CASEE Chronicles
Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education
Progress and Accomplishments Engineering Education Research and Innovation 2008-2009 CASEE Organizational Affiliates (page numbers indicate detailed descriptions)
Research Community • Engineering Education • Department of Industrial Research Center – Technology – Purdue Washington State University p. 52 • Center for the University p. 40 Department of Technology Advancement of • Integrated Teaching and and Society – Stony Brook Engineering Education • Learning Center – University (CAEE) – University of University of Colorado- Washington (lead) p. 28 • East Lake High School Boulder Robotic Boosters, Inc. • Center for Design Learning, Training, and Research – Stanford • • Faculty Innovation Center – Development – Boeing p. University University of Texas at 42 Austin • Center for Engineering Leonhard Center for the Education – Colorado • • Laboratory for Innovative Advancement of School of Mines Technology and Engineering Education – Engineering Education • Center for Engineering Pennsylvania State (LITEE) – Auburn Educational Outreach – University University p. 54 Tufts University • Materials Engineering • Lean Aerospace Initiative • Center for Engineering Department – Cal Poly San Education Network – MIT Learning and Teaching Luis Obispo p. 44 (lead) p. 56 (CELT) – University of National Center for Washington p. 30 • • North American CDIO Engineering and Regional Center p. 58 • Center for Studies in Technology Education Higher Education – • Project Lead The Way, Inc. (NCETE) – Utah State University of California, p. 60 University (lead) p. 46 Berkeley p. 32 • Rowan University p. 62 • Northwestern Center for • Center for the Study of • WEPAN Engineering Education Women, Science, and Research (NCEER) – Technology – Georgia Corresponding Centers Northwestern University Tech p. 34 • Charles V. Schaefer • College of Engineering – • The Australasian School of Engineering – University of Michigan p. Association for Engineering Stevens Institute of 36 Education (AAEE) Technology • Commission on • Engineering Subject • Teaching and Learning Professionals in Science Centre, UK Higher Laboratory – MIT p. 48 and Technology (CPST) Education Academy
• Department of Engineering • Korean Engineering Implementation Network Education – Virginia Tech Education Research p. 38 Center • Committee on Academic • Department of Mechanical Prerequisites for Dissemination Channels Engineering – University of Professional Practice – Maryland Baltimore County American Society of Civil • IDEAL – ABET, Inc. • Department of Technology Engineers and Society – Stony Brook • National Effective Teaching • College of Engineering and Institute – North Carolina University Science – Louisiana Tech • Division of Engineering State University p. 50 Education – Viterbi School • School of Engineering – of Engineering, University University of Connecticut of Southern California • College of Engineering –
Purdue University
Sponsors CASEE Chronicles CASEE Staff Engineering Education National Science Norman Fortenberry Foundation Research and Development CASEE Director DUE-0936193, DUE-0837884, 2008 - 2009 DGE-0829412, Sonja Atkinson DUE-0814328, Program Associate REC-0643048, REC-0633774, Table of Contents Elizabeth Cady DUE-0632843, Associate Program Officer DUE-0618125, HRD-0533520, SES-0523255, Catherine Didion EEC-0501669, Highlights of 2008-2009 2 Project Director, EEES HRD-0441207 DUE-0434960, Research Strands 3 DUE-0431218, Susan Donohue HRD-0411994, Past Managing Editor, DUE-0404802, CASEE Affiliates 4 AREEonline.org EEC-0242554, Research Community 4 US Department of Karl Smith Education - P120A080015 Editor-in-Chief, Implementation Network 12 AREEonline.org Intel Foundation Corresponding Centers 17 Dane and Mary Louise Jason Williams Miller Senior Financial Assistant Dissemination Channels 19 The Boeing Company Christine Mirzayan Science Fellows and Scholars 19 ExxonMobil Foundation and Technology Policy Senior Fellows 20 Graduate Fellows Walter L. Robb Postdoctoral Fellows 20 Ryan Davison Affiliated Scholars 21 Applied Materials, Inc. Scholars-in-Residence 23 Graduate Fellow Hewlett-Packard CASEE FIE New Faculty Fellows 24 Dee Miller Company CASEE Advisory Committee 25 National Instruments Foundation CASEE Staff Activities 26 The NAE Fund Research Community Activities 28 The O’Donnell Foundation
Individual NAE members Implementation Network Activities 50
Relevant Publications 64
Sponsored Workshops 65
Highlights of 2008-2009
CASEE has
• Twenty-two (22) Research Community Affiliates contributing to the fundamental knowledge base on education within professions and/or pursuing their own efforts to enhance the quality of engineering and/or science education (details begin on page 4). • Fourteen (14) Implementation Network Affiliates engaged in pilot and large-scale implementations of educational innovations or willing to serve as testbed sites for such implementations (details begin on page 12). • Three (3) Corresponding Centers contributing to the fundamental knowledge base on education within professions and/or pursuing their own efforts to enhance the quality of engineering and/or science education. CASEE Corresponding Centers are typically based outside of the United States and/or affiliated with governmental entities (details begin on page 17). • Two (2) Dissemination Channels serving to educate the engineering community about either a) rigorous approaches to the conduct and evaluation of education research, or b) the findings which result from such research including pilot and large-scale implementation activities (details begin on page 19). • Four (4) Fellows and Scholars engaged in research that advances knowledge in engineering education research and development (details begin on page 19). • A distinguished Advisory Committee to provide input and advice on its strategic directions and operational activities (details on page 25). • A robust set of staff-led activities designed (a) to foster a community of scholars, and (b) develop tools to advance and diffuse knowledge. Continuing activities include (details begin on page 26): o An on-line resource for engineering faculty
2 CASEE Chronicles, Volume VI: 2008-2009
Research Strands
To achieve its goals, CASEE has defined four high priority research strands across its research areas:
1. Define the bodies-of-knowledge required for • Professional practice within engineering fields; and • Using study within engineering fields as foundations for non-technical careers. 2. Develop, validate, and implement institutional, instructional, and curricular strategies that, in both the formulation and solution of engineering problems, value diversity of • Populations (with respect to gender, ethnicity, and physical ability); • Learning styles, and • Perspectives. 3. Develop, validate, and implement innovative, cost-effective, and time-efficient instructional and curricular strategies and technologies for • Improving student learning, and • Enhancing the instructional effectiveness of current and future faculty. 4. Develop, validate, and implement assessments of student learning and instructional effectiveness.
To gauge its own progress in fostering excellence, CASEE applies three metrics to evaluate the quality of engineering education:
1. More effective instruction and learning that, compared to the current population, results in • Twice the depth-of-knowledge,
• Twice the convergence of knowledge with other relevant non-engineering disciplines, and
• Twice the professional discernment.
2. More engaged instruction and learning that, compared to the current population, results in • Twice the diversity with respect to underrepresented groups, learning styles, and perspectives,
• Twice the ethical awareness and sensitivity to society impacts, and
• Twice the professional and personal satisfaction with the value of having studied engineering.
3. More efficient instruction and learning that, compared to the current population, results in • Half the attrition,
• Twice the course integration within programs and flexible connectivity across programs and institutions, and
• One-third reduction in costs.
3
CASEE Affiliates
The research and development activities that will enable CASEE to meet its goals are being conducted by affiliated individuals and organizations spread throughout the United States. As shown in the table below, each type of affiliate is targeted to pursue a particular type of scholarship within Boyer’s four-fold model of scholarship.
Type of Affiliate Principal Form of Scholarship Research Community Discovery Implementation Network Application Dissemination Channels Dissemination/Teaching Fellows and Scholars Integration
Research Community
The CASEE Research Community consists of academic and other non-profit, as well as for- profit, education research centers contributing to the fundamental knowledge base on education within professions and/or pursuing their own efforts to enhance the quality of engineering and/or science education. Through affiliation with CASEE they gain a mechanism to share findings, to participate in a collaborative community, and to leverage their individual efforts. Additionally, affiliates are eligible for the placement of CASEE Senior and Post-doctoral Fellows at their centers. Affiliates may display the CASEE Research Community logo on their web sites and other documentation during the term of their affiliation.
What follows are brief summaries for our Research Community Affiliates. For a more detailed briefing on recent accomplishments and upcoming projects of selected Research Community Affiliates, please refer to the Research Community Activities section that begins on page 28.
Research Community Affiliates
Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education – University of Washington (lead) The Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education brings together a team of scholars with diverse backgrounds and disciplines from five campuses: Colorado School of Mines, Howard University, Stanford University, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Washington, the lead institution. The Center also works with a broad array of affiliates, including the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering (NACME) and Women in Engineering Programs & Advocates Network (WEPAN) at the national level.
The work of the Center is embodied in five overarching goals: • Understand and enhance the engineering student learning experience. • Integrate the needs of diverse faculty and diverse students into engineering education. • Strengthen the engineering education research base. • Expand the community of leaders in engineering education. • Promote effective teaching for current and future faculty.
A detailed summary of current work by CAEE is available in the Research Community Activities section that begins on page 28.
4 CASEE Chronicles, Volume VI: 2008-2009
Center for Design Research – Stanford University Founded in 1984, the Center for Design Research (CDR) at Stanford University is committed to the study of design education and design innovation. The Center is a community of scholars dedicated to augmenting design education, understanding the team design process, and developing advanced tools and methods that promote superior design and manufacturing of products. More specifically, CDR concentrates on improving design education, developing design innovations, and understanding the dynamics of the team design process. The research projects that are most relevant to engineering education are studies of concepts and technical solutions for design thinking, studies of design knowledge capture, and studies of methods and tools for improving the design of specific engineering systems. The fundamental questions that guide the CDR research agenda are: • What are design engineers really doing when they do design? • Why are they engaged in those activities? • When is learning taking place during these activities? • How can information and communication technology help them?
Center for Engineering Education – Colorado School of Mines With a mission to conduct world-class research that increases the accessibility of science and engineering for all people, the Center for Engineering Education (CEE) at the Colorado School of Mines is committed to improving the learning and teaching of science and engineering. To enable such improvement, the CEE supports faculty who conduct educational research and helps to disseminate the results of that research. To support the educational needs of science and engineering instructors, the CEE offers professional development seminars and workshops for faculty, graduate students, and K-12 teachers. CEE’s research agenda includes a broad array of interest with applications for college, K-12, and professional development education. Current research strives to: • Describe students’ mental organization and mental model of science concepts; • Develop instructional methods that increase student learning of science and engineering concepts; • Assess and develop instructional interventions to repair science and engineering misconceptions; • Develop methods to use technology to improve learning; • Research methods to make science and engineering more accessible to non-traditional populations (women, minorities, those with varying learning styles); • Promote and assess higher order thinking (including the thinking needed in open-ended problem solving); • Develop and assess curriculum for K-12 science and engineering programs; and • Develop and deliver training for science teachers based on cutting-edge research on how students learn science.
Center for Engineering Educational Outreach – Tufts University The core purpose of the Center for Engineering Educational Outreach (CEEO) is to improve engineering education for all ages. CEEO believes that by placing more learning-through-engineering in the classroom, teachers can build and increase children’s interest and excitement for learning math and science, give students a set of skills that will make learning more effective and more enjoyable for them in all subjects, and finally increase the likelihood that they will become technologically literate citizens. The research focus of the CEEO is to look at design-based learning environments that focus on design experiences aimed at helping learners develop powerful ideas in the field of engineering, as they relate to other disciplines (such as math, science, and computer programming), and as they relate to cognitive development (e.g., cognitive strategies, such as problem solving, that are useful in any domain of knowledge). This involves conducting research to identify powerful ideas and their connections, designing methodological tools that will enable us to study how those ideas develop in individuals and communities, and providing pedagogical and curricular strategies to craft educational environments in which powerful ideas can flourish.
5 Center for Engineering Learning and Teaching – University of Washington The goal of the research conducted at the Center for Engineering Learning and Teaching (CELT) is to understand and support engineering student learning. CELT believes it is important to use a variety of research methods in a combination of classroom-based settings in order to accomplish its goals. Current research at CELT is in the areas shown below: • Engineering Design - Design is central to engineering and thus a central area of CELT research. Although engineering design processes have attracted growing research attention, few studies focus on the design processes of engineering students. CELT’s research seeks to characterize how engineering students solve design problems, to understand the effectiveness of current approaches to engineering design instruction, and to ultimately develop and evaluate instruction to enhance the learning of engineering design. • Students as Engineering Professionals - To become prepared for engineering professional practice, students need to obtain a mastery of technical topics. They also need the skills and knowledge identified in the ABET EC2000 learning outcomes, an integrated understanding of their own discipline, and an ability to integrate all skills in the context of a given engineering project. CELT’s research seeks to characterize students' knowledge and ability in these areas. CELT also works on strategies to help students advance their knowledge and ability (e.g., portfolios).
A detailed summary of current work by CELT is available in the Research Community Activities section that begins on page 28.
Center for Studies in Higher Education – University of California, Berkeley The Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley carries out research and policy studies on issues of importance to higher education, at the international, national, and state levels. Current projects dealing directly with engineering education are • Development of modules for use in engineering courses to set the social, economic, legal, political, etc., landscapes for engineering issues • Exploration of means of altering the degree structure and curriculum to reflect the position of United States engineering in the world, including effects of globalization and much greater public scrutiny of engineering projects; and • Studies of the factors encouraging and inhibiting PhD-level minorities and women in pursuing their education and careers. Two other projects deal with higher education more generally but have considerable relevance to engineering education. • Surveys of all undergraduate students at the ten University of California campuses to determine their impressions of the various aspects of their experiences as undergraduates; and • A recently completed study of current needs for general education in public research universities.
A detailed summary of current work by CSHE is available in the Research Community Activities section that begins on page 28. The CSHE web site is http://cshe.berkeley.edu/.
Center for the Study of Women, Science, and Technology – Georgia Tech Located at Georgia Tech, the Center for the Study of Women, Science, and Technology (WST) provides research-based practice and policy to improve participation and performance of women in scientific and technological education and careers. WST research links issues in the study of science and technology with those of gender, culture, and society. The overarching research question explored by WST is: What is the relationship between gender and science and technology in culture and society? Specific research topics of the WST Center faculty include: • Careers of women in science and technological fields; • Cultural representations of gender, science, and technology; • Educational processes affecting outcomes for women in science and engineering; • Gender, computing, and information technology;
6 CASEE Chronicles, Volume VI: 2008-2009
• Gender orientation in adult development; • Historical and contemporary studies of women, architecture, and design; and • Inequalities by gender and race on a global scale.
The two major WST student programs are the Women, Science, and Technology Learning Community, a group of several dozen female students who live together and are paired with female faculty mentors, and the WST Minor, a series of official Georgia Tech courses for any student who wishes to receive a minor in the study of Women, Science, and Technology.
A detailed summary of current work by WST is available in the Research Community Activities section that begins on page 28.
College of Engineering – University of Michigan The College of Engineering at the University of Michigan recognizes the importance of its role in reforming engineering education. Currently, the College of Engineering has three major goals for innovations in engineering education. First, the college is committed to providing a high quality teaching and learning environment. To do this, the college provides opportunities for professional development of both faculty and teaching assistants and studies effective pedagogies for learner-centered environments. Second, the college seeks to enhance diversity via improved retention and increased enrollment of women and underrepresented minority students. Third, a major goal of the college is to better prepare students for the global engineering profession by integrating international opportunities into the collegiate experience. The college supports these activities through several offices, including the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching - North, the International Programs in Engineering Office, the Minority Engineering Programs Office, and the Women in Engineering Office.
A detailed summary of current work by College of Engineering at University of Michigan is available in the Research Community Activities section that begins on page 28.
The Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology The Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology (CPST), founded in 1953 as the Scientific Manpower Commission, is a nonprofit research organization whose membership includes leading professional scientific societies, corporations, academic institutions, foundations, and individuals concerned with the education and employment of scientists and engineers. CPST is a participating organization of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and is housed in the AAAS building in Washington, DC. CPST has a three-part mission: collect, synthesize, analyze and disseminate reliable information about the human resources of the United States in the fields of science and technology; promote the best possible programs of education and training for potential scientists, engineers, and technicians; and develop policies for the utilization of scientific and technological human resources by educational institutions, industry and government for the optimum benefit to the nation.
Department of Engineering Education – Virginia Tech Founded in the fall of 2004, the Department of Engineering Education in the College of Engineering at Virginia Tech offers a Ph.D. in Engineering Education and a Graduate Certificate in Engineering Education. A primary responsibility of the Department of Engineering Education is the instruction of all the required first-year engineering courses at Virginia Tech, which also provides substantial teaching experience for our doctoral students. The interdisciplinary team of faculty and graduate students conducts cutting-edge research in engineering education. Primary areas of scholarly exploration include: 1. professional skills including communication, interdisciplinary collaboration, and cross-cultural competence; 2. educational programs, with emphasis on learning mechanisms and systems, recruitment and retention
7 (particularly of diverse groups), and spiral curricula; and 3. design education at all academic levels. A detailed summary of current work by the Department of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech is available in the Research Community Activities section that begins on page 28.
Department of Mechanical Engineering – University of Maryland Baltimore County The Department of Mechanical Engineering at UMBC is beginning to conduct research in the areas of engineering education. Specifically, Dr. Anne Spence is focusing her research on awareness of and interest in engineering career opportunities for students in K-16 with the hope of increasing their participation in all areas of engineering, as well as, on methods of improving teaching content knowledge in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) areas. In addition to Dr. Spence's research interest, the department research questions include: • How do middle school and high school students become interested in the field of engineering and chose engineering as a career field? • How can STEM faculty involvement in K-12 schools actively engage students and increase their interest in engineering as a college major? • How does STEM faculty involvement in the K-12 community prompt faculty to change their practice in the college classroom? • What mathematics, science, and technology courses best prepare students for college entrance into an engineering department? • What professional development is needed for K-12 teachers in actively engaging students in engineering? • How can school systems change their curriculum to best serve students in STEM areas?
Department of Technology and Society – Stony Brook University The department uses a multidisciplinary/transdisciplinary approach in conducted research involving a wide range of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) educational issues. Its technology assessment/technology studies approach starts with issues and from the outset treats them in an integrated “trans-disciplinary” fashion. Currently, this Science, Technology, and Society (STS) approach is being used to address fundamental questions in a variety of areas: • Technology assessment of advanced and emerging technologies; • Planning and managing educational technologies; • Advanced technologies in STEM education; • Distance learning; • Innovative approaches to human-computer interfaces; • Use of wireless technology in education; and • Participation of underrepresented minorities, women, and persons with disabilities in STEM education and careers.
Division of Engineering Education – Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California The division of engineering education was established to address many issues facing universities with regards to engineering profession and education. The forces of globalization, technological advances, and demographics are changing the role of engineering in society, calling for changes in the preparation of next generation of engineers. For preparing the future engineers of 21st century, there is urgent need for students to learn about social, economic, and political issues that affect engineering profession in addition to having an in-depth technical education. The division faculty explore pedagogical issues and curricular issues to develop novel ideas for engineering education and implement them across the School.
8 CASEE Chronicles, Volume VI: 2008-2009
Engineering Education Research Center – Washington State University The Engineering Education Research Center (EERC) at Washington State University fosters collaborative interdisciplinary teams among engineering and education scholars. The EERC facilitates research into innovative and effective educational practices and technologies that advance engineering education. The mission of the EERC is to (1) enable engineering faculty to achieve and document exceptional learning, growth, and commitment in engineering students, (2) attract and retain diverse, demographically representative populations along the engineering pipeline, (3) enhance teacher education programs and partnerships that give K-12 teachers confidence and competence in employing engineering applications in the teaching of mathematics, (4) elevate the scholarship, stature, and professional advancement of participating engineering and education faculty, and (5) advance the recognition and rewarding of educational scholarship across the university. The Engineering Education Research Center (EERC) at Washington State University has addressed and is addressing a number of research questions important to engineering education, including: • What attributes desired in engineering professionals should be developed in baccalaureate programs? • How is engineering design learned and performed? How is design performance assessed reliably and with validity? • How do learning communities affect engineering student retention, engagement, and attitudes toward engineering careers? • How can educational technology be used for cyber-mentoring to support and motivate learning of mathematics in K-12 schools? • How can concept visualization enhance student attitudes and learning in engineering and computer science classes?
A detailed summary of current work by EERC is available in the Research Community Activities section that begins on page 28.
Integrated Teaching and Learning Center – University of Colorado at Boulder The major research focus of the ITL Program is exploring and assessing hands-on engineering education across a wide variety of engineering disciplines and teaching techniques. Research questions spanning the K-16 continuum of immediate interest include: • What is the importance of societal impact within hands-on design projects? Do projects with significant societal impact provide a better learning experience? Does it motivate students to higher levels of effort? Does the societal factor affect some students more than others? • What is the impact of visualization tools in teaching the subject of dynamics? Do computer-based modeling and simulation tools provide a better learning experience? Do the effects vary depending on the learning styles of the students? • What is the importance of homework (problem sets) in engineering education? If students are given the choice to do, and be graded on, homework or to be graded solely on exams, what impact does it have on their learning? What impact on teaching assistant and course resources? • How can active learning techniques be integrated into traditional lecture formats? What techniques allow committed lecturers to improve the effectiveness and popularity of their courses? What techniques provide the largest impact for the smallest time investments? What can we learn from standardized concept inventory exams? Are they reliable metrics of student learning for various institutions with varied curricula? What information can they provide to current and future instructors? Is their primary value in measurement or as a tool in a continuous improvement cycle? • What impact does early and pervasive (weekly in grades 3-8) engineering experiences have on high school students’ interest in engineering? • Why do we differentially lose both girls and under-represented minority youth retaining their interest in engineering as they transition from middle school to high school? • Are the attitudes of our participant high school girls — who have had early and pervasive engineering experiences — different from those reported by 14-17 year old girls in the Extraordinary Women Engineers study? The NAE Public Understanding of Engineering study? If
9 yes, to gain understanding of those differences to better understand the role that authentic elementary and middle school engineering experiences have on girls’ later choices. • What is the impact of integrated exposure to engineering as part of a science and technology focus high school on students’ collegiate interest in engineering — especially those typically underrepresented in engineering: women, students of color, first-generation and low-income students? • Do traditional engineering merit scholarship criteria over- or under-predict actual engineering program academic success of women, students of color and low-income engineering students? • What is the impact of a first-year engineering projects course experience on student retention? • For young children, how early do students associate and understand engineering as a different enterprise (such as they do at an early age for doctors, firefighters, teachers, etc.)?
