students and answer the commonquestion, “Why do I need to learn this?”Students are usually interested to hear details about their faculty: Why and how did you become an engineer? Did you ever work on a project that failed? What kinds of ethical issues have you encountered? Have you ever struggled with illness, accidents, or loss?Alford encourages faculty to weave stories into their teaching to help connect students to thematerial and to connect to faculty as real people:"Share your story, and let them know that you know life happens to everybody. We’re all in thishuman drama together, and I think the more we can connect with each other, the better it is. Ithink anything we can do to keep each other as people and not just
thenecessary data entry could be completed in time for the division level curriculum reviewmeeting. At the first pass through the division level review, the scientists on the committeevoiced enthusiastic support for the concept of an engineering focused GE science course.Suggestions were made to add more information about the structure and role of the lab materialto the course, broader information within Topics and Scope, a wider spectrum of representativetextbooks, and to add physics as an alternate discipline. This last suggestion was deemedinappropriate by the outline author because a physicist would lack the necessary exposure to theengineering design process that is an integral part of the course. An individual faculty memberhad expressed concern
relocate one hundred families. Significantfunds still have not been allocated for remediation.Introduction to Chemical Engineering Course The University of Tulsa course catalog describes the introductory class forfreshmen studying Chemical Engineering as: Overview of the chemical engineering curriculum, professionalism, career opportunities, and issues of safety and the environment. Introduction to chemical engineering calculations; units, dimensions, and conversion factors.Most students enrolling in the course are new to the university and have selected themajor based on the fact that they liked chemistry and math in high school. They typicallyhave no idea what a chemical engineer does. This course is intended to
, learning environment, andacademic concern. The TA section includes an overall rating for the teaching assistant (TA). Atthe end of each section, a “Comments/Suggestions” box is included, where the students areencouraged to write their comments. These surveys are administered typically at 1/3 (Week 5)and 2/3 (Week 10) of the semester.Based on the findings of each survey, the instructor makes a brief presentation during class,where the most frequent comments/issues are discussed along with actions to address them. Thethird survey further serves as a measure of the efficiency of the adopted actions from the secondsurvey. The fourth survey is administered by the university typically during Week 14 of thesemester and serves as a final assessment
sections fill,new sections are opened, and students drop courses in which they were previouslyregistered. Thus, the system is dynamic and often complicated by many choices thatinteract. Fortunately, most of the system dynamics can be analyzed electronicallymaking the process more efficient for both the student and the advisor.Advising ProcessAn advising process with currently available tools at Texas Tech University is outlined inTable 1. This process is followed by the Dean’s Office in the College of Engineering inadvising undecided students and students returning from suspension. Most advisors inthe College of Engineering are concerned with more than just the scheduling of classesand are dedicated to helping students achieve academic success
trainees differed across their self-reports on three topics;whether they consider societal impacts, consider the challenges facing diverse, underservedpopulations in their work, and whether their research lab explicitly discusses research ethics.Faculty reported a widespread 90% agreement (N = 10) that they consider all three of thesetopics. Trainees, though similarly agreeing that they consider societal issues (94%), divergedfrom faculty. They reported only 64% agreement with considering challenges facing underservedpopulations, and 44% agreement that their labs discussed ethics (N = 16). Thus, we can see that researchers are indeed communicating broader impacts and societalbenefits of their research, but we need further investigations to
these workingdefinitions: • Community Service is voluntary work intended to help people in a particular community. • Social Responsibility is an obligation that an individual (or company) has to act with concern and sensitivity, aware of the impacts of their own action on others, particularly the disadvantaged. • Social Justice relates to the distribution of the advantages and disadvantages in society, including the way in which they are allocated. • Pro bono- work done without compensation (pay) for the public good.This course specifically addresses the issues described above with the goal of providing earlyexposure to topics that will be reinforced in non-major coursework, such as general educationelective courses. Results
