prominent that the phrase“Digital Systems Engineering” has been coined in [1], [2]. Many engineering reference booksand a few college textbooks on the subject have been published in the past fifteen years as givenin the appendix of this paper. Many technical conferences have special or regular sessions on SIand PI under titles such as high-speed digital designs, power distribution networks, high-speedinterconnects, etc.[3] These conferences include DesignCon,, IEEE International Symposium onEMC, IEEE Electronic Components and Technology Conference, IEEE Conference on ElectricalPerformance of Electronic Packaging and Systems. In addition, Signal Integrity Engineer has
of record for the course discussed in this paper sought out the Xorro-Q online teachingplatform to support their introductory structural engineering class with over 250+ students.Institution & Course DescriptionThe University of Auckland (UoA) is recognized as New Zealand’s top university for civil andstructural engineering. With a particular focus on training students to fulfill the shortage ofengineering professionals in the country, there are significant undergraduate enrollment demandsplaced on a limited group of faculty. This results in lower division courses that have 250+students in a single lecture hall with a primary instructor and only 3-4 student teaching assistants.In spite of this, faculty remain committed to excellence in
form of student-active pedagogies, in target 1st- and 2nd-year gateway courses, improving the classroom environment and student learning andpersistence.To this end the team created an intensive summer pilot program aimed at faculty who teachgateway engineering and computer science classes. Faculty were invited to participate in the2017 Summer Gateway Course Redesign Working Group, the purpose of which was to modifygateway classes to include and/or enhance students’ active learning and test the success of thesechanges in their classrooms in the 2017-2018 academic year.Those who participated in the Program received: peer and technical support, time and space towork on new ideas, a summer salary supplement and an additional supplement
division classes [1,2]. Deciding where to access individual learning outcomes is a critical step in preparing for accreditation. We started by developing a matrix that has a row for each required course in the program and a column for each outcome. The content of each cell of the matrix indicates whether or not the course supports achievement of the outcome in that column or if the course is where the outcome is assessed. Creation and use of this type of matrix in well documented in [3]. For each of our program’s learning outcomes, we have developed specific types of assignments in different courses where outcomes are assessed. To
model was used to drive the reform of the course Introductory Dynamics. This course was redesigned to achieve three goals: (1) improve students’ low engagement and enthusiasm, (2) improve instructors’ experience and reduce their high workload, and (3) maintain and elevate the current standards for content. Introductory Dynamics is one of the core second-year mechanics courses in our engineering curriculum, serving approximately 800 students per year. Course revisions have led to the adoption of a spectrum of evidence-based practices such as context-rich, collaborative problem-solving sessions, and classroom response systems. These efforts have improved student satisfaction with the course and have
1) and they may have success in limited applications (level 3), but they frequently lack the context of the fact (level 2). Time was spent in each classroom activity to emphasize the levels of knowledge through both the instructor’s and the students’ questions and answers. Targeted knowledge areas include: I. Process Education Modules II. Physiological Background III. Cell / Tissue Engineering IV. Biomechanics V. Medical Imaging VI. Biomedical Instrumentation VII. Artificial Internal Organs vii. Web site
National Societyof Professional Engineers (NSPE) 1935 Code of Ethics specified a duty to “seek to promote thepublic welfare” [3], emphatic recognition of social responsibility did not consistently appear inethical codes until the third phase, which began post-WWII and continues today.A defining feature of the current phase is that all engineering codes of ethics explicitly prioritizesocial responsibility in their first canons: “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of thepublic” [1]. Differences exist among codes to reflect unique areas of technical focus, and codesare updated periodically in response to changing social and professional values. For example, in2003, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) added “and protect
parts: educative intentions, objectives, general contents that includes a contentsblock diagram, profile of the IEC program, IEC study plan, curricular map showing the coursesserving E-95-863 as well as the the courses served by E-95-863, conceptual contents, proceduralcontents, attitudinal contents, learning strategies and course activities. Some of the learningtechniques used in the course are: Interactive exposition of topics (from 16 to 20 hours persemester), Internal group activities (11 during the semester), homework done by external groups(8 during the semester), monthly projects that include report writing and oral presentations doneby external groups (3 during the semester), self-study reading assignments and discussion (14during the
