used by the School in managing a rapid and unanticipated rate of growth. Issuesdiscussed will include marketing, international enrollment, planning of diverse course offeringsfor seven different programs and interdisciplinary areas, meeting the needs of part-time and full-time graduate students, faculty load, resources, planning for assessment, and related issues. Alsoconsidered are balancing program level issues and concerns with School-level planning for thegraduate degree. This is a further development of the experiences in planning curriculum for anew degree discussed in a previous paper. The degree is intended to prepare students forleadership or supervisory roles in technology and technology-related fields. Recommendationsfor how to
AC 2009-542: IGERT FUNDING AND THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OFINTERDISCIPLINARY GRADUATE EDUCATIONLynita Newswander, Virginia Tech LYNITA K. NEWSWANDER holds a Ph.D. in Planning, Governance, and Globalization and master's degrees in English and Political Science from Virginia Tech. Her current research interests are interdisciplinary and reside at the intersection of theory and the empirical aesthetic.Maura Borrego, Virginia Tech MAURA BORREGO is an Assistant Professor of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech. Dr. Borrego holds an M.S. and Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from Stanford University. Her current research interests center around interdisciplinary graduate education in
academic integrity issues. Although thesestudents are not required to enroll in the credit-bearing seminar, some students still elect to takethe course due to interest.The Graduate Assistant Teaching Seminar had been in existence for at least ten years when thecurrent instructor began to teach it. However, substantial changes were made to the course inorder to better fit the needs of the students.The course proposes to meet multiple objectives. First, students should learn to engage instrategic course planning, by aligning various course components, including objectives,instruction, and assessment. Second, students should be able to write clear and conciseobjectives for a course they are teaching or assisting. Finally, students should be able to
Academy of Engineering, “Educating the Engineer of 2020”: Phase II Report, 20054. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP), “Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers”, National Academy Press, 1995.5. Council on Competitiveness, “Innovate America”, 2005.6. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, National Academy Press, 2006.7. Strategic Plan: “Enabling a Strong U.S. Engineering Workforce for Competitiveness”, National Collaborative Task Force on Engineering Graduate Education Reform, 2006. Page 14.1078.6
year, the GSAC meetings have a theme. For example, in its first year, 2006-07, theGSAC’s theme was identifying, and recommending ways to address, issues of greatest concernto the graduate students. In 2007-08, the theme was building graduate student communities. Thegoal in 2007-08 was to explore the types of communities in which graduate students function Page 14.295.2(e.g. disciplinary, interdisciplinary, social), determine what communities are of greatest value tothe graduate students, and develop a plan to be implemented in the next year that would eitherestablish or strengthen those communities and encourage broader student involvement.The
level responsibility of corporate planning, technical program making and technology policy making.2. Engineering the Future ─Professional Graduate Engineering EducationTo Enhance U.S. Innovation in Industry for CompetitivenessToday, as never before, America’s future technological strength for economic competitiveness andnational security depends on continuous innovation by its engineers working in industry and governmentservice. Their ideas are the creative well-spring of U.S. technological development. The need forinnovation has been stressed by the Council on Competitiveness, which calls it “the single most importantfactor in determining America’s success though the 21st century.”1As such, the National Academies’report, Rising Above the
Leadership_____________________________________________________________________________________Stages of Growth Typical Responsibilities-Autonomy-JudgmentENGINEER IX An engineer-leader at this level is in responsible charge of programs so extensive and complex as to require staff and resources of sizeable magnitude to meet the overall engineering objectives of the organization.ENGINEER VIII An engineer-leader at this level demonstrates a high degree of creativity, foresight, and mature judgment in planning, organizing, and guiding extensive engineering programs and activities of outstanding novelty and importance. Is responsible for deciding the kind and extent of engineering and related
degreeholders in science, engineering, business and technology a direct path to industry. This programis attractive to students because it prepares them for work in a variety of cutting-edge fields andyields a highly marketable degree after just two years of postgraduate study. The faculty andstudents at Farmingdale State College of the State University of New York are excited abouttheir newly proposed PSM program that is strongly supported by the College’s administrationand intend its implementation as soon as funding is allocated. The College also is planning torigorously evaluate and constantly improve its PSM program and disseminates the findings of itsstrength and weakness regionally and nationally to eventually work collaboratively as a mentorto
