findings is also presented.IntroductionABET approved Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC, 2000) in 1996 1. Shifting from an emphasis oninputs of engineering programs (i.e., curricula) to the outputs of these programs (i.e., theknowledge, skills, and attributes that students should take away from their educationalexperiences), EC 2000 has been far-reaching in both academia and industry2., Although efforts toexplore the attributes and skills expected of engineering graduates have begun, it is unfortunatethat they have been focused primarily at the undergraduate level. These types of studies are notusual in doctoral education but are needed for Ph.D. programs to respond to the changingenvironments of industry and academia. Additionally most engineering
you work in the field of biology. The three principal coursegoals 1) to learn different macromolecules in cells, 2) to develop an understanding of theprinciples of cell structure and functions mainly focusing on fundamental genetic mechanisms,and 3) to learn the experimental tools used to understand cellular function such as moleculargenetic techniques, biochemical analysis, and microscopy.” Students were encouraged to furtherexplore the use of the ERC research-focus material (magnesium) in biological applicationsthrough an extra-credit assignment. The engineering students from NCAT (Figure 1) also had theopportunity to attend a biomedical engineering research conference (BMES 2009) for the firsttime during their introductory course to cell
the preparation of college graduates in STEM fields.1, 2 These concerns are especiallyprominent in the field of engineering. Engineering, along with the physical sciences andcomputer sciences, are identified as the fields with the greatest net attrition. 3, 4, 5 Furthermore,there is concern that today’s domestic graduates are ill-prepared to thrive in the rapidly evolvingglobal economy. 6, 7 In response to the concerns with engineering education nationally, there aremany efforts underway to address the inability of the U.S. to adequately attract, retain andprepare students in the STEM disciplines8. One of the major drivers of research in STEM education has been the findings ofSeymour and Hewitt on student departure from STEM fields
Spring 2009 a graduate course in “Geotechnical Engineering”, the control group was taughtusing the traditional lecture method. In Fall 2010 the same course was taught with the inclusionof an ethics component; this course was the experimental group. The students were taught thatethical issues have multipronged solutions that must address many different areassimultaneously. In making ethical decisions the students were not expected to determine "yes orno", "right or wrong" answers. Instead they were asked to deal with the variables in order toimprove the overall condition of the existing situation. Twenty case studies13 were presented in 5groups, as shown in Appendix 1. Each case study contained problems that are commonly facedin engineering
Programs In a review of the development and characteristics of future faculty preparationprograms2, it is pointed out that they can provide a smooth transition between graduate schooland faculty positions. These programs evolved from TA training programs that proliferatedbetween 1960 and 1990. Establishment of the Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) program in 1993formed a base for a sustained national initiative to transform doctoral education. The PFFprogram has three core features3 of 1) addressing the full scope of faculty roles andresponsibilities, 2) students have multiple mentors and receive reflective feedback and 3) bothare addressed in the context of a cluster of institutions typically involving a doctoral degree-granting institution
conducted as part of the recentresearch provide a mechanism for evaluation and assessment of achievement of them.NSF DataIn Figure 1, National Science Foundation2 data shows that significant numbers ofengineering graduates leave the direct practice of engineering over time and increasinglymove into management. This has implications for the need to build leadership understandingand skills into all engineers, and to emphasize continuing education for all. Within 35 yearsof graduation, more than 25% of those educated as engineers have management roles.Evidence from interviews with alumni suggests that most are not well prepared by eithertheir education or employers for the leadership demands of these positions. Even to be agood team member and
parts: (1) an evaluation of publication rates within two years aftercompletion of the degree, and (2) an assessment of the dissertation and the defense using anumber of criteria. The criteria were based on a review of the online literature plus additionalcriteria developed ourselves. Common criteria include originality, advancing of the state of theart, and demonstration of a high degree of mastery. The additional criteria include:demonstration of mastery of the literature; the work has academic or practical utility; the workuses advanced or novel techniques; the work has elements of both theory and experiment.Several other criteria are linked to our institution’s mission, including: The work may lead tomarketable technology; the candidate
