learn-ing from the course will be presented at the conference.The course was developed as part of a National Science Foundation grant in the Course, Curricu-lum, and Laboratory Improvement program. The course was piloted in Spring 2010. Prelimi-nary assessment efforts from this pilot offering will be presented at the conference and feedbackwill be sought from conference participants to help the researchers on the project.BackgroundThe University of Wisconsin—Platteville (UWP) is a four year comprehensive public universityenrolling 6,700 undergraduates with 2,100 students in the college of Engineering, Mathematics,and Science. The university is best known for its engineering programs, which include Civil,Environmental, Mechanical, Industrial
in Figure 12. Students typically account in their laboratory reports howthe lower w/c concrete mixtures are more difficult to compact in the cylinder molds than thehigher w/c mixtures. (a) (b) Figure 12. Comparison Between (a) 0.40 and (b) 0.60 W/C MixturesThis experiment also has a “real world” portion. Students are asked to provide cases where 0.40,0.50, and 0.60 w/c concrete mixtures would be used in engineering practice. This provides anopportunity for students to research engineering projects and determine what w/c is frequentlyused for certain structures (bridge beams, highway pavements, sidewalks, etc…).Concrete Curing ExperimentThe concrete curing experiment is a
individual learning and group learning,these assessments show that team learning is quantifiable greater than individual learning.Introduction Over the past two decades much has been accomplished to reform engineering education.The adoption of Engineering Criteria 2000: Criteria for Accrediting Programs in Engineering inthe United States,1 required that engineering programs demonstrate that graduates are able tofunction on multidisciplinary teams.2,3,4 As a result, student teams in undergraduate engineeringcourses have become much more prevalent. Unfortunately, however, some of the strongerstudents continue to resist working in teams despite clear research findings that document that“teams outperform individuals acting alone or in larger
climate change effects their motivations and agency to solve complex global problems for a sustainability in their career.Dr. Allison Godwin, Purdue University, West Lafayette Allison Godwin, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Engineering Education at Purdue University. Her research focuses what factors influence diverse students to choose engineering and stay in engineering through their careers and how different experiences within the practice and culture of engineering foster or hinder belongingness and identity development. Dr. Godwin graduated from Clemson University with a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and Ph.D. in Engineering and Science Education. She is the recipient of a 2014 American Society for Engineering
doing theseassessments, however, we use many metrics, and do not explicitly consider our students’ FEexam pass rates as an assessment metric. Nonetheless we recognize that many of ourstakeholders use FE exam pass rates as a quality measure of our Department despite evidence inthe literature of its limited value at the program level.5 Historically our FE exam pass rate has lagged both the national rate and that of ourCarnegie classification-based comparator group. Our comparator group as designated by theNational Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) is currently theCarnegie Foundation’s Bal/HGC designation (Balanced arts & sciences/professions, highgraduate coexistence). Prior to 2009 we were part of the Research
University of Nairobi, a Master’s of Science in Probabilities and Statistics and a Ph. D in Educational Research Design and Statistics both from Michigan State University. His primary teaching responsibilities are in the graduate educational research courses, educational statistics, and educational program evaluation. His research interests are in the utilization of hierarchical linear models in analyzing school, teacher, and classroom effects on student learning outcomes. Professor Bagaka’s has also been involved in studies utilizing hierarchical linear modeling to identify the value-added indicators of school and teacher effec- tiveness on student achievement. His recent work on the role of teacher characteristics and
-curricular (includingservice learning), and study abroad is provided. We also discuss the presence and integration ofinternational students and scholars and international research opportunities that currently engagestudents, and conclude with some recommendations to enhance internationalization.Internationalization Efforts in the College of EngineeringCurricular ProgramsThe CoE accounts for about 16% of the total undergraduate student population at VillanovaUniversity. All undergraduate engineering students complete a minimum of six courses withinthe humanities offerings in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. The CoE is driven by thecore belief that the engineering profession serves society best by improving the lives of people.The CoE mission
