ENGINEERING AND THE FRESHMAN YEAR

1
ENGINEERING AND THE FRESHMAN YEAR

• DATA REVIEW
• 11-26-02

2
POSSIBLE STRATEGIES FOR FROSH YEAR IMPACT

• Push on GIR connection to eng. study (GIR prereq
  study)
• Push on creation of frosh year subjects to
  develop eng. abilities (outside of GIR math,
  science abilities) (Mission 2000x, 16.00, etc.)
• Push on creation of subjects that impact eng.
  enrollment (FAS, intro. to eng.)
• Available data helps E-CUE choose one or more of
  above strategies

3
PRELIMINARY RESEARCH QUESTIONS FOR ENGINEERING
AND THE FRESHMAN YEAR STUDY

• How do prior MIT frosh year and GIR reports
  inform our study of engineering and the frosh
  year?
• GIR unit creep How do MIT GIR requirements
  compare with peer schools?
• Are GIR subjects providing the baseline abilities
  needed for engineering study?
• Do frosh subjects/ experiences that introduce
  engineering and complex technical problem solving
  impact students choice of major?
• Do frosh subjects/ experiences that introduce
  engineering and complex technical problem solving
  impact students eng. design related abilities?
• Do MIT students self-assessment of engineering
  abilities impact choice of major?
• What is the relationship between gender, pursuit
  of intro. to engineering experiences, plans to
  major in engineering, and final choice of major?
• What other models for engineering and the
  freshman year are out there? Are they working?

4
What do prior MIT reports on the freshman year
recommend?

• Education Design Project Report, 1999
• Focus groups formed by EDP suggested frosh year
  curriculum should
• Nurture critical-thinking skills and does not
  overemphasize the mere absorption of subject
  material transmitted through lectures
• Forge a link between classroom learning and MIT
  research enterprise
• Prepare students to make a well-informed choice
  of major
• Encourage the development of social skills and
  teamwork capabilities
• Place more emphasis on intellectual creativity
• Establish good communication skills
• Nurture a sense of self-confidence
• Build a sense of citizenship and an appreciation
  of world affairs
• Build a robust foundation for more advanced
  learning, particularly in math and physics

5
EDP REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS/ CURRICULUM MODELS

• Recommendations
• Every frosh should have serious hands-on
  experience.
• Every frosh should begin to develop abilities in
  complex technical problem solving.
• Academic rigor of current frosh program
  maintained, but use improved teaching methods and
  integrate across subjects.
• Establish process for routine review of GIRs for
  relevance through Office of the Freshman Year
• Possible models for curriculum development
• Integrative material and hands-on experiences in
  GIR subjects
• Experimental 6 unit mini-subjects that introduce
  various majors to students (use Advising Seminar
  model)
• New subject that parallels GIR subjects to
  integrate material and provide hands-on
  experiences
• Mission 2000x

6
CUP FROSH ADVISING REPORT, 1997

• Key problem to be addressed by advising system
  review 10 frosh on academic warning at end of
  1st semester!
• Key goal of committee how to connect advising
  with student performance data
• Current models for advising 124 freshman
  advising seminars (FAS) and 89 traditional
  advisors (at time of report, residence advising
  not available)
• Findings
• Topics covered by FAS vary considerably but not
  investigated in detail in study
• Quality of advising varies students prefer FAS
  advising model over traditional advising model
  due to quality of interaction with advisor
• Key issue in quality of FAS is whether it
  provides intellectual stimulation as basis for
  student/ faculty interaction rather than specific
  topic covered
• No control for FAS topics
• Downward trend in number of FAS topics offered by
  faculty as well as offered by SoE faculty
• 1995-6 57 out of 133 offered
• 1996-7 46 out of 128 offered
• 2001-02 25 out of 77 offered
• 2002-03 23 out of 67 offered

7
FROSH YEAR PROGRAM COMPARISON, 2001

• Compared sophomore GPA (1st and 2nd term) for
  students who completed Concourse, ESG, ISP with
  general frosh population from 1992-2001
• Very slight differences in GPA (potentially not
  statistically significant)
• Lower GPA for Concourse students than mainstream
  in 94,96,00 (both terms)
• Lower GPA for ISP students than mainstream in 96
  (1st term), and in 96,98,99,00 (2nd term)
• Higher GPA for ESG in 93,94 (1st term) and 93,94
  (2nd term)

