Paper ID #13811

Engineering the Future Workforce Required by a Global Engineering Indus-try

Dr. Michael Richey, The Boeing Company

Michael Richey is an Associate Technical Fellow currently assigned to support workforce developmentand engineering education research. Michael is responsible for leading learning science research, whichfocuses on learning ecologies, complex adaptive social systems and learning curves. Michael pursuesthis research agenda with the goal of understanding the interplay between innovation, knowledge trans-fer and economies of scale as they are manifested in questions of growth, evolvability, adaptability andsustainability.

Additional responsibilities include providing business leadership for engineering technical and profes-sional educational programs. This includes topics in advanced aircraft construction, composites structuresand product lifecycle management. Michael is responsible for leading cross-organizational teams fromacademic, government focusing on how engineering education must acknowledge and incorporate thisnew information and knowledge to build new methodologies and paradigms that engage these develop-ments in practice. The objective of this research is focused on achieving continuous improvement andsustainable excellence in engineering education.

Mr. Fabian Zender, The Boeing Company

Fabian Zender is an Engineering Performance Coach at The Boeing Company where he participates inresearch in the Technical and Professional Learning Solutions group. He obtained his undergraduate andgraduate degree in Aerospace Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. In his researchFabian focuses on learning as a sociotechnical system, utilizing data analytics and learning science andcombining them with traditional engineering approaches to advance personalized learning and optimizeorganizational performance.

Dr. Charles J. Camarda, NASA

Dr. Charles Camarda Biography (Long) Dr. Camarda graduated fromArchbishop Molloy High School, Jamaica, New York, in 1970. He received a bachelor of science degreein aerospace engineering from Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn in 1974 and a master of science degreein engineering science from George Washington University in 1980. In 1990, he received a doctorate inaerospace engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Upon completing his B.S. degree from the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, Camarda began work forNASA’s Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, in 1974. He was a research scientist in the Ther-mal Structures Branch of the Structures and Materials Division and was responsible for demonstrating thefeasibility of a heat-pipe-cooled leading edge for Space Shuttle by analysis, laboratory experiments, andaerothermal testing in Langley’s 8-foot High Temperature Tunnel. He conducted analytical and experi-mental research in heat pipes, structural mechanics and dynamics, heat transfer, and numerical optimiza-tion for aircraft, spacecraft, and space launch vehicles. While at Langley, Camarda earned his masters’degree from George Washington University in Engineering Science with emphasis on mechanics of com-posite structures at elevated temperature and his doctorate degree from Virginia Polytechnic Institute andState University with emphasis on the development of advanced modal methods for efficiently predict-ing transient thermal and structural performance. In 1989, Camarda was selected to lead the Structuresand Materials Technology Maturation Team for the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) program, whichwas responsible for maturing materials and structures technologies necessary to enable the developmentof an airbreathing hypersonic vehicle capable of horizontal take-off to orbit. Camarda was selected tohead the Thermal Structures Branch (TSB) in 1994 with responsibility for a research engineering staff,two major focused programs (the high-speed research (HSR) and reusable launch vehicle (RLV) pro-grams), and several structural test facilities including the Thermal Structures Laboratory. Some of theprimary responsibilities of the TSB are the development of durable, lightweight metallic thermal protec-tion systems (TPS), advanced leading edges for hypersonic vehicles using carbon-carbon material and

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2015

Page 26.646.1

Paper ID #13811

heat pipes, reusable cryogenic tank systems, and graphite-composite primary structure for RLV. Camardahas received over 21 NASA awards for technical innovations and accomplishments. He also received aResearch and Development 100 award from Industrial Research Magazine for one of the top 100 technicalinnovations of 1983 entitled ”Heat-Pipe-Cooled Sandwich Panel.” He holds 9 patents.

Selected as an astronaut candidate by NASA in April 1996, Dr. Camarda reported to the NASA JohnsonSpace Center in August 1996. He completed two years of training and evaluation that qualified himfor flight assignment as a mission specialist. Dr. Camarda has been assigned technical duties in theAstronaut Office Spacecraft Systems/Operations Branch, was on the Expedition-8 back-up crew, servedas Director, Engineering, Johnson Space Center, and was assigned to the NASA Engineering and SafetyCenter (NESC). Through the NESC, Dr. Camarda used his technical expertise to evaluate problems andsupplement safety and engineering activities for Agency programs. Dr. Camarda flew as MS-5 on theReturn to Flight mission STS-114 Discovery (July 26-August 9, 2005), and has logged over 333 hoursin space. He currently serves as Senior Advisor for Engineering Development to the Center Director atNASA’s Langley Research Center.