, studentsparticipate in a two-course capstone design sequence during their senior year.Historically, a majority of civil engineering graduates find employment in southeastern Page 15.128.2Michigan. Over the last couple of years, however, a growing number of graduates are acceptingemployment with out-of-state engineering and construction firms. Additionally, many studentsare pursuing advanced engineering and business degrees.The Lawrence Tech website is located on the Internet at: www.ltu.eduB. Overview of BOK2The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), when it published Policy Statement 465 (PS465), Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional
engineersinto student projects as the assistant director of education outreach in the Mascaro Center for Sustainable Innovation, Pitt’s center for green design.Chris Hendrickson, Carnegie Mellon UniversityAmy E. Landis, University of PittsburghH. Scott Matthews, Carnegie Mellon University H. Scott Matthews is a Professor in the Departments of Civil and Environmental Engineering and En- gineering & Public Policy and the Research Director of the Green Design Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. The Green Design Institute is an interdisciplinary research consortium at Carnegie Mellon fo- cused on identifying and assessing the environmental impacts of systems and helping businesses manage their use of resources and toxic
the University of Canterbury. Prior to joining Canterbury in 2004, he worked for ten years as a transportation engineer and traffic researcher for Opus International Consultants. Dr. Koorey’s wide- ranging experience includes considerable research and consulting work on road safety modelling, speed management, sustainable transport planning, crash analysis, and the design and operation of rural two- lane highways. At Canterbury, he has taught professional design project courses since 2006. He has also delivered oral and written presentation skills to students for many years.Prof. Aisling Dominique O’Sullivan Ph. D., University of CanterburyDr. Keith Comer, Chalmers University of Technology
similar ideas as presented here. One successful aspect of the experiment is that the 3Dmodel provides a more authentic emulation of real-world engineering practice. Students mayperuse the views and orbit the model in 3D to understand the nature of the problem. This type ofengagement, inquiry, and discovery is typically not possible in traditional paper exams.Additionally, by modeling the context in 3D, the exam designer is forced to fully develop theproblem in a way that is not typically done for an on-paper exam. For example, consider theunusual cross-section. The unconventional shape was strategically chosen to limit students’ability to use online moment of inertia solvers during the take-home exam. However, the unusualshape of the cross
AC 2011-1950: IMPLEMENTING PEER-REVIEWS IN CIVIL ENGINEER-ING LABORATORIESKatherine Kuder, Seattle University Assistant Professor in Civil and Environmental Engineering at Seattle University, specializing in mechan- ics, structural engineering and cement-based materials.Nirmala Gnanapragasam, Seattle University Nirmala Gnanapragasam is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engi- neering at Seattle University and is the design coordinator of the senior capstone program for the depart- ment. She is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Washington. Her interests include the professional practice of geotechnical engineering and engineering education research
science, consistent with the program educational objectives5. Studentwork from this class is used to assess how well our students are achieving this outcome.Course OutcomesThe course outcomes for GLY 2805 are: 1. Explain selected basic topics in physical geology, particularly those that affect civil engineering practice. 2. Explain how geologic processes and their attendant landforms can influence aspects of engineering design including site development. 3. Refine skills associated with professional engineering practice including research and written communication.Course ContentThe plan described in this paper seeks to build upon the strengths of this course to create a coursethat is engaging and meaningful to the students
, vol. 111, no. 3, pp. 83-92, 2012.16 B. A. Greene, I. A. Lubin, J. L. Slater and S. E. Walden, "Mapping changes in science teachers’ content knowledge: Concept maps and authentic professional development," Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 22, no. 3, p. 287–299, 2013.17 M. M. Buehl and H. Fives, "Best practices in educational psychology: Using evolving concept maps as instructional and assessment tools," Teaching Educational Psychology, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 62–87, 2011.18 M. Williams, "Concept mapping–a strategy for assessment," Nursing Standard, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 33-38, 2004.19 J. D. Novak, "Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 27, no. 10, p
[M] choose some of my classes [F]≠ you are able to work out in the field [M] ≠ Although the quality of the education cannot≠ freedom to design and fix a problem in the be questioned, it is not very student friendly. best way [M] There is no room for personalization in the≠ everything you do immediately has an program, with some semesters not even effect on people [M] allowing room for an approved elective. [M]Help people [8x]; examples: ≠ design within realistic constraints; the [first≠ final products are amazing and the help year projects course] was extremely they
