the ones in the past.The indirect assessment was done using course evaluations at the end of the semester. The courseevaluation is a set of eighteen questions that students answer using an agreement scale (5=strongly agree, 4= agree, 3=neutral, 2= disagree, 1= strongly disagree). These questions aregrouped into six categories. Four of the eighteen questions and two of the six categories wereused to assess students’ satisfaction with the course and, specifically, the RGM project. Theresults per year are presented in Table 2. Table 2: Results of the project assessment using mean scores of course evaluations. First Three RGM Question (Q) / Category (C
opportunity to appreciate art more”Q. To what extent do you see yourself as atypical among your peers? “Possibly more artistic than peers?” “There seems to be a new stereotype of engineers—they all play guitars. We don’t fit that stereotype.” “We may have greater dislike for rote learning—too confining.”Q. How do we re-structure this experiment to draw in more engineering students? “Form partnerships with arts students; arts students are encouraged to “get out there,” build résumés, and gain exposure through extracurricular activities.” “Show that we are not expecting symphonies or works at that level. The art we are doing should be good, but not daunting.” “Other students may have chosen to
’ Global Grand Challenges.The premise of this discussion will be that there is no single definition of “global engineer,” but rather arange of perspectives and methods of facilitating the incorporation of global engineering concepts intoindividual engineers and the engineering academy (and industry) in general.All listed co-authors have agreed to participate in this panel.Suggested Layout of 90-minute Session Brief introductions of panel topic and panelists 5 minutes Overview of Individual Activities Managed by Panelists (7 minutes/person) 35 minutes Brief Q&A session to engage audience and
this work suggestthat, contrary to common perception of engineering students, these students in aggregatereadily identified their writing courses as equally useful to their non-writing courses.However, these students were significantly less interested in their writing courses’ contentthan that of other concurrent engineering classes. We conclude by providing actionableinsights for educators that are suggested by our data. Q: Imagine that you are the instructor of an engineering writing class. What would you do to ensure that students stayed interested and motivated to learn? A: Ha! Good one. Honestly, I'm glad that's really not my problem, 'cause I have no clue. Best of luck with that, though. –Participant ID
improvements during an industry-‐sponsored civil engineering senior design course. Proceedings of the ASEE 2015 Annual Meeting. Washington, DC: ASEE. Paper ID #12028 11. Golder, K., & Webb, D. B. (2015). Educating, enlightening, and entertaining: Audience perceptions of the educational value of a presentation competition for engineering students. Proceedings of the ASEE 2015 Annual Meeting. Washington, DC: ASEE. Paper ID #12335 12. Gotch, C. M., Langfitt, Q., French, B. F., & Haselbach, L. (2015). Determining reliability scores from an energy literacy rubric. Proceedings of the ASEE 2015
provides insight to the up and coming technology. Ms. Monereau, presently is an active member of the Associated General Contractors (AGC), American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE), and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). Through her tenure within these organizations she has served on the Board of Directors for NSBE, and multiple leadership roles throughout her undergraduate career with AGC and ASME. For more insight into her research, review her paper: Reality in the Nuclear Industry: Augmented, Mixed, and Virtual (https://peer.asee.org/?q=monereau).Dr. Makita R. PhillipsMs. Arielle M. Benjamin
design for innovative concept generation. Journal of Mechanical Design, 136(5).24. Fila, N. D., Hess, J. L., Dringenberg, E., & Purzer, Ş. (in press). Exploring the role of empathy in a decontextualized engineering design task. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(2).25. Postma, C. E., Zwartkruis-Pelgrim, E., Daemen, E., & Du, J. (2012). Challenges of doing empathic design: Experiences from industry. International Journal of Design, 6(1), 59-70.26. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261-283.27. Young, R. A., & Collin, A. (2004). Introduction: Constructivism and social constructionism