Stanford University, she conducts research on engineering education and work-practices, and applied finite element analysis. From 1999-2008 she served as a Senior Scholar at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, leading the Foundation’s engineering study (as reported in Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field). In addition, in 2011 Dr. Sheppard was named as co-PI of a national NSF innovation center (Epicenter), and leads an NSF program at Stanford on summer research experiences for high school teachers. Her industry experiences includes engineering positions at Detroit’s ”Big Three:” Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, and Chrysler Corporation
/demanufacturing systems. Her work has led to over 25 articles in journals, conference proceedings and bookchapters within the last three years.Dr. Stephanie Farrell is an Associate Professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering. She has been involvedwith several pre-engineering programs for high school students and college freshmen. Through these programs, shehas focused on informing students about engineering careers and stimulating their enthusiasm for engineeringeducation. Outside the classroom she has worked extensively to encourage the participation of underrepresentedgroups in engineering by participating in programs such as The Alliance for Minority Participation, UniversityResearch Experiences for Undergraduates and Exploring Career Options
/demanufacturing systems. Her work has led to over 25 articles in journals, conference proceedings and bookchapters within the last three years.Dr. Stephanie Farrell is an Associate Professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering. She has been involvedwith several pre-engineering programs for high school students and college freshmen. Through these programs, shehas focused on informing students about engineering careers and stimulating their enthusiasm for engineeringeducation. Outside the classroom she has worked extensively to encourage the participation of underrepresentedgroups in engineering by participating in programs such as The Alliance for Minority Participation, UniversityResearch Experiences for Undergraduates and Exploring Career Options
Page 9.980.1and Application of an Interorganizational Model,” please visit the project website athttp://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gk18/STEM Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2004, American Society for Engineering Educationoutcomes are pursued and achieved. For the purposes of this research, we define partnerships asvoluntary arrangements between organizations, anchored by agreements, to promote theexchange, sharing, or co-development of products or programs designed to stimulate STEMeducation.* Partnerships are a particular form of interorganizational collaboration. However, theyare distinctive in that participants are not merely bound by
. This is a key generalization to allow, as in the following literaturereview regarding usage of these tools across industries and contexts, the tools do not use a singleagreed upon implementation, but are similar in the principles and thought processes they enforce, 6so it is reasonable to coalesce slight variations of a tool into one general category in the interestof understanding this tool usage across a broader range of industries and contexts. It is important to note that each of the tools mentioned in this following analysis arestatic, representations tools. In other words, Causal Loop Diagrams, Iceberg models, and 5R’sare tools for
and others have all implemented an EPICSprogram.Several recent developments at Louisiana Tech University have laid the groundwork forIMPaCT and other collaborative efforts. In 1996, the science and engineering departments ofLouisiana Tech were merged to form a new College of Engineering and Science (COES), and aninnovative administration structure was employed to facilitate strong interdisciplinarycollaborations for both research and education.2, 3 This structure has allowed for the developmentof innovative interdisciplinary undergraduate programs such as our Integrated Curricula andmultidisciplinary programs such as our Center for Entrepreneurship and Information Technology(CEnIT). For purposes of this paper, interdisciplinary is defined as
might be evolutionary in a broader or differentcontext.Here we report on progress on developing the ideas underlying the NSF RED Project EnablingConvergence in Undergraduate Engineering through Structural Change which is seekingrevolutionary impact by proposing an alternative to the dominant engineering educationparadigm of outcomes-based education. In this project we have adopted the framework of thecapability approach [2], [3] which was developed in economics by Amartya Sen as an alternativeto GDP-based models.The Capabilities Approach and Outcomes-Based EducationThe capabilities approach represents a paradigm shift in assessing human well-being anddevelopment away from societal/economic metrics like GDP to more individual measures.Central to
fields in the US, not only due to its significant impact in the healthcare industry, but also dueto its influence on other engineering and technology industries. U.S. Dept. of Labor estimatesthat the job market for biomedical engineers will increase by 26.1%, faster than the average of alloccupations, through 2012. This is almost double the overall job growth rate of 15.2% and al-most three times the overall growth rate of 9.4% for all engineering jobs1,2. According to 2002figures, there are about 7,600 biomedical engineering jobs in the United States, which is ex-pected to exceed 10,000 by 20121,2. However, BME education, more specifically, the seats avail-able for BME undergraduate education, has not kept pace with this rapid growth and
