Gateway Experiences to Engineering Technology: Development of an Introductory Course

The launch of a new Engineering Technology undergraduate degree at a research intensive university prompted collaboration from six different disciplines within the College of Technology. With a flexible curriculum designed to meet existing and future workforce needs, the program of study incorporated both new and revised courses. One of the new courses is a gateway Introduction to Engineering Technology course designed to attract and retain both traditional and nontraditional students. In this introductory course, engineering technology is defined based on the skill set needed for the current and future economy. The gateway course employs a reverse course-content-delivery design whereby students engage traditional lecture-based subject matter in a user-friendly manner that encourages students to revisit lectures on-demand. Students work through a series of at-home assignments in a linear manner, labeled simply as read, watch, and do. These assignments build upon each other to develop both depth and breadth through repeated exposure and analysis of core concepts. This is consistent with learning theory literature, which is replete with studies showing that when students experience expectation failure, followed by a time of thorough and investigative feedback loops, learning gains are increased almost fourfold, from 20–30% to nearly 80% (Karpicke & Roediger, 2008). In addition, based upon student persistence theory (Tinto, 2003), common student experiences are developed for both engineering technology content and the social learning aspect of higher education to create learning-communities for the gateway students (Tinto, 1997).

[1]  Peter M. Senge,et al.  Laws of the Fifth Discipline , 1990 .

[2]  K. Patricia Cross,et al.  Why Learning Communities? Why Now? , 1998 .

[3]  F. Vella,et al.  The power of mindful learning , 1997 .

[4]  Gustavo Stubrich The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization , 1993 .

[5]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  The Critical Importance of Retrieval for Learning , 2008, Science.

[6]  U. C. Bureau Statistical Abstract of the United States , 2004 .

[7]  Vincent Tinto,et al.  Classrooms as Communities: Exploring the Educational Character of Student Persistence. , 1997 .

[8]  John M. Parente,et al.  Collaborative Learning vs. Lecture/Discussion: Students' Reported Learning Gains * , 2001 .

[9]  S. Xavier,et al.  The Global Competitiveness Report 2011 - 2012 , 2011 .

[10]  Vincent Tinto,et al.  Enhancing Student Persistence: Connecting the Dots ∗ , 2002 .

[11]  Todd R. Kelley,et al.  Staking the claim for the 'T" in STEM , 2010 .

[12]  George D. Kuh,et al.  Adding Value: Learning Communities and Student Engagement , 2004 .

[13]  David F. Channell Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation , 1999 .

[14]  William E. Fitzgibbon,et al.  On B.S.E and B.S.ET for the Engineering Profession , 2010 .

[15]  Aaron M. Brower,et al.  What is a Learning Community?: Toward a Comprehensive Model , 1998 .

[16]  Vincent Tinto,et al.  Colleges as Communities: Taking Research on Student Persistence Seriously , 1997, The Review of Higher Education.

[17]  F Meehan,et al.  Shaping the future. , 1991, Nursing.

[18]  E. T. Smerdon Lifelong learning for engineers : Riding the whirlwind , 1996 .

[19]  Dave Hotler Dynamic leans this way , 2002 .