into their teaching.3Reverse engineering is simply taking an object apart and analyzing its “inner workings,” in orderto understand the secrets behind its operation. However, some researchers use a broader term,Disassemble/Analyze/Assemble (DAA), for these activities.4A study comparing the results of such activities to the more traditional laboratory approachconcludes that DAA activities have the potential to increase student motivation and promotetransfer.5 Transfer refers to the ability to apply or adapt knowledge when seeking a novelsolution to a problem. New courses are being developed that make use of reverse engineeringprojects to help students observe actual designs during “incremental concrete experiences,”allowing them to reflect on
spring of 2012. As a result of this new program, the Capstonecourse in the already existing MET program faced some drastic changes in both content andobjectives.Prior to establishing the new BS ME program, a typical Capstone class included MET andApplied Technology students and focused mainly on production. Twenty-five specimens wereoriginally required, and then we dropped the number to fifteen a few years afterwards. The typeof projects performed reflected the nature of the Applied Technology and MET programs, bothof which are primarily hands-on programs. Much emphasis was on production, quality control,and timely delivery. When possible, we considered industry projects and gave them higherpriority over school-sponsored ones. Traditionally, the
used in industry.One of the challenges to teach a capstone project course is to provide students with sufficient motivationand get them invested in the outcome. To achieve this, Horgan, Smith and Thomas in their 2005 ACEpaper5 suggested a problem domain that accurately reflects the concerns and priorities of a real industryclient. They also proposed a Real World Software Process with four different phases: (1) Phase Zero –developing a project proposal which addresses the client‟s needs and clearly identifies goals and successcriteria, (2) Phase One – requirements gathering, release planning, and the initial development, (3) PhaseN – the generic, repeatable cycle in which the functionality of the system is incrementally extended andthe
ofthe study director and management immediately.(4) Periodically submit to management and the study director written status reports on each study, noting anyproblems and the corrective actions taken.(5) Determine that no deviations from approved protocols or standard operating procedures were made withoutproper authorization and documentation.(6) Review the final study report to assure that such report accurately describes the methods and standard operatingprocedures, and that the reported results accurately reflect the raw data of the nonclinical laboratory study.(7) Prepare and sign a statement to be included with the final study report which shall specify the dates inspectionswere made and findings reported to management and to the study
. Students thenengage in a set of reflective questions that ask them to explain their initial predictions andobservations. The goal is to have students explain the conceptual foundation for their predictionand when necessary use observations to modify or improve the foundational framework toimprove understanding and future predictions for similar situations. Inquiry-based activities areeffective at improving conceptual learning when activities have (i) unambiguous predictionswritten by the student, (ii) an action consisting of an experiment or simulation, and (iii) writtensummary or reconciliation (if needed) conducted by the student. Brief and repeatableexperiments are preferred since there is a perception that computer simulations can be “tricked
using two stages to refine our scoring system. In eachstage, individuals first provide comments on the individual skills in the scoring system. Then wesummarize the feedback from all the individuals and ask the individuals to reflect upon thesummary to see if their opinions have changed. At the end of the feedback for each of the twostages, we synthesize the overall responses and use the results to modify the scoring system. Wehave completed the first stage and are now in the second stage shown below.Delphi Method Stage 1 (this study) 1. Part one: conduct small focus groups and surveys to collect information and comments from our stakeholders 2. Part two: distribute summary to each of the stakeholders for reactions 3. Use part one
academic achievement and persistence,3,4,5 as hasintroducing the concept of engineering as a “servant of society.”6Within engineering education, the typical method of implementing service to society is throughservice-learning, which is defined as “a teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningfulcommunity service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civicresponsibility, and strengthen communities.”7 Service-learning in an international context,especially within developing communities, can be used to engage students who may not be asinterested in design projects that do not have a socially-useful purpose. Fulfilling community-based design needs contextualizes engineering education to make it relevant to
