Advances in engineering education winter 2013 integrating the engineering Curriculum through the Synthesis and Design Studio NADIA KELLAM JOACHIM WALTHER College of Engineering TRACIE COSTANTINO Lamar Dodd School of Art AND BONNIE CRAMOND Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology University of Georgia Athens, GA ABStrACt Traditional curricular approaches within engineering education tend to be fragmented, with op- portunities for content- and meta-level synthesis being mostly limited to freshman and senior year design courses. In this paper, we are proposing a curricular model, the Synthesis and Design Studio, to combat the tendency towards fragmented curricula. The approach proposed here attempts to negoti- ate the realities of fragmented curricula by providing an integrative learning component that exposes Environmental Engineering students to open-ended projects with the intent that students will develop an integrated understanding of their courses, lives, and professional futures. The pedagogical features and theoretical design of the Studios will be described. Project-led research was conducted, and re- sults from this interpretive analysis of reflections and focus group transcripts are described to explore students’ accounts of both content- and meta-level integration as they participated in a Studio. Keywords: integrated curricula, trans-disciplinary, studio intrODUCtiOn Educating creative and innovative engineers is widely recognized as critical in solving the cur- rent and future challenges facing society (ASCE 2004; ASEE 1994; Fortenberry 2006; Journal of winter 2013 1 advances in engineering education integrating the engineering curriculum through the synthesis and design studio Engineering Education 2006; National Academy of Engineering 2004; Spinks, Silburn, and Birchall 2006; Friedman 2005; Duderstadt 2008). In this world of complex and highly interconnected problems (National Science Board 2007), it is critical that every engineering student graduate with a well-rounded education that includes abilities ranging from engaging in complex thought, analysis, quantitative, and qualitative reasoning to communicating effectively (Felder et al. 2000; Wulf and Fischer 2002; National Academy of Engineering 2004, 2005; National Academy of Sciences 2007; ABET 2004). Part of achieving the aspirational goals of engineering education set out by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET 2004) is to provide breadth to undergraduate educa- tion. Unfortunately, in its implementation, this drive for breadth has often led to a general education curriculum with a set of disparate and unconnected courses, instead of an integrated experience (Olds and Miller 2004; Beane 1995). This is fundamentally at odds with the interconnected nature of the knowledge future engineers require in order to be creative and innovative in approaching the above-mentioned challenges (Charyton and Merrill 2009). In the Greater Expectations report, the Association of American Colleges and Universities recognizes the “fragmentation of the curricu- lum” as a significant “barrier to high quality” (2002). Similarly, the Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University explains that “the freshman experience needs to be an intellectually integrated one, so that the student will not learn to think of the academic program as a set of disparate and unconnected requirements” (1998, 19). As a possible avenue for overcoming this fragmentation of engineering students’ learning, we pres- ent and discuss a curriculum integration initiative at the University of Georgia within the Environmental Engineering undergraduate program. This curriculum integration initiative addresses integration at both a content level (integration of content across courses) and a meta-level (integration of meta- learning and ways of thinking). More specifically, we describe the design and implementation of a Synthesis and Design Studio Series that is threaded throughout the four years of the program and, in a qualitative research component, analyze students’ accounts of integration while participating in the Studio. The description of the initiative comprises the overall series of Synthesis and Design Studios (Seminar Studio, Studio I, and Studio II) that culminates in a trans-disciplinary course with engineer- ing and art students in the third year of the series (Studio III). In this description, Studio II is used as a representative example to illustrate the learning content and activities of all courses of the series. COnCePtUAL FrAMewOrK AnD BACKGrOUnD The following provides the conceptual framework for our curricular model and locates the de- parture point of this work in the current discourse within the engineering education community. 