to IL:Graduates of WPI will:_ be able to make connections between disciplines and to integrate information from multiple sources._ have the skills, diligence, and commitment to excellence needed to engage in lifelong learning.The IQP has been in place for almost 40 years; specific Interactive Qualifying Project outcomeswere adopted by faculty in 2004. The numbers in parentheses correspond with WPI curriculum-wide undergraduate outcomes.3 Students who complete an Interactive Qualifying Project will: _ Demonstrate an understanding of the project’s technical, social and humanistic context. (1, 7, 8) _ Define clear, achievable goals and objectives for the project. (6) _ Critically identify, utilize, and properly cite information
Systems (CIS) program. Currently, our undergraduate program is undergoingABET accreditation while our graduate specialization curriculum is certified by the NSAthrough the Committee on National Security Systems (CNSS).The focus of our four, three graduate hour, class specialization is enterprise securityassessment and evaluation. Three of the courses have published technical goals. [1] Froma technical perspective, our learning outcomes include a variety of areas including:computer security, network security, applied cryptography, and Internet security.Consequently, the learning modules that we have developed may be utilized in a numberof technical areas. For example, our colleagues in Computer Engineering Technologyhave incorporated several of
Session 2259 Acoustical Radar Leonard Sokoloff DeVRY Technical InstituteVirtual Instrumentation is making a significant impact in today’s industry, education and research.DeVRY Technical Institute selected LabVIEW as an excellent representative of this technologyand is implementing LabVIEW into its curriculum at all DeVRY campuses in the United Statesand Canada.LabVIEW@ (Laboratory Virtual Instrument Engineering Workbench) a product of NationalInstruments@, is a software system that incorporates data acquisition, analysis and presentation,and
Engi- neering Education and Energy Engineering. In addition, she has been lead mentor of FRC Team SUM #6003 for the past two years.Dr. Jenna P. Carpenter, Campbell University Dr. Carpenter is Founding Dean of Engineering at Campbell University. She is Chair of the ASEE Long-Rangge Planning Committee and the ASEE Strategic Doing Governance Team. She is a past Vice President of Professional Interest Councils for ASEE and past President of WEPAN. Currently Chair of the National Academy of Engineering Grand Challenge Scholars Program Steering Committee and an ASEE PEV for General Engineering, Dr. Carpenter regularly speaks at the national level on issues related to the success of women in engineering and innovative
with a process book generation, Making and presentation design decisions, Final proposal, presentation Engineering 3 Modelling, Technical Integrative experience Group reports, Senior Design that captures students’ Expo which includes ability to effectively project exhibits and plan, manage and poster presentations implement technical projects using the
or lower (≤3) level of knowledge about learning theoriesbefore the workshop indicated that they knew more after the workshop was completed.In addition to asking about knowledge gained, we also asked questions about the workshopcontent. Participants were asked to rate the extent that certain features, including new material,engaging presentations, and useful ideas, were incorporated into the workshop on a Likert scaleof 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Very much). We saw that the average responses were all above 5 (Quite abit), indicating that faculty found that we generally incorporated engaging, novel features intothe workshop. However, a few features had some individual responses that were at level 4(Somewhat) or below which we want to address for
credit) – Fall Term, Year 3 • Outcome: feasibility analysis • Topics: market research, FDA regulation, codes and standards, intellectual property, IRB, design controls, CAD and solid modeling Course 3 (1 credit) – Winter Term, Year 3 • Outcome: specifications and system design • Topics: interface specifications, system design, funding, biomedical transducers, power budget, technical literature, initial bench design and prototype building Course 4 (1 credit) – Spring Term, Year 3 • Outcome: system design and testing • Topics: bench design and testing, electrical and mechanical safety, design for safety and reliability, electrical noise and interference Course 5 (3 credits) – Fall Term, Year 4 • Outcome: completion of design and
Session 3248 An Academic Partnership with Industry: A Win-Win Situation Peter R. Schuyler, Kenneth Quinn University of Hartford / New Horizons CorporationAbstractTechnology is a rapidly changing field, it is monumental task for a college or university to keep pace with thesechanges. As corporate demand for specialized computer hardware and software training increases, it is becomingvery challenging to find and retain full time faculty to teach in these areas, and to effectively integrate rapidlychanging technology into our curricula. The University of Hartford’s S.I. Ward
Session 2132 ABET and Standards for Technological Literacy Douglas Gorham The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Pam B. Newberry Project Lead The Way Theodore A. Bickart Colorado School of MinesAbstractPre-college students must be educated to make informed decisions in our technologicalworld. Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology andthe Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology's Engineering Criteria
Session 2506 Case-Study Based Course - A Tool for Teaching Engineering Principles in a Non-Engineering Program O. Geoffrey Egekwu#, Prince N. Anyalebechi* #College of Integrated Science & Technology James Madison University *Padnos School of Engineering Grand Valley State University AbstractIn the early 1990's, James Madison University developed a unique baccalaureate degreeprogram. Called Integrated Science and
