Arthur F. Thurnau Professor and Associate Professor of Industrial and Operations Engineering at the University of Michigan. His Ph.D. is in Engineering and Cognitive Psychology from the University of Illinois. His research and teaching interests include cognitive modeling, cognitive ergonomics, cognitive psychology, engineering aesthetics, human factors, and human-computer interactionVirginia Soto, University of Michigan Virginia Soto Pinto is an undergraduate student in the department of Industrial and Operations Engineering at the University of Michigan. Page 11.610.1© American
Paper ID #15038The Impact of Project-based Learning on Engagement as a Function of Stu-dent DemographicsMs. Alyssa Bellingham, Drexel University Alyssa Bellingham is currently an electrical engineering Ph.D candidate at Drexel University. She re- cieved her B.S/M.S degrees in electrical engineering from Drexel University in 2012 and has a degree in materials engineering from Politecnico di Milano. As a National Science Foundation Stem GK-12 Pro- gram fellow, she has been teaching a robotics course at the Science Leadership Academy in Philadelphia.Mr. John Kamal, Science Leadership Academy John teaches young people
work, she developed and validated a new interdisci- plinary assessment in the context of carbon cycling for high school and college students using Item Re- sponse Theory. She is also interested in developing robotics-embedded curricula and teaching practices in a reform-oriented approach. Currently, a primary focus of her work at New York University is to guide the development of new lessons and instructional practices for a professional development program under a DR K-12 research project funded by NSF.Dr. Vikram Kapila, New York University Vikram Kapila is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at NYU Tandon School of Engineering (NYU Tandon), where he directs a Mechatronics, Controls, and Robotics Laboratory, a
students’ understanding of platform commonality,” International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 120-130, 2007.15. S. Goel, D. Pon, “Innovative model for information assurance curriculum: a teaching hospital,” ACM Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, vol. 6, no. 3, Sept. 2006, Article 2.16. E. Granado, W. Colmenares, M. Strefezza, A. Alonso, “ A web-based virtual laboratory for teaching automatic control,” Computer Applications in Engineering Education, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 192-197, 2007.17. T.W. Simpson, “Experiences with a hands-on activity to contrast craft production and mass production in the classroom,” International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 19, no. 2, 2003, pp. 297-304.18
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
”. She has collaborated with optical scientists from the Australian Defense, Science, and Technology Office on experiments in Adelaide Australia and Kennedy Space Center, Fl. In 2005 she did a sabbatical at the Naval Research Laboratory in which both theoretical and experimental studies were conducted with NRL scientists and engineers. In 2007 Dr. Young was named a fellow of the International Society for Optical Engineers. Dr. Young has received the UCF Research Incentive Award, Teaching Incentive Award, and Scholarship of Teaching and Learning award. Dr. Young is currently the co-director of the UCF EXCEL program.Cherie Geiger, University of Central Florida Dr. Cherie Geiger is an Associate Professor of Chemistry at
[1].Along with class time schedules packed with lectures, laboratories, and tutorials, there are asignificant number of course assignments that occur outside of class, such as team-basedprojects and experiential learning tasks [1]. Researchers have encouraged the incorporationof these constructivist approaches into engineering education [2], aiming to help studentsdevelop a wide range of abilities (such as complex-problem solving skills andinterdisciplinary thinking [3]). However, this increasing number of assignments stressesstudents [4], [5], negatively affecting their learning results [1], [6].To understand what students define as a demanding course, several researchers haveexplored the concepts of academic workload and course difficulty
2006-375: 15 YEARS OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION REFORM: LESSONSLEARNED AND FUTURE CHALLENGESThomas Litzinger, Pennsylvania State University Thomas A. Litzinger is currently Director of the Leonhard Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Education and a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Penn State, where he has been on the faculty since 1985. His work in engineering education involves curricular reform, teaching and learning innovations, faculty development, and assessment. He teaches and conducts research in the areas of combustion and thermal sciences. He can be contacted at TAL2@psu.edu.Robert Pangborn, Pennsylvania State University Rob Pangborn is Professor of Engineering Mechanics and
to account for complementary topics,two text mining techniques were applied in five years segments by extracting 6 and 10 topicsfrom the corpus of documents associated with each segment. Latent Semantic Analysis andLatent Dirichlet Allocation are two text mining techniques commonly used for topic extractionover large volumes (corpora) of text documents producing a summary of topics that describe theentire corpus of documents. These topics were then analyzed to determine how the overallengineering education evolved over a period spanning approximately three decades. The resultsindicate the overall engineering education has evolved from teaching basic engineering anddesign skills, computers, systems and processes; to creative teaching
ofEngineering (level 8), Masters (level 9) and finally, PhD (level 10). As a result, the school has avery broad student demographic. Many students who cannot gain direct entry to a universityprogram join this technical institute at a lower point on the ladder, work their way up, andeventually sit beside those who entered directly from high school.Academic staff members are employed to teach and typically have 18 hours of classroom activityper week. Although research is encouraged, and the School has several highly regarded researchgroups, the majority of staff members devote most of their time to teaching—both in the classroomand the laboratory. Laboratory groups of 16 students per staff member facilitate close contact andallow staff and students to
-contact laboratory instruction for the upper divisionengineering coursework, while lower division work is provided by the local juniorcollege. No core coursework is available asynchronously. The existence of this remoteprogram has created an environment where several traditional lecture-style classes arebroadcast into the main campus of the degree-granting institution from faculty at theremote site. Student populations at the course-generating remote site are small, betweenzero and four maximum during the study. Student populations on the receiving maincampus are significantly larger for this course, between 15 and 33 during the study.Courses broadcast into the main campus are not designated on the schedule as beinggenerating off-campus. So, many
. Students were told to writethe report for a professor who would be teaching the lab the following semester. This professorhad never taught the laboratory before, and students were to keep this audience in mind as theywrote. Furthermore, they were to give him advice on which open channel laboratory tasks tocontinue using when he taught the laboratory for the first time. This type of assignment (semi-formal report) and the choice of audience were different than students in either section had seenin previous writing assignments. Thus, students in one section did not have an advantage overstudents in the other section by having previous experience with this type of writing assignment.The final writing assignment was assessed using two methods. One
Paper ID #18454Development of the Engineering Learning Classroom Observation Tool (EL-COT)Ms. Timeri K. Tolnay, Colorado School of Mines Timeri joined Mines in November of 2015 to support the growth and Development of the Trefny Innova- tive Instruction (I) Center, and to bring her extensive background in instructional coaching to the college level. Prior to joining Mines, Timeri worked for a nationally recognized online Learning and Assessment System called ShowEvidence where she supported educational institutions in transferring their teaching, learning, and assessment practices online to create greater coherence
AC 2012-5153: MEASURING THE DIFFERENCES IN SPATIAL ABILITYBETWEEN A FACE-TO-FACE AND A SYNCHRONOUS DISTANCE ED-UCATION UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING GRAPHICS COURSEDr. Wade H. Goodridge, Utah State University Wade Goodridge, Principal Lecturer in the Department of Engineering and Technology Education at Utah State University, instructs Solid Modeling, CAD, Introductory Electronics, Surveying, and Introductory Engineering courses at the Brigham City Regional campus. Goodridge has has been teaching for the Utah State College of Engineering for more than eight years. He holds dual B.S degrees in industrial technology education and civil engineering from Utah State University, as well as an M.S. and Ph.D. in civil
Paper ID #32365Impact of Online Worksheets Versus In-class Printed Worksheets onStudents’ Learning Outcomes and Content MasteryDr. Paniz Khanmohammadi Hazaveh, Michigan Technological University Dr. Hazaveh received her PhD in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the Michigan Technological University in 2018 with a focus on Single Electron Transistors.She has been a Lecturer in Electrical Engineering and Electrical Engineering Technology at MTU since 2017 where she is currently a Lecturer in the College of Computing.Dr. Linda Wanless, Michigan Technological University Dr. Linda Wanless has 16+ years teaching Engineering
