teaching methods for pre-service and in-service teachers. He is the director of City- Lab, a biotechnology learning laboratory for K12 students and teachers at Boston University School of Medicine and a former high school science teacher. He co-authors Teaching Children Science: a Discov- ery Approach written as a textbook for pre-service elementary science teachers. Page 26.1050.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 K-12 Teachers as Curriculum Designers in Engineering Professional Development
Paper ID #13398Nano-satellites and HARP for Student Learning and ResearchDr. Hank D Voss, Taylor University Dr. Hank D. Voss, Taylor University Dr. Hank D. Voss received his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from University of Illinois in 1977. He then worked for Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratories prior to coming to Taylor University in 1994. He is currently a Professor of Engineering and Physics at Taylor University. Some of the courses that he regularly has taught include Principles of Engineering, Intro to Electronics, Statics, Advanced Electronics, Jr. Engineering Projects, FE Review, Control Systems
motivated and talented people to learn how to define and achieve their dreams. Farrokh Mistree holds the L. A. Comp Chair in the School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma. Prior to this position, he was the Associate Chair of the Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Tech – Savannah. He was also the Founding Director of the Systems Realization Laboratory at Georgia Tech. Farrokh’s current research focus is model-based realization of complex systems by managing uncertainty and complexity. The key question he is investigating is what are the principles underlying rapid and robust concept exploration when the analysis models are incomplete and
of increasing complexity. The teamsdevelop models, test their models with laboratory experiments, and validate their models withexperimental data. At the conclusion of the course, freshmen gain an appreciation for the powerof modeling physiological systems and can propose their own hypothesis, which they can thentest in lab. With practice, freshmen become more comfortable with the modeling process [3].They understand the value of solving challenging, open-ended problems with multiple potentialsolutions. Engineering students must learn to creatively ideate and assess numerous approaches,often with conflicting outcomes, starting their freshmen year. Modeling and design team-basedprojects engross students in learning beyond lectures and
learning skills and behaviors.Dr. Brian P. Self, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Brian Self obtained his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Engineering Mechanics from Virginia Tech, and his Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Utah. He worked in the Air Force Research Laboratories before teaching at the U.S. Air Force Academy for seven years. Brian has taught in the Mechanical Engineering c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Paper ID #21724 Department at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo since 2006. During the 2011-2012 academic year he participated in a professor
is often not clearly made for students. § Must be contextualized. It is impossible to achieve sociotechnical integration without an understanding of the socio-cultural context of the problem. § Generally relies on open-ended problems, allowing students to experience tradeoffs in engineering processes.It is important to note that we are speaking of implementation of real-world examples intoengineering curricula and recognize that some classes may be taught in formats other than alecture-based course. Some examples of this could be inverted or flipped classes, active learning,laboratory courses, project-based courses, or discussion-based courses. While classroomimplementation may vary, the use of real-world examples as
, I will ask for help fromcolleagues, I am sure I can learn that when I need to”, replies the candidate.Clearly the second candidate would have a hard time convincing the accreditation panel, yetthe first candidate has happily admitted ignorance of critical issues which we now know to lieat the core of engineering practice.The challenge in considering engineering education changes is to provide a more appropriatebalance between social science and technical issues, an appropriate level of rigorousintellectual treatment at different levels of the course, and an appropriate balance betweendidactic and experiential learning in laboratories, role playing exercises, fieldwork, co-op(industrial placement) programs and team projects. The balance can
., Woods, D. R., Stice, J. E., Rugarcia, A., “The Future of Engineering Education II. Teaching Methods that Work,” Chemical Engineering Education, Vol. 34, 2000, pp. 26-39.6. Bonwell, C. C., and Eison, J. A., “Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom,” ASHEERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, George Washington University, Washington, DC, 1991.7. Hake, R., “Interactive-Engagement vs. Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 66, 1998, p. 64.8. Redish, E., Saul, J., Steinberg, R., “On the Effectiveness of Active-Engagement Microcomputer-Based Laboratories,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 65, 1997, p. 45.9
Force Research Laboratory, and his research there focused on development of low ac-loss superconducting films.Daniel Jensen, U.S. Air Force Academy DAN JENSEN is a Professor of Engineering Mechanics at the U.S. Air Force Academy. He received his B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Colorado at Boulder. He has worked for Texas Instruments, Lockheed Martin, NASA, University of the Pacific, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and MacNeal-Schwendler Corp. His research includes development of innovative design methodologies and enhancement of engineering education.Kristin Wood, University of Texas-Austin KRISTIN WOOD is the Cullen Trust Endowed Professor in Engineering at The University of
