developmentopportunities that would not be accessible to students in their home country [3]. Students inscience, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields can also leverage globalexperience to solve global issues more efficiently because of their better understanding ofinternational problems and cultural awareness. Daniel et al. [2] found in their study that overeighty percent of the 850 companies they interviewed, believe that their business would grow iftheir employees received international exposure and know-how. The same study concludes thatemployers will be putting more and more emphasis on global competence in their new hires.Similarly, on a strategic level the National Science Foundation [4], American Society forEngineering Education [5], and
lives.The last objective listed above was added for this section of the course during this offering. Inaddition, the following specific learning objectives were added relating to Module 1: • Define conflict minerals and describe at least 2 issues surrounding them • Describe where conflict minerals are used • Describe potential options for engineers concerned with the use of conflict mineralsIn designing these modules, the instructors wanted to ensure that the social context and technicalcontent fit together to help students see engineering as a sociotechnical endeavor, not as socialand technical appreciated separately. We wanted the homework assignments to be integrated intothe students’ weekly homework rather than something that seemed
approaches in problem-solving and communication of ideas.IntroductionThis paper discusses an ongoing, successful effort to create a culture of art at a STEM-centereduniversity, not only within the engineering curriculum but also throughout campus life and itsphysical spaces.In what follows, we will offer an overview of the educational model of our university and thequestions and concerns we seek to address. We then offer detailed information of three differentlines of inquiry we have pursued to gather data on the current culture and mindset guidingpedagogical and career decisions: a 2013-14 longitudinal study which examined four cohorts ofhonors students, a 2019 focus group study, and a 2021 student/faculty survey. The results presenta fairly
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 publications are in the areas
would be received by undergraduate students. Our initial motivation to try oral examsas an assessment tool stemmed from the constraints imposed by remote instruction due to theCOVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has had many detrimental effects on education, in part dueto the suddenness of the shift to remote instruction. One concern that emerged in this suddenshift was how to maintain academic integrity when administering written exams remotely. Toaddress this concern, faculty members who are part of this study implemented oral exams in theircourses, and through this experience, realized the potential significant benefit to student learningthat oral exams provide. To investigate these potential benefits with a goal toward supportingstudent
Foundationprovides funding and mentoring to support faculty and their integration of EOP learningobjectives into their classes.EOP’s efforts have been highly successful in supporting faculty to integrate sustainability intothe curriculum with the ASEE EOP Mini-Grant program Cohorts developing 34 new courses thathave impacted over 1600 students. Thus many students have benefitted from these curricularchange efforts, but students, the target audience of these changes, have not yet played asignificant role in shaping these change efforts. We hypothesize there is much to learn fromstudents; students bring fresh, innovative perspectives, and the inclusion of students promotes auser-centric approach, whereby educational changes can be designed with their specific
ProjectsTo facilitate the selection of effective term projects, and to build upon previous results, weprovided students with summaries of environmental projects from previous terms. To advancethis technique, instructors implemented a new project database during the 2012-2013 AcademicYear that will allow instructors to longitudinally track all types of projects. Since this highenrollment course is taught by multiple faculty members, the database will also allow facultynew to the course the ability to view a historical record of term projects.Student groups are required to develop five term project ideas and present them to the instructoras null hypotheses during Milestone 1 (see following section and Table 2). The instructor workswith each project
the ColdWar, engineering science was the overwhelming focus to produce engineers that could contributeto the war effort. The Science and Technology Studies (STS) movement in higher educationgrew out of the concern for environmental and social welfare of the 1970s, and some universities(UCLA, Harvey Mudd, MIT, CalTech) did try to integrate the humanities with a strong technicaleducation2. Their efforts, however, were challenged through the nation’s neoliberal policies ofthe 1980s that reduced government regulations on corporations in which engineers worked. Anability to compete and win in the global market continued to be the overarching goal through the1990s5. The 21st century brought on a new threat, terrorism, and with it, a new goal of
