IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION. VOL. 34, NO. 4. NOVEMBER 1991 303

A One Room Schoolhouse Plan for Engineering Education

Carl H. Marbury, Frank S . Barnes, Fellow, ZEEE, Leo Lawsine, Life Member, ZEEE, and Ne11 C. Nicholson

Abstract-We propose an old teaching and learning proce- dure that, with appropriate modifications, may have a place in today’s universities. The basic idea goes back to Plato about 2300 years ago. In essence, the “one room schoolhouse” plan for education stipulates that one lead professor works with a small group of students in most of their major courses during their junior, senior, and graduate years. This program would lean on regular courses and faculty to supply the technical con- tent of some major courses and all the minor courses. The in- tent is to have a dedicated and strongly interactive group that will overcome the distracting effects of today’s “information explosion,” “technology explosion,” and “expanded curri- cula.” To this end, the relevant curriculum factors (course se- lection, course priorities, and course contents) will be more ef- ficiently managed, taught, and coordinated. Within the limitations of time and energy, the students should cover more effectively and widely the disparate curriculums of both major and minor courses.

I. INTRODUCTION AND BASIC FACTORS NIVERSITY education in most professional fields U has been intensified and expanded, almost to the point

of diminishing returns. Information, data, and knowledge seem to be growing exponentially in education and must be controlled and absorbed before they overwhelm us. To this end, we propose an intensified teaching and learning program called “one room.” Simply put, “one room” may be considered a combination plan/methodology/ philosophy for university and secondary school educa- tion.

In effect, our program is very generally like the small “magnet” school within a school system or the Oxford School tutor system, or more specifically like the tested “docent” system [5]. The methodology for implementing “one room” could be readily worked out as shown by the guidelines and information in the next section. This pro- gram may provide greater strength in attaining educa- tional objectives today (e.g., strong professionalism, broad cultural awareness, good human relationships). The prototypical forms of this concept were used by Plato about 2300 years ago, by rural America in the 18th and 19th Centuries, and probably by many other countries at various times. In today’s university setting, “one room”

Manuscript received August 15, 1988; revised June 15, 1989, September

C. H. Marbury, L. Lawsine, and N. C. Nicholson are with the Alabama

F. S. Barnes is with the University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-

IEEE Log Number 9101170.

15, 1989, and April 15, 1990.

A&M University, Normal, AL 35762.

0425.

postulates that one lead professor and an associate lead professor control .the curriculum and related activities of a small group of students (e.g., 30) in all their major courses during their junior, senior, and graduate years (minor courses would be handled in the traditional way). The lead professor would be responsible for scheduling the program and would lean on regular courses, seminars, and faculty to supply: 1 ) the technical content of some major courses and all minor courses; and 2) expertise in the understanding of advances in the engineering and sci- entific fields. The intent is to bring about a more positive teacher-student interaction and more functional curricu- lums. The lead professors would guide students in course selection (number and type), course priorities (major or minor), and course contents (in depth or skimming). In this way, the curriculum factors will be more efficiently managed, taught, and coordinated. The tradeoffs between every professor doing a single course and the two profes- sors doing most of the program are much like those be- tween each worker on an assembly line doing one small job repetitively and two workers sharing the whole assem- bly job.

The above basic factors, teacher-student interaction and planning of curriculums, are intended to conserve time and energy of both teacher and student and help overcome the distracting effects of today’s “information explosion” and “expanded curriculums” [ 11-[3]. In this context, the educational objectives of strong professionalism, broad cultural awareness, and good human relationships are more readily attained. These objectives should also en- hance the chance of student success in a financial and pro- fessional way after graduation.

