Society for Engineering Education, 2014 What’s in the Soup? Reflections from an Engineer, a Physicist, and an English Professor on an Interdisciplinary Summer Grand Challenge ProgramIntroduction to the Summer Grand Challenge ProgramThree professors with common interests and goals piloted in Summer 2013 a program focused onsolving one of the fourteen Grand Challenges of the 21st Century identified by the NationalAcademy of Engineering (NAE).1 These challenges range from providing energy from fusion toengineering better medicines. The summer program was centered on making solar power cheaperand locally manufacturable in a less developed region. The program purposefully broughttogether humanities, science
“evidence based”, these reformist strategies do not resolve the underlying problem of narrowepistemological assumptions about what constitutes valid knowledge. If we limit how knowledgecan be produced in our field, we suffer in both intellectual and practical terms, because how weknow and how we act are indeed interconnected.References 1. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 107th Congress Public Law 110. U.S. Government Printing Office, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ110/html/PLAW-107publ110.htm. 2. Cawelti, G. (2006). The Side Effects of NCLB. Educational Leadership, 4(3):4-68. 3. Shank, M. (2000). Striving for educational rigor: Acceptance of masculine privilege. In N. Lesko, Ed. Masculinities at School. Thousand
growing number of educational institutions and educators have taken up the mission ofproviding young engineers with a liberal education. Lessons learned through integratingengineering with teaching and learning in the liberal arts are routinely shared at the Division ofLiberal Education/Engineering & Society in American Society for Engineering Education andother platforms, such as Union College’s annual symposium on engineering and liberaleducation.1 Publications on the integration of engineering and liberal education focus primarilyon the perspectives of faculty and administrators; few have investigated students’ experiences oflearning engineering in a liberal education environment. Except for the occasional headlinesuccess stories about
document’s message with purpose, audience, and context. To measureassessment outcomes, the project uses Kirkpatrick Scale 1, 2, and 3 instruments—includingscaled, pre- and post-activity perceptual evaluations, “minute papers,” and analyses of samplepapers from the engineering design class.Background and ContextOver the years, there are two main ways in which writing education has been integrated intoengineering curricula—the traditional Letters and Sciences approach, in which an Englishprofessor instructs many students, some of which happen to be engineering students; or in newerand more concentrated cases, the engineering students participate in writing and communicationclasses designed specifically for technical writing in engineering
realize the importance of entrepreneurshipeducation in the undergraduate engineering curricula, but, perhaps not strongly enough to requireit. These statistics are also mirrored in how universities deliver entrepreneurship and technologycommercialization education – by way of optional minors, certificates, or electives. In mostengineering curricula, a senior design course is typically the only required experience thatincludes some aspects of technology commercialization. Although this is a good start, it is farfrom what is required to grasp the complexity of technology commercialization.Table 1. Graduate degrees awarded in the USA.Type of degree Number of degrees % international students Refs. *Engineering MS
to remindmyself that they are not clients but my team members. As a team member, I had the rightto assert my needs in the design” [Student 1, Final Report 2012]. Leaving this uncheckedproves detrimental to the creative process undermining the possibilities of building longlasting, culturally appropriate, effective solutions.The GEE process closely resembles the [University Name] design process with thefollowing steps: 1. Needfinding 2. Benchmarking 3. Ideation/Brainstorming 4. Rapid/Rough Prototyping 5. Material Selection 6. Analysis/Dimensioning 7. Manufacturing 8. User TestingWhat differentiates it is that before commencing the designing itself, the GEE teammembers reflect on and articulate what each of them
Page 24.452.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014 Effect of Student Model Presentations from a Speaking Contest on the Development of Engineering Students as SpeakersIntroduction Because of TED.com, many high quality models exist of professional engineers andscientists presenting. However, high quality examples of students presenting are lacking. Suchhigh quality models by engineering students are important because many engineering studentscannot project themselves presenting in the same manner as TED speakers, who are experts intheir fields [1]. For instance, engineering students simply cannot generate the same level oforiginal content as TED speakers do. At Pennsylvania State