Paper ID #27258Using Stories of Technology to Teach Technological and Engineering Literacyin Courses for MajorsDr. John W. Blake P.E., Austin Peay State University John Blake is a Professor of Engineering Technology at Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, TN. He received his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Northwestern University, and is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Tennessee. He teaches major courses ranging from the introductory course for new students through upper level courses in problem solving and in mechanical engineering technology. He has also taught courses on
rankings forenvironmental/environmental health in 2015 were consulted;10 this included 17 programs atdoctoral institutions among the top 20 list. However, only 10 of these schools offeredenvironmental engineering degrees; many of those without environmental engineering degreesoffered “civil and environmental” engineering degrees but these were typically accredited underthe civil engineering criteria. The U.S. News & World Report ranks undergraduate engineeringprograms and specialty engineering programs based solely on assessment surveys of engineeringdeans and senior faculty members, noting “Schools offering any courses in a specialty areeligible to be ranked in that specialty area. The specialty rankings are not based on whether anengineering
Paper ID #22880Work in Progress: Building the Undergraduate Chemical Engineering Com-munity by Involving Capstone Design Students in Undergraduate CoursesDr. Ryan Anderson, Montana State University Dr. Anderson received a BS in Chemical Engineering and a BA in History from Bucknell University in 2007. He obtained a PhD in Chemical and Biological Engineering at the University of British Columbia in 2012 before postdoctoral studies at City College of New York. He is currently an assistant professor at Montana State University.Dr. Abigail M. Richards, Montana State University Dr. Richards has been faculty at Montana State
Teams,” Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE Zone I Conference, April 5- 6, 2002, West Point, New York. [6]. Gloria J. Leckie and Anne Fullerton. Information Literacy in Science and Engineering Undergraduate Education: Faculty Attitudes and Pedagogical Practices. College and Research Libraries 60 no. 1 (January 1999):9-29.[7]. http://www.libraries.psu.edu/crsweb/eng/edg100spring02.htm[8]. Okudan, Gül E., Horner, Donald and Russell, Meghan. “Achieving High Performing Engineering Design Teams: A Curriculum Intervention Study,” International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEE2001), August 6-8, Oslo, Norway.GÜL E. OKUDAN is an Assistant Professor of Engineering Design at Penn State. She has a doctorate
recalling. It isThe computer-based tutorial scored poorly on two measures: now the authors’ goal to achieve again the 1996 levels ofTutors felt that the success of these tutorials depended heavily student satisfaction and competence.on the level of enthusiasm the tutor possessed. They alsoperceived that computer-based tutorials frustrated students In 1997 the computer system was again somewhat new and‘often’. Faculty perceived that they had spent significantly unreliable because it had been newly translated to work on theless time preparing for tutorials and marking tutorial sets. It
, iteration and learning. Success is measured by how wellwe fulfill our users’ needs – the user outcomes – not by features and functions. Functionally-,ethically- and otherwise diverse teams generate more ideas than homogeneous ones, increasingbreakthrough opportunities. While, considering that every stage of design is a prototype from astoried drawing to in-market solutions; iteration empowers the application of new thinking toseemingly stale issues. The keys to scaling design thinking to complex problems and complexteams involve aligning on a common understanding of the most important and most impactful useroutcomes to achieve (called Hills); and bringing the team and stakeholders into a loop of restlessreinvention where they reflect on work in a
students’ mental health and inclusivepractices within the discipline. Faculty and departments will be better equipped to identify andunderstand students’ coping mechanisms, perhaps leading to well-being initiatives that cansupport student mental health and, in turn, aid in retention of engineering graduate students.INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW Graduate student attrition rates are high, yet understudied: Some studies estimate thatattrition rates are between 40 and 60 percent across doctoral programs [1]. In engineering,attrition rates are approximately 24 percent for domestic men, 35 percent for domestic women[2], and as high as 57 percent for African American students [3]. These high rates are indicativeof underlying issues within
