INFORMATION TO USERS
This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the
most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1.T hc sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is “ Missing Pagc(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing
pagc(s) ot section, they arc spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication that the film inspector noticed cither blurred copy because of
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete
copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo*
graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning”
the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer
of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with
small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning
below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by
xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and
tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we
have filmed the best available copy.

University
Microfilms
International
3 0 0 N. ZEEB ROAD, ANN ARBOR. Ml 4 8 1 0 6
18 B ED F O R D ROW. LONDON WC1R 4 E J. ENGLAND

7917709
HERRING* HAROLD P RE STON
A MODEL CURRICULAR DE SI G N NEEDED FOR THE
PREPARATION OF E LE CTRICAL ENGINEERING
GRADUATES AS IDENTIFIED BY SELECTED ENGINEERS
AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING FACULTY AT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY.
MICHIGAN STATE UN1VERSITV«

UnKosJty
, JVUcialims
intenwttanal

won *icbroaij, annarbou.wi«tio6

PH.D.* 1978

A MODEL CURRICULAR DESIGN NEEDED FOR THE PREPARATION
OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING GRADUATES AS IDENTIFIED
BY SELECTED ENGINEERS AND ELECTRICAL
ENGINEERING FACULTY AT MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY

By
r

Harold Preston Herring

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
M ichigan S tate University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR O F PHILOSOPHY
Department of Administration and Higher Education
1978

ABSTRACT
A MODEL C U R R I C U L A R DESIGN NEEDED FOR THE PREPARATION
OF ELE C T R I C A L ENGINEERING GRADUATES AS IDENTIFIED
BY SEL E CTED ENGINEERS AND ELECTRICAL
E N G I N EERING FACULTY AT MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY
By
Harold Preston Herring

The c o n sideration of viewpoints by those k n owl­
edgeable in the field of engineering education must be an
essential ingredient in the formulation of a curricular
design program.

The purpose of this study was to c o n ­

struct a model c u r ricular design for the preparation of
undergraduate electrical engineering students.

The

research results were made available to institutions of
higher education n ationally for potential use in struc­
turing and r e d efining programs and course planning.
The pop u l a tion to be studied in this research
included two groups.

All faculty members in the Department

of Electrical E n g i n e e r i n g and Systems Science at Michigan
State University, w i t h the rank of Assistant Professor,
Associate Professor or Professor, and w h o have as a major
focus the field o f electrical engineering,
first sample group.

comprised the

The second group included selected

Harold Preston Herring
engineers currently working in the field of electrical
engineering and identified from organizations which have
employed graduates from the Department of Electrical
Engineering in the last ten years.

A total of twenty

faculty members and eighty selected engineers were
included in the study.
Methodological considerations dictated that the
survey instrument reflect the broadest range of course
material related to the undergraduate electrical engi­
neering program.

As such, minimal ECPD course require­

ments were reflected in the survey questionnaire to which
all participants responded.

Six research hypotheses

were offered, stipulating no significant differences
between the two sample groups regarding the importance
placed upon individual courses in the study.

Data col­

lection procedures in the research permitted a rank
ordering of courses for the final model curricular
design.

To accomplish this goal, two separate question­

naires were prepared and responses obtained from partici­
pants.

Response rates for both surveys resulted in a

90 percent return rate from faculty and selected engineers
to the first survey and an 80 percent and 81.2 percent
return rate to the second questionnaire for both groups,
respectively.
Five statistical techniques were used to analyze
the data in the present study.

A multivariate analysis

Harold Preston Herring
of variance was performed to analyze individual courses in
the first study.

A Pearson product moment correlation

was calculated to compare the degree of similarity between
groups and a Spearman correlation was used to analyze the
similarity between the rank ordering of courses.
Conclusions
Mean and standard deviation scores from Study #1
revealed a limited range of responses to the importance
placed upon individual courses by the two sample groups.
Courses in engineering science generally were rated less
similar by the two groups than were other course c a t e ­
gories.

The rank ordering of courses in Study #2 like­

wise revealed a high degree of similarity between the
two groups.

These results revealed that the six research

hypotheses were not rejected at the

.05 level of signifi­

cance.
The research specifically supported the inclusion
of ECPD minimal course requirements in an undergraduate
engineering program.

The m o del offered in the study

suggests a greater emphasis on electromagnetics and
physical electronics courses,
and systems courses.

and on digital electronics

The m odel additionally suggests

that nontechnical courses such as engineering safety
standards and governmental policy and technology be
included in an undergraduate electrical engineering
program.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The encouragement and advice of numerous indi­
viduals,

interested both in professional and personal

growth in those whom they a d v i s e , have assisted in making
this study and my entire doctoral program possible:
To Dr. Richard Featherstone, Professor and major
adviser, who has always had an open door and a sincere
interest in the progress of this study.
To Dr. George VanDusen, Associate Professor and
committee member, who greatly assisted in the early
formulation of the research topic and who willingly
offered his time amidst busy schedules to review the
study during its later stages.

His comments and encour­

agements were deeply appreciated.
To other committee members. Dr. Larry Foster and
Dr. Donald Nickerson,

for t h eir valuable comments during

final dissertation preparation, and to Dr. David Fisher,
Professor of Electrical Engineering,

for his comments

on the technical aspects of electrical engineering c u r ­
ricular programs.

To the staff of the Office of Engineering Student
Affairs for their encouragement and support, and their
ability to add a realistic perspective to one's involve­
ment in a doctoral program.
To m y parents,

Harold and Julia Herring,

for

their training on the m e r i t of honesty and hard work.
And most importantly to my wife, Ginny, to whom
this is dedicated and w ithout whose sacrifice, constant
support, and love this doctoral study would not have been
possible.

iii

TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF T A B L E S ..........................................

vii

Chapter
I.

II.

INTRODUCTION

...................................

1

Statement of the P r o b l e m .....................
Purposes of the S t u d y ........................
Research Q u e s t i o n s ............................
Research Hypotheses
........................
Limitations of the S t u d y .....................
Delimitations of the Study .................
Definition of Terms
.....................
Organization of the S t u d y .................

2
3
5
6
7
8
9
11

REVIEW OF L I T E R A T U R E ............................

13

I n t r o d u c t i o n ...................................
Historical Development of Curriculum
T h e o r y ......................................
An Ov e r v i ew of Engineering Education.
. .
Cur r i c u l u m Development in Engineering
E d u c a t i o n ...................................
Related Research Studies in Electrical
E n gineering C u r r i c u l u m Design.
. . .
S u m m a r y ......................................
III.

13
15
21
28
39
44

THE RESEARCH D E S I G N ............................

46

I n t r o d u c t i o n ...................................
Population and S a m p l e ........................

46
47

Faculty Sample
Industry Sample

............................
............................

Methodological Procedures

.................

47
48
49

Chapter

Page
The Survey Instrument . . . . . . .
The P r e t e s t ...............................

51
54

The Research D e s i g n ........................

54

Data Collection Procedures
Data Analysis Procedures .

IV.

..............
. . . . .

55
57

S u m m a r y ......................................

59

ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ...........................

61

Introduction..................................
Statement of Objectives .....................
H y p o t h e s e s ..................................
Treatment of the D a t a ........................
Summary of Responses to Occupational
C a t e g o r i es..................................
Summary of Responses to Individual
C o u r s e s ......................................
Summary of Responses to the Nature of
Undergraduate P r o g r a m s .....................
Summary of Responses to Individual Courses
Study # 2 ..................................
Summary of Pearson Product Moment C o r ­
relation R e s u l t s ...........................
Summary of Spearman Rank Order C o r ­
relation R e s u l t s ...........................
S u m m a r y ......................................
V.

S U M M A R Y , C O N C L U S I O N S , AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

.

Purpose and Need for the S t u d y ..............
Summary of the S t u d y ........................
C o n c l u s i o n s ..................................
Study # 1 ..................................
Study #2
. . . .
A Model Curricular Design
.................
Implications of the S t u d y .................
Recommendations for Further Research.
. .

v

61
62
63
64
68
69
77
78
86
89
90
93
93
94
96
98
102
104
108
114

Page
APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A.

PRETEST LETTER OF INQUIRY

B.

PRETEST PROFESSIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE . . . .

C.

FIRST INQUIRY LETTER TO INDUSTRY......

127

D.

JURY ACCEPTANCE POST C A R D .............

128

E.

FIRST LETTER WITH S U R V E Y .............

129

F.

SECOND LETTER WITH S U R V E Y .............

130

G.

FIRST LETTER TO F A C U L T Y ................

131

H.

SECOND LETTER TO F A C U L T Y .............

132

I.

FIRST CURRICULUM RATING INSTRUMENT . . . .

133

J.

SECOND CURRICULUM RATING INSTRUMENT.

137

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

.....................

118
120

. . .

...............................

139

LIST OF TABLES
Table
3.1.
3.2.
4.1.
4.2.

Page
SUMMARY OF FACULTY - INDUSTRY RESPONSES
SURVEY' # 1 ......................................

56

SUMMARY OF FACULTY - INDUSTRY RESPONSES
SURVEY # 2 ......................................

56

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES T O OCCUPATIONAL
C A T E G O R I E S ......................................

68

SUMMARY OF MEANS - STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR
FACULTY - INDUSTRY STUDY # 1 .................

70

4.3.

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS - ALL ITEMS STUDY #1.

.

73

4.4.

CROSSTABULATION OF RESPONSES TO THE NATURE
OF AN UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM STUDY #1 . .

.

78

4.5.

SUMMARY OF MEANS FOR FACULTY - INDUSTRY
STUDY # 2 ......................................

80

COURSE RANK O RDERING - FACULTY AN D INDUSTRY
STUDY # 2 ......................................

82

SUMMARY OF COMPOSITE MEANS - BOTH GROUPS
STUDY # 2 ......................................

84

4.8.

COMPOSITE COURSE RANK - ORDERING STUDY #2

87

4.9.

PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION RESULTS
BY C A T E G O R Y ...................................

89

SPEARMAN RANK O R D E R CORRELATION RESULTS
BY C A T E G O R Y ...................................

91

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH HYPOTHESES RESULTS

92

4.6.
4.7.

4.10.
4.11.

*

«

vxx

.

. . .

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The challenge of offering the most current and
meaningful subjects in all segments of education today
is one of the foremost issues which must be dealt with
by school leaders.

As both technological and social

changes continue to rapidly o c c u r , the demand for schools
to structure courses which will meet a variety of
societal needs will increase.

Probab ly in no other area

have such demands created as dramatic a change as that
experienced in the field of engineering.
rush,

From the intense

following the launching of the Russian Sputnik,

to

increase our country's technological capability to the
more recent push for more applied approaches to tech­
nology, engineering has indeed been a field pressured to
stay current with these numerous changes.
This rapidly changing pace of technology, however,
has created new and difficult problems for educational
leaders in the field of engineering.

First, there is a

constant need to provide students w i t h material wh ich
reflects the most up-to-date advances in technology.

1

But

2
there is also a fundamental principle which demands that
engineers receive basic training in the traditional
course a r e a s , training which will enable them to adapt
to a constantly changing technological society.
These two important yet often conflicting p h i l ­
osophies make the curricular design process in engineering
education almost constantly at issue.

Faculty members

interested in research argue that an undergraduate program
must prepare the future engineer for research and d e v e l o p ­
ment activities and as such must be comprised mostly of
theoretical approaches to basic science principles.
Engineers in both the public and private sector counter
that applied courses need to be offered at the u nder­
graduate level w h ich will prepare the student for a more
functional position as a practicing engineer.

This

debate indicates that those individuals and groups with
a vested interest in the training of engineering students
m a y have significant opinions to offer w h ich leaders in
engineering education need to consider.
Statement of the Problem
The consideration of viewpoints by those k n o w l ­
edgeable in the field of engineering education m u s t be
an essential ingredient in the formulation of a cu r r i c u ­
lar design program.

In the present research the process

of soliciting input from these two groups will result
in the construction of a model four-year curricular

3
design for the Department of Electrical Engineering at
Michigan State University.

Potential strengths and w e a k ­

nesses of various aspects of the present curriculum in
the Department of Electrical Engineering will be identi­
fied for the continuous improvement of the core curricu­
lum by those in decision-making positions in the College
of Engineering.

This model curricular design will be

based on the contrasting importance which industry p r o ­
fessionals and faculty in the Department of Electrical
Engineering at Michigan State University place on various
courses.

Reactions by the two sample groups to the six

general categories of c o u r s e s , commonly used by many
institutions offering an accredited undergraduate pro­
gram, may be useful in the future structuring of subject
areas in the field of electrical engineering.
Purposes of the Study
While the views of numerous groups of individuals
have been solicited regarding opinions on various aspects
of an engineering program, few studies have been con­
ducted which specifically gathered data from faculty
and industry for the purpose of structuring a model
curricular program for the preparation of electrical
engineering students.

The purpose of this study is to

present the resulting model curricular design to the
Department of Electrical Engineering at Michigan State
University for possible future use in program and course

4
planning.

The opportunity to incorporate viewpoints from

selected engineers who have an indirect affiliation with
Michigan State University will both help in making the
recommended curricular design more pertinent to the
Department of Electrical Engineering.

Faculty involve­

ment in the research design will provide a standard
against which comparisons can be made concerning opinions
on electrical engineering courses.
In addition, a secondary purpose of the study is
to make the research results available to institutions
of higher education nationally for possible use in r e ­
defining their respective electrical engineering c u r ­
ricular programs.

Most institutions offering the prof e s ­

sional engineering baccalaureate degree require that
certain minimal course standards be met.
requirements,

These basic

stipulated by the national accrediting

organization, are shared by many institutions and as a
result the research findings in this study may be
applicable to institutions other than Michigan State
University.

Basic required courses, however, are only

one part of a total curricular program in electrical
engineering.

The need exists to present a design which

is inclusive and which measures the specific degree of
importance which knowledgeable individuals place upon
both fundamental engineering courses and those which
may broaden the student's educational experience.

5
Research Questions
The need to present a total curricular program
in this study, based on reactions from the two sample
groups mentioned earlier, necessitates that specific
responses be solicited from survey participants.

More

specifically, courses based upon a priority order must
be presented in this study to develop a model curricular
program.

It is necessary, therefore,

for this study to

answer specific questions from which certain assumptions
may be tested to accomplish the goal of establishing a
model curricular design.

The following research

questions will be tested in this study:
1.

What do engineers in the electrical engineering
industry suggest as the most important courses
in the preparation of undergraduate students?

2.

What do faculty in the Department of Electrical
Engineering at Michigan State University suggest
as the most important courses in the preparation
of undergraduate students?

3.

What model curricular design is suggested by
both selected engineers and faculty in the
Department of Electrical Engineering at Michigan
State University in the preparation of under­
graduate students?

6
Research Hypotheses
The review of the literature in engineering cur­
riculum development in addition to the previous research
questions assisted in the formulation of the research
hypotheses.

The purpose of these hypothesis is to

explore the relationship between the views held by
engineers and Electrical Engineering faculty and the
six variables of course categorization.

The following

research hypotheses will be tested:
Hypothesis I :
There is no significant difference between mathematics
courses suggested by practicing engineers and those
suggested by faculty for a model curricular design
in the Department of Electrical Engineering.
Hypothesis I I :
There is no significant difference between basic
science courses suggested by practicing engineers
and those suggested by faculty for a model curricular
design in the Department of Electrical Engineering.
Hypothesis I I I :
There is no significant difference between engineering
design courses suggested by practicing engineers and
those suggested by faculty for a model curricular
design in the Department of Electrical Engineering.
Hypothesis I V :
There is no significant difference between engineering
science courses suggested by practicing engineers and
those suggested by faculty for a model curricular
design in the Department of Electrical Engineering.

7
Hypothesis V :
There is no significant difference between technical
elective courses suggested by practicing engineers
and those suggested by faculty for a model curricular
design in the Department of Electrical Engineering.
Hypothesis V I :
There is no significant difference between nontechnical
courses suggested by practicing engineers and those
suggested by faculty for a model curricular design
in the Department of Electrical Engineering.
Limitations of the Study
As menti o n ed earlier, a noticeable advantage of
the usefulness of this research is its applicability to
the Department of Electrical Engineering at Michigan
State University.

Additionally, because other insti­

tutions have similar course categories and basic course
requirements as those used in this study, the data g e n ­
erated have use to other institutions as well.

However,

a research study involving two different samples of
respondents,

that intends to apply those findings to

one specific group, necessarily limits the conclusions
w h i c h can appropriately be drawn.
others as well,

This limitation,

and

is part of this study and must be recog­

nized as parameters in the data analysis.

The following

limitations are present in this research study:
1.

A n y research conducted using an original survey
instrument is necessarily limited in the c o n ­
clusions which may be drawn.

This study will

8
be b ased on responses by participants to an
original survey questionnaire and only a p p r o ­
priate conclusions may be drawn.
2.

Responses by faculty members to the subject
areas included in the questionnaire may be
biased favorably towards those engineering
courses currently offered at Michigan State
University and unfavorably biased towards those
subject areas not contained in the curricular
program at the University.

3.

Descriptions of subject areas listed in the
questionnaire may be defined or interpreted
differently by both faculty members and engineers
in industry.

Because only subject areas

lus as an example)

(calcu­

will be used in the research

as opposed to competency areas

(the ability to

solve integration e q u a t i o n s ) , varying definitions
may be used by different respondents.
D elimitations of the Study
The need for a comprehensive approach in the
establishment of a curricular design in electrical e n g i ­
neering education,

as mentioned earlier,

could n e c e s ­

sarily ma k e the scope of this study extremely broad.
However,

responsible research demands that certain c o n ­

trols be placed on the parameters of a study of this

9
nature in order that conclusions which are applicable,
and which can be implemented, result.

The following

delimitations, therefore, are placed upon this study:
1.

Participants in the study from industry are
representative of organizations which have
employed graduates of the Department of Elec­
trical Engineering at Michigan State University
during the last ten years.

While respondents

from this group are located in various regions
of .the United States, conclusions from the
study can only be drawn relative to their
relationship with the electrical engineering
program at Michigan State University.
2.

Participants in the study from industry are
employed in both engineering and managerial
positions and, therefore, conclusions about the
curricular model suggested in the study are
representative of both groups.
Definition of Terms
The curriculum development process in engineering

education involves structuring courses in various cate­
gories,

some of which are applicable only to the field

of engineering.
addition,

This particular research study,

in

involves particular sample groups which,

in

the interest of clarity, must be commonly understood by

10
those analyzing the research data.

The following defi­

nitions, therefore, will assist the reader in reviewing
this study.
C u r r i c u l u m.— A group of formal courses and
laboratory experiences used by a school to provide
opportunities for student learning leading to desired
outcomes.

In the present study the term pertains to

all courses and laboratories available for formal train­
ing of engineering students.
Model Curricular D e s i g n .— A preferred set of
courses and laboratory experiences structured in such a
way that optimum learning occurs.
Selected E ngin e e r s .--For purposes of this study,
electrical engineers in industry or other organizations
working in a managerial or technical capacity.
F a c u l t y .— Full-time teaching or research p e r ­
sonnel in the Department of Electrical Engineering,
excluding administrative-professional, clerical, and
instructor/specialist employees,

at the rank of A ss is­

tant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor.
Nontechnical C o u r s e s .— Courses offered at
Michigan State University which are available to Electri­
cal Engineering students but not required by the College

11
of Engineering.

In the present study nontechnical courses

include those required for graduation from Michigan State
University as general

(university)

as social s c i e n c e , humanities,

college credits such

and English.

Basic Science C o u r s e s .— Science-related courses
offered by nonengineering departments at Michigan State
University such as chemistry, anatomy, or biological
science.
Engineering Science C o u r s e s .— Courses offered in
the College of Engineering which have their roots in
mathematics and basic sciences, but carry knowledge
further toward creative application.

Courses which offer

a bridge between basic science and engineering practice

(20 ).
Engineering Design C o u r s e s .— Courses which
involve the process of devising a system, component,
or process to meet desired needs.

Courses which offer

skills in the decision-making process in which the basic
sciences, mathematics, and engineering sciences are
applied to convert resources optimally to meet a stated
objective

(20).
Organization of the Study

This study includes a review of the relevant
literature in Chapter II pertinent to engineering

12
education and curriculum design.
tion of the research design,

Chapter III, a descrip­

includes an overview of the

population and samples tested in the study, the develop­
ment of the survey instrument and pretesting procedures,
and the data collection and data analysis procedures
undertaken in the research.
included in Chapter IV.

An analysis of the data is

And finally, Chapter V contains

the summary and conclusion of the study, as well as
recommendations for future research in the area of
engineering curriculum design.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
Professional schools in the United States have
been confronted with demands for educational change and
revitalization at rates with which the average university
organization is not ready to cope.

While the rate of

technological change in this country has been increasing,
the dynamics of our society and of our technology have
created an even larger expectation that changes will
continue.
While this rate of change has been rapid, cur­
ricular innovations in American universities have not
evolved with equal consistency.

Instead, changes are

made in academic programs after long intervals and these
changes are slow in developing.

