artificial intelligence tools?A survey was given to first-year mechanical engineering students at the California PolytechnicState University, San Luis Obispo. The response rate to the anonymous survey was 69%. Theresults reveal that 42% of first-year mechanical engineering students are already using generativeAI tools, with 75% planning to use generative AI tools in the future. The primary usesby students include idea generation, educational support, and writing assistance. While 61%acknowledge AI's potential for facilitating cheating, 70% believe these tools can enhancelearning when used appropriately. The prevailing view among first-year mechanical engineeringstudents is that generative AI, when employed responsibly, can enhance the learning
that there will be a significantshortfall in technically competent engineers and other technical specialists necessary to keep thissector healthy, and preserve the nation’s aeronautics core competencies. From a national policy perspective, this need has been clearly recognized. The NationalAeronautics R&D Policy instructs that “executive departments and agencies with responsibilityfor aeronautics-related activities should continue to invest in educational development of thefuture aeronautics workforce…” The NASA Strategy Plan of 2006 references the need forNASA’s own Strategic Management of Human Capital, and in the section on StrategicCommunications: Education Initiatives reinforces NASA’s responsibility to “strengthen NASAand the
whereby a standinggraduate faculty committee and an appointed Enhancing Graduate Education (EGE) committeeworked together to create a sustainable process for periodic program review that included aframework for interpreting the five new university-level graduate student learning competencies:Knowledge, Application, Context, Communication, and Leadership. Also required wasdevelopment of a methodology for assessment and continuous improvement. This approachearned a very positive 2013 MSCHE evaluation: “university assessment practices of graduateStudent Learning Outcomes [were] particularly thoughtful ...[including] the plans, examples ofimplementation [and] the support structure.The recently developed framework for graduate SLO assessment allows
. Page 23.969.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2013 BT-ATE Pipeline for Progress: A Multi-Level Educational Plan for an Emerging IndustryAbstract: A dynamic and innovative Biosystems Technology (BT) curriculum was developed atthe secondary, technical college and university levels. The curriculum includes core concepts inlife science, engineering, technology and mathematics focused on applications in biologicalsystems that transition student learning and depth of understanding from one level to the next.The program was successful in educating students with increased STEM knowledge, with anemphasis on engineering content, to prepare them for the technical workforce in
students gained an opportunity tobe immersed in an international, real-world experience that will be invaluable to their developmentof design analysis and critical thinking. Howe et al [4] reported the comprehensive results of a 2015capstone design survey as compared with 1994 and 2005 surveys across all engineering disciplines.They found these capstone courses were largely structured with design projects and classes run inparallel over two semesters, and typically covered a wide range of topics often geared towardprofessional preparations. The top five common topics cited frequently by the 522 respondents at256 institutions contributed to the 2015 survey were: written communications, planning andscheduling, oral communications, concept generation
, will enable students to collaborativelyexplore, make connections, generate, and evaluate design ideas. Critically, the platform will incorporate avirtual AI design mentor that relies on Design Heuristics [8], [9], an empirically-based creativity tool, toguide students through exploration of ideas. The AI mentor will “learn” from students’ design processesto better assist them. This agent will rely both on event-based design process logs (e.g., when a studentadds to a team members’ sketch or revises their problem statement) generated by the system as well as atagging typology informed by researcher analysis for distinguishing more convergent or divergentconcept generation artifacts.In conjunction with the development plan and following a design
responded to an IRB-approved follow-up survey about their learningexperiences. Reflective student feedback from both multidisciplinary trips indicated thatengineering students deepened their understanding of chosen topics in consideration of global,cultural, and societal factors, and that the non-engineering students enjoyed the visits more thanthey expected and overcame initial fears about engineering-related coursework, discoveringengineering practices in many aspects of their social lives. Overall, the students gave positivefeedback about the multidisciplinary trips and demonstrated achievement of the learningoutcomes. In the future, the authors plan to continue collaborations to further integrate the coursemodules and regularly evaluate the
