their load distribution, students applied these concepts to theirexamination of a basic Warren truss bridge. Finally, students participated in a Technical Writingseminar and workshop in which they learned how to revise their writing and how to make asuccessful oral presentation. Before the final program presentations, the students performedpractice versions of these demonstrations for their classmates. A scoring rubric was employed inorder for the students to benefit from peer evaluations of their classmates’ work.Each Friday, the speakers from the industrial seminar and workshop sessions introduced studentsto real-world engineering systems, and they provided them with the opportunity to work withengineering principles in a hands-on environment
chunkin’ project. Students had to essentially repeat the marshmallow project,except in a larger team with a full-scale launcher that was capable of firing a five pound pumpkin100 yards.The concept of technical writing was frontloaded in Fundamentals of Engineering by scaffoldingthe content, as described below. Project 1 required a one-page summary per team of three; Students received a lecture on technical writing; Project 2 required a full technical memo per team of six; Students completed a peer-review process on their individual Project 3 reports; and Project 3 required each individual to create a full technical memo.The final concepts frontloaded in Fundamentals of Engineering were the software programs taughtto
mitigate the problem. It was anticipated that the students would learnabout international business environment, cross cultural elements of engineering problems, andsustainable solutions. Students learning outcomes were evaluated using pre and post survey,focus group’s evaluation, and peer evaluation. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted tojustify effectiveness of new learning outcomes. All students agreed that the course projectincreased their knowledge and skills to solve engineering problems in global settings. About92% students responded that the project increased their interest about different cultures andmulti-perspective analysis, and 72% students, up 52% from pre-survey, said that the project washelpful understanding engineering and
, curriculum, student experience, faculty,learning resources and administrative support. A two-day long site visit was conducted by apanel of two external and two internal peer reviewers. This paper presents planning, preparationand lessons learned from this recent academic review of the program. Some of the highlightedlessons learned are plan early, develop and implement a continuous improvement plan, securefaculty and administrative support to drive success in a graduate program.IntroductionAccreditation is an integral part of most undergraduate Engineering Technology (ET) programsin the USA. Accreditation bodies like ABET ensure that a program meets the quality standardsthat produce graduates prepared to enter a global workforce (ABET, 2019
experience while on campus. The aims of the coursewere to (1) help undergraduate students who are interested in research connect with facultypartners who are committed to mentoring undergraduates in research, (2) to guide students inreading through papers that introduce the type of research being carried out in a faculty partnerslab, (3) to guide students in drafting a mini-review of 5 papers relevant to that research, (4) toguide students in identifying and writing up a research proposal which they will complete in thelab of the faculty partner. In the first year, six academic departments out of eight participated inthis new course by offering a cross-listed course for their students under one major course taughtby one of the PIs at the STEM Center
main conclusion/content; summary of relevance; source publication date, andcitation format. Each team’s proposal is reviewed by faculty advisors and peer-reviewed by otherteams. This allows students to recognize strengths and weaknesses of their own proposals andproposals by other teams. Rubrics were developed to grade proposals for approval decision.Project proposals become an integral part of project contracts by each team. Contracts areapproved by faculty and industry advisors before any work can commence on the project.Mentoring of the students is a key component of undergraduate research and is criticallyimportant during this stage to help them write high-quality proposals [2].Another important part of this process is submission of an
involvedin traditional lecture were found to be 1.5 times more likely to fail as compared to those in classes withsignificant active learning. Some of the active learning techniques are peer review, flipped classrooms,hands-on technology, and cooperative group problem solving. Here is a brief description of thesemethods [10].In “peer review”, students are asked to complete an individual homework assignment or short paper. Onthe day the assignment is due, students submit one copy to the instructor to be graded and one copy totheir partner. Each student then takes their partner's work and, depending on the nature of theassignment, gives critical feedback, and corrects mistakes in content and/or grammar.In the “flipped classroom”, class time is devoted
