feedback at the same times later on in the semester.Two to three weeks after Session 2 concluded, all participants were given a second content assessmentcovering CP & LTP to complete before taking their in-class midterm exam as a form of review contenttied to the midterm. The research team coordinated with the course instructor to include a problem thatwas directly related to, or utilized CP<P, on the midterm. After completing their midterm exam, bothgroups were given a reflection survey on their performance on the exam and the CP<P problem itcontained. The final session (3) involved the last content assessment as a form of review content tied tothe final exam and a reflection memo before the
Paper ID #6206Assessment of Innovative Environments that address Intellectual CuriosityDr. Mysore Narayanan, Miami University DR. MYSORE NARAYANAN obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Liverpool, England in the area of Electrical and Electronic Engineering. He joined Miami University in 1980 and teaches a wide variety of electrical, electronic and mechanical engineering courses. He has been invited to contribute articles to several encyclopedias and has published and presented dozens of papers at local, regional , national and international conferences. He has also designed, developed, organized and chaired several
). Maintaining Effective Engineering Leadership: A new dependence on effective process Maintaining Effective Engineering Leadership. London, England: The Institution of Engineering and Technology. 10.1049/PBMT029E[29] Morris, L. E., & Williams, C. R. (2012). A behavioral framework for highly effective technical executives. Team Performance Management, 18(3/4), 210–230. http://doi.org/10.1108/13527591211241033[30] Cox, M., Cekic, O., Ahn, B., Zhu, J. (2012). Engineering Professionals’ Expectations of Undergraduate Engineering Students. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 12, 60–70.[31] Dreyfus, C. R. (2008). Identifying competencies that predict effectiveness of R&D managers. Journal of Management
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), “standards are thedistilled wisdom of people with expertise in their subject matter and who know the needs of theorganizations they represent—people such as manufacturers, sellers, buyers, customers, tradeassociations, users, or regulators” [1]. Similarly, Thompson defines standards as an agreed wayof doing something consistently to ensure safety and quality [2]. Codes, on the other hand, aresets of guidelines that define standards for the planning, construction, and maintenance ofstructures. These are typically categorized into safety standards and product standards [3].Specifications provide detailed requirements for components, products, systems, and services,ensuring they meet the necessary
to do with a CEE degree, and the kinds of problems you are interested in working on. In addition to the learning objectives related to professional identity there are numerousobjectives for developing professional skills. These include the following: 1) Teamwork: Students will be introduced to basic teamwork concepts; 2) Communications: Students will be introduced to basic engineering communication skills related to written technical reports and oral presentations; 3) Story-driven learning: Students learn how to tell compelling stories, articulate how they ended up in CEE, and visualize where they see themselves in the future; 4) Sense of belonging: Students develop a sense of belonging within both the school
Articles Articles Rank Journals/Conference Proceedings Number Percentage 1 Automation in Construction 10 14% 2 Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 4 6% 3 International Journal of Construction Education and Research 4 6% 4 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Conference 4 6% 5 International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction 3 4% 6 Journal of
. Most of them have onefoot in college and one foot in industry or graduate programs. They expect the course to providea bridge between the “two worlds”, or between “the past and the future”.The capstone course at our institution has been described elsewhere [3]. Essentially, it is a five-credit-hour course, offered twice a year in the spring term (two sections) and in the summersession (one section). Spring sections normally enroll 30-50 students, and less than 20 in thesummer sessions. One faculty teaches each section. Spring sessions may have one or twoteaching assistants (graduate students). It focuses on a team project for the design of acommercial chemical plant, with supporting lectures on process synthesis and design, equipmentsizing
statisticalcomparisons. Qualitative responses underwent thematic analysis to identify patterns in studentexperiences and perceptions, focusing particularly on changes in student-instructor interactionsand student confidence in using AI for technical problem-solving.ResultsPre-course survey results revealed similar baseline characteristics between the two groups.Approximately 60% of students in both groups reported either “Limited Use” or “BasicAwareness” of AI technologies during initial assessment. Initial comfort levels with using AI(Figure 1) were comparable, with median comfort ratings of 3 and similar distributions acrosscategories. Over 60% of students (85% control, 64% intervention) rated their comfort level as 3or lower, indicating limited AI experience
