Worldwide concern regarding the need for more sustainable textile supply chain prompted emphasis on innovation in the coloration process, often considered the most problematic segment of the supply chain. Digital textile printing, an emerging coloration technology, has the potential to improve sustainability significantly. This study undertakes an environmental sustainability analysis that compares the impacts of rotary-screen printing, the traditional, more established printing method, and digital textile printing. Researchers partnered with Creditex S.A.A., a vertically integrated textile company from Peru, to perform the research in a realistic factory setting. Creditex printed a 16-color design for an order of 1000m cotton fabric with reactive dye occupying both rotary-screen printing and digital textile printing and collected environmental impact data throughout the production process, including consumption, usage, and wastage. The findings suggest that digital textile printing is favorable to rotary-screen printing in terms of environmental sustainability impacts within the research context.

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session 1339 Developing an Introductory Course in Engineering Economy: A Resource for IEs and Non-IEs Joseph Hartman / Peter Shull / Robert Martinazzi / Jerome Lavelle Lehigh University / Penn State Altoona / University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown / Kansas State University Abstract Faculty teaching Engineering Economics come from a variety of educational and professional backgrounds. The spectrum of expertise ranges from faculty possessing a doctorate in Industrial Engineering to those with no formal course work or industrial experience in this vital area. Members of the latter group are usually assigned this course because it is an integral part of the university's engineering curriculum and the schools have no formal Industrial Engineering program or faculty to teach the course. A required course in Engineering Economics emphasizes the importance of this subject in the overall undergraduate education of engineering and engineering technology students. This priority in turn necessitates the need to ensure the course offered provides a complete and comprehensive covering of all the material essential to a quality first course in Engineering Economics. Because of their extensive education, Industrial Engineering faculty teaching the course are rather ambitious in their expectations of what can and needs to be covered in this "first" and sometimes only course in the subject. This also leads to a variety of topics covered [1]. On the other hand, faculty with little or no formal education or experience in the subject are greatly disadvantaged and may tend to treat the course material from a "survey" perspective. They do not have an in depth understanding of the material and its application to a wide variety of engineering projects to rely on for guidance. The course syllabi of faculty on both ends of the education and experience spectrum may vary significantly resulting in a wide variety of material taught in an introductory Engineering Economics course. In view of the above, the purpose of this paper involves laying out a multiple year project culminating in a series of specific recommendations for faculty with various backgrounds assigned to teach Engineering Economics. These recommendations will address a wide variety of areas directly impacting what the course content should look like for specific circumstances. Parameters to be included in the analysis and subsequent recommendation will include faculty background, length of semester, student's discipline, class size, academic year for course offering and how Engineering Economy relates to the overall curriculum along with any other factors identified during the project.

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session 1339 Engineering Economy: Current Teaching Practices Heather Nachtmann, Kim LaScola Needy/ Jerome Lavelle/ Ted Eschenbach University of Pittsburgh/ Kansas State University/ University of Alaska Anchorage Abstract A two-part survey was conducted in 1995 and 1997 in order to examine the teaching practices of engineering economy educators. The first survey was sent to the mailing lists of the Council of Industrial Engineering Academic Department Heads and the Engineering Economy Division of the American Society for Engineering Education. The first survey yielded 45 useable responses. Twenty-eight of the respondents also participated in the second survey. In total, the survey participants teach 165 sessions of engineering economy on average each year to over 10,000 students. A statistical analysis was performed on the data to examine the effect of the instructor's discipline and class size on teaching methods. Detailed findings have been previously reported. 6,9,10 The purposes of this paper are to discuss existing teaching practices in engineering economy as uncovered by our two-part survey and to suggest methods of improvement based on relevant literature. Introduction Based on the authors' work in surveying engineering economics instructors, three central issues emerge as a semester's plan is being developed: "Am I attempting to cover too much material?", "Am I lecturing from a single text?" and "Am I encouraging active learning in my classroom?" In this paper we will address each of these questions and attempt to provide a perspective from the pedagogy survey work done and detailed previously. Content: How much is too much? The average engineering economy class is covering 14 chapters of material. Engineering economy educators should evaluate whether too much material is being covered too quickly in their courses. The question that instructors should ask themselves is whether students can effectively learn, apply and master the course material being planned. Is the engineering economy student better served by mastering a higher fraction of fewer topics or a lesser fraction of more topics? Wankat 11 explains that "content tyranny exists when the need to cover material rather than to encourage student learning dominates educator's teaching and testing styles". Avoid relying solely on the "textbook lecture" Eighty-nine percent of the engineering economy courses examined in this research use a single text. Only 44% of respondents supplement the single text with other materials such as personal notes, articles or cases. Six of the respondents supplement their textbooks with case studies. On average, case studies only account for 2% of the final grade. This small percentage may signify a lack of importance being placed on case studies in engineering economy education.

