was always taught to go above and beyond and challenge accepted thinking.” Participant 24) Research experiencesFor many students their research experiences in various environments helped them develop as aresearcher. These experiences allowed them to develop a range of laboratory skills, workindependently on projects, and gain a first-hand idea of what research is like. “My internship at [Company X] that helped me understand that I liked laboratory work on the industrial scale.” Participant 31 “Working in a laboratory at a Singaporean university for a summer, in which I was generally left to my own devices, allowing me to plan my own activities and learned to be self-motivated, along with becoming
. Page 12.289.9APPENDIX A : PERCEPTUAL MODALITY STYLESStudents were not provided with a questionnaire to fill out.Rationale: Students are exhausted in filling out forms.Some researchers are of the opinion that ‘questionnaire-fatigue’ may result in faulty orskewed data.If so, how was assessment carried out?The instructor delivered four content material in four different modes.Topic 1 was delivered in the Lecture Format. (Aural)Topic 2 utilized Power Point Slides and other Visual Aids. (Visual)Topic 3 was left to the students to read, write and submit their findings. (Reading)Topic 4 was handled like a laboratory, demonstration, discussion, etc. (Kinesthetic)The four topics chosen were fairly similar in their complexity, although not
pedagogical tool to teachfreshmen engineering students about electromagnetism. A quasi-experimental design was used tocompare students who used visual-only simulations to those who used visuohaptic. Wehypothesized that multimodal presentation of information may lead to better conceptualunderstanding of electromagnetism compared to visual presentation alone.A class of 77 electrical engineering technology students from six different laboratory sessionsparticipated in the study. Laboratory sessions were randomly divided into two groups: a controlgroup with only visual simulations and an experimental group with visual simulations plus hapticfeedback. Learning was assessed qualitatively and quantitatively.Overall results on the pretest and posttest
students’ grades.Reference list1 Heylen C., Smet M., Buelens H. and Vander Sloten, J., 2007, Problem Solving and Engineering Design, introducing bachelor students to engineering practice at K.U.Leuven. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2007, 32 (4), pages 375 – 386.2 Kuder, K. and Gnanapragasam, N., 2011, Implementing peer-reviews in civil engineering laboratories, Proceedings 118th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 26th - 29th June 2011, Vancouver, Canada.3 Heylen, C., 2010, Problem Solving and Engineering Design: introducing bachelor students to engineering practice. 2010, Diss. Doct., ISBN 978-94-6018-237-2. (Available online: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/270889/1
the Microdevices Laboratory at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.Eli Fromm, Drexel University Dr. Eli Fromm is the Roy A. Brothers University Professor and Director of the Center for Educational Research in the College of Engineering of Drexel University. He has held a number of academic leadership positions and included among them are Vice President for Educational Research, Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Studies, and interim Dean of Engineering at Drexel. He has also held positions with the General Electric and DuPont companies, has been a staff member of the Science Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives as a Congressional Fellow, a Program Director at NSF, and a Visiting
Student- Centric Learning), promoting Leadership in Sustainability and Management Practices. He is also an Affiliate Researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, focusing on the energy ef- ficiency of IT Equipment in a Data Centers. Before his teaching career, he had a very successful corporate management career working in R&D at Lucent Technologies and as the Director of Global Technology Management at Qualcomm. He initiated and managed software development for both the companies in India. He holds MS in Engineering and MBA degrees. Page 24.140.1 c
Physics webpage; http://physics.dickinson.edu/~abp_web/abp_homepage.html, accessed10/12/10Bernhard, Jonte. Improving Engineering Physics Teaching - Learning From Physics Education Research.In Physics Teaching in Engineering Education. 2000. Budapest.Bransford, J., Brown, A., and Cocking, R. 2000 How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School.Washington, D.C.: Commission on Behavioral and Social Science and Education, National ResearchCouncil.Carlton, K. (2000), 'Teaching about heat and temperature', Physics Education, 35 (2), 101.Chi, M. T. H. Commonsense Conceptions of Emergent Processes: Why Some Misconceptions AreRobust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2005. 14. 161-99.Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Laboratory methods for assessing experts’ and
was introduced already in the 1990s, and adecade later a vivid discussion continued regarding the role and added value of designexperiments, design research, and design-based research for educational research [6], [7], [8],[9].Both in the management science and learning sciences, the need for design science is justifiedwith bridging of practice to theory, thereby advancing practices alongside theories. Inlearning sciences, the design experiments are seen as a means of studying learningphenomena in the real world instead of the laboratory, thus arriving at better understanding ofthe contextual aspects or learning and enabling the establishment of better learningconditions. Like educational research in other disciplines, also engineering
