scholarly journals Implementing A 3 + 1 Articulation Agreement In Engineering Technology Between Universities In China And The United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Segalewitz
Author(s):  
Kenneth E. Rennels

Engineering technology education in the United States can trace its history back to the Wickenden and Spahr study of 1931, which identified the place of engineering technology education in the technical spectrum [1]. By 1945, the Engineering Council for Professional Development developed the first accreditation procedures for two-year engineering technology programs and by 1946, the first program was accredited. On this timeline the Purdue University engineering technology programs at Indianapolis can trace their history back to 1946 [2]. Over the last 70 years, engineering technology education in the United States has distinguished itself by a history of evolution, development and continuous improvement. Engineering technology education faces significant challenges during the next several years. These challenges are driven by the rapid evolution of computer technology and changing expectations of the educational process by the stakeholders. Stakeholders include not only students and faculty but also various groups in both the public and private sectors including industry, professional organizations, funding agencies, state government and the university system. Two specific challenges facing engineering technology educators are ‘basic faculty credentials’ and changing expectations for ‘creative activities’. These two challenges can be delineated by the following questions: • Will a doctorate degree be necessary for engineering technology faculty in the future for promotion and tenure in the university environment? • Will applied research or pedagogical research be ‘good enough’ for tenure? This paper addresses these two issues using a study of current engineering technology faculty hiring practices as a basis. Ultimately, critical future discussions must occur as engineering technology education continues to evolve and move into the future.


2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (25) ◽  
pp. 56-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michalene Grebski ◽  
Wes Grebski

Abstract The paper contains an overview of the history of engineering education in the United States. It also explains the differences between engineering and engineering technology from an historical perspective. The similarities and differences between those two programs are also being addressed. The article also explains the concept of the project-driven approach in teaching engineering technology courses. The procedure to secure and administer funding for the projects is also addressed. The paper also includes some practical guidelines for implementing a project-based approach.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Pearson ◽  
Daniel Kuehn ◽  
Walter Buchanan ◽  
Jeffrey Ray ◽  
Melvin Roberts

Author(s):  
Ahmed Abdelaty ◽  
K. Joseph Shrestha

Construction education is dynamic and practice oriented. As such, effective construction programs require significant collaboration with the construction industry. This collaboration, in the form of internship or cooperative programs, increase the student readiness for the job market by providing valuable field experience. Construction programs in the United States (US) established several internship requirements that range from being optional to multiple required internships. This study focuses on scanning the current internship requirements set by construction and engineering technology programs in the US by gathering information including; 1) Number and length of required internships, 2) Internship prerequisites, 3) Internship deliverables, 4) assessment method. The outcome of this study is expected to help construction programs improve their internship or cooperative requirements by considering the prevailing practices developed by other schools. Additionally, the study provides recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of internship for positive experiential learning.


Author(s):  
A. Hakam ◽  
J.T. Gau ◽  
M.L. Grove ◽  
B.A. Evans ◽  
M. Shuman ◽  
...  

Prostate adenocarcinoma is the most common malignant tumor of men in the United States and is the third leading cause of death in men. Despite attempts at early detection, there will be 244,000 new cases and 44,000 deaths from the disease in the United States in 1995. Therapeutic progress against this disease is hindered by an incomplete understanding of prostate epithelial cell biology, the availability of human tissues for in vitro experimentation, slow dissemination of information between prostate cancer research teams and the increasing pressure to “ stretch” research dollars at the same time staff reductions are occurring.To meet these challenges, we have used the correlative microscopy (CM) and client/server (C/S) computing to increase productivity while decreasing costs. Critical elements of our program are as follows:1) Establishing the Western Pennsylvania Genitourinary (GU) Tissue Bank which includes >100 prostates from patients with prostate adenocarcinoma as well as >20 normal prostates from transplant organ donors.


Author(s):  
Vinod K. Berry ◽  
Xiao Zhang

In recent years it became apparent that we needed to improve productivity and efficiency in the Microscopy Laboratories in GE Plastics. It was realized that digital image acquisition, archiving, processing, analysis, and transmission over a network would be the best way to achieve this goal. Also, the capabilities of quantitative image analysis, image transmission etc. available with this approach would help us to increase our efficiency. Although the advantages of digital image acquisition, processing, archiving, etc. have been described and are being practiced in many SEM, laboratories, they have not been generally applied in microscopy laboratories (TEM, Optical, SEM and others) and impact on increased productivity has not been yet exploited as well.In order to attain our objective we have acquired a SEMICAPS imaging workstation for each of the GE Plastic sites in the United States. We have integrated the workstation with the microscopes and their peripherals as shown in Figure 1.


2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (01) ◽  
pp. 53-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Rehfeld

Every ten years, the United States “constructs” itself politically. On a decennial basis, U.S. Congressional districts are quite literally drawn, physically constructing political representation in the House of Representatives on the basis of where one lives. Why does the United States do it this way? What justifies domicile as the sole criteria of constituency construction? These are the questions raised in this article. Contrary to many contemporary understandings of representation at the founding, I argue that there were no principled reasons for using domicile as the method of organizing for political representation. Even in 1787, the Congressional district was expected to be far too large to map onto existing communities of interest. Instead, territory should be understood as forming a habit of mind for the founders, even while it was necessary to achieve other democratic aims of representative government.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document