Sciences, an undergraduate bachelor of science degree program in the MSU College of Engineering. He also is an Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering. Dr. Sticklen has lead a laboratory in knowledge-based systems focused on task specific approaches to problem solving. Over the last decade, Dr. Sticklen has pursued en- gineering education research focused on early engineering; his current research is supported by NSF/DUE and NSF/CISE. Page 22.763.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Using Guided Reflection to Assess
disadvantages of modified process are discussed.We hope this paper serves as a guideline for course instructors who are considering going agilefor a capstone design course for computer engineers, software engineers, or multi-disciplinaryteams.Crystal Clear ProcessCrystal Clear is designed specifically to work with small to medium sized teams. Some of theproperties of this process include: frequent delivery via 2–4 week iterations; processimprovement via reflection workshops at the end of each iteration; osmotic communication byco-locating teams, and utilizing charts and boards to share information; personal safety; focusthrough a flexible plan that identifies fixed deliverables per iteration; and a technicalenvironment capable of supporting automated
could potentially accelerate the student’s learning of selected systems engineeringcompetencies.1.0 IntroductionSystems engineering educators are struggling to address workforce development needs requiredto meet the emerging challenges posed by increasing systems complexity1 and the widening gapin systems engineering expertise in the workforce.2 The systems engineering ExperienceAccelerator (ExpAcc) research project was conceived as a critical response to these needs andchallenges. The project was initiated to validate the use of technology to potentially create anexperiential, emotional state in the learner coupled with reflective learning so that time iseffectively compressed and the learning process of a systems engineer (SE) is
, includes not only the analytic element but also development of recommendations forthe solution of the problem at hand. Moreover, they argue that systems engineering includespolicy analysis in addition to technical or analytical aspects, reflecting the fact that complexsystems inevitably involve trade-offs that involve underlying values articulated through writtenor unwritten policy.6The essence of this brief background is that systems engineering is not a set of tools, amethodology, a checklist, a technology, or a process, yet systems engineering often requiresanalytical tools, methods, checklists, technology, and processes. Rather, it is a way of thinking –systems thinking – that reflects an understanding and appreciation of goals (value
and experiential learning1,2. Through peer interactionand collaboration student’s are able to synthesize and evaluate their ideas collectively3,4,5 and areforced to reflect upon and reason about their ideas at greater depth than when workingindividually6.In contrast, there are numerous studies that show the difficulty students experience working inteams. Student’s frequently cite that they have little influence and no control over their team-mates; they believe their grade will not reflect their contribution or competence; and thetransaction cost of scheduling meetings, and working collaboratively are not worth the rewards,of which they see few7. These bad team experiences can have a profound impact on thosestudents who are subsequently
thirteen hours of courses, with asecond design course being added to each area. The faculty in the space flight area chose torequire the Space Systems Engineering Design (SSED) course as the prerequisite for thecapstone spacecraft/ mission design course. Also, a computational laboratory attached to theorbital mechanics course was revamped to focus on the modeling of spacecraft subsystems. Thecourse was renamed as the Spacecraft Systems Laboratory (SSL) to better reflect the new coursecontent. These courses were formally adopted for inclusion in the curriculum as prerequisites forthe capstone design course effective in the fall 2008 semester.Space Systems Engineering Design (SSED) This course is a three semester-credit-hour course taught on a
, an interesting issue is the time delay betweendemand and supply. It seems harmless at the first look, but it turns out to be a potential cause foroscillation or even instability, which is reflected as the periodic cycles of boom and bust ineconomy. This problem is pretty hard to analyze except with advanced knowledge of systemthinking. However, it can be conveniently simulated and analyzed with the help ofSTELLA®/iThink® .The third part of this course is the investigation of systems in different fields. The first topic is aphysical system, where a simple climate model can be set up. The inflow of energy from the sunis assumed to be constant, and the outflow of energy by radiation is affected by the concentrationof greenhouse gasses, as well
done in association with this framework. Students’ artifactsare the primary source for evaluation. Reflective essays will also be required at the end of theproject. In addition the teamwork and communication aspects are assessed through existingassessments9.Rubric development is an iterative process involving the faculty advising the multi-disciplinary Page 22.1278.11team, together with the input of systems engineering faculty members with extensive industrialexperience in the systems field. This is to ensure that the learning objectives are appropriatelyaddressed and that the rubrics are constructed to effectively and reliably capture the range
