intended to reach a broader and larger group. ASEE’s Diversity Committee has also added a link to the WIED Advocacy Tips webpage and plans are underway to regularly update the Engineering Dean’s Council with updates to the Advocacy Tips. Page 24.794.6Thus far, the Advocacy Tips have been developed by the [Institution] ADVANCE team’s PI, but the process is being opened to include tips from additional sources. Examples: The First Few Advocacy Tips: Advocacy Tip #1: Many men, particularly those in STEM, lack knowledge of
Methods Engineering & IE 478 Facilities Planning. IE 316 introduces participants tomethods engineering and work measurement fostering the development of critical thinking, self-assessment, and team work; IE 478 trains the students in the art and science of facility design andplanning. Rounding-up the curriculum of these classes, this educational experience complementsthe student’s professional profile by adding the necessary cultural competency required toproduce a global engineer. The model consists of five components: identification and selection ofindustry partners and potential projects; attendance to in-class mini-lectures & assignment ofpertinent readings supporting the selected project; student’s training previous to
description of what is completed and what they plan to complete next; and (3) Whether the presentation was well-organized and easy to understand. After the general meeting, one student manager is responsible for averaging the grades, assigning Page 24.1165.7 the grades to the team-members in the gradebook, and giving the comments from the forms to the team leader. All members of a team typically receive the same grade. • 30% of the grade is based on documentation. Every student is expected to use a source code management system (SVN) and to use a issue tracking system (Redmine). Students are expected to create tickets in
that is planned for the 2014-2015 school years.There is still some variation in the use and definition of term such as "blended" and "hybrid" inrelated research. To be clear, in this study the term “hybrid” is used to describe courses whichhave live, face-to-face meetings in a physical classroom each week and include a significantamount of additional materials as well as technical and procedural innovations available from thecourse website. This includes “flipping” the classroom in which lectures are recorded butstudents still attend live class for discussion of the material and other active learning activities.Students Use of TechnologyThe debate over the nature of how students may or may not be learning differently continues.However, there
Evaluate Student Work in a Senior Level Professional Issues CourseAbstractThis paper describes a customization of the Engineering Professional Skills Assessment (EPSA)method within the ‘ethics’ section of a senior level “Professional Issues” course. The courseinstructors have found the interdisciplinary EPSA scenarios to generate more enthusiastic andhigher level discussion than case studies that focus solely on ethics. The paper describes use oftwo different EPSA scenarios, the standardized questions which are used to prompt the studentdiscussion, the EPSA rubric, and recommended facilitation plan for adoption by others.IntroductionEngineering programs often contain a senior level “Professional Issues” course to cover
the use of social media. We also review thedemographics of our 124,000+ MOOC students, who represented nearly 200 countries and over35 academic disciplines, as well as statistics related to their enrollment, retention, and coursecompletion. Finally, we discuss the implications of MOOCs for engineering education in bothface-to-face and online formats, our recommendations for the development of MOOCs, thechallenges and limitations of our work here, and our plans for future research in this domain.1. IntroductionAlthough new on the educational scene, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are already thesubject of great debate in terms of their educational value, academic rigor, financialsustainability, and role in higher education3,4,11,13,14
styles will benefit from a more diverse teaching method that targets multiple learningstyles, but the use and formal assessment of these methods for a Geotechnical Engineeringcourse has not been well documented in the literature. Participating students enrolled in this course during the first two semesters (i.e., theControl Group) were taught using conventional lecture methods. The GCT were implementedduring the last two semesters and these students were referred to as the Treatment Group.Qualitative and quantitative data were collected during all four semesters as part of acomprehensive evaluation plan. The instructor used an inquiry-based approach so that thestudents were motivated to take notes during the lecture while maintaining
following way,“Uh...I did, uh, a little bit of research to just, just give people preface, and that was on theeconomic side, specifically. And then, um, involved in planned discussions, obviously gave input,and also set up the mechanism where people could ask questions via text.” He also helpedmoderate small group discussions which he described as, “[B]asically, uh, just trying to keepanybody from kind of grandstanding within the discussion and being, like I know, that somebodycan even be a professor, as a student we are kind of supposed to tamper them down and allow a lotof different voices to come out, generate questions, compile those questions, and kind of move ahandful to the top.” As a result, even though Way characterized his role as a small
