work was supported in part by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST),Taiwan, ROC, under Grant MOST 103-2511-S-224 -004 -MY3, MOST 104-2511-S-224-003-MY3, and MOST 105-2628-S-224-001-MY3.Reference 1. Torrance, E. P. (1963). Education and the creative potential. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 2. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444-454. doi: 10.1037/h0063487. 3. Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(1), 3-14. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1967.tb00002.x.4. Mackinnon, D. W. (1965). Personality and the realization of creative potential. American
in college, but notin your major? 5. Tell me about how doing PBSL in your major has affected you personally, especially inthe way you describe yourself to others. We summarized four domains based on the interviews and transcription as follows. Due tothe page limit, we only excerpt what they said corresponding to domain 4 which gives uspreliminary data related with question 1. Domain 1: What it’s like to be in the program—relationships amongst students Domain 2: What type/s of people are like to be in the program—people types Domain 3: What type/s of people are like to be in the program—type/s of yourself Domain 4: What impacts of PBSL on you are—changes of your personality or identity Student A participated in PBSL 4
recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References1. Borkowski, J. G., Carr, M., & Pressley, M. (1987). “Spontaneous” strategy use: Perspectives from metacognitive theory. Intelligence, 11(1), 61-75.2. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.3. Chopra, S. K., Shankar, P. R., & Kummamuru, S. (2013, August). MAKE: A framework to enhance metacognitive skills of engineering students. In Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE), 2013 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 612-617). IEEE.4. Cross, D. R., &
and recorded these as the naturalfrequencies, again assuming no damping in the system. The values from the multiple trials wereaveraged together to find the experimental values.Sample Student WorkUsing the theory, the dimensions of the bar and the material properties, students found the naturalfrequencies for principal axes designated as 𝑥 and 𝑧 in Table 1. Table 1: Analytically-Determined Natural Frequencies 𝜔𝑛 x-axis (rad/s) z-axis (rad/s) 1 617 494 2 1702 1361 3 3336 2669 4 5514
scenarioscan and do create spaces for workplace learning. Moreover, the examples they provided arelargely idealized and do not account for the full range of experiences newcomer engineersencounter. Thus, analysis included working recursively through the data, literature, and examplesto develop operational definitions of each variable. We deconstructed the examples provided byJacobs and Park (2009) to develop functional criteria that could be applied to journal entries todetermine the location, structure, and role of facilitator(s) within each entry, as described below.Determining location of learningJacobs and Park (2009) define on-the-job as learning that occurs “near or at the actual worksetting,” but also emphasize experienced-based learning in on
Cartesian coordinate system with the originat the initial position and upward as the positive 𝑦-direction.Example: The skier leaves the 20°surface at 10 m/s. Determine the distance 𝑑to the point where he lands [Example 13.7 in 3]. Table 1 Solution and Cognitive Load Analysis Solution Cognitive Load Analysis 𝑎𝑥 = 0, 𝑎𝑦 = −9.81 m/s2 Most students should be familiar with it so it will not be counted as a new item. 𝑣𝑥 = 10 ⋅ cos 20∘ m/s, No new item is introduced as most students should be able to figure
participated in this six-week nanotechnology summer research program in 2015 and who then integratednanotechnology into the classroom over the 2015-2016 academic school year. Second, we reportobservational data from five teachers’ nano-lessons by using a modified version of the ScienceTeacher Inquiry Rubric (STIR).5 Third, using the Student Attitudes toward STEM (S-STEM)survey,6 we present changes in these teachers’ students’ attitudes towards STEM, as well aschanges in students’ perceptions of their own 21st century skills. Lastly, we report changes instudents’ reported interests in 12 STEM careers.Table 1. Overview of Research Evaluation Questions and Methods Research Evaluation Questions Method Participant Q1
in opened to thousands of students.the author’s experience) of extremely successful software 5. PRELIMINARY RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS 3. Liberal Arts/ Other à On- 5.1 Results: the-job In the spring of 2015, NSF awarded Stevens with an S- 2. Engineering/ training STEM grant for $635K, of which $535K is for Quant Degree 4. Self taught, Bootcamps
