, conclusions/recommendations reached. (Includes recognition of the contributions of any consulting experts, resource providers, previous teams, and other organizations.) • Highlights benefits and added value of the team's work compared to contemporary practice. • Describes major impacts, risks and challenges associated with the project: technical performance, need for enabling technology, social, competitive, environmental, safety, regulatory, financial. • Applied appropriate methods associated with professional practice (e.g., brainstorming, experiment design/testing, scientific method, user-centered design, iterative prototyping, survey research, business planning.) • Devised innovative approaches to overcome
-learning process, inpartnership with “full-time” regular faculty members. The impetus here is three fold. First, thegeneral belief that well-seasoned and experienced practitioners can be a tremendous resource totap; in combination with regular “full-time” faculty- who are, in most instances, the “research-type,” and who have not had the opportunity to practice engineering. Second, industry’sprevailing perception that engineering education does not prepare graduates adequately for thepractice. Therefore, from industry’s perspective, the quality of education for engineering practiceis seen as deficient. Third, blending practical experience in teaching design and design-relatedcourses is repeatedly emphasized by ABET, and by other engineering
engineering analysis and design that exist in curriculums today.However, the engineering tools and techniques are generally taught with an individual focus andnot on a holistic basis. This paper provides a system approach which integrates the various toolsand techniques and could serve as a practical example in Engineering Design or Capstonecourses.The first section of this paper is an extensive review of relevant literature. This literature surveyskey factors for success or failure in technology commercialization that spans the last two decades.These factors have been classified in four domains (Technical, Economic, Operational, andRegulatory) according to their impact. The next section presents the DFC model and explainshow each of its main
higher education in the region.Background and overview of prior workOver 40 students participate annually and perform research in all six engineering departments atthe AFIT Graduate School of Engineering and Management. First, starting in summer 2012, aformal assessment tool is now distributed to students to measure the impact of the researchexperience. Second, starting in summer 2013, students are now provided with four careerbroadening programs that are informed by student survey results in 2012. These programs aremade possible through a partnership among AFIT, the LEADER (Launching Equity in theAcademy across the Dayton Entrepreneurial Region) Consortium, and the Southwestern OhioConsortium for Higher Education (SOCHE). The partnership
concepts, research andpractice. This involves feedback between clinical investigations and practice with computational,statistical and mathematical analysis and modeling.”4 The generalized clinical issues that can beaddressed in the systems medicine field are diverse, including disease progression and remission,disease spread and cure, treatment responses, and disease prevention.4 However, medicalpractice is for a specific disease impacting an individual patient. As a result, it is crucial to havea thorough understanding of disease-specific characteristics (e.g., what agents can be used totreat lung cancer and what are the trade-offs of using them) in order to have clinical impact at thepatient scale. Similarly, the discovery of early warning
for community college students at the four-year institution.Although a majority of the programs seemed to have more of a focus on the development ofskills to help students with coursework upon transition to the four-year institution, there areprograms that have the research focus similar to SCCORE’s. The following programs offer aresearch focus or a research component, serving as models of best practices for the SCCOREprogram and pointing to ways our alliance can improve SCCORE.Two programs that offer research in the biomedical field to underrepresented students includethe Bridge Summer Research Program at University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) thatprovides students at eight (8) community colleges training in lab techniques
women and underrepresented minorities. He received his M.S. in Industrial & Systems Engineering from Virginia Tech and his B.S. in Industrial Engineering from Clemson University.Dr. Holly M Matusovich, Virginia Tech Dr. Matusovich is an Assistant Professor and Assistant Department Head for Graduate Programs in Vir- ginia Tech’s Department of Engineering Education. She has her doctorate in Engineering Education and her strengths include qualitative and mixed methods research study design and implementation. She is/was PI/Co-PI on 8 funded research projects including a CAREER grant. She has won several Virginia Tech awards including a Dean’s Award for Outstanding New Faculty. Her research expertise includes using
