isapproximately $114.In addition to the kit, each laboratory group will need a computer with MATLAB/Simulink and anetwork connection to the Raspberry Pi. The license for MATLAB and Simulink have not beenincluded in the cost of either lab setup because it is assumed that a school with an existingcontrols curriculum will already have a site license.A kit has been developed that will replace the technical functionality of four out of the six labsfor GE320. It is currently about $30 over the target, however with bulk ordering and diligentprice comparisons the kit cost could be reduced even further. GE320 Lab 2 could not bereplicated with this kit, at this time it is not clear if the educational objectives it to be included inthe curriculum. This lab could be
‘right’ answer is unnerving to students. Open-‐ended design problem-‐solving is a difficult concept for faculty to teach to students and for students to learn and internalize from faculty because addressing open-‐ended design problems requires an integrative approach that is not taught in analytic courses. In this study we have developed and refined the curriculum to produce students who are capable of, and confident in, holistically addressing open-‐ended problems in a design context. We have started the process of tracking our students’ comfort in addressing open-‐ended problems. To achieve this, we have taken a “baseline snapshot” of the
the ABET learningoutcome requirements as a foundation for the development of the proposed knowledge and skillsfor each graduate. The data collected resulted in further industry engagement in programimplementation and outreach and helped develop a learning program that will equip architecturalengineering students with the ability to adjust to the evolving demands of the building sector.The paper will highlight experiences throughout the process, a review of similar programs, aswell as examples of the program outcomes, rubrics, and curriculum map.I. IntroductionThe College of Architecture and the College of Engineering at Texas A&M University arepartnering to develop an integrated program in Architectural Engineering (AREN). The
simply manner and then revisited at a higher level ofsophistication in subsequent courses, as the students’ mathematical prowess develops. Figure 1. “Spiral” curriculum The administration of the courses in the spiral curriculum is awkward within a standarddiscipline-based department structure and has been handled in an ad hoc manner for many years.Also, as further curricular innovations were developed and more and more faculty becameinvolved in engineering education research, a need for leadership and coordination of activitiesemerged. In order to maintain the integrity of the curriculum it is essential that its managementbe separated from specific degree programs and yet faculty from those degree programs
Society for Engineering Education”At the last meeting, it was announced that Lotus Notes was “dead” as a vehicle to promote thelong desired “communities of learners” envisioned by Dr. Abeles in 1995. Instead, “Blackboard”,an on-line electronic delivery system, will be used to promote this concept and serve as a databaseof information for both students and faculty in the future. Most of the faculty present thought thatthis approach had a more realistic chance of succeeding or at least being useful! Indeed, the 2003summer faculty conference will focus on curriculum fine tuning, the use of Blackboard, and, asalways, the integration of the soft skills into the classroom [5].What about the future? The
will be tested. Additionally, thetime and effort to develop and review objectives before teaching the class highlights any gapsand deficiencies in the curriculum. “When clearly defined goals are lacking, it is impossible toevaluate a course or program efficiently, and there is no sound basis for selecting appropriatematerials, content, or instructional methods.”6 In line with the concept of “continuousimprovement” we intend to formally meet and review the objectives, strengths, and weaknessesof each course to assure that each course remains integrated and relevant.While developing the learning objectives for each course we referred to Bloom’s Taxonomy ofCognitive Domain7 to insure that we were teaching at an appropriate level. While it is
Session 2561 To Arrive Where We Started and Know the Place for the First Time? Re-visioning Technical Communication Kathryn A. Neeley Technology, Culture, and Communication/University of VirginiaTeachers of technical communication are likely to welcome the emphasis the ABET 2000accreditation criteria place on effective communication as an integral component of engineeringpreparation and practice. But we would do well to remember that we are hardly the first toattempt to transform engineering education by giving communication a more prominent place inthe curriculum.’ Engineering educators
students and professors. However, to integrate ethicsmodules more thoroughly across the engineering curriculum a systematic approach is requiredwith proper accounting of teaching load for ethics/philosophy faculty who lecture in multiplecourses. For efficiency, an ethics case-study database with assignment and discussion questionsshould be maintained, and an online module could be explored with in-class facilitateddiscussion.Introduction With the rapid advancement of technology and integration within all aspects of our society,the ethical implications of our engineering decisions are growing in importance. Engineeringprofessionals have a duty to design and manufacture products that are used to improve the livesof others. In the workplace
