Asee peer logo
Displaying all 3 results
Conference Session
Track 3 - Session II - Faculty Development
Collection
2013 ASEE International Forum
Authors
Stephen Hundley, Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis; Lynn G Brown, The Boeing Company
Tagged Topics
Faculty Development
community on the survey’s preliminary findings. Thus, thenext section highlights findings-to-date, provides a brief discussion of the findings, and outlinesnext steps in this project.Summary of Key Findings-to-DateThe survey yielded 1,027 “usable case” respondents reflecting the following demographicprofile: 70% English; 30% non-English; responses received from all languages except French 80% Male; 20% Female 50% between ages of 40-60; balance over other age ranges 46% Academicians; 40% Practitioners; 10% Students; balance preferred not to answer Aerospace (17%); Computer Science (13%); and Electrical/Computer (13%) are largest Engineering Discipline response categories 64% reported having graduate-level Engineering degreeTop
Conference Session
Track 3 - Session II - Faculty Development
Collection
2013 ASEE International Forum
Authors
Danielle Marie Dowling, Tufts Center for Engineering Education and Outreach; Morgan M Hynes, Arizona State University
Tagged Topics
Faculty Development
ascertain the general character of the respective Page 21.34.3lexica the Design Team members used in posing questions to their students with an eye towardimproving the Thought Cloud and future professional development activities. Specifically, wewanted to answer the following questions: 1) How did the teachers stack up against one another? 2) Were there any factors that united or separated them? 3) Did their words reflect a shift toward the exposure of student reasoning or did they remain firmly rooted in the delivery of content? 4) In what ways can we characterize words that open a window on students’ minds
Conference Session
Track 3 - Session II - Faculty Development
Collection
2013 ASEE International Forum
Authors
Mohammad Kamal Hossain, Tuskegee University; Stacy Benjamin, Northwestern University; Kwanju Kim, Hongik University; Manuel Löwer, RWTH Aachen University; Pradosh K. Ray, Tuskegee University
Tagged Topics
Faculty Development
solution customized forthat city. The urban areas selected reflect the geographically diverse nature of the teams:Ahmadabad (India), Seoul (Korea), Shanghai (China), Monterrey (Mexico), and Cincinnati(USA). Each team was responsible for its own team organization, project management, interimdeliverables and timeline, communications, and team-building activities. The Global JudgingTeam (comprising members from GM, University of Cincinnati, and University of Sao Paulo)defined the project deliverables. The judging criteria involved four areas: 1) market research, 2)design, 3) engineering, and 4) manufacturing.Our team was Team 2, composed of teams from Inha University-Engineering (South Korea),Monash University-Industrial Design (Australia