/overview. Some activities were individual lesson plans and otherswere modules that consisted of several lessons.Over the course of the first two years of the three-year program, STEP has involved 8 graduateand 4 undergraduate Fellows working with 23 teachers distributed throughout 7 schools in theCincinnati area. The graduate Fellows were students in the colleges of engineering and Page 10.367.1education; 3 were doctoral students in education, 3 were doctoral students in engineering and 2“Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & ExpositionCopyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Education
Page 10.630.11Undergraduate Education). Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2004, American Society for Engineering EducationBibliography1. Roco, M.C. International Strategy for Nanotechnology Research and Development. Journal of Nanoparticles Research, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 3(5-6): 353-360, (2001),2. NSF. Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education, A Report and Recommendations Based Upon A Workshop Held at NSF on Sept. 11-12, 2002. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, (2002).3. NSF. Nanoscale Science and Engineering (NSE) Program Solicitation for FY 2003. Washington, D.C.: National Science
Annual Conference & ExpositionCopyright O 2001, American Society for Engineering Educationv U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, 2000.vi U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, 2000.vii Peter J. Schraeder, African Politics and Society, Boston, New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2000) p. 326.viii Ibid.ix “Africa: A Focus on the Southern Cone” Department of Education, Business and International Education,start date June 2001.x Afuah, Alan, Innovation Management, Strategies and Implementation, New York, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press 1999.xi Africa-America Institute (AAI), Human Resource Development, Washington, D.C. 2000.xii “South Africa Looks West for Some Economic Muscle,” The New York Times , December 31
delivery.Taking the time to learn the strategy and tools required to create and deliver a successful hybridcourse at any level of sophistication often detracts from “…other professional activities whichmay be needed to be successful in the tenure process.”3 Also, most research universities do notallow any "workload release" for the additional effort often required for the initial developmentof a hybrid course. Faculty are used to being the “experts” and due to the lack of priority and/ortime are not properly motivated to become experts in the development and delivery of effectivehybrid courses. They further cite the “complexity” of developing effective online coursesincluding technical, pedagogical, and administrative (no time or budget, lack of training
the general chair for the 2009 conference. Prof. Froyd is a Fellow of the IEEE, a Fellow of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), an ABET Program Evaluator, a Senior Associate Editor for the Journal of Engineering Education, and an Associate Editor for the International Journal of STEM Education.Dr. Deborah M. Grzybowski, Ohio State University Dr. Deborah Grzybowski is a Professor of Practice in the Department of Engineering Education and the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at The Ohio State University. She received her Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering and her B.S. and M.S. in Chemical Engineering from The Ohio State University. Her research focuses on making engineering
principle, could work, andwhat rather will not. The redesigned Cryptography I course also includes basic hardwareconsiderations in the design of heavily used primitives, for example in the Advanced EncryptionStandard (AES) or in the recently launched NIST SHA-3 competition for the design of a newhash standard. The discussion of side-channel attacks was added to the basic course, thoughmore technical study of the feasibility of such attacks is delayed to a following course.Cryptography II – Advanced Cryptographic AlgorithmsThis course investigates advanced topics in cryptography. It begins with an overview of thenecessary background in algebra and number theory, private- and public-key cryptosystems, andbasic signature schemes. The course covers the
surprising that Davies study of the vocationalpreferences of dip.tech students found that only 27% of the engineers and 11% of the appliedscientists said their aim was to become a manager [19]. Whether they thought managementwas part of what an engineer does is not clear because Davies separated management andteaching out as a specific career options.Andrews and Mares also interviewed industrialists, and those who commented, took autilitarian view of what should be studied [20]. Their results led them to suggest that thesyllabus (content) should fall into four main divisions –language and communications,technical studies, social studies and optional (e.g in the humanities and creative arts). Therewas, as Davies showed, an extensive debate about what
