College of Engineering
Engineering Education Innovation Center
244 Hitchcock Hall
2070 Neil Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210
(614) 292-7923 Phone
(614) 247-6255 Fax
eeic.osu.edu
Self-Study
Prepared For The Review Of The
Engineering Education Innovation Center
http://eeic.osu.edu/
College of Engineering
The Ohio State University
March 3 and 4, 2014
Robert J. Gustafson, P.E., PhD
Director
John A. Merrill, PhD
Associate Director
Self-Study
Engineering Education Innovation Center
http://eeic.osu.edu/
College of Engineering
Spring 2014
Table of Contents
This Table of Contents is modified, to meet the needs of this specific review, from the suggested Table of
Contents (Faculty Rule 3335-3-36 Centers and Institutes - Guidelines for the Establishment and Review
of Academic Centers, See Appendix 1.)
A. Mission and Aspirations ...........................................................................................................5
1. Historic Mission Statement ............................................................................................5
2. Brief History .................................................................................................................5
3. Description or list of center activities, events, initiatives, etc., that have contributed
to fulfilling the mission and objectives of the center .........................................................7
a. Program Areas .................................................................................................7
b. Course Offerings ...............................................................................................8
c. Credit Hours ...................................................................................................10
d. Engineering Enrollment, Retention and Graduation ...........................................13
e. Student Instructional Leadership Team ..............................................................15
4. Aspirations .................................................................................................................15
B. Faculty and Student Involvement and Contribution ...............................................................17
1. Current faculty and staff .............................................................................................17
2. Current graduate and undergraduate teaching associates .............................................19
3. Faculty publications and grants ....................................................................................19
C. Administrative Structure and Responsibilities .........................................................................19
1. Description of administrative structure .........................................................................19
a. Responsibilities and activities of all administrative staff ....................................19
b. Oversight committees .....................................................................................20
2. Pattern of administration ............................................................................................21
D. Budget and Facilities .............................................................................................................21
1. Budget ......................................................................................................................21
2. Facilities ....................................................................................................................23
E. Evaluative Criteria and Benchmarks .......................................................................................27
1
Appendices
Appendix 1: Relevant Faculty Rules
1a) Faculty Rule 3335-3-36 Centers and Institutes - Guidelines for the Establishment
and Review of Academic Centers
1b) Faculty Rule 3335-3-34 Schools, departments, divisions, and sections; defined and locate
1c) Faculty Rule 3335-6-06 Tenure initiating unit
Appendix 2: 2013-2014 EEIC Performance Plan
Appendix 3: PhD Program in Engineering Education
Appendix 4: Engineering Science and Technological Studies Minors
Appendix 5: Global Option in Engineering
Appendix 6: Humanitarian Engineering Minor
Appendix 7: Course Catalog Description
Appendix 8: Selected Course Syllabi
Appendix 9: Publications and Grants
Appendix 10: EEIC Pattern of Administration (POA)
Appendix 11: EEIC Appointment, Promotion and Tenure (APT)
Appendix 12: EEIC Staffing Model
Appendix 13: EEIC Space Summary
Appendix 14: Content Assessment of First-year Course Sequences
2
List of Abbreviations
1st YR HNR
1st YR Reg&TRF
1st YR STD
1st YR TRN
2nd WRT
ABET
ACAD
AGBUSAE
AGMSYS
APT
ASC
ASEE
AY
BME
CAA
CBE
CEG
CHEM
COAM
COE
COMM
CSE
DESN
DL
ECE
ECON
ECOS
EEIC
EHE
First-year Honors Track
GRADSCH
Graduate School
First-year Regular Track and
Transfer Track
First-year standard track
First-year transfer track
Second Writing Course
Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology
Academic Advising
Agricultural Business
Agricultural Systems
Management
Appointment, Promotion and
Tenure
Arts and Sciences
American Society for
Engineering Education
Academic Year
Biomedical Engineering
GRE
Graduate Record Exam
GTA
HE
HI
INTSTD
Graduate Teaching Associate
Humanitarian Engineering
Hitchcock Hall
International Studies
LOGMGMT
MAR
MARKET
Logistics and Management
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Marketing
MATH
Math Skills and Applications
MD
MD CAP
Multi-Disciplinary
Multi-disciplinary Capstone
MOU
NCIIA
Council on Academic Affairs
(University Level)
Chemical and Biomolecular
Engineering
Civil, Environmental and
Geodetic Engineering
Chemistry
Committee on Academic
Misconduct
College of Engineering
Communications
Computer Science and
Engineering
Design
Dreese Laboratory
Electrical and Computer
Engineering
Economics
Engineers for Community
Service
Engineering Education
Innovation Center
Education and Human Ecology
NFQF
Memorandum of Understanding
National Collegiate Inventors and
Innovators Alliance
New First Quarter Freshman
NFYS
New First Year Student
NSF
National Science Foundation
OAA
OHR
Office of Academic Affairs
Office of Human Resources
OIA
OSP
PLTW
Office of International Affairs
Office of Sponsored Program
Project Lead the Way
POA
PROF
PSYCH
Pattern of Administration
Latent/Professional Skills
Psychology
PT
SA
Part Time
Special Assignment
Sem
Semester
SFA
Student Financial Aid
3
ENGPR
ENGR
ESTT
Engineering Profession
Engineering
Engineering Specific
Tech/Tools
Engineers for a Sustainable
World
Evolution and Ecology
Engineers Without Borders
Food, Agricultural and
Biological Engineering
Fundamentals of Engineering,
formerly First-year Engineering
Fundamentals of Engineering
for Honors, formerly Freshman
Engineering Honors
First-Year Engineering Program
SIAC
SILT
SM
Social Innovation Through Engineering
Student Instructional Leadership Team
Smith Laboratory
SO
Scott Laboratory
SOLAREO
SoTL
SPHHRING
Solar Education and Outreach
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Speech and Hearing
STEM
Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics
Second-year Transformational Experience
Program
TEK-8
TIU
Tenure Initiating Unit
FT
FTE
FY
GLIN
Fundamentals of Engineering
for Scholars
Fundamentals of Engineering
for Transfer
Full Time
Full-time Equivalent
Fiscal Year
Global Interest
Technical Communications Resources and
Consultation, formerly Technical
Communications Resource Center
Translating Engineering Research to K-8
TOEFL
TT
TURFSCI
UESS
Go ENGR
GPA
Grad Eng
Global Engineering Option
Grade Point Average
Graduate Engineering
UG
Univ
Univ Grad
UTA
YRC
Test of English as a Foreign Language
Tenure Track
Turf Science
Undergraduate Education and Student
Services
Undergraduate
University
University Graduate
Undergraduate Teaching Assistant
University Research Committee
ESW
EVOLECO
EWB
FABE
FE
FEH
FEP
FES
FET
STEP
TCRC
4
A. Mission and Aspirations
1. Historic Mission Statement
The EEIC mission is to enrich the student experience and to strengthen the academic credentials of our
undergraduates.
Goals: 1. Promote innovation and creativity in all of our UG programs,
2. Offer multi-disciplinary courses and opportunities for students that enhance their experience,
and
3. Foster scholarship of teaching and learning across the College
The EEIC is nationally recognized for its commitment to outstanding undergraduate education. The EEIC
offers first-year engineering, industry-sponsored, multidisciplinary capstone design, technical
communication courses, and other enrichment courses while providing teaching and research
opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students and promoting the scholarship of teaching and
learning. The EEIC supports the College’s Strategic Plan which states:
Our strategic Teaching and Learning goals are to attract, retain, and graduate the best students.
Experiential learning is our distinguishing trait, providing students with team experiences that
transcend the traditional lecture/lab approach. Such learning differentiates us from our peers
and attracts and retains increasing numbers of high-quality students. As we manage this
growing enrollment, we will build on our strengths and establish a more comprehensive range
of interdisciplinary programs ranging from new minors and joint degrees to
professional/graduate certificates and degrees. (http://engineering.osu.edu/strategic-plan)
The EEIC is a focal point for the College’s innovative instructional programs, building upon our
outstanding reputation for and commitment to innovative undergraduate education. The EEIC provides
academic, personal, and professional activities that help enrich the undergraduate experience inside and
beyond its classrooms. The Center also creates new knowledge through research, development of new
courses and programs, and strengthening of existing ones; all in a way that empowers students to
achieve in an ever-expanding range of opportunities.
2. Brief History
The following is a brief history of the development of the EEIC. More detail for selected items will be
included in other portions of the Self-Study, in particular Appendix 2: 2013-2014 EEIC Performance Plan.
The history begins with two precursor units to the EEIC which were managed out of the office of what is
now the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education and Student Services.
•
1990’s Technical Communication Resource Center, now Technical Communications Resource and
Consultation (TCRC)
The TCRC was formed in 1990’s in response to a change in general education curriculum which
removed the offering of English 305 Technical Writing from the curriculum as a third writing course.
The Center was to be a resource to the college regarding writing within the curriculum and began
offering an engineering option for the second writing course (ENGINEERING 367, now ENGR 2367).
•
1992 Ohio State joined with nine other engineering colleges to form the NSF Gateway Engineering
Education Coalition, where one of the goals was to improve retention. Other goals were to develop
5
modern curricula, to introduce technology into the classroom, to develop faculty to be better
teachers, and to develop students to be better and life-long learners.
•
1996 First offering of College Teaching in Engineering course (Food, Agricultural and Biological
Engineering (FABE) 810 now 7220)
•
1997 Freshman Engineering Honors (FEH) Program established (Now called Fundamentals of
Engineering for Honors)
•
1999 First-year Engineering (FE) course sequences approved for all students.
•
2000 During the Summer of 2000, the second floor of Hitchcock Hall was renovated to
accommodate the new FE/FEH First-year program.
•
2007 Establishment of EEIC
To further enhance efforts in providing the highest quality engineering education, Ohio State
established the Engineering Education Innovation Center (EEIC) in May of 2007 with the mission of
enriching the student experience and strengthening the academic credentials of our
undergraduates. The Honda Professorship for Engineering Education was established
simultaneously with the Center to supply leadership to the new center.
•
2008 Engineering Sciences and Technological Studies Minors
University review of General Education at Ohio State (2006-07) brought forth the need for
technological literacy as an insight area within general education for all students of the University.
Through the EEIC the College of Engineering (COE) developed two minors (Engineering Sciences and
Technological Studies) first to be offered starting in AU 2008. Seventeen persons have completed
the Engineering Sciences minor (through Su13) from 12 different majors. Initial interest in the
Technological Studies minor core courses was not large enough to justify offering of the courses,
therefore the minor is currently not being offered. The Engineering Science minor is further
described in Appendix 4.
•
2009 Multi-Disciplinary (MD) Capstone
The MD capstone program has its roots in the Mechanical Engineering department, which started
industry-sponsored capstone projects in 2001. In 2009, the EEIC launched a year-long course
sequence (ENGINEERING 658, 659.01, 659.02) offering industry-sponsored capstone projects to
both engineering and non-engineering students across all disciplines.
•
2010 PhD Program in Engineering Education
In 2010, the College of Education and Human Ecology, in collaboration with the College of
Engineering, established an Engineering Education Option within the existing STEM PhD program in
Education. Six faculty of the College of Engineering were granted courtesy appointments and
graduate faculty status in Education. The first graduate of the program is anticipated in 2014. The
program is further described in Appendix 3.
•
2012 Conversion to Semester Calendar
Summer 2012 marked the beginning of the offering of courses under a semester calendar for the
University. The EEIC used time prior to the actual conversion to do significant curriculum change.
6
A significant pedagogical gain with semesters was the ability to start all appropriately prepared
engineering students in their first ENGR course during their first term of enrollment. This had not
been possible to schedule under previous quarters system.
•
2012 Implementation of Flipped or Inverted Classroom
Concurrent with the semester conversion, a plan was implemented to move all of the first-year
courses to a flipped or inverted class room approach.
•
2012 First-year Classes offered at all four regional campuses and Columbus State Community
College
•
2013 Global Option in Engineering
The EEIC gave leadership for establishment of the first Global Option (GO ENGR) at Ohio State. The
goal of the GO ENGR program is for students to enhance their global competencies and thereby
better prepare for the practice of engineering in a global environment and participation as an active
global citizen. Students participating in the GO ENGR program will, upon completing requirements
for graduation, receive a documentation of completion and designation on the their transcript as
Engineering Global Option. Since its approval in Autumn 2013, an Office of Global Studies within
the Undergraduate Studies and Student Affairs unit has taken over responsibility for the program.
More about the program is included in Appendix 5.
•
2013 Integrated Business and Engineering Honors Program
To better serve the rapidly changing needs of industry and students, OSU College of Engineering and
Fisher College of Business created an honors program in AY2013, combining engineering and
business students in a common curriculum. Students in this honors program work and study as a
cohort throughout their undergraduate experience. Students take a range of business and
engineering courses while maintaining their traditional level of expertise in their major field of study
by following existing curricula leading to the BS degree. They graduate from their respective college
with an “Honors in Integrated Business & Engineering” diploma distinction.
•
2014 Humanitarian Engineering Minor Proposed (2013-14)
The EEIC is currently engaged in the development of a Humanitarian Engineering course and minor.
The main learning objective of the Humanitarian Engineering minor is for engineering students to
gain competency in the design and creation of products and processes that promote human welfare,
especially for the economically disadvantaged. More detail on this program is included in
Appendix 6.
3. Description or list of center activities, events, initiatives, etc., that have contributed
to fulfilling the mission and objectives of the center.
Below is structure of the EEIC Program Areas in outline form.
a. Program Areas
Fundamentals of Engineering Sequences
• First-year Engineering
• Programming for Engineering Problem Solving
Multi-Disciplinary Design
• MD Capstone Design
7
• Social Innovation and Commercialization Initiative
Enrichment Programs and Courses
• Engineering
• Non-Engineering
• Pre-College
Graduate Program and Research
• STEM/Engineering Education PhD
• Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Professional Development and Support
• Student
• Faculty/Staff
The EEIC maintains a Performance/Strategic Plan which defines program elements, identifies strategies,
action steps, and sets priorities to guide our investments. The EEIC first developed a comprehensive
Performance/Strategic Plan in 2009. The EEIC Plan focuses on achievable goals and objectives, in a five
year planning horizon, for each of our major functions. Each function area of the EEIC has established
key performance metrics to measure progress on an annual basis. Strategies, Action Steps, and Metrics
of the EEIC Plan are to be updated on an annual basis. The current Performance Plan document is
included as Appendix 2: 2013-2014 EEIC Performance Plan.
b. Course Offerings
The following table describes the projected course offerings for AY 13-14.
Program/Course#
Standard Fund. Eng.
1180 (1)
1181.01 (2)
1181.02 (2)
1182.01 (2)
1182.02 (2)
1182.03 (2)
1221 (2)
Transfer Fund. Eng.
1186.01 (1.5)
1186.02 (1.5)
1187 (1)
1188 (1.5)
Honors Fund. Eng.
1281.01H (5)
Brief Description
No.
Sections
AY 14
Est. No.
Students To
Be Served
Spatial Visualization Practice and Development
Fundamentals of Engineering I
Fundamentals of Engineering I - Scholars
Fundamentals of Engineering II
Fundamentals of Engineering II - Scholars
Fundamentals of Engineering II - Nanotechnology
Intro to Computer Programming in MATLAB
5
22
4
19
4
1
11
180
1584
288
1368
288
72
387
Fundamentals of Engineering for Transfer - CAD
Fundamentals of Engineering for Su Academy - CAD
Fundamentals of Engineering for Transfer - MATLAB
Fundamentals of Engineering for Transfer – Prob Solv
and Design
4
1
5
2
144
36
180
144
Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors I
11
396
First-year Engineering has the following three
sequence options:
Standard Fund. Eng. 1181 & 1182
Transfer Fund. Eng. 1186, 1187, & 1188
Honors Fund. Eng. 1281H & 1282H
8
1281.02H (5)
1281.03H (5)
1282.01H (3)
1282.02H (3)
1282.03H (3)
1282.04H (3)
Multi-disciplinary
Capstone
4901 (2)
4902 (1)
4903 (3)
Second Writing
2367 (3) GE
Enrichment Courses
1121 (2)
2167 (1)
2361 (3) GE
2362 (3) GE
4194 (3)
4194 (3)
4410.01 (2)
4410.02 (2)
4510 (1)
4692.01S (1-3)
4692.02S (1-3)
4809.01 (1)
4891.02 (2)
5081 (1-3)
5168 (2)
5680 (1.5)
5695 (1)
Graduate Course
FABE 7220 (2)
Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors I – Adv
Programming
Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors I - Labview
Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors II - Robotics
Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors II Nanotechnology
Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors II Infrastructure
Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors II –
Integrated Business and Engineering
1
36
1
9
3
36
292
84
1
20
1
24
Introduction to Multidisciplinary Design
Multidisciplinary Engineering Capstone Design Project
I
Multidisciplinary Engineering Capstone Design Project
I
4
4
120
120
4
120
American Attitudes About Technology (2nd Writing)
42
1176
Graphic Presentation (For non-engineers)
Introduction to Data Acquisition and Control Using
MATLAB
History of Ancient Engineering
History of American Technology
Humanitarian Engineering
Engineering Law
Computer Graphics Using AutoCad
Computer Graphics Using Solidworks
Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) Examination
Review
Service Learning in Engineering
Service Learning in Engineering
College Seminar – Perspectives on Sustainability
College Seminar – Promoting Creativity and
Innovation
Engineering Capstone Collaboration
Data Acquisition with LABVIEW
Leading in Engineering Organizations
Engineering Teamwork Seminar
2
1
72
36
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
108
36
28
30
36
36
36
2
1
2
2
24
20
60
60
2
1
1
1
10
20
35
90
College Teaching in Engineering
1
25
9
Current course catalog descriptions for all EEIC courses are included in Appendix 7. Selected current
abbreviated syllabi are included as Appendix 8. More detailed course content can be found for selected
courses at http://eeiccourses.engineering.osu.edu/ Further descriptions of program elements are also
included in the Appendix 2: 2013-2014 EEIC Performance Plan.
In order to test content of our first-year engineering course sequences against what may be generally
expected, in Autumn 2013 the EEIC assessed content of the FE and FEH sequences based on a First-Year
Course Classification Scheme developed by Reid, et al. (2013a) 1. It was expected that the analysis would
help us determine if we had any specific topics we should add, delete or enhance for our programs.
Results of the assessment are reported in Appendix 14: Content Assessment of First-year Course
Sequences. In summary the OSU sequences align well with content elements identified in the
classification scheme. Recommendations for change include:
1) consider the use of E-Portfolios in the future,
2) add the topic of protocols and standards for email communications in ENGR 1100 and
reinforce this in other courses,
3) make more utilization of 3D printing as representing a shop experience, and
4) look for ways to integrate more global perspectives and concerns of society in a way that
makes these more apparent in multiple courses.
Based on the assessment weighting of course elements, it was concluded that global perspectives and
concerns of society are the highest priority for enhancement.
c. Credit Hours
The following figure traces the credit hours over time for the EEIC. For the period prior to the official
formation of the center, predecessor courses are included. Quarter credit hours, prior to semester
conversion, were converted to semester basis for all charts below. FY12 to FY13 decrease is primarily
be due to loss of summer 2012 and other semester conversion effects. FY14 values are estimates based
on enrollment as of 11/26/13.
1
Reid, K, R., T. J. Hertanstein, and G. T. Fennell, (2013a) “Development of a First-Year Course Classification
Scheme”. ASEE Paper No. 6554, Atlanta, GA.
10
EEIC Credits Hrs (Sem)
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
FY 03 FY 04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14
Figure 1. EEIC Semester Credit Hours Over Time
Courses under the ENGR designation, which are primarily those offered by the EEIC, represent the third
largest undergraduate credit producing segment (department) within the College of Engineering.
Figure 2 traces the increase in percentage of the undergraduate credits of the College from this source.
ENGR as % UG Credits in College
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Figure 2. ENGR (Engineering Course/EEIC) as Percentage of Undergraduate Credits for the College
Credit hours from the three segments of the first-year program (Honors, Standard, and Transfer) are
shown in Figure 3 for the past five years. The University’s effort to reduce the number of Honors
students is the source of the recent down turn in 1st YR HNR credits.
11
1st Year Credit Hours (Semesters)
8000
7000
6000
5000
1st YR HNR
4000
1st YR STD
3000
1st YR TRN
2000
1000
0
AY 2009- AY 2010- AY 2011- AY 2012- AY 201310
11
12
13
14
Figure 3. Credit Hours for First-year Engineering courses by Track and Total
Credit hours for the four major segments of EEIC courses are traced in Figure 4 for the past five years.
Credit hours for second writing course decreased even though the same number of students were
served in AY 2011-12 (928) as compared to AY 2012-13 (927). Conversion from a 5-credit quarter to 3credit semester course resulted in the slight downward trend.
EEIC Credit Hours (Semesters)
12000
10000
8000
1sr YR TTL
6000
2nd WRIT
ENRICH
4000
MD CAP
2000
0
AY 2009- AY 2010- AY 2011- AY 2012- AY 201310
11
12
13
14
Figure 4. Credit Hours for EEIC by Area
12
The proportion of credit hours generated by segments of the EEIC are displayed in Figure 5.
% of Total Credit Hrs AY13
2.8%
8.3%
1st Yr - REG&TRF
46.0%
17.2%
1st Yr - HNR
2nd WRT
MD CAP
25.7%
ENRICH
Figure 5. Percentage Credit Hours by Area (AY 2012-13)
d. Engineering Enrollment, Retention and Graduation
Enrollment patterns within the EEIC are very dependent on the enrollment patterns in the college. The
following two figures demonstrate the growth in new entering engineering students (NFQF/NFYS) and
total enrollment in the college over the past decade, as well as the rise in the incoming test scores for
engineering students. The latter primarily reflects the change to selective admission made by the
University.
NFQF/NFYS
Total Enrollment
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4584
4809
4880
4719
4495
4738
4526
4976
5611
6118
6629
7202
7730
4000
3000
2000
1000
1043
969
965
932
881
2002
2003
2004
2005
1010
1067
1082
1394
1451
1593
1796
1786
0
2001
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Figure 6. Engineering Enrollments – Total UG and New Autumn
13
2012
2013
ENG Freshman ACT Scores 2001-2013
Composite
Math
31.0
S
c
o
r
e
30.0
29.0
28.0
27.0
28.0
27.0
28.1
26.8
28.4
27.2
28.9
27.2
28.9
27.4
29.2
29.7
28.4
29.9
28.5
30.1
28.7
30.2
28.9
30.4
30.2
29.1
29.2
30.4
29.5
27.6
26.0
25.0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Figure 7. Mean and Composite ACT Scores for Entering Engineering Students
In Autumn 1996, the College of Engineering at Ohio State completed a study of retention of engineering
students. The study was conducted for students entering Ohio State as new first quarter freshmen in
Autumn 1988 with a declared interest in completing a degree in engineering. By June 1996, 75% of
those students had earned a degree from Ohio State, but only 37% of the initial group of students had
graduated as engineers. This supplied much of the motivation for establishment of the first-year
engineering program. Figure 8 traces the changes in first-year retention both within engineering and
within the University. It also traces the six-year graduation (in engineering) rate of these students.
100
90
80
70
60
1st Yr - ENG
50
1st Yr - Univ
40
6th Yr Grad Eng
30
6h Yr Univ Grad
20
10
0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Figure 8. Retention and Graduation of New First-Year Students
14
e. Student Instructional Leadership Team (SILT)
In 2009, the First-Year Engineering Program (FEP) created a Student Instructional Leadership Team
(SILT). The team, which consists of experienced Graduate Teaching Associates (GTAs) and
Undergraduate Teaching Assistants (UTAs), was developed to ensure that all FEP students and
instructional staff receive the best training and support possible. In recent years, SILT has been
expanded and restructured to meet the needs of a growing student body, growing instructional team,
and ever-changing program. SILT currently has 13 members working across all 4 tracks of FEP. This team
helps manage over 2,000 students and 200 teaching assistants (TAs). SILT assists with various FEP
resources such as its computer lab and laboratories. SILT also provides professional development
opportunities for student employees. Furthermore, the leadership team strives to enhance the
program’s learning objectives, support curriculum enhancements, and create consistency. Through
continued change and improvement, SILT has become a model for involving TAs in the management of a
large scale educational unit such as FEP.
Student Instructional Leadership Team 2013-2014
Graduate Teaching Fellow (GTF) – Russ Stech
FEH
Co-Lead GTAs - Beth Yoak & Meagan Ita
FE
Lead GTA (Scholars) – Miriam Cater
Co-Lead GTAs – Beth Miller and Cody Allison
Lead UTA Service – Ryan Patton
Lead UTA Lab Team – Reuben Miller-Davis
Lead UTA - Kevin Wegman
Lead UTA (Scholars) – Molly Mollica
Co-Lead UTAs – Eric Marko and Anna Ameser
Lead UTA Computer Lab/Tutor – Joe Rozzo
4. Aspirations
The EEIC aspires to transition to Tenure Initiating Unit (TIU) status as the Division 2 of Engineering
Education within the College of Engineering. To fulfill this aspiration, the EEIC is establishing an internal
structure more parallel to conventional departments, is continuing to build a demonstrated disciplinary
base of engineering education scholarship and research, and is further developing its record of external
funding for program support and scholarship.
Aspirational Mission Statement
The Division of Engineering Education continues to develop and deliver state-of-the-art, innovative
engineering courses and programs; grow its national prominence and leadership the scholarship of
teaching and learning for engineering education; and attract and develop broad collaborations with
others engaged in engineering education.
2
As defined in OSU Faculty Rule 3335-3-34 “A ‘division’ is an academic unit established within a college or a
school to provide for a developing need in a circumscribed subject.” (Faculty Rule 3335-3-34 is included as
Appendix 1b beginning at App 1 -9 for more detail.)
15
The following four key strategies support this mission.
1) Continue to be a national leader in our three largest programs: i) first-year engineering, ii) multidisciplinary capstone, and iii) technical communications, by
a) Maintaining a scholarly approach to teaching and curriculum development
b) Leading curriculum and teaching innovation, such as inverted classroom and experiential
learning
c) Developing and transferring teaching and curriculum innovations with programs across the
college, university and nation.
2) Continue to support Ohio State degree programs to be nationally recognized for their excellence by
a) Communicating with programs regarding their curriculum needs in order to be most
responsive to those needs
b) Being responsive to meet college-wide curriculum needs (courses and minors) that are
common to multiple units and can be best supported by the EEIC
c) Developing new degree option(s) that serve i) individuals wanting an engineering education
but not intending to practice engineering, ii) cohorts who want to focus on a new or emerging
area, or iii) collaborations that use existing programs in new or different combinations.
3) Expand base in research/scholarship in engineering education by
a) Continuing to hire persons with research/scholarship capabilities
b) Growing the Engineering Education PhD program
c) Fostering more research collaboration with faculty across engineering and other
departments/colleges/universities.
4) Develop further academic program collaboration with units outside the College of Engineering, i.e.
College of Education and Human Ecology, College of Arts and Sciences, and the Fisher College of
Business, by
a) Faculty appointments – both regular and clinical
b) Projects in teaching; such as the TEK-8 program, Integrated Business and Engineering Honors
Option, and Technological Studies minor
c) International and domestic service learning and outreach courses and programs.
16
B. Faculty and Student Involvement and Contribution
1. Current faculty and staff
The following is a list of EEIC faculty and staff with instructional responsibility, their qualifications and experience, as of Academic Year 20132014. It includes:
Tenure Track Faculty
Full Time
1
Part Time
4
Emeritus
Part Time
1
Clinical (Practice) Track Faculty Full Time
5
Visiting Professor
Full Time
1
Lecturer
Full Time
15
Part Time
7
Staff
Full Time
6
Part Time
2
Last Name
Category
Croft
First
Name
Frank
TT Faculty
Part/Full
Time
PT
Demel
John
TT Faculty
PT
Gilat
Gustafson
Tan
Amos
Robert
Fabian
TT Faculty
TT Faculty
TT Faculty
PT
FT
PT
Professor, MAE
Professor, FABE
Professor, CEG
Wyslouzil
Barbara
TT Faculty
PT
Sorby
Sheryl
FT
Whitfield
Clifford
Freuler
Richard
Grzybowski
Deborah
Kajfez
Rachel
Rogers
Peter
Visiting
Faculty
Clinical
Faculty
Clinical
Faculty
Clinical
Faculty
Clinical
Faculty
Clinical
Faculty
Associate
Professor, CBE
Visiting Professor,
MAE
Assistant Professor
of Practice, MAE
Professor of
Practice, MAE
Assistant Professor
of Practice, CBE
Assistant Professor
of Practice, CEG
Clinical Professor
of Practice, BME
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
Home Unit
Highest Degree
Institution
Industry Experience
Clemson
Primary EEIC
Affilliation
FEH
Yes - Douglas Aircraft
Registered
Engineer (P.E.)
Yes
Associate
Professor, CEG
Professor Emertus,
CEG
PhD, Civil Eng
PhD,
Metallugical
ENG
PhD, Mech Eng
PhD, Agri Eng
PhD, Civil Eng
Iowa State
FEH/FE
No
Yes
FE
EEIC Dir
FE
PhD, Mech Eng
Michigan Tech.
FE
No
No
Yes - Civil,structure,
and construction
Yes - Atlanta Res Cou,
D.B. Robinson, TSI
No
No
Yes
Yes
PhD, Chem Eng
Brown Univ
Michigan State
Univ. of Calif.
At Berkeley
Caltech
PhD, Aero Eng
OSU
MDC
No
PhD, Aero Eng
OSU
FEH
Yes - Design and Test
Eng. Consultant
Yes - Consulting
PhD, Chem Eng
OSU
FEH
Yes
No
PhD, Eng. Ed.
Virginia Tech.
FEH
No
No
PhD, Mech Eng
Univ. of Mass.
MDC, IBE
Yes 35 yrs.
No
17
FE
No
No
No
Abell
Lecturer
FT
EEIC
MFA
OSU
FE
Priority Designs
No
Bixler
Black
Brink
Burks
Burry
Anne
Marie
Gregory
Scott
Michael
Angela
Yvonne
Lecturer
Lecturer
Lecturer
Lecturer
Lecturer
FT
FT
PT
FT
PT
EEIC
EEIC
EEIC
EEIC
EEIC
MS, Mech Eng
M.F.A., English
MS
J.D.
MA, Sci
Jornalism
OSU
OSU
OSU
Boston U.
OSU
FE
TCRC
FE
TCRC
TCRC
Yes - Batelle
Yes - 6 years
Yes - Battelle
Yes - 10 years
Yes - 30 years
Yes
No
No
No
No
Busick
Casale
Clingan
Hall
Harper
Kecskemety
Moore
Myers
Richard
Edgar
Paul
Lynetta
Kathleen
Krista
Kathy
Sandy
Lecturer
Lecturer
Lecturer
Lecturer
Lecturer
Lecturer
Lecturer
Lecturer
FT
PT
FT
FT
FT
FT
PT
PT
EEIC
EEIC
EEIC
EEIC
EEIC
EEIC
EEIC
EEIC
PhD, Elec Eng
MS
PhD, English
PhD, Physics Ed
PhD, Aero Eng
MA, English
MS, Geology
FE/FEH
FEH
FEH
TCRC
FEH
FEH
TCRC
TCRC
Yes
Yes - 12yrs
No
No
Yes - 15 years
No
No
Yes - 25 years
Yes - 25 years
No
No
No
No
No
Parke
Parkhurst
Schlosser
Schrock
Stavridis
Stephens
Tichgelear
Trott
Brand
Michael
Andrew
Philip
John
Olga
BJ
James
Bruce
Stuart
Lecturer
Lecturer
Lecturer
Lecturer
Lecturer
Lecturer
Lecturer
Lecturer
Staff
FT
FT
FT
FT
PT
PT
FT
FT
FT
EEIC
EEIC
EEIC
EEIC
EEIC
EEIC
EEIC
EEIC
Staff
PhD
MS, Mech Eng
PhD
MS, Civil Eng
MS,ISE
PhD
PhD
MS, Elec Eng
BS, Physics
OSU
OSU
Miami U.
OSU
OSU
Miami U.
U California,
Santa Cruz
UCSD
OSU
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
FE
TCRC
FE
FE/FEH
Yes
No
Yes
Yes - 6 yrs.
Yes - 12 yrs.
Yes
Yes - 15 years
Yes - 33 yrs.
Yes - US Navy Nuclear
Reactor Operator
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Dzwonczyk
Faure
Gardner
McCaul
Roger
Mary
Neil
Edward
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
PT
FT
FT
PT
Intl Prog Support
Manager, TCRC
Staff - Lab Support
EEIC
PhD
MA, English
BS, Eng
PhD, History
OSU
Miami
OSU
TCRC
FE/FEH
Yes - 27 years
No
Yes
Merrill
John
Staff
FT
EEIC
PhD, Education
OSU
EEIC-Assoc Dir
Rhoads
Robert
Staff
FT
EEIC
MBA
MDC
Toms
Lowell
Staff
FT
Staff - Lab Support
MS
Regis
University
Univ of
Cincinnati
Yes - Oil and Gas Ind,
Corps of Engineers
Yes- Battelle and
Financial Services
Yes - 12 yrs.
FE/FEH
Yes - 29 yrs
Yes
18
OSU
ASU
Duke
Arkansas State
OSU
OSU
No
Yes
2. Current graduate and undergraduate teaching associates
The EEIC uses a large number of graduate and undergraduate teaching associates (GTA’s and UTA’s) to
support instruction, primarily in the first-year engineering program tracks. They play an important
supporting role in instruction. In general, they are not the instructor of record for courses. During the
academic year 2013-2014 the EEIC is employing a total of 46 GTA’s, distribution across eleven graduate
programs is shown in the table below. During 2013-2014 approximately 153 undergraduate teaching
associates will be employed. They are generally employed eight to twelve hours per week. They play an
important role in the classroom as peer mentors and instructional aids. Both GTA’s and UTA’s play
important roles in grading and providing feedback to students.
Program
No. GTA’s No. UTA’s
Aero
2
11
Aviation
1
BioMed
5
14
Chemical
4
29
Civil and Env.
12
13
Comp Sci
1
9
ECE
9
24
Eng Educ
3
NA
Eng Physics
1
FAB
1
1
I&S
2
6
Matl Sci
1
2
Mech
6
29
Welding
3
Undeclared
3
Non-Eng*
7
*Art (1), Econ (2), English (1). Neuroscience (1), Pharm Sci (2) – double majors in ENG also.
3. Faculty publications and grants.
Publications and grants received by faculty supported by the EEIC are listed in Appendix 9. The
publication list is by individual; therefore some duplication will occur for jointly authored publications.
Since 2008, faculty, staff and students currently connected to the EEIC have been involved in more than
75 papers related to scholarship of teaching and learning. Fifteen grants of varying magnitude have
been secured to support programs of the EEIC.
C. Administrative Structure and Responsibilities
1. Description of administrative structure
a. Responsibilities and activities of all administrative staff
EEIC Staffing (as of 8/13):
Director
Robert J. Gustafson
19
Associate Director
Program
John Merrill
Sally Lindeboom, Program Assistant
Emily Callahan, Office Associate (0.5 FTE)
Mary Faure (Program Director, Tech. Comm. Resources and Consulting)
Michael Hoffmann (Dir., Instructional Technology Development)
Robert Rhoads (Capstone Program Coordinator)
Professors of Practice Richard Freuler (MAE-Full)
Deborah Grzybowski (CBE-Assistant)
(Clinical)
Rachel Kajfez (CEG-Assistant)
Peter Rogers (BME-Full)
Clifford Whitfield (MAE-Assistant)
Visiting Professor
Sheryl Sorby (MAE)
Lecturers
Engineering Programs – 11 Full, 4 Part time
TCRC – 4 Full, 3 Part time
Laboratory Supervisors Stuart Brand
Neil Gardner
Lowell Toms
Student Employees
Undergraduate TA’s - 153
Graduate TA’s – 46
b. Oversight committee
A First-year Advisory Committee has been in place since the establishment of the program. Although
the membership has evolved over time, it has been chaired by a faculty member from outside the EEIC
and made up of faculty from departments, faculty of the program, graduate teaching associates,
laboratory staff and administrative staff. The original charge of the oversight committee is as follows:
Duties: This committee has the responsibility for oversight of the Introduction to Engineering
(IE) course sequence. The committee will work closely with the program’s Faculty Coordinator,
IE Program staff, and faculty currently teaching in the program. The committee’s specific
responsibilities include:
a) monitor and suggest changes to course content, methods of presentation, and facilities;
b) monitor and suggest changes to administrative structure for the program;
c) assist the faculty coordinator and program administrator in recruitment and selection of
instructional faculty, graduate TAs and peer mentors; and
d) assist in determining the overall effectiveness of the program.
The committee reports to the College Committee on Core Curriculum and College Services. It
shall report at least annually to the committee and shall make necessary recommendations for
curriculum changes through that committee.
Current membership of the First-year Advisory Committee is:
Members:
External
Betty Lise Anderson (Chair of Comm.) – faculty (ECE)
Frank Croft - faculty (Civil)
Elizabeth Riter - Scholars Program Manager
Rachel Tuttle - Scholars Program Manager
Internal
Phil Schlosser - faculty (EEIC)
Rachel Kajfez – faculty (EEIC)
Rick Freuler – faculty / Honors Coordinator (EEIC)
Bob Gustafson – faculty (EEIC Director)
Stuart Brand - Lab Supervisor (EEIC)
Neil Gardner - Lab Supervisor (EEIC)
20
Mary Faure – TCRC Manager (EEIC)
John Merrill – Associate Director (EEIC)
Russ Stech - Graduate Teaching Fellow (EEIC)
Meagan Ita – Lead GTA, FEH Alt. (EEIC)
Miriam Cater - Lead GTA, FE (EEIC)
Sally Lindeboom - Program Assistant (EEIC)
Lowell Toms - Lab Supervisor (EEIC)
Beth Yoak - Lead GTA, FEH (EEIC)
Beth Miller - Lead GTA, FE (EEIC)
Cody Allison – Lead GTA, FE (EEIC)
An external review panel did a review of the First-year Program in 2004, prior to the establishment of
the EEIC. Documentation from the review can be made available to the review committee upon
request.
Under the structure of the proposed Pattern of Administration (POA), this advisory committee would be
replaced by an Undergraduate Studies Committee and an Advisory Committee for the whole EEIC.
Structure of these is described in the POA but in summary the Undergraduate Studies Committee will be
made up of personnel of the EEIC while the Advisory Committee will be primarily faculty from
departments of the College.
2. Pattern of administration
A proposed Pattern of Administration (POA) for the EEIC (Appendix 10), Appointments, Promotions and
Tenure (Appendix 11) and Staffing Policy (Appendix 12) documents are included for reference as part of
the self-study. The documents have not yet been completely through the College approval process but
represent the best thinking of the EEIC at this time.
D. Budget and Facilities
1. Budget
The following table is a record of the total general funds (University) expenditures for the EEIC over the
past five years. These have grown roughly in proportion to credit hours produced by the unit as
programmatic areas have been added and expanded.
Year
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
Total Budget
$ 3,683,127
$ 4,130,141
$ 4,584,359
$ 4,604,484
$ 5,526,205
The following table gives the budget expenditures for the most recently completed Fiscal Year (FY 2013)
by EEIC sub-area. This includes graduate student fees expenditure by the unit which is accounted for
through a separate budget line ($737,793). Fees were distributed in proportion to graduate teaching
assignments. The table also includes credit hours for the academic year 2012-2013 by sub-area. This
allows for the calculation of cost per credit hour within the various units of the EEIC and across the unit
as a whole. As a comparison, average general funds expenditures per credit hour for the sum of
graduate and undergraduate credit hours across the College of Engineering is approximately $585/credit
hour.
21
Expenditures
w Grad Fees
Credit Hours
$/CrHr
General
Fund
Fund. Of
Eng
Fund. Of
Eng Honors
Technical
Writing
Other/
Engineering
Graphics
$334,060
Capstone
Design&
Ohio
Initiative
01100017372 &
17271
$256,582
011000
(01100012350)
01100013867
01100011565
$452,312
$2,753,453
$1,446,500
NA
NA
6,987
$394
4,157
$ 348
TOTAL
$283,298
$ 5,526,205
2,781
$120
443
$579
1,593
$178
15,961
$346
01100017373
Capstone
The multi-disciplinary capstone projects brings in funding to support the cost of projects including
faculty project advisors. This type of funding through the EEIC started in 2009-2010. Income by year is
shown below.
2009-14 Capstone Projects
2009-10
2010-11
#
Funds
#
Funds
18 $165,000 18
2011-12
#
Funds
2012-13
#
Funds
$118,800 16 $142,000 18 $178,000
2013-14
#
Funds
24 $227,000
OSU Foundation
Support through the OSU Foundation, primarily in support of the first-year honors program, over the
past five years is shown in the following table. Individual support over the past four years includes
$10,000 per year going toward establishing an endowment.
Year
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
First-Year Development Support
Corporate
Individual
$37,675
$42,250
$51,050
$48,175
$52,550
$4,828
$17,668
$16,118
$13,236
$15,865
Total
$42,503
$59,918
$67,168
$61,411
$68,415
Research
The following table list awards for projects related to engineering education, not including those related
to capstone design, managed through the Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) from 7/1/2009 to the
present.