Biography (Short) Charles Camarda was born in Queens, New York and received his undergraduate degreein Aerospace Engineering from the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn in 1974. Upon graduation, he beganwork at NASA’s Langley Research Center (LaRC), received his M.S. from GW in Mechanical Engineeringin 1980 and a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering from VPI in 1990. He was Head of the Thermal StructuresBranch at LaRC and led the structures and materials efforts of two programs: The National Aero-SpacePlane (NASP) and the Single-Stage-to Orbit Program. He was selected to be an Astronaut in 1996 and flewon the return-to-flight mission of Space Shuttle following the Columbia Accident, STS-114, in 2005. Hewas selected Director of Engineering at JSC in December 2005 and is now the Sr. Advisor for EngineeringDevelopment at NASA’s Langley Research Center.

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2015

Page 26.646.2

Engineering the Future Workforce required by a

Global Engineering Industry

Introduction

The nation’s aerospace workforce is undergoing systemic and disruptive changes including, age

distribution, technological advances and transformations as well as global business pressures.

Traditional undergraduate programs are not equipping graduates with the skills needed for the

complex challenges of the 21st century. 1 These pressures are leading industry to ask the

questions; a) how can we partner with academia and the government to advance personalized

learning and b) how can we leverage our investment and intellectual capital to increase the

quantity/quality and knowledge transfer of the current STEM workforce, education pipeline and

labor supply?

Disruptive changes:

Ageing: Roughly a quarter of the nation's 637,000 aerospace workers could be eligible

for retirement in 2015. 2

Globalization: Engineers work through global multidisciplinary and distributive teams to

optimize business solutions.

Technology: Convergence of competition is connecting IT, infrastructure, automation

and economies. These mega trends will converge and future Internet of Things (IOT)

interconnectivity and Big Data will reshape the marketplace and drive new innovation

into industries and products.

For the U.S. to remain competitive in advanced manufacturing, our students must have access to

education opportunities that prepare them for this transformation. This “complex adaptive social

system” requires us to rethink the traditional boundaries of engineering and manufacturing

education within the broader ecosystem of a sociotechnical framework. The systemic and

disruptive changes described above have exposed the skills required by the continuous

application of innovative technologies. The dynamics of this complex system, coupled with

challenges in the workforce demographics, advances in technology and social connectivity have

created an environment requiring dramatic changes in the way we educate students, from

primary and secondary to post-secondary education to ensure their future career success. 3

While individual teachers have made great strides in improving the learning of their individual

students to accommodate the requirements of a global workforce in the 21st century overall

engineering companies and governmental agencies are challenged by the scarcity and quality of

graduates produced by the education system at all levels. 1 To better understand this complex

sociotechnical system and counter the visible phenomena 4, The Boeing Company and the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) both engineered capstone programs in

partnership with leading educational institutions which prepares students with skills in the

science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) areas and do so collaboratively

across the United States. This paper will map these new capstone programs detailed below

against existing accreditation criteria including The Accreditation Board for Engineering and

Technology – ABET 5 and detailed criteria for Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSA’s)

described in a recent report titled Transforming Undergraduate Engineering Education, funded

Page 26.646.3

by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and published by the American Society for

Engineering Education (ASEE). 6

Problem Statement

Expanding on the issues described in the introduction, the problems faced by science and

engineering (S&E) employers, whether in industry or governmental agencies, are multifaceted

and combinatorial. The supply and demand of graduates currently is not in an equilibrium stage,

and despite the efforts to expand STEM opportunities, the number of college students pursuing

science and engineering is stagnating. 7 Stagnation continues when unemployment is at record

lows for S&E graduates, this dynamic defies the “invisible hand” logic and persist after years of

investment and countless new programs. 8 Similar trends are widely reported by research centers,

professional societies, and consultants among others. 4,9,10

The world is intertwined with the advancing of distributive business processes, i.e., additive

manufacturing, big data, massive multiplayer online role playing (MMORPG) technology, and

social networking all converging and accelerating the skill gap between engineering education

and the workforce. This disruptive landscape presents a significant challenge to future workforce

and advanced manufacturing leadership in the United States. This skills gap manifests itself in

the unfamiliarity that recent hires often face when working on projects where they are required to

collaborate across space and time in an environment with non-optimal data availability requiring

them to make decisions that fall outside the narrowly prescribed theoretical scenarios

encountered in school. 9 In addition the dialogue between universities and industry has not yet

yielded a balance between the academic foundational requirements and industry required

application to real world problems. The skills gap is constituted of lacks in both “hard” and

“soft” skills. 11,12

In this paper the focus is on identifying opportunities to further develop these professional

(“soft”) skills required by small and large companies alike. Almost all graduates in (STEM)

fields will have interactions in a social web comprised of colleagues, suppliers, and customers

located outside their home state and likely distributed globally. This reality has prompted various

professional societies to reevaluate their educational objectives after thorough review with their

industry sponsors. 13,14,15 Most notably ASEE recently provided a draft document valid for all

engineering disciplines which was developed through various workshops with representatives of

both industry and academia. 6

Industry has reacted to this reality by increasingly reaching out to academia and providing input

through external advisory boards, research collaborations, or other initiatives. Boeing and NASA

partnered with universities to not only provide feedback but actively engage in curriculum

development and delivery around actual problems faced in their respective organizations.

