, “Channels and processes of knowledge transfer: How does knowledge move between university and industry?,” Science and Public Policy, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 256–270, Feb. 2020. doi:10.1093/scipol/scaa002[15] J. D. Roessner, “National Issues in Technology Transfer,” in Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, 1st ed, D. O. Thompson and D. E. Chimenti, Eds. Boston, MA: Springer, 1993, pp. 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2848-7_3[16] I. Nonaka and H. Takeuchi, The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, 1st ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995.[17
not for engineers. Engineers should stick to just the technical piece. … I think it's a risk honestly, because as much as we talk about changing our tenure and promotion criteria and including things like innovation, community engaged research, or things that may not be as traditional… it's very difficult to change minds. And even when someone says, ‘Yeah, you know, we should include those things,’ the tenure and promotion [process] is very subjective, no matter what. And I do believe things have improved but I don't think they've improved to the point where I would advise an early career faculty member whose portfolio is primarily community engaged research. I would be nervous for that faculty member. To be honest, I’d
the Knight Foundation School of Computing and Information Sciences , and the Director of the Virtual Intelligent Social AGEnts (VISAGE) Laboratory. Her long-term research goal is to create engaging virtual social agents (VISAGEs) that can help humans in a variety of contexts by interacting with them in innovative ways, through natural expressive multimodal interaction (e.g. in digital health interventions, cybertherapy, health counseling, educational serious games, cyberlearning, simulation-based social skill training systems). She conducts basic research at the intersection of human-computer interaction (HCI), affective computing (I was on the founding Editorial Board of the IEEE Transactions on Affective
dissonance between EDI.I ‘goals’ espoused by our universityand its actions on actual issues of equity, such as the university’s response to grad studentsunionizing, or to the community’s divestment demands. Looking back, I realize that my approachto EDI.I was an oversimplification and an example of applying colonial practices to‘decolonization’, or using the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house, which, as AudreLorde has written [32], will never happen.What I did find from my master’s research was a tendency for well-meaning engineeringinstructors to justify their ‘EDI.I content’ with assumptions of profit and performance aspriorities. For example, more than one course cited studies showing how diverse teams lead tomore innovation and
National Study on the Governance of Engineering Education,” in 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, Tampa, Florida: ASEE Conferences, Jun. 2019, p. 32020. doi: 10.18260/1-2--32020.[44] I. M. Roffe, “Conceptual problems of continuous quality improvement and innovation in higher education,” Qual. Assur. Educ., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 74–82, Jun. 1998, doi: 10.1108/09684889810205723.[45] Z. Huq and J. D. Stolen, “Total quality management contrasts in manufacturing and service industries,” Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 138–161, Mar. 1998, doi: 10.1108/02656719810204757.[46] S. Malcolm and M. Feder, “Barriers and Opportunities for 2-Year and 4-Year STEM Degrees: Systemic Change to Support
thorough understanding of nine quantumconcepts. while others answered questions about general confidence, programming skills, preferredlearning styles, and topics that interest them in the quantum field. The exit survey evaluated participants’ learning outcomes, their understanding of the nine quan-tum concepts, and their perceptions of the course. It assessed various aspects of the course structure,including design, pacing, difficulty, and workload, to ensure a balance between challenge and manage-ability. The effectiveness of the instruction was also examined, focusing on the clarity of the teachingand the use of innovative strategies. A significant part of the survey focused on the effectiveness ofsimulated and dynamic visualization slides
nominated for numerous teacher awards including Early Excellence in Teaching, Innovation in Teaching, and Honored Instructor. His kind nature and consideration brings connection, community, and ongoing mentorship for his students. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Epistemological Changes: How Structure and Function Shape Mechanical Reasoning About Torsion in Speech and Gesture Matthew M. Grondin1,2, Michael I. Swart2, Kate Fu1, and Mitchell J. Nathan2 Department of Mechanical Engineering1 Department of Educational Psychology-Learning Sciences2 University of Wisconsin-MadisonAbstractThis full length