Engineering course forfirst semester freshman at George Washington University. Herein is described the planning andimplementation of the course, the student feedback, and the lessons learned.II. Curriculum DesignIn planning for the course, a review of what peer universities were attempting was conducted. Alist published by INCOSE in July 2013 of the Systems Engineering programs was used to deriveprograms for undergraduate students. Several universities were contacted from the INCOSE list,Table 1 represents the information obtained from these universities on methodologies. Inaddition to the responses below, 6 universities reported that they did not have an introduction toSystems Engineering course. The list is by no means comprehensive but gives a
wereused to create a prioritized list of potential changes that could then be evaluated. This paper wasimportant to the CEPCTC because it focused on both the methodology and suggested potentialchanges.Ressler8,9 reported the need for long-term synchronization of the published BOK and itsassociated accreditation criteria. In 2011, CAP^3 formed a special task committee to develop astrategic plan for long-term management of change. The principal objective of the taskcommittee’s work was to propose a systematic and predictable process for continuous change toboth the BOK and accreditation criteria. The task committee proposed an eight-year repeatablecycle that “allows time to formulate and publish a new edition of the Civil Engineering BOK andto
demographics.Increased retention and graduation of students in engineering were primary goals of the project.Of the 59 students who were part of the S-STEM program, 36 (61%) maintained scholarshipeligibility until graduation or the end of the grant, 10 changed majors (six into in a differentSTEM discipline), and only six students left the University with no indications of additionalhigher education plans. By the end of the program 44% of the scholarship participants graduatedwith an engineering/construction management degree and 51% graduated from the Universitywithin a five year time frame. This rate compares favorably with the 2007 CoE freshmen cohortrate of 37.2%, and another 22% of S-STEM participants are anticipated to graduate withengineering degrees over
2011.Starting any new degree or program at a university can be a daunting undertaking. This isespecially true for a cross-functional degree involving three separate departments, which werethe mechanical engineering, electrical and computer engineering, and the computer sciencedepartments. Fortunately, the initial impetus and evolution of this degree was simultaneouslyenvisioned and embraced by both faculty from the various academic departments and theadministration at Lawrence Tech. Because of this joint interest the development of a roboticsengineering degree the effort became an objective of the 2011–2016 Lawrence TechnologicalUniversity College of Engineering Strategic Plan. Clearly, this joint acknowledgment of the needfor and value of a
Context: Page 24.511.6 impact on natural systems, including key vocabulary; client(s) Primary - Engr (redesign desired features; and budget. They are given an option list for park considering client choices of what they would like to place in the outdoor area. At the needs and budget) closing of the lesson, the students share their design with the Secondary - Sci (use client, as well as a planned persuasive presentation to influence the learned info on human client to
demonstrated the system functioned correctly when all the blocks were connected together, corresponding to an integration test. A second, more formal demonstration required measured data and specifications available in a format suitable for an informal presentation. The team was asked to compare the system performance to the desired performance using detailed, quantitative metrics, and develop a well-articulated plan to improve the performance of the system.10) Integration Phase II and Datasheet Generation: The second integration milestone also had two phases that demonstrated the project was fully functional. The lead engineer first demonstrated the system to the instructors informally to receive feedback, followed by a team
discovery. At each stage they are required to document decisionsand provide visualization to represent the formal and experiential qualities of their designs. Spa-tial relationships are typically shown through conventional orthographic projections of plan, sec-tion and elevation. For instance the student may develop a floor plan to articulate the circulationpatterns within the design while simultaneously illustrating the spatial layout of the programcomponents. The experience of the space may be represented through a series of perspectivedrawings. Architectural detailing and constructability of the tectonic details are required and de-veloped through drawings and models. The student must show the relationship of building skinor enclosure with
