to be partially plagiarized.6,7 One of theaccused physicists in the arXiv incident wrote a letter to the editors of the journal Natureafterward, attempting to justify his use of verbatim source material as a result of English beinghis second language.8 In 2008, an electrical engineering researcher published an apology in anIEEE magazine for submitting a research paper containing plagiarized material.9While these isolated events cannot necessarily be considered a distinct pattern, they contribute toa public perception that plagiarism is a problem in engineering and applied sciences. It istherefore worth asking if engineering graduate students are being adequately trained tocompetently negotiate the intertextual world of scholarly writing
. Contact: talley@txstate.eduDr. Araceli Martinez Ortiz, Texas State University Araceli Martinez Ortiz, PhD., is Research Associate Professor of Engineering Education in the College of Education at Texas State University. She leads a comprehensive research agenda related to issues of curriculum and instruction in engineering education, motivation and preparation of under-served pop- ulations of students and teachers and in assessing the impact of operationalizing culturally responsive teaching in the STEM classroom. As executive director of the LBJ Institute for STEM Education and Research, she collaborates on various state and national STEM education programs and is PI on major grant initiatives through NASA MUREP
propulsion systems. At Baylor University since 1998, he teaches courses in laboratory techniques, fluid mechanics, energy systems, aeronautics, wind energy, and propulsion systems. Research interests include experimental gas turbine heat transfer and wind energy.Dr. Buford Randall Jean, Baylor University Buford Randall Jean, Ph.D., Associate Professor of electrical and computer engineering, is the holder of nine U.S. patents and corresponding foreign patents in the field of microwave metrology, which have resulted in scientific and industrial instruments for a wide range of sensing and control applications. Industrial products based upon these inventions are in use world-wide. He has more than 25 years of aca- demic and
emergingnew needs and requirements of the society. ASEE21 states: The profession of engineering and the teaching of engineering are undergoing a transformation driven by a number of external forces. The rise of the new biology and the nano-sciences is having a profound impact on society and on engineering practice and education. Similarly the growing complexity of socio-technical systems and the increasing sophistication of product development are shifting our understanding of the profession and its work. As a consequence the traditional engineering disciplines (e.g. Civil, Mechanical, and Electrical) formed in the industrial age of the 19th century may not be appropriate in the knowledge age of the 21st
Paper ID #37798Vertically Integrating E-portfolios and CooperativeEducational Experiences to Develop Students’Entrepreneurial MindsetClark Hochgraf Dr. Clark Hochgraf is an Engineer - Educator - Systems Thinker and associate professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology. He is a 2021 KEEN Engineering Unleashed Fellow who enjoys building technological systems and sharing his enjoyment with others by developing and delivering educational experiences. He earned his Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University of Wisconsin – Madison and his B.S. in electrical engineering from the University at Buffalo
Mechanical Engineering. He currently teaches first-year engineering courses as well as various courses in Mechanical Engineering, primarily in the mechanics area. His pedagogical research areas include standards-based assessment and curriculum design, including the incorporation of entrepreneurial thinking into the engineering curriculum and especially as pertains to First-Year Engineering.Dr. Patrick James Herak, Ohio State University Dr. Herak is a five time graduate of The Ohio State University: BSE (Science Education), MS (Env Sci), MS (Civil Eng), MA (Foreign, Second, and Multilingual Education) and PhD (STEM Education). As an undergrad he was a member of The Ohio State University Marching Band for 5-years and can
analysis presented in this article will offer an expedienttool for enabling the struggling student to properly understand the negative K-P statement andcomfortably transition to studying the subsequent theorems, corollaries, and practical applicationsof the second law of Thermodynamics.1. IntroductionThermodynamics is a core course for the majority of engineering majors - mechanical, chemical,civil and electrical, as well as for students majoring in engineering technology (ET), physics andchemistry, with varying coverage breadth and depth. In ET and engineering, students are exposedto thermodynamics relatively early in their study, and they often consider it a difficult course.Thermodynamics has been described as a gateway course [1] in mechanical
