might include the degree requirement of a project, ‚ the assurance of sufficient enrollment in courses on a regular basis, ‚ the establishment of an equitable reward system for faculty members who advise students or serve on graduate committees, and ‚ the development of certificate option in systems engineering.References 1. Council of Graduate Schools, “NDEA 21: A Renewed Commitment to Graduate Education.” Washington DC, November 2005. 2. Council of Graduate Schools, “Graduate Education: The Backbone of American Competitiveness and Innovation,” Washington DC, April 2007. 3. W. Whiteman and B. Mathews, “Is It Real or Is It Memorex: A Distance Learning Experience,” Proceedings of the
) make faculty and studentsaware of some common challenges and b) provide guidance on dealing with these challengesfrom both a faculty and a student perspective.IntroductionThere are many advantages of pursuing advanced degrees at U.S. universities. Some of them areachieving leadership in many scientific disciplines, top caliber academics with internationalexposure, high national spending on research and development, talented colleagues, hundreds ofschools, freedom of thought, conscience and expression, competitive egalitarian society, highstandards of living, and generous stipends.For students coming from India or China, these advantages may not be enough. Funding,limitations on employment after graduation, expensive tuition and also visa
chaptersI. Introduction Aug. 22, 24 Ch. 1II. Basic tools and concepts A. The economic perspective Aug. 27, 29, 31 Ch. 2 B. Sustainable development Sep. 5, 7, 10 Ch. 5EXAM 1 Sep. 12 Ch. 1, 2, 5C. Cost/benefit analysis Sep. 14, 17, 19 Ch. 3D. Property rights, externalities, Sep. 21, 24, 26 Ch. 4III. Natural resources A. Introduction Sep. 28, Oct. 1, 3 Ch. 7EXAM 2 Oct. 5 Ch. 3, 4, 7 B. Depletable resources 1. Energy Oct. 10, 12, 15, 17, 19
considered. They are: 1. Mathematics, 2. Engineering, 3.Biology, 4. All others. The mathematics majors appear to have the numbers advantage; theyscored the highest grades, clearly well above the rest of the class. The engineering and othermajors had the next highest median scores with almost 75% of the groups scoring a grade of B orbetter (80+ points). The scores for biology majors appear to be more varied. The top 25thpercentile scores for biology and engineering majors are similar (at about 87 points), however,the lower 25th percentile of biology scorers appear to be the lowest scores in the class. It shouldhowever be noted that the biology group not only included some undergraduate students but isalso traditionally a non quantitative major.The
industrynor does it reflect the modern practice of engineering and the engineering method forthe deliberate generation, development, and innovation of new, improved, and breakthrough technology[See Appendix A, B].One size graduate education doesn’t fit all.Excellence in basic research and excellence in engineering practice for world-class technologydevelopment & innovation are two very different pursuits with different purposes and methods; requiringtwo different types of education at the graduate level.The National Collaborative is focusing on two primary questions: First, can an effective system of professionally-oriented engineering graduate education be created in the United States for further developing the nation’s engineering
play a vital role in the transformation ofengineers into leaders .To meet this challenge, the National Collaborative Task Force is evolvinga series of preliminary guidelines for engineering graduate education reform to develop aprofessionally oriented graduate education to enhance the innovative capacity of the U.S.Engineering Workforce in industry (see Appendix B). Engineering leaders must be developedthat will guide engineers that will innovate new designs, leading to products that will meet whatthe customer wants and needs. Management styles are needed that will encourage, notdiscourage innovation, and will meet the basic human needs of the engineers. From theorganizational beliefs of McGregor and the human motivation needs as defined by
career so that they willbe more likely to persevere in majors and careers in science.41 Some of these programs addadditional components such as enhanced emphasis on mentoring, development of career plansand actual graduate applications, dealing with time management and work-life balance issues,and identifying a supportive peer group. Such programs have been described by Purdy et al.42and by Crosby et al.43 While many of these programs are highly effective, they do not alwayshave stable funding. .B. MentoringAs noted by Purdy and Wasburn2, "a continuing concern for all graduate students is how to findsufficient mentoring and role models. This need is not limited to academic subjects. Much morethan undergraduate students, graduate students are
