distinct disciplinary patterns2. This research training is central to transformingthe student into a producer of knowledge, so much so that departments design specializedtraining programs to meet the needs of individual disciplines3.The majority of engineering graduate students spend their graduate school years as part of aresearch group4. These groups are generally organized around the research specialty of aprimary advisor, or collaboration between faculty advisors, depending on the size of the researchgroup5. Doctoral students, master’s students and post doctoral researchers work together underthe guidance of these faculty advisors, often in shared laboratory and office spaces6. It’s thisgroup environment where the majority of student learning
”Creating Your Online Presence: Developing Your E-Portfolio” and ”Teaching in the Laboratory” workshops for the College Teaching Workshop Series, and has presented College Teaching Workshop Series: Basics of Teaching and ”Presenting at Scientific Conferences” to Purdue University’s Women in Science. Page 25.1315.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2012 The Influence of a College Teaching Workshop Series on Teaching Assistant Perceptions of Preparedness and Self-EfficacyAbstractAt large, research-intensive institutions graduate students are often funded as teaching
Compatibility and Radio Science. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2012Dr. Rochelle Letrice Williams, ABET Rochelle Williams recently joined the ABET headquarters staff as Educational Research and Assessment Manager in the Professional Services Department. In this role, Williams manages ABET’s educational of- ferings on a global scale and leads technical education research projects. Prior to joining ABET, Williams held two positions at Baton Rouge Community College: Science Laboratory Manager and Adjunct Fac- ulty in the Mathematics Department. In addition, Williams has worked closely with the National Sci- ence Foundation’s Next Generation Composites Crest Center at Southern University
), which is a five-year program. For the four-year programs, the total credits required forgraduation range from 129 to 132; 160 credits are required for AE. The programs have scienceand math course sets that are aligned with accreditation requirements. The majority of theremaining credits are engineering science, both inside and outside of the major. All majorsexcept Computer Engineering have a first-year design course, in addition to the capstone designcourse. Chemical Engineering has the greatest number of laboratory courses at five. Theprograms have an emphasis on math, science, and engineering science with a focus on analysis.Thus, they are similar to the common model of U.S. programs described by Sheppard,Macatangay, Colby & Sullivan15
to work through all of the lessons themselves and began to devise implementationplans for their own classrooms. During the second week, they were invited to bring two studentsas part of a teaching laboratory. During this week, the teachers were responsible for teaching themodules to the students in a highly supported environment, surrounded by SENSE IT staff, whowere available to assist with any questions or concerns. This gave the teachers the opportunity toreview the materials, as well as to see how they work with students, thus enabling them to betterprepare for full classroom teaching.The SENSE IT teachers also participated in four full-day professional development workshopsduring the school year. The workshops gave the teachers an
Institute for Chemical Engineers. He earned a B.S. degree in chemical engineering from Mississippi State University, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Tennessee. He has been a researcher at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and faculty member at the University of Maryland, College Park.Prof. Leah H. Jamieson, Purdue University, West Lafayette Leah Jamieson is the John A. Edwardson Dean of Engineering at Purdue University, Ransburg Distin- guished Professor of electrical and computer engineering, and holds a courtesy appointment in Purdue’s School of Engineering Education. She served as 2007 President and CEO of the IEEE. She is co-recipient of the 2005 NAE Bernard M. Gordon Prize for Innovation in
, helping to minimize any variation in estimation of average response. However,their use in merit, promotion, and other decisions engenders some controversy. Student ratings of courses are not perfectly reflective of student learning. For example,laboratory studies have suggested that while instructor enthusiasm significantly impacts studentratings, it does not much affect student learning. In contrast, lecture content appears to have amuch greater effect on student learning than on ratings. (Abrami, Leventhal, and Perry 1982)And correlations between average ratings and average learning (based on standardized testresults across multiple course sections) generally fall well below 0.5. For example, Cohen’smeta-analysis (1981) deduced that the
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
’ minds and the structure in the subject matter. Metaphors,examples, and demonstrations are the elements of the bridge,” (Mckeachie, 1994). LaterMcKeachie says “From the standpoint of theory, the activity of the student, the sensorimotornature of the experience, and the individualization of laboratory instruction should contributepositively to learning.”A note about the lectures required is appropriate; Many Machine Design texts leave one or bothof these labs’ subject areas out of their coverage. Last year, one of this paper’s authors surveyedthe coverage of torsion loads by six common Machine Design Texts. He rated only three of thesix as giving complete torsional coverage, one as giving inadequate partial coverage, and two astotally inadequate
Structural Mechanics Laboratory,” Computer Applications in Engineering Education, Vol. 4 (1), pp. 9-17, 1996.6. Bonwell, C.C., “Active Learning and Learning Styles,” Active Learning Workshops Conference, USAF Academy, Co, July, 1998.7. Boyer, E. L., “Assessing Scholarship,” ASEE Prism, Vol. 4, No. 7, pp. 22-26, Mar., 1995.8. Brereton, M. F., Greeno, J., Lewis, J., Linde, C., Leifer, L., “An Exploration of Engineering Learning,” Proceeding of the ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Albuquerque, NM, Sept., 1993.9. Brickell, J.L., Porter, D.B., Reynolds, M.F., Cosgrove, R.D., “Assigning Students to Groups for Engineering Design Projects: A Comparison of Five Methods”, Journal of Engineering Education, pp.259
through a transition in higher education for thecreative development and leadership of technology which is beyond the “technology is applied science” paradigm.12As Wulf, president of the National Academy of Engineering, has pointed out, “Engineering is not applied science”— nor are creative engineers applied engineering scientists. Wulf further noted that, “Science is analytic — it strivesto understand nature, what is. Engineering is synthetic — it strives to create what can be.”13Whereas, Bush recognized that the primary responsibility for scientific progress is dependent upon that small bodyof high caliber men and women in the research universities and in the government research laboratories, whounderstand the fundamental laws of nature and are
