American Society for Engineering Education -Transforming Engineering Education

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

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.

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 study was conducted to describe a high school engineering curriculum, identify teaching strategies used to increase math and science literacy, and discover challenges and constraints that occur during its development and delivery, as well as what strategies are used to overcome these obstacles. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the engineering instructor. In addition, students were observed and curriculum documents, teacher lesson plans, and teacher resources were examined. Concepts created the platform for delivery, curricular trial and error was at work, science and engineering competitions were leveraged as a basis for learning activities, and project based learning and teaching was critical. There was a clear emphasis on creative thought and work. Assessment of student learning was dubious and elusive and stakeholders tended to be uneasy with this new pedegogy. Financial and instructional support through business partnership and administrative support were found to be critical strategies used to overcome obsticles identified. David Stricker is an Assistant Professor at University of Wisconsin-Stout. He can be reached at strickerd@uwstout.edu 64 JOURNAL OF STEM TEACHER EDUCATION A Case Study: Teaching Engineering Concepts in Science The focus on improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education for America’s children can be traced back to the days of Sputnik and beyond. However, compared with advancements then, it has been argued that today technological development and industrial growth are increasing at an exponential rate with expanding global application (Brophy, Klein, Portsmore, Rogers, 2008). Consequently, amid concerns that the United States may not be able to compete with other nations in the future due to insufficient investment today in science and technology research and STEM education, funding initiatives such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (U.S. Department of Education, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Saving and Creating Jobs and Reforming Education) and “Race to the Top” competitive grants have been enacted in 2009 in an effort to offer substantial federal support for such initiatives (U.S. Department of Education. President Obama, U.S. Secretary of Education Duncan Announce National Competition to Advance School Reform). The support structure for STEM education does not end with tax dollars. Large private companies such as Time Warner Cable have committed $100 million in media time, and the MacArthur Foundation is supporting “National Lab Day” that will include, among other initiatives, a year-long effort to expand hands-on learning methods throughout the country. Specifically, within the STEM focus, engineering education supports the attainment of a wide range of knowledge and skills associated with comprehending and using STEM knowledge to achieve real world problem solving through design, troubleshooting, and analysis activities (Brophy, et. al., 2008). The arguments for including A Case Study: Teaching Engineering Concepts 65 engineering education into the general education curriculum are well established. Some are motivated by concerns regarding the quantity, quality, and diversity of future engineering talent (American Society for Engineering Education, 1987; National Academy of Engineering, 2005; National Research Council, 1996; International Technology Education Association, 2002) and others by the basic need for all students, in their pursuit of preparing for life, work, and citizenship in a society inundated with technology, to possess a fundamental understanding of the nature of engineering (Welty, 2008). In an attempt to address this issue, there have been a number of curricula designed to infuse engineering content into technology education courses (Dearing & Daugherty, 2004). Each of these programs proposes teaching engineering concepts or engineering design in technology education as a vehicle to address the standards for technological literacy (International Technology Education Association, 2000/2002). Similarly, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) publication Technically Speaking (Pearson and Young, 2002) emphasizes the need for all people to become technologically literate to function in the modern world. However, despite this clear need, within the technology education profession itself, the appropriate engineering curriculum required for implementation, particularly at the high school level, remains unclear. Indeed, engineering curricula exist that have been designed for implemetation, not in technology education, but rather in math and science classrooms. As a result of the choices available to teachers and school administrators, the extent to which the most effective way of delivereing engineering content to high school students remains unclear. 66 JOURNAL OF STEM TEACHER EDUCATION

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).

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 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Instrumentation Committee explored teacher preparation for this important assignment during the 73rd Annual ASEE Meeting. The discussions firmly established that instrumentation, as a totally identified area of study, generally appeared in two-year post high school or graduate school programs. While the ASEE Report “Characteristics of Excellence in Engineering Technology Education” fully documents the need for instrumentation in a technology curriculum, only as the teachers are prepared to expand their horizons of instrumentation knowledge and skill can the visions of the students be realistically focused on the requirements of industry. To bring the need for teacher education into proper focus, it is necessary that the extent of the field be understood from an educational viewpoint.

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

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

: The American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) manages Research Grant number N00014-90-J-1422 for the United States Navy. Under the terms and conditions of the grant, ASEE is responsible for submitting an Annual Management Report. This is the 16th Annual Management Report for Grant # N00014-90-J-1422. This report contains the pertinant statistical and financial information for the 634 applicants and 168 participants in the 1994 Navy-ASEE Summer Faculty Research Program. This report also contains the pertinant statistical and financial information for the participants of the 1994 Navy-ASEE Sabbatical Leave Program. This report also includes the statistical and financial information for grant #N00014-94-1-0515 and N00014-94-C-0043. During the summer of 1994, 168 engineering and science faculty members from universities and colleges from 37 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico conducted research at 17 Navy Research and Development Centers. This brings the total number of participant since the program began in 1979 to over 1,600. Additionally, six faculty members received support from the Navy-ASEE Sabbatical Leave Program in 1994. To date, 23 university faculty members have completed their Sabbatical appointments.

