AC 2010-1674: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A Q-MATRIX FOR THE CONCEPTASSESSMENT TOOL FOR STATICSAidsa Santiago Roman, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Aidsa I. Santiago Román is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Science and Materials and the Director of the Strategic Engineering Education Development (SEED) Office at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus (UPRM). Dr. Santiago earned a BA (1996) and MS (2000) in Industrial Engineering from UPRM, and Ph.D. (2009) in Engineering Education from Purdue University. Her primary research interest is investigating students’ understanding of difficult concepts in engineering science with underrepresented populations. She also
(six per category): standard problems and inferential problems. The problems in both the categories were small and simple; they did not require complicated mathematical formulas or calculator to solve them. a. Standard problems: The standard or textbook type problems were similar to the ones covered during the course in class assignments, home assignments and exams, with minor variations in numerical values and problem setup. Students were given sufficient practice on like problems. Two typical standard problems are given below: Q#25 Find ‘Vout’, as indicated, for the following circuit: Note: A typical voltage-divider-network; students had sufficient
CoworkersAs with managers, new engineers at every company reported varying degrees of help from thecoworkers. Many participants said that their coworkers helped them understand what is expectedof them and helped them accomplish their work. Other participants said that their coworkerswere too busy or too new to the work group to provide much help. Q: Did your [coworker] give you this assignment? A: Yes. Q: I assume he gave you background information? A: Yes and no. We both were new to this [name] system, so we pretty much were on the same page in terms of understanding the system. So it was like we both learned it at the same time. I found some information, I talked to him about it, he found some more information
or science teaching experience. We examinedwhether there were differences based on teaching experience by performing one-wayANOVA. Levene’s test was performed to ensure homogeneity of variance, and q-q plot wereexamined to ensure normality. We also computed effect size w2 for significant factors. IfANOVA showed significant differences, we performed Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test tocompare between groups. We did not explore differences between groups of different gendersor grade levels because the sample was rather homogeneous in terms of these attributes.FindingsResults of the entire surveyOverall, the summer academy participants thought DET was important (M=3.47, SD=0.35)(please note that 4 was the highest possible score, and 1 was the lowest
DONE!!!! U=Q+W Q=0 THEREFORE WE HAVE NO FLOW WORK. Flow work is done the same amount of particles esscap (sic) as are inputed (sic) rlaying (sic) that There is less internal energy if the pressure C there is an increase in velocity which is removed decreases from the temperature of T1 and thus to T2 is less than that of T1Table 5 shows similar data for Group 2. However, the impact of
university is helpful to enhance research ability? Page 15.523.14 14 How many credits in chemistry courses are reasonable in university?Appendix 2 Pilot Study Main StudyItems Average Q. D. Average Q. D.1-1 Knowing Chemistry 4.25 0.5 4.41 0.51-2 Measurement and unit 4.468 0.5 4.53 0.52-1 Atomic theory and structure 4.375 0.5 4.09 0.52-2 Chemical formula and nomenclature 4.468 0.5 4.37 0.52-3 Chemical Equations
European space for higher education: an explanation, 2000.4. Turning Project, “Turning Educational Structures in Europe”, Online: http://www.tuning.unideusto.org/tuningeu/ [Jan 6, 2009], 2004.5. Training Agency, Enterprise in Higher Education: key features of Enterprise in Higher Education Proposals. Sheffield: Training Agency, 1990.6. Yorke, M. Employability in higher education: what it is – what it is not. York: The Higher Education Academy 2006.7. Nguyen, D. Q., “ The Essential Skills and Attributes of an Engineer: A Comparative Study of Academics, Industry Personnel and Engineering Students,” Global journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1998 pp. 65-75.8. Lang, J., Cruse, S., Francis, M., and
Page 15.413.8higher scores for only three criteria (one criteria was the same, and R1 had to leave thepresentation early and was not present for the Q/A session, and thus did not respond with respectto Criterion 7). This is consistent with scores from the HPV presentation, and appears to reflect asystematic difference between these two reviewers.With respect to the comparison of faculty and alumni scores, the most significant differencesoccur for Criteria 1, 7, and 9 (Organization, Questions and Answers, and Problem Definition).The alumni’s familiarity with the FSAE competition may help to explain their more generousevaluation of Criteria 1 and 9. The higher alumni score given to the Question and Answercriterion is consistent with the student
Challenges in Qualitative Research with Black Women Family Relations, 52(3), 205-215.7. Skloot, R. (2010) The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New York, NY: Crown Publishers, 2010.8. Levin, M. & Greenwood, D. (2002) Pragmatic Action Research and the Struggle to Transform Universities into Learning Communities in Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.9. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. (2nd ed.), Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.10. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation. (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications