and has resulted in many publications (see https://sites.google.com/view/chenderson). He is a Fulbright Scholar and a Fellow of the American Physical Society. Dr. Henderson is the senior editor for the journal ”Physical Review Physics Education Research” and has served on two National Academy of Sciences Committees: Under- graduate Physics Education Research and Implementation, and Developing Indicators for Undergraduate STEM Education. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018A systematic literature review on improving success of UG woman engineering students in the USIntroduction Over the past three decades, women in the Unites States
Senior Scholar principally responsible for the Preparations for the Professions Program (PPP) engineering study, the results of which are forthcoming in the report Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field. In addition, she is professor of Mechanical Engineering at Stanford University, and served as Chair of Stanford's Faculty Senate in 2006-2007. Besides teaching both undergraduate and graduate design-related classes at Stanford University, she conducts research on weld and solder-connect fatigue and impact failures, fracture mechanics, and applied finite element analysis. Dr. Sheppard was recently named co-principal investigator on a National Science Foundation (NSF
problem framing ability. We describe the coding scheme we developed andimplementation of the DST to assess guide and assess the impact of curricular changes. We thenshare the approaches we have taken to making coding feasible, from assessing the reliability todeveloping a new self-directed training for coders. We address the following research questions:• To what extent are DSTs valid for informing faculty of the development of problem framing skills, using validity-as-argument dimensions?• To what extent is the coding scheme, which measures factual/conceptual design problem representation, design practices, and design style, able to be applied in a feasible yet reliable manner across coders?Developing an assessment of design problem
experiences of undergraduate en- gineering students and engineering educators. In addition to teaching undergraduate engineering courses and a graduate course on entrepreneurship, she also enjoys teaching qualitative research methods in the Engineering Education Systems and Design PhD program at ASU. Recently, she and her colleagues pub- lished a book, Transformative Teaching: A Collection of Stories of Engineering Faculty’s Pedagogical Journeys. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Understanding how Novice Indian Faculty Engage in Engineering Education ResearchAbstractUnlike engineering research, engineering education
, Alabama. Dr. Glenn returned to Huntsville after starting school at Alabama A&M years ago. He is now leading the college through its expansion to prepare students and researchers to meet the global needs of the 21st century. Dr. Glenn is also the President and Executive Director of the newly formed Alabama A&M Research, Innovation, Science and Engineering (AAMU-RISE) Foundation. The Foundation’s mission is to create new opportunities for the region in research and development. Prior to coming to A&M he was the Associate Dean of Graduate Studies at the Rochester Institute of Technology in Rochester, New York. He holds several patents and is internationally recognized for research in rf communications and
engineering and science at Science Leadership Academy in Philadelphia. John came to SLA through the Philadelphia Teaching Residency Program as a Noyce Scholar. Prior to teaching, John spent a few decades as an entrepreneur, co-founding WAM Systems, a global provider of supply chain planning and optimization solutions to large manufacturers. Before WAM, he designed spacecraft at GE for many years. John holds engineering degrees from Penn State and Villanova. When not teaching science and engineering, John can be found playing jazz clarinet, practicing yoga, or inventing oddities in his workshop.Jessica S. Ward, Drexel University Jessica Ward serves as the Director of Operations for the DragonsTeach program. She previously
AC 2010-118: SUPPORTS AND BARRIERS THAT RECENT ENGINEERINGGRADUATES EXPERIENCE IN THE WORKPLACESamantha Brunhaver, Stanford University Samantha Brunhaver is a second year graduate student at Stanford University. She is currently working on her Masters in Mechanical Engineering. Her research interests include engineering education and design for manufacturing. She earned a BS in Mechanical Engineering at Northeastern University in 2008.Russell Korte, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Russell Korte is an Assistant Professor of Human Resource Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is currently a Fellow with the iFoundry project in the College of Engineering at
AC 2009-1042: I’M GRADUATING THIS YEAR! SO WHAT IS AN ENGINEERANYWAY?Holly Matusovich, Virginia Tech Holly Matusovich is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Education. Dr. Matusovich recently joined Virginia Tech after completing her doctoral degree in Engineering Education at Purdue University. She also has a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and an M.S. in Materials Science with a concentration in Metallurgy. Additionally Dr. Matusovich has four years of experience as a consulting engineer and seven years of industrial experience in a variety of technical roles related to metallurgy and quality systems for an aerospace supplier. Dr. Matusovich’s research interests include
