curriculum was formed in the crucible of the cold war.8 Since that time, Page 13.684.2radical changes in transportation, communication, and computer technology9 leave us in a verydifferent world. Popular books such as The World is Flat,10 A Whole New Mind,11 and The Riseof the Creative Class12 suggest that returns to innovation and creativity are especially importantin a world where routine analysis and engineering tasks can be outsourced globally for dimes onthe dollar. Scientific discovery and the integration of technology in everyday life are occurringat an increasing rate. These trends demand a more direct involvement of engineers in
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
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
, T., Jaspers, M., & Chapman, M. (2007). Integrating web-delivered problem-based learning scenarios to the curriculum. Active Learning in Higher Education. 4. Bordelon, T. D. & Phillips, I. (2006). Service learning: What students have to say. Active Learning in Higher Education. 7(1), 143-153. 5. Guertin, L. A., Zappe, S. E., & Kim, H. (2007). Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT) exercises to engage students in an introductory-level dinosaur course. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 6, 507-514. 6. Cimbala, J. M., Pauley, L. L., Zappe, S. E., & Hsieh, M. (June, 2006). Experiential learning in fluid flow class. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Engineering
projects to design and build a […] circuit board and they give us a really tight budget. And so you can't afford all the fancy clips […] so you use hot glue or basically anything so that you can loop around the budget. And then […] lecturer […] takes one look and says 'I don't like this […] because it is not professional'.”In other transcripts, this approach to engineering was manifest in the curriculum structure orindividual assessment pieces and led to negative student perceptions of an instructor as a personwho “has all these little fiddly things he likes to stick to, this nice little protocol he likes.Everything's gotta fit into the box.” (Hasslam)During their time in industry, the students experienced a more flexible and pragmatic
AC 2008-242: DEVELOPMENT OF AN ELECTROMAGNETICS COURSECONCEPT INVENTORYGerard Rowe, University of Auckland Gerard Rowe completed the degrees of BE, ME and PhD at the University of Auckland in 1978, 1980 and 1984 respectively. He joined the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Auckland in 1984 where he is currently a Senior Lecturer. He is a member of the Department’s Radio Systems Group and his (disciplinary) research interests lie in the areas of radio systems, electromagnetics and bioelectromagnetics. Over the last 20 years he has taught at all levels and has developed a particular interest in curriculum and course design. He has received numerous teaching
just recently published a co-edited volume on Multi-Level Issues in Creativity and Innovation. Page 13.195.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 An Investigation of Gaps in Design Process Learning: Is there a Missing Link between Breadth and Depth?AbstractTeaching ‘design’ is an integral part of undergraduate engineering preparation. Most four yearengineering programs include a first year course focused on the engineering design processwhere students are exposed to the wide range of issues that must be considered with regard to the‘real life’ activity of designing a product or a process
AC 2008-897: EVALUATING DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF PEER INTERACTIONUSING AN ON-LINE INSTRUMENTAlan Cheville, Oklahoma State UniversityJames Duvall, Oklahoma State University James Duvall is completing his BSEE degree at Oklahoma State University and expects to attend graduate school studying microwaves or photonics. Page 13.575.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 Evaluating Different Aspects of Peer Interaction Using an On-Line InstrumentBackground and ContextAs universities move towards integrating in-depth team-based design experiences there is anincreasing need to train
curriculum in the Professional Orientation course is structured with little emphasis onprogramming per se and a minimum of Logo programming commands (approximately 20) areused. In addition to the development of thinking skills (procedural, logical, analysis andsynthesis), Logo tasks and the results of the Logo programming are also used to fostercomprehension as well as skills in observation and communication. The formal exposure to Logois purposefully spread over six weeks, with one class per week, so that students have time toexplore Logo and to progress in the development of thinking skills at an individual pace. Most ofthe students usually need more time than one class period to finish a Logo tutorial. Students, whodo finish in time, usually