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session # 1339 Facilitating Student Learning in Engineering Economy Classes Through Context: "Making Horses Thirsty While You Lead Them To Water" Robert Martinazzi and Jerome Lavelle University of Pittsburgh-Johnstown and Kansas State University Abstract It is absolutely essential that students acquire a fundamental understanding of the basic concepts of engineering economics early in the semester. If they fail to do so they become frustrated and disheartened with the course. This in turn seriously impedes their learning of the more complex material encountered later in the term. This scenario poses one of the most significant challenges facing any faculty member. Early in the course a learning environment must be developed which fosters both comprehension of and competence in the basic concepts subsequently used throughout the remainder of the semester. One essential element in helping students learn the basic concepts of Engineering Economics focuses on "relevance". When students deem course material "relevant" they inherently become more receptive and interested in the subject material. Relevance implies a connection to one's personal life with the material having some definite personal value and impact on them as seen from their perspective. Once established, "relevance" leads naturally to motivation which represents the internal manifestation of a deep personal interest in the subject. One of the best ways to develop relevance and motivation involves presenting students with a series of personal financing "exercises" simulating actual financial situations they will encounter throughout their lives. This exercise series, called "Life Long Learning Experiences", administered during the first month of class establishes the relevance noted above. The "Life Long Learning Experiences" series focuses specifically on a multitude of subjects such as purchasing automobiles, mutual fund analysis, retirement planning strategies and establishing personal financial goals to meet specific objectives. Each of these subjects are of inherent interest to the students who will eventually encounter them in their lifetime. This paper will examine and present the "Life Long Learning Experiences" series. It will explain how the series establishes relevance thereby increasing the student's awareness and understanding of the basic concepts of engineering economics. The series illustrates personal financial decisions each individual must make and how the use of the basic concepts of Engineering Economics will help them to make these decisions as judicious as possible. I. Introduction Two things about learning and teaching have emerged recently that should impact the way all teachers approach their jobs. First, is the notion that the role of the classroom instructor is not one of teacher, rather it is one of facilitator of the learning process. Second are the results of research indicating learning is accelerated and more effective when instruction is interactive, paced correctly 1999 ASEE Annual Conference — Charlotte, North Carolina

As part of an ongoing research project, we present an initial decision framework built around an integer knapsack model to provide guidance for new (and existing) educators in the field of Engineering Economy. The proposed model accepts inputs concerning an educator’s teaching environment and the students’ learning environment and provides output via suggested course topics and a syllabus. In the current version of the model, all parameters were derived from survey results. This issue is discussed along with other possible approaches. The model is illustrated with results from a pilot study.