Paper ID #13662A Grand Challenge-based Framework for Contextual Learning in Engineer-ing: Impact on Student Outcomes and MotivationDr. Lisa Huettel, Duke University Dr. Lisa G. Huettel is a professor of the practice in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineer- ing at Duke University where she also serves as associate chair and Director of Undergraduate Studies for the department. She received a B.S. in Engineering Science from Harvard University and earned her M.S. and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Duke University. Her research interests are focused on engineering education, curriculum and laboratory
research of learning and teaching based on particular designs for instruction” (pp. 199-200)5. In DBR, we use theory to inform our course design and collect data to evaluate the desiredstudent outcomes. DBR differs from laboratory experimental research in that DBR is situated inreal-world contexts where confounding factors are difficult to control, whereas laboratoryexperiments aim to control for such factors6. DBR also differs from action research in that DBRapplies theory in real-world contexts, whereas action research serves to solve an immediateproblem that often involves the use of non-research personnel7.The outcomes of DBR include theory generation and practical educational interventions.Through our study, we will generate theory by
AC 2010-1900: SPECIAL SESSION: MODEL ELICITING ACTIVITIES --INSTRUCTOR PERSPECTIVESRonald Miller, Colorado School of Mines Ronald L. Miller is professor of chemical engineering and Director of the Center for Engineering Education at the Colorado School of Mines where he has taught chemical engineering and interdisciplinary courses and conducted engineering education research for the past 24 years. Dr. Miller has received three university-wide teaching awards and has held a Jenni teaching fellowship at CSM. He has received grant awards for education research from the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education FIPSE program, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the
Paper ID #32668Quality Improvement Using a Stage Gate Approach in EngineeringProgrammes and CoursesDr. Calvin Sophistus King, MCET Heads Outcome Based Education division of the college. Is responsible for implementation and review of outcome based approach in programmes offered. Teaches engineering at the first degree level.Dr. Venugopalan Kovaichelvan, TVS Institute for Quality and Leadership Dr. V. KOVAICHELVAN is the Director of TVS Institute for Quality and Leadership, the Corporate University of TVS Motor Company Limited, India. The Institute focus on holistic development of talent through career lifecycle with focus
students in authentic, ill-structured engineering tasks facilitates the development oftheir engineering skills.1-3To facilitate students’ authentic practice of these skills we have developed a learning systembased on virtual laboratories. In this learning system, student teams take on the role of processdevelopment engineers. They are tasked with finding suitable input parameters to be released tohigh volume manufacturing through experiments that are completed virtually. When studentsperform experiments, the lower cognitive demand affords them the opportunity to build a richexperimental design. While not instructed to do so, most student teams inevitably resort tomodeling as a tool to progress towards completion.Student team modeling practices are
Paper ID #13186Enhancing Accessibility of Engineering Lectures for Deaf & Hard of Hearing(DHH): Real-time Tracking Text Displays (RTTD) in ClassroomsMr. Gary W Behm, Rochester Institute of Technology (CAST) Gary W. Behm, Assistant Professor of Engineering Studies Department, and Director of NTID Center on Access Technology Innovation Laboratory, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology. Gary has been teaching and directing the Center on Access Technology Innovation Laboratory at NTID for five years. He is a deaf engineer who retired from IBM after serving for 30 years. He is a
5 of 5 Literacy in Materials Science Undergraduate Students” #11347 11. Manufacturing Materials M735 Teaching the Latest 1 • “Improving Student Lab Report Writing Performances in Materials and & Processes Manufacturing 4 of 4 Manufacturing Laboratory Courses by Implementing a Rhetorical Processes & Materials Approach to Writing” #14083 Concepts 12. Multidisciplinary W241 Multidisciplinary 1 • “Strategies to Integrate Writing in Problem-Solving Courses: Promoting Engineering
AC 2007-18: ASSESSMENT OF PERCEPTUAL MODALITY STYLESMysore Narayanan, Miami University DR. MYSORE NARAYANAN obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Liverpool, England in the area of Electrical and Electronic Engineering. He joined Miami University in 1980 and teaches a wide variety of electrical, electronic and mechanical engineering courses. He has been invited to contribute articles to several encyclopedias and has published and presented dozens of papers at local, regional , national and international conferences. He has also designed, developed, organized and chaired several conferences for Miami University and conference sessions for a variety of organizations. He is a senior member
