Displaying all 8 results
- Conference Session
- Engineering Physics & Physics Division Technical Session 2
- Collection
- 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
- Authors
- Warren A. Turner, Westfield State University; Glenn W. Ellis, Smith College; Robert J. Beichner, North Carolina State University
- Tagged Divisions
- Engineering Physics & Physics
into the space of a single chapter or perhaps two 11.Remarkably little work has been done in creating instruments of evaluation 12,13 and research-basedcurriculum exploring rotational mechanics. Without additional evidence, it would seem a validconjecture that any student difficulties which exist concerning rectilinear motion would continue tobe carried forward, further compounded by the inherent two-dimensionality of rotation about astationary axis adding layers of complexity to an already murky understanding of that rectilinearmotion. Page 24.34.3The InstrumentWe decided to address this question using the TUG-K developed in the early 1990’s
- Conference Session
- Engineering Physics & Physics Division Technical Session 3
- Collection
- 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
- Authors
- Teresa L. Larkin, American University; Victoria "Tori" Vogel, American University
- Tagged Divisions
- Engineering Physics & Physics
within the American University community forproviding their thoughts and insights throughout the various phases of this study.IX. Bibliography[1] http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/bachdemograph10.pdf, Accessed 18.10.13.[2] http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/bachdemograph10.pdf, Accessed 19.10.13.[3] Rosser, S. V. (Ed.). (1995). Teaching the majority: Breaking the gender barrier in science, mathematics, and engineering. New York: Teacher’s College Press.[4] National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. (2007). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic
- Conference Session
- Engineering Physics & Physics Division Technical Session 1
- Collection
- 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
- Authors
- Robert A. Ross, University of Detroit Mercy; E. Prasad Venugopal, University of Detroit Mercy; Gary P. Hillebrand, University of Detroit Mercy; Meghann Norah Murray; Matthew Gonderinger, Wayne State University, University of Detroit Mercy
- Tagged Divisions
- Engineering Physics & Physics
1,11,20 10 7,16,25 11 6,15,24,28,29 Table I DIRECT question number(s) corresponding to the relevant learning objective.Implementation & Results of AssessmentBeginning with the winter 2004 term and continuing through the fall 2013 term, we administeredthe DIRECT assessment to all of the second semester general physics laboratory students,(N=738) at the end of the semester. This group of students includes 284 students taking thecalculus-based physics sequence and 454 students taking the algebra-based sequence. Forpurposes of comparison, the sample size in the original publication of the DIRECT
- Conference Session
- Engineering Physics & Physics Division Technical Session 3
- Collection
- 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
- Authors
- Wenli Guo, Queensborough Community College; Vazgen Shekoyan, Queensborough Community College
- Tagged Divisions
- Engineering Physics & Physics
: two rounds of a perception survey related to the learning of physics and a survey particularly designed for reflective quiz self-correction activity; a pre- and a post-mechanics baseline test at the beginning and the end of the semester plus two tests and a final exam (quizzes and exams are the same as what were used in the previous semester without this intervention); two quiz mistake categorization reports.III. Results, Discussions and Conclusions Some sample materials used and data collected from the project are given below. Sample quizzes questions: Example 1: A car moving with constant acceleration covered the distance between two points 60.0 m apart in 6.00 s. Its speed as it passed the
- Conference Session
- Engineering Physics & Physics Division Technical Session 3
- Collection
- 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
- Authors
- Scott Ryan Kirkpatrick, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology; Maarij M. Syed, Rose-Hulman Institute of Tech; Richard W. Liptak, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
- Tagged Divisions
- Engineering Physics & Physics
single iteration of the MDM structure. The “final report” for this stagepertains to only this stage and will not contain a self-reflection statement. It is however expectedto contain a discussion and proposal of alternative design process and parameters. Thesealternatives, that may prove more efficient and or lead to better filters, are to be discussed withreference to some figure(s) of merit (FOM) that the students arrive at while characterizing theinitial MDM filter. Obvious choices for device FOM would be percent reflectance andbandwidth of the MDM filter. Other FOMs could be developed around cost and performance ofthe final device. Guided by these choices and outcomes from the initial stage, students carry outa second iteration (process
- Conference Session
- Engineering Physics & Physics Division Technical Session 2
- Collection
- 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
- Authors
- Timothy J. Garrison, York College of Pennsylvania
- Tagged Divisions
- Engineering Physics & Physics
-‐1055, (1985). 2. Halloun, IA, & Hestenes, D., “Common-‐sense concepts about motion,” Am. J. Phys. 53, 1056-‐1065, (1985). 3. Tobias, S., Revitalizing Undergraduate Science; Why Some Things Work and Most Don’t, Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation, (1992). 4. Tobias, S., They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different: Stalking the Second Tier, Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation, (1990). 5. Laws, P., “Calculus-‐based physics without lectures,” Phys. Today 44(12), 24-‐31, (1991) 6. Laws, P., Workshop Physics, J. Wiley, (2004) 7. Mazur, E., Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual, Prentice Hall, (1997
- Conference Session
- Engineering Physics & Physics Division Technical Session 2
- Collection
- 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
- Authors
- Harold T. Evensen, University of Wisconsin, Platteville
- Tagged Divisions
- Engineering Physics & Physics
both “marketpenetration” and development of transferable programming skills: they recommended exposingstudents to it, but not restructuring the course around it.)We thus kept VB6 in Sensor Lab, knowing that we would eventually need to change. Thischange was ultimately demanded by our university’s conversion to 64-bit Windows 7 (Win7):our IT support person advised that there were issues surrounding VB6’s access of the COM portsin 64-bit Win7, and that it may be time to move on. (A survey of several online programmingforums showed this to be true. While there may be some workarounds that “fix” this issue, thesedid not seem worth it, given that the rest of the world is moving past VB6, especially for newapplications.)We considered Microsoft
- Conference Session
- Engineering Physics & Physics Division Technical Session 3
- Collection
- 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
- Authors
- Xaver Neumeyer, Western Michigan University; Kathleen Teressa Foote, North Carolina State University; Robert J. Beichner, North Carolina State University; Melissa H. Dancy, University of Colorado, Boulder; Charles Henderson, Western Michigan University
- Tagged Divisions
- Engineering Physics & Physics
‟ attributes on their position in theSCALE-UP network. Similar to QAP multiple regression, estimate standard errors andsignificance will be estimated using the random permutations method. Both statistical testingprocedures were performed in UCINET 6, a package for social network analysis. Table 1 givesan overview of our research questions and the statistical techniques that were used to examinethem.Results We first examined the major avenues of how information about SCALE-UP spread andclustered the items from the survey into meaningful categories: (1) Talks/Workshops, (2)Interacting with other user(s), (3) Website, (4) Reading, (5) Don‟t know, and (6) Other. Theresults indicate that vast majority of respondents learned and heard about SCALE-UP