Seminar paper
Abstract
In this paper, the authors describe systematic curriculum
development activities in a new Mechanical Engineering
Technology degree program at a state university that in-
cludes a significant engineering design content. A formal
weighted-factor index method was employed in order to
determine the amount of design content in the curriculum to
remove subjectivity associated with decision making. A
sequence of five courses in the curriculum was linked to
reinforce key aspects of engineering design in accordance
with the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technolo-
gy (ABET) requirements and the National Council of Ex-
aminers for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) Funda-
mentals of Engineering exam knowledge areas. In this se-
quence of courses, students completed integrative design
projects and apply theory to real-world engineering prob-
lems. Enterprise skills, including teamwork, professional-
ism, and recognition of ethical values, were also integrated
into the curriculum through these projects. The resulting
curriculum is relevant, practical, responsive to the needs of
regional industry partners, and provides opportunities for
hands-on education, which results in employment-ready
graduates.
Designing the Curriculum
The Mechanical Engineering Technology (MET) degree
program at Missouri State University was developed in
2013 to address regional industry needs for employment-
ready mechanical engineering technologists, and to close
the gap between a graduating student and a qualified engi-
neer. Delivering a student-centered, interactive, and cooper-
ative learning environment was the primary purpose during
the design of the curriculum. The curriculum was designed
using constituent input. Constituents included an industry
advisory board and potential employers of graduates. Dis-
cussions were conducted with regional industry representa-
tives to determine desired characteristics and employment
potential for successful graduates. These discussions result-
ed in the following conclusions:
The program should have strong technical content,
particularly with regard to engineering design in the
area of automation, sensing, and control.
The enterprise skills component of the program
should be maintained throughout a series of courses.
Mathematical rigor in the degree program should be
supported by calculus-based, basic science courses
with experimental experience.
In addition, the academic relevance of courses, the mis-
sion and vision of the university, modes of delivery, re-
quired facilities, and other factors were considered as part of
the curriculum design process [1]. Course sequences were
developed such that the instructors supply the core material
and give students the opportunity to develop their computa-
tional and analytical skills, teamwork skills, professional-
ism, and ethical values. Course content was integrated to
encourage students to use, improve, and combine their abili-
ties and talents to design and improve integrated systems of
people, technologies, material, information, and equipment
within the context of societal and contemporary issues in
their practice [2].
Numerous course and curriculum design decisions were
made based on the curricular criteria stated previously.
Comprehensive engineering design content was incorpo-
rated into the curriculum. This engineering design content
was embodied as a systematic and iterative approach to de-
signing objects, processes, and systems to meet human
needs and wants [3]. A formal weighted-factor index meth-
od was employed during detailed curriculum design in order
to ensure an objective decision-making process. This
weighted-factor method uses scaled factors for considered
alternatives and associated weights to make quantitative
objective decisions [4]. The factors upon which these types
of decisions are based are often of various orders of magni-
tude, and are likely to be expressed using different units. In
some cases, factors may be difficult to quantify. In cases
such as these, factor values may be expressed using a Likert
scale for subjective and non-quantitative factors [4]. For
objective, easily quantifiable factors, original factor values
are used. These values are then normalized through the use
of one of Equations (1) and (2):
(1)
(2)
where, βij is scaled factor i for option j.
AN ENGINEERING DESIGN SEQUENCE INTEGRATED
INTO AN ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY CURRICULUM ——————————————————————————————————————————————–————
Nebil Buyurgan, Missouri State University; Kevin M. Hubbard, Missouri State University; Martin P. Jones, Missouri State University
——————————————————————————————————————————————————
TECHNOLOGY INTERFACE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL | VOLUME 18, NUMBER 1, FALL/WINTER 2017 81
v a lu e o f f a c to r fo r o p tio n =
la rg e s t v a lu e o f f a c to r a m o n g a ll o p tio n s i j
i j
i
s m a lle s t v a lu e o f f a c to r a m o n g a ll o p ti o n s =
v a lu e o f f a c to r fo r o p tio n i j
i
i j
——————————————————————————————————————————————–————
——————————————————————————————————————————————–————
82 TECHNOLOGY INTERFACE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL | VOLUME 18, NUMBER 1, FALL/WINTER 2017
Equation (1) is employed when large factor values are
desirable; Equation (2) is employed when small factor val-
ues are desirable. After pertinent factors have been selected,
evaluated, and normalized (scaled), a weighted-factor index
may be formulated, as in Equation (3):
(3)
where, γj is the performance index (weighted-factor index)
for alternative j; Wi is the importance (weight) associated
with scaled factor i; and, n is the number of factors upon
which the decision is to be based.
