studentlearning, student satisfaction, or both: in-class group problem solving[1], peer instruction[2], theuse of workbooks[3], physical demonstrations[4], interactive online textbooks[5], body-centeredtalk[6], inverted or flipped classrooms[7], etc. However, recommendations are scarce on how tobest combine these innovative activities into one class: how do we begin to assemble the partsinto a whole? In the 2000’s Steif and Dollár[8] suggested and then later showed[9] that thecombination of in-class conceptual questions and hands-on physical demonstrations in a Staticsclass resulted in high learning gains. Researchers later developed[10] and found[11] thatsupplemental web-based content was also beneficial to student learning. However, whileconceptual
later activities.1Through the literature review, it was determined that many of the existing studies compare aflipped vs. traditional classroom strictly on a semester-by-semester basis. That is, a traditionalclassroom from the first semester is compared to a “flipped” classroom the second semester. Thisintroduces a wide variety of irregularities between the two semesters: test structure and content,professor interaction, lecture inconsistencies, and other variables.Bishop conducted a literature review on the topic of flipped classrooms, and found 24 relevantstudies.1 Very few of these studies examined a flipped and traditional course the same semester.In addition, only one study, from Day, examined student performance throughout the semester
1949 by GeorgeOrwell. Nineteen Eighty-Four [1], as a novel, was widely acclaimed as a forewarning, but verylittle from the book proved to be a reality in 1984, other than the potential for world-wide nuclearwar.It is now October 26, 1985 as Marty McFly is surprised by his friend and eccentric scientist Dr.(Doc) Emmett Brown’s sudden arrival in his DeLorean, which also happens to double as asuccessful time machine. 1.21 gigawatts later, Marty McFly and Doc have now arrived atOctober 21st, 2015. This scenario comes from the movie Back to the Future II [2] starringMichael J. Fox as Marty McFly. As people crowded into theatres for the movie’s release the dayprior to Thanksgiving 1989, they were treated to the unique opportunity to see an
transportation engineering with lecture and laboratorycomponents at the Pennsylvania State University. Specifically, the study seeks to determine howthe transition to remote instruction impacted student perceptions of the learning environment asit relates to the development of their professional expertise. Students’ perception on the learningenvironment was measured using the Supportive Learning Environment for ExpertiseDevelopment Questionnaire (SLEED-Q) [1]. The SLEED-Q was administered to students in Fall2018 and Fall 2019 (normal instruction) and compared with responses obtained from Fall 2020(remote instruction). Prior data (2018, 2019) was collected for baseline comparison as part of alarger curricular revision project to examine the impact of
them. CIT-E has remained active since the conclusion ofthe grant. Through the organization of yearly workshops, it has been welcoming new membersand providing participants an opportunity to grow as educators, increase their professionalnetwork, and develop new materials collaboratively. This paper describes the results of an impactanalysis of CIT-E through the lens of a community of practice.IntroductionThe Center for Infrastructure Transformation and Education (CIT-E, pronounced “city”) is anexisting, thriving community of practice (CoP) with a shared domain of interest in supportingmore effective Civil and Environmental Engineering education [1]. The CIT-E CoP exists in bothphysical and cyber environments. In-person workshops have been held
; the most uniform component within the licensure process iscurrently the examination requirement.IntroductionProfessional engineering (PE) licensure is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare ofthe public as advocated by many professional societies including the American Society of CivilEngineers (ASCE) and the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) [1, 2]. However,there is no universal licensure law in the United States, because the 10 th Amendment to theUnited States Constitution authorizes every state and territory to establish laws and rules notspecifically delegated to the federal government. More recently, the United States SupremeCourt clarified that states have regulatory licensing authority for the protection of
Engineer of 2020 attributes. This study will also be ofinterest to educators considering how the attributes described in 2004 remain relevant in 2020and may spark conversation about how these attributes may need to be adjusted in the future.The study will be of particular interest to those responsible for recommending and implementingcurricular changes in engineering programs.BackgroundThe report titled The Engineer of 2020, published in 2004, is a product of the National Academyof Engineering[1]. The committee responsible for writing the document included 18 people: 12affiliated with academic institutions, 4 affiliated with technology-based companies (IBM, HP,Telcordia, and Reliant Energy), 1 affiliated with a national laboratory (Sandia), and 1