Familiarity The respondents indicated varying levels of familiarity with AI across different parameters. Figure 4 indicates the overall familiarity with the idea of Artificial intelligence on a Likert scale from 1 through 5, with 1 being the least familiar and 5 being completely familiar. The response to general awareness about AI indicated a perception distribution like a normal distribution where the peak of 23 respondents (31%) presented an intermediate perception (rating 3) which can be understood as general awareness but limited technical expertise. Only 9 respondents (12%) indicated a complete awareness of AI. 25 23
, D. R. Brodeur, and K. Edström, Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach, 2nd Ed. Springer International Publishing, 2014.[6] P. Phyllis, “Proposal to add a Minor in Engineering Leadership Development,” Maryland, 2007.[7] R. J. Schuhmann, “Engineering Leadership Education – The Search for Definition and a Curricular Approach,” J. STEM Education, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 61–69, 2010.[8] NSPE, “NSPE Position Statement No . 1752 — Engineering Education Outcomes,” National Society of Professional Engineers, 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/GR downloadables/Engineering_Education_Outcomes.pdf. [Accessed: 01-Dec-2014].[9] R. Graham, E. Crawley, B. R. Mendelsohn, W. Paper, B. M. Gordon, M
deeper learning of ethics principlesto be applied to their specific projects. Our results are useful for instructors who wish toincorporate ethics into their CSCE courses while also supporting student engagement, autonomy,and peer learning.IntroductionEthics has been part of the ABET required outcomes since 2004 [1]. Computer science andengineering (CSCE) students after completing their senior capstone are expected to possess “anability to understand ethical and professional responsibilities and the impact of technical and/orscientific solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts” through a varietyof curriculum content and enhancements [1].In the Computer Science and Engineering Department at [Blinded] University, a large
understanding on how GAI is shaping these areas. References: [1] W.M. Lim, A. Gunasekara, J.L. Pallant, J.I. Pallant, and E. Pechenkina, “Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnar€ok or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators,”, The International Journal of Management Education, vol. 21, no. 2, 2023. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790 [2] Y.I. Alzoubi and Topcu A.E., “Generative Artificial Intelligence Technology for Systems Engineering Research: Contribution and Challenges,” International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, vol. 15, no.2, p. 169-179, June 2024. [3] Uniphore. “The Enterprise’s Guide to Generative AI: Upleveling the Enterprise Automation
Research Association Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, United States., 2024.[34] A. Wilson-Lopez, K. Strong, and C. Sias, “Critical Literacy, Disciplinary Literacy: Reading the Engineering-Designed World,” Theory Into Practice, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 238–245, Oct. 2017, doi: 10.1080/00405841.2017.1389219.[35] E. Seymour and A.-B. Hunter, Eds., Talking about Leaving Revisited: Persistence, Relocation, and Loss in Undergraduate STEM Education. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-25304-2.[36] P. Thompson et al., “Failing the Future: Problems of persistence and retention in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors at Arizona State University,” Tempe, AZ. Office of the
interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches from avariety of backgrounds and fields to navigate the complexities of stakeholder values anddynamics [2]. This requires that the next generation of scientists and engineers think andproblem-solve in new ways.As engineers play a significant role in addressing such challenges, they must be equipped withcapacities beyond the traditional technical focus. To fit this need, engineering educators havereexamined curriculum and have worked to create programs that provide students withopportunities to understand multidisciplinary perspectives, learning concepts from the socialsciences and developing critical design skills [3]. Programs with such foci have been growingand over 85 academic institutions worldwide
technical research to spoken media and allows students to sharetheir work broadly on a publicly accessible platform. However, podcast implementation withinengineering education is more commonly used as a content delivery pedagogy by instructors [17,18]. In cases where the podcasts are student-generated, content was only distributed among closepeers through non-public channels [19, 20]. The work created with the following methods wasintended to have students synthesize their research into a format appropriate for a generalaudience, produce podcasts with standardized tools, and distribute their work through publiclyaccessible services.3. Methods3.1 Study Design The participants in the latest asynchronous iteration of this project included
