Southeastern University and College Coalition for Engineering EDucation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Southeastern University and College Coalition for Engineering EDucation PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 1fd649-ZWFmO



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Southeastern University and College Coalition for Engineering EDucation

Description:

Survey feedback positive as well. Fully institutionalized in 1998 ... Laboratory endowed by alumni donation. Adoption of Introduction to Engineering Courses ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:98
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 29
Provided by: drw2
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Southeastern University and College Coalition for Engineering EDucation


1
Southeastern University and College Coalition for
Engineering EDucation
Elements of Engineering Education
Improvement The SUCCEED Coalition
Experience Tim Anderson University of Florida
Clemson University ? Florida AM University ?
Florida State University ? Georgia Institute of
Technology ? North Carolina AT State University
? North Carolina State University ? University of
Florida ? University of North CarolinaCharlotte
? Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University
2
Outline
  • What is the SUCCEED Engineering Education
    Coalition?
  • SUCCEEDs Curriculum Model
  • Four Essential Elements to Sustain Continuous
    Improvement
  • assessment and evaluation
  • focus on student success
  • partnerships
  • faculty development
  • Concluding Remarks

3
SUCCEEDs Eight Member Colleges
  • Enroll over 28,000 engineering undergraduates
  • Award 1/13 of all U.S. engineering degrees
  • Award 1/5 of all U.S. engineering degrees awarded
    to African-Americans
  • Award 1/12 of all U.S. engineering degrees
    awarded to women

Data based on reports of the Engineering Manpower
Commission of the AAES, 1996-1997 edition
contact Carl Zorowski
4
Curriculum Model
Student Success
SUCCEEDs Curriculum Model
  • Technically Competent
  • Capable Designers and Integrators
  • Critical and Creative Thinkers
  • Effective Communicators
  • Team Players
  • Life-long Learners
  • Globally Aware
  • Professionally Responsible
  • Positive Attitude

5
Curriculum Model
SUCCEEDs Curriculum Model
  • Subject Integration
  • Early and Multidisciplinary Design
  • Engineering Practice
  • Explicit Skill Development
  • Matched Teaching / Learning Styles

6
Curriculum Model
SUCCEEDs Curriculum Model
  • Continuous Faculty Development
  • Technology-Based Delivery
  • Learning Support Systems
  • Continuous Improvement Processes

7
Curriculum Model
SUCCEEDs Curriculum Model
Student Success
Key Attributes
8
SUCCEEDs Curriculum Model
Student Success
  • Content and
  • Structure
  • Subject Integration
  • Early and Multi-disciplinary Design
  • Engineering Practice
  • Explicit Skill Development
  • Matched Teaching / Learning Styles
  • Processes and Systems to Enhance Student Learning
  • Continuous Faculty Development
  • Technology-Based Delivery
  • Learning Support Systems
  • Continuous Improvement Processes

Key Attributes
9
Outline
  • Four Essential Elements to Sustain Continuous
    Improvement
  • assessment and evaluation
  • focus on student success
  • partnerships
  • faculty development

10
Assessment Evaluation
  • Goal Develop processes to ensure continuous
    curriculum improvement
  • Before SUCCEED
  • Working under old discipline bean counting
    accreditation process
  • Few departments had assessment plans
  • Very little data gathering - Some self assessment
    survey
  • Graduating senior exit interviews
  • Course and instructor evaluations

11
SUCCEED SUCCESSES
  • SUCCEED and other coalitions made a significant
    contributions to new ABET Engineering Criteria
    2000
  • Multiple tools developed to facilitate
    implementation
  • Guide to formative and summative evaluation and
    assessment
  • Manual software tools to facilitate continuous
    curriculum renewal
  • Coalition-wide assessment instruments (e.g.,
    climate survey for women, faculty development,
    freshman attributes, qualitative college level
    assessment)
  • Databases and benchmarks established
  • Longitudinal Database all student records
    since 1987

12
Statistical Methods
  • Model retention vs.. performance along logistic
    regression curve
  • Course grades are not a continuous variable
  • Compute Odds Ratio (ORs) for each course
  • increase in odds of retention per 1-grade-point
    increase in grade
  • Compute 95 confidence interval for each OR, to
    determine statistical significance

13
Only six courses were significant
BLUE Performance in course was significant to
retention
14
Odds Ratios and Confidence Intervals for
Significant Courses(increase in retention odds
per 1 point increase in grade)
All other courses had 95 Wald CIs lt1.0, gt1.0
(i.e., not significant)
15
Conclusions
  • In this significant population, Calculus is not
    the biggest predictor of engineering retention
  • Has calculus placement and teaching improved to
    the point where other courses dominate?
  • The presence of three lab courses underscores the
    importance of active, experiential learning
  • Chemistry (first lecture, two labs) particularly
    important suggests this area needs attention

16
Conclusions
  • Among 14 remaining core courses, a students
    grade had no statistically significant effect on
    retention in engineering.
  • Engineers had better grades than non-engineers in
    core science courses, usually to over 99
    confidence level
  • This difference is not large 3.3 vs. 3.1

17
What are the Implications?
  • Curriculum development It should be possible to
    introduce more flexibility into the curriculum
    and allow students to take some of the core
    courses later in program.
  • Pedagogical innovation Chemistry may require the
    same sort of attention that Calculus has
    received.
  • Advising Potentially more effective to focus on
    a subset of core courses, rather than treat all
    core courses as a single set.
  • The presence of three lab courses underscores the
    importance of active, experiential learning.

Freshman Lab
18
Lessons Learned on Evaluation and Assessment
  • A person at the college level with
    responsibility for evaluation assessment is
    critical
  • Considerable differences exist between
    Universities, colleges and disciplines need to
    understand them
  • Student learning is a shared responsibility
    engage all stakeholders
  • Focus on first-order effects, simple
    measurements often best, ..

