to the freshmanstudents the types of things they will be doing during their future studies and help to retain thestudents in the program. This paper discusses the changes to the courses, the laboratoryenvironment, and the actual challenges that the students complete.IntroductionThere has been explosion in the number of digital devices over the last 30 years [1]. Embeddedmicrocontrollers are one of the popular choices utilized in these digital devices to provide thecontrol and decision making possible. Everything from automobiles, robotics, householdappliances, toys and games utilize microcontrollers or microprocessors. Understanding howthese devices operate and the ability to implement them in designs is an important part of anundergraduate
hardware. For the Fall 2015semester, the class was transformed to utilize microprocessors and focus on hardware limitations.The transformation was done for primarily two reasons. 1) To advance the course’s curriculum.2) Improve student retention.Every day we interact with and are surrounded by embedded systems. From cars to microwaves,they have become an integral part of everyday life. It’s no surprise then that the area ofembedded system design has grown tremendously in the past few years [1]. More graduates areworking with microprocessors as a result of the growing embedded systems field and wouldbenefit from working with them and coding during their undergraduate coursework. Therefore, itwas decided that the courses’ new focus would be centered
engineering fields, especially industrialengineering. Most outreach literature, focuses on the recruitment of students, content, and theimpact on participants. In 2015, the authors, St. John and Specking, proposed a framework toadapt college-level lessons for outreach activities.[5] This work will 1) discuss a modifiedversion of the 2015 framework that emphasizes implementation, assessment, and continuousimprovement, 2) provide an example application that was successfully implemented at multiplesections of a University of Arkansas summer camp with assessment data, and 3) provide anadditional example of a previously implemented activity to emphasize the cycle ofimplementation, assessment, and improvement. The University of Arkansas used pre and
university to employment represents a major transition with personal, economic,and societal implications. In recent years, the study of transitions has attracted renewed interest frompolicy makers and researchers in the light of changing labor market patterns, the diverse transitionpathways of young people, the transformation of professional knowledge, and an increasingdisjuncture between students’ academic training and the specific skillsets sought by employers [1, 2,3]. Yet very little is known about this transition in the field of engineering [4]. Most studiesconcentrate on the job readiness of engineering graduates [5, 6]. Fewer studies have explored howthe knowledge, skills, and experience that engineering students gain in university facilitate
this proposed arrangement is four-fold. (1) Students will be preparedto make a more informed decision regarding their selected area of specialization, leading to amore straightforward path to graduation. (2) Content will preview topics and information thatstudents will see again in upper-level engineering courses, providing a scaffold framework to aidin their transition to becoming more autonomous and engaged learners. (3) Students willpractice working with open-ended problems in a low-stakes environment, building theirconfidence for making sound engineering decisions. (4) Students will begin developing aportfolio of design experiences in a variety of areas to draw upon as they progress through thecurriculum, leading to a broader, systems
other hand, did give anenormous amount of additional qualitative information about what kind of problemsthe teams were facing in their challenge.The outcome of the study is that none of the three methods proved to be superior, buteach one of them brings up useful data for future studies when combined. The paperwill introduce detailed recommendations in building and updating such ameasurement setup in a dedicated working space and analyze the gathered data inmore detail.BackgroundEngineering graduates’ employers expressed their concern because new engineerslack the capability and preparation to define and solve open-ended problems and inresponse, engineering design was increased in education. [1] An approach to teachingdesign to engineering
employed by a college or universityin their early careers [1].” Thus it appears there is benefit for both teacher and those taught whengraduate students take on teaching roles. Yet, for most disciplines within engineering, the doctoralstudent will complete a certain amount of coursework, pass qualifying exams, and most importantly,make a meaningful contribution via research and showcase that contribution by publications and adissertation. He or she will have minimal or no teaching requirements.By the end of the tedious process, students have a Ph.D. in hand and a capacity to solve engineeringproblems, especially ones related to their expertise. Universities such as Purdue have recognizedthat there is a difference in preparation for students that
