challengingones. Combined with the technical track advisory board, which consists of representatives fromindustry, students, and faculty of each track in the department, the overall structure hopes tobenefit the students in an unprecedented way that revolutionizes how and what skills theElectrical Engineering curriculum can teach and offer to the students.Purpose and Author TeamThe first author initiated this research as an electrical engineering undergraduate student,intending to know how PFE and the technical tracks combined support learners to prepare forindustry requirements. The study described in this article is part of a larger Participatory ActionResearch (PAR) project at the Department of Electrical Engineering that engages students
and parallel ideas. tasks. Curriculum objectives related Select an engineering project to the Washington Accord; outcome (PO) in the corresponding standard for the e.g. environment and learning outcome (CO) requiredEvaluation based on sustainability, abstract thinking by professional coursesthe matrix of and originality in analysis to Construct the CO-PO matrixcompetency criteria Isa et al.[24
Paper ID #41622Work in Progress: Project Teams’ Structure Impacting Students’ ProfessionalSkill DevelopmentEmily Buten, University of Michigan Emily (she/her) is a Ph.D. student in the Engineering Education Research program at the University of Michigan and received her B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from University of Dayton. Her research focuses on individuals’ development from students to professional engineers. She is particularly interested in studying co-op/internship programs, professional skills development, and diverse student experiences in experiential learning settings.Jack Boomer Perry, University of Michigan
key design principles,including: i) Student agency: highlighting students’ ability to contribute meaningfully toknowledge creation and engage in real-world projects; ii) Open-endedness: acknowledgingthe inherent flexibility of interdisciplinary learning and the need for ongoing coursedevelopment; iii) Dialogue and transparency: emphasizing continuous communicationbetween students and faculty throughout the design process. These principles challengetraditional, pre-designed approaches and advocate for flexible, co-developed curricula.Inspired by the work of Markauskaite et al. [19], the experimented course at PlakshaUniversity was co-designed not by students and professors but by two professors belongingto different streams.A recent study in
management, communication skills, and decision-making [8] The industry considers engineers the vehicle for development because they play a crucial role in industrial evolution[9]. The industry requires engineering graduates with skills that meet the current industrial needs. It is essential in engineering schools to focus on industrial needs, as that increases the alignment level between industry and academia. In other words, the more universities know and apply in curriculums the industrial objectives, the more they are helping students to enhance their skills and get trained on what they will face in the industry. Hence, if the lack of capstone design project completion and low student motivation remained the same, it would
curriculum thatbest suits the graduate preparing for a career such that the industry can hire knowledgeable smartgrid employees. Multiple universities have partnered on a DOE-funded project calledGrid-Ready Energy Analytics Training with Data (GREAT with Data) to solve this shortage ofqualified workforce. These universities mentioned above that have partnered together consist ofthe University of California, Riverside (UCR), University of Texas, Austin (UT), Virginia Tech(VT), Stony Brook University (SBU), and Washington State University (WSU). To meet smartgrid requirements, these five universities have adapted courses for undergraduate and graduatestudents in different categories, including machine learning, cyber security, alternative
level.INTRODUCTION The National Curriculum Parameters for Undergraduate Engineering Programs in Brazil,instituted by Resolution No. 2, of April 24, 2019, establish that every undergraduate program inEngineering have a Pedagogical Project for the Program which, in addition to ensuring thedevelopment of the competencies established in the profile of the graduate and to present the set oflearning activities in the curriculum, clearly specify and describe “[…] VIII – the process of self-assessment and program learning management that includes the instruments for assessing the skillsdeveloped, and the respective contents, the diagnostic process and the elaboration of action plans toimprove learning, specifying the responsibilities and governance of the
, and J. G. Harris, “Lessons learned from two years of flippingcircuits i,” in ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2015.[16] E. Godfrey and L. Parker, “Mapping the cultural landscape in engineering education,”Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 5–22, 2010.[17] S. Lord, E. J. Berger, N. N. Kellam, E. L. Ingram, D. M. Riley, D. T. Rover, N. Salzman,and J. D. Sweeney, “Talking about a revolution: Overview of NSF RED projects,” in ASEEAnnual Conference & Exposition, 2017.[18] A. A. Maciejewski, T. W. Chen, Z. S. Byrne, M. A. De Miranda, L. B. S. Mcmeeking, B.M. Notaros, A. Pezeshki, S. Roy, A. M. Leland, M. D. Reese et al., “A holistic approach totransforming undergraduate electrical engineering education,” IEEE Access
