in 2009; Brazil in 2010; China in 2012; Costa Rica in 2013; New Zealand in 2014; Italyin 2015; and Chile in 2016. Over 280 students and seventeen different faculty members haveparticipated.This study abroad program was initially designed to address ABET General Criterion 3(h) whichnotes that graduates must have “the broad education necessary to understand the impact ofengineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental and societal context.” Specific ABETeducational outcomes for the program include: 1) the broad education necessary to understand theimpact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context, 2) recognition of the need for, andan ability to engage in, life-long learning, and 3) knowledge of contemporary issues
engineering/CS students studied abroad.Data for 2015/2016 are not yet available in the IIE's Open Doors report and in the NCES Digestof Education Statistics.Calculating Participation at Our InstitutionTo determine participation of our students in study abroad programs, the number of allengineering undergraduates, including computer science students, in a given graduating classwho study abroad for a minimum of four weeks is divided by the total number of students in thecohort. Participation by graduating class is given in Table 1: Table 1: % of Engineering/CS Graduating Classes Studying Abroad Class of % Studying Abroad 2012
solicitfeedback from participating students about their experience in the course, a focus group wasconducted at UNSW and written feedback from small groups of students was obtained atASU. Last but not least, some lessons learnt will be reflected by the course instructors withrespect to, for example, how to design the course schedule constrained by the time andcalendar difference, how to divide responsibilities between the collaborating instructors, andhow to grade assignments in consideration of different grading policies. .1. IntroductionThis work describes a new international joint course on the subject of the National Academyof Engineering (NAE) Grand Challenges for Engineering (GCE), collaboratively developedby Arizona State University in the USA
and careers in this field [2, 3]. As part of the changes occurring inengineering education to facilitate this, it is important to understand how different level of internationaland development experiences in curricular and non-curricular engineering undergraduate design projectseffects engineers’ preparedness to work globally and in international development. At Colorado StateUniversity, a mixed-methods study is being undertaken, to compare and contrast six different curricularand co-curricular model of engineering design teaching, with a mix of international engagement, as shownin the figure below.Figure 1- Different Engineering Design Project learning opportunities contained within this studyThis matrix, illustrates the difference between
Cooperation in RunningSchools.1 In 2010, promoting international collaborations and introducing quality internationaleducation resources was stated in the National Long-term Education Reform and DevelopmentPlan.2At the same time, in anticipation of the impact of globalization on higher education, universitiesin the United States have been developing various forms of educational offerings in othercountries including China. Influence abroad for the country and international reputation for theinstitutions are the obvious benefits among others. The forms of US education abroad includebranch campus, partnership with a local Chinese university, distance education, and consultationto universities and governments.3It became natural for educational
contextual competencies: Three categories of methods used to assess a program with coursework and international modulesIntroduction U.S. engineers will represent a minority culture and, thus, will have to be open to different religions, different ways of thinking, and different social values.1 (National Academy of Engineering, 2005)Undergraduate engineering programs must change along with the rapidly changing globallandscape of the engineering profession.1,2,3 Such change is necessary because a more globallyinterdependent society brings with it a host of new complex and interdependent challenges,which engineers will play a vital role in addressing.2,3,4,5,6,7,8
specialization; and, at the same time,learn new approaches to teaching and learning.Traditionally, engineering research and teaching have been approached in verydifferent ways. To prepare for research we undergo years of rigorous training, both inscientific knowledge and in methods of gaining new knowledge throughexperimentation, analysis, and modeling. To prepare for teaching, most of us acquirethe same knowledge, except for a stint as teaching assistants; we receive almost notraining in how to impart it to students. Fortunately, there is now a well developedscience of human learning that has been very explicit in the ways in which studentsshould learn, and how teachers should teach (1, 2). Further, they address differentlearning styles (3, 4), focus
; Clase 1, previously documented many of theconsiderations for program content, duration, format and administration. Through aninternational compare and contrast of somewhat similar programs, both credit and non-credit, theaforementioned paper described their methodology as: The methodology employed encompassed a time-phased set of inter-related activities as described below. A compare and contrast was performed by identifying and normalizing categories of cost, availability, and curriculum Program offerings, nationally and internationally, were mapped to the normalized data for cost, availability and curriculum A compare and contrast was performed by characterizing and normalizing best practices
graduation. In addition,the IEI, aligned with the college’s funding priorities for years 2013-2018, contributes to increasethe college global presence by increasing graduate international enrollment, increasing researchrelated activities and support with international partners, expanding international partnerships,and strengthening academic quality and reputation. To support the IEI, the college developed astrategic plan for years 2013-2018. The plan included a budget increase from $100,000 to$800,000 per year for the international programs office to invest in office staff and operations.New priorities for 2013-2018 consisted in 1) the refocusing on academic cost neutral offeringsabroad after identifying the need to create more internships, research