new pedagogical observation system,called the Global Real-time Assessment Tool for Teaching Enhancement (G-RATE), has beendeveloped to provide GTAs with multidimensional feedback about their teaching. This paperdescribes the evolution of the G-RATE system, provides an overview of each section of theinstrument, and discusses future steps for the development of this tool.Introduction Seymour et al.1 note the importance of pedagogical feedback for graduate teachingassistants (GTAs) in a variety of disciplines. In a comparison of GTAs teaching in innovativeand traditional course environments, the authors identified GTA responsibilities in traditionalenvironments to include grading, working closely with undergraduate, and serving as
AC 2010-196: STRENGTHENING THE U.S. ENGINEERING WORKFORCE FORINNOVATION: FOUNDATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL GRADUATE EDUCATIONFOR THE NATION’S ENGINEERS IN INDUSTRY ? PART I EARLY CAREERDEVELOPMENT: DIRECT LEADERSHIP ?Thomas Stanford, University of South Carolina Page 15.1106.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2010 Strengthening the U.S. Engineering Workforce for Innovation: Foundations of Professional Graduate Education for the Nation’s Engineers in Industry ─ Part I Early Career Development: Direct Leadership ─ Part I 1. The Direct Leadership Function of Engineering in Industry
the needs of creative engineering practice in industry toenhance U.S. technological innovation and competitiveness. This paper implements the findingsof the National Collaborative as a model pilot effort at a major university. The Masters forEngineering Professionals to be introduced at New Jersey Institute of Technology is reflective ofthe skills, knowledge and actions required for early career development in developingengineering leaders for the first stage of Direct Leadership [Levels 1-3 Engineering]. Thepostgraduate engineering curriculum has been designed as a matrix of advanced studies versusskills, knowledge and actions required for Level 3 engineering. Program emphasis is placed uponengineering creativity, innovation, and its
required for Engineering Levels [1-3]; b) Part II addresses theOrganizational Leadership Skills and Actions required for Engineering Levels [4-6], and; c) Part IIIaddresses the Strategic Leadership Skills and Actions required for Engineering Levels [7-9]. The overallanalysis sets the foundation for building a coherent professional graduate curriculum and dynamiceducational process reflective of how experienced engineering professionals learn, grow, and create newtechnology in industry. This paper addresses Part II: the Organizational Leadership Function, Skills andActions that engineers must learn and develop from Group Leader, Functional Area Manager, SystemsEngineer through Technical Program Manager Levels [4-6
addresses the skills continuum in three main parts: a) Part I addressesthe Direct Leadership Skills and Actions required for Engineering Levels [1-3]; b) Part II addresses theOrganizational Leadership Skills and Actions required for Engineering Levels [4-6], and; c) Part IIIaddresses the Strategic Leadership Skills and Actions required for Engineering Levels [7-9]. The overallanalysis sets the foundation for building a coherent professional graduate curriculum and dynamiceducational process reflective of how experienced engineering professionals learn, grow, and create newtechnology in industry. This paper addresses Part III: the Strategic Leadership Function, Skills andActions that the engineer must learn and develop at Director of Engineering
realistic constraints, such as economic factors, safety, reliability, aesthetics, ethics and social impact.Implicit in this understanding of Figure 1. Navajo Bridge in the Grand Canyon Nationalengineering design is that need is Park7something that is established by non-engineers or engineers working outside of engineering practice and is communicated in anover-the-wall approach to the engineers. Non-engineering factors such economics, safety,reliability, aesthetics, ethics, and social impact are relegated to a plethora of systematizedapproaches often known as Design for X If engineering design is merely the application ofalready well defined knowledge then there indeed
required for thenew economy, and the role of professional or soft skills in getting and keeping a job. Infact, according to one recent research report (discussed extensively below), only 31.5%of four year graduates enter the workforce with excellent professional skills.1 While theresearch report discusses graduates of four-year institutions and their work skills, thisauthor posits that any identified shortcomings in four-year education can be remedied notonly by changing the education in undergraduate education, but also by addressing thoseemployer needs at the graduate level. Without question, technical skills are required intechnical professions, but those technical skills alone are no longer sufficient to preparegraduates in engineering and
include concepts on how students contribute personally throughouttheir lives to reduce the carbon footprint and maintain a safe, sustainable and healthyenvironment. Students are encouraged to choose at least one concept to take up in their life.Except for these steps, there was no difference between the control group and ITS group.The students were asked to rank the overall performance of the TAs and overall learningexperience in the labs on a scale of 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent). TAs were asked to rank the overalljob satisfaction and evaluate the performance of the students. A rubric was provided to the TAsto evaluate the performance of the students. The improvements in all the seven performanceindices over the control group were determined using
