be used with students who are not majoring in one of the STEM disciplines.IntroductionIt is widely recognized that our standard of living, economy, and way of life are dependent onthe use of technology created by engineers. However, the National Academy of Engineering(NAE) has drawn attention to the paradox that while most people acknowledge their dependenceupon technology, few have even rudimentary understanding of the underlying principles at workor the nature of engineering [1]. The NAE has long advocated that all citizens should possess anunderstanding of technology, how it is developed, how it works, how it affects society, and howsociety determines the path of technological developments.The NAE has made an effort to characterize
(TUEE) effort, representatives from industry rated systems thinking as ahigh priority for engineering education [1]. Even more noteworthy, this industry survey ratedsystems knowledge as more critical than “understanding of design.” According to these industryrespondents, “problems and challenges are generally system problems.” Industry representativesalso advocated for introducing students to systems concepts early in undergraduate engineeringprograms [1].Systems thinking also provides a means to develop the technological and engineering literacy ofnon-engineers. In Technically Speaking: Why all Americans need to know more abouttechnology [2], the NAE advocated a wider understanding of technology broadly defined as theproducts of all the
Work in Progress - Projects in engineering education - cross-fertilization between communication and situated learningIntroductionEngineering education has been regularly reformed a number of times the last decades [1], andcontinues to develop. Along this track the role of the engineer has also developed. As Cohen andcolleagues [2] describe it, the development has ”... sought to enlarge the core identity of theengineer from a technician skilled at calculation and fabrication to a professional member of thewider culture”. This is probably true now more than ever, as we face global challenges of climatechange, large migration streams and an overall focus on economic, social and ecologicalsustainable development. The engineer’s role in
growth and long-term viability? Instead, the focus seem to be meeting earningsforecasts.Henry Petroski, in To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design [1], relatesan encounter in chapter 1 with a neighbor who, after the Kansas City Hyatt Regency skywalkscollapse, wondered why engineering did not know enough to build so simple a structure as anelevated walkway. The neighbor went on to cite the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse, theAmerican Airlines DC-10 crash in Chicago, some other famous failures, and a few things that hehad heard about hypothetical nuclear power plant accidents that he was sure would exceed ThreeMile Island in radiation release. The neighbor’s point was that engineering did not quite havethe world of their
Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 MESA Center Promoting Technical LiteracyAbstractIn 2007, the first MESA Center in Texas opened at our college. After twelve years, there is astory to be told and to be proud of it.MESA, which stands for Mathematics, Engineering, and Science Achievement, is a nationalprogram that originated in California in 1970 [1], [2]. Its purpose is to support educationallydisadvantaged students throughout the education pipeline to excel in math and science so theycan go on to attain degrees in the fields of engineering, science, and mathematics. Due to itsSTEM foundation, the MESA Center
poignant isthat too much of our industrial, infrastructure, transportation and military components are nowforeign sourced. Our domestic development and production capability is being forfeited onaccount of engineering research culminating as no more than paper.The acceptance of paper solutions as an academic R&d end game has led to development andproduction increasingly occurring outside the U.S., where our academic work products aredeveloped, scaled, and put into production overseas [1]. The National Science Foundation(NSF) report to the President and Congress The State of U.S. Science & Engineering 2020 [2],contains some ominous warnings relative to the state of our national science and engineeringenterprise, which states
,implementation and deployment of intelligent systems that are both technologically advancedand ethically mindful.1.0 Introduction During the past few decades, the world has changed as a result of advances in technology[1],[2],[3]. These advances in technology have impacted and transformed society both on apersonal and professional level. They have seemingly improved the quality of life [1],[2],[3] byproviding a means of knowledge acquisition and exchange, and by connecting people andbusinesses everywhere. Most of today’s advanced technologies are powered by machinelearning algorithms. The machine learning algorithms examine trends in data and formrelationships by recognizing the patterns in the data. Once the relationships are established
