that emphasizes student discovery. Scholars are selectedannually based on academic ability and financial need. Faculty mentoring, tutoring, peer studygroups, college survival skills training, career development, and undergraduate researchexperiences are all tools to help the scholars. Some MEP Scholars are actively participating inthe following research projects: 1) Design and Development of an e-Health System, 2) Designand Development of an Electronic Health Records program, 3) Study of the Field Effect onCharge Transport through Conductive Polymers Injected in Vascular Channels of AngiospermLeaves, and 4) A 3D-printed desk organizer. In this paper, MEP Scholars briefly present theirprojects and share their thoughts and reflections about the
academic life-cycleand can serve as an exploratory time with less pressure than the earlier Assistant Professorperiod. However, this is a time of transition that can often lead to isolation, confusion, andambivalence [1] – a perfect time to increase support. The intention of the coaching programdescribed in this paper is to help newly tenured faculty to explore their opportunities and identifyresources they need to strive towards developing their leadership potential whether that be inresearch, in their academic discipline, as a policy maker, a change agent, or as an academicleader.Vague expectations, including less than explicit requirements for promotion to full professor canbe demotivating and lead to disengagement [2]. Baldwin, et. al. [3
duringthe session and that provides a space for discussion.IntroductionThis Work in Progress describes an exploration of the roles that faculty development play ineducational reform to increase student retention in engineering programs and support studentsuccess in STEM courses. Focus in recent years on the recruitment and retention of diversestudent populations in engineering and other STEM programs is evident in the number of reportsthat highlight its importance, declare calls to action and identify critical factors that impactstudent retention [1-2]. Additional motivation for institutions to address student retention hasbeen provided by funding opportunities (such as those from the National Science Foundation,Gates Foundation, Howard Hughes
Education, 2018IntroductionIn 2013, the College of Engineering at the University of Michigan launched the CommonReading Experience (Edington, Holmes Jr., & Reinke, 2015). This program was developed forincoming first-year engineering students with three goals in mind: 1. Students build and develop a sense of community (including a sense of belonging and engineering student identity) 2. Students broaden their thinking about the skills (both technical and non-technical) that they need to be a successful engineer in the 21st century 3. Model intellectual engagementThroughout the history of the Common Reading Experience (CRE), program evaluations havebeen compiled annually. However, to determine if the program was meeting its
-nated by their stiffness or inertia. These limits, derived below, represent overdamped behaviorfor which the meaning of natural frequency is questionable. The meaning of natural frequency for second-order systems that do not oscillate, e.g.,overdamped systems, is not typically addressed in engineering textbooks [1-5]. It is unclearwhether there is agreement in the physics and mechanics communities on a precise and unambig-uous definition of a system’s natural frequency. In the physics community, the topic has beenraised, specifically in terms of what an unambiguous definition of “natural frequency” wouldoffer in clarifying how to present overdamped system behavior to undergraduates [6]. Some basic concept questions can be posed. Do all
content found in the original instrument. This approach madethe survey completion time more reasonable for the content experts. Proper human subjectapproval was obtained prior to conducting the study.Dilemma ReviewContent experts from the chemical industry and individuals holding chemical engineering facultypositions were asked to rate the dilemmas’ relevance to real-life engineering process safetysituations. Content experts could rate the dilemma as not relevant (1), moderately relevant (2), orvery relevant (3). Content experts were also asked to provide feedback on dilemmas they rated asnot relevant, or moderately relevant. Once the surveys were completed, the researchers averagedthe scores to determine whether or not a dilemma should be
approaches is presented from the point of view of the student. Theassessment also asked the student to rate the assignment topics, to list how many hours werespent per each lab, and to propose suggestions for improvement.1 IntroductionLaboratory work is essential for students in the Science, Technology, Engineering, andMathematics (STEM) fields, and its importance is well-studied [1, 2]. Laboratory assignmentsoffer students opportunities for practical applications of theory and have the potential to promoteknowledge acquisition via experimentation. Hands-on learning is an important process forstudents, as active learning achieves positive educational results and prepares students forreal-world problems in the STEM fields [3]. Laboratories allow