22
Awards
Search keywords( College:14000 Report date:07/01/2009-11/30/2013 )
Title
Comparing the Use of a
Graphical Programming
Language to a Traditional
Expanding technological
literacy through engineering
minors
Human Connect: Scholarships
in science, technology,
engineering and math
Modeling instruction for
physics and chemistry in Ohio
Modeling instruction for
chemistry and physics in Ohio
Modeling instruction for
physics and chemistry in Ohio
ESE: Improving instruction and
mentoring extension services in
engineering the ENGAGE
project
GSE/RES collaborative research:
Addressing the STEM gender
gap: Does spatial training
enhance middle-school girls'
STEM-relevant spatial skills,
attitudes, beliefs, and
interests?
Research in engineering selfefficacy of minority studentsPhase 1
Research in engineering selfefficacy of minority studentsPhase 2
PI
FREULER,
RICHARD J
Sponsor Name
National
Instruments
Primary Name
Natl Instru
Amount
$51,000.00
GUSTAFSON,
ROBERT JOHN
Iowa State Univ
Nat Science
Foundation
$53,500.00
GUSTAFSON,
ROBERT JOHN
NSF Div
Undergraduate
Education
OH Board of
Regents
HARPER,
KATHLEEN
ANDRE
HARPER,
KATHLEEN
ANDRE
HARPER,
KATHLEEN
ANDRE
JUHAS, MARY
CATHERINE
OH Board of
Regents
OH Board of
Regents
Stevens Institute of
Technology
SORBY, SHERYL
A
NSF Div Human
Resource
Development
SORBY, SHERYL
A
NSF Div
Engineering
Education&Centers
NSF Div
Engineering
Education&Centers
SORBY, SHERYL
A
$87,315.00
US
Department of
Education
US
Department of
Education
US
Department of
Education
Nat Science
Foundation
$170,730.00
$159,277.00
$149,040.00
$12,000.00
$151,812.00
$56,407.00
$282,159.00
2. Facilities
The EEIC has refurbished much of the space to best pursue its mission. The assigned and shared spaces
are tabulated in Appendix 13: EEIC Space Summary. The spaces are across four buildings at the
Columbus (main) campus, with most spaces being in Hitchcock Hall (HI); and other spaces being in Smith
Laboratory (SM), Dreese Laboratories (DL), and Scott Laboratory (SO). The EEIC also uses shared spaces,
23
such as rooms from the university’s classroom pool, and some storage spaces. The types of space
include administrative offices; faculty, staff, and teaching associate offices; classrooms; multi-purpose
rooms; work spaces; and storage. Total floor space used by the EEIC through an academic year is about
33,400 square feet, with about 8,700 square feet (26%) of the total being shared usage. The breakdown
by type of space is: Instructional 64%, Office 19%, Workspace 13%, and Storage 4%.
Description of Spaces
Instructional spaces include classrooms and multipurpose rooms (“lecture” or lab). All but two assigned
instructional spaces have a computer workstation for each student. All instructional spaces have video
display systems and audio enhancement. Most assigned instructional rooms are in HI and have a
furniture layout conducive to student team collaboration, with teams of four students being typical.
Student tables are, in general, of working height (39 inches) with some furniture having accommodation
for students with disabilities. There are two larger multipurpose rooms having in-room shelving which
allows for curriculum-related items to be readily available. Figures 1 through 4 show the various styles of
instructional rooms, with Figure 5 showing the 64-seat EEIC student computer lab which is available to
them 24 hours a day.
Figure 1: 37-seat Multipurpose Room
Figure 2: 32-seat Classroom
Figure 3: 74-seat Classroom
Figure 4: 74-seat Multipurpose Room
24
Figure 5: 64-seat Student Computer Lab (open 24x7)
Office space is provided to all faculty, staff, and graduate students employed by the EEIC. Most faculty
members share an office with at least one other faculty member. Staff members also share office space,
with a few having smaller one-person spaces. Figure 6 shows part of the main office suite.
Figure 6: Reception Area of EEIC Main Office Suite
Workspace is available to staff for preparation efforts and to students for project work. These spaces are
rooms with hand tools and clear areas for construction and assembly; and some have floor and bench
mounted machines, such as drill presses, milling machines, grinders and sanders. Figures 7 through 10
show the typical workspace areas.
25
Figure 7a & b: Multi-Disciplinary Capstone Student
Figure 8: General Use Workspace
Figure 9: Shop Workspace
Figure 10: Honors Students Work Area
26
Storage space is found and utilized in various buildings due mainly to the lack of suitable and available
choices in HI (the principal EEIC host building). Some items that are used more frequently are stored
local to the classrooms. Longer term storage is as much as two blocks away from HI.
Future Space Requirements
More instructional and more storage space are needed to properly manage the growth of the EEIC.
With growth also comes the need for additional faculty and staff and, therefore, more office space.
Many of the programs within the EEIC have the need to store physical items used for hands-on
experiences. The need for storage space is ever present and potential solutions are regularly evaluated.
However, demand is greater than the supply, and the situation continues to be problematic.
The Technical Writing Program continues to need more assigned space as appropriate pool classrooms
are difficult to schedule. This is arguably the fastest growing program within the EEIC. Current efforts are
being made to identify, transfer control, and improve spaces to support this 8a-5p, M-F program.
E. Evaluative Criteria and Benchmarks
The EEIC Performance Plan (see Appendix 2: 2013-2014 EEIC Performance Plan) focuses on achievable
goals and objectives, in a five year planning horizon, for each of our major functions. The plan defines
program elements, identifies strategies, action steps, and sets priorities to guide our investments. The
following section gives only a high level overview of Performance Goals and Strategies. More detail on
the background, strategies and goals, and metrics for each area are included in Appendix 2: 2013-2014
EEIC Performance Plan.
1. Fundamentals of Engineering Sequences
Performance Goal: Developing and delivering a comprehensive first-year engineering fundamentals
program that lays the groundwork for future successes.
Strategies:
Strategy 1 – Use the principles of continuous quality improvement to guide the development of
course content and the implementation of “best practices” in teaching and mentoring.
Strategy 2 – Optimize faculty and staff development opportunities.
Strategy 3 –Support the outreach and engagement priorities and actions of the College.
2. Multidisciplinary Capstone Design
Performance Goal: Delivering outstanding capstone design experiences in a multidisciplinary
environment.
Strategies:
27
Strategy 1 – Create and sustain multidisciplinary capstone design program options at the
College-wide level.
Strategy 2 – Strengthen and support program based, discipline specific capstone design projects
Strategy 3 – Use the capstone programs to enhance socially responsible service learning
opportunities for students
Strategy 4 – Gain national recognition of capstone programs
Strategy 5 – Collaborate with the Social Innovation and Commercialization Initiative
3. Enrichment Programs and Courses
Performance Goal: Offering unique courses and minors that expand and enrich opportunities for
engineering and non-engineering students.
Performance Goal: Developing and offering courses to support the general education needs of
students across the University in areas for which Engineering is uniquely qualified. The EEIC
strengthens and broadens the College of Engineering’s contribution to the technological literacy of
non-engineering students through specialized courses (e.g. graphics) and general education courses
and minors.
Strategies (Engineering):
Strategy 1 – Development and improvement of 367/ 2367 (second writing course) to better
serve the interests, enhance global awareness and social responsibility, and the academic
progress of engineering and science students.
Strategy 2 – Offer courses targeted for student in multiple programs that offer technical content
opportunities for program enhancement.
Strategy 3 – Determine appropriateness of problem solving through programming courses
offered through the EEIC.
Strategy 4 – Offer advanced Computer Graphics courses to engineering and non-engineering
students
Strategy 5 – Offer a range of structured leadership and teamwork development opportunities
for all students within the college.
Strategy 6 – Provide a Social innovation through engineering (SIAC) learning experience to meet
the contemporary interests of young people while preparing them for an industrial career.
Strategy 7 – Expand the number of opportunities for students to participate in service learning
and international study.
Strategy 8 – Formulate and approach to globalizing the engineering curriculum at Ohio State
28
Strategies (Non-engineering)
Strategy 1 – Offer a minor attractive to students likely to be working professionally with
engineers (i.e. business and science students).
Strategy 2 – Offer a minor serving to general audience seeking technological literacy with the
goal of being a more technologically literate citizen.
Strategy 3 – Offer introductory Graphics Presentation courses using appropriate software and
current pedagogies to non-engineering students
4. Graduate Program and Research
Performance Goal: Build strength in both scholarly work around teaching and more fundamental
research in engineering education. Offer PhD level opportunities in the domain of engineering
education.
Strategies:
Strategy 1 – Collaborate with College of Education and Human Ecology for Engineering
Education Option within STEM PhD program.
Strategy 2 – Build strength in SoTL within EEIC and by collaboration with other units in the
College and across the University with interest in Engineering Education.
5. Professional Development and Support
Performance Goal 1: Offer outstanding professional development and continuing education activities
for faculty, graduate students and staff which supports the application of scholarship of teaching and
learning.
Strategies:
Strategy 1 – Develop focused faculty professional development
Strategy 2 – Give special attention to the development of future faculty in the College.
Performance Goal 2: Improve teaching and learning within the college by encouraging appropriate
uses of technology.
Strategies:
Strategy 1 – Investigate emerging technologies
Strategy 2 – Provide technological resources including: hard and soft tools, spaces, and
pedagogy
29
Strategy 3 – Monitor technology uses and funding, and assess results
As part of preparation for the Review, during December 2013 the EEIC Director and Associate Director,
along with Associate Dean David Tomasko, held individual meeting with each Department in the College.
The purpose of the meetings was to solicit their input regarding perceptions and experience with the
EEIC. Generally these meetings were with the Chair and selected faculty members from the
Department. Summaries from individual meetings can be made available to the review team if
requested. The following is a summary across the various meetings.
Key points:
• Were supportive of the EEIC.
• Appreciated the opportunity to meet.
• Would like better ongoing communication, especially regarding the skills emphasized in the
First-Year.
• Sometimes feel that they are competing with EEIC for resources.
• Participated in the EEIC capstone programs, some more than others.
• Had some interest in the inverted classroom SIG sponsored by EEIC.
• Might like to see more of their faculty teach in the FEP if their resources permitted.
• Wanted to know how to get senior faculty involved again in FEP.
• Had greater departmental reliance on FEP to prepare students for entry to major.
• Appreciated FEP presence on Regional Campuses.
30
App 1 - 1
Appendix 1. Relevant Faculty Rules (3)
Appendix 1a) Faculty Rule 3335-3-36 Centers and Institutes - Guidelines for the Establishment and
Review of Academic Centers
Appendix 1b) Faculty Rule 3335-3-34 Schools, departments, divisions, and sections; defined and located
Appendix 1c) Faculty Rule 3335-6-06 Tenure initiating unit
Appendix 1a) Faculty Rule 3335-3-36 Centers and Institutes - Guidelines for the Establishment and
Review of Academic Centers
(A)
Definition of an academic center (institute).
An academic center is a non-degree granting educational unit of the university engaged in
research; instruction; or clinical, outreach, or related service. An academic center is defined by
its mission and scope, not its title, and may be described as a center, institute, laboratory, or
similar term. Use of “center” or “institute” in the names of proposed units of the university shall
be limited to academic centers, unless otherwise approved by the council on academic affairs.
See paragraph (C) of rule 3335-3-56 of the Administrative Code, for the definition of nonacademic centers. Academic centers are of two broad types: university centers and college
centers.
University center typically will have a substantial research/scholarship component to their
mission, but also may be involved in instruction, and/or related service. Their internal funding
(initial and continuing) is drawn fully, or in large part, from central university funds (i.e. office
of the president, office of academic affairs, office of research, colleges of the arts and
sciences). The leadership of the center will report to one or more of those offices.
College centers typically will have some mix, with variable emphases, of research/scholarship,
instruction, service, clinical or outreach missions. Internal funding (initial and continuing) is
drawn fully, or in large part, from one college or a small set of colleges. The leadership of the
center will report to one dean or a small set of deans.
(B)
Establishment, reporting, and oversight.
(1)
Establishment of university centers
Proposals for university centers will be developed following the “guidelines for the
establishment and review of academic centers” and submitted to the office of academic
affairs.
The chair of the council on academic affairs (CAA), the provost’s designee to that council, and
the chair of the university research committee (URC) will review the proposal to ensure
adherence to the guidelines and determine if it includes a substantial research component.
App 1 - 2
If so, a “centers subcommittee” of the council, supplemented with membership from URC,
will review the proposal and bring a recommendation for action to CAA. If a substantial
research component does not exist, the special subcommittee of the council (without URC
involvement) will review the proposal and bring a recommendation for action to CAA.
If approved by CAA, the proposal will be sent to the university senate for final approval.
That action will be communicated to the board of trustees.
(2)
Establishment of college centers.
Each college will have a template for the establishment and review of centers that will
be included in the college pattern of administration. Copies of college templates also
will be maintained in the office of academic affairs (OAA). Proposals will be developed
with adherence to the template, and submitted to the dean(s) of the college(s).
No review/action by CAA is required. The dean(s) will inform the OAA of the
establishment of such a center. OAA will inform CAA, resulting in official institutional
notification.
The office of academic affairs shall maintain a register of all academic centers
and appropriate records concerning each one.
(3)
Curricula and faculty affiliation.
Although neither university nor college centers may establish independent course
offerings and degree programs, they may participate in cooperative programs involving
course offerings and degree programs within existing academic units. With the approval
of the council on academic affairs, the faculty of a school or college may delegate to an
academic center the authority to offer courses or degree programs established under the
auspices of that school or college. Proposals for any such courses or programs must be
forwarded to the office of academic affairs with the signature approval of the appropriate
school or college which must retain ultimate authority and responsibility for the courses
or degree programs.
(4)
Administration.
An academic center shall be administered by a director who shall be appointed by and
report to the dean, relevant vice president(s) or deans of the pertinent college(s).
(5)
Oversight.
Each university and college center shall have an oversight committee, at least two-thirds
of whose members are regular faculty from the academic units involved in the center.
The director shall consult regularly with the oversight committee.
The director of each academic center shall develop in conjunction with the
oversight committee a pattern of administration for the center.
(6)
Review process.
All university centers will be reviewed two years after initial establishment and at four-
App 1 - 3
year intervals thereafter. The centers subcommittee of CAA will conduct the review
following the “guidelines for the establishment and review of centers” and bring a
recommendation for action to CAA. The range of actions include: continuation,
conditional continuation with a follow-up in less than four years, and termination.
All college centers will be monitored through annual reports to the college dean(s). Should
significant change to a center occur, or a decision be made to abolish a center, notification
of that decision will be made to the office of academic affairs and through it to CAA.
(7)
Previously established centers.
All existing academic centers established outside this rule shall be reviewed under
the requirements of this rule. Those not in compliance with the rule shall be
allowed one additional year to make appropriate adjustments to allow for their
continuation.
Note: the request of any established center seeking to move from one type to another
must be reviewed and approved by CAA.
(C)
Conditional use of the term “center.”
Start-up centers are permitted. Following a formal request by a vice president or dean and
expedited review and approval by CAA, the term “center” may be used related to external or
central funding possibilities. That action will be communicated directly to the board of trustees.
Should funding not be secured within one year, the unit must request from CAA an extension of
the use of the term. Once funding is secured, the appropriate process for establishment of a
university or college center must be initiated within one year. (B/T 9/8/61, B/T, 6/4/93, B/T
9/1/97, B/T 12/4/98, B/T 6/7/2005, B/T 6/6/2008)
Academic centers/institutes are of two broad types, based on the inter-related characteristics of
mission, source of funding, and reporting line.
All centers will have:
 A director who is appointed by and reports to the relevant vice president(s) or dean(s).
 An oversight committee composed primarily of faculty who will be consulted regularly
by the director.
 A pattern of administration developed by the director in conjunction with the oversight
committee that will include center membership criteria.
No center may:
 Serve as a tenure initiating unit.
 Establish independent course offerings and degree programs.
Temporary/Conditional Use of the Term “Center”
By university rule, all uses of the terms “center” and “institute” must be approved by the Council on
Academic Affairs. Beyond “university” and “college” centers, start-up centers are permitted.
Use of the term “center” related to external and/or central institutional funding possibilities may
occur in an expedited manner following submission of a formal request by a vice president or dean
App 1 - 4
and then review and approval by the Council on Academic Affairs. If approved, that action will be
communicated directly to the Board of Trustees. Should funding not be secured, use of the term
center ends. If funding is secured, the appropriate process for establishment of a university or
college center must occur.
College Centers
These centers typically will have some mix, with variable emphases, of research/scholarship,
instruction, service, clinical or outreach missions. Internal funding (initial and continuing) is drawn
fully, or in large part, from one college or a small set of colleges. The leadership of the center will
report to one dean or a small set of deans.
Each college will have a template for the establishment and review of centers that will be included in
the college pattern of administration. Copies of college templates also will be maintained in the
Office of Academic Affairs. Proposals will be developed with adherence to the template, and
submitted to the dean(s) of the college(s).
No review/action by the Council on Academic Affairs is required. The dean(s) will inform the
Office of Academic Affairs of the establishment of such a center. The Office of Academic Affairs
will inform the council, resulting in official institutional notification.
All centers will be monitored through annual reports to the college dean(s). Should significant change
to a center occur, or a decision be made to abolish a center, notification of that decision will be made
to the Office of Academic Affairs and through it to the Council on Academic Affairs.
All centers moving from one type to another must be reviewed and approved by CAA.
University Centers
These centers typically will have a substantial research/scholarship component to their mission, but
also may be involved in instruction, and/or related service. Their internal funding (initial and
continuing) is drawn fully, or in large part, from central university funds (i.e., Office of the President,
Office of Academic Affairs, Office of Research, Colleges of the Arts and Sciences). The leadership of
the center will report to one or more of those offices.
Procedures for Establishing a University Center
I.
Those wanting to establish an academic center must consult with the Office of Academic Affairs
to determine the appropriate path for proposal development.
II.
A university academic center proposal will be submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs and
reviewed by the chair of the Council on Academic Affairs, the executive vice president and
provost’s designee to that council, and the chair of the University Research Committee to
ensure adherence to the guidelines and determine if a substantial research component exists.
III.
A centers subcommittee of the council then will review the proposal. That subcommittee will
be supplemented with membership from the University Research Committee if there is a
substantial research component. The subcommittee will bring a recommendation for action to
the Council on Academic Affairs.
App 1 - 5
IV.
A proposal approved by the council will be sent to the University Senate for action. If approved
by the Senate, that action will be communicated to the Board of Trustees.
Proposal to Establish a University Center
The proposal should provide in clearly labeled sections the information requested below.
I.
Mission: Explain the mission of the center and how it is aligned with the university’s Academic
Plan and strategic goals. In particular describe or explain the following.
A.
B.
C.
II.
Faculty: Describe the level of faculty interest and commitment to the center. In particular,
provide, describe or explain the following.
A.
B.
C.
III.
The missions of the university (research, teaching, service or outreach) most relevant to
the center.
The interdisciplinary nature of the center.
The goals of the center that cannot be met within existing academic units.
The criteria for selecting the center’s faculty membership.
A list of faculty expressing interest in associating with the center and
accompanying documentation that their chairs/directors support such
involvement.
The extent to which staff and students will be involved and how they will be supported.
Administration: Describe the administrative structure and responsibilities of the director
and oversight committee. In
particular, describe or explain the following.
A.
The name of the director or interim director of the
center. B. The proposed responsibilities of the director.
C.
The function(s) and composition of the oversight committee.
D.
The reporting line—the dean, group of deans, or vice president to whom the center
will report.
E.
The main components of a pattern of administration for the center (to be
formally completed/approved within a year of center establishment).
IV.
Budget/Funding: Specify budget and funding sources for the center. In particular, describe
or explain the following.
A.
The expected budget for the first year of operation.
B.
C.
D.
Funding sources and one-time and recurring costs.
Existing or new equipment, space, and facilities needed to establish the center.
The sustainability of the center—possibilities for external funding, and details of
related funding proposal submissions.
V.
Evaluative Criteria and Benchmarks: Propose and define specific criteria and benchmarks
against which the center will be measured.
VI.
Supporting Materials: Solicit and include letters of support from
A.
B.
Relevant department chairs, school directors, deans, and vice presidents from within
the university.
Interested parties outside the university.
App 1 - 6
C.
Entities with similar emphases at other universities.
Review of University Centers
All university centers and institutes (hereafter “university centers” or “centers”), as defined in 33353-6, must be reviewed two years after initial establishment and at four year intervals thereafter, as
articulated in 3335-3-36. The following priorities will guide the review of existing centers (those
established before adoption of the 2008 revision to 3335-3-36). Of highest priority are those
university centers that
 Have not been reviewed in the past five years or are not subject to close periodic scrutiny by
an appropriate review agency, accreditation body, or funding agency typically composed of
distinguished faculty, researchers, or community partners with expertise in the relevant
area.
 Have experienced substantial growth in administrative staff over the past five years not
fully anticipated or funded by initial budget allocations or subsequent external funding or
earnings.
 Were initially justified on the basis of external funding, but where the amount of external
funding has proven to be insufficient to cover operating costs.
 Are deemed inactive.
The following principles and procedures will govern all reviews of university centers and are
proposed as a guide for the review of college centers. The review of university centers will be
conducted by the centers subcommittee of CAA and will proceed according to the terms outlined in
the “Guidelines for the Establishment and Review of Centers.” If the center being reviewed is a
research-intensive center, as determined under Section II of “Procedures for Establishing a University
Center”, the subcommittee conducting the review will be supplemented with one member from the
University Research Committee.
The centers subcommittee may, at its discretion, appoint ad hoc committees (always including faculty
with expertise in the relevant subject area, but usually also including administrators) to supervise the
review process outlined below. Given that multiple centers may need to be reviewed, the centers
subcommittee may appoint several ad hoc committees in any given year.
Specifically, such review by the subcommittee or an ad hoc committee appointed by the
centers subcommittee (hereafter “subcommittee”) will include the following:
I.
Statement of rationale for the review: The general rationale for undertaking the review
should be clearly explained to all parties. These include
A.
The university policy requiring regular reviews of centers.
B.
The need to ensure cost-effective and successful stewardship of university
resources. C.
The need for centers to provide valued and productive services to the
university.
II.
A comprehensive self-study: The center under review will complete a self-study in which it
provides the subcommittee specific information regarding its mission, faculty, administrative
structure,
budget, and evaluative criteria and benchmarks. To this end, the self-study will include
the following:
A.
Mission
1.
Original mission statement
App 1 - 7
2.
3.
4.
5.
Proposal establishing the center
Annual reports
Other relevant documents or materials
Description or list of all center activities, events, initiatives, etc, that have
contributed to fulfilling the mission and objectives of the center. If current activities
of the center differ from those originally envisaged or articulated in the mission
statement, explain this evolution.
B.
Faculty and Student Involvement and Contribution
1.
List of current faculty and graduate student affiliates or associates.
2.
List of past faculty and graduate student affiliates or associates.
3.
List all faculty publications, lectures, grants, or other activities related to their work
with the center, focusing on those that contribute most centrally to the mission of
the center.
4.
List all student publications, lectures, grants, or other activities related to their work
with the center.
C.
Administrative Structure and Responsibilities
1.
Description of administrative structure.
a.
Responsibilities and activities of all administrative staff, indicating
their contributions to the mission of the center and its objectives.
b.
Oversight committee, indicating their contributions to the mission of the
center and its objectives.
2.
Pattern of administration.
D.
Budget
1.
Current budget.
2.
Projected budget for next four years.
3.
Past budgets since last review.
4.
Description of the budgetary context for the center, outlining specific information
regarding those expenses charged to the university’s general funds. Externally
generated funds produced by the center should be itemized and linked to the
functions
and services articulated in the mission statement.
E.
Evaluative Criteria and Benchmarks
1.
List of evaluative criteria and benchmarks articulated in the original center
proposal, identifying and describing the degree to which the center has met (or
failed to meet) its stated evaluative criteria and benchmarks.
2.
Identify and justify any new evaluative measures and describe the degree to which
the
center has met these criteria or benchmarks.
3.
Provide any specific narrative information or data as appropriate and attach as
appendices any documentation (letters of commendation, awards, news releases)
that demonstrate how the center has met its criteria or benchmarks.
III.
Review of the self-study by the subcommittee: Upon its receipt, the subcommittee will discuss
and assess the self-study.
IV.
Discussion and consultation by the subcommittee with the center administration: The
subcommittee will meet with the director, oversight committee, and other administrative staff
(as deemed appropriate) to discuss the self-study.
App 1 - 8
V.
Discussion and consultation by the subcommittee with stakeholders: The subcommittee will
meet with stakeholders, including (but not limited to) the directors of relevant units or
programs and chairs and deans of relevant units or units heavily involved in the programs or
services offered by the center. These parties will be fully informed of the review and
consulted during the review process.
VI.
Completion of final report: The subcommittee will prepare a final evaluative report that will
include all items described in I - V above. Recommendations regarding the status of the center
(continuation, conditional continuation with a follow-up in fewer than four years, or
termination) will be based on the review outlined above and must focus on the degree to
which the center
A.
B.
C.
Has fulfilled or is fulfilling its stated mission.
Is working within its own budgetary constraints.
Is meeting its own evaluative criteria and benchmarks.
The center director and oversight committee will have an opportunity to review and comment
on the final report and/or consult with the subcommittee before it forwards its report to OAA
and CAA.
VII.
Presentation of the final report to CAA: The report of the subcommittee and its
recommendations will be forwarded to CAA. Recommendations require action by CAA.
Termination of a University Center
Termination of a university center requires University Senate approval.
Adopted by Council on Academic Affairs
from the ad hoc Committee's Report on Centers and
Institutes, 1987
Revised by the Council on Academic Affairs on 02/16/94, 11/15/95,
01/08/97, 04/02/97, 02/04/09.
App 1 - 9
Appendix 1b) Faculty Rule 3335-3-34 Schools, departments, divisions, and sections; defined and
located. (http://trustees.osu.edu/rules/university-rules/rules3/ru3-34.html)
(A) The units of a college organization for instruction, research, and service are the school, department
and division.
(B) Each of these units should normally meet the following qualitative requirements: (A particular unit
may not meet all the criteria, but the formation of a unit that does not should only be approved when
circumstances dictate that approval is important to the academic development of the university.)
(1) A recognized, discrete area of academic concern not already included within the mission of
another school, department or division;
(2) A proposed or existing academic program at both undergraduate and graduate or graduate
professional levels;
(3) A source of faculty members prepared to offer academic work in the subject concerned;
(4) An academic subject that offers research and/or public service opportunities in addition to
formal classroom teaching and has the potentiality for developing recognition by other scholarly
groups;
(5) An academic field that has developed or is in the process of developing a student clientele
either for the purpose of major programs or as an important "service" discipline to other major
programs;
(6) The ability to assume primary fiscal responsibility.
(C) Schools and departments shall have a minimum of ten faculty positions spread through at least the
three academic ranks of assistant professor to professor, unless persuasive academic reasons
demonstrate the need for exceptions.
(D) A school is differentiated from a department as follows:
(1) The undergraduate or graduate work offered by a school may lead to "tagged" degrees.
(2) Recipients of "tagged" degrees shall be recommended for such degrees by the faculty of the
appropriate school.
(3) A school, with the exception of the graduate school, may be organized into departments,
divisions, or sections.
(4) A school, with the exception of the graduate school, shall be responsible to a college for
administrative purposes. Curricular proposals developed by the school shall be transmitted to
the council on academic affairs for review and action after coordination with the college
secretary and after fiscal approval of the dean has been secured.
App 1 - 10
(5) A school may establish its own admission and retention policies and requirements within the
framework of university policies and may retain student personnel records for those students
enrolled in degree programs under the control of the school. To facilitate the conduct of these
activities, a school shall appoint a secretary, with the responsibilities outlined for a secretary of a
college (see rule 3335-3-33 of the Administrative Code).
(E) A "division" is an academic unit established within a college or a school to provide for a developing
need in a circumscribed subject. The head of such unit shall be known as the chair of a division, shall
have academic responsibility, and may be assigned fiscal responsibility by the respective dean of the
college or director of the school. This unit shall be responsible for instruction, service, and research in a
specific academic concern. Such units may be established in any field in which a new department is not
feasible, but in which there is a possibility that growth in the subject may eventually lead to the status of
a department. However, the determination to establish such a unit need not be based solely on the
presumption that such a unit will attain this status. The status of these units shall be reviewed
periodically by the council on academic affairs.
(F) A "section" is an informal unit within a school, department, division, or academic center which is
established to expedite the administration of a given academic subject. The function of a section shall
be to assist the parent unit in the administration of the subject and to provide an organizational
structure for relationship with professional organizations or other individuals with similar interests. The
faculty member in charge shall be known as the section head. The head of the section is appointed by
the administrator of the parent unit and has responsibilities delegated by the administrator of the
parent unit. The formation of a section must be reported to the council on academic affairs.
(G) Schools, departments, and divisions shall be located with respect to colleges as shown in the current
catalog of "The Ohio State University Bulletin - Course Offerings."
(H) The establishment or abolition of schools, departments, and divisions shall require approval by the
council on academic affairs, the university senate, and the board of trustees (see rule 3335-3-37 of the
Administrative Code. (B/T 4/2/71, B/T 3/2/84, B/T 5/3/96, B/T 6/1/2001, B/T 6/22/2012)
App 1 - 11
Appendix 1c) Faculty Rule 3335-6-06 Tenure initiating unit. (http://trustees.osu.edu/rules/universityrules/rules6/ru6-06.html)
(A) A tenure initiating unit is a division, department, school, or college approved by the council on
academic affairs, the university senate, and the board of trustees. A tenure initiating unit has the
following responsibilities for all faculty members assigned to it: to assist in professional development; to
evaluate; to maintain official personnel records; and to initiate promotion, tenure, reappointment, and
nonrenewal recommendations. The office of academic affairs shall be responsible for maintaining the
official list of tenure initiating units.
(B) A single division, department, school, or college must serve as the tenure initiating unit for each
tenure-track faculty member, including individuals with multiple appointments. Multiple appointments
to the tenure-track faculty totaling fifty per cent or more of service to the university shall be considered
to be the same as a single appointment of fifty per cent or more for the purpose of determining
eligibility for tenure.
(C) A faculty member may change from one tenure initiating unit to another voluntarily; or as a result of
the restructuring of academic units, including consolidation, reorganization, or abolishment; or as a
result of the abolishment of a tenure initiating unit during conditions of financial exigency. The following
provisions govern such changes:
(1) A faculty member may voluntarily move from one tenure initiating unit to another upon
approval of a simple majority of all tenured faculty members in the receiving tenure initiating
unit and, following consultation with the appropriate dean(s), the executive vice president and
provost. Administrative approval will be dependent on whether satisfactory fiscal arrangements
for the change have been made.
(2) A faculty member's tenure initiating unit may be changed as a result of structural changes in
academic units, including consolidation or reorganization of units, or abolishment of units, that
are approved by the university senate and board of trustees.
(a) When academic units are to be consolidated or reorganized, resulting in the creation
of one or more new tenure initiating units, the plan for relocating faculty to the new
tenure initiating units shall be part of the approved restructuring proposal. Change in
tenure initiating unit resulting from the consolidation or reorganization of academic
units shall not require the consent of individual faculty members whose tenure initiating
unit is changed. In addition, since a receiving unit does not exist when new units are
being created, no vote of such a unit will be required in relocating faculty.
(b) When a tenure initiating unit is to be abolished and is not part of a plan to
consolidate or reorganize two or more units into new tenure initiating units, every effort
shall be made by the executive vice president and provost to transfer each tenure-track
faculty member in that tenure initiating unit to another tenure initiating unit, in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (C) of this rule. Should such agreement be
impossible, the person's tenure responsibility shall reside with the executive vice
president and provost. The executive vice president and provost shall assign the faculty
member appropriate duties. If the faculty member's previous assignment has been at a
App 1 - 12
regional campus, the executive vice president and provost shall consult with the dean
and director of the regional campus regarding an appropriate assignment.
(3) A tenure-track faculty member whose tenure initiating unit is abolished during conditions of
financial exigency, as described in rule 3335-5-02.1 of the Administrative Code, may be
reassigned to a new tenure initiating unit under the terms of paragraph (C)(1) of rule 3335-502.2 of the Administrative Code.
(D) When tenure-track faculty members change tenure initiating units under paragraphs (C)(2) and
(C)(3) of this rule, the new tenure initiating units shall make reasonable efforts to assist faculty members
in adjusting to the expectations of the new unit. Faculty members who believe that some other unit may
be more appropriate than their new tenure initiating unit may also explore the possibility of further
relocation under the terms of paragraph (C)(1) of this rule. (B/T 10/5/84, B/T 11/2/90, B/T 2/1/91, B/T
2/4/94, B/T 5/3/96, B/T 4/4/97, B/T 3/6/98, B/T 12/4/98, B/T 7/9/2004, B/T 6/7/2005)
App 2 - 1
Appendix 2
Performance Plan 2009/2010
Revised 1 February 2010
Revised January 2012
Revised Autumn 2013
Performance Plan
Engineering Education Innovation Center
College of Engineering
The Ohio State University
EEIC Overview
MISSION AND GOALS
The EEIC mission is to enrich the student experience and to strengthen the academic credentials of our
undergraduates.
Goals: 1. Promote innovation and creativity in all of our UG programs,
2. Offer multi-disciplinary courses and opportunities for students that enhance their
experience, and
3. Foster scholarship of teaching and learning across the College
The College of Engineering EEIC is recognized nationally for its commitment to outstanding
undergraduate education through our First-year Engineering Program; providing practical, hands-on
engineering experience through project-based, multi-disciplinary design courses; providing
opportunities for graduate and undergraduate teaching and research experiences; scholarship of
teaching and learning; and our individualized attention to undergraduate students’ academic and
professional success.
GUIDING VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
In conjunction with the Guiding Values and Principles of the College, the EEIC further highlights:
• Promoting innovation and creativity in all of our UG programs
• Offering multidisciplinary courses and opportunities for students that enhance their experience,
and
• Fostering scholarship of teaching and learning across the college.
STRUCTURE OF THE EEIC
Although some overlap naturally occurs, the EEIC has the following the five major functional areas:
Fundamentals of Engineering Sequences
• First-year Engineering
• Programming for Engineering Problem Solving
Multi-Disciplinary Capstone Design
1
App 2 - 2
Enrichment Programs and Courses
• Engineering
• Non-Engineering
• Pre-College
Graduate Program and Research
• STEM/Engineering Education PhD
• Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Professional Development and Support
• Student
• Faculty/Staff
Plan Overview
The EEIC Plan focuses on achievable goals and objectives, in a five year planning horizon, for each of our
major functions. The plan defines program elements, identifies strategies, action steps, and sets
priorities to guide our investments. Each function area of the EEIC has established key performance
metrics to measure progress on an annual basis. Strategies, Action Steps, and Metrics of the EEIC Plan
are to be updated on an annual basis.
Plan by Functional Area
The following section gives more detail on the background, strategies and goals, and metrics for each
area.
1. Fundamentals of Engineering Sequences
The EEIC provides a comprehensive program for first-year and transfer students empowering them for
successful membership in the College and University communities; providing technical and professional
foundations for Engineering; giving direct experiences across a range of engineering disciplinary areas;
and instilling in each student a desire and capacity for solving problems through creative engineering
design.
Background:
The First-Year Program currently consists of three tracks:
1. FE- Fundamentals of Engineering (a two course sequence, each two sem-hours credit with
special sections for Engineering Scholars, (designated as FES)),
2. FEH - Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors (a two course sequence, eight sem-hours total),
and
3. FET - Fundamentals of Engineering for Transfer Students (consisting of three courses, four semhours total).
Students admitted to the College with the appropriate mathematics background should be able to
complete one of these sequences within their first year.
The FEP course sequences provide broad exposure to engineering as a profession and to its various
disciplines, so students can make a commitment to study engineering or make an informed decision
regarding an alternate major. In order to provide the broad exposure to Engineering, the course
2
App 2 - 3
sequences cover engineering communications, problem solving, hands-on labs, ethics, teamwork,
project management, and the engineering design process.
An FEP Advisory Board meets several times per term during the academic year to advise the program
administration in the areas of curriculum, technology, pedagogy, faculty recruiting, and to provide
oversight in policy development.
Performance Goal: Developing and delivering a comprehensive first-year engineering fundamentals
program that lays the groundwork for future successes.
Strategies:
Strategy 1 – Use the principles of continuous quality improvement to guide the development of course
content and the implementation of “best practices” in teaching and mentoring.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Action Steps:
Identify and prioritize curriculum development projects that can be used across multiple course
sequences (FE, FES, FEH, and FET).
Maintain active curriculum review processes and supported task groups for curriculum
development.
Maintain direct communications with constituencies (program faculty, advisors, employers,
students).
Develop curriculum and program strategies for conversion to semester system.(completed)
Improve curriculum and systems to manage curriculum production.
Assist with implementation of selected courses at Regional campuses.
Strategy 2 – Optimize faculty and staff development opportunities.
•
•
•
•
Action Steps:
Develop a teaching evaluation system for faculty.
Maintain ongoing recruitment and professional development of peer mentors, undergraduate
teaching assistants, and graduate teaching associates.
Involve faculty in curriculum development, research opportunities, and outreach endeavors.
Ensure faculty, staff and student employees represent a model of diversity by discipline, gender
and ethnicity within the college.
Strategy 3 –Support the outreach and engagement priorities and actions of the College.
•
•
Action Steps:
Develop appropriate business and industry relationships which support the FEP.
Develop strategies for FEP engagement with STEM focused programs such as Project Lead the
Way.
Key Metrics:
1. Curriculum development and course production processes are uniform throughout the
program, which allows flexibility and exchange among course components for FE, FEH, FES
(Scholars), FET (Transfers), and ENGR courses – accomplished for semester conversion.
3
App 2 - 4
2. A majority of departments have contributed faculty to teach at least two terms within next
3 years – (targeted eight departments by 2011; met target; and ten by 2012; off target due
to enrollment increases in depts., and increase of clinical faculty in EEIC).
3. GTAs from a majority of disciplines (from within the College Engineering) have been
employed to teach and research (e.g., curriculum development) within the next 3 years -targeted June 2012 to have twelve disciplines represented; dropped to 6 with increase in
number from Civil; but trend for 2013-14 is back on target (still with large number of Civil).
4. First-Year Engineering Program shifts to Fundamentals of Engineering in recognition of a
broader population served – transfer, non-traditional students, and non-majors.
5. Current First-Year Engineering Program courses offered at two Regional campuses by
regional personnel -- target Autumn quarter 2010 for one, with the second offering the
same by 2011-12. All four Regional Campuses now (Au 2013) offer the first-year program,
plus Columbus State Community College.
6. Solicit financial commitments with aid of development officers to support design-build
projects and other entrepreneurial ventures, with awards to winning teams -- $250,000 per
year in place by 2013. This will involve an annual increase on average of $68,333. The EEIC
is off target per table below; due in part to lack of dedicated Development officer for EEIC.
7. Maintain course completion for the 1st year to a Total of 94.7% (an annual increase of .5%),
with Honors completion of 88% (an annual increase of 1.5%) -- target 2011-2012. Note that
Honors during 2012-13 stands at 84.6%, the highest in 10 years. Total retention for all
students completing the First-Year Program is still being calculated
Record of Performance compared to Metrics:
Metric
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
1. # Depts.
Contributing
Faculty
2. # GTA
disciplines
3. Regional
Campuses
with Offerings
7
6
7
7
5
2013-14
Proj.
3
10
10
9
8
6
11
Newark
185,186,187
Mansfield
186, 187
Newark
185,186,187
Mansfield
186, 187
Newark
185,186,187
Mansfield
181, 183
Newark
185,186,187
Mansfield &
Marion
181, 183
61,400
All & Col St
Comm Col.
All & Col St
Comm Col.
4. Annual
$43,500
$59,900
68,200
64,400
Development
Contributions
5. 1st Yr
Total: 93.2%
Completion*
Honors:
Honors:
Honors:
Honors:
Honors:
(Total &
84.3%
83.0%
81.0%
83.4%
84.6%
Honors)
*Percent of Students enrolling in a first course of a sequence who complete a sequence.
4
NA
App 2 - 5
Programming for Engineering Problem Solving
Selected College of Engineering majors require a programming course in either MATLAB or C++.
The EEIC and the Department of Computer Science and Engineering have two cross-listed courses to
fulfill this requirements. In a cooperative arrangement, the EEIC offers ENGR/CSE 1221 (2-credit
MATLAB based course) and CSE offers ENGR/CSE 1222 (3-credit C++ course). In addition the equivalent
content of CSE 1222 is integrated into ENGR 1282H for the first-year honors sequence.
Record of Performance compared to Metrics:
Metric
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
(QTRS)
(QTRS)
(QTRS)
Enrollment ENGraph 167/ENGR 1221
# Students
430
427
Served
2011-12
(QTRS)
2012-13
(SEMS)
2013-14
Proj. (SEMS)
451
278
385
2. Multidisciplinary Capstone Design
The EEIC offers a multidisciplinary capstone program which opens a broad range of opportunities for
engineering and non-engineering students and supports individual program’s capstone design projects.
The EEIC Capstone approach incorporates authentic industry-sponsored projects providing students the
opportunity to apply prior knowledge and to develop professional skills in engineering practice.
Background:
The College is a leader in creating and implementing substantive industry experiences for undergraduate
engineering students. Our engineering programs have a rich history of using projects developed and
sponsored by industry for student capstone design courses. All programs of the College require a
capstone design experience for graduation. The EEIC fosters industry partnerships with The Ohio State
University through the EEIC multidisciplinary capstone design program and though all Engineering
Departments by connecting companies with appropriate programs.
