AC 2008-1567: A REVIEW OF THE 4+1 ACCELERATED MASTERS DEGREEPROGRAM:STUDENT AWARENESS PRESAGES STUDENT OPPORTUNITIESDaniel Walsh, California Polytechnic State University Daniel Walsh is currently Associate Dean of the College of Engineering at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. He received his B.S. (Biomedical Engineering) , M.S. (Biomedical Engineering) and Ph.D. (Materials Engineering) degrees from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York. Prior to joining Cal Poly, Dr. Walsh was employed by General Dynamics Corporation, as a principal engineer and group leader in the Materials Division.Stacey Breitenbach, California Polytechnic State University Stacey
• recruitment • undergrad research • preparation for grad school • admissions evaluator training • financial aid • community building • mentoringIn Table I below, we list these areas and the stakeholders who can best support each one of them.While progress in achieving diversity at the graduate level continues to be made, true diversitywill only be achieved by each of these groups continuing their efforts and sharing theirknowledge. Table 1: Summary of Key Strategies and Stakeholder Responsibility Adminis- Faculty Diversity Govern- Professional Corporate Student Students trators Program ment Societies / Sponsors Groups
of graduate studies impacting practicing professionals, project management issues,and job search issues.1. IntroductionIt can be said that, from many aspects, the best time for an engineering student to obtaintheir Ph.D. is after a period of working in industry. By the time one completes five toseven years of higher education, students can be “burned out” and otherwise not ready forthe rigor of a Doctoral Degree. By breaking at this point and working in industry for afew years, students can obtain a better understanding of the practice of engineering thancan be obtained from the classroom and co-operative (co-op) or internship experience.Furthermore, they can better understand exactly what area of engineering they wish topursue in their
, Negotiating the Ideal Faculty Position. The workshops at RiceUniversity are funded through a National Science Foundation (NSF) ADVANCE institutionaltransformation grant. At each of these workshops, a national invitation was extended and 350-730 women responded with applications. This level of response clearly demonstrates the interestin the topic and, at the same time, the lack of information available to women in their localinstitutions.One to three follow-up surveys have been completed by the workshop participants. Thelongitudinal data show that these workshops have had a strong impact on the participants’ careerpaths, with a high percentage pursuing (and succeeding in) academic careers.The workshops have three goals: 1. To provide critical
discussed. Our data are obtained from a survey ofcurrent and former EGSMs. We conclude by describing how both the formal professionaldevelopment sessions and the on-the-job training and experiences helped to prepare alumni ofthe EGSM program for their careers in both industrial and academic settings.1. IntroductionGraduate students carry out a significant portion of the teaching activities in many engineeringcolleges within large research institutions. In order to maintain a high quality of teaching, and toprovide opportunities for graduate students to grow as teachers, the University of MichiganCollege of Engineering pays special attention to the training of GSIs. The Center for Research onLearning and Teaching (CRLT) administers a day-long
community, we have recognized the benefit ofpartnering with various campus organizations. These partnerships enable us to have a broadimpact relative to our group size. In order to build and retain a substantial membership base, wehave attempted to identify and focus on those program areas that appeal to a large audience inthe engineering community. The topics are selected to fill needs and supplement engineeringeducation provided by departments within the college. A discussion on future initiatives focusedon increasing and maintaining interest in our student chapter is presented.PART 1: Where We Have Been – History of the ASEE Student ChapterThe ASEE student chapter was formed to provide an interdisciplinary organization for graduatestudents of
, sample 10 minute lecture, open-ended project and/or design activity, andhourly exam. In addition students develop teaching philosophy and teaching interest statementsto help define themselves as teachers and for possible future job searches. One of the mostsuccessful initiatives in this highly interactive course has been the implementation of “teachingpartners,” who support each other through the process, providing feedback on all materialsdeveloped. In this paper, I describe this course and provide suggestions for faculty consideringteaching such courses themselves.Course historyThis course had its origins in my participation in the National Effective Teaching Institute, runby Profs. Richard Felder and Jim Stice in 1994 1. This was an excellent