opportunity toconnect with other women faculty was also valued. Assessment indicates that over halfthe women faculty report feeling more confident about professional abilities and moreassertive in advocating for career needs. Male faculty/administrators report beingfamiliar with issues impacting the success of women, as well as strategies that can beemployed to manage around these issues. Women faculty are less likely to report feelingisolated in their department/on campus. This paper will review the plan to transition tosustainable status at the conclusion of the project, including a report on the first year ofthat transition effort.BackgroundLouisiana Tech University is in a medium-sized state university with an increasedemphasis on high-quality
the‘You’re Hired!’ project is then described. This is followed by presentation and discussion of theresearch project results, including a comparison of results for male and female students. Weconclude with a summary of key findings and plans for future research.Project Description/DesignThe ‘You’re Hired!’ project is designed to engage students in an intense, coherent set of STEM-focused experiences, which requires the use of the engineering design process and infuses 21stCentury Skills to solve real-world problems. The age of students participating in ‘You’re Hired!’ranged from 7th grade to 12th grade. While engineering outreach programs are being implementedthroughout the entire K-12 range nationwide, [14,16-21] many programs focus on middle to
. Have the ability to plan the design process. 3. Have the ability to generate, evaluate and develop design concepts by applying knowledge of facts, science, engineering science, and manufacturing principles. 4. Have the ability to use analysis and simulation tools to understand design performance and then improve the design. 5. Have experience in manufacturing a design prototype. 6. Have generated solid models and engineering drawings of their final design using 3D modeling software. 7. Have given an oral presentation and demonstration of their design project. 8. Have experienced working on a team to complete a design project. An overview of topics covered in the course is
team is required to prepare a typed project proposal in aformal memo format, including a proposed timeline. During the course of the project student'steam meet with their faculty advisor weekly to discuss the progress report. The weekly formalmemo is required the day prior to each weekly meeting and addresses the following three areas:current progress, problems encountered and their resolution, and plan for the following week.To stay on the top of industry requirements sponsoring the project and to receive valuableengineering feedback students conduct by-weekly web conference calls with industry liaison.The oral and written reports due near the end of each semester are to concern themselves withthe progress made in each semester. The one at
. In addition to being introduced to the departments in the College of Engineering and tothe grand challenges, students in the class learn about the engineering design process. Thisoccurs throughout the course and within the context of the departments and challenges discussedin class. The final project is a conceptual design project where students work in small teams to Page 24.47.4identify a reasonable problem and need associated with a challenge of their choice. The studentscreate solutions to the problems and needs identified by designing prototypes and testingmethods for demonstrating that their conceptual technology will function as planned
, most activities require moderate to extensive preparation forthe activities to be included in the lesson plans. There is a need to develop a resource for teachersthat is dynamic, flexible, well-aligned with state content standards, and provide simple in-classactivities. Specifically, activities that can be typically prepared a day ahead using supplies thatare readily available at a local grocery store. Furthermore, with the prevalence of mobiletechnologies among teachers, one can imagine a highly versatile resource that is specificallydesigned for the teacher’s handheld device, such as an iPhone. Therefore, the overall goal of thisproject is to engage and inspire K-12 students towards STEM fields by providing teachers thenecessary tools and
something in a fashionthat makes sense to people. I’m not sure how to explain what I mean. Um. (pause)…”Relating critical thinking to engineering course conceptsAlthough students struggled with articulating their thoughts, students did tend to relate ideas ofcritical thinking to engineering concepts they deal with in the classroom. These engineeringcourse concepts include: applying a framework/plan; weighing, selecting, and testing options(selection and design); using background knowledge; and using problem solving. For instanceone student explained the critical thinking process in a design course as: There’s a coach but no one tells you what to do or how to solve the problem. You’re expected to understand the problem, come up with