Work in Progress: Development and Implementation of a Self- Guided Arduino Module in an Introductory Engineering Design CourseAbstractThis Work in Progress paper discusses the implementation of an online module designed to teachbasic Arduino programming skills to students enrolled in a first-year engineering design course.The learning objectives for students were (1) to learn the basics of Arduino programmingthrough hands-on activities, (2) to connect with the numerous online resources available forcreating their own projects for personal or class purposes, and (3) to gain a sense of curiosityabout what types of challenges and problems they may be able to solve with their newfoundskills. This module
Education, 2018 Work-in-Progress: A Framework for Development of Web-based Multimedia Pre-laboratory ExercisesIntroductionEngineering is an applied discipline, and therefore, undergraduate laboratories are considered anessential part of engineering curriculum [1], [2]. Laboratories help reinforce theoretical concepts[3], and improve skills such as problem solving, analytical thinking and technical skills [4]-[6].Other benefits include learning professional skills such as time management, teamwork, effectivewriting and oral communication skills [7]-[11].Despite the potential value of undergraduate laboratories, there is a general agreement that theactual learning outcomes often do not balance the time, effort, and money
?IntroductionGraduate student instructors (GSIs) are not only essential to the instructional team at manyresearch institutions, but their teaching appointments are often the only teaching experiencesthey have prior to becoming faculty. Moreover, GSIs have been found to play an important rolein improving student retention and inclusion in science, technology, engineering and math fields(STEM) [1]. Undergraduate instructional aids (IAs) have also been found to benefit studentlearning [2, 3, 4], and their training is fundamental to that success [4, 5]. As a result, calls havebeen made to develop and improve the professional development of student instructors [4, 6].Trainings at different institutions range from two-hour departmental orientations with no
aims to address the broadeningparticipation challenge in engineering. Through a National Science Foundation sponsoredproject, a pilot collective impact alliance [1], [2] was formed to enhance entry and persistence inengineering of first-generation students, women, under-represented ethnic minorities, and thosewith socio-economic need. The distinctive mark of this alliance is that it comprises a range oforganized to self-adapting systems [3] that learn from and respond to each other around the goalof broadening participation in engineering. The approach adopted is to foster engineering identity [4], [5], [6], [7
detail the development of the program and its related research inquiry whichincludes a qualitative comparison of the students who are drawn to this new approach toengineering.IntroductionEngineering as a discipline sits at the volatile intersection of a professional landscape that israpidly changing and an educational system that is perennially resistant to change. Recent callsfor innovation and creativity including “The Moonshot Approach to Change in HigherEducation” [1] outline a needs analysis for education in the 21st century. Industry has stressedthe need for college graduates who are comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty, problemsolvers and problem finders, empathetic, bold thinkers, and lifelong learners. Many of theseneeds have long
on protein and peptide design. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Work in Progress: Identifying Current Outcomes and Addressing the Need for Process Safety Education in Unit Operations CoursesIntroductionIndustry leaders are concerned about the lack of safety education in chemical engineering due tochemical engineers working with a variety of hazardous chemicals that can cause harm to theindividual, the surrounding community and the environment [1]. The concern is furthermotivated by the 12 current and completed Chemical Safety Board fire, explosion and chemicalrelease investigations reported between February of 2017 and January of 2018 [2].To address these concerns in education
evolving based on observations of student perspectives, updated trends in theengineering field and broader world, and specific student feedback. The modular, onlinenature of the course allows for continuing evolution.The course redesign was informed by a desire to explicitly incorporate a BroadEngineering perspective by exploring the diverse challenges engineers will face in the21st century and examining the knowledge, skills and abilities required to meet thesechallenges. This broad perspective is analogous to the horizontal bar of the T-shapedskills model introduced by David Guest in 1991 [1]. The concept of the “T-Shaped”Engineer is concisely explained in Rogers and Freuler [2]. The value of broadengineering was recently reaffirmed by students
ethics important for chemical engineers? A variety of reasons havebeen posed, including but not limited to enhanced awareness on proper mitigation methods ofhazards and ensuring up and coming engineers understand their responsibilities when faced withadverse situations. By definition, process safety is a discipline that focuses on the prevention offires, explosions, and accidental chemical releases at chemical process facilities [1]. Processsafety provides the means for engineers to understand the risks they are taking to developmechanisms that make those situations inherently safer for all involved. Whether it is at thebench scale or manufacturing level, understanding hazards is crucial at all phases of a process.In the same respect, ethical
