based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.EEC-1151019. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation. We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Nishant Kochhar,an undergraduate research assistant working on this project, the MEDLEE research group, andthe Purdue graduate students enrolled in the “Social Construction of Knowledge: Analysis ofVideo Data” course for their input and feedback on this project.References[1] Powell, A.B., J.M. Francisco, and C.A. Maher," An analytical model for studying the development of learners' mathematical ideas for
teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 123-138.[6] Mills, J.E. & Treagust, D. (2003). Engineering Education – is problem-based or project-based learning the answer? Australian Journal of Engineering Education. http://www.aaee.com.au/journal/2003/mills-treagust03.pdf [Last retrieved 01/04/2014].[7] Lehmanna, P., Christensena, X. Dua & M. Thranea. (2008). Problem-oriented and project-based learning (POPBL) as an innovative learning strategy for sustainable development in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, Volume 33, Issue 3, 2008.[8] Smith, K., Speppard, S., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2005). Pedagogies of Engagement
Shift, in Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, S. Vosnidou, Editor 2008: Hilsdale, NJ.9 B.S. Bloom and D.R. Krathwohl, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. Addison-Wesley, New York, 1984.10 Krathwohl, D.R., A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 2002. 41(4): p. 212-218.11 Burgher, J.e.a., New Hands-On Fluid Mechanics Cartridges and Pedagogical Assessment. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2013.Appendix Interview ProtocolConcept Questions AskedFlow Regimes A) What are the main regimes of flow? B) Can
Weerakoon, P. (2001) The role of computer-aided assessment in health professional education: a comparison of student performance in computer-based and paper-and-pen multiple-choice tests. Medical Teacher, 23(2), 152-157.3. Russel, M. (1999). Testing on computers: A follow-up study comparing performance on computer and on paper. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7, 20.4. Clariana, R. and Wallace, P. (2002). Paper-based versus computer-based assessment: key factor associates with the test mode effect. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 593-602.5. Ozalp-Yaman, S. and Cagiltay, N.E. (2010). Paper-Based versus Computer-Based Testing in Engineering Education. IEEE EDUCON Education Engineering 2010
the students in this study would be relatively constant overtime as well. It would be useful to examine the GPAs of these students in light of the research todate to see if this trend is observed. In addition, one might expect that, in the future, if theseindicators change with time, it could be indicative of substantial changes in the K-12 curriculumand/or some other contributing factor(s) that the students experience prior to enrolment in first-year engineering. This longitudinal study may also provide a foundation for assessing the successor failure of initiatives that are being undertaken or those that may be proposed in the future toimprove the success and retention of first-year engineering students at our institution
build better relationships between universities andcompanies by opening communication between faculty and engineers.References[1] Cox, M.F., Zhu, J., Ahn, B., London J.S., Frazier, S., Torres-Ayala, A.T., and Guerra, R.C.C.“Choices for PhD’s in Engineering: Analyses of Career Paths in Academia and Industry”.Proceedings of the 2011 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. 2011[2] Cox, M.F., Zhu, J., London J.S., Ahn, B., Torres-Ayala, A.T., and Ramane, K.D.“Recommendations for Promoting Desirable Characteristics in Engineering PhD’s: Perspectivesfrom Industry and Academia”. Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.2012[3] Transforming Undergraduate Education in Engineering – Phase 1: Synthesizing andIntegrating Industry
another is for a hypothetical environmental spill at aconvenient geologic site identified by the students for an independent geologic field trip. Page 24.640.5Table 1. Matrix Map of Learning Objectives to Evaluation Tools for Acceptable Evidence of Learning Desired Results: Students should be Acceptable Evidence Value Learning Experience(s) able to Proj Wk Case HW Tests demonstrate understanding of basic applications of geology to civil/environmental engineering by
