theyseemed to be the most logical candidates for recruitment. However, many students were notacademically prepared to enroll in college STEM courses without remediation, often becauseprevious curriculum choices resulted in limited exposure to math and science in these students’programs of study. Other obstacles include students’ lack of awareness of engineering as apossible career because of unfamiliarity with the profession.1 One natural extension, then, wasto focus projects at the middle school level, where timely interventions would ideally lead toenrollment in classes that would better prepare students for the rigors of college STEM studies.Research, however, is increasingly indicating that that intervention efforts must begin as early
thousand examples every year but there issurprisingly little attention given to either the scope or priority of the drivers for change.The indicators of inadequacy are usually indirect and derived from economic effects 1.For example, academic programs in the sciences and engineering are often accused ofteaching the history of the subject. The result is persistent gap between typical graduateskills and the requirements of current jobs 2, 3. While there may be truth in theseaccusations, change is rarely comfortable or as simple to execute for future technology asit appears with the benefit of hindsight.This paper is concerned with the fresh challenges posed by the rapid developments inengineering systems. They range from the 50 interacting
collection, computing and communications, is continuously making older systems components obsolete, expensive and hard to maintain. Unfortunately, the best time to move to a new technology is usually only evident with hindsight.The current generation of technical leaders learned their craft by dint of persistence,mistakes and living the evolution process. That expensively acquired experience now hasto be passed on rapidly and effectively. However, the technical management pipeline isfully involved with the new technology and focused solutions. The issues are well-recognized and initiatives such as those described by Wright 1 have demonstrated theneed to combine breadth and depth in systems managers.Universities have traditionally
contemporary products and services thatmeet societal needs 1. As Ireland endeavours to be a “Top 5 global economy by 2020”a joint task force of the Irish Academy of Engineering and Engineers Ireland proposea vision for a knowledge-based economy which would place the island of Ireland tothe forefront of global economics. Achieving a growth rate of 4.5% annually is Page 15.273.2predicated by close collaboration between government and relevant educational andprofessional institutions to foster innovation2.The response by this task force also highlights that the entire island (both north andsouth) has fallen behind leading economies in terms of research and
Organizations” is to improve atechnical professional’s ability to contribute to a business organization through improvement innon-technical skills. The course was specifically developed to facilitate interpersonal skilldevelopment in the context of a technical organization so the examples, topics and discussionswould be relevant to this specific population.The course is presented in four distinct modules.Module 1 - Assessment of skills and aptitude. This module includes these topics: Page 15.170.2 ≠ Learning styles1 ≠ Leadership traits ≠ Personal characteristics that aid or detract from interpersonal effectiveness ≠ Development of personal
deliver engineering courses.Moving graduate engineering courses onlineThe Sloan Foundation 2008 Report on Online Education in the United States reports that highereducation online enrollments have shown significant growth, from 1.6 million in 2002 to 3.9million in 2007, and comparable growth in the number of institutions offering online programs 1.Of the eight disciplines examined, business, liberal arts and sciences (generalstudies/humanities), health professions (and related sciences), education, computer andinformation sciences, social sciences and history, psychology, and engineering; engineering isthe only discipline where the number of online programs lags significantly behind otherdisciplines. It should be noted though whereas public
- Page 15.1154.2Madison. In this paper we discuss and compare the results from a collaborative TELproject by examining the key instructional motivators and entry points for facultywithin the CoE’s and ICBE’s organizational context and culture. The challenges ofmotivating, supporting, and leading faculty adoption of new teaching methods,including technology, in a Research I decentralized higher education institution havebeen acknowledged by the ASEE Phase 1 Report.1 The initial TEL project in CoEfunded the development of a math editor tool; while the initial TEL ICBE projectdeveloped a tool to facilitate giving feedback to students. Both tools were createdwithin the open source course management system (CMS), Moodle. Using an open-source CMS
for The Engineer of2020.Critical elements of professional faculty development and recognition programsUtschig and Schaefer3 present three critical elements needed for any successful US programseeking to establish excellence in engineering education through professional education andrecognition of faculty teaching in higher education. The ultimate goal of such facultydevelopment programs is to help propel engineering education to a point where most faculty canbe described as scholarly teachers. Building on concepts well grounded in literature8, the criticalelements identified were: (1) support by a nationally respected society or academy, (2) utilizationof qualifying criteria or standards at several levels, and (3) flexibility in
question regarding perceived preparedness was quantified by coding responses asfollows: Strongly agree was assigned a 1, agree a 2, neutral a 3, disagree a 4, and stronglydisagree a 5. A one sample t test was performed on the differences in the ratings for individualdata. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was determined between the individual studentperformances for all eight questions and the individual student perceived perception ofunderstanding.ResultsThree students chose to not have their responses included in the study. Eight students did notcomplete or return all sections of the survey and their answers were not included in the analysis.That left thirty-nine students that were used for the analysis. Table 1 shows the proportion ofcorrect
last half century1 .Lectures are frequently used in engineering education to transmit information to students. In anonline learning environment, lectures can be captured and replayed anywhere, anytime, thusproviding enhanced flexibility for learning. Experts can be easily brought into the onlineclassroom, enabling learning experiences that are not as readily acquired in a traditional on-campus classroom 1.One of the distinguishing elements of engineering education is the lab requirements 1. Thecurrent ABET 2 engineering criteria states that all engineering programs must demonstrate thattheir graduates have an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze andinterpret data; design a system, component, or process to meet
identify both thefrequency and extent of how these forms of scholarship are used in P&T considerations atuniversities and colleges within the US. Social science models of SOES-l do not seem to fitprofessional disciplines such as E&T. For E&T programs, the SOES-l is of necessity focused onfaculty’s interaction with industry as well as traditional community partners needing atechnology centric consult. Student involvement comes in the form of projects, either episodicor continuous with both communities. Currently, the axis of control for faculty reward systemsare operationalized by the values placed on: 1. refereed journal publications 2. funded projects and grants that pay the federal overhead rate 3. outside
these on-campus plans would relate to explicating and validatingincentives to engage faculty to acquire change leadership skills. While some did, many served toengage faculty in specific change leadership activities without necessarily explicitly highlightingthe leadership skills being gained as a result of engaging in the activity. This paper willsummarize the lessons learned from the application process, the workshop, and the campus planactivities.IntroductionMost stakeholders in engineering industry and education agree that change is needed inengineering education in order to improve the quality of instruction and produce engineeringgraduates with a wide range of skills (e. g., 1, 2). Despite several calls to action, inertia remains