institutions.4,5 Page 25.1071.2 With the faculty recognizing this shift, a process has been implemented to merge the twoprograms into a single Electronics Engineering Technology (EET) program that emphasizesproduct and system development. First, a product development summit was held to solicitfeedback and collect industry best practices. This summit set in motion a number of incrementalchanges to the curriculum. Then, over the past year, multiple faculty retreats have been held tomethodically create a new, restructured curriculum. This has been accomplished through threeprimary mechanisms. First, the most relevant courses pertaining to modern
of view, and to continually makethe concepts more personal. The point of the individual discussion was not to delve too deeply into a particulardisaster or individual ethical decision, necessitating a decision tree or other analyticalformalisms. Rather, the purpose of each debate was to extend the thinking of the students andinfuse an ethical framework from which to view historical and current events with theexpectation that this approach would follow the students to more focused case studies that theywould see in the latter part of the engineering curriculum. The students appreciated both thehigh- and personal-level ethical discussions and communicated their enjoyment of being able tosimultaneously appreciate the technical and human
AC 2011-27: CHALLENGES IN ASSESSING INTERDISCIPLINARY EN-GINEERING PROGRAMSMeg Krudysz, City College of New YorkDr. Ann Wittig, City College of the City University of New York Page 22.318.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011Challenges in Assessing Multidisciplinary Programs between Engineering and Non-Engineering SchoolsAbstractProgram accreditation by ABET requires that faculty assess and evaluate student performance todemonstrate that a program achieves its outcomes. For a conventional single-disciplinaryprogram, these assessments are challenging to conduct because they require a substantial
-Oviedo, R. (2000, June), Implementation of a Systems Approach for Curriculum Design. Paper presented at 2000 Annual Conference, St. Louis, Missouri. 10.18260/12—8435.Gravander, J. (2004, Fall). Toward the “Integrated Liberal Arts”: Reconceptualizing the Role of the Liberal Arts in Engineering Education. Humanities and Technology Review, 23: 1-18.Gribb, M. M., & Alford, E. M. (2000, June), Using Writing to Improve Retention: Communications Assignments in a Freshman Year Experience Course for Engineers. Paper presented at 2000 Annual Conference, St. Louis, Missouri. 10.18260/1-2—8826. 8Horvat, K., & Randi, J
as well. New and complementary solutions are expected to be developed from thecomparison across international cultures.1.2 Novelty of the projectThe challenges engineering educators face in teaching engineering are real, complex, varied, andmay not be amenable to simple solutions. As such, it requires new perspectives, new tools, andnew approaches, such as Design Thinking. In particular, the Human-Centered Design (HCD)approach is of interest to us because it focuses on deeply understanding the needs and valueperspectives of the people being served and on creating innovative solutions directed towardthose actual needs of people [12]. Thus, HCD approach involves designing with communitiesrather than for communities. It is extremely important
in the Engineering Curriculum: Realizing the ASCE Body of KnowledgeAbstractASCE has committed the profession to sustainability for at least a decade. The implied educa-tional imperative is for a broader and deeper preparation of new engineers, and at the same time,of the practicing profession. The ASCE committee working on the second edition of the CivilEngineering Body of Knowledge has embraced sustainability as an independent technical out-come; and has set out specific levels of cognitive achievement required of all engineers prior tolicensure. Herein, we discuss the elements of a university program including the sustainable useof natural resources, sustainable infrastructure, sustainable production of goods and services
Paper ID #241982018 CoNECD - The Collaborative Network for Engineering and ComputingDiversity Conference: Crystal City, Virginia Apr 29A Systemic Approach to Recruiting and Retaining Women in UndergraduateComputingDr. Gretchen Achenbach, National Center for Women and Information Technology Gretchen Achenbach is a research scientist in the Department of Engineering and Society at the Uni- versity of Virginia and with the National Center for Women & Information Technology (NCWIT). She earned her Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her interests focus on the communication of scientific information and
pedagogical approach and assessment methodsA new interdisciplinary team-taught course was developed by the Departments of Earth Sciencesand Mechanical Engineering at the authors’ university employer that explored board gamedeconstruction and development as a pedagogical method to engage undergraduate honorsstudents. To this end, a one semester curriculum was devised and taught to students in the Fallacademic semester of 2019. Students were taught scientific content related to climate change andits potential impacts on a variety of former civilizations including the Maya, the Mongols, andthe Ancestral Puebloans. Students were asked to extrapolate lessons learned from these pastevents to consider how climate change may affect societies today. Board
