Test”14 during the first day of the class and email their results to the professor. Thefree online “Jung Typology Test”14 is based exactly on the concepts and categories of the CarlJung’s and Isabel Briggs Myers’ personality test and consists of 72 yes-no questions. Students’personality types were tabulated and grouped in four different categories (quadrants) based on astudy from Keirsey15. Table 1 illustrates the personality type quadrants.Table 1 Personality Type Quadrants.15,16 Rationals Idealists Artisans Guardians (Quadrant 1) (Quadrant 2) (Quadrant 3) (Quadrant 4) ENTJ – INTJ ENFJ – INFJ ESTP – ISTP ESTJ – ISTJ ENTP – INTP ENFP – INFP
and homework is moved from home to classroom. We chose one of thefoundation courses in engineering and engineering technology, ENGR 2110: Statics formodification so that this model could be expanded to other engineering courses. Our revitalizedcourse differed from a traditional in-class and a complete online course in the following ways: (1)Lectures were summarized in 5-20 minute videos that include important concepts from thechapter/topic, one/two worked examples, and 3-4 homework/practice problems. These synopsisvideo lectures were made available to students in advance so that students could learn and preparefor the lectures/problem sessions. The lecture time was devoted to reciting the key concepts,working problems in class and identifying
faculty on how they can incorporate civility concepts into their subjects andclassroom management.Keywords: civility, soft skills, golden rule, culture, components of civility.IntroductionAn important role for faculty in every academic program is to provide students with the skillsnecessary for career success. In today’s competitive employment environment, proficienttechnical skills are a starting point for initial job opportunities. However, for sustained careersuccess, technical skills need to be supplemented by the ability to effectively interact with co-workers, customers, and other professionals.1 Often referred to as “soft skills,” universities needto provide training to engineering and technology students on these social or people
challenge that has defied a satisfactory solution for decades. SFIP isproving to be a potential solution for promoting diffusion and for creating lasting change in thefaculty in this institution.IntroductionThe Summer Faculty Immersion Program (SFIP) was created as a response to the followingissues: 1. The recognition that teaching methods in engineering are not often aligned with the goal of providing relevant learning experiences that lead to deep levels of conceptual knowledge, as noted by Litzinger, et al, in Ref. [1]. 2. The affirmation by the National Research Council of the National Academies that innovative teaching in STEM courses requires time that exceeds normal course development, as well as additional funding [2
Teaching and Learning.1 One common argument againstsuch a system is that a single classroom visit is often not an accurate reflection of the learningthat occurs over an entire class, an argument which can also be made against peer evaluations,depending on the format of such programs. Expert evaluation can also be a very resource-intensive undertaking if it is to be done for all faculty at a university.Finally, some propose tracking student and student outcomes to assess teaching. This can bedone in a range of ways: following a student’s performance in more advanced courses to see theimpact of prior instruction; alumni surveys to ask which teaching they found impactful orparticularly instructive; or administering the same exam to all students to
for assessment on a written exam. The list oflearning objectives was used as a guide for writing exam questions. Selected examples oflearning objectives used in this study are listed inTable 1. In this table, the left hand column includes the larger course objectives while the righthand column includes the specific objectives used to guide the focus of the exam questions.Once a list of target learning objectives was compiled, the instructors divided the topics andbegan to develop questions to assess one or more of the specific objectives. Certain objectives,such as “Manage text output” appeared across multiple questions while others, such as “Createan x-y plot suitable for technical presentation” appeared only once. Each question was
monitoring system that has been in used in 21courses across 6 institutions and in3 countries. Throughout its development, this lab has also hosted an NSF/REU site at VirginiaTech for 8 years. Every year for 10 weeks during the summer 8-11 students, coming from severaluniversities and having various disciplinary backgrounds, join the site. Among them, 1-2 engagein interdisciplinary research work in the LEWAS lab, while others join different research labsacross the Virginia Tech campus. As of 2015, 12 REU fellows have been mentored by thefaculty advisors and the graduate students (including four authors of this paper) of this lab. Inthis paper, we will discuss the work of these 12 REU fellows and how their combinedcontribution aided the development of
