Paper ID #17861Assessing Communications and Teamwork Using Peer and Project SponsorFeedback in a Capstone CourseDr. Michael 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 development engineer at the 3M Corporate Research Laboratory in St. Paul, Minnesota. He received his B.S. in mechanical engineering from Michigan State University and his S.M. and Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Johnson’s
in, what major to pursue, and on it goes. Probably the mostcritical aspect of their consternation is to decide on a specific area of study, i.e., career decision.Arguably, most students want to be surrounded by peers who share the same passions andinterests. Many universities and colleges offer programs that provide these kinds of opportunitiesby hosting STEM living learning communities that offer resources that would not be available inother living environments either on, or off campus.Living learning communities provide an opportunity for students to build strong relationshipsinside and outside of the classroom and promotes higher academic performance which results ingreater student success.11 By taking some of the same courses together
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
6 60-64 3 Below 60 0 * Percentage toward final grade. See Table 2 below. Participation in Weekly Online DiscussionsA series of discussion questions are posted during the course. Students are required to participateregularly with their course instructor and other students in online discussions. Each student is expectedto use online course tools (Discussion boards and Chat rooms) to interact with peers and workcollaboratively to improve his/her understanding of underlying course ideas and issues.Table 2 below shows weights assigned to each of the above activities: Table 2 – Weights assigned to each activityIn this
, 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
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
Technology criteria, EC-2000requires an assessment and continuous improvement plan. Since the first publication ofoutcome based criteria in 1995, considerable discussion has taken place on this issue.1,2In 2001 a similar outcome based criteria were published for the engineering technologyprograms. A number of studies were conducted and published under the GatewayEngineering Education Coalition outlining strategies for developing and institutionalizingsuch programs.3-5 Many of these studies address important but only specific areas of theEC-2000 and TC2K criteria. For example, a study by Besterfield-Sacre et al. defines theeleven outcomes a-k in terms of blooms taxonomy.4, 6 McGourtny, et. al., discussincorporation of student peer review and feedback
. 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
Execu- tive Board (charter member); the Ronald Schmitz Award for Outstanding Service to FIE; the ASEE IL-IN Outstanding Campus Representative; the ASEE Hewlett Packard Award for Excellence in Laboratory In- struction; the ASEE IL-IN Outstanding Teaching Award; Marquis’ Who’s Who in the World, in America, in Engineering and Science, and in Education.Dr. Wanju Huang, Purdue University Dr. Wanju Huang is an instructional designer on the Course Design and Development team within ITaP’s Teaching and Learning Technologies group at Purdue University. Prior to joining Purdue University in Fall 2016, Wanju was a lecturer and an instructional designer at Eastern Kentucky University. She is a certified Quality Matters Peer
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