A Controlled Study Showing the Impact of the Foundation Coalition on
Chemical Engineering Education at Texas A&M University
Mark Holtzapple, Katherine Toback
Department of Chemical Engineering
Texas A&M University
m-holtzapple@tamu.edu, katherinetoback@tees.tamus.edu
Carol Holtzapple
The Flippen Group
College Station, TX
carol.holtzapple@flippengroup.com
Abstract
In 1993, the Foundation Coalition (FC) was formed to provide an innovative curriculum for freshman
and sophomore engineering students in nine universities, including Texas A&M. FC themes include an
integrated curriculum, active/cooperative learning, technology-enabled learning, and continuous
improvement. For many years, FC was generously supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF)
and produced numerous papers showing significant benefits, such as greater retention, improved
academic performance, and more rapid graduation. Once NSF funding ended, Texas A&M institutional
commitment to FC waned and the freshman engineering program fragmented into three tracks. Only
Track C (chemical and petroleum engineering) continued the educational traditions established by FC.
Because of transfers and changes of majors, not all students who enter the sophomore chemical
engineering programs had Track C as freshman. This provides a unique opportunity to run “controlled
studies” to determine the impact of FC principles on chemical engineering education. The data
demonstrate that students who participated in Track C exhibited significantly better performance. For
example, grades in the first chemical engineering course (mass and energy balances) increased by 0.45
grade points and the “recycle rate” for this course decreased by a factor of 2.6.
Background
From 1993 to 2004, the National Science Foundation (NSF) funded the Foundation Coalition (FC) to
reform and improve the education of freshmen engineers. The FC included the following universities:
 Arizona State University
 Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
 Texas A&M University
 University of Alabama
 University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
 University of Wisconsin Madison
 Texas A&M University Kingsville
 Texas Woman's University
 Maricopa Community College District
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education
FC themes include the following:
Integrated curriculum – The FC curriculum is designed to integrate with the freshman and
upperclassman years. Within the freshman year, the curriculum reinforces physics, chemistry, and
mathematics. For example, Newton’s laws are discussed in physics, but calculations are done strictly
within the SI system. In contrast, in the FC course, Newton’s laws are also discussed, but calculations
are performed in both the SI and AES systems. This approach provides a solid foundation for explaining
various unit systems in which mass or force is a derived unit. Further, students are confronted with
understanding the difference between g and gc, a major source of confusion. To integrate with their
future courses, the FC course provides a framework for major engineering topics (e.g., thermodynamics,
fluids, heat transfer, and electricity). The benefits of an integrated curriculum include the following: (1)
reinforces student learning, (2) broadens understanding, (3) provides a learning framework, (4) matches
engineering practice, (5) links disciplines, (6) improves visualization, (7) increases retention, (8)
smooths transitions between subjects, (9) establishes relevance to engineering career, (10) decreases
compartmentalization, (11) connects with learning preferences, (12) avoids haphazard presentation, (13)
develops teaming, and (14) improves faculty1.
Active/cooperative learning – Students are organized into teams of three to four. Lectures are
interspersed with frequent group activities such as calculating the answer to a problem, discussing
various options to arrive at a consensus answer, brainstorming, and working on projects.
Technology-enabled learning – In the classroom, students have their own computer equipped
with standard Office software (e.g., Word, Excel) as well as specialized engineering software (e.g.,
AutoCAD, Inventor). The computers are connected to the Internet so students can access the Web.
Continuous improvement – The FC course is constantly evaluated to update the content and to
improve content delivery.
In addition to the above themes, the FC at Texas A&M included the following: (1) clustering of
students into “learning communities” who took common courses (math, engineering, science); (2) using
student teams both inside and outside the classroom; (3) industry involvement in the classroom; (4)
undergraduate peer teachers; and (5) faculty team teaching1.
The benefits of FC are summarized below:
Retention – The second-year retention of students who were clustered into learning communities
increased by the following percentage points: 12% (overall), 12–19% (men), 12% (women), 22–46%
(minority)2,3.