; Morris, M. W. (2010). Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences inassertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiatingon behalf of others. Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 98, 256-267.Ameri, M., Schur, L., Adya, M., Bentley, S., McKay, P., & Kruse, D. (2015). The disabilityemployment puzzle: A field experiment on employer hiring behavior. The National Bureau ofEconomic Research. doi: 10.3386/w21560.Baker, P., & Copp, M. (1997). Gender matters most: The interaction of Gendered Expectations,Feminist Course Content, and pregnancy in student course evaluation. Teaching Sociology, 25,29-43.Barnum, P., Liden, R. C., & Ditomaso, N. (1995). Double jeopardy for women and minorities:Pay
and experiments in fluidmechanics, they generally do not possess the capabilities to perform hydrodynamic testing. Thispaper will present the work by the authors to develop a water flume that would allowhydrodynamic testing at velocities up to 2.0 m/s. The flume was constructed by anundergraduate and at a cost lower than commonly available commercial units. Both thefabrication process and the potential experiments that the flume could house are designed toimprove student learning in the area of fluid mechanics. The design is developed to be relativelycompact, with a 7’x3.5’ footprint and utilizes a commonly available single-stage centrifugalpump. Flow velocities in the test section can be varied passively by changing the insertcontaining the
, skills, and ability to solve complexproblems and to produce excellent solution(s) within the structure of the team. This concept wasfurther developed to include defining team and task, team climate, communication, and reflection(for a detailed description, please see Table 1)23-26.Design competence focused on finding and evaluating variants and recognizing and solvingcomplex design problems. These were further defined as having the ability to discover and designmultiple solutions to a given problem and to effectively evaluate those solutions to determine thebest solution, and having the ability to see the overall picture of a complex design problem, thenbreaking it into smaller, more manageable parts to solve while keeping the overall problem
Systems Engineering from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and a M.S. and Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the University of Notre Dame; her industry experience includes shipyard project management and consulting for Off-High Vehi- cles projects for GE Transportation. She was awarded the 2012 ASEE NCS Outstanding Teacher Award, 2013 Gannon University Distinguished Faculty Award and 2013-2014 Gannon University Faculty Award for Excellence in Service-Learning. She is one of the Principal Investigators of three NSF S-STEM and one ADVANCE-PAID grants.Dr. Barry J Brinkman, Gannon UniversityDr. Theresa Vitolo, Gannon University Theresa M. Vitolo is an Associate Professor (retired) in the Computer and Information Science
with accessibility codes? 3. Will the organization provide on-site orientations for students? If yes, will the orientations include the following: a. Hours available for students to be at the learning site(s) b. Informing students where to park c. Informing students of the closest public transportation options d. Procedures for checking-in at the learning site(s) e. Procedures for students and supervisors to track students’ hours f. Organizational dress-code g. Tours of the learning site(s) h. Introduction to the students’ work areas i. Introduction to other employees/volunteers j. Confidentiality training: k. Safety and emergency
indicating progression towards the deliverablesWhen the proposed projects are approved, students are required to discuss with faculty and selecta faculty member, or a group of faculty members, with expertise that are closely related to theproposed project to serve as their faculty advisor(s). Students are also required to arrange aweekly meeting with their faculty advisor(s) to report their project progress and discuss theirplans throughout the semester. As the semester progress, students will submit a mid-term reportand present orally their advancement towards the goals outlined. At the end of the first semester,students will give an oral presentation and submit a report to include the following details of theproject. • Complete design