integrated throughout their curriculum in a developmentally appropriateway? The success of Douglas L. Jamerson, Jr. Elementary School Center for Mathematics andEngineering Program, Pinellas County, FL, is largely built upon the track we took in answeringthis question. Over three years ago as we began to build an engineering program for our brandnew school, we knew that teacher professional development would be the key to our success. Atthat time, there were a few model options. Although a “turn-key” curriculum was not available,there were some commercial products that did provide an engineering element for elementaryeducation. Such packages have the attractive component that “training” would be provided bythe vender and the classroom materials were
assessments have been added, they typically do nottake place until late elementary school, and so science may not be consistently taught in thoseyears prior. For all of these reasons, in-service teachers are apprehensive about teaching sciencein a more inquiry based manner and adding engineering—an unknown and untested subject—totheir already limited instructional day (Carson and Campbell, 2007). One of the ways we haveaddressed this complex issue in North Carolina is through intentional integration of engineeringthrough the science curriculum goals (http://www.ncpublicschools.org/curriculum/science/). Inthe kindergarten and first grade years, we focus on development of foundational skills inengineering: the design process (EiE’s five point iterative
of work 0.499. My motivation for teaching science is to promote an enjoyment of learning 0.5210. I believe DET should be integrated into the K-12 curriculum 0.5311. I am interested in learning more about DET though workshops 0.6812. I am interested in learning more about DET through college courses 0.3413. In a science curriculum, it is important to include the use of engineering in developing 0.48 new technologies14. I am interested to learning more about DET through peer training 0.5415. My motivation for teaching science is to help students develop an
engineering departments and vertically integrated through all fouryears. The program combines leading-edge computer and instrumentation technology withthe knowledge and confidence that comes with hands-on, project-based learning.The cornerstone of this new program is the 34,400 sq. ft. ITL Laboratory, which opened itsdoors in January 1997. The laboratory’s curriculum-driven design accommodates a varietyof learning styles and features two first-year design studios, an active-learning arena for 70students, a computer simulation laboratory, a computer network integrating all theexperimental equipment throughout two large, open laboratory plazas, capstone designstudios, group work areas and student shops. The building itself is even an
trainingaviation maintenance technicians in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 147 areadded to the traditional academic requirements, a total of 1900 (student clock) hours must beintegrated and the challenge becomes even greater. Training aviation maintenance students is anextremely complex process, and programs should include transportable “soft skills” such as thefour “C’s” presented in this paper.Historical PerspectiveAn ideal formula for establishing an aviation maintenance curriculum would be to develop itbased upon what the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) require, and what industry needs.Although the FARs provide general subject matter topics, and specify a level of proficiencywhich the student must possess upon completion, they
interdisciplinarysolutions to complex infrastructure challenges. In October 2018, the University of Puerto Ricoreceived a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) collaborative award from the National ScienceFoundation (NSF) to develop an integrated curriculum on resilient and sustainable infrastructure.The project titled “Resilient Infrastructure and Sustainability Education – UndergraduateProgram (RISE-UP) aims to educate future environmental designers and engineers to design andbuild a more resilient and sustainable infrastructure for Puerto Rico.This paper presents the design, initial implementation, and assessment of a curriculumencompassing synergistic interactions among these four domains: integrated project delivery,user-centered design, interdisciplinary problem
holistic education as priorities, extending the impact and involvement offaculty to the rest of the School, instead of a dedicated few working in isolation.Discussion and Future Work These strategies not only represent a way of integrating cognitive, affective, andinterpersonal skills into an engineering curriculum; they also serve to bolster existing learningoutcomes, particular those from ABET. Learning outcomes surrounding the 3Cs have been linkedto various ABET student outcomes [19]: teaming and story-driven learning to understand failuresupport ABET student outcome 5, and value sensitive design can be leveraged to address ABETstudent outcome 4. This, combined with a comprehensive approach leveraging individuals,connected courses, and
