. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 2000.6. Shulman, L. S. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14,1986.7. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review,57, 1-22.8. Barkel B and Woolf P., Process Control: A Relevant Approach. Proc ASEE, Chicago, IL, 2006.9. Hamilton S, Brunell L, Tamm G and Arnas O. Peer Review in Engineering Courses as a Learning Tool ProcASEE, Chicago, IL, 2006. Page 12.1485.11
style than a single self rating. Social style researchers have found self-assessments of style todiffer from peer assessments half of the time. [7] Social styles assessments were developed inindustry settings during the 1960’s, and the current peer-assessed format has demonstratedacceptable internal consistency, reliability and evidence of construct validity. [13]Social Style Training in a First-Year Engineering Projects CourseFor the present study, social style training was conducted in the University of Colorado at Page 12.708.4Boulder’s First-Year Engineering Projects (FYEP) course, a large, multi-section, team-based,engineering design
semiconductor manufacturers.CAN is the basis of several sensor buses such as Devicenet, CANopen, J1939, and SmartDistributed System.CAN uses a twisted pair cable to communicate up to 40m at speeds 1Mbit/s without repeaters,and up to 1 km at 20 kbps speed. It can support up to 40 devices. CAN uses CSMA busarbitration. The CAN protocol, which corresponds to the data link and physical layers in theISO/OSI reference model [1], meets the real-time requirements of automotive applications.CAN data packets are 8 bytes long and use 11-bit packet identifier. A second version of CANcan support 29 bit identifier.Each CAN data frame consists of seven different bit fields shown in Figure 1. A data framebegins with the start-of-frame (SOF) bit. It is followed by an
With Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman, Bantam Books, 2000, ISBN:0-553- 37858-9 Page 12.889.10 10. The Goal, Eliyahu M. Goldratt & Jeff Cox, The North River Press 11. Critical Chain, Eliyahu M. Goldratt, The North River Press, 1997, ISBN: 0-88427-153-6 12. Lean Thinking, James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones, The Free Press, 2003, ISBN: 0-7432- 4927-5 13. Strategy Maps, Robert S. Kaplan, David P. Norton, HBS Press, 2004, ISBN: 1-59139-134-2 14. Sanghi, S & Jones, M. (2006). Driving Excellence: How the Aggregate System Turned Microchip Technology from a Failing Company to a Market Leader, page
, as Bruner arguesthere is a serious lack of emphasis on the process between the stimulus (S) and the Page 12.203.11behaviour (B) in the behaviourist paradigm 17.On examination of the research data, it is evident that the experimental group engaged ina more effective learning experience and demonstrated significantly higher performanceson the acquisition of knowledge, transformation, and manipulation of information, andapplication and demonstration of understanding.References 1. Pink, Daniel. (2005) A whole new mind: How to thrive in the new conceptual age, New York, River head Books. 2. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality
Kerns, Bradley University Dan Kerns hold BS and MS degrees in Speech Communication from Indisna State University and a PhD in Radio and Television Communication from Norther Illinois University. He has been a speech coach for the IMET Department's capstone design course for the past 17 yers. Page 12.888.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2007 Industry Based Capstone Design Projects: You Can’t Sell the Solution If You Can’t CommunicateAbstractIndustry-based capstone design projects have been used by Industrial Engineering departmentssince the 1960’s. The format for the project
distribution in non-prismatic beams and comparison of their Strength to Weight Ratio with the prismatic beams,2. To create an opportunity for collaborative research and design efforts between undergraduate Page 12.385.2 engineering student(s) and faculty, Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2007, American Society for Engineering Education3. To design and produce a cost-effective, reproducible apparatus with outstanding features.4. To incorporate (optional) use of ANSYS for comparison of the measured and calculated results,5. To make all
numerous prerequisite courses identifyareas of weakness and develop ways to eliminate them as they strive to prepare their students toachieve excellence in all 17 Program Outcomes. In essence, using embedded indicators as adirect assessment of student learning can feed into the assessment of an entire engineeringprogram, as discussed in “A Technique for Program-Wide Direct Assessment of StudentPerformance”.7Bibliography1. Meyer, K., Morris, M., Estes, A., Ressler, S., “How to Kill Two Birds with One Stone-Assigning Grades and Assessing Program Goals at the Same Time,” Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, American Society for Engineering Education, June 2005.2. Keith, B., LeBoeuf, J., Meese, M