’ understanding of thediverse uses of iteration within design.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation GraduateResearch Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-0644493. The authors would like to thank theparticipants for their time, and Mitchell Cieminski for his valuable feedback about this paper andthis study.References1 Ahmed, S., Wallace, K. M., & Blessing, L. T. M. (2003). Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks. Research in Engineering Design, 14, 1–11.2 Atman, C. J., Yasuhara, K., Adams, R. S., Barker, T. J., Turns, J., & Rhone, E. (2008). Breadth in Problem Scoping: A Comparison of Freshman and Senior Engineering
Mechanical Couplings in Engineering. Computers & Education, 54(4),1006-1019.Dollár, A. & Steif, P. (2009). A Web-Based Statics Course Used in an Inverted Classroom.Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Austin, TX.Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P., & Sorg, S. (2006). Blended Learning Enters theMainstream, In C. Bonk, & C. Graham (Eds.), The Handbook of Blended Learning: GlobalPerspectives, Local Designs (195-206), San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Ellis, P. (2010). The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes: Statistical Power, Meta-Analysis, and theInterpretation of Research Results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56-57.Fraser, B., & Treagust, D. (1986). Validity and Use of an
facilitator was aloneduring the second focus group. Although a small group, we gained valuable insights into ourquestions as the participants engaged in conversations with one another as well as the facilitator.During each session, notes were taken including verbatim comments as well as the nature of theconversation. A voice recorder was used as back up and furnished the ability to transcribehighlighted sections of the focus group that corresponded to emergent themes from the surveyfor the analysis.18 These qualitative data were added to the open-ended responses on the surveyand descriptively coded19 with the assistance of NVIVO software. Where we have excerptedquotes from the data, survey narratives (S) or focus group (F) are indicated for
. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions orrecommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the National Science Foundation.ReferencesAllen, W. (1992). The color of success: African-American college student outcomes at predominantly white and historically black public colleges and universities. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 26-45.Astin, A. W. (1982). Minorities in American higher education: Recent trends, current prospects, and recommendations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297-308.Bernier, A., Larose, S., & Soucy
national sample of teachers. American educational research journal. 2001;38(4):915-945.3. Montfort D, Brown S, Pollock D. An Investigation of Students' Conceptual Understanding in Related Sophomore to Graduate-‐‑Level Engineering and Mechanics Courses. Journal of Engineering Education. 2009;98(2):111-129.4. Vosniadou S. International handbook of research on conceptual change. New York: Routledge; 2009.5. Vosniadou S, Vamvakoussi X, Skopeliti I, Vosniadou S. The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. International handbook of research on conceptual change. 2008:3-34.6. Vosniadou S. Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and instruction
Anthony Butterfield is an Assistant Professor (Lecturing) in the Chemical Engineering Department of the University of Utah. He received his B. S. and Ph. D. from the University of Utah and a M. S. from the University of California, San Diego. His teaching responsibilities include the senior unit operations laboratory and freshman design laboratory. His research interests focus on undergraduate education, targeted drug delivery, photobioreactor design, and instrumentation. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Development and Usage of an Online Homework System in a Chemical Engineering CurriculumWe have developed an online, open-source system to administer
,CV,N) Table 6- Average visits to study materials (S) and assessment resources (A)The hypothesis tests comparing Fully Engaged (FE) and Consistent Viewers (CV) groups’average visits to assessments (A) were as follows:Test 1:Null hypothesis: µA,CV,T = µA,FE,TAlternate hypothesis: µA,CV,T < µA,FE,TTest 2:Null hypothesis: µA,CV,N = µA,FE,NAlternate hypothesis: µA,CV,N < µA,FE,NThese tests yield p-values of 0.001 for Thermoelectricity and 0.036 for Nanobiosensors. Takingthe standard threshold of p=0.05, we reject the null hypothesis in both tests and conclude thatConsistent Viewers group access assessments less frequently as compared to Fully Engagedlearners in both courses. The fact that we can accept both alternate hypotheses