laboratory space, documenting assessment of faculty quality and performance, and contacting employers who hirestudents from more than one program. Programs were assigned responsibilities for establishing missions, goals andoutcomes, preparing a report of what was currently being done, assessing the content of each undergraduate courseprovided by their program, determining where they could measure their students performance with respect to thedefined outcomes and implementing the first round of assessment.3.2 Obtaining baseline data for programs to get current status relative to assessmentThe surveys developed to obtain baseline data have been described in some detail in section 2.3. These surveys needto be completed for all programs in the COE, but
laboratory projects in the middle years [27]–[29].Engineering teams offer a mode for interdisciplinarity and task delegation so students can finishlarge and complicated projects within the span of a course. What is not often taught, however,are the various skills necessary in the social processes that make teaming effective:communication, delegation, and conflict resolution, to name a few [30]–[32]. The socialcircumstances in which these skills become relevant can reveal hidden epistemologies that guidethe teaming process, especially when gender differences and dynamics are considered [21].Within engineering, these epistemologies are woven into the culture of engineering learningenvironments and often the engineering field itself [18]. Therefore, we
mechanical engineering from the University of Arizona and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in mechanical engineering from the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is currently an Assistant Professor of Teaching at the University of California, Irvine in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. Prior to joining UCI, he was a Senior Member of the Technical Staff at Sandia National Laboratories and an adjunct faculty member in Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of New Mexico. His broad research interests include engineering education, as well as control and optimization of nonlinear and hybrid systems with applications to power and energy systems, multi-agent systems, robotics, and
in Ghana and Kenya. Her expertiseinforms national scientific policy as a member of President Biden’s Council of Advisors onScience and Technology. Moreover, Hammond is one of only 33 people to have been elected toall three National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [57].A third symposium speaker was Rory Cooper, Assistant Vice Chancellor and DistinguishedProfessor of Rehabilitation Science and Technology at the University of Pittsburg (Pitt); as wellas Founding Director of the Human Engineering Research Laboratories [40, pp. 66–68], [58] andwheelchair-marathon champion. Having sustained an injury during his U.S. Army service,Cooper has utilized a wheelchair since, turning unexpected challenges into opportunities toinspire
teachers and students to create understanding through conceptual modeling. She has experience in creating professional learning experiences, designing coaching systems, and developing frameworks and lessons. Her research interests include STEM education, system thinking, conceptual modeling, and coaching.Dr. Nancy Ruzycki, University of Florida Dr. Nancy Ruzycki, is the Director of Undergraduate Laboratories and Faculty Lecturer within the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at the University of Florida Herbert Wetheim College of Engineering. Her focus is on developing curriculum ba ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Examining STEMM Mentorship within Student
, several faculties have devised different mechanisms for engaging studentsat the early stage of their entry into the STEM departments. This includes pairing new studentswith their senior college mates at the laboratories to create more directed mentorship and co-research opportunities [41], thus enabling the programs to adapt to the ever-changing WOCSTEM student interests [42], [43].3.0 TheoryIn 2012 Strayhorn conducted a study to explore the experiences of Black males engaged in Blackmale initiatives. The study yielded a sense of belonging framework. To understand therelationship between campus climate and STEM culture, we utilize Strayhorn's Sense ofBelonging framework (2012). The framework explores how the context of spaces can foster asense of
Stakeholder Engagement during Engineering Design,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 109, no. 4, pp. 760-79, 2020.[6] M. Bennett, and H. Gadlin., “Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide.” [https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/organization/crs/research-initiatives/team-science-field- guide/collaboration-team-science-guide.pdf], 2020[7] H. Lipmanowicz, and K. McCandless, The Surprising Power of Liberating Structures. Charleston, NC: Liberating Structures Press, 2013.[8] M. Bennett, R. Maraia, and H. Gadlin, “The ‘Welcome Letter’: A Useful Tool for Laboratories and Teams,” Journal of Translational Medicine and Epidemiology, vol. 2, no. 2, 2014.[9] D. Nicol, A. Thomson, and C. Breslin, “Rethinking Feedback Practices in Higher
. Her prior work experiences include product management, consulting, tutoring, marketing, and information technology.Rachel Eve Gail Swan, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Rachel Swan is an undergraduate student at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU). Since 2022 she has been an Undergraduate Research Assistant in the ERAU Wireless Devices and Electromagnetics Laboratory (WiDE Lab). She has also been an Undergraduate Research Assistant at the ERAU Biologically Inspired Design-for-Resilience (BID4R) Lab since 2023. Her research projects and interests include hardware security for RF applications and machine learning. She is a recipient of the ERAU’s 2023 Outstanding Electrical Engineering Undergraduate
MIL-HDBK-5 Program,” Battelle’s Columbus Laboratories, AFWAL-TR-84-1423, 1984.AppendicesA1. Interview Protocol DetailsTowards the beginning of the protocol, participants were presented with Figure 3. This was toclarify the context of data that was presented in the interview—presented values arise frommultiple independent specimens, rather than repeated measurements on a single specimen. Thiswas to ensure the possibility of real variability in the data, without directly naming the concept.Figure 3. Image used to describe the presented data: independent specimens, rather than repeatedmeasurements.Figure 4. Image used to illustrate the design scenario. This structure was described as being inuniaxial tension.Immediately prior to the “error