A key component of the EEIC multidisciplinary capstone design program is industry involvement. A 2semester capstone course sequence ENGR 4901, 4902, and 4903 has built on the model of the ME 565
sequence and its reputable history of both industry-sponsored projects and multidisciplinary
participation. The ME capstone sequence, launched in autumn 2001, had as its first industry-sponsored
projects partnered with Goodrich Aerospace, John Deere and Liebert involving engineering students
from multiple disciplines. As of autumn 2014, the capstone course has completed 111 industrysponsored projects. In addition to the companies mentioned above, the ME capstone course has
completed projects with organizations such as Honda, Rockwell, Wright Patterson Air Force Base,
Owens-Corning and the Columbus Zoo.
In winter 2009, the EEIC launched the Ohio Innovation Initiative (OII) where three multidisciplinary
teams of engineers and MBA students worked on company-sponsored projects in designing new
products and processes. The EEIC partnered with Parker Hannifin, Honda and Detroit Diesel
Remanufacturing to pilot these projects and has grown to include a number of local small companies
5
App 2 - 6
become more competitive. The projects under this program typically add MBA and industrial design
students to each team. The OII has merged with multidisciplinary capstone and focuses on new product
development. In 2009, the College along with The Tony Wells Foundation, supported the birth of the
Social Innovation and Commercialization initiative. Using the same capstone structure, teams partner
with local non-profit organizations to develop and commercialize products for people with disabilities.
Seven projects have yielded the continued efforts of commercializing several products.
In support of all capstone programs in the College, the EEIC held its 1st Annual Capstone Showcase in
May 2008. Students from all disciplines were invited to display their capstone design projects to faculty
and industry partners, other students and invited guests. This annual event creates a venue for
students, faculty and industry partners to be recognized, and to celebrate their involvement with Ohio
State’s engineering capstone programs. In 2013, the Showcase grew to include 150 teams from across
the college and invitees included a number of people from the general public including industry, donors,
and families.
Performance Goal: Delivering outstanding capstone design experiences in a multidisciplinary
environment.
Strategies:
Strategy 1 – Create and sustain multidisciplinary capstone design program options at the College-wide
level.
Action Steps:
• Develop multidisciplinary capstone design courses offered open to all engineering
disciplines
• Expand multidisciplinary projects to include more disciplines, both within and beyond the
College of Engineering
• Create multidisciplinary capstone design opportunities targeted specifically towards Ohio
manufacturers and involving collaboration involving engineering and business students.
• Creating an advisory board(s) to guide and strengthen capstone programs
• Develop funding sources to further grow and enhance the program
Strategy 2 – Strengthen and support program based, discipline specific capstone design projects
Action Steps:
• Identify and facilitate best practices of capstone programs across the college.
• Maintain communication networks between individual disciplines
• Develop avenues for industry connections with individual disciplines
• Create avenues for distribution of industry-sponsored projects to respective disciplines
• Promote student choice and mobility among capstone programs
Strategy 3 – Use the capstone programs to enhance socially responsible service learning opportunities
for students
Action Steps:
• Develop local community relations for community service capstone projects
6
App 2 - 7
•
•
Develop various funding sources to support service learning projects
Develop international service learning capstone projects with other universities or
international agencies
Strategy 4 – Gain national recognition of capstone programs
Action Steps:
• Encourage faculty to attend national capstone-related conferences and workshops
• Continue committee planning efforts for the international Capstone Design Conference
being hosted by OSU in 2014.
• Encourage faculty to submit abstracts/papers regarding capstone
• Collaborate with other universities regarding their respective capstone programs
• Conduct an annual Capstone Showcase displaying capstone projects from all the disciplines
Strategy 5 – Collaborate with the Social Innovation and Commercialization Initiative
Action Steps:
• Continue to develop relationships with TCO and industry partners to assist in the practical
commercialization of hardware and software products.
• Promote the SIAC program as part of the multidisciplinary capstone program to students
and faculty
• Continue to build a collaborative arrangement with the College of Business and the School
of Design.
Key Metrics:
1. Increase the number of multidisciplinary projects –30 projects by 2015.*
2. Obtain approval of departments to accept multidisciplinary program as a capstone
alternative for students – all departments by 2015
3. Increase the number of students participating in industry-sponsored multidisciplinary
capstone – 150 students by 2015*
4. Increase the number of multidisciplinary projects involving both engineering and business
students – 10 projects by 2015*
5. Increase capstone design course coordinators participation in regular communications –
participation rate 90% by 2015*
6. Involve students outside the College of Engineering in capstone projects – 30 students by
2015*
7. Increase industry participation in multidisciplinary capstone design – 25 companies by
2015*
8. Complete service learning design projects – 5 projects by 2015
9. Increase faculty attendance to capstone-related conferences – 5 faculty by 2015
10. Increase the number abstracts submitted related to capstone – 4 abstracts by 2015
*Targets are a per academic year basis
Record of Performance compared to Metrics:
Metric
2007-
2008-
2009-
2010-
20117
2012-
2013-
2014-
2015-
App 2 - 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
08
4
1
15
0
60%
0
2
0
0
0
09
10
2
40
3
63%
3
6
0
0
0
10
18
5
81
4
60%
1
14
0
1
1
11
18
6
86
4
60%
8
12
0
1
1
12
18
7
94
3
60%
12
16
0
2
1
13
19
9
95
7
60%
18
14
1
2
1
14
24
10
120
5
15
16
21
20
1
3
4
2009-14 Capstone Projects
2009-10
Company
#
Funds
2010-11
#
Funds
2011-12
#
Funds
Abrasive Technologies
AEP
AFRL
Allied Machine & Engineering
Corp.
Ametek Solidstate Controls
1
1
$12,000
1
$12,000
1
$12,000
#
Funds
1
$12,000
1
$12,000
2013-14
#
Funds
$50,000
ArcelorMittal
Auld Technologies
1
2012-13
$0
1
$10,000
1
$10,000
1
$0
1
$0
1
$0
1
$0
Burden Airplane Manu.
1
$0
1
$0
1
$0
1
$7,000
Cameron
1
$10,000
1
$10,000
1
$12,000
1
$12,000
1
$12,000
1
$12,000
1
$12,000
Dayton Superior
1
$12,000
Elmer's
1
$12,000
eNNOVEA
1
$8,000
3
$36,000
CampusParc
Cardinal Health
Coltene
Commercial Vehical Group
(CVG)
COSI
1
$12,000
1
2
$12,000
1
$6,000
Hirschvogel
1
$0
1
$0
Honda - HAM
3
$30,000
2
$10,000
2
$24,000
2
$20,000
1
$20,000
Honda - HRAO
Humantarian (GM
Foundation)
John Deere
2
$20,000
Lake Erie Bridge
Lake Shore
1
$6,000
LMI/Edgtech
1
$0
$12,000
2
$20,000
1
$10,000
1
$6,400
8
3
$36,000
2
$24,000
1
$30,000
1
$0
2
$24,000
2
$24,000
2
$24,000
1
$6,000
1
$8,000
1
$8,000
App 2 - 9
Manitowoc
1
$12,000
1
$0
1
$0
1
$12,000
United States Steel
1
$12,000
VMAX Energy
1
$12,000
24
$227,000
Marion Industries
MaxTech Berkley
1
Nova Engineering
1
$10,000
Replex Plastics
1
$4,000
Rockwell
1
$10,000
Rolls Royce
1
$10,000
1
$10,000
1
$10,000
$0
1
$12,000
1
-
Snowville Creamery
Social Innovation (Speech &
Hearing)
1
Social Innovation (UCP)
Syscom Adv Mtls
1
$3,000
1
$0
1
$6,400
$0
The Gripper Glove
Transmet
2
$8,000
TS Tech
TS Trim
1
$10,000
WQS
TOTALS=
18
$165,000
18
$118,800
16
$142,000
1
$12,000
18
$178,000
3. Enrichment Programs and Courses
Performance Goal: Offering unique courses and minors that expand and enrich opportunities for
engineering and non-engineering students.
The EEIC enhances collaboration across units for multidisciplinary offerings (beyond the MD Design) and
gives leadership to both courses and minors where appropriate. The programs, listed below with brief
descriptions to follow, fall in the three primary categories by primary audience.
1) Engineering,
a) TCRC and 2nd Writing (ENGR 2367)*
b) Other
Advance Graphics (ENGR 4410.01,0.2)*
History (ENGR 2360.01,.02)*
Teamwork and Leadership (ENGR 5680, 5695)
Social Innovation and Commercialization Initiative
Service Learning (ENGR 4692.01)*
Fundamentals of Engineering Exam Preparation (ENGR 4510)
9
App 2 - 10
Seminars, Workshops, Colloquia (ENGR 4891)*
Humanitarian Engineering Minor*
Integrate Business and Engineering Honors Option
Translating Engineering Research to K-8 (TEK8)
*Open to non-engineering majors
2) Non-Engineering, and
Engineering Sciences Minor
Graphics for non-engineers (ENGR 1121)
3) Pre-College
Columbus Metro Course offerings (ENGR1187, 1221)
Walnut Hills and St Joseph H.S. Fundamentals of Engineering Programs
Project Lead the Way
Engineering Boy Scout Explorer Programs (2)
1) Engineering
a) TCRC and 2nd Writing - The College of Engineering created what is now the Technical
Communications Resources and Consulting (TCRC) program as a resource to engineering students and
faculty directed towards the improvement of communications skills. As a functional group, the TCRC
team delivers the OSU General Education second writing and American diversity course with a focus on
technical communications to undergraduate students at OSU.
TCRC Mission
1. Establishing and communicating a consistent methodology for the teaching, grading, and
creation of quality technical communications that satisfy the audience, purpose, and context of
various instances requiring a technical communication.
2. Providing high-quality, memorable technical communications instruction based upon a common
syllabus for courses it currently delivers: ENGR 2367 and ECE 3090
3. Providing writing consultation to the GTA and UTA staff of the EEIC
4. Consulting with personnel in other departments of the CoE on the creation and delivery of
technical communications within their courses.
5. Collaborating with EEIC leadership and staff to create consistent, accessible information about
technical communication features, guidelines and examples.
6. Providing workshops on pertinent writing and oral presentation topics
7. Providing consultations for individuals and groups on writing-related problems.
8. Collaborating through membership on EEIC committees and on research projects leading to the
publication of the results through workshops, conference presentations, and publications.
Strategy 1 – Development and improvement of 367/ 2367 (second writing course) to better serve the
interests, enhance global awareness and social responsibility, and the academic progress of engineering
and science students.
•
Action Steps:
Explore and consider new curriculum content and formats for potential implementation
10
App 2 - 11
•
•
•
Explore best practices which promote critical thinking and intensive writing
Adopt course materials and practices to reflect the needs of the constituencies
Develop honors and global diversity sections
Metric
Enrollment
2nd Write
367/2367
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14 Proj’d
19 sec/419
students
18 sec/475
students
18 sec/ 513
students
33 sec/ 928
students
33 sec/ 927
students
38 sec/ 1074
students
b) Other
Advanced Graphics - The College has offered Engineering Graphics (EG) courses since
1885. From 1885 to 1994, these courses were offered through its own department; from 19942008 they were offered through the Civil & Environmental Engineering & Geodetic Science
Department. Since July 2008 EG courses are offered through the EEIC. In recent years, ENGR
1121 has been taken primarily by students in the College of the Arts and the College of Food,
Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences. ENGR 4410.01,4410.02 Advanced Graphics have been
taken by primarily Mechanical and Food, Agricultural, & Biological Engineering students.
History - To fill an unmet need for courses which present a historic perspective of
engineering and technology, the EEIC supports two courses, Engineering 360.01, History of
Ancient Engineering, and 360.02, History of American Technology. Each course has been
designated as a GE History Studies course and provides a broad chronological overview with
special attention to the interrelationships of change in engineering and technology. Each course
meets the historical thought category learning objectives of general education curriculum
model.
Teamwork and Leadership - Students have the option of two leadership courses; (ENGR
5680) for which instructors are principals in a leadership development firm call Splendid Leaders
of Dayton Ohio and (ENGR 5695) which is offered as a weekend offering by Tau Beta Pi national
organization. Both courses qualify as part of a Leadership minor at OSU.
Social Innovation and Commercialization (SIAC) - In a continuing effort to create
authentic experiences for our students, the College of Engineering (COE) formed a new program
in Autumn 2009 called the Social Innovation and Commercialization (SIAC). Tony Wells, a local
philanthropist interested in creating social enterprises, developed the SIAC concept. This
program provides students with the opportunity to define, design, and commercialize products
for people with disabilities. The intent is to provide a practical learning opportunity for
students, improve the independence and quality of life for the disabled, and help provide
financial sustainability by returning resulting product revenue to our non-profit partners.
Project ideas are formed by our non-profit partners who defined an unmet need for their
clients. Multidisciplinary student teams (engineers, business, design, and occupational therapy)
work with therapists and parents to define a problem closely. Following a rigorous design
process, the students create designs then use prototypes to validate the results with end users.
The key to program success is long-term sustainability. It is the goal to create products and
commercialize them to produce an ongoing shared revenue stream to support future socially
responsible products and projects.
11
App 2 - 12
Service Learning - The humanitarian engineering (HE) service-learning program at the
Ohio State University (OSU) began in 2005 as a collaboration between the student organization
Engineers for Community Service (ECOS) and the College of Engineering. In an effort to increase
awareness of global issues as well hands-on learning experiences for students, several faculty
members created an engineering course that culminated in a week-long service-learning trip to
Montaña de Luz (MdL), an orphanage in Honduras. Students developed projects in areas such as
irrigation and gardening, water quality, computer and infrastructure, tilapia production,
alternative energy, mapping and surveying, general assessment throughout the course and
implemented their projects during the trip. Options expanded In 2011, students went to
technical school in Choluteca to complete projects on a computer lab, an aquaponics system,
and an assessment on model homes and wind generators. Student involvement in these
partnerships has grown since inception through 2012 as shown in the Figure below.
In preparation for the service trips, students participate in a semester-long course, developing
technologies that will benefit the local population in Honduras. The courses raise awareness of
global issues, sustainability and proper documentation. During the course, students interact
with guest speakers from various disciplines. Students also spend time interacting with the
Honduran partners in order to make sure projects are truly collaborative, a keystone for success.
Students are responsible for determining timelines, budgets, materials and project
documentation.
FE Review course - A twenty eight session review of all general engineering topics
covered in the engineering licensing examinations: Fundamentals of Engineering AM
General Session and PM Other Disciplines Session.
Seminars, Workshops, Colloquia - ENGR 4891 Student can design a seminar or workshop
course using this course number. The course offering must be approved by the EEIC. There are
currently two such courses running. Each attracts 20 to 25 students per offering. They are
entitled “Perspectives on Sustainability” and “Promoting Creativity and Innovation”. Each has a
faculty sponsor and an undergraduate coordinator supported by the EEIC.
Global Option in Engineering- The EEIC gave leadership for establishment of the first
Global Option at Ohio State. The goal of the GO ENGR program is for students to enhance their
global competencies and thereby better prepare for the practice of engineering in a global
environment and participation as an active global citizen. Students participating in the GO ENGR
program will, upon completing requirements for graduation, receive a documentation of
completion and designation on the their transcript as Engineering Global Option. Since its
approval in Autumn 2013, an Office of Global Studies within the Undergraduate Studies and
Student Affairs unit has taken over responsibility for the program. More about the program is
included in Appendix 5 of the Self-Study.
Humanitarian Engineering Minor - The EEIC is current engaged in the development of a
Humanitarian Engineering course and minor. The main learning objective of the Humanitarian
Engineering Minor is for engineering students to gain competency in the design and creation of
products and processes that promote human welfare, especially for the economically
disadvantaged. More detail on this program is included in Appendix 6 of the Self-Study.
12
App 2 - 13
Integrated Business and Engineering Honors Program (IBE) - To better serve the rapidly
changing needs of industry and students, OSU College of Engineering and Fisher College of
Business created an honors program in AY2013, combining engineering and business students in
a common curriculum. Students in this honors program work and study as a cohort throughout
their undergraduate experience. Students take a range of business and engineering courses
while maintaining their traditional level of expertise in their major field of study by following
existing curricula leading to the BS degree. They graduate from their respective college with an
“Honors in Integrated Business & Engineering” diploma distinction.
Translating Engineering Research to K-8 (TEK8) - Program represents a collaboration
between the College of Engineering and the College of Education and Human Ecology (EHE) that
was piloted in 2013. The intent of the program is to leverage engineering faculty’s NSF Broader
Impacts funding to encourage and prepare K-8 students who are underserved and
underrepresented for college and careers in engineering by exposing them to the design process
in an experiential way. Elements of the program:
• Undergraduate engineering students take part in an immersive, paid research internship in
an engineering faculty member’s lab during summer.
• Engineering students plus local in-service STEM teachers in degree programs in EHE enroll in
a course (ENGR 4194) in autumn that trains them to translate the societal importance of the
research experience to a local underserved K-8 school (KIPP Academy in Linden)
• TEK8 teams develop, deliver and document a series of age-appropriate mini-design
challenges that use the research as inspiration
Eleven OSU engineering faculty were part of the pilot program, providing 12 paid summer
internships for students. Two middle school teachers were enrolled in the course.
Strategy 2 – Offer courses targeted for student in multiple programs that offer technical content
opportunities for program enhancement.
•
•
•
Action Steps:
Offer at least two experimental courses (xx94’s) each year.
Continued support of Fundamentals Engineering (FE) Review course
Identify potential areas for development of interdisciplinary minors.
Strategy 3 – Determine appropriateness of problem solving through programming courses offered
through the EEIC.
•
•
•
Action Steps:
Meet with current external constituencies to determine level of satisfaction (Done in 08-09)
Meet with other departments to establish appropriateness (Done in 08-09)
Modify course material to reflect the needs of the constituencies (In process of 09-10)
Strategy 4 – Offer advanced Computer Graphics courses to engineering and non-engineering students
•
•
Action Steps:
Meet with current external constituencies to determine level of satisfaction
Market course(s) to possible new external constituencies to attract additional enrollments
13
App 2 - 14
•
•
Modify course material to reflect the needs of the constituencies
Assess relevance of current software and pedagogies and implement relevant changes
Strategy 5 – Offer a range of structured leadership and teamwork development opportunities for all
students within the college.
•
•
Action Steps:
Offer at least two formal leadership/teamwork courses per year.
Encourage student attendance at leadership training events
Strategy 6 – Provide a Social innovation through engineering (SIAC) learning experience to meet the
contemporary interests of young people while preparing them for an industrial career.
Action Steps:
• Focus product development on socially-benefitting products.
• Create environment that encourages students to work directly with end users to define needs.
• Provide a learning experience that includes all aspects of the product commercialization cycle.
• Practice concurrent engineering principles by combining the inputs of marketing, engineering,
and manufacturing throughout the project.
Strategy 7 – Expand the number of opportunities for students to participate in service learning and
international study.
•
•
Action Steps:
Develop at least two service and/or international related multidisciplinary design projects per
year.
Collaborate fully with Dean’s Study group on international experience for undergraduate
students.
Strategy 8 – Formulate and approach to globalizing the engineering curriculum at Ohio State
Action Steps:
• Encourage the Core Curriculum and College Services Committee to develop approaches to
globalizing the curriculum. (Accomplished - GO ENGR established Au 13)
Key Metrics
1. Enrollment in classes
2. Number of new regular classes created to serve multi-program opportunities
3. Engineering Minors developed and enrollment
Record of Performance against Key Metrics
Metric
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
Proj’d
Enrollment
Adv. Graphics
410/4410.01,.02
--
56
54
63
69
71
14
App 2 - 15
History
360.01,.02/2361,
2362
Team & Lead
680,695/5680,5695
Service Learn
692/4692.01
FE Rev 510/4510
Other and New
courses 694/XX94;
489/4891
Active SIAC Teams
--
118
140
127
136
130
680 -1 sec
695 -103
13,
13 Study
Ab.
680 –50
695 - 87
14,
14 Study Ab.
680 –27
695 -42
19
20 Study
Ab.
105
1 sec/ 27
students
5680 –25
5695 -37
30
Study Ab.
5680 –25
5695 -75
30
Study Ab.
74
6 sec/97
students
680 –46
695 -116
12,
18, Study
Ab.
89
2 sec/ 36
students
90
3 sec/ 61
students
93
4 sec/ 79
students
3 teams/15
students
2 teams/12
students
1 team/6
students
1 team/6
students
none
5 sec/87
students
NA
2) Non-Engineering
Performance Goal: Developing and offering courses to support the general education needs of
students across the University in areas for which Engineering is uniquely qualified. The EEIC
strengthens and broadens the College of Engineering’s contribution to the technological literacy of
non-engineering students through specialized courses (e.g. graphics) and general education courses
and minors.
Engineering Sciences and Technological Studies Minors
University review of General Education at Ohio State brought forth the need for technological literacy as
an insight area within general education for all students of the University. However, at that time no
satisfactory solutions to address this insight area had been established. In December of 2006, within the
College of Engineering the Core Curriculum and College Services Committee and College Committee on
Academic Affairs agreed to establish a joint task force to consider what the College of Engineering could
offer for non-engineering students in terms of one or more minors, with particular focus on the area of
technological literacy. It recommended the development of two minors. The recommendations of the
report were endorsed by both committees. Two minors were established: 1) Engineering Sciences and
2) Technological Studies. More detail on the minors is available in Appendix 4. Seventeen students have
completed the Engineering Sciences minor (as of 06/13). Initial interest in the Technological Studies
Minor core courses was not large enough to justify offering of the courses. Due to time and fiscal
constraints, during the semester conversion process, it was decided to suspend that minor for
reconsideration at some future date.
Graphics for Non-Engineers
A course in graphics for non-engineers is offered as a service course. The primary audience is students
in the Construction Systems Management Program in the Department of Food, Agricultural and
Biological Engineering.
15
App 2 - 16
Strategy 1 – Offer a minor attractive to students likely to be working professionally with engineers (i.e.
business and science students).
•
•
•
Action Steps:
Gain approval of pending minor proposals by Council on Academic Affairs and College of Arts
and Sciences in AY08-09. (Completed Spring 09).
Have ten students completed the minor in the AY11-12.
Have at least ten non-engineering students per year in a collaborative capstone course.
Strategy 2 – Offer a minor serving to general audience seeking technological literacy with the goal of
being a more technologically literate citizen.
•
•
•
Action Steps:
Gain approval of pending minor proposal by Council on Academic Affairs and College of Arts and
Sciences in AY08-09 (Completed Spring 2009)
Enroll first students in new courses AY09-10 (Not accomplished)
Further action on this strategy will be reevaluated after conversion to semesters is complete
(2013)
Strategy 3 – Offer introductory Graphics Presentation courses using appropriate software and current
pedagogies to non-engineering students
•
•
•
•
Action Steps:
Meet with current external constituencies to determine level of satisfaction
Market course(s) to possible new external constituencies to attract additional enrollments
Modify course material to reflect the needs of the constituencies
Assess relevance of current software taught and implement different software if relevant
Key Metrics
1. Completion of the Engineering Sciences Minor
2. Enrollment in 121/1121
Performance Against Key Metrics
Metric
1. Completion
of Eng Sci
Minor
2. Enrollment
in 121/1121
2008-09
NA
2009-10
2010-1
2011-12
2012-13
1
4
5
7
146
143
98
53
2013-14
Proj’d
10
65
3) Pre-College
Summer Programs
The Engineering Summer Academy is a three-week program consisting of 72 hours of classroom and
laboratory instruction (Monday through Saturday). Students are expected to devote their study hours to
16
App 2 - 17
the mental discipline of a concentrated academic experience. The academic experience includes
problem solving and introduction to computer systems, including CAD, spreadsheets, and editors. The
course, Engineering 1186.02, includes methods of problem solving, algorithmic development, and
introduction to three-dimensional orthographic and pictorial visualization and presentation. To be
selected for this program, students must have completed their junior year in high school. Additionally, it
is recommended that students rank in the top 10 percent of their high school classes and show strength
in mathematics as demonstrated by the PSAT.
The Engineering Summer Experience provides the student a one-week opportunity to be both
introduced to the fundamentals of engineering and immersed in a robotics experience that will serve as
an exciting, popular vehicle for the delivery of those fundamentals. Depending on availalble external
funding 1 to 3 36-student class are run each summer. While the focus is on robotics, the course
introduces the student to the various engineering disciplines and teaches him or her some engineering
fundamentals. Approximately 60% of the available time is spent with the students in 2- or 3-person
teams in the hands-on activities of designing, building, programming, and testing small autonomous
robots made from the LEGO™ Mindstorms NXT System kits. The other portion of the time is spent on
learning engineering fundamentals, touring on-campus University laboratories, doing robotics research,
and developing and practicing engineering skills. An introduction to solid modeling and working with the
Autodesk™ Inventor computer-aided design application is included. An interactive bridge-building
computer application is also introduced.
Columbus Metro High School offerings (ENGR1187, 1221)
The Columbus METRO Learning Center Program is a collaboration between the METRO high school, part
of Columbus Public Schools, and Dublin city schools (class held at Dublin Coffman High School). The
students participate in a semester long course where they learn the fundamentals of problem solving
and programming using MATLAB. The Dublin and Metro students are registered Ohio State Students
and receive credit for two courses: ENG 1187 (Fundamentals of Engineering Programming) and ENG
1221 (Computer Programming in MATLAB for Engineers and Scientists). The program runs in the
Autumn semester and has been offered since Autumn 2011. The grade levels of the students have
ranged from seniors all the way down to exceptionally qualified sophomores. Approximately 20
students per year have been enrolled with the enrollment numbers increasing each time offered (Au 13
- 24 registered students).
Walnut Hills and St Joseph H.S. Fundamentals of Engineering Programs
In 2001-02, OSU’s First-Year Engineering Program was implemented at Walnut Hills High School (known
as WHHS, and part of the Cincinnati Public School System), at the request of the school administration,
in order to provide an advanced placement option for students wanting to pursue a two-semester
course of study in science, engineering, and technology. OSU’s College of Engineering provided the
curriculum and equipment, as well as training for WHHS faculty to teach the material. The program is
now in its 13th year, has approximately 60 students enrolled per year, and has maintained its advanced
placement status.
In the Autumn of 2003, OSU Engineering and St. John’s Jesuit High School (Toledo) partnered to
implement the OSU Fundamentals of Engineering course at the high school, a one-year class for seniors
who may be interested in an engineering career. The benefits of the OSU Fundamentals of Engineering
17
App 2 - 18
course fit the mission of both schools. It helps OSU attract bright students, helps their retention rates in
the engineering program once enrolled, and better prepares incoming freshmen for the challenging
courses ahead. The engineering class also fits well with SJJ’s career exploration model courses, which
include Law and Biomedical Frontier courses. High achieving students not only learn a great deal about
the subject but also they may earn college credit toward a degree in The Ohio State University’s College
of Engineering. Approximately forty students enroll in the course each year—a total of over 300
students have taken the course thus far.
For both programs, students who complete the course of study and who choose to attend OSU in
Engineering can receive college credit based on a submitted portfolio of work.
Project Lead the Way(PLTW) (See http://pltwohio.org/ for more information)
Ohio State University support PLTW and rewards high school students by offering credit for ENGR 1182
(second course in two-course sequence) who enroll at Ohio State having completed four years of PLTW
with satisfactory test and course scores.
Engineering Boy Scout Explorer Program
EEIC personnel supports two Engineering Boy Scout Explorer Programs. One is focused on exploring
computer based problem solving and introduction to real-world programming. The second program
exposes scouts to a variety of engineering disciplines.
4. Graduate Program and Research
Performance Goal: Build strength in both scholarly work around teaching and more fundamental
research in engineering education. Offer PhD level opportunities in the domain of engineering
education.
Strategies:
Strategy 1 – Collaborate with College of Education and Human Ecology for Engineering Education Option
within STEM PhD program.
STEM/Engineering Education PhD - In 2010, the College of Education and Human Ecology, with
collaboration from the College of Engineering, established an Engineering Education Option within the
exist STEM PhD program in Education. Six faculty of the College of Engineering were granted courtesy
appointments and graduate faculty status in Education. The first graduate of the program is anticipated
in 2014.
Strategy 2 – Build strength in SoTL within EEIC and by collaboration with other units in the College and
across the University with interest in Engineering Education.
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning The EEIC is committed to building strength in both
scholarly work around teaching and more fundamental research in engineering education. Focus is
currently primarily on first-year engineering and multi-disciplinary capstone design related topics. The
EEIC has recently established a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) Committee to help
18
App 2 - 19
coordinate and expand our productivity in this area. One metric of increased engagement is the number
of ASEE national meeting paper presentations. This is increasing over time. A recent highlight was our
hosting of the North Central Regional meeting of ASEE (Spring 2013). The meeting had record student
attendance and number of paper presentations.
Key Metrics:
1. Number of proposals submitted/funded regarding scholarship of teaching and learning
2. Number of paper presentations at ASEE national meeting
3. Number of Active PhD students
Performance Against Key Metrics
Metric
1. Proposal
2. ASEE Natl.
Meeting Papers
3. Active PhD
Students
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2
7
9
6
12
18
--
--
3
3
3
3
5. Professional Development and Support
The EEIC supports the professional development of students through enhanced experiences,
both curricular and co-curricular, that help students develop leadership, global awareness and
other professional skills. The EEIC promotes and supports the on-going professional
development of faculty, graduate students, and staff in the domain of teaching and learning.
Further, classroom and lab spaces are continually evaluated and renovated as necessary to
support teaching and learning physical environments.
Students
The College of Engineering has a long history of supporting student organizations; student
project teams; cooperative education and internships; and other curricular and co-curricular
activities. These activities provide opportunities for students to develop their professional skills
and to distinguish themselves. Useful roles of the EEIC in this context are: 1) supply advising
support the ASEE Student Chapter at Ohio State, 2) train and employ undergraduate students
teaching assistants for the 1st-year program, and 3) support the Student Instructional
Leadership Team (SILT).
Faculty, Graduate Student, and Staff Professional Development and Support
Quality of the faculty, graduate students and staff, and of their performance as scholars and
educators, is at the core of University excellence. The EEIC enhances the teaching and learning
19
App 2 - 20
environment within the college by encouraging and supporting professional development,
renovation of classroom spaces, and use of appropriate technologies.
Performance Goal 1: Offer outstanding professional development and continuing education activities
for faculty, graduate students and staff which supports the application of scholarship of teaching and
learning.
Strategies:
Strategy 1 – Develop focused faculty professional development
Action Steps:
• Support book study
• Organize multi-disciplinary seminars around engineering education topics
• Provide financial support for individualized professional development
Strategy 2 – Give special attention to the development of future faculty in the College.
Action Steps:
• Continue offering and promote the course “College Teaching in Engineering.”
• Continue support of SILT Team for graduate teaching associate support and
development
• Continue encouraging and facilitating graduate associate involvement in professional
societies and conferences
Performance Goal 2: Improve teaching and learning within the college by encouraging appropriate
uses of technology.
To financially support some of the technological enhancements, a learning technology fee is assessed of
all engineering students. The college provides additional funding for technical support, staffing, and
infrastructure.
Strategies:
Strategy 1 – Investigate emerging technologies
•
•
•
Action Steps:
Monitor and evaluate the evolving landscape
Attend and participate in workshops, seminars, and conferences
Disseminate pertinent information
Strategy 2 – Provide technological resources including: hard and soft tools, spaces, and pedagogy
•
•
•
Action steps:
Provide targeted funding for technology resources and pedagogical improvement, including as
possible, special one-time grants, and grants provided on a yearly basis
Coordinate academic software licensing across the College
Distribute information about, and provide training/orientation in select technologies
20
App 2 - 21
Strategy 3 – Monitor technology uses and funding, and assess results
Action steps:
• Coordinate research and assessment regarding technology uses within select faculty and
student groupings
• Monitor the uses of technology and related funding
• Report results internally and externally as appropriate
Key Metrics:
1. Number of faculty/staff development events sponsored by EEIC and number of participants.
2. Number of students enrolled in FAB 810 and the Graduate Interdisciplinary Specialization in
College and University Teaching
3. Local, national, global: workshops, conference attendances, presentations, publications,
recognitions, and hosted activities.
Technology Enhanced and Enabled Instruction:
1. Number of grants awarded.
2. Improved instructional spaces.
3. Faculty and student satisfaction level.
Performance Against Key Metrics
Metric
2008-09
1.
Events/Participation
2. FABE 810/7220
Enrollment
3. Improved
Instructional Space
new audio
in FEP
4. New Grants
8/$175,510
5. Faculty & Student
Satisfaction Survey
(Neutral, satisfied,
very satisfied with
computing
technologies)
94% of PreMajors and
90% of
Majors
29
2009-10
2010-11
1 NCIIA
Business
Plan
Workshop
36
2011-12
2012-13
Regional
ASEE
Meeting
Hosted
17
21
26
7/$99,900
Smith Lab
spaces for
FEP, MD
Capstone
8/$114,779
$430K
renov. of
FEP
spaces
Funding
Realloc
$150K
renov.
New 32seat room
NA
91% of PreMajors and
89% of
Majors
93% of PreMajors and
91% of
Majors
96% of
PreMajors
and 90%
of Majors
NA
terms
change to
semesters
21
2013-14
Proj’d
Natl. Design
Conference
to be hosted
25
Proposal for
another 36seat room
CoE
eLearning
Proposal
New survey
service
(converting
survey
instruments)
App 2 - 22
22
App 3 - 1
Appendix 3. PhD Program in Engineering Education
Program of Study
The STEM Education group offers individually
tailored programs of study in science education,
mathematics education, technology education and
engineering education. Though the content
domains of science, mathematics, technology, and
engineering education are distinctly different, they
are strongly interrelated. There is a
complementarity among these specialties and the
knowledge domains that undergird them that
enables the development of doctoral strands that
maintain the distinctions of the specialty areas
while benefiting from the synergistic effects of an
integrated model. While honoring both the
distinctions and the complementarity of the STEM
education domains, the integrated Ph.D. programs
also attempt to serve the diverse needs of students
having a broad spectrum of professional
aspirations.
The program has two phases. In the coursework
phase students learn core and specialty knowledge
and skills and have a research apprenticeship. The
candidacy exam enables students to show they
have mastered the needed knowledge and skills
needed to start their dissertation research. In the
dissertation phase doctoral candidates plan and
propose their research. After their research
proposal has been approved they conduct the
research, write and defend their dissertation.
Throughout the program they are guided by their
advisor and an advisory committee that they
have selected.
Admissions
Information on applying is at http://ehe.osu.edu/
downloads/teaching-and-learning/advising/
application-checklist-eds-phd.pdf. The application
form is online and you will need transcripts
documenting your previous academic work, GRE
scores, TOEFL if required, a statement of intent, a
resume, an academic writing sample, and three
letters of recommendation.
Selected Admission Requirements
Minimum 3.0 overall GPA (on a 4.0 scale) on all
previous undergraduate coursework and a
minimum 3.0 overall GPA on all previous graduate
coursework (may not be combined)
Official scores from the General Test of the
Graduate Record Exam (GRE) taken within five
years of application.
Financial Assistance
Graduate Assistantships – Teaching and research
assistantships are available to doctoral students in
both colleges.
Scholarships – For information regarding College
of Education & Human Ecology scholarships, visit
the Web at
http://ehe.osu.edu/academics/scholarships/.
University Fellowships – Information regarding
University Fellowships is available online at
http://www.gradsch.ohio-state.edu/.
Additional Financial Assistance – For information
regarding additional financial assistance for
minority students visit the Office of Equity and
Diversity web site at http://ehe.osu.edu/diversity/.
For additional general information visit the Office
of Financial Aid, web site at http://sfa.osu.edu.
STEM EDUCATION
1945 N. HIGH ST., RM. 327
COLUMBUS, OH 43210-1172
614-292-7471
D OCTORAL P ROGRAM IN
E NGINEERING
E DUCATION
The Engineering Education program in the
STEM Area of Study at The Ohio State
University unites two programs with traditions of
excellence. The Engineering Education faculty in
the STEM Area of Study are from both the
School of Teaching and Learning and the College
of Engineering. STEM education faculty and
students collaborate with scientists, engineers,
and mathematicians on and off campus.
We are seeking doctoral students who want to
improve engineering and technology education
and promote increased technological literacy.
Doctoral studies in our engineering education
program provide a solid core of research and
curriculum skills. Our program can be tailored to
meet your goals.
Whatever focus you choose, our program
emphasizes strong preparation in the relevant
disciplines of technology and engineering
education; foundational studies in cognition,
learning, and educational contexts; and scholarly
experiences in designing, conducting, and
reporting relevant research. Our students come
from a wide range of institutions around
the world.
App 3 - 2
!
!
STEM Education
and Content
[39 Semester Hours/
5 Core Courses
& 8 Elective Courses]
(EDUTL 7725 is required
for science education specialists)
Elective Cognate
[9 Semester Hours/ 3 Elective
Courses]
Research
[24 Semester Hours]
Quantitative & Qualitative Methods [12 hrs]
Apprenticeship [6 hrs] – Dissertation [6 hrs]
Learning, Teaching, and Social Context
[8 Semester Hours/2 T&L Courses, 8003, 8015]
Graduates Pursue Positions as
• engineering educators and researchers,
broadly or in content area specialties.
• professional development specialists or
coordinators in industry, schools, or agencies.
• institutional or government agency
leaders and policymakers.
• leaders within informal learning centers,
such as science centers, zoos, and natural
history museums.
Excellence * Impact *
Innovation
College of Engineering
Engineering Education
Innovation Center
244 Hitchcock Hall
Paul E. Post, College of Education and Human
Ecology – Post.1@osu.edu, 614-292-7471
Robert J. Gustafson, College of Engineering –
Gustafson.4@osu.edu, 614-292-0573
Contacts
Information about faculty can be found at
http://ehe.osu.edu/edtl/directory/faculty.php
Michael Battista, Donna Berlin,
Patricia Brosnan, Lucia Flevares,
Azita Manouchehri
Mathematics Education
Lin Ding, David Haury, Karen Irving, Hui Jin,
Kathy Trundle, Arthur White
Science Education
College of Engineering – Joanne E. DeGroat,
Steven I. Gordon, Robert J. Gustafson,
Gönül Kaletunç, Blaine W. Lilly • College of
Education and Human Ecology – Paul E. Post
Technology & Engineering Education
Faculty
Engineering Education
Program Model
The STEM Education Ph.D. program model is
best represented by a triangle having a broad
base, with increasing discretion for advisory
committees as students proceed upward to their
own chosen, narrow specializations. The
foundational base of the program provides
grounding in cognitive development, learning,
teaching, and the social contexts within which
they occur. To this foundation are added
research techniques and experiences that
prepare students to pursue their own
investigations in STEM education.
The doctoral programs require a minimum of 80
semester hours of graduate credit beyond a
baccalaureate degree or 50 semester hours
beyond a master’s degree. As students progress
through the program, they have options for
strengthening the depth and breadth of their
STEM specialties, and for developing their
STEM Education areas of specialization.
Finally, students develop elective cognates in
areas that mesh with their particular Ph.D.
pathways and tailors their studies to their
particular professional aspirations.
College of
Engineering
The Ohio State
University
Graduate School
College of
Education and
Human Ecology
Department of
Teaching and
Learning
STEM
Education Area
of Study
App 4 - 1
Appendix 4. Engineering Science and Technological Studies Minors
University review of General Education at Ohio State brought forth the need for technological literacy as
an insight area within general education for all students of the University. However, no satisfactory
solutions to address this insight area had been established. In December of 2006, within the College of
Engineering the Core Curriculum and College Services Committee and College Committee on Academic
Affairs agreed to establish a joint task force to consider what the College of Engineering could offer for
non-engineering students in terms of one or more minors, with particular focus on the area of
technological literacy. It recommended the development of two minors. The recommendations of the
report were endorsed by both committees. The minors were approved by Council on Academic Affairs
in Spring of 2009. The following table outlines the key audiences and content for two minors.
Table 1. Construct for Engineering Science and Technological Studies Minors
Key
Audience
Learning Goals - At the
completion of the
minor, students will be
able to:
Engineering Sciences Minor
Students who have an interest in working
with technology experts/engineers and in
technology based industry/environments.
Examples: Business, Economics, Science,
and Math majors
Assumptions: Competence in mathematics
through beginning concepts of calculus
1 - demonstrate a basic understanding of
the engineering design process
2 – perform simple analysis and
estimation using engineering methodology
3 – understand the capabilities and
limitations of basic manufacturing
processes and engineered systems
4 – make informed decisions about the
desirability of engineering activities by
weighing the benefits of those activities
against the risks.
5 – work effectively as a member of a team
including technological experts.
Technological Studies Minor
Students who have interest in
understanding technology at a level that
will help make them be more informed
citizens and perhaps more attractive to
employers.
Examples: Humanities and
Arts majors
Assumption: No particular prerequisites
1 - appreciate the importance of methods
and underlying assumptions used in costbenefit analysis and risk-benefit analysis by
engineers.
2 - achieve a survey-level understanding of
why particular materials and processes are
used to produce simple engineering
devices and systems
3 - better understand the role of
technology (engineering) in society and the
interactions of technology (engineering)
with their major field
4 – understand how to access and interpret
reliable information to make informed
decisions regarded technological issues
Curriculum structure for the minors can be found at
http://engineering.osu.edu/students/undergraduate-students/minors
Seventeen persons have completed the Engineering Sciences Minor (through Su13) from 12 different
majors.
