clearly reflect values, and, as they areabsorbed into the culture, contribute to changing societal norms. Langdon Winner examined thisargument in his seminal 1986 The Whale and the Reactor. As Winner notes, the meaning oftechnology extends beyond simple usage; technologies play a role in reshaping that activity andhence changing its meaning.1 This echoes a sentiment expressed two decades earlier by MarshallMcLuhan, that our tools reshape who we are as humans. The relationship is reciprocal: we shapeour tools and they, in turn, shape us.2If technological artifacts are indeed value-laden and shape cultural mores, this has significantrepercussions for engineering educators. Our students cannot design in a vacuum; they mustconsider how that
across various professional contextsconceive of and frame the ethical dimensions of their work can assist with future cross-sectordialogue, and potentially conflict resolution. In this paper, we present the results to date of atwo-year NSF-funded project which employs a novel approach for comparative analyses ofmeanings of responsible innovation (RI) and ethics in genetic engineering, biotechnology, andsynthetic biology, while cultivating socially-responsible cultures of research and development(R&D) among graduate students, faculty, and practitioners.The project innovates in four key respects: 1) it focuses on bioengineering, specifically in areasin which engineering ethics programs have not routinely been applied--genetic engineering
pedagogy and an investigation of theinstructional videos in a 3 credit hour lab course, Introduction to Engineering and Design at NewYork University Tandon School of Engineering. The main objectives in using the flipped labapproach in the first year course were to 1) provide pre-laboratory information for hands-on labactivities, 2) assist students with the visualization of conceptual, text-based course content, 3)help the students formulate questions for problem solving in the lab or course, and 4) reinforcecontent retention and learning after the completion of the lab. These goals lead to the initiative todevelop a series of instructional videos for laboratory and design project skills. The first video,"Introduction to the NI Elvis Board," was
/rationale for each judgment—an opportunityfor judges to justify their decisions for each comparison. These comments can “follow” therespective student items and be used to increase learning and understanding of the final rankingfor each item (Bartholomew, 2017, Bartholomew et al., 2017).Methodology This study collected data from two sources: 1) the design notebooks and testing results ofdesigns from 16 undergraduate engineering students (4 female and 12 male) who were withintheir first-year of an engineering major, and 2) the ACJ ranking of student portfolios by a panelof five judges with a background in assessing design. The student participants had an averageage of 20 years and were enrolled in the first required introductory engineering
challenging courses that colleges expect of prospective engineering students [6].The most effective way to turn things around is to provide coursework in middle and highschool to give students a sense of what STEM courses entail at the college level [1]. TheK-12 pipeline is expected to have an inevitable majority of underrepresented minoritiesand should be a major focal point of intervention to cultivate the diverse talent poolneeded to sustain the nation’s future in STEM [5]. There is a lack of STEM awarenessand programming in the K-12 pipeline in targeted high schools, but a large need forSTEM in the workforce [5]. One current approach to address the achievement gap is theimplementation of the MITE Enrichment Program at The University of Texas at
related corecourse, and looks at these math, chemistry, or physics concepts in the context ofengineering topics. This work aims to preliminarily assess the effectiveness of this newundergraduate engineering retention program recently implemented at CSU, under thehypothesis that LLs will improve retention of engineering students between their first-and second-semester courses. The results of this study are expected to inform andimprove future iterations of this program, as this model is not expected to be withoutflaws in its first implementation.More specifically, this study examines the effectiveness of this Learning Lab model bylooking at a combination of (1) Learning Lab attendance data, (2) first-year engineeringstudent feedback (taking
. Staehle is also particularly interested in chemical, bio-, and biomedical engineering education. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Evaluating the Impact of Online Delivery of a Process Dynamics and Control CourseProcess Dynamics and Control is a required course in most Chemical Engineering programs.Students typically find the material challenging, and for some, the subject seems divorced fromthe remainder of the curriculum. In fact, some students claim that it feels as though they arelearning another language. To address this and to improve learning, instructors have utilized avariety of pedagogical approaches [1-36]. A recent survey found that a large
