Paper ID #19768Improving High School Math Teachers’ Confidence and Skills in Assessmentof Engineering Project-Based LearningCatherine Garner, West Virginia University Catherine Garner is a graduate student pursuing a Master of Arts in Educational Psychology with an emphasis in Program Evaluation and Research at West Virginia University and a doctoral degree in Ed- ucation. She is a former mathematics and physics teacher who is now interested in research involving mathematics instruction.Dr. Karen E Rambo-Hernandez, West Virginia University Karen E. Rambo-Hernandez is an assistant professor of educational psychology in
pedagogically. Currently he works in one of the most technically outstanding buildings in the region where he provides support to students, faculty, and staff in implementing technology inside and outside the classroom, researching new engineering education strategies as well as the technologies to support the 21st century classroom (online and face to face). He also has assisted both the campus as well as the local community in developing technology programs that highlight student skills development in ways that engage and attract individuals towards STEAM and STEM fields by showcasing how those skills impact the current project in real-world ways that people can understand and be involved in. As part of a university that
amounts required or at the price points of the past havechallenged these companies significantly. In addition, newer technologies like 3D printing andadvanced computer methods have begun to change the game for creating and distributing music.Both of these topics and others continue to allow the instructor to relate the music-related issuesto the bigger picture of engineering and technology in general society.In response to both the growing interest in the course among high-ability students and the needsof the host university, an Honors section was created and approved. This new offering enhancesthe experience of these students by requiring the completion of a guitar design project. Startingwith basic guitar parts, student teams must identify
activities that maintain the going concerns of their workplaces, which areuniversities. Engineering research is of course a form of engineering work, but itsaccountabilities are clearly different from the work practices of engineering professionals outsideof academia who are involved in realizing engineering projects” (Stevens & Johri & O’Connor,2013, 132). In this paper, the gap will be focused the on how students are taught to solvecomplex problems and how professionals solve complex problems in industry. This gap isexplored by interviewing engineering professionals on the tools and techniques they use in theirdaily work to solve complex problems.The academia-industry gap is caused by a disconnect between industry expectations and
notable exceptions,including Smith College’s “Engineering for Everyone” course, Wellesley’s “Making aDifference Through Engineering” and Hope College’s “Science and Technology in EverydayLife” (see the “Engineering-Enhanced Liberal Education Project” on the ASEE website foradditional detail), courses focused on engineering and the engineered world and accessible to awide array of undergraduate students are not widespread in the liberal arts college environment.There are many reasons for this, ranging from lack of faculty expertise, tools, and design spacesto philosophically-related suspicions that engineering is a theoretically impoverished and/or “tooprofessional” field of study, as well as the idea that the everyday technological world as a
start of the programand growing to 400-500 students across seven courses after three years. The courses werecapped at 80 students per course and often had a waiting list indicating unmet demand fromstudents. Faculty engagement was engendered through “teaching exchange” meetings threetimes per semester to discuss issues with running group projects, student teaming, peerevaluation and other topics of mutual interest. Assessment of student performance was discussedbut proved difficult due to the breadth of the courses in the project spanning engineering, physics,entomology, atmospheric science, agricultural science and geology. This was revisited when theI-Series courses were developed (see Tables 1 and 2).The model of the Marquee courses was
Technology.Dr. A. Mehran Shahhosseini, Indiana State University A. Mehran Shahhosseini is an Associate Professor in the Department of Applied Engineering and Tech- nology Management at Indiana State University. He has published over 45 articles in different journals and conference proceedings. He has served as an investigator for research projects sponsored by National Science Foundation, Ford Motor Company, and the US Army. Before working at Indiana State Univer- sity, he was a faculty in the University of Louisville for 10 years. He also has over four years of industrial experience. He received his D.Eng. degree in Mechanical Engineering from Lamar University (USA) in 1999, M.Sc. in Materials Engineering from Isfahan
Professor of Mechanical Engineering at CU-Boulder. She teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in measurement techniques, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, heat transfer, design and computer tools. She has pioneered a spectacular course on the art and physics of flow visualization, and is conducting research on the impact of the course with respect to visual perception and educational outcomes. Her disciplinary research centers around pulsatile, vortex dominated flows with applications in both combustion and bio-fluid dynamics. She is also interested in a variety of flow field measurement techniques. Current projects include electrospray atomization of jet fuel and velocity and vorticity in human cardiac ventricles and
