Session F1D

A Flexible Curriculum for a Multi-disciplinary

Undergraduate Engineering Degree
Darryl Morrell1 , Chell Roberts1 , Robert Grondin1 , Chen-Yaun Kuo1 , Robert Hinks1 , Scott Danielson2
and Mark Henderson3

Abstract— This paper presents the curricular structure cur- formal decision process. We analyzed engineering education
rently under development for the new undergraduate multi- demand, assessed the economic trends and employment needs
disciplinary engineering program at Arizona State University at of the region, and conducted six focus group meetings with
the East campus. A founding faculty team is building the new
engineering program from a clean slate. The 128-credit hour three constituent groups: current engineering students, recent
program is characterized by engaged learning, flexibility, and a engineering graduates, and Arizona industry representatives.
focus on students as individual learners. The curricular structure Engineering education research studies and literature were col-
includes an engineering foundation of required topics in the first lected and examined to provide a national perspective. We also
two years and primary and secondary areas of concentration in made site visits to six programs (Harvey Mudd, Cal Poly-San
the third and fourth years. Most of the engineering content of the
foundation as well as some of the content in the concentration Luis Obispo, Colorado School of Mines, Olin, Worcester, and
areas will be available as 1-credit hour computer-based modules. Aalborg). Through this process, we developed program values,
The curriculum includes large projects in every semester and objectives and outcomes, a pedagogical approach, a curriculum
pervasive problem-based learning. In the sophomore year and and curricular structure, and an assessment approach; the status
the primary concentration, engineering content is coupled to of this work at the beginning of 2005 is documented in [1].
each project through a companion course that includes and
contextualizes the content modules. This agile and flexible cur- In this paper, we concentrate primarily on the curricular
ricular structure provides a mechanism for constructing unique structure that has been developed through the design process.
multidisciplinary degrees, for incubating emerging engineering The structure was developed in the context of department
topics, and for building more traditional depth focused degrees. values and a philosophical background that are outlined in
Index Terms— multi-disciplinary engineering program, flexible Section II. Section III describes components of the curriculum
curriculum in more detail.

I. I NTRODUCTION II. P HILOSOPHICAL U NDERPINNINGS

At the East Campus of Arizona State University (ASU)
A. Program Values
in Mesa, Arizona, seven faculty members have been given
a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to design a totally new en- An important outcome of the design process was the de-
gineering program. Given no constraints on its design–other velopment of core values that reflect our programs mission,
than that it be responsive to the changing needs of the vision, and competitive position. Our core values are engaged-
nation at the dawn of the 21st century–the evolving BSE in learning, agility, and a focus on the individual. The program
Engineering program is being created on a solid research- is built around the concept of learning through engagement:
based, theoretically sound, modern pedagogical foundation. learning by doing. Classrooms are defined not as lecture halls
The curricular structure is based on contemporary pedagogies but as engineering studios. Courses are delivered not as lengthy
of engagement and proven learning strategies (i.e., team-based, exercises in theory but as integrated opportunities to apply
cooperative problem-based, mastery-based, and experience- knowledge in real-world projects. The anticipated outcome of
based learning). We believe that this curriculum structure, the program is the agile engineer, a lifelong learner with a
embedded in a pervasive departmental culture that focuses comprehensive set of skills appropriate to the needs of today
on individual learners and their success, will produce highly and tomorrow. Agility also characterizes the program itself:
prepared, agile engineers who are able to provide technical streamlined, purposeful and flexible in adapting to changes in
leadership within a broad range of modern and emerging pedagogy, knowledge or the needs of its stakeholders. The
professional settings. program gains agility through a unique ability to cross or
Beginning in July of 2004, the founding faculty team eradicate traditional boundaries between engineering disci-
used an engineering design process to create the new pro- plines, enhancing innovation through the synergistic combi-
gram. The process included data gathering coupled with a nation of previously bounded boxes of knowledge. Lastly, the
engineering program generates opportunities for engineering
1 Department of Engineering, Arizona State University
2 faculty to focus on the individual student. Each person is
Department Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering Technology,
Arizona State University valued for their unique skills. We measure our success by the
3 Department of Industrial Engineering, Arizona State University quality of each individual’s education and our effectiveness
0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00
2005
c IEEE October 19–22, 2005, Indianapolis IN
35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F1D-18
 Session F1D

