, “American universities and technical advance in industry,” Res. Policy, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 323–348, 1994, doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(94)90042-6.[3] National Academy of Engineering, The Importance of Engineering Talent to the Prosperity and Security of the Nation: Summary of a Forum. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2014.[4] National Academy of Engineering, Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005.[5] National Academy of Engineering, Grand Challenges for Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science, 2008.[6] N. Henderson, M. S. Fadali, and J. Johnson, “An investigation of first-year engineering students’ attitude
: 10.1348/000709902158883.[5] A. VanScoy and M. J. Oakleaf, “Evidence vs. anecdote: Using syllabi to plan curriculum- integrated information literacy instruction,” College & Research Libraries, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 566–575, Nov. 2008, doi: 10.5860/crl.69.6.566.[6] T. P. Mackey and T. E. Jacobson, “Information literacy: A collaborative endeavor,” College Teaching, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 140–144, Oct. 2005, doi: 10.3200/CTCH.53.4.140-144.[7] M. J. Foster, S. Shurtz, and C. Pepper, “Evaluation of best practices in the design of online evidence-based practice instructional modules,” Journal of the Medical Library Association, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 31–40, Jan. 2014, doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.102.1.007.[8] I. Datig and C. Ruswick, “Four quick
of the cornerstone course should be integrated intothe curriculum.References 1. S. Freeman, C. Pfluger, R. Whalen, K. S. Grahame, J. Hertz, C. Variawa, J. Love, M. Sivak, and B. Maheswaran, “Cranking Up Cornerstone: Lessons Learned from Implementing a Pilot with First-Year Engineering Students,” 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. 2. Meyers, K., & Uhran, J., & Pieronek, C., & Budny, D., & Ventura, J., & Ralston, P., & Estell, J. K., & Slaboch, C., & Hart, B., & Ladewski, R. (2008, June), Perspectives On First Year Engineering Education Paper presented at 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. https://peer.asee.org
. Based on the combina-tion of scores, Kolbe ATM determines the dominant mode(s) of operation for an individual. Kolbe TMCorporation has identified 17 distinct action combinations, or Natural Advantages , describinghow individuals navigate through a problem or process in the absence of external restrictions 11 . TMEach Natural Advantage is given an archetypal descriptor such as Researcher, System Analyst,Pioneer, or Entrepreneur. These are not job titles, but rather terms intended to evoke a mentalimage of the traits embodied within the category.We hypothesize that natural work patterns strongly affect an individual’s performance in self
Paper ID #14649Kahoot, A New and Cheap Way to Get Classroom-Response Instead of UsingClickersProf. Rodrigo Cutri P.E., Maua Institute of Techonology Cutri holds a degree in Electrical Engineering from Maua Institute of Technology (2001), MSc (2004) and Ph.D. (2007) in Electrical Engineering - University of S˜ao Paulo. He is currently Titular Professor of Maua Institute of Technology, Professor of the University Center Foundation Santo Andr´e, and consultant - Tecap Electrical Industry Ltda. He has experience in Electrical Engineering with emphasis on Industrial Electronics and Engineering Education, acting on the
has been involved with the course for over ten years and has coordinated the course for the past five years during which the switch to seminar format took place. Page 12.698.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2007 Evaluating the Seminar Model for First-Year Engineering Education Margot A. S. Vigeant, Karen T. Marosi, and Ronald D. Ziemian Bucknell University Department of Chemical Engineering; Associate Dean of Engineering; Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringAbstractBucknell University requires all
can help students learn to take control of their own learning by defining learning goals and monitoring their progress in achieving them.The format for the course is as follows. Lab/recitation sections meet for two hours eachweek on Wednesday or Thursday and the seminar section meets for one hour each weekon Friday. Lab sections have been limited to 9 students in order to provide more intimatecontact between the instructor(s) and the students. Lab groups are limited to 3 students aswe have found that in groups with 4 or more students, one or more students may not fullyparticipate in the exercise. Prior to the lab session, each group must meet to discuss thelab and assign team responsibilities which consist of a team leader, data
