that provide opportunities fordiscovering new knowledge; (2) to mentor a diverse team of undergraduates; (3) to promotegraduate study as a future professional goal; and (4) to provide instructive and appealing learningcomponents. Undergraduates in the program attain three learning outcomes: design, conduct,and document a research experiment; function effectively on a multidisciplinary research team;and summarize both the technical and experiential aspects of the research experience. Theprogram assessment plan and initial program results are discussed in the paper. The researchteam assessed and evaluated specific performance metrics defined under each outcome, where aperformance metric represents a skill or ability that the undergraduate
and how they need to frame their academic problem, ask for help, evaluateoptions, and decide for their academic path project.The authors identified two important courses to intervene: UNIV 1301 Learning Frameworksand MECE 1101 Intro to Mechanical Engineering. These two courses teach a variety ofimportant topics, and both traditionally had project elements of technical innovation (MECE1101) and career path planning (UNIV 1301) that required to be formalized into proper projects.For this purpose, the Challenge Based Instruction (CBI) approach (Fuentes et al., 2008;Bransford et al., 1999; Freeman et al., 2016) was chosen to guide the steps of the parallelprojects. CBI promotes engagement when properly implemented, and this is critical
students from underrepresented groups (URGs) at community collegeswho have the opportunity to transfer to engineering programs. We are specifically investigatinghow their experiences in community college influence their plans for future education andcareers. While the diversity of 4-year universities has remained stagnant, the diversity ofcommunity college student populations is actually increasing. Therefore, community collegesrepresent a potential source of talent for future engineers from diverse backgrounds. We arecurrently in the first year of data collection where we have piloted the study at one of the datacollection sites. Five students from traditionally underrepresented groups in engineering havebeen interviewed. We use a narrative
provides background anddetails about the project.MotivationThe PEPS study follows a small, but growing, body of literature in engineering education onearly engineering career choice. While some studies focus on the proportions of engineeringbachelor’s graduates who pursue engineering jobs and graduate degrees,1,3 other studies haveexamined the specific factors related to engineering students having plans to pursue engineeringcareers, versus non-engineering careers, after college, finding that the experiences thatengineering students have in their programs have a big impact. For example, in their study ofengineering undergraduates at nine institutions nationwide, Amelink and Creamer (2010) foundthat student satisfaction with the quality of teaching
of our engineeringcollege’s plan for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), we submitted brainstormed ideas forimplementation to our dean’s office. And third, after reviewing reports from student focusgroups conducted in 2020/21, we evaluated progress and made recommendations for next steps;in this context the clarity and urgency of the student feedback is both motivational and difficultto ignore. The common theme in each of three elements is seeking to bridge the valley of neglectthat so often divides scholarly work about DEI from concrete changes that benefit students,employers, and the broader community.IntroductionTo broaden participation, the United States needs to engage the “missing millions” [1] ofAmericans who are currently
4 + 1 program so that qualified students could take two or three approved coursesand have them double count for the Bachelor’s and Master’s degree. This program was Page 24.1403.2successful in helping more students choose graduate school since they could get a Master’sdegree in just one year past the Bachelor’s degree, saving both time and money. However, not allstudents eligible for graduate school choose to do the 4 + 1 plan or are qualified for theaccelerated program and money is still a problem for these students. Therefore we addedgraduate scholarships (maximum of four semesters) to the S-STEM programs for students whohad graduated
project, 3. To mold them as independent/collaborative researchers and effective communicators, 4. For them to learn to ask the right questions, formulate plans, pragmatically interpret data, 5. To inspire and enable them to pursue advanced study and related STEM careers.Organizational Structure:In lieu of the typical exclusive one-on-one mentoring of undergraduate students, this site utilizedand extended the vertically-integrated team framework for a more realistic, meaningful andeffective engagement of undergraduates in research. Initiated by Georgia Tech in 2009,Vertically-Integrated Projects (VIP) unite undergraduate education and faculty research in ateam-based context, where students earn academic credits and/or a research
