Conference Session

Experiences in Engineering Community Engagement

Collection

2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Mary Cardenas, Harvey Mudd College

Tagged Divisions

Community Engagement Division

Berkes9 write, “Co-management of specific areas and resources is carried out withthe participation of different actors that typically try to find ways to learn from their actions andadapt the behavior to the consequences of their own, and others’, actions, otherwise they cannotform any collaborative arrangement.” Interestingly, they further state that the ecological area orresource itself can be seen as an actor, reacting unpredictably and non-linearly to its own“management,” and that the adaptive quality of co-management is well-suited to handling thisuncertainty.In particular, co-management scenarios can be viewed “…as a means to create the political spacewithin which communities and other groups can develop the knowledge and skills to solve

Conference Session

The D/M/A of CE

Collection

2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Greg Kremer, Ohio University

Tagged Divisions

Community Engagement Division

connected-capstone, along term process of developing more and more relational modes of learning was undertaken,with the goal of putting the students in a variety of roles within learning relationships, spanningfrom learner to peer coach to mentor.The decision to apply a relational approach to the DMAD community engagement experience issupported by the study of Program Planning in Service Learning by Sandmann et. al. 8 Theycharacterized traditional program planning approaches on a scale from technical rational throughrelational, and summarized the characteristics and the faculty role in each approach (see Figure3). Their study “emphasizes the key role of relationship building for program planning inservice-learning contexts” and provides some

Conference Session

Community Engagement Division Poster Session

Collection

2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Malinda S Zarske, University of Colorado, Boulder; Dana E Schnee, University of Colorado, Boulder; Angela R Bielefeldt, University of Colorado, Boulder; Derek T Reamon, University of Colorado, Boulder

Tagged Divisions

Community Engagement Division

3.65 (0.61) 3.88 (0.57) 0.24* Theoretical Client 110 3.57 (0.53) 3.80 (0.55) 0.23* No Client 222 3.61 (0.55) 3.78 (0.58) 0.17* *Significant at the p<0.05 level, paired t-testThe pre- to post-mean scores of the overall FYEP students in Table 4 indicate a significant gainfrom the pre-assessment in self-rated technical skills and professional skills. There were alsosignificant gains in students’ perceived technical and professional skills for all types of FYEPprojects, with students engaged in local client-based projects slightly outgaining their peers inboth professional and technical skills. A repeated

Conference Session

Experiences in Engineering Community Engagement

Collection

2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Joan B Schuman, Missouri University of Science & Technology; Kellie Grasman, Missouri University of Science & Technology

Tagged Divisions

Community Engagement Division

expanded to include increased utilization as a collaboration tool betweenteams and community sponsors as well as a tool for peer to peer evaluation of project teamprogress.ReflectionFor the fall semester 2012, students were given reflective work as part of the course study.Students were asked to reflect on the following questions: 1. Did having a “real” customer improve your performance? Explain 2. Did you feel that you were helping the community with the project? Explain. 3. Do you see yourself doing service in any community in the future? Has this class experience changed that outlook?Eighty-five percent of students felt that having a “real” customer improved their performance,while 11.5% stated that their experience was improved

Conference Session

Assessment of Community Engagement

Collection

2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Antonette T. Cummings P.E., Purdue University; James Huff, Purdue University; William C. Oakes, Purdue University, West Lafayette; Carla B. Zoltowski, Purdue University, West Lafayette

Tagged Divisions

Community Engagement Division

B. The multidisciplinarity of EPICS can create challenges but we have developedassessment tools that can be used for all majors. The assessment are based on the ABETlanguage but with “engineering” replaced by “your discipline” and “technical” with“disciplinary”. This allows each student to read into his or her expertise and be evaluated againstthe criteria. Using terms like “professional preparation” allows the tools to be used acrossmajors effectively. In addition, Peer Evaluation and Feedback are also done for each student ineach team. They include self-evaluation and anonymous evaluations from peers that are used tosupplement the individual documentation.Project EvaluationsProject Evaluations are done for each team. The individual grade

Conference Session

Assessment of Community Engagement

Collection

2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Angela R Bielefeldt, University of Colorado Boulder; Kurt Paterson P.E., Michigan Technological University; Chris Swan, Tufts University; Olga Pierrakos, James Madison University; David O Kazmer, University of Massachusetts, Lowell; Annie Soisson, Tufts University

Tagged Divisions

Community Engagement Division

Service (LTS) is an umbrella term that encompasses service-learning (SL) andextracurricular activities such as Engineers Without Borders (EWB) that teach students valuableskills while also benefitting community partners. Although EWB is primarily an extra-curricularactivity for students, some projects are designed and structured to teach specific skills andinclude reflective writing assignments for student participants. Research has shown that LTSactivities can successfully meet a variety of learning outcomes for engineering students andprovide benefits to community partners.6,14 This paper will present a summary of LTS activitiesbased on a literature search and recent activities associated with the NSF-grant on EngineeringFaculty Engagement in

Conference Session

Assessment of Community Engagement

Collection

2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Matthew J. Traum, Milwaukee School of Engineering; David A Howell, Milwaukee School of Engineering; Leah C. Newman, MSOE

Tagged Divisions

Community Engagement Division

-Fairbanks and an interdisciplinary Ph.D. from Washington State University. His writing has appeared in a wide variety of publications including Seven Hundred Kisses and Pillow: Exploring the Heart of Eros, and he recently published a chapbook titled In Sixteen Hands of Shadow.Dr. Leah C. Newman, MSOE Leah Newman, Ph.D., is an assistant professor and has been with the IE Program at MSOE since the fall of 2007. Dr. Newman’s research interests are in the study and design of medium-to-large-scale systems, particularly as it relates to the ”human factors” needs of the system. Specifically, she is interested in further exploring the area of social innovation as it relates to issues of culture and organizational and job

Conference Session

INTERACTIVE SESSION – Measuring the Impact on Communities

Collection

2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Rebecca A Bates, Minnesota State University, Mankato; Julie P Martin, Clemson University; Denise Wilson, University of Washington; Melani Plett, Seattle Pacific University; Tamara Floyd Smith, Tuskegee University

Tagged Divisions

Community Engagement Division

‖ portion of the survey presents a series of resources related toengineering academic and career decisions at each time point. This resource focused technique,elicits weaker ties, as the resources are not necessarily provided by the list of people theparticipant named in the ―name generator‖ portion. If the participant indicated that they hadaccess to a resource (e.g. ―writes you a reference letter,‖ ―helps you find internships, jobs orscholarships,‖ ―introduced you to people in their professional network‖), then they are asked toselect from a list indicating who provided the resource. Examples of people providing resourcesinclude ―college/university professor,‖ ―employer or coworker, ―college/university personnelsuch as academic advisors or