Conference Session

Enhancing Instructional Effectiveness in Civil Engineering: Case Studies

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Ronald W. Welch, University of Texas, Tyler; Clifton B. Farnsworth, University of Texas, Tyler

Tagged Divisions

Civil Engineering

Conference Session

Innovations in Civil Engineering Education III

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Steven Hart, United States Military Academy; Steven Kreh, United States Military Academy; Rhett Blackmon, United States Military Academy; Nicholas Melin, United States Military Academy

Tagged Divisions

Civil Engineering

Conference Session

Use of Technology in Civil Engineering Education

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Taylor Halverson, Brigham Young University; Rollin H. Hotchkiss, Brigham Young University

Tagged Divisions

Civil Engineering

information was to accomplish thefollowing things. First, we wanted to verify that the project-based learning, at least from astudent perception perspective, met the purposes for why we implemented it in the first place.Can team-based, project-based learning assignments that require learners to plan and design howto teach others the course concepts increase subject matter mastery, interest in the subject, andthe ability to see applications of the content in the everyday world? The survey data helped us toanswer these questions. Momentarily, we’ll share that data as evidence that according to thestudents the project assignment had the intended effect.Second, from an instructional design standpoint for the course, we wanted to learn what workedfor

Conference Session

Innovative Techniques in Structural Engineering Courses

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Matthew W. Roberts, University of Wisconsin, Platteville; Angela Marie Jones, University of Wisconsin, Platteville; Michael K. Thompson, University of Wisconsin, Platteville

Tagged Divisions

Civil Engineering

course goal to be more relevant to students who were not planning to pursue structural engineering.) 4. Did students in CEE 3110 have more concern that the grading scheme did not allow them to demonstrate their knowledge of the material as compared to the comparison group?The fact that the comparison group was from a class covering different material could bias theresults. Questions 1, 2, and 4 are related to course management, so the difference in subject mat-ter is unlikely to result in significant bias. Question 3, regarding the usefulness of the materialbeing studied, is admittedly more problematic. It is likely, though, that students would be moreinclined to view a reinforced concrete design class (the comparison group) as more