undergraduate computer engineering students is not at all clear.This is in part due to the nature of the discipline, which has continually changing technology andorganization. In this paper, we describe a project-based computer engineering curriculum, whichcomplements more traditional lectures and laboratory courses. We compare this curriculum withcurricula from other small universities in the US. We show how our curriculum is in agreementwith a mixed-mode approach that combines projects with traditional techniques. An assessmentof student outcomes is presented and successes and limitations are discussed.Critical issues in engineering educationIn 2003, Mills and Treagust2 summarized the critical issues in engineering education asidentified by
methods improves theresults.To date, the instructional approaches described above have been used only by one instructor.Our plan for broader implementation is to incorporate these approaches into an interactivecomputer-based tutorial, so that other instructors can easily assign such work without having toheavily revise their lecture approaches. The interactive tutorial could incorporate simulated or“virtual” laboratory experiments, where students could gain “hands-on” experience related to theideas we are presenting. This tutorial will be incorporated into our existing Circuit Tutorsoftware package,13-15 which we plan to distribute through a textbook publisher at some point toensure its sustainability.6. Conclusions
for outcomes assessment,” Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2001.[16].Information available at http://www.blackboard.com[17].R. L. Miller and B. M. Olds, “Performance Assessment of EC-2000 Student Outcomes in the Unit Operations Laboratory,” 1999 ASEE Annual Conf. Proc., 1999.[18].EvalTools® information available at http://www.makteam.com.
onquality and progress of the student’s work. Students have the ability to discuss their progressboth in individual meetings with their mentor and in the weekly collaboration meetings. Inaddition, graduate students involved in the project are expected to monitor each student’sperformance and progress in the laboratory setting. Ideally, concerns are addressed early, and thestudent is mentored to overcome weaknesses or deficiencies in regards to research. The facultymentor is expected to provide constructive criticism to the students to help them gain the mostfrom the summer program.Assessment:The program was assessed in a number of ways. The demographic data of the participants wasused to determine the success of the recruitment efforts in engaging
Computer Engineering at Colorado State University.Prof. Branislav M. Notaros, Colorado State University Branislav M. Notaros is Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Colorado State University, where he also is Director of Electromagnetics Laboratory. He received a Ph.D. in elec- trical engineering from the University of Belgrade, Yugoslavia, in 1995. His research publications in computational and applied electromagnetics include more than 150 journal and conference papers. He is the author of textbooks Electromagnetics (2010) and MATLAB-Based Electromagnetics (2013), both with Pearson Prentice Hall. Prof. Notaros served as General Chair of FEM2012, Colorado, USA, and as Guest Editor of
experiential learning project. Future such projects willconcentrate on the design of mini-processor belonging to other processor families.References[1] Dua, R., “Digital System Design - 8051 Microcontrollers Home Page” January 2015.[online]. Available: http://web.mst.edu/~rdua/Digital%20Systems%20Design.htm [Accessed:December 30, 2019][2] Marshall, M., Moss, A., Garringer, L. G., & Dua, R. (2015, June), “WIMP51 Processor:Envisioning and Recreating the Platform for Implementing Student Design Projects”, Paperpresented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington.10.18260/p.25078[3] Hur, B. (2019, June), “ARM Cortex M4F-based, Microcontroller-based, and Laboratory-oriented Course Development in Higher Education”, Paper
." In Frontiers in Education Conference, 1996. FIE'96. 26th Annual Conference., Proceedings of, vol. 3, pp. 1379-1382. IEEE, 1996.[7] Crompton, Brittany, et al. "Cybersecurity Awareness Shrewsbury Public Schools." (2016).[8] Yier Jin and Cliff Zou, “Cyberforensic.net – Training Many to Fight Cyber Crime.” http://cyberforensic.net/articles/Jin_Zou.pdf[9] Wenliang Du and Ronghua Wang, “SEED: A Suite of Instructional Laboratories for Computer Security Education (Extended Version).” In The ACM Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), Volume 8, Issue 1, March 2008.[10] Bhunia, Swarup, and Mark Tehranipoor. Hardware security: a hands-on learning approach. Morgan Kaufmann, 2018.[11
