Conference Session

Stakeholder Perspectives on Community Engagement in Engineering Education

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Angela R. Bielefeldt, University of Colorado, Boulder; Kurt Paterson P.E., Michigan Technological University; Chris Swan, Tufts University; John J. Duffy, University of Massachusetts Lowell; Olga Pierrakos, James Madison University; Nathan E. Canney, University of Colorado Boulder

Tagged Divisions

Community Engagement Division

research and publication (higher among non-SLfaculty) and the personal importance of professional service (higher among SL faculty). Themost important “encouragement” factor in the decision to use SL was students (rated 3.41) overcommunity members (3.20), department chairperson (3.09), faculty in department (3.08),president of university (2.92), college dean (2.87), or faculty in another department (2.91) [ratingscale: 4=very important, 3=important, 2=somewhat important, 1=not important]. Among facultywho use SL, student learning outcomes (3.70; 69.5 frequency) were more important thancommunity outcomes (3.11, 38.6 frequency), with little importance of professionalresponsibilities (19.0 frequency). The factor that potentially deterred the

Conference Session

Global Community Engagement in Engineering Education

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Aditya Johri, Virginia Tech; Akshay Sharma, Virginia Tech

Tagged Divisions

Community Engagement Division

application. To provide empirical support forour ideas and implementation, we present both quantitative and qualitative assessment datacollected from students using focus groups and survey. The goal of the assessment was tounderstand student motivation and to document students’ experiences working as a part ofinterdisciplinary teams.IntroductionEngineers are often motivated by the desire to have a real world impact through their work. Thisdesire is present not only among practicing engineers but also among engineering students andfaculty. Over the past couple of decades, engineering faculty members across institutions haveleveraged this motivation to design courses and experiences for students where they can make apositive impact in the life of

Conference Session

Relevance of and Models for Community Engagement in Engineering Education

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Karinna M. Vernaza, Gannon University; Theresa M. Vitolo, Gannon University; Barry J. Brinkman, Gannon University; Scott Steinbrink, Gannon University

Tagged Divisions

Community Engagement Division

undergraduateeducation, and (3) to foster professional development for careers or graduate education. Thesegoals are realized through the students’ shared interactions within the SEECS seminar.Students awarded SEECS scholarships are required to attend a seminar where specificdevelopment and learning outcomes are realized in a team-based, project-based approach. Thechallenging and engaging aspect of the SEECS program is this zero-credit seminar. The SEECSseminar is structured around three components: engineering design, professional development,and personal development.While the two development facets are valued, the engineering design component is the pivotalexperience connecting and building not only engineering competency but also personalconfidence