emerging at theinterface between engineering and biology, including 1) the engineering of biological materialsand processes, 2) the development of technology for biological measurements, and3) theapplication of biological paradigms to engineered systems. Although diverse, these fields are alllinked by the pressing need for engineers to understand fundamental concepts in biology. Theconcurrence of these forces has propelled us towards biology as a new frontier for engineeringeducation.To meet this need, the authors, faculty in the UW College of Engineering who are experts inbiology together with educational researchers from the UW Center for Engineering Learning andTeaching are developing a series of new courses and smaller curriculum modules
received the International Teleconferencing Societies highest award for ”The Most Significant Advance in the Field of Teleconferencing” for his contributions to the synthesis and development of a new Large Screen Teleconferencing research prototype. This award-winning research prototype was on display in the Information Age Exhibit of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC. He sits on numerous IEEE committees of the Communications Society and has held offices as VP of the IEEE Multimedia Communications Technical Committee. Dr. Addeo earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees in Electrical Engineering from New Jersey Institute of Technology. He has an earned Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Stevens
Preliminary Study on the Characteristics of Virtual Environments for Reaching New Heights in Education Tulio Sulbaran, Ph.D., Chad Marcum University of Southern MississippiAbstractIn researching virtual environments for educational purposes, it has been found that there are noset characteristic guidelines to develop educational material using virtual environments.Recognizing this fact, this paper is an attempt at listing and defining key characteristics forvirtual environments for education. The approach that was used to identify these characteristicswas a combination of literature reviews and experimental exploration of virtual reality over theInternet
technological and engineer- ing philosophy and literacy. In particular how such literacy and competency are reflected in curricular and student activities. In addition he is active in research of engineering education and new focuses on engineering pedagogy. Page 26.1572.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 The Role of Transdisciplinary Courses in the Reform of the Engineering Curriculum. A Case Study.AbstractThe case study presented in this paper is a description of a blended transdisciplinary SmallPrivate On-Line Course (SPOC) conducted by one of the authors
globalcompetition. It is generally agreed that in the future engineers need to have a comprehensiveknowledge base to tackle complex, multidisciplinary assignments. Unfortunately, the currentengineering education has often failed in this aspect and that is why the National ScienceFoundation (NSF) has cooperated with several universities1 to establish pilot programs to deviseplans to implement a wholesale renovation of the engineering education.Among many concepts, NSF has identified “Engineering Curriculum Integration” as one of themost promising innovations2,3. It is proposed that new engineering curricula should teach theconnectivity of relevant engineering subjects and emphasize their relationship to practicalengineering processes. Positive results from
readily recognize and apply theirengineering background to solve unstructured problems, both locally and beyond US borders.Beginning in September 2003 we embarked on an innovative approach to curriculum reform thatcontains four overarching objectives, namely (1) the integration of concepts across thecurriculum; (2) teaching students to synthesize different concepts to solve unstructuredproblems; (3) providing problem solving methods and strategies within a societal framework thatallows for their application within a local as well as a global context; and (4) creating a portabledevelopment methodology that can be readily adapted to other engineering disciplines. Thispaper reports on the development and implementation of a new course IE 1091
Air Force Institute of TechnologyAbstract -- The dawning of the information age with its diversity of communications and computer systemsposes a formidable challenge to the graduate student of “communications engineering”. To keep pace with thisexpanding field graduate communications engineering students at the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) advance through an integrated curriculum that weaves a web of connections between traditional analog/digitalcommunication theory, discrete signal processing, communications/computer networks, spread spectrumtechniques, and coherent applications sequences of courses in military communications, radar, stealth, andantenna engineering. The approach is to teach broad system level concepts and
implementation of teaching/learning at the college level; e.g. be knowledgeable of key organizations supporting engineering instruction like ASEE and ABET, general publications in education, and instructional resources; e.g. Ohio State Center for Advancement of Teaching (formerly Office for Faculty and TA Development).Obj. 2 - Students will be aware of the curriculum issues related to engineering education specifically; e.g. accreditation requirements, laboratory development and design instruction.Obj. 3 - Students will be able to recognize the options for types of instructional approaches to engineering materials and have understanding of their appropriate application.Obj. 4 - Students will be able to implement
