Louisville, Kentucky
June 20, 2010
June 20, 2010
June 23, 2010
2153-5965
Issues and Directions in ET Education & Administration: Part III
Engineering Technology
10
15.583.1 - 15.583.10
10.18260/1-2--16868
https://peer.asee.org/16868
440
SAEED KHAN is an Associate Professor with the Electronic and Computer Engineering Technology program at Kansas State University at Salina. Dr. Khan received his Ph.D. and M.S. degrees in Electrical Engineering from the University of Connecticut, in 1989 and 1994 respectively and his B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh in 1984. Khan, who joined KSU in 1998, teaches courses in
telecommunications and digital systems. His research interests and areas of expertise include
antennas and propagation, novel materials for microwave application, and electromagnetic
scattering.
LUCY KOLLHOFF is the Coordinator of Career & Employment Services at Kansas State University at Salina. Ms. Kollhoff received her M.S. in Counseling from Fort Hays State University in 1999, joining Kansas State University in 2000 from private industry. L. Kollhoff work with students in assessment, job search components: resume/cover letter writing, interviewing, and networking. She is also a member of the All University Career Fair Committee at Kansas State University and arranges a Spring Career Fair for the Salina campus. Ms. Kollhoff is also a certified mediator.
MIKE KOLLHOFF is a licensed secondary school counselor, science instructor, and building and district administrator. He received bachelor degrees in Classical Antiquities (’76) and Science Education (’77) from the University of Kansas and his Master of Science in Counseling (’84) from Emporia State University. He is currently a high school counselor and the director of a program at Salina High School South designed to help “at-risk” students graduate.
Finding Effective Pathways for Recruitment into Engineering Technology Program
Abstract:
In order to capitalize on the technologists’ potential to enhance global competitiveness, new strategies must be devised to encourage high schools, community colleges, and some other nontraditional pools to seek engineering technology degrees. This type of proactive philosophy will undoubtedly increase the number of much needed technologists in this country. Community colleges have traditionally done an exceptional job of preparing technicians for industry. But, graduates of AAS programs experience more difficulties in securing transfer credit than their Associate of Arts (AA) degree counterparts. From the high school point of view, they have been less than successful in transitioning their students in STEM pathways. We feel that a three tiered collaborative effort is needed between Universities, Community Colleges and High Schools to have a reasonable chance to increase the pool of candidates into engineering technology programs. At our institution, we have a great deal of experience in articulating with two-year programs and looking to expand similar relationships with regional high schools. With two-year the problem lies in the inherent difficulty of determining university course equivalency for AAS technical courses; a dilemma not characteristic of AAS transfer initiatives. When transferring to a four-year program, direct equivalency is not always possible due to regulatory requirements; but in an outcome-based culture, it should be possible to create supplementary modules that make such transfers feasible. With high schools we have identified the absence of pathways that channel STEM-inclined students into programs including engineering technology. The objective of this paper is to document the need for four-year institutions to participate in creating pathways that lead students both from high schools and community colleges into engineering technology programs. We are going to be looking at perspectives from high school counselors and teachers, community college technology program directors, career services liaison, four-year administration and faculty. We will present our collected results using survey data and narrative on the collective insight from all three constituent stakeholders.
Introduction:
While engineering technology programs have definite differences with engineering programs, the fact does not get easily recognized for various reasons including the fact that there are fewer engineering technology programs when compared to their better known cousins, the engineering programs. Engineering technology programs tend to get lumped together with either engineers or with technicians. The Department of Labor in reacting to a petition for a separate category for the “engineering technologist” has supported the previous point of view in responding to a petition and stating the following,
Khan, S., & Kollhoff, L., & Kollhoff, M. (2010, June), Finding Effective Pathways For Recruitment Into Engineering Technology Program Paper presented at 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition, Louisville, Kentucky. 10.18260/1-2--16868
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2010 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015