techniques and methodologies of conducting research• Students prepared a summary report, and made presentations. In addition one-day field trip to one of the NASA Centers for SURE participants wasplanned. Each year NASA-SURE program recruited 15 pre-engineering students from 10different institutions.BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Pai, D., Layton, R.A., Hamoush, S., Owusu-Ofori, S., and Wang, S-L. “Space – Sugar Coating for the Mechanics Pill,” CD Proceedings of 2000 International Conference On Engineering Education, August 14-18, 2000. 2. Wang, S-L., “Case Studies on NASA Mars Rover’s Mobility System,” CD Proceedings of 2000 ASEE Southeast Conference, Roanoke, Virginia, April 2-4, 2000. 3. Layton, R., and Pai, D., “An Apparatus for
Session 2558 Defining a Curriculum Framework in Information Assurance and Security James Davis Melissa Dark Information Assurance Center Center for Research in Information Department of E CPE Assurance and Security Iowa State University Purdue University Ames, Iowa West Lafayette, Indiana davis@iastate.edu dark@cerias.purdue.edu1. IntroductionIn this paper, we
Session 1455 Enabling the U.S. Engineering Workforce to Perform: Building a Culture for Technological Innovation and Leadership in Professional Graduate Engineering Education D. A. Keating,1 T. G. Stanford, 1 J. M. Snellenberger,2 D. H. Quick,2 I. T. Davis,3 J. P. Tidwell,4 D. R. Depew,5 A. L. McHenry,6 S. J. Tricamo,7 D. D. Dunlap,8 University of South Carolina 1 / Rolls-Royce Corporation 2 / Raytheon Missile Systems 3 The Boeing Company 4/Purdue University 5 / Arizona State University East 6 New Jersey
wet process bench, an SVG photoresist coat and develop track, a barrel etcher, aGCA 8000 wafer stepper, and a CRC sputtering system. The equipment was donated bycompanies such as Micron Technology, Motorola (Austin division), Zilog, Micron Electronics,American Microsystems, and SCP Global Technologies. The estimated value of the donatednew and used 150mm wafer processing equipment is $3 million. Figure 1. LEO 1430 VP Scanning Electron Microscope System with nanoscale imaging, analysis, and patterning capabilityThe following additional tools have been acquired through $3 million in grant monies in 1999-2000 and will be operational in 2000-2001. Dr. Duttagupta and fellow faculty have beenawarded two NSF-Idaho EPSCoR instrumentation grants
Session 1447 Mechanical Engineering Technology Division: “Integrating Culture as well as Engineering Instruction in Capstone Project and Machine Design Courses” Francis A. Di Bella, PE (617 373 5240; fdibella@coe.neu.edu) Assistant Professor, School of Engineering Technology Northeastern University; Boston, MAC.P. Snow’s famous 1959 Rede Lecture on the clash of the “Two Cultures”: Art andScience continues to reverberate in the halls of science and engineering education. Snow’slecture brought to the surface what seemed apparent to most
assessments include: 1) overall the studentsare improving both their comprehension of the learning objectives and their confidence about thesubject matter; 2) parallel and series circuits remain confusing for the students; 3) there is alsoconfusion about the system components and terminology, specifically the boundary between gasproduction (i.e. the electrolyzer) and gas storage, and 4) the introduction of material prior to the Page 15.908.10lab session will facilitate greater understanding of the exercise and allow for more time for theexperiment and efficiency calculations.We are currently in the process of further analyzing results to determine
, American Society for Engineering Education”on the other hand, will benefit from educational multimedia tools by having active participationin the classroom.The ideal multimedia-enabled classroom is filled with highly technical modern equipment andsophisticated software applications. If the instructor is expected to widely adopt informationtechnology in teaching, what should be the outcome of his training and how should this outcomebe achieved? Is the primary goal to make the instructor technically competent or to focus onnew pedagogic approaches made possible by IT?In Break-out Session 3 of the NSF workshop,27 it was argued that • IT must be made more accessible to faculty, and facilitated not only by proximity and ease of use, but also by
Advancement of Teaching, Carnegie Classifications Data File, (2008).2. Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, "Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America's research universities," (1998).3. Bauer KW, Bennett JS, "Alumni perceptions used to assess undergraduate research experience," J. High. Educ., 74(2), 210-230 (2003).4. Kardash CM, "Evaluation of undergraduate research experience: Perceptions of undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors," J. Educ. Psychol., 92(1), 191-201 (2000).5. Van der Spiegel, J., Santiago-Aviles, J., & Zemel, J.N., “SUNFEST – research experience for undergraduates”, FIE Annual Conference Proceedings, 1997, http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie97.6. Hathaway