Student Flow
19
Student FlowEngineering to Non-engineering
20
Student Flow Among Engineering Subfields
21
Student Flow Non-engineering to Engineering
22
SUCCEEDs Milestones for Affecting Student
Outcomes
Engineer in Workforce or Grad School
Engineering Student
High School Student
Community College / Transfer Student
23
SUCCEEDs Milestones for Affecting Student
Outcomes
Engineer in Workforce or Grad School
Engineering Student
High School Student
Community College / Transfer Student
24
Matrix Team Approach
  • Focus teams build expertise Coalition-wide and
    bring it back to the local campus teams
  • Cross-fertilization of ideas and leveraging of
    resources is achieved

Campus Implementation Teams
Coalition Focus Teams
CIT
Faculty Development
Outcomes Assessment
Student Transitioning
Technology-Based Curriculum Delivery
(Other Members)
25
Most Students are Lost at Educational Transition
Points
  • Recognized by the National Science Foundation
  • Shaping the Future Strategies for Revitalizing
    Undergraduate Education
  • National Working Conference
  • July 11-13,1996, Washington, DC
  • Acknowledged by the National Research Council
  • From Analysis to Action Undergraduate Education
    in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and
    Technology
  • Convocation
  • April 9-11, 1995, Washington, DC

26
Introduction to Engineering Hands-OnLaboratory
Yields Retention Improvement
429 724
  • Studied longitudinally
  • Gains significant and steady
  • Survey feedback positive as well
  • Fully institutionalized in 1998

79 129
77 165
52 117
271 708
49 153
Data from Introduction to Engineering, University
of Florida contact Marc Hoit
27
Lower Division Program
  • Assessment of Low Retention
  • Technical Communications Driven by Dissection
  • Early Design/Fundamentals
  • Introduction to Engineering thru Learning about
    Great Patents
  • Discipline Courses Earlier
  • Materials Chemistry

28
Students Appreciate the Value of Integrating Team
Skills into Introduction to Engineering
Data from ENGR 1201, University of North Carolina
at Charlotte contact Patty Tolley
29
Dissection Laboratory
  • Students work in teams of two and share the tasks
    of physical dissection, sketching, and design
    analysis
  • Laboratory endowed by alumni donation

30
Adoption of Introduction to Engineering Courses
  • NC State - freshman course combining the best of
    three pilots offered to all freshman in Fall 1998
  • FAMU-FSU - pilot in Fall 1998, modified Fall1999,
    to be scaled up to entire freshman class in Fall
    2000
  • Florida - lecture converted to hands-on
    laboratory - required for all freshmen in Fall
    1998
  • UNC Charlotte - first semester multi-disciplinary
    (including team skills training) second semester
    discipline-specific
  • Virginia Tech - first engineering
    coursetransformed into a problem solving
    coursewith hands-on laboratory experiences

31
Mentoring Programs Effect onGrades and
Retention Gains SupportStudents, Faculty,
Administration
  • Dramatically increased participation rates (i.e.,
    a 100 participation increase from fall 1998 to
    fall 1999) indicates student support of program
  • Faculty believe the program works, as evidenced
    by increased demand for Supplemental Instruction
    to support their courses
  • College and University administration believe
    program works, as evidenced by new and expanded
    space, new staff, and other resources

Data from UNC Charlotte College of Engineering
MAPS (Maximizing Academic and Professional
Success) Mentoring Program, contact Patty Tolley
32
Mentoring Program Credited with Improving
Engineering Student GPAs
  • Retention of participants is significantly
    improved
  • Both mentees and mentors show improved grades

Data from UNC Charlotte College of Engineering
MAPS (Maximizing Academic and Professional
Success) Mentoring Program, contact Patty Tolley
33
Adoption of Mentoring Programs
  • Clemson - pilot mentoring program for 80 students
    introduced in 1998-99
  • NC State - 60 minority students in START peer
    mentoring program from 1997-98. Womens peer
    mentoring program developed. Seventy juniors and
    seniors have volunteered as mentors for Fall 1998
  • UNC-Charlotte - a growing mentoring program has
    served 338 students in the past four semesters
  • Virginia Tech - 300 students from
    under-represented groups participated in peer
    mentoring program

34
Integration of Fundamental Courses Improves
Student Confidence
Dychange in self-assessed confidence level from
beginning to end of semester (1lowest
confidence, 5highest confidence)
Data from IMPEC Integrated Math, Physics,
Engineering, and Chemistry, North Carolina State
University contact Richard M. Felder
35
Integration of Fundamental Courses Improves
Student Confidence
Dychange in self-assessed confidence level from
beginning to end of semester (1lowest
confidence, 5highest confidence)
Data from IMPEC Integrated Math, Physics,
Engineering, and Chemistry, North Carolina State
University contact Richard M. Felder
36
Integration of Fundamental Courses Improves
Self-Assessed Skills
y5 did have a positive effect y3 neutral y1
did not have a positive effect
Data from IMPEC Integrated Math, Physics,
Engineering, and Chemistry, North Carolina State
University contact Richard M. Felder
37
IMPEC Summary
  • A first-year engineering curriculum with
  • Subject integration
  • Active/cooperative learning
  • Small classes
  • Team teaching by good professors
  • Explicit skill development
  • improves performance, retention, confidence
  • Costly but valuable
  • Programs that retain some features of the
    integration approach hold promise for being both
    educationally effective and sustainable

38
Transition Program Significantly Improves
Retention of At-Risk Minority Students
  • Retention measured by enrollment in fourth
    semester

24
59
33
53
682
69
15
Data from STEPUP Successful Transition through
Enhanced Preparation for Undergraduate Programs,
University of Florida contact Jonathan Earle
39
Helping Students Adjust at UF
STEPUP
  • An intense 10 months academic enhancement program
  • Summer residential component
  • College of Engineering advising
  • Mentoring
  • Continuous monitoring of student academic
    performance

Transfer Student Workshop
  • Bridge workshop provides University orientation
    and exposure to problem solving and success
    skills
  • Continuous peer mentoring during students first
    year at UF

40
STEPUP - Essential Components of Program
Freshman Transition Programs
  • Strategy Leverage through role models
  • An intense 10 months academic enhancement program
  • Six-weeks summer residential program for incoming
    freshmen
  • Fall semester nightly study halls, peer
    mentoring, advisement, counseling, tutoring,
    feedback sessions, exit interviews
  • Spring semester continuation of study halls, peer
    mentoring, advisement, counseling, feedback
    sessions, exit interviews
  • Transition into sophomore year program.