Equally frustrating

has been the lack of methodology or techniques to effec­
tively adjust to a dynamic educational environment.

And

just as evident as the slow process by which curricular
changes are made, faculty and administrators wh o demand
rigor in their own classrooms or work expect much less

13

14
when confronting curricular innovations on their own
campuses.

The willingness to approach curricular pr o ­

gress in this manner can be understood when one realizes
that data for curricular design and content is not
readily available.
Within this broad context of curriculum d e v e l o p ­
ment, engineering education has played a significant role
in the last decade.

The Final Report of the Goals of

Engineering Education stated the case clearly:
T o a larger extent than most other academic d i s c i ­
plines, engineering education has been the subject
of extensive study. . . .
A t the same time there
is clear evidence that forward looking educators
and employers alike are conscious of the need for
continued development and growth in engineering
education.
The rapid accumulation of knowledge
of all kinds in recent years, the accelerating
pace of technological developments, and the g r o w ­
ing complexity of social, economic and technical
interrelationships in modern society demand a
careful and continual appraisal of all educational
practices in terms not only of their adequacy of
m e e ting present needs but of their ability to
satisfy the much more demanding requirements of
the future.
(21:1)
In this chapter,

a rev i e w of the literature

dealing with curriculum development and design will be
presented.

The historical d evelopment of curriculum

theory— the early beginnings of the theoretical c on­
structs of curriculum t h o u g h t — will be reviewed in detail
to lay the groundwork for more specific discussions of
curriculum development pertaining to engineering ed u ­
cation.

A n overview of the progression of engineering

education,

from the first attempts to examine degree

15
programs in engine ering, will be given.

These early

attempts, and those being made presently, by engineering
educators to strengthen the quality of both undergraduate
and graduate degree programs is vitally important for a
total understanding of engineering education.

One can

readily see that both practicing engineers and engineer­
ing e d u c a t o r s , through their involvement in the American
Society for Engineering Education, have been deeply
involved in the on-going improvement of training programs.
Finally, research studies pertaining to curriculum
development in engineering education will be reviewed and
the findings relevant to this study analyzed.

Included

in this section will be a discussion of both technical
and nontechnical courses which have been incorporated
in training programs at institutions offering an under­
graduate degree in electrical engineering.
Historical Development of
Curriculum Theory
While much attention has been given to different
aspects of curriculum such as design and evaluation, less
has been written about the concept of curriculum develop­
ment, the theory upon which a concern for curriculum
rests.

Probably one of the most fundamental analysis

of curriculum theory has been written by Dressel

(16)

who stresses that the purposes and goals of higher
education are important to the concept of curriculum

16
development.

"Learning must be given direction# meaning

and organization by objectives which relate each unit
and course to other courses and to the curriculum"

(16:19).

From this Dressel saw the purposes of higher education as
preserving the cultural heritage and utilizing that heri­
tage for a better environment.

The functions of higher

education are the ways in which these purposes can be
achieved, as in the instructional process and community
service.
In tracing the historical development of curricu­
lum theory, Owen

(55:9) stresses the significance of

certain early events in the progress of curriculum
development.

Initially,

the administrative machinery

of Britain's Education Department began to be evaluated
in early 1858.

People began to express concern that

the department was spending large sums of money while
schools drifted into the position of finding themselves
under centralized but purposeless governmental control.
As a result, the Newcastle Commission was established
to investigate the department and resulted in one of
the earliest attempts of citizens to express concern
for school curriculum matters.
The Newcastle Commission found that the Education
Department exerted excessive control of information in
the schools and the Revised Code of Conduct for the
schools of Britain resulted.

Under this Code a standard

17
of attainment was established for students and curriculum
decisions were relegated to a citizens board.

Other

significant events in curriculum development identified
by Owen included the Elementary Education Act of 1870,
in which local school boards were made mandatory, and
the Bryce Report of 1889 which recommended the best
methods of establishing a well-organized system of edu­
cation in England

(55:11).

This report also contained

segments referring to the involvement, or lack of it, of
teachers in curriculum matters.

Finally,

the Education

Act of 1902 further identified the role of administrators
in dealing with curriculum matters and established stu­
dent evaluation as a part of the school's function.
While similar events occurred in the United
States, research by Koopman indicates that with the Yale
Report of 1828 a more conservative approach to curriculum
development was taken

(39:3).

This report reaffirmed

the need for the classical curriculum with a prescribed
set of courses and memorization of facts by students.
While a challenge to this report was made in 1842 with
the Wayland Report, which advocated expanded programs
and more useful training for farmers and merchants,
basically this traditional approach to curriculum design
continued through the 1880s.
In the post Civil War era, developments occurred
which began to liberalize the thinking of educators on

18
curriculum theory.

The expanded growth of the cities,

the demand for more specialized skills, and the opportunities for specialized graduate study had an influence
on the movement away from more traditional curricular
designs.

In 1876, more than 50,000 students were

enrolled in collegiate departments and in 1894 Charles
Elliot abolished required subjects for seniors and
juniors at Harvard and helped support the elective sys­
tem

(39:11).

At Johns Hopkins in 1885 President Daniel

Gilman introduced seven elective programs, with any
student having an opportunity to eliminate a required
course with a credit by examination program.
Beauchamp identifies some additional events which
had a major impact on the development of curriculum
theory prior to 1900.

The major-minor system was estab­

lished which furthered the specialized training which
students received in undergraduate school.

In 1881 David

Stan Jordan introduced an elective system around major
areas of study at Indiana University which added to a
less traditional approach to curriculum development.
Also, Beauchamp

(3) notes that the introduction of p r o ­

fessional and technical curriculums, along with the
establishment of agricultural and technical colleges,
gave the most impetus to a more liberalized outlook on
curriculum development.

Medical schools were first

established in 1765 in Philadelphia and Law schools in
1779 at William and Mary College

(3:13).

19
Since 1900 the disorder created by the majorminor system has effectively been halted.

Although more

order had been restored in the 1 9 0 0 s , radical experiments
in curriculum design had been attempted at Antioch, The
University of Chicago, Bennington,

and Swarthmore.

Dur­

ing the era of World War XI, the approach was to empha­
size the development of broad interdisciplinary courses
designed to give the students in a particular field an
overview of major principles in addition to a speciali­
zation

(3:15).
One of the more complete analysis of the develop­

ment of curriculum theory has been written by Mullen
(52) in 1976.

He studied the entire spectrum of curricu­

lum development from 1940 to 1975 and focused his study
on the emergence of curriculum design, curriculum plan­
ning, and curriculum theory.

The period of the 1940s,

according to Mullen, witnessed an era of progressivism
in curriculum design with ideas on curricular content
and organization being primary and those on subjects
being secondary (52:39).

More concern surfaced in the

1950s for an academic emphasis in curriculum design and
a blending of these two philosophies— concern for ideas
and for academics— was evidenced in the 1960s.

A

renewed emphasis on humanism has been evident in the
1970s in curriculum design.

20
Another recent study contributing to the analysis
of curriculum theory was by Bullough
studied the work of Harold Alberty,

(8) in 1976.

He

a noted educational

leader at Ohio State University, and concluded that his
work provides a case study through which to view the
rise of curriculum as a separate field of inquiry within
education.

A l b erty developed a macro design for cu r ­

riculum organization based on philosophical and psy c h o ­
logical foundations and because of these foundations
his work added credibility to the field of curriculum
theory.
A theoretical approach to the study of curriculum
development was undertaken by Forbes in 1975

(22).

She

attempted to d e v elop a curriculum framework that could
be applied to p r o gram development in nursing without
embarking upon empirical testing procedures.

She d e v ­

eloped an approach to pro g r a m development in nursing
through the establishment of a code of ethics for spe­
cifying the rules that govern program development in
nursing.

Another highly theoretical study of curriculum

theory was conducted by Swensen

(66) .

that epistemological considerations

He maintained

(those considerations

w h ich provide a theory of the nature and grounds of
knowledge)

are significant in curricular deliberations

and that any e p i s temology selected for curricular p u r ­
poses should c o n form to certain conditions.

Since no

21
curriculum escapes some epistemological preconceptions,
any evaluation effort or original curriculum design study
should be comprehensive,

leading to a potential integra­

tion of the disciplines.
As indicated earlier,

the period of the 1950s in

curriculum development witnessed significant events which
have had and will continue to have an impact on curricu­
lum theory.

A m ong these are an increase in the number of

students attending colleges,
geneity of students,

an increase in the hete r o ­

the expansion of scientific research

and the presence of international tension and its impact
on American democracy.

These developments have resulted

in a reemphasis on the humanities and social sciences,
moral training, and values in our nation's schools.
An Overview of Engineering
Education
Few fields have engaged in such thorough selfanalysis as e n gineering education during the last halfcentury.

W h i l e basic course requirements have remained

relatively stable for engineering students during this
time, the changing technological scene has dictated that
engineering education change accordingly in order to
offer current training to students.

An investigation of

the growth of engineering education will reveal that
it has indeed kept abreast of developments in the field.

22
Broadly considered, two prominent trends have
influenced the history of engineering education in the
United States.

Initially, a strong desire for uniform

standards and practices in engineering education prompted
the field to take a dominant role in directing academic
priorities for colleges and universities.

These priori­

ties were generally considered to be a provision for
fundamentals in engineering curricula, educating the
engineer to perform a variety of jobs

(21:21).

Wickenden

recognized the need for such fundamental training and
Hammond placed even greater emphasis on a broad education
and suggested that a large part of the student's special­
ized training should be postponed until the senior year
or even later

(21:2).

The general result of these two

movements has been to indeed diversify engineering edu­
cation,

to create a program which has attempted to offer

specialized education as well as a broad,

fundamental

orientation to the field.
The two movements referred to earlier were both
influenced by and chronicled in several different studies
in engineering education.

The first study of noticeable

impact was the Mann Report

(44:31).

Officially entitled

The Report of the Joint Committee on Engineering E d u c a t i o n ,
this report was the first major attempt to examine p r o ­
grams in engineering education.

This significant report

was predicated on a survey questionnaire of 3,246

23
engineers in industry and governmental agencies to deter**
mine what should be taught in undergraduate engineering
schools.

The report favored a five-year degree program

in engineering, although the fifth year would be for a
Masters Degree in a specific engineering field.

It

additionally stipulated the basic responsibilities of
engineering education, namely a commitment to the indi­
vidual,

to society, and to the engineering profession.

The basic objectives of engineering education were said
to be the preparation of students for participation in
a profit motive economy, the preparation of students
for technological change, and for changes needed in
mankind.

Additional goals were the development in stu­

dents of a conviction that education is both a selfdiscipline and a continuous process.

The report also

stressed that the first three years of undergraduate
work should be general studies, including both theoreti­
cal and laboratory instruction.

It also emphasized that

engineers must be exposed to the humanistic side of
engineering, to the questions of costs and values in
the field of engineering.
The second major effort at laying the foundation
for engineering education was the Report of the Investi­
gation of Engineering Education,

1923-29.

Known as the

Wickenden Report, this study stressed that three areas
should be emphasized in curriculum planning;

the exact

24
or pure s c i e n c e s , foundations of the economy, and training
in bo t h w r i tten and spoken English

(70:1067).

This

report agreed with the Mann Report that general and
humanistic training were essential in an engineering
c urricular program.

Wickenden expressed in his report

more of a concern for the kind of continuing education
w hich an engineering student would undertake upon c om­
pletion of his degree than for the subject mat t e r taught
during the undergraduate training period.
The third study, wri t t e n in 1940 and called the
Hammond Report,

addressed itself mainly to the need of

an e ngineering p r o gram being extended for five to six
years instead of the normal four-year period

(26:563).

Hammond also stressed a humanistic approach to e n g ineer­
ing education and said that technical work should be
done in the fifth or sixth years as opposed to the third
or fourth years of undergraduate work.

A second Hammond

Report issued in 1944, entitled the Report of the C o m ­
mittee on Engineering A fter the W a r , essentially r e ­
affirmed the content and conclusions of the first Hammond
Report

(26:564).

The primary thrust of both reports was

in the development of a method of approach in engineering.
The Grinter Report of 1955 was a response to the
need for engineering education to ensure that it was
keeping pace with the technological developments of the
1950s.

W h i l e lengthy recommendations were m a d e in the

25
report, only three were considered of real importance to
engineering curriculum development:
(1) A strengthening of work in the basic sciences,
including mathematics, chemistry and physics.
(2) The identification and inclusion of six engi­
neering sciences, taught with the full use of
the basic sciences, as a common core of engi­
neering curricula, although not necessarily
composed on common courses.
(3) An integrated study of engineering analysis,
design and engineering systems for professional
background, planned and carried out to stimu­
late creative and imaginative thinking, and
making full use of the basic and engineering
sciences.
(24:25)
The Grinter Report recommended that one-quarter
of an engineering curricular program be composed of
basic sciences

(chemistry, physics, and mathematics)

while another one-quarter consist of engineering sciences
(thermodynamics, electrical theory, and field mechanics)
(24:37).

This was the first report of national signifi­

cance to stress a greater emphasis on basic sciences and
more emphasis on engineering sciences in an engineering
curricular program.
The final, and most significant, major review of
engineering education pertaining to curriculum was the
Final Report of the Goals C o m m i t t e e , more commonly called
the Goals Report, written in 1968.

The Goals Report

endorsed the five-year program as being the basic pr o ­
fessional degree in engineering

(21:17).

It endorsed

the basic tenants of the Grinter Report, including
placing an emphasis on math, physical sciences,

26
engineering sciences, engineering analysis, design and
engineering systems.

It also recommended a renewed

emphasis on the humanities and recognized a need for
better communication skills by engineers.

The Goals

Report stressed that engineering education should enhance
general education, advanced study, and immediate p r o d u c ­
tivity b y engineering graduates

(21:18).

The report

also categorized into three areas the subject matter
w hich an engineering curriculum must stress.
delineation,

This

important for the purposes of this study,

is the last m a jor attempt to define course content in
this manner:

"MA T H

I'elENC'ES

ENGINEERING SCIENCE

Algebra
Trig o n o m e t r y
Calculus
Analytic Geometry
Differential
Equations
V e c t o r Analysis

Physics
Geology
Biology
Astronomy

Electric Circuits
Electronics
Thermodynamics" (21:23)

In addition to the studies mentioned earlier,
several early authors expressed concerns for the future
direction of engineering education and changes which
n eeded to be made in curricular designs.

Jewett

(37:272)

emphasized the need for engineering education to become
more flexible,

to change and adapt itself to the e x p a n d ­

ing and changing fundamental science.

He thought that

b asic science courses needed to be strengthened,

27
especially physics,

chemistry,

and math.

Hollister

likewise recognized the wealth of knowledge upon which
engineers based their skill and called for innovative
curricular programs to meet the demands for improved
training for engineers

(32:503).

Other writers spoke

about specific curricular course content in engineering
education,

notably John Ide, wh o foresaw a need in the

future for problem-oriented research in an engineering
program,

primarily because support from the federal

government had been decreasing

(34:95).

He recognized

that much of what had been taught in education had
emphasized engineering sciences rather than pure e n g i ­
neering.

He additionally saw a need to direct attention

towards practical research in transportation,
etc.

energy,

W r i t i n g about steps which need to be taken in the

future,

Ide saw the following:

(1) Science policy planning involving the relation­
ship between states and municipalities.
(2) Technology assessment.
(3) Establishment of national goals, such as that
established by the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
(34)
Probably one of the strongest areas of disag r e e ­
m e n t in engineering education circles deals with the
question of whether theory or practice should play a
dominate role in curricular content.

This question will

have a m a j o r influence upon this study and needs to be
discussed here for that reason.

A conference held at

the University of Michigan dealt with this issue.

The

28
Eight Ann Arbor Symposium in 1963 generally concluded
that the need for theory in engineering education was
essential,

that it lays the groundwork for further

specialized course work

(19:77).

Saying that "the engi­

neering student should have enough practice mixed in
wi t h the theory so that the fundamentals can be thoroughly
appreciated and really understood," the Symposium held
that practice w i t h out theory in engineering education
was useless,

that one must have the basic theory p r e ­

sented in the first three to four years of undergraduate
w o r k and then begin to put it to use in a professional
setting.
C u r riculum Development in
Engineering Education
A careful analysis of the literature in curriculum
development and design reveals that little research has
been conducted pertaining to the development of new or
alternative curricular designs in academic institutions.
Most related research, both current and more dated
studies,

have focused on the establishment of competen­

cies in an area of study, with a series of courses then
b e ing matc h e d to those competencies to better train
college students.

Also,

studies have focused on the

establishment of goals of a particular academic program
and subsequently structuring courses to meet those goals.
But rarely has a study been attempted which specifically

29
compares the opinions of faculty and industry profes­
sionals to the courses which should be offered in an
undergraduate program in an attempt to construct a
curricular design.
Additionally, numerous studies have been con­
ducted on two areas of curriculum which have received
much attention during the last ten years.

Secondary

school administrators have been greatly concerned with
curriculum change and evaluation, concerns which have
in large part emanated from increased societal pressures
for accountability in primary and secondary schools.
While these two areas have a related bearing on the major
focus of this research, they do not directly parallel
this study and as such will not receive attention in the
literature review.
However, professionals from the secondary school
arena, and to a lesser extent those concerned with higher
education, have been very active in the study of cur­
riculum development and design.

Studies centering on

this topic have focused on areas related to this research,
such as the study of opinions of faculty and students
pertaining to undergraduate courses and using case study
approaches to structure a model for curriculum develop­
ment.
Two recent studies which surveyed faculty members
in higher education concerning curriculum design have a

30
close relationship to this research.

Handleman

(29)

studied the opinions of faculty members using both an
interview and survey research technique and objective
and open-ended questions.

He found that the rate of

innovation of curricular development, as viewed by
faculty members,

should be reduced.

In his sample group

faculty members felt that the urgency to change, while
an important concern, had become primary to the orderly
development of an undergraduate degree program at several
community colleges in Florida.
Hatch

(30) studied medical school faculty through

a survey questionnaire in developing a systems analysis
approach to medical school curriculum.

This study has

a bearing on the present research because it involved an
analysis of a professional school curricular design and
it incorporated a survey of the faculty of a professional
school.

Hatch found that a systems analysis approach

had potential for identifying objectives in medical
education and that objectives of medical education had
not basically changed in the past several years.
Monack

(48) sought to determine whether new and

advanced technological changes affected engineering ed u ­
cation and if so to what extent curricular changes were
made necessary.

He sampled 158 faculty members, admin­

istrators of 154 institutions and a random sample of
engineers to determine to what extent these three groups

4

31

were similar in their views on curricular matters.

He

specifically focused on whether broader or more special­
ized training was needed as a result of suspected changes
in technology in the United States.

Monack concluded that

there exists a strong feeling that specialization in an
undergraduate engineering curriculum should be kept to
a minimum.

More emphasis should be placed in engineering

curriculum on business courses such as economics, and
psychology, personnel relations and engineering law.

The

essential ingredients which Monack recommended in an
engineering curricular design based on his study included
differential equations, vector analysis, modern physics,
shop practice, basic electronics, and instrumentation
(48:174).

As in the Mann and Hammond Reports referred

to earlier, Monack recommended a five-year engineering
curriculum.

His findings may be summarized as concluding

that new technologies, which are constantly changing,
have not greatly altered engineering curriculum.

The

changes which have occurred indicate a new approach in
engineering education, with more emphasis on functional
categories in engineering education.
Another major effort which investigated engineer­
ing curricula was a study commissioned by the American
Society of Engineering Education in 1952.

The Report

of the Committee on Evaluation of Engineering Education

32
surveyed accredited schools and in a final report in
1953 made four primary recommendations:
(1) Basic science courses should be increased
(2) Engineering science courses were important in
an engineering curriculum but based on responses
from 122 institutions they should not be
increased in number
(3) Engineering design, analysis and systems
courses are needed in a curricular program
(4) Technical elective courses should be increased
(57:26)
A more recent investigation of engineering cur­
riculum content was undertaken by Rader in 1970.

He pro­

posed that today's engineering graduate is undereducated
in engineering synthesis and a counter to this trend
would be to place less emphasis on theory and devote
more time to practical items in the curriculum

(56:972).

Rader forecasted that engineering should be taught as
it involves the many factors found in the business
world, not as an analytical science.

The curriculum

must prepare the engineer for an early management position
and an early introduction to the prolific world of
materials.

He indicated that new advancements in the

field meant that the engineer must become more knowl­
edgeable with respect to producibility.
John Dixon wrote about approaching the education
of engineering students from a different viewpoint— that
of preparing what he called a "design scientist"

(14:33).

While the engineering scientist is primarily theoretical
and the engineering technologist more practical, the

33
design scientist would be one in the middle, both theo­
retical and practical and in a position to affect public
life.

