Socially-relevant design: The TOYtech project at Smith college

Journal of Engineering Education

Volumn 91, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 319-326

  Mikic, Borjana ^a   Grassc, Domenico ^a  

^a SMITH COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CURRICULA; ENGINEERING EDUCATION; KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION; PROBLEM SOLVING; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; SOCIAL ASPECTS; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; STUDENTS;

ENGINEERING COURSE; MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR (MBTI); SKILLED WORKERS; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY;

PROJECT MANAGEMENT;

EID: 3042607464     PISSN: 10694730     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00709.x     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Adelman, C. 1998. Women and Men of the Engineering Path: A Model fir Analysis of Undergraduate Careers. United States Department of Education, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
2. Aguilar, M. Toy technology put to ultimate test: Kids. Daily Hampshire Gazette January 29, 2001:B1.
3. Ambrose, S.A., K.L. Dunkle, B.B. Lazarus, I. Nair, and D.A. Harkus. 1997. Women, science, engineering, and technology through the ages. In Journeys of Women in Science and Engineering: no universal constants. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press.
4. Astin, A., and L. Sax. 1998. How undergraduates are affected by service participation. J. of College Student Development. 39:251-263.
5. AAUW Educational Foundation. 2000. Tech Savvy: Educating Girls in the New Computer Age. American Association for University Women.
6. Bonwell, C.C., and J.A. Eison. 1991. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
7. Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development. 2000. Land of Plenty: Diversity as America's Competitive Edge in Science, Engineering and Technology.
8. Dreaming up new toys: Smith College engineering students brainstorm with kids in 'TOYTech' project, AScribe Newswire, January 16, 2001.
9. Dym, C.L., and P. Little. 2000. Engineering Design: A Project-based Introduction. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
10. Engineering: The stealth profession. Discover Engineering Online. 〈http://www.discoverengineering.org/eweek/about_eng.htm〉, accessed March 19, 2002.
11. Eyler, J., and D. Giles. 1999. Where's the Learning in Service-Learning? San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
12. Gokhale, S., and M. O'Dea. 2001. Effectiveness of community service in enhancing student learning and development. Proceedings of the Annual ASEE Conference and Exposition.
13. Hanson, S.L. 1996. Lost Talent: Women in the Sciences. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press.
14. nd Ed. New York, New York: McGrawHill.
15. Kaufman, D.B., R.M. Felder, and H. Fuller. 2000. Accounting for individual effort in cooperative learning teams. Journal of Engineering Education. 89:133-140.
16. Jackson S.E. 1992. Team composition in organizational settings: Issues in managing an increasingly diverse workforce. Chapter 6 in Group Process and Productivity. Eds. Worchel, S., W. Wood, and J.A. Simpson, New York, New York: Sage Publishers.
17. The Keirsey Temperament Sorter and Keirsey Temperament Theory, 〈http://keirsey.com/〉, accessed March 19, 2002.
18. Kline N. 1999. Time to Think Listening to Ignite the Human Mind. London: Wardlock.
19. McCaulley, M.H., E.S. Godleski, C.F. Yokomoto, L. Harrisbeiger, and E.D. Sloan. 1983. Applications of psychological type in engineering education, Engineering Education. 73:394-400.
20. McCaulley, M.H. 1987. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Jungian model for problem solving. In: Developing Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Abilities. Ed. Stice, J.E. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Inc.
21. McCaulley, M.H. 1990. The MBTI and individual pathways in engineering design. Engineering Education. 80:537-542.
22. th ed. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Miffin, Boston.
23. National Center for Education Statistics. Office for Educational Research and Improvement, Department of Education, 1999. Highlights from TIMSS: Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS). (NCES 1999-081).
24. National Science Board. National Science Foundation. 2000. Science and Engineering Indicators 2000. Arlington, Virginia. (NSB-00-1) Chapters 3 and 4.
25. O'Shea, M.E. Gee Whiz! Pupils try to get inventive. Springfield Union News, January 29, 2001: B2.
26. Smith College. 2001-02 Catalogue Bulletin. Mission Statement: p. viii.
27. Smith College Picker Engineering Program. Program Brochure. 2001: p. 4.
28. Smith College's toytech focuses on fun. 2001. The Spiral. 5:4-5.
29. Snow, C.P. 1998. The Two Cultures. Oxford University Press: p. 44.
30. Sutherland, T.E., and C.C. Bonwell. 1996. Using Active Learning in College Classes: A Range of Options for Faculty. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
31. Wankat, P., and F.S. Oreovicz. 1993. Teaching Engineering. New York, New York McGraw-Hill. Available on line at 〈http://www.asee.org/pubs/teaching.htm〉, accessed September 18, 2001.
32. Wulf, William. Keynote address to the Women in Engineering Programs Advocates Network (WEPAN), June 5-8, 1999 San Antonio TX,
33. 〈http://www.smith.edu/advancement/news/toytech/〉