asmeasured with the Likert scale questions of Part 2 of the survey. Limitations of the survey werethat even though the survey was designed to measure conception, the respondent was limited andsomewhat guided by the options listed on the survey. These may not fully reflect therespondent’s conception of engineering design. To help address this, the survey did provide theoption for the respondent to provide additional comments and add design activities. The questions used in the survey addressed content validity in that they presented astudent’s knowledge of design; construct validity in that selection of the most and least importantdesign activities gave some insight into the student’s reasoning; and criterion validity in that wealso gained
approaches related to airport challenges. The design competitionrequires student teams to interact with airport operators and industry experts to get input on theirdesign ideas and solution [2]. This paper explores the number and value of these interactions byevaluating the winning design proposals.Statistics are used to analyze trends in the winning design proposals which may reflect theimportance of number of the experts contacted by student teams and their demographics. Thewinning design proposals contain written sections that discuss the team’s reported benefits oftheir interactions with industry experts. Thematic analysis is used to identify themes for designproposals from first, second, and third place teams. The paper presents a study of
rival and collaborator the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklynxi. The collaborativerelationship proved important, when in 1973, NYU decided to eliminate its engineeringprogram. This decision was not a reflection on the programs in engineering, but rather apoorly conceived notion about the future of engineering in an economic downturn, by theUniversity’s administration. Most of the faculty and labs were transferred over to thePolytechnic Institute of Brooklyn and the name was changed to the Polytechnic Instituteof New York (PINY). NYU, the first Guggenheim School, became the only program tofail to continue to the present day. However, a perceived need by NYU to reengage inengineering has led to the transferring of PINY to NYU being given the
-Related Opportunities.The increase of aerospace-related courses and opportunities at UAF and resulting interest bycurrent and prospective students has (not surprisingly) also been reflected in increasedparticipation in the AIAA student chapter, the aerospace minor, and other aerospace-relatedcourses. These, in turn, generate a higher target population and more awareness of and interest inall of the above. For a small school such as UAF, this impact has been significant.Career options. Beyond the university realm, students participating in aerospace courses andactivities have had good success in transitioning directly into an aerospace job, whether in spacesystems or in aeronautics. UAF has a strong record of supplying its graduates to NASA, the
, but technicalcourses should also present a discussion of how that technical content aligns with and integrates into theengineering design process. Additionally, the students should be given opportunities to practiceintegrating the design considerations of each area into a design context. This might be done through ahands-on project or through reflective design portfolios. 14Conclusions/Future WorkThroughout the conceptual design process, many constructs of coordination of knowledge about adesign are apparent. First, the tasks set forth by textbooks of aerospace design align with a high-leveltask and subtask structure. It’s also noted that each task has a goal or expected outcome. For
Page 13.587.9assigning final grades (per school policy, no test, let alone the final exam, is to be graded byanyone other than the academic faculty member): “For the people who got less than 60 percentoverall, I don’t feel that I can give an A – so give them Bs.” Most recent graduates havegraduated “with honors” or better. But the most incendiary indicator of a troubling situationcomes from comparing the grades given by instructors between different sections of the samecourse taught in the same semester, and then comparing the record of individual instructorsacross courses and years. Some extreme trends emerge in the data. They reflect the situationrecorded by Kennedy above: some instructors have been giving A grades to virtually everyonewho
Aerothermodynamics and ASE 4343 Compressible Aerodynamics.Because of the similarities in aircraft and space structures, all students will take a commonaerospace structures sequence. The current sequence is ASE 3213 Aircraft Structures I, ASE3223 Aircraft Structures II, and ASE 4623 Aircraft Structures III. These will be renamedMechanics of Deformable Structures, Aerospace Structural Analysis, and Aerospace StructuralDesign, respectively, to more accurately reflect the specific content of the courses and thecommonality of the subject matter to both the Aeronautics and Astronautics concentrations.As stated above, each concentration will have two technical electives. The Department ofAerospace Engineering has decided to specify that any required course in one
. This has two effects. First, if you participate poorly, your team’s overalldesign effort will be of lower quality and the team’s overall grade will be lower. Second, yourteammates will be painfully aware of your level of participation and this will be reflected in thepeer evaluations at mid-semester and at the end of the semester.Homework Policy: This is a projects course and the “homework” will be project reports,briefings, analyses, trade studies, etc., as are appropriate for each specific project. Reports andprojects are listed below under Deliverables.Peer Evaluation: You will be required to evaluate each member of your design team (includingyourself) twice during the semester. The evaluation form will be similar to that attached to