MEA. In lab, students work through the sequence to produce a first draft of theirprocedure. First, they are given an individual warm-up activity designed to introduce them to theproblem context. This consists of an advanced organizer detailing the client and their problemfollowed by a set of free-response questions about who the client is, what the client needs, andissues to be considered when producing a solution. After all team members have responded tothe individual questions, the team comes together to develop a solution to the client’s problem.The deliverable at the end of the lab period is a first draft of a memo to the client detailing thesolution to the problem.Following the lab, the teaching assistant provides the students with
California Institute of Technology, where he was an AT&T Bell Laboratories Ph.D. Scholar. Dr. Wood was formerly a Professor of Mechanical engineering at the University of Texas (1989-2011), where he established a computational and experimental laboratory for research in engineering design and manufac- Page 23.758.1 turing. He was a National Science Foundation Young Investigator, the Cullen Trust for Higher Education Endowed Professor in Engineering and University Distinguished Teaching Professor at The University of Texas at Austin. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2013
Paper ID #19460Work in Progress: Using Conceptual Questions to Assess Class Pre-Work andEnhance Student Engagement in Electromagnetics Learning Studio ModulesProf. Branislav M. Notaros, Colorado State University Branislav M. Notaros is Professor and University Distinguished Teaching Scholar in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Colorado State University, where he also is Director of Electro- magnetics Laboratory. His research publications in computational and applied electromagnetics include more than 180 journal and conference papers. He is the author of textbooks Electromagnetics (2010) and MATLAB
, India Susan S. Mathew, is an Associate Professor. Presently she is also the Associate Dean (Academics and Research) and Head, Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering. In NITTTR, for the last 29 years, she has been involved in outcome-based curriculum design, teaching postgraduate students, content updating and laboratory management programmes, induction training of new teachers, research in areas of technical education, projects concerned with the development of instructional material for polytechnics, engineering colleges as well as industries, etc. Prior to NITTTR, she was working as a lecturer in MANIT, Bhopal and SGSITS, Indore and was involved in teaching undergraduate & postgraduate students.Ms
homework systems to be valuablefor teaching and learning (e.g. [1], [2]).Firstly, the desired learning outcomes need to be clearly determined as they will guide thedesign of the content and the problem types in the homework. It is also important to decidethe purpose of the homework in terms of whether it is meant as a formative or summativeassessment. Lunsford and Pendergrass [2] suggested that online homework systems may bemore suitable for formative assessment due to the feedback available for both students andteachers. Also, formative assessment views mistakes as part of the learning process which issupported by online homework systems where students are usually given multiple attemptsfor each problem. This combination of feedback and multiple
Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) in Mechanical Engineering program. The age group ofthe students undergoing this program is between 18 and 25. The team for the implementationof PSBL consisted of faculty members teaching the courses relevant to PSBL in the classrooms and faculty members assessing the outcomes in the theory and laboratory components.There were also technical assistants who were part of the instruction and assessments for thelaboratory exercises. Specific faculty teaching competence and technical competencedevelopment measures were also implemented as part of PSBL to equip the faculty memberssufficiently. The faculty team was all-along supported by subject matter experts from theindustry who were also adjunct faculty. The entire
, and the adoption of evidence-based teaching strategies.Dr. Sam Spiegel, Colorado School of Mines Dr. Spiegel is the Assistant Provost and Executive Director of the Trefny Innovative Instruction Center at the Colorado School of Mines. He previously served as Chair of the Disciplinary Literacy in Science Team at the Institute for Learning (IFL) and Associate Director of Outreach and Development for the Swanson School of Engineering’s Engineering Education Research Center at the University of Pittsburgh. Prior to joining the University of Pittsburgh, he was a science educator at Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS). Dr. Spiegel also served as Director of Research & Development for a multimedia development
assembled for the sole purpose of completing Tire Reliability MEA duringone laboratory session in Week 6 of the semester. After the completion of this MEA, thesestudents resumed working with their long term teams that had been set up in Week 3 of thesemester.The experimental group was chosen from another teaching assistant who has been extensivelytrained to implement and write MEAs. This choice was to reduce bias from the difference inteaching assistants. The experimental group also consists of eight teams – six teams from one Page 12.1296.9section and two from another. Missing data prevented using all eight teams from the
