) educational technology, (3) the student’s rolein the engineering college, and (4) the professor’s role in the engineering college. Theparticipants were instructed to write 10 words or phrases that come to their mind when they thinkabout each of the questions and rank their answers in the order of importance. Following theindividual questions, ten questions were discussed in a focus group. The results of the studyshowed that when it comes to evaluation of education and teaching methods, students would liketo see more opportunities to give input in the system and be more involved as part of the creationin all levels and steps. Current literature on Excellence in Engineering Education stresses theimportance of skills and knowledge but leaves out two
of the curriculum tostimulate learning through independent thinking, communication with peers, and interaction withthe instructor. Voluntary peer tutorials were held each week by outstanding juniors in chemicalengineering who took the course the previous year. Also, short writing assignments were used toprovide the instructor with background information about each student, provide midtermfeedback to the instructor, and to stimulate student thinking about certain tangential aspects ofthe course; like careers, history and famous women in engineering.For the blended instruction course (experimental group), new elements included the following:1) course was set up under university-licensed software as a web-based course using WebCT(even though it
curriculum. This teaching method encouragessenior students to arrange their tasks to meet their individual schedule limitations. But even atthis stage students have problems to manage their tasks: 19% wrote that they had difficultiesresulting from the freedom in time and place.In contrast to the many advantages that were seen, 39% wrote that they missed the personalcontact to the lecturer. The possibility to ask questions in the moment they arise, thediscussion with the lecturer, the whole area of verbal and non-verbal communication isseverely reduced. To write the questions and post them to the forum, where they are availablefor all peers was a severe disadvantage for 24% of the participants.The motivation of the participants was manifold. It
2006-1703: DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF VIRTUAL INSTRUMENT (VI)MODULES FOR ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS COURSENikunja Swain, South Carolina State University Dr. Nikunja Swain is a Professor of Computer Science at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, SC. He has over twenty five years of academic experience in teaching various computer sciences, information systems and engineering related graduate and undergraduate courses. He has published a number of articles (45+) in peer-refereed conferences and journals in the areas of Engineering, Management, and Computer Information Systems. He has procured research and development grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of
of juniorfaculty, many Assistant Professors agonize over writing and submitting their CAREERproposal.The goal of this paper is to present a systematic model for preparing the NSF CAREERproposal. Its objectives are to provide; a historical context for the CAREER program, apedagogical guide to preparing the proposal and supporting documents, and a templatefor writing the CAREER proposal. In the words of an experienced NSF program officer,“if you don’t submit a proposal, your chances of receiving an award are zero.”The CAREER Proposal Sections and FormatThere are 13 distinct sections required in an NSF CAREER proposal. The core of theserequirements are the Project Summary, Project Description, Budget with justification,and the Departmental
Program’s capstone design course. The capstone design course for the PE Departmentis multi-disciplinary and is taught along with CSM’s Geophysical Engineering and Geology andGeological Engineering Departments.2-4 Data for this criterion were collected from four sourcesincluding rubric assessments for oral and written communication (Tables 5 and 6), interviews,peer evaluations, and end-of-course surveys. The peer evaluations demonstrated statisticallysignificant increases in team skills over semester-long periods.5-7 The second interview questionused in Criterion 3b was also used for this criterion, along with two additional questions asfollows: What are some of the benefits of working on a multidisciplinary team? What are some of the
. Page 11.52.1L. Fink, University of Oklahoma Dr. L. Dee Fink, an off-campus evaluator, is the person responsible for developing and implementing the evaluation plan, and he has an extensive background in pedagogy and assessment. Because of this expertise, Dr. Fink will be responsible for: 1.) developing and© American Society for Engineering Education, 2006 monitoring the pedagogical models being used, 2.) leading the orientation programs for both undergraduate peer teachers and the faculty members involved, to make sure they fully understand the pedagogy procedures being used, 3.) developing the evaluation plan and materials, 4.) collecting and analyzing the evaluation
