Outstanding Contributions to Experiential Education from the Cooperative and Experiential Education Division of ASEE. He is former vice president of the American Society of Mechanical Engi- neers and serves as an ABET evaluator for both mechanical and manufacturing engineering programs.Dr. Brent Michael Nowak, Grand Valley State University Dr. Brent M. Nowak, PhD is the founding Executive Director of the applied Medical Device Institute at Grand Valley State University. aMDI is a non-academic unit of the College of Engineering and Computing that provides doctoral-level, multi-disciplinary engineering analysis, design, fabrication, and testing of emerging medical devices and science at the pace of industry, while serving a
service-learning continues to gain prominence in many engineering schools. At PurdueUniversity, for example, three main programs offer students global engineering projectexperience in the context of international development, namely Engineers Without Borders(EWB), Global Design Teams (GDTs), and Engineering Projects in Community Service(EPICS). Participating students work to create technical solutions to address community needs,either for academic credit or as an extracurricular activity. Students involved with such projectstypically have ready access to the technical resources and expertise needed to carry out theirwork, including support from participating faculty and staff. However, preparing students for thenon-technical aspects of their
Paper ID #37116Work in Progress: Proposing Items for an Engineering UndergraduateSubjective Wellbeing Questionnaire (EUSWQ)Mr. Muhammad Asghar, Utah State University Muhammad Asghar is a graduate researcher and a Ph.D. candidate in Engineering Education Department at Utah State University. He has a master’s in clinical psychology, a master’s in educational psychol- ogy, and a bachelor’s in computer information systems engineering. His research interests consist of investigating undergraduate engineering students’ mental health and well-being. He is also interested in research related to using different technical and non
disciplines, scale up theuse of evidence-based pedagogical methods, find ways to remove barriers facing students atcritical transition points and establish stronger connections with other disciplines. It called oninstructors to employ a broad range of examples and applications to motivate and illustrate thematerial, promote awareness of connections to other subjects, and introduce contemporary topicsand applications. The authors used the principles outlined in the Common Vision project todesign the STEM curriculum for the FYSEP program.All 81 FGLI students in the FYSEP program participated in the STEM mini-course, whichconsisted of 3 two-hour class sessions each week. During the first week, which was led by aComputer Science faculty member, the
, "Interests, Relationships, Identities: Three Central Issues forIndividuals and Groups in Negotiating Their Social Environment," Annual Review ofPsychology, vol. 57, pp. 1-26, 2006.[14] H. C. Kelman, "Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processesof Attitude Change," Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 2, pp. 51-60, 1958.[15] Hernandez, P.R., Hopkins, P.D., Masters, K., Holland, L., Mei, B.M., Richards-Babb, M., Quedado, K., & Shook, N.J. (2018). Student Integration into STEM Careersand Culture: A Longitudinal Examination of Summer Faculty Mentors and ProjectOwnership. CBE Life Sciences Education, 17.[16] J. E. Cameron, "A Three-Factor Model of Social Identity," Self and Identity, vol.3, pp. 239–262, 2004.[17] A. Flache, M
) 8 men Engineering Fundamentals Term (n = 3) Experimental Psychology Faculty developer (n = 2) Industrial Engineering Research manager (n = 1) Medical Education Nursing Pediatrics Physics Physiology Public HealthWorkshop Design ResultsThe crafting of the workshop centered around Desimone’s [7] five essential pedagogicalcomponents to faculty development initiatives, including content focus, active learning,coherence, duration, and collective participation. Study PIs designed a workshop seriescomprised of four one-hour sessions spaced over a month, with each session focusing on adifferent topic area. While facilitators recognized that this brief format was below the 20 hoursrecommended
. Geographic context 10. Deliverables positioning 5. Program size, Assessment 2. Team size students 11. Learning outcomes 3. Disciplines of 6. Program size, faculty 12. Civic outcomes students 7. Program size, staff 13. Technical 8. Duration 14. Social/cultural 9. Interaction with communityThis rating activity was done by placing sticky notes with their program name onto a large(approximately 10-foot long), wall-mounted, axis scaled into four
for creation of the working group was to enhance prevalence ofactive learning in engineering classes in order to improve both retention and graduation rates,thus keeping these students in the engineering pipeline.Method: The team created an intensive summer program where faculty had to commit to attend akick-off meeting, a minimum of four 2-hour working sessions, and a mandatory finalpresentation. During these sessions faculty benefited from: guest speakers on developing courseoutcomes, teaching methods, and assessment techniques; access to a forum for faculty to discussadapting methods to their various subjects, including potential pitfalls and best practices;receiving peer and technical feedback and support for their new ideas