A survey was designed to assess the impact of the SBRCD activities on the student’sknowledge about shipbuilding and repair. This survey contains questions about shipscomponents, ship design and physics principles like buoyancy. Student responses are aggregatedand average score is obtained on a scale of 1-10. Students are assessed using the same instrumentafter they have gone through the four simulation sessions. The difference in the score betweenthe pre and post survey provides a measure of change in the knowledge base of the students.5. Delivery Method for Instructional Modules The course is instructor-led classroom training combined with in-class hands-on activitiesdesigned to invite class participation. This approach aids in the
Session 2533 Outcomes Assessment in an Energy Systems Course Mark Schumack Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Detroit MercyI. IntroductionStudent performance has been traditionally measured through homework assignments, projects,and examinations, with final course grades based on weighted averages of scores in each of thesemeasurement categories. Driven by the EC 2000 criteria, many instructors have revised theircourse syllabi to list course outcomes and associated linkages to program outcomes. The linkageby itself
of small team work; one Fellow works with 1-3teachers--the Fellow serves as a technical resource for the teacher and classroom and the teacherserves as an expert about pedagogy and classroom teaching. The Fellow helps to designengineering activities that align with science and math curriculum frameworks for all grades. TheFellow spends a majority of his/her time co-teaching each class and is therefore exposed firsthand to the challenges and intricacies of public education.Evaluation data collected throughout both Tufts GK-12 projects have suggested an apparenttrend in how the Fellows’ understanding of teaching and schools changes over the course of theirFellowship. Furthermore, many of the Fellows report improvement in their communication
indicate that theprocess is well received and achieves the course’s educational objectives.1 IntroductionIn [[1]], the author presents a team-based progressive embedded systems design course that, inaddition to providing the technical embedded systems knowledge, develops team andcommunication skills in situations emulative of industry. The course was a success by manyaccounts; however, student teams abandoned sound design practices in attempt to meet thedemanding 16-week “time-to-market” constraint. Teams adopted a rapid development modelwhere design defects are detected and corrected in unit and system testing. Designs were not Page
well as to determinethe impact the course was having on the students. We employed six strategies for evaluation:Each student was required to complete a short weekly journal, the teaching faculty and theteaching assistant met weekly to discuss the journal entries and general strategy, all faculty andthe teaching assistant attended all lectures, lectures were videotaped, an end of term evaluationsheet was distributed to the students, and an external evaluator was employed. Table 1 Course Content – 1993/94 • Week 1: Introduction, Insulin Physiology & Introduction to Cloning • Week 2: Cloning, Identifying insulin gene & DNA amplification • Week 3: Gene transfer, expression and regulation
Session 1566 Development of a Project-Based and Design-Driven Thermodynamics Course Subrata Roy, Karim J. Nasr, and K. J. Berry Department of Mechanical Engineering Kettering University Flint, MI 48504AbstractThis paper describes a project-based learning environment for a first course in Thermodynamics.Students are challenged through a strong emphasis on design projects which expand theboundary of their thermodynamics knowledge through the integration of fluid mechanics andheat
end of the program.• Students not living in close proximity to the University must live on campus. On campus housing will not be provided for students living close to the University, unless there are extenuating circumstances. The program was divided into two phases. The first phase, which lasts 1-2 weeks, includes aseries of lectures on research methodology, technical writing (e.g. proposals, reports and papers),keeping research records in journals and effective communications. Each student presented aproposal of his/her research project. The second phase, which lasted eight weeks, involvedstudents working on the projects under faculty supervision. The program ended with a one-daysymposium during which students gave either an oral
the profession of engineering (andmechanical engineering in particular), nine class periods were left to cover the nine topics listedabove. However, it seemed necessary to pair one of the technical topics with the design topic, asit would be difficult to introduce the creative problem solving process we call design without aproblem to focus on. Structures was chosen as the technical topic to be paired with the designtopic. Two tours were also included in the program. The first tour was a tour of the HVACfacilities in the MSU Engineering Building (where the class was held), and replaced the hands-on project component for the heating and air conditioning unit. A tour of the General Motors
Session 3592 Man, Woman, Engineer, Psychologist: Mixed Messages in Research Design Francis J. Hopcroft, P.E., LSP, Barbara A. Karanian, Ph.D. Wentworth Institute of Technology Boston, MA 02115Abstract - Several years ago an off-hand remark by Professor Karanian, a Psychologist, duringa casual conversation with Professor Hopcroft, an Engineer, led to a decision to jointly researchthe way men and women respond to technical presentations with which they disagree. A workinghypothesis was developed, after some discussion about the meaning of the words in the title, anda
surveys of alumni, employers, graduatingseniors, faculty, and students. When collecting data, a common set of questions is needed tocompare the responses of the different constituents. Program Outcomes (PO), broad descriptionsof what a graduate will be expected to know and be able to do after completing an academicprogram [1], can be used as a basis for the common questions. Performance criteria (PC) arespecific and more directly measurable skills and abilities [2]. Under each PO, there are onaverage 5 PCs for a total of 60 PCs. While POs are generally regarded as not directlymeasurable, the number of performance criteria that fall under each PO is unwieldy forindividual student and alumni evaluation and program modification/change. In an attempt
