29 Project based learning 27 66* Reflections 24 36 In-class debates and/or role plays 18 20 Think-pair-share 13 21 Service-learning, community engagement, and/or LTS 10 29* Problem solving heuristics 10 9 Humanist readings 10 7 Moral exemplars 8 5 Other(s
Undergraduate Degree Programs in Software Engineering, [Webpage], Retrieved January 29, 2017 from URL http://sites.computer.org/ccse/SE2004Volume.pdf [5]. The Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula: IEEE-CS and ACM, (2015), Software Engineering 2014 Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Software Engineering, [Webpage], Retrieved January 29, 2017 from URL https://www.acm.org/education/se2014.pdf [6]. Acharya, S., Ackerman, A. (2012), Software Engineering Education Needs more Engineering, ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition – Software Engineering Constituent Committee, June 10 – 13 – San Antonio, TX[7]. McGraw, G. Software Security - Building Security In, Addition-Wesley
Many small low-resolution graphic display modules are available for embedded systemprototyping. A 2.4-inch 320-by-240 TFT module is shown in Figure 6. The module is abreakout board that contains a TFT display and an ILI9341 chip. The ILI9341 device is a TFTdriver with an integrated graphic RAM and an interface circuit 9. The ILI9341 device supportsthe 16-bit color (5-bit red, 6-bit green, and 5-bit blue). The graphic RAM constitutes the framebuffer. The external host writes the pixel data to the RAM and the LCD control circuit fetchesthe data and sets the pixel colors. ILI9341’s interface supports both serial and parallel transfers.The former is done by SPI lines and the latter is achieved by 8080-like memory access. To saveI/O pins, the
implementation. Computer Physics Communications, 91(1-3):43–56, 1995. [4] M. Borrego and C. Henderson. Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in stem higher education: A comparison of eight change strategies. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2): 220–252, 2014. [5] C. H. Crouch and E. Mazur. Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 2001. [6] A. Dorogoy and D. Rittel. Determination of the johnson-cook material parameters using the scs specimen. Experimental Mechanics, 49:881–885, 2009. [7] P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, and et al. Quantum espresso: a modular and open-source software project for quantum simulations of materials. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 21(39
infirst-year programs in the college and across the university. Integration was further bolstered bycohorting student participants and through the development and use of a new advising toolknown as the Golden Eagle Flight Plan (GEFP), which allows each student and his/her advisor(s)to keep track of the student’s academic progress, career development and communityengagement. The 32 FYrE students (treatment group) were compared to a concurrent, matchedControl Group (CG-2) of 33 students from the same entering class who participated in thesummer bridge program but none of the other FYrE interventions; and a historical Control Group(CG-3) with 33 students from the previous year who participated in the previous version of thesummer bridge program
facultymember in an intentional and proactive mode that supports one’s goals.AcknowledgmentsThis time management framework and curation of resources is based on professionaldevelopment workshops created for and implemented with the faculty at the University ofSouthern Indiana by its Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning. Support was providedby an AAC&U Bringing Theory to Practice grant.ReferencesBernazzani, S. (2016). 20 Productive Things to Do During Your Downtime. https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/productive-holiday-ideasBoice R. (1997). Which is more productive, writing in binge patterns of creative illness or in moderation? Written Communication, 14, 435-459.Brans, P. (2013). The Top Ten Challenges in Time Management
stakeholdersand students’ investment of time in their extracurricular Maker activities. Pines, et al. suggestthat establishing maker curriculum in addition to the traditional curriculum has allowed for thedevelopment of broader skillsets which cover knowledge beyond engineering, includingteamwork, creativity, innovation, collaboration, critical thinking, project management, andsystems engineering. These skills are highly valued in the technical workforce but not alwayspracticed or developed in formal education settings.Oplinger et al.’s “Making and Engineering: Understanding Similarities and Differences” [6]covers a general survey which shows that both making and engineering are perceived to beactive, project developing fields. Stronger correlations are
cultural landscape in engineering education. J Eng Educ. 2010;69(1):5-22.3. Myer M, Marx S. Engineering Dropouts : A Qualitative Examination of Why Undergraduates Leave Engineering. J Eng Educ. 2014;103(4):525-548.4. Gregory S. African American Female Engineering Students’ Persistence in Stereotype- Theatening Environments: A Critical Race Theory Perspective. 2015.5. Ohland M, Brawner C, Camacho M, Layton R, Long R, Lord S, Wasburn M. Race, gender, and measures of success in engineering education. J Eng Educ. 2011;100(2):225- 252.6. Espinoza A. The College Experiences of First-Generation College Latino Students in Engineering. J Latin/Latin Am Stud. 2013;5(2):71-84.7. McLoughlin L. Spotlighting