He must, because of this, be required to expose

himself to social issues and humanistic challenges.
Dixon proposed a model curriculum to train design scien­
tists, including the following:
Basic Sciences
Math
Engineering Science
Engineering Analysis
Humanistic Science

Physics, biology, chemistry
Calculus, differential equations
Circuits, thermodynamics,
mechanics
Dynamics, fluid mechanics
History, literature, economics
(14:35)

Other studies have used a research procedure simi­
lar to that being used in the present study— that of a
rank ordering technique.

Eure

(20) in 1975 identified

and arranged the goals of a core curriculum using a rank
ordering technique and a scale of importance to which
participants in the study could respond.

Also using a

Delphi technique, he used goal statements representing
academic areas to present to a panel of experts.

Howard

(33) established a curricular design for the preparation
of instructional paraprofessionals based on competencies
needed by these personnel.

The design established was

based on the curricular planning process developed by
Galen Saylor and William Alexander and was also concep­
tually evaluated by a panel of experts.
In a related approach to curriculum design,
Roberts in 1975 attempted to construct a design for

34
developing a multicultural curriculum

(59).

He concluded

that there were several assumptions one makes about the
establishment of a curriculum and that on the basis of
these assumptions several other elements of a design for
developing a multicultural curriculum could be advanced.
Other related studies in curriculum development
and design have been primarily conducted for use at the
secondary school level.

Hall

(25) studied the curriculum

planning process and the products or outcomes of that
process.

This study looked at the quality of the courses

being initiated from the curriculum planning process by
surveying both teachers and administrators in a secondary
school in suburban Chicago.

Hall found that a high

relationship exists between the quality of the planning
process and the outcomes, or the curricular design, of
that process.
In addition, Loret

(42)

focused on developing a

curriculum model for a secondary school interdisciplinary
program by interviewing selected schools interested in
environmental education.

He developed a five-phase model

for developing a curricular design for environmental
education.

Stoutmire

(64) generated a curriculum design

studying a general education program in a community col­
lege through use of the Delphi technique.

Conducting

his study in three phases, he focused on the aims,
objectives, and learning experiences of those students

35
in the general education program and developed a cu r ­
ricular design more suitable to their future educational
needs.
A number of studies have focused on the process
which needs to occur before a curricular design can be
proposed.

Callison

(11) used a conceptual framework to

study curriculum design for the purpose of identifying
which curricular elements in a program should be analyzed.
Her study is useful because she found that the curricular
analysis process does have utility,

that it is applicable

to use and as such can in other research be used to
identify curricular elements and sources of data col­
lection in curriculum research.

Massey

(45) used a

case study approach to analyze and structure a model
for curriculum development.

He studied both personnel

in a secondary school and those in the surrounding com­
munity to develop a curricular design for a school system
in North Carolina.
Gaevert

(23) conducted one of the more pertinent

studies to the present research in 1975.

She developed

and validated a conceptual model for a curricular design
which would better serve to train talented students in
a professional program at a state university.
interviewing technique,

Using an

she included faculty and students

in an honors seminar to conceptually analyze the cu r ­
ricular process.

She concluded that faculty and

36
administrators responsible for developing curricular
designs work from a broad conceptual perspective and
always remain ready to adapt the curricular design
appropriately.

Domanico

(15) studied the curricular

reform m o vement within a given secondary school district
to determine the options which existed for developing a
model curricular design.

He used a mailed questionnaire

sent to 157 chief school administrators, concluding that
the curricular reform movement in fact had an impact on
the options which administrators used in developing their
school curricular designs.
Four related studies have recently been conducted
concerning curriculum development and design.

Dukes

(17)

developed a model for the design of a community college
curriculum through surveying faculty to determine the
characteristics of community college students.

He sur­

veyed numerous administrative officers of thirty-nine
community colleges in Illinois,
student personnel,

including faculty,

and academic administrators.

Using

a mailed questionnaire and a rank ordering technique of
student characteristics, Dukes found data on student
characteristics as having a significant bearing on
decisions which were made on curriculum development.
Rowe

(61) also studied the need for student-based data

in reaching curriculum decisions.

He developed and c o n ­

ducted a broad research project, gathering data from

37
several sources in the United States, which identified
need statements and were reacted to by both students and
educators.

He concluded,

like Dukes in the earlier

study, that student-based data were capable of affecting
decisions made for a p r o g r a m ’s curricular design.
In addition, Moore

(49) surveyed selected ed u ­

cators involved in the curriculum development process to
determine the essential elements of that process.

He

found that data supported a systematic curriculum
development procedure and that educators agree on the
important elements which should go into that procedure.
There is, however, much more knowledge of the procedures
than there is a commitment to implement them.
(5)

Bentson

surveyed a selected population in a school district

in Virginia to assess whether institutional levels for
curriculum decision-making were created during the
evaluation of an existing curricular program.

He found

that during the process of curriculum studies organi­
zations tended to create institutional structures to
guide ways to implement potential changes in the cur­
riculum.

This study has a parallel to the present

research because of the effects which an analysis of
curricular designs can have on the eventual implemen­
tation— or lack of it— of results of such a study.
Edenborough

(18) analyzed a current curricular

program at a major state university by surveying

38
graduates using the Delphi technique.

He identified both

strong and weak aspects of the undergraduate business
program and found that many areas currently offered at
the university were perceived as important to the grad­
uate's occupation.

He subsequently made recommendations

for curricular revision based on the findings of the
study.
Several additional contributions have been made
in engineering curricular design.

Wright

(74) analyzed

the role of research in undergraduate engineering edu­
cation by informally surveying the engineering department
at the University of Illinois.

While limited opportuni­

ties were available to undergraduate students , they did
have an opportunity to engage in a one-hour class to
prepare themselves for research.

Wright indicates that

the advantages of such a program are that average stu­
dents can become involved in research if some direction
is offered and part-time employment is available to stu­
dents under this arrangement.

Waina

(67) attempted to

study engineering curriculum design by specifying objec­
tives

(stated goals)

in the present study.

instead of looking at courses as
He wanted to specify objectives

in such a way that their attainment could be measured
on a binary.

He proposed a procedure for eventually

specifying an engineering curricular design to a high
degree of detail.

39
Murphy

(53) evaluated a typical engineering

curriculum to determine h o w well it was designed with
respect to the criteria of structure, content, and the
laws of effective learning.

He subsequently attempted

to re-design the curriculum and offered recommendations
on how the re-design could be implemented.
Related Research Studies in Electrical
Engineering C u r r i culum Design
The nature of this study,

focusing upon the cu r ­

ricular content of electrical engineering as viewed by
both employers in industry and faculty at Michigan State
University, necessitates not only a study of subject
areas in general engineering c o u r s e s .but more specifi­
cally an analysis of research conducted on components
of a curricular design in electrical engineering.

Five

authors were found to have addressed attention to this
issue, and Kloeffler

(38:400)

offered the most thorough

investigation of course content in electrical e n g ineer­
ing.

He analyzed the curriculum of one hundred schools

in 1954 and found that the greatest percentage of time
was spent wi t h basic electrical subjects

(14.5%).

He

also found physical sciences to consume 12.7 percent of
classroom time, mathematics 14 percent, electric power
or communications 10 percent, engineering fundamentals
7.0 percent, with engineering craftsmanship being 5.4 p e r ­
cent.

He further noticed a reduction in time spent toward

40
design,

shop practice,

and kinematics with increases in

mathematics, physical sciences, and physics.

In his

study Kloeffler noticed that the institutions surveyed
mentioned a continued pressure to increase the c u r ­
ricular content in their engineering programs.

Various

changes had been instituted to cope with these demands,
namely by increasing the number of credit hours for
graduation and replacing the credit hours originally
specified for electives by credits from other areas
within engineering.

Kloeffler then suggested a five-

year curriculum for electrical engineering students,
with the average credit hour increase in various subject
fields as follows:
Mathematics
Physical Sciences
Engineering Drawing
Engineering Fundamentals

3.3%
6.0%
1.4%
2.8%

He further suggested that a m inimum of four years be
required to complete an undergraduate degree,

that more

specialized training be offered to the undergraduate in
business and research,

and more exposure to humanistic

subjects be included in curricular programs

(38:584).

Ryder studied electrical engineering education
between 1925-1951 and found that the teaching of cir­
cuits had greatly increased and instruction in e l e c ­
tronics had been divided into three areas: physical
background of the vacuum tube, characteristics of the

41
tube itself and an analysis of the circuit in which the
tube must operate

(38:583).

The major change which he

discovered during the period of time of his study was
entirely focused on the practicing engineer, whereas
in the 1950s training focused on equipping the engineer
with technical information and leaving the practical
application to be gained on the job.

Susskind

(65:841),

in a study of microwaves in engineering s c h o o l s , found
that of the 147 schools studied all had courses in
microwaves.

This subject area was increasingly being

adopted as a field of study for undergraduate students,
and in fact he reasoned that engineering schools fre­
quently anticipate a demand and provide instruction in
a n e w field such as microwaves before it is developed
technologically.
Waina

(68:99)

conducted a study attempting to

establish a model curriculum in electrical engineering
based on the tasks engineers actually perform in p r o ­
fessional practice.

He examined the activities engineers

engage in, structured a set of problems that engineering
educators believe that graduates should be able to solve,
and developed a set of objectives for courses which would
equip students to perform such tasks.

The courses for

w h ich objectives were established were taken from the
A S E E Goals Report referred to earlier and included the
following:

Math, Computer Science,

Synthesis and

42
Analysis, Design of Systems, Experimental Engineering,
and Engineering Ethics.

McEnamy

(46) studied twenty-two

accredited electrical engineering curricular programs
and demonstrated the differing emphasis placed on su b ­
jects by the schools.

He found that over 20 percent of

classroom time was spent towards nontechnical subjects.
And finally Belknap

(4:181)

conducted an extensive survey

of industrial leaders' opinions of the need for certain
subjects in an electrical engineering curriculum.

He

found that responses indicated more need for economics,
applied and theoretical mechanics, advanced mathematics,
advanced physics but no increased need for specialized
design courses.
The previous studies have focused on the inclusion
of technically related subjects in an engineering cur­
riculum and the research which has been conducted by
those interested in this area.

The presence, however,

of nontechnical subjects has been widely debated in
engineering education circles and for purposes of this
study this issue must be discussed.

Several authors

have written on this subject, most notably Charles Morrow.
In looking at the preparation of engineering students
Mo r r o w identified several things industry would like to
see incorporated in such a curricular program.
(1) A more positive attitude by engineering educators
(2) A diversified approach to training engineers
(3) A better orientation of the student to indus­
trial procedures

43
(4) Establishment of special brief courses
(5) A course that teaches science as a process of
d iscovery
(6) A course that teaches the application of
scientific knowledge
(7) A course that interrelates subject matter of
one area (ME) to another (EE) (50:73)
He felt that the preparation of engineers should focus
on a case history approach and on preparing the student
for a degree of independence in the classroom.
Bailey

(2:336)

thought that engineering education

had become too specialized and that industry's own train­
ing programs had themselves become too specific.

He

also reasoned that education had adapted one of industry's
t a c t i c s — that of mass education
production).

(an outgrowth of mass

He recommended a need for schools to be

engaged in human engineering,

the preparation of engi­

neers to become good citizens, aware of their place in
society and of their ability to contribute.
(54:200)

Osborne

studied industry's views of the need for h u man­

istic education for the engineer.

He indicated that the

degree of success of a man or woman in an organization
is more dependent on his character than on his technical
knowledge,

therefore,

istic education.
and Jackson

(36)

stressing the importance of h u m a n ­

And finally Wickenden

(71), Davis

(13),

looked at nontechnical courses in an

e ngineering education program and concluded that exposure
to humanistic education must not be left to the colleges
of liberal arts in universities.

Both support required

44
sequences of language and literature taught by faculty
in engineering colleges throughout the country.
Summary
While the studies mentioned in this section have
spaned nearly thirty-five years of debate on the needed
content in an engineering education curriculum,

it is

clear that a similarity exists in what leading educators
believe to be essential in an engineering program.

The

presence of technical training is essential, but the
demand for nontechnical training has been called for
just as vigorously.

Courses in humanistic education,

emphasizing economics, engineering law, psychology, and
principles of business have been deemed important as
has basic math,

chemistry, physics, advanced math, and

laboratory training.-

Any differences which have existed

in the literature review have dealt more with when and
in what degree these courses should be offered rather
than if they are needed in a curricular program.
ever,

How­

just as noticeable is the lack of research con­

ducted on local as opposed to national levels pertaining
to views of faculty and leaders in industry on appropriate
curricular content in an engineering program.

The author

found numerous studies conducted which surveyed these two
groups to determine their views on two-year technology
programs, but those applicable to four-year institutions
are limited.

Only Monack and Schweingruber investigated

45
opinions on curricular design and the later primarily
dealt with views of alumni.
The previous review has made clear that there is
some agreement on the part of educators as to what should
be included in an engineering program; however,

it still

remains necessary to determine if any agreement exists
between faculty and employers in industry as to specific
course content needed to adequately prepare engineers
for positions of responsibility.

CHAPTER III
THE RESEARCH DESIGN
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to prepare a model
four-year curricular design for the preparation of under­
graduate electrical engineering students.

As stated in

Chapter I, the following questions were answered in the
present research:
1.

What do engineers in the electrical engineering
industry suggest as the most important courses
in the preparation of undergraduate students?

2.

What do faculty in the Department of Electrical
Engineering at Michigan State University suggest
as the most important courses in the preparation
of undergraduate students?

3.

What model curricular design is suggested by both
industry professionals and electrical engineering
faculty at Michigan State University in the
preparation of undergraduate students?

46

47
This chapter will include a description of the
population and samples studied in the research, the
methodological procedures used to develop the survey
instrument,

and the research design used to obtain and

analyze the data collected in the study.
Population and Sample
As stated in Chapter I, the purpose of this study
was to identify a model curricular design for undergraduate
students by obtaining opinions from faculty and selected
engineers regarding the relative importance of various
courses.

The population to be studied in this research

included two groups.
Faculty Sample
All faculty m embers in the Department of Electrical
Engineering and Systems Science, with the rank of Assistant
Professor, Associate Professor or Professor,

and who have

as a m ajor focus the field of electrical engineering, were
included in the faculty sample group.

Faculty in this

Department concerned with Systems Science were not part
of the group.

A total of twenty faculty were included in

the sample group.
T he Department of Electrical Engineering and S y s ­
tems Science was identified for the study because faculty
members represent diverse areas of interest in the D e p a r t ­
ment and, therefore, m ay be reasonably assumed to represent
electrical engineering faculty in general.

48
Industry Sample
Because results from the present study were used
as recommendations to the Department of Electrical E n g i ­
neering at Michigan State University, participants in
the research from industry were selected with a desire
that they have some affiliation with the University.
Selected engineers, therefore, were identified from those
organizations which have employed graduates from the
Department of Electrical Engineering in the last ten
years.
Engineers in the firms to be included in the study
we r e identified by random selection from the 1976 Insti­
tute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
tory.

(IEEE)

Direc­

This publication provided two advantages for use

in the present research:
1.

Because of membership in the IEEE, those e n g i ­
neers listed in the Directory have an expressed
interest in the field of electrical engineering
and most likely in the preparation of future
engineers.

Participants in the study from this

group m a y provide information more indicative of
the views of electrical engineers regarding a c a ­
demic preparation at the undergraduate level.
2.

The IEEE Directory contains a current listing of
electrical engineers in both line and managerial
or staff positions who m a y respond to the survey.

49
The opinions of engineers in both groups are
needed to provide a balanced view from industry
as to needed components in a curricular design.
Because of the desire to obtain results from both line
and staff engineers from industry, respondents were asked
to indicate the type of position held in industry prior
to receiving the survey instrument.

The categories of

positions included in this inquiry are listed below:
Product

Production

Project

Plant

Research

Development

Sales

Management

Testing

Other

Design
Final results from respondents are included with the
research data in Chapter IV.

A total of eighty electri­

cal engineers from industry participated in the research
study.
Methodological Procedures
The diverse nature of the two groups included in
the research study, and the small number of participants
in the faculty sample, dictated that several steps be
taken by the researcher prior to data collection to
encourage an extraordinarily high return rate of the
survey instrument.

Initially, discussions were held with

the Acting Chairman of the Department of Electrical

50
Engineering, and with the Chairman of the Department C u r ­
riculum Committee to determine the relevance of the study
to the field of electrical engineering education.

These

discussions focused on the potentially different view­
points which faculty and industry professionals might
have relative to the topic and the interest which the
twenty faculty members might have in participating in
the research.
In addition, because participants from industry
represented a wide cross section of professionals both in
position and geographical location, the Dean of the C o l ­
lege of Engineering at Michigan State University was
asked to assist in the correspondence with the industry
sample.

All correspondence with this group was initiated

from the Dean's office and this procedure greatly assisted
in the high return rate received from industry.

Specifi­

cally, the first study yielded a 90 percent return rate
from the faculty and selected engineers.

In the second

study 80 percent of the faculty and 81.2 percent of the
industry sample returned the survey questionnaire.
Industry participants were sent a letter from
the Dean of the College

(Appendix E) along with the first

curricular rating instrument

(Appendix I ) .

The second

letter and rating form (Appendices H and J, respectively)
were sent to the industry group at a later date.

Faculty

members were contacted via a personal letter from the

51
researcher

(Appendix G) and identical survey q u e s t i o n ­

naires were delivered to the faculty sample group through
the use of on-campus mail services in the College of
Engineering.
The need for a significant return rate from the
industry sample prompted one additional step prior to
the collection of data.

To ensure that selected e n g i ­

neers w o uld maintain their interest in participating in
the study, preliminary contact was made with 150 e l e c ­
trical engineers also selected at random from the IEEE
Directory.

A letter introducing the study and the intent

of the participation request was sent from the Dean of
the College of Engineering
post card

(Appendix C) along with a

(Appendix D) which if returned would indicate

a willingness to participate.

Eighty post cards were

received from this initial group which were coded for
follow-up mailings of the actual survey instrument.

The

eleven categories which identified the type of position
held by the respondents were included on the acceptance
post card.
The Survey Instrument
Several steps were involved in the development of
the survey instrument.

In discussions with the Chairman

of the C u r r i c u l u m Committee various theories were explored
dealing wi t h the need for theoretical as opposed to
practical courses in the training of electrical engineers.

52
Specific courses were discussed and catalogues from
numerous institutions offering an undergraduate degree
in electrical engineering were studied to potentially
incorporate a wide variety of courses in the research
design.

Although one goal of the study was to offer

recommendations pertaining to the Department of Electrical
Engineering at Michigan State University,

institutions

with programs different both in size and scope to that
of Michigan State University were studied to ensure that
a representative sample of courses was included in the
study.

After additional contact was made with several

other faculty members and previous research was reviewed,
the survey instrument was developed.
Additionally, another important step was taken
in the preparation of the survey instrument with respect
to the courses which were offered to participants for a
response.

The Engineering Council for Professional

Development establishes very clear requirements to which
institutions seeking to obtain or retain accreditation
must adhere.

These requirements identified by the

Council are not in the form of actual courses but rather
in length of semesters or terms according to broad sub­
ject areas.

As an example, the Council stipulates that

institutions must require one-half year of basic science
courses to be taken from a list of courses which the
individual institution m ay then specify.

53
Because of these very direct minimal requirements
identified by the ECPD, the researcher developed the
survey questionnaire recognizing these standards.

Rather

than present all possible courses in an undergraduate
electrical engineering program to participants for
response, those basic requirements were offered as a
group to respondents.

Respondents were then asked to

either agree that these minimally required courses
should be required in an undergraduate program or to
agree that they should not be so required.

This step

was taken fully expecting the survey participants to
indicate that those courses stipulated by ECPD should
in fact be required in an undergraduate electrical engi­
neering program.

Total responses to this question in

four of the six categories are reported in Chapter IV
of this study.
The final format of the questionnaire used in the
study was the product of a review of other similar studies
on engineering curriculum design and the current literature
in survey research on questionnaire construction.
several rating scales were considered,

While

the format used

in the present research permitted respondents to express
views directly related to the importance of various
courses in an undergraduate program.

The rating scale

proved to be easy to use and made it possible to compare
responses to the first questionnaire with those of the
second survey.

54
The Pretest
After development of the questionnaire,

six

electrical engineers not included in the final sample
and two faculty members were asked to complete the pr e ­
test questionnaire.

The selected engineers were identi­

fied at random from the A.C. Spark Plug Division Plant
in Flint, Michigan and prior to administering the pretest
a preliminary letter of introduction
mailed to the participants.

(Appendix A) was

The instrument was then

mailed to the respondents and a personal interview was
arranged in order to solicit direct feedback about the
questionnaire.

All representatives from the industry

and faculty groups completed the questionnaire and were
interviewed.

Based on the responses and the comments

from the pretest, and suggestions from others solicited,
the format of the questionnaire was revised and various
items were either eliminated or added.

The final

questionnaire was then prepared for mailing.
The Research Design
This study will offer for consideration a model
curriculum for an undergraduate program in electrical
engineering.

In order to achieve this, not only were

the mean scores of each course important to consider, but
the importance of the courses relative to one another
was of equal value in analyzing a total undergraduate
program.