Universities in their often siloed departmental structure frequently have difficulty to bring real

world, multidisciplinary challenges in the context of the education they provide. 16

Capstone course are typically regarded as the pinnacle of the undergraduate engineering

experience, not only is each university very particular about its design but even different schools

(e.g. Electrical Engineering vs. Aerospace Engineering) within the same College of Engineering

may have very different capstone programs. There are some examples of departments working to

Page 26.646.4

bridge these gaps 17 18, but these differences, the associated history within each program, and the

fact that capstone courses are often the only vehicle by which some ABET criteria can be

fulfilled result in strong protectionist stances within many academic departments when

approached with the opportunity utilizing a different approach.

Table 1 shows how a typical capstone, the AerosPACE capstone (Boeing sponsored), and ICED

capstone (NASA sponsored) align to the ABET criteria. Both courses have already and still are

being delivered. 19 20 While there are of course variations between capstone programs, as

previously discussed, there are some general trends that can be observed. In a survey 83% of

academic programs responded that there capstone course consisted of department teams, 21 this

means that for a large majority of programs the capstone cannot be multidisciplinary as required

of the programs in ABET criteria (d). Similarly can criterion (g) effective communication really

be met if the only communication required is with people that you can always talk face to face

with? Both the AerosPACE and ICED program meet and surpass all ABET program

requirements in a single course and because they are steeped in research and utilizing modern

interaction platforms allow for true evaluation of student success in each. More details for this

will be provided later on.

Page 26.646.5

Table 1. Comparison of Traditional Capstone and Keystone Programs

ABET Criteria Traditional

Capstone AerosPACE ICED

(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 within realistic

constraints such as economic, environmental,

social, political, ethical, health and safety,

manufacturability, and sustainability

(d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary

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,

economic, environmental, 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

Solution Approach

The natural alignment of the AerosPACE and ICED programs quickly let to a close collaboration

with joint development of future iterations between Boeing and NASA. AerosPACE is a

partnership between The Boeing Company, Brigham Young University with a NSF funded

Center for e-Design, Georgia Institute of Technology, Purdue University, a Embry-Riddle

Aeronautical University, and a Tuskegee University a Historically Black College carrying out a

collaborative design, build, fly experience where student teams distributed across the universities

over the course of two semesters solve a real life engineering challenge provided by industry.

Design requirements are based on national and international needs, e.g. support of first

responders on dangerous situations or precision agriculture to increase yield for a growing global

population.

NASA partnered with multiple universities (including Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Georgia Institute of Technology, and Penn State) engaging both high school, undergraduate, and

graduate students in an epic challenge of global concern, e.g. capturing and retrieving an

asteroid. Students meet during the summer for an intense one week workshop to begin their

Page 26.646.6

collaboration and use it as a starting point for the two semester endeavor into an epic space

problem. 20

Both programs require the students to apply their theoretical knowledge in a new collaborative

environment where they do not fight for their personal award (grade) but rather have to rely on

the distributed cognition of team members in various domains to solve challenging tasks. Focus

switches from competition to collaboration, from disciplinary to multi-disciplinary thinking,

from theory to application. Students are mentored and must execute many of the tasks that are

part of everyday work experiences for so many, like managing a budget or creating and

delivering on project schedules. Students are encouraged to fail fast, early, often, cheap, and

smart to develop truly innovative solutions that fulfill customer requirements. 22 Graduates of the

program see a clear alignment of these objectives and tasks to their careers following

graduation.23

The programs are developed as a partnership requiring both industry representatives and faculty

to overcome the multifaceted challenges of such an endeavor. The structure for such a

collaboration relies on mutual agreement and understanding of purposes and objectives. 24

Student outcomes have been documented and proven to be successful 19,25,23, but must now be

linked back to the realities of academic degrees, mainly the accreditation process.

Accreditation Criteria

While many of the above mentioned guidance by professional associations is very detailed, the

reality of engineering education today is that programs are accredited based on ABET

requirements not desires of professional societies or industry. ABET evaluates programs based

on multiple criteria, one of the important ones being student outcomes, criterion 3. 5 Appendix A

shows how these criteria are met and measured in the heretofore described programs.