Options exhibiting large weighted-factor index values are
superior to options exhibiting small weighted-factor index
values. The method was used to decide the amount of engi-
neering design content in the curriculum using the following
factors:
Industrial relevance
Academic relevance
Institutional/cultural compatibility
Accreditation factors
Adjunct faculty and other required resources
The industrial relevance, academic relevance, institu-
tional/cultural compatibility, and accreditation factors were
enumerated using a Likert scale, where a value of five was
defined as high and a value of one was defined as low. The
adjunct faculty and other required resources factors were
enumerated using an estimated required dollar amount. The
options evaluated were:
Option 1—Include engineering design content com-
prising 5% of the program.
Option 2—Include engineering design content com-
prising 10% of the program.
Option 3—Include engineering design content com-
prising 15% of the program.
Option 4—Include engineering design content com-
prising 20% of the program.
The following variables were employed:
IRj = the value of industrial relevance for option j
ARj = the value of academic relevance for option j
ICCj = the value of institutional/cultural compatibility
for option j
ACRj = the value of desirability (from an accreditation
perspective) for option j
AFj = the value of adjunct faculty and other required
resources for option j
βIRj = scaled factor of industrial relevance for option j
βARj = scaled factor of academic relevance for option j
βICCj = scaled factor of institutional/cultural
compatibility for option j
βACRj = scaled factor of accreditation desirability for
option j
βAFj = scaled factor of adjunct faculty for option j
WIR = weight (importance) assigned to industrial
relevance
WAR = weight (importance) assigned to academic
relevance
WICC = weight (importance) assigned to
institutional/cultural compatibility
WACR = weight (importance) assigned to accreditation
desirability
WAF = weight (importance) assigned to adjunct faculty
Weights were assigned to each factor in consultation with
all departmental faculty as well as approximately twenty
industry representatives. The smallest weights were as-
signed to the institutional/cultural compatibility and aca-
demic relevance factors. The highest weighted factors were
industrial relevance, desirability, and additional intellectual
resources. Table 1 details the Likert scale values and
weights assigned to the first four factors as well as intellec-
tual resource funding estimates. Table 2 details the scaled
factor values and calculated weighted-factor index values
for each option. The scaled values for industrial relevance,
academic relevance, institutional/cultural compatibility, and
accreditation factors were calculated using Equation (1),
whereas the scaled values for the adjunct faculty and other
required resources were calculated using Equation (2).
Table 1. Likert Scale Values and Weights
Option 2 (10% engineering design content) was deter-
mined to be the superior alternative, followed by Option 3
(15% engineering design content), Option 1 (5% engineer-
ing design content), and Option 4 (20% engineering design
content). It should be noted that the conclusion drawn from
these calculations may be changed through the assignment
of different weight values.
1
n
j i ij
i
W
Resource
Funding
Likert Scale Values
(Weights) Option
IR
(0.25)
AR
(0.15)
ICC
(0.10)
ACR
(0.25)
AF
(0.25)
1 2 3 2 2 $15,000
2 4 4 3 3 $7,500
3 3 3 4 3 $15,000
4 3 2 2 2 $22,500
——————————————————————————————————————————————–————
Table 2. Scaled Factor Values
ABET requirements were also considered when develop-
ing this curriculum. ABET requires MET programs to pre-
pare graduates with knowledge, problem-solving ability,
and hands-on skills to enter careers in the design, installa-
tion, manufacturing, testing, evaluation, technical sales, or
maintenance of mechanical systems [2]. Therefore, super-
vised in-class activities, laboratory exercises, and term pro-
jects were created for courses to support lectures and assign-
ments to enable student learning. ABET accreditation stand-
ards also emphasize major design experiences based on stu-
dent course work. The following ABET Student Learning
Objectives (SLO) were adopted and addressed in these
courses [2].