do? Page 12.284.9APPENDIX C : A sample of how grading was administered. STUDENT # X THE CRITICAL THINKING RUBRIC RUBRIC COURTESY OF W. S. U. WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY PULLMAN, WA. 99164. LIKERT SCALE WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION : 5 4 3 2 1 UNDECIDED STR. AGREE AGREE DISAGREE
AC 2007-63: ACCELERATED DUAL GRADUATE DEGREE PROGRAMSRonald Kane, New Jersey Institute of Technology Ronald S. Kane is Dean of Graduate Studies and Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs at New Jersey Institute of Technology. Before that he had been Dean of Graduate Studies, Research, and Continuing Professional Education and Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Stevens Institute of Technology and before that served as Mechanical Engineering Department Chair at Manhattan College. He has industrial experience in the energy and aerospace industries and worked for a number of years on nuclear safety and alternative energy systems, with focus on modeling and evaluation of thermal/fluid
choiceof the external analysis type option. Next, air was chosen as the default fluid. A computationaldomain with the same size as the wind tunnel test section was chosen for numerical simulations.The size of the computational domain in the streamwise direction was 0.3 m in front of theleading edge and 0.548 m after the trailing edge. In order to get a reasonable calculation time, a2D plane steady flow calculation was selected. A free stream velocity of 20 m/s, a wall surfaceroughness of 100 micrometer and a turbulence intensity of 1% were chosen for the settingsfollowing the CosmosFloWorks wizard. Figure 5 shows the pressure distribution around theairfoil with a clear low-pressure bubble above the airfoil and a stagnation region close to
context to students majoring in bioengineering, civilengineering, or environmental engineering has been very successful in promoting studentlearning (and motivation to learn).References1. Blanchard, S., N. Egiebor, J.D. Sweeney, L. Zidek, C. Sechrist, S. Hulbert, J. Osborn and M. Swearingen. “Blank Slate Engineering at Florida Gulf Coast University – Innovative and Multidisciplinary from the Ground Up”. Proceedings of the 2006 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June, 2006.2. National Academy of Engineering. The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century, 118 pages, 2004. Available on-line at: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10999.html?onpi_newsdoc05172003.3. National Academy of Engineering. Educating the Engineer of
rolling asshown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Rolling Wheel Used to Illustrate Various Types of Problems Used to Assess Knowledge of Key Concepts in Dynamics. Page 12.1541.4Traditional ProblemFor the wheel shown in Problem 1, the wheel’s radius is 2 ft, the instantaneous velocity at thecenter of the wheel is 4 ft/s to the right. Express the velocity of points A and B as vectors usingthe coordinate system indicated on the figure.DCI Type ProblemFor the wheel shown in Problem 1, what is the direction of the velocity of point B at the instantshown if the wheel is rolling to the right without slipping?(A) Straight Down (B
Engineering Education, 2007 A General Engineering Technology Program in Motorsports TechnologyAbstractSouthside Virginia, in particular the cities of Danville, Martinsville and the surrounding area, isthe home of Virginia International Raceway and a rapidly growing motorsports industry. Thereis a strong need for educational opportunities to support manufacturing and related industries inthis region. In the early 2000’s Patrick Henry Community College in Martinsville established anassociate of applied science degree in Motorsports Technology to help meet the need fortechnical support personnel. As the industry has grown it has become evident that engineers andtechnologists are needed at the baccalaureate and
experiments, so that KCL and KVL are illustrated by thefirst one, given in the third laboratory session, and the transient part will be reserved for a laterlab, when more appropriate to the course material.Summary and conclusionThis experiment was a great success, in that it did produce the desired understanding in thestudents. It had the flavor of a 1960’s “happening”. The present plan is to continue using it, with Page 12.51.10some of the modifications suggested. We are presently considering an addition to illustrateKirchhoff’s voltage law, which we plan to combine with the current law part of the presentexperiment. The RC transient part will then
