Barriers to green buildings at two Brazilian engineering schools

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

The Learning of the Mathematical Models to Aid Decision Making in the High Level Engineering Schools?

At present, in the University curricula in most countries, the decision theory and the mathematical models to aid decision making is not included, as in the graduate program like in Doctored and Master´s programs. In the Technical School of High Level Agronomic Engineers of the Technical University of Madrid (ETSIA-UPM), the need to offer to the future engineers training in a subject that could help them to take decisions in their profession was felt. Along the life, they will have to take a lot of decisions. Ones, will be important and others no. In the personal level, they will have to take several very important decisions, like the election of a career, professional work, or a couple, but in the professional field, the decision making is the main role of the Managers, Politicians and Leaders. They should be decision makers and will be paid for it. Therefore, nobody can understand that such a professional that is called to practice management responsibilities in the companies, does not take training in such an important matter. For it, in the year 2000, it was requested to the University Board to introduce in the curricula an optional qualified subject of the second cycle with 4,5 credits titled " Mathematical Methods for Making Decisions ". A program was elaborated, the didactic material prepared and programs as Maple, Lingo, Math Cad, etc. installed in several IT classrooms, where the course will be taught. In the course 2000-2001 this subject was offered with a great acceptance that exceeded the forecasts of capacity and had to be prepared more classrooms. This course in graduate program took place in the Department of Applied Mathematics to the Agronomic Engineering, as an extension of the credits dedicated to Mathematics in the career of Engineering.

Teaching automatic control in non-specialist engineering schools

Automatic Control Teaching in the new degree syllabus has reduced both, its contents and its implementation course, with regard to traditional engineering careers. On the other hand, where the qualification is not considered as automatic control specialist, it is required an adapted methodology to provide the minimum contents that the student needs to assimilate, even in the case that students do not perceive these contents as the most important in their future career. In this paper we present the contents of a small automatic course taught Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering Degrees at the School of Naval Engineering of the Polytechnic University of Madrid. We have included the contents covered using the proposed methodology which is based on practical work after lectures. Firstly, the students performed exercises by hand. Secondly, they solve the exercises using informatics support tools, and finally, they validate their previous results and their knowledge in the laboratory platforms.

Establishing a new paradigm for teaching mathematics at engineering schools

This paper analyzes an ideal model of teaching, thinking after 5-10 years in Universities in the world. We propose the collaborative work for a fruitful learning. According with that, we expose some of our previous projects in this area and some ideas for the ?global education?, focused on the teaching and learning of mathematics to engineering students. Furthermore we explain some of our initiatives for implementing the "Bologna process?. Aspects related to the learning and assessments will be analyzed. The establishment of the new teaching paradigm has to change the learning process and we will suggest some possible initiatives for adapting the learning to the new model. The paper ends by collecting some conclusions.

Challenge for the future : professional schools of engineering /

Includes bibliographical references.

The rise and fall of management: undergraduate engineering management education in Australia

The modern disciplines of engineering and management are inextricably linked. Frederick Taylor, Henry Gantt and Henri Fayol are engineers whose names are also part of the history of the theory and practice of management. As far back as 1968 it was identified that, “In all phases of practice in the profession the technical work is coupled, to a greater or lesser extent, with engineering management.” For more than 20 years the call had been increasing for an improvement in the preparation of engineering graduates in the area of management skills. In 1989 the IEAust created the task force on management engineering with the goal of formulating a policy for management education in engineering undergraduate courses. In 1990, the Council of the IEAust approved the Policy on Management Studies in Engineering Undergraduate Courses that said, “From January 1991 the Institution will require at least 5% management content in all professional engineering undergraduate courses and that the total of all management and management related components rises to the vicinity of 10% by 1995.” A 1999 analysis of engineering programs showed that the Policy had been applied with enthusiasm by about one-third of the engineering schools, fairly well in another third, remaining responses were ineffectual. Around the same time, revisions to the IEAust accreditation requirements de-emphasised the importance of management studies, mentioning it only as a subset of ‘professional practice’. By 2004 the IEAust stage 1 competency standards for professional engineers mentioned ‘management’ in only three of 79 indicators of competency. In 2002, the IEAust established the Centre for Engineering Leadership and Management. In December 2005 CELM established a working group, “…for improving the business and management content of undergraduate courses. It appears that it’s back (about 20 years) to the future for Australian undergraduate engineering management education.

Systems in Engineering Education: account of an experience

Systems Engineering (SE in the following) has not received much attention as a subject matter in engineering curricula. There are several dozens of universities around the world offering programs (most of them at the graduate level) on systems science and engineering. However, SE is, per se, rarely found among the courses offered by engineering schools. This observation does not strictly mean that systems concepts be left apart. For example, it is usual to find specialized courses for systems of some particular classes (e.g., courses on software systems engineering for computing curricula) or for particular phases of the system life cycle (e.g., courses on systems analysis). Even so, these kinds of courses tend to over-emphasize the importance of specific methodologies and, in consequence, to deviate the attention from the realm of systernness

College of Engineering : [catalog].