continuous improvement process for the curriculum. Assessments can eitherindirect or direct measures of student achievement; direct measures are preferred.SE Graduate Program Alignment with GRCSEA program that adopts or chooses to align with GRCSE will go through several phases. Thesephases reflect the maturity of the program, from the initial planning through to a matureprogram. Existing programs will align to GRCSE in varying degree. To aid universities indetermining the degree of alignment, assessment rubrics are provided in Table 2. Theassessment categories can also be used to provide a basis for program improvement. Forexample, a program can use the categories initial, emerging, developed, and highly developed, asa basis to develop a strategy
curriculum elements, and this benefit can extend beyondthose students directly associated with the SE capstone projects. The program has received positivefeedback from most of the graduates that have participated on these projects, and the influence ofthe SE program has grown far beyond the number of students entering the graduate school forSE.Introduction The US Department of Defense (DoD) is facing major challenges associated with theirScience, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) workforce. This problem goes beyond theneeds of the core acquisition workforce that comprise only 40% of the overall STEMworkforce1, and in fact is a reflection of shortages of engineers throughout defense industries and
per se and more of a way to provide both theproject team and the DoD advisors with information about project teams’ progress. It was alsohoped that the DoD advisors would use the blogs as one means of communicating with thestudents. The prompts for the final blog prompt, at the end of the course, were more elaborateand reflective. They were: What were the most important system-level trade-offs you had to consider during this project? If you were to start this project over again, what would you do differently?However, the only school to complete the project in one semester and therefore the first to finishwanted the final blog to be more comprehensive and so replaced the above with the following setof questions, which we may
environment of this first course consisted of implementing multiple facets ofeducation technology and methodologies as the courses consisted of distance learners as well ason campus students. This created a unique environment for the application of “learning bydoing” as students were geographically dispersed throughout the continental United States.Hence, the course contained both a lecture component and out of class meetings. The course wastaught through Cisco WebEx®, which is an online meeting and video conferencing tool. Allcourse lectures were recorded and archived in order to assure students had the capability toreview covered lecture material or reflect upon class discussions regarding the design of thisimmersion-training vest. The class was
the Arena® simulation environment, reflects both thesemodels of operations to provide a means of comparison for futurechanges and improvements. The difference between the two models liesin the use of the ticket counter scheduling. The number of ticket countersin the current system model is fixed at two ticket counters per air carrier.Each ticket counter has two physical positions and is able to serve twocustomers at any one time.The per-use model was found to scale very well during the simulationexperiments. The ability to reassign a ticket counter to a different aircarrier in order to meet the passenger input demands greatly reduces high Fig. 2. DTCIS
InteroperabilityPlans, DHS evaluated all 50 states with regards to the completion and effectiveness of theirSCIP. It was found that most states had completed their SCIP but many were behind inperforming regular exercises to verify those plans, did not plan for use of plain languagecommunications in their plans and rarely updated those plans to reflect training, equipment orstructural changes. As stated previously, these exercises are invaluable in establishing preexisting relationships. The fact that DHS has made available standards and templates hasallowed the states to make progress in documenting their operating procedures but many statesare still behind in verifying and refining those plans.AlternativesGiven that SDR is new technology with limited
program reflecting collaboration between government, industry and academia (open academic model) . Presented at the 59Th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), 29 September – 3 October, 2008, in Glasgow, Scotland.11. Australian Government, Department of Defence (2010). Building defence capability: A policy for a smarter and more agile defence industry base. Commonwealth of Australia 2010.12. Menrad, R. & Larson, W. (2008). Development of a NASA integrated technical workforce career development model entitled: Requisite occupation competencies and knowledge -- the ROCK. In Presented at the 59th international astronautical congress (IAC), 29 september – 3 october, 2008, in glasgow, scotland.13. APPEL (2009