embarking on educational research [1]. The last hurdle inBorrego’s assessment (a very engineer-like construct) was to integrate social scientists intoengineering education research teams. Essentially, her description of this process implies that thesocial scientists will be consultants supporting the efforts of the engineering educators.However, what we found was that our scholarship was improved and our experience moresatisfying when we moved beyond an engineer-consultant relationship to an integratedpartnership. Our research process is similar to those strategies espoused in recent forums andreports on qualitative research in engineering education and the work of social scientists studyingengineering education. (Ref. such as [2-21]) We will share
Engineering at Iowa State University. She has integrated complex, ill-structured problem solving experiences into her engineering economy course. Dr. Ryan's research focuses on decision-making under uncertainty in energy systems, asset management with condition monitoring, and closed-loop supply chains.Craig Ogilvie, Iowa State University Dr. Craig Ogilvie is an Associate Professor in Physics and Astonomy at Iowa State University. He is a recognized leader in both nuclear physics and in the teaching of problem-solving skills in large enrollment physics classes.Dale Niederhauser, Iowa State University Dr. Dale Niederhauser is an Associate Professor in Curriculum and Instruction at Iowa State
AC 2008-1505: INVESTIGATING AND ADDRESSING LEARNING DIFFICULTIESIN THERMODYNAMICSDavid Meltzer, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA Page 13.812.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 Investigating and Addressing Learning Difficulties in ThermodynamicsAbstractStudy of thermodynamic principles forms a key part of the basic curriculum in many science andengineering fields. However, there are very few published research reports regarding studentlearning of these concepts at the college level. As part of an investigation into student learning ofthermodynamics, we have probed the reasoning of students
second method requires that students receivefeedback on formal assignments they have submitted. The student is then required to revise theassignment using this feedback and then resubmit for grading. While both of these methods are wellproven enhancements to the leaning process, they have historically been shunned by engineering faculty.At our university, a campus-wide program for integrating communication requirements into variouscurricula has had success in overcoming faculty and student resistance to these and other teachingmethods not typically found in the engineering disciplines. The Communication Across the Curriculum(CxC) Program uses workshops, Summer Faculty Institutes, discipline-specific communication studios,and an online searchable
AC 2008-84: IMPLEMENTING RESEARCH–BASED INSTRUCTIONALMATERIALS TO PROMOTE COHERENCE IN PHYSICS KNOWLEDGE FORTHE URBAN STEM STUDENT.Mel Sabella, Chicago State University Mel S. Sabella is an Associate Professor of Physics at Chicago State University (CSU). His interests focus on improving STEM education for underrepresented students. Sabella is the director of an NSF – CCLI project that integrates research-based instructional material in the introductory urban physics classroom. He is also director of the Physics Van Inservice Institute, part of a project supported by the Illinois Board of Higher Education. Sabella earned his PhD. in Physics Education Research from the University of Maryland
AC 2008-2384: A DIRECT METHOD FOR TEACHING AND ASSESSINGPROFESSIONAL SKILLS IN ENGINEERING PROGRAMSAshley Ater Kranov, Center for Teaching, Learning & Technology Dr. Ashley Ater Kranov is Assistant Director of the Center for Teaching, Learning & Technology at Washington State University. She specializes in program assessment and has extensive experience in the assessment of engineering education. She has co-authored a number of journal articles and conference proceedings on engineering education, including Integrating Problem-Solving Skills Across an Engineering Curriculum: A Web Resource, 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, 2002.Carl Hauser, Washington State
. Dym and colleagues11 assert that “the purpose of engineering education is to graduateengineers who can design, and that design thinking is complex.” Because of the importance ofdesign in engineering education, efforts are ongoing to integrate design throughout theundergraduate curriculum, rather than reserving it for a single capstone course. Many studentssupplement their in-class design activities with non-required participation in designcompetitions. Focusing on the ABET learning outcomes, Lattuca, et al.6 found that studentparticipation in design competition significantly and positively influenced students’ self-reportedskills and abilities, including design and problem-solving skills, experimental skills, and life-longlearning skills
