STEM education. His second research strand focuses on studying STEM classroom interactions and subsequent effects on student understanding. He is a co- developer of the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) and his work has been cited more than 2200 times and he has been published in multiple peer-reviewed journals such as Science Education and the Journal of Research in Science Teaching.Dr. Keith D. Hjelmstad, Arizona State University Keith D. Hjelmstad is Professor of Civil Engineering in the School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment at Arizona State University.Prof. James A. Middleton, Arizona State University James A. Middleton is Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and
Summer Research Program 2018During the first year’s REU program, the students were given tasks to find and read relevantliterature and software tutorials, to write scripts in R on machine learning algorithms, and to writea script for basic algorithms in Python to control smart cars.Although not defined formally as designed activities, the students’ projects aimed to developcyber-attack, detection, and mitigation models on transportation networks for connected andautonomous vehicles. Tasks contained methods to be applied such as attack tree modeling(graphical) and the development of traffic and communication simulations. These tasks included: 1. Students used ARC-IT architecture (i.e. connected vehicles, (U.S. DOT, 2018)) to import defined
networkanalysis results. The table below is based on the analysis of five interviews; 3 HBCU and 2 PWI. PWI HBCU Mentors: Peers Mentors: Faculty Interviewer: Do you have a mentor at the Female Speaker: I have professors that are readily university? available that I can go to and get help if need be. Would I specifically call them my mentor? No. Male Speaker: A mentor? Not specifically. They are available for help. B(another senior
participants to bond more easily and interact in peer mentoring to advise each other,both in research and lesson plan development. Finally, research in functional materials is aparticular strength of the host institution with substantial laboratory and educational resourcesand accomplished FMMI researchers working in close collaboration in shared, non-partitionedspaces.Program activities were designed to be synergistic and helpful to participants in producing theirposters and lesson plans. These included an authentic research project guided by faculty andtheir associated graduate students, a course in the fundamentals of materials science, weeklylesson plan seminars, group research meetings and brown bag lunches. A variety of follow-upactivities
because itis founded on evidence. Past studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of the DesignHeuristics method in concept generation [25, 32]. We have also conducted preliminary studieson the use of Design Heuristics in the engineering classroom, and demonstrated its effectivenessas pedagogy 23, 24. This research base provides a solid foundation for our project because it isbased on peer-reviewed, scientific studies. Many professions have advocated the use ofevidence-based practice in their fields, including medicine, psychology, and education 41-44. Ourproposed project provides an application of “evidence-based practice” in engineering educationto benefit students by providing state-of-the-art education in design
attendconferences or work on developing manuscripts felt that their experience helped toimprove their communication skills.8) All of the students interviewed indicated that the URE was a worthwhile experience,and the majority of the students would recommend that their peers participate in an URE.From these results, it can be inferred that having an URE will usually help participants todevelop their applied engineering skills. There is also an opportunity to greatly impactcommunication skills through an URE, particularly if the URE encouraged and promotesstudents to participate in conferences and the development of manuscripts. For studentsinterested in graduate school, the URE does offer participants a chance to experience theresearch process, as well as a
experiments, results, and problems encountered; 2) students had the opportunity toreceive feedback on their work from other faculty mentors in the program (not just their ownassigned mentor) in a collegial, low-pressure setting and to observe how scientific dialogueoccurs in practice; and 3) students had the opportunity to learn about what their peers in theprogram are working on, with the goal of giving them a better appreciation for the breadth ofresearch in the field. An additional goal of the check-ins was for the crosstalk that occurredbetween mentors (and students) in these group meetings also helped students to see commonthreads between the various research approaches and scales among the different projects.At the conclusion of the 10-week REU
Education, 2014 Paper ID #8971 Mechanical Engineering from Cornell University in 1994. His research interests include product family and product platform design, product dissection, multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO), and addi- tive manufacturing, and he has published over 250 peer-reviewed papers to date. He teaches courses on Product Family Design, Concurrent Engineering, Mechanical Systems Design, and Product Dissection, and he serves as the Director of the Product Realization Minor in the College of Engineering. He is a recipient of the ASEE Fred Merryfield Design Award and a NSF Career Award. He has received
discussion,and peer group studying. Prior to taking the pre-survey, students were informed about theproject with an introductory paragraph on the survey and asked to agree or disagree toparticipate—in other words, participation was optional. All but two students opted to participate.After the survey data were collected at the end of the course, the project evaluator conductedtwo-sample t-tests on all of the survey questions to determine whether the students’ perception oflearning was higher at the end of the semester than it was at the beginning. Within-subjects testscould not be used because of the anonymity of the data. The two-sample t-tests produced thefollowing results on the outcomes questions of interest and the learning style questions