provide challenges they want addressed. Page 24.646.12References1 Hart, S. and B. Spittka. The Goethals Infrastructure Challenge: A Proposal for a New Student Competition. in ASEEAnnual Conference and Exposition: Frankly We do Give a D*mn, June 23, 2013 - June 26, 2013. 2013. Atlanta, GA,United States: American Society for Engineering Education.2 Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Rittel, Horst W.J. and Webber, Melvin M.1973, Policy Sciences, pp. 155-169.3 Friedman, Thomas L. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. NewYork : Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2006.4 Barry, B., K. Meyer, K. Arnett, and B. Spittka
beincorporated in the new programs relating to disaster & emergency management and solarenergy at the undergraduate and graduate level.References1. Doyle S. Rice, “Report: Climate change behind rise in weather disasters,” USA TODAY, October 10, 2012.2. Jennifer Leaning, and Debarati Guha-Sapir, “Natural Disasters, Armed Conflict, and Public Health,” National England Journal of Medicine, November 2013.3. The World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/4. Munich Re, Leading Experts on Risk Solutions Worldwide. http://www.munichre.com/en/homepage/default.aspx5. William R. Young, Jr., “History of Applying Photovoltaic to Disaster Relief,” FSEC-CR-96, Prepared by Sandia Laboratory, 1996.6. Solar PV emergencies & Resilience
these specifications it would be nearly impossible to havesuccess in the successive steps due to the vagrancies of a poorly written objective. The followingrepresent the SMART specifications: Specific – target a specific area for improvement. Measurable – quantify or at least suggest an indicator of progress. Assignable – specify who will do it. Realistic – state what results can realistically be achieved, given available resources. Page 24.672.5 Time-related – specify when the result(s) can be achieved.Figure 3Portion of the LDP’s X-Matrix
Service. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 139-150. [2] Zoltowski, C. B., Oakes, W. C., & Cardella, M.E. (2012). Students' ways of experiencing human-centered design, Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 28-59. [3] IDEO (2009). Human centered design toolkit, 2nd Edition, IDEO. [4] Design resources: The wallet project, 10 October 2013. [Online]. Available: https://dschool.stanford.edu/groups/designresources/wiki/4dbb2/. [5] Use our methods: What? How? Why? https://dschool.stanford.edu/wp-content/themes/dschool/method- cards/what-why-how.pdf. Accessed 2/15/14. [6] https://www.designheuristics.com. Accessed 1/5/14. [7] Ash, S. L., Clayton, P. H., & Moses, M. G. (2009). Learning through
like to acknowledge support from National Science Foundation–Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education (NUE) grant 1042110.References:1. M. Agarwal, M. E. Rizkalla, H. El-Mounayri, S. Shrestha, J. A. Simpson, and K. Varahramyan, “A Novel Model for Integrating Nanotechnology Track in Undergraduate Engineering Degree Programs,” J. Nano Educ., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 135–141, Dec. 2013.2. “Moore’s Law and Intel Innovation,” Intel. [Online]. Available: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/history/museum-gordon-moore-law.html. [Accessed: 30-Dec-2013].3. “Nanomedicine.” [Online]. Available: https://commonfund.nih.gov/nanomedicine/index. [Accessed: 30-Dec- 2013].4. H. F. Tibbals, “Emerging National and Global Nanomedicine
MinorityParticipation (LSAMP) program (1993-2018) and the New Mexico Legislature through aResearch and Public Service Project (1996-present).A Statewide Partnership in New Mexico The New Mexico AMP is a partnership representing the State’s 20 public two-yearinstitutions, including two federally funded institutions serving American Indian students, andthe seven state-supported four-year universities. New Mexico AMP is aligned with other federal-funded programs in New Mexico who share a common vision, such as the College AssistanceMigrant Program (CAMP), Scholarships in STEM (S-STEM), and the STEM Talent ExpansionProgram (STEP). Collectively, these and other programs have resulted in a statewide networkthat has become part of the fabric of higher education
university? Future Benefits: 15. In what way(s) do you think your degree with help you in the future? 16. What are your plans for the future? Recommendations: 17. What advice would you give high school students who are thinking about pursuing a college education? Page 24.862.11 18. What do you recommend for the university to do to best support you and your educational goals?
