) share some of the best practicesadopted by the instructors to ensure rigor and consistency of the coursework at the regionalcampus.The curriculum for the two courses covers the fundamental concepts and provides an opportunityfor students to explore the applications of circuits in the real world. In a normal learningenvironment, these courses tend to be difficult due to higher expectations for problem-solving,math, and scientific concepts, and adding external factors such as the pandemic adds morecomplications. The focus of this research work is to study the first- and second-year engineeringcourses and present the challenges associated with the delivery of the course content, teachingengineering concepts and applications and laboratory
University to redefinethe way engineering mathematics is taught, with the goal of increasing student retention,motivation and success in engineering.First implemented in 2004, the Wright State Model involves the introduction of a first-yearengineering mathematics course, EGR 101 Introductory Mathematics for EngineeringApplications (now running under semester course number EGR 1010) [1]. Taught byengineering faculty, the EGR 101 course includes lecture, laboratory and recitationcomponents. Using an application-based, hands-on approach, the EGR 101 course addressesonly the salient math topics actually used in the core first and second-year engineering courses.These include the traditional physics, engineering mechanics, electric circuits and
experience is how individuals interpret and act on that information” [8]. Adeserved criticism from industry, where most students go after graduation, is that most universityengineering programs do not incorporate enough hands-on activities (experience) with actualequipment. This is referred to as “practical intelligence” [9]. U.S. undergraduate engineeringeducation has a heavy emphasis on theory with much less emphasis on practical applications[10].Wankat and Oreovicz write, “Despite almost universal agreement on the importance of designand laboratory work, there is a tendency to cut these programs since they are expensive, messy,hard to teach, time-consuming, and not connected to the university’s other mission – research”[11]. Laboratories play an
training, and athleticcompetition. Acceptance rates are low, around 12% [12], but graduation rates are high,approximately 80-85% [13]. Unlike many other academic institutions, incoming USAFAstudents are not accepted to a college or school associated with a major’s program (e.g., Collegeof Engineering). USAFA has nine institutional outcomes, and one is devoted to all graduatesbeing able to apply the engineering method. To meet this outcome, all students take fiveengineering courses as a part of the general education curriculum regardless of their major. Theearly general education engineering courses present an opportunity to recruit undeclared studentsinto engineering during their first year.Field Engineering and Readiness Laboratory ContextIn
Biomolecular Engineering, University ofConnecticutCameron Hubbard is a 4th year Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Undergraduate Studentat the University of Connecticut. He is the head teaching assistant for ENGR 1166 and supportsstudents, faculty, and staff through project management and organization, prototype, document,video creation, and inventory management. Cameron does research in the process systems andoperations research (PSOR) laboratory, focusing on improving cancer drug delivery using insilico tumor models.Kathrine Ionkin, School of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Manufacturing Engineering,University of ConnecticutKathrine Ionkin is a senior Mechanical Engineering Undergraduate Student at the University ofConnecticut. She helps to maintain
in a First-Year Design Course," in 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, 2020.[4] A. Phillips, K. M. Kecskemety, and D. A. Delaine, "First-year Engineering Teaching Assistant Training: Examining Different Training Models and Teaching Assistant Empowerment," in 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2018.[5] L. B. Wheeler, C. P. Clark, and C. M. Grisham, "Transforming a Traditional Laboratory to an Inquiry-Based Course: Importance of Training TAs when Redesigning a Curriculum," Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 94, no. 8, pp. 1019-1026, 2017/08/08 2017.[6] C. Robinson and J. Collofello, "Utilizing undergraduate teaching assistants in active learning environments," in 2012
Traditional Laboratory to an Inquiry- Based Course: Importance of Training TAs when Redesigning a Curriculum," Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 94, no. 8, pp. 1019-1026, 2017/08/08 2017.[6] C. Robinson and J. Collofello, "Utilizing undergraduate teaching assistants in active learning environments," in 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2012, pp. 25.1455. 1-25.1455. 11.[7] T. A. Pinder-Grover, S. M. Kusano, and G. Agresar, "Work in progress: Engineering student instructors, What are their needs and how can we best prepare them?," in 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2018.[8] G. Agresar, S. M. Kusano, and T. A. Pinder-Grover, "Assessing Inclusive Teaching Training of Graduate
Fall 211 5 2023 Spring 156 5Course Goals and StructureThe course goals are for students to learn: (1) to analyze data in the context of engineeringproblems, (2) programming using MATLAB, (3) to work effectively in teams, (4) to prototypeusing hand tools, basic CAD, and 3D printing, and (5) to articulate differences and overlapsbetween engineering disciplines and practices. These course goals are stated on the syllabus.Students in ENGR 130 meet in two 75-minute laboratory sessions and a single, combined 75-minute lecture per week. In the lab, students complete two-week modules that combineMATLAB programming and hands-on design projects, working in teams of three or
