planning,development, execution, and continuous improvement of the ETW) took steps in 2019 to engagein a multi-year, multi-stage program evaluation process for the ETW, a project dubbed asAdvancing the ExCEEd Teaching Workshop. In this effort, CFD recruited external evaluatorswho had extensive program assessment experiences from the broader engineering educationcommunity to conduct two successive, comprehensive program evaluations for the ETW inSummer 2021 and Summer 2022. To diminish confirmation bias in the evaluation efforts, CFDintentionally sought external evaluators who had no prior connection to CFD or the ETW. Theevaluations of the ETW in Summer 2021 and Summer 2022 focused on identifying the ETW’sstrengths and areas for improvement in
learn about thedesign, planning, and operation of these facilities and contribute to industry-leading projectsaimed at enhancing grid reliability, renewable energy integration, and energy efficiency.As is often the case with many MSIs, PSU hosts multiple programs that serve historicallyexcluded students, including career services, mentoring, and internship preparation. The PEIprogram will leverage the offerings provided by two such programs, the Center for Internship,Mentoring and Research (CIMR) and the Engineering Work Experience (EWX). CIMR 1provides multiple career-related resources to students, including mentoring, advising, and careerdevelopment. CIMR programs support diversification of the regional workforce. EWX2 providesa structured
State University, where he teaches in the Sustainable & Renewable Energy and Engineering Technology undergraduate programs.Dr. Jin Ho Jo, Illinois State University Dr. Jin Ho Jo is a Professor of Technology at Illinois State University, teaching in the Sustainable and Renewable Energy program. Dr. Jo also leads the Sustainable Energy Consortium at the university. Dr. Jo is an honors graduate of Purdue University, where he earned a B.S. in Building Construction Management. He earned his M.S. in Urban Planning from Columbia University, where he investigated critical environmental justice issues in New York City. His 2010 Ph.D. from Arizona State University was the nation’s first in sustainability. His
Paper ID #42108Board 295: HSI Planning Project: Integrative Undergraduate STEM Educationat Angelo State University (I-USE ASU Grant #2122828)Dr. Brittany Paige Trubenstein, Angelo State University Dr. Paige Trubenstein (or Dr. T) is an Angelo State alumna who graduated from ASU in 2015 with her Bachelor of Science in psychology. She attended the University of California, Riverside, where she obtained her master’s degree in developmental psychology in 2017 and her Ph.D. in developmental psychology in 2020. She eagerly returned to ASU as a faculty member in the fall of 2019, and she teaches multiple undergraduate and
student assessment. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Work In Progress: Factors Influencing Career Choice and Success in Undergraduate Biomedical Engineering StudentsIntroductionThe field of biomedical engineering (BME) has witnessed significant growth in recent years,driven by advances in technology and a growing emphasis on healthcare innovation. This growthhas led to a large range of post-graduation career paths for BME undergraduates includingmedical and professional school, graduate school, and direct employment as engineers in themedtech, biotech, and healthcare industries [1]. Much of the literature on career choice andmotivations of these students focuses on their plans at
also the faculty advisor for the Formula SAE team at LSU.Dr. Andrew Becnel, Louisiana State University and A&M College 15th Annual First-Year Engineering Experience Conference (FYEE): Boston, Massachusetts Jul 28 GIFTS: Career Guidance 101Students are frequently under the assumption that an engineering degree guarantees a job atgraduation. Our Mechanical Engineering department at Louisiana State University (LSU) beganembedding career planning into the first-year engineering courses during the 2022-23 academicyear to give students a model for what it takes to be a top-tier job candidate (or candidate forgraduate school) at graduation. By providing students with the tools to set themselves up forsuccess
inequities and inclusive leadership is crucial toensuring these commitments lead to real change [3], [4]. As a result, this executive summary aimsto characterize the exemplars’ intentions by identifying and examining the institutional values andDEI commitments declared in the strategic plans and other relevant institutional documents. Weorganized the executive summary around three topics—project overview, year three research andeducation activities, and critical insights from the document analysis.Project OverviewUsing a multi-case research design framed by Kotter’s Leading Change theory and Acker’sInequality Regimes as theoretical foundations [5], [6], this CAREER award aims to uncover thechange strategies institutionalized by six exemplary COEs to
