- velopment (SPEED) and as the Vice-President of Student Engagement for the International Federation for Engineering Education Societies (IFEES). His research interests include education policy, faculty de- velopment in higher education, integration of technology and entrepreneurship in engineering education, and service learning.Angela Goldenstein, Purdue University, West Lafayette Angela Goldenstein is the Managing Director of MEERCat and comes to Purdue University with a decade of experience in the technology industry working for Google & Cisco. She has a BBA from the Stephen M. Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan and is an MBA Candidate at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern
strictly “social” or “technical.” In this paper, we briefly reviewapproaches taken to teach energy in engineering. We then examine CSPs and make the case forhow they might be used within engineering. We discuss our preliminary ideas for the course itself.The goal of this paper is to stimulate discussion within the ASEE community to improve courseeffectiveness in enhancing student learning. This project is part of a larger overall effort at theUniversity of San Diego to integrate social justice themes across the curriculum of a new generalengineering department. This paper will present our progress towards instantiating in theclassroom the broader vision laid out for our program. 1IntroductionThere is
Paper ID #23833Incorporating the Entrepreneurial Mindset into a System Dynamics CourseDr. Louis A. DiBerardino III, Ohio Northern University Dr. DiBerardino is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Ohio Northern University. His teaching and research interests are in first-year engineering, dynamic systems, and musculoskeletal biome- chanics, and integrating curriculum with the entrepreneurial mindset.Dr. Lawrence Funke, Ohio Northern University Dr. Funke received his PhD in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Notre Dame in 2017. He is currently an assistant professor at Ohio Northern University.Dr
curricula revealed major use in circuits related courses with expanded use in introductory and upper level courses. Methods of implementation included use in labs, integration into theory/concept courses, in-class supervised work, and independent homework. All sites also incorporated pre and post affective assessment into their curriculum as a means of documenting use and three sites piloted concept surveys as an initial means of documenting cognitive gain. When queried faculty noted that their understanding of instructional practices increased, that they will continue to use the techniques in future courses, and that they would encourage other faculty to implement ECP and
Engineering Education” and ”Engi- neering Mechanics: Statics.” Dr. Goodridge is an engineering councilor for the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) and serves on ASEE’s project board. Dr. Goodridge actively consults for projects includ- ing the development of an online curriculum style guide for Siemens software instruction, development of engineering activities for blind and visually impaired youth, and the implementation and investigation of a framework of engineering content to incorporate into P-12 engineering education.Mr. Benjamin James Call, Utah State University Benjamin Call graduated with his Masters of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering (Aerospace Em- phasis) in 2006 from Utah State University. After
curriculum development and teaching through Peer Designed Instruction.Mr. Nathan Hyungsok Choe, University of Texas, Austin Nathan (Hyungsok) Choe is a doctoral student in STEM education at UT Austin. His research focuses on the development of engineering identity in graduate school and underrepresented group. Nathan holds master’s and bachelor’s degrees in electrical engineering from Illinois Tech. He also worked as an engineer at LG electronics mobile communication company.Ms. Maya Denton, University of Texas, Austin Maya Denton is a STEM Education master’s student and Graduate Research Assistant in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. She received her B.S. in Chemical
curriculum. The four initiatives include: 1. How to assist university administrators and faculty to understand the significant value of this new field in academia and practice 2. How to resource Engineering Leadership Education (ELE) programs, such as funds, facilities, and capable faculty and staff 3. How to effectively integrate within the curriculum, teach, and assess leadership development in engineering students from undergraduate to graduate to practicing engineers. 4. How to develop a framework/model that describes the diverse Engineering Leadership needs of companies across industriesAs members of the LEAD division, the authors sought to focus on strategic initiative numberfour. In an effort to begin
intent of this paper is to demonstrate the usage of the BBB in a variety of upper divisioncourses, illustrating several applications. Some potential courses include measurements andinstrumentation, wireless communications, control systems, and advanced microprocessors. Labscovered with the BBB include digital and analog I/O operations, UART interface, TCP/IP interface,touch screen display, and student chosen end-of-semester lab projects. Programming is achievedusing C++ and Python. Several of these labs will be discussed in this paper, along with schematics,configurations, and results.IntroductionIn an Electrical/Computer Engineering Technology degree, there are many classes that usemicroprocessors/microcontrollers as part of their curriculum