Learning, Training, and Development Organization – The Boeing Company Our major educational research foci are explained as follows: The pace of engineering change provides a constant learning challenge for organizations in today’s competitive environment. The Boeing Company is no stranger to either competition or change; the new 787 Dreamliner has provided opportunities for emerging global engineering competencies. The primary purpose of our research is to help the Boeing Company rethink ways to deal with continued learning and to revisit the traditional paradigm, a “command and control” classroom model designed for sequential learning (learn, then do). Our strategy is to harness the latest thinking from the learning sciences that goes beyond the traditional limitations of classroom captive audiences. This approach provides a rich pedagogical content knowledge that enlivens the learning environment and very often enhances deeper understanding of complex subject matter. Our current research is focused on interventions that advance the way we think about continued learning in the evolving workplace. The research is conducted and implemented within the conceptual framework and relevant literature pertaining to adaptive expertise including expert/novice practices within learning. Engineers are randomly assigned to research areas, and a demographic questionnaire, an affective survey relating to preferences in methodologies, and a pre- and post-test are administered. In addition, data is captured via audio- and video-recordings; results are analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively and with the aid of an ethnographic lens. Additional work in this sphere is needed to elaborate what impact this new learning methodology will bear on individuals and their social networks within and across a global engineering community. A detailed summary of current work by Boeing LTD is available in the Research Community Activities section that begins on page 28.
Leonhard Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Education – Penn State Since its founding in 1990, the Leonhard Center at the College of Engineering at Pennsylvania State University has been working to enable significant enhancements in engineering education required to prepare graduates to become ‘World-class Engineers.’ The vision of the World-class Engineer was created by the Center’s External Advisory Board in 1994 and continues to guide the work of the Center. The Center partners with departments on major curricular enhancements and also leads College-wide initiatives such as integrating ethics into engineering classes and creating new courses to prepare students to enter the global workplace. The Leonhard Center is also involved in education research in the areas of student intellectual development, lifelong learning, and complex problem solving. Current research projects at the Leonhard Center include integration of case studies into the Industrial Engineering curriculum, implementation of a new junior level design course in Mechanical Engineering, and development of a new course on organizational skills and leadership for a global workplace.
Materials Engineering Department – Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo The Materials Engineering Department is exploring several issues around the efficacy of engineering learning environments. These include: 1. designing learning experiences that result in higher retention of females and underrepresented groups; 2. integrating methods that produce attributes for life-long learning; 3. utilizing techniques that promote systems thinking; and 4. creating learning experiences that foster socially-responsible engineering solutions. We are calling our approach Triple bottom line
10 CASEE Chronicles, Volume VI: 2008-2009
Awareness in Design (TriAD). It is an approach to design that emphasizes that need to incorporate environmental and societal concerns, as well as economic (i.e., the triple bottom line) in the design process. A detailed summary of current work by the Materials Engineering Department at Cal Poly is available in the Research Community Activities section that begins on page 28.
National Center for Engineering and Technology Education – Utah State University (lead) NCETE links technology educators with engineering educators to build capacity for research; nurture a cadre of talented, diverse leaders in engineering and technology education; and infuse engineering content, design and analytical skills into K-12 schools. The Center includes partners with strengths in engineering and in technology education, including four land-grant university research partners (Utah State University, the University of Minnesota, the University of Illinois and the University of Georgia), five technology teacher education partners (Brigham Young University, California State University at Los Angeles, University of Wisconsin - Stout, Illinois State University and North Carolina A&T State University) and fifteen K-12 school district partners. NCETE’s research agenda focuses on learning and teaching engineering content, design and predictive analytical methods in K-12 technology education classrooms and laboratories, and in technology teacher education programs. The long-term goal of this program of research is to develop approaches to instruction that are based on principles of learning gained from cognitive science and to provide evidence of their usefulness in education settings. To achieve this outcome, NCETE projects are addressing these three overarching research themes: How and What Students Learn in Technology Education; How to Best Prepare Technology Teachers; and Assessment and Evaluation. A detailed summary of current work by NCETE is available in the Research Community Activities section that begins on page 28.
Northwestern Center for Engineering Education Research – Northwestern University NCEER's mission is to catalyze the transformation of engineering education. NCEER will serve as an organizational unit for Northwestern’s work in improving engineering education locally, nationally, and globally. NCEER will build a community that carries out leading research on how to educate engineering students as adaptive experts who can predict and solve global technological challenges. NCEER will support interdisciplinary research in engineering education, cultivating relationships within the engineering school, across schools at Northwestern, and with other universities with similar aims.
The Charles V. Schaefer School of Engineering – Stevens Institute of Technology The Charles V. Schaefer, Jr. School of Engineering at Stevens Institute of Technology is committed to research in engineering education through two umbrella initiatives: The Center for Innovation in Engineering and Science Education (CIESE) and Research and Innovation in Engineering Education (RIEE). CIESE’s mission is to catalyze and support excellence in teaching and learning of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and other core subjects through innovative, research- based instructional strategies and use of novel technologies. The mission of RIEE is to nurture excellence in teaching and learning at Stevens to more deeply engage undergraduate students in the excitement, creativity, core knowledge base and problem-solving processes of engineering. CIESE and RIEE’s primary research activities involve the following areas: 1) develop curriculum and pedagogical methods that increase engagement and student learning in science and engineering; 2) develop strategies and methods to integrate technology into engineering education to improve learning and engagement; and 3) develop and assess curriculum and methods to integrate engineering into the K-12 curriculum.
Teaching and Learning Laboratory – Massachusetts Institute of Technology For the past several years the Teaching and Learning Laboratory has been involved in assessing both new initiatives in science and engineering education at MIT, as well as on-going education efforts. That work has been guided by a research agenda comprised of three broad questions:
11 • What is the impact of particular pedagogical methods and/or educational technologies on conceptual learning? • What is the impact of particular pedagogical methods and/or educational technologies on student engagement and peer interaction? • What is the impact of particular pedagogical methods and/or educational technologies on the allocation of instructional resources?
A detailed summary of current work by TLL is available in the Research Community Activities section that begins on page 28.
Implementation Network
The CASEE Implementation Network consists of academic, other non-profit, and industrial sites either engaged in pilot and large-scale implementations of educational innovations or willing to serve as testbed sites for such implementations. Through affiliation with CASEE they gain a mechanism to link with education researchers and evaluators who may inform and otherwise contribute to their efforts, to share methodologies and findings, to participate in a collaborative community, and to leverage their individual efforts. Additionally, affiliates are eligible for the placement of CASEE Senior and Post-doctoral Fellows at their centers. Affiliates may display the CASEE Implementation Network logo on their web sites and other documentation during the term of their affiliation.
What follows are brief summaries for our Implementation Network Affiliates. For a more detailed briefing on recent accomplishments and upcoming projects of selected Implementation Network Affiliates, please refer to the Implementation Network Activities section that begins on page 50.
Implementation Network Affiliates
Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice – American Society of Civil Engineers The Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice (CAP^3) has continued its efforts to raise the educational requirements for the future practice of civil engineering at the professional level (licensure). For more than a decade, ASCE has been presenting, talking, and listening to many stakeholders. As a result, we have been progressively refining our proposed program to “raise the bar” in engineering education. ASCE sees the following challenges in engineering education: • What should be taught and learned by future civil engineering students? • How should it be taught and learned? • Who should teach and learn it?
College of Engineering and Science – Louisiana Tech Over the past several years, Louisiana Tech’s College of Engineering and Science has been aggressively engaged in education reform, including curricula redesign, K-12 interactions, and research in teaching and learning. Our unique interdisciplinary administrative structure has facilitated close communication between engineering, mathematics, and science programs at Louisiana Tech and has supported the development of several undergraduate education-based research initiatives. These research efforts have, in turn, resulted in new innovative curricula, including our Integrated Engineering Curriculum (IEC), Integrated Science Curriculum (ISC), and our new Nanosystems Engineering program. We also actively collaborate with our College of Business and College of Education. Examples of partnership with our College of Business include the currently-funded NSF Partnerships for Innovation grant as well as other pending proposals through our Center for Entrepreneurship and Information Technology (CEnIT).
12 CASEE Chronicles, Volume VI: 2008-2009
Similarly, collaboration with the College of Education is reflected through recently submitted proposals aimed at encouraging talented STEM majors to become K-12 mathematics and science teachers. A detailed summary of current work by CoES at Louisiana Tech is available in the Research Implementation Network Activities section that begins on page 50.
College of Engineering – University of Connecticut The School of Engineering at the University of Connecticut is pleased to be among the newest CASEE Implementation Network affiliates. Under the leadership of our new dean, Mun Y. Choi, we have begun a systematic review of our undergraduate and graduate curricula in anticipation of effecting revisions that respond to the findings. While the curricular items are being reviewed, our efforts have been concentrated upon broader experiences for our students outside the classroom. In this regard: • We are updating our freshmen year curriculum to reflect the characteristics of creativity, innovation, and lifelong learning that embody the "Engineer of 2020" to enable our graduates to assume leadership roles. • We are upgrading our School website to provide information and direct links for our students as they seek internship, co-op, research and full-time employment opportunities. • We have begun to organize a series of certificate programs that will enable students to secure an engineering concentration when their schedules cannot accommodate pursuit of a minor. • We have been expanding the opportunities for our students to engage in undergraduate research while completing their degree. • We will introduce senior design programs that integrate entrepreneurship and innovation through the involvement of MBA students and Business faculty. An exciting effort, now in the planning stages, will enable practicing engineers to take online, asynchronous coursework toward a Master of Engineering degree. This program will permit working engineers to better manage their time while also continuing their education. Finally, an expanding community of engineering faculty has begun to meet regularly to consider topics of general interest relative to engineering instruction and learning. The interdisciplinary dialogue regarding our successes, questions, and concerns has enabled us to better define our issues and address questions and concerns. In addition, we have begun a more conscious effort to develop and submit interdisciplinary proposals in response to RFPs from various funding sources, including NSF.
College of Engineering – Purdue University Purdue is uniquely positioned to redefine engineering higher education in the 21st century. Rooted in acknowledged excellence for its educational programs and disciplinary expertise, it is striding confidently into new areas of investigation, exploring new methods of inspiring learning, and reaching out to its local, national, and global communities. Challenges that Purdue seeks to address include: • Fostering the soft skills (communication, interpersonal skills, ability to work in teams, leadership potential) while students learn technical skills. • Improving the recruitment and retention of women and minority students by showing students early on how engineering is beneficial and critically relevant to society. • Developing applications of technology to improve student learning. • Increasing the number of US undergraduate engineering students who continue on to graduate school in engineering.
Department of Industrial Technology / School of Technology – Purdue University The Technology Teacher Education Program is designed to prepare students for a teaching career in secondary schools. The transformation to technology education continues to provide all students with basic knowledge and skills needed for the next millennium. Current challenges in the Program include:
13 • Preparation of professional educators with strong pedagogical and technical skills needed for success in today's high-performance workplace. • Preparation of educators through blending of practical experiences, technical expertise, and academic rigor with an overarching focus on pre-engineering. • Need for empirical and qualitative assessment of the effectiveness of modular technology methodologies.
A detailed summary of current work by the Technology Teacher Education Program is available on the Research Implementation Network Activities section that begins on page 50.
Department of Technology and Society – Stony Brook University The Department of Technology and Society (DTS), in the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences (CEAS) at Stony Brook University, is a community of scholars whose goal is to help students become technologically literate. The department’s faculty members pursue a mission with four main components. First, they seek to help all students develop an understanding of modern technology, including the socio- technological interplay that demands a consideration of scientific, social, political, economic, behavioral, legal, and ethical aspects of problems. Second, they seek to develop leaders in the effective use, management, and assessment of technology to improve education, business, industry, and the environment. Third, they seek research-based recommendations for technology planning, technology management and technology assessment. Fourth, they seek to carry out research and to develop programs to improve the learning and teaching of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, with serious attention to the use of educational technologies and the engagement of underrepresented groups. Key challenges being addressed by the department include: • How does DTS utilize its position within CEAS to build further collaborations that will engage faculty from across CEAS in curricular and course reform? • How might the Science, Technology and Society (STS) approach be better integrated into engineering and applied sciences? How might DTS better access the impacts of such integration? • How does DTS strengthen the first-year experience for engineering undergraduates? • What are some of the most powerful models for engaging underrepresented students in STEM disciplines?
East Lake High School Robotic Boosters, Inc. East Lake High School Robotic Boosters, Inc. is a non-profit 501 (c) (3) education corporation established by East Lake High School in Palm Harbor, Florida, to bring engineering education to local K-12 students. The Robotic Boosters support engineering courses at East Lake High School, award-winning robotics teams at the elementary, middle school, and high school levels, and summer workshops on engineering and robotics for 4th through 6th graders. They were established in 2002 and have developed a five-year business plan that will guide their efforts through the spring of 2007. Through proceeds from the summer workshops and donations, East Lake Robotic Boosters generates over $35,000 in funding for their educational programs each year. Over 60 students have enrolled in the new engineering courses at East Lake High School. Current challenges include: • Desire to market a curriculum to state Departments of Education and/or educational venues offering the opportunity to experience the development of a program of self-sustainability to further STEM education while including industry, community, and individual partners. • Further development of curriculum including pre- and post-assessments utilized in the self- sustainability initiative described above. • Continued development of assessment techniques as program initiative expands.
14 CASEE Chronicles, Volume VI: 2008-2009
Faculty Innovation Center - University of Texas at Austin Established in 1999, the Faculty Innovation Center (FIC) serves as the focal point for teaching and learning issues within the College of Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. Its mission is to enable the College of Engineering to provide exceptional engineering education for their more than 5,000 engineering undergraduates. The FIC is a permanent resource center that provides media, instructional, and faculty development services to support faculty in enhancing their teaching, both with and without technology. Key challenges being addressed by FIC staff include the redesign of large, introductory courses to maximize faculty/student interactions; adoption and evaluation of project-centered curriculum reform in Mechanical Engineering; assessment of differences in student learning gains in classes taught using traditional versus technology-enhanced pedagogical approaches. For all professors, the FIC offers monthly Faculty Innovation Seminars, in which FIC staff and University of Texas faculty members share tips, techniques, and research-based practices for effective teaching. In addition to these seminars, the FIC website features an excellent “Resources” section with brief FIC tutorials and advice articles on “signature pedagogies,” ranging from Socratic questioning, to mid-course evaluations, to enhancing student memory.
Laboratory for Innovative Technology and Engineering Education – Auburn University The Laboratory for Innovative Technology and Engineering Education (LITEE) program at Auburn University (www.litee.org) is exceptional because its educational paradigm consists of developing multimedia case studies based on real-world issues and implementing them in classrooms using an innovative instructional strategy. The case studies and strategies are readily transferable to other institutions. Using the case studies in classrooms leads to perceived improvements in the leadership skills and attitudes of engineering and technology students at the high school, undergraduate, and graduate levels. The case studies have been used successfully in 21 universities and 3 high schools. A survey of LITEE alumni shows that they perceive a significant improvement in their leadership skills and attitudes due to their participation in this cross-disciplinary program.
The LITEE program develops and disseminates instructional materials and strategies that bring real-world issues into classrooms. The curriculum is composed of the following: • Graduate courses in which students work with a company and faculty members to identify an important issue that highlights how engineering leaders solved a real-world problem; conduct research leading to other potential solutions; identify underlying theories; develop a multi-media case study based on the problem that includes videos, photos, and textual material; and help implement the case study in undergraduate classrooms for analysis and discussion • A junior undergraduate course, in which students learn leadership skills, apply these skills to solve problems posed in the case studies, and then refine their skills by conducting a real-world project • Introductory undergraduate engineering and business courses in which students are taught technical and leadership skills, apply them to analyze a problem presented in a case study, and then present their recommendations to their colleagues, thus practicing their communications skills, and • A rigorous evaluation process conducted by statistical and educational experts to assess the impact of the instructional materials and strategies used in the curriculum to foster leadership skills in the students.
LITEE has implemented instructional materials and strategies in mechanical engineering, management information systems, and business-engineering-technology curricula. In order to expand its dissemination of innovative educational materials, LITEE recently made electronic versions of its case studies available for free viewing and use by instructors and students at www.liteecases.com. Additionally, other formats, including PDF files, CD-ROMs, and online versions of all the case studies are available for purchase at LITEE's storefront at www.lulu.com/litee_cases.
A detailed summary of current work by LITEE is available in the Research Implementation Network Activities section that begins on page 50.
15 Lean Aerospace Initiative Education Network – Massachusetts Institute of Technology (lead) The Educational Network (EdNet) of the Lean Aerospace Initiative (LAI) is made up of over 25 university partners who communicate and collaborate with each other to advance “lean” thinking in education and enterprise-level lean practices in the aerospace industry. The term "lean" was coined by researchers in MIT’s International Motor Vehicle Program to describe the production paradigm emerging from the Japanese automotive industry. A lean enterprise, or production system, is one that eliminates waste and optimizes the value delivered to all of its stakeholders. With no cost to join, EdNet allows for the active collaboration and knowledge dissemination that is necessary to create this curriculum and transform the aerospace industry into a lean enterprise. The mission of EdNet is to support continuous learning throughout the aerospace enterprise by sharing knowledge and curriculum. Three projects are the current focus of EdNet’s efforts. First, EdNet is working to enhance the curriculum and instructional materials for its LAI Lean Academy™, a one-week course that provides a hands-on introduction to lean fundamentals. The course is targeted towards undergraduate students, and is taught at the point of use during an internship, co-op, or new hire assignment. However, it has also been offered to graduate students, industry employees, and on-campus venues. The second current EdNet project is the Lean Systems Engineering Working Group, which is studying how the lean principles and systems engineering bodies of knowledge might be merged. The third and most recent undertaking of EdNet is the creation of its strategic plan for the years 2005 to 2010. A detailed summary of current work by LAI EdNet is available in the Research Implementation Network Activities section that begins on page 50.
North American CDIO Regional Center There are three main challenges in engineering education that CDIO faces: • Integrating personal, interpersonal, and system-building skills within deep understanding of technical knowledge in curriculum and teaching, • Assessing student learning outcomes, particularly in the areas of conceptual understanding and personal and professional skills, • Enhancing faculty competence in personal, interpersonal, and system-building skills, and in the methods required to teach them to engineering students
A detailed summary of current work by CDIO is available in the Research Implementation Network Activities section that begins on page 50
Project Lead The Way, Inc. Project Lead The Way Inc. is a non-profit organization and national program with the goal of increasing the quantity and quality of engineers and engineering technologists by adding engineering coursework to middle schools and high schools. To enable the implementation of engineering courses for grades 6-12, PLTW provides local, state, and national leadership and support, a model curriculum, teacher training and development through its affiliation with colleges and universities, and a network of consultants throughout the United States. The goals of Project Lead The Way are impressive. It intends to increase the number of young people who pursue two-year and four-year college engineering and engineering technology programs and to reduce the future college attrition rate in such engineering and engineering technology programs. PLTW is continuously working to improve its curricular material, train more teachers in PLTW courses, and forge more relationships with community colleges, universities, and industries. In addition to reviewing existing courses, PLTW has developed two new high school specialization courses. Bio- Technical Engineering and Aerospace Engineering were available for nationwide distribution in the fall of 2006. A typical high school student enrolled in the PLTW Pre-engineering Program Certificate completes four or five PLTW courses and the corresponding end-of-course exams. College credit is available to students meeting the eligibility criteria. Students must also be concurrently enrolled in college preparatory mathematics while taking PLTW courses. A detailed summary of current work by PTLW is available in the Research Implementation Network Activities section that begins on page 50.
16 CASEE Chronicles, Volume VI: 2008-2009
Rowan University Rowan University has a uniquely small and young engineering school; its College of Engineering enrolls about 450 undergraduate engineering students and was founded in 1995. Rowan offers several M.S. degrees but no Ph.D. degrees (its Carnegie classification is a Masters University I). The Rowan engineering curriculum is decidedly multidisciplinary, but students do choose to specialize in one of four majors: Chemical, Mechanical, Civil & Environmental, or Electrical & Computer Engineering. Hallmarks of the undergraduate experience of a Rowan engineer are many active learning courses and an eight- semester engineering “clinic” – a multidisciplinary team experience that lasts for one’s entire undergraduate career. The future of the unique identity of the College of Engineering at Rowan University is dependent on the answers to three key questions: • How can a modern engineering program be maintained at a masters-level university, where teaching is the focus and research dollars are low? • How can a college maintain a multidisciplinary engineering curriculum, with no boundaries between different engineering fields, in spite of an external world that calls for departmental boundaries and discipline-specific curriculum? • How can engineering faculty prevent the growth of the larger university from negatively impacting the clinic structure, the ability to manage active and experiential learning, and the student-to- faculty ratio?
A detailed summary of current work by PLTW is available in the Research Implementation Network Activities section that begins on page 50.
Women in Engineering Proactive Network, Inc. (WEPAN) Challenges in Engineering Education: The challenges in engineering education most compelling to WEPAN include the following: • Developing and integrating relevant examples to teach engineering principles to increase awareness, interest, learning, and retention in engineering. • Increasing data-driven knowledge regarding why women are attracted to specific engineering disciplines (e.g. chemical, biomedical, or environmental) and are markedly less interested in other disciplines (e.g. mechanical and electrical). • Improving pedagogy in engineering gatekeeper courses.
Corresponding Centers
CASEE Corresponding Centers consist of academic, other non-profit, and for-profit education research and development centers contributing to the fundamental knowledge base on education within professions and/or pursuing their own efforts to enhance the quality of engineering and/or science education. CASEE Corresponding Centers are typically based outside of the United States and/or affiliated with governmental entities. This year CASEE welcomed the Korean Engineering Education Research Center as a new Corresponding Center.