change, and to denote measures of technical competence. Thesteady rise starting around 1980 coincides with the time that personal computers became bothpopular and affordable; for example the IBM PC was introduced in 1981. The accessibilityof technology to all age groups has only grown since then (Mawson, 2007). The 1980’s wasalso the decade technological literacy began to come under increasing consideration in highereducation by policy makers (The Committee to Idenfity Critical Issues in Federal Support forScience and Technology, 1986), foundations such as Sloan (Florman, 1987), and the AAASthrough Project 2061 (Rutherford, 1989).The 1990’s saw increasing interest in technological literacy at the policy level (The Board forEngineering Education
represented by the heights. All four “buildings” are placed on a two-by-four,which is mounted on a set of wheels. Figure 2. Predict: Students are asked to predict the outcome.Students are asked to predict which buildings will sway the most in an “earthquake”, where theearthquake is simulated by the instructor by oscillating the two-by-four base on wheels. Theprediction is done by online polling, where students can observe the class results. In the twoyears (2015 and 2016) that this interactive demonstration was done, the results were similar tothat shown in Figure3. Figure 3. Predict: Students’ online prediction of the demonstration. (2015 poll shown).With Figure 3 projecting on the screen, the instructor then shakes the base with
Literacy to the Philosophy of Technology and Technological Citizenship: A Progress ReportI. IntroductionIn the last paper I presented in this division of ASEE (Neeley, 2006), I complained that it wasdistressing to see a group with such an ambitious and worthwhile project saddled with a namethat provided so little insight into its character and potential. The opening sections of TechnicallySpeaking: Why All Americans Need to Know More about Technology (2002), a joint publicationof the National Research Council and the National Academy of Engineering, make it clear thatthe initiative called “technological literacy” is concerned with a sophisticated and heterogeneouscombination of “knowledge, ways of thinking, and capabilities” and
engineering as well as exciting students through open- ended projects and applications. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 A Framework for an Engineering Reasoning Test and Preliminary Results.The work reported here describes the development and initial testing of a framework to helpassess the broad understanding of technology by individuals who are not specifically educated asengineers. It is generally accepted that technology is essential to our current lifestyles and well-being, and the importance of engineering to economic prosperity is commonly acknowledged.However limited work has been done determine the extent to which undergraduates possess ageneral understanding of the principles, products
technologies evoke a visceral response. This is dueprimarily to two factors, the degree to which they or their effects are unknown, and the potentialfor dread that their impact may create. These psychological factors have been cited by Slovic andWeber 13, among others, as the source of perceived risk form technology (figure 1).Figure 1: Psychological factors affecting perception of risk, adapted from Slovic and Weber.In a study by Kahan and Rejeski associated with the Woodrow Wilson International Center forScholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, they determined that members of the publicform a rapid, visceral, emotional response when evaluating nanotechnology risks 14. When askedto consider balanced information about nanotechnology risks and
., Haynes, A., & Redding, M. (2007). Project CAT: Assessing critical thinking skills. In Proceedings of the 2006 National STEM Assessment Conference, Deeds, D, and Callen, B.(eds) Springfiled, MO: Drury University.24. Stein, B., Haynes, A., Redding, M., Harris, K., Tylka, M., & Lisic, E. (2010). Faculty driven assessment of critical thinking: national dissemination of the cat instrument. In Technological Developments in Networking, Education and Automation (pp. 55-58). Springer Netherlands.25. 26.
understood by learning. For each school subject there must be a corresponding academic discipline as represented in the universities. Because the disciplines are dynamic they are concerned as much with “what will be” as with “what was” [14]. That this is so, is illustrated by the great curriculum projects that were undertaken in the sixties and seventies because in the U.S. teachers did not have the resources to undertake such developments which normally be considered to be part of the role of the teacher functioning in this ideology [15]. The scholar academic ideology is teacher centred. Information is conveyed to the mind which reasons about it, as required. Learning is the result of teaching [16]. Because each
. Hilgarth, R. Libros, M. Mina, and S.R. Walk,“Defining Engineering and Technological Literacy,” 2012 ASEE Annual Conference, Paper No.AC 2012-5100. San Antonio, TX. (2012)2. AAAS. Project 2061: Benchmarks for Science Literacy, American Association for theAdvancement of Science, Oxford University Press. (1993)3. NAE. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving the Public Understanding ofEngineering. Committee on Public Understanding of Engineering Messages. National Academyof Engineering. Washington, D.C., National Academies Press. (2008)4. D. Klein, and R. Balmer, “Liberal Arts and Technological Literacy,” 2006 ASEE AnnualConference, Paper No. 2006-912, Chicago, IL. (2006)5. International Technology Education Association, Standards for