, “Examining teacher talk in an engineering design-based Science Curricular Unit,” Research in Science Education, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 469–487, 2018.[20] M. L. Aranda, R. Lie, S. Selcen Guzey, M. Makarsu, A. Johnston, and T. J. Moore, “Examining teacher talk in an engineering design-based Science Curricular Unit,” Research in Science Education, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 469–487, 2018.[21] L. A. Jacques, H. Cian, D. C. Herro, and C. Quigley, “The impact of questioning techniques on steam instruction,” Action in Teacher Education, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 290–308, 2019.[22] B. R. Brand, “Integrating science and engineering practices: Outcomes from a collaborative professional development,” International Journal of STEM
other factor. 3. What do you like or dislike about the program so far?These questions represent data internal to the program that we have the luxury of including in theanalysis per the participation consent forms. Exit interviews were conducted within two weeksafter the culmination of the program. Another source of qualitative data collected as part of eachinternship program was the intern entrance survey. This survey included questions aboutparticipants’ motivations for choosing the internship program, choosing to work with theirparticular organization, and their interests in specific engineering disciplines. The entrancesurveys were administered and completed within the first week of the program.3.2 Data AnalysisData analysis for the
opportunities.The experiential learning project was developed and adapted from a lower-division engineeringcourse at a public institution, where students design, build, and test an autonomous rover totraverse a course and perform color recognition. The university-level coursework was modifiedto suit high school students while emphasizing critical course learning outcomes. Studentlearning outcomes include developing an understanding of the engineering design process,learning fundamental multidisciplinary technical skills, completing a project in teams, andgaining experience in technical communication. Due to the program being directly adapted froma lower-division experiential learning course, it provided the high school students with a morerelevant college
Michigan Pauline Bary Khan has been serving as the Director of the Program in Technical Communication since 2012. She has taught classes in technical communications to undergraduate and graduate students at the College of Engineering since 1997. She has also co-authored the book A Practical Guide to Technical Reports and Presentations for Scientists, Engineers and Students. Her research is on the topic of group culture, climate, and communication. Prior to her teaching career, Dr. Khan worked as an engineering and project manager to design man- ufacturing systems in the information technology field, to manufacture and test engine blocks for the automotive industry, and to research coatings for high-speed and high
. France: UNESCO; 2010. p. 56–9.8. Shuman LJ, Besterfield-Sacre M, McGourty J. The ABET “Professional Skills”–Can they be taught? Can they be assessed? J Eng Educ. 2005;94(1):41–55.9. Lathem SA, Neumann MD, Hayden N. The Socially Responsible Engineer: Assessing Student Attitudes of Roles and Responsibilities. J Eng Educ. 2011;100(3):444–74.10. Richmond, B. System Dynamics/Systems Thinking: Let’s Just Get On With It. International System Dynamics Conference in Sterling, Scotland; 1994.11. Wolstenholme, E. System Enquiry: A System Dynamic Approach. John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1990.12. Luna-Reyes L., F., Anderson, D.,L,. Collecting and Analyzing qualitative data for system dynamics: methods and models.13. Meadows, D. Thinking in Systems
systems encompassing technical andcontextual dimensions. Systems thinking is essential for addressing these problems byrecognizing relationships within and between systems [2]. Therefore, engineers frequently relyon systems thinking because it “involves understanding part–whole relationships, and howchoices for parts of a system have consequences for the overall functioning of the whole system”[3, p. 496]. Systems thinking contributes to the engineering design process by ensuring thatsolutions address identified problems while considering the interconnections within the systemand its links to other systems. Therefore, systems thinking is crucial for the development,sharing, testing, and refinement of engineering design ideas [4].Systems thinking
by all incoming science, engineering, and technical majors. Figure 1ashows incoming student score distributions from 2018- 2022. The average score dropped from73% to 63% in Fall 2021 (blue markers). More concerning, the fraction of students who scoredless than 50% on the exam has increased to almost half of the incoming students (orange/redbar). This decline in incoming student math skills is extremely worrisome because internal dataanalytics show that the CRE is the number one predictor of student retention from first- tosecond year. Machine learning feature extraction (Figure 1b) shows that race, gender, and first-generation status do not predict retention any more strongly than co-op cycle, which isessentially random. In contrast, CRE
