A Downsized, Laboratory-Intensive Curriculum in Electrical Engineering T. W. Martin and W. D. Brown Department of Electrical Engineering University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Abstract - The Department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Arkansas recently adopted a new curriculum, which is laboratory intensive, in response to employer feedback on the lack of sufficient practical experience of our graduates and student requests for more laboratories. At the same time, keeping in line with a national trend to downsize curricula, the semester hours required for the bachelor's degree were reduced from 134 to 126. The effort to reach these two objectives spanned several years, required compromises by some of the faculty, and eventually involved other departments in the college. This paper discusses the motivation to go to a downsized, laboratory-intensive curriculum, the time and effort required to implement it, the impact on budgets and faculty teaching loads, and the initial and resulting curricula. The result is a streamlined curriculum that is more than adequate for a successful career in engineering or progression into graduate school. Introduction For the past several years, there has been a move within the electrical engineering education community to downsize the curriculum. There has also been a general consensus among both students and employers that students have not been receiving adequate practical training in traditional electrical engineering programs. In an effort to improve students' ability to connect classroom theory to the real world, the Department of Electrical Engineering faculty at the University of Arkansas desired to increase both the quality and quantity of time students spend in a laboratory environment while reducing the number of semester credit hours required for graduation. This paper presents details of a three year long process directed both at revising the curriculum and implementing a laboratoryintensive curriculum. A wide variety of factors were considered in this process and details of the considerations are presented. Some of the factors addressed were: 1) possible motivation for a national trend to downsize electrical engineering curricula, 2) maintenance of the overall quality of a downsized program, 3) increased demands on equipment and maintenance budgets, 4) increased demands on faculty time, 5) faculty protection of "special" courses, and 6) the cooperation of and impact on other engineering departments in the college of engineering. The rationale used to justify and the efforts required to accomplish downsizing, the initial and resulting curricula, the logistics of physically accommodating an increased number of laboratories, and an initial assessment of the downsized curriculum are also discussed. Rationale for Downsizing The idea of downsizing engineering curricula is not a new one. In the early 1970s, when the aerospace industry all but disappeared, electrical engineering enrollments plummeted. In an effort to offset this somewhat dramatic loss of students, some electrical engineering department faculty examined their curriculum and managed to trim their hour requirements from around 140 semester hours to something closer to 130 semester hours in hopes of being more competitive with other colleges on campus for the existing pool of students. Thus, at the very least, faculty proved that a curriculum could be downsized without really compromising the quality of their graduates. Unfortunately, when the crisis passed, the hour requirement for the undergraduate degree began to creep upward as faculty members added courses that students just had to have in order to function as an engineer. Were it not for the fact that many traditional, although not necessarily electrical engineering, courses, such as dynamics of fluids, mechanics of materials, thermodynamics, etc., were dropped as requirements for the degree, the semester hour requirement would have quickly ballooned to 150 semester hours or more. Instead, most programs ended up with semester hours requirements which ranged from around 135 to 145. In recent years, the semester hour requirement for an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering is being examined once again. Part of the argument for this move is that the curriculum contains too many "specialization" courses. In order that the curriculum accommodate these courses, there is a feeling that the basic electrical engineering courses are being shortchanged. Thus, there are strong feelings among some educators that the graduate of an undergraduate engineering program should be well-educated in engineering basics and does not need to be highly specialized. Also, more and more students must work in order to attend college. The result is that the average student takes approximately 10 semesters to complete an undergraduate degree in many engineering programs. In fact, parents are becoming more and more vocal about the time required for their children to complete an engineering education, to the point of enlisting the assistance of state legislators. Finally, there are some among the engineering community who feel that the first engineering degree should be a professional degree and propose that there should be a fiveyear requirement (or 150-160 semester hours). By downsizing the existing curriculum so that the effort required to complete it in four years is reasonable, the fifth year could be added quite easily.