The research design was, therefore,

structured

55
to permit both an analysis of individual course mean
scores and a rank ordering of the courses in each of
the six categories used in the research.
Data Collection Procedures
To accomplish the goal of a rank ordering of
c o u r s e s , it was necessary to obtain two separate sets of
responses from participants in the study.

The first

survey attempted to determine if both faculty and
selected engineers were responding similarly to courses
included in the questionnaire.

Courses which received

opposite ratings from the two groups
important ratings)

(important and not

were eliminated after the first survey

analysis was completed.
A second s u r v e y , including only those courses
upon w h i c h agreement was received from the two groups,
was distributed.

Having ensured that there was simi­

larity between faculty and selected engineers with the
courses from the first survey,

responses to this second

questionnaire allowed both an analysis of mean scores
and a rank ordering of the courses.
The response rates for both surveys in the data
collection procedures were extremely high and are pre­
sented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2.

Participants who did not

return the first survey were included in the sample for
the second questionnaire.

However, no responses to the

second survey were received from any individual wh o did

56

TABLE 3.1
SUMMARY OF FACULTY - INDUSTRY RESPONSES
SURVEY #1
Industry

Faculty
Number

% of
Sample

Number

% of
Sample

Total Sample

20

100.0

80

100.0

Total Responses Received

18

90.0

72

90.0

Total Nonrespondents

2

10.0

8

10.0

Nonparticipating
Respondents

0

0.0

0

0.0

18

90.0

72

90.0

Total Responses Used

(N)

TABLE 3.2
SUMMARY OF FACULTY - INDUSTRY RESPONSES
SURVEY #2
Industry

Faculty
Number

% of
Sample

Number

% of
Sample

Total Sample

20

100.0

80

100.0

Total Responses Received

16

80.0

65

81.2

Total Nonrespondents

4

20.0

15

18.7

Nonparticipating
Respondents

0

0.0

0

0.0

16

80.0

65

81.2

Total Responses Used

(N)

57
not participate in the first study.

The 81.2 percent

return rate from i n d u s t r y , therefore, encompasses all
selected engineers who responded to the first survey.
Questionnaires were coded for each study and
key punched b y the researcher.

After key punching was

verified and a duplicate deck of cards made,

data a n a l y ­

sis procedures were begun.
Data Analysis Procedures
Five statistical techniques were used to analyze
the data in the present study.
first survey,
performed.

For the results of the

a multivariate analysis of variance was

Cell means and standard deviations were

obtained, and an F score and the significance of F were
computed to analyze each individual course in the six
categories in the study.

This test only determined the

amount of agreement being expressed by the two groups
but did not indicate in which direction agreement was
being expressed.

Conclusions,

therefore,

regarding

whether specific courses are viewed as important or not
important cannot be drawn from use of the MAN O V A tech­
nique in the first step of the present research.
The four remaining techniques used in the a n a l y ­
sis were applied in the second step of data collection.
Initially, mean scores and standard deviations were
calculated for each course for both faculty and industry
groups.

Composite mean scores

(faculty and industry

58
groups combined)

were then calculated and a rank ordering

of all courses on the basis of these mean scores was p e r ­
formed.

Next, using the actual mean values obtained in

the previous procedure,

a Pearson product moment c o r ­

relation was calculated to compare the degree of simi­
larity between the two groups of respondents.
Gall

(7:327)

Borg and

indicate that when two variables are

expressed as continuous scores,
in this study,

as are the mean scores

a product moment correlation is the most

appropriate technique to use.

It has the additional

advantage of being subject to a smaller standard of
error than other techniques and,

therefore, offers a

more stable measure of relationship.

The Pearson formula

used in the data analysis is as follows:

Z (X-X)

(Y-Y)

It must be stressed that this technique assists
in determining the relationship between the faculty and
industry groups on each of the course mean scores and
not on the rank ordering.

Borg and Gall

(7:328)

also

stress that when continuous scores can be converted to
ranks,

categories or artificial dichotomies, other co r ­

relational techniques m a y be appropriate.
technique,

The Spearman

therefore, was used to analyze the similarity

between the rank ordering of the courses in each of the

59
six categories used in the study.

This rank difference

correlation, rho, is a special form of the product moment
correlation and is used when continuous mean scores are
listed in order of magnitude and then merely assigned
ranks.

For purposes of data analysis for this research

study, it is important to note that rank scores do not
reflect the differences between subjects nearly as
accurately as do continuous or mean scores.

While the

rank difference correlation reduces the precision of the
data, this reduction is usually slight.

The Spearmen

formula used in the study is as follows:

r

. X - 6£
8

An alpha level of

(;-y » 2

n (n -1)

.05 was established to test all six

hypotheses in the research study.
Summary
A brief description of the research design was
included in this chapter.

The two sample groups studied

in this research, those of faculty members in the Depart­
ment of Electrical Engineering at Michigan State U n i ­
versity and selected engineers from a variety of organi­
zations employing graduates of the Electrical Engineering
Department at Michigan State, have been described.

The

development of the methodological procedures used in the

60
study,

including the design of the survey instrument and

the pretest administered to a sample group, have been
reviewed.
The researcher has also attempted to illustrate
the need for a two-step approach in the collection of
data for the present study.

With the goal of itemizing

various courses in terms of importance being a central
theme in this study, a rank ordering of these courses
became a prime method of depicting a model degree program
in electrical engineering.

The second survey conducted

allowed such a ranking to occur.

A review of the two

correlational techniques used to analyze the research
data has also been included in this chapter.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
Introduction
The data presented in this chapter are the result
of a survey of faculty in the Department of Electrical
Engineering at Michigan State University and selected
engineers in the field of electrical engineering.

Par­

ticipants in these two groups responded to six categories
of courses in an undergraduate electrical engineering
program according to the importance which they placed on
various courses in the preparation of students for work
in the field of engineering.

The purpose of the research

was to determine a model curricular design for an under­
graduate program in electrical engineering.

More specifi­

cally, the research structured a model four-year program
from both technical and nontechnical course areas for
possible use in the Department of Electrical Engineering
at Michigan State University.

The six categories of

courses, and the various course titles, were selected
from an analysis of undergraduate electrical engineering
programs across the United States w hich both were similar

61

62
to and different from the program at Michigan State
University.

All faculty with the rank of Assistant

Professor and a b o v e , and who had as a major conce n t r a ­
tion electrical engineering, were included in the faculty
sample.

Electrical engineers,

selected randomly from

the 1975 IEEE Directory, were identified based on their
affiliation with organizations or companies w hich have
employed graduates from the Department of Electrical
Engineering at Michigan State University during the last
ten years.

The research was conducted in two phases,

enabling the investigator to initially determine whether
participants were responding similarly,

and then through

a second survey questionnaire determining the amount of
agreement between the two groups regarding the importance
of the courses listed.
A total of eighteen faculty and seventy-two
selected engineers completed the questionnaire in the
first study phase for a 90 percent response rate for
both groups.

Sixteen faculty and sixty-five selected

engineers responded to study #2 for an 80 percent and
an 81.2 percent response rate respectively.

Responses

were transposed to data processing cards for analysis on
the CDC 6500 computer at Michigan State University
Statement of Objectives
The six categories of courses were structured to
enable respondents to indicate the degree of importance

63
on a five-point scale of the various courses listed in the
questionnaire.

The subsequent analysis of the data was

intended to achieve the following objectives:
1.

To determine a model curricular design which is
needed to adequately prepare electrical engineers
for jobs in industry

2.

To contrast the importance which selected e n g i ­
neers place on various courses in an electrical
engineering program with the importance on such
courses by faculty in the Department of Electrical
Engineering at Michigan State University

3.

To prepare a model curriculum, using six c a t e ­
gories of courses,

for potential implementation

in the Department of Electrical Engineering at
Michigan State University
Hypotheses
For purposes of this research project,

a series

of null hypotheses representing the six course categories
was established for each of the objectives stated above.
These hypotheses are as follows:
Hypothesis I :
There is no significant difference between mathematics
courses suggested by practicing engineers and those
suggested b y faculty for a model curricular design
in the Department of Electrical Engineering.

64
Hypothesis I I ;
T here is no significant difference between basic
science courses suggested by practicing engineers
and those suggested by faculty for a model c u r ­
ricular design in the Department of Electrical
Engineering.
Hypothesis I I I ;
There is no significant difference between engineering
design courses suggested by practicing engineers and
those suggested by faculty for a model curricular
design in the Department of Electrical Engineering.
Hypothesis I V ;
There is no significant difference between engineering
science courses suggested by practicing engineers
and those suggested by faculty for a model curricular
design in the Department of Electrical Engineering.
Hypothesis V ;
There is no significant difference between technical
elective courses suggested by practicing engineers
and those suggested by faculty for a model c u r ­
ricular design in the Department of Electrical
Engineering.
Hypothesis V I :
There is no significant difference between n o n ­
technical courses suggested by practicing engineers
and those suggested by faculty for a model curricular
design in the Department of Electrical Engineering.
Treatment of the Data
Subsequent to responses to the questionnaire being
transposed to data processing cards,
Package for Social Sciences

(SPSS)

test the research hypotheses.

the Statistical

technique was used to

Basic descriptive data

65
were accumulated by using the condescriptive technique
within the SPSS procedures.

For the results of the first

study, a multivariate analysis of variance was employed.
Within this test, an F score and the statistical signifi­
cance of F were computed to analyze individual courses
grouped according to the six general categories of
courses.

As stated in Chapter III, thiB test will assist

in determining the extent to which faculty and selected
engineers agree upon the importance of the courses.

In

addition, certain assumptions were made with respect to
courses which should or should not be required in an
undergraduate electrical engineering program.

As me n ­

tioned in Chapter III, the Engineering Council for Pro­
fessional Development stipulates various minimal standards
for purposes of program accreditation, and these minimum
requirements were offered as givens within the context
of the survey questionnaire.

As a result, F scores and

the significance of F scores were tabulated from respon­
dents in the form of a forced-choice from two options.
Respondents either indicated that the ECPD stipulated
minimal requirements within each of the six course cate­
gories should be required or should not be required.
Pending a significant degree of similarity between the
two sample groups on this variable for each of the six
categories,

this agreement was assumed for the second

study and not included in that survey questionnaire.

66
In addition to the six course categories included
in the questionnaire,

two additional questions were asked

of respondents concerning an undergraduate degree in
electrical engineering.

A Chi Square test of significance

was employed to determine whether respondents thought the
undergraduate program for electrical engineers should be
maintained at four years, increased to five, or increased
to more than five years.

The same test was used to

determine whether the Bachelor of Science or Master of
Science degree should be the first professional degree
granted to electrical engineers.

A .05 level of sig­

nificance was also used in the Chi Square test of sig­
nificance.

In study #2, mean scores and standard devi­

ations were calculated for each individual course for the
two groups of respondents.

Composite mean scores were

determined from which a rank ordering of all courses was
arrived.

In addition, a Pearson Product Moment C o r ­

relation using actual mean values was performed to
compare the extent of group similarity.

The Spearman

Correlation technique was employed to test the simi­
larity between the two sample groups of the rank ordering
of courses.
In the first study,

individual courses included

in the survey questionnaire were rejected as not receiving
significant agreement at the

.05 level.

courses which received a score of

More specifically,

.05 or below were

67
rejected,

indicating that no significant agreement was

detected between the two sample g r o u p s .

In the second

study, the null hypotheses were rejected if the r scores
from the Pearson Product Moment Correlation were also
significant at the
coefficient

(r ) of

.05 level.

A Spearman rank-order

.7 or higher is usually the deter-

mining point for deciding significance in a rank-order
technique.

A score of

.7 or higher in this research

study was used to indicate high agreement between
faculty and selected engineers in each of the six
categories of courses.
The researcher selected the
nificance for a variety of reasons.

.05 level of sig­
One assumption

underlying the F test is that samples being compared
are approximately the same size.

Since the two sample

groups in the present study were not of similar size,
this assumption was not met.
cance will,

The

.05 level of signifi­

as a result, prohibit rejecting a true null

hypothesis and at the same time allow for the identifi­
cation of differences between the sample groups.

The

.05 level established in this case is, therefore,

small

enough to prevent a Type I error from being made yet
flexible enough to allow for the identification of d i f ­
ferences between sample groups.

68
Summary of Responses to Occupational
Categories
Included on the jury response post card sent to
selected engineers was information pertaining to the
type of work in which the electrical engineers were
involved.

The goal in soliciting these data was to

ensure that a balanced distribution of respondents was
obtained from both managers and practitioners in the
field of electrical engineering.

While these data

reveal that the highest percentage of engineers were
from the managerial category,

an almost equal d i s t r i b u ­

tion of line engineers participated from the functional
areas of design, development,

and project engineering.

These data are summarized in Table 4.1.
TABLE 4.1
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES T O OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES
Absolute
Frequency

Adjusted
Frequency (%)

Project

5

6.9

Project

18

25.0

Research

7

9.4

Sales

3

4.2

Te s ting

7

9.7

21

29.2

Production

5

6.9

Plant

5

6.9

Development

24

33.3

Management

26

36.1

Other

14

19.4

Variable

Design

69
Summary of Responses to Individual
Courses
Responses by the two sample groups to courses
included in the survey questionnaire gave an indication
of the level of importance placed upon individual sub­
ject areas.

These responses were recorded on a five-point

scale of importance and the results are given in Table 4.2.
Both faculty and industry means and standard deviations
are included, revealing a consistency of responses between
2.0 and 4.0 to most courses.
Results from this questionnaire also revealed a
high degree of significance between the two groups of
respondents.
calculated,

An F score and the significance of F were
and the implication for each course list is

given in Table 4.3.

This table includes all courses in

each of the six major categories incorporated in the
survey instrument.
An important factor in the first study of this
research dealt with the statistical basis upon which
courses would either be retained or deleted from the
second survey questionnaire.

More specifically, based

on mean scores and standard deviations, certain courses
which received a high mean rating by both groups were
deleted from the second study because of the relatively
small variance between the two groups.

Technical

writing, as an example, received ratings of 1.35 and
1.98, respectively.

However,

in spite of the high

70
TABLE 4.2
SUMMARY OF MEANS - STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR FACULTY - INDUSTRY
STUDY #1

Variable

Faculty
Mean

Indust:
SD

Faculty
SD

Industry
Mean

2.64
2.76
2.11
5.62
3.11
5.35
2.94
2.82

1.11
1.43
.85
1.13
1.26
1.16
1.19
1.13

2.70
2.94
2.80
4.17
2.92
3.79
4.07
3.47

1.16
1.39
1.28
1.44
1.50
1.38
1.32
1.29

2.58

1.22

2.32

1.41

2.94
5.64

1.14
1.22

2.67
4.73

1.18
1.21

5.11
2.47
2.41
4.00
5.23
6.00
2.05
3.47

1.49
.79
1.12
1.11
1.14
.86
1.02
1.12

4.78
2.77
2.70
3.98
5.63
6.00
2.78
3.38

1.37
1.40
1.31
1.18
1.11
1.06
1.28
1.04

2.64
3.17
2.82
2.94

1.41
1.33
1.18
1.29

3.10
3.07
3.77
3.14

1.25
1.27
1.43
1.39

2.58
2.47

1.27
1.50

2.61
2.00

1.31
1.00

2.05

1.08

2.62

1.10

4.29
3.82
3.52
3.35

1.49
1.42
1.06
1.27

4.42
3.94
3.32
3.31

1.42
1.39
1.52
1.40

Mathematics
a.
b.
c.

d.
e.
f.

g*
h.
i.
j.
k.

Probability and Statistics
Complex Variables
Matrices
Theory of Numbers
Advanced Calculus
Foundations of Analysis
Boundary Value Problems
Numerical Analysis
Applied Mathematics for
Engineers
Partial Differential
Equations
General Topology

Basic Science
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

g*
h.

Quantitative Chemical
Analysis
Solid State Physics
Modern Physics
Statistical Physics
General Biology
Anatomy
Engineering Thermodynamics
Optics

Engineering Science
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

g*
h.
i.
j*
k.

Electrodynamics
Elec tromechan ic s
Guided Mave Theory
Electric Machinery
Systems Science: Modeling
and Analysis
Network Theory
Physical Principles of
Electronic Devices
Introduction to Plasma
Theory
Lasers
Statics
Dynamics

71
TABLE 4.2 (Continued)
. ..

1.
m.
n.

e

Mechanics of Materials
Strength of Materials
Engineering Thermodynamics

Faculty
Mean

Faculty
gD

Industry
Mean

Industry
gD

4.11
4.29
2.64

1.05
1.31
1.11

3.81
3.62
2.90

1.27
1.40
1.26

2.70
2.64

1.10
1.32

3.52
3.29

1.23
1.27

2.70

1.10

2.77

1.29

3.17

1.01

3.60

1.22

2.76
2.05
2.29

1.09
.74
.77

3.19
2.73
2.52

1.12
1.05
.96

3.00
2.58
4.05

1.50
1.27
1.24

3.47
3.08
4.35

1.21
1.25
1.15

4.05
4.64

1.24
.99

4.35
4.29

1.15
1.22

2.00

.86

2.32

1.01

4.00
3.76
3.41
3.76

1.32
1.43
1.50
1.67

5.01
4.54
3.16
3.44

1.25
1.33
1.49
1.25

3.00
4.00
5.00
3.94

1.54
1.69
1.54
1.51

3.12
4.22
4.77
3.40

1.42
1.31
1.25
1.46

4.11
1.94
4.41
4.11
3.35

1.90
1.08
1.58
1.57
1.83

4.50
2.34
4.55
4.58
3.97

1.44
1.19
1.41
1.32
1.41

Engineering Design
a.
b.
c.

d.
e.
f.

gh.
i.
j.
k.

1.
m.

Transmission and Radiation
Laboratory
Communication Laboratory
Physical Electronics
Laboratory
Introduction to Computeraided Circuit Design
Microwave Networks and
Antennas
Communication System Design
Electronic Devices
Linear Integrated Circuits
and Systems
Process Optimization Methods
Energy Conversion
Electronic Instrumentation
in Biology-Medicine
Acoustics
Digital Integrated Circuits
and Systems

Technical Electives
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

gh.

Organic Chemistry
Physical Chemistry
Computer Assembly Language
Combinational Circuits
Technology and Utilization
of Energy
Metals and Alloys
Physiological Ecology
Technical Drawing

Nontechnical Electives
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Philosophy
Economics
Sociology
Political Science
Labor Relations

72
TABLE 4.2 (Continued)

Variable

f.

g*
h.
i.
j.

English Composition
Technology and Governmental
Policy
Technical Writing for
Engineers
Inventions and Patents
Engineering Safety
Standards

Faculty
Mean

Faculty
SD

Industry
Mean

Industry
SD

1.47

1.00

2.20

1.37

3.52

1.46

3.91

1.18

1.35
4.00

.86
1.54

1.98
4.01

1.13
1.42

3.41

1.62

3.20

1.14

73
TABLE 4.3
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS - ALL ITEMS
STUDY #1
Category

F

Significance

implication

Mathematics
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g*
h.
i.
j.
k.

Probability and Statistics
Complex Variables
Matrices
Theory of Numbers
Advanced Calculus
Foundations of Analysis
Boundary Value Problems
Numerical Analysis
Applied Mathematics for
Engineers
Partial Differential
Equations
General Topology
Mathematics Total

.862
.645
.039
.00004
.628
.00005
.0019
.060

No Significance
No Significance
Significance
Significance
No Significance
Significance
Significance
No Significance

.491

No Significance

.710
7.70

.401
.0068

No Significance
Significance

5.95

.00001

.029
.213
4.3B
18.99
.235
18.209
10.234
3.62
.478

Basic Science
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g*
h.

Quantitative Chemical
Analysis
Solid State Physics
Modern Physics
Statistical Physics
General Biology
Anatomy
Engineering Thermodynamics
Optics

.761
.733
.716
.001
1.741
.000
4.73
.060

Basic Science Total

1.66

.121

1.70
.090
6.33
.292

.195
.763
.013
.589

No Significance
No Significance
Significance
No Significance

.005
2.42

.941
.123

No Significance
No Significance

3.65

.059

No Significance

.385
.394
.399
.964
.190
1.00
.032
.806

No
No
No
No
No
No

Significance
Significance
Significance
Significance
Significance
Significance
Significance
No Significance

Engineering Science
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g*

Electrodynamics
Electromechanics
Guided Wave Theory
Electric Machinery
Systems Sciences Modeling
and Analysis
Network Theory
Physical Principles of
Electronic Devices

74
TABLE 4.3 (Continued)

h.
i.
j*
k.
1.
m.
n.

_
F

Significance
of F

,
..
Implication

Introduction to Plasma
Theory
Lasers
Statics
Dynamics
Mechanics of Materials
Strength of Materials
Engineering Thermodynamics

.120
.099
.263
.010
.820
3.14
.571

.729
.753
.608
.918
.367
.079
.451

Engineering Science Total

2.98

.001

6.25
4.81

.014
.021

Significance
Significance

3.47

.065

No Significance

.829

No Significance

.188
.162
.015

No Significance
No Significance
Significance

.355

No Significance

1.85
2.14

.177
.146

No Significance
No Significance

No
No
No
No
No
No
No

Significance
Significance
Significance
Significance
Significance
Significance
Significance

Engineering Design
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g*
h.
i.
j.
k.
1.
m.