socialenvironment enable complex behavior” [1]. With researchers already pushing the boundaries ofknowledge with teaching, learning, and practice of complex engineering skills, the field ofengineering education is well poised to partner with cognitive neuroscientists, developmentalpsychologists, and others to consider how neuroimaging can complement or supplement pressingresearch questions.In the first section of this paper we provide an overview of cognitive neuroscience basics thatwill enable a broader discussion of salient opportunities and challenges of integratingengineering education and neuroscience research. The second section transitions from thediscussion of overarching rationale to a specific focus on engineering problem-solving anddesign
willlikely stay the same if the state accountability tests are only measuring basic recall of facts andcomprehension skills.AcknowledgementsThe author would like to acknowledge the financial support provided by the U.S. NationalScience Foundation Award, DRL-1102990. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, and/orrecommendations are those of the investigators and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe Foundation. References Anderson, K. J. B. (2012). Science education and test-based accountability: Reviewing their relationship and exploring implications for future policy. Science Education, 96(1), 104-129. doi:10.1002/sce.20464Blanchard, M.R., Southerland, S.A., Osborne, J.W., Sampson, V.D., Leonard, L.A., & Granger, E.M. (2010). Is
homework assignments with paper homework assignmentsfrom the textbook in an introductory statistics course and found that students who used thecomputer-based homework performed better. Reports of students preferring online homeworkand performing better on exams in physics,2,6 chemistry,7,8 and calculus 9,10 are available. Whileit seems online homework is superior, counter examples can also be found. For example,Bonham, et al., compared online homework to paper homework in an introductory physicscourse and found no statistical difference in student performance.11 Hauk and Segalla found nodifference between online homework and paper homework in an algebra course.1 Cheng, et. al,evaluated graded and non-graded paper and online homework along with
practiced educational methodology used in many highereducational institutions [1]. Instructors usually assign their project components as part of theirclass assessment component before the semester ends. Students usually work in a group andcomplete the deliverables of the assigned projects. Senior Design Projects or Capstones (as part ofan ABET [2] or ATMAE accreditation [3]) are advanced versions of this practice and their tasksand expectations are usually larger than the project based learning expectations.Summer long research projects are usually referred to as Research for Undergraduates (REU) andthey last between eight and ten weeks. Research students work on their assigned projects inintensive research meetings, trainings, laboratory
work at INSPIRE, Elizabeth was a district curriculum math specialist in San Antonio, TX and a middle school mathematics teacher at a Title 1 school in Waco, TX. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Evidence-Based Reasoning in a Kindergarten Classroom through an Integrated STEM Curriculum (Fundamental)BackgroundEngineering is no longer an uncommon addition to P-12 classrooms. Basic engineeringguidelines and practices have been suggested for precollege students in a number of reports andarticles, including the Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts,and Core Ideas.1 Among the eight essential practices in science and engineering is the practice
will encourage others to discuss the merits of evaluating andupgrading power systems courses as they find similar challenges in their path.References[1] Schaum’s Outlines – Electric Machines and Electromechanics , Syed Nasar[2] Schaum’s Outlines – Electric Power Systems, Syed Nasar[3] A Student’s Guide to Maxwell’s Equations , Daniel Fleisch[4] Rotating Electric Machinery and Transformer Technology, Richardson and Cassie, Prentice Hall, 4 th Edition[5] Electric Machines – Principles, Applications, and Control Schematics, Dino Zorbas, Cengage[6] Principles of Electric Machines and Power Electronics, 2nd, PC Sen, Prentice-HallAppendix AThe course taught prior to 2013TEXT: “Rotating Electric Machinery and Transformer
team-based projects. Given that research in studentlearning consistently shows that active learning and higher student participation leads to betterlearning outcomes [1][2], we have recently modified the course to increase student participationby requiring that students: a) do MATLAB reading and exercises in advance of the lecture time,b) utilize an in-class interaction system, c) use MATLAB on their laptops for in-class exercises,and d) attend programming labs. Given that ECE 102 does not deal with programming alone, wehave faced a problem of students passing the class without learning basic programming skills - acommon problem in any course in which students can collect partial credit. We are attempting toaddress this through pass/no-pass
study of over22,000 undergraduate students in the United States, with the stated goals of (1) exploring thecomparative effects of service learning and on the cognitive and affective development ofcollege undergraduates, and (2) enhance the understanding of how learning is enriched byservice. The study found that the single most important factor associated with a positive servicelearning experience is the student’s degree of interest in the subject matter, how the experienceenhances the understanding of academic course materials, and if the service is viewed as alearning experience.Batie (2007) describes a service learning course completed at East Carolina University with thepurpose of allowing “students to experience the realities of renovation