to be beyond the level necessary for entry into professional practice andwould be attained through post entry level experience or education. The committee created threenew pathways to attainment for both the cognitive and affective domains, which did not appearin BOK2, namely: Post Graduate Education (PG) - a replacement for the Master’s or P”lus 30” designation in BOK2 that indicates formal education beyond the baccalaureate degree; Mentored Experience (ME) - experience gained under the mentorship of an engineer who has already satisfied the BOK requirements for entry into professional practice; and Self Directed (SD) - a program of learning initiated and pursued by the
the United Statesmust bring added value and higher-level skills including innovation, a problem solving approach,and leadership to garner higher salary jobs in U.S. companies. The call from various technicalreports on engineering education demands that U.S. higher education institutions produce thiskind of engineers. Accordingly, there is an urgent need for reforming and enhancing engineeringeducation to address these needs. This reform effort is best served through a merging of engi-neering education with best practices in educational psychology. Traditional curriculum in engineering education involves deductive instruction in whichthe instructors lecture on general principles with limited application of the principles to real
Engineers for over 24 years including eleven years on the faculty at the United States Military Academy.Dr. Timothy W Mays P.E., The Citadel Timothy Wayne Mays, Ph.D., P.E. is a Professor of Civil Engineering at The Citadel in Charleston, SC. Dr. Mays recently served as Executive Director of the Structural Engineers Associations of South Carolina and North Carolina. He currently serves as NCSEA Publications Committee Chairman. He has received three national teaching awards (ASCE, NSPE, and NCSEA) and both national (NSF) and regional (ASEE) awards for outstanding research. He is the recipient of the 2009 NCSEA Service Award. His areas of expertise are code applications, structural design, seismic design, steel connections
references on sustainable infrastructure are: • ASCE Code of Ethics • ASCE Committee on Sustainability • ASCE Policy 418 The Role of the Civil Engineering in Sustainable Development • ASCE Report on Forum on Technical Opportunities for Sustainable Infrastructure, ASCE Committee on Sustainability, Approved June 3, 2005 • Editors of Fortune (1957 Exploding Metropolis, Garden City, NY, Double Day Anchor. • Jacobs, J (2004). Dark Age Ahead. Random House, New York.The Research FrontierNo one would assert that at present we know how to achieve a steady, productive relationshipwith nature. Thus we are in a transient stage where knowledge and hence technology must beadvancing toward more sustainable practices. This research
dialogues. However, instructor facilitation may result in an instructor-centered discussion whichlimit students’ participation and voice [18], and student-facilitated discussions provide analternative approach. Peer facilitation can foster a sense of student ownership and help studentsfeel more at ease in expressing their opinions [19], and allow practical hands-on experience ofbeing a discussion facilitator [18]. Compared to instructor-facilitated discussions, research onstudent-facilitated discussions is still limited focusing more on the student facilitation techniques[11], [20]. This study aims to explore how overall design and management of student-facilitateddiscussions influence peer interaction and critical thinking in engineering
technology education.”2It is especially important for civil engineering educators to understand the global engagement ofABET, and the impact it may have on the civil engineering profession, and education. As theworld economy becomes more integrated, graduates from accredited programs (both ABET andMRA partner organizations) will enter the workforce, and work in a very dynamic globalenvironment. Civil engineers will cross geographic borders frequently, seeking professionallicensure, graduate education and employment in a number of countries. ABET’s globalpresence will significantly help them be successful.This paper aims to educate the reader on ABET’s various global activities and how theycontribute to the advancement of technical education
objectives and lectures/modules developed for thecourse reflect discussions and feedback received from the Southeast Transportation ResearchInnovation Development and Education Center led by the University of Florida and theSustainable Smart Cities Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Theeducational resources developed were used as classroom training materials in a newly developedcourse that aimed at educating undergraduate and first year graduate students about sustainabilityplanning concept, design options, and rating systems. Students that completed the course wereexpected to do: 1. Be able to describe the role of transportation in sustainable development; 2. Be able to identify planning, and design practices for
consciously and actively fosters and rewards creativity. Architecture studentsprioritize innovation and continuously engage in creative thinking while keeping an eyeon the big picture: the cultural significance and ultimate aims of the “program” inrelationship to the cultural and environmental context of the project. Students areexposed to the best examples of creative endeavor and cutting-edge design practice andtaught the history of their field. Throughout their education, students are exposed to arange of approaches and methodologies for problem-solving design, helping to providethe understanding the no one approach is paramount. Architecture students however,often lack the technical skills and expertise of their engineering peers because they