assistance of the engineeringdepartment’s industrial advisory board and posted on the internet. Seventy on-lineresponses were obtained, along with sixteen paper copies. Employees of companies suchas International Truck & Engine, Raytheon, UnderSea Sensors Inc., ITTAerospace/Communications Division returned most of the surveys. The results aresummarized in Table 1. Table 1. Results of industry surveys. B.S. Computer Engineering 6% B.S. Electrical Engineering 27% Degree obtained B.S. Mechanical Engineering 29% B.A./B.S. Computer Science 20
arguments supporting that perception. She notesthat the structure of knowledge and appropriate strategies for conveying that knowledge varyconsiderably from one discipline to another, and suggests that development programs forgraduate students (and faculty) are best presented in a disciplinary context. A number ofengineering schools have published descriptions of their graduate student training programs. Theprogram topics fall into two somewhat overlapping categories: (1) common TA responsibilities,such as grading and assisting in laboratories2 and (2) teaching.2–10 The most effective discipline-specific TA training program we know of is one that hasbeen conducted for many years in the College of Engineering at Cornell University.2 Training
, ordecisions based on their own experience as students” resulting in teaching practices which are“often disconnected from the literature base in education.”1 The National Science Foundationfunded project described in this paper seeks to develop theoretically-grounded instruments thatprovide pedagogical feedback to graduate teaching assistants about the quality of theirinstruction. This project began with the testing of a modified portion of the VaNTH ObservationSystem (VOS)5-11. The VaNTH Engineering Research Center (an acronym based on the names ofthe member institutions: Vanderbilt University, Northwestern University, University of Texas atAustin, and the Harvard/Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Science andTechnology
thisanalysis were: 1. What percentage of all faculty openings is interdisciplinary? 2. Are there more interdisciplinary faculty openings at doctoral institutions than at other types of institutions? 3. Are there more interdisciplinary faculty openings in engineering than in science or humanities and social sciences? 4. Are there more interdisciplinary faculty openings at senior rank than at junior rank? 5. Does motivation for interdisciplinary hiring come from the institutional level? In other words, do institutions with many science and engineering interdisciplinary openings also have many social science and humanities interdisciplinary positions?To address these, we built a database of academic job postings appearing on
assessment.Assessment questions we would like to answer in these first few years of the project are: 1. How does the Graduate Teaching Fellow workload and level of responsibility compare to other departments? 2. Are Graduate Teaching Fellows receiving appropriate training and mentoring for their teaching activities? 3. What is the effect on other teaching assistants of interaction with elite Graduate Teaching Fellows?The role that Graduate Teaching Fellows (GTFs) and other graduate teaching assistants play inthis first-year program is called workshop leaders. There is little difference in the way GTFs andother workshop leaders are treated, other than being assigned fewer sections. Because of this,and the interest in interactional effects
experienceto date.1. Introduction:Graduate Program Assessment is a fairly new academic process. Objectives and desiredoutcomes for the Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) program at the University ofOklahoma (OU) are well established and were published earlier [1]. Strategic and tactical actionplans have been put in place to affect assessment of the Program. Instruments are in place forgathering ‘Outcomes’ data while students remain on this campus. Quantifiable interpretation ofdata from these instruments as strong, independent metrics of the program's success has yet to beaccomplished. To date, primary focus has been on assessing progress of Thesis- andDissertation-producing students. Positive trends on quantitative data are impacted by
regulations are someof the concerns faced by international students. Due to various rules and regulations encounteredby students combined with India and China becoming the fastest growing nations, high calibercompetitive students are decreasing in spite of an increase in students coming to the U.S. topursue advanced degrees. The number of international students studying at U.S. universities hasgrown significantly during the past 50 years, from 49,000 students in 1950s to about 583,000students in 20071. After September 11th, the growth rate of recruiting international students wasreduced by approximately 1% in 2002 and due to more stringent security measures implemented