Transmission and Radiation
Laboratory
Communication Laboratory
Physical Electronics
Laboratory
Introduction to Computeraided Circuit Design
Microwave Networks and
Antennas
Communication System Design
Electronic Devices
Linear Integrated Circuits
and Systems
Process Optimization
Methods
Energy Conversion
Electronic instrumentation
in Biology-Medicine
Acoustics
Digital Integrated Circuits
and Systems

.853
1.21

.358
.274

No Significance
No Significance

1.46

.230

No Significance

Engineering Design Total

1.35

.201

8.84
4.54

.003
.035

Significance
Significance

.370
.782

.544
.378

No Significance
No Significance

.102

.749

No Significance

.046
1.75
1.98
6.13
.862

Technical Electives
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Organic Chemistry
Physical Chemistry
Computer Assembly
Language
Combinational Circuits
Technology and Utilization
of Energy

75
TABLE 4.3 (Continued)

F

Significance
of F

Implication

Metals and Alloys
Physiological Ecology
Technical Drawing

.350
.392
1.82

.555
.532
.180

No Significance
No Significance
No Significance

Technical Elective Total

2.63

.012

No Significance

.844
1.60
.138
1.58
2.31
4.19

.360
.208
.710
.211
.131
.043

No
No
No
No
No

Category

f.
9*
h.

Nontechnical Electives
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
9*
h.
i.
j.

Significance
Significance
Significance
Significance
Significance
Significance

Philosophy
Economics
Sociology
Political Science
Labor Relations
English Composition
Technology and Governmental
Policy
Technical Writing for
Engineers
Inventions and Patents
Engineering Safety standards

1.30

.256

No Significance

4.61
.001
.290

.034
.971
.591

Significance
No Significance
No Significance

Nontechnical Elective Total

1.16

.326

76
individual course ratings,
of

the small standard deviations

.86 and 1.13 reveal that there is little agreement

about the importance of this course by faculty and
selected engineers.

This can be contrasted with another

technical elective course,

labor relations, which

received ratings of 3.35 and 3.97.

Although these

ratings are lower in importance than those for technical
writing,

the high standard deviations of 1.83 and 2.31

reveal more overlap between the two groups and subsequently
more agreement about the importance of this particular
course.
Wi t h respect to the assumption of including the
minimally required courses stipulated by ECPD in each of
the six course categories,

all respondents

(100%)

from

both sample groups indicated that these courses should be
required in an undergraduate electrical engineering p r o ­
gram.
Seven of eight courses in the basic sciences
category received similar responses from the two groups
of participants.

Only engineering thermodynamics

received an F score significantly lower than the c o nfi­
dence level set for the study.

In addition,

all but one

engineering science c o u r s e — guided wave t h e o r y - r e c e i v e d
agreement between faculty and selected engineers.

And

three engineering science courses did not receive similar
responses, those being transmission and radiation

77
laboratory, communication laboratory, and electronic
devices.

Two courses each received no significant simi­

larity in the elective course areas, those being organic
and physical chemistry as technical electives and English
composition and technical writing for engineers in the
nontechnical elective categories.
Summary of Responses to the Nature
of Undergraduate Programs
In the first survey questionnaire,

two questions

were asked of respondents pertaining to the nature of an
undergraduate degree program in electrical engineering.
The question of whether the undergraduate program for
electrical engineers should be maintained at four years,
increased to five or increased to more than five years
was asked.

In the faculty group,

fifteen indicated that

the current four-year program was desirable and none
that a program of more than five years was acceptable.
Forty-three industry professionals favored a four-year
program, twenty-seven a five-year program, and only one
a program of more than five years.

With respect to the

question of which degree should be the first professional
degree granted to engineers, all seventeen faculty said
the Bachelor of Science degree was the most appropriate
while sixty-nine selected engineers had a similar response
and two indicated the Master of Science degree as the

78
preferable first professional degree.

Results of these

questions are included in Table 4.4.
TABLE 4.4
CROSSTABULATION OF RESPONSES TO THE NATURE OF
AN UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM
STUDY #1
Variable
Length of Program
First Professional
Degree

Chi Square

Significance

4.70

.095

.042

DF

.836

The responses to these questions indicated that
there is no significant difference between the two groups
in their views on the two questions.

The Chi Square

test of dependence indicated that answers to length of
degree and first professional degree do not depend upon
whether respondents are faculty or selected engineers.
Summary of Responses to Individual Courses
Study i?
The second study conducted in this research was
based upon findings gathered from responses received in
the first survey questionnaire.

Only courses which had

no significant differences were included in this second
study.

Separate mean scores from the faculty and

selected engineers revealed only slight differences
in the importance placed upon individual courses.

79
Only six courses received a mean score lower than 2.0
and four courses a score higher than 5.0.

Results of

these data are presented in Table 4.5.
In a d d i t i o n , a rank-ordering of all courses was
accomplished separately for the two groups.

These data

again reflect the similarity of ratings received from
the two groups.

In the mathematics category,

as an

example, both faculty and engineers rated applied m a t h e ­
matics for engineers and probability and statistics the
highest of the six available courses,

and the rank o r der­

ing of these two courses was the same

(a rank ordering

of 1 and 2 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .

These data are illustrated

in Table 4.6.
In addition,

separate mean scores from each group

were used to generate a composite mean score for all
groups.

The composite mean scores were very important

in achieving the necessary rank ordering of all courses
for the final model curricular design.
dard deviations,

Composite stan­

in addition to mean scores, are included

in T a ble 4.7.
A composite rank ordering was then achieved
based on the composite mean scores in the study
(Table 4.8).

These data will provide the real basis

for the construction of a model curricular design to
be proposed in Chapter V of this study.

An important

caution is necessary to note concerning the composite

80
TABLE 4.5
SUMMARY OP MEANS FOR FACULTY - INDUSTRY
STUDY #2
Variable

Faculty
Mean

Industry
Mean

Mathematics
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
j.

Probability and Statistics
Complex Variables
A dvanced Calculus
Numerical Analysis
Applied Mathematics for Engineers
Partial Differential Equations

2.41
2.82
3.58
3.29
2.05
2.17

2.72
3.00
2.83
3.01
1.85
2.78

5.17
2.00
2.17
4.00
5.35
6.05
3.47

4.91
2.34
2.29
3.86
5.68
6.14
3.55

2.11
2.29
3.17
2.00
3.70
3.47

2.67
2.65
2.90
1.82
4.09
3.59

2.47

2.41

1.52
3.52
3.52
4.11
4.29
2.58

2.41
3.09
3.08
3.73
3.72
3.23

1.82

2.49

2.29
2.88

2.54
3.19

Basic Science
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

Quantitative Chemical Analysis
Solid State Physics
Modern Physics
Statistical Physics
General Biology
Anatomy
Optics

Engineering Science
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
gh.
i.
jk

.

1.

m.

Electrodynamics
Electromechanics
Electric M a c h inery
Network Theory
Introduction to Plasma Theory
Lasers
Sy s t e m Science:
Modeling and
Analysis
Physical Principles of Electronic
Devices
Statics
Dynamics
Mechanics of Materials
Strength of Materials
E n gineering Thermodynamics

Engineering Design
a.
b.
c.

Physical Electronics Laboratory
Introduction to Computer-aided
Circuit Design
Microwave Networks and Antennas

81
TABLE 4.5 (Continued)
Variable

d.
e.
f.
g*
h.
i.
j*

Communication System Design
Linear Integrated Circuits
and Systems
Process Optimization Methods
Energy Conversion
Electronic Instrumentation in
Biology-Medicine
Acoustics
Digital Integrated Circuits and
Systems

Faculty
Mean

Industry
Mean

2.11

2.75

2.23
3.29
2.23

2.60
3.63
2.73

3.76
4.23

4.09
4.27

1.94

2.14

3.00
3.17

3.16
2.98

2.94
4.35
5.41
3.88

3.01
4.39
5.09
3.44

4.17
1.76
4.47
4.11
3.47

4.39
2.18
4.63
4.45
3.75

3.29
2.70
2.29

3.67
3.85
2.78

Technical Electives
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f

.

Computer Assembly Language
Combinational Circuits
Technology and Utilization
of Energy
Metals and Alloys
Physiological Ecology
Technical Drawing

Nontechnical Electives
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f

.

g*
h.

Philosophy
Economics
Sociology
Political Science
Labor Relations
Technology and Governmental
Policy
Inventions and Patents
Engineering Safety Standards

82
TABLE 4.6
COURSE RANK ORDERING - FACULTY AND INDUSTRY
STUDY #2

Variable

Faculty
Rank
Order

Industry
Rank
Order

Mathematics
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

Probability and Statistics
Complex Variables
Advanced Calculus
Numerical Analysis
Applied Mathematics for Engineers
Partial Differential Equations

2
3
6
5
1
4

2
5
4
6
1
3

5
1
2
4
6
7
3

5
2
1
4
6
7
3

3
4
7
2
11
8

5
4
6
1
13
10

5

2

1
9
10
12
13
6

3
8
7
12
11
9

1

2

6

3

Basic Science
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g*

Quantitative Chemical Analysis
Solid State Physics
Modern Physics
Statistical Physics
General Biology
Anatomy
Optics

Engineering Science
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g*
h.
i.
•
3*
k.
1.
m.

Electrodynamics
Electromechanics
Electric Machinery
Network Theory
Introduction to Plasma Theory
Lasers
System Science:
Modeling and
Analysis
Physical Principles of Electronic
Devices
Statics
Dynamics
Mechanics of Materials
Strength of Materials
Engineering Thermodynamics

Engineering Design
a.
b.

Physical Electronics Laboratory
Introduction to Computer-aided
Circuit Design

83
TABLE 4.6 (Continued)
Variable

c.
d.
e

.
f.

g*
h.
i.
j.

Microwave Networks and Antennas
Communication Syst e m Design
Linear Integrated Circuits
and Systems
Process Optimization Methods
Energy Conversion
Electronic Instrumentation in
Biology-Medicine
Acoustics
Digital Integrated Circuits
and Systems

Faculty
Rank
Order

Industry
Rank
Order

7
3

7
6

5
8
4

4
8
5

9
10

9
10

2

1

2
3

3
1

1
5
6
4

2
5
6
4

7
1
8
6
5
4
3
2

6
1
8
7
4
3
5
2

Technical Electives
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f

.

Computer A ssembly Language
C ombinational Circuits
Technology and Utilization
of Energy
Metals and Alloys
Physiological Ecology
Technical Drawing

Nontechnical Electives
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f
gh.

.

Philosophy
Economics
Sociology
Political Science
Labor Relations
Technology and Governmental Policy
Inventions and Patents
Engineering Safety Standards

84
TABLE 4.7
SUMMARY OP COMPOSITE MEANS - BOTH GROUPS
STUDY #2

Variable

C° S m lte
Mean

Standard6
Deviations

Mathematics
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f

.

Probability and Statistics
Complex Variables
Advanced Calculus
Numerical Analysis
Applied Mathematics for
Engineers
Partial Differential Equations

2.65
2.96
3.00
3.07

1.34
1.39
1.54
1.18

1.89
2.87

1.16
1.48

4.97
2.26
2.26
3.89
5.61
6.12
3.53

1.41
1.21
1.05
1.21
1.28
1.12
1.34

2.55
2.57
2.96
1.85
4.01
3.56

1.20
1.08
1.39
1.10
1.41
1.32

2.42

1.11

2.21
3.19
3.17
3.82
3.84
3.09

1.00
1.42
1.42
1.46
1.46
1.36

2.34

1.20

Basic Science
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f
g-

.

Quantitative Chemical Analysis
Solid State Physics
Modern Physics
Statistical Physics
General Biology
Anatomy
Optics

Enqineering Science
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g*
h.
i.
jk.

1

.

m.

Electrodynamics
Electromechanics
Electric Machinery
Network Theory
Introduction to Plasma Theory
Lasers
System Science:
Modeling and
Analysis
Physical Principles of Elec­
tronic Devices
Statics
Dynamics
Mechanics of Materials
Strength of Materials
Engineering Thermodynamics

Enqineering Design
a.
b.

Physical Electronics Laboratory
Introduction to Computer-aided
Circuit Design

2.48

1.24

85
TABLE 4.7 (Continued)
Variable

c.
d.
e.

.

f
9*
h.

i.
j.

Microwave Networks and
Antennas
Communication System Design
Linear Integrated Circuits
and Systems
Process Optimization Methods
Energy Conversion
Electronic Instrumentation in
Biology-Medicine
Acoustics
Digital Integrated Circuits
and Systems

Composite
Mean

standard
Deviations

3.12
2.61

1.30
1.20

2.52
3.56
2.62

1.15
1.29
1.21

4.02
4.26

1.34
1.33

2.10

1.01

3.12
3.02

1.54
1.24

3.00
4.38
5.16
3.53

1.35
1.36
1.16
1.75

4.34
2.09
4.60
4.38
3.69

1.59
1.17
1.46
1.53
1.47

3.59
3.60
2.67

1.34
1.57
1.33

Technical Electives
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f

.

Computer Assembly Language
Combinational Circuits
Technology and Utilization
of Energy
Metals and Alloys
Physiological Ecology
Technical Drawing

Nontechnical Electives
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
£.
9h.

Philosophy
Economics
Sociology
Political Science
Labor Relations
Technology and Governmental
Policy
Inventions and Patents
Engineering Safety Standards

86
rank ordering provided in Table 4.8.

One can readily

determine, as mentioned earlier in this chapter,

that

there are slight differences between the composite mean
scores provided in Table 4.6.

V e r y definitive conc l u ­

sions, therefore, will be made w i t h respect to the r a n k ­
ing of all courses based on very close differences
between mean scores.

The difference between courses

4 and 5 in the mathematics category have a mean value
difference of only

.04.

Yet in the construction of a

model curricular design only four courses may be used
from the mathematics category.

Important distinctions

will be made for purposes of meeting the goals of this
study and must be noted with caution.

Data concerning

the rank ordering of courses are included in Table 4.8.
S ummary of Pearson Product Moment
Correlation Results
The first correlation results gathered from the
Pearson Product Moment Correlation technique indicated
generally a high degree of similarity between the two
sample groups in all course categories.
stipulate that an r score of

Borg and Gall

(7)

.7 or higher indicates a

high level of relationship between two variables, and
results from this study reveal such a relationship
between the faculty and industry groups

(Table 4.9) .

Pearson technique correlates the actual mean values
gathered from study #2 of the research.

The

87
TABLE 4.8
C OMPOSITE COURSE RANK - ORDERING
STUDY #2
Variable

Composite Ranking

Mathematics
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f

.

Probability and Statistics
C o m plex Variables
A dvanced Calculus
Numerical Analysis
Applied Mathematics for Engineers
Partial Differential Equations

2
4
5
6
1
3

Basic Science
a.
b.
c.
d
e.
f
g.

.
.

Quantitative Chemical Analysis
Solid State Physics
Modern Physics
Statistical Physics
General Biology
Anatomy
Optics

5
1
2
4
6
7
3

Engineering Science
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f
g-

.

h.
i.
3k.
1.
m.
*

Electrodynamics
Electromechanics
Electric Machinery
Network Theory
Introduction to Plasma Theory
Lasers
System Science:
Modeling and
Analysis
Physical Principles of Electronic
Devices
Statics
Dynamics
Mechanics of Materials
Strength of Materials
Engineering Thermodynamics

4
5
6
1
13
10
3
2
9
8
11
12
7

Engineering Design
a.
b.
c.
d.

Physical Electronics Laboratory
Introduction to Computer-aided
Circuit Design
Microwave Networks and Antennas
Communication Sys t e m Design

2
3
7
5

88
TABLE 4.8 (Continued)
Variable
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.

Linear Integrated Circuits
and Systems
Process Optimization Methods
Energy Conversion
Electronic Instrumentation in
Biology-Medicine
Acoustics
Digital Integrated Circuits
and Systems

Composite Banking

4
8
6
9
10
1

Technical Electives
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

Computer Assembly Language
Combinational Circuits
Technology and Utilization
of Energy
Metals and Alloys
Physiological Ecology
Technical Drawing

3
2
1
5
6
4

Nontechnical Electives
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.

Philosophy
Economics
Sociology
Political Science
Labor Relations
Technology and Governmental Policy
Inventions and Patents
Engineering Safety Standards

6
1
8
7
5
3
4
2

89
TABLE 4.9
PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION RESULTS
BY CATEGORY
r
Score

Significance
of r

Mathematics

.74

.046

Similarity

Basic Science

.99

.001

High Similarity

Engineering Science

.84

.00

Similarity

Engineering Design

.83

.001

Similarity

Technical Electives

.96

.001

High Similarity

N ontechnical
Electives

.94

.001

High Similarity

Variable

Implication

It is important to note that in the Pearson
Product Moment Correlation the number of items, or
courses, has been used as the n for the statistical p r o ­
cedure instead of the number of respondents from the two
sample groups.

Therefore,

the lower number of items in

the mathematics c a t e g o r y — six— means that the significance
of the r score

(.046)

computed for this category in di­

cates the raw r has less validity as an indicator of
similarity between the two groups.
value in this correlation technique,

The higher the n
the more meaningful

the r score is and conclusions arrived at in these c a t e ­
gories are mo r e statistically sound.
Summary of Spearman Rank Order
Correlation Results
A similar approach may be taken in interpreting
the results of the Spearman rank order correlation

90
results.

This technique correlates the actual rank

order of courses between groups and also reveals a high
degree of similarity.

While engineering science received

the least degree of similarity of responses, this tech­
nique actually indicates that there is less overlap, or
correlation, between the ten courses rank-ordered in
engineering science than there is between courses in any
other category in the research.
therefore,

Courses suggested,

for a model curricular design from this cate­

gory would be offered with this caution in mind.

Simi­

larly, the mathematics category again was correlated low,
with a high significance of r, and must be approached
with equal caution.

Results from the Spearman technique

are included in Table 4.10.

The summary conclusion from

the analysis of data in the two correlation techniques
revealed less similarity between the ranking of courses
than between the mean values for the two sample groups
studied.

The rank ordering,

therefore, while an impor­

tant tool for this study has less validity in revealing
the degree of importance placed upon all courses in the
survey than does the correlation between mean values.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to propose a model
curricular design for the preparation of undergraduate
electrical engineers comparing responses of two sample
groups to various technical and nontechnical courses.

91
To achieve this objective, six null hypotheses were
offered each centering upon a specific category of
courses commonly included in an undergraduate electrical
engineering program at many institutions.

Using the

Pearson Product Moment Correlation technique, and a
.05 level of significance,

these six hypotheses were

tested and the results are included in Table 4.11

(see

page 92) .
TABLE 4.10
SPEARMAN RANK ORDER CORRELATION RESULTS
BY CATEGORY
r
Score

Significance
of r

Mathematics

.71

.056

Above Acceptable
Level

Basic Science

.96

.001

Above Acceptable
Level

Engineering Science

.87

.001

Above Acceptable
Level

Engineering Design

.63

.025

Below Acceptable
Level

Technical Electives

.82

.021

Above Acceptable
Level

Nontechnical
Electives

.90

.002

Variable

Implication

Above Acceptable
Level

92
TABLE 4.11
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH HYPOTHESES RESULTS

Research Hypotheses

Decision

Hypothesis I
There is no significant difference between mathematics
courses suggested by practicing engineers and those
suggested by faculty for a model curricular design in
the Department of Electrical Engineering.

Hot Rejected

Hypothesis II
There is no significant difference between basic
science courses suggested by practicing engineers
and those suggested by faculty for a model curricular
design in the Department of Electrical Engineering.

Not Rejected

Hypothesis III
There is no significant difference between engineer­
ing design courses suggested by practicing engineers
and those suggested by faculty for a model curricular
design in the Department of Electrical Engineering.

Not Rejected

Hypothesis IV
There is no significant difference between engineer­
ing science courses suggested by practicing engineers
and those suggested by faculty for a model curricular
design in the Department of Electrical Engineering.

Not Rejected

Hypothesis V
There is no significant difference between technical
elective courses suggested by practicing engineers
and those suggested by faculty for a model curricular
design in the Department of Electrical Engineering.

Not Rejected

Hypothesis VI
There is no significant difference between nontechni­
cal courses suggested by practicing engineers and
those suggested by faculty for a model curricular
design in the Department of Electrical Engineering.

Not Rejected

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Purpose and Need for the Study
The curricular planning process in higher edu­
cation today is one of the more difficult and demanding
tasks for educational leaders.

Yet for institutions to

stay attuned to serving the needs of the public, the cur­
ricular design process must be viewed as the central
element around which the teaching, research, and service
responsibilities of a university faculty revolve.
Implementing a process of planning courses which
are to be offered in a college of university, however, is
not a simple task.