assignments.As one scholarship recipient remarked, “ASDSO’s national conference was a great opportunityto attend seminars and view in greater depth the real-life aspects of engineering. One of themore interesting aspects of ASDSO’s conference (as opposed to other engineering conferences)was the emphasis placed on the communities impacted by dams. Civil engineering is a relativelypeople-oriented field to begin with, but ASDSO interacts with the public in nearly every aspectof dam construction, design, maintenance, and decommission.”Another noted, “As a student I was still unsure of my plans after graduation, but after attendingthe conference I felt that dam safety was the correct path for me. The scholarship helped to easethe burden of paying for college
, Business Practices, and AssetManagement which included multiple modules to demonstrate many of the professionaloutcomes. The offering of this course along side of the senior design allowed for thestudents to wrestle with the concepts using their senior design experience as the focus.The single course provided a rapid solution to properly demonstrate multiple outcomesthat do not naturally align with traditional technical courses. The experience has alsoenlightened the faculty to the possible use of modules to successfully level graduatestudents desiring an ABET accredited graduate degree without graduating from an ABETaccredited undergraduate program. Further refinement is required as the program movesforward with accreditation of its graduate
-Long Learning) and Outcome 14,(Business and Public Policy). The assessment for business and public policy was downgraded.The initial rating was based on averaging the assessment of business knowledge (sub-Level 1)and public policy awareness (almost Level 2). A new interpretation indicates that Level 1 abilityis needed in both areas. Future USMA curriculum revisions will require more emphasis onbusiness practices and issues.After the Curriculum committee recommended the use of 3 levels mentioned above, CAP3established the Competency Committee to study and recommend the best method of assessingthe outcomes. After much debate and research into alternative methods by the CompetencyCommittee, it was decided that the Curriculum Committee suggestion
post-baccalaureate formal education as well as pre-licensure experience. Specific emphasis is giventhose BOK2 outcomes that previous survey data identified as being a challenge for manyprograms to address within current curricular design. The curriculum, as developed, isconsidered to be BOK2 compliant, in addition to meeting current university graduation andABET/EAC accreditation requirements.IntroductionThe first edition of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century1 (BOK1) wasreleased in January 2004. Based on various inputs, a second edition of the Civil EngineeringBody of Knowledge for the 21st Century2 (BOK2) was developed and released in February 2008.The BOK1 has already impacted accreditation criteria and civil
geographic information systems (GIS) technology in the solution of engineering problems. 6. Able to select the best site for a given purpose, and devise the modifications to the site required to prepare it for that purpose. The sixth objective encompasses the context for the entire course, the ability to be able toconduct a site analysis and design. The common theme for the course was an engineering designproject to reconnaissance, research, and design modifications for an undeveloped site for aspecific use. This design project was taken from a variety of future building projects theacademy is currently investigating. In order to design the site, knowledge was required in avariety of the major topics listed in Table 1. Table 3
more useableand useful to instructors. Of equal importance, though, was that through the process ofgenerating the list, it became clear to us that some of the ITM’s best practices were written insuch a way that the three of us working on the document did not even agree on what they meant.This discovery helped us make a final set of revisions to the wording of the ITM’s best practicesthat both better aligned with the Model-Antithesis-Exemplar table and better reflected ouroriginal intentions for an ITM. The ITM we designed as a result of the process described here ispresented in Figure 3. Figure 3. The Institutional Teaching Model as presented to participants of the 2020 Teaching Workshop and promoted to faculty.In the summer of 2019, as
minimumstandards that must be incorporated into your program outcomes. These standards are specifiedin the Criterion 3 a-k outcomes and include requirements for math, science, lifelong learning,engineering design, professional responsibility, ethics, and contemporary issues. Theserequirements are not trivial.Program: Then I will simply adopt the Criterion 3 a-k as my program outcomes.Expert: Using the Criterion 3 a-k outcomes without modification is probably acceptable but isdefinitely unwise. This practice sends the message that there is nothing special about yourprogram; that you have not given your educational outcomes much thought; and that you arewilling to let an outside agency dictate what you expect your students to accomplish. It is betterto