A Case Study: Teaching Engineering Concepts in Science

On the launch of this inaugural issue of AIChE's and SBE's Bioengineering & Translational Medicine, I must express my deep gratitude to the members of our Editorial Advisory Board. Their expertise and experience provide a strong foundation supporting the broad range of bioengineering topics that will be covered in the journal. To highlight this strength, we plan to feature one of our distinguished Editorial Advisory Board members in each issue. In this inaugural issue, we are proud to feature Prof Nicholas A Peppas. Nicholas Peppas holds a Cockrell Family Regents Chaired Professorship in Engineering, Medicine and Pharmacy at the University of Texas at Austin, with appointments in the departments of Chemical Engineering and Biomedical Engineering, in Surgery in the Dell Medical School, and in the College of Pharmacy. He received his Diploma in Engineering from the National Technical University in Athens and an Sc.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Chemical Engineering. He has also received numerous honorary doctorates, including those from the University of Ghent (Belgium), the University of Parma (Italy), the University of Ljublijana (Slovenia), the University of Athens (Greece), the University of Patras (Greece), and an honorary professorship from the Sichuan University (China). Professor Peppas' research has made a transformative impact on drug delivery, which has leaped to the forefront of science and technology. In particular, Prof Peppas' research on mathematical models and novel biomaterials has yielded not only new insights into drug release mechanisms and new technologies to control them, but has also provided a new paradigm for research conducted at the interface of medicine and engineering. His early studies on drug diffusion in polymeric systems provided the much needed quantitative tools to describe drug release,1 an equation that is now commonly known as Korsemeyer-Peppas model. This particular study established a number of key fundamental principles of drug release from porous matrices. Specifically, swellable porous matrices exhibit complex release behavior arising from swelling-induced structural changes of the matrix. This pioneering work provided numerous insights into drug release mechanisms, including dependence on drug size, the role of matrix composition, and the role of matrix swelling. Further, this study provided the vision that, if the matrix materials and additives are chosen carefully, it should be possible to control the drug release to a desired rate. The lessons learned from these studies have fueled groundbreaking fundamental as well as translational advances in the field of hydrogel-based drug delivery systems. Today, hydrogel-based drug delivery systems are used in various applications including wound dressings, contact lenses, mucosal delivery systems, topical formulations, and depot injections, among others. The impact of this paper is also clear from the fact that this equation has been cited more than 2,700 times to date. Overall, Dr Peppas' research has been cited over 84,000 times with an h-index of 140, making him one of most cited researchers in the world across all disciplines. In 1987, Prof Peppas published two seminal papers in the Journal of Controlled Release on mathematical models of solute diffusion.2, 3 These publications introduced equations to describe Fickian and non-Fickian diffusional release from nonswellable polymeric delivery systems of various geometries. These models provided a simple-to-use, yet accurate, equation to describe drug release and these two publications remain the most cited original research articles in the Journal of Controlled Release in its 30-plus year history. Responsive hydrogels represent another area where Dr Peppas' work has made a pioneering and transformative impact, especially for applications in diabetes treatment.4-8 Hydrogels that respond to pH, glucose, or other stimuli have opened new opportunities in designing materials whose key properties, especially drug release, can be dynamically tuned. pH-responsive poly(methacrylic-ethylene glycol) hydrogels that swell in response to high pH provide materials that exhibit a collapsed state in the acidic environment of the stomach and, thus, protect encapsulated insulin from the gastric enzymes. Upon exposure to high pH of the intestine, on the other hand, the same hydrogel can swell and release insulin to facilitate oral absorption. These smart hydrogels have offered an alternative to injections, which currently represents the most common mode of insulin administration to diabetic patients despite their severe limitations. Encapsulation of glucose oxidase in hydrogel adds another layer of “smartness” to gel-based systems.5 Glucose oxidase-containing gels exhibit a higher rate of swelling, thus offering insulin release that depends on local glucose concentrations. Such responsive hydrogels have been efficacious in insulin delivery, producing a strong, dose-dependent and long-lasting hypoglycemic effect in diabetic rats. In recent studies, these hydrogels have also been used to deliver macromolecules such as siRNA for the treatment of gastrointestinal inflammatory conditions.9 Professor Peppas' work has impacted many additional areas of bioengineering, including mechanisms of transport across biomembranes, analysis of tissue-polymer interactions, and transport properties of complex polymer systems. Professor Peppas has been recognized with numerous awards, including elections to the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), National Academy of Medicine (NAM), National Academy of Inventors (NAI), National Academy of France, Royal Academy of Spain and the Academy of Athens. He is also an elected fellow of the American Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE), Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES), American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS), American Association of Advancement of Science (AAAS), Society for Biomaterials (SFB), among others. Professor Peppas has been recognized by the NAE Founders Award, the Giulio Natta Medal, the Acta Biomaterialia Gold Medal, AIMBE's Pierre Galletti Award, and the Maurice Marie Janot Award in Pharmaceutical Sciences, among others. His teaching accomplishments have been recognized through the Benjamin Garver Lamme Excellence in Engineering Education Award from the American Society for Engineering Education. In 2016, Prof Peppas was included in the 100 Power List by the medicinemaker, comprising the most influential individuals making medicines. AIChE and SBE have been particularly proud to recognize Prof Peppas with several of their distinguished awards, including Materials Engineering and Sciences Award (1984); Food, Pharmaceuticals, and Bioengineering Award (1992); Nanoscale Science and Engineering Award (2014), Founders Award for Outstanding Contributions to Chemical Engineering (2008); William H. Walker Award (2006); Jay Bailey Award (2006); and Institute Lecturer (2007). In 2008, Prof Peppas was listed among the “One Hundred Chemical Engineers of the Modern Era by AIChE” on the occasion of the Institute's centennial. As towering as these accomplishments and recognitions are, if we ask Prof Peppas, he would say that his proudest professional achievements are his students. To date, he has supervised more than 875 researchers, including 105 PhDs, over half of whom are now professors at various Universities. His students are advancing various frontiers of bioengineering and biotechnology in their own ways in academia as well as industry. Over the years, Prof Peppas has played a central role in advancing the cause of bioengineering in various organizations, especially in AIChE. He was director of AIChE (1999–2002); chair of the AIChE's Materials Engineering and Sciences Division (1988–1990); director of AIChE's Food, Pharmaceutical and Bioengineering Division (1994–1997); and founder of AIChE's Bionanotechnology programming area. Even outside AIChE, Prof Peppas has been extremely active in various professional organizations. He was director of the BMES (2008–2011), Chair of the College of Fellows of AIMBE (2006–2007), President of the SFB (2003–2004), president of the Controlled Release Society (1987–1988), and chair of the Engineering section of AAAS (2014–2015). He is presently the President of the International Union of Societies for Biomaterials Sciences and Engineering (2008–2016). Among many of his editorial responsibilities, he was Associate Editor of the AIChE Journal (2009–2012). Professor Peppas' pioneering research, along with his active and inspiring leadership in various professional organizations, has advanced the visibility of drug delivery in the scientific landscape, and has inspired young professionals to follow the suit. On behalf of AIChE and SBE, I thank Prof Peppas for his strong support in the launch of Bioengineering & Translational Medicine and look forward to his continued support. Samir Mitragotri Editor-in-Chief Dept. of Chemical Engineering Center for Bioengineering University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Email: samir@engr.ucsb.edu

