Work in Progress: Implementing a Tiger Team in a Capstone Design Course

This paper reports on the initial implementation of a two student “tiger team” in an engineering capstone design class. A tiger team is a small group of individuals that covers a range of expertise and is assigned when challenges arise that helps address the root issues causing the challenge. The term was coined in the 1960’s in the Cold War; tiger teams are used in industry, government, and military organizations. While tiger teams in these situations are usually formed around an issue then disbanded, in the capstone class the tiger team was formed for the duration of the two semester long class; details on formation and the larger context and organization of the class are discussed in the paper. The rationale for the tiger team was the observation over many years of a capstone class that as projects are functionally decomposed and subsystems assigned to individual students, a not insignificant fraction of students become “stuck” at some point in time – the concept of “stuckness” is further derived in the full paper. The result is that if delays accumulate on critical parts of the project, teams often struggle to get the project back on track and end up with a cascading series of missed deadlines. The rationale for the tiger team is to help teams identify when parts of the project are getting behind schedule and to have additional, short-term help available. In the initial implementation described here, the tiger team was two students—one from electrical and one from computer engineering—who volunteered for the position and were confirmed in that role by the other students in the class. Initial data shows that during the problem identification phase of the project the tiger team attended team meetings, helped evaluation project milestone reviews, worked to solve individual and team issues, and regularly met with the faculty. Early in the semester the two tiger team students described their role as unclear and worried their technical exposure would be limited. Later, as the teams developed technical representations, the tiger team provided independent feedback and addressed multiple technical challenges. Finally, as teams started to build technical prototypes the tiger team role again shifted to helping individuals with specific aspects of their project’ this role continued throughout the remainder of the year-long course. This in-depth case-study of the experience of implementing a tiger team draws on observations from students, faculty, the tiger team members, and an external ethnographer. This work may help other capstone instructors who may be considering similar interventions

Philosophical and Educational Perspectives on Engineering and Technological Literacy, II

Unknown to each other two groups of engineers and engineering educators began to consider aspects of philosophy and engineering. One held a workshop of engineers and philosophers- “Engineering meets Philosophy” at Delft University and the other held a special session at the annual Frontiers in Education Conference on engineering education and philosophy. Since then the former has held a biannual workshop that have resulted in two impressive publications. The other continued its discussions through FIE and ASEE conferences. There are now regular sessions on philosophy and engineering education at the annual FIE conferences.https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ece_books/1001/thumbnail.jp

Report from the STEM 2026 Workshop on Assessment, Evaluation, and Accreditation

A gathering of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) higher education stakeholders met in November 2018 to consider the relationship between innovation in education and assessment. When we talk about assessment in higher education, it is inextricably linked to both evaluation and accreditation, so all three were considered. The first question we asked was can we build a nation of learners? This starts with considering the student, first and foremost. As educators, this is a foundation of our exploration and makes our values transparent. As educators, how do we know we are having an impact? As members and implementers of institutions, programs and professional societies, how do we know students are learning and that what they are learning has value? The focus of this conversation was on undergraduate learning, although we acknowledge that the topic is closely tied to successful primary and secondary learning as well as graduate education. Within the realm of undergraduate education, students can experience four-year institutions and two-year institutions, with many students learning at both at different times. Thirty-seven participants spent two days considering cases of innovation in STEM education, learning about the best practices in assessment, and then discussing the relationship of innovation and assessment at multiple levels within the context of higher education. Six working groups looked at course-level, program-level, and institution-level assessment, as well as cross-disciplinary programs, large-scale policy issues, and the difficult-to-name “non-content/cross-content” group that looked at assessment of transferable skills and attributes like professional skills, scientific thinking, mindset, and identity, all of which are related to post-baccalaureate success. These conversations addressed issues that cut across multiple levels, disciplines, and course topics, or are otherwise seen as tangential or perpendicular to perhaps “required” assessment at institutional, programmatic, or course levels. This report presents the context, recommendations, and “wicked” challenges from the meeting participants and their working groups. Along with the recommendations of workshop participants, these intricate challenges weave a complex web of issues that collectively need to be addressed by our community. They generated a great deal of interest and engagement from workshop participants, and act as a call to continue these conversations and seek answers that will improve STEM education through innovation and improved assessment. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DUE-1843775. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation

Report from the STEM 2026 Workshop on Assessment, Evaluation, and Accreditation

A gathering of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) higher education stakeholders met in November 2018 to consider the relationship between innovation in education and assessment. When we talk about assessment in higher education, it is inextricably linked to both evaluation and accreditation, so all three were considered. The first question we asked was can we build a nation of learners? This starts with considering the student, first and foremost. As educators, this is a foundation of our exploration and makes our values transparent. As educators, how do we know we are having an impact? As members and implementers of institutions, programs and professional societies, how do we know students are learning and that what they are learning has value? The focus of this conversation was on undergraduate learning, although we acknowledge that the topic is closely tied to successful primary and secondary learning as well as graduate education. Within the realm of undergraduate education, students can experience four-year institutions and two-year institutions, with many students learning at both at different times. Thirty-seven participants spent two days considering cases of innovation in STEM education, learning about the best practices in assessment, and then discussing the relationship of innovation and assessment at multiple levels within the context of higher education. Six working groups looked at course-level, program-level, and institution-level assessment, as well as cross-disciplinary programs, large-scale policy issues, and the difficult-to-name “non-content/cross-content” group that looked at assessment of transferable skills and attributes like professional skills, scientific thinking, mindset, and identity, all of which are related to post-baccalaureate success. These conversations addressed issues that cut across multiple levels, disciplines, and course topics, or are otherwise seen as tangential or perpendicular to perhaps “required” assessment at institutional, programmatic, or course levels. This report presents the context, recommendations, and “wicked” challenges from the meeting participants and their working groups. Along with the recommendations of workshop participants, these intricate challenges weave a complex web of issues that collectively need to be addressed by our community. They generated a great deal of interest and engagement from workshop participants, and act as a call to continue these conversations and seek answers that will improve STEM education through innovation and improved assessment. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DUE-1843775. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation

Philosophical and Educational Perspectives on Engineering and Technological Literacy, IV

In this fourth edition of Philosophical Perspectives on Engineering and Technological Literacy, the divisional publication of the Technological and Engineering Literacy and Philosophy of Engineering (TELPhE) Division of ASEE, is trying a new format. Over the years members of the division have noted that many of us keep coming back to the annual ASEE conference year after year not only for the technical papers, but the deep and wide-ranging conversations that crop up organically and spontaneously at the conference like flowers in the desert after a rain. This may be an appropriate metaphor since within our own academic institutions the opportunities to have wide ranging conversations with others who have similar interests in the larger questions that underlie engineering education are often difficult to start or hard to find. Such conversations matter; dialog is fundamental to the practice of both philosophy and literacy. It is a truism to say that we learn through interacting with others and refine our own ideas by sharpening them against those of others. However the practical reality of a conference is to at least not lose money and that of today’s academic life is to publish one’s work. In conjunction, however, these have the effect of steering academic writing towards papers and presentations rather than free ranging dialog. For TELPhE, a group focused on the ideas and narratives that underlie the learning of engineering, it is not clear that such outward facing, many-to-one, ways of communicating are by themselves meeting the Division’s needs. As Mark Twain is alleged to have said, “Let us make a special effort to stop communicating with each other, so we can have some conversation.” This edition begins with an anchoring paper, John Heywood’s Why Technological Literacy and for Whom? which was presented at the 2016 ASEE Annual Conference and Exhibition in New Orleans, Louisiana. In this paper Professor Heywood’s intent was “raise questions about the intent of technological literacy in society at the present time.” Following the ASEE conference a call was put out to all members of the TELPhE Division asking for short responses to Professor Heywood’s paper. These responses, in random order, follow the anchoring paper. Unlike more traditional journals each author was free to comment in the style and form they best saw fit; instruction for style and formatting were minimal to non-existent. The author’s papers have been left mostly “as is” with only consistency between fonts, layout, and similar issues addressed. In cases where a title was not provided by the author one was inserted; apologies to the authors in advance. It is hoped that this form of “dialog journal” will enable a wider ranging conversation within TELPhE that spans not only those who can attend the ASEE conference and whom stumble in to conversation, but also those whose time, circumstance, and resources don’t give them opportunities to attend. The larger goal of this format is to stimulate ongoing dialogs and capture them in ways that are both readable and archival.https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ece_books/1003/thumbnail.jp

Pan-Cancer Analysis of lncRNA Regulation Supports Their Targeting of Cancer Genes in Each Tumor Context