promote a mindset of the integral nature of science and engineering in solving real world problems. The standards’ emphasis is on thinking more deeply, using processing skills similar to those of a mathematician, scientist, or philosopher. Engineering notebooks are an essential tool of the inventive problem solving engineer; they parallel laboratory science notebooks used by researchers in investigating and describing 3scientific phenomena. From Kelley’s outline of the purpose and function of an engineering notebook it is clear that using notebooks can serve as a valuable pedagogical approach and assessment tool. He describes the importance of documenting new ideas, of assigning credit in cooperative
related to the topics of student motivation, student riskaversion, strategic learning, fostering creativity and design thinking, and the role that instructorsplay in nurturing or quashing desirable traits in students. Efforts to continuously inform mypedagogical technique are based on documented best practices and new information about howstudents and academia are changing.Costa, A. & Kallick, B. (2008). Learning and Leading with Habits of Mind: 16 EssentialCharacteristics for Success. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Print.“Risk averse students characterized by high abilities tend to prefer Engineering.” quoted from:De Paola, M. & Gioia, F. Risk Aversion and Field of Study Choice: the Role of IndividualAbility
organizations have established their own process of software development. Withthe recent advances of software engineering and the introduction of new techniques andmethodologies at the university, there could be a conflicting interest between theacademic and industry partnerships. The academic partners would like to infuse the“latest and the greatest” techniques into the industry, where most of these techniqueshave not been tested in a real world project. Of course, the industry partners are wary ofsuch approach, since they have been very successful in what they have been doing up tonow, and they are not to anxious to “rock the boat”, and suddenly changing theirprocesses, which could generate unfavorable results. In addition, the industry partnersare
sudden change in a student’scognitive model will not be effective. Instead, they recommend continuous revisiting andreformulating of a student’s cognitive models. Similarly, incremental imagination exercises canbe used to develop a student’s cognitive and reflexive understanding.Pitfalls in ethics instructionDiscussing ethics instruction in a broad sense is a difficult endeavor, as there are many ways inwhich ethics can be approached in the curriculum. Options can include individual modules onethics within introductory and capstone courses, embedding ethics throughout a series of courseswithin the curriculum, or requiring ethics specific courses. Ethics components can be taught byfaculty within the engineering discipline or by instructors with
toimplement and assess within formal educational settings. In engineering education, faculty havereported feeling unprepared to teach upon entering their academic positions [7] with only 15%reporting attending a teaching program during graduate school [8-10]. Due to this lack oftraining, many faculty typically rely on the pedagogical approaches utilized by their instructorsin their own courses, thus perpetuating a signature pedagogy within engineering [6]. Shulmandescribes signature pedagogies as “important precisely because they are pervasive. . . theyimplicitly define what counts as knowledge in a field and how things become known” [6, p. 54].In fields such as engineering, the signature pedagogy tends toward mathematically-basedassessments of key
, the idea of integrating GD&Tthroughout an engineering curriculum has found some traction. In a recent article18 published outof the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), researchers partnered with industry(mainly Caterpillar) to establish innovative, hands-on approaches to teaching GD&T throughoutseveral activities as part of a freshman engineering course on design and graphics. AlthoughGD&T was originally considered “difficult to teach and learn,” the new activities focused onmanufacturing and inspection, in addition to form, fit, and function of design. The new effortswere not assessed, but the authors do conclude that GD&T is a fundamental engineering tool thathas continued to gain emphasis in industry and
. Page 12.1303.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2007 Strategies for the Integration of Computer-Based Simulation Technology into the Engineering CurriculumAbstractWhile Computer-Aided Engineering (CAE) technology has revolutionized engineeringanalysis, design and research, its penetration into the undergraduate mechanicalengineering curriculum has been limited. As a result, undergraduate students do notacquire a solid foundation in CAE technology that they can build upon during the courseof their careers. Our pedagogical approach for integrating CAE software into courses hasthree key elements. First, the CAE experience revolves around a series of case studies inwhich students use CAE software to simulate