The above comments apply to the rigorous disciplines that are required for most professional educations. It may seem like radical experimentation to set up such a teach- ing and learning program. However, in reality, the envi- ronment, psychology, and stimulus generated by our ap- proach appear very favorable in comparison to the models followed in traditional academia [2], [5]. Our proposed plan would also strengthen the teacher-student-computer interactions by exploiting the data display capabilities of computers, i.e., computer graphics in engineering and ed- ucation. Computer graphics teaching aids and techniques are described in great detail in [9] for undergraduate and graduate education. The paper develops a basic procedure to produce computer graphics based modules consisting of a 5-10 minute computer-generated movie, together

0018-9359/91/1100-0303$01.00 @ 1991 IEEE

304 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION. VOL. 34. NO. 4. NOVEMBER 1991

with an accompanying written text. The text provides background information and a running description of the movie, together with sample frames taken from it. The system records the computer movie onto videotape using a computer-controlled recorder. The modules combining computer-generated movies, videotape, and text are sometimes referred to as courseware. In particular, the effect of computer interactions represents a new infor- mation revolution which will allow all teachers to reduce the time for lectures/talks/blackboard use and enhance student learning capabilities. Since the “one room” is “structured,” it can be adapted for a wide range of major and minor courses at undergraduate and graduate levels.

In this context, “structured” may be explained in terms of objective and subjective (“soft-side”) factors that form the building blocks (i.e., modules) of our plan. Objective factors include the manner of organization, e.g., type, contents, and scheduling of courses, lead professors, fac- ulty assignments, faculty-student interrelationships, courseware [6], [8]. Subjective factors relate to environ- ment, dedication, stimulus, incentive, and the like. De- pending on the curriculum, the objective building blocks (both general and detailed) can be readily changed to fit the requirements. This is comparable to topdown design in computer programming, a methodology which goes from the general to the particular (in this context, from the general statement of organization to the particular pro- cedures that implement the overall objective [SI).

We subscribe strongly to the notion that today’s under- graduates should be given a more “liberal arts” and “classical” education than is generally provided. We be- lieve that mathematics and science taken as minor courses should be considered liberal arts. In comparison to major courses, the minor courses are studied in less depth and should be designed to “open the door” and provide the

MAJOR ** COURSES(

Power Elechunics

Elccaomagnck Thtory

a d Lmp conml systems Liaua Intcgnad circuits

DiscreteFourierTmsfonns) Probabilistic Systems and Communications (Intelligent

Robahility)

\ CO“ systcms and circuits ( W u l a a y ~VMiaoChips .

English To be taught I&”q Testing by Other Insuum”tion Elecmnics Faculty Industrial Elecmnics

DXfexcntial and Integral Calculus ARogra”ingLanguagc(Psscal.CFomaa)

- I statistics

Thc selection of major courses 6um the above %“” is at thc disention of lcad p f m m Md “other” faculty. The format shows how Wily aaChing asSignments C M bC Changed ** Refer to TABLE I which shows the insauction time assignments for cach faculty and the uanslation to “equivalent faculty.”

MINOR** COURSES

”e sclcction of minor wurscs 6um thc h e “menu” is at the dimtion of Lcd profcssm and “ O W faculty. **Refer to TABLE I which shows the instruction time assignments fa cach faculty and the mnslarion to equivalent faculty.

stimulus for the student only to the point where he/she could Continue in as much depth as desired. We feel that 10-15 minor (cultural) courses might be considered to

Fig. 1, Representative major and minor courses as one option for an elec- trical engineering student (covers junior and senior years)* [4], [7].

complete the major (professional) courses. Special atten- tion should be given to two languages, English and cal- culus, which form a common link or bridge (a lingua franca) between different entities or fields of study [ l ] . For example, calculus appears to be the lingua franca of technology and science today but may be superseded to- morrow by the use of difference equations for computer implementation. As another example, English is the lin- gua franca of most nations of the world.

Central to the success of our proposed plan is a strong dedication on the part of professor and students, much as that practiced by Plato and his group in the grove near Athens about 2300 years ago. The close comradeship and human interactions between professors and students foster a sense of responsibility and accomplishment. In this en- vironment, the lead professor and associate professor would also function as key advisors or mentors.

In the next section, we analyze the implementation and cost of instruction for two representative examples-an electrical engineering student and a music student. The

intent is to show typical major and minor courses for each student, faculty development to handle this mode of teaching, and a cost of instruction based on available data and information. It should be emphasized that the curri- cula listed in Figs. 1 and 2 represent “menus” from which the lead professors and other faculty could select the spe- cific courses to be taught.

