Dean for Graduate Studies in Purdue University’s College of Technology. He was co-PI of two international EU-FIPSE funded grants. His scholarship agenda focuses on techno- logical innovation, technological literacy, workforce development, and international dimensions of these fields. Increasingly, he has turned his attention to the field of technological innovation and the assessment of technological capability, understanding and innovation. Internationally he has worked in Germany, South Africa, Poland, the USSR, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Ire- land, Scotland, England, France, Czech and Slovak Republics, Finland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Taiwan His early experience involved teaching in Alberta and at
2006-1920: TRIANGULATING TC2K ASSESSMENT RESULTS BY USINGSTUDENT SURVEYSTimothy Skvarenina, Purdue University Dr. Skvarenina received the BSEE and MSEE degrees from the Illinois Institute of Technology and the Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Purdue University. He served 21 years in the U.S. Air Force, in a variety of engineering and teaching positions. In the fall of 1991, he joined the faculty of the College of Technology at Purdue University where he currently holds the rank of Professor and teaches undergraduate courses in electrical machines and power systems and serves as the department assessment coordinator. He has authored or coauthored over 30 papers in the areas of power
Science and Engineering at the San Francisco State University. Dr. Ozer is an editorial board members of Journal of Solar Energy and Materials and American Journal of Engineering Education. She also serves as faculty advisor for the Collegiate chapters of Society of Hispanic professional Engineers (SHPE), National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE) and Society of Women Engineers (SWE). She has 25 years of teaching and research experience at different universities and research institutions in Europe and the United States. Dr. Ozer also worked as a consultant in science and engineering education for United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) from 1989 to 1993. Dr. Ozer’s research
“program evaluator competency model” to specify the competencies thatsuccessful program evaluators exhibit. This model includes six major categories: technicallycurrent, effective at communicating, interpersonally skilled, team-oriented, professional, andorganized.17In comparison, CEEAA accepted most of the same qualifications/competencies provided byABET, including six basic qualifications. For instance, similar to ABET, CEEAA requires“accreditation experts” to “know scientific, technological, and engineering advances in their ownfields”, “have abundant teaching, administrative, and working experience”, “have disciplinarybackground necessary for accreditation”, and “have strong working, organizational, andcommunicative competencies.”17 However
fruit of her work. This is the single most rewarding part of advising seniors: the fundamental reciprocity of the learning-teaching experience." • "[My advisee] addressed…topics that I had considered, taught, and written about before. But our year of cooperation gave me ideas I had not had before - and by that I mean not only that I had new thoughts; I also mean that I found myself correcting errors I had made, changing my mind, realizing that issues I had not thought significant actually counted, and questions I had thought important might be well left aside." • "Because her angle on the material was so fresh, [her] thesis taught me a great deal about two authors I had already known
engineering competency development, systems thinking and systems engineering education. Alice is the Chair of the Systems Engineering Division of ASEE and has a Masters in Business Administration (MBA) and Bachelors of Science in Electrical Engineering (BSEE). Alice received the Stevens Institute of Technology Provost’s Online Teaching Excellence Award in 2007.Jon Wade, Ph.D., Stevens Institute of Technology Jon Wade, Ph.D. is the Associate Dean of Research at the School of Systems and Enterprises at the Stevens Institute of Technology. Dr. Wade’s research interests include the transformation of systems engineering, Enterprise Systems and Systems of Systems, and the use of technology in technical workforce develop- ment
AC 2011-881: PROGRAMS AND PRACTICES MAKING A DIFFERENCE:A CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS IDENTIFYING PROGRAMS AND FACTORSTHAT INFLUENCE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF WOMEN EN-GINEERING STUDENTSLois Calian Trautvetter, Northwestern University Lois Calian Trautvetter Assistant Professor of Education and Director, Higher Education Administration and Policy Program, Northwestern University, l-trautvetter@northwestern.edu Dr. Trautvetter studies faculty development and productivity issues, including those that enhance teaching and research, motivation, and new and junior faculty development. She also studies gender issues in the STEM disciplines.Rose M. Marra, University of Missouri, Columbia Rose M. Marra, Ph.D. is an Associate