Mode of access: Internet.

Simplified framework for managing team learning in engineering subjects

Teamwork has been included as a major component of graduate attributes in all engineering programs at universities. In spite of enormous research advances in theoretical aspects of learning and working in teams, anecdotal evidence suggests that most engineering academic staff are inundated by student complaints of not being able to learn and work in teams due to numerous reasons. In order to facilitate engineering academic staff and engineering schools, this study develops a simplified framework for managing learning teams in engineering subjects that integrates theoretical conceptions, empirical evidences and anecdotal practices by reviewing a substantial body of existing literature. The framework identifies that in addition to managing student complaints about learning and working in teams more effectively and efficiently, engineering academic staff and engineering schools need to focus on specifying learning outcomes of teamwork, identifying appropriate approaches to achieve these learning outcomes, judging the suitability of teamwork-based learning in a particular educational context, developing a clear plan for implementing teamwork, implementing and monitoring teamwork, and reflecting and re-evaluating teamwork. The developed framework can be a useful tool to help understand these essential components and complexities of team learning.

Assessment of credit arrangements towards engineering programs/courses

Credit Transfer (CT), Advanced Standing (AS), Credit for Prior Learning (CPL), Recognition of PriorLearning (RPL), Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition (PLAR), Accreditation of PriorExperiential Learning (APEL), Validation of Prior Learning (VPL), Prior Learning Assessment (PLA),Credit Transfer and Recognition (CTR), Recognition of Current Competency (RCC) and Credit forConcurrent Formal Learning (CCFL) are the terms used by academic institutions and engineeringschools to describe several types of credit arrangements depending upon a student’s current state ofqualification, experience, skills and knowledge towards the requirement of his/her formal professionalengineering qualification. The objectives of such credit arrangements are to make sure that thelearning is not duplicated, to reduce the duration and cost of the engineering studies, to encourageworking engineering associates and technologists return to engineering schools for professionalengineering qualification and to help upgrade the skills and knowledge of the junior engineeringpractitioners, to name a few. Formal, informal, non-formal or a combination of prior learning are usedfor such credit arrangements. Engineering schools offer block credit, specified credit, unspecifiedcredit and a combination of these forms of credits when recognising prior learning of any form.However, anecdotal and literature evidence suggests that the assessment of credit arrangementslacks established universal framework for assessment, lacks harmonisation, compatibility,transparency and comparability and is complex and inconsistent resulting a significant variations in theassessment for recognising prior learning across engineering schools in spite of being based onsimilar fundamental principles. There is a clear need of a consolidated framework in order to assesscredit arrangements systematically and consistently.PURPOSEThe purpose of this study is to develop a consolidated framework for assessing credit arrangementstowards a partial requirements of a professional engineering course, program, degree or qualification.The developed framework is expected to help manage the assessment of credit arrangement process.APPROACHThis study first critically reviews existing frameworks and literature evidences regarding the principlesof credit arrangements towards a partial requirements of a professional engineering course, program,degree or qualification. This study then uses evidence-based literature knowledge (principles,processes and practices) to devise a consolidated framework for assessing credit arrangements. Theframework is then expanded in order to elaborate its several components.RESULTSThe existing frameworks and literature review suggest that for better assessment of creditarrangements, attentions are to be given on the forms of prior learning, types of credit arrangements,forms of credit recognition, required documents, characteristics of the prior learning, alignment of priorlearning with professional engineering qualification and additional aspects.CONCLUSIONSAs the assessment of credit arrangements has been a major challenge for engineering schools, theframework developed in this study is expected to help engineering schools to manage the assessmentprocess systematically and consistently. For further study, the framework needs to be continuouslyimplemented, monitored and evaluated.

Creating efficiencies in teaching : where are the right resources when you need them?

