No abstract

Contributors Michael Alley, The Pennsylvania State University; Cindy Atman, University of Washington; David DiBiasio, Worcester Polytechnic Institute; Cindy Finelli, University of Michigan; Heidi Diefes‐Dux, Purdue University; Anette Kolmos, Aalborg University; Donna Riley, Smith College; Sheri Sheppard, Stanford University; Maryellen Weimer, The Pennsylvania State University; Ken Yasuhara, University of Washington Background Although engineering education has evolved in ways that improve the readiness of graduates to meet the challenges of the twenty‐first century, national and international organizations continue to call for change. Future changes in engineering education should be guided by research on expertise and the learning processes that support its development. Purpose The goals of this paper are: to relate key findings from studies of the development of expertise to engineering education, to summarize instructional practices that are consistent with these findings, to provide examples of learning experiences that are consistent with these instructional practices, and finally, to identify challenges to implementing such learning experiences in engineering programs. Scope/Method The research synthesized for this article includes that on the development of expertise, students' approaches to learning, students' responses to instructional practices, and the role of motivation in learning. In addition, literature on the dominant teaching and learning practices in engineering education is used to frame some of the challenges to implementing alternative approaches to learning. Conclusion Current understanding of expertise, and the learning processes that develop it, indicates that engineering education should encompass a set of learning experiences that allow students to construct deep conceptual knowledge, to develop the ability to apply key technical and professional skills fluently, and to engage in a number of authentic engineering projects. Engineering curricula and teaching methods are often not well aligned with these goals. Curriculum‐level instructional design processes should be used to design and implement changes that will improve alignment.

Science and Technology, both in mechanical engineering. Since joining James Madison University, Nagel has helped to develop and teach the six course engineering design sequence which represents the spine of the curriculum for the Department of Engineering. The research and teaching interests of Dr. Nagel tend to revolve around engineering design and engineering design education, and in particular, the design conceptualization phase of the design process. He has performed research with the US Army Chemical Corps, General Motors Research and Development Center, and the US Air Force Academy, and he has received grants from the NSF, the EPA, and General Motors Corporation. Dr. Julie S Linsey, Georgia Institute of TechnologyDr. Julie S. Linsey is an Assistant Professor in the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technological. Dr. Linsey received her Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering at The University of Texas. Her research area is design cognition including systematic methods and tools for innovative design with a particular focus on concept generation and design-by-analogy. Her research seeks to understand designers' cognitive processes with the goal of creating better tools and approaches to enhance engineering design. She has authored over 100 technical publications including twenty-three journal papers, five book chapters, and she holds two patents. A Review of University Maker Spaces IntroductionAs society continues to progress in a globalized world, the necessity for more and better engineers is increasingly apparent. The engineer of the future needs to be able to harness creativity and innovation in order to stay competitive and relevant in an economy with ever growing needs.1 It is therefore the responsibility of the university to cultivate and grow these skills in their students. It has been seen, though, that the undergraduate curriculum lends itself to diminishing creativity in students.2 As such, there is opportunity for improvement in the undergraduate experience in order to not only alleviate this effect, but to also improve on vital engineering skills that are currently underdeveloped in graduating engineers. According to the creators of the Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate initiative (CDIO), skills beyond strictly technical knowledge such as interpersonal skills and critical thinking are in high demand in industry. 3,4 This is supported by the recently released ASEE Transforming Undergraduate Education in Engineering (TUEE) Phase I report.5 Fostering these skills is, however, no easy feat in the already tightly packed engineering curriculum. The current system has a heavy emphasis on theory and mathematical modeling as opposed to a more practice based curricula, which was the standard engineering education approach until the modern approach gained favor in a shift that occurred between 1935 and 1965.6 As a result of this shift, many engineering students do not spend much of their time engaged in actual design and build processes until late in their degree pr...

This article explores challenges involved in developing effective and workable models for engineering education that emphasize the development of student cognitive skills over the delivery of specific course content. It chronicles efforts to systematically design engineering learning environments based on cognitive and learning science studies and then to optimize those environments through “design‐based research.” It follows the evolutionary trajectory of curricular design efforts over four years using Problem‐based Learning (PBL) in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Georgia Tech, elucidating the activities, mistakes, realizations and the progressive refinements instituted towards the development of learning theory in the context of biomedical engineering. It argues for the need to scaffold students in the development of model‐based reasoning throughout the engineering curricula.

Doctoral recipients in the biomedical sciences and STEM fields are showing increased interest in career opportunities beyond academic positions. While recent research has addressed the interests and preferences of doctoral trainees for non-academic careers, the strategies and resources that trainees use to prepare for a broad job market (non-academic) are poorly understood. The recent adaptation of the Social Cognitive Career Theory to explicitly highlight the interplay of contextual support mechanisms, individual career search efficacy, and self-adaptation of job search processes underscores the value of attention to this explicit career phase. Our research addresses the factors that affect the career search confidence and job search strategies of doctoral trainees with non-academic career interests and is based on nearly 900 respondents from an NIH-funded survey of doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows in the biomedical sciences at two U.S. universities. Using structural equation modeling, we find that trainees pursuing non-academic careers, and/or with low perceived program support for career goals, have lower career development and search process efficacy (CDSE), and receive different levels of support from their advisors/supervisors. We also find evidence of trainee adaptation driven by their career search efficacy, and not by career interests.