program early, designing a program structure that facilitatesthese planned research goals, and considering participation of undergraduate versus graduatestudents.IntroductionAlthough developing global competence is important for engineering students to be successful inthe globally connected workforce, many students find it challenging to participate in traditionalstudy abroad programs for financial or scheduling reasons [1]. One type of programming thataddresses these concerns is international research experiences, which not only support thedevelopment of students’ global competencies and technical engineering skills [2], but alsoprovide benefits and opportunities for faculty members who coordinate these experiences. Whileresearch has focused on
within teams, and to develop empathy towardstheir clients.Structure of Communication in Design Thinking CourseOur course designer completed the Center for Teaching and Learning Course Design Institute 1.0during summer 2019. Through this institute, the castletop method is utilized to develop thecourse and ensure that LOs are closely tied to course activities and assessments.The ENGR 180 LOs that a student must be able to meet after successful completion of the coursewere: 1. Analyze a communication situation to determine the audience and their information needs 2. Identify the appropriate rhetorical approach to use (or that is in use) in that situation 3. Apply the design process to generate a solution that addresses an identified user
. Furthermore,increased long-term retention of engineering content can better prepare students to havesuccessful and fulfilling careers after graduation, particularly in technical fields.There are numerous studies in the literature that discuss a variety of strategies to increase studentengagement in engineering courses, which in turn help them learn the material more effectively,allow them to better persevere in an engineering curriculum, and consequently graduate in atimely manner [1]–[3]. In this study, we focus on the role of assessment in helping studentlearning because of the demonstrated connection between teaching, assessment, and learning [4].The literature on educational assessment makes an important distinction between “assessment oflearning
c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Entrepreneurially Minded Learning in a Physiological Signals Analysis Lab: Work in ProgressIntroductionLab courses are often designed with a specific objective that may or may not have a connectionto the real-world problems. In addition, labs often offer a rigid, previously tested protocol, givinglittle to no room for flexibility by the students. These lab exercises do not allow for curiosity orcreativity by the students and do not challenge their ability to reach beyond what is directly infront of them [1], [2]. The goal of this work is to change that pattern for application-oriented labactivities in the junior level Quantitative Physiological Signal Analysis
outreach.Mr. Joshua Racette, Department of Engineering Physics, McMaster UniversityProf. Shinya Nagasaki American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 WIP: Ethical Responsibility Formation of Students in a Nuclear Engineering Course through Inquiry Learning Minha R. Ha *1, Joshua Racette2, and Shinya Nagasaki2 1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University 2 Department of Engineering Physics, Faculty of Engineering, McMaster UniversityIntroductionEngineering ethics – both in the nature of engineering practice and the impact of engineering work– intersects ethics of many
hasdeveloped a set of experiments based on a robotic arm in [1]. However, the robotic arm is costly and mayrequire students to share its usage. As another example, the work in [2] utilizes LEGO Mindstorm robotswhich again is a costly solution. In our institution, while Control Systems is listed as a lab course, the labcomponent of the course consisted of MATLAB and Simulink assignments on designing various controllerssuch as lead-lag and PID controllers. While MATLAB is a very strong tool in teaching control theory andis widely used by numerous instructors, it does not provide the hands-on experience needed to inspirestudents to learn control theory. To address this problem and to give students the opportunity of havinghands-on experiences outside
preliminary results attempting to define theconstruct of “engineering intuition,” specifically focusing on the establishment of our interviewprotocol. Semi-structured interviews with practicing engineers, nurses, and business managerswere conducted using: 1) implicit discussion around intuition informed by literature, and 2)critical incident technique [1], i.e., explicit discussion around the concept of intuition. Eachinterview sought to identify practitioner decision-making and problem-solving processes on thejob. The combined dataset and supporting literature are planned to be used as the basis of ourfuture work, which ultimately aims to develop a psychometrically tested instrument capable ofaccurately measuring engineering intuition. Dissemination