Engineering Education, 2024 Meta-Activity Theory as a Conceptual Toolfor Supporting Transdisciplinary Curricular Experimentation in Undergraduate Learning ContextsWhen it comes to carrying out external evaluations of academic plans in higher education, LisaR. Lattuca and Joan S. Stark’s text, Shaping the College Curriculum: Academic Plans inContext, has provided a critical resource (Lattuca and Stark, 2011). The text lays out aframework for analyzing the social aspects of curricular plans, which often involves examininghow the intended curricular design of an academic program compares to the actual livedexperiences of students and faculty who are involved in the curriculum. By drawing on Lattucaand Stark’s framework, external
paper discusses the developments during Year 2 of a project concerned with analyzing thecurricula of engineering programs in the United States to understand the structural barriersembedded in degree requirements that could push out diverse groups of students. We are usingan emerging method for quantifying the complexity of these programs called CurricularAnalytics. This method involves treating the prerequisite relationships between courses as anetwork and applying graph theoretic measures to calculate a curriculum’s complexity. In Year 1,we collected 494 plans of study representing five engineering disciplines (i.e., Mechanical, Civil,Electrical, Chemical, and Industrial) across 13 institutions - spanning a decade. To ensure thedataset is as
. Utilize data (IPEDS, etc) to inform broadening participation efforts for women and BIPOC engineering students. Engage in models, interventions and evidence-based practices that have been proven to support engineering degree attainment for women and BIPOC students at community colleges, public and private institutions. Build partnerships to engage stakeholders at their institution, in their region, and nationwide. Develop an Action Plan to implement at their institution (or with otherinstitutions) during the 2-year professional development period. 6To date, 65 people (faculty, professional staff, postdocs) have applied over the 2years. 40 were invited to
foster Systems ThinkingSkills in engineering students.Study participants were tasked to complete a scenario-based assessment proposed by Grohs et al. (2018)that focuses on systems thinking and problem-solving as engineers by responding to a scenario that,according to the authors, elicits students' goal definition skills. The scenario prompts (Prompts 5 and 6)asked students to formulate goals/objectives for this specific issue. Data was collected electronically andanalyzed following the guidance provided by the assessment tool rubric for evaluating students' ability toidentify short-term and long-term goals for technical and contextual aspects. We rated their answers on theexpectations of a successful plan and a draft idea,Results show that when
2practices worldwide. The aim is for the Advanced Four Pillars to be a living documentwith periodic reviews to remain current.Four Pillars BackgroundThe Four Pillars of Manufacturing Knowledge, (Four Pillars) was first published in 2011as a component of the Curricula 2015; A Four Year Strategic Plan for ManufacturingEducation [1] (see Figure 1). The concept of the four pillars includes foundation skills inA) Mathematics and Science and B) Personnel Effectiveness with four major categories:1) Materials and manufacturing processes; 2) Product, tooling, and assembly engineering;3) Manufacturing systems and operations; and 4) Manufacturing competitiveness. Mottet. al. [2] credits the process of developing the Four Pillars to the Society ofManufacturing
. 3.2. Walked through the parts of the sensor using example sensor that we (the virtual instructor) had. (*Note – At Pitt, we had the same monitor so we were able to talk about the monitor through both pictures on the slides and physically over Zoom.) 4. To prepare for the next module, we instructed the students to consider what places or areas they want to set up the monitor to collect data. Module Session 5 LO 5. Creating a Monitoring Program and Collecting Data 1. Reviewed major takeaways from previous modules 2. Creating a Monitoring Plan 2.1. Defined what a Monitoring Plan is for the students 2.2. Think-Pair-Share Exercise on brainstorming AQ monitoring locations 2.3. Finalized the Monitoring Plan
Community Based Participatory Instruction Design analysis: include community members, Study Roadmap Research (CBPR) • Weekly lesson plans guides are crafted based understand community assets and creation of• Utilizing an exploratory sequential design to • CBPR prioritize human-centered design on the DOE Energy Literacy objectives and Next a unique tool. build a tool based on the specific community through iterate engagement with and