notion and as a result, many of them miss out on valuable learning opportunities. In amidterm exam study, a survey was given to 285 freshmen engineering majors and only 25% ofstudents reported trying to learn from their mistakes while the material was fresh in their minds.The majority of the students put the test away and often never looked at it again. In anotheranonymous survey of 456 first-year engineering students, only 21% reported that they would usethe exam again later, and many specified that would only be if the final were cumulative [1].This data prompted the First-Year Engineering Honors Program at The Ohio State University(OSU) to implement exam corrections as a mandatory assignment for any student scoring lessthan 90% on an exam. It
, introduce amultidisciplinary project to teach the fundamental principles of engineering, and to introduce awide array of engineering disciplines within a single course.The assumption entering into this project was that core engineering concepts can be graspedthrough practice, as opposed to traditional classroom lecture, to teach students the engineeringdesign loop, intra- and intergroup collaboration and communication, design methodology, andcritical thinking skills [1]. However, the idea of learning through practice in no way eliminatesthe traditional lecture to communicate topics necessary for practicing engineering, such as staticsor basic circuit design. Therefore, the course that was developed incorporates two learningstyles: active learning
a service learning projectconsistent with the university’s mission.This work examines two trials. The first trial had a single student participant and was quitesuccessful. The second trial had 4 students participate, but had mixed results.IntroductionAt Ohio Dominican University, there are two computing programs, a small Computer Scienceprogram, with approximately 30 total students, and a small Software Engineering program withabout 20 total students. The first students enrolled in the Software Engineering program in the fallof 2014. The program was created following the 2004 edition of the Association for ComputingMachinery (ACM) and IEEE Computer Society’s joint Software Engineering Curriculumguidelines 1 . The program culminates in a 1
among the RED teams and to study the processesfollowed by RED teams. This work in progress provides a brief overview of the program andcurrent progress of some projects. We highlight the diversity of current RED projects throughupdates from eight projects across the three cohorts: four from Cohort 1: Arizona StateUniversity, Colorado State University, Oregon State University, and the University of SanDiego, three from Cohort 2: Boise State University, Rowan University, Virginia Tech, and onefrom Cohort 3: Georgia Tech. Updates are also included from the REDPAR team about theRED Consortium (REDCON) and research that crosses the consortium. We hope that this paperwill help the engineering education community to learn how these projects are
Work in Progress - Projects in engineering education - cross-fertilization between communication and situated learningIntroductionEngineering education has been regularly reformed a number of times the last decades [1], andcontinues to develop. Along this track the role of the engineer has also developed. As Cohen andcolleagues [2] describe it, the development has ”... sought to enlarge the core identity of theengineer from a technician skilled at calculation and fabrication to a professional member of thewider culture”. This is probably true now more than ever, as we face global challenges of climatechange, large migration streams and an overall focus on economic, social and ecologicalsustainable development. The engineer’s role in
project groups, and each group develops a consensus list ofcharacteristics of exemplary and terrible group members. These characteristics become thecriteria they later use for peer assessment.Over the course of many workshops in several years, we have collected these lists from hundredsof groups and have begun analyzing them for common patterns. We discuss encouraging resultssuggesting that even lower-division undergraduates list characteristics that align well with theconditions that the group learning and project management literatures identify as contributing tosuccessful learning and project completion, respectively.We conjecture that much of the workshop’s value lies in two distinct outcomes: (1) helpingstudents articulate and place
of engineering education indicates that until mid-20th centuryengineering students were trained in whole or in part through apprenticeships and practice.However, after WWII the complexity of engineering systems, which required deep theoreticalunderstanding, led to increase in theoretical contents. This inevitably resulted in sacrifices ofskill-based contents [1, 2]. Therefore, the main objective of engineering education becametransferring of the body of knowledge rather than developing skills. By the late 20th century,significant pressure was placed on universities from various stakeholders, including accreditationbodies, employers, and professional societies, to increase practical aspects of engineeringeducation. They reasoned several
with graduate student presentations, corporate sponsor booths, an interviewing skillsworkshop, and an Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) meeting with faculty. This Work-in-Progresspractice is focused on the Senior Design day presentation event.BackgroundMost ABET accredited programs have formal design presentations at the end of thecapstone/senior design course[1]. Many of the programs do this as a part of a single event thatoccurs on a designated senior design day[2,3,4]. The senior design day event at Texas StateUniversity started out as a single, on-campus ball room with each senior design team allotted atwenty-minute presentation slot and directed to a larger audience that each individual disciplinecould attract on their own. As more projects
