%), developing/writingfunctional specifications (56%), safety in product design (52%), and leadership (50%).Course design has been linked to student self-efficacy.7 In capstone design courses, problembased learning and reflective journaling have been shown to improve self-efficacy.2 By exposingstudents to the need for technical and professional skills, introducing them to the proper problemsolving approach, and allowing the course to support student development, students are morelikely to report high confidence in their own abilities.2This paper will build upon the previous literature and examine Industrial Engineering capstonecourses from across the nation. The researchers hope to identify characteristics of capstonecourses that positively affect
to full-time NTTF. Figure 2. Main duties of SCSE full-time NTTF2. Comparison of the roles of SCSE full-time NTTF and TTTFAmong the 14 institutions that hire full-time full-time NTTF, 12 of them (85% response rate)provided the data needed to compare roles of SCSE TTTF and full-time NTTF within the last 5years. The comparison is summarized as follows: • 75% of full-time faculty at responding SCSE programs are TTTF, which is much higher than the corresponding percentage overall in US universities. • In 100% of the SCSE programs, TTTF are generally more active than full-time NTTF in research publications and research funding, reflecting the primary role full-time NTTF have supporting
on students who scored below a 70, which was the range with the most difference inprogram requirements. In terms of participation, 82% of the students who scored below a 70participated in the SEP program in Fall 2010, while only 73% participated in Fall 2011. We arenot sure if this drop reflects a difference in attitude of the students, or is reflecting somethingabout the new program. However, 18 of the 80 students who participated in the Fall 2010 SEPprogram completed less than 25% of the requirements. If these students are not considered asfull participants, then only 65% fully participated in the program in Fall 2010, or slightly lessthan in Fall 2011. We conclude that the form of the SEP program did not have a significantimpact on the
Managers, and Campus Recruiters charged withsourcing and acquiring baccalaureate-level technical talent and the potential role of EngineeringTechnologists in meeting this need.IntroductionDuring the 2010/2011 academic year, the author participated in a collaborative project betweenRose-Hulman Institute of Technology and Ivy Tech Community College, Terre Haute campus.The opportunity sought to provide engineering and technology students with project experiencefocused on a new product development process that is truly reflective of the 21st centuryworkplace. A primary goal of the project was to provide students with an educational experiencethat mirrored their potential work environment in terms of technical rigor, managerialresponsibility, and
Background LiteratureService Learning and Service-Oriented Projects. Service learning as defined by the NationalService Learning Clearinghouse15 is “a teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningfulcommunity service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civicresponsibility, and strengthen communities.” Building from this definition, we can identifyspecific elements of service learning which are identified in the book Service Learning:Engineering in your Community9 as possessing the following elements related to engineering: • Service: Service to an underserved area or people. This can be direct, and ongoing, or project-based, involve hands-on aspects or research and analysis. • Academic
. They were alsofound to value the instruction of their professors less once returning to class after their first co-opexperience – perhaps a reflection of the latter’s potential lack of current and real-worldunderstanding. Co-op students’ GPAs were also found to decrease less between the second andthird years than those of non-co-op students. The finding regarding the impact of co-op on workself-efficacy is claimed here to open up the so-called “black box of co-op” to articulate thepractices and behaviors of cooperative education that shape its contribution to the undergraduateexperience.The data pool for this study was constituted of all second year students in the colleges ofengineering from four participating universities. Student
system, consisting of two cameras mounted on a stereo head andan infrared (IR) pod (Figure 1). The IR pod emits infrared light, which is reflected off users’eyes; the reflection is recorded by the cameras to track the eye movements.A software package called Facelab 5.0, which comes bundled with the system, was used torecord data. A software suite called Eyeworks from Eyetracking Inc. was used along withFacelab for data collection and analysis. The Eyeworks suite includes three softwareapplications: • Eyeworks Design is used to design custom scripts to be used in the experiments. • Eyeworks Record records the data necessary for analysis. • Eyeworks Analyze is an analysis tool that can be used to do visual analysis on the eye