A few years ago, Rose and Dugger (2002) published the results of a public opinion poll on What Americans Think about Technology. Sponsored by the International Technology Education Association (ITEA) and conducted by the Gallup Organization, this ITEA/Gallup poll revealed many things about the public’s understanding and attitudes about technology, as well their ideas about technology in the school curriculum. Referencing the comprehensive Standards for Technological Literacy (ITEA, 2000), a project that used experts to identify the content for technology education, an objective of the ITEA/Gallup poll was to determine if the public’s perception of technology is congruent with that of the experts. Clearly, given the thoroughness and credibility of the Standards along with its expected potential to influence technology education policy, direction and, content, an examination of public opinion was seen as being vital in determining the degree to which expert rhetoric matched public reality and expectations. Similarly, Hong Kong is now going through dialogue and critical selfexamination about technology education. In a departure from practice at the time, Hong Kong’s Curriculum Development Council (2000) in their document Learning to Learn, recognized the importance of technology and specifically identified Technology Education as one of the eight necessary Key Learning Areas (KLA) for all Hong Kong students to acquire from the six primary grades through the lower three secondary grades. The CDC also applied a broad definition of technology as being “the purposeful application of knowledge, skills, and experiences in using resources to create products or systems to meet human needs.” The impact of ITEA’s work and perspective was evident in references made to it in the TEKLA Curriculum Guide (CDC, 2002) that subsequently followed. Similar to ITEA’s Standards, the Guide was developed by academics, professionals from related fields, and other experts in order to help realize the recommendations made in the Learning to Learn document. The Guide included the framework, learning objectives, assessment practices, as well as exemplars for technology education. ____________________