point in the curriculum. Adifferent approach is being pursued to develop interlinked curriculum components (ICCs), whichcan be used by students at many different points in the four-year curriculum. As envisionedduring their development, faculty members might use an ICC to introduce students to a set ofconcepts or use an ICC to provide a review of a set of concepts when they will be used in a moreadvanced course. The initial ICC prototype focuses on conservation of mass (CoM). Adescription of the CoM ICC is provided together with preliminary results.IntroductionA chemical engineering department, with NSF support, is renewing its entire four-yearcurriculum to achieve four additional student learning outcomes: 1. Apply fundamental ideas over an
laboratorieswhich have been fully implemented into existing undergraduate curriculum. Graduate studentparticipants were able to meet the technical challenges of the project with minimal facultyassistance; however, some experienced difficulty in developing conceptual questions and threadswhen developing laboratory analysis exercises.Introduction This paper addresses a collaborative method in which members of an engineering technologygraduate course elected to revive and enhance an undergraduate electronics communicationslaboratory course as a component of a group project. Although material presented hereincontains specific technical detail pertaining to the given project, the overall approach andmethods can be adapted to curricula across a range of
thinking capabilities Page 22.254.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Assessment of Engineering Technology Education using a Learning Paradigm Approach Mysore Narayanan, Miami University, Ohio.Abstract In this presentation, the author describes how one can assess certain specific topics in thearea of engineering technology education based on the principles outlined by leading scholars inthe area of cognitive science and educational methodologies. The principle is to creativelyutilize Washington State University’s Critical Thinking
AC 2011-997: ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT UNDERSTANDING IN PHYSICS:AN INTEGRATED QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE APPROACHTeresa L. Larkin, American University Teresa L. Larkin is an Associate Professor of Physics Education and Faculty Liaison to the Pre-engineering Program at American University. She received her Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction with emphasis in Physics and Science Education from Kansas State University. Dr. Larkin is involved with Physics Educa- tion Research (PER) and has published widely on topics related to the assessment of student learning in introductory physics and engineering courses. She has been an active member of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) and the American
Madison University looked broadly acrossthe curriculum while individual course assessments highlighted areas where results converged.Students also responded to multiple surveys which allowed for open-ended responses, providingqualitative data that was extremely valuable in informing possible new curricular directions.As noted earlier, the ECE program at PALACE had defined itself for some time as having a lab-based and hands-on approach. The dawning recognition that this approach did not accomplishall the goals intended served as an opportunity for many faculty to reconsider the focus of ourprograms and how we might improve learning outcomes. Such reconsideration was notuniversal; some individuals firmly believed and continue to believe that a
students to solve more “realistic”engineering problems which are difficult or impossible to solve analytically. Second, thecomponent was designed to be an introduction to Matlab, such that students would have therequisite skills to use Matlab in future courses or to solve their own problems. Prior to this AEMcourse the students in the ECE program have little or no exposure to Matlab or any otherscientific or engineering computational software. This component thus allowed the students tolearn a new “tool” for problem solving through the power of numeric analysis.In the literature, there is a vast amount of work which has described the use of Matlab in theundergraduate engineering curriculum. A large group of this work involves the use of Matlab
Paper ID #27474Design-based Evaluation: A Novel Evaluation Approach to Examine DesignedPrograms in Engineering EducationDr. Lori C. Bland, George Mason University Lori C. Bland, Ph.D., is an associate clinical professor of curriculum and research, and the Director of Curriculum, Center for Gifted Education at The College of William and Mary. She teaches courses in program evaluation, educational assessment, educational psychology, data-driven decision-making, and gifted education. Bland received her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from the University of Virginia. Her current research focuses on assessing learning and
