Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Albert L. McHenry; Lakshmi Munukutla, Arizona State University

AC 1999-452: Tenure and Promotion: Technology Faculty and the Research OneUniversityAlbert L. McHenry,Lakshmi Munukutla, Arizona State University Page 4.503.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 1999 Session 2248 Tenure and Promotion: Technology Faculty And The Research One University Albert L. McHenry, Lakshmi V. Munukutla Arizona State University EastAbstractA significant issue has existed for engineering technology faculty

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

H. Öner Yurtseven; Patricia L. Fox; Stephen Hundley

bright, new faculty intoa school or program becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible. In some cases, schools areforced to offer new faculty higher salaries than current faculty, which can result in otherproblems.Another factor to explore for building a case for salary compensation would be to review yourundergraduate salary offers. The National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE)Salary Survey, April 1998 6 reports that the average salary ranges from $35,705 to $45,591 forengineering bachelor degrees and from $52,190 to 53,717 for engineering master degrees.Salary offers in the 90th percentile range from $44,000 to $50,000 for bachelors and from$57,000 to $66,000 for masters. Today, some salary offers to holders of bachelor degrees

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Robert Engelken

research. However, research is still usuallyimportant for promotion, tenure, merit pay, and university image, thus often requiring the newprofessor to perform research with less-than-optimum resources and encouragement. Of course,a research record is critical to maintaining marketability and mobility.Successful research programs can be built at such institutions. Careful selection of research nichesis important to minimize cost and maximize relevance to institutional and regional concerns,particularly those of industries which can support applied research. Creative use of undergraduateresearch assistants is usually critical. Seed money programs aimed toward new faculty or facultyat undergraduate institutions, for example, the National Science

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Patricia M. Yaeger; Rose M. Marra; Francesco Costanzo; Gary L. Gray

in active learning classrooms reported statistically significant gains in teamworkand computer skills. The data indicate the new course design reinforces the ABET goals of en-couraging innovative practices in the classroom that enhance learning and develop skills neededin the workplace.This paper addresses several issues: (1) how do we develop measures that accurately reflectlearning objectives given the innovative teaching practices, (2) what learning outcomes are af-fected when active learning strategies are employed in the engineering classroom, and (3) howcan we use these assessments to improve teaching, learning, and assessment in future semesters?We used the data to enhance activities and assessment for classes being taught during fall

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Walthea V. Yarbrough; Sarah J. Rajala; Richard L. Porter; Hugh Fuller; Laura Bottomley; Mary Clare Robbins

engineeringdepartments, student services (career center, study abroad, academic integrity), and the co-opprogram. Interest was never very high and it created the "talking heads" reputation for theclass. In the new class, departments were not included for in-class presentations but each heldseveral out of class sessions designed to give students having interest in that department morein depth information and an opportunity to tour facilities, talk with faculty, graduate students,and undergraduates in the department. All students were required to attend at least two outsideof class departmental information sessions. The in-class presentations were all designed tostress the interdependency of engineering disciplines, the creative nature of engineering, andthe

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Amir Salehpour; Vijay Subramanian

up by thecommittee was the selection of students for certain award nominations. Budget concerns andother managerial issues were also discussed here. The other item that was discussed was thesenior design project, its evaluation, presentation dates, extensions asked for, and other issues onthis topic. More details of the senior design project are discussed below.The department of MET requires each senior student to undertake a Senior Design Project beforethey can apply for graduation. These involve the designing of new equipment or a component,and then making the prototype. Each faculty member advised four to five students on theseprojects. One of Mr. Salehpour's students was working on a project sponsored by Proctor &Gamble (P&G

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Stephanie Cauble; Ann D. Christy; Marybeth Lima

the faculty. We designed a confidential survey for thisgroup based on personal and academic history, career issues, and opinions andexperiences. Our goals were to identify factors that have led to the success of thesewomen faculty, and to make recommendations to better integrate women into allengineering disciplines. Results (based on a 53% response rate) showed that BAEdepartments provide a supportive environment, and that the female undergraduate studentpopulation is 40% or higher in 65% of the BAE programs. The majority of respondentsreported that gender discrimination was not a job issue, and believe that the attraction ofwomen to BAE is due to its emphasis on biological systems, as well as BAE’s newnessand lack of long-standing

