Paper ID #6594Analyzing K-12 Education as a Complex SystemDr. Donna C. Llewellyn, Georgia Institute of TechnologyDr. Marion Usselman, Georgia Institute of Technology Marion Usselman is Associate Director for Federal Outreach and Research for Georgia Tech’s Center for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics and Computing (CEISMC). She has been with CEISMC since 1996 developing and managing university-K-12 educational partnership programs and assisting Georgia Tech faculty in creating K-12 educational outreach initiatives. Before coming to CEISMC, Mar- ion earned her Ph.D. in Biophysics from the Johns Hopkins University
AC 2012-4343: SYSTEMS ENGINEERING EDUCATION THROUGH PAR-TICIPATION IN ENGINEERING COMPETITIONSDr. Fernando Garcia Gonzalez, Texas A&M International University Fernando Gonzalez is an Assistant Professor of engineering at Texas A&M International University in Laredo, Texas. Previously, he was a technical staff member at Los Alamos National Laboratory and an Assistant Professor at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, Fla. Gonzalez holds a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. His research interests include intelligent control of autonomous systems, robotics, and modeling and simulation
work in Agile software development.Key words: Agile methodology, virtual teaching assistant, user experience design, web-service.IntroductionA Hispanic serving institution, such as Texas A&M International University (TAMIU), intends aMinority Science and Engineering Improvement Program (MSEIP) with the objective to reducethe class drop rate by 50% for early college education in engineering, mathematics, and physicscurriculums. The objective will be achieved through the development and implementation of avisual teaching assistant system across eight target courses to assists the students in learning andenhancing course materials beyond the classrooms.According to the enrollment in fall 2011 the university has more than 7,037 students who
Boix-Mansilla model iscaptured in four dimensions: 1. Purpose: students must understand the reason why multiple disciplines are necessary to solve a given problem 2. Disciplinary Grounding: students must have fundamental knowledge from all of the disciplines needed 3. Integration: students must know how to integrate the different worldviews, approaches, and tools used by the different disciplines 4. Critical Awareness: students must be able to reflect on the appropriateness and utility of taking an interdisciplinary approach for a given problem.Students apply for the LEP at East Central State University at the end of their first year and, ifaccepted, are in the program from their sophomore through senior years
Paper ID #9927Developing and Teaching a Multidisciplinary Course in Systems Thinking forSustainability: Lessons Learned through Two IterationsDr. Fazleena Badurdeen, University of Kentucky Fazleena Badurdeen is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering and also affiliated to the In- stitute for Sustainable Manufacturing at University of Kentucky where she leads the Sustainable Manu- facturing Systems and Supply Chains Research Group. She is also the Director for Graduate Studies in Manufacturing Systems Engineering, a multidisciplinary program in the College of Engineering. With backgrounds in Engineering and
learning model as “active (learn by trying thingsout …) or reflective (learn by thinking things through …).” 7 Chen et al. have used guidedreflection in an introductory engineering design course in the context of “Folio Thinking, acoached process of creating learning portfolios and supporting reflection.” 8 Feest and Iwugoused reflective learning logs in a graduate program in Water and Environmental Management. 9All of these authors report success in meeting learning objectives in a cost-effective way usingreflective learning as one of their strategies. Clearly, reflective learning can be applied at almostany level in higher education or professional practice in a wide variety of fields.We identified two benefits to using guided reflection to
AC 2011-725: SE CAPSTONE: A PILOT STUDY OF 14 UNIVERSITIESTO EXPLORE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING LEARNING AND CAREER IN-TEREST THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROBLEMSElisabeth W McGrath, Stevens Institute of Technology Elisabeth McGrath is Senior Research Associate at Stevens Institute of Technology and Executive Director of the Stevens Center for Innovation in Engineering & Science Education, Hoboken, NJ.Susan Lowes, Institute for Learning Technologies, Teachers College/Columbia University Susan Lowes, Ph.D., is Director of Research and Evaluation, Institute for Learning Technologies, Teach- ers College/Columbia University.Chris Jurado, Stevens Institute of Technology Chris Jurado is involved in the development of research
AC 2012-3473: BIOMIMICRY INNOVATION AS A TOOL FOR DESIGNDr. Terri M. Lynch-Caris, Kettering University Terri Lynch-Caris, Ph.D., P.E., is an Associate Professor in the Industrial and Manufacturing Department at Kettering University and a registered Professional Engineer in the state of Michigan. She serves as the Director for the Center of Excellence in Teaching and Learning at Kettering. Her areas of interest in teaching and research include ergonomics and human modeling, statistics, work design and lean princi- ples, supply chain management, and environmental sustainability.Dr. Jonathan Weaver, University of Detroit MercyDr. Darrell K. Kleinke, University of Detroit Mercy Darrell Kleinke has more than 25 years of
