understanding different typesof disability, including hidden disabilities, to determine what is needed to overcome mobilitybarriers. Students are expected to gain competencies in identifying and assessing the physical,information, and communication needs of persons with disabilities in both standard andemergency situations and to know different techniques for providing situational assistance ontransport to people with different disabilities. Reading materials for this portion of the courseinclude the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) [7]. Thecompetency area contains an ethics component, which focuses on proper communicationsetiquette as well as awareness and tolerance for physical, social, ethnic, and cultural
energy sources into the distribution sector • Use MATLAB to read data, perform simulations and test out use cases for power distribution systems.ABET OutcomesThe course also used ABET Outcomes as a focal point for student learning. The ABET Outcomesused were mapped from old ABET Outcomes (a)-(k) to new ABET outcomes 1-7 using [1]. Theapplicable ABET Outcomes for the course were: 1. an ability to identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying principles of engineering, science, and mathematics 4. an ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and
-requisites, it is expected to be the first semester courseand Fundamentals of Engineering II the second semester course for a regular (on-schedule)freshman. Some students coming in with lower mathematics background start with engineeringcurriculum in the spring semester (off-schedule) instead of autumn. Also, some transfer studentsend up taking the Fundamentals of Engineering I in their spring semester. The first semestercourse introduces topics such as problem solving, engineering design process, technicalcommunication, ethics in engineering, teamwork and engineering tools that aid in criticalthinking, planning and data analysis. Three major components of this course are: Data analysis inExcel, Programming in MATLAB and Design Project. Because of
. Dr. Dringenberg is also interested in neuroscience, growth mindset, engi- neering ethics, and race and gender in engineering. In general, she is always excited to learn new things and work with motivated individuals from diverse backgrounds to improve the experiences of people at any level in engineering education. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Engineering Students’ Beliefs about Decision Making in Capstone Design: A Revised Framework for Types of Informal ReasoningAbstractEngineers engage in design, and design requires decision making. Whether picking a color for aspoon designed to aid a person with physical challenges or choosing the material for the blade ofa turbine
problems [14]. Furthermore, the literature exploring philosophy andengineering commonly discusses the ethical implications of these designs and their influence onhumankind [15]. While discussions about the relationship between philosophy and engineering isconstantly evolving, the focus on application of science for some practical means continues to beprevalent in discussions [20]. Because the focus of engineering is not on a specific knowledgebase, but rather a utilization of scientific principles to meet changing societal needs [21],engineering disciplines continue to evolve and therefore must be consistently analyzed to betterinform curricular design.The design process is also commonly discussed in engineering literature [14], [15], and has
, wire the meters, programthe sensors and the meters, and test their completed total-izer baby, and to understand how and why they did so.That served as a superb buy-in ownership concept. Plusthe individuals cross-taught each other best practices.Figure 7: Students receiving & wiring their “babies.” In this mix were Chem E, Mech E, Bioscience & Physics students.A rich history of pedagogy exists re the “design” of a capstone design course.10 Under studentoutcomes (Criterion 3) for the accrediting board ABET,11 our capstone course like others satis-fies (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realis-tic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety
classes on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. On the days without class scheduled, students are required to come, and finish assigned homework and class work. In doing so, it creates a professional work ethic giving students a responsibility in remaining active and communicating with their team. In general, the summer training was divided into the mechanical, electrical, programming, and teamwork components of the VEX competition. Week Meeting Scheduled Topics 1 1 Introduction to the new VEX Competition Challenge and Analysis. 2 Introduction to drivetrain types and their optimization. 3 Drivetrain analysis and building different