8
HASS REPORT, 1985

• Key finding is lack of coherence to 8 subject
  HASS requirement (even though HASS concentration
  required)
• Comparison across peer schools found range of
  total HASS subjects required from 4 12 with
  average of 6

9
INTERSCHOOL WORKING GROUP (IWG) REVIEW OF SEEC
RECOMMENDATIONS, 1993

• SEEC (SoE Education Committee) recommend review
  of depth of math, science subjects IWG responded
  that CUP should review issue
• SEEC recommend HASS connection with student
  major IWG responded that 2 HASS subjects can
  already be taken in student major

10
GIR unit creep 2002 How does MIT GIR requirement
compare with peer schools today? Preliminary data
11
Are GIR subjects providing the baseline abilities
needed for engineering study?

• Preliminary results of prerequisite study of
  18.03
• Methods
• Review of 18.03 educational objectives (provided
  by Prof. H.Miller) by MIT engineering faculty via
  interview. Interviews with faculty in charge of
  sophomore/ junior year subjects that require
  basic ability to apply diff.eq. (Course 2,3,6 to
  date).
• Educational content review

12
18.03 Educational Objectives

• 1. Model a simple system to obtain a 1st order
  ODE.
• 2. Use Matlab routines to visualize and
  numerically compute solutions to ODEs.
• 3. Solve a 1st order linear ODE by the method of
  integrating factors or variation of parameter.
• 4. Calculate with complex numbers and
  exponentials.
• 5. Solve a constant coefficient second order
  linear initial value problem with driving term
  exponential times polynomial. In case of
  exponential (or sinusoidal) signal, compute
  amplitude gain and phase shift.
• 6. Compute Fourier coefficients, and 2nd periodic
  solutions of linear ODEs by means
• of Fourier series.
• 7. Use Laplace transform to describe growth and
  oscillation of functions of time, for large time,
  and (using tables and partial fractions) to solve
  IVPs involving step functions and impulses.
• 8. Calculate eigenvalues, eigenvectors, and
  matrix exponentials, and use them to solve
  homogeneous 1st order linear IVP's relate linear
  systems with higher-order ODEs.
• 9. Recreate the phase portrait of a
  two-dimensional linear autonomous system from
  trace and determinant.
• 10. Determine the qualitative behavior of an
  autonomous nonlinear two-dimensional system by
  means of nullclines and an analysis of behavior
  near critical points.

13
Educational content review of 18.03

• Blooms taxonomy (knowledge, comprehension,
  application, model) combined with 18.03
  educational objectives to simplify content review
• Focus on 18.03 quiz questions for review
• Table summarizes content review shows narrow
  emphasis on simple application of DE (simple
  calculations) in problems with little emphasis on
  comprehension or modeling
• Tentative conclusion 10 educational objectives
  listed for 18.03 are not sufficiently covered by
  subject material to ensure student learning of
  those objectives

14
Do MIT subjects/ experiences that introduce
engineering and complex technical problem solving
impact students choice of major? Some data for
thought
15
Do MIT subjects/ experiences that introduce
engineering impact students design-related
abilities?

• 1997 MIT / ECSEL study of frosh design-related
  ability improvement as result of completing frosh
  year engineering design subject.
• Comparison of 16.00 and SP.753 students with
  mainstream MIT frosh population showed
  improvement in
• ability to work on open-problem solving
  abilities and
• ability to apply technical concepts in
  engineering design,
• ability to identify and use mechanical parts in
  building a mechanical device
• confidence in technical creativity

16
What is the relationship between gender, pursuit
of intro. to engineering experiences, plans to
major in engineering, and final choice of major?

• Table 1 shows results of 2002 frosh survey of
  course major enrollment plans, experience in
  engineering design, and self-assessment of
  engineering related abilities by gender.
• Table shows important differences between men and
  women for these factors.
• Table also shows differences in Class 2006
  course major plans for engineering and Class 2005
  course major choices.

17
FROSH YEAR MODELS

• Total immersion Olin College
• Intro. to engineering series CMU
• Intro. to engineering single subject Stanford
• Integrated first year study as prep for
  engineering study Purdue
• Intro. to engineering design subject PSU