Education, 2014 Introducing the Fundamentals of Systems Engineering to Freshman through Various Interactive Group ActivitiesAbstractThe concepts and tools taught in an introductory course to Systems Engineering involve amindset which is not familiar to freshman undergraduate students and is slightly different fromthat needed for more traditional engineering disciplines. Teaching Systems Engineering at afreshman level is challenging because students do not have work experiences to draw from tosolidify the tools they are learning. In order to overcome this barrier, immersive group activitieswere introduced to provide a simulated context in which students can apply and learn about thebenefits of Systems Engineering. Thus, the
). Page 25.1227.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2012 Systems Engineering Competency The Missing Course in Engineering EducationABSTRACT This paper addresses the need for and proposes solutions to bolster thecompetency of the engineering professionals at two levels: 1) strengthen undergraduate andgraduate level engineering education to include a robust Systems Engineering(SE) problemsolving / solution development course and 2) shift the Systems Engineering paradigm found inmany organizations through education and training to employ scalable SE methodologies forprojects ranging in size from small to large complex systems. The objective is to educate
Paper ID #7737Establishing A Community College Pathway to Baccalaureate Systems Engi-neering ProgramsProf. Susan K Donohue, University of Virginia Susan Donohue is a lecturer in the School of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Vir- ginia, and an adjunct assistant professor of engineering in the Business, Technology, and Mathematics Di- vision at Piedmont Virginia Community College. Her engineering education interests include the teaching of design, creativity and curiosity; engineering misconceptions and remediation; K-12 outreach; spatial skills development; and STEAMd integration in K-20 engineering
creatively,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Design Creativity Workshop, Atlanta, GA, 2008.[19] D. M. Beams, K. Gullings, and C. E. Ross, “Seeking new perspectives: Engineers experiencing design through creative arts,” presented at the 2016 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, New Orleans, LA, 2016.[20] S. B. Shooter and S. Orsborn, “‘Impact! Exploring innovation across disciplines’ - Engaging the university innovation ecosystem through a university-wide course,” presented at the 2013 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, GA, 2013.[21] N. W. Sochacka, K. Woodall, J. Walther, and N. N. Kellam, “Faculty reflections on a STEAM-inspired interdisciplinary studio course,” presented at the 2013 ASEE Annual Conference and
conjecture at this point. Introduction and Background In 2005, the Journal for Engineering Education (JEE) fielded a special issue focused on The art and science of engineering education research which was drawn largely from a report by the National Academies (The Engineer of 2020). The bottom line of the NAE report [1], and the JEE special edition [2] was that change is hard, but that undergraduate engineering programs must have the ability to change to meet societal needs. It is now 2021, sixteen years after The Engineer of 2020 concept introduction. Our professional disciplines have come through a pandemic, and we all have changed in the face of strong, and sometimes mandated
Interactive Planning Continuous organizational planning to design desirable futures Ackoff 31 32 33 34 and develop strategies to achieve that future through participation, management structures, planning, and process Soft Systems A process of inquiry focused on formulation of ill-structured Checkland 35 36; Methodology problems appreciative of multiple perspectives Wilson 37 Systems of Systems An approach to design, analysis, operation, and transformation Adams and Engineering of metasystems, composed of multiple embedded
. Page 26.44.21 IntroductionPresentations that use both visual and auditory styles reinforce learning for all students as visuallearners remember best what they see while auditory learners remember much of what they hear,and then say (Felder and Silverman13). To teach both visual and auditory learners therefore,engineering professors should present information through lectures and reinforce suchpresentations with real-time demonstration in classroom. Students’ learning may be motivatedand students’ engagement and comprehension of fundamental engineering principles may beincreased by a teaching style that balances concrete information with theoretical concepts. It isnoted that engineering laboratories may involve the measurement of dynamic