AC 2012-3154: CREATING AND SUSTAINING PRODUCTIVE RESEARCHGROUPS IN GRADUATE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS: RESULTS FROMA FACULTY AND FUTURE FACULTY WORKSHOPMr. John Andrew Janeski, Virginia Tech John Andrew Janeski is a Dean’s Teaching Fellow and Ph.D. candidate in the Aerospace and Ocean Engineering Department. His primary research interests center around spacecraft dynamics and control. However, the Dean’s Teaching Fellowship has afforded him the opportunity to pursue research topics that span his experiences as a graduate student and instructor. He earned his bachelor’s degree in physics from Rhodes College.Dr. Erin Crede, Virginia Tech Erin D. Crede completed her Ph.D. in engineering education from Virginia Tech
talked about theneed for more projects with the goal of developing innovation described it as follows: “But maybe some more opportunities to do your own projects or choose from a bunch instead of going in and turning some dials according to this prescribed little lecture they had planned.” “When you’re in college and taking classes and regurgitating what the teacher teaches you, that’s tough. I think that really falls to the teachers in those courses to create – push the students and create some innovative projects to incorporate with the criteria that they’re teaching.”According to the participants, incorporating more of these projects into the curriculum wouldhave the additional benefit of helping
paradigm proposed here combines the advantages of laboratory teaching (e.g., hands-on experience) with an effective teaching of scientific methods and problem solving [1]. Ofcourse, a primary benefit of this method is that students play an active role in tackling ab-stract concepts, which have not been traditionally conducive to such participation. Further-more, these exercises result in an improved competency of the students in using spreadsheetsfor engineering purposes, thus preparing them better for their future professional endeav-ors. [1] The novelty of the proposed technique resides in its objective to illustrate abstractconcepts. This is a departure from prior efforts to use spreadsheets, CFD, or software toolssuch as Mathcad in the engineering
,” Asia-Pac. Educ. Res., vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 375–394, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s40299-020-00525-x.[10] T. Gok and O. Gok, “Peer Instruction in chemistry education: Assessment of students’ learning strategies,” Learn. Strateg., vol. 17, no. 1, 2016.[11] M. F. Golde, C. L. McCreary, and R. Koeske, “Peer Instruction in the general chemistry laboratory: Assessment of student learning,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 83, no. 5, p. 804, May 2006, doi: 10.1021/ed083p804.[12] N. Lasry, E. Mazur, and J. Watkins, “Peer Instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college,” Am. J. Phys., vol. 76, no. 11, pp. 1066–1069, Nov. 2008, doi: 10.1119/1.2978182.[13] J. Schell and E. Mazur, “Flipping the chemistry classroom with Peer
improve the approaches used in theapprenticeship model of research, ultimately benefiting both students and mentors. © American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 2024 ASEE Midwest Section ConferenceReferences[1] Boyer Commission, “Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities,” Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, Room 310, Administration Bldg, 1998. Accessed: May 01, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED424840[2] M. Healey, F. Jordan, B. Pell, and C. Short, “The research–teaching nexus: A case study of students’ awareness, experiences and perceptions of research,” Innov. Educ. Teach
presentation.Background – What we have doneFor the past 12 years we have been developing a pedagogy that combines aspects of Cooperative,Hands-on, Active and Problem based Learning into a unique classroom environment, which we refer toby the acronym CHAPL. This has been developed in a required second semester junior year course, FluidMechanics and Heat Transfer. This course is the second course in our transport series.CHAPLis a group-centered learning approach in which the instructor and teaching assistants act aspreceptors to assist groups in narrowing the discussion focus, probe and guide group thinking whenmisconceptions are encountered and, on occasion, assist groups in resolving conflicts. One of thepedagogical tools central to this approach is the “Jigsaw
) An issue related to the rhetorical literacy skill of clearly stating the purpose and providing an explicit justification for the writing (16% of evaluations) 3) An issue related to the ethical literacy skill of using citations for others’ ideas, including both textual and non-textual materials (36% of evaluations)In 2006, Drury, O’Carroll, and Langrish[8] reported on an interactive online program for teachingreport writing at the University of Sydney. They included in their results the assessment of acohort of third year chemical engineering students’ laboratory reports. This cohort wascomprised of 46 students, 42% of whom were non-native English speakers. Assessment criteriaincluded “academic literacy” based on a
