) critically evaluating the state of research andrecommending improvements, and (c) identifying neglected topics that require the attention ofresearchers. Our completed systematic review will contribute in each of these three areas.Bibliography1. Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., Nesbit, J. C., & Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A Page 26.1754.10 meta-analytic survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 901-918.2. Sabo, K. E., Atkinson, R. K., Barrus, A. L., Joseph, S. S., & Perez, R. S. (2013). Searching for the two sigma advantage: Evaluating algebra intelligent tutors. Computers in
- content/uploads/2012/01/EUR-ACE_Framework-Standards_2008-11-0511.pdf.(13) Passow, H. J. J. Eng. Educ. 2012, 101, 95. Page 26.1177.10(14) Brett, J.; Behfar, K.; Kern, M. C. In The Essential Guide to Leadership; Harvard Business Review, 2009; pp. 85–97.(15) Halverson, C. In Effective Multicultural Teams: Theory and Practice; Halverson, C. B.; Tirmizi, S. A., Eds.; Springer, 2008; pp. 81–110.(16) Pelled, L. H.; Eisenhardt, K. M.; Xin, K. R. Adm. Sci. Q. 1999, 44, 1.(17) Watson, W. E. Acad. Manag. J. 1993, 36, 590.(18) Horwitz, S. K. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2005, 4, 219.(19) Manning, M. L.; Lucking, R. Clear
, w2, T) 4. A function that plots a phase diagram (35 points) function PhaseDiagram(HA1, SA1, HB1, SB1, w1, HA2, SA2, HB2, SB2, w2, Tmin, Tmax)Project 2: Modeling HIV Response to Immune TherapyYour assignment is to write a computer program that will model the progress of the HIV infection in a patient that isbeing treated with a drug of a given effectiveness, Q. The HIV infected patient is assumed to start with a T-cellcount of T(0)=1, this being a healthy level, and having no infected T-cells, I(0)=0. We assume that infection occursat day 0 a viral load of V(0)=0.01. We will assume that if a drug is administered, therapy starts on the day ofinfection. In the model, if the HIV infected patient’s T-cell count, including
both mean value and standarddeviation, to return a numerical track quality indicator, which will inform the user whether or notthe given case of operation if feasible. In order to numerically determine the track quality, Q, anequation that effectively ranks each situation was elaborated.Additionally, serious wear marks were noticed on the Elizabethtown College outdoor athletictrack, which makes it one of the most difficult cases to achieve (Table 3). On the other hand,readings were collected from the new outdoor athletic track at Alvernia University (Reading,PA), to quantitatively rank more than one typical quality of outdoor tracks. It was found that theanalyses of these readings were much more conclusive, making it a far easier case. However
(ECDH), digital signature algorithm (ECDSA), and integrated encryptionscheme (ECIES) are placed. In all of these security protocols which are standardized by severalnational and international organizations, the main computation is point multiplication. Theelliptic curve point multiplication is defined as Q = k.P, where k is a positive integer, and Q andP are two points on the elliptic curve. The efficiency of computing point multiplication dependson finding the minimum number of steps to reach Q from a given point P.Some of the educational goals in this step were (a) understanding the implementation platforms(commonly referred to as hardware [ASIC/FPGA] or software platforms [microcontrollers])through which the overheads were derived, (b) soft
followingquestions on an end of the course evaluation form: This semester videos of your presentations were made available to each student group, and you were asked to provide feedback on your individual performance as well as your Page 26.927.6 teammates’ performance. Do you feel this experience helped you improve your presentation skills? Is it worth it for [the instructor] to continue recording student group presentations and providing videos to groups for their evaluation in the future? Which presentation feedback method did you find most helpful – evaluation of your own presentation/Q&
