Paper ID #24665Smartness in Engineering Culture: An Interdisciplinary DialogueDr. Emily Dringenberg, Ohio State University Dr. Dringenberg is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Education at Ohio State Uni- versity. She holds a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (Kansas State ’08), a M.S. in Industrial Engineering (Purdue ’14) and a Ph.D. in Engineering Education (Purdue ’15). Her team, Beliefs in Engineering Re- search Group (BERG) utilizes qualitative methods to explore beliefs in engineering. Her research has an overarching goal of leveraging engineering education research to shift the culture of
Paper ID #26081Determining the Dependencies of Engineering Competencies for EngineeringPractice: An Exploratory Case StudyDr. Jillian Seniuk Cicek, University of Manitoba Dr. Jillian Seniuk Cicek is an Assistant Professor in the Centre for Engineering Professional Practice and Engineering Education at the University of Manitoba, in Canada. She teaches technical communication. Her areas of investigation include program evaluation; outcomes-based teaching and assessment; engi- neering competencies; instructor pedagogical practices and belief-systems; engineering epistemology; and student culture, diversity, perspectives, and
AC 2008-263: AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO GRADING A MECHANICALENGINEERING CAPSTONE DESIGN COURSE AT THE UNITED STATESMILITARY ACADEMYRichard Melnyk, United States Military Academy Major Rich Melnyk graduated from West Point in 1995 with a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering. He earned a Master of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 2003 and a Master of Business Administration from the University of Phoenix in 2007. He served as an Instructor and Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil & Mechanical Engineering at West Point from 2004 to 2007. During that time, Major Melnyk was the course director for two of the three courses in the
University as an Assistant Professor in the School of Engineering in 2004. She went on to achieve the position of Associate Professor and Associate Chair of Electrical and Computer Engineering in 2008. Dr. Filippas was appointed to the position of interim associate dean of Undergraduate Studies in 2010 and associate dean of Undergraduate Studies in 2015, and was promoted to Professor in August, 2016. As of August, 2019, Dr. Filippas is the Commonwealth Center for Advanced Manufacturing Professor. In this role, Dr. Filippas provides leadership in the area of Data Science in Advanced Manufacturing and is responsible for developing collaborations in this area between faculty and CCAM scientists.Dr. Rebecca Segal, Virginia
, andcultures.Qualitative research method was used to understand the approaches used to incorporate the fivediscourses of design thinking when designing a new curriculum or improvising an existing one. Tounderstand from the experiences of individuals with expertise in curriculum design and to get moreinsights on the research question, ‘How can the elements of design thinking be integrated into thecurriculum to provide appropriate skills that support interdisciplinary and integrative efforts to meetthe needs of 21st-century life?’, three semi-structured interviews were conducted using an onlineplatform. Each interview lasted between 45 to 60 minutes. The interviews were recorded,transcribed, and coded and used in the analysis. The deductive coding approach was used
on the undergraduate modules.Literature Review – Engineering Research EthicsThe research on engineering ethics education has focused, largely, on the undergraduatecurriculum.1,2,3,4 For instance, in 1989, faculty and practitioners participated in an NSF-sponsored workshop at The University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) in 1989 to examine howtopics of professional responsibility can best be introduced into the undergraduate engineeringcurriculum.4 The workshop identified and examined limitations on integrating these topics intothe classroom, including lack of faculty exposure to the topics, lack of faculty time to introducethe topic into the classroom, lack of space in the curriculum, and lack of support material. In thelast 16 years, driven
efforts maintaining minimal reference to learning outcomes assessment datameasured for accreditation. The lack of utilization of digital technology and appropriatemethodologies supporting the automation of outcomes assessment further exacerbate thissituation. Furthermore, learning outcomes data measured by most institutions is rarely classifiedinto all three domains of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy and their corresponding categories of thelevels of learning. Generally institutions classify courses of a program curriculum into three levels:introductory, reinforced and mastery. The outcomes assessment data is measured for mastery levelcourses in order to streamline the documentation and effort needed for an effective programevaluation. A major
concept, an informed value system, a vision of a possible future, and as achallenge to business-as-usual, sustainability is complexity itself, over-determined. Evendefining it requires interdisciplinarity, and attempting to practice—to live it—in academiarequires the integration, or at least the involvement, of all parts of the college campus, a dynamicinteraction of research, operations, curriculum, and the lived experience of individuals andcommunities.46,47,48 And yet, again, failing to attempt to define for our students what we wantthem to learn about sustainability in all its complexity will only continue our students’unnecessary frustrations.Because it has taken us a few years to get our program in place, to organize previously