, theaforementioned Wright State model has been viewed through the lens of Curricular Analytics toexplain the program's success [16]. MethodsData Collection and PreprocessingThe dataset used in this research encompasses curricula data from five engineering disciplines(i.e., Civil, Chemical, Electrical, Industrial, and Mechanical) across thirteen institutions in theMultiple Institution Database for Investigating Engineering Longitudinal Development(MIDFIELD) [17], which included required courses, prerequisites, and corequisites. Wecollected the curricular data starting from the most recent record in the dataset and went backnine more years to gather a longitudinal perspective on how the curriculum changed over
Generative ArtificialIntelligence (GenAI) tools, notably large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT, may havereshaped the current educational landscape in the most significant way (Grassini, 2023; Mollick,2024) due to their capacity to enhance academic performances, revolutionizing how studentsapproach assignments and projects. Technical and AI literacies are crucial for everyone intoday's advanced digital landscape, enabling individuals to understand, engage with, andcritically assess the AI technologies that increasingly influence many aspects of daily life, asemphasized by Qadir et al. (2020) and Yang et al. (2024), who focus on essential competenciesand AI literacy, respectively. However, alongside the development of GenAI, a change in
formal guidance on handling planof study data for broader projects, we contend this work can become a resource to fill thecurrent gap in standard practices for proper data entry to analyze curricula. Drawing Insights from a Broader Longitudinal Project on Curricular ComplexityThis work is derived from a larger project focused on quantifying plans of study for fiveengineering disciplines (Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering,Chemical Engineering, and Industrial Engineering) to compare the complexity of suchprograms across the United States. The sampling frame, in this case, was the Multi-InstitutionDatabase for Engineering Longitudinal Development (MIDFIELD) [15]. Data collection forthe larger project was completed
engineering students between academicperformance, test anxiety, and mental health. These studies highlight the critical relationshipbetween academic achievement and mental health while offering a thorough examination of themany variables influencing success in STEM fields. In their investigation of the effects of testanxiety on first-year engineering students, Major et al., (2020) make the case for treatments thattackle systemic issues and suggest testing alternatives that put mental health above tradition [22].Coop and Headley’s (2021) research on the impact of distance learning on test anxiety inengineering undergraduates, looks at student feedback on experiences with distance learning, testanxiety, and academic achievement [23]. The project
, and diverse strategies used by universities [1].Craney et al. [2] surveyed 465 undergraduate research participants from varied disciplines andbackgrounds, discovering high satisfaction and significant gains in professional development,deeper subject understanding, and better preparedness for graduate studies and careers. Similarly,Lopatto [3] found that 85% of UR participants in science continued to postgraduate education,with those not pursuing further studies reporting lesser gains. Haddad and Kalaani [4] introduceda model to integrate research into traditional curriculums via summer workshops and designatedcourses, aiming to boost participation through the creation of an Undergraduate Research Office.Lopatto's further research [5
. and M.S. degrees from UC San Diego and his Ph.D. from UC Berkeley, all in chemical engineering.Dr. Jeffrey A. Nason, Oregon State University Jeff Nason is a professor of environmental engineering and associate head for graduate programs in the School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering at Oregon State University. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Discourse Moves and Engineering Epistemic Practices in a Virtual Laboratory IntroductionLaboratory activities have long held a central place in the engineering curriculum. These activities allowstudents to engage in valued disciplinary
his Ph.D. he began working in the Aerospace Industry where he spent over 10 years as a Stress Analyst/Consultant. At present he enjoys working on Distributed Electric Propulsion (DEP) with his students, designing, analyzing, constructing and flying Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Dr. Nader won a few awards in the past few years, among these are the College of Engineering Award of Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching (2023), Excellence in Faculty Academic Advising for the College of Engineering and Computer Science (2020). In addition, he is also a Co-PI on the NSF-supported HSI Implementation and Evaluation Project: Enhancing Student Success in Engineering Curriculum through Active e-Learning and High Impact Teaching