women in engineering degree programs and effective pedagogy in undergraduate engineering curriculum.Dr. James J. Pembridge, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Univ., Daytona BeachDr. Yosef S. Allam, Colorado School of Mines Yosef Allam is a Teaching Associate Professor in the EPICS first-year engineering program at the Col- orado School of Mines. Prior to joining Mines, he was an Assistant Professor in the Engineering Funda- mentals Department at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and an Affiliate Director for Project Lead The Way in Florida, as well as an Instructor in the First-Year Engineering Program at The Ohio State University. He graduated from The Ohio State University with B.S. and M.S. degrees in Industrial and
participated in the workshop. These faculty members were selectedby the leaders of the university’s engineering teaching and learning center. The reasons theseparticular individuals were selected is because we felt that they would be receptive to the ideasdiscussed in the workshop. Several of them were already doing research or were interested increativity or engineering education. We considered this first workshop to be a pilot and thussought faculty who we felt could provide suggestions for improving it. We also tried to selectfaculty who came from a variety of disciplines, which included bioengineering, mechanicalengineering, industrial engineering, architectural engineering, acoustics, engineering design, andengineering sciences and mechanics. The
solutions for each design problem. After each ideation session, they weregiven a short questionnaire asking students to evaluate the diversity of their design solutions, inaddition to their familiarity with the given design problem.ParticipantsFifteen undergraduate students participated in this study from various universities across the USand Puerto Rico. The group was composed of 5 males and 10 females, ages 19 to 24. Themajority of the students had some exposure to computer science; however, their backgroundsranged from disciplines such as Photography and Psychology to Biomedical and ComputerEngineering. Our goal in selecting this diverse set of students was to understand whether this setof problems would lead to a thorough exploration of the
include pottery, baking, and playing board games.Michelle OrtizScott Streiner (Visiting Assistant Professor, Industrial EngineeringDepartment) Scott Streiner is visiting Assistant Professor in the Industrial Engineering Department, First-Year Engineering Program and the Engineering Education Research Center (EERC) in the Swanson School of Engineering at the University of Pittsburgh. From 2017-2021, he served as an Assistant Professor in the Experiential Engineering Education Department at Rowan University where he taught first and second year engineering students. Scott received his Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering from the University of Pittsburgh, with a focus on global engineering education. His current research areas
consulting senior scholar at the Carnegie Foundation, having directed the Preparations for the Professions Program (PPP) engineering study, and co-authored the study's report Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field (2008). Before coming to Stanford University, she held several positions in the automotive industry, including senior research engineer at Ford Motor Company's Scientific Research Lab. She earned a Ph.D. at the University of Michigan. Page 15.1132.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2010 STUDENTS IMPROVING: IDENTIFYING FACTORS THAT
doubt heard of the importance of nanotechnology and nanoscience, relatively few canappreciate how the scale of matter affects the fundamental science or behavior of a system.Most learning on this topic tends to occur in upper-level electives or in senior thesisprojects or REU programs. Further, our undergraduate curricula do not include enoughexploration-based laboratory courses, in which students work towards solving a problem incollaborative teams, rather than following "step-by-step" lab procedures. This paper discusses the creation at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) of an inquiry-based series of laboratory modules that are designed to expose students to nanobiotechnology,increase specific skills in nanomaterial synthesis and
Education Coalitionsprogram in 1990 to stimulate the creation of comprehensive, systemic models for reformof undergraduate engineering education. To accomplish this reform the Coalitions aredeveloping tested alternative education tools, curricula, and delivery systems. Byapplying these tools, they also hope to increase the successful participation ofunderrepresented groups in engineering education and to improve linkages to K-14educational institutions. Through cross-coalition collaboration they will developsignificant intellectual exchange and resource links among undergraduate engineeringprograms. NSF has funded eight coalitions. The Foundation Coalition (FC), which wasfirst funded in 1993, currently has six participating institutions--Rose
