Engineering Sciences and Materials at the ˜ University of Puerto Rico, MayagA¼ez Campus (UPRM). He earned B.S. degrees in Civil Engineering and Mathematics from Carnegie Mellon University (1993) andDr. Nayda G. Santiago, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus Nayda G. Santiago is professor at the Electrical and Computer Engineering department, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus (UPRM) where she teaches the Capstone Course in Computer Engineer- ing. She received an BS in EE from the University of PR, MayaDr. Lourdes A. MedinaDr. Ivan J. Baiges-Valentin, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023
school. Her research is focused on solving problems relating to educating and developing engi- neers, teachers, and the community at all levels (P12, undergraduate, graduate, post-graduate). A few of these key areas include engineering identity and mindsets, global competencies, failure culture, first year experiences in engineering, capstone design thinking, integrating service and authentic learning into the engineering classroom, implementing new instructional methodologies, and design optimization using traditional and non-traditional manufacturing. She seeks to identify best practices and develop assess- ments methods that assist in optimizing computing and engineering learning. Dr. Gurganus was one the inaugural
choices on thecontext, timing, frequency, format, workload assignment, and grading for students.Context: We implemented the tool in Introductory microeconomics, Introductorymacroeconomics, Introductory engineering design (biotechnology and human values), andBiomedical engineering design (senior/capstone experience). The courses all include a projectwith oral presentations and other deliverables such as a written paper or an audio-videorecording. Each economics class enrolled 60 undergraduate students and the engineering classeshad 63 and 49 students, respectively. Students in these classes work on their projects in teams of4-6 students each. The projects are scaffolded in ways that allow the students to present theirwork orally, receive feedback
Intro Activity 1 M&R Intro Activity 5 :45 Hardware Discussion 12:00 Hands-on: Intro Activity 1 Hands-on: Intro Activity 5 :15 :30 Software Discussion :45 Summary & Reflection Summary & Reflection 1:00 M&R Intro Activity 2 Curriculum Discussion 2 Breakout Groups 1 :15 :30 Hands-on: Intro Activity 2 BG1 Report-Out Capstone Project Discussion :45
provided with WATTStraining) as well as in the “experimental” year of the study (tutors provided with the WATTS training).Background:The students in the study were senior-year students enrolled in the capstone design sequence of an METprogram. The course sequence meets once a week during the fall and spring semesters and is taught bythe same instructor both semesters. Students are assigned to work on industry-sponsored design projectsin teams of three or four. Each team’s project work is facilitated by a faculty advisor drawn from the METdepartment faculty. During the course of the semester, the students are tasked with applying the designskills learned in other MET courses to their design project. Each student must select a component oraspect of
promote DEI. In addition, he also works on many research-to-practice projects to enhance educational technology usage in engineering classrooms and educational research.Li Shen, University of Pennsylvania Dr. Shen obtained his Ph.D. degree in Computer Science from Dartmouth College. He is a Professor of Informatics and Radiology in the University of Pennsylvania. His research interests include medical image computing, biomedical informatics, machine learning, trustworthy AI, NLP/LLMs, network science, imaging genomics, multi-omics and systems biology, Alzheimer’s disease, and big data science in biomedicine. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024Theorizing neuro-induced relationships
environments.Prof. John Raiti, University of Washington Prof. John Raiti is an Associate Teaching Professor in Electrical & Computer Engineering at the University of Washington, and is the Technical Programs Advisor at the Global Innovation Exchange (GIX) where he teaches in the Interdisciplinary UW Master of Science in Technology Innovation degree program. He teaches UW graduate level courses in Sensors & Circuits, IoT and Connected Devices, Capstone-style Launch Projects, and Robotics (Mobility, Navigation, and Manipulation) with a focus on Human Robot Interaction (HRI). ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Physical Robots for Teaching Mobility & Manipulation using
Participation (Program Certification in Secondary Schools Only) - Non-Traditional Career Exposure - Characteristics of Curriculum Instructional - Instructional Rigor, Relevance, and Instructional Quality Practices - STEM or STEAM Curriculum: Project-Based Learning (PBL) - STEM or STEAM Curriculum: Day-to-Day Interdisciplinary Instruction - Student Internships and/or Capstone Project (HS Only) - Problem Solving Practices for Developing Solutions - Technology Integration - Investigative Research - STEM/STEAM Journals Professional - Content Knowledge
-criteria Team formation method explained in [26]. Multi-criteriateam formation will allow for diverse grouping of students i.e., with different EE tracks expe-rience and with diverse student demographics. The Lab will be an independent course withinthe undergraduate/graduate courses catalog.The MRC lab will also engage with industry partners such as (ABB in the robotic area, Rock-well International in industrial controls, and National Instruments for data acquisition and con-trol systems) these companies are major suppliers for the semiconductors industry, further-more, the proposed MRC Lab engagement with industry will come through a comprehensiveapproach that includes 1) internships and capstone projects, which will integrate industry ex-pertise
effectiveness of interdisciplinary instructional designpractices.IntroductionEngineers bear the professional responsibility to ensure that a given project benefits society bytaking into account the impact of human and social factors when making engineering decisionsand communicating technical expertise. Given the importance of such considerations [1], ABETaccreditation criteria explicitly target them as expectations for professional readiness. Inengineering and engineering technology curricula, project-based learning from freshman projectsto senior capstones and human-centered design [2] are highly effective pedagogies that areintegral to the curricula for all the students in the programs. To address societal factors inengineering design, an
the program names contribute to some of these challenges,leading to questions about whether rebranding to a different name might be beneficial. Otherstudies have explored renaming motivations and results in geography [13], agronomy [14],writing programs [15], vocational education [16], and institutions [17], [18]. There is a generalconsensus that names are powerful, and changes often reveal tensions with the health and/oridentity of programs. Frazier et al. [13, p. 13] notes: “Do name changes reflect an expandedmission… or other goals such as addressing low enrollment, shifting student interests, or thedesire to project a fresh identity or realign with a new academic emphasis?” There may also beconcern about name recognition or conveying the