NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Preparing Students to Compete in the Global Marketplace Abstract As globalization continues to relocate technical engineering jobs from the United States to overseas locations, it is critical that engineering programs in the U.S. consider the development of skills and abilities that will set their graduates apart and allow them to compete with their overseas counterparts. This paper describes a new course that is intended to provide this type of experience for undergraduates. The course makes use of e-learning technology and active learning techniques to develop graduates who will be comfortable communicating across cultures using technology to manage projects, team relationships, and collaborative design projects. The course was pilot-tested in the ‘04/’05 academic year, with results from the formative assessment incorporated as appropriate. Background The increasing migration of technical engineering functions from firms located in the continental United States to overseas competitors has created an environment that calls into question how engineering undergraduates should be trained and educated. While some companies are battered and turn to overseas labor for relief 1, engineering educators look to foster creativity and innovation to enhance the engineering student’s ability to compete 2. The Advisory Board for the Leonhard Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Education at Penn State recognizes this global challenge and advocates that engineers truly become “world class” 3. The Board has made recommendations to the College of Engineering regarding specific enhancements that are necessary for our graduates to compete globally. As a result of those recommendations, Penn State is offering a new course – Professional Skills and Core Leadership Competencies in the Global Environment – that is specifically designed to respond to the aforementioned global engineering challenges. This paper will describe the design and execution of the class and the results of the course assessment to date. Description of the Course The course is problem-based and technology supported, and seeks to create a learning environment that replicates the geographically dispersed, team-oriented practices of engineers in the field. Among the tasks that the students must complete are on-line training modules with associated assessment, role playing exercises, and preparation of an individual portfolio that includes a short video clip in which students “sell” themselves to a prospective employer. The first iteration of the course was implemented and evaluated as an Engineering Leadership elective, and is a foundational course for students preparing for leadership positions. Its purpose is to ensure that all students develop an adequate understanding of contemporary professional skills and core leadership competencies that are needed to function effectively in today’s global business environment. These skills include:

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session ______ Measuring Cognitive Growth in Engineering Undergraduates: A Longitudinal Study John Wise, Sang Ha Lee, Thomas A. Litzinger, Rose M. Marra, Betsy Palmer The Pennsylvania State University / University of Missouri / The University of Iowa Abstract This paper builds on previously reported findings1,2 by describing the completion of a four-year longitudinal investigation into the cognitive development of engineering undergraduates as measured using the Perry Scheme of Intellectual Development.3 Fifty-four students were randomly selected during their first year and invited to participate in three hour-long interview sessions. During the interview, each student reflected on his or her view of knowledge, education, and learning. The interviews were transcribed and sent to a rater experienced in assigning positions relative to the Perry Scheme based on student responses to these types of questions. While it was hoped that students would progress from simple dualistic views (position 1 / 2) through complex dualism (position 3) and relativism (4 / 5) to commitment in relativism (position 6+), most students in this sample did not make it beyond position four. This paper will review the findings with an eye towards curricular activities that may or may not encourage this type of growth. I. Introduction The move towards more active learning in engineering education has brought with it a need to assess the higher-order thinking that such environments and activities are thought to promote.3 At Penn State, we have been looking at undergraduate student development using the Perry scheme of intellectual development as a way to identify factors that contribute to the cognitive growth of students during a four or five year engineering program. William Perry began asking undergraduates about their experiences at Harvard in the 1950s. 3 Using an open-content interview method, Perry was able to collect data reflecting the students’ epistemology. Common themes began to emerge, and he was able to identify what appeared to be a series of “positions” that change as the student experiences situations that are dissonant with their cognitive structures. The scheme begins with basic dualism (positions 1 and 2), proceeds through relativism (positions 3 through 5) and concludes with commitment within relativism (positions 6 through 9) [Table 1.] Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2001, American Society for Engineering Education

