encompass extensive activities, from refining thesummer camps for high school students to conducting monthly advisor listening sessions andsurveys to understand and meet student needs. Furthermore, introducing niche areas for eachacademic advisor has fostered their professional growth and contributed to improved studentsuccess.This paper will delve into the comprehensive details of these initiatives. It serves as a valuableresource for institutions seeking to enhance their student support services, providing separateinsights into the spheres of recruitment, retention, and, most importantly, student success withinthe College of Engineering at Tennessee Tech University.1. IntroductionThe importance of student success support for engineering
engineeringeducation by establishing innovation infrastructures [1]. These initiatives focus on enhancingstudents' innovation competencies, as summarized in the framework researched in [2], whichcomprises skills such as problem-solving, design thinking, creativity, project management,prototyping, teamwork, and leadership, etc. One effective pedagogical approach in this regard ischallenge-based learning (CBL) [3], which engages students in the identification, analysis, design,and implementation of solutions to open-ended sociotechnical problems [4]. CBL is inherentlymultidisciplinary, drawing on diverse perspectives and skills required in product development [5]and design thinking [6]. In complement to the traditionally theoretical richness of
expectations set forth by ABET.IntroductionThe landscape of undergraduate engineering management programs in the United States hasexperienced an evolution captured by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology's(ABET) recognition of the need for traditional engineering disciplines alongside a morecomprehensive discipline that integrates leadership, communication, and teamworkcompetencies as seen in (Figure 1. Engineering Managers manufacture fiscal and enterprisevalue in creating, designing, and implementing technical projects, products, or system solutions[1]. The West Point Engineering Management (EM) Program embodies this approach. It ishoused in the Department of Systems Engineering at the United States Military Academy(USMA) as one of
, which are all vital in their respective fields.IntroductionThe Professional Science Master's (PSM) degree arose in the late 1990s to fill a gap betweenoverqualified PhDs and underprepared undergraduates in science fields [1]. PSM programsprovide graduate-level science training plus professional skills valued by employers [2]. Theadvantages of PSM degrees include career preparation, practical experience, high employability,networking opportunities, specialized knowledge, and lower cost versus a PhD. The PSM alignswith best practices proposed for master's degrees by higher education organizations [3], [4], [5].MTSU's PSM program (MSPS degree) meets the requirements for formal PSM affiliation [6].The interdisciplinary MSPS integrates science and
) whatare the best practices to formulate student assignments given student outcomes for ETACprograms, and b) how to devise and setup up standard rubrics in a LMS for unbiased scoring ofstudent work products.KEYWORDS: Geospatial Literacy, ETAC, ABET, Assessment, Evaluation, ContinuousImprovement, Rubric Assessment, Student Learning Outcomes, Engineering Technology.1. IntroductionEngineering and engineering technology (ET) programs at Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)value accreditation status because it encourages confidence among students that the educationalexperience offered by the institution meets high standards of excellence, enhances theiremployment opportunities, provides access to federal grants and scholarships, and satisfies
was to provide an early-career, technology-oriented degree to professionals that addressleadership, management, and technical knowledge. Once completed, the degree will expand thegraduates’ career opportunities and add value to their organizations. [1], [2]Literature ReviewThe origin of the MSEM program differs from many other online master’s programs inengineering management, in that other online programs were often designed around existingengineering management or industrial engineering courses in corresponding degree-grantingdepartments. [3], [4], [5] This originating agency concept is common, though for EngineeringManagement programs, the courses may be interdepartmental or cross-disciplinary. [6], [7]However, Tennessee Tech University
Design and constraint principles. The methodology andresearch approach presented in this paper could be used as a scalable model for otherundergraduate EM program to help students meet graduation requirements in an accreditedprogram while giving them the chance to experience global perspectives in EM applicationsearly on in their academic careers.IntroductionPursuit an undergraduate degree in Engineering Management (EM) can be rigorous for anystudent under normal circumstances. It becomes even more complicated if the student aims tocomplete the program within four years and participate in an international study-abroad program.According to a 2016-17 study [1], only 5.3% of the 2% of US college undergraduate studentswho study abroad are
