A Classification Scheme for "Introduction to Engineering" Courses: Defining First-Year Courses Based on Descriptions, Outcomes and Assessment

A proliferation of first-year engineering programs exists nationwide. These are often designed from scratch and tend to be "personal courses" - designed by instructors to meet their preferred objectives. Therefore, while they may be prerequisites to second-year courses, first-year engineering programs are not necessarily integrated into an engineering curriculum. Further, since they are often designed with little consideration for best practices in introductory course design, overall outcomes and content vary widely. This leads to the issue of course developers "reinventing the wheel," considering successful models are not adequately disseminated. The problem is further exacerbated by a lack of definition for first year models. Despite a developer knowing what they want in a course, he or she may not be able to find a course with similar outcomes with nothing more than "first year engineering" as a description. Through an NSF sponsored study, we have developed a classification scheme for first-year engineering courses. Multiple methods of data collection were employed, including a focus group at a national engineering education conference and a survey of syllabi available on the Internet. A Delphi procedure was used to survey participants in multiple rounds toward building consensus on the classification scheme. A culminating workshop was held at a major conference in which the participants tested the scheme based on courses at their home institution. This paper presents the classification scheme and information of its development. The anticipated impact is that the scheme will allow universities, community colleges, funding agencies, etc. to use the developed classification scheme to accurately determine specific course content when considering credit awarded for transfers, to develop introductory engineering coursework, formulate course foci, and to identify and fund efforts toward appropriate assessment gaps.