articles. Part of this could be that theyhave more experience now with reading a journal article, but additional factors include the use ofa more introductory-type article and the students were given instructions on what areas to focuson in their readings this time. This is reflected in one student’s written comments in the survey,“I like the more focused nature when looking at this journal article this week. 4-6 pages isoptimum for general reading.” The students generally agree with the third statement on thesurvey, indicating the value they are seeing in learning nanotechnology concepts.During week nine, an extensive in-class exercise involved studying the tradeoffs found in variouslow-power architectures. The students were asked to read a
. 4. Based on the focus group results, student‟s actual use of and preference for the electronic textbooks was considerably greater than their perceived preference. No students really wanted or used a hard copy book when the electronic book was available. Student‟s stated dislike of electronic texts may be a reflection of long-observed student resistance to reading engineering textbooks and thus be totally unrelated to the platform or format of the reading assignments. Further study would be required to answer this complex question. 5. Recommending certain tools to the students, especially an application similar to iAnnotate, may help to jump-start the student‟s note-taking and e-text adoption process if
and facilitator vs. “the sage onthe stage”), and the class is accompanied by a laboratory where students actively apply andpractice the material they learn in class. Anecdotally, student-written assessment comments tothe instructor at the end of the semester often reflected that students felt they had worked harderper credit in the leadership principles class than in their other classes, but that this extra effortwas worth it. Electively taking and working harder in a non-required class requires intrinsicmotivation. Given the rich literature on the power of intrinsic motivation17, 18 and its effect on Page 23.851.14passion, interest, and
was useful for self-reflection and to gauge progressive improvement during thesemester. In addition to lecturing over the four week section of the class Mr. Lee was alsoresponsible for designing the exam to test the students’ knowledge of key concepts.Lastly, Prof. Spearot set a terrific example of how to interact with students. For students, it isessential that their professor be available for consultation during the semester. In addition to thestandard office hours, Prof. Spearot was available via email, with prompt response. Additionally,a number of drill and tutor times were provided to the students. Mr. Lee interacted with thestudents during the weekly drill session and was involved in discussions about make-up tests andlate homework
undergraduates are thrilled by the projects and their freedom to innovate and perform research. They usually perform outstanding work, presented at local and international conferences. Their attitude is also reflected in their evaluations of teachers. We are hopeful that our experience will provide useful ideas, particularly to new faculty. 1. INTRODUCTIONUndergraduate students go through a steep learning curve during their studies. They are likely toreach high theoretical knowledge and may expect everything to be clearly spelled out forinvestigation. A recent IBM study1 based on face-to-face conversations with more than 1,500chief executive officers worldwide concludes that creativity is the most important factor forfuture
Monthly Email Advisor. 2008;6(8):2–3.22. Nickerson RS. The teaching and thinking of problem solving. In: Sternberg RJ, editor. Thinking and Problem Solving. 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1994. page 409– 49.23. Wankat P. Reflective Analysis of Student Learning in a Sophomore Engineering Course. Journal of Engineering Education. 1999;88(2):195–203.24. Jonassen DH. Toward a Design Theory of Problem Solving.pdf. Educational Technology Research & Development. 2000;48(4):63–85.25. Bowman D, Benson L. MuseInk : Seeing and Hearing a Freshman Engineering Student Ink and Think. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings. Louisville, KY: American Society
rubric for Criterion 3 (c) is shown in Tables 5 above. The samerubric is used for all years of student evaluation, allowing the comparison of varied levels ofprofessional competence as students progress through the curriculum. The expected Total Scoreindicated at the bottom of either rubric table changes, reflecting the increasing expectation forstudent performance as they move through the elements of the integrated ProfessionalComponent.For each sample of student work, faculty members independently assign scores of 0 – 3 (absentto proficient) for each attribute component in the rubric. The sum of these scores for all attributecomponents becomes the total score. Freshmen and sophomores are expected to attain a noviceto intermediate level, while