copy from one another is diminished (Varble, 2014).Student Performance and EvaluationPerformance of students is presented below for the spring semester of 2016 and summersemester of 2016. In both terms one section of the course was administered to students in the USand a distinct section to students in China. Final grades were dependent on participation (thediscussion board posts), homework (written papers), and tests. The average scores for thoseareas and the final course grade are presented in Table 1 for the various sections of the course.The number of students in each section is also indicated. Table 1 Student Performance in Course Spring 2016 Summer
reformation in general, and to the use of modern pedagogicalskills in particular. The paper also argues that any meaningful change in Region’s classroompractices today (dominated by traditional lecture-based methods) must be mandated andsupported by the university administration. What is necessary to create a change, is for thedepartment or college, to have a comprehensive and integrated set of components: clearlyarticulated expectations, opportunities for faculty to learn about new pedagogies, and anequitable reward system.Introduction“To teach is to engage students in learning.” This quote, from Education for Judgment byChristenson et al, (1) captures the meaning of the art and practice of pedagogies ofengagement. The theme advocated here is that
, itneeds a comprehensive dialysis of the forms and mechanisms of the internal qualityassurance in engineering education within American colleges and universities.2. Literature Review2.1. Research StatusSince the establishment of engineering education accreditation system, the research topicsgenerally include accreditation organization, accreditation standards, accreditation procedures,accreditation effectiveness, and comparative study.1 However, some scholars have alsopointed out the shortcomings of the existing researches, for instance, the research content isnot systematic, the research method is relatively simple, and the researches lack specificperspective.2.1.1. Research on Stakeholders of Quality AssuranceWith the in-depth development of
engineering educators and students.IntroductionThe Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET)1 and the National Associationof Colleges and Employers (NACE)2 are among many organizations to assert thatcommunication is an important subject for the modern engineer to be taught. Communicationassignments in engineering courses are often predictable: technical reports, technical memos, andpersuasive communications, such as proposals delivered via oral presentation or inwriting. According to a Journal of STEM Education paper entitled “Student Perceptions ofCommunication: Undergraduate Engineers’ Views of Writing and Speaking in the Classroomand Workplace,”3 students often view writing “as though they were black and whiteproblems.” A lack of
with different culturalbackgrounds using a 7-point Likert scale. For eighteen of the twenty items, students’ agreementin having positive beliefs, preferences and attitudes increased. For one item (I alter my facialexpressions when a cross-cultural interaction requires it), the score remained exactly the samefrom pre-test to post-test. The only item on the test for which students’ post-test agreementdecreased was I am sure I can deal with the stresses of adjusting to a culture that is new to me,which has been bolded in Table 1. All three-year averages can be found in Table 1 below.Table 1. Three-year Average for Items Regarding Questions about Beliefs, Preferences, andAttitudes Toward People with Different Cultural Backgrounds (n=23) “These
Education, Information Retrieval, Machine Learning,Master Theses1. IntroductionEngineering education is a broad area that includes all the resources, tools, strategies,methodologies and practices aligned to improve the quality of the education in engineering. Theresearch in this area has grown during the last decades and some of the problems identified by theresearch are: The lack of motivation of people to study careers in engineering and other areas ofScience, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (), the high dropout rates of students fromengineering programs around the world, the misalignment between the curriculum and theassessment, and the gap between the skills of graduates and the needs of the industry, among others[1].The current
abroad experience was added. Interventions were appliedaddressing four known variables that increase retention: financial support, math and academicpreparation, the learning community/cohort building, and international education. Threeobjectives or expected outcomes of this project were: 1. Increased retention and graduation rates of participating students in STEM fields. 2. Improved programs and strategies for sustaining diversity in STEM fields. 3. Improved access to engineering educational opportunities.The quantitative measure of success for the NSF Pathways project is determined by the retentionand graduation rate of the students in STEM fields at the end of five years. The current four-yearretention rate for these students in 2017
Africa to United States campuses for six weeklong Academic and Leadership Institutes every summer.1 The fellows are between 25 and 35years old and have promoted innovation and positive change in their institutions, communitiesand countries. There are tracks in Business and Entrepreneurship, Civic Leadership, and PublicManagement. Fourteen campuses host leaders in the Business and Entrepreneurshiptrack. Fellows in this track generally are running their own businesses. Fellows are expected toreturn to their home countries to continue to build their skills and implement what they havelearned. Many of the fellows could benefit from having access to engineering skills to growtheir businesses.Our university ran Academic and Leadership Institutes in
institution building activities is the most important responsibility ofadministrators. Early efforts of faculty development were aimed at specific disciplinary expertiseand instructional skills [1-5]. However, the development in core engineering and instructionalskills is a narrow perspective of professional development and cannot fulfill the needs of today’sfaculty and institutions. Camblin and Steger [6] have observed that the faculty development mustaddress issues such as vitality and renewal of faculty members [7], strengthening relationshipsamong colleagues [8], supporting stated institutional missions [9] and dealing with both thefaculty member’s and institution’s “capacity to survive” [10]. We argue that educationalinstitutions must develop