the Summer of 2013, the Oregon State University College of Engineering committed tothe design of a new course, ENGR 199, Foundations for Engineering Success, targeted at first-year pre-engineering students who entered with math proficiency levels below College Algebra.Students entering at this level of math proficiency are unable to complete an engineering degreein the standard four year timeline. Consequently, these students are at risk for both retention andpersistence within the College. ENGR 199 was designed as an intervention strategy to addressthis challenge.The course was both designed and taught by the College’s Student Success Coordinator, andfollowed the curriculum model outlined in the Approach section. The syllabus for ENGR 199
needs. Second, that there are two primary approaches to the acquisitionof new or improved technological capability; the science-driven approach and the needs-drivencreative engineering approach. Of the two primary approaches, the “lion’s” share of technologyis generated by deliberate and systematic needs-driven creative engineering development fromexploratory development for proof of feasibility and concept through advanced engineeringsystems development for operational quality and capability, for cost-effectiveness, safety,environmental protection and customer use. Third, that the primary source of the nation’s futuretechnological capability for economic growth, improvement in the quality of life, and forensuring national security is the
, College of Engineering, Michigan State University. Dr. Sticklen also serves as the College Coordinator for engineering education research, and is an Associate Professor in the Computer Science and Engineering Department, MSU. Dr. Sticklen has lead a laboratory in knowledge-based systems focused on task specific approaches to problem solving. More recently, Dr. Sticklen has pursued engineering education research focused on early engineering; his current research is supported by NSF/DUE and NSF/ CISE.Daina Briedis, Michigan State University Daina Briedis is an Associate Professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at Michigan State University. Dr
opinion is furthersubstantiated in our conversations and informal polls of our students who have gone intoindustry. They express a virtually unanimous opinion that the practical laboratory experience oftheir undergraduate curriculum was among the most beneficial, and that courses should focusmore heavily on it.We are addressing these concerns with a new core curriculum for electrical and computerengineers, the Fundamentals of Electrical Engineering Series, a 3-course sequence. Thesecourses replace our prior sequence of courses for 2nd and 3rd-year students: Circuits,Electronics, and Signals and Systems. Each of the courses in the new sequence takes a breadth-first approach to electrical engineering topics and is taught studio style, with the
between the design and construction phases of the project. Today, Design-Build isno longer limited to complex industrial projects such as oil refineries and power plants but is alsobeing used to build public projects such as prisons, office buildings, industrial facilities, etc.Based on data gathered from the owners, architects, engineers, and the contractors, this paperdescribes the advantages and disadvantages of Design-Build approach to project delivery andcites actual cases where Design-Build did prove to be a successful approach. Case histories arean important learning tool for students of construction, and should be used in the delivery ofconstruction curriculums with caution and sound professional judgment.IntroductionIn 2000, one of the
AC 2012-5292: ADVISING ENGINEERING STUDENTS TO THE BESTPROGRAM: PERSPECTIVE, APPROACHES, AND TOOLSDr. Narciso F. Macia P.E., Arizona State University, Polytechnic Narciso F. Macia is an Associate Professor in the Department of Engineering Technology, at Arizona State University, Polytechnic campus. Prior to accepting his present position with ASU, he founded Control Systems Innovation, Inc., an engineering consulting and product development firm, in which he continues to be active. Macia received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in mechanical engineering in 1974 and 1976 from the University of Texas, Arlington, and his Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Arizona State University in 1988. He is a registered Professional
; Exposition, ASEE, June, 2004.2. Zhang J. Z., Burbank K., Adams R., A Modular Approach to Teaching ”Wireless Communications and Systems”for ECET Students, Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference &Exposition, ASEE, June, 2005.3. Zhang, J. Z., Adams R., Burbank, K., Theory, Practice, and Systems - A New Approach to Teaching ElectronicCommunications with Matlab R . International Journal of Engineering Education. Vol. 21, No. 3, 2005 .4. Zhang, J. Z., Adams R., Burbank, K., The Design of RF Labs using Mini-Circuits Modules to Improve theQuality of Teaching in a Course on Wireless Communications and Systems. World Transactions on Engineeringand Technology Education. Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 39-42, 2005 .5
education.To know the payoff from their investment in continuing education, Horton adopted the balancedscorecard approach covered in the Managerial accounting and performance measurement courseoffered in our Manufacturing Systems and Engineering curriculum. It measures four broad areas– financial, customer, internal business and innovation/learning. In the area of innovation/learning, Horton breaks out education and training in the balanced scorecard. Education ismeasured as the total percent of employees involved in continuing education; training ismeasured by the number of hours of training completed per month. The company uses thismeasure as a leading indicator for expected financial performance in the future. Thus far, it ispaying off.AT&T’s