theindustry.Back in the late 1980’s, the BCM faculty began planning for a construction management mastersdegree. At that time only the Industrial Technology (IT) Department had a master’s degreeprogram in the CoT. Also, at this time the former BCM department head went on a six monthsabbatical and interviewed BCM alumni around the country on the topic of the BCM masters Page 14.654.2degree. Beginning with the Spring 1990 semester one construction management course wastaught each semester. These courses were taught through the IT department. The courses weretaught one evening per week and the students consisted mainly of non-degree part time
globalizing profession, the challenges facingengineers in a developing country, the development of professional “soft skill” learningoutcomes not easily taught in traditional classrooms and to get first-hand experience inwhat engineering is ultimately about: building things that make people’s lives better.Components of the program include service learning project development, managementand installation and the development of leadership, teaming and communication skills setwithin a developing country - Peru. The service learning component was the installationof 18 solar panels in three remote Peruvian Amazon villages. The service part of thegraduate course, built upon previously established UA-Peru connections, involved theconception, planning and
. Include industrial and/or sponsor decision makers in the program planning right from the beginning. This is essential for such considerations as intellectual property, confidentiality and program content delineation. 8. Provide sufficient (more than anticipated) support to both faculty and students for using distance learning technologies. 9. Showing faculty the opportunities for converting such activity into tangible scholarship that affects their promotability and merit evaluations. 10. An absolute requirement for responsiveness of faculty, i.e., maintaining frequent contact, via any means available with their advisees in the program. Because of the nature of business, this clientele has far
that came out of meeting at Residency was two students wholive in different states began the planning of starting a consulting engineering business together.We hope this phenomenon was not a one time event and will continue to occur periodically overthe years.While meeting and building friendships is a great outcome of Residency, we have also seenanother effect of meeting as a cohort. When one student dominates every online discussion area,the other members of the cohort are reluctant to meet but at last year’s Residency the studentsfound the “dominator” to be one of their best friends after they met face to face. Thatdominating personality only came out when online and he could hide behind his monitor.Our observations of relationship building
experience in sponsored program administration, including the areas of program management and strategic planning, organizational development, staff development and student development. She is a member of the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE), the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society, and serves as a committee member for several Page 14.931.1 STEM-related programs.© American Society for Engineering Education, 2009 On Successful Implementation of an NSF-Funded Bridge to the Doctorate Program in STEM
process describe by Sandmann5. The authors contend that evaluation of scholarshipof application must be driven by external practitioners.To that end, Western Carolina University has incorporated in the collegial review process anexternal engagement committee to provide both initial planning feedback to faculty before theyenter into external projects as well as final evaluation of the scholarship at its completion. Thiscommittee is composed of members internal to the Kimmel School as well as external academic,business and engineering leaders from the region. The structure of the committee has stablemembership at its core which is supported and enhanced by an adhoc membership providing thetechnical expertise needed to evaluate the specific suite of
development simplydoesn’t work that way. Although basic scientific research is frequently needed in large,complex scale technology development and innovation projects, basic research is not theprimary forerunner of technology. Creative engineering projects in industry frequentlydrive the need for directed academic research efforts at universities, when necessary, orwhen anticipated, to gain a better understanding of the natural phenomena involved.As Sanders and Brown have pointed out: “The great discovery of our age is thattechnological innovation need not be haphazard. Industry and government have developeda new concept of planned and systematized innovation, founded on vastly expandedscientific and engineering efforts. These institutions are now
maintains a relationship with a less-experienced, oftennew member to the organization and provides information, support, and guidance so as toenhance the less-experienced member's chances of success in the organization and beyond.” [3]The goal of the mentoring relationship is to enhance the student's academic success and tofacilitate the progression to post-graduate plans, either graduate study or a career in theworkplace. In the university setting, graduate students might receive mentoring from either theiradvisor or non-advisor. This study concentrates on mentoring relationship between graduatestudents and their advisor. Faculty advisor can be either research advisor or academic advisor.However, it is common that graduate students’ works are most
sidelines, and all have fun. The lab provides thebeverages, burgers, and hotdogs, but the sides and desserts are potluck. Families are invited aswell, so this event serves as an opportunity to get to know spouses, children, and the occasionalfamily dog.Student Sponsored Events Through a combination of the many social activities that the program plans and that most first year graduate students are in the same classes, the students get to know each other quickly. Several student sponsored events have