This recent effort to downsize curricula, once a decision is reached to do so, has proven more difficult than expected since there are very few non-electrical engineering courses to be stripped from the curriculum. Consequently, decisions about which courses should be changed from required to elective are much harder to make. However, hard choices can be made. The result is a streamlined curriculum that has as its primary focus engineering basics and practical experience, tools which are more than adequate for a successful career in engineering or progression into graduate school. Faculty Protectionism At the beginning of the exercise to reduce the number of semester hours required for the degree, faculty discussions focused on what the final total semester hour goal should be. If 15 or 16 credit hours/semester are considered to be a reasonable student load, then the total curriculum hours should fall between 120 and 128. In our case, the original target was set at 120, with no realistic hope of reaching it, simply because decisions about which courses to drop as requirements for the degree are difficult to make. However, the need for every course in the core curriculum was discussed by the faculty over the 3-4 year period that the new curriculum was being defined. Initially, most faculty members were hesitant to target specific courses for elimination from the list of required courses, possibly out of fear of some sort of retaliation. Obviously, during these discussions, a faculty member who had primary responsibility for a given course tried to protect it for a variety of reasons, some of which were, at the very best, personal. There is a "comfort factor" associated with teaching a given course for an extended period of time that makes faculty members unwilling to voluntarily give up a course or even move it to the elective category, even if it is the right thing to do. Several faculty members went so far as to conduct limited surveys, of questionable scientific accuracy, of selected electrical engineering programs in the country to obtain data which supported their position, that their course should be retained. Finally, the faculty as a whole, based on a recommendation from the undergraduate curriculum committee, defined the new curriculum, although not all decisions on the addition or elimination of specific required courses were unanimous. Basically, the final faculty decision required that some faculty members compromise their position on required courses for which they had primary responsibility and which they had taught for an extended period of time. In this downsizing exercise, defining the final curriculum was definitely the most difficult part because of the personal aspects of decisions which had to be made. The issue of junior versus senior faculty reared its head, as did questions about what really constitutes a core curriculum. In other words, which courses are really necessary to ensure that the students receive an excellent educational experience in electrical engineering fundamentals? In the end, the majority ruled, but not without some wounds that, hopefully, will heal with time. Initial and Resulting Curricula The electrical engineering curriculum at the University of Arkansas is characterized by three areas. The freshman year, composed primarily of math, chemistry, physics, and English, is classified as the pre-professional curriculum. The sophomore and junior years are composed primarily of circuits, electronics, systems, signals, electromagnetics, and microprocessors, and can be classified as the core courses in electrical engineering. The senior year of the curriculum is composed primarily of senior electives in electrical and general engineering and is called the professional part of the curriculum. The initial curriculum required students to complete 134 semesters hours for a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering [1]. After downsizing and restructuring the curriculum, students are required to complete 126 semester hours for the degree. Figure 1 presents a summary of the changes that were made to effect the downsized curriculum (note that the action taken was not necessarily in the order listed). 134 hours - 4 hours Chemistry (8 hours to 4 hours) - 3 hours Statics/Dynamics (6 hours to 3 hours) - 3 hours Thermodynamics - 3 hours Electromagnetics (6 hours to 3 hours) - 3 hours Random Signal Analysis - 3 hours Math/Science Electives (6 hours to 3 hours) + 3 hours Freshman Electrical Engineering Course + 3 hours Software Engineering + 5 hours New Laboratories (4 hours to 9 hours) 126 hours Figure 1. Summary of the Changes in the Curriculum It should be pointed out that neither the random signal analysis course nor the second electromagnetics course were eliminated. These courses were placed in the group of elective courses that students may take during their senior year. In addition, thermodynamics was placed in a math/science elective list of approximately ten courses. The end result is that these courses can be taken as electives by students, but they are no longer required for the undergraduate degree. The reduction in the required number of chemistry hours is not a true reduction. It actually results from no longer requiring the first semester of a two-semester chemistry sequence. This action is very similar to the one taken several years ago when calculus replaced college algebra as the first required course in the mathematics sequence. Requiring only the second chemistry course was done at the suggestion of the faculty of the Chemistry Department, who advised us that the first semester of chemistry should be covered at the high school level. We anticipate that requiring only the second semester of chemistry will become the