Paper ID #8586Advanced Student-Centric Learning Practices in Applied Engineering Pro-gramsProf. Ben D Radhakrishnan, National University Prof. Ben Radhakrishnan is currently a full time Faculty in the School of Engineering, Technology and Media (SETM), National University, San Diego, California, USA. He is the Lead Faculty for MS Sus- tainability Management Program. He develops and teaches Engineering Management and Sustainability Management graduate level courses. Ben has taught Sustainability workshops in Los Angeles (Army) and San Diego (SDGE). His special interests and research include teaching methods (specifically
provide students with a solid background in the newest engineering topics and tofamiliarize them with this increasingly relevant industry technology, tools, methods, practice,codes and standards. Another intended outcome is that the start-to-finish project design, meetingsystem performances and requirements are important issues for engineering graduates to learn.Coupled with the requirement that students work in teams, often multidisciplinary ones, thedesign experience aligns very well with the ABET outcomes. However, one particularlychallenging outcome is for the engineering students to demonstrate an understanding of howengineering and applied sciences relates to the broader contexts of society and the world. Forinstance, the new 4th ABET
Paper ID #10737Critical Thinking, Reflective Practice, and Adaptive Expertise in EngineeringNathan Hicks, University of Florida Current graduate student in materials science and engineering at the University of Florida. Spent three years teaching high school math and science before returning to graduate school for an advanced degree.Amy Elizabeth Bumbaco, University of FloridaDr. Elliot P. Douglas, University of Florida Elliot P. Douglas is Associate Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, Dean’s Fellow for Engi- neering Education, and Distinguished Teaching Scholar at the University of Florida. He conducts research
enrolled in a first-yearengineering design course (3 sections) and 52 graduate engineering students enrolled in amaster’s level systems engineering course (2 sections) at Penn State University. Studentsvolunteered to participate based on a description of our research project and received nocompensation for their participation. Each student completed a concept map of a course-relatedtopic as a class exercise mid-way through each course; the topics were systems thinking(undergraduates) and creativity (graduates), respectively. All students were provided with briefinstructions about concept mapping and performed at least one “practice map” before completingthe maps of interest; they were given approximately 30 minutes to complete each mapping task
. However,engineering educators are relative newcomers to the service-learning field. As late adopters, it isimportant to recognize that the field of service-learning in education has had a research life of itsown for years, and has a whole body of knowledge as a discrete discipline.The motivation for this work is to begin with a review of literature for service-learning as an Page 15.858.2educational method prior to its wider adoption by the engineering education community. As wemove forward in looking at the impact of service in engineering education, it is opportune tolook at the gains of our predecessors and take what they have to offer us
course is minimal as theTAs receive course credit rather than pay for this extra time and the course can be taught by agraduate student.Taking an iterative, design research approach to this course, [5] surveys are collected before andafter each semester, and the content is revised as necessary. The TAs response to the courseranges from not seeing the point to becoming deeply engaged and committed to learning more toimprove their teaching. There remains a concern about the need to repeat content for new TAs,aligning the pedagogical theory with the current needs of the TAs, and integration with eachcourse specifically, in order to help TAs develop pedagogic content knowledge.The current iteration of the course is focused more on aligning with the
inverted sections with those in control sections (i.e., traditional coursemodel). Treatment and control students completed the same measures (e.g., content assessmentsand student attitude surveys) and faculty members, who taught in both conditions, alsocompleted reflection papers related to their experiences. The guiding research questions for thestudy and an overview of the assessment measures are shown in Table 1 below (more details onassessment measures are included in a subsequent section of this paper). In the final year of thestudy, the researchers designed what they felt were “best practices” for the inverted model in allsections of their courses and the same outcome measures were used.Table1.EvaluationQuestionsandOutcomeMeasures