interdisciplinary approach, bringing together differentfields of study around an electric grid game 42 , an earthquake game 43 , or video gamedevelopment 44 . Table 3: Most frequent topics from 2011-2015. Topic (text Concepts Example Abstract Text Segment segments) The main objective of the game is to teach the engineer- ing design process to the students in a fun gaming en- 1.Instructional Process, project, vironment. The serious game has different levels (tuto- Design (n=41) design rial, water tower level and train bridge level) and
, cisgender, not first- “EM,” (“Class B”), University A generation college student, Ph.D. (faculty reflection logs are (Electrical Engineering) analyzed for this paper) Professor C Co-author, project PI and Female, white (non-Hispanic), Professor (tenure line) who heterosexual, cisgender, not first- had previously integrated generation college student, Ph.D. sociotechnical thinking into a (Electrical Engineering) course and who collaborated on the interventions, University A
verification, and teaching with new educational methods, including peer instruction, personal response systems, video games, and state- of-the-art CAD tools.Dr. Krista M Hill, University of Hartford Dr. Krista M. Hill is an associate professor in Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Hartford in Connecticut. PhD and MSEE from Worcester Polytechnic Inst. in Worcester MA, and previ- ously a project engineer at Digital Equipment Corp. She instructs graduate and undergraduate computer engineering computer courses, directs graduate research, and performs research involving embedded mi- croprocessor based systems. Her current projects involve small system design, signal processing, and intelligent
effective way.PurposeArguably, a primary role of the instructor of a first year class is to design and execute the coursecontent in a manner that prepares each individual to be successful in their discipline-specificcourses going forward. Underpinning this goal of preparation for their disciplines, is a tacit,more fundamental goal that students will be have an understanding of what it means to be anengineer, and will grow to have a self-identity belonging within this group. Dym et aldocumented significant increases in second-year retention rates compared with national averageswhen engineering students take an integrated science program with project-based learning intheir first year. [6] Given that project-based cornerstone classes can improve
, Trudy W. et al. (1993) Making a difference: Outcomes of a decade of assessment in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.4. Cates, C., and Jones, P. (1999) Learning Outcomes: The Educational Value of Cooperative Education. Presented at the Annual Cooperative Education Association Conference, Columbia, MD.5. University of Cincinnati (2002) Co-op Curriculum materials, Professional Practice. McGraw-Hill Primis Custom Publishing.6. Astin, A. (2002) Assessment for Excellence: The Philosophy and Practice of Assessment and Evaluation in higher education. Westport, CT: Oryx Press.7. Banta, T., Black, K., Lund, J. and Oblander, F. (1996) Assessment in practice: Putting principle to work on College Campuses. San
engineering curriculum.1 The immediate genesis of The Coach can be tracedto the Engineering Writing Initiative (EWI), a four-year (2004-2008) longitudinal study ofthe development of writing skills of a cohort of engineering students at UT-Tyler. Reports ofwork-in-progress and a summary report were made to the Annual Conference of ASEE. 2-4EWI, in its turn, was conceived as a response to curricular use of the Electrical EngineeringLaboratory Style Guide at UT-Tyler. 5 The chief deficiencies identified by EWI were in Page 23.1173.2rhetoric (awareness of audience, purpose, and message) and in graphical communication.Experience at UT-Tyler with the Style Guide
ratings.KeywordsCAPSTONE teams, CATME, Peer evaluation, psychological safety, conflict, cohesiveness,satisfactionIntroductionLike many disciplines, engineering programs use teams in some courses because theengineering curriculum prepares students to work on multidisciplinary teams [1]. Engineeringstudents usually take a capstone course in the last year of their studies. In capstone courses,instructors simulate real-world problems, often with assistance of external sponsors [2],match student teams with projects [2], [3], identify team leaders to increase teameffectiveness, assess teams during the projects, diagnose team dysfunctions, and help studentslearn to improve their work in teams [2]. Instructors also aim to develop the students’professional skills for
for the Construction Industry Institute and the National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Allicance. His e-mail address is and his web address is .Michael Madden, United Space Alliance Michael G. Madden, M.S.T.M. has over 24 years of experience at United Space Alliance, the space shuttle operations contractor for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. He has planned and scheduled the ground processing operations for both OV-105 Endeavour and OV-104 Atlantis as Senior Vehicle Engineer. More recently, as Project Leader III he is team leader for developing simulation models and decision support systems for the orbiter processing facility. As Senior Engineering Liaison