norm for other engineering programs, just as calculus has in the mathematics area. The main addition to the curriculum is the new laboratories which are tied closely to required courses. As has already been mentioned, these new laboratories are the result of feedback from both students and employers. Other new courses which were added to the curriculum are a freshman "Introduction to Electrical Engineering" course and a software engineering course. The freshman electrical engineering course was placed into the curriculum in an attempt to enhance retention, but the faculty also sensed a need for students to be exposed to a broad view of electrical engineering at the very beginning of the program. As mentioned previously, the removal of required courses in a curriculum is very difficult to accomplish. It takes a lot of time and faculty members who are willing to negotiate and compromise. As a matter of fact, several courses were added and then removed or removed and then restored during the more than three years spent revising the curriculum. New Laboratories Prior to making changes in the curriculum, there were four semester hours of laboratory associated with the required courses in the curriculum and two required core courses with a small laboratory component. The four hours of laboratory were actually two laboratories of two semester hours each that covered topics associated primarily with circuits and electronics. These laboratories were not directly connected to any courses. As a matter of fact, they were coordinated by someone not teaching any of the circuits or electronics courses. Under the new curriculum, all of the required core electrical engineering courses, with the exception of electromagnetics, have a one semester hour laboratory associated directly with them. There are plans to add a laboratory for electromagnetics in the near future. Figure 2 below lists the required core electrical engineering courses with the associated laboratory. Required Course ELEG 2103 Elect. Ckts I ELEG 2113 Elect. Ckts II ELEG 2903 Digital Sys. ELEG 3123 Sys. Analysis ELEG 3133 Signal Proc. ELEG 3213 Electronics I ELEG 3223 Electronics II ELEG 3303 Energy Conv. ELEG 3703 Fields & Waves ELEG 3923 Microproc. Des. Figure 2. Associated Laboratory ELEG 2101 Elect. Ckts I Lab ELEG 2111 Elect. Ckts II Lab ELEG 2901 Digital Sys. Lab ELEG 3121 Sys. Analysis Lab ELEG 3131 Signal Proc. Lab ELEG 3211 Electronics I Lab ELEG 3221 Electronics II Lab ELEG 3301 Energy Conv. Lab No Lab ELEG 3921 Microproc. Lab Core Electrical Engineering Courses and Associated Laboratories We feel that the direct connection between the course, laboratory, and faculty will significantly strengthen our program in electrical engineering by providing students with adequate exposure to laboratory practice. Logistics of Physically Accommodating New Laboratories Currently, we have two separate laboratories in which we conduct the laboratory portion of our core electrical engineering curriculum. Each laboratory has twelve stations that can easily accommodate two students at each station. With our current enrollments, we have been utilizing the laboratories two or three afternoons a week for four hours. Under the new curriculum, we will be utilizing the two laboratories four days a week for four hours each afternoon. Previously, the two semester hour laboratories met each week for four hours. Under the new curriculum, each laboratory will meet every other week for four hours. This allows us to stagger the meetings of two different laboratories which utilize the same equipment. As a note, in past years, the equipment was utilized four days a week when our enrollments were much higher. Increased Demands on Equipment and Maintenance Budgets The usage of the equipment in the laboratories will increase under the new curriculum, and it is anticipated that this increased usage will shorten the useful life of the equipment. However, with a good maintenance program, we expect the equipment to last at least ten years as has our present equipment. The excellent performance of our present equipment, which still looks new, is the result of an aggressive laboratory procedure instituted by a department technician which ties student grades to their treatment of the equipment. However, due to technological advances, ten years is probably a reasonable life expectancy for educational measurement equipment subjected to normal usage. In addition, some new equipment will be required to accommodate the new laboratories. To this point, we anticipated the increased demands on the measurement equipment and upgraded much of it in recent years with this in mind. For example, we purchased new oscilloscopes with FFT capabilities to accommodate the new Systems Analysis and Signal Processing laboratories. Other equipment will be purchased as needs are identified during development of the laboratories. In order to accommodate the purchase of additional equipment and maintain quality equipment, it is imperative that an adequate source of funding be available on an annual basis. Currently, the Department of Electrical Engineering has a laboratory budget allocation of approximately $100,000 per year. This money is available as a result of laboratory fees paid by all engineering students. These funds are distributed to the various laboratories in the department based on the recommendations of a laboratory committee composed of four electrical engineering faculty members.