United States. He also worked for several years in industry as project manager, senior engineer and consultant. He has taught and developed undergraduate and grad- uate courses in power electronics, power systems, renewable energy technologies, smart grids, control theory, electric machines, instrumentation, radar and remote sensing, numerical methods and data anal- ysis, space and atmosphere physics, and applied physics. His research interests included power system stability, control and protection, renewable energy system analysis, assessment and design, smart micro- grids, power electronics and electric machines for wind energy conversion, radar and remote sensing, wave and turbulence simulation, measurement and
2019 ASEE Annual ConferenceIntroduction:To invite high school students into a college setting to learn about engineering design, and 3Dprinting to spark interest in STEM related programs, thirteen high school students (10th and 11thgrade) were invited to participate in a two-week summer camp at North Carolina A&T StateUniversity (NCAT) campus. The team that conducted the workshop is composed of two NCATfaculty members, one undergraduate student and a high school teacher. The workshop took placebetween July 9 and 20th, and started at 9 AM, and ended at 5 PM. The lunch break was at 12 noon(lunch was provided). The main objective of the workshop was to prepare a pipeline of students inthe area of advanced manufacturing and 3D-printing.In
worked, and 1 was a duplicate page). Our primary focus was on the mission statementsprovided by the departments that housed the research programs, as 80% provided one. Manydepartments with mission statements mentioned their contribution to the local community. Theyreferred to the community in multiple ways. They used society, the commonwealth, and the localcommunity. A few departments focused on prioritizing their contributions to the field in theirmission statement and their dedication to their students. This can be seen in the followingexcerpts: “Through an innovative learning environment, and a hands-on approach, we fully engage undergraduate and graduate students in the learning experience. We have an ongoing dialogue
). Page 26.582.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Effectiveness of Simulation versus Hands-on Labs: A Case Study for Teaching an Electronics Course AbstractThe use of Simulation-based labs has been gaining currency in the domains of engineering andtechnology programs. How effective is simulation-based teaching methodology in comparison totraditional hands-on activity based labs? To answer this question a study was conducted toexplore the impact of the use of computer simulation design methods on students‘ learning forcircuit construction in an undergraduate technical course. A mixed method research design wasemployed to
, safety, and global considerations in design, investigation, and construction of natural and built systems;4. To enhance analysis and design tools and experience through life long learning; and5. To serve others through professional responsibility, leadership, and participation in professional and public activities, and good citizenship. Page 15.1101.4More general goals of the department and college include:1. Providing a challenging and stimulating academic environment in which creative talents flourish.2. Making research and instruction relevant to contemporary problems.3. Offering quality degree programs at the baccalaureate, masters and
sciencerequirement for non engineering majors.Like similar introductory courses in engineering nationwide, the ES 100 model has beensuccessful in achieving its goals of exposing students to hands-on experiences in differentfields of engineering. Furthermore, courses similar to ES 100 have been offered to highschool student through several programs sponsored by universities, companies andgovernmental institutions with a goal of stimulating an interest in engineering in highschool students. Nonetheless, reports indicate that undergraduate engineering enrollmenthas declined in recent years1, while the number of students who dropout of engineeringearly in their academic career has been shown to increase2. What could be the reason forthis decline, which defies
innovative undergraduate classes whichinvolve active learning laboratories for the students in each of their freshman, sophomore, junior andsenior years. This program received the 1999 Boeing Outstanding Educator Award, in recognitionof its quality and effectiveness in providing a well-rounded engineering design education.The program objectives were developed in response to the call by industry for baccalaureateengineers to possess a broader set of skills beyond their analytical and computer skills. This call wasstrengthened by the Engineering faculty’s observation of the students’ experiences in senior capstonedesign during the late 1980’s and 1990’s. These students, who had had no prior experience with adesign process, struggled with the issues of
instruction and hands-on learning in middle-school classrooms. Course content andimplementation plan are described in the paper, and results of student and teacher assessment will bepresented at the conference.INTRODUCTION The faculty of the Mechanical Engineering (ME) Department at the University of South Alabama(USA) began, in Fall 1993, an evaluation of the undergraduate program to meet the challenge of engineeringeducation for the 21st Century. Restructuring of the mechanical engineering curriculum at USA is alsoprompted by the changing ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) requirements fordesign. Under the current criteria, design is defined as "an experience that must grow with the student'sdevelopment," and "the