return, thestudents create project deliverables that display the technical knowledge and skills theydeveloped. In addition, each deliverable integrates varying levels of partnership with thecommunity, sharpening students’ teamwork and cross-cultural competencies. The purpose ofthis paper is to 1) understand the evolution of the course, 2) compare its outcomes to existingengineering education standards and benchmarks, and 3) consider its increased impact over timeto students, instructors, and community stakeholders. This will be achieved through a criticalreflection upon the seven previous years’ syllabi and course outcomes alongside popularengineering education criteria. The results show that students understood the necessity of aglobal context
barriers to participation and improvestudent engagement. Figure 3 below depicts the number of students that typed questions orcomments in the chat forum at each of the three live Q&A sessions, marked as S1, S2, and S3.The four polls that were conducted throughout the semester to document student feedback on thelean instructional methodology are marked as P1, P2, P3, and P4. 78 73 62 Number of Students 55 25 25 23 S1 S2 S3 P1 P2 P3 P4 Engagement ActivityFigure 3. Student engagement
publications). He is currently serving as an editor of Journal of Computer Standards & Interfaces (CSI) and editor boards of International Journal of Data Mining, Modeling and Management (JDMMM) and American Journal of Industrial and Business Management (AJIBM). He is currently a Senior Member of Institute of Industrial Engineers, Society of Manufacturing Engineers and the Division Chair of Manufac- turing Division of American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE). He is also actively involved in several consortia activities. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Implementing Virtual Reality Project Activities for Enhancing Student Learning Experience
program for 2nd year engineering studentsAbstract:This work-in-progress paper describes the motivation and implementation of a near-peermentorship program, ECE Amplify, for second-year undergraduate engineering students in theUniversity of Texas at Austin. The primary objectives of ECE Amplify are to build a supportivecommunity among second-year ECE (Electrical and Computer Engineering) students, offerguidance on navigating rigorous discipline-specific second-year coursework, and fosterprofessional development by providing insights into technical areas and internship opportunities.The transition from the first to the second year of an undergraduate engineering program oftenpresents significant challenges for students. The
Jan. 15, 2025). [9] D. Weintrop and U. Wilensky, “To block or not to block, that is the question: Students’ perceptions of blocks-based programming,” in Proceedings of the 14th International Con- ference on Interaction Design and Children, ser. IDC ’15, New York, NY, USA: Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, Jun. 2015, pp. 199–208. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771860 (visited on Jan. 6, 2025).[10] C. M. Lewis, “How programming environment shapes perception, learning and goals: Logo vs. scratch,” in Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science edu- cation, ser. SIGCSE ’10, New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Mar. 2010, pp. 346–350. [Online
who changed majors fromengineering or who had graduated and did not provide post-graduation contact information.Recommendations for future longitudinal studies are also provided. Page 24.501.21.0 IntroductionMany national organizations have recognized that technical expertise is no longer solelysufficient for the development of future engineers and that change in engineering education isneeded to address this need 1, 2, 3,38. This paradigm shift requires an engineering education that1)broadens the attributes provided by it, 2) the diversity of those who participate in it, and 3) amore holistic-approach to illustrate all the benefits developed
lecture time for interactive programming exercises andcollaborative problem-solving. Peer Learning Group (PLG) sessions also provide extra opportunities forpractice and peer-assisted learning.Preliminary feedback and assessment data suggest that this project-based approach significantly enhancesstudents’ understanding of mathematical and computational concepts and their ability to apply them inengineering contexts. By integrating MATLAB programming with real-world applications, the courseprepares students with both the theoretical foundation and practical expertise required for advancedcoursework and professional engineering challenges. 1. Introduction:The growing complexity of engineering problems requires students to master computational
