Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Page 15.535.10Education at the Pennsylvania State University for its support of this project.Bibliography1 Long, L., (2008), “The Critical Need for Software Engineering Education”, The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, January 20082 Sheppard, S. D., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., Sullivan, W. M. (2009), Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field, pp. 7-8, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Preparation for the Professions.3 Sindre, G., Stalhane, G., Brataas, G., Conradi, R., “The cross-course software engineering project at the
first cost ofconstruction of the ventilation system, for a higher operating cost in filter replacements.Given the extremely restrictive budget we worked with, these costs were a significantconsideration.Operation of the cleanroom was very simple. Once, power to the centrifugal fan wasturned on, clean filtered air was supplied to the clean space. Using a calibrated hot wire tomeasure air velocity profiles over the duct between the filters and clean room wedetermine the measured volumetric flow rate into the cleanroom to be 0.5 m3/s. Giventhe small, 5.7 m3, total volume of the clean space, this air flow rate implied an airexchange rate for the cleanroom of one complete air change about every 11 seconds, orjust over 300 air changes per
equipment, and breadboards and multimeters.Laboratory 2. Open and Closed Circuits. In this experiment students learn about open andclosed circuits, calculation of power, and how to use Ohm’s law. Verification of experimentalresults using MultiSim.Laboratory 3. Current and Voltage. This experiment introduces students to the measurement ofvoltage s and currents in DC circuits. Also introduces the LED device. Verification ofexperimental results using MultiSim.Laboratory 4. Series Circuits. In this experiment students measure voltages and currents inSeries Circuits. Students also calculate power. Verification of experimental results usingMultiSim.Laboratory 5. Parallel Circuits. This experiment reinforces student’s skills in measuringvoltages and
. Clancey, S., Keith, J.M., and Pintar, A.J., “Improving the Chemical Engineering Curriculum through Assessment: Student, Faculty, Staff, Alumni, and Industry Input,” Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2002.7. Montgomery, D.C., Design and Analysis of Experiments, 6th Ed., John Wiley & Sons, 2005, pp. 119-133. Page 15.198.9AppendixStudent Number: ______________ Reviewer Number:_____________Senior Project Title: _____________________________________________________After reviewing each senior project, please assign a numeric
® layout package by working though the Ultiboard® Tutorial. ≠ Provide ports in and out of your circuit – use a header(s) for ease of interfacing ≠ Export the file to Ultiboard® after completing your MSim schematic. ≠ The maximum board size is 4” x 6”. Make the board smaller so that the cost is lower. ≠ The board is two layers of G-10 standard 63 mils thick. ≠ Minimize the number of vias. ≠ Increase the thickness of power and ground traces – make them at least 20 mils wide. Signal traces can be 10 mils wide. ≠ You will be using quad-pack MPQ3904 npn BJTs and MPQ3906 npn BJTs in DIP-16 packages. ≠ Upon completion of the Ultiboard® layout, provide the instructor with Gerber files of the layers, board, drill
simulator orthe router(s). Since all three components, GNS3, Dynagen, and Dynamips are essentially beta-quality software and interdependent, identifying simulation-software related problems is noteasy. A number of simulations have simply terminated after starting successfully, the causeundetermined. Therefore, instructors must choose simulation topologies that are proven or basedon proven simulations to avoid unnecessary hardship on the students’ part.The development teams for GNS3, Dynagen, and Dynamips are small, and therefore unable torespond quickly with software updates. There is no guarantee that future updates will beavailable. Indeed, Dynamips emulates the particular processor hardware that is common betweenthe 1700, 2600, 3600, 3700, and
Mile Connecting Smartphones to the Service Cloud." 2009 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing. Bangalore, India., 2009. 80-87.9. Zualkernan, I, S Nikkhah and M Al-Sabah. "A Lightweight Distributed Implementation of IMS LD on Google's Andriod." The 9th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT2009). Riga, Latvia, 2009. 59-63. Page 15.180.13
. Page 15.365.11 ReferencesBoni, A.A., Weingart, L.R., & Evenson, S. (2009, September). Innovation in an academic setting: Designing and leading a business through market-focused, interdisciplinary teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(3): 407-417.Green, J.V. (2009, January). An overview of the Hinman CEOs Program. U.S. Association for Small Business & Entrepreneurship Annual Conference, Anaheim, CA.Green, J.V. & Johnson, G.A. (2008, June). A holistic performance measurement system for entrepreneurship education. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA.Green, J.V. (2007, June). Discovering new