Paper ID #26544Work in Progress: Engaging Engineering Teaching Staff in Continuous Im-provement ProcessIng. Isabel Hilliger, Pontificia Universidad Catholica de Chile Isabel Hilliger is the Associate Director for Assessment and Evaluation at the Engineering Education Division in Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile (UC). Isabel received a BEng from UC and an MA in Education Policy from Stanford University. She is currently a PhD Candidate in Computer Science at UC-Engineering. Her research theme is the use of methodologies and analytical tools for continuous curriculum improvement in Higher Education. She has
engineeringeducation reform, and give suggestions for the construction of the second round ofnew engineering research and practice projects.2 BackgroundAt the end of 20th century, international engineering education reform was surging.Return to Engineering Practice, STEM Education, Engineering IntegrativeEducation, Engineering With a Big E, An Integrative & Holistic EngineeringEducation, CDIO, Holistic Engineering, Systematic Engineering, EngineeringEducation as a Complex System, Engineering Education Ecosystem, and otherconcepts have been proposed successively, all of which reflect the internationaldevelopment trend of innovative engineering education.[5] With the gradualtechnological breakthroughs in cutting-edge technologies such as
educationaloutcomes. The Center collects data, leverages Arizona State University’s (ASU) resources, and drivesstakeholders to impact education policies. The tool used in this study is composed of multiple interactivedashboards and visualizations that are at the high end of a computational model that describes students’performance. More specifics about the dashboards used in the experiment are provided in the followingsections. Figure 1. The Decision Theater at ASU. (“DT”, 2019) 4. Literature integration on the relationship between attention and emotion3.1 Selective attention and brain activityAttention to particular objects represented as a stimuli to an observer was recorded to activate the visualcortex of monkeys (Moran
TUES program solicitation explicitlysupports such aims.The purpose of this analysis is to study NSF’s Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM(TUES) program to understand the engineering education community’s views on transformationand change. TUES and its predecessor, Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement(CCLI), have been an influential and substantial source of funding for U.S. undergraduate STEMeducation change since 199015. For example, CCLI’s emphasis on project evaluation, coupledwith outcomes-based assessment driven by ABET’s EC2000 criteria, is a strong example of howpolicy can influence practice in engineering higher education. This paper also informsprospective PIs of program expectations, provides baseline data for
AC 2012-3730: CREATING LOW-COST INTRINSIC MOTIVATION COURSECONVERSIONS IN A LARGE REQUIRED ENGINEERING COURSEDr. Geoffrey L. Herman, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Geoffrey L. Herman earned his Ph.D. in electrical and computer engineering from the University of Illi- nois, Urbana-Champaign as a Mavis Future Faculty Fellow. He is currently a Postdoctoral rRsearcher for the Illinois Foundry for Engineering Education. His research interests include conceptual change and development in engineering students, promoting intrinsic motivation in the classroom, blended learning (integrating online teaching tools into the classroom), and intelligent tutoring systems. He is a recipient of the 2011 American Society for
) believed thathaving a research-oriented project in their undergraduate curriculum enhanced theirundergraduate experience which additionally supports the integration of research-orientedprojects into courses.Grade AnalysisThe percentage scores for each student’s course project that used a research-oriented topic in thespring 2017 CNIT 350 Object-Oriented Programming course and fall 2017 ITS 245 IntegrativeProgramming course are shown in Table 3. The percentage scores for each student’s course projectthat did not use a research-oriented topic in the spring 2015 and spring 2016 CNIT 350 Object-Oriented Programming courses are shown in Table 4. The ITS 245 Integrative Programmingcourse was not available prior to fall of 2017.The same research-oriented
Paper ID #16749Towards a Scholarship of Integration: Lessons from Four CasesDr. Freddy Solis, Purdue University, West Lafayette Freddy Solis is a postdoctoral researcher in the College of Engineering at Purdue University. He holds a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering with an emphasis on innovation management and engineering education, an MBA, a Master’s in Civil Engineering from Purdue University, and a Bachelor’s in Civil Engineering from the Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Mexico. His research focuses on all aspects of innovation, drawing from multiple schools of thought, with a special emphasis on typologies such as enabling