programs are in countries using national accrediting bodies. Indiahas a strong preference for its national accreditation, with an almost complete absence of Page 24.972.7international organization. Kazakhstan is very interesting because of the presence of a variety ofaccreditation paths. The Far East shows a strong preference for national accrediting bodies andan absence of ABET accredited programs. Finally, Southeast Asia and Oceania are dominated bynational bodies, with Britain and Australia also playing significant roles.Changes are underway that will make these tables obsolete. For example, Pirela et al.13 describethe GCREAS project
MIT’s mens et manus (mind and hand) motto and more recent Mind, Hand and Heart wellness program. Makerspaces can be viewed as social worlds with varying degrees of newcomers and old-timers who are engaged in continually shifting relations through their everyday practice ofdesigning and making. Traditional pedagogy is less common in academic makerspaces than inother academic spaces. The norms and practices more closely exemplify Lave and Wegner’sdescription of learning: Learning itself is an improvised practice: A learning curriculum unfolds in opportunities for engagement in practice. It is not specified as a set of dictates for proper practice. […] In apprenticeship, opportunities for learning are, more often than not
leadershipprograms in universities. As noted by Bayless and Robe, many engineering educators have beenresistant to include engineering leadership within the engineering curriculum, considering it a“soft skill, not relevant to the discipline,” and thus potentially redirecting resources orinstructional time from technical material [6].Another impediment in the development of programs on engineering leadership is the nebulousdefinition of the term itself. Although several authors have attempted to summarize thecharacteristics required of effective engineering leaders (see for example Farr, et al. [7,8] andGoodale [9] for early work), Rottmann, et al. showed that there is a lack of consensus ondefining engineering leadership among different professional cohorts
Paper ID #25586Exploring Differences in Senior and Sophomore Engineering Students’ Men-tal Models of Common ProductsMr. Francis Jacob Fish, Georgia Institute of Technology Francis Fish is a current Ph.D. student at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He earned his Bachelors of Mechanical Engineering and MBA at the University of Delaware, in 2016 and 2017, where he conducted research for DARPA and ARL funded projects as well as private industry projects. From 2016 to 2018 he worked as a Nuclear Engineer for NAVSEA.Alexander R. Murphy, Georgia Institute of Technology Alexander Murphy is a mechanical engineering Ph.D
literacy. This work was followed byHynes et al., who investigated research publications between 2000-2015 [19]. The resulting 218papers represented a substantial increase in articles after 2011. Research shifted to formalclassroom settings (75% of studies), especially at the high school level. The paper also exploredthe nature of the research questions and presented a synthesis of the research aims related tostudents, teachers, and curriculum. Neither review included practitioner papers.More recent literature reviews have focused on specific areas of pre-college engineeringeducation. Margot and Kettler [22] investigated teachers' perceptions of STEM education,followed by Mesutoglu and Baran [23], who identified best practices for
Program, with particular focus on its differentiation fromentrepreneurship courses offered in the business school. The premise of Penn’s Program is thatengineers create and lead great technology companies, hiring managers where needed toexecute their vision.Engineering Entrepreneurship and Global CompetitivenessEngineers and scientists create great companies. Why? Because they possess the knowledgeand skills of high-tech innovation, the passion to pursue it, and the discipline to succeed. Manyof these companies are well known: H-P, founded by two electrical engineers, Bill Hewlett andDave Packard; Intel, created in 1968 by two physicists, Robert Noyce1 and Gordon Moore2; andIBM, created originally as the Tabulating Machine Company in 1896 by
Engineering Key Content Survey, Part Two. The 2nd Step in a Delphi Study to determine the core undergraduate BME curriculum,” in American Society for Engineering Education, 2007.[8] R. A. Linsenmeier, T. R. Harris, and S. A. Olds, “The VaNTH Bioengineering Curriculum Project,” in Proceedings of the Second Joint 24th Annual Conference and the Annual Fall Meeting of the Biomedical Engineering Society & Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 2002, pp. 2644–2645.[9] Z. O. Abu-Faraj, “Bioengineering/Biomedical Engineering Education and Career Development: Literature Review, Definitions, and Constructive Recommendations,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 990–1011, 2008.[10] A. Cheville, “Defining