advocating and implementing a broadermindset in the engineering curriculum. We begin by exploring the tensions in the cultureof engineering education through the lens of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. We thenfollow with a discussion of the co-contraries that exist in engineering education withinthe bounds of these cultural dimensions. We conclude with thoughts on how concepts ofengineering leadership could be leveraged to influence culture change that can positivelyinfluence the curricular aspects of engineering programs, as well as within theinstitutional environment. The work in this paper provides a baseline for discussion onhow engineering educators can work to bridge the culture gap that arises from thesystemic cultural tensions.1
work in progress paper describes a new program that integrates business and engineeringcurriculum. Investments in science, mathematics, and engineering education have increased as amatter of national economic competitiveness [1]. Engineering and business are increasinglyconnected in today’s technological and global workplace and there is a need for graduates whosecompetencies span these fields [2]. Educators have been developing approaches that linkbusiness and engineering curriculum within traditional classes [ 3,4] as well as programs thatprovide minors and degrees for students crossing traditional disciplinary boundaries of businessand engineering [6-8]. Blended engineering and business baccalaureate programs have beendeveloped by at least
engineering. We also findthat alumni encounter career challenges in areas of organization-level leadership skills and innavigating possible career and role types. Based on findings, we discuss potential opportunity areasthrough which educators can enhance the effectiveness of EL programs.IntroductionCurricular and co-curricular Engineering Leadership (EL) programs have proliferated across NorthAmerican engineering schools in recent years [1, 2], with over 50 programs now established [2].Many of these programs, however, are in their formative or early operational years, and it is estimatedthat fewer than 10 of the most active programs operating today had launched prior to 2010 [1]. Anew opportunity is therefore emerging for larger-scale, longer-term
. In addition, the efficiency of design and construction projectteams may also be strengthened throughout this process.IntroductionTeams are structured groups of people working on defined common goals that require coordinatedinteractions to accomplish specific tasks [1]. Each team member contributes knowledge, services,and proficiency to help the team attain its objective. The notion of teams has become the basicbuilding block of present-day organizational designs [2]. Currently, most industries rely onteamwork more than ever to overcome daily challenges. The major goal is setting up teams andensuring they successfully achieve their assigned project outcomes. Teams are usually composedof people with diverse backgrounds, experiences, and
into construction research. Implications andrecommendations are presented at the end of this paper.IntroductionTeams are groups of individuals that work together towards a common goal, utilizing coordinatedinteractions to complete tasks [1], [2], [3], [4]. The use of teams in the workplace has a long historyand has grown significantly in various industries in recent years [5]. As work environmentsbecome increasingly complex, organizations are turning to team-based approaches, allowing theintegration of various skills and knowledge [6]. Getting a diverse group of individuals together tocollaborate and work as a unit is necessary for addressing complex challenges [5]. Effective teamperformance relies on combined efforts of teamwork, which define
driven by entrepreneurship. For example, only 1 in 6 employees in SiliconValley startup companies are women (Financial Times 2017). In this study, we develop a fieldexperiment designed to increase entrepreneurial proclivity in undergraduate women studyingSTEM fields. Entrepreneurial proclivity is defined as the extent of an individual’s (1) intentionsto engage in entrepreneurship, (2) efforts to acquire knowledge about entrepreneurship, and (3)entrepreneurial actions. There is a general agreement in the literature that women are less likely than men to beinvolved in entrepreneurship [1], [2]. In 2016, women were majority owners for 38% of firms,and this ownership was concentrated primarily in non-STEM retail and service industries [3],[4
practice.Organizations use the Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) for financial and operational strategicplanning. An FCA facilitates; knowledge management of assets under ownership, riskmanagement, capital planning, and real estate decisions [23]. FCA practice includes architectural,mechanical, electrical and structural engineering disciplines towards an integrated engineeringpractice for buildings. Further, the increasingly complex software and digital operation ofbuildings includes software and technological engineering including digital twins, AI interfaces,and Building Information Modeling (BIM), and other built environment advances. [1]. Currently,there is no research associated with engineering education and the practice of FCA’s. As a startingpoint
Resilience in the context of Higher Education Institutions 1. Abstract COVID-19 affected everyone’s life; this truthful statement also applies to teaching and learningcontexts and how difficult it was for universities to face the pandemic. Some universities didwell during the pandemic by being resilient, but some were unprepared, and a few failed on thetask. This full paper presents findings from a work-in-progress (WIP) systematic literaturereview on Organizational Resilience (OR) in the context of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).The study follows a systematic literature review method to analyze and categorize currentresearch on Organizational Resilience applied to Higher Education Institutions. Thismethodology