introduces a prototype TExT(Toolkit for Exceptional Teaching) that is being developed for this purpose. The TExT expandsupon the information transfer provided by current textbooks and integrates it with a comprehen-sive set of teaching tools and resources. The objective is to deliver an effective educational expe-rience to engineering students, while simultaneously providing almost everything a teacher needsin order to implement effective teaching without investing significantly more time than would beused in the traditional lecture method. Indeed, most engineering professors are not trained edu-cators; they are engineers. In other educational settings where it can be anticipated that the in-structors will not be trained educators (e. g. nursery
language in discussing theirteaching and teaching decisions which had implications for their “ability to make explicit andjustify decisions relating to professional practice”, which Young and Irving described as“integrity of practice.”The bottom line is that exploring educator decision-making represents a promising approach wayto address the research questions driving the paper assuming we can find an appropriatemethodology. The next section describes our use of the Critical Decision Method approach togain information about teaching decisions and subsequently explore the role of learnerinformation in those decision processes.MethodsIn this section we first present the theoretical basis for the interview protocol and the process weused to analyze
AC 2008-827: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF THE EARLY WORK EXPERIENCESOF RECENT GRADUATES IN ENGINEERING.Russell Korte, The University of Texas-Tyler Russell F. Korte, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of human resource development at the University of Texas at Tyler. Dr. Korte is co-researcher on a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant with the Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE). His research interests include higher education, workplace learning, organizational socialization, performance improvement, and engineering education.Sheri Sheppard, Stanford University Sheri D. Sheppard, Ph.D., P.E., is the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Consulting
focus our work and guide the research. The model of adaptive expertise hasbeen presented as a way of thinking about how to prepare learners to flexibly respond to newlearning situations, which is precisely what students are expected to do in the context ofdeveloping design solutions. We focus on “computational adaptive expertise,” which weabbreviate CADEX, since a major portion of an engineering curriculum focuses on developinganalytical and computational knowledge. Yet, students often struggle with applying ortransferring computational knowledge in the context of design. The current paper presents anoverview of adaptive expertise and relates this concept specifically to engineering designeducation. In addition, the paper presents an overview
were funded as curriculumdevelopment projects in 1998 (e.g., Enhanced Engineering Education Experience DUE-8854555and Integrated First Year Engineering Curriculum DUE-8953553), with the first of the eight fullfledged engineering coalitions funded in 1999 as multi-institutional experiments in innovation inengineering education. By 1991, an award was made to Richard Felder of North Carolina StateUniversity for a longitudinal study of the effects of innovative teaching (DUE-9150407) and in1993 prestigious NSF Young Investigator awards were given to engineers Cynthia Atman of theUniversity of Washington (DRL-9358516) and Martin Ramirez of Johns Hopkins University(DRL-9358518). Atman’s research examined how first-year engineering students
project includes: • the list of courses which will be set up jointly with other programs; • the list of courses which will be delegated to the departments of support; • the sequence of the courses; • the process of integration of the courses which will be privileged; • strategies to include an internship in the program; • strategies to include an international aspect in the curriculum; • strategies to facilitate access to the graduate levels; • the supervision process which will be set up; • various methods of assessment which will be adopted; • various methods of teaching and learning which will be used.The development of the curriculum is based on the principles exposed in the framework of thiseducational
presenters and community partners to discussobjectives, techniques, problems, solutions with improving the S-L projects in our courses.Other goals of the SLICE program with regard to faculty are to:• study the art and science of service-learning and form a community of practice ,• create a formal program to connect faculty to community groups (local and international) ,• develop appropriate projects/experiments for integration of S-L into at least forty core courses in the undergraduate engineering curriculum at UML ,• develop assessment tools to gauge the impact of this integration on students, faculty, institution, and community ,• become an engaged college—engaged with the students, each other as faculty across departments, and with the
