AC 2008-1414: STIMULATING AND DEVELOPING REFLECTIVE THINKING INUNDERGRADUATE STUDENTSElizabeth Howard, Illinois Institute of Technology Elizabeth Howard is a second-year Ph.D. candidate in the Industrial/Organizational Psychology program at the Illinois Institute of Technology. She received her Bachelor of Science in Psychology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2006. She is working with the IPRO program as a research associate.Daniel Ferguson, Illinois Institute of Technology Daniel M. Ferguson, MBA, MSIE, is a Senior Lecturer in the IIT Stuart School of Business, and Associate Director for Research and Operations of the Interprofessional (IPRO) program. He was
” program. The program isstructured in a 2+2 model; students participate in a 2-year foundation curriculum that includes arange of courses across engineering disciplines, the sciences, mathematics, design andcomplementary studies. This is followed by a 2-year specialization curriculum, during whichstudents take one of 8 (at publication time) Majors. Curriculum integration and multidisciplinarythinking are emphasized as program goals.The Majors have a focus, although not exclusively, on emerging and rapidly developing areas ofspecialization within engineering. Some of the Majors that are offered within the EngineeringScience program are also offered in other institutions/programs (like Aerospace Engineering,Biomedical Engineering and Electrical &
error.Program Climate from Junior/Senior Year (JSY) Student InterviewsWhere the first year students focused primarily on academic survival as key to developing abelief they belong in engineering, more senior students had a broader view of their programenvironment and engineering culture. Most undergraduate engineering programs in the UnitedStates are dominated by white, middle class, straight male students (and faculty) so they arethe main contributors to the social dynamic of the school’s climate. Those that are part of thedominant culture are better prepared to navigate through the social spaces and sometimes donot see the inequalities present [24]. For example, one JSY white male student described hisclassmates in the engineering program: it is
non-traditional, second- career, engineering students.Dr. Konstantin Cigularov, Old Dominion University Dr. Konstantin Cigularov is an Associate Professor of Industrial and Organizational Psychology in the College of Sciences at Old Dominion University. He holds a Ph.D. from Colorado State University in Industrial-Organizational Psychology and a B.S. in Banking and Finance from the University of Eco- nomics in Bulgaria. As the Director of the Leadership and Employee Assessment and Development Re- search Lab, Dr. Cigularov has investigated various organizational issues related to leadership and culture, employee burnout and stress, as well as training programs and interventions. Dr. Cigularov has extensive
confidence, development of an understanding to connecttheory with practice, inculcating an ability to work independently, etc.1,7,8 The existing literaturealso points out that undergraduate research seems to stimulate student interest in the subject-matter, resulting in an enhancement of critical thinking skills, improvement of career awareness,and development of an active learning attitude.7Students participating in this study have been involved with undergraduate research over the lastthree semesters. Before selecting their research topics, students were introduced to differenttopics of study (in the first semester of their involvement) by inviting multiple faculty membersto present their current research and explain possible opportunities for
. Data for the EFA analysis were collected over atwo weeks in summer 2019 with students enrolled in an online undergraduate engineeringprogram at a large, southwestern public university. Recruitment emails to participate in theonline survey were sent to students by the chair of the program. Participants were instructed toconsider one particular online course when responding to the items on the survey. (Notably, mostparticipants were only enrolled in one course.) The order in which items were shown on eachscale was randomized to reduce the participant bias that can result from the order in which itemsare presented. Students could choose to enter a drawing for one of 250 $10 Amazon gift cards asa thank you for participating in the survey upon
research focuses on approaches in the design innovation process, ideation flexibility, investigations of problem-solution spaces, and concept generation and development practices of novices through practitioners. She produces theory, design principles and systems to support design, engineering and educational innovation processes, through studying experiences of individuals and teams that lead to innovative thinking and through integrating that knowledge into organizational change.Kelly Guerin, Iowa State University Kelly Guerin is an Undergraduate Research Assistant at Iowa State University. She is a junior pursuing a Bachelor of Industrial Design. c American Society for Engineering Education
