Developing a working 2-year/4-year research program: experiences from the first year of a collaborative ATE grant

Paul Golter, Bernard Van Wie, Jeffrey Laube
2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings   unpublished
Paul B. Golter obtained an M.S. and Ph.D. from Washington State University. His research area has been engineering education, specifically around the development and assessment of technologies to bring fluid mechanics and heat transfer laboratory experiences into the classroom. He is currently a Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering at Ohio University. Prof. Bernard J. Van Wie, Washington State University Prof. Bernard J. Van Wie received his B.S., M.S. and Ph.D., and did his postdoctoral work at
more » ... he University of Oklahoma where he also taught as a visiting lecturer. He has been on the Washington State University(WSU) faculty for 34 years and for the past 20 years has focused on innovative pedagogy research and technical research in biotechnology. His 2007-2008 Fulbright exchange to Nigeria set the stage for him to receive the Marian Smith Award which was given annually to the most innovative teacher at WSU, and in 2016 he received the inaugural WSU Innovative Teaching Award based on the development and dissemination of hands-on desktop learning modules and their use in an interactive learning environment. Abstract Joint research projects between two and four year institutions may be fraught with unforeseen pitfalls which contribute to the eventual failure of the collaboration. In this paper, the authors document their experiences in identifying and overcoming differences in culture and expectation that have already been seen in the first few months of a collaborative NSF Advanced Technological Education (ATE) grant that utilizes the joint expertise of process technology instructors at a two-year college and chemical engineering faculty at a four year research university in different Western states. We have identified significant differences in our expectations for what students will do with the same concepts, what portions of a concept are most important to students, and what students will be able to do that demonstrates competency. One key component for success is that the authors have been able to acknowledge and respect each other's differing perspectives and expertise. By understanding the differences in emphasis for our programs, we have been able to adapt materials created for use in teaching engineering students to providing process technology students a low-cost, useful hands-on experience.
doi:10.18260/1-2--28136 fatcat:o3bsunp4xjda7ckq2tmpphhvwm