They like having the journals as a way for them to provide
feedback. We also know from the journals that the physical arrangement in the new classrooms
and laboratories (four students face-to-face per table provides more opportunities for interaction
and the students have reported that they know more people. The net result is that they feel like
they belong to the College and they have a peer group of friends.
A summary of the end of course evaluations from the Autumn Quarter are shown below:
Without a doubt, the students' most favorable experience was participating in the ice cream lab. Students
commented favorably on seeing the results from their work and "being rewarded with good ice cream for thorough
evaluation and calculation". Many students really had fun with this lab while they learned. Next to eating the ice
cream, the most popular part of the lab was figuring out the equation for the mixture and seeing real results from
these equations. According to the students, this lab was a hit!
Among other favorites this quarter were the bridge building lab, teamwork, and the field trip to Baker
Systems. The bridge building lab created unity between team members giving them a chance to bond as a group.
This was a lab that the students were genuinely proud of and enjoyed working together. The students enjoyed the
creative outlet they had in this project and enjoyed the competition. The teamwork aspect of this course forced the
students to meet new people and improve their communication and teamwork skills. They learned from other
members of their group, by helping others, and by being helped themselves. One student commented "The best
experience I had in engineering was simply working with my team and using them as resources to understanding the
material. Getting to know the members of my group was the most favorable experience." Finally, many students
agreed that the field trip to Baker Systems (to see the manufacturing equipment in action) was extremely valuable.
This gave students to opportunity to observe real life experiences that exposed them to all types of engineering.
Students felt that it put what engineers do into perspective.
Less frequently mentioned, but still popular were using CADD, the Engineering Expo – a recruiting fair
(the students were required to attend, observe, and participate, and learning more about computers. Some students
enjoyed CADKEY because they felt they had a good understanding of it and preferred it over hand drawings. The
Engineering Expo provided students with much appreciated real life experience. One student commented that "I
didn't know that much about programs and spreadsheets so this class helped out a lot." Another specific comment
was “ I liked learning something new each day” while another student commented “the class was well organized.”
What the students don’t say in specific words is that they feel that they are part of the college,
that the teaching staff care about them as individuals and want to help them succeed, and that
they have been exposed to real life experiences both in the class and lab. Students are now able
to either commit to engineering or make a well-informed decision on choosing another field of
study.
Results
The retention results of these programs are shown in the Table 1 below and also in Figure 2. IEP
is the Introduction to Engineering Program that is required of all engineering students. It was
piloted first in 1998-99. FEH is the First Year Engineering Honors Program and it was started in
1993 with ~30 students. The retention in the FEH program has been reasonably good since the
program began but only the most recent data in which the program has grown to more than 100
students participating is included.
6
Page 7.266.6
Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education
Table 1. Retention Data for the First Year Engineering Programs at Ohio State
First Yr
%
Soph
%
Junior
%
Senior
%
Fifth
Year
%
1988 Base Line Data
1050
100.0%
810
77.0%
580
55.0%
425
42.1%
400
38.1%
1998-1999 IE Pilot
106
100.0%
86
81.3%
64
60.4%
55
51.9%
1998-1999 IE Control
180
100.0%
146
81.1%
104
57.8%
95
52.8%
1998-1999 FEH Pilot
105
100.0%
96
91.4%
82
78.1%
77
73.3%
1998-1999 FEH Control
105
100.0%
89
84.8%
77
73.3%
64
61.0%
1999-2000 IE Pilot
275
100.0%
250
90.9%
197
71.6%
0.0%
1999-2000 IE Control
120
100.0%
109
90.8%
72
60.0%
0.0%
1999-2000 FEH Pilot
173
100.0%
153
88.4%
145
83.8%
0.0%
1999-2000 FEH Control
60
100.0%
53
88.3%
45
75.0%
0.0%
2000-2001 IE
681
100.0%
535
78.6%
0.0%
0.0%
2000-2001 FEH
218
100.0%
210
96.3%
0.0%
0.0%
Figure 2. Combined data for the IE and FEH Programs 1998 – 2000
1998 Pilots
1998 Controls
1999 Pilots
100.0%
1999 Controls
2000 Group
1988 OSU Engineering
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
# of Students
1998 Pilot
1998 Control
1999 Pilot
1999 Control
2000 Group
1988 Group
211
285
448
181
899
1050
0.0%
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
5th Year
7
Page 7.266.7
Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education
Conclusions
Systematically exploring educational practices that improve retention and then integrating them
into the planning and implementation of a set of new courses has worked well at Ohio State. It
would be difficult to pick out which one of the processes or educational practices has been the
most effective. In the opinion of the authors, it is consistent regard for the students as
individuals as shown to them through the personal interactions provided by these programs that
is the key to our success. Providing hands-on experiences in class and in the lab are also very
important. Our advice to other faculty seeking to improve retention would be to start with a
clean slate and design the new practices and processes in from the beginning. Key features of
the success of these programs are getting the faculty to agree that improving retention is
important and getting the faculty input and approval for the new program design. In an article
from EDUCAUSE Review9, Donald Buckley concludes “Higher education has entered a
transition from the Instructional Paradigm to the Learning Paradigm.” These two First Year
Engineering programs are helping Ohio State make this transition.