Paper ID #16180Investigating Physics and Engineering Students’ Understanding of AC Bias-ing NetworksMr. Kevin Lewis Van De Bogart, University of Maine Kevin Van De Bogart is a Ph.D. candidate in the department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Maine. He received his B.S. in Physics from the University of Idaho. He is a member of the UMaine Physics Education Research Laboratory. His research interests are student understanding of analog elec- tronics, student troubleshooting in the laboratory, and students’ use of metacognition.Prof. MacKenzie R. Stetzer, University of Maine MacKenzie R. Stetzer is an Assistant
question then arises: Issuch a design the most effective at having the audience retain the main assertion of theslide? According to Robert Perry of Hughes Aircraft and Larry Gottlieb [2] of LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory, the answer is “no.” Since the 1960s, Perry has argued fora succinct sentence headline on presentation slides. Following Perry’s lead, Gottlieb hascome to the same conclusion at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. Although the sentence-headline design is the standard at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, the design is seldomused outside of that laboratory. In The Craft of Scientific Presentations, Alley [3]presented an argument for using succinct sentence headlines. More recently, Jean-lucDoumont [4] and Cliff Atkinson [5
mathematics by applying evidence-based teaching strategies—student-centeredproblem-based teaching(SC-PBT), example-based teaching, and just-in-time teaching (JITT); (3)incorporating classroom and laboratory activities that require active student engagement,conceptual understanding, critical thinking, and problem-solving; and (4) Employing modelstudents to lead Supplementary Instruction (SI) courses with evidence-based peer-to-peerlearning strategies. This section mainly describes the details on the implementation of evidence-based teaching and SI program in selected STEM gateway courses.3.1 Implementing evidence-based teaching in STEM gateway coursesInnovative, evidence-based instructional practices are critical to transforming the
and developed an edge frequency list. Then, for each individual graph,we summed the edge frequencies. The graph with highest sum became our best fitmodel because it represents the graph with the most number of edges common acrossisomorphic classes. After running the algorithm on 100 iterations, we used Gephi, a popular networkanalysis program, to visualize the results. We used the Forced Atlas II layout algo-rithm to examine the graphs for evidence of face validity and to determine what thenetwork indicated about the groups that formed. Because we knew, a priori, thatone was a large lecture course the other was a smaller laboratory course, and we alsoknew what types of instructional strategies were being used in each from student
majors. The course is not tailored toengineering in so much as the content covered is not presented or framed within the context ofengineering. Different than pre-medical or biology majors, the engineering students are notrequired to take the laboratory portion of the course.InstrumentsThe engineering students were given a series of instruments at the end of their biology course.Four different instruments were utilized to assess the relationship between future timeperspective, course belongingness, and interest.Future time perspective was measured using two different instruments that represent the twocomponents of future time perspective: perceptions of instrumentality and career connectedness: Perceptions of Instrumentality (PI): The
performance during a laboratory exam activity,” JoVE J. Vis. Exp., no. 108, pp. e53255–e53255, Feb. 2016.[9] S. Afzal and P. Robinson, “Emotion data collection and its implications for affective computing,” in The Oxford Handbook of Affective Computing, R. A. Calvo, S. K. D’Mello, J. Gratch, and A. Kappas, Eds. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 359 – 370.[10] E. A. Linnenbrink, “Emotion research in education: theoretical and methodological perspectives on the integration of affect, motivation, and cognition,” Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 307–314, Dec. 2006.[11] S. Schukajlow, K. Rakoczy, and R. Pekrun, “Emotions and motivation in mathematics education: theoretical considerations
Florida State University followed by a Master’s de- gree and PhD from Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University. After completing his PhD, he spent the next few years at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory as a Postdoctoral Researcher. His research there was focused on developing new technology for nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) using superconducting materials. Currently he serves as a teaching faculty member in the department of elec- trical and computer engineering at the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering as the capstone design project coordinator. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020Exploring Antecedents of Engineering Students’Indirect and Direct Feedback-Seeking
