education (co-op) participation have been welldocumented; however, they have focused primarily on grade point averages (GPA) and careeroutcomes. Previous work on predictors of participation shows no significant differences bygender in the aggregate, but there are significant differences by ethnicity and major. One reasonstudents may not participate in co-op is the perception of increased time to graduation; however,other benefits may outweigh the perceived limitations. This research furthers the literature byexamining academic outcomes not previously considered, such as persistence in engineering andtime to graduation. The work aims to answer the following questions: 1) what are the academicoutcomes of co-op participation, and 2) focusing on
. Figure 1 Attwood Marine – Pump Flow TestThis particular project required knowledge of Attwood’s preferred PLC’s, safety standards,programming standards, product line, internal specification system and purchasing requirements.Without the advantage of the students with co-op experience and direct experience with Attwoodthis project would not have been attempted. The pump flow test stand has been used for the lastthree years and is currently in service. Page 26.1091.5 Figure 2 Magnum – Lighted Dental Mirror Product DevelopmentThis project was focused on product development. Several design revisions and prototypes werecreated. Again
studies from the National Society of Professional Engineers(NSPE), and topics such as the “workplace in the United States.” Each lesson includedanecdotal stories of students in hypothetical situations. According to survey responses, the coursewas well received largely due to the fact the professor was very personable and a goodstoryteller. In a standard University end of course survey only approximately 50% of thestudents responded and while their response to questions about the course on a 1-5 scale wereusually in the 3.5-4.0 range, they noted the course was not challenging and students often askedfor more feedback on their work. There were some complaints that the course should not berequired and some expressed disappointment that it did not
Wyoming, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech).RIT and Northeastern have formal cooperative education programs while University ofWyoming and Virginia Tech do not and consequently only a small percentage of students (2%and 10% respectively) participate in voluntary co-op programs at these two universities. Thepurpose of that study was to investigate the concern over a lower percentage of womenparticipating in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields which consequentlytranslates into a lower percentage of females in these areas of the work force.1 The studyexamined whether retention of students in engineering majors could be improved through astudent’s self-efficacy and to what degree contextual
ProgramThere were two key drivers for the change in the internship program. Since the impact of earlyinternships on STEM (specifically, engineering technology) major retention is the focus of thispaper, this driver is first presented.A. The Issue of STEM Major RetentionThe President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology’s (PCAST) recent report 1predicts that the U.S. workforce’s supply will be 1 million short of the demand for graduates inscience, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), but less than half of those who enterU.S. colleges to pursue majors in STEM persist to graduation. According to the NationalScience Foundation, in 2006 the relative percentage of students receiving STEM degrees were atlevels no different or lower than
by the many activities that emphasize its creative and experiential aspects,often in the form of action verbs. In a 2014 interview with Phil Larson of the White HouseOffice of Science and Technology, Maker Media CEO Dale Dougherty loosely defined Makingas “creating, producing, crafting, shaping, tinkering, composing, and building” (p. 1). In a surveyof Makers at the 2012 World Maker Faire in New York City, Lande, Jordan and Nelson notedthe most frequent verbs used to define Making were “making,” “doing,” and “creating” (2013).Anderson (2012) asserted that everyone is a Maker, noting activities including gardening,cooking, and scrapbooking. By conducting a thorough review of recent literature on the subject,Martin created a working definition
years, for a child to master. Two important consequences of this are the financial costs andthe closing “window of opportunity,” as therapy is often most effective in the younger, formativeyears. As an aid in improving ASD therapy, robots have been developed over the past decade,with noted potential for their use as “co-therapists.” However, two major barriers to wideradoption of robots in therapy are the intensive programming requirements of the robots and thelimited “off-the-shelf” programs available to clinicians. This paper describes a pilot project withthe aim of enabling therapists to use the advanced technology of robots by eliminating thesebarriers through (1) the adoption of an intuitive and adaptable programming platform (NAOhumanoid
fieldsupport the need for universities to find ways to effectively foster professional identitydevelopment. For example, three ways in which the institution can foster identity formation asan engineer are: (1) program admission criteria, coursework, etc. (institutional identity), (2) co-ops and internships (self-identification through exposure to the norms and values held byprofessional engineers), and (3) communities of practice (recognition by other in-group membersas a professional in the field)12,13. Co-ops and internships contribute to students’ desire tobecome an engineer14, retention and work self-efficacy15, and higher starting salaries and thepotential for a job offer by graduation16. However, “lack-of-belonging” has been found to be
in engineering and engineering technologyan opportunity to participate in a new approach to the recruitment, retention, education, andplacement of academically talented and financially needy students. The SPIRIT (ScholarshipInitiative via Recruitment, Innovation, and Transformation) Scholars program establishes atransformative learning environment that fosters the development of professional skills andincreased technical competency through interdisciplinary project-based learning (PBL),undergraduate research, peer-to-peer mentorship, and focused institutional support services.1-8WCU is classified as a regional comprehensive masters-granting university and was awarded theCarnegie Community Engagement classification in 2008.9
reformation in general, and to the use of modern pedagogicalskills in particular. The paper also argues that any meaningful change in Region’s classroompractices today (dominated by traditional lecture-based methods) must be mandated andsupported by the university administration. What is necessary to create a change, is for thedepartment or college, to have a comprehensive and integrated set of components: clearlyarticulated expectations, opportunities for faculty to learn about new pedagogies, and anequitable reward system.Introduction“To teach is to engage students in learning.” This quote, from Education for Judgment byChristenson et al, (1) captures the meaning of the art and practice of pedagogies ofengagement. The theme advocated here is that
engineering service program at the company was interviewed. Companies varied insize and discipline: small to large, environmental to aerospace. Also, employees wereinterviewed from both the industry (those that make or build something) and consulting (thosewho design, calculate, or specialize on projects run by another company).Some of the interviewees were interviewed with the goal of understanding how employees aresupported in the workplace for their engineering service endeavors (Protocol 1, given in Table2). The rest of the individuals were alumni of LTS programs who were interviewed with thegoal of understanding their pathway following their involvement with engineering service incollege (Protocol 2, given in Table 3).Table 1: Engineering Alumni
. They acquired flight data and analyzed it. The week ended with teampresentations to all the stakeholders from either side. The project schedule is showed in Table 1below;Table 1: Project Schedule 1st (Teams were in their home countries) 2nd (Japanese Team visited India) Nov Dec Jan Feb FebJapanese +Defining + Developing specifications measurement software + Checking and revising a sensor +Designing and module fabricating a sensor + Designing and making rockets module + LaunchingIndian
Page 26.1724.3a process modified from the Stanford University design process that begins with whateach student personally cares for about the challenges faced by the underservedcommunity. This serves as the team’s point of view for the remainder of the designprocess. It becomes a method for balancing the need to provide immediate assistancewith the ability to thoughtfully create breakthrough-engineering solutions collaborativelywith the community that needs them.The GEE course has the following learning components: 1. An overview of conventional paradigms of development for addressing complex global problems, academia-led engineering initiatives in underserved communities, and challenges of finding sustainable solutions to