, and feedback from both students andfaculty reflected that this was a major limitation to the effectiveness of this initialimplementation. However, in the course that did share content (CE 562 shared with CE 461“Structural Analysis”), we collected feedback on effectiveness from CE 461 students whoengaged with the videos. Watching the videos was completely voluntary. The CE 461 instructorinformed students that the videos were available and how to access them, but did not requirestudents to watch the videos. 41% of respondents watched video(s) created by students in CE562, and of those who watched a video, 69% of them watched 2-3 different videos. The mostviewed topics were the Conjugate Beam Method (60% of viewers) and Influence Lines
meetings conducted by VT expertsand attended a national conference that was held on Virginia Tech campus. Fellows madeperiodic presentations of their research, prepared a final research report, and alsosubmitted a reflection essay about their experiences. Four fellows returned to VirginiaTech late fall and presented their research papers at a regional water research conference.Assessment of NSF/REU site outcomes was conducted with the help of two externalexperts in education research and academic assessment. Assessment tools included online/in-class surveys, pre- and post test questions, and a focus group interview. This articleincludes a brief description of program assessment tools, a summary of assessmentresults and recommendations, and some
second ASCE strategic initiative was the development of an enhanced and updated versionof the BOK. This second edition of the BOK, formally titled Civil Engineering Body ofKnowledge for the 21st Century, Second Edition, (abbreviated BOK2) was developed in responseto broad stakeholder feedback about the first edition (abbreviated BOK1), as well as the ideasexpressed in ASCE’s Vision 2025.7 BOK2 is currently available in draft form, and the finalproduct will be publicly released in February 2008.The BOK2 includes two particularly substantive changes from the BOK1: • The number of outcomes was increased from 15 to 24. For the most part, this increase reflects the BOK2 authors’ attempt to enhance clarity and specificity, rather than to
, and feedback from both students andfaculty reflected that this was a major limitation to the effectiveness of this initialimplementation. However, in the course that did share content (CE 562 shared with CE 461“Structural Analysis”), we collected feedback on effectiveness from CE 461 students whoengaged with the videos. Watching the videos was completely voluntary. The CE 461 instructorinformed students that the videos were available and how to access them, but did not requirestudents to watch the videos. 41% of respondents watched video(s) created by students in CE562, and of those who watched a video, 69% of them watched 2-3 different videos. The mostviewed topics were the Conjugate Beam Method (60% of viewers) and Influence Lines
engineering at the professional level. Oncea new BOK is published, COA appoints a Civil Engineering Program Criteria Task Committee(CEPCTC), which is charged with reviewing the criteria in place, and if needed, revising thecriteria using the new BOK, input from the civil engineering community, and other relevantinformation. The BOK is developed based on an extensive review of the scholarly literature,relevant visionary documents, and by identifying the needs of the profession with input from, andreview by, practitioners and educators. The BOK also reflects the strategic goals of ASCE and isapproved by the ASCE Board of Direction. As such, use of the BOK to develop the CivilEngineering Program Criteria ensures that the needs of, and strategic goals
the movie followedby discussion of various elements of corruption and unethical behavior portrayed in the movie.Students are assigned specific topics to reflect and write about and then lead an in-classdiscussion based on the findings. The video is streamed for repeated viewing through the securecourse Blackboard site and the students complete a fairly lengthy discussion memo submittedonline prior to the course meeting.Civil Engineering Profession and LicensureCivil engineers must focus on becoming experts in their field and exercise their leadershipabilities to benefit themselves, their families and society as a whole. To reinforce our role as aprofessional, students are asked to interview a civil/construction engineer with a PE license
descriptions reflect and take into accountthe demands of the respective directive. Concerning the many-facetted character of civilengineering in Europe, this is not very surprising. As an example of the diversity inrecognition of civil engineering qualifications, chapter 3, annex 1 of the 2005 ECCE survey“Civil engineering Profession” 2 describes the different legislation procedures for therecognition and protection of professional titles. – It is obvious that no single civil engineercan exist in Europe when so many different legislation procedures are used.4. Bologna Process and the European Higher Education Area (EHEA)Although a cohesion of professional recognition procedures or a common platform for civilengineers will not be found in the immediate