, 4 Lab.CommunicationTeaching communication, as a skill, is a persistent challenge in technical education. This ishighlighted in the Engineer of 2020 report which described it as a need to “listen effectively aswell as to communicate through oral, visual, and written mechanisms.” 5 Prior to technicalstudies students have been immersed in the fundamentals of persuasive writing and socialinteraction. All technical educators build on that base to add skills for business and technicalinterfacing. At WCU the PBL sequence ensures an orderly development with the context ofengineering project work.Table 1 - Typical Communication Topic Introduction in the PBL Sequence Topic ENGR 199 ENGR 200 ENGR 350
errors and to give suggestions for future work or implementation.4) Assignment #4 (25%): In-class Presentation. Note: the students were asked to grade their peers’ presentations both on content and on delivery. The final grade was the average of the grades given by the faculty and peers’ average. o ParticipantsThe initial cohort, fall 2019, comprise of 30 MET seniors. o Data CollectionThe students’ end of course evaluation comments, two questionnaires, and project performanceand project presentation grades were used to assess the learning outcomes. The students’experience and perceptions regarding the new project were gauged with: Questionnaire #1 (Fig.1) which focused on information literacy, especially the students’ experience
@purdue.edu.Dr. Anne M. Lucietto, Purdue Polytechnic Institute Dr. Lucietto has focused her research in engineering technology education and the understanding of engineering technology students. She teaches in an active learning style which engages and develops practical skills in the students. Currently she is exploring the performance and attributes of engineering technology students and using that knowledge to engage them in their studies.Ms. Aayushi Sinha, Purdue University I’m a undergraduate student studying mathematics and statistics who is interested in analysis of data. Working on this paper will give me a good idea of how to analyze data and what goes into writing a research paper.Mr. Trenton Thomas Hasser, Purdue
the objective of increasing studentretention and overall satisfaction. Since this course is one of the first technical courses thestudents have to take, the latest approach is to incorporate hands-on laboratory experience withthe goal of getting the freshmen accustomed with novel techniques of acquiring data, buildingthe skills to analyze and investigate data using Excel software, writing a laboratory report, usinga Word processor, and comparing their results with computer simulation results using Matlab orSimulink. At the end of the course each student will have the opportunity to improve theirpresentation skills by presenting their findings in front of their peers using PowerPoint. For thefirst hands-on experiment the students used a
activities is provided for the course instructor. More information aboutEvaluateUR and EvaluateUR-CURE are found at http://serc.carleton.edu/evaluateur.Table 1. EvaluateUR-CURE Outcomes Outcome Categories Outcome Components Communication • Uses and understands professional and discipline-specific language • Expresses ideas orally in an organized, clear, and concise manner • Writes clearly and concisely using correct grammar, spelling, syntax, and sentence structure Creativity • Shows ability to approach problems from different perspectives
in Solid Mechanics, Plasticity and Sheet Metal Forming. Dr. Matin has published more than 25 peer-reviewed journal and conference papers. Dr. Matin is the recipient of NSF MRI award as a Co-PI. Dr. Matin worked in Automotive industry for Chrysler Corporation from 2005 to 2007. He Joined UMES in August 2007. He is affiliated with ASME and ASEE professional societiesMr. Lukman G. Bolahan Anidu c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Design of an Automatic Class Attendance System as an Undergraduate Senior Design ProjectAbstractOne of the goals of senior design courses in undergraduate engineering programs is to involvestudents in a meaningful project so
collaborative and cooperative learning (group work with a commongoal) [4, 5] and group-based instructional methods [6] – [10], and problem-based learning, all ofwhich feature opportunities for students to engage with learning content in a non-passive way.As mentioned, cooperative learning is one example of active learning used in engineeringeducation. The benefits of active learning (including cooperative and collaborative, and incontrast to competitive approaches) include maximized student learning, improved quality ofstudents’ interpersonal relationships with peers, and more positive attitudes to experiences inUniversity, as found by Johnson et al’s [11] meta-analysis of 305 studies of cooperative learning(encompassing active and collaborative
under the any of the EAC program areas, so that program only had to meet the generalEAC curricular requirements.The general and program-specific EAC requirements set minimums for the size of the math andscience foundation and specified the inclusion of a small set of topics or courses, which still leftus quite a bit of flexibility for determining the content of each program, especially at the upperdivision. To make sure that we were not going far afield, we took the time to research otherprograms. Because EE is a very large field, we started with a list of 93 programs at similar uni-versities and then eventually narrowed that list to a set of six programs that we considered to beaspirational peers. MFGE, however, is a relatively small field
