teams are highly committed to the projectsthroughout the semester; (iii) mentors are available and responsive to students, have internalsupport and value student work; and (iv) instructors constantly communicate with mentors andstudent teams, facilitate the student-mentor relationship and monitor the design and developmentprogress of each student team. As each project has its unique type, constraints and scope ofdesign or experiments, team office hours or interactive Questions and Answers (Q&A) sessionsthat are periodically scheduled throughout the semester between each team and instructor arevery helpful. Instructors can use these team office hours and Q&A sessions to better controlproject progress, address student needs and resolve
Annual Conference and Exposition. Paper AC 2009-541.14. Fridley, K., K. Hall, D. Larson, K. Sutterer, J. Alleman, K. McManis, J-P. Bardet, B. Gunnink, G. List, R.Smith, and T. Lennox. 2009. Educating the Future Civil Engineer for the New Civil Engineering Body ofKnowledge. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Paper AC 2009-752.15. Bielefeldt, A.R. 2010. Student Perceptions of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge. ASEE AnnualConference and Exposition. Draft Paper.16. Bielefeldt, A.R., B. Amadei, and R.S. Summers. 2005. Incorporating Earth Systems Engineering Conceptsthroughout the Civil Engineering Degree to create the Engineer of the 21st Century. ASEE Annual Conference andExposition. Paper in Session 3215.17. Zhang, Q., J. Zimmerman, J
, Vol. 96, No. 4, 2007, pp. 283-289.4 Cruz., E. “Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), Educational Technology. Retrieved February 9, 2008,from http.//coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/bloomrev/start.htm5 Kilgore, Deborah, Atman, Cynthia, Yasuhara, Ken, Barker, Theresa, Morozov, Andrew“Considering Context: A Study of First-Year Engineering Students” Journal of Engineering Education,Vol. 96, No. 4, Oct 2007 321-332.6 Petroski, H., “Speaking Up For Engineers,” PRISM, Summer, 2006, p. 26.7 ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers, http://www.asce.org8 Moskal, B., Skokan, C., Kosbar, L., Dean, A., Westland, C., Barker, H., Nguyen, Q., and Tafoya, J.,“K-12 Outreach: Identifying the Broader Impacts of Four Outreach Projects,” The
presentations by academicadvisors and various faculty members. The presentations included undergraduate researchoptions and their benefits, how to get involved in research, how to find advisors, and how to getresearch credits. There was a Q&A session with a panel of current UG researchers, and one-minute presentations by each research lab was followed to introduce various research topics tostudents. After all presentations, there was around 15 minutes for students to talk with facultymembers in person.Launch CE Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowships (SURF)URC at CE discussed about the survey data and made a plan to provide more researchopportunities to UG students in the department. The CE Summer Undergraduate ResearchFellowship (SURF) program
(actual loads) and Q system (virtualloads) were provided. Students filled in the table provided based on the given information, thencalculated row and column summations to determine the total embodied strain energy in thetruss. Then students inserted values for member area, A, and modulus of elasticity, E, andsolved for truss deflection at the point of virtual load application.Interactive Lesson PlanOne detached member of the truss was circulated among the students so they could exert axialcompressive and tensile forces on member and experience individual member elongation andshortening. Then, a brief description of the model joints, geometry, and support conditions wasprovided. Students received a blank worksheet (see Figure 12, right, for the