that responsibility should bedistributed across the entire . . .curriculum” (Perelman, p. 65). 5The Technical Communication Community Adds Specificity to the Evaluation Criteria byDistinguishing Among Different Models of Integration In the same year as Liberal Education for Twenty-First Century Engineering waspublished, Reave (2004) published a survey of technical communication instruction at top-ranked U.S. and Canadian programs. Although several organizations and journals are devoted totechnical communication, we highlight Reave’s paper because it takes an approach that isvaluable but seldom pursued: going beyond a single course
2Project Planning, Curriculum Integration, Fund Raising and Team Support, VehicleTesting and Driver Training, and Logistics were also discussed in the proposal. Iexplained how we plan to meet all of the specifications listed in the Sunrayce ‘97Regulations.3 Proposals submitted by different universities were evaluated and scored bySunrayce officials. We were selected as one of the top 30 teams to receive an award of$2000. Currently, 60 teams have registered to compete in Sunrayce 97. The list includesMIT, Yale, Texas A&M, Stanford, University of Michigan, and several universities fromCanada. We are building our second solar car, the Solaraider II. Many undergraduatestudents, the Engineering Technology and Industrial Studies Chair, the Dean of
graduate students and hidden curriculum in engineering.Dr. Diana Chen, University of San Diego Dr. Diana A. Chen is an Assistant Professor of Integrated Engineering at the University of San Diego. She joined the Shiley-Marcos School of Engineering in 2016. Her research interests are in areas of sustainable design, including biomimicry and adaptability in structural, city, and regional applications. Additionally, her scholarship includes topics such as curriculum development, contextualization of fundamental engi- neering sciences and integrating social justice into engineering education. She earned her MS and PhD in Civil Engineering from Clemson University, and her BS in Engineering from Harvey Mudd College
Paper ID #32800A Student Groupwork Spectrum for Engineering Design CollaborationDr. Katherine Levenick Shirey, EduKatey Dr. Katey Shirey’s work stems from her combined interests in science, art, and education. Dr. Shirey graduated from the University of Virginia with bachelor’s degrees in physics and sculpture. She received her master’s in secondary science education, also from Virginia, and taught Physics at Washington-Liberty High School in Arlington, VA. Dr. Shirey received her Ph.D. in 2017 from the University of Maryland in Curriculum and Instruction with a focus on teacher challenges and productive resources for
; Soloway, 1998) and implement an engineering course re-design.Re-designing curriculum using an inquiry-based learning approach is a vital step in addressingthis serious gap in student achievement (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Brown, Collins, & Duguid,1989; Fosnot & Perry, 2005). A recent national report (Katehi, Pearson, & Feder, 2009)advocates identifying and introducing engineering content in school curricula to improve STEM Page 24.242.3learning by integrating mathematics and science education through engineering applications.This report correlates with the NRC’s recent release of the aforementioned A Framework for K-12 Science
other areas of the curriculum. This includes such topics as critical thinking, problemsolving, and consideration of realistic constraints, safety, environmental concerns, esthetics,economics, etc. Proceedings of the 2006 ASEE Mid-Atlantic Conference Another method for students to learn ethics is to integrate an engineering ethics course intoother courses in the curriculum. For example, select problems from an engineering economicscourse and embed engineering ethical constraints. A practical example of an embedded ethicalproblem using engineering economics is provided below. (3) A small dam is being planned for a river tributary that is subject to frequent flooding.From past experience, the probabilities that water
years,students will choose one of three concentrations: environmental engineering, sustainable builtenvironments engineering, or electrical and computer engineering. These concentrations buildon the expertise and resources that already exist on campus.Each year, the entire cohort will take an interdisciplinary project course that integrates thecontent that students are learning that year, and builds necessary skills in project management,communication skills, working in teams and working with communities or other stakeholders.Additionally, we have planned the curriculum for students to be able to travel abroad during theFall of their Junior year, to work with communities in different cultures and settings, and expandtheir perspectives in
- terials, and the nanoscale origins of friction. His educational activities include studies of the effect of integrating computation into engineering curriculum and leading STEM Achievement in Baltimore Ele- mentary Schools (SABES) an NSF funded community based STEM enhancement effort for grades 3-5 in three Baltimore city neighborhoods.Mr. Mike Reese, Johns Hopkins University Michael Reese is the Associate Director at the Johns Hopkins Center for Educational Resources. Reese previously worked as an Educational Technologist at Caliber Learning and Booz-Allen and Hamilton. He also consulted with the University of Maryland School of Nursing on the launch of their distance education program. He earned an M.Ed. in