This innovative practice work in progress paper presents an initial review of the emerging role of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Technological and Engineering Literacy and Philosophy of Engineering (TELPhE) Division from the perspective of a community of transformation. The group seeks to reframe, redesign, and reposition technological and engineering literacy as a central pillar of engineering education. With a philosophical perspective and a critical view of education that connects engineering education to the liberal arts, the group has been moving forward to make an impact in the engineering education community. The goal of the group via all of the collective efforts, discussions, papers, articles, special reports, publications, special sessions, and workshops has been focused on providing a new forum and platform for discussions, debate and dialogue in advocating public awareness of technological and engineering literacy. As an ASEE Division, TELPhE has grown in attracting and engaging practitioners of engineering education, technological and engineering literacy, and philosophy in an ongoing examination of engineering philosophy, the scope of engineering education, and the impact of engineering and technology. Thus far the group has evolved organically but now seeks a theoretical framework to inform strategic planning and goal setting. To this end, the development of the group is framed as a community of transformation. The paper briefly reviews the evolution of the group from the Technological Literacy Constituent Committee and the internal and broader-based discussions and growth into the Technological and Engineering Literacy and Philosophy of Engineering Division. By starting to review the evolution and metamorphosis of the ideas that were developed by the group members and associates, the paper begins an analysis of TELPhE as a community of transformation to inform effective avenues for future activities to impact engineering, engineering education, and technological and engineering literacy.

This article describes the Blended Teaching and Learning methodologies and the pedagogical approaches that use Information and Communication Technologies in the field of Electrical and Computers Engineering (ECE) Education Programs. The paper also reflects the collaboration in the field of Online Engineering between the Technical University “Gh. Asachi” from Iasi, Romania and Menoufia University, Egypt, in the context of the Erasmus Plus Program of the European Union. In this paper, we have reviewed the recent documents of: European Society for Engineering Education, International Society for Engineering Education, Institution of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, International Association of Online Engineering, and American Society for Engineering Education to identify the specific pedagogical characteristics used in the computerized training process. The integration of online laboratories in the engineering training process, the use of Virtual Learning Environments, the inclusion of Open Educational Resources are the strategies used in this project. The impact of using Massive Open Online Courses in Education Programs is also analyzed. The cooperation between our universities began in 2017 and have result in the publication of a number of articles in International Conferences Proceedings in 2018 and 2019: International Conference on Virtual Learning, eLearning and Software for Education, International Conference on Electromechanical and Energy Systems. Between August 1, 2020 and July 31, 2021, an exchange of teachers and students will take place within an Erasmus Plus Action.KeywordsBlended Teaching and LearningVirtual and remote laboratoriesOpen Educational ResourcesElectrical and computers engineering education programsVirtual Learning Environments

American Society Energizing Education submissionJune 10-14 San Antonio, Texas 2012Technological literacy in required science courses for non-STEM students in acommunity college with extension to junior high school environmentAbstractTechnology literacy is an important outcome for a non-STEM student taking a requiredscience course to function effectively in our technology driven economy. Thedevelopment of technological literacy in a non-STEM science course benefited from ourexperience in teaching engineering technology courses and practical field training withstudents. Social technological issues such as the pros and cons of various energy sources,genetically modified food, etc. are crucial elements for choices in a democratic society.The understanding of a current personal technological device/gadget and the pivotalscience based technology for the expected next generation product would drive themarket surveying results with positive effect on the economy. Such emphases have beentaught in the two science courses, principles of astronomy and space, and principles ofphysics. Examples in imaging, remote sensing and control, wireless communication,fusion, radioactive dating, etc. have been used to deliver technological literacy in threecognitive dimensions of knowledge, capabilities, and critical thinking and decision-making; consistent with the recommendation of National Academy of Engineering(NAE). The astronomy course with NASA priority and operation discussion has beenfound to be suitable in fulfilling the five technological literacy expectationsrecommended by International Technology Education Association (ITEA), in addition tothe usual science literacy requirement. Junior high school science sessions have beenconducted with the inclusion of technological literacy as well, and our preliminaryfindings suggest that technological literacy would promote parents’ interests andencouragement for STEM majors in their families.