Maintenance of the Overall Quality of the Program As mentioned previously, one of our goals was to enhance the overall quality of the program as a result of revising and downsizing the curriculum. In fact, there is a reduction in the number of topics covered in the new curriculum. However, the addition of the laboratories should increase the quality of instruction for the courses retained in the core portion of the curriculum. The laboratories will be more relevant and tied more closely to course material. The assignment of faculty to run the laboratories and coordinate them with their courses will also add to the quality of the core portion of the curriculum. Furthermore, faculty will be able to track course performance with laboratory performance. The quality of the new curriculum will be monitored by student critiques, alumni surveys, employer surveys, quality of capstone design project performance, etc. Faculty members involvement with the laboratories will have a slightly increased workload, since they will be directly responsible for the content, lecturing, and grading of the laboratories. A graduate teaching assistant will only be available to assist the faculty with the in-class portion of the laboratory. Impact on Other Engineering Departments Almost without exception, to effect significant changes in an undergraduate curriculum requires the cooperation of other departments, in particular, other engineering departments. In our case, the Departments of Mechanical and Computer Systems Engineering were impacted. However, only the Department of Mechanical Engineering was asked to develop and offer a new course specifically for the Electrical Engineering Department students. Historically, non-mechanical engineering departments required their students to take either statics or statics and dynamics. In our new curriculum, a combined statics/dynamics course was specified as a way of achieving a 3 semester hour reduction while ensuring that our students are exposed to the basics of these two subjects. The Mechanical Engineering Department was asked to provide this course with no increase in budget (i.e., faculty positions). After more than a year of discussions with the head of the department, the mechanical engineering faculty agreed to do so without any compromise on the part of the Electrical Engineering Department. It should be noted that the elimination of thermodynamics from the electrical engineering curriculum, although it reduced class size, did not reduce the course load of the Mechanical Engineering Department because it is the same course taken by mechanical engineering students. Likewise, the addition of software engineering merely increased the class size for the Computer Systems Engineering Department faculty because their students are also required to take the course. Once an agreement was reached with the Department of Mechanical Engineering regarding a combined statics/dynamics course, one would think that inter-department problems would be resolved. Not so in this case. Once the Department of Electrical Engineering announced that a reduced curriculum was being implemented, and that it would be completely in place at the beginning of the 1997 fall semester, an effort to block its implementation was initiated by the head of another engineering department on the basis that we were sending a wrong message to state legislators. As noted previously, legislators in some states have expressed concern about the time required to earn a college degree. Consequently, some state legislatures are either considering setting, or have set, limits on the number of hours a university can require for a degree. To our knowledge, engineering programs in these states have been exempted from the legislative mandates. In any case, it was rumored that the Arkansas state legislature was considering limiting the hours required for a degree. Consequently, in our case, concern was expressed about the College of Engineering's position that engineering programs could not reduce semester hour requirements for a degree in engineering and still provide a quality education. Basically, the down-sized program in electrical engineering directly conflicted with the argument being made by the college. A verbal battle then ensued over which faculty unit had control over a program curriculum, the college faculty or the department faculty implementing a change. After much debate, it was decided that the Department of Electrical Engineering had followed past practices for curriculum changes, and the proposed changes were allowed to be implemented. However, this test case initiated a move to formally define which body of faculty will control future changes to a program curriculum. Fortunately, sufficient support for blocking implementation of the reduced curriculum failed to materialize, although some anxiety was felt by the electrical engineering faculty members who had worked for almost 4 years defining the new program. Summary and Conclusions The Department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Arkansas recently defined a reduced semester hour, laboratoryintensive curriculum which was implemented during the 1997 fall semester. The motivation for these changes was a perceived need to reduce the time required for students to complete the degree program and to increase the amount of practical laboratory experience they receive. The goal was to implement these two changes and still provide a high-quality engineering education. In principle, changes in a curriculum should be straight-forward and accomplishable in a short time. In reality, it was a slow process because of the inability of the faculty to make hard decisions regarding the retention/elimination of specific required courses. In general, faculty members go to great lengths to protect courses they feel are important to their teaching and research interests. Although 120 semester hours was targeted for the new curriculum, a compromise on 126 hours was finally reached. The increase in required laboratories (from 2 to 9 in this
case) creates some potential problems. The logistics of accommodating the extra laboratories, increased demands on equipment budgets, the need for more teaching assistants, and increased wear on the equipment must all be considered. In our case, faculty members are given responsibility for the laboratory with only in-class support from a graduate teaching assistant, which increases their teaching workload slightly. The requirement for the electrical engineering degree at the University of Arkansas has been reduced from 134 to 126 semester hours. The number of required laboratories has been increased from 2 to 9. A plan for accommodating the extra labs was developed. Complete implementation of the new program was completed in the 1997 fall semester. Only time will tell if we have accomplished what was intended at the beginning of this exercise in curriculum downsizing, while attempting to enhance the educational experience of our students. References [1] University of Arkansas 1996-97 Catalog of Studies, University of Arkansas, Vol. 90, No. 1, pp. 463-470, May 1996.