Conference, Pittsburgh, PA.3. Cleveland, C. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. December 5, 2010. Retrieved December 10, 2010 from http://www.eoearth.org/article/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill?topic=503644. Munson, B., Young, D., Okiishi, T., Huebsch, W. (2009) Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics (6th edition). New Jersey. John Wiley and Sons.5. Mourtos, N. 2003. “Defining, Teaching and Assessing Lifelong Learning Skills.” Proceeding so the ASEE/ISEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boulder CO.6. Hanus, J., Hamilton, S., Russell, J. 2008. “The Cognitive and Affective Domain in Assessing Life-Long Learning”. Proceedings of the 2008 ASEE Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA.7. Raltson, P. and Bays, C. 2010. “Refining a Critical Thinking
follows: 1. Analyze a client’s objectives and formulate an engineering problem statement. 2. Develop multiple solutions to an engineering problem and determine the merits and deficiencies of each solution. 3. Recommend the most appropriate solution based on client and engineer developed criteria. 4. Develop a design for the most appropriate solution(s) to meet a client’s objectives. 5. Explain and document the solution in oral and written formats. 6. Work effectively in an engineering team by utilizing individual strengths and communication.Each team is made of 4 or 5 students and is assigned to a different project for an external clientwith a real need. On the first day of class students individually rank
, January 7, 2012.5. Meyer, K. and S. Ressler, “Let’s Get Down to Business: Preparation for ABET Under the New CE ProgramCriteria,” Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Austin, TX,June 2009.6. ABET Self Study Questionnaire, Engineering Accreditation Commission, ABET, Inc., Baltimore, MD., accessed Page 25.313.8at http://www.abet.org/download-self-study-templates/, January 11, 2012.7. Program Evaluator Worksheet, 2011-2012 Accreditation Cycle, ABET Inc., Baltimore, MD., accessed athttp://www.abet.org/uploadedFiles/Program_Evaluators/Training_Process/eac-instructions-for-completing-pev
, Steel, Inc., Atlanta Demolition, PaulLee and by the volunteer efforts of many students, faculty, and community partners. Thanks toall the faculty members who have encouraged students for participating in this project. Anyopinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those ofthe author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Southern Polytechnic State University orother project sponsors. Page 25.52.12Bibliography 1. Nations, U. (2010). Haiti Earthquake: Situation Updates. Retrieved 12 30, 2011, from UN News Centre: http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/haiti/haiti_quake_update.shtml 2
be cleverly incorporatedinto courses. A future paper in which a large class can be assessed for comparative results usingwikis is planned.Bibliography1. Rhoulac, T.D. and Crenshaw, P. (2006). Preparing Civil Engineering Students to Meet Workplace WritingExpectations. Proceedings of the 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Diego, CA.2. Plumb, C. and Scott, C. (2002). Outcomes Assessment of Engineering Writing at the University of Washington.Journal of Engineering Education, 91(3), July 2002, pp. 333-338.3. Lang, J.D., Cruse, S., McVey, F., and McMasters, J. (1999). Industry Expectations of New Engineers: A Surveyto Assist Curriculum Designers. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(1), January 1999, pp. 43-51.4. “Criteria for
degree requirements. This includes both total credit hour requirement for degree as wellas a breakdown of the credit hours required in various major topic areas/categories, such asmathematics and basic sciences, general engineering topics, and general education. The datapresented herein also provides individual programs with a sound base from which comparisonsof their own program(s) may be made.IntroductionIt seems as though there is a near constant discussion about credit hour requirements, particularlywith reference to a so-called “credit hour squeeze.” As the cost of education continues to rise,state legislators, boards of trustees/regents, and other external constituencies push for furtherefficiencies, reduced costs, improved graduation
the 1990’s undergraduate science programs, physics programs in particular, began to developactive learning techniques to supplement or replace traditional lecture methods. Two of the moreeffective methods developed were just-in-time-teaching (JiTT)1 and peer instruction2. Theseactive learning techniques have proven to be effective methods and have steadily been deployedin undergraduate classrooms over the past 15 years. While not limited to use in the physicalsciences, these techniques have seen much wider use in science classrooms than in engineeringclassrooms. The results of a national survey of faculty using peer instruction show 94% of usersfrom the natural sciences and only 3% from engineering3. While there is some publishedscholarly
