NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Development of Integrated Project Tracks for a College-Wide Multidisciplinary Engineering Design Program at RIT Abstract Since 2002, the Kate Gleason College of Engineering (KGCOE) at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) has seen its Multidisciplinary Senior Design (MSD) program grow from a small pilot project into a college-wide initiative involving four departments and almost 400 students annually. While subtle adjustments have been made each year, a major redesign effort was undertaken prior to the 2006 academic year to improve program alignment with departmental objectives, to improve delivery efficiency and effectiveness, and to improve student and faculty satisfaction. Coordination of related projects and sharing of information between approximately 60 design teams in a given year, and preserving continuity of information from one year to the next has proven to be a challenging hurdle. This paper addresses the project definition process, which was overhauled to focus on the definition of related projects within a set of disciplinary “tracks,” consistent with academic programs and faculty interests. Emphasis was placed on the development of reusable and scalable platforms to lay the foundation for future project extensions, and to encourage cross-project and cross-department collaboration. The process by which project tracks, project families and individual projects were identified, screened, modified and ultimately selected will be discussed. The integral relationship between the Design Project Management course, which trains the future project managers and technical leaders of the multidisciplinary project teams, and the project definition process will be illustrated. The development of the Aerospace Systems and Technology Track, with particular emphasis on the Microsystems Engineering and Technology for the Future Exploration of Outer Space Regions (METEOR) family of projects will be used as a case example to illustrate the process. Introduction Project-based “capstone” design has become an integral component of the undergraduate engineering experience. As noted by Dym, et al.1, this has been the standard academic response to address the need to produce engineering graduates able to practice in industry. The Multidisciplinary Senior Design (MSD) program at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) arose from departmental capstone design experiences within Mechanical, Industrial, and Electrical Engineering2. Since its inception in 2002, the program has grown from a small pilot effort into a college-wide initiative involving four departments and almost 400 students annually. In addition to the three original departments, Computer Engineering joined the program in 2004, although the department continues to offer a discipline-specific capstone course sequence. Students from other colleges at RIT are encouraged to participate in MSD and have done so sporadically (especially from Business and Industrial Design), but broader participation remains a long term goal deserving greater attention. Components of the current MSD program include a two-quarter course sequence entitled “Multidisciplinary Senior Design (MSD) I&II,” which constitutes the “design-build” core of the program; a third course entitled “Design Project Management (DPM),” which trains selected students for project management roles in MSD I&II

A design challenge has been developed as the first experience in a new Master's degree program in product development, offered by a consortium of schools: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Rochester Institute of Technology, and the University of Detroit Mercy. The program admits experienced technical specialists who have been identified by their employers as future leaders of product development. The program begins with a brief, intense design challenge that exposes the students to a multi‐disciplinary problem and initiates reflection on systems architecture and organizational processes. The unique requirements of hands‐on design challenges for graduate education in product development are discussed from a constructionist viewpoint. Implementation details of the design challenge are presented and the results from the first two years are analyzed. Students in the program rate the design challenge as a very good introduction to the program and agree that the exercise provides material for discussion of system architecture and organizational processes.

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Enabling the U.S. Engineering Workforce for Technological Innovation: The Value of Cohort Learning Abstract This is the second of four invited papers prepared for a special panel session of the National Collaborative Task Force on Engineering Graduate Education Reform to enable a strong U.S. engineering workforce for competitiveness and national security. There has been a significant increase in educational opportunities for the working professional, as employees and their companies have recognized the criticality of continuous learning to sustaining economic growth and prosperity in a highly competitive global economy. To meet the needs of a demanding and highly diverse constituency, educators have experimented with a wide range of program formats, modalities, and pedagogy in an effort to insure a high quality learning experience in the face of significant career obligations. This paper focuses on the benefits of employing a cohort-based learning model for practicing engineers and all professionals who wish to develop their technical and innovative skills. It will highlight the experiences of two graduate programs that are structured around a cohort model but have adopted different delivery strategies, to provide an illustration of how institutions can tailor the cohort model to meet the needs of its key stakeholders. Introduction Unlike undergraduate education which emphasizes knowledge transfer from teacher to student in preparation for entry into a profession, graduate education for experienced professionals must leverage students as valuable sources of knowledge and wisdom if these programs are to realize their full potential. The mere presence of experienced professionals in the classroom is no guarantee of a high quality interactive learning environment; instead, strategies and practices must by put in place to create an environment that fosters collaborative knowledge sharing. The use of cohort groups is one such strategy. A “cohort” has been defined as a group of students who enroll at the same time and take courses at the same time for the duration of their educational tenure [1]. Beyond the structural implications of this definition, Drago-Severson [2] refers to a cohort as a “tight-knit, reliable, common-purpose group.” A cohort can also be thought of as a simple form of a “learning community,” a programmatic effort to create an academic and social community for students and instructors [3,4]. Learning communities and, by extension, cohorts aspire to provide an interactive and interdisciplinary environment to help students think differently and in more complex ways by providing exposure to diverse viewpoints and experiences [5]. In short, learning communities and cohorts are intended to promote collaborative learning, critical reflection, and knowledge creation for a higher quality educational experience. Many benefits have been ascribed to the use of cohort groups (or learning communities) in academia. High levels of collaborative knowledge sharing critical to innovation have been shown to correlate strongly with the existence of social networks, which is a common attribute of cohort groups [6,7]. Students in learning communities were found to generate more ideas and to think in

