, 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
across several majors within the college of engineering during Page 24.803.13the Fall 2010 semester at Michigan Technological University. These classes included but werenot limited to Calculus II, Engineering Economics, Mechanical Engineering Laboratory, Circuits& Instrumentation, Introduction to Spatial Visualization, Chemical Engineering Fundamentals,Environmental Engineering Fundamentals and Introduction to Materials Science & Engineering.The number of survey respondents was 1101. In terms of gender, 74.1% of the participants weremale, and 25.9% of the participants were female. White respondents made up nearly half of theparticipants
containment device). Sessions were conducted atthe participant’s workplace or in our laboratory. The “one model” task was given after theplayground task and before the flood task. In addition to being asked to think aloud as they readthe “one model” description, participants were prompted to comment on it in relation to howthey had just solved the playground problem. We also present results from three other tasks administered during the last part of thedesign session. These were given in the form of a written questionnaire (see Appendix B). Thefirst task, labeled “Your Illustration of Design,” asked participants to: “Use this paper to create apicture or representation of what you think the process of design is.” The second task (adaptedfrom
[23]. Many racing simulators, including TORCS, display sensors andparameters while the agent is on the track to capture its velocity, speed, Rotations Per Minute(RPM), lap time, etc... (More details are provided later in theme IV). This helps users to bettervisualize what’s going on and see things that need to be adjusted. Observing these parameters helpsthe user to better understand the cause-and-effect relationships of certain components andalterations, helping to identify mistakes and see where to improve [15], [24-25]. The simulatoressentially becomes a virtual laboratory for engineers to experiment on, learning from mistakes,and moving forward without any risk of action. This not only gives engineers a betterunderstanding of AI/ML, but
for her immunosuppressed patients by reducing exposure to infectious and non-infectious air pollution in public schools and community spaces throughout the State of Connecticut. She founded and is the director of the UConn Indoor Air Quality Initiative, a cross-campus, multidisciplinary team of scientists and clinicians studying low-cost air purifiers in both laboratory and real-world settings.Dr. Kristina M. Wagstrom, University of Connecticut Dr. Kristina Wagstrom is an associate professor in Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at the University of Connecticut in Storrs, CT. She specializes in applying chemical engineering principles to better understand the human and ecosystem health impacts of air pollution
AC 2011-1570: PROJECT-BASED LEARNING AND DESIGN EXPERIENCESIN INTRODUCTION TO ENGINEERING COURSES ASSESSING AN IN-CREMENTAL INTRODUCTION OF ENGINEERING SKILLSAndrew L. Gerhart, Lawrence Technological University Andrew Gerhart, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Lawrence Technological University. He is actively involved in ASEE, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and the Engineering Society of Detroit. He serves as Faculty Advisor for the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Student Chapter at LTU, chair for the LTU Leadership Curriculum Committee, director of the LTU Thermal Science Laboratory, coordinator of the Certificate in Energy & Environmental Man
and Practice presented students with a series of projects over a year longinformal experience. In our case, learners were presented with engineering design problemswhere solutions are achieved via an actual project. Participants had access to a wide range ofresources that included human and content rich media, Arizona State University art museum andengineering laboratories, the Phoenix Zoo, the Arizona Science Center, a number of differenttypes of hardware and software technologies. The project therefore is the culmination of thelearning process, and the solution is the finished product21,22,23,24. Using a project-challenge thatis analogous to complicated tasks encountered in today’s STEM workplaces, student teams wereconfronted with a
various and sometimes unexpected ways: New computer hardware allows not only higher speed computers but also smaller, lightweight devices such as PDA’s and cell phones. New applications bring not only new or better services (voice/video over IP, etc.) but also new challenges as well as malicious applications such as viruses and email spam, which have become commonplace.James Krogmeier, Purdue University James V. Krogmeier received the BSEE degree from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 1981 and the MS and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1983 and 1990, respectively. From 1982 to 1984 he was a Member of Technical Staff at AT&T Bell Laboratories in
a number or years.” “The modal point on the distribution curve displaying length of employment against probability of making a useful contribution occurs at between seven and nine years of employment. Clearly if the professional turnover rate exceeds 10% to 15% per year, it will be most unlikely that the peak performance of the laboratory will ever be achieved.” Page 10.640.8 “Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2005, American Society for Engineering Education”3. A Work in Progress: Defining the
a control system as a nonlinear optimization problemin the time domain instead of placing poles and zeros or shaping the frequency response.Applications that students use in this category include office productivity suites, progra mminglanguages, simulation packages, numerical manipulation systems, symbolic manipulationsystems, computer-aided design packages, and laboratory systems. Within each categorybenefits to student learning and hindrances to adoption are similar. Therefo re, decomposingapplications of technology into these three categories facilitates productive conversations aboutimproving engineering education through the use of technology.Partner schools in the Foundation Coalition, including A&M, have concentrated on