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

A. Eberlein; M. R. Smith

fullyacademic. The Engineering Faculty, as a whole, is currently investigating the legal issues ofintellectual rights and student/faculty responsibility.With 19 – 24 projects to be handled, the project course effectively involves many more peoplethan just the course instructor and project co-ordinator. This leads to misunderstandings andcontradictions. Assigning a single project to all students under one faculty advisor would avoidthis. However, this is an approach the department does not want to take even if it were to becomepossible to find a faculty member willing to give up an already developed course to concentrateon the project course. As this paper goes to press, our provincial government has just fundedtwo new degree programs within our

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Phylis Katz; Howard A. Canistraro; Ann Lankford; Joan Dannenhoffer; Janice Girouard

included faculty from mathematics, technical communications andmechanical engineering technology, as well as the director of student services and the director ofenrollment was formed, to revise ET 111. The following set of goals were established to guide theteam’s work:For the Student: *Make students feel comfortable as members of a College and University that works for them. *Provide students with the opportunity to acquire the facts, skills and attitudes they need to be successful in attaining their education and career goals. *Improve students’ appreciation of SMET and professionals in technology and engineering. *Expose students to new experiences that will expand their vision of college life

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Trevor Harding

the education of the instructed, but also of the instructor. The TAship isoften seen as a sort of internship for those interested in possible academic careers.Therefore, the skills, behaviors, and attitudes developed during this training period willplay a crucial role in defining their approach to teaching as faculty1.This paper strives to examine the nature of how GSIs develop into junior faculty, what anideal training program might entail, and how the University of Michigan’s College ofEngineering has recently begun to address this issue. In writing this paper, it is theauthor’s sincerest hope that administrators will see the value in a quality GSI trainingprogram, professors will see the obvious need to become involved, and students

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Mary E. Besterfield-Sacre; Larry J. Shuman; Jack McGourty

as one encounters new problems and attempts to achieve solutions(whether in engineering or in another context).III. Implications for Curricular Planning and DevelopmentThe new focus on learning outcomes has initiated debate concerning the trade-off betweencontent and process. Specifically, given a limited amount of class time, how should an instructorbalance teaching students the essential knowledge required within a specific field againstdeveloping basic and higher order skills that can be used across disciplines? Certainly, this is nota new debate [20]. No matter what position one takes in this argument, the issues can havesubstantial impact upon the program’s curriculum.If today’s educators shift focus from subject matter to student

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Alice Y. Scales; Aaron C. Clark

in the professional organizations of the Engineering Design GraphicsDivision of the American Society for Engineering Education and the National Association of In-dustrial and Technical Teacher Education.The survey solicited data in four areas related to the engineering/technical graphics profession.First, the survey identified course content, instructional methodology, and software currently beingused in engineering/technical graphics classes. Second, the survey examined current student popu-lations and determined ways institutions are meeting their needs. Third, the survey inquired abouttrends and issues within the profession with emphasis placed on the background of faculty utilizedto teach graphics, faculty concerns with teaching graphics

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

William Whitaker

student will persist(Tinto, 1975,1987).University faculty and administrators have had concern over retention and attrition rates forquite some time. The statistics remain quite consistent; approximately 50 percent of thefreshman who enroll in the nation’s colleges and universities do not persist. Programs ofintervention aimed at identifying and treating these potential dropouts have grown dramatically.II. BackgroundThe reasons students fail to persist in their matriculation are varied and complex. The followingare some of the more commonly cited causes: 1. Students may lack the basic academic skills necessary to be successful in a college program. 2. Students may have received poor advising during their initial semester and

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Keith V. Johnson

opportunity to work with the writer as a colleague, rather than astudent. Since the former advisor was already established in the field, it was to the writers advantageto sign on as a co-author. To often as new faculty members, we immediately set our sights on publishing a book. Thisawesome task requires a great deal of commitment, time, and hard labor. Junior faculty membersusually cannot make this commitment because of job requirements that include advising, committeeassignments, mentoring, preparing to teach new classes, attending meetings, and the unseen agendaof getting acclimated into the community. Depending on the breath and depth of the book, and theediting process, writing and publishing a book may take years to complete. If possible

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Sandra D. Yeigh

initiated into solving in-depth problems.B. Internet and News Analysis: Although the order of magnitude estimation is interesting atfirst, it is difficult to make a research problem out of it. Public policy takes this challenge onestep further by establishing a critical link between energy and the environment. This linkage Page 4.352.2becomes more relevant and interesting as the student-faculty team probes real and societalenergy issues. Examine the front page of a major newspaper. Law suits, debates, hearings,business mergers, and accidents appear daily because the use of energy and the environmentcould not be controlled. If our society were not so