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Redesigning a College-Wide Multidisciplinary Senior Design Program at RIT Abstract Since 2002, the Kate Gleason College of Engineering (KGCOE) at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) has seen its Multidisciplinary Senior Design (MSD) program grow from a small pilot project into a college-wide initiative, involving four departments and almost 400 students annually. While subtle adjustments have been made each year, a major redesign effort was undertaken prior to the 2006 academic year to improve program alignment with departmental objectives, to improve delivery efficiency and effectiveness, and to improve student and faculty satisfaction. The project definition process was overhauled to focus on the definition of related projects within a set of disciplinary “tracks,” consistent with academic programs and faculty interests. Emphasis was placed on development of reusable and scalable platforms to lay the foundation for future project extensions, and to encourage cross-project and cross-department collaboration. To reduce startup time normally associated with student projects, day-long workshops were developed for the first four weeks that forced intense focus on customer requirements, engineering specifications, and concept development and selection. The workshop structure and format further encouraged collaboration within and across teams. Lastly, a Wiki-based online environment was created to support knowledge capture and emergent collaboration. This paper provides an overview of changes to the MSD program in three key areas: course delivery, project definition, and communications infrastructure. Attention is given to innovative approaches to challenges inherent in serving a large and diverse constituency with limited resources. Introduction Project-based “capstone” design has become an integral component of the undergraduate engineering experience. Howe and Wilbarger1 surveyed over 400 programs in the 2005 National Survey of Engineering Capstone Design Courses, a follow-up to a comprehensive survey conducted by Todd in 19942. Last year’s ASEE conference contained a number of papers on capstone design programs3-9, with many of them focusing on assessment practices and lessons learned. Important benefits associated with collaborative design projects include: innovative problem solving, improved handling of complexity and ambiguity, enhanced communications skills and self-confidence, and improvements in team building and interpersonal interactions. Nevertheless, the integration of practical engineering design into engineering curricula has a long way to go. Todd10 has addressed issues inherent with engaging, evaluating, and rewarding faculty. Dym and colleagues11 have detailed challenges associated with teaching design and have provided suggestions for improving design learning, with particular attention to project-based learning. To guide program developers, these authors have defined critical skills associated with design thinking: tolerance for ambiguity, systems thinking and systems design, ability to handle uncertainty, decision making, thinking as part of a team, and thinking and communicating in

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session Number 2566 Handicapped Design Projects in a New Engineering Honors Course Wayne Walter, Mark Smith Kate Gleason College of Engineering Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, NY 14623 Abstract As part of a new Honors Program within the Kate Gleason College of Engineering at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), a multidisciplinary design project has been recently introduced as a two-course sequence (1 credit each quarter), taken by honors students during the winter and spring of their Freshman year. Instead of utilizing the design project as a capstone experience, the Honors Design Course at RIT is focused on freshman, to foster passion for product development as early as possible in the undergraduate learning experience. During this inaugural year, students have targeted the handicapped population, consistent with service- learning objectives for the Honors Program as well as the students’ collective desire to use their engineering skills to improve quality of life. This paper will provide the framework and details surrounding the Honors Design Course in the context of the overall Honors Program at RIT. 1. Introduction Product design courses have become an integral part of the undergraduate engineering experience. Last year’s ASEE Conference, for example, contained numerous papers on new programs and important findings from existing programs [1-9]. Traditionally, these design courses have taken the form of a capstone project or formal course for students in the final year or two of a baccalaureate program, but many schools have instituted courses and fully integrated product development programs beginning with first year students [6,7,10]. ABET has also recognized the importance of a team-based design experience for necessary skill development in undergraduate engineering students [11]. Many authors have suggested and documented a number of benefits associated with collaborative design projects [2,3,5-8,10,14-16]: innovative problem solving, improved handling of complexity and ambiguity, enhanced communication skills and self-confidence, improvements in team building and interpersonal interactions, etc. Beyond traditional benefits associated with almost any type of realistic design problem, Green, et. al. [1], have described incremental benefits to “service-oriented” projects, such as intense student enthusiasm, realizable scope, and broadening horizons into philanthropic concerns. From an accreditation perspective, ABET recognizes the importance of service learning as a contributor to the societal responsibilities of engineers [12]. At RIT, first and second year Honors students elected to tackle the challenge of designing assistive devices for handicapped individuals at a local children’s center and visiting nurse agency. Other authors have described similar projects [9,18] and incremental benefits to students, such as empathy for people with disabilities and significant personal satisfaction. Over Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2003, American Society for Engineering Education