............................................................................................... 16 3.3 Planning and Organizing ................................................................................................ 17 3.4 Creative Thinking ............................................................................................................ 18 3.5 Problem Solving, Prevention and Decision Making ................................................... 19 3.6 Seeking and Developing Opportunities................................................................... 20 3.7 Working with Tools and Technology ........................................................................... 20 3.8 Scheduling and Coordinating ........................................................................................ 21 3.9
pressures and the demand for higher quality, lower cost technology have increaseddemand for well-educated engineers. Also, the development, implementation, maintenance, andmanagement of technology require sophisticated leadership from the engineering profession.However, as many studies and leaders have concluded, our graduating engineers are not preparedto address the new constraints of collateral impact of technology and the risks posed byunintended consequences. Therefore, engineering educators must now plan for the next step inthe evolution of engineering education to prepare students for the leadership challenge ofdeveloping technology in an organizational and cultural context. Contemporary engineeringleaders increasingly depend on
Science and Engineering Society (AISES), and local and national funding agencies such as NSF, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and others.Objective #4: Plan, implement, assess, and scale the Implementation Project. This fourth objective focuses on each Fellow developing a plan for an Implementation Project that they propose to their own leadership and subsequently launch at their own institution. Examples of these projects include Summer Bridge, Living Learning Communities, mentoring programs, tutoring programs, and transfer pathways of community college students to 4-year programs and undergraduates to graduate school. While these types of programs are not new, the goal has always been for Fellows to scale up their
to answer important questions such as: “Why is thesuccess rate of transfer students low?” and “Why do some transfer students persist to graduation,whereas many others do not?” According to the literature, transfer students fall into two categoriesthat need different kinds of guidance to succeed in a new institution [11], [12]. The first categoryof transfer students includes those who pre-plan the transfer before getting admission into a com-munity college [13], [14], [15], [16]. This category often includes students who choose to takegeneral education courses or earn an associate degree at a community college before transferringto a 4-year institution (often because of the lower cost of tuition). The second category includesstudents who do
them with the training, support, and resources they need toincorporate technology effectively into their lesson plans. One key benefit of empoweringteachers with technological tools is that it can help level the playing field regardingeducational access.Technology can provide new opportunities for students who may need access to specificresources or information. It facilitates students to attend online lectures/webinars and otherlearning resources from any experts (national/international), thus providing learning beyondboundaries. Another benefit is that technology can make learning more engaging andinteractive for students since they are digital natives [Otto and Strimel, 2022]. The effectiveuse of technological tools helps them to stay
, understand different perspectives,assess decisions and consequences, and revise plans, actions, and options as required [5]. In itsmost recent revision, EAC/ABET now requires that students must demonstrate “an ability torecognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informedjudgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic,environmental, and societal contexts” [6]. This requirement aims to prepare the students for real-life ethical dilemmas. However, the multifaceted, complex nature of this outcome--requiringstudents to consider “global, economic, environmental, and societal” attention with ethicalresponsibilities--means that programs must carefully consider their
participationduring project execution; and the impact that this professional practice may have in theirdegrees (for both Geology and Mining Engineering). Therefore, a survey was designed tomeet these aims, adapted from one reported by [7].In the first section of the survey, the main statement read: I gained or enhanced the followingskills from participating in the “GSW4SEd”. Then, using a Likert scale (where 1 is “stronglydisagree” and 5 “strongly agree”), students had to determine their level of agreement with aseries of skills, as shown below: a) Deepened understanding of course material. b) Make good decisions and accomplish things without having to first think about or plan for them. c) Flexibility. d) Listening skills. e) Team work. f
immediate family to attend college) lacking role models; and is exacerbated by theeffects of the COVID-19 pandemic.II.2. Gather Inspiration.Having framed the central question, inspiration for this study was attained by discovering whatincoming students really need. The authors communicated with faculty members with the intentionof understanding the needs and challenges of the incoming cohort, which included: • Difficulty realizing when they are in trouble. • Not asking for assistance. • Weak study habits and learning networks. • Lack of time management skills. • Lack of involvement in engineering activities, organizations, or research. • Lack of intentionality in planning for academic resume building and future career