Corresponding Centers
The Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) The general mission of AAEE is to improve the quality, relevance and performance of engineering education in Australasia. More specifically, the objectives of the Association are to: • Quantify and make more visible within Australasia the increasing need for specific advanced engineering skills. • Increase the participation rates of high school leavers in engineering education and training, especially of women and non-traditional sources of students. • Promote the development and use of new teaching techniques and tools and promote measurement of teaching effectiveness supported by research based evidence.
17 • Provide assistance to engineering educators, especially to new members of the teaching staff. • Promote the professional development of engineering educators as practitioners and educational researchers. • Make the Association the focal point for information on all aspects of engineering education within Australasia. • Develop co-sponsorship of the Association by other engineering professional institutions and associations in Australasia. • Develop global links with similarly minded organizations in other countries. The aim this year for the Executive team of AaeE has been to increase communication with our membership and our stakeholders, and by so doing, increase their involvement in ongoing discussions and reflection on scholarly and evidence based approaches to our teaching and learning policies and practices. An effort to make the Bibliography resource more interactive grew into a wiki that is easy to use and available to the public. Teaching Resources, items of interest to Special Interest groups and upcoming conferences, all provide a useful adjunct to the website. The wiki is not intended as a replacement for our website, but ease of access makes this a useful communication vehicle. Please visit the site http://aaee-scholar.pbwiki.com. In 2009 we have been particularly pleased with the success of the Engineering Education Research and Your Career workshops, funded by AaeE, in Sydney, Auckland, Brisbane, Toowoomba, Newcastle and Melbourne with North Queensland and Adelaide to come later in the year. Utilizing the expertise of the AaeE Educational Research Methods special interest group, the aim of these workshops is to strengthen our sense of community, and use that community to provide engineering academics with the opportunities and resources to build their knowledge and skills in the scholarship of learning and teaching, and educational research. The Australasian Journal of Engineering Education is now well established as an online journal hosted by Engineers Media arm of Engineers Australia and members and non-members alike can download recent papers (from 2007 till now) from http://www.engineersmedia.com.au/journals/aaee/papers.asp . Archives can be found at The National Library Archive at: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/10589 A Position paper on First Year programs in Australian engineering institutions was presented to the Australian Council of Engineering Deans and ADTLs, with discussions leading to the formation of a First Year Programs Special Interest Group. A Forum “Reforming the First Year Experience” was held in Melbourne 3-4 August, linking in to three sites in the USA via video conference. The interactive workshop was attended by staff from a range of institutions and stimulated constructive discussion and reflection by the attendees. In 2008, a new review, Addressing the Supply and Quality of Engineering Graduates for the New Century (King, 2008) made further recommendations for the identification of best practice in curriculum and pedagogy, for women in engineering issues to be re-examined, for greater connections with industry, for a re- consideration of engineering qualifications, and so on. This review was funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC), which has followed up with funding for research projects and two major initiatives, Discipline Scholars and a Discipline Support Strategy. Both of these initiatives will focus on the development of best practice engineering education and the definition of academic standards over the next three years. This funding support will enable researchers to work with colleagues on projects that make the vital link between research and evidence-based best practice.
Engineering Subject Centre, UK Higher Education Academy The Engineering Subject Centre is one of the 24 subject centres that form the subject network of the Higher Education Academy. As the national centre for all engineering academics in the UK, we deliver subject based support to promote quality learning and teaching.
Our mission is to work in partnership with the UK engineering community to provide the best possible higher education learning experience for all students and contribute to the long term health of the engineering profession. This is achieved through our strategic aims: • Sharing effective practice • Facilitating departmental change • Informing and influencing policy • Promoting engineering education research • Championing teaching. Our website is a rich source of freely available resources to support learning and teaching in engineering. We have recently published a series of peer reviewed Teaching Guides which can be downloaded from http://www.engsc.ac.uk/teaching-guides/ and our Journal is now in its 4th year, see http://www.engsc.ac.uk/journal/.
18 CASEE Chronicles, Volume VI: 2008-2009
Korean Engineering Education Research Center The Korean Engineering Education Research Center (KEERC), an affiliate of the Accreditation Board on Engineering Education in Korea, was established in December 2002 in order to conceive an engineering education method suitable for the realities faced by Korea. We seek to meet the needs of the academic and industrial communities and develop textbooks and curricula that reflect the features of Korean engineering education. KEERC also studies and develops strategies and operation processes of engineering education to establish an engineering accreditation system matching international standards. The institute implements many projects to contribute to the development of engineering education by distributing its research results to each Korean university.
Dissemination Channels
CASEE Dissemination Channels are seminars, workshops, colloquies, etc. (hereinafter referred to as seminars) offered by academic, other non-profit, and for-profit entities that serve to educate the engineering community about either a) rigorous approaches to the conduct and evaluation of education research, or b) the findings which result from such research including pilot and large-scale implementation activities. CASEE Dissemination Channels are trusted information resources that adhere to high quality standards in the identification, selection, preparation, and transmission of knowledge. Seminars selected as CASEE Dissemination Channels may display the CASEE Dissemination Channel logo on their web sites and other documentation during the term of their affiliation.
Dissemination Channels
Institute for the Development of Excellence in Assessment Leadership– ABET, Inc. IDEAL provides a professional development opportunity for those responsible for leading their faculty in the development and implementation of a program assessment plan to improve student learning and document program effectiveness. This Institute will engage participants in working with colleagues to develop new knowledge and skills that will enable them to be an effective assessment leader. They will leave the Institute having completed an implementation plan to use at their home institutions. For more information, go to http://www.abet.org/ideal.shtml.
National Effective Teaching Institute (NETI) – North Carolina State University The NETI is a three-day teaching effectiveness workshop given annually since 1991 on the Thursday, Friday, and Saturday preceding the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education. It is sponsored by the Engineering Research and Methods and Chemical Engineering Divisions of the ASEE, and the ASEE program staff manages the finances and logistical arrangements. Every January, all deans of engineering and engineering technology in the U.S. are invited to nominate up to two of their faculty members for the NETI. Applications are accepted on a first-come-first-served basis up to a maximum of 55. At least 50 participants have enrolled in each offering. In the 15 years it has been given, the workshop has now reached a total of 785 professors from 194 different schools. For more information, go to: http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/NETI.html.
CASEE Fellows and Scholars
CASEE Fellows and Scholars are accomplishing the scholarship of integration as they connect educational research to the larger settings within or across academic or industrial institutions. Individual scholars devote a year or two to synthesizing knowledge across fields in order to bridge gaps in our understanding of engineering education research. They also work to bridge gaps in our understanding of how to apply that research to improved practice.
19
Senior Fellows Senior Fellows are selected from among distinguished and well-recognized opinion leaders with demonstrated abilities to catalyze advancements nationally as well as within their own organizations. Fellows are chosen based upon their significant promise to provide revolutionary as well as evolutionary research breakthroughs. Applicants are selected from among the ranks of engineering faculty, learning scientists, industrial practitioners, as well as ethicists, historians, and policy makers. Senior Fellow appointments range from 1-semester to 2 calendar years.
Dr. John Krupczak (2008 - 2009) Professor of Engineering Hope College CASEE Research Thrust 1: Bodies-of-Knowledge Dr. John Krupczak is professor of engineering at Hope College. Dr. Krupczak is conducting research supported by the National Science Foundation that analyzes existing courses on technological literacy for non-engineers through the theoretical frameworks of positive deviance and integrative learning. This work will advance the scholarship of engineering education by situating engineering and technological literacy within the integrative learning educational model. By applying the theory of positive deviance to existing courses, those factors most important in propagation of new curricula may be identified.
Postdoctoral Fellows AGEP-PEER (Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate Postdoctoral Engineering Education Researcher) Post-doctoral Fellows were selected from among recent doctoral recipients in engineering and science disciplines who wished to receive specialized training in the conduct of educational scholarship under the mentorship of a Senior Fellow or campus- based engineering educator. Post-doctoral Fellows will form the leading the edge in fostering a transformation in the instructional effectiveness of the next generation of engineering faculty.
Past AGEP-PEERs LaRuth McAfee SUNY Stony Brook 2005-2006 Kamau Bobb Georgia Tech 2005-2006 Monica Cardella Stanford University 2006-2007 William Hughes Cal Poly San Luis Obispo 2006-2007 Jennifer Light University of Washington 2006-2007 Olga Pierrakos Virginia Tech 2006-2007 Jessica Tucker SUNY Stony Brook 2006-2007 Denise Bauer Pennsylvania State University 2007-2008 Susan Donohue University of Virginia 2007-2008 Laura Dykes University of Maryland, Baltimore County 2008-2009 Mica Hutchison-Green Northwestern University 2007-2008 Deborah Illman University of Washington 2007-2008 Brent Nelson Georgia Tech 2007-2008
EEES Postdoctoral Fellow Dr. Susan Donohue, a past AGEP-PEER Postdoctoral Fellow, completed a postdoctoral fellowship with CASEE during the 2008-2009 academic year. Dr. Donohue worked on the Engineering Equity Extension
20 CASEE Chronicles, Volume VI: 2008-2009
Services project to update CASEE’s products concerning gender equity. She also assessed the utility of various types of products that will be disseminated to the engineering education research community.
Affiliated Scholars Affiliated Scholars are distinguished and well-recognized researchers in their fields able to provide continuing and independent advice to the CASEE Research Community and CASEE Implementation Network by virtue of their positions outside of these groups. The contributions of Affiliated Scholars fall within one of the CASEE Research Areas. Most typically, CASEE Affiliated Scholars are individual researchers who are experts in domains other than engineering education research and closely related areas.
Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Processes Scholars
Dr. Derek Bok Dr. Bok is the 300th Anniversary University Professor, University President Emeritus, and Faculty Chair of the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations. He has written six books on higher education: Beyond the Ivory Tower, Higher Learning, Universities and the Future of America, The Shape of the River, Universities in the Marketplace, and Our Underachieving Colleges. He serves as Chair of the Board of the Spencer Foundation and as Chair of Common Cause. His current research interests include the state of higher education.
Dr. Henry Frierson Dr. Frierson is professor of education and program director for Educational Psychology, Measurement, and Evaluation at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Since 1996 he has directed the Research Education Support (RES) Program, a large multi-faceted program designed to encourage and support students from underrepresented groups to attain Ph.D. degrees as well as to become researchers and academicians. His current interests rest in program evaluation and in increasing the number of individuals of color in doctoral programs and research careers.
Dr. John Medina Dr. Medina is founding director of the Talaris Research Institute. He is engaged in reviewing and analyzing research in brain development, looking for new research to sponsor, examining and evaluating currently sponsored research, and interpreting the results. He is also dedicated to disseminating brain development results to parents, caregivers, educators, healthcare professionals, and the business community. Teachers and Learners Scholars
Dr. Susan Ambrose Dr. Susan Ambrose is Associate Provost for Education, Director of the Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence, and Teaching Professor in the Department of History at Carnegie Mellon. She received her doctorate in American History (1986) from Carnegie Mellon and has been on the Eberly Center's staff since its inception. Her responsibilities include advising the Provost and the Vice Provost for Education on educational issues, conducting institutional educational research, identifying and responding to changing needs to continually improve the quality of education at the university, maintaining overall operation of the Eberly Center, and overseeing the Intercultural Communication Center and the Office of Academic Development.
Dr. Gary L. Downey Downey is the author or co-author of three books, 15 refereed journal articles, and eight book chapters. He is the 2004 recipient of William F. Wine Award for career teaching excellence at Virginia Tech and a member of Virginia Tech Academy of Teaching Excellence. He was elected a fellow of the American Anthropological Association in 1993. He was recently named the Alumni Distinguished Professor of Science and Technology Studies at Virginia Tech.
21 Dr. Sue V. Rosser Dr. Rosser is provost at San Francisco State University (SFSU). She performs research on the problems of women's health and women in science, the struggles of women scientists, and the teaching of science and math to women. She also serves on the editorial boards of the National Women's Studies Association (NWSA) Journal; Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering; and the journal Transformations. She has written over 100 journal articles on the theoretical and applied problems of science and technology, as well as women's health, and is the author of 11 books.
Courses, Laboratories, Curricula, Instructional Materials, and Learning Technologies Scholars
Dr. Christopher Hoadley Dr. Hoadley is an associate professor with joint appointments in the College of Education and the College of Information Sciences and Technology at Penn State. His research is focused on the Learning Sciences. Dr. Hoadley is the director of the DOLCELab (Design of Learning, Collaboration, and Experience). The DOLCELab studies the interconnections between design, learning, technology, and collaboration. Foci include empirical studies of design, design as a research method (design-based research, a term he coined in the mid 1990s), designing with and for collaboration, and technology- mediated learning in socio-technical systems (CSCL).
Dr. Eric Klopfer Dr. Klopfer is the Joseph B. and Rita P. Scheller Career Development Associate Professor of Science Education in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Teacher Education Program. The program seeks to both advance the development of the science and math teachers of tomorrow and to help in- service teachers use new technologies and curriculum. These activities will aid both students and teachers in gaining knowledge of the natural world and scientific progress.
Educational Management and Goal Systems Scholars
Dr. Robert M. Diamond Dr. Diamond is President of The National Academy for Academic Leadership. He served for over twenty years as Assistant Vice Chancellor for Instructional Development at Syracuse University, where he also was Research Professor and Director of the Institute for Change in Higher Education. From 1991 to 1999 he directed the National Project on Institutional Priorities and Faculty Rewards. His most recent book is The Field Guide to Academic Leadership.
Dr. M.L. “Bob” Emiliani Dr. Emiliani is associate professor of manufacturing and construction management at Central Connecticut State University. He has authored or co-authored 28 peer-reviewed management papers on various aspects of leadership and supply chain management; 10 peer-reviewed papers on materials science and engineering; and 38 technical reports, papers, and management articles. His research interests include improving higher education using Lean principles and practices, with special emphasis on cross- disciplinary aspects.
Dr. Gearold R. Johnson and Dr. Thomas Siller (Joint Appointment) Dr. Johnson is Emeritus Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Colorado State University. From 1994 until his retirement in 2002, he was the Academic Vice-President of the National Technological University. Dr. Siller is Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at Colorado State University. They have performed groundbreaking work exploring the many factors and agents outside the classroom that determine the goals for and management of engineering education.
Dr. Maresi Nerad Dr. Nerad is director of the Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education at the University of Washington. She is an expert in various aspects of graduate education including factors affecting time to degree and doctoral attrition, the career paths of doctorates, and the intersection of doctoral students’ families and careers.
22 CASEE Chronicles, Volume VI: 2008-2009
Political, Economic, and Social Influences on Engineering Education Scholar
Dr. Richard B. Freeman Dr. Freeman holds the Herbert Ascherman Chair in Economics at Harvard University. He is currently serving as Faculty Co-Chair of the Harvard University Trade Union Program. He is also director of the Labor Studies Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, Senior Research Fellow in Labour Markets at the London School of Economics' Centre for Economic Performance, and visiting professor at the London School of Economics. His research interests include the job market for scientists and engineers.
Mr. Steven J. Kerno, Jr. Steven J. Kerno Jr. is a DBA (doctorate in business administration) candidate at St. Ambrose University (Davenport, IA). He is employed full-time as a parts cross-reference analyst at John Deere PDC in Milan, IL, and teaches business and economics courses for St. Ambrose and Iowa Wesleyan College. He has written feature articles on the changing nature of careers for magazines such as Mechanical Engineering, Resource, PE, IE, Welding, and Appliance, and has contributed chapters to the books Career Development in Bioengineering and Biotechnology and The Praeger Handbook of Human Resource Management. He is particularly interested in how economics and contemporary business practices impact innovation, as well as how communities of practice can assist engineers in their work.
Scholars-in-Residence Scholars-in-Residence are selected from among talented senior and junior researchers to work directly with the CASEE staff to advance knowledge as well as create tools for engineering education researchers and practitioners.
Dr. Debasish Dutta CASEE Scholar-in-Residence December 2007 – June 2010 Debasish Dutta is addressing the urgent need to assess current practices in lifelong learning and understand the unmet needs of the S&E working professional. Specifically, he is conducting in-depth interviews of a broad cross section of industry, academic and Federal personnel to better understand the underlying issues and industry-specific drivers. Through the Committee on Lifelong Learning Imperative, an ad hoc committee appointed by the President of NAE, he organized a public workshop held June 17- 18, 2009, that informed and laid the foundation for a future effort to synthesize, organize, and disseminate information on lifelong learning for engineering professionals. The agenda for the workshop was developed by the committee to highlight the key issues that under-gird lifelong learning for engineers in the workplace. The workshop helped initiate a national discussion on lifelong learning in the 21st century knowledge economy by bringing together all stakeholders - representatives from industry, professional societies, academia, and policy makers.
Dr. Elizabeth Godfrey CASEE Scholar-in-Residence September – November, 2008 Dr. Elizabeth Godfrey extended and wrote for publication her on-going research based upon the Culture of Engineering Education and its interaction with Gender. Her research focus is on “the development of a theoretical model for the culture of engineering education, accessible to engineering educators in theory and discourse, to frame the identification of the basic beliefs, values and assumptions held by both staff and students, and reveal how they combine with the construction of the discipline to guide actions".
Two papers prepared at that time have been accepted for publication
Godfrey, E. (2009). Exploring the culture of Engineering Education: The journey. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 15(1). Accessible at: http://www.engineersmedia.com.au/journals/aaee/pdf/AJEE_15-1_Godfrey%20F1.pdf
23 Godfrey, E., & Parker, L. (January 2010 in press). Mapping the cultural landscape in Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering Education.
Another paper currently under review was submitted on the topic of Enculturation:Learning what it means to be an engineer. The research focus was to use the lens of a cultural analysis to investigate whether undergraduate students develop shared beliefs and assumptions around what it means to be an engineer; and to provide a cultural model which will enable an examination of how, or whether, the teaching and assessment practices manifested in engineering education, are translated by students into cultural norms which determine and shape their learning outcomes.
Ongoing research interests lie with the questions, If engineering education and engineering itself is a “masculine” culture, how do women negotiate the culture? How does this impact on efforts to increase female participation in engineering? If engineering subdisciplines have developed recognizable disciplinary cultures, how do the values and norms associated with these cultures impact on the participation of women?
CASEE FIE NEW FACULTY FELLOWS Since 2005, CASEE has underwritten the expenses of the New Faculty Fellows program of the Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). The FIE conference is sponsored by the IEEE Education Society, the ASEE Education Research and Methods Division, and the IEEE Computer Society. The purpose of the program is to promote the involvement of young faculty in the FIE conference so that they will be exposed to the "latest and greatest" in engineering educational practices and to exchange information with the leaders in education innovations. Each year new engineering and computer science faculty are invited to submit applications for possible selection as New Faculty Fellows. Fellows are chosen based on their conference paper; a nomination letter from the department chair, dean, or dissertation chair; and their curriculum vita. A rigorous peer-reviewed application process is used, with a review panel of engineering and computer science faculty from assistant, associate, and full professor levels. The fellowship provides a $1,000 grant for conference travel expenses. With CASEE Support, up to 10 Fellows are supported each year. The following fellows were supported in 2009:
Jonathan Hilpert Qaiser Malik Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne Michigan State University
Luis Inostroza Cueva Holly Matusovich Tokyo Institute of Technology Virginia Tech
Oenardi Lawanto Brent Nelson Utah State University Northern Arizona University
Julie Linsey Sevgi Ozkan Texas A & M University Middle East Technical University
24 CASEE Chronicles, Volume VI: 2008-2009
CASEE Advisory Committee
A distinguished set of individuals comprise the CASEE Advisory Committee and provide guidance on CASEE’s strategic directions and operational tactics. Members are drawn from academe, industry, and private foundations.
Dr. C. Judson King (NAE)*, Chair Dr. Donna Riley Director of the Center for the Study of Higher Associate Professor of Engineering Education Smith College University of California – Berkeley Dr. Karl Smith Ms. Cathleen Barton Cooperative Learning Professor of US Education Manager Engineering Education Intel Corporation Purdue University and Dr. Alfred Blumstein (NAE) Morse-Alumni Distinguished Professor of University Professor Civil and Mineral Engineering J. Erik Jonsson Professor of Urban Systems and University of Minnesota Operations Research H. John Heinz School of Public Policy and Mr. Ray Stata (NAE) Management Chairman Carnegie Mellon University Analog Devices
Dr. Eli Fromm (NAE) Dr. Kuei-Wu Tsai Roy A. Brothers University Professor and Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost Professor of Electrical and Computer Wentworth Institute of Technology Engineering Drexel University Dr. David M. Wormley Dean of Engineering Dr. Leah Jamieson (NAE) The Pennsylvania State University Dean of Engineering Purdue University Ex-officio Dr. Michael L. Corradini (NAE) Dr. Willie Pearson, Jr. Chair, NAE Committee on Professor and Chair of the Engineering Education School of History, Technology, and Society Georgia Institute of Technology Professor and Chair, Department of Engineering Physics Dr. George D. Peterson University of Wisconsin-Madison Former Executive Director ABET, Inc.
*(NAE) indicates member of the National Academy of Engineering.
25 CASEE Staff Activities
CASEE’s staff has been quite busy with engineering education research and development initiatives. The following section describes a few of its efforts to nurture a community of scholars and practitioners, advance the knowledge base, and disseminate new knowledge.
Research to Practice Materials – The research into practice series, compiled by CASEE staff, summarizes and distills current literature in educational psychology, sociology, and behavioral science into single page briefs targeted for use by engineering faculty (Teachers Integrating Prior Scholarship, TIPS, and Data-driven Engineering Education Practices, DEEP) and administrators (Responding to Administrative Priorities, RAP). In addition to printed briefs, CASEE’s web site features avatars speaking summary capsules that “headline” the research that is summarized. Also featured on our web site are materials Developed in collaboration with the Assessing Women and Men in Engineering (AWE) project of the Society of Women Engineers (SWE) called Advancing Research into Practice (ARP) Resources. This series of document suites written by experts in their fields highlight the research base on gender equity in engineering education. Each document suite consists of an abstract, a 2-page information sheet, and a full scholarly literature review. Spoken summaries of the TIPS, DEEP, and RAP briefs are available at http://www.nae.edu/?id=14012; downloadable PDF files are available from the store at http://www.CASEEconduit.org.
