documented various aspects of the program over its first 9 years. The purpose of thispaper is to describe the current state of the integrated teaching and learning strategies that theprogram uses to facilitate engineering design learning with an entrepreneurial mindset in a PBLmodel.Awareness of the IRE program has increased recently with the program being recognized as theABET 2017 Innovation award winner and in the top ten emerging leaders in engineeringeducation in the “Global state of the art in engineering education” report by Dr. Ruth Grahamreleased in 2018 [1].Purpose of researchThe purpose of this paper is to describe how the Iron Range Engineering (IRE) program leadsstudent engineers to ”become the engineer they want to be” by working with
Paper ID #40015Redesign of an Engineering Failure Course to Incorporate LearningObjectives in Diversity, Ethics and InclusivityDr. Gary P. Halada, Stony Brook University Dr. Halada, Associate Professor in Materials Science and Chemical Engineering at Stony Brook Uni- versity, directs an interdisciplinary undergraduate degree program in Engineering Science. He designs educational materials focused on nanotechnology, advanced manufacturing and engineering adaptation for climate change. He also works with faculty from other disciplines to explore the integration of STEM and liberal arts education
Page 26.863.2found that introducing American engineering education style could stimulate the Chinesestudents’ creative thinking and help them apply their knowledge at a higher level 1, 5. Theybelieved that the application of the successful experiences of American higher education couldbe an asset to the development of the Chinese engineering curriculums 7.During the last decade, the Chinese higher education programs started modernizing theircurricula to meet the demands from the rapid growth of the global economy 7. Through thecollaboration among Chinese universities and universities in western countries (especiallyAmerican universities), engineering educators tried to integrate the best practices from theAmerican engineering education with
, and other practices well known to be in stark contrast with inclusivepedagogy and active learning. One of the largest drivers of attrition in engineering are so-called“gatekeeper” prerequisite courses that introduce math and science concepts in an out-of-context,high-stakes format.Through human-centered curricular interventions interwoven with co-curricular support we willtransform students' sense of belonging in college generally and in engineering more specifically.Our focus is on changing systems to promote student success rather than "fixing" or "weedingout" students. The traditional introduction to our engineering curriculum—and that of many ofour peer institutions—requires that students take prerequisite courses in mathematics and
or using modeling projects, particularly in the first years of theengineering curriculum [1-3]. There are some well-developed pedagogies that demonstrate thesuccesses of doing this. Model-eliciting activities (MEAs) are an impactful example of apedagogical approach used in first-year engineering to teach mathematical modeling skills [3].Even though there are some established approaches, there is still a need for more meaningfulways to teach modeling throughout the engineering curricula and especially in first-yearengineering courses [1].Developing computational thinking skills is something that has been emphasized in engineeringeducation more recently and aligns with this call for curriculum that explicitly teachesmathematical and
1970 establishment, the program has experienced significant restructuring, including amajor 2008 overhaul in focus and curriculum, leading to a name change to Engineering Studies[3]. The foundational vision and motivation remain. The curriculum for the major in EngineeringStudies consists of fundamental courses in math, science, and engineering sciences – selected byeach student from an approved list – as well as considerable coursework in the traditional liberalarts. The framework for students to integrate all these courses is provided by a three-courserequired core curriculum in Engineering Studies: Engineering Economics and Management;Engineering & Public Policy; and Engineering and Society [4].Our Engineering Studies degree program [4
graduation rate is only 50%, withhalf of these students leaving engineering after the first year. Many of these students lack first-hand knowledge of the wonderfully creative and diverse types of work in which engineers areengaged. The idea is to introduce students to a wide variety of practicing engineers who are verypassionate about and fulfilled in their work – giving the students more reasons why they shouldstick it out early on in the engineering major when the time commitment to their studies issignificant and the first year curriculum is less engineering courses and more math, chemistry,physics and general education courses. As an additional note, we also simultaneously instituted acollege-wide mentoring program in which all of our beginning