Paper ID #13811Engineering the Future Workforce Required by a Global Engineering Indus-tryDr. Michael Richey, The Boeing Company Michael Richey is an Associate Technical Fellow currently assigned to support workforce development and engineering education research. Michael is responsible for leading learning science research, which focuses on learning ecologies, complex adaptive social systems and learning curves. Michael pursues this research agenda with the goal of understanding the interplay between innovation, knowledge trans- fer and economies of scale as they are manifested in questions of growth, evolvability
educational modules in the biotechnology domain,” International Journal of Engineering Education 23: 171- 183.5. Haile, J., “Toward Technical Understanding: Part 1. Brain Structure and Function,“ Chem. Eng. Ed., 31(3) (1997), “Part 2. Elementary Levels,“ Chem. Eng. Ed., 31(4) (1997), ”Part 3. Advanced Levels,“ Chem. Eng. Ed., 32(1) (1998).6. Johnson, D.W., R.T. Johnson, and K.A. Smith, Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom, 2nd ed., Interaction Book Co., Edina, MN (1999).7. Van Note Chism, N., “A Tale of Two Classrooms,” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 92, pp. 5 – 12 (Winter 2002).8. DeGuire North, J., “Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is: A Case Study,” New Directions for Teaching and
subject’s segments were focused on problem scoping and 970 on re-checking constraints in the latter stages ofher design process. Figure 3 also shows how the other three variables are emphasized during the three major phases of thesubject’s design process. Under each phase, codes with the largest number of segments devoted to them areidentified. For example, in the analysis phase the primary information processed was coded DIMENSIONS,MATERIALS, MATERIAL COSTS, and BUDGET. Information Processed. This variable describes what specific information the subject is thinking aboutwhile they solve the problem. Figure 3 shows that this subject spent little effort on non-technical issues such asHANDICAPPED ACCESSIBILITY or SAFETY. She focused
major industries and population centers. Most students surveyed in the program had little idea about career opportunities for people with math and science degrees and could not tell the differences among engineering disciplines. 3. Tribal school students are underserved by the educational system in terms of gaining scientific and quantitative literacy (Babco, 2003). Teacher shortages and improper training in new technologies; a lack of facilities, resources and technical supports; and inappropriate curricular designs have contributed to lower achievement of Native American student sin STEM related content areas (Lin et al., 2006) 4. Cultural background and family traditions. Natives Americans have very strong
the University of California, San Diego in 1984, and a Bachelor of Science. in Computer Science and Engineering from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee in 1981. He is a member of the American Society of Engineering Educators (Entrepreneurship Division), the Association for Computing Machinery, and the IEEE Computer Society. Dr. Blessing has served as a consultant to major corporations and is the author of many publications in the areas of algorithms, artificial intelligence, networks and computer systems. Prior to his academic career, has worked for three Fortune 500 companies and has owned and operated two small businesses.Larry Schmedeman, Milwaukee School of Engineering
., Stice, J.E., Rugarcia, A., “The Future Of Engineering Education II. Teaching Methods That Work”Chem. Engr. Education, 34(1), 26–39 (2000).18 Komerath, N.M., “Design Centered Introduction: 3-Year Experience With the Gateway to the Aerospace Digital Library”.Session 2225, Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, St. Louis, MO, June 200019 Fulford, Robert H., “Airplane Criteria Process”. Paper 975567, SAE World Aviation Congress, Anaheim, CA, Oct, 97.20 Smith, M.J., Komerath, N.M., "The Virtual Laboratory: Technology Enhancement for Engineering Education", Proceedings ofthe ASEE Annual Conference, Albuquerque, NM, June 2001 http://www.adl.gatech.edu/archives/adlp01062701.pdf21 Bramesfeld, G. and Maughmer, M.D., “The Penn State Sailplane
embedding robotics and technology in K12 schools. As a former Adjunct Professor at Teachers College, Columbia University and biomedical scientist in Immunology, Dr. Borges balances the world of what STEM professionals do and brings that to STEM education in order to provide PD that aligns to The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Since 2008 she has provided teacher PD to science teachers in the tri-state area, including international visiting teachers and scholars. Dr. Borges’ research interests include: building STEM professional-teacher relationships, diversity and equity, and enhancing urban science teaching and learning.Dr. Vikram Kapila, New York University Vikram Kapila is a Professor of Mechanical