manner 11. Discern and pursue ethical practices 12. Contribute to society as an active citizenWe administered this questionnaire to 227 first-year engineering students at the University of NewHaven in 2014. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was first applied to analyze the collected data.The EFA results suggested that 27 out of the 37 items loaded on 10 factors should be retained inthis instrument and the item numbers in each of the factors should be adjusted according to thelevels of internal consistency and reliability [9]. Based on these EFA results a revised instrumentwas developed in the second design stage. The second questionnaire (Appendix 3) contained 50items with 49 loaded on 14 factors and 1 as the comparison indicator [12
teaching and advising duties at Olin, Dr. Wood serves as the Director of the Babson- Olin-Wellesley Three College Sustainability Certificate Program, the Director of Olin’s Grand Challenges Scholars Program, on the Catalyst Board of the open source journal Murmurations, and as a member of Olin’s Context and Ethics in Engineering Education Working Group. After graduating from Harvard University with a B.A. in Dramatic Literature, Dr. Wood worked pro- fessionally in theater and wrote and recorded two musical albums. She then returned to school to study engineering, earning a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Rutgers University. Dr. Wood then went on to earn a Master of Science in Engineering in Environmental and Water
integration of entrepreneurship education andtraining in the undergraduate biomedical engineering curriculum.MethodsInternship Selection and Program StructureApplications were solicited from biomedical engineering undergraduate students. Applicationsconsisted of a resume, transcript, and personal statement. Following in-person interviews, fourlower division and four upper division students were selected to participate in the inauguralseven week summer innovation internship (Figure 1).The internship began with a two-day workshop focused on needs-finding, needs statementdevelopment, conducting observations, ethics in observations, value exploration and designthinking. Over the course of seven weeks, students were immersed in full-time
ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering(c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realisticconstraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety,manufacturability, and sustainability(e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems(k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary forengineering practice.Assessment results showed that about 60% of students performed at or above expected level ofachievement. Note that the course contains applications of mathematics, science, andengineering. It also includes design and ability to formulate/solve engineering problems. Finallycourse uses
education and ethics. He was Associate Editor for the ASCE’s Journal of Hydraulic Engineering from 1993 to 2005. He has written or co-written numerous journal papers and articles, including the book titled ”Comprehensive Water Dis- tribution Systems Analysis Handbooks for Engineers and Planners, published by MWH Soft. Bryan has won a number of teaching awards and recognitions including being a finalist in the TVO’s best lecturer competition and received the American Water Works Association’s (AWWA) award for the Best Engi- neering and Construction Publication Article for 2008. Dr. Karney was awarded the Northrop Frye award for excellence in teaching and research in 2009. c American Society
outstanding work ethic,• A high-touch approach, working closely with each student to achieve success,• A strong connection to employers who assist in setting the curriculum and in screening, educating, and evaluating the progress of the students, and• A close partnership with Mississippi PK-12 schools.Students attend class during normal business hours, five days a week, and participate in an activelearning environment. There is very little lecture, with most time spent on hands-on activities. Inaddition to technical content, students also receive guidance on professional development topicssuch as resume development, workplace communication, and interviewing skills. Service-basedlearning is a component of both academies with students giving back to
out undesired experiences in eachdepartment based on social consensus.MethodsBefore conducting this study, an ethics protocol was submitted and accepted by the research ethicsboard of the institution (ID: 36998). An online survey was distributed to engineering doctoralcandidates across engineering departments at [name withheld] in early 2019. The survey questionswere intended to collect information about the demographics of candidates (i.e., home department,year taken, type of exam, etc.) as well as their perceived experiences and thoughts on the purposeand utility of the CQ exam. The survey was pilot tested by 3 external reviewers, points ofclarification were noted, and survey questions were adjusted accordingly and finalized once theauthors
