, respectively. He is a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and a registered professional engineer in the state of Ohio. He is current past Chair of the IEEE Cincinnati Section, and in 1997 he received the IEEE Professional Achievement Award. He has held several research and management positions in industry working for such companies as Battelle's Columbus Laboratories, Rockwell International, and Claspan Corporation. He joined the University of Cincinnati in 1985. Page 13.389.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 Developing a Writing in the
point scale ranging from 1 = completely unconfident to 6 = completely confident) Confidence* Learning Objective Pre Post Design a subsurface investigation for a structure. 2.67 4.27 Evaluate results from geotechnical laboratory tests 2.67 4.07 for errors and validity. Use data from a subsurface investigation to determine parameters for design of a shallow 2.57 4.00
received the BS degree in electrical engineering from Rutgers University in 1968 and the MS and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Colorado, Boulder in 1970 and 1974 respectively. Prof. Olsen has been a member of the electrical engineering faculty at Washington State University since 1973. During that time he has been a visiting scientist at GTE Laboratories in Waltham, MA, at ABB Corporate Research in Västerås, Sweden and at EPRI in Palo Alto, CA and a Visiting Professor at the Technical University of Denmark. His research interests include electromagnetic interference from power lines, the electromagnetic environment of power lines
, but it provides students, parents, guidance counselors and/or teachers with the opportunity to ask the panelist candid questions about their past and current experiences as engineers. • Industry Interactive Displays: Engineers from Raytheon (attended every year), Tighe and Bond (attended in 2005 and 2007), Verizon (attended in 2007), MIT Lincoln Laboratories (attended 2007), General Dynamics (attended in 2005 and 2006), Sensata (attended in 2006) ,Westinghouse (attended in 2006), CDM (attended in 2006) and Intel (attended in 2005) are a few of the companies that have sent industry members to serve as Page
important and relative tothe topic. The limitations of the interviews will be determined partially by the number ofcompanies that grants interviews. The major limitation will depend on the interviewees’ abilityto provide valid information to the researcher. The purpose of the interviews is to determine ifthe expectations that are held by employers for newly hired graduates are consistent with thecurrent engineering technology curriculum at IUPUI.Participant 1- AIT Laboratories. In the last calendar year, this organization has hired topgraduates from engineering technology programs at IUPUI. Since the company has experiencedextreme growth in recent years, they must continually grow their management team. Havinghired recent graduates, this
tools to developoptimal solutions. Laboratory experimentation or testing to spec was performed for each project duringthe week. The teacher and counselors participating in the concurrent TECT project also developed anddelivered a module for the campers which will be discussed in the next section. At the end of the week,parents and families of the campers were invited to a showcase and luncheon. COE faculty, staff andadministrators participated in the final beam testing and team-based poster competition, culminating inprizes and awards for student participants.2.4 Parental Involvement: High school students were asked what or who most influenced their careerchoices and, in order of importance, listed their own ideas, their mothers, and then their
the organization of materials, maintaining equipment, andclassroom management.Immediately following the first Teacher Institute, a one-week Student Institute was held, whichparalleled, in content and format, the previous week’s program. This institute enabled teachersto gain confidence teaching the materials by piloting them with a small group of students. Thiseducational laboratory experience was supported by faculty, staff and student assistants, andallowed teachers to better plan for school year implementation, and to simply figure out whatworks with their students. Page 13.261.8Evaluation of Summer InstituteThe two summer institutes were
. 1979. Network analysis in organizational settings, Human Relations, 11(32), 923-965.36. Tushman, M. 1978. Technical communications in R & D laboratories: The impact of project work characteristics, Academy of Management Journal, 21, 624-645.37. Valacich, J.S., Schwenk, C. 1995. Devils advocacy and dialectical inquiry effects on face to face and computer mediated group decision making, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 63(2), 158-173.38. Watson, R.T., DeSanctis, G., Poole, M.S. 1988. Using a GDSS to facilitate group consensus: Some intended and unintended consequences, MIS Quarterly, 12(3), 463-477.39. Weeks, G.D., Chapanis, A. 1976. Cooperative versus conflicting problem solving in three