and graduate courses during his Masters in ITU and as a Lecturer in the Superior University in Lahore. He aims to contribute to the advancement of educational practices in engineering by addressing both the opportunities and challenges presented by the emerging technologies.Dr. Dayoung Kim, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Dr. Dayoung Kim is an Assistant Professor of the Department of Engineering Education (College of Engineering) at Virginia Tech and a Director of the LABoratory for Innovative and REsponsible ENgineering workforce (LAB-IREEN). She conducts research in engineering practice and workforce development (e.g., practices and experiences of, and competencies required for, engineers in
Paper ID #8214Enhancing Retention and Achievement of Undergraduate Engineering Stu-dentsDr. Anant R. Kukreti, University of Cincinnati Dr. Anant R. Kukreti, Ph.D., is Director for Engineering Outreach and Professor in the School of En- ergy, Environmental, Biological and Medical Engineering at the University of Cincinnati (UC), Cincinnati Ohio, USA. He joined UC on 8/15/00 and before that worked 22 years at University of Oklahoma. He teaches structural mechanics, with research in steel structures, seismic analysis and design, and engineer- ing education. He has won five major university teaching awards, two
Eric is a Ph.D. Candidate in Mechanical Engineering at Stanford University and NSF Graduate Research Fellow conducting research in global product development and experiential learning. He was as a teaching assistant in Stanford’s Product Realization Lab for two years. From 2011 to 2016, he worked extensively in Zambia while growing programs and teaching courses at MIT D-Lab. Previously, he was an engineer at Battelle Memorial Institute, researcher at New England Complex Systems Institute, and co-creator of Zimba Water. He holds a M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford (2018) and B.S. in Mechanical Engineering with honors from Ohio State University (2009).Dr. Sheri Sheppard, Stanford University Sheri D
Paper ID #19970Rethinking Engineering Pathways: An Exploration of the Diverse K-12 SchoolExperiences of Six Black Engineering UndergraduatesDr. Bruk T. Berhane, University of Maryland, College Park Dr. Bruk T. Berhane received his bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the University of Mary- land in 2003, after which he was hired by The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL) where he worked on nanotechnology. In 2005 he left JHU/APL for a fellowship with the National Academies where he conducted research on methods of increasing the number of women in engineering. After a brief stint
graduatewhen structured properly (Rassati et al. 2010; Solnosky et al. 2014). With regard to team situations in the classroom, most degree programs (teaching building en-gineering) are working to adopt more opportunities to develop team assignments, projects, andopportunities. These opportunities are often less than ideally constructed due to relatively few fac-ulty members being trained, or they have no similar industry experience necessary to guide studentteams. Such faculty often are unaware of the nuances that the teams must go through based onassignment structures (the major exception is faculty with significant industry experience) (Hannahand Venkatachary 2010). Consequently, only a surface level understanding of their value on thestudents
Board of Directors in 1996to adopt new standards for accreditation, called Engineering Criteria 2000 or EC2000 whichshifted the basis for accreditation from what was actually being taught in the classroom to whatwas being learned by the students.6 Under Criterion 3, 11 learning outcomes were specified andprograms were required to assess and demonstrate their students’ achievement in each of thoseareas. Among these specified areas was the requirement that students demonstrate “an ability todesign a system, component or process.”7 Universities have adopted capstone design courses toaddress this requirement. Among the modern teaching approaches adopted by some programs isproject based learning (PJBL) which is a student centered approach that
Conceptions of the Engineering Design Process: An Expert Study of Advanced Practicing Professionals Susan Mosborg, Robin Adams, Rebecca Kim, Cynthia J. Atman, Jennifer Turns, and Monica Cardella Center for Engineering Learning and Teaching, University of WashingtonAbstract. Published models of the engineering design process are widely available and oftenillustrated for students with a block diagram showing design as sequential and iterative. Here weexamine experts’ conceptions of the design process in relation to a model synthesized fromseveral introductory engineering textbooks. How do experts’ conceptions compare? What mightthey see as alternative accounts? We
Directorat the Center of Engineering Education and Outreach at Tufts University. Hynesreceived his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering in 2001 and his Ph.D. inEngineering Education in 2009 (both degrees at Tufts University). Inhis current positions, Hynes serves as PI and Co-PI on a number offunded research projects investigating engineering education in theK-12 and college settings. He is particularly interested in howstudents and teachers engage in and reflect upon the engi- neering designprocess. His research includes investigating how teachers conceptualizeand teach and how students engage in engineering through in-depth case study analysis