. Question 8 asks studentsto develop a technical problem statement for their BCI project. For this Equity & EthicsAssignment #2, teams then took what they had learned in the neuroengineering ethics readingand discussion and socially contextualize their technical problem statement and use that newproblem statement as their foundation for their proposed design solution (the specifics of the BCIproject are discussed below).The deliverable for this assignment was the new socially contextualized problem statement and a1-page reflection of the team’s discussion and how it informed the changes, as well as what waslearned personally as an individual.Ethics & Equity Assignment #3: Issue of equity in medical device designAfter the class completed the
learning, more awareness of methods of grading, and more time spent in deepthinking on these issues, faculty were less convinced that their current methods were directed inproductive areas. We also performed a follow-up survey approximately 3 months following theworkshop, after a lunch-and-learn 30 minute session that was created as a follow-up and to coveraspects of specifications grading [3]. The positive results exhibited in Figure 6 were shown to bestable – faculty still evinced gains in their perceived grading efficiency, knowledge and timespent (1.04, 0.42 and 0.71 on the Likert scale, respectively), which represent large, lastingrelative changes in these attitudes and skills.Summary and ConclusionsThe following conclusions are made: 1. We
Dr. Idalis Villanueva Alarc´on is Chair and tenured Associate Professor in the Department of Engineering Education in the Herbert Wertheim College of Engineering. A PECASE awardee, she has led multiple pioneering efforts in engineering education including multimodal methods in engineering education using sensor technologies and biophysiological tools, hidden curriculum, mentoring, active learning, professional identity, among others. She is a renowned national and international leader in engineering education earning her multiple accolades and honors through professional organizations such as the National Academy of Engineering, IEEE, and ASEE. She integrates her multiple experiences as a Chemical Engineering
.36One of the main goals of the COMETS Program is to develop a model summer internship programthat encourages collaboration between community colleges and four-year institutions to provide aresearch experience that is suited to the needs and qualifications of community college students.3. COMETS Summer Research Internship ProgramIn 2010, a focus group of engineering students at Cañada College identified common barriers to asuccessful research internship program for community college engineering students. For mostundergraduate research internship positions, community college students are in competition withupper-division students who have taken more advanced and specialized courses, and are fromfour-year institutions that have provided students
their analyses and decisions. For example, Team 8 in Case 4highlighted how internal debates helped them prioritize public health over cost considerations, leading toa more ethically robust recommendation. Similarly, Team 1 in Case 1 reported that collaborativebrainstorming sessions clarified their understanding of cost-benefit analyses and ethical trade-offs. Theseexamples demonstrate the exercise’s ability to foster meaningful teamwork and collective reasoning.Reflections on Learning OutcomesStudents expressed significant learning gains from the exercise, particularly in understanding theintersection of ethics and engineering economics. Many noted that the activity broadened theirperspective on how ethical principles influence decision-making
and adaptation of this model is necessary to ensure that itremains responsive to both students’ needs and the constantly evolving demands of theconstruction industry.References[1] R. Soetanto, M. Childs, P. Poh, S. Austin, and J. Hao, “Global Multidisciplinary Learningin Construction Education: Lessons from Virtual Collaboration of Building Design Teams,” Civ.Eng. Dimens., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 173–181, 2012, doi: 10.9744/ced.14.3.173-181.[2] N. Lee, R. Ponton, A. W. Jeffreys, and R. Cohn, “Analysis of industry trends forimproving undergraduate curriculum in construction management education,” in ASCProceedings of the 47th Annual International Conference, Omaha, NE, 2011.[3] A. L. Olanrewaju, A.-R. Abdul-Aziz, A. L. Olanrewaju, and A.-R
so, it seeks to identifythe environmental, relational, and internal factors that influence communication developmentover the course of graduate education. The present paper contributes to this broader effort byadapting an existing scale to better reflect the practical realities and normative expectations ofgraduate-level oral and written communication.Effective communication skills are crucial for PhD graduates' employability, leadership, andprofessional advancement in engineering. PhD graduates who communicate effectively areperceived as more capable of leading teams, securing funding, translating technical ideas to non-technical audiences, and providing technical guidance across various roles [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].As a result
Attending department retreats Attending short courses and workshops. Reading non-technical books/journals papers. Ex: Leadership, Writing, Communication, Goal setting, etc. Reading technical books/journals - both teaching and research Responding to reviews/criticism for grants, papers, etc. Serving as a session chair or co-chair Serving on committee(s) (internal or external) Setting annual goals. Ex: Submitting proposals, obtaining funding, winning awards, strengthening CV, etc. Taking breaks. Ex: Regular sleep, weekly downtime, annual vacation Talking to friends/mentorsTherefore, various habits help faculty succeed in their multi-faceted job. How faculty learn aboutor form these habits relates to the responses to our research questions, which are
