balanced influx has created issues of high attrition within engineering schoolsacross the country. Possibly, administrators keep this imbalance in mind as universities enroll farmore students in their freshman engineering courses than will graduate from these programs.Despite this, nearly all future projections call for an increase in the number of students trained inthe STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields, particularly engineering.Even with this growing spotlight, however, studies have still shown how the number of studentsentering college as STEM majors has actually declined in recent years.2 This issue of lowmatriculation combined with growing national attention thus results in a need to place higherpriority on the
with measuring how cultural programs andexperiences contribute to positive changes in students’ abilities to work and thrive in diverseenvironments. Global competency can be defined broadly as “having an open mind whileactively seeking to understand cultural norms and expectations of others, leveraging this gainedknowledge to interact, communicate and work effectively outside one’s environment”1.Measuring global competency levels before and after participation in cultural programs maytherefore be a potentially effective method for measuring changes in students’ ability to work ina global environment. Currently, studies on engineering students’ baseline global competencylevels are few at the undergraduate level. This research fills this gap
upgradeable as one of the functionalities, which could involve both a conventionalengineering thinking and a sustainability mind set. Another example in this case was related tothe concerns on operation and maintenance.Decision making was critical in engineering design and needs to be addressed in this module.The inclusion of the sustainability criteria or indicators was valuable, but the correspondingdecision making became more challenging. The related multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)method for various engineering applications was still an active research area due to itsmultidisciplinary nature15. Our goal of including the MCDA section in the module was toemphasis the importance of selecting and weighting different kinds of criteria in a
. Page 26.987.11[14] S. Farrell and R. P. Hesketh, "An Introduction to Drug Delivery for Chemical Engineers," Chemical Engineering Education, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 198-203, 2002.[15] A. V. Struck Jannini, C. S. Slater and M. J. Savelski, "Experiments in Pharmaceutical Engineering for Introductory Courses," Chemical Engineering Education, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 239-249, 2014.[16] S. Chatterjee, "FDA Perspective on Continuous Manufacturing," in International Forum on Process Analytical Chemistry, Baltimore, 2012.[17] K. Plumb, "Continuous Processing in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Changing the Mind Set," Chemical Engineering Research and Design, vol. 83, no. A6, pp. 730-738, 2005.[18] Accreditation Board for
curricula are most effective in generating an impact on retention in UG- engineering students by non-traditional groups? • How do we classify students studying entrepreneurship into archetypes based on their expression of how, why, and when it fits into their career trajectory? • Are active student entrepreneurs a distinct population from entrepreneurially-minded students or pre- entrepreneurs?Students’ Career Beyond
. Support at that level made it a fundraising priority inthe college and the first course was offered within one year. That support was essential to theprogram’s development and implementation.Institutional mission and contextThe vision for this program is rooted in the Jesuit mission of the institution, which names “thedevelopment of leadership expressed in service to others…for the common benefit of the humancommunity” as one of its four pillars.[6] In addition, the charisms found in the Jesuit’s historyvalue educating the whole person – mind and heart. The call for the type of engineer and leaderthe university hopes to graduate is clear. As a result, the models of leadership chosen to guidethe program and student participants are rooted in this
habits of mind can enhance pre-college students’ learning abilities. Page 26.177.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 An Assessment Tool to Evaluate Student Learning of Engineering (Fundamental) Strand: K-12 Engineering Resources: Best practices in curriculum designWhile STEM subjects have traditionally been taught separately in K-12 schools the newinitiatives share a focus on integrated approaches to teaching STEM. For example, the recentlyreleased Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)1 addressed the need for explicit integrationof
anincrease in their understanding of the engineering design process, engineering concepts,engineering habits of mind, and the connections between engineering and other subject-areaconcepts and practices. Understanding of the engineering design process shifted from between Figure 3: Understanding of Engineering Design Process Figure 4: Understanding of Engineering Concepts 25 25 Pre-program Pre-program Post-program