A. An ability to select and apply the knowledge, tech-
niques, skills, and modern tools of the discipline to
broadly defined engineering technology activities.
B. An ability to select and apply a knowledge of mathe-
matics, science, engineering, and technology to engi-
neering technology problems that require the applica-
tion of principles and applied procedures or method-
ologies.
C. An ability to conduct standard tests and measure-
ments; to conduct, analyze, and interpret experi-
ments; and to apply experimental results to improve
processes.
D. An ability to design systems, components, or pro-
cesses for broadly defined engineering technology
problems appropriate to program educational objec-
tives.
E. An ability to function effectively as a member or
leader on a technical team.
F. An ability to identify, analyze, and solve broadly
defined engineering technology problems.
G. An ability to apply written, oral, and graphical com-
munication in both technical and nontechnical envi-
ronments; and an ability to identify and use appropri-
ate technical literature.
H. An understanding of the need for and an ability to
engage in self-directed continuing professional devel-
opment.
I. An understanding of and a commitment to address
professional and ethical responsibilities including a
respect for diversity.
J. A knowledge of the impact of engineering technolo-
gy solutions in a societal and global context.
K. A commitment to quality, timeliness, and continuous
improvement.
Developing Course Content
Incorporating different phases of engineering design, a
sequence of five courses was designed that would focus on
scoping, generating, evaluating, and realizing ideas [5]. The
engineering design content covered in these five courses
was about 10% of the program curriculum. The same formal
weighted-factor index method was employed in order to
determine the proportion of the course material dedicated to
engineering design. In addition to the aforementioned fac-
tors, course prerequisite structure was also considered and
the courses were aligned based on the guidelines of the
NCEES Fundamentals of Engineering Mechanical exam
knowledge areas [6]. These knowledge areas included elec-
tricity and magnetism, material properties and processing,
and mechanical design and analysis.
The sequence starts with a freshmen-level introductory
course, entitled “Introduction to Engineering Design,” that
introduces fundamental concepts of engineering design,
including computational methods, the design process, and
communication techniques. The sequence continues with a
sophomore-level second course, “Electrical Circuits,” that
concentrates on electrical circuit design by providing in-
depth knowledge of theory, analysis, and applications of
electrical circuits. The third course in the sequence is a jun-
ior-level course, entitled “Mechanical Design and Analy-
sis,” that focuses on traditional manufacturing process de-
sign and mechanical design to introduce engineering materi-
als and mechanisms design into the curriculum. The fourth
course, “Product Design and Conceptualization,” is also a
junior-level course that introduces prototyping, designing
for different considerations, robust design, design econom-
ics, as well as patents and intellectual property.
Students complete an integrative design project in each
course and apply the presented theory to real-world engi-
neering problems. Course deliverables include written re-
ports with detailed design data and analysis, group and indi-
vidual presentations, and one or more working, physical
product prototypes. Projects are also used to introduce en-
terprise soft skills, including various levels of communica-
tion, teamwork, professionalism, and recognizing ethical
values. The sequence is finalized by a senior-level capstone
“Senior Design” course that requires student participation in
——————————————————————————————————————————————————
AN ENGINEERING DESIGN SEQUENCE INTEGRATED INTO AN ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY CURRICULUM 83
Index
Values Scaled Factor Values
Option βIR βAR βICC βACR βAF j
1 0.50 0.75 0.50 0.67 0.50 0.58
2 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.98
3 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.65
4 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.67 0.33 0.56
——————————————————————————————————————————————–————
——————————————————————————————————————————————–————
84 TECHNOLOGY INTERFACE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL | VOLUME 18, NUMBER 1, FALL/WINTER 2017
interdisciplinary teams to bring a product from conceptual
design through manufacture. Activities include detailed
design, material selection, cost estimation, process planning,
schedule and production requirements planning, distribution
systems design, software planning and implementation, and
product fabrication [7].