and opened opportunities forengineering students to conduct research and attend courses taught by non-engineering facultywho recognize the intersectional value of situating technical thought in a global context. Theworking group has established permanent programming to unite the social and physical sciencesand humanities in a way that produces globally minded experts who are equipped to functioneffectively and sensitively in a rapidly changing and diverse international environment.Continued evidence of impact will consist of increased faculty participation, creation ofinterdisciplinary courses, introduction of a student-facing Global STEAM blog, and facilitationof well-attended events that engage both the physical sciences and the
timeand place within a broader set of circumstances that inform engineering decisions.Through role-play activities, assignments and teamwork across a range of technical andsocial topics, students gain both an appreciation of the history of industrialization andtechnological advancement, and the competence to understand the science andtechnology within this history. Students learn about and practice the engineering designprocess; they learn wastewater characteristics and treatment methods in labs; they grapplewith policy issues in a role-play debate; they familiarize themselves with professionalcodes of ethics; they reflect on the effects of race, class and privilege; they deconstructpower and influence through stakeholder analyses and absorb
evolve through traditional engineering and computer science undergraduate experiences? 4. Are there differences in the entrepreneurial mindset between male and female students? 5. How does family background influence the entrepreneurial mindset?By investigating the answers to these research questions, we hope to answer the broader question:How can engineering and computer science undergraduate programs be revised to enhanceentrepreneurial mindset growth as we strive to meet the challenges of “Educating the Engineer of2020”?Instrument DevelopmentIn the initial design stage, we developed an assessment instrument based on the definition of theengineering entrepreneurial mindset proposed by KEEN [3]. Two broad sets of items weregenerated in
the curriculum for theprograms to be truly successful.Over the past tens years, Rose-Hulman has made great strides in introducing entrepreneurship tothe student body. In addition to Engenius Solutions, Rose-Hulman has developed a Masters inEngineering Management, which offers classes to both graduate and undergraduate students inentrepreneurship and management, established Rose-Hulman Ventures, another LillyEndowment funded program, many departments have encouraged and supported student teams indeveloping entrepreneurial based proposals for external funding from organizations such asNCIIA. All of these programs provide entrepreneurship development opportunities for the Rose-Hulman student body.While the current programs and opportunities are
thus creating a more active learning environment as well as enriching the content beyond what the presenters bring. Page 5.430.24. Any faculty development activity must take into consideration the characteristics of its audience. New faculty members tend to be highly motivated and accomplished professionals. These are individuals who have not only completed a Ph.D. but also have chosen to go against the grain and pursue an academic position when positions in industry abound and generally pay better [3]. Given these characteristics, a faculty development curriculum should be designed to be challenging and stimulating. This provides
process and results across campus demonstrated transparency and openness to the faculty.This approach combines involvement of key personnel [13] with a framework that emphasizescollaboration and transparencyBackgroundRochester Institute of Technology (RIT) is the third largest technical institution of highereducation in the United States. RIT offers a broad array of programs in its nine colleges, one ofwhich is the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID). Over 70% of incoming studentstypically enroll in a STEM major and undergraduates comprise over 80% of the studentpopulation. Roughly 17% of RIT students self-report as African American, Latino American orNative American (AALANA) and the ratio of men to women students is
engineeringdepartments subsequently approved educational objectives and outcomes for each of the fourundergraduate programs they offer: Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Computer andCommunications Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering. As mentioned in the first paragraphabove, programs’ educational objectives should address the outcomes specified by EC 2000,based on the needs of programs’ constituencies. Accordingly, guidelines were prepared for theformation of External Advisory Boards to review and discuss matters pertaining to the variousFEA undergraduate programs, as well as research activities and professional development of theFEA departments.A. Vision StatementThe Faculty of Engineering and Architecture (FEA) will enhance its status as a world