technology. Dr. Bright is now a full time faculty for the Wireless Communications Master’s degree program. Michelle’s experience in Matlab/Simulink programming for real-time systems has allowed her to develop new laboratory based curriculum for the wireless program. She brings extensive knowledge of signal processing, device architecture, hardware design, and autonomous controls to her research. She is co-author of a NASA grant for encryption using nonlinear signal processing techniques. She is a recipient of numerous Air Force and DARPA funded research grants for flow control. Prior to joining the National University faculty, Dr. Bright has authored over 30 publications and journal articles
Engineering Undergraduate Laboratory,” IEEE Frontiers in Education, 1997, pp. 350-354.[7] Armarego, J., “Advanced Software Design: A Case in Problem-Based Learning,” IEEE Computer Society: Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, 2002, pp. 44-54.[8] Denayer, I., K. Thaels, J. Vander Sloten, and R. Gobin, “Teaching a Structured Approach to Design Process for Undergraduate Engineering Students by Problem-Based Education,” European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2003, pp. 203-214.[9] Brodeur, D., P. W. Young, and K. B. Blair, “Problem-Based Learning in Aerospace Engineering Education,” Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering
planSite reclamation & · Developed area reclamation and solid waste management plansolid wastemanagementSince ISD’s inception, 13.7% of our civil and environmental engineering undergraduate seniors Page 13.793.4have selected this course over conventional senior design, even though the laboratory fee andtime requirements are much greater. Ownership of the student design projects is so great that18% of ISD alumni have returned for additional ISD in-country experiences as mentors and classassistants. Table 2 provides a comparison of ISD participants and mentors by major and gender.The ISD model also meets all of the U.S. Accreditation Board
additionaloutcomes are listed for associate and baccalaureate degree programs. For example, theprogram criteria for “Civil Engineering Technology and Similarly Named Programs” arelisted as follows 3: Outcomes Associate degree programs must demonstrate that graduates are capable of: a. utilizing graphic techniques to produce engineering documents; b. conducting standardized field and laboratory testing on civil engineering materials; c. utilizing modern surveying methods for land measurement and/or construction layout; d. determining forces and stresses in elementary structural systems; e. estimating material quantities for technical projects; and f
Simulation Conference and acts as the technical coordinator for the conference’s management system.Carolyn Miller, North Carolina State University Carolyn S. Miller is a Lecturer in the Department of Computer Science at NC State University. She received her M.S. in Computer Science and worked as a Member of the Technical Staff at Bell Telephone Laboratories and a Senior Digital Systems Engineer at General Electric before joining NC State University. Ms. Miller teaches introductory computer science classes and focuses on researching and integrating new teaching techniques into the classroom.Tom Miller, North Carolina State University Thomas Kenan Miller, III received the BA degree in Mathematics and
presentations such as a thesis defense,seminar for a job interview, and reports for work being done under contract or for an employer.3j. Acknowledgments SectionThe Acknowledgments should include any agency and grant or contract number that providedfunding for the research. The Acknowledgments should also include anyone who providedsignificant help such as other researchers in your laboratory, faculty members who provideduseful suggestions, and other technical and clerical personnel who provided special help.3k. ‘Thank You’ SlideThe ‘Thank You’ slide is a simple slide thanking the audience for their attention. It is a good ideato include your email address on this slide. This is particularly important if you are looking for apost-doctoral appointment
to research facilities (e.g., library, laboratories, computational facilities, communications facilities) Page 13.891.9 • Rates of Research U library usage (on-line and in-person) by students and faculty at consortia within geographic region or non-research institution • Lab / office space allocation: amount of space allocated by dept. in tenured/ tenure track positions by rank; location, available resources • Undergraduate recruitment, matriculation, retention (also by nationality) • Students transferring schools (research/non-research; average over last five years) • Graduate student recruitment, matriculation, retention