appreciation of informal lunch periods embedded within the session.Although the team questioned the time spent on lunch during the session, our participants felt ithelped them to discuss the content and build community. Participants also reported in both thein-person CoP and online SLG that they were more likely to make changes to their pedagogybecause we asked them to frame each session’s content within one course and to not consider alltheir courses, which could lead to being overwhelmed and reduce chances of pedagogicalchange. As we plan for our next iteration of programming, these lessons learned will reinforceelements that went well.We learned lessons from challenges the team encountered. Lessons learned regarding ourdisciplinary perspectives and
is to assist WE@RIT in planning and implementingevents for current students. Sometimes these events are social in nature, such as ourmonthly pop-up lounge series or Stress Relief Extravaganza before finals, andsometimes they are more professional/academic in nature, such as resume reviews,corporate visits and alumnae panels to name just a few. Their scope does not includeNew Student programming or K-12 outreach.The Good:The Leadership Board has overall been a positive change for WE@RIT. Having studentvoice involved in event planning has meant greater buy-in for events over time, andnew events taking place because of the fresh perspectives brought by an ever-rotating membership. Having the Board also allows me as a Director to utilize
plan comprises a ResearchPlan to develop deeper understandings about how SVSM participate, persist, and produceprofessional identities in engineering education, and an Education Plan to place newunderstandings into practice through collaborative development, implementation, dissemination,and sustainment of targeted anti-deficit, assets-based educational and support resources forundergraduate SVSM in engineering.The research plan builds from existing cross-sectional, transition-focused research with studentveterans, documented in the engineering and higher education literature, using a longitudinal,narrative inquiry research approach [5] and an innovative, two-strand theoretical framework.The theoretical framework centers social theories of
maps and reflections will be used to assess student’sgrowth in EM connectedness. A description of each institution’s partnership development andimplementation is presented in this paper. We anticipate key results will include: 1) students’positive perception through engaged learning, 2) student growth in EM connectedness, 3)students’ increased appreciation of multiculturalism, 4) all modalities support growth in student’sEM and multiculturalism competencies, and 5) in-person international travel componentsdemonstrate a larger increase in multiculturalism competencies due to cultural immersion. Theteam is finalizing plans for these experiences in fall 2023 and will implement the experiencesand collect data in spring 2024
engineering student, the first point the AIrecommended for consideration was “curriculum compatibility,” saying that “Engineeringcourses often have a strict sequence of prerequisites. Ensuring that the courses you take abroadwill be recognized by your home institution is crucial. This might require detailed planning anddiscussions with academic advisors” (OpenAI, 2024). In summary, both academic reports andbroader conversations suggest that curricular complexity can be a challenge for students studyingabroad in engineering. However, no studies have attempted to measure this relationship, whichwe wanted to explore in our own context at Purdue University.Characterizing the Complexity of the Curriculum With the aim of providing metrics to support
environment and to improving the overall quality of life of the communities. Paula plans international research experience programs for undergraduate and graduate students in collaboration with international partners. She has helped organize and develop international workshops in the field of sustainability and smart cities. Paula has also developed outreach programs that educate the youth about the principles of sustainability. Paula received a Bachelors and Master’s of Science in Civil Engineering from UAB.Dr. Fouad H. Fouad, University of Alabama, Birmingham Dr. Fouad H. Fouad, Ph.D., P.E., is Professor and Chairman Emeritus of the Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering Department at the University of Alabama at
creativity flourish, especially in engineeringprograms. ICPs allow for cultivating critical thinking, creativity, and networking across alldisciplines [1]. Participation enables students to foster innovative ideas and apply them to real-world scenarios [1]. Students can develop leadership qualities by navigating a technical andinnovative ecosystem, like an ICP, that provides practice opportunities [2]. The success of ICPsrelies on the effective implementation of best practices by their organizers and coordinators. Anorganizer must keep the best interests of their participants in mind when planning, running, andexecuting these competitions and programs [3]. Organizers play a pivotal role in shaping theeducational landscape for ICP participants by
