Paper ID #9110NSPE’s Pan-Engineering BOKDr. Stuart G. Walesh P.E., S. G. Walesh Consulting Stuart G. Walesh, Ph.D., P.E. is an author and independent consultant providing management and educa- tion and trainingmarketing services to engineering organizations. Prior to beginning his consultancy, he worked in the public, private, and academic sectors. Stu speaks and writes about engineering education and practice. His most recent book is Engineering Your Future: The Professional Practice of Engineering. Over a past 15 years, Stu has been active in the effort to reform the education and early experience of engineers
Paper ID #10256The Effectiveness of ”Interactive” Slide Presentations for Promoting StudentEngagement in University Engineering CoursesSean A Wirth M.S. Civil Engineering student @ CU Boulder from 2011-2014. Part-time adjunct instructor and CADD Technician. Carried out observations of in-class student engagement levels under direction of Abbie Liel, Ph.D.Dr. Abbie B Liel P.E., University of Colorado Boulder Dr. Abbie B. Liel is an assistant professor of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder.Prof. John S McCartney, University of Colorado Boulder John S. McCartney
Paper ID #8598Expanding the Presence of Stormwater Management in Undergraduate CivilEngineeringMs. Aimee S Navickis-Brasch P.E., Gonzaga University Aimee Navickis-Brasch is a registered professional engineer with over twenty years of practitioner experi- ence in Hydraulic and Stormwater Engineering. The majority of her career was spent working for WSDOT Headquarters Hydraulics and Stormwater Office where she was responsible for providing statewide sup- port including; design, research, training,and policy development. Aimee is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering at the University of Idaho with an emphasis in
integrated into a freshman engineering course, a senior- level Hydrology course at Virginia Tech, and a couple of courses at Virginia Western Community College, Roanoke for enhancing water sustainability education. He is a member of ASCE and ASEE and has published 70+ refereed publications.Mr. Daniel S. Brogan, Virginia Tech Daniel Brogan is a PhD student in Engineering Education with BS and MS degrees in Electrical Engi- neering. He has completed several graduate courses in engineering education pertinent to this research. He is the key developer of the PIRMS and leads the LEWAS lab development and implementation work. He has mentored two NSF/REU Site students in the LEWAS lab. He assisted in the development and
is being integrated into a freshman engineering course, a senior- level Hydrology course at Virginia Tech, and a couple of courses at Virginia Western Community College, Roanoke for enhancing water sustainability education. He is a member of ASCE and ASEE and has published 70+ refereed publications.Mr. Daniel S. Brogan, Virginia Tech Daniel S. Brogan is a PhD student in Engineering Education with BS and MS degrees in Electrical En- gineering. He has completed several graduate courses in engineering education pertinent to this research. He leads the LEWAS lab development and implementation work. He has mentored two NSF/REU Site students in the LEWAS lab. He assisted in the development and implementation of
. Participate in Participate in Indigenous Project Phase Travel Visits Domestic Activities Participants Initial investigation S, F S, F, PE, DCP, OP B, NGO Design S, F, PE, OP S, F, PE, DCP, OP B, ICP, NGO Pre-implementation S, F, PE, OP, S, F, PE, DCP OP B, ICP, NGO planning DCP Construction S, PE, DCP, F S, F, PE, DCP B, ICP, NGO Closeout S, PE, DCP S, F, PE, DCP B, NGO, ICP Key: “S”= student, “F
years. Although some of the students focused on thecreative aspect of the project more than the civil engineering aspects, they nevertheless createdsomething new, understood the concept of concrete design better through hands-on activities,experimented with new materials, and found the experience interesting.References1. Crofton, F. S. “Educating for Sustainability: Opportunities in Undergraduate Engineering.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 2000: 397-405.2. Woodruff, P. H. “Educating Engineers to Create a Sustainable Future.” Journal of Environmental Engineering, April 2006: 434-444.3. Davidson, C. I., Matthews, H. S, Hendrickson, C. T, Bridges, M. W., Allenby, B. R., Crittenden, J. C., Chen, Y., Williams, E., Allen, D. T., Murphy, C
classrooms for the sake of research so as to have classes with balancedstrengths, without unduly inconveniencing students. It is also recommended that there should beresearch into finding ways of factoring student native abilities into the results of researchfindings that use class comparisons.References:1. Felder, R.M. & Silverman, L.K., Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 78, No. 7, pp. 674-681, (1988).2. Michel, N., Cater III, J.J.& Varela, O. (2009). Active Versus Passive TeachingStyles: An Empirical Study of Student Learning Outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(4).3. Stewart-Wingfield, S., & Black, G. S. (2005). Active versus passive course designs