.” Q24One of the women also studying at the CS who changed her schools mentioned that the moreintellectual the school environment, the more equality it possesses. Other participants of theinterview, who do not have STEM specialists in their family, mentioned an example of howthe schools’ extra-curricular activities, such as laboratory visits and career orientation testswere carried out. One of them even had a chance to talk to a professional in her field on acareer orientation course (Q25). “My school provided professional orientation sessions to help us decide with the field of study.” Q26It is also necessary to highlight university activities as well as representatives of the facultywho help and encourage their students both in academic and
higher education [49]. This focus on assets-basedapproaches may be due to the predominantly qualitative nature of the reviewed literature, or thefact that none of the empirical research studies about undergraduate military students inengineering education are more than six years old given the recent shift towards JEDI inengineering education. No matter the cause, this research approach builds a foundation for futureresearch that is both inclusive of and equitable to military students.Synthesis of Research OutcomesOur synthesis of this literature points to some key research outcomes that have implications forcurrent teaching practice and ongoing research related to military students in engineeringeducation. These outcomes can be organized into
seven Information Technology textbooks, over 100 peer reviewed journal articles and conference papers, and she gave numerous presen- tations at national and international professional events in USA, Canada, England, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Germany and Romania. She is the founder director of the Auburn University Educational and Assistive Technology Laboratory (LEAT), Co-PI of NSF EEC ”RFE Design and Development: Framing Engineering as Community Activism for Values-Driven Engineeringan”, Co-PI of NSF CISE ”EAGER: An Accessible Coding Curriculum for Engaging Underserved Students with Special Needs in Afterschool Programs”, institutional partner of AccessComputing (http://www.washington.edu/accesscomputing/), Ac
Paper ID #34647Leveling the Playing Field: A Virtual Summer Camp for Women of ColorDr. Whitney Gaskins, University of Cincinnati Dr. Gaskins is the Assistant Dean of Inclusive Excellence and Community Engagement in the University of Cincinnati College of Engineering and Applied Science, the only African-American female currently teaching in the faculty of the College of Engineering. Whitney earned her Bachelor of Science in Biomed- ical Engineering, her Masters of Business Administration in Quantitative Analysis and her Doctorate of Philosophy in Biomedical Engineering/Engineering Education. In her role as Assistant Dean
sample, the data collection, and the thematic analysis approaches [15]used to develop our findings in terms of salient challenges and recommendations.Student SampleWe recruited 36 second- and third-year students from a mechanical engineering department at alarge, public, teaching-focused university in central California. We selected mechanicalengineering for three key reasons: 1) the relative size of the department (approximately 1200students); 2) the focus on creative product design and; 3) access to the student population throughdepartmental listservs. First, the mechanical engineering department is the largest engineeringdepartment on campus, and so it offered the greatest potential to stratify student samples accordingto relevant demographic
Logic Laboratory and Programming
notapplicable. Examples of these ratings are shown in Table 3. Students have not yet rated allcourses, as this rating exercise was only piloted on selected courses in Civil Engineering. Thenot applicable ratings were averaged into the scores as a zero. Students do vary their ratingssomewhat, although self-assessments of learning are of questionable value. The goal is for thestudent feedback to be used as a logic check on faculty claims in order to indicate potentialdisconnects. These areas will then be targeted for specific review of student work and/ordiscussions with the faculty on whether the learning objectives were being achieved. Becausecourse learning outcomes may vary when different instructors teach courses, reliableexpectations for the
and ACS Publications Division of the American Chemical Society.Faber, C., Vargas, P., & Benson, L. (n.d.). Measuring Engineering Epistemic Beliefs in Undergraduate Engineering Students.Ferguson, L. E., & Braten, I. (2013). Student profiles of knowledge and epistemic beliefs: Changes and relations to multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 25, 49–61. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.003Galloway, K. R., & Bretz, S. L. (2015a). Measuring meaningful learning in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory: a national, cross-sectional study. Journal of Chemical Education. Easton: American Chemical Society Division of Chemical Education.Galloway, K. R., & Bretz, S. L. (2015b). Using