Consultants and is a current board member of the Association for Business Communication.JOHN ANDERSON is a Lecturer in the Writing Program at Northwestern University. In addition to being one ofthe EDC core faculty, he serves as Webmaster and instructional technology coordinator for the course.GREGORY B. OLSON is Professor and Associate Chairman, Department of Materials Science and Engineering,and Co-Director of the Materials Technology Laboratory at Northwestern University. Author of over 170publications in materials research and education, he is a founding member of QuesTek Innovations LLC, acomputational materials design company.DAVID M. KELSO is an Associate Professor in the Biomedical Engineering Department of NorthwesternUniversity's McCormick
future collaborative projects.INTRODUCTIONEngineering Graphics and Design (ENGR171) is a four-credit required course in the MechanicalEngineering major. It is typically taken during fall or spring semester of the freshman year andis usually the first or second course the student takes in the engineering department. The otherengineering course that electrical and mechanical engineering students take during the freshmanyear is a one-credit Introduction to Engineering course. The following is the ENGR171 coursede c a e U e S.T a c e ca a : T g ac b a f ec ures, hands-on computer lab time, and design projects, studentswill learn to read, and create, engineering drawings and use computer-aided
findingsshow how an engineering instructor orchestrated a culture-aligned adoption and adaptation of aninstructional innovation. Using reflective practice, the research participant adapted theimplemented innovative instruction to their hands-on institution culture, such as adjustingexpectations in content, adapting resources to students’ individual needs, adjusting uncertainty ofproblem solving, and adapting to a hands-on institution culture. This research highlights theimportant role of institutional culture in local adaptations of educational innovations, and itprovides the community with an expanded way to think about innovation propagation.Improving teaching and learning has been an important issue in undergraduate science,technology, engineering
disciplines unemployed in South Asia, we needto explain why there are skill shortages and a lack of competition in engineering sector of theeconomy.The authors’ personal experience, early interviews and field observations in South Asia havesuggested many ways in which engineering work is different, despite the close similarities intechnical education curricula. Organizations tend to have more hierarchy levels, largernumbers of people for the same work output, and engineers seem to have less financialawareness and authority. Engineering work relies on a narrower choice of materials andcomponent supplies, and technical skills available in the workforce are relatively low incomparison to industrialised countries. Employers seem less willing to follow
minors.ENG 181 (3) Introduction to Engineering I -- Visualization and sketches, introduction tospreadsheets and CAD, working drawings, experimental design and data analysis, problemsolving approaches, hands-on lab, reporting, and production dissection. Prereq or concur: Math150 or higherENG 183 (3) Introduction to Engineering II -- Team building, design/build project; projectmanagement, introduction to MATLAB, written and oral reports, preparation of visual aids,hands-on lab and reporting. Prereq: ENG 181 or H191.ENG 201 (5) Technological Studies I: Analyzing Our World -- An introduction to technologyconcepts for students without extensive math or science backgrounds. Technical and practicalaspects of several technology areas will be explored
accomplished duringthe summer. This, however, is sufficient time to allow the students to be exposed to, work on,and sometimes solve an engineering problem. The Army Material Command (AMC) and UnitedStates Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) sponsor most of the AIADs, but there are sponsorsfrom private engineering organizations, NASA, the national labs, and other Department ofDefense activities. This paper describes the AIAD program and discusses how it attracts andretains engineering majors. Additionally, feedback from the project sponsors can be used tomeasure student progress and assess the curriculum.Introduction “My sponsor and others at the Laboratory took time to talk with me not just about math and science but also the politics and
in the Information Sciences and Technology Department. Dr. Johri studies the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) for learning and knowledge shar- ing, with a focus on cognition in informal environments. He also examine the role of ICT in supporting distributed work among globally dispersed workers and in furthering social development in emerging economies. He received the U.S. National Science Foundation’s Early Career Award in 2009. He is co-editor of the Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (CHEER) published by Cam- bridge University Press, New York, NY. Dr. Johri earned his Ph.D. in Learning Sciences and Technology Design at Stanford University and a B.Eng. in Mechanical