their homework computer assignments and the final course project.When hands-on experimentation is implemented in image processing courses, it isusually via computer laboratory assignments done after the class meets. However, in theauthor’s opinion this “waiting period” between the time the knowledge is acquired andthe time it is applied through hands-on activities in unnecessary and may negativelyaffect student learning. Students are more likely to understand and retain the theory if it isillustrated with immediate hands-on experiments. In the course described here, studentswere given the chance to practice the theory at the same time as they were learning it.The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The context of the DIP course is
Blue and Red Teams (assuming the reports were not intercepted).Bibliography1. Doug Jacobson, “Teaching Information Warfare with a Break-in Laboratory”, Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education, Salt Lake City, June 2004.2. L.J. Hoffman and D. Ragsdale, “Exploring a National Cyber Security Exercise for Colleges and Universities”, tech. report CSPRI-04-08, Cyber Security Policy and Research Inst. Aug 2004, www.cpi.seas.gwu.edu/library/docs/2004-08.pdf3. L.J Hoffman and D. Ragsdale, “Exploring a National Cybersecurity Exercise for Universities”, IEEE Security and Privacy, Volume 3, Number 5, September 2005, pg27-33.4. InfraGard, www.infragard.net5. Iowa State University Information Assurance
and freely. We will employclassroom interactions and communications to help students advance their abilities specifically inarbitrating competing claims and generalizing conceptual knowledge and skills of the discipline.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under GrantNo. 0942168 through the Division of Undergraduate Education program Course, Curriculum,and Laboratory Improvement. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of theNational Science Foundation. This collaborative project includes the authors of this paper as wellas the University of Minnesota Principal Investigator, Dr
her Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering at Vanderbilt Univer- sity, her M.S. in Electrical Engineering at Vanderbilt University, and her B.S. in Electrical Engineering at Tuskegee University. Her research interests include assessment of instructional methods, laboratory design, collaborative learning, and retention and recruitment issues in engineering education. Page 23.165.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2013 An Examination of the Relationship of Intellectual Development and Learning Preferences in Electrical and Computer Engineering
theory.Dr. Owe G. Petersen, Milwaukee School of Engineering Dr. Petersen is Assistant VP of Institutional Research and Assessment, Professor Emeritus and former Department Chair of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE). He is a former Member Technical Staff at AT&T Bell Laboratories and received his Ph.D. de- gree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1971. His technical work ranges over topics such as Optical Data Links, Integrated Circuit Technology, RF semiconductor components, and semiconductor compo- nent reliable. He is a Senior Member of the IEEE and an ABET EAC program evaluator in Electrical Engineering
government laboratories are equal partners in developing solutions forunmanned systems.Objective 3: Develop and Articulate Unmanned System Requirements and Specifications1. I have knowledge about the current state-of-the-art commercially available unmanned systems.2. I understand how operational needs can translate to the technical requirements of a system.3. I can use a formal engineering design process to generate the specifications and performance measures fromhigh level requirements.4. I can separate the desired functionality from a specific design solution.5. I understand the importance of possessing both technical and operational skills to generate a requirement.6. I appreciate the need for testable or demonstrable requirements.7. I understand
University Ali Eydgahi started his career in higher education as a faculty member at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1985. Since then, he has been with the State University of New York, University of Maryland, Eastern Shore, and Eastern Michigan University. During 2006-2010, he was Chair of the Department of Engineering and Aviation Sciences, Founder and Director of the Center for 3-D Visualization and Virtual Reality Applications, and Technical Director of the NASA funded MIST Space Vehicle Mission Planning Laboratory at the University of Maryland, Eastern Shore. In Aug. 2010, he joined Eastern Michigan University as an Associate Dean in the College of Technology and currently is a Professor in the School of