and responsiveness in meeting his or her individual learning pedagogy. Our curricular design relies heavily on pedagogies
needs. of engagement as described in [5], [6]. Pedagogies of en-
Consistent with these program values and in consultation gagement refers to learning and teaching approaches (such
with industry and student constituents, we have developed as cooperative learning, problem-based learning, and project-
program outcomes and objectives that describe students’ capa- based learning) in which the student actively engages the
bilities at graduation and three to five years after graduation. content and learns through practice in its application. Felder
The program outcomes include ABET Criterion 3 a-k plus the and Brent [7] summarize the results of several studies that
following three additional outcomes: support the conclusion that such pedagogies provide a better
l An ability to think critically, clearly identifying and match to the learning styles of most engineering students than
using evidence, criteria, and values. does the traditional lecture mode. There is abundant evidence
m A strong foundation of engineering fundamentals and supporting the efficacy of project-based learning for learning
a strong technical competence in at least one focus engineering design and good evidence that problem/project
area. based learning has a positive impact on student persistence [8].
n An ability to learn independently and self-direct There is also evidence that cooperative learning and problem-
one’s learning. based learning increase academic achievement and positive
The following program objectives have been identified: student attitudes [6].
The adoption of pedagogies of engagement significantly
• Graduates will successfully transition into a broad range
alters the role of the faculty from that in the conventional
of career options, including industry, government, and model. Historically, faculty invest their time in the one-faculty-
graduate engineering and professional education. on-many-student exercise of a lecture that delivers a standard
• Graduates will be agile engineers: lifelong learners with
presentation of the standard material (even though the book
a comprehensive set of skills appropriate to the needs of already provides such a presentation); they further invest their
the dynamic global economy. time in grading many papers in which students are expected
• Graduates will be capable of leadership in engineering
to show that they can solve a standard problem using a
and non-engineering settings. standard technique. Here, we ask faculty not to do those things.
• Graduates will have the skills and knowledge necessary
Instead, they invest time in designing learning environments
to attain their desired levels of financial security, en- and activities that promote integration of content knowledge
trepreneurial success, and post-bacculaureate education with application and in small group and individual mentoring
while being well-rounded human beings that participate activities that will be a hallmark of our program.
in a rich spectrum of human activities. In addition to pedagogies of engagement, pervasive as-
In addition to program objectives and outcomes, we have sessment has received considerable attention in the planning
developed department objectives relative to the department activities. Assessment has two focal points–student achieve-
culture and collective faculty responsibilities necessary to meet ment and effectiveness of the program in producing desired
the program objectives and outcomes [2], [3]. outcomes. To assess student achievement, we will evaluate
each students awareness, skills, and values relative to the
B. Pedagogical Philosophy student outcomes described in Section II-A. We are currently
in the process of developing a rubric for each of the outcomes.
The adoption of effective, research-based pedagogy is es-
Each rubric contains a set of competency attributes associated
sential to achieve the program’s values and objectives. In
with that outcome and identifies characteristics of competency
the mid-1980’s engineering educators began investiating a
achievement at three different levels (positions). This model of
question that is basic both to the profession and to continued
progressive student development is analogous Perry’s model of
technological progress in American life: “How can we give
intellectual development that spans nine positions of student
undergraduate students a deeper, richer, more world-tested
progression [9]. In addition to student assessment, the program
preparation for their careers as engineers? What works? What
will evolve and adapt to changes in pedagogy, knowledge, and
doesn’t?” From the publication of the Neal report in 1986
the needs of its stakeholders through data-driven, continuous
[4] and the establishment of Engineering Education Coali-
improvement.
tions by the National Science Foundation in 1989 through
the publication of hundreds of journal articles, reports, and
conference proceedings, a massive bank of research-based best III. T HE C URRICULAR S TRUCTURE
(and worst) practices has been compiled. Progress, however, The curricular structure includes an engineering foundation
in institutionalizing these reforms and translating this well- in the first two years and primary and secondary areas of
documented knowledge into pedagogical practice has been concentration in the third and four years. In our curriculum
frustratingly slow. Convincing busy engineering educators to there will be a project experience in each of the eight semesters
change their ways is very difficult. in the program of study. Our 128 hour curricular structure
Fortunately, our founding faculty is beginning with a clean is illustrated in Figure 1. The specific breakdown of credit
slate and is strongly committed to adopting the most effective hours assigned to topics is shown in Table I. Note that in
0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00
2005
c IEEE October 19–22, 2005, Indianapolis IN
35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F1D-19
 Session F1D

