user.KeywordsEngineering Design Education, Design Methods, Empathetic Design, User CenteredDesign, Assistive Technology1. IntroductionEngineering is a continuously growing field with the advent of new technologies and increasingneed for products. The field of biomedical engineering, which encompasses multipleengineering disciplines, is growing at a faster rate than most other STEM disciplines, and thus itseducation is demanding greater attention 1. As most engineers in the biomedical field will gainemployment in a healthcare related field, it is important that they are able to empathize with theirtarget user – often handicapped and/or elderly individuals. This is further exacerbated by theincrease in the number of handicapped and elderly individuals in the United
appropriate techniques resources, and modern engineering tools to a range of engineering activities, from simple to complex, with an understanding of the associated limitations.” 4This paper will describe the activities related to the book project and discuss the design projectsrelated to our Mars theme for 2014. Examples of student deliverables and feedback are provided.2.0 Book Project ActivitiesStudents were given a Martian semester checklist (Fig. 1) at the start of a 13-week semester andasked to read 2 chapters per week (about 15 pages on average). The activities and deliverablesfor the book project were part of the communications skills that are expected to be covered inthis first year design and communications course. By creating a
programs.In order to achieve the survey goal, the sets of questions were developed toreveal the following: 1. The motivation of PhD students to set up their own business (from 0 to 100 points); 2. PhD student vision on the existing and possible barriers to set up their businesses; 3. Necessary knowledge to start entrepreneurial activities.150 PhD students participated in the survey prior and after attending the course‘Commercialization of Research: Foundations of Fundraising’. It demonstratedthe following statistics: 1. 36% of the survey participants with low level of interest in setting up their own business (0 to 60 points) did not change their mind after the course. 2. 41% of the survey participants had initial
meet the demand. And, the demand for those skills in ourinnovation economy is likely to grow according to the President’s Council of Advisors onScience and Technologyi. They speculate that the U.S. will need 1 million additional STEMprofessionals than we will produce over the next 6-10 years. How can higher education helpmeet this demand if there’s simply not enough supply? Does it all revolve around building theSTEM pipeline or are there other ways we can add to the supply? Universities have beengrappling with this issue for years. Not only is it difficult to find students with the rightbackground, it is difficult to find ways to get others who want to become students thebackground they need within a reasonable timeframe. This whitepaper
bothcompletion and accuracy, and partial credit was awarded for both. For the homework, since alarger number of problems were submitted, only a selection of problems that were submittedwere assessed for each assignment. Table 1: Description of courses included in the study ID Assessment Term Class Period Instructor(s) N* H1 Homework Fall 2013 TR 8:00-10:45am A&B 37 H2 Homework Spring 2014 TR 8:00-10:45am A&C 32 Q1 Quizzes Fall 2014 WMF 8:00-9:50am A&C 35 Q2 Quizzes Fall 2014 MWF 11:00-12:50pm B 33*N is the number
University of Oklahoma. Her contribution to the multi-disciplinary team lies in qualitative methodologies, cultural theory and the belief that outliers offer great insight into the workings of power. Her research interests include cultural theory, the cultural/historical construction of women’s identities and roles in past and present societies, and most recently, equity issues surrounding gender and underrepresented populations in engineering education. She can be contacted at cynthia.e.foor-1@ou.edu.Dr. Randa L. Shehab, University of Oklahoma Dr. Randa L. Shehab is a professor and the Director of the School of Industrial and Systems Engineering at the University of Oklahoma. She was recently appointed as Director of the
teaching experi- ence, he also has performed extensive research and published numerous technical papers. He has secured more than $1 million in the form of both internal and external grants and research funding. Foroudastan is the faculty advisor, coordinator, and primary fundraiser for EVP teams entering national research project competitions such as the Formula SAE Collegiate Competition, the Baja SAE Race, the SolarBike Rayce, the Great Moonbuggy Race, and the Solar Boat Collegiate Competition. For his concern for and ded- ication to his students, Foroudastan received MTSU awards such as the 2002-03 Outstanding Teaching Award, the 2005-06 Outstanding Public Service Award, and the 2007 Faculty Advisor of the Year