Hopkins University Whiting School’sEngineering Management & Leadership Course Complements Senior DesignIntroduction According to the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), STEMgraduates must be “prepared with the knowledge, skills and aptitudes to meet workforcedemand” [1]. ABET adopted Engineering Criteria 2000, updated several times since, thatfocused on what students learn rather than what programs teach. The new framework includedskills such as “critical thinking, communication and teamwork” [1]. The guidelines areinfluenced strongly by industry workforce needs as hiring managers turn to ABET-accreditedprograms because they know graduates will have certain skills based on student outcomes” [1]. To prepare
and practitioners, this paper frames the current state ofthe community’s knowledge gaps and provides insights into the discipline’s future directions.IntroductionFor nearly three decades, the engineering community and society have realized that engineering work has a direct impact on societyand the world in which we live [1], [2]. Developing engineers for future work is socio-technical in nature; success in modernengineering projects requires more than technical capability, but also the ability to manage teams of people and lead them towards theaccomplishment of common goals. Adapting to this new socio-technical reality has brought a recognition that holistic engineeringdesign techniques and professional skills development, (to include
animportant aspect of the engineering profession. Accreditation boards across North America havecalled for engineering educators to equip engineering graduates with leadership capabilities toallow engineers to take on a more prominent role in technological, societal and businessadvancement [1], [2]. As a result, there has been increased focus and research aroundengineering leadership, both in terms of defining what it is (for example, [3], [4]), as well asidentifying the associated skills and effective pedagogical practices for teaching it [5]–[7].Engineering educators are working on closing the gap between the leadership needs of industryand the capability of engineering graduates. However, for particular sectors such as engineeringconsulting, given
programs, achieving high effectiveness andfosters the achievement of set goals.IntroductionEfficiently managing large educational STEM programs, particularly interdisciplinary projects,requires a harmonious blend of team dynamics and individual personality strengths [1]. Theseprojects bring together experts from divergent disciplines to collaborate towards common goals,making the team set up a critical determinant of success. While much attention has been givento factors like team composition, size, and tenure, the impact of team members’ personality traitson overall team effectiveness remains unexplored.Interdisciplinary Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) projects involvecollaboration across multiple disciplines to address
the current usage and perceptions of industryprofessionals about AI tools in project management tasks. The specific research questions are:(1) What factors influence the usage of AI tools in project management practices? (2) How areproject managers currently using AI tools? (3) What are their perceptions of these tools?Methods: A survey was designed to gauge industry professionals' usage and perceptionsregarding AI's tools in project management tasks and included questions to gather demographicdata. This survey was shared across multiple project management groups on LinkedIn over athree-month duration, attracting 113 responses. A cleaning process was implemented to removeany invalid responses. A correlational analysis was performed on the
Management Science and Engineering from Stanford University, and her Ph.D. in Management from UC Irvine. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Iterative Learning: Using AI-bots in Negotiation TrainingNegotiation skills are essential in management education and in engineering practice. Traditionalteaching methods, centered around role-playing activities. have often struggled to fully engagestudents or provide the personalized feedback necessary for mastering such a complex skill set.To addressing this pedagogical gap, I developed AdVentures with chatGPT [1] by leveragingartificial intelligence to create a dynamic, interactive learning experience that adapts to eachstudent's needs and performance
practice. The details of the methodology are shown in Figure 1. Stage I - Planning the review Phase 0 Identification of the need for a review Phase 1 Preparation of a proposal for a review Phase 2 Development of a review protocol Stage II - Conducting a review Phase 3 Identification of research Phase 4 Selection of studies Phase 5 Study quality assessment Phase 6 Data extraction and monitoring progress Phase 7 Data synthesis Stage III - Reporting and dissemination Phase 8 The report and recommendations
educational curricula. This study assesses the implications of AI integrationwithin these subfields and its potential impact on students' skill development and comprehension.1 IntroductionIntegrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) into engineering management education significantlytransforms pedagogical methodologies. This study focuses on two primary impacts of AI in thisfield:1. Revolutionizing Learning Paradigms: This study explores how generative AI, capable of creating diverse and interactive content, redefines the educational landscape. This technology facilitates personalized learning experiences and introduces innovative methods for knowledge dissemination, enhancing student engagement and understanding.2. Challenges to Academic Integrity