decades of academic and industrialexperience and emerging evidence suggests that there is a further scope in making theeducation of students whole and complete by adding two new subjects to the generaleducation requirements: scientific framework for external excellence and scientificframework for internal excellence. These topics teach students: (1) How to do all that theydo in life in the best possible manner (science of external excellence) and (2) How to betheir internal best (science and practices of internal excellence). The introduction of topic(2) is important because in the absence of an adequate level of internal excellence,external excellence programs including the best of the best quality initiatives, fall short ofexpectations
southern New Jersey. Acomprehensive list of technical and non-technical competencies was developed, and theidentified competencies were introduced or emphasized throughout the academic program.Additionally, in June of 2015, the Workforce Development Institute (WDI) of RCBC held anAdvanced Manufacturing Forum with focus groups for regional fabricated metal, machinery, andelectrical equipment manufacturers and conducted an online survey afterward. Four consistentthemes of the focus groups were: 1) the need for employable skills, 2) the need for amanufacturing program, 3) the need to address public misconceptions about the manufacturingindustry, and 4) employer interest in developing work-based learning experiences to engageyoung adults.The findings
effects of subsystem design approaches and system trades impactingUAS overall performance and operational viability. The paper describes learning objectives,construction, activities, and lessons learned, as well as how this course fits into UAF’s academicand research efforts. It also outlines complementary activities offering students UAS-centricaerospace experience and briefly touches upon efforts to push related STEM opportunities downto local high school and middle school students.IntroductionUAS Systems Design is a new multidisciplinary course intended to give students valuableexperience in the field of UAS and aerospace engineering. Students are expected to: 1) conduct asystems analysis of UAS to include the air vehicle platform and sensors
(ID) programs as can be seen in table1. Table 1 – Requirements for collaboration and multidisciplinary interaction in AEC accrediting bodies Accrediting Requirement Student Outcomes and Program AEC related field Organization Requirements Construction ACCE6 • Apply construction management skills as a member of a Management (CM) multidisciplinary team. Civil Engineering (CE) ABET7 • An ability to function on multidisciplinary teams • Understanding of the
University, Erie, PA(8/12 - 8/14) Associate Professor, Engineering Tech. Department Com. College of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, PA (8/10 - 8/12) Visiting Research Assistant Professor, Research on concrete structures retrofitting, Univer- sity of Pittsburgh, PA, USA (1/12 - 8/12) Part Time Professor, Research Assistant, Teaching Assistant, University of Ottawa, Canada (1/04 - 8/10) Part-Time Lecturer, University of Water and power technology, Tehran, Iran (8/99 - 8/01) Engineering Experience Consulting engineer, Structural, concrete & Geotechnical, Achievement Eng. Corp., CA (PT 04/10- Current) Professional Structural Building Design, in collaboration with R. Muhammad, Tallahassee, FL (PT Since 9/15) Project
of use tostudents themselves, helping them see the variety of ways that engineering studentspursue and consider job options.IntroductionIt is widely recognized that a strong engineering workforce is needed to tackle the grandchallenges facing our world today.1 And it has been the focus of much investigation toidentify innovative strategies for engineering education to ensure ‘that the U. S.engineering profession has the right people with the right talent for a global society’.2 Tothat end, since 2007 there has been a continual annual trend of increasing numbers ofengineering graduates, with around 107,000 students graduating with engineering degrees 1 in
case, our focus on the knowledge that results from engaging in reflection and ourfocus on engineering education has led us to identify a conceptual framework specific to ourcontext.Our initial conceptual framework for characterizing the knowledge resulting from engagement inreflection activities consists of three factors. Below, we explain each factor, situate the factorbriefly in relevant literature, and provide examples of student utterances that might align with thefactor:Factor 1: Professional knowledgeReflection activities (activities that invite students to pause, step “out,” and create knowledge)clearly have the potential to help students advance their knowledge of the topics they arestudying in order to become engineers. Our framing of
other” [1], or for this paper the “ringer” based on self-reported prior learning. The ringer is intended to support the team through early programmingchallenges. In addition to the professor and teaching assistants, having a peer mentor can yieldhigher satisfaction and confidence in learners [2]. Our analysis evaluates learning outcomes asstudent progress through the term, comparing performance based on the performance and priorknowledge reported by the ringer. The major research questions investigate the role of the ringerin the success of the team, as well looking to see if teams that include a low performing studenthave any common characteristics. Findings include data from 2013, 2014, and 2015 with trendsapparent in each of the years across