Long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) are commonly dys-regulated in tumors, but only a handful are known toplay pathophysiological roles in cancer. We inferredlncRNAs that dysregulate cancer pathways, onco-genes, and tumor suppressors (cancer genes) bymodeling their effects on the activity of transcriptionfactors, RNA-binding proteins, and microRNAs in5,185 TCGA tumors and 1,019 ENCODE assays.Our predictions included hundreds of candidateonco- and tumor-suppressor lncRNAs (cancerlncRNAs) whose somatic alterations account for thedysregulation of dozens of cancer genes and path-ways in each of 14 tumor contexts. To demonstrateproof of concept, we showed that perturbations tar-geting OIP5-AS1 (an inferred tumor suppressor) andTUG1 and WT1-AS (inferred onco-lncRNAs) dysre-gulated cancer genes and altered proliferation ofbreast and gynecologic cancer cells. Our analysis in-dicates that, although most lncRNAs are dysregu-lated in a tumor-specific manner, some, includingOIP5-AS1, TUG1, NEAT1, MEG3, and TSIX, synergis-tically dysregulate cancer pathways in multiple tumorcontexts

Pan-cancer Alterations of the MYC Oncogene and Its Proximal Network across the Cancer Genome Atlas

Although theMYConcogene has been implicated incancer, a systematic assessment of alterations ofMYC, related transcription factors, and co-regulatoryproteins, forming the proximal MYC network (PMN),across human cancers is lacking. Using computa-tional approaches, we define genomic and proteo-mic features associated with MYC and the PMNacross the 33 cancers of The Cancer Genome Atlas.Pan-cancer, 28% of all samples had at least one ofthe MYC paralogs amplified. In contrast, the MYCantagonists MGA and MNT were the most frequentlymutated or deleted members, proposing a roleas tumor suppressors.MYCalterations were mutu-ally exclusive withPIK3CA,PTEN,APC,orBRAFalterations, suggesting that MYC is a distinct onco-genic driver. Expression analysis revealed MYC-associated pathways in tumor subtypes, such asimmune response and growth factor signaling; chro-matin, translation, and DNA replication/repair wereconserved pan-cancer. This analysis reveals insightsinto MYC biology and is a reference for biomarkersand therapeutics for cancers with alterations ofMYC or the PMN

Genomic, Pathway Network, and Immunologic Features Distinguishing Squamous Carcinomas

This integrated, multiplatform PanCancer Atlas study co-mapped and identified distinguishing molecular features of squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) from five sites associated with smokin

Spatial Organization and Molecular Correlation of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes Using Deep Learning on Pathology Images

Beyond sample curation and basic pathologic characterization, the digitized H&E-stained images of TCGA samples remain underutilized. To highlight this resource, we present mappings of tumorinfiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) based on H&E images from 13 TCGA tumor types. These TIL maps are derived through computational staining using a convolutional neural network trained to classify patches of images. Affinity propagation revealed local spatial structure in TIL patterns and correlation with overall survival. TIL map structural patterns were grouped using standard histopathological parameters. These patterns are enriched in particular T cell subpopulations derived from molecular measures. TIL densities and spatial structure were differentially enriched among tumor types, immune subtypes, and tumor molecular subtypes, implying that spatial infiltrate state could reflect particular tumor cell aberration states. Obtaining spatial lymphocytic patterns linked to the rich genomic characterization of TCGA samples demonstrates one use for the TCGA image archives with insights into the tumor-immune microenvironment

Integrated Genomic Analysis of the Ubiquitin Pathway across Cancer Types

Protein ubiquitination is a dynamic and reversibleprocess of adding single ubiquitin molecules orvarious ubiquitin chains to target proteins. Here,using multidimensional omic data of 9,125 tumorsamples across 33 cancer types from The CancerGenome Atlas, we perform comprehensive molecu-lar characterization of 929 ubiquitin-related genesand 95 deubiquitinase genes. Among them, we sys-tematically identify top somatic driver candidates,including mutatedFBXW7with cancer-type-specificpatterns and amplifiedMDM2showing a mutuallyexclusive pattern withBRAFmutations. Ubiquitinpathway genes tend to be upregulated in cancermediated by diverse mechanisms. By integratingpan-cancer multiomic data, we identify a group oftumor samples that exhibit worse prognosis. Thesesamples are consistently associated with the upre-gulation of cell-cycle and DNA repair pathways, char-acterized by mutatedTP53,MYC/TERTamplifica-tion, andAPC/PTENdeletion. Our analysishighlights the importance of the ubiquitin pathwayin cancer development and lays a foundation fordeveloping relevant therapeutic strategies