and the opportunity to spend some time in an engineering lab facility.Some selected responses for questions 4 and 5 are provided below.4. What were the good things about the ROSES lab experience?“Showed me how to use the lab to solve real life problems”“In the lab, it is absolutely vital to follow the procedure word for word and follow all directions.Lab work is a hands on method for learning new material.”“I become more familiar with the engineering building. Gave us a chance to have a lab withoutworrying about results, or a strict procedure.”“Good hands on learning about a lab experience.”“I learned a lot about what I will be seeing in the future.”“Showed you what kind of lab work engineers will do. Showed you all the cool
grade they receive in their first math class. The camp was made possible by a generousdonation from John Deere, therefore the participants were offered an incentive of receiving acampus bookstore gift card after completion of the program.In addition to helping participants transition into the University and College of Engineering,other goals of the summer program included preparing them for mathematics and entry levelengineering courses, exposing the students to faculty and staff within the College and University,having them participate in hands-on activities and learn about various departments withinengineering, and to build social networks and support systems with each other as well as upperclass peers and faculty and staff.Approximately 204
almostuniversally accepted by all but the ways and means to achieve it and to cover its cost are oftensources of passionate debate. One of the aspects that are hard to quantify monetarily is the returnon investment in sustainable versus conventional facilities. However, more people everydayrecognize the strong relationship between the performance of infrastructure facilities and asustainable environment. A sustainable environment cannot be realized by the effort of only afew. It requires the collective effort of all because every contribution adds up toward the goal ofsustainability. A course has been developed to teach the basic principles of sustainability tomainly non-engineering students with background in policy development, economics, and socialand
succeed; however, the adoption of those practices hasbeen historically slow. We propose an institutional change model that will motivate facultychange using multiple sources of data. One aspect of local data includes student perspectives onfaculty teaching practices. In this paper, we report outcomes from a student survey that revealedcommon practices among all faculty, as well as “game-changing” behaviors that students reportas being implemented by supportive faculty.Key Words: faculty classroom practices, institutional changeIntroductionA number of reports have indicated the need to improve the quality of science, technology,engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education to support a diverse student body and prepareengineers to be competitive in
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.Dr. Catherine E. Brawner, Research Triangle Educational Consultants Catherine E. Brawner is President of Research Triangle Educational Consultants. She received her Ph.D.in Educational Research and Policy Analysis from NC State University in 1996. She also has an MBA from Indiana University (Bloomington) and a bachelor’s degree from Duke University. She specializes in evaluation and research in engineering education, computer science education, teacher education, and technology education. Dr. Brawner is a founding member and former treasurer of Research Triangle
Paper ID #26273An Orientation Program for Vertical Transfers in Engineering and Engineer-ing TechnologyDr. Surendra ”Vinnie” K. Gupta, Rochester Institute of Technology (COE) ”Vinnie” Gupta is a professor of mechanical engineering, and a member of the graduate faculty of ma- terials science and engineering at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), Rochester, NY. He is a recipient of the 2014 Robert G. Quinn Award from ASEE, and the 2000 Eisenhart Award for Outstanding Teaching. At RIT, he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in applied mechanics, computational techniques, and materials science.Prof. Franz Allen
professional degree programs will become the norm in theimmediate future. On the other hand, most engineers will acknowledge that continuing educationis necessary to keep engineers current and provide adequate growth opportunities. What theymay not agree on is the notion that continuing education should be mandated. Hamptonidentified continuing education as one of three areas needing serious and immediate attention toachieve a total commitment to quality in the civil engineering profession; when he wrote thisarticle only three states had continuing education requirements.Let’s examine Fundamental Canon #7 from the Code of Ethics of Engineers. It states: 7. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their
inresource allocation making it increasingly difficult to modernize the laboratories to provideadequate levels of laboratory and course work. The CBVEL described in this paper is designedto address these. This CBVEL will help us in providing an interdisciplinary Integrated Teachingand Learning experiences that integrates team-oriented, hands-on learning experiencesthroughout the engineering technology and sciences curriculum, and engages students in thedesign and analysis process beginning with their first year. This will modify our existinglaboratories, and help us better educate and train our graduates to serve the needs of thetechnological and engineering community. Students can use this CBVEL along with existingsoftware ( MATLAB from MathWorks