11. IMPLEMENTATION AND COST FACTORS Simply put, “one room” may be considered as a com-

bination plan/methodology/philosophy of university and secondary school education. The intent is to bring about a more positive interaction between the two lead profes- sors, other faculty members, and a small group of stu- dents. The benefits from this close interaction result in more efficiently managed, taught, and coordinated curric- ulums. Our plan is structured and can be adapted for a wide range of major and minor courses at the undergrad- uate and graduate levels.

8.1 I I

MARBURY et d.: A ONE ROOM SCHOOLHOUSE PLAN FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION 305

To be taught byLead < Rofessor andAssofiate

COURSES

Fundamentals of Music (Hmmny and Counterpoint) Musical Acoustics (lnsmuncnts, Electronic Applications,

Computer Applications) History of Music - Middle Agcs/Italian RcnaissanWBaroque

(before 1750). Class ic lRomant i~m (after 1750). Thesis Rcpnscntativc Works of Great Canposas

Schubut, Schumann. Brahms. k l i o r Chopin, Lisa, (Vivaldi. Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven,

Wagner. Vetdi, Richard Smuss, Mahler, Schanberg. - smvinsky. copland Rokoficv).

Operas @y Mozan, Verdi, Wagner) Symphonic Music (Evolution of Symphonic Forms from

Baroque through Haydn, Mozart, Bathoven to the 20th Century)

Music Petfomana and Conducting by Students (Chamber Chorus, Chamber Music. Concen Band. Symphony).

English

by Other

Tbc sclonion of major mums f” the above ‘‘menu” is at the discretion of lead professors and “other“ faculty. The format shows how easily teaching assignments can be changed. **Refer to TABLE I which shows the insmction time assigmm” for each faculty and the hnnslation to equivalent faculty.

The selection of minor courses from the above “menu” is at the discretion of lead profcsprs

** Refer to TABLE I which shows the insmction time assignments for each faculty and the mslation to equivalent faculty.

and “ O W f d t y .

Fig. 2 . Representative major and minor courses as one option for a music student (covers junior and senior years)* 171.

The implementation and cost factors will be considered

A) Representative examples of curricula and relevant

B) Implementation by lead professors with faculty sup-

C) Cost of instruction.

in terms of the following, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2.

factors.

port.

A . Representative Examples of Curricula and Relevant Factors

Student A is majoring in electrical engineering where hidher major curriculum will concentrate on such typical courses as electrical power systems, power electronics, electromagnetic theory, electrodynamics, closed loop control systems, computer systems and circuits (particu- larly VLSUmicrochips), linear integrated circuits, prob- abilistic systems and communications, digital processing of signals (including 2-transforms and discrete Fourier transforms), differential and integral calculus, laboratory testing, instrumentation electronics, English, a program-

ming language (C, Pascal, Fortran), industrial electron- ics, thesis, and other pertinent courses [7 ] .

A’s minor courses will be given in less depth than the major courses and will include the arts, literature (letters), language(s), classics, history, music, ethics, logic, hu- manities, and other pertinent courses.

Student B is majoring in music education where hidher major curriculum will concentrate on such typical courses as fundamentals of music, musical acoustics, history of music, representative works of great composers, operas, symphonic music, music performance and conducting by students, English, musical instruments, thesis, and other pertinent courses [7].

B’s minor courses will be given in less depth than the major courses and will include science, mathematics, arts, literature (letters), history, humanities, classics, ethics, logic, and other pertinent courses.

Other important factors relevant to the selection of courses are the selection of lead professors and other fac- ulty. The lead professors must be high-caliber Ph.D’s, very versatile, proficient and knowledgeable in the major courses, and skilled classroom managers. Proficiency in human relation skills is also necessary for successful in- teractions. Such persons should be selected by a commit- tee of experienced and able professionals from academe and (when suitable) from other sources, e.g., industry, research laboratories, high-level experts. To prove the ac- curacy of the above remarks, the following comments have been abstracted from a speech by President A. Shanker of the American Federation of Teachers, July 2, 1988:

Standard teacher evaluation methods are not suitable because such methods tend to inhibit a teacher by telling h i d h e r what to do, when to do it and how; this reduces teaching to a dubious formula and may stifle creativity. Only versatile teachers can drive the changes needed to reform the overall educational procedure by providing exciting innovations in courses and presentations.

