feature. Project work has for many years been a feature of engineering courses.Whitehead argues that the curriculum should be designed to follow the rhythm of these stagesIt may be argued that those engineering educators who have a philosophy of education such asWhitehead’s are better position to help schools develop engineering studies than those whorely on experience alone. For example, because of an unusual feature of the Irish Post-Elementary system students have the possibility of taking a transition year between the end ofthe Junior cycle of post-elementary education at 15 and the beginning of the two year senior Page 13.978.9cycle at 16
thirty years later, the then President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers E.J. Midwinter said of his approach to the curriculum that it was based on generalizedsystems and “It suggests common ground between engineering and most otherdisciplines. That engineering, science and law share common ground comes as nosurprise but what about engineering and the liberal arts or the social sciences? Yet manyof engineering’s greatest failures have come from the failure to take into account thehuman dimension.” 11While there may be common ground between engineering and law the two subjectsapproach “evidence” in different ways as American engineering educator Woodson madeclear in his treatise on engineering design.12 (See exhibit 1). To all intent and
&U Greater Expectations project and the Clarkson Common Experience.In an earlier white paper on liberal education in engineering,5 Steneck, et al, considered threetypical curriculum delivery models and recommended the integration of all three models. TheCommon Experience curriculum incorporates each of these models in its implementation.Traditional Humanities and Social Science Courses: Courses addressing the various studentlearning outcomes in six areas of knowledge are predominantly from the humanities and socialsciences disciplines. However, these courses must address specific learning outcomes in one ormore of the knowledge areas, so the concept of humanities and social science courses, per se, isno longer relevant to the curriculum
the impacts of engineering solutionsin a societal context. Also, if S-L projects replace traditional analytical exercises in courses, theoverall workload will typically not increase for the students. If students are motivated to spendmore time on S-L projects, they are free to do so and should learn more in the process.The approach of S-L, with its roots in experiential learning, is consistent with the theories andempirical research of a number of leading educators and developmental psychologists, asdocumented by Brandenberger3 and Jacoby1. The approach is also consistent with the recentchange in paradigm in education from a focus on teaching to a focus on learning1,3. Astin et al.4found with longitudinal data of 22,000 students that service
composition and the value that first-year composition courses offer to engineering students – even (or perhaps especially) without animmediate focus on the kinds of documents traditionally considered part of technical writing.Developing a Metacognitive Framework Through Engineering – First-Year CompositionPartnershipsA Framework for Rhetorical LearningIn arguing for a rhetorical framework for communication instruction, we recognize that fewengineering faculty have either the curriculum time or the disciplinary background to developand implement this approach. Also, we agree that efforts to improve students’ grammaticalcompetence or design assignments that mirror current workplace practices are valuable. But,following Boiarsky, Hodges et al., Dias et
leaders in service to our nation.USCGA provides the U. S. Coast Guard (USCG) with approximately 190 new Coast Guardofficers each year. Each graduate earns both a commission (as Ensign, USCG) and a Bachelor ofScience degree in one of eight academic majors. Four of these majors are in engineeringdisciplines: Civil; Electrical; Mechanical; Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering.A typical cadet day at USCGA involves academics, leadership and military training, and somesort of athletic activity (NCAA division III or intramural). At least once each semester, eachcadet is required to participate in an outside community service project either individually or as agroup. All cadets must complete the academic requirements for their chosen major
rigorously analyticalapproach to learning. In most cases, nearly all credits not used to satisfy universitygeneral studies requirements were allocated to math, science and engineering. Theseprograms in fact closely approximated the description that one finds in chapter 2 ofSheppard et al.1. This team was asked to avoid duplicating any of these degrees.Otherwise, the slate was clean. After extensive discussions, it was decided to build ageneral engineering program that emphasized three values: engaged learning, agility anda focus on the individual.As our goal was ABET accreditation, we developed a set of program outcomes, one ofwhich we called perspective. The perspective outcome is: An understanding of the role and impact of engineering in