. 32): Center for Faculty Evaluation & Development Kansas State University.Dalle, T. S., & Inglis, M. J. (1989). What Really Affects Undergraduates' Evaluations of Nonnative Teaching Assistant's Teaching?Marsh, H. W., & Dunkin, M. J. (1992). Students' evaluations of university teaching: A multidimensional perspective. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. VIII, pp. 143-233). New York: Agathon Press.O'Hair, H. D., & Babich, R. M. (1981). The Evaluation and Prediction of Affective Response to Graduate Teaching Assistants' Classroom Communication.Roach, K. D. (1997). Effects of Graduate Teaching Assistant Attire on Student Learning, Misbehaviors, and
earned a B. S. Aerospace Engineering from Virginia Tech University, and taught high school physics for six years. He implemented an International Baccalaureate physics program and a Project Lead the Way pre-engineering program, and is a National Board Certified teacher. His current research focuses on human motion biomechanics, and the application of biomechanics in high school and undergraduate curricula to teach fundamental concepts in physics and engineering.Carol Wade, Clemson University Carol Wade is a second year Ph.D. student at Clemson University in Mathematics Curriculum and Instruction. She is a National Board Certified mathematics teacher in the area of Adolescent Young Adult
Activity, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, England.Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 119-161). New York, NY MacMillan Press.Imbrie, P.K., Maller, S.J., & Immekus, J.C. (2005). Assessing team effectiveness. Proceedings from the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Portland, OR.Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Holubec, E. (1998). Cooperation in the classroom. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Kittleson, J. & Southerland, S. (2004). The role of discourse in group knowledge construction: A case study of engineering students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 267-293.Oliveria, A.W. &
premature to draw any conclusions.The usage of the program from fall, 2005 may be summarized as in Table 2 below. A total of 33tutoring sessions took place during fall, 2005, with the average tutoring session having a durationof approximately one hour. Page 11.265.7 Table 2. Summary of tutoring program usage from fall, 2005 Student Discipline Gender Year Visits Hours Subject(s) Excel, matrix methods, C pro- 1 EE F Jr 21 19.25 gramming, physics (mechanics) 2 ME M
assigned post-studio work, due during the followingweek.The course concluded with a large design project that combined technical course content withcreative thinking. Students were asked to design and program their own interactive game whilefulfilling a set of technical criteria. Students were also free to work individually or with a partner,and no restriction was set on the theme or type of game. This course format was offered again inspring 2016 to a much smaller class size. The spring class is offered primarily for students whodid not successfully complete the fall session, or for some legitimate reason missed the previoussession(s).Following the conclusion of semester, students were asked to provide feedback via a quantitativeand qualitative
5 for Yes, Very Much Do the following see you as an engineer? 1 for No, Not at All • Yourself 2 for Seldom Recognition by Self • Engineering instructor(s) 3 for Sometimes 4 for Often 5 for Yes, Very Much In your opinion, to what extent are the following associated with the field of 1 for Not at All engineering? 2 for A little bit Caring
, along with existing self-assessments of technical and communicationsskills. Additional observations of team engagement, or a lack of it, during in-class activities,beginning early in the semester, could also be compared to student feedback about teamperformance in their project status and reflective updates, which begin with Weeks 3 and 4. References [1] M. H. M. S. A. Hakanen, "Trust in Building High-Performing Teams - Conceptual Approach," Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 43-53, 2015.[2] C. L. F. Larson, Team Work. What must go right/What can go wrong, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1989.[3] N. a. B.-L. M. Van Tyne, "Ethics for the "Me
-year integrated engineering curriculum on graduation rates and student satisfaction: A longitudinal study," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 93, p. 23, 2004.[10] S. S. Courter, S. B. Millar, and L. Lyons, "From the students' point of view: Experiences in a freshman engineering design course," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 87, pp. 283-288, 1998.[11] D. W. Knight, L. E. Carlson, and J. F. Sullivan, "Staying in engineering: Impact of a hands-on, team-based, first-year projects course on student retention," age, vol. 8, p. 1, 2003.[12] D. Kilgore, C. J. Atman, K. Yasuhara, T. J. Barker, and A. Morozov, "Considering context: A study of first-year engineering students," Journal of Engineering