The lead professors managing an electrical engineering curriculum, for example, must be very knowledgeable in all or most of the major courses. They must rely on deeply experienced colleagues, however, to supply the contents and meaning of the newest advances ranging from com- piler construction to high-temperature super conductors. With such a broad and deep background, the professors can conserve time and energy in preparing lessons by: 1 ) selecting the most relevant and important topics in a given subject; and 2) coordinating materials for the different courses to eliminate irrelevant and extraneous topics. Ob- viously, the result is efficient and effective because the professors get to know the strong and weak points of their students and are able to balance the requirements of time and course material most effectively.

Because the two professors know they are going to be working with this small group of students for a minimum of two years, the loss of contact that frequently occurs in large universities is much less likely to occur. These changes should lead to efficiencies in advising and work- loading of the students, as the time spent on a subject can be tailored to student needs and interests to a greater de-

306 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 34. NO. 4. NOVEMBER 1991

gree than in our present structure. This approach, together with the formation of student teams (as described below), should provide the following benefits.

1 ) Stimulate new ideas by the interchange of thoughts, problems, and knowledge between students of a given team as well as between different teams.

2) Increase knowledge of course material. 3 ) Reduce stress in students through their mutual co-

operation, enjoyment of courses, and personal relation- ships.

The environment of “one-room’’ contributes to the above benefits by giving a strong incentive and stimulus to the student in the following ways.

1) Supplies correct answers to homework and selected examinations in shorter response time. If one student can- not get an answer, the other will give it to him/her or the two will solve it together.

2) Enhances the learning process psychologically. 3 j Encourages close interaction between students and

professors. In addition, our plan would promote the use of many

examinations and problems as strong learning devices as well as for conventional grading purposes. The above benefits would help the students concentrate on the most relevant study topics for final examinations.

In the next subsection, implementation by lead profes- sors with other faculty is outlined and then documented in Figs. 1 and 2 for the representative examples (an elec- trical engineering student and a music student) noted above. To support this implementation, a plan for teacher- student interaction is presented in subsection B below.

B. Implementation by Lead Professors with Faculty Support

The lead professor controls, manages, and coordinates all course selections and course schedules with the advice and support of an associate lead professor and other fac- ulty members. The lead professor will teach a reasonable number of the major courses while other faculty may teach some major courses and all the minor courses.

Students taking the same major courses of a curriculum are organized into small groups (e.g., 30 per group); the number of groups is equal to the number of students di- vided by 30. Each lead professor is assigned a group and manages them throughout their junior and senior years. This professor would also act as a key advisor or mentor. The associate lead professor would divide his teaching support among several student groups and also be pre- pared to take over the position of lead professor in any of the groups if necessary. Each group of 30 will be divided into 15 teams with two students per team; interactions be- tween students of a given team as well as between teams could help each other and stimulate the interchange of ideas and knowledge. Each team might be paired with a senior student (from an upper class, e.g., one senior and two juniors) who will act as an advisor and “consultant” to the juniors. This will depend on the availability of se- nior students.

C. Cost of Instructions and Faculty Work Structure

The key element in evaluating cost of instruction is the concentration of the professor on his students, generally called the student-to-faculty (S-to-F) ratio. This “figure of merit” number is also used to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of a faculty work structure and to compare the relative benefits of different work structures (see Item I below). In this context, typical data will be presented to show how widely the S-to-F ratio may vary for different universities (see Item I1 below). The ratios for “one room” will then be discussed in terms of “equivalent fac- ulty’’ and student groups (see Item 111 below).

The traditional and “one room” S-to-F ratios can now be calculated and tabulated (see Item IV below). Finally, the ratios derived in Item IV will be compared for cost of instruction and teaching effectiveness (see Item V below).

Item I. Teaching Effectiveness of a Faculty Work Structure: The traditional S-to-F ratios are only rough measures of teaching effectiveness and cost of instruction. This judgment is based on the relatively active and pas- sive ways that students assimilate the material. For ex- ample, lectures plus recitation sections are reasonably ef- ficient ways for undergraduates to cover the material but do not guarantee that the students will fully assimilate the material. On the other hand, graduate students concen- trate on projects (e.g., research, advanced techniques and equipment, thesis) and assimilate the material in a more active and effective way but do not cover core material or vocabulary (e.g., books, techniques, theory) as efficiently as courses. In the graduate program, the typical professor has 4-10 students with whom he works closely over a 1-5 year period.