approved technical electives. ≠ Administrative capability and faculty advisor development ≠ Program marketing and promotion ≠ Faculty capabilities audit and resource reallocation such as shifting a portion of undergraduate teaching responsibilities to graduate teaching to meet the immediate needs. ≠ Curriculum design: the needs, competitors, program goals and quality position, facilities Page 14.858.3 and equipment (computers, programs, research labs, etc), graduate committee, faculty specialties and competitive advantages, plan of study, etc. ≠ Student recruitment and admission: minimum enrollment and long
Page 14.890.4engineering as well.2. Course OrganizationThe two cooperative MITT courses were intended to be second-level courses in glass on anadvanced senior or elementary graduate level. They were organized to first review the materialwhich would be covered in an introductory glass course. The review segment was covered in thefirst week of the semester. The remaining segments of the courses covered material new to thestudents and were taught by experts in their respective fields. Each segment emphasized aparticular technique for structural characterization for the first course or an associated propertyof glass for the second course, using examples of the correlation between structure and propertiesof glass.In the planning discussions among
used by faculty mentors including:weekly meetings, class observations, class observation feedback journals, and formal andinformal course planning sessions. Mentors observed positive gains in the fellows’ speaking,presentation, and time management skills. Additionally mentors noted that while the goal of thefellowship was met, the written guidelines should be clearer to facilitate the fellows’ transitionbetween the levels of responsibility within the program. Fellows commented they experiencedvery little interaction with the other fellows or mentors from outside their department, comparedto the first year program. Recommendations include adding social or continued developmentactivities, reviewing the fellowship guidelines, and establishing an
, or a combination. Courses are taught by full-time tenure track faculty, clinical faculty and adjuncts hired through the Center. Anadministrative structure has been created to manage all professional education efforts in theCollege. This structure is within the Center for Professional Studies and is under theadministrative authority of the Associate Dean for Graduate Programs and Research in theCollege of Technology. Currently there are programs of study being delivered on campus, onsite at a major manufacturing facility in Indianapolis, IN, and in the community of Columbus,IN. Plans are underway to offer additional programs on site, at other locations in Indiana, Ohioand in Washington, DC.Professional Education for Engineers and
produces a flexiblecurriculum design where adding or dropping a particular specialty can be done at any time inresponse to changing needs in the marketplace. Also, the list of elective courses can beconstantly modified based on the need of current practitioners. Some of these courses aremore relevant to a given discipline than to others, and hence students are encouraged toconsult with their lead faculty to help determine if they are relevant to their specific needs.ENM 604 - Quality ManagementENM 605 - Infrastructure ManagementENM 606 - R & D and Innovation ProcessesIEM 605 - Operations ResearchSCL 605 - Logistics Technology ManagementPME 601- Planning, Performing and Controlling ProjectsPME 602- Managing Engineering Competencies and
and communication skills. Thereare plans to continue the work presented at least for the next five years.References(1) Woods, D. and Crowe, C.M., Characteristics of engineering students in their first two years, Engineering Education, 74, 1985, pp. 289-295.(2) Boyer, E.L. Assessing scholarship, ASEE Prism, 4, 1995, pp 22-26. Page 14.700.10(3) National Science Foundation. America’s Academic Future (Washington, DC, National Science Foundation). 1992.(4) Robert M Brooks a/k/a: James M. Matthews and S.Jahanian, A Pedagogical Strategy for Gradual Enhancement of Creative Performance of the Students, European Journal of Engineering
sectioncovered a variety of subtopics in identifying concerns of academic advisement in our program.For example, respondents were asked about availability of their advisors, willingness of advisorsto help them, their satisfaction level regarding guidance of advisors in course selection, instudent career plans, and in research. The majority of students responded with favorablefeedback to most of the questions regarding student-advisor relationship. However, we believethere might be a bias associated with the results in these questions and hence, care should betaken in interpreting these data. Detailed discussion of this bias is provided in a later section.Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Online SurveyA. Survey Response. The online survey response
feel no guarantee that facultyaren’t given names of students reporting their answers.Teaching and Non-Teaching FactorsWhen students rate faculty it has been shown that both teaching and non-teaching related factorscome in to play. Teaching related factors demonstrated by faculty include thorough knowledgeof the subject, genuine interest in the subject, well-planned and organized class sessions, clearand understandable explanation, using relevant examples, and flexibility and concerns forstudent needs. There are also many non-teaching factors that impact how faculty are rated bystudents. These include class designation, gender, grade expectations, cultural background,major, course level difficulty, student performance, student knowledge