practices for incorporating cross-disciplinaryexperiences for students into engineering coursework. This paper describes the implementationof a cross-disciplinary experience between engineering and elementary education students.Lessons learned by the course instructors and the subsequent adjustments to the projectimplementation are discussed in the hopes that future instructors of cross-disciplinaryexperiences will benefit.IntroductionCommunicating technical information across disciplines increasingly plays an important role ingraduate success. However, the college experience provides few formal opportunities to learnand develop these skills [1, 2]. One option is to provide opportunities for students in differentdisciplines to work together on
.), and Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering (University of Pittsburgh). Prior to entering academia, Dr. Nicholls was a practicing industrial engineer in the freight transportation industry. Address: Donald L. Harrison College of Business, Southeast Missouri State University, One University Plaza – MS 5815, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701; telephone (+1) 573.651.2016; fax: (+1) 573.651.2992; e-mail: gnicholls@semo.edu.Dr. William J. Schell IV P.E., Montana State University Dr. William J. Schell holds a Ph.D. in Industrial and Systems Engineering – Engineering Management from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and M.S. and B.S. degrees in Industrial and Management Engineering from Montana State University (MSU). He is an
learnedspecific course objectives. Standards-based grading (SBG) is an alternative approach thatdirectly measures the quality of students’ proficiency toward course learning objectives. Thefollowing paper assessed the use of standards-based grading by ten instructors at six institutionsto identify instructor perceived benefits for students, obstacles to implementation, and bestpractices for integration. Introduction Grading systems have been used since the late 1700s to determine how well students meetrelevant academic goals1. Most higher education instructors use a traditional, summative score-based grading system. An example grade book based on this system is shown in Table 1. Scoresare assigned and tabulated for various assignments throughout
focuses on the topic ofnegotiation, with an emphasis on providing practical ideas and strategies relevant to academicprofessionals at both entry-level and mid-career who find that they need to negotiate a careeropportunity. The paper will review negotiation basics, as well as discuss what can be negotiated,how one might proceed to discuss these, and how listening is critical to negotiation. By viewingnegotiation as a “wise agreement”1 that seeks to meet the needs of both parties to the extentpossible, this paper presents several common cases or scenarios that illustrate the importance ofunderstanding the elements involved both from the faculty member’s perspective as well as fromthe perspective of their department head, dean or
teaching and learning experience. This paper provides guidelines for working withgraduate teaching assistants by applying the five principles of high-performance engineeringteams described by Jon R. Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith,1 and adapted by Karl Smith andothers for collaborative learning:2 face-to-face promotive interaction, positive interdependence,group and individual accountability, teamwork skills, and group processing. Perspectives areshared from engineering faculty who work with graduate teaching assistants in lecture,laboratory, and professional skills courses, and consideration is paid to small teams (1-3) andlarge teams (8+) of teaching assistants. Best practices in organization, clarity of expectations,leadership, communication
expertise would enrich students’ learning andbrings them (the students) closer to the realities of the workplace. (1)Employers, by and large, are generally satisfied with the basic technical preparation of today’sgraduates, but find them largely unaware of the vital roles that engineers play in bringingproducts and services from a “concept stage” to the marketplace. An important reason for this“drawback” is that faculty members, today, often lack industrial experience and/ or any othertype of practical experience. This is particularly troubling when faculty members, straight out ofgraduate school and have absolutely no experience “under their belt,” are assigned to teachpractice-related courses. Often, teaching design-oriented and/ or field-related
