the computing requirements appropriate to its solution;c) An ability to design, implement and evaluate a computer-based system, process, component, or program to meet desired needs;d) An ability to function effectively on teams to accomplish a common goal;e) An understanding of professional, ethical, legal, security, and social issues and responsibilities;f) An ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences;g) An ability to analyze the local and global impact of computing on individuals, organizations and society;h) Recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, continuing professional development;i) An ability to use current techniques, skills, and tools necessary for computing practices.j) An ability to apply
PAUL R. LEIFFER, PhD, PE Paul R. Leiffer is a professor in the School of Engineering and Engineering Technology and Chairman of the Engineering Department at LeTourneau University, where he has taught since 1979. He is the co-developer of LeTourneau’s program in BioMedical Engineering. He received his B.S.E.E. from the State University of New York at Buffalo and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Drexel University. Prior to joining the faculty at LeTourneau, he was involved in cardiac cell research at the University of Kansas Medical Center. His professional interests include bioinstrumentation, engineering design, digital signal processing, and engineering ethics. Email: paulleiffer@letu.edu
students can usethe tools. During these sessions, students must apply concepts learned in lectures, use complexlaboratory equipment to build experiments, develop hardware debugging skills.According to4, there are 13 fundamental objectives of Engineering Instructional Laboratories,that students should understand or acquire skills in: (1) Instrumentation; (2) Models; (3) Page 22.1590.3Experiment; (4) Data Analysis; (5) Design; (6) Learning from Failure; (7) Creativity; (8)Psychomotor; (9) Safety; (10) Communication; (11) Team work; (12) Ethics in the Laboratory;(13) Sensory Awareness. In the current laboratory setting and approach there are
skills, project management, engineering ethics and other relatedskills.1, 2 This paper focuses on the assessment of the curriculum improvement from these threenew courses.Various methods have been reported in the engineering education literature to assess theeffectiveness of the curriculum improvement. Dempsey et al. 3 presented using senior mini-projects instead of traditional senior capstone projects in electrical and computer engineeringcurriculum assessment. Ricks et al. 4 used student perceptions of their abilities and quantitativemeasures of student performance using both written assignments and laboratory assignments toevaluate the effective of a new embedded systems curriculum. Gannod et al. 5 described the gapanalysis and its impact on
teaching practices, and the use of technology and innovative pedagogies on student learn- ing and success. She also led a project to develop a taxonomy for the field of engineering education research, and she was part of a team that studied ethical decision-making in engineering students. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Factors influencing conceptual understanding in a signals and systems courseAbstractPrevious studies show that many engineering undergraduates lack conceptual understanding ofsignals and systems. Although there is evidence that teaching style impacts conceptualunderstanding, there are few studies
had hoped for, and studentresponse to the courses has been positive. To assess our goals more rigorously, we havedeveloped a set of rubrics which we have described in detail. Results of the initial assessment arepositive and have provided insights that we will use to improve the Cornerstone courses. Forexample, we will insist on more formal planning of testing, and better presentation of prototypetesting results. We will also emphasize the difference between debugging and testing, which areoften confused by students. In the future we also plan to expand our discussion of the designprocess and to introduce topics on ethics in engineering.The novelty of our approach is in: 1. Introducing a project-based design course sequence in the sophomore
0.86 0.00015 0.97 e) Identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems 0.81 0.0026 0.78 f) Understand professional and ethical responsibility 0.22 0.47 0.27 g) Communicate persuasively, in writing and orally 0.54 0.04 0.85 h) Understand the impact of engineering solutions in global and societal context 0.10 0.21 0.91 i) Recognize the need for engaging in life-long learning 0.72 0.92 0.75 j) Know and understand contemporary issues 0.76 0.48
the four year program, the students also have to complete university-required corecurriculum courses in areas like English, ethics, political science, religious studies, etc. Table 1shows the outline of our program. Also see Figure 1. We also offer flexible Junior Spring termfor students to work (as co-op or intern), or study abroad or take more technical electives orgraduate classes.The core of the Electrical Engineering program (which every undergraduate student has to take)are the following 9 courses: 1. ELEN 21 (Logic Design) 2. ELEN 33 (Introduction to Digital Signal Processing Systems) 3. ELEN 50 (Electric Circuits I) 4. ELEN 100 (Electric Circuits II) 5. ELEN 104 (Electromagnetics I) 6. ELEN 105 (Electromagnetics II
of E and ET programs, and in helping the students identify their strengths and interests; the sequence gives opportunities to cover topics in innovation, creativity & design, IP, the globalization of knowledge, engineering ethics, and economics all in the context of real case-based scenarios. These are left unspecified to also allow flexibility for individual programs to put special emphases or to introduce a first course in design if so desired. ¬ The Elective course in Term 4 would enable the students to begin a transition to either an ECET or ECE degree plan. A typical ECET approved course would be Microprocessor Architecture (lecture and lab). Also, some ET programs may elect to replace MATH IV with