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session 2793 Student Assessments of Engineering First-Year Seminars Andrew S. Lau, Robert N. Pangborn, John C. Wise, Rose M. Marra Pennsylvania State University / University of Missouri Abstract As of summer 1999, the Pennsylvania State University requires all first-year students to complete a one-credit first-year seminar (FYS) as part of their General Education requirements. In fact, many engineering FYS’s were first offered in fall 1998 (as electives), and assessment has been ongoing since that semester. Engineering seminars have these four specific goals: 1. Introduce students to a specific field, or a number of fields, of study in engineering; 2. Acquaint students with tools, resources and opportunities available to them; 3. Provide exposure to some of the professional skills and competencies associated with academic study and the practice of engineering; 4. Encourage networking and interaction with faculty, students, and engineers. Thus far, engineering seminars with 51 unique titles have been offered. This paper reports on the assessment process and results from Fall 1998 through Spring 2000 (4 semesters). The assessment is performed in two ways; a written student survey completed at the end of the course, and focus groups conducted early in the semester following the completion of a seminar. The goals of the assessment are to answer these questions: • Overall, how satisfied are students with offerings? • Are seminar objectives being achieved? • What activities are students experiencing in seminars? The results are tabulated and summarized and given to the respective faculty members to guide the course development. They are also used to identify specific areas for development of workshops and course modules. In general, the results show that students are satisfied with their seminar experiences, and that seminar objectives are being achieved in the areas of teamwork and other aspects of active learning. The seminars help students use learning resources of the university, especially computers. The greatest effect on students is that they report a much better understanding of engineering, with increased motivation and confidence in majoring in engineering. I. Introduction The Engineering First-Year Seminar Program was developed to meet new, university-wide general education requirements, and became mandatory in summer 1999. The general education program consists of 45 credits plus a minimum one-credit first-year seminar. The recommendations for general education that were eventually adopted unanimously by the Faculty Senate emphasized, above all, the active engagement of students in their education. A variety of measures were taken to foster curricular experimentation, encourage dialogue and critical thinking, and incorporate collaboration and teamwork into the courses that comprise the general education program. In order to establish this kind of expectation right from the start for incoming students, a new first-year seminar requirement was established. Rather than prescribe the content and format for the seminars, the proposal advocated that the faculty in the Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition Copyright  2001, American Society for Engineering Education

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Factors Influencing Engineering Faculty’s Use of Tablet PCs Abstract This paper reports on a study of Tablet PC (TPC) usage by twenty engineering faculty members at a large land-grant university in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The purpose of this study is to explore how engineering faculty choose to use TPCs, the faculty’s perceptions of TPC use, and the factors related to the faculty’s use of TPCs in engineering classrooms. The faculty are volunteers, representing eleven different engineering disciplines. The authors applied both qualitative and quantitative methods to identify the factors that influence TPC use. The research findings reveal that the percent of class time in which the TPC is used is significantly correlated with the faculty’s perceived ease of use (r=.429, p

