Paper ID #5753The Design of a Leadership Development Programme for Women Engineer-ing Students at a South African UniversityDr. Ann Sharon Lourens, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (NMMU) Port Elizabeth South Africa I have been involved in academia for the past 17 years after spending eight years working in various manufacturing industries. I hold qualifications in Operations Management and Business (MBA and DBA). I am currently the Head of Department of Industrial Engineering at the NMMU in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. I am also the Project Leader for wela (women in engineering leadership association) which falls
Session 3230 From the Trenches: Killing Three Birds with One Rather Large Stone Dr. Robin H. Lovgren, Dr. Michael J. Racer, Anna Phillips Industrial and Systems Engineering/ Counseling, Educational Research, and Psychology University of Memphis Memphis, TN 38152AbstractThe ABET2000 criteria call attention to the need for engineering faculty to take a broadenedapproach to engineering instruction. Lurking behind this are two other factors that we mustconsider as we review our own
-content/uploads/2020/09/EAC-Criteria-2020-2021.pdf[7] T. J. Brumm, L. F. Hanneman, and S. K. Mickelson, “The data are in: Student workplacecompetencies in the experiential workplace,” American Society for Engineering Education AnnualConference, 2005.[8] R. F. Vaz and P. Quinn, “Benefits of a project-based curriculum: Engineering employers’perspectives,” ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, 2015. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.23617[9] B. K. Jesiek, N. T. Buswell, and S. Nittala, “Performing at the boundaries: Narratives of early careerengineering practice,” Engineering Studies, 13(2), 86–110, 2021.https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2021.1959596 p. 104[10] R. S. Adams, T. Forin, M. Chua, and D. Radcliffe, “Characterizing the work of coaching
engineering education, computer architecture and VLSI design.Jennifer Quynn, University of California, Santa Cruz Jenny Quynn, a curriculum advisor at UC Santa Cruz, specializes in innovative professional development for engineering instructors. Her faculty-centered approach addresses the needs and concerns of teach- ers, focusing on measuring program efficacy through instructor morale and student outcomes. With 30+ years of experience as a teacher and educator, Jenny offers customized support solutions for any teaching challenge. She holds a PhD in Educational Psychology from the University of Washington (2013) and continues to contribute to the field, driving innovation in engineering education and enhancing teaching
Manufacturing Simulation A. Week 1In the first week of the course, the teaching team introduced themselves and the department. Thefirst part of this lecture involved a curriculum overview intending to provide the students with a Page 24.813.5macro view of how all the project components were designed to fit together. The next part of thelecture gave the students a chance to meet the professors in the department. Most of the full timeprofessors in the department came to the class and introduced themselves and their areas ofresearch. Following the professor introduction, students were asked to
knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering(b) An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data(c) An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realisticconstraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety,manufacturability, and sustainability(d) An ability to function in multidisciplinary teams(e) An ability to identify, formulates, and solves engineering problems(f) An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility(g) An ability to communicate effectively(h) The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global,economic, environmental, and societal context(i) Recognition of the
helped to develop and teach the six course engineering design sequence which represents the spine of the curriculum for the Department of Engineering. The research and teaching interests of Dr. Nagel tend to revolve around engineering design and engineering design education, and in particular, the design conceptualization phase of the design process. He has performed research with the US Army Chemical Corps, General Motors Research and Development Center, and the US Air Force Academy, and he has received grants from the NSF, the EPA, and General Motors Corporation.Dr. Melissa Wood Aleman, James Madison University Dr. Melissa Aleman (Ph.D. University of Iowa) is Professor of Communication Studies at James Madison
and interacting with the hardware • using or re-using available libraries of course ware, tutorials, and educational resources and other specialized software modules or functions provided by the manufacturer • teaching multiple concepts using the same software and hardware components • access to online resources and tutorials that would allow the students to quickly become familiar and comfortable with the selected tools The criteria considered for resource availability were examples and exercises provided bythe manufacturer that could be easily modified, and used by the students and availabilityof company sponsored forums where students could post questions and get timely answers.The NI systems met all of these criteria and