41
Freshmen Retention 1996 Cohort
42
Freshmen Persistence 1996 through 2000
Cohorts Engineering Freshmen Returning for
Sophomore Year
43
Freshmen Retention 1997 Cohort
44
Freshmen Retention 1998 Cohort
45
Freshmen Retention 1999 Cohort
46
Freshmen Retention 2000 Cohort
47
Longitudinal Database Enables Study of the
Benefits of Pre-Existing Programs (Engineering
Concepts Institute ECI)
  • Three individual years (marked by )
    statistically significant(?2, a0.05)
  • Aggregate of data from all six years is also
    significant
  • SUCCEEDs Longitudinal Database allows the study
    of pre-existing programs




ECI participants from Flozell Haynes of FAMU-FSU
retention data from SUCCEED Longitudinal
Database Matthew Ohland, University of Florida
48
Adoption of MinorityTransition Programs
  • FAMU-FSU - Engineering Concepts Institute
    bolstered by data from SUCCEED longitudinal
    database showing history of success
  • Florida - 63 participants in STEPUP 97 program
    to be institutionalized by 1999 with an endowment
    from Lockheed-Martin supplemented by University
    funds
  • Georgia Tech - Challenge program is a model for
    programs around the nation
  • NC State - 45 students served by Summer
    Transition Program (STP) in summer 1998.
  • Virginia Tech - ASPIRE summer bridge programheld
    July 1998 with 30 students participating

49
Community College Transfer Retention Raised to
the Level of Non-Transfer Population
  • Advising
  • 1-week workshop
  • Student mentors
  • Offered to all transfers in 1999
  • Student rating is excellent

Data from Community College Transfer Workshop,
University of Florida contact Viswanath
Krishnamoorthy
50
(No Transcript)
51
Adoption of Community College Transition Programs
  • Schools with a strong community college pipeline
    are evaluating
  • the Community College Transition Program
  • whether there is a problem at their institution
  • Council of Schools members University of Central
    Florida and Virginia Commonwealth University have
    strong relationships with community colleges and
    are evaluating the program

52
Outline
  • Four Essential Elements to Sustain Continuous
    Improvement
  • assessment and evaluation
  • focus on student success
  • partnerships
  • faculty development

53
NC State FTIC Retention
Years most impacted by SUCCEED are well above
others
FTICFirst-Time in College by Government
Standards All curves have data points up to
1999 A ten-percent improvement graduates over 100
more engineers (Cohort gt1100)
54
Focus on Student Success
Women Mentoring by upperclass women and women
working as engineers
Minorities Leadership Leveraging Mentoring
by other minorities Bridge programs
All Students Early design Equipment
dissection Explicit teamwork / time
management skill development Subject integration
Studio learning Writing to learn Mentoring
by upperclass students Transfer mentoring
STEPUP
ECI
Freshman Laboratory
MAPS Mentoring
CC Transfer Workshop
IMPEC
55
Outline
  • Four Essential Elements to Sustain Continuous
    Improvement
  • assessment and evaluation
  • focus on student success
  • partnerships
  • faculty development

56
Rogers Criteria
  • Diffusion of products and ideas
  • Belief - good ones will sell themselves
  • Fact - diffusion is disappointingly slow
  • Optimal conditions
  • Relative advantage
  • Compatibility
  • Complexity
  • Trialability and Observability

57
Method
  • Selected six recognized good products
  • Performed case studies of diffusion and
    adoption success - 1997-99
  • Data gathering methods -
  • Interviews - project director and participants,
    faculty, campus administrators, distributor
    representatives, adopters, users
  • Reviews - project documents, funding proposals,
    journal articles, conference papers, course
    syllabi and the product itself.

58
General Observations
  • Disseminated in collaboration with outside
    partner
  • ViMS - PWS Kent of Boston
  • Mars Pathfinder - Jet Propulsion Lab
  • Entrepreneurs Seminar Series - IEEE
  • Highly ranked in relative advantage and
    compatibility
  • Good trialability and observability
  • Easy to use (minimal complexity)
  • Entrepreneurial project director
  • Relatively low purchase cost

59
Product Comparison
60
Important Factors
  • Successful Diffusion Criteria
  • Partnership
  • Product Quality
  • Low Cost
  • Rogers Diffusion Factors
  • Relative Advantage
  • Compatibility
  • Complexity
  • Trailability and Observability

61
Engineering Practice
IPPD
Multidisciplinary Design Horizontal integration
Real-world problems Multi-university
Service learning Team internships Entrepreneur
ship Virtual corporations
IPPD Growth
IPPD Survey
Alternative Approaches Vertical integration
Early design Immersion Evolving
design International internships
IPPD Comments
Immersion
Engineering Entrepreneurs
62
The Key to a Successful Partnership is Choosing
the Right Partner
  • Understand your weaknesses and find a partner
    who mitigates them, and vice versa
  • Identify your common strengths and use them to
    dominate
  • You and your partner should behave as one
  • Constant communication with your partner is
    essential for success
  • Accept success as a team and face setbacks as a
    team

63
The Key to a Successful Partnership is Choosing
the Right Partner
  • Understand your weaknesses and find a partner
    who mitigates them, and vice versa
  • Identify your common strengths and use them to
    dominate
  • You and your partner should behave as one
  • Constant communication with your partner is
    essential for success
  • Accept success as a team and face setbacks as a
    team