, if not expertise in, each of the four mechatroniccomponents.The course described in this paper, MSE 5183 Mechatronic Systems I at Lawrence Tech, servesas an entry-level graduate course for students enrolled in the Lawrence Tech Master of Sciencein Mechatronic Systems Engineering (MSMSE) program as well as a technical elective forundergraduate students in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, and BiomedicalEngineering. For many undergraduate and graduate students, this course serves as a firstexperience with the integration of sensors, actuators, and microcontrollers. Control theory is notintroduced but is instead offered in subsequent courses.Mechatronic Design ProjectBefore discussing course modifications and assessment, the
theimportance of engineering ethics. Educators have begun incorporating engineering ethics incurricula in a variety of formats: as a component in introductory or capstone courses, a centralelement in stand-alone courses, and/or through deliberate integration across curriculum [1], [2].The main approaches in teaching of ethics continue to use case studies or case-based discussionssupplemented by moral theory and/or professional codes of ethics. Service learning is anotherapproach that has increasingly been used and reported as an effective pedagogical strategy ininstruction of engineering ethics [3]-[5]. In the U.S., the main driver in incorporating ethics inengineering curriculum was the changes in ABET engineering criteria requirements on
skills and collaborative and inclusive teams into the curriculum. Dr. Rivera-Jim´enez graduated from the University of Puerto Rico at Mayag¨uez with a B.S. and Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering. She earned an NSF RIEF award recognizing her effort in transitioning from a meaningful ten-year teaching faculty career into engineering education research. Before her current role, she taught STEM courses at diverse institutions such as HSI, community college, and R1 public university. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Social Responsibility Views in Science and Engineering: An Exploratory Study Among Engineering Undergraduate
ways of doing things can be discovered” (p. 126). The un-programmatic programs described in this paper seek to create such an environment.Next Steps: Developing an Intellectual Model for Integrating Creative Thinking andProblem Definition with Planning and Implementation ProcessesThe model we have arrived at broadens the back end of the entrepreneurial process byexpanding, deepening, and diversifying the activities that precede the creation of a business plan.The model is depicted visually below. STEP 1 - Socio Technical Systems Thinking! STEP 2 – Design Thinking Culture! Technology! STEP 5 – Business Plan Organiza3on! STEP 3 – Customer
ofcollaboration technologies. Although there has been great emphasis on developing collaborationcompetencies in the engineering curriculum, empirical evidence of successful strategies fordistributed team settings is scarce. As an attempt to fill this gap this study investigates theimpact of a scalable intervention in developing virtual collaboration skills. The intervention,based on instructional scaffolds embedded with collaboration technologies, is aimed atsupporting specific processes including planning, goal setting, clarifying goals and expectations,communication, coordination and progress monitoring. A quasi-experimental design was used toevaluate the impact of the intervention on student teamwork skills. Data from 278 graduate andundergraduate
influences vascular smooth muscle cell glucose metabolism and studying how cell alignment can change vascular smooth muscle cell metabolism. Her current research interests focus on applying her vascular mechanobiology knowledge to vascular calcification and the related cardiovascular diseases. Additionally, Dr. Mathieu teaches multiple classes in Biomedical Engineering, Engineering and Physics. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Work in Progress: Development and Assessment of an Innovative, Student- Centered Biomechanics CourseIntroductionBiomechanics is an essential course in a biomedical engineering curriculum studying the structure,function and motion of the
ways. LD #5 Social and Emotional Engagement: working in teams, teaching and helping one another, expressing pride and ownership, documenting/sharing ideas with others.Early efforts to understand student’s experiences with the tinkering and prototyping activitiesrelied on written student reflection and direct feedback. Lecture handouts were an integral part ofthe curriculum, providing opportunities for students to reflect on their communication, teamworkand design learning. Evaluation on an end of quarter in-class student reflection assignmentintended to help prepare students for their final design showcase presentation provided valuableinsight into preliminary outcomes of the “tinkering” teaching and learning approach. Of thefreshman
need of essential skills, recruit and train a labor pool in need of these skills and competencies,and break down the traditional mindset of only one pathway from education to the technicalworkforce.Cost effective program modelThrough TRANSFORM, we have partnered with industry to develop an AdvancedManufacturing curriculum specifically addressing the technical skills gap liberal arts majorsmight have, being mindful of the skills they already hold. Building on current workforce trainingguidelines and through review of existing associate level course content we have developed ayearlong intensive program of study and workplace skill development offered at a price pointpalatable to those struggling with current student loan debt. The program
. She is a member of the instructional team of the Fundamentals of Engineering Development course. She earned her undergraduate degree in Communication Studies at William Paterson University, her Master’s degree in Education Administra- tion and Supervision at Montclair State University, and her Doctorate in Educational Leadership, Higher Education from Saint Peter’s University.Prof. Lucie TchouassiDr. Jaskirat Sodhi, New Jersey Institute of Technology Dr. Jaskirat Sodhi is interested in first-year engineering curriculum design and recruitment, retention and success of engineering students. He is the coordinator of ENGR101, an application-oriented course for engineering students placed in pre-calculus courses. He has
their intended degree program altogether. However,ECE 301 has pre-requisite relationships to several later courses in the EE curriculum because thematerial in this course prepares students for more advanced topics. The breadth of the course andthe need to integrate many knowledge bases—including physics, geometry, calculus, andcircuits—can contribute to an inherently challenging experience. ECE 301 instructors share acommitment to wanting to support students through this course. Nonetheless, the course hasdeveloped a reputation among students as a “weed-out.” Engineering education researchers havedocumented how gateway courses can have negative effects on students’ perceptions of theirbelongingness and their ability to succeed within the
– Creating a community of practice of SEEFs, instructors,administrators, student employees and other teaching-focused roles is a key part of creatinglasting organizational change through the SEEF program, due to the limited terms of the SEEFroles. Linking SEEFs into existing communities focused on teaching within an organization,such as within Stanford University’s CTL organization, also helps connect and create lastingarchives and resources for teaching and learning.Supporting long-term impact – SEEFs creating impact, including integrating active learning intothe undergraduate curriculums in their respective discipline, is dependent on both the continuedpresence of a SEEF role and the support from faculty and administrators to support
through project-based assignments. Students were askedif the assignments had helped them in enhancing their technical writing and oral communicationskills and if the assignments promoted teamwork and better relationship building amongst peers.In all three categories, approximately 55-64% of the students agreed that the project-basedassignments enhanced these soft-skills. Development of these skills are also an integral part ofthe learning outcomes outlined by the ABET accreditation board. 1 1 3 0 100 Strongly 23
Paper ID #15424Time and Cost Analysis of Implementing a Mechatronic Experience in an En-gineering Technology CourseMr. John R Haughery, Iowa State University John Haughery is currently a graduate fellow in the department of Agriculture and Biosystems Engineer- ing at Iowa State University, where he is pursuing a PhD in Industrial and Agricultural Technology. His technical experience and interests include electrical energy systems, industrial controls, and mechatron- ics. Currently he is researching the integration of mechatronic-based projects into freshman engineering and technology curricula with the intent of
implementation of a comprehensiveengineering education improvement plan at University of Texas, San Antonio which included afusion of strategies with the objective of minimizing factors that adversely affected academicperformance of entering minority freshmen in order to increase post-secondary enrollments,retention, and increase collaboration between the university’s engineering departments andprivate industry in Texas.This bridge program focused on creating a “Just-In-Time” (JIT) pedagogical approach to non-calculus ready students and maintained and strengthened the engineering mentoring programswith the goal of increasing the number, retention, and graduation time and rates of minorityengineering students. The plan included an integrated strategy
Meltem Alemdar (PhD) is Associate Director and Senior Research Scientist at Georgia Institute of Tech- nology’s Center for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics and Computing (CEISMC). Her research focuses on improving K-12 STEM education through research on curriculum development, teacher pro- fessional development, and student learning in integrated STEM environments. Dr. Alemdar is currently co-PI for research on various NSF funded projects. In addition, she has been external evaluator for various NSF Projects over the past nine years. Her expertise includes program evaluation, social network analysis and quantitative methods such as Hierarchical Linear Modeling, and Structure Equation Modeling. As part of an