PurposeHighlights annual conference of the American Society of Engineering Education, specifically the part for Engineering Librarians.Design/methodology/approachProvides a brief review of the conference.FindingsEngineering Librarians are increasingly interested in information literacy in their subject areas and incorporating that in outreach activities. Scholarly publishing in Engineering in increasingly interdisciplinary with more interest in the Business/management Literature.Research limitations/implicationsMore subspecialties are emerging in engineering curriculum and research.Practical ImplicationsPartnerships between academe and industry and the federal government is increasingly important. No library however strong can be considered to have an exclusive engineering collection as interdisciplinary applications magnify.Value – Reinforcing good service reflecting instruction, collection development and subject strength contributes to effective responsibilities as an Engineering Librarian.

Introduction The petroleum and natural gas industry is supplying over 70 per cent of the total energy consumption of the country, and present indications are that the domestic petroleum industry will continue to grow at a rate of approximately 2 to 3 per cent per year for some time into the future. The production branch of the industry, in which over half its capital is invested, undoubtedly will experience a comparable expansion. The industry is most certainly planning its operations well into the future, and this must involve making sure of a supply of materials for future operations. It should not be illogical to expect industry to plan also for its future supply of engineers, unless it feels that engineers will not be essential to its successful operation in the future. Review of Enrollment Trends in Petroleum Engineering Since World War II, the industry annually has employed an average of more than 550 graduates from the 20 to 23 petroleum engineering schools of this country. Since it should not be unreasonable to assume that this demand will continue at approximately the same rate in the future, what about the annual availability of 550 petroleum engineering graduates in the next few years? If the industry has not already asked this question, it is high time it did. The answer may prove rather surprising to anyone who has not taken the time to analyze the current situation in petroleum engineering education and to project this into the future. Table 1 is a summary of petroleum engineering enrollment in the country beginning in 1948, as taken from the annual reports of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). The annual freshman enrollment and the total annual petroleum engineering enrollment are plotted on Fig. 1. Any projection of these curves should be very disturbing to any company which plans to hire petroleum engineers in the future. The indicated dip in enrollment in 1951 may be partially due to the fact that only 21 schools are included in that year's figures, compared to 22 and 23 for the other years. The decline in enrollment between 1948 and 1951 also probably can be explained further by the fact that many World War II veterans completed their engineering educations during this period. Notice that the numbers of degrees granted in 1948, 1949 and 1950 were considerably larger than in subsequent years. Also, the outbreak of the Korean War undoubtedly had some effect in reducing the enrollment in 1950 and 1951. If one compares the size of a given freshman class with the number of degrees conferred four years later, as may be seen in Table 1, it will be found that only about 50 per cent of the freshmen complete their programs. As a matter of fact, the average freshman enrollment for the five years from 1952 through 1956 was 1,243. The average number of BS degrees granted from 1956 through 1960 was 613, or 49 per cent of the students who were freshmen four years earlier. These ratios are not absolutely quantitative because the freshman enrollment figures include both first- and second-semester freshmen. However, the 49 per cent ratio is probably not far from the true average. If 50 per cent is taken as the mortality rate, for simplicity, there should be about 600 petroleum engineering degrees conferred in 1961. In 1962 there probably will be 340; in 1963, 230; and in 1964, 145. In other words, next year there will be only about half as many petroleum engineering graduates available for employment as this year--and in 1964, only one-fourth as many. It will be noted from the table that the size of last year's freshman class was only about 20 per cent of the largest freshman class (1956), while the 1956 freshman class had dropped to 582 in its senior year, the number of degrees granted in 1960 (558) is not greatly below the average number granted (683) over the interval tabulated. Therefore, the impact of the decreasing freshman enrollment since 1956 has not yet been felt by the industry. Perhaps industry is not concerned about this negative trend in enrollment and plans to supplement this deficiency by hiring men in other branches of engineering. JPT P. 517^

The Corporate Member Council of the American Society for Engineering Education together with IFEES recently surveyed engineering stakeholders around the world to develop a series of competencies and characteristics necessary for a modern engineer to work in a global environment. This study and others send a clear message that we must improve the focus on fundamentals, teach more real-world thinking, increase coverage of emerging areas, teach problem-solving skills, offer more instruction on oral and written communications, instill in students an awareness of ethical, environmental, and social issues, and so on. These findings have significant overlap with those of that National Academy of Engineers [1] and National Science Foundation [2] as well as the outcomes sought by accrediting bodies such as ABET, IChemE, and Engineers Australia. In addition, we must not increase the total number of credits or time required to complete a degree. It is clear that these goals are not achieved by traditional engineering education and that a major transformation is necessary to create an engineering ecosystem that supports the development of global competencies. What is the role of teaching, course, and curriculum reform in this transformation?