received a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Lehigh University and an M.A. and Ph.D. in Civil Engineering and Operations Research from Princeton Univer- sity. The winner of numerous teaching and research awards, Dr. Ellis received the 2007 U.S. Professor of the Year Award for Baccalaureate Colleges from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teach- ing and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education. His research focuses on creating K-16 learning environments that support the growth of learners’ imaginations and their capacity for engaging in collaborative knowledge work.Mr. Al Rudnitsky, Smith College Al Rudnitsky teaches Introduction to the Learning Sciences; Thinking, Knowing and the Design of Learn
mechanical engineering.Course Structure and OrganizationThe Manufacturing Processes and Systems course is designed to expose mechanical engineeringstudents to fundamental material processing and manufacturing concepts. The instructor for thecourse was a doctoral student (Graduate Part-Time Instructor) with industrial experience inmanufacturing, research in polymer processing, and collegiate teaching experience at anotherlarge public research university. When this instructor inherited the course, studentsoverwhelmingly disliked the class.Course SectionsThe two sections were taught in the same classroom on Tuesdays and Thursdays for 15 weeks.The high-level interactivity class (section 1) was taught from 9:30 to 10:45 a.m. and the mid
fact, the primary graduation requirements were twosignificant projects: Project #1: The Interdisciplinary Project. This project, usually completed in the junior year, asked the student to address a problem at the intersection of science and technology with societal need. Project #2: The Major Project. This project, usually completed in the senior year, is a design or research project in the student’s major area of study.Each project carries 9 credits, roughly one quarter of an academic year’s work. Each project hasa faculty advisor working closely with a small team of students (usually 2–4 but sometimes 1 ormore than 4). For the major project, the advisor is a faculty member in the appropriatediscipline. For the
Introductory Design CourseTeamwork and Collaboration are among the three primary competencies needed for graduates tobe successful in the workplace according to the Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and21st Century Skills organized by the National Research Council.1 The committee reviewed eightthematic reports and subsequently presented a framework intended to inform curriculumprograms of these desired skills. Organizations and criteria governing the accreditation ofvarious higher education disciplines also address the need for teamwork skills. Several studentoutcomes in the ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission2 specifically relate tocollaborative work: 3(d): an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams 3(g): an ability to
AC 2009-995: THE DESIGN LANDSCAPE: A PHENOMENOGRAPHIC STUDY OFDESIGN EXPERIENCESShanna Daly, University of Michigan Page 14.1189.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2009 The Design Landscape: A Phenomenographic Study of Design ExperiencesKey Words: design, phenomenography, professional experiencesAbstractDesign is central to engineering education and practice. Thus, it is important toinvestigate aspects of design that can be applied to facilitate engineers in becoming betterdesigners. Designers’ experiences impact their views on design, which then impact theways they approach a design task. Design approach then impacts new
Paper ID #15565Impact of Non-Cognitive Factors on First-Year PerformanceMr. Ryan R. Senkpeil, Purdue University, West Lafayette Ryan Senkpeil is a Ph.D. student in Engineering Education at Purdue University who’s research is focused on non-cognitive factors that impact engineering student performance and developing interventions to improve students’ non-cognitive factors.Dr. Edward J. Berger, Purdue University, West Lafayette Edward Berger is an Associate Professor of Engineering Education and Mechanical Engineering at Purdue University, joining Purdue in August 2014. He has been teaching mechanics for nearly 20 years, and
University-Kingsville Dr. Abdelrahman is currently the Associate Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies and a Professor of Electrical Engineering at Texas A&M University Kingsville. Dr. Abdelrahman has a diverse educational and research background. His research expertise is in the design of intelligent measurement systems, sensor fusion and control systems. He has been active in research with over 80 papers published in refereed journals and conferences. He has been the principal investigator on several major research projects on industrial applications of sensing and Control with focus on Energy Efficiency. He is a senior member of IEEE, ISA, and a member of ASEE.Dr. David Ramirez, Texas A&M University