leads an NSF/Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) site on interdisciplinary water research. He has published over 85 papers in peer-reviewed journals and conferences.Dr. Gopalkrishna Joshi, KLE Technological University I hold a PhD in Computer Science and Engineering. Areas of research: 1. Data Engineering 2. Engineering Education Research Current position: Professor and Head of Computer Science and Engineering, Director of Centre for En- gineering Education Research c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Implementation of a First-Year Engineering Course and Active Learning Strategies at a University in IndiaAbstract: This paper presents the
advancement of the internet and transportation technology, our ability topositively impact the world we live in has greatly increased. This is particularly relevant forengineers, who often work on problems, solutions, and products which have direct globalimplications. Furthermore, engineering approaches vary based on geographical, economic, andsocietal factors [1]. To prepare engineering students for broad success, the development of globalawareness is an important skillset [2,3]. Furthermore, international research experiences are avaluable opportunity for undergraduate students [4]. Previous international research experiencesfor undergraduate students have incorporated heavy technical preparatory work [5], limited priortraining due to available
-financed weeklong India visits,and acquired experience of working on bi-cultural multidisciplinary projects.The next section establishes the background of the program and the subsequent sectionelaborates the program. The paper then presents analysis of feedback of the Japanese studentsand ends with concluding remarks.BackgroundThe National Academy of Engineering (NAE)’s report on educating engineers for 2020 hasidentified the requirements of engineers working across disciplines and cultures [1].Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology of the Unites States (ABET) has alsoidentified attributes of graduate engineers that include ability to function on multi-disciplinaryteams, ability to communicate effectively and the broad education
quality improvement by the MoHE (Babury & Hayward, 2014).Aturupane and Sofizada (2013) stated that "developing a good quality university system is a keychallenge facing Afghanistan" (p. 3) and further considered it one of the main priorities for thedevelopment of higher education in Afghanistan. Their report also concluded that, based oninternational experience, providing a good learning atmosphere requires appropriate action atthree levels: 1) state organizations responsible for quality assurance and assigning resources; 2)faculty members responsible for curriculum, teaching, and research; and 3) universitymanagement responsible for recruitment and facilities.2.1.2 Increased Access:According to Babury and Hayward (2014) one of the key
- of students participating in a multinationalcollaborative project. The comparison is between their motivation before and after theirparticipation in the academic activity, there is no comparison between participation and no-participation since the project was part of a course for all participants. The following objectiveswere established: 1. Determine the level of interest of US students participating in the collaborative multinational design project, before they enter and after they finish their participation 2. Determine the perception of value of US students participating in the collaborative multinational design project, before they enter and after they finish their participation 3. Determine if there was change in
Dayton (UD) has increasingly embraced the importance of providing globallearning and cultivating an appreciation of cultural diversity in its undergraduates. Since 2006,UD’s School of Engineering has responded to this commitment by sponsoring a month-long,summer study abroad program in Italy, with the first iteration taking place in Ancona, and thenext four in Florence. This program focuses on engineering problem solving and leadershipdevelopment in an international cultural context. The program has four interrelated objectives:(1) to develop skills in observation, data collection, and analysis, (2) to apply engineeringproblem solving techniques to real life situations, (3) to cultivate an understanding of how aspecific culture addresses
funded research projects focus on the development nonlinear dynamics approaches for the detection of faults in bearing and gear systems at the Villanova Center for Analytics of Dynamic Systems (VCADS) in PA. He graduated from the University of Yaounde 1 in Cameroon and then completed a Certificate in Teaching Engineering in Higher Education at Villanova University. Dr. Kwuimy is interested in vibration analysis and in the use of nonlinear dynamics tools to improve the early detection of fault in complex nonlinear systems. In the latest, his focus is on engineering systems (gear systems, bearings) and biological systems (vibration in human-arm, human diseases). In vibration analysis, his focus is on the conversion
Netherlands, Brazil, Austria, Morocco and Colombia.The multi-pronged approach consists of 1) collaborating with existing programs within the NSFand other federal agencies, 2) working collaboratively with a core of mentors/faculty who haveinternational collaborations, 3) working closely with Departments, Institutes and Centers atCUNY who have international agreements, significant international research focus, and 4)working collaboratively with other Alliances, all of which have some developed programactivities in international research.By targeting participants of the LSAMP program in CUNY and nationally, the reported modelwill allow the United States to benefit from the local CUNY and national networks of over 350colleges and universities that
in Higher Education in China Feifei Zhong1 and Gene Hou2 1 Department of Engineering English, School of Foreign Languages Southwest Jiaotong University Chengdu, China, 611756 zhongfeifei@163.com 2 Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Old Dominion University Norfolk, VA 23529 ghou@odu.eduAbstract: This study aims to develop an effective curriculum plan to improve
execution of the program, analysis of choices of the areas with respect to students’academic performance, gender, and learning styles, and ends with concluding remarks.Liberal LearningLiberal Learning1 was prevalent in ancient civilizations. Aristotle defined it as learning of a free man. In earlyuniversity systems, it was defined as education to make students responsible human beings and citizens [1]. Untilrecently, education systems considered the goals of liberal education separate from the goals of regular education.The Harvard Redbook comments that these two sides (general education and vocational education) of life are notentirely separable, and adds that it would be false to imagine education for the one as quite distinct from educationfor