engineering education; she has served as a Co-PI on three research projects, including one on transfer students and another on student veterans in engineering.Mr. Joseph Murphy, University of California, Los Angeles Joseph Murphy is a graduate student of Sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles whose research interests include the mobilization of college knowledge, and the role of institutional agents in promoting college access to STEM programs. He received a B.S. in Sociology from Clemson University.Dr. Joyce B. Main, Purdue University at West Lafayette Joyce B. Main is Associate Professor of Engineering Education at Purdue University. She received an Ed.M. in Administration, Planning, and Social Policy
currently Professor and Chair of Electrical Engineering at the University of San Diego. Her teach- ing and research interests include electronics, optoelectronics, materials science, first year engineering courses, feminist and liberative pedagogies, engineering student persistence, and student autonomy. Her research has been sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Dr. Lord is a fellow of the ASEE and IEEE and is active in the engineering education community including serving as General Co-Chair of the 2006 Frontiers in Education (FIE) Conference, on the FIE Steering Committee, and as President of the IEEE Education Society for 2009-2010. She is an Associate Editor of the IEEE Transactions on Edu- cation. She
. Student work has extended learning on reinforced concrete (RC), delved into new blastengineering design knowledge, incorporated the generation Mathcad-based engineering tools,and investigated performance-based alternatives to support rotation limits for one-way structuralmembers identified in the UFC 3-340-02. The project has provided a wealth of opportunities toprepare students for graduate level experiences and learn new content, while the analysis andresults from this capstone project will provide DOD engineers with new tools for design. Thispaper reports on the results of this effort leveraging DOD expertise and research withundergraduate experiential learning. The authors will demonstrate that through Project BasedLearning (PBL) the
specialty courses for: commissioned officers; warrant officers;and enlisted ranks; leadership courses; and Active Duty, Reserve and National Guard courses.To further simplify analysis, Active Duty courses were specifically chosen because theircontent generally appeared to the authors to be more uniformly developed and delivered interms of duration and content. Several paper and mail correspondence courses in the early1990s, before computerization and email, were also excluded from the final dataset. Further,commissioned officer courses were eliminated since most officers already have undergraduatedegrees, and some officer training courses are more likely to receive graduate levelrecommendations, which are beyond the scope of this study. A separate
desirable skill for engineers, but often is only one proficiency on a listof required skills from employers. Within industry and education, there has been a pivot,resulting in engineering curricular changes that emphasize professional skills: organization,communication, ability to function on a team, and leadership, to name a few. Student veteransupon graduation provide many of these skills to industries and organizations. Requiring a highlystructured leadership curriculum and formal experience for all their cadet students, serviceacademies and senior military colleges provide optimal conditions for better understandingveteran classroom contributions, as well as the role of leadership inside the classroom and out.However, due to military
; Nijenhuis, 1998, p. 330), emphasizing their own learning preference andstyle (e.g., I enjoy a military topic). “I grew up watching the military channel, so I’ve alwaysbeen infatuated with anything military. They always have the best technology,” said Charles, amale student in 2017. Male students considered that their exposure to and skill acquisition in thecourse contents—various military technologies—would substantially benefit their professionalengineering career. They frequently discussed their career prospects in military science andtechnology after graduation. They said that the course made them “interested in militaryapplications in engineering” and “more interested in working for a Naval workforce.” Acomment made by Jeremy, a student in 2017
Communications at The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina.Dr. Robert J. Rabb P.E., The Citadel Robert Rabb is an associate professor and the Mechanical Engineering Program Director at The Citadel. He previously taught mechanical engineering at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the United States Military Academy and his M.S.E. and PhD in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. His research and teaching interests are in mechatronics, regenerative power, and multidisciplinary engineering. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Reaching and Including Veteran Students in the
or Admissions Partners recorded theteam time for the course. As with the other challenges, each team received a score.The team scores were tallied for each group. The teams were ranked for the Fridayclosing session. Each group had a one minute to present a topic or demonstrate one ofthe challenges they worked on during the week. In past years, Friday’s morningsession included the ARoW Competition, Admissions Brief and Lunch. The afternoonwas a wrap-up and graduation ceremony. By changing AIM, the team had created anopportunity for a poster session of Capstone projects. This was billed as an opportunityto view the types of capstone projects their children could be engaged in as 1/c cadets.The new Friday morning agenda had become Engineering