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Robert P. Hesketh; C. Stewart Slater

an FTIR. The afternoon of day five was spent on curriculum development issues. Cooperative learning and planningsessions were conducted to brainstorm approaches to innovate the engineering curriculum withthe new ideas and concepts learned at this workshop. Several sessions were lead by Drs. Slaterand Hesketh on where to integrate novel processes in the curriculum. A special sessionaddressed New Jersey Initiatives in Freshman Programs with talks by Rowan and New JerseyInstitute of Technology faculty. Workshop follow-up activities and dissemination plans werediscussed

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Susan M. Montgomery

- Gender issues in teaching engineering - Race issues in teaching engineering - Testing and grading - Cheating, discipline, and ethics - Evaluation of teaching Academic Career Planning - Obtaining a faculty position - Professional concerns (2 sessions) Page 4.9.2 - Wrap upMy preparation for the course consisted of a literature survey and gathering of materials frompast workshops. Students were expected to arrive prepared to discuss the day’s topic, and onlya small amount of class time was spent presenting material. A homework problem

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Tom Gasque Smith; Deanna E. Ramey

assessments ofstudent writing often seem, at best, subjective, and, at worst, biased.Tutor/consultants who engage engineering faculty and students in conversation use theseconversations as starting points for discussing writing, not as non-writing issues ancillary to theconstruction and design of a student lab report or faculty grant proposal. When, after thequestions of a non-expert tutor, a student writer says, “What I meant to write was ‘. . .’”, thestudent views the new statement as found words. But the tutor views such moments as createdknowledge. Whether the knowlege is created or the words are found, this movement fromimplicit to explicit expression in texts occurs more quickly when consultants/tutors are familiarwith the micro- and macro

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

David E. Hornbeck

Session 3549 THE ABET CRITERIA FOR ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ARE BROKE. LET’S FIX THEM! David E. Hornbeck Southern Polytechnic State UniversityABSTRACTThe proposed new ABET criteria for engineering technology 1 have generated much discussion in theengineering technology community. A common concern is that the proposed outcomes-based criteria,without quantitative specifications, cannot maintain the quality of programs as effectively as the existingABET criteria do. This paper will show that the rationale behind existing criteria is often not clear, andthe

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Kay C Dee

Session 1375 Advising Student Organizations: Penance or Privilege? Kay C Dee Tulane UniversityOften, the first form of departmental or university service experienced by new faculty membersis the role of a “faculty advisor” for a student organization. New educators tend to becomestudent organization faculty advisors for a number of reasons: it can be an excellent way to meetmany students outside the classroom and to establish a reputation in your new institution;advising a student organization can require less institution-specific knowledge than (the moretraditional

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Daniel Davis

attitudes toward teaching and research. Establishing experience in industry as animportant criterion in hiring new faculty may be fundamental to changing the existing cultureand to placing greater emphasis on teaching.8 Schools are being asked to enrich the educationof students, and this can be done by increasing the numbers of faculty with relevant industrialexperience. Integral to accomplishing our educational goals is having the participation ofpractitioners in the educational process. It cannot hurt to have faculty with practitionerexperience in the classroom on a daily basis. Engineering education must reflect the conditionsof practice.According to many, the cornerstone of building a strong education curriculum is balancingpractical experience

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Warren Perger; Leonard J. Bohmann; Bob Bohnsack

Session 1332 Experience with an EC2000 Visit: a view from Michigan Tech’s Electrical Engineering Department Leonard J. Bohmann, Warren F. Perger, and Robert H. Bohnsack Michigan Technological UniversityIntroductionIt all started on March 11, 1997. The new Dean of Engineering, Bob Warrington, was attendingour faculty meeting. In addition to announcing that we had hired a new Dept. Chair, he waspromoting the idea that the College of Engineering should be evaluated under the new ABETEngineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000). The Dean had just joined the college the last December.He was an experienced ABET

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Anthony Brizendine; Laora E. Dauberman-Brizendine

ofprominent civil engineering leaders to a task force “to raise fundamental issues for CivilEngineering educators by offering a broader definition and understanding of the professionalwork of Civil Engineering faculty.” The ASCE Task Force on Redefining Scholarly Workproduced a high-quality, insightful, far-reaching report outlining the background for scholarshipin the profession, as well as, a model to carry civil engineering forward to the new millennium.The Task Force (1998) concluded in their report The Scholarship Landscape in CivilEngineering: A Bridge Between Rhetoric and Reality that a narrow definition of scholarshipwas impractical due to varied institutional missions. The Task Force indicated “the need tohave a clear awareness of