statements, included General criteria numbered and named similarly tothe other commissions, and (3) inclusion of specific program criteria for the IT, IS, and CS programs.1 The sectionsof the common General Criteria for all three CAC programs are as follows: • Criterion 1. Students • Criterion 6. Faculty • Criterion 2. Program Educational Objectives • Criterion 7. Facilities • Criterion 3. Program Outcomes (a-i) • Criterion 8. Support • Criterion 4. Continuous Improvement • Criterion 9. Program Criteria (varies for each • Criterion 5. Curriculum discipline)The
design rationale building, would preventdesign defects, redundancies, and lost work due to overridden decisions. A reward structureshould be thoughtfully planned, to encourage effective contribution to the design work, and alignactor interests such that a shared success would be rewarded.Each set of learning objectives may be further studied in the framework of threshold concepts[8], [9]: Which learning objects are difficult to achieve, yet critical for holistic thinking,interaction roles, and interest alignment? In what sequence should they be learned, and how cansuch skills be recognized and rewarded in the formal curriculum?Table 4. Proposed Learning Objectives for Engineering Management and Design Education Value-Creation Knowledge
are discussed. Finally,results of an alumni assessment survey are presented. The goal of the practice-based seniordesign experience at Baylor University is to produce engineering graduates who have the self-confidence and practical knowledge necessary to become immediately productive in today’sproject-oriented workplace. Interpretation of these assessment results supports the conclusionthat this goal has been met.I. IntroductionEngineering design is integrated throughout the curriculum at Baylor University, and meaningfuldesign work is required of students in many courses beginning with the introductory freshmancourse and progressing through the senior electives and laboratories. However, EGR 4390Engineering Design II is the capstone design
inthis course and their persistence as engineering and CS majors.AcknowledgmentsThe E11 Teaching Team would like to acknowledge support from the HMC Dean of Faculty,Willie Drake, and Sam Abdelmuati, Matt Wodrich, Paul Stovall, and the HMC Student ShopProctors. The course was financially supported by the Mellon Foundation and by Shamit Grover. Page 22.271.12References[1] ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/2-007-design-and-manufacturing-i-spring-2009/[2] perspective.mit.edu/[3] F. Martin, Circuits to Control: Learning Engineering by Designing LEGO Robots, doctoral dissertation, MediaArts and
places including North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. Prior to joining BYU, Gregg worked for Becton Dickinson, a Global Medical Technology fortune 500 Company in various engineering and leadership positions. Gregg is cur- rently the program chair/chair elect within the Engineering Leadership Development Division (LEAD) within the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). Gregg received his PhD in Educational Leadership and Higher Education from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln with a Master of Technology Management degree and a BS in Manufacturing Engineering Technology, from Brigham Young Univer- sity. Gregg also provides consulting in leadership development and project management
Valley University, Orem, Utah. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma. His research focuses on diverse areas such as: Database Design, Data Structures, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Computer Aided Manufacturing, Data Mining, Data Warehousing, and Machine Learning.Mr. Brandon David Wright, University of Utah Brandon Wright is a graduate student at the University of Utah. He received a B.S. in Computer En- gineering from Utah Valley University. He is currently pursuing an M.S. in Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Utah. His research interests include Flexible Electronics and education in the engineering field
sensors), therelative performance of students conducting sensor-based laboratories will help isolate thepedagogical benefit of using the sensors. It is also clear that the sensors are particularly useful incases where no parallel educational design can be devised—situations in which it is either notpossible to collect enough data quickly without sensors or in which dynamic measurement can beused to provide additional information regarding even an apparently static problem. The use ofsensors to measure rapidly changing quantities is well known, and marked the widespreadintroduction of computer-based instrumentation into the curriculum decades ago. Themeasurement of quantities that are difficult to measure without sensors is also well
Paper ID #45006Teaching Engineering Economics through Role Play in a Senior Design ClassDr. Gautom Kumar Das, University of Maryland Baltimore County https://cbee.umbc.edu/gautom-das/ ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024Work-in-progress: Teaching Engineering Economics through Role-Play in aSenior Design ClassABSTRACTThis work-in-progress study analyzes students' performance on a carefully chosen test questionover two years, revealing concerning results regarding key learning objectives. The traditionalchemical engineering curriculum exposes students to the concepts of engineering economicsonly during their final