AC 2012-3678: A GRID OF ONLINE LABORATORIES BASED ON THEILAB SHARED ARCHITECTUREProf. Michael E. Auer, Carinthia Tech Institute, Austria Since 1995, Michael Auer is professor of electrical engineering at the Systems Engineering Department of the Carinthia University of Applied Sciences, Villach, Austria and has also held teaching positions at the universities of Klagenfurt (Austria), Amman (Jordan), Brasov (Romania), and Patras (Greece). He was invited for guest lectures at MIT Boston and Columbia University and technical universities of Moscow, Athens, and others. He is a Senior Member of IEEE and member of VDE, IGIP, etc., author or co-author of more than 180 publications, and a leading member of numerous national
, industrial designers, and assistive device manufacturers. Thepurpose of the seminars is to present state-of-the-art of assistive technology research anddevelopment. The seminars take advantage of existing collaborations with LATDC and ADS,and reaches out to other interested parties in the region and the State. Faculty from UMass andHampshire College also participate in the seminar series providing course modules to addressspecial technical topics that are not covered in the regular MIE curriculum. Table 1, shows theschedule for the fall semester of 2000.Additional resources also help to support the senior design project experience. A web page,located at http://mielsvr2.ecs.umass.edu/at/, provides a valuable tool to participants, includingschedules
Session 3242 Two More Ways to Evaluate Teaching Performance Craig W. Somerton, Gaile D. Griffore Department of Mechanical Engineering, Michigan State UniversityIntroductionThe search continues for effective ways to evaluate college teaching. Still, the most prevalentassessment tool is the student evaluation. The authors examined two additional tools todetermine whether they might provide administrators with useful supplementary information forformative and summative evaluations. One is a student assessment of their learning using thecourse learning objectives, while the other looks at the number
included 1) lectures on various engineering topics such as computationalstructural dynamics, experimental modal analysis, random vibrations, signal processing, etc., 2) adistinguished lecturer series in which prominent guest lecturers gave talks about cutting edgeresearch in structural dynamics, 3) field trips and 4) an eight week project having both ananalytical and an experimental component. In this paper the details of the program and of how itwas assessed will be presented.I. IntroductionOver the last 20 years there has been a 20% decline in the number of engineering degreesgranted while university degrees in general have increased approximately 20%1 . Engineeringdynamics, which encompasses areas such as flight dynamics, vibration isolation
) Culture 4) History 5) Human Behavior 6) Mathematics and Science 7) Information Technology 8) Engineering and Technology 9) Creativity 10) Continued Educational DevelopmentThe goal of the Mechanical Engineering program is to support USMA’s General Educationalgoal by providing high quality instruction in a positive learning environment in the discipline ofMechanical Engineering leading to an ABET-accredited degree recognized as being among thebest in the nation. The Mechanical Engineering program stresses engineering fundamentals sothat graduates are well equipped to understand complex technical problems in a rapidlychanging, high-technology Army. On completing the
Session 1463 PRIME – the Partnership for Regional Innovation in Manufacturing Education Winston F. Erevelles – Robert Morris College David Huggins – Penn State New Kensington Pearley Cunningham – Community College of Allegheny County Sunday Faseyitan - Butler County Community College Robert Myers – Westmoreland County Community CollegeI. IntroductionThe manufacturing base of Southwestern Pennsylvania is the key to a healthy
1-2 hrs: meet with students partner and faculty mentor to Spring SemesterBrainstorming 1 week to facilitate brainstorming discuss readings and generate session ideas 1-2 hrs: meet with students 1-2 hrs: meet with research
Description PEO 1 Apply discipline-specific theory, experiments and real world experience to interpret, analyze and solve current and emerging technical problems. PEO 2 Communicate clearly and persuasively with technical and non-technical people in oral, written and graphical forms. PEO 3 Function individually and on teams to design quality systems, components or processes in a timely, responsible and creative manner. PEO 4 Demonstrate behavior consistent with professional ethics and are cognizant of social concerns as they relate to the practice of engineering technology. PEO 5 Strive for professional growth and engage in lifelong learning.The Applied Engineering
workspace, tools and a convenient test site for this project. Their efforts and resources are imperative to success.M. A. MORTENSON M A Mortenson has been an invaluable Page 15.1153.7 resource supporting BRIDGE financially as well as providing technical expertiseCUMMINS POWER GENERATION Cummins has been very supportive, providing BRIDGE with essential resources such as
an engineering design process to complete a challenge. Students design, build and test a puzzle.Students apply hand sketching and CAD modeling skills as part of an engineering design. Students testsolution time of a population sample then use statistical tools to analyze the level of challenge of a puzzle.Participants will design a portion of a puzzle using an engineering design process including handsketching. Participants will see examples of puzzles and how statistical analysis is applied to the project.The learning objectives for this activity are:1. Participants will use graphical, computer, physical and mathematical models as appropriate to represent or solve problems.2. Participants will fabricate a simple object from technical