, such as understanding college impacts on student transition intocollege (Terenzini & Reason, 2005), the class environment affecting student learning andmotivation (Abadi et al., 2017; Lawanto & Febrian, 2018; Lord et al., 2012; M. Te Wang &Eccles, 2013), students choosing their postsecondary pathways (X. Wang, 2013), and graduatestudent teaching performance (Reeves et al., 2018). Similarly, studies are also abundant inunderstanding the faculty or instructors’ perspectives in terms of contexts. Lattuca and Stark(2009) created a theory that encapsulates how one can shape a college curriculum. The theoryencompasses a wide range of contexts that influence the shaping, such as external influences ofmarket forces, government, and
cultivate students’ real problem-solving abilitiesand non-academic skills, such as communication skills. May et al.’ (2023) agreed thatnon-academic skills development is also worth being considered in the engineeringcurriculum design to guarantee consistency of the teaching aims, methods, content,and students’ development needs.Implications and Future DirectionsAccording to the findings, the practical pedagogical implications are suggested forengineering education. These implications mainly relate to the lab development,corresponding teaching methods, and engineering curriculum design. Because thetechnology has promoted the related lab's development, for instance, incorporatingtechnologies like simulation and augmented reality can enhance hands-on
, and has co-authored the undergraduate textbook Intermediate Solid Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, 2020). He is dedicated to engi- neering pedagogy and enriching students’ learning experiences through teaching innovations, curriculum design, and support of undergraduate student research.Prof. Curt Schurgers, University of California, San Diego Curt Schurgers is a Teaching Professor in the UCSD Electrical and Computer Engineering Department. His research and teaching are focused on course redesign, active learning, and project-based learning. He also co-directs a hands-on undergraduate research program called Engineers for Exploration, in which students apply their engineering knowledge to problems in
quality of prototypes developed by students, and foster teamwork andcoordination both within teams and across the entire class. Students demonstrated significantgrowth in their understanding of fundamental electrical principles. The game-based approachsparked curiosity and engagement, leading to increased interest in electrical topics. Collaborativeefforts within teams and across the class were positively impacted, improving teamwork dynamics.Moreover, students reported high enjoyment levels during the project, thanks to the RPG element.Notably, the quality of prototypes showed substantial improvement compared to previoussemesters.Theme 2: Technical/Soft SkillsFour of the nice articles described the technical and soft skills relating to game
research on the performance of students in courses using OER and more specifically inarchitecture and engineering education. The objective of this research is to assess the impact of anOER platform for teaching building information modeling (BIM) course, taught to architecture,engineering and construction (AEC) students at the University of Texas at Arlington. This studyexamined the performance of AEC students in a BIM course before and after adopting the OERplatform developed and also a combined OER and flipped classroom strategy. Hypothesis testswere performed to compare the averages of students’ project and overall grades in three semestersthat the BIM course was offered without the OER, with the OER, and with combined OER withflipped classroom
the goal of offering evidence-basedpractices for countering marginalization in engineering communication practice and research. 2. Literature review and identified gapAs a profession, engineering is dominated by teamwork. In academic contexts, engineering educatorsattempt to provide meaningful teamwork experiences for students to prepare them for the profession. Theemphasis on teamwork as a learning outcome has recently increased (ABET, 2012; Patil & Codner,2007), with team projects spanning the entire engineering curriculum from first-year courses to capstonecourses (Froyd, 2005). As a learning outcome, teaming is linked to a wide range of professional skills,including communication, ethics and lifelong learning (Borrego et al., 2013
and societal decisions about technology, macroethicshelps novice engineers better understand the real implications of their work in society (Hekert, 2005).Aerospace engineering has been historically dominated by white cis-gendered male students, and theprivilege that this majority holds affects the lens through which students perceive macroethical conceptsin the field. Thus, there is a vital need for macroethical concepts to be included in undergraduateaerospace engineering curricula.This study extends previous iterations of our research, in which one-day macroethics lessons wereimplemented into undergraduate aerospace engineering courses (Benham et al., 2021). These data wereused to inform the development of a survey that was distributed to
Electrical Engineering (2022) from the University of Florida and a Master’s degree in Educational Technology (2016) from the Universidad Tecnologica de Santiago (UTESA). He also holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Electronics Engineering (1998) from the Pontificia Universidad Catolica Madre y Maestra (PUCMM). He is fervently dedicated to understanding and improving student learning through active classroom engagement. He is passionate about exploring effective pedagogy, striving to captivate students’ attention, stimulate their curiosity, and ignite their passion for learning.Idalis Villanueva Alarc´on, University of Florida Dr. Villanueva is an Associate Professor in the Engineering Education Department at the