research center that focuses on the intersection of environmental and economic issues, her research centers on the development and deployment of the Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment tool, examining energy life cycles of new products, cor- porate environmental management, and educating general populations about energy-environment issues. As Education Director, she oversees education and outreach initiatives for the Green Design Institute. She has assisted in the development of executive education programs for environmental professionals to gain business-related knowledge and skills, and for business professionals to gain knowledge and skills in the area of life cycle assessment. She is the coordinator and
AC 2010-949: DEVELOPMENT OF PERSPECTIVE IN A GENERALENGINEERING DEGREERobert Grondin, Arizona State UniversityChell Roberts, Arizona State University Page 15.421.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2010 Development of Perspective in a General Engineering DegreeIntroductionIn fall of 2004, a team of faculty at Arizona State University (ASU) was tasked with thecreation of a new undergraduate engineering program for ASU’s Polytechnic Campus inMesa, Arizona. ASU already had a full suite of traditional engineering programs taughtin the Ira A Fulton Schools of Engineering on its Tempe campus. These programs alloffered a disciplinary specific degree and generally emphasized a
doctoral students,” New Directions for Higher Education, no. 163, pp. 43-54, 2013.29. S. K. Gardner, “I heard it through the grapevine: Doctoral student socialization in chemistry and history,” Higher education, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 723-740, 2007, doi: 10.1007/s10734-003-9020-x.30. J. Posselt, “Normalizing struggle: dimensions of faculty-support for doctoral students and implications for persistence and well-being,” The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 89, no. 6, pp. 988-1013, May 2018, doi: 10.1080/0221546.2018.1449080.31. A. Leshner & L. Scherer, Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century. Consensus Report, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.: National Academies Press, 2018.32. J. M. Poirier, C. Tanenbaum, C. Storey, R. Kirshstein
theCollege of Engineering started to remake the Department of Freshman Engineering into theDepartment of Engineering Education (ENE). Original plans for ENE did not include anundergraduate program. The Heads of Freshman Engineering and IDES and the Dean ofEngineering agreed that merging the two departments would provide ENE with an undergraduateprogram, clear the way to develop an ABET accredited program since a faculty would beavailable, and (almost a miracle) reduce the number of administrators. The new department wasofficially approved on April 9, 2004.Since the non-accredited IDES program served the needs of one group of students, we decided toretain this program while developing a new Multidisciplinary Engineering program that metABET’s
by Wicklein, the primary reasons are “inadequateunderstanding by school administrators and counselors concerning technology education,inadequate understanding by the general populace concerning technology education, and lackof consensus of curriculum content for technology education”1. These concerns were ranked #2, # 3, and # 4 in a research finding among technology educators2. Likewise, in a recent surveyamong prospective employers, 30% of 250 respondents did not have any awareness about theengineering technology program and one-third of those who claimed to have awareness aboutthe program could not distinguish the difference between the work performed by the engineersto the work performed by the engineering technologist accurately3. This
failures in digitally transforming EM411 arose from aneed for more familiarity with the system. For example, needing to fully understand how toapply formula-style questions correctly led to a time loss in re-grading a digital portion of anassessment. Future faculty seeking to adopt a similar digital transformation should complete allembedded Canvas training material, such as the useful ‘Growing with Canvas’ course availableto all new faculty users.ConclusionThe insights from the material presented in this paper offer valuable and scalable lessons for thefuture development of undergraduate engineering management programs, particularly in digitaldelivery and assessment. The shift in focus from traditional engineering assessment to atechnology
students in their own learning environment. (5) Challenge students to construct knowledge from their experiences.During sophomore year, engineering students take Technical Writing and Communicationswhere they are introduced to the fundamental principles of technical writing and use a project-based learning model.Taking the aforementioned points into consideration, the technical writing instructor andengineering faculty tried a new approach to add realism to the technical writing course content.The course recently implemented a team exercise with iFixit [13] where student teams of fourhad to troubleshoot an unserviceable item (laptop, kitchen appliance, smart phone, etc.) andrepair it. As part of the project, teams documented their written
addresssystemic issues of education. In the case of the new partnership between Tufts and SomervilleHigh School, it provides both. Tufts students can become acquainted with the growing field ofengineering education, designing curricula that address Somerville-specific engineeringproblems that high schoolers can solve. Tufts students and faculty must demonstrate significantcontent knowledge in engineering; in order to create programs that are intellectually appropriatefor beginning, high school engineering students, the program designers must intimatelyunderstand the acquisition of engineering concepts. They must also understand pedagogicalconcepts, which constitute considerable challenges for many engineering students in universities.The community itself