) SurveyReflection Survey Week 16 39/64 students Qualtrics Online (end-semester) SurveyData Analysis Method Data analysis used in this study followed Miles et al.’s (2014) construct consisting of“data condensation, data display, and conclusions drawing/verification” activities (Chapter 1,Section 7, para. 1). According to the authors, all of these activities are part of the interactive,cyclical process of analysis. The goal of data condensation is to “sharpen, sort, focus, discard,and organize data…so that conclusions can be drawn and verified” (Miles et al., 2014, Chapter 1,Section 7, para. 2). The goal of the data display activity is “to put together organized
Proposal Submission and Funding Outcomes Data for Cohort 1, 2, 3, and 4.Table 2Proposal Submission and Funding Outcomes Data Cohort Colleges #1 #2 #3 #4 # Project Succes (2013) (2014) (2015) (2016) Colleges s Rate Colleges Selected for 20 20 21 20 81 Project Cohort Cohort Colleges that 18 18 18 16 70 70/81, Submitted NSF-ATE 86.4% Proposals Cohort Colleges that 14 16 17 16 63 63/70, Submitted to Small
of student work that illustrate grader misuse of rubrics and issues withreporting numbers.In each of Figure 4’s three examples, the student failed to acknowledge that the 9g and 30gpredictions fell outside the range of the original data. According to the rubric, this shouldautomatically drop all three students to no higher than “underachieved,” as one of the two piecesof evidence for achievement is not demonstrated. However, we can see that for students A and B,the graders assigned marks of “partially achieved” and “fully achieved.” This immediatelyindicates that the grader is either not using the rubric, does not understand the rubric, or does notcare to follow the rubric and reasonably indicates insufficient oversight (given that this
incomplete or unclear.Reflections are rigid, and if a given participant does not think or want to elaborate in response toa given prompt, s/he does not need to. In light of such limitations, the example presented inFigure 4 shows the reflection activity and interview being used in tandem to build a morecomprehensive understanding of one of Mary’s boundary spanning work situations.Reflection As being part of the validation team, I was to test and evaluate different modules in a certain sequence on many different types of modules. I was to report everything in a document that the persons in charge of the modules can talk with me and see the report as well as my supervisor whom I report directly to. If an
legos to interest high school students and improve k12 stem education," Frontiers in Education, 2003. FIE 2003. 33rd Annual , vol.2, no., pp. F3A_6- F3A_10, 5-8, 2003.18. B. Barker and J.Ansorge, "Robotics as Means to Increase Achievement Scores in an Informal Learning Environment, Journal of Research on Technology in Education 39(3), 229–243, 2007.19. Nourbakhsh, I., Crowley, K., Bhave, A., hamner, E., Hsium, T., Perez-Bergquist, A., Richards, S., & Wilkinson, K., "The robotic autonomy mobile robots course: Robot design, curriculum design, and educational assessment", Autonomous Robots, 18(1), 103–127, 2005.20. Beer, R. D., Chiel, h. J., & Drushel, R., "Using robotics to teach science and engineering
of framing an engineering problem as being composed of discretesystems, the Circle Way recognizes that the parts are not only interacting, but that the boundariesbetween them are shifting, arbitrary, and often far from clear. The Circle Way challengesparticipants to shift their orientation from a collection of individuals to a co-creating community.For instance, consider a technical project team: one typical approach would be to break down theproject into the electrical, mechanical, and software (etc.) engineering sub-projects, assign eachto the student(s) of that major, and integrate the completed parts into the whole system at thevery end. If instead students used the Circle Way approach to discuss and share ideas about thewhole project
, oral, visual, electronic) and outcomes(including ABET alignments) as collected by our two years of student survey data. Theincredible success of Year1’s quantitative findings are outlined in full. For example, in responseto our communicative self-efficacy survey, the scores across all communicative modalitiesincreased substantially (changing from low-medium to mid-high range) for all the studentstaking the pilot. In addition, on 17 of the 23 items on the survey, 80% of the pilot students scoredin the high range. We believe that it safe to claim that the pilot has had a profound and verypositive impact on students’ reported communicative self-efficacy in MAE engineering contexts.IntroductionCommunication is ubiquitous in the lives of
work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate ResearchFellowship Program under Grant No. 1651272. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions orrecommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the National Science Foundation.ReferencesAmbrose, S. A. (2010). How learning works : seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Ammar, S., & Wright, R. (1999). Experiential learning activities in Operations Management. International Transactions in Operational Research, 6(2), 183.Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative Analysis on Stage: Making the Research Process More Public. Educational