In Memoriam: Dr. Clive L. Dym (1942–2016)

In this paper, a description of what the American Society for Engineering Education is doing to transform engineering education in the United States and the world is presented. With the many challenging and complex problems the world faces, it is critical that educational institutions are producing talented, innovative engineering graduates to improve the quality of life throughout the world. The paper begins with some background information on the American Society of Engineering Education and continues with a discussion of several activities aimed at transforming engineering education.

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session 1455 Growing the National Innovation System: Leading Change at Universities for Innovative Graduate Education D. R. Depew, 1 S. J. Tricamo, 2 D. H. Sebastian, 2 S. K. Fenster, 2 R. J. Bennett, 3 D.D. Dunlap, 4 G. S. Jakubowski, 5 M. I. Mendelson, 5 T. G. Stanford, 6 D. A. Keating, 6 J. M. Snellenberger 7 Purdue University 1/ New Jersey Institute of Technology 2/ St Thomas University 3 Western Carolina University 4 / Loyola Marymount University 5 University of South Carolina 6 / Rolls-Royce Corporation 7 Abstract This is the fourth paper in the panel session of the National Collaborative Task Force on reshaping professional graduate education in engineering and technology that is more relevant to the needs of industry to ensure a strong U.S. engineering workforce. As the final and integrating paper of the panel session, this paper ties together the three previous papers and focuses on leading change for purposeful action at comprehensive research universities to implement this needed innovation into the mainstream of university operations across the country. The National Collaborative Task Force believes that innovation in engineering education can be accomplished best at the graduate level through a national demonstration project effected by a critical mass of innovative leaders from a strong coalition of universities and industry who are committed to taking purposeful action for reform. The paper presents strategies to overcome systemic and institutional obstacles in implementing this significant transformation at comprehensive research universities across the country. Additionally, the paper builds upon recommendations of the National Academy of Engineering, ASEE, the Kellogg Commission, the Council on Competitiveness, the Council of Graduate Schools, and other calls for reform in engineering education. The National Task Force is playing a key role as change agent for this transformation with industry. Introduction The first paper in this series considered the need for professionally oriented graduate education as a catalyst for sustainable economic development in the United States. The second paper focused on identifying the skill-sets, learning outcomes, and experiences appropriate for professionally oriented graduate programs in engineering as defined by leaders in business and industry. The third paper identified some of the important characteristics of innovative professionally oriented graduate programs at the master’s level and beyond. The paper focuses on bringing the series to a beginning rather than a conclusion. The authors will attempt to ask questions important to fostering an ongoing dialogue designed to improve professional graduate education in engineering. Graduate education should be viewed as an ongoing process of change and improvement. This ongoing improvement process should follow Dana Cound’s view on continuous improvement. Cound advocated that striving for excellence in quality improvement should be considered a journey rather than a destination. “Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2003, American Society for Engineering Education”

This report documents the 2025 program of the Liberal Education/Engineering and Society (LEES) Division at the annual conference of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), held June 22–25, 2025 in Montreal, Canada. We discuss the how the Division’s planned themes – sociotechnical integration, truth and reconciliation in engineering, engineering and climate change, and engineering and conflict – were reflected in the program, and highlight an emergent theme of ‘critical mutuality' that developed during the conference itself. Finally, we reflect on the relationship between the LEES Division and its constituent scholarly communities of engineering studies and engineering education.

