still needs to be learnedabout the specific deficiencies in communication skills of entry-level engineers. One step thatcould be taken is for engineering departments to conduct longitudinal studies about how welltheir instruction on writing and oral communication prepares students for later classes, forinternships and co-ops, and for employment. Departments at different institutions shouldconsider adopting a core of common survey questions so that survey results can be compared.Another recommendation is that when incorporating writing into a course, engineeringdepartments should consider the following two questions: 1. What communication skills do we want students to acquire? 2. How can technical assignments be designed to help students
PowerPoint and, implicitly or explicitly, eitherforeshadowed the success of PowerPoint or attempted to deflect criticism of it. These accountshave much to recommend them, including proximity to the events of interest, but by their naturelack objectivity and comprehensiveness. This paper begins the process of transforming thathistory into a more coherent and credible form.Our method in constructing this history, therefore, has focused on four categories of documentsthat qualify as primary sources: (1) the history of the word ―bullet‖ as documented in the OxfordEnglish Dictionary (OED), (2) the proposals in which the product we know as PowerPoint wasfirst described, (3) communication textbooks and handbooks, and (4) NASA reports in whichbullets are
attempts to correct minority underrepresentation in the engineering disciplines,educational researchers, cognitive psychologists, and scholars in related fields have since the1980s developed many studies centered on the notion of student self-efficacy. 1-6 These studiesseek to measure the degree to which under-represented minority or otherwise marginalizedstudents experience a sense of self-confidence or feeling that they are able to counter "barrierconditions." Those conditions might include discrimination or other challenging social andintellectual situations encountered in college. While such studies are certainly preferable to adenial of differences between minority and majority experiences, they intentionally or otherwisesupport the notion
with the humanistic and democratic potential of engineering.IntroductionThe Grand Challenges lately developed by the National Academy of Engineering with theirexcited inducements for twenty-first century engineers to "Reengineer the Human Brain," "Make Page 22.1104.2Solar Energy Affordable," "Restore and Improve Urban Infrastructure," "Enhance VirtualReality," and undertake ten other tasks, enter a long historical tradition of such epically scaledto-do lists.1 As early as the 1850s, as the first formal organizations of American engineers tookshape, the individuals involved sought to project long-term goals and professional guidelines fortheir
summaryof modern versus classic philosophy. How to Expand this Construct Further A few, other concepts need to be outlined: treatment of the self from Karl Jaspers; andthe strict notion of identity from Sonnemann. Jaspers’ work as outlined by Schrag(36) presents adivide akin to Sartre’s Being and Nothingness or as Schrag and others have put it, immanenceand transcendence (Figure 1). Immanence describes the realm of empirical existence. Thehuman being who navigates the world as is participates in immanence. The immanent that liesbeyond the grasp of the human being’s immediate proximity but can possibly be accessed by himor her is the world. When human beings project their perceptions of the immanent, they in turncreate the transcendent
engineering education and technical and professional communication,4 the role ofcommunication in the work life of engineers is becoming more complex and far reaching. Weneed to help our students prepare for the challenges associated with this expanded role.The exploratory study reported here investigates students’ conceptions of the communication ofengineers by analyzing the content of portfolios created by five undergraduates in a studiosetting. Responses to selected survey items were also analyzed. We found that each of thestudents discussed or otherwise acknowledged (1) the situated nature of communication, (2) theways in which communication can be empowering, and (3) the importance of familiarity with abroad range of communication activities for
makes a difference, but is there a difference in motivation? Some findings from the Academic Pathways StudyIntroduction Despite years of research and intervention, women continue to be underrepresented inengineering [1]. In 2008, women comprised 18.4% of all recipients of an engineering degree [2],continuing an historical trend spanning the last 30 years, during which women’s share ofengineering degrees has remained stable or even declined. One of the goals of the AcademicPathways Study (APS) of which the present analysis is a part, was to contribute to the ongoingdialogue about underrepresentation in engineering, on both explanatory and remedial topics. Thepresent study discusses some APS