), 1541–1547.[5] Mazumder, Q. H., Karim, R. M. (2012). Comparative Analysis of Learning Styles of Students of USA and Bangladesh, Paper no: AC2012-5075, 119th ASEE Annual Conference, June 10-13, 2012, San Antonio, TX, USA[6] Sadi, O. & Uyar, M. (2013). The relationship between cognitive self-regulated learning strategies and biology achievement: A path model. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences; 93 (2013), 847-852.[7] Crede, M., & Philips, A. L. (2011). A meta-analytic review of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences; 21 (2011), 337-346.[8] Puteha, M., &, Ibrahimb, M. (2010). The usage of self-regulated learning strategies among form four students in
support during the research process. Additionally,authors would like to thank University of Michigan - Flint institutional review board, faculty and staff fororganizing necessary field trips and to various locations related to current study and equipment support. References[1] Savoji, A. P. (2013). Motivational strategies and academic achievements in traditional and virtual university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences; 84 (2013), 1015-1020[2] Mazumder, Q. H. and Ahmed, K. (2014). “A Comparative Study of Motivation and Learning Strategies Between Public and Private University Students of Bangladesh” Proceedings of the 2014 ASEE North Central Section Conference
., Skokan, C., Kosbar, L., Dean, A., Westland, C., Barker, H., Nguyen, Q. & Tafoya, J. (2007). “K-12 outreach: Identifying the broader impacts of four outreach projects.” Journal of Engineering Education, 96 (2), 173-189.14. Tafoya, J., Nguyen, Q., Skokan, C. & Moskal, B. (2005). “K-12 outreach in an engineering intensive university.” Paper in the Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, Portland, Oregon (11 pages). REPRINT: Proceedings of 4th ASEE/AaeE Global Colloquium on Engineering Education, Sydney, Australia, September, 2005.15. Moskal, B., Skokan, C. & Duffield, J. (2004). "GK-12 learning partnership: An outreach program in engineering education.” Paper in the
rules for the addition, composition, and inversion of rational relations will now bestated and proved. The following theorem extends that given in 8 by adding a rule for the equalityof two rational relations. Also, the proof presented here uses relational identities.Theorem 10.2 The set of rational relations (Q, +, ·) is a subseminearring of L(C∞ ). For alla1 , a2 ∈ B, and all b1 , b2 , g ∈ B\{0}, a1 ga2 a1 a2 coprime(b1 , a2 ) ⇒ = , (43) b1 g b2 b1 b2 a1 a2 a1 b2 + a2 b1 coprime(b1 , b2
evaluated by the authors. Session 1 Session 2 Presentation Q&A Presentation Q&A 0.4286 0.9333 0.7241 0.5926 no input 4 8 10 12 -1 8 0 2 0 0 4 2 4 11 1 23 29 23 16 Observation: 1. The value of 0.4286 indicates the results could have been better but was still a worthwhile effort. Recall the value could go negative. Note there 23 out of 39 students indicated the
physics reasoning: A commitment to substance-based conceptions,” Cognition and Instruction 18, 1 (2000).12 P. V. Engelhardt, “Examining students' understanding of electrical circuits through multiple-choice testing andinterviews,“ Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State University, 1997. Page 26.158.1413 C. D. Whitlatch, Q. Wang, and B. J. Skromme, “Automated problem and solution generation software forcomputer-aided instruction in elementary linear circuit analysis,” in Proceedings of the 2012 American Society forEngineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition (Amer. Soc. Engrg. Educat., Washington, D.C., 2012
) Determine M W,Hog [MT-m] from Eqn 3.5.1.a. Determine total bending moment, MT,Hog = M W,Hog + M SW. (G) Determine M W, horiz [MT-m] from Eqn 3.5.3. (H) Determine wave vertical Shear, Q W,V from Eqn 3.5.5. [MT] Determine total vertical shear Q T,W = Q W,V + QSW. [MT] (I) Determine minimum value of the section modulus = Z min [m3] from Eqn 3.6.3. Compare the value with the minimum (deck or keel) section modulus for the barge.Part II: POSSE CalculationsModel the barge in POSSE geometrically and structurally using Reference (2) as a guide. Input the fullload condition and determine shear, bending moment and stress for still water, hogging and saggingconditions (SW, S, H). All answers are to be in the