concerns, the ESC launched a series ofactivities that combined in-person and online services that leveraged available technology. Anexternal evaluator surveyed engineering students at the end of Spring 2022 to assess theirexperiences with the ESC.2. MethodThe ESC offered activities and services in the areas of academic and professional development.The following will provide an overview of these services.2.1 Academic ResourcesAdvising - In SFSU’s Student Success and Graduation Initiative [6], advising and inadequateevaluation of transfer credits were cited as the top reasons for not meeting expected graduationdates. Additionally, faculty advising by major showed the lowest level of satisfaction. Studentsin the SoE are typically required to meet
students,postdocs, or early-career faculty, they described a welcoming culture of experimentation thatfostered creativity and collaboration.“I was able to propose a new approach that I wasn’t sure would be accepted. Instead of shuttingit down, the group helped me refine it and actually put it into practice.”Possible ChallengesDespite these positive aspects, participants noted some challenges. For instance, participantsexpressed concerns about the sustainability of psychological safety, particularly as the networkgrows and evolves.One participant observed, “It’s great now, but I wonder if we can keep this culture intact as morepeople join and new dynamics emerge.”Others reflected on the initial stages of their involvement in the network, describing
covered in this undergraduatecourse, or on a topic not fully addressed in the course, and 2) the division allows for the ability toincorporate recent issues, critical new developments, or minor course variations withoutsignificant course revisions.ImplementationRound table activities were incorporated into the 2009 fall semester of Geotechnical Engineeringon a weekly basis with each session running approximately 45 minutes. Twenty-eightindividuals were enrolled in the course, all of them senior level students who had successfullycompleted the first course of the geotechnical engineering sequence. While the majority of theround table discussions were centered on either journal articles or conference proceedings thatthe entire group was required to
a situated, incremental curriculum plan in all seven departments in the college. Her responsibilities include faculty development (she has facilitated numer- ous college-wide workshops), TA training (approximately 15 graduate students from the Humanities work with CLEAR to develop the communication competence of engineering undergraduates), programmatic and basic research, instructional development, and assessment. Dr. Kedrowicz received her Ph.D. in Communication from the University of Utah in 2005. She also holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Organizational and Corporate Communication from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.Maria Dawn Blevins, University of Utah Department of Communication
research is to help in shaping a safe pathway to AI-based learning environmentsfor human progress.AI is expected to lead the new revolution in the social, economic, health, and technology areas.Currently, the fast development of AI-based products is accompanied by huge investments fromlarge companies and governments. In the U.S., both the previous and the current administrationfully support AI research and development efforts. For example, on February 11, 2019, PresidentTrump issued Executive Order 13859 to maintain American leadership in artificial intelligence[1]. With respect to this executive order, France A. Córdova, Director, National ScienceFoundation (NSF), included the following statements [2]. "NSF has a long and rich history of
credit for Thermoand (2) Aerospace engineering majors need to take Fluid Mechanics in the fall of their 3rd year tograduate in 4 semesters. The faculty also decided to count an extra Intro to Engineering coursecredit toward one credit of their Computer Aided Design (CAD) course. They did this because acommon complaint from transfer students was that this aspect of the course was redundant forthem. To solve this issue, the Intro to Mech and Aero courses were split from 3 credits to a 2-credit Intro to major course and a 1-credit CAD lab course. Therefore, CC transfer students whofulfilled the pre-engineering curriculum also satisfied the CAD class.Beyond curriculum – integrating transfer students into the MAE community To address the post
…’That's a whole other issue I guess, where we go into the invisible disabilities aspect of it.” Thispattern of a lack of believability due to invisibility perpetuates marginalization of this population.While faculty and universities are becoming more supportive of students with disabilities [16],[26], progress is slow and more work needs to be done to intentionally include individuals withnon-apparent disabilities. In this study, participants described the majority of their experienceswhen requesting accommodations through faculty to be largely negative in context. Thesefindings again highlight the complexities in the intersectionality of an individual’s studentidentity, their disability identity, and the ways they are allowed to navigate the