active team member. We used CourseMIRROR mobilelearning system to collect students’ reflections during an academic semester. We also evaluatedeach student reflection based on its quality. The reflection quality here refers to specificity orvagueness of reflections. Based on our prior research on the significance of the reflection qualityon student learning [1], we developed a coding schema to specify the degree of reflection’squality. We further used the Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness(CATME) for peer and self-evaluation on five dimensions. Initial findings reveal statisticallysignificant relations between five aspects of CATME and reflection’s quality. We also conductedlinear regression analyses to explore how these five
. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Work in Progress: Sustainable Engineering Education in Mechanical Engineering Curriculum Dr. Huihui Qi, Grand Valley State UniversityIntroductionSustainable development is a global goal nowadays. Engineers play an unreplaceable role in theglobal sustainable development. As a result, the importance of sustainable engineering educationhas been widely recognized by engineering educators. In addition, ABET [1] has two studentsoutcome criteria for sustainability: students should have (c) an ability to design a system,component or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic,environmental, social, political, ethical
Common Future in 1987. The report defined sustainable development andoutlined three focus categories: economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity[1]. These concepts later appeared as cornerstones of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL), with thegoal of introducing and advocating for sustainability in the business sector [2]. In 1992 theUnited Nations Conference on the Environment and Development in Rio de Janerio furthered thecall to include sustainability in higher education, but a large-scale force to adopt sustainabilityinto higher education did not begin until the UN Decade of Education for SustainableDevelopment from 2005-2014 [3].In 2009 a survey of all US institutions found 80% of respondents indicated some level ofsustainable
new products. The teaching model, CIM [1], focuses on professional domain capabilities (C),innovation skills (I) and motive building (M). In CIM, capability (C) represents the domainknowledge a course is intended to offer. Since domain knowledge differs from course tocourse, a lecturer should carefully design the teaching materials so that they cover all the coreknowledge required in the course. When lecturing a course, the lecturer should notice thestudent feedbacks, in which the lecturer can also sense how much knowledge the students canabsorb and how much the students can manage the subject or the skills they learn from eachclass. In addition to new ideas, innovation (I) emphasizes more on the skills to present a bettersolution
Heat Transfercourse the semester following a theoretical Transport Phenomena course. The student learningoutcomes for Applied Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer are shown in Figure 1. They aresignificantly different from those in a typical transport phenomena course, which include theability to identify, simplify and solve differential equations used to describe transport phenomenaand recognize and use the similarities between the theoretical models for momentum, heat andmass transport. Student learning in both courses is assessed via weekly homework assignments,one or two midterm exams and a final exam. In the applied course, however, the “artificial”exam questions were not always a good indication of student learning. Writing exam
WIP: Undergraduate Socialization in Engineering: The Role of Institutional Tactics and Proactive BehaviorsIntroductionHigher education literature suggests students with low socio-economic status (SES) indicatorsare more likely to experience difficulties adjusting to college and less likely to participate in co-curricular activities than students with higher SES [1-2]. These findings are problematic givenevidence that participation in co-curricular activities in college is related to positive academicand social outcomes including, college adjustment, academic and social integration, and degreeattainment [3-4]. This is particularly true in engineering, where participation in co-curricularactivities, such as
studieshave shown that while some intervention methods can be beneficial for students experiencingsignificant stress and/or suicidal thoughts, the majority of students do take advantage of theseresources 12,13. Previous studies have focused on identifying factors that cause individual studentsstress while completing undergraduate engineering degree programs 1. However, it not well-understood how a culture of stress is perceived and is propagated in engineering programs andhow this impacts student levels of identification with engineering. Further, it is has not beenexplicitly studied how a culture of stress impacts student recruitment, retention, and success inengineering programs. Students attribute different characteristics to their programs and