lab sessions were used for project-based learning. Introduction of these andsimilar activities earlier in the course would further benefit the students.AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank Mr. Shahram Marivani in the Department of EngineeringScience for his assistance in conducting the laboratories and Dr. Jeremy Qualls for his support inconducting activities at the SSU Makerspace.References[1] J. Macias-Guarasa, J. M. Montero, R. San-Segundo, A. Araujo, and O. Nieto-Taladriz, “AProject-Based Learning Approach to Design Electronic Systems Curricula,” IEEE Transactionson Education, Vol. 49, No. 3, 2006.[2] R. H. Chu, D. Lu, and S. Sathiakumar, “Project-Based Lab Teaching for Power Electronicsand Drives,” IEEE Transaction on Education
(Combined) (N=9): The students that comprised the Combined experience group engage first in the Traditional Laboratory Experience Figure 1: The Actual Laboratory Environment Figure 2: The Virtual Reality Laboratory Environment described above. Following that, they supplement their understanding by engaging in the Virtual Electronics Laboratory.3.2 Student Evaluation ProcedureAll students were evaluated in their familiarity and understanding of the use of the laboratoryequipment through an online quiz that was delivered through the learning management systemBlackboard. After completion of the assigned lab experience(s), students were instructed tocomplete the quiz component prior to the
various disciplinessometimes, but that “… it doesn’t go deep enough to be ‘truly’ multi-disciplinary.” Theobstacle mentioned by Student B was that academic approaches often isolate one probleminto one discipline, whereas perceiving them into a “holistic system thinking” will providemore complete solutions.Everyone agreed that ‘multidisciplinary’ should matter to a university, because:“This is where new discoveries are made.” Student Dand:“Real-life problem(s) cannot be solved by single professionalism or viewed by one aspect,students need to know how to communicate or cooperate with others in order to solve theissues.” Staff AHowever, some disagreed that the university puts enough effort on multidisciplinary matters:“On the classroom level
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, 2018 Modeling Student Performance in an Introductory Chemical Engineering CourseWe have developed an open-ended, laboratory-based introduction to chemical engineering, acourse coupling traditional, hands-on, and
universal education”, International Review of Research in Open and Dis- tance Learning, vol. 9, no. 1, 2008. [3] David Wiley, T.J. Bliss, and Mary McEwen, Open Educational Resources: A Review of the Literature, chapter 63, pp. 781–789, Springer, fourth edition, 2014. [4] John Hilton III, “Open educational resources and college textbook choices: a review of research on efficacy and perceptions”, Education Tech Research Dev, vol. 64, pp. 573–590, 2016. [5] Lori Breslow, David E. Pritchard, Jennifer DeBoer, Glenda S. Stump, Andrew D. Ho, and Daniel T. Seaton, “Studying learning in the worldwide classroom research into edx’s first mooc”, Research and Practice in Assessment, vol. 8, pp. 13–25, 2013. [6] Jean Jacoby, “The
Engineering Education Standards: Opportunities and Barriers. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 70(5), 21-29.Carr, R. L., Bennett, L. D., & Strobel, J. (2012). Engineering in the K‐12 STEM Standards of the 50 US States: An Analysis of Presence and Extent. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 539-564.Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., & Stohlmann, M. S. (2014). A framework for quality K-12 engineering education: Research and development. Journal of pre-college engineering education research (J-PEER), 4(1), 2.Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Kersten, J. A. (2015). NGSS and the landscape of engineering in K‐12 state science standards. Journal of Research
.[8] P. S. Steif and J. A. Dantzler, "A Statics Concept Inventory: Development and Psychometric Analysis," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 94, pp. 363-371, 2005.[9] G. L. Gray, F. Costanzo, D. Evans, P. Cornwell, B. Self, and J. L. Lane, "The dynamics concept inventory assessment test: A progress report and some results," in American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2005.[10] M. Hohenwarter and J. Preiner, "Dynamic Mathematics with GeoGebra," The Journal of Online Mathematics and Its Applications, vol. Volume 7, March 2007 2007.Appendix AFigure 2: Catalog of drop-down menus in the 2D Geometry view of Geogebra (image acquiredfrom http://www.jensilvermath.com/2013/08/07
0 0 5 4 3 2 1 student score time Figure 9In question 10, students are asked if they would perform more work if unlimited time wasprovided. The responses yielded similar percentages to question 9’s agree and strongly agreeand identical percentages to disagree and strongly disagree. The time remaining and the examaverages match what would be expected – the more time remaining, the higher the examaverages. Figure 10 reflects the breakdown of question 10