, in higher education it is common to find that facultymembers are evaluated for their work in three principal areas: scholarship, teaching, and service.However, these areas are not necessarily held in the same regard vis-à-vis institutional orscholarly respect. Work output is most typically defined as productivity of refereed publicationsand grants obtained and not primarily in terms of teaching or advising students.1, 2In recent years, organizations such as the National Science Foundation have promoted theconnection between teaching and research, such as through the Engineering Research CentersProgram. However, evidence exists that faculty who emphasize teaching and advising more thanresearch are not viewed as role models in academia
student outcomes withinan engineering competition. We specifically examined student discourse as related to the ABET(2013) technical outcomes including (outcome a) content knowledge, (outcome b)experimentation, (outcome c) design, outcome (e) problem solving, and outcome (k) use of tools.These outcomes are critical to becoming an engineer (Balascio, 2014). Our research questionsincluded:1. How do students describe their learning experiences within engineering competitions?2. What is the nature of their reflective discourse that revealed their learning?This paper is a work in progress has not yet been completed.Methods. The design for the study was qualitative. Qualitative methods provided the means tounderstand students’ learning using students
theoretical framework for this study is based on Engagement Theory9. In EngagementTheory, students are to work on collaborative teams to complete meaningful, authentic project.The main aspects of Engagement Theory, relate, create, and donate are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Engagement Theory [9], adapted from [4]To examine the impact of the software design project, a survey was used to ask the students 8Likert scale questions and an open-ended question about their experience with the project. TheseLikert scale questions are a subset of those used in Ref [4] which was used as the foundation forthis work. The Likert scale questions were designed to study aspects of the “relate-create-donate” model of Engagement Theory. The
students [1]. Furthermore, according to a study [7] that surveyed 45 randomly selectedU.S. based institutions, online learning offers new avenues and challenges to educationalinstruction. The study urged further research not only in providing online educationalopportunities but also in achieving the highest educational quality through this medium.Although online classes have shown promise in other fields of education, limited studies haveexplored their effects in engineering education. A study [9] conducted in 2005 made a strongargument for the use of online courses for engineering education. It predicted that if onlineeducation was to become widespread, the trend of seeing online tools to teach blended classeswould become popular. It also
low-cost pipe flow experiments in large Mechanical Engineeringlecture classrooms to examine how hands-on active learning can supplement moretraditional lecture classes to deepen student understanding of engineering principles.The low-cost pipe flow experiment was fabricated using a four step approach: (1) thegeometry of the pipe flow experiment was defined using CAD software, (2) A plasticmold of the experiment was 3-D printed using rapid prototyping, (3) the experimentalgeometry was molded in thin plastic sheets using vacuum forming, and (4) the finalexperiment was assembled from the vacuum formed sheets to produce multiple copies ofthe experiment. The resulting experimental hardware was simple, robust and inexpensiveenough to distribute
the incremental version of the tool. Those participants were inconsistent in shifting theirideas. Case examples were explored to gain insight into the ways in which the tool was effectiveas well as how it could be improved.IntroductionEngineering students and practicing engineers are constantly faced with new and complexproblems. They must develop creative solutions in order to address the issues before them, andideation is a critical part of the design process used to realize these solutions. Prior research hasshown that both novice and experienced designers are susceptible to what is called “designfixation.”1–3 Design fixation may stem from a designer self-imposing constraints and artificiallylimiting the solution space, which in turn
corresponding convolution operations. The basis function resultscan be found from pencil-and-paper calculations or computed using MATLAB.MATLAB can also be used to approximately compute the continuous time convolution of awider class of signals than the piece-wise polynomial class. In a third assignment studentscompare the results of analytical convolution to those obtained approximately using MATLABand also to those obtained from circuit simulation.Theory ReviewA set of generalized delta functions1, 2 can be defined as: δ 0 (t ) = δ (t) t δ 1(t ) = ∫ δ 0 ( τ)d τ=u (t
fuels has been theprincipal driver for much of today’s energy research. While the price of oil has been at historicallylow levels over the last two years (2014-2016), predictions of production limits by TheOrganization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have contributed to the most recent boutof price instability [1]. In addition to economic concerns, the environmental impacts of traditionalfossil fuels (FF) cannot be ignored. Significant changes to global ecosystems through both theacquisition and use of FF have been witnessed within the last seven years [2-3]. The catastrophicexplosion of the Deep Water Horizon oil rig in 2010 has left an indelible mark on sensitive coastalecosystems along the US Gulf Coast, with impacts likely to be
