rubric levels couldclearly be debated; perhaps all are merely reflecting level 1 of the CEBOK3 rubric. The SEaffect items in the survey do not appear to directly measure the elements in the sustainabilityaffective rubric in the CEBOK3. Self-efficacy items reflect students’ confidence that they haveknowledge and abilities related to sustainable engineering; as such, they are somewhat a self-assessment of the cognitive domain outcomes (e.g. identify is cognitive level 1, understandingreflects comprehension or cognitive level 2).Supporting data from the College of Engineering’s graduating senior survey has also beenincluded. The College-wide survey asks CE students to rate the importance of an “ability toapply the principles of sustainability to
design in their respective field.The American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES) and the World Federation ofEngineering Associations state that engineers “strive to comply with principles of sustainabledevelopment”5 and “maintain and continuously improve awareness and understanding ofenvironmental stewardship, sustainability principles and issues related to your field of practice.”6 To prepare students for future professional practice, FGCU along with many otherinstitutions of learning, has an increased focus on sustainability in engineering with drivingforces present to incorporate concepts of sustainability into the undergraduate curriculum. Thegeneral topic of sustainability integration in engineering curricula is reflected
transition of developingan employed engineer persona. This shift in identity is reflected in writing as a student adjuststo the genre of the workplace and adapts to that workplace’s cultural engineering identity. Thisshift in writer identity creation can be compounded by the lack of practical writing help intechnical communication books (Wolfe, 2009, 2011). Wolfe (2011) notes that technicalcommunication books have shifted away from writing practice assignments to focus more onthe overall written product than on how to create the product over the years and assuming moreof a humanities bias in presentation of writing practices. There are elements of the written engineering work that may not become evident in engineering courses or in a
attributes of a leader periodically by the instructor orteaching assistant and is then assigned full responsibility for the laboratory including directingpreparations for the experiment (Fig. 1), designating experiment duties, and guiding the reportthrough completion. The team leader rates the team members and the team members rate theteam leader in specified categories. The team leader is also graded by the instructor based on theinformation contained in the memo or summary grade sheet (reflecting organization, efficientuse of resources, leading by example) and quality of the laboratory report. Introspective teamdiscussions are encouraged to self-analyze team dynamics and develop plan to improve.In Hydraulics, the report format, team dynamics, and
senior-level capstone designcourse. This paper illustrates a systematic approach across the entire CE program for the directassessment of program outcomes. The civil engineering program outcomes reflect the currentABET 3a-k as well as the ASCE Body of Knowledge (BOK).The approach integrates existing grading practices and correlates the results with the desiredprogram outcomes. This system of direct assessment provides a quantitative assessment withoutincreasing faculty work load, by leveraging what is already being done in the evaluation andgrading of student work. This technique uses embedded indicators, which are specific studentperformance events common to all students in the course such as homework problems, projectsand tests. The program
consisting of presentations to clients, plan development, and marketingmaterials.This paper will discuss how project management tools are introduced to civil engineeringstudents and how these skills are utilized in developing the preliminary capstone proposal.BackgroundThe development of CIE 413 Project Management was based on several TC2K/ABET criterion 2objectives. Each of these objectives helped formulate the strategies used to present projectmanagement topics in both active and reflective learning methods. The objectives that wereapplied included: a. demonstrate an appropriate mastery of the knowledge, techniques, skills, and modern tools of their discipline, b. apply current knowledge and adapt to emerging applications
curriculum in general, and 6. The outcomes of teaching, as reflected in student learning.8The method or methods selected should be tuned to assess the desired aspects to beevaluated. The evaluator should also be selected with the end in mind—it should besomeone with expertise in evaluating the desired aspect(s).Time is also an important consideration. Faculty members are very busy and reluctant tocommit to excessively time-consuming projects. Many successful peer review projectsrequire a surprisingly small time commitment. A time commitment on the order of a halfhour per week or less is typically feasible—any program requiring significantly more Page