population atFarmingdale State College. Section IV presents briefly students’ research projects. Section Vpresents results of undergraduate research based learning. Section VI concludes the paper.II. Social Aspects of Engineering EducationAddressing the future of engineering and technological needs, higher education institutions facea great challenge. They have to build a strong technical curriculum and address the socialconsequences and implications of technological and engineering advances. Understanding theimpact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context is animportant objective supported by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology [4].In an article published in 1975, Toba was advocating
Paper ID #22907Assembling a Successful Industry-sponsored Senior Capstone Program: LessonsLearned from a Startup Effort at a Liberal Arts UniversityDr. Lori Houghtalen, Abilene Christian University Lori Houghtalen is an Assistant Professor of Engineering and Physics at Abilene Christian University. She is Co-Director for Senior Clinic, the capstone senior design course, and teaches courses in the engineering and physics curriculum. Dr. Houghtalen has won awards from the National Science Foundation, Georgia Tech, the ARCS Foundation, and the Association of European Operational Research Societies. She holds degrees from the
Reality - Build and integrate the LAMPI UI for Microsoft HoloLens • Alexa - integrate Amazon Alexa into the lamp (including adding microphone and speaker) and create an Alexa Skill to control LAMPI • Google Home - integrate Google Home into the lamp (including adding microphone and speaker) and create a Google Home integration to control LAMPI • Building Enchanted Objects [28] for student campus life (weather, laundry, campus transportation) • Extend Locust.io, the tool used for HTTP load testing in the course, to load test MQTT • Build a light-based alarm clock with LAMPI • Build an SMS interface for LAMPI with Twilio • Build an IFTTT integration for LAMPIThe Final Project grading rubric has 4
iscontained within a single node and the links (or connections) indicate relationships, which aretypically labeled with verbs or other explanatory text [14]. Application of this technique cantake many forms in documenting knowledge or changing understanding of a subject. CMs aretypically integrated into teaching as either learning tools or documentation of conceptualunderstanding over a period of time. Resulting CMs depict growth in student understanding oroffer opportunities for an instructor to step in to correct confusion. Alternatively, CMs caninform curriculum design and assessment strategies. We will not go into an in-depth analysis ofthe merits of concept mapping as this can be found in our previous publication and meta-analysisof concept
research has made giant strides in the past twenty years or so and it isclear that “a robust research base is required to inform future engineering practice”4. Yet we seefew applications of this in creating innovative curricula and approaches to teaching and learning.University teaching is probably the only profession where novice practitioners, i.e., new facultywith fresh PhD’s are expected to start off as experts without any kind of systematic training.Rapid advances have been made in the “science of learning” and taking an evidence-basedapproach to college teaching can help create more effective teachers5. Yet faculty are rarelytrained on how to deal with changes in curricular approach and curriculum or when newpedagogy is introduced.The
, "A comparison of students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 71-93, 2010.[17] Z. Zacharia and C. Constantinou, "Comparing the influence of physical and virtual manipulatives in the context of the Physics by Inquiry curriculum: The case of undergraduate students’ conceptual understanding of heat and temperature", American Journal of Physics, vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 425-430, 2008.[18] S. Hennessy, J. Wishart, D. Whitelock, R. Deaney, R. Brawn, L. Velle, A. McFarlane, K. Ruthven and M. Winterbottom, "Pedagogical approaches for technology-integrated science teaching", Computers & Education, vol. 48, no
identity, (2) the engineering curriculum and what happens in the classroom, and (3)fundamental components of engineering practice. Downey and Lucena 3 affirm that not onlyengineering identity and what counts as engineering knowledge are closely related, but also bothengineering identity and engineering knowledge are tied to national identity and priorities of thetime. Moreover, epistemology and its pedagogical implications are critically important in thediscussion of systemic change and transformation of engineering education. For example, Olson 4and Riley 5,6 have offered an epistemological critique of outcome-based paradigm to show why asa viable program of change it is self-defeating, partly, due to epistemic rigidity.The main goal of this
