mechanical engineering machine shop). This was due to anadmitted level of unfamiliarity with the subtleties of the new wave of low-cost commercialtechnology, being concerned about operation of such equipment in uncontrolled andunsupervised environments, being concerned about unattended operation and earthquake safety,etc. Since that time, the Maker Lab remains the single deployment point for the School ofEngineering (apart from more controlled shops); however, other entities in the University aremaking plans for small scale maker-like labs in their areas.Apart from these initial start-up and safety-related issues, it is interesting to note the potential tohave centralized vs. decentralized maker spaces. As maker technologies become even
mathematics learning creatively while working within a friendly team structure.Some participants were surprised that these projects were related to bigger projects that involveengineers in the real world and reported considering career options along these lines. Self-efficacy. Many of the participants mentioned that they were confident in their mathematics andscience abilities. The following is an example stated confidently by a sixth grader: “I’m great atmath, and I like it!” Others expressed the desire to take advanced math classes as this eighth grade 16participant stated, “I already do [take advanced math classes], so I was planning on it, to still dothat.” While their sense of
work versus engineering work amongengineering students soon to graduate, there may be fewer differentiators betweenstudents with engineering-focused plans and those with more unsettled plans. This meansthat there are many contingencies to investigate in terms of how students ultimately landin their first and subsequent jobs within the first few years of graduating. Providing somegranularity to the picture, Brunhaver’s study of recent engineering graduates indicatesthat while the majority of graduates were working in engineering-focused positions fouryears after graduation, about 20% of graduates were working in non-engineering focusedpositions.6 We note that although demographic factors did not seem to differentiatepathways at this stage, co
making [.451*]{.622**} >4b. Identifying the changing needs of the client [.436**]{.544**} 1c. Maintaining an open climate for discussion [.496*]{.661**} >4c. Anticipating what the client will want next [.270*]{.521**} 2 Developing people (⍺ =.543) 5 Initiating significant change (⍺ =.763) >2a. Encouraging skill development [290*]{.420*} 5a. Initiating bold projects [.947**]{.863**} >2b. Seeing that everyone has a project plan [.606*]{.436**} >5b. Starting ambitious projects [.922**]{.738**} >2c. Coaching people on team issues [.726**]{.809**} >5c. Launching important
and STEM outreach.Dr. Nicole Johnson-Glauch, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Nicole received her B.S. in Engineering Physics at the Colorado School of Mines (CSM) in May 2013. She is currently working towards a PhD in Materials Science and Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) under Professor Angus Rockett and Geoffrey Herman. Her research is a mixture between understanding defect behavior in solar cells and student learning in Materials Science. Outside of research she helps plan the Girls Learning About Materials (GLAM) summer camp for high school girls at UIUC.Prof. Jessica A. Krogstad, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
of the Project Management and Quality Research Group, and member of the Organisation, Quality and Environment Cooperation Group at the same University. Her current research fields of interest are competencies and professional skills applied to Project Management in multicultural contexts and for international development projects and qual- ity management. Currently she has a management position as Associate Vice Rector for Academic and International planning at UPM.Dr. Luis Ballesteros-S´anchez, Universidad Polit´ecnica de Madrid Luis Ballesteros-Sanchez is an industrial engineer and PhD from the Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, and holds a Master’s degree in the psychology of human behavior. He is Assistant
that students can connectMaterials knowledge to Products from everyday life and how they are made.This paper will outline plans, database structures, content and associated resources, and ifavailable by June, a link to a prototype. This is for the purpose of getting feedback from theASEE Materials community.IntroductionMaterials science and engineering (MSE) is a highly interdisciplinary field, yet still largelyunknown in high schools. Thanks to the effort of those doing engineering outreach, this is slowlychanging. Outreach serves to increase both awareness and interest for engineering. MSE is oftenthe discipline of choice because of its diverse and tangible nature. For outreach to be successful,it needs to be accessible. Outreach