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract I .—. . ,-. Session 1139 — ENGINEERING ECONOMY: A SURVEY OF CURRENT TEACHING PRACTICES Jerome P. Lavelle Kansas State University INTRODUCTION This paper describes the results of a survey conducted during the fall semester of 1995. The intent was to gather data regarding the ways and means in which engineering economy is being taught at our universities. The hope was that such data would prove enlightening and perhaps lead to a better understanding of how engineering economy could/should fit into curricula in the future. Also, the hope was to-uncover data that would lead others to understand the pedagogy being used and perhaps increase the efficacy of their own teaching of the subject. In the following sections the results of the various questions of the survey are given as well as some commentary and conclusions regarding potential implications of that data at the end. THE SURVEY The survey was distributed via conventional mail and e-mail to all members of the industrial engineering and engineering economy communities (via CAIEDH and ASEE-EED mail lists). A note contained in the distribution asked all who received it to forward copies to other departments that teach engineering economy within their respective colleges/universities. The surveys, containing some dozen questions, were completed and returned to the author during the fall semester of 1995 — the names of those who participated in the survey are given in Appendix A. The results of the individual questions from the survey are given below: QUESTION: Which department(s) Teaches Engineering Economy at Your School? Entity No. of Answer Entity No. of Answer That Teaches Responses Frequency That Teaches Responses Freque Industrial Engineering 26 54.2% Industrial Technology 1 2.1% Engineering Management 6 12.5% College of Engineering 1 2.1% Civil Engineering 5 10.4% School of Management 1 2.1% Chemical Engineering 5 10.4% Engineering Technology 1 2.1% Engineering & Mngt Sciences 1 2.1% Manufacturing 1 2.1% QUESTION: Do Graduate Students Teach Your Engineering Economy Course? NO: 31 (73.8%)YES: 11 (26.2%) Average (if YES) If YES, What % of Time: 50,40,40,33,30,20,20, 20,20, 10, 10 26.6 % - “ f@x’@~ 1996 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings ‘.,+

Abstract: The use of research notebooks in engineering and science is a long-standing practice. Researchers, students, and lab assistants use notebooks to catalog the progression of experiments, take notes on successes and failures, sketch ideas, and brain-storm new areas of interest and focus. Given the rich and vibrate data in a research notebook, these documents provide a structure from which the evolution of ideas and knowledge can be studied. The Research Experience for Teachers (RET) program is a grant funded initiative of the National Science Foundation (NSF), where teachers are placed in university research laboratories and engage in engineering-focused research. Parallel to the lab experience, teachers participate in pedagogical instruction and are encouraged to bridge laboratory activities with professional development activities to create ways in which engineering concepts can be infused in curricula. Participants in our NSF-funded RET grant, who serve as the sample for this study, were part of stratified teams that included teachers, engineering students, education students, and community college faculty. Participants in our RET were provided research notebooks to catalog both their lab work and overall experiences over the course of the six-week summer lab assignment. Participants also used the notebooks to record notes and ideas related to the development of an engineering informed lesson plan to take back their respective K-12 and community college classrooms. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the ways in which participants used their research notebooks during the NSF-RET experience to catalog ideas, progression of research, and the development of lesson plans. Specifically, we answer the following research questions: 1. How do participants use research notebooks to record and catalog research activities? 2. How do participants use research notebooks to record and catalog potential pedagogical practices related to using engineering concepts? 3. How do the notebooks reflect participants incorporating engineering concepts into the development of engineering informed lesson plans? Theoretically, our research is grounded in constructivism, as we seek to examine how participants made sense of the experience, extracted new knowledge and information, and then applied that new knowledge and information. Constructivism, as a learning theory, focuses on how individuals construct knowledge for themselves within their individual context (Pritchard & Wollard, 2010). We analyze the data using thematic analysis. Thematic analysis involves use and development of codes that are then systematically grouped into findings (themes). The identification of themes can occur through identification of linked codes and ideas, prevalence of codes, and framing of relationships between codes (Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2012). References Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. Pritchard, A., & Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology in the classroom: Constructivism and social learning. Routleddge: New York.

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session 3230 Assessment of Introduction to Engineering and Problem-Solving Course Joni E. Spurlin, Jerome P. Lavelle, Mary Clare Robbins, and Sarah A. Rajala Office of Academic Affairs College of Engineering North Carolina State University Campus Box 7904 Raleigh, NC 27695-7904 Abstract At North Carolina State University, the freshmen’s first course in engineering is E101, Introduction to Engineering and Problem-Solving. It is offered each fall to over 1,100 first year engineering students. In an effort to continuously improve the course, we put into place a plan to assess the course's learning outcomes. Assessment data collected in fall 2001 and fall 2002 through surveys, rubrics, and class assignments were evaluated to determine how well students met learning outcomes related to communication, teamwork, and problem-solving. This paper presents the assessment methods used in this course and provides examples of how the assessment findings were used to modify the course. The assessment procedures developed for this course can be modified for use in any course, regardless of its size, and will illustrate how course assessment can be used to make course and program improvements. Model for Assessment Last year, we presented a model for assessment that describes what data to gather, where to obtain the data, what criteria may be most appropriate when interpreting the data, how to use the results to make improvements in program and how to document the process.1 The present paper illustrates how that model can be implemented to assess the E101 Introduction to Engineering and Problem -Solving course. The assessment model can be summarized into four major steps: Step 1: Defining program mission, objectives, and outcomes; Step 2: Developing an assessment plan to assess the program objectives and outcomes with linkages to curriculum issues and implementation; Step 3: Gathering the data into a database; Step 4: Interpreting the data to determine program effectiveness and implementing Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2003, American Society for Engineering Education 1

