Conference Session

Engineering for Nonengineers: Ideas & Results

Collection

2008 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Mani Mina, Iowa State University

Tagged Divisions

Technological Literacy Constituent Committee

- Summer 1998.3. Jones, R. C. ,Kumar, T “Technological literacy for non-engineers,” Frontiers in Education Conference, 1991. Twenty-First Annual Conference. 'Engineering Education in a New World Order.' Proceedings. 21-24 Sept. 1991 Page(s):179 – 184. Page 13.897.54. Krupczak, J.J., Jr.; Ollis, D.; Pimmel, R.; Seals, R.; Pearson, G.; Fortenberry, N. “Panel - the technological literacy of undergraduates: identifying the research issues,” Frontiers in Education, 2005. FIE '05. Proceedings 35th Annual Conference 19-22 Oct. 2005 Page(s):T3B - 1-25. Krupczak, J.J., Jr.; VanderStoep, S.; Wessman, L.; Makowski, N.; Otto

Conference Session

Service Courses for Non-Engineers

Collection

2008 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

John Krupczak, Hope College; Timothy Simpson, Pennsylvania State University; Vince Bertsch, Santa Rosa Junior College; Kate Disney, Mission College; Elsa Garmire, Dartmouth College; Barbara Oakley, Oakland University; Mary Rose, Ball State University

Tagged Divisions

Technological Literacy Constituent Committee

duration, itis not anticipated that any Survey course will fill the entire matrix, but it would be expected thatno row will be entirely blank – if it is, then it will not likely qualify as a good Survey course.Meanwhile, a column could be blank if a technology topic area is not covered due to time limits,but a good Survey will likely cover most of these technology areas.Technological Literacy Focus Courses will go into great depth within one or more technologytopic areas (see Figure 2b) with a higher percentage of C and D values in that column(s) whencompared to a Tech Lit Survey Course.Technological Literacy Design Courses and Critique, Assess, Reflect, or Connect (CARC)Courses will cover these respective rows in the matrix for one or more of the

Conference Session

Service Courses for Non-Engineers

Collection

2008 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

John Krupczak, Hope College; David Ollis, North Carolina State University

Tagged Divisions

Technological Literacy Constituent Committee

America Modern,” Wiley (1996).9. Bloomfield, L., How Things Work: The Physics of Everyday Life, 2nd Edition (Wiley, New York, 2001).10. Bloomfield, L., Explaining the Physics of Everyday Life. University of Virginia. 11. Carlson, W. Bernard, “Technological Literacy And Empowerment: Exemplars From The History Of Technology,” Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference (2006). American Society for Engineering Education. .12. Converging Technologies at Union College, Union College, .13. Daniels, S., M. Collura, B. Aliane, J. Nocito-Gobel, “Project-Based Introduction to Engineering – Course Assessment, Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference

Conference Session

Improving Technical Understanding of All Americans

Collection

2008 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Kara Harris, College of Technology - Purdue University

Tagged Divisions

Technological Literacy Constituent Committee

. Gray, M. & Daugherty, M. (2004). Factors that influence students to enroll in technology education programs. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 5-19.5. Karnes, R. & Starkweather, K. (1999). Technology Education in Prospect: Perceptions, Change, and the Survival of the Profession. Journal of Technology Studies, 15(1) 27-28.6. Litowitz, L. S. (1998). Technology education teacher demand and alternative route licensure. The Technology Teacher, 57(5), 23-28.7. National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. The National Academies Press. (pp. 47-57).8. National Science Foundation (2006). Extraordinary Women Engineers: Final Report. Grant

Conference Session

Engineering for Nonengineers: Ideas & Results

Collection

2008 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

David Ollis, North Carolina State University

Tagged Divisions

Technological Literacy Constituent Committee

guitar which is ideal from the players point of view. In sum, the current popularity of the guitar appears due to the follow features: o Acoustic versions have been adapted by composers of virtually every type of music and culture o Electric types have found popularity in both media (radio, TV) as well as large concert settings. Its tenor s an instrument of “revolution” has kept it popular with youth today, just as it was at one point popular with the traveling gypsies of a much earlier era. The guitar, and the loom of the previous example, are both devices which date inancestry back to antiquity, well before the AD era. The incorporation of their products,music and textiles, into societies has therefore long and

Conference Session

Improving Technical Understanding of All Americans

Collection

2008 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Mary Rose, Ball State University; Jim Flowers, Ball State University

Tagged Divisions

Technological Literacy Constituent Committee

). Teaching and learning plan: Week 1. Retrieved January 9, 2008, from http://arose.iweb.bsu.edu/BSUCourses/ITEDU_510/LP/LP_1[Intro].htm10. Porter, A. L., Rossinni, F., Carpenter, S. R, Roper, A. T., Larson, R. W., and Tiller, J. S. (1980). A guidebook for technology assessment and impact analysis. New York: North Holland.11. Flowers, J. (2005). Usability testing in technology education. The Technology Teacher, 64(8), 17-1912. Duffy, T.M., & Cunningham, D.J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.13. Flowers, J. (2007). Technology assessment

Conference Session

Improving Technical Understanding of All Americans

Collection

2008 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Elaine Cooney, Indiana University-Purdue University-Indianapolis; Karen Alfrey; Steve Owens, Indiana University - Purdue University-Indianapolis

Tagged Divisions

Technological Literacy Constituent Committee

educational objectives.The “class project” and “writing assignments” activities suggested by Chowdhurydemonstrate the higher competencies of synthesis and evaluation and are examples ofPBL. [26] The problems are open ended, and the students determine their own points oflearning needed to solve the problem. Learners interact either with the instructor or eachother by answering questions to determine the validity of the process. Finally, thestudent(s) – not the instructor - decide the best answer.Nasr and Ramadan [27] offer some suggestions for assessment in a PBL environment: (1) ability to reason through given information and identify a solution approach to the problem, (2) ability to solve an unseen problem, (3) based on a brief project