a recent process of curriculum reformin an undergraduate engineering program. Curriculum continues to hold a prominent spacein discussions around engineering education, yet there are limited exemplars of full scalecurriculum reform around the globe. At the University of Cape Town (UCT) in South Africa,the design of the new chemical engineering curriculum drew on contemporary shifts inthinking about the engineering profession [1, 2], as well as a focus on widening access to thedegree and coupling this with success. Furthermore, engaging with current deliberations onthe problem-based curriculum, this design took on a problem-centered focus [3]. Thiscurriculum design demanded a far more integrated mode of course delivery than is typical ina
content of the program. Using a format of informal seminars and workshops weengaged in a discovery period for the field of Public Affairs [9-13] leading us to identify criticalcharacteristics for an undergraduate minor in public affairs which have the potential forrecognition by both ABET and the Higher Learning Commission of the North CentralAssociation, and the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration [9].We determined that critical characteristics of such a Program should include: • A core curriculum, which incorporates and helps students integrate the following topics: Economics; Finance and Budgeting; Statistics and Modeling Techniques; Public Policy and Policy Analysis; Ethics
and/or situations. In contrast, this proposal concentrates heavily on the development of processes that integrate instructional (student, instructor, course, curriculum) measurements and analysis with ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology)-mandated assessment and improvement. Thus, a major deliverable of the project is a transferable system with which other engineering programs could monitor their own instructional environment and develop and test their own educational innovations. 3. Ease of use - A key trade-off in the utility of any innovation is the time and resources needed to implement it versus the benefits that result from the implementation (in this case, improved student learning
. This core groupof eleven faculty members prepared for a leadership role in the communication project byattending a CxC-sponsored Faculty Institute during the summer of 2005. The engineering teamreceived a comprehensive orientation to the campus-wide CxC program and explored how theirparticipation could lead to the integration of communication goals in the COE curriculum. Theyworked on their individual syllabi, as well as college-wide plans for a COE CommunicationStudio. They shared their ideas about an engineering graduate’s need for communication skillsand their newly-revised syllabi with faculty members representing all colleges, who provided aninterdisciplinary audience for their perspectives. In many cases, the necessary communication
the socio-cognitive aspects of the flipped and blended learning environments. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Student perceptions of interpersonal skills intertwined in an engineering classroom By: Carmen Carrion MS & Joe LeDoux PhDIntroduction: This research paper describes the study about teaching interpersonal skills in ananalytical engineering course and how students from this course actually experienced theinterpersonal skills curriculum. In the field of engineering, model-based reasoning and theemployment of engineering judgment are two of the most important practices that are critical forthe success of practicing engineers
industrial engineering. Grounded in the theory of UniversalInstructional Design, these wordlists can be integrated into a syllabus and then be used as ateaching aid to promote an accessible engineering education. The goal is to reduce barriers tolearning by developing an explicitly-identified and robust list of vocabulary for all students in agiven course. Creating an automated program that improves vocabulary information over timekeeps it relevant and usable by instructors as well as students.Presently, there is no automated method to develop course-specific vocabulary lists. To fill thisgap, the authors have created a computer program, using a repository of over 2200 engineeringexams since the year 2000 from the University of Toronto, which
teaching heat and mass transfer,” Proc. 2000 ASEE Annual Conference, St. Louis, MO.36. J.L. Barrott, “Why should cases be integrated into the engineering technology curriculum?,” Proc. 2001 ASEE Annual Conference, Albuquerque, NM.37. B.S. Motlagh, A. Rahrooh, N. Safai, “Redefining engineering education methods using new technologies,” Proc. 2002 ASEE Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada.38. R.P. Hesketh, S. Farrell, C.S. Slater, “The role of experiments in inductive learning,” Proc. 2002 ASEE Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada.39. M. Alley, H. Robertshaw, “Rethinking the design of presentation slides,” Proc. 2003 ASEE Annual Conference, Nashville, TN.40. A.M. Eskicioglu, D. Kopec, “The ideal multimedia-enabled