In addition to current ABET criteria, efforts by ASEE have also yielded a list of Knowledge,

Skills and Abilities (KSA’s) that are desired of future engineers. 6 These KSA’s were deemed

critical by industry and academia. An extended list was provided, but Appendix B below shows

the fifteen most valuable KSA’s. These KSA’s are similar, but more detailed than Criterion 3

currently in use by ABET (see Appendix A). Some of the KSA’s are likely to find their way into

any new accreditation standards to be developed.

Program sponsors and faculty of both the AerosPACE and ICED programs collaborated to not

only identify how ABET criteria and KSA’s are applied in their programs, but more importantly

how they can be measured. Many of the ABET criteria are professional skills that are difficult to

evaluate, if not architected appropriately, a capstone program will be unable to evaluate them. A

group of program leaders thus identified for each ABET criterion (see Table 2 for sample, and

Appendix A for full table) and each KSA (see Appendix B) how AerosPACE and ICED align to

the regulatory requirements. For this purpose criteria were evaluated at the capstone course level,

considering both semesters of each project (AerosPACE and ICED) as one. Table 2 shows just

one example how both programs not only provide an opportunity to work in multidisciplinary

teams, but also provide robust evaluation thereof through the means of an online interaction

platform. Page 26.646.7

Table 2. Sample of ABET criterion application and measurement

ABET Criterion Application in Program Measurement

(d) an ability to function on

multidisciplinary teams

Problem statements are

designed such that individuals

from a single discipline

would be unable to complete

it. Students are on teams that

are not only multidisciplinary

(multiple majors) but also

have team members from

various universities in

different time zones.

Students are evaluated

through multiple surveys to

establish their motivation and

collaboration. Data is

supplemented by clickstream

data from the learning

management system (LMS)

utilized for team discussions.

Faculty and industry coaches

assigned to work with teams

on a daily/weekly basis and

provide guidance and

informal evaluation of

collaboration.

The full tables in Appendix A and Appendix B show that both AerosPACE and ICED provide an

opportunity to have students practice all the skills required by ABET accreditation or outlined as

critical KSA’s by industry and academia. Not only are these metrics addressed in these

programs, but in fact they are measured and allow student evaluation on both an individual and a

team basis. For ABET accreditation (or reaccreditation) this is a very important aspect as it gives

additional merit to the application.

The heretofore described correlation of the program to ABET requirements, exists not only at the

course level, but can in fact be reduced to individual lectures. Table 3 shows last year’s lecture

schedule for the AerosPACE program and how each lecture aligns to the ABET criteria.

Alignment was measured using a three point scale (low -1, medium – 5, high – 10), a three point

scale rather than the more common five-point Likert scale was used due to the lack of definition

in the ABET requirements. It was determined that a five-point scale did not yield consistent

results between evaluators. Weightings of 1, 5, and 10 were used simply to more clearly

distinguish between the three choices. Evaluators were selected from the program leadership and

faculty, results shown indicate consensus between all evaluators; no individual tallies were

obtained. The authors are aware that bias may be introduced by utilizing evaluators that are

participants in the program, but given the constraints (availability of neutral evaluator with

sufficient knowledge of the detailed lectures) it was determined that this was an acceptable risk.

Out of 71 total lecture instances 27 (38%) meet all ABET criteria, 61 (86%) touch on 8 or more

of the 11 ABET criteria. Criterion (j) knowledge of contemporary issues is covered least often,

but still touched upon in more than half of the lecture instances. Four criteria (e, f, i, k) are

touched upon more than 90% of the time, and additional five more than 80% of the time, see

Table 4.

Page 26.646.8

Table 3. Lecture Alignment to ABET Criteria (Partial)

Topic (a)

an a

bili

ty t

o a

ppl

y kn

ow

ledg

e o

f

ma

them

atic

s, s

cien

ce, a

nd

en

gin

eeri

ng

(b)

an a

bili

ty t

o d

esig

n a

nd c

ond

uct

exp

erim

ent

s, a

s w

ell a

s to

an

alyz

e an

d

inte

rpre

t d

ata

(c)

an

abi

lity

to d

esig

n a

sys

tem

, co

mp

on

ent,

or

pro

cess

to

me

et d

esi

red

ne

eds

wit

hin

real

isti

c co

nst

rain

ts s

uch

as

eco

no

mic

,

envi

ronm

enta

l, so

cial

, po

litic

al,

eth

ical

,

hea

lth

an

d s

afet

y, m

anu

fact

ura

bili

ty, a

nd

sust

ain

abi

lity

(d)

an a

bili

ty t

o f

un

ctio

n o

n

mu

ltid

isci

plin

ary

team

s(e

) a

n a

bilit

y to

iden

tify

, fo

rmu

late

, an

d s

olv

e

engi

ne

erin

g p

robl

em

s(f

) an

und

ers

tan

din

g o

f p

rofe

ssio

nal a

nd

eth

ical

res

po

nsi

bili

ty(g

) an

ab

ility

to

com

mun

icat

e e

ffec

tive

ly(h

) th

e b

roa

d e

duc

atio

n n

eces

sary

to

un

ders

tan

d t

he

impa

ct o

f e

ngin

eer

ing

solu

tio

ns

in a

glo

bal

, eco

no

mic

,

envi

ronm

enta

l, an

d s

oci

etal

con

text

(i)