Year Grads
2010
1
Major
AGBUSAE
Number
2
App 4 - 2
2011
2012
2013
4
5
7
AGMSYS
CHEM
ECON
ENGLISH
EVOLECO
INTSTD
LOGMGMT
MARKET
PSYCH
SPHHRNG
TURFSCI
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
Initial interest in the Technological Studies Minor core courses was not large enough to justify offering of
the courses. Due to time and fiscal constraints, during the semester conversion process, it was decided
to suspend this minor for reconsideration at some future date.
App 4 - 3
Engineering Sciences Minor
Advising Sheet (Semesters)
The Ohio State University
College of Engineering
Approved by the Colleges of the Arts and Sciences
Revised January 2012, February 17, 2012, 16 April 2012
College of Engineering
Engineering Education Innovation Center (EEIC)
http://engineering.osu.edu/eeic/index.php
244 Hitchcock Hall; 2070 Neil Ave
Columbus, OH 43210-1278; 614-247-8953
Advisor: Robert J. Gustafson
This minor is designed for non-engineering students with an interest in learning more about technology’s
important role in today’s society; and who may be working with engineers and technology based
opportunities in the future. Specific learning goals include:
• Develop a basic understanding of the engineering design process
• Understand the capabilities and limitations of technologies and engineered systems
• Be able to make informed decisions about engineering activities and technologies
• Be able to work effectively as a member of a team including technology experts
The program advisor will work with you on selection of a suitable minor program to meet your specific
career objectives. Upon completion of the minor, the advisor will approve and sign the Minor Program
Form. You may then file the Minor Program Form with your college or school to receive a minor in
Engineering Sciences.
Key Curriculum Components
• Core - Introduction to Engineering (4-8 credits)
• Complementary Engineering Science (2 credit minimum)
• Computational Technology Competence (2credits minimum)
• Technology and Society (3 credits)
• Capstone interdisciplinary teamwork experience (3-6 credits)
• Total Credits (14 credit minimum)
Note for students in the minor:
You will be expected to complete a first calculus course (e.g., Math 1131 or 1151). This course will fulfill
the math requirement of all courses for the minor. Other prerequisites will depend on courses selected.
Core of the Engineering Sciences Minor is the Introduction to Engineering course sequence:
ENGINEER 1181.01 or .02 and ENGINEER 1182.01 or .02 or .03 (Honors substitute permitted; 1281.01 or
.02 or .03H and 1282.01 or .02 or .03H): 4-8 hours.
ENGINEER 1181.xx - Fundamentals of Engineering 1
Engineering problem solving utilizing computational tools such as Excel and Matlab; hands-on
experimentation; ethics; modeling; teamwork; written, oral and visual communications.
App 4 - 4
ENGINEER 1182.xx - Fundamentals of Engineering2
3-D visualization and sketching; introduction to CAD; engineering design-build; teamwork; written, oral
and visual communications; and project management.
Engineering Science Options: 2 Credit Hours Minimum
AEROENG 2200, CIVILENG 2050, FABENG 2110, 3810, DESIGN 3105, ISE 2000, 2010, 2400,
2500,MATSCEN 2010, Other Engineering courses by permission of the Minor Coordinator
Computation Technologies Options: 2 Credit Hours Minimum
CSE 1111,1112,1113, 1211, 1221, 1222 or 1223, or 2221, ENGINEER 1221,12222 1281.01, 1281.02, or
1281.03
Technology and Society Options: 3 Credit Hours
Comparative Studies 2340, 2367.04, ENGINEER 2360.01, 2360.02, 2367, History 2701, Physics 2367, SOC
3302
Capstone Experience: 3-6 Credit Hours
ENGINEER 5081- Engineering Capstone Collaboration
Students contract to collaborate with an engineering capstone design team for at least one semester
and contribute their disciplinary expertise.
General Guidelines
Required for graduation No
Credit hours required A minimum of 14
Filing the Minor Program form A Minor Program form must be filled out no later than the time the
application for graduation is submitted to a college/school counselor. It will require the signature of the
student and the student’s major program advisor.
Changing the minor Once the minor has been filed, any changes must be approved by the Chair of the
Minor Oversight Committee. This form will be available on the CoE website
Grades required No grade below a C- will be permitted in courses comprising the minor.
A minimum 2.00 cumulative point-hour ratio is required for the minor.
Course work graded Pass/Non-pass cannot count on the minor.
Transfer credit hours allowed No more than 6 hours of transfer credit may be applied to the minor.
Overlap with the GEC Permitted.
Overlap Policy The College of Engineering places no restrictions on the use of a course both in a minor
and major program. However, students should consult their major program for any constraints that
may be applied there.
Exclusions to minor Not open to Engineering majors.
Additional Guidelines for ASC Students
Overlap between minors Each minor completed must contain 12 unique hours.
Overlap with the major Not allowed and the minor must be in a different subject than the major
App 5 - 1
Appendix 5. Proposal for a Global Option in Engineering (GO ENGR)
Background and Rationale
In the Autumn of 2011, a study group was established by the Core Curriculum and College Services
Committee (Core) to address the issue of what improvements could be made in the undergraduate
engineering curriculum to better prepare students for the practice of engineering in a global
environment. One of the recommendations of the study group (full report at
http://eeic.osu.edu/about/globalization) was to develop a Global Option in Engineering for students. A
framework for this option was developed by the Office of International Affairs (OIA) and approved by
Council of Deans and the Council on Academic Affairs. A follow up task force was established to develop
a proposal for the Core Committee consideration. This task force consisted of the following persons:
Amanda Crall, Advisor, Undeclared Engineering Students
Shelley Diewald, UG Student, Mechanical Engineering
Richard Freuler, Professor of Practice, EEIC
Robert Gustafson (Chair), Director EEIC
Ed McCaul, Assistant Dean, Undergraduate Education and Student Services
Neelam Soundarajan, Associate Professor, Computer Science and Engineering
Zachary Stilp, UG Student, Civil Engineering
Mary Ross, Advisor, Civil, Environmental and Geodetic Engineering
ExOfficio
Roberto Rojas, Associate Dean, Graduate and Professional Programs
David Tomasko, Associate Dean, Undergraduate Education and Student Services
The current proposal was developed based on the OIA description of the Global Option (Appendix 1) and
the following eight global competencies for engineers defined by the earlier study group:
1. Understanding of global cultural diversities and their impact on engineering decisions.
2. Ability to deal with ethical issues arising from cultural or national differences.
3. Proficiency in a second language.
4. Ability to communicate across cultural and linguistic boundaries.
5. Proficiency in working in an ethnically and culturally diverse team.
6. Understanding of the connectedness of the world and the workings of the global
economy.
7. Understanding of the international aspects of engineering topics such as supply chain
management, intellectual property, liability and risk, market and product design
considerations, and business practices.
8. Familiarity with the history, government, and economic system of several target countries.
Note that these eight competencies incorporate the five skills identifies in the OIA document.
Goal
The goal of the GO ENGR program is for students to enhance their global competencies and thereby
better prepare for the practice of engineering in a global environment and participation as an active
global citizen. Students are to enhance their global competencies by participation in one or more
meaningful international experiences. GO ENGR will include curricula selections with global perspective
elements as part of their engineering degree program. GO ENGR is designed such that it can be
completed without adding time to graduation. Students participating in the GO ENGR program will,
App 5 - 2
upon completing requirements for graduation, receive a documentation of completion and designation
on the their transcript as Engineering Global Option.
Framework and Components for Engineering
Students participating in the GO ENGR program will plan an undergraduate curriculum with elements
related to international themes and global dimensions as described in the following components.
Courses, international experiences, language, and reflection in the components constitute a special
engagement well beyond the standard requirements for graduation.
Component
A. Introductory Exposure
B. International
C. Cultural and Language
D. Design with international
focus
Description
Early Education Abroad experience, e.g. a Global May
Term course, either in or outside engineering, preferably
as a freshman/sophomore.
Options:
1. Courses involving international elements that apply
engineering or technical knowledge, e.g. research or
service learning
Or 2. Coop/Internship Outside the U.S. (Registration in
ENGR 4191 required).
Options:
1. Advanced proficiency in a language, other than
English, at level 2 ACTFL.
Or 2. Completion of a world language, other than
English, minor.
Or 3. Advanced (3000 or above) Education Abroad in
General Education and/or Engineering, may include one
Global Studies Approved General Education course.
Senior level (4000 or above) courses with strong
international focus, approved by the major, i.e. capstone
design.
Minimum
Expected
Credits
3
3
0
6 or more
6
Additional program requirements include:
1. Pre and Post evaluation of global competencies on a standardized assessment (pre-evaluation
when joining the GO ENGR program; post-evaluation before graduation) in collaboration with
the Office of International Affairs.
2. Maintaining a comprehensive e-portfolio or record of activities addressing the A through D
components above and reflecting on global competencies attainment.
3. All graded components must be at C or better level and satisfactory completion of any S/U
courses.
4. Completion of all degree requirements for a College of Engineering baccalaureate program.
5. Students are expected to remain in good academic standing in the College to continue and to
receive documentation of completion and transcription designation.
App 5 - 3
Students in any engineering major are encouraged to declare intent to participate in the GO ENGR
program as soon as possible. Students enrolling in the program may abandon the program without
penalty.
Procedure and Oversight
The GO ENGR will be managed by the Global Studies Office within the Undergraduate Education and
Student Services area of the College of Engineering. This office will be responsible to:
• Assure students of the college are aware of the program
• Establish a system for communicating program goals and requirements to students and to help
management of student participation
• In cooperation with academic advisors in the College, advise students regarding the program
• In cooperation with Departments, develop/identify discipline specific international focused
courses and experiences (internships, service learning, long-term study abroad programs) which
support the program
• Maintain records of student participation in the program
• Continually seek to improve the program with program approvals for change being processed
through the Core Curriculum and College Services Committee
• Establish and maintain an assessment plan for the program including longitudinal tracking of
participants and global competencies before and after scores.
• Collaborate with the Office of International Affairs and other GO Options with the University
• Seek funding to support student and faculty participation
• Report at least annually on the program to the Core Curriculum and College Services
Committee.
Metrics and Milestones
• Program approval will require the same approval and monitoring of curriculum as all similar
programs; approval by Core Curriculum and College Services Committee, College Committee on
Academic Affairs, and Council on Academic Affairs; oversight by Core Curriculum and College
Services Committee. Goal for initial approval is December 2013.
• Enroll students in the program beginning Autumn 2014.
• Up to 5% of UG engineering students participating in the program by 2020.
App 6 - 1
Appendix 6. Humanitarian Engineering Minor
9/22/2013
During the Academic year 2013-14, the EEIC is supporting the proposal of a minor and a core course in
the area of Humanitarian Engineering. Following is a copy of the proposal in its current form.
Background and Content: Humanitarian engineering is the design and creation of products or processes
that promote human welfare, especially for the economically disadvantaged or underserved. It is not a
discipline of engineering (e.g., electrical, civil, or mechanical engineering), but an application area for all
engineering disciplines where engineering principles and methods are used to design solutions to
improve the lives of the poor and marginalized, both domestically and internationally.
Examples of humanitarian technologies for developing communities include affordable:
• Technologies for clean water and sanitation,
• Non-polluting lighting, heating, and cooking methods,
• Off-grid electricity generation (e.g., solar or bicycle),
• Agricultural technologies and methods (e.g., aquaponics or irrigation),
• Healthcare technologies, and
• Shelters.
Examples of humanitarianism in the engineering enterprise include:
•
Engineer’s involvement in creating profit-generating technological products and processes for
the poor (related to the debate over “aid vs. trade”) while respecting social justice (e.g., via local
entrepreneurship/business development),
• Engineer’s involvement in a company’s technology transfer to the developing world, including
best practices for safety, health impacts, and effectiveness;
• Engineer’s involvement in the design and operation of international manufacturing sites (e.g.,
“sweatshops”) in ways that respect social justice (e.g., safety, environmental impact, living
wage, worker’s rights, and unions); and
• Engineer’s involvement in development and maintenance of socially responsible technology
supply-chains.
The main learning objective of the Humanitarian Engineering Minor is for engineering students to gain
competency in the design and creation of products and processes that promote human welfare,
especially for the economically disadvantaged. The key topics to be studied in the Humanitarian
Engineering Minor include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Social justice, engineering ethics, and professionalism standards as rationale, goals, methods,
and constraints for humanitarianism;
Poverty and international development status, goals, and role of technology;
Collaborative design and community input to technology design process;
Appropriate technology and extreme design constraints;
Sustainability and environment, especially in low resource environments;
Cultural impact on engineering business, social justice, engineering ethics, and technology;
Design implementation and iteration and why projects fail/succeed;
Business, engineering, and development;
App 6 - 2
Student Interest: Student interest in humanitarian engineering will primarily come from four sources:
1. There has been significant student involvement in OSU student organizations such as Engineers
for Community Service (ECOS) since 2004, with both local and international projects. More
recently, the Engineers Without Borders (EWB), Engineers for a Sustainable World (ESW) and
Solar Education and Outreach (SOLAREO) student organizations have been formed and have
been actively pursuing projects. All these groups, and others (e.g., in architecture), have
significant numbers of student members, and very active involvement in projects (e.g., there
were three College of Engineering humanitarian engineering project trips in 2012-2013 to
Honduras);
2. There is significant student interest and involvement (in steady state about 140 students per
year), in the Humanitarian Engineering Scholars Program and these students will likely be
interested in the Humanitarian Engineering Minor;
3. There is the “Global Option in Engineering” (GO ENGR) which encourages participation in
international experiences/study abroad with a strong engineering focus and enrollment in
courses with a global dimension. Courses (e.g., the Humanitarian Engineering course) and
projects in humanitarian engineering (viewed as study abroad) will help satisfy the requirements
of this option; and
4. OSU Second-Year Transformational Experience Program (STEP) includes a strong emphasis on
service-learning, community service, and study abroad. Students from this program will also be
prime candidates for the Humanitarian Engineering Minor.
5. Students leaving engineering for another major who may still want to develop foundational
knowledge and capacity in humanitarian engineering are likely candidates for the minor.
In summary, these sources of students will ensure significant interest in the Humanitarian Engineering
Minor for years to come.
Enhancing Diversity: Research has shown that women pick their career field based on how much they
think that they will be able to impact humans and society. Anecdotal evidence with the above OSU
engineering student organizations has shown that women participate at higher rates than men do in our
humanitarian activities even though there are fewer women than men enrolled in the College of
Engineering. Women are also disproportionately represented on engineering service learning trips.
Over the history (2005-2013) there have been 141 participants, of which 71 (or 50.4%) have been
female. Hence, prospective women engineering students are likely to find the availability of a
Humanitarian Engineering Minor appealing, and it is likely that they will participate in the minor at
relatively high rates. Some researchers/practitioners in humanitarian engineering feel that a
Humanitarian Engineering Minor may help recruit and retain minorities in engineering, but research has
not yet shown this to be the case.
ABET Requirements: A Humanitarian Engineering courses are consistent with and will contribute to the
attainment of the expected ABET Student Outcomes. It does this in a natural way for example design
constraints of cultural, political, economic, global/societal, and contemporary issues arise in concrete
ways when trying to engineer products and processes for developing communities.
Requirements for the Minor: The Humanitarian Engineering Minor is composed of three parts:
1. Humanitarian Engineering Core course(s),
2. Course(s) that provide an understanding of human welfare, especially for the economically
disadvantaged , and
3. A local or international service or design project with focus on humanitarian engineering.
App 6 - 3
Completion of the Introduction to Engineering sequence is established as a prerequisite to assure
students have the design training and fundamental engineering skills for success in the minor.
Requirements for completion of the minor are summarized in the following table.
Humanitarian Engineering Minor: Curricular Requirements
Prerequisites for Minor: ENGR 1181 and 1182, or ENGR 1281 and 1282
Engineering Courses
Credits
Humanitarian Engineering Core Course (required) ENGR 4194 for Spring
2014; planned permanent course number ENGR 5050 (3 credits) (Draft
Syllabus attached.)
3
Understanding of Human Welfare
6
Courses in social/cultural, development/poverty,
sustainability/environment, economics/international business.
• Course list to be approved by Minor Coordinating Committee
• Course may also count as General Education if approved by the
student’s major program.
• Courses not listed may be approved by the Minor Program
Coordinator.
See appendix for criteria and an example course listing.
Humanitarian Engineering Project Work
6
Humanitarian engineering project; international (with trip abroad), or
local/domestic service project via capstone design, student organization,
or individual service. Project Work and Reporting Plan must be
preapproved by the HE Minor Coordinator and taken for academic credit.
May include Individual Studies. Written reflections journal to be kept
throughout service project, and final project report (possibly written by a
group), are required and assessed by the HE Minor Coordinator.
Possible Courses:
ENGR 4692.01S Service Learning in Engineering
ENGR 4901 thru 4903 Multidisciplinary Capstone
XXXX YY93 Individual Studies in ENGR or Engineering Major
BUSMHR 5530 Topics in Social Entrepreneurship
Other Program Based Capstone Programs may qualify
Total
15
Administration and Oversight of Minor: The College of Engineering Humanitarian Engineering Scholars
coordinator, with assistance from a Humanitarian Engineering Minor Oversight Committee (Oversight
App 6 - 4
Committee) and the Engineering Education Innovation Center (EEIC), will be responsible for this minor.
Responsibilities include:
1. Answering student, faculty, and staff questions about the Minor;
2. Approving/disapproving of student requests for variations on requirements for the minor (e.g.,
requests by students to substitute courses in the area of global competency) with input from the
Oversight Committee when appropriate;
3. Interfacing to other similar programs in the university (e.g., the proposed MS professional
degree in Humanitarianism in International Studies);
4. Promoting the Minor to students (e.g., via student organizations, GO ENGR, or Humanitarian
Engineering Scholars Program) and faculty (to get their involvement in development of new
courses, such as a course on sustainable design, or humanitarian engineering projects);
5. Development and management of the web site for the Minor; and
6. Managing updates/modifications of the Minor.
The Oversight Committee shall include the Director of the EEIC, Program Director for Engineering Global
Studies Office, Humanitarian Engineering Scholars Coordinator, at least three faculty and staff with
interest in Humanitarian Engineering, and others as appropriate to oversight of the minor. The
Committee shall be chaired by the Humanitarian Engineering Scholars Coordinator.
The College Core Curriculum and College Services Committee will act as the curriculum committee for
the minor.
General Guidelines:
Required for graduation – No
Credit hours required - A minimum of 15
Filing the Minor Program form - A Minor Program form must be filled out no later than the time the
application for graduation is submitted. It is submitted to the minor program coordinator. It will require
the signature of the student and the student’s major program advisor.
Changing the minor - Once the minor has been filed, any changes must be approved by the Chair of the
Minors Oversight Committee. A form will be available on the
CoE website.
Grades required - No grade below a C- will be permitted in courses comprising the minor.
Course work graded Pass/Non-pass can only count towards the Humanitarian Engineering Project Work
category.
Transfer credit hours allowed - No more than 6 hours of transfer credit may be applied to the minor.
Overlap with the GE Permitted.
Overlap Policy - The College of Engineering places no restrictions on the use of a course both in a minor
and major program. However, students should consult their
major program for any constraints that may be applied there.
App 6 - 5
Additional Guidelines for ASC Students
Overlap with major Not allowed and
- The minor must be in a different subject than the major
-
The same courses cannot count on the minor and on the major
Overlap between minors – Each minor completed must contain 12 unique hours.
Existing Programs at Other Institutions: The following four existing related curricular programs of note
have somewhat related programs. Although they are focused somewhat differently based on local
conditions, they have been instructive in the formation of this proposal.
1. Penn State University, Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship Program
(certificate program): http://www.sedtapp.psu.edu/humanitarian/hese_cert.php
2. Colorado School of Mines. Humanitarian Engineering Program (engineering minor):
http://humanitarian.mines.edu/
3. MIT, D-Lab Development through Dialogue, Design, and Dissemination Program: http://dlab.mit.edu/
4. University of Colorado, Boulder, Mortenson Center in Engineering for Developing Communities
(certificate program): https://mcedc.colorado.edu/
Assessment Plan
The Oversight Committee and minor coordinator will be charged with assuring the assessment of the
minor. An assessment survey will be administered by the Minor Coordinator to students once they
complete all requirements of the humanitarian engineering minor. This assessment will address 1) the
attainment of the learning objective for the minor, 2) structure, availability, and appropriateness of
courses in the minor and 3) the students’ experiences completing the minor. Completion of this
assessment will be the students’ last step in successfully finishing the minor requirements. This data,
along with enrollment data, will be reviewed annually by the Oversight Committee.
Proposal Authors:
Robert Gustafson, Director, Engineering Education Innovation Center
Kevin Passino, Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering
Rachel Tuttle, Program Manager, Humanitarian Engineering Scholars Program
Donald Hempson, Director, Global Studies in Engineering Office
App 7 - 1
Appendix 7. Course Catalog Descriptions (from 2013-2014 Course Offering Bulletin 2013-2014
http://registrar.osu.edu/scheduling/SchedulingContent/2013_2014_course_bulletin.pdf)
1121 Graphic Presentation U 2
Presentation of three-dimensional subjects by precise graphics: orthographic, sectional, pictorial, and
introduction to computer graphics. Prereq: Not open to students with credit for EnGraph 121.
1180 Spatial Visualization Practice and Development U 1
Provide instruction and exercises to develop spatial visualization skills in preparation for Fundamentals
of Engineering and advanced coursework. Prereq: Not open to students with credit for Engineer 180.
This course is graded S/U.
1181.01 Fundamentals of Engineering I U 2
Engineering problem solving utilizing computational tools such as Excel and Matlab; hands-on
experimentation; modeling; ethics; teamwork; written, oral and visual communications. Prereq or
concur: Math 1150 or above. Not open to students with credit for Engineer 183.01 or 183.02.
1181.02 Fundamentals of Engineering I - Scholars U 2
Engineering problem solving utilizing computational tools such as Excel and Matlab; hands-on
experimentation; modeling; ethics; teamwork; written, oral and visual communications. Prereq or
concur: Math 1150 or above and Scholar status. Not open to students with credit for Engineer 183.01 or
183.02.
1182.01 Fundamentals of Engineering II U 2
Introduction to 3D visualization and CAD; engineering design-build process; teamwork; written, oral and
visual communications; project management. Prereq: Engr 1181.01 or 1181.02 or 1281.01H or 1281.02H
or 1281.03H. Concur: Math 1151 or above. Not open to students with credit for Engineer 181.01 or
181.02.
1182.02 Fundamentals of Engineering II - Scholars U
Introduction to 3D visualization and CAD; engineering design-build process; teamwork; written, oral and
visual communications; project management. Prereq: Engr 1181.01 or 1181.02 or 1281.01H or 1281.02H
or 1281.03H, and Scholar status.
1182.03 Fundamentals of Engineering II - Nanotechnology U 2
Introduction to 3D visualization and CAD; engineering design-build process; teamwork; written, oral and
visual communications; project management. Prereq: Engr 1181.01 or 1181.02 or 1281.01H or 1281.02H
or 1281.03H. Concur: Math 1151 or above. Not open to students with credit for Engineer 181.01 or
181.02.
1186.01 Fundamentals of Engineering for Transfer - CAD U 1.5
Introduction to 3D visualization and CAD; written, oral and visual communications. Prereq: Not open to
students with credit for Engineer 186.
1186.02 Fundamentals of Engineering for Summer Academy - CAD U 1.5
Introduction to 3D visualization and CAD; written, oral and visual communications. Prereq: Admission to
Engineering Summer Academy. Not open to students with credit for Engineer 186.
1
App 7 - 2
1187 Fundamentals of Engineering for Transfer - MATLAB U 1
Engineering problem solving utilizing computational tools such as Matlab. Prereq or concur: Math 1150
or above. Not open to students with credit for Engr 1221 or Engineer 187.
1188 Fundamentals of Engineering for Transfer – Problem Solving and Design U 1.5
Introduction engineering problem solving and design through a hands-on design build project;
teamwork; written, oral and visual communications; project management. Prereq: Engr 1186 and 1187,
or 1187 and 1121. Concur: Math 1151 or above, or equiv. Not open to students with credit for Engineer
185.
1194 Group Studies in Engineering U 1-4
Special topics of general interest to engineering students. Prereq: Permission of instructor. Repeatable
to a maximum of 8 cr hrs or 4 completions. This course is graded S/U.
1194H Group Studies in Engineering - Honors U 1-4
Special topics of general interest to engineering honors students. Prereq: Honors standing, and
permission of instructor. Repeatable to a maximum of 8 cr hrs or 4 completions. This course is graded
S/U.
1221 Introduction to Computer Programming in MATLAB for Engineers and Scientists U 2
Introduction to computer programming and problem solving techniques with MATLAB applications in
engineering and the physical sciences; algorithm development; programming lab experience. Prereq:
Engr 1181.01 or 1181.02 or 1187 or 1281.01H or 1281.02H or 1281.03H. Not open to students with
credit for Engineer 167 or CSE 205. This course is available for EM credit. Crosslisted in CSE.
1222 Introduction to Computer Programming in C++ for Engineers and Scientists U 3
Introduction to computer programming and to problem solving techniques using computer programs
with applications in engineering and the physical sciences; algorithm development; programming lab
experience.
Concur: Math 1151 or equiv. Not open to students with credit for Engr 1281.01H, 1281.02H, or Engineer
167. This course is available for EM credit. Cross-listed in CSE.
1281.02H Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors I – Advanced Programming U 5
Engineering problem solving utilizing computational tools such as Excel and MATLAB; algorithm
development; introduction to C++ programming for engineering; hands-on experimentation; modeling;
ethics; teamwork; written, oral and visual communications. Prereq: Honors standing, and permission of
instructor. Prereq or concur: Math 1151, or equiv. Not open to students with credit for Engr 1181.01,
1181.02, Engineer 191.01H, 191.02H, or
CSE/Engr 1222.
1281.03H Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors I - Labview U 5
Engineering problem solving utilizing computational tools such as Excel and MATLAB; algorithm
development; introduction to LabVIEW for engineering; hands-on experimentation; modeling; ethics;
teamwork; written, oral and visual communications. Prereq: Honors standing, and permission of
instructor. Prereq or concur: Math 1151 or equiv. Not open to students with credit for Engr 1181.01,
1181.02, Engineer 191.01H, or 191.02H or
CSE/Engr 1222.
2
App 7 - 3
1282.01H Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors II - Robotics U 3
Introduction to 3D visualization and CAD; engineering design-build process; teamwork; written, oral and
visual communications; project management. Standard course incorporating a robot design-build
project.
Prereq: Honors standing, and Engr 1281.01H, 1281.02H, or 1281.03H; or permission of instructor. Not
open to students with credit for Engr 1182.01, 1182.02, 1182.03, Engineer 193.01H, or 193.02H.
1282.02H Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors II – Nanotechnology U 3
Introduction to 3D visualization and CAD; engineering design process; teamwork; written, oral and visual
communications; project management. Alternative course with an emphasis on a nanotechnology
research and development project. Prereq: Honors standing, and Engr 1281.01H, 1281.02H, or
1281.03H; or permission of
instructor. Not open to students with credit for Engr 1182.01, 1182.02, 1182.03, Engineer 193.01H, or
193.02H.
1282.03H Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors II – Infrastructure U 3
Introduction to 3D visualization and CAD; engineering design process; teamwork; written, oral and visual
communications; project management. Alternative course with an emphasis on infrastructure design
project or other alternate design project. Prereq: Honors standing, and Engr 1281.01H, 1281.02H or
1281.03H; or permission of instructor. Not open to students with credit for Engr 1182.01, 1182.02,
1182.03, Engineer 193.01H, or 193.02H.
2167 Introduction to Data Acquisition and Control Using MATLAB U 1
Introduction to simple micro-controllers, primarily the Arduino, using Matlab. Short lectures followed by
hands-on interfacing micro-controller with sensors including temperature, pressure, current, magnetic
and light intensity, force, and strain. Motor and servo control integrated with sensor knowledge leading
to a final group project. Prepares engineering students for projects. Prereq: Engr 1221 or 1222 or
1281.01H or 1281.02H or 1281.03H or CSE 1221 or 1222 or 1223 or MechEng 2850.
2193 Individual Studies in Engineering U 1-4
Special topics of general interest to engineering students not otherwise offered. Prereq: Permission of
instructor. Repeatable to a maximum of 8 cr hrs or 4 completions. This course is graded S/U.
2194 Group Studies in Engineering U 1-4
Special topics of general interest to engineering students. Prereq: Permission of instructor. Repeatable
to a maximum of 8 cr hrs or 4 completions.
2194H Group Studies in Engineering U 1-4
Special topics of general interest to engineering honors students not otherwise offered. Prereq: Honors
standing, and permission of instructor. Repeatable to a maximum of 8 cr hrs or 4 completions.
2201 Technology Basics 1 U 3 (Not currently being offered.)
Introduction to technology concepts for design, communications, energy and manufacturing technical
and practical aspects. Intended for students without extensive science or math backgrounds. Prereq: A
GE nat sci course.
3
App 7 - 4
2202 Technology Basics 2 U 3 (Not currently being offered.)
Continuation from Tech. Basics 1 introducing technology topics including construction, transportation,
bio-related technology, agriculture, sports, entertainment, medical, and nanotechnology. Prereq: 2201.
2361 History of Ancient Engineering U 3
History of ancient engineers, engineering processes and products. Prereq: English 1110 (110) or equiv.
Not open to students with credit for Engineer 360.01. GE historical study course.
2362 History of American Technology U 3
History of the interaction of American technology and society from colonial times to the present.
Prereq: English 1110 (110) or equiv. Not open to students with credit for Engineer 360.02. GE historical
study course.
2367 American Attitudes About Technology U 3
Discussion, analysis, and intensive writing in a technical and professional context based on study of
American attitudes about technology. Prereq: English 1110 (110), and Soph standing or above. Not open
to students with credit for Engineer 367. GE writing and comm: level 2 and diversity soc div in the US
course.
3194 Group Studies in Engineering U 1-4
Special topics of general interest to engineering students not otherwise offered. Prereq: Permission of
instructor. Repeatable to a maximum of 8 cr hrs or 4 completions. This course is graded S/U.
4082 Study of Technology Issues U 1
Lecture and discussion of current technological issues and their implications presented by leading
experts in the area. Builds understanding of issue for informed citizenship. Prereq: 2202 (Engineer 202).
4193 Individual Studies in Engineering U 1-4
Special topics of general interest to engineering students not otherwise offered. Prereq: Permission of
instructor. Repeatable to a maximum of 8 cr hrs or 4 completions. This course is graded S/U.
4194 Group Studies in Engineering U 1-4
Special topics of general interest to engineering students not otherwise offered. Prereq: Permission of
instructor. Repeatable to a maximum of 8 cr hrs or 4 completions.
4194H Group Studies in Engineering Honors U 1-4
Special topics of general interest to engineering honors students not otherwise offered. Prereq: Honors
standing, and permission of instructor. Repeatable to a maximum of 8 cr hrs or 4 completions.
4401 The Ohio State Engineer Magazine Staff U 1-3
Designed for writers, photographers, and other contributors to The Ohio State Engineer Magazine.
Prereq: Permission of instructor. Repeatable to a maximum of 10 cr hrs or 10 completions. This course is
graded S/U.
4402 The Ohio State Engineer Magazine Management U 1-3
Designed for the student managers of The Ohio State Engineer. Prereq: Permission of instructor.
Repeatable to a maximum of 10 cr hrs or 10 completions. This course is graded S/U.
4
App 7 - 5
4410.01 Computer Graphics Using AutoCad U 2
An advanced course in graphics with emphasis on the application on computer generated graphics to
the solution of engineering problems. AutoCad and Civil 3D to be used. Prereq: Engr 1182, 1185, or
1282. Not open to students with credit for EnGraph 410.
4410.02 Computer Graphics Using SolidWorks U 2
An advanced course in graphics with emphasis on the application on computer generated graphics to
the solution of engineering problems. SolidWorks to be used. Prereq: Engr 1121 or 1182 or 1185 or
1282. Not open to students with credit for EnGraph 410.
4510 Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) Examination Review U 1
A twenty eight session review of all general engineering topics covered in the engineering licensing
examinations: Fundamentals of Engineering AM General Session and PM Other Disciplines Session.
Prereq: Sr standing in the College of Engineering. This course is graded S/U.
4692.01S Service Learning in Engineering U 1-3
Experimental education characterized by participation in an organized service activity connected to
specific learning outcomes. Meets community needs and includes student reflection. Prereq: Permission
of instructor. Repeatable to a maximum of 6 cr hrs or 3 completions.
4891 Colloquia, Workshops, and College Seminars U 1-4
Special colloquia, workshops or seminars of general interest to engineering students. Repeatable to a
maximum of 4 cr hrs or 4 completions. This course is graded S/U.
4891.01 College Seminar - Perspectives on Sustainability U 1
A broad view of sustainability and the environment, with the opportunity to see sustainability through
different perspectives. Speakers from different areas of expertise will present on a variety of
sustainability topics so students can better understand why sustainability is both important and
complex. Repeatable to a maximum of 2 cr hrs. This course is graded S/U.
4891.02 College Seminar - Promoting Creativity and Innovation U 2
Tools to refine creative motivation and to encourage multidisciplinary innovation. Fostering an
appreciation for the processes of innovative design and prototyping by enabling students to explore the
concept of creativity through a variety of speaker experiences. Repeatable to a maximum of 4 cr hrs.
4901 Introduction to Multidisciplinary Capstone Design U 2
A multidisciplinary introduction to the modern engineering design principles, process, professional skills
and specific tactical tools used for project management during design. This course is a 1/2 semester (7
week) course.
Prereq: Sr or Grad standing, and permission of instructor. Not open to students with credit for Engineer
658.
4902 Multidisciplinary Engineering Capstone Design Project I U 1
A multidisciplinary engineering capstone design experience which will utilize principles of multiple
engineering disciplines for sponsored design projects. This course is 1/2 semester (7 week) course.
Progress graded with Engr 4903. Prereq: Sr or Grad standing, and permission of instructor. Not open to
students with credit for
5
App 7 - 6
Engineer 659.01. This course is progress graded.
4903 Multidisciplinary Engineering Capstone Design Project II U 3
An integrated sequence constituting a multidisciplinary engineering capstone design experience which
will utilize principles of multiple engineering disciplines for sponsored design projects. Sequence with
4902. Prereq: Sr or Grad standing, and permission of instructor. This course is progress graded.
4998.01 Undergraduate Research in Engineering Education U 1-4
Opportunity for undergraduates to conduct research in engineering education. Prereq: Permission of
instructor. Repeatable to a maximum of 10 cr hrs or 4 completions. This course is graded S/U.
4998.02 Undergraduate Research in Engineering U 1-4
Opportunity for undergraduates to conduct research in engineering. Prereq: Permission of instructor.
Repeatable to a maximum of 10 cr hrs or 4 completions. This course is graded S/U.
4999H Engineering Education Research for Thesis U 1-5
Honors program students are offered the opportunity to pursue independent project/research. Student
presentation and thesis writing included. Prereq: Honors standing, and Sr standing, and CPHR 3.4 or
above; or permission of instructor. Repeatable to a maximum of 5 cr hrs or 5 completions. This course is
graded S/U.
5081 Engineering Capstone Collaboration U G 1-3
Students contract to collaborate with an engineering capstone design team for at least one semester
and contribute their disciplinary expertise. Prereq: Permission of director of the Engineering Education
Innovation Center or the director's designee. Repeatable to a maximum of 6 cr hrs or 2 completions.
5168 Data Acquisition with LabVIEW U G 2
Intended for advanced undergraduate and graduate students who need to use computer based data
acquisition (DAQ) with LabVIEW either in preparation for other coursework, or for research. It will
consist of DAQ concepts, methods, and standard approaches to DAQ programming, emphasizing real
world interaction with a hands-on laboratory component. Prereq: 1221 or 1222 or 1281.01H or
1281.02H or 1281.03H, or CSE 1221 or 1222 or 1223, or MechEng 2850, or Grad standing.
5194 Group Studies in Engineering U G 1-4
Special topics of general interest to engineering students not otherwise offered. Prereq: Permission of
instructor. Repeatable to a maximum of 8 cr hrs or 4 completions. This course is graded S/U.
5680 Leading in Engineering Organizations U G 1.5
Understanding and utilizing keys to leading in engineering. Exposure to the underpinning of leadership
in engineering environments including tenets, theories, debates, strategies, and innovation techniques.
Prereq: Not open to students with credit for Engineer 680.
5695 Engineering Teamwork Seminar U G 1
Interactive training seminar that teaches communications and interpersonal skills vital to success as an
engineer in industry. Sponsored by Tau Beta Pi National Engineering Honor Society. Repeatable to a
maximum of 2 cr hrs. This course is graded S/U.
6
App 7 - 7
5797E Study at a Foreign Institution U G 1-15
An opportunity for students to study at a foreign institution and receive Ohio State credit for that work.
All participants must be enrolled in the University's supplemental study abroad health insurance plan.
Prereq: Honors standing, and permission of Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education and Student
Services. Repeatable to a maximum of 30 cr hrs or 4 completions.
6193 Individual Studies in Engineering G 1-4
Opportunity for students to participate in supervised individual engineering experiences. Prereq:
Permission of instructor. Repeatable to a maximum of 8 cr hrs or 4 completions. This course is graded
S/U.
6194 Group Studies in Engineering G 1-4
Special topics of general interest to engineering students not otherwise offered. Prereq: Permission of
instructor. Repeatable to a maximum of 8 cr hrs or 4 completions.
7193 Individual Studies in Engineering G 1-4
Opportunity for students to participate in supervised individual engineering experiences. Prereq:
Permission of instructor. Repeatable to a maximum of 8 cr hrs or 4 completions. This course is graded
S/U.
7194 Group Studies in Engineering G 1-4
Special topics of general interest to engineering students. Prereq: Permission of instructor. Repeatable
to a maximum of 8 cr hrs or 4 completions. This course is graded S/U.
7881 Interdepartmental Seminar G 1-4
Seminars of general interest to engineering students. Prereq: Permission of instructor. Repeatable to a
maximum of 8 cr hrs or 4 completions.
7891 Colloquia, Workshops, and Seminars G 1-4
Special colloquia, workshops or seminars of general interest to engineering students. Prereq: Permission
of instructor. Repeatable to a maximum of 8 cr hrs or 4 completions.
8194 Group Studies in Engineering G 1-4
Special topics of general interest to engineering students. Prereq: Permission of instructor. Repeatable
to a maximum of 8 cr hrs or 4 completions.
8998 Research in Engineering Education G 1-10
Opportunity to conduct research in engineering education. Prereq: Permission of instructor. Repeatable
to a maximum of 15 cr hrs or 15 completions. This course is graded S/U.
8999 Research in Engineering Education for Dissertation G 1-10
Opportunity to conduct dissertation research in engineering education. Prereq: Permission of instructor.
Repeatable to a maximum of 15 cr hrs or 15 completions. This course is graded S/U.
7
Appendix 8. Selected Course Syllabi
App 8 - 1
ENGR 1121 (Approved): Graphic Presentation
Course Description
Presentation of three-dimensional subjects by precise graphics: orthographic, sectional, pictorial, and
introduction to computer graphics.
Prior Course Number: 121
Transcript Abbreviation: Graphic Present
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad
Student Ranks: Sophomore, Junior, Senior
Course Offerings: Autumn, Spring
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 2.0
Repeatable: No
Time Distribution: 1.5 hr Lec, 1.5 hr Lab
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 3.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites:
Exclusions: Not open to students with credit for ENGRAPH 121
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: Yes
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
Course Goals
Learn and practice 3D visualization, graphics standards, and drawing proficiency.
Effectively model parts and floor plans on computer using 2D computer aided design software.
Course Topics
Topic
Lec
Rec
Lab
Course introduction, lettering, sketching, orthographic
projections, line types and conventions
1.5
1.5
Orthographic projections, normal surfaces
1.5
1.5
AutoCad Introduction, Basic Construction Tools
1.5
1.5
Scales, Curved Surfaces
1.5
1.5
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
App 8 - 2
Topic
Lec
Rec
Lab
Orthographic Projections: Inclined and Oblique Surfaces
1.5
1.5
AutoCad Geometric Construction and Editing Tools
1.5
1.5
Architectural dimensioning
1.5
1.5
AutoCad templates, editing, plotting, floor plans
1.5
1.5
Isometric drawings, curved surfaces and ellipses
1.5
1.5
Perspective drawings
1.5
1.5
AutoCad orthographic views
1.5
1.5
Sections and conventions
1.5
1.5
AutoCad project
1.5
1.5
Review and advanced AutoCad topics
1.5
1.5
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
Representative Assignments
Homework Assignments from Course Packet and Textbooks
Quizzes
Midterm Exam
Final Exam
Journals
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Attendance and participation
3%
Homework
35%
Quizzes
10%
Exam
25%
Final Exam
25%
Electronic Journals
2%
Representative Textbooks and Other Course Materials
Title
Author
Technical Graphics
Meyers, Croft, Miller, Demel, Enders
AutoCad 2010
H.S. Shih
Uniprint Course Notes
Abrams
Architectural scale
None
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
*
**
College Outcome
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
App 8 - 3
Course Contribution
***
College Outcome
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
Prepared by: Lisa Abrams
App 8 - 4
ENGR 1180 (Approved): Spatial Visualization Practice and
Development
Course Description
Provide instruction and exercises to develop spatial visualization skills in preparation for Fundamentals of
Engineering and advanced coursework.
Prior Course Number: 180
Transcript Abbreviation: Spatial Visualizat
Grading Plan: Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad
Student Ranks: Freshman
Course Offerings: Autumn, Spring
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 1.0
Repeatable: No
Time Distribution: 1.5 hr Lec
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 1.5
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites:
Exclusions: Not open to students with credit for ENG 180
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: Yes
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
General Information
Intended for student scoring less than 21 on Purdue Spatial Visualization Test.