studentsCombined with the considerable depth and diversity of the project task, the differences incultural backgrounds provide the students with formidable challenges, requiring a well-considered choice of candidates. The student selection process at SNU is somewhat tied to theBK-21 funding and associated faculty (more on BK-21 in Section 4). An effort is made toinclude graduate students from the research groups of every faculty involved in the BK-21program. The faculty recommend students for enrolment in GPD.In TUB and UM, the course is hugely oversubscribed and the challenge is to devise a good andfair selection process. In TUB, every student is required to write an application to explain theirmotivation for the GPD course and must provide an academic
)further developed laboratory and technical writing skills.”Prior to this redevelopment, as part of the subject-based approach, a classroom lecturepreceded each laboratory session. The lecture consisted of the review of the theorypertaining to each experiment to help students refresh their knowledge on the subject.Additionally the description and procedure of the laboratory experiment was coveredduring this lecture. Prior to each class, the lecture notes, along with the laboratoryprocedures, were posted on the course website. The step-by-step instructions for eachexperiment were provided to assist the students in setting up and conducting eachexperiment. Throughout the semester, eleven experiments were performed.The students wrote individual
measure student’sperceptions about their skills in several areas such as problem solving, computer usage, designprocess, teamwork, and communication.This course was conducted in the Spring 2005 Semester. The RGSFOP is an undergraduateprogram sponsored by NASA that requires participants to propose, design, fabricate, fly andevaluate a reduced gravity experiment of their choice over the course of a school year. For the2004-2005 school year, two teams of six students each from Smith College participated in thisprogram. The assessment tools for this course included course profiles, oral presentations,written reports, peer-evaluations and student surveys. The students were required to assess thepresentations and papers of their peers. Their
youthink of when you think of the word knowledge?” Class discussion began with eliciting studentconcept associations with power, and student concept associations with knowledge. The resultsare shown in Table 1. Some students took notes on the brainstorming exercise in class and wrotedown some of their peers’ associations, driving up the counts for some concepts; it is interestingto note that no two forms were alike, because students chose to write down some terms and notothers. Perhaps this is a reflection on note-taking styles, or perhaps some students wrote downterms that particularly resonated with them. When asked to relate the two concepts, some relatedBacon’s statement that “Knowledge is Power” to their choice to pursue an engineering
: study skills, writing, information literacy, time management, learning styles, etc. to promote students’ learning and skill developmentStudent • Work with the ES program to • Develop and provide training, courses orAffairs provide credit courses for programs for peer mentoring, leadership mentor training and leadership development, character development, and development programs. mentoring programs. • Help the ES program develop, • Provide leadership and assistance in organizing
topics intended to guide students in their senior capstone design project andas they approach their transition from student to young engineers beginning a professionalcareer. Expert practitioners, some of whom are part of the IDS industry advisory team, areinvited to give one-hour seminars on following topics: • Introduction to the IDS Project Selected Page 11.1008.5 • Writing Reports and Giving Presentations • Environmental and Permitting Aspects of the Project Table 1. Suggested Outline for Final Report • Title page with date • Cover letter (from team to client) • Acknowledgements
Director Academic Support Center and Instructor, English Composition and First Year Seminar at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown. B.A. and M.A. from West Virginia University in English. Interests include college writing, first year experience and peer tutoring administration. Member of College Reading and Learning Association, National Academic Advising Association and National Association for Developmental Education.Robert Martinazzi, University of Pittsburgh-Johnstown Professor of Mechanical Engineering Technology at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown. B.S. Aerospace Engineering from the University of Pittsburgh, M.S. Mechanical Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University
, exceptional students can be identified early in their academicstudies.ResearchAt most research universities, the official appointment for a faculty member is 50 percentteaching and 50 percent research. The teaching load is either 3 or 4 courses per year.Theoretically, research activities account for only 50 percent of the faculty’s membertime, but in reality, research oriented activities can consume much more of your time.The research side of academia can be divided into two major sections, research incomeand publications.A significant portion of a faculty member’s job can be spent on locating funding forhis/her research program. The search for research funding is sometimes combined withlittle or no training in writing research proposals. However
