Bio-inspired Design Using C-K TheoryIntroductionThe engineer of 2020 is expected to not only offer technical ingenuity but also adapt to acontinuously evolving environment. The ability to operate outside the narrow limits of onediscipline and be ethically grounded in solving the complex problems of the future will also beneeded. To address the competencies of the future engineer, undergraduate education must trainstudents to not only solve engineering challenges that transcend disciplinary boundaries, but alsocommunicate, transfer knowledge, and collaborate across technical and non-technical boundaries.One approach to train engineers in these competencies is teaching biomimicry or bio-inspireddesign in an engineering curriculum, which offers
specifically focused ondiversity), and their intentions to pursue engineering in the future.In addition to being asked parallel questions (to the student questionnaire) about their ownexperiences with diversity, faculty were also queried about curriculum design (both in terms ofexplicit focus on individuals from diverse backgrounds and in terms of the extent to which socialimpacts are considered in the presentation of theory, assessment of learning, and the applicationof technology); the extent to which non-technical professional skills are taught which wouldenable multidisciplinary and multicultural teams to function at a high level; the ethical andprofessional responsibilities of an engineer are communicated in a way which promotes social,global
a general email to thousands, or a brief presentation todozens, the student designers demonstrated an ethic of care by speaking individually with eachstudent.The new Pod members would be equally distributed, and each new Pod would include at leasttwo members of the student design team to serve as seeds of the desired community norms andpractices. During the first term the Pods were expected to meet a 2-5 times to agree on their ownmethods of achieving the four Pod goals. While the student designers developed materials andexamples of activities and practices that were likely to achieve the goals, none were specificallyrequired. This allowed the Pods the flexibility to develop individually, informed by the peopleparticipating.We have also
., Southerland, S.A., Gilmer, P.J., 2006, "Retaining undergraduate women in science, mathematics, and engineering", Journal of College Science Teaching, 36, 34. 11. Pei Cheng Ooi, Michelle T. T. Tan, “Effectiveness of Workshop to Improve Engineering Students’ Awareness on Engineering Ethics”, International Conference on New Horizons in Education, INTE 2014. 12. Micari, M., Drane, D., 2007, "Promoting success: possible factors behind achievement of underrepresented students in a peer-led small-group STEM workshop program", Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering. 13. Yost, E., Handley, D.M., Cotton, S., Winstead, V., Cater-Steel, A., Cater, E., 2010, "Understanding the links between mentoring
studied ethical decision-making in engineering students. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Impact of Flexible Classroom Spaces on Instructor Pedagogy and Student BehaviorIntroductionThe use of active learning techniques, such as asking students to respond to multiple-choice“clicker” questions or to work together with their peers to solve a problem in class, has beenshown to benefit students by improving their retention of information, conceptual understanding,self-esteem, and attitudes about their program of study [1], [2], [3]. However, many barriers stillremain to the implementation of active learning, including insufficient training for instructors, alack
it in engineering, influencing team dynamics, team goals, andultimately how inclusive and collaborative teams are. This affects the individual experiences ofteam members, influences the quality of their solutions, and affects their ability to ethically andresponsibly solve complex problems. Student’s diversity compass affects team interactions and,ultimately, the climate of engineering for underrepresented groups.ConclusionsThe two main research questions we asked initially in this project were 1) What are individualstudent’s perceptions of diversity? and 2) What are student’s perceptions of working on diverseteams? We found many different ways first-year students at a large public land grant institutionunderstand and perceive diversity. We
the degree and start a STEM career. Even though it may take them more time, they are determined to succeed because of all the professional skills they learned through real life: ethical hard work attitude, resourcefulness, perseverance, and grit. After discussion within the project team and with the program officer, the team put together a mechanism of renewing scholarship from year to year and a selection rubric. As a built-in accountability measure, all scholars need to apply for the scholarship and go through the same selection process each year. Once selected, the scholars receiving the scholarship are required to maintain their GPA at 3.0 or higher for the courses they are taking. When
