Search

Over the last several decades, and in response to a variety of drivers, departments of civil engineering at universities across the United States have expanded and many now support multiple degrees. Over the same time period, ABET's Engineering Criteria 2000 introduced outcomes-based assessment to the accreditation process for engineering degree programs1. In today's environment, many departments of civil engineering face the challenges of: (a) supporting multiple, interdisciplinary degree programs, (b) updating and keeping their programs current with ASCE's latest Body of Knowledge (BOK) and (c) managing the continuous assessment and improvement activities associated with ABET accreditation. We believe that civil engineering departments will continue to evolve into multi-disciplinary, sustainable infrastructure programs, and that a new vision for a multi-disciplinary BOK is needed. While a complete vision for a new multi-discipline BOK is beyond the scope of this work, some characteristics of such a vision are developed and presented. This paper presents a case study from The University of Alabama Civil Engineering Department from 2005 through 2015. During this period, the department and its programs were expanded and transformed. Among the most important lessons we learned were: (1) design definitions vary across disciplines and departments need to explicitly develop design guidelines across all programs offered, (2) significant efficiency can be gained by developing one set of Program Education Objectives and Outcomes encompassing all programs offered, and (3) capstone design classes will need much attention to detail if a single class is for multiple degree programs [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is part of NSF Grantees' Poster Session at the ASEE 2014 Annual Conference, and describes a recently funded project (October 2013) under the Research Initiation Grant in Engineering Education (RIGEE) program. It is hypothesized that there is disconnect between the principles outlined in Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and the actual classroom environment, thus creating a barrier to intrinsic motivation needed for student learning. The proposed work is an empirical investigation to explore this disconnect in the context of undergraduate engineering education. The primary tasks will be to (i) assess the Faculty knowledge of SDT; (ii) develop a measurement framework to assess the classroom environment as it relates to SDT; and (iii) determine the association among Faculty knowledge of SDT, student motivation, learning environment, and student learning. The research design and measurement framework are developed through a meaningful collaboration between the researchers from Engineering, Psychology, and Education. This takes advantage of current standards and techniques employed in the field of Social-Cognitive Psychology. Since the beginning of this project in Fall 2013, a total of 104 undergraduate students and 50 engineering Faculty at Florida Atlantic University participated in the study, and the preliminary findings will be presented in this conference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ASEE student membership has grown in recent years, while the professional membership has been in decline. It is critical for ASEE and its divisions to consider new ways to engage the growing ASEE student member population to improve the likelihood of retaining these students as future professional members in the society. Previous studies indicate that students see ASEE as an avenue for fulfilling their professional development needs. A needs analysis of ASEE student members was conducted to inform the creation of a student-inclusive ASEE conference program. The analysis identified high priority professional development needs (e.g., grant & proposal writing, college teaching, and navigating the job market) of student members and possible ways for ASEE to meet these needs (e.g., foster student programs, provide student opportunities, and build community). The results informed the creation of the 2014 Student Division conference program, which is presented in this paper to serve as a model for student-inclusive ASEE conference programming. Student-inclusive ASEE conference programming may be one mechanism to further engage student members and encourage them to continue as professional members in the society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Outreach activities are imperative in the recruitment and development of young engineers, a key demographic in our culture's future technological advancement. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, science and engineering related fields account for 50% of our country's sustained economic growth but only 5% of the U.S. workforce. In addition, the percentage of the world's scientists and engineers that live and work in the United States has shrunk dramatically in recent years, dropping from 40% to 15% in the last three decades. In order to keep up with the societal innovations taking place around the world we need more engineers; therefore, additional resources must be allocated to recruitment and outreach. Recruitment activities specific to industrial engineering suffer from an additional obstacle: most students have no idea what industrial engineering is. It is, therefore, important that any outreach exercises are as specific as possible while remaining understandable. They must go deep enough into the subject to allow students to recognize the ultimate goal of industrial engineering, to increase efficiency, without becoming too technical for a young audience. A practical way to achieve this balance is through the modification of successful classroom assignments. This work will discuss several activities that have been successfully used for K-12 student outreach at the University of Arkansas and are based upon undergraduate class exercises. Each project will be presented in detail along with its corresponding course assignment in order to motivate the exchange of creative ideas and develop a framework for the adaptation of additional outreach activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article highlights the initiatives and priorities of the Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems (ECCS) Division of the U.S. National Science Foundation's (NSF) Directorate for Engineering (ENG) in 2016. They include the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), Cyberinfrastructure and Cybersecurity, and Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS). Also mentioned are the organizational structure of the division, and its National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI).

The article discusses the national problem of engineering diversity in the U.S. It focuses on the African-American students and women who succeed in learning environments that are demanding. The authors examine the pathways, the personal strategies and methods created by the students to create a space for success.

The article reports on gender pay gap and gender selection effect in science and engineering industry in U.S. Various education programs has been designed to promote gender equality in employment in U.S. Employment opportunities and low wages could not eradicate the gender gap in employment. However, it is difficult to run business while including both genders in competitive business environment.

In recent years one of the goals of the National Science Foundation (NSF) has been to encourage new generations of engineering students to become more entrepreneurially-minded and self-employed in the engineering field. Engineering schools in the United States have specific curricular requirements that students must fulfill in order to graduate, and some of these requirements may incorporate a component of entrepreneurship education. As part of the research reported here, data from a survey of recent engineering alumni were used to examine and determine which engineering graduates have an interest and/or intention towards entrepreneurship. Analyses related to the demographic characteristics, desired career outcomes and career satisfaction, and pre- and post-graduation undergraduate learning experiences, of these alumni were conducted. The research questions guiding this study are: 1) How might engineering alumni be characterized based on their levels of interest in and intention to pursue entrepreneurial activity? 2) What similarities and differences in desired career outcomes, career satisfaction, and undergraduate learning experiences exist among engineering alumni with varying levels of entrepreneurial interest and intention? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]