the implementation of innovative ideas in sustainable energy and bioengineering. 2.Educate students to become independent researchers with entrepreneurial thinking skills and provide themopportunities to use their newly developed as well as innate skills in the summer-end final projectpresentation and competition. 3. Develop a network of mentoring relationship among high school teachers,faculty and underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate students that will support them in theirprofessional and graduate careers. 4. Educate teachers on sustainable energy and bioengineering and helpthem create their lesson plans for high school curriculum development on nanotechnology and engineeringthat will increase students’ interest in STEM fields.The
instructors (Fig.1) throughout the Spring 2023 semester. We asked to meet with each instructor to plan theimplementation of ABP into the instructors’ courses early in the spring semester. Additionally,we recruited an instructor to allow us to collect data in his course so we could gather informationon students’ responses to ABP. Pre-Data Post-Data Professional Implement Debrief Plan Collection Collection Development Instructors Individual Plan course of student of student Host
Spring2020 was certainly not the semester we had planned due to disruptions from COVID-19, we areoverall quite pleased with this initial offering of the course.What worked well?First and foremost, we should acknowledge we had a small and highly engaged group of 18students enrolled in this course. During the first weeks of the semester, students were able tobuild a strong bond with each other and the instructor. This served as an excellent foundationwhen we transitioned to emergency remote teaching (ERT) roughly halfway through thesemester. We capitalized on the opportunity to explore students’ response to COVID and ERTas well as their response to the course itself [1].One lesson we took from our research into CSPs was the importance of connecting
engineers.BackgroundResearch indicates that many faculty at U.S. Colleges and Universities have not adoptedevidence-based approaches to teaching engineering students [1], [2]. And yet, the professionalformation of engineers is largely reliant on faculty to enhance course-specific and broaderdevelopmental outcomes. We know that “high-quality teaching is essential to retain qualifiedengineering students” [3] and decades of effort have resulted in many evidence-based approachesfor achieving these technical and broader developmental outcomes; still, these approaches oftenremain unused. Recently, research has been conducted to try to understand characteristics ofpedagogical innovations and dissemination plans that lead to adoption of new practices amongfaculty (Table 1
each semester during one academic year. • Tier 4: $6,000 for students who complete their major preparation at Rio Hondo College and transfer as a STEM major to a four-year university or college.The NSF award is for a total of $599,988. This enables the college to present more than twentyscholarships a year for five years.Eligibility is determined by the following criteria: U.S. residency, full-time enrollment in aSTEM major (biological sciences, physics, chemistry, astronomy, materials science,mathematical sciences, computer and information science, and engineering) as shown by acomprehensive educational plan, financial need, motivation and professionalism (as described inan essay), and academic merit.Grade point average and
engineering economic analysis and stochastic, modeling, analysis and simulation. Professor Ryan’s research interests lie in the planning and operation of energy, manufacturing and service systems under uncertainty. Her work has been funded by several single and multi-investigator National Science Foundation grants, including a Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) award, as well as by industry, private foundations, and the U.S. Department of Energy through its ARPA-E initiative. She is PI of a National Research Traineeship on Innovations at the Nexus of Food, Energy and Water Systems. Dr. Ryan is a Fellow of the Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers and serves as Editor-in-Chief of The Engineering Economist.Dr
fall or spring term in their classes.The second phase of the program took place off campus and consisted of the teachers further polishing andlaunching their lesson plan tied to the RET experience. These teacher activities were designed so thatfollowing the programmatic goals were met: 1. Expand content knowledge of advanced and traditional materials manufacturing for teacher to support integration into new STEM and workforce development teaching and learning materials; 2. Engage teachers in advanced manufacturing research where they take on the role as the lead researcher and increase their understanding of how research leads to knowledge development; 3. Provide teachers with beneficial professional development (mentoring
-sourceweb-based tool that will guide individual or collaborating STEM educators, step-by-step,through an outcome-based education process as they define learning objectives, select content tobe covered, develop an instruction and assessment plan, and define the learning environment andcontext for their course(s). It will also contain a repository of current best pedagogical andassessment practices, and based on selections the user makes when defining the learningobjectives of the course, the IMODTM system will present options for assessment and instructionthat aligns with the type/level of student learning desired. While one of the key deliverables ofthe project is the software tool, the primary focus of this initiative is to advance the