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session 1330 Assessing Readiness for Self-directed Learning Thomas Litzinger, John Wise, SangHa Lee, and Stefani Bjorklund Penn State University Introduction The ABET engineering accreditation criteria bring lifelong learning to the forefront for all engineering educators. In the past, our role in lifelong learning was primarily offering courses and degree programs for practicing engineers through continuing education and on our campuses. Now the accreditation criteria demand that we prepare engineering students to engage in lifelong learning. While this level of emphasis on preparing students for lifelong learning is new, the significance attached to lifelong learning, and in particular continuing education, within the engineering profession is not. Lifelong learning in engineering has been recognized as critical for decades. The Final Report of the Goals Committee on Engineering Education, written in 1968, contained a discussion of the importance of lifelong learning.1 In 1978, the theme of the ASEE Annual Conference was “Career Management – Lifelong Learning.” Over the years there have been a number of studies to investigate the types of activities involved in lifelong learning, their frequency of use, the types of support systems required for lifelong learning, barriers to lifelong learning, and impact of lifelong learning for individual engineers. Many of these studies are summarized in a 1985 report by an NRC panel. 2 Lifelong learning is an issue of importance for engineers around the world. UNESCO sponsored several significant studies including “Advances in the continuing education of engineers.”3 The report resulting from this study summarizes practices in continuing education in a number of countries, both developed and developing, and also the delivery systems used. UNESCO played a central role in the formation of the International Society for Continuing Engineering Education in 1986. Clearly, however, lifelong learning occurs through more channels than just continuing education. In 1986, Cervero et al. interviewed nearly 500 engineers by telephone in the area of Rockport, IL.4 Seventy-two percent of the engineers surveyed were at the BS level and more than one half were under the age of 35. Due to the nature of the businesses in the area, the sample contained predominantly mechanical engineers, 53%, with electrical engineers accounting for an additional 22%. The survey was structured to investigate the participation of the engineers in the three modes of learning proposed by Houle5: instruction, inquiry, and performance. Cervero et al. summarize these three modes of learning as follows: Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2003, American Society for Engineering Education

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session #1630 Educational Objectives and Expectations for Post-Graduation Achievement Kimberly A. Barron, Robert N. Pangborn, Sang Ha Lee, Thomas A. Litzinger and John C. Wise College of Engineering, Penn State University Abstract This paper describes the evaluation of survey data collected from almost 1,300 Penn State engineering alumni who graduated in the years 1995 to 2000. Analyses were conducted to determine if there are differences in the respondents’ perceptions of their education based on the initial career path chosen, namely, full-time employment versus entry directly into graduate study; and within these two categories, whether perceptions vary depending on graduates’ decisions to pursue primarily technical or business/management tracks. Examination of the data provides evidence to suggest that their impression of the importance of various competencies and abilities is related to their choice of post-graduation activities. Depending on the selected career path, they rate the importance of these abilities differently, but tend to rate their preparedness in these areas similarly. These findings are particularly relevant and valuable, given the definition of program educational objectives proposed by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET, Inc., for the 2004- 05 Engineering Criteria.1 This proposal defines the educational objectives as “statements that describe the expected accomplishments of graduates during the first few years after graduation.” The survey responses for Penn State alumni two to three years following graduation show that different kinds of achievement and measures of accomplishment apply to the different early- career paths. This raises questions that may need to be considered for curriculum design. For instance: What actions should we be taking to prepare our students for the broader aspects of their professional careers? What competencies and abilities should we emphasize in a curriculum constrained by a limited time frame? Examining the data from our surveys of recent graduates, which include information on the tasks they are actually performing in various roles, offers insights into these questions and gives us a starting point to begin to make decisions on how to prioritize the implementation of potential curricular improvements. Data collected over several years also allow us to examine patterns over time to make reasonable interpretations about the effectiveness of our programs and trends in graduates’ perceptions of their education as the move into the workplace or pursue advanced degrees. I. Origins of the Alumni Survey For many years, the College of Engineering at Penn State has been surveying students and graduates concerning their perceptions of their undergraduate education, their early work Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright© 2004, American Society for Engineering Education