. Page 24.1401.8Dissemination through conference presentation and conference proceedings articles The project PI, Co-PIs, key personnel, and participating students presented conference papers related to project activities at various conferences. Following is the list of papers. Fathizadeh, M. (Accepted for Publication, 2013 ). Implementation of a New Mechatronics Engineering Technology Degree Leveraging Industry. Technology Interface International Journal. Paper No.:T13-S-14 M. Fathizadeh, G. Cabrera, M. Werthman and G. Zawislak, (2013), “Implementing Industry Leverage to Establish a New Automation Equipment Training Center.” Conference Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Mid-Atlantic Section
engineering activities (Table 4, #5). Participants then engaged inan altered version of the sail engineering activity from Day 1, which we had modified to moreclosely align with Common Core Math Standards for Grade 2 (Table 4, #6). Specificimplementation of the math standards in the activity can be found in Table 7.Participants created a line plot to analyze their data from Day 1 to evaluate the success of thesails they had designed. This activity modeled meaningful integration of math and engineeringand demonstrated s that using math to evaluate the criteria for the success of a design canenhance an engineering activity (addressing Key Component 3).To further model for teachers how we planned the lesson to integrate the CCSS with theengineering
Research & Development, Vol. 26, Issue 4, 2007, pp. 425-442.7 Fu, K., Reid, T., Terpenny, J., Thurston, D., Vance, J., Finger, S., Wiens, G., Kazerounian, K., Allen, J.,and Jacobson, K., “Broadening Participation: A Report on a Series of Workshops Aimed at Building Community and Increasing the Number of Women and Minorities in Engineering Design,” 2013 ASEE Annual Conference and Exhibition, June 23 - 26, 2013 Atlanta, GA. Page 24.885.108 Collins, Lynn H., Joan C. Chrisler, and Kathryn Quina, eds. Career Strategies for Women in Academia: Arming Athena. Sage, 1998.9 Klenke, K., “Cinderella Stories Of Women
thiseducational effort can be expanded outside the classroom to involve the entire student body, inthe hopes of motivating students to enroll in elective courses in the future. The classroomstudents can then analyze the data obtained from this school wide challenge to determine ifmathematical models can be used to help understand human intuition. Ultimately, this week longexperience helps students realize the practical applications of mathematics, and demonstrates thata systematic analysis in lieu of intuition can give your bracket the statistical edge.References 1. Jacobson, S. H., Nikolaev, A. G., King, D.M., Lee, A. J., 2011, “Seed distributions for the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament”, OMEGA, 39(6):719-724. 2. Lunardi, J
. & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-Based Learning: A Review of Literature on Its Outcomes andImplementation Issues. Academic Medicine, 68. 52-81.8. Marshall, J. and Marshall, J. (2007). In Search of Teaching Excellence. American Society for EngineeringEducators, June, 2007.9. National Joint Apprenticeship Training Commission (2008), Course 42, International Brotherhood of ElectricalWorkers.10. Michaelsen, L., (1998). Three Keys to Using Learning Groups Effectively. “Essays on Teaching Excellence”.Center for Teaching, University of Southern Maine. Vol. 9, No 5, 1998.11. Price, P.C., (2006). Are You as Good A Teacher as You Think? Thought & Action, Vol. 14, Fall 2006.12. Gibbs, G., (2001). Changing Student Learning Behavior Outside of Class
overall sitehits and time spent on the site with the final grade. Results are shown in Figures 8 and 9. Figure8 relates total site time in hours to final grade and showed a positive relationship (R2 = 0.1717) infigure 8 similar to Figure 6 (R2 = 0.182), final grade and number of chapter s with videosaccessed. Figure 9 relates final grade and the overall number of site log-ins and provided thebest relationship we found (R2 = 0.3123). In general, this may indicate that the level of overalluse of the various tools of the Blackboard site as represented by the total hits or log-ins docontribute to the final grade. The learning tools the course provided were sufficient to learn the materials (videos, respondus
program.References1.) Hirsch, P., and McKenna, A. “Using Reflection to Promote Teamwork in Engineering Design Education.” International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 24, 2008, 377-385.2.) Hirsch, P., Shwom, B., and McKenna, A. “Teaching and Assessing Teamwork: Implementing Continuous Quality Improvement.” Proceedings, Association for Business Communication, October 2003.3.) Carr, S., McKenna, A., Colgate, J.E., and Olson, G.B. “IDEA: Formalizing the Foundation for Engineering Design Education.” International Journal of Engineering Education. 22 (671-678), 2006.4.) Lencioni, P. “Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Field Guide for Leaders, Managers, and Facilitators.” Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA. 2005.5