While several studies have been con­

ducted which have focused on the views of students and
alumni regarding an undergraduate engineering program,
none has addressed the issue of what opinions are held
by practicing engineers with respect to the courses
needed to adequately prepare future students to solve
the problems posed by a constantly changing technology.
The following research effort,

93

therefore, attempts to

94
incorporate the viewpoints from selected engineers who
have an indirect affiliation with Michigan State U n i ­
versity for the purpose of constructing a model c u r ­
ricular design in the field of electrical engineering.
Chapter V presents a summary of the development
of the study,

the results of the research/

and r e c ommen­

dations for future research in the area of engineering
c urriculum design.
Summary of the Study
The purpose of this study was to prepare a model
four-year curricular design for possible future use in
the Department of Electrical Engineering at Michigan
State University.

The study was also intended to be of

use at other institutions in comparing the viewpoints
of electrical engineering faculty and selected engineers
working in various organizations throughout the United
States.

It was the intent,

additionally, of this research

effort to focus on both technical and nontechnical
courses w h i c h would be part of an undergraduate program.
In Chapter I of this study, the problem to be addressed
was stated and the purposes of the research identified.
Research questions to be addressed were presented w hich
formed the basis for the six research hypotheses.
A review of related research was presented in
Chapter II of the study.

This review included a review

of the historical development of curriculum theory and

95
an o v erview of engineering education.

The analysis of

engineering education revealed that basic objectives of
engineering education had been established early in the
field and that both theoretical and practical courses
should be offered to engineering students.

Chapter II

also reviewed the major developments in curriculum theory
in both engineering education in general and electrical
engineering specifically.

The author concluded that

little research had been attempted in the area of c u r ­
riculum development in engineering education and that no
study had been done specifying a model curricular design
for the preparation of undergraduate electrical engineer­
ing students.
The research methodology and design of the study
were presented in Chapter III of the research.

The major

basis for the design of the study was outlined,

revealing

that two separate survey questionnaires would be used in
the study for the two sample groups included as r e s p o n ­
dents.

This method of data collection enabled the

researcher to determine whether similar responses were
being received on specific courses in the initial survey
effort,

and from the second survey questionnaire what

kind of similarity

(agreement or disagreement)

was being

expressed.
An explanation of the data analysis procedures
was also included in Chapter III.

Five statistical

96
techniques were used in analyzing the data and were
discussed in Chapter III also.

Initially, a multivariate

analysis of variance was employed to test significance of
each individual course with respect to responses received
from the two sample groups.

Additionally, mean and

standard deviation scores were calculated which enabled
composite mean scores to be obtained for each course.
This procedure led to a rank ordering of all courses
used in the second survey.

The Pearson Product Moment

Correlation technique and the Spearman Rank Order tech­
nique were employed to compare the degree of similarity
between the two groups of respondents.
The data collected from the survey questionnaire
was analyzed and presented in Chapter IV.

The results

of the multivariate analysis of variance in step HI of
the study were presented and courses which did not
receive similar responses from the sample groups were
deleted.

Results of the rank ordering of courses were

presented in this chapter and the correlational tech­
niques to compare the two groups were given.
Conclusions
The following sections of this chapter will p r e ­
sent for review the conclusions and implications of the
study and recommendations for future research.

Results

from the data concerning occupational categories,

results

from the two studies conducted, and specific findings

97
regarding each course category will also be reviewed
in the following pages.
Information was initially collected concerning
the type of occupational category in which selected
engineers were involved at the time of the completion
of the questionnaire.

The goal in soliciting these

data was to ensure that a balanced distribution of
respondents from this group was obtained from both
managers and practitioners in the field of electrical
engineering.

This goal was satisfied, as the largest

number and percentage of respondents were from the ma n ­
agement area of electrical engineering and a balanced
proportion were from other practical areas of the p ro­
fession.

An important conclusion drawn from these data

was that the number of trained electrical engineers
currently in the area of sales engineering is p r e ­
dictably small.

This fact is not surprising when one

considers the increasingly large number of business
graduates and interdisciplinary-trained engineering
graduates who have been employed in the areas of tech­
nical and industrial sales and marketing.

An additional

result of these data not revealed in Chapter IV but
gathered from the jury response post cards returned to
the researcher was the widespread cross-mixture of occu­
pational categories designated by many respondents.
More specifically,

individual respondents frequently

98
identified more than one occupational category in which
they had responsibility, revealing that for electrical
engineers functional categories cannot be rigidly or
narrowly defined, that more frequently an engineer
involved in one area of practice will also have respon­
sibility in another as well.

It appears, however, that

this does not pertain to those engineers in the management
area.

These individuals most often classify themselves as

managers without accompanying involvement in a practicing
area of engineering.
Study #1
Mean and standard deviation scores from Study #1
revealed a limited range of responses to the importance
placed upon individual courses by the two sample groups.
The two groups tended to rate courses included in the
survey questionnaire toward the median of the scale,
indicating that courses were viewed as important to
moderately important.

More specific results were obtained

in each of the major course categories and are discussed
below.
The tendency for both faculty and selected engi ­
neers to rate courses toward the median range was most
clearly illustrated in the mathematics category.

Only

four courses were given a score other than in the 2.1-2.9
range, and only two courses were rated as low as 5.6-5.8.
There was also a similar rating between the faculty and

99
selected engineers.
courses

Both groups rated the same two

(theory of numbers and general typology)

as the

lowest in importance in an undergraduate program.

It

may be concluded that both groups rated theoretical
courses in mathematics as less important than applied
courses.

The high rating of probability and statistics

and applied mathematics as opposed to theory of numbers
is evidence of this difference in viewpoints.
Courses in the basic science category received
less similar ratings than did mathematics courses.
Clearly, courses which have a secondary relationship to
electrical engineering

(anatomy and general b i o l o g y ) , as

opposed to those which may be more directly related to
physical and chemical systems in electrical engineering,
were rated as lower in importance.

Properties of physics

and chemical analysis are more closely related to el ec­
trical engineering than are anatomy and biology.
Courses in engineering design also received very
similar responses and only three were not incorporated
in the second study.

These were transmission and radi­

ation laboratory, communication laboratory, and elec ­
tronic devices.
Courses in the engineering science category g e n ­
erally were not rated similar by faculty and selected
engineers.

Only three courses were not rated in the

100
important-to-moderately important range and only one
course did not receive similar responses from the two
groups.
Additionally, more than any other category t e c h ­
nical elective courses were rated less similar than were
those in the five other groups.

Physiological ecology

and organic chemistry were the two lowest rated subjects
by the two sample groups.

And courses in the nontechnical

elective category received a somewhat wider range of
responses than did courses in all categories except the
technical elective group.

Two courses were deleted from

this category for the second study.

English composition

and technical writing for engineers received very high
ratings by both faculty and selected engineers.

While

engineering is a highly technical and often theoretical
field, the need exists for engineers to have an ability
to w r ite clearly and concisely.

General reports and

proposals for research and development projects require
that engineers justify a proposal if it is to be accepted.
The results of the first study would indicate, therefore,
that generally both groups rated these two courses very
high.

The use of courses in this study which received

high ratings,

such as the two subjects discussed here,

was dictated by methodological considerations.

These

considerations we r e discussed in Chapter IV and have a
significant impact on the design of this study

(see p.

76).

101
With these limits imposed,

technical writing for e n g i ­

neers and English composition were highly rated by the
two groups but they were not retained in the second
study.

Implications of these results are discussed later

in this chapter.
Included in Chapter IV were data concerning two
questions which were asked of respondents in the first
survey questionnaire.

Participants in the two sample

groups were asked whether the length of an undergraduate
degree p r o gram in electrical engineering should be m a i n ­
tained at four years,

increased to five years, or

increased to more than five years.

This question was

included in the survey because of its obvious connection
w i t h the question of what subject areas should be c o n ­
tained within an undergraduate electrical engineering
program.

This research study confined itself to an

attempt at structuring an undergraduate program in
electrical engineering specifically within a four-year
model.

The courses which were offered for response from

participants were selected primarily because only a
limited number could be identified to comprise a fouryear degree program.

It was the attempt of the

researcher to allow respondents to indicate that, the
limitation placed upon the survey design not w i t h s t a n d ­
ing, an undergraduate degree program may more appropri­
ately be offered in a greater length of time than

102
contained in this study.

Respondents were also asked

whether the Bachelor of Science or the Master of Science
degree should be the first professional degree granted
to engineering students.

Results of these two questions

could possibly be used as a basis for discussing future
research needs in the area of engineering curriculum
development.
Fifty-eight respondents, or 65.9 percent, indi­
cated that the undergraduate degree program in electrical
engineering should be maintained at four years.

Twenty-

nine, or 33.3 percent, preferred a five-year degree p r o ­
gram, and one indicated a preference for a program of
longer duration than five years.

With respect to type

of professional degree, eighty-six, or 97.7 percent,
responded that the Bachelor of Science degree should be
the first professional degree offered to engineering
students.

Two, or 2.3 percent, preferred that the

Master of Science degree be the first degree offered.
These results indicated that both faculty and selected
engineers view the needed length of an undergraduate
engineering program similarly and there were similar
views regarding what professional degree should be the
first offered to engineering students.
Study #2
Results obtained from the second study in general
revealed a high degree of similarity in individual course

103
ratings between faculty and selected engineers in all
six categories.

Mean scores between the two groups were

similar and both faculty and engineers tended to rate
courses towards the median range in terms of importance.
The rank ordering of courses by the two sample
groups reflected this similarity.
category,

as an example,

In the mathematics

two courses were rated as the

highest by both groups of respondents.

Applied m a t h e ­

matics for engineers and probability and statistics were
rated 1 and 2 by both groups.

Solid state physics was

rated #1 by faculty and #2 by selected engineers, while
modern physics was rated #1 by e n g i n e e r s sand #2 by
faculty.
Results from the second survey revealed that the
six research hypotheses should not be rejected at the
level of significance.
therefore,

.05

There is no significant difference,

between ho w faculty in the Department of

Electrical Engineering and selected engineers from across
the United States view the importance of major categories
of courses within an undergraduate electrical engineering
program.

It was very evident that the two sample groups

tended to vi e w the importance of three course categories
with an extreme degree of similarity.

Basic science

courses received a .99 r score, technical electives
and nontechnical electives

.94.

.96,

W hile these results are

not surprising concerning the basic science courses,

the

104
scores in the technical and nontechnical elective areas
were not expected.

While the philosophy of a general

education approach at the undergraduate level has been
continually debated for a number of years, these results
would indicate a significant level of acceptance of that
philosophy by both faculty and selected engineers.
The rank ordering of course categories also sup­
ported the above conclusion.

While basic science courses

received the highest r score

(.96), nontechnical electives

received the second highest ranking

(.90).

A Model Curricular Design
The purpose of this study was to propose a model
four-year curricular design for the preparation of under­
graduate electrical engineering students.

To determine

the parameters for this model, decisions were made with
respect to the number of credit hours which would be
included in each of the six categories of courses.

These

decisions were reached by surveying the electrical engi­
neering programs of a variety of institutions of higher
education to determine the average credit hours required
in each of the six course categories.

The programs

surveyed were the same institutions referred to in
Chapter I which were studied for purposes of determining
the course titles to be used in the survey questionnaire
used in this research study.

In the interest of clarity,

it was decided that quarter rather than semester hours

105
would be used in this model and that the total credit
hours would approximate 175 credits for a four-year p r o ­
gram.

Subsequent to this review, the following credit

hours in each of the six course categories were used:
Mathematics
Basic Science
Engineering Science
Engineering Design
Technical Electives
Nontechnical Electives

24
23
46
24
17
41

credit
credit
credit
credit
credit
credit

hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours

An additional basis for the model presented here
is that the minimally required courses stipulated by
ECPD, and referred to earlier in Chapter III, will be
used in this design.

Both sample groups conclusively

agreed that these courses should be included in an under­
graduate electrical engineering program.
The following model curricular design,

therefore,

is proposed for the preparation of undergraduate electrical
engineering students.

Courses in the design are listed in

priority order according to results of the research study.
Mathematics
Calculus with Analytic Geometry
Calculus with Vector Analysis
Ordinary Differential Equations
Applied Mathematics for Engineers
Probability and Statistics
Partial Differential Equations

106
Basic Science
General Chemistry - General Chemistry Laboratory
General Physics - General Physics Laboratory
Solid State Physics
Modern Physics
Optics
Statistical Physics
Engineering Science
Computer Programming for Engineers
Electric Circuit Theory - Electric Circuit Theory
Laboratory
Signals and Information
Electromagnetics - Electromagnetics Laboratory
Control Theory
Network Theory
Physical Principles of Electronic Devices
Systems Science:

Modeling and Analysis

Electrodynamics
Electromechanics
Electric Machinery
Engineering Thermodynamics
Dynamics
Engineering Design
Basic Electronic Circuit Design - Circuit Design
Laboratory
Control Systems Design

107
Engineering Design (continued)
Digital Integrated Circuits and Systems
Physical Electronics Laboratory
Introduction to Computer-aided Circuit Design
Linear Integrated Circuits and Systems
Communication System Design
Energy Conversion
Technical Electives
Technology and Utilization of Energy
Combinational Circuits
Computer A s sembly Language
Technical Drawing
Metals and Alloys
Nontechnical Electives
Economics
Engineering Safety Standards
Technology and Governmental Policy
Inventions and Patents
Labor Relations
Philosophy
Political Science
Sociology

108
Implications of the Study
The results of the research contained in this
study,

the samples used in the collection of data,

and

the accompanying model curricular design included earlier
in this chapter present numerous implications for the
overall conclusions to be drawn from this study.
example,

As an

the cross section of participants selected from

industry were chosen from a large geographical spectrum
and selected engineers were identified from various
functional areas within the field of engineering.

And

all faculty selected in the study held the rank of
Assistant Professor or above in a Department of Electrical
Engineering.

The identification of these two sample

groups, however, had certain delimitations.

Selected

engineers were identified based upon their employment
with an organization previously employing graduates from
the Department of Electrical Engineering at Michigan
State University.

And only certain functional areas

of engineering were represented by the selected engineers
participating in the study.

Likewise,

the faculty

sample identified were all from the Department of
Electrical Engineering at Michigan State University and,
therefore,

represented a more limited perspective on

the importance of various courses to be included in a
curricular program.

B a sed upon these delimitations,

the model curricular des i g n suggested in this chapter

109
is only one of numerous models which might be appropriate
for the preparation of undergraduate electrical engineer­
ing students.

W h ile the design offered in this study

reflects a broad range of both technical and nontechnical
courses,

this model may not be the best approach in

structuring a four-year degree program but rather may
merely be one of several alternatives to be considered
by Departments of Electrical Engineering in the future.
Another implication of this study, resulting from
the individual ranking of courses by both groups and
referred to earlier in Chapter IV, pertains to courses
which were excluded from the final model curricular
design.

Probably most surprising to the author was that

the communication courses originally included in the
survey questionnaire

(English composition and technical

writing for engineers)

initially received high ratings

by faculty and engineers but were not retained in the
final model design.

W h ile English composition received

ratings of 1.47 and 2.20, and technical writing for
engineers received scores of 1.35 and 1.98 by faculty
and selected engineers,

respectively, the statistical

procedures used in this research resulted in these two
courses receiving a significant degree of difference
by the two groups.

C ourses in communication skills

w h i c h have received much attention in the technical

110
areas b y both practicing engineers and engineering e d u ­
cators were,

therefore, not included in the model cur­

ricular design.
However,

an interesting result of the data which

was equally controlled by the statistical procedures used
in this research was the handling of matrices in the
mathematics category.

While this course also received

relatively high ratings from both sample groups,
was not included in the final model.

it also

Being primarily a

theory course, matrices has received increasingly
unfavorable reaction as a course to be required of
undergraduate students and is in fact to be dropped as
a required course from the Electrical Engineering
Department at Michigan State University.

While statis­

tical procedures permitted this course to be deleted
from the model design,

the absence of this course fails

to carry the same impact as does the absence of the c o m ­
munication courses referred to earlier.
Finally,
here,

the model curricular design presented

although developed in part from responses of e l e c ­

trical engineering faculty at Michigan State University,
presents an interesting comparison with the four-year
program currently offered by this Department.
notably,

Most

the minimal requirements stipulated by the

Engineering Council for Professional Development w hich
forms the basis for the undergraduate p rogram within

Ill
the Department at Michigan State was also the foundation
for the model program presented here.

As indicated in

Chapter I V , all respondents in the sample groups favored
the inclusion of these basic m a t h e m a t i c s , basic science,
engineering science,

and engineering design courses in

the four-year model program making it at least funda­
m e ntally similar to the Michigan State program.
Other interesting comparisons may be made between
the two undergraduate programs.
mentioned earlier,

is required by the existing program

but excluded in the model design.
category,

Theory of matrices,

In the basic science

an unusually heavy emphasis is placed upon

physics courses in the model design whereas additional
chemistry is stressed in the Michigan State program.
Modern physics is, however, offered as an elective basic
science w hich Michigan State undergraduates may take to
fulfill that requirement but it is included in the model
design presented here.
In the engineering science category one i m m e ­
diately notices that the model suggested a greater
emphasis on electromagnetics and physical electronics
courses to the possible exclusion of systems and c o m ­
munication courses.

This may not be surprising, nor

may the fact that the Michigan State program likewise
stresses these courses.

The faculty participating in

the study from Michigan State are indeed more

112
representative of electromagnetics and physical elec­
tronics in the field of electrical engineering than they
are of the system and communication fields.

This b a c k ­

ground was, one may conclude, evident in the ratings
which faculty offered in both the first and second study
in the research.

Additionally, an examination of spe­

cific courses in the engineering science category c o n ­
tained both in the model and the Michigan State program
further illustrates this point.

Six courses, generally

placed in the areas of electromagnetics and/or physical
electronics, were included in the model curricular
design, including electromagnetics, electrodynamics,
electric machinery,
lasers,

introduction to plasma theory,

and physical principles of electronic devices.

In the undergraduate electrical engineering program at
Michigan State University at least ten credit hours of
electromagnetic or physical electronics courses are
required and two courses are optional to electrical
engineering students.

These results indicate a high

degree of similarity within the engineering science
category between the model design and the existing
electrical engineering program at Michigan State Uni­
versity.

A significant degree of similarity also exists

between the two programs with respect to engineering
design courses.

The model reflects a greater emphasis

on digital electronics and systems courses, represented

113
by linear integrated circuits and systems, electronic
instrumentation in biology and medicine, digital inte­
grated circuits and systems,
methods.

and process optimization

The Michigan State program is similar, with

courses such as control systems, control systems labora­
tory, digital electronics

(two c o u r s e s ) , and process

optimization methods.
And finally, very important differences exist
between the technical and nontechnical electives in
the model design and that of the Michigan State curricu­
lum.

Most noticeable is that the Michigan State program

does not offer many of the courses included in the model
design.

Courses such as technology and the utilization

of energy,

engineering safety standards,

inventions and

patents, and technology and governmental policy are not
available to Michigan State University electrical engineering students.

Other courses in these two categories

are available to Michigan State University students but
are not frequently chosen by students.

Examples of

these courses w o uld be labor relations, philosophy,
and metals and alloys.

Still other courses,

technical drawing and economics,

such as

are both available to

Michigan State students and are increasing in popularity
and acceptance.

114
Recommendations for Further Research
The major purpose of this study has been a c c o m ­
plished.

However,

during the process of research a d d i ­

tional questions frequently arise which may merit further
investigation.

This study has generated the following

areas in need of further research in the field of engi­
neering education.
1.

While this study has focused on a specific
faculty and a selected group of electrical
engineers to respond to the importance of
engineering courses,

there is need to conduct

a national survey of electrical engineers and
electrical engineering faculty to obtain a
larger base of information.

Engineering faculty

at smaller institutions, and engineers employed
at a wider variety of organizations, may have
different opinions on the needed areas to be
offered in an undergraduate electrical engineer­
ing program.
2.

Other studies in engineering curriculum design
have solicited input from alumni and students
regarding the nature of their undergraduate
education.

However,

there is need for future

research to focus on all constituencies in such
a program of education to test the usefulness

115
of the educational process.

Faculty,

students,

practicing engineers, and alumni who may not be
active in the field should be surveyed and
results published regarding their views of the
engineering educational process.
3.

While the present study directed attention to
specific engineering courses and their importance
in an undergraduate program, other research is
needed which focuses on the goals and objectives
of an engineering program and relates these
findings to the courses which then need to be
offered to undergraduate students.

Such research

which determines what faculty and selected engi­
neers think should be the objectives of under­
graduate education may conclude that very di f ­
ferent courses are needed to attain these goals.
4.

In relation to goals and objectives, the author
found numerous research studies which have
focused on engineering technology rather than
four-year degree programs.

There is a need for

future research which compares the goals and
objectives of these two different training pro­
grams and the subsequent changes which potentially
need to be made in the subjects which are
offered to engineering students.

Engineering

1X6
educators m ay welcome any objective study which
focuses on the overlap between these two p r o ­
grams .
5.