recent graduates’experiences as well as those of other difficult-to-access, perhaps underexplored, populations ofengineers. Introduction and BackgroundSchool-to-work transitionsResearch on engineering practice has emerged as a major focus within the engineering educationcommunity (Korte, Brunhaver, & Sheppard, 2015; Lutz, 2017; Stevens, Johri, & O’Connor, 2014).And while engineering degree programs are designed to prepare graduates for the realities ofmodern practice, research suggests that a significant gap remains between what engineers aretaught in school and what they do at work (Korte, 2011).An important aspect of engineering practice, then, involves the school-to-work transition for
on gears and powerscrews this past year required teams to design, select, and size gears and a power screw for anindustrial compaction device; teams were given the specifications and approximate placement ofa motor relative to a compaction chamber, and were asked to design a power transmission systemso as to maximize the compaction speed relative to lifetime cost (including cost of components,maintenance, and power). In these exercises, students prepare a detailed report outlining theirsolution that is graded by the instructor or graduate student teaching assistants. For the in-classactivities, teams also prepare a one-page summary of their design for review and assessment bytheir peers. The act of distilling the large report into a clear
: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20.Chen, H. L., Lattuca, L. R., Hamilton, E. R. (2008). Conceptualizing Engagement: Contribution of Faculty to Student Engagement in Engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 3, 339-353.Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73-105.Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (2004). What have we learned about engagement in the last twenty years? A Volume in: Research on Sociocultural
community and promoting change at CAEE partner and affiliate schools. Honorariums for faculty and fellowships for graduate students are provided. THE SUMMER SUMMIT: This is an intensive, interactive, face-to-face learning experience to launch the Institute year. Scholars 1) learn about research design and methods from the learning sciences as well as the complexities of learning within a domain; 2) have opportunities to practice research methods; 3) develop as a community; 4) discuss current issues in engineering teaching and learning; and 5) formulate a research study to be conducted during the academic year. Where appropriate, Summit activities draw on research findings from CAEE investigators, such as findings from the
representsuch a large (and positive) shift from all prior work that a follow-on study was conducted toexplore the reasons for the change. The follow-on study is the focus of this paper.The specific research question addressed in this paper is: Why did the interventions improvelearning of the role of problem formulation in design?Literature Review“Doing design does not insure the learning of design” [7]. A foundational element of nearlyall engineering design courses is doing design. Implicit in this pedagogy is the assumption thatdoing design is critical, if perhaps even sufficient, for learning design. Studies, however, showthat “doing” is clearly not sufficient for learning to occur.While design does not have one definition, the importance of
graduate student at Virginia Tech (2011-2017), he worked at the Center for Human-Computer Interaction under the guidance of Dr. Doug Bowman, researching the impact of audience interaction using serious games and VR on young student audiences visiting informal learning spaces. His teaching experience involves being an Adjunct faculty member and a Visiting Assistant Professor at Virginia Tech, serving as a Teaching Assistant in multiple CS courses, and teaching diverse audiences about IT and New Media Technologies. His dissertation received the Out- standing Research award for 2017-2018 from the CS department at Virginia Tech. Panagiotis has also extensive experience as a Senior Interactive Systems Designer and
2006-952: CURRICULUM DESIGN FOR THE ENGINEER OF 2020: AUNIVERSITY COMMUNITY CREATES A PUBLIC AFFAIRS CURRICULUMFOR ENGINEERING UNDERGRADUATESWendy Harrison, Colorado School of Mines WENDY J. HARRISON is Professor of Geology and Geochemistry at the Colorado School of Mines, and is the Principal Tutor and Interim Director of the McBride Honors Program in Public Affairs for Engineers. She teaches in the geological sciences at both undergraduate and graduate levels as well as interdisciplinary courses at CSM. She has been awarded federal grants for innovative approaches to teaching undergraduate analytical methods in mineral and rock characterization, and has been a workshop leader in NSF’s funded “On the
seniors wereconsidering both work and graduate school inside and outside of engineering, indicating that onein four seniors were unsure whether an engineering or non-engineering path would be the best fitfor them6. Actual engineering graduate school enrollment is the most valid measure of graduateschool attendance because graduate school plans might be different from the actual post-graduateoutcomes. Still, understanding the factors that influence college students’ career or graduateschool plans upon graduation is an important focus for research because such plans are typicallyamong the best predictors of actual choice of professions or graduate school enrollment 7 8 9 10.Given one finding from a qualitative study that engineering students