. Design 8. Design control systems in the frequency domain using Bode/Nyquist techniques. 9. Be familiar with the most common controllers in industrial use. Lab 10. Integrate the concepts of feedback control systems with real-time simulation using MATLAB.2.2 Create inclusive learning environment using different technologiesIn distance learning, students can feel disconnected from instructor and their peers [3]. Weexplored various technologies to create a friendly and inclusive learning/teaching environment. Zoom was used in synchronous virtual meetings. Professional zoom license was providedby the institution. Instructor and students hold synchronous weekly meetings
. While this course uses active learning approaches and team projects, the scope of theircontents distinguish them from similar courses that seek to achieve improved graduation andretention rates. For instance, in this course, soft skills such as technical writing, use of Excel,developing an individual academic plan of study, cooperative education, internships, culturaldiversity, quality, safety, and ethics are covered. Basic technical skills covered include math,mechanical, electrical, and computer engineering technology. The rationale for this course is toexpose students to these subjects and topics before they enroll in core engineering technologycourses such as applied statics.Assessment of learning:While the author plans to conduct this
-term goals in their professional career. This tool has been adapted for use in the educationalsetting in a faculty mentoring capacity. The ET program advisors assign the freshman or transferS-STEM student scholars with faculty mentors to match their area of research interest. Thefaculty mentors meet with the students a minimum of three to four times a year to review theirIDP, make suggestions, and provide input for reaching their goals. The goals of the IDP processare to; develop a deeper more meaningful relationship between advisor and student, reflect anddevelop a strategy for the scholar’s educational and career, and manage expectations and identifyopportunities. In the initial meeting there are several prompts for the student to write
physical projects (manually made or 3-D printed) simulating an ancient device of their choice.Results from student and peer evaluations are consistently favorable.I. Introduction How many people know that the first 3-D image in the history of humankind was created34,000 years ago by a ‘paleoengineer’ on the rock ceiling of a cave in Italy? How many of usknow that about 12,000 years ago, hafted tools contributed to the discovery of farming on amajor scale, allowing ancient ‘agricultural engineers’ to invent more effective farming tools?What about 10,000 years ago, when Mesolithic ‘mechanical engineers’ were able to createhypermicroliths (extremely small stone tools) with skills comparable to present-day diamondcutters, except without a
assess impact of good supply chain practices such as coordinated decision making in stochastic supply chains, handling supply chains during times of crisis and optimizing global supply chains on the financial health of a company. She has published her research in Journal of Business Logistics, International Jour- nal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management and peer-reviewed proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education.Dr. Michael D. Johnson, Texas A&M University Dr. Michael D. Johnson is an associate professor in the Department of Engineering Technology and In- dustrial Distribution at Texas A&M University. Prior to joining the faculty at Texas A&M, he was a senior product
-learning. She has over sixty publications in peer reviewed conference and journals and she was member, PI or CO-PI of several multidisciplinary research grants, sponsored by the European Union, NSF and industry. She is member of IEEE society and Chair of Women In Engi- neering (WIE) Affinity Group for the IEEE Long Island section. She is the Public Seminar Coordinator for Renewable Energy and Sustainability Center at Farmingdale State CollegeDr. Mircea Alexandru Dabacan, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca Mircea Alexandru Dabacan received the M. Eng. degree in electronics and telecommunications engineer- ing from the Polytechnic Institute of Cluj-Napoca, Romania, in 1984, and a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the
comparison of the InterdisciplinaryExperimental Engineering Project Course to a capstone course is offered in this paper.I. IntroductionMost engineering and technology programs require their undergraduate students to take a seniordesign/capstone course to complete the degree. Most capstone courses are yearlong or a semesterlong, are specific to the student’s major, and are designed to demonstrate, in some way, thestudent’s knowledge of the discipline. To fulfill the requirements of a capstone course, thestudent accomplishes a field-specific project by herself/himself and is required to prepare apaper, a presentation, and/or poster to present the project before a group of peers. In some cases,industrial advisory board members are invited to the
started totake more leadership roles in the program, created their own student organization recognized byuniversity, organized and hosted leadership and professional development activities, organicallydeveloped peer-tutoring during daily study hour in the designated room, and teamed up with variousscience and technology events oriented towards regional public school districts.Eventually, data talks! Figure 3.1 shows from the S-STEM project reporting site shows the impact ofthe project. During the first four years of the project, we awarded a scholarship to 68 eligible andqualified students, with 55 of them graduated by Spring 2019. Among the 16 scholars in theprogram, six of them graduated in Dec. 2019 and the remaining will graduate in May 2020