transferring in the year 2005-06. As of fall ’06, 84.4% of ASU students that had transferred to Georgia Tech since thebeginning of the program in mid-80’s, have either graduated from or are currently enrolled inone of the 5 different engineering majors. The range of the comparable figure denoting thesuccess rate for transfer engineering programs of all other institutions in Georgia is 72% to 92%,which validates the quality of our program. The students complete the core courses inhumanities, mathematics and science as well as some freshman and sophomore level engineeringcourses in order to have a seamless transfer to the junior level at Georgia Tech. As is customaryin most if not all undergraduate engineering programs, ASU also conducts an introductory
, Boston, Mass.10 Ulrich, K. and S. Eppinger, 2004, Product Design and Development, 3rd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.11 Cagan, J. and C. M. Vogel, 2002, Creating Breakthrough Products: Innovation from Product Planning to Program Approval, Prentice Hall, NJ.12 Green, M. G., 2005, "Enabling Design in Frontier Contexts: A Contextual Needs Assessment Method with Humanitarian Applications," PhD Dissertation, Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas, Austin.13 Davis, D., S. Beyerlein, O. Harrison, P. Thompson, M. Trevisan, and B. Mount, “A Review of Literature on Assessment Practices In Capstone Engineering Design Courses: Implications for Formative Assessment,” Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual
9 Occurance Detection Severity RPNComponent Function(s) of Component Failure Mode Effects of Failure Potential Cause of Failure Current Design Controls
, professionals (corporate management, etc), family, friends and society ?Week four: In nine-ten pages, respond to the following questions: 1. What technical challenge did s/he address? 2. Why did the investigator(s) undertake the task(s) of interest ? 3. What achievement or resolution of the technical challenge was resulted? 4. What social challenges arose during the individual or team effort, and how were the social challenges resolved ? ( within a corporation ? family ? society at large ? other ? ) 5. What recognition, if any, did the investigator receive
entire book.Week three: Summarize the book in a single page (three paragraphs), which explain 1. What were the social and technical settings of the time ? 2. What was the particular technical challenge addressed, and why was it important ? 3. What was discovered/found, and how was it received by competitors, professionals (corporate management, etc), family, friends and society ?Week four: In nine-ten pages, respond to the following questions: 1. What technical challenge did s/he address? 2. Why did the investigator(s) undertake the task(s) of interest ? 3
, FL (2005). Her research interests are in a cross-section of cognition and technology. Together with Dr. Zywno she is a holder of a nationally funded grant to support their research in engineering education. She is a member of ASEE, SME, and a registered Professional Engineer.Malgorzata Zywno, Ryerson University MALGORZATA S. (GOSHA) ZYWNO Gosha Zywno, M.Eng. (U. of Toronto), Ph.D. (Glasgow Caledonian U.), is a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Ryerson University. Dr. Zywno is a recipient of several university, national and international teaching excellence and achievement awards, including the 2005 ASEE Sharon Keillor Award, 2002 3M Teaching Fellowship and 2005 Canadian
this option.AcknowledgementsThis project is funded in part by Microsoft Research, as well as with support fromHewlett-Packard Philanthropy, DyKnow, Inc., and our institution.Bibliography[1] DyKnow Vision, Inc. http://www.dyknowvision.com/[2]T. Angelo and P. Cross. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers. 2nd ed. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1993.[3] S. Kirtley interviewed in “New Interactive Software Is an A+ Tool,” Converge Online. [Online]. Available:http://www.convergemag.com/story.php?catid=232&storyid=96769[4] S. Kirtley, D. Mutchler, J. Williams, et al, “The world is our classroom.” Presentation at the HP HigherEducation Mobile Technology Solutions Conference, November 4-5, 2004.[5] S. Kirtley, Z. Chambers
S F W F W S Su F W Su F Instructional 02 02 03 03 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 Assessment n=65 n=54 n=27 n=57 n=25 n=36 n=42 n=32 n=32 n=36 n=27 How effectively does the 1 instructor organize and 4.67 4.31 4.42 4.65 4.44 4.53 4.75 4.63 4.75 4.69 4.56 structure the course? How well does the instructor 2 define and meet objectives 4.68 4.30 4.24 4.62 4.48 4.56 4.52 4.53 4.59 4.57 4.59 of the course? How well does the instructor 3 arouse interest and transmit 4.45 4.11 3.96 4.37 4.00 4.37 4.19 4.41
