|
|
|
| December 2009 | Subscribe |
PREMIER SPONSOR |
|
Sponsors:
|
In This Issue:
|
II. Congressional Hotline |
||
HOUSE PANEL TO HIGHLIGHT GLOBAL-WARMING DANGERSA recent furor over climate scientists' emails notwithstanding, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Climate Change, chaired by Rep. Edward Markey (D, Mass.) harbors little doubt that global warming is real and getting worse. As President Obama prepared for his trip to the Copenhagen climate summit, the panel is likely to underscore this message in a hearing this month with witnesses from the administration.
WEBSITE PLEADS: KEEP THOSE RESEARCH DOLLARS COMING INThe Association of American Universities, Association of Public and Land Grant Universities, and The Science Coalition were on hand as the new ScienceWorksforUS website was unveiled at a Capitol Hill press conference featuring an all-Democratic lineup of science boosters led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, of California, whose home-state university system is in such dire financial straits that it hiked tuition this week by 32 percent. The site is intended to help sustain support for research funding amid fears that once stimulus money runs out, projects will grind to a halt.
NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION PROGRAM FUNDS IN LIMBOWith no word yet on when the 2010 DoD appropriations bill will clear Congress, the outlook for the National Defense Education Program is unclear. The House approved the administration request for $89.9 million for NDEP, but Senate appropriators cut out $20 million. They note the program faced "execution challenges" in 2009. They're also waiting for DoD to finish a strategic review of its various STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) programs to ensure coordination. Better coordination of STEM government-wide is the intent behind legislation that passed the House earlier this year and awaits action in the Senate. It calls for a strategic plan that would be monitored by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, which would make regular reports to Congress.
HOUSE, SENATE AT ODDS OVER DEFENSE RESEARCH SPENDINGA hot issue House-Senate conferees needs to settle is a $100 million gap between the two chambers on basic DoD research. The House proposed about $465.8 million, coming in well above the administration request. The Senate approved $365.6 million. The Council for National Security Research, a group (including ASEE) that represents universities, companies and professional associations with an interest in defense research is urging conferees to approve the higher House figures.
AG BILL TARGETS WOMEN, MINORITIES IN STEM FIELDSThe Agriculture spending bill, recently signed by the president, contains $400,000 in research and extension-grant funding for women and underrepresented minorities in STEM fields. Delaware Sen. Ted Kaufman (D), who pushed for the money, said it would involve these groups in helping to build a clean energy economy and stay competitive in a globalizing world.
|
III. Teaching Toolbox |
|
COMPETE TO LEARNEven losers have much to gain from the Solar Decathlon. By Thomas K. Grose Every two years – most recently last month – a score of dream green homes crops up seemingly overnight on the National Mall in Washington, drawing huge crowds. That’s not surprising. They look great and employ cutting-edge technologies that keep them emissions free, able to produce as much, or more, renewable energy than they use. More amazingly, these wonder homes are designed and built by 20 collegiate teams from the United States, Canada, and Europe. Welcome to the Solar Decathlon, a competition of 10 separate events, including engineering, architecture, comfort, and lighting. The biennial event was created by the U.S. Department of Energy in 2002 to promote and speed to market green-building technologies and designs. But for many engineering educators and their students, it represents something of even greater value: an incomparable educational experience that can’t be duplicated in any classroom. This year, a German team led by students from Technische Universität Darmstadt took top overall honors. Second place went to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and third to a partnership of Santa Clara University and the California College of the Arts. Yet professors who have advised decathlon teams say that no matter where a team ends up in the final rankings, the competition offers a fantastic way for students to combine inspiration with perspiration and to put into practice their classroom-acquired know-how. The best lesson comes from learning how to work in highly cross-disciplinary teams, a very different experience from the typically insular culture of most engineering departments. “A little too much is made of the winning experience. The learning experience is much more important,” says Zellman Warhaft, a mechanical and aerospace engineering professor at Cornell University, who was faculty adviser to both Cornell’s second-place team in 2005 and this