a re

cogn

itio

n o

f th

e n

eed

fo

r, a

nd

an

abili

ty t

o e

nga

ge in

life

-lo

ng le

arni

ng

(j)

a kn

ow

ledg

e o

f co

nte

mp

ora

ry is

sues

(k)

an a

bili

ty t

o u

se t

he

tech

niq

ues

, ski

lls,

and

mo

der

n e

ngi

nee

rin

g to

ols

nec

essa

ry f

or

engi

ne

erin

g p

ract

ice

.

Co

un

t

Co

un

t %

Ave

rage

Boeing Introduction 1 1 10 5 4 36.4% 4.3

Introduction to AerosPACE 1 5 2 18.2% 3.0

Introduction to the RFP 1 5 10 5 4 36.4% 5.3

Teamwork & Collaboration 10 1 5 10 1 1 1 7 63.6% 4.1

Teamwork & Collaboration 10 1 5 10 1 1 1 7 63.6% 4.1

Aircraft Design & Requirements 10 5 10 10 1 1 1 10 8 72.7% 6.0

Project Planning & Management 5 1 5 1 10 5 45.5% 4.4

Systems Engineering & Critical Thinking 10 5 5 10 1 5 5 10 8 72.7% 6.4

Configuration Selection & Vehicle Performance 5 1 10 10 10 1 1 1 5 1 5 11 100.0% 4.5

OpenVSP Demonstration 1 1 5 5 5 10 6 54.5% 4.5

Spreadsheet Based Sizing Tool 10 10 10 10 10 1 1 1 10 9 81.8% 7.0

Background on Sensor Information 10 10 5 5 5 1 1 5 1 5 10 11 100.0% 5.3

Performance Based Sizing 10 5 10 10 1 1 1 10 8 72.7% 6.0

Spreadsheet Based Sizing Tool - Constraint Sizing 10 5 10 10 1 1 1 10 8 72.7% 6.0

Wing and Airfoil Analysis using XFLR5 10 10 5 1 5 1 5 1 10 9 81.8% 5.3

Stability & Control Guidelines 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 10 9 81.8% 5.7

Introduction to XFLR5 10 10 5 5 10 1 5 1 10 9 81.8% 6.3

Intorduction to AVL 10 10 5 5 10 1 5 1 10 9 81.8% 6.3

Propulsion Considerations 10 5 10 10 10 5 5 1 1 5 10 90.9% 6.2

Electric Motor and Fan/Prop Analysis 10 10 10 5 10 1 5 1 10 9 81.8% 6.9

Application of XFLR5 and AVL 5 10 10 10 10 5 5 1 1 10 10 90.9% 6.7

Structural Arrangement, Weight & Balance 10 5 10 10 10 5 5 5 1 10 10 90.9% 7.1

Spreadsheet Based Sizing Tool - Weight & Balance 10 5 10 10 1 1 1 10 8 72.7% 6.0

Collaborative Technical Writing and Reporting 10 1 5 10 5 5 5 10 8 72.7% 6.4

Structural Drawings 5 5 1 5 5 10 1 10 8 72.7% 5.3

Prepapration for Conceptual Design Review 5 10 10 10 5 5 45.5% 8.0

Conceptual Design Review 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 11 100.0% 9.5

Introduction of Boeing Coaches 1 10 1 5 10 1 10 5 8 72.7% 5.4

Page 26.646.9

Table 4. Summary of Lecture Alignment to ABET Criteria

ABET Criteria %of

Lectures

Average

Alignment

(a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and

engineering 83.1% 8.9

(b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to

analyze and interpret data 83.1% 7.9

(c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet

desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic,

environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety,

manufacturability, and sustainability

88.7% 8.0

(d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams 88.7% 8.1

(e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering

problems 94.4% 8.6

(f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility 94.4% 4.9

(g) an ability to communicate effectively 87.3% 7.1

(h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of

engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and

societal context

71.8% 4.5

(i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-

long learning 93.0% 2.9

(j) a knowledge of contemporary issues 50.7% 3.9

(k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern

engineering tools necessary for engineering practice 93.0% 9.1

Conclusion

The skills gap both in the technical (“hard”) and professional (“soft”) skills is a reality of the

modern science and engineering workforce, but collaboration of employers (industry or

governmental agencies) with universities can lead to successful partnerships to design and

develop curriculum that brings together the theoretical foundation with real-life problems and

exposes students to the realities of work life with its associated tools and processes. Such a

partnership offers unique opportunities to meet and exceed current accreditation standards

(ABET) and future goals for Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSA’s). When designed properly

and given the proper tools, as outlined here, it allows for the evaluation of these multi-modal

requirements for individual students, thus advancing the National Academy of Engineering’s

grand challenge to advance personalized learning. In partnership industry, governmental

agencies, and academia can work together to create a brighter future for all.

