AC 2008-611: THE NEW AND IMPROVED CIVIL ENGINEERING BODY OFKNOWLEDGERichard Anderson, Somat Engineering, Inc.Stuart Walesh, S. G. Walesh ConsultingKenneth Fridley, University of Alabama Page 13.1249.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 The New and Improved Civil Engineering Body of KnowledgeAbstractIn January 2004 the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) published the CivilEngineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century report (BOK1)1. Based on the favorablereception of the BOK1 in the civil engineering community, ASCE embarked on a revision of theBOK to take advantage of the comments received and the lessons learned in earlyimplementation of the
calibration, bridge design and evaluation, and reliability of bridge structures. Page 13.1032.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 Reliability of Bridges: Significant Addition to Civil Engineering CurriculumAbstractRapid highway system development in the United States in the 1960’s and 1970’s has resulted ina large number of bridges reaching a stage in need of repair, rehabilitation, or replacement.Truck loads have also been steadily increasing since then. This has made the situation evenworse. Many developed countries are currently experiencing a problem of aging
in the geotechnical arena. Dennis is a registered professional engineer in the states of Colorado and Arkansas.Debra Larson, Northern Arizona University Debra S. Larson is a Professor and Chair for the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, AZ. Prior to her faculty appointment at NAU, Debra worked as a structural and civil engineer for various companies. She is a registered Page 13.586.1 Professional Engineer in Arizona. Debra received her B.S. and M.S. degrees in Civil Engineering from Michigan Technological University in, respectively
, p. 96.5. Bloom, B. S. 1984. Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Pearson Education.6. Champion, R. 2002 Taking Measure: Choose the right data for the job. Journal of Staff Development, 23(3).7. Heron, J., 2000, “Co-operative inquiry: research with rather than on people,” in P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds.), Handbook of Action Research, London: Sage.8. Honey, P., Mumford, A., 1982, “Manual of Learning Styles,” London: P. Honey.9. Jensen, E., 2000, Brain-Based Learning. San Diego: Brain Store Incorporated.10. Laurillard, D., 2001, “Rethinking University Teaching,” 2nd ed., London: Taylor & Francis.11. Meyers, K., S. Bert, 2007, “A Technique for Program-Wide Direct Assessment of
AC 2008-2395: SIMULATING CONSULTING ENGINEER RELATIONSHIPS IN ASENIOR DESIGN COURSE AND ASSESSING THE RESULTSMichael Bronzini, George Mason University Michael S. Bronzini currently holds the Dewberry Chair in Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure Engineering (CEIE) in the Volgenau School of Information Technology and Engineering at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, and is also the Chair of the CEIE Department. Prior positions include Director of the Center for Transportation Analysis at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Chair of the Department of Civil Engineering at Penn State University, and Director of the Transportation Center and Professor of Civil Engineering at the
AC 2008-72: THE COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE DOMAIN IN ASSESSING THELIFE-LONG LEARNING OBJECTIVEJoseph Hanus, United States Military AcademyScott Hamilton, United States Military AcademyJeffrey S. Russell, University of Wisconsin - Madison Page 13.1209.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 The Cognitive and Affective Domain in Assessing the Life-Long Learning ObjectiveAbstractThe success of the engineering profession requires students to be educated in the technicalpractices and inspired to develop the traits of life-long learning. The authors’ objective is todemonstrate the use of the cognitive and affective domains in
Comparison to Current Criteria F o u n d a t i o n a l O u t c o m e s 1 Mathematics B 3 Solve problems in mathematics through differential equations and Fully addressed by the CEPC. apply this knowledge to the solution of engineering problems. 2 Natural Sciences B 3 Solve problems in calculus-based physics, chemistry, and one Fully addressed by the CEPC, except additional area of natural science and apply this knowledge to the for the word “natural.” solution of