. Program Structure The NCSU professional development program for engineering graduate students hasgone through several evolutionary changes since its inception. In its present form, all new TAsare now required to attend an introductory 3-hour workshop called “Survival Skills forEngineering Teaching Assistants” and at least one of several 1.5-hour elective workshops on (a)grading homework and tests, (b) using instructional technology, (c) learning and teaching styles(intended primarily for TAs who will be covering lecture classes and recitation sections), and (d)“Tips from the Trenches,” a workshop inspired by the Cornell model led by an experienced TAand a faculty member. Students are required to attend the workshop that most closely
concerns,some particular to the 4+1 program. These concerns were: a. The 4+1 program is popular among the students and the faculty. It provides a relatively easy way to attract students into the graduate programs. Students choose it because it allows them to remain at Cal Poly, they are familiar with the system, the faculty, and already have housing and a social support system in place. On the down side, the 4+1 program blurs the lines between being an undergraduate and graduate student. Students and faculty are unclear when the transition is made. They are treated more as super seniors. b. Students felt that the number of undergraduate students (many 4+1 students) taking 500 level courses during their senior
industry. The professional curricula is being designed asa matrix of studies integrative with engineering practice that match, support, and correlate with themodern paradigm of engineering practice and progression of professional abilities required forresponsible leadership in engineering innovation from entry level engineer through chief engineer levelresponsibilities. The evolving model is centered around five major components: a) Relevant advancedstudies; b) Self-directed learning; c) Experiential-learning; d) Project-based learning [advancedtechnology development project directly relevant to industry / socio need]; and e) On-going engagementin engineering practice for innovation and creative works. The process is centered around the
responsible engineering leadership at beginning to advanced project engineering levels Levels I ─ IV Engineering B) Mid-career engineering skill-sets focusing on technology innovation and responsible engineering leadership at technical program delivery levels Levels IV ─ VI Engineering C) Senior-career engineering skill-sets focusing on systems technological engineering, Page 13.561.7 innovation and responsible, visionary engineering leadership at corporate policy levels Levels VI ─ IX EngineeringAs such the question becomes: Question Do we as a nation want to provide opportunity that continues the further
AC 2008-892: A HANDS-ON COURSE ON TEACHING ENGINEERINGSusan Montgomery, University of Michigan Susan Montgomery is a lecturer and program advisor in the Chemical Engineering Dept. at the University of Michigan. She earned a BSEChE from the University of Michigan, and PhD ChE from Princeton University. She is the ASEE Campus representative and faculty advisor to the ASEE graduate student group. She leads a team of students developing educational software for chemical engineering. Page 13.47.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 A Hands-on Course on Teaching
AC 2008-1966: ASSESSMENT OF A PRESTIGIOUS ENGINEERING GRADUATETEACHING FELLOWSHIP PROGRAMMaura Borrego, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University MAURA BORREGO is an assistant professor of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech. Dr. Borrego holds an M.S. and Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from Stanford University. Her current research interests center around interdisciplinary collaboration in engineering and engineering education, including studies of the collaborative relationships between engineers and education researchers. Investigations of interdisciplinary graduate programs nationwide are funded through her NSF CAREER award
AC 2008-1298: GRADUATE LEARNING THROUGH TEACHING: DESIGN OF ADSSS SYSTEM FOR UNDERGRADUATE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONSLABORATORYLingtao Zhang, Western Carolina UniversityRobert Adams, Western Carolina UniversityJames Zhang, Western Carolina University Page 13.652.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 Graduate Learning through Teaching: Design of a DSSS System for Undergraduate Wireless Communications Laboratory Lingtao Zhang, Robert Adams, and James Z. Zhang Department of Engineering and Technology, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC 28723AbstractOver the past few years, wireless communications technology