with students in efforts to improve theirinterest, capacity, and belongingness in engineering. As part of a larger NSF-funded study on theinteractions of engineering professional formation with diversity and inclusion, we will use semi-structured interviews to investigate an electrical and computer engineering (ECE) faculty’sintention to implement inclusive teaching practices, using Fishbein and Ajzen’s reasoned actionmodel to define intention [1]. The interviews will be focused around an inclusive teaching “tipsheet” that was recently distributed to the ECE faculty. These interviews will allow us tocharacterize factors that influence the development of such an intention within the context of anengineering department, in order to make
, utilize converters that are operated in ablack box manner by the students. This causes some difficulty in relating theoretical concepts topractical circuit operation, particularly with switching control where students are unaware of thealgorithms being used. Moreover, the strict safety measures and lengthy instruction-basedexperimental procedures leave little room for independent exploration or trial and error.In Fall 2018, motivated by the many promising reports of incorporating simulations inundergraduate classrooms [1 - 6], we developed LabSim. LabSim is a set of simulation files forvarious switch-mode power converters implemented in Simulink [7] using visual PLECS blocks[8]. The purpose of LabSim is to provide students with an avenue for
Partnering with PhysicsAbstractThis work-in-progress paper will describe an effort at curriculum reform for the first yearengineering program at Texas A&M University. A variety of motivations for, and challengesencountered in this effort are discussed, which highlight how educational change often takesplace in tension between educational theory and institutional constraints. Preliminary discussionof results and future plans for assessment are discussed.IntroductionRetention of engineering students continues to be a concern nationally [1]. There are perhapsadditional pressures for improvement in retention at large state institutions, where legislatureskeenly watch metrics such as retention, and where the institutions have a mission to serve
science con- cepts by creating innovative instructional resources and conducting interdisciplinary quasi-experimental research studies in and out of classroom environments. Dr. Menekse is the recipient of the 2014 William Elgin Wickenden Award by the American Society for Engineering Education. Dr. Menekse also received three Seed-for-Success Awards (in 2017, 2018, and 2019) from Purdue University’s Excellence in Re- search Awards programs in recognition of obtaining three external grants of $1 million or more during each year. His research has been generously funded by grants from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Purdue Research Foundation (PRF), and National Science Foundation (NSF
often perceived by students as heavily lecture-based,with a predominance on theory and mathematics and without translatable activities [1-2]. Thiscan be problematic for students, who often do not fully understand the distinction betweendifferent disciplines or are wary about choosing an engineering major without connections toreal-world applications [3-4]. Vanderbilt University is a partner in the KEEN, KERNEntrepreneurial Engineering network. The goal of the network is to increase student’s“entrepreneurial mindset”. This mindset can be summarized by the 3C’s: curiosity, connectionsand creating value [5]. Papers attempting to understand and improve the first-year engineer’sclassroom experience demonstrate the ability of a course designed around
your engineering educationand help prepare you for your future?” The reflection can be in the form of a presentation, video,or 2-page impact statement for public dissemination. The first cohort of nine Global EngineeringPerspectives Scholars graduated in 2019, including students from five degree programs withcompetencies spanning five different languages.Motivation for the programGlobalization is driving the need for engineers to work effectively in international environments,and navigate differences across cultures [1]. Studies on intercultural competencies for engineeringstudents typically describe the benefit of such competencies as allowing them to work with peoplefrom different cultures in an increasingly globalized world. There is also
UTEP to receive his Doctorate in Toxicology, where he studied the compensatory mechanism resulting from the loss of the multi-drug resistance transporters 1 (MRP1). He attained a Post Doctoral position at UTEP where he collaborated in the discovery and development of small molecules used for the treatment of prostate cancer.Dr. Harry Meeuwsen, The University of Texas at El Paso - El Paso, TX Dr. Harry Meeuwsen’s PhD training at LSU-Baton Rouge was in motor learning and control, followed by a Post-doc in motor control at UW-Madison where he worked on NIH grants focusing on lower limb control in older adults and fine motor control in Parkinson’s patients. During his training he employed methods and instrumentation
2008, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) conducted an 18-monthsocial study to better understand the public view of engineering, leading to the publication ofChanging the Conversation. In this report, it is cited that a common perception amongst girls inthe K-12 interview group was those who are drawn to professions that more directly involve peopleand their lives, such as those in the healthcare and medical fields—a group the young girls closelyidentified with—are less likely to become engineers [1]. Engineers, however, have a breadth ofopportunity to utilize their skills in projects involving the life sciences and medical field, yet themisconception that this is not the case is still prevalent amongst lower-division undergraduates
