safety, and sustainable infrastructure.Mr. Edward Stephen Char Jr., Villanova University BS EE Villanova University 1996 MS EE Villanova University 1998Dr. John Komlos, Villanova University Page 26.27.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 ✁✂✄☎ ✁✂✆✄✝☎ ✁✂✞✟✂✠☎✠✡ ☛✠ ☞ ✌✄✂✍☎✎✡✏✑☞✝☎✒ ✓☛✄✝✡✏✔☎☞✄ ✕✠✖☛✠☎☎✄☛✠✖ ✗✘✙✚✛✜✚✢✣✚✤ ✥✦✚✛✦✜✚✧ ★✢✩ ✪✫✫✚✫✫✬✚✢✭✮✯✰✱✲✳✴✱✵✶✷✷✸✹✺✻✸ ✼✹✶✻✽✾✿✶❀❁ ✽❂❃✸✾❄✽❅ ✺✹ ✸ ✹✽❆ ❇✾✺❈✽❉❀❊❃✸✿✽❅ ✸❇❇✾✺✸❉❋ ●✺✾ ❀❋✽ ✾✽❍■✶✾✽❅ ●✶✾✿❀❊❁✽✸✾ ✽✹❏✶✹✽✽✾✶✹❏❑▲▼❑◆❖❑◗❑ ❖ ❘❙❙❚❯ ❱❲❖❳ ❑❨ ❩❖◆❳❱❬❭❑❪◆ ❑▲▼❑◆❖❑◗❑ ❨❪❳ ◆❑▼❫◆❱❑❴ ❖ ❱❲❑ ❘❙❵❙ ❛❜❝❝ ❛❞❪❡ ❢❫❩❑◆❑◗❑❣❤✐❥❦❦❧♠♥♦♣q rs❦ t
. Furtherinvestigation of the histograms and Q-Q plots of GPAs for each category of homeworkcompletion confirmed the appropriateness of using a nonparametric test to compare thedistributions of GPA between homework completion categories to answer RQ1. For RQ1 theTwo -Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, which is based on the empirical distribution function, Page 26.845.6was used to test for a difference in the distributions of GPA for the different categories ofhomework completion. The test was run in MatLab using the KSTEST2 function. Cliff’s deltawas used as a nonparametric measure of effect size. The MatLab program written to calculateCliff’s delta is in the
-university test was administered before the start of the program, and the post-testwas administered at the end of the first-year year. The data for Case 2 was collected in2014/2015 where the pre-university test was administered before the start of the program and themid-test was administered midway through first-year.The sample size in both cases was approximately 200 students for the pre-university test, with aslightly reduced group size due to attrition (approximately170) for both the mid and post-testscenarios. A summary of the results for each case is provided in Table 1. The data in Table 1 iscollated in terms of question number (Q), question type (Type), percent correct for the sampleconsidered both pre, mid and post-test, the number of
- content/uploads/2012/01/EUR-ACE_Framework-Standards_2008-11-0511.pdf.(13) Passow, H. J. J. Eng. Educ. 2012, 101, 95. Page 26.1177.10(14) Brett, J.; Behfar, K.; Kern, M. C. In The Essential Guide to Leadership; Harvard Business Review, 2009; pp. 85–97.(15) Halverson, C. In Effective Multicultural Teams: Theory and Practice; Halverson, C. B.; Tirmizi, S. A., Eds.; Springer, 2008; pp. 81–110.(16) Pelled, L. H.; Eisenhardt, K. M.; Xin, K. R. Adm. Sci. Q. 1999, 44, 1.(17) Watson, W. E. Acad. Manag. J. 1993, 36, 590.(18) Horwitz, S. K. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2005, 4, 219.(19) Manning, M. L.; Lucking, R. Clear
), 1541–1547.[5] Mazumder, Q. H., Karim, R. M. (2012). Comparative Analysis of Learning Styles of Students of USA and Bangladesh, Paper no: AC2012-5075, 119th ASEE Annual Conference, June 10-13, 2012, San Antonio, TX, USA[6] Sadi, O. & Uyar, M. (2013). The relationship between cognitive self-regulated learning strategies and biology achievement: A path model. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences; 93 (2013), 847-852.[7] Crede, M., & Philips, A. L. (2011). A meta-analytic review of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences; 21 (2011), 337-346.[8] Puteha, M., &, Ibrahimb, M. (2010). The usage of self-regulated learning strategies among form four students in
evaluated by the authors. Session 1 Session 2 Presentation Q&A Presentation Q&A 0.4286 0.9333 0.7241 0.5926 no input 4 8 10 12 -1 8 0 2 0 0 4 2 4 11 1 23 29 23 16 Observation: 1. The value of 0.4286 indicates the results could have been better but was still a worthwhile effort. Recall the value could go negative. Note there 23 out of 39 students indicated the