to not only help students learn the class material, but also improve their criticalthinking skills. To accomplish this, we use some key elements from the EFFECTs pedagogy toget students to think and guesstimate an answer to a design problem and to reflect on how thelearned material helped them answer the design problem. The study is carried out in anundergraduate Transportation Engineering course with 57 students. The remainder of this paperdiscusses our modified EFFECT approach and a novel approach for assessing students' learning.Preliminary results are presented and discussed.Modified EFFECT ApproachThe specific structure of the modified EFFECT approach is as follows. During the first lectureof each of the seven topics, the instructor
sensors anddata acquisition systems, even though they might use these tools in their professional life.Furthermore, students might not be aware of the potential uses of the data collected by thesensors.This paper discusses efforts for the development of a course in the area of model updating. Thecourse uses the EFFECTs pedagogical framework consisting of [2] : i) a decision worksheetasking students to estimate the solution to an engineering problem, ii) active learning activities tointroduce students to the material needed to correctly answer the driving question, iii) reflectiveexercises asking students to reflect on the material learned in class and revise the answer to thedriving question, and iv) a final report encouraging students to re
lifting ABET’sban on dual-level accreditation such that “Path 2” was a viable option. The persuasion of ABETto lift this ban was delegated to the TCAP3 Accreditation Committee3. At the time of writing, themodel law has not been changed to reflect the increased educational requirements recommendedby PS 465 by any of the NCEES member boards. It was hoped that at least one state would adoptthe new model law within two years of allowing dual-level accreditation3. The goal of this paperwas to focus on the status and willingness of departments to accredit their master’s degreeprograms even without the changes in the model law.Dual-Level Accreditation and its Role in PS 465To implement PS 465, engineering interns on the second path to licensure will
theexperiment. All the students in civil engineering (100%) agree that the use of the device reflectedtheir course content, reflected real practice, reflected their academic area, practice and coursecontent, while slightly more than 50% of the students in other STEM disciplines agree the same.All the civil engineering students (100%) agree that using the device helped them developinterest in the subject area while 60% agree that they have become motivated to learn the coursecontent because of using the device. Most of the civil engineering students (80%) agree that theirknowledge in the subject area increases after they used the device, while 60% agree that usingthe device has increased their confidence in the subject area. The percentage change
Research uses 2 or 3 Research uses and cites sources and barely cites sources and generally 3 or more sources. them. cites them. Ideas generated are one2b) Define the person’s or are missing. Ideas generated reflect Ideas generated reflect Ideas generated reflectproblem, review
technical communication is included in capstonedesign since teams try to convince the client that they have the best design; since all of the teamswork on the same project it ends up being somewhat competitive. Persuasive communication tonon-technical audiences is largely absent. I believe modifications could be made to try to helpstudents reach level 1, but reaching level 2 would be more difficult.Rose-Hulman. We do not have concerns about fulfilling this in our program. Level 1 is acommon theme in the lessons both within our department and institute-wide. We’re optimisticthe students could effectively reflect on this, but we do not ask them to do so, at least in ourdepartment. The students work hard at level 2 in multiple points in our curriculum
to augment physical models, as well as laboratory and in-field experimentation. Thisoverview provides context for the pedagogical approach discussed in this paper which combinesproject-based learning and large-scale laboratory experimentation. Based upon a review ofpublished research related to structural steel design instruction, there have been no similar steeldesign courses which use this teaching approach to expose students to the lateral load resistingframe systems common in seismic areas.Project-based LearningPast engineering pedagogy research has shown that incorporating a project-based approach in astructural steel course, that reflects a task similar to that in industry, is more effective than thetraditional lecture approach [2-3
. He is a consulting geotechnical engineer in Michigan. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Accreditation Insights and the Next Body of KnowledgeAbstractThe American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) organized the Civil Engineering ProgramCriteria Task Committee (CEPCTC) in October 2012. The CEPCTC charge was to determine ifthe current ABET Civil Engineering Program Criteria (CEPC) should be changed to reflect one ormore of the 24 outcomes of the second edition of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge. Aftertwo years of work, a proposed CEPC was approved by the relevant ASCE committees andforwarded to ABET for approval and incorporation into accreditation criteria. Two previous