demonstratedthe importance of research experiences for the preparation of eventual graduate students. At thepre-graduate level, themes related to network access and the role of the institution in facilitatingintellectual experiences were important for the study participants. At the graduate level, identity-trajectory reiterated the need for careful design of the research laboratory, and the importance ofnetworks for graduate student success.Overview of literatureIdentity-trajectory, introduced by McAlpine 8,10 is a theoretical framework used to understand theprofessional development of graduate students and early career academics through threestrands11: network, intellectual and institution. Network focuses on the relationships andresponsibilities that
AC 2008-192: A TEXT FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN THE 21STCENTURY 1. OBJECTIVES AND OVERVIEWCarl Lund, State University of New York at Buffalo Carl Lund has been on the faculty of the Chemical and Biological Engineering Department at the University at Buffalo, SUNY since 1986. He was appointed as a SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor in 2007. Page 13.126.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 A TExT for Engineering Education in the 21st Century 1. Objectives and OverviewAbstractEngineering education research continues to demonstrate that a growing variety of
Paper ID #22764WIP: Decoding a Discipline – Toward Identifying Threshold Concepts in Ge-omatics EngineeringDr. Ivan Detchev, University of Calgary Ivan Detchev holds a BScE (first division) from the department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering at the University of New Brunswick. He also obtained a MSc and a PhD in Geomatics Engineering from the University of Calgary. Dr. Detchev is currently an instructor in surveying and mapping at the University of Calgary. He is interested in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) related to engineering education.Dr. Elena V. Rangelova, University of Calgary Dr. Elena
research interests focus on the application of ePortfolio pedagogy and practices to facilitate teaching, learning, and assessment for students, faculty, and institutions. She is also interested in the exploration of the affordances and scalability of these kinds of social software tools and their implications for the design and evaluation of innovative learning spaces to support formal and informal learning.Kenneth Goodson, Stanford University Kenneth E. Goodson is professor and vice chair of mechanical engineering at Stanford University. His research group studies thermal transport phenomena in semiconductor nanostructures, energy conversion devices, and microfluidic heat sinks, with a focus on
6,0/8,0 287 (56%) 6,67 November (80,2) 5,6/7,8 S4 226 (38%) 6,42 (44, 13) MarchConclusionIn the spring of 2009 we will graduate our first students with the new curriculum entirely inplace. Then, we will be able to compare the “new” with the “old” students. However, we alreadyknow, after two years of implementation, that some of the changes that were made will have tobe adapted in order to attain the original objectives. For example, four major team projects ineach program require new versatile laboratory and demand more supervising resources. In orderto teach communication skills and team work
engaging incritical thinking and metacognition.Perceived teaching approaches. The second theme describes how students perceive facultyteaching approaches within their departments, again with two emergent dimensions: traditionalversus contemporary and prescribed versus open-ended. The traditional versus contemporarydimension focuses on the pedagogical practices used in non-laboratory and laboratory courses.Traditional approaches are those considered prototypical of engineering. For example, studentsdescribing traditional approaches talk about classes dominated by lectures in which students arerequired to take notes or read PowerPoint ® slides, and course assessments consist mostly ofindividual assignments and quizzes. Similarly, students in
retention has been noted, termed “teaching style” bysome(2) and “teaching method”(3) by others. Specifically, the effect of problem-based learning(PBL) and the use of concept maps have both been found to have a positive effect on knowledgeretention.(4-8) Additionally, researchers have found that the extent of reinforcement and follow-upprograms are very important,(9,10) and the extent of coursework(11) has been found to have apositive effect on knowledge retention. Even the type of sleep (slow-wave sleep vs. rapid eyemovement sleep) one gets has been shown to be important!(12)Few researchers have reported on the retention of knowledge or concepts from material learnedin engineering courses. For better or worse, calls for reform in engineering