s ha p ing d is a b le A . PU M P A RM TIMING INPUT DG-535 5. 6. B . O B SER VE A R M A TTEN UA TO R D IREC TIO N A L
) and the Technology Accreditation Commission (TAC) of the AccreditationBoard of Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET) [1,2]. Designing curricula and courses thatutilize these modern tools without short-changing coverage of classical engineering theory canbe a delicate balance. Consider the use of finite element analysis (FEA) software. In the1970’s and early 1980’s, most courses in FEA courses were taught at the graduate level, withheavy emphasis on theory. Later in the 1980’s and into the 1990’s, FEA classes were added atthe undergraduate level, as use of the tool became more widespread in industry. Becausecommercial FEA programs were complex to learn and use, it was difficult to combine significanttheory with instruction in how to use a
-American students,2.1% Asian students, .8% Native American Indian students, 3.7% Hispanic students,2.1% Southeast Asian students, 79.9% White students and 4.3% International students.Women represent 55.8% of the total student population at UWM. The percentage ofwomen varies considerably by school/college ranging from 13.5% in Engineering &Applied Science to 90.1% in Nursing. 2UWM serves a racially diverse population consisting 15.8% while Milwaukee Countydemographics from the U. S. Census Bureau indicate that Milwaukee County aloneconsist of 34.6% minority. More recruitment of minorities is needed to reflect a morediverse institution that serves one of
“enters”the factory, looks at shop rules and views workstation job instructions. After ashort practice, the test taker begins the test, moving sequentially throughworkstations testing process, fabrication, subassembly and final assembly, beingasked questions pertaining to safety, quality/continuous improvement, materials& specifications, and maintenance. Both static and “reactive” questions are usedthroughout this simulation component.Demonstration Program - Wisconsin:Through an earmark budget line, administered by the U. S. Department of Labor(DOL), the Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) has been designated asthe program manager for the pilot assessments for 600 workers and students inWisconsin. Testing is at three separate centers
solving the entire MineMadness problem was too difficult in the time allocated so the design problem was simplified to focus exclusively on “getting-over-the-wall,” i.e. the 4 x 4 or 4 x 8’s and no longer was stability, steering and mine management functionality required. Thatsaid, design teams were advised to plan for the addition of eventual steering and mine management modules to be incorporated(in a stable sense) into their machines. Detailed design and manufacturing ensued with students heavily utilizing the CADsystem (SolidWorks [6-9,10]), machine shop, and machine component suppliers (note: no “parts kit” was provided). The lattercomment is important since most students were totally unfamiliar with where to find and purchase real
economic contribution upon starting employment with theindustry.References 1. Bagchi-Sen, S., “A Study of University-Industry Linkages in the Biotechnology Industry: Perspectives from Canada,” Intl. Jl. of Biotechnology, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, pp. 390-410, 2001. 2. De Ramirez, L.M., Zayas, J.L, Lamancusa, J., and Jorgensen, J., “Manufacturing Engineering Education Partnership Program Outcomes Assessment Results,” Proc. Of the 27th Frontiers in Education Conf., Part 3, pp. 1196-1200, Pittsburgh, PA, 1997 3. Kelley, F.N., “Productive Partnership in Polymer Education,” Division of Polymer Chemistry, Natl. American Chemical Society Meeting, New Orleans, LA, April 1996.
howengineering solutions impact humanity in the social areas listed above. The course will preparestudents to use knowledge from their respective disciplines for the good of humanity with bothtechnical competence and professionalism.BackgroundEngineering programs at UMD are relatively new, originating in the mid 1980’s with threeprograms that were prescribed to be different from those existing on the Twin Cities campus ofthe University of Minnesota. Our original mix of programs, consequently, was an interestingcollection of Computer Engineering, Industrial Engineering, and Materials ProcessingEngineering, in order to avoid the “traditional” programs that existed in the Twin Cities. As ourprograms have matured, the restrictions imposed by the Twin Cities
realized as (2 + 2 + 3) or (2 + 3 + 2), but 7 cannot berealized as (1 + 3 + 3); in other words, 7 can be realized only from two 2’s and one 3. Thus,each score represents a unique level of total quality, but a given score does not uniquelyindicate the level of quality derived from each individual criterion. As a result, this scoringsystem provides a monotonic scale against which to measure overall quality of work, but doesnot favor the importance of one criterion over another.We employed this assessment tool to five different homework problems from Dynamics orStrength of Materials classes. The average scores are reported in Table 1 (N is the number ofhomework papers evaluated (incidences); the total N = 105 arises from five distinctassignments
cycles and more sophisticatedinstruction sets. While this capability is also available in variants of the SMC [4], thespreadsheet-based simulation usually requires less support overhead since thespreadsheet software is already available to most students. Potential Improvements The following improvements would expand the range of programs the students couldexperiment with: 1. Conditional control flow – there need to be one or more instructions that use the results of calculations to alter the program’s control flow. The TX-0’s Jump instruction was actually a conditional instruction that only jumped if the accumulator contained a negative number. That is one way to do it. 2. Input/output – students
.8. References[1] Davis, A., Overmayer, S., et al.,“Identifying and Measuring Quality in a Software Requirements Specification”, Software Requirements Engineering, Second Edition, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 194–205.[2] Jackson, M., “The Meaning of Requirements”, Annals of Software Engineering, Baltzer Science Publishers, Vol. 3, pp. 5–21, 1997.[3] Nuseibeh, B.A., Easterbrook, S.M. and Finkelstein, A.C., “Requirements Engineering: A Roadmap”, The Future of Software Engineering (Companion volume to the proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'00)), IEEE Computer Society Press.[4] Robertson, Suzanne and Robertson, James, Mastering the Requirements Process, Addison-Wesley, 1999