, noise, radiation, and disposal) Aesthetic constraints: (customer appeal, shape, color, customer delight, culture, history, trends, rate of change of technology, and product families) Life-cycle constraints: (product life, wear, special uses, working environments, maintenance, regulations, service intervals, exchange and repair, cleaning, diagnostics, recycleability, and scrap) Ethical constraints: (public safety, health, welfare, and integrity) Legal constraints: (government regulations, private regulations, public safety, patents, trademarks, and copyrights) Note: You must complete this table and turn it in with your final report. Moreover, you
of projectsFacilitate multidisciplinary ‚ Work in multidisciplinary ‚ Multidisciplinary designdiscourse teams project work ‚ Contribute to out-of- ‚ Out-of-discipline evaluation discipline design projects ‚ Communication across disciplinesSensitize to contemporary issues ‚ Professional issues ‚ Total project scope ‚ Ethics ‚ Interpretation and interaction ‚ Societal concerns
role of engineering in society, so that students take into account environmental, economical, social and ethical issues that are important in the development of an engineering project.5. Project Budget and Administration.In Table 1, we present a full list of parts and cost for each vehicle. Originally the budget assignedto the workshop was $3000. The cost of the parts purchased for each vehicle was in the order of$1450, and as shown in the table this cost does not include the costs of parts that we already hadavailable in the department such as the laptops and software packages. Taking these expensesinto account the actual cost increases to about $3500 for each vehicle. One faculty member wasin charge of administrating the budget. The main
technologies have evolved into dynamic, complex systemsthat profoundly change the world we live in. Designing these systems requires not only technicalknowledge and skills but also new ways of thinking and the development of social, professionaland ethical responsibility. The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) atIowa State University was awarded a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant in 2016 aimed attransforming curricula and practices to better respond to student, industry and society needs. Thisis being done through new structures for faculty collaboration and facilitated throughdepartmental change processes. Ironically, an impetus behind this effort was a failed attempt atdepartment-wide curricular reform. This failure led
program structure andoverhauling the late freshman- and sophomore-level curriculum to better address today’s studentneeds. Over the past 18 months of the grant-based work, the grant PI and department facultyteams have collaborated to develop this vision through a base set of eight courses for all studentsto complete by the end of their second year. Consequently, the base courses must providestudents with a broad enough view of the field that they can make a satisfactory choice for theirpathway to a degree, while also providing them with basic knowledge that will be required ofany of those pathways.The program goals for the base courses are to 1) strengthen the integration of both electrical andcomputer engineering and ethics topics across the
coordinator for the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. She teaches at the graduate and undergraduate level, using both face-to-face and blended online learning instruction. She is an Adjunct Faculty for the Transportation Systems and, the City & Regional Planning programs at MSU. Her research interests include engineering education, student success, online engineering pedagogy and program assessment solutions, transportation planning, transportation impact on quality of life issues, bicycle access, and ethics in engineering. She has several published works in engineering education and online learning. Dr. Petronella James earned her Doctor of Engineering (Transportation) and Masters of City &
data both from a micro- genetic learning analysis methodology (drawing on knowledge in pieces) as well as interaction analysis methodology. He has been working on how learners’ emotions are coupled with their conceptual and epistemological reasoning. He is also interested in developing models of the dynamics of categorizations (ontological) underlying students’ reasoning in physics. Lately, he has been interested in engineering design thinking and engineering ethics education. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 An application-based learning approach to programming concepts and methods for engineersAbstractThis paper documents an innovative
. Surprisingly, from past observations in ECE3873, the studentthat was getting carried by their partner usually did not want to be carried. Far too often theproblem was that their lab partner was not a team player and just wanted to do everythingthemselves because they thought they could do it faster. Being in a dysfunctional situationlike that for a whole semester is miserable for students. There are numerous other reasonswhy having to stick with one student for the whole semester is not an ideal scenario. Some ofthese are personality clashes, scheduling conflicts, different work ethics, and differences intolerance to procrastination. Another important reason that the group shuffling process was implemented forECE3873 was the problem with sections