groomed for management and leadership positions.A 2006 nation-wide survey sponsored by the American Association of Colleges and Universitiesfound that 76% of participating employers would like colleges to place more emphasis onteamwork skills. (1) Anecdotal evidence from the authors‟ experience as well as discussions withcolleagues from other institutions indicates that despite the inclusion of team projects in the Page 22.1504.2curriculum, students still struggle with the interpersonal dynamics of teamwork. The authorshypothesize that teaming skills are competencies that faculty often assume have been learnedelsewhere when in fact, students may
sink beneath the surface and he is free . . .” wrote Jacques-Yves Cousteau.[1] Hebypassed the gravity constraints and co-developed the first aqualung device. Cousteau redefinedthe problem. He charted a new frontier as his solution made the invisible visible. This is ametaphor for educators continually confronted with the weight of prescriptive curricula in needof alternative innovation.Two trends were found after investigating the top eleven undergraduate engineering programsranked by the U.S. News and World Report. The curricula are very doctrinaire and the coursedescriptions are indicative of synchronous engagements between the instructor and the learner.Conversely, none of the eleven schools appear to dedicate a course that has a
ofnegative emotions at the beginning of projects and positive emotions later in the project suggestsa need for more scaffolding of projects and activities at the beginning of the time period and lesslater in the project or activity.IntroductionRecently there has been an increase in the amount of research exploring emotions in education.[1]Furthermore, there have been recent developments in neuroscience that point to the critical roleof emotion in learning and decision-making.[2-5] We have often considered emotion as a by-product of learning, but recent developments demonstrate that emotion is an integral part oflearning.[6]There has been some discussion within engineering education concerning how intellectualdevelopment is influenced by a student's
AC 2011-2825: UNLOCKING THE HEART OF ENGINEERING GRANDCHALLENGES: LISTENING TO THE QUIET VOICESGeorge D. Catalano, State University of New York, Binghamton Page 22.1582.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Unlocking the Heart of Engineering Grand Challenges: Listening to the Quiet VoicesI. IntroductionThe National Academy of Engineering listed a series of Grand Challenges for Engineeringduring this past year.1 The challenges ranged from making solar energy economical to providingaccess to clean water to re-engineering the brain to list just a few. Surely, it may be difficult
the Valparaiso University Capstone Senior Design course to address all four of thesechallenges.1. IntroductionNumerous publications have emphasized the importance of technical communications skills inthe field of engineering. Results of a 1999 survey from engineering graduates who have been inthe workforce from three to five years showed that "64 percent of these engineers' overall worktime is spent on some form of communication"1. In a 2005 study based on a focus group of 50individuals representing both academic and non-academic engineers, communicationcompetency ranked as the second most important engineering attribute, behind only technicalcompetency2. ABET also recognizes the need for engineers to develop communication skills
, expertise, and power of the correspondingengineering technology programs. The effects of this “boundary crisis” are materializing in thedeclining enrollments in the engineering technology programs that have correspondingengineering programs (Figure 1). This data demonstrates that the introduction of civil,mechanical, and electrical engineering has had a negative effect on the enrollments in thecorresponding engineering technology majors. Civil Engineering Technology has decreased inenrolled majors by 62%, electrical engineering technology by 44%, and mechanical engineeringtechnology by 30.4% during a five year period. Please note, however, that engineeringtechnology programs which do not have a corresponding engineering major, such as
impetus for the writing initiative described in this paper came from the OldDominion University's (ODU) Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP). As described on the universityweb site, the intention of the QEP is to improve upper-division undergraduate students'disciplinary writing, i.e., that writing that demonstrates a reasoning process supported byresearch and reflection on a problem, topic, or issue.14 Two faculty development andengagement initiatives were initiated: Writing as a critical skill that goes beyond demonstratingproficiency with the mechanics and structure of writing per se, and writing as a means tocommunicate what has been learned.Skill in writing is demonstrated by six student learning outcomes of the ODU QEP: 1. Clearly state a
designs. Thus, the writing assignment’s design elementfocused on system-level workflow, rather than details. The final project deliverable was an 8- to12-page report recommending an optimal conveyer type and tooling to meet target yield andbudget specifications.In test-teaching the assignment, the instructor’s objectives were as follows: 1. Observe how students respond to the assignment and determine to what extent they perceive educational benefit(s) toward developing their engineering communication skills. 2. Reveal emergent issues and how to fix them. 3. Observe the students’ reaction to the supplied topic for their assigned report documents and determine to what extent the students view a turn-key, macroscopic