FRESHMAN
2nd Semester 1st Semester
Engineering I Engineering Mathematics English 101 Biology for
• Design Gen Studies of Change I (polytechnic Engineers
• Critical Thinking • Critical Thinking oriented) = 15 CH
• Communication • Social Context

Engineering II Engineering Mathematics English 102 Physics

• Design Crit. Inquiry I of Change II (polytechnic
• Team Work • Critical Thinking oriented) = 17 CH
• Literacy
Module

SOPHOMORE
2nd Semester 1st Semester

Studio I Engineering Chemistry Math or

Engineering Fundamentals Science
Project 4 Modules = 15 CH

Module

Studio II Engineering Statistics General General

Engineering Fundamentals Education Education
Project 4 Modules = 17 CH

Module

JUNIOR
2nd Semester 1st Semester

Primary Primary Engineering Primary Secondary

Concentration Concentration Crit. Inquiry II Concentration Concentration
Studio I 3 Modules • Critical Thinking Math or = 16 CH
• Literacy Science
Module

Primary Primary Math or General Secondary

Concentration Concentration Science Education Concentration
Studio II 3 Modules = 16 CH

Module

SENIOR
2nd Semester 1st Semester

Capstone Math or General Unrestricted Secondary

Design I Science Education Elective Concentration
= 16 CH

Capstone Primary Unrestricted Unrestricted Secondary

Design II Concentration Elective Elective Concentration
= 17 CH

Fig. 1. Four-year curricular structure.

0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00
2005
c IEEE October 19–22, 2005, Indianapolis IN
35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F1D-20
 Session F1D

Companion Class
Project Course
Class Experiences
Team-based
Informs Collaborative Classroom Contextualizes Content Module
Content Group Activities Content Self-study
Project-based
Learning Cooperative Learning
Problem-based Learning Mastery-based
Interactive Lectures Learning

Fig. 2. Relationship between a project and its associated companion course.