(class was at 8 am and 6:30 pm respectively) alecture deliverable was added in the form of ‘question chits’ based on the revised Bloom’staxonomy which redefines the cognitive domain as the intersection of the cognitive processdimension and the knowledge dimension (Figure 1). In each class, a question was asked thatcorresponded to one of the 24 options in the revised taxonomy. Each question used a verb thatgenerally referred to an action associated with the intended cognitive process and a noun thatgenerally described the knowledge students were expected to acquire or construct [1]. This paperwill discuss this experiment and provide examples of questions posed
concept was driven by the importance offacing daily technological and engineering literacy problems and decisions in areas such as [1]: Product and process risks. Communication technology. Government regulation and policy. Availability of resources. De-monopolization of technical know-how. The now extra-national nature of innovationOn a national level, the need for technological literacy and engineering literacy became manifestthrough publication of: International Technology Education Association. Standards for technological literacy: content for the study of technology [2]. “Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology” [3]. “Tech Tally: Approaches to
a standing relationship with ASU and has contributed to collaborative development,deployment and assessment of sustainability-themed active and experiential modules.During the 2012-2013 academic year faculty at ASU and MCC piloted a water-for-energy waterfootprint module to introduce students to the concept of embedded, or virtual, water (i.e. waterrequired to generate or produce a product or service) and how their decisions, engineeringapplications and sustainability relate to the “real-world” global and complex issue of resourcedepletion today. Module implementation was piloted in one civil engineering course at bothinstitutions for the Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 semesters, see Table 1. MCC’s courses wereintroductory engineering courses
scales. It was also found that teams that includedspecific products and/or applications of nanotechnology in their project solution showed agreater understanding of nanotechnology. Based on these finding, it is recommended that thenanoscale be explained through comparisons to other scales and nanotechnology-based designprojects should encourage students to learn about specific products and/or applications ofnanotechnology.I. IntroductionFirst-year students know very little about nanotechnology.1-3 The general public is ill-informedabout nanotechnogy.4 This means that high school and college students are not receivingaccurate information about a field that is changing many aspects of our world5-6 and offers manynew learning and discovery
bookreaders are easy-to-use and will transform the way that consumers work and play – yet manypeople find these gadgets to be confusing and frustrating.We describe the development of a non-credit, personal enrichment course for novice adults that(1) explains the fundamental technologies underlying popular consumer gadgets; (2) guidesparticipants in identifying their goals for using technology; and (3) helps participants findappropriate solutions. The course is designed partly as an opportunity to “touch” newtechnologies, with the instructors providing a variety of gadgets and participants encouraged tobring their personal devices.This course was developed as part of the outreach activities of Michigan State University(MSU), and the curriculum was
on specific technological systems. In this situation,engineering programs should share some of the responsibility in helping to educate allAmericans about technology.1–5In undergraduate education formidable barriers exist to discourage non-engineers from trying todevelop an in-depth understanding about technology and engineering. The engineering major is ahighly-sequenced and lengthy course of study. Access to the major is hindered by a significantarray of prerequisite courses. In these circumstances it is difficult to combine the study ofengineering with any other undergraduate major.Most undergraduate programs require some type of science course as part of the general
former president of the IEEE Education Society Chapter in Argentina. Contact her at mfeldgen@ieee.org. Page 23.748.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2013 Information and Communications Technologies literacy of the University of Buenos Aires Engineering studentsIntroduction The students currently at the University have been described by a number of labels. Theseinclude the net generation, millennial, Google generation and digital natives. These termshighlight the importance of technology in their lives 1. Some authors 2 3 assert than the newtechnologies
works hisproblem successfully, he leaves. From this interaction, the instructor is able to find conceptswhich need to be emphasized, and identify students that need extra help.One of these sessions is the hydro-circuits lab, described in a previous paper,1 designed to givestudents a “feel” for the hydraulic analogies for the resistor, capacitor, voltage and current. Realwater, balloons, plastic tubing, and fluid flow meters are used to show Kirchhoff’s current lawand an R-C transient. It gets pretty messy. One of the civil engineering majors, who hadquestions about fluid flow, became excited during this lab as he realized that the basis for rampumps (inertia pumps) is the same as that for current flow in an inductor. The followingtreatise is
