, faculty can encounter difficulty ensuring individualgrades reflect the quantity and value of individual work and not just the collective grade of thegroup. This paper outlines the various steps the mechanical engineering faculty took to provide amore standardized, objective, fair grading process in the capstone course. These steps includeuse of a non-numeric rubric for grading briefings, graded peer reviews, a more objective rubricfor grading written documents, and the use of course directors to standardize the grading process.Introduction The mechanical engineering curriculum at the United States Military Academy (USMA)includes a capstone design project as a culminating experience that draws on fundamentalengineering concepts students have
that low performers overestimate theirabilities across multiple contexts 14, 15. In evaluating peers in engineering courses anothervariable is where the teamwork experience falls on the spectrum of team projects. On oneextreme of this spectrum are fully cooperative experiences in which the team works togethertowards a common goal. This extreme is defined by a single shared experience. On the otherextreme are “divide-and-conquer” projects. Here a team assigns each individual separate taskswhich each contribute to a shared team goal. Such approaches—an example is the jigsawteaching technique—are defined by unique experiences for each individual. This approach iscommon to many capstone design courses.This report looks at peer evaluation in a
exercise, it can potentially help someone.” They also sawservice-learning as a way of reinforcing the idea that engineering (and engineers) can contributeto the solution of social problems in the community. However, these benefits were generallyframed as coincidental outcomes rather than as an intentional, integrated part of the community-based learning experience for students. One faculty member noted that it is “difficult to focus onsocial implications. In the capstone, we do ask students to think about environmental and socialissues as part of review questions. But we don’t have significant discussions on socialconnections as part of projects.” Another faculty member in a different department said, “Wedon’t talk about social impacts much. We
student engagement as defined for the EE program. These items are listedin Table 1 below.Table 1: NSSE Questions in Support of Engagement NSSE Questions NSSE Number Practicum, internship, field experience, co-op experience, or 7A clinical assignment Work on a research project with a faculty member outside of 7D course or program requirements Study abroad 7F Independent study or self-designed major 7G Culminating senior experience (capstone course, senior 7H project or thesis, comprehensive exam, etc)The students were asked to
evidence shows that students do not connect the newly acquired analytical knowledgewith the design process, creating a design learning gap. When students return to a designemphasis in the senior year capstone course, they are expected to bridge this gap by synthesizingthe broad engineering design understanding from the first year with their analytical depth gainedin the second and third years to produce unique engineering design solutions. Can small buteffective changes be made in the second and third year to improve this model of design learningthat could help students more easily make the connection in the senior year between the broaddesign learning from three years earlier and their newly developed analytical skills? Through ajoint effort
Courses. One way of accomplishing the goal of improvingcommunication is through the support of C-I courses within the CoE curriculum. C-I designatedcourses meet specific criteria concerning communication, such as focusing on at least two of fourcommunication modes (spoken, visual, technological, and written), multiple iterations of writtenand/or oral projects, and concentrating at least 40% of the course grade on communication.Currently in the CoE, there are 31 C-I designated courses throughout the curriculum, rangingfrom introductory to capstone courses. All Engineering disciplines have at least one C-Idesignated course in their core curriculum. CxC provides several resources for faculty who areinterested in designing a C-I course.Faculty Summer
.) (26 Complementary studies (10 cr.) New approachMathematics and basis sciences InternshipJust in time / Contextualization Engineering science and Engineering designIntroductory Integrative Personal Capstone project project project project Complementary studies International and Soft skills specialization Figure 2.0: Comparison between the old and new programs
exposure to problem solving which may entail more than one course topic. Often the onlyexposure that students have to cross-course problems is during capstone projects. It is felt thatthere is a “disconnect” between theory in the course and the reality of implementing classmaterial. Due to this disconnect, students are often struggle to implementing the knowledge infollow-on design courses such as capstone courses1. In reality, the practicing engineer cannotcount on the compartmentalization of material. Projects or designs may require a mixture ofinformation learned from multiple courses. Professors can aid in the preparation of students byassigning projects that expose students to mixed content.The latest ABET criteria suggests the need for
questions about the strengths and weaknesses of the undergraduate research experience, and (d) general questions about the team, demographics, etc.More details about NESLOS, including a list of some of the outcomes, are included in a previousASEE publication, in which NESLOS was employed to assess students’ learning outcomesduring capstone design projects 7. During this previous effort, both students and faculty wereadministered NESLOS and results revealed a strong correlation (75%) between students’ self- Page 13.231.4ratings and faculty ratings of their students’ learning. This finding revealed that NESLOS isvalid as a self-assessment