. As the program began, these composition experts wrote assignmentsrequiring research into and writing about engineering-related topics, but in the languagefamiliar to liberal arts oriented composition knowledge constructs and practices.Assignments asked students to “imagine the possibilities of....” and “position yourselfamong the current critiques that subvert...” and “consider, perhaps, the multiple pathstowards....”1 It became clear, however, early on in the development and execution of theE/FEWP, that English composition faculty needed to give close attention not just to whatthe students were required to write about, but to how the assignments were worded anddiscussed.In the early days of University of X’s E/FEWP, the English composition
, and few tools have beendeveloped to date to assess such interdisciplinary learning.In this paper we describe the development and testing of a measure of interdisciplinarycompetence. We identify eight dimensions of interdisciplinary competence that emerged from anextensive literature review: 1) awareness of disciplinarity; 2) appreciation of disciplinaryperspectives; 3) appreciation of non-disciplinary perspectives; 4) recognition of disciplinarylimitations; 5) interdisciplinary evaluation; 6) ability to find common ground; 7) reflexivity; and8) integrative skill. We next describe how these dimensions were operationalized as a set ofsurvey items, refined through focus groups with engineering faculty, and pilot tested. Followingthis development
technology, andgain practice in critical reading, writing and presentation skills.1. Introduction Do we control technology, or does technology control us? Since technology is a humanactivity – indeed the former Director of the National Academy of Engineering, William Wulf,suggests that technology is what defines us as human – the answer seems self-evident: of coursewe control technology.8 But might it be the case that technology is a genie, which once releasedcannot be coerced back into its bottle? 43 How does this change us as humans? These fundamental questions provide the opportunity to engage first-year students from bothengineering and the liberal arts with important issues regarding the direction of technologicalprogress and more
research and design in thecurriculum, the course project was changed from a simple library/informational research projectto a design project. Students were tasked with redesigning a light switch, an ink pen, a whole-house water filtration system, a rainwater collection system, or a backyard garden to sustain afamily of four. Because our students are sophomores, they were not required to give technicaldetail but had to maintain the scope of work that they included in their proposal. Students wouldthen explain their newly designed devices in a poster and PowerPoint presentation.Some student proposals and presentations included a light switch that uses celebrity voices (seeFigure 1); a pen that incorporates perfume; a pen that keeps the user awake by
teachingassistants (TAs) often lead recitation sessions and hold “office hours” in tutoring centers, it isimportant that these TAs can clearly communicate new, discipline-specific, technical informationto other students who have a technical background, but lack expertise in the topic at hand. Thesame can be said for any engineering student who will be required to communicate on technicaltopics after graduation. ASME’s “Vision 2030: Creating the Future of Mechanical EngineeringEducation”, cites the results of a survey of over 1000 engineering managers as pointing tocommunication as an area where engineering graduates need improvement.1 At the same time,Felder and Brent report that learning through teaching is highly effective in enhancing studentlearning. 2
close with some discussion of alternatives to outcomes-based education thatmight better support change in engineering education.Introduction – EC 2000This paper is part of a session that seeks to continue an ongoing conversation about accreditationand liberal education, that has taken many forms over the years, and was most recently taken upby historians at the 2011 ASEE conference.1 My particular concern here is to bring critiques ofoutcomes-based education (OBE)2 from critical scholarship in Education to bear on our ownversion of OBE in engineering in the U.S. – EC 2000. This is very much a work in progress,drawing on discussions among Liberal Education/Engineering and Society Division members in
arange of resources and are required to use creativity, guided by their own aesthetic sensibility, to generate their Page 25.206.2fluid flows and visualization techniques. Grades are de-emphasized by grading based on full completion of allassignments. Constructive feedback is provided by in-class critique sessions. All student work is published on ahigh-visibility archival website 1, such that their work becomes a part of their permanent online persona. Noneof these innovations were research-based at the time; they were assembled based on the instructors’ personalvalues as an empirical experiment. As hoped, students