thatthere are difficulties in proper delivery of systems analysis and systems dynamics to engineeringstudents; the fact remains that: these tools are extremely useful for someone who plans tobecome a designer. Therefore, ways have to be found to enhance the understanding of systems’thinking, and at the same time, to develop educational experiences that could efficiently improvelearning outcomes.2) Looking at risk management and uncertainty: Engineering design is carried out relying onincomplete data, imperfect models, often with unclear objectives, and other potential problemsand constraints. The effects of such uncertainties on the design of a project may have seriousconsequences unless proper safeguards have been undertaken based on probabilistic
college. Only 53% of 12th-grade first-generation students expect to earn a bachelor’sdegree and 68% plan to enroll in high school immediately after high school, compared to roughly90% of students whose parents earned at least a bachelor’s degree [4]. Fewer students actuallyenroll in post-secondary education than aspire to in high school, indicating that delayingenrollment makes students less likely to attend at all [5]. According to a 2001 National Centerfor Education Statistics report, only 54% of students whose parents had earned a high schooldiploma enrolled in college, and only 36% of students whose parents had not finished highschool enrolled. Conversely, the same report found that roughly 85% of students whose parentshad at least a
retention in their majorswill be presented. Open-ended responses in the survey provided formative evaluation of thebootcamp and will be used to improve the curriculum. Finally, steps planned to further supportthe bootcamp cohort’s progress towards graduation will be described.I. MotivationThis section describes how the bootcamp project is expected to improve student success inrelation to the campus graduation goals. The targets of Graduation Initiative 2025 at CaliforniaState University, Chico (CSU Chico) are a four-year graduation rate of 41% and a six-yeargraduation rate of 74%, which were established to address the demand for a highly educatedworkforce in the State of California [1]. To achieve these targets, the University must alsoeliminate
-term career planning. Cohort 2 PTG clustersocialization has been effectively achieved through the PTG monthly meetings rather than throughresearch groups. For each cohort, however, PTG scholars met with PTG staff for a mid-semesterreview. During this review, each student’s academic progress and plan for academic improvementfor the second half of the semester is discussed. This approach has proven to be highly successfulin helping PTG scholars anticipate academic challenges, taking proactive steps to minimizedifficulties before they arise, and become comfortable interacting with professors during officehours.A second approach to facilitating success and achievement for PTG students has been thefacilitation of monthly PTG meetings throughout the
same characteristics given the current state of the system, as proposed by Ackoff´s“Interactive Planning methodology”[11] . The Idealized Design model proposed by Ackoff,allows the participants to establish the existing gaps between reality and their ideal modeland begin to co-create projects focused on eventually achieving those goals, planning in theshort, middle and long term. They are also asked to do a subsequent exercise ofprioritization of objectives to know which are the most important for the actors as a group.The final outcome of STW#2 is another set of agreements among stakeholders on the mostimportant variables to be addressed through any proposed project.STW#3The third social transformation workshop STW # 3, “Critical Systems
received her BS from Georgia Tech in 2006, double-majoring in Psychology and Management.Dr. Meltem Alemdar, Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Meltem Alemdar is Associate Director and Senior Research Scientist at Georgia Tech’s Center for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics, and Computing (CEISMC). Dr. Alemdar has experience evaluating programs that fall under the umbrella of educational evaluation, including K-12 educational curricula, K-12 STEM programs after-school programs, and comprehensive school reform initiatives. Across these evaluations, she has used a variety of evaluation methods, ranging from a multi-level evalua- tion plan designed to assess program impact to methods such as program monitoring
marketing firm with global reach to designtwo digital marketing campaigns that aid in the overall recruitment plan [20-22]. Two categoriesof digital market campaigns were developed and implemented: a) one focused on reputation-building targeted to undergraduates at top engineering schools, historically black colleges anduniversities (HBCUs) and other minority-serving institutions (MSIs), and specific internationalregions; and b) increasing yield after admission offers were made. Both campaigns rely on thecreation of engaging ads in multiple formats, and targeting these ads to specific areas,institutions, or individuals. Ads appear in internet browsers, and when clicked, users are taken toa specially developed landing page that includes more
