institutional budget allotments to those departments.Figure 1. Customization of the Comm Lab structure to suit each institution’s needs, internalorganization, and funding mechanisms. At MIT, a central Comm Lab administration overseesdiscipline-specific Comm Labs that are embedded within each participating department in theSchool of Engineering. Each departmental Comm Lab has its own assigned manager. TheBrandeis Comm Lab is a centralized resource that serves all seven departments within theDivision of Science, with one director overseeing all operations. At Rose-Hulman, the CommLab is currently embedded within the school’s makerspace, and may in the future be expanded toserve all undergraduates in a senior capstone
, blogs, wikis, etc.).Our department offers Master of Science degree programs in both Engineering Management andManagement Science. Each program of study consists of 36 semester hours and includes aculminating capstone experience. The Probability & Statistics for Engineers course, in additionto being a core requirement for each degree program, serves as either a pre- or co-requisite formany other courses in our program. Additionally, the course fulfills a math or technical electivefor other majors in the School of Engineering. Currently, The Probability & Statistics forEngineers course is offered three times per year (fall, spring, and summer) in a traditionalclassroom setting. Fall and spring terms consist of 16-week semesters while the
. Christopher M Weyant, Drexel University Dr. Weyant has been an Associate Teaching Professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engi- neering at Drexel University since 2011. Prior to this position, he was an Assistant Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at Stony Brook University. He earned his doctorate from Northwestern Uni- versity, master’s from the University of Virginia and his bachelor’s from Pennsylvania State University. In addition to his experience in academia, Dr. Weyant has worked at Honeywell Aerospace, Capstone Turbine Corporation and Sandia National Laboratories.Dr. Robert L. Nagel, James Madison University Dr. Robert Nagel is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering at
(2007) to an engineering problem frame of reference and the physical posed to them (the Midwest location codes, with kappa values of .748 Floods problem). and .746 respectively.”Kong, Douglas, In the “qualitative study of “The kappa values were found to be 100%Rodgers, Diefes- student team projects,” the for the definition category, 93% for theDux, & research team used constant evaluation category, and 84% for theMadhavan (2017) comparative analysis to comparison category.” analyze student work products, specifically their
].Survey Design and MethodologyThis research project was reviewed and determined to be exempt by our college’s InstitutionalReview Board (IRB). Our experimental setup consisted of two groups of students at a largeMidwestern R1 University, in an undergraduate, pre-capstone SE course. We utilized a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest hybrid between groups and within groups design for this study. Thecontrol and treatment groups consisted of successive cohorts of sophomores/juniors from CS andComputer Engineering, one section each. This SE course was a mandatory component of theiracademic progression towards earning their degree.The treatment group was taught using PI while the control group received instruction throughtraditional lectures. The
findings. Assessment Instrument Overview As described in the Introduction, we chose to use these 3 constructs (of 6 available from the Intercultural Knowledge and Competence VALUE Rubric) to evaluate participant intercultural awareness gained through M&M programming: Cultural SelfAwareness (knowledge), Openness (skills) and Empathy (attitude). Our research team chose this instrument because of the theoretical alignment with our research objectives. Theoretical perspectives in which this instrument is grounded were also described in the Introduction. Regarding criteria for assessing at each level of this rubric, one moves progressively from Benchmark (1) to Milestones (2, 3) and then to Capstone (4
Paper ID #37969Toy Adaptation in a Laboratory Course: An Examination of LaboratoryInterests and Career MotivationsDr. Alyssa Catherine Taylor, University of California, San Diego Dr. Alyssa Taylor is an Associate Teaching Professor in the Shu Chien-Gene Lay Department of Bioengi- neering at the University of California San Diego. Dr. Taylor has twelve years of experience teaching across bioengineering laboratory, introductory, and capstone design classes. Through work such as toy adaptation described in this paper, Dr. Taylor seeks to prepare students to engage in Universal Design and consider accessibility in their
York. Dr. Barry holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Rochester Institute of Tech- nology, a Master of Science degree from University of Colorado at Boulder, and a PhD from Purdue University. Prior to pursuing a career in academics, Dr. Barry spent 10-years as a senior geotechnical engineer and project manager on projects throughout the United States. He is a licensed professional en- gineer in multiple states. Dr. Barry’s areas of research include assessment of professional ethics, teaching and learning in engineering education, nonverbal communication in the classroom, and learning through historical engineering accomplishments. He has authored and co-authored a significant number of journal articles and
expressly devoted to the first-year Engineering Program at Northeastern University. Recently, she has joined the expanding Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at NU to continue teaching Simulation, Facilities Planning, and Human-Machine Systems. She also serves as a Technical Advisor for Senior Capstone Design and graduate-level Challenge Projects in Northeastern’s Gordon Engineering Leadership Program. Dr. Jaeger has been the recipient of numerous awards in engineering education for both teaching and mentoring and has been involved in several engineering educational research initiatives through ASEE and beyond.Dr. Courtney Pfluger, Northeastern University Dr. Courtney Pfluger received her Doctoral degree