hoped that this work represents a step towarddeveloping a more nuanced historical-cultural approach to defining and resolving problems andcontemporary challenges in Chinese engineering education and professional practice.Historical ContextThe late 19th century and early 20th century was a significant period for engineering education inmany parts of the world. For instance, countries such as the U.S. and Great Britain experienced amovement away from work-based modes of education (e.g., apprenticeship) and toward moreformal modes of education.1-2 Additionally, the rise of the engineering sciences started aroundthis time, with older hands-on and craft methods replaced by greater emphasis on mathematicalmodeling and scientific analysis.3 This trend
practice, and provides entry points into a community ofpractice” (p. 1). We present our narratives here as starting data points that illustrate how threeparticular people reflect upon, define, and practice their spiritualities as engineering educators.M: In terms of method, this project started as a question over pizza, salad, and the clamor of C’ssmall children: what did it mean to pursue “engineering education as a spiritual vocation”? It wasa conversation that went late into the night and kept resurfacing in subsequent dinner meetingsand stolen-moment hallway conversations. After several months, we finally recorded andtranscribed one candle-lit, mid-winter dialogue in my kitchen, using that as an opportunity toreflect on our many hours of prior
profession and its educationalinstitutions, along with the public, not mutually benefit from a view of the public that honored itsknowledge in regards to engineering?With the questions above in mind, I have written the following paper to challenge the dominantbelief in the engineering educational and professional community that the public’s view ofengineering is somehow deficient. I have termed this belief as “dominant,” not just because two ofthe most influential engineering-related agencies, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE)and the National Science Foundation (NSF), have both claimed that the lack of publicunderstanding of engineering was having a negative effect on the engineering field and society ingeneral. 1 (p. 7) I have termed the
, china, comparative education research, culture, engineering education,ideology, internationalization, policy, policymakingIntroduction: The History and Politics of Policy Borrowing in ChinaPolicy borrowing has been a prevailing strategy for reforming education policies in mostdeveloping countries, reflecting a more general tendency toward dependence on foreignexpertise, information, and financing.1 As a developing country, China has been borrowingeducation policies from developed countries since the mid nineteenth century, including in the Page 24.497.2field of engineering education. In fact, one critical question throughout the modern history
create their own version of an engineering philosophy course, so thatmore engineers will become familiar with this important way of thinking about their profession.More generally, we hope that our story will inspire others to consider creating a new course on atopic about which they are passionate but perhaps think they lack sufficient expertise, and toparticipate in the course as co-learners with their students.The course was created and taught by an Associate Professor with expertise in biomedicalengineering. The sixteen students who enrolled in the course (10 female, 6 male) included 1freshman, 9 sophomores, 3 juniors, and 3 seniors. There were 12 engineering majors (7biomedical engineers, 3 industrial and systems engineers, 1 electrical
broached by engineers, offered horizon broadening opportunities for parties fromboth sides to better understand the other, increasing the likelihood of more future collaborations.IntroductionOver fifty years ago, C.P. Snow, a trained scientist, turned literary author, made a case for theexistence of two distinct and diverging cultures.1 He saw those who study science andengineering, and those who study the arts, as growing progressively further apart in theirviewpoints. He stated that he felt he “was moving among two groups – comparable inintelligence, identical in race, not grossly different in social origin, earning about the sameincomes, who had almost ceased to communicate at all, who in intellectual, moral andpsychological climate had little
Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) was analyzed through the lens of the SOLOtaxonomy. The following research questions were addressed: (1) How structurally advanced isstudent sustainability knowledge? (2) Which sustainability dimensions do students mostassociate with sustainability? and (3) How appropriate is application of the SOLO taxonomy forsustainability knowledge assessments? Page 24.583.4Background Information: Sustainability Knowledge AssessmentsWith increasing interest in incorporating sustainability into engineering curricula, there havebeen a variety of assessment tools presented in the literature to help guide and evaluate thesereform efforts. Although indirect student
-skillpresentation scoring system. The method is a multi-stage feedback process used to generateconsensus among diverse stakeholders2. In the earlier paper we outlined lessons learned fromdiscussing the use of the scoring system with users. We also described how we, first,summarized feedback we had collected from a small alumni-funded study, second, distributedthe summary to stakeholders for their review and, third, modified the scoring system accordingto the newest feedback. The result was a 13-skill presentation scoring system with enhancedusability and clarity. Figure 1 summarizes changes made to the scoring system after round 1 ofthe Delphi update. For example, “flow” was added to “vocal quality;” both “engaging graphics