thinking part). Forengineering students, this will be followed by reflection on engineering solutions to improve thecase-study framework (the doing part), and making a presentation on their alternate solution(s) toa group of professional engineers (the knowing part). It is hoped that these students, when theyeventually choose a capstone design project in their senior year, will build a relevant engineeringsolution (the making part). By monitoring these various stages with rubrics, we will be able toput the process on a firmer footing to learn from and improve.Assessment Strategy:Bransford et al. (2000), a National Research Council sponsored committee on developments inthe science of learning, recommend conducting research on formative assessment
another and with their mentor(s). The written charter also allows teamsto agree to a code of conduct with which they are expected to adhere and also to determine teammeeting times. A signed copy of this document is submitted to the teaching staff as a reference forthe duration of the program. (iii) Research Background Presentation. Two weeks after teams are formed and students haveample time to meet with their mentors to discuss the background and project details, they providea 5 minute presentation to the class. This presentation provides background information on theresearch project, details for what they intend to accomplish during the semester, and a briefoverview of their research plan. (iv) Final Research Poster. Teams present their
team and client. Other attitude(s): __________________Part 2. Click and drag the items below to rank them (1 = most dominant, 2 = next, etc.)I want to learn and grow expertise through the project.I want to work as a team in developing a design solution.I want to accomplish work that shows my abilities to others.It important to me that I fulfill my obligations to team and client.The attitude assessment is administered once at the beginning of the project and once at the endof the project. The initial distribution of attitudes and final distribution provides evidence ofstudent motivational attitude changes as affected by their project experiences.Behavior. The motivational behavior instrument is distributed second in the students
are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation. ReferencesCharmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, Calif; London: Sage.Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage Publications.Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual review of psychology, 53(1), 109-132.Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, Calif U6 Book: Sociology
andorganizations in engineering education, with a view to governance structures. Then we offer amore in depth comparison of ABET’s development of Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC 2000) withthe current proposed revisions as they have unfolded. We seek to develop insights on the role ofgovernance in effecting change in engineering education, and specifically on historical changesin ABET’s processes for decision making and theories of change. These insights will point topossible interventions in governance structures to facilitate more inclusive participation in settingfuture directions for engineering education.IntroductionABET, Inc.’s proposed changes to Criteria 3 and 5 of the Engineering Accreditation Criteria,now in their third round of review and comment
is, students reported parent(s)/guardian(s) completed a “bachelor’sdegree” or “master’s degree or higher;” 20% (n2 = 596) were first-generation college students(FGCS), that is, students reported both parents/guardians obtained “less than a high schooldiploma,” “high school diploma/GED,” or “some college or associate/trade degree;” and 8% (n3 =228) did not report their parent’s educational background. Students that did not report parent’seducation level were eliminated from the study. First, we tested the internal consistency of thethree constructs in each of the subject-related identity measures (i.e., performance/competence,interest, and recognition). Analysis yielded Cronbach alpha values of α = 0.89 for physics interest,α = 0.89 for
pursue STEM.Confidence boosting activities play a bigger role in the middle school program to empowerparticipants to overcome negative messages and improve self-efficacy.A third camp was introduced in the late 2000’s after receiving multiple inquiries and interestabout a similar program for boys. The OPTIONS camp for boys is hosted as a day camp, not aresidential experience, on the university campus and includes many of the same components asthe programs for girls. Mentors and networking are not as heavily emphasized in the camp formiddle school boys; workshops with hands-on learning and industry tours are coordinated tointroduce the young men to the myriad of opportunities engineering presents.After 25 years of operation, the essential
(91)90020-TAjzen, I. (2002), Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665-83.Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749- 5978(91)90022-LBoyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The Influence of Self-Efficacy on the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions and Actions. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 18(4), 63- 77.Call, B. J., Goodridge, W. H., & Scheaffer, M. (2016). Entrepreneurial curriculum in an Engineering Technical Communication course: Looking for impact