20. Summary of student opinion survey data.Student Comments. Student comments can be summarized as follows: 1) Many students likedthe game. They felt being able to visualize the wiring and interfacing worked was very helpful.2) Some students suggested that adding explanations about why the wiring should be a certainway would be helpful. 3) Overall, students thought the game was helpful and supplemented thelecture well.Student Learning Style Survey. Felder and Soloman’s Index of Learning Styles (ILS) wasadministered to assess students’ learning styles [19]. The ILS is a 44-question survey that asksusers about their learning preferences. The Index ranks users along four attribute continuums:Active/Reflective, Sensing/Intuitive, Visual/Verbal
by Eyler and Giles is provided followed by adescription of the program developed to link senior capstone design projects with the needs ofthe assistive technology community. A review of recently completed projects is then provided.The paper concludes with a discussion of benefits to all participants: the AT community, seniordesign students and engineering programs.BackgroundService learning as defined by the National Service-Learning Clearing House “is a teaching andlearning strategy that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection toenrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities.”1 Whileservice learning programs may be quite diverse and employ students from a wide variety
. The ideas shared were transcribed, andthen turned into the image below which reflects the frequency that different words were used(using www.wordle.net). Most of the faculty commented about the positive impacts of LTS onstudents – their learning, motivation, passion, excitement, leadership, and change to be betterengineers. Twenty-one of the 28 people shared an idea that included student impacts. Facultywere also excited about the potential for positive impacts on communities; 9 of the 28 ideasincluded this element at their core. From these initial comments it appeared that student-centered benefits were most prominent as a motivator for faculty members
in engineering such aswomen and ethnic minority students. The authors suggest that future research should includethe re-development of the social engagement concept to reflect distinguishing characteristics ofengineering fields.Introduction During the last two decades, the retention and academic success of engineering studentshas emerged as a major topic for discussion among policy makers and researchers in highereducation. However, the current record of engineering student retention and graduation doesnot suggest a positive outlook. Based on the most recent U.S. Bureau of Labor Statisticsprojections 1, the demand for qualified engineering graduates will grow 11% between 2008 and2018, yet the number of engineering graduates remained
resources outside of the college. Reflections on the experiences andlearning gained in the development and implementation of the experiences, programs, andhoped-for college-wide system are presented. These reflections are generalized to be lessons-learned that could apply to other institutions working to build their international programs and toachieve integrating global competence into the curriculum.IntroductionLike many institutions across the country, the Ira A. Fulton College of Engineering andTechnology at BYU has embarked on development of experiences and programs related to theobjective of achieving global competence in our engineering and technology students. Theseinitiatives, aimed at global competence, have occurred in parallel with
whenthey made up more than a third of the class. The grade point average of the NMs was higher thanthe 1stYEs in both semesters, though only slightly, probably reflecting a higher level of maturityand more fully developed verbal/communication skills. Unfortunately, the much lower fractionof approximately one NM/seven 1stYEs in the fall semester roll-out is likely to continue to Page 25.34.12prevail as it represents more closely the steady state demand. Nevertheless, enrollment ofBusiness School and Arts and Science School majors adds a multidisciplinary element to thecourse through the student cohort that goes beyond the fact that multiple
options: (1) at the beginning of a lab session,(2) after a pre-lab lecture, (3) immediately after completion of the lab, and (4) after completion ofthe lab report. This assessment architecture enables us to determine whether learning happened inlecture, in the lab itself, or during subsequent reflection on laboratory results during the process ofwriting the lab report. 1 Introduction A common challenge in engineering education is to develop students’ intuitive understandingof how physical systems behave, despite the fact that many students have never physically observedor interacted with the systems they are learning about. A variety of approaches have previouslybeen developed to address this, including implementation of hands-on
engineering from the University of Stuttgart, Germany, in 1995. Page 25.88.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2012 A Pilot for Multidisciplinary Capstone Design incorporating a Systems Engineering FrameworkSynopsisIn this paper we discuss a pilot project to develop an approach to multidisciplinary capstonedesign that incorporates a systems engineering (SE) framework which can be a model for broadimplementation. It is a reflection of the growing demand for engineers educated to recognize theoverarching significance of systems engineering approaches for the