Improved academic performance – Compared to traditional teaching methods, FC students had
the following percentage point improvements in standardized tests: 16% (critical thinking), 15% (Force
Concepts Inventory), 10% (Mechanics Baseline Test), 10% (Calculus Concepts)4–7. Compared to
traditional teaching methods, FC students reduced course failures (D, F, drop) by the following
percentage points: 4% (engineering), 22% (math), 25% (physics)4–7. In a physics class that contained
both traditional and FC students, the FC students performed better on a physics exam by 2–31
percentage points8.
Rapid course completion – When clustered into learning communities, the students who
completed their freshman core courses (math, science, engineering) in the recommended two semesters
increased by the following percentage points: 5–14% (men), 11–19% (women)2.
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education
Implementation of FC at Texas A&M
While the FC curriculum was being developed at Texas A&M, the textbook Foundations of
Engineering9 was written to support the objectives of the course. In the spirit of continuous
improvement, a second edition was published in 2003. The text includes a mathematics supplement that
reviews high school mathematics (e.g., algebra, geometry, logarithms) as well as a brief overview of
calculus. Each chapter of the text references the relevant sections of the mathematics supplement so
students can review them if necessary.
The FC course was taught as a sequence of two 2-credit courses during two semesters. The
course was entitled Foundations of Engineering (ENGR 111 and 112). The course combines lecture and
laboratory activities into two 110-minute sessions per week. Each semester contains 14 weeks, so there
were a total of 51 contact hours for the two-semester course.
The course was divided into two segments: (1) Problem Solving (PS) and (2) Graphics (GR).
Typically, in a given week, students received instruction in each segment. The PS segment was
weighted towards lecture whereas the GR segment was weighted towards laboratory. This combined
approach is preferred because it slowed the rate at which PS topics were introduced, which gives
students “soak time” to assimilate the material. Also, it provides opportunities to integrate PS and GR
into projects.
Regardless of discipline, all engineering students – typically about 2000 students/yr – took the
same FC course. Standard sections were taught in classes of about 100 students whereas honors sections
had about 40 students. The PS faculty were drawn from the departments, each contributing one to two
faculty per semester, most of whom were tenure-track faculty. The GR faculty came from the Graphics
Department, most of whom were lecturers.
I. ENGR 111
Table 1 summarizes the topics in ENGR 111. Approximately 35% is devoted to GR and the remainder
to PS. In addition to the topics described in the table, to help them select an engineering discipline,
students are expected to attend two 1-h departmental presentations in the evening. The course also
includes an in-class case study presented by industry representatives.
The course concludes with a capstone project, an air-powered car that consists of a pressurized
PVC tank on wheels that is propelled forward when high-velocity air ejects from the rear. Each team
builds one car and competes to go the longest distance. The project reinforces nearly every topic
discussed in the course: teaming, Newton’s laws, graphics, graphical analysis, thermodynamics, units,
Excel, statistics, calculus, safety, and numerical integration.
II. ENGR 112
Table 2 summarizes the topics in ENGR 112. Approximately 25% is devoted to GR and the remainder
to PS. In addition to the topics described in the table, to help them become familiar with industry,
students are expected to attend two 1-h industry presentations in the evening. The course also includes
an in-class case study presented by industry representatives.
The first topic in the course is programming in Visual Basic, which was selected because it has
low “overhead.” In only two 2-h lectures, the key elements of the language can be taught, which
provides sufficient tools for students to solve a broad range of problems. Visual Basic is implemented
within Excel, which capitalizes on the skills learned in ENGR 111. During the semester, students are
assigned about 10 computer problems, many of which are coupled to engineering science topics. This
strategy reinforces student awareness that computer programming is a useful tool for solving real-world
engineering problems.