, Mathematics and Science, GEMS: A science outreach program for middle-school female students. Journal Of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 14(3), 41-47.7. Demetry, C., Hubelbank, J., Blaisdell, S. L., Sontgerath, S., Nicholson, M. E., Rosenthal, E., & Quinn, P. (2009). Supporting Young Women To Enter Engineering: Long-Term Effects Of A Middle School Engineering Outreach Program For Girls. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering J Women Minor Scien Eng, 15(2), 119-142. doi:10.1615/jwomenminorscieneng.v15.i2.208. Safferman, A. G., Jeffers, A. T., & Safferman, S. I. (2004). Understanding K-12 engineering outreach programs. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
,weareexploringideastoofferanoptionalpeerreviewactivityforthefinalproject.This wouldprovidestudentsinterestedinpeerfeedbackwiththatoption,whileaccommodatingprivacyconcernsofthose wishingtokeeptheirideaslimitedtothemselvesandthefaculty.Table2aI-SeriesAssessmentRubric EachGeneralEducationcategoryisgroundedinasetoflearningoutcomes.ForthefullsetoflearningoutcomesforI-seriescoursessee:www.gened.umd.eduThisrubricisdesignedasatooltoassessactivitiesaimedatstudentgainsinthefollowlearningoutcome(s)fortheI-SeriesGeneralEducationCategory: Atthecompletionofthiscourse,studentswillbeableto
Grant and has received IRB approval fromCarnegie Mellon University.References [1] J. Hope and M. Witmore. “The hundredth Psalm to the tune of ‘Green Sleeves’: Digital approaches to Shakespeare’s language of genre.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 357-390, 2010. [2] J. Hope and M. Witmore. “The very large textual object: A prosthetic reading of Shakespeare.” Early Modern Literary Studies, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1-36, 2004. [3] D. Kaufer, C. Geisler, P. Vlachos and S. Ishizaki, S., “Mining textual knowledge for writing education and research,” in Writing and Digital Media, L. v. Waes, M. Leijten, and C. Neuwirth, Eds. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science, 2006, pp. 115-130. [4] D. Kaufer, S
Calculus Females (Actual and Normal) 60 Algebra Males 50 Algebra Females 40 Calculus-Males m = 15.8 s = 4.8 30 Calculus-Females
%), withdisciplines having an average of 26.3% women undergraduates at the schools examined.Table 1: Summary of schools included in analysis. All ASEE data (enrollment, disciplinecategories) from 2016 except for New Mexico Tech (2015) (ASEE 2015, 2016). Reg = Region(C = Central, E = Eastern, NE = Northeastern, S = Southern, SC = South Central, SW =Southwestern, MW = Midwestern, W = Western); No. ASEE Disc Cat = number of disciplinecategories (including “Other Engineering”) listed in the profile; FT = Full-time, PT = Part-time,UG = undergraduate, Fem = Female. No. ASEE Pub/ % FT % PTSchool
, MATH 1348 Analytical Geometry,Year-2 PHYS 2425/2426 Physics I/II, CHEM 1311 Inorganic Chemistry I MATH 1316 Trigonometry, MATH 1348 Analytical Geometry, MATH 3320Year-3 Differential Equations, PHYS 2425 Physics I, CHEM 1311 Inorganic Chemistry I Identify Concept(s) to be Develop Draft Module Identify Bottleneck Covered Each Week including Sample Problems/ Concepts According to Teaching Examples and Solutions (Course Instructor) Schedule
or other dataacquisition tools and analyzed.The technical objectives are achieved as follows:Experimentally, determine stress in a part by measuring strain (understand relationship betweenstress and strain in linear elastic materials): A laboratory handout was developed to allowstudents to calculate the bending stress in the beams based on an applied load (most of thestudents have not yet completed strength of materials course). Students put various loads on the 3beam (50g, 100g, 200g, 500g) and record the corresponding strain values. They calculate stressbased on beam bending theory (s=Mc/I) and compare that with the experimentally determinedvalue from the strain measurements (s=Ee).Be able to
in the field studies reported here. Any opinions,findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References1. Arnold, A. (1999). Retention and persistence in postsecondary education: A summation of research studies. Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation, 5.2. Chang, M. J., Sharkness, J., Hurtado, S., & Newman, C. B. (2014). What matters in college for retaining aspiring scientists and engineers from underrepresented racial groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 555-580.3. Hayes, R. Q., Whalen, S. K., & Cannon, B. (2009). Csrde stem retention report, 2008–2009. Center for