AC 2009-577: LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT OF A PROJECT-ABROADPROGRAM IN SOUTH AFRICA: TOWARD "A BETTER ENGINEER IN THEREAL WORLD"Laura Hahn, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Dr. Laura Hahn is a specialist in education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She consults with faculty in the College of Engineering on curriculum, instruction, teaching assistant development, and learning outcomes assessment. She has helped develop two project-abroad programs for students in the Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering.Alan Hansen, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Alan Hansen received his PhD from the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa, where he joined
to Architectural, Civil, and Mechanical Engineering Technologystudents. Students in the ARET, CET, and MET programs at IPFW must earn a C- or better inStrength in order to pass the course. Table 1 shows the percentage of students needing to repeatStrength due to low grades, along with the repeat rate in all other MET courses. 1 Based on a 20%mean repeat rate, Strength is apparently the hardest course in the curriculum. The table does notinclude students who withdrew from courses because of low grades. When withdrawals areincluded, the repeat rate in Strength runs between 18% and 35%. Page 23.673.2 Table 1: Percentage of students in each
-making process that aids the engineer in generating andevaluating characteristics of an entity (physical or process) whose structure, function, andoperation achieve specified objectives and constraints. The program describes the process as theapplication of the solid foundation of the basic sciences, mathematics, and engineering sciencesto the abstractness, complexity, and solving of real world problems.The elements of the design process are emphasized throughout the program’s curriculum,beginning with the freshmen year. At the freshman year the Introduction to Engineering Design(IED) course uses project-based learning to address (1) problem definition, (2) attributegeneration, (3) function, constraint and objective identification, (4) idea
engineering and management graduates of the future. Expected changes in construction work put an onerous responsibility on construction educators, administrators, advisory boards, and other entities involved with curriculum design, development, and integration to think about the future of construction work and new construction technologies and chart an active path. No longer can we passively react to what is transpiring. Construction education must be modified appropriately to respond to impending changes in a timely manner. It is my hope that this paper will stimulate even further and better thinking than I have been able to bring forward about the topics raised and create an inertia for movement in the right direction.Bibliography
progress towards realizing the disciplinary synthesis called forin these challenging times and (ii) can serve as a model for other design and engineeringprograms around the world. Rensselaer’s traditional strengths in its Schools of Engineering andArchitecture, when combined with its strength in the Department of Science and TechnologiesStudies (STS) in H&SS, serve as the foundation upon which to base a totally new approach toproduct design education. STS includes faculty from six disciplines—anthropology, history,philosophy, political science, psychology, and sociology—all of whom work on understandinghow science and technology shape society and how in turn society shapes science andtechnology. Supported in part by NSF, STS has also been
programming.Theses robots usually contain a microcontroller, a few sensors, motors, and a body. Thesecourses are excellent vehicles for teaching engineering concepts and they tend to be dominatedby hardware concepts. This paper will discuss whether such a course is adequate for computerengineering area of specialization in a computer science department.In our computer science department, there are four areas of specialization. These four areas ofspecializations are computer science, software engineering, networking, and computerengineering. In this curriculum, the students matriculate into the CNS department aftersuccessfully completing the requirements of 30 hours of core courses common to all computerscience students. The students continue taking core
Technology (SES) Beth McGrath is Executive Director of the Center for Innovation in Engineering and Science Education at Stevens Institute of Technology.Mr. Jason Sayres, Stevens Institute of Technology Jason Sayres is responsible for teacher training and developing Internet-based curriculum materials. He has a B.E. in Engineering Physics from Stevens Institute of Technology and an M.S. in Applied Physics from Columbia University.Karen A Peterson, EdLab Group Karen A. Peterson, M.Ed. is the Chief Executive Officer for the EdLab Group. Currently, she is the Prin- cipal Investigator for the National Girls Collaborative Project, SciGirls – A New National TV Series, the Computer Science Collaboration Project, Bio-ITEST