) in Mechanical Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Panchal’s re- search interests are in computational design of complex engineering systems with focus on three areas a) concurrent products and materials design, b) collective systems innovation, and c) cyber-physical sys- tems for design and manufacturing. He is a co-author of the book titled Integrated Design of Multiscale, Multifunctional Materials and Products. He is a recipient of CAREER award from the National Science Foundation (NSF), Young Engineer Award and two best paper awards from ASME CIE division, and a university silver medal from IIT Guwahati.Dr. Pradeep Kashinath Waychal, Innovation Centre, COEP Pradeep Waychal has close to 30
into a first-year engineering design course as a novel student design project. This initiative aimed to engageand encourage first-year engineering students through team-based, hands-on projects, offering areprieve from the typically heavy emphasis on mathematics and science in their curriculum. Withinthe framework of the larger research project funded by the National Science Foundation, whichfocuses on the retention and engagement of engineering students, this study sought to evaluate theefficacy of the project by comparing pre- and post-activity survey results. The project involvedstudents designing a rocket within the game to navigate to the moon and back safely, therebysimulating real-world engineering challenges. The learning objectives
as programming techniques, modeling, data interpretation and erroranalysis will be presented. In addition, it will be shown how CSC 215 is used as a transitioncourse from the first year courses to upper level engineering courses. Finally, material willbe presented on techniques used in the class to foster higher order problem solving skills.Raymond AddabboProfessor Arts and SciencesVaughn College of Aeronautics and Technology86-01 23rd Ave.East Elmhurst NY 11369718-429-6600 (261)raymond.addabbo@vaughn.edu1 IntroductionIn spite of computational skills being deemphasized in many curricula, the importance ofthese skills has never been greater. With the increase in computer speed over the last thirtyyears, computation has become a partner to
Page 14.1173.2parameters. Mixed signal IC tests are very sensitive to structural details and hence tofabrication techniques. The course combines educational elements to produce a uniqueclass environment. These elements include the use of industrially sponsored design andbuild projects, a fabricated design approach and its modification, the integration ofproducts and manufacturing process design, and emphasis on engineering and peopleskills. In this paper, the innovative design and testing parameters, the course teachingprocedures, and some course materials will be discussed. 1. Introduction Currently, mixed-signal IC test and measurement has grown into a highlyspecialized field of electrical
andconceptually difficult physical phenomena and to provide “hands-on” experience. In this process of change,the teaching and practice of engineering design principles began to disappear from the curriculum. Issues raised and discussed in this paper support a return to design as the primary purpose for theengineering laboratory. The issues include: the purposes and style of experimentation, the roles of simulationand the computer, pedagogical relationships between the laboratory and the lecture, the role of engineeringscience in support of design, and intended outcomes for students (graduate school vs. immediate career entry). We provide an example which articulates our goals for an engineering laboratory experience: thegathering of
, electrical, and computerengineering technology) at OIT are 4-year Bachelor of Science programs and are accredited bythe Technology Accreditation Commission1 (TAC) of the Accreditation Board of Engineeringand Technology (ABET). One of OIT’s engineering programs, civil engineering, is accreditedby the Engineering Accreditation Commission2 (EAC) of ABET. The newest program,mechanical engineering, was introduced in the fall 2005 and must wait for its first graduate in2007 before applying to EAC of ABET for accreditation.Although conclusions are not drawn from this fact, OIT’s administrative structure is somewhatunique in that there are no school deans. Administrative governance is derived from theinstitution’s president, provost, associate provost, and
’ lives and toprovide opportunities for active reflection about these experiences. Hands-on science withoutminds-on reflection and discussion does not allow for updating prior knowledge. Finding outabout and having the student correct misconceptions is a vital part of science education.Children’s engineering provides synergistic ways to provide experiences through the engineeringdesign process which imbed reflection and collaboration.IV. Fundamentals of EngineeringEngineering predates science by millennia (Volti, 1995), as it is essential to our existence ashumans. Humans would be a good food source for many animals if it were not for ourcreativity and intelligence applied to the development of artifacts to protect us. To includeengineering at