CASEEconduit.org – In October 2008, CASEE launched www.CASEEconduit.org as a dissemination pathway and store for the materials it was developing related to engineering education research and innovation.
Engineering Equity Extension Service (EEES) – NSF-sponsored collaboration that seeks to increase the enrollment, retention, and graduation of women as baccalaureate engineers. In support of this goal, the new EEES website (www.nae.edu/casee-equity) contains resources on gender equity, engineering education, and project management. In addition to our original collaborators (American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, and Project Lead the Way), in April 2008 we began working directly with departments of mechanical and electrical engineering at several institutions throughout the country. Each department designated an extension agent and developed a project related to EEES goals. Project foci included K-12 outreach, faculty and student workshops, or curriculum review and revision.
Research Journal Web Portal – CASEE has recognized that the capacity for rigorous research among its affiliates may be increased through a common access point for existing education research journals in fields relevant to engineering education. Consequently, it has created a web portal called the Annals of Research in Engineering Education, available at: http://www.AREEonline.org. AREE is an experiment in collaborative scholarship that serves to link education researchers and practitioners across engineering domains and between engineering and other disciplines. AREE publishes structured summaries of education research relevant to engineering education and reflective essays on these research experiences. Readers can contribute to the community by commenting on the summaries and essays. AREE also provides resources, such as annotated bibliographies and lists of education research conferences. AREE published 3 issues between September 2008 and June 2009.
Annual Meeting – In October and November 2008, CASEE held the first on-line annual meeting of its organizational and individual affiliates. The forum featured keynote presentations by learning scientists, creativity experts, and engineering education researchers and innovators. Workshops were led by presenters focused on workplace performance and gender equity in engineering environments. CASEE’s organizational affiliates also provided updates on their on-going research and innovations. A special feature was taped segments of thought leaders drawn from academe, industry, and government providing their viewpoints on key issues facing engineering education. Asynchronous interaction was encouraged by presenters responding to questions over a period of 60 days and the availability of an on-line discussion forum.
26 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007
Engineering TV – In November 2008, CASEE held a script development workshop with a select set of Hollywood writers, producers, and directors with the aim of encouraging the development of an engineering-focused narrative television drama. The activity resulted in a script outline and is anticipated to result in a full script. Interest has been expressed by two television production companies in developing show pilots centered on working engineers.
International Visits – CASEE director Norman Fortenberry undertook a global speaking tour from Summer of 2008 through Spring of 2009 visiting CASEE counterpart centers in the UK (Engineering Subject Centre of the UK Higher Education Academy), Korea (Korean Engineering Education Research Center of the Accreditation Board for Engineering Education of Korea), and Australia (Senior Fellows within the discipline of engineering of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council). Fortenberry was impressed with the level of achievement in the international engineering education research and innovation communities and sought to encourage greater collaboration with US counterparts.
Metrics of Instructional Scholarship – In April 2009, the National Academy of Engineering published the report What Gets Measured is What Gets Improved. The report documents the result of a CASEE- sponsored 24-month study by the NAE’s Committee on Engineering Education (CEE) to examine metrics of instructional scholarship. The report is available for free download as a PDF file at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12636.
Student Engagement Survey– In Summer 2009, CASEE staff completed validation work on provisional instruments developed to assess student engagement in engineering education. The instruments build upon and refine the Engineering National Survey of Student Engagement (E-NSSE), and its faculty version, the Engineering Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (E-FSSE). These instruments assess the extent to which engineering students are being engaged by identified “best instructional practices” and are achieving certain learning outcomes desired of engineering graduates. These surveys were first pilot-tested at six engineering colleges across the United States. Tests of validity and reliability were conducted on both instruments. The instruments were then refined and shortened based on the psychometric properties of the items in the original instruments. Ultimately, we hope to make the instruments available to the national engineering education community so that they might improve the ways in which they teach tomorrow’s engineers
CASEE’s Online Newsletter - DISTILATE (Disseminating Innovation, Scholarship, and Transformation in the Learning, Assessment, and Teaching of Engineering) provides CASEE affiliates an easy reference to a wide variety of current journal articles and other publications discussing research and development activities relevant to engineering education, related meetings and events, and funding sources. In each issue, articles are derived from a changing mix of major publications drawn from a wide array of disciplinary sources and providing a balance between theory and practice. The articles are organized according to CASEE’s research thrust areas. DISTILATE issues were published monthly between September 2008 and June 2009.
Engineering Faculty as Agents of Academic Change – In October 2008, CASEE received an NSF grant in support of a workshop to develop a plan for training engineering faculty to become academic change agents. The workshop was held in June 2009 with curricular content developed by faculty in Purdue’s School of Engineering Education and staff of the university-wide Susan Bulkeley Butler Center for Leadership Excellence. Though originally intended for 25 invited attendees, 28 invited attendees were accommodated. An additional 20 attendees paid their own expenses so that institutional teams could attend and benefit from the workshop.
27 Selected Expanded CASEE Research Community Activities
The Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education
The Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education consists of five partner universities: Colorado School of Mines, Howard University, Stanford University, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Washington (the lead institution). Since its establishment in 2003, CAEE has worked on a long-term mission to understand and enhance the learning experience of the engineering student, to integrate the needs of diverse faculty and students into engineering education, to strengthen the education research skills of engineering faculty and graduate students, to expand the community of leaders in engineering education, and to promote effective teaching for current and future faculty. Activity under the NSF grant (ESI-027558) is ending in early 2010 with the completion of the Final Report.
Main Areas of Research and Development
CAEE research focuses on several different areas. The Academic Pathways Study (APS) combines longitudinal and cross-sectional studies of how a diverse set of students learn engineering. The Studies of Engineering Educator Decisions research (SEED) investigates engineering faculty teaching. The Engineering Teaching Portfolio Program (ETPP) involved graduate students interested in faculty careers. The Institute for Scholarship on Engineering Education (ISEE) hosted three year-long Institutes designed to mentor faculty and graduate students in the theory and methods of rigorous engineering education research. In addition, ISEE researchers investigated aspects of people's pathways into engineering education research.
Key Publications
For a full list of CAEE publications and presentations, including more details on the findings summarized below, see the CAEE website at http://www.engr.washington.edu/caee/publications.html.
Recent Findings
Update of Academic Pathways Study of Undergraduates The largest component of CAEE research is the Academic Pathways Study (APS). The goal of the APS is to develop an understanding of how people become engineers. A Longitudinal Cohort study began in the 2003-04 academic year with 40 freshman students on each of four diverse campuses. Surveys of two larger groups of students were conducted to further investigate the Longitudinal Cohort findings: the Broader Core Sample and Broader National Sample surveys (APPLES, the Academic Pathways of People Learning Engineering Surveys 1 and 2, respectively) consisted of a subset of the Longitudinal Cohort survey questions. The Broader Core Sample survey was administered spring 2007 to over 800 students. The Broader National Sample was administered in early 2008 and consisted of over 4,200 undergraduate engineering students at all academic levels from 21 institutions across the nation.
As a broad summary, CAEE researchers found there is much good news about the state of undergraduate engineering education. Students become engineers in multiple ways – gaining proficiency in the skills, learning the engineering "language;" developing their identity as engineers; and coming closer to knowing what an engineer does. They become more confident and feel prepared in teamwork, problem-solving and communication skills. Over time, engineering students gain exposure to more "real" engineering experiences, often through off-campus activities including co-ops and internships. Engineering students who start in engineering tend to stay there.
28 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007
There are also challenges for engineering students. Heavy workloads in competitive environments can lead to stress for some and an occasional "stick it out" feeling; there is sometimes a rough transition to upper level classes when the focus shifts from individual to team-based work. Some students feel financial pressures, particularly in the early years. Some students feel a disconnect between early courses in math/science and "real engineering". They often do not feel prepared at graduation in issues of global/societal context. Women and men often have different experiences: women often report lower confidence and sometimes "go underground" to find resources for help. Although most engineering students who start in engineering stay there, fewer students migrate into engineering compared to other majors.
Update of Studies of Engineering Educator Decisions (SEED) The Studies of Engineering Educator Decisions (SEED) seeks to understand engineering educators’ approaches to teaching by looking at their decision-making. SEED conducted intensive interviews with 31 engineering faculty. Faculty narratives about their process of committing to a decision were often strongly felt and involved various rationales. They often felt bound to a specific action by certain constraints and sometimes accepted unsatisfactory decisions based on tradeoffs and issues beyond their control, or tried to achieve a satisfactory decision at their own personal cost. Other findings suggest that discussions of real-world applications and other aspects of relevance were frequent elements in narratives by faculty about their teaching. Additionally, interviewees took many kinds of differences among students into account in their teaching decisions (e.g., plagiarizers vs. non-plagiarizers, differences in class standing, and differences in level of background knowledge). The SEED research team is continuing analysis to develop these and additional findings that will have implications for affecting teaching practices.
Update of Institute for Scholarship on Engineering Education (ISEE) The University of Washington ISEE was completed in fall 2005; the Stanford University ISEE was completed in fall 2006; and the Howard University ISEE was completed in fall 2007. Forty-seven Scholars participated in the Institutes. A number of the scholars continue to find success in engineering education research by connecting to the national community through conferences and national-level research projects. ISEE research on the pathways into engineering education research found two broad themes among individual trajectories: the importance of community and the purposefulness (“intentional serendipity”) in these pathways. The ISEE model can serve as a basis for those interested in creating similar programs in the future.
Continuing Dissemination and Final Report
Six CAEE-related papers were presented at the 2009 ASEE Conference which also included ERM- sponsored Special Session 2530 that highlighted some of the latest APS research results and engaged the 80+ attendees in a discussion of implications. Written insights gathered from participants at the session are posted on the CAEE website. Papers on APS findings were presented at AERA in April; the Mudd Design Workshop in May; and the FIE Conference in October. Team members also presented a workshop on APS longitudinal findings at the FIE Conference. Cindy Atman, CAEE Director, gave keynote addresses at the WEPAN Conference (in June) and the FIE Conference. The CAEE research team plans to post the Final Report on the CAEE website in early 2010.
29 Center for Engineering Learning and Teaching – University of Washington
Overview This year at the Center for Engineering Learning & Teaching (CELT) at the University of Washington we are celebrating our tenth anniversary. Over the past decade our researchers and instructional developers worked diligently to support CELT’s two-part mission: to conduct relevant engineering education research and to provide instructional support for engineering faculty at the UW. We are dedicated to the idea that significant improvements in engineering education may be achieved by developing and supporting professional educators, and by researching topics that are important to the education of new generations of engineers. The CELT model for linking research and teaching has proven successful in the UW College of Engineering and has affected engineering education at national and international levels. CELT educational researchers work on funded research projects with colleagues from the University of Washington and across the nation to conduct research that advances engineering education. Our research is ongoing in the areas of knowledge integration of learners, understanding students’ learning experiences and their preparation for professional practice, design learning, and integrating research findings with teaching innovations. CELT instructional consultants build on current research to offer a diverse set of program elements with a goal to improve engineering learning and teaching in the College of Engineering at the University of Washington. Our activities include working with individual instructors, conducting workshops and seminars, and actively participating in strategic-level initiatives. We receive funding from The Boeing Company, the National Science Foundation and the University of Washington College of Engineering. Special thanks to the Mark and Carolyn Guidry Foundation, Jim and Sue Hewitt, and the Mitchell T. and Lella Blanche Bowie family.
Key Publications Atman, Cynthia J., Deborah Kilgore, and Ann McKenna. "Characterizing Design Learning: A Mixed-Methods Study of Engineering Designers’ Use of Language," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 309-326, 2008. Atman, Cynthia J., Ken Yasuhara, Robin S. Adams, Theresa Barker, Jennifer Turns, and Eddie Rhone. "Breadth in Problem-Scoping: A Comparison of Freshmen and Senior Engineering Students," International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 234-245, 2008. Atman, Cynthia J., Katherine Deibel, and Jim Borgford-Parnell. “The Process ofEngineering Design: A Comparison of Three Representations,” In International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’09 proceedings, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, August 2009. Borgford-Parnell, Jim., Katherine Deibel,., Cynthia J. Atman, (2009, in Press). ”From Engineering Design Research to Engineering Pedagogy: Bringing Research Results Directly to the Students,” International Journal of Engineering Education (Special issue on Applications of Engineering Education Research). Turns, Jennifer, Jessica Yellin, YiMin Huang, and Brooke Sattler. "We All Take Learners into Account in Our Teaching Decisions: Wait Do We?," In American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference Proceedings, Pittsburgh, PA, June 2008.
Recent Findings Over the last decade, Cindy Atman (CELT’s Director) and her research team investigated and published on various aspects of engineering design. For example we studied the design processes of freshmen and senior engineering students and compared them to the design processes of professional engineers; we looked at how broadly engineering designers consider the context of engineering design problems; we examined whether student designers’ use of language is reflective of their levels of design expertise, and we studied the design process of an interdisciplinary team of professional engineering designers. Each of these studies, and others, lend new perspectives to the growing scholarship on engineering design. CELT researchers have published and presented results in a wide array of journals, books, conferences, symposia, and websites. Our overarching objective has been for our research to positively affect the ways that engineering faculty teach and engineering students learn. With that goal in mind, over the last few years we have begun to expand our dissemination routes by taking findings directly to the engineering faculty we work with, and (in several cases) by taking our results directly to engineering students.
30 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007
To illustrate, in Borgford-Parnell, et.al. (2009) we described how we engaged students in their classrooms with our design process research. In several of those interactive classroom presentations we asked students to analyze a set of design process timelines from our research (see an example timeline in Figure 1). After examining the timelines they discussed insights with their peers and reflected on their own design processes.
Figure 1 – Design Process Timeline of a Senior Engineering Student.
Timelines illustrate when particular phenomena occur during a design process and are used to facilitate visual inspection and a clearer understanding of the interactions and transitions among various design activities Through these timeline activities students extracted valuable lessons. One student, for example, compared the senior timeline (Figure 1) to those of other students and concluded that an effective design process might be characterized as having a particular shape that he labeled an “Ideal Project Envelope” (Figure 2). That envelope is something our researchers previously identified and termed a cascade pattern (see Atman, et al., Engineering Design Processes: A Comparison of Students and Expert Practitioners J. of Eng. Educ. 96(4), 359-380, 2007). Seen most often in experts’ timelines, this cascade pattern suggests a way of moving through a full range of design activities.
Figure 2 – “Ideal Project Envelope” These interactive classroom activities were not only beneficial for students, they also benefited their instructors by providing instructional development. By collaborating with engineering faculty on course content and classroom activities, we shared both our research results as well as pedagogical models and methods. Check out the CELT website for examples of some of our class presentations and faculty workshops: http://depts.washington.edu/celtweb/teaching/
Looking Forward Our research is on-going and we will continue to look for innovative ways to apply what we learn to engineering education. We also continue to work with the CAEE Academic Pathways research ( http://www.engr.washington.edu/caee/ ) to develop effective ways to apply their results for the improvement of engineering student recruitment, advising, support, and overall academic experiences.
31 Center for Studies in Higher Education – University of California, Berkeley
Overview and Background
Established in 1957 through a grant from the Carnegie Corporation, the Center for Studies in Higher Education (CSHE) at the University of California, Berkeley, carries out research and policy studies pertaining to issues of higher education at the international, national and state levels. Although located on the Berkeley campus, the Center involves researchers and affiliates from around the University of California system and throughout other sectors of California. A description of the Center and its programs and affiliates may be found at http://cshe.berkeley.edu/.
Main Areas of Research and Findings
The Center carries out research and policy studies on all aspects of higher education. Within current activities, there are three areas relating directly to engineering education and two others that relate indirectly.
In the first of these projects, supported by the Dreyfus Foundation, Professor John Prausnitz and associates are creating short modules that can be included in engineering courses so as to convey the wider dimensions (e. g., social, political, humanistic, economic, …) surrounding specific engineering issues. An example is the development of the Haber process for fixation of ammonia and its relation to the dynamics of World War I.
The second area of endeavor is aimed at modernizing the degree structure and curricular organization for engineering education, with particular emphasis on broadening the education of engineers to meet better the needs associated with engineering functions in the U. S. today. Important changes in the environment for engineers stem from factors such as globalization and more public and environmental aspects of engineering. We have held broad discussion meeting and seminars on this subject and are now working toward a project that will explore the factors that inhibit change, along with ways of overcoming them.
A recently completed long-term longitudinal study by Anne MacLachlan examined educational and career factors for minority and female PhDs in science and engineering, uncovering both obstacles and positive factors. This work was supported by the Spencer Foundation and is the subject of a book manuscript that is under development.
As part of a larger study of the Student Experience in Research Universities (SERU), CSHE, through John Douglass, has overseen a large on-line survey of all undergraduate students in the ten-campus University of California system (UCUES – University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey) on aspects of their experiences as undergraduate students. The rich data set has proven to be valuable to administrators and has also formed the base for several research projects. Sub-sets of the data provide insight to the perceptions of engineering students and are been used by engineering departments. The SERU Project is now being extended to other AAU universities and to a group of Asian universities.
Finally, a recent study spearheaded by Professors Neil Smelser and Michael Schudson, supported by Diane Harley, has examined general education in the research university for the 21st century. In that general education is an effective way of providing breadth to undergraduates, this study is pertinent to
32 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007 engineering education. This effort has been supported by the Carnegie Corporation and the Hewlett Foundation.
Key Publications
King, C. J., “Let Engineers Go to College”, Issues in Science and Technology. Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 25-28. (Summer 2006). http://www.issues.org/22.4/p_king.html. See also, King, C. J., “Engineers Deserve a Liberal Education”, Chemical Engineering Education, Vol. 42, N. 1 (Winter 2008), and Engineering Impact, Purdue University, Winter 2007-08, p. 19. Also King, C. J., “Educating Engineers for a Changing World”, World University President’s Summit, Belgrade, Serbia, April 2009. King, C. J., S. A. Ambrose, R. A. Arreola, K. Watson, R. M. Taber, N. L. Fortenberry & E. T. Cady, “Metrics and Methodology for Assessing Engineering Instruction”, ASQ Higher Education Brief, August 2009, www.asq.org. See also full report: “Developing Metrics for Assessing Engineering Instruction: What Gets Measured Is What Gets Improved”, National Academies Press, Washington (2009). http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12636 MacLachlan, A. J., “Developing Graduate Students of Color for the Professoriate in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)”, CSHE 6.06 (March 2006). http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/publications.php?id=164 MacLachlan, A. J., “The Graduate Experience of Women in SMET Fields and How It Could Be Improved", in Removing Barriers: Women in Academic Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics”, J. M. Bystydzienski & S. R. Bird, eds., Univ. of Indiana Press (2006). Chatman, S., “Recognizing and then Using Disciplinary Patterns of the Undergraduate Experience: Getting Past Institutional Standards”, CSHE 6.2009 (May 2009). http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/publications.php?id=337. G. Thomson & J. A. Douglass, “Decoding Learning Gains: Measuring Outcomes and the Pivotal Role of the Major and Student Backgrounds”, CSHE 5.2009 (May 2009). http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/publications.php?id=338 General Education Commission, “General Education in the 21st Century”, Final Report, April 2007. http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/gec/documents/GEC-Book.WEB2.pdf.
Looking Forward
The project to create breadth modules for inclusion in engineering courses is continuing, as is the effort toward identifying and dealing with obstacles to broadening and restructuring of engineering education, and the undergraduate experience survey (SERU-UCUES) and the research utilizing the data generated through the survey. In addition new projects are being explored. One area of interest is the community- college transfer route toward STEM education. Transfer is an avenue towards greater diversity in the engineering profession, provides a second chance for those who develop degree interests after high school, and can be a less costly route to an undergraduate degree. A specific project currently under development is an investigation of how minority students get into an engineering or science major at a community college, whether they take remedial mathematics classes, and how many finish the lower division requirements for transfer to a four year institution and why. Another area of interest is the sustainability of public universities in the United States, which provide access to higher education for 75% or more of those attending college in the U. S., including engineering majors.
33 Center for the Study of Women, Science, and Technology- Georgia Tech
Overview and Focus: Established in 1999, the Center for the Study of Women, Science, and Technology (WST) connects faculty committed to improving the representation of women in science and engineering, and supports initiatives for faculty and student development and advancement. The WST Center provides research- based practice and policy to improve participation and performance of women in scientific and technological education and careers. The WST Center sponsors focused research panels, workshops for faculty and student development, and an annual, distinguished WST Lecturer. The WST Center also coordinates and financially underwrites faculty-student research partnerships, and provides mentoring programs associated with its Women, Science, and Technology Learning Community, which is co- sponsored with the Department of Housing.
The WST Center partnered with the College of Engineering and the Office of the Provost to develop the Georgia Tech National Science Foundation ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Program. Funded by NSF (2001-2006), the Georgia Tech ADVANCE ($3,702,000) sponsored an integrated set of activities aimed at enhancing retention and advancement of female faculty. WST Center Co-Directors Fox and Realff served as ADVANCE Co-PIs; Realff and Colatrella as successive ADVANCE Program Directors; Fox was Director of ADVANCE Research and has been and continues as an ADVANCE Professor.
WST is part of the current Georgia Tech ADVANCE Team, working toward the continuing institutionalization of ADVANCE initiatives. WST reports to the new Georgia Tech Vice Provost for Academic Diversity.
