Paper ID #10265A Faculty Learning Community to Improve Teaching Practices in Large En-gineering Courses: Lasting ImpactsDr. Olivia S Anderson, University of Michigan Dr. Olivia S. Anderson is a postdoctoral research associate at the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching at the University of Michigan (CRLT). At U-M, she earned a Masters in Public Health in Hu- man Nutrition, a Registered Dietitian (RD) credential, and a PhD in Environmental Health Sciences. Her teaching experience began as an undergraduate teaching assistant for a Biology Lab, she was later on involved in patient education as an RD for kids, teens
with a number of Boston Public Schools in integrating engineering activities into their curriculum.Dr. Shawn S Jordan, Arizona State University, Polytechnic campusDr. Nadia N. Kellam, University of Georgia Nadia Kellam, Associate Professor in the College of Engineering at the University of Georgia, is co- director of the interdisciplinary engineering education research CLUSTER. In her research, she is inter- ested in understanding how engineering students develop their professional identity, the role of emotion in student learning, and synergistic learning. She designed the environmental engineering synthesis and design studios and is now developing the design spine for the new mechanical engineering program. She is
). Digital Omnivores, Social Media and Social Capital: Expatriatesinteractions using Smartphones in Stockholm (Doctoral dissertation, Södertörn University).Li, D., & Segal, B. (2012). The Changing Landscape of The Canadian Mobile Audience.International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 7(1).Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course. Babson Survey Research Group: TheSloan Consortium.Balaji, M. S., & Chakrabarti, D. (2010). Student interactions in online discussion forum:Empirical research from ‘media richness theory’perspective. Journal of Interactive OnlineLearning, 9(1), 1-22.Beck, R. J. (2010). Teaching international law as a partially online course: The hybrid/blendedapproach to pedagogy. International Studies Perspectives, 11
programtargeting the improvement of undergraduate engineering education. Faculty proposed large-scalerenovations of a specific undergraduate course or closely-related group of courses, with the goalof improving student engagement, learning outcomes, and faculty teaching experiences.Alternatively, faculty could propose to develop teaching technologies that would facilitate theimplementation of evidence-based teaching practices. Priority in funding was given to projectsthat would impact large numbers of students or provide critical interventions early in students’learning careers.“Live deep, not fast,” is an admonition coined in the early 1900’s by literature professor, critic,and editor Henry Seidel Canby 1. Faculty participating in SIIP were invited to
, T E C H Nsocial OLOGY and global international context environmental goals relief/employment through management of dilemmas SOCIO-CULTURAL Focus on stability of social and Dilemma ECOLOGY cultural systems Issues of inter- Focus on stability of biological and S o cio -C
Mathematics Journal 109 (4). 197- 2113. Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. Jossey-Bass.4. Kolikant, Y., McKenna, A., & Yalvac, B. (2005). Cultivating a Community of Practice in Engineering Education. ASEE Conference Proceeding, Portland, OR.5. Lueddeke, G. (2003). Professionalising teaching practice in higher education: A study of disciplinary variation and ‘teaching scholarship.’ Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 213-228. Page 24.1316.136. Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi
; Fellenz, R. A. (1989). Effective Strategies for Teaching Adults. Columbus, OH.: Merrill Publishing (p. 8).3 Kasworm, C., Rose, A. & Ross-Gordon, J. (2010). Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education. 2010 ed. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications. (pgs. 35-48).4 Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F. & Swanson, R. A. (2011). The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development. 7th ed. Burlington, MA.: Butterworth-Heinemann. (pgs. 123- 129).5 Land, R. E. (2012). Engineering Technologists are Engineers. Journal of Engineering Technology, Spring 2012, pgs. 32-39.6 Cleland, D., Gallagher, J. & Whitehead, R. (1993). Military Project Management Handbook. San Francisco, CA., McGraw
identified five major factors that support the use of the theoretical frameworks tooperationalize andragogy, while identifying discrepancies among their sub-constructs. Studentdifferences have been primarily associated with developmental areas associated with emergingadulthood. These differences can greatly impact the way design educators mentor their studentsand coach them through teaming issues, especially for non-traditional students. Page 24.33.2Adult Learners in Undergraduate EducationArnett 1 has recognized that the classification of adult has changed since the 1970’s. He hasidentified a new life stage named “emerging adulthood” where the
MOOC, the colleges gained significantinsight into the challenges and opportunities associated with the technology and pedagogyassociated with MOOCs. In particular: There are a variety of reasons to offer MOOCs including: marketing / organizational awareness, outreach, providing professional development, support enrollment in “traditional” programs, etc. It is imperative that the goal(s) be clearly established early so that appropriate decisions regarding design and development can be made which support the goals. Very careful attention to content management minimizes issues when the course is offered. Video accessibility issues need to be carefully planned and managed. The visibility and positive attention generated for
area(s). Learning Objectives: What will teachers take away from this lesson? While some learning objectives can be bottom line and traditional, the intention is that the most beneficial portion of the lesson is the teacher's inference on its application to the teachers' subject area. Main Idea: This is the message to the team of freshmen who pick this topic in order to communicate what the EPICS course is envisioning for this module. These are restatements of the learning objectives with subtle suggestions for the interactivity; Page 24.1392.7 however, this decision is ultimately made by the
Summary S Y T Y Final Final Total Avail % Availab % PG Total Total B B B M able UG le PG Votes Avail % Tech Tech Tech Tech UG Votes Votes able Votes Votes Civil 6 28 3 13 50 248 15% 107 12% 355 14% Computer & IT 65 88 64 6 223 517 42% 18 33% 535 42% Electrical 19 7 5 29 60 255 12% 38 76% 293 20% E & TC 13 31 14 22 80