undergraduateengineering and non-engineering students to understand engineering problem-solving from asocial and culturally relevant context for further entrepreneurial growth. Moreover, studentswere able to make direct connections between global initiatives, such as the United NationsMillenium Development Goals and the WorldBank strategic plans, to the work that they weredoing at the local level. Effectively, students were challenged to understand what it truly meantto think globally, and act locally.Therefore, the students’ work, if taken into consideration by local authorities, could lead tosustainable community development and an improved standard of living there.Student engagement involved stakeholders at all levels of the Cameroon community
individual organization. Collaboration suggests a more durableand pervasive relationship, and the authority is determined by the collaborative structure. Weaim to establish a true collaborative relationship in this design competition task. To judge thecollaboration type of design, identifying its mission, authority, and relationship is important.Kvan [26] suggested that collaboration is also episodic and cyclical. Collaborators interactperiodically, but they work independently and parallel during portions of the design. Kvan’smodel is demonstrated by Fig. 2. There are generally four stages in an iterative cycle: meta-planning, negotiation, expert work, and evaluation
ethical decisions Dealing with Adversity Definition: how the team makes decisions under stressful situations Sample item: When the project is behind schedule, we sometimes make decisions without thinking them through completely.MethodThe sample consisted of undergraduate students (N=521) from three mid-size Midwestern andEast coast universities. At the time of data collection, the students at each institution wereparticipating in a team-based semester-long class in which each team planned and executed anapplied project. The course at School 1 (n=406) consisted primarily of engineering students(with different
engineer in a wafer fabrication facility before continuing her graduate studies. Other than being busy with her research and caring for her two children, she loves to cook and being outdoors. She also has an interest in traveling and plans to visit all 50 states. Her goal is to inspire more women to become engineers. Page 24.539.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014 Ethical Reasoning Development in Project-Based LearningIntroductionThis paper describes the method of ethics discussion used in Iron Range Engineering (IRE) andTwin Cities Engineering (TCE), two
of minority students in STEM disciplines.Dr. Svetlana Levonisova, University of Southern California Postdoctoral Research Associate University of Southern California Viterbi School of Engineering Divi- sion of Engineering EducationDr. Cheryl Matherly, The University of Tulsa Dr. Cheryl Matherly is Vice Provost for Global Education and Applied Assistant Professor of Education at the University of Tulsa, where she has responsibility for the strategic leadership of the university’s plan for comprehensive internationalization. Dr. Matherly’ special area of interest is with the internationalization of science and engineering education, specifically as related to workforce development. She directs the NanoJapan
discipline (engineering vs. non-engineering) and cognitive style to gaininsight into their impact on students’ design choices. Results of these analyses are discussedhere, along with implications and limitations of this pilot study and our plans for future work inthis domain.1. Research Context and MotivationThis research is part of an NSF-funded collaborative project between Stanford University andPenn State University that spans the boundaries between engineering design and cognitivescience1 (see Figure 1). Our extended aim is to understand and model the relationships betweenengineering design behavior (actual engineering design activity), cognitive preferences(individual psychological predisposition), and real-time physiological responses (EEG
(rain water recovery optional) system for a new residence hall on campus. Details of the building floor plan, utilities, and HVAC system will be provided in a forthcoming document. To complete this project, your team will have to investigate how residence hall plumbing is installed, propose a reasonable layout for the plumbing system, determine all the piping, couplings, fittings, drains, vents, etc., necessary for the installation, and design an appropriate grey-water system. The team will also need to gather data and statistics on typical water usage by occupant and activity. Once the details of the plumbing and grey-water system are determined, the installation costs (including materials and labor) must be estimated. Your
students.This exercise again segmented the students into three groups. However, this was not done bysection, but by performance on the laboratory practical. Students were either asked to bring in acontextual object (not one they had used previously) of moderate complexity or were providedeither a drawing of physical model of stylized component. These are shown in Figure 6. Studentswere given approximately one hour to model their component. Prior to the modeling exercisestudents were interviewed about the procedure they planned to use and how they would deal withany challenges that arose. During the exercise, the Camtasia screen capture software was used torecord participant screens. After the modeling exercise, students were interviewed again to