Advice given to me by my tennis coach in
selecting a doubles partner!
64
Adoption ofMultidisciplinary Design
  • Clemson - multi-university, multidisciplinary
    design and design integrated throughout the
    curriculum
  • FAMU-FSU - Multidisciplinary Design and Training
    Clinic
  • Florida - Integrated Product and Process Design
    (IPPD) - 29 projects with 180 students enrolled
    in Fall 1997. Institutionalized at the level of
    25 projects/year.
  • Georgia Tech - concurrent engineering and IPPD
  • NC State - Engineering Entrepreneurs combines
    early design, vertical integration, senior
    mentoring
  • UNC Charlotte - multidisciplinary teaming
    coaching
  • Virginia Tech - total vertical integration of
    teams with long-term financial support - Virtual
    Corporations

65
Students are more likely to stay in engineering
Students are more likely to stay in engineering
66
SUCCEED Retention Study(courtesy of Dr. Matt
Ohland, Univ. of Florida)
  • Paired analysis of demographically matched
    students from SUCCEED longitudinal database
  • gender, ethnicity, cohort, engineering CIP, and
    SAT
  • EEP students are more likely to graduate in
    engineering (p lt .005)
  • 95 confidence interval for increased probability
    of retention is 6.4, 32.8
  • EEP students are between 6.4 and 32.8 more
    likely to graduate with engineering degrees than
    non-EEP students

67
Examples of Student Companies
Examples of Student Companies
  • Body Systems Innovation
  • on-body motion analysis systems
  • MechTek Software
  • interactive tutorial software for students and
    practicing engineers
  • DevNULL
  • cd-rom UNIX distribution for NCSU students
  • Cyber Games, Inc.
  • Star Jump 3-D computer action/adventure game

68
Program Organization
Program Organization
  • High-tech entrepreneurial theme
  • Entrepreneurial companies composed of
    vertically integrated student teams.
  • Success-oriented approach.
  • Multi-semester participation.
  • Weekly seminar series.
  • Team presentations.

69
Company Organization
Company Organization
  • Companies composed of 5 to 20 students.
  • Vertically integrated teams include engineering
    students at all levels.
  • Company themes based on student interests.
  • Senior leaders earn 4 credits underclassmen earn
    1 credit.

70
Success-oriented Approach
Success-oriented Approach
  • No examinations.
  • Students sign contract which defines their
    expected performance and deliverables.
  • Senior leaders negotiate contracts with their
    faculty advisor underclassmen negotiate
    contracts with their senior leaders.

71
Multi-semester Participation
Multi-semester Participation
  • Students may join a company as freshmen and can
    stay with that company until they graduate.
  • Participants who stay in the program eventually
    become company leaders.
  • Students earn one credit for each semester of
    participation leaders earn four credits.

72
Entrepreneurs Program Seminar Series
Entrepreneurs Program Seminar Series
  • Weekly seminars on topics related to high-tech
    entpreneurship.
  • Topics include entrepreneurial success stories,
    marketing, capitalization, legal issues, and
    others.
  • Most popular speakers are engineers who have
    become successful entrepreneurs.

73
Program Evaluation
Program Evaluation
  • End of Course survey
  • Interviews with former students
  • Surveys of current and former students
  • Comparison of Entrepreneurship students with NCSU
    engineers and NCSU student body.
  • Based on data from 1993-96

74
Students are more likelyto complete their degrees
Students are more likely to complete their degrees
75
Persistence Rates of Freshman Cohorts
Persistence Rates of Freshman Cohorts
Persistence Enrolled Graduated
76
Articles and Products
77
Recent Press Highlights
78
Engineering Entrepreneurs Program Keeps Students
in Engineering
Data from Engineering Design Using an
Entrepreneurship Model, ICEE Conference 1998
contact Catherine E. Brawner, North Carolina
State University
79
Entrepreneurs Seminar Series
  • Based on NC States Engineering Entrepreneurs
    Course
  • Package of six videotaped lectures on
    entrepreneur skills and processes
  • 150 sets sold by IEEE to organizations for
    meetings and classes

80
Evolving Design Projects Provide Vertical
Integration, Deeper Knowledge
  • Student feedback positive
  • after each part gets done, I really do feel
    like Ive learned something and actually been
    able to apply it.
  • I think the project was very instructive. It
    gave life to the problems in the book and gave a
    feel for how it might be in the real world.
  • The design project is an excellent tool in this
    class. It increases the students knowledge by
    incorporating ideas learned throughout the
    semester into one unit.
  • Case studies considered critical to better
    learning by over 75 of students surveyed

Data from Integrating Design Throughout the
Curriculum, Chemical Engineering Education Fall
1998 contact Douglas E. Hirt, Clemson University
81
Process Engineering Immersion
82
Integrated Product and Process Design (IPPD)
Program Highlights
  • Two - semester 6 credit design course
  • Seniors from Business School and Engineering
    (Aerospace, Chemical, Civil Coastal, Computer
    Information Science, Electrical, Environmental,
    Industrial Systems, Material Science,
    Mechanical)
  • Projects and technical advice provided by
    industrial sponsors
  • Multidisciplinary teams (5 to 6/team) working
    with a faculty coach
  • Substitute for existing capstone and technical
    elective
  • Teams and individuals evaluated against defined
    project deliverables and lecture/workshop
    performance

83
A Winning Team
  • Student Wins Real world design
    experienceBetter education / employment
  • Industry WinsAccess to inexpensive
    engineeringBetter employees / early contact
  • Faculty Wins Support / follow-on research

84
Integrated Product Process Design Program
f a l l
Students Disciplines Faculty Design
Projects
  • 1995 30 6 6 5
  • 1996 108 8 12 18
  • 1997 180 9 23 29
  • 1998 138 9 19 23
  • 1999 137 9 21 27
  • 2000 173 10 25 31
  • 2001 155 9 22 26