TABLE I
and can be designed to incorporate a broader set of skills
B REAKDOWN OF C URRICULUM BY C REDIT H OURS
that allow students to transition into a broad spectrum of
Topic Credit Hours engineering and non-engineering settings.
Humanities and social sciences 15
Freshmen composition 6 A. The Engineering Foundation
Literacy and critical inquiry 6
Math and science 32
Because of the flexibility provided by the free electives
Projects (one course every semester) 26 and the dual concentration structure, the bulk of content
Companion foundation courses 11 common to all students’ programs of study is in the first
Primary concentration formal instruction 11
Secondary concentration 12
two years. The freshman and sophomore years form the
Unrestricted electives 9 engineering foundation. The curriculum in this foundation lays
the groundwork for student achievement of program objectives
and outcomes; thus, in addition to grounding students in math
and the sciences, it concentrates on the competencies outlined
addition to the formal instruction in the primary area of in ABET Criterion 3 a-k and program outcomes l-n. To meet
concentration, eight credit hours of the projects are devoted these competencies, in addition to the engineering content and
to the primary concentration which is therefore a much more practice courses, we are designing or are collaborating on
extensive experience than the secondary concentration. Eight the design of math, science, humanities, and literacy courses
credit hours of the projects are also devoted to a year-long (further described in Section III-C).
capstone project. In the freshman year, students are introduced to engineer-
The concentration structure provides significant flexibility ing content and practice through two project-based courses:
to the student. One feature of this approach is that students Engineering I and Engineering II. In the sophomore year,
may choose the secondary concentration from outside of students participate in two project courses (Studio I and
engineering and still obtain an ABET-accredited engineering Studio II), each coupled with companion content courses as
degree. For example, by combining the secondary with the described in Section III-B. The project courses use projects as
unrestricted elective hours and the humanities/social science a vehicle to integrate student learning and provide development
hours, a student could take 30 hours of economics, 27 hours opportunities as students progress towards mastery of the
of literature, or 21 hours of Chinese as part of a program of program outcomes.
study that culminates in a Bachelors degree in engineering.
Of course, the secondary and electives could also all be B. Projects, Companion Courses, and Modules
engineering, a choice that many students are expected to make. Our curricular design has been heavily influenced by the
This curriculum satisfies the “general” ABET criteria (but Aalborg curriculum model that includes projects in every
not program specific criteria such as electrical or mechanical). semester and significant problem-based learning [11]. In the
Newberry and Farison [10] refer to such programs as “general project course the students work in teams on engineering
engineering programs”, a phrase that we normally avoid as it projects with common elements. For example, we might ask
has potentially misleading connotations when applied outside every team to design a musical instrument. Major projects
of the specific accreditation context. In creating our model are not used in other courses to minimize the potential to
we studied the 33 accredited “general” engineering programs. overwhelm students, faculty, staff and resources in the latter
Schools such as Harvey-Mudd, Dartmouth, and the University half of the semester. These projects will be developed in
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (among others) have had collaboration with industry, and the project topics will drive
general accreditation for decades and have demonstrated it to course content rather than content driving the projects. This
be a sustainable approach. This model has the flexibility to approach shifts the program design activity to that of design-
provide students with skills that cross disciplinary boundaries ing good projects that represent breadth in engineering for
0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00
2005
c IEEE October 19–22, 2005, Indianapolis IN
35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F1D-21
 Session F1D
TABLE II
O NE - HOUR F OUNDATION M ODULES

Mechanics of materials I Materials I Manufacturing Processes I

Mechanics of materials II Materials II Manufacturing Processes II
Dynamics I Signals & Instrumentation I Mechatronics
Dynamics II Signals & Instrumentation II Systems Modeling
Thermo Science I Computer Competency I Engineering Economics
Thermo Science II Computer Competency II Digital information manipulation
Design in Context Ethics and Professionalism