students who are engaged inthematically intertwined research projects but who belong to diverse engineering programs andrelated programs in life sciences and physical sciences. All doctoral students must learn how todisseminate their research and learn from the research of others. However these challenges areamplified by the major differences in knowledge base, terminology, and culture that exist in theincreasingly multi-disciplinary and cross-functional contexts of engineering in the 21st century.We are exploring how our forum for research interchange, developed as a core activity forresearch fellowship recipients of an Integrative Graduate Education Research and Training(IGERT) grant from National Science Foundation[1], can contribute towards
University that is now in its third year ofoperation.1 It has a current student body of eighteen students with its first graduate havinggraduated during fall 2007. The disciplinary backgrounds of the students include chemicalengineering, mechanical engineering, civil and environmental engineering, electricalengineering, environmental science, applied mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, andagricultural economics. A feature of the program that was incorporated into its initial design is athread of exposure to energy and environmental economics. The rationale for inclusion of thisthread included (1) to provide a vehicle for interdisciplinary conversations among students with avariety of engineering and physical science backgrounds, (2) to respond
variety of problems inresearch, production and process development, design, manufacturing as well as in domains suchas computational chemistry, biology, genomics, business forecasting, economic modeling, etc.Computational modeling and simulation is being accepted as a third methodology in scientificdiscovery processing and engineering design, complementing the traditional approaches oftheory and experiment. Many experiments and investigations that have traditionally beenperformed in a laboratory or the field are being augmented or replaced by computationalmodeling and simulation. Examples include weather and climate modeling 1, fossil fuelcombustion simulation 2, engine and vehicle design 3, materials development 4, aircraft design 5,electronic
encourage excellence in teachingamong graduate teaching assistants, and to provide a network for those considering andsearching for faculty jobs. ASEE student chapters may also strive to promote engineering toK-12 students and to promote engineering graduate school to undergraduate students.In short, ASEE student chapters aim to (1) disseminate information, (2) teach skills, (3) promoteengineering and engineering education, and (4) foster community.First, ASEE student chapters can disseminate information to many audiences. They show K-12students what engineering is. They inform undergraduate students about engineering graduateschool. They introduce graduate students to careers in academia. All this information enablesstudents to make informed
http://www.bls.gov/ The percentages of growth have changed slightly for the 2006-2016 projections. Page 13.400.85 http://online.onetcenter.org/6 http://online.onetcenter.org/link/summary/17-3026.007 http://online.onetcenter.org/link/summary/15-1071.008 See for example www.hoosierdata.in.gov/major_employers.asp9 http://www.seas.upenn.edu/profprog/emtm/10 http://bulletin.ipfw.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=2&poid=58&bc=1 andhttp://bulletin.ipfw.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=2&poid=64&bc=111 http://www.nku.edu/~mst/mstover.htm12 http://catalog.eiu.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=15&poid=1859&bc
AC 2008-362: ENSURING A STRONG U.S. ENGINEERING WORKFORCE FORTECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND COMPETITIVENESS: THE FRAMEWORKOF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION FOR INNOVATIONThomas Stanford, University of South CarolinaDonald Keating, University of South CarolinaRoger Olson, Rolls-Royce CorporationRandall Holmes, Caterpillar Inc. Page 13.560.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 Ensuring a Strong U.S. Engineering Workforce for Technology Innovation and Competitiveness: The Framework of Professional Education for Innovation1. IntroductionEngineering education has been the focus of numerous papers and reports in the last several decades.1