schools, are responding to theseserious issues with training, task forces, student groups, counseling services, and concertedattempts to shift the culture towards openness and accountability [30]. Further, there areprograms that actually center social justice, community engagement, and humility regardingprivilege and power are growing. Some examples include the Colorado School of Mines, MercerUniversity, Oregon State University, and Villanova University [31]–[34]. These not onlydemonstrate care for people and the environment impacted by engineering projects, but alsoencourages students to care for each other.An Ethic of Care may provide a framework through which engineering faculty and staff atuniversities can improve their cultures to be more
). Page 26.871.6Data CollectionStudents agreed to participate in a one-hour data collection session, with 30 minutes devoted toeach participant’s concept. Each participant was asked to bring a previously defined concept forthe project they were engaged in within their course, and all students had been previouslyrequired to complete some form of user or market research to inform their project. The entireexercise was audio and video recorded (Figure 2), and all sketches and notes the participantsgenerated were retained and scanned for further analysis.The empathic walkthrough method was conducted twice for each dyad, with each participant’sconcept serving as an encapsulated use of the method, approximately 30 minutes in duration.Dyad A was used as
engineers, students will be comforted to know they can achieve success inengineering and be prepared for the issues they will face in the field. By including social contextfor engineering design, the next generation of engineers will create socially conscious designs andfight for equity in their future careers. This inclusion of social context should be in the forms ofcase studies, debates, or role play, capstone projects rather than just historical examples, whichwill teach students how to critically think about such issues and consider ways in which largersocial structures serve to empower or disenfranchise people. Furthermore, education shouldinclude inclusivity training to discuss issues of equality and inclusion, including gender equity inthe
diversity education into first year is an obviousimmediately achievable goal, with many programs already incorporating some elements atpresent. Another obvious place to include a deep dive in diversity would be in courses on ethicsand professionalism, or in co-op and capstone experiences. Here lessons about diversity can bereadily applied in workplace contexts, and future employers can readily build on educationaloutcomes in industry training settings. Finally, we must seriously consider how to build diversityeducation into the engineering core courses. One easily implementable way to do this would beto identify and highlight achievers in the field who are members of diverse groups. Studentscould do this as an assignment initially, and profiles
. McNair, Virginia Tech Lisa D. McNair is a Professor of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech, where she also serves as Director of the Center for Research in SEAD Education at the Institute for Creativity, Arts, and Technology (ICAT). Her research interests include interdisciplinary collaboration, design education, communication studies, identity theory and reflective practice. Projects supported by the National Science Foundation include exploring disciplines as cultures, liberatory maker spaces, and a RED grant to increase pathways in ECE for the professional formation of engineers.Dr. Marie C. Paretti, Virginia Tech Marie C. Paretti is a Professor of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech, where she co-directs the
, &Lee (2006) found that nearly all workplace problems are complex and ill-structured. Studentsoften only encounter complex ill-defined problems at the end of their four year engineeringprogram and enter the workforce without these critical skills requiring more on the job training.3How can we prepare students to solve these ill-defined complex problems that they willencounter as working engineers? The Vanderbilt-Northwestern-Texas-Harvard/MIT (VaNTH)Engineering Research Center attempted to answer this question in a Biomedical Engineeringcontext. The VaNTH project designed a biotransport engineering curriculum to help studentsdevelop innovation and efficiency.4,5,6 Innovation was operationalized as the adaptive ability toperform well in
Assistant Professor in the Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, and the Troost Institute for Leadership Education in Engineering (ILead). She completed her PhD at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) studying product development decision-making during complex industry projects. Dr. Olechowski completed her BSc (Engineering) at Queen’s University and her MS at MIT, both in Mechanical Engineering. Dr. Olechowski and her research group Ready Lab study the processes and tools that teams of engineers use in industry as they design innovative new products. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020
components of the engineering curriculum—in engineering sciences, engineering design, and humanities and social science courses; that work resulted in Engineering Justice: Transforming Engineering Education and Practice (Wiley-IEEE Press, 2018). His current research grant project explores how to foster and assess sociotechnical thinking in engineering science and design courses.Dr. Ann D. Christy P.E., The Ohio State University Ann D. Christy, PE, is a professor of Food, Agricultural, and Biological Engineering and a professor of Engineering Education at the Ohio State University (OSU). She earned both her B.S. in agricultural engineering and M.S. in biomedical engineering at OSU, and her Ph.D. in environmental