. This semester youcan expound the items you will use if you so choose. The maximum budget is $5.00. (Any changes to thiswill require a signed change order by instructor!) In addition, you can use any materials that theOWNER can successfully negotiate from an outside party at no cost.INSTRUCTIONSNOTE: All submissions (except the final product) from any group must be turned into the instructor aswell as to the other parties involved. 1. Groups of 3 students will be selected. Each of you will be assigned a role of either Owner, Architect (Designer/Consultant), or Contractor (Project Manager/Builder). 2. The first day of this project some of you will be assigned to be an Owner. Your task that is due 1 week from the class period
it asshown in Figure 1. The application allows the user to (a) change the level of water in the tank,(b) choose one of two objects to immerse (with planar or curved surfaces), (c) toggle betweenshowing and hiding the forces applied on the walls of the tank and on the surfaces of theimmersed object, and (d) change the density of arrows used to depict the distribution of forces.Mouse and keyboard controls are used to adjust the viewing direction and distance, and to shiftthe point of focus to any point within the tank to examine objects and force distributions closelyfrom any angle around the tank. The most recent version of the simulation is available athttp://vel.engr.uga.edu/apps/VRFluidStaticsWeb/Classroom trialThe VR simulation was
nuanced connectionsbetween individual and project characteristics, while thematic analysis demonstrated threegeneral pathways to more comprehensive categories, including (1) comprehensiveness of theinnovation project experience, (2) connections between project goals and an individuals’interests and values, and (3) acute or persistent tensions between current perspectives andinnovation experiences. We discuss these results in depth and describe implications for teachingand learning engineering innovation.IntroductionInnovation is a complex and challenging phenomenon with economic, societal, and humanisticimplications. These implications are particularly important in the field of engineering, whereinnovativeness is considered a key competency and
are connected. Future work should also include analyzing the qualitative dataprovided in these surveys.IntroductionEngineering identity is one avenue that engineering educators can use to help improveretention4,5. Engineering identity is described as “the process of identifying with engineering,developing an engineer identity, and becoming an engineer”6 (pp. 1-2). Engineering identity isidentified as an important concept to consider in order to retain females and minority students orthose who are underrepresented in engineering4–7. The goal for incorporating engineeringidentity in the common Introduction to Engineering course was to help improve retention andpersistence of students by having them identify themselves early as engineers.The
-science students at amid-sized, private university in the United States. The instrument was based on modification of prior surveyinstruments on mindset as well as student interpretation of talent and intelligence. With nearly 1/3 of the studentsresponding, a significant data base was generated for student of mindset and student perceptions. In the presentpaper, a portion of the survey results are analyzed in an effort to explore: (i) what diversity of mindset is carried byfirst-year students into the university experience, (ii) how mindset evolves during the undergraduate experience, and(iii) whether differences in mindset can be identified by gender or discipline. Through multiple statistical analyses,the survey results indicate that the
’ views of science, few studies have investigated how teachers understand and grapplewith the NOS as they are learning about Nature of Engineering (NOE) and how it affects theirviews of teaching. I am also interested in how teachers view the two content areas in relation toeach other and how they can be integrated within the classroom. The research method employedby this study is qualitative in nature. An exploratory case study design was utilized to developan in-depth understanding of how these teachers view of NOE and its relationship to science andthe pedagogical similarities, differences, and relationship between the two disciplines. Beloware the guiding research questions for this study. 1) How does teaching engineering affects the way
Boulder to probe correlations between the amount of course choice andtechnical—non-technical curricular balance provided by a given program and the program’s 1)median time to degree, 2) six-year graduation rate, 3) average GPA, and 4) percentage ofbachelor’s degrees earned by women. Results were mixed as to the potential benefits of flexible,balanced engineering programs, and numerous confounding factors were present in the study.Cross-institutional research that mitigates confounding factors is needed to further explorecorrelations between engineering program curricular choice opportunities, balance andeducational outcomes.IntroductionAutonomy, satisfied through choice, is a fundamental human need.1,2 Promoting a sense ofchoice has been linked