Course Goals
The goal of this course is to provide students with instruction and exercises to develop their spatial visualization skills in
preparation for Fundamentals of Engineering coursework and advanced coursework. Students will demonstrate ability to:
interpret two-dimensional and three-dimensional representations of objects on a two-dimensional medium (such as paper, computer
screens, etc.), and three-dimensional tactile representations of objects.
App 8 - 5
transform interpretations of given tactile, two-, and three-dimensional representations by recreating and/or converting given
representations into new two- and three-dimensional forms of representations.
accurately recreate and/or convert given 2 and 3-dimensional representations of objects into new representations that reflect a
specified change in perspective or orientation.
Course Topics
Topic
Lec
Spatial Visualization Overview; Isometric Sketches and
Coded Plans
1.5
Othrographics Drawings
1.5
Flat Patterns
1.5
Rotation of Objects About a Single Axis
1.5
Rotation of Objects About Two or More Axes
1.5
Object Reflections and Symmetry
1.5
Cutting Planes and Cross Sections
1.5
Surfaces and Solids of Revolution
1.5
Combining Solids
1.5
Rec
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
Representative Assignments
Course materials' software: background and exercises on each topic
Course materials' workbook: paper-based exercise modules on each topic.
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Weekly topic exercise modules
60%
Attendance
20%
Overall effort adn participation
20%
Representative Textbooks and Other Course Materials
Title
Author
Introduction to 3D Spatial Visualization: An Active Approach
Sheryl Sorby
EAI Education Linking Cubes Plus (Tactile Modeling Set)
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
College Outcome
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
App 8 - 6
Course Contribution
College Outcome
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
Additional Notes or Comments
Students in ENGINEER 1181 scoring poorlyless than 21 out of 30 on the Purdue Spatial
Visualization Test will be encouraged to enroll in this course in parallel with 1181 and
in preparation for 1182. Course will start in fourth week of semester to allow for
pretesting and studnet enrollment. Course will meet for ten 2-hr sessions.
Prepared by: Robert Gustafson
App 8 - 7
ENGR 1181.01 (Approved): Fundamentals of Engineering 1
Course Description
Engineering problem solving utilizing computational tools such as Excel and Matlab; hands-on
experimentation; modeling; ethics; teamwork; written, oral and visual communications.
Prior Course Number: 181
Transcript Abbreviation: Fund Engr 1
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad
Student Ranks: Freshman
Course Offerings: Autumn, Spring, Summer
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 2.0
Repeatable: No
Time Distribution: 3.0 hr Lec, 2.0 hr Lab
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 1.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus, Mansfield, Newark
Prerequisites and Co-requisites: Prereq or concur: Replacement for Math 150 or higher.
Exclusions: Not open to students with credit for ENG 183.01 or ENG 183.02
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: Yes
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: No
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
Course Goals
Students will develop professional skills for success in engineering, including teamwork; written, oral, and visual communications;
and ethics.
Students will understand basic elements for engineering problem solving utilizing tools such as Excel and Matlab.
Students will have an introductory knowledge of a wide range of fundamental engineering tasks and principles gained through
homework and hands-on laboratory exercises.
Students will be motivated towards opportunities within engineering careers and gain an appreciation of the range of engineering
disciplines available to them.
Course Topics
Topic
Course introduction and overview
Lec
1.0
Rec
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
App 8 - 8
Topic
Lec
Teamwork fundamentals and agreements
1.5
Problem solving fundamentals -- Problem types, systems
descriptions, SI units, significant digits, understanding
analsyis vs design
3.0
Using spreadsheets for problem solving -- Excel spreadsheet
structure; equations, operators, array elements; models and
systems; mathematical models; plots and charts
6.0
Ethics for engineers
2.0
Using MATLAB for problem solving -- MATLAB
tool/environment; command mode; script files, arrays, and
strings; problem solving structure for MATLAB, algorithms,
statements and functions; input, output, plotting; systems and
mathematical models
14.0
Rec
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
25.0
Series of laboratory exercises will draw from a wide range of
engineering domains - Fundamental engineering concepts;
hands-on measurement and instrumentation; collection and
analysis of data; reporting of results; modeling
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Daily Assignments
25%
Individual Labs
9%
Lab Quizzes
4%
Team Labs
10%
Midterms (2)
22%
Final
25%
Other (Team Evaluations, Journals, and Attendance)
5%
Representative Textbooks and Other Course Materials
Title
Author
Writing as an Engineer (Selected Chaps., Custom Pub, Also used in ENG
1182.0x)
Beer and McMurrey
Tools and Tactics of Design (Selected Chaps., Custom Pub, Also used in
ENG 1182.0x)
Dominick, Demel, Lawbaugh, Freuler, Kinzel, Fromm
MATLAB, An Introduction with Applications
Gilat
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
College Outcome
***
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
**
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
*
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
**
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
***
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
*
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
**
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
App 8 - 9
Course Contribution
*
***
College Outcome
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
Prepared by: Robert Gustafson
App 8 - 10
ENGR 1182.01 (Approved): Fundamentals of Engineering 2
Course Description
Introduction to 3D visualization and CAD; engineering design-build process; teamwork; written, oral and
visual communications; project management.
Prior Course Number: 183
Transcript Abbreviation: Fund Engr 2
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad
Student Ranks: Freshman
Course Offerings:
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 2.0
Repeatable: No
Time Distribution: 3.0 hr Lec, 2.0 hr Lab
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 1.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus, Mansfield, Newark
Prerequisites and Co-requisites: ENGR 1181.01 or 1181.02 or ENGR 1281.01H or 1281.02H or 1281.03H;
Concurrent Math (Equiv 151) or higher
Exclusions: Not open to students with credit for ENG 181.01 or ENG 181.02
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: Yes
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: No
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
Course Goals
Students will understand and gain experience with the elements of engineering design
Students will be able to visualize and present objects and systems in three-dimensions
Student will have a basic proficiency with a modern CAD tool (Autodesk Inventor)
Students will develop professional skills for success in engineering, including teamwork and written, oral, and visual
communications
Students will have an introductory level knowledge of project management (e.g. scheduling, budgeting, reporting)
Students will complete a term-length, design-build project which serves as a cornerstone experience. Project is to reinforce use of
numerical problem solving, engineering documentation, graphics and visualization and teamwork skills.
Course Topics
App 8 - 11
Topic
Lec
Introduction to Course and Overview
1.0
Engineering Design Process Fundamentals
2.0
Rec
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
2.0
Project Management
2.0
Visualization of 3-D Objects (Sketching, Pictorials, &
Orthographics)
3.0
Construction of 3-D Objects with CAD
10.0
Standard Views and Presentations of Objects
10.0
Assembly and Presentation of Systems
5.0
Conventions and Standards (Dimensioning, Tolerance,
Sections)
5.0
Design/Build Project Preparation Exercises
10.0
Design/Build Project(Project to make use of both Problem
Solving and CAD knowledge)
10.0
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Daily Assignments/Quizes
15%
Lab Memos
5%
Initial Design
10%
Final System Test
6%
Oral Presentation
6%
Lab Notebook
6%
Final Written Report
6%
Midterm Exams
20%
Final Exam
20%
Other (Team Evaluations, Journals, and Attendance)
6%
Representative Textbooks and Other Course Materials
Title
Author
An Introduciton to Autodesk Inventor and AutoCAD (Selected Chaps.,
Custom Pub.)
Shih
Technical Graphics (Selected Chaps., Custom Pub.)
Meyers, Croft, Miller, Demel, Enders
Tools and Tactics of Design (Selected Chaps., Custom Pub., also used in
ENG 1181.0x)
Dominick, Demel, Lawbaugh, Freuler, Kinzel, Fromm
Writing as an Engineering (Selected Chaps., Custom Pub, Also used in
ENG 1181.0x)
Beer and McMurrey
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
College Outcome
**
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
**
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
***
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
**
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
**
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
App 8 - 12
Course Contribution
**
***
College Outcome
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
Prepared by: Robert Gustafson
App 8 - 13
ENGR 1221 (Approved): Introduction to Computer Programming in
MATLAB for Engineers and Scientists
Course Description
Introduction to computer programming and problem solving techniques with MATLAB applications in
engineering and the physical sciences; algorithm development; programming lab experience.
Prior Course Number: EnGraph 167.02
Transcript Abbreviation: Programing Matlab
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad
Student Ranks: Freshman, Sophomore
Course Offerings: Autumn, Spring
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 2.0
Repeatable: No
Time Distribution: 1.0 hr Lec, 2.0 hr Lab
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 3.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: Yes
Exam Types: Departmental Exams
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites: Prerequisite: ENGR 1181.01 or 1181.02 or 1281.01H or 1281.02H or
1281.03H
Exclusions: Not open to students with credit for ENG 167.02 or CSE 205
Cross-Listings: CSE 1221
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: Yes
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
General Information
MATLAB is taught. Continuation of MATLAB as introduced in ENGINEER 1181.0x or ENGINEER 1281.0xH.
Course Goals
Be competent with writing simple MATLAB programs performing numerical calculations
Be competent with use of basic constructs provided by high-level imperative programming languages: sequencing, selection, and
iteration
Be familiar with algorithmic thinking
Be familiar with use of computational approaches to solving problems in science and engineering
App 8 - 14
Be familiar with using basic data structures such as arrays
Be familiar with procedural composition
Be exposed to computational science concepts, including simulation, optimization, and data analysis
Course Topics
Topic
Lec
Rec
Lab
Introduction to computation, concept of algorithm
2.0
Variables, expressions and assignment
1.0
2.0
Selection statements: if, switch
1.0
3.5
Booleans, strings
1.0
2.0
Matrices and indexing
1.0
3.5
Loops: for and while; use of arrays
3.0
6.0
Graphing, input/output with files, scripts
1.0
2.0
Functions
1.0
3.5
Higher order operators on matrices
1.0
3.5
Review/exams
2.0
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Homework
20%
Laboratory Assignments
30%
Two Midterm Examinations
25%
Final Examination
25%
Representative Textbooks and Other Course Materials
Title
Author
Introduction to Scientic Computation and Programming
Daniel T. Kaplan
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
College Outcome
**
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
*
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
***
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
***
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
*
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
*
***
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
App 8 - 15
Prepared by: Lisa Abrams
App 8 - 16
ENGR 1281.01H (Approved): Fundamentals of Engineering for
Honors 1
Course Description
Engineering problem solving utilizing computational tools such as Excel and MATLAB; algorithm
development; introduction to C++ programming for engineering; hands-on experimentation; modeling; ethics;
teamwork; written, oral and visual communications
Prior Course Number: 192.01H
Transcript Abbreviation: Fund Engr Honors 1
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad
Student Ranks: Freshman
Course Offerings: Autumn
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 5.0
Repeatable: No
Time Distribution: 6.0 hr Lec, 2.0 hr Lab
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 7.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites: Prereq or concur: Engineering Calculus 1. This variant of the course (ENGR
1281.01H) is the standard course. Open only to University-designated Honors students or by permission.
Exclusions: Not open to students with credit for ENGR 1181.01 or 1181.02 or CSE 1222 or ENG 191.01 or
191.02.
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: Yes
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: No
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
General Information
Engineering problem solving, MATLAB, and C++ are taught. This course is equivalent to the combination of two courses:
ENGINEER 1181.0x and CSE/ENGINEER 1222. Students completing this course are considered to have credit for ENGINEER
1181.0x and for CSE/ENGINEER 1222.
Course Goals
Students will develop professional skills for success in engineering, including teamwork; written, oral, and visual communications;
and ethics.
App 8 - 17
Students will understand basic elements for engineering problem solving including developing algorithms and utilizing tools such
as Excel and MATLAB.
Students will be competent with writing simple C++ programs using basic C++ constructs, declarations and various program
control statements for selection and repetition, and file input and output.
Students will be familiar with C++ functions, arrays, pointers, and C++ classes.
Students will have an introductory knowledge of a wide range of fundamental engineering tasks and principles gained through
homework and hands-on laboratory exercises.
Students will be motivated towards opportunities within engineering careers and gain an appreciation of the range of engineering
disciplines available to them.
Course Topics
Topic
Lec
Course overview.
1.0
Teamwork fundamentals and team working agreements.
1.5
Problem solving fundamentals - Problem types, systems
descriptions, SI units, significant digits, understanding
analysis vs. design.
3.0
Using spreadsheets for problem solving - Excel spreadsheet
structure; equations, operators, array elements; models and
systems; mathematical models; plots and charts.
6.0
Ethics for engineers
2.0
Using MATLAB for problem solving - MATLAB
tool/environment; command mode; script files, arrays, and
strings; problem solving structure for MATLAB, algorithms,
statements and functions; input, output, plotting; systems and
mathematical models.
14.0
Using C++ for engineering problem solving - Introduction,
simple input and output, variables and assignments, selection
statements, repetition and loops, file I/O, functions, arrays,
pointers, strings, C++ classes.
25.0
Laboratory exercises drawing from various engineering
domains - Fundamental engineering concepts; hands-on
experiences with measurement and instrumentation;
modeling of engineering systems: collection and analysis of
data; reporting of results.
Rec
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
25.0
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Daily Assignments
22%
Labs Reports
18%
Lab Practical Exam and Lab Quizzes
5%
Short Design Project
5%
Quizzes
8%
Midterms (2)
22%
Final
17%
Electronic Journals
3%
App 8 - 18
Representative Textbooks and Other Course Materials
Title
Author
Writing as an Engineer (Selected Chaps., Custom Pub, Also used in ENG
1282.0xH)
Beer and McMurrey
Tools and Tactics of Design (Selected Chaps., Custom Pub, Also used in
ENG 1282.0xH)
Dominick, Demel, Lawbaugh, Freuler, Kinzel, Fromm
MATLAB, An Introduction with Applications
Gilat
C How to Program
Deitel & Deitel
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
College Outcome
***
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
**
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
*
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
**
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
***
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
*
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
**
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
*
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
***
Prepared by: Rick Freuler
App 8 - 19
ENGR 2167 (Approved): Introduction to Data Acquisition and
Control Using MATLAB
Course Description
Introduction to simple micro-controllers, primarily the Arduino, using Matlab. Short lectures followed by
hands-on interfacing micro-controller with sensors including temperature, pressure, current, magnetic and light
intensity, force, and strain. Motor and servo control integrated with sensor knowledge leading to a final group
project. Prepares engineering students for projects.
Transcript Abbreviation: Data Acq MATLAB
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad, Graduate
Student Ranks: Sophomore, Junior, Senior
Course Offerings: May
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 4 Week (May Session)
Credits: 1.0
Repeatable: No
Time Distribution: 2.0 hr Lec, 3.5 hr Lab
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 5.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites: ENGR 1281.01H or 1281.02H or 1281.03H,or ENGR 1221 or 1222, or CSE
1221 or 1222 or 1223, or ME 2850
Exclusions:
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: Yes
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
General Information
Basic programming (any language) and some Matlab familiarity is assumed; basic C++ knowledge not required, but helpful.
Course Goals
Programming simple micro-controllers for data acquisition and control.
Defining basic data acquisition and manipulation tasks.
Demonstrate application of knowledge to an engineering project.
App 8 - 20
Course Topics
Topic
Lec
Rec
Lab
Course overview, student programming ability assessment,
group formation based on differing skill levels and
knowledge. Explain the group project requirements and other
grade assessment tools.
1.0
1.5
Introduction to the Arduino microprocessor, first simple
hands-on programming session (both Matlab and C++).
Advantages and disadvantages of using an interpreted
language. Show in class examples of both methods.
Introduce some basic sensors.
1.0
2.0
Define a data acquisition in terms of samples required per
time period, resolution needed, number of channels required,
storage available, and data manipulation. Focus on sensors
and how to overcome sensor output limitations.
1.0
1.5
Discuss the use of simple filters and data smoothing.
Introduction to pulse width modulation motor control, basic
stepper motor, and servo control. Examples, including the
application and recording of a strain gauge, and a hall effect
rpm sensor.
1.0
2.0
Introduce advanced data acquisition devices and the Matlab
data acquisition tool box (Labjack, National Instrument
daqs). Demonstrate of real time and high speed methods.
Demonstrate alternative micro-controllers including the mbed
and beagleboard.
1.0
1.5
Introduce wireless data exchange methods including
bluetooth to Android tablets and phones. Basic introduction
and demonstration to vision tasks.
1.0
2.0
Groups concentrate on project, instructor becomes a guide,
students present their project in a web page format that can
be placed on line and viewed by all students in the capstone
process.
1.0
3.5
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
Representative Assignments
Individual homework assignments to reinforce fundamental concepts.
Group term project.
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Indiviudal Homework Sets (3)
15%
Quizzes
15%
Group Project
70%
Representative Textbooks and Other Course Materials
Title
Author
Matlab: An Introduction with Applications
Gilat
App 8 - 21
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
**
***
College Outcome
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
Prepared by: Robert Gustafson
App 8 - 22
ENGR 2361 (Approved): History of Ancient Engineering
Course Description
History of ancient engineers, engineering processes and products. Counts as a GEC History course
Prior Course Number: 360.01
Transcript Abbreviation: Hist Anc Eng
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad
Student Ranks: Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior
Course Offerings: Autumn, Spring, May, Summer
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 3.0
Repeatable: No
Time Distribution: 3.0 hr Lec
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 6.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites:
Exclusions: Not open to students with credit for ENG 360.01
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: Yes
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: No
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
Course Goals
Students acquire a perspective on history and an understanding of the factors that shape human activity. Students display
knowledge about the origins and nature of contemporary issues and develop a foundation for future comparative understanding.
Students think, speak, and write critically about primary and secondary historical sources by examining diverse interpretations of
past events and ideas in their historical contexts.
Students acquire the perspective of the genesis and evolution of engineering; nature of engineering from various geographical,
cultural, and historical perspectives; achieve awareness of functions, aesthetics, designs, and analysis of engineering.
Students develop critical thinking about engineering problems not only with the when, why, what, and where but most importantly
with the how were engineering works constructed in the past.
Course Topics
App 8 - 23
Topic
Lec
Rec
PREHISTORIC PEOPLE: Out-of-Africa, the First
Migration; Out-of-Africa, the Second Migration; the Third
and Next Migrations.
2.0
1.0
ANCIENT ENGINEERING: Major Ancient Engineering
Areas; Major Traditional Engineering Disciplines; History of
Engineering; Tools and Materials; Food and Agriculture;
Architecture and Construction Communication;
Transportation.
4.0
1.0
PREHISTORIC TOOLS: Science of Prehistoric Stone Tools;
Hand Tools; Paleometallic Tools; Megalithic Culture;
Pottery; Glass making; Prehistory of Copper; Prehistory of
Bronze; Bronze-Iron Age; Ancient Metal Casting.
4.0
1.0
ANCIENT FOOD AGRICULTURE: Domestication of
Plants and Animals; Agriculture; Invention of Wells;
Engineering of Ancient Water Raising System; Animal
Husbandry
4.0
1.0
ANCIENT COMMUNICATIONS: Painted and written
communication; Communication by optical signals;
Communication by sound signals; Communication by
Carriers.
4.0
1.0
ANCIENT TRANSPORTATION: Engineering of Saddle
Fitting; Palanquin; the Engineering of Wheels; Wheels and
Wheel Making; Ancient Roads and Bridges. Water
transportation; Tree Logs andTrunks; Bamboo; Pots; Animal
skins; Coracles, Log-boats; Reed boats.
4.0
1.0
ANCIENT MACHINES: Heron of Alexandria, Heron's
Formula; Heronian Triangle; Heron Steam Engine;
Archimedes of Syracuse; Archimedes Screw; Archimedes
Levers
2.0
1.0
ANCIENT EGYPTIAN ENGINEERING: Ancient Egyptian
Dynasties; Mud-Brick Making; Property of Mud-Bricks; Step
Pyramid in Saqqara; Pyramids in Meidum; Pyramids in
Dashur, Red Pyramid in Dashur; el-Giza Pyramids: Khufu,
Khafre, and Menkaure.
4.0
1.0
ANCIENT GREEK AND ROMAN ENGINEERING:
Acropolis, Parthenon, Columns of Parthenon, Curvature of
Parthenon, Erection of Columns; Mycenae; Meteora; Roman
Kingdom, Republic and Empire; Forum Romanum,
Colosseum, Pantheon, Aqueducts; Roman Subjects.
4.0
1.0
ANCIENT ASIAN ENGINEERING: India; China; Japan;
Javai; Bali.
4.0
1.0
ANCIENT AMERICA: Mayan Engineering; Aztec
Engineering; Inca Engineering.
4.0
1.0
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Homework Assignments
30%
Quizzes and Exams
30%
Project and Presentation
30%
App 8 - 24
Aspect
Percent
Attendance
10%
Representative Textbooks and Other Course Materials
Title
Author
ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING: Prehistroy to Middle History of Bali
Fabian H. Tan
ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING: Roman Kingdom, Republic and Empire
Fabian H. Tan
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
*
College Outcome
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
*
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
*
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
*
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
*
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
**
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
***
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
*
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
*
Prepared by: Fabian Tan
App 8 - 25
ENGR 2362 (Approved): History of American Technology
Course Description
History of the interaction of American technology and society from colonial times to the present.
Prior Course Number: 360.02
Transcript Abbreviation: Hist Amer Tech
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad
Student Ranks: Sophomore, Junior, Senior
Course Offerings: Spring
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 3.0
Repeatable: No
Time Distribution: 3.0 hr Lec
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 6.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites: English 110 or equivalent
Exclusions: Not open to students with credit for ENG 360.02
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: Yes
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: No
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
Course Goals
Students acquire a perspective on history and an understanding of the factors that shape human activity.
Students display knowledge about the origins and nature of contemporary issues and a foundation for future comparative
understanding.
Students think, speak, and write critically about primary and secondary historical sources by examining diverse interpretations of
past events and ideas in their historical context.
Course Topics
Topic
Lec
Pre-Industrial America (assuming the hours are in semesters)
3.0
Communication, Transportation, and Power
3.0
The American System of Manufacturing
6.0
Technology and the American Civil War
3.0
Rec
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
App 8 - 26
Topic
Lec
The Beginning of "Modern" America
3.0
The Second Industrial Revolution
6.0
Rationalization and Technology Utopia
3.0
Oral Presentations
6.0
World War II and the Cold War
6.0
The Information Revolution & The Future of Technology
and Society
3.0
Rec
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Quizzes
10%
Patent Research Paper
30%
Midterm
20%
Final
40%
Representative Textbooks and Other Course Materials
Title
Author
Technology and American Society
Gary Cross and Rich Szostak
The Evolution of Useful Things
Henry Petroski
Harpers Ferry Armory and New Technology
Merritt Roe Smith
Electrifying America
David E. Nye
Class Handouts
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
*
College Outcome
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
*
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
*
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
**
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
***
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
*
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
**
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
*
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
Additional Notes or Comments
Criterion G,H
Prepared by: Kaitlyn Gassen
App 8 - 27
ENGR 2367 (Approved): American Attitudes About Technology
Course Description
Discussion, analysis, and intensive writing in a technical and professional context based on study of American
attitudes about technology.
Prior Course Number: ENG367
Transcript Abbreviation: Am Attitudes Tech
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad
Student Ranks: Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior
Course Offerings: Autumn, Spring, Summer
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 3.0
Repeatable: No
Time Distribution: 3.0 hr Lec
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 6.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites: English 110 and Soph standing or above
Exclusions: Not open to students with credit for ENG 367
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: Yes
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: No
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
General Information
General education second writing and social diversity course.
Course Goals
Students will demonstrate knowledege of the inter-relations of technology and American society: in class discussions, in writing,
and in multi-modal presentations.
Students will demonstrate ability to design and write to a specific audience and for a range of document lengths and purposes.
Students will evaluate and translate selected documents into oral and multi-modal presentations for professional and public
audiences.
Course Topics
App 8 - 28
Topic
Lec
Working toward mastery of expository, technical, and
professional written communication.
16.0
Practice and performance of oral and multi-modal
presentations for professional and public audiences.
6.0
Exploration of technlogies in relation to diversity in the
United States.
10.0
Ethics and social responsibility as it pertains to technology's
relations with a diverse American society.
10.0
Rec
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
Representative Assignments
Reading Responses: After each class students will complete an informal writing assignment (roughly 12 pages). Some involve the
assigned readings; others require independent research; many will ask for demonstration of particular rhetorical strategies.
Group Presentation: In addition to writing as individuals, students gain experience writing in groups, and fine-tuning their multimodal presentation skills.
A Portfolio Project: Each student will develop a series of written products [a portfolio] addressing their individual technical
interests and/or professional concerns. This portfolio will include: a letter of introduction, a resume and cover letter for a real
opportunity, a description of a mechanical device or process, a users guide, and a proposal.
An Expository Essay: Students design and write a substantial 1012 page [researched] essay concerning the relations of a
technology with diversity in the United States.
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Attendance and Participation
10%
Reading Responses
25%
Group Presentation
10%
Portfolio Project
25%
Expository Essay
30%
Representative Textbooks and Other Course Materials
Title
Author
Various online text and videos resources and attachments on Carmen are
used.
MLA Formatting and Style Guide
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
College Outcome
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
*
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
***
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
*
App 8 - 29
Course Contribution
College Outcome
**
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
*
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
**
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
*
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
Prepared by: Clay Housholder
App 8 - 30
ENGR 4410.01 (Approved): Computer Graphics Using AutoCad
Course Description
An advanced course in graphics with emphasis on the application on computer generated graphics to the
solution of engineering problems. AutoCad and Civil 3D to be used.
Prior Course Number: 410A
Transcript Abbreviation: Com Grphic - Acad
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad
Student Ranks: Sophomore, Junior, Senior
Course Offerings: Spring
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 2.0
Repeatable: No
Time Distribution: 1.0 hr Lec, 2.0 hr Lab
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 3.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites: ENGR 1182 or 1185 or 1282
Exclusions: Not open to students with credit for ENGRAPH 410
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: Yes
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
Course Goals
Students shall have a good grasp of the fundamentals of computer aided design and be able to model projects related to problems
associated with outdoord engineering applications (using AutoCad and Civil 3D)
Course Topics
Topic
Lec
Rec
Lab
Geometric construction
2.0
2.5
Editing
1.0
1.0
Object Properties
1.0
1.0
Orthographic views
1.0
1.0
Dimensioning
1.0
1.0
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
App 8 - 31
Topic
Lec
Rec
Lab
Cli
Templates
1.0
1.0
2D project work
11.0
11.0
Civil 3D
2.0
2.0
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
Representative Assignments
Homework
Exam
Projects
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Homework
20%
Exam
20%
Projects
60%
Representative Textbooks and Other Course Materials
Title
Author
AutoCad Tutorial First Level: 2D Fundamentals
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
**
College Outcome
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
*
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
***
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
*
**
*
Prepared by: Lisa Abrams
App 8 - 32
ENGR 4410.02 (Approved): Computer Graphics Using SolidWorks
Course Description
An advanced course in graphics with emphasis on the application on computer generated graphics to the
solution of engineering problems. SolidWorks to be used.
Prior Course Number: 410
Transcript Abbreviation: Com Grphic - SWork
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad
Student Ranks: Sophomore, Junior, Senior
Course Offerings: Autumn
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 2.0
Repeatable: No
Time Distribution: 1.0 hr Lec, 2.0 hr Lab
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 3.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites: ENGR 1182 or 1185 or 1282
Exclusions: Not open to students with credit for ENGRAPH 410
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: Yes
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
Course Goals
Students shall be able to simulate the motion of the model and apply advanced analysis tools
Students will learn the fundamentals of geometric modeling- representation and manipulation of complex curves and surfaces and
be able to apply them to real world examples
Students shall have a good grasp of the fundamentals of solid modeling and be able to use it model complex parts and assemblies
(using SolidWorks)
Course Topics
Topic
Lec
Rec
Lab
Constraints and relations
1.0
2.0
Advanced concepts in part modeling
2.0
3.0
Assemblies
1.0
1.0
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
App 8 - 33
Topic
Lec
Rec
Lab
Mass properties
1.0
1.0
Design Tables
1.0
1.0
Animation
1.0
1.0
Section Views
1.0
1.0
Dimensioning
1.0
2.0
Surfacing
1.0
2.0
Advanced analysis tools
2.0
4.0
Project
4.0
4.0
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
Representative Assignments
Homework
Exam
Projects
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Homework
40%
Exam
25%
Project
35%
Representative Textbooks and Other Course Materials
Title
Author
Engineering & Computer Graphics Workbook
Ronald Barr
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
**
College Outcome
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
*
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
***
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
*
**
*
Prepared by: Lisa Abrams
App 8 - 34
ENGR 4510 (Approved): Fundamentals of Engineering (FE)
Examination Review
Course Description
A twenty eight session review of all general engineering topics covered in the engineering licensing
examinations: Fundamentals of Engineering AM General Session and PM Other Disciplines Session
Prior Course Number: 510
Transcript Abbreviation: FE Exam Review
Grading Plan: Progress - S/U
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad
Student Ranks: Senior
Course Offerings: Spring
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 1.0
Repeatable: No
Time Distribution: 3.0 hr Lec
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 0.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites: Sr standing in the College of Engineering
Exclusions:
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: Yes
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
General Information
The Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) Examination is an 8 hour examination held bi-annually throughout the nation. It is the first
step in the process of licensure as a Professional Engineer. The process culminates with another one day examination (PE) that
follows eight years of service in the profession. The exams themselves are run by each state and licensure is by state as well.
Course Goals
Present a framework and provide materials for students to prepare for the FE morning session and the "Other Disciplines"
afternoon session module.
Provide a brief review in each of the many topical areas to be covered.
Provide content and solution strategy for many sample questions in the same format as in the examinations. Emphasis
understanding the style of question, ways to eliminate obviously wrong answers and get to the correct answers more quickly.
App 8 - 35
Provide students with access to other available study tools.
Instruct students in the use of the FE Reference Handbook in answering the practice problems. This Handbook is the "formula"
book provided by the examiners with the FE Examination.
Course Topics
Topic
Lec
Mathematics
6.0
Chemistry
4.5
Materials Science
3.0
Engineering Economics and Ethics
1.5
Thermodynamics
3.0
Fluid Mechanics
3.0
Statics
3.0
Dynamics
4.5
Mechanics of Materials
4.5
Electric Circuits
3.0
Computers, Measurements and Controls
3.0
Biology
3.0
Rec
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
Representative Assignments
There are no official assignments. Students are encouraged to read the content material and try sample questions ahead of time.
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Must take an online Pre-Test within the first week of class.
50%
Must take an online Post-Test during finals week.
50%
Representative Textbooks and Other Course Materials
Title
Author
FE Review Manual
Lindbergh
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
College Outcome
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
App 8 - 36
Course Contribution
College Outcome
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
Prepared by: Daniel Mendelsohn
App 8 - 37
ENGR 4692.01S (Approved): Service Learning in Engineering
Course Description
Experimental education characterized by participation in an organized service activity connected to specific
learning outcomes. Meets community needs and includes student reflection.
Prior Course Number: 692
Transcript Abbreviation: Serv Learn - Engr
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad
Student Ranks: Sophomore, Junior, Senior
Course Offerings: Autumn, Spring, May, Summer
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 1.0 - 3.0
Repeatable: Yes
Maximum Repeatable Credits: 6.0
Total Completions Allowed: 3
Allow Multiple Enrollments in Term: No
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites: Permission of Instructor.
Exclusions:
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: Yes
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
General Information
Some projects may involve domestic and international and travel expenses are the responsibility of the student.
Course Goals
Students learn and develop through active participation in thoughtfully organized service that is conducted in and meets the needs
of a domestic or international community; and is a coordinated effort between the community and the class.
The learning experience includes structured time for the students and community participants to reflect on and analyze the service
experience.
The service activity must be connected to classroom learning and theory, and community service placements must be connected to
course objectives and learning outcomes.
App 8 - 38
Course Topics
Topic
Lec
Rec
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
Experimental education characterized by participation in an
organized service activity connected to specific learning
outcomes. Meets community needs and includes student
reflection.
Grades
Aspect
Percent
In-class assignments
30%
Performance in deployment in community
40%
Post project reflective assessment and report
30%
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
College Outcome
*
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
*
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
*
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
**
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
*
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
*
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
**
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
*
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
*
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
*
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
*
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
Additional Notes or Comments
ABET contributions may vary by type of project and service performed.
Prepared by: Robert Gustafson
App 8 - 39
ENGR 4891.01 (Approved): College Seminar - Perspectives on
Sustainability
Course Description
The goal of the class is to provide students a broad view of sustainability and the environment, with the
opportunity to see sustainability through different perspectives. Speakers from different areas of expertise will
present on a variety of sustainability topics so students can better understand why sustainability is both
important and complex.
Transcript Abbreviation: Seminar-Innovation
Grading Plan: Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad
Student Ranks: Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior
Course Offerings: Autumn, Spring
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 1.0
Repeatable: Yes
Maximum Repeatable Credits: 2.0
Total Completions Allowed: 2
Allow Multiple Enrollments in Term: No
Time Distribution: 1.5 hr Sem
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 1.5
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites:
Exclusions:
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: Yes
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
Course Goals
Understand how interests and various majors fit into the "sustainability" of the future.
Learn how to seek resources and ask the right questions to help make sustainable decisions in future endeavors.
Course Topics
App 8 - 40
Topic
Lec
Rec
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
Course Introduction; What is sustainability? Why this Class?
1.5
Guest Lecture Presentations on Selected Topics
10.0
Brainstorming and Oral Presentation Topic Development
1.5
Team Project Development and Presentation
4.0
FE
Wor
Representative Assignments
Submission of Questions for Speakers
Research Project and Oral Presentation
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Speaker Question Submissions
20%
Research Project and Oral Presentation (25% Team, 25% Individual Score)
50%
Attendance and Pariticipation
30%
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
College Outcome
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
*
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
*
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
*
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
*
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
*
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
*
Prepared by: Robert Gustafson
App 8 - 41
ENGR 4891.02 (Approved): College Seminar - Promoting Creativity
and Innovation
Course Description
This course is intended to provide students with tools to refine their creative motivation and to encourage
multidisciplinary innovation. By enabling students to explore the concept of creativity through a variety of
speaker experiences, this course will foster an appreciation for the processes of innovative design and
prototyping.
Transcript Abbreviation: Seminar-Innovation
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad
Student Ranks: Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior
Course Offerings: Autumn, Spring
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 2.0
Repeatable: Yes
Maximum Repeatable Credits: 4.0
Total Completions Allowed: 2
Allow Multiple Enrollments in Term: No
Time Distribution: 2.0 hr Sem
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 4.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites:
Exclusions:
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: Yes
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
Course Goals
Exposure to problem identification from user perspective and through need analysis.
Exposure to creative ideation and brainstorming.
Exposure to implementing designs - creating proof of concepts
Ability to work on multidisciplinary teams
Course Topics
App 8 - 42
Topic
Lec
Rec
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
Course Introduction; Creativity
2.0
How Passion Leads to Investigation
2.0
ID of Interest through major (Quesitons, Rebuttal format)
2.0
Why Innovate, Concept gerenation for One Grand NAE
Challenge (Basic geneation and screening, case studies)
4.0
Small group presenations - dissection of an NAE grand
challenge
4.0
Data mining and mind mapping
4.0
User end opportunity identification; desirability; co-creation
4.0
Product design
8.0
Financial side innovation and economics
6.0
Simulating creativity/ cognitive problem solving
8.0
Entrepreneurial motivations
8.0
FE
Wor
Representative Assignments
Recitiation individual and small group presentations
Interview of current faculty member
Case Study reviews
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Recitation Assignments
15%
Professor Interview
15%
Oral Presentation (Group)
40%
Attendance and participation
30%
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
College Outcome
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
**
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
**
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
**
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
*
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
*
Prepared by: Robert Gustafson
App 8 - 43
ENGR 4901 (Approved): Introduction to Multidisciplinary Capstone
Design
Course Description
A multidisciplinary introduction to the modern engineering design principles, process, professional skills and
specific tactical tools used for project management during design.
Prior Course Number: 658
Transcript Abbreviation: IntroMltDisCapstn
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad
Student Ranks: Senior
Course Offerings: Autumn
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 7 Week
Credits: 2.0
Repeatable: No
Time Distribution: 4.0 hr Lec, 2.0 hr Lab
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 6.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites: Rank 4 or graduate standing and permission of instructor. This course is a
1/2 semester (7 week) course.
Exclusions: Not open to students with credit for ENG 658
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: Yes
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
General Information
The class will meet as follows: 2-80 minute Lectures and 1-125 minute Lab.
Course Goals
Identify and understand elements of the design process; Identify the problem; Create functional requirements: Conceptualize
solutions; Design a solution; Build or model a prototype; Create and implement a validation plan
Demonstrate technical communication skills; Apply communication skills through formal and informal presentations; Identify and
demonstrate formal and informal written forms of communication; Identify communication skills
In multidisciplinary teams, create and participate teams; Create and implement project management tools; Identify and practice
leadership skills; Identify roles and responsibilities; Demonstrate ability to communicate and integrate ideas
App 8 - 44
Demonstrate professional practices: Understand documentation and costs; Use contemporary tools; Understand intellectual
property protection; Explain the impact of solutions in a global, economical, environmental, and societal context
Course Topics
Topic
Lec
Rec
Lab
Engineering Design Process
1.0
2.0
Research Resources and Tools
1.0
2.0
Validation Tools
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
2.0
Oral and Written Communication
1.0
Teamwork and Leadership
1.0
Engineering Ethics and Professional Practice
2.0
Industrial Background
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Written Assignments
*See Additional Information
50%
Oral Presentations
50%
Representative Textbooks and Other Course Materials
Title
Author
Reference: "Product Design and Development"
K. Ulrich & S. Eppinger
Reference: "A Guide to Writing as an Engineer"
D. Beer & D. McMurrey
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
College Outcome
*
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
*
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
***
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
***
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
**
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
***
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
***
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
**
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
***
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
*
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
***
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
Additional Notes or Comments
When appropriate and prior to submitting the final document, written assignments will be
reviewed for comments and returned to students for rewriting.
App 8 - 45
Prepared by: Kaitlyn Gassen
App 8 - 46
ENGR 4902 (Approved): Multidisciplinary Engineering Capstone
Design Project 1
Course Description
An integrated sequence constituting a multidisciplinary engineering capstone design experience which will
utilize principles of multiple engineering disciplines for sponsored design projects.
Prior Course Number: 659.01
Transcript Abbreviation: Mlt Dis Capstone 1
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad
Student Ranks: Senior
Course Offerings: Autumn
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 7 Week
Credits: 1.0
Repeatable: No
Time Distribution: 1.0 hr Lec, 5.0 hr Lab
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 0.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites: Rank 4 or graduate standing and permission of instructor. This course is a 1
1/2 semester course sequence that begins the second 7 weeks of Autumn semester and continues through
Spring semester as ENGR 4903. Graded as progress with ENGR 4903 as the last course in the sequence.
Exclusions: Not open to students with credit for ENG 659.01
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: Yes
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
General Information
This is a multidisciplinary capstone design project that spans 1.5 semesters. Teams of students from various engineering and other
disciplines, tackle industry-sponsored projects. These realistic projects represent those that might be encountered upon graduation
and entering a working environment. The project topics range from product and process improvement to new product development
and socially innovative product design and commercialization. A faculty or staff advisor is assigned to each team and each
sponsor supplies a liaison for the entire length of the project.
Each team follows a documented design process and produces a variety of written and oral reports at key points throughout the
project. Each team is expected to created and validate a prototype either in a physical or simulated model.
Course Goals
App 8 - 47
Apply elements of the design process: Identify the problem; Create functional requirements; Conceptualize solutions and refine;
Design a solution to meet the specifications; Build or model a prototype; Create and implement a validation plan
Demonstrate technical communication skills: Apply oral communication skills; Demonstrate formal and informal written forms of
communication; Demonstrate communication skills at all levels within a company structure
Participate in multidisciplinary design teams: Implement project management tools; Identify and practice leadership skills; Identify
roles and responsibilities of team members; Demonstrate ability to communicate and integrate ideas
Demonstrate professional practices: Professional and ethical judgment; Documentation and cost; Use contemporary tools;
Protection of intellectual property; Incorporate global, economical, environmental, and societal impacts
Course Topics
Topic
Lec
Rec
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
This is a multidisciplinary capstone design project that spans
1.5 semesters. Teams from engineering and other disciplines,
tackle industry-sponsored projects. These realistic projects
represent those that might be encountered upon graduation.
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Written Assignments
*See Additional Information
50%
Oral Presentations
40%
Individual Participation
10%
Representative Textbooks and Other Course Materials
Title
Author
Reference: "Product Design and Development"
K. Ulrich & S. Eppinger
Reference: "A Guide to Writing as an Engineer"
D. Beer & D. McMurrey
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
College Outcome
*
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
*
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
***
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
***
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
**
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
***
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
***
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
**
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
***
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
*
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
***
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
Additional Notes or Comments
App 8 - 48
When appropriate and prior to submitting written documents, written assignments will be
reviewed for comments and returned to students for rewriting. The class scheduled
meeting times are used for general course overviews, oral presentations and other general
course information sessions. Teams are expected to arrange meeting times to accommodate
other team members, advisor(s) and the sponsor liason. Where appropriate and feasible,
teams are also expected to arrange visits to the sponsor's facilities.