Paper ID #31691Initial impact of an experiment-centric teaching approach in severalSTEM disciplinesDr. Jumoke ’Kemi’ Ladeji-Osias, Morgan State University Dr. J. ’Kemi Ladeji-Osias is Professor and Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies in the School of Engineering at Morgan State University in Baltimore. Dr. Ladeji-Osias earned a B.S. in electrical engi- neering from the University of Maryland, College Park and a joint Ph.D. in biomedical engineering from Rutgers University and UMDNJ. Dr. Ladeji-Osias’ involvement in engineering curricular innovations includes adapting portal laboratory instrumentation into
great asset to the institution, however, the lack of effectiveways of integrating faculty into the college has presented a significant barrier to the establishmentof an inclusive and supportive faculty community. In addition, in a unionized environment,bargaining unit rules may make it difficult to require adjunct faculty to attend professionaldevelopment meetings.In 2015, Inside Higher Ed conducted a Survey of College and University Faculty WorkplaceEngagement in conjunction with researchers from Gallup [2]. The survey results found that onlyabout 34% of faculty are engaged in their workplace, meaning that they felt their opinions werevalued, their work was meaningful and rewarding, and they had good interactions with colleagues.Among the
can we make the LGBTQ+ content of this course better?• Perhaps a definite topic each week• I think it is better to concentrate on either LGBTQ+ or craft or electric engineering• Have more led discussions about topics• Maybe have external readings (small)• Facilitate more class discussion, a specific topic each class, for part of the class• There could have been more educational components of LGBTQIA issues or celebrations in an impactful way that would allow us to integrate our tech/crafting experience (ie conceptualizing a pride float tech b/c of discussion or queer celebration• Discuss more about topics and current issues• More things that inspire discussion like videos• More intentional LGBTQIA+ content, active rather than passive
Paper ID #28779Implementation of real-world class activities in an Introduction toEnvironmental Engineering ClassDr. Cara J Poor P.E., University of Portland Dr. Poor teaches many of the integral undergraduate civil engineering courses at University of Portland, including hydraulics, fluids, and environmental engineering. Dr. Poor is a licensed professional engineer with ongoing research in green infrastructure design, water quality, watershed management, and engi- neering education. She is currently developing new curricula for hydraulics, fluids, and environmental engineering labs, and conducting research on methods to
Paper ID #43795Pedagogy of Engagement: Exploring Three Methods in an Engineering Ethicsand Professionalism CourseJessica Wolf, University of British Columbia Jessica Wolf is a PhD student in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at UBC. Her research focuses on equity issues in engineering education, particularly looking at the impacts of engineering outreach programs on historically marginalized groups in STEM.Gayatri Gopalan, University of British Columbia Gayatri Gopalan is a PhD student in the Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia. Her research
that resulted in the 2014 report, STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research. He was the study director for the project that resulted in publication of Standards for K-12 Engineering Education? (2010) and Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects (2009), an analysis of efforts to teach engineering to U.S. school children. He oversaw the NSF-funded project that resulted in the 2013 publication of Messaging for Engineering: From Research to Action and the 2008 publication of Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering and was co-editor of the reports Tech Tally: Approaches to Assessing
was around the concept of belonging. Asmentioned in Sense of Belonging: A Vital Mental Health Concept, sense of belonging is “theexperience of personal involvement in a system or environment so that individuals feel themselvesto be an integral part of that system or environment” [24]. “I have heard at least most if not all my engineering female friends share that they feel they don’t belong in engineering. This is more universal amongst women from all backgrounds. In fact I had a boss, a woman, who suggested I leave engineering and consider other careers. This is after I already had received my PhD and had a string of accomplishments, patents, and scientific publications to my name. Unwrapping all these
Paper ID #15970Redesigning Engineering Education in Chile: How Selective Institutions Re-spond to an Ambitious National ReformDr. Sergio Celis, Universidad de Chile Sergio Celis is an Assistant Professor in the School of Engineering and Sciences at the Universidad de Chile. He conducts research on higher education, with a focus on teaching and learning in STEM fields. His primary research interest is in how multiple forces, internal and external to the institution, influence what and how we teach in colleges and universities. His doctoral thesis investigated how social and intellectual movements influenced the