required to develop a comprehensive work plan and training program for each of the research fellows under their guidance. Work plans must address the research goals and expected outcomes of the proposed research, and address how the research fellows will be provided with on-the-job hard and soft skills training to be prepared for the shifting industry mix in science and innovation. Semi-annual progress reports will be required of both the research fellow and the corporate mentors. Mentor reports are to be submitted to ASEE and should include a report on the interactions with the research fellows, address their assessment of the progress of the research plan, list the publications and presentations in process, and address how they
knowledge at a distance, through technology. Thetechnology-enabled interventions to the course design discussed in the subsequent sectionsmay rely on technologies that are well-known and already widely-used. However, the articlefocuses on the innovative practices of the teachers and students in a particular context. Bydoing so, it attempts to demonstrate that technology integration that is closely aligned withthe learners’ needs and well thought-out pedagogical goals may maximise the learning gainsfor the students. In this particular context, within the framework of a pre-Masters languagepreparatory course for engineers, introducing networked-based learning allowed the studentsto develop a range of soft skills, or ‘professional awareness’ skills
thefaculty members to motivate the students to improve their higher-level cognitive skills (Rajuet al., 2000), the students experienced a realistic and complex scenario, learned aboutreal-world decision-making issues, and analyzed the case study and benefited greatlyaccording to the statements by the instructors.3 Research Review and Research Questions A suitable balance between technical knowledge and business knowledge need to becreated (Trauth et al., 1993; Kirsch et al., 2007) so that graduates gain not only strongleadership skills but also become proficient in information technology (IT) concepts(Glyer-Culver, 2003) and have strong soft skills and cognitive skills (Kirsch et al, 2007). It ismore difficult for students who lack context-based
abilities or “soft” skills demanded by employers and the councils advising our engineering deans, and identified as career critical by engineering education interest groups such as ABET Criterion 3: A-K, the National Academies, and the Council on Competitiveness are important. In fact, they have identified a strategy path for the engineering curriculum that embraces the NAE aspirations (see Table 1 below). Ironically, while successful faculty are indeed very accomplished at these non-technical skills, they are a bit confounded when asked how to achieve a curriculum that provides the requisite technical foundation, allows students to graduate in a reasonable time, and incorporates these
fulfilling these extensive requirements.The faculty collaborates to determine and agree upon the course objectives, philosophy andformat. In GPD, the teaching staff has been careful and deliberate in their efforts to let multipleperspectives co-exist. For example, the TUB staff view the main objective of the course is forthe students to gain personal, methodological and soft skills for working on technical tasks inmultinational teams. The UM and SNU staff view GPD as an environment for students tounderstand the global dimension of product development (global products and globallydistributed development) and the challenges and benefits of cross-cultural team work. Anotherdifference in perspective comes from TUB’s view of GPD as a unique course where
English. However, there is specific reference to several“soft” skills such as communication and teamwork. Also, there is language that indicatesprograms should identify the knowledge and skills that graduates should possess. Life-longlearning skill is also mentioned in a number of the criteria. There is no criterion requirementequivalent to ABET’s Criterion 2. Program Educational Objectives, which ABET defines as“broad statements that describe what graduates are expected to attain within a few years aftergraduation.”10Similarities and Differences of Assessment and Evaluation RequirementsAs mentioned above, ABET and AUN-QA have adopted different approaches to continuousquality improvement. For ABET, assessment and evaluation of student outcomes
experiences should be considered asfundamental as having a course in heat transfer for a mechanical engineer,” since they allowstudents to learn a set of “soft skills” fundamentally essential to become a well-roundedengineer. In other words, an experience going abroad will grant students a fuller understandingof how to convey the knowledge learned in a classroom to others and to apply it to situationsoutside of their own comfort zone. And these sets of skills are ones that often cannot be taught ina classroom setting or at the student’s home university. Acquiring talents such as “globalmindset, collaboration, adaptability, flexibility, and learning and cultural agility” gives thestudents a lifelong set of skills that will assist them in all aspects
engineering faculty.” This could be in part becausethere are a limited number of studies that provide recommendations related to the design,implementation and evaluation of effective engineering study abroad programs. Anotherexplanation for the lack of participation identified in her literature review is cost. However, shenoted that the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology supports study abroadexperiences because they assist students with developing the “soft skills needed to function inmultidisciplinary teams.” One of the challenges that she identified was that very few studyabroad program opportunities exist in engineering disciplines. This could be in part becausefaculty believe that their work on study abroad programs does not