Prepared by: Kaitlyn Gassen
App 8 - 49
ENGR 4903 (Approved): Multidisciplinary Engineering Capstone
Design Project 2
Course Description
An integrated sequence constituting a multidisciplinary engineering capstone design experience which will
utilize principles of multiple engineering disciplines for sponsored design projects.
Prior Course Number: 659.02
Transcript Abbreviation: Mlt Dis Capstone 2
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad
Student Ranks: Senior
Course Offerings: Spring
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 3.0
Repeatable: No
Time Distribution: 1.0 hr Lec, 5.0 hr Lab
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 3.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites: Rank 4 or graduate standing and permission of instructor. This course is a 1
1/2 semester course sequence that begins the second 7 weeks of Autumn semester as ENGR 4902 and
continues through Spring semester as ENGR 4903. ENGR 4902 is graded as progress with ENGR 4903 as the
last course in the sequence. The grade received for ENGR 4903 will also count for the ENGR 4902 course.
Exclusions:
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: Yes
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
General Information
This is a multidisciplinary capstone design project that spans 1.5 semesters. Teams of students from various engineering and other
disciplines, tackle industry-sponsored projects. These realistic projects represent those that might be encountered upon graduation
and entering a working environment. The project topics range from product and process improvement to new product development
and socially innovative product design and commercialization. A faculty or staff advisor is assigned to each team and each
sponsor supplies a liaison for the entire length of the project.
Each team follows a documented design process and produces a variety of written and oral reports at key points throughout the
project. Each team is expected to created and validate a prototype either in a physical or simulated model.
Course Goals
App 8 - 50
Apply elements of the design process: Identify the problem; Create functional requirements; Conceptualize solutions and refine;
Design a solution to meet the specifications; Build or model a prototype; Create and implement a validation plan
Demonstrate technical communication skills: Apply oral communication skills; Demonstrate formal and informal written forms of
communication; Demonstrate communication skills at all levels within a company structure
Participate in multidisciplinary design teams: Implement project management tools; Identify and practice leadership skills; Identify
roles and responsibilities of team members; Demonstrate ability to communicate and integrate ideas
Demonstrate professional practices: Professional and ethical judgment; Documentation and cost; Use contemporary tools;
Protection of intellectual property; Incorporate global, economical, environmental, and societal impacts
Course Topics
Topic
Lec
Rec
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
This is a multidisciplinary capstone design project that spans
1.5 semesters. Teams from engineering and other disciplines,
tackle industry-sponsored projects. These realistic projects
represent those that might be encountered upon graduation.
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Written Assignments
*See Additional Information
50%
Oral Presentations
40%
Individual Participation
10%
Representative Textbooks and Other Course Materials
Title
Author
Reference: "Product Design and Development"
K. Ulrich & S. Eppinger
Reference: "A Guide to Writing as an Engineer"
D. Beer & D. McMurrey
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
College Outcome
*
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
*
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
***
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
***
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
**
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
***
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
***
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
**
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
***
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
*
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
***
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
App 8 - 51
Additional Notes or Comments
When appropriate and prior to submitting written documents, written assignments will be
reviewed for comments and returned to students for rewriting. The class scheduled
meeting times are used for general course overviews, oral presentations and other general
course information sessions. Teams are expected to arrange meeting times to accommodate
other team members, advisor(s) and the sponsor liason. Where appropriate and feasible,
teams are also expected to arrange visits to the sponsor's facilities.
Prepared by: Robert Rhoads
App 8 - 52
ENGR 5050 (Approved): Humanitarian Engineering
Course Description
Poverty and underdevelopment. Goal of social justice. Development strategies. Engineering for the poor,
weak, and developing communities. Humanitarianism in the university and engineering enterprise.
Transcript Abbreviation: Humanitarian Engr
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad, Graduate
Student Ranks: Junior, Senior, Professional
Course Offerings: Spring
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 3.0
Repeatable: Yes
Maximum Repeatable Credits: 6.0
Total Completions Allowed: 2
Allow Multiple Enrollments in Term: No
Time Distribution: 3.0 hr Lec
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 6.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites: ENGR 1182 or 1282H, or Engineer 181 or 193H or permission of instructor.
Exclusions:
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Required for new Humanitarian Engineering minor. Strong student interest from student
service organizations (e.g. ECOS, EWB, ESW).
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: Yes
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: Yes
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
Course Goals
Students will have knowledge of solving problems of poverty and underdevelopment with a goal for social justice.
Students will be able to identify and characterize engineering strategies and technology for development.
Students are prepared to apply their skills to community development and humanitarianism in the university and engineering
enterprise.
Course Topics
App 8 - 53
Topic
Lec
Introduction to challenges
3.0
Social justice is the goal of engineering development
3.0
Religious and Secular Perspectives on Social Justice
3.0
Social Justice: Political Philosophy and Economics
Perspectives
3.0
Social Justice: Economics and Engineering Ethics
Perspectives
3.0
Development Strategies
3.0
Development Strategies and Implications for Engineering
3.0
Engineering for the Poor, Weak, and Developing
Communities
3.0
Extreme Design Constraints and Appropriate Technology
3.0
Environment and Sustainable Design
3.0
Design Implementation and the Single Field Test
3.0
Scaling Up
3.0
Universities and Humanitarian Engineering
3.0
Humanitarianism Via the Engineering Enterprise
3.0
Rec
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
Representative Assignments
Summarize and critique YouTube video Poor people in India, the YouTube video, Human development report, 2010, TED talk,
Hans Rosling, Stats that reshape your worldview, and USAID Launch of Higher Education Solutions Network
(http://www.usaid.gov/hesn/launch). Read and summarize: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States. Book
report assignment. Optional: Listen to BBC audio: Sisters in Science. Assign Midterm Project and Final Project.
Read the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ ) and identify parts of it that the U.S.
has not always followed (identify the cases). Summarize and critique the TED talk, Jessica Jackley, Poverty, moneyand love;
identify the principles of social justice at work in her viewpoints and approaches. Identify and summarize at least two social justice
movements, secular or religious (e.g., Liberation Theology
Summarize and critique the secular humanist perspective. Summarize and critique (Matthews, 2013): Discuss whether to donate
your cost to perform a humanitarian engineering project or to do one.
Summarize and critique a chapter in Rawls or Sen books. Critique of political platformswhich is best for social justice (invite you
to consider others)?
Present and defend your position on how you feel your field of engineerings code of ethics ought to treat humanitarianism (e.g.,
volunteerism).
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Homework
45%
Book Report
15%
Midterm Project
15%
Final Project
25%
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
College Outcome
*
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
**
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
**
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
App 8 - 54
Course Contribution
College Outcome
*
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
**
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
***
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
**
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
***
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
*
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
**
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
*
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
Prepared by: Robert Gustafson
App 8 - 55
ENGR 5081 (Approved): Engineering Capstone Collaboration
Course Description
Students contract to collaborate with an engineering capstone design team for at least one semester and
contribute their disciplinary expertise.
Prior Course Number: 581
Transcript Abbreviation: Eng Cap Collab
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad, Graduate
Student Ranks: Junior, Senior, Professional
Course Offerings: Autumn, Spring
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 1.0 - 3.0
Repeatable: Yes
Maximum Repeatable Credits: 6.0
Total Completions Allowed: 2
Allow Multiple Enrollments in Term: No
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites: Permission of Director of the Engineering Education Innovation Center or
the Directors designee
Exclusions: Not open to Engineering Majors.
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: Yes
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
General Information
This course is intended as a capstone experience for non-engineering students, in particular those who are completing the
Engineering Sciences Minor. The capstone class for the minor gives the student direct experience working as part of an
engineering design team. This should directly build their skills towards the objective of being able to work effectively with
technological experts.
Course will be coordinated by the Director of the Engineering Education Innovation Center or the Directors designee. Students
will develop a course contract in conjunction with the course coordinator (Director EEIC or Directors designee), the design course
coordinator and the capstone design team.
Course Goals
1) Experience the process of participating in decisions about the development and use of technology,
App 8 - 56
2) Further their appreciation for the development and use of technology involving trade-offs and a balance of costs and benefits,
3) Be able to asks pertinent questions of self and others regarding the benefits and risks of technologies,
4) Enhance multi-disciplinary teamwork skills.
Course Topics
Topic
Lec
Rec
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
Students contract to collaborate with an engineering capstone
design team for at least one semester and contribute their
disciplinary expertise.
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Students will develop a course contract in conjunction with the course coordinator (Director EEIC or Directors
designee), the design course coordinator and the capstone design team. Each contract will specify the grading plan
that will be used for the students undertaking.
100%
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
College Outcome
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
Prepared by: Robert Gustafson
App 8 - 57
ENGR 5168 (Approved): Data Acquisition with LabVIEW
Course Description
This course is intended for advanced undergraduate and graduate students who need to use computer based
data acquisition (DAQ) with LabVIEW, either in preparation for other coursework, or for research. It will
consist of DAQ concepts, methods, and standard approaches to DAQ programming, emphasizing real world
interaction with a hands-on laboratory component.
Transcript Abbreviation: Data Acq LabView
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad, Graduate
Student Ranks: Junior, Senior, Masters, Doctoral
Course Offerings: May
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 4 Week (May Session)
Credits: 2.0
Repeatable: No
Time Distribution: 3.0 hr Lec, 9.0 hr Lab
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 9.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites: ENGR 1281.01H or 1281.02H or 1281.03H or 1221 or 1222, or CSE 1221
or 1222 or 1223, or ME 2850, or Graduate Standing.
Exclusions:
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: Yes
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
Course Goals
Develop problem solving skills using data acquisition principles, techniques and related programming concepts and apply them to
the solution of real world problems.
Course Topics
Topic
1.Use of the LabVIEW programming environment, and
reinterpreting text based programming concepts in
LabVIEW.
Lec
2.0
Rec
Lab
4.0
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
App 8 - 58
Topic
Lec
Rec
Lab
2.Data acquisition fundamentals, consisting of sensors,
connections, signal conditioning and digitization, including
strategies for both off the shelf and prototyped data
acquisition hardware systems.
2.0
4.0
3.Standard approaches to data acquisition programming.
2.0
4.0
4.Approaches to data display, storage & communication.
1.0
3.0
5.Introduction to signal processing concepts and their
implementations in LabVIEW.
1.0
2.0
6.Introduction to numerical methods and their
implementations in LabVIEW.
1.0
2.0
7.Integrating pre-existing code into a LabVIEW data
acquisition application, including C/C++, MATLAB &
compiled libraries.
1.0
2.0
8.Implementation of LabVIEW data acquisition
applications on different hardware systems, such as desktop
workstations, ARM microcontrollers, FPGAs, and real-time
hardware & software systems, and FPGAs
1.0
3.0
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
Representative Assignments
Reading and other preparatory assignments to support the inverted classroom methodology
Hands-on studio activities to reinforce specific DAQ concepts
Problem sets involving both DAQ and programming concepts
Discipline specific individual project
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Homework
25%
In class studio activities
25%
Final
25%
Project
25%
Representative Textbooks and Other Course Materials
Title
Author
LabVIEW for Everyone
Travis and King
Data Acquisition Handbook
Measurement Computing
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
**
College Outcome
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
App 8 - 59
Course Contribution
***
College Outcome
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
Prepared by: Robert Gustafson
App 8 - 60
ENGR 5680 (Approved): Leading in Engineering Organizations
Course Description
Understanding and utilizing keys to leading in engineering. Exposure to the underpinning of leadership in
engineering environments including tenets, theories, debates, strategies, and innovation techniques.
Prior Course Number: 680
Transcript Abbreviation: Leading Eng Orgs
Grading Plan: Letter Grade
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad
Student Ranks: Junior, Senior, Masters, Doctoral
Course Offerings: Spring
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 1.5
Repeatable: No
Time Distribution: 1.5 hr Lec
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 3.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites:
Exclusions:
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: Yes
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
General Information
Opportunity for students to interact with technical/engineering leaders from government and industry will be provided.
Practical applications for new engineers will be developed.
Course Goals
Upon successful completion of this course, the students should:
Have definitional understanding of leadership and its application in engineering organizations
Recognize the difference between management and leadership in engineering
Be able to apply the six leadership tenets
Distinguish among leadership styles in engineering organizations
Have a working knowledge of collaborative leadership in an engineering organizations
Appreciate the leadership implications of a multi-generational workforce
App 8 - 61
Be exposed to leaders in engineering organizations
Become more proficient leaders in engineering organizations
Course Topics
Topic
Lec
Why Study Leadership in Engineering Organizations?
Are Leaders Born or Made?
Leading in Technical/Engineering Organizations
Behavior Realities of Technical/Engineering Organizations
2.0
Leadership Tenets for Engineers*
-Start with the Heart
-Create Trust
-Equip People to Excel
-Use the Word Why
-Have Fun!
-Cast a Splendid Shadow
2.0
Essence of Engineering Leaders*
-Self-Awareness
-Self-Management
-Self-Motivation
-Interpersonal Expertise
-Relationship Building
2.0
Life Balance
2.0
Engineering Leaders vs Managers
2.0
Multi-Generational Workforce Implications
2.0
Networking
2.0
Mentoring Engineering Professionals
2.0
Rec
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Two Exams
60%
Two Papers
20%
Class Assignment/Participation
20%
Representative Textbooks and Other Course Materials
Title
Author
The Splendid Leader
V. J. Russo and D. J. Back
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
*
College Outcome
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
App 8 - 62
Course Contribution
College Outcome
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
*
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
*
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
Prepared by: Robert Gustafson
App 8 - 63
ENGR 5695 (Approved): Engineering Teamwork Seminar
Course Description
Interactive training seminar that teaches communications and interpersonal skills vital to success as an engineer
in industry. Sponsored by Tau Beta Pi National Engineering Honor Society.
Prior Course Number: 695
Transcript Abbreviation: Eng Teamwork
Grading Plan: Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Undergrad, Graduate
Student Ranks: Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior, Masters, Doctoral, Professional
Course Offerings: Spring
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 1.0
Repeatable: Yes
Maximum Repeatable Credits: 2.0
Total Completions Allowed: 2
Allow Multiple Enrollments in Term: No
Time Distribution: 2.0 hr Wor
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 1.0
Graded Component: Workshop
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites:
Exclusions:
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: Yes
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Baccalaureate Course
Course Goals
Students will gain experience in one-on-one problem solving
Students will gain experience in working in teams
Students will learn how to prepare for, run, and/or participate in group meetings
Students will obtain tools for solving challenging problems in a team setting
Students will learn effective presentation skills
Course Topics
App 8 - 64
Topic
Lec
Rec
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
People Skills
4.0
Team Chartering
4.0
Group Processes
4.0
Analytical Problem Solving
4.0
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Exams
90%
Class Participation
10%
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
College Outcome
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
*
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
**
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
***
Prepared by: Lisa Abrams
App 8 - 65
FABENG 7220 (Approved): College Teaching in Engineering
Course Description
Initial preparation for providing instruction in professional engineering programs at the college level including
skills, strategies and issues common to university teaching in general and engineering instruction more
specifically.
Prior Course Number: 810
Transcript Abbreviation: Teaching Engrng
Grading Plan: Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory
Course Deliveries: Classroom
Course Levels: Graduate
Student Ranks: Masters, Doctoral
Course Offerings: Spring
Flex Scheduled Course: Never
Course Frequency: Every Year
Course Length: 14 Week
Credits: 2.0
Repeatable: No
Time Distribution: 2.0 hr Lec
Expected out-of-class hours per week: 4.0
Graded Component: Lecture
Credit by Examination: No
Admission Condition: No
Off Campus: Never
Campus Locations: Columbus
Prerequisites and Co-requisites:
Exclusions: FABENG 810
Cross-Listings:
Course Rationale: Existing course.
The course is required for this unit's degrees, majors, and/or minors: No
The course is a GEC: No
The course is an elective (for this or other units) or is a service course for other units: Yes
Subject/CIP Code: 14.9999
Subsidy Level: Doctoral Course
General Information
Required course for Engineering students in Graduate Interdisciplinary Specialization in College and University Teaching.
Course Goals
Have a working knowledge of:
a) Several major tools and concepts that support teaching engineering
b) How to access resources for learning about teaching and learning
c) The role of organizations supporting engineering instruction
App 8 - 66
Have an improved knowledge of how to perform several key tasks:
a) Design a course syllabus
b) Create effective assignments
c) Evaluate student learning
d) Evaluate your own teaching
e) Management of class room or laboratory
Identify the interactions between:
a) Oneself as teacher, the subject, students, and life
b) The teacher, the institution in which one teaches, the discipline in which one works
Develop your human capabilities including:
a) Confidence in your ability to teach well
b) Ability to interact with others (students, colleagues, professionals, administrators)
Recognize and value:
a) High-quality, effective teaching and learning
b) Continuous growth as a professional educator
c) On-going contributions to scholarship of teaching and learning
Monitor and direct your own professional development:
a) Develop and periodically refine your own philosophy of teaching statement
b) Create a plan for your own professional development as a teacher
Course Topics
Topic
Lec
Introduction
- Introduction and discussion of course goals
- Historic perspectives in teaching engineering and university
teaching
- Elements of a philosophy of teaching statement
2.0
Designing Courses for Significant Learning
2.0
Defining and Creating Learning Objectives
2.0
Learning Styles or How Students Learn
3.0
Design and Implementation of Pedagogies of Engagement Cooperative Learning and Problem-Based Learning
6.0
Strategies for Effective Student Interaction for Engineering
Faculty
2.0
Using Humor in the Classroom
1.0
Teaching Design, and Laboratory Development and
Management
3.0
Lecture/Presentation in the College Environment
1.0
Teaching Teamwork in Engineering
2.0
Understanding Accreditation for Engineering, ABET
2.0
University Life and The New Faculty Member
2.0
Rec
Lab
Cli
IS
Sem
FE
Wor
Representative Assignments
Brief written preparation/reaction or summerization papers may be required for selected readings or exercises.
Development of a personal philosophy of teaching statement. Each student is to develop a teaching philosophy statement early in
the course and refine it through the term. (These are usually one to three pages.)
Faculty Interview. Each student will be asked to interview one faculty member around the topic of faculty student interaction and
report the results of the interview. A brief written report will be required.
A micro teaching session. Each student will be required to plan, prepare and teach an eight to ten-minute session on a topic of the
students interest. Audience will be 4 to 5 peers. Both peer and instructor feedback will be given on the teaching session.
App 8 - 67
Exit interview with the instructor. Each student will be required to schedule a 20 minute meeting with the instructor during finals
week.
Grades
Aspect
Percent
Summerization of Papers
10%
Philosophy of Teaching Statement
40%
Micro Teaching Exercise
20%
Faculty Interview
15%
Exit Interview
15%
Representative Textbooks and Other Course Materials
Title
Author
Teaching @ The Ohio State University: A Teaching Handbook, University
Center for Advancement of Teaching, The Ohio State University. Available at
http://ucat.osu.edu/read/teaching/toc.html
University Center for Advancement of Teaching
ABET-EAC Criterion 3 Outcomes
Course Contribution
College Outcome
a
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
b
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.
c
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
d
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
e
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
f
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.
g
An ability to communicate effectively.
h
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context.
i
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.
j
A knowledge of contemporary issues.
k
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practice.
Prepared by: Robert Gustafson
App 9 - 1
Appendix 9. Publications and Grants
The following list is by individual, therefore some duplication will occur for jointly author publications.
Jacob Allenstein (Student)
PUBLICATIONS
1. Whitfield, C.A., J.T. Allenstein, and Robert B. Rhoads: “From the Industry to the Student: Project
Management of an Industry-sponsored Multidisciplinary Capstone Project”, ASEE Conference,
June 2012.
2. Whitfield, C.A., J.T. Allenstein, P. Rogers and Robert B. Rhoads: “Examining the Impacts of a
Multidisciplinary Engineering Capstone Design Program”, ASEE Conference, Atlanta, GA, June
2013.
Gregory D. Bixler (Lecturer)
1. Bixler, G., Simon, M., Doudican, B. and Roger Dzwonczyk: “Importance of Appropriate
Collaboration with International Partners”. International Journal for Service Learning in
Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 1 PP. 28-39, Spring 2012.
Stuart Brand (Staff)
1. Brand, S., “Introductory Programming: Comparing Text Based to Graphical Programming in an
Introductory Context”. National Instruments Week Conference 2008.
2. Brand, S., “Targeting Instruction at the Typical LabVIEW Developer”. National Instruments Week
Conference 2009.
Richard J. Freuler (Professor of Practice)
1. Vernier, M.A., D.P. Hawn, and R.J. Freuler: "Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors (FEH)
Robotics Experience Made Cheaper and Better with LabVIEW", Presented to the NIWeek
Worldwide Graphical System Design Conference: NIWeek Presentation #TS1158, Austin, Texas,
August 2008. http://www.ni.com/niweek/presentations_robotics.htm, Accessed March 2009.
2. Harper, K.A., R.J. Freuler, S.H. Brand, C.E. Morin, P.M. Wensing, and J.T. Demel: “Comparing the
Use of a Graphical Programming Language To a Traditional Text-based Language To Learn
Programming Concepts in a First-year Course”, Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference, Austin, Texas, June 2009.
3. Vernier, M.A., C.E. Morin, P.M. Wensing, R.M. Hartlage, B.E. Carruthers and R.J. Freuler: “Use of
a Low-Cost Camera-Based Positioning System In a First-Year Engineering Cornerstone Design
Project”, Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference, Austin, Texas, June 2009. Also published in the ASEE Computers in Education
Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 6-14, April-June 2010.
4. Whitfield, C.A., R.J. Freuler, and R. Kawecki: "GE Caledonian 1/11.5 Scaled Test Cell Facility",
Report 1 of 2 for GE Caledonian Services on Ohio State University Research Foundation Project
No. 60023867, Aeronautical and Astronautical Research Laboratory, Columbus, Ohio, June 2010.
App 9 - 2
5. Harper, K.A., R.J. Freuler, J.T. Demel, and S.H. Brand: “Comparing Instructional Effects of
Graphics- and Text-Based Programming Languages,” Presented to 2011 American Association of
Physics Teachers (AAPT) Winter Meeting, Jacksonville, Florida January 2011.
6. Whitfield, C.A., R.J. Freuler, Y. Allam, and E.A. Riter: "An Overview of Highly Successful Firstyear Engineering Cornerstone Design Projects", Proceedings of the 2011 International
Conference on Engineering Education, iCEER-2011, Belfast, Northern Ireland, August 2011.
7. Freuler, R.J.: "Building a Comprehensive, Effective, and Successful First-year Engineering
Program", Invited Keynote speaker and presentation to the 2012 Kern Entrepreneurship
Education Network (KEEN) Regional Conference, University of Kettering, Flint, Michigan, March
2012.
8. Harper, K.A., R.J. Freuler, J.T. Demel, and S.H. Brand: "Continuing the Comparison Between
Graphical- and Text-based Programming Instruction", Proceedings of ASEE North Central Section
Conference 2013, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, April 2013.
9. Tague, J.K., J.A. Czocher, G. Baker, K.A. Harper, D.M. Grzybowski, and R.J. Freuler: "Engineering
Faculty Perspectives on Mathematical Preparation of Students", Proceedings of the 2013
International Conference on Engineering Education, iCEER-2013, Marrakesh, Morocco, July 2013.
Deborah Gryzbowski (Assistant Professor of Practice)
1. Harper, K.A., Baker, G.R, and Grzybowski, D.M. “First Steps in Strengthening the Connections
Between Mathematics and Engineering.” 2013 American Society for Engineering Education
Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA, June 25, 2013.
2. Tague, J., Czocher, J.A., Baker, G.R., Harper, K.A., Grzybowski, D.M., and Freuler, R. “Engineering
Faculty Perspectives on Mathematical Preparation of Students.” International Conference on
Engineering Education and Research 2013, Marrakech, Morocco, July 2013.
3. Grzybowski, D.M., Abernathy, S., Boyd, A.C., Cain, D., Hird, N.L., Madhavan, R.R., Shi, Y., Spang,
M.T., Strickland, A.A., and Clingan, P.A. “Student Assisted Approach to Curriculum Changes to
Facilitate a Flipped Classroom for First-Year Engineering Micro-/Nano-technology 'Lab-on-a-chip'
Research Project.” International Conference on Engineering Education and Research 2013,
Marrakech, Morocco, July 2013.
Robert J. Gustafson (Professor)
1. Gustafson, R. J. : “Work in Progress – Engineering Education Innovation Center”. ASEE/IEEE
Frontiers in Education Conference, Session T2D, Saratoga Springs, NY, October 2008.
2. Gustafson, R. J. and E. B. McCaul: “Leadership Skills Expected of a New Engineering Graduate”,
ASEE, NC Section Meeting, Grand Rapids, MI, April 2009.
3. Gustafson, R. J. and B. C. Trott: “Two Minors in Technological Literacy for Non-Engineers”, ASEE
Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings, Austin, TX, June 2009.
4. Gustafson, R. J: “Determining Impact of a Course on Teaching in Engineering”. ASEE Annual
Conference and Exposition Proceedings, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 2011.
5. Gustafson, R. J., Krupczak, J. Young, and M. Mina. : “ Educational Objectives and Outcomes for
Technological Literacy Programs at College Level”. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition
Proceedings, June 25-27, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 2011.
6. Mason, M. and R. J. Gustafson: “The Impact of a Residential Learning Community on First-Year
Engineering Students at The Ohio State University”, ASEE NC Section Meeting, April 3-4, Grand
Rapids, MI., 2009.
App 9 - 3
7. Ward, A., A. Christy, R. Gustafson, J. D’Ambrosio, and K. Paterson: “ Globalizing Engineering
Education: Lessons Learned from Africa-USA Partnerships”. ASEE Annual Conference and
Exposition Proceedings, Austin, TX, June 2009.
8. Krupczak, J., M. Mani, R. Gustafson, and J. Young: “Development of Engineering-Related Minors
for Non-Engineering Students”. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings, Louisville,
KY, June 2010.
9. Mina, M., J. Krupczak, R. Gustafson, and J. Young: “Expanding Technological Literacy Through
Engineering Minor”. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings, Louisville, KY, June
2010.
10. Abrams, L. and R. Gustafson: “Extending Information on Time Effective Student Interactions to
Engineering Faculty”. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings, Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada, June 2011.
11. Compton, P. K., J. Tafel, J. Law, and R. Gustafson: “Faculty-Determined Course Equivalency: The
Key to Ohio’s Transfer Mobility System”, Chapter in - Kisker, C. B., R. L. Wagoner (Editors).
Number 16, Implementing Transfer Associate Degrees: Perspectives from the States, JosseyBass, San Francisco, Winter 2012.
12. Gustafson, A. K. and R. Gustafson: “Best Practices in Rubric Creation and Use for Classroom and
Accreditation”. ASEE, NC Section Meeting, Columbus, OH, April 2013.
13. Gustafson, R. J. and M. R. Simon: “Assessing Engineering Global Competencies – Importance
and Preparation”. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings, Atlanta, GA, June 2013.
Kathleen Harper (Lecturer)
1. Zitzewitz,Paul W., Haase,D., & Kathleen A. Harper, Glencoe Physics: Principles and Problems
(The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2013). *recipient of an Honorable Mention for excellence in K-12
publishing from the Chicago Book Clinic.
2. Harper, Kathleen; “Grading Homework to Emphasize Problem-Solving Process Skills,” The
Physics Teacher, Vol. 50 (7), 424-426 (2012).
3. Henderson, C. & Kathleen A. Harper, “Quiz Corrections: Helping Students Learn From Their
Mistakes,” The Physics Teacher Vol. 47 (9), 581-586 (2009).
4. Harper, Kathleen A., Gregory R. Baker, & Deborah M. Grzybowski, “First Steps in Strengthening
the Connections Between Mathematics and Engineering,” Proceedings of the 2013 American
Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA, June 23-26, 2013 (ASEE,
2013).
5. Harper, Kathleen A., Richard J. Freuler, John T. Demel, & Stuart H. Brand, “Continuing the
Comparison Between Graphical and Text-Based Programming Instruction,” Proceedings of the
2013 American Society for Engineering Education North-Central Section Conference, Columbus,
OH, April 6, 2013 (ASEE, 2013).
6. Freuler, Richard J., John T. Demel, Kathleen A. Harper, Stuart Brand, Craig Morin, & Patrick
Wensing, “Comparing the Use of a Graphical Programming Language to a Traditional Text-Based
Language to Learn Programming Concepts in a First-Year Course,” Proceedings of the 2009
American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Austin, TX, June 14-18, 2009
(ASEE, 2009). *nominated for conference’s best paper and best presentation
7. Harper, Kathleen A. “Grading Without Losing all of Your Time (and Your Mind!),” For the New
Teacher column, The Physics Teacher, Vol. 49, No. 9, 584-585 (December, 2011)
App 9 - 4
Rachel Louis Kajfez (Assistant Professor of Practice)
1. Louis, R. A., Morin, B., Cerrato, J., Keidel, J., Vincent, J., & Merrill, J. (2010). “First-year
engineering program: Student instructional leadership team”. Paper presented at the American
Society for Engineering Education North Central Section Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA.
2. Kajfez, R. L., Mohammadi-Aragh, M. J., Brown, P. R., Mann, K., Carrico, C. A., Cross, K. J., ...
McNair, L. D. (2013). Assessing graduate engineering programs with eportfolios: A
comprehensive design process. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(3), 1-29. Retrieved from
http://advances.asee.org/vol03/issue03/papers/aee-vol03-issue03-10.pdf
3. Louis, R. A. & Mistele, J. M. (2012). The differences in scores and self-efficacy by student gender
in mathematics and science. The International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
10(5), 1163-1190. doi: 10.1007/s10763-011-9325-9
4. Kajfez, R. L. & Matusovich, H. M. (2013). Work in progress: The Practical Applications of
Understanding Graduate Teaching Assistant Motivation and Identity Development. Paper to be
presented at the 43st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Oklahoma City, OK.
5. Kajfez, R. L. & Matusovich, H. M. (2013). The future possible selves of our graduate teaching
assistants in first-year engineering programs. Paper presented at the 5th First Year Engineering
Experience Conference, Pittsburgh, PA.
6. Mohammadi-Aragh, M. J. & Kajfez, R. L. (2013). Surviving your first large lecture with attentive
and engaged students. Paper presented at the 120th American Society for Engineering
Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, GA.
7. Kajfez, R. L. & Matusovich, H. M. (2013). Graduate teaching assistants views of their own
teaching practice competence. Paper presented at the 120th American Society for Engineering
Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, GA.
8. Louis, R. A. & Matusovich, H. M. (2012). Work in progress: Describing the responsibilities of
teaching assistants in first-year engineering programs. Paper presented at the 42st ASEE/IEEE
Frontiers in Education Conference, Seattle, WA.
9. Coso, A. E., Louis, R. A., London, J. S., Ngambeki, I, B., & Sattler, B. (2012). Exploring the reasons
for collaboration and cooperation among graduate student researchers. Paper presented at the
119th American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, San
Antonio, TX.
10. Reap, J., Matusovich, H. M., & Louis, R. A. (2012). Chocolate challenge: The motivational effects
of optional projects in an introductory engineering class. Paper presented at the 119th American
Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, TX.
11. Louis, R. A., Mohammadi-Aragh, M. J., & Lee, W. C. (2012). "Wait... There is a Ph.D. in
engineering education?" The first-year experience of three students in an engineering education
department. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Southeastern
Section Annual Conference, Starkville, MS.
12. Louis, R. A. & Matusovich, H. M. (2011) Work in Progress: Identity development of first-year
engineering students though a summer college prep program. Paper presented at the 41st
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, SD.
13. Matusovich, H. M., Berry, B. E., Meyers, K. L., & Louis, R. A. (2011) A multi-institution
comparison of identity development as an engineer. Paper presented at the 118th American
Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC.
14. Louis, R. A. & McNair, L. D. (2011). Graduate student identity in engineering and education: The
creation of an identity construct. Paper presented at the 9th International ePortfolio and
Identity Conference, London, UK.
App 9 - 5
15. Mistele, J. M. & Louis, R. A. (2011). Exploring the middle school mathematics teacher student
relationship. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Southeastern
Section Annual Conference, Charleston, SC.
16. Louis, R. A., Morin, B., Cerrato, J., Keidel, J., Vincent, J., & Merrill, J. (2010). First-year
engineering program: Student instructional leadership team. Paper presented at the American
Society for Engineering Education North Central Section Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA.
17. Kajfez, R. L. & Matusovich, H. M. (Under Review). Who are our graduate teaching assistants? A
classification based on identity and motivation. Paper to be presented at the American
Educational Research Association 2014 Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.
18. Kajfez, R. L. & Matusovich, H. M. (2013). The motivation and identity development of graduate
teaching assistants: An examination of factors over an academic term in engineering. Paper
presented at the American Educational Research Association 2013 Annual Meeting, San
Francisco, CA.
19. Kajfez, R. L., McNair, L. D., & Adams, S. G. (2013). TEaCH TALKS: Pedagogical training for
graduate teaching assistants. Paper presented at the 5th Conference on Higher Education
Pedagogy, Blacksburg, VA.
Krista M. Kecskemety (Lecturer)
1. Morin, B.C., Kecskemety, K.M., Harper, K.A., and Clingan, P.A., “The Inverted Classroom in a
First-Year Engineering Course,” 120th American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference & Exposition, Atlanta GA., June 2013.
Ed McCaul (Staff)
1. McCaul, E., : “The Mechanical Fuze and the Advance of Artillery in the Civil War, McFarland &
Company, NC, July 2010.
2. McCaul, E., : “If You Can Be Seen, You Can Be Killed: Mechanical Fuzes and Rifled Artillery”,
Smithsonian Institution Civil War Sesquicentennial Symposium, Astride Two Ages: Technology
and the Civil War, Washington, D.C., November 2012.
3. Dave Tomasko, Ed McCaul, Winnie Sampson “Coordinating and Planning a Large, Multi-Program
Visit” 2012 ABET Symposium, St. Louis, MO, April 2012.
John Merrill (Staff)
1. Clayton, C., R. Jagacinski, and J. A. Merrill, “CEDA: A Research Instrument for Creative
Engineering Design Assessment”. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, Vol. 2, No. 3,
147-154, 2008.
2. Merrill, J. A., L. Long III, A. Snyder, R. Stech, C. Allison, and B. Jelen, “First-Year Engineering
Program: Student Instructional Leadership Team – Expanded and Restructured”. Proceedings of
the ASEE North Central Section Conference, American Society of Engineering, June, 2013.
3. Merrill, J. A., and C. Charyton, “Assessing General Creativity and Creative Engineering Design in
First Year Engineering Students”. Journal of Engineering Education, April 2009.
Robert B. Rhoads (Staff)
1. Whitfield, C.A., J.T. Allenstein, and Robert B. Rhoads: “From the Industry to the Student: Project
Management of an Industry-sponsored Multidisciplinary Capstone Project”, ASEE Conference,
June 2012.
App 9 - 6
2. Whitfield, C.A., J.T. Allenstein, P. Rogers and Robert B. Rhoads: “Examining the Impacts of a
Multidisciplinary Engineering Capstone Design Program”, ASEE Conference, Atlanta, GA, June
2013.
3. Whitfield, C.A., P. Rogers and Robert B. Rhoads: “A Case Study on Early Career Impacts of an
Industry-sponsored Multidisciplinary Capstone Experience Proceeding”, AIAA Science and
Technology Forum and Exposition, Houston, TX, November 2013.
Peter Rogers (Professor of Practice)
1. Whitfield, C.A., J.T. Allenstein, P. Rogers and Robert B. Rhoads: “Examining the Impacts of a
Multidisciplinary Engineering Capstone Design Program”, ASEE Conference, Atlanta, GA, June
2013.
2. Rogers, P., “Social Innovation and Commercialization”. North Central American Society of
Education Conference, Columbus, OH 2013.
3. Rogers, P., Gill, C. and K. Alley: “A Sustainable Innovation Model: Challenges and Opportunities
for Collaboration in an Academic Setting”. Include 2011 Conference, London, 2011.
Philip A. Schlosser (Lecturer)
1. Schlosser, P., John Merrill: “First Year Student Experiences and Outcomes in a Seminar on
Innovation and Entrepreneurship”. Proceedings of the Annual Conference and Exposition, June
2010.
2. Schlosser, P., Merrill, J., and Michael Parke: “Decision Making in the Design Build Process Among
First Year Engineering Students”. Proceedings of the Annual Conference and Exposition, June
2008.
3. Schlosser, P., Whitfield, C., Merrill, John, Riter, E., and Kuldeep Agarwal: “Advanced Energy
Vehicle Design-Build Project for First-Year Engineering Students”. Proceedings of the Annual
Conference & Exposition, June 2011.
4. Schlosser, P., Allam, Y., Tomasko,D., Trott, B., Yang,Y., Wilson, T., and John Merrill: “Lab-on-a
chip Design-Build Project with a Nanotechnology Component in a Freshman Engineering
Course”. ASEE Journal of Chemical Engineering Education, November 2008.
5. Schlosser, P., Parke, M., and John Merrill: “Work in Progress-Roller Coaster Design
Conceptualization for First-Year Engineering Students”, ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education
Conference, Saratoga Springs, NY, October 2008.
Sheryl Sorby (Visiting Professor)
1. Sorby, S. A., Casey, B., Veurink, N. & Dulaney, A. “The role of spatial training in improving spatial
and calculus performance in engineering students.” Learning and Individual Differences, Volume
26, August 2013, pp 20-29.
2. Sorby, S. A., Signorella, M. L., Veurink, N. L., & Liben, L. “Developing Spatial Skills Among Middle
School Students,” Proceedings of the 68th Midyear Conference of the Engineering Design
Graphics Division of ASEE, Worcester, MA, October 2013, CD-ROM.
3. Sadowski, M. A., & Sorby, S. A. “Update on a Delphi Study for Developing a Concept Inventory
for Engineering Design Graphics.” Proceedings of the 68th Midyear Conference of the
Engineering Design Graphics Division of ASEE, Worcester, MA, October 2013, CD-ROM.
App 9 - 7
4. Sorby, S. A., Haut Donahue, T. L., & Campbell, A. “International Senior Design for Mechanical
Engineering Students.” SEFI Annual Conference, KU Leuven, Belgium, September 2013, CD-ROM.
5. Miller, M. H., DeClerck, J. P., Sorby, S. A., Roberts, L. M., Endres, W. J., & Hale, K. D. “Meeting
the NAE Grand Challenge: Personalized Learning for Engineering Students through Instruction
on Metacognition and Motivation Strategies.” Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the
American Society for Engineering Education, Atlanta, GA, June 2013, CD-ROM.
6. Sorby, S. A. “Spatial Skills Training to Improve Student Success in Engineering.” (Invited paper)
Spatial Thinking Across the College Curriculum Specialist Meeting, UC Santa Barbara, Santa
Barbara, CA, December 2012.
7. Sorby, S.A., & Veurink, N. L., “Impact of Visualization Training on Student Leaving.” Proceedings
of the 67th Midyear Conference of the Engineering Design Graphics Division of ASEE, Limerick,
Ireland November 2012, pp.73-77.
8. Sorby, S. A., & Veurink, N. L. “Spatial Skills Among Minority and International Engineering
Students.” Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering
Education, San Antonio, TX, June 2012, CD-ROM.
9. Jordan, K. L., Sorby,S. A., & Amato-Henderson, S. L. “Pilot Intervention to Improve “Sense of
Belonging” of Minorities in Engineering, Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American
Society for Engineering Education, San Antonio, TX, June 2012, CD-ROM.
10. Sadowski, M. A., & Sorby, S. A. “A Delphi Study as a First Step in Developing a Concept Inventory
for Engineering Graphics.” Proceedings of the 66th Midyear Conference of the Engineering
Design Graphics Division of ASEE, Galveston, TX, January 2012, pp.126-132.
11. Jordan, K. L., Sorby, S. A., Amato-Henderson, S. L., & Haut Donahue, T. L. “Engineering SelfEfficacy of Women Engineering Students at Urban vs. Rural Universities.” Proceedings of the
Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, SD, October 2011, CD-ROM.
12. Jordan, K. L., Amato-Henderson, S. A., Sorby, S. A., & Haut Donahue, T. L. “Are There Differences
in Engineering Self-Efficacy between Minority and Majority Students Across Academic Levels?”
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education,
Vancouver, BC, June 2011, CD-ROM.
13. Sorby, S. A. & Vilmann, C. R., “Going Online with Statics.” Proceedings of the Annual Conference
of the American Society for Engineering Education, Vancouver, BC, June 2011, CD-ROM.
14. Veurink, N. L., & Sorby, S. A. “Raising the Bar? Longitudinal Study to Determine which Students
Would Benefit Most from Spatial Training.” Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the
American Society for Engineering Education, Vancouver, BC, June 2011, CD-ROM
Fabian Tan (Professor, Civil, Environmental and Geodetic Engineering)
1. Tan, F. Hadipriono and H. M. Al‐Humaidi “New Approach to Modeling Material‐
RelatedProblems Contributing to Project Delays Using Rotational Fuzzy Set” Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities”.
2. Tan, F. Hadipriono and H. M. Al‐Humaidi, “A fuzzy logic approach to model delays in
construction projects using rotational fuzzy fault tree models”, Civil Engineering and
Environmental Systems, December 2010.
3. Tan, F. Hadipriono and H. M. Al‐Humaidi, “A fuzzy logic approach to model delays in
construction projects using translational models”, Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems,
Vol. 27, No. 4, December 2010.
4. Tan, F. Hadipriono and H. M. Al‐Humaidi, “Construction Safety in Kuwait”, Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE Vol. 24, No. 1, January/February 2010, pp. 70-77.