Areas of research and innovation: Areas of research include:
• Higher education in scientific and technological fields • Pedagogical practices and innovations in engineering and technology • Careers in science and engineering • Gender, culture, and technology • Evaluation of performance in scientific/technological fields • International collaboration among women engineers • Global gender equity in science and engineering
Key organizational innovations of WST include the following: 1) ADVANCE activities have helped to increase the percentage of women advanced by Georgia Tech. Surveys and interviews also indicate substantial improvement in “fair” departmental climates, clarity in processes of evaluation, and perceived increase in administrative attention to issues of faculty-advancement. 2) The WST Learning Community is the first and inaugural learning community at Georgia Tech. Significantly, in its ninth year of operation, the WST Learning Community only this past year had a student transfer out of Georgia Tech. No other WST Learning Community residents have ever dropped out of Georgia Tech. That means since 2000, the WST Learning Community has provided a network for approximately 385 students who were retained and graduated, many of whom have continued to participate in the WST electronic listserve. 3) Women’s International Research Engineering Summit (WIRES) – WST is leader of the world’s first international research summit for women engineers. WST Co-director, Mary Lynn Realff, is principal investigator, and Carol Colatrella and Mary Frank Fox are co-principal investigators of
34 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007
this initiative, supported by the National Science Foundation. In June 2009, the Summit brought to 50 women engineers from the US and 50 women engineers from countries outside the US, focusing on sustained means to international collaboration and global gender equity in engineering. 4) The WST Inman STEM Project develops interventions to increase the participation of middle school girls and minorities in the STEM pipeline and studies the outcomes of these interventions and other models. The Project has three components: (a) Technology curriculum: Research-based curricular modules in technology offering assistance in selected technology classes throughout the year. To maximize girls’ interest, retention, and advancement in STEM, technology activities have been mapped to the Girl Scouts “Interest Area” badges. (b) Inman GEMS (Girls Excelling in Mathematics and Science): Initiative focusing on middle school girls’ leadership skills and scientific and technical skills, using media technologies to document meetings and activities, hands-on activities, meetings with STEM professionals, and field trips showcasing STEM careers. (c) Lego Robotics: Initiative to build middle school students’ collaboration on teams to build and program Lego Mindstorms, design effective research presentations for competitions, and prepare for technical competitions and interviews.
Recent Key Publications: Carol Colatrella. “Transitions in Danish Universities: Management, Mergers, and Accountability.” Translated as “Transicíon en las universidades danesas: gestíon, fusiones y responsbilidad.” Revista de la Educacíon Superior 36 (January-March 2008): 71-80. Carol Colatrella. “Gender Equality, Family/Work Arrangements, and Faculty Success in Danish Universities.” Journal of the Professoriate (forthcoming). Mary Frank Fox. “Institutional Transformation and the Advancement of Women Faculty: The Case of Academic Science and Engineering.” In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. 23. Edited by J. C. Smart. Springer Publishers, 2008. Mary Frank Fox. “Collaboration between Science and Social Science.” Research in Social Problems and Public Policy 16 (2008): 17-30. Mary Frank Fox, Gerhard Sonnert, and Irina Nikiforova. “Successful Programs for Undergraduate Women in Science and Engineering: Adapting vs. Adopting the Institutional Environment.” Research in Higher Education 50 (June 2009): 333-353. Mary Frank Fox. “Women and Men Faculty in Academic Science and Engineering: Social-Organizational Indicators and Implications.” American Behavioral Scientist 51 (forthcoming 2009).
Recent Findings: A survey conducted of tenured and tenure-track faculty in nine research universities with strength in science and engineering fields points to patterns, by gender, in key social-organizational elements within academic science and engineering (Fox, 2009 forthcoming). First, women are less likely than men to report speaking daily about research, and more likely than men to report speaking less than weekly. The higher percentages of men speaking daily about research with faculty in their home units may point to greater ease, access, and informality in their interaction and exchange—with consequences for testing ideas and updating research. Second and relatedly, women give significantly lower rankings to aspects of their position/unit, signifying lower benefits of human and material resources in vital areas: access to equipment, sense of inclusion from faculty in the department, and recognition received from faculty for their accomplishments. Third, the characterizations that women, compared to men, give to their home units support the idea that academic environments do not necessarily operate uniformly. Out of eight dimensions of departmental climate, women’s characterizations are significantly lower than men’s for the five positive aspects of departmental climates, and significantly higher in the direction of a negative aspect of departmental climate (“stressfulness”). Fourth, gender difference exists in work-family interference with women reporting higher interference than men—especially of family upon work (compared to interference of work with family).
Looking Forward: WST will continue to support annual Women’s International Research Engineering Summits (WIRES), addressing international collaboration and issues of global gender equity, including continuing research on these issues.
35 The Center for Research on Learning and Teaching North at the College of Engineering. University of Michigan
Overview/Background As an educator of roughly 7500 engineering students each year, the College of Engineering at the University of Michigan (U-M) recognizes the importance of its role in reforming engineering education, and it is committed to providing a high quality teaching and learning environment. The college established the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching North (CRLT North) to assist faculty and students in their roles as instructors and scholars of teaching and learning. The office also engages in and supports research to know more about students and enhance their learning, to enhance diversity via improved retention and increased enrollment of women and underrepresented minority students, and to develop effective professional development activities for instructors. Main Areas of Research and Development Students and learning • Explore how engineering students develop ethical decision-making skills • Assess the impact of innovative pedagogies (including technology) on student learning Diversity and retention • Identify factors that predict student success and retention • Develop effective K-12 partnerships, transition-to-college programs, and undergraduate support mechanisms to increase the diversity of students in engineering Faculty and the profession • Prepare graduate students instructors for classroom teaching • Assess the impact of programs designed to support teaching and learning • Support the professional growth and development of teaching centers on the national level
Key publications Students and learning • Daly, S. (2009, June). The design landscape: A phenomenographic study of design experiences. Proceedings of the 2009 ASEE Annual Conference, Austin, TX. • Finelli, C. J., Sutkus, J. A., Carpenter, D. D., & Harding, T. S. (2008, July). A longitudinal study of the ethical development of engineering and non-engineering students at a national research university. Paper presented at Research in Engineering Education Symposium, Davos, Switzerland. • Lapp, M., Fleszar, J., and Ringenberg, J. (2008, Oct.). Engineering Online Gateway System: Ensuring Student Learning through Automated Milestone Exams. Poster presented at the Third Annual CRLT North Research and Scholarship in Engineering Education Poster Session, University of Michigan • Mayhew, M. J., Hubbard, S. M., Finelli, C. J., Harding, T. S., & Carpenter, D. D. (2009, Summer). Using structural equation modeling to validate the theory of planned behavior as a model for predicting student cheating. Review of Higher Education, 32(4): 441–468. • Phillips, J., and Cagin, Emine. (2008, Oct.) Investigating Inquiry-Based Learning in an Introductory Course on Semiconductor Devices. Poster presented at the Third Annual CRLT North Research and Scholarship in Engineering Education Poster Session, University of Michigan • Pinder-Grover, T., Mirecki-Millunchick, J., Bierwert, C., & Shuller, L. (2009, June). Leveraging screencasts to strategically clarify unclear material science concepts. Proceedings of the 2009 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, TX. • Sutkus, J. A., Finelli, C. J., Carpenter, D. D., & Harding, T. S. (2009, June). An examination of student experiences related to engineering ethics: Initial findings. Proceedings of the 2009 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, TX. Diversity and retention • Brown, M. K., Hershock, C., Finelli, C. J., & O'Neal, C. (2009, May). Teaching for retention in science, engineering, and math disciplines: A guide for faculty. Occasional Paper No. 25. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, University of Michigan. • Finelli, C. J., & Kendall-Brown, M. (2009, June). Using an interactive theater sketch to improve students’ teamwork skills. Proceedings of the 2009 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, TX.
36 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007
• Mesa, V., Jaquette, O., & Finelli, C. J. (2009, Oct.). In search of the Holy Grail: Measuring the impact of an individual course on students’ success. Journal of Engineering Education, in press. • Pinder-Grover, T., Mirecki-Millunchick, J., Bierwert, C., & Shuller, L. (2009, June). The efficacy of screencasts on diverse students in a large lecture course. Proceedings of the 2009 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, TX. Faculty and the profession • Finelli, C. J., Ott, M., Gottfried, A. C., Hershock, C., O’Neal, C., & Kaplan, M. (2008, Oct.). Utilizing instructional consultations to enhance the teaching performance of engineering faculty. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(4): 397–411. Recent Activities Two recent projects highlight initiatives at U-M. First, the college is part of a multi-institutional team that is undertaking a four-year study to address the question: What activities (in the formal and/or informal engineering curriculum) have the most positive impact on the ethical development of engineering undergraduates? Thus far, the team has conducted visits to eighteen diverse institutions to interview students, faculty, and administrators and has developed a survey to assess the impact of various activities on students’ ethical development. The survey is undergoing pilot testing, and it will be administered broadly in the coming year. The project will conclude with a series of workshops to inform the national community about those experiences that have the most positive impact on ethical development and to aid educators in adapting those experiences for their own institutions. Second, the college is undertaking a major curriculum review. A commission on undergraduate engineering education, consisting of respected faculty from every department in the college, carefully examined many elements of the current curriculum. The commission made eight actionable recommendations (including such ideas as increasing experiential and open-ended content throughout the curriculum, encouraging and supporting curricular and pedagogical innovation, and making curricular changes to support flexibility) to the college in its “Michigan Engineering 2020” report. Nearly one-third of the engineering faculty who teach undergraduate courses attended a college wide retreat to discuss the recommendations and generate strategies for implementing them. The college is currently working to adopt several of the ideas generated at the retreat. Looking Forward At U-M, there is growing interest in the scholarship on teaching and learning (SoTL). For example, for the past three years, CRLT North has organized a poster session for faculty and students to share their research and scholarship with colleagues. Nearly 40 projects have been presented and more than 150 people have attended. Besides supporting faculty and students as they pursue SoTL projects, the college (in collaboration with the School of Education) recently developed a certificate program for engineering doctoral students to learn more engineering education research. The certificate includes four required courses and one elective, and is a unique partnership between engineering and education. And the college continues its long-term efforts to enhance diversity. A new research project is underway to promote substantive and sustained changes in teaching practices to improve student success and support a diverse student body in engineering. The premise of the work is that it will have the greatest impact if it is (1) grounded in research about successful faculty teaching practices, (2) integrated with local evidence about institutional context, student perspectives, and faculty perspectives, and (3) informed by literature on institutional change models, faculty development research, and learning theory. The project involves situating existing literature about faculty teaching practices in the U-M context, interacting with students to identify teaching practices they perceive to support and hinder their success, surveying engineering faculty and conducting interviews to understand the faculty perspective, and developing an evidence-based approach for institutional change. The college’s “Assuring Michigan's Knowledge-Based Workforce: A Summit on Diversity and Opportunity in K-16+ Engineering Education” is another way it will support diversity. The summit will provide an opportunity for representatives from industry, K-12 schools, and U-M to explore what they can do to ensure that our next generation of engineers is well-educated, diverse and prepared to lead Michigan into the future.
37 The Virginia Tech Department of Engineering Education
Overview/Background Our mission is to be inventive, inclusive, interdisciplinary, and international as we conduct cutting-edge research and scholarship, primarily in the emerging discipline of Engineering Education, simultaneously developing and delivering meaningful and memorable learning experiences for future engineers and educators. We conduct research and scholarship, offer a PhD and Graduate Certificate in Engineering Education, and teach all the required first-year engineering courses at Virginia Tech. Virginia Tech recognized the Department of Engineering Education with one of two Exemplary Department Awards in 2006 in recognition for “creating and sustaining introductory courses at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.” Our faculty members have won several university and national awards for teaching and research, including three NSF CAREER awards. Our doctoral program is a highly interdisciplinary, research-focused program requiring graduate-level course concentrations in engineering education as well as in a school of education and a traditional engineering discipline. Our graduates demonstrate include the ability to: 1. Conduct and direct research in engineering education 2. Develop, review, and critique effective research designs 3. Effectively teach engineering subjects 4. Design and assess engineering courses 5. Address critical issues facing engineering education
The Ph.D. is a research-focused degree built on models typically used in engineering programs. Students take courses in engineering education, education, and traditional engineering disciplines. The 13 semester hour Graduate Certificate in Engineering Education is available to all graduate students at Virginia Tech. The Certificate requirements include coursework from Engineering Education, the Graduate School, and the School of Education. A mentored Practicum in the Engineering Classroom is also required. Graduate students from across the College of Engineering and the School of Education are actively pursuing the Certificate, which shows their interest in studying mechanisms of engineering learning and also their commitment to pursue a career in academia.
The faculty in our department, one of the most diverse engineering faculties in the nation, have a research portfolio spanning a wide range of engineering education topics. The faculty is a highly diverse group consisting of equal numbers of women and men who collectively have earned degrees in English, learning sciences, linguistics, mathematics, and eleven different fields of engineering. The Virginia Tech first-year engineering program, one of the largest such programs in the nation, with its 40-year history of success, is one of our primary research sites. Research, teaching, and practice are considered across the curriculum – from the first year through graduate education – as well as in industry, and our work seeks synergistic engagement among these sites, using industry research to inform classroom practice and classroom innovation to inform industry.
Main areas of research and/or innovation/development Primary areas of scholarly exploration include: 1. Professional skills including communication, interdisciplinary collaboration, and cross-cultural competence; 2. Educational programs, with emphasis on learning mechanisms and systems, recruitment and retention (particularly of diverse groups), and spiral curricula; and 3. Design education at all academic levels. In many cases the three areas of inquiry listed will be applied to specific engineering disciplines and interest areas.
Key Publications
38 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007
Borrego, M., Douglas, E. P., & Amelink, C. T. (2009). Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Research Methods in Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 53-66. Borrego, M., Newswander, C. B., McNair, L. D., McGinnis, S., & Paretti, M. C. (2009). Using concept maps to assess interdisciplinary integration of green engineering knowledge. Advances in Engineering Education, 2(1), 1-26. Newswander, L. K., & Borrego, M. (2009). Engagement in two interdisciplinary graduate programs. Higher Education, 58(4), 551-562. Paretti, M. C., L. D. McNair, K. Belanger, and D. George (Fall 2009, in press). Reformist Possibilities? Exploring Cross-Campus Writing Partnerships. WPA: Writing Program Administration. Accepted for publication September 2009. Richter, D. M. and M. C. Paretti (2009). Identifying Barriers to and Outcomes for Interdisciplinarity in the Engineering Classroom. European Journal of Engineering Education 34(1): 29-45.
Recent Findings
Borrego, Douglas and Amelink used empirical data from the 2007 International Conference on Research in Engineering Education to motivate a discussion and analysis of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods in engineering education research. Using Journal of Engineering Education articles as examples, they highlight current practice and new opportunities for engineering education research methods.
Borrego, Newswander, McNair, McGinnis and Paretti used concept maps to assess a green engineering capstone course. Their article describes findings and recommendations for faculty scoring of student- generated concept maps in interdisciplinary topic areas.
Newswander and Borrego report on measures of quality and engagement in two interdisciplinary IGERT graduate programs at two universities. The findings include practical implications for designing interdisciplinary learning environments that require students and faculty to align themselves with either the program or a traditional disciplinary department.
As part of a larger study of writing program partnerships, Paretti et al. conducted a case study of a collaboration between first-year writing and first-year engineering, using student outcomes defined by ABET, Inc. and by the Council of Writing Program Administrators to create an integrated, interdisciplinary learning space. The case study indicated that while outcomes assessment is a viable basis for such partnerships, cohorting engineering students in a writing course may limited the degree of interdisciplinary thinking that can be achieved. The study also highlights structural and institutional barriers posed by such collaborations. Richter and Paretti examine barriers students face when engaging in interdisciplinary learning. Findings from a case study of students enrolled in an interdisciplinary green engineering course suggests that students experience “disciplinary egocentrism,” much like the egocentrism described by Piaget in studies of human development, that mediate against their engagement with interdisciplinary projects and concepts. In particularly, students may struggle to find links between their own field and an interdisciplinary content area (termed “lack of relatedness”), and they may struggle to understand what individuals from other disciplines can contribute to a project (termed “lack of perspective”)
Looking Forward
The initial cohort of Engineering Education Ph.D. students arrived in Fall 2008, and a successful Graduate Program Review was completed in Fall 2009. We are actively recruiting additional Ph.D. students to begin study in fall or spring semesters. At this time, we guarantee funding for accepted students for three years (contingent on sufficient progress).
39 Engineering Education Research Center at Washington State University
Overview/Background
The Engineering Education Research Center (EERC) at Washington State University fosters collaborative interdisciplinary teams among engineering, mathematics, science, and education scholars. The EERC facilitates research into innovative and effective educational practices and technologies that advance engineering education. The mission of the EERC is to: (1) Enable engineering faculty to achieve and document exceptional learning, growth, and commitment in engineering students, (2) Attract and retain diverse, demographically representative populations along the engineering pipeline, (3) Enhance teacher education programs and partnerships that give K-12 teachers confidence and competence in employing engineering applications in the teaching of mathematics, (4) Elevate the scholarship, stature, and professional advancement of participating engineering, mathematics, science, and education faculty, and (5) Advance the recognition and rewarding of educational scholarship across the university.
The EERC has addressed a number of research questions important to engineering education, including: • What attributes desired in engineering professionals should be developed in baccalaureate and post- baccalaureate degree programs? • How is engineering design learned and performed? How is design performance assessed reliably and with validity? • How do learning communities affect engineering student retention, engagement, and attitudes toward engineering careers? • How can concept visualization enhance student attitudes and learning in engineering and computer science classes? • How are curriculum materials and assessments best integrated to achieve desired student learning?
Current Projects
• Inventory of Evaluation Tools for Engineering Education Projects. NSF DUE 0839898 ($95,000). Stakeholder review and categorization of assessments for engineering education projects. • Collaborative Research: In-Class Peer Tutoring – A model for Engineering Instruction. NSF EEC 0836013 ($95,000). Implement in-class peer tutoring in which students who have recently taken a statics class assist current students with in-class active learning exercises. • Collaborative Research: Curricular Materials and Methods for Student Conceptual Understanding in Mechanics of Materials. NSF DUE 0837749 ($150,000). • Culturally Relevant Engineering Applications in Mathematics (CREAM). NSF DGE 0538652 ($1,200,000). Pairing mathematics and engineering graduate students with teachers in high school classrooms to implement engineering activities. • Capstone Engineering Design Assessment: Development, Testing, and Adoption Research. DUE 0717561 ($500,000). Development of new assessments, research on adoption issues, web-based implementation, and testing in multiple institutions. • Integrated Design Engineering Assessment and Learning System (IDEALS). NSF CCLI DUE 0919248 ($150,000). Develop and evaluate teamwork and professional development instructional materials with existing assessments in capstone design classes. • A National Model for Engineering Mathematics Education NSF CCLI Phase III DUE 0817332 ($30,000) subcontract from Wright State University. • Expansion of the Living Learning Communities for Engineering Students. Opening engineering residence hall for 600, free tutor-assisted study halls, out-of-class activities for science and engineering; merit-based scholarships– WSU funding.
40 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007
• Summer at WSU Engineering Experiences for Teachers (SWEET) NSF EEC-0338868 ($450,000). Real- life introduction to the world of engineering research: High school and middle school teachers in intensive six-week course inside the world of chemical and biochemical engineering laboratories.
Recent Publications
Brown, S. and C. Poor (2010). “In-Class Peer Tutoring: A Model for Engineering Instruction,” International Journal of Engineering Education. Davis, D., J. McCormack, S. Beyerlein, M. Trevisan, H. Davis, R. Gerlick, P. Thompson, S. Howe, P. Leiffer, and P. Brackin. (2010). “Assessing Team Member Citizenship in Capstone Engineering Design Courses,” International Journal of Engineering Education. R. G. Olsen, (2009) “Recent Developments in the Harold Frank Engineering Entrepreneurship Institute,” Proceedings of American Society for Engineering Education Conference, Austin, TX, June 2009. Davis, D. C., S. Beyerlein, P. Thompson, J. McCormack, O. Harrison, M. Trevisan, R. Gerlick, S. Howe, (2009). Assessing Design and Reflective Practice in Capstone Engineering Design Courses. American Society for Engineering Education Conference Proceedings 2009. Ater-Kranov, A., C. Hauser, R. G. Olsen and L. Girardeau (2008), “A Direct Method for Assessing ABET Professional Skills in Engineering Programs,” American Society for Engineering Education Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, June 2008 – Best paper award for the conference out of 1400 papers. Brown, S., L. Flick, and J. Kmec. (2008). The Role and Development of Social Capital in an Electrical Engineering Lab, Journal of Engineering Education. January 2009. Brown, S. Hildreth, K. (2008). Student Understanding of Shear and Moment Diagrams, International Network for Engineering Education Special Publication. 2008. Montfort, D., Brown, S. (2008). An Investigation of Students’ Conceptual Understanding in Related Sophomore to Graduate-Level Engineering and Mechanics Courses, Journal of Engineering Education. April 2009. Davis, D., S. Beyerlein, O. Harrison, P. Thompson, and M. Trevisan. (2007) “Transferable Assessments for Capstone Engineering Design.” Proceedings of NSF Assessment of Student Achievement Conference, October 2006, Washington, DC. Davis, D. and J. Rose. (2007). “Entrepreneurial Engineering Capstone Course with Research-Based Outcomes Assessment,” Proceedings of American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Honolulu, HI. Davis, D., S. Beyerlein, O. Harrison, P. Thompson, and M. Trevisan. (2007). “Assessments for Three Performance Areas in Capstone Engineering Design,” Proceedings of American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Honolulu, HI.
Recent Awards
Best Paper Award, 2009, ASEE Zone 8 (Shane Brown) ASCE ExCEEd National New Faculty Excellence in Teaching Award (Shane Brown) Best Paper Award, 2008, ASEE PNW Section Annual Meeting (Ashley Ater-Kranov) ASEE Kauffman Outstanding Entrepreneurship Award for 2008 (Denny Davis, and Robert Olsen) Honorable Mention, Benjamin Dasher Outstanding Paper Award, 2007 FIE National Conference (Shane Brown) National Academy of Engineering Center for Advancement of Scholarship in Engineering Education Faculty Award, 2007, FIE National Conference (Shane Brown) Outstanding Teaching Award, 2007, Pacific Northwest (PNW) Section of ASEE (Shane Brown)
Looking forward
Expand collaborations with other faculty across campus. Developing joint proposals with mathematics, sciences, engineering programs. Beginning course offerings for an envisioned Graduate Certificate in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) Education. This is a step toward development of a doctoral degree in this area. Extending use of capstone engineering design assessments to new test sites. Looking long-term toward a network of collaborators supporting dissemination of assessments for Professional Development, Teamwork, Design Processes, and Solution Assets in the context of capstone engineering design courses.