advancing to thepresent, historical research will uncover the terms and distinctions necessary to establish both anunderstanding and a synthesis of how these current fields have emerged. Chronological eventscan be linked to provide the foundations of engineering education, technology education, andengineering & technology education.1. IntroductionThere is confusion today to define concepts or activities related to the terms “technology” and“engineering”. Society tends to confuse the term technology with science, when technology isconcerned with “what can or should be through modification of the natural world, and science isvery concerned with what is (exist) in the natural world. Also, public opinion inclines to relatethe term technology with
proceeds from the specific towards abstract theory.IntroductionA first step in achieving technological and engineering literacy in the general population is anarticulation of the fundamental philosophical perspectives of the discipline. Recent efforts havedrawn attention to the need to clarify an underlying philosophy of engineering.1,2 Theimportance of enumerating and analyzing the philosophical underpinnings of engineering isbecoming more widely recognized. Clarification of a philosophy of engineering is relevant tothe discipline even if many engineering practitioners operate without a conscious awareness ofthis philosophy.1-3 A significant component of these efforts includes attempts to distinguishengineering and technological activity from the
point of an industry. The specificdifferences between the two methods are shown in Table 1.The course introduced the students to the application of basic scientific principles (in Physics,Chemistry, Biology) to the environment. More specifically, the concepts of sustainability,ecology and evolution, population, climate, biodiversity and various industries such asagriculture, forests, and energy were covered in the course.The course was organized into several modules. For example, in the climate and air resourcesmodule, the students were introduced to atmospheric circulation, ocean circulation, climate andweather, air pollution and greenhouse effect and climate change. Students were not usuallyaware that systems of positive and negative
Page 23.201.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2013 Applying a knowledge-generation epistemological approach to computer science and software engineering pedagogyTLC Topic Area: Concepts and Philosophy of Engineering LiteracyAbstract This paper proposes a brief exploration of the epistemology of knowledge, specificallydistinguishing the development of scientific knowledge from the development of engineeringknowledge. Based on a pragmatic theory approach (1), the paper proposes a pattern fordistinguishing the ‘science’ of computer science from its ‘engineering’ aspects. The paper thenapplies these distinctions to traditional Computer Science knowledge, and explores itsrelationship to
literacy.II. IntroductionThere is a global need for technologically literate citizens. Although some groups haverecognized the value of technological literacy, it has not yet become a priority in our society.The National Academy of Engineering (NAE) holds, “The idea that all Americans should bebetter prepared to navigate our highly technological world has been advocated by manyindividuals and groups for years…Nevertheless, the issue of technological literacy is virtuallyinvisible on the national agenda. This is especially disturbing in a time when technology is adominant force in society”1. The International Technology and Engineering EducatorsAssociation (ITEEA) shares this view on an emphasized need for technological literacy. “We area nation
, Harris, Harold, Facial Recognition System Screening Evaluation Methodology for Complexion Biases: Proceedings of the 2011 American Society for Engineering Education ASEE, Conference. Vancouver Canada, June 26-Jun30 2011 oChinchilla, Rigoberto, S. Guccione, J. Tillman, Wind Power Technologies in the United States: A Tech- nical Comparison between Vertical and Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines: Journal Of Industrial Technology Volume 27, Number 1 - January 2011 through March 2011 Dr. Chinchilla can be reached at rchinchilla@eiu.edu. Page 25.582.1 c American Society for Engineering Education
technological selection and rejection. Theresults of this research may be used to improve the design criteria for more effectivedevelopment and application of learning technologies, such as deployed in on-line courses and inemerging high immersion game-based learning systems. Furthermore, with better-designedlearning technology systems and devices, leading to broader diffusion and successfulimplementation, then criteria for technological literacy might be determined more effectively.Objectives of the research include: 1) identifying anthropological invariants in early learning; 2)identifying invariant learning behavior in later stages of learning, including identifying vestigesor artifact behaviors from early learning; 3) documenting the adoption rates