the foundation years. While the faculty will determine what will feature cooperative learning, problem-based experiences,
projects are implemented in the foundation, students will have interactive lectures, and group problem solving activities that
input in project selection. Projects will progressively become provide an alterative learning approach and contextualize the
more open-ended in the primary concentration and in the content.
capstone. In addition to the linkage between project and companion
The flexibility that allows project topics to drive course courses, we will borrow two more features of the Aalborg
content is obtained by using small content modules integrated model. First, companion course activities will be arranged such
into a companion course to the project. This is a fundamen- that most students substantively have completed the modules
tal structural element of our curriculum and is depicted in in the first two thirds of the semester. This allows the students
Figure 2. Companion courses are used in the projects in the to focus a greater amount of time on the project in the last
sophomore year and in the projects in the primary concen- third of the semester. Second, at the end of the semester,
tration. We differ from the Aalborg model in that we will each project team will undergo an oral examination of their
use just one companion course per semester to accommodate project by a panel of faculty. Every team member is expected
students who need flexibility in their schedules (e.g. part-time to be able to answer questions about how the topics of any
students); also, our implementation of this companion course module were used in their project. Using once again the
is based on the use of computerized content modules. example of a musical instrument design project accompanied
The companion course consists of a group of self-study by an acoustics module, the students are not allowed to assert
content modules (usually three or four) that are contextualized “Suzy was our team’s acoustics expert so I will re-direct the
through collaborative, problem-based learning class experi- acoustics questions to her”. Everybody on the team must be
ences. Integration of the companion course with the project knowledgeable on acoustics.
course is achieved by selecting content modules that comple- The foundation includes eleven one-hour modules. We have
ment the project. The project then provides an engineering identified twenty possible modules from which these eleven
context for this companion course. The content of a module modules can be selected; these are shown in Table II. Other
often will be drawn from the standard formal engineering sci- foundation modules will be developed as needed.
ence content of an engineering degree and might be delivered
as computerized tutorials, laboratory exercises or homework. C. Design of Math, Science, Humanities, and Literacy
For example, a sophomore-year project on musical instrument Courses
design might be anchored in modules on materials, acoustics,
manufacturing, and measurement and instrumentation. The In addition to the project and companion course we are
projects and modules may be different from year to year. developing new courses, primarily for the foundation. The
We do not expect that there will be a perfect relationship Engineering Department plans to develop a humanities class
between the projects and the modules and that some modules and two literacy classes. Other courses are being developed
will be taken by students who are not using them in projects. in cooperation with other departments at East campus and
The flexibility in module selection comes at the cost of some the CRESMET center at ASU’s Tempe campus. These new
variability in the actual content of the sophomore year from courses are currently being developed:
year to year, and adjustments will be required as the students • Mathematics of Change (essential elements of engineer-
flow into the upper division. ing calculus).
The collaborative environment in a companion course pro- • Engineering of Biological Systems.

vides an opportunity to match student learning styles in ways • The Past, Present, and Future of Technological Society

that a self-study module cannot. Collaborative classwork can (a humanities course taught by the Engineering Depart-
also provide opportunities for the development of knowledge ment).
integration that the modular structure cannot. The class time • Literacy and Critical Inquiry in Engineering (a literacy