The Introduction to Engineering Design course is the in-
troductory course in which students are introduced to engi-
neering design. The course emphasizes iterative decision
making in the engineering design and development process
and introduces fundamental steps of product design, includ-
ing developing mission statements, identifying and analyz-
ing customer needs, establishing product specifications, as
well as generating and evaluating product concepts. The
course also includes an engineering graphics component,
where students learn the basic principles, techniques, and
practices for developing drawings in a CAD environment.
Students in this class also work on a semester-long course
project in teams of four to complete a conceptual design of a
product. The goal of the project is to learn and apply princi-
ples and methods of the design process to improve team-
work skills and to appreciate the inherent multidisciplinary
nature of engineering design. The Introduction to Engineer-
ing Design course objectives and ABET SLOs addressed by
each objective are as follows [7]:
1. Comprehend the structure of the engineering design
process, and develop and evaluate a conceptual prod-
uct using this process (ABET SLO F, SLO H).
2. Understand drafting standards and the conventions of
2D engineering drawings, and communicate the de-
velopment of a conceptual product (ABET SLO D,
SLO G).
3. Comprehend the syntax of engineering design tools
to analyze engineering technology problems (ABET
SLO D, SLO F, SLO G).
4. Function effectively on a team (ABET SLO E, SLO
K).
The Electrical Circuits course focuses on electrical com-
ponents and automation in the design of a component or
product. Feasibility, cost analysis, and usability of electrical
components and automation are introduced to students to
help them make decisions on what to automate when de-
signing a product. The course content also includes analysis
of different off-the-shelf electrical systems to investigate
sensor/actuator combinations, matching voltages, amperag-
es, etc. Students also experience what is available for pur-
chase and how to perform a make-or-buy analysis for elec-
trical components and automation. The course is supported
by laboratory hours, where students build components and
conduct experiments individually and in project groups. The
Electrical Circuits course objectives and their ABET SLOs
include [7]:
1. Demonstrate an understanding of Ohm's law, Kirch-
hoff's laws, and the power rule (ABET SLO B, SLO
C, SLO G).
2. Design basic series, parallel, and combination circuits
(ABET SLO B, SLO D).
3. Use simulation software to predict the response of
complex circuits to various inputs (ABET SLO A,
SLO G).
4. Design circuit noise filters and power distribution
systems (ABET SLO B, SLO D).
5. Find steady-state, DC, and transient solutions for AC/
DC circuits composed of resistors, capacitors, induc-
tors, op amps, and other electrical components
(ABET SLO A, SLO D).
The Mechanical Design and Analysis course introduces
simultaneous engineering concepts, where both product
design and in-service performance as well as product fabri-
cation and assembly are considered during the design phase
of project inception. Students perform a semester-long inte-
grative design project that synthesizes the above concepts.
The Mechanical Design and Analysis course objectives and
ABET SLO’s addressed by each are [7]:
1. Perform rational material selection, including the
evaluation of material performance indices and the
use of material selection charts (ABET SLO A, SLO
D, SLO F).
2. Perform rational manufacturing process selection
(ABET SLO B, SLO D, SLO F).
3. Perform tolerance assignment activities using both
traditional and statistically based tolerancing methods
(ABET SLO B, SLO D, SLO F).
4. Synthesize the above skills in order to perform design
-for-manufacture tasks (ABET SLO A, SLO B, SLO
D).
The Product Design and Conceptualization course intro-
duces detailed engineering design considerations in an en-
trepreneurial environment, including product architecture,
design for environment, design for manufacturing, quality
aspects in engineering design, design economics and cost
estimation, and industrial design as well as patents and in-
tellectual property issues. The course also has a prototyping
component, where students employ different prototyping
tools and technologies, and develop a physical prototype of
a product. This component is coupled with a course project,
where each project team designs and analyzes a product
based on the considerations noted above. The Product De-
sign and Conceptualization course objectives and their
ABET SLOs include [7]:
——————————————————————————————————————————————–————
1. Comprehend the structure of the product design and
development process. Build, evaluate, and test a
physical product using this process (ABET SLO C,
SLO D, SLO K).