inconsultation with their tech demo committee. The tech demo committee was a consistent groupof 4-5 faculty who established requirements for the tech demo and evaluated the team’sperformance during the technical demonstration. The first tech demo helps ensure that studentsorder parts and start assembly (of at least the critical sub-components) of the end product. Onepractical benefit is that delays from out-of-stock parts, inappropriate designs and flawedprocesses are addressed earlier, and thus less likely to delay the project. In addition, new andreplacement parts with long shipping times can often be ordered over winter break, improvingoverall time management. The tech demo emphasizes to students that planning out a design onpaper, and implementing
trainings to theSpring trainings wherein they would be responsible for identifying and creating a STEMcommunity activity within already established STEM Center programming in the Fall semesterto gain experience that would become the foundation to create a larger, more expansivecommunity activity for the Spring semester. As part of the programming for the Fall semester,such focalized training would include exposure to program planning, project management,concepts of multiculturalism in STEM, equity practices in STEM, and educational orpedagogical models for the development of K-12 activities as needed for their Fall activity. Forthe Fall semester, students participated in eight major training sessions: four which featured theuse of the Foundry for
function effectively on a team whose members together provide leadership, create a collaborative and inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives [6]Programs necessarily define points within the curriculum where these outcomes are included incoursework. In some cases, these are included in coursework in ways where there may not be anatural fit in a typical lecture or lecture/laboratory course, or that appear to be contrived.Teamwork may consist of students put into groups based on proximity, with minimal instructionin how to effectively operate as a team; while this is indeed working within a group, it isarguably not effective teamwork [7]-[9]. Effective communication often consists of in-classpresentations
quickly changing fromeducating students in-person to online. Demonstrable psychological [38] and educationaloutcome [39] impacts on students have been documented.North Dakota was one of the later U.S. states impacted by the pandemic and NDSU initiallyplanned to close for only two weeks after spring break, in 2020, for pandemic adaptation and toprevent the spread of the disease by students who may have contracted it during the break. Inactuality, the campus remained largely closed for the remainder of the semester, excepting a fewlimited activities. The summer started with a similar approach: planning initially focused on apartial cancellation of activities and the cancellation period increased until most activities werecancelled for the entire
presentation component, butis most evident during research, writing, and presentation aspects of a graduate student’seducation.In the following section, we introduce our online MSME program, and show how these threetheories ground our vision and decisions, yielding success in growing a thriving online MSMEprogram.II. Program planning and design: Grounding the program theoreticallyThe early vision for this program was grounded in foundational theories that permeated everydepartmental level of decision-making and program management while balancing pragmatic andfinancial considerations. Here, we introduce the pragmatic requirements of the program; in therest of the paper we describe features of the program that demonstrate how our three primarytheories
worked on his M.S. in Mechanical Engineering at Wayne State University, graduating in 1993. Following his long-term plan first seeded during his undergraduate years, Dr. Smith left Ford Motor Company in order to pursue a Ph.D. in En- gineering Mechanics at Michigan State University. After completing all required course work by 1996, Dr. Smith accepted a sheet metal formability analyst position at General Motors Corporation. While at General Motors, Dr. Smith completed his dissertation entitled ”Solid Finite Elements for Sheet Metal Forming Simulation” and graduated in 1999, earning his Ph.D. In early 2000, Dr. Smith joined Oxford Automotive in Troy, MI where he continued to refine his skills as a sheet metal
, &Azevedo, 2007). Pintrich (2000) provides an overview of the common themes of models of self-regulation, where models can be organized along two dimensions: (1) phases of regulation, which includeforethought (planning or activation); monitoring; control; and reaction (reflection); and (2) areas ofregulation, which include cognition; motivation; behavior; and context.4.3 Proposed model to study faculty adaptability as self-regulationOur revised self-regulation model in adaptability is shown in Figure 2 below. It is inspired by the cyclicalmodel proposed by Zimmerman (2000); however, it is modified to include a willingness aspect for eachphase of the cycle. A similar modification has already been proposed by Zimmerman & Moylan (2009)who