, accessed at: http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Criteria%20and%20PP/E001%2009-10%20EAC%20Criteria%2012-01-08.pdfon January 18, 2010.3. “Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century” (2008) 2nd edition,American Society of Civil Engineers, accessed at:http://www.asce.org/files/pdf/professional/BOK2E_%28ASCE_2008%29_ebook.pdf?CFID=203847703&CFTOKEN=ef7d085f1c50253b-438B5C53-BAE8-0642-C7F998821FECEF72&jsessionid=cc301928921263853591636 on January 18, 2010.4. Bloom, B. S.(1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The CognitiveDomain. David McKay Co., Inc., New York.5. Likert, R.(1932). "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes". Archives ofPsychology 140: 1–55.6. McGonagall, W. “The Tay Bridge Disaster
Guideline in Development, http://apeg.bc.ca/prodev/pdreq.html, sourced January 3, 2011; 5. Kuan, S., Success by Design, Innovation – Journal of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC, p.36 – 38, November 2010, Vancouver, BC; 6. ASCE, ASCE Policy Statement 465: Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice, Task Committee on the First Professional Degree, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston Virginia; 7. Canadian Consulting Engineer, U.S. Moving to Require Master’s Degree for Engineers, URL: www.canadianconsultingengineer.com/issues/archives.aspx, Feb. 25, 2008; 8. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia
, 12(4), pp. 288–291.5. Elgamal, A., Fraser, M., and McMartin, F. (2005). On-line educational shake table experiments, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 131 (1), pp. 41-49.6. Marc, S., Stefan, Z., Thomas, J., and Torsten, B. (2002). Global architecture and partial prototype implementation or enhanced remote courses, Computers and Advanced Technology in Education, Cancun, Mexico.7. Newson, T. A., Bransby, M. F., and Kainourgiaki, G. (2002). The use of small centrifuges for geotechnical education, In International Conference of Physical Modeling in Geotechnics, St. Johns, Canada, pp. 215–220.8. Romero, M. L. and Museros, P. (2002). Structural analysis education through model experiments and
, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, National Research Council (1996). From Analysisto Action. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.9 Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. L., (1999), How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, andSchool, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.10 Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, (1999) Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science,Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, NationalResearch Council.11 Kalabon, Amy E., Loescher, Eric S., Sommerville, Alice E., and Delatte, Norbert J. (2013), “Rise and Fall of theOhio and Erie Canal,” accepted for publication by the ASCE Journal of Professional Issues in EngineeringEducation and
sophisticated type of thinking. In 1997, Kinsner considered the value of usingcomputer programs for undergraduate teaching to help solve field problems5. It was concludedthat the use of such computer packages in class settings improves students' comprehension andskills in solving field problems. There is a need to conduct a parallel study to investigate thepotential benefits of using engineering software(s) in pavement engineering courses at theundergraduate level.Description of DARWin Software In simple terms, Design, Analysis, and Rehabilitation for Windows (DARWin) is acomputerized pavement design tool based on the AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement
technician certification programs. He is also an active member of several other professional organizations. He holds a Master of Science degree in Geotechnical Engineering from the University of Maryland and a Page 14.940.2 Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Clarkson University in Potsdam, New York. He is a licensed professional engineer in Virginia, Washington D.C. and several other states.© American Society for Engineering Education, 2009Jeffrey Russell, University of Wisconsin, Madison JEFFREY S. RUSSELL, P.E., Ph.D. F.ASCE is a Professor and Chair in the Department of
includes business staff, engineering staff,technician staff, administrative staff, etc. Each of these has its own customs, organized ways ofthinking, and group identifications and often times can be as varied as verbal languages, e.g.,English, French, etc. while displaying similar challenges in cross-cultural situations. Page 2 of 16The cultural intelligence community embraces this viewpoint and ultimately shares much incommon with the global learning community and the infrastructure education community. Eachseeks to engage as many different needs and viewpoints as feasible.2.3 The Existing CurriculumIn the early 2000’s, the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering at the University ofUtah
,” Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference, 2014 17. Ernst, J., Bottomley, L., Parry, E., “Term Analysis of an Elementary Engineering Design Approach,” Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference, 2012 18. Lundstrom, K., Moskal, B., “Measuring the Impact of an Elementary School Outreach Program on Student’s Attitudes toward Mathematics and Science,” Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference, 2012 19. Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., Rogers, C., “Advancing Engineering Education in P-12 Classrooms,” Journal of Engineering Education, VOL 97, Issue 3, pages 369-387, July 2008 20. Tran, N., Nathan, M., “Pre-College Engineering Studies: An Investigation of the Relationship Between Pre- college Engineering Studies and