. Familiarize with applications and use of microcontrollers in mechatronics measurement projects and experiments.2. Literature reviewTwo main aspects that greatly assisted the formulation of the course are considered here. Theyare (i) the learning experience and pedagogy and (ii) breadth and depth of Mechatronics. Thelearning experience and pedagogy section describes the content and method of delivery of acourse and how it influences the learning experience. The breadth and depth of Mechatronicspresents a holistic view of Mechatronics and the selection of topics and coverage of sectionsfor a foundation learning laboratory course.2.1 Learning Experience and PedagogyIn general, ‘Curriculum’ details what teachers are going to teach, or in other
lab tour provides a much-needed tutorial on acurrent VNA. Student learning is assessed by answering a 15-question quiz on what they learned.In summary, ADS is a resource that can be used as a partner with well-known Microwave I texts.It can solidify student learning and foster an environment for further exploration of devices andsystems (by trial and error.) We specifically avoid the use of optimization as the goal is to buildintuition for checking accuracy, practical issues in design, and larger pre-manufacturing studies.Course reviews consistently request more and more training for RF industry-readiness.University of Notre Dame - Dr. Jonathan Chisum, Assistant Professor, Department of ElectricalEngineering, University of Notre DameThe
Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2012.[3] B.J. Tewksbury, “Specific Strategies for Using the “Jigsaw” Technique for Working in Groups in Non-Lecture-Based Course,” Journal of Geological Education, 43(4), pp. 322- 326, 1995.[4] D. Fitzgerald, “Employing think–pair–share in associate degree nursing curriculum,” Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 8(3), p. 88-90, 2013.[5] D.E. Allen, R.S. Donham, and S.A. Bernhardt, Problem-based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, vol 128, pp. 21-29, 2011.[6] S. Freeman, et al., “Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23) pp. 8410-8415, 2014.[7] S. Martin, D
instructor and the students to successfully manage student projects.Bibliography1. Mott, R., Neff, G., Stratton, M., and Summers, D. “Future Directions for Mechanical,Manufacturing, and Industrial Engineering Technology Programs, Journal of EngineeringTechnology, Spring 2002, Vol. 19, No. 1, pages 8-15.2. Summers, D. “An Industrial Engineering Technology Curriculum for theMillennium”, ASEE Annual Conference, Session 3248, 20003. Summers, D. “Practical Methods for Keeping Project Courses on Track”, ASEEAnnual Conference, Session 1475, 2001.4. Summers, D. and Edmonson, C. “A Structure for an Interactive Project ManagementCourse”, ASEE Annual Conference, Session 2549, 2003.BiographyCharlie P. Edmonson is an Associate Professor and Program Coordinator
, andshow persistence in order to attain higher achievements1. Additional education can help toimprove self-efficacy towards certain subjects, and it has been shown that the amount ofengineering experience is highly related to engineering design self-efficacy2.In this paper, we are interested in how engineering design self-efficacy changes for students asthey progress through the undergraduate mechanical engineering curriculum. This paperdescribes a controlled experiment conducted with freshman, sophomore, and senior students atTexas A&M University to examine the self-efficacy, motivation, outcome expectancy, andanxiety of the students towards engineering design. Students learn the basics of mechanicalengineering throughout the first three
Education, 2012 New Life for Process Control Trainers in a Microcontroller CourseAbstractTo improve student enthusiasm and demonstrate the power of embedded control, laboratoryprocess control trainers were adapted and repurposed for use in an introductory microcontrollercourse. While some students are able to extrapolate the ideas conveyed by making an LED flashusing assembly code, other students need to see their code doing something more powerful andrealistic. Control system training rigs are common in engineering and technology laboratories.These trainers, from manufacturers such as Feedback®, typically have some type of “plant” thatis the controllable center of the system. The parameters of the plant are then measureable viaseveral types
designing and testingthem separately before putting them together. Improving student competence in this area will beincorporated at the next offering of this course. Based on student feedback, their experience inthis design oriented and project based instrumentation course has been very rewarding andchallenging.Bibliography1. J. D. Lang et al., “Industry expectations of new engineers: A survey to assist curriculum designers,” Journal of Engineering Education, pp. 43-51, Jan 1999.2. B. Dutch et al., “The power of problem-based learning: A practical how-to for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline,” Stylus Publishing, 2001.3. J. T. Lugowski and S. E. Widmer, “Problem based learning of data acquisition and computer-based control