85
Sponsors 1995 to 2001
  • Honeywell
  • IBM
  • Intellon
  • Intersil
  • Innovatech/ERC
  • Johnson Controls
  • JRS GeoServices
  • Kimberley-Clark
  • Kraft Foods (Maxwell House)
  • Lockheed Martin
  • MarkIV Automotive (Dayco)
  • Metal Container
  • Millennium
  • Motorola
  • North American Archery Group
  • Paradyne
  • PCR, Inc.
  • PGI
  • Pratt Whitney
  • PTI
  • Protel
  • Quality MicroSystems (QMS)
  • Raytheon
  • RedSea Works, Co.
  • Reflectone (now CAE Systems)
  • Regeneration Technologies
  • Sensormatic
  • Siemens
  • Solutia
  • Southern Nuclear
  • Texas Instruments
  • Tropicana
  • US Air Force
  • US SOCOM
  • ABB Water Meters
  • Arizona Chemical
  • Boeing
  • Cargill
  • Class 1
  • Cordis
  • The Crom Corporation
  • Dell Computer
  • Dow Chemical
  • Du Pont
  • Dynacs
  • Energizer
  • E-Systems
  • Florida Power Corp.
  • FPL
  • Gainesville Regional Utilities
  • Harris

86
Bear Archery Broadhead Slotting Machine
  • Specs
  • Tool changeover less than 5 min.
  • Slot tolerance ? 0.001 inch
  • Mfg. Cost lt 15,000

? Machine exceeded expectations and is in daily
use ? Machine it replaced was sold for
scrap ? Student design team won the 2001 ASME
Manufacturing Engineering Student Design
Competition
87
IPPD
Integrated Product Process Design
  • Real world design and manufacturing experience
    for seniors in engineering, computer science and
    business
  • Since 1995 47 sponsor companies, 133 projects,
    767 students 34 faculty
  • The IPPD course is by far the most realistic
    course that represents what graduates will face
    when they enter the workplace EAC response to
    the 2000 UF COE ABET survey

88
www.ippd.ufl.edu
  • An Undergraduate Engineering Education Program

R. Keith Stanfill, PhD, PE Director, IPPD477
Weil, 352-846-3354stanfill_at_ufl.edu
College of Engineering University of
Florida Gainesville
89
Setting the Stage for IPPD
  • Perceived Weaknesses of Engineering Graduates
  • Inadequate skill and know-how participate
    effectively in the product realization process
  • No understanding of quality or manufacturing
    processes
  • Weak communication skills
  • Being taught to work as individuals
  • The Industrial Paradigm
  • Global competition drives new business practices
  • Time to market reduction
  • Competitive design requires integration of all
    aspects of a company
  • Real engineering requires a blend of analysis
    and synthesis
  • Disciplinary boundaries limit problem solving

90
2001 - 2002 Weekly Schedule
Revision Date August 16, 2001 Classes are
generally on Mon. Wed. 9th period, 270 Weil
Hall, exceptions are highlighted
WeekDate
Lecture TopicsAssignments
Workshop Activities
Major Reading Assignments
Deliverables Due
1 Introduction/Policies/Procedures/ Key to
deliverables Orientation Aug. 22
Wed. Teams/ProjectsCoach Assignments Name
Logo (KS) Bold
common Team Building Plain hardware
Eng. Notebooks Italics
software 1 2 Overview Product
Realization Name Logo Team
Building Product Design Aug. 27 Mon.
Process (KS) Training for
Design Development Conceptual Design
Phase/ Systems (PDD) Ch.1 2 Aug. 29
Wed. Customer Needs Design Specs Technical
Strategy
Benchmarking Early Design Systems/Product
Reqts. PDD Ch. 4 5 Information (ST) 2
Product Specifications Handout (ST)
3 No Classes Visit Industry
Sponsor Sept. 4 Tues. Short week Labor Day
9/3 (off campus) 4 Case Study
(BE) Preliminary Product Concept Generation
Cyclone Grinder Sept. 10 Mon. Patent
Literature Search (BE) Design Specs. Evaluation
Case Study (BE) PDD Ch. 6 Sept. 12
Wed. Concept Generation Technical
Strategy Complete Testable Evaluation
(KS) Specifications 2 System/Product
Requirements
91
Industrial Project Criteria
  • Project should meet a specific need for sponsor
    company
  • Company must name liaison engineer (2-4
    hrs./week)
  • Project should not be of immediate concern (2
    semester class / 8 months)
  • Project should involve both design and
    manufacture
  • Project scope should be approximately 600 student
    hours
  • Company provides educational grant of
    15,000/project (25 /hr)
  • Project should not be classified or highly
    proprietary

92
Sample Projects
93
Maxwell House Coffee Bean Roaster Automatic
Controller
? Design of a Proportional Integral (PI)
controller ? Design implementation of custom
software application
  • Simple payback period 11.4
    months
  • Net present value (18)
    412,000

94
Paradyne Multiple Virtual Line (MVL) PCI Modem
  • Specs
  • 768k baud (one way)
  • Simult. voice and data
  • Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) technology
  • Transmit 30k ft over existing copper lines
  • Windows 2000 driver
  • Mfg. Cost lt 100

95
Program Benefits
  • To Students
  • Shows how fundamental engineering science can
    be relevant to real life product and process
    designs
  • Provides opportunity to integrate various
    disciplines
  • to the solution of a real life project
  • Teaches concept of product realization process
  • Allows for experiential learning
  • Practices working in interdisciplinary teams
  • Exercises and develops leadership and People
    skills
  • Improves opportunity to get employed

96
Program Benefits
  • To Faculty
  • Enables to work with student teams in applying
    engineering theory to the solution of real life
    industry projects
  • Enhances the relevancy of their teaching
  • Provides opportunities for new areas of research

97
Program Benefits
  • To Industry
  • Contributes to the improvement of engineering
    education
  • Provides low cost solution for important design
    projects
  • Allows interaction with faculty and students
  • Provides for evaluation of students prior to
    hiring
  • Brings outside perception and experience to
    company

