engagement. Inshort, active learning is any activity that engages students in a classroom, and demands studentsto do significant learning activities and analyze what they are doing, rather than simply focusingon traditional lecture. Student engagement in classroom via review, discussion, application andpractice, demonstrated that the students learn more than in traditional classrooms. In-classreading and writing exercises also, improve student engagement in learning process even in largesize classes.To improve student engagement in the class size of up to 40, in senior mechanical engineeringcourses, such as machine design. Every student was provided with similar problem havingdifferent variables to solve. The instructor was solving a similar problem
learning. This coursetypically has 59-120 sophomore and junior level mechanical engineering students enrolled andhas been taught in a flipped format, using the SCALE-UP model (Beichner, 2008), for severalsemesters. By design, the course relies heavily on peer-to-peer instruction through cooperativelearning, and beginning in the semester of Spring 2016, the instructor aimed to move fromcooperative groups to high performing teams using principles of team-based learning (L. K.Michaelsen, Knight, & Fink, 2002). Three primary research questions were examined: 1) whateffect does the implementation of TBL have on individual student learning, compared to anoffering of the course prior to implementation; 2) what effect does the implementation of
equations, drawn on chalkboards or whiteboards. In capturing lectures on video however, these traditional props become liabilities: the presenter must turn away from the audience to write or draw on the board, and the presenter’s body often obscures the material. We developed the Lightboard to create visually compelling videotaped lectures, to avoid the liabilities of chalkboards, and furthermore to be able to produce upload-‐ready video segments with no post-‐production. The Lightboard is a glass board, carrying light internally from LED strips along its edges. A video camera captures the presenter and his/her writing by viewing through the
focused on underrepresented populations, specifically women and minorities, whileothers are implemented for the entire engineering student population. Mentoring efforts include:demographic-specific advisors, faculty advisors, peer mentors, faculty mentors, and engineeringindustry mentors. The School has taken a four-year approach to its mentoring efforts. Overallobjectives of the mentoring program are multifaceted: 1) to help new students transition to highereducation and identify with their particular program; 2) to help students who are struggling inupper level courses and in leadership positions or conducting undergraduate research; and 3) tohelp students with their transition to the engineering profession.This paper describes how one
students are expected to publish peer-reviewed journal papersas well as assist PIs with proposal writing.2- Oral Communication – TANMS students are encourage to freely articulate themselves andtheir ideas and thoughts during meetings with PIs and mentors. Additionally, students areexpected to deliver an oral technical presentations and posters.Core II - Engineering Success1- Innovation – Ability to execute new ideas in research, education, and industry with relevance(or relevancy) to multiferroics.2- Creativity – Ability to synthesize new ideas on multiferroics. For example, students are able tosuggest applications of multiferroics based on their research.Core III – Business and Marketplace Savvy1- Entrepreneur - Entrepreneurial mindset is
lower percentage (64%) of students found it comfortable touse the mobile device and application to document use of correct units during the solutionprocess. Participants were expected to use a stylus to write the solution process on the digitalwhiteboard made available through the Explain Everything application. This study did not askfollow up questions to the participants on why they found documentation of units particularlydifficult.Creation of graphs and the labeling of axis and curves were also areas of difficulty, since only58% of the participants expressed that they were comfortable in doing it. It appears thatcreating/importing a graph or labeling its component parts from within the Explain Everythingapplication, was not an easy task for
standards, financial management, business conduct, leadership,communication, etc…. Early in the semester, the students were asked to update, peer review, andsubmit copies of their resume as an assignment. Under the auspices of “another resume exercise,”in opening to a lecture on diversity and inclusion, the author provided each student in attendanceone of two resumes. The resumes, provided in Appendices A & B, were developed to reflectexperiences familiar to students at the author’s institution, and were identical with the exceptionof utilizing a traditionally female vice traditionally male first name. The resumes were distributedto students in attendance randomly. Students were given approximately 5-10 minutes to reviewthe resume then, using
Engineering Class The goal is to implement HIPs for mechanical engineering students who are still intheir early part of the core mechanical engineering program. This course would be one of thefirst mechanical engineering courses required by the university that is not considered part ofthe general education curriculum. The purpose of this study is to track the effects of HIPs withcarefully planned pedagogies that would provide numerous benefits for the students, such asoverall increased learning gains and graduation rates. There are seven HIPs characteristicsused to measure the results at the end of the semester: these are (1) interaction with faculty, (2)interaction with peers, (3) feedback from instructor, (4) quality time spent on the course
,students discuss their answers to the question with a peer. Finally, after the discussion, all of thestudents answer the question again. Often the students in the classroom converge on the correctresponse after discussing the question with their peers.18 The Think-Pair-Share pedagogy wasselected for comparison since implementing it in a class is fairly easy and did not require asignificant redesign of the instructor's notes. Additionally, implementing the Think-Pair-Sharemethod in thermodynamics was made even easier by the development of the AIChE ConceptWarehouse,19 which has hundreds of concept questions that instructors can use for free.The driving motivation for this study is the comment from Bishop and Verleger that states, "Wesuggest that in
addition, Hu and colleagues find that students who participate in undergraduate research havegreater interactions and relationships with their faculty, improved writing and communicationskills, and enhanced critical thinking skills [2]. Moreover, summer undergraduate research hasalso been found to support these outcomes, with Lopatto finding that such programs supportnetworking skills and professional development for students [3]. Due to these findings, TheCitadel initiated the Undergraduate Research Office in 2016 and the inaugural The CitadelSURE (Summer Undergraduate Research Experience) program in the summer of 2017. Notethat this program is not quite the same as typical REU programs where students come frommultiple universities to work on one