which paired medical implants with design considerations, forexample, “total hip replacement/wear” or “heart valve/fatigue”. These medical implant/designconsideration pairings were developed so that each engineering concept would be taught with arelevant application, as shown in Table 2. Another element of successful group work is having a highly structured project7,12. Tothis end, various benchmarks were described which assisted students in developing their projectover the course of the semester. These were: - A write-up which included the history of the device and the current state-of-the-art configuration - A lesson plan in a specified format - A two-minute “elevator speech” demonstration for their peers, teachers and
test sections seem to beperforming the same as or slightly above their peers in the standard sections.Introduction General chemistry is an important foundational course for engineering studies.This is particularly true for chemical, environmental, and mechanical engineering, but alldisciplines rely on general chemistry to varying degrees. Certainly, all four-yearengineering programs begin with general chemistry in the freshman year. An importantarea of study within general chemistry focuses on the concept of chemical equilibrium.Weak aqueous acids and bases, precipitation equilibria, and gas-phase equilibria arestandard topics. Students are taught to calculate equilibrium concentrations given totalconcentrations and equilibrium
failure mechanisms based on fracture surfaceanalysis, microstructural analysis, and a basic stress analysis of the incident that caused failure.Students are responsible for sectioning, hardness testing, metallographic sample prep, andbackground research on the component and/or material. All project deliverables, including thefinal summary report, consist of presentations made to their peers in lab.Feedback from students indicates that they find the project to be a valuable part of the course.The students make noticeable improvements in their presentation skills over the course of thequarter. In some cases, the in-lab presentations lead to discussions of different failure modes orloading scenarios among the students. Interviews with graduating
again demonstrate problemdefinition and resolution through case studies as well as their own project activities.To improve ethics instruction, two phases of assessment are implemented. Overall courseassessment is performed for all courses using a collective Peer Evaluation of CourseEffectiveness at the end of the semester. In addition, ethics-specific assessment is incorporatedinto the Program Outcome: ME graduates can judge appropriate professional and ethicalconduct. Program Outcomes are measured using several methods and are reviewed on an annualbasis.The integrated Professional Component structure provides a framework for building uponprevious coursework, assessing student progress, and adjusting course coverage based on priorassessments to
disquisition. This general description is commonly taken to apply to social sciences, humanities andphysical sciences, as well as to all engineering fields. However, the outcomes expected in thepost-degree careers of humanists, social and physical scientists, and engineers are quite different.The scientist and humanist are charged with discovery. Their task is to learn and, then, toexplain to their peers the nature of their discoveries. Quite to the contrary, the engineer isexpected to develop a command of a defined topical field and, more importantly, to apply thatknowledge in a very tangible way that benefits society -- and, then, explain both discovery andapplication to society.Core Competencies in Engineering: All engineers solve problems and
ability to posit and answerresearch related questions. To initiate this learning skill, freshman engineering students in ES1000 “Introduction to Engineering” self select a “research question” for further investigation.They then prepare a three page “answer” to their question. As a minimum, the students must usethree references; one from a peer reviewed journal, one from the popular press and one from aninternet source. Instructors are careful to point out that journals found on internet sites may bedifferent than a “Google” search and the students must be able to differentiate the sources theyare using. Supplementing the research paper is a three page assessment of the sources they usedto resolve their question. The assessment paper is the
giving a lecture and students listening and writing notes. Interaction betweenthe instructor and students has been viewed as an essential learning element within thisarrangement. However, recent progress and rapid deployment in networking andinformation technology is allowing educators with a wide variety of choices in deliverymethods. The distance learning platform today is becoming very different from even a Page 11.795.2few years ago. The synchronous distance learning infrastructure, for example, is 1becoming more and more widespread due to the pervasive
