, lacking a sense of humanity and meaning.Therefore, a national policy to renew Engineer education was launched by the StateDepartment and financial grants of engineering education reformation [1]. Followingthis trend, a three-year pioneer curriculum transformation in System Engineering (SE)has been implemented in many research universities. A subprogram within theelectrical engineering field is related to system engineering. Its emphasis is attachedto the use of system theory in electronic applications, e.g., autonomous vehicles. Infact, electrical engineering related system engineering tends to emphasize controltechniques, which are often software-intensive. Managing complexity is an importantcomponent of many courses taught within the SE program
BACKGROUNDMITRE’s System Engineering Guide [1] states, “Requirements define the capabilities that asystem must have (functional) or properties of that system (non-functional) that meet the users'needs to perform a specific set of tasks (within a defined scope).” One of the challenges faced inengineering education is to teach students how to think about the element of “what” in a projectbefore they get into the aspect of “how.” In design classes, as in industry, this is mainlyencapsulated in the “Product Requirement” phase of System Engineering. According to manysystem engineering studies [8],[10],[11], design course outcomes, and in industry, learning howto develop good product requirements is a critical element of System Engineering. Acomprehensive and
capstone course used for assessment of the program. The shiftstresses going from extensive technical detail to the design and development process using asystems engineering approach [1]. The program provides a mix of in-depth technical electricalengineering courses with holistic systems engineering approach to bring their systems into being.Students will have taken two systems engineering courses before registering for the capstonecourse.Using the systems engineering approach led to the Auto-Fetch Dog System as proposed by onestudent. Description of weekly deliverables are presented in another paper to help studentspractice the systems engineering process [1]. The structure of the capstone course revolvedaround the Vee Model found in systems
- cilitator Classes Taught: •Introduction to Computer Science •Ethics for Computer Science •Operating Systems •Computer Archi- tecture •Software Engineering •Database Fundamentals •Parallel and Distributed Programming •Mobile and Smart Computing •Introduction to Programming •Hardware & Software Research Interests: Computer Science Education, STEM Education, Online Learning, and Cyber Security c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Establishing an Engineering Core – What Does Every Engineer Need to Know, Particularly About Systems Engineering?1. IntroductionAn ABET accredited undergraduate or graduate program lays the foundation for the engineeringcareers of many in
provides advancededucation to the Air Force and other military and government organizations. This case exampleprovides a structured approach that can be followed to design, evaluate, justify, and integrateelements of any new work design, such as developing and executing a faculty mentoringprogram in an unconventional educational environment.IntroductionFormal mentoring is defined as a program established by an organization that purposely matchesmentors and mentees so the employees can share their knowledge and expertise [1]. “Mentoringis traditionally a process in which an experienced person (the mentor) guides another person (thementee or protégé) in the development of his or her own ideas, learning, andpersonal/professional competence” [2
theperspective of the learner’s performance, behaviors, self-evaluation and finally expertassessments. The limitations and strengths of the various approaches are discussed. Finally,areas of future research in pilot studies and learning assessment tool capabilities are described.1 introductionDue to the exponential advancement of technology, rapidly evolving needs and increasingsystems complexity, it is even more challenging for educators to meet the growing educationaldemands for a workforce able to solve complex systems engineering problems [1-3]. Systemsengineering and technical leadership are multidisciplinary practices that are as much an art as ascience. While a traditional model of education can teach the fundamental body of knowledge, itis not
, learning events, knowledge features and assessment events that will beapplied to facilitate robust learning of systems thinking skills, but also provides a literature-baseddiscussion of the growing importance of developing an orientation towards systems thinking skillsfor all engineers.BackgroundSignificant discourse exists in engineering education in the United States, especially in thepreparation of undergraduate students for the dynamic and complex enterprise they will eventuallyjoin. Each year, an average of approximately 80,000 undergraduate students graduate fromengineering programs [1]. Many of these programs foster discipline autonomy and teach domain-specific technical matter despite diminishing boundaries among the engineering
the Challenger launchdecision, the Alaska Airlines flight 261 crash, and the Piper Alpha oilrig fire. We received 47responses in the Fall 2016 semester and 101 responses in the Spring 2017 semester fromundergraduate and graduate students enrolled in Purdue’s Aeronautics and Astronauticsdepartment. Our initial statistical analysis indicates that there may be a correlation between astudent’s performance in and exposure to systems engineering-related classes and the student’sperformance on our survey.1 IntroductionAs the complexity of the systems we build increases, so does the demand for systems engineers[Hutchison et al., 2016; SERC, 2013; Chaput & Mark, 2013]. 23% of all engineers in the U.S. areover the age of 55, which means there
, conference proceedings, magazine articles, presentations, and two handbooks. She has also received numerous prestigious teaching and research awards. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Integrating Systems Thinking in Interdisciplinary Education Programs: A Systems Integration Approach Adedeji B. Badiru Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio LeeAnn Racz st US Air Force, 1 Special Operations Aerospace Medicine Squadron U. S. Air
capabilities of the constituent parts.The mission engineering competency model establishes the proficiencies for practitioners toperform effective mission engineering based on interviews and open source literature. We alsodetail the relationships between mission engineering, systems engineering, and system ofsystems engineering.What is Mission Engineering?There is no single definition of mission engineering, also referred to in the published literature ascapability engineering. For example, the US Department of Defense (DoD) defines missionengineering as “the deliberate planning, analyzing, organizing, and integrating of current andemerging operational and system capabilities to achieve desired war fighting mission effects”[1]. A more general
modernchallenges to engineering include scale, multidisciplinary aspects, hierarchy, and complexity 1 . Asthe prevalence and relevance of these problems increase, engineering education must beresponsive 2,3,4 and many universities are including a special focus of multidisciplinaryengineering in basic courses 5 , capstone courses 6,7 , laboratories 8 , clinics 9 , and programs 10,11,12 .Overall, as course content is adjusted to the state-of-the-art, there may be a natural shift tomultidisciplinary engineering. One example of this shift is an automotive vehicle design course at our university titled“Hybrid Electric Vehicle Powertrains”. This course employs mechanical engineering andelectrical engineering skills equally to successfully design and simulate
. This paper provides an overviewand roadmap for other systems engineering programs seeking to revise their assessmentarchitecture in preparation for ABET accreditation. The revision process, developed products ofthe assessment architecture, and observations on their implementation are provided.IntroductionThe Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of the Accreditation Board for Engineeringand Technology revised its Criterion 3 student outcomes in fall 2017. Seven (7) new studentoutcomes resulted, enumerated 1 – 7, replacing the previous eleven (11) student outcomes,designated a – k. These changes to Criterion 3 will be implemented for the 2019-20accreditation review cycle. Engineering programs scheduled for general review in the 2019