University. Adrienne’s research interests include electrokinetics, predominantly di-electrophoretic characterizations of cells, and the development of biomedical microdevices. She earned aNSF CAREER award and was nominated for Michigan Professor of the Year in 2014. Research within herMedical micro-Device Engineering Research Laboratory (M.D. – ERL) also inspires the development ofDesktop Experiment Modules (DEMos) for use in chemical engineering classrooms or as outreach activi-ties in area schools (see www.mderl.org). Adrienne is currently co-Chair of ASEE’s Diversity Committeeand PIC I Chair; she has previously served on WIED, ChED, and NEE leadership teams and contributedto 37 ASEE conference proceedings articles
Rule 15 System Integration Ruleset Implementation Table 1: Course Topic and Lab Schedulecomplete additional software based control projects as well as additional design questions on thecourse exams, which are not discussed in this paper. After completing the course, students will becapable of seeking and applying knowledge from a broad range of sources in order to design anintegrated system that includes analog and digital circuits, microprocessor-based components,sensors, actuators, and basic controls. The corresponding laboratory experiments providehands-on experience in sensor characteristics, supporting driver and interface circuitry, and basicmicrocontroller programming.The
don’t work out the first time. This makes everysemester a teaching laboratory, where new ideas can be tried and tested. This makes everysemester a little different, and keeps the interest of the instructors as they work to continuouslyimprove their course.C. ConclusionThe amount of formative feedback provided by students as they reflected on their flippedlearning experience has provided formative data for the professors as they work to improve theECE1250 class as well as provided students with deeper insights into their own learningprocesses that helped them in this class and which they can take forward with them into futurecourses. The structure and expectations of the flipped learning classroom provided a frameworkfor students to follow as
controllers, and successfullypass the class. The observations made on this paper are based on our multiple years ofexperience in teaching the topics as well as several informal discussions with professors in otheruniversities. It appears that some students miss the basic understanding that a controller (whetheranalog or digital) represents a transfer function (in the S-Domain or the Z-Domain) or adifferential/difference equation so that, together with the dynamics of the plant and the rest of thesystem, it allows for desired closed loop behavior.This problem can be partially alleviated during laboratory experiments when students notice thata controller’s transfer function in the S-Domain can be practically implemented using hardware,which includes op
must perform an annual assessment. Theprimary reason for this assessment is to demonstrate the learning community is meeting its statedoutcomes. There are three general reasons to assess any project or program- to improve theprogram or project; to inform stakeholders whether the program, or project, is achieving it’sgoals; or to prove a program, or project is meeting, or has met its intended goals. [6]Traditionally, the evaluation in EELC is done via different tools. For the material at hand theevaluation has been done by homework, quizzes, tests, and laboratory reports. In addition tothat, one-on-one interviews are conducted, with each student, twice during the term and wouldidentify weakness and strengths for each student. The interview
Technology programs has been to educate engineers-practitioners. Thus, curriculum of ET students is more oriented towards hands-on experience in laboratory settings and has less commitments to pure theoretical knowledge. Also, it should be said that some students, which officially belonged
, Germany (VDE) Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Page 23.1233.2 European Commission of the European Union (CE) Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Underwriters Laboratories (UL) US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)At the national level, the ABET Criteria for Engineering programs also require students toincorporate engineering standards in their design experience1. The National Standards Strategyfor the United States (NSS) demands increasing the
various and sometimes unexpected ways: New computer hardware allows not only higher speed computers but also smaller, lightweight devices such as PDA’s and cell phones. New applications bring not only new or better services (voice/video over IP, etc.) but also new challenges as well as malicious applications such as viruses and email spam, which have become commonplace.James Krogmeier, Purdue University James V. Krogmeier received the BSEE degree from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 1981 and the MS and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1983 and 1990, respectively. From 1982 to 1984 he was a Member of Technical Staff at AT&T Bell Laboratories in