is used for activities that require group social interactions and course taught by the Engineering Department).
are well suited to develop an understanding of how the con- We also will develop second-year courses in statistics, differ-
tent of the four different modules integrate together. Classes ential equations, and an upper division course in literacy and
0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00
2005
c IEEE October 19–22, 2005, Indianapolis IN
35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F1D-22
 Session F1D
TABLE III
These primary concentrations will be implemented by the
C OMPONENTS OF THE C ONCENTRATION D ECISION M ATRIX
Department of Engineering. Students can also use these con-
Attribute Weight centrations as secondary concentrations by participating in the
Market for graduates 0.93
concentration coursework but not in the associated projects.
Has a passionate faculty champion(s) 0.89 Since students may choose the secondary concentration from
Program market niche 0.79 outside of Engineering, we have also begun collaborations
Viable cost in terms of startup effort 0.75
Extensive, expensive new facilities are not mission critical 0.70
with several departments at the East campus to develop
Helps recruit students 0.70 secondary concentrations; concentration areas currently under
Technically beneficial to Arizona Industry 0.70 consideration include Manufacturing, Automotive Engineer-
Fits into technology forecast 0.70
Enough faculty want to participate 0.65
ing, and Embedded Systems.
Has broad application across engineering domains 0.65
Favorable ROI 0.61 IV. C ONCLUSION
Enough competence in the area 0.61 This paper describes components of the curricular structure
It is interdisciplinary 0.51
Socially beneficial 0.47 developed for the new Engineering Program at ASU’s East
Technology Faculty want to participate / interest 0.33 Campus. This curriculum uses pedagogies of engagement and
a novel structure with the goal of educating the engineers of
TABLE IV
the future. This curriculum will be implemented within the
S ELECTED P RIMARY C ONCENTRATIONS
context of pervasive assessment and continuous improvement.
We are currently designing all components of the curriculum,
Mechanical Systems with emphasis on those components that must be in place to
Electrical Systems accommodate the inaugural freshman class in Fall of 2005.
Civil Infrastructure
Systems and Simulation R EFERENCES
Global Product Development
[1] C. Roberts, D. Morrell, R. Grondin, C.-Y. Kuo, R. Hinks, S. Danielson,
and M. Henderson, “Developing a multidisciplinary engineering pro-
gram at Arizona State University’s East Campus,” Portland, OR, 2005,
to be presented at the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education
critical inquiry. The design of all of these courses will facilitate Annual Conference & Exposition.
student achievement of program objectives and outcomes. [2] W. F. Massy, A. K. Wilger, and C. Colbeck, “Overcoming hollowed
collegiality,” Change, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 11–20, July/August 1994.
[3] P. D. Fisher, J. S. Fairweather, and M. J. Amey, “EC2000 and
organizational learning: Rethinking the faculty and institutional support
D. Development of Concentrations criteria,” in Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE/SEFI/TUB Colloquium,
The most recent curricular design activity has been the Berlin, Germany, October 1-4 2002. [Online]. Available: http:
//www.asee.org/about/events/conferences/international/papers/upload/
selection of initial primary concentrations to design and im- EC2000-and-Organizational-Learning-Rethinking-the-Faculty-and
plement. In this selection process, we felt that it was important Institutional-Support-Criteria.pdf
to offer students concentrations that could be identified with [4] H. Neal, “Undergraduate science, mathematics and engineering educa-
tion: Role for the National Science Foundation and recommendations
traditional disciplines as well as concentrations that transcend for action by other sectors to strengthen collegiate education and pursue
traditional disciplinary boundaries to address emerging areas excellence in the next generation of U.S. leadership in science and
of national importance. We also recognized that the limitation technology,” National Science Foundation, Tech. Rep., March 1986.
[5] R. Edgerton, “Education white paper,” Pew Forum on
that a concentration is about 20 credit hours of study would Undergraduate Learning, Tech. Rep., 1997. [Online]. Available:
require a focused design; one possible approach is to offer http://www.pewundergradforum.org/wp1.html
complimentary primary and secondary concentrations that [6] K. A. Smith, S. D. Sheppard, D. W. Johnson, and R. T. Johnson,
“Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices,” Journal of
cover different focuses from a given traditional discipline. Engineering Education, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 87–101, January 2005.
While the curricular structure is flexible and presents many [Online]. Available: http://www.asee.org/about/publications/jee/upload/
unique opportunities, limited resources have required a careful SamplePages 87-101.pdf
[7] R. M. Felder and R. Brent, “Understanding student differences,”
selection of initially offered concentrations. Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 57–72, January
The founding faculty team developed an initial list of 21 2005. [Online]. Available: http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Papers/
potential primary concentrations. Fifteen decision attributes Understanding Differences.pdf
[8] C. L. Dym, A. M. Agogino, O. Eris, D. D. Frey, and L. J.
and associated weights were developed for a ranking and Leifer, “Engineering design thinking, teaching and learning,” Journal
rating process to select the concentrations to be implemented; of Engineering Education, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 103–120, January
Table III shows the decision attributes and associated weights. 2005. [Online]. Available: http://www-cdr.stanford.edu/∼ozgur/JEE
Engineering Design Thinking Teaching Learning.pdf
Input for the concentration selection was also solicited from [9] W. G. Perry, Jr., Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the
the technology departments in the College of Technology and College Years-A Scheme. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1970.
Applied Sciences at the East Campus and from our industrial [10] B. Newberry and J. Farison, “A look at the past and present of general
engineering and engineering science programs,” Journal of Engineering
advisory board. After considering this input, five primary con- Education, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 217–226, July 2003.
centrations were selected for initial implementation. Table IV [11] A. Kolmos, F. K. Fink, and L. Krogh, Eds., The Aalborg PBL Model:
shows these five concentrations. Progess, Diversity and Challenges. Aalborg Press, 2004.
0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00
2005
c IEEE October 19–22, 2005, Indianapolis IN
35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F1D-23