Page 26.646.10

References

1. Stephens, R. & Richey, M., Accelerating STEM Capacity: A Complex Adaptive System

Perspective. Journal of Engineering Education 100 (3), 417-423 (2011).

2. Montgomery, D., Retiree flood waits in aerospace wings (Seattle, WA, 2008).

3. Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N. & Strohl, J., 2013.

4. Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N. & Strohl, J., Recovery Job Growth and Education Requirements

Through 2020 (2013).

5. Engineering Accreditation Comission, Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs

(Accreditation Bureau for Engineering and Technology, Baltimore, MA, 2013).

6. American Society for Engineering Education, Transforming Undergraduate Education in

Engineering (American Society for Engineering Education, Arlington, VA, 2013).

7. Korn, M., Number of College Students Pursuing Science, Engineering Stagnates. Wall

Street Journal (2015).

8. National Science Board, Science & Engineering Indicators (National Science Foundation,

Arlington, VA, 2014).

9. Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Workforce Imperative: A Manufacturing Education

Strategy (Society of Manufacutring Engineers, Dearborn, MI, 2012).

10. Adachi, B., Gretczko, M. & Pelster, B., Human Capital Trends in Manufacturing

Challenges and Opportunities (Deloitte Consulting LLP, 2014).

11. Zender, F., An IPPD Approach Providing a Modular Framework to Closing the Capability

Gap and Preparing a 21st Century Workforce (Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta,

GA, 2014).

12. Morrison, T. et al., 2013.

13. Wepfer, W. & Warrignton, R., Vision 2030Creating the Future of Mechanical Engineering

Education (American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Pittsburgh, 2010, 2010).

14. American Society of Civil Engineers, Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st

Century (American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2008).

15. American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, Building our Competitive Foundation:

Supporting K-12 STEM Education (American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics,

Reston, VA, 2014).

16. Hotaling, N., Burks Fasse, B., Bost, L. F., Hermann, C. D. & Forest, C. R., A Quantitative

Analysis of the Effects of a Multidisciplinary Engineering Capstone Design Course. Journal

of Engineering Education 101 (4), 630-656 (2012).

17. Stanfill, K., Wiens, G., Eisenstadt, W. & Crisalle, O., Lessons Learned in Integrated

Product and Process Design Education, presented at ASEE Southeast Section Conference, ,

2002 (unpublished).

18. Hotaling, N., Burks Fasse, B., Bost, L., Hermann, C. & Forest, C., A Quantitative Anlysis of

the Effects of a Multidisciplinary Engineering Capstone Design Course. Journal of

Engineering Education 101 (4), 630-656 (2012).

19. Gorrell, S. et al., Aerospace Partners for the Advancement of Collaborative Engineering,

presented at ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN, 2014.

Page 26.646.11

20. Camarda, C., de Weck, O. & Do, S., Innovative Conceptual Engineering Design (ICED):

Creativity, and Innovation in a CDIO Like Curriculum. Proceedings of the 9th International

CDIO Conference (2013).

21. Todd, H., Magleby, S. P., Sorensen, C. D., Swan, B. R. & Anthony, D. K., A Survey of

Capstone Engineering Courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 165-174 (1995).

22. Camarda, C., Failure is Not an Option. It's a Requirement, presented at 50th

AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference,

Palm Springs, CA, 2009.

23. Cannon, L., Zender, F., Stone, B., Innouye, A. & Cunningham, C., Looking back: A Student

Review and History of AerosPACE – a Multi-University, Multi-Disciplinary, Distributed,

Industry-University Capstone Project , presented at ASEE Annual Forum, Seattle, WA,

2015.

24. Zender, F. et al., Aerospace Partners for the Advancement of Collaborative Engineering

(AerosPACE) - Connecting Industry and Academia through a Novel Capstone Course,

presented at International Conference for e-Learning in the Workplace, New York, NY,

2014.

25. Zender, F. et al., Wing Design as a Symphony of Geographically Dispersed, Multi-

disciplinary, Undergraduate Students, presented at 54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC

Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Boston, MA, 2013 .

Page 26.646.12

Appendix A: ABET Accreditation Criterion 3 Alignment

ABET Criterion Application in Program Measurement

(a) an ability to apply

knowledge of mathematics,

science, and engineering

Students are required to solve

real life multi-disciplinary

engineering challenges. Team

members represent various

educational backgrounds, the

collaboration resulting in

increased transfer of

knowledge and enhanced

understanding across

domains.