pilot institution has beencollected and assessed at the institutional, departmental, and for different educator rolesincluding faculty, support staff, and administrative leaders to produce inputs towards developinga detailed plan of action. Early results from baseline data, visualizations, planning responses, andinitial project activities for student work experiences and faculty professional development willbe reported in the submission. The impact of Covid-19 to Year 1 activities will also be discussed.Expected long term results of the project include: development of sustainable mechanisms tofoster cross-sector partnerships; increased student retention and workforce readiness; andmeasurable successes for STEM students, particularly Hispanic
participant’s experiencewith the project, but also included some demographic questions. Table 1 lists the questions andtheir respective research questions. A selection of the results organized around three researchquestions from the study is given below:How did the students view this type of activity?For many of the participants, this activity was a new experience for them. Someparticipants revealed that they had prior experience co-planning projects or activitieswith other content areas, however a majority stated that they had limited experience co-planning such intense design projects between content areas. The overall feelings aboutthe project were positive, and the students listed several benefits of the assignment.What problems did the students
cybersecurity programs and fulfill industrial and technological requirements and goals with regard tocyber security paths (Bauer et al., 2018). Additionally, it could be beneficial to those who plan towork in industry if cyber security teaching could align with materials and skills needed for cybersecurity certification exams such as Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP)and Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA) exams.However, there are key limitations and grand challenges on cyber security teaching in bothonline and face-to-face educational structures. The difficulties are mainly due to a broad range ofstudent backgrounds and a lack of computing resources. In most cyber security programs,students enroll with
participants and mentors to address the impact of the project on the participants,to ask whether the goals and objectives were accomplished as planned, and to identify strengthsand limitations of the projects. These evaluation strategies will be detailed with special emphasison the steps taken to modify the educational programming in response to evaluation findingsfrom year one.Center OverviewThe Center for Innovative and Strategic Transformation of Alkane Resources (CISTAR) is aNational Science Foundation (NSF) Engineering Research Center (ERC) grant. ERCs aredesigned to integrate engineering research and education with technological innovation totransform national prosperity, health, and security. Purdue University is the lead institutionpartnering
several academic year follow-up activities. Section 2 provides anoverview of the project, including objectives, rationale for the intellectual focus, teacherrecruitment process, and structure of project activities. Section 3 provides illustrative examplesof teachers’ research activities and lesson plans developed by them. Section 4 provides highlightsof project assessment. Finally, Section 5 offers some concluding remarks.2. Overview Page 24.1041.2 In 2013, under an NSF-funded Research Experience for Teachers (RET) Site project, 12middle and high school teachers participated in a six-week summer workshop focused onsensors, microcontrollers
Puerto Rico that you would be attending with these modules, although the premise is that these units could be used in any school in Puerto Rico that could require it. [4] Before the site visit, students were lectured on how to rebuild schools, and during the visittheir professors and a graduate student explained the structural failures in the design of thebuilding. They studied the original plans and were guided to observe the correspondence betweenthe plans, the structure, and visible damages. After the tour of the school, students were asked touse the site visit experience to discuss their proposed design project and complete an exercise usingthe technique of Triple Bottom Line (TBL)’[5]. The instructions for this exercise
) changing the baselinedata collection from the 5th grade statewide Science Test to the 5th grade statewide ScienceReleased Exam. The first two changes align with social distancing procedures. The third changeis due to a lack of 5th grade statewide End-of-Grade (EOG) Science Test administration or scoresfor spring 2020. As such, the researchers planned to use the released exam as a proxy for 5th gradeEOG.It should be noted that even with these pivots, the team continued to experience additional ad hocchallenges throughout Year 1. For example, the student assent and parent consent process wassignificantly delayed due to several compounding factors including not being able to send studentsand families consent forms prior to the course start, students