simulation, systems engineering design and analysisand a two-part Senior Capstone design; and, d) a 32 hours option core that includes disciplinespecific courses in Electrical, Mechanical, or Computer Systems. Upon graduation, most of ourstudents find jobs in local industry in one of the three option areas, working in local industriessuch as Southwest Power Pool, Caterpillar, Molex, Dillards, Cameron, AT&T and others inArkansas and beyond. Some students enroll in the graduate programs and continue on to obtainMaster’s degree in engineering or business.The program is unique and distinctive in many ways. UALR is one among very few institutionsthat offer Systems Engineering specialization at an undergraduate level. The program curriculumincludes
of parallelism was successfully integrated intovarious undergraduate courses. Students’ feedback was positive. In the future, more courses areto be revamped and developed by infusing HPC contents. The results will be disseminatedthrough summer workshops. A two-day summer workshop will be organized each year duringthe? two project years. Sample topics covered in the workshops include: 1) current HPCdevelopment; 2) multi-core and pipelining to improve throughput; 3) parallelism and cloudcomputing; 4) energy saving simulation and solution through HPC; 5) applications in computervision and machine learning; 6) K-16 educators’ role in computing workforce shortage. Six to10 participants will be invited to attend each summer. All the teaching and
may be a labor shortage in the near future as these engineersbegin to retire [Wright, 2014]. Retiring systems engineers, specifically, are a major concern in thedefense industry [SERC, 2013; Charette, 2008] as well as at NASA [Bagg et al., 2003]. Oneobvious solution is to train more undergraduates in systems engineering skills. However, there isa pervasive belief that successful systems engineers can only be made through experience [e.g.Armstrong & Wade, 2015; Squires et al., 2011; Davidz et al., 2005]. This belief may partially bedue to the previous generation of systems engineers not receiving much systems engineering-specific training in their university engineering education, as noted by Armstrong & Wade [2015]in their interview
holistic concepts beyond mathand science to formulate and solve complex societal challenges10 and combine mastery oftechnical fundamentals with practical design in a meaningful context11. Significant effort hasbeen put into emphasizing design experience in problem- or project-based learning forundergraduates12,13 including SE concepts and systems thinking14 and complex socio-technicalsystems15,16.These recent efforts at the university level align with K-12 initiatives to promote science,technology, engineering, and mathematics17 and understand daily experiences with engineeringartifacts.18 Indeed, the U.S. National Research Council's framework for K-12 science educationdistinguishes engineering practices and includes core ideas in engineering
students leadership Character, Competence, andCapacity (C3) by helping them learn who they must be, what they need to know, and what skillsthey must demonstrate in effective leadership. The courses build upon each other as the studentsprogress through the program. We have designed the curriculum in such a manner as to give thefaculty in the BSLE program substantial contact with Leadership Engineering (LE) studentsevery semester. We have cross-listed 8 hours of the LE courses due to the parallel nature ofeducational objectives in Graphic Fundamentals, Engineering Probability and StatisticalMethods, and Systems Engineering.The BSLE program is also designed to meet ABET student outcomes. The outcomes “a” through“k” are primarily addressed our core
for systems engineering programs. However, the 2011-12EAC accreditation cycle documentation does not list any actual verbiage that proposes adefinition beyond the general criteria for all engineering programs. The definition of “systemsengineering” espoused in this paper is an interdisciplinary collaborative approach to designthat integrates various engineering specialties into the goal of realizing complex products orprocesses. However, whatever the formal definition, all would agree that a systems engineeringapproach is valuable for all practicing engineers to appreciate.This paper describes the introduction of the concepts of systems engineering to students in amechanical engineering junior-level required thermo/fluids course through the
interdependencies present in such systems create Page 24.1001.5opportunities for systemic risks, and occasionally for systemic opportunities. Systemic risks(opportunities) result from interconnected systems, in which a perturbation to a single system canspread to other interconnected systems generally through non-linear and often unknownchannels, emerging in other forms, and in which the extent of the potential damage (opportunity)is largely determined by the number and size of the interconnected systems6. Some examples ofsuch systemic risks are the Northeast power blackout of 2003, and the global economic collapseof 2007-2009. These systems represent a true
ofeducational experience that extends beyond just pure technical content and include skills such ascommunication, leadership, management, professional responsibility and public policy.However, traditional tenured and tenure-track faculty (TTTF) who lack industrial experiencemay lack some of these skills. According to a recent study conducted by Waltman, et al.6, full-time NTTF often cited the opportunity to focus on teaching as a reason for choosing their jobover tenure-track positions. They have often expressed high satisfaction with their teaching joband how they enjoy working with students and expressed their desire to make a difference in Page