Formative assessments during

lecture and lab, summative

pre and post assessments

aligned to learning objectives,

and project reporting

requirements are an integral

part of these collaborative

projects.

(b) an ability to design and

conduct experiments, as well

as to analyze and interpret

data

Students are required to build

multiple prototypes and

validate design assumptions

by means of component and

systems testing. Final

reporting must include

analysis of captured flight test

data. Students at various

points have to present test

plans, experimental design,

and results before approval to

proceed is granted. Students

conduct aerodynamic,

electrical, propulsion, and

flight tests among others as

required by vehicle design.

Test plans, experimental

design, and analysis have to

be documented and are

presented to both faculty and

industry advisory board.

Feedback is provided

informally from team coaches

as well as formally after

reviews. A final report is

required which shows final

flight test data as well as prior

testing to arrive at the final

design.

(c) an ability to design a

system, component, or

process to meet desired needs

within realistic constraints

such as economic,

environmental, social,

political, ethical, health and

safety, manufacturability, and

sustainability

Students are engaged in real

life design challenge, e.g.

designing a vehicle to assist

first responders. Students

have to design and build a

systems, while facing

budgetary constraints,

regulatory challenges, ethical

concerns (e.g., delivering a

defibrillator to non-

paramedics), and

manufacturing concerns (they

have to build what they

design).

Key performance indicators

(KPI’s) are established for

various constraints as part of

the evaluation portion of the

request for proposal (RFP).

Through the advisory board

students are consistently

informed of new challenges

discovered by expert in the

workplace.

(d) an ability to function on

multidisciplinary teams

Problem statements are

designed such that individuals

from a single discipline

would be unable to complete

Students are evaluated

through multiple surveys to

establish their motivation and

collaboration. Data is

Page 26.646.13

ABET Criterion Application in Program Measurement

it. Students are on teams that

are not only multidisciplinary

(multiple majors) but also

have team members from

various universities in

different time zones.

supplemented by clickstream

data from the learning

management system (LMS)

utilized for team discussions.

Faculty and industry coaches

assigned to work with teams

on a daily/weekly basis and

provide guidance and

informal evaluation of

collaboration.

(e) an ability to identify,

formulate, and solve

engineering problems

Design challenges are created

by engineers based on real

world problems, students are

responsible for fully defining

the problem and providing

possible solutions.

While the course is structured

around problem-based

learning and has an

overarching engineering

problem - sub-problems exist

for the various systems and

interfaces. Students are given

formative feedback during

weekly review sessions and

summative feedback

following design reviews.

(f) an understanding of

professional and ethical

responsibility

Students operate as a team

with professional

expectations regarding

planning and execution of

work statements. Students

interact with customers (e.g.,

first responders) to derive

design requirements.

Students submit weekly

timecards and project

schedules. Teams must report

on team organization and

collaboration as part of

formal reports. Student

surveys evaluate

responsibilities taken on by

each student.

(g) an ability to communicate

effectively

Students collaborate with

team members and faculty

from multiple schools as well

as industry coaches. Effective

communication is paramount

to success and thus

emphasized in various

lectures.

Clickstream data from the

LMS enables mining of

communication and allows

for analysis by means of

network graphs of student

communication. Contextual

recognition is utilized to

evaluate the topics of

communication. Students are

separately surveyed

particularly on

communication with their

team members.

(h) the broad education

necessary to understand the

Students experience the

impact of engineering directly

Student teams have to define

their own mission and report

Page 26.646.14

ABET Criterion Application in Program Measurement

impact of engineering

solutions in a global,

economic, environmental,

and societal context

as they are participating in

this project. They are

immersed in the context as

they are working with

customers and suppliers.

to faculty and advisory board

what they are designing their

vehicle for. This mission

definition directly highlights

the team’s view of the impact

of engineering.

(i) a recognition of the need

for, and an ability to engage

in life-long learning

Students are provided with

formal learning opportunities,

but are also provided with

additional resources (e.g.,

EdX course on composites, or

reference documents). Life-

long learning is exemplified

by faculty and coaches who

everyday learn something

new from the students or their

colleagues and make a

particular effort to highlight

such learning to the students.

Clickstream data captured as

part of the LMS allows the

evaluation of resources by

each individual student. In

combination with survey

responses, this data can

inform a model on the level

of effort to engage in learning

outside the required by the

students, which likely is an

indicator for life-long

learning.

(j) a knowledge of

contemporary issues

Students monitor publications

on issues related to their

project and share with their

team and course members as

appropriate. Additionally

faculty and advisory board

members provide feedback.

Unobtrusive mining of the

LMS allows for the analysis

of contemporary issues

shared amongst students.