research explores the varied trajectories taken by students as they attempt to enter professional disciplines such as engineering, and focuses on the dilem- mas encountered by students as they move through these institutionalized trajectories. He is co-editor of a 2010 National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, Learning Research as a Human Science. Other work has appeared in Linguistics and Education; Mind, Culture, and Activity; Anthropology & Education Quarterly, the Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science; the Journal of Engineering Education; and the Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research. His teaching interests include develop- mental psychology; sociocultural theories of communication
Paper ID #12908Work-in-Progress: Conflict-Driven Cooperative Learning in Engineering CoursesDr. Neelam Soundarajan, Ohio State University Dr. Neelam Soundarajan is an Associate Professor in the Computer Science and Engineering Department at Ohio State University. His interests include software engineering as well as innovative approaches to engineering education.Mr. Swaroop Joshi, Ohio State University Swaroop is a Ph.D. student in Computer Science and Engineering at The Ohio State University. His interests include a range of problems in software engineering as well as the use of technology in the classroom.Dr. Rajiv
Paper ID #12674Exploring Implicit Understanding of Engineering Ethics in Student TeamsDr. Eun Ah Lee, University of Texas at Dallas Eun Ah Lee is a graduate student at University of Texas at Dallas. She received her PhD in science education from Seoul National University in Korea and has worked for STEM education in which she has strong interest. Currently, she is studying for dual masters’ degree in Applied Cognitive Science and in Emerging Media and Communication for her professional development.Prof. Nicholas Gans, University of Texas, Dallas Nicholas Gans is an assistant professor in the Department of Electrical
Paper ID #11654Global Technology Experiences for Upper Division Engineering Students: AnAssessmentDr. Patricia R Backer, San Jose State University Dr. Backer been a faculty at SJSU since 1990 and held positions as an assistant professor, associate professor, professor, department chair, and director. Since coming to San Jose State University in 1990, I have been involved in the General Education program. Currently, Dr. Backer serves as an evaluator for SJSU’s AANAPISI grant from the U.S. Department of Education.Prof. Wenchiang Richard Chung, San Jose State University Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, Auburn University (1987
Paper ID #13845Using On-Line Education to Meet the Needs of Working Engineering Profes-sionalsDr. Sandra Denise Anderson P.E., University of Wisconsin Madison Sandra Anderson, PhD, is director of the Master of Engineering in Engine Systems program at the Uni- versity of Wisconsin Madison. She worked in the aerospace industry designing jet aircraft engines before joining Ford Motor Company. At Ford, she trained power-train designers and engineers in CAD and CAE and produced web-based trainings on topics such as reliability and experimentaldesign. She also worked in the Office of the Technical Fellow, exploring new
the students to analyze their design, make readjustments, or redesign. The NID unitexplicitly builds in a redesign to ensure students experience an iterative engineering design cycle.During the implementation phase of their design, students were asked to consider the followingwhile redesigning their prototype designs: (1) potentially change materials to bring down the costof their design, and (2) redesign their prototype to collect more water. In addition, they wereasked to keep in mind that they have to use something from nature to inspire their design.Students can be observed testing their storage tank and going back to evaluate the design at theirtables to make corrections and retest.After testing their designs, students were asked to fill
: Five ProfilesHere we present profiles of five different learning communities that exist partly or wholly withinthe community of engineering education. These learning communities represent a breadth ofdifferent models for learning communities, implemented to satisfy a breadth of faculty needsunder a variety of constraints. Features of these communities are summarized in Table 1.University of Alaska FairbanksOffice of Faculty Development Faculty Learning Community Program:Flipped Class Learning CommunityIn 2013, the University of Alaska Fairbanks Office of Faculty Development initiated a programof faculty-led Faculty Learning Communities. This program was designed with facultyownership in mind: facilitators were selected from interested faculty