produce solutions that meet specified needs with consideration of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors 3. An ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences 4. An ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts 5. An ability to function effectively on a team whose members together provide leadership, create a collaborative and inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives 6. An ability to develop and
and interpret data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions. 4. An ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences. 5. An ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts. 6. An ability to recognize the ongoing need for additional knowledge and locate, evaluate, integrate, and apply this knowledge appropriately. 7. An ability to function effectively on teams that establish goals, plan tasks, meet deadlines, and analyze risk and uncertainty.”Outcomes 2, 4, 7 pertain to
professional skills.Scholarly journal articlesThere are scholarly journal articles that report results of surveys of employers and alumni onwhich skills are most important for early-career engineers. Most of these articles are not specificto ME. Many of the following articles are discussed in Ref. [17].Tryggvason et al. report on a major revision of the ME curriculum at the University of Michigan[18]. This revision was informed by a survey taken in 1993 in which alumni rated courses andtopics based on their importance; design and creativity, technical communication, interpersonalskills, and professional ethics were rated as the most important; alumni also stated that they werenot as well-prepared in these areas as they were in traditional ME technical
intervention:Traditionally, engineering has been viewed purely as a technical problem-solvingdiscipline [11], pushing engineers into the real world with a “one-size-fits-all” approach.Consequently, advanced technological solutions to problems around the world are beingcarried out with little understanding of the solution’s local economic, social, and/orenvironmental impacts. To bring about social justice and sustainability throughengineering solutions, values and ethics must be at the forefront of current engineeringcurricula. A socio-technical project-based learning model is implemented in this course[12] with contextualized design problems. Various sustainability-themed activities areassigned to engage students throughout the course. The lab activities in the
analysis finds,” Press release, November 2, 2018. [Online] Available: https://www.comptia.org/about- us/newsroom/press-releases/2018/11/02/strong-tech-hiring-across-the-u.s.-economy-in- october-comptia-analysis-finds [Accessed January 25, 2019].[7] Software Guild admin, “The Tech Skills Gap,” December 1, 2017. [Online] Available: https://www.thesoftwareguild.com/tech-skills-gap/ [Accessed January 25, 2019].[8] Express Employment Professionals, “Work ethic and attitude trump experience and education; communication is a high priority,” Press release, April 26, 2017. [Online] Available: https://www.expresspros.com/Newsroom/America-Employed/Survey-Results- What-Traits-do-Businesses-Look-for-in-New-Hires.aspx [Accessed January 25, 2019
, pp. 71-103, Feb. 2010.[8] K. Huutoniemi, “Communicating and compromising on disciplinary expertise in the peer review of research proposals,” Social Stud. of Sci., vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 897-921, Dec. 2012.[9] B. Paltridge, “Referees’ comments on submissions to peer-reviewed journals: When is a suggestion not a suggestion?” Stud. in Higher Edu., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 106-122, Feb. 2015.[10] W. Lopworth and I. Kerridge, “Shifting power relations and the ethics of journal peer review,” Social Epistemology: A J. of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 97-121, Jan. 2011.[11] M. Eisenhart, “The paradox of peer review: Admitting too much or allowing too little?” Res. in Sci. Edu., vol. 32, no. 2, pp
Paper ID #27368Board 60: PeerLogic: Web Services for Peer AssessmentDr. Edward F. Gehringer, North Carolina State University Dr. Gehringer is an associate professor in the Departments of Computer Science, and Electrical & Computer Engineering. His research interests include computerized assessment systems, and the use of natural-language processing to improve the quality of reviewing. He teaches courses in the area of programming, computer architecture, object-oriented design, and ethics in computing. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 PeerLogic: Web Services
information literacy. After this, the general structure (Figure 1) for eachchallenge includes: (1) introduction to the challenge (week 1), (2) guest lecturer – currentresearch (week 2), (3) training in a supporting topic, such as ethics (week 3), and (4) wrap-updiscussion of the challenge/delivery of report (week Introduction to challenge4). The whole course is coordinated and taught Week 1by two teaching faculty (Profs. Marjanovic and Work with guidance from mentorsPool). The lecture each week is delivered by Grand Challenge (4
