disappointed to learn that, while some of the students found theleadership center’s activities highly beneficial, an overwhelming number saw them simply as“busy work.” In addition, a majority of the program’s faculty, who had originally thought thatthe online reflective exercises would benefit the students while reducing their workload, werealso frustrated by the new tools. Although we streamlined the process for the next academic year,survey results in spring 2013 were equally disappointing. Analysis of the survey responses andthe online tools activities suggested that the problem was one of balance: since teamwork is agoal of the program, but not its primary goal, there were apparently too many exercises related toteamwork, ironically undermining
Biological Engineers (ASABE) Code of Ethics forEngineers and also increased awareness of ethical issues related to food companies addingquestionable ingredients for the purpose of creating lifelong consumers for their products.Background and Spiral ApproachAt an institution, 1200+ engineering students enter a general engineering program and participatein a common first semester course offered by the Department of Engineering Education (EngE).Each year approximately 30 of these students elect to enter into the Department of BiologicalSystems Engineering (BSE) with about half focusing in the Bioprocess Engineering area of thedepartment. A collaborative effort between some faculty of EngE and BSE, funded by thedepartment-level reform (DLR) program of
andsupport this. It will be shown that there are extensive materials readily available to assistfaculty members in including engineering standards in the major design experienceincluding a new standards workshop that was offered for the first time at a regionalASEE meeting in fall 2004. It will also be shown that engineering standards havebroader implications and that developing an awareness of these aspects can contribute toa student's general education.ABET requirementsCriterion 4 of the Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs requires students toincorporate engineering standards and multiple realistic constraints in the culminatingmajor design experience. Criterion 3 requires that students consider realistic constraintsfrom a suggested list
of relationships developed duringongoing meetings between design faculty in key departments, and movement of faculty intoinfluential positions. This will be discussed further in the section on faculty roles in theintegration.By creating a well-publicized College-wide event to showcase design in the College,departments became more aware of the varied quality of their design offerings, and more willingto participate in new program directions. For example, the Optical Science and EngineeringProgram, teaching design for its first year, was impressed with the quality of the event in 2004,and of the quality of the multidisciplinary projects such that they agreed to “outsource” theirdesign program, and have all of their students participate in the
any virtual teachingexperience before. These professors had to learn to transition from in person classes to teachon- line.[3] The unprepared faculty and staff found themselves facing a challenge in responseto the new remote teaching methods developed to help students to accept online instruction.Instructors had to alter many aspects of teaching such as pace, type of homework andassignments using different styles to reinforce students’ dynamic learning outside of the class.[4]Ghanaian students were surveyed to test students’ fulfilment with remote where onlinelearning has not been thriving in Ghana. [5] The research finding revealed that the absence ofsocial life, the lack of interaction with family and friends, and the expense of internet
has the opportunity to participate in these processesfor brand new programs being developed from scratch. For example, preparing for an ABETvisit just after your very first cohort of students graduates or having the privilege to develop acourse from the ground up that has been designated to meet a specific internal campus criteriaare more unique opportunities for university faculty. These rare opportunities did indeed presentthemselves at the University of Washington Tacoma (UWT) after the state authorized, andfunded two new baccalaureate ME and CE programs in the fall of 2021 and 2022 respectively.Furthermore, fall 2022 was one author’s first year back in the classroom after 28 years serving inadministrative roles and was also the first year
uncertainty.16Professional socialization is the process by which students learn and adapt to a new culture thatinvolves comfort in working effectively with social uncertainty, and, in accordance with formaland informal codes of ethics, recognition that one has a broader set of responsibilities tosociety.16, 17, 13 Emersion in a professional culture involves learning and inculcating a “web ofvalues, norms, rules, beliefs, and taken-for-granted assumptions” which helps students todevelop the “habits of mind” of a committed professional.18 Through classes, internships,research with faculty, summer jobs, assignments, involvement in student chapters of professionalorganizations, hall talk and friendships, students are transformed into a “professional” as