Item I I . Typical Spread of Student to Faculty (S-to-F) Ratios: At many universities, the traditional S-to-F ratios for undergraduates in EE may range from 7 to 1 to 20 to 1. At some state universities, the ratios may be worse than 20 to 1 even averaging at 30 to 1 or 40 to 1. Typical graduate ratios may vary from 4 to 1 to 10 to 1 ; top uni- versities may have ratios of 3 to 1 or even 2 to 1. In any case, the traditional ratios are only a rough indication of quality of instruction and cost of instruction.

Item III. Comments on ‘Equivalent Faculty ’’ and Stu- dent Groups: We believe that the “one room” approach provides a more reliable S-to-F ratio using the concepts of equivalent faculty, student groups, and (indirectly) stu- dent teams. These concepts are fully defined and analyzed in Items IV and V. This approach encompasses the ad- vantages and benefits of: 1) traditional teaching (lectured recitations/vocabulary) of core material; and 2) project work where the students assimilate the material in a more active way.

We estimate typical student work loads to be 15 hours, faculty load to be 3-6 hours at research universities, 12 hours at nonresearch universities. With these loads, we estimate that a professor (on full time) spends four hours per day (20 hours per week) with his students, including labs split between two people.

7 T - 7

307 MARBURY et al. : A ONE ROOM SCHOOLHOUSE PLAN FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION

TABLE I “ONE ROOM” S-TO-F CALCULATIONS

FACULTY WORK STRUCTURE A N D TOTAL EQUIVALENT FACULTY EQUAL TO 2t, 3, 3f, 4 FOR 300 STUDENTS A N D 30 STUDENTS PER GROUP

Each of the Four Columns Represents a Different Total Equivalent Faculty for One Group of 30 Students. The Values in Any One

Column Correspond to the Time Assignments. Faculty and Instruction Time

Assignments per Student Group

Lead Professor 1 Full Time Per Group 1 1 1 1

Associate Lead Professor 1 / 4 Full Time Per Group 1 /2 Full Time Per Group 1 Full Time Per Group

MAJOR COURSES

Other Faculty Professor 1 / 4 Full Time Per Group 1 /2 Full Time Per Group

Adjunct Faculty Professor 1 /4 Full Time Per Group 1 /2 Full Time Per Group

MINOR Four Other Faculty Professors COURSES Each 1 / 4 Full Time Per Group 1 1 1 I

(Equal to one Equivalent Faculty)

Total Equivalent Faculty 2; 3 3; 4

Students to Equivalent Faculty 30/2: t. 11 30/3 = 10 30/31 = 9 30/4 t. 8 Ratio

Compare with Traditional S-to-F Ratio = 300/30 = 10 to 1

By having a professor working with a smaller group of students intensively, the probability that individual pro- fessors do not spend significant amounts of time with stu- dents should be reduced just as the probability that a stu- dent has only minimal contact with faculty and his classmates.

Item IV. Calculations of Traditional and “One Room” S-to-F Ratios and Tabulation: We use some actual uni- versity data and information to calculate the ratios for both traditional and “one room” educational methods. The following steps may be useful to the reader who wishes to make similar calculations.

1) Data for traditional S-to-F calculations (See Table I for tabulation and comparisons).

Number of Students = 300 Number of Faculty = 30 Ratio = 300/30 = 10 to 1

2) Data for “one room” S-to-F calculations (See Ta- ble I for tabulation and comparisons).

Number of students = 300 Desired number of students per group = 30 Number of Equivalent Faculty per Student Group

Students to Equivalent Faculty (developed in Table I) = 2& 3, 31, 4

Ratio per Student Group = 30/2:, 30/3, 30/3;, 1 9 4

I t IO

30/4 I

Number of Student Groups = 300/30 = 10 Number of Student Teams per Group = 30/2 = 15.