AC 2008-557: GRADUATE LEARNING THROUGH ENGAGEMENT:EXPERIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL REMOTE SENSING STATION DESIGNJeffrey Marston, Western Carolina UniversityBrian Howell, Western Carolina UniversityJames Zhang, Western Carolina UniversityRoger Clapp, WATR Page 13.650.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008Graduate Learning through Engagement: Experience in Environmental Remote Sensing Station Design Jeffrey Marston†, Brian Howell†, James Z. Zhang†, and Roger B. Clapp‡ † Department of Engineering and Technology, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC 28723 ‡ Watershed Association of the Tuckaseegee River, Bryson City, NC
New Jersey MARJORY F. PALIUS is Assistant Director of the Robert B. Davis Institute for Learning at the Graduate School of Education of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. She conducts research, supports development of new projects, coordinates collaborative research projects and professional development programs, and manages fiscal and administrative operations for the grant-funded institute. She is also a doctoral student in mathematics education at Rutgers and has worked on studies of middle school students’ informal mathematics learning in after-school programs and of teachers making the transition from practitioner to researcher. Her primary research interest is the role of
substantial supportfor chapter maintenance by ensuring connectivity with our parent organization even in the faceof lean years in terms of membership and interest at individual campuses. Aim to be active inthis exciting new endeavor!Bibliography1. Farvardin, N. “Retaining Students – and Their Hopes and Dreams.” ASEE Prism, 16 (7), 2007, 64-65.2. Bauer, E. H.; Moskal, B.; Gosink, J.; Lucena, J.; Muñoz, D. “Faculty and Student Attitudes Toward CommunityService: A Comparative Analysis.” J. Engr. Education, 96 (2), 2007, 129-140. Page 13.1293.93. Keating, D. A.; Deloatch, E. M. “Don’t Overlook Industry.” ASEE Prism, 17 (3), 2007, 80.4. Tau Beta
technology.Table 1 Program Objectives and Desired Outcomes for the OU ECE Graduate ProgramProgram Objectives: Desired Outcome Criteria: “Students will … “Students will …1) Demonstrate evidence a) demonstrate appropriate undergraduate training”of Advanced Study” b) perform at advanced levels over undergraduates” c) posses skills and knowledge of current best practices in the field” d) be instructed by faculty actively engaged in advancing knowledge in the discipline”2) Demonstrate evidence a) accumulate a core of factual, theoretical and historicalof Focused Study” knowledge” b) learn core problem solving strategies
categories:discovery, integration, application, and teaching 1. This is the well-known “Boyer’smodel of scholarship.” Since its inception in 1990, Boyer’s model has been widelydiscussed and debated, and the focus has mainly been on its impact on university faculty,especially their tenure, promotion, and reappointment (TPR) policies 2, 3.However, scholarships are not generated by faculty alone. Our students, especiallygraduate students, are an important integral part of the scholarship. They serve as abackbone of pure research (discovery), a vehicle of implementations (integration andapplication), and a bridge between faculty and the students, graduate and undergraduatesalike (teaching). Their efforts of generating and improving the quality of scholarships
mentoring, and our research questions are as follows: 1. How does the formalized and on-the-job training benefit the EGSMs during their tenure as a mentor and beyond? 2. What learning outcomes are enhanced or developed for the mentors through the EGSM program? 3. How does the EGSM program impact the teaching practices, mentoring, and career direction of participants?The survey was adapted from Meizlish and Wright20 and included (a) questions about careerchoices, with respondents in academia providing information about their institutional context andpostsecondary teaching experiences and graduate students sharing their potential career choices;(b) items associated with the value of the GSM training and what they learned
international conferences and other journals. Schilling is the recipient of the Ohio Space Grant Consortium Doctoral Fellowship, and is a member of IEEE, IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Reliability Society, ACM, and ASEE. Page 13.816.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 Issues Affecting Doctoral Students Returning to Engineering Education Following Extensive Industrial ExperienceAbstractIt can be said that the best time for an engineer who desires to enter academia to earntheir Doctoral Degree is after a four to five year period working in industry. During thistime period, a practicing engineering
AC 2008-610: TIPS FROM THE TRENCHES: PREPARATION ANDIMPLEMENTATION OF AN EXPERIENCE-BASED TA TRAINING SESSIONAdam Melvin, North Carolina State University Adam Melvin is a Ph.D candidate in the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at North Carolina State University. He received his BS in ChE and a BA in Chemistry from the University of Arizona.Lisa Bullard, North Carolina State University Lisa G. Bullard is the Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at North Carolina State University. She received her BS in ChE from NC State and her Ph.D. in ChE from Carnegie Mellon, and she served in engineering and management