n2 x2 s2 Grading Plan 17 89.7 6.5 18 80.6 11.2 Stormwater Plan 17 87.8 6.8 18 71.3 12.5 n = sample size, x = mean, and s = standard deviationThe results appear to show a drop in graded performance on the embedded indicators. Astatistical t-test analysis27 was conducted to confirm the change in performance. Assuming thatthe population distributions are normal and the standard deviations (σ1 = σ 2) are approximatelyidentical (+/- factor of 2), the null hypothesis is that the means are identical ( x 1 – x 2 = 0).Comparing the EDP Grading Plans from 2011 and 2012Pooled estimate of the σ2 is determined as follows
- 306.25. Segalàs, J., D. Ferrer-Balas, and K.F. Mulder, What do engineering students learn in sustainability courses? The effect of the pedagogical approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2010. 18(3): p. 275-284.26. Carey, S., Knowledge Acquisition: Enrichment or Conceptual Change?, in The epigenesis of mind, S. Carey and R. Gelman, Editors. 1991, Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ. p. 257-291.27. Chi, M.T.H., Three Types of Conceptual Change: Belief Revision, Mental Model Transformation, and Categorical Shift, in Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, S. Vosniadou, Editor. 2008, Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.28. Craig, S., M.T.H. Chi, and K. VanLehn, Improving classroom learning by collaboratively observing human tutoring
). The political career of a prototype: Visual representation in design engineering. Social Problems, 42(2), 274–299.5. Henderson, K. (1999). On line and on paper: Visual representations, visual culture, and computer graphics in design engineering. The MIT Press.6. Juhl, J., & Lindegaard, H. (2013). Representations and visual synthesis in engineering design. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 20–50.7. Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139–151.8. Litzinger, T.A., Meter, P.V., Firetto, C. M., Passmore, L. J., Masters, C. B., Turns, S. R., Gray, G.L., Constanzo, F., & Zappe, S. E. (2010
. New York: UNESCO. Page 24.571.12 113. Lohani, V. K., and T. Younos. 2008. Implementation and Assessment of an Interdisciplinary NSF/REU Site on Watershed Sciences and Engineering,” Proc. 2008 ASEE Annual Conference, June 22-25, 2008, Pittsburgh.4. Bolding, E. 2009, Research Experiences for Undergraduates, 2009 NSF Engineering Education Awardees Conference, Feb. 1-3, 2009, Reston, VA.5. Raicu, D. S. and Furst, J. D., 2009. Enhancing undergraduate education: a REU model for interdisciplinary research, SIGCSE '09 Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on Computer science
efficient.Faculty members acknowledge the ease of use and effectives of the new tool. As a result, thenew tool was adopted and replaced the old tools of assessment. This tool played a critical role inhelping creating a system of continuous improvement of course outcomes.Bibliography1. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). (2006). 2007-2008 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs. Retrieved January 5, 2007 from http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml2. S. Ashur, Civil Engineering Assessment Plan, Department of Engineering, Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, December 2008.3. S. Ashur, Civil Engineering Program Assessment Report: Spring 2010 Semester, Department of Engineering, Indiana University-Purdue
‘learnedprofession’ characterized by competency and the continued pursuit knowledge and experience.”Engineering societies can work together to make this a reality for all branches of engineering.BackgroundVisualizing the future of engineering education is not a new phenomenon. During the 1920’s theSociety for the Promotion of Engineering Education developed the landmark study6,"Report of the Investigation of Engineering Education, 1923-1929", that has been popularlyreferred to as the Wickenden Report. Interestingly enough, over 80 years ago they werediscussing “the question of a longer engineering curriculum” along with programs, standards andfacilities required. We have come a long way since the late 1920’s and today are contemplating
. [Accessed 22 December 2013].[13] Materials Group, U.S. Department of Transportaiton, Federal Highway Administration, "Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag," 7 April 2011. [Online]. Available: www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/materialsgrp/ggbfs.htm. [Accessed 22 December 2013].[14] D. N. Richardson, "Strength and Durability Characteristics of a 70% Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) Concrete Mix," Missouri Transportation Institute and Missouri Department of Transportation, Rolla, 2006.[15] M. S. Imbabi, C. Carrigan and S. McKenna, "Trends and developments in green cement and concrete technology," International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 194-216, 2012.[16] D. Marsh, "Carbon Leverage