(Practice Paper Category)AbstractTo meet the challenges and opportunities of educating new generations of engineering leadersfor jobs of the future, Engineering Management programs must evolve with a strategy thatintegrates academic education with workplace application. That strategy must address thechanging demographics of technical industries and their workforces. We can meet that challengeby unifying technical leadership fundamentals into an applied experience, internalizingengineering management coursework with a real-life technical leadership scenario that isapplicable across industries.Education research[1] shows that working professional students learn best through case studies,active learning, and project-based activity. This paper
stayed online); managers andleaders are facing challenges such as lack of employee engagement, high turnovers, and more.According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, over the month of November 2022, there hadbeen 5.9 million cases of workplace separations, including 4.2 million quits, 1.4 million layoffsand discharges, and 0.35 million of other types of separations in the country. On the other side,there had been 6.1 million hires [1]. Although the pandemic did not start the resignations, itdefinitely spurred the “Great Resignation”, also known as the “Big Quit” or the “GreatReshuffle” [2], where people exited their current positions in a massive amount due to variousreasons like relocation, reconsideration, reshuffling, etc. as described in
objectives. Ultimately, at the close of the Capstone course, students arerequired to present a design solution to their client that meets expectations.Literature suggests that project success could depend on many factors which also contribute toteam members’ overall satisfaction. These factors include balancing team members’ projectinterests, their desire to work with specific peers with varied personalities, and withconsideration to institutional project priority [1-3]. Balancing all these factors during teamformation is time-consuming for course instructors, but doing so is crucial for teams’ success incompleting projects. Team formation in the Capstone course is a key activity undertaken by allcourse instructors in cooperation, as it plays a
among students raises questions about their accuracy andpotential to enhance learning outcomes. For instance, studies have demonstrated that while LLMsexcel at automating repetitive tasks and providing structured outputs, they often exhibit limitationsin handling complex and context-dependent tasks such as CPM and PERT calculations. Accordingto Nenni et al. (2024), AI's ability to analyze large datasets and assess risks significantly enhancesproject management, yet challenges remain in its adaptability to nuanced scenarios [1]. Similarly,Taboada et al. (2023) highlighted application of AI on PMBOK’s eight performance domains,including planning and delivery, but emphasized the need for educators to ensure these tools areused to complement, not
Engineering Management Academic Leaders (CEMAL) and Program Chair and Chair of the Engineering Management Division (EMD) of ASEE. Dr. Asgarpoor is currently serving as President of the American Society for Engineering Management (ASEM). ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 A comparative analysis of student performance outcomes in online and in-person classesAbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic energized a wave for online education that had started a couple ofdecades earlier [1] which has persisted beyond the pandemic. Seventy one percent of studentssurveyed in 2021 reported they would continue at least some form of online learning even post-pandemic [2]. The popularity of
training must be varied to help determine system performanceaccurately. This is important because system performance results dictate future course of actionin engineering management or DoD decision-making. Such results inform acquisition decisionssuch as further funding and development, program canceling, and fielding decisions.KeywordsTest scenario variation, pretest sensitization, video game, nested factorial design.1. IntroductionAs part of the U.S. Department of Defense acquisition process, a program office develops aproduct per the needs/requirements defined by a service, such as the Army. Within the Army, theArmy Test and Evaluation Command tests and evaluates the product to determine if it fills thecapability gap(s), providing critical
demand for professionals equippedwith unique skill sets that complement AI systems is surging [1], [2]. To maintain a competitiveedge in this evolving environment, educational institutions must prepare students not only withtechnical knowledge but also with professional skills such as critical thinking, adaptability,creativity, collaboration, and ethical decision-making [3], [4]. These competencies are essentialfor thriving in AI-enhanced workplaces, where traditional roles are being redefined, andinterdisciplinary approaches are becoming the norm. In light of these challenges, the role ofeducators is pivotal in reshaping curricula and teaching strategies to address the gaps betweentraditional education and the demands of AI-driven industries [5