App 9 - 8
5. Tan, F. Hadipriono and H. M. Al‐Humaidi, "Mobile crane safe operation approach to prevent
electrocution using fuzzy-set logic models", Advances in Engineering Software, volume 40 issue
8, August 2009, Pages 686-696.
6. Al-Labadi, K.R., H.M. Al-Humaidi and F. Hadipriono Tan “Safety Assessment in Tunnel Grouting
Using Fuzzy Rotational and Angular Models”, ASCE Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities. ASCE Vol. 23, No. 6, November/December 2009, pp. 423-431.
7. Al-Humaidi, H. M. and F. Hadipriono Tan, "Construction safety management accidents, laws and
practices in Kuwait” M. GUARASCIO, (Editor), “Journal of Safety and Security III”, Wessex
Institute of Technology, UK, 2009.
8. Al-Humaidi, H. M and F. Hadipriono Tan, "Construction Project Delay Analysis Using Fuzzy Sets",
in M. Papadrakakis, B.H.V. Topping, (Editors), "Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference
on Engineering Computational Technology", Civil-Comp Press, Stirlingshire, UK, Paper 62, 2008.
doi:10.4203/ccp.89.62
9. Al-Humaidi, H. M. and F. Hadipriono Tan, "Bridge Failure Analysis Using Fuzzy Fault Tree
Methods", in M. Papadrakakis, B.H.V. Topping, (Editors), "Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on Engineering Computational Technology", Civil-Comp Press, Stirlingshire, UK,
Paper 60, 2008. doi:10.4203/ccp.89.60
Lowell Toms (Staff)
1. Whitfield, C.A, D. West, J. Merrill, and Lowell Toms: “A First-year Design Project Software Tool
to Emphasize Problem Solving with Computer Programming in the Design Process”, ASEE
Conference, June 2012.
2. West, D., and Lowell Toms: “Adding Fun to First Year Computer Programming Classes with
MATLAB Arduino Microcontrollers and Model Trains”, Mathworks, October 2013.
3. Toms, Lowell: “Replicating in 3D” OSU OnCampus August 2013.
Clifford A. Whitfield (Assistant Professor of Practice)
1. Allenstein, J., Whitfield, C.A., Rhoads, R., Rogers, P. "Assessing and the Application of Survey
Results for a Multidisciplinary Capstone Program", American Society of Engineering Education,
Indianapolis, IN 2014.
2. Rhoads, R., Whitfield, C.A., Allenstein, J., Rogers, P. "Examining the Structure of a
Multidisciplinary Engineering Capstone Design Program ", American Society of Engineering
Education, Indianapolis, IN 2014.
3. Whitfield, C.A., Allenstein, J., Rhoads, R., Rogers, P. " A Case Study on Early Career Impacts of an
Industry-sponsored Multidisciplinary Capstone Experience", American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, National Harbor, MD, January 2014.
4. Allenstein, J., Whitfield, C.A., Rhoads, R., Rogers, P. " Examining the Impacts of a
Multidisciplinary Engineering Capstone Design Program", American Society of Engineering
Education, Atlanta, GA, 2013.
5. Whitfield, C.A. "Multidisciplinary Team-based Design-Build-Test Projects with an Aero Premise",
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 51st Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Dallas,
TX, January 2013.
6. Whitfield, C.A., Allenstein, J., Rhoads, R., "From the Industry to the Student: Project
Management of an Industry-Sponsored Multidisciplinary Capstone Project", Proceedings of the
2012 American Society of Engineering Education, San Antonio, TX, February 2012.
App 9 - 9
7. Whitfield, C.A., West, D., Toms, L., "A First-year Design Project Software Tool to Emphasize
Problem Solving with Computer Programming in the Design Process", Proceedings of the 2012
American Society of Engineering Education, San Antonio, TX, February 2012.
8. Allam, Y., Whitfield, C.A., "Scaffolding Provided to Engineering Students in Cornerstone Design
Project Scenarios Related to Practices of Expert Designers", Proceedings of the 2012 American
Society of Engineering Education, San Antonio, TX, February 2012.
9. Whitfield, C.A., R.J. Freuler, Y. Allam, and E.A. Riter: "An Overview of Highly Successful First-year
Engineering Cornerstone Design Projects", Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on
Engineering Education, Belfast, Northern Ireland, August 2011.
10. Whitfield, C.A., Schlosser, P., Merrill, J.A., Riter, E., Agarwal, K. "Advanced Energy Vehicle
Design-Build Project for First-Year Engineering Students", American Society of Engineering
Education, June 2011.
11. Whitfield, C.A., Warchol, M.L., "Flight Performance Characteristics of Highly Flexible Wing
Rogallo-type Aerodynamics with Applications to UAVs", 36th AIAA Dayton-Cincinnati Aerospace
Sciences Symposium, 1-March 2011.
App 9 - 10
Grants Awarded
Stuart Brand (Staff)
1. Daimler-Chrysler Grant, $10,000, one-time grant - For purchase of two Sherline Ultimate 4-axis
CNC Mill and Lathe Machine Shop Package with Model 2000 8-direction mill.
2. Regents Grant- For purchase of two Sherline Ultimate 4-axis CNC Mill and Lathe Machine Shop
Package with Model 2000 8-direction mill.
3. National Instruments Grant, $3000, 1 year duration- For LabVIEW training coursework, travel
expenses, and certification exam costs
Mary Faure (Program Manager, TCRC)
1. Faure, Mary (PI), J. Merrill, P. Schlosser, and A. Parkhurst. “Transforming student engineering
technical presentations into multimedia video presentations, phase I; OSU OCIO Digital Impact
Grant, $15,000, June 2012-June 21013.
Richard J. Freuler (Professor of Practice)
1. Freuler, R.J.: "A Proposal for a Scale Model Test of GE Mirabel Icing Rig ", Presented to GE
Aircraft Engines, The Ohio State University Research Foundation, Columbus, Ohio, September
2009. This became a funded OSURF project.
2. Freuler, R.J.: “A Proposal for the Testing of a Scale Model of the GEnx Engine Operating in GE
Caledonian Limited’s Engine Test Facility at Prestwick Scotland”, Presented to GE Caledonian
Limited, The Ohio State University Research Foundation, Columbus, OH, September 2009. This
became a funded OSURF Project.
3. Freuler, R.J., K.A. Harper, M.A. Vernier, S.H. Brand, and J.T. Demel: "A Proposal to National
Instruments Comparing the Use of a Graphical Programming Language to a Traditional Text
Based Language to Learn Programming Concepts", Engineering Education Innovation Center,
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, December 2009. This became a funded EEIC grant.
4. Freuler, R.J., and C.A. Whitfield: "A Proposal for LMS100 Exhaust System Scale Model Testing."
Presented to GE Power Systems, The Ohio State University Office of Sponsored Programs,
Columbus, Ohio, August 2010. This became a funded OSP project, with funding of $59,950 for
the period October 2010 through June 2011.
5. Whitfield, C.A., and R.J. Freuler: "A Proposal for a Winnipeg Icing Scale Facility Model Hardware
and Testing." Presented to GE Aircraft Engines, The Ohio State University Office of Sponsored
Programs, Columbus, Ohio, July 2011. This became a funded OSP project, with funding of
$66,600 for the period July 2011 through December 2011.
6. Whitfield, C.A., and R.J. Freuler: "A proposal for an investigation of aerodynamic performance
and air flow quality in a scale model of GE Caledonian Limited's engine test facility with a GEnx
engine simulator." Presented to AeroSystems Engineering, The Ohio State University Office of
Sponsored Programs, Columbus, Ohio, October 2011. This became a funded OSP project, with
funding of $66,600 for the period December 2011 through June 2012.
7. Whitfield, C.A., and R.J. Freuler: “A Proposal for Site 5D Test Cell Facility Scale Model Hardware
& Testing". Presented to GE Aviation, The Ohio State University Office of Sponsored Programs,
Columbus, Ohio, May 2013. This has become a funded OSP project, with funding of $106,600
for the period May 2013 through December 2013.
App 9 - 11
Deborah Gryzbowski (Assistant Professor of Practice)
1. “1282.02H OSU Library Course Enhancement Grant,” Principal Investigator, $2,000; 2012-2013.
Robert J. Gustafson (Professor)
1. Gustafson, R., D. Tomasko, H. Greene. HumanConnect: Scholarships in Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics. NSF Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics (S-STEM, 12-529) Awarded ($600k, 5 Years, Beginning July 2013)
2. Mina, M (Iowa State University), J. Krupczak (Hope College), R. Gustafson (Ohio State University)
and James Young (Rice University) Expanding Technological Literacy Through Engineering Minors
($249k,2009-2011)
Peter Rogers (Professor of Practice)
Social Innovation and Commercialization Program
1. OSU Engagement and Outreach Grant, 2010 ($45,000 matched by $30,000 from COE)
2. Tony R. Wells Foundation (grant approximating $100,000)
3. Reid Foundation (grant of $5,000)
4. Wireless RERC for Citra Application Product launch ($15,000)
Ohio Innovation Initiative
Received $100,000 gift from Chuck Martin to pilot an industry-sponsored capstone program integrating
business students and engineers working with Ohio companies
Sheryl Sorby (Visiting Professor)
1. S. Sorby, A. Hamlin, & N. Veurink: “Collaborative Research: Addressing the STEM Gender Gap:
Does Spatial Skills Training Enhance Middle School Girls’ STEM-Relevant Spatial Skills, Attitudes,
Beliefs and Self-Efficacy,” Funding Source: National Science Foundation-GSE, 2/1/11-12/31/14,
(MTU/OSU Portion: $213,447; Total Project Value: $525,000)
2. S. Sorby, S Amato, & T. Donahue: “Research in Engineering Self-Efficacy of Minority Students,”
Funding Source: National Science Foundation-IEECI, 6/1/10-5/31/14, ($399,827)
3. Sorby: Supplement to “Research in Engineering Seff-Efficacy of Minority Students,” Funding
Source: National Science Foundation-IEECI, $56,407.
Pending
1. L Abrams & S. Sorby: “IRES: Engineering Undergraduate Research on the Jaipur Foot, “Funding
Source: National Science Foundation—OISE, 1/1/14-12/13/16, $167,341. (This is a collaborative
project with Colorado State University)
App 10 - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Pattern of Administration
Engineering Education Innovation Center
College of Engineering
Created: 11/20/13
Table of Contents
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
XV
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2
Center Mission .................................................................................................................. 2
Academic Rights and Responsibilities .............................................................................. 2
Faculty .............................................................................................................................. 2
Organization of Center Services and Staff......................................................................... 3
Overview of Center Administration and Decision-Making ............................................... 3
Center Administration ....................................................................................................... 3
A
Director ................................................................................................................. 3
B
Other Administrators ............................................................................................. 5
C
Committees............................................................................................................ 5
Faculty Meetings ............................................................................................................... 7
Distribution of Faculty Duties and Responsibilities .......................................................... 8
A
Faculty ................................................................................................................... 8
i.
Special Assignments .................................................................................. 9
B
Associated Faculty................................................................................................. 9
C
Parental Modification of Duties ............................................................................. 9
Course Offerings and Teaching Schedule........................................................................ 10
Allocation of Center Resources ....................................................................................... 10
Leaves and Absences ...................................................................................................... 10
A
Discretionary Absence......................................................................................... 11
B
Absence for Medical Reasons.............................................................................. 11
C
Unpaid Leaves of Absence .................................................................................. 11
D
Faculty Professional Leave .................................................................................. 11
Supplemental Compensation and Paid External Consulting ............................................ 12
Financial Conflicts of Interest ......................................................................................... 12
Grievance Procedures ...................................................................................................... 12
A
Salary Grievances ................................................................................................ 13
B
Faculty Misconduct ............................................................................................. 13
C
Faculty Promotion and Tenure Appeals............................................................... 13
D
Sexual Harassment .............................................................................................. 13
E
Student Complaints ............................................................................................. 13
F
Code of Student Conduct ..................................................................................... 14
1
App 10 - 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Pattern of Administration
Engineering Education Innovation Center
College of Engineering
I
Introduction
This document provides a brief description of the Engineering Education Innovation Center as
well as a description of its policies and procedures. It supplements the Rules of the University
Faculty, and other policies and procedures of the university to which the center and its faculty
are subject. The latter rules, policies and procedures, and changes in them, take precedence over
statements in this document.
This Pattern of Administration is subject to continuing revision. It must be reviewed and either
revised or reaffirmed on appointment or reappointment of the center director. However,
revisions may be made at any time as needed. All revisions, as well as periodic reaffirmation, are
subject to approval by the college office.
II
Center Mission
The EEIC mission is to enrich the student experience and to strengthen the academic
credentials of our undergraduates.
Goals: 1. Promote innovation and creativity in all of our UG programs,
2. Offer multi-disciplinary courses and opportunities for students that enhance
their experience, and
3. Foster scholarship of teaching and learning across the College
The EEIC is nationally recognized for its commitment to outstanding undergraduate education.
The EEIC offers first-year engineering, industry-sponsored, multidisciplinary capstone design,
technical communication courses, and other enrichment courses while providing teaching and
research opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students and promoting the scholarship of
teaching and learning.
III
Academic Rights and Responsibilities
In April 2006, the university issued a reaffirmation of academic rights, responsibilities, and
processes for addressing concerns. This statement can be found on the Office of Academic
Affairs website, http://oaa.osu.edu/rightsandresponsibilities.html.
IV
Faculty
Faculty Rule 3335-5-19 (http://trustees.osu.edu/rules/university-rules) defines the types of
faculty appointments possible at The Ohio State University and the rights and restrictions
associated with each type of appointment. For purposes of governance, the faculty of this center
include both tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty with compensated FTEs of at least 50% in
the center. Since this center is not a TIU, all appointments requiring TIU affiliation are made
2
App 10 - 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
through collaborating Departments. Governance rights for faculty in their TIU are established by
the POA of the TIU but do not impact their Center governance status.
Emeritus faculty previously holding faculty status with the Center are invited to participate in
discussions on non-personnel matters, but may not vote on any matter.
Detailed information about the appointment criteria and procedures for the various types of
faculty appointments made in this center is provided in the Appointments, Promotion and Tenure
Document (see http://oaa.osu.edu/governance).
V
Organization of Center Services and Staff
Center support services are organized by functions as follows:
• Center administrative support with fiscal and H/R support in collaboration with Office of
UESS
• Instructional Laboratory (mechanical and electronic) support
• Engineering Education Graduate Student Support (through College of Education and
Human Ecology)
• Technical Communications Resources and Consultation
• Instructional technology and computer system support in collaboration with Region One
Computing Facilities
• Student Instructional Leadership Team (SILT)
Staff members report to supervisors in their functional areas, who in turn report to the center
director. Staff supervisors meet periodically with the center director and associate director to
coordinate their activities.
VI
Overview of Center Administration and Decision-Making
Policy and program decisions are made in a number of ways: by the center faculty as a whole, by
standing or special committees of the center, or by the director. The nature and importance of
any individual matter determine how it is addressed. Center governance proceeds on the general
principle that the more important the matter to be decided, the more inclusive participation in
decision making needs to be. Open discussions, both formal and informal, constitute the primary
means of reaching decisions of central importance.
VII Center Administration
A
Director
The primary responsibilities of the center director parallel those that are set forth for chairs in
Faculty Rule 3335-3-35, http://trustees.osu.edu/rules/university-rules. This rule requires the
development, in consultation with the faculty, a Pattern of Administration with specified
minimum content. The rule, along with Faculty Rule 3335-6,
http://trustees.osu.edu/rules/university-rules, also requires the director to prepare, in consultation
3
App 10 - 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
with the faculty, a document setting forth policies and procedures pertinent to promotion and
tenure.
Responsibilities of the director, not specifically noted elsewhere in this Pattern of
Administration, are paraphrased and summarized below.
•
To have general administrative responsibility for center programs, subject to the
approval of the dean of the college, and to conduct the business of the center efficiently.
This broad responsibility includes the acquisition and management of funds and the
hiring and supervision of faculty and staff.
•
To plan with the members of the faculty and the dean of the college a progressive
program; to encourage research and educational investigations.
•
To evaluate and improve instructional and administrative processes on an ongoing basis;
to promote improvement of instruction by providing for the evaluation of each course
when offered, including written evaluation by students of the course and instructors, and
periodic course review by the faculty.
•
To evaluate faculty members annually in accordance with both university and center
established criteria; to inform faculty members when they receive their annual review of
their right to review their primary personnel file maintained by the center and to place in
that file a response to any evaluation, comment, or other material contained in the file.
•
To recommend, in cooperation with the appropriate TIU Chair, appointments,
promotions, dismissals, and matters affecting the tenure of members of the center faculty
to the dean of the college, in accordance with procedures set forth in Faculty Rule 3335-6
and 3335-7 (http://trustees.osu.edu/rules/university-rules) and the TIU department's
Appointments, Promotion and Tenure Document.
•
To see that all faculty members, regardless of their assigned location, are offered the
privileges and responsibilities appropriate to their rank; and in general to lead in
maintaining a high level of morale.
•
To see that adequate supervision and training are given to those members of the faculty
and staff who may profit by such assistance.
Day-to-day responsibility for specific matters may be delegated to others, but the director retains
final responsibility and authority for all matters covered by this Pattern, subject when relevant to
the approval of the dean, Office of Academic Affairs, and Board of Trustees.
Operational efficiency requires that the director exercise a degree of autonomy in establishing
and managing administrative processes. The articulation and achievement of center academic
goals, however, is most successful when all faculty members participate in discussing and
deciding matters of importance. The director will therefore consult with the faculty on all
educational and academic policy issues and will respect the principle of majority rule. When a
4
App 10 - 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
departure from majority rule is judged to be necessary, the director will explain to the faculty the
reasons for the departure, ideally before action is taken.
B
Associate Director
The director shall designate an associate director of the center. The associate director need not
have faculty status. The associate director shall assist the director in overall administration of the
center including, as designated by the director:
• master schedule finalization,
• finalization of teaching assignments for all faculty and graduate and undergraduate
teaching associates,
• personnel, fiscal, and business matters,
• space and facilities allocations,
• representation of the center at college and university meetings, and
• listening and responding to requests and problems of faculty, staff, students, and others.
C
Committees
Much of the development and implementation of the center's policies and programs is carried out
by standing and ad hoc committees. The director is an ex officio member of all center
committees and may vote as a member on all committees.
The center shall have at least the following standing committees: an Executive Committee, an
Undergraduate Studies Committee, a Research and Scholarship Committee, a Computing,
Instructional Technology and Facilities Committee, an Honors and Awards Committee and an
Internal Advisory Committee. In addition, more formal or ad-hoc committees will be established
whenever the director deems it to be necessary for the continued wellbeing of the center. All
committees are advisory to the center director and/or through the director, to the center faculty.
Except as indicated below, all committee members and chairs shall be appointed by the center
director for one year terms commencing in the autumn term.
C.1. Executive Committee
The Executive Committee shall have at least seven members plus the center director. Members
will include the associate director; the chairs of the Undergraduate Studies, Research and
Scholarship, Computing, Instructional Technology and Facilities Committees; program directors
of the TCRC, first-year honors, and multi-disciplinary capstone programs; and other at large
members of the EEIC faculty and staff selected by the director. The center director serves as
chair of the Executive Committee.
The Executive Committee will advise the director on budgetary policy, personnel resources, and
operational matters. The Executive Committee is responsible for long range planning, and for
proposing administrative policies for approval by the faculty. It will meet at least once per
academic term.
5
App 10 - 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
C.2. Undergraduate Studies Committee
Undergraduate Studies Committee members shall include faculty and staff members representing
different areas within the center. The composition of the committee should be such that all areas
of the center curriculum offerings are represented. It shall also include at least one person from
the College's Undergraduate Student Services office, and one graduate and one undergraduate
student representative from the EEIC. The chair of the Undergraduate Studies Committee will be
appointed by the center director for a three-year term, and will also be a member of the College’s
Core Curriculum and UG Services Committee. The appointments of the faculty members on the
Undergraduate Studies Committee will be for three years and individual appointments will be
staggered. The student representatives will usually be selected from among the graduate and
undergraduate teaching associates for a one-year term. The Undergraduate Studies Committee's
responsibilities will include all undergraduate curriculum matters related to the undergraduate
courses offered under the ENGR course offering name, in cooperation when necessary with
appropriate committees of other units outside the center which offer ENGR-named courses.
These responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the following: ensuring that undergraduate
and graduate course syllabi are reviewed and kept current, ABET accreditation related issues,
course assessment and refinement, and handling undergraduate student grievances. The student
representatives will not be eligible to attend discussion of matters relating to specific students, or
to vote on those matters.
C.3. Research and Scholarship Committee
Research and Scholarship Committee shall include at least four faculty members appointed by
the Director for three-year terms. Responsibilities will include promotion of research and
scholarship of teaching and learning in engineering, coordination of regular seminars and
seeking collaboration with other units with similar scholarly interests.
C.4. Computing, Instructional Technology and Facilities Committee
The Computing, Instructional Technology, and Facilities Committee will consist of faculty and
staff broadly knowledgeable about computing, instructional technology and facilities needs in the
center. The committee chair will be a faculty member appointed by the center director. A
representative from the Region One Computing Facilities staff shall serve on the Committee.
Responsibilities will include maintaining a plan for computing, instructional technology, and
facilities for the center.
C.5. Honors and Awards Committee
The Honors and Awards Committee consists of at least three members, who are appointed
annually by the center director. The committee is to be chaired by the Associate Director. The
committee shall keep abreast of awards for which faculty and staff may be eligible. Its
responsibilities shall be to keep abreast of all deadlines for national and international honors and
awards, as well as those awarded by the College and University. The committee shall share
relevant information with faculty on a timely basis, decide which nominations should be
6
App 10 - 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
forwarded from competing nominations when necessary, and coordinate preparation of the
nominations of faculty and staff for outstanding contributions.
C.6. Internal Advisory Committee
The Internal Advisory Committee shall include at nine members from units across the College
serving staggered three-year terms. Membership should be rotated to account for representation
across all programs of the College over time. Responsibilities will include on-going review of
EEIC programs to assure continuous quality improvement. The committee shall meet at least
one per semester.
VIII Faculty and Staff Meetings
The director will provide to the faculty and staff a schedule of center meetings at the beginning
of each academic term. The schedule will provide for at least one meeting per semester. A call
for agenda items and completed agenda will be delivered to faculty by e-mail before a scheduled
meeting. Reasonable efforts will be made to call for agenda items at least seven days before the
meeting, and to distribute the agenda by e-mail at least three business days before the meeting. A
meeting of the center will also be scheduled on written request of 25% of the center faculty. The
director will make reasonable efforts to have the meeting take place within one week of receipt
of the request. The director will distribute minutes of faculty and staff meetings by e-mail—
within seven days of the meeting if possible. These minutes may be amended at the next meeting
by a simple majority vote of those who were present at the meeting covered by the minutes.
Special policies pertaining to voting on personnel matters, and these are set forth in the center's
Appointments, Promotion and Tenure Document.
For purposes of discussing center business other than personnel matters and curriculum, and for
making decisions where consensus is possible and a reasonable basis for action, a quorum will be
defined as a simple majority of all members eligible to vote. For purposes of personnel matters
and curriculum, voting shall be restricted to those defined by this document as faculty and
executive committee of the Center.
Either the director or one-third of all faculty members eligible to vote may determine that a
formal vote conducted by written ballot is necessary on matters of special importance. For
purposes of a formal vote, a matter will be considered decided when a particular position is
supported by at least a majority of all faculty members eligible to vote. Balloting will be
conducted by mail or e-mail when necessary to assure maximum participation in voting. When
conducting a ballot by mail or email, faculty members will be given one week to respond.
When a matter must be decided and a simple majority of all faculty members eligible to vote
cannot be achieved on behalf of any position, the director will necessarily make the final
decision.
The center accepts the fundamental importance of full and free discussion but also recognizes
that such discussion can only be achieved in an atmosphere of mutual respect and civility.
7
App 10 - 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Normally center meetings will be conducted with no more formality than is needed to attain the
goals of full and free discussion and the orderly conduct of business. However, Robert’s Rules of
Order will be invoked when more formality is needed to serve these goals.
IX
Distribution of Faculty Duties and Responsibilities
During on-duty periods, faculty members are expected to be available for interaction with
students, research, and center meetings and events even if they have no formal course
assignment. On-duty faculty members should not be away from campus for extended periods of
time unless on an approved leave (see section XII) or on approved travel.
The guidelines outlined here do not constitute a contractual obligation. Fluctuations in the
demands and resources of the center and the individual circumstances of faculty members may
warrant temporary deviations from these guidelines. Assignments and expectations for the
upcoming year are addressed as part of the annual review by the center director.
A
Faculty
Faculty members are expected to contribute to the university’s mission via teaching, scholarship,
and service. When a faculty member’s contributions decrease in one of these three areas,
additional activity in one or both of the other areas is expected. Expectations of faculty with
appointments in the center must also be consistent with also meeting expectations of their TIU
and will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis.
Teaching
All faculty are expected to contribute to the center’s teaching. The standard teaching assignment
for faculty members is defined in the EEIC Staffing Models statement.
Adjustments to the standard teaching assignment may be made to account for teaching a new
class, the size of the class, whether the class is taught on-line or team-taught, and other factors
that may affect the preparation time involved in teaching the course.
The standard teaching assignment may vary for individual faculty members based on their
research/scholarship and/or service activity. Faculty members who are especially active in
research can be assigned an enhanced research status that includes a reduced teaching
assignment. Likewise, faculty members who are relatively inactive in research/scholarship can
be assigned an enhanced teaching status that includes an increased teaching assignment. Faculty
members who are engaged in extraordinary service activities (to the center, department, college,
university, and in special circumstances professional organizations within the discipline) can be
assigned an enhanced service assignment that includes a reduced teaching assignment.
The director is responsible for making teaching assignments on an annual basis, and may decline
to approve requests for adjustments when approval of such requests is not judged to be in the
best interests of the center.
8
App 10 - 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Scholarship
All tenure-track, clinical, and research faculty appointed within the Center are expected to be
engaged in scholarship of teaching and learning. All associated faculty are encouraged to be
engaged in scholarship of teaching and learning.
Service
Faculty members are expected to be engaged in service and outreach to the center, TIU
departments, university, profession and community. Pattern will vary depending on the nature
of the assignment (e.g. service as committee chair, service on a particularly time-intensive
committee, organizing a professional conference, leadership in an educational outreach activity,
service in an administrative position within the center, TIU department, college, or university).
All faculty members are expected to attend and participate in faculty meetings, recruitment
activities, and other center events.
i.
Special Assignments
Information on special assignments (SAs) is presented in the Office of Academic Affairs Special
Assignment Policy (http://oaa.osu.edu/assets/files/documents/specialassignment.pdf).
B
Associated Faculty
All associated faculty (including lecturers) are expected to contribute to the center’s teaching.
The standard teaching assignment for associated faculty members is defined in the EEIC Staffing
Models statement.
Compensated associated faculty members are encouraged to contribute to the university’s
mission via research and scholarship depending on the terms of their individual appointments.
Expectations for compensated visiting faculty members will be based on the terms of their
appointment and are comparable to that of tenure-track faculty members except that service is
not required.
C
Parental Modification of Duties
The Center strives to be a family-friendly unit in its efforts to recruit and retain high quality
faculty members. To this end, the center is committed to adhering to the College of
Engineering’s guidelines on parental modification of duties to provide its faculty members
flexibility in meeting work responsibilities within the first year of childbirth/adoption. See the
college pattern of administration at http://engineering.osu.edu/about/faculty-and-staff/faculty for
details.
The faculty member requesting the modification of duties for childbirth/adoption and the center
director should be creative and flexible in developing a solution that is fair to both the individual
9
App 10 - 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
and the unit while addressing the needs of the university. Expectations must be spelled out in an
memorandum of understanding (MOU) that is approved by the dean.
X
Course Offerings and Teaching Schedule
The center director will annually develop a schedule of course offerings and teaching schedules
in consultation with the faculty, both collectively and individually. While every effort will be
made to accommodate the individual preferences of faculty, the center’s first obligation is to
offer the courses needed by students at times and in formats, including on-line instruction, most
likely to meet student needs. To assure classroom availability, reasonable efforts must be made
to distribute course offerings across the day and week. To meet student needs, reasonable efforts
must be made to assure that course offerings match student demand and that timing conflicts
with other courses students are known to take in tandem are avoided. A scheduled course that
does not attract the minimum number of students required by Faculty Rule 3335-8-17
(http://trustees.osu.edu/rules/university-rules) will normally be cancelled and the faculty member
scheduled to teach that course will be assigned to another course for that or a subsequent
semester. Finally, to the extent possible, courses required in any curriculum or courses with
routinely high demand will be taught by at least two faculty members across semesters of
offering to assure that instructional expertise is always available for such courses.
XI
Allocation of Center Resources
The director is responsible for the fiscal and academic health of the center and for assuring that
all resources—fiscal, human, and physical—are allocated in a manner that will optimize
achievement of center goals.
The director will discuss the center budget at least annually with the faculty and attempt to
achieve consensus regarding the use of funds across general categories. However, final decisions
on budgetary matters rest with the director.
Research space shall be allocated on the basis of research productivity including external funding
and will be reallocated periodically as these faculty-specific variables change.
The allocation of office space will include considerations such as achieving proximity of faculty
in subdisciplines and productivity and grouping staff functions to maximize efficiency.
The allocation of salary funds is discussed in the Appointments, Promotion and Tenure
Document.
XII Leaves and Absences
The university's policies and procedures with respect to leaves and absences are set forth in the
Office of Academic Affairs Policies and Procedures Handbook
(http://oaa.osu.edu/handbook.html) and Office of Human Resources Policies and Procedures
website, http://hr.osu.edu/policy/. The information provided below supplements these policies.
10
App 10 - 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
A
Discretionary Absence
Faculty are expected to complete a travel request or an Application for Leave form well in
advance of a planned absence (for attendance at a professional meeting or to engage in
consulting) to provide time for its consideration and approval and time to assure that
instructional and other commitments are covered. Discretionary absence from duty is not a right
and the director retains the authority to disapprove a proposed absence when it will interfere with
instructional or other comparable commitments. Such an occurrence is most likely when the
number of absences in a particular semester is substantial. Rules of the University Faculty
require that the Office of Academic Affairs approve any discretionary absence longer than 10
consecutive business days (See Faculty Rule 3335-5-08) and must be requested at
https://eleave.osu.edu/.
B
Absence for Medical Reasons
When absences for medical reasons are anticipated, faculty members are expected to complete an
Application for Leave form as early as possible. When such absences are unexpected, the faculty
member, or someone speaking for the faculty member, should let the director know promptly so
that instructional and other commitments can be managed. Faculty members are always expected
to use sick leave for any absence covered by sick leave (personal illness, illness of family
members, medical appointments). Sick leave is a benefit to be used—not banked. For additional
details see OHR Policy 6.27, www.hr.osu.edu/policy/index.aspx.
C
Unpaid Leaves of Absence
The university's policies with respect to unpaid leaves of absence and entrepreneurial leaves of
absence are set forth in OHR Policy 6.45, www.hr.osu.edu/policy/index.aspx. The information
provided below supplements these policies.
D
Faculty Professional Leave
Information on faculty professional leaves is presented in the OAA Policy on Faculty
Professional Leaves (http://oaa.osu.edu/assets/files/documents/facultyprofessionalleaves.pdf).
The information provided below supplements these policies.
The Center will rely on review by the appropriate TIU for all requests for faculty professional
leave and make a recommendation to the center director and the department chair based on the
TIU criteria.
The director and chair's recommendation to the dean regarding an FPL proposal will be based on
the quality of the proposal and its potential benefit to the center and department and to the
faculty member as well as the ability of the center and department to accommodate the leave at
the time requested.
11
App 10 - 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
XIII Supplemental Compensation and Paid External Consulting
Information on faculty supplemental compensation is presented in the OAA Policy on Faculty
Compensation (http://oaa.osu.edu/assets/files/documents/facultycompensation.pdf). Information
on paid external consulting is presented in the university’s Policy on Faculty Paid External
Consulting (http://oaa.osu.edu/assets/files/documents/paidexternalconsulting.pdf). The
information provided below supplements these policies.
This center adheres to these policies in every respect. In particular, this center expects faculty
members to carry out the duties associated with their primary appointment with the university at
a high level of competence before seeking other income-enhancing opportunities. All activities
providing supplemental compensation must be approved by the center director regardless of the
source of compensation. External consulting must also be approved. Approval will be contingent
on the extent to which a faculty member is carrying out regular duties at an acceptable level, the
extent to which the extra income activity appears likely to interfere with regular duties, and the
academic value of the proposed consulting activity to the center. In addition, it is university
policy that faculty may not spend more than one business day per week on supplementally
compensated activities and external consulting combined.
Faculty who fail to adhere to the university's policies on these matters, including seeking
approval for external consulting, will be subject to disciplinary action.
XIV Financial Conflicts of Interest
Information on faculty supplemental compensation is presented in the university’s Policy on
Faculty Financial Conflict of Interest
(http://oaa.osu.edu/assets/files/documents/financialconflictofinterest.pdf). A conflict of interest
exists if financial interests or other opportunities for tangible personal benefit may exert a
substantial and improper influence upon a faculty member or administrator's professional
judgment in exercising any university duty or responsibility, including designing, conducting or
reporting research.
Faculty members with external funding or otherwise required by university policy are required to
file conflict of interest screening forms annually and more often if prospective new activities
pose the possibility of financial conflicts of interest. Faculty who fail to file such forms or to
cooperate with university officials in the avoidance or management of potential conflicts will be
subject to disciplinary action.
XV Grievance Procedures
Members of the center with grievances should discuss them with the director who will review the
matter as appropriate and either seek resolution or explain why resolution is not possible.
Content below describes procedures for the review of specific types of complaints and
grievances
12
App 10 - 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
A
Salary Grievances
A faculty or staff member who believes that his or her salary is inappropriately low should
discuss the matter with the center director. The faculty or staff member should provide
documentation to support the complaint.
Faculty members who are not satisfied with the outcome of the discussion with the director and
wish to pursue the matter may be eligible to file a more formal salary appeal (the Office of
Academic Affairs Policies and Procedures Handbook, http://oaa.osu.edu/handbook.html).
Staff members who are not satisfied with the outcome of the discussion with the director and
wish to pursue the matter should contact Consulting Services in the Office of Human Resources
(www.hr.osu.edu/).
B
Faculty Misconduct
Complaints alleging faculty misconduct or incompetence should follow the procedures set forth
in Faculty Rule 3335-5-04 http://trustees.osu.edu/rules/university-rules.
C
Renewal Appeals
Renewal appeals procedures are set forth in Faculty Rule 3335-5-05,
http://trustees.osu.edu/rules/university-rules.
D
Sexual Harassment
The university's policy and procedures related to sexual harassment are set forth in OHR Policy
1.15, www.hr.osu.edu/policy/index.aspx.
E
Student Complaints
Normally student complaints about courses, grades, and related matters are brought to the
attention of individual faculty members. In receiving such complaints, faculty should treat
students with respect regardless of the apparent merit of the complaint and provide a considered
response. When students bring complaints about courses and instructors to the center director,
the director will first ascertain whether or not the students require confidentiality. If
confidentiality is not required, the director will investigate the matter as fully and fairly as
possible and provide a response to both the students and any affected faculty. If confidentiality is
required, the director will explain that it is not possible to fully investigate a complaint in such
circumstances and will advise the student(s) on options to pursue without prejudice as to whether
the complaint is valid or not.
Faculty complaints regarding students must always be handled strictly in accordance with
university rules and policies. Faculty should seek the advice and assistance of the director and
others with appropriate knowledge of policies and procedures when problematic situations arise.
In particular, evidence of academic misconduct must be brought to the attention of the
13
App 10 - 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Committee on Academic Misconduct (see http://oaa.osu.edu/coam.html and
http://senate.osu.edu/committees/COAM/COAM.html).
F
Code of Student Conduct
In accordance with the Code of Student Conduct (http://studentconduct.osu.edu/ ), faculty
members will report any instances of academic misconduct to the Committee of Academic
Misconduct.
14
23 December 2013
App 11 - 1
APPOINTMENTS, PROMOTION AND
TENURE
CRITERIA AND PROCE DUR E S FO R T H E
E NGINE ER ING EDUCATION INNOVATION
CENTER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PREAMBLE
2
2. CENTER MISSION
3
3.0 APPOINTMENTS: CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES
3
3.1 CRITERIA: FACULTY......................................................................................................................3
3.1.1 TENURE TRACK FACULTY ......................................................................................................4
3.1.1.1 Appointment as Assistant Professor .........................................................................................4
3.1.1.2 Appointment as Associate Professor..........................................................................................4
3.1.1.3 Appointment as FULL Professor...............................................................................................4
3.1.1.4 Appointment as INSTRUCTOR.................................................................................................4
3.1.2 Appointment to Clinical Track fAculty ........................................................................................4
3.1.3 Appointment to RESEARCH track faculty .....................................................................................5
3.1.4 appointment as Associated FACULTY MEMBER ......................................................................6
3.1.4.1 Visiting Appointment .................................................................................................................6
3.1.4.2 lecturer and Senior Lecturer......................................................................................................6
3.1.4.3 Appointment Less Than 50% .....................................................................................................6
3.1.4.4 Adjunct Appointment .................................................................................................................7
3.1.5 CRITERIA: COURTESY APPOINTMENTS FOR FACULTY ..................................................7
3.2 PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENT ............................................................................................7
3.2.1 TENURE TRACK FACULTY ........................................................................................................7
3.2.2 CLINICAL TRACK FACULTY ....................................................................................................8
3.2.3 RESEARCH TRACK FACULTY...................................................................................................9
3.2.4 ASSOCIATED FACULTY ..............................................................................................................9
3.2.5 COURTESY FACULTY APPOINTMENTS .................................................................................9
4. ANNUAL REVIEWS
9
4.1 TENURED FACULTY .......................................................................................................................9
4.2 CLINICAL TRACK FACULTY ......................................................................................................10
4.3 RESEARCH TRACK FACULTY....................................................................................................11
4.4 DOCUMENTATION ........................................................................................................................12
5. MERIT SALARY INCREASES
12
6. REVIEWS FOR PROMOTION AND/OR TENURE
13
App 11 - 2
A P P O I N T M E N T, P R O M O T I O N A N D
TENURE
C RITERIA AND P ROCEDURES FOR THE
E NGINEERING E DUCATION I NNOVATION C ENTER
1. PREAMBLE
This document is a supplement to Chapters 6 and 7 of the Rules of the University Faculty
http://trustees.osu.edu/rules/university-rules/), Volume 3 of the Office of Academic Affairs
Policies and Procedures Handbook (http://oaa.osu.edu/policiesprocedureshandbook.html), the
Engineering Education Innovation Center (EEIC) Pattern of Administration (POA), and any
additional policies established by the College of Engineering and the University. Should these
rules and policies change, the Center shall follow the new rules and policies until such time as it
can update this document to reflect the changes. In addition, this document must be reviewed,
and either reaffirmed or revised, at least every four years on appointment or reappointment of the
Center Director. Definitions of terms in this document relating to groups and committees within
the EEIC are found in the EEIC Pattern of Administration.
This document must be approved by the Dean of the College of Engineering before it can be
implemented. It sets forth the Center's mission and, in the context of that mission and the
missions of the College and University, its criteria and procedures for appointments, promotions,
tenure, and rewards including salary increases. In approving this document, the Dean accepts the
mission and criteria of the Center, and delegates to it the responsibility of applying high
standards in evaluating continuing personnel and candidates for positions in relation to its
mission and criteria.
The general criteria specified for appointment, promotion and tenure consider the traditional
areas of teaching, research/scholarship, and service. An overarching theme of the criteria and
procedures set forth in this document is balance among, and integration of, these aspects of
performance in the context of maximum impact on the mission of the EEIC, the College of
Engineering, and the University.
Since the EEIC is not a Tenure Initiating Unit (TIU), this document will focus on:
1) relationship to TIU units of tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty members serving in a
greater than 50% appointment within the EEIC, and
2) associated faculty in the lecturer category with their primary appointment within the EEIC.
2
App 11 - 3
2. CENTER MISSION
The mission of the Center is to enrich the student experience and to strengthen the academic
credentials of our undergraduates. Further defined by the Goals:
1. Promote innovation and creativity in all of our UG programs,
2. Offer multi-disciplinary courses and opportunities for students that enhance their
experience, and
3. Foster scholarship of teaching and learning across the College
3.0 APPOINTMENTS: CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES
3.1 CRITERIA: FACULTY
Faculty of the EEIC are defined consistent with Faculty Rule 3335-5-19. Tenure-track, nontenure track (except Lecturers), and emeritus faculty on full or part-time appointments, with or
without salary, supported by the EEIC must have an associated TIU. For purposes of
appointment, promotion and tenure considerations, the Appointment, Promotion and Tenure
(APT) Criteria and Procedures document of the collaborating Department (TIU) will be the
governing document. The EEIC shall make every effort to collaborate with the TIU and the
faculty member in assuring compliance with the procedures and criteria. For purposes of
Appointment and Promotion, faculty in categories of lecturer and senior lecturer with their
primary appointment within the EEIC fall solely within the APT Criteria of the EEIC.