Cyberstates8 report, Indiana’s high tech employment data afew years later in 2008 reflected that Indiana was the 23rd ranked cyberstate, with 73,700 hightech workers, and the state ranked 45th in high-tech private sector workers (30 out of every 1,000workers). On several indicators of high-tech employment, Indiana ranked no higher than 20th(payroll average wages for high tech workers, and number of high-tech establishments). Andaccording to the 2000 census data, only 5.5% of adults 25 or older in Lake County have attaineda graduate or professional degree.9 Page 23.375.4For Economic Growth Region 1in Indiana, the percentage of the population over age 25
to be interconnected, and therefore collaboration and interactions amongthe other three sub-teams suffered significantly and reflected negatively on the entire project.The real solution “glue” and those who had to be “separated”This lack of leadership from the integration team resulted in other members stepping up to takethe integration of the project into their own hands. These members bypassed the integrationteam to work with other sub-teams directly. This direct communication created a situation wheresome members were no longer bound to their sub-teams and was viewed as the “real” integrationsub-team at least from a technical perspective. In specific case, there was one student, who wasvery skilled in his area as well as in other areas
faculty tenure and promotionprocess for working with students outside of class.Combined Mapping of Overall Program for Leadership DevelopmentUsing linkages and mapping previously described, Table 6 provides a comprehensive overviewof student leadership development for civil engineering students reflecting both curriculuminstruction and extracurricular activities. A total of 16 course goals evaluated using embeddedindicators are dedicated to CEE Department program outcomes that support leadershipdevelopment, excluding an addition 12 that are aligned with engineering design. As shown inTable 6, course goals covered in the curriculum are generally aligned with lower levels ofBloom’s Taxonomy, Level 3 or lower. With addition of representative mapping
to move forward legally to upgrade a long-standing summer research program. The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Page 23.395.4IntroductionThis paper introduces a novel and unique way forward to upgrade a long-standing summerresearch program at a government institution to include components that are now standard atcivilian programs, such as National Science Foundation (NSF) Research Experiences forUndergraduates (REU) programs. Critical to the success of this new paradigm
) Avg. It allowed me to identify/perceive the world context of technology 4.7 It allowed me to see how technology can help improve the lives of under- 4.6 served populations It allowed me to put my research in the context of the global arena 4.1 It allowed me to have discussions with the foreign participants about 4.8 It opened upand technology mysociety understanding of technology and the impact on society 4.6 It has influenced my future in terms of my career choices 4.1 Reflection questions post experience (1+ years since iWSG) Avg. I believe that my iWSG experience
selected problem and were asked to decide which problem they wanted to solveusing engineering. The next two days were dedicated to making a stop-motion action movieusing SAM software [23] to explain their problem and proposed their solution to the class. Weeksseven and eight were spent designing, building, and testing. The materials students used to buildtheir prototypes consisted of whatever was available in the classroom and supplies obtained byrequest from the STOMP fellows. The last day of the unit was dedicated to reflection about theprocess.Data CollectionThe primary method of data collection was video of in-class student group work and largerclassroom discussions. Pictures of student artifacts were also collected to document the stages
, National Instruments, and 3M during the curriculum development process was critical in the creation of these courses. This sequence includes courses in device/system testing, engineering statistics and data analysis, leadership, and product development business/engineering best practices. In addition to revising the curriculum, the program name has now also been changed toElectronic Systems Engineering Technology (ESET) to better reflect the new emphasis onproducts and systems.New Course Development As part of the new curriculum, in addition to restructuring and augmenting existingcourses, three new courses were developed. These supported both the embedded systems and theproduct development tracks as discussed above
participated in field experiences to practice the topics learned in the classroom.Examples of such activities included: 1) 3-4-5 Rule in the Construction Trades and its relation tothe Pythagorean Theorem; 2) Proportional Triangles--determining the height of a street lamppost; 3) Slopes--determining the rise and run of a ramp (on campus). See Figure 1. Theseactivities were important as icebreakers and help students to reflect on the importance ofapplication of theoretical concepts. Page 23.55.7 Figure 1: Field Experiences (Applying the 3-4-5 Rule