. Page 13.1390.10 9Bibliography1 Levin, D. and Arafeh, S. 2007. “The Digital Disconnect: The Widening Gap Between Internet-Savvy Students andTheir Schools.” Pew Internet and American Life Project.2 Klosky, J. and Ressler, S. 2007. “Asynchronous delivery of engineering courses to a widely dispersed studentbody.” Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Honolulu, HI.3 Klosky, Hains, Ressler, Evers and Erickson. 2006. “AIM for Better Student Learning: Best Practices for UsingInstant Messaging and Live Video to Facilitate Instructor-Student Communication.” Proceedings of the 2006American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.4
., Eriksson, H., Noy, N. F., and Tu, S. W. 2002, “The Evolution of Protégé: An Environment for Knowledge-Based Systems Development.” Technical Report SMI-2002-0943, Stanford Medical Informatics, Stanford University, http://www.smi.stanford.edu/pubs/SMI_Reports/SMI-2002-0943.pdf12. Hammer, J., and McLeod, D., 1993, “An Approach to Resolving Semantic Heterogeneity in a Federation of Autonomous, Heterogeneous Database Systems,” International Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1993, pp. 51-83.13. Hammer, M. and McLeod, D., 1981, “Database Description with SDM: A Semantic Database Model,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 351-386.14. Kasai, T., Yamaguchi H
AC 2008-46: ASCE POLICY 465 – PROGRESS AND NEXT STEPSJeffrey Russell, University of Wisconsin - Madison Gerry Galloway University of Maryland Thomas Lenox ASCE James O'Brien ASCEGerry Galloway, University of MarylandThomas Lenox, ASCEJames J. O'Brien, American Society of Civil Engineers Page 13.223.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008ASCE Policy 465 - Progress and Next StepsRussell, Galloway, Lenox and O’Brien ASCE Policy 465 – Progress and Next Steps Jeffrey S. Russell, Gerald E. Galloway, Thomas A. Lenox, and James J. O’BrienAbstractFor several decades, educators
brick was to be placed in the water, the number and locationof masts, or the number, magnitude and location of weight(s). Students were told the activitywas to be summarized in a one-page paper, including testing procedure, results, and conclusionsand were allowed thirty minutes for experimental setup, testing, and clean-up. Determination ofstudent comprehension was assessed through both the summary paper, as well as an examquestion. Results showed a high level of understanding, both in the short term, as concludedwith the paper outcomes, as well as long term retention, validated with testing results.Quantitative analysis can easily be incorporated into the program by providing measuringinstruments (rulers, calipers, and a balance) if a more
4.00 4.89 3.96Note: * Rates are based on 1 to 5 scales to indicate the relative importance or extent of various factors in ascendingorder; a- University of Oklahoma; b-Jackson State University; c- University of Texas- Pan American 5 80% post-scale pre-scale 70% G ain in S cale in E xten t 4 60% S c o re o f 1 to 5 3
Page 13.1004.11requirement that students can explain basic concepts in management, business, public policy, andleadership (ASCE 5 in Table 1) and can explain the importance of professional licensure (ASCE6 in Table 1) are assessed in this course.A rubric was developed to aid in the assessment process. An example is shown as Figure 1. Theinstructor(s) teaching the course are provided with the rubric at the start of the semester and it istheir responsibility to create and evaluate the assignments. All assignments are evaluated and theinstructor saves one example of student work from each category for archival purposes.In addition to performing assessment on individual outcomes, the instructor(s) also qualitativelyassess the course at the end of
the right answers for the right reasons: Linking measurements, analyses, and models to advance the science of hydrology. Water Resources Research 42: W03S04 Doi:10·1029/2005WR004362. 6. Wagener T, Sivapalan M, McDonnell JJ, Hooper R, Lakshmi V, Liang X, Kumar P. 2004. Predictions in Ungauged Basins (PUB)—a catalyst for multi-disciplinary hydrology. Transactions-American Geophysical Union, 85(44), 451–452. 7. Nash JE, Eagleson PS, Philip JR, Van der Molen WH. 1990. The education of hydrologists. Hydrological Sciences Journal 35(6): 597–607. 8. Eagleson PS, Brutsaert WH, Colbeck SC, Cummins KW, Dozier J, Dunne T, Edmond JM, Gupta VK, Jacoby GC, Manabe S, Nicholson SE, Nielsen DR, Rodriguez