, “Investigating the ways in which student agency develops through engagement with knowledge,” in Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, 2018, pp. 1–5.[25] M. W. Ohland, S. D. Sheppard, G. Lichtenstein, O. Eris, D. Chachra, and R. A. Layton, “Persistence, engagement, and migration in engineering programs,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 259–278, 2008.[26] C. E. Brawner, M. M. Camacho, S. M. Lord, R. A. Long, and A. W. Ohland, “Women in industrial engineering: Stereotypes, persistence, and perspectives,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 288–318, 2012.[27] M. H. Forbes, A. R. Bielefeldt, J. F. Sullivan, and R. L. Littlejohn, “Low-Choice Culture in Undergraduate Engineering and Autonomy
course, and students satisfy thisrequirement in a variety of ways. A large proportion of students participate in real-world,industry-sponsored projects. Nearly all programs have a strong connection with industry at thecapstone level, leveraging their geographical location both to identify design projects and toinvolve people from industry as adjunct faculty in the classroom. In addition, there is interestamong some faculty and administrators in allowing student credit for activities such asundergraduate research or competitive design projects sponsored by student organizations.At the ASU Polytechnic campus, the Bachelor of Science in Engineering (B.S.E.) degreeprogram enrolled its first students in fall of 2005 and graduated the first cohort of
graduate design and education related classes at Stanford University, she conducts research on engineering education and work-practices, and applied finite element analysis. From 1999-2008 she served as a Senior Scholar at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, leading the Foundation’s engineering study (as reported in Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field). In addition, in 2011 Dr. Sheppard was named as co-PI of a national NSF innovation center (Epicenter), and leads an NSF program at Stanford on summer research experiences for high school teachers. Her industry experiences includes engineering positions at Detroit’s ”Big Three:” Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, and
environments; engineering design education; and mathematical thinking. Page 24.968.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014 Parents as Critical Influence: Insights from Five Studies (Other)AbstractBroadening participation in engineering, increasing students interest in engineering, andincreasing technological literacy are concerns that engineering programs and engineeringeducation researchers continue to address. One important group to consider in this process isparents. Parents play a number of roles in engineering education: they can
AC 2008-679: AN INVESTIGATION OF GAPS IN DESIGN PROCESS LEARNING:IS THERE A MISSING LINK BETWEEN BREADTH AND DEPTH?Christine B. Masters, Pennsylvania State University Christine B. Masters is an Assistant Professor of Engineering Science and Mechanics at The Pennsylvania State University. She earned a PhD from Penn State in 1992. In addition to raising four children with her husband of 20 years, she has been teaching introductory mechanics courses for more than 10 years, training the department graduate teaching assistants for 7 years, coordinating the Engineering Science Honors Program undergraduate advising efforts for 5 years and currently participates in a variety of engineering
AC 2012-3716: INTERACTIVE, WEB-BASED WORKSHOPS ON EDUCA-TIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AND PROJECTSDr. Russ Pimmel, University of Alabama Russell Pimmel retired from the NSF after serving as a Program Director in the Division of Undergraduate Education for eight years. Before that, he was a faculty member at the University of Alabama, the Uni- versity of Missouri, University of North Carolina, and Ohio State University. He also has held industrial positions with Emerson Electric Co., McDonald-Douglas Co., and Battelle Research Labs.Dr. Roger K. Seals, Louisiana State University Roger K. Seals is Professor Emeritus of civil and environmental engineering, Louisiana State Univer- sity, 2005-present. He was Program
AC 2011-850: GENDER AND ENGINEERING: USING PHOTO ELICITA-TION AS A METHOD OF INQUIRYKatherine M. Morley Katherine is an undergraduate student in Aeronautical Engineering at Purdue University. As a member of the Society of Women in Engineering, and a participant in the Women in Engineering Program at Purdue University, she took interest in feminist engineering research. She is particularly interested to learn how engineering is conceptualized and gendered.Alice L. Pawley, Purdue University, West Lafayette Dr. Alice L. Pawley is an assistant professor in the School of Engineering Education and an affiliate faculty member in the Women’s Studies Program at Purdue University. She has a B.Eng. in Chemical Engineering
on our data to answer this question, when asked to reflect on thechanges that have occurred, many interviewees remark that faculty today do pay greater attentionto undergraduate education, and participate in more regular, if not always continuousimprovement efforts both at course and program level. Indeed, individuals from many differentinstitutions, regardless of position or institutional rank, mentioned that conversations in thedepartments and colleges that were stimulated by an ABET visit were helpful. (This said, manyinstitutions still rush to compile their ABET data two to three years before a visit.) Many of thoseinterviewed also admit that curriculum changes, especially at program level, were a moreinfrequent occurrence prior to EC