year’s team, which finished seventh. Martin Zeumer, an assistant professor of architecture at the Technische Universität Darmstadt, agrees. Schools, he says, should enter the contest “only if educating the students is their main concern.” Paxton Marshall, an electrical and computer engineer at the University of Virginia, and an adviser to UVa’s second-place 2002 team, calls it a ”real-world experience” that encompasses all of ABET’s outcomes criteria. “The Solar Decathlon gives students the opportunity to integrate all of those aspects in a single experience, and they’re building something real.” Consider what a team has to accomplish. First steps involve drafting a proposal strong enough to garner an invitation to join – an honor awarded to a mere 20 schools each year. Then, within 24 months, team members must work together to design and construct a state-of-the-art, energy-efficient house, ship it to Washington, and reassemble it on the Mall. To accomplish all that, the decathletes need to raise six-figure sums in cash and in-kind donations, learn to stay on budget, and deal with suppliers and contractors. They also have to devise strategies for the competition itself, such as determining optimal times to turn on the dishwashers or clothes dryers located within their houses. Typically, some 200 students get involved with a team’s project. But the effort usually boils down to a core group of 20 to 50 students – often engineering and architecture majors. For a project this vast and complex, “passion is everything; it’s critical,” says Kaye Brubaker, a University of Maryland civil engineer who advised her school’s team in 2005 and 2007. And, adds UMD architecture associate professor Amy E. Gardner, passion was never in short supply: “They breathed, ate, slept – and didn’t sleep – solar power for two years.” Of course, not everything takes place on drawing boards and at building sites. Brubaker created four math- and science-heavy elective courses for her decathlon engineering students. Some schools instead modify existing courses to accommodate them, particularly senior capstone design. The decathlon can also bring out the best in students who do better with hands-on projects than with tests or homework assignments. “It lets them shine,” says Ty Newell, an emeritus professor of mechanical science and engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and adviser to the school’s 2007 team. But the biggest payoff, everyone agrees, is getting students to work in interdisciplinary teams – just as they’ll have to do once they move from campus to career. “A weakness of engineering education,” says Marshall, “is it is too focused on single disciplines – they don’t even know how to work with other engineers.” By contrast, the decathlon’s cross-disciplinary requirements extend far beyond the halls of engineering schools. Students have to work with those majoring in architecture, business, environmental science, public policy – even graphic design. And after some initial headbutting, it works. “In no other class,” Brubaker says, “have I had so many ‘aha!’ moments.” Failure’s Instruction DOE has suggested that schools use or modify off-the-shelf technologies. “But there is room for research and innovation,” says Newell, whose Illinois students designed and built from scratch a heating and cooling system that won the 2007 “comfort” event. They also devised an innovative water heater that broke down when a 5-cent part failed. The New York Institute of Technology’s 2002 house lost points because it didn’t efficiently capture and retain heat. “We certainly then realized the importance of weatherization and insulation,” says David Shieren, who as a master’s student was a core member of that team. This year, Cornell’s creative use of three 16-foot-diameter silos fell flat: Judges were unimpressed with the unusual configuration, ranking it a disappointing 16th out of 20 houses in the architecture category. Plus, the cylindrical shape limited use of large solar panels – a distinct disadvantage during the rainy competition weekend, when every volt of generated energy was needed. But in engineering, failure is a much-respected teaching tool. Teams return to campus debating those failures and strategies for the future. Moreover, Marshall says, some of the decathlon’s most innovative teams chalk up low scores because they’ve designed complex systems that are not fully tested, so are prone to failure. If just a relative few universities ever get the chance to compete in the DOE’s decathlon, engineering schools can mount projects that offer similar educational benefits. Virginia – which no longer competes in the decathlon – has established an ongoing relationship with Habitat for Humanity to build energy-efficient yet affordable housing for the poor. Since 2002, its engineering and architecture students have completed six houses. “Doing it this way,” Marshall says, “is even more real-world. People will actually live in these houses, so they have to do it right.” And, obviously, that’s an education in itself.