military veterans make up small fraction of U.S. college undergraduates and only 1 in 5enrolled veterans pursue a STEM-related degree.While STEM education research with SVSM continues to grow, much about the collegeexperiences of SVSM remains unclear. Moreover, scholars point to unique challenges andlimitations associated with conducting SVSM research that hinder deeper understandings ofSVSM experience in higher education. Challenges include identifying and gaining access toSVSM participants, interpreting SVSM data without the insights afforded by personal militaryexperience, and unpacking SVSM experiences that often exist at the intersection of multipleidentities underserved in STEM (i.e., gender, nontraditional, first generation
. Considering this,there is huge potential to produce cost savings, decrease production timelines, and drive downinefficiencies in the lifecycle management of ships. However, the implementation of theseIndustry 4.0 technologies is hindered by a noticeable gap in workforce capability and capacity.The shipbuilding and ship repair industry is projected to lose approximately 33% of its skilledworkforce and 48% of management by 2028 [9]. With an aging workforce and an incomingdigital generation that excels in tech savviness, flexibility, global thinking, and multi-tasking, it iscrucial to be innovative in workforce development. The Virginia Digital Shipbuilding Program(VDSP) responds to this need by providing a process and platform to address education
deficits inSTEM general education knowledge for students pursuing engineering degrees. To refreshprerequisite knowledge and prepare students to succeed in Calculus and beyond, MAVENfocused on precalculus topics. Knowledge from subject matter experts and current tutors wascombined to identify three main areas of weakness. These areas were functions and graphing,trigonometric functions, and exponential and logarithmic functions. A series of games weredesigned that required players to engage with content, play through games that required them topractice their mathematical skills, and be assessed at set intervals. Two example screenshotsfrom MAVEN are included in Figure 1.Current Work: Overview of CAPTIVATECAPTIVATE is the next game in the series and
justified concerns in educating this generation due to their general lack of interest in a physical, conceptual grasping of the real world [9].” Since 2013, the Deloitte Group [8] has released the results of its annual “MillennialSurvey” to gauge the attitudes of millennials towards a broad range of topics. The survey“reinforces the connection made between purpose and retention… Businesses frequently provideopportunities for millennials to engage with “good causes,” helping young professionals to feelempowered while reinforcing positive associations between businesses’ activities and socialimpact [11].” Interestingly, the responses to several questions shows a change from 2015 to2017. This includes responses that indicate millennials
university educational programs will be anongoing one, as both military training and academic programs evolve.The primary barriers to translating military training to academic credit are based upon thenumber of specialized individual programs in both of the state systems and the lack detailedcourse descriptions from ACE. Only general academic subjects or topics of courses, such asmanagement or leadership, are provided as recommendations by ACE on JSTs. The coursedescriptions on courses already articulated between the NCCCS and the UNC System aresufficient for transfer between the two, but vetting the courses in all branches of the militarywould entail a detailed examination of over 25,000 recorded military courses. The five branchesof the United
design teaching and assessment, undergraduate engineering stu- dent leadership development, and social network analysis. He is also a licensed professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia.Mrs. Janice Leshay Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University I am a doctoral student in Engineering Education at Virginia Tech. I am a proud military brat with a biomedical engineering background. My own experiences navigating the engineering curriculum as a first-generation college student as well as being a colleague to other military-connected students through my membership as a 2010 Tillman Miltary Scholar have sparked my passion for research on pathways to and through engineering with emphasis on the
was designed as part of a funded project tooffer a classroom experience that bridges the standard mechanical engineering or engineeringtechnology theoretical curriculum with the military experiences of the veterans so that theydevelop interest in engineering research and pursue an advanced degree in graduate programs.The second goal is to expose non-veteran engineering undergraduate students to various militarytechnologies and their defense applications and increase their knowledge and interest in defenseindustry employment. Based on these two goals, the class topics were broken down into twoareas: Military Technology Applications and Research Tools. The course was developed andoffered as a technical elective for all engineering undergraduate