enhancestudents’ leadership skills and technical knowledge are: 1) academic research training, 2)academic and industry partnerships in research, and 3) learner centered courses. Otherinstructional strategies, such as degree or certificate programs in leadership do exist, but they donot show evidence of strengthening students’ technical knowledge. This paper focuses onprograms whose goal is both to educate doctoral students with technical knowledge and enhancetheir leadership abilities.Academic Research Training Programs. Engineering doctoral education in the United States isbased largely on an apprenticeship model. The degree includes of technical courses, a researchbased dissertation, and comprehensive exams. Students are assigned or choose a supervisor
constantcomparative method 20 was used to highlight the similar or different views of the respondentsregarding the problems and solutions in graduate student recruitment and retention. Theparticipants responses were grouped by re-reading of the data and possible themes wereidentified. After reading each interview the themes were reviewed and new data was classifiedunder appropriate themes.Findings and DiscussionThe themes that were identified among the sample are discussed in Figure 1. All participantsmentioned the need to raise awareness among potential engineering doctoral students about thebenefits, rewards, and relevance of obtaining such the degree. By educating engineering studentsat all levels, they might learn early the role that Ph.D. recipients
of the Student Constituent Committee (SCC), with the long-term goal of forming a Student Division. To help guide the organization’s student leaders, anadvisory council was formed consisting of faculty and industry leaders familiar with ASEE. In2007, that advisory council formed sub-committees to develop by-laws, nominations, recruiting,and the 2008 program. The SCC elected their first executive council at the 2008 ASEE National Page 15.193.2Meeting in Pittsburgh, PA.The stated goals of the SCC include: 1. Fostering programs for ASEE student members at regional and national ASEE meetings. 2. Promoting the development at
needed level of ability is not correlated with the level of preparation that thegraduates received. Results suggest that one of the most significant areas for improvements inpreparing doctoral students is related to teamwork. These findings and others are discussed inthis paper.BackgroundTraditionally, engineering doctoral programs largely train doctoral students to conduct researchin narrowly defined areas that are selected by the faculty advisors, with the expectation thatstudents will become university faculty members. Such specialization does not explicitlyprepare graduates for long-term success in the continuously evolving, multidisciplinary, globalresearch environment 1, 2. Furthermore, there has been a shift in employment options
-reflect upon the process of creating scholarly ideas and communicating them to others intheir field. REACH Activities that support the tenet of Intentionality include monthly REACHseminars. The outcomes of the seminar focus on three main areas: (1) peer mentoring throughdiscussion of daily activities, coursework, research, and other topics, (2) a professionaldevelopment component focused on skill development and strategies that enhance their careerdevelopment, (3) feedback back from REACH PIs on options.Multiple relationships, the second tenet of the REACH Scholars’ multiple apprenticeship model,focuses on student engagement with numerous intellectual mentors. In addition to the student –advisor relationship, central to the graduate education
training in bothengineering and medicine, and thus students working to combine these areas may find it difficultto find an advisor with skills in both the engineering methodological and problem solvingapproaches, and the practice of medicine with its focus on life-critical performance demands.In retrospect, previous attempts to integrate industrial engineering and healthcare have sufferedfrom this lack of appreciation of the unique demands of combining these fields. HospitalIndustrial Engineering is a traditional industrial engineering text that is still used, over 40 yearslater, to describe time study and shop-floor production approaches to managing hospitalperformance 1. However, this text also demonstrated the limits of a manufacturing
American Indians and Alaska Nativesand even smaller numbers of African Americans. The other two groups are then separated bycitizenship: U.S. citizens and permanent residents versus temporary residents. The non-URM-US category, then, includes all U.S. citizens and permanent residents who were classified asWhite, Asian/Pacific Islander, or of unknown race-ethnicity.Figure 1 shows the proportion of all graduate students enrolled during this five-year period - anaverage enrollment of 278 students - within the six groups defined by race-ethnicity, citizenship Page 15.374.7and gender. Figure 2 shows these same data for the three-year period 2003-2007
distinct ways: 1) presentation of participationrates and assessment data will illustrate the potential for utilization of and appreciation for thistype of programming, and 2) description of resources used, design steps taken, and programcomponents implemented will provide a template for individuals at other institutions interestedin setting up similar programs. Page 15.347.21. Introduction The graduate level component of the Tech to Teaching project aims to create aninfrastructure at Georgia Tech which encourages graduate students to gain the skills needed toobtain and be successful in a career in college teaching. The Tech to Teaching