2 winter 2013 advances in engineering education integrating the engineering curriculum through the synthesis and design studio To this end, we summarize prior work on the role of creativity and interdisciplinarity in curriculum integration of meta-learning, and discuss existing efforts and approaches to integrate content and curricula in the engineering context. Meta-Level integrative Learning through Creativity and interdisciplinarity The role and importance of reflection in students’ professional (Dall’Alba and Sandberg 2006; Schoen 1987) and intellectual (Felder and Brent 2004; Perry 1970) development has been widely explored, both in the area of experiential learning in general (Dewey 1933; Kolb 1984) and in the field of engineering education in particular (Canale and Duwart 1996; Jiusto and DiBiasio 2006; Wankat and Oreovicz 2001). Due to the importance of reflection in student professional and intellectual development, we have included a meta-level integrative learning component within the curricular model described in this paper. Reflection is included in this curricular model through many differ- ent modalities, including both verbal and visual modalities such as focus groups, visual journals, and arts-based learning activities. Creativity and interdisciplinarity are central to this meta-level integration and are described in more detail below. Creativity is an inherently integrated, cross-disciplinary process, as elaborated by Robert and Michelle Root-Bernstein (1999). These creativity researchers stress the importance of fundamental thinking tools as being the essence of the creative thought that is common across disciplines with different ways of expressing their thinking: Moreover, at the level of creative process, where it really counts, the intuitive tools for thinking that tie one discipline to another are entirely ignored. Mathematicians are supposed to think only “in mathematics,” writers only “in words,” musicians only “in notes,” and so forth. Our schools and universities insist on cooking with only half the necessary ingredients. By half-understanding the nature of thinking, teachers only half-understand how to teach, and students only half-understand how to learn. (1999, 12) Deliberately engaging students in creative thinking processes is thus critical to their development as innovative thinkers who are able to work across multiple knowledge domains. This meta-level integration of disciplines can help students understand the universality of creative thinking processes as demonstrated, for example, by Cunliffe’s (2008) investigation of the use of interdisciplinary cur- riculum to foster creativity in extra curricular activities in secondary schools. Based on these findings from prior work, we contend that fostering creativity in interdisciplinary experiences is a way to integrate curricula at a meta-level. An interdisciplinary experience involves using methods from multiple disciplines to develop an understanding of a problem or topic (Beane winter 2013 3 advances in engineering education integrating the engineering curriculum through the synthesis and design studio 1997, 1995; Jacobs 1989). The Studios described later in this paper range from reflective experi- ences in which environmental engineering students explore interdisciplinary ways of thinking to these students engaging in a trans-disciplinary studio that includes art students in joint projects. For illustrative purposes, we will describe one of the Studios offered to date in a later section to demonstrate ways that we attempted to provide an integrative engineering curriculum at a meta- level through creativity and interdisciplinary ways of thinking. Content-Level integrative Learning in engineering In response to the need for a more cohesive curriculum, content-level integrated learning oppor- tunities have been implemented in many engineering programs (Olds and Miller 2004; Bordogna, Fromm, and Ernst 1993; Froyd and Ohland 2005). Indicative of this development are efforts to integrate student learning in engineering through capstone Senior Design experiences and, more recently, through freshman engineering courses (Froyd and Ohland 2005) as well as through spiral curriculum approaches (Lohani et al. 2011). These approaches have moved us closer to the goal of an integrated curriculum at the content level. The bookend approach, with a freshman engineering course at the beginning and a capstone experience at the end, provides students with an opportu- nity to integrate their learning both early and late in the program (Froyd and Ohland 2005). A spiral approach provides continuous integrative elements, but also requires more systemic redesign of the entire curriculum (Bruner 1960). These approaches provide the engineering curriculum with varying levels of content-level integration. The curriculum integration efforts described above have uniquely positioned engineering edu- cation as a discipline to lead the development of content-level integrative approaches to student learning at a time when other professional disciplines are adopting similar strategies to create integrative capstone courses and experiences (Huber 2006). However, both approaches can have limitations or be subject to institutional constraints. We propose that an ongoing content- and meta-level integration of curriculum can be achieved within the institutional constraints of existing programs and simultaneously provide students with a cohesive overall learning experience. The Studio model presented in the following sections provides students with a continuous integrative experience that can draw together their learning from other courses with prior, current, and new life experiences. Methodological Position of this work To facilitate the understanding of the work presented here, the following explicitly defines our methodological position for the curricular design approach as well as for the qualitative research component presented. 