classrooms.However, it is expected that these engineering students will be able to manipulate materials,energy, and information in their professional roles. However, students must have aknowledge that goes beyond mere theory. Fundamental knowledge, traditionally gained ineducational laboratories, provide a better base that is long lasting and easy to recall in futurebased on their experience and sensory memory. Learning styles vary person to person asdiscussed in many publications [1-5]. Since routine class lectures normally do not promoteactive learning and not every student can easily absorb and understand theoretical knowledgepresented in this kind of class setting, hands-on laboratory based assignments usually aremore effective in generating a greater
definition, 42.8% a partially correct definition, and 57.2%reporting a completely incorrect definition. However, 64.3% knew that it causes buildup onsurfaces. Post-assessment conducted via exams revealed that students’ conceptual knowledgeimproved and from midterm to final exam.Introduction and backgroundActive learning techniques are widely purported to improve student learning by appealing to alarger range of learning styles. In particular, hands-on activities have been shown to appeal tostudents with sensory, visual, and active learning styles [1]. Deeper learning also takes placewhen students can connect ideas that are familiar to them with new ones [2]. Within the contextof environmental engineering, many authors have demonstrated the
girls do not perform well on tests. In 2009, male high schoolgraduates had higher National Assessment of Educational Process (NAEP) mathematics andscience scores than their female counterparts, completing the same curriculum level [1]. Thismight be correlated with the Arizona State University’s finding that “the average male studentthinks he is smarter than 66 percent of the class, while the average female student thinks she issmarter than 54 percent of the class” [2]. Stoeger et al. reported that STEM interest is almostthree times higher for boys than girls. The same study reported that female students think thatSTEM is not appropriate for them due to a perceived disconnect between the “real world” andtheir assignments; therefore, the girls
retain studentswith a broad range of interests and motivations.BackgroundSome students have a high level of interest in environmental issues and want to make this thefocus of their academic studies and/or career. The disciplines with the most obvious focus onenvironmental issues are environmental studies (EnvS), environmental science (EnvSci), andenvironmental engineering (EnvE). An online search of programs in the U.S. that awardBachelor’s degrees in these areas identified 183 EnvS, 500 EnvSci, and 70 EnvE degrees [1].The number of Bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2014-2015 in these majors were: 6015 EnvS,5723 EnvSci, and 1414 EnvE [2]. (Note that the Integrated Postsecondary Education DataSystem (IPEDS) groups EnvE with Environmental Health
of unconsidered energyconsumption, a layman’s knowledge of the physical laws governing and technologies behindconventional and alternative energy production, and an array of tools to evaluate and implementenergy conservation strategies on personal and corporate levels. In line with the desire to makethe course as accessible as possible to all university students, the faculty decided that the onlyprerequisites for the course would be knowledge of basic algebra and simple spreadsheetanalysis skills. The outcomes for the course are shown in Table 1. With these outcomes in mind, asemester outline was developed as shown in Table 2. Three instructors co-taught the initial offering. The lead instructor was a mechanicalengineering
implementation atadditional German universities. The focus of the evaluation lies on a comparison of theparticipants' assessments of their skills and abilities before and after their participation in theEWB Challenge. This work in progress paper explains the structure of this evaluation in detail. 1. IntroductionThe German university teaching system has been in constant change since the Bologna reform(a European-wide process to ensure coherent and comparable education qualifications). It isbecoming increasingly important to intensify the learning process, improve learning outcomesand ultimately improve the quality of teaching (Hochschulforum Digitalisierung 2016).Furthermore, concepts such as the "Third Mission" are on the rise: the idea of
. Professional competencies such as leadership, the ability to designsustainable systems, effective communication, and interdisciplinary teamwork areamong the many skills required by engineers of the future. Functioning effectively as amember of a multidisciplinary team is a requirement for entry into the practice of civilengineering at the professional level. It also states that intradisciplinary andmultidisciplinary teams are needed to solve the complex problems of the future1The recently revised ABET student outcomes (1 through 7) no longer have an explicitoutcome about functioning on multidisciplinary teams; however, it is implicitly stated thatit is still important. Outcome (1) of the new ABET student outcomes state that studentshave “an ability to
students have very little knowledge of infrastructure and havedesigned the course with this in mind. Complex mathematics is not needed in the course as thefocus is to provide students with a holistic view of infrastructure. In addition, real-worldexamples are integrated into the lessons that emphasize the concepts of interconnectivity ofdifferent systems. The course learning outcomes were developed collaboratively by members ofthe CIT-E community of practice in 2015. The process is described by Parker et al. [1]. A courseoutline, specifying 43 lessons that will support the outcomes, was also developed collaborativelyby the community of practice (Table 1). The CIT-E community of practice decided to categorizeinfrastructure into three categories
longer the people our educational system wasdesigned to teach” [1]. Prensky noted that contemporaneous students represented a singulargeneration that had grown up with digital technology, which had fundamentally changed howthis generation thought and processed information. The STEM education world took note of Prensky’s observations and began to discuss waysto meet the needs and thought processes of digital natives. In 2004, the National Academy ofEngineering (NAE) published a report entitled “The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering inthe New Century”. In this report, NAE recognizes that we are progressing in age ofextraordinary technological growth and sets forward ideal attributes for the next generation ofengineers. The author
environment, and they felt more strongly about the need for continuingenvironmental education to promote environmental stewardship.Introduction The need for an environmental ethic became evident in the 20th century due to a numberof high-profile environmental failures, including those documented in Silent Spring [1] andThomas Hardin’s paper on the tragedy of the commons [2]. The establishment of theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) almost immediately following passage of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the inaugural Earth Day of 1970 further increased publicawareness of the relationship between human activity and environmental quality [3]. This linkwas discussed as early as the 16th century by Malthus [4]. At the heart of
research experience would increase students’ (1a) academic self-efficacy, (1b)research skills, (1c) research confidence, (1d) including confidence in leading and working witha team, and (1e) education and (1f) career intentions to pursue engineering. In addition, it washypothesized that the research experience would provide students with (2a) greater culturalawareness, (2b) global perspectives of water reuse challenges, and (2c) promote increasedinterest in pursuing an engineering career that can have a global impact.Methodology(1)ParticipantsBetween 2015 and 2017, a total of 14 students participated in the research experience. Allparticipants were recruited from two public, Hispanic Serving comprehensive state universitiesin southern California
forcingstudents to answer questions during discussion”). Other students responded positively to thecourse content (i.e., “I learned a lot of practical environmental health information that I plan touse in practice”). Future work should: 1) follow-up with students to identify the value of thecourse in their professional practice after graduation; 2) assess changes in student attitudes andbeliefs from before and after the course; and 3) replicate the course at other institutions toevaluate the effectiveness of the course content and delivery approach independent of thepersonality of the instructor and with a variety of student types.IntroductionThe field today known as “environmental engineering” emerged formally with the creation oftwo organizations
spanning a period of four academic semestersbetween 2014 and 2017 were analyzed using two approaches. Projects were analyzed(1) for the degree of integration of non-technical considerations and (2) by term frequencymining and term frequency-inverse document frequency (tf-idf). The integration of socio-economic and cultural considerations into the course project increased in 2016 and 2017,with five of twelve student teams in 2014 and eight of ten student teams in 2016 and 2017integrating non-technical considerations in their analysis. Gender demographics andgraduate standing were not correlated with the degree of integration of non-technicalconsiderations. Term frequency analysis and tf-idf showed that key terms in the “social”and “energy