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education
Table 1. Content of ENGR 111
Topic
Introduction
Course overview
Engr. profession
Teaming
Time management
Ethics
Problem solving
Engineering Science
Newton’s laws
Units
Thermodynamics
Mathematics
Numbers
Graphical analysis
Statistics
Computer tools
Excel
Graphics
Projects
Industry case study
Team project
Hours
Example content
1.5
0.5
1
1
2
2
Grading, homework format, contact information, course philosophy
Technology team, engr. disciplines, engr. functions, ABET
Team roles, Code of Cooperation
Goal setting, scheduling, health, study environment, learning
Professionalism, registered engineer, canons, ethical theory
Techniques, decomposition, process, constraints, algorithms, flow charts
2
3
4
Newton’s laws, equations of linear motion
Unit systems, coherent units, dimensional analysis, unit conversion
Pressure, temperature, energy, heat, work, enthalpy, ideal gas, First law, Second law,
heat capacity, phase diagrams, reversibility
0.5
2
2
Significant digits, proportionality, error, precision, accuracy
Rectilinear, semi-log, log-log, interpolation, linear regression, tables
Mean, median, mode, standard deviation, histograms, normal distributions, Z-tables
5
18
Spreadsheets, graphing, solver, statistical functions, graphing, numerical integration
Sketching, lettering, orthographics, pictorials, AutoCAD, dimensions, threads, scaling,
sections
2
4
Air-powered car
Table 2. Content of ENGR 112
Topic
Introduction
Course overview
Computer tools
Visual Basic
Hours
Example content
2
Grading, homework format, contact information, course philosophy
4
Rate processes
4
Functions, subroutines, naming variables, precedence of arithmetic operators,
integers, reals, selection structures, repetition structures, arrays, Boolean
operations
Rate, flux, driving force, heat, electricity, fluid flow, diffusion, resistance,
series/parallel resistors
Engr. accounting
Basic concepts
2
12
Defining a system, open/closed, systems, intensive/extensive quantities, state/path
quantities, Universal Accounting Equation, conservation, steady state
Batch/continuous processes, independent equations, matrices
Positive/negative charge, Kirchhoff’s Current Law, batteries, simple circuits,
equivalent resistance
Forces, changing momentum by changing mass, revisit Newton’s laws
Equations of angular motion, centripetal/centrifugal forces, moment of inertia,
torque, particles/bodies
State/path energy, heat/work, shaft work, electrical work, light, lasers, blackbody
radiation, kinetic/ potential/internal energy, sensible/ latent heat, closed/open
systems, sequential energy conversion
Natural/unnatural processes, reversible/irreversible processes, cycles, Second law
Interest, compounding, present worth, discount, inflation/ deflation, annuities,
installment loans
Parametric modeling, secondary features, drawings, assemblies, special views
2
4
Water rocket
Mass
Charge
2
2
Linear momentum
Angular momentum
2
2
Energy
4
Entropy
Money
2
2
Graphics
Projects
Industry case study
Team project
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education
The course concludes with a capstone project, a water rocket that consists of a 2-L soda bottle
partially filled with water and 100-psig air. To transform the bottle into a rocket, the students design
fins and a nozzle made by a 3-D printer. The rocket payload contains an altimeter that records launch
height. The students write computer code to model the rocket trajectory as a function of water fill
fraction and nozzle diameter. The computer predictions are compared to experimental data. The project
reinforces many of the topics discussed in the course: teaming, Newton’s laws, graphics, graphical
analysis, thermodynamics, units, fluid flow, Excel, safety, Visual Basic programming, and accounting
for mass, linear momentum, and energy.
Engineering Accounting
Engineering accounting is the most important concept taught in the FC course. It is a unifying
framework that applies to all engineering disciplines; in fact, engineering disciplines can be
distinguished by what they count (Table 3). If all engineers are taught this framework, it is much easier
for them to work on interdisciplinary projects because they have a common language.
Engineering accounting provides a common framework, which is essential for student
understanding.
If a necessary framework is not present, then students will have enormous difficulty
assimilating new information that a professor is presenting. If a professor can link
current material to other concepts which a student is currently working on, then the
probability that students can assimilate the material is increased, since the number of
joints in a student’s conceptual framework to which the new material may be linked are
increased1.
Engineering accounting can only be applied to extensive quantities (e.g., mass, volume, charge,
momentum), which depend upon scale. Engineering accounting cannot be applied to intensive quantities
(e.g., temperature, pressure, concentration, voltage), which do not depend upon scale.
Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of the engineering accounting process, which occurs
in the following steps: (1) define a system, the subset of the universe that is being studied and is
distinct from the surroundings; (2) define the extensive quantity that will be counted; and (3) define the
time interval over which the accounting will occur. During the time interval, various path-dependent
processes occur (input, output, generation, consumption) that have the potential to change the state of
the system. Should the state of the system remain constant and unchanged, it is said to be at steady state.
If the particular quantity being counted can be neither generated nor consumed, the quantity is
conserved. It is common for students to confuse steady state and conserved.