41 The Boeing Company - Learning, Training and Development Organization
Overview One of the key responsibilities of the Learning, Training and Development organization within the Boeing Company is to educate and train their workforce quickly and effectively; keeping them at the forefront of the aerospace industry. With the combination of today’s globalizing workforce and rapidly emerging new technologies these educational tasks are becoming even more difficult. By partnering with academic experts on complex adaptive systems, Engineering Education research, multifunctional materials and Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) theories, implementing adaptive expertise strategies to reduce the time from novice to expert, and incorporating sophisticated distance-based learning methodologies these challenges can be overcome.
Main Areas of Research and Development Joint industry-academic engineering education and research partnerships Multifunctional materials - composites & nanotechnology Social networks and complex learning communities Systems dynamics and complex adaptive systems PLM theory, methods and business practices Adaptive expertise - expert/novice practices Augmented cognition, immersive learning Project-based learning
Key Publications O’Mahony, K., Bransford, J., Lin, K., Richey, M., Vye, N., Clark, H., & Dang, V. (in press). Learning and Collaboration in Fast Changing Environments. Journal of Cognition and Instruction. Dang. V., Richey. M. (2008, March). Nanotechnology Education: Learning at the Leading Edge. Paper presented at the Materials Research Society Symposium, San Francisco, CA. Wittenborn, D., Schrage, D., & Richey, M. (2009, June). Using Distance Learning for CAD-Based Training and PLM Education of Incumbent Engineers. Paper presented at the American Society of Engineering Education Conference, Austin, TX. Richey, M., Newton, P., Stephens, R., Backus, G., McPherson, B. (2008, June). The S&T Eco-system: Pressures from Kindergarten to Globalization. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Conference, Pittsburgh, PA. Kelic, A., & Aldo, Z. (2008). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Career Attractiveness System Dynamics Modeling. Sandia Report SAND2008-8049. Mead, P., Bransford, J., Stevens, R., & Richey, M. (2007, April). A Test of Leadership. Paper presented at the American Institute of Aeronautic and Astronautic Conference, Oahu, HA.
Recent Activities Strategic Academic Partnerships: The Boeing Company educates their engineers on Multifunctional Materials and PLM strategies in order to improve collaboration and productivity. In addition to understanding the theory behind this business practice, engineers also receive training on how to effectively use PLM engineering software within a global environment. Boeing is addressing these issues by partnering with universities that specialize in these areas. The University of Washington, Purdue University, and the Georgia Institute of Technology are examples of educational partnerships providing continuing graduate level education and certificates programs for the engineering workforce. Georgia Tech Integrated Design & Manufacturing through PLM Certificate Program Purdue University PLM Certificate Program UW Aircraft Composite Structural Analysis and Design (ACSAD) Certificate Program UW Modern Aircraft Structures (MAS) Certificate Program Masters of Aerospace Engineering (MAE) Adaptive Expertise and Complex Learning Communities: One facet of Boeing’s current research is focused on interventions that advance the way we think about continued learning in the evolving workplace. This research is conducted and implemented on a PLM web-based course within the
42 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007 conceptual framework and relevant literature pertaining to adaptive expertise, including expert/novice practices within learning.
Multifunctional Materials Educational Research: The purpose of this study was to help us rethink ways to deal with continued learning. To this end, a collaborative team (comprising members from The Boeing Company and the Learning Sciences within academia) are exploring new learning paradigm. The older paradigm, a “command and control” classroom model designed for sequential learning (learn, then do) was perceived as not solving the time-constrained problems associated with the pace of change and work. Fortunately, the very technologies that created the time constraints can be adapted and used to provide progressive solutions. One such model that also harnesses the latest thinking from the learning sciences goes beyond the traditional limitations of classroom captive audiences.
Systems Dynamics and Complex Adaptive Systems: As a Large Scale Systems Integrator, Boeing has developed such feedback models in a collaborative group process to cooperatively design strategic business policies, to improve internal organizations, and to create synergies of action among autonomous enterprises. We are working with U.S. industry, academia and government expertise in systems modeling. The goal is to model the “S&T Ecosystem” and to facilitate a similar cross-sector collaboration that will frame the policy and human issues identified within the Gathering Storm publication.
Looking Forward Augmented and Immersive Technologies: Working with Sandia National Labs to develop a pilot focused on 1) Augmented Cognition, research will focus on augmenting engineering decision processes thru cognitive modeling and 2) Complex Adaptive Systems, research will focus on integrating system dynamics and complex adaptive systems.
NSF-MIT CDIO Aero Curriculum Design: The CDIO™ INITIATIVE is an innovative educational framework for producing the next generation of engineers. It provides students with an education stressing engineering fundamentals set in the context of Conceiving — Designing — Implementing — Operating real-world systems and products. The CDIO™ Initiative was developed with input from academics, industry, engineers, and students. It is universally adaptable for all engineering schools. CDIO collaborators throughout the world have adopted CDIO™ as the framework of their curricular planning and outcome–based assessment.
Santa Fe Institute: This project focused on The Boeing Company as a Complex Adaptive System and is intended to demonstrate viable approaches to the collection and analysis of data on knowledge generation and innovation in organizations. The main objective of the research is to establish functional quantitative metrics of innovation, economic productivity and size of human social organizations and connect and understand them by developing a quantitative theoretical framework that captures and predicts universal features of how organizations grow, innovate, age and die. A major part of this project will be to decompose technological change, learning curves and investigate the effects on broader metrics of organizational performance.
43 The Materials Engineering Department-California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California
Overview/Background The Materials Engineering Department at Cal Poly is one of two ABET-accredited materials engineering programs at principally undergraduate institutions. We are among the largest undergraduate materials engineering programs in the western United States with ~190 undergraduates. Our mission is to create and sustain an integrated, effectual engineering learning environment that develops students into educated and effective members of society. The department’s five faculty members are involved in researching the design of learning environments for the holistic development required of engineers in the 21st century. Our objectives are to leverage the critical design attributes of the learning environment that ensure: 1) higher attraction and retention of females and underrepresented groups; 2) development of qualities that promote self-directed learning; 3) development of systems thinking; and 4) socially- responsible engineering solutions.
Main areas of research and/or innovation/development We have developed a dynamic simulation model that allows educators to virtually adjust a limited number of critical factors in one’s learning experience: zone of proximal development, social relatedness support, freedom of choice, explicit connections to broader contexts. The simulator is based on existing empirical findings. The purpose in developing the tool was to open the dialogue within the engineering education community on how we might think holistically about the design of learning environments, given the interplay between a learner’s psychological needs, the personal traits, the ecological factors, and their learning behavior.
Figure 1. Schematic of our dynamic simulator model. This schematic depicts the connections between the learner’s personal traits, psychological needs, behaviors around learning and the learning environment.
This year we have begun to shift our research emphasis toward more qualitative methods, with particular emphasis on action research in the classroom. Some of the questions that we are pursuing are: What are the attributes of effective change agents in science and engineering?; What ecological conditions and practices promote innovation for sustainability? How do we best prepare engineering students to work on multidisciplinary teams?
Key Publications L. Vanasupa, R. Burton, J. Stolk, J. Zimmerman, L.J. Leifer, P.A. Anastas, “The systemic correlation between mental models and sustainable design: Implications for engineering educators,” International Journal of Engineering Education, Special Issue on Design, in print (accepted 9/29/09).
44 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007
L. Vanasupa, J. Stolk and T. Harding, “Application of self-determination and self-regulation theories to course design: Planting the seeds for life-long learning,” International Journal of Engineering Education, Special Issue on Application of Research to Teaching Practice, in print (accepted 9/21/09). L. Vanasupa, J. Stolk and R. Herter, “The four-domain development diagram: A guide for holistic design of effective learning experiences for the twenty-first century engineer,” Journal of Engineering Education 98 (2009), no. 1, 68-81. L. Vanasupa, K. C. Chen and J. Stolk, R. Savage, T. Harding, B. London and W. Hughes, “Converting traditional materials labs to project-based learning experiences: Aiding students' development of higher-order cognitive skills,” Journal of Materials Education 30 (2008), no. 5-6, 281-288. L. Vanasupa, K. McCormick, C. Stefanco R. Herter, “Potential challenges for students working on teams with liberal arts students: Recommendations for structuring and managing multidisciplinary projects,” Proc. Research on Engineering Education Symposium, July 11-12, 2008; Davos, Switzerland. Q. Zhang, J. Zimmerman, J. Mihelcic, L. Vanasupa, “Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEEE) Transformational Change: Tools and Strategies for Sustainability Integration and Assessment in Engineering Education,” Proc. American Society of Engineering Educators Annual Conference, June 22-26, 2008; Pittsburg, PA. L. Vanasupa, J. Stolk, T. Harding, W. Hughes, “The Four Domain Development Diagram: A tool for development-centered teaching,” Proc. American Society of Engineering Educators Annual Conference, June 22-26, 2008; Pittsburg, PA. L. Vanasupa, V. Granados, “The Need for Systems-Oriented Outreach: Lessons from a failed, 1-dimensional approach,” Proc. American Society of Engineering Educators Annual Conference, June 22-26, 2008; Pittsburg, PA. R. Savage, K.C. Chen, L. Vanasupa, “Integrating Project-based Learning Throughout the Undergraduate Engineering Curriculum,” Journal of STEM Education, 8 (2007): 1-13. L. Vanasupa, J. Stolk, T. Harding, and R. Savage, “A Systemic Model of Development: Strategically Enhancing Students’ Cognitive, Psychomotor, Affective and Social Development,” Proc. First International Conference on Research in Engineering Education, June 22-24, 2007; Honolulu, HI. R. Savage, J. Stolk, L. Vanasupa, “Collaborative design of project-based learning courses: How to implement a mode of learning that effectively builds skills for the global engineer,” Proc. American Society of Engineering Educators Annual Conference, June 24-27, 2007; Honolulu, HI. L. Vanasupa, L. Slivovsky and K.C. Chen, “Global challenges as inspiration: A classroom strategy to foster social responsibility,” Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (2006): 373-380.
Recent Findings Analysis of reflections from a multidisciplinary team (engineering, history, city and regional planning) of six U.S. students who were sent to China for two weeks in Summer 2008 showed that it is critical to prepare students to function in intersubjective relationships. An intersubjective relational orientation means that each recognizes the other as having a equally-valid subjective viewpoint and attempts to share and/or see things from the other’s perspective. In this context, subjective means that the viewpoint depends on the mind and/or the individual’s emotions and perception. Three things that could better facilitate the intended intersubjective state: initiate awareness: Individually preparing students by creating individual exercises that will serve to surface their existing, unexamined assumptions or mental models. Another way of saying “existing, unexamined assumptions” or “mental models,” is “cultural biases.” e.g. Several of the students assumed that traffic patterns and utilization of public roadways normative in the U.S. should be the way these resources are used in China. create opportunities to resolve conflict: Design opportunities to dialectically confront conflicts in cultural biases that they encounter. It is through dialogue and the following resolution of the conflict that people can upgrade their existing mental models. We detected cognitive conflict in the reflections, but missed the opportunity to constructively resolve the conflict. Ideally, one can design some kind of conversation activity with other participants around the conflict created by encountering differences in cultural norms. build interpersonal relationships for the collaboration: Depending on the situation, this may be done prior to the work together or as part of the work together. It seems that it is important for the students to have shared, fun cultural experiences. The group that went to China spent a couple of hours working on a farm together with the Chinese students. This was a formative bonding experience for all involved.
Looking Forward Our program now shows a consistent, net persistence rate of 110%, with a disproportionately higher fraction of female students transferring into our program. The applicants to our program are now consistently the highest performing students within our college of engineering, with average SAT scores of 1280. However, despite our goals of increasing the proportion of females and other underrepresented groups within our program, we continue to reflect only the national average for engineering (~15%). We have concluded that our system interventions did not take into account factors we had never experienced, such as all female applicants receiving scholarships from competing institutions.
Our look to the future, then, revolves around systemic interventions that can effect that change that we intend. This involves pursuing a model of education that can best be described as participatory action research, where students and faculty are co-learners in the experience. It also involves a continued reflection on how to think systemically about the learning enterprise.
45 National Center for Engineering and Technology Education – Utah State University (lead)
The Center The National Center for Engineering and Technology Education (NCETE) is a NSF-funded “Center for Learning and Teaching” (CLT). NCETE is a collaborative network of scholars with backgrounds in technology education, engineering, and related fields. The mission is to build capacity in technology education and to improve the understanding of the learning and teaching of high school students and teachers as they apply engineering design processes to technological problems. The ultimate goal is to infuse engineering design, problem solving and analytical skills into 9-12 schools through technology education. NCETE is the only NSF-funded CLT that focuses on engineering and technology education for that age group. Established in September of 2004, NCETE was created through a partnership of nine universities. Four grant doctoral degrees in engineering and technology education: Utah State University, the University of Georgia, the University of Illinois, and the University of Minnesota. Five grant bachelor’s and master’s degrees in technology education: Brigham Young University, California State University-Los Angeles, Illinois State University, North Carolina A&T State University, and University of Wisconsin-Stout. Several professional societies, as well as public school districts in two states (California and North Carolina), also function as partners.
Quick Facts • 9 partner universities • Public school district partners in 2 states • 30 faculty members from technology education and engineering departments • 5 master’s students working toward M.S. in technology education (currently) • 10 doctoral Fellows (currently) • Will eventually support 20 Ph.D. Fellows and 30 M.S. students
Main Areas of Research and Development NCETE’s research and professional development focus is on engineering and technology education for the 9th through 12th grades. The goals of the Center are: 1. To define the current status of engineering design experiences in engineering and technology education in grades 9-12; define an NCETE model for professional development by examining the design and delivery of effective professional development with a focus on selected engineering design concepts for high school technology education; identify guidelines for the development, implementation, and evaluation of engineering design in technology education. 2. To build leadership capacity by developing a collaborative network of scholars who work to improve understanding of the process of learning and teaching of engineering design in technology education. 3. To establish and maintain a communication program to inform all stakeholder groups of NCETE activities and accomplishments.
Key Publications Books Custer, R. & Erekson, T., Eds., "Engineering and technology education.", (2008). Book, Accepted Bibliography: CTTE Yearbook, Peoria, IL: Mission Hills, CA: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Publishers. This yearbook includes 21 authors that are partners in the Center. Journal Articles and Conference Papers Over 50 journal articles, more than 80 conference papers and over 20 poster sessions have been published and presented since the inception of the NCETE in 2004. References to the papers can be found at the NCETE website at: http://www.ncete.org
Looking Forward: Delivering Core Engineering Concepts to Secondary Level Students One key goal of the Center is to impact the focus and content of technology education at the secondary level. More specifically, the goal is to facilitate student learning relative to core engineering principles, concepts, and ideas. A number of activities have been developed to facilitate these goals, including a series of teacher professional development experiences, research designed to identify core engineering concepts, Design Challenge development, engagement with faculty from the STEM disciplines, and involvement of technology education pre-service teachers.
NCETE funded research to assess the impact of a set of carefully designed classroom interventions on student learning. The Center moved from conducting PD as part of teacher enhancement toward developing a research
46 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007 program. Several studies were conducted to help the Center understand the effectiveness of the first two years of PD. Asunda and Hill (2007) conducted a collective multisite case study of two sites, NCA&T and CSULA. Data were collected through individual interview sessions that lasted 30-40 minutes, video footage, observations, and artifacts. A total of 15 interviews were individually analyzed, then compared through a cross-case analysis. Professional development emerged as a core theme and comprised the following sub themes: planning, communities of practice, professional development administration and learning environment, professional development for technology education teachers, professional development activities in the classroom, assessment, expertise, and meaning making. Final synthesis of a related professional development activity provided guidance to the Center on essential features of effective PD, especially those learned from the mathematics and science communities (Custer, Hailey, Cunningham, Erekson & Householder, 2008). This work built on a spin-off project of the Center, the National Symposium to Develop an Effective Model for the Professional Development of K-12 Engineering and Technology Education Teachers (NSF Number 0533572).
Additional Study to Guide Model Development Another important study underway is entitled “The Nature and Status of STEM Professional Development: Effective Practices for Secondary Level Engineering Education” (Custer, McAlister & Daugherty). The goal of the study is to develop a foundation of knowledge on which to ground a professional development model for engineering- oriented technology education. This includes an analysis of current and past efforts to design and implement professional development for 9-12 teachers in the STEM disciplines and identification of best practices in professional development programs designed to prepare teachers for secondary level engineering programs. The study consists of a comprehensive review of the literature and case studies of selected professional development programs designed to prepare secondary teachers to deliver engineering-oriented technology education. The scope of the case studies consists of approximately 5-6 professional development programs representative of the best efforts to prepare teachers to deliver engineering education at the secondary level. For the purposes of this study, engineering- oriented education is defined broadly to include programs designed to prepare students for post-secondary engineering education and broad-base technological literacy for all students. The literature review is complete, and site visits for the case studies will occur over the summer. A major research effort to define the current status of K-12 engineering education was the work of Kenneth Welty, who prepared a commissioned paper for the National Academy of Engineering Committee on K-12 Engineering. NCETE provided part of the support for the work to review existing K-12 engineering education curriculum materials. The results of that study provided the basis for the discussion of current K-12 efforts in the published committee report, Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects. Detailed reviews are included in Appendix B in the print version and Appendix C, the accompanying CD-ROM. Several NCETE doctoral fellows were also involved in the early stages of that research effort. NCETE has actively supported research in engineering and technology education through several internal funding programs. The internal research program was initiated with a program of small grants to faculty and graduate students. Support for doctoral dissertation research has been made available to NCETE fellows. Currently, the internal grants support faculty and recent doctoral graduates in intensive scholarly endeavors aligned with the Center goals. Final reports of completed research efforts and copies of doctoral dissertations are posted on the NCETE web site, which also lists NCETE-supported research that is currently in process. The University of Minnesota hosted the May 2008 NCETE meeting which featured the on-going research activities of graduate students in the four doctoral institutions in the Center. Graduate students from Colorado State, Ohio State, Tufts, and Virginia Tech Universities were also invited to participate in the formal presentations of their research activities. The 20 presentations appear in the Proceedings of the Conference on Graduate Student Research in Engineering and Technology Education, available on the NCETE web site at http://ncete.org/flash/pdfs/RETE%20Proceedings.pdf. On March 25, 2009, NCETE held a seminar in Louisville, Kentucky to provide a comprehensive look at Center-supported research in professional development. This session began with a retrospective synthesis of the published materials describing the two initial years of professional development, then reported on the 2008 professional development workshops from the perspectives of the professional developers, the teachers, and the internal evaluator. The seminar also featured status reports of NCETE research efforts under way at that time. Postdoctoral research associates have assumed active roles in NCETE research endeavors. The 2008-2009 appointees were Cameron Deason and Nathan Mentzer; Chandra Austin and Cameron Deason are the 2009-2010 research associates. These individuals are actively engaged in pilot research projects, the preparation of reports and presentations describing Center activities and findings, and the development of proposals for future research activities. Center personnel are actively pursuing additional NSF funding possibilities for a wide range of research opportunities. Proposals have been submitted to the ATE Program, DR K-12 Program, the RET Program, the EEC Symposium Program and the CCLI Program. The DR K-12 Program and the EEC Program have each funded one of the proposed projects in 2009.
47 Teaching and Learning Laboratory – Massachusetts institute of Technology
Overview The Teaching and Learning Laboratory (TLL) is a resource center dedicated to improving the quality of teaching and learning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). TLL staff members help faculty, students, and administrators improve the academic experience at MIT. They also collaborate on the development of educational innovation, and undertake research to assess those initiatives. TLL is a part of the Office of the Dean for Undergraduate Education and has an advisory board of MIT faculty and students. It is supported financially by MIT.
Main Areas of Research and Development TLL carries out research on the impact of pedagogical change, new curricula, and educational technology on student learning, motivation, and satisfaction. Staff members identify best practices in designing and implementing educational innovation, and collaborate with faculty to assess the effectiveness of new strategies and techniques. Recent research has focused on curriculum change and methods of student evaluation in the Department of Mechanical Engineering’s core courses; the integration of foundation courses in mathematics with downstream engineering courses; and the improvement of teaching assistant evaluations after training.
Key Presentations Breslow, L. “A Divide at the Extremes: The Challenge of Assessing Graduate Outcomes for the 21st Century,” keynote for the Higher Education Colloquium, University of Edinburgh, May 2009. Mahajan, S. “2=1, or Teaching the Gentle Art of Lying,” Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Spring 2009 Seminar Series, Cornell University, March 2009 and UC-Bolder, April 2009. Mitchell, R., et al. “Development of Cognitive Behavior Survey to Measure Learning and Related Cognitive Behaviors,” Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, March 2009.
Recent Findings We would like to highlight findings from two long-term studies that were continued in 2009. These studies concern curriculum redesign and the integration of non-technical material into a technical course. Prioritizing Course Content The Department of Mechanical Engineering continued a three-year curriculum effort in 2009. In this third year, new pedagogical methods were refined particularly for the introductory class, Mechanics and Materials I (2.001). These methods were based on prioritizing content using an approach modeled in the book Understanding by Design (Wiggins and McTighe). This prioritization led faculty to create a simple framework for the students that identified core concepts and showed how they related to one another. Faculty also introduced oral exams as an evaluation method to complement traditional written exams. These innovations were assessed through pre-/post-tests, student experience surveys, and student interviews. Students reported they used the framework in four ways: to think about the “big picture” of the class; to understand how concepts related to one another; to organize the equations; and as a step-by-step tool for solving problems. Many students referred to the framework as a way to understand the most critical concepts in the class. Students indicated they were more than satisfied with the oral exams in class, with 65% saying they preferred them to written exams. In particular, students felt, to a moderate extent, that the oral exams reflected their knowledge of the course content more accurately than written exams. They also noted they studied the core concepts in more detail for the oral exams, as they wanted to be able to communicate their knowledge clearly and to answer faculty questions thoroughly. Based on these results, frameworks have been developed and are being piloted in three downstream core classes in the department. Faculty members are also discussing implementing oral exams in more core classes. Perhaps one of the most interesting findings of this assessment was the moderately strong, positive, statistically significant correlation (p<.01) between students’ performance on the pre-/post-test and their confidence in their knowledge of specific concepts (please see Graph 1). This finding provides some evidence that students’ appraisals of their own skills may be able to serve as proxies for performance-based assessments.