, STEPS I presents students with a well-defined design-and-build problem, and then leads them through the process using the concepts of guided design.The students are also given extensive instruction in the application of soft skills that areimportant to successful design, namely teamwork, project planning, and professional oral andwritten communications. Faculty advisors from engineering and communications programsserve the role as mentors for this project. During the first three years of the program’sdevelopment, the STEPS II semester was characterized by a similar format to STEPS I, but withdiscipline specific design-and-build projects. After three years the program’s new Coordinator,Dr. Jamal Ahmad, and Co-mentor, Dr. Suzanne Scott, looked
, USA[28] Hazelton, B, Bull, C. Appropriate Technology: Tools, Choices and Implications, November 1988.[29] Pinnell, M.F., Chuck, L., Developing Technical Competency and Enhancing the Soft Skills of Undergraduate Mechanical Engineering Students through Service-Learning, Proceedings of the 2004 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, ASEE, 2004. Page 12.951.11
diverse and interconnected world.” The international engineeringexperience named the Valparaiso International Engineering Program (VIEP) described in thispaper responds to that directional theme by integrating the “hard skills” of an engineeringeducation with the “soft skills” of cultural and linguistic fluency that will allow these engineersto work in an interconnected marketplace. It also provides exciting industrial and culturalexperiences that will be attractive to engineering students and is cost-effective because amajority of the program’s components are already in place at the university.This paper will discuss the development of the VIEP from conception to its current form. It willalso include perspectives of students in the program who
critical thinking,13 and cultural awareness.14 In other words,expanding the apex of the funnel.15While this pedagogical modification is consummately reasonable in theory, the reality in mostengineering programs is counterintuitive to such changes. 16 The equilibrium of most curricula ismaintained on an 80/20 balance between the “hard skills” of technical expertise and associatedemphases and the “soft skills” of communication and social science.17,18 Furthermore, programchairpersons and faculty curriculum committees face the dual pressures of maintaining the 80/20balance while facing the imperative to reduce rather than expand credit requirements from thecompetitive reality of the academic marketplace.19The changes being wrought by globalization at
, learning communities, online discussions, instructional design for online learning, and innovative technology for learning. She can be reached at htn126@psu.edu. Page 15.169.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2010 An Investigation of First Year Students’ Perceptions of Global AwarenessAbstractMost engineering educators recognize the importance of emphasizing the so-called “soft-skills”in the undergraduate curriculum in order for graduates to be competitive in the global workforce.Of increasing interest for many engineering programs is engaging students in
, “Engineering the World,” Online J. Glob. Eng. Educ., vol. 3, no. 2, Aug. 2008, [Online]. Available: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/ojgee/vol3/iss2/2.[12] L. Ferrante Perrone, “Foreign Language and the Globally Competent Engineer: More Than Just a ‘Soft Skill,’” Online J. Glob. Eng. Educ., vol. 9, no. 1, Jun. 2017, [Online]. Available: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/ojgee/vol9/iss1/2.[13] A. Mazzurco, B. Jesiek, and K. Ramane, “Are Engineering Students Culturally Intelligent?: Preliminary Results from a Multiple Group Study,” in 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, Jun. 2012, p. 25.204.1-25.204.10, doi: 10.18260/1-2--20964.[14] B. K. Jesiek, S. E. Woo, S. Parrigon, and C. M. Porter
≠ Benefits community low ≠ Global setting gives a broader impact ≠ Develops need for soft skills ≠ Promotes social awareness Engineering Education in Distance Learning Positives Negatives ≠ Reduce geographical boundary ≠ Lack of flexibility ≠ Can be cheaper ≠ No direct feedback ≠ Accessibility ≠ Infrastructure needs ≠ Large audience - cost effective ≠ Expensive - poor economic model ≠ Convenience ≠ Student isolation ≠ Continuing education
. The objectives were to design facilities, services and systemsrelated to bus transportation/urban transportation which would provide safe,comfortable, convenient, and efficient transportation systems for passengers. Progressreports and final achievements were exchanged among the three institutions. Studentsbenefited from seeing how other teams used different approaches to the design process.While working on the international joint project, students also found that they needmore training in soft skills such as cooperation, communication, and teamwork toachieve a more effective collaboration. In addition, they not only need to acquaintthemselves with foreign languages, but also to explore overseas business opportunitiesand appreciate the