options of online teaching methods1,2,3 prior to making thetransformation of the on-campus course to the on-demand course. Our on-demand approach boresome resemblance to the online modality. The following steps were taken in such transformation.Revision of the course learning outcomesIn the transition from the on-campus, in-person course in fall 2019 to the online, on-demandcourse in summer 2020, the course learning outcomes for the in-person course were reviewed. Inthe review, we found that most of the outcomes could be transitioned to the on-demand coursewithout modifications. For outcomes involving in-person, in-laboratory experiments, they werenot feasible in that summer term due to campus closure. They were replaced by computer-aidedcontrol
study were collected during four 50-minutes discussion sections thatwere a required part of an introductory engineering course at a large Midwestern university. Thediscussion sections took place in a laboratory classroom. Each discussion section was taught byone TA and two CAs (see Table 1). The 14 consented groups, the TAs, and the three CAs wererecorded using ceiling mounted cameras and lapel, table or hanging microphones. During alldiscussion sections, students worked in small groups to solve the same ill-structured, authenticengineering task that was designed using the guidelines designed by the Authors [16]. The taskwas on 11-inch tablets, with project software installed. Each student had one tablet; tablets ofstudents in the same group
company and as founding Director of the Center for Integrating Research & Learning (CIRL) at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Florida State University. Under Dr. Spiegel’s leadership, the CIRL matured into a thriving Center recognized as one of the leading National Science Foundation Laboratories for activities to promote science, mathematics, and technology (STEM) education. While at Florida State University, Dr. Spiegel also directed an award winning teacher enhancement program for middle grades science teachers, entitled Science For Early Adolescence Teachers (Science FEAT). His extensive background in science education includes experiences as both a middle school and high school science teacher
are well liked by the majority of their students; andthey create a rigorous learning environment, complete with regular homework assignments,weekly laboratory reports, and four or five exams in the semester.The quiz instrument was administered on the first day of the semester for three successive Fallsemesters. Mild deception was used by the instructor of the Municipal Hydraulics course in thathe informed the students that the quiz would count as a homework assignment. (IRB approvalwas obtained for this study.) Students appeared to take the quiz very seriously and there were no Page 14.623.3time constraints. Upon completing the quiz, they were
$25,000 to more than $2 million annually. He introduced Polytech- nic’s first computer-based instructional laboratory. In 1983 he became Associate Provost for Computing and Information Systems. During the early stages of the PC and Workstation explosion he worked closely with Aerospace and Architectural and Engineering Design companies to lead the University’s develop- ment of Interactive Computer Graphics and Computer Aided Design (CAD) laboratories and curricula. He won a $3.2 million IBM CAD/CAM grant which enabled introduction of CAD/CAM and VLSI in- struction at Polytechnic. He served as Dean Graduate Studies 1986 - 1992, a position in which he had responsibility for recruiting graduate students and establishing
Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the director of the Dynamic and Smart Systems Laboratory at Tennessee Technological University. Dr. Anton received the B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from Michigan Technological University (2006), and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Mechanical Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (2008 and 2011, respectively). Following his graduate work, Dr. Anton held a two year postdoctoral position at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The central theme of his research involves characterizing the dynamic response of smart material systems for energy harvesting, structural health monitoring, sensing, and actuation. By combining expertise
: are they related?,” in American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, 2009.[20] T. A. Ward, “Common elements of capstone projects in the world’s top-ranked engineering universities,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 211–218, 2013.[21] B. J. Zimmerman, “Attaining Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Perspective,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation, M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. . Zeidner, Eds. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press, pp. 13–39.[22] P. Rivera-Reyes, O. Lawanto, and M. L. Pate, “Students’ Task Interpretation and Conceptual Understanding in an Electronics Laboratory,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 265–272, Nov. 2017.[23] P. Rivera-Reyes, “Students’ Task Interpretation and
