.O’Sullivan, D., 2003. Online project based learning in innovation management. Education+ Training, 45(2), pp.110-117.Shaffer, C.D. et al. (2010). The Genomics Education Partnership: successful integration of research into laboratory classes at a diverse group of undergraduate institutions. CBE Life Sci Educ. 9, 55-6.Shaffer, C.D. et al. (2014). A Course-Based Research Experience: How Benefits Change with Increased Investment in Instructional Time. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 13, 111–130.Tamim, S.R. and Grant, M.M. (2013). Definitions and uses: Case study of teachers implementing project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(2), pp.3.Van Den Bogaard, M.E. and Saunders-Smits, G.N., 2007, October. Peer &
Paper ID #29347Strategies for flipped classroom video development: educating generationZ engineering studentsDr. Michelle Alvarado, University of Florida Dr. Michelle Alvarado is an Assistant Professor at the University of Florida. She obtained her Ph.D. and M.Eng. in Industrial Engineering from Texas A&M University and her B.S. in Industrial Engineering from the University of Alabama. Dr. Alvarado is the Co-Founder and Co-Director of the HEALTH- Engine Laboratory. The aim of her engineering education research is to develop new methods and best practices of flipped classroom video development for simulation and
been introduced. Page 11.252.2Course Descriptions and BackgroundThe NU course is a required four-credit sophomore course for Industrial Engineering majors,with a few engineering students taking IE as a minor. The course covers core IE topics, aboutone topic per week, using selected chapters from Turner, et al.’s text5 along with supplementalmaterial. The class meets three times weekly: one class is generally an introductory lecture withproblem-solving, the second includes more problem solving or further exploration of the topic,and the third is a laboratory or hands-on classroom activity. The students complete homeworkproblems and an
Manufacturing Process Laboratory (1 cr.) ART 145RA Web Design (3 cr.) ETME 310 Machining and Industrial Safety (3 cr.) EMEC 403 CAE IV‐Design Integration (3 cr.) ETME 410 CNC & CAM Technology (3 cr.) EMEC 465 Bio‐inspired Engineering (3 cr.) ETME 415 Design for Mfg and Tooling (3 cr.) Take ARCH 121IA to satisfy university core requirement. Human Factors Healthcare PSYX 360 Social Psychology (3 cr.) CHTH 210 Foundations of Community Health (3 cr.) PSYX 380 Memory & Cognition (3 cr.) HADM 445 Managing Healthcare Orgs (3 cr.) PSYX 481
” as well as generic techniques for resolvingcontradictions. Pugh Analysis was also used to identify the best alternative which wasprogressed to a physical prototype.The other Mechanical Engineering courses implemented TRIZ, Pugh Analysis, and FMEA. ADoD mentor, serving as a content expert and as part of the external reviewer panel during finalproject presentations, supported the senior capstone projects via e-mail and Skype. Thementor also provided final report as well as presentation feedback. Mentor feedback providedboth encouragement and confirmation of students‟ efforts during the course of the semester.Students also had access to two industry experts; one a laboratory head and the other a Chief
tests be mapped directly to those used on later assessments; rather,the benefit of testing some concepts from a set of material enables retention of related concepts inthe same material [4].Direct BenefitsDetermining direct benefits of testing in improving long-term retention is the primary focus ofmost “testing effect” empirical research. Namely, how is student retention, when represented asperformance on assessments, effected by the use of testing as a teaching tool? Many studies arenaturally composed of a control group that is solely reliant on initial study and subsequentre-study of material while the experimental group is subject to testing with multiple factors ofsome variable. Roediger and Karpicke looked at laboratory and classroom
) evaluation, enhancement or design of worksystems following ergonomic principles. The course is a core 4 credit course (75 contacthours) with guided laboratory activities and a required design project. Typically, the courseproject is defined by the course instructor and can vary between a case study, classroomprojects or projects in service or manufacturing industry (Pomales-Garcia & Cortes, 2014). Inthis particular scenario, the project weight was 17% of the final course grade and required aproposal, a final written report and an oral presentation using a poster format. Courseactivities incorporated the use of rubrics for evaluation purposes (see Appendix A-C).MethodologyIn 2015, a group of 45 Industrial Engineering undergraduate students (22