pre-set goals of international graduate students from India, who are currentlypursuing degrees at the graduate level in the School of Engineering at the University ofBridgeport. Volunteers consisting of international graduate students from India pursuingthe Master of Science (MS) in engineering (electrical, computer, mechanical, andtechnology management) at the University of Bridgeport, CT were surveyed. The surveyhighlights two broad areas: (1) areas in which student expectations do not match thefacilities, resources or practices currently available, and (2) areas where opportunitiesexist for faculty and staff to meet reasonably held expectations. Based on our results, wemake recommendations to address the identified imbalances between
needfor reform, the vision for change, and enumerates the immediate impact, significance, and long-range returns to be gained from this unique national initiative between academia and industry todeliberately advance professional graduate engineering education that further strengthens the‘creative, innovative, and leadership’ capacity of the U.S. Engineering Workforce in America’sindustry for enhanced U.S. competitiveness and national security purposes.2. Engineering and the Nation’s FutureAs the National Academy of Engineering has pointed out, the modern practice of engineering is‘a profoundly creative process ... the outcome, of which, is new technology.’ 1, 2, 3 As such, ournation’s economic competitiveness and national security depends largely
13.558.3innovation is a very purposeful and systematic practice. It is not the linear or sequential processfollowing basic research as portrayed in 1945, by Vannevar Bush 1. Rather, creative engineeringprojects in industry frequently drive the need for directed strategic research efforts atuniversities, when necessary, or when anticipated, to gain a better understanding of the naturalphenomena involved. With this in mind, the ability to build and sustain a culture of innovation isbecoming the skill that is truly needed to sustain America’s viability, yet in many organizations,it is left to chance. Engineering education would rather place their efforts on more technicaltools instead of teaching the art of collaboration.3. Creating Cultures of InnovationIn
categories:discovery, integration, application, and teaching 1. This is the well-known “Boyer’smodel of scholarship.” Since its inception in 1990, Boyer’s model has been widelydiscussed and debated, and the focus has mainly been on its impact on university faculty,especially their tenure, promotion, and reappointment (TPR) policies 2, 3.However, scholarships are not generated by faculty alone. Our students, especiallygraduate students, are an important integral part of the scholarship. They serve as abackbone of pure research (discovery), a vehicle of implementations (integration andapplication), and a bridge between faculty and the students, graduate and undergraduatesalike (teaching). Their efforts of generating and improving the quality of scholarships
involuntaryoscillatory movement of body parts with a relative and fixed frequency and amplitude;the range of frequencies for tremors is between 3 and 15 Hz [1], [2].Many solutions exist to detect, acquire data on, and analyze human hand tremors.Hardware solutions, such as sensor networks, have been used with great success formotion detection. The type of sensor most commonly used was the accelerometer. Thesesensors were placed on the middle finger of each hand on a patient to detect motion [2],[3], [4]. Another device used 3 accelerometers and 3 gyroscopes, in conjunction withwireless data transmission [5]. Data acquisition was critical, but the fundamental issuewas distinguishing voluntary motion from involuntary motion. Software based solutions,such as DSP
. Page 13.1291.3 Figure 1: Common fears reported by 41 teaching assistants from eleven different universities and four different disciplinesThe most common concern is ‘not knowing the answer to a question’ which is to say insecurityabout knowledge of a subject. Most of the other concerns (other than time commitment) arerelated to this idea. The best way to overcome this fear is by gaining experience. Some of thisexperience needs to be gained the hard way, by doing it, but it is our intention to provide thesenew TAs with some life lessons that we both have learned so that they do not need to make thesame mistakes that we did. Our goal for the session attendees is that they take away one or twonew ideas to apply to
engineering practice in order tostrengthen the innovative capacity of the U.S. Engineering Workforce in industry for world-classcompetitiveness and national security purposes.2. Strengthening U.S. Engineering Education for CompetitivenessToday, as never before, America’s future technological competitiveness will depend largely on our abilityto innovate and to revitalize the core capacity for continuous innovation within the U.S. EngineeringWorkforce in America’s industry. 1 Innovation ... as the Council on Competitiveness points out ... “will bethe single most important factor in determining America’s success through the 21st century.”2To compete … America must innovate.Consequently, as the National Academies’ report, Rising above the Gathering Storm