toget to know each other. This assignment helps to jump start the GV team experience as studentsare compelled to plan and to get to know one another. Learning new technology also becomesimportant for team members to communicate and share documents with one another. While thetendency is to focus on the task, team members must take the time to develop on-linerelationships with team members they likely will never meet outside of this project. Thisrelationship building becomes critical as the project proceeds and team members requireassistance and support from one another during stressful and critical times. It also increasesstudent commitment to the GV team project. Upon completion of the course students should reflect on what they have
inadequate for the research questions 12. The focus of this manuscriptis on the qualitative interviews, as the findings are meaningful in themselves in addition toinforming the survey.To answer our first research question, we conducted a content analysis of the transcribedinterviews to determine ECPs’ initial career choices and the prevalence of each 13. This contentanalysis relied on a priori codes of “graduate school” and “workforce”. To answer the secondresearch question, we coded the data for ECPs’ reflection about remaining on their planned path(“doing what they thought they would be doing”) using emergent themes. Using tables andcounts of codes, we then quantitized the qualitative data with regard to career pathways. Contentanalysis and
day. Each topic will be covered over two weeks and each topic has anengineering analysis project and an engineering design project. How each topic starts, beginningon Tuesdays, and is taught over two weeks is shown on the right-hand side of the figure. Figure OSU-2. ENGR 1113 Course StructureAt the conclusion of a four week module (this is for the three major topics, Algebra,Trigonometry, and Calculus) each team submitted a report and each individual studentcompleted a reflection paper. Topics included in the team reports and reflections will include: thestudent’s contribution to lab, summary of data, and what the student learned in the lab. The
distributed to each team member. 4. Students have a standup meeting to plan out development and integration. 5. Students work using side-by-side development to build the solution. 6. Students frequently integrate and test the developed components. 7. Students demonstrate the completed work to the customer who provides feedback. 8. The students have a reflection meeting to identify what process issues were encountered, what process elements were useful and worth keeping, and what possible solutions exist to ensure the team performs better on future iterations.Description of Mini-ProjectsThe mini-project sequence consists of three consecutive two-week modules. These modules aredesigned as a guided sequence for the design of a hand
in the assignment resulted in self-reflection on their own teaching skills.The students learned that observing a peer teacher made them aware of teaching strategies andmethods that work or do not work and why; and how to constructively give and receivefeedback.GTIs are coached in both giving and receiving feedback from a peer, which includes discussionson the roles of the observer and the one being observed. Students are provided with a rubric(Appendix A) for this project with the deliverable being a paper that describes the experience.Using the rubric as a guide the paper requires a detailed description of each part of theassignment, the pre-observation meeting, the observation, the post-observation meeting and aformal letter providing
redesign of IA-530 significantly (p<0.05) increased studentparticipation and formative assessments. Instructors utilized the information gained through real-time formative assessment to tailor instruction to meet student needs. Particularly important wereopportunities to make students’ thinking visible and give them chances to revise, as well asopportunities for “what if” thinking. Attempts to help students reflect on their own processes aslearners were also emphasized3, 6. The VaNTH Observation System (VOS, an assessment tooldeveloped to capture qualitative and quantitative classroom observation data from teaching andlearning) was used to systematically assess HPL framework implementation in the redesignedclassroom and results are reported
appear broad, it is reflective of the variety of activities and roles that civilengineers undertake. The BOK was thus designed to accommodate the wide-ranging nature ofthe practice within the discipline.Since the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) first published the BOK report in 2004and the BOK2 report in 2008 , numerous papers have been written about this effort. Asignificant number of papers on the Body of Knowledge have been submitted to the AmericanSociety of Engineering Education’s (ASEE’s) Annual Conference and Exposition. Much of thatliterature is discussed and synthesized herein.Student perceptions of the BOK2 are of particular interest in the academic realm. A studyconducted by Bielefeldt at the University of Colorado at
reporting categories that include what course modifications were made, theoutcomes assessment information obtained, reflection on the part of the instructor, andsuggestions for curricular improvement. Through this approach, the instructor is guided througha systematic review of the course, with the additional benefit of clearly and succinctlydocumenting critical portions of the “closing the loop” process. At the center of this approach isthe concept of performance vectors, a 4-tuple vector that categorizes aggregate studentperformance on a directly measured assessment artifact. For each performance criterion to bereported, an entry is placed into the FCAR documenting the criterion, the outcome beingsupported, the assignment(s) used for acquiring