. However, we are clearly at the start of a large-scaleeducational experiment and longer-term quantitative evaluations are being set up to determine: The depth of understanding behind the increased applications fluency. The level of student accountability in terms of deliverables and data ethics that goes with ownership of a personal lab. Templates for a more rigorous process for student-driven experimental planning and results analysis. How much student-student cooperation is established given that it is an additional burden that they must organize since there are no longer scheduled lab classes where cooperation is imposed through shared use of lab equipment. Whether the
and solved the problem.(f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility. Although this item is usually very hard to assess, the students have shown that they worked professionally together, and they gave credit to every source that they relied on in solving the given problem.(g) an ability to communicate effectively. The students have shown their communication abilities and skills through the written proposal, written final report, poster presentation and the oral presentations.(h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a globaland societal context. The students strongly believe that it is engineering that changes the world.(i) a
PowerPoint Slides on Risk Management, Configuration Management, andOther Considerations (Environ./political/social, Health/Safety, Economic, Manufacturability/Sustainability, Ethics)Area (weight) A Work B Work C Work UnsatisfactorySchedule: (70%) Detailed and logically Plan is complete Significant tasks Major PDR tasks linked set of tasks that with several missing missing thoroughly cover the minor issues with Some tasks vague or Schedule unusable activities required to task descriptions, not linked
’, ‘Knowledge/Preparedness’, ‘Ethics’,‘Professionalism’ and ‘Communication Skills’ on a 1-10 scale, with 1 being the worst and 10being the best mentor performance. The coaches used the ranking scale and entered theircomments and justifications for the corresponding evaluations to substitute a common rubric.The mentoring activity was evaluated by middle-high school student surveys and their coachphone interviews. The mentors also went through mandatory background verifications since thementoring sessions involved minors. Furthermore, the mentors also volunteered during theCoastal Bend BEST robotics competition to further involve with robotics and socialenvironments.Robotics-II: The second course in the robotics curriculum was offered during the Spring
Business Ethics courses to Undergraduates students. Since December 2009, he is the BPC-A Coordina- tor at Ana G. Mendez University System (AGMUS) for the Caribbean Computing Center for Excellence (CCCE) Alliance to support students to continue studies in computer related fields in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Page 22.308.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 CARIBBEAN COMPUTING CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE: BUILDING UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH SKILLS, CHANGING RECEPTION OF POST-GRADUATE NEEDSAbstract 1The Caribbean Computing Center for Excellence (CCCE) was
final grade, no resubmission) compared to the implemented competency-basedgrading model (1-4 scores, equal weighting for all learning outcomes, includes resubmission). Asthe figure shows, 64% responded “Strongly Agree” when asked if, “I was more motivated andengaged with this model vs. traditional grading.” A total of 84% had an affirming answer to thatsurvey question, and only 4% had a negative response.Open-ended questions were also given in the survey. Below are some representative quotes fromthe student responses, regarding the flexible timeline, resubmissions policy, and related topics.Grammatical errors are not corrected from the original response. “It was very rewarding having a course that was paced by my own work ethic. I
presentationduring the Symposium (see subsection 3.F) and, possibly, a demonstration, if applicable. Duringthe course of the summer experience, the mentors provide guidance to their mentees aboutmatters of technical writing, ethics and scientific methodology. The write-up of the TR is beingperformed incrementally and a first draft is expected by week 7 of the summer experience.Eventually, the TRs and posters are collected in electronic form and posted on the Program’swebsite.D. All-Hands MeetingsAlmost each Friday the entire AMALTHEA community meets for the day at a common site,alternating between the campuses of both host universities. These meetings are referred to as All-Hands Meetings (AHMs). In total, each year 7 of them are held (end of week 2 to week
. That, of course, is expected and, indeed, desirable since ideas for program improve-ments should depend on the current state of the program, the details of the courses, the particularstrengths that the program’s faculty want students to acquire, etc. Page 14.493.131. Outcome 3.c: In some ways, this outcome which reads, “an ability to design a system, com- ponent, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, envi- ronmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability”, captures the essence of engineering. Naturally, almost everyone of our technical courses
information from the Yes = 10 No = 0 REU homepage? 5. Do you want to see any additional Yes = 4 No = 6 information on the REU homepage? 6. Was it easier for you to select faculty Yes = 10 No = 0 mentors based on the information available on their websites? 7. Do you have any prior research experience? Yes = 4 No = 6 8. Have you taken any courses on how to write Yes = 6 No = 4 technical papers and make technical Page 15.1038.12 presentations? 9. Have you taken any courses on ethics? Yes = 6 No = 4 Table III: Results of Pre-Program