to meet at least weekly outside ofthe classroom with their design teams. The main lectures had approximately 350 students; while,each of the 24 laboratory sections had a maximum of 32 students. The laboratory sections meetin a classroom located in the back of an open engineering lab (OEL) that was available tostudents from 9 am – 9 pm seven days per week. The OEL is a large open work space wherestudents are encouraged to work on their semester-long design project as well as to use it as astudy space. The OEL was open to all engineering students but was primarily used by students inthe first-year course. Typically, between 30 and 100 students as well as 3-8 members of theteaching staff (three lectures, 13 graduate teaching assistants, and 11
and holder of the Ned Adler Professorship in Mechanical Engineering at Louisiana State University. He obtained both his baccalaureate and master's degrees from LSU ME and his doctorate from Purdue University's School of Mechanical Engineering. He has been actively engaged in teaching, research and curricula development since joining the faculty in 1988. He currently serves as Co-Director of the Education and Outreach program with LSU’s NSF-EPSCoR Center for Bio-Modular Multi-Scale Systems (CBM2) and is responsible for the development and implementation of several of the centers K-12 and public outreach programs.Lillian B Bowles, Louisiana State University Lillian Bridwell-Bowles is a
AC 2010-1107: HOW STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS INFLUENCESTUDENT MOTIVATION: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY USINGSELF-DETERMINATION THEORYKatherine Winters, Virginia Tech Katherine Winters is a doctoral student and Graduate Teaching Fellow in the Department of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech. She has a M.S. in Civil Engineering and a B.S. in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Brigham Young University. Her research interests include engineering student motivation and identity.Holly Matusovich, Virginia Tech Holly Matusovich is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Education. Dr. Matusovich recently joined Virginia Tech after completing her doctoral degree in Engineering
implemented, so long as proper measurementand monitoring are performed and safety is not compromised.Advances in sensing technology are occurring at an ever increasing pace. As smart cities aredeveloped and advances are made in sensing and wireless technologies, training engineers to usethis technology will also likely be an important part of developing the future engineer.Consequently, a course teaching students about instrumentation has been developed and offeredat the undergraduate and graduate level at the University of Wyoming. This paper presents anoverview of the course content, an evaluation of the course objectives, and lessons learned.The authors are aware of two other instrumentation courses that have been developedspecifically for civil
subsequent undergraduate research. The Research Methods course will be broadly focused by providing a general approach toresearch and graduate school preparation appropriate for all majors in the Engineering College.Alternative approaches from the literature that are used to teach students how to conduct researchwill be compared and contrasted. Course topics will include: finding a research mentor,literature search skills, using the scientific method for approaching a research problem,developing a research methodology, writing a funding proposal, delivering a researchpresentation, and selecting and applying for graduate school. The motivation for this work,course details, learning objectives, course schedule, and course assignments will be
University. His research interests include the development of novel pedagogical methods to teach core engineering courses and leveraging technology to enhance learning experiences. Nick holds a BS and MS in Mechanical Engineering and has eight years of engineering experience. He also has four years of experience as an adjunct instructor at the community-college and research-university level.Dr. Edward J. Berger, Purdue University, West Lafayette Edward Berger is an Associate Professor of Engineering Education and Mechanical Engineering at Purdue University, joining Purdue in August 2014. He has been teaching mechanics for nearly 20 years, and has worked extensively on the integration and assessment of specific technology
. The challenge in engineering education is to take advantage of the positiveeffects and understand and deal with the negative effects.The authors have been actively using technology to enhance engineering education and haveobserved that students often develop an expectation that learning should be easy and primarilythe responsibility of the teacher. Students, however, that make use of the new teaching tools (on-line lecture notes, simulation and modeling programs, etc.) achieve greater academic successthan would otherwise have been attainable. It is clear that students who achieve academicsuccess are the students who really learned. But who are the students that are learning in thisnew technically advanced learning environment? The authors