aclassroom setting but instead could be in the form of a field trip to a vendor’s installationor to an office or a laboratory. The purpose of the meeting is to tie together conceptualloose ends that the students may have regarding their design and to be able to refine thedesign based on professional “in the field” guidance and experience. The meeting withthe expert may lead to the need to collect different and/or more pieces of data. Thismeeting may also result in a new iteration producing additional design options and,consequently, more than one cost estimate.Cost estimate and design revision. The design module group refines their preliminarydesign based upon the expert’s recommendations and performs cost estimates on one ormore design options
: Students' reported learning gains. J. Eng. Education, 2001. 90(1): p. 123.19. Beaudoin, D.L. and D.F. Ollis, A product and process engineering laboratory for freshmen. J. Eng. Educa- tion, 1995. 84(3): p. 279.20. Masten, S., K.-C. Chen, J. Graulau, S.L. Kari, and K.-H. Lee, A Web-based and group learning environ- ment for introductory environmental engineering. J. Eng. Education, 2002. 91(1): p. 69.21. Maskell, D.L. and P.J. Grabau, A multidisciplinary cooperative problem-based learning approach to em- bedded systems design. IEEE Trans. Education, 1998. 41(2): p. 101.22. Vandebona, U. and M.M. Attard, A problem-based learning approach in a civil engineering curriculum. World Trans. Eng. Tech. Education, 2002. 1(1): p
York: Collier/Macmillan4 Johnson, David W., Johnson, Roger T., and Smith, Karl A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-ERIC Report on Higher Education. Washington, DC: The George Washington University.5 Johnson, D., Johnson, R.& Holubec, E. (1998). Cooperation in the classroom. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.6 Taconis, R., Ferguson-Hessler M.G.M., & Broekkamp, H. (2001). Teaching Science Problem Solving: An Overview of Experimental Work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 442-468.7 She, H. (1999). Students’ knowledge construction in small groups in the seventh grade biology laboratory: Verbal communication and physical engagement. International Journal of
standardsexpected in each section of the report. Figure 1: Rubric Example The use of rubrics, as described above is similar to the use described by Powe and Moorheadin their 2006 article on the use of rubrics to grade laboratory reports7. Their combined use ofquantitative and qualitative methods in their rubrics helped standardize the grading of reports byteaching assistants who each had to grade reports for a common course. In the same manner, thefaculty advisors in the senior design course each had to grade the design report for theirindividual team, while submitting that grade for a common course. An additional benefit thatPowe and Moorhead identify is that the use of rubrics in this manner shortened the time to
institutionaland departmental issues as we move ahead with this powerful combination of technologies.MethodsVirtual Synchronous Classroom Hardware ConfigurationWe have two physical campus classrooms equipped for use as a VSC. One is a rather large(44’w x 30’d ) engineering laboratory (see appendix A). It contains 18 student workstations (forup to 36 students) equipped with a PC and electrical engineering lab equipment. The other is amore traditional classroom, but the student tables are surrounded by workstations at theperimeter of the room, thus this classroom is also larger than a typical classroom at ouruniversity.The classrooms also contain an instructor Podium station equipped with a PC (connected to avideo projector), a document camera and lab
Capstone Design course.These students have designed a WiFi system and biodigestors for Peruvian villages and pageturner prototype for World's Largest Book (for Groton Dunstable Regional Middle School).Students taking additional one-credit Community-based Engineering Design Projects courseshave designed a W/C transfer board and trash removers for the Lowell canals.Other CoursesService-learning projects have been introduced into other undergraduate courses.• Civil engineering students in the junior-level Environmental Engineering Laboratory have performed road salt and chemical analyses for the Town of Dunstable. In the next semester’s Water Resources Engineering course, the same students used hydrology to gain insight on chloride levels in
