Development of the Global Engineering Programming Model: A Participatory, Mixed-Methods Approach

Over the past few decades, higher education institutions have emphasized global education as a core aspect of their strategic goals, yet a gap exists in implementation at the school level, particularly in engineering. As engineering schools invest in internationalizing their programs, research is needed regarding key strategic areas and their relationship to sustained programming efforts. This study uses a participatory, integrative mixed-methods approach to develop an operational framework for global strategies, policies, and programs. A thematic, qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews followed by a group concept mapping activity was conducted with directors of study abroad and vice provosts of global education from nine universities regarding their global programming strategies, intended outcomes, and organizational resources. The results of this research provide both implicit and explicit engineering school-wide global programming strategies, their sustainable development, and future program evaluation plans

An Analytic Network Process (ANP) Approach to the Project Portfolio Management for Organizational Sustainability

As a preliminary research of development of a comprehensive management tool for organizational sustainability, this paper discusses the difficulty of achieving organizational sustainability in today’s complex business environment. It explains why Analytic Network Process (ANP), a general form of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), is an appropriate approach to the project portfolio management for success in organizational sustainability. It proposes a generic ANP model via the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework for the evaluation and prioritization of projects based on their potential contribution to an organization’s sustainability initiative. The paper then demonstrates the model through an illustrative problem

Improving Student Attainment of ABET Outcomes Using Model-Eliciting Activities

Improving Student Attainment of ABET Outcomes Using Model- Eliciting Activities (MEAs)Model-Eliciting Activities (MEAs) are a proven educational methodology for presentingcomplex, realistic, open-ended problems to students. However, the methodology can also beused for classroom assessment. MEAs were originally developed by mathematics educationresearchers but have recently seen increased use in engineering curricula. These posed, realisticscenarios require the student team to provide a generalizable model as a solution. While researchhas demonstrated that they improve student problem solving and modeling skills as well asincrease their understanding of course concepts, we have identified additional benefits of wellconstructed MEAs in the engineering classroom. In particular, they can be used to improvestudents’ knowledge and understanding of important professional skills including professionaland ethical responsibility, understanding the impact of engineering solutions in a global andsocietal context, communication, as well as teamwork. Several experiments were conducted inindustrial engineering courses in which students in sections using MEAs were compared toparallel sections in which MEAs were not used. A series of assessments were performedincluding pre and post concept tests and student course evaluations. Analysis was also doneusing student reflections recorded after completing MEAs. Students’ in sections of the coursesthat used MEAs rated their knowledge and understanding of these professional skills higher thanstudents in sections that did not use the MEAs. We suggest that engineering should seriouslyconsider using MEAs as a tool to improve both student learning and the attainment of a numberof ABET outcomes as well as a means for assessing that attainment. This should proveespecially helpful in those areas where previous assessments may have shown weaknesses orinadequate attainment

Board # 137 : Assessing the Spectrum of International Undergraduate Engineering Educational Experiences: A Cross Institutional Survey

International experiences are viewed as important components of undergraduate engineering education. Yet little has been done to define global preparedness, specify alternatives for achieving it, or determine to what degree being globally prepared is the result of personal attributes, prior experiences (including pre-college), or specific educational experiences. A collaboration of investigators from four universities (Pittsburgh, Southern California, Lehigh, and Clemson) are investigating how the broad spectrum of international experiences both in and outside of formal curricula impact engineering students’ global preparedness. Now in its fifth year, we have conducted three primary studies. The first was an extensive Delphi survey with subject matter experts. The second consisted of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of students at our four institutions. The third is a much larger survey of engineering students at 15 representative universities across the U.S. This paper focuses on the results of this third study. At each campus we obtained stratified random samples of freshmen and seniors; in the case of seniors we subdivided the sample into two cohorts – those that had an international experience while an undergraduate student and those that had not participated in an international activity. All students completed a carefully tested instrument that captured their demographics, experiences and a measure of their global preparedness. To determine the latter, we utilized the nationally normed Global Perspective Inventory developed by Braskamp and colleagues. This has enabled us to identify changes in global awareness, knowledge and thinking over the course of the students’ transition from incoming freshman to graduating senior. We report what we have learned from this extensive sample of over 2,500 students. The results of this third study and the two earlier linked studies have resulted in guidelines for engineering administrators and faculty interested in preparing students for the global economy. Similar to our earlier papers, we provide an overview of the updated results of this NSF funded research initiative that has investigated how the various internationally focused learning experiences within engineering (both curricular and co-curricular) impact students’ global preparedness

Listening and Negotiation

Negotiation is an important skill for faculty at all stages of their career, but one that research suggests is often uncomfortable for women faculty to employ. This paper focuses on the topic of negotiation, with an emphasis on providing practical ideas and strategies relevant to academic professionals at both entry-level and mid-career who find that they need to negotiate a career opportunity. The paper will review negotiation basics, as well as discuss what can be negotiated, how one might proceed to discuss these, and how listening is critical to negotiation. By viewing negotiation as a wise agreement 1 that seeks to meet the needs of both parties to the extent possible, this paper presents several common cases or scenarios that illustrate the importance of understanding the elements involved both from the faculty member’s perspective as well as from the perspective of their department head, dean or provost