specificspecialty. Much of this training receives college level credit recommendations by the American Councilon Education (ACE) [2]. They also have all the educational benefits afforded to other members of theservices. For these reasons, warrant officers make great candidates for technical programs accredited bythe Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET).The Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (ETAC) of ABET, Criterion 5, requirestechnical, professional and general education courses. A core of technology coursework for accreditationis required which, in addition to other obligations, must include [3]: 1. Integral and differential calculus, or other mathematics above the level of algebra and
, and the PhD degree from Rutgers University, all in Electrical and Computer Engineering. Her research interests are in the general areas of communication systems, control theory, signal processing and engineering education. She is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Engineering Technology, at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, and serves as the Program Director for the Electrical Engineering Technology Program. In the past she has worked for the University of Texas at Dallas, University of Texas at San Antonio, Rutgers University, and Politehnica University of Bucharest. She is a senior member of the IEEE, served as associate editor for IEEE Communication Letters, and has served in the
these characteristics on their non-veteran counterparts. The result of their mentoring leads to a more dynamic learning environmentand one where non-veteran students can look to the veterans for support in helping them tounderstand the curriculum.It has been found that veteran students that do pursue higher education often perform better thantheir non-veteran peers. [5] A study was conducted concerning the comparison of graduation GPAsfor veteran and non-veteran students and it was found that the resulting GPAs were 3.34 and 2.94,respectively. [6] This disparity shows the academic horsepower that veterans bring to theclassroom as well as their potential positive influence on the non-veteran students.Veterans are excellent mentors and they
with fellow veterans, community service opportunities);• Information on veteran-related challenges (post-traumatic stress disorder awareness, AWARE (Alcohol Wellness Alternatives, Research, & Education), Gatekeepers suicide prevention training, and stress reduction techniques).Originally, the course counted for University (General) Studies credit for the IntellectualCommunity (I) and the Information Literacy (L) component and Communication, with a “smallfootprint” of one semester hour.MethodsWith course goals in hand, Barrett and Wright developed a course syllabus to blend desiredcourse topics into a cohesive student experience. Provided in Table 1 is a list of course topicsand assignments by area. Space does not permit a detailed
engineering education.Mr. Matthew Scheidt, Purdue University-Main Campus, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Matthew Scheidt is a Ph.D. student in Engineering Education at Purdue University. He graduated from Purdue University with a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University with a M.S. in Mechanical Engineering with a focus in Ultrasonic Additive Manufacturing. Matt is currently part of Dr. Allison Godwin’s STRIDE (Shaping Transformative Research on Identity and Diversity in Engineering) research group at Purdue. His research interest focuses on supporting military veterans within post- secondary education.Ms. Christina Nicole Willis, University of Utah Christina Willis is a Ph.D. Candidate in the
and Facilities Committee, served as the Private Infrastructure Chair for the Hampton Roads Intergovernmental Pilot Project and is a member of the Resiliency Collaborative at ODU. Her research interests include engineering education, industry collaboration, sustainability and resiliency.Mr. Michael W. Seek P.E., Old Dominion University Michael Seek is an Assistant Professor at Old Dominion University in the Civil Engineering Technology Program. He received a Master of Science and a PhD from Virginia Tech in Civil Engineering with a concentration in structures. He is a registered Professional Engineer in Virginia and has over 10 years of experience working as a structural engineering consultant on industrial and
in the civilian sector.Nationally, there has been a push to assist military veterans in obtaining college education, withfunding provided by the GI bill [26]. The number of these veterans who matriculate inengineering programs and eventually graduate is not well enumerated. At one large, publicinstitution among about 5000 undergraduate students enrolled in the College of Engineering, 1%were military veterans [unpublished data]. Veterans likely bring unique “funds of knowledge”and perspectives to the classroom [27, 28]. Multiple identity theories are also relevant; veteranslikely have an identity associated with their military service which will align to varying degreeswith their emerging engineering identity. Their multiple identities may be
important consideration. Despite best intentions, if students or faculty havemajor issues with online learning that are unaddressed, buy-in may decrease from one or bothparties. The quality of the content or effort from students may be substandard, which has trickledown effects for learning and engagement. This section will explore the feedback about onlinelearning provided from students and faculty. It highlights both the benefits and weaknesses fromthe two perspectives. Students generally have very positive feedback and experiences with online learning. A2011 survey conducted by the Chronicle of Higher Education of more than 20,000 studentsfound that one-third of respondents prefer blended learning courses to the traditional