Similarly feedback brought

by faculty or advisory board

members is captured and

student responses are

required.

(k) an ability to use the

techniques, skills, and

modern engineering tools

necessary for engineering

practice

Students use a variety of

engineering processes and

tools. Students are instructed

by faculty and industry

representatives on the tools

and processes most applicable

to their project.

Student skills are assessed via

pre/post assessments for some

tools, or via informal

assessments as part of labs.

Outputs of the engineering

practices are reviewed during

the design reviews.

Page 26.646.15

Appendix B: ASEE KSA Alignment

KSA Application in Program Measurement

Good communication skills See g) above See g) above

Physical sciences and

engineering science

fundamentals

See a) above See a) above

Ability to identify, formulate,

and solve engineering

problems

See e) above See e) above

Systems integration Students have to design a

system that consists of

various sub-systems that need

to be integrated (e.g.

electrical, propulsion) but in

itself is part of systems of

systems (e.g. national air

space)

Students self-assign into

Integrated Product Teams

(IPT’s) and have to manage

their interfaces and

integration. Unobtrusive

mining allows an evaluation

of how interfaces were

managed during the design

process while design reviews

allow for an analysis of the

success of the integration

which is ultimately visible in

a flying vehicle.

Curiosity and persistent

desire for continuous learning

Students are presented with

an open-ended design

challenge, where they have to

be curious to properly define

their mission alongside their

customers. Solving the

various challenges associated

with the design of a vehicle

calls for various formal and

informal learning activities,

not all part of the formal

curriculum.

Curiosity of the students is

evaluated by means of

student surveys, their desire

for continuous learning can

be observed via the

clickstream data which makes

visible the informal resources

accessed by the students.

Self-drive and motivation Students operate as self-

contained teams with team

members required to

complete tasks assigned to

them on a tight schedule,

motivation is paramount to

success.

Student surveys evaluate each

individual student’s

motivation throughout the

project. In addition an

integrated computing

environment combined with a

self-reported hours log

enables a more thorough

analysis of the motivation and

its translation into work.

Cultural awareness in the

broad sense (nationality,

Teams are distributed, student

diversity is vast within and

Faculty and industry coaches

observe and guide team

Page 26.646.16

KSA Application in Program Measurement

ethnicity, linguistic, gender,

sexual orientation)

across the various

universities. Successful teams

take advantage of their

unique characteristics to

further the team’s success.

interactions where necessary

to further project goals.

Longitudinal student surveys

observe attitudes and changes

therein.

Economics and business

acumen

Teams define their own

mission and thus their own

business strategy. Teams are

provided a budget and must

manage logistics, purchases,

and travel.

Budgets are checked at every

design review. The business

case is evaluated as part of

initial mission definition and

continuously monitored.

High ethical standards,

integrity, and global, social,

intellectual, and technological

responsibility

Students are held to the

highest ethical standards and

are advised by faculty and

advisory board members on

concerns regarding their

project and integration into a

larger system of systems.

Design reviews evaluate the

global, social, intellectual,

and technological impact. As

required, feedback is

provided to students and their

progress towards is tracked.

Critical thinking Students have to solve an

open ended engineering

challenge that require them to

critically think about their

customer and a design to

meet the needs.

Critical thinking is evaluated

by analyzing the checklists

students create for design,

tests, and flights. Critical

thinking is required to

properly create these.

Willingness to take calculated

risk

Students have to take a

variety of calculated risk to

design their airplane. In

addition students are given

instructions by industry on

risk, issues, and opportunities

(RIO).

Each design reviews includes

an analysis of the systems

engineering processes utilized

and risks are established and

(re)evaluated at each stage.

Ability to prioritize

efficiently

Students receive credit for

this course and are typically

involved in other classes as

well. Students have to

prioritize the work within

their team and for themselves

in order to succeed.

Mentoring is available to all

students.

Prioritization of tasks is

evaluated on a weekly basis

by faculty and industry

coaches. Team meetings with

individual report outs provide

an opportunity to work with

each student.

Project management

(supervising, planning,

scheduling, budgeting, etc.)

Students have to manage the

team budget, including all

raw material and testing costs

as well as required orders.

Students are developing their

Students submit updated

budgets at each design

review, faculty may review

them as needed. Faculty

approves all purchases.

Page 26.646.17

KSA Application in Program Measurement

own project plan, lectures on

project management are given

by industry.

Students submit updated

project plans weekly for

review.

Teamwork skills and ability

to function on

multidisciplinary teams

See d) above

Entrepreneurship and

intrapreneurship

Students are given

opportunities to work directly

with customers and need to

develop a business plan to

justify their design choice.

The mission definition review

includes an analysis of the

business case. The design is

continuously monitored

against the original proposal.

Page 26.646.18