Education, pp. 267-274, July 2002.4. R. Talbert, “Learning MATLAB in the Inverted Classroom,” Proceedings of the ASEE Conference, San Antonio, TX (2012).5. K. M. Kecskemety, B. Morin, “Student Perceptions of Inverted Classroom Benefits in a First-Year Engineering Course,” Proceedings of the ASEE Conference, Indianapolis, IN (2014).6. M. Stickel, S. Hari, Q. Liu, “The Effect of the Inverted Classroom Teaching Approach on Student/Faculty Interaction and Students’ Self-Efficacy,” Proceedings of the ASEE Conference, Indianapolis, IN (2014). Page 26.1698.127. N. K. Lape, R.L. Levy, D. H. Yong, K. A. Haushalter, R. Eddy, N
predictive mathematical models,” Computers & Education, 61, 2013, pp. 133- 143.[5] R. White, “Predicting likely student performance in a first year Science, Technology, Society course,” International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 12(1), 2012, pp. 72 - 84.[6] L. Lackey, W. Lackey, H. Grady, and M. Davis, “Efficacy of using a single, non-technical variable to predict the academic success of freshmen engineering students,” Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 2003, pp. 41-48.[7] Q. Jin, P.K. Imbrie, J. Lin, X. and Chen, “A multi-outcome hybrid model for predicting student success in engineering,” 118th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada.[8] A. Olani
, student had an option to take as muchtime as they needed. Some of the projects were also presented in class for peer review andcritique. Faculty were available to provide feedback at any stage of the project completion. Theinstructors held Q&A sessions about badges throughout the semester as needed by students.Assignments completed as part of a badge were evaluated by two or more faculty membersand/or teaching assistants involved in a particular learning experience, using a detailed rubricthat was also available to learners. These evaluators would provide detailed feedback on eachassignment and may require from students to revise and resubmit without penalty as many timesas needed until the competency was attained. Students could not get
Society of Engineering Education, 20124. Anderson, L.W. et al. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., Illinois, 2001.5. Bland, L. “Applying Flip/Inverted Classroom Model in Electrical Engineering to Establish Life-Long Learning,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society of Engineering Education, 2006.6. Redekopp, M.W. and Ragusa, G. “Evaluating Flipped Classroom Strategies and Tools for Computer Engineering,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society of Engineering Education, 2013.7. Stickel, M., Hari, S., and Liu, Q. “The Effect of the Inverted Classroom Teaching Approach on Student/Faculty Interaction and Students’ Self
challenging team scenario of engineering students attempting to worktogether. During this activity, the actors and actresses manifest common difficulties onengineering teams, including gender dynamics, miscommunications, misunderstandings, andother frustrations that emerge from teamwork. Afterwards, the facilitator leads a discussion withthe students, including a Q&A session between students and the actors and actresses in character.The interactive theater sketch ends with an invitation for the audience to brainstorm strategies toimprove interactions within teams. The actors/actresses then re-enact their scenario, butincorporate the suggested strategies to improve their synergy. Findings suggest that theinteractive theater sketch can help