Consistent with the goals and mission of the EEIC and the collaborating Department (TIU) at
The Ohio State University, the criteria for appointment of regular faculty must meet high
standards of excellence. The expectations for scholarly promise of the successfully-appointed
candidate must meet or exceed the collaborating Department’s official criteria for promotion and
tenure in the case of tenure-track faculty, and promotion in the case of clinical track and research
track faculty. For an appointment at the Associate Professor or Full Professor levels, the
scholarly accomplishments of the candidate must meet or exceed the collaborating Department’s
criteria for promotion to those levels. In general, the successful candidate must demonstrate high
promise for performing independent, significant and visible research, and excellence in teaching
and service, with emphasis on the different areas of accomplishment appropriate for the faculty
category. The following is a list of criteria that must be met by the successful candidate as
determined by the Search Committee for the position being filled, and as agreed upon by the
Center and Department.
3
App 11 - 4
3.1.1 TENURE TRACK FACULTY
3.1.1.1 APPOINTMENT AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
•
•
•
•
•
The successful candidate must:
have an earned doctorate in a relevant field of study, or possession of equivalent experience.
provide clear evidence of research promise as defined by demonstrated ability to perform,
complete and publish a major body of work that is relevant to his/her area(s) of
specialization.
have uniformly outstanding recommendation letters that establish the candidate as one of the
top candidates of his or her peer group nationally.
demonstrate potential for excellence in teaching, and must have excellent communication and
writing skills.
display evidence of potential for service to the institution and the professional community.
Appointment at the rank of Assistant Professor is always probationary, with mandatory
tenure review occurring in the sixth year of service. The granting of prior service credit, which
requires approval of the College and the Office of Academic Affairs, may reduce the length of
the probationary period, but is strongly discouraged as it cannot be revoked once granted.
3.1.1.2 APPOINTMENT AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
The successful candidate for appointment at this level with tenure must meet or exceed the
Department’s (TIU’s) Criteria for Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure.
3.1.1.3 APPOINTMENT AS FULL PROFESSOR
The successful candidate for appointment at this level with tenure must meet or exceed the
Department’s (TIU’s) Criteria for Promotion to Professor, with particular emphasis on the
requirement that the candidate have national and international recognition as a scholar in his/her
area.
3.1.1.4 APPOINTMENT AS INSTRUCTOR
Appointment at the Instructor level should normally only be made if the offered appointment
is that of tenure-track Assistant Professor, with all of the criteria for appointment at that level
being met with the exception that the appointee has not yet completed the Ph.D. degree at the
outset of the appointment. Such an appointment should only be made when the award of the
degree is imminent. Instructor appointments are limited to three years, with the third year being
the terminal year.
3.1.2 APPOINTMENT TO CLINICAL TRACK FACULTY
Clinical track faculty appointments can be made at the Assistant, Associate or Full Professor
level and will be referred to as “(Assistant, Associate, or Full) Professor of Practice in
Collaborating TIU Name.” These appointments are similar to regular tenure-track faculty
4
App 11 - 5
appointments in the expectations for scholarly promise and/or accomplishments, but with a
greater emphasis on excellence in teaching and scholarship related to professional engineering
practice and little emphasis on research publication and external research funding. Research per
se is not acceptable as an evaluation criterion for hiring.
The successful candidate will have:
• an earned Ph.D. although exceptions can be made for extremely well qualified candidates.
An M.S. degree is required. Relevant industrial or governmental professional experience can
be counted in place of a Ph.D.
• a strong component of professional engineering practice and accomplishment in his/her
background. Professional specializations need to be well aligned with department needs.
• demonstrated communication and instructional skills and the ability to transfer and share
knowledge.
• the ability to improve the curriculum in his/her area of expertise and create new courses
where appropriate.
• a demonstrated interest in teaching and a strong interest in College of Engineering students.
Appointment of regular clinical track faculty entails a three-, four- or five-year contract. The
initial contract is probationary, with reappointment considered annually. Tenure is not granted to
regular clinical track faculty. There is also no presumption that subsequent contracts will be
offered, regardless of performance. If the Center wishes to consider contract renewal, a formal
review of the faculty member in a form specified by the collaborating TIU is required in the
penultimate year of the current contract period. For more information see Faculty Rule 3335-7,
Chapter 7 of Rules of the University Faculty (http://trustees.osu.edu/rules/universityrules/rules7/)
3.1.3 APPOINTMENT TO RESEARCH TRACK FACULTY
Regular research track faculty appointments can be made at the Assistant, Associate or Full
Professor level and will be referred to as “(Assistant, Associate, or Full) Research Professor in
Collaborating TIU.” These appointments are similar to regular tenure-track faculty appointments
in the expectations for scholarly promise and/or accomplishments, but with a greater emphasis
on research and little emphasis on teaching. Teaching per se is not acceptable as an evaluation
criterion for hiring.
The successful candidate will have:
• an earned Ph.D. in Engineering or other relevant field in an area of interest aligned with
Center research needs.
• demonstrated research ability or potential in an area of interest aligned with Center research
needs demonstrated by:
o Publications, patents
o Strong track record or potential for externally funded research
o Leading externally-sponsored research projects
5
App 11 - 6
•
o Advising or co-advising of graduate students
o Peer evaluations of research
o Seminars, short courses and other research dissemination activities
demonstrated communication skills and mastery of the English language in both written and
verbal forms.
Appointment of research track faculty normally entails a one- to five-year contract. The
initial contract is probationary, with reappointment considered annually. Tenure is not granted to
regular research track faculty. There is also no presumption that subsequent contracts will be
offered, regardless of performance. If the Center wishes to consider contract renewal, a formal
review of the faculty member, in a form specified by the collaborating TIU, is required in the
penultimate year of the current contract period. For more information see Faculty Rule 3335-7,
Chapter 7 of Rules of the University Faculty (http://trustees.osu.edu/rules/universityrules/rules7/).
3.1.4 APPOINTMENT AS ASSOCIATED FACULTY MEMBER
Criteria for original appointments and re-appointments in this category are the same as for
faculty of comparable rank in the corresponding track (tenure track, clinical track, or research
track) and 100% appointments in the collaborating Department (TIU). Associated faculty
appointments may be made for a maximum of three consecutive years and, with the exception of
visiting titles, may be renewed.
3.1.4.1 VISITING APPOINTMENT
The visiting faculty rank is to be conferred on a person with faculty credentials who typically
holds a faculty appointment at another institution. The appointment of the visiting faculty
member can only occur if the visiting person will be collaborating with a regular faculty member
within the Department. Evidence of the collaboration should be provided in the nominating
letter from a regular faculty member. Original and subsequent appointments will be at a rank
compatible with the person’s qualifications, and are limited to three years.
3.1.4.2 LECTURER AND SENIOR LECTURER
The Lecturer and Senior Lecturer positions are to be used only when specific instructional
needs are identified in the Center. Persons appointed to the Lecturer position are expected to
have special qualifications which help meet the instructional need. Evidence of qualifications
includes advanced degrees and/or experience related to the topics in the course. Persons
appointed to the Senior Lecturer position will have advanced degrees and greater depth of
experience related to the identified need. Lecturers and Senior Lecturers are not eligible for
tenure.
3.1.4.3 APPOINTMENT LESS THAN 50%
For associated faculty appointments at regular titles at 49% FTE or below, either
6
App 11 - 7
compensated or uncompensated, criteria for original appointments and re-appointments are those
specified by the collaborating Department (TIU) and are generally the same as for regular faculty
of comparable rank with 100% appointments in the collaborating Department (TIU). Auxiliary
faculty members with regular titles are eligible for promotion (but not tenure) and the relevant
criteria are those for promotion of regular tenure-track faculty.
3.1.4.4 ADJUNCT APPOINTMENT
The adjunct faculty position is a title given to appropriately qualified individuals who
provide substantial services to the Center for which a faculty title is needed. These positions are
never compensated. Criteria of the collaborating Department (TIU) will be used for all such
appointments.
3.1.5 CRITERIA: COURTESY APPOINTMENTS FOR FACULTY
The courtesy appointment is a no-salary joint appointment for regular members of The Ohio
State University faculty from other tenure initiating units. Its purpose is to facilitate research and
curricular collaboration between faculty members from different departments. The appointee’s
rank in the tenure initiating unit will be respected in making the appointment in Center.
Continuation of the appointment should reflect ongoing contributions to the Center.
3.2 PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENT
3.2.1 TENURE TRACK FACULTY
See Policy on Faculty Appointments of the Office of Academic Affairs,
http://oaa.osu.edu/assets/files/documents/facultyappointments.pdf on the following topics:
•
•
•
•
•
recruitment of regular tenure track, clinical track and research track faculty
appointments at senior rank or with prior service credit
hiring faculty from other institutions after April 30
appointment of foreign nationals
letters of offer
Unless a targeted search has been approved by the Center Director, Dean of the College of
Engineering, and Office of Academic Affairs, a Search Committee, appointed by the Center
Director and collaborating Department Chair (TIU), shall be responsible for conducting national
searches for new, regular tenure-track faculty members. The search committee:
•
Appoints as Procedures Oversight Designee a member other than the committee Chair who is
responsible for ensuring that proper procedures are followed during the search, and for
providing leadership in assuring that vigorous efforts are made to achieve a diverse pool of
qualified applicants.
7
App 11 - 8
•
•
Develops a search announcement for internal posting in the university Personnel Postings
(formerly known as the "green sheet") through the Office of Human Resources Employment
Services (www.hr.osu.edu/) and external advertising, subject to the department chair's
approval. The announcement will be no more specific than is necessary to accomplish the
goals of the search, since an offer cannot be made that is contrary to the content of the
announcement with respect to rank, field, credentials, salary. In addition, timing for the
receipt of applications will be stated as a preferred date, not a precise closing date, in order to
allow consideration of any applications that arrive before the conclusion of the search.
Develops and implements a plan for external advertising and direct solicitation of
nominations and applications. If there is any likelihood that the applicant pool will include
qualified foreign nationals, the search committee must assure that at least one print (as
opposed to on-line) advertisement appears in a location likely to be read by qualified
potential applicants. The university does not grant tenure in the absence of permanent
residency ("green card"), and U. S. Department of Labor guidelines do not permit
sponsorship of foreign nationals for permanent residency unless the search process resulting
in their appointment to a tenure track position included an advertisement in a field-specific
nationally circulated print journal.
The leading candidates will normally be invited to visit the Center and collaborating
Department to speak with the Center Director, Department Chair and members of the search
committee and the faculty, and to deliver a prepared lecture(s). All faculty members and the
Center and Department shall be asked to review the candidate’s resume and make pertinent
comments to the Search Committee and to the Center Director and Department Chair.
The Center Director and Department Chair will conduct a vote of the Committee, following a
meeting where the search committee presents its recommendations to the eligible faculty. An
offer will be made by the Center Director and Department Chair only after giving careful
consideration to all competing candidates for the position, and after reviewing the
recommendations of the Search Committee, and consideration of the faculty vote. All
appointments require the approval of the Dean of the College of Engineering. Appointments at
the rank of Associate or Full Professor also require approval of the Office of Academic Affairs.
Appointments with tenure at either of these levels must also follow the Department’s tenure
approval procedures, described in Section 7.5.7. After the successful appointment of a new
faculty member, the Center Director and Department Chair may nominate one or more
appropriate mentors to aid the new faculty member with regard to procedures and processes of
research, teaching and service within the University.
3.2.2 CLINICAL TRACK FACULTY
The procedures to initially appoint clinical track faculty members at any level are to be
modeled after that of the collaborating Department (TIU).
8
App 11 - 9
3.2.3 RESEARCH TRACK FACULTY
The procedures to initially appoint research track faculty members at any level are modeled
after that of the collaborating Department (TIU).
3.2.4 ASSOCIATED FACULTY
Requests for associated faculty appointments (other than lecturer and senior lecturer), will be
made consistent with the procedures of the appropriate collaborating Department (TIU).
Identification of the need for such a position, and endorsement of an individual to fill the
position, may come from any unit of the Center. Responsibility for hiring of Lecturers or Senior
Lecturers falls to the Center Director in concert with the Associate Director of the Center.
3.2.5 COURTESY FACULTY APPOINTMENTS
Each person seeking a courtesy appointment must have an advocate who has a faculty
appointment in the Center. This advocate must provide a letter justifying the need for the
courtesy appointment. In addition, the candidate must provide a resume and any other pertinent
information detailing his/her research record.
The Executive Committee will evaluate the candidate’s documentation and, on that basis,
make a recommendation to the Center Director as to the candidate’s suitability for the position.
The Center Director, based on consultations with the faculty, shall then either approve or reject
the candidate’s request. The faculty member who receives the courtesy appointment is expected
to turn in an activity report every year, describing the contributions he/she has made to the
Center. If the contributions to the Center are not substantial, the Center Director can terminate
the courtesy appointment.
4. ANNUAL REVIEWS
Procedures for annual reviews of faculty are described below. Procedures for faculty with
collaborating Departmental TIUs, including fourth-year and probationary reviews, are to be
developed in collaboration with the Department.
The Center follows the requirements for annual reviews as set forth in the Faculty Annual
Review Policy, http://oaa.osu.edu/assets/files/documents/annualreview.pdf. The annual reviews
of every faculty member are based on expected performance in teaching, research, and service as
set forth in the department's policy on faculty duties and responsibilities; on any additional
assignments and goals specific to the individual; and on progress toward promotion where
relevant.
4.1 TENURED FACULTY
The Center Director will meet with each tenured faculty member annually to discuss that
person's work, identify ways in which it might be facilitated or improved, and provide feedback
9
App 11 - 10
to the faculty member. Prior to that meeting, the faculty member will provide the Center Director
with a summary of his/her professional achievements in the format for annual reports prescribed
by the director. The documentation required for the annual performance review should be
consistent with that required by the collaborating Department (TIU). The past year's activities,
the faculty member's strengths and weaknesses, and progress in professional development will be
discussed as part of the annual review. This will be followed up by a letter to the faculty member
from the Center Director summarizing the review with a copy to the relevant collaboration
Department (TIU). The letter will include the main points of the conversation, and may be
combined with notification of that faculty member's recommended salary increment for the
following year. The collaborating Department (TIU) may require additional procedures be
followed.
4.2 CLINICAL TRACK FACULTY
The procedures for clinical track faculty members at any level are similar to those used for
probationary faculty in that the term of the contract is specified, and is subject to renewal or nonrenewal. In order to ensure that the faculty member is formally aware of the progress of his/her
professional development, during each spring term he/she will meet with, and be reviewed by the
Center Director. In cases of appointment which do not coincide with the beginning of the
Autumn term, this meeting will be at the end of the first year of service. Prior to that meeting, the
candidate will provide the director with a summary of professional achievements. The past year's
activities, the faculty member's strengths and weaknesses, and progress in professional
development will be discussed. A written summary of the meeting will be given to the
individual, a copy will be kept on file and a copy will be forwarded to the collaborating
Department (TIU). The annual meeting with the Center Director and the summary letter will
focus on the faculty member's instructional activities during the past year as well as other
advising and curriculum duties for which they are responsible. Performance reviews for clinical
track faculty members would recognize that performance expectations for clinical track faculty
emphasize teaching and curriculum development in areas of the curriculum with a significant
professional practice component, as well as scholarly activities related to professional practice.
The collaborating Department (TIU) may require additional procedures be followed.
Any non-renewal of the contract must result from termination of the position or a negative
performance review, the latter occurring either during an annual review of a probationary
contract or in the penultimate year of the contract. A vote of the eligible TIU faculty is required
in such cases. Non-renewal of a clinical track faculty appointment requires the approval of the
Dean. If the position will not continue, the faculty member is informed that the final contract
year will be a terminal year of employment. The standards of notice set forth in Faculty Rule
3335-6-08 must be observed. If the position will continue, a formal performance review for
reappointment is necessary in the penultimate contract year to determine whether the faculty
member will be offered a new contract. This review follows the review procedures for promotion
10
App 11 - 11
of clinical track faculty except that external letters are required only if promotion is being
considered, and the Dean makes the final decision on re-appointment at the same rank. There is
no presumption of renewal of contract.
4.3 RESEARCH TRACK FACULTY
The procedures for research track faculty members at any level are similar to those used for
probationary faculty in that the term of the contract is specified, and is subject to renewal or nonrenewal. In order to ensure that the faculty member is formally aware of the progress of his/her
professional development, during each spring term he/she will meet with, and be reviewed by,
the Center Director. In cases of appointment which do not coincide with the beginning of the
Autumn term, this meeting will be at the end of the first year of service. Prior to that meeting, the
candidate will provide the chair with a summary of professional achievements, and the
sponsoring research group will also provide a formal assessment of the faculty member’s
progress. The past year's activities, the faculty member's strengths and weaknesses, and progress
in professional development will be discussed. A written summary of the meeting will be given
to the individual, a copy will be kept on file and a copy will be forwarded to the collaborating
Department (TIU). The meeting with the Center Director and the summary letter will focus on
the faculty member's research, sponsored research funding and scholarship during the past year,
as well as graduate student advising and other service duties for which he/she is responsible.
Performance reviews for research track faculty would emphasize research performance including
externally funded research, leadership of sponsored research projects, advising of graduate
students, high quality, peer-reviewed publications, and peer evaluations of research. The
collaborating Department (TIU) may require additional procedures be followed.
Any non-renewal of the contract must result from termination of the position or a negative
performance review, the latter occurring either during an annual review of a probationary
contract or in the penultimate year of the contract. A vote of the eligible TIU faculty is required
in such cases. In the penultimate contract year of a research faculty member's appointment, the
center director and department chair must determine whether the position held by the faculty
member will continue. If it will not continue, the faculty member is informed that the final
contract year will be a terminal year of employment. Non-renewal of a research track faculty
appointment requires the approval of the Dean. The standards of notice set forth in Faculty Rule
3335-6-08 must be observed. If the position will continue, a formal performance review for
reappointment is necessary in the penultimate contract year to determine whether the faculty
member will be offered a new contract. This review follows the review procedures for promotion
of research track faculty except that external letters are required only if promotion is being
considered, and the Dean makes the final decision on re-appointment at the same rank. There is
no presumption of renewal of contract.
11
App 11 - 12
4.4 DOCUMENTATION
All faculty members are responsible for providing annual reports to the Center Director each
spring term, using the format specified by the center and if relevant the collaborating Department
(TIU). Documentation of research activities shall include citations of journal articles and
conference proceedings that appeared during the preceding calendar year; listings of other
publications, and of presentations made during the subject year; and details of externally funded
grants and contracts in force during the year, as well as annual research expenditures for the last
few years. Contributions to teaching in the form of mentoring of students or curriculum
development should be documented, along with a self-assessment by the faculty member of
his/her teaching activities and philosophy. Professional service activities should also be included.
The annual report will become a part of the faculty member's personnel file and will be an
important part of the salary determination process.
5. MERIT SALARY INCREASES
Except when the university dictates any type of across the board salary increase, all funds for
annual salary increases are directed toward rewarding meritorious performance and assuring, to
the extent possible given financial constraints, that salaries reflect the market and are internally
equitable. On occasion, one-time cash payments or other rewards, such as extra travel funds, are
made to recognize non-continuing contributions that justify reward but do not justify permanent
salary increases. Such payments/rewards are considered at the time of annual salary
recommendations.
Meritorious performance in teaching, research, and service are assessed in accordance with
expectations of the position. The time frame for assessing performance will be the past 24 or 36
months, with attention to patterns of increasing or declining productivity. Faculty with highquality performance in all three areas of endeavor and a pattern of consistent professional growth
will necessarily be favored. Faculty members whose performance is unsatisfactory in one or
more areas are likely to receive minimal or no salary increases.
It is the responsibility of each faculty member to submit an annual report of his/her activities.
Faculty will also be invited to provide in writing any additional information relevant to salary
adjustments. In all cases, it is the responsibility of the faculty member to see that his/her
professional achievements are brought to the attention of the Center Director. Faculty who fail
to submit the required documentation for an annual review at the required time will receive no
salary increase in the year for which documentation was not provided, except in extenuating
circumstances, and may not expect to recoup the foregone raise at a later time.
The Center Director recommends annual salary increases and other performance rewards to
the dean, who may modify these recommendations. Salary increases are formulated in dollar
12
App 11 - 13
amounts rather than percentage increases, with the goal of distributing available funds in a
manner that achieves the optimal distribution of salaries while considering market and internal
equity issues as appropriate.
6. REVIEWS FOR PROMOTION AND/OR TENURE
6.1 CRITERIA AND PROCDURES FOR PROMOTION OF FACULTY
TO NEXT LEVEL
The criteria for promotion for all faculty with a collaborating Department (TIU) are to be
consistent with the APT document of the collaborating TIU. Each department's procedures for
promotion and tenure and promotion reviews are fully consistent with those set forth in Faculty
Rule 3335-6-04, www.trustees.osu.edu/ChapIndex/index.php and the Office Academic Affairs
annually updated procedural guidelines for promotion and tenure reviews found in Volume 3 of
the Policies and Procedures Handbook, http://oaa.osu.edu/handbook.html. The Center will work
with faculty on an ongoing basis to assure consistent process.
13
App 12 - 1
Appendix 12. EEIC Staffing Models
The following are guidelines for EEIC employees in various instructional categories. The Expectations
and Time Commitments can be adjusted to accommodate specific assignments and situations, for
example additional administrative responsibilities or accommodating significant scholarship. Anything
summing to 90% time or greater can be rounded to 100%. Statements are based on regular semesters,
time commitments will be proportioned up by length of term for Summer and May terms.
FE Sequences, ENGR 1221, 1222, 2361, 4410.01, 4410.02
Category 1 – Departmental Faculty Release Time Appointments (Part-Time EEIC)
Expectations – Class Preparation, Class Time, Office Hours, Team Meetings and Training, Exam
Development and Grading
Time Commitment – General Guidelines are: For the first course - 10% Time for the Term per
credit hour during normal academic year; for a course beyond one, 8% Time for the Term per credit
hour
Category 2 – Full-time Faculty (Regular, Clinical, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer)
Expectations – Same as those of Category 1 (Class Preparation, Class Time, Office Hours, Team
Meetings and Training, Exam Development and Grading) plus significant contributions to course
management (i.e. syllabus development, quiz and exam development, curriculum revision and
development). Senior Lecturer and Clinical faculty will be expected to also make contributions to
research/scholarship of teaching and learning relevant to the EEIC.
Time Commitment – General Guidelines are:
For the first section of a 0.5 to 2 credit course - 14% Time for the Term per credit hour; for a course
beyond 1, 12% Time for the Term per credit hour
For the first section of 3 to 5 credit courses – 10% Time for the term per credit
TCRC (ENGR 2367)
Category 1 – Full-time Lecturers
1. Expectations – teaching with a mix of teaching duties, timely feedback and assignment grading,
course preparation, consultation with their own and other students and staff; service such as
committee membership, advising student groups, GTAs and others; volunteer activities such as
judging competitions; and scholarship of teaching and learning related to writing based on
personal interest and opportunity.
Time Commitment – General Guidelines are: 25% Time per section. General Guidelines can be
adjusted to accommodate specific assignments and situations.
App 12 - 2
Category 2 – Part-time Lecturers
Expectations – Class Preparation, Class Time, Office Hours, Grading of Student Work, Team
Meetings and Training.
Time Commitment – Persons in this category may be hired on a per section basis with rate per
section negotiated.
Multidisciplinary Capstone Design
Faculty and staff fully supported by the EEIC are the foundation of the Multidisciplinary Capstone
program. These persons are responsible for recruitment of project sponsors, project sponsor
relationship building and maintenance, administration of the funding for the capstone program,
supervision of capstone projects and capstone project advisors from outside the EEIC, recruitment of
both engineering and non-engineering students, and instruction for ENGR 4901, 4902, and 4903. They
are also responsible for organization of the annual college-wide Engineering Capstone Design Showcase
and collaboration with capstone faculty of units across the College of Engineering.
Category 2 – Capstone Project Advisors
Industry-sponsored projects require participation by multiple parties to ensure success. A
commitment by the company to maximize project value to the company and to help ensure an effective
learning experience for our students is fundamental. EEIC staff work hard in the selection of projects to
assure collaborating companies are willing to make such a commitment. To further ensure their
success, it is important to assign each team a project advisor to serve the role of team coach. These
advisors are normally faculty or staff members with experience working with student teams and
industry projects and who have some degree of technical familiarity with the project scope.
Expectations – Participate in meetings with the student team and project sponsor to ensure the
project scope and goals are achievable and meet academic standards , mentor/advise the team
throughout the project duration promoting personal and team growth, hold the student team
accountable for their assigned responsibilities, assess the team’s performance and progress through
written and oral assignments.
Time Commitment – Persons in this category are expected to spend 2-5 hours per week during
the project duration. Compensation is typically based on the sponsor’s funding.
Other Courses
Other courses will be handled on a case by case basis.
App 13 - 1
Appendix 13. EEIC Space Summary
EEIC
Oct 2013
Assigned
Building #
Bldg
ID
Room
Sq Ft
Usage
Usage
Purpose
Hrs/Week
065
SM
3011
730
Instructional
48.0
Classroom (28 seat, 6 computers)
279
DL
713
930
Instructional
38.0
Classroom (32 seat w computers)
274
HI
206
1066
Instructional
33.3
Classroom (37 seats w computers)
274
HI
208
1206
Instructional
25.0
Classroom (37 seats w computers)
274
HI
214
1259
Instructional
33.3
Classroom (37 seats w computers)
274
HI
216
1259
Instructional
33.3
Classroom (37 seats w computers)
274
HI
346
1158
Instructional
36.0
Classroom (37 seats w computers)
274
HI
308
2560
Instructional
41.0
Classroom (74 seats w computers)
274
HI
224
2488
Instructional
41.0
Classroom (74 seats w computers)
274
HI
324
1655
Instructional
NA
Computer Lab (24/7 64 seats)
Occupants
274
HI
215
218
Office
3
Office Space, A&P Staff
274
HI
303
168
Office
2
Office Space, Administrative
274
HI
325
115
Office
1
Office Space, Administrative
148
SO
E506
130
Office
1
Office Space, Administrative
065
SM
3076
643
Off .6/
Instruc .4
1
Office Space, Administrative/Classroom(10
seats)
274
HI
244
500
Office
1
Office Support, Administrative
274
HI
244A
69
Office
0
Office Supply
274
HI
244B
170
Office
1
Office Space, Faculty
274
HI
244C
201
Office
1
Office Space, Advisor
274
HI
244E
246
Office
2
Office Space, Advisors
274
HI
244F
355
Office
1
Office, Center Director
274
HI
244G
375
Office
NA
Conference Room
274
HI
244H
121
Office
1
Office Space, Advisor
274
HI
244K
121
Office
1
Office Space, Advisor
274
HI
244L
162
Office
2
Office Space, Advisor
274
HI
203
168
Office
4
Office Space, Lecturer
274
HI
205
218
Office
4
Office Space, Lecturer
274
HI
211
218
Office
3
Office Space, Lecturer
274
HI
221
164
Office
3
Office Space, Lecturer
274
HI
223
164
Office
2
Office Space, Lecturer
274
HI
225
118
Office
1
Office Space, Lecturer
274
HI
305
226
Office
4
Office Space, Lecturer
274
HI
209
218
Office
5
Office Space, TA
274
HI
309
226
Office
5
Office Space, TA
274
HI
342
1272
Office
33
Office Space, TA
App 13 - 2
274
HI
331A
240
Storage
Storage
274
HI
208A
140
Storage
Storage
274
HI
249
270
Storage
Storage
274
HI
346A
96
Storage
Storage
274
HI
219
273
Workspace
Workspace/shop
065
SM
3085
685
Workspace
Workspace/shop
065
SM
3089
620
Workspace
Workspace/shop
065
SM
3081
685
Workspace
Workspace/storage
065
SM
3101
730
Workspace
MultiDisciplinary Student Machine Shop
Subtotal
23906
Shared
Classroom
Pool
Various
6500
Instructional
Classroom pool, Ave room usage per term
148
SO
W080
1600
Workspace
MultiDisciplinary Capstone Work Space
146
BO
320C
120
Office
Office Space, Administrative
274
HI
028
32
Storage
Storage
274
HI
Sub-Basmnt
400
Storage
Storage
274
HI
Basement
20
Storage
Storage, Cabinet
Subtotal
8672
Total
32578
Legend
BO
Bolz Hall
DL
Dreese Lab
HI
Hitchcock Hall
SM
Smith Lab
SO
Scott Lab
App 14 - 1
Content Assessment of First-year Course Sequences
Summary by R. J. Gustafson
27 December 2013
Introduction
The First-Year Engineering Program (FEP) currently consists of three tracks:
1. FE - Fundamentals of Engineering (a two course sequence, four sem-hours total with special
sections for Engineering Scholars, (designated as FES)),
2. FEH - Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors (a two course sequence, eight sem-hours total),
and
3. FET - Fundamentals of Engineering for Transfer Students (a three course sequence, four semhours total).
The FEP course sequences provide broad exposure to engineering as a profession and to its various
disciplines, so students can make a commitment to study engineering or make an informed decision
regarding an alternate major. In order to provide the broad exposure to engineering, all of the course
sequences cover engineering communications, problem solving, hands-on labs, ethics, teamwork,
project management, and the engineering design process.
In addition, all incoming students are required to take a one-credit ENGR 1100.xx class. This course,
taught by academic advisors, includes an introduction to the University community and the College of
Engineering, strategies for successful transition, academic requirements, university procedures,
resources, and an overview of engineering academic areas of study and services.
In order to compare the content of our first-year engineering course sequences against what may be
generally expected, in Autumn 2013 the EEIC undertook to assess content of the FE and FEH sequences
based on the First-Year Course Classification Scheme developed by Reid et. al. (2013a) 1 (since the
Fundamentals of Engineering for Transfer (FET) sequence is largely a repackaging of the FE sequence it
was not assessed independently). Reid and colleagues examined course/learning objectives for
approximately 30 first-year or introduction to engineering courses, including those from Ohio State, and
grouped them to establish a framework or classification system. Additionally they applied Delphi
methodology with experts from the first-year engineering field to refine the scheme. The classification
scheme developed by Reid and colleagues (2013b) 2 has eight primary aspects:
1. COMM – Communications
2. DESN - Design
3. PROF – Latent/Professional Skills
4. ENPR – Engineering Profession
5. ESTT - Engineering Specific Tech/Tools
6. ACAD – Academic Advising
7. MATH – Math Skills and Applications
8. GLIN – Global Interest
These are further broken down into outcomes, sub-outcomes, and specific outcomes with 131
independent elements. It is not expected that any program will cover all of these items. It was
1
Reid, K, R., T. J. Hertanstein, and G. T. Fennell, (2013a) “Development of a First-Year Course Classification
Scheme”. ASEE Paper No. 6554, Atlanta, GA.
2
Reid, K. R., D. Reeping, and L. Spingola, (2013b) Classification Scheme for First Year Engineering Courses
http://www2.onu.edu/~k-reid/nsf/NSF%20First%20Year%20Success%20Classification%20Scheme%20%20complete.pdf
App 14 - 2
expected that the analysis would help us determine if we had any specific topics we should add, delete
or enhance for our programs.
Data Collection
In total, data was collected for six different EEIC courses spanning the two primary tracks. Those courses
were:
• FE - ENGR 1100.xx (1credit), ENGR 1181 (2 credit), ENGR 1182 (2 credit)
• FEH - ENGR 1100.xx (1credit), ENGR 1281 (5 credit), ENGR 1282.01 or ENGR 1282.02 (3
credits)
For each course, multiple persons were asked to complete the assessment. This included
• Three advisors for ENGR 1100.xx
• Four persons each for ENGR 1181 and 1182
• Three persons for ENGR 1281 and four for ENGR 1282 (2, 1282.01; 2, 1282.02)
Results
Results are presented for each of the eight primary aspects. In the tables of results below, green bars
indicate items that were addressed in one or more courses. The yellow bars represent items where
evaluators were inconsistent (i.e., only a portion of the instructors who evaluated that course indicated
it was addressed) but the item may be addressed. Red indicated an item is not included in the sequence
as reported by instructors. Differences for the FEH sequence from the FE sequence are noted below
each table.
1. Academic Advising
Academic Advising
Community
Relationship and Friendships
Personal Management
Time Managemeent
Stress Management
E-Portfolio Design
Academic Integrity
Advising
Plan of Study
Study Abroad
Co-op or Intership
Interviews (Practice)
Intro to Campus
Intro to Departments
Undergraduate Research
Lifelong Learning
Commitment to Discipline/Choice
1100
# of 3
1181
# of 4
1182
# of 4
2
0
2
0
0
3
3
Y 1100 M1181
Y 1100
N
Y 1100, 1181, 1182
3
0
3
3
0
3
1
0
0
3
Y 1100
Y 1100
Y 1100
N
Y 1100
Y 1100
N
Y 1100
Y 1100
3
3
3
0
3
3
0
3
3
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
Yes, Maybe, No
Y 1100,1182 M1181
No differences for FEH
Eleven of the fourteen items are addressed by both the FE and FEH sequences. The only items not
addressed (3) were:
App 14 - 3
•
•
•
E-Portfolio Design – However, this is being piloted outside the sequences in ENGR 2367, Second
Writing
Interviews (Practice) – This is offered as a service through Engineering Career Services
Undergraduate Research – Although this is promoted in our ENGR 1100 class, students are not
required to participate.
Recommendation – E-Portfolios will be considered in the future as they may be useful in helping
students to document growth and progress throughout their college careers.
2. Communications
Comunication
Professional
Client Interactions
Written
Reports
Lab
Documentation
Engineering
Email Writing
Resume
Oral and Visual
Presentations
Visual
Posters
Yes, Maybe, No
1100
# of 3
1181
# of 4
1182
# of 4
M 1182
0
0
2
Y 1181, 1182
Y 1181, 1182
Y 1182
N
Y 1100
0
0
0
1
3
4
3
1
0
0
4
4
4
0
0
Y 1181, 1182
0
B
0
3
3
0
3
Y 1182
No for Client Interactions and Posters for FEH
Eight of the ten topics are addressed by both the FE and FEH sequences. The only items not addressed
(2) were
• Client Interactions – This seems to be infeasible given the scale of our courses.
• Email Communications – In a follow-up discussion, all agreed this is a topic that needs more
consideration.
Recommendation: Protocols and standards for email communications should be given consideration in
ENGR 1100 and reinforced in other courses .
App 14 - 4
3. Design
Design
Engineering Design Process
Fundamentals
Mathematical Modeling
Physical Modeling
Formal Design Process
Brainstorming
Concept Selection
Testing Hyposthesis
Design Review
Refine
Reverse Engineer
Research
User testing
Creativity and Curiosity
Emperical Design
Authentic Design
Engineering Feats and Failure
Design Projects
Realistic Design
Engineering Analysis
Data Collection and Statistical A
Problem Solving
Problem Formulation
Critieria and Constraints
Design Trade-offs
Project Management
Documentation and Manageme
Scheduling
Verification
Quality Control
Data Management
Yes, Maybe, No
# of 3
# of 4
# of 4
Y 1182
M 1182
Y 1182
Y 1182
Y 1182 M 1181
Y 1182 M1182
M 1182
Y 1182
Y 1181, 1182
N
N
Y 1182 M1181
Y 1182
Y 1181, 1182
N
M 1182
Y 1182 M1181
N
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
2
0
4
2
3
4
4
4
2
4
4
1
1
3
4
3
1
2
4
1
Y 1182 M1181
Y 1182
Y 1182
0
0
0
2
1
2
4
4
4
Y 1182, M1181
0
2
4
Y 1182
Y 1181, 1182
Y 1181, 1182
M 1181, 1182
Y 1182 M 1182
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
3
2
2
4
4
4
2
3
No on Mathematical Modeling, M Design Project, Realistic Design, Data Collection,
Problem Solving, and Document Management for FEH
Nineteen of the twenty-seven topics are clearly included in both sequences. Given the heavy emphasis
already on design in the courses and the narrow definition of some of the items not addressed (Reverse
Engineering, Research, Authentic Design, and Realistic Design), it was the group consensus that
curriculum changes in response to this category were not warranted at this time.
App 14 - 5
4. Engineering Profession
Engineering Profession
Relevance of the Profession
Images of Engineering
Roles and Responsibilities
Professional Societies
Student Organizations
Types of Engineering
Engineering History
Defintions and Vocabulary
Nature of Engineering
Nature of Technology
Disciplines of Engineering
Intro to Professions
Commitment to Desicpline/Choice
Yes, Maybe, No
Y 1182 M1181
N
Y 1182
M 1100
Y 1100
Y 1100
N
N
M 1181, 1182
N
Y 1100
M 1100
M 1100
1100
# of 3
1
1
1
2
3
3
0
0
0
0
3
2
2
1181
# of 4
3
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
0
1182
# of 4
2
1
3
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
M on Images of Engineering, Role and Responsibilities for FEH
Only five of the thirteen items were considered adequately addressed. However, overall, the instructors
agreed that commitment to this area seemed to be adequate. Therefore no specific needs for change
were identified.
Summary
The OSU sequences align well with content elements identified in the classification scheme.
Recommendations for change include 1) consider the use of E-Portfolios in the future, 2) add the topic
of protocols and standards for email communications in ENGR 1100 and reinforce this in other courses,
3) make more utilization of 3D printing as representing a shop experience, and 4) to look for ways to
integrate more global perspectives and concerns of society in a way that makes these more apparent in
multiple courses. Based on the assessment weighting of course elements, it was concluded that global
perspectives and concerns of society is the highest priority for enhancement.
App 14 - 6
5. Engineering Specific Technology/Tools
Engineering Specfic
Technology/Tools
Engineering Skills
Electromagnetic Systems
Circuits
Statics
Mechanics
3-D Visualizaiton
Material Balances
Thermodynamics
Sketching
Software
Programming
Basic Programming
Java
MATLAB
C++
Labview
Programming and Design
Robotics
Computer Aided Design
Solidworks
MathCAD
AutoCAD
Catia
Arena
Microsoft Office
Word
Exel
Powerpoint
Flowcart
Hardware
Shop Experience
Training
Lathe, Milling
3-D Printing
CNC
Manufacturing
Topic Specific Tools
Bread boarding
Arduino Based Project
Basic Surveying
Laboratory
Nanosensors
1100
1181
1182
Yes, Maybe, No
# of 3
# of 4
# of 4
N
Y 1181 M1182
N
N
Y 1182
N
N
Y 1182
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
4
0
0
4
N
N
Y 1181
N
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
Y 1181, 1182
0
3
3
Y 1182
N
N
N
N
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
Y 1182 M1181
Y 1181, 1182
Y 1181, 1182
M 1181, 1182
0
0
0
0
2
4
3
2
4
4
4
2
N
N
N
M 1181, 1182
N
M 1182
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
Y 1181
Y 1181, 1182
N
Y 1181, 1182
N
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
4
0
1
4
0
3
0
Y on C++, Labview, Flowchart; M on Statistics, Shop Experience; N on Robotics;
Do microprocessor based work, but not Arduino for FEH
App 14 - 7
Although only ten of the twenty-three items in this category are addressed by our sequences, programs
would logically pick one of the options representative of a group opposed to covering all of the items.
For example, we use one language (MATLAB) out of the five listed and one graphics program
(Solidworks) out of the five listed. Each sequence has one or more elements within each sub-domain of
the category so we believe we adequately cover the material in this section.
An opportunity identified for our programs was to make more utilization of 3D printing as representing a
shop experience. We are currently prototyping this in some sections and expect wide adoption later.
Recommendation: Continue the development of 3D printing capabilities for both sequences.
6. Global Interest
No differences for FEH
The nine items of the Global Interest category represented the NAE Grand Challenges, four Concerns of
Society, and four specific current engineering topics (Biomechanics, Bioinformatics, Virtual Reality, and
Geotechnical Engineering). Our programs were not determined to consistently cover any of these items.
Given that we have two engineering scholars programs focused on these topics (Humanitarian
Engineering and Green Engineering), our programs are not void in this area. However, we are
committed to looking for ways to integrate more global perspectives and concerns of society in a way
that makes these more apparent. It should also be noted that some of these items were very limited in
their definition and scope.
Recommendation: As curriculum is revised and updated, global perspectives and concerns of society
should be integrated and highlighted.
App 14 - 8
7. Math Skills and Applications
M on Units and Dimensions; N on Significant Figures, Units and Dimensions,
Dimensional Analysis, Regression, Graphing and Estimation for FEH
Although only four of the twelve items in this category were considered to be consistently addressed by
our sequences, no immediate need for curriculum change was noted as we believe many of these items
are addressed in other courses at the University.
8. Professional Skills, Latent Curriculum
No differences for FEH
Six of the fourteen items in this category are addressed in our sequences. Of those marked as yellow,
Ethics – Codes and Standards was an area of discussion in our assessment. A segment on ethics and
code of ethics is included in both sequences, but not necessarily other Codes and Standards. These
App 14 - 9
were felt by our group to be addressed in more advanced courses, and in our courses we addressed
ethics in a more basic form. The main elements that we have chosen not to include are within the
category of Research and Research Skills. Entrepreneurship is not explicitly addressed as a topic in the
sequences, however students are made aware of an entrepreneurship minor and other courses
available to them. The development of a new engineering and business integrated honors program,
which we are piloting this spring, may give students with interest in this area more opportunity to
explore the topic during their first year. No significant changes in content based on this category were
deemed appropriate at this time.
Weighting of Course Content Across Categories
As part of the course assessment, evaluators were asked to indicate what percentage of the course
effort fell in each of the eight categories. The following table demonstrates how the efforts of the five
total credits for the FE sequence are distributed across the eight aspects.
With exception of the Global Interest category, the distribution of effort seems to be well aligned with
the expectations of the program. A major opportunity to better highlight the Global interest aligns well
with a new Global Option curriculum in the College of Engineering 3.
3
Global Option in Engineering (GO ENGR) http://engineering.osu.edu/students/undergraduate-students/globaloption-engineering