48 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007
Graph 1. Correlation between Student Performance and Confidence Levels in Pre-/Post-Tests in Mechanics and Materials I (2.001).
Students as Scholarly Researchers A stream of innovation within engineering education has concerned itself with integrating non-technical skills into technical courses. A project, Students as Scholarly Researchers, in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering sought to strengthen students’ research and library skills by introducing modules on those topics into a freshman course. An assessment was undertaken to determine the impact of the modules on students’ skills in and attitudes about academic research. Students reported the Scholarly Researcher curriculum had a positive impact on their online research skills. In pre- and post-curriculum comparisons, students reported gains at statistically significant levels in 15 of 18 library skills. Table 1 below provides just a sample of the data from the post-curriculum survey.
Table I: Impact of Scholar Researcher on Online Skills and Scholarly Research Behavior Items Mean (SD) N Impact on online search strategies scale (coefficient alpha =.93) 5.06 (1.28) 651 In the future, when I am assigned a research paper in a class, I am more likely than before to use the 5.25 (1.47) 657 library's online research tools to identify relevant material. As a result of the scholarly research training, I can function more effectively as a researcher. 5.05 (1.45) 659 As a result of the scholarly research training, I am more aware of the large number of library 5.45 (1.39) 656 resources I can access online. Impact on scholarly research behavior scale (coefficient alpha =.95) 4.26 (1.37) 647 As a result of the scholarly research training, I examine more carefully sources of information. 4.45 (1.48) 655 Because of the scholarly research training, I am more aware of the importance of thinking critically 4.34 (1.53) 657 about information. As a result of the scholarly research program, my view of what makes findings/information credible 4.17 (1.57) 657 has changed. As a result of the scholarly research training, I am more motivated to have my facts straight. 4.32 (1.57) 656
At the end of the semester, 40% of the students reported they used research tools during the semester for class assignments in courses other than this one. In addition, 28% indicated using such tools to find articles unrelated to MIT class assignments. The results of this study suggest that research skills can be successfully integrated into a fast-paced, content-specific course if: the integration is seamless and the content is distributed throughout the curriculum; emphasis is placed on these skills through lecture and grading; multiple instructional strategies are used; and the right amount of time to the material is allocated (enough to make an impact.)
Looking Forward We will be involved in several interesting projects in the year ahead, including a study of efforts to integrate communication skills into the core curriculum in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, research into the effectiveness of MIT’s summer bridge program, and a new initiative in the Department of Biological Engineering to educate seniors to serve as tutors for freshmen in a project-based course.
49 Selected Expanded CASEE Implementation Network Activities
Louisiana Tech University – College of Engineering and Science
Overview Over the past several years, Louisiana Tech’s College of Engineering and Science has been aggressively engaged in education reform, including curricula redesign, K-12 interactions, and research in teaching and learning. Our unique interdisciplinary administrative structure has facilitated close communication between engineering, mathematics, and science programs at Louisiana Tech and has supported the development of several undergraduate education-based research initiatives. These research efforts have, in turn, resulted in new innovative curricula, including our Integrated Engineering Curriculum (IEC), Integrated Science Curriculum (ISC), and our new Nanosystems Engineering program. We also actively collaborate with our College of Business and College of Education. Examples of partnership with our College of Business include the currently-funded NSF Partnerships for Innovation grant as well as other pending proposals through our Center for Entrepreneurship and Information Technology (CEnIT). Similarly, collaboration with the College of Education is reflected through our STEM-Plus grant aimed at encouraging talented STEM majors to become K-12 mathematics and science teachers.
Main Areas of Research and Innovation Both the IEC and ISC programs have helped us create a truly interdisciplinary culture among our undergraduate students and have laid the foundation for additional innovative engineering and science education research projects. The College currently has several National Science Foundation and NASA grants to enhance engineering education over the next several years.
Living with the Lab (NSF-0618288) integrates engineering, mathematics, chemistry and physics in a systems-level, project-based curriculum. Projects incorporate design, fabrication, and troubleshooting to help students develop open-ended problem solving abilities and self-reliance.
Louisiana Tech University’s STEM Talent Expansion Program (LaTechSTEP) (NSF-0622462) stimulates interest in STEM topics at the high school level by partnering with area high school math and science teachers in Discovery Weekends for high school students. Our Freshman Enrichment Program (FrEP) provides additional mathematics preparation and community building for students transitioning into college. Louisiana Tech’s S-STEM Scholarship Program (NSF-063108) provides scholarships for FrEP students.
STEM-Plus (NSF-0733825) trains highly-qualified K-12 teachers who have a strong contextual understanding of mathematics and science. Upon completion of the B.S. degree in a STEM discipline, the program provides a one-year track leading to the Master of Arts in Teaching.
Venture Enhancement Teams (VETs) for Commercialization of University Intellectual Property (NSF- 0650130) is an outgrowth our earlier IMPACT project (NSF-0536082) and utilizes a multidisciplinary design course to develop commercialization potential of faculty research.
NASA Threads, a grant funded under the NASA NSPIRES program, is a partnership between high schools and Louisiana Tech University that will lead to a new, challenging, interdisciplinary junior/senior- level high school physics curriculum. ADVANCE (NSF-093023) focuses on developing systemic approaches to increase the representation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers, thereby helping to develop a more diverse science and engineering workforce.
Recent Key Publications Nelson, J., G. Turner, K. Crittenden, and A. Boudreaux. 2009. “A Model for High School Teacher Professional Development and Student Learning.” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, San Antonio, TX, October 2009. Swanbom, M., D. Harbour, H. Hegab, D. Eddy. 2009. A Microprocessor-Based Control System Project for an Integrated Freshman Curriculum. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Austin, TX. June, 2009.
50 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007
Carpenter, J. 2009. Using Web-based Technologies to Reach and Engage Millennial Student in Calculus. Hall, D., Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Austin, TX. June, 2009. Hall, D., S. Cronk, J. Nelson, P. Brackin. 2009. Facilitating Life-long Learning Sills through a First-Year Engineering Curriculum. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Austin, TX. June, 2009. Crittenden, K., D. Hall, M. Barker, P. Brackin. 2009. First year Design Experience: Assembling the “Big Picture” through Innovative Product Design. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Austin, TX. June, 2009. Nelson, J., G. Turner, K. Crittenden, M. Swanbom. 2009. Integrating Engineering Design Projects into High School Mathematics and Science. Teachers Manual for Workshop presented at the 6th Annual ASEE Workshop on K-12 Engineering Education, Austin, TX. Cronk, S., D. Hall, J. Nelson, and P. Brackin. 2009. “The Facilitation of Lifelong Learning Skills, through a Project- Based Freshman Engineering Curriculum.” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Austin, TX. June, 2009. Hall, D., H. Hegab, J. Nelson. 2008. Living with the Lab: A Freshman Curriculum to Boost Hands-on Learning, Student Confidence, and Innovation. Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, Saratoga, NY. Nelson, J., J. Carpenter, S. Napper, B. Ramachandran. 2008. Innovative Administration Supports Innovative Education. Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, Saratoga, NY. Hall, D., M. Barker, J. Nelson. 2008. Living with the Lab: Expanding a Project-Based Freshman Curriculum to over 350 Freshman Students. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Pittsburg, PA. Carpenter, J., B. Camp. 2008. Using a Web-based Homework System to Improve Accountability and Mastery of Calculus. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Pittsburg, PA. Hall, D. S. Cronk, P. Brackin, M. Barker, K. Crittenden. 2008. Living with the Lab: A Curriculum to Prepare Freshmen Students to Meet the Attributes of “The Engineer of 2020.” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Pittsburg, PA. Swanbom, M., D. Hall, K. Crittenden. 2008. Centrifugal Pump Design, Fabrication and Characterization: A Project- Driven Freshman Experience. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Pittsburg, PA. Reed, A., T. Creekbaum, M. Elliott, D. Hall, D. Harbour. 2008. Utilizing Robotics to Facilitate Project-Based Learning: A Student Perspective. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Pittsburg, PA. Crittenden, K., J. Nelson, G. Turner, A. Boudreaux, TechSTEP: Connecting High School Teachers and Students to Integrated Engineering and Science. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Pittsburg, PA, June 2008. Boudreaux, A.; K. Crittenden, J. Nelson, G. Turner. 2008. Increasing Student Success in Engineering and Science through a Freshman Enrichment Program. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Pittsburg, PA. Crittenden, K., J. Pratt, J. Nelson. 2008. IMPaCT: A Multidisciplinary Approach for Creating High-Tech Startups. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Pittsburg, PA.
Recent Findings Student response to the Living with the Lab curriculum has been overwhelmingly positive. We are currently in the third year of full implementation. The curriculum consists of several interrelated smaller projects culminating in a complex process control system to maintain temperature and salinity in a container of water. Each of the smaller projects can also be viewed as a self-contained project that integrates engineering, mathematics, chemistry and physics. These projects seamlessly connect a multi- faceted problem which requires the systems-level thinking of integrated STEM professionals. By this approach, students are guided away from single-step problems and develop the ability to solve more realistic multiple-step problems.
To date, the LaTechSTEP program has directly impacted 8 high schools, 24 teachers, 133 high school students, and 14 college student mentors. It has indirectly impacted over 960 high school students (24 teachers x 20 students x 2 years). Our Freshman Enrichment Program (FrEP) has impacted 180 students. All measures indicate that we are on track to make significant improvements in graduation rates of students in STEM disciplines. Currently, approximately 75% of students who participated in the FrEP program are on track for graduation in a STEM discipline. This compares to a historical graduation rate of approximately 25% for previous cohorts at Louisiana Tech with comparable ACT scores. Moreover, FrEP students are performing better than other students (with higher ACT scores) in freshman engineering and mathematics classes.
51 Engineering/Technology Teacher Education Program – Purdue University
The Program
The Engineering/Technology Teacher Education Program was the first teacher education program established on the Purdue University campus. It was founded in 1908 and through its existence has changed both its title and the competencies developed by its graduates. As the changing marketplace (secondary schools) has evolved from manual arts to engineering/technology education, so has the Engineering/Technology Teacher Education Program. In 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 the program was named as the nation’s outstanding Engineering and Technology Teacher Education Program by the Association for Career and Technical Education.
The undergraduate teacher education curriculum is based on the Scholar-Practitioner Model, NCATE/ITEA/CTTE accreditation standards, the Standards for Technological Literacy, Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy, Project Lead The Way competencies, and Indiana Professional Standards Board Standards. In addition to being NCATE accredited, the program was the nation’s first to be certified by Project Lead The Way as an engineering and technology teacher education program.
The vision of the Engineering/Technology Teacher Education Program at Purdue University is to be the nation’s premier program for the preparation of secondary engineering/technology education teachers for America’s 21st Century schools. The program has three distinct missions: 1) to provide exemplary engineering/technology teacher education producing highly-skilled technically-competent scholar-practitioners, 2) to engage as an active partner in the transformation of Indiana’s and the nation’s K- 12 schools for an advancing technological society and the high-performance global workplace, and 3) to provide preeminent scholarship and leadership to the K-12 engineering/technology education profession.
Key Refereed Publications
Daugherty, J. & Mentzer, N. (2008). Analogical reasoning in the engineering design process and technology education applications. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 6-20.
Harris, K. S. & Rogers, G. E. (2008). Secondary Engineering Competencies: A Delphi Study of Engineering Faculty. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 45(1), 5-25.
52 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007
Kelley, T., & Kellam, N. (2009). A theoretical framework to guide technology education’s transition to an engineering design focus. Journal of Technology Education, 20(2), 37-49.
Kelley, T. (2008). Using engineering cases in technology education. Technology Teacher, 68(7), 5-9.
Kelley, T. (2008). Cognitive processes of students participating in two approaches to technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 50-64.
Kelley, T. (2008). Resources: Getting there—space. Technology and Children, 12(3), 10-11.
Mentzer, N., Mentzer, F., & Jones, K. (2008). Join the mission, design a patch. Technology and Children, 12(4).
Rogers, G. E., (2008). Project Lead The Way: The Technology Education- Engineering Linkage for the 21st Century. In R.L. Custer & T.L. Erekson (Eds.), Engineering and Technology Education (pp. 227-229). Woodland Hills, CA: McGraw Hill Glencoe.
Rogers, G. E., (2008). Pre-service professional development for middle school and high school teachers of engineering. Paper presented at the National Research Council of the National Academy of Engineering. Washington, DC.
Looking Forward
Through the national leadership initiatives of the program’s faculty and via the faculty’s scholarly publications, the Engineering/Technology Teacher Education program at Purdue University is working to establish the K-12 discipline of engineering/technology education as the “heart and sole” of K-12 STEM education. Whether it is establishing a theoretical framework to guide the discipline, identifying the K-12 student competencies needed by today’s students for the global technological workplace, or examining the cognitive processes used by K-12 students when studying engineering design, Purdue’s program is forward thinking in its preparation of tomorrow’s engineering/technology education teachers, thus establishing a systemic positive change for the discipline.
53 Laboratory for Innovative Technology and Engineering Education (Auburn)
Overview/Background of LITEE The Laboratory for Innovative Technology and Engineering Education (LITEE) at Auburn University is an innovative, collaborative effort between Auburn University’s Samuel Ginn College of Engineering and College of Business that disseminates cutting-edge instructional materials and methods in order to bring real-world issues into classrooms. The unique collaboration of business and engineering curricula produces engineering and business students who are well-rounded, adaptable to team-oriented situations, and prepared for solving real-world problems.
The LITEE program uses multimedia case studies to introduce engineering and business students to the complexity of real-world problems and demonstrate how engineering companies work in the information age. Graduate students, in conjunction with professors and industry personnel, develop these case studies by identifying suitable problems in real-world business and engineering environments. The case studies bring real-world issues alive in high school and undergraduate classrooms, giving students the opportunity to understand the connections between the theories they have learned in the classroom and their practical applications. More information is available at www.litee.org.
Key Publications Sankar, C.S., Raju, P.K., and Clayton, H. (2009). “Preparing Students for Global Research Experiences: U.S.-India Summer Projects,” International Journal of Engineering Education, Forthcoming, Marghitu, D., Fuller, M., Raju, P.K., and Sankar, C.S. (2008). “Using Web Technologies to Maximize the Universal Usability and Pedagogy of Auburn University Laboratory for Innovative Technology and Engineering Education Case Studies,” Integrated Design and Process Technology, IDPT-2008, June 2008 Sankar, C.S., and Raju, P.K., (2008). “U.S.-India International Research, Education, and Industry Experiences for Students in Acoustics and Non-Destructive Evaluation,” Proceedings of the 2008 ASEE Conference, June 2008. Le, Q., Sankar, C.S., and Raju, P.K., (2008). “Use of Case Studies at Hampton University: Results of Implementation,” Proceedings of the 2008 ASEE Conference, June 2008. Rajan, P., Raju, P.K., and Sankar, C.S. (2008), Experiences of a US-India Team in Developing a Case Study that Illustrates Technical and Global Issues in Weld Design, Proceedings of the DEC-2008, 5th Symposium on International Design and Design Education, New York, NY, Sept. 2008. Bradley, R.V., Sankar, C.S., Clayton, H.R., Mbarika, V., and Raju, P.K. (2007). "A Study on the Impact of GPA on Perceived Improvement of Higher-order Cognitive Skills." Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education. 5 (1): 151-168. Bradley, R.V., Mbarika, V., Sankar, C.S., Raju, P.K., and Kaba, B. (2007). "Using Multimedia Instructional Materials in MIS Classrooms: A Tutorial," Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 20(19):260-281. Cumbie, B., Sankar, C.S., and Raju, P.K. (2007). "Lessons Learned from the Development of a Knowledge Sharing System (KSS) Used to Develop and Sustain a Cross-disciplinary Outreach Approach to Engineering Design," Proceedings of the ASEE Conference, June 2007. Mehta, A., Clayton, H., and Sankar, C.S. (2007-2008). "Impact of Multi-Media Case studies on Improving Intrinsic Learning and Motivation of Students," Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36(1): 79-103. Montgomery, G., Sankar, C.S., and Raju, P.K. (2007). "Design and Implementation of a Case Study and Multimedia Courseware for the Multidisciplinary Classroom," Proceedings of the ASEE Conference, June 2007. Nair, A., Bliedung, N., Raju, P.K., and Sankar, C.S. (2007). "New Product Development at Briggs & Stratton: Design and Development of K11 Engine," International Journal of Information and Operations Management Education, 2(1): 58-72. Sankar, C.S., Mbarika, V., and Raju, P.K. (2007). "An Evaluation of a Workshop with a Focus on Fostering Teaching Excellence Through Research," Proceedings of the AMCIS 2007 Conference, August 2007. Sankar, C.S. and Raju, P.K. (2007). "An Online Instructor Support System to Support Business/Engineering Classrooms," Microsoft Academic Days Conference on Business Applications, Relational Databases, and Security, November 2007.
Recent Findings • Become more intrigued with unfamiliar approaches to accomplishing challenging tasks through collaboration with practitioners (Sankar, Raju, and Clayton, 2009). • Appreciate how companies use innovative research in the design of products and systems (Sankar, Raju, and Clayton, 2009).
54 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007
• Use of multi-media case studies led to significant improvements in team working skills, self- perceived learning, and higher-order cognitive skills of students in an introduction to engineering course in comparison to a course taught using traditional pedagogies (Raju and Sankar, 2008). • When multi-media case studies were used in a course, the students’ perceived intrinsic learning motivation was significant in predicting perceived improvement of their higher-order cognitive skills (Mehta et al. 2007-2008). • When multi-media case studies were used in a course, there was a significant relationship between students’ GPAs and their perceived improvements in higher-order cognitive skills (Bradley et al. 2007).
Looking Forward LITEE at Auburn University has most recently partnered with the Indian Institute for Technology in Madras, India and the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing in Mohali, India to develop new case studies in addition to the 19 available through LITEE’s website, www.liteecases.com. The cases focus on thermal comfort in learning spaces and telemedicine applications in rural India. They were developed over the summer of 2009 by students working in close collaboration with academic and industrial partners.
In addition to the continual development of these innovative instructional materials, LITEE recently obtained a supplement to NSF grant #0442531 to provide for the dissemination of the case studies through an innovative mechanism. Professors at many colleges and universities across the U.S. competed for the opportunity to test the efficacy of the materials in engineering and business classrooms. Twenty sixof them were chosen to implement the cases in their curriculum, test student learning and gather student feedback, and indicate their findings in papers submitted to academic and professional journals. These faculty members successfully incorporated the case studies in the curriculum during Spring 2009 and have developed papers describing their research work. LITEE has already received ten such papers, and these will be published in the Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research (www.jstem.org) in the next few issues.
LITEE has also recently received another NSF grant, #0934800. In this project, we integrate organizational, engineering education, and educational learning literature to develop a model of student learning to research how learning styles, behavioral tendencies, instructional methodologies, gender, and race have the potential to act as facilitators or barriers to the learning process. We argue that the gain in higher-order cognitive skills, improvement in self-efficacy, and improvement in team-working skills are positively related to the absence of barriers to the learning process. We further argue that the instructional methodology is a moderating factor in the relationship of these variables with improvement in achieving learning outcomes. We derive a set of hypotheses based on the research model and test them using a carefully designed experiment. The targeted student groups for this experiment will be 80 freshman engineering students at Auburn University and 60 at Hampton University every semester for four semesters. In each of these universities, the same instructor will teach one section using case studies (experimental section) and another section using the lecture methodology (control section). All the tests/quizzes, course outlines, rubrics, lesson plans, instructions to students, assessments, strategies, attendance policy, and team-based projects will be the same across the institutions and the control/experimental groups. The experimental group will use class periods to discuss and work on case studies. The control group will use these class periods to receive instructions on the concepts covered by the case studies. The only difference between the two sections will be the use of lectures versus multi- media case studies. Both groups will work on similar team-based projects as part of the course. Two external evaluators will use the same instruments and field studies to collect both quantitative and qualitative assessment data. The quantitative and qualitative analysis will provide a rich set of findings that can contribute to understanding how students learn engineering and the effectiveness of case study pedagogy in achieving learning outcomes.
55 LAI Education Network (EdNet) – Massachusetts Institute of Technology (lead)
EdNet is the Education Network of the Lean Advancement Initiative (LAI). EdNet is a learning community made up of over 40 university partners who communicate and collaborate to advance lean thinking in education, on-campus curriculum, and enterprise- level lean practices. The term "lean" was coined by researchers in MIT’s International Motor Vehicle Program to describe the production paradigm emerging from the Japanese automotive industry. A lean enterprise, or process, is one that eliminates waste and optimizes the value delivered to all of its stakeholders. With no cost to join, EdNet allows for the active collaboration and knowledge dissemination that is necessary to create curriculum and enable enterprise lean transformation. The mission of EdNet is to leverage member expertise & resources to accelerate the development and deployment of curriculum for achieving enterprise excellence. EdNet is working to enhance the lean curriculum and instructional materials for a variety of solutions based on their successful course, the LAI Lean Academy®. The course has been delivered to a variety of audiences including college level students and working professionals. The curriculum materials have been shared with many industry and government sponsors as well as on-campus faculty. EdNet members are actively collaborating to create materials for a Lean Healthcare Academy.