Paper ID #31759Combining Strategies for Leadership Development of Engineering StudentsDr. Nayda G. Santiago, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus Nayda G. Santiago is professor at the Electrical and Computer Engineering department, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus (UPRM) where she teaches the Capstone Course in Computer Engineer- ing. She received an BS in EE from the University of PR, Mayaguez in 1989, a MEng in EE from Cornell University in 1990, and a PhD in EE from Michigan State University in 2003. She leads the Southeast region of the Computing Alliance for Hispanic Serving Institutions (CAHSI). Dr
Professor and Department Chair in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at San Jos´e State University. She obtained her BS from the University of Dayton (Dayton, OH) in 2002 and her MS (2005) and PhD (2008) from Northwestern University (Evanston, IL). She teaches in the areas of Geotechnical Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, and Forensic Engineering. Her research interests include evaluating crack age in construction materials, forensic engineering education, and STEM education pedagogy. She serves on the SJSU Academic Senate as the chair of the Instruction and Student Affairs committee and the Forensic Engineering Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Laura is the PI for the Department of
Interest Council IV. All of Dr. Borrego’s degrees are in Materials Science and Engineering. Her M.S. and Ph.D. are from Stanford University, and her B.S. is from University of Wisconsin-Madison.Dr. Cynthia Finelli, University of Michigan Dr. Cynthia Finelli is Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, Research Asso- ciate Professor of Education, and Founding Director of the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching in Engineering at the University of Michigan. Her research areas include student resistance to active learn- ing, faculty adoption of evidence-based teaching practices, and institutional change. She is a fellow in the American Society of Engineering Education, an Associate Editor of
more active role in their own learning [1]. However, there existdiverse interpretations and discussions around the idea of what active learning means as well asthe types of teaching and learning approaches that have been utilized by engineering facultyaimed at including active learning in their course delivery. In a comparative literature review [2],it was discovered that there are significant differences in what has been understood and appliedin science classrooms as active learning. Consequently, Chi [2] developed a framework oflearning activities aimed at highlighting the different types of learning activities that are and canbe included in classrooms for maximized results. Building on the work of Chi [2], this paper seeksto explore the
AC 2008-859: MORE THAN GOOD CURRICULA: A GUIDE FOR CURRICULARCHANGE AGENTSJeffrey Froyd, Texas A&M UniversityCharles Henderson, Western Michigan University Charles Henderson is an Assistant Professor at Western Michigan University with a joint appointment between the Physics Department and the Mallinson Institute for Science Education. Dr. Henderson studies the use of innovations and instructional change in physics teaching at the college level. Current projects also include efforts to promote cross-disciplinary collaboration among the different groups that are interested in promoting changes in teaching practices in higher education.Jean Layne, Texas A&M University Jean Layne
faculty member at the University of Calgary in the Mechanical and Manufacturing department of the Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary. She teaches graphical, written and oral communication in their first Engineering Design and Communication course taught to all incoming engineering students. She co-founded and designs ZQ, an online journal to provide a platform to showcase the nexus of science and design using case studies, news, and articles. As an instructor, she was one of the recipients of The Allan Blizzard Award, a Canadian national teaching award for collaborative projects that improve student learning in 2004. In 2005, she was one of the recipients of the American Society of Mechanical
work with academic assessment, particularly relating to ABET. She can be reached at jmcferran@uaa.alaska.edu.Dr. Steffen Peuker, University of Alaska Anchorage Dr. Steffen Peuker is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering and the Director of the Thermal System Design Laboratory at the University of Alaska Anchorage. He is teaching the Thermal System De- sign, Thermal System Design Laboratory, HVAC Systems Optimization and Introduction to Engineering courses. His work in engineering education focuses on hands-on undergraduate engineering education in the HVAC&R area, student-industry cooperation, and developing innovative ways of merging engineering fundamentals and engineering in practice and research
of whichneeds special mention. I would like to thank Dr. Edward J. Berger, Associate professor ofEngineering Education at Purdue University, for lending his equipment for data collection. I alsowant to thank Dr. Idalis Villanueva, Assistant professor of Engineering Education at Utah StateUniversity for providing advice on collecting and interpreting EDA data. Finally, I want to thankmy adviser, Dr. Michael Loui, Dale and Suzi Gallagher Professor in Engineering Education, forproviding financial support for this project through his discretionary funds.References[1] W. Sun and X. Sun, “Teaching computer programming skills to engineering and technology students with a modular programming strategy,” presented at the 2011 ASEE