Model, to ensure that sustainable features of the project are properly reflected in the three-dimensional spatial data and information of the design solution of the project o The Cost/Financial Model, to ensure that sustainable features of the project are properly reflected in the project’s Total Installed Costs (TIC), the Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Costs, and the Life Cycle Costs (LCC) o The Time Model, to ensure that sustainable features of the project are properly reflected in the cycle times of each of the phases of the life cycle of the project o The Production Process Model, to ensure that sustainable features of the project are properly reflected in the production process to
for the course, but it is also a criticalengineering skill for students. This paper presents a model for classroom practice, which is basedon the peer review, tutoring, and teaching literature, to develop both knowledge and skills instudents.IntroductionActive and project-based learning (PBL) strategies provide a great means for students to enhancetheir learning and further develop critical engineering skills [1-6]. PBL provides complex tasksbased on challenging questions or problems that involve the students' problem solving, decisionmaking, investigative skills, and reflection. The activities are student centered and focus on real-world problems and issues, which further helps motivate students to learn. However, studentsstill struggle with
appear broad, it is reflective of the variety of activities and roles that civilengineers undertake. The BOK was thus designed to accommodate the wide-ranging nature ofthe practice within the discipline.Since the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) first published the BOK report in 2004and the BOK2 report in 2008 , numerous papers have been written about this effort. Asignificant number of papers on the Body of Knowledge have been submitted to the AmericanSociety of Engineering Education’s (ASEE’s) Annual Conference and Exposition. Much of thatliterature is discussed and synthesized herein.Student perceptions of the BOK2 are of particular interest in the academic realm. A studyconducted by Bielefeldt at the University of Colorado at
Page 15.645.2in popularity and was tied into the ASCE Student Chapter’s end of the year celebration, wherethe students brewed the beer and named each variety to reflect a part of their civil engineeringeducation experience. After service at other locations (where how to brew sessions were alsoconducted), the author returned to teaching at West Point and the homebrewing sessions werestarted again midway through the 2004 academic year. Each year since that time, they havegrown and become what the students refer to as “Homebrewing 101” (HB101). Along the waythis very extracurricular program became more formalized and more an expected part of theASCE Student Chapter’s activities. It became the sole, and expected, supplier of the beer for theend of
textual resources (textbooks, course notes, and referential texts used inpractice) provide a means to compare the use of inscriptions across academic and workplacesettings. Past research and theoretical work point toward a connection between situated learningand visual representations, noting its role in providing social and material context to learning.This study adds to this literature by investigating the current use of inscriptions regarding aspecific concept (sight distance) utilized within transportation engineering education. Contentanalysis is utilized as a methodology in order to explore two issues regarding inscriptions:relative importance (as reflected by prevalence) of inscriptions within two different settings(practice and academia
multiplecourses in different ways, including class discussions, team projects, problem sets, and writingassignments. These efforts include discussions of how civil engineering projects are linked toinequitable pollution concentrations, lack of access, mass incarceration, and displacement of lowincome communities. We have used readings to investigate the social cost of not consideringsocial justice in investment decisions and have engaged in design and build projects to contributeto the revitalization of historically-underserved communities. To reflect the diversity that weseek to encourage, we have placed particular emphasis on assigning readings from scholars whoare Black, Indigneous, People of Color (BIPOC). This is especially important given
University, San Luis Obispo Claire Anovick is a fourth-year civil engineering undergraduate at the [Institution] with interests in geotechnical engineering and geology. She currently serves as the co-founder of the SBSC, an organiza- tion comprised of civil and environmental students engaged in critical reflection on justice in engineering initiatives within engineering academia. Additionally, Claire serves as President of Cal Poly CalGeo and as a geotechnical engineering research assistant, developing course modules infusing social justice, sus- tainability, and equity within geotechnical engineering curricula. She is involved in the community as an intern at Earth Systems Pacific and as an amateur runner and rock
related to the bridge tour including a history of computational,mechanical and graphical methods of structural analysis, a survey of other bridge engineers inthe United States, and a comparison of the design philosophies of Conde McCullough and Swissengineer Robert Maillart [5]. The richness of the resulting discussions and the range of topicswere unlike anything the instructors had experienced before and were certainly the result of theunique format and rich field component of the class.The singular assignment for the course was a portfolio of the bridges that were visited includingfactual content about the bridges that included their condition ratings and structural assessments,but also a reflective component that requested that the students