The process described in Figure 1 is described by the Universal Accounting Equation (UAE)
Final – Initial = In – Out + Gen – Cons
(1)
Accumulation = Net in – Net gen
(2)
The terms on the left are state quantities whereas the terms on the right are path quantities. Both input
and generation are positive terms, so designating a particular path quantity as input or generation may
seem arbitrary; however, that is not the case. Input terms result from the transfer of the extensive
quantity across the system boundary from the surroundings. As a result of this input process, the total
amount of that quantity in the universe did not change; it was simply transferred from the surroundings
to the system. In contrast, generation occurs within the system boundary and as a result of this process,
there is more of this extensive quantity in the universe.
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education
Initial amount
Initial state
Time passes
Input
Generation
Consumption
Output
Intermediate state
Time passes
Final amount
Final state
Figure 1. Engineering accounting.
framework.
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
Money
×
×
Entropy
Angular
momentum
Energy
Linear momentum
Charge
Engineering
Discipline
Electrical
Computer
Civil
Industrial
Mechanical
Chemical
Aerospace
Agricultural
Nuclear
Biomedical
Mass
Table 3. Accounting Specialties for Engineering Disciplines
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
Similarly, output terms result from the transfer of the extensive quantity across the system
boundary to the surroundings. As a result of this output process, the total amount of that quantity in the
universe did not change; it was simply transferred from the system to the surroundings. In contrast,
consumption occurs within the system boundary and as a result of this process, there is less of this
extensive quantity in the universe.
The accounting framework described above can be applied to a wide variety of engineering
activities, including designing chemical plants, manufacturing automobiles, describing electronic
circuits, characterizing the acceleration of a rocket, analyzing fluid flow, etc. The power of this
framework resides in the following:
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education



Universality – Because the UAE is universal, it provides a common framework and language
that allows engineers to communicate across disciplines.
Clarity of thought – Engineering accounting is a rigorous method for modeling systems. By
following the step-by-step methodology, the modeler is more likely to develop a model that
reflects reality.
Unifying concept – Engineering is taught as a series of courses that “stovepipe” knowledge,
making it difficult to learn. In contrast, the engineering accounting framework crosses
disciplines, making it easier for students to understand difficult concepts.
This last point deserves further elaboration. Table 4 compares traditional methods of teaching
engineering science to engineering accounting.
Engineering accounting helps demystify thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics is
simply accounting for energy with the constraint that energy is conserved. The second law of
thermodynamics is simply accounting for entropy with the constraint that entropy can be generated, but
never consumed. Without grasping engineering accounting, it is simply impossible to understand the
depth of these thermodynamic laws.
Rather than teaching Newton’s laws as three separate statements, they reduce to the following
simple statement: “Linear momentum is conserved.”
Engineering accounting provides further helpful insights. For example, force is viewed as a flow
rate of momentum between bodies,
F  p
(3)
which is readily apparent from the following dimensional analysis:
m
kg·
kg·m
s  momentum
Force  N  2 
s
s
s
The study of the dynamics of a rigid body is nothing more than accounting for momentum:
Momentum accumulation = Momentum flow in – Momentum flow out
dp
 p in  p out
dt
(4)
Table 4. Comparison of Traditional Teaching Methods to Engineering Accounting
Traditional
Newton’s laws of motion
Kirchhoff’s Current Law
Kirchhoff’s Voltage Law
First law of thermodynamics
Second law of thermodynamics
Engineering Accounting
Accounting for linear momentum
Accounting for charge
Accounting for energy
Accounting for energy
Accounting for entropy
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education
There are only three possible cases:
dp
 0  accelerati on
dt
dp
Case 2 : p in  p out 
 0  decelerati on
dt
dp
Case 3 : p in  p out 
 0  constant velocity
dt
Case 1 : p in  p out 
Case 3 represents the steady-state scenario in which the system neither accumulates nor depletes
momentum. Statics is a special situation for Case 3 in which the constant velocity is zero.
Although engineering accounting is seemingly straightforward and simple, mastery of the
concept takes repetition and practice. The following two questions were included in an exam:
1. An engineer has defined a system to account for Quantity X. After a period of time
passes, if the final amount of Quantity X is unchanging and equals the initial amount of
Quantity X, then the engineer can say that Quantity X is at steady state.
a.