2. Communicate a design and its analysis (written, oral,
and graphical forms) (ABET SLO G, SLO K)
3. Function effectively on a team (ABET SLO E, SLO
I).
The Senior Design course incorporates an integrated cap-
stone design experience that is based on work performed by
the student in all prior technical courses. The course is a
critical component of the curriculum and provides the stu-
dent with a comprehensive opportunity to utilize the skills
and abilities obtained through the MET program core mate-
rial as well as the incorporated engineering design content.
In addition, this course represents a major design experi-
ence, which typically consists of an industrial project, and
allows students to demonstrate their ability to work in teams
to design, develop, implement, and improve integrated
products and systems. The Senior Design course is not a
lecture-based course; instead, each team has designated
(weekly) meeting times with the course instructor, where
they review their project accomplishments, next steps, and
any potential roadblocks. There are several milestones dur-
ing the semester for preliminary and final reports as well as
formal and informal presentations. Since this course is used
to perform a summative ABET SLO assessment for the pro-
gram, course objectives are not individually mapped to
SLOs. Course objectives include [7]:
1. Integrate product/process/tooling design skills ac-
quired from previous course to design and fabricate a
prototype of a complex product involving some auto-
mation component.
2. Synthesize analytical market, production system, cost
estimation evaluation and design skills acquired from
previous course to perform commercialization activi-
ties associated with the product of item 1 noted
above.
3. Conduct effective meetings, organize and participate
in effective teams, and develop and deliver effective
reports and presentations.
4. Appreciate the necessity for the continual upgrade of
engineering and technical knowledge.
Figure 1 presents the engineering design content in each
course is linked to each of the other courses using course
objectives determined by the program’s faculty.
Course 1 Course 4 Course 2 Course 3 Course 5
Objective 1
Objective 2
Objective 3
Objective 4
Objective 1
Objective 2
Objective 4
Objective 5
Objective 1
Objective 3
Objective 4
Objective 2
Objective 3
Objective 1
Objective 2
Objective 3
Objective 1
Objective 2
Objective 3
Objective 4
Figure 1. Generalized Course Objectives in the Sequence
——————————————————————————————————————————————————
AN ENGINEERING DESIGN SEQUENCE INTEGRATED INTO AN ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY CURRICULUM 85
——————————————————————————————————————————————–————
——————————————————————————————————————————————–————
86 TECHNOLOGY INTERFACE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL | VOLUME 18, NUMBER 1, FALL/WINTER 2017
A Sample Project
Integration of industrial projects into engineering curric-
ula has been suggested by other educators [8]. In this sec-
tion, an industrial project from a sample Senior Design
course is presented with some level of detail. The project
was executed by a group of MET students as a culminating
engineering design project, where they utilized engineering
design tools, methods, and concepts. The project was as-
signed to a team with the following problem statement:
Typical roundness testers available to industry today
are often capable of measuring much tighter tolerances
than are necessarily required by the products that are
measured by these devices. Also, these roundness test-
ers are very expensive (~$30,000) for a machine that is
capable of measuring workparts up to 15.75 inches.
However, approximately 85% of all manufactured cy-
lindrical workparts are under 2.00 inches in diameter.
As the team of engineers, you will identify a need in the
market for a lower cost Form Measurement Device for Cir-
cular Geometries (FMD-CG), which will be capable of
measuring five geometric dimensioning and tolerancing
(GD&T) controls, including total runout, circular runout,
circularity (roundness), concentricity, and cylindricity.
Then, you will design and fabricate a prototype FMD-CG
within the required specifications.
A set of comprehensive analyses must be conducted for
the product and its production system that include market
share analysis, material and process selection, and produc-
tion system and site requirements. A facility layout study
also has to be conducted, which should account for all nec-
essary machinery and production operations to produce the
designed product. Additionally, a capacity plan has to be
developed and personnel requirements have to be identified
for the production. A selling price for the product has to be
identified to yield an attractive potential profit under a high-
demand scenario.