of the classes are available to the biomass communitythrough a web-based distribution system.1 These classes serve as a template for other universitiesinterested in developing their own curricula and degree programs; to be used as is or modifiedfor individual needs. This approach of jointly developing and testing the classes, and offeringthem without cost to the community-at-large reduces the costs of others interested in developingsimilar classes, workshops, continuing education or degree programs.Importance of Sustainable Bio-products EducationIt is clear that bio-products, in the form of fuels, energy, chemical, and materials, offer asignificant opportunity for the U.S. to begin to develop domestic sources of non-petroleumfeedstocks
program between 2006and 2009. Lastly, Project STEP focuses on the sustainability of the program itself. The universityfaculty participants, six primary investigators and four coordinators, play a large role infacilitating the promotion of community partnerships with teachers, K-12 students, and Fellows.Training of the FellowsLong term goals for our project include: 1)To train, energize, and sustain graduate engineering,math and science Fellows to effectively teach STEM skills to secondary school students;professional development of each Fellow that involves lesson observations, lesson plandocumentation, and course mastery of instructional planning and practicum; 2) Develophierarchical and expandable STEM lesson plans that explicitly connect key
wherethey are responsible for developing an entire course. Engineering students more often haveresearch assistantships, and available teaching opportunities can be limited to facilitating alaboratory section without developing its content.1 As a consequence, engineering students canbe left without the curriculum development experience necessary to become the next generationof excellent instructors. Some disciplines have recognized the need for graduate student teachingdevelopment;2-4 however, these programs are not widespread.Undergraduate students in engineering are often required to learn specialized skills such asMATLAB, Mathematica, Excel, SolidWorks, and COMSOL Multiphysics. These skills areindispensible in many areas of engineering, yet
trade associationcomprised of more than 33,000 firms. As stated in their request for proposal, which was initiatedto advance graduate CM programs, the AGC expressed an interest in partial funding andadvertised support for up to four programs. The AGC stated: “The need for senior executives tosecure a masters is apparent from two perspectives. First, they will benefit from learning newlyevolved construction techniques and management methods. Second, their experience is neededon campus as instructors” 1. In the BCM distance MS program that developed from AGC initialsupport, there were 13 enrolled in the first cohort of students. The program quickly grew to anenrollment between 17 and 23 students. Total enrollment has been limited to 24 students
Education, 2014 Preliminary Analyses of Survey and Student Outcome Data Using the Global Real-Time Assessment Tool for Teaching Enhancement (G-RATE)AbstractThis paper presents a brief overview of a pilot study conducted with a tool called the GlobalReal-time Assessment Tool for Teaching Enhancement (G-RATE) and the development ofinstructor profiles. The purpose of the pilot study is to investigate how student perceptions ofteaching practices on key aspects of the “How People Learn” (HPL) framework and students’end of the course grades differ among three conditions (i.e., (1) instructors were observed onceand received no feedback on their instruction during the semester (C1), (2) instructors wereobserved
c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014 Preparing Future Engineering Educators through Round-Table Practicum Course DiscussionsIntroductionWith good intentions, there has been a push for earlier training of engineering faculty,starting as early as with graduate students aspiring towards faculty positions, in hopesthat new faculty are better prepared when asked to teach as primary instructors.1 Theconcept of using pre-faculty members as instructors is not novel, however, there arelimited reported efforts towards training and supporting the development of future facultymembers. Many engineering graduate students experience graduate teaching positions,often being thrown in front of a classroom with
result of formal mechanisms.Beyond mastering knowledge and the process to produce it, students must also acquire a myriadof professional skills and information to succeed in their desired career paths. The IGERT-MNMEducation and Training program addresses these three missing elements in graduate education by(1) offering instruction on emerging interdisciplinary knowledge, (2) providing formal training toprepare students to become independent researchers, and (3) emphasizing pedagogical andprofessional development training. In addressing these areas, disciplinary boundaries andtraditional graduate education paradigms are challenged through the active engagement ofgraduate students.Literature on IGERT programs show that the most popular learning