the recommendations ofthe students in this initial offering. More time will be used to introduce electrical engineeringmeasurement techniques and terminologies. Less classroom time will be used to discuss thefabrication process and this discussion will be moved to the laboratory sessions to fill downtimes during the processing. An overview lecture on electrical engineering will be developed andadded, along with more examples and discussions of electrical engineering job positions andskills. Page 15.745.14 12Bibliography1. www.montana.edu/msse.2. S
. Sanders, M., et al., Assessing interdisciplinary engineering capstone project. Proceedings for the 2006 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.9. Latane, B., K. Williams, and S. Harkins, Many hands make light work: the causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979. 37(6): p. 822-832.10. Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts, Economics, organization, and management. 1992, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.11. Strong, J.R. and R.E. Anderson, Free-riding in group projects: control mechanisms and preliminary data. Journal of Marketing Education, 1990. 12: p. 61-67
the Measure of Men: Science, Technology, and Ideologies of Western Dominance. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.Adas, M. (2006). Dominance by Design: Technological Imperatives and America's Civilizing Mission. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.Bridger, J. C. and A. E. Luloff (1999). "Toward an interactional approach to sustainable community development." Journal of Rural Studies 15: 377-387.Burkey, S. (1993). People first: A guide to self-reliant participatory rural development. London and New York, Zed Books.Diacon, T. A. (2004). Stringing Together a Nation: Candido Mariano da Silva Rondon and the Construction of a Modern Brazil, 1906-1930. Durham and London, Duke University Press.Downey, G. and J. Lucena
, humanities,business and social sciences.”17 The legacy of his guidance and vision live on at bothinstitutions.Bibliography1. National Academy of Engineering. The Engineer of 2020 – Visions of Engineering in the New Century. Page 15.1014.13 Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2004.2. National Academy of Engineering. Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2005.3. S.M. Blanchard, N. Egiebor, J.D. Sweeney, L. Zidek, C. Sechrist, S. Hulbert, J. Osborn, and R. O’Neill. Blank slate engineering at Florida Gulf Coast University – Innovative and
Grassroots level policy movements, professional associations and lobbying 10 1&2 Final Project PresentationReading Response Papers (3) – Short essays (minimum 2 pages double-spaced). May includereadings from textbook or from outside sources.Framing the Problem Papers (1) – Short essay (minimum 2 pages – Max 4 pages double-spaced) about an Engineering and Public Policy issue that you have been approved to writeabout. May include readings from textbook or from outside sources.Positional Papers (2) – Short arguments (minimum 3 pages double-spaced) For Positional Paper1, identify a situation, determine applicable decision-making framework(s), and argue oneposition for or against. For the second Positional Paper, write
appropriately, simulation can be used to wring the mostperformance out of engineered systems at an acceptable cost. A vivid example of this is the caseof the Speedo LZR swimsuit which was developed through a combination of simulation andphysical testing. Experts used FLUENT, a commercial computational fluid dynamics (CFD)software, to design modifications in the suit that led to a reduction in the water drag on thewearer. Swimmers wearing the LZR suit went on to claim 33 of the first 36 medals in the BeijingOlympic games and continue to break world records, as reported in the popular press6. If mostengineers, not just specialists with Ph.D.’s, are able to deploy simulation effectively, there wouldundoubtedly be significant improvements in the engineered
the students and faculty agree that this project has stimulatedstudent interest and has facilitated a more project orientated group of young engineers ready tocontinue their education.Bibliography1. M. Lowe, H. Moore, E. Langrall, and C. Gehrman, “Robots in the introductory physics laboratory,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 76, issue 10, pp. 895-902, Oct. 2008.2. K. C. Bower, T. E. Mays, and C. M. Miller, “Small Group, Self-Directed Problem Based Learning Development In A Traditional Engineering Program,” 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Session S1B, pp. 16-21, Oct. 2004.3. L. G. Huettel, A. S. Brown, K. D. Coonley, M. R. Gustafson, J. Kim, G. A. Ybarra, and L. M. Collins, “Fundamentals of