Model (PSRDM) created by Canneyand Bielefeldt [4]. The model seeks to gauge “the development of personal andprofessional responsibility in [students]” and merges these two dimensions togetherfor the professional connectedness realm [4]. The personal social awareness piecerelates to the development of one’s feeling “a moral or social obligation to help1This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under GrantNo. 1635554. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation. 1others” while
such projects may be their complexity and possible unrealisticexpectations from the project clients. These potential disadvantages must be considered andproactively addressed by the academic advisor(s) when interacting with the clients and whenguiding the students along their design process.References:1 U.S. Department of Energy, “Hydropower Vision: A New Chapter for America’s 1stRenewable Electricity Source”, https://energy.gov/eere/water/articles/hydropower-vision-new-chapter-america-s-1st-renewable-electricity-source
are introduced to networking. Based on the pre-and post-surveys the students are interested in the Internet of things, and the IoT lab generates enthusiasmfor the course. The students enjoyed the opportunity to use their smart phones as part of class,and appreciate “endless possibilities.”References[1] Blynk, "Democratizing the Internet of Things," [Online]. Available: http://www.blynk.io/. [Accessed 13 12 2017].[2] S. Abraham, "Using Internet of Things (IoT) as a Platform to Enhance Interest in Electrical and Computer Engineering," in 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2016.[3] S. Abraham and A. Miguel, "Creation of an Internet of Things (IoT)-Based Innovation Lab," in 2017 ASEE Annual
Description: Design and tune a PID controller for a closed loop control systemthat controls tank level. Transfer function of the servomotor controlled final control element(valve) that controls the liquid flow in to the tank and the transfer of the controller signaltransmission to the final control element are as follows: 10Transfer function of servomotor controlled final control element: and s 20s 2 2 6Transfer function of controller
hypothetical “average”learners) is rapidly developing in the field, as is the body of strategies and interventionsthat have been found to aid in individualized approaches. Being armed with better insightson “who” our students are helps better prepare us for our future objective, that being toaddress the possibility of using the profiles of students to help move towards personalizedlearning in order to aid in the retention - as well as success - of students within the DUEngineering program.References: 1. Hargrove, S. Keith, and Legand Burge. "Developing a six sigma methodology for improving retention in engineering education." Frontiers in Education, 2002. FIE 2002. 32nd Annual. Vol. 3. IEEE, 2002. 2. Zhang, Guili, et al. "Identifying
Reaction,” Internet:http://www.csb.gov/assets/1/19/T2_Final_Copy_9_17_09.pdf, Sept. 7, 2009 [Oct. 10, 2017].2) S.J. Dee, B.L. Cox, R.A. Ogle, “Process Safety in the Classroom: The Current State ofChemical Engineering Programs at US Universities,” Process Safety Programs, vol. 34, no. 4,pp. 314-319, 2015.3) D.C. Shallcross, “Safety Shares in the Chemical Engineering Classroom,” Education forChemical Engineers, vol. 9, pp. 94-105, 2014.4) D.C. Shallcross, “Safety Education through Case Study Presentations,” Education forChemical Engineers¸ vol. 8, pp. 12-30, 2013.5) J. Rest, D. Narvaez, M. Bebeau, S. Thoma, “A neo-Kohlbergian approach: The DIT andschema theory,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 11, pp. 291-324, 1999.6) Q. Zhu, C.B. Zoltowski, M.K
and future discussions will help us refine ourprogramming to better tailor professional development opportunities to the needs ofundergraduate and graduate student instructors.References: 1. O’Neal, C., Wright, M., Cook, C., Perorazio, T., & Purkiss, J. (2007). The impact of teaching assistants on student retention in the sciences: Lessons for TA training. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 24-29. 2. Jardine, H. E., Friedman, L. A. (2017). Using Undergraduate Facilitators for Active Learning in Organic Chemistry: A Preparation Course and Outcomes of the Experience. Journal of Chemical Education, 94 (6), 703-709. 3. Lewis, S. E. (2011) Retention and Reform: An Evaluation of Peer-Led Team Learning
reason(s) would you give to recommend students participate in projects found onsocialcoder.org?What reason(s) would you give to recommend students not participate in projects found onsocialcoder.org?Students generally answered the first question with a variation of ”it is a potential source ofprojects where you can gain experience”.In the second question, the students made notes about the relative lack of project choices, and thelack of communication from the project leaders.The question of why there is a contradiction between these two statements stems from two factors.The first factor was simply the number of projects that the students could apply to. While studentswere allowed to view approximately 20 projects, fewer than 10 were accepting