digital native students is the topic of thispaper.Aside from educational integrity, engaging digital natives could lead to an improvement in theirproblem-solving skills. Moreover, Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET)standards stress the need for engineering graduates to have the ability to solve problems in additionto being knowledgeable of current issues. In addition, complex problem solving skills is predictedto be the most prevalent skill to thrive in the workforce in 2020 [5]. Real world problems helpstudents’ understanding to become more integrated [6, 7]. However, most instructional approacheslimit students’ ability to transfer learning by focusing on course-specific information.Active learning involves students
contributing faster and bring greater value to their new organizations. The demand fornew engineers ready to “jump in” and tackle some of these RF technology breakthroughs is onlyincreasing.The Keysight RF Industry Ready Certification Program serves as a collaboration betweenindustry and universities to produce and recognize industry-ready engineers. This allowsindustry to hire with confidence knowing that the productivity of the new employee is assuredfrom day one. More than 40 universities around the globe have adopted and use this Program intheir curriculum. The panel will share different strategies they have created at their universitiesto embed hands-on engagement activities using Keysight solutions. This represents a newconcept of an industry
(more complete, advanced integration into their classroom)sections. The course utilizes online content, individual exploration (‘Find out what others in yourdiscipline are doing.’), and peer discussion/feedback (online or in person).II. faculty development Traditionally, higher education faculty receive little training in course design [9-11] andoften only receive their teacher training through trial and error experiences in the classroom orthrough occasional faculty development workshops [11-13]. In this time of historic change inhigher education, changing factors such as accountability, financial and time constraints, andassessment are revitalizing an interest in defining how faculty design instruction and teach in ahigher education
techniques into engineering fundamental courses taught during themezzanine years. Variations of making are already present in some aspects of the existingengineering curriculum (e.g., project courses offered in the curriculum project spine). Wecurrently explore how aspects of making can extend further into the curriculum. Data have beencollected and analysis is underway on three case studies of making-based pedagogy in ourmezzanine-level mechanics, robotics, and statistics courses [12].Measuring Pedagogical Risk Taking by the Faculty: An instrument has been developed tomeasure faculty attitudes and behaviors toward taking risks in their teaching practices. Thiseffort is in support of the project objectives to 1) establish an understanding of the
manner that allowsfor continuous improvement [1, 2].In addition to being an accreditation requirement for engineering programs, assessment effortshelp educators plan forward their education process with robust sound methods and data, ratherthan arbitrary methods based on trials and errors. The challenge of any program assessmentprocess has always been the development of a structured, systematic, and effective process thatencompasses all stakeholders, and provides opportunity for continuous improvement, as poorlyconstructed assessments can lead to loss of time, money, and educators’ energy [3]. Systematicassessments, though challenging, are necessary for program improvement [2, 4]. With the moveof California State Polytechnic University, Pomona’s
laboratory apparatus for advancement of novel electronic devices, in addition to curriculum development for inquiry-based learning and facilitation of interdisciplinary, student-led project design. She emphasizes engineering sustainable solutions from a holistic perspective, incorporating analysis of the full technological life cycle and socioeconomic impact.Dr. Patrick E. Mantey, University of California, Santa CruzMr. Stephen C. Petersen P.E., University of California, Santa Cruz Stephen Petersen is currently Undergraduate Director and a Teaching Professor with the Electrical Engi- neering Department in the School of Engineering at UCSC. Prior to teaching full time, he practiced before the FCC as an independent Consulting
analysisthus become an increasingly important element of a core educational experience.Business leaders value engineers who can model business processes, measure andoptimize efficiency and effectiveness metrics.In 2015, the Institute of Industrial Engineers (IIE) changed its name to the Institute ofIndustrial and Systems Engineers (IISE). The IIE CEO Don Greene explained thereasoning for this by saying; “The name change aligns IIE with the changing scope of theprofession that, while keeping its industrial base, has seen more industrial and systemsengineers working with large-scale, integrated systems in a variety of sectors. The changealso is consistent with department names in many universities, as two-thirds of the top 65schools ranked in U.S. News