98
(No Transcript)
99
Software Development Process
  • Consists of 4 phases synchronized with the
    hardware process
  • Phase 1 Systems requirements and product design
  • Phase 2 Detailed design and test planning
  • Phase 3 Code/unit test/build and integration
  • Phase 4 Product verification

100
Major Project DeliverableFinal Report Project
Documentation
  • Target Week of April 18, 2002
  • Content
  • - Detailed product component specifications
  • - Detailed product process descriptions
  • - Acceptance test and report
  • - Manufacturing plan
  • - Quality plan
  • - Cost estimates
  • - Product manual
  • - Safety assessment
  • - Legal evaluation
  • - Environmental impact assessment

101
Proposal - Fall 1994
  • Develop and Implement an Integrated Product
  • Process Design Program - Target Fall 1995
  • Objectives
  • - Meet needs of industry
  • - Integrate engineering / manufacturing and
    business across the curriculum
  • - Provide students with experience of solving
    Real World engineering problems
  • - Prepare students
  • To work effectively in multidisciplinary
    teams
  • To improve their ability to communicate
  • To exercise and develop people and
    leadership skills
  • Status
  • - FALL 2001 155 students, 26 design projects,
    9 disciplines
  • 22 faculty coaches

102
Program Objectives
  • Provide Classroom Laboratory Experience to New
    Engineers Including
  • How fundamental engineering science is relevant
    to effective product and process design
  • The major product realization process concepts
    and practices

  • That design involves not just function but also
    producibility, cost, schedule, reliability,
    customer preference and life cycle issues
  • A real life Design and Build project for an
    industrial customer
  • How to complete projects on time and within
    budget
  • That engineering is a multidisciplinary team
    effort

103
Major Project Deliverables
  • In Order They Are Due
  • Product specifications
  • Concept generation, evaluation and selection
  • Product architecture
  • Preliminary design report - Oct. 8, 2001
  • Project plan
  • Analytical and experimental plan
  • System level design report - Dec. 6, 2001
  • Detailed product and process design
  • Prototype results and report
  • Acceptance test report
  • Final report and project documentation
  • - Week of April 18, 2002

104
Major Software Deliverables
  • In Order They Are Due
  • Technical strategy System/product
    requirements
  • Complete testable specifications
  • Preliminary system/product architecture
  • Configuration management plan
  • Preliminary design report - Oct. 8, 2001
  • Prototype plan
  • Comprehensive test plan
  • Technical design specification report
  • System level design report - Dec. 6, 2001
  • Prototype results
  • Code/unit test/build integration
  • Product verification
  • Final report and project documentation
  • - Week of April 18, 2002

105
Letter of Agreement Highlights
  • Industry Sponsor / University of Florida
  • Industry supports with 15,000 / project
  • - Exempt from indirect cost
  • Industry owns the design
  • Industry does not hold university responsible
    for final success of project or any product
    liability
  • If required university will sign
    non-disclosure agreement
  • Industry will provide liaison engineer support
  • University will review project progress
    regularly
  • Project scope will be approximately 600
    student engineering hours

106
Number of New Repeat IPPD Sponsors Projects
35
( 31 )
30
( 29 )
( 27 )
( 27 )
25
( 24 )
13
( 23 )
( 23 )
10
( 22 )
9
11
4
7
20
4
( 18 )
10
( 15 )
15
13
10
19
19
11
18
18
18
17
16
13
( 5 )
( 5 )
5

5
5
5
4
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
5
13
10
4
9
13
New Sponsor Projects
5
19
19
18
18
Repeat Sponsor Projects
5
11
10
4
7
11
New Sponsors
4
13
18
17
16
Repeat Sponsors
107
Comparison of Pre and Post Self-Assessments of
Educational Objectives
IPPD Program 1996 to 2001
Educational Objectives
593 Pre Assessment Respondents
1. Applying engineering knowledge in
design 2. Understanding how to integrate product
and process design 3. Understanding structured
design methodology 4. Understanding principles of
teamwork 5. Using principles of
teamwork 6. Understanding principles of effective
oral communication 7. Communicating effective
orally 8. Understanding principles of effective
written presentations 9. Communicating
effectively in writing
429 Post Assessment Respondents
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Pre very good to
30
17
21
76
69
53
35
49
43
excellent
Post very good to
59
57
48
82
74
71
63
68
61
excellent
108
Program Issues Concerns
  • Student / faculty ability and motivation
  • Realistic project scope
  • Project management
  • - Team breakdown
  • - Remote development and communication
  • Liaison engineer motivation
  • Synchronizing lecture content and design projects
  • Program logistics
  • - Students from many disciplines
  • - Projects from many industries
  • Ongoing program funding

109
Benefits Summary
  • Students learn the practice of engineering by
    doing engineering
  • Students learn how to integrate various
    disciplines to the solution of a real life
    industry sponsored project
  • Students learn how to work in a team under the
    direction of a faculty coach
  • Program creates a mutually beneficial university/
    industry partnership in engineering education

110
Project Failure Drivers
  • On average, 10 of our projects are less than
    satisfactory
  • Projects fail because of the following
  • Poor project scope definition
  • Liaison engineer involvement
  • Inadequate project management
  • Underestimating software development

111
Project Failure Drivers
  • Project scope issues
  • Too broad
  • Too difficult
  • Revisions come too late in process
  • Solution has history of being intractable
  • our engineers have spent 3 years and 1M trying
    to solve this problem we thought wed see what a
    bunch of creative students could do
  • Too researchy

112
Project Failure Drivers
  • Liaison engineer issues
  • Project success is not tied to performance
    objectives
  • Availability, reassignment, resignation
  • Inexperience
  • Regular communications not established

113
Project Failure Drivers
  • Project management issues
  • Project plan an afterthought
  • Weak team leader
  • Coach is an inexperienced manager
  • Schedule adherence
  • Wrong disciplines on the team
  • Task accountability is loosely enforced
  • Team loses motivation
  • Team members do not devote enough time to the
    project