not major, but they were necessary for theadoption of the program to an institution like UIC. These changes were incorporated to ensurethat the program met the goals and kept its critical components (i.e., ENG 294 course, dual-mentoring, and team-based structure). After the first year of the program, we plan to report onstudent outcomes and assessment data as well as provide a more detailed report of theadjustments made to ERSP at UIC.References[1] M. Barrow, S. Thomas, and C. Alvarado, “Ersp: A structured cs research program for early- college students,” in Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 2016, pp. 148–153.[2] n.d., “ERSP | Instructor resources.” [Online]. Available
34 conference 35 Model Facilities and/or Instructional Laboratory Design Specifications and Plans 32At the same time, when the survey respondents were asked to weight which renewabletechnologies they most sought professional development, solar photovoltaics clearly stood out asthe strongest preference with a weighted score more than twice as high of many other renewabletechnologies (see Table 3). Table 3) Faculty survey topic prioritiesSolar Photovoltaic Institute Weighted priority forIn attempt to build solar career pathways, professional development in Weighted
culminates in site specific sessions which provide a view into eachcamp’s agenda for the summer.Our one-day pre-camp preparation workshop follows the teacher training workshop and focuseson the specific activities for the specific camp. This training includes all levels of staff, theteachers, along with the engineering undergraduate counselors and the high school assistantcounselors. The agenda begins with a team builder activity and presentation on campus safety forminor participants. Teachers are split up into their specific camps where they review theiragendas with the help of the counselors that have been working the previous week in establishingtest protocols, test fixtures and change management communication plans. All activities arereviewed
challenges in civil engineeringeducation and proposing educational reforms and initiatives to address these challenges. At the1995 Civil Engineering Education Conference, 235 participants considered a wide range ofissues and collectively identified four major areas for focused action by ASCE: (1) facultydevelopment, (2) an integrated curriculum, (3) practitioner involvement in education, and (4) thefirst professional degree.1Following the 1995 conference, the ASCE Educational Activities Committee (EdAC) assumedresponsibility for the faculty development issue area. EdAC proposed to the ASCE Board ofDirection that a standing Committee on Faculty Development be established and provided withfunding to plan and implement a teaching effectiveness workshop
hour. The three major sections of theworkshop consisted of the following: (1) the content and structure of the GRE; (2) what a good score is for each portion of the exam; and (3) how to prepare for the test including study plans and materials.The first section gave a brief overview of how the GRE is organized, discussing briefly each ofthe three sections: analytical reasoning, verbal reasoning, and the writing portion. If the studentsdo not understand what the GRE consists of, then the rest of the workshop will not provideadditional benefit for the student. The type of students who attended the first workshop rangedfrom freshman to graduate students, so some students had never previously heard of the GRE,other than that it is
architecture’srequirement satisfaction. DESIGN CYBERLEARING DATABASE ENVIRONMENT CooL:SLiCE PLATFORM SUPPLIER SELECTION MANUFACTURING ANALYSIS Part Process Plan Whole Upper/ Plastic Feedstock Production — Injection Molding
findings of this study?Methodological approachWe conducted initial phenomenological interviews during students’ first year (2014-2015),follow-up interviews with the sub-set of women from the Middle East (spring 2017), andfinal-year interviews with Irish-based participants (2017-2018). The Irish-basedparticipants joined our DT066 common core Bachelor of Engineering program together, inSeptember 2014.We conducted initial analysis, using interpretive phenomenology, to summarize eachparticipant’s first interview and help shape the direction of the study and the plan forfollow-up interviews. Starting in the third year, we used NVivo software to code allinterviews collected. As per Table 2, this included first-year interviews (n=7), the second
, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts 5) an ability to function effectively on a team whose members together provide leadership, create a collaborative and inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives 6) an ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and interpret data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions 7) an ability to acquire and apply new knowledge as needed, using appropriate learning strategies.The EC2000 criteria were initiated in August 1994. 58 invited guests, including guests from theABET Engineering Accreditation Commission board, several of the professional
work together in practice groups (Community of Practice).There are typically 2 to 4 practice groups in each section of the course. During the first half ofthe semester, the leaders participate in case clinics [10] where each week one member of thepractice group poses a real situation or question from their sessions to the group for discussion(Practice-based Activities). Another member of the group documents the discussion and adds itto a folder accessible by all leaders in the class. The presenter then reflects on the conversationand writes a short summary of the discussion and how the leader plans to handle a similarsituation in the future (Documented Deep Learning). These case clinics continue each week untilevery leader has presented a case