Assessment Plan, andABET Report Preparation. Three or four activities are included in each of the sub-projects and this detail appears tobe adequate for the COE uses.2.3 Educating faculty about ABET 2000 and the concept of assessment driven programsMany faculty have some familiarity with the concept of assessment driven programs due to the proliferation of TotalQuality Management and similar processes in recent literature. Most faculty have had limited involvement indeveloping an ABET accreditation report and to a great extent are unfamiliar with the criteria and guidelines. As aresult, many faculty ignore memos sent out about the new criteria, and/or do not understand the implications of thenew assessment component. Alternately, unless all faculty
. © American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 2022 ASEE Southeast Section ConferenceTransfer students experience transfer shock, which is typified by a decrease in student performanceas in Cedja3 and Hills4. The shock is occasioned by social and academic adjustment issues thatinclude, learning a new system, environment, policies, and academic culture. Transfer shock ismore pronounced in engineering majors as per Lakin & Elliot5. The dip in GPA often occursduring the first semester post transfer. However, for some students, the shock lingers for a longerperiod in what Lakin & Elliot refer to as “transfer norming” which in turn impacts their time todegree explained by Smith, Grohs, & Aken6. A prolonged
cohort). Similar to the non-nursing project students, four of the 33 nursing project respondents (12%) shared the desire to see the final product.Project Concerns (Pre-Survey)On the pre-StRIP survey, students were also asked to share their concerns after working on thedesign project for two weeks. Eleven respondents from the non-nursing project group and 33from the nursing project group again submitted responses. Common themes from both groupsincluded concerns about working in a team, the budget, and materials. Non-nursing projectstudents noted that they were anxious about resolving their design issue. Only nursing projectstudents mentioned their concern for the usability of their project.• Non-nursing projects: Three of the 11 respondents
. Page 7.1327.2 Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2002, American Society for Engineering EducationWhile the work of Starbuck 17 provides sound guidance that can be used to enable students togain significantly from collaborative experience, other writers warn of issues relating directlyto the influence of industry, that can have an adverse affect on students. Randazzese 18 forexample, raised concerns regarding industry’s attitude toward collaborative research withuniversities. A survey of faculty members and affiliates of a collaborative research centrerevealed that industry required applied research that was essentially short term and
% at public 4-year institutions while graduate degrees conferred wereless than 2% [3].To meet the challenge of increasing participation of Hispanics in computing, the ComputingAlliance of Hispanic-Serving Institutions (CAHSI) was formed in 2004 with seven foundinginstitutions: California State University, Dominguez Hills (CSUDH), Florida InternationalUniversity (FIU), New Mexico State University (NMSU), Texas A&M University-CorpusChristi (TAMU-CC), University of Houston-Downtown (UHD), University of Puerto RicoMayaguez (UPRM), and The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP). The core purposeestablished by the CAHSI institutions was to create a unified voice to consolidate the strengths,resources, and concerns of HSIs and other groups
that are part of theTechnology Pathways Initiative (TPI) of the Center for Advancing Women in Technology [54]TPI is targeted at integrating computing education for students in STEM disciplines that alreadyhave high female enrollment. The University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) alsorecently began a new X+CS program with NSF funding [55] that utilizes UMBC’s existinginfrastructure for students choosing Individualized Studies as their chosen degree program.Perhaps these CS+X and X+CS approaches will increase both the numbers of women in CS andthe numbers of men in humanities and social sciences. In addition, they may demonstrate to boththe students and faculty in the humanities, social sciences, sciences and engineering, including CS,that
challenge students to move beyondcontinuous improvement projects. In several cases, ideas generated in the classroom orthrough collaborative efforts between the business and technology faculty have resultedin prototypes being built in the laboratory for further testing of the prospectiveinnovation.The presence of a technology-centered business incubator located within walking Page 11.530.2distance from campus provides students the opportunity to observe several hightechnology businesses that have developed new technology niches in established marketsegments. These businesses provide consulting opportunities for cross-disciplinarygraduate student teams to
Advances in Engineering Education SUMMER 2020 VOLUME 8 ISSUE 2Interventions for Promoting Student Engagementand Predicting Performance in an IntroductoryEngineering ClassA.RAVISHANKAR RAOFairleigh Dickinson UniversityTeaneck, NJ ABSTRACT Studies show that a significant fraction of students graduating from high schools in the U.S. isill prepared for college and careers. Some problems include weak grounding in math and writing,lack of motivation, and insufficient conscientiousness. Academic institutions are under pressure toimprove student retention and graduate rates, whereas students are under pressure to graduateand find employment. Consequently