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

William Daughton

assignments. High technology companies, such as thethen Martin Marietta, were concerned that many engineers were entering management positionsresponsible for project or development teams or promoted to managers of small departments orwork groups with little preparation. Ironically, these opportunities sometimes came as a rewardfor a job well done for engineering contributions but placed the individual in an awkwardposition. As Matson1 and Lancaster2 have recently reported, and this author observed whileworking in industry, engineers usually find themselves very poorly equipped to take on theirmanagement assignments. To exacerbate this situation, many individuals cannot leave theworkplace for an extended period to obtain the essential management

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Gloria Rogers; Julia Williams

) and can be used for diagnostic/prescriptive purposes as well. • Increase the “power” of maximum performance measures over more artificial or restrictive “speed” measures on tests or in-class sample. • Increase student participation (e.g., selection, revision, evaluation) in the assessment process.The use of portfolios also has some disadvantages that need to be considered whenchoosing an assessment method. They include: • Problems with storage and administration. • Cost in terms of evaluator time and effort. • Challenge of establishing reliable and valid rating criteria. • Concern of faculty that a hidden agenda of the process is to validate their grading or evaluate the effectiveness of their teaching

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

James Dally; William L. Fourney; Peter C. Chang; Hugh A. Bruck; Dave K. Anand

introduced a more integrated approach in Statics and Mechanics of Materials:An Integrated Approach, addressing design issues by concluding their chapters, "... with asection on Design Problems ..." [10].In the new curriculum being developed at the University of Maryland, an approach to integratingstatics and strength of materials has been proposed where the presentation of both subjects arecentered around a design project. The purpose of this design project is to further develop theinchoate design skills students acquire in their freshman design course. To guide the studentsthrough this new approach, a textbook has been initially conceived around the design of bridgestructures. Furthermore, computer tools and demonstration experiments are also being

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Marla E. Hacker; Thomas M. West

of qualityproducts. Economic survival in this environment requires the education of professionals whocan integrate all the engineering and production functions required to manufacture a constantlychanging array of new products.II. Introduction to the ProgramThe Manufacturing Engineering Masters Program was established in response to industry inputrequesting continuing education opportunities for engineers working in manufacturingenvironments. Manufacturing Engineering is concerned with the application of specializedengineering and managerial knowledge applied to the development of productive systems ofpeople and machines. Primary emphasis is on the design, operation and control of integratedsystems for the production of high quality

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Neil D. Opfer; John Gambatese

consideration of graduate construction coursework, faculty course loads andcapabilities, student and local industry needs and limitations, and departmental resources.Setbacks to commencing the graduate program occurred due to limited initial course enrollmentand the need for additional marketing of the program. Based on the local constructionindustry’s interest in the program and level of construction activity, it is expected that theprogram will eventually provide graduate education meeting the demand for a higher level ofconstruction knowledge.I. IntroductionGraduate construction programs are certainly not new, having been started at some institutionssuch as Stanford University in the mid-1950’s.1 Since that time more than 40 similar programsin

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Joan A. Burtner; Laura Moody

learning environment in the classroom as well as the development ofcooperative faculty teams. Guskin 3 observes, "to create learning environments focused directly on activities that enhance student learning, we must restructure the role of the faculty to maximize essential faculty-student interaction, integrate new technologies fully into the student learning process, and enhance student learning through peer interaction." (pp. 18-19)Evidence of the paradigm shift appears elsewhere in the literature related to teachingengineering. ABET’s Engineering Criteria 2000 is a reflection of the new philosophy.Participants at engineering education conferences deplore the excessive use of “chalkand talk” lectures and commend the

Collection

1999 Annual Conference

Authors

Nagy N. Bengiamin

exchange of philosophies among faculty. These dialogs bring faculty views closer and permit establishing a common understanding of relevant issues. A sense of ownership gets established and a better understanding of one’s own views usually take place.VI. ChallengesAlthough EC2000 proved beneficial to the quality of engineering education, its initialimplementation requires a steep learning curve and a sincere commitment to developing ameaningful assessment program. It is the belief of this author that once an effective assessmentprogram is established, its maintenance will be manageable and of continued benefit.Developing a new assessment program must be approached as an open-ended critical thinkingproject. One or two faculty members at