A. Marron, “Introducing Dynamical Systems and Chaos Early in Computer Science and Software Engineering Education Can Help Advance Theory and Practice of Software Development and Computing,” in Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation, T. Margaria and B. Steffen, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 322–334. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-89159-6_20.[2] P. Turner, L. Petzold, A. Shiflet, I. Vakalis, K. Jordan, and S. St. John, “Undergraduate Computational Science and Engineering Education,” SIAM Rev., vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 561– 574, Jan. 2011, doi: 10.1137/07070406x.[3] U. Rüde, K. Willcox, L. C. McInnes, and H. D. Sterck, “Research and Education in Computational
NotFreshmen Experience & Activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 applicableFreshmen sessions …… offered insights into the professional expectationsand life of interns… raised my awareness about stress and itsmanagement… provided opportunities to assess my abilities andinterest in my chosen major and career… benefited from student mentoring of designaspects Strongly StronglySECTION: For Sophomores Only Agree Disagree NotSophomore Experience & Activities 1
workshops.The first of these workshops was hosted by the ASEE Manufacturing Division during theJune 2023 ASEE Annual Conference held in Baltimore, Maryland. The Four PillarsWorkshop was presented by SME MEAC Committee Members as a five-person paneldiscussion with approximately 15-20 attendees. The workshop was 1.5 hours formatted toprovide the audience background information on the Four Pillars revision processfollowed by presentation of the revised twelve knowledge blocks. Information gleanedfrom the audience of manufacturing experts was integrated into the revised Four Pillars.The presentation slide example (see Figure 3) represents the revisions made to theAutomated Systems & Control knowledge block. The left side of the slide shows thetopics
3 teams of Local soup kitchen Design new pantry space redesigned space and cost 3 each estimate Regional faith-based Layout redesign for a large shared organization focused on office space that functions as interview Drawings of existing and 2 teams of housing, jobs and other space for clients, work space for interns, redesigned space and cost 2 each social
.2014.7044076.[3] K. Litchfield, A. Javernick-Will, and A. Maul, “Technical and Professional Skills of Engineers Involved and Not Involved in Engineering Service: Technical and Professional Skills of Engineers in Engineering Service,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 70–92, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1002/jee.20109.[4] K. G. Wolfinbarger, R. L. Shehab, D. A. Trytten, and S. E. Walden, “The influence of engineering competition team participation on students’ leadership identity development,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 110, no. 4, pp. 925–948, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1002/jee.20418.[5] B. Burt et al., “Outcomes of Engaging Engineering Undergraduates in Co-Curricular Experiences,” in 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, Vancouver, BC
, there are 3-4 instructors of the course at any given time. The author is a tenuredsenior instructor who regularly teaches the course and coordinates sessional instructors of thecourse. There is another tenured senior instructor who regularly teaches the course and hasparticipated in the project in the 2013 iteration of it. She was seconded for two years while theproject began and has been heavily supportive of it; however, she has projects she would like totry in her own sections that might make participation in future iterations of the CSL projectchallenging. The question of sustainability of the large-scale project is not just dependant on theorganizations, but also on cooperation of other instructors in a multi-sectioned course.Service
: Factors Doctoral Candidates Attribute to their Persistence. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7(16), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.28945/1589[3] King, M. F. (2008). Ph.D. Completion and Attrition: Analysis of Baseline Demographic Data from the Ph.D. Completion Project. Nicholson.[4] Hasbun, I. M., Matusovich, H. M., & Adams, S. G. (2016). The Dissertation Institute: Motivating doctoral engineering students toward degree completion. 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). https://doi.org/10.1109/fie.2016.7757508[5] Artiles, M. & Matusovich, H. (2020). Examining Doctoral Degree Attrition Rates: Using Expectancy- Value Theory to Compare Student Values and Faculty Supports
(b), it is evident that the sensor outputs non-zero values even when theaccelerometer is stationary during Steps 1 and 3. This gradual deviation of the sensor's output fromthe true value over time is known as drift [16]. This phenomenon can significantly affect theaccuracy and reliability of measurements, especially in applications requiring long-term datacollection [16] or high precision. Drift can lead to incorrect interpretations of data, resulting inerroneous calculations of velocity, displacement [16], and higher-order derivatives like jerk andsnap. The main causes of drift in accelerometer data include sensor bias [16] which is an inherentoffset in the sensor output, and internal and external variations in temperature [16][17] known