traditionally been used to communicateclassroom policies between instructors and students. The purpose of this study was to examinechanges in the available support systems for engineering students and instructor communicationof course policies using course syllabi across nine semesters. Findings can help informinstructional decision making of new engineering educators. A previously established CourseChange Typology was utilized to deductively code course syllabi from one engineeringdepartment at a midwestern R1 university. A total of 218 syllabi were coded, encompassing coreengineering courses from Spring 2019 to Spring 2023 with 53 unique instructors represented. Asubset of codes from the Course Change Typology that related to student support and
and classroomactivities. The advantage of this approach is a more natural evolution of teaching methods–teachers have the opportunity to practice new strategies in a relatively informal setting beforedeploying them in the classroom. A. Teacher WorkshopsThe project provides an intensive, two-week workshop for 30 teachers every summer, providing80 hours of professional development for each participant. At the summer workshops, teacherswill learn to implement robotics curriculum. Personnel from NU and TechBoston collaborate todevelop the curriculum and conduct the workshops, using NU‘s computer facilities and roboticslabs.In week one, teachers learn the fundamentals of LEGO robot design and engineering. Topics willinclude the construction
Paper ID #45357A critical review of approaches to teaching artificial intelligence in undergraduatematerials engineeringDr. Joel L Galos, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Dr. Joel Galos is a tenure-track Assistant Professor of Materials Engineering at California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), San Luis Obispo. His teaching and research interests are centered on the design, analysis and optimization of engineering materials, especially polymer composites.Dr. Mohsen Beyramali Kivy, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Assistant Professor of Materials Engineering.Prof. Lessa
Engineering students: • Understand the impact of technical decisions on business revenue and cost models • Experience the value of creating value propositions and correctly interpreting user inputs in specifying and validating new products or services • Understand how the allocation and organization of financial, human, and physical resources affects the product development process • Develop a strategic approach to thinking based on economic constraints, competitive pressures, and organizational goals Business students: • Develop ability to apply an engineering mindset to business decisions • Understand the impact of technical constraints and tradeoffs on business decisions • Learn to match customer needs with
the humanities and social sciences, and, in particular, writing instruction forengineers. Employers consistently report that communication skills are among the mostvaluable assets for new employees coming out of college engineering programs. Just as withethics instruction, various institutions handle teaching writing and communication in differentways, from requiring stand-alone courses to integrating writing across the curriculum. Eventhough ABET requires proficiency in communication skills as an outcome, Reave found thatinstitutions’ methods of including writing in engineering curricula is scattered and exposure towriting practice is minimal [15]. Buswell et al. summarize important findings about engineeringcurricula and writing instruction
, often connected with mechatronics,revolutionizing industrial automation and other applications. The fields of robotics andmechatronics are tightly integrated, and robotics can be considered one of mechatronics’application areas. With the rapid technological explosion, the demand for the interdisciplinaryworkforce has been increased significantly. This demand calls for developing a trainedworkforce, and universities and colleges have started offering new curricula in mechatronics androbotics. In general, the focus of these programs depends on the faculty research areas and localindustrial demands.From the perspective of Engineering Technology, where hands-on learning is pervasive, theMechatronics and Robotics curriculum development is of more
MechanicalComponents (referred to as Machine Design). These courses are very important in educatingstudents on the fundamentals of engineering, mechanics, and design, where in some cases systemsynthesis is emphasized. In this educational paradigm, students are expected to link the chain ofknowledge together with little to no guidance. Youssef and Kabo recognized this issue andproposed a new approach to teach Machine Design, where they integrated more systems designconsiderations as well as soft-skills such as communication [2]. They reported significantimprovement in the quality of students as the students moved into capstone courses and industry;however, this course was at the junior level and their approach requires substantial investment ofprofessors’ time