program within a large public university. We focusedon a one-credit first year course taken by all students, including transfer students. The courseobjectives include gaining familiarity with engineering disciplines and engineering careers,strategies for success in the engineering degree program, exposure to resources available at theinstitution, and engineering ethics. The course meets in a large group format once per week,then in smaller groups (approximately 30 students) once per week. Both the large group andsmall group course meetings are led by faculty.The metacognition intervention included a series of modules that started in about week 6 (of 15)of the course. Greater detail about the purpose and design of the modules has been
0 0 Mean 2.1 1.7aIn 2016, these choices were labeled “2-good amount” and “3-satisfactory amount.”The final question on the post-site survey asked the students what they had learned about themselvesduring the summer experience. In 2017, five of the six respondents said specifically that they learned theylike research, which fits exactly what the REU is designed to do. In 2016, some of the students hadstruggled a bit more. Their comments indicated that several learned about their ability to be moreindependent than they thought, one discovered a stronger work ethic than expected, one identified a needto work on self-motivation, and one
Derrick C. Gilmore is the Deputy Provost forResearch and Sponsored Programs at Kentucky State Uni- versity. In this role he provides oversight of administrative functions that include research compliance, re- search ethics, education and policy, administration, and technology transfer. His research interest include: sponsored research capacities/impacts at Minority Serving Institutions, behavioral health for African- Americans and disparities in drug law/arrest rates for minorities. He has served as a reviewer for numerous federal agencies. He also serves as the Principal Investigator/Project Director for Verizon Minority Male Maker Program, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SMASHA) supported
-upThe details of each Day activities are the following:Day 1 began with introducing the fundamental knowledge of rhetorical writing and writingpedagogy, which is designed to address the workshop objective (i). More specific, theparticipants are introduced to the rhetorical situation (writer, audience, purpose, and context),rhetorical appeals (logical as logos, ethical as ethos, emotional as pathos), and the definition ofgenre.Days 1 and 2 were designed to the rubric development process, addressing workshop objective(ii), which began with deep reading sessions. In these deep reading sessions, small groups of 3-4participants from both engineering and English worked together to describe the strengths instudent writing samples from FYC and
leadershipexperience.Sample InfluencesAll participants in Focus Group 0 and one participant in Focus Group 2 were either currentlytaking or had previously taken a course on basic engineering management and ethics principlesfrom one of the interviewing researchers. These participants had a preexisting student-professorrelationship with the interviewer and a preexisting knowledge of leadership developmentprocesses, which were covered in the course.The researchers were cognizant of this influence on the participants’ responses in the LeadershipDevelopment and Engineering Leadership Development sections of the focus group protocol.Specific instances of this influence were identified in an effort to minimize the threat to thevalidity of the study. More importantly, the
TechnologyCenter and solar building across the region were particularly well received by scholars (4.6), aswere the presentations of professionals and researchers (4.2) Interactive sessions on RCR (4.4) andCV/ Resume development (4.2) were viewed as valuable by scholars.Table 7: Scholars’ Assessment of Enrichment Activities Activity (1=very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied Energy Education Videos 3.9 Responsible Conduct of Research/ Ethics 4.4 CV and Resume Developing 4.2 Tours (Solar buildings solar business, Technology 4.6 Center, power plant, green roof
flexible classroom space on faculty teaching and student learning. She also led a project to develop a taxonomy for the field of engineering education research, and she was part of a team that studied ethical decision-making in engineering students. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Instructor Use of Movable Furniture and Technology in Flexible Classroom SpacesAbstractFlexible classroom spaces, which have movable tables and chairs that can be easily rearrangedinto different layouts, make it easier for instructors to effectively implement active learning thana traditional lecture hall. Instructors can move throughout the room to interact with
strategies advanced in the engineeringeducation literature produce higher levels of student engagement [19]. Students also read fourshort classroom scenarios that described examples of interactive engagement. These scenarioswere aligned with the following ABET student outcomes: c) an ability to design a system,component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic,environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability;d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams; e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solveengineering problems; k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering toolsnecessary for engineering practice. Students were then asked