Each column in Table I represents the total equivalent fac- ulty for one student group for both major and minor courses. Faculty and instruction time assignments are first made for each professor and then translated as an equiv- alent faculty to one of the columns, the columns now added to give the total equivalent faculty for one student group. For example, the second column shows equivalent values of 1, 1 /2 , 1 /4, 1 /4, 1 for a total equivalent value of three; for 30 students per group the S to total equivalent F ratio is 30/3 = 10 to 1. Obviously, the total equivalent faculty in any column could be formed from other com- binations of equivalent faculty (e.g., 1, 1/4, 1 /2 , 1/4, 1 or 1, 1/4, 1/4, 1/2, 1).

Item V. Comparison of Traditional and “One Room” Ratios: From Table I, we see that “one room” S-to-F ratio values are about equal to traditional values for the parameters-300 students and 30 students per group. We feel, however, that the cost of instruction for “one room” would generally be lower (in practice) for three reasons: 1) from [5 ] the actual experience of the docent system (with many similarities to “one room”) shows up to a

308 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 34, NO. 4. NOVEMBER 1991

20% lower cost of instruction than for traditional medical training; 2) calculations on Table I show that the number of faculty and the faculty work structure can be controlled more closely, thus costs are controlled more closely as changes are implemented and the program progresses; and 3) faculty work schedules and changes in the equivalent faculty can be easily made to accommodate changing loads.

The cost of instruction and teaching effectiveness may be estimated from the experience of the University of Missouri-Kansas City’s School of Medicine which has a docent (physician-teacher) system similar in some re- spects to our “one room” approach. Each docent is as- signed 12 students and follows them throughout their education and clinical rounds [5] . With this plan, the ed- ucation and training time to become an M.D. is reduced from eight to six years with students attending class 11 months each year. Out of 100 students selected every year, about 83 graduate and all pass their National Board of Examiner’s examinations.

Cost of instruction is up to 20% less than for tradi- tional medical training.

This concentrated teaching method produces better trained doctors 151.

The student-faculty interactions and teaching effective- ness are more important than cost of instruction. “One room” combines lectures, recitation sections, and student teams with very dedicated faculty to cover core material and vocabulary most efficiently. The students will assim- ilate the material in a more meaningful and active way and learn to use the material (much as is done in projects). At this time, we have not had first-hand experience to re- port, explaining how “one room” has worked in an actual EE department. We anticipate, however, that the EE de- partment of one university is considering this approach in the near future and hope that other EE departments will explore the feasibility of the “one room” approach.

Based on the above information and data, we believe that the cost of instruction may be reduced by at least 5 % in comparison to traditional education. This derives from a more efficient and productive teaching mode that pro- vides tighter control of faculty work structure and sched- ules. Much more important is the stronger professional and broader cultural training a student receives. In addi- tion, the facultylstudent interactions for undergraduate training may actually enhance a faculty career.

In conclusion, our plan encourages a student to concen- trate more strongly on hidher studies, yet provides a stim- ulating and interesting environment. The net effect is to graduate a student with greater knowledge of hidher profession and also a broad cultural awareness.

111. SUMMARY To our knowledge, only one other educational plan uses

some of the basic concepts of “one room.” As noted in the previous section, the University of Missouri-Kansas

City’s School of Medicine developed the “docent” sys- tem originally to turn out doctors in six years instead of eight [5]. The docent differs somewhat from our plan in being tailored to strict medical requirements (e.g., clini- cal rounds, clinical lectures, clinical surgery, clinical medicine, psychological factors, student-patient relation- ships, traditions, environment, and the like). It should be noted that all graduates of this school pass their National Board of Medical Examiner’s examinations.

It may be apropos to note that “one room” incorpo- rates more or less some aspects of conventional and un- conventional educational approaches. We have extracted and extrapolated from the Chicago plan (Hutchins) the conventional course/examination/grade programs, the unique Parson philosophy, the Oxford school tutor method, the Goddard system (laissez-faire), the “do- cent” system, and the “magnet” school system. This se- lective use of information from the above systems will enhance the professional, cultural, and interdisciplinary potentials-especially in a strong teacher-student inter- action inherent in the “one room” program.

The overall intent of our educational plan is to produce highly trained professionals with excellent scholarship and cultural qualifications. “One room” provides a stimulat- ing and interesting environment that we believe will mo- tivate dedicated faculty and students to cope with the most rigorous engineering challenges.