reasoning employed in this study include Deontology, VirtueEthics, Consequentialism and Utilitarianism. These frameworks are described below.Deontology is the adherence to specific directions, guidelines or rules for moral conduct, whichmay or may not be codified, which often specify what is required, permitted or forbidden [1].Sometimes, though, one or more of these guidelines may conflict with others. For example, oneof the provisions of the National Society of Professional Engineers’ Code of Ethics emphasizesthe primacy of the health, safety and welfare of the public in the conduct of engineering work,while another admonishes engineers to serve their employers and clients with fidelity. Whathappens if the welfare of the public could be
agriculture.Dr. Janie M Moore, Texas A&M University Dr. Janie McClurkin Moore is an Assistant Professor in the Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department at Texas A&M University in College Station. A native of Columbus, Ohio, she attended North Carolina A&T State University where she received a B.S. in Bio Environmental Engineering in 2006. She then began pursuing her graduate education at Purdue University in the Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, completing her Ph.D. in 2015. Her primary research areas include 1) mycotoxin risk assessment and treatment in stored grains and 2) innovate instructional strategies for Biological and Agricultural Engineering students
research paper, we explore how the culture of undergraduateengineering students' departments or fields can have far-reaching effects on their success andexperiences. Engineering culture has been previously described as unique compared to otherdisciplines, where heavy workloads and high expectations create an environment of “sufferingand shared hardship” [1]. This negative culture has been described as particularly unwelcomingto women and minorities [2, 3] and may result in exacerbated difficulties for underrepresentedgroups in engineering. For these reasons, we propose that it will be critical to understand notonly how students perceive this culture but also the factors that impact student experiences ofengineering culture. The current work is
FIU after completing a postdoctoral fellowship at Georgia Tech’s Center for the En- hancement of Teaching and Learning (CETL) and three years as a faculty member at Olin College of En- gineering in Massachusetts. Alexandra’s research aims to improve the design of educational experiences for students by critically examining the work and learning environments of practitioners. Specifically, she focuses on (1) how to design and change educational and work systems through studies of practicing engineers and educators and (2) how to help students transition into, through and out of educational and work systems. American c Society for Engineering Education
this problem has been the introduction of a two-quarter coursesequence in the sophomore year: ECE 211 Introduction to Design Processes and ECE 212Introduction to Project Development. For brevity, we will call this sequence the Cornerstonecourses. We have provided an introduction to these courses in [1], but at that time we were stillin the middle of our first implementation. In this work we will focus on the details of the coursedesign, assessment used, and lessons learned from the first three offerings of the courses.In the following sections we will discuss: I. Overall ECE curriculum at our university (to provide proper context), II. more detailed course learning outcomes and descriptions, III. assessments used and results, and IV
ofanalysis, so we have presented the data that has been collected to date, but also recognize there aremany contributing variables. We will continue to collect and analyze data to assess the impact ofthe various initiatives of the Lead TA more concretely.IntroductionThe attrition rate of doctoral students is approximately 50% [1], [2]. Although retention ofundergraduate students has been well studied, the recruitment and retention of graduate students,specifically doctoral students, is less understood [3]. Research suggests that contributing factorsto high attrition for doctoral students include: unclear expectations, conflicting requirements,lack of consistent supervision, conflicts with an advisor, coursework and inadequate funding [4],[5
roadways.Transportation engineering education can be improved by redesigning classes such that activeparticipation becomes a major component in learning. Transportation engineering is especiallywell-suited for active or inquiry-based learning since students have a daily personal experiencewith traffic and transportation [1]. However, this advantage is rarely leveraged in the educationof transportation engineering topics. Only a limited number of works have considered activeteaching methods in transportation [2-7]. Both Karabulut-Ilgu et al. [5] and Kondyli et al. [6]tried a flipped classroom approach in a junior level transportation engineering class. Both studiesfound that students were overall satisfied with the flipped classroom. Additionally, Kondyli et al
