of Engineering, she develops projects, plans and implements strategies and develops and documents reports, newsletters and proposals. Page 23.1262.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2013 Training Industrial Engineering Students as Energy EngineersIntroductionBuildings consume approximately 40% 1 of all energy in the United States. Most buildingsoperate far less efficiently than their potential. In the U.S., industry alone accounts for about 31%of all energy used 8. There are many benefits to making commercial and industrialmanufacturing plants more efficient. One is to
Bloom’s taxonomy6 suchas knowledge, comprehension and application. But this mode of instruction is less likely toemphasize the higher-order cognitive skills of analysis, synthesis and evaluation. In this learningmodule that teaches gauge R&R, students must design a sampling plan for a gauge R&R studythat involves different measuring devices with different characteristics, conduct and evaluatemultiple gauge R&R studies, and recommend a measuring device based upon the analysis of thegauge R&R studies.The remainder of this paper will present the Mouse Factory learning system, the gauge R&R Page 23.1144.2project, results from the
Islands. The NCEES Strategic Plan describes several issues that representchallenges to maintaining an effective licensure process. The document, which is periodicallyupdated by the board of directors, specifies goals associated with each of the issues and describesstrategies for achieving these goals [NCEES, 2012]. Vision The vision of NCEES is to provide leadership in professional licensure of engineers and surveyors through excellence in uniform laws, licensing standards, and professional ethics for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare and to shape the future of professional licensure. Mission The mission of NCEES is to advance licensure for engineers and surveyors in order to
developed for a reason and that they did not always exist in the body of knowledge.This thought process, especially when stimulated in the context of many fundamental conceptsrelated to the subject (e.g., Discrete-event simulation, Production Planning and Control, Linearand Non-linear Programming, and Quality Control), is often the reason for outcomes c and e.When students are forced to think and research a topic on their own, they have been seen to havean increased long-term memory of the topic (outcome a). Outcome b can be an indirectconsequence that is likely to occur when students start seeing the whys behind the fundamentaltopics. The outcome d is seen when students spend time researching the topic on their own.In contrast to PBL, deductive
ethics course during the completion of theirengineering degree plans. Under the current degree plans, students do have the option to take anethics course, PHIL 2306 Ethics: Philosophical Perspective on Human Conduct and Values, tofulfill their Humanities Core Requirement. This means that students entering this course mayhave little exposure to ethics or a general background of ethics, without specifically addressingengineering or sustainability. Students invariably receive their background in engineering ethics Page 23.1251.4throughout their coursework, their interaction with their professors, and through any internshipor coop opportunities they
though they did not prepare them. A different software package (Study Stack) was initiallyused to prepare the cards, but Quizlet proved easier for exporting and importing flashcards. Thispackage was more difficult to use and did not have the flexibility to export the electronic cards inas many formats.The cards created by an entire class, varied in quality and format. Some students put an excessiveamount of wording on the cards. The instructor reviewed and edited the cards before releasingthem to the class members. This approach took less time and created more student interest, butthe flashcards were less consistent. Even with these shortcomings, the electronic flashcards werewell received by the students. The instructor plans to make some
agreement that consciously developing metacognitive habits significantlyincreases the ability to transfer academic learning to the workplace5-9 (The references given are onlya small representative sample.). This diagram summarizes metacognition: awareness dealing with problems Self planning while learning / teaching evaluating thinkingThe rest of this paper focuses on problem posing and problem structuring, with little explicitmention of metacognition. However, thinking about the essential qualities of problems is reflectivein nature, and hence metacognitive. Here is an example
. Review of Higher Education, 26(2), 119–144.11. Sherwood, J. L., Peterson, J. N. & Grandzielwski, J. M. (1997). Faculty mentoring: a unique approach to training graduate students how to teach. Journal of Engineering Education,86, 119-123.12. Johnson, P.E. (2001). Changing roles for the Teaching Assistant: a workshop plan. Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, 8(1), 33-3513. Park, C. (2004). The graduate teaching assistant (GTA): lessons from North American experience. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 349-361. Page 23.81.9
with the client, plan and carry outdata collection, analyze the data, and make a report. As with the modeling exercise, studentsshare the reports with each other via our course management system. This serves to transfer theconcepts developed through simulated data to the real world. Frequently students tell me thatthey are surprised how similar the real-world study is to the simulated one.ObservationsUnfortunately, these graduate-level engineering classes are sometimes low in enrollment. Evenwhen class sizes run between 20 and 40 students, if many students had already developed a levelof stochastic awareness prior to starting the course, sample sizes would be small. Nevertheless, Ido have some indications of success:For example, in a current
Paper ID #7590Using Informal Oral Presentations in Engineering Classes: Training Studentsfor the ”You Got a Minute” MomentDr. Justin W. Kile, Quinnipiac University Dr. Kile is an associate professor of industrial engineering Quinnipiac University and is also serving as the interim chair of Quinnipiac University’s Department of Engineering. Prior to joining Quinnipiac in 2012, he was an associate professor and program coordinator for the Industrial Engineering program at the University of Wisconsin – Platteville. His research interests include material handling, facilities planning, and logistics. Additionally his
students even preferred a hybrid Page 23.1176.2course over the old traditional classroom 4. Our quasi-study supports this.The description of the traditional classroom for this department is a twice-a-week classconsisting of 75 minutes of f2f per class period. The instructor conducts the class in a traditionalmanner with transparency projectors or perhaps with the help of technology such as acomputer/projector and PowerPoint slides combination. Homework and tests are typically givenand received through paper handouts and take ups. Our plans were to migrate toward a hybridlearning environment, also called blended learning and the terms can be
-eight out of thirty-nine possible participants had amajor within the Industrial and Systems Engineering Department, one being a MechanicalEngineer. Most students in QC are juniors and seniors with more than one prior course instatistics. By the end of this course students should have the ability to identify, formulate andsolve engineering problems, and model the stochastic nature of management systems andengineering relationships to the planning, organization, evaluation and control of human centeredsystems. The course places a heavy emphasis on control charting using Minitab 16. QC will becalled the Level 2 course for the remainder of this paper.At the start of the experiment, students provided various items of demographic information (e.g
. Viviana Cesani is a professor of Industrial Engineering at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez (UPRM). She completed her Ph.D. degree in Manufacturing and Production Systems at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1998. Her areas of interest in teaching and research include production plan- ning and control, supply chain management, engineering economy, project management, and engineering education. She is currently the department head of the IE department at UPRM. Dr. Cesani is a senior member of IIE, President of the UPRM-Delta Chapter of the International Organization for Women Ed- ucators, and member of the Professional College for Engineers and Land Surveyors of Puerto Rico. She was recognized as UPRM