already overcrowded curriculum. This paper presents thegoals, design approach, implementation, and selected outcomes of one integrated project-basedcourse (using Paul Revere and other case studies to integrate materials science with the history oftechnology) and uses it to discuss the advantages of disciplinary integration, particularly withrespect to improved student self-direction and contextual understanding. Assessmentsadministered during and after class suggest that this integrated course successfully engenderedhigh student motivation along with an increase in student aptitudes over the course of thesemester without a corresponding loss of discipline-specific knowledge. The implementation ofthis integrated course and the evaluation of its
, (2) Formulation, (3) Creation, (4) Delivery, and (5) Assessment. Studentsparticipate in multimodal communication exercises that require ongoing practice and applicationof this process. This paper describes why the course was developed, the premise of the course,course content and logistics, examples and assessment of student work and perceptions, andfuture plans for long term impact and course/curriculum assessment.IntroductionSince 2000 when ABET identified outcome item (g) [students will have an ability tocommunicate effectively], academia has increasingly formalized its concurrence with industrythat effective professional communication skills are necessary for the successful engineer. 1 AsShuman et al. have described, the set of ABET
. Several large themes of effectivecommunication emerged from this grouping, along with some associated sub-themes that will bediscussed.Theme #1: “Big Picture” AwarenessA consistent theme mentioned by the engineers was the importance of developing broaderawareness of the context in which they, their teams, and their work functioned. Indeed, thistheme aligns well with several of the Proposed Desired Attributes of a Global Engineer (2009)and shows promise that, if curriculum were developed to assist undergraduates in thinking morebroadly about the context of their work as it functions in their organizations and society, theywill be better prepared for their future work roles10.This theme also supports, in a way, the claim that Sheppard, et al made
AC 2008-1891: INTEGRATING TECHNICAL, SOCIAL, AND AESTHETICANALYSIS IN THE PRODUCT DESIGN STUDIO: A CASE STUDY AND MODELFOR A NEW LIBERAL EDUCATION FOR ENGINEERSDean Nieusma, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Dean Nieusma’s research and teaching focus on interdisciplinary design collaboration and the expertise that enables it. With a BS in mechanical engineering and another in general studies and a PhD in interdisciplinary social sciences, Dean has worked as a member of design teams in contexts as diverse as the U.S. and European automotive industries; Sri Lanka’s renewable energy sector; and STS, engineering, and design curriculum planning. He teaches across Rensselaer’s Product Design and
AC 2007-601: HOW ENGINEERING STUDENTS LEARN TO WRITE:THIRD-YEAR FINDINGS FROM THE ENGINEERING WRITING INITIATIVELucas Niiler, University of Texas-TylerDavid Beams, University of Texas-Tyler Page 12.810.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2007 How Engineering Students Learn to Write: Third-Year Findings of the UT-Tyler Engineering Writing InitiativeAbstractThe Departments of Electrical Engineering and English of the University of Texas at Tyler arein the third year of the Engineering Writing Initiative (EWI), a four-year longitudinal studyinvestigating how engineering students learn to write, how they apply these skills in their studies,and how
requires students to make oral presentations as well as towrite laboratory reports, business letters, résumés, and technical research papers. Written reportsand oral presentations are required in mid-level courses, and the senior-level two-semestercapstone design sequence, a joint effort of Electrical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering,requires students to write project proposals, progress reports, updates, and final reports as well asmake an oral presentation in each semester. Dr. Niiler, founding director of UT-Tyler’s WritingCenter, has extensive experience working with students from across the disciplines on subject-specific writing projects. He has contributed to the Electrical Engineering Laboratory Reportstyle guide, and regularly
useful methods forteaching ethics, societal impact, and contemporary issues throughout the curriculum 8. A reviewdescribing creative methods for teaching and learning these skills are given by Shuman et al 9.Student focused e-learning courses 10 as well as ePortfolio approaches 11 have been useful forplacing responsibility of the student on communicating knowledge of the ABET outcomes thatare difficult to assess.Still others have attempted to address contemporary issues and other ABET outcomes bycreating soft skill modules that can be included in any course.12,13 When lumped with ethical andsocietal impact modules, assessment of the contemporary issue module showed that studentconfidence when dealing with these topics went from an average pre
proper development of the colleges in their responsibilities forserving the needs of the present students and the projected enrollments in the colleges.”41 Love,in particular, was angered by the University of California officials‟ rebuke, and proposed that theCouncil of State College Presidents, in their capacity as a curriculum committee, simply approvenew master‟s programs proposed by any of the member colleges at its May 1954 meeting. 42The impasse over the master‟s was addressed in the 1955 Restudy of the Needs for California inHigher Education, although here in particular it was the broader, demographic issues that forcedthis study to occur. Finding little evidence of an economy of scale in higher education ininstitutions beyond a certain