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Main Menu Session 2430 From Intellectual Development to Expertise Thomas Litzinger, Stefani Bjorklund, and John Wise Penn State Introduction Over the past five years we have conducted a longitudinal study of undergraduate engineering students based on the Perry scheme of intellectual development. [1,2] (For readers not familiar with the Perry scheme, a summary is provided in the Appendix of this paper.) One of the major goals of that study was to determine how our students were developing in their ability to undertake complex problem solving as indicated by their descriptions of the general strategies that they used in attacking ill-defined problems. We are now analyzing the transcripts of the student interviews to search for evidence of their development specifically related to complex problem solving along with the expert knowledge and skills required to support it. Our focus on solving complex problems is driven by the fact that we take this ability as the defining ability of an expert engineer. Thus, in this analysis of the Perry data, we are seeking an indication of the progression of our students towards expert status within their chosen engineering field. The analysis presented in this paper is the beginning of the development of a refined interview protocol to elicit information on how students progress towards expertise and about their process for solving complex engineering problems. This work is motivated by the desire to answer questions such as the following: - Can our educational processes be restructured to allow students to focus more effort on the development of higher levels of engineering expertise than most achieve in the current system? - Given that the expertise literature suggests that the development of expert performance in any field requires roughly ten years, what are realistic expectations of student performance after a four-year undergraduate program? A valid and reliable protocol related to engineering expertise must be developed, along with an appropriate experimental design, if questions such as these are to be answered. The work presented here is a small first step along this path. In developing the initial protocol for the work described here, literature on expertise, domain learning, and complex problem-solving was explored. The literature on expertise in the U.S. has focused to a large extent on defining differences between experts and novices. The recent National Research Council book, “How People Learn,” [3] provides a good summary of the major findings, some of which are: Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2002, American Society for Engineering Education Main Menu

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session 3530 Engineering Students’ Readiness for Self-directed Learning Thomas Litzinger, Sang Ha Lee, and John Wise Penn State University Abstract The study summarized in this paper extends the previous work of the authors that attempted to determine whether capstone engineering courses have an effect on readiness for self-directed learning. The previous study suffered from a poor participation rate and several other potential problems. A new experimental design eliminated these problems. Pre-test and post-test data were collected in two sections of a capstone course in Mechanical Engineering. Results show no statistically significant change in the average pre-test and post-test scores; however, a fraction of the students were found to experience significant increases and decreases. A regression analysis was conducted in an attempt to understand the effect of the characteristics of the students such as gender and grade point average as well as project and section; however, no statistically significant correlation between the change in SDLRS score and any of these factors were found. Interviews with instructors were also conducted and suggested that the decreases in the scores for one project were likely due to the nature of the interactions of the project mentor with the students. Implications of the results of this study for curricular design are discussed. Introduction The ABET engineering accreditation criteria bring lifelong learning to the forefront for all engineering educators. In the past, our role in lifelong learning was primarily offering courses and degree programs for practicing engineers through continuing education and on our campuses. Now the accreditation criteria demand that we prepare engineering students to engage in lifelong learning. While this level of emphasis on preparing students for lifelong learning is new, the significance attached to lifelong learning, and in particular continuing education, within the engineering profession is not. Lifelong learning in engineering has been recognized as critical for decades. The Final Report of the Goals Committee on Engineering Education, written in 1968, contained a discussion of the importance of lifelong learning.1 In 1978, the theme of the ASEE Annual Conference was “Career Management – Lifelong Learning.” Over the years there have been a number of studies to investigate the types of activities involved in lifelong learning, their frequency of use, the types of support systems required for lifelong learning, barriers to lifelong learning, and impact of lifelong learning for individual engineers. Many of these studies are summarized in a 1985 report by an NRC panel.2 Lifelong learning is an issue of importance for engineers around the world. UNESCO sponsored several significant studies including “Advances in the continuing education of engineers.”3 The Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2004, American Society for Engineering Education