participanthas up to three hours to complete the task. The statement details constraints and encourages theparticipant to request information. The participant has access to a resource box withmiscellaneous tools (i.e., a calculator, post-it notes, pencils, pens, colored pencils, rulers, etc.).They have additional access to the facilitator and information binder (the participant must ask forspecific information) and an internet-connected computer. Refer to figure 1 for the design taskstatement. Figure 1: Study Design Task Statement B. Description of the DataEach design session lasts up to three hours. There is a scheduled ten-minute break and anapproximately 25-minute follow-up interview. Each session is video
representative examples of naïve designers’ cognition. Thefollowing questions guided this research:1. What are the most common cognitive strategies used by students engaged in engineering design?2. What are the most common sequential cognitive strategic patterns used by students engaged in engineering design?MethodologyContext of the study: The context of this study is a National Science Foundation funded MathScience Targeted Partnership (MSP) entitled SLED (Science Learning through EngineeringDesign, https://stemedhub.org). During the five years of the SLED project, the SLED teamdeveloped over 20 lessons that utilized the engineering design approach to facilitate sciencelearning for elementary students grades three to six. The SLED project built an
developing.For programs that require design reviews or other presentations, facilities personnel are oftenreadily available for participation. By serving as an external expert, students are able to gain thepractitioner perspective without having to bring personnel in from outside campus. The author’sprogram has also effectively used facilities personnel in the preparation of student competitiveteams. Similarly, programs that have industry mentorship components in classes might explorethe possibility of having campus facilities personnel serve in these roles. Others 1, 2, 3, 4 havenoted the importance of involving industry in realistic and challenging capstone engineeringcourses.As noted by Varma 5, practitioners can be effectively used as adjunct
awareness, entrepreneurialthinking, and creativity.” Second, in spite of the rich theoretical and practical accomplishments in thefields of engineering education and entrepreneurial ecosystem theory, few studies have attempted tocombine the insights from both fields of study. This paper makes a novel contribution by bringingtogether literatures in engineering education and entrepreneurial ecosystem.This paper begins with clearly defining and delineating entrepreneurship education and its objectivesin Chinese universities, identifying three major models of entrepreneurship education: 1) specializededucation model; 2) program-driven model; and 3) whole process engagement model. Next, usingsemi-structured interview and structured case study methods
science and engineering in a variety of contexts, both in and out of school.Participation in informal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) activities,along with interest in STEM subjects, is associated with interest in STEM careers when studentsreach the university level [1]. Out-of-school, informal learning can occur at a variety of sites,including everyday experiences; designed sites such as museums, nature preserves, and libraries;and structured programs such as after-school activities and summer camps [2]. This paperdescribes the programming provided at one academic library to a STEM summer camp formiddle schoolers [3] and explores the opportunities and challenges of this kind of programmingin an academic library.STEM
by the many activities that emphasize its creative and experiential aspects,often in the form of action verbs. In a 2014 interview with Phil Larson of the White HouseOffice of Science and Technology, Maker Media CEO Dale Dougherty loosely defined Makingas “creating, producing, crafting, shaping, tinkering, composing, and building” (p. 1). In a surveyof Makers at the 2012 World Maker Faire in New York City, Lande, Jordan and Nelson notedthe most frequent verbs used to define Making were “making,” “doing,” and “creating” (2013).Anderson (2012) asserted that everyone is a Maker, noting activities including gardening,cooking, and scrapbooking. By conducting a thorough review of recent literature on the subject,Martin created a working definition
diversity in engineeringstudents by focusing not on outward or non-visible social groups but students’ underlying attitudes,beliefs, and mindsets and then examine how demographic backgrounds might be an underlyingcause for the manifested attitudes and beliefs. Felder and Brent23 emphasize the need for this kindof understanding to support engineering students, “Students have different levels of motivation,different attitudes about teaching and learning, and different responses to classroom environmentsand instructional practices. The more thoroughly instructors understand the differences, the betterchance they have of meeting the diverse learning needs of all of their students” (p. 1).Latent diversity can provide a different way of examining how
classroom to explore abasic concept within a lecture-based course, ones that can be used as do-it-yourself projects toteach skills in a campus makerspace environment, and ones that can be used as multi-weekexperiments in a laboratory course. A sample project is given for each category.1.0 IntroductionHands On Learning (HOL) is an excellent way to engage and motivate students and to enhancelearning of difficult concepts. In engineering education, hands-on learning has traditionallyinvolved instructional labs or studio classes, which are focused on these types of activities.Recently, however, people have started to advocate for the distributed use of mobile, hands-onlearning experiments that can be done by students in non-traditional settings [1-3
