Conference Session

Track 3 - Session II - Faculty Development

Collection

2013 ASEE International Forum

Authors

Stephen Hundley, Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis; Lynn G Brown, The Boeing Company

Tagged Topics

Faculty Development

community on the survey’s preliminary findings. Thus, thenext section highlights findings-to-date, provides a brief discussion of the findings, and outlinesnext steps in this project.Summary of Key Findings-to-DateThe survey yielded 1,027 “usable case” respondents reflecting the following demographicprofile: 70% English; 30% non-English; responses received from all languages except French 80% Male; 20% Female 50% between ages of 40-60; balance over other age ranges 46% Academicians; 40% Practitioners; 10% Students; balance preferred not to answer Aerospace (17%); Computer Science (13%); and Electrical/Computer (13%) are largest Engineering Discipline response categories 64% reported having graduate-level Engineering degreeTop

Conference Session

Track 3 - Session II - Faculty Development

Collection

2013 ASEE International Forum

Authors

Danielle Marie Dowling, Tufts Center for Engineering Education and Outreach; Morgan M Hynes, Arizona State University

Tagged Topics

Faculty Development

ascertain the general character of the respective Page 21.34.3lexica the Design Team members used in posing questions to their students with an eye towardimproving the Thought Cloud and future professional development activities. Specifically, wewanted to answer the following questions: 1) How did the teachers stack up against one another? 2) Were there any factors that united or separated them? 3) Did their words reflect a shift toward the exposure of student reasoning or did they remain firmly rooted in the delivery of content? 4) In what ways can we characterize words that open a window on students’ minds

Conference Session

Track 3 - Session II - Faculty Development

Collection

2013 ASEE International Forum

Authors

Mohammad Kamal Hossain, Tuskegee University; Stacy Benjamin, Northwestern University; Kwanju Kim, Hongik University; Manuel Löwer, RWTH Aachen University; Pradosh K. Ray, Tuskegee University

Tagged Topics

Faculty Development

solution customized forthat city. The urban areas selected reflect the geographically diverse nature of the teams:Ahmadabad (India), Seoul (Korea), Shanghai (China), Monterrey (Mexico), and Cincinnati(USA). Each team was responsible for its own team organization, project management, interimdeliverables and timeline, communications, and team-building activities. The Global JudgingTeam (comprising members from GM, University of Cincinnati, and University of Sao Paulo)defined the project deliverables. The judging criteria involved four areas: 1) market research, 2)design, 3) engineering, and 4) manufacturing.Our team was Team 2, composed of teams from Inha University-Engineering (South Korea),Monash University-Industrial Design (Australia