. Page 26.1552.1210. Oyserman, D.; Destin, M.; Novin, S. Self Identity 2014, 1–16.11. Fugate, M.; Kinicki, A. J.; Ashforth, B. E. J. Vocat. Behav. 2004, 65, 14–38.12. Ibarra, H. Adm. Sci. Q. 1999, 44, 764–791.13. Ibarra, H. Identity transitions: possible selves, liminality and the dynamics of career change; 2005.14. Kerpelman, J. L.; Pittman, J. F. J. Adolesc. 2001, 24, 491–512.15. Godwin, A.; Potvin, G. Int. J. Eng. Educ. (In Press. 2015.16. Pizzolato, J. E. Cultur. Divers. Ethnic Minor. Psychol. 2006, 12, 57–69.17. Committee on K-12 Engineering Education. Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects; Katehi, L.; Pearson, G.; Feder, M. A., Eds.; The National Academies Press
providing thetextbook copies used in our laboratory experiment and for his support of the project.References1 C. D. Whitlatch, Q. Wang, and B. J. Skromme, “Automated problem and solution generation software forcomputer-aided instruction in elementary linear circuit analysis,” in Proceedings of the 2012 American Society forEngineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition (Amer. Soc. Engrg. Educat., Washington, D.C., 2012), p.Paper 4437.2 B. J. Skromme, C. D. Whitlatch, Q. Wang, P. M. Rayes, A. Barrus, J. M. Quick, R. K. Atkinson, and T. Frank,“Teaching linear circuit analysis techniques with computers,” in Proceedings of the 2013 American Society for
the Summitagenda in Appendix A). Because group input was a key objective, almost half of each panelsession was devoted to Q&A with the audience. Detailed session notes capture theconversations for these and all sessions at the Summit.6Table 1. Research-Based Panel Sessions at the Epicenter Research SummitSession Title Central Questions for PanelistsResearch on Students’ How can we learn about students’ entrepreneurialEntrepreneurial Development development through an interactive lens, i.e., the interplayand Pathways between individual characteristics and contexts? How diverse are students’ entrepreneurial pathways? What are the implications for
the inconsistent results for theresonant frequency and Q-factor measurements with respect to theoretical predictions, as somehidden circuit features are not considered at first. The “trick and think” approach describedabove in this contribution addresses measurements in the time domain, where perhaps thedisparity between underdamped and overdamped response offers a more dramatic and immediatevisual effect. Page 26.136.8References[1] “Confidence-Building in a Circuits Course,” by Ilan Gravé, in Proceedings of the ASEE 2005 Conference inPortland, OR, June 2005.[2] “Study of the phase relationships in resonant R C L circuits using a dual-trace
’ occupational aspirations. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81: 701-702. 9. NAE (National Academy of Engineering), (2008). Changing the conversation: Messages for improving public understanding of engineering. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. 10. Wixson, Karen K. (1984) Vocabulary Instruction and Children's Comprehension of Basal Stories. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, St. Petersburg, FL. 11. Schwartz, R.M., & Raphael, T.E., (1985). Concept of Definition: A Key to Improving Students' Vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 39(2): 198-205. 12. Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. 13. Sacks, H
Efficient Management of Wind Power Generation with the Application of Wind Tunnel Attachment on a Wind Turbine”. ATMAE Annual Conference, Cleveland, USA5. Dakeev, U., & Mazumder, Q., (2014). “Analysis of Wind Power Generation with Application of Wind Tunnel Attachment”, ASEE 2014-8501, 121st ASEE Annual Conference, June 13-15, 2014, Page 26.447.7 Indianapolis, USA6. Dakeev, U., Lam, C., Pung, J. (2015). “Analysis of Wind Power Generation with Wind Guide Attachment”. International Journal of Engineering Research and Innovation, 067J.7. NREL, (2015). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. www.nrel.org8. Toshio M., Shinya T. & Seeichi
. Research in Engineering Education Symposium (REES) 2015, Dublin, Ireland.3. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.4. Beddoes, K., Schimpf, C., & Pawley, A. L. (2013). Engaging Foucault to Better Understand Underrepresentation of Female STEM Faculty. ASEE Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA.5. Schimpf, C., Santiago, M. M., Hoegh, J., Banerjee, D., & Pawley, A. (2013). STEM Faculty and Parental Leave: Understanding an Institution’s Policy within a National Policy Context through Structuration Theory. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology 5, no. 2: 102-125.6. Brawner, C. E., Orr, M. K., Ohland, M. W. (2014). The Accidental Engineer. ASEE