University of Colorado Boulder. Her teaching focuses on fate and transport of contaminants, capstone design and aqueous chemistry. Dr. Bolhari is passionate about broad- ening participation in engineering through community-based participatory action research. Her research interests explore the boundaries of engineering and social science to understand evolution of resilience capacity at family and community level to sustainable practices utilizing quantitative and qualitative re- search methods.Dr. Daniel Ivan Castaneda, James Madison University Daniel I. Castaneda is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering at James Madison Univer- sity. Daniel earned his PhD in 2016 and his Master’s in 2010, both in civil
classstructure and teaching practices allows researchers and instructors to determine how to augment aclass for a clearer and easier learning experience.There are many related articles that focus on at least one of the domains of learning for engineeringstudents; however, most have different focuses or are not directly applicable to this paper’sresearch. For example, many related studies were testing or creating a tool used to evaluate a class'sability to teach with one or more of the domains, versus testing how to better teach one or all ofthe domains or discover how students learn with each domain [8-13]. One of these studies createda teaching template for schools so they are more aware of what engineering students should learnduring their capstone
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.Shouka Farrokh, University of British Columbia Shouka Farrokh is an undergraduate student pursuing Psychology at The University of British Columbia. She contributes as a research assistant in Engineering Education projects focusing on STEM Outreach initiatives.Dr. Katherine Lyon, University of British Columbia Katherine Lyon is Assistant Professor of Teaching in the Department of Sociology at the University of British Columbia. Katherine’s research merges sociology of education
, an outcome spaceemerged with five main categories of description about the kinds of obstacles studentsencountered in regard to the hiring process in computing and industry practices: Uncertainty,interview techniques, time demands of preparation, anxiety management, and improvinginclusivity. Yet, our goal was not to focus on the issues faced, but the solutions to resolve them.As such, the perceptions of the students’ experiences guided the creation of a set ofrecommendations for students, academia, and industry, to mitigate concerns with the currentprocess and to consider avenues for improvement.1 IntroductionOver the next decade, computer and information technology occupations are projected to rise11% [1]. However, disparities in the
study created ateaching template for schools so they are more aware of what engineering students should learnduring their capstone research [15]. Another study tested the program EvalTOOLs 6 to determinehow well a class performed in connecting to each of the three domains and how it may be helpfulfor determining which domains need more development [13]. A related study tried to evaluateeach hierarchical level with an analysis of students’ grades [6]. Other studies attempted to developnew analytic tools to evaluate students learning with the cognitive domain [7], [14].Another related study focused on testing a few hierarchical levels instead of reviewing learningthrough all of the hierarchical levels of the cognitive domain [8]. One article
Engineering and Technology (ABET) has made anexplicit statement in its criteria that engineering programs must demonstrate that their students arehave “an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility”. Many engineering schoolshave developed various trails to deliver ethical contents, either through creating standing aloneethical courses, or through embedding the ethical topics in traditional engineering courses,typically capstone design. This pragmatic approach has been supported by engineeringprofessional societies such as NSPE, ASME, IEEE, etc. which historically have played a crucialrole in shaping the content of US engineering ethics education (Downey & Lucena 2004). Underthe general principle of “doing no harm”, each association
WorcesterPolytechnic Institute (WPI) as a part of the school’s humanities capstone program, especiallyincluding experiences around a recent showcase of LGBTQ+-themed plays at the university.Their paper began from and substantiated the same starting point as this present study: thattheater experiences at a technical university provide a space that supports a “culture ofinclusivity.” However, their study focused primarily on showing how WPI’s theater programcontributes to such a culture and focuses on implications for liberal education, while this presentone is more provocative in stance, asking how the University Dramatic Society that I study couldinform sociotechnical practice more broadly. Furthermore, the papers diverge in methodology:while DiBiasio and
hearing what [they] had to say and interacting with people’s opinions that differed from my own such as theirs. I recognize this is a major hindrance and flaw in myself, as I believe one of the great problems of our world today is not listening and hearing what others have to say, which often differ than our own opinions. By the end of our class, I gained a new respect for [named student] and [their] viewpoints. I believe that the T-Group has helped me to become a significantly more effective leader, in that I’m attempting to more fully consider everyone’s needs and working styles as the project goes on. It is nice to know that I can be influenced in positive ways like that. That could also explain why I have influence in the
affordances.My reactions. I enjoyed seeing what the students had chosen, and appreciated having 25readings with which to help them explore the field. I also really enjoyed having the studentscurate the readings and then reading what they choose--this helped me get up to date withreadings in my field and read in areas that are not my personal interest.1b. The student’s story. In this section, I (the student) share thoughts I documented about why Ihad chosen the papers that I chose. This reflection highlights my curation process – I mainlypicked papers that piqued my interest based on the subject. I connect the title of one paper to myexperiences as an undergraduate student on a senior capstone team. I connect the subject ofanother paper to my research