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract One Step Beyond: Lecturing With a Tablet PC Abstract In the Fall 2005 semester, the authors used a Tablet PC during lectures as a replacement for the chalkboard. The Tablet PC allows the instructor to write on the PC screen while facing the students, similar to an overhead projector. The advantage is that the entire presentation can be saved in electronic format and uploaded to the course website, where it is available to both the students and instructor immediately after the session ends. Students and the instructor can focus on concept learning rather than transcription. With wireless capability the instructor would be able to walk around the room while projecting his solutions in real time. This paper reports on two specific case experiences with this tool, including student data on usability and satisfaction. Introduction The Tablet PC is the next step in the evolution of laptop computing. Smaller, faster, more powerful technologies and better integrated software capabilities provide the impetus for this step. Equipped with a touch-sensitive screen, users can enter data directly through the use of a stylus (pen) or utilize a traditional keyboard. There are several different types of Tablet PCs, but all allow the use of digital ink to generate new documents or annotate existing documents. Included software allows professors to write and problem solve as they would using traditional pad/pencil using Journal™ or write directly on Word™ or PowerPoint™ slides, save the document or slides including the notations, and provide them to students in electronic form. This combines the ease of digital presentations with the interactivity of the overhead/chalkboard. For example, professors can work out detailed solutions on the computer screen, project the solutions in real time, and save solutions on the hard drive, all while facing the students. A brief overview of Tablet computing and its development can be seen in table 1. The 60’s The 70’s The 80’s The 90’s Today Ivan Sutherland No significant The first GO Corp. Several develops ‘Tablet’ ‘portable’ creates 1st sole integrated Sketchpad a developments computers by pen based OS; Tablet ‘types’ pen/Tablet but Sonic Pen a Tandy appear; MS releases being offered, input 3D input device Apple debuts Windows for better technology becomes the book like pen computing; handwriting (non- available; Pong Navigator; First Apple releases recognition integrated) is created by pen based point Newton (PDA); softwares; Atari; Xerox select system handwriting better designed begins work on by GRiD an recognition and integrated GUI, and Apple IBM PC improves w/ softwares for incorporates compatible PC ‘Graffiti’; Tablet use Tablet arguably first begin catching convertible on Tablet PC appears Table 1. Evolution of Tablet PC Technology1, 2, 3

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract A Study of the Reliability and Validity of the Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Styles Thomas A. Litzinger, Sang Ha Lee, and John C. Wise Penn State University Richard M. Felder North Carolina State University Abstract A study of the reliability and validity of Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Styles (ILS) was performed based on data collected from students at Penn State. Students from three colleges— engineering, liberal arts, and education—were invited to participate in the study in an effort to broaden the range of learning styles represented in the test sample. The instrument was administered on-line and over 500 students completed it. The results were subjected to psychometric analysis to investigate reliability and validity and to extract trends in the data with respect to field of study and gender. Introduction The Index of Learning Styles©, created by Felder and Soloman,1 is designed to assess preferences on four dimensions of a learning style model formulated by Felder and Silverman.2 The ILS consists of four scales, each with 11 items: sensing-intuitive, visual-verbal, active-reflective, and sequential-global. Felder and Spurlin3 summarize the four scales as follows: • "sensing (concrete, practical, oriented toward facts and procedures) or intuitive (conceptual, innovative, oriented toward theories and underlying meanings); • visual (prefer visual representations of presented material, such as pictures, diagrams, and flow charts) or verbal (prefer written and spoken explanations); • active (learn by trying things out, enjoy working in groups) or reflective (learn by thinking things through, prefer working alone or with one or two familiar partners); • sequential (linear thinking process, learn in incremental steps) or global (holistic thinking process, learn in large leaps)." The Web-based version of the ILS is taken over 100,000 times per year and has been used in a number of published studies.3 Among those many hits are a number from Penn State faculty members involved in faculty development workshops and Penn State students enrolled in a course to prepare undergraduates to serve as teaching interns. Use of the ILS at Penn State over a number of years and interest in the effect of its dichotomous structure on reliability led to the design and implementation of the study reported here. The primary goals of the study were to Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Education