Foundation Design Environmental Environmental Engineering Environmental Engineering Engineering Water/Wastewater Treatment Water/Wastewater Treatment Transportation Transportation Engineering Transportation Engineering and/or Engineering Highway Design Planning Traffic Design Highway Design Transportation Planning and Management Traffic Design Water Resources Water Resources Engineering Water Resources Engineering Engineering Hydraulics Hydraulics and/or Hydrology Hydrology Construction Construction
learning course is to provide freshmen the opportunity not only to complete a hands-on project but also to learn and develop real skills that would benefit them in future coursework, student group activities, research and internships. Moreover, the course was also designed to meet in small (24 students) sections to allow engagement between students, and between the faculty instructor and the students. Lastly, the project focus affords students the opportunity to gain experience with the design process, teamwork, and communication. In this paper, the course is described in detail along with examples, results, impact and future plans. Course Organization and Development An important first consideration in the development of
academic plans at college entry, including: Whether students planned to pursue engineering as a career after college. How likely they were to change major during college (on a four-point scale from very unlikely to very likely). The highest degree to which students aspired during their lives. Students’ intended major, included to test differences among engineering fields. The importance of getting a better job as a reason for them to attend college (measured on a three-point scale from not important to very important), assuming this reason might explain why they were motivated to select engineering.A set of institution-level variables collected by both CIRP and IPEDS were included to test forpotential
-engineering major” .More students were confident in their Calculus abilities (76% “Confident” or “Veryconfident”) versus Physics (52%), Computer Skills (45%), or Chemistry (36%).Eighty-nine percent of the respondents thought they had strong problem-solving skills,75% felt confident in their ability to succeed in engineering and 70% thought theyneeded to spend more time studying. Over half planned to join a student engineeringorganization. Interestingly, 42% did not feel they knew what an engineer does and 62%tend to procrastinate, putting off the things they need to do.Overall students gave very positive feedback to the DEE program and to the teachingassistants. Nearly all respondents (98% “Agree” or “Strongly agree”) would recommendDEE to other
coordinator for the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. She teaches at the graduate and undergraduate level, using both face-to-face and blended online learning instruction. She is an Adjunct Faculty for the Transportation Systems and, the City & Regional Planning programs at MSU. Her research interests include engineering education, student success, online engineering pedagogy and program assessment solutions, transportation planning, transportation impact on quality of life issues, bicycle access, and ethics in engineering. She has several published works in engineering education and online learning. Dr. Petronella James earned her Doctor of Engineering (Transportation) and Masters of City &
University Mark E. Yerger is the Chief Technology Officer at Bucknell University where he has been a member of the merged Library and Information Technology (L&IT) division since 2009. He oversees the systems and processes that support the seamless flow of information across Bucknell including enterprise technol- ogy operations, application development, business intelligence, systems integration, telecommunications, and networking. In addition, he is also responsible for planning, assessment, project management, and budgeting across L&IT. Mr. Yerger holds an MBA and a Project Management Professional (PMP) certifi- cation and was privileged to join in the acceptance of a 2015 CIO Impact award on behalf of his team
and how project-based learning (PBL)takes the center stage in this strategy. We assert that building a camp or even a lesson plan fromlearning blocks creates a totally immersive and engaging environment for the learner and makes itmuch more plug-and-play for the designer/instructor.Our paper will also focus on implementing these learning blocks in a K-12 mixed environment (allgrade levels, male and female participants) versus a much more homogenous cohort (all highschool, all female) type of camp. A showcase of student products (from reflective pieces to actualcreations) will be discussed along with how “check-ins” are built into the learning blockchallenges; the latter as a means to embed assessment into the project workflows dynamically