Figure 1. The six subteams are managed by astudent Engineering Manager and a student Project Manager. Outside of the main hierarchy arethe faculty advisors who provide guidance and retain ultimate project authority and the GMMentor who provides the team’s interface to General Motors and the competition organizers. Asthe overall team operates heavily through the subteams, the analysis of the group dynamics forthe ERAU EcoCAR 3 team will be conducted by analyzing the personality traits of the subteamsand the interactions between the subteams. Page 26.1003.4Figure 1: ERAU EcoCAR 3 Team StructureThe team’s current path of communication as observed by
Page 26.1576.4illustrates some of the daily activities and events that provide professional development to theSCCORE students:Table 1: SCCORE Seminar ScheduleMajor Events Workshops Lab Tours/Field Trips Panels/SpeakersOrientation Hazcom Training; Intros Tours of Biology Lab, Transfer Student PanelDinner to: SCCORE, New Plant and and Graduate Student Mexico AMP, and Environmental Labs, Panel Research Methods Physics Lab, Astronomy Presentation and Tour of Observatory
as well as investigate the beliefs and understandings ofthe academy from the perspectives of key participants. Determining commonly shared andopposing viewpoints helped identify the advantages and limitations of the learning modelutilized in the classroom. The theoretical perspective of the study is based on socialconstructionism, a blend of social constructivism and constructionism. This perspective, a subsetof interpretivism, best embodies the learning theory of the course under investigation.The study was guided by the following research questions: In a high school engineering classroom wherein project-based learning served as the educational model . . . 1) By which means did students achieve success? 2) What obstacles
elaboration of standards. Weconclude with a discussion motivating social justice as a value that all engineers can adopt.IntroductionSocial justice is an aspirational value conceptualized in contrast to injustice, and is best definedby those most closely experiencing that injustice. 1 Notions of social justice vary by time and byaffected population. Studying previous social justice movements can provide some examples ofkey principles such as ending systems of oppression like racism, colonialism, classism, ableism,sexism, heterosexism, gender normativities, xenophobia, ageism, and others; resisting thesystematic silencing or discrediting of local knowledges and scientific counter-knowledges thatchallenge dominant ways of thinking, knowing and doing
male counterparts.1–7 As research hasshown that inventions by women are frequently designed to address important social problems,addressing the gap in engagement in academic commercialization activities has growing societalrelevance.2,8 This gender gap can largely be explained by the significant obstacles that womenfaculty in engineering face as they advance their careers and as they engage in academiccommercialization.9–11 Barriers such as gender discrimination, attitudinal and behavioral factors,work-life balance issues, and exclusion from networks impact the ability of women faculty tocontinue in the field, engage in academic commercialization, and ultimately advance theircareers.3,7,8,12–17This paper aims to synthesize relevant literature
students in public universities is around 50%, while the graduation rates at private universities are around 69%1.This paper aims to broadly explore and discuss how student and professor expectations mayinfluence students’ conceptions of engineering identity, their acquisition of knowledge andskills, as well as their plans for navigation through the “engineering pipeline” by analyzing theinterview responses of two freshman engineering students and one engineering faculty member.MotivationsAs stated earlier, it is important to acknowledge that engineering identity is not necessarily asconcrete or fixed as research might suggest13,14,19. It is likely that each individual studentpossesses a different understanding of the engineering profession, as
- eration of context in engineering design, and understanding undergraduate engineering student pathways. She is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the ASEE. She was the recipient of the 2002 ASEE Chester F. Carlson Award for Innovation in Engineering Education and the 2009 UW David B. Thorud Leadership Award. Dr. Atman holds a Ph.D. in Engineering and Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon University. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 1 Tips and Tricks for Reflection Introduction Engineering educators are introduced to
. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Work in Progress - Innovation through Propagation: Improving and Diversifying PathwaysIntroductionRound 1 of the Delphi study of the critical unsolved problems facing engineering educationresearch, described elsewhere1, included a question on barriers related to “improving anddiversifying the pipeline”. Several respondents pointed out that the pipeline metaphor has beenchallenged in the community for its rigidity and expressed a preference for the “pathways”metaphor, which suggests multiple routes instead of a single route. The pathways metaphor isconsistent with the literature.2,3For round 2 of the Delphi study, the prompt was changed to “pipeline and