|
IV. JEE SELECTS |
|
GETTING OUR STORIES STRAIGHTInspiring public messages don’t match what faculty say. By Alice L. Pawley In its 2008 report “Changing the Conversation,” the National Academy of Engineering encouraged the engineering profession to present messages that appeal to young people’s desire to improve lives and make a difference in the world. Market research found that engineering failed to inspire the public in the way that a justice-seeking legal profession or the lifesaving health fields do. The report urged adoption of a positioning statement aimed at a diverse audience that begins, “No profession unleashes the spirit of innovation like engineering,” and such slogans as “Engineers help shape the future.” These messages may indeed form a compelling vision of engineering in the minds of the public. But they’re at odds with the narratives offered by faculty members, who embody engineering for undergraduates and are often the first point of contact students have with the profession. My research looked at the important stories that engineering faculty at a research-oriented university both explicitly told students and implicitly conveyed through their practice. In three-hour interviews with each of 10 faculty members, I asked how they defined engineering and how they chose particular content to teach; their research focus and how they funded, implemented, and published it; and how they decided on service activities. Three main categories of stories emerged. The first, engineering as applied science and mathematics, described math as the root of both engineering and science, but faculty members differed on whether they thought engineering was similar to science. Those who considered engineering to be different described it as more useful or helpful to society than science. The second narrative, engineering as solving problems, also connected engineering to utility, to the notion of “real problems” or ones that “mattered.” These interviewees talked about the problems as something to pick up and solve, or as presented by an amorphous and disembodied “society.” One assistant professor admitted, “I like solving problems, so to me it’s just like they’re there, and I see them and I find them.” The third narrative, engineering as making things, connected engineering to the physical construction of highly technical and mechanized products. This was intended to serve both as a motivator for engineering undergraduates and as a way to differentiate engineering graduate students from science graduate students. Interviewees tended to apply these narratives to all engineering disciplines and places where engineers worked. However, further discussion often prompted faculty members to identify contradictions in these narratives. For example, one called himself an engineer but questioned the practicality of his research; another described the purpose of his research as solving an explicit problem but acknowledged there was significant “distance” between his research and a finished product. While some faculty narratives portrayed engineering as tackling difficult challenges or as problem solving that is useful to society, few captured the creativity or inspirational power of a profession that helps to “shape the future.” What also became clear is that the narratives instructors use to define our profession to novices don’t necessarily represent what faculty actually do as engineers. If students make career choices based on these narratives, incorrect and uninspiring definitions of engineering will persist. If we want our students to see engineers as grappling with significant problems in order to make a world of difference, it is critical that engineering faculty not only convey such definitions to students but model them through the practice of their teaching, research, and service. Otherwise, messages adopted simply to improve the image of engineering are sound and fury, signifying virtually nothing for the next generation of engineers and making little difference to the discipline as a whole. Alice L. Pawley is an assistant professor of engineering education, with an affiliation with the women’s studies program at Purdue University. This article is excerpted from “Universalized Narratives: Patterns in How Faculty Members Define ‘Engineering’ ” in the October 2009 Journal of Engineering Education. Research was supported by a Rohlfing scholarship at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
|
|
V. JOBS, JOBS, JOBS |
|
Job-hunting? Here are a few current openings:1. Civil Engineering -- 5 opportunities 2. Dean -- 4 opportunities 3. Biomedical Engineering -- 2 opportunities 4. Industrial Engineering -- 2 opportunities Visit here for details:
|
|
VI. COMING ATTRACTIONS |
|
A SNEAK PEEK AT PRISM’S UPCOMING JANUARY ISSUEJanuary’s Prism concerns itself with federal policy. COVER STORY: A wrap up of the stimulus package’s impact on higher education. It enabled states to avoid worst-case cuts while pumping billions into research — health and energy get a big share -- and boosting aid to low-income students. FEATURE 1: Looks at particular academic research projects funded by the stimulus act. FEATURE 2: A profile of Edward Kaufman, the Delaware Democrat who replaced Vice President Joe Biden. He is the Senate’s only engineer. TEACHING TOOLBOX: Examines the findings of a major longitudinal study of engineering students.
|
VII. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS |
1. Holiday Gift For Kids of ASEE Members
|
To unsubscribe from this newsletter, please reply to connections@asee.org with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line - please include the email address that you would like removed from the mailing list. This Newsletter was sent to you by: American Society for Engineering Education Managing Editor: Tom Grose |