reuse of the CALS Horse Barn is a good example of the Next Generation SeniorCapstone Design project. This project derived from the College of Engineering’s collaborativerelationship with the campus FP&M office. This is a real project currently in the final planningstages within the campus architect’s office. With the Capstone student involvement, the campusbenefits from the design insight and reality check the student work provides while clientsbecome more engaged in the design process providing more clearly articulate needs, wants anddesires. The students benefit from real world project challenges and through interaction withtheir clients.The project encompassed the rehabilitation of an 1880’s era, 18,000 GSF barn into asocial/conference
purposeto integrating their previous coursework into the current problem. This has been a desire ofindustry in which they want to see greater inquisitiveness and creativeness from the co-opstudents and even the new hires.Bibliography1. From T001 08-09 TAC Criteria 11-30-07, General Criteria, Criteria 5, Technical Content, section d, pg. 2-3.2. From T001 08-09 TAC Criteria 11-30-07, General Criteria, Criteria 5, Technical Content, section d, pg. 2-3.3. Todd, R. H., S. P. Magleby, C. D. Sorensen, B. R. Swan and D. K Anthony, “A Survey of Capstone Engineering Courses in North America,”Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 84, no. 2, 1995, pp. 165-174.)4. Uhl, V. W., “Development and Critique of the Contemporary Senior Design Course,” Chemical
program • Who is responsible for professional development program enforcement? • How is the professional development program implemented at the national level? • How is the professional development program implemented at the local level? • How is the professional development program included in accreditation? • Is participation compulsory or voluntarily? • Who is/are the target group(s)? • What is the professional development program duration? • What is the professional development program content? • How are qualifications recognized and/or rewarded?Clearly criteria, standards, and policy regarding professional qualification for teaching in highereducation are unique to each nation’s needs, interests, and
Technology Education. Accessed Jan 2008. 10. Virginia Tech Department of Engineering Education. Accessed Jan 2008. 11. Doumont, JL. “Trees, Maps and Theorems: Effective Communication for Rational Minds”. Brussels, Belgium: Principiæ, 2009.12. Personal communication, Blakeslee, October 2009.13. Mullinix, B. "A Rubric for Rubrics: Reconstructing and Exploring Theoretical Frameworks". in Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network Conference. 2007. Pittsburgh, PA.14. Mullinix, B. "Rubrics". 2009, Accessed Jul 2009. 15. Meuller, J. "Authentic Assessment Toolbox". 2009, Accessed Jan 2009. 16. Bargainnier, S., "Fundamentals of Rubrics, in Faculty Guidebook - A Comprehensive Tool for Improving
areprogrammed into simple skills, while leading to more complex skills in a scaffold approach. Thismethodology facilitates the s development of crystallized intelligence (i.e., skill setsappropriately applied given certain conditions)8.A training path was created that outlines all formal training courses that associates mustcomplete during their two years in the program. Formal courses are offered in multiple formats Page 15.473.6to support learning objectives and to minimize travel. Theoretical and topic courses are offeredin a virtual training environment. Product application courses, which include hands-on lab workwith equipment, are offered in a
. Poster session presented at the 4th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, Houston, TX.4. Perryman, M. Ray. (2007, February). The Potential Impact of an Initiative to Increase the Pool of Engineering and Computer Science Graduates on Business Activity in Texas. Waco, TX: Perryman Group.5. U.S. Department of Labor Report (2008). Retrieved February 1, 2009 from http://www.dol.gov/esa/olms/regs/compliance/rrlo/lmrda.htm.6. Wang, Y., Zhu, Y., Salinas, R., Karnae, S., Ramirez, D., & John, K. (2008). Roadside measurements of ultrafine particles at a busy urban intersection, Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, 58:1449–1457.7. West Texas Office of Evaluation and Research (WTER
.1Bibliography1. Shine, S., Kiravu, C., and Astley, J., “In Defense of Open-Book Engineering Degree Examinations.” International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, Vol. 32, No. 3, July 2005, pp. 197-211.2. Theophilides, C. and Koutselini, M., “Study Behavior in the Closed Book and the Open Book Examination: A Comparative Analysis,” Educational Research and Evaluation, Vol. 6, No. 4, December 2000, pp. 379-393.3. Theophilides, C., and Dionysiou, O., The major functions of the open-book examination at the university level; A factor analytic study, “Studies in Educational Evaluation, Vol. 22, No. 2, 1996, pp. 157-170.4. Williams, J.R., and Wong, A. (2009), “The Efficacy of Final Examinations: A comparative study of closed