Early career engineering academics are encouraged to join and contribute to established research groups at the leading edge of their discipline. This is often facilitated by various staff development and support programs. Given that academics are often appointed primarily on the basis of their research skills and outputs, such an approach is justified and is likely to result in advancing the individual academic’s career. It also enhances their capacity to attract competitive research funding, while contributing to the overall research performance of their institution, with further potential for an increased share of government funding. In contrast, there is much less clarity of direction or availability of support mechanisms for those academics in their role as teachers. Following a general induction to teaching and learning at their institution, they would commonly think about preparing some lecture materials, whether for delivery in a face-to-face or on-line modality. Typically they would look for new references and textbooks to act as a guide for preparing the content. They would probably find out how the course has been taught before, and what laboratory facilities and experiments have been used. In all of these and other related tasks, the majority of newly appointed academics are guided strongly by their own experiences as students, rather than any firm knowledge of pedagogical principles. At a time of increased demands on academics’ time, and high expectations of performance and productivity in both research and teaching, it is essential to examine possible actions to support academics in enhancing their teaching performance in effective and efficient ways. Many resources have been produced over the years in engineering schools around the world, with very high intellectual and monetary costs. In Australia, the last few years have seen a surge in the number of ALTC/OLT projects and fellowships addressing a range of engineering education issues and providing many resources. There are concerns however regarding the extent to which these resources are being effectively utilised. Why are academics still re-inventing the wheel and creating their own version of teaching resources and pedagogical practice? Why do they spend so much of their precious time in such an inefficient way? A symposium examining the above issues was conducted at the AAEE2012 conference, and some pointers to possible responses to the above questions were obtained. These are explored in this paper and supplemented by the responses to a survey of a group of engineering education leaders on some of the aspects of these research questions. The outcomes of the workshop and survey results have been analysed in view of the literature and the ALTC/OLT sponsored learning and teaching projects and resources. Other factors are discussed, including how such resources can be found, how their quality might be evaluated, and how assessment may be appropriately incorporated, again using readily available resources. This study found a strong resonance between resources reuse with work on technology acceptance (Davis, 1989), suggesting that technology adoption models could be used to encourage resource sharing. Efficient use of outstanding learning materials is an enabling approach. The paper provides some insights on the factors affecting the re-use of available resources, and makes some recommendations and suggestions on how the issue of resources re-use might be incorporated in the process of applying and completing engineering education projects.

Navigating pathways for academic staff development : implications for institutions and academic ranks

BACKGROUND As engineering schools adopt outcomes - focused learning approaches in response to government expectations and industry requirements of graduates capable of learning and applying knowledge in different contexts, university academics must be capable of developing and delivering programs that meet these requirements. Those academics are increasingly facing challenges in progressing their research and also acquiring different skill sets to meet the learning and teaching requirements. PURPOSE The goal of this study was to identify the types of development and support structures in place for academic staff, especially early career ones, and examine how the type of institution and the rank or role of the staff member affects these structures. DESIGN/METHOD We conducted semi - structured interviews with 21 individuals in a range of positions pertaining to teaching and learning in engineering education. Open coding was used to identify main themes from the guiding questions raised in the interviews and refined to address themes relevant to the development of institutional staff . The interview data was then analysed based on the type of institution and the rank/ role of the participant. RESULTS While development programs that focus on improving teaching and learning are available, the approach on using these types of programs differed based on staff perspective. Fewer academics, regardless of rank/role, had knowledge of support structures related to other areas of scholarship, e.g. disciplinary research, educational research, learning the institutional culture. The type of institution also impacted how they weighted and encouraged multiple forms of scholarship. We found that academic staff holding higher ranking positions, e.g. dean or associate dean, were not only concerned with the success of their respective programs, but also in how to promote other academic staff participation throughout the process. CONCLUSIONS The findings from this stud y extend the premise that developing effective academic staff ultimately leads to more effective institutions and successful graduates and accomplishing this requires staff buy - in at multiple stages of instructional and program development. Staff and administration developing approaches for educational innovation together (Besterfield - Sacre et al., 2014) and getting buy - in from all academic staff to invest in engineering education development will ultimately lead to more successful engineering graduates.

Project-oriented design-based learning: aligning students’ views with industry needs

This paper focuses on the alignment of students' views on project-oriented design-based learning (PODBL) with today's industrial needs. A Collaborative relationship between academic institutions and industrial expectations is a significant process towards analytical thinking (linking the theory and practice). Improving students' knowledge as well as the students' transition into industry, requires efficient joint ventures by both learning institutions and industry partners. Project-based learning (PBL) is well developed and implemented in most engineering schools and departments around the world. What requires closer attention is the focus on design within this project-based learning framework. Today design projects have been used to motivate and teach science in elementary, middle, and high school classrooms. They are also used to assist students with possible science and engineering careers. For these reasons, design-based learning (DBL) is intended to be an effective approach to learning that is centered on a design problem-solving structure adopted for a problem-oriented project-based education. Based on an industry design forum, which the authors conducted in Melbourne, Australia in 2012, a research study was performed to investigate the industry and academic requirements for students focusing on achieving design skills. To transform the present situation in the academic teaching and learning environment and to fulfill industry needs, this research study also investigated the students' views on design skills.

Um curso de matemática básica através da resolução de problemas para alunos ingressantes da Universidade Federal do Pampa - campus Alegrete

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Análise crítica de livros-texto de resistência dos materiais usados nas escolas de engenharia brasileiras

Pós-graduação em Educação Matemática - IGCE