G. Hein, et al., “
The Changing Role of Professional Societies for Academics.”
Proceedings of ASEE Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA. vol. (ASEE2016-375625). 2016.
AbstractThis research paper describes how professional societies provide services to their members with a focus on the Society of Women Engineers (SWE). Professional societies fulfill many roles for their members. For underrepresented groups, the different roles become more important. Despite increasing numbers of women and other underrepresented groups in engineering academia, retention rates of women are still below the national average. Professional societies such as the Society of Women Engineers (SWE) may close the retention gap through community building. Not only do professional societies provide opportunities for networking and career building, but they also provide affirmation that there are others in similar roles. Although there are financial and time constraints to becoming active within a professional society not affiliated with one’s technical area, when academics feel that their involvement is valuable to their career development they will invest necessary time and money into the professional society. Similarities exist between how professional societies retain/attract faculty from underrepresented groups and how universities accomplish the same goal.
This research paper focuses on how one professional organization, SWE, is providing opportunities to women in academia that include professional development, recognition/awards, networking, leadership development, and career advancement. In the past, SWE has been viewed as a non-technical professional society. However, SWE is uniquely positioned to provide a community that transcends the organizational boundaries by encompassing technical, service, and professional development areas for women in academia that is inclusive, collaborative, and supportive as well as connected to industry, government and academia on multiple levels.
C. Lombardo, D. Faas, and A. Uttamchandani., “
Improving Design Competency in Introductory Engineering Courses within a General Education Requirement.”
Proceedings of ASEE Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA. , vol. ASEE2016-15839. 2016.
AbstractThis study discusses design competencies in several introductory engineering courses at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences within the general education program as well as required introductory courses for electrical and mechanical engineering majors. Each of these courses has a final team project, with varying degrees of open-endedness, in lieu of a traditional exam. Design competencies were measured in these courses, both pre- and post-experience, using self-reported surveys as well as instructor assessment of ABET learning outcomes. The post-experience surveys as well as final project rubrics were used to measure changes in design competencies as well as changes in self-efficacy. There was a correlation between the changes of self-efficacy and ABET outcomes at the end of the courses for both major-specific and general education courses. Students in the general education course scored lower in final self-efficacy compared to their peers in the major-specific courses but there may be a trade-off between making engineering material more accessible to general education requirements as compared to the depth covered in major-specific courses. This paper shows that encouraging and motivating students to study engineering does not necessarily have to be distinct from teaching them technical design or engineering skills. Learning outcomes in hands-on design courses are a critical component to student engagement and retention within engineering and the liberal arts. All of the courses discussed within this paper play important but different roles within the engineering curriculum at Harvard.
D. Faas and S. Gong., “
Improving Novelty and Quality during introductory mechanical design competitions.”
Proceedings of ASME 2016 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC16-59251). 2016.
AbstractThis study explores whether changing design objectives during introductory mechanical engineering courses would improve design novelty and quality when these courses offer a competition element. Design fixation can occur when students are presented with the same design objective because the institutionalized “best” solutions are transferred from semester to semester and student to student. Design competitions are a popular way to teach the design and construction components, often with a focus on robotics. Some competitions are newly designed and rebuilt every single semester, requiring advanced planning and often high budgets. Others reuse a similar competition from year to year without any changes to the design objectives. This paper tries to answer whether or not students are building more novel designs when the competition changes from semester to semester. In this study, robots from four different configurations for a design-and-build activity were analyzed. The unchanged design prompt and 3 semesters of different design prompts were included in the study. The evaluations of the robots were based on the performance of the robots, the type and quality of the designs, and the relationship between the design competition and the robots. Results from this study suggest that changing design objectives (i.e. challenges found in a robotic competition) allows for a wider variation in the designs. While the average novelty did not change, students were no longer limited to and fixated on a very small range of designs.
Keywords: Engineering Education, Mechanical Design, Design Competition, Novelty