proficiency in these skills upon graduation fromundergraduate programs [4]. This result is supported by commonly cited findings that engineerturnover is partly due to a lack of understanding of the big picture and “boring work” (or a lack ofappreciation for engineering functions beyond hands-on, engineering design). A national,Canadian survey showed similar results [5]. The most common reason for engineer turnover(voluntary and involuntary) were related to conflict with the role itself, including the engineer’sdesire for a career change, job satisfaction and feelings of the role being a poor fit. Accordingly,researchers, educators, industry, government and accreditation bodies all posit the need forsystemic and transformative change in engineering
. This paper provides an overviewand roadmap for other systems engineering programs seeking to revise their assessmentarchitecture in preparation for ABET accreditation. The revision process, developed products ofthe assessment architecture, and observations on their implementation are provided.IntroductionThe Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of the Accreditation Board for Engineeringand Technology revised its Criterion 3 student outcomes in fall 2017. Seven (7) new studentoutcomes resulted, enumerated 1 – 7, replacing the previous eleven (11) student outcomes,designated a – k. These changes to Criterion 3 will be implemented for the 2019-20accreditation review cycle. Engineering programs scheduled for general review in the 2019
inexperiencedstudents to Systems Engineering concepts2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. The overall consensus is to introduce students tothese concepts through hands-on experiential learning experience. Several innovative pedagogicalapproaches have been presented to develop systems engineering curriculum8, introducingfundamentals of systems engineering principles to freshmen engineering students through groupactivities9, embedding systems engineering practices into courses that are systems engineeringoriented10, as well as a non-academic perspective of the importance in systems engineeringcompetency for future engineering students11, and the importance of teaching innovation andentrepreneurship through specific courses and/or changes to the curriculum including more teambased
a Global Automotive Footprint: A First Course Development H. Bryan Riley, Ph.D. Clemson Universitystrategies that allow manufacturers to optimize specifying raw materials, maintaining acompetitive workforce, delivering valued products to the market. The project requires studentsto consider how global manufacturing occurred through the twentieth century by evolutionaryevents. These events are characterized by craft production, mass production, masscustomization, and currently personalized production. Figure 1 illustrates the progression ofthese stages and the relationship to different manufacturing systems. (Courtesy of Y. Koren) Figure 1. Society-Marketing Imperatives in the Manufacturing Paradigm2.0
fabrication, algorithm development). These projects have included Robotics Platforms, Planning, Monitoring and Control algorithms, Sensor Interface, User Inter- faces, Wireless communication, Signal Processing etc. All of this involves direction and teaching teams how to use the required tools and apply engineering skills to transform a concept into a product. She also manages interdisciplinary senior design projects in collaboration with other engineering departments such as Textiles Engineering, Mechanical engineering, etc. Beyond senior design, she has also created and teaches undergraduate as well as graduate level classes in ECE (Python in Engineering, Algorithms in ECE, Practical Engineering Prototyping (PrEP)). She
to participate in his or her education extend beyond simply receiving instruction.Rather, the richest experiences for learners are realized when they understand the veryeducational process they are a part of and are commissioned as equal and active partners in itsexecution. This higher form of learning requires the student to assess the educational processfrom their own perspective. This self-assessment not only includes the ability to gauge theirunderstanding of particular topics, but also the ability to evaluate their own learning strategiesand the current learning environment.When the learner shares their self-assessment with the teacher, and the teacher reactsaccordingly, a truly higher form of education is realized. This relationship is
V-Model, it gave them more structure for the student to systematically complete the project. Inother words, CoE wanted to provide students with a transformational experience.Capstone Course DescriptionThe capstone design is a two-course, sequence for students to integrate into product design teamscomprising engineering, engineering technology and logistics. Each team is given a series ofconceptual problems to be solved by the creation of a new product. This practicum exposes theteam to current product development methods and issues beyond functionality such as humanfactors, safety, engineering, economics, maintenance and manufacturing. Students completingEE490 are expected to take the follow-on course (EE491) in the next term. The EE491