Paper ID #22574Cultivating the Next Generation: Outcomes from a Learning Assistant Pro-gram in EngineeringDr. Ying Cao, Oregon State University Postdoctoral Scholar in STEM education.Dr. Christina Smith, Brown University Christina Smith is the Assistant Director for Undergraduate Instructional Development at the Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning at Brown University. She received her PhD from Oregon State Uni- versity in chemical engineering. Her research focused on how the beliefs of graduate students around teaching and learning interact with and influence the environments in which they are asked to teach. She
workaholism, job attitudes (e.g., organizational commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction), work stress, work-life balance, and life satisfaction. She teaches I/O psychology, which trains students in the research and application of I/O principles, as well as graduate testing/measurement and psychometrics. Moreover, she has served as a consultant to develop training needs assessments and performance appraisal systems.Masao Kishore, East Carolina University Dr. Kishore, is a professor in the Department of Computer Science at East Carolina University. He teaches computer science classes at East Carolina University. Courses include computer graphics, database, numerical analysis, and programming
settings committed to environmental protection. She teaches undergraduate and graduate courses including Aquatic Chemistry, Environmental Engineering Laboratory, and developed an interdisciplinary project based two course sequence, Sustainability Concepts: Mercury in Tampa Bay and Mercury in Guyana. She is the faculty advisor for USF's Chapter of Engineers for a Sustainable World and is an affiliate of the USF Office of Sustainability.Ken Thomas, University of South Florida Ken D. Thomas is currently at PhD Candidate and teaching assistant at USF’s Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering. Ken obtained BSc Chemical and Process Engineering as well as MSc Environmental Engineering from UWI
intended learning outcomes that they enhance. Prof Lindsay is the Foundation Professor of Engineering at Charles Sturt University. His research interests centre largely around online learning – the use of remote and virtual laboratories, MOOCs and other methods for making learning asynchronous, and data analytics for promoting student learning. Prof Lindsay was the 2010 President of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education. He is a Fellow of Engineers Australia, and a Fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy. Prof Lindsay was the recipient of a 2007 Carrick Award for Australian University Teaching. In 2005 he was named as one of the 30 Most Inspirational Young Engineers in Australia.Dr. Colm Howlin
NSFfunding for rigorous engineering education research. Overall, both the number of and the moneyawarded to grants for engineering education research have increased substantially over the past20 years, with most focused on teaching and learning. This analysis provides a global overviewof the NSF-funding environment for engineering education researchers.BackgroundEngineering education research has occurred in some form for many years, but only in the past20 years has it received significant funding support. Engineering education researchencompasses examination of not only teaching, learning and assessment, but also issuesassociated with faculty rewards and the organizational dynamics of engineering departments 1.However, studies of teaching and
) whatmotivates students to study engineering; and (3) how students conceive of their engineeringfuture. While the findings from the APPLES research have been disseminated through suchtraditional venues such as conferences and journal publications, an innovative institution-specificworkshop model was designed and piloted in spring 2009. This paper describes this new formatfor disseminating national research findings which is specifically aimed at engaging faculty inconversations that directly lead to changes in local educational practices and policies. Feedbackfrom the faculty participants and the impact of the workshop on teaching and learning practicesin subsequent months are presented. The broader implications of a national-local workshopmodel for the
. For this study, the case was the CSCE instrument with each facultymember serving as an individual unit of analysis. The courses taught by the faculty participantsranged from small (46 students) to large (over 200 students). The course structures were alsodifferent and included lectures, laboratories, workshops, and recitations (mandatory groupproblem solving sessions). In addition, the range of experience between faculty membersencompassed first time instructors to others with over five years of teaching at the same institution.Description of caseThe CSCE instrument consists of two major sections. Section one is split into two main categories,in-class and out-of-class activities. In category one, students are expected to answer