be considered as well, particularlywith a focus on equipment that is often used by the university’s industry partners.Since the students who have experienced the new version of the lab will not begin to graduateuntil June of 2015, the impact of the lab on students’ performance in the workforce cannot yet beevaluated. Therefore, while it is believed that the lab revisions will address the concerns of theuniversity’s corporate partners, this cannot yet be determined. As students do begin to graduate,and as more students complete co-op assignments after taking the course, such an evaluation willbe feasible and desirable. Results of this evaluation will be integrated into the continuousimprovement of the lab experience.In summary, while
environmental engineering faculty and students. Our message is not just for this specific context, we're looking at how degrowth is the only way to the future for sustainability. Even if we're talking about the work the Center is doing as a whole, we keep developing this technology, and we want to keep building–resources are finite. And thinking that we’ve gotta keep growing, gotta keep expanding, is just not truly sustainable, no matter what. Even if we pick what seems like a sustainable solution at the moment. And so, it's definitely interesting to be involved with the Center, where everyone has kind of this optimistic idea of new technology. I'm just like, “hey, did you think about this other stuff?” And not everyone wants to hear
systems for both civilian and military applications with a special emphasis on techniques focused on indoor, underground or otherwise GPS-deprived situations. Prior to joining the faculty at WPI, Dr. Michalson spent approximately 12 years at the Raytheon Company where he was involved with the development of embedded computers for guidance, communications and data processing systems for space borne and terrestrial applications.Gregory Fischer, Worcester Polytechnic InstituteTaskin Padir, Worcester Polytechnic InstituteGary Pollice, Worcester Polytechnic Institute Page 14.269.1© American Society for
oversight was put in place at the universitylevel. All grant progress reports and budget reviews were required to be submitted to the Dean ofthe Graduate Studies and the Dean of Science, Engineering, and Technology for review. Suggestion #2: While the potential conflicts of interest ultimately proved not to be a major issue, resolution of them did cause a delay. Care should be taken to identify these early and begin any required internal evaluation, even before final grant decisions are made.Since the Minnesota State system contains a diverse mix of institutions the block grant RFP wentout to many interested parties who were relatively new to sponsored research. Rather than lowerstandards or expectations the grant management team made efforts
Educational Activities Board (EAB) Faculty Resources Committee (FRC). The mission of the EAB FRC is ”to promote the continued evo- lution of engineering education and the career enhancement of Engineering, Computing and Technology (ECT) faculty through quality programs/products/services designed to advance innovation in educating engineers”. She is an Associated Editor in IEEE Transactions on Education. She collaborates regularly with many technical universities in Europe, Latin America and USA. Her research interests include math- ematical modeling, system dynamics, control theory, and educational methods in automation, robotics, and in engineering in general.Dr. Phillip Albert Sanger, Purdue University Dr. Sanger is
“Engineers whodon’t write well end up working for engineers who do [9]”.In 2014, we conducted an internal faculty survey to determine which writing skills students needto improve most. The top 4 concerns that were raised were the inability of the students to: • Organize ideas in writing • Write effective sentences • Develop complex ideas in writing Page 26.929.2 • Think criticallyIn my classes, I found that students were unprepared and unaware of the writing style that isneeded in today’s high-paced industries. Their responses were mostly textual and used fewinfographics. They tend to provide unnecessary detail and repeat the same
Head of Learning, Teaching and Assessment at Sheffield Hallam University's Faculty of Arts, Computing, Engineering and Sciences. He is the Associate Director of the Centre for Promoting Learner Autonomy at Sheffield Hallam. He is also the Associate Director of the UK Centre for Materials Education at Liverpool University, which is part of the UK Higher Education Academy.John Rowe, Sheffield Hallam University Dr Rowe is a member of the teaching staff in the Faculty of Arts, Computing, Engineering and Sciences at Sheffield Hallam University. He has taught for 21 years in microelectronics and IT in higher education. His current areas of research are in the search for quality in higher education
of research on a selected topic, writing a proposal and status reports,design, presentation for review by faculty, staff, or industry representative, and a final document.The following are the limitations of onsite teaching of senior projects:(a)- Projects are isolated systems(b)- Most of the projects are not networked or not well connected©- Projects are not compatible to form larger systems(d)- Projects are not optimized because the main goal is to make them working(e)- There is no measure for performance(f)- There is no concern about cost of the project(g)- There is no measure for energy efficiency3- Onsite versus Online teaching of senior projectsAssuming students have an option to take this course onsite or online, Table 1 compares