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract MENTOR: Motivating ENgineers Through Organized Relationships Year Two Implementation Introduction Undergraduate engineering students benefit from exposure to upper-class students and other networking opportunities. MENTOR (Motivating ENgineers Through Organized Relationships), a unique and innovative program in year two of implementation at NC State University, links 1400 students in our First Year Engineering Program to 350 co-op students. By working together through MENTOR first year engineers learn about successfully navigating their freshman year, are exposed to cooperative education, and improve their understanding of the engineering profession. Co-op mentors enhance their professional development as role models, share undergraduate experiences, and participate in a career-building experience. This paper describes the design and second year implementation of the MENTOR program including lessons-learned and future plans for the retention of engineering students at a large, diverse, research extensive university. Background 1 MENTOR (Motivating ENgineers Through Organized Relationships) is a ground breaking program in terms of its size and scope, whose aim is to increase student success in engineering through early connections to a positive peer network.1 In order to understand the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges of a program of this magnitude, we benchmarked our plans with peer program data available in the literature. The success of mentoring programs is widely documented, and in the college of engineering at NC State we already had two very successful mentoring programs aimed at women and minorities. Below are details of each of these programs – which formed the basis of our implementation and assessment plan. START (STudent Advancement And Retention Teams) is NC State College of Engineering’s mentoring program for minority engineering freshmen and sophomores. An early intervention and peer-mentoring program, START aims to create useful partnerships among minority engineering students. Students are paired by major, demographics, or both with an upper-class minority engineering student. START teams meet on a regular basis to discuss a variety of issues, from choice of classes to securing internships. Social activities are held to allow START mentors to interact with their mentees in a non-academic setting. In 2005-2006 the START program involved 40 mentors serving 276 mentees, and in 2006-07 the program has 25 mentors serving 135 mentees. WENT (Women Engineers Networking Together) is the NC State Women in Engineering peer mentoring program, started in 1999 as an all volunteer program to connect first year students with upper class students in the same major. Pairs are matched one-on-one, and participation is totally voluntary, with solicitation of interest made at the beginning of each semester. At the end of the fall semester, pairs are asked to assess their experience, and either member can request a re-matching without prejudice. Pairs are asked to communicate once a week and meet at least once a month. Mentors are given the responsibility for maintaining the relationship and are

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session 2161 “Write things worth reading, or do things worth the writing:” A dual-degree program in engineering and the liberal arts Joseph R. Herkert, Jerome P. Lavelle North Carolina State University If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you are dead & rotten, either write things worth reading, or do things worth the writing. --Benjamin Franklin I. Introduction In recent years, much has been written about the role of liberal education in engineering, especially in light of Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC 2000) of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) (for example, see [1,2]). While some attention has been focused on traditional three-two programs or Bachelors/Masters Programs, little has been focused on dual degree programs in engineering and non-technical fields. In this paper we present a status report on the Benjamin Franklin Scholars (BFS) Dual-Degree Program now in its fifteenth year of operation at North Carolina State University. Students in the program earn a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering or computer science from the College of Engineering, and a Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science degree from the College of Humanities and Social Sciences. Students may elect second majors in traditional academic departments such as English, History, Political Science, and Anthropology, or pursue interdisciplinary majors in Arts Applications, Science, Technology, and Society, or a self-designed option in Multidisciplinary Studies. In addition, all students enroll in a series of three courses that illustrate the mutual interaction of engineering and society in the areas of contemporary human values, ethical dimensions of progress, and technology assessment and policy. Through the first ten cohorts of graduates, more than seventy-five students have completed the program and gone on to careers in business, industry, and government, or to graduate and professional study in engineering, computer science, medicine, law, and public policy. In addition to providing details of the Program’s curriculum and course offerings, we discuss co- curricular activities that have proven vital to the success of the Program, including social, professional, and service events conducted by the Franklin Student Council, and program recognition of outstanding students on the basis of academic achievement and community service. We also focus on the nuts-and-bolts of running the program including program administration; funding for scholarships, faculty support, and co-curricular activities; and student recruitment, selection, and advising. We report on program retention rates and placement of students following graduation, and conclude with discussion of ongoing challenges. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2005, American Society for Engineering Education