of an earlyinternship was lost, and many of the students made only one long 540- or 720-hoursinternship instead of the two the curricula intended.A new internship course was designed with a novel approach to address those concerns. First,a teacher was assigned for every fifteen students. The teacher’s role was designed to act as amentor that intended to smooth the students’ path into the industry and to have a closer lookinto the student performance during the internship. The mentor was required to contact theindustry’s supervisor and gather information to help close the gaps the student might have.The hope is to build long-lasting relationships with the organization to benefit current andfuture interns and the engineering faculty. This new
, D.C.3. Farr, J. V. (1997). “Engineering Education: The Challenge of Reform.” Journal of Management inEngineering, ASCE, 13 (6), 3 – 4.4. Jones, S. A. and Houghtalen, R. (2000). “Using Senior Design Capstone as Model for Graduate Education.”Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, 126 (2), 83 – 88.5. Kerkes, D. J. (1995). “Arguments for Recruiting Faculty from Business and Industry.” Journal of ProfessionalIssues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, 12 (4), 242 – 245.6. Koehn, E. (1999). “Professional Design Component for Civil Engineering Curriculums.” Journal ofProfessional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, 125 (2), 35 – 39.7. Koehn, E. (1997). “Engineering Perceptions of ABET
appropriateness of AI tools within specific research contexts remains achallenge for many stakeholders across the academic ecosystem, including faculty,administrators, graduate students, undergraduates, and librarians alike. In response to some of these looming ambiguities, the leadership team of theBrown University Library (BUL) convened a committee of interested library staff todevelop a community-based programming series that would function as an approachable,low-stakes learning space for university members new to, unfamiliar with, or curiousabout AI. Broadly speaking, the committee’s mandate was twofold: to offer ourcommunity of learners the opportunity to gain experience, foster awareness, and developnew technological competencies in a
faculty perceptions concerning the degree of difficulty, the quality of learning, thecontribution to professional development, and the priorities for improvement relative to eachprogram outcome at the course level are being measured. The objective is to synchronize facultyand student perceptions towards learning as well as to promote self-assessment. Web basedcommercial software is used to conduct these surveys.Feedback is achieved by an interactive system consisting of three loops at the Course, Programand Engineering Curriculum levels. The functional elements of the feedback system are theFaculty, the Program Curriculum Committees, the Engineering Education and Assessment
expected andunexpected benefits. Issues related to the students’ experiences, faculty management, andindustrial partner accommodations will be discussed.Ongoing assessment of the capstone course sequence and the Professional Componentoutcomes is presented. The WKU ME program has a stable Professional Componentframework to ensure that: program graduates acquire and demonstrate appropriateprofessional engineering abilities; student teams can execute a capstone project asindependently as possible; WKU ME faculty can offer a project-based curriculum buildingon previous coursework and assess student progress meaningfully at each academic level.IntroductionWestern Kentucky University (WKU) initiated engineering programs in Civil, Electrical
should consider using a genre-based approach to integrating writing into engineeringcurriculum if they are concerned with the integration of students into real, actual engineeringcommunities of practice.Acknowledgement The project presented in this paper was funded by the Old Dominion University’s QualityEnhancement Plan (QEP): as Interdisciplinary Writing (IDW) Project “Student Writing in theSTEM Disciplines: A Faculty Learning Community”19.References 1. Lang, J. D., Cruse, S.,McVey, F. D., & McMasters, J. (1999). Industry expectations of new engineers: A survey to assist curriculum designers. Journal of Engineering Education,88, 43-51. 2. Reave, L. (1999). Technical communication instruction in engineering schools: A
arepredominantly male? This paper will present recent quantitative and qualitative research onfemale student perceptions of acceptance, inclusion, and equity at their institutions. The findingsthat will be shared reveal both positive factors and areas of ongoing challenge for both thewomen and their institutions. The reported perceptions are clearly useful to both faculty andadministration as they endeavor to meet the needs of this segment of the student body.In an effort to understand what their female students experience, surveys and focus groups wereconducted in 1999, 2000, and 2001 at the North Brunswick New Jersey and Long BeachCalifornia campuses of DeVry Institute of Technology. The overall female enrollment at theInstitutes is now approaching 25
college/disciplinary area1. We are addressing Page 25.559.5this issue by partnering with the Environmental Studies Program. Environmental Studies has hada Costa Rica Study Abroad program for 6 years and have had the experience led by faculty froma wide range of disciplines but the content has been focused on environmental studies. Toeliminate concerns from Environmental Studies students, we visited environmental studiescourses (Introduction to Environmental and Sustainability Studies) to describe the course andanswer questions. We also are working with the program directors to ensure the content of thecourse meets their expectations.Our major