needs of disabledstudents. We also carefully considered our own privileged identities that may bias the analysis,namely, being white, English-speaking, U.S. citizens in academia.Methods The findings presented here are a subset of a larger project and data collection effortfocusing more broadly on the experiences of disabled students. Complete methodological detailscan be found in (Figard et al., 2023).Research Design The primary data sources for our study are ten semi-structured interviews with disabledengineering students. These interviews were conducted at a single site by the first author in Fall2022. Interview transcripts were analyzed in two rounds by using thematic analysis with acritical lens. Open coding was used during
Paper ID #44411Enhancing Knowledge Surveys with an Intellectual Humility ScaleDr. Kyle Luthy, Wake Forest University Dr. Kyle Luthy is an Assistant Professor and founding faculty member in the Department of Engineering at Wake Forest University. Kyle has taught across the engineering curriculum and placed intentional focus on the virtue of humility. Kyle holds a Ph.D. and a MS in Computer Engineering from North Carolina State University, as well as BS degrees in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, and Computer Science from Louisiana State University. As an educator, he brings professional experience as an engineer
-curricular experiences and their effects [3-5]. Most of the literature hasindicated that engineering students would benefit from co-curricular activities that includedprofessional skill development (e.g., leadership, critical thinking, communication) and broadenedstudents’ career choices [6, 7]. A research focus on engineering identity and its development asan important issue receives increasing attention in higher education [8-9]. Rodriguez et al. [10]point out that engineering students might choose to leave the field due to a lack of identificationof themselves as future engineers. Existing studies have shown that the experiences ofengineering students within co-curricular activities influence students’ engineering identityformation and
Paper ID #38731Comparing Computational Thinking Competencies Across UndergraduateEngineering Majors: A Qualitative AnalysisMiss Na Zhao, Nanyang Technological University Zhao Na is an undergraduate student in the Bachelor of Accounting program at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore. She is involved in the Undergraduate Research on Campus (URECA) program and is working on computational thinking projects as part of Dr. Yeter’s Research Team at NTU.Dr. Ibrahim H. Yeter, Nanyang Technological University Ibrahim H. Yeter, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor at the National Institute of Education (NIE) at Nanyang
. IntroductionEngineering curriculum frequently focuses on technical, analytical, and decision makingknowledge and skills, evident by the common focus of courses on math and physics principles[1]–[3]. Course problem sets and projects routinely focus on determining variables and solvingequations where there is one “right” answer [4]. However, engineering work is inherently bothtechnical and social [5], [6]. To address major problems of today’s world, engineering studentsneed to develop contextual and cultural competencies, ethical responsibility, and socialengagement knowledge and skills, as well as the ability to work across disciplinary boundaries[7]–[10]. Engagement in these skills, which we collectively call “comprehensive engineeringknowledge and skills”, are
ineducational contexts, especially in engineering education. [18] offers a fascinating exploration ofthe integration of deep learning and computer vision into the curriculum for multidisciplinaryengineering students. This educational intervention, set within a robotics design and applicationscourse, demonstrates both the potential and the challenges of incorporating AI into engineeringeducation. Avanzato's study utilized transfer learning to facilitate the use of complex algorithmsby students, reducing the need for extensive databases and specialized hardware. However, thestudy also brings to light the difficulties students face in grasping advanced AI concepts,highlighting the importance of real world, project-based learning in overcoming these
interventions that measurably enhance students’ skills and competencies. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4247-4322Dr. Prateek Shekhar, New Jersey Institute of Technology Prateek Shekhar is an Assistant Professor – Engineering Education in the School of Applied Engineering and Technology at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. He holds a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas - Austin, an MS in Electrical Engineering from the University of Southern California, and a BS in Electronics and Communication Engineering from India. Dr. Shekhar also holds a Graduate Certificate in Engineering Education from Virginia Tech. Prior to his current appointment, he worked as a Postdoctoral Researcher and Assistant