. After the introduction, the paper will be organized in thefollowing sections: (1) goals for change, (2) barriers to change, (3) foci for change, and (4)strategies for change.Intr oductionAs an engineering faculty member, you may be in the midst of working on a curricularinnovation or contemplating making a curricular innovation. In either case, you may be thinkingthat the curricular innovation on which you are working (or hope to be working) will eventuallybe broadly adopted across your department, college, or institution. However, issues that you facewhen developing your curricular innovation are almost entirely different from issues that youface when contemplating broader adoption of your curriculum. Curriculum developmentintegrates subject
possiblefuture career opportunities.6 Additionally, while many individuals in the general public arefamiliar with nano through informal means and have opinions on the topic, few have receivedformal education on topics pertaining to nanoscale science, engineering, and technology.7Despite compelling arguments for inclusion of NSET into the K-12 curriculum, there is a paucityof research in this area. The little formal research that has been conducted has focused primarilyon size and scale, including student and expert ideas about scale, and how to integrate ideas ofsize and scale into the classroom.8-10 Other literature primarily consists of activities incorporatingsome NSET content, often at the undergraduate level11 : very little is focused on inclusion
deconstructing andreconstructing their schemas. Again, students tended to rely on ends-means analysis withoutinvoking deeper conceptual understanding. When trying to construct an appropriate physicalsituation corresponding to a given Jeopardy expression, we found students tended to focus on alimited numbers of constants rather than the variable of the integration or differentiation to helpthem construct the physical scenario. They often used dimensional analysis and unit matching tofind out the physical quantity that was being calculated in the expression. Thus, students haddifficulty in deconstructing their calculus schemas in Jeopardy problems of navigating multiple
solving physical problems.K-12 members’ perceptions seem to hinge on building an understanding and appreciation ofwhat engineering is and how it impacts society, and of preparing and motivating students tobecome engineers. Open-ended responses provided phrases like integrating STEM intoactivities, projects, presentations, scoring rubrics, and assessment shared across the members. Abroader view included educating both students and the general public on the importance of,process of and implementation of engineering in the world today. K-12 members also viewedengineering education as a research field of teaching and learning. Members of this group wereopen to the PhD in traditional engineering with interest in teaching or a PhD in education
grant period was initially four years, then extended to five, with noadditional funding.) Boise State University [enrollment 19,540 overall, 1,771 engineering],located in Boise, Idaho, is a metropolitan institution that provides affordable access to educationfor a diverse population of capable students, from National Merit Scholars seeking an urbancollege experience to non-traditional students balancing family, work and education. Most of thestudents are undergraduates and a significant portion are first generation and/or lower income.Our grant-funded initiative comprised a broad array of academic enrichment and support(internships, supplemental instruction, scholarships), curricular changes (integrated freshman andpre-freshman learning
aquestionnaire. The key results of the teacher focus groups were: • Instrumentalist approach to study and module choices. • High demand for accountability in marking schedules. • Studying to a perceived “expected answer”. • Confirmation that NCEA had resulted in a more modular (i.e. less integrated) approach to learning. • Identification that the new NCEA Physics Curriculum places less reliance on mathematical ability. It was now not possible to achieve a pass in an NCEA module without being able to adequately answer “explain” type questions. This represents a major departure from previous curricular practice.Predictors of SuccessThe key factors that lead to success in this course were investigated by
AC 2008-397: ENHANCING DESIGN LEARNING BY IMPLEMENTINGELECTRONIC PORTFOLIOSMieke Schuurman, Pennsylvania State University Mieke Schuurman is an engineering education research associate with the Leonhard Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Education in the College of Engineering at The Pennsylvania State University. She received her Masters and PhD in Social & Organizational Psychology from the University of Groningen (The Netherlands). Her work focuses on the enhancement of engineering education. She is a member of ASEE and WEPAN, and actively involved in ASEE's Cooperative Education Division as their Research Chair. She has presented her work at annual conferences of ASEE, WEPAN