water conflict.Essentially, we were poorly communicating the relationship of activities and lesson topics tolesson learning objectives and this was causing students to interpret the objectives and relevanceof the activities differently. We therefore created learning objectives for each lesson and made adirect connection to the topic of the lesson and activities in the lesson.JournalStudents were supplied with notebooks and required to record their thoughts, notes, discussions,etc. in journal. The objective was to encourage them to reflect during class and recall or sharetheir journals with others in the class. We anticipated more sharing of thoughts from journals insmall group discussions in class.Outside EventsWater issues in the western U.S
wording was consistent with ABET definitions which are generally difficult todefine clearly, and 2) the addition of four new outcomes focused on additional Page 22.141.2professional topics and discipline depth. Very quickly it was determined by mostprograms and ASCE that the discipline depth could only occur at the Master’s level withlarger breadth occurring at the undergraduate level. The addition of professional skillsabove what even ABET2 EC2000 requires reflects greater recognition of the importanceof the development of professional skills at the bachelor’s level. How/Where are thesesupplementary professional topics to be included in the current
genres and for effective work on teams (e.g., acapstone course with writing and presentation components, research reports). These experiencesshould prepare CE graduates for the exigencies of the workplace. However, considerable concernabout the communication skills of CE graduates is reflected in the significant attention devotedto studying and improving both the communication training and student proficiencies by facultyand researchers who publish in professional engineering education journals (e.g., Journal ofProfessional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice; Journal of Engineering Education)and present at conferences such as those sponsored by ASEE and Frontiers in Education (FIE
at the end. Strict deadlines were established for engineering-sensitive decisions and engineering students were required to monitor these deadlines and soundan alert to the architecture students and faculty (who also monitored the design process) if thesewere slipping.Following are comments from some of the architectural and engineering judges that have beeninvolved in the studio for the last three years. They were asked to provide some reflection onwhy they are willing to take 6-8 hrs of their time, typically on Fridays, to judge students’ de-signs.Will Shepphired is a registered engineer and architect. He is a principal of his own successfularchitectural firm. He has been an active member of our judging panel for the last three years
) formulated a teaching model which guided the training of new faculty.The model served faculty well as they provided instruction and developed learning activities.The model remained unchanged for about 15 years until a team of faculty conducted amethodical review of the literature, reflected on desired outcomes, and deliberated about the rolethat this model played in achieving the institution and department’s mission and vision. Theresult was an updated teaching and learning model which was presented at the ASEE NationalConvention in 2017. As was emphasized in a previous paper, the faculty believed strongly thatthe teaching and learning model be viewed as a living document that must be applied andregularly challenged, discussed, and updated to ensure
. Frequent stretch breaks, screen breaks, anda one-time 3-minute transition break were used during online meetings. In addition to this,students had opportunities to reflect on their efforts and performance in class using self-reflection surveys (after two midterm exams). Smaller student tutor sessions were provided forunder-performing students based on their choices. Table 1. UD Principles and Implementation in Statics UD Principles Implementation in Statics Course Equitable Use ▪ Course website on Blackboard is pre-designed to be accessible to everyone ▪ Digital textbook is adopted for text-to-speech functionality
play games such as Jenga. During spring 2020, a ‘DepartmentMeet and Greet’ was held over two days in which the participants met with the CEEC facultiesand learned about ‘Engineering for People Design Challenge’. Another activity was ‘Geowall’ inwhich students created a retaining wall using as little amount of paper as possible. Students andmentors also discussed study tips and reflected on their experience working on the group projectin the last meeting of the semester.In fall 2020, four cohort activities were held virtually since the in-person interactions werelimited because of the COVID-19 pandemic. During one activity, the cohort participated in the‘Fun with Professors’ event and played a virtual game ‘Skribbl’ [7] with faculties, GAs
andstyles, but there was no attempt to unify any of the classes. The primary point of similarity wasthat all the surveys and exam questions administered in this study were the same and were madetogether. All the exam questions were presented in a multiple-choice format to reflect the mostcommon method of questioning on the FE exam.University A required students to take the FE exam and students were reimbursed for the examcost if they passed. At University A, most senior students (approximately 75% or more per year)in civil engineering take the FE review course and depend on it as their sole source ofpreparation for the exam. Universities B and C strongly encouraged students to attempt the FEexam prior to graduation. At University B, review sessions