ability to control. Consequently, they intend to share their knowledge with other students. However, Tohidinia and Mosakhani [8] contend that knowledge sharing involves both knowledge collection and donation. Entering students seem more willing to collect knowledge from their peers than donate to it. This situation represents a potential opportunity to target learning activities towards building knowledge sharing skills and confidence. Survey of the motivational design of the assignments themselves. Keller [9-12] contends that effective instruction employs a motivational design that (1) attracts and maintains student attention; (2) demonstrates the relevance of what students learn to important personal goals
question proved to be the leastcomprehensive, with 6 respondents (21%) indicating “other”. Two of these write-in options maybe added to the revised survey before national dissemination (do not assess; in-class discussions).No individuals in this survey were using an individual standardized assessment method; the lackof use of these instruments may point to the fact that many instructors may not be aware of theseinstruments, perhaps due to lack of formal training in ethics instruction. Alternatively, it mayreflect the difficulty of creating standardized instruments that measure students’ knowledgeand/or attitudes toward macroethical issues and/or a lack of faculty confidence in suchinstruments. These results related to assessment merit a deeper
Page 23.342.7approach. 6During the community service learning process, students were required to learn the strategiesfor creative problem solving, and participate in self-evaluation surveys and mini-tests toevaluate their knowledge on the introduced strategies and their performance in applying theknowledge. They were also required to write community service project journals to record theirthinking and reflection on the process of identifying problems, obtaining relevant knowledge,and creating innovative solutions. Finally, they were required to present and report theirprojects. At the end of the community service, they were required to submit
- sylvania State University. Her research focuses on decision analysis and design theory applied to im- provement of products and systems. She has co-authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers to date and received several best paper awards. She has been also a National Research Council-US AFRL Summer Faculty Fellow of the Human Effectiveness Directorate for 2002, 2003 and 2004, and a Fulbright Scholar (2010-2011).Dr. Conrad Tucker, Pennsylvania State University, University ParkProf. Timothy W. Simpson, Pennsylvania State University, University ParkDr. Sarah E Zappe, Pennsylvania State University, University Park Dr. Sarah E. Zappe is director of Assessment and Instructional Support in the Leonhard Center for the Enhancement of
, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction.”4 However, subsequent meta-analysis argued that the report does not pertain tofully online, semester-length college courses.25 Indeed, as compared to the traditional face-to-face environment, some evidence suggests that not all learners do as well in fully online courses.Using course grade and course completion as dependent variables, a study based on researchconducted at community and technical colleges across the state of Washington (on 500,000course enrollments and 41,000 students) found that in aggregate online students performed worsethan their peers, with some student groups—especially males, younger students, students withlower levels
, Orientation, Introduction to Mechanical Engi- neering, Introduction to Engineering Communication and Report Writing, Introduction to Matlab and plotting. The communication and plotting modules were incorporated to sup- port the laboratory project reporting during the first part of the semester. • Weeks 4-9 (10/5/15 -- 11/9/15): Brief introduction to Mechanical Engineering Principles. These concepts included position, velocity, acceleration, load paths, forces, moments, stress, strain, and thermo-fluid conservation laws. The presentation of theory was intro- ductory and conceptual using examples. • Week 10-12 (11/16/15 – 11/23/15): The Engineering design process, with a focus on De- sign
, and co-director of the Social Informatics area of the Center for Human-Computer Interaction. Design – and in particular, participatory approaches to design – has shaped his approach to teaching and research: he is a registered architect in California, studies the prac- tices of design, has created tools for design collaboration, and is an award-winning designer. He has edited two books, authored numerous peer-reviewed publications, designed award-winning interactive STEM exhibits, chaired the ACM SigCHI Design subcommittee, organized the ACM Design of Inter- active Systems (”DIS”) conference in 2014, and is the director of the ACM DIS Conference Steering Committee. Before coming to Virginia Tech, he was a research
voluntarily joined the course. While in the training, they also had theopportunity to ask questions and create a community with other peers and faculty. This furthermotivated them to practice outside of class. Informed consent forms were collected on day oneand, after the students completed their final assessment and exit survey, a gift card and t-shirtwere issued to those with no more than two absences at the end of the course. The finalassessment was the PSVT-R [7] also. In Fall 2016, the authors invested in the videos created bySorby [5] which discussed the workbook chapter’s content. The videos were presented at thebeginning of each chapter and the authors learned from the students that this material facilitatedthe understanding of the modules to