Q Programs 1 100 151 152 1 Computer Science & Engineering MS Spring 2015 2 99 148 150 1 Petroleum Engineering ME Spring 2015 3 97 148 158 1 Computer Science & Engineering MS Spring 2015 4 95 148 153 1 Biomedical Engineering PhD Spring 2015 5 91 145 161 1 Mathematics (interdisciplinary) PhD Spring 2015 6 90 144 150 1 Aerospace Engineering MS Fall 2015 Conditional 7 87
Satisfaction Measures:question was missing). (m) Personal satisfaction from work (n) Satisfaction with quality of work unitSurvey respondents were asked “do you consider (o) Satisfaction with working conditionsyourself to be one or more of the following,” with (p) Employee empowermentthe following response categories offered: (q) Co-workers cooperation“Heterosexual or Straight,” “Gay, Lesbian, (r) Satisfaction with procedures (s) Overall job satisfactionBisexual, or Transgender,” or “Prefer not to say.”Respondents who answered “prefer not to say” were excluded from
different sections. The dataobtained for each question was analyzed using a basic excel spread sheet. The following surveyquestions (Q) were analyzed for this report.Q1. Have you taken Engineering Physics 2 or an equivalent course (electricity and magnetism) Page 26.256.3in the past? (Circle one) [Yes] [No]. 3Q2. Have you taken any other electrical eircuit related or equivalent course in the past? (Circleone) [Yes] [No].Q3. Rate in 5 (high) to 1 (low) scale, how much your previous physics background helps you tounderstand the electrical circuit concepts
Kuder-RichardsonFormula 20 approach (Equation 5). k j 1 p j q j k KR 20 1 (Equation 5) k 1 2 Where: = Kuder and Richardson Formula 20 test statistic = number of questions in concept inventory 2 σ = variance of the total scores of all people taking the test pj = number of people who answered question j correctly qj = number of people who did not answer question j correctlyResults and DiscussionFor the six questions
. Page 26.814.12Appendix A: Toys included in the review Toy Name Area of Focus Number of Reviews MindWare Imaginets Art & Other 192 MindWare Physics Physics concepts 51 Workshop MindWare Q-BA-MAZE Engineering & 51 2.0: Big Box Construction MindWare Microscope Kit Math & Science 50 & Book MindWare Chaos Tower Engineering & 43 Construction MindWare Snap Circuits Physics concepts 26 Rover MindWare Equate Math & Science 51 MindWare KEVA Engineering and 50 Contraptions (200 Plank) Construction MindWare Snap Circuits
shift, receiver position, and velocity. The high rate data arerecorded typically at 100 Hz (100 samples per second). Data types included in the high rate dataare the in-phase accumulation (I), quadrature accumulation (Q), and phase. The fullspecifications and characteristics of CASES receiver are described in detail in [10].Amongst other outputs, the CASES receiver provides the ability to obtain raw GNSS data (e.g., Page 26.819.6L1, L2 phase observables and range observables) and also data for accessing atmospheric effects(e.g. TEC, individual channel carrier to noise power ( C / N 0 ), amplitude scintillation index ( S 4
occurredwithin the last 30-45 days, from any relevant and reputed magazine or newspaper or journal. Thenews item or event should be directly related to and should meet one or more course objectives.Each student will Open the URL link and present the topic to the class for 5 minutes – what,when, where, its impact as it relates to the course learning outcome. This will be followed by abrief Q&A session. Students are assigned grades for participating in this activity. Each studenthas to complete the following tasks: identify the source and event (or news), the location of theevent/news, how is the event/news tied to the current course, and what is the importance of thenews/event. The student will also have to discuss quantification as applicable to the
), ordisagreeing (4), or strongly disagreeing (5) to specific questions (1, 2, 3, 4) in the surveydiscussed in Section 3. Table A.1. Data Collection – Sections 1 & 2. Section 1 Section 2 Q 1 2 3 4 5 Q 1 2 3 4 5 Overall 1 15 3 1 0 0 1.26 1 20 11 1 1 0 1.48 1.37 2 14 4 1 0 0 1.32 2 22 8 2 1 0 1.45 1.39 3 14 4 1 0 0 1.32 3 21 11 0 1 0 1.42 1.37 4 12 5 2 0 0 1.47 4 19 11 0 3 0 1.61