involvement types, leaving an important hole in theengineering education scholarship.Methods: Developing a Framework of Student InvolvementThe method used to create the framework of student skill and attribute development through co-curricular involvement consisted of two distinct stages: (1) development of involvementcategories and (2) literature reviews within each category to determine what, if any, skillsstudents develop through participation. These stages are outlined in the subsections below.Creating Student Involvement CategoriesWe selected the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) as a case study to developcategories of student involvement for the skill and attribute development framework. MIT wasselected based on its national and
, transferrable, and low-overhead approaches toimplementing paragraph writing exercises in large engineering courses typically devoid ofcommunication elements.We begin by reviewing relevant literature discussing strategies for incorporating writing in avariety of course types, with particular emphasis on shorter, integrated assignments. We thenturn to the development and implementation of paragraph writing exercises in a large civilengineering undergraduate fluid mechanics course (117 students; approximately 15assignments). A primary focus of this first application and pilot study centered on two keycomponents that must be refined in order for the exercise to be effective and transferrable: (1) thecreation and selection of high quality writing prompts
science programs. The goal of this project is to emphasize professional communication skills and professionalhabits across engineering disciplines. At many engineering colleges, a common approach toteaching technical communication skills has been to require students to take separate courses inthat area. That approach has proven expensive and not especially effective since it is divorcedfrom engineering content and is too often a one-time experience.3, 7 Based on earlier modelsdeveloped at Michigan State University and The University of Maine, the communication skillstraining at the University of New Haven (UNH) is being woven into regular engineering courses.PITCH contains a number of features that refine and extend that model:1-4 • PITCH
earned considerable attention in our society during the late1960s and early 1970s.1 For those currently interested in MOOCs, the Kahn Academy and allthat, this is a history well worth revisiting. PSI was an early example of an inverted classroom, aprogrammed system of instruction rooted in behaviorist psychology with an explicit focus onlearning outcomes. Those familiar with PSI, and with behaviorist approaches to education haveall noted the relevance of these earlier approaches to current online and distance learningenvironments.2 Going beyond what we typically see today, PSI was a method that, whenproperly implemented, could guarantee that upwards of 70% of the students in a class would earnan ‘A’ with knowledge retention exceeding that of
to demonstrate an ability toidentify the key elements of effective oral and written communication, write clear andaccurate summaries or proposals, and make an effective oral presentation that addresses theaudience wants and needs appropriately. In 2012, we updated our curriculum and moved thecourse from the second into the first semester so that students would learn the basics ofcommunication skills early in their program and would have ample time to improve theirskills before they graduate. The schedule of the communication skills course was alsoupdated as shown in Table 1. Table 1. Schedule of the communication skills course. Meeting #/topic or activity Practice and/or assignment 1 / Effective communication
of notesand filler words.The levels of achievement of these outcomes by the project students were statistically comparedwith those by the control group, using direct assessment data from the four design courses.Table 1 summarizes the assessment method used. It shows the selected courses for each SLO,the metrics used to determine the levels of achievement of the SLO, and the statistical variable Page 24.729.6names analyzed in the evaluation phase.To score the students, we used the analytic rubric shown in Appendix IV. This rubric wasdeveloped by the Electrical Engineering design faculty in collaboration with the CommunicationAcross Curriculum
: Pedagogical Objectives The pedagogical foundation for the 2D Design Activity rests in the Kolb learning model18, whichdescribes the complete progressive cycle of learning experiences. As shown in Figure 1, thismodel is based on four fundamental progressive experiences needed for learning: concreteexperience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. In theKolb model of learning, the goal for any course or teaching activity is to follow this progressionof student led learning, and to act as a facilitator in the natural inquisitive exploration that willoccur in this progression. Concrete