question portion, indicating that they comprehendedthe IBL lessons. Initial exam comparisons indicated that the IBL approaches support increasedstudent learning of the conceptual aspects of technical concepts.IntroductionMany educational experts recommend that a fundamental paradigm shift needs to occur inengineering education [1]. Both students and teachers need to acquire and implement pedagogicalskills that currently are not prevalently found in college teaching of engineering. This work aimsto address the following problems; first, the majority of university engineering classes are stilltaught in an archaic presentation lecture style [2]. Second, most students are unaware of thebenefits of inductive learning and think that they prefer
survey of the different potential pathways for anengineering career, students increasingly are expected to complete meaningful design projectswithin these programs. This change creates opportunities to introduce first-year engineeringstudents to the complexities of the engineering information landscape via information literacyinstruction.Background on problem being addressedThe engineering education and library science literature suggest several best practices forcreating information literacy instructional (ILI) interventions. ILI interventions are mosteffective when contextualized to the specific needs of learners [1], [2] through integratinginformation literacy into the curriculum [3] and establishing the relevance of information literacyby
project, andprovide student observations on the success of this approach.Introduction “The hardest single part of building a software system is deciding precisely what to build. No other part of the conceptual work is as difficult as establishing the detailed technical requirements, including all the interfaces to people, to machines, and to other software systems. No other part of the work so cripples the resulting system if done wrong. No other part is more difficult to rectify later.” [1]Teaching software requirements represents a fundamental aspect of any software engineeringprogram. Students enrolled in a software engineering program are generally very savvy from atechnical standpoint and have a good ability to solve problems
development of leadership skills is key to a successfullong-term career and has been highlighted by both the profession, academia and governmentfunding agencies as a critical need. Increasing diversity and inclusion in leadership is also criticalfor technology companies as they become global enterprises. Yet, there is a gap in knowledge ofleadership views, experiences, and skills for a diverse population of engineering students that areconsidered to be millennial students to frame how to construct a logic model that identifies thefactors that influence a student’s perseverance in pursuing leadership experience [1]. Traditionaldefinition of leadership development based on predominantly White males are based on theframework of input-environment-output
” the EAC states “Engineering design involvesidentifying opportunities,….”. Below is a diagram which shows the flow of changes made toEAC student outcome criteria associated with engineering design. Fig. 1 Flow of Changes Made to ABET/EAC Student Outcome CriteriaIn view of the current ABET Student Outcome 2, our institution is beginning to infuse theconcept of Design Thinking in many of our undergraduate engineering program curriculum. Weare basing this infusion on a concept that has been promulgated by MIT, - 10 Steps to DesignThinking. Blade Kotelly, a senior lecturer at MIT and co-instructor of the MIT ProfessionalEducation course “Mastering Innovation & Design Thinking” explains that “design thinking is aframework that helps
participant survey, students took the engineering identitysurvey which asks the participants to rate how well they agree with thirteen given statements ofidentity affirmation on a scale of 0-6 (strongly disagree to strongly agree). These rankings wereall averaged to give the student’s Total Engineering Identity Score. Godwin categorizes thethirteen questions into three categories: Recognition, Interest, and Performance/Competence(Godwin, 2016). The rankings in each section were averaged to give the student’s categoryspecific scores. The student’s engineering identity scores and GPA can be found in Table 1.Scott, Dave, and John 1 are all high achieving engineering students. Their first-semester GPA’sreflect their success in their first 5-7 university
. Problem 1 examined students understanding of theinternal resistance of voltmeter/ammeter and short circuit, shown in Fig.1. Problem 2focused on series/parallel connection, shown in Fig.2. Lastly, Problem 3 focused onohm’s law. Besides, each item also included a confidence rating for student to choosehow confident they felt about the option they chose. The confidence rating scaleranged between 1 (being “Very unsure”) to 5 (being “very sure”).Sample of ProblemsSample 1Conceptual Content: Which circuit is most likely to make thepower supply and ammeter damaged? _______________Confidence Rating Scale: How sure (confident) are you when answering the above question? (Tick the box.) Very unsure Fairly In doubt