topics.Dr. Carol Haden, Magnolia Consulting, LLC Carol Haden is s Senior Evaluator with Magnolia Consulting, LLC. She holds a doctorate in Curriculum and Instruction with an emphasis on program evaluation from Northern Arizona University. Dr. Haden has extensive experience in the evaluation of formal STEM education projects across the K-20 spectrum and the evaluation of informal STEM Education and Public Outreach (E/PO) programs. She has designed and implemented evaluations of programs funded by the National Science Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Arizona Board of Regents, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Arizona Department of Education, among others. She has
impact of the flipped classroom setting and the design ofin-class activities to support and compliment the online modules will be performed in pursuit ofthis goal.7. AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to acknowledge the Mascaro Center for Sustainable Innovation and theSustainability Institute. Thank you to the National Science Foundation, EFRI-SEED Grant#1038139, the Department of Energy Energy Efficient Building Hub, the BNY MelonFoundation, the Heinz Endowments, the Penn State Center, Pittsburgh, the Penn StateDepartment of Architectural Engineering, and the Engineering Education Research Center forthe support. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
engineering education.” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, June 28 - July 1, 1998, Seattle, WA.4 Robinson, M. and Sutterer, K. (2003). “Integrating sustainability into civil engineering curricula.” Proceedings of the 2003 Annual Conference, June 22-25, 2003, Nashville, TN.5 Hansen, K. and Vanegas, J. (2006). “A guiding vision, road map, and principles for researching and teaching sustainable design and construction.” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 18-21, 2006, Chicago, IL.6 Freyne, S., Hale, M., and Durham, S. (2007). “Incorporating “green” ideas into civil engineering materials courses.” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 24-27, 2007, Honolulu, HI.7
include a review of published technicalliterature. The MS projects described herein utilized local, state, and national design codes ormanuals. The partnership based projects provide students with more code experience and moreagency/client interactions than MS project from other sources.Figure 6. Maximum live load envelope along entire span of bridge. Maximum moment is 1253kip-ft at support 2, minimum moment is -1312 kip-ft at 231.65 ft.Finally, there is a learning outcome to provide the ability to provide solution(s) to a real-worldcivil engineering problem in one of the following four recognized major civil engineering areas:environmental and water resources engineering, geotechnical engineering, structural engineering,and transportation
draft papers from the instructor.References1. American Society of Civil Engineers, (2008). Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century,Preparing the Civil Engineer for the Future, Second Edition, ASCE Press, Reston, VA.2. Nelson, S. (2003). “Engineering and Technology Student Perceptions of Collaborative Writing Practices,” IEEETransactions on Professional Communications, Vol. 46, No. 4, 265-276.3. FitzPatrick, K. A. (2004). “An Investigative Laboratory Course in Human Physiology Using ComputerTechnology and Collaborative Writing,” Adv Physiol Educ, 28: 112-119.4. Gragson, D. E. and Hagen, J. P. (2010). “Developing Technical Writing Skills in the Physical ChemistryLaboratory: A Progressive Approach Employing Peer Review,” Journal
. Nonetheless, the college levelis similar to the K–12 level in that “[s]tandards-based grading sets high standards for studentsand puts them in charge of their own learning by letting them set goals based on specific learningstandards.”4 Undoubtedly, that outcomes-based assessment can “communicate expectations”clearly and directly is something many students have found refreshing.In an article that defines four recommendations for implementing outcomes-based assessment,Marzano and Heflebower claim that by getting rid of all “omnibus grading,” students can betterunderstand their own knowledge of the subject, and can see the progress they are making or needto make. The authors also discussed student-generated assessments in which “the student ap-proaches
spurred changes to the degreerequirements. The last accreditation visit occurred prior to the curriculum redesign and rollout ofthe co-terminal program. The updated BSCE has not been accredited yet.The civil engineering department functions with five faculty members: four full-time teachingfaculty and one part-time teaching/department chair. In addition, the department includes onefull-time technician who aids in the operation of its laboratory space. With only five facultymembers, the program has four specialty areas: structural, transportation, geotechnical and waterresources engineering. Each of these specialty areas has its own dedicated laboratory space andis directed by the faculty member(s) with the associated subject matter expertise.The