Bibliography
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Fromm, E. and R.G. Quinn, “An Experiment to Enhance the Educational Experience of Engineering
Students”, Engineering Education, pp. 424-429, April 1989.
Fentiman, A.W., Demel, J.T., Freuler, R.J. Gustafson, R.J., and Merrill, J.A., “Developing and
Implementing an Innovative First Year Program for 1000 Students”, Proceedings of the 2001 American
Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, June 2001.
Freuler, R.J. Fentiman, A.W., Demel, J.T., Gustafson, R.J., and Merrill, J.A., “Developing and
Implementing Hands-on Laboratory Exercises and Design Projects for First Year Engineering Students”,
Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, June 2001.
Gustafson, R.J., Merrill, J.A., Fentiman, A.W., Freuler, R.J., and Demel, J.T., “Developing and
Implementing a Facilities Plan for a Freshman Engineering Courses Sequence”, Proceedings of the 2001
American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, June 2001.
Merrill, J.A., Freuler, R.J., Gustafson, R.J. Fentiman, A.W., and Demel, J.T., “Assessment of a Freshman
Program: Introduction to Engineering at The Ohio State University, Academic Years 1998-2001”,
Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, June 2001.
Vesilind, P. Aarne, “Mentoring Engineering students: Turning Pebbles into Diamonds”, Engineering
Education, pp. 407-411.
Smith, Karl A., Project Management and Teamwork, McGraw-Hill, NY, 2000.
Freuler, Richard J., John A. Merrill, Matthew S. Gates, Mary M. Lamont, and John T. Demel, “An
Anonymous Electronic Journal System – Program Assessment Tool and Monday Morning Quarterback”,
submitted for review for the Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference, June 2002.
Buckley, Donald P., “In Pursuit of the Learning Paradigm”, EDCAUSE Review, Vol.37, No. 1,
January/February 2002, pgs 29-38.
JOHN T. DEMEL
John T. Demel is a Professor of Engineering Graphics in the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering and
Geodetic Science. Dr. Demel serves as the Faculty Coordinator for the Introduction to Engineering Program (IEP)
and the Freshman Engineering Honors (FEH) program. Dr. Demel is a registered professional engineer in Texas
and is involved in engineering education research. He is a co-author on four textbooks. He helped create and
develop the FEH program. Dr. Demel earned his B.S.M.E. at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in 1965 and his
8
Page 7.266.8
Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education
M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Metallurgy from Iowa State University in 1968 and 1973 respectively. He taught at
Savannah State College and Texas A&M University prior to joining the faculty at Ohio State in 1980.
ROBERT J. GUSTAFSON
Robert J. Gustafson is a Professor of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering and Associate Dean for
Academic Affairs and Student Services for the College of Engineering of The Ohio State University. Dr. Gustafson
is a registered professional engineer and is actively engaged in development of first-year engineering programs and
teaching improvement. Dr. Gustafson received B. S. and M. S. degrees in Agricultural Engineering from the
University of Illinois in 1971 and 1972 and a Ph.D. in Agricultural Engineering from Michigan State University
in1974.
AUDEEN W. FENTIMAN
Audeen W. Fentiman is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and
Geodetic Science. She also serves as the Chair for the Nuclear Engineering Program. Her research is in the areas of
radioactive waste management, environmental engineering risk assessment, and engineering education. She holds
B.S. and M.A. degrees in mathematics and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Nuclear Engineering, the later two from The
Ohio State University
RICHARD J. FREULER
Richard J. Freuler is a Senior Researcher in the Aerospace Engineering and Aviation Department at The Ohio State
University. Dr. Freuler is the Associate Director of the department's Aeronautical and Astronautical Research
Laboratory and conducts scale model investigations of gas turbine installations for jet engine test cells and for
marine and industrial applications of gas turbines. He is also the Faculty Coordinator for the OSU Freshman
Engineering Honors (FEH) Program and teaches the three-quarter FEH engineering course sequence. Dr. Freuler
received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering in 1974, a B.S. in Computer and
Information Science in 1974, and a Ph.D. in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering in 1991 all from The Ohio
State University.
JOHN A. MERRILL
Dr. Merrill received his Ph.D. in Instructional Design and Technology from The Ohio State University in 1985. He
has an extensive background in public education, corporate training, and contract research. He is currently Program
Manager for the Introduction to Engineering (IE) Program at The Ohio State University. His current responsibilities
include management and assessment for the IE Program, including the use of web-based instruments. He also
collaborates with the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs/Student Services, and with key faculty, in the
establishment of outcome-based assessment processes. These activities were instrumental in helping the College of
Engineering prepare for its accreditation visit under new criteria issued by the national Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology (ABET).
9
Page 7.266.9
Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
Copyright Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education