studentin science and engineering.I have experienced a lot of anxiety or nervousness about 3.55 3.61tasks that are related to success as a student in scienceand engineering.*Mean score based on scale of 1(Strongly Disagree) – 5(Strongly Agree)In addition, interns reported gains in content knowledge, confidence in conducting research andpresenting research through presentations following the summer research experience. They alsoreported gains in communication and leadership skills as they apply to research environments.The pre- and post-survey included additional questions but examples of students self-reportedgains in these areas are provided in Table 3.Table 3. Rating of Research, Laboratory Skills, and Academic Skills (n=14
, undergraduates and alumni. Afew of the many examples of successful mentoring are faculty-led programs that helpundergraduates with technical, ethical and professional problems [1]; the creation of graduatestudent communities as mentoring groups [2,3]; the mentoring of new graduate studentinstructors by existing graduate student instructors [4]; undergraduate student mentoring oftransfer students who are new to STEM [5] and residential peer mentoring of early engineeringstudents and at-risk students by upper-level undergraduates [6].In 2021, the Ralph E. Martin Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of Arkansas(U of A) created an undergraduate mentoring program using departmental alumni as career pathidentification as well as professional
, this group was able to purchasea drum kit and keyboard, and offered casual jam sessions and an acoustical engineering lectureseries to any interested students. The society also provided student musicians at engineeringfaculty events, and became an important part of interdisciplinary outreach to the community.The leadership team involved in this group was recognized by the faculty for their initiative andcreativity, as well as their communication and organizational leadership abilities. These studentswere also offered research positions and opportunities due to their unique ability to championconnections between technical engineering, arts, performance, and professional skills.Leadership in Global InitiativesInternational Study Abroad: Since
review session.We designed a worksheet listing the same set of rhetorical moves, shown in Fig. 1, to structurestudents’ feedback on their classmates’ proposal drafts. Students then discussed the feedbackworksheets in structured in-class peer review. Through this process, students gain the benefit offeedback from technical readers outside of their specific community of practice, which buttressesfeedback from communication instructors.The third workshop extended these moves to the multimodal genre of the conference postersession (See Fig. 3). Students prepared for the workshop by reviewing a selection of studentposters from the previous year, with videos of the accompanying presentation. Then theyidentified the key moves and noted whether they
of Engineering Educators (ASEE) Teaching Award, the Minnie Stevens Piper Foundation Award, and LeTourneau University’s top research and scholarship award. He was also a Finalist for the IEEE Global Humanitarian Engineer of the Year award in 2013. He serves as an engineering program evaluator for the Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), the sole entity for accrediting engineering programs in the United States. Dr. Gonzalez is Founder and President of LIMBS International (www.limbs.org), a 501(c)3 non-profit humanitarian organization that designs, creates and deploys prosthetic devices to transform the lives of amputees in the developing world by restoring their ability to walk. Since its
Students Undermines Learning (and Whatto Do Instead). (First edition. ed.). Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2020.[10] Gielen, S., E. Peeters, F. Dochy, P. Onghena, and K. Struyven, “Improving the effectivenessof peer feedback for learning,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 304–315, Aug. 2010,doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007.[11] Andersson, Magnus, and Maria Weurlander, “Peer Review of Laboratory Reports forEngineering Students,” European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 417–428,2019. doi: 10.1080/03043797.2018.1538322[12] Conde, M.Á., L. Sánchez-González, V. Matellán-Olivera, and F. J. Rodríguez-Lera,“Application of Peer Review Techniques in Engineering Education.” International Journal
academicyear and the wellness component is now offered as a separate class from the study hall. The studyhall is offered twice a week as a class and each session lasts 50 minutes. The wellness course isnow offered as a separate one-unit class which meets once per week for 50 minutes. Althoughstudents receive one lower division unit for each of these courses, the unit does not count towardsgraduation requirements. There was an average of 15 students enrolled per academic quarter in thewellness course, and this paper will focus on that course. Even though student demographic datawas not collected, most of the students enrolled in the course were observed to be junior andseniors. Students were evaluated on a pass/no-pass basis using class participation