Google Drive. This practice had several majorbenefits. The most important impact of this practice was that the knowledge and experiencestudent gained in their project accumulated and stored in a single location. The students workingon the same topic had access to the folder as well as the instructor(s). When new students startedto work on the same topic, the Google Drive folder from past teams was shared with them andthey had access to everything the previous team(s) had done and used.The final overall course assessment was according to the following items: Proposal 15% Interim report 15% Final report 30% Progress reports or meetings 20% Poster
students’ knowledge about sustainable engineering: Question 1: What does sustainability mean to you now? How do you define sustainability? Question 2: Who can contribute to sustainability? In what way(s)? Question 3: What can engineers do for sustainability? Question 4: What sustainable engineering design tool/principle do you know? Question 5: Have you heard of any individual or organization take any initiatives for sustainability? If yes, explain the details.The answers before and after showed an obvious progress in students’ knowledge ofsustainability and sustainable engineering approaches. Overall, at the beginning of the semester,a lot of students had the very limited knowledge of all of the questions
faculty teach new concepts in programming,design, microelectronic control and graphical communication in relation to needing such skills inorder to solve a problem related to their Cornerstone theme. We see firsthand the positiveoutcomes of this approach in both student and faculty satisfaction and will continue to refine ourcourses based on feedback and research.References[1] First Year Engineering Learning & Innovation Center, Northeastern University, 2018.[2] National Academy of Engineering. Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the new century. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2005.[3] S. Ambrose and C. Amon, "Systematic Design of a First-Year Mechanical Engineering Course at Carnegie
self-motivated andheld high self-efficacy in teaching. Having teachers with above average motivation may havecaused a deeper learning of engineering design, which resulted in high scores and holdinginformed NOE views.AcknowledgementsOpinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Thismaterial is based upon work that was partly funded by the National Science Foundation undergrant number IIA1301726.References[1] National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.[2] National Research Council. (2006). America's lab
establish a clear purpose for mixing,with Kajfez and Creamer calling upon the engineering education community to clearly explainhow mixing aligns with the research question(s) [18].Heeding these calls from literature, our mixed methods study uses a fully-integrated approach toexamine the complex experiences of students in a global engineering program. By using anunderexplored mixed methods approach to data analysis, we respond to Bryman’s request thatthe community more broadly incorporate mixing strategies in data analysis [19]. We also followKajfez and Creamer’s suggestions by making explicit our purpose for mixing, emphasizing thealignment between this mixed methods approach and our research questions [18].BackgroundThe Rising Sophomore Abroad
individuals in the future. Students embraced the potential of growthmindset to lead to more productive reactions and behaviors both in their academic and personallives. This indicates a need for additional work to understand concrete strategies for individualswho have learned about growth mindset to begin to implement such productive practices intotheir everyday habits. Future work should also capture the ways in which the culture(s) ofundergraduate engineering education can be shifted to develop and sustain growth mindset.Appendix: Focus Group Prompts Used to Solicit Student Reflections, Adopted from [19]Chapters 1 and 2 1.1. Think about someone you know who is steeped in the fixed mindset. Think about how they're always trying to prove
and potential collaborationbetween engineering librarians and mechanical engineering faculty. For the course in this study,the plan for next year will be to use these instructional activities again. It also has started thediscussion of where additional library collaboration earlier in the mechanical engineeringprogram would be appropriate and beneficial. This additional exposure and training will buildfamiliarity with information fluency skills, which may be perceived as difficult, but are essentialin the professional environment.Works Cited[1] G. Kerins, “Information seeking and students studying for professional careers: The cases of engineering and law students in Ireland,” Inf. Res. Int. Electron. J., vol. 10, no. 1, Oct. 2004.[2] S
Research, 16, 235-239.Atman, C., Adams, R., Cardella, M., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners, Journal of Engineering Education 96(4), 359-379.Atman, C. J., & Bursic, K. M. (1998). Verbal protocol analysis as a method to document engineering student design process. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(2), 121-132.Ball, L. J., Ormerod, T. C., & Morley, N. J. (2004). Spontaneous analogizing in engineering design: A comparative analysis of experts and novices. Design Studies, 25(5), 495-508.Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148