The vision of the Grand Challenge Scholars Program (GCSP) in the College of Engineering (COE) at North Carolina State University is to maintain and enhance our College's global reputation for excellence and to be a world-class leader and international model for facilitating intellectual property and technology transfer. The program addresses the fourteen Grand Challenges established by the National Academy of Engineering, by providing diverse educational possibilities, global-scale research alternatives, and numerous entrepreneurial or service learning opportunities for our students. This paper addresses the development and implementation of this program.

Evolution of a Flipped Engineering Economy CourseThis paper would fit into the Engineering Economy Division tracks at ASEE 2015At the ISERC 2013 conference in Puerto Rico the paper entitled "Flipped Out EngineeringEconomy: Converting a Traditional Class to Hybrid Model" was presented. That paper andpresentation focused on the history of the CE 390: Engineering Economy course at theinstitution, its conversion to a flipped model, and early student results (1 semester) of convertinga traditional lecture class to a hybrid model. The present paper describes the evolution of thehybrid model that has been implemented in this course over the last five semesters, discussingthe lessons learned and advantages and disadvantages of our approaches over this evolution.Included will be a description of changes made to the structure and pedagogy used as well as theimpact over time on student learning and assessment of the course. Statistical analysis of studentresults will be included. Faculty interested in flipping courses or incorporating hybrid techniquesin their courses should be interested in this work.

Engineering Summer Programs: A Strategic ModelXXXX is the umbrella program for all engineering K-12 outreach, extension and engagementactivities at XXXX University. Operating under the Office of Academic Affairs this unit lastyear had over 10,000 touches with K-12 students, parents and teachers across (state). XXXX isXXXX University’s K–20 education and resource headquarters for exploring engineering.Through hands-on summer camps, in-school mentoring, dynamic volunteer programs, topicalworkshops and much more, XXXX builds excitement around engineering for students andteachers.The XXXX and the College of Engineering have offered summer camps for almost 20 years.Over time the focus, purpose and strategy associated with the planning and executing the campshas matured to support the current 37 camps per summer, offered to students in grades 2-12 andat various locations across the state. Several design elements of the XXXX summer camps areparticularly unique. A few of these include: the staff for the camps is assembled from acombination of engineering educators, K-12 educators, engineering undergraduate students, andhigh school students in a tiered mentoring arrangement that has had long term impact on all ofthe participants, as supported by data. The camps are designed to be financially self-supporting,including provision for at least five percent scholarships. The camp curriculum is linked tocutting edge research activities in the College, with specific attention to the tenets put forward inthe NAE document, Changing the Conversation. The attendance at the camps averages 30-40%female and 35-40% underrepresented ethnic minorities with no specific targeted recruiting.This paper describes the details of the design of the summer programs, how partnerships aredeveloped, and give assessment results from more than fifteen years of camps.

This paper describes a collaborative effort of campus partners at a large public university to pilot test a new course aimed at underperforming second-semester engineering students. Through this effort, we develop and test a model structure and curriculum that can be used for the entire campus community related to improving the academic success of underperforming students. The course, entitled E298 Engineering Student Success, was offered for the first time in spring 2009 and involved collaborative teaching teams from the College of Engineering, the Division of Enrollment Management and Services (EMAS), and the Academic Support Program for Student Athletes (ASPSA) in the Division of Undergraduate Academic Programs (DUAP). The curriculum for the course focused on developing learning outcomes and competencies related to: academic performance; time management and organizational skills; stress management; decision-making, and academic and test taking skills.