application be a real structure beingdeveloped at a major Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). Teaming of ProfessionalEngineers from both the industrial and university partners helped to define and execute a large-scale, multi-material structural analysis of a rear end suspension under development by the OEM.Course Progression PhasesThe course development was initiated with the OEM providing jigs and production assemblies fordestructive testing, as well as the full assembly model with geometry, material properties andinterfaces defined (Figure 1). The university provided software, instruction, and actuation/datacollection systems for testing. Figure 1. OEM full assembly model of chassisThe students completed the multibody
want to go down a particular career path. The primary research questions for thepresent study are:1. What are the different ways students think about their future plans?2. What are the motivations that drive students to choose a particular path?3. Are there significant differences between how men and women think about their futures?The EMS survey was sent to engineering juniors and seniors at 27 schools in the spring of 2015;a total of 7,197 students participated. Included on the questionnaire was the open-ended question,“We have asked a number of questions about your future plans. If you would like to elaborate onwhat you are planning to do, in the next five years or beyond, please do so here”, which elicited1,848 responses. Responses
context. Therefore, amajor agenda item for Engineering Education Research is to investigate engineering learningmechanisms [1]. In order to conduct research on how people learn, it is prudent to set a foundation oflearning theory that is relevant to the research questions of any given study. More emphasis isbeing placed on learning theories within the constructivist paradigm, that the learner is not just apassive recipient of knowledge, but is constructing knowledge actively and in different ways [2-4].At present, there is no one comprehensive learning theory by which all disciplines may operate,because each theory has its own applications and limitations. The corollary of limitations oflearning theory is that there is no one research
taught Statics to Engineering Technologystudents at the same institute. He made several presentations and published paperson the differences on teaching Engineering Mechanics courses which includeStatics and Strength of Materials betweenEngineering and EngineeringTechnology students[1, 2]. In these papers and presentations, it was demonstratedthat teaching Statics to Engineering students should be different than teaching it toEngineering Technology students despite being the same subject because of thefundamental differences between the two disciplines. Engineering is based on Proceedings of the Spring 2013 Mid-Atlantic Section Conference of the American Society of Engineering Education
4). Both were first built during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) andwere rebuilt and renovated during the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912). Given these illustrated 3-Dsequences, students are expected to obtain a clear picture of the foundation that supports thewalls, floor, and columns of Chinese temples. The Hall of Supreme Harmony, whose front viewis shown in Fig. 1, has a rectangular shape. The building has a raised floor platform; Fig. 2shows the construction sequence of the foundation and floor base. The top view of the finishedfloor base is shown in Fig. 3. Its foundation consists of numerous piles driven to the ground, ontop of which soil was placed and compacted in layers. Then stone blocks were placed to form theperimeter of the rectangular
Fridaysand our annual STEM challenge. We propose that a model similar to this could be successfullyand beneficially implemented more widely, with the goal of increasing both interest andretention in STEM fields.IntroductionThe goal of Bridges to STEM Careers is to increase retention rates and general interest in theSTEM programs offered by the university.1 The name itself refers to a bridge, reaching fromcommunity college, through university, all the way to a successful STEM career. The primarymethod of achieving this goal has been to forge mutually beneficial relationships among faculty,student mentors, and students. We believe that our goals are best effected on a personal levelrather than an institutional level, and that by focusing on
McCormick.Therefore, McCormick created a different advising model for FirstYear students. The decision was made to move from a prescriptive model to a developmental model. Structure The advising model, as envisioned by the McCormick Administration can be broken into two major components: People and Technology. Each major component is broken down into smaller components. Figure 1 describes how the new model would support students during their first year. Figure 1 Proposed Student Support Network for FirstYear Students The two strongest influencers of students during the first year