comments were tabulated below by each dimension. The dimensions were rated by theparticipants on the rating scale of five (1- not helpful at all; 2-not helpful; 3-somewhat helpful; 4-helpful;5-very helpful). All the users emphasized the content quality (see Table 2).Table 2 Students’ reflections on the content quality of the modules Themes Average Supportive Comments RatingsThe 1). I notice that they (the modules) do teach us.modules 4.8have higheducational 2). Step by step instruction, interactive, user-friendly, keeps you engaged.value 3). The videos are really boring, but the info is good. With my
outcomes, but thecriterion invites programs to develop its own in addition to those. Some programs chooseto alter the seven outcomes to reflect the strengths and uniqueness of their specificprogram. This was encouraged in the early years of EC2000, but it became clear to mostprograms that this provided little benefit and potentially caused problems.11 Today mostprograms use the ABET criterion 3 student outcomes verbatim. This example takes thatapproach.Identify where in the curriculum these outcomes are met. The student outcomes aregenerally attained through the curriculum, which for most programs means four years oftargeted coursework. It is therefore important to assess the degree to which any course inthe curriculum supports the attainment of
/accreditation committees and ASEE’s Civil Engineering Division. Page 24.931.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014 New Civil Engineering Program Criteria: How the Sausage is Being MadeAbstractThe American Society of Civil Engineers organized the Civil Engineering Program Criteria TaskCommittee in October 2012 whose charge is to determine if the current ABET Civil EngineeringProgram Criteria (CEPC) should be changed to reflect one or more of the 24 outcomes of thesecond edition of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge published in 2008. After over a yearof conference calls and face to
printer are that itprovides students with complete design freedom to create a variety of models on computersoftware in one afternoon, select the best designs, and create physical models for live testing.Over a period of three years, undergraduate engineering students in a structural materialslaboratory class, designed and 3D printed simple connections, lateral beams, and trusses; andthey conducted stress analyses. As part of the class assignment, students reflected on theirexperiences. Based on students' final written portfolios for the class, the majority indicated thatdesigning with computer software, combined with 3D printing, increased their creativity anddesign confidence, and enhanced their self-efficacy and identity as engineers who
; 5-10 minutes of peer review. The facilitator asked the students to break into groups of approximately four in order to discuss figures. The facilitator presented a series of questions related to the previously-revealed design principle, to guide discussion and ensure that students focused on providing meaningful feedback.4. Repeat discussion, uncovering of new principle, and peer review.5. Reflection for figure designers. The facilitator concluded the workshop by asking figure designers to consider the information they’d gained by discussing their figures with their Page 26.1707.4 peers, and reflect upon how that information
example, consider BOK Outcome 1, which includesrequirements for “biology, chemistry, ecology, geology/geomorphology, engineering economics,mechanics, material properties, systems, geo-spatial representation, and informationtechnology.” The corresponding provision of the Basic-Level Civil Engineering ProgramCriteria requires only “one additional area of science, consistent with the program educationalobjectives.”The sharp difference between the standards communicated in the BOK and the criteria is entirelyappropriate, as it reflects the distinctly different nature of these two documents. If the criteriawere written at the same level of detail as the BOK, they would be overly prescriptive andlargely unattainable. If the BOK were formulated as a
time. • Throughout the March-August 2007 semester, we observed many aspects of the NMAA academic culture that do not yet reflect an appropriate university-level standard, resulting in less than optimal implementation of the civil engineering curriculum. These included a variety of distractions during evening study hours, frequent cancellation of classes due to military training events, inadequate course administration (e.g., failure to prepare syllabi in many courses), and students’ unwillingness to do homework. Some of the non- engineering majors in CE301 complained that the course was too difficult and that they should not be required to take engineering at all. To some extent, these problems
