Conference Session

Systems Engineering Division Technical Session 4 – Systems Thinking Integration and Systems Engineering Skills Evaluation

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Adedeji B. Badiru P.E., Air Force Institute of Technology; LeeAnn Racz, US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine

Tagged Divisions

Systems Engineering

to the attendant problems andchallenges of the profession. Relevant, responsive, and adaptive curriculum development is thebest approach to achieving an integrated delivery of education.In this paper, we suggest the application of a systems approach to curriculum development,particularly where normally dichotomous disciplines are involved, such as engineering andaerospace medicine. A systems-based view of a robust curriculum permits the inclusion of all (ormost) of the facets attendant in each of the collaborating disciplines. Systems thinking is, thus,essential for integrating curriculum elements. Traditionally, a system is defined as the collectionof interrelated elements whose collective output (or result) is higher than the sum of

Conference Session

Systems Engineering Division Technical Session 4 – Systems Thinking Integration and Systems Engineering Skills Evaluation

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Federica Robinson-Bryant, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University- Worldwide

Tagged Divisions

Systems Engineering

Paper ID #22848Developing a Systems Thinking Integration Approach for Robust Learningin Undergraduate Engineering CoursesDr. Federica Robinson-Bryant, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University- Worldwide Dr. Federica Robinson-Bryant is an Assistant Professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University- World- wide. She is the Program Chair for the Master of Systems Engineering program and a member of the Dept. of Engineering and Technology. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Developing a Systems Thinking Integration Approach for Robust Learning in Undergraduate Engineering

Conference Session

Systems Engineering Division Technical Session 4 – Systems Thinking Integration and Systems Engineering Skills Evaluation

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Diane Constance Aloisio, Purdue University; Karen Marais, Purdue University; Hanxi Sun, Purdue University

Tagged Divisions

Systems Engineering

-guided study on how systems engineers develop their expertise. Additionally,many systems engineers have an integrative role, “requiring a deeper understanding of a widerange of areas than provided by a focused education” [Ross et al., 2014]. Anecdotally, manyuniversity faculty agree that successful systems engineers can only be made through experience,as evidenced in part by the relatively few programs in systems engineering, especially at theundergraduate level1. As Adcock et al. [2015] note: “current undergraduate engineering education1 A brief note on terminology is appropriate here. While there are many graduate engineering programs that addressthe problems posed by complex engineering systems, these programs tend to focus on the science of

Conference Session

Systems Engineering Division Technical Session 1: Course Design & SE Competencies

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Kuan-Yu Chou, National Chiao Tung University; Yon-Ping Chen, National Chiao Tung University; Sunny S. J. Lin, National Chiao Tung University; Chao-Yang Cheng, National Chiao Tung University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Systems Engineering

applications. Several EE professors had agreedupon a System Engineering curriculum scheme (See Figure 2). At the yearend of2013, the capstone DCS then was renamed as“Dynamic System Simulation andImplementation (DSSI).”DSSI aimed to help students synthesize and integrate skillsand knowledge acquired throughout the SE course.Figure 2: An illustration (at round 0) of System Engineering curriculum scheme that categorizes 100-300 courses into cornerstone, keystone and capstone, respectively.Self-improvement from round 0 to round 1From round 0 to round 1, the DCS professor decided to do self-reflection on previousSC syllabus and examination of System Engineering course structure. Figure 3 listsfour standard steps in system engineering design shown in

Conference Session

Systems Engineering Division Technical Session 3 – Course and Program Outcomes

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Devanandham Henry, Regent University; Charles Daniel Turnitsa, Regent University; Cheryl Beauchamp, Regent University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Systems Engineering

Paper ID #24082Establishing an Engineering Core – What Does Every Engineer Need to Know,Particularly About Systems Engineering?Dr. Devanandham Henry, Regent University Dr. Devanandham (Deva) Henry is an assistant professor at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Virginia where he leads the systems engineering program. Previously, he was a research engineer with the Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC) at Stevens Institute of Technology. He has supported the develop- ment of Systems Readiness Levels, Graduate Software Engineering Reference Curriculum, the GUide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK), and

Conference Session

Systems Engineering Division Technical Session 2: SE Applications

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Sharon Claxton Bommer, KBRwyle; Alice E. Grimes, Air Force Institute of Technology; Adedeji B. Badiru, Air Force Institute of Technology

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Systems Engineering

structure to the challenges of a faculty development program and/ora curriculum development effort. Figure 1. DEJI® Model Application to Curriculum Development in Alignment with Faculty Development ProgramThe case example presented utilizes the DEJI systems engineering model [4], which advocates astructured approach that can be followed to Design, Evaluate, Justify, and Integrate elements ofany new work design, such as developing and executing a mentoring program. In this particularcase example, a New Faculty Development and Mentoring (NFDM) model is illustrated toenhance faculty development in higher education for an unconventional educationalenvironment, such as the Air Force graduate school. The structure of the

Conference Session

Systems Engineering Division Technical Session 3 – Course and Program Outcomes

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Stu Turner, US Air Force Academy Systems Engineering; Kalyn Tung, United States Air Force Academy; Cory Cooper, United States Air Force Academy

Tagged Divisions

Systems Engineering

uponfeedback received in the previous year’s assessment cycle.Goals: In early fall 2017 the SE Curriculum and Assessment Manager conducted an in-depthquality assurance review of the legacy assessment architecture. The review includedexamination of: • the alignment of defined student performance criteria with program (ABET Criterion 3) Student Outcomes • the alignment of student assessment data artifacts with the performance criteria they were intended to support • assessment data collection and reporting mechanisms completed by course directors and teaching faculty each semester • assessment program continual improvement process • semester and annual results archiving and reporting methodsThe legacy

Conference Session

Systems Engineering Division Technical Session 2: SE Applications

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Nicole A.C. Hutchison, Stevens Institute of Technology; Sergio Luna, Stevens Institute of Technology; William D. Miller, Stevens Institute of Technology; Hoong Yan See Tao, Stevens Institute of Technology; Dinesh Verma, Stevens Institute of Technology; Gregg T. Vesonder, Stevens Institute of Technology; Jon Patrick Wade, Stevens Institute of Technology

Tagged Divisions

Systems Engineering

the Scope of Mission EngineeringThe scope of mission engineering is analyzed from 1) the critical activities identified by missionengineers in interviews and 2) the critical systems engineering competencies they use.Fig. 9 shows the interview responses analysis on the critical activities in mission engineering,which can be summarized as: • Critical mission-focus activities begin first and foremost, with an understanding of the mission as the highest overall compared to other activities, indicated by the highest percentage of interview participants • Top technical activities include the architecture, analysis, requirements, modeling and simulation, capability development, integration and interoperability, testing and