personalized learningmodel (PLM) for graduate education within the Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering. Thismodel aims to transform and modernize graduate STEM education through a personalized, inclusive, andstudent-centered approach, which will, in turn, advance existing knowledge on the relationship betweenpersonalized learning and student outcomes.The principles of personalized learning guide the PLM. It is comprised of five components. The first threecomponents provide an intentional approach to learning: Instructional Goals developed for each studentbased on a learner profile and individual development plans (IDP), a purposeful Task Environment thatbreaks the traditional three-credit coursework into modules and co-curricular
work with the assignment grading rubric and instructor materials toidentify areas for potential improvement. The instructor, using the materials prepared for the WATTStutor-training, provides feedback on areas of concern. Students then visit the writing center to getindividual peer feedback. Finally, students create a plan that combines the varied feedback sources forrevising their writing. This allows students to engage at multiple stages and take ownership of theirrevision process. This work-in-progress paper discusses an interdisciplinary approach to fostering student engagementin the iterative revision process. We used Kang et al.’s Design-Based Change Model (DBCM) [2] as aframework to envision, plan, implement, and sustain practices in
assessment, LCA), several guestspeakers on the topic of DEI, pedagogical methods (such as socio-technicalapproaches and the use of artifacts as examples), and discussion of meaningfulassessment approaches. The event was held away from the Engineering buildings in avenue with transformable seating and discussion formats tailored for each activity,facilitating full focus and involvement. Particular attention was paid to the daily lunchesas an opportunity to build community and demonstrate sustainability behaviors. Theworkshop culminated with planned course modifications that were to be implementedduring the following Spring and Fall semesters.The participants found the immersive experience powerful and motivating. However, thefour-day time commitment
working time relating to Criterion 5Activity 3:Criterion 5 (Curriculum)How will your institutionensure students obtainawareness of diversity,equity, and inclusion forprofessional success?The last day of theSummit, teams did aspeed networkingevent.• Two 45-minute rotations.• Presented their plans on each criteria to 2 other teams• Heard the plans for each criteria from the other teamsA 2023 ASEE papersummarized theevaluation and findingsfrom the Summit.• Overall, the Summit went extremely well.• Participants enjoyed discussing the topics with individuals from other institutions.• Major concerns included: • Faculty buy-in • Lack of time/money • Leadership support • Strategizing DEI Curriculum • Faculty Training• The
effects on enrollments at a specific university are difficult to predict, given all the potentialeconomic and geographic considerations. Generally, the best universities will continue to attractthe best students, but smaller, lesser-known colleges and universities may face enrollmentshortages affecting their financial operations resulting in program and employee terminations.This paper examines enrollments at Mississippi State University, considering population andeconomic trends to provide a general template for post-secondary administrators to determinetheir enrollment strategies for the next decade.Keywordsrecruiting, enrollment planning, enrollment forecasting, freshman enrollmentsIntroductionStarting in the 1980s, state funding for public
Engineering Education include team learning, virtual teams, and team decision-making.Mr. Francisco Cima Francisco Cima is a PhD student of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering at Old Dominion University. He obtained his Masters in Business Planning and Regional Development from the Technological Institute of Merida. His areas of interest are innovDanielle Marie Rhemer, Old Dominion University ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Reflections of Undergraduate Engineering Students Completing a Cross-Disciplinary Robotics Project with Pre-Service Teachers and Fifth Graders in an Electromechanical Systems CourseAbstract. Engineering is becoming increasingly cross
wanted to ensure that students develop skills in not only project management but alsoworking in teams. The literature shows that Project Management Education needs to include apractical, hands-on project where students can use the theory they are learning to plan, manage,and execute a project with real stakeholders. Van der Horn and Killen found in their research inproject management education that courses in project management require more than justknowing the theory but rather having “lived experiences” and challenges for effective learning[1]. In addition, input from the university’s and department’s advisory boards demand thatstudents have project management skills that they can employ straight out of school.As part of redefining the course