The NSF Foundation Coalition: The First Five Years

Cordes, David; Evans, D. L.; Frair, K.; Froyd, Jeff

doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.1999.tb00414.x

Cited by 19 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They require design in two or three different courses. This emphasis reflects the pre-2000 engineering accreditation requirement for a specific number of credits of design content, the ABET engineering outcomes, and numerous other recommendations for design in the engineering curriculum [26][27][28][29][30][31].…”

Section: July 2006mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Topical Analysis of Mechanical Engineering Curricula

Jarosz

Busch‐Vishniac

2006

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study has dissected the current curriculum in mechanical engineering into a list of required topics. The list indicates what material is currently considered to be the essential body of knowledge for graduating mechanical engineering students. It also provides a measure of the extent to which curricula differ from institution to institution. There is similarity in core material required among the institutions which we considered, but each one adds distinct requirements which give it an individual flavor or emphasis. The list reveals some of the differences among degree programs. While institutions have adjusted curricula to conform to the ABET engineering criteria, how they fulfill the “technical skill” outcomes is clearer than how they fulfill the “professional skill” outcomes. This survey shows that dissecting a degree program into required topics is useful for curriculum reform, as it provides a baseline to study the curriculum at a level more finely grained than a course.

show abstract

Section: July 2006mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Topical Analysis of Mechanical Engineering Curricula

Jarosz

Busch‐Vishniac

2006

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The specific learning outcomes for the FSE100 course are the same across all themes, and are closely aligned with the outcomes of introduction to engineering and introduction to engineering design courses at other institutions as well as ABET [16]. As a result of completing the FSE100 course, students will:…”

Section: ) Learning Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Some common introduction to engineering courses include a series of short projects or laboratory exercises to introduce students to each engineering discipline [10][11][12][13]. Others use project-based learning, in which engineering concepts are taught using a just-in-time approach in the context of a semester-long team design project, which may be discipline-specific or multidisciplinary in nature [4,6,14,15,16]. Both approaches have shown positive results and the approach taken depends on the structure of the curriculum and class sizes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Work in progress: A holistic approach to ReEngineering the freshmen engineering course

Collofello

Hall

2012

2012 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Engineering schools must strive to evolve a new paradigm for undergraduate education that recognizes the evolution of the skills and learning styles of its incoming students and prepares them to tackle society's grand challenges of the future, while at the same time increases the probability of their success in their chosen engineering program. Most researchers and experts in the field agree on some basic tenants of retention [1-3], which include developing community amongst freshmen, creating connections for freshmen through meaningful interactions with returning students and faculty, engaging freshmen in active learning environments, helping freshmen understand and internalize the vision and mission of the school, and assisting freshmen to develop a personal identity as an Engineer. This paper describes the creation of new freshmen engineering courses, taught in a new learning environment with a new instructional model that addresses all of these important tenants of retention.

show abstract

“…[3] • Challenges for lifelong learning in engineering could be summarized as "faculty won't play & industry won't pay" [4] Over the last decade there have been a series of studies that led to calls for recasting engineering education such that it is more effective in terms of such areas as design [5,6], product development [7,8], manufacturing and quality [9,10] and innovation [11]. Many national initiatives have been undertaken to respond to those calls, including ABET 2000 [12], the NSF Engineering Education Coalitions [13,14] and Engineering Teaching Centers [15]. Most of these have focused on new pedagogical methods and the development of faculty members' teaching competence, not on how industry leaders and faculty member (how corporations and universities) can effectively collaborate.…”

Section: Introduction "All We Want Is a Cohesive Educational Programtmentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Responsive Model for Educational Programs for Industry: The University of Detroit Mercy Advanced Electric Vehicle Graduate Certificate Program

Das

Hanifin

Newell

2010

SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars – Electron. Electr. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today's automotive and electronics technologies are evolving so rapidly that educators and industry are both challenged to re-educate the technological workforce in the new area before they are replaced with yet another generation. In early November 2009 Ford's Product Development senior management formally approved a proposal by the University of Detroit Mercy to transform 125 of Ford's "IC Engine Automotive Engineers" into "Advanced Electric Vehicle Automotive Engineers." Two months later, the first course of the Advanced Electric Vehicle Program began in Dearborn. UDM's response to Ford's needs (and those of other OEM's and suppliers) was not only at the rate of "academic light speed," but it involved direct collaboration of Ford's electric vehicle leaders and subject matter experts and the UDM AEV Program faculty. In fact, before teaching each course, the UDM engineering and science professors will work for one or two months in the Ford engineering group that is directly involved in the design and development of the systems that the course focuses on (batteries, e-drive systems, power electronics, etc). The prime architects of this process and curriculum include the UDM dean, associate dean and faculty of engineering and science from UDM, and Ford Learning & Development managers and Product Development leaders from Sustainable Mobility Technologies and Research & Advanced organizations. Such a rapid and highly responsive curriculum development is not the norm in academia. To accomplish this outcome UDM had to be more customer-focused like industry and Ford needed to embrace academic priorities and provide access to its electric vehicle SME's by UDM faculty. The paper will discuss the following related issues: building the relationship and trust between Ford and UDM; collaborative development; "just in time" development and deployment of curriculum; shared investment; modularizing education (it doesn't always have to be in "degree-sized chunks"), linking suppliers and OEMs; balancing service to corporations and service to students.

show abstract

The NSF Foundation Coalition: The First Five Years

Cited by 19 publications

References 18 publications

A Topical Analysis of Mechanical Engineering Curricula

A Topical Analysis of Mechanical Engineering Curricula

Work in progress: A holistic approach to ReEngineering the freshmen engineering course

A New Responsive Model for Educational Programs for Industry: The University of Detroit Mercy Advanced Electric Vehicle Graduate Certificate Program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About