How EdNet Helps Colleges & Universities • Elevates awareness of the importance of including lean topics in college curriculum • Provides opportunities for faculty to collaborate on curriculum development • Shares lean curriculum modules for faculty to use in the classroom • Introduces faculty to new teaching materials and active learning strategies • Enables faculty access to local industry or government organizations for sustaining knowledge of lean applications and continuous improvement networks • Stimulates interaction amongst academic peers for sharing of knowledge, collaborative work, and mutual recognition
How EdNet Helps Industry & Government • Elevates awareness of the importance of including lean topics in the postsecondary curriculum • Encourages industry or government interactions with local colleges and universities to expand the pool of lean-savvy graduates • Fosters industry or government connections with local academic institutions to build local resources for lean expertise • Shares robust teaching materials with partner colleges or universities in order to accelerate their ability to offer local lean educational opportunities • Enables long-term linkages to academia for ongoing access to the latest research and methods for enabling lean processes throughout the enterprise
56 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007
Robust Lean Curriculum Materials
EdNet members have created the LAI Lean Academy® course. This highly successful introductory lean six sigma course was developed over a six year period by over 30 instructors associated with the LAI Education Network (EdNet). The course materials have been taught to thousands of students at various university and industry venues. The 3 day (22 hour) curriculum is equally balanced between active learning exercises and lectures. The 400 PowerPoint slides are laced with industry examples and complete with speaker notes. All modules have been taught by multiple instructors to assure it is accessible to non-developers. Student feedback has been uniformly positive over more than two dozen offerings.
The curriculum has been adopted in its entirety by MIT, USC and Northeastern, and sections of the curriculum have been adopted by at least a dozen schools in undergraduate and graduate engineering, business and MBA programs. A CD/DVD of the material is available at the EdNet website. A student version of the LAI Lean Academy course is available to the public via MIT’s Open CourseWare (OCW) at http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Aeronautics-and-Astronautics/16-660January--IAP--2008/CourseHome.
The Impact of EdNet
“I now discuss lean engineering, & lean manufacturing in my senior Aircraft Detail Design class” Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
“Without a doubt, my involvement with LAI/EdNet has been the most important factor in not only improving my competency to teach lean principles and practices, but also in the development of my teaching in any context.” Asst. Professor of Management Sciences
“The new Stanford Certificate program in systems engineering incorporates elements of lean in its core courses and is developing a Lean Principles and Practices elective.” Stanford University
“The Lean Academy curriculum is modular and provides flexibility to be inserted as a module in existing courses. The real life examples illustrated in the Lean Academy curriculum are fabulous” Professor of Engineering Management & Systems Engineering
“The EdNet helped me personally with improving the pedagogy in our MBA-level Lean Enterprises course.” Purdue University
EdNet Contact Information
LAI EdNet Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue Building 41-205 Cambridge, MA 02139 Website: http://lean.mit.edu/ednet Email: [email protected]
57 North American Regional CDIO Center
Background The North American Regional CDIO Center, located at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is a CASEE Implementation Network Affiliate. We are a collaboration of engineering programs at seven universities in the United States and four universities in Canada. Together, we engage in pilot implementations of educational innovations, particularly those related to the CDIO Initiative. (Crawley, Malmqvist, Östlund, & Brodeur, 2007) We also serve as test beds for the implementation of educational research and evaluation results.
The North American Regional CDIO Center is a collaboration of engineering programs at eleven universities who are implementing the CDIO approach to educate engineering students in the knowledge, skills, and attributes required for innovative leadership in engineering and technology. In the United States, these include the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (center location), the United States Naval Academy (USNA), Daniel Webster College (DWC), California State University Northridge (CSUN), the University of Colorado, (CU), Arizona State University (ASU), and Duke University (Duke). Members in Canada include École Polytechnique de Montréal (EPM), Queen’s University (QU), the University of Calgary (UC), and the University of Manitoba (UM). The North American Regional CDIO Center is co-directed by Edward F. Crawley at MIT and Clément Fortin at EPM. Information about CDIO is found at http://www.cdio.org
The Center is located at Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue 33-413 Cambridge, MA 02139 c/o Edward F. Crawley, [email protected], 617-253-7510
Main Areas of Innovation and Development The North American Regional CDIO Center is engaged in a number of ongoing pilot studies. We list a few representative examples: • A study of student self-efficacy in selected personal, interpersonal, and professional skills: communication, critical thinking, design, experimentation, professional ethics, problem solving, systems thinking, and teamwork • A comparative study of engineering workspaces for student design-implementation activities integrated throughout the engineering curriculum • Stakeholder surveys that validate program objectives and student learning outcomes of engineering programs
58 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007
• Large-scale evaluation of the impact of the CDIO approach to engineering education • A study of project-based learning in first-year courses • Design and implementation of engineering projects for application in project-based learning experiences across a wide spectrum of engineering disciplines and engineering programs
Implementation projects are designed and approved by the group at its semi-annual regional meetings, usually fall and spring. Occasionally, the group meets at the semi-annual international meetings, usually November and June. Decisions that are required sooner than scheduled meetings are discussed at bi-monthly teleconferences.
Key Publications Crawley, E. F., R. Britton, R. J. Niewoehner, and H. Lei. Contributions of Industry Experts to Faculty Development Experiences from Three Universities in North America. Proceedings of the 5th International CDIO Conference, Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore, June 7-10, 2009. Crawley, E. F., J. Malmqvist, C. Jianzhong, and D. R. Brodeur. The Context of Engineering Education. Proceedings of the 4th International CDIO Conference, Hogeschool Gent, Gent, Belgium, June 16-19, 2008. Crawley, E. F., J. Malmqvist, W. A. Lucas, and D. R. Brodeur. Modification to the CDIO Syllabus: Updates and Expansions to Include Leadership and Entrepreneurship. Proceedings of the 5th International CDIO Conference, Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore, June 7-10, 2009. Crawley, E. F., J. Malmqvist, S. Östlund, and D. R. Brodeur. Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach. New York: Springer, 2007. Fortin, C., G. Huet, and E. F. Crawley. A Description and Analysis of Multimodal Learning Environments in North America for Future CDIO Workspaces Implementation. Proceedings of the 4th International CDIO Conference, Hogeschool Gent, Gent, Belgium, June 16-19, 2008.
59 Project Lead The Way, Inc. (PLTW)
About Project Lead The Way
Project Lead The Way (PLTW) is the nation’s leading provider of rigorous and innovative STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education for middle schools and high schools. PLTW, a non-profit organization that was launched in 1998 to address the shortage of engineering students in upstate New York, has grown from just 12 schools in 1998 to over 3,400 schools in 2009. PLTW expects to continue its record growth as the organization is looking to expand its reach to 10,000 schools and 1 million students by the 2015 school year.
Over the years, PLTW has invested significant time and resources in research and evaluation of its STEM education program. Levels of participation in student performance and program improvement evaluations have increased to over 100,000 high school students in 2009; the organization has invited independent and objective researchers to conduct studies to better validate areas of strength and offer insight in areas of improvement; Partnerships have been launched with reputable university researchers, K-12 educators and administrators, government leaders, and corporate innovators to track student achievement; and high quality engineering and biosciences curricula and assessments have been developed.
PLTW’s comprehensive curriculum, which is collaboratively developed by PLTW teachers, University educators, engineering and biomedical professionals, and school administrators, emphasizes critical thinking, creativity, innovation and real-world problem-solving. Schools sign an agreement with PLTW to acknowledge the standards and assessment initiatives that must be implemented for the program to be effective for students. PLTW teachers and school counselors are able to access a nationwide support network comprised of PLTW’s national staff, master teachers, university affiliate directors and state leaders. PLTW has over 35 affiliate college and university partners that offer students credit for completing certain PLTW courses in high school. These universities also provide an intensive 2-week professional development course during the summer that PLTW teachers are required to complete before teaching a PLTW course. PLTW’s nationally recognized technology, engineering and science partners, corporate sponsors and philanthropic supporters offer materials, technology, equipment, and grants, as well as internships that allow students to see firsthand how what they are learning in the classroom applies to the real world.
As of the 2009-20010 academic year, there are over 3,400 schools in 50 states and the District of Columbia, enrolling more than 300,000 students in PLTW™ engineering and biomedical science courses, guided by more than 8,000 PLTW-prepared teachers.
Meaningful Curricula
Pathways To Engineering™ is an eight course high school program that is aligned with mathematics and science courses, and integrates national learning standards for mathematics, science, technology education, and English language arts. The courses provide authentic learning opportunities in project and problem-based format, applied in real world engineering contexts. Increased higher order thinking, problem-solving abilities, and elevated levels of student motivation and confidence, result. The six-unit middle school course, Gateway To Technology™, is an engaging and rigorous introduction to engineering and technology and is also taught through a project-based learning instructional strategy.
The PLTW Biomedical Sciences™ program offers high school students a dynamic program of study that engages them in problems related to the human body, cell biology, genetics, diseases, and other biomedical science topics. The Biomedical Sciences™ program is a four-year series of courses, designed to bring students closer to the actuality of a medical-based career field. The courses are integrated into the students’ core curriculum and designed to expand upon the college preparatory mathematics and science programs.
60 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007
Main areas of Research and/or Innovation/Development
Program Effectiveness and Significance. The effectiveness of a program is defined as the extent to which it increases the likelihood of desired outcomes. The method of evaluative study used by Project Lead The Way, Inc. to date has been the Observational Study model, which collects descriptive data such as student demographics, student end of course scores and post-secondary school plans. In its 2009 study, demographic information was collected from over 100,000 high school students, half of which also completed end-of-course examinations through an online administration. PLTW is working to establish scientific measurement of its program effectiveness by assessing growth of student mastery on nationally-normed, standards-based questions.
University and Professional Success. We seek to know the degree to which the existence of PLTW™ programs in our nation’s middle and high schools increases the diversity and number of students enrolling in STEM majors. Documenting and analyzing the success of former PLTW ™ students throughout their college and early professional careers is central to understanding the influence PLTW™ has on the foundational preparation and achievement of its students. PLTW™ works with independent and objective researchers to design research methods that will continue to measure progress and ascertain the qualities needed to best prepare students for higher education and STEM fields. PLTW™ partners with the National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity (NAPE), the Engineering Equity Extension Services (EEES) project, the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering (NACME) and the National Academy Foundation (NAF) in these efforts.
Data Management System, On-Line Examinations, and Test Item Analysis. An online Data Management System designed to capture enrollment, retention, student performance outcomes, and test item analysis was successfully implemented in the 2008-09 school year. This system will provide a secure and reliable venue for tracking student progress, end-of-course examination scores, end-of-course grades, and various surveys that will document the perspectives of students at all stages of the program.
Completed Publications Introduction to Engineering Design™ Analysis of Cognitive Levels of Learning and Mathematics and Science Content (2008), Project Lead The Way, Inc., Clifton Park, NY. http://www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/publications/2007pubs/07V29PLTW_RB.aspThe Next Step for Career/Technical Programs: Project Lead The Way and the Merging of Academic and Career/Technical Studies (2009), High Schools That Work, Southern Regional Education Board, Bottoms, Gene. Program Evaluation of Project Lead The Way, Inc. 2008-2009, TrueOutcomes – A CENGAGE Learning Company, Walcerz, Douglas.
Recent Findings
The fourth year of assessment (2008-09) produced a reliable look at how PLTW students view their postsecondary plans. Ninety-three percent of students completing the first course, Introduction to Engineering Design indicated a high degree of certainty that they will attend a two-year or four-year college or university. This percentage steadily increased after subsequent courses, reaching 99% among the upperclass in specialty engineering courses. Seventy percent of the 12,500 students surveyed indicated that their PLTW experience increased their likelihood of pursuing an engineering, engineering technology or related STEM major in college.
Looking Forward
PLTW’s mission is to ensure that America succeeds in the increasingly high-tech and high-skill global economy by partnering with middle schools and high schools to prepare students to become the most innovative and productive in the world. Research will focus on program effectiveness utilizing comparison groups based on gender, ethnicity, affluence, and standardized test scores. This not-for-profit organization invites earnest participants to its Research Community initiative intended to provide multiple evaluation views and perspectives.
For further information on the goals, work, outcomes, and successes of Project Lead The Way Inc., please go to www.pltw.org.
61 Rowan University College of Engineering
Overview/Background
Founded in 1995, the College of Engineering is the only degreed engineering program in the southern region of the state. The mission is to provide programs that are responsive to regional and national aspirations that address the needs and changing characteristics of future engineers. Offering B.S. through M.S. degrees, the Rowan engineering curriculum is decidedly multidisciplinary, but students choose to specialize in one of four majors: Chemical, Mechanical, Civil & Environmental, or Electrical & Computer Engineering. Significant aspects of the College are low student to faculty ratio, experiential learning, and the College’s hallmark-- engineering clinics--a multidisciplinary team experience that spans all four years of the undergraduate career. For Juniors and Senior, approximately 120 clinics are managed annually, primarily sponsored by industrial affiliates. The College’s faculty, while upholding a strong record of teaching and scholarly endeavors, continue to lead major initiatives in research and mentoring, creating a dynamic balance between teaching and research.
Main areas of research and/or innovation/development
Maintaining a multidisciplinary approach, the following focus areas are targeted: Bioengineering; Engineering Management; Mechanics and Materials; Signals, Systems & Computational Intelligence; Sustainability; and Transportation Engineering. For example:
Rowan faculty and students are testing a new catheter that cools the heart about 10 times quicker than competitive technology. The hope is that quicker cooling will save vital organ tissue, reducing deaths due to heart attacks. Competing technologies cool the entire body, eventually cooling the heart in about 45 minutes. The project is sponsored by FocalCool, LLC, which recently received $1-million NIH funding. The newly-created Rowan Binder Lab provides capabilities to evaluate both petroleum-based and non- petroleum based binder (such as vegetable oil). The laboratory will serve as a major resource for binder evaluation for New Jersey Department of Transportation. Current major projects: Evaluating hot-mix asphalt with high percentages of reclaimed asphalt and correlating multiple stress creep and recovery mechanical properties with chemical properties of modifiers.
In 2009 the College acquired a Cave Automatic Virtual Environment through an NSF MRI grant. The CAVE® is a 10'x10'x10' cube providing an immersive, interactive and navigable environment. Researchers conduct 3-D visualization and prototyping, simulating nearly any condition. Current research is supported by NASA grants for simulating rocket engine tests; the US Navy for diagnosing shipboard anomalies; and Cooper’s Ferry Development Association for modeling infrastructure in the City of Camden. A multi-disciplinary team of students, freshmen through graduate, participate in projects - the only such system in a university in New Jersey.
Key Publications “Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Energy Use at a University,” Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, W. Riddell, K. Bhatia, M. Parisi, J. Foote, J. Imperatore, Vol 10, No. 4, 2009. “Application of Finite Element Software to Bridge the Gap between Hand Calculations and Experimental Results in Undergraduate Heat Transfer Education”, International Journal of Engineering Education, Bhatia, K., Accepted for Publication, 2008. “Tackling Climate Change in Higher Education: One University at a Time,” Journal of the World Universities Forum, P.M. Jansson, J. Imperatore, D. Farish, Vol. 1, Issue 3 (2008) “Teaching Sustainable Design via Experiential Learning,” International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, P.M. Jansson, W. Riddell, J. Everett, Vol. 4, Issue 3 (2008) “Generating entrepreneurship opportunities for the developing world through the engineering curriculum,” World Transactions in Engineering and Technology Education, Sukumaran, B., Y. Mehta, T. Bryant, R. D’Intino, A. Marchese, J. Everett, and Z. Gephardt, 6(1):37-40 (2007)
62 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007
Recent Findings
Biomechanical researchers from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia asked Rowan to create a pneumatic sled that simulates frontal vehicular collisions to improve child-size crash test dummies (traditionally modeled after adults). To test the differences in crash scenarios, students built a crash sled device where a child volunteer is fastened with a car seat belt. The sled accelerates on the track at 3.1 Gs (approximately five mph). Hydraulic brakes simulate a frontal collision, on a gentler scale. This is one of the first studies to use live children subjects in actual impact scenarios.
A Rowan team led civil and environmental engineering developed a bicycle-powered grain crusher to help residents of Third World countries produce food. The aluminum grain crusher attaches to a standard bicycle, which is stand-mounted and drives a pulley, operating the grain crusher. Variations of the crusher exist, but generally feature hand-operated grinders that are extremely labor-intensive. The team is working on a business plan and patenting opportunities. The United States EPA presented a 2009 Environmental Quality Award for Environmental Education to faculty in Chemical Engineering. The team assisted the pharmaceutical industry in source reduction, pollution prevention and green engineering design through the Engineering Clinics.
Mechanical Engineering has recently focused on recruiting women through efforts to “change the conversation” and provide scholarship aid, resulting in an increase from 9.5% in 2006 to 13% ME women in 2009. Assessment results for Junior-Senior Engineering Clinics also show a positive retention impact on all students.
Looking Forward
A $600,000 NSF SSTEM grant has enabled the creation of learning communities where engineering students can interact and study together, facilitate mentoring opportunities, and build outreach programs to high school seniors. Assessment will analyze the impact on retention/graduation as gifted students with financial need are engaged.
Bioengineering research on the "CoolGuide" catheter has led to further study of blood shear because of pumping through confined spaces, hemolysis through mechanical stress. Future clinic work will guide minimization of blood damage and reduce safety risks.
Improved performance of Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells (DSSCs) by concentrating on the nanoparticle film that forms the critical component of these next generation solar cells shows great potential. These cells are particularly attractive because of their low fabrication costs, estimated to be 3-4 times cheaper than traditional silicon-based photovoltaics. Additionally, DSSCs can be transparent and therefore replace windows on a building.
Mechanical Engineering is developing an optically accessible direct methanol fuel cell. The primary purpose is to enable visualization of both CO2 bubble and water droplet formation and transport within the anode and cathode flow channels. Additionally, visualization from perpendicular and parallel directions will allow the capture of bubble and droplet emergence from the porous gas diffusion layer. The data will be used to validate 3D computational models of two-phase, multi-component, porous geometry flow within fuel cell plates and diffusion layers.
63
Publications by CASEE Individual Affiliates and Staff
2008 - 2009 Peer-Reviewed Publications Baber, T. & Fortenberry, N. L. (2008). Engineering and the media: Building a new relationship. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, June 22-25. Baber, T., & Fortenberry, N. L. (2008). The academic value of cooperative education: A literature review. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, June 22-25. Cady, E. T., & Fortenberry, N. L. (2008). Content analysis of the history of NSF funding for engineering education research. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, June 22-25. Cady, E. T., & Fortenberry, N. L. (2008). Metrics for assessing broadening participation in a Title IX context. WEPAN National Conference, June 8-10, St. Louis, MO. Cady, E. T., & Fortenberry, N. L. (2008). Metrics to assess broadening participation in STEM. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, June 22-25. Cady, E. T., & Fortenberry, N. L. (2009). Developing an engineering-focused narrative television series. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Austin, TX, June 14-17. Cady, E. T., Fortenberry, N. L., Davenport Sypher, B., Haghighi, K., Abel, S. R., Cox, M. F., Reed- Rhoads, T., & Berkelaar, B. (2009). Work in progress: Developing a certificate program for engineering faculty as leaders of academic change. Proceedings of the 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education conference, San Antonio, TX, October 18-21. Cady, E. T., Fortenberry, N. L., Didion, C., & Peterman, K. (2009). Increasing female engineering degree attainment in electrical and mechanical engineering departments. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Austin, TX, June 14-17. Cady, E. T., Fortenberry, N. L., Drewery, M., & Bjorklund, S. A. (2009). Validation of surveys measuring student engagement in engineering, part 2. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Austin, TX, June 14-17. Fortenberry, N. L., & Baber, T. (2008). Evaluating instructional scholarship in engineering. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, June 22-25. Fortenberry, N. L., & Haghighi, K. (2008). Making the policy case for engineering education research. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, June 22-25. Fortenberry, N. L., Cady, E. T., Bramwell, F., Clewell, B., Flaris, V., Jolly, E., Martin, D., Macdonald, H., Rodriguez, A. A., & Spalter-Roth, R. (2009). Metrics for measuring broadening participation in NSF programs,” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering [Accepted] Haghighi, K., Smith, K. A., Olds, B. M., Fortenberry, N. L., & Bond, S. (2008). The time is now: Are we ready for our role? Guest Editorial, Journal of Engineering Education, 97(2), 119-121. Jepson, J., & Fortenberry, N. L. (2008). General trends in engineering education support the participation of women. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, June 22-25. King, C. J., Ambrose, S. A., Arreola, R. A., Watson, K., Taber, R. M., Fortenberry, N. L., & Cady, E. T. (2009). Metrics and methodology for assessing engineering instruction. ASQ Higher Education Brief, August. American Society for Quality. Taber, R., Cady, E. T., & Fortenberry, N. L. (2009). Developing metrics to evaluate instructional scholarship in engineering. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Austin, TX, June 14-17. Tomlinson, M. R., & Fortenberry, N. L. (2008). Classroom artifacts: Tools to assess the use of active, innovative, and engaging pedagogies among engineering faculty. Proceedings of the 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Saratoga Springs, NY, October 22-25.
64 CASEE Chronicles, Volume IV: 2006-2007
CASEE Sponsored or Co-sponsored Conferences and Workshops
2008-2009 Engineering Equity Extension Service – Gender Equity Training Workshop February 5-6, 2009 Washington, DC 2008 ASEE Annual Meeting and Exposition June 14-17, 2009 Austin, TX 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference October 18-21, 2009 San Antonio, TX
65 National Academy of Engineering Programs on Education, Engineering Practice, and the Engineering Workforce
• Center for the Advancement of • Center for Engineering, Ethics, Scholarship in Engineering and Society (CEES) Education (CASEE) • Frontiers of Engineering • Diversity of the Engineering • Public Understanding of Workforce Engineering • Engineering and the Environment • Technological Literacy/K-12 • Engineering Education Engineering Education • Engineering, the Economy, and Society
For more details visit www.nae.edu
CASEE’s Vision: Excellence in the engineering workforce through continuous improvement of engineering education.
CASEE’s Mission: Enable engineering education to meet, in a significantly better way, the needs of employers, educators, students, and society at large.
CASEE’s Goal: Foster excellence in engineering education as defined by its effectiveness, engagement, and efficiency.
Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education 500 Fifth Street, NW, Room NAS G-11, Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202 334 1926 • Fax: 202 334 1776 • Email: [email protected] www.nae.edu/CASEE