b p i 1 i 1 b ri* pi .Bibliography1. Toda, M., Measurement of Subjective Probability Distributions. 1963, Decision Sciences Laboratory, Electronic Systems Division, Air Force Systems Command, United States Air Force: L. G. Hanscom Field, Bedford, MA.2. Roby, T.B., Belief States: A Preliminary Empirical Study. Behavioral Science, 1965. 10(3): p
alsooptimized the use of a course management system. The IE EE class met three times a week (50minutes each lecture) for 15 weeks. The IE MFG class met twice a week (50 minutes eachlecture) and an additional time each week (110 minutes) for a laboratory session. The instructoranswered student emails promptly but refrained from emailing students in the class as a whole.The instructor communicated with the entire class of students at the beginning of each and everyclass period. It was at this point in time that all questions were answered and everyone wasbrought up to date on upcoming events in the ANGEL calendar. Both courses werepredominantly made up of junior industrial engineering students. The course managementsystem was the place where students
Introductory Engineering Courses”. Journal of STEM Education, 16(4):6-12.9. Girgis, M. (2015). “A Scaffolding Case Study for Teaching Engineering Problem Solving to Underrepresented Minorities”. Proceedings. American Society of Engineering Education Conference.10. Kellogg, S. (2007). “Technology Enabled Support Modules for Engineering Management”. Proceedings. American Society of Engineering Education Conference.11. Scriven, M., and Paul, R., (1987). “Critical Thinking as Defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking”. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/76612. Jaksic, C. and Spencer, D. (2009). “A Manufacturing Processes Laboratory: What Book- Making and Sheet
all become part of theFaculty member’s responsibilities: those specific things that bring a bi-weekly check. We mustadd to this an activity that supports both the student and society. Come hell or high water, wemust develop a grade for each student!Let’s say that Ole State is an undergraduate-only comprehensive institution offering a number ofABET-accredited Engineering courses. Without support from graduate programs (there aren’tany), the faculty assumes execution of all aspects of support for the teaching activity. A fullteaching load at Ole State usually involves teaching three sections, each scheduled at threecontact hours per week. Laboratory courses are independent and carry a different load allocation.Teaching Faculty members must
definition and solution generation. Much of their work throughout the semester isaccomplished during the six hours of laboratory time that they have scheduled each weekAn hour lecture period held most weeks provides the students with relevant projectinformation, as well as various other topics pertinent to their future roles as engineers.The intent of the lecture is mainly to reiterate the importance of the economic feasibilityof solutions, to raise awareness about how the “people component” of projects is criticalbut also unpredictable, and to make the point how challenging yet essential it is toconstantly consider realistic constraints throughout the design process. Global,economic, environmental, and societal constraints are some of those
, “Developing a Systems Approach to Engineering Problem Solvingand Design of Experiments in a Racecar-Based Laboratory Course,” Journal of EngineeringEducation, January 2011, pp. 109-112.7 Dym, C.L., “Design, Systems, and Engineering Education,” International Journal ofEngineering Education, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 305-312, 2004.8 “The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century”, The National AcademiesPress, USA, 2004. Available: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10999&page=389 Prince, M.J. and R.M. Felder, “Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions,Comparisons, and Research Bases,” Journal of Engineering Education, April 2006, pp. 123-138.10 Mills, J.E., and Treagust, D.F., “Engineering Education—Is Problem
Yi-Ching Liao, University of Texas, San Antonio Yi-Ching Liao is a master’s student in advanced manufacturing and enterprise engineering at the Univer- sity of Texas, San Antonio (UTSA). She is also a Graduate Research Assistant at the Sustainable Manufac- turing System Laboratory at UTSA. She received her B.S. in system and naval mechatronic wngineering from National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Taiwan. Her research interests include lean systems design and implementation, simulation and gaming, and engineering education.Dr. Glenn Kuriger, University of Texas, San Antonio Glenn Kuriger is a Research Assistant Professor at the Center for Advanced Manufacturing and Lean Sys- tems (CAMLS) and the Department of