2015-2016. Week Intro Engr Proj Engr Proj 1 Engr Proj 2 1 CDS Overview Introduction Syllabus 2 Syllabus, Safety Proj 1 Lecture - 3 Fabrication Lab Safety - - 4 - - - 5 Rubrics, Logbooks, Proposal Team Presentations - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - Peer Evaluations - 9 Peer
Wednesday Friday Traditional Reading assignment Lecture Lecture Lecture Blended Online reading Lecture Worksheets, group projects, case studies, or homework time. assignment Held in active learning space working with peers and instructors.To answer the question, Do students benefit from the blended course?, we compared exam scoresfrom the traditional and blended courses. To answer the question, How do students progress onBloom’s taxonomy in the blended course?, we used worksheets that served both as learningactivities and measurements of Bloom’s taxonomy progress. We focused on two concepts thatstudents typically have
partially during a face-to-face class meeting. The guided practice assignment at thebeginning of this module used the following resources: Section 2.1 “The heat conductionequation”, Section 2.2 “Steady heat conduction in a slab: method”, Section 4.1 “The well-posedproblem”, and Section 4.2 “General solution of the heat conduction equation” from A HeatTransfer Textbook, and the CU screencast video “Heat Equation Derivation.” The group activityportion of Module 3 took place during a face-to-face class meeting. Two conceptual questionsfrom the CU ConcepTests were posed and discussed following a Peer Instruction model [38].Additionally, students worked together to complete two problems.The work for Module 4 (Temperature Profiles) was completed entirely
with on a weekly basis. Groups that contained students from underrepresented groupswere paired with a similar supervisor when possible. This decision was based on research withpeer mentoring programs which indicated that such peers became role models to the students andaided in persistence9,12.Prior to meeting with the students, supervisors attended a training session. The training sessionbegan with an explanation of the program. During this explanation the instructor emphasizedthat the supervisions were intended to be a positive learning experience for the students.Mistakes should be used to help teach students and should not be penalized. In addition, thetraining session also provided the supervisors with information on common learning
-motivated project management, and teamwork andcommunication (both amongst their peers and with faculty and graduate students). The projectstructure is consistent with research by the National Academy of Engineering, which emphasizescreativity, practical ingenuity, leadership, and management, in addition to strong analytical skillsas some of the primary characteristics required for successful engineers of the future [12]. FIREproject teams require a minimum of two first-year researchers to facilitate teamwork andcollaboration and to provide students with a peer with whom they can collaborate withoutreservations of seniority. These collaborative teams are intended to not only foster the leadershipand management skills emphasized by the NAE but also
Paper ID #33060Collaborative Learning in an Online-only Design for ManufacturabilityCourseMiss Taylor Tucker, University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign Taylor Tucker graduated from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with a Bachelor’s degree in engineering mechanics. She is interested in engineering design and lends her technical background to her research with the Collaborative Learning Lab, exploring how to improve ill-structured tasks for engineering students in order to promote collaborative problem solving and provide experience relevant to authentic work in industry. She also writes for the Department
,temperature, pressure, buoyancy, etc.). There were two additional lectures on basicphotographic techniques: Shutter Speed, Aperture, ISO, White Balance. This was primarily forthe benefit of all students, many of whom had little or no science or photography experience.Emphasis was placed on the quantitative aspects of optics and the interrelationship of spatial andtemporal resolution in the measurement of fluid flows.Six major topics were selected and for each topic a set of four class times was considered. Eachset of four classes was structured as 1) a lecture on the science and visualization techniques of atopic (Tuesday), 2) a photography session (Thursday), 3) edit/submit session to edit the imagesin Photoshop and write a report (Tuesday), 3
outcomes. 1. System Concept Review (SCR) & System Requirements Review (SRR) 10% Presentation, may be held together 2. Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Presentation & Written Report 10% 3. Critical Design Review (CDR) Presentation & Written Report / Final 20% Presentation and Written Report 4. Completion and Demo of a Prototype 30% 5. Logbook, Weekly Progress Report, and other Presentations/Exams. 20% 6. Performance Evaluation by Peer 10%The five students were graded on their teamwork based on the first four criteria. As a group theyreceived full percentage, if not extra points, in each of the outcomes. On criteria 5 and 6, theywere graded individually on
requiring the student to write in a response. The questionnaire was administered ninetimes during the course of the semester during weeks 3-5, 7-10, 14, and 15.Analysis: Questions 1-5 give insight into students’ learning orientation and to what extentstudents adopt a service mindset and are motivated by unique aspects of the interprofessionalPBSL project, such as its interprofessional and/or service components. Questions 6-14 giveinsight into students’ communication and teamwork skills.The analysis of qualitative data was conducted in two phases: a conventional content analysis ofME student responses to the open-ended questionnaire items (Phase I) and a directed contentanalysis of the ME student-generated Slack transcripts (Phase II). In Phase I
competitions. We found differences between the teams in recruiting,team structure and organization, student leadership, faculty advisors, expectations forcommitment, integration into academic structure (capstone), and focus on competition success.In spite of the differences in team organization and goals, both teams missed opportunities forstudents to acquire and practice important professional skills. Neither team providedopportunities for formal learning about leadership and management, nor experience andmentorship for working with a diverse group of peers (e.g. diversity from race, gender, socio-economic status, or major discipline). The most egregious missed opportunity within these teamswas, and is for many teams, the vast number of students who