thatthey had some hours to spare each week committed to a research project. Regarding research topics,the only trepidation was along the lines of their own technical capabilities/skills pertaining to theresearch project, and especially since this was their generally first experience with research. Oncethe major ‘fears’ were alleviated that included self-competency concerns and the uncertaintiesinvolved, the students were excited to get started and get the major equipment/safety training done. Proceedings of the 2017 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Section Annual Conference Organized by The University of Texas at Dallas Copyright © 2017, American Society for Engineering Education
Emergence of a Multidisciplinary Environment through Interdepartmental Alliances Involving a College-Specific Maker Space Luis J. Martinez1, Edward Pines, PhD1, and Patricia A. Sullivan, PhD1 1 Department of Industrial Engineering, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003AbstractAcademic maker spaces at the college and broader university level are becoming commonplaceas campuses strive to foster an environment for technology innovation and entrepreneurshipamong students and faculty alike. While easier to manage, costs associated with developingcollege or department-specific maker spaces can often lead to reduced scope, difficulties
Texas at Dallas Copyright © 2017, American Society for Engineering Education 2017 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Section Annual ConferenceThis paper discusses the development of hypothetical cases in engineering ethics. Such cases areuseful for classroom exercises or competition content. Guidelines are made for casecomposition and analysis. Three custom ethics cases are included as examples.Exercises and Competitions in Engineering EthicsEngineering codes of ethics generally have a statement of principles followed by a listing ofguidelines in which the principles are applied. For the Tau Beta Pi Code of Ethics of Engineersas shown in Table 1., these sections are labeled “The Fundamental Principles” and
. During the last fewyears of 1990s programs were given the choice of being evaluated based on the old criteria or thenewly established EC-2000 criteria. Since 2000, all engineering programs requesting accreditationfor the first time or seeking re-accreditation by ABET-EAC must demonstrate that program meetsa set of criteria that include both the general criteria for baccalaureate degree programs as well asthe program criteria required by the program lead society (e.g., ASCE, IEEE, ASME).1 Theprograms must also meet all the requirements listed in the Accreditation-Policy-and-Procedure-Manual of ABET.2Since 2000, there has been minor changes to EAC general criteria and program criteria. Originallythe ABET-EAC-2000 accreditation was based on 7
careers. Students were also asked to ratespecific PREP experiences. Finally, in open-ended questions, students were asked about the“best” part of the program and what improvements could be made.AnalysesOf the 49 students who participated, 46 took the content knowledge exam before and after thecamp. The exam provided scores in three content knowledge categories: (1) vocabulary, (2)problem solving, and (3) technical skill. Of the students in the camp, 48 completed the self-efficacy survey before and after the camp. (One student completed the self-efficacy surveybefore the camp, but not after the camp.) This survey provided confidence scores in twocategories: (1) academic and (2) technical. The scores in these categories were a function ofstudents
elimination that includes the stepsof: (1) disassembling defective products, (2) inspecting individual components, (3) categorizingdefects, (4) applying basic quality control tools to quantify the defects, (5) conducting statistical Proceedings of the 2017 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Section Annual Conference Organized by The University of Texas at Dallas Copyright © 2017, American Society for Engineering Education 2017 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Section Annual Conferencestudies to find sources of variations, (6) eliminating root causes leading to process variations, (7)replacing defective parts with good ones, (8) reassembling and retesting the product, (9) writingup
and Computer Science has been an active participatein “a national partnership of universities with the shared mission to graduate engineers with anentrepreneurial mindset…” These efforts are coordinated by the Kern EngineeringEntrepreneurial Network (KEEN) under the mantra that “it is critical for engineering schools toteach a technical skillset and an entrepreneurial mindset-fostering curiosity, connections and thecreation of value” …”so that students can create personal, economic, and societal value througha lifetime of meaningful work.”One approach used to implement KEEN EM ideals at Baylor was to commission KEENInnovators to explore opportunities to expose students to EM topics and experiences within aclassroom setting.1-3 This is more
4 is to conduct themselves in a professional and ethical manner.Finally, in an effort to generalize these PEO’s, Table 6 maps these PEO’s to both desired traits ofengineering graduates as well as the institutional core values. It can be seen that PEO statementsshould cover four core traits that we would expect for our graduates: 1 Practice Engineering 2. Advanced Learning 3. Leadership 4. Professional Responsibility. Proceedings of the 2017 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Section Annual Conference Organized by The University of Texas at Dallas Copyright © 2017