, initiative, continuous learning, and ethics”(Electrical Engineering Self-Study Report, p. 23). “Softer” skills, such as networking and careerpreparation, are developed outside the major’s curriculum in extracurricular workshops,advising, or in ENGR 101, a freshman-level course called Introduction to Engineering(Electrical Engineering Self-Study Report, p. 23). This focused is echoed in the computerengineering and software engineering majors (Computer Engineering Self-Study Report;Software Engineering Self-Study Report). The documents across the software, computer, and electrical engineering majors discussthe need to produce engineers who are well-rounded; that is, students who will have “an abilityto design a system, component, or process to
engineeringprograms. Instead, students have been expected to learn skills through leadership experiences instudent organizations or through workplace professional development programs or mentorship.The 2004 report on engineering in the new century by the National Academy of Engineering hasprovided impetus to some American engineering schools to incorporate leadership curriculum[2]. The report proposes two main premises as the rationale for the importance of leadershipeducation at the undergraduate level in engineering. Specifically, the inclusion of engineeringleadership in the undergraduate engineering degree program will equip the graduate to be morecompetitive in an increasingly global marketplace, and will enable the graduate to fulfill theirprofessional
Paper ID #22389Elites: A STEM Leadership ProgramDr. Jean Mistele, Radford University Dr. Jean Mistele is an Associate Professor in the Mathematics and Statistics Department at Radford University. She is a mathematics educator with research interests, in addition to STEM education, students understanding and cognitive development of probability and statistics, the connection between reading comprehension and solving mathematics problems for elementary students, and academic motivation.Dr. Sandra Nicks Baker, Radford University Sandra Baker is the Director of Institutional Effectiveness and Quality Improvement at Radford Uni
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. Her research is in the areas of engineering education, including engineering case studies in undergraduate education.Dr. Peter Laursen Dr. Peter Laursen, P.E., is an Associate Professor of Architectural Engineering at the California Polytech- nic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) where he teaches courses on the analysis and design of structural systems including laboratory courses. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Adjusting to the New ABET Criteria 3 and 5: It’s Really Not Very HardAbstractABET has revised the criteria 3 (Student Outcomes) and 5 (Curriculum) of the generalcriteria. These changes have made it through
, and community colleges (Klingbeil et al., 2008; Klingbeil, Newberry, Donaldson, &Ozdogan, 2010; Long, Abrams, Barclay, & Paulson, 2016)—clear evidence exists to support theclaim that the WSM can be readily integrated into an institution’s curricula. For the last nineyears, Wright State has hosted annual meetings with more than 17 collaborating institutions tofacilitate in-person discussions and comparisons of local WSM implementations (NationalEngineering Mathematics Consortium, 2018). Furthermore, a published textbook of the WSMcurriculum, as well as a free online web portal featuring lecture videos, lab demonstrations, andother references serve as accessible and mobile resources for instructors and administrators toemploy in WSM
Paper ID #23200Application of Brain-based Learning Principles to Engineering MechanicsEducation: Implementation and Preliminary Analysis of Connections Be-tween Employed Strategies and Improved Student EngagementDr. Firas Akasheh, Tuskegee University Dr. Akasheh has been with the Mechanical Engineering Department at Tuskegee University since 2008. His primary interest is in the area of solid mechanics and manufacturing as well as the integration of best practices in engineering education.Dr. John T. Solomon, Tuskegee University John T Solomon is an assistant professor in the mechanical engineering department of Tuskegee
Director for Educators Rising NM and the Co-Chair of the New Mexico Math and Science Partnership.Dr. Patti Wojahn, New Mexico State University As past Writing Program Administrator, I worked closely with many academic departments interested in supporting the writing and communication abilities of their students. For many years, I worked with Integrated Learning Communities for at-risk entry-level engineering majors, overseeing development and use of a curriculum adapted specifically for this group. I continue to analyze data from research studies exploring challenges and identifying at-risk characteristics among students in first-year writing courses. Presently, I work on an initiative focused on writing in the
undergraduate classes as well as integration of innovation and entrepreneurship into the engineering curriculum. In particular, she is interested in the impact that these tools can have on student perception of the classroom environment, motivation and learning outcomes. She obtained her certifica- tion as a Training and Development Professional (CTDP) from the Canadian Society for Training and Development (CSTD) in 2010, providing her with a solid background in instructional design, facilitation and evaluation. She was selected to participate in the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) Fron- tiers of Engineering Education Symposium in 2013 and awarded the American Society for Engineering Education Educational Research