will be describedfurther.BackgroundLaboratory time serves multiple functions in an engineering curriculum. Feisel and Rosa outline13 potential learning objectives that include instrumentation, models, and data analysis, but alsocreativity, ethics, and sensory awareness [1]. Educators across science and engineering areworking on shifting from cookbook laboratories to more authentic scientific experiences [2-4].Round and Lom describe a “continuum of autonomy, responsibility, and immersion” in labexperiences, with cookbook labs at the lowest level and apprenticeship in a research lab at thehighest level [5].The integration of lecture and laboratory experiences is effective for linking the theoretical andpractical and for increasing student
promotion of professional societies, industryinput is blended with current skill needs to provide a means to express competency throughpractice (e.g., apprenticeship or experience). These mechanisms are consistent with the BOK andvalidated by a community of professional peers.Body of Knowledge Development ProcessAM will thrive as a field with a strong base of professionals who share a common set of ethics andknowledge based on a BOK. An AM BOK, in the context of a professional model like the onedepicted in Figure 1, will also ensure that formal learning frameworks and industry competenciesmutually reinforce. To this end, we are developing an AM BOK to test and refine in the contextof a large-scale triangulation of AM program syllabi, job posting
fundamentals portion of the class, which occurs threes time per week and isled by a faculty member, students are introduced to engineering problem solving; get exposed toengineering ethics; and learn how to use computer software for word processing, spreadsheets,and programming in C/C++ and MATLAB. In the laboratory portion of the class, which occursonce per week and is led by a graduate teaching associate (GTA), students conduct bench-topexperiments to investigate fundamental engineering concepts, with a variety of experiences tointroduce elements of each of the engineering disciplines in which a student could choose tomajor. Lab reports or lab memos are assigned most weeks to develop technical writtencommunication skills. Several of the lab reports
included making sure that students hadexperience with team diversity and conflict. Five of the participants reported that their team hadnot been “in sync.” Two other participants reported that their teams were split on whether tolaunch their project as a startup. As one participant reported, their team’s dynamics started on theright path but did not go as well toward the end of the project. The goal, he said, was to get thegrade and not to pursue the project. As another participant put it, his assigned team had noguarantee of a common work ethic or a common vision.A third factor involves lack of passion for the project. These results were aggregated into the“not among students’ main goals” factor in Fig. 1 but are striking enough to merit
identifies a number of best practices andtransferable lessoned learned.IntroductionAcademic and career mentoring for engineering students is more important today than any timein recent history, as our multi-generational workforce has different career expectations yet areworking together. The Baby Boomer generation, who are now retiring in record numbers, desireda steady career path, valued a strong work ethic, and hoped that company loyalty would lead toappropriate compensation [1]. The Generation X workforce preferred an improved work-balancethat resulted in job satisfaction and stability with a focus on individual advancement [1].Millennials, formally known as Gen Y, have seen downsizing, hiring practices with 2-3 yearcontracts to keep the
Systems • Problem Solving Mentality • Opportunity Seeking Mindset • Classroom Education & Training • Continuous Personal Learning • Traditional Work Ethic • Balance Based Work Ethic Source: Pistrui and Kleinke, 2018Organizations that understand the implications of the disruption of traditional views of today andembrace the opportunities to reshape their culture will enhance their abilities to attract and retainthe human talent that will be essential to survival, continuity and growth.New and Dynamic Talent HorizonThose individuals and organizations that prosper will be required to develop a
Campus, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Dr. Linda Naimi is Associate Professor in Technology Leadership and Innovation at Purdue University and an Attorney at law. Her research interests include ethics and law for leaders in engineering and technology; global technology leadership; innovation and commercialization; and intellectual property. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 The Professional Doctorate in Technology Leadership, Research & Innovation K. Newton Professor & Associate Dean for Graduate Programs Purdue Polytechnic
UG UG ME ME Attitudes20. Professional UG UG ME ME ME Responsibilities21. Ethical UG UG UG ME ME Responsibilities 6 Table 1b. Affective Outcomes for CE-BOK3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Outcome Receive Respond Value Organize Characterize 15. Sustainability UG UG ME SD 16. Communication UG