The present study was concerned with engineering
courses and reference has been made to the need
for research relating specific courses to program
goals and objectives.

Additionally, research is

needed w h ich focuses on competencies or skills
necessary for an engineer to perform successfully
in a variety of capacities— whether it be teach­
ing, research, or practical engineering positions.
Such competencies may then lead to specific
learning objectives for students, objectives
which would be different from broader program
goals and objectives.
6.

Competency-based evaluation systems are needed
in the field of engineering education and would
be useful as future research material.

Although

mu c h has been written concerning general e v a l u ­
ation programs in the field of education,

little

research has been concerned with engineering
programs and the specific courses which are
offered to undergraduate students.
7.

An increasingly growing concern is mounting in
engineering education with respect to criteria

117
used for purposes of accrediting professional
engineering programs.

Research is needed which

analyzes this important activity and the effects
which it has on the development of curricular
programs.

The question of how accreditation

procedures should affect important educational
decisions regarding curriculum is one which needs
to be studied in the future.
8.

Studies concerning the impact of related issues
in engineering education upon curricular pro­
grams are also needed in the future.

Responses

received in this research indicated that, although
there was little difference of opinion between
faculty and selected engineers,

the desired

length of an undergraduate program in electrical
engineering may be in question and m ay have a
substantial impact on the total curricular pro­
gram offered at an institution.

Additionally,

the role which cooperative education plays in
the overall preparation of engineering students
is a very important issue in the formulation of
a curricular design.

These issues and their

impact on the total educational process are
timely concerns to be dealt with in the future
of engineering education.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
PRETEST LETTER OP INQUIRY

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE Of OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE
DEPARTMENT OF SKMBCHANKS

EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 4M14

APPENDIX A
PRETEST LETTER OF INQUIRY

March 23, 1977

Mr* Randall Church
AC Spark Plug Division
1601 North Avcrill Avenue
Flint, Michigan
Dear Mr. Church:
May I express my appreciation for the opportunity of speaking with you
concerning the curriculun evaluation study I am conducting at Michigan State
University. Your responses will be very helpful as I prepare for the final
research to be conducted later this Spring. The survey should hopefully take
only 10 - 15 minutes to complete. Several items may be of Interest as you
complete this questionnaire:
1. This is a pilot study being conducted on electrical engineering
curricular design. I am interested both in your responses to the
survey and in your conncnts regarding the design of the questionnaire
itself. It would be helpful to know, for exanple, if the survey is
too long, too cumbersome to complete, too difficult to interpret or
even possibly irrelevant to concerns dealing with an undergraduate
curriculum.
2. You may detect difficulties with specific curricular items in the
instrument. For example, the titles of the computer science courses
may not be sufficiently specific to make a response possible. I am
interested in your comments dealing with these areas of the survey.
3. The final research will involve both faculty and industry professionals
like yourself. Twenty participants from each group will be included
in the study.
Recognizing your busy schedule, I would like to take approximately one-half
hour of your time to discuss your views on the contents of the rating scale
and your reactions to the survey itself. I would hope your completing the
survey would merely provide a basis for our discussing specific items which
should be included in an Electrical Engineering program.

118

119
Mr. Randall Church
Page 2

I will be in contact with you by phone next week to arrange an appropriate
meeting time.
May I express m y appreciation again for your assistance.
Sincerely,

Mr. H. Preston Herring
College of Engineering

APPENDIX B
PRETEST PROFESSIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX B
PRETEST PROFESSIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE
INDUSTRY PROFESSIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
PART I

1. NAME _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Last

Middle

First

NAME OF FIRM
BUSINESS ADDRESS
Street

City

State

Zip Code

POSITION
EXPERIENCE (NUMBER OF YEARS IN EACH ACTIVITY)
Design and Development (equipment, product, or process)
Production (manufacturing or maintenance)
Inspection or Testing

yrs.

Time and Motion Study

yrs.

Research

yrs.

yrs.

Teaching
a.

Academic

b.

Industrial

yrs.
yrs.

Sales and Service
Supervisory

yrs.
yrs.
yrs.

Other (please name)

120

BACKGROUND
The purpose of this survey is to establish a model curriculum in Electrical Engineering. Within each cate
gory of courses provided in this questionnaire, certain assumptions are made. The Engineering Council for
Professional Development (EOT)) is a national policy-making body which oversees and guides the engineering
profession. It "furthers the public welfare through the development of the better educated and qualified
engineer, engineering technologist, and engineering technician." (ECPD 43rd Annual Report, 1975). The
body also provides minimum standards for degree programs which are reflected in the survey. The IEEE
additionally is concerned with standards for academic quality in engineering education in general and
Electrical Engineering in particular.
INSTRUCTIONS
In order that the model curriculum can approximate a four year program, you are asked to rate the following
engineering courses and to specify which courses in each category should be required for Electrical
Engineering students.
6.

ECPD regulations stipulate a minimum of one-half year required mathematics beyond trigonometry for an
undergraduate Bachelor of Science degree in engineering. Courses typically include:
Calculus with analytic geometry
Calculus with vector analysis
Ordinary Differential Equations
In your opinion, these courses:
SHOULD BE REQUIRED

[ ]
7.

(Mark one of the following)
SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED

[

1

Additional mathematics courses are available to Electrical Engineering students. Please rate the
following courses according to their importance in an Electrical Engineering program.

RATING SCALE

VERY
IMPORTANT
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.

2

Probability and Statistics
Complex Variables
Matrices
Theory of Numbers
Advanced Calculus
Foundations of Analysis
Boundary Value Problems
Numerical Analysis
Applied Mathematics For Engineers
Partial Differential Equations
General Topology

2
2
2
2

2
2
2

2
2
2

NOT
IMPORTANT

MODERATELY
IMPORTANT
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

5
S

5
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5

6
6
6
6

6
6
6

6
6
6
6

Select three of the above courses which should be required in an undergraduate Electrical Engineering
program. Identify by letter preceding course title:

9.

ECPD regulations stipulate a minimum of one year of basic science in an undergraduate degree program.
Courses typically include:
General Chemistry - General Chemistry Laboratory
General Physics - General Physics Laboratory
In your opinion, these courses:
SHOULD BE REQUIRED

[ ]
10.

SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED

[ ]

Additional courses are available to Electrical Engineering students in the area of basic science.
Please rate the following courses according to their importance in an Electrical Engineering program:

122

8,

VERY
IMPORTANT
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
fi­
ll.

Quantitative Chemical Analysis
Solid State Physics
M o d e m Physics
Statistical Physics
Biological Science
Anatomy
Engineering Thermodynamics
Optics

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

MODERATELY
IMPORTANT
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

NOT
IMPORTANT
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

Select three of the above courses which should be required in an undergraduate Electrical Engineering
program. Identify by letter preceding course title.

12.

ECPD regulations stipulate a minimum of one year of engineering sciences in an undergraduate program.
Engineering science courses have their roots in mathematics and basic sciences, but c a n y knowledge
further toward creative application and offer a bridge between the basic sciences and engineering
practice. Courses typically include:
Computer Programming for Engineers
Electric Circuit Theory
Electric Circuits Laboratory
Signals and Infomation

Electromagnetics
Electromagnetics Laboratory
Control Theory

In your opinion, these courses:
SHOULD BE REQUIRED

[ ]
13.

SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED

M

Additional courses are available to Electrical Engineering students in the area of engineering science.
Please rate the following engineering science courses according to their importance in an Electrical
Engineering program.

123

11.

a. Electrodynamics
b. Electromechanics
c. Guided Wave Theory
d. Electric Machinery
e. Systems Science: Modeling and Analysis
f. Network Theory
g* Physical Principles of Electronic Devices
h. Introduction to Plasma Theory
i. Lasers
j. Statics
k. Dynamics
1. Mechanics of Materials
m. Strength of Materials
n. Engineering Thermodynamics

VERY

MODERATELY

NOT

IMPORTANT

IMPORTANT

IMPORTANT

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

Select five courses from the above list which should be required in an undergraduate program.
by letter preceding course title.

15.

Select two laboratories from the above list which should be required in an undergraduate program.
Identify by letter preceding course title.

16.

Most Engineering Colleges provide for technical electives to be taken at the option of the individual
student. Such courses are usually engineering science, design or basic science subjects, or other
technical courses which supplement an engineering program. Please select six additional courses of a
technical nature which, if taken, would better prepare a student for a position as an Electrical
Engineer. Selections could be taken from those not chosen by you as required in the engineering
science, design or basic science categories or any appropriate technical subject.

17.

Identify

a . __________________

_____ c . ___________________

_____ e . ___________________

b . __________________

_____ d . ___________________

_____ f . ___________________

Please rank order your selections from the previous question by placing the appropriate number to the
left of each subject. (Inmost important; 6=least important)

124

14.

18.

ECPD guidelines suggest a minimun of one-half year of non-technical electives to broaden the student's
engineering program. The following list contains possible objectives which non-technical
courses may meet if included in an undergraduate program. Please rate each objective.
VERY
Non-technical elective courses should help the student:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

19.

IMPORTANT

2
2

become more aware of his/her social responsibilities,
become better skilled in written camunication.
become better able to consider related factors in
the decision-making process.
become aware of the dynamics involved in human inter­
action.
become better acquainted with laws and policies
governing engineering practices,
become better acquainted with issues involved in
labor-manageroent encounters,
become aware of the American political process
become familiar with the American economic system.

IMPORTANT

S

6
6
6

7
7
7

4

5

6

7

3

4

5

6

7

2

3

4

5

6

7

2
2

3
3

4
4

S

6
6

7
7

4
4
4

5

2

3
3
3

2

3

2

5

5

Please rate the following non-technical courses according to their importance in an undergraduate
Electrical Engineering program.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.

20.

&1P0RTA^ -

NOT

Philosophy
Economics
Sociology
Political Science
Labor Relations
English Composition
Technology and Governmental Policy
Technical Writing for Engineers
Inventions and Patents

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

Please list and rate other non-technical courses you feel are important in an undergraduate program,
a.

1

b.

1

2
2

3

4
3

5
4

6
5

7
6

7

125

g.
h.

MODERATELY

20. cont.

21.

VERY
IMPORTANT

NOT
IMPORTANT

c ._______________________________

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

d ._______________________________

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Please list the five most important non-technical courses which you feel should be included in an
undergraduate program. (Such courses can be taken either from those in Questions 18 or 19.)
List in order of preference.
a.

d.

b ._______________________________

e._____

Should the undergraduate program for Electrical Engineers:
a .________

Be maintained at four years

b .________

Be increased to five years

c . _______

Be increased to more than five years

126

c ._______________________________
22.

NDDERATELY
IMPORTANT

APPENDIX C
FIRST INQUIRY LETTER TO INDUSTRY

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN •

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING • OFFICE OF THE DEAN

APPENDIX C
FIRST INQUIRY LETTER TO INDUSTRY
April 22, 1977

In the near future a survey will be conducted in our college focusing on
various aspects of an undergraduate Electrical Engineering program. This
stud/ will use a curriculum rating instrument distributed to a panel of
experts oocrposed of faculty mentoers and industry professionals to de­
termine the relative importance of specific curricular iters.
This is a project sponsored by a member of our staff to evaluate selected
elements for designing Improved curricula for the Bachelor of Science
degree in Electrical Engineering. The research is being conducted as part
of a doctoral study and the results will be given to the Electrical
illgincoring Department at Michigan State University for consideration and
U3e. As a professional in the Held of engineering your name has been
selected by the writer for participation on the panel.
Hie enclosed post card is provided to identify the nature of your position
and your willingiess to be involved in the study. Participation will
only involve completing a short questionnaire to be sent to you later
this Spring. Just drop the card in the mail at your convenience.
Your acceptance of this invitation will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely r

L.W. Von Tersch, Dean
College of Engineering

Ehclosure

127

APPENDIX D
JURY ACCEPTANCE POST CARD

APPENDIX D
JURY ACCEPTANCE POST CARD

SURVEY RESPONSE POST CARD

NAME

Cm'

ADDRESS

STATE

ZIP CODE

PLEASE IDENTIFY THE NATURE OF YOUR PRESENT POSITION
PRODUCT

DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT

MANAGBENT

RESEARCH

OTHER CPLEASE SPECIFY)

SALES
TESTING
DESIGN
PRODUCTION
PLANT
TITLE OF PRESENT POSITION

128

APPENDIX E
FIRST LETTER WITH SURVEY

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF EVCtNEFJUNO • OFFICE OF THE IFEAN

EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN •4M14

APPENDIX E
FIRST LETTER WITH SURVEY

May I express ny appreciation for your response to participate
in the Electrical Ehgineering curriculum study being conducted,
in our college. Your response has assisted us in gathering a
significant nuirber of indust17 professionals to be involved in
the research.
Biclooed is a curriculum rating instrument. The form ha3 been
coded with a number for purposes of follcw-up and to identify
those Who will be sent the results of the research. I would
appreciate you ccnpleting the Instrument and returning it in
the enclosed self-addressed envelope. Postage has been paid
for your convenience.
Thank you once again for your cooperation in the study. Final
results will be sent to all participants approximately one
month after it is completed.

Sincerely,

L.W. Von Tfersch, Dean
College of Engineering

129

APPENDIX F
SECOND LETTER WITH SURVEY

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING > MICHIGAN • 4MJ4

COLLEGE Of ENGiNEEMNG * OfflCE OF THE DEAN

APPENDIX P
SECOND LETTER WITH SURVEY

September 8, 1977

Several ronths ago you assisted us In a study being
conducted In our College pertaining to a model curriculum
designed for undergraduate Electrical Engineering students.
The preliminary results of that study Indicated widespread
agreement on specific courses between faculty and Industry
professionals.
In order to secure a final statistical analysis and
to rank order the courses according to Importance, it
Is necessary to obtain another rating of some of the
courses Included In the flrrt survey.
We would appreciate, therefore, your taking an
additional five minutes to conplete the enclosed survey.
Return postage has again been paid for your convenience.
Thank you again for your cooperation In the study.

L.W. Von Ttersch, Dean
College of Ehgineering

130

APPENDIX G
FIRST LETTER TO FACULTY

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING * OFTICE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS
ENGINEERING BUILDING

EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 4M14

APPENDIX G
FIRST LETTER TO FACULTY
April 30, 1977

I have been interested in issues relating to curricular develop­
ment and specifically in the ways both faculty and those In
industry view the necessary conponents in an undergraduate
degree program. This interest has resulted in a doctoral study
I am presently conducting related to an Electrical Engineering
curricular model.
I have structured ny research to focus on two groups of pro­
fessionals - faculty in our Electrical Engineering Department
and those who are employed in industries to which Electrical
Engineering graduates have gone during the last fifteen years.
Of particular interest in the study will be a determination of
what courses the two groups hold as Important for Electrical
Engineering students during their four year degree program.
Many courses which are currently offered in our department, and
some which are not, are Included in the rating Instrument.
I would greatly appreciate your reaction to the Importance of
these courses in an undergraduate program. A rating scale 1b
enclosed on which your responses nay be recorded. Usually only
five to ten minutes is needed to conplete the form. Because of
the limited size of our Electrical Engineering Department,
responses from all faculty are essential to the validity of the
research. I have included an envelope in which to return the
survey to the Student Affairs Office.
Drank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
H. Preston Herring, Academic Advisor
Engineering Student Affairs

131

APPENDIX H
SECOND LETTER TO FACULTY

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE
DEPAXTMENT OF NOMFCHANICS

EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • UU«

APPENDIX H
SECOND LETTER TO FACULTY
September 25, 1977

Department of Electrical Engineering
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
Dear Dr.
Several months ago you completed a curriculum rating instrument
concerning your reactions to the importance of various courses
in an undergraduate Electrical Engineering program. Your
response was greatly beneficial, and in coegsarlng the Electrical
Engineering faculty responses with those of a random sample
of industry professionals some interesting rosults were found.
Xn order to complete the study and to enable me to rank order
the courses according to importance, it is necessary to ask
your assistance once again in completing this second survey. You
will note that although this instrument closely resembles the
first it is not identical. Eased on earlier responses, several
courses have been deleted.
X greatly appreciate your assistance in this sutdy.
X feel
that the research will yield some interesting results which X
am anxious to share with you upon completion of the study. You
may enclose the survey in the pre-addressed envelope and return
it to the Student Affairs Office in Room 120.
Thank you againt

Sincerely,

H. Preston Herring
Student Affairs Office

132

APPENDIX I
FIRST CURRICULUM RATING INSTRUMENT

APPENDIX I
FIRST CURRICULUM RATING INSTRUMENT
MICHIGAN STATE
COLLEGE

OF

UNIVERSITY

ENGINE£RI!«

CURRICULUM RATING SCALE

BACKGROUND
The purpose of this survey Is to establish a model curriculum In Electrical Engineering. Within each
category of courses provided In this questionnaire, certain assumptions are made. The Engineering
Council Tor Professional Development (ECPD) Is a national policy making body Which oversees and guides
the engineering profession. The body also provides minimus standards for degree programs which are
reflected In the survey. The IEEE additionally Is concerned with standards for academic quality
In engineering education In general and Electrical Engineering In particular.
IlC T T U C n aiS

Please rate the following courses according to their Importance In an undergraduate Electrical
Engineering proffiam.
1.

ECPD regulations specify a mlnlnun of one-half year required MATHEMATICS beyond trigonometry
for an undergraduate Bachelor of Science degree In engineering! Courses typically Include:
Calculus with Analytic Oecmetry
Calculus with Vector Analysis
Ordinary Differential Equations

In your opinion, these courses:

(Mark one of the foilowing)

SHOULD BE REQUIRED

SHOULD HOT BE REQUIRED

I 1
2.

I 1

Additional MATHEMATICS courses are available to Electrical Engineering students. Please
rate the following courses according to their Importance In an Electrical Engineering propam.

a.

VERY
IMPORTANT
1
?

Probability and Statistics

b.

Oorplex Variables

1

2

c.

Matrices

1

2

d.

Theory of Nimrbers

1

2

e.

Advanced Calculus

1

2

r.
g.

Foundations of Analysis

1

2

Boundary Value Problems
Numerical Analysis

1.
J.
k.

Applied Mathematics for Engineers
Partial Differential Equations

1
1
1
1

2

h.

General Tbpolo&

1

2

133

2
2
2

MXERATELY
IMPORTANT

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

w
4
«
4
^
*
*
*
^

H

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

IMPORTANT
6
7

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7

134

3.

ECPD regulations specify a minirun of one year of BASIC SCIENCE courses in an undergraduate
degree projp-am. Courses typically Include:
Oeneral Chemistry
General Physics

-

General Chemistry Laboratory
- Oeneral Physics laboratory

In your opinion, these courses:

(Marta one of the following)

SHOULD BE REQUIRED

SHOULD HOT BE REQUIRED

t )

II

Additional courses are available to Electrical &iglneerlng students In the area of BASIC SCIENCE.
Please rate the following courses according to their Importance In an engineering program.
VERY
IMPORTANT
1
2

a.

Quantitative Chemical Analysis

b.

Solid State Ihyslcs

1

2

MODERATELY
IMPORTANT
li
3
5
li
3
5

NOT
IMPORTANT
6
1
6

7

c.

Modem Ihyslcs

1

2

3

a

5

6

7

d.

Statistical Ihyslcs

1

2

3

u

5

6

7

c.

Oeneral Blolo©1

1

2

3

li

5

6

7

f.

Anatomy

1

2

3

II

5

6

7

B*
h.

Engineering Thermodynamics

1

2

3

u

5

6

7

Optics

1

2

3

5

6

7

5. ECPD regulations specify a nlnlnrn of one year of ENGIKKERIHQ SCIENCE courses In mi under­
graduate program. QJaiNEEUNO SCIENCE courses have their roots In mathemstics and basic
sciences, but carry knowledge further toward creative application and offer a bridge between
the basic sciences and engineering practice. Courses typically Include:
Computer Prop'Mimlng for Engineers
Electric Circuit Theory
Electric Circuits laboratory
Signals and Information
In your opinion, these courses:

SHOULD HE RST-TBED

(Hark one of the following)

SHOULD NOT PE PEC'.’T'TT

( )
6.

Electroma&ietlca
Electromagnetics laboratory
Control Theory

II

Additional courses are available to Electrical Engineering students In the area of ENGINEERING
SCIENCE. Please rate the following engineering science courses according to their Importance
In an engineering profpwn.
VERY
IMPORTANT
2
1

a.

Electrotynamlcs

b.

Electromechanics

1

2

c.

Guided Wave Theory

1

2

d.

Electric Machinery

1

2

e.

Systems Science:

1

2

ttxlellng and Analysis

MCCEJtATELY
IMPORTANT
It
5
3
a
5
3

NOT
IMPORTANT
6
6

3

li

5

6

3

A

5

6

3

ti

5

6

135
VERY
IMPORTANT

MODERATELY
IMPORTANT

WOT
IKPORTNAT

f.

Jfetwortc Theory

5---

5
5

J . Statics

A

5

6"
6
6
6
6

k.

Dynamics

a

5

6

g.

Physical Principles or Electronic Devices

A

h.