Page 12.1304.3section of the paper. The other problem, as the authors have observed among their tutees, students and friends,is that a student who is proficient at solving problems often experiences difficulties inarticulating methods for solving the problem. If a student knows how to read and approach,and/or can decode mathematical and scientific texts, s/he will still encounter problems if s/he isnot able to distinguish between various terms, their usage, and significance in specific contexts.So the student’s ability to solve problems is an indication that some information they obtain hasbeen transferred to long-term memory where s/he can easily recall the topics, but it is obviousthat not all of the information was transmitted. Most
., & Simmons A. (1998). Affinity disciplines and the use of the principles of good practice for undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 299-318.4. Buckley, K. (2003). How principles of effective online instruction correlate with student perceptions of their learning. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida.5. Busch, S., & Johnson, S. A. (2005). Professors' Transition to Online Instruction. Distance Learning. 2, 29- 346. Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as a lever. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin.7. Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (Eds.). (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
demands of professional engineering practice.Major reviews of education in the 1990’s in the USA2 and in Australia 3, resulted in significantchanges in both countries. The respective reports resulted in ABET’s Program Outcomes(EC2000)4 and the Australian Graduate Attributes5 (AMEA), which both advocated a shift of theinstructional paradigm from the previously input-, content- and process-oriented system to anoutcomes-based approach.The concept of outcomes-based education revolves around a list of desired educationaloutcomes. In the application of this concept to instructional design, the outcomes are brokendown into learning objectives6, 7, subsequently learning activities are selected and delivered inorder to achieve the learning outcomes. The
students progress from basic data collection and reverse engineering projects throughmore open-ended, industry-sponsored capstone design experiences. The team ofmultidisciplinary faculty from Engineering and Communications who teach the sophomore levelcourses have observed the difficulty students have tackling the fundamental open-ended natureof true design problems and have subsequently revised the sequence. For the Fall of 2005 theSophomore Clinic sequence was revised to introduce Dym et al.’s converging-divergingframework for design by incorporating a series of three projects of increasing complexity withaccompany activities designed to reinforce the converging-diverging concepts. For the thirdproject in the series, roughly sixty students
curriculum. Overallthe work adds to knowledge of how best to train and teach PM, informs the debate on the bestpedagogical approaches, identifies modelling issues about how and where to start on themodelling journey, about how best to develop 3D modelling capabilities in users.Bibliography1. Bhavnani, S. K., John, B. E. & Fleming, U. (1999) The Strategic Use of CAD: An Empirically Inspired, Theory-Based Course. Proceedings of CHI 1999, May 15-20.2. Bhavnani, S. K. & John, B. E. (1996) Exploring the Unrealised Potential of Computer-Aided Drafting.3. Bhavnani, S. K. (2000) Designs Conducive to the Use of Efficient Strategies. Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems 2000.4. Hartman, N. W. (2004) Defining Expertise in the Use
intend students to learn as a result of instruction41. Theoriginal taxonomy was developed by Benjamin S. Bloom42 in the early 50s and it hassince been translated into 22 languages and is one of the most widely applied and mostoften cited references in education43. The original taxonomy represented a multi-tieredmodel of classifying thinking according to six cognitive levels of complexity:Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. Thetaxonomy was later revised by Lorin W. Anderson and David R. Krathwohl40 and the sixlevels of learning in the revised Bloom’s taxonomy (together with representative verbsused to write learning outcomes at each level of learning) are:‚ Remember (recognize, recall…)‚ Understand
: National Academies Press, 2007.4. Bandura, A., Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1997.5. Pajares, F., "Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings," Review of Educational Research, Vol. 66, No. 4,1996, pp. 543-578.6. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B., Lyons, H. and Treistman, D., "Relation of ContextualSupports and Barriers to Choice Behavior in Engineering Majors: Test of Alternative Social Cognitive Models,"Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 50, No. 4, 2003, pp. 458-465.7. Schaefers, K. G., Epperson, D. L. and Nauta, M. M., "Women's Career Development: Can TheoreticallyDerived Variables Predict Persistence in Engineering Majors?," Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 44, 1997,pp