True
b. False
2. A parachutist jumps out of an airplane and reaches terminal velocity, meaning the drag
force equals the gravity force. Once terminal velocity is achieved, as time passes, the
parachutist’s velocity and momentum are constant. Based on this observation, we can
conclude that momentum is conserved.
a.
True
b. False
Question 1 is readily answered by memorizing the definition of steady state; 93.5% of the students
answered the question correctly. Question 2 requires the student to apply this definition to a specific
situation. Although momentum is a conserved quantity, all that can be concluded from the observation
describe in Question 2 is that momentum is at steady state; only 20.8% of the students answered this
question correctly.
Multiple Tracks
In 2004, NSF funding for FC ended. Shortly thereafter, the leadership in the engineering college
changed and it was decided to offer freshman engineering in three tracks:
Track A – mechanical, civil, nuclear, industrial, aerospace, biomedical, agricultural
Track B – electrical, computer
Track C – chemical, petroleum
Track A emphasized projects whereas Track B emphasized electrical circuits and computer
programming; only Track C continued the FC tradition.
A significant fraction of freshman engineering students change their majors. The college decided
that, should a student change majors, it did not matter which track they took; any track of ENGR
111/112 would be accepted by the new major. This policy produced an environment in which a
controlled experiment could be performed within the Department of Chemical Engineering. Although
the majority of chemical engineering students enter the sophomore year having taken Track C, a
significant portion took Tracks A or B. By comparing the performance of the two groups (Track C = no,
Track C = yes), it is possible to determine if the FC approach is an effective strategy to prepare chemical
engineering students for success.
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education
Experimental Results
Academic records in chemical engineering were evaluated for a total of 450 students who entered Texas
A&M from 2004–2007. These students were divided into two groups (Table 5). For each group, the
average cumulative GPA in the freshman year was very similar, so the two groups had nearly identical
academic abilities. (Note: Their average cumulative GPA includes all courses taken during their
freshman year, which is predominantly technical courses, such as chemistry, physics, mathematics, and
freshman engineering.) To determine their level of preparation for chemical engineering, their
performance was evaluated in CHEN 204 Elementary Chemical Engineering, which is commonly called
“mass and energy balances.” The Texas A&M course is similar to many such courses taught across the
country and is defined largely by the book Elementary Principles of Chemical Processes by Felder and
Rousseau10.
Typically, CHEN 204 is taken in the first semester of the sophomore year. By this time, students
have completed their freshman science classes (freshman chemistry, freshman physics), freshman
mathematics (calculus), and one version of ENGR 111/112 (Track A, B, or C). Whether a student took
their freshman courses at Texas A&M or another university, to take CHEN 204, they must have
completed this fundamental preparation.
Table 5 shows that the percentage of students who repeated CHEN 204 because they earned a D
or F is 17.1% (Track C = No) compared to 6.52% (Track C = Yes), a 2.6-fold reduction. Stated another
way, without Track C, 1 in 6 students must repeat the course. With Track C, only 1 in 15 students must
repeat the course.
Figures 2 and 3 show the grade distributions in CHEN 204 for the two groups. Only the firstattempt grades are shown; if the student re-took the class, the grades on the second attempt are not
shown. Visually, it is easy to see that the students who took Track C performed significantly better.
Table 5 shows that the average GPA for CHEN 204 was 2.33 (Track C = No) compared to 2.78 (Track
C = Yes), a difference of 0.45 or half a letter grade.
To analyze the data in an unbiased manner, statistical analysis was performed using JMP9, a
statistical package developed by SAS (Statistical Analysis Software). Figure 4 shows a statistical
regression of the data. For all overall GPAs, taking Track C improves performance in CHEN 204 by
about half a letter grade. Statistical significance P < 0.0001, i.e., the probability that these differences
result from randomness, rather than from taking Track C, is less than one chance in 10,000.
It should be noted that this study shows the benefits of Track C in toto. It was not possible to
show the degree to which particular components of the course benefited student performance. For
example, the authors strongly believe that the engineering accounting framework is a critical component
of the course that leads to future success; however, an additional controlled study would be required to
determine if this assertion is supported by data.