& Learning Technologies from the University of Missouri. His research/teaching focuses on engineering as an innovation in pK-12 education, policy of STEM education, how to support teachers and students’ academic achievements through engineering, engineering ’habits of mind’ and empathy and care in engi- neering. He has published more than 140 journal articles and proceedings papers in engineering education and educational technology and is the inaugural editor for the Journal of Pre-College Engineering Educa- tion Research. Page 26.740.1 c American Society for Engineering
Paper ID #11547Design of an extended engineering curriculum to increase retention and eq-uityProf. Diane Grayson, University of Pretoria Diane Grayson is Extraordinary Professor of Physics at the University of Pretoria and Director: Institu- tional Audits at the Council on Higher Education, which is responsible for quality assurance in higher education in South Africa. She designed the ENGAGE program when she was academic development manager in the Faculty of Engineering, Built Environment and Information Technology at the University of Pretoria. ¨Dr. Erika Muller, University of Pretoria, RSA Dr Erika M¨uller
Paper ID #13557Introducing Software Specifications to an Undergraduate Software Engineer-ing ProgramDr. Anna Koufakou, Florida Gulf Coast University Dr. Koufakou is an Assistant Professor in Software Engineering in the U.A. Whitaker College of Engi- neering at Florida Gulf Coast University. Dr. Koufakou received a B.Sc. in Computer Informatics at the Athens University of Economics and Business in Athens, Greece, and a M.Sc. and a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering at the University of Central Florida. Her research interests include mining of large datasets, outlier detection, and frequent itemset mining. Educational areas of
consortium of university engineering leadership programs, otherwise known as theCommunity of Practice for Engineering Leadership Education for 21st Century Engineers(COMPLETE) has been meeting regularly since 2010. This body of like-minded educators andpractitioners also played an instrumental role in the formation of the ASEE Leadership Division(LEAD). One of the goals of COMPLETE and the ASEE LEAD Division is to further researchin this area.PurposeThe purpose of the research project is to identify specific leadership competencies thatapplicants, specifically undergraduates, should possess when applying for full-time employmentpositions. The three-phase research uses mixed methods to answer this question. First, in-personinterviews with college
friendships andcreate a support group, they can also fail. We also did not want the student to lose sight of theirultimate goal – engineering – while taking math, chemistry, physics, and English classes.There were four major areas in which we determined academic content could be added to theevent. First there were seminars we could present to help students adjust to college. We alsowanted to introduce an element of engineering design into the activities to challenge thestudents’ minds and encourage them to make friends. To improve our students’ knowledge of thefacilities and history of the college, we developed a selfie scavenger hunt. This program alsopresented an opportunity to more fully implement the university’s freshman reading program.4
performance and attitude data. Itwas shown that students performed better in written examinations and had slightly more positiveattitudes at the end of class when compared with a controlled traditional class6. Additionally, aproblem-based learning program was implemented in civil engineering at University ofLimerick, Ireland7, which provided a new learning experience for students that was wellreceived7. Furthermore, a study conducted at Setubal Polytechnic Institute, Barreiro, Portugalshowed that active learning techniques increase student engagement, class attendance andparticipation8. Active learning techniques such as clicker quizzes, Think-Pair-Share, PowerPointjeopardies, one minute papers, group work, flipped classroom, peer surveys, mind
Paper ID #11835Building Diversity in Engineering Competition Teams by Modeling IndustryBest-PracticeDr. Rui (Celia) Pan, University of Oklahoma Dr. Pan is currently working as a postdoctoral research associate in the Research Institute for STEM Education at the University of Oklahoma. She received her Ph.D in Engineering Education, M.S. in Statistics and B.S. in Electrical Engineering.Dr. Randa L. Shehab, University of Oklahoma Dr. Randa L. Shehab is a professor and the Director of the School of Industrial and Systems Engineering at the University of Oklahoma. She was recently appointed as Director of the Sooner