satisfaction in helping them get their needsmet. It is also argued that when the teacher is able to focus on assisting the students inmeeting their needs, teacher’s own needs get met. In concluding, the author presents hisown reflections based on his experience as an engineering student and a faculty member.The author has a firm conviction that the only professor who belongs in a classroom is acaring professor.IntroductionA caring faculty understands, encourages and supports students’ individuality and issensitive to students’ needs. A caring faculty understands that the concept ofindividuality manifests itself in- among other things- different learning styles, visions,interests, and aspirations. In addition, a caring college faculty realizes that
the presenters.Workshops are scheduled on a weekly basis for ten consecutive weeks during both the fall andspring academic semesters. During summer session, the same series of workshops is presented ina one-week intensive course. Paper flyers and email messages are sent to the 70 differentacademic units on campus inviting graduate students, faculty, and staff to attend. Individuals arefree to register for as few or as many of the workshops as they would like. Graduate studentswho participate in at least eight of the ten workshops have the opportunity to earn one-hourpass/no-pass credit by simultaneously enrolling in a course on college teaching. This courserequires students to write reflective essays related to their experiences in the
lives and aspirations of STEM woman graduatestudents. The political debates shaping women in science continue to impact the personal lives ofindividual women. WiSE-FPP operates at this individual level to support women’s persistenceand success in STEM. By offering programs and events that provide skills and strategies fornegotiating gender-based inequalities in academia and industry, WiSE-FPP seeks to underminethese systems of inequality one STEM graduate at a time.Gender MattersIn the 1970’s, the women’s rights movement coined the phrase, “the personal is political.” Thestatement reflects the belief that women’s personal struggles reach beyond their individual livesto inequalities embedded in institutional contexts. In regards to women in STEM
activities thatwill proceed completely around this cycle, providing the maximum opportunity for full comprehension.This model has been used extensively to evaluate and enhance engineering teaching. The designiettesmay be designed to provide learning experiences in the Kolb cycle that are not well met with traditionalcourse instruction. Specifically, each designiette may be based on actual engineering and need-basedproblems. This provides the “Concrete Experience” part of the cycle in a similar manner as a case study.The “Reflective Observation” part of the cycle is accomplished by asking questions throughout thedesigniette which may be designed to encourage the students to reflect on the innovation history,processes, problem, ideas, and / or
these areas at graduation.However, the variability of these projects presents significant challenges for common rubricdevelopment and by implication, our ability to retrieve reliable data on student performance inthese categories/attributes. This variability also brings unique challenges to the development of asingle rubric that is 1) flexible enough to apply to a variety of engineering thesis projects, 2)reflective of the learning objectives of the thesis course, and also 3) appropriate for use ingathering reliable data about students’ graduate attributes.This paper describes the development of the rubric, and the inherent challenges in designing avalid and reliable tool that provides flexibility to a diverse group of projects and supervisors
teams tocollaboratively solve a complex problem under the guidance of a facilitator (often a facultymember). The facilitator does not serve as a traditional instructor but rather guides the studentsthrough self-directed learning. The problems are designed to be ill-structured and challenging tothe students, as well as relevant to them. The problems must be sufficiently challenging thatstudents cannot solve them with existing knowledge so new knowledge must be generated withthe help of the facilitator. To solve the problem, students must gather information, generatehypothesis for possible solutions, identify knowledge gaps, and repeat this process until asolution is reached. Reflection on the solution process is a critical part of the learning
; • To develop and field-test engineering communication assignments; • To contribute these assignments to a central library (maintained at UCLA), accessible to all CPR users; • To assess the impact of the integration of visual communication on course development, student performance, and student confidence levels in visual communication skills.Re-designed through successive iterations during the grant period, CPR5 extends the platform’scapability to allow for the creation and evaluation of student work, be it graphics, visuals, oralpresentations, movies, or posters.Basic Features of CPR: Four structured workspaces perform in tandem to create a series ofactivities that reflect modern pedagogical strategies for using writing in