arethinking about purpose.Bibliography1 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs,” October 31, 2009, ABET Inc.2 “University Relations: Desired Attributes of an Engineer,” Boeinghttp://www.boeing.com/educationrelations/attributes.htms3 Clooney, E., Alfrey, K., and Owens, S., “Critical Thinking in Engineering and Technology Education: A Review,”Proceedings of the 2008 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, ASEE4 Worldwide CDIO Initiative. https://www.cdio.org, January 20095 Agrawal, Pradeep K. “Integration of Critical Thinking and Technical Communication into UndergraduateLaboratory Courses.” Proceedings of the 1997 American Society for Engineering
Oriented towards inputs or outputs. o Structure of the evaluation model. • Economic Aspects o Sources of financing, fees, and costs. • Relation of accredited programsThe contents of each section for each agency were based on material found on the agency’s webpage(s), on normative and operation documents of the agency, and on interviews with those withthe agency responsible for development and operations. Page 15.334.4The information obtained has been organized and analyzed in three distinct ways: 1. In a homogenized way and presented in a series of informative summary tables with the information specific to each system
maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. 1998, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.30. Weiss, C.H., Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies. 1998, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.31. Strauss, A.L. and J. Corbin, Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 1990, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.32. Scale-up in Education: Volume 1: Ideas in Principle, ed. B. Schneider and S.-K. McDonald. 2006: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 328. Page 15.500.15
. Page 15.263.914. Fortenberry, N.L., Sullivan, J.F., Jordan, P.N., Knight, D.W. (2007). Retention: Engineering education Research aids instruction. Science, 317(5842), 1175-1176.15. Rhoten, D., Pfirman, S. (2006) Women in interdisciplinary science: exploring preferences and consequences. Research Policy, 36, 56-75. Page 15.263.10Appendix ACareerWISE: An Interdisciplinary Experience for Graduate StudentsQuestions for Team Members The following questions will be used to help us better understand the experiences of students and faculty members who work on a large, interdisciplinary research team. Please respond to the
15.674.12improvement in programs and services8. Page – 11 -The management of SBT places a high premium on on-going self-assessment to monitor therigor, quality, and effectiveness of each of its academic programs. With the on-going self-assessment, SBT not only assesses the results of program outcomes but also continuouslyevaluates its “assessment process” to establish a systematic and sustained assessmentapproach and create an assessment environment that is receptive, supportive and enabling.Bibliography1. Anwar, S., Rolle, J.A.,& Memon A. A. (2005), Use of Web-based Portfolios to Assess Technical Competencies of Engineering Technology Students –A Case Study. Proceedings: 2005 ASEE Annual Conference
. Theauthor would also like to thank Darla Cooper, Michelle Barton, and Kathy Booth of the @ONEScholars Program, and Charles Iverson of Cañada College for invaluable input, discussions,comments, and suggestions.References1. Birk, J., & Foster, J. (1993). The importance of Lecture in General Chemistry Course Performance. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 180-182.2. Meltzer, D. E., & K. Manivannan, K. (1996). Promoting Interactivity in Physics Lecture Classes. The Phys. Teacher, 34, 72-76.3. Felder, R.M., Felder, G. N. & Dietz, E. J. (1998). A Longitudinal Study of Engineering Student Performance and Retention. V. Comparisons with Traditionally-Taught Students, J. Engr. Education, 87, 469-480.4. Rodger, S. H. (1995). An
Outsourcing Trends”, Computer Economics, 2006(http://www.computereconomics.com/article.cfm?id=1161)4. “Outsourcing Trends to Watch in 2010”, Computer World, December 2009(http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142427/10_outsourcing_trends_to_watch_in_2010) .5. “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Technology Programs, Effective for Evaluations During the 2010-2011Accreditation Cycle”. ABET Technology Accreditation Commission. October 2009.(http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Criteria%20and%20PP/T001%2010-11%20TAC%20Criteria%2011-3-09.pdf ) Page 15.934.13