4 winter 2013 advances in engineering education integrating the engineering curriculum through the synthesis and design studio This initiative was based on emergent, contextual design informed by existing research and the scholarship of teaching and learning. As such, we rejected systematic experimental approaches to curriculum design for pragmatic as well as ethical reasons. More specifically, we designed the Studio model for the particular context of both the program and the institution to achieve the best possible outcomes for all students in a continuous improvement process rather than through a control group design. Analogous to this curriculum design approach, our research into the initiative emphasized an understanding of the particular context and the development of transferable insights into the nature of integrative learning over the generalizability of a universal curricular approach. While perhaps unconventional in the engineering education context, this approach rests on the tradition of curriculum development and educational research that Borrego and Bernhard (2011), in the re- cent centennial edition of the Journal of Engineering Education, termed “problem-led” research, as opposed to “method-led” research. This paper thus presents the curricular model as it emerged from the particular institutional context and followed an innovative pathway towards curriculum integration at both a content and meta- level. The presentation emphasizes the conceptual underpinnings of the design. In the qualitative study of the impacts on student learning, these concepts are connected to and illustrated through an authentic representation of the students’ shared lived experiences of the Studio. On the basis of this connection of concepts and their manifestation in students’ experiences, we derive a number of insights that can provide an illuminating perspective on similar endeavors that are undertaken in similarly unique contexts. StUDiOS: A CUrriCULAr innOVAtiOn tO ACHieVe PrOCeSS- AnD MetA-LeVeL inteGrAtiOn The following describes the institutional context in which the curriculum innovation took place, outlines the conceptual model, and presents concrete pedagogical features of the Studio Series. A subsequent section introduces a view on the curriculum design process to shed light on the thought processes underpinning this initiative. Context: Curriculum Development within existing Structures The developments at the University of Georgia were based on the outcomes of the Engineering Think Tank, with interdisciplinary members from visual arts, cellular biology, pharmacy, geography, and engineering. In a series of interdisciplinary focus groups with undergraduate students, graduate stu- dents, faculty members, and administrators the Think Tank first developed the profile of a graduating winter 2013 5 advances in engineering education integrating the engineering curriculum through the synthesis and design studio engineer, and then the environmental engineering curriculum committee was charged with devising a curricular model for attaining this type of student. Through these focus groups, the Think Tank developed the resulting profile of a graduating engineer as an engineer who is technically excel- lent, humanistic, and innovative. Achieving students’ technical excellence leveraged the strength of existing traditional program structures. The Think Tank report specified the following three com- ponents of an innovative engineer: one that engages in lifelong learning, is creative, and can adapt in a changing, complex world. Being humanistic is conceptualized as critical in facing global issues that require engineers to be embedded in the human and environmental contexts of their work. The Think Tank also developed a vision for engineering at the University of Georgia as “Engineering in a Liberal Arts Environment.” To implement this vision, the university began admitting students into the Environmental Engineering curriculum in Fall 2007, and is currently transitioning to the Environmental Engineering curriculum as envisioned by the curriculum committee that is intended to overcome engineering students’ commonly observed difficulties in developing innovative and humanistic designs for local complex systems. The design and implementation of the Studio Series was situated within the context of existing engineering fundamentals courses from established engineering majors. While these constraints did not allow for a clean-slate curriculum design, significant flexibility to implement novel curricular structures was afforded by the new program. With these constraints and the goal of the technically excellent, humanistic, and innovative engineer in mind, the design of the Environmental Engineering curriculum was guided by the following questions: How can we improve the undergraduate learning experience through efforts to integrate the curriculum across the seemingly disparate departmental and engineering course content silos? More importantly, how can we encourage integration within the learners themselves? To reach the