neurodiverse students as well as all students with differentlearning styles and disabilities.1. IntroductionThe goal of undergraduate engineering programs is to teach how to solve problems [1] withcritical thinking and other necessary skills. Engineering programs typically have had a narrowfocus and rigid adherence to traditional instruction and assessment [2]. Blickenstaff [3] reportedthe lecture format that was adopted in most engineering courses can be detrimental in that itpotentially creates a barrier between students and instructors. Felder et al. [4] and Suresh [5]found that performance in key introductory undergraduate courses is related to engineeringpersistence. Even long after Seymour and Hewitt’s earlier study about students
, policies, and programs. The ASCE Committee on Accreditation Operations (COAO)focuses on recruitment, training, assignment, and evaluation of program evaluators foraccreditation of programs in the six areas for which ASCE serves as lead society [1].ASCE staff and volunteers provide significant effort to support accreditation activities. ASCEstaff and volunteer time is required to recruit and support a 200-plus person roster of PEVs, 16TCs who also serve as Commissioners in the Engineering or Engineering TechnologyAccreditation Commissions (EAC or ETAC), and three ASCE volunteers who serve as ABETArea Delegates. ASCE serves as the lead society for six sets of program criteria spanning twodifferent ABET commissions (i.e., EAC and ETAC).ABET
particular, it evaluates on the basis of key learning outcomes that measureresearch, comprehension, leadership, professionalism, and communication skills, both oral andwritten. The rubric is composed of the following: (1) Research & Sustainability Analysis, (2)Project Development, (3) Teamwork & Leadership, and (4) Deliverables. Each section of therubric addresses a necessary area: 1. Research & Sustainability Analysis – Students research and analyze sustainability’s meaningfulness to the project and show how to address stakeholders’ needs and project trade-offs. 2. Project Development – Students complete the project within schedule while meeting pre- set and targeted sustainability goals. 3. Teamwork &
, infrastructure ortransportation planning, mass transit, the interconnection of infrastructure systems, systemstakeholders, social, economic, and environmental impacts, risks, risk management, sustainabledesign, and resilience.COVID-19 is an abbreviation for "Coronovirus Disease 2019", which is caused by the "severeacute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)" [1]. The virus was first detected inWuhan, China, in late 2019, and it spread rapidly throughout the world in early 2020. Human-to-human transmission primarily occurs through droplets of saliva or discharge from the nose of aninfected person [2]. In the United States, during the initial stages of the pandemic, state-levelDeclarations of Emergency were issued, which allowed governors of the
program needs.1. IntroductionThis paper summarizes three cases which each address diversity and inclusion while directlysupporting traditional course content within the civil engineering curriculum. The casesidentified were: Flint Water Crisis (Environmental Engineering), Robert Moses & The SouthernState Parkway’s Bridges (Transportation Engineering), and Hurricane Katrina Levee Failures(Geotechnical Engineering). The paper also suggests teaching interventions and directly mapsout the content in each case study as it pertains to ABET outcomes and traditional civilengineering course subject matter. A select case and teaching intervention were implementedduring a pilot initiative within the Roger Williams University Spring 2021
and in their future careers.1.0 IntroductionTo properly contextualize Carnegie Mellon’s work around DEI, we need to situate it within alarger movement that has gained traction and momentum around engineering and social justice[1]-[3]. These happenings build upon the seminal work of Baillie [4], Riley [5], and their jointwork with their collaborators [6]. This has sprung a series of engineering and social justice-related or -infused courses, seminar series, and workshops across engineering campuses such asthose at the University of San Diego [7], Colorado School of Mines [8], Purdue [9], Stanford[10], the National Academies [11], and others. The most recent illustration is a series of global,humanitarian, and peace engineering programs that
, by the American Society of CivilEngineers (ASCE) [1] and the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine(NASEM) [2], converge in recognizing that Civil and Environmental Engineers require bothformal education and mentored experiences, where education should provide breadth in thescientific and engineering fundamentals and strength in the students’ specific areas of expertise.Relevant to this paper, among many other objectives, breadth in the fundamentals is envisionedto include engineering economics, systems analysis, data science, and understanding of risk anduncertainty. In addition, skills such as for effective communication, collaborative work,negotiation and conflict resolution are deemed essential [2] while it is explicitly
suggests “public” should be replaced with “identified integral community.”This nuance prompts engineers to examine more closely who and what they are working to helpand protect [9].Understanding ethics is important for engineering students to appreciate complex social issues.Practicing civil engineers and engineering students use the ASCE Code of Ethics as an ethicallens through which to practice. However, failure to understand macro ethics produces “broad,negative social impacts, such as systemic social inequities, environmental degradation, or otherexternalized costs on unwitting stakeholder groups” [1]. Practicing civil engineers should beeducated on the complex social systems in which their infrastructure solutions are used.Integration of such