the purpose of the papers was given. Students were told the purpose of thesepapers was to help us determine how well their experience in Seminar was helping them learnthese important principles. Students responded well to this explanation with the result that theoverall course evaluation score went up to 5.6 among these students, statistically the same asstudents not required to write the papers.Individual learning competencies based on the outcomes presented at the beginning of this paperwere also evaluated using student evaluations. The competencies evaluated are presented inTable 2.Table 2. Learning Competencies Evaluated Q 1 Know the steps necessary to become a licensed professional engineer. Q2 Understand the role of professional
aseriousness in listening to the oral presentations beyond what the instructor has seen forconventional term paper oral presentations. The peer review exercise coupled with the highlyinvolved term project provided added technical depth to the course. A higher level of interactionamong students in the classroom was observed as compared to a conventional classroom. Thehigh level of interaction was particularly evident during Q&A session of the oral presentationswhere familiarity with manuscript content was apparent.In addition, the peer review promoted improved student writing skills (and personal reflection ofthese skills) that benefitted students for activities following the class including entering industryworkforce or pursuing graduate education
. IEEE Trans., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 12–19, 1999.[19] R. Straub and R. Lunsford, 12 Readers Reading: Responding to College Student Writing. 1996.[20] S. Smith Taylor, “‘I Really Don’t Know What He Meant by That’: How Well Do Engineering Students Understand Teachers’ Comments on Their Writing?,” Tech. Commun. Q., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 139–166, Mar. Page 26.1482.20 2011.[21] S. Smith, “What is ‘Good’Technical Communication? A Comparison of the Standards of Writing and Engineering Instructors,” Tech. Commun. Q., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 7–24, Jan. 2003.[22] S. Smith Taylor and M. D. Patton, “Ten Engineers Reading
gapbetween the developed and developing worlds.13 In providing assistance to developingcountries, faculty development may be one of the best ways to improve education in thedeveloping world and close the higher education gap.References1. Lowman, J., Mastering the Techniques of Teaching, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.2. Ressler, S., Conley, C, Gash, R. “Designing a Civil Engineering Program for the National Military Academy ofAfghanistan.” American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA.3. Ressler, S.J., Gash, R., Conley, C., Hamilton, S. R. , Momand, F., Fekrat, Q., and Gulistani, A.. "Implementinga Civil Engineering Program at the National Military Academy of Afghanistan." American Society for
Decision Making? A Mixed Methods Study,” J. Educ. Res., vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 167–176, 2014.[15] L. Klotz, G. Potvin, A. Godwin, J. Cribbs, Z. Hazari, and N. Barclay, “Sustainability as a route to broadening participation in engineering,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 137– 153, 2014.Authors, 2014.[16] R. W. Lent and S. D. Brown, “Social cognitive approach to career development: an overview,” Career Dev. Q., vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 310–321, Jun. 1996.[17] R. W. Lent, S. D. Brown, and G. Hackett, “Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance,” J. Vocat. Behav., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 79–122, 1994.[18] A. Wigfield and J. S. Eccles, “Expectancy–value theory
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓f. Codes and Standards ✓ ✓ ✓g. Quantity Estimating ✓ ✓ ✓h. Permitting ✓ ✓ ✓i. Health and Safety ✓ ✓ ✓j. Application Programming ✓ ✓ ✓k. Cost Estimating ✓ ✓ ✓l. Construction Document ✓ ✓ ✓ Packagingm. Contracts ✓ ✓ ✓n. Quality Assurance and Quality ✓ ✓ ✓ Controlo. Technical Documents ✓ ✓ ✓p. Specialized Software ✓ ✓ ✓q. Project Management
, and C. I. Davidson, “Teaching sustainable engineering,” J. Ind. Ecol., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 8, 2007.[16] M. Q. Patton, Qualitative research & evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice, Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc, 2015.