goal of a fully integrated learning experience, we proposed a continuous integrative approach to engineering education—one that actively encourages the indi- vidual learner to integrate their learning across engineering content and within themselves through a more immersed approach. Proposed Curriculum integration Model Curriculum integration occurs at different levels and intensities in an educational program. The lowest level involves integration within one discipline (content-level integration), the next involves integration across several disciplines (content-level integration) and the highest level involves in- tegration within the learners themselves (meta-level integration) (Fogarty 1991). The lowest level implies a fragmented curricular approach, which involves separate courses that rarely make explicit connections between courses. This is the case in most engineering fundamentals courses, with only an implied connection to other courses through prerequisites and co-requisites. At the other end of 6 winter 2013 advances in engineering education integrating the engineering curriculum through the synthesis and design studio the spectrum, the ideal of a fully integrated curriculum synthesizes engineering and non-engineering content as well as the students’ prior, current, and new life experiences and thinking processes, such as creativity and lifelong learning. This reflects current knowledge about how people learn, highlighting the importance of connecting academic knowledge to real-life experiences (National Research Council 2000). We propose that a high-level integration of the curriculum (Clark 1997) involves integration across courses at a content-level as well as integration of multiple aspects of the learner at a meta-level. This integration is represented metaphorically as a binding or spiral connecting the tabs of a notebook (see Figure 2) that symbolize the curriculum as well as students’ current, prior, and new life experi- ences, factors that in combination contribute to students’ overall learning (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking 2000). The spiral also signifies a connecting and integrating element along the dimension of the curriculum, thus overall representing integration at both a content- and a meta-level. the Studio Approach The background sections discussed existing models of curriculum integration in engineering and outlined the contextual constraints of achieving integration while leveraging the existing curricular structures of the particular institution. Building on this prior work and accounting for the contextual conditions, the Environmental Engineering curriculum committee developed and adopted a Studio approach in an effort to integrate the curriculum at both a content- and meta- level. The following describes a number of characteristics of the Studio approach as set out in the broader literature. Figure 1. Representation of holistic student development through the concurrent, meta- level integration of the curriculum and content-level integration of courses (spirals of the notebook) with prior, current, and new life experiences (tabs of the notebook) winter 2013 7 advances in engineering education integrating the engineering curriculum through the synthesis and design studio The studio approach is adopted from Rieber’s graduate-level studios within Instructional Technol- ogy at the University of Georgia (Orey et al. 2000; Rieber 2000). These instructional technology studios were designed around the following ideas: 1) learning is active and is constructed by the learners, 2) learning is inherently situated and social, and 3) learning involves designing, developing, sharing, and critiquing artifacts. The Studios proposed in this paper create a community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991) for students and instructors to collaboratively learn by engaging in broad, socially-situated engineering challenges. Through this studio approach, the intention is for graduates of this program to have developed an engineering disposition. According to Perkins et al., disposition includes abilities, the inclination to use these abilities, and sensitivity to appropriate opportunities to use these abilities (Perkins, Jay, and Tishman 1993; Tishman, Jay, and Perkins 1993). Through engaging in a studio approach, it is our intention for our students to become innovative, humanistic, and technically excellent, while develop- ing an engineering disposition in which students graduate with, not simply a range of abilities, but an inclination to use them and a keen eye to find opportunities to use these skills appropriately. the Synthesis and Design Studio Series to integrate the engineering Curriculum The Synthesis and Design Studio series is the curricular structure that emerged from these consid- erations to concurrently integrate the Environmental Engineering curriculum at both a content- and a meta-level. The Studio Series is threaded throughout four years of the Environmental Engineering curriculum, with one trans-disciplinary Studio in the third year. In Figure 2, the spiral-bound notebook representation has been modified to represent the Environmental Engineering integrative student experience based on existing curricular structures. In