Decision Making (IDM) and HUM 207h:Science, Medicine and Reason (SMR), respectively.This is an exploratory paper about the two courses (and plans for additional future courses),detailing the experiences of students and the instructor in the pilot (IDM) as well as the designand the plan of assessment of the resulting new course (SMR). In the process, we examine theneed for and some challenges in integrating liberal education into engineering, technology, IT,and management curricula, along with the role of the humanities, social sciences, andcommunication in engineering education as the means for deepening students’ undergraduateexperiences.1 Although the course has a Humanities prefix, it involves almost equal parts psychology
Museum’s CollectionWithin STEM education, a movement called STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art,and Mathematics) is gathering momentum. Yet, while articles abound with ideas forincorporating STEAM concepts into K-12 classrooms, the literature on STEAM education at theuniversity level is scant. Complicating matters is the fact that the “A” in STEAM does notalways stand for “Art”; for example, in one recent ASEE paper that contains the words “STEAMcurricula” in its title, the “A” stands for “Agriculture” [1].However, reflections on STEAM at the university level can be found in a few papers presented atthe 2013 ASEE convention. One, “Faculty reflections on a STEAM-inspired interdisciplinarystudio course,” offers insights on the opportunities
learningoutside of their discipline even after leaving the academic environment 1-7. As Duderstadt arguesin his response to the Engineer of 2020, each of these positive outcomes helps to produceengineers who are better equipped for a changing professional environment, in which the abilityto quickly master and respond to new technologies in collaborative often global workenvironments may be more important than the basic engineering skills taught within the currentundergraduate curriculum 2.While the benefits of a liberal education may be clear, the practicality of providing theseopportunities while competing with the time constraints of the core curriculum is a challenge.Canada’s accreditation criteria stipulates a minimum of 225 academic units (one AU
same time as the CCS revision, the four B.S.-awarding engineeringdepartments also revised their curricula to 1) reduce the total number of courses required forgraduation from 38 to 36 and 2) decrease the number of required science, math, and engineeringcourses to increase student flexibility within the curricula. Both of these initiatives took place inthe context of increasing interest among faculty members and students in interdisciplinary a Lafayette College awards ABET-accredited Bachelor of Science degrees in Chemical Engineering, CivilEngineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering, each housed in
Experiences inEngineering) assembles students with such skills, as well as high academic achievementin technical classes, and seeks to further develop those skills. That development mainlyoccurs through preparing those undergraduates to teach a small set of class periods andthen having those students teach those class periods multiple times. Two potential benefits exist for a college of engineering to have such anorganization. First, the peer teaching provided by the organization has the potential toenhance the teaching in a college of engineering for a number of a reasons includingdecreasing instructor-to-student ratios [1–2]. Second, because the organization developsthe professional skills of students who are excelling in their technical
obstacles to their Page 24.871.2intended activity. 1 An overview of project-based learning in engineering education Problem-based learning pedagogy has a long history in medical education, wherePBL has increasingly been integrated into core curriculum, even in more conservativeeducational institutions [2, 10]. Medical PBL encourages collaborative investigation ofmedical cases, where students take the lead on case research and resolution and facultyplay an expert advisor role. Meta-analysis of PBL effectiveness studies suggests themove to PBL has shown weak
students’communication skills and is important for the development of a quality end-product. Whilecompleting projects for persons with disabilities or the underprivileged is not unique to ourprogram, it is a critical component to the success of our virtual teams because it appeals to thestudents’ desire to complete the design successfully and motivates them to work through anydifficulties encountered with team dynamics.Program planning and managementPrior to the start of the semester, faculty from each institution carefully organize and discuss the Page 24.873.3course organization, delivery, and management (Figure 1). Two main faculty, one at eachinstitution
data set, offerareas for faculty development, but also suggest important discipline-specific adaptations of thebroad-based VALUE rubrics.Introduction: Why Faculty Beliefs MatterCommunication and teamwork remain top-priority outcomes for engineering graduates in bothacademic and industry settings, and they are increasingly integrated into engineering curricula,not only through external course requirements (e.g. technical writing courses), but also withinengineering courses. As Shuman et al.1 argue in their landmark 2005 review of professionalskills, both communication and teamwork can be effectively taught within engineering courses,and engineering education research is rich with discussions of both skills2, 3-10.Importantly, both skills have