) Studying alone 2.36 (0.85) 1.94 (0.65) Studying with others 5.36 (0.29) 5.53 (0.27) Page 26.1206.7Table 4. Student responses to survey questions (1 strong agreement, 3 neutral, 5 strong disagreement). CEE549 CEE542 Q# Question Description μ (COV) μ (COV) 4 Having an online project instead of a final exam was overall an excellent decision 1.53 (0.72) 1.82 (0.41) 5
% N=68Table 4. Demographics: Engineering Major, Academic Standing, Qualitative SAT, GPA Q Course Engineering Major Standing GPA SAT Civil Chem. Elec. Indust. Mech. Sophomore Junior Test, 12.2% 37.4% 5.2% 13.0% 32.2% 63.5% 34.8% 551 2.98 N=43 Control, 11.0% 33.3% 3.2% 8.9% 43.6% 68.6% 29.3% 556 2.95 N=68Data analysisThe survey responses were pooled based on engineering dimension
(c) design a system, comp or process (l) proficiency in math (d) function on teams (m) proficiency in four areas (e) solve engineering problems (n) experiments in more than one area (f) prof & ethical responsibility (o) perform civil eng design (g) communicate effectively (p) prof practice issues (h) broad education (q) work experience (i) lifelong learning a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p qCE 493-eng design S09
#Wri7ng# Slides#Explaining# Pictures#or#Video# Speaking# Student#Work# Q#A
outcomes that correspond to the undergraduate pathway (i.e., receiving andresponding). Table 2. SEE course: Bloom’s taxonomy cognitive student outcomes (Q: video quiz, WS: in-class worksheet, HW: weekly homework). Student Assessment type Assessment type Demonstrated ability (Comprehension) outcomes (Knowledge) Identify basic concepts and methods in solving civil and environmental Knowledge engineering problems from a systems
Te Q ar om B on so t Le en ss er C sm rp Le er te th es In O ss AFigure 7. Longitudinal survey results (ETW 1999-2006) regarding how often the skills taught inExCEEd are used.The survey also asked a number of questions about the value of the ETW with
on a topic oftheir choice related to sustainability. This assignment was designed to evaluate students’performance towards objectives #1 and #7 and to provide an opportunity for students to work indiverse teams, perform independent research, prepare a report, and present their results. Eachteam was asked to submit a 10-12 page report of their findings and to prepare a 15-minutepresentation (including Q&A) to be delivered in the class. Page 14.1110.8The following topics were chosen by the 9 student teams: ocean/wave energy, water resourcesand pollution, sustainable cities, solar energy, trash incinerator power plant
use ofdemonstrations follow: • “The instructor uses extremely effective learning tools in class, and they really helped me to better understand the material presented.” • “This has been my favorite class…. Even though it was more work than any other class, it really stimulated my learning and excitement of being a Civil major.” • “Good visual aids” • “It was very possible to visualize all the concepts so it was easier to realize what was going on.” • “The models used to illustrate concepts were useful.” • “The material was relative and interesting.” • Q: Strengths of course. A: “The instructor demos and visual aids”; “Practical applications”; “Interesting material, vital to
metacognition,” 2003.[3] P. Redmond, J. Devine, and M. Basson, “Exploring discipline differentiation in online discussion participation,” Australas. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 122–135, 2014.[4] A. Ahern, T. O’Connor, G. McRuairc, M. McNamara, and D. O’Donnell, “Critical Thinking in the University Curriculum--The Impact on Engineering Education,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 125–132, 2012.[5] C. B. Macknight, “Teaching Critical Thinking through Online Discussions,” Educ. Q., vol. 4, pp. 38–41, 2000.[6] D. R. Newman, B. Webb, and C. Cochrane, “A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning Current approaches to evaluating
fromengineering”. 2010 IEEE Transforming Engineering Education: Creating Interdisciplinary Skillsfor Complex Global Environments.[6] Kriewall, T.J., and Mekemson, K., 2010. “Instilling the Entrepreneurial Mindset intoEngineering”. The Journal of Engineering Entrepreneurship, 1(1), pp. 5-19.[7] Gerhart, A. L. and Melton, D. E., 2016. “Entrepreneurially minded learning: Incorporatingstakeholders, discovery, opportunity identification, and value creation into problem-basedlearning modules with examples and assessment specific to fluid mechanics.” ASEE AnnualConference and Exposition.[8] Erdil, N. O, Harichandran, R. S., Nocito-Gobel, J. Carnasciali, M. and Li, C. Q., 2016.“Integrating e-Learning Modules into Engineering Courses to Develop and