byselecting and integrating mechanical, electrical, electronic, and computer technologies.Finally, the first floor, called "space for production", is a place that includes a manufacturing anddesign machine shop and where engineering materials are worked. This is where the studentshave an opportunity to practice with and experience the different solutions proposed to projectspreviously identified on the upper floors.In summary, the result of the work done in each of the spaces of the building are the input for thenext floor: the fifth floor is a space built for collaborative projects and where the first ideas aregenerated, the fourth floor is the place to work on modeling and simulation of those ideas, thethird floor is a place of transit for the
fields. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics High School teachers areasked to nominate students for participation in the program. This program was founded in 2002and is funded by the Historical Electronics Museum with a grant from the Northrop GrummanCorporation. Speakers in the YESS have presented on topics as diverse as plasma physics, stealthradar, biomedical imagery, super computers/micro technology, aeronautical engineering,astrophysics and satellite reconnaissance.This year, the program has been revised from a strictly seminar series, to a hands-on programdesigned to help students understand the engineering method. In seven sessions, students learnhow to go from theory to modeling, designing, building, and testing. The hands-on
who start as freshmen in engineering complete theirbaccalaureate degrees in engineering1. Reasons for this attrition among engineering studentshave been studied for many years. Seymour and Hewitt2 found two main reasons for departuresfrom the sciences: disinterest or disappointment in field, and poor academic performance withsubsequent loss of self-efficacy. Haag et al.3 also found that poor academic advising,unapproachable faculty, and complicated engineering curricula were important institutionalcontributors to student attrition. Although poor academic performance may motivate somestudents to leave engineering, other students persist despite these academic setbacks. In thispaper, rather than focusing on students who leave engineering, we
oftechnology (defined as anything human-made) and what technology is and is not capable of isvery contentious, in part due to various groups debating based on differing definitions. Ifstudents are not taught to be truly technological literate, they lack the capacity to assess properlyissues such as whether to allow irradiated foods, stem cell research, and global climate change.The necessary critical thinking skills to make up for this lack are easily instilled through K-12engineering education.The catalog description for the course is: An active, hands-on class where prospectiveelementary school teachers develop learning activities that children can use to stimulate theirimaginations and learn fundamental concepts in science, technology, engineering
first presents a review of innovative fountainsdeveloped throughout the history, and then, it suggests ways to use the subject of fountains forcourse enhancement. The suggestions could be implemented in a number of courses such asintroduction to engineering, fluid mechanics, engineering design, and mechatronics, dependingon the scope and desired technical details.The review section provides brief descriptions of ingenious fountains designed in the1st, 12th,16th, 17th, and 20th centuries, including about sixteen US patents. In addition, the paper presentsa resource guide for fountain materials (pumps, basins, controllers, etc.), information on designfirms specializing in fountains, and the web sites of artists whose medium of artistic
Session 1526 0XOWLGLVFLSOLQDU\$VSHFWVRI1RYHO3URFHVV(QJLQHHULQJ C. Stewart Slater and Robert P. Hesketh Department of Chemical Engineering Rowan University Glassboro, NJ 08028 Abstract This paper describes a NSF-funded Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement Workshop on NovelProcess Science and Engineering. The project DUE-9752789 supports two hands-on, industry integratedworkshops that will have a major impact on
engineering design and teaming aswell as presenting the engineering material using a social justice lens that is anchored in notionsof Caritas. The Engineering content will include lectures, hands on activities, and teamwork. Otherclass sessions will be dedicated to viewing and discussing the pre-recorded modules as well asdialogue. The dialogue sections of the class were run by two Dialogue Facilitators. Dialogue offersthe individual and collective space to think critically and wrestle with the scholarship at a personallevel through journaling and group dialogue. Students were invited to practice dialogic skills, self-reflect, and share their experiences, as well as to connect with, affirm and challenge their peerswhile exploring together the course
implementation andapplication; documentation; ethics; professionalism”.8The course was 2 semester hours, meeting twice a week for 50 minutes.Course objectivesOne of the objectives of the course redesign was to retain as much of the existing course materialas possible, since it has been quite successful. Computer Science was very willing to have theirfreshman students participate in the hands on activities, which tend to be somewhat mechanicallyoriented. The official learning objectives of the EngE1024 were: Page 10.962.2 “Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition