planning.Stand-up MeetingsStandup meetings are common across the majority of agile processes encountered. Each workday, before work begins, a standup meetings occurs; first, between the members of eachindividual team leads followed by a standup meeting between the team leads and faculty mentors(if present).A standup meeting should involve the participants standing. They are more prone to focus andkeeps them away from computers and other distractions. A standup meeting should last between5 to 10 minutes. Its primary goal is to boost accountability and awareness between the teammembers. Students are asked to face their peers and honestly discuss the progress made. Thisshould be conducted under some level of personal safety such that participants should be
and discuss the issues. This isintended to build a vocabulary of leadership concepts that directly relates to their currentcognitive and affective structures. Additionally there are several team lead workshops (10)designed to develop team management skills for the whole class (group decision making,presentations, conflict resolution, meeting management, and project planning and scheduling,etc.). Each of these experiences and activities is examined at the immediate and direct level thenviewed “from the balcony” for analysis.Multiple direct and indirect assessments of leadership development and skill mastery are used.These include detailed peer assessments using the new leadership vocabularies, progress inpersonal skill development, written
, students are engaged with others across disciplines. This interaction serves toenhance peer-to-peer education and build knowledge among student cohorts. The group projectsand debates enhance students’ knowledge and oblige them to analyze problems frommultidisciplinary perspectivesThe development and teaching of this multidisciplinary course presents challenges to thestudents and faculty in crossing the traditional academic silos. Lessons learned and the necessaryinstitutional infrastructure in sustaining the multidisciplinary efforts are presented and discussed.IntroductionEnergy is not only an economic and technological issue; it is also an environmental and nationalsecurity issue. The Department of Energy reports that the United States consumes
encourage undergraduateinstitutions to ensure that students graduating from their engineering programs can applyengineering knowledge, carry out experiments required in engineering work, but also are able tocommunicate in writing and orally, work in multidisciplinary teams, carry out the engineeringdesign process, and understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global or society context.Shulman12 argues that ABET’s Criterion 3 (a-k) are no longer sufficient. Nor have these learningoutcomes been fully achieved, particularly in providing curricula that help graduates address thecontemporary complexity of socio-technical engineering problems. Recently, Duderstadt4 called
stakeholders and partners that teams workwith. All of the programs see design for others as a very appropriate space to domultidisciplinary teaming9.6. Continuous peer assessment as formative feedback and for grading is a best practice. Theprograms differ on their emphasis of individual, team, and client in peer assessment andevaluation but they all see this form of assessment as integral to cross-disciplinary learning. Toward a Framework for Best PracticesBest practices for multidisciplinary project team learning and performance may be thought offrom the perspective of both the program and the learners or more precisely the interactionbetween the two10. The program perspective includes structures, processes, and outcomesintended to help learners and
biomedical systems engineering, including five years of design courses. He has conducted research, with peer-reviewed publications, in biomedical engineering in the areas of biomechanics, bioelectricity, and biomedical imaging, since 1992. Other research interests include renewable energy, optical fiber communications, and project-based multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary education. Page 22.810.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INTEGRATED PROJECT-BASED APPROACH WITHIN AN ESTABLISHED EAC-OF-ABET ACCREDITED INTERDISCIPLINARY
to the student outcomes, faculty were interested in observing the students duringprogress and troubleshooting sessions. As part of the Project Based Learning approach in theseengineering programs, active learning is a common theme in the student projects. Alison King5describes what she calls guided reciprocal peer questioning as part of the active learning process.The types of questions she describes that induce higher-order thinking include How does…affect…? Why is….important? Explain why… What are the strengths and weaknesses of…?The faculty were interested in seeing if the students had grasped these concepts in their freshmanthrough juniors years and were able to apply them instinctively in this project
team demonstrates their working robot to the class, writes afinal written report on it, and makes an oral presentation to the class on the design, fabrication,and performance of their robot. A video of their working system is submitted with their finalreport and shown at their final presentation. Page 22.674.3Multidisciplinary Engineering Focus Prerequisite skills needed for the Robotics course are rather minimal. Students are required tohave fourth or fifth year status in order to register for the course. They should have experiencewith DC circuits and circuit troubleshooting using a multimeter. Mechanical engineeringstudents will have taken
for undergraduates)in the academic year before the capstone project. This is to obtain buy-in from the appropriatefaculty mentors and allow them to socialize it with their students. This way the team can largelybe in place and know what to expect before the end of the spring semester. This would reducethe 2-4 week “ramp-up” time resulting from different schedules and team assignment practices indifferent engineering programs.It took longer than expected for the students to leave the comfort of their own discipline andinteract in an interdisciplinary way with their peers to develop a thorough understanding of thechallenge at hand and develop conceptual solution alternatives at the system level. We have alsohad challenges in aligning the
22.1363.6respectively, and some 347, 25, and 17 peer-reviewed articles using Web of Science® [retrievedAugust 16, 2010].It should be noted that memory of past accidents and their lessons learned are not only encodedin education, but they are often “institutionalized”, in building codes for example orOccupational Health and Safety regulations. As a result, instilling the memory of past accidentsand their lessons learned in engineering students can be seen as serving the function of diversityin redundancy (where memory resides and who recalls and exercises it) to help to avoid a repeatof similar accidents. Teaching engineering students about accident causation and system safetycan serve to complement and reinforce institutionalized safety requirements, and it
. F. (2000). Developing Critical Writing Skills in Engineering and Technology Students. Journal of Engineering Education, 89, 409-412 and 504-505. 15. Anewalt, K. (2005). Using Peer Review as a Vehicle for Communication Skill Development and Active Learning. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 21, 155. 16. Hackman, J.R. (1983). A Normative Model of Work Team Effectiveness. Office of Naval Research. Interim Report. A893631. 17. Hackman, J. R.. (1980). Work Redesign and Motivation. Professional Psychology, 11, 445-455. 18. Wageman, R., Hackman, J.R., Lehman, E. (2005). Team Diagnostic Survey: Development of an Instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 373. 19. Shuman, L
not effective to keep students’ interest in their majors. This is particularlytrue for the engineering majors.There are efforts to cultivate more student-centered learning pedagogies in higher education(Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 2000; McKenna, Yalvac, and Light, 2009). Transformingengineering education context from a teacher-centered orientation to a learner-centeredorientation is a common interest in engineering education research. Group work, formativeassessment, contextualized instruction, use of peer review and self-reflective tools, and out-ofclass collaborations are some learning-centered instructional strategies (Bransford, Brown, andCocking, 2000; Yalvac, Smith, Hirsch, and Troy, 2007; Yalvac, Smith, Hirsch, & Birol, 2006
nanostructures for photodynamic therapy and diagnosis of cancer. The ultimate goalis to acquire skills in computer modeling of physical principals for selectivenanophotothermolysis of cancer cells involving nanooptics, heat-mass transfer around laser-heated intracellular nanostructures, cell ablation, microbubble dynamics and nanoclusteraggregation.This is a science-oriented multidisciplinary course where the students secure solid training in researchtechniques, including the development of sophisticated numerical simulation methods for solvingcomplex problems in cancer nanomedicine, research skills working on regular assignments, presentingtheir results, getting experience in writing research reports/papers, and experimental
main point of these standards is that the evaluation of students’ performance will based on samples of work in three categories of students: those in the upper 75 percentile, those in the 50 – 75 percentile and those below the 50 percentile populations. Thus the assessment results compiled are based on course performances and grades, exams, projects, presentations of students, and writings as required in some courses. Furthermore, each course specifically addresses the learning outcomes and relation between the course and the Program outcomes, the methods used for the evaluation of students’ performance and the relevance of the course materials to the Program outcomes following the standards
on the exam?); 2. Many college students do not know how to take effective notes. Although various strategies and formats for effective “note-taking” have been identified. The fact is that “note-taking” is seldom taught; 3. The listening, language, and/or motor skill deficits of some students make it difficult for them to identify important lecture content and write it down correctly and quickly enough during a lecture; 4. Instructors sometimes get off-track from the primary objectives of the lecture. Professors—especially those who really know and love their disciplines—are famous for going off on tangents during a lecture. Although getting off-track would break the monotony, it could make it
“StudentOrganizations and Leadership Development” (SOLD) office and the “Student Success Center”(SSC) that are each available to all GU students having the desire to partake of the servicesoffered. The SEECS seminar utilizes SOLD and the various resources of the SSC in order toprovide content that job- and graduate education-seeking students may need, as well as needededucation in skills required to succeed at Gannon.The SSC houses the university Math Center and the Writing Center, each of which provides freetutoring for students choosing to use those resources. In addition, the SSC fosters ExperientialEducation and general career development activities. SEECS makes great use of these latterresources. In particular, we have utilized the SSC staff to provide
academic achievements he won the nomination by the University of New Brunswick as the best doctoral graduate in science and engineering. Since 2000, he joined the Systems Engineering Department, Uni- versity Arkansas at Little Rock where he is currently a tenured Professor. He has published over 35 peer- reviewed journal papers, 70 conference presentations, and two patents. He won the UALR’ excellence awards in teaching and research in 2007 and 2009, respectively. His research areas include implantable antennass and wireless systems, smart antennas, WLAN deployment and load balancing, electromagnetic wave scattering by complex objects, design, modeling and testing of high-power microwave applicators, design and analysis
, were most likely to report changes in their emphasis onteamwork (52%), technical writing (39%) and verbal communication (34%). Nearly a thirdreported some or significant increases in their emphasis on professional responsibility and ethics.Faculty also reported moderate changes in attention to contemporary issues (43%), global andsocial contexts in engineering (41%), professional responsibility (37%), and professional ethics Page 22.1711.4(34%). Attention to topics that would promote interdisciplinary connections appeared to be onthe rise after EC2000.Although these curricular changes are positive, because this study measured change in