Professional Education," New York: G.P.Putnam's and Sons, 1960, p.288.(3) Kubie, Lawrence S., "Neurotic Distortion of the Creative Process," Univ. of Kansas Press, Lawrence KS, 1958,p.129.(4) Flexner, Abraham, "An Autobiography," New York: Simon and Schuster, 1940. Also see Flexner, Abraham,"Medical Education - A Comparative Study," New York: The Macmillan Co., 1925, p.334; and Flexner, Abraham,Bulletin No. 4, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1910.(5) Benjamin, Harold, "The Saber-Tooth Curriculum, New York: "McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1939, pp.55-6 (6) nerds.unl.edu/pages/preser/sec/articles/sabertooth.html. [University of Nebraska, Lincoln site] (7)Time Magazine free archives, www.time.com/time
. This agreement was part of an overall effort to improve educationalopportunities between both WSU engineering and WATC engineering technology students. Theintent was to share common facilities, curriculums and development opportunities to controlcosts and reduce duplication of facilities and equipment. Potential areas of collaboration include: 1. Collaborative Senior Design Project(s) 2. Collaborative efforts on Formula and Mini Baja SAE car development 3. Joint educational research and development proposals and projects 4. Joint technology research and development proposals and projects The agreement between WSU and WATC enables Mechanical Engineering students touse the laboratories at WATC. All the laboratory experiments will
. Otherwise, erroneous re-sults will be reached. Proceedings of the 2007 Midwest Section Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education 13References1. Timoshenko, S., and G. H. MacCullough, Elements of Strength of Materials, Third Edition, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., New York, NY, 1949.2. Singer, F. L., and A. Pytel, Strength of Materials, Fourth Edition, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., New York, NY, 1987.3. Beer, F. P., E. R. Johnston, Jr., and J. T. DeWolf, Mechanics of Materials, Fourth Edition, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York, NY
whichstudents were grouped according to major—or as closely as possible—and required to provide aminimum of six full, double-spaced pages conforming to the Journal of Engineering Education’smanuscript requirements20 and a simplified version of IEEE style.21 For paper 2, studentsanalyzed the ethics and communication of engineers and managers involved in the Challengeraccident and another ethically problematic disaster related to the group’s major(s). The secondpaper assignment remained largely unmodified. However, instructional methods pertaining topaper 2 were modified to accommodate student needs. In GE 3513, I and the other instructorsprovide students reading packets on the Challenger shuttle disaster and show them videodocumentaries related to the
category, four emergent themes were identified. Besides familyinfluence, the other three are Faculty/TA support, teaching quality, and department environment.Faculty/T.A. SupportThe vast majority of the participants cited their positive experience with both faculty membersand T.A.’s. One industrial engineering persister had regularly attended the professor’s officehours in the reliability engineering class, and found that he would “stay extra just to help” her. Page 12.1614.14And consequently, she “did well on the homework,” understood it conceptually, and “did well onthe test as well.” There are, however, several students who didn’t feel they
PhenomenographyPhenomenography is the empirical study of the qualitatively different ways in which aspects ofthe world are experienced. That is, it involves mapping phenomena, or the relations betweenpersons and aspects of their world31. It is a qualitative research approach first used in the originalwork of the Swedish researchers Ference Marton32-34, Roger Säljö35, 36, Lennart Svensson37 andLars-Öwe Dahlgren38 in the mid-70s. Phenomenography was initially developed to investigatelearning among university students, leading to identifying the ‘surface’ and ‘deep’ approachesthat are widely known in education circles today32. Phenomenography appeared in its own rightas a research approach for describing people’s experiences during the early 1980’s (see forexample
, P. D., and Fortenberry, N.L. “Linking Student Learning Outcomes to Instructional Practices – Phase 1.” 2004 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT, Session 1630. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education, 2004.[4] Moore, P. D., Cupp, S. M. and Fortenberry, N.L. “Linking Student Learning Outcomes to Instructional Practices – Phase II.” Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, Boulder, CO: ASEE/IEEE, 2003.[5] Bjorklund, S. A., and Fortenberry, N. L.. "Linking Student Learning Outcomes to Instructional Practices -- Phase III." 2005 ASEE Annual Meeting and Exposition, Portland, OR,, Session 3630. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education, 2005.[6] Ouimet, J.A., Bunnage, J.B
design technical detail w ba w su at al rro nk er l un di ng s