the community to re-evaluate how these womendefined success, how these women defined recognition, and therefore challenged the traditionalview of career success as scientists. Taking this approach to understanding Black women’sexperiences, our study is poised to push boundaries such as these in the discipline of engineering,filling the gap of understanding the definitions and importance of engineering role identity forBlack women in the engineering profession.The research questions for this study are: 1. How do Black women define engineering identity in the workplace? 2. How do Black women reconcile their definition of engineering identity with the stereotypical definition of engineering identity? 3. What coping
transcribed 17 of them. The rest of the interviews weretranscribed with the help of undergraduate researchers.The procedures for this study was approved by the local International Review Board (IRBProtocol #15196).ParticipantsThese 26 participants represented a range of academic levels, engineering disciplines, anddemographics (see Table 1). All of the participants’ information was self-reported. Participants’academic levels varied from first-year to fifth-year. Among traditional aged students, there werethree first-year students, six second-year students, six third-year students, six fourth-yearstudents, and two fifth-year students. In addition, there were three non-traditional students whowere older than 23 years of age: one second-year student and
2005, and which has been held annually since that time. The outreachevent takes place in Boise, Idaho, and at the time of its onset was the only outreach or campactivity in the state focused on girls or young women. Across ten years, 510 total girls haveparticipated, with approximately 85% of them coming from the immediate metropolitan area.The program was developed with a mind toward marketing engineering as an exciting, creativeactivity; including activities developed specifically from that perspective.1 The specific topic ofthis paper is an investigation into the motivation for volunteers and students to support thisprogram. Our hypothesis is that, in particular, the women found this an experience that helped tocreate community among like
equipment performance accuracyaccording to the manufacturers’ specifications. Courses also introduce students to physicalprinciples and clinical applications of imaging modalities most commonly used in clinicalmedicine. Each BET course provides specific student learning outcomes for the course that alignwith ABET student outcomes.References 1. http://www.nu.edu/OurPrograms/SchoolOfEngineeringAndTechnology/AppliedEngineering/Programs/Bac helorofScienceinBiomedicalEngineeringTechnology.html. Accessed 12/08/2015. 2. http://coe.fit.edu/biomedical-engineering/. Accessed 10/06/2015. 3. Genis, V. and Marekova, G., (2008, June), Applied Engineering Technology Program’s Curriculum Paper presented at 2008 Annual Conference &
from the freshman to senior examinations.Study ResultsFirst it must be noted that the results presented here are only the averaged student scores fromthe NSPE Ethics Exam as administered in a 100-level CAD course and in the senior capstonecourse. Consequently it is difficult to make a complete determination of the effectiveness of thenew professional ethics program from this limited data.First a baseline of scores was established by taking the average scores from the two courses forthe very first year of the program. That data is given in the table below.Table 1, Baseline data for Comparison taken during first year of new ethics programCourse NSPE Exam score High Score Low Score Standard
specific challenges to solve through design, theydid not have to undergo early stages of a comprehensive design process such as identifying aneed, defining a problem, or performing market research. Similarly, students did not have toworry about concerns at the late stages of a design process such as manufacturability, lifecycleanalysis, or ongoing maintenance.Figure 1 outlines the intended timeline of classroom activities and expeditions. For the on-campus sessions the 34 students in the class were divided into two sections and each class wasgiven twice. For the sea-kayaking expedition the 34 students were divided into four teams thatwere expected to complete the 3-day trips on subsequent weekends. Due to an illness on theinstructor team
, 10 Caucasian;7 STEM teachers, 5 business/liberal arts teachers. Teacher feedback was also used following thisworkshop to further refine the summer design camp logistics and content.The summer Design Camp was held June 15 – June 20, 2015. Teachers were encouraged to bringsix students from their school. Demographics were not mandated, but it was suggested thatschools find students that were representative of the school demographic. The traditional under-represented groups vary depending on the demographics of the school. The Design Camp wasattended by 12 teachers and 34 students from 6 schools. The teacher demographics for the campare: 8 female teachers, 4 male teachers; 1 African-American/1 Hispanic, 10 Caucasian; 7 STEMteachers, 5 business
; PERFORMANCE&n=53 ARC04230Advanced0Building0Systems ARC03110Structures0II0 ARC02110Structures0I0 ARC03220Building0Systems0II0 ARC02220Building0Systems0I0 ARC01210 Introduction0to0Building0Systems0 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% Excellent Very0 well As0well0 as0I0needed/wanted Not0as0well0 as0I0needed/wanted Fair/Poor Figure 1: Student self ranking of performance in each of their technical courses