Host Q&A Sessions Provide Project Mentor Projects Helps Judge Projects Industry Members Other Technical Advisors 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%Figure 2.6: Industry member and Technical advisor involvement in capstone experience.ProjectsSurvey responses were also collected to obtain information on team composition, project types,and methods to solicit projects. Survey responses indicated that most project were multi-disciplinary within the realm of civil engineering with a minority of responses
Denies Sea Level Rise, Yet Wants to Stop It,” Scientific American, 15-Jun-2017.[12] J. Nagel, “Climate Change, Public Opinion, and the Military Security Complex,” Sociol. Q., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 203–210, Mar. 2011, doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01200.x.[13] G. H. Brundtland, Our common future. Oxford University Press, USA, 1987.[14] The Climate Change Educational Partnership: Climate Change, Engineered Systems, and Society: A Report of Three Workshops. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2014.[15] L. Klotz, G. Potvin, A. Godwin, J. Cribbs, Z. Hazari, and N. Barclay, “Sustainability as a Route to Broadening Participation in Engineering,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 137– 153, Jan. 2014, doi: 10.1002/jee.20034
] H. M. Matusovich, R.A Streveler, and R. L. Miller, “Why Do Students Choose Engineering? A Qualitative, Longitudinal Investigation of Student’s Motivational Values,” Journal of Engineering Education, pp. 289- 303, October 2010. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01064.x. [Accessed January 13, 2019].[7] Q. Li, D. B. McCoach, H. Swaminathan, and J. Tang, “Development of an Instrument to Measure Perspectives on Engineering Education Among College Students,” Journal of Engineering Education, pp. 47-56, January 2008. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00953.x. [Accessed January 13, 2019].[8] B. D. Jones, M. C. Paretti, S. F. Hein
-44 0.000 Figure 4. Values of influence, Figure 3. SDGs influence (I) vs. dependence (D) diagram dependence, influence ratio, net influence, and priority index Figure 2 shows that the double causality table has a total of Q = n2 – n = 272 interactionswhere n = 17 (number of SDGs). The diagonal terms are assumed to be 0 since they represent agoal influencing itself, which mathematically
., Hokanson, D. R., Zhang,Q., ... & Schnoor, J. L. (2003). Sustainability science and engineering: the emergence of a newmetadiscipline. Environmental Science & Technology, 37(23), 5314-5324.[18] WL. Filho, E. Manolas and P.Pace, “The future we want, Key issues in sustainabledevelopment in higher education after Rio and the UN decade of education for sustainabledevelopment,” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, v16 n1, pp. 112-1292015.
engineering education andcommunity service: Themes for the future of engineering education. Journal of EngineeringEducation, 95(1), 7-11.[17] Mihelcic, J. R., Crittenden, J. C., Small, M. J., Shonnard, D. R., Hokanson, D. R., Zhang,Q., ... & Schnoor, J. L. (2003). Sustainability science and engineering: the emergence of a newmetadiscipline. Environmental Science & Technology, 37(23), 5314-5324.[18] WL. Filho, E. Manolas and P.Pace, “The future we want, Key issues in sustainabledevelopment in higher education after Rio and the UN decade of education for sustainabledevelopment,” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, v16 n1, pp. 112-1292015.[19] Vairavamoorthy, Kala, “Water and the SDGs,” The Source, October 2019, pp. 18
. Navarro, and L. Y. Flores, “First-Generation College Students’ Persistence Intentions in Engineering Majors,” J. Career Assess., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 93–106, 2017.[20] E. A. Cech and T. J. Waidzunas, “Navigating the Heteronormativity of Engineering: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Students,” Eng. Stud., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 2011.[21] E. A. Cech and W. R. Rothwell, “LGBTQ Inequality in Engineering Education,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 107, no. 4, pp. 583–610, 2018.[22] A. Haverkamp, A. Butler, N. S. Pelzl, M. K. Bothwell, D. Montfort, and Q.-L. Driskill, “Exploring Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Engineering Undergrad- uate Experiences through Autoethnography,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Annual