. Page 15.466.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2010 Engagement in an Undergraduate Heat Transfer Course Outside of the ClassroomAbstractThis paper describes a curriculum and a course format for teaching assistant-led sessions aimingto foster student interest and increase engagement in an introductory undergraduate heat transfercourse. Evidence of engagement from records of participation in optional extra creditassignments and optional teaching assistant-led sessions are presented. These data indicate thatincreases in participation in optional activities are correlated with increases in courseperformance.IntroductionHeat transfer instruction is common to many undergraduate mechanical and
involving students in curriculum development and teaching through Peer Designed Instruction.Mr. Luis Miguel Procter, University of Texas, El Paso Luis M. Procter is currently pursuing a B.S. degree in engineering leadership with the University of Texas at El Paso, where he is an undergraduate Research Assistant.Anita D. Patrick, University of Texas, Austin Anita Patrick is a STEM Education Doctoral Student in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, and Graduate Research Assistant in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin. She received her BS in Bioengineering from Clemson University where she tutored undergraduate mathematics and science courses, and mentored undergraduate
easily favor active methods of learning and the results may not even differ significantly frommore passive forms of learning. However, the effect of active learning methods on the highercognitive levels needed to succeed in an engineering curriculum, e.g. knowledge synthesis, maypoint out more significant effects of active learning.Another common problem in the literature is the lack of shared terminology for active learningmethods. For example, some studies classify any “hands-on” activity as inquiry basedintervention without stating the important aspects of inquiry, such as to what degree students willbe responsible to generate research questions, or who is in charge (i.e., teacher or students) todecide data collection methods. Another example
in Puerto Rico. Her primary research interests include investigating students’ understanding of difficult concepts in en- gineering sciences, especially for underrepresented populations. She also works in the development and evaluation of various engineering curriculum and courses at UPRM applying the outcome-based educa- tional framework.Dr. Nayda G. Santiago, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus Nayda G. Santiago is professor at the Electrical and Computer Engineering department, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus (UPRM) where she teaches the Capstone Course in Computer Engineer- ing. She received an BS in EE from the University of PR, Mayaguez in 1989, a MEng in EE from Cornell University in
at Oregon State University. He currently has re- search activity in areas related to thin film materials processing and engineering education. He is inter- ested in integrating technology into effective educational practices and in promoting the use of higher level cognitive skills in engineering problem solving. Koretsky is a six-time Intel Faculty Fellow and has won awards for his work in engineering education at the university and national levels. Page 25.304.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2012 Characterization of Student Modeling in an Industrially Situated
, no. 3, pp. 497–510, 2008.19. A. Gross, J. Harmon, and M. Reidy, Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to thepresent. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2002.20. J. Fahnestock, “Rhetoric of science: Enriching the discipline,” Technical Communication Quarterly, vol. 14, no.3, pp. 277–286, Summer 2005.21. J. Swales, “On models of applied discourse analysis” in Research and Practice in Professional Discourse, C.Candlin, Ed. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press, 2002.22. L. Flowerdew, “An integration of corpus-based and genre-based approaches to text analysis in EAP/ESP:countering criticisms against corpus-based methodologies,” English for Specific Purposes, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 321–332, 2005.23. C. R
AC 2008-1014: AWAKENING INTEREST AND IMPROVING EMPLOYABILITY:A CURRICULUM THAT IMPROVES THE PARTICIPATION AND SUCCESS OFWOMEN IN COMPUTER SCIENCEYvonne Ng, College of St. Catherine Yvonne Ng, M.S.M.E, teaches computer science and engineering for non-majors at the College of St. Catherine. Educated as a mechanical and aerospace engineer, she worked in industry as an automation design engineer and contract programmer. She made computer science a more appealing topic for her all-women undergraduate student body by presenting this technically valuable course in a more comprehensive manner. She is currently the coordinator of the Center of Excellence for Women, Science and Technology where she
, India Susan S. Mathew, is an Associate Professor. Presently she is also the Associate Dean (Academics and Research) and Head, Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering. In NITTTR, for the last 29 years, she has been involved in outcome-based curriculum design, teaching postgraduate students, content updating and laboratory management programmes, induction training of new teachers, research in areas of technical education, projects concerned with the development of instructional material for polytechnics, engineering colleges as well as industries, etc. Prior to NITTTR, she was working as a lecturer in MANIT, Bhopal and SGSITS, Indore and was involved in teaching undergraduate & postgraduate students.Ms