Paper ID #14597Step-Outs to Stars: Engineering Retention FrameworkDr. Nora Honken, University of Cincinnati Nora is an Assistant Professor in the Engineering Education Department at The University of Cincin- nati. She holds a PhD in Educational Leadership and Organizational Development for the University of Louisville, a MS in Industrial Engineering from Arizona State University and a BS in Industrial Engineer- ing from Virginia Tech. She also has extensive industrial experience.Dr. Patricia A Ralston, University of Louisville Dr. Patricia A. S. Ralston is Professor and Chair of the Department of Engineering
the dataset begins to growthrough repetition of the study, considerations will need to be given to sample sizes and the typesof inferences that can be applied to an overall instructor population.This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation undergrant number 1140763. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the National Science Foundation.Bibliography1. Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn. J. D. Bransford (Ed.). Washington, DC:National Academy Press.2. Cox, M. F., & Cordray, D. S. (2008). Assessing pedagogy in bioengineering classrooms: Quantifyingelements of the “How
project based course in using fundamental MATLAB programmingas a tool in engineering problem solving. The course usually requires that students completethree projects per semester, generally requiring software input and output, but no building orconstruction of any kind.Hands on learning is well documented as an effective teaching tool for kinesthetic learners.5,6Such students seemed to be underserved by the conventional teaching methods of the course, soefforts were undertaken to create more hands-on and real world application projects. 7Implementation of project based courses can be challenging, but many universities have createdsuccessful hands-on project based courses. Penn State has been using robots of its own designsince the mid-1990’s
Engineering Curriculum on Graduation Rates and Student Satisfaction: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Engineering Education, 2004.2. Courter, S. S., S. B. Millar, et al. "From the Students' Point of View: Experiences in a Freshman Engineering Design Course." Journal of Engineering Education 87(3): 283-288, 1998.3. Puccinelli, J.P., Nimunkar, A.J.. “Experiences with Electronic Laboratory Notebooks in Real-World, Client- Based BME Design Courses.” In ASEE Annual Conference, Indianapolis, IN, 2014.4. Cardenas, M. “Electronic Laboratory Notebooks versus Paper Laboratory Notebooks: A Comparison of Undergraduate Experimental Engineering Laboratory Submissions .” In ASEE Annual Conference, Indianapolis, IN, 2014
engineering careers.AcknolwedgementsWe appreciate the support of Purdue University’s School of Engineering Education and the FirstYear Engineering Honors Program for their support of this study. The views expressed by theauthors do not necessarily reflect the views of these agencies.References[1] Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369-387.[2] Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. (2008). Model-driven programming. In Reflections on the Teaching ofProgramming (pp. 116-129). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.[3]Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper Project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction,assessment, and
careers.References[1] A. K. Ellis, C. J. Stuen, “The Interdisciplinary Curriculum”, Eye On Education. pp. 174, Larchmont, NY, 1998.[2] K. Lake, “Integrated Curriculum”, School Improvement Research Series VIII. Northwest Regional EducationalLaboratory, 1994.[3] R.W. Hendricks, L.J. Guido, J.R. Heflin, S. Sarin, “An Interdisciplinary Curriculum for Microelectronics”,Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2011.[4] Capt. Trevor D McLaughlin, “Support for Interdisciplinary Engineering Education Through Application ofIndustry-Focused Case Studies”, 121st ASEE annual conference and exposition, Indianapolis, IN, June 15-18, 2014.[5] A. J. Muscat, E. L. Allen, E. D. H. Green, and L. S. Vanasupa
content. The workshop also allows engineering and education faculty to collaborativelywork on training the teachers. This is a more realistic way of teacher preparation than havingengineering educators offer such workshops alone. Page 12.1388.10References:[1] Connant, J.B. (1959) The American High School, McGraw-Hill, New York.[2] http://www.nsf.gov[3] http://www.engineeringk12.org/Engineering in the K-12 Classroom.pdf[4] Jahan, K., Marchese, A. J., Hesketh, R. P., Slater, C. S, Schmalzel, J. L., Chandrupatla, T. R. and Dusseau, R. A. (1997), “The Rowan Engineering Program : Preparing Students for the Future Job Market”, Proceedings of the
style than a single self rating. Social style researchers have found self-assessments of style todiffer from peer assessments half of the time. [7] Social styles assessments were developed inindustry settings during the 1960’s, and the current peer-assessed format has demonstratedacceptable internal consistency, reliability and evidence of construct validity. [13]Social Style Training in a First-Year Engineering Projects CourseFor the present study, social style training was conducted in the University of Colorado at Page 12.708.4Boulder’s First-Year Engineering Projects (FYEP) course, a large, multi-section, team-based,engineering design