, research suggests that preserviceteachers do not feel academically prepared and confident enough to teach engineering-relatedtopics.This interdisciplinary project provided engineering students with an opportunity to developinterprofessional skills as well as to reinforce their technical knowledge, while preserviceteachers had the opportunity to be exposed to engineering content, more specifically coding, anddevelop competence for their future teaching careers. Undergraduate engineering studentsenrolled in a computational methods course and preservice teachers enrolled in an educationaltechnology course partnered to plan and deliver robotics lessons to fifth and sixth graders. Thispaper reports on the effects of this collaboration on twenty
offering. The two instructors heavily involved students inshaping the design of the course both in the planning process prior to the start of the semester, aswell as through detailed feedback activities during the semester. This paper will explain the goalsof the course and will offer an analysis of student responses to the learning experience--whichwere overwhelmingly positive--based on various feedback mechanisms. Drawing upon theanalysis of these data and on the experience of co-creating and co-teaching this course, we havealso compiled lessons learned about how to design such a course and the most successfultechniques used to achieve desired student outcomes. We conclude with next steps for revisingand expanding these learning experiences
should be responsive to the needs of the participants andthat this responsiveness should be reflected in both the preparation and enactment. Thus, we workwith participants and local organizers to understand and anticipate needs ahead of each fieldschool to plan a schedule and topics that would be most appropriate for each environment andgroup. Then, during each field school, we make space for discussions and topics that reflect theemerging needs of participants as they engage with the research.Second, not only do we believe that our field school should be responsive, but that research itselfis and should be responsive. We address this fluid and generative nature of research by framingresearch as “play”: an enjoyable process by which we generate
published a number of papers on computer algorithm animation, game development, and engineering education. He is coauthor of a best-selling introductory computer science and software engineering texts. Dr. Maxim has supervised several hundred industry-based software development projects as part of his work at UM-Dearborn.Dr. Sushil Acharya, Robert Morris University Acharya joined Robert Morris University in Spring 2005 after serving 15 years in the Software Indus- try. His teaching involvement and research interest are in the area of Software Engineering education, Software Verification & Validation, Data Mining, Neural Networks, and Enterprise Resource Planning. He also has interest in Learning Objectives based
of the curriculardisconnect with first-year students who often did not see any engineering faculty for most oftheir first two years of study” (p. 103). Efforts to re-envision engineering programs and integratecore principles of engineering and design more consistently throughout students’ undergraduatecareers aim to improve and make engineering education more effective overall, but may notalways succeed. Often such efforts are highly demanding in terms of logistical planning,institutional support, and instructor commitment, as Hirsch et al.13 recognized. Combiningresources across colleges or schools provides great opportunities for interdisciplinary, cross-college instruction, but also comes with complexities and potential costs
Paper ID #14447International Collaboration on a Professional Development CourseDr. Glen F Koorey, ViaStrada Ltd. Glen recently rejoined consultancy with ViaStrada Ltd, after 12 years as a Senior Lecturer in Transporta- tion in the Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering at the University of Canterbury. Prior to joining Canterbury in 2004, he worked for 10 years as a transportation engineer and traffic researcher for Opus International Consultants. Glen’s wide-ranging experience includes considerable research and consulting work on road safety modelling, pedestrian/cycle planning & design, speed
2013. Thegraduate student was selected by the CTT faculty leadership and was a top performing studentwho recently experienced the undergraduate civil engineering curriculum under study. The civilengineering department head invited pre-selected faculty members to participate on theCurriculum Transformation Team (CTT). Some faculty declined the invitation, citingcommitments to other priorities. Thirteen faculty (including the head advisor), three graduatestudents, one undergraduate student, and one educational developer formed the CTT whichconvened in November 2013 for bi-weekly meetings. The CTT leader had an additional timecommitment for planning and follow-up purposes which included meetings on opposite weeks ofthe CTT meetings.Step 2) Gather
tomake a positive impact on both the local and global community. By manufacturing solar panelslocally, Itek creates local jobs and offers access to clean, renewable energy without all the wasteof international shipping.2.1 Partnership DevelopmentFrom the beginning of the development phase of the BTC Clean Energy degree, Itek Energy wasinstrumental in the design and evolution of the program. Itek provided feedback on the draft ofthe degree plan, reviewed new courses, and helped identify projects and topics forcontextualizing the curriculum. Due to their involvement in the development process, ItekEnergy was very familiar with the outcomes of the technical program as well as the abilities ofthe students in the program. As such, Itek was a first