normally presented in the class and a written report is submitted.Students are required to summarize the procedure used to produce the product and represent theoutput. There are usually two projects given in the class. The first project is defined by theinstructor, which helps maintain a focus on course and curriculum objectives. In the secondproject, students are allowed to pick their own topic, which gives them the autonomy to choosetheir own project formulations and strategies, which in turn increases their motivation.Project based learning at the individual course level is familiar in engineering education. It isused almost universally in capstone design and laboratory courses. There has been growingfrequency of project based learning approach
of abilities required to succeed professionally in theinformation age. The top four of these skills include critical thinking, creative thinking,collaboration, and communication [1]. In a typical engineering education curriculum, criticalthinking is addressed effectively. Also, students develop their collaboration skills via project-basedcourses that have become increasingly widespread in engineering education in the last twodecades. Furthermore, communication skills are often addressed through the inclusion of atechnical communication course or by otherwise satisfying the communication component ofestablished general education requirements. Laboratory experiences and project-based coursesemphasize the development of technical communication
connection between laboratory research and classroom lectures, enabling students to see anduse the course material in action. While not a CURE, instructors at Montana State University andNortheastern University implemented similarly hands-on, experiential learning exercises in anintroductory industrial engineering course. They found that students physically working withproblems and seeing how real systems operated were more compelling than traditional teachingpedagogies; students even seemed more enthusiastic about industrial engineering [21]. Manyothers have reported CURE benefits, including networking and developing scientific skills, aswell as outcomes like increased teamwork, critical thinking, communication skills, andconfidence [14].Because
Ingenieros sin Fronteras Colombia since 2012, and he had worked on several engineering projects with social impact. In addition, he has collaborated with researchers of the Laboratory of Cognition at Universidad de los Andes, particularly in decision-making processes and teamwork. He is co-founder of INTERACT, a research group on complex adaptive systems and social network analysis. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Introducing Changemaking Engineering into an Operations Research Course: Some Unexpected ResultsAbstractWith funding from a National Science Foundation (NSF) IUSE/PFE REvolutionizingengineering and computer science Departments (RED) grant, the Shiley
. 1979. Network analysis in organizational settings, Human Relations, 11(32), 923-965.36. Tushman, M. 1978. Technical communications in R & D laboratories: The impact of project work characteristics, Academy of Management Journal, 21, 624-645.37. Valacich, J.S., Schwenk, C. 1995. Devils advocacy and dialectical inquiry effects on face to face and computer mediated group decision making, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 63(2), 158-173.38. Watson, R.T., DeSanctis, G., Poole, M.S. 1988. Using a GDSS to facilitate group consensus: Some intended and unintended consequences, MIS Quarterly, 12(3), 463-477.39. Weeks, G.D., Chapanis, A. 1976. Cooperative versus conflicting problem solving in three
regarding the necessity of ViTAS application is discussed in previoussections.Iteration -1: initial planning of ViTASIn the initial planning of the ViTAS application development, few important aspects isconsidered such as set up the development environment (research laboratory), hire theappropriate personnel (graduate assistants), buy the necessary equipments (computers, servers,printers, etc.), use of software packages (MS Visual Studio 2010, SQL server 2008 R2, MSTeam Foundation Server, etc.), and network connections to the servers. The workstations andserver connection network is designed and setup to initialize the development process shown inFigure 3. After the work stations are setup, all the necessary tools are installed in the workstations
AC 2012-4481: EDUCATION APPROACH IN JAPAN FOR MANAGEMENTAND ENGINEERING OF SYSTEMSProf. David S. Cochran, Southern Methodist University and Meijo University David Cochran is a professor of industrial and systems engineering management. He is Founder and Prin- cipal of System Design, LLC, Visiting Professor with the School of Business, Meijo University, Nagoya, Japan and faculty of systems engineering, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas. Cochran devel- oped the Manufacturing System Design Decomposition (MSDD) to determine the underlying design of the Toyota Production System (and ”lean”) from a systems engineering viewpoint and was Founder and Director of the Production System Design Laboratory in the