engineering design projects for a servicelearning project. The research questions to be studied were as follows: What influence does theuse of Design Heuristic Cards have on freshmen engineering students’ design strategies? Whataspects blocked creative processes during engineering students’ design strategies? The researchexposed to two undergraduate students to the principles of qualitative research, the concept ofcoding for inter-reliability of interpreted information, the importance of Institutional ReviewBoard considerations and ethical handling of information, and ensured that the REU studentswere communicating and cross-talking ideas and concepts during emergent themes.Assessment of Students’ ExperiencesAn independent evaluator assessed students
(Analytical thinking, complex reasoning) 70.4% 27.8% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% Initiative (Self-starter, productive) 64.2% 34.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% Prioritizing/Planning/Organizing 51.9% 37.0% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% Professionalism (Responsible, accountable, dependable) 73.6% 24.5% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% Integrity (Honesty, ethics, fairness) 87.0% 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Attitude/Cooperation 90.7% 9.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Communications (Verbal, written, collaborative, teamwork) 75.9% 20.4
material, component, orsystem.Learn from Failure - Recognize unsuccessful outcomes due to faulty 52.6%equipment, parts, code, construction, process, or design, and then re-engineer effective solutions.Ethics in the Lab - Behave with highest ethical standards, including 44.7%reporting information objectively and interacting with integrity.Models - Identify the strengths and limitations of theoretical models as 36.8%predictors of real world behaviors. This may include evaluating whethera theory adequately describes a physical event and establishing orvalidating a relationship between measured data and underlyingphysical principles.Psychomotor - Demonstrate competence in selection, modification, and
attributes such asleadership, outgoingness, and caring. They primarily perceived professionals in STEM fields tohave strong mental/academic skills and attributes such as good time management skills, problemsolving skills, and work ethic. From these responses, only two of six respondents listedcommonalities between teaching and STEM (leadership and intelligence). All respondantsindicated that they did not have internship or coop experiences in their current STEM fields.Phase 2: Exploratory Survey In Spring 2015, 25 surveys were completed by applicants (4 paper and 21 electronic),which was a 46% response rate of all applicants to the program. The participant pool was 76%females and 24% males; 16% indicating that they transferred into the
and review the audio recording. In some cases, thestudent was asked to conduct additional real practice interviews. The PI determined when thestudent was ready to commence actual data collection interviews. Between interviews, the audiorecordings were transcribed; several of them were collected before data was analyzed.Students involved in the research at the UC Berkeley campus have been undergraduate studentsstudying an engineering discipline. These students also began their training with an onlinecertificate program offered through CITI for ethical human subjects research. The students eachread the book Interviewing as Qualitative Research by Irving Seidman, along with publicationson prior work. Student then each took turns completing
Beta Pi and is a Fellow of the ASEE and IEEE.Richard . Layton, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Richard Layton is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Tech- nology. He received a B.S. from California State University, Northridge, and an M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Washington. His areas of scholarship include student teaming, longitudinal studies of engi- neering undergraduates, and data visualization. His teaching practice includes formal cooperative learning and integrating communications, ethics, and teaming across the curriculum. He is a founding developer of the CATME system, a free, web-based system that helps faculty assign students to teams, conduct self
End of Program Project Presentations ParticipantsStatus meetings or professional development workshops were held every Tuesday morning.Topics that were covered during the 2014 program are provided in Table 2. At the statusmeetings, each participant reports orally what he/she has accomplished in the past week andhis/her plans for the current week. Workshops were organized to provide participantsfundamental and professional skill development through interactive exercises to better preparethem for a successful research experience and tools for graduate school. In addition, threefundamental areas - communication, investigation and documentation – were emphasized inthese workshops [8-10]. Participants were trained on ethics related
devices for a hands-oninvestigation of artificial organs; (3) to introduce fundamental engineering principles throughexperiments with artificial organs; (4) to investigate the factors affecting artificial organ perfor-mance and design criteria; and (5) to explore the complicated ethical issues regarding the techno-logical advances that blur the boundaries between machines and organisms.The development of the undergraduate modules began in year one and was performed by sum-mer interns and teams of students in the Junior/Senior Engineering Clinic, under the supervisionof the investigators. Piloting the modules in undergraduate courses and conducting formativeassessment began in year two. In year three we will continue to use and refine the modules