University of Colorado Boulder in the Department of Civil, Envi- ronmental, and Architectural Engineering (CEAE). She serves as the Associate Chair for Undergraduate Education in the CEAE Department, as well as the ABET assessment coordinator. Professor Bielefeldt is the faculty director of the Sustainable By Design Residential Academic Program, a living-learning community where interdisciplinary students learn about and practice sustainability. Bielefeldt is also a licensed P.E. Professor Bielefeldt’s research interests in engineering education include service-learning, sustainable engineering, social responsibility, ethics, and diversity
in the development pro-cess of the organization, particularly in the Verification and Validation process areas (accordingto CMMI-DEV 1.3). The goal of the training described in this paper was to help the organizationovercome some of the detected weaknesses.This case study describes a two-part training course in software testing designed for softwaredevelopers with little or no background in the software testing area. We devote half of the train-ing to teach the fundamentals of software testing, best practices, testing types, testing levels, andtest design techniques. The other half of the training is devoted to the use of a testing tool thatsupports the entire software testing process.The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2
Sooner Engineering Education Center dedicated to engineering education related initiatives and research focused on building diversity and enhancing the educational experience for all engineering students. Dr. Shehab teaches undergraduate and graduate level courses in ergonomics, work methods, experimental design, and statistical analysis. Her current research is with the Research Institute for STEM Education, a multi-disciplinary research group investigating factors related to equity and diversity in engineering student populations.Dr. Susan E. Walden, University of Oklahoma Dr. Susan E. Walden is the founding Director of the Research Institute for STEM Education (RISE) and an associate research professor in the
, first-year engineering instruction, and the pedagogical aspects of writing computer games. John has held a variety of leadership positions, including currently serving as an ABET Commissioner and as Vice President of The Pledge of the Computing Professional; within ASEE, he previously served as Chair of the Computers in Education Division and was one of the principal authors of the Best Paper Rubric used for determining the Best Overall Conference Paper and Best Professional Interest Council (PIC) Papers for the ASEE Annual Conference. He is a past recipient of Best Paper awards from the Computers in Education, First-Year Programs, and Design in Engineering Education Divisions, and has also been recognized for his
Effects Grades: Sizeness and the Exploration of the Multiple‐Institution Database for Investigating Engineering Longitudinal Development through Hierarchal Linear Models Page 26.280.2Introduction In a recent study, an effect entitled sectionality was probed to determine the effect ofdifferent course sections at various schools had on students’ grades.[1] A caveat of that studybrought up numerous times in lectures and via private correspondence – one left out of theoriginal paper – was the effect of class size (or sizeness) for the same introductory courses.While anecdotally, faculty from all over the country had discussed with the researchers in thepast few years that
is present. In addition tothe infrastructure, the CEID hosts design-centered classes, offers workshops, supports studentorganizations, and provides consulting assistance to its members. CEID members are allowed touse the facility for course, club, research, and personal projects, with an expectation that theyshare their work with others.21,22 Figure 9. Yale University: Center for Engineering Innovation and DesignThe university-wide access structure is a unique attribute of this facility. Undergraduate studentsfrom all disciplines and graduate students from the majority of Yale’s professional schools aremembers of the CEID. The design courses taught in the CEID encourage university-wideparticipation and include classes on social
of Engineering Graduates: An Indian Case Study', International Journal of Training and Development, 14 (2010), 130-43.11 Waychal Pradeep, and Dixit Rajan, 'Applying Scm Principles to the Indian Engineering Education System', in International Conference on Best Practices in Supply Chain Management (Bhubaneswar, India: 2012 ).12 Philip L Roth, and Richard L Clarke, 'Meta-Analyzing the Relation between Grades and Salary', Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53 (1998), 386-400.13 Chitu Okoli, and Suzanne D Pawlowski, 'The Delphi Method as a Research Tool: An Example, Design Considerations and Applications', Information & Management, 42 (2004), 15-29
26.113.7who are notoriously difficult to recruit, but they would also have the chance to practice andimprove their leadership skills.Facilitators held three meetings just before the start of the program to introduce both thechallenge and the mentorship expectations to each student organization. All mentors were giventhe same information that included the details of the challenge as well as a written mentorshipguide. The mentorship guide provided a breakdown of the engineering design process andoutlined milestones in engineering design process that they should aim for throughout thesemester. The meetings and the written guide also included information on facilitating theirteam’s progress and not just doing the work for their freshmen. The mentors were