CCLI: Model Eliciting Activities: Experiments and Mixed Methods to Assess Student Learning – Part II

As part of a seven university CCLI* Type 3 collaborative effort focused on models and modeling, we have extended the model eliciting activity (MEA) construct to upper division engineering programs. Originally developed and validated by mathematics education researchers, MEAs were found to have significant value as an educational tool. In particular, our overall goal has been to use this construct as a means for enhancing engineering students‟ problem solving and modeling skills as well as their conceptual understanding of certain engineering topics. Specifically,we have pursued two main research avenues: MEAs as teaching tools and MEAs as learning assessment tools. This paper summarizes our results for these two research thrusts as we enter our fourth project year. Particular emphasis is placed on our mixed measurements for student learning and achievement, and an examination of the relative conceptual gain for a series of MEA experiments, including those where a comparison group was available

Improving Conceptual Learning in Engineering Economy using Model-Eliciting Activities (MEAs)

This paper reports on an experiment conducted in an engineering economy course. Two sections of the course were taught by the same instructor, one incorporated three E-MEAs (Ethical Model-Eliciting Activities) to reinforce course concepts while the other was taught in the instructor's traditional manner. A concept inventory was given to students in both sections at the start and end of the semester. Results will be reported with a focus on determining whether the E-MEAs did in fact lead to improved student learning of specific economic analysis concepts and con-sideration of all relevant criteria (including ethical issues) in an economic analysis

Flipping Engineering Courses: A School Wide Initiative

In the 2013-2014 school year, we implemented the "flipped classroom" as part of an initiative to drive active learning, student engagement and enhanced learning in our school. The flipped courses consisted of freshman through senior engineering classes in introductory programming, statics/mechanics, mechanical design, bio-thermodynamics, facilities layout/material handling, and chemical engineering dynamics and modeling. In the flipped classroom, students watch video lectures beforehand to obtain the foundational knowledge and then demonstrate skills during class. Our study set out to address the following research questions: (1) Does the flipped classroom promote student engagement during class, and does it positively impact the classroom environment? (2) Is the flipped classroom associated with increased student achievement and learning of content? and (3) What strengths, benefits, and drawbacks do students perceive with the flipped classroom? To address these, we used a mixed methods approach, including environment and evaluation surveys, instructor interviews, exam and homework results, video access data, and structured classroom observation. Based on our use of the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI), we found evidence that flipped instruction can positively impact the classroom environment. We also used a behavioral observation protocol--the Teaching Dimensions Observation Protocol (TDOP)--to assess student engagement and involvement during class. We compared our results to a national TDOP study of 58 lecture-based STEM classrooms, formally demonstrating the advantages of our flipped classrooms. Behaviors such as student discussion and questions and problem solving were significantly higher in our flipped classrooms (p< 0.0001). Our pre-flip versus flip exam and homework results were mixed from a statistical improvement standpoint. However, based on instructor interviews we noted enhanced higher-order skills such as problem solving and deeper engagement and proficiency in some courses and with some students. Unfortunately, we encountered challenges with our freshman and seniors. The great majority of freshmen did not use the videos for first-time instruction. The seniors expressed resistance to and dissatisfaction with this instructional change. Both freshmen and seniors rated their classroom environments statistically lower than the sophomores and juniors did. We uncovered other instances in the literature of these challenges. Nonetheless, we believe that flipped instruction is a valuable approach for promoting engagement and learning. We discuss lessons learned, including the need to educate students about the expectations of the flipped classroom

Comparing the Effectiveness of Blended, Semi-Flipped, and Flipped Formats in an Engineering Numerical Methods Course

Blended, flipped, and semi-flipped instructional approaches were used in various sections of a numerical methods course for undergraduate mechanical engineers. During the spring of 2014, a blended approach was used; in the summer of 2014, a combination of blended and flipped instruction was used to deliver a semi-flipped course; and in the fall of 2014, a fully-flipped approach was taken. Blended instruction aims to integrate technology-driven instruction with face-to-face learning and is often used to enhance the traditional lecture. With flipped instruction, students practice skills during class after viewing or/and reading lecture content beforehand. To directly assess these instructional methods, we compared multiple-choice and free response results from identical final exams. We did this for all students as well as demographic segments of interest to our research, including underrepresented minorities and transfer students. We uncovered several differences having medium to large effect sizes, suggesting that some degree of flipped instruction may have been more beneficial than blended learning for both lower and higher-order skills development. The students rated the classroom environment using Fraser\u27s College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI). The three classroom environments were statistically similar with small effect sizes. However, there was a trend in lower ratings for the flipped and semi-flipped classrooms versus the blended classroom across the various environmental dimensions. This may indicate that blended instruction had the most desirable classroom environment. Based on an evaluation survey, only 38% of respondents preferred flipped instruction to usual methods, although 54% preferred active learning to lecture. In an open-ended question, the most frequently-stated benefits of flipped instruction involved enhanced learning or learning processes, and engagement and professional behaviors. These results aligned with our focus group results. This study is believed to be one of the first to compare these three modalities in a STEM course