Consultant at McKinsey & Company; and was a training development specialist for KBR's Engineering Division. She has a Ph.D. in the Join Ph.D. Program in English and Education at the University of Michigan.Lisa Getzler-Linn, Lehigh University Lisa Getzler-Linn, Ph.D., is the Associate Director of the Integrated Product Development Program at Lehigh University. She oversees the IPD Capstone Projects and continues to institute new processes to encourage IPD student development of the higher order competencies required by industry. Her diverse background includes undergraduate studies in Theater Arts and Business, practical experience as a successful entrepreneur and graduate work in
providing ataxonomy of problems with classes of attributes.Jonassen [2] proposed a classification of problems on a continuum between ill-structured andwell-structured problems. For well-structured problems, the parameters of problems are specifiedin the problem statement; they possess knowable, correct solutions that are determined bypreferred solution paths; and they apply a limited number of regular rules and principles that areorganized in a predictive and prescriptive arrangement [2]. The kind of problems most oftenencountered in engineering education programs (except for capstone and assorted designexperiences) is the story (word) problem, which is well structured. When learning to solve storyproblems in engineering, students learn to
learning. Original PLTL workshops have six essential components26: (1) ThePLTL workshop is integral to the course; (2) faculty and peer leaders work together to prepareworkshops and train peer leaders; (3) peer leaders are well trained; (4) workshop materials arechallenging and at an appropriate level; (5) organizational arrangements promote learning; and(6) the department administration encourages innovative teaching. In the standard setting, a peerleader works with six to eight students during weekly workshop sessions. The peer leader meetswith the same students each week.Our approach to PLTL is modeled after a successful HP-funded project in the UTEP Departmentof Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) that targeted a gatekeeper course in the
describe their experience with engineering design, juniorengineering students often refer to their cornerstone design course but not to their second andthird year coursework. This means that students do not recognize their analytical training as anecessary part of their design preparation. Despite this disconnect, these students are expected topull their analysis training together with their first year design experience to successfullycomplete a capstone design project in their senior year. Based on this, we assert that designlearning needs to be enhanced to integrate seemingly disparate pieces of design knowledge andskills. Empirical evidence supports this assertion.2A proven way to enhance learning is to engage students in their own learning
, intercultural team interactions thatcharacterize engineering careers in the 21st century. While there have been many program-levelefforts across the nation to develop these “soft” skills, such as capstone projects that incorporatestudy abroad and service learning, no direct method of measuring all six skills simultaneouslyexists in the literature. This project proposes an innovative and direct method of developing andassessing ABET professional skills simultaneously that can be used at the course-level forassessing student performance and at the program-level for assessing efficacy of the curricula.In 2007, the Center for Teaching, Learning and Technology (CTLT) at Washington StateUniversity (WSU) collaborated with the College of Engineering and
modules for a courses on Connecting Mathematics with Physics and Chemistry and also a course on Engineering Capstone DesignSenay Yasar Purzer, Arizona State University Senay Yasar, Arizona State University Senay Yasar is a Ph.D. student in Science Education, Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Arizona State University. She earned her MA degree in Science Education at Arizona State University. Her BS degree is in Physics Education. Her principle research areas are inquiry-based learning and science and engineering education. She teaches an elementary science methods course for undergraduate students and is a research assistant on an NSF project
AC 2008-259: DEVELOPMENT OF A TEAM INTERACTION OBSERVATIONPROTOCOL AND A SELF-EFFICACY SURVEY USING SOCIAL COGNITIVETHEORY AS A FRAMEWORKSenay Yasar Purzer, Arizona State University Senay Yasar-Purzer is a Ph.D. candidate in Science Education, Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Arizona State University (ASU). She currently works as a graduate research associate in the Communication in Science Inquiry Project, an NSF-funded teacher professional development program. She earned her master’s degree in Science Education at ASU. She has a BS degree in Physics Education and is currently pursuing another B.S.E degree with a concentration in mechanical systems. In 2007, she received the Dean’s
, andconcluded that “employment during college enhances the development of career-related skills.”While most of these studies were based on student self-reports of the benefits of these workexperiences, data from employers suggests that they agree with students’ self-assessments.Casella and Brougham9 found that a majority of employers they surveyed reported that studentswith work or internship experience “produced higher-quality work, accepted supervision anddirection more willingly, demonstrated better time management skills, and were better able tointeract with coworkers on team projects.” Similar to internships, the influence of coops might beexpected to be even stronger because these experiences are typically longer in duration and moreintegrated
contacted at tal2@psu.edu.Mark Wharton, Pennsylvania State University Mark J. Wharton is an Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering at Penn State. He teaches undergraduate courses in Electronics Electronics I, II, and III) and Senior Project Design, the EE capstone design course. He received his B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Penn State and his M.S. from the University of Colorado in Boulder. Prior to working at Penn State, Mark spent over Page 13.690.1 30 years in industry as an Electronic Design Engineer. He can be contacted by phone at 814-865-2091 or by email at MarkWharton@psu.edu.John