contact hours with their instructor and access to the laboratory space.The Friday classes began with a quiz on the previous week’s material followed by an assortmentof activities like community building, working practice problems, open-ended project work, andgoing deeper with course concepts.Each quarter, weekly SI sessions led by peer mentors were offered to the SSP students. The twopeer mentors were selected from a group of students who participated in a pilot version of theSSP the previous year. SI sessions focused on both the engineering and math classes, providingtime for open-ended project work, specialized help on in-class problems, and access to additionalproblem sets. The session times varied each quarter but were strategically chosen to
wind energy, particularly in the characterization of fatigue and ultimate loads for floating offshore wind turbine concepts.Dr. Maija A. Benitz, Roger Williams University Dr. Maija Benitz is an Associate Professor of Engineering at Roger Williams University, where she has taught since 2017. Prior to joining RWU, she taught at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA, after completing her doctoral work jointly in the Multiphase Flow Laboratory and the Wind Energy Center at UMass Amherst.Dr. Lillian Clark Jeznach, Roger Williams University Dr. Lillian Jeznach is an Associate Professor of Engineering at Roger Williams University. She teaches the first year curriculum as well as upper-level courses related to
persistence and retention of low-income engineering transfer students.Dr. David A. Copp, University of California, Irvine David A. Copp received the B.S. degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Arizona and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in mechanical engineering from the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is currently an Assistant Professor of Teaching at the University of California, Irvine in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. Prior to joining UCI, he was a Senior Member of the Technical Staff at Sandia National Laboratories and an adjunct faculty member in Electrical and Computer Engi- neering at the University of New Mexico. His broad research interests include engineering
. Also, students had the opportunity to clarifydoubts about different engineering programs offered at the CoE, learn about typical tasksperformed by different engineering branches, learn about research laboratories, manufacturing,and service facilities; and use math and science concepts in the solution of engineeringproblems.A. Course DeliveryThe course was offered as one weekly meeting of fifty minutes for fifteen weeks per semester(1 credit hour). The topics covered in the course included: Introduction to Engineering; TeamBuilding in Engineering; The Engineering Design Process; Ethics in Engineering Design; andseven lectures, one on each of the academic departments in the CoE. Departments offeringmore than one undergraduate academic program
using the Engineering Design Process (EDP)within the context of the accomplishments and mindset of Da Vinci. The course exploredengineering mechanics and design topics concurrent with applying physics topics in anengineering laboratory. A qualitative analysis was performed using a new reflective tool,PhotoVoice. The purpose of the assessment was to better understand the impact of the course onthe student vision, the operation of the course relative to what they have encountered in theireducational careers, and student-perceived learning outcomes. Analysis of student reflectionsrevealed themes of “Changed Perspectives,” “Engagement in the Classroom,” and“Brainstorming Benefits” when describing the impact of the course on their career visions
. Richards, “Curriculum Approaches in Language Teaching: Forward, Central, and Backward Design,” RELC J., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 5–33, Apr. 2013, doi: 10.1177/0033688212473293.[10] J. Emory, “Understanding Backward Design to Strengthen Curricular Models,” Nurse Educ., vol. 39, no. 3, p. 122, Jun. 2014, doi: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000000034.[11] K. Y. Neiles and K. Arnett, “Backward Design of Chemistry Laboratories: A Primer,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 98, no. 9, pp. 2829–2839, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00443.[12] K. M. Cooper, P. A. G. Soneral, and S. E. Brownell, “Define Your Goals Before You Design a CURE: A Call to Use Backward Design in Planning Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences,” J. Microbiol
teams in the chemical and natural gas engineering section of GEEN 1201, whichinvolved topics in water purification, solar water pumping, salinity treatment by reverse osmosis,and liquid-liquid extraction. For each project, essential mechanical units were provided and thestudents were tasked with developing and testing a prototype unit or in a laboratory setting.Because of the limited time allotted to the project during the semester (approximately 6 weeks),the instructor gave the specific problem definition to the students, rather than having the studentsperform their own problem definition based upon a more generic needs statement.The objective of the water purification project was to develop a prototype device for on-demandpurification of