can work and live competently outsidetheir own culture. The phrase global competence has been adopted in engineering andtechnology fields, while intercultural competence, cultural competence, multiculturism, culturalintelligence and even global citizenship are used elsewhere [1]. Regardless of its label, the ideathat universities have a responsibility to promote understanding of other cultures has becomesomething of a buzzword in higher education. Lutz noted that ―more and more institutions ofhigher learning adopt global awareness as part of their strategic plans and QEP‖ [2]. It is in fact astrategic plan at the university in question that first brought the notion of global competence tobear on the Technical Writing course discussed
curriculum.Engineering ModelingThe central activity of the engineering profession involves creative design of new systems inresponse to given needs. Design is a process of problem-solving, consisting of many stages Page 25.1279.5between the development of a new concept and the implementation of a concrete solution. It isabout bringing ideas to life. A structured engineering design process is commonly taught andused to help clarify and reduce the complexity of engineering design work. A typical prescriptiveflow chart for this process, taken from a popular first-year engineering design textbook, is shownin Figure 1.xiiiThe modeling/analysis/evaluation stage of
grappled with MIT’s unique wartime experience.Without question, the MIT administration, beginning with Karl Compton and James Killian,played a key role in MIT’s postwar transformation.1 Yet it was the Lewis Survey thattransformed MIT’s organizational structure through its “Four School Plan,” began the work ofredefining the role of the faculty at a “technological university,” and most importantly built aconsensus among the faculty for a way forward. This paper looks closely at the intense efforts ofthe Lewis’ committee—its members met no less than 119 times over the course of three years—and how their views evolved in conversation with the MIT administration. Especially amidstpresent-day concerns about the erosion of shared governance at many U.S
"skills necessary to functioning in society."1 The student's stakein preserving existing disciplinary goals and attendant institutional structures is thus assured.Contingency and Power in the Engineering CurriculumWithout attempting to paint a panoramic picture of engineering compared to other fields ofintellectual endeavor, we can articulate the ways in which engineering epistemologies make itparticularly difficult to interrogate matters of social and political power. Most obviously,engineering identifies itself with an almost extreme practicality. In a lengthy (and in certainways quite nuanced) 2009 report for the Carnegie Foundation on recent engineering educationreforms, Sheppard et al repeatedly have recourse to the belief that engineering
comparison, the interviews revealedless structured ways of talking about good teamwork skills and more ad hoc ways of teachingsuch skills.Introduction: Teamwork and communication in the engineering classroomCommunication and teamwork skills remain a top-priority outcome for engineering graduates inboth academic and industry settings. They are considered by ABET to be key student learningoutcomes for accreditation 1 and are consistently high on employers list of necessary skills fornew hires 2, 3. Despite recognition of the importance of these skills in the workplace, there isminimal integration into engineering courses. In their 2008 survey of engineering faculty, forexample, House et al. 4 found that faculty who do incorporate communication into
people can and do affect its development” (Young, Cole, &Denton22, 2003). Page 25.1441.3This lack of understanding of technologies, both past and present, is directly related to enhancingnot only the student's but society’s technological literacy level. “Technological literacy can bethought of a comprising three interrelated dimensions that help describe the characteristics of atechnologically literate person... (1) knowledge; (2) ways of thinking and acting; and (3)capabilities” (National Academy of Engineering12, 2008). “Technological literacy is the ability touse, manage, assess, and understand technology” (International Technology
called the Engineering Ambassadors to relay these messages in freshmen levelcourses, is to impact student perceptions of engineering and to provide information to studentsthat will be critical in making career decisions.In the Fall of 2011, a pilot program was launched in two sections of a Chemical EngineeringFirst Year Seminar. Engineering Ambassadors made four separate visits to each section,focusing on the following topics: 1) An overview of College of Engineering Majors, 2) Optionswithin Chemical Engineering, 3) Student experiences in the College of Engineering, and 4) Howto be a successful engineering student. Woven through each presentation were themes fromChanging the Conversation, focusing on how engineers are essential to health