In the first stage of the project, students developed a pro-
ject mission statement and a product function statement,
which were introduced in the Introduction to Engineering
Design course. These statements mainly included product
description, primary and secondary markets, major project
assumptions and constraints, stakeholders, project life, and
current state of the market. Students conducted an extensive
market analysis to develop a background on the product and
its current use in industry. The team focused on product
demand and market opportunities. An extensive customer
needs assessment and market forecast analysis utilizing
mathematical and statistical tools and methods was conduct-
ed. This content was introduced in both the Introduction to
Engineering Design and Product Design and Conceptualiza-
tion courses.
In the conceptual design stage, students conducted a func-
tional decomposition analysis for the product and developed
product specifications. A major consideration was given in
the product requirements to measure the aforementioned
five GD&T controls. Functional requirements for electronic
systems, hardware requirements, and software requirements
were determined, considering the economic feasibility of
FMD-CG. Since the product had to contain electrical and
mechanical components as well as a software controller,
students utilized tools and techniques that were introduced
in the Electrical Circuits and Mechanical Design and Analy-
sis courses for functional decomposition analysis and prod-
uct specification.
Multiple concepts were designed with different capabili-
ties. Cost-estimation tools were used to calculate a detailed
cost for each concept. In addition, material selection, pro-
cess selection, make-versus-buy decisions, tooling, and a
detailed inspection plan were developed for the concepts.
These tools and methods were introduced in the Mechanical
Design and Analysis and Product Design and Conceptual-
ization courses in the curriculum. Developed concepts were
evaluated based on these criteria, with the most promising
concept selected for further consideration. The team then
designed and fabricated a detailed prototype of the selected
concept in a laboratory environment.
The next stage included production system and product
design for production as well as site selection for FMD-CG.
Manufacturing and assembly techniques and requirements
as well as needed equipment were considered in developing
a production system. A detailed analysis of available manu-
facturing machines, assembly, and inspection equipment
was conducted for production operations. Similar to the
prototype design stage, material selection, process selection,
make-versus-buy decisions, tooling, and a detailed inspec-
tion plan were developed for the production system. In addi-
tion, facility requirements were identified for a facility lay-
out study. A capacity planning analysis was performed
based on the required production levels.
Site selection for the production facility and a profit anal-
ysis were the last stages in the project. The team considered
ten cities in eight states for the location of the production
facility, based on the available Department of Labor statis-
tics. In addition, a general cost estimation was done for po-
tential sites. Considering the results of the analysis, ex-
pected product life, estimated market share, and annual in-
flation rate, a price for the product was determined to yield
a certain net profit for the operations.
——————————————————————————————————————————————–————
Conclusions
In this paper, the authors report a series of course content
and curriculum development activities in the Mechanical
Engineering Technology (MET) program at Missouri State
University to incorporate comprehensive engineering design
content. A formal weighted-factor index method was used
to determine the amount of design content in the curriculum
in order to remove subjectivity associated with decision
making. A series of five courses was then developed to in-
troduce engineering design. Courses in this series not only
introduced different aspects of engineering design, but also
assessed and evaluated student learning in individual or
team projects. Projects were also utilized to provide oppor-
tunities for students to improve their enterprise skills.
Courses and their engineering design content were linked to
each other using course objectives developed under ABET
SLOs and NCEES Fundamentals of Engineering exam
knowledge areas. In addition to individual and team projects
in courses, students participated in a culminating capstone
project in the Senior Design course, where they utilized
engineering design tools, methods, and concepts.
Future enhancement will include incorporating the design
of a product for one of the nationwide student competitions
into the courses. For example, Baja SAE student competi-
tion includes designing and building a single-seat, all-
terrain, off-road vehicle that should survive on rough ter-
rains. This engineering design project activity can be
merged into the courses so that students would design and
fabricate different components of the vehicle in different
courses in the MET curriculum. Also, since this curriculum
was developed in consultation with regional industry part-
ners, the alignment of ABET and regional accreditation
standards [9] will be further considered.