) increasing student engagement, success, and retention, and (b) ultimately seeing greater increases for underrepresented minority (URM), women, and first-generation students. Ten faculty teaching first- and second-year Engineering courses participated in the first cohort of ISE-2 in Summer 2017, which consisted of three workshops and six informal “coffee conversations”. At the conclusion of the workshops, each faculty was tasked with completing a teaching plan for the Fall 2017 semester, to incorporate the strategies and knowledge from ISE-2 into the courses they plan to teach. Focus groups with the ISE-2 faculty were conducted in Fall 2017 to obtain feedback about the faculty development program. Classroom observations were
Mentors review1:45-2:00PM Break2:00 – 2:45PM Session 5: Timetable (45 minutes) Brief Presentation what is needed for time table? (10 minutes) Hands on: PIs create draft timetable Mentors review2:45-3:00PM Break3:00 – 3:45PM Session 6: Management plan (45 minutes) Brief Presentation what goes in the management plan? (10 minutes) Hands on: Drafting a management plan Mentors review3:45-4:00PM Break4:00 – 4:45PM Session 7: Budget 1 (45 minutes) Presentation – the budget, what’s allowed, do’s and don’t Indirect Rate (IDR) and the impact on budget Q&A about budget5:00 – 6:00PM Session 7A: (30-60 minutes
Paper ID #30509Developing a Research Agenda for the Engineering Ambassador CommunityDr. Stacey V Freeman, Dr. Stacey Freeman is the Director of National Outreach for the College of Engineering at Boston Uni- versity. In this role, she is responsible for planning, developing, and implementing outreach and diversity programs and initiatives to promote Engineering and increase the K-12 pipeline for women and underrep- resented minority students.Dr. Sandra Lina Rodegher, Boston University Dr. Sandra Rodegher is the Manager for National Outreach Initiatives for the Office of Outreach and Diversity in Boston University’s
Geometric Tolerancing Project Management Project organization Project selection PERT, CPM, Project planning and control, resources allocation Project team development & management Conflict and change management Six-sigma & quality improvement projects Oil & Gas exploration case studies Manufacturing logistics Productivity measures Forecasting techniques for manufacturing Capacity planning and break even
-April 2008 and April 2017 - present). Dr. Yaprak also served as an ABET IEEE/ETAC Commissioner (July 2012-July 2017). Dr. Yaprak also serves on the ABET Board of Delegates (November 2019-November 2025). Dr. Yaprak served as a Program Director at the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Division of Undergraduate Education, Feb 2015 to Feb 2017. In that role, she was responsible for planning and budgeting for science in engineering education; managing the awards process; marketing the program; working with other NSF programs, federal agencies and organizations; advising and assisting the division’s director in long-range planning; and reviewing research, education and infrastructure proposals.Mr. Mark A Jager, Wayne State
B.S. in ME, and both M.S. and Ph.D. in IE. He is a member of ASEE, INFORMS, ASEM, and a senior member of IIE. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 An Advanced Technological Education Project for High Value Manufacturing: Lessons LearnedAbstractProjects rarely go according to plan, but this is especially true of those that involve multipleinstitutions and have a significant degree of complexity associated with them. This work relatesthe experiences an Advanced Technological Education (ATE) project around high valuemanufacturing. The project was a collaboration with a Texas A&M University and HoustonCommunity College. The project comprised three main aspects
, process monitoring/control, data science, cyber-physical systems, and cloudcomputing to drive manufacturing operational excellence. The convergence of IT and OT iscritical to allow interaction across the four layers of automation, within the automation pyramidstandardized by the International Society of Automation (ISA) in 2010 [7], where, Level-0:Sensors/actuators (field-level); Level-1: Real-time control systems (control-level); Level-2: Datamanagement, modeling, learning (supervisory-level); Level-3: Manufacturing operationsmanagement (plant-level); Level-4: Business planning and logistics (enterprise-level).Application areas span equipment health and status updates provided to consumers of machineryand HVAC systems, mobility avenues (e.g
energy to power vehicles,maintain livestock habitats, and manage wastes. Renewable energy production from biomass cancompete with food production for land and water resources. Management of water supply andquality requires an intricate balance between demand from agriculture and energy for water andother societal and ecosystem needs for water. Each of these interactions creates opportunities formodeling driven by sensor-based and qualitative data collection to improve the effectiveness ofsystem operation and control in the short term as well as investments and planning for the longterm. However, the large volume and complexity of the data collected creates challenges forvisualization, decision support, and stakeholder communication.A National