between the student ideas and the pre-selected project(s) for the course.Subsequent class periods cover topics of team dynamics, communication, climate change, energymanagement, sustainable design, and presentations from design professionals, decision makers,and other stakeholders associated with the pre-selected course projects/themes. The guestspeakers and affiliates serve to provide the much needed multidisciplinary perspective tosustainable development. Students are expected to improve their ability to (1) solve problemsindependently and collaboratively, (2) succeed within multidisciplinary teams, (3) communicate,(4) comprehend sustainable development from a multidisciplinary perspective, (4) learnindependently, (5) work within conflicting
Mutchler of RHIT is gratefully acknowledged.References 1. ASCE (2008) ExCEEd: Excellence in Civil Engineering Education, Civil Engineering Faculty Workshop, http://www.asce.org/exceed/ accessed February 29, 2008. 2. Berque D. An Evaluation of a Broad Deployment of DyKnow Software to Support Note Taking and Interaction using Pen-Based Computers", Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, Proceedings of CCSC:NE 2006 annual conference, Holy Cross College, April 21-22nd, 2006. 3. Devasher, R.; Ferro, P.; Kirtley, S.; Mutchler, D.; Sexton, S.; Watt, A., and Williams, J. (2007) “Development of a Multi-level Assessment for a Cross-Disciplinary Project Evaluating the Symbiosis of Tablet PCs and Collaboration
, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.3. Felder, R. M. and Silverman, L. K. (1988). “Learning and teaching styles in engineering education,” Engineering Education, Vol. 78, No. 7, 674-681.4. Herrmann, N. (1995). The Creative Brain, The Ned Herrmann Group, Lake Lure, North Carolina.5. Dunn, R. (1990). “Understanding the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model and the need for individual diagnosis and prescription,” Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 6:223-247.6. Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of Mind The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, HarperCollins Publishers, New York.7. Klosky, J. L., Ressler, S. J., and Erickson, J. (2005). “AIM for Better Student Learning: Using Instant Messaging to Facilitate Improved
Engineering Accreditation Commission, “Criteria For Accrediting Engineering Programs, Effective forEvaluations during the 2008-2009 Accreditation Cycle, “ November 3, 2007. Accessed athttp://www.abet.org/forms.shtml, January 3, 2008.8. Ressler, S. J., R. W. Welch, and K. F. Meyer (2004). “Organizing and Delivering Classroom Instruction.” Journalof Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 130 (3), 153-156.9. Ressler, S. J., et. al, “Implementing a Civil Engineering Program for the National Military Academy ofAfghanistan,” Proceedings of the 2008 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Pittsburgh,June 2008
information in a way that provides students with a great learningexperience.Bibliography1. Davis, S. (2007) “Learning Styles and Memory,” Institute for Learning Styles Journal, Vol. 1, Fall 2007. pp. 46- 51.2. Rosati, P. (1998). “The Learning Preferences of Engineering Students from Two Perspectives,” Proc. 1998 Frontiers in Education Conference, Nov. 4-7, 1998, Tempe AZ.3. Felder R.M. and Spurlin, J. (2005). “Applications, Reliability, and Validity of the Index of Learning Styles,” International Journal of Engineering Education. Vol. 21, No. 1., pp. 103-112.4. Mamlouk, M.S. and Zaniewski, J.P. (2006). Materials for Civil and Construction Engineers, 2nd Edition
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Body ofKnowledge (BOK) and come up with recommendations to meet both ABET 2009 criteria andBOK.AcknowledgmentThe author would like to thank the Civil Engineering Curriculum committee that developed theoriginal curriculum for the program. The committee did an excellent job in making this programcomes to life at IPFW. In addition, the author would like to thank the current Civil EngineeringCurriculum committee and all faculty members in the Department of Engineering at IPFW fortheir input and comments on the original manuscript of this paper.Bibliogr aphy1. Ashur, S. and Moor, S. (2007). ÐAssessment of Citrix Impact on Educational Achievement of IPFWEngineering Students0Ñ"Tgrqtv"uwdokvvgf"vq"vjg"Eqnngig"qh
hascontributed to a high degree of willingness of staff to take the time out of their busyschedules and help students.In almost all 10 years, at some time the course instructors and faculty advisors have hadto walk a fine line in project management issues, choosing between three basic options: 1. Let students work out the issues with possible detrimental effects to course or deliverables 2. Provide limited executive decisions to positively affect the outcome(s) 3. Weigh in heavily and interrupt the interactions that might (or might not) work themselves out in a timely manner by the studentsSuch decisions are difficult at times, and Option 3 will typically result in meetingdeadlines but with a less valuable student learning process