ethically responsible ways. Students are involved more, and teachers control less. 3. Content is used to build a knowledge base, to develop learning skills, and to foster student self-awareness of their abilities. Teaching approaches accounts for students’ learning strategies and prior knowledge. 4. Together, students and teachers create motivating learning environments that encourage students to accept responsibility for their learning. 5. Assessments are implemented to promote learning and to develop self and peer assessment skills, not to evaluate performance primarily.In a meta-analysis of 119 studies, across grades K-20, Cornelius-White found that learner-centered variables such as incorporation of higher-order
following barriers to thisopportunity to study abroad: funding, ethical and safety issues, lack of institutional support, timeconstraints and pressure to complete their doctoral research, personal commitments, cultural andlanguage barriers, barriers toward mobility in non-European or developing countries, and theease of completing research while abroad [21]. Another study interviewed OB/Gyn medicalstudents and residents to assess their interest in participating in a global health program foradditional training in low- and middle-income countries; some common barriers by surveyparticipants were cited including scheduling conflicts and time constraints, concerns about costsand funding, a lack of contact with mentors or other contact points for the
blended online and offline learning program, previously used by the PI withnovice data scientists. The training also included a final unit on ethical issues such as privacy,bias and fairness issues in Big Data, as well as issues of implicit bias, all of which are importantin computing. Post-orientation, teachers continued to polish and learn new specializedfoundational concepts progressively within their hosting research groups as needed. They alsoparticipated in optional additional training on more advanced topics that were decided upon bythe teachers, on demand. This included Deep Learning.The faculty member heading up each research project served as the teacher’s formal supervisor,and along with designated graduate student mentors, they
in his militarydeployment, and contrasted it to his undergraduate degree. My undergrad was in math. I wasn’t necessarily out working in a math based field, it was more a people management type of field… I think that West Point tailors its undergrad education to be broad… philosophy, ethics and psychology, people motivation, things like that…Chuck also spoke of leadership, with a reference to what he had learned in the military including“leadership development and sort of management class.”DiscussionIn some ways, military returners’ experiences match those of non-military returners; as with thegeneral population of returners, the degree to which they used their undergraduate knowledge intheir employment differs, and
in order to ensure topicality and the provision of adequate resources.In addition to technical or “hard” skills, recent graduates need – but very often lack – “soft” ortransferrable skills, including communication, leadership and teamwork [22]. Therefore, in thesubsequent spring semester students will receive training on key transferrable skills in a 3 credithour 600 level seminar course designed to integrate these skills with the research-related contentcovered in the foregoing 500 level course. This seminar course will train participants incommunication, teaching, funding procurement, entrepreneurship, management, teamwork,conflict resolution, mentoring, leadership, and outreach as well as ethics and research-relatedskills. All NRT
that scored low on the participantsurveys are areas the evaluation team felt that project leadership should revisit in future iterationsof the Young Scholar programs. Those included: • Students feeling like they designed and/or implemented their own investigation under supervision • Improving onboarding process. Students were sent journal articles and slide decks • Intensifying the review and discussion of research ethics at weekly meetings • Increasing utility and importance of the weekly meetings • Creating a deeper sense of community among the Young Scholars during the weekly meetings. As mentioned in the design-change section of the overview changes were made to improve these sessions and additional
skills with 100% entrepreneurial pursuit. 3 Demonstrate understanding about innovation process (including User 100% Innovation, technical, legal, and financial aspects associated with Technical Ventures and Technical Startups). 4 Show an understanding about entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, 100% and intrapreneurship. 5 Conduct a patent search and examine and evaluate the quality of patents. 100% 6 Analyze value proposition, including economic, cultural, and ethical 92% aspects of a tech venture. 7 Use effective and appropriate communication skills (including a written 92% term project report, oral presentation, and