PROBLEMS THROUGH DESIGN PROCESSES 16the base or “bottom part” more detachable to improve transportability, the group did not addressmaking the frame or “top part” more transportable as well. Because the students had devoted solittle of their conversation to re-stating the problem and clarifying what the client wanted, oneaspect of the problem did not emerge until after the design had already been produced.Research a need or problem. Many previous studies of novices’ design processes have been ina laboratory study where the only available source of information was the experimenter. In thesestudies, the researchers defined the ‘information gathering’ stage as asking for information fromthe experimenter, reading
theoreticalmathematics and sciences with educators transmitting knowledge and using pedagogicalstrategies of presenting methods for structured, defined problems16,17. As engineering practicedemanded changes to be made, the curriculum was appended with time in the laboratory toenhance experiences with putting knowledge to practice, but maintained a focus on narrow,discipline-specific topics16. Since the turn of the new millennium, there has been national-leveldiscomfort that a traditional curriculum with a focus on technical problem-solving stilloverwhelms engineering education and has not prepared engineers to meet the needs of modern-day engineering1,17,18. Sheri Sheppard and the Carnegie Foundation for Advanced Teaching17write, “Although engineering schools
Tech School of Civil and Environmental Engineering and a principal research scientist and distinguished technical fellow with the Georgia Tech Research Institute. Over the last thirty plus years, Dr. Rodgers has held various academic, research and administrative positions including serving as director of the Georgia Tech Air Quality laboratory from 1988 to 2008. He currently serves as deputy director for Research and Technology Transfer for National Center for Transportation Productivity and Management at Georgia Tech. Page 23.408.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2013
weak correlation between the studentgroup and the professionals, 0.5 was moderate correlation between the student group and theprofessionals, and 0.7 or larger was considered to be a strong correlation between the studentgroup and the professionals. In addition, 95% error bands for the correlations were estimatedusing the bootstrap re-sampling method. This bootstrap analysis with Kendall’s Tau wasconducted by Jonathan Stallings of the Laboratory for Interdisciplinary Statistical Analysis(LISA) at Virginia Tech using code that was written in the R programming language. The results of Part 2 of the survey were checked for normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and the Shapiro-Wilk tests. Based upon the results of these tests, it was
strong a team solidarity causes inappropriate protectiveness”. (p.69)65Community InvolvementCommunity involvement is identified as one of the essential characteristics of programs thatattract women and minorities to engineering and science.66 An example of engineering programsthat encourage community involvement is EPICS (Engineering Projects in Community Service)which is built on the premise that students develop real-world skills by solving problems basedon the needs of a community.36,56 Such projects can provide students with experiences that Page 25.520.9“complement and reinforce classroom and laboratory learning” and “serve to demonstrate
school students by providing a design project to work on for 5-7 weeksduring or after school, each academic semester. The students build and learn about physics andengineering principles with their college mentors. The design project provides a naturalmechanism to spur a mentoring relationship. After the mentorship sessions, mentees demonstratehow their designs fulfill the design requirements via a competition held during DREAM Day.DREAM Day takes place at the end of the program and includes lectures and panel discussionson financial aid policies, tours of engineering laboratories, and information on STEM careers.Many of the students do not realize the opportunities that engineering and college present tothem, but when the Rice mentors inform
Curriculum, Course, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) Program of theNational Science Foundation, the P360 research effort examines the curricular, pedagogical,cultural, and organizational features that support undergraduate engineering education that iswell-aligned with the goals of the National Academy of Engineering’s Engineer of 202012. (Anadditional goal of this study is to identify educational practices that facilitate the success ofwomen and minority students in engineering.)Our findings reveal how engineering faculty and administrators implicitly and explicitly defineinterdisciplinarity. After demonstrating the different, sometimes conflicting, understandings ofthe term, we comment on the conceptualization of interdisciplinarity that guided
-Engineering, Shawnee Mission High SchoolMs. Mary Lynn Brannon, Pennsylvania State University, University ParkMr. Christopher Stephen Smith, Pennsylvania State University, University Park Mr. Smith is an instructor at the Pennsylvania State University in the School of Engineering Design, Tech- nology, and Professional Programs. He is also a research engineer at the Applied Research Laboratory at the Pennsylvania State University. His education consits of a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin, and an M.S. in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering from The Ohio State University
professional level. above. of an engineering technologist. Career Goals • Research • Hardware design/development • Drafter • Conceptual design • Product analysis/development • Laboratory operations • System synthesis/development • System operation • System maintenance • Product innovation • Process management • Machine operations • Operations management • Technical sales and services • Data collectionFigure 2: A partial re-creation of