provide real world examples that can be used to motivate and educate undergraduates and other students in the master’s program.In order to improve the practicum experience, the faculty are working on the following changes: ― Update the language of the assignments that students needed to resubmit in order to reduce ambiguity. ― Create a forum for students to share their practicum experiences once they arrive on campus for the fall term.Acknowledgements:The authors would like to thank the following firms for hosting practicum interns and forproviding feedback for the program and this paper: Barr Engineering Co., Minneapolis, Minnesota Walter P. Moore, Dallas, TexasReferences:Flood, L. S. and Powers, M. E., “Lessons
addressingethical quandaries.CE 1105 Module: What is Critical Thinking and Why is it Important for Good Decision Making?The CE 1105, Introduction to Civil Engineering, module is designed as an introduction to criticalthinking and uses Bloom’s Taxonomy to illustrate various levels of cognitive abilities.Specifically, the learning objectives are that students will be able to: define critical thinking; explain Bloom’s Taxonomy; draw the Bloom’s Taxonomy pyramid; apply the first three levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy to basic problems/decisions; and identify the level(s) of Bloom’s Taxonomy used in various phases of decision making.After the pretest is administered, the instructor begins the lesson with a discussion of whatcritical
experience is the involvement with the projectsponsor, graduate mentor, and faculty adviser in addition to the necessary technical design. Alsovaluable is the emphasis on autonomy and teamwork, and the creation of professionally prepareddesign deliverables. The students and the sponsors alike have enjoyed the opportunity to worktogether in this unique environment, and have found it a mutually beneficial experience.References 1. Todd, R.C., Sorensen, C., & Magleby, S. (1993). Designing a senior capstone course to satisfy industrial customers. Journal of engineering education, 82 (2), 92-100. 2. Fairchild, G. F., & Taylor, T. G. (2000). Using business simulations and issue debates to facilitate synthesis in agribusiness
s at in ic ist M ys er m ne Ph he
understanding of the course concepts? Why? ____________________ Why not? ____________________What additional subject(s) would be better understood if pencasts were added?What did you like least about using the pencasts?What suggestions do you have to improve pencasts for future students? Page 24.790.16Appendix C – Focus Group ProtocolFocus Group Protocol -Perceptions of Student LearningThe purpose of the focus group is to discuss how participation in the pencast tutorials has been beneficial to students. In other words, how you see using these tutorials outside of class are beneficial to you. 1. To start off this conversation, I’d first like to
thecommissions are “enabled and appointed by the Board.” ASCE was unconvinced by thisargument, because the issue at hand was about establishing policies and procedures, notconducting accreditation activities.At the meeting, ASCE’s Board members went forward with their two planned motions regardingapproval authority for the APPM, and both were approved. From ASCE’s perspective, thisdecision affirmed the Board’s sole responsibility for approving ABET policies and procedures.Program NamingWithout question, the most complex and controversial accreditation policy issue faced by theASCE task committee has been program naming. At the heart of this issue is paragraphII.E.4.c.(2) of the APPM: “If a program name implies specialization(s) for which ProgramCriteria
Evaluations During the 2004-2005Accreditation Cycle, Engineering Accreditation Commission, Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology,ABET, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland, 2005.5 ASCE. Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century: Preparing the Civil Engineer for the Future,2nd Edition, Reston, VA, 2008.6 Bloom, Benjamin S. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, New York: Longman, 1956.7 Ressler, S. J., “Influence of the New Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge on Accreditation Criteria.”Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, June 2008.8 Ressler, S.J., “The Raise the Bar Inititiative: Charting the Future by Understanding the Path to the PresentAccreditation Criteria.” Proceedings of
another is for a hypothetical environmental spill at aconvenient geologic site identified by the students for an independent geologic field trip. Page 24.640.5Table 1. Matrix Map of Learning Objectives to Evaluation Tools for Acceptable Evidence of Learning Desired Results: Students should be Acceptable Evidence Value Learning Experience(s) able to Proj Wk Case HW Tests demonstrate understanding of basic applications of geology to civil/environmental engineering by