Teaching Presence (Structure/Process) Fig. 1. Community of Inquiryeducational systems, it is also appropriate for learning environments that are (mostly or entirely)face-to-face. The three principal elements of the CoI model are social presence, cognitive presenceand teaching presence. Social presence may be defined as the degree to which participants in thelearning environment feel affectively connected one to another; cognitive presence represents theextent to which learners are able to, via interactions with each other, construct and refine theirunderstanding of important ideas through reflection and discussion; and teaching presence is the
ProductDevelopment for utilization in academia based upon existing best practices in industry. Theproposed definition is formulated as a coupling of an engineering process and a leadershipframework, which respectively formulate the mission and vision for the process. Theengineering process is based upon classic theories of product development integrated within aconcurrent, sustainability focused framework. The leadership framework, which is developed asan expansion of the aforementioned TBL, completes the SPD process by providing guidance forthe establishment of a sustainability focused culture within an enterprise. After introducing thisprocess, a reflection detailing the challenges and opportunities associated with the inclusion ofSPD principles within a
oftenlacking in many engineering courses, using traditional teaching approaches. Furthermore, thedesign experience motivates student learning and develops skills required in industry.The development and implementation of a project solar energy harvesting in our senior projectdesign course is described here. The project is used to allow students to apply fundamentalengineering concepts as well as principles of engineering design. The societal impact of theproject, Solar Energy Scavenging, also makes students more aware of what engineering can do toaddress current energy issues worldwide. Presently we are modifying the content of the projectto address the main concern that many students expressed in their reflection papers, i.e. the levelof complexity
and do not necessarily reflect the viewsof the National Science Foundation. The authors would also like to thank Shuwen Tang,Cindy Walker, Todd Johnson, Tina Current, Sharon Kaempfer, and Jennie Klumpp (all atUWM) for their assistance with this project.Bibliography1.National Science Board. 2003. The Science and Engineering Workforce: Realizing America’s Potential.Publication NSB 03-69. (www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/nsb0369/nsb0369.pdf)2. Augustine, N. “Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a BrighterEconomic Future”, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP), 2007.3. Good, J., Halpin, G., and Halpin, G. “A Promising Prospect for Minority Retention: StudentsBecoming Peer Mentors”, J
) Max. Temp. (40 g)Temp. Cellulose Temp. Lignin Direct Combustor Direct Combustor 2286 K 1837 K 673 K 691 KAs expected, the experimentally-measured temperatures were significantly lower than thecalculated theoretical adiabatic flame temperatures as a result of the assumptions described inEquation 5, derived from Equation 4 above. Moreover, the overall initial fuel mass had littleimpact on the maximum measured temperature. So, the deviation in measured temperaturesbetween 30 g and 40 g in the direct combustor likely reflects the inaccuracy of the experimentalflame temperature interrogation technique. 40 35 Direct Combustion 40 g 30
Activities Conference.Finally, a Course Exit Survey was given in the end of each semester to collect student’s assessmenton their learning and course itself. All of the assessments indicated that students learningexperience was great, including positive reflections of their experience in traveling to Washington,DC, as part of the project team, to participate in the US EPA-sponsored expo.5. Discussion, Conclusions, RecommendationsIt was found that the energy yield upon torrefaction was more than 90% of untorrified energycontent and loss in mass per pellet was less than 2%. The overall conversion efficiency from wet-weight biomass material to ultimate pellet would be subject to further refinement, but it appearedthat dry weight could directly
mean rating for each question is measured on thehorizontal axis, while the amplitude of the normal distribution is represented on the vertical axis.The students were given a survey composed of sixteen questions to evaluate the success of thecourse. The survey is given to the students the last week of the semester during class. Theprofessor is required to leave the classroom while the students fill out the survey. Since some ofthe questions are reflective in nature, in the following years the authors will seriously considermodifying the survey methodology to include two surveys: one at the beginning of the class andone later. One of the major difficulties with this approach is to quantify and measure items like“knowledge of the area of