secondary schools) led by Benjamin S. Bloom,committed themselves to create this common framework. They met annually as a working groupthrough the late 1940s and early 1950s to create a common framework for the characterizationand assessment of educational activities. Their goal was to create a common hierarchal set ofterms and language that characterized educational objectives in a uniform and repeatable way.The publication describing their early work presented the concept of three domains ofeducational activities. Those domains included the cognitive, which deals with the recognitionof knowledge and the progressive development of intellectual abilities; the affective domain,which describes changes in interests, attitudes, and values; and the
with the coaches of various sports who acted as the client(s),recruited a group of faculty advisors in each of the home departments who were willingto supervise the individual students, helped arrange support from the university facilityservices (blue prints, topographic maps, utility information, etc), and helped provide theresources beyond the ability of the students to obtain, such as real pricing from actualconstruction companies, clearance for issues such as candidate sites for projects, andrealistic budget. They also often made public announcements, and arranged for studentsto present one of the projects to the Lehigh University Board of Trustees, and helpedarrange for a truly broad audience that included upper-level facilities staff
thecommissions are “enabled and appointed by the Board.” ASCE was unconvinced by thisargument, because the issue at hand was about establishing policies and procedures, notconducting accreditation activities.At the meeting, ASCE’s Board members went forward with their two planned motions regardingapproval authority for the APPM, and both were approved. From ASCE’s perspective, thisdecision affirmed the Board’s sole responsibility for approving ABET policies and procedures.Program NamingWithout question, the most complex and controversial accreditation policy issue faced by theASCE task committee has been program naming. At the heart of this issue is paragraphII.E.4.c.(2) of the APPM: “If a program name implies specialization(s) for which ProgramCriteria
such as regulatory, economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, constructability, and sustainability. (4) Provide a platform where student performance against the ABET general criteria for engineering programs 3 a-k and civil engineering program specific criteria can be assessed.The senior design experience was tailored to ensure coverage of the appropriate programmaterial – items (1) – (3) in the above list suggests this. In some ways, constructing theappropriate assessment vehicle(s) was a more considerable challenge. The open-endednature of realistic design does not always lend itself to concrete assessmentmethodologies. The rest of this paper briefly outlines the UT Tyler CE program
must respond proactively. The reportalso concluded that the current four-year baccalaureate degree was becoming inadequate foracademic preparation for the professional practice of civil engineering. CEEC ’95’s call foraction resulted in the adoption in 1998 of the first version of ASCE Policy Statement 465, whichsupported the “concept of the Master’s Degree as the First Professional Degree for the practiceof civil engineering at the professional level.”5 After further committee work, in 2001 ASCErevised the preamble of the policy to say that ASCE “supports the concept of a master’s degreeor equivalent as a prerequisite for licensure and the practice of civil engineering at theprofessional level.”6 This statement equated “practice at the
AC 2010-275: A POSSIBLE CIVIL ENGINEERING BOK2 CURRICULUMDebra Larson, Northern Arizona University Debra S. Larson is a Professor and Associate Dean for the College of Engineering, Forestry and Natural Sciences at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, AZ. She served as department chair for civil and environmental engineering at NAU for four years. Prior to her faculty appointment at NAU, Debra worked as a structural and civil engineer for various companies. She is a registered Professional Engineer in Arizona. Debra received her B.S. and M.S. degrees in Civil Engineering from Michigan Technological University. She received her Ph.D. degree in Civil Engineering from Arizona State
multi-disciplinary design. (4) Provide a platform where student performance against the ABET general criteria for engineering programs (3 a-k )14 and civil engineering program specific criteria can be assessed (basically BOK I now and BOK II in the future).The senior design experience was tailored to ensure coverage of the appropriate programmaterial – items (1) – (3) in the above list suggests this. In some ways, constructing theappropriate assessment vehicle(s) was a more considerable challenge. The open-endednature of realistic design does not always lend itself to concrete assessmentmethodologies. So the creation of a time effective assessment scheme that forces anexperience that includes coverage of all outcomes to include