the substance condenses. Students should also understand that some substances rarelybehave as an ideal gas (H2O, Refrigerants), but in certain cases they can behave as ideal gases(superheated vapor at low pressures). It has been observed that some students will apply Pv = RTwhen it is not justified, and fail to use it when it is justified. 4In heat transfer students have difficulty applying the boundary conditions correctly when usingheat conduction equation when solving a conduction problem, under what condition the availableequations for one dimensional heat conduction can be used (e.g., why Bi must be << 1), underwhat conditions the lumped capacity solution can be used for a transient heat conduction problem,or under what conditions
test boards. Instead, students construct their ownbreadboard-based circuits for each lab. Students purchase a lab kit at the beginning of the term,which includes all of the necessary components for the labs including the 8-bit Microchip PIC16microcontroller. An overview of the topics covered throughout the course are provided in Table1. The course begins with an introduction to the instruction set architecture (ISA) and assemblyprogramming. The first three labs are therefore completed using assembly language. Theremaining labs are implemented with the C programming language, which is introduced in weekthree. An overview of the course labs is shown in Table 2. Table 1. Outline of course. Week Topics
within other courses.Those best suited are machine design, design for manufacture, or tooling design. For thecurriculum in question, the bulk of this material is covered within the context of a DFM class,MFGE 333. A follow-on class on Design of Tooling, MFGE 463 is used to further develop andhone these skills. Both are required courses in the curriculum.Figure 1 shows the content of this DFM class arranged pictorially and highlights the GD&Ttopics. The strategy adopted spreads these topics out over the duration of the term so that theyare presented concurrently with other DFM concepts. The course starts off with an introductionto DFA which motivates topics such as mechanical fits and finishes. Fits in turn bring out theconnection between
. However, one concern is the student participation level given that the materials areoptional in the class.I. Introduction University education involves teaching and training students to be proficient in theirrespective fields, and successfully embrace challenges that may present themselves on the job.Accordingly, students are taught key skills that may be immediately required in the corporateworld along with fundamental concepts that supplement their primary roles in the workplace.This diversified training helps students in adapting to different types of job roles that may berequired of them after graduation. Recently, a greater emphasis is being placed on selectskills that are referred to as employability qualifications. Azami et al.1 studied
Engineering (University of Pittsburgh). Prior to entering academia, Dr. Nicholls was a practicing industrial engineer in the freight transportation industry. Address: Donald L. Harrison College of Business, Southeast Missouri State University, One University Plaza – MS 5815, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701; telephone (+1) 573.651.2016; fax: (+1) 573.651.2992; e-mail: gnicholls@semo.edu.Dr. Neal Lewis, University of New Haven Neal Lewis received his Ph.D. in engineering management in 2004 and B.S. in chemical engineering in 1974 from the University of Missouri – Rolla (now the Missouri University of Science and Technology), and his MBA in 2000 from the University of New Haven. He has over 25 years of industrial experience
(Nachtmann and Lehrman, 2002).The student work (one-page recommendation memos) and post-project surveys were analyzed toanswer the following research questions.Research question 1. Did the project: provide students an opportunity to practice decision making with multiple concerns, and types of evidence, promote student understanding of how a process design (techno-economic model) can be used, and facilitate students’ ability to navigate uncertainty.Research question 2. Did the project promote the students’: comfort with multiple concerns and types of evidence, confidence in understanding process design, and acceptance of uncertainty?MethodologyThe project and IRB consent were described to the students the week
the regular classroom poses numerous problems, especially given the work andschool schedules as well as family responsibilities that many students have to juggle.A natural answer, especially for millennials who are constantly online, would seem to be to orga-nize such collaborative learning tasks online. And, indeed, there have been numerous attempts atdoing just this. But the results have been quite disappointing. Thus Cole’s 1 course on informationtechnology with 75 students in it was organized so that lectures were in alternate weeks, the otherweeks being intended for students to discover new material and post to the class wiki. Fully onequarter of the questions on the final exam were to be from the material that students posted