weekly documents. Initially some teams had difficultyembracing the weekly project management documents and making effective use of them. After afew weeks adjustment, however, teams started to make effective use of them.Case Study FindingsThe deliverable success rates of design teams as determined by faculty are reported in Table 1. Aproject was determined to be a failure if it did not meet the needs of the client in any substantialway and if no groundwork was established for future projects. If the project laid the groundworkfor improvement, but still did not meet the needs of the client, the project was identified asmitigated failure (e.g. a project with core work worth building upon by a design team in thefollowing semester). If a project
colleges within a variety of institution types.The NC State College of Engineering Faculty Development Office was inaugurated in Spring2008 with the express goal of connecting faculty in the college with professional and personaldevelopment opportunities. Its foundational mission was to recruit, promote, and retain excellentfaculty across the college; actively engage faculty, administrators and staff across departments,and celebrate faculty success, achievement and promotion.This case study introduces the history and establishment of a sustainable model with specificstrategies for the potential to impact institutional change at a range of engineering collegeswithin a diverse set of academic institutions.1. Introduction The success and
. …Instructor effectiveness has been found to be as good or better in the best large classes as in thebest small classes” (p. 1). In two separate studies analyzing the relationship between class sizeand students’ perceptions of faculty using student evaluations of instructional effectiveness,Feldman16 and Marsh17 both found that students’ evaluations of instructors were not consistentlyhigher in smaller classes. It should be noted that instructional effectiveness is different fromfaculty support. A student may feel that an instructor teaches effectively without believing thatthe instructor cares about or is invested in students’ learning. Therefore, a study of studentperceptions of faculty support relative to class size will complement the existing
Women Engineers (SWE) and is the Faculty Adviser for SWE at VT. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Expanded Advice from Coordinators of LargeEnrollment First Year Engineering Courses Abstract This paper expands upon the coordination experiences and best practices of faculty coordinators within the Department of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech, some of whom have been 1managing large enrollment introductory engineering courses for several years . Since 2012, enrollment has increased from 1200+ to 1700+ students. In fall 2013, the courses
given p Superheated Vapor USE properties from superheated tables Figure 1: Class Handout for Fixing the State and Finding Property Data. Properties Table AssignmentUsing Water, fill in the missing information in the table below. Also show the first 6 rows on p-v and T-v diagrams, include the vapordome, isobars and/or isotherms, and all appropriate labeling. T, oC p, bar x (%)* v, m3/kg h, kJ/kg Phase** 1 50 7.72 2 4
- eration of context in engineering design, and understanding undergraduate engineering student pathways. She is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the ASEE. She was the recipient of the 2002 ASEE Chester F. Carlson Award for Innovation in Engineering Education and the 2009 UW David B. Thorud Leadership Award. Dr. Atman holds a Ph.D. in Engineering and Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon University. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 1 Tips and Tricks for Reflection Introduction Engineering educators are introduced to
teachers should teach (1, 2). Further, they address differentlearning styles (3, 4), focus explicitly on communication, teamwork, and leadershipskills (5, 6), and stress on educating students for life by helping them learn how tolearn. (5, 7)“Skillful engineering teachers” are those who are committed to the profession, and atthe same time, do possess knowledge in three domains: engineering knowledge (i.e.,their main disciplinary expertise and its related areas), pedagogical knowledge (i.e.,how students learn, effective pedagogies in achieving learning goals), andpedagogical content knowledge (e.g., how best to demonstrate procedures, relateconcepts, and correct students’ misconceptions within given constraints) (8) .However,expertise in any domain
themtime, productivity, and sanity. It typically takes them 4–5 years to become as productive inresearch and as effective in teaching as they ever become. The other 5%—the “quickstarters”—meet or exceed their institution’s expectations for research productivity and score inthe top quartile of teaching evaluations in their first 1–2 years on the faculty. Boice foundthings the quick starters do that the other new faculty doesn’t do, and he also found thatthose strategies can be effectively taught.Most of us on college faculties learn our craft by trial-and-error. We start teaching anddoing research, make lots of mistakes, learn from some of them, teach some more and domore research, make more mistakes and learn from them, and gradually more or less