, NIDRR, VA, DOD, DOE, and industries including Ford and GM. Currently, Dr. Kim is the site director for the NSF Industry and University Cooperative Research Center (I/UCRC) for e-Design. Dr. Kim is an editorial board member of Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science. Dr. Kim received top cited article award (2005-2010) from Journal CAD and 2003 IIE Transactions Best Paper Award. Dr. Kim was a visiting professor at Kyung Hee University, South Korea from September 2013 to June 2014. Dr. Kim’s education includes a Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering from University of Pittsburgh.Carolyn E Psenka PhD, Wayne State University Carolyn Psenka, PhD is a cultural anthropologist with research interests focused on the study
change higher education. Its 10threcommendation states: Page 26.907.2 Research universities should foster a community of learners. Large universities must find ways to create a sense of place and to help students develop small communities within the larger whole4. (p.34)The Boyer report served as a call to action for colleges to reform their educational practices andrestructure classrooms to increase active learning among students.Scholarly research in the 1980s and 1990s provided the underpinnings of the learningcommunity concept. Vincent Tinto who studied the causes of attrition in college found thatstudents were more likely
universities to help freshmen and upper-classmen succeed in challenging college courses. SI can consist of peer tutoring, instructor officehours, review sessions, study groups, or any combination of these. Students who use SI havebeen shown to earn higher term and cumulative grade point averages (GPA’s) as well as moretimely graduation rates than their peers who do not utilize SI.. [3] [4] [5] It also has been shown thatthere is a statistically significant correlation between higher term GPA’s and more time spent inSI. [2] [6] “The U.S. Department of Education has designated SI as an Exemplary Educational Practice and has validated the following three research findings: Students participating in SI within the targeted
plans for the future. A discussion on theconcept of a polytechnic institution, its definition, and transformative nature is included to clarifythe reasons behind this radical and somewhat unsettling approach to education reformation.IntroductionAcademic institutions of higher learning are facing many difficult challenges, includingdeclining enrollment trends, complaints about costs vs. value, curricular stagnation, and inabilityto adapt quickly to changing environments facing graduating students. Many researchers andauthors claim that the traditional educational methods and structure espoused by universities isoutdated and potentially restrictive to learners. 1, 2 The College of Technology at PurdueUniversity is dealing with these challenges
-year project to develop, implement, and studyoutcomes from the curriculum to promote development of inclusive engineering identities. Todevelop our experimental curricula of inclusive engineering practices, we draw on this literaturereview as well as survey data collected from the baseline year of this research project. Thefollowing section reports on baseline findings from students in two first-year engineering coursesthat did not include diversity or identity specific curriculum.Baseline SurveyTo assess the impact of the inclusive engineering identities curriculum, a quasi-experimentalresearch design was adopted. Data collection took place at a large public university with astudent body comprised of 17% underrepresented minorities, 51% women
generalmechanical work and procedures, covering commonly used tools and best practices. All modulestogether form a foundation for team specific training that address risk for common activities onthe team.Once all practical hands-on training modules have been completed, students are now able tocomplete hands-on work and become more active participants on the team. As they are new teammembers, they are still limited to the work that they can complete. Some tasks which are deemedof greater risk or severity of injury are reserved for higher levels. These tasks include theoperation of heavy lifting equipment and high voltage design, construction, and operation. Inorder to further reduce the risk of injury, level two students must always be supervised and workin
Paper ID #13866A Framework for K12 Bioenergy Engineering and Science Concepts: A Del-phi Consensus StudyMr. Brian David Hartman, Oregon State University Brian is a doctoral student in science education at Oregon State University. He has 4 years of experience teaching high school science and practiced engineering for 12 years. His research interests include k12 biological and chemical engineering curriculum development, nature of engineering, and creativity in engineering design.Kimi Grzyb, Oregon State UniversityDr. Katharine G. Field, Oregon State University Dr. Kate Field has degrees from Yale University, Boston