in the discipline would occur. (1) Engaging students through interactive learning is not a onetime occurrence. Heller et. al. investigated student and faculty perceptions of engineering engagement. (2) It was found that first year students defined engagement as faculty interest and involvement along with interactions with faculty. Once faculties were removed from the equation, students Page 25.37.2 defined engagement as their work on a project, participating in course groups, outside work or research. Comparatively, second year engineering students defined engagement as active participation and hands-on activities.(2) Student
them. This avoids the minefield of research project funding, venture capital and peer-reviewed publications. The goal is to determine the maturity state and intrinsic merits ofan emerging technology rather than measure the capacity of an individual or group tomake it a success.Constraints on evolutionFor any new technology to be a success it must pass three competitive tests. 1. There must be enough customers to sustain a business. If the innovation is radical, it can be seen as meeting only a niche market and a self-limiting process of investment and development follows. 2. If the new technology is a replacement for an existing product, for example a new portable electrical energy source, there is a cost target to be met
COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: A TOOL FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY EDUCATION AND RESEARCH Biswanath Samanta Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Department Georgia Southern University Statesboro, GA 30460 E-mail: bsamanta@georgiasouthern.eduAbstract: In this paper, the use of computational intelligence (CI) as a tool for multidisciplinaryeducation and research is discussed. Main paradigms of CI are presented. The importance of CI isemphasized in understanding complex systems and designing proactive adaptive systems in uncertain,unknown, and dynamic environment
make judgments about what is likely to work in a given context in response to students’ needs.Data presented in this paper suggests that our program produces future teachers with a richlevel of skills in all five of these areas. The program provides these skills in a unique andpowerful fashion through a full STEM, liberal arts and professional curriculum. The T&Econtent plays a special role. T&E content includes substantial emphasis on the design process(an “adaptive optimization” process), open-ended projects, hands-on skills, teaming as wellas verbal and visual communication skills. T&E skills also provide direct experiences withBloom’s higher levels of learning (analysis, synthesis & evaluation) as well as several
leads multiple lines of research in engineering dynamics with applications to wearable technology for analysis of human motion in a variety of contexts ranging from warfighters to astronauts. In addition to her engineering work, she also has an interest in engineering education research. As a doctoral student, she led a project aimed at improving the undergraduate educational experience by systematically incorporating sensor technology into the curriculum as an engaged learning activity, for which she was awarded an ASME Graduate Teacher Fellowship.Nicole L Ramo Nicole is an assistant professor of biomedical engineering at West Chester University of Pennsylvania. Before this position, she served as a lecturer for Shantou
Paper ID #43553Benchmarking a Foundation for Improving Psychological Safety in TeamsDr. Michelle Marincel Payne, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Dr. Michelle Marincel Payne is an Associate Professor in the Civil and Environmental Engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. She earned her Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, her M.S. in Environmental Engineering from Missouri University of Science and Technology, and her B.S. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Missouri-Rolla (same school, different name). At Rose-Hulman, Michelle is leading a project
. Dr. Shann is a Professor in the School of Education at Boston University. She specializes in educational assessment, research, program development, and evaluation. Locally, Dr. Shann collaborates with scientists at Boston University on developing and evaluating applications of advanced technology forinteractive, visual learning in science and mathematics. Nationally, the National ScienceFoundation (NSF) has sponsored her research on student problem solving as well as theevaluation of several national curriculum development and teacher training projects in scienceeducation. At the international level, Dr. Shann consults on the reform of higher education andthe role of universities in
achievement. Assuch, the Civil Engineering Program Criteria (CEPC) has been revised based upon both the firstand second (current) editions of the BOK5,6. The relationship between the BOK outcomes andABET accreditation criteria is presented in Appendix H of the BOK Report2 and most recentlyreported on by Estes et al5.Note that ABET2 has proposed a variety of changes to the General Criteria, with perhaps themost significant changes being to Criterion 3 Student Outcomes. While the current ABETcriteria are considered in this paper, the proposed new Criterion 3 is provided in Appendix B.4for reference. The proposed changes to Criterion 5 Curriculum are more editorial thansubstantive and, therefore, not included.Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) ExamThe FE