specialization in Design and Interaction from University of California, San Diego. Her research interests include healthcare innovation and the development of creativity support tools.Mr. Dingyi Yu, University of California, San Diego Dingyi Yu is a master’s student at the University of California, San Diego, majoring in Computer Science. He earned a B.E. in Software Engineering from Peking University and has completed several industry internships. His research interests include the development of responsive software and practical tools for validating psychological theories.Michael Levin, Utah State University Dr. Michael Levin is a professor in the department of psychology at Utah State University. His work focuses on
focused on problem definition, aconceptual design review, and a final design review) and the potential for a fourth review forteams selected to participate in an innovation award competition juried by external experts. Allreviews with the exception of the final review, involved students presenting at the front of theroom for about 30-40 minutes using slides projected on the wall behind them and in some cases,demonstrating physical prototypes. Their peers sat in rows of table and the instructor sat in theback with hard copies of the team’s presentation and asked questions during and after thepresentation. At each review the instructor granted approval for moving on to the next phase.The final design review occurred informally in the dedicated
students are boarders at the campus. Students tend tobe economically advantaged. The culture of the institution is directed toward excellencein teaching, and faculty members identify their work with students as their top priority.The student-faculty ratio is 15:1. Curricular innovation has historically been a hallmarkof the RHIT institutional culture. In 1995, after ten years of debate and study, RHITbegan admitting women. RHIT functions within an academic quarter system as opposedto the more typical semester system.Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology has had two integrated engineering programs. Aninnovative integrated first year curriculum in science, engineering, and mathematics(IFYCSEM) was initiated in 1988-1989 and piloted for three years
makingtheir values salient, leaders activate those aspects of their self-concepts (identities, beliefs,attitudes) to which their followers can relate. By creating the relatedness of the self-concepts,leaders and followers form a collective identity that then aids in motivating and regulating thefollowers’ behavior [24].Complexity Leadership Theory, another non-traditional approach to leadership, argues forleadership seen as a “system of dynamic, unpredictable agents that interact with each other incomplex feedback networks” [25]. Leadership that emerges from such complex systems canfocus on adaptation (producing change, knowledge dissemination, learning, and innovation),administration (producing formalized plans of action), or enabling (minimizing
communication in diverse contexts. ShDr. Robert L. Nagel, James Madison University & Carthage College Dr. Robert L. Nagel is Director of Engineering at Carthage College and Professor of Engineering at James Madison University. Dr. Nagel, a mechanical engineer by training, performs research on engineering student learning and engagement with a focus on interventions, pedagogies, and design methodologies. Through his research, he seeks to gain applicable knowledge for increasing student engagement and re- ducing barriers in engineering, design, and making. At James Madison University, Dr. Nagel has been KEEN Leader, sophomore design coordinator, and Director of the Center for Innovation in Engineer- ing Education. At
Paper ID #36878Dr. Meagan C. Pollock, Engineer Inclusion As an engineer turned educator, through her company, Engineer Inclusion, Dr. Meagan Pollock focuses on helping others intentionally engineer inclusion™ in education and the workforce.Dr. Adrienne Minerick, Michigan Technological University Adrienne R. Minerick is a Professor of Chemical Engineering and Director of ADVANCE at Michigan Technological University. She earned her B.S. from Michigan Tech and her M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame. Her administrative experience has included Associate Dean for Research and Innovation in the College of Engineering, Assistant to the Provost for Faculty Development, Dean of the School of Technology, founding
Paper ID #36903Aesthetics and Engineering: A Path to TransformativeLearning and Professional ConfidenceHugh Ephraim Scribner Hugh is an undergraduate student at the University of Colorado Boulder studying mechanical engineering and applied mathematics. At CU he works under his advisors Professors Jean Hertzberg and Katherine Goodman to measure student affect and transformative learning experiences.Katherine Goodman Katherine Goodman is an assistant professor (teaching track) at the University of Colorado Denver. She serves as curriculum lead for Inworks, an interdisciplinary innovation lab within the College of