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session 3530 Assessing Readiness for Lifelong Learning Thomas Litzinger, John Wise, Sangha Lee, Timothy Simpson, Sanjay Joshi Penn State University Abstract In general, lifelong learning can occur in two modes: formal and informal. Formal (or directed) modes include university courses or corporate training, whereas the informal modes, which occur naturally as part of learning to accomplish work tasks, are “self-directed.” The work presented in this paper focuses on assessment related to students’ ability to engage in self- directed learning and some early attempts at course enhancement to allow students to develop their abilities to engage in self-directed learning. The Self-directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS) is used to assess of readiness for self-directed learning. In a preliminary study, this instrument was administered to approximately 60 senior engineering students to investigate the extent to which it correlated with academic performance as indicated by grade-point average. In a second study, the SDLRS is being taken by randomly selected first-year, sophomore, junior, and senior engineering students to determine how the readiness for engaging in self-directed learning changes during their engineering studies. Finally, two new, problem-based learning courses were implemented to enhance students’ learning as well as their readiness for self- directed learning. The students were given the SLDRS as a pre-test and post-test to determine whether the new courses enhanced their readiness for self-directed learning. These two new courses are briefly described and the results of the assessment are presented. Introduction The ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000) bring lifelong learning to the forefront for engineering educators. In the past, our role in lifelong learning was primarily offering courses and degree programs for practicing engineers through continuing education and on our campuses. Now EC2000 demands that we prepare engineering students to engage in lifelong learning. While this demand on faculty and curricula to prepare students for lifelong learning is new, the significance attached to lifelong learning, and in particular continuing education, within the engineering profession is not. Lifelong learning in engineering has been recognized as critical for decades. The Final Report of the Goals Committee on Engineering Education, written in 1968, contained a discussion of the importance of lifelong learning.1 In 1978 the theme of the ASEE Annual Conference was “Career Management – Lifelong Learning.” Over the years there have been a number of studies to investigate the types of activities involved in lifelong learning, their frequency of use, the types of support systems required for lifelong learning, barriers to lifelong learning, and impact Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright ©2001, American Society for Engineering Education

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract The Effect of Student Tablet PC Use on Their Understanding of and Attitude toward Conceptual Design Abstract Engineers who work in innovative design spaces during conceptual design have very different CAD and graphics needs than those who work in more conventional design spaces such as those of detail design.1,2 They need rapid, parsed communications, which support rather than constrain creativity. We have been examining digital ink technologies such as digital ink pens, SMART Boards, and Tablet PCs (TPCs). We have been exploring these since 2004 in the context of a program offering an introductory engineering design course to about one thousand students a year and upper division courses in innovative and global design. We will report on our initial examination of using TPCs in student design teams. This paper reports on a nonrandomized control-group pretest–posttest study conducted at Penn State University. Half of a first-year design class used TPCs and half used traditional paper and pencil for part of the semester; the groups then switched tools. It is hypothesized that TPC use by engineering students will have a positive effect on their understanding of and attitude towards conceptual design. An instrument designed to collect information on student awareness of the design process was developed and administered as a pre- and post-test. Results of this test will be reported, and suggestions for further research provided. Background Conceptual design is a very important stage in engineering design. It is “the thought process of generating and implementing the fundamental ideas that characterize a product or system”.3 A product or system’s success depends heavily on activities in this stage. This is where innovative ideas are created and evaluated. There are different phases within conceptual design itself, most commonly referred to as user needs identification, concept generation, concept analysis, and concept selection. In the context of the complete engineering design process, conceptual design comes after problem development, and precedes embodiment design and detail design. Conceptual design is unique and very much different from detail design. Therefore, communication in the conceptual design phase is also very much different from communication in the detail design phase. In conceptual design, “the amount of information flowing, the diverse nature of that information, and the speed at which it flows is far greater than in detailed design.”1 For capturing this information, flexible graphical tools are needed. Regardless of the importance of conceptual design, design education tends to focus more on the detail design and much less on conceptual design. We find that it is important to help engineering students understand conceptual design, its importance, and its value in the engineering design process and be able to enjoy it and appreciate its importance. One of the means for enhancing students’ understanding and enjoyment is through student use of tools that are rich in potential to facilitate conceptual design. The TPC is one such tool that can enhance conceptual design and conceptual design communication. With its pen-based features, the TPC opens a lot of possibilities for