separatecourses. However, many institutions have moved to integrate design courses through the four-year curriculum as an integrator not only for the engineering courses but through the entirecurriculum. 10-11Engineering educators in the 21st century are challenged to restructure higher educationcreatively to continue producing well-educated graduates and to maintain the leadership incutting-edge research. To accomplish it, we need to work in interdisciplinary research teamsinside and outside the university, including industry, government, K-12, and other countries. 12To do that, we need to integrate research and teaching, summer workshops with high schoolteachers and students, design and develop facilities to integrate teaching and hands-onexperiments
of and engagement inengineering. However, many teachers do not have robust understandings of engineering and theirstudents may not have opportunities to engage in engineering. The COVID-19 Pandemic haslikely further decreased opportunities for elementary students to engage in engineering as theirteachers grappled with reduced contact time, integration of new technologies and pedagogicalapproaches, and remote/virtual learning. The purpose of this qualitative case study was todescribe how an elementary teacher attended to engineering instruction during virtual learningdespite the barriers presented by the pandemic. Aleshia was purposefully selected from a largersample of 22 grade K-6 teachers because she included engineering in her virtual
Society for Engineering Educationlike. Distributed grading is a procedure for exposing the outcomes based information containedin our current assessment procedures. Consider the following example.The grades for a single student for one complete course are illustrated in Figure 1. The usualassessment methods are represented in the first column with the weighting factors that arenormally assigned by the instructor in the course. The Curriculum Performance Criteria havebeen used as categories for the Assessment Performance Criteria (see Appendix III) and aresummarized in the adjacent columns. The assessment methods are subdivided into elements(questions in an exam) as usual except that each element is targeted to one or more AssessmentPerformance
early1990’s. It was understood that a FEM theory was not necessary to learn the usage of FEAsimulation. FEA simulation was included as a part of solid modeling in an engineering designgraphics course [11]. Ural et. al. [12] have developed a project for first year course incorporatingFEA simulation. In that project, the behavior of a SMARTBEAM® was examined usingexperimental measurement and FEA simulation and the results were compared. For all these firstyear courses FEA was used only as a simulation tool and the philosophy was that the underlyingFEA theory or the knowledge of mechanics was not necessary.Papadopoulos et al. [13] proposed a different pedagogy on integration of FEA practicethroughout the undergraduate CE/ME curriculum. They
Science in SoftwareEngineering (MSSE) degree program. The program emphasizes the integration of systems andsoftware engineering concepts. The MSSE is a professional, classroom and/or online, degreeprogram, focusing on developing graduates capable of defining, developing, testing, andmaintaining complex software systems by using system requirements engineering techniques thatintegrate hardware, software, human factors, economic, and application considerations. Page 25.1346.3This paper presents an overview of the revised MSSE degree program. Background on theGSwERC curriculum is first presented in Section 2. Section 3 then presents the revised
ASEE North Central Section Outstanding Teaching Award (2004), and both the CECS Excellence in Service (2004) and Excellence in Teaching (2002) awards at Wright State University.Richard Mercer, Wright State University RICHARD E. MERCER is an Associate Professor in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics at Wright State University. He received his Ph.D. in Mathematics from the University of Washington in 1980. Professor Mercer is active in curriculum reform, and has led an NSF supported effort to integrate Mathematica laboratory sessions into the freshman calculus sequence at Wright State University.Kuldip Rattan, Wright State University KULDIP S. RATTAN is a Professor in the
andComputer Engineering (ECE). This paper describes how the department is implementing a newpedagogical and organizational model in which the curriculum is no longer treated as a set ofdisparate courses taught in unconnected pieces, but as an integrated system that fosterscollaboration among faculty and students. Calling for a holistic view of the ECE degree, theteam’s approach is novel because they are, in effect, throwing away courses, yet their vision canbe realized within the structural barriers inherent in higher education.In a discipline known for being rigorous and inherently abstract, ECE faculty are stepping out oftheir traditionally autonomous roles to bolster retention by approaching the undergraduateengineering degree as a complex system