women in engineering degree programs and effective pedagogy in undergraduate engineering curriculum.Dr. James J. Pembridge, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Univ., Daytona BeachDr. Yosef S. Allam, Colorado School of Mines Yosef Allam is a Teaching Associate Professor in the EPICS first-year engineering program at the Col- orado School of Mines. Prior to joining Mines, he was an Assistant Professor in the Engineering Funda- mentals Department at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and an Affiliate Director for Project Lead The Way in Florida, as well as an Instructor in the First-Year Engineering Program at The Ohio State University. He graduated from The Ohio State University with B.S. and M.S. degrees in Industrial and
consulting senior scholar at the Carnegie Foundation, having directed the Preparations for the Professions Program (PPP) engineering study, and co-authored the study's report Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field (2008). Before coming to Stanford University, she held several positions in the automotive industry, including senior research engineer at Ford Motor Company's Scientific Research Lab. She earned a Ph.D. at the University of Michigan. Page 15.1132.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2010 STUDENTS IMPROVING: IDENTIFYING FACTORS THAT
thatthey more easily accommodate these approaches. Ten years after the Seven Principles werepublished Chickering and Ehrmann14 noted that we could use “technology as a lever” to helpimplement these principles. The large-scale technology of the learning space itself can be onesuch lever.Examples of Alternative Learning SpacesDifferent groups are starting to transform some learning spaces to accommodate morecooperative and active learning approaches.15A prime example of using redesigned space to enhance learning is the SCALE-UP project(Student Centered Activities for Large Enrolment Undergraduate Programs).16 While thisproject has broader interests, its initial focus has been introductory physics. It is a joint projectof a number of universities
the National Science Foundation.The authors would like to thank the participants who volunteered their time in completing thesurveys described herein, along with the ASEE LEES division reviewers for their insights andhelpful comments on the initial draft. Page 26.740.11References1. Genco, N., Hölttä-Otto, K., & Seepersad, C. C. (2012). An experimental investigation of the innovation capabilities of undergraduate engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 60-81.2. Duderstadt, J. J. (2010). Engineering for a Changing World: A Roadmap to the Future of American Engineering Practice, Research, and
Practical Action.In this section, I highlight four lessons and place these lessons in a broader context. These fourlessons include: 1. Build long-standing community partnerships, 2. Present students with holistic models of poverty, 3. Develop informed frameworks to determine innovation success, and 4. Create case studies rooted in real engineering initiatives in marginalized communities.Engineering educators should critically reflect on their ability to make long-standingcommitments to specific communities, taking care not to over-extend their reach. Buildingcommunity partnerships takes time and commitment. Both IDE and Practical Action have aregular and long-standing presence in communities. Some innovative service-learning programs
. Industry Sector 2. Project Scale 3. Geographic Location 4. Type of Client 5. Stakeholder Group 6. Professional Discipline 7. Years of Experience with Design 8. Formal Training in Sustainable Design 9. GenderTable 1 presents the subjects and how each fit the diversity criteria. The numbers associated witheach participant represent only the order in which they were interviewed.1. Industry Sector Page 12.1559.13The industry sector or sectors in which the participant had experience served as the main sourceof diversity. This was because of the significantly different conditions and challenges that thedifferent sectors face. This
technology education programs at undergraduate andgraduate levels? Figure 1. The complex describing rankings and comparisonsIt is very likely that most engineering and technology members of the academy have beeninvolved in a number of different exercises to demonstrate that what we teach engineeringstudents, the environment in which they learn and the programs in which they are enrolled are of Page 15.1008.7high quality. The most common objective measure of this is the accreditation process that weundergo on a regular basis. Whether this is the ABET criteria and process within the UnitedStates or a comparable process in other countries
? To understand the best practices (and challenges) of designers (both engineers and non- engineers) for incorporating stakeholder considerations into the design of an aircraft, I conducted a case study in industry using human factors and interdisciplinary collaboration theories to describe the findings. I also examined engineering design literature and compared their perspectives on systems thinking and the integration of stakeholder considerations with the results of an exploration of current aerospace design textbooks and syllabi. Finally, I developed a survey using engineering design education research to learn from the participants in my study about their prior knowledge of and preconceptions