A Gated Review Process for Administering a Capstone Senior Design Course

This paper discusses the use of a gated review process for administering a capstone senior design course. A gated review process is a tool used in product and process development by companies and institutions. It is a process that systematically controls the progress of a design cycle while also managing the risks inherent with new designs. The process consists of four phased review elements. Each element terminates in a mandated gate review that is staged at key times during the lifecycle of the design projects

Starting a Multidisciplinary Senior Capstone Design Course

In 2000, George Fox University expanded its engineering program from a 3/2 program to a complete four year engineering program providing a Bachelor of Science in Engineering with concentrations in both electrical and mechanical engineering. 2004 saw the first graduates from the program which became ABET accredited the following year. Very early in the program development, it was decided that the senior capstone experience would be a multidisciplinary experience. The small class sizes (9-10 seniors in the first three years) also enabled the program to focus on a single project in the initial years and expanded to two projects to accommodate the 17 seniors in the 2006/2007 academic year. While many senior capstone experiences are constructed to focus on the design experience, we decided to expand this focus. By their senior year, George Fox University engineering students have already experienced a number of significant design experiences. This wealth of prior design practice enables the program to use the capstone experience to help students transition from the mindset of a ‘student’ to that of an engineer. This desire to imitate “real-life” engineering project experience drives the structure and pace of the capstone experience. Students tend to be surprised at all the “non-technical” issues that must be confronted and addressed. The project progress is assessed throughout the two semesters and input is frequently provided by the faculty members and the representative from the industry sponsor. Both the complete team and individual students are assessed. This course serves as an excellent place to measure the overall learning and progress of the students as well as the success of the engineering program. Final oral presentations and demonstration of successful prototype functionality are given at the annual Design Project Day and at the client’s industrial site. In this paper we describe the methods used by the George Fox University engineering program to acquire and work with industry sponsors and define the scope of these projects. Additionally, we will describe the specifics of the student group formations and how students have, either effectively or ineffectively, participated in the multidisciplinary experience. We will use the specific examples from the delivered prototypes, using these elements to emphasize those efforts that have worked well and to indicate those areas that have been less successful

Catalyzing Environmental Results: Lessons in Advocacy Organization-Business Partnerships

Provides guidelines for environmental advocacy groups seeking to work with business partners. Distills the lessons of almost a decade of working with corporate partnership projects

Improving Faculty Preparation in Research Universities: Insights From The Teagle Foundation's Graduate Student Teaching in the Arts and Sciences (GSTAS) Initiative

This white paper describes findings and lessons learned from site visits to seven GSTAS grantees: Northwestern University, Cornell University, Stanford University, Columbia University, Princeton University, the University of California-Berkeley, and the American Historical Association (AHA). We argue that a key element of success in these programs was their treatment of the development of knowledge and practice in teaching, and the development of knowledge and practice in research, as both similar and synergistic. We also observe that, despite substantial differences in project design, the Teagle projects constituted a graduate-level version of "highimpact practice," such that participants experienced first-hand the kinds of instructional strategies supported by much of the scholarly literature they were reading

"We think that’s the future": curriculum reform initiatives in higher education

This research report, considering curriculum reform initiatives in higher education, explores the nature of whole institutional curriculum reform undertaken by universities in the UK, and beyond, in response to the globalised world and global economy of the 21st Century. The key questions addressed in the report considered: What self-scrutiny, strategies, planning and processes do universities who have successfully reformed the curriculum undertake? How do these universities measure and evaluate the impact of whole curriculum reform in relation to learning and teaching and the student experience? Eighteen universities expressed interest in the research and provided details of their reforms. Each university judged their reforms as successful against their own expectations. An initial in-depth interview took place with ten of these universities and follow-up case study research took place at three universities: Kingston University, London; Curtin University, Perth, Australia and the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland. The thematic analysis focusses on higher educational leadership, the process and evaluation of curriculum reform initiatives and explores staff and student engagement with curriculum change in higher education. The research concludes that these initiatives can lead to a realignment of the curriculum with a clearly articulated mission for the individual universities taking part in such activities