this figure, the engineering curriculum is repre- sented by the top page and tab of the notebook. The curriculum is subdivided into fundamentals, a humanities core, and integration courses. The Environmental Engineering curriculum was envisioned in this way, and consists of 53 credit hours within the fundamentals, including science, mathematics, and environmental engineering courses, 24 credit hours within the humanities core consisting of social sciences, liberal arts, and languages, and 39 credit hours of integration courses consisting of systems modeling and analysis, energy and mass, infrastructure and planning, and economics. The Synthesis and Design Studio consists of 14 credit hours occurring throughout the four years. This combination of single-subject courses and integration courses is a way to integrate the curriculum that does not involve a complete revision of the current higher education curricular structure. This approach is critical in that it stresses that an integrated curriculum is not an all or nothing change; it can also be a combination of curricular elements that helps to achieve an integrated curriculum (Jacobs 1989, 19). The main objective of the Synthesis and Design Studio is for students to develop a deep under- standing of the larger socio-technical systems in which engineering is situated. Throughout the 8 winter 2013 advances in engineering education integrating the engineering curriculum through the synthesis and design studio Figure 2: Representation of holistic student development through the concurrent integration (spirals of the notebook) of the curriculum with prior, current, and new life experiences (tabs of the notebook); the curriculum contains fundamentals, humanities, and integration courses, and is integrated through the Synthesis and Design Studios four years, students will develop an understanding of the interrelationships between engineering, the social sciences, and the humanities. Our premise is that, as a result of the Studio Series, the students will become systems thinkers with the ability to think holistically as well as reductively in order to be prepared to deal with the complex issues that they will face in their careers. The Studios will thus provide a curricular integration at both a meta-level and a content level. The Studios meet simultaneously to encourage near-peer learning and mentoring among the students; for example, sophomores will provide mentoring to freshmen. These peer mentoring aspects of the studio are modeled after the graduate-level studio courses that have been implemented in the Educational Psychology and Information Technology department at the University of Georgia over the last 10 years (Orey et al. 2000; Rieber 2000). In each year, Environmental Engineering students are required to enroll in a Synthesis and Design Studio with a focus on observation, modeling, project management, communication, and problem framing, and with a strong focus throughout on synthesis and design, as the name implies. As illustrated in Figure 3, the Studio approach focuses on integrating the traditional fragmented curricular elements (content-level integration) in order to support students’ holistic development, including their creative problem solving and design skills (meta-level integration). The integrative Studios (represented by the flower pot in the central part of Figure 3) are the means by which we have integrated the tradi- tional curricular structures (general education courses, fundamental engineering science courses, and winter 2013 9 advances in engineering education integrating the engineering curriculum through the synthesis and design studio Figure 3: Concurrent curriculum integration through Synthesis and Design Studios engineering electives; these are represented by the lower plane in Figure 3) to achieve the desired graduate attributes of being technically excellent, humanistic, and innovative (represented by the flower in Figure 3). This is our model for integrating the Environmental Engineering curriculum. The Engineering Synthesis and Design Studios are currently in their sixth iteration, with the first initiated in Fall 2009. The Studios use a project-based learning approach (Markham, Larmer, and Ravitz 2003) and meet for six hours per week, with two credit hours earned per semester (with the exception of the seminar studio that occurs during the first semester of the freshmen year and meets for one hour per week with one credit hour earned). Much of the work in the course is com- pleted during the time in the studio, as is common in art studios (Hetland et al. 2007). The broader goals of the Studios are on developing students’ observation and modeling skills, management and communication skills, problem framing skills, and synthesis skills through experiencing engineer- ing design challenges focused on sustainability. Students are required to keep a visual journal, to participate in reflective focus groups (Walther et al. 2009), to write a process reflection report, and to submit a range of deliverables for each project. The Synthesis and Design Studio Series consists of annual studio sessions that provide students with an environment that actively encourages them to establish synergies among their engineering 10 winter 2013