114
Project Failure Drivers
  • Software development issues
  • development time is underestimated
  • time to learn how new system fits in with
    existing systems underestimated
  • search for reusable software components limited
    and not planned
  • students not used to developing code that must
    coexist with existing code and systems

115
Multidisciplinary Capstone Provides Real-World
Design
  • Program institutionalized at desired level
  • Expanded to 9 disciplines in Fall 1998

Data from Integrated Product and Process Design,
University of Florida contact Heinz Fridrich
116
IPPD Self-Assessment of Educational Objectives
  • 1. Applying engineering knowledge in design
  • 2. Understanding how to integrate product and
    process design
  • 3. Understanding structured design methodology
  • 4. Understanding principles of teamwork
  • 5. Using principles of teamwork
  • 6. Understanding principles of effective oral
    communication
  • 7. Communicating effective orally
  • 8. Understanding principles of effective written
    presentations
  • 9. Communicating effectively in writing

117
Support for the IPPD Program
  • The IPPD program is a new and innovative approach
    to engineering education which is mutually
    beneficial to university and industry. We
    recommend it highly and ask for your company's
    participation. Winfred M. Phillips, Dean,
    College of Engineering, University of Florida
  • The IPPD program -- a true university/industry
    partnership -- is an excellent model for
    improving the quality of undergraduate
    engineering education. Dr. Alexander Nauda,
    Manager, Research Advanced Technology,
    Raytheon E-Systems Communications Division
  • Students participating in the IPPD program did an
    outstanding job on a very difficult project. I
    was impressed with how well the program lived up
    to its early plans. An excellent educational
    experience. Paul H. Floyd, VP of Engineering
    Network Access Products, Paradyne

118
Support for the IPPD Program
  • The IPPD program was a great opportunity for me
    to learn how to take a real design project from
    concept to a finished product. Shawn Larsen,
    Senior Mechanical Engineering Student
  • The IPPD program was the most worthwhile
    experience of my engineering education. The real
    world and team aspect of the program helped me to
    develop invaluable skills and tools in project
    management and implementation. Arnry Mijon,
    Senior Industrial Systems Engineering Student
  • The IPPD program gave me the chance to take all I
    learned and combine it in one class that demands
    teamwork, communication and ingenuity. Rebecca
    Ziesmer, Senior Electrical Engineering Student

119
Southeastern University and College Coalition for
Engineering EDucation
Faculty Development
120
Outline
  • Four Essential Elements to Sustain Continuous
    Improvement
  • assessment and evaluation
  • focus on student success
  • partnerships
  • faculty development

121
Key to Educational Reform
  • Faculty buy-in beyond the choir.
  • Involve most engineering faculty in
  • course curriculum redesign
  • active, cooperative, problem-based instruction
  • outcomes-based assessment
  • classroom research

122
Faculty Development
  • Faculty are the key to reform and implementation
    of new curricular models
  • Before SUCCEED
  • Faculty teaching workshop at only one institution
  • Formal mentoring program on books at majority of
    colleges, but not active
  • Reward system highly biased towards research

123
Linkages to Campus FD
Faculty Rewards Incentives
Designated FD Coordinator
SUCCEED FD Model
Faculty Learning Opportunities
Graduate Student Programs
New Faculty Programs
Workshops
Orientation to Teaching
Learning Communities
124
Example Institutionalization at NCSU
  • Director of Faculty Development
  • Faculty Workshops
  • New faculty workshop
  • Continuing faculty teaching workshops FCTL/COE
  • Mentoring workshop
  • COE Teach
  • Specialty workshops
  • Formal Mentoring Program
  • Reward System Modified
  • Graduate Student Workshops
  • Orientation to Teaching FCTL
  • COE Orientation Sessions

125
Coalition Faculty Participation
The participation data shown here are adjusted
for faculty attending multiple events. Aggressive
target surpassed. A survey was used to assess
changes in teaching practices and campus
climate.
72
Target
126
Implementation of FD Model Elements on SUCCEED
Campuses
of SUCCEED Campuses
127
Dissemination(within and beyond SUCCEED)
  • Effective Teaching Workshops. Reached ? 3000
    engineering faculty at ? 200 universities.
  • Mentoring Workshop (developed in 1999).
    Presented to department heads, senior faculty at
    5 universities.
  • Papers and Presentations to national FD community
    on getting engineering involvement.

128
U.S. Institutional Adoptions of Visualizations in
Material Science
28 States 50 US Institutions 4 SUCCEED schools
129
Innovation Diffusion Study
  • Deterrents to diffusion of educational
    innovations
  • not invented here syndrome
  • cost, content, delivery, appropriateness . .
    other factors?
  • Study successfully diffused SUCCEED products
  • Determine factors that promote success

130
Rogers Criteria
  • Diffusion of products and ideas
  • Belief - good ones will sell themselves
  • Fact - diffusion is disappointingly slow
  • Optimal conditions
  • Relative advantage
  • Compatibility
  • Complexity
  • Trialability and Observability

131
Method
  • Select six recognized good products
  • Perform case studies of diffusion and
    adoption success - 1997-99
  • Data gathering methods -
  • Interviews - project director and participants,
    faculty, campus administrators, distributor
    representatives, adopters, users
  • Reviews - project documents, funding proposals,
    journal articles, conference papers, course
    syllabi and the product itself.