universally designed engineering laboratories and machine shopsinclude the availability of: ● Adjustable height lab tables or work benches ● Equipment and controls that can be reached from a seated position ● Clear, large-print, or Braille labels ● Adequate lighting or additional light sources ● Clear lines of sight between instructional and laboratory areas ● Wide aisles throughout the space that are kept clear of obstructions ● Clear safety procedures for students with mobility, vision, and hearing impairmentsEnvironmental and curricular changes with UD in mind may increase the likelihood that studentswith disabilities and students from other underrepresented groups pursue and persist inengineering. By providing examples of UD
Paper ID #13291An Information Taxonomy for Remotely-Accessible Engineering InstructionalLaboratoriesMr. Steven Walter Tuttle, University of Technology Sydney Steve Tuttle was transplanted from Orange County California to Sydney Australia to chase his PhD in Software Engineering. In a parallel life, Steve builds web information systems for corporate clients, rides a kiteboard when the wind blows, juggles when it does not, and otherwise hangs out with his dog Lucie. The stuff one hears about the high quality of life in Sydney? All true!Dr. Bruce Moulton, University of Technology SydneyProf. David Lowe, The University of Sydney
Paper ID #11487Developing Entrepreneurial Thinking in Engineering Students by UtilizingIntegrated Online ModulesDr. Ronald S Harichandran P.E., University of New Haven Ron Harichandran is Dean of the Tagliatela College of Engineering and is the PI of the grant entitled Developing Entrepreneurial Thinking in Engineering Students by Utilizing Integrated Online Modules and a Leadership Cohort. Through this grant entrepreneurial thinking will be integrated into courses spanning all four years in seven ABET accredited engineering and computer science BS programs.Dr. Maria-Isabel Carnasciali, University of New Haven Maria-Isabel
Paper ID #11557DEVELOPMENT OF THE JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY UNDERGRAD-UATE ENGINEERING LEADERSHIP PROGRAMDr. Kyle G. Gipson, James Madison University Dr. Kyle Gipson is an Assistant Professor at James Madison University (United States) in the Department of Engineering (Madison Engineering) and the Center for Materials Science. He has taught courses per- taining to topics for first-year engineering, materials science and engineering, engineering design, systems thinking and engineering leadership. He has a PhD in Polymer, Fiber Science from Clemson University. His research background is in the synthesis of polymer
take risks in their design until a desired outcome was achieved.Constructivism and Social ConstructivismAs identified in Mendoza Diaz and Cox constructivism was the most prevalent theoreticalframework found in their review of the P-12 engineering education literature; seven publicationsused constructivism. Engineering design as a student-centered, active-learning pedagogy fits wellwithin the constructivism framework. Constructivism in an educational context which recognizesthat knowledge is constructed in the mind of the learner by the learner[16]. As described byJonassen,[17] “Constructivist learning environments: 1. Provide multiple representations of reality; 2. Represent the natural complexity of the real world through these multiple
Engineers: Designing for the future of the field. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 2008.[12] Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10-14.[13] Bransford, J. (Ed.). (2000). How people learn brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.[14] Byrnes, J.P., (1996). Cognitive Development and Learning in Instructional Contexts, Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.[15] Alexander, P. A., & P. K. Murphy. (1999). Nurturing the seeds of transfer: A domain-specific perspective. International Journal of Education Research 31:561–76.[16] Denning, P. J. (2003
, George M. (2012) ‘What does it mean to design? A qualitative investigation of design professionals’ experiences’. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(2), pp. 187–219.34 Micari, Marina, Light, Gregory, Calkins, Susanna and Streitwieser, Bernhard (2007) ‘Assessment Beyond Performance Phenomenography in Educational Evaluation’. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(4), pp. 458–476.35 Prawat, Richard S. and Floden, Robert E. (1994) ‘Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning’. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), p. 37.36 Vygotsky, Lev (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes,37 Design-Based Research Collective (2003) ‘Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for
Paper ID #13732Vulnerable heroes: Problematizing metaphors of male socialization in engi-neeringDr. Prashant Rajan, Iowa State UniversityCharles T Armstrong, Purdue UniversityElizabeth J. O’Connor , Ketchum ChangeProf. Patrice Marie Buzzanell, Purdue University, West Lafayette Patrice M. Buzzanell is a Professor in the Brian Lamb School of Communication and the School of Engineering Education (courtesy) at Purdue University. Editor of three books and author of over 150 articles and chapters, her research centers on the intersections of career, gender communication, lead- ership, and resilience. Fellow and past president of the