era; he is also an inspired learner and teacher. … To those who know him, Bruner Page 8.988.1remains the Compleat Educator in the flesh…”.4 The spiral curriculum approach is very effective“Proceedings of the 2003American Society for Engineering Education annual Conference & Exposition Copyright© 2003, American Society for Engineering Education”but very difficult to implement, especially if multiple faculty are involved. After 8 years ofevolution, the Purdue ECET program has been very successful in meeting its fundamentalobjectives utilizing a coordinated spiral educational approach, primarily focused on its analogelectronics
AC 2008-1891: INTEGRATING TECHNICAL, SOCIAL, AND AESTHETICANALYSIS IN THE PRODUCT DESIGN STUDIO: A CASE STUDY AND MODELFOR A NEW LIBERAL EDUCATION FOR ENGINEERSDean Nieusma, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Dean Nieusma’s research and teaching focus on interdisciplinary design collaboration and the expertise that enables it. With a BS in mechanical engineering and another in general studies and a PhD in interdisciplinary social sciences, Dean has worked as a member of design teams in contexts as diverse as the U.S. and European automotive industries; Sri Lanka’s renewable energy sector; and STS, engineering, and design curriculum planning. He teaches across Rensselaer’s Product Design and
both teachand learn from others, analytical skills, consensus building, and personal responsibility2. Thesefindings should inform the intuitive educator that the goals for manufacturing education in the21st century can not be met using familiar old approaches exemplified by the teacher-centeredmodel with a predominant emphasis on lectures, tests and exams. On the other hand, theapproach should be student centered with greater emphasis on design projects, teamwork, andrelevance to industry.We are well aware that the concept of interdisciplinary projects is not a new idea in engineeringor engineering technology. A significant number of educator teams have successfully conductedinterdisciplinary projects at institutions both in the United States
, civil, industrial,and aerospace engineering and engineering technology disciplines. It provides a fundamentalunderstanding of the mechanical properties of various materials which makes them useful for amultitude of applications. It also provides an introduction to the analysis of staticallyindeterminate structures which allows more complex problems to be solved than is possible withstatics analysis alone. These important topics are, however, approached in different ways fortraditional engineering, and engineering technology students here at Penn State. The similaritiesand differences in the two courses are addressed in this paper. The paper also explains theimportance of this comparison to the students and the educators in both
, Spiral Curriculum Approach to Reformulate Engineering Curriculum, Proceedings of the2005 Frontiers in Education Conference, Indianapolis, IN, 18-21 October 2005.2 Whysong, C., J.L. Lo, and K. Mallikarjunan Improving Ethics Studies through a Spiral Themed Curriculum”,,to be published in the Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conferene and Exposition, Chicago, IL, June 18-21, 2006.3 Lo, J, V.K. Lohani, and O.H. Griffin, “Full Implementation of a New Format for Freshmen Engineering Course”, to be published in the Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Chicago, IL, June 18-21, 2006.4 http
“thecultures and related subcultures” that exist below the radar of the formal curriculum [2, pp. 35].In both engineering and medicine, there has been momentum over the past several decades toreform education. Technological changes and growing stakes have put pressure on medical andengineering programs to evaluate their education to better address society’s needs. Physicians,medical educators, and researchers have turned to the hidden curriculum to examine how toimprove medical education by illuminating both the positive and negative undercurrents. Thispaper attempts to take a similar approach with an eye to ethics and societal impacts (ESI)education in engineering.The hidden curriculum framework has recently been applied in engineering using mixed
status and improving the prospects. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press3. Bergin, D., Lynch, J., Khanna, S. K., & Nair, S. S. (2007). Infusing design into the G7-12 curriculum: two example cases. International Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 43-49.4. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A. & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.5. Burghardt, M. D., & Hacker, M. (2004). Informed Design: A contemporary approach to design pedagogy as the core process in technology. Technology Teacher, 64,(1). 6.6. Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94
KEEN’s Rising Star award. Her grants related to inclusive pedagogy include a recent Engineering Unleashed Fellowship and an NSF project on developing inclusive Making/Makerspace curriculum through faculty development and training. She is also passionate about open education resources (OER) and open pedagogy and using food/baking to explain STEM concepts. She received her BS degrees in Engineering Science and Mechanics and Computational Mathematics from Virginia Tech, her MS degree in Biomedical Engineering from Virginia Tech - Wake Forest University, her PhD in Biomedical Engineering, and a graduate certificate in Teaching and Learning from the University of Surrey. Her current research spans cell electrophysiology