THE puzzling title of the subject line on the e-mail read, Is This Progress? Attached was an electronic copy of recent Kappan article titled Arts/Technology: What Are We Doing? (June 2007). For many years now, those of us within the technology profession have argued that we need to stop talking to ourselves and start taking our message both to the broader community of educators and to the public at large. As recently as mid-June of 2007, the leadership of the International Technology Education Association (ITEA) had discussed the possibility of approaching the Kappan about publishing an article on contemporary technology education. So it was with both surprise and excitement that we found the article by James Howlett and Brad Huff attached to our e-mail. After reading the article, the subject line of the e-mail made sense. Howlett and Huff made two excellent points. The first is the strong relationship between basic skills in math and reading and such technical skills as machining, drafting, and working with electricity or electronics. The second is the notion that the public school curriculum is fast being turned into two-subject curriculum courtesy of No Child Left Behind. Beyond those key points, though, the article portrayed an overly vision of technology that left us--and the rest of the leadership of our profession--feeling that grand opportunity to explain the valuable role that technology can play as part of the general public school curriculum had been wasted. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, INDUSTRIAL ARTS, AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION To better understand our disappointment with what Howlett and Huff presented under the label of arts/technology, it would be helpful to provide some historical and philosophical perspective on the differences between education, industrial arts, and technology education. To the layperson, the terms and technology seem closely related, perhaps even synonymous. However, closer examination of typical definitions shows that they are very different. For example, the legislature in Washington State provided the following definition of education: The term vocational education means planned series of learning experiences, the specific objective of which is to prepare individuals for gainful employment as semi-skilled or skilled workers or technicians or sub-professionals in recognized occupations and in new and emerging occupations. (1) In contrast, the Standards for Technological Literacy defined technology as a study of technology, which provides an opportunity for students to learn about the processes and knowledge related to technology that are needed to solve problems and extend human capabilities. (2) This same document also advocated that all students in K-12 can become technologically literate and should be given the opportunity to do so. It provided an intellectual framework, spanning the K-12 system, for the study of the human-made world (i.e., technology) that included medical, agricultural, and related biotechnologies, as well as energy and power, information and communication, transportation, manufacturing, and construction technologies. From these vantage points, it becomes clear that focuses on trade preparation, whereas technology is broader in terms of content (the study of major technological sectors in the human-made world) and its intended audience (all students at all grade levels). Arguably, the relationship between industrial arts and technology is more complex. Industrial arts was the predecessor to technology education. The term industrial arts first appeared in the literature in 1904, when Charles Richards, editor of Manual Training Magazine, proposed it. His suggestion for the name was part of an editorial intended to redirect the educational focus of manual training. …

The American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) has engaged with the engineering education community to define and pilot the current best approaches for systematically collecting and analyzing student success data. Out of these efforts, ASEE has developed a survey that provides reliable, broad-based data for national retention and time-to-graduation benchmarks. ASEE plans to build on its retention and time-to-graduation survey and work collaboratively with engineering schools using a design-based implementation research approach [1]; and plans to document engineering school systems that support high student retention, with a pilot that focuses on schools that excel at retaining engineering students who are from the regular majority (i.e., schools that admit students through less selective admission requirements but are able to retain those students at high rates).

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session 1330 Assessing Readiness for Self-directed Learning Thomas Litzinger, John Wise, SangHa Lee, and Stefani Bjorklund Penn State University Introduction The ABET engineering accreditation criteria bring lifelong learning to the forefront for all engineering educators. In the past, our role in lifelong learning was primarily offering courses and degree programs for practicing engineers through continuing education and on our campuses. Now the accreditation criteria demand that we prepare engineering students to engage in lifelong learning. While this level of emphasis on preparing students for lifelong learning is new, the significance attached to lifelong learning, and in particular continuing education, within the engineering profession is not. Lifelong learning in engineering has been recognized as critical for decades. The Final Report of the Goals Committee on Engineering Education, written in 1968, contained a discussion of the importance of lifelong learning.1 In 1978, the theme of the ASEE Annual Conference was “Career Management – Lifelong Learning.” Over the years there have been a number of studies to investigate the types of activities involved in lifelong learning, their frequency of use, the types of support systems required for lifelong learning, barriers to lifelong learning, and impact of lifelong learning for individual engineers. Many of these studies are summarized in a 1985 report by an NRC panel. 2 Lifelong learning is an issue of importance for engineers around the world. UNESCO sponsored several significant studies including “Advances in the continuing education of engineers.”3 The report resulting from this study summarizes practices in continuing education in a number of countries, both developed and developing, and also the delivery systems used. UNESCO played a central role in the formation of the International Society for Continuing Engineering Education in 1986. Clearly, however, lifelong learning occurs through more channels than just continuing education. In 1986, Cervero et al. interviewed nearly 500 engineers by telephone in the area of Rockport, IL.4 Seventy-two percent of the engineers surveyed were at the BS level and more than one half were under the age of 35. Due to the nature of the businesses in the area, the sample contained predominantly mechanical engineers, 53%, with electrical engineers accounting for an additional 22%. The survey was structured to investigate the participation of the engineers in the three modes of learning proposed by Houle5: instruction, inquiry, and performance. Cervero et al. summarize these three modes of learning as follows: Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2003, American Society for Engineering Education