hasevolved to encompass a wider group of disciplines including economic development,environment, agriculture, energy, and infrastructure. Taken in a global context, sustainability isnow presented as a concept that allow societies to develop and sustain resources such that theirmembers can use creative and innovative means to achieve their full potential and leave thenatural ecosystem in a sustainable mode for future generations. This is reflected in the mostwidely quoted definition of stating that sustainable development means “meeting the needs of thepresent without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” 2.Wackernagel et al. (2002)3 suggested that sustainability requires living within the regenerativecapacity of the
innovative and exemplary Bloom’s work was for its era (1956), the materialnow used in support of his work has become outdated and does not fully exemplify the peda-gogical and curricular expectations required for education engineers with global foci per NAE. Ithas been found to be lacking in multidimensionality particularly at college and university levelsin terms of meeting the increasing challenges facing higher education faculty. This is particularlytrue in the case of research universities with engineering schools where engineering educationresearch is of focus. Professional organizations associated with the field of Civil Engineering in-cluding ASCE have clear expectations for preparing engineers who are globally focused leaderswho and reflect
of one or both of these documents.Although similar in intent and based on equivalent Bloom’s taxonomies for their construct, thereare significant differences between the two that reflect variations in knowledge base and skills,but also somewhat contrasting visions and overall work approaches by the two groups. It shouldbe stated that with the exception of the first author, there was no overlap in the composition ofthe two committees and relatively limited interaction. The purpose here is to provide a briefoverview of the outcomes for each body of knowledge and to compare and contrast how bothefforts have progressed with recommendations provided for a unified process when it comestime to update the two bodies again. This information may be of
physics, and chemistry have long been considered part of the technical core ofcivil engineering. The requirement for “one additional area of basic science” reflects anincreasing emphasis on biological systems, ecology, sustainability, and nanotechnology withinthe practice of civil engineering. According to Bloom’s Taxonomy, the verb “apply” denotes theexpected level of achievement is Bloom’s Level 3, or “application level.” Both the BOK2Outcome 1-Mathematics and Outcome 2-Natural Sciences are also at Bloom’s Level 3 of Page 26.1626.4achievement.Apply probability and statistics to address uncertaintyTo comply with this provision of the CEPC, the
, NY.Students are asked to reflect upon the “master list” of 3P impacts. For the campus parkingexamples covered in class (small-scale projects) only a few impacts are likely to be significant. Itbecomes readily apparent that many more will apply to these larger projects, makingsustainability evaluations more challenging which further addresses the third lesson objective.When concluding the in-class lesson, it is important to re-state for students that quantifying the3Ps is difficult, especially considering multiple perspectives. As is commonly done withalternatives analysis for large-scale infrastructure projects, meetings with stakeholders can beconducted to gather input. Sustainability Index scores are not absolute – there is inherentuncertainty in
instructional tools selected byfaculty. Course embedded indicators on tests, assignments, and projects are used to evaluateCEE Department outcomes. If average student performance for an embedded indicator tool ismeasured as 75% or higher, it is concluded students have collectively achieved appropriatelearning requirements and met departmental standards. Example work from three students(good, average, poor) for each tool is included with an embedded indicator summary thatprovides an assessment of student performance and is mapped to reflect linkage with appropriateDepartmental outcomes. Results from embedded indicators and other measures aresystematically evaluated to ensure overall performance standards are met and to formulatesolutions in the event
ways the BOK could be used by prospective civil engineering students, high school counselors, parents, employers, and others. It is very important to note that, from ASCE’s perspective, the BOK represents a strategic direction for the profession. Under today’s accreditation and regulatory processes/procedures, some of the elements of the BOK may not be translated into accreditation criteria and licensing requirements in the near term. To say it another way, the BOK describes the “gold standard” for the aspiring civil engineering professional. Since input into the accreditation and licensing processes comes from a considerable number of stakeholders beyond just ASCE, it is unlikely that these processes will reflect
statements are recommendations from the NAE Committee on the Engineer of2020, Phase II,1 many of which require inspiration of the students to accomplish. The authorsfind that without that added element of inspiration the likelihood of success is minimal: 1. The baccalaureate degree should be recognized as the “pre-engineering” degree or Bachelor of Arts in engineering degree, depending on the course content and reflecting the career aspirations of the student. 2. ABET should allow accreditation of engineering programs of the same name at the Page 12.903.3 baccalaureate and graduate levels in the same department to recognize that