132
General Observations
  • Disseminated in collaboration with outside
    partner
  • ViMS - PWS Kent of Boston
  • Mars Pathfinder - Jet Propulsion Lab
  • Entrepreneurs Seminar Series - IEEE
  • Highly ranked in relative advantage and
    compatibility
  • Good trialability and observability
  • Easy to use (minimal complexity)
  • Entrepreneurial project director
  • Relatively low purchase cost

133
Product Comparison
134
Conclusions
  • Successful Diffusion Criteria
  • Partnership
  • Product Quality
  • Low Cost
  • Rogers Diffusion Factors
  • Relative Advantage
  • Compatibility
  • Complexity
  • Trailability and Observability

135
Mars Pathfinder Dissemination
  • Mars Pathfinder
  • High school science multimedia CD ROM on Mars
    Mission
  • 20,000 copies distributed by JPL to teachers
    students

136
SUCCEED Has Developed a Wide Variety of
Courseware
137
Multimedia in Statics andStructural Mechanics
  • Software accompaniedby active and cooperative
    learning exercises
  • Students have easy access to review and
    additional material

138
UNCC Makes Use of Technology to Facilitate
Outcomes Assessmentand Student Transitions
  • Web-based strategic planning and reporting
  • Web-based database for recording and reporting
    faculty activities
  • Web-based tools for building virtual learning
    communities and academic improvement
  • Freshman course website used as an interactive
    asynchronous communication medium
  • Electronic facilitation of peer feedback in
    freshman course enhances team performance
  • Electronic grading, submission, and return of
    papers as a precursor to more extensive
    portfolios

139
Computer-Aided Process Improvement (CAPI) Average
Number of Web Site Hits Per Week
  • Course Materials 1,200
  • Instruction Modules 2,800
  • Gator Power Other 21,500
    Total 25,500

140
Design of Computer-Aided Process Improvement
Laboratory
Workstations
Campus Utility Systems
Energy Management
Boilers
CAPI Support Facility
Utility Interface Servers
Database Servers
Cogeneration
Computer-Aided Engineering Library
Databases
Water Chillers
Waste Water Treatment
Coalition Institutions
Outreach Programs
Internet
141
Web-Based Course Management
  • Students and faculty can share applications,
    drawings, whiteboard space, and an audio-video
    connection

142
Web-Based Course Delivery
  • Faculty can deliver courses from or to remote
    locations with two-way audio/ video communi-cation

143
Technology-Based Curriculum Delivery and
Management
Administration Management using videoconferencing
Curriculum Management Web-based course management
Web-based tracking of student
outcomes Teaching using videoconferencing
Curriculum Delivery Enhanced visualization
Web-based real-world information delivery
Visualizations in Materials Science
Web-Based Course Delivery
Computer-Aided Process Improvement
Web-Based Course Management
Multimedia Learning Environment
Mars Navigator
Dynamics Project
144
Innovation Diffusion Study
  • Deterrents to diffusion of educational
    innovations
  • not invented here syndrome
  • cost, content, delivery, appropriateness . .
    other factors?
  • Study successfully diffused SUCCEED products
  • Determine factors that promote success

145
Rogers Criteria
  • Diffusion of products and ideas
  • Belief - good ones will sell themselves
  • Fact - diffusion is disappointingly slow
  • Optimal conditions
  • Relative advantage
  • Compatibility
  • Complexity
  • Trialability and Observability

146
Method
  • Select six recognized good products
  • Perform case studies of diffusion and
    adoption success - 1997-99
  • Data gathering methods -
  • Interviews - project director and participants,
    faculty, campus administrators, distributor
    representatives, adopters, users
  • Reviews - project documents, funding proposals,
    journal articles, conference papers, course
    syllabi and the product itself.

147
General Observations
  • Disseminated in collaboration with outside
    partner
  • ViMS - PWS Kent of Boston
  • Mars Pathfinder - Jet Propulsion Lab
  • Entrepreneurs Seminar Series - IEEE
  • Highly ranked in relative advantage and
    compatibility
  • Good trialability and observability
  • Easy to use (minimal complexity)
  • Entrepreneurial project director
  • Relatively low purchase cost

148
Product Comparison
149
Diffusion Study Conclusions
  • Successful Diffusion Criteria
  • Partnership
  • Product Quality
  • Low Cost
  • Rogers Diffusion Factors
  • Relative Advantage
  • Compatability
  • Complexity
  • Trailability and Observability

150
Observations
  • Partnerships persisted beyond the funding
  • Role of industry is important
  • Administration buy-in essential
  • Ideal for development activities
  • Dissemination infrastructure lacking
  • Engineers are less rigorous in experimentation
  • Promise of technology not realized
  • Industry can develop faster, cheaper and better
  • Gap developed between coalition and
    non-coalition colleges

151
What did coalitions accomplish?
  • Demonstrated change is possible
  • Validated engineering education scholarship
  • created cadre of scholars
  • Effected systemic change
  • continuous improvement
  • faculty development
  • early introduction to engineering
  • focus on student learning
  • increased engineering practice content
  • Created meaningful partnerships

152
SUCCEED Coalition PerformanceIncrease in Women
Student Enrollment Compared to National
Statistics, 1989-1997
  • National statistics adjusted to remove SUCCEED
    institutions

Data based on reports of the Engineering Manpower
Commission of the American Association of
Engineering Societies, Inc. contact Carl
Zorowski
153
SUCCEED Coalition PerformanceIncrease in
Minority Student Enrollment Compared to National
Statistics, 1989-1997
  • National statistics adjusted to remove SUCCEED
    institutions
  • Corrected for changes in total enrollment (base
    year 1989)

Data based on reports of the Engineering Manpower
Commission of the American Association of
Engineering Societies, Inc. contact Carl
Zorowski
154
NC State FTIC Retention
Years most impacted by SUCCEED are well above
others
FTICFirst-Time in College by Government
Standards All curves have data points up to
1999 A ten-percent improvement graduates over 100
more engineers (Cohort gt1100)
155
Enrollment and Degree Statistics
  • Gains in minority and women enrollment and
    degrees awarded consistently above the national
    rate
  • The impact of SUCCEED is noticeable

156
Student Success
Enrollment and Degrees Awarded
Retention Improvement
Enrollment of Women
Enrollment of Minorities
157
Legacies
  • Engineering Faculty Development Institute
About PowerShow.com