regulations (writing assignment 2), withpersonal opinions and reactions to the case, offering time for reflection of some of the conceptsexplored in the class. This combination (sometimes more elegantly achieved than others) isexemplified by this submission to the forensic engineering assignment: These improvements are relatively inexpensive from an economical point of view… the state will definitely not be happy with these extra expenses, so this is controversial… the construction team could be at a high risk of losing their engineering license and the media will most likely stir up some harsh and unnecessary labels to them…This student is reflecting on many of the case study’s key ideas, but struggling to articulate hisideas
industry. Yet, key components of mentoring that havebeen identified in the literature are often unfamiliar at the level of practice. The intent ofmentoring is that mentees, in our case the engineering student, arrive at their own solutionsthrough a process of reflection facilitated by their mentor.In designing the mentoring trial, we used a five-factor mentoring framework, drawing on theeducation literature. 1. The first factor is building rapport. Rapport is at the heart of mentoring [18]. Rapport is when the student and their industry partner feel comfortable communicating. Mentors and students can build rapport by learning a little about the other; mentors can encourage rapport by being attentive to body language and adopting a
formed a committee to study and develop a Civil Engineering Bodyof Knowledge (BOK)2 to document the requisite knowledge, skills, and attitudesnecessary for future civil engineers. Two key areas associated with the BOK was adefinition of expected performance levels by these new engineers through Bloom’staxonomy3 as well as the adding of four new outcomes focused on additional professionaltopics and discipline depth. Very quickly it was determined by most programs and ASCEthat the discipline depth could only occur at the Master’s level. The additionalprofessional skills above what even EC2000 requires reflect greater recognition of theimportance of professional skills. Where are these supplementary professional topics tobe just included in the
education provides agreater understanding of the multifaceted nature of civil engineering.(7,8) They can be used tosimulate a variety of learning protocols such as: design and analysis experiences,interdisciplinary issues and concerns, costs, hazards, owner preferences, and compliance withstandards and guidelines. Cases, by and large, describe situations, projects, problems, decisions,etc., and are primarily derived from actual experience, and do reflect thoughts, outlook, andconcerns of: managers, professionals, regulatory agencies, communities, and owners. Cases arealso widely used in other disciplines such as: education, medicine, and law.This paper describes the steps taken in planning, developing, and executing a case study/ casehistory course
development and design skills.To address the goals of this study, the survey used in the GT study16 was modified to includequestions related to perceptions of Engineering Mechanics in addition to SustainableDevelopment and Sustainable Design. The Engineering Mechanics questions serve as a point ofreference to which questions related to Sustainable Development and Sustainable Design can becompared. The survey asked students to rate how important they felt certain engineering skillsand abilities in all three areas are, and how confident they are in their abilities to exercise thoseskills on a 7-point scale. Students were also asked to rate their interest in a variety ofsustainability topics and reflect on the source of their sustainability knowledge
engineeringeducators focused more on content coverage rather than creating learning opportunities forpracticing critical thinking skills [4]. Learning activities that stimulates critical thinking skillswould be desirable in any engineering classroom. Online discussion has emerged as a promising method for encouraging critical thinking indistance education [5], [10]. It provides opportunities for flexibility [11], [12] and collaboration[5]. Asynchronous text-based mode allows for greater reflection and higher levels of criticalthinking and in-depth feedback as well as allowing instructors to model, foster, and evaluate thecritical thinking skills exhibited during the discussion [6], [11], [13], [14]. Despite the potential of online discussions in
goalof modifying the course was to expose students to physical experiments to foster their: (i)engineering intuition and calculation abilities, (ii) proficiency in data acquisition applicationsavailable on smart phones, (iii) data post-processing, analysis, and visualization skills in Matlab,(iv) writing thoughtful reflections in lab reports based on observations and quantitative dataresults, and (v) teamwork. Also, the hope was to engage and excite students in the course topic.Description of Physical / Virtual ExperimentsThe course activities are summarized below in the order they were covered in class. Additionaldetails related to course instruction (lab handouts), model fabrication (materials, budget,drawings), and sample solutions are