includes thecurricular activities, a summary of the first-year participant demographics, and a summary ofrecorded pre/post survey responses serving to quantify student cross-cultural beliefs, reasons forparticipation, learning and expectations, and engineering teamwork effectiveness. The paper isorganized with three major sections that discuss the Implementation, Methods, and Results of theprogram. The Implementation section discusses the pre- and camp soft-skill communication andengineering activities. The Methods section covers the cross-cultural skill assessment anddemographics. Finally, the Results and Discussion section explains the analysis for reasons forparticipation, learning and expectations, teamwork effectiveness, and discussion
self-reported learning design knowledge, fundamentalengineering knowledge, Chinese cultural knowledge; In the skills domain, learningoutcomes included both hard skills (e.g. design skills, programming skills, hands-onskills and using software skills) and soft skills (e.g. time-management skills,navigations skills, people skills, and timework skills); In the attitude domain, studentsself-reported to be more hard-working, open-minded, and confident, less judgmentaland yet more respectful towards different cultures and ideas. Meanwhile, as we increasethe diversity of subject population in terms of their home countries, their engineeringdisciplines, and their degree levels, we will maintain an open mind as to new learningcomes.Our findings support
://4h.missouri.edu/resources/materials/docs/LG732.pdf35. Shank, P. (2005). The value of multi-media in learning. Adobe Design Center. Retrieved from http://www.adobe.com/fr/designcenter/thinktank/valuemedia/The_Value_of_Multimedia.pdf36. Pulko, S. H., & Parikh, S. (2002). Teaching “soft” skills to engineers. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 40(4), 241-54.37. Brint, S., Cantwell, A., & Hanneman, R. (2008). Two cultures: Undergraduate academic engagement. Research in Higher Education, 49(5), 383-402.38. Carini, R. K., Kuh, G., & Klein, S. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32.39. Ewell, P. T. (2002). An analysis of relationships between
both knowledge and value, may be likely to hold differentperspectives than they do, and may be likely to bring these different perspectives to bear inprocesses of problem definition and problem solution.”6 These examples represent a growingsentiment about the importance of student awareness of globalization and seem to imply the needfor actual student international experience.Engineering and technology programs that have already established regular internationalopportunities for their students report that there are great benefits to be obtained from theseexperiences. Spodek et al. report that study abroad experiences were important for helpingstudent develop the “soft” skills such as flexibility, appreciation for diversity, open-mindedness
improved understanding ofengineering processes. In work-related soft skills, students also returned with solid gains inskills: 93% reported significant improvement in their ability to function professionally in aunfamiliar environment, 69% gained in their ability to handle uncomfortable professional Page 24.777.15situations, and 38.1% made considerable progress in their ability to take the initiative to addressprofessional problems. Roughly one third of participants (35.3%) acquired more presentationskills in a professional setting, and 58.6% returned with substantially higher motivation to excelas an engineer. Students also made impressive gains
learning.Research questions developmentAt the outset, four general themes of enquiry were proposed. These are as follows: 1. To examine the perception of transatlantic exchange students pertaining to the general differences in teaching styles experienced between their home institution and their study abroad transatlantic institutions. 2. To examine transatlantic exchange students’ perception of the general differences in assessment practices and other important “course related” variables between the home continent and their study abroad continent. 3. To examine transatlantic exchange students’ perception of differences in the degree of emphasis (if any) on “soft skills” critical to the development of Engineering and
summarizes the experience of three university service-learning programsengaging in community development in rural and peri-urban Honduras from differentdisciplinary starting points and who have shared information along the way. The program at theUniversity of Vermont started as a series of community development and added engineeringcomponents and expertise over time. The Ohio State University and Colorado School of Minesbegan their respective work through the College of Engineering and encountered challengesrequiring the “soft-skills” of community development disciplines. The latter developed a minorcalled humanitarian engineering to help prepare interested students for the practicum to follow.Over time the programs have sought to learn from each
& Business Development Professionals to Create Globally Competent Engineers via On- and Off-Campus ActivitiesAbstractEfforts to scale curricular and co-curricular experiences designed to foster globally competentengineers sit at an important crossroads. Education for global competency, along with thedevelopment of other “professional” or “soft” skills, is an important part of the formation of 21stcentury engineers. There is broad agreement that, “US engineers [of 2020] will face totallydifferent problems from the ones we face today” and “will have to be open to different religions,different ways of thinking, and different social values.”1 However, consensus does not existregarding how to cultivate globally