mechanics: adaptive eLearning tutorials. Proceedings, ICEE Conference, Australia. Page 24.1076.127. Prusty, B.G., Ho, O., and Ho, S., (2009). Adaptive tutorials using eLearning platform for solid mechanics course in engineering. Proceedings, AAEE Conference, Australia.8. Morin, B., Kecskemety, K., and Harper, K. (2013). The inverted classroom in a first-year engineering course. Proceedings, ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Atlanta, GA.9. Engineering Mechanics: Statics; Meriam, J. L. and Kraige, L. G., Seventh Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2012
recognized "core"of material that has been relatively stable for at least ten years. It has evolved in the field withoutany agency or body attempting to specify such a core. Unfortunately, it is difficult to look backto the early 70’s when the first programs were created to see the evolution to this point.However, the data presented here will provide a point of reference for studying the evolution ofthe undergraduate bioengineering curriculum in the future. Our analyses have emphasized commonalities across BME, but there is clearly alsoconsiderable diversity in BME undergraduate curricula. If we were to investigate certain otherbranches of engineering, at least five or six topics would be expected to be nearly 100%consistent across programs
Engineering Education. (2013). Transforming Undergraduate Education in Engineering (TUEE): Phase I: Synthesizing and Integrating Industry Perspectives. Arlington, VA3. National Academies Press, (2005). Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century: The National Academies Press.4. Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103-120.5. Felder, R. M., Sheppard, S. D., & Smith, K. A. (2005). A new journal for a field in transition. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 7-10.6. Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the REsearch
. “Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Page 24.1121.12 Environment,” The Journal of Economic Education, vol. 31, no. 1, Winter 2000.6. S. Zappe, R. Lieicht, J. Messner, T. Litzinger, and H. Woo Lee. “ ‘Flipping’ the classroom to explore active learning in a large undergraduate course.” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, 2009.7. R. Talbert. “Learning MATLAB in the Inverted Classroom.” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society of Engineering Education, 2012.8. L.W. Anderson, et al. A Taxonomy for Learning
% Page 24.1170.9 Teams are asked to give a 10 minute presentation on their project during exam week. The following slides are suggested, but each team is free to vary this as they feel appropriate: Problem Description Alternatives Considered Final Design (CAD Model and S/W Flowchart) Video of Working Prototype (Approx. 2 Min) Results Problems Encountered/Overcome Lessons Learned Teams are asked to dress in business attire, as they would for an interview, and to make their slides on a CAD system or on PowerPoint. The rubric used for the presentation is shown in Table 4 below with typical results. Table 4: Presentation Rubric
., Small. R.V., and Marsden, J. (2003). op cit.20 Flesher, J., Leach, S. and Wesphal, L. (1996). “Creating effective internships.” Performance Improvement,35(10), 22-25.21 Hager, C.J., Pryor, C.R. and Bryant, J.A. (2003). “A comparison of four domain area standards for internships andimplications for utilization in undergraduate construction education internship programs.” Journal of ConstructionEducation, 8(3), 157-179. Page 24.1225.11
, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.16. Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7 (17). Retrieved 12 June 2013. Page 24.1227.11
24.1290.10 Engineers; 2007: http://www.nspe.org/resources/pdfs/Ethics/CodeofEthics/Code-‐2007-‐July.pdf. 14. Shephard K. Higher education for sustainability: seeking affective learning outcomes. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2008;9(1):87-‐98. 15. Parkin S, Johnston A, Buckland H, Brookes F, White E. Learning and Skills for Sustainable Development: Developing a Sustainability Literate Society. London: Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability (HEPS); 2004. 16. Mulder KF. Don't preach. Practice! Value laden statements in academic sustainability education. International Journal of
-assessment/ResearchPaperRubric.pdf, accessed March 2014.20. http://www.cornellcollege.edu/LIBRARY/faculty/focusing-on-assignments/tools-for-assessment/poster-presentation-rubric.pdf, accessed March 2014.21. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., and Maisa, B. B., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification ofEducational Goals, Handbook II, Affective Domain, David McKay Co. Inc, New York, 1964.22. Verzuh, E., The Fast Forward MBA in Project Management, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1999. Page 24.1323.12