Table 5. Two Groups of Students Taking CHEN 204 Elementary Chemical Engineering
Track C
n
Average GPA (cumulative)
Percentage of repeats (D and F)
Average GPA (CHEN 204)
No
82
3.24
17.1
2.33
Yes
368
3.29
6.52
2.78
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education
Figure 2. First-attempt grade distribution in CHEN 204 for Track C = No.
Figure 3. First-attempt grade distribution in CHEN 204 for Track C = Yes.
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education
Figure 4. Correlation of first-attempt grade in CHEN 204 with overall GPA. (Track C = No indicated by
blue squares and blue line. Track C = Yes indicated by red open circles and red line.)
Conclusion
The FC tradition that was maintained in Track C significantly improved student performance in CHEN
204 by reducing the recycle rate by a factor of 2.6 and by increasing the grade in CHEN 204 by almost
half a letter grade. This is accomplished by providing a solid foundation in the fundamentals,
particularly engineering accounting. The engineering accounting framework is used in almost all core
chemical engineering courses including mass and energy balances, thermodynamics, fluids, heat
transfer, mass transfer, electrical circuits, statics and dynamics, reaction kinetics, and control. Many of
these classes are taught in other engineering disciplines, so it is logical to conclude that this foundation
would be beneficial to students in other disciplines as well.
Providing a broad introduction in the freshman year follows sound pedagogical methods. When
preparing for a presentation, the recommended approach follows:
Tell ‘em what you are gonna tell ‘em
Tell ‘em
Tell ‘em what you told ‘em
The engineering curriculum is no different. In the freshman year, we should Tell ‘em what you are
gonna tell ‘em.
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education
References
Al-Holou N, Bilgutay N, Corleto C, Demel JT, Felder R, Frair K, Froyd JE, Hoit M, Morgan J, Wells D, “First-Year
Integrated Curricula Across Engineering Education Coalitions”
http://www.foundationcoalition.org/publications/journalpapers/AuthorHTML/F.htm
2. Morgan J, Froyd J, Rinehart J, Kenimer A, Malave C, Caso R, Clark C, “Can Systemic Change Really Help Engineering
Students from Under-Represented Groups?”, International Conference on Engineering Education, Manchester, U.K.,
August 18–21, 2002.
3. Caso R, Clark C, Froyd J, Inam A, Kenimer A, Morgan J, Rinehart J, “A Systemic Change Model in Engineering
Education and Its Relevance for Women”, Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference & Exposition.
4. Whiteacre M, Malave, C, “An Integrated Freshman Engineering Curriculum for Pre-calculus Students”,
http://www.foundationcoalition.org/publications/journalpapers/ AuthorHTML/W.htm
5. Morgan J, Bolton R, “An Integrated First-year Engineering
Curricula”,http://www.foundationcoalition.org/publications/journalpapers/AuthorHTML/M.htm
6. Morgan J, “A Freshman Engineering Experience: The Foundation Coalition at Texas A&M University”,
http://www.foundationcoalition.org/publications/journalpapers/AuthorHTML/M.htm
7. Willson V, Monogue T, Malave C, “First Year Comparative Evaluation of the Texas A&M Freshman Integrated
Engineering Program”,http://www.foundationcoalition.org/publications/journalpapers/AuthorHTML/M.htm
8. Barrow D, Bassichis B, DeBlassie D, Everett L, Imbrie PK, Whiteacre M, “An Integrated Freshman Engineering
Curriculum, Why You Need It and How To Design It”
http://www.foundationcoalition.org/publications/journalpapers/AuthorHTML/W.htm
9. Holtzapple MT, Reece WD, Foundations of Engineering, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY 2003.
10. Felder RM, Rousseau RW, Elementary Principles of Chemical Processes, 3rd Ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2004.
1.
MARK HOLTZAPPLE
Dr. Holtzapple is a professor of chemical engineering at Texas A&M University. His research interests include production of
chemicals and fuels from biomass, food and feed processing, high-efficiency engines, high-efficiency air conditioning,
conversion of waste heat to electricity, high-power electric motors, and vertical-lift aircraft.
KATHERINE TOBACK
Ms. Toback is the chemical engineering academic advisor at Texas A&M University.
CAROL HOLTZAPPLE
Dr. Holtzapple is the research director at The Flippen Group where she conducts studies to determine the impact of teaching
methods and the classroom environment on education.
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education