achievement required for the CEBOK ● Including extensive appendices describing the outcomes and various other aspects of the CEBOKThe number of outcomes ( see Table 2) increased from 15 to 24 and were organized into threecategories: Foundational, Technical, and Professional. The increase in outcomes reflected thecommittee’s desire to improve clarity and specificity, rather than to increase the scope of theCEBOK. CEBOK2 outcomes did signal a greater emphasis on some topics including the naturalsciences, the humanities, sustainability, globalization, risk and uncertainty, and public policy [3].Table 2 CEBOK2 Outcomes [3, 5] Outcome Outcome Statement Level1
) modify existing competitions to encourage cross-disciplinary student participation because the collaboration and communication required to complete this type of project would be reflective of the CE industry and align with how engineers will need to solve future, complex challenges faced by society.Future work should be conducted to characterize student perceptions of the competitions thatthey deem the most impactful and inspirational to their education, interests, and the future ofsociety. This could include collecting data from student surveys or focus groups to determine ifthe competitions available provide an adequate path to inspiration, engagement, and persistence.For example, do students perceive they have a high quantity
or learn,exploration and questioning, openness, and innovation. The provided definitions reflect atraditional understanding of curiosity as a drive for knowledge, primarily centered on individualgrowth and intellectual exploration.The themes that presented in post-workshop responses were quite similar to the pre-workshopresponses, but they tended to be more in-depth. Discovery, exploration, and openness themespersisted. Responses also included a shift toward appreciation curiosity in relation to broadersocietal or collaborative contexts.Connections - Themes between the pre and post-workshop responses remained consistent.Themes included collaboration (relationship connections, diverse perspectives), integration andsynthesis (connections
students responded rapidly to thisrequest for revisions, motivated by their desire to be approved for a work permit for the project.Though challenging at the time, it was in the process of completing these revisions where muchof the learning took place for their project team. Their final report reflects the required changesand has served as an example for later teams [42].Moment Monument: This structure consisting of six isolated steel frames illustrating nine specialmoment frame (SMFs) connections was able to be considered a ‘sculpture/art piece’ forpermitting purposes, so the design and construction needed not be as extensive as an actual SMFused as a lateral force resisting system in a high seismic region. For seismic, in-plane analysiswas
interviews contained seven questions intended to allow instructors to reflect upon andsuggest improvements for anchor deployment: 1. How many anchored lessons did you offer in your course this semester? 2. What did a typical anchor look like in your course? 3. How difficult was it to add anchored lessons into your existing curriculum? 4. What were some challenges you faced when implementing anchored lessons? 5. How did you perceive the students’ opinions of the anchored lessons? (i.e., Did they seem to like the content? Did they ask good questions? Were they attentive?) 6. Do you feel that the anchored lessons added positive value to your class? In what way? 7. Any suggestions on how to improve anchors in future semesters
length (e.g., kN/m, lb/ft) • L is the span length of the beam (e.g., m, ft) … Note: Remainder of response by Gemini has been omitted for brevity.While this is technically the correct response assuming that 2 refers to an attempt tomake the 2 an exponent, it is not provided in a format that would be considered easy to use.Therefore, this response is recorded as mixed accuracy, which is reflected in the Table providedin the Appendix. A similar formatting issue making the response difficult to understand wasprovided by SE GPT for the same question. All chatbots except for ChatGPT appeared to haveat least one unusable format response. Although ChatGPT did not have an unusable formatwithin the websites interface, there was a limitation