lecture sessions and one three hour recitation session replace the current three one hourlecture sessions. Also based on those students exit reviews, Mechanics of Materials support isbeing added to the engineering tutoring services on an as needed basis.Biblography Wood, K.L., Jensen, D., Bezdek, J., and Otto, K., “Reverse Engineering and Redesign: Courses to Incrementallyand Systematically Teach Design,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 90, no. 3, 2001, pp. 363-374.Hodge, B.K., and Steele, W.G., “Experiences with a Curriculum with a Balanced Design Content in All Stems,”ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, vol. 1, 1995, pp. 211-225.Otto, K., and Wood, K.L., “A Reverse Engineering and Redesign Methodology,” Research in Engineering Design,vol
July 2012 through December 2016. He also served as a Chair of Energy Conservation and Conversion Division at American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE). Dr. Pecen holds a B.S in EE and an M.S. in Controls and Computer Engineering from the Istanbul Technical University, an M.S. in EE from the University of Colorado at Boulder, and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Wyoming (UW, 1997). He served as a graduate assistant and faculty at UW, and South Dakota State University. He served on UNI Energy and Environment Coun- cil, College Diversity Committee, University Diversity Advisory Board, and Graduate College Diversity Task Force Committees. His research interests, grants, and more than 50
. He obtained his MS and Ph.D. degrees from the Rice University in 1997 and 1999, respectively. He currently serves as the Associate Chair for the Mechanical Engineering department at UTRGV. Among his research interests are engineering education, materials, stress and thermal finite element analysis, dynamic response analysis.Dr. Javier Ortega, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Dr. Javier A. Ortega is an Associate Professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (UTRGV). His research interests include Tribology, Lubrication, Biomaterials, Additive Manufacturing, and Engineering Education. Dr. Ortega has been involved in different research projects, including
truly seeks continuous improvement should make changes whichare backed by verifiable historical data. Likewise, instructional teams should weigh proposedrevisions in light of the course’s history. However, few course design or evaluation frameworksencourage instructors to review prior versions of the curriculum they are engaged with. Forexample, the popular book The Systematic Design of Instruction has little to no reference toreviewing documents or artifacts from past courses during the curriculum design13. Likewise,Rethinking Engineering Education makes reference to conducting a document review duringcourse evaluation but overlooks a specific methods for conducting such a review 6. More often,historical input is supplied as anecdotal evidence
manufacturing firms in Asia and the US. Earlier, working with the Thomas Group, Inc. she was responsible for business process reengineering, which reduced the cycle time of the product development process in half and eliminated $80M of inven- tory from the supply chain. From 1990 to 1996, Dr. Viola was a plant manager for worldwide reagent manufacturing and photo- systems integration at Polaroid. This included operations in Massachusetts, the Netherlands and Scotland. During her tenure, she led the organization to reduce ’bad pictures’ tenfold and was able to significantly reduce costs by leveraging technology across the operations. Prior to her role in manufacturing, Dr. Viola held numerous positions in R&D, which
AC 2007-2641: ENHANCING THE LEARNING OF ENGINEERING ECONOMYWITH INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHINGKailash Bafna, Western Michigan University KAILASH M. BAFNA is Professor of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering at Western Michigan University. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Industrial Engineers and a registered Professional Engineer. He teaches Engineering Economics, Facilities Design and Materials Handling, and Quality Control. His current research interests are in the areas of incorporating technology in education and developing methodology to enhance web-based learning.Betsy Aller, Western Michigan University Betsy M. Aller is Assistant Professor of Industrial and Manufacturing
Calumet, Hammond, IN. He worked eight years in industry at various capacities. He is working with Purdue University Calumet for the past 27 years. He consults for industry on process control, packag- ing machinery system design, control and related disciplines. He is a senior member of IEEE and he served in IEEE/Industry Application Society for 15 years at various capacities. He served as chair of Manufacturing Systems Development Applications Department (MSDAD) of IEEE/IAS. Currently, he is serving a two-year term as the chair of the Instrumentation of ASEE (American Society of Engineering Education). He authored over 29 refereed journal and conference publications. In 2009 he as PI received NSF-CCLI grant entitled A