AC 2008-1626: DEMYSTIFYING THE FACULTY SEARCH PROCESS:INCREASING WOMEN'S PURSUIT OF ACADEMIC CAREERS THROUGHKNOWLEDGE AND NETWORKINGJan Rinehart, Rice University Jan Rinehart is Executive Director of the ADVANCE Program at Rice University. The goals of the ADVANCE program are to increase the number of women faculty in science, engineering, and mathematics at all levels of leadership, and change the institutional climate. Prior to assuming this position, she served as the Deputy Director of the Space Engineering Institute for two years and the Director of Engineering Student Programs at Texas A&M University. She initiated the Women in Engineering program in 1994 and served as WEPAN (Women
providepedagogical feedback to engineering laboratory graduate teaching assistants. The project beganwith use of the VaNTH Observation System, a direct observation instrument which providesfeedback about the extent to which an instructor’s interactions with students fit within thedimensions of the “How People Learn” framework, a model of effective teaching and learning aspresented in the National Research Council monograph, How People Learn: Brain, Mind,Experience, and School. Preliminary findings revealed challenges to the use of this instrument ina first-year engineering laboratory course taught by graduate teaching assistants. To provideinformation for the adaptation of this instrument for use in the laboratory environment and to aidin developing new
laws, strategic planning, projectmanagement, quality, and supervisory skills. The School of Technology at this institutionencompasses seven diverse programs, including organizational leadership and supervision. TheMaster of Science in technology is, by design and necessity, cross disciplinary, to serve thediverse needs of the students in the school and in the field.This paper will review important issues in developing a master’s level degree in technology, andwill discuss the importance of considering the leadership and soft or conceptual skills areas forcurriculum. Furthermore, review of the federal statistics on job outlook for some higher levelpositions in engineering technology fields will be presented in support of the curriculum
, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University LYNITA K. NEWSWANDER is a Ph.D. student in the School of Public and International Affairs at Virginia Tech. She also holds master's degrees in English and Political Science from Virginia Tech. Her current research interests are interdisciplinary and reside at the intersection of theory and the empirical aesthetic. Page 13.1198.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 The Academic Job Market as an Argument for and against Interdisciplinary Engineering Graduate TrainingAbstractInterdisciplinary approaches are often cited
AC 2008-378: AN EVALUATION OF INDIAN INTERNATIONAL GRADUATESTUDENTS’ EXPECTATIONS AND EXPERIENCESRajesh Bachu, University of Bridgeport Rajesh G. Bachu is Graduate Assistant in Electrical Engineering at the University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT. He is pursuing his Masters of science, Electrical Engineering at the University of Bridgeport, CT.Deepak S. Deepawale, University of Bridgeport Deepak S. Deepawale is Graduate Assistant in Electrical Engineering at the University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT. He is pursuing his Masters of science, Electrical Engineering at the University of Bridgeport, CT.Buket Barkana, University of Bridgeport Buket D. Barkana is a Visiting Assistant
AC 2008-2130: HOW TO MAXIMIZE THE IMPACT OF ASEE STUDENTCHAPTERSElizabeth Van Ruitenbeek, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Elizabeth Van Ruitenbeek is a graduate student in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She joined ASEE as an undergraduate student at the University of Texas at Austin. Page 13.674.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 How to Maximize the Impact of ASEE Student ChaptersAbstractWith the approval of the Board of Directors for the new Student Constituent Committee, theAmerican Society for
AC 2008-555: GRADUATE LEARNING THROUGH RESEARCH: HUMAN HANDTREMOR DETECTION AND ANALYSISBrant Price, Western Carolina UniversityJames Zhang, Western Carolina University Page 13.651.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 Graduate Learning through Research: Human Hand Tremor Detection and Analysis Brant T. Price, James Z. Zhang Department of Engineering and Technology, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC 28723Abstract:Human tremors can impair any daily activity, including something as simple as signingchecks or eating food. Formally defined, human tremors are a rhythmic