-orientedprofession [1]. To meet the high expectations of the industry, students must learnand apply different knowledge and skills in college. To better prepare students forindustry, many studies emphasized the importance of students’ exposure tovarious learning environments [2]-[4]. Internships provide a learning environmentthat helps students gain different learning opportunities than those afforded in thetraditional classroom. By exploring a different learning environment in aninternship, students have a broader range of opportunities for professionalpreparation [2].Benefits of InternshipStudent internship experience provides various learning opportunities for students to cross theboundaries of classroom and industry [1]. For example, internships
and promulgates three sets of criteria for accrediting engineeringprograms [1]: I. General Criteria for Baccalaureate Level Programs II. General Criteria for Master’s Level Programs III. Program CriteriaThe General Criteria for Baccalaureate Level Programs, which are applicable to undergraduateengineering programs in all disciplines, are organized into the following eight criteria [1]: • Criterion 1 – Students • Criterion 2 – Program Educational Objectives • Criterion 3 – Student Outcomes • Criterion 4 – Continuous Improvement • Criterion 5 – Curriculum • Criterion 6 – Faculty • Criterion 7 – Facilities • Criterion 8 – Institutional SupportABET has classified Criteria 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 as harmonized criteria—meaning that
construction courses in auniversity in Mexico. We applied the framework in a group of 21 students. The results showedan improvement of 20% in students ESD learning outcomes. Moreover, the participants reporteda better understanding on sustainable development problems as well as higher commitment to getinvolved in social development projects.1.0 IntroductionEmerging trends on sustainable development and information technology such as BuildingInformation Modelling (BIM) are driving profound transformation within architecture,engineering and construction (AEC) education [1], [2]. Therefore, higher education inconstruction engineering has been striving on implementing effective strategies to instructcompetence on BIM [2] and sustainable development on
explore the theoreticalpossibility of using asset-based community development (ABCD) mapping techniques toconnect personal student strengths to communities in the context of open-ended, project-basedengineering design.IntroductionEngineers design solutions to make things work in a context. Accordingly, engineering studentsmust develop this thinking capacity in their undergraduate programs of study.As part of this practice, engineers solicit input from community members who are not whollytrained in the design principles of the field. Most often, community stakeholders provide inputthrough a variety of human-centered design techniques [1-2]. Another approach is Polak’s(2008) design revolution that demands input from the most vulnerable
, and judgers outperform perceivers.Given these results, more research is needed to quantify the role of personality indicators andtemperament on group and individual performance. Specifically, investigating the role ofdiversity on group dynamics, particularly when there is one temperament making up a majorityof an engineering team. Due to the preponderance of Guardians found in some engineeringdepartments, this extreme scenario may be quite likely and have a negative impact onperformance, individual retention, and experience.CE350 – Infrastructure Engineering (3 credit hours)Course Scope, Objectives, and Structure. The course has five primary objectives: 1. Identify, assess, and explain critical infrastructure components and cross-sector
performance and student perception of theflipped classroom with a control group experiencing the same upper level undergraduateengineering course in a traditional lecture-based format over the course of an entire semester.The main research questions for this study include: 1) are short-term student learning gainsimproved when comparing flipped vs traditional lecture methods, 2) what aspects of the flippedclassroom are contributing to the difference in learning gains?, and 3) how do students perceivetheir learning gains in flipped vs traditional lecture styles? Comparison of quiz and exam gradeswill be used to address student performance. Weekly student recordings of the amount of timespent on different aspects of the course, student confidence
competence measures and qualitative hermeneutic phenomenology, with qualitativeresults to follow. To delve into understanding the experience of the study abroad engineeringstudent, the research question explored is, “To what extent may a short-term study abroadengineering course influence student intercultural competence?”ContextThis paper outlines the revision of a short-term study abroad engineering course. Previously, theexisting course had been offered on alternate years for seven separate offerings, when two newcomponents were added to the content: 1. Transfer of engineering content in a new context,specifically basic engineering mechanics analysis, with a nod to structural analysis, and 2.Intercultural knowledge and competence. The evolution