Research Achievement Award and the International Liquid Crystal Society Multimedia Prize. In 2003, he received a NASA/ASEE Sum- mer Faculty Fellowship to research NEMS/MEMS adaptive optics in the Microdevices Laboratory at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Dr. Fontecchio received his Ph.D. in Physics from Brown University in 2002. He has authored more than 90 peer-reviewed publications. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 The impact of project based learning on engagement as a function of student demographicsAbstractThis work in progress seeks to determine the role of demographics in student inclination tochoose science, technology, engineering, and
compared to ascertain the relative gains (if any) thatare directly attributable to the MILL model intervention, which is the objective of this work.Acknowledgement The work described in this paper was supported by the National Science FoundationIUSE Program under grant number DUE-1432284. Any opinions, recommendations, and/orfindings are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.References1. SME Education Foundation website: http://71.6.142.67/revize/sme/about_us/history.php2. Ssemakula, M.E. and Liao, G.: ‘Implementing The Learning Factory Model In A Laboratory Setting’ IMECE 2004, Intl Mech Engineering Congress & Exposition, Nov. 13-19, 2004; Anaheim, CA.3. Ssemakula, M.E. and Liao, G
the ASME at the University of San Diego and the President of the Pacific Division of the AAAS. He received the Outstanding Engineering Educator Award from the San Diego County Engineering Council in 2008, the Faculty of the Year Award from the Zeta Omega Chapter of Beta Theta Pi Fraternity in 2013, the Outstanding Undergraduate Research Mentor Award from the University of San Diego in 2014, the Preceptor Award of the University of San Diego in 2015, and Best Paper Awards from the Division of Experimentation and Laboratory Oriented Studies of the American Society for Engineering Education in 2008 and 2014.Dr. Ernest M. Kim, University of San Diego Ernie Kim received his BSEE from the University of Hawaii at Manoa
interventions in mechanics classes. He was one of the co-leaders in 2013-2014 of the ASEE Virtual Community of Practice (VCP) for mechanics educators across the country.Prof. Jeffrey F. Rhoads, Purdue University, West Lafayette Jeffrey F. (Jeff) Rhoads is an Associate Professor in the School of Mechanical Engineering at Purdue University and is affiliated with both the Birck Nanotechnology Center and Ray W. Herrick Laboratories at the same institution. He received his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees, each in mechanical engineering, from Michigan State University in 2002, 2004, and 2007, respectively. Dr. Rhoads’ current research inter- ests include the predictive design, analysis, and implementation of resonant micro
biohazard laboratory. In order to allow contractors orvisitors into those areas, our facility requires proof of both training and certain immunizations forthose individuals.” This industry contact continued, “our group is the pipeline filler for the entire[specific category of business deleted] segment of the business. For this reason we are verysensitive about the intellectual property generated, discussed, and advanced on a daily basis. Iunderstand that you have precautions in place to help ensure that our sensitive information is notshared, but we try to limit the exposure of our IP as much as possible.”Industry contacts also did not always have new hires on hand, sometimes due to hiring freezes,off times in the job cycle, or because the firm
deflect when you push, pulland twist them in a single object. Experience suggests that students have substantialdifficulty with combined loadings, but it is unclear why this is true.Understanding how theories of conceptual change may fit student misconceptions inengineering disciplines is ultimately useful because it could inform teaching practices.For example, if what is proposed in this paper has validity then spending time withstudents on how objects move and change shape under a variety of loads may help dispelthe myth that stresses only act in the direction of applied loads.Acknowledgements This material is based upon work supported by the National Science FoundationCourse Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement Program under Grant
Professor of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Michigan (UM). She earned her Ph.D. in 2007 in Medical Engineering and Bioastronautics from the Harvard-MIT Division of Health Science and Technology, and holds an S.M. in Aeronautics & Astronautics from MIT and a B.S. in Materials Engineering from the University of Kentucky. She directs both the Sensory Augmentation and Rehabilitation Laboratory (SARL) and the Laboratory for Innovation in Global Health Technology (LIGHT). SARL focuses on the design, develop- ment, and evaluation of medical devices, especially for balance-impaired populations such as individuals with vestibular loss or advanced age. LIGHT focuses on the co-creative design of
write-up/procedure that other students would follow about their module(with a 100% correct report attached by the team) and, finally, a detailed project report. At the endof the semester, the student groups would archive all of this electronically and send it to theinstructor as well (for the teams to use in the follow-on years). Detailed information was providedto the students on the syllabus as to why this activity was occurring. This has been repeated below: While there is an increasing movement towards "hands-on" learning, especially in engineering, such an approach is mainly focused on modified laboratory experiences and/or out-of-classroom experiences. However, most of the contact hours in a curriculum