in Education, Milwaukee, 2007.[7] D. Waldorf, S. Alptekin and R. Bjurman, "Plotting a Bright Future for Manufacturing Education: Results of a Brainstorming Session," in American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Chicago, 2006.[8] S. J. Miller, R. Doshi, C. Milroy and P. G. Yock, "Early Experiences in Cross-Disciplinary Education in Biomedical Technology Innovation at Stanford University," Journal of Engieering Education, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 585-588, 2001.[9] N. Holsermann, D. Grube and S. Bogeholz, "Hands-on Activities and Their Influence on Students' Interest," Research in Science Education, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 743-757, 2010.[10] M. A. Vernier, B. E. Carruthers and R. J. Freuler, "Use of a Low-Cost
. 259Á275, 2009. 3. Jordan, S., and Mitchell, T., “e-Assessment for learning? The potential of short-answer free-text questions Page 24.280.11 with tailored feedback,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 40, 2009, pp. 371–385.4. Wood, D., “A scaffolded approach to developing students’ skills and confidence to participate in self and peer assessment,” ATN Assessment Conference 2009: Assessment in Different Dimensions, 2009, p. 374.5. Hake, R. R., “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” American journal
assignments, open lab tutorial, or problem(s) • Application • Prepare for next class • Evaluation: online quiz assignments or lab or turned in solutionThe course consists of five main components: experimental microfluidics, nanotechnologyresearch, group presentations on nanotechnology topics, a poster presentation on the microfluidiccell-shearing experiments, and an oral presentation on the hypothetical nanotechnology LOC.Respectively, these contribute about 50%, 20%, 10%, 10%, and 10% of the final project grade.The final poster and oral presentations are judged as part of a final competition to rewardresearch quality and presentation skills.The experimental microfluidics portion of the course
and Nanotechnology to the First Year Students Through an Interactive Seminar Course,” J. Nano Educ., vol. 4, pp. 41-46, 2012. 2. Zheng W., Shih H. R., Lozano K., Pei J. S., Kiefer K., and Ma X., “A Practical Approach to Integrating Nanotechnology Education and Research into Civil Engineering Undergraduate Curriculum,” J. Nano. Educ., vol. 1, pp. 22-33, 2009. 3. Mehta B. R., “Nano Education at Indian Institutes of Technology: A Status Report,” J. Nano. Educ., vol. 1, pp. 106-108, 2009. 4. Certificate in Nanotechnology and Nanoscience, George Mason University [Available: http://cos.gmu.edu/academics/graduate/certificates/certificate-nanotechnology-and-nanoscience]. 5. Drexel University - BSc Materials Engineering with
compared.6,7 The existing literature about TFIDF describes it as atechnique used to classify documents based on keywords and modifiers. Specifically, TFIDF isused to describe documents using hierarchical subclasses, or other creative methods where thealgorithm is used repeatedly per subclass. For example, a keyword for a computer hardware partmight be described as “comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware”, and this is an example of where thealgorithm is used repeatedly in a loop within each subclass. From a computational perspectivethis puts a large load on the processor(s), and as such is quite intensive, but the results aregenerally accurate. Although we are not using a repeated looping method within subclasses forthis study, we can still use the TFIDF to
. Categories Represented in the ASEE Proceedings Page 15.1170.6Page 15.1170.75. Gitlin, Andrew. (2001) Bounding teacher decision making: The threat of intensification. Educational Policy. Vol. 15 Issue 2, p227.6. Kalenscher, Tobias (2009). Decision-making and Neuroeconomics. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester.7. Li, Simon Y. W, Rakow, Tim, Newell, Ben R. (2009). Personal experience in doctor and patient decision making: from psychology to medicine. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. Vol. 15 Issue 6, p993-995.8. Pugh, S
studentsinvolved remain highly motivated to continue their engineering educations, are more engaged inthe classroom, and have achieved better results in their engineering classes than their peers. Page 15.435.11References1. B. F. Spencer Jr., S. J. Dyke, H. S. Deoskar. "Benchmark Problems in Structural Control - PartI: Active Mass Driver System." Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 1998: 1127-1139.2. K. D. Pham, G. Jin, M. K. Sain, B. F. Spencer, Jr., and S. R. Liberty. "Generalized LQGTechniques for the Wind Benchmark Problem." Special Issue of ASCE Journal of EngineeringMechanics on the Structural Control Benchmark Problem, 2004