Business Administration and the College of Education. He was also the director ofmanagement development programs and services for the university. He was the sole instructorfor the course, and primarily responsible for the development of the course content.The pilot course implemented in the Fall of 2004 was to be a 50/50 mix of engineering andsociology students, but engineering students soon discovered that they could register through thesociology department. As a result, engineering students made up a majority of the twenty-fourstudents enrolled in the course. The remainder were sociology and psychology students. Thereis some anecdotal evidence that the students enjoyed having peers from other programs in thecourse, but no formal assessment was
: “Students must be prepared for engineering practice through thecurriculum culminating in a major design experience based on the knowledge and skills acquiredin earlier course work and incorporating engineering standards and realistic constraints” [2].The ME faculty have defined the following four areas to quantify and assess the ProfessionalComponent: • Engineering Design (teaching and practicing design skills) • Professional Communications (conveying designs and interacting with peers) • Professional Skills (teaching and implementing design tools) • Professional Ethics (evaluating and practicing appropriate professional behavior)In each of these areas, a formal implementation plan has been developed to coordinateinstruction across
areconverted to PowerPoint presentations and more problem-based case studies that support criticalthinking, interactive learning, and team/peer instruction are added. The Engineering Technologycurriculum has many problem-based courses and laboratory exercises that can be used to supportactive and collaborative learning while using the wireless tablet PC.The wireless capability of the tablets allows for the quick conversion of a regular classroom to acomputer lab. All that is required is the wireless tablets and an access point connected to theInternet if Internet access is desired. The instructor can use the tablet PC and projector to makepresentations. Using the pen input, the instructor can easily annotate PowerPoint slides duringthe presentation
8 average value 6 Series1 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 question number Figure5. Academic skills resultsBelow we have included the survey given to the students at the end of the semester. Survey of Academic Skills2 ECE412 Power ElectronicsPlease write a number inside the box for each question. Please use the scale from 0 to 10
and sophomore level engineering and phys-ics courses. Dr. Utschig's research focuses on assessment from the classroom level to the program and institutional level. He has published on teaching diversity, using technology in the classroom, and faculty development related to instructional design, assessment, and peer coaching. Prior to joining the faculty at Lewis-Clark State College, Dr. Utschig completed his PhD in Nuclear Engineering at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. His technical exper-tise involves analysis of thermal systems for fusion reactor designs.Dan Cordon, University of Idaho DANIEL CORDON is a Ph.D. candidate in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Idaho
frequently madeavailable to undergraduates. While completing whatever technical training they require to workin the lab, participants create a plan of research with their mentors taking into account therelatively short, ten-week, time frame of the research experience. In this period the student musthave time to complete the planned research, analyze findings and write up their results. One ofthe stipulations is that the research be relevant to the faculty-mentor’s overall research goals sothat the student is involved in a meaningful way. During the course of their research, theparticipant meets regularly with their mentors which include the faculty member as well as withthe graduate students, post-doctoral researchers and even undergraduate
Underlying Educational InterventionsThe Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education (CASEE) at theNational Academy of Engineering has developed a web-based database that summarizes theavailable research on educational interventions designed to enhance student learning, retention,and professional success (see www.PR2OVE-IT.org -- Peer Reviewed Research OfferingValidation of Effective and Innovative Teaching). The website is similar to the U.S. Departmentof Education’s What Works Clearinghouse (http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/>), except thatPR2OVE-IT does not engage in extensive pre-screening of papers for rigor. Rather, we leavejudgments of rigor up to individual users of the system and focus instead on summarizing theresults of
. Then new teams, inwhich each team member had expertise regarding a different learning activity, were formed andcharged to rank the five activities from least- to best-aligned with formal cooperative learningprinciples. In a separate learning activity, student teams postulated the values and philosophy ofan engineering instructor who incorporates cooperative learning in his/her classes.Student teaching and research philosophies and their elevator speeches went through at least oneiteration cycle, with students receiving feedback from classmates, the course instructors, and, inthe case of the teaching philosophies, peers from the Laboratory for User-Centered EngineeringEducation (LUCEE8) at the University of Washington (LUCEE is devoted to