discipline specific format as well as adopting an interdisciplinaryformat. The college decided that an hybrid approach that took took advantage of the benefits ofeach approach would be optimal for both students and departments. The college thereforestarted a process of developing a new freshman course structure that would ensure that studentsreceived the best opportunity possible to become successful engineers.Method of changeA committee of faculty was formed to address the concerns. The committee was comprised ofthe faculty member responsible for the freshman course within each department. While coursesvaried from discipline to discipline, the main objectives for each course were to introducestudents to the discipline and to prepare them for
and health.è Supporting programs w Energy for Sustainability w Environmental Engineering w Environmental Implications of Emerging Technologies w Environmental Sustainability Ke, Clemson CBET Research Cluster: Transport & Thermal Fluidsè Supports fundamental advances in transport processes enabling new technological solutions to understand pressing issues in energy, the environment, manufacturing, health care, and other fields.è Supporting programs w Combustion, Fire & Plasma Systems w Fluid Dynamics w Interfacial Processes & Thermodynamics w Particulate & Multiphase
have been constrained or empowered to learnengineering, persist through the structural and cultural barriers imposed, and how they arepositioned in engineering. In terms of faculty agency, this review illustrated the importance offaculty beliefs about their ability to influence institutional and systemic change in engineeringeducation is essential for large-scale change; however, an understanding of the organizational andstructural issues supporting these change efforts need to be more deeply examined.Transformations in engineering education have been criticized for not considering a systemicperspective when considering ways to enact change beyond curricula, departmental, andinstitutional change [2], [55]. However, issues concerning integrated
approval of the degree byWashington’s Higher Education Coordinating Board (HEC Board)[1] and the Board of Regents ofthe University, a faculty committee was formed to lay the foundation for the EE degree anddevelop the goals, educational objectives, and desired student outcomes for the program.Of key concern to this committee, chaired by the author, was obtaining ABET accreditation assoon as possible1. Therefore, much of our planning was focused on creating a robust BSEEdegree from the outset. Particular attention was given to the Capstone Experience. According toABET, students in an accredited EE program must have a Capstone Experience: Students must be prepared for engineering practice through a curriculum culminating in a major
shown in Table 3. KIT 5 is currently being formed. Alsonoted on the table are content groupings. Faculty members were grouped together by course Page 23.266.5content, and these groupings serve as a mechanism for intellectual and emotional support.Because course modification of this type requires a change in instructional techniques as well asdevelopment of new content, these content groups are considered critical to the success of theprogram. Not only do the faculty in each of these groups work together during workshops(brainstorming and bouncing ideas off each other), they also meet regularly throughout thesemesters to refine course content and
program, describes general experienceswith the articulation agreements, describes in detail the AAS-EET and BSEE curricularstructures and bridge courses, identifies the different types of sustaining institutional interactions,and reviews the early success in attracting transfer students from the AAS-EET programs to theBSEE program. Other aspects, such as AAS-EET faculty qualifications and the applicability ofthe approach to other institutions, are discussed.IntroductionThe recognition of engineering technology programs in the academic engineering communityhas been a controversial issue for decades despite industry being generally more concerned aboutthe performance of graduates from engineering or engineering technology programs hired
integration between engineering, science, andmathematics. Students needed to understand more clearly the roles of models and analyticalperformance predictions in the engineering design process. To address these opportunities, aprototype of a new first-year engineering course that builds on prior curriculum initiatives isbeing offered in the 2004-05 academic year. The prototype is project-based in that two projectsform the core of the syllabus. Further, specifications were developed to aid in tailoring projectsto meet the goals of the class. These specifications include defining time constraints for studentsand faculty; acknowledging the range of abilities of the incoming students; satisfying the needsof downstream faculty members, course instructors
integration between engineering, science, andmathematics. Students needed to understand more clearly the roles of models and analyticalperformance predictions in the engineering design process. To address these opportunities, aprototype of a new first-year engineering course that builds on prior curriculum initiatives isbeing offered in the 2004-05 academic year. The prototype is project-based in that two projectsform the core of the syllabus. Further, specifications were developed to aid in tailoring projectsto meet the goals of the class. These specifications include defining time constraints for studentsand faculty; acknowledging the range of abilities of the incoming students; satisfying the needsof downstream faculty members, course instructors