Academy (USMA) while teaching two coursesin engineering mechanics: Statics and Dynamics and Mechanics of Materials. Subsequently,case studies have been integrated into courses at the University of Alabama at Birmingham(UAB) and Cleveland State University (CSU). Some of the ways to use case studies and a suggested format were reviewed in Delatteand Rens11. These include: • Introductions to topics – use the case to illustrate why a particular failure mode isimportant. Often the importance of a particular mode of failure only became widely known aftera failure – examples include the wind-induced oscillations of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge andthe failure of Air Force warehouses in the mid-1950’s that pointed out the need for
the program outcomes, where I = Introduced, R = Reinforced, and A =Assessed.The curriculum map was developed from our individual course outlines, recently updated by the Page 12.448.4faculty coordinators of each required course. An example of a course outline is included in theAppendix. Course outlines include both the course outcomes (CO’s) and the program outcomes 3(POs) associated with that course. Each faculty coordinator rated the degree of relationshipbetween CO’s and POs using the following rating scale: S = Strong, M = Medium, or L = Low.The collected information matrix
AC 2007-983: INTEGRATING THE DEVELOPMENT OF TEAMWORK,DIVERSITY, LEADERSHIP, AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS INTO ACAPSTONE DESIGN COURSEJoseph Hanus, University of Wisconsin-MadisonJeffrey S. Russell, University of Wisconsin-Madison Page 12.929.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2007 Integrating the Development of Teamwork, Diversity, Leadership, and Communication Skills into a Capstone Design CourseAbstractThe development of teamwork, diversity, leadership, and communications (TDLC) skills in ourprofessional domain is critical to our engineering education program and profession. We solveproblems in teams which are
teaching.Facilitate and Support Faculty in Acquiring Relevant Practical Experience: Encouragefaculty members, particularly the young, to get involved with the practice in their locale, anddevise equitable system(s) that allow faculty to gain the engineering experience they desperatelyneed, in order to keep up with new developments in their areas of specialization. Thus assertingthe view that engineering faculty “with practical experience under their belt” would, in general,make better teachers. Administrator (deans, chairs, and decision makers in general) shouldinvestigate ways for helping new faculty members gain industrial experience by spending asemester on-site at a cooperating industry, using summer release time to work within industry, or
of the design throughout the various stages of the process, leading to a product that is validated against design requirements 2. Design systems in a team environment where multiple disciplines or ME specialty areas are used. 3. Understand the ethical responsibilities associated with the mechanical engineering profession. 4. Prepare formal written design documentation (e.g. memos and technical reports) and present effective oral presentations. 5. Utilize a variety of sources in researching the field(s) and concepts appropriate to the design and benchmarking (e.g: US Patent and Trademark Office, vendor catalogs, Thomas Register, library, and Internet). 6. Utilize modern engineering
AC 2007-1883: FACULTY SCHOLARSHIP AND TECHNICAL CURRENCY: 2007STATUS REPORT ON A NATIONAL SURVEY OF ENGINEERINGTECHNOLOGY FACULTYAhmed Khan, DeVry University Dr. Ahmed S. Khan is a senior Professor in the EET dept. at DeVry University, Addison, Illinois. He received his M.Sc (applied physics) from University of Karachi, an MSEE from Michigan Technological University, an MBA from Keller Graduate School of Management., and his Ph.D. from Colorado State University. His research interests are in the areas of Fiber Optic Communications, Faculty Development, Outcomes Assessment, and Application of Telecommunications Technologies in Distance Education. He teaches Wireless Engineering, Network Engineering
, it is not about the technique, it is about understanding the theories from thesciences of learning and teaching that will allow the technique to be powerful. Engineeringeducators could greatly help each other by discovering the overarching characteristics that canguide instructors in their artful choices of implementing these new methods.Works Cited1. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and Learning. In D.C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (15-29). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.2. Krantz, S. G. (1999). How to teach mathematics (2nd ed.). Providence, RI: American mathematical Society.3. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind
agility: while we have used BME and ECE as novel and existing areas,respectively, the approach can easily be modified and implemented by any engineering program,on any novel content – and then be updated for other emerging areas as they appear – simply bysuitable choice of experiments. 4. Implementation Our proof-of-concept implementation of the proposed approach includes a total of eightexperiments to be incorporated into the ECE core curriculum, along with a new technicalelective with its own project(s). Depending on the specific class and the complexity of theparticular laboratory exercise, the experiments can take anywhere from 1 week to an entiresemester of 15 weeks. We should re-emphasize that an important objective of our effort
, n.1, January, 2005, pp. 103-119.2. Stiebitz, P., et al., “Multidisciplinary Engineering Design at RIT,” Proceedings of the 2004 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, session 1387.3. Walter, W., et al., “Redesigning a College-Wide Multidisciplinary Senior Design Program at RIT,” Proceedings of the 2007 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, session 1382.4. Bailey, M., and DeBartolo, E., “Using the Experiential Learning Model to Transform a Multidisciplinary Capstone Design Course,” Proceedings of the 2007 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.5. Howe, S., and Wilbarger, J., “2005 National Survey of Engineering Capstone Design Courses,” Proceedings of the 2006 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, #1781.6. Amon, C., et
modules, starting with the heat module (with electronic thermometer),and then working closely with teachers to use the modules in their every-day “in-school”classes. Another goal will be to provide “take-home-to-study” materials for students.Similarly, teacher education programs will help teachers learn about microsystems so they can“spread the word” to their students each day. Teacher education initiatives will include timefor teachers to modify modules to fit their individual teaching styles and classrooms, perhapsthrough Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) supplements. WIMS-based curriculumdeliverables will include numerous educational modules that when combined should lead totextbook(s).Evaluations of Pre-College Summer ProgramsFor most
teacher and student(s) are separated by physical distance, and technology(i.e., voice, video, data, and print), often in concert with face-to-facecommunication, is used to bridge the instructional gap.”2With the growth of distance learning programs, many question its appropriatenessand effectiveness. Research indicates that it can be as effective as traditional face-to-face instruction when the principles of good instruction are applied. That is, DEcourses are effective when technology and methods are aligned appropriately,when there is student-to-student interaction, and when students receive timelyfeedback.3 It is, however, the unprecedented range of technologies that causesmany institutions to select the technology first thus resulting in
interdependence,individual accountability, promotive interaction, social skills, and group processing.The results of this study could be used to begin to show that engineering student teams that havelongevity perform better on a wider collection of team-based activities. In order to further theunderstandings in this area, more studies like this one are needed in different contexts to verifythe claims.Bibliographic Information1. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Criteria for Accrediting Programs in Engineering, Baltimore, MA: ABET, Inc., 2003.2. Guzzo, R. A. “Group Decision Making and Group Effectiveness,” In Goodman, P. S. (Ed.), Designing Effective Work Groups, 34-71, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1986.3. Locke, E. A., &
digits of your student ID number to determine what dimensions you should use for your individual design (see Table 1). Table 1. Dimensions based on student ID number SIDN1 X (in.) SIDN2 Y (in.) SIDN3 Z (in.) SIDN4 s (deg) 0-2 3.740 0-2 0.984 0-4 1.968 0-2 50 3-4 3.937 3-4 1.181 3-4 2.099 3-4 55 5-6 4.331 5-6 1.378 5-6 2.231 5-6 60 7-9 4.528 7-9 1.575 5-9 2.362 7-9 65Each team must submit the following: ‚ A memorandum report for each lab. Each memo report is due by noon on the Friday of the week following the week that the lab was
wiser engineers.References[1] Bilén, S.G., Bernal, L.P., Gilchrist, B.E., and Gallimore, A.D., “The Student Space-Systems FabricationLaboratory: Enhancing Engineering Education Through Student-Run, Real-World Projects,” ASEE-NCS 1999Spring Conference, Pennsylvania State University Erie-Behrend, Erie, PA, 8-10 April 1999, pp. 68-72.[2] Liu, T., Deline, C., Ramos, R., Sandoval, S., Smetana, A., Gilchrist, B., Washabaugh, P., and Renno, N.,“The Student Space Systems Fabrication Laboratory: An Approach to Space Systems Engineering Education,”ASEE-2006-1917, 113th ASEE Conference, Chicago, IL, 18-21 June 2006.[3] Bilén, S.G. and Bernal, L.P., “The Vortex Ring Transit Experiment Get Away Special Project: UsingProjects Sponsored by
Projects,” ASEE-NCS 1999Spring Conference, Pennsylvania State University Erie-Behrend, Erie, PA, 8-10 April 1999, pp. 68-72.[2] Liu, T., Deline, C., Ramos, R., Sandoval, S., Smetana, A., Gilchrist, B., Washabaugh, P., and Renno, N.,“The Student Space Systems Fabrication Laboratory: An Approach to Space Systems Engineering Education,”ASEE-2006-1917, 113th ASEE Conference, Chicago, IL, 18-21 June 2006.[3] Reduced Gravity Flight Opportunities Program, http://microgravityuniversity.jsc.nasa.gov/[4] Bilén, S.G. and Bernal, L.P., “Get Away Special Payload G-093: The VOrtex Ring Transit EXperiment(VORTEX) Flights,” 1999 Shuttle Small Payloads Symposium, Annapolis, MD, 13-15 September 1999, NASA/CP-1999-209476, pp. 129-138.[5] Millard, L