create a cohesive and meaningful experience for the students and to be able to assessthe success of the program, clear research and education objectives were established. Followingthe NSF program requirements and keeping in mind the research expertise of the US and theinternational partners, the following objectives were established: 1) Provide the students with a hands-on international education experience in the emerging area of sustainable green building design and construction; 2) Engage the students in meaningful research under the guidance of U.S. and international mentors; 3) Allow students to create a network of international contacts in order to promote future collaborations; 4) Expose
theseevents occurred over a five-year period (2010 – 2015). The authors will describe the curriculum,development of courses and laboratories, the senior design capstone, and preparation of the self-study report necessary for accreditation. All curricula and assessment tools are linked to amodified Bloom’s Taxonomy and ABET Outcome 3 Criteria a through k. A description of theuniversity, its service area, and student population is also provided. In 2015 West Texas A&MUniversity achieved a major milestone through designation as a Hispanic Serving Institution(HSI, 25% or more of student population) [1] and is seeking to improve participation of womenand underserved populations in STEM fields, such as civil engineering. Lessons learned andfuture
Paper ID #18288STEM Scholarships to Engage Exceptional StudentsDr. Ronald W. Welch, The Citadel Ron Welch (P.E.) received his B.S. degree in Engineering Mechanics from the United States Military Academy in 1982. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Civil Engineering from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana in 1990 and 1999, respectively. He became the Dean of Engineering at The Citadel on 1 July 2011. Prior to his current position, he was the Department Head of Civil Engineering at The University of Texas at Tyler from Jan 2007 to June 2011 as well as served in the Corps of Engineers for over 24 years
pipe networks. The Civil Engineering Department at theUniversity of Hartford has embraced the challenge of updating many of our courses to includethe use of Civil3D into all four years of the students’ curriculum to enhance learning and toimprove students’ success in landing a career. Based on advice from the Department’s AdvisoryBoard, Civil3D was selected as the software platform that is used throughout the civilengineering industry.This initiative supports the overriding theme of the Third Edition of the Civil Engineering Bodyof Knowledge that is “focused on preparing the future civil engineer for entry into the practice ofcivil engineering at the professional level [1].” Specifically, the use of design software enhancesthe Engineering
for All: Investigating the Feasibility of a Curricular-Embedded Peer Mentoring StructureIntroductionThe benefits of peer mentoring in undergraduate STEM courses are well documented, and theliterature suggests even more significant benefits to the mentors, compared to the mentees [1-3].The School of Engineering at the University of Kansas has developed a peer-mentoring modelcalled the Undergraduate Teaching Fellows Program, based on the Learning Assistant model [2].Students who participate as mentors in this program reported an improved understanding ofcourse content, more confidence in their academic and leadership abilities, and that they weremore prepared to go into the workplace after their experience as a peer mentor in this program
developed that facilitates integration of these products inexisting civil engineering curriculum. The SHRP 2 Education Connection program serves as anexcellent pedagogical tool to each civil engineering student by providing knowledge of SHRP2products and their impacts on community before they start their careers as transportation engineer.In the first round of SHRP2 Education Connection, faculty members from Rowan University hadsuccessfully integrated (SHRP2) solutions and products in the CEE curriculum (i.e., in fall 2015and spring 2016 semesters). Mehta et al [1] reported that the vertical integration of SHRP2 products from freshman year todoctoral level resulted, not only in an increased understanding of the role of each SHRP2 productin
deformable cables (Figures 1, 2). Figure 1. Rigid Beam Supported by Deformable Figure 2. Rigid Beam Supported by Deformable Cables (Undeformed, Drawn by Hand) Cables (Deformed, Drawn by Hand)This type of visual communication was likely drawn on any number of dry erase boards inengineering classrooms around the world. As in-class drawing is relatively time-consuming,instructors were likely to make the drawing process as efficient as possible, perhaps overlayingthe deformed geometry on top of the undeformed geometry, using a different color todifferentiate between the two ideas (Figure 2).These diagrams are both symbolic and analytical. They are drawn in a language onlycomprehensible to those that possess a certain
, iPhone and Android platforms featuring animatedinfographics, videos and state-specific data and placement of stories to make the informationmost readily available and applicable to the American public, as was done in 2013. Figure 1: Sample of the displays of the 2017 Report Card on multiple devicesThe Failure to Act Economic Study SeriesASCE’s Infrastructure Report Card grades are a comprehensive assessment of infrastructureconditions across the United States. But what does D+ infrastructure mean for the nation’seconomy?In 2011, ASCE commissioned a series of economic reports called Failure to Act, to provide anobjective analysis of the economic implications for the U.S. on the current investment trends inkey infrastructure sectors. In 2016