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session 2625 Engineering Design as a Learning Process Rebecca Sidler Kellogg, Jerald Vogel Iowa State University Introduction Design of products, processes, and systems is the task that distinguishes the engineering profession. Either directly or indirectly most engineers are involved in the design process. Despite its central role in the engineering profession and its recognized importance1,2, most engineering students complete their undergraduate degrees with only a cursory glimpse at real engineering design. Their experience is often disconnected and incomplete as the curriculum tends to focus on skills requiring convergent thought processes. There are several arguments made in defense of the current engineering curriculum, where engineering science and analysis predominate. Possibly the most common is that these subjects are easier to present, amenable to large class sizes, and accommodate the teaching strategies that are popular and economical in university settings. Engineering design education requires small class sizes, one-on-one faculty-student interaction, active learning strategies, and teamwork; lectures and exams do not suffice. Proper engineering design education requires faculty that understand design and recognize its significance to engineering. Further, faculty must have the time and dedication required to integrate design throughout the entire curriculum. Design cannot be made to fit neatly in a one-semester course at the end of an undergraduate education. There are also those that believe that design processes are particular to various industries and therefore it would be overstepping boundaries to presume to teach such processes at the academic level. While this may be true that at lower levels of abstraction where specific knowledge and details are important, at higher levels of abstraction it can be shown that the basic processes are quite similar across disciplines and domains. Others claim that engineering design processes are ad hoc and rely on creativity and experience and thus should be addressed later during the student’s professional career where experts in individual fields or industries can serve as mentors. However, engineering design can be shown to be a systematic, cognitive process rather than an ad hoc endeavor. Although creativity and experience do play roles in the process, these do not preclude the possibility that engineering design can be effectively taught. There are many recognized means of promoting creative abilities3-6 that are available for classroom instruction. Contrary to what some educators may believe, students arrive with a base of experience from which their design abilities may successfully grow. A student has already spent a lifetime interacting with a world surrounded by design artifacts. If asked, most students can explain, at least on a conceptual level, how many complicated components or systems work or behave. Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2001, American Society for Engineering Education

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Main Menu Session 2408 Longitudinal Study of Learning Communities in Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Patricia C. Harms, Steven K. Mickelson, Thomas J. Brumm Texas Tech University, Iowa State University, Iowa State University Abstract In 1998, our department turned to the pedagogical innovation termed “learning communities” in an effort to enhance student retention and to bring coherence and meaning to our first-year student curriculum. We have found that our learning community has provided an opportunity for agricultural engineering students to become involved in the Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (ABE) department from the moment they arrive on campus. Not only has the learning community helped us to increase our retention from 41.9% in 1998 to 95% in 2001, it has helped us to address many of our program objectives including students’ abilities to function on multi- disciplinary teams, communicate effectively, and have knowledge of important contemporary issues. Results of our assessment efforts, which encompass both quantitative and qualitative strategies, suggest that students are overwhelmingly satisfied with the program, are involved in our department, and are successful in their academic progress toward their engineering or technology degree. A brief look at the literature With a history that can be traced to an experimental educational program in the 1920s (the Meiklejohn Experimental College at the University of Washington), learning communities can now be found at four to five hundred colleges and universities across the nation. 1 According to Smith, “Learning communities are a broad structural innovation that can address a variety of issues from student retention to curriculum coherence, from faculty vitality to building a greater sense of community within our colleges.” Learning communities usually involve purposive groupings of students and coordinated scheduling. In addition, they may involve coordinated approaches to learning and an emphasis on connecting material across disciplinary boundaries. 2 As Tinto 3 points out, the learning community courses for which students co-register are not random; rather, “they are typically connected by an organizing theme, which gives meaning to their linkage. The point of the theme is to engender coherent interdisciplinary…learning that is not easily attainable through enrollment in unrelated, stand-alone courses” (p. 2). Despite the age of many learning community programs, Tinto reports that current perceptions of learning communities have been based largely on anecdotal evidence and institutional reports or assessments described at conferences or national meetings. Recently, however, a study was conducted for the National Center of Teaching, Learning, and Assessment that suggests learning communities impact student learning in several ways: “Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2002, American Society for Engineering Education” Main Menu