the laboratory and the motivationfor the creation of a laboratory that could be used in a sequence of courses. This is followed by adescription of the platform chosen for the laboratory and the rationale behind this choice. Thestudy methodology is then described in detail. Finally, results from the study for the courseELEC 304 Signals and Systems are given for the Fall 2002 semester.Course Descriptions and Laboratory MotivationThe new signals and systems laboratory at UNL will be integrated into four separate three credithour courses that are taught at the junior and senior levels in the undergraduate curriculum. Thelaboratory experience will be part of the three credit hours and does not replace any existinglaboratory courses. The four
results in promotion into a first management position are not necessarily the skills needed in the new management position.1”This training often takes place in a more-or-less traditional classroom that focuses on theory withlittle opportunity for application of knowledge, skill building, and practice2. There are nolaboratories (or practicums) for courses in management3. This pedagogical omission istroublesome, particularly when one is attempting to learn the interpersonal skills necessary foreffective management of multi-disciplinary technical teams. People, who do not behave in well-defined and repeatable ways, immediately push the theory into the “indeterminate zones ofuncertainty, uniqueness, and value conflict4”. And it follows, to “think
broadening participation in engineering. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Work In Progress: Development of a Taxonomy of Undergraduate Engineering Admissions Practices and ProtocolsIntroductionUndergraduate engineering admissions has a profound influence on engineering participation asthe entry point to higher education programs but has been largely unstudied and unquestioned.This is particularly concerning because engineering has been plagued by an imbalance inparticipation across demographics at every stage from higher education to industry [1].Significant research has examined this issue in the context of engineering classrooms [2], majors[3], and other institutional policies
and systematic idea about industrial engineering. They oftenplaced too much emphasis on business aspects, and they think it is not hard ormathematically rigorous. The misconceptions that directed them to choose industrialengineering may increase the dropout rate or may have been part of the change onDecision Day. Thirty percent of the students that decided to purse non-engineeringdegrees chose a business related degree as their new field of study. Page 26.1222.14Question 13, 14, & 15: OpportunitiesFaculty, alumni, and students were asked the same 3 questions on opportunities. Themajority of students, faculty, and alumni all indicated that
team focused on building a community of educators passionate about expanding their knowledge concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion in engineering education. Her most recent accomplishment was being recognized as one of seven AAC&U 2019 K. Patricia Cross Scholars based on her commitment to teaching and learning and civic engagement.Mr. Herman Ronald Clements III, Purdue University, West Lafayette H. Ronald Clements is a postbaccalaureate research assistant in the STRIDE lab at Purdue University and an incumbent graduate student for the 2020-2021 year. He works on the project titled ”CAREER: Actualizing Latent Diversity: Building Innovation through Engineering Students’ Identity Development,” assisting with
as to how the training modules or the underlying framework could contribute toproblem solving. However, tribal knowledge emerged as the most talked-about issue in thesedialogs and it became obvious that providing a plausible solution requires a different approachthan what is currently in place. Some of the most revealing discoveries are: • Most interviewees express deep concern over the loss of tribal knowledge in their respective firms. • All but one industrial interviewee admit that their companies do not have a systematic method to collect and store the field experience of veteran employees. Most companies require their employees to routinely document the lessons learned in work, however the policy is not strictly
(US Army) is an Academy Professor in the Department of Systems Engineering at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He has a B.S. degree from USMA in Organizational Leadership and an M.E. degree in Systems Engineering from the University of Virginia. He also holds a PhD in Management Science (System Dynamics) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research interests include systems design, new product development, system dynamics, decision support systems, project management and curriculum development. He has taught and served as the course director for numerous engineering courses in Systems Design, System Dynamics and Production Operations Management. He