overcoming gender-related issues common in business environments. The instituteaims to do this by providing pertinent education and information, appropriate networkingopportunities and experiences, and general support in aiding leaders as they develop essentialskills that will support lifelong success.The institute resulted from the efforts of various faculty members and administrative staff atPUC who hold a stake in the TEAMS fields. Their interest in gender equity prompted an officialcommittee to be formed under the PUC Women’s Studies program in 1996. The committee hasevolved over several years conducting focus groups and coordinating various projects within thecommunity. Eventually, their focus turned to the important subject of leadership
on interviews with faculty and administrators, atdifferent rank, from at least two-dozen different colleges and universities as well as engineeringprofessional organizations. Our interview data is complemented by content analysis of archivaldocuments and published studies, reports, and statements. This paper is designed to introduce ourresearch questions and begin a conversation among engineering educators about how we governour own educational system. The trends and observations noted in this paper are abstracted fromour earliest results, and are described only in general terms. Future papers will explore each ofour research questions more fully, taking into account more detailed data.IntroductionThe engineering profession establishes new
gathering input. Constituents includinglocal industry representatives and alumnae were invited to complete the survey, ranking softwareengineering topics and skills in terms of “desired skill in new graduates”.The survey results would then be vetted in a second qualitative step through a committee ofalumnae engineers from local companies seeking stronger software engineering skills in newgraduates. The committee would review the survey results and provide clarification andguidance around priorities revealed by the survey tool.Two faculty members, Professors Ken Bell and Pat Smith, volunteered to lead the requirementscollection and verification project.A survey tool covering all areas of software engineering skills and knowledge was needed.Initially
course taken by students after their sophomore year and an off-campus internshipcompleted during the summer after their junior year. The on-campus portion of the ILTM,which is the primary source of material for this paper, engages the students in an extremelyintensive six-week program that focuses on issues such as globalization, ethics, communicationskills, critical thinking, teamwork, and leadership. The students hear lectures and attendworkshops by faculty and corporate leaders, travel to selected industrial and business sites, andwork with companies on significant and real-world management and technological projects.For the project portion of the program, the 20 students are div ided into 4 project teams of 5students each. Each team is
colleges and universities”[5]. In theCSS it is noted that issues such as security and sustainable development are encouraging efforts to improve processes to support andencourage innovative solutions. The CSS contains a mix of research, communication, and cooperative activities that are intended toaddress both new and ongoing standards issues.The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Commission Criteria requires in Criterion 2 that engineering programs develop“communication skills and an understanding of the environmental, cultural, economic and social impacts of engineering on societyand of the concepts of sustainable development.” This is very similar to the comparable ABET criterion. Criterion 2.2.7 requires thatappropriate exposure to the
) engaging both high school, undergraduate, andgraduate students in an epic challenge of global concern, e.g. capturing and retrieving an Page 26.646.6asteroid. Students meet during the summer for an intense one week workshop to begin theircollaboration and use it as a starting point for the two semester endeavor into an epic spaceproblem. 20Both programs require the students to apply their theoretical knowledge in a new collaborativeenvironment where they do not fight for their personal award (grade) but rather have to rely onthe distributed cognition of team members in various domains to solve challenging tasks. Focusswitches from competition to
. Second, faculty are usingcase studies that involve international issues related to teaching and learning; these are from theDiversity Institute26, part of the NSF-sponsored Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching,and Learning (CIRTL).27 Faculty are also designing new case studies based on their own andtheir students’ international experiences. Finally, faculty have developed a graduate coursetitled, Teaching Science and Engineering: International Faculty and International Students; thisCIRTL course is especially for future faculty.Assessment StrategiesTo ensure that the efforts to provide global competencies have achieved the desired results,assessment is necessary. But, before assessment is attempted, learning criteria and