sophomore year of engineering, and aretaking steps to address the current lack of information on this understudied period in anundergraduate engineer’s trajectory.Our study seeks to address these calls for action and research agendas by focusing on thesophomore year in engineering undergraduate, which remains a critical transition time forstudents pursuing engineering degrees. Instead of encouraging the continued development andassessment of novel interventions designed to impact the sophomore year, our study inquires intothe current state of sophomore engineering, so that we can be informed when making andadvocating for changes, or trying to ‘revolutionize engineering departments’ in line with fundingopportunities. We wish to examine the social
-methodology guided our Q-study held with four focus groups. During the Q study, we used five Q-sets, the collection ofheterogeneous items which the participants will sort14. The content for the five Q-sets weredeveloped from a literature review and written on cards. Each card represented an item to be Page 26.506.5used in PosSES. Q-sorting is the procedure where participants sort and rank the cards accordingto stated instructions15. For this study, a full professor and methodologist provided training for the research team in the methods related to Q-Methodology and helped design a protocol to forthe study. A practice session was also held. A
skills. Her current research focuses on identifying impacts of differ- ent factors on ideation of designers and engineers, developing instructional materials for design ideation, and foundations of innovation. She often conducts workshops on design thinking to a diverse range of groups including student and professional engineers and faculty member from different universities. She received her PhD degree in Design Science in 2010 from University of Michigan. She is also a faculty in Human Computer Interaction Graduate Program and the ISU Site Director for Center for e-Design. Page 26.734.1
Inventory for assessing conceptual knowledge and change for intro- ductory materials science and chemistry classes. He is currently conducting research on NSF projects in two areas. One is studying how strategies of engagement and feedback with support from internet tools and resources affect conceptual change and associated impact on students’ attitude, achievement, and per- sistence. The other is on the factors that promote persistence and success in retention of undergraduate students in engineering. He was a coauthor for best paper award in the Journal of Engineering Education in 2013.Dr. Dale R Baker, Arizona State University Dale Baker is a science educator researching issues of equity and teaching and learning in
to the country’s schools where they had studied.In this way, in this paper we show through diverse situations the influence that experiencedmethodologies can have on a student, and how through these same methodologies we can changethese opinions and make them favorable towards methodologies based on active learning.IntroductionIn recent years there has been a growing interest for changing pedagogical practices in theteaching of engineering1 2. This tendency responds to the necessities of economic globalization,rapid advances in technology and cognitive science3 4. In addition, in many of the world’scountries it has been observed that the graduation rate of engineers has fallen in relation to theprojected demand for these professionals5. This
engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context j) a knowledge of contemporary issues k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice Topics covered in this course: • Background research for experimental planning • Design of Experiments • Statistical data analysis • Executing engineering experiments and analyzing experimental findings • Oral communication of research • Written communication of research • Engineering ethics • Intellectual property, social impact, and financial considerations of engineering research • Software and hardware tools, such as
quantifytheir undergraduate experience. Students are able to track their progress, design their ownacademic path to graduation, and develop their own enrichment activity plan that best fits theirspecific interest. The engineering portfolio also assists students to prepare their resume for jobinterviews and, when used as a tool for interviewing, the portfolio highlights tangibleexperiences outside what is normally found in transcripts and conventional resumes.Our approach focuses on capturing the entire breath of each student’s educational experience,while setting the foundation for students to build an open-ended self-guided career plan thatdraws from their skills, experiences, and achievements that comprise their engineering portfolio
. CM-177 introducesgreen building design guidelines, rating systems, and common practices. Studentsfrom the two classes made up project teams to co-develop Leadership in Energyand Environmental Design (LEED) strategies and conduct performance analysisthat is essential for accomplishing LEED certification with BIM for a project oncampus. The collaborative project-based learning is responsive to the real worldscenario where green building design and BIM are often implemented through anintegrative process. Both direct and indirect measures were used to assess theeffectiveness of the proposed collaborative project-based pedagogy on selectedcore student learning outcomes (SLOs). Rubrics were developed for eachmeasure. This paper discusses the