Program in the Engineering Education Innovation Center has anumber of physical simulation laboratories that have been designed to provide first yearengineering students with a hands-on experience with a variety of engineering principles andmethods. One such lab was casually called the ‘Camera Lab’ as it involved the assembly of adisposable Kodak Camera.The learning constructs in this lab primarily revolved around push versus pull type productionand inventory management systems with a single product variant. In short the learningconstructs were somewhat narrow and limited albeit useful. The leadership of the First-yearEngineering Program desired to update and expand this lab.An Integrated Systems Engineering faculty member intimately knowledgeable
program, all students participate in aworkshop on Puerto Rican cultural scripts. This workshop is addressed to immerse the USstudents in the Puerto Rican culture. In addition; the students participate in a variety of culturaland scientific excursions including international exhibits at the Ponce Art Museum, guided toursof El Yunque National Rainforest; and trips to Old San Juan, the National Astronomy andIonosphere Center Arecibo Observatory, and the research laboratories from the UPRM MarineSciences Department at Isla Magueyes. To complement the experience, the students are alsoexposed to a variety of industrial settings, such as IBM, Hewlett Packard, Stryker Corporation,Amgen, Ethicon, among others. During these plant tours, the company’s
theoretical knowledge. She received her M. A. Sc. in Industrial Engineering and her Ph. D. in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Windsor, and is a recipient of an NSERC University Faculty Award. She is presently an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical, Automotive, and Materials Engineering at the Uni- versity of Windsor, and teaches courses related to design and technical communication, such as systems design, computer aided design and manufacturing, and the senior design project course. She is the 2013 Wighton Fellow, which is a national award to recognize excellence in the development and teaching of laboratory-based courses in Canadian undergraduate engineering programs
Paradigmlaboratory exercises. Let’s examine each of these further.The Plug & Chug ParadigmThe Plug & Chug Paradigm represents an instructional teaching model for engineering students.Solutions to the classical boundary condition engineering problems require students to considerinputs, initial states and dynamic boundary conditions, constraints, and assumptions to arrive atsolution / results.The Educational Design-Build-Test-Fix ParadigmThe educational Design-Build-Test-Fix Paradigm has origins in scientific inquiry methods and isoften acquired informally and experientially through laboratory exercises. The paradigm evolvesfrom students having a requirement to design a widget, verify, and validate the design solution. Ifthe test fails, they enter an
SMEs,” International Journal of Technology Management, vol. 22, no. 1-3, pp. 28-55, 2001.[7] C. F. M. M. a. O. S. Karin Ahlbäck, “The 5 Trademarks of Agile Organizations,” McKinsey Global Survey Results: How to create an agile organization, 2017.[8] M. F. R. Kets de Vries and K. Korotov, “Creating Transformational Executive Education Programs,” Academy of Management Learning & Education, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 375-387, 2007.[9] K. Korotov, Identity laboratories, INSEAD PhD Dissertation, 2005.[10] P. A. Dover, S. Manwani and D. Munn, “Creating learning solutions for executive education programs,” The International Journal of Management Education, vol. 16, pp. 80- 91, 2018.[11] R. M. Gagne, W. W. Wager, K. C. Goals and J. M
typically at an individual level, whether throughhome assignments or class exercises.As noted by Williams12 (2009), following Dewey’s Laboratory School, classrooms can berestructured to accommodate non-individual learning as well, to mirror practices of theworkplace. Assignments can be made collaborative so that students are working together andlearning from one another. For example, time could be set aside in Engineering Economicsclasses every week for collaborative problem-solving exercises.IACBE4 (2011) accreditation requirements include teamwork and engineering economicscourses can help students progress toward meeting outcomes in this area. ABET’s Criterion 3also encourages teamwork (3Ad, 3Bc) in engineering technology programs (ABET5, 2011