), 491Î50223. Laws, P., Sokoloff, D., and Thornton, R. (1999). Promoting Active Learning Using the Results of Physics Education Research. UniServe Science News, 13, Retrieved 4 September 2006 from http://science.uniserve.edu.au/newsletter/vol13/sokoloff.html24. Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M., and Steinberg, R. N. (1997). On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories. American Journal of Physics, 65(1), 45Î5425. Cummings, K., Marx, J., Thornton, R., and Kuhl, D. (1999). Evaluating innovations in studio physics. American Journal of Physics, 67(supplement 1 to no. 7), S38ÎS4426. Hoellwarth, C., Moelter, M. J., and Knight, R. D. (2005). A direct comparison of conceptual learning and
eventinterviews, and (e) focus groups with team members. Team effectiveness is measured by: (a) ateam climate survey, (b) the evaluation of project products (a design report and a poster or anoral presentation followed by a defense), and (c) focus groups with first-year instructors.IntroductionIn 1996, the fourth-year Project Management in Practice (PMP) course was created as an electivein the Chemical Engineering program at the University Rovira i Virgili (Tarragona, Spain). Thecreation of this course responded to two needs although, actually, one of them was much morecompelling than the other. Four instructors teaching three first-year chemical engineering courses- Transport Phenomena, Fluid Mechanics, and Transport Phenomena Laboratory - wanted
Professor and Assistant Department Head of the Department of Engineering Education in the College of Engineering at Virginia Tech. He is also the Pete White Chair of Innovation in Engineering Education and the Director of the Frith Freshman Engineering Design Laboratory and the Faculty Advisor of the VT Mini-Baja Team. He is actively involved in bringing joy and adventure to the educational process and is the recipient of numerous University teaching awards. Page 13.1085.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 Small Interventions, Big Impacts: How Modification of Delivery
that case, how can an instructor evaluate their own performance?When developing lesson plans, laboratories or other instructional materials, on what basis doesthe faculty decide to use one or the other approach? This objection to CQI appears to reduceteaching to a random activity in which anything goes and no method is better than any other forconveying information.It has also been claimed that a student learning outcomes-based CQI system is not needed sincethe ultimate function of an engineering education is employment upon graduation and themajority of the program’s graduates are getting jobs. This objection is reminiscent of thosevoiced by American automobile manufacturers when initially faced with potential competitionfrom overseas
subject from a uniquely pragmatic “top-down” engineering point of view as opposed to the laboratory “bottom-up” mentality of biochemists. Engineers, by nature, are pragmatic problem solvers. Engineering traditionally employs the fruits of scientific research to address and solve practical problems and create the technology that ultimately serves the needs of mankind… In the pursuit of these goals, engineers are often called upon to combine the findings of a number of diverse scientific disciplines in order to arrive at practical solutions and to achieve specific goals. This is the traditional application of engineering principles. But those same principles are eminently suitable for the study
selecting a group member (or members) to be tested and thus proxy for the group. • Sharing known skills- Students who possess certain knowledge or skills (examples: computer skills, laboratory skills, data reduction skills, presentation skills) should be willing to pass it on, and/or share it with their group members. • Collaborative Skills- Groups cannot function effectively if members do not have (be willing to learn) or use some needed social skills. These skills include leadership, decision making, trust building, and conflict management. • Monitoring Progress- Groups need to discuss amongst themselves whether they are achieving their set goals; they also need
for academic year 2007/2008. We also plan on pursuing funding toextend this to the ninth grade in the coming year. We would be happy to share materialdeveloped for this project as well as other information for schools wanting to implementa similar program. References1. “Science Notebook Essentials, A guide to Effective Notebook Components,” Michael Klentschy, Science and Children, Nov-Dec. 2005, pp.24-272. “Information and Inspiration for Innovative Teaching in K-12 Schools,” edutopia, The George Lucas Educational Foundation, http://www.edutopia.org/pbl3. “6 + 1 Trait ® Writing,” NW Regional Educational Laboratory, http://www.nwrel.org/assessment/4. “Terra Nova, The Second Edition (CAT/6