. Page 25.939.3 2The educational objectives and outcomes were developed as a structure for engineering programsdeveloping technological literacy programs for non-engineering, undergraduate students. Theseobjectives and outcomes are based on an analysis of five primary sources that address the issueof technological and engineering literacy. 1) Technically Speaking, Why All Americans Need to Know More About Technology, developed by the National Academy of Engineering6. 2) ABET Engineering Criteria14. 3) ABET Engineering Technology Criteria15. 4) Report of the Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP)16. This program of the American Association of Colleges and Universities
possible to accomplish in a engineering and technological literacy course for non-engineers.Requirements for Visual Representation MethodIn survey courses of modern technology for non-engineer, the methods and conventions usedmust be consistent across a broad spectrum of common technologies including automobiles,structures such as bridges, and electronics. Some general requirements needed for visual aids Page 24.418.5used in technological and engineering literacy courses are listed in Table 1. The primary use of 4these visual aids is to help to convey how the technology works. An overall goal is to
of a larger program at Florida Atlantic University that targetsmultiple topics and concepts in engineering, computer science, physics, and mathematics. The method was employed over the course of a semester for a class titled “Control Systems1”. A small scale assessment was applied to gauge the students’ receptiveness to the techniques.Although the project is in the preliminary stages, the feedback has been positive. Currently,further efforts are being made to assess students throughout the course of the semester,comparing their overall success with their opinion of the techniques highlighted in the project. Page 24.172.2 1. Introduction
. Page 24.356.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014 Defining engineering and technological literacies within the framework of liberal education: implications for the curriculumAbstractThis paper develops a discussion begun in earlier papers between 2010 and 2012 by members of theTechnological Literacy Division of ASEE. Technological literacy is a muddled concept for which reasonmembers of the Technological Literacy Division led by John Krupczak have found it necessary to distinguishbetween two literacies- engineering and technological [1]. Accompanying this work, Mani Mina and others havealso established a framework for the design and implementation of minor courses for the development
purpose of engineering education.This question is irrelevant to engineering practice over the short term since engineering is what itis, and definitions don’t directly affect GDP or employment. Yet for engineering educators thedefinitions of engineering do matter since they inform what we should do. Definitions also pointout potential conceptual imprecisions; if we do not interpret a definition the same way then thereis a potential for miscommunication and subsidiary ideas may themselves be imprecise.Mitcham and Schatzberg point out 1 that definitions are fundamental to philosophy, and ourphilosophy, whether explicit or not, determines how we educate 2. More practically, definitionsserve as objectives, helping to determine the ultimate aims of
framework of liberal education: implications for the curriculum.IntroductionIn a previous papers it has been argued (a) that a liberal education that takes no account ofengineering and technological literacy cannot, by definition, be liberal [1], and (b) that programsof engineering and technological literacy can be designed to bridge the academic –vocationaldivide that is inherent in reports such as that undertaken for the National Governors Association(NGA) by Sparks and Waits [2-3]. One of the trans-disciplinary frameworks that was brieflydiscussed was Whitehead’s three stage theory of rhythm in learning. The purpose of this paper isto consider the design of the first stage, the stage of romance.Whiteheads theory of learning, and
Ames Iowa 50011 mmina@iastate.eduAbstractRecently, there have been valuable, creative, and systematic attempts for to identify, define, and work on a philosophical basis and foundation of engineering. Researchers in the area believe that the foundational philosophy (or philosophies) of engineering should not necessarily be the same as the 1-‐2 philosophies for sciences . In this important endeavor to search for and identify the philosophical basis for engineering and engineering education, a fundamental premise exists. The assumption is that having a better
“specialists” working together to obtain significantimpact towards defined education and outreach goals.Large-scale research centers face the challenge of integrating the EOT operation into the generalframework of the research enterprise rather than running an ancillary EOT project to fulfill acontractual agreement specified by the funding agency. One model is to concentrate education Page 24.843.2programs on the research potential of the graduate students and post-doctoral scholars working atthe facility. This model emphasizes the production of new knowledge related to the ongoingresearch conducted at the sites. As illustrated in Figure 1, the