Introduction Since late 1960s issues surrounding technology in education have evolved to reflect contemporary times. No longer is emphasis on incorporating computers and technology into education, but on using them efficiently for teaching and learning. This paper will explore how technology has been included in Australian secondary school music curriculum since late 1960s, discussing significant events in recent history of Australian music education, such as arrival of MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) in 1982. This overview of history of technology and particularly music technology in Australia provides some context for its present status. The history of present provides a way to understand past. It is used to: Expand boundaries of possible approaches to contemporary problems by using historical investigations to permit thinking of those problems in different ways.... histories of present take as their starting point questions posed in present and seek to make terms through which those problems are currently understood an object of inquiry. (1) The histories of present Victorian curricula can be understood in this context as the making of histories that locate present as a strange, rather than familiar landscape, where that which has gone without saying becomes problematic. (2) This paper focuses on Victoria, a state in Southeast Australia which contains large city Melbourne. Providing an explanation for each state and territory in Australia would be beyond scope of this paper. However, it is intended that this will be a snapshot of status of technology in music education in Australia. Australia does not have a national school system. Instead, state and territory governments have constitutional responsibility for schooling. However, at a national level, strategic policy development and delivery of educational programmes and services are coordinated through Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training, and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). The Commonwealth government works cooperatively with states and territories and non-governmental school authorities in pursuit of national goals that focus on learning outcomes of students and provide a framework for national reporting on student achievement and for public accountability by school education authorities. (3) The Department of Education, Science, and Training (DEST), also provides national leadership and works collaboratively with various states, territories, industry, agencies, and community in support of these objectives. DEST explains their role as: We develop and implement policies to ensure continuing relevance of education, science, and training to contemporary needs and growing requirements for lifelong learning. We also ensure high quality and value for money in delivering Government funded programmes. (4) Some of these national government pronouncements and programs will later be explored as they are relevant to recent past and present inclusion of technology in music education. Technology in Australian music education before MIDI Although this paper mainly considers music technology in secondary schools, it is important to first chronicle arrival of technology in university music education. University composers and lecturers used new technology, helping it evolve, and their effect of their work rippled across secondary school music education in Australia. The Elder Conservatorium at University of Adelaide (5) has an established history and pioneering reputation towards electronic music and music technology. In 1962, Dr. Henk Badings (6) (1907-1987) was first to introduce music concrete and electronic music to Adelaide University. English composer and educator Peter Tahourdin (1928-), who graduated from London's Trinity College of Music in 1952 where he studied composition with Richard Arnell (7) (1917-), became second visiting composer at University of Adelaide in 1964, lecturing in analog synthesis techniques. …

The purpose of this study was to explore how preservice teachers incorporated technology into a microteaching activity that was a component of their science education, mathematics education and educational technology courses. The preservice teachers displayed various levels of technology use ranging from additive and nonessential to integral and integrated. Four uses of technology emerged; as knowledge source, data organizer, information presenter, and facilitator. In this article we will discuss microteaching as a tool in teacher education and share the preservice Teachers' efforts to integrate computers and other related technologies in the teaching of science.

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session 3432 Assessment of Lab Work: A Three-Domain Model; Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor A.-R. M. Zaghloul E E Department, New Mexico Tech, Socorro, NM 87801/ ITR Technologies Inc, 1744 L ST 3C, Lincoln, NE 68508 Abstract Several models exist for assessment of lab work. One depends only on written reports in lab notebooks during lab time. Another depends only on written reports after the lab is done. A third adds to after-lab written reports an exam component. In this communication, we provide an educational model to analyze the lab work educational experience. This model depends on the three domains of human behavior; cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. It also draws on the information- processing model of education. This three-domain model (TDM) helps identify the educational elements comprising the lab work. Therefore, it leads to a properly structured assessment plan. Lab skills including safety, breadboard techniques, equipments handling techniques, measurement techniques, analysis and logical development of student work, notebook reporting, and formal reporting are some of the identified elements of the educational lab experience. According to the identified elements, an assessment plan is devised and implemented. It leads to a very well structured method with maximum objectivity and minimum subjective characteristics. Checked lab work, notebook and formal reporting, and a practical test with the use of a graded checklist provides the most objective assessment of the student education in conjunction with the developed educational objectives. The TDM model is easily applicable by electrical engineering educators through a step-by-step algorithm that is provided. It is equally applicable to other engineering, and non-engineering, disciplines, that use lab work as an educational tool. The presented algorithm and model both can contribute greatly to the education of electrical engineers. It is used by the author in actual lab environment with positive contributions to the student education and ease of management of the education environment. I. Introduction Lab work is a very important component of electrical engineering and electrical engineering technology education. For the student to have a good rewarding educational experience in the lab, this experience must not only be properly designed and integrated Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2001, American Society for Engineering Education