Sciences. (S)he is positioned to perceivethe engineering problem as one of delivering technological services to humans, through socialinstitutions, creatively. Creativity is necessary with the service itself, with its technologicalbasis, and with its social realization.Foundational OutcomesIn order to recognize the importance of Mathematics, Natural Sciences, Humanities and SocialSciences in the education of future civil engineers, in BOK2 outcomes were consolidated,rearranged and two new outcomes, one for Humanities and one for Social Sciences have beenincluded. There is considerable freedom for educators to determine how these outcomes may befulfilled through contributions from various academic departments and disciplines. This freedompermits
Johnson R.T. “Pedagogies of engagement:Classroom-based practices,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94, pp. 87-101, 2005.2. Mehta, Y. “Innovative techniques to teach civil engineering materials laboratory,” Proceedings of the 2004ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June, 2004.3. O'Neill, R., Geiger, C., Csavina, K., Orndoff, C. “Making statics dynamic!” Combining lecture andlagoratory into an interdisciplinary, problem-based, active learning environment”. Proceedings of the 2007 ASEEAnnual Conference and Exposition, June, 2007.4. Estes, A., Welch, R., and Ressler, S. Teaching lessons learned: The ExCEED Teaching Model. Journal ofProfessional Issues in Engineering Education Practice, Volume 131, No. 4, pp. pp. 218-221
achieve similargoals as presented in this paper.Appropriate Taxonomies for AssessmentTo assess the effectiveness of an engineering course for non-engineers with the EDP requiresadopting a broader context of taxonomies than traditionally may be employed. A commonapproach is to utilize the work done by Benjamin Bloom’s 1950’s education committee. Thecommittee established a set of taxonomies in three learning domains: cognitive, affective andpsychomotor. The domains have been identified as, “arguably one of the most influentialeducation monographs of the past half century 4.” The taxonomies are a language that isproposed to describe the progressive development of an individual in each domain and aredefined as follows 5: • Cognitive: of
, mentorship, and encouragement—that they sodesperately need and so richly deserve.References1. Ressler, S. J., C. H. Conley, and R. Gash, “Designing a Civil Engineering Program for the National MilitaryAcademy of Afghanistan,” Proceedings of the 2008 ASEE Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, June 2008. Page 13.705.112. “Announcements - Afghan Merit Scholars at Ohio University,” accessed athttp://www.afghanequalityalliances.net/index.php?module=cms&action=page&id=gen12Srv35Nme0_84, January14, 2007. Page 13.705.12
thicknesses and coefficients of friction. • HVAC/Mechanical Systems – Determine the number and size of various components of a distributed HVAC system including as air handling fans, heaters and air conditioners given the loading and the characteristics of the individual system components.Walnut Street BridgeThe first lecture was by a professional engineer involved with the initial design of the bridge andits approach viaducts in the mid 1980’s. He presented an overview of the project including theconstraints imposed by replacing an existing structure in a physically limited urban environment,utilities, and the reuse of existing components such as piers and abutments. The bridge and
, June 18-21, 2006, Chicago, IL.4. Rooney, D. and Puerzer, R., (2002) “The Smaller Engineering School and its Industrial Advisory Board: An Effective Partnership.” 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, November 6-9, 2002, Boston, MA.5. Genheimer, S. and Shahab, R. (2007) “The Effective Industry Advisory Board in Engineering Education - A Model and Case Study.” 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 10 – 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI.6. ABET (2007), Engineering Accreditation Commission, Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs.7. Sanoff, A. (2001) “Under the magnifying glass”, ASEE Prism, 11:2.8. Kramer, K. (2004), “Achieving EC2000 Outcomes in the Capstone Design Via Structured Industry