References
[1] Hubbard, K., & Jones, M. P. (2015). Systematic
Weighted Factor Approach for Curriculum Design.
Technology Interface International Journal, 16(1),
46-52.
[2] Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology.
(2015). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Tech-
nology Programs. ABET. Retrieved from http://
www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/
criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-technology-
programs-2016-2017
[3] National Research Council. (2012). A framework for
K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting con-
cepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press. Retrieved from https://
www.nap.edu/catalog/13165/a-framework-for-k-12-
science-education-practices-crosscutting-concepts
[4] Buyurgan, N., Jones, M. P., & Hubbard, K. M.
(2016). A Systematic Weighted Factor Approach for
Curriculum Design. Proceedings of the ASEE
Annual Conference, Paper # 16654. New Orleans,
LA.
[5] Sheppard, S. D. (2003). A Description of Engineer-
ing: An Essential Backdrop for Interpreting Engi-
neering Education. Mudd Design Workshop IV Pro-
ceedings, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA.
[6] National Council of Examiners for Engineering and
Surveying. (2017). Fundamentals of Engineering
Mechanical Computer-Based Test Exam Specifica-
tions. NCEES. Retrieved from http://ncees.org/wp-
content/uploads/FE-Mec-CBT-specs.pdf
[7] Buyurgan, N., Hubbard, K. M., & Jones, M. P.
(2017). Incorporating Engineering Design Content in
an Engineering Technology Curriculum. Proceedings
of the ASEE Annual Conference, Paper # 20496.
Columbus OH.
[8] Dong, Y. (2016). Integration of Industrial Projects
into Engineering Education. Technology Interface
International Journal, 17(1), 20-26.
[9] Hossain, D., & Cumming, T. (2016). Alignment of
Regional and ABET Accreditation Efforts: An Effi-
cient Approach to Assessment of Student Learning
Outcomes. Technology Interface International Jour-
nal, 16(2), 7-12.
Biographies
NEBIL BUYURGAN is an associate professor of tech-
nology and construction management at Missouri State Uni-
versity. He earned his BS degree (Industrial Engineering,
1998) from Istanbul Technical University, Turkey; MS
(Engineering Management, 2000) from the University of
Missouri – Rolla; and, PhD from the University of Missouri
– Rolla (Engineering Management, 2004). Dr. Buyurgan is
currently teaching at Missouri State University. His research
interests include optimization of logistics operations in man-
ufacturing, healthcare, military and retail, and supply chain
management. Dr. Buyurgan may be reached at NebilBuyur-
gan@MissouriState.edu
KEVIN M. HUBBARD is an assistant professor of
technology and construction management at Missouri State
University. He earned his BS degree (Aerospace Engineer-
ing, 1991), MS (Engineering Management, 1993), and PhD
(Engineering Management, 1996) degrees from the Univer-
sity of Missouri – Rolla. Dr. Hubbard is currently teaching
at Missouri State University. His research interests include
automation and device control, manufacturing systems, de-
——————————————————————————————————————————————————
AN ENGINEERING DESIGN SEQUENCE INTEGRATED INTO AN ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY CURRICULUM 87
——————————————————————————————————————————————–————
——————————————————————————————————————————————–————
88 TECHNOLOGY INTERFACE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL | VOLUME 18, NUMBER 1, FALL/WINTER 2017
vice design, and process optimization. Dr. Hubbard may be
reached at KHubbard@MissouriState.edu
MARTIN P. JONES is an associate professor of tech-
nology and construction management at Missouri State Uni-
versity. He earned his BS degree (Physics, 1981) from the
University of Maryland Baltimore County; MS degree
(Materials Science & Engineering, 1984) from the Johns
Hopkins University; and, PhD (Materials Science & Engi-
neering, 1987) from the Johns Hopkins University. Dr.
Jones is currently teaching at Missouri State University. His
research interests include scanner technology, nondestruc-
tive evaluation, manufacturing processes, and quality assur-
ance. Dr. Jones may be reached at Mar-
tinJones@MissouriState.edu