Within the constraints and guidelines described herein, there is flexibility for adapting to other educational re- quirements as the need arises. Our plan and associated ideas are consistent with the instructor’s academic free- dom to choose the contents of the course he/she teaches.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank Mrs. E. Jordan for her

excellent work in editing and typing this report.

REFERENCES S. B . Sample, “Engineering education and the liberal arts tradition,” IEEE Trans. Educ. , vol. 31, no. 2 , pp. 54-57, May 1988. C. H . Marbury, L. Lawsine, and R . N. Cummings, “A proposed education plan,” Improv. Col/. & Univ. Teach., vol. XXI, no. 2, pp. 161-163, Spring 1973. E. W . Emst, “Engineering plus: Challenges and choices,” IEEE Trans. Educ. , vol. 31, no. 2 , pp. 137-139, May 1988. M. E. Eastman and R . Perry-Jones, “What’s up . . . What’s down: The MIT microcosm,” IEEESpecfrum, vol. 25, no. I I , pp. 120-121, 1988. Dr. S. Hamburger, “The Docent System,” abstracted from report in newspaper. Hunrsvi/le Times, Nov. 1 I , 1988. K . Wollard. “College courseware controversy,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 13, no. I , p. 6 , Jan. 1989. Mass. Inst. Tech. Bull. 1988-1989, “Courses and degree programs issue,” pp. SID-62D and pp, 202D-205D. D. Cooper and M. Clancy, “ O h , Pascal!“ Second E d . , New York: W. W. Norton. 1985, pp. 86-87. E. K. Miller, R . D. Merrill, and R . W . Cole, “Computer movies for education,” IEEE Trans. Educ.. vol. 31, no. 2 , pp. 58-68, May 1988.

MARBURY et al.: A ONE ROOM SCHOOLHOUSE PLAN FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION 309

Carl H. Marbury received the M.A. degree from Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH, in 1962 and the Ph.D. degree from Harvard University, Cam- bridge, MA, in 1968.

He is the seventh President of Alabama A&M University (AAMU), Normal, where he designed a ten-year strategic plan to move the institution “Toward University Greatness and the Year 2000.” He has served as Vice President and Dean of Stillman College and Dean and Vice President for Academic Affairs at Garrett Evaneelicall

Leo Lawsine (M’67-LM’Sl) received the B.S. degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology, Cambridge, and the M.S. degree from New York University, New York, NY.

He has been Associate Professor of systems en- gineering at Alabama A&M University, Normal, from 1967 to 1979. During that time he also per- formed systems analysis on radar systems for MI- COM (Missile Command) and on satellite com- munications systems for NASA. Subsequently, he continued with this work on a consulting basis and

Northwestern University; he has also been a consultant in higher edication to institutions, foundations, and educational agencies. He is the author and writer of various publications, monographs, and study reports dealing with educational issues and subjects.

is currently doing postgraduate work at the University of Alabama, Hunts- ville.

Frank S. Barnes (S’54-M’58-F’70) was born in Pasadena, CA, on July 31, 1932. He received the B.S. degree in electrical engineering from Prince- ton University, Princeton, NJ, in 1954, and the M.S., Engineer, and Ph.D. degrees from Stanford University, Stanford, CA, in 1955, 1956, and 1958, respectively.

He is presently a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Colo- rado, Boulder. His research interests include la- sers, semiconductor devices, optics, and the ap-

plication of lasers and electromagnetic field to biological materials. Dr. Barnes is a member of the American Physical Society and the Bio-

electromagnetics Society, and is a Fellow of the AAAS and the American Society for Lasers in Medicine and Surgery. He is the Editor of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION and is a recipient of the Curtis McGraw Re- search Award of the ASEE and the IEEE Centennial Medal. U.S. Army Corps of Er

Nell C. Nicholson received the B.S. degree in 1962 and the M.A. degree in 1967 from the Uni- versity of North Alabama, Florence, and the Ed.D. degree in 1970 from the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Post doctorate work has been completed at the University of Alabama and the University of London.

She is currently Professor and Chairperson, De- partment of Elementary and Early Childhood Ed- ucation, Alabama A&M University, Huntsville. She has served as consultant and instructor for the

igineers Training Division (1978- 1984).