Introduction to Plasma Theory

1,

Lasers

a
4

5
5

1.

Mechanics of Materials

u

5

6

m.

Strength of Materials

a

5

n.

Engineering Thermodynamics

A

5

6
6

ECPD regulations specify a minimus of one-half year ENGINEERING DESIGN courses for an under­
graduate degree. ENGINEERING DESIGN courses Involve the process or devising a system, ccrponent,
or process to meet desired needs and which offer skills in the decision-making process.
Courses typically Include:
Basic Electronic Circuit Dcsl&i
Electronic Circuit Dool&i Laboratory
In your opinion, these courses:

8.

Control Systems Design

(Mark one or the following)

SHOULD BE REQUIRED

SHOULD HOT BE REQUIRED

I J

I I

Additional courses are available to Electrical Engineering students In the area of EJJaiNORING
DESIGN. Please rate the following courses according to their Importance In on engineering
program.

a.

Transmission and Radiation laboratory

b.

Conrunlcatlon Laboratory

c.

VERY
IMPORTANT
2
1

Physical Electronics Laboratory

1

2

1

2

MODERATELY
IMPORTANT
A
3

5

6

3

A

5

6

A
A
A

5

6 •

Introduction to Computer-aided Circuit Desl&i

1

2

3

Microwave Networks and Antennas

1

2

3

r.

Conrunlcatlon System Deslfyi

1

2

3

g.
h.

Electronic Devices

1

2

3

Linear Integrated Circuits and Systems

1

2

3

i.

Process Optimisation Methods

1

2

3

J.
k.

Ehers/ Conversion
Electronic Instrumentation In Biolosr-ffedicine

1
1

2

3

1.

Acoustics

1

Digital Integrated Circuits and Systems

1

2

TMPC
6

A

d.

n.

5

3

e.

2
2

NOT

5

6

5

6

A
A
A

5

6

5

6

5

6

5

6

3
3

A
A
A

5
5

6
6

3

A

5

6

136

9. Most Engineering Colleges provide for TECHNICAL ELECTIVES to be taken at the option or the Individual
student. Such courses are usually engineering science, deslpi or basic science stijjeets, or other
technical courses which supplement an engineering program. Please rate the following technical oourses.

VETO
IMPORTANT

10.

MODERATELY
3

Physical Chemistry

2
2

u---

12.

IMPORTANT

3

c.

Cbnputer Assembly language

2

d.

Combinational Circuits

e.
f.
g.

Physiological Ecology

h.

Technical Drawing

5

6

4

5

€

3

A

5

2

3

A

5

6
6

Technology and Utilization of Ehergy

2

3

u

5

6

Metals and Alloys

2
2
2

3

a

5

6

3

a

5

6

3

A

5

6

a.

Organic Chemistry

b.

ECPD guidelines suggest a ndnlsun of one-half year of JKW-TECHNICAL courses to be taken to broaden
the student's engineering program. Please rate the following NGN-TECHNICAL oourses according to
their Inportance In an engineering program.
MODERATELY
IMPORTANT
.
...j.

VERY

11.

NOT

IMPORTANT

IMPORTANT
1
2

JiJT
IMPORTANT

a.

Philosophy

b.

Economics

1

2

c.

Sociology

1

2

3
3

A
A

5

6

d.

Political Science

1

2

3

It

5

6

e.

Labor Relations

1

2

3

A

5

6

f.

English Conpoaltlon

1

2

3

A

5

6

g.
h.

Technology and Governmental Policy

1

2

3

A

5

6

Technical Writing for Engineers

1

2

3

A

5

6

1.

Inventions and Patents

1

2

3

A

5

6

J.

Engineering Safety Standards

1

2

3

A

5

6

3

5

6

5

6

a»uld the undergraduate proe*am for Electrical Ehgtneeras
a.

Be maintained at four years

b.

Be Increased to five years

c.

Be Increased to mare than five years

Srould the Bachelor of Science or Master of Science degree be the first professional degree
granted to engineers?
a.

_____ Bachelor of Science

b,

_____ Master of Science

RATUtl CODE NO.

APPENDIX J
SECOND CURRICULUM RATING INSTRUMENT

APPENDIX J
SECOND CURRICULUM RATING INSTRUMENT

M ICHIGAN STATE U NIVERSITY
CURRICULUM RATING SCALE
S E COND SURVEY
INSTRUCTIONS

Thlc is the second of two rating Instruments soliciting feedback from faculty and Industry
professionals neganiing an undenp’aduate curriculum In Electrical Engineering.
Please rate
the following courses according to their lrqportance In an undergraduate program.

1.

Please rate the fallowing MATMCTA7ICS courses according to their Inportance In an
Electrical Difdneerlng program.
MODERATELY
IMPORTAf.T

very

iNPORTArrr

2.

NOT

a.

Probability and Statistics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

b.

Cbrplex Variables

2
2

3

4

5

6

7

5

7
7

c.

Advanced Calculus

1
1

d.

Numerical Analysis

1

2

3
3

A
4

5

6
6

e.

Applied Mathematics for Engineers

2
2

3
3

5

6

7

Partial Differential Equations

1
1

4

f.

4

5

6

7

Please rate the following BASIC SCID1CE courses according to their Inportance In an
Electrical Engineering profyam.
VERY
MODERATELY
IMPCflTKJT
IWORTANT
a. Quantitative Chemical Analysis
1
2
3
b
b. Solid State Physics
1
2
3
4
5
c. Modem Physics
1
?
3
4
5
d. Statistical ’hyaies
r;
3
l!
1
P
e, Oeneral Blolo&
1
?
3
4
5
f.

Anatony

1

2

3

4

5

g.

Cptlcs

1

2

3

4

5

NOT
WCRTANT
b

7

G
C
r,

7
7
7

6

7

fi
6

7
7

Please rate the following PMINB3UN3 SCDJJCE courses according to their Inportance In an
Electrical Engineering pro®'am.

a.
b.
c.

VERY

MXERATELY

IMPORTANT

IMPORTANT

2

Electrodynamics
Electromechanics
Electric Machinery

d. Network Theory
Introduction to Plasm Theory

e.

3

(I

2
2

3

4

5

3

4

5

6
6
6

2

3
3

4

5

6

U

5

6

2

137

NOT
IMPORTANT

5

138

4.

5.

VERY

MODERATELY

iv f o p k k t i

T m m nn

f.

Lasers

1

2

3

5

5

6

7^

g.

System Science: Modeling and Analysis

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

h.

Physical Principles of Electronic Devices

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

1.

Statics

1

J.

Dynamics

1

2
2

3
3

4

k.

Mechanics of Materials

1

2

3

4

1.

Strength of Materials

1

2

3

m.

Engineering Thenrodynamics

1

2

3

4

5

6

4

5
5
5

4

5

7
6

7

6

7

6

7

6

7

Please rate the following Engineering Peslm courses according to their Importance In an
Electrical Engineering program.
VERY
DgemWfT
T”
2

3

MODERATELY
IMPORTANT
*•
5

6

HOT
IMPORTANT
7

a.

Physical Electronics Laboratory

b.

Introduction to Computer-aidedDeslpi

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

c.

Microwave Networks and Antennas

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

d.

Conrunlcatlon System Dealer

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

e.

Linear Integrated Circuits

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

f.

Process Optimisation Methods

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

3

4

5

6

7

r*

Enerfy Conversion

1

2

h.

Electronic Instrumentation InBI0I0&
and Medicine

1

2

3

4

6

7

i.

Acoustics

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

J.

Digital Integrated Circuits and Systems

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

5

Please rate the following Technical Elective courses sccordlr« to their Importance in an
Electrical Qiglneerlng pro&run.

VERY
IMPORTANT

6.

NO?

iwortakt

a.

Computer AsoemPly Lnnmage

1

l>.

CarMnatlonal Circuits

MODERATELY
IMPOKTArfT

2

3

^

NOT
IMPORTANT
5

6

7

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

c. TV.'chnolojy and Utilisation of Energ/

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

d. M'tals and Alloys

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

e.

Physloloidcal Ecology

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

f.

Technical Drawing

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Please rate the following Non-Technlcal Elective courses according to their Importance in an
Electrical Engineering program.

VERY
IMPORTANT

MDCERATELY
IMPORTAJhT

2

3

5

1

2

3

1

2

3

Political Science

1

2

3

Labor Relations

a.

Philosophy

I

b.

Economics

c.

Sociology

d.
e.

NOT
IMPORTANT

J

6

T~

4

5

6

7

4

5

6

7

4

5

6

7
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

f. Technology and GovernmentalPolicy

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

g. Inventions and Patents

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

h.

1

2

3

4

5

Engineering Safety Standards

6

7

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, Adolph J.
"A College Course in Construction
Engineering.*'
Journal of Engineering Education
34 (September 1944): 409-10.
Bailey, Al e x D.
"What Industry Expects of Engineering
Education After the War."
Journal of Engineering
Education 34 (September 1943): 336-38.
Beauchamp, George A.
Curriculum T h e o r y .
111.:
The Kagg Press, 1969.

Wilmette,

Belknap, J. H.
"The Electrical Engineering Curriculum
from an Industrial Viewpoint."
Journal of E n g i ­
neering Education 31 (June 1940): 181-84.
Bentson, Thomas Gentry.
"The Institutional Level for
C u r r i c u l u m Decision Making:
Existence and C h a r ­
acteristics in Selected School Divisions."
Ed.D.
dissertation, The University of Virginia, 1976.
Berger, Martin John.
"What Industry Requires of the
Graduate Engineer:
A Case Study."
Journal of
Engineering Education 40 (September 1950):
378-91.
Borg, W. R., and Gall, M. D.
Educational R e s e a r c h :
An I n t r o d u c t i o n . New Yorkl
David McKay
Company, Inc., 1973.
Builough, Robert Vernon, Jr.
"Harold B. A lberty and
Boyd H. Bode:
Pioneers in Curriculum Theory."
Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University,
1976.
Burdell, Edwin S.
"The Philosophy of HumanisticSocial Studies in Engineering Education."
Journal of Engineering Education 37 (September
1947): 344-46.

140
10.

Burdell, Edwin S.
"General Education in Engineering."
Journal of Engineering Education 46 (April 1956):
615-750.

11 . Callison, Daren Brooks.

"A Study of Curriculum
Analysis through Application of a Conceptual
Framework to Competency-Based Preparation P r o ­
grams for Supervisors."
Ed.D. dissertation,
University of Georgia, 1976.

12.

Crawford, Ivan C.
"Are Recommendations of This
Report Compatible with a Four-Year Curriculum?"
Journal of Engineering Education 31 (November
1940): 342-44.

13.

Davis, Jess H.
"An Administrator Takes a Look at
General Studies."
Journal of Engineering Ed u ­
cation 46 (October 1955): 112-16.

14.

Dixon, John.
"Training of the Design Scientist in
Engineering Education."
Journal of Engineering
Education 41 (September 1950): 33-35.

15.

Domanico, Edward Martin.
"An Examination of Pro­
cedural Options for Curriculum Development in
Response to the Curriculum Reform Movement."
Ed.D. dissertation, Temple University, 1976.

16.

Dressel, Paul.
The Undergraduate Curriculum in
Higher E d u c a t i o n . W a s h i n g t o n , D . C .: The Center
for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1963.

17.

Dukes, Lawrence Nelson.
"The Use of Research on
Student Characteristics in Curriculum Development:
A Model for the Community College."
Ed.D. disser­
tation, Northern Illinois University, 1976.

18.

Edenbrough, Russell Spence.
"An Analysis of the
Curriculum by the Graduates of the Division of
Business of Oklahoma Panhandle State University."
Ed.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University,
1975.

19.

Eight Ann Arbor Industry-Education Symposium.
For
Our Future Engineers— More Theory or More
Practice? The University of Michigan Industry
Program of the College of Engineering, May 1963.

20 .

Engineering Council for Professional Development.
Annual Report.
Engineering Education and A ccredi­
tation Report.
Vol. 2.
1976.

141
21.

22

.

Eure, Gerald Keith.
"A Study to Identify and Arrange
in Rank Order the Goals of a Core Curriculum by
U t ilization of the Delphi Technique."
Ph.D.
dissertation. The University of Alabama, 1975.
"Pinal Report:
Goals of Engineering Education."
Journal of Engineering Education 58 {January
1968): 373-446.

23.

Forbes, Elizabeth Jane.
"A Framework for Curriculum
Development:
An Approach to Program Development
in Nursing."
Ed.D. dissertation, Temple U n i ­
versity, 1975.

24.

Gaevert, Helen Sinclair.
"An Exploration of a C u r ­
riculum Process:
A Conceptual Model for Meeting
the Educational Needs of Academically Talented
Students in Professional Programs."
Ed.D.
dissertation, University of Houston, 1975.

25.

Grinter, L. E.
"Report on Evaluation of Engineering
Education (1952-1955)."
Journal of Engineering
Education 46 (September 1955): 25-63.

26.

Hall, Ma u d Christine Larson.
"An Evaluation of C u r ­
ricular Planning Processes and Products."
Ph.D.
dissertation, Northwestern University, 1976.

27.

Hammond, H. P.
"Aims and Scope of Engineering C u r ­
ricula."
Journal of Engineering Education 30
(March 1940): 555-56.

28.

________ . "Report of Committee on Aims and Scope of
E n g i n e e r i n g . " Journal of Engineering Education
30 (March 1940): 555-56.
________ . "Report of Committee on Engineering Education after the War."
Journal of Engineering
Education 34 (May 1944): 589-614.

29.

30.

Handleman, Chester.
"Opinions of Selected Faculty
Members on C u r r i c u l u m and Instruction at Five
South Florida Community Colleges."
Ed.D. d i s ­
sertation, Nova University, 1975.

31.

Hatch, Loren Lorenzo.
"Systems Analysis Approach to
M e d i c a l School Curriculum:
An Attitudinal Survey
of Selected Medical Faculty Members."
Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975.

32.

Hess, Paul J.
"Comments on Interim Report of C o m ­
mittee on Evaluation of Engineering Education."
Journal of Engineering Education 45 (January
1955): 411-12.

142
33.

Hollister, S. C.
"The Need for the Appraisal of the
Engineering Profession."
Journal of Engineering
Education 46 (January 1956): 503-05.

34.

Howard, Alice L. Harrison.
"A C u rriculum Design for
the Preparation of Instructional Paraprofessionals
or Teacher A i d e s . ” Ed.D. dissertation, The U n i ­
versity of Florida, 1975.

35.

Ide, John M.
"Engineering Education:
Trends for the
70's."
Journal of Engineering Education 6
(November 1970): 93-96.

36.

Igrig, Harry K.
"The Modern Engineer Should Be
Educated as a Scientist for Industry."
Journal
of Engineering Education 4 3 (December 1952):
271-77.

37.

Jackson, D. C.
"Present Trends in Engineering E d u ­
cation."
Electrical Enqineerinq 59 (April 1940):
152-54.

38.

Jewett, Frank B.
"Engineering Education:
Retrospect
and Prospect."
Journal of Engineering Education
35 (September 1944): 269-71.

39.

Kloeffler, R. G.
"100 Curricula in Electrical E n g i ­
neering."
Electrical Engineering 73 (May 1954):
398-401.

40.

Koopman, George Robert.
C u r riculum D e v e l o p m e n t .
N e w York:
Center for-Ap p l i e d Research in
Education, 1966.

41.

Kransberg, Melvin.
"The Humanistic-Social Studies
in an Engineering E d u c a t i o n ." Journal of E n g i ­
neering Education 38 (September 1947): 230-34.

42.

LeBold, W i l l i a m K.
"Industry Views the Engineering
Graduate and His Curriculum."
Journal of E n g i ­
neering Education 45 (June 195571 808-17.

43.

Loret, John Herman.
"A Rationale and Model for a
Comprehensive Interdisciplinary Curriculum in
Environmental Education for Grades K-12."
Ph.D.
dissertation, The University of Connecticut,
1976.

44.

Mann, Charles Riborg.
"A Study of Engineering E d u ­
cation."
The Carnegie Foundation for the
A dvancement of Teaching.
Bulletin Number
Eleven (1918).

143
45.

Mann, Charles Riborg.
"Report of the Joint Committee
on Engineering Education."
Journal of Engineering
Education 9 (September 1918): 16-32.

46.

Massey, Charles Edward.
"Citizen Action Education for
a Democratic Community:
A Model for Curriculum
Development."
Ed.D. dissertation, University of
North Carolina at Greensboro, 1976.

47.

McEnany, Mike V.
"Course Requirements in HumanisticSocial Studies."
Journal of Engineering Ed u ­
cation 37 (September 1947): 704-08.

48.

McFarlan, Ronald L.
"The Fledgling Engineer-Phusicist or Technician?"
The Monitor 7 (March
1960): 18-22.

49.

Monack, Albert James.
"The Impact of New Technologies
of Engineering Education:
A Study of the Influence
of Technological Needs on Engineering Curricula'
from the Viewpoints of Educators, Employers and
Engineers."
Ph.D. dissertation, New York Uni­
versity, 1962.

50.

Moore, Walter Herbert.
"A Study of the Essential
Elements of a Curriculum Development Procedure."
Ed.D. dissertation, University of Southern
Mississippi, 1976.

51.

Morrow, Charles T.
"Goals of Engineering Education
from an Industrial Viewpoint."
Journal of Engi­
neering Education 56 (November 1965): 73-76.

52.

Muir, R. C.
"An Industrial View of College and Post
College Engineering Education."
Journal of
Engineering Education 31 (June 1940): 81-88.

53.

Mullen, Gregory Joseph.
"The Development of the C u r ­
riculum Field, 1940-1975."
Ph.D. dissertation,
Northwestern University, 1976.

54.

Murphy, Jimmie.
"Critical Path Scheduling of Fully
Professional Engineering Curricula."
Ph.D.
dissertation, Texas A &M University, 1975.

55.

Osborne, Harold S.
"Engineering Education and the
Requirements of Industry."
Journal of Engineer­
ing Education 41 (September 1950): 200-05.

56.

Owen, J. G.
The Management of Curriculum De v e l o p m e n t .
Cambridge":
University Press, 1973.

144
57.

Rader, Louis T.
"The Future of Engineering Education
and Industry."
Journal of Engineering Education
60 (June 1970): 970-73.

58.

Report on Evaluation of Engineering E d u c a t i o n .
Urbana, 1 1 1 .: American Society for Engineering
Education, 1955.

59.

"Report of the Committee on Engineering Education
after the War."
American Society for Engineering
Education.
Journal of Engineering Education 35
(September 1944): 36-58.

60.

Roberts, Helen Randall.
"A Design for Developing
Multicultural Curriculum."
Ed.D. dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, 1975.

61.

Rose, Leslie A.
"Summary of Information Concerning
Humanistic-Social Courses in Engineering Colleges."
Journal of Engineering Education 37 (September
1946): 336-39.

62.

Rowe, Fred Ares.
"An Application for Inclusion of
Student Based Data in Curriculum Decisions:
A
Needs Assessment."
Ed.D. dissertation, Arizona
State University, 1975.

63.

Ryder, J. D.
"The Renaissance in Electrical Edu­
cation."
Journal of Engineering Education 70
(July 1951): 581-84.

64.

Schweingruber, Donald Lee.
"A Comparative Study of
Electrical Engineering Alumni Concerning Their
Undergraduate Program."
Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1972.

65.

Stoutamire, Virginia Lee.
"A System for Generating
Curriculum Design in Community Colleges."
Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas
at Austin, 1975.

66.

Susskind, Charles.
"Microwave Engineering:
How a
N e w Course Is Adopted."
Journal of Engineering
Education 46 (June 1956): 838-41.

67.

Swensen, Charles Thomas.
"An Epistemology and the
Curriculum."
Ed.D. dissertation, Arizona State
University, 1975.

68

.

Waina, Richard Baird.
"Specifying Objectives for an
Engineering C u r r i culum." Ph.D. dissertation,
Arizona State University, 1969.

145
69.

Waina, Richard B.
"System Design of Curriculum."
Journal of Engineering Education 60 (October
1969): 97-100.

70.

Wessman, Harold E.
"Pendulum Swings Toward Broaden­
ing of Curricular in Engineering Education."
Civil Engineering 19 (January 1949) : 242-43.

71.

Wickenden, W. E.
"Report of the Investigation of
Engineering Education, 1923-1929."
Vol. 1.
Pittsburgh:
Society for the Promotion of
Engineering Education, September 1930.

72.

_________. "The Humanistic Band in the Engineering
Curriculum."
Journal of Engineering Education
30 (November 1939): 212-15.

73.

Wickersham, R. O., and Younger, J. E.
"Educational
Requirements for the Analysis of Modern Aircraft
Structures."
Journal of Engineering Education
33 (September 1943): 853-62.

74.

Wilkenson, Ford K.
"A Case for the Five Year C u r ­
riculum."
Journal of Engineering Education 35
(November 1945): 576-79.

75.

Wright, F. D.
"The Role of Research in Undergraduate
Engineering Education."
Journal of Engineering
Education 57 (March 1967): 491-92.