students with deadlines allowing for development ofstudent project and time management skills. Peer and self evaluations were due at the end of thesemester providing students with the opportunity to assess how they perceived each groupmember performed throughout the course. Group evaluations focused on teamwork and groupcommunication during the semester.Project updates were given by student teams bimonthly, totaling six updates, throughout thesemester allowing students the opportunity to develop their oral skills. Project updates were fiveminute presentations covering the team’s progress and the next tasks the teams would addressregarding the proposed upgrades to the WWTP. Project updates were given to faculty membersin a conference room setting
DiscussionSignificant differences were found in male and female engineering students’ indicated out-of-school interests or experiences during grades 9-12 of high school (Table 2). More male studentsreported tinkering with mechanical or electrical devices, reading or watching science fiction,playing computer/video games, and writing computer programs or designing web pages. Morefemale students reported interacting with the natural world and participating in sciencegroups/clubs/camps. There were no significant differences by gender in engaging withchemistry, taking care of animals, participating in science/math competitions, reading orwatching non-fiction science, and talking with friends or family about science. Many math andscience competitions or programs
. Algorithmic Thinking & Programming Appropriate documentation of the design and use of high level Use top-down design, and refinement to descriptions of the solution before writing code (e.g use of develop algorithms flowcharts). Selection of computational tools (e.g., Selection of the most appropriate computational tool to implement programming language, software the best solution. functions or features). Limitations of Information Technology Estimating of inputs and outputs Estimating of
Purdue Universities and a member of Tau Beta Pi.Dr. Matthew W. Ohland, Purdue University c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Paper ID #11853Matthew W. Ohland is Professor of Engineering Education at Purdue University. He has degrees fromSwarthmore College, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the University of Florida. His research on thelongitudinal study of engineering students, team assignment, peer evaluation, and active and collaborativeteaching methods has been supported by over $14.5 million from the National Science Foundation andthe Sloan Foundation and his team received Best Paper awards from the
involve small system design, signal processing, and intelligent instrumentation.Dr. Ying Yu, University of Hartford Dr. Ying Yu received her B.Eng. from Fudan University, Shanghai, China, in 2000. She received her M.S. and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Brown University, R.I., USA, in 2003 and 2007, respec- tively. Currently, she is teaching as an associate professor of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Hartford. Her current research interests are audio and speech signal processing, acoustic scene classification, speaker identification and verification, promoting diversity and inclusion in the academic environment, and teaching with new educational methods, including peer
)Students pair with one designed as the explainer and the other as the questioner. The explainersoutline the assignment goal (solve case studies, complex problems, or interpret text) and thenbegin detailed descriptions of how they should work on the assignment. The questioners listenand can also ask questions. At a given point, the students reverse roles and the process continuesuntil the assignment is concluded.16 Page 26.1372.4ii. Think-Pair-ShareThe instructor poses a problem and has the students think about it individually for a short time.The thinking time can also be used to write the response. The students then form pairs and sharetheir
guest instructors duringlunch. As a culminating end-of-camp activity, students worked in teams to design solutions tocurrent problems in global health and presented their projects to peers and guests.Students provided both quantitative and qualitative assessment of the camp through pre- andpost-camp surveys. Student assessment data indicate that the camp was effective in increasingstudents’ self-assessed knowledge about science and engineering and the bioengineering field,and the camp increased the participants’ desire to attend college at the host institution in thefuture. Students enjoyed the team project of designing a solution to a problem in global health.As student assessment indicates that the camp was an enjoyable and effective
second part. This structure did not allow for an effective way ofcomparing the tools between Excel and Matlab. Currently, the class is taught by topics. Inaddition, the assignments were modified to follow the new structure. Problems are taken fromeach book and then combined so students can follow the same methodology as in the class. Thenext change was to modify the method of homework collection. Initially, homework wascollected via email and the student received feedback in writing. It was observed that in manycases that the student neither reviewed their errors nor the provided feedback. Now theassignments are revised by the instructor in each student’s computer which allows immediatefeedback. The final change was to modify the classroom
collaborative learning with peers and others through one or more of the following: working cooperatively with other students in class, observing and participating in the contemporary ramifications of various types of civic life or civic discourse, or working with civic organizations beyond the walls of the University.At most universities, the path to meet the civic engagement requirement is often found inservice-learning or community service programs organized in the social science or humanitiesdepartments. However, as a profession, engineering has incredible potential to promote andimprove the quality of life for both individuals and communities. Further, engineering projectsare required to meet codes, standards, and
like Brython, Koding.com, Cloud 9, and Python Anywhere. Theseapplications allow users to program and compile in the browser1. Using SaaS applications makesthem accessible from various devices.2.2. Overview of the expected impactThere are several advantages of Cloud Computing: powerful computing and storage capacity,high availability, high security, and virtualization. The major advantage is it provides easy accessto software and does not require specialized knowledge to use, making it a great benefit forteachers in classrooms.In the standard classroom, professors conduct lectures, train students in a skill, and provide workassignments and feedback on those assignments. The students generally work alone, occasionallyinteracting with peers and
should be learner-‐centered. In addition, it is well established that assessment should be integrated into the learning process1. In-‐class assessments, such as peer teaching, minute papers, muddiest-‐point exercises, and other classroom-‐based assessments 2, can give insights into student progress. Computer technology can further integrate assessment into the learning process by offering students individualized, timely help and feedback, which is known to be beneficial 3-‐5. One effort to embed such individualized assessment into learning materials for an entire engineering subject has been the Open Learning Initiative Engineering Staticscourse. The OLI
and modes of instruction (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and read/write) can make the students to enhance effective learning. True assessment of students learning outcomes: Students are encouraged to take responsibility for their own learning, so that they are more likely to develop higher-order thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Supportive educational environment: Because of appropriate use of information and communication technologies that have been applied in the program increases the independent learning skills of the students. Students should relevant their studies to professional, disciplinary and/or personal contexts. Demonstrate a repertoire of differentiated instructional
. Page 26.105.7 These relations are: δ1 = y1 + y3 & δ2 = y2 – y3.] Scaffold # 2 Attempting to solve for three variables (y1, y2, and y3), students developed only two equations for the free-body diagrams for the two bars, and therefore a third equation was needed. Another soft scaffold was then given to reveal a hidden key concept for the problem: [Assuming smooth pulleys, the force in the left upper spring k1 is equal to the force in the right upper spring k2. This force equality is k1*(y1+y3) = k2*(y2-y3) and is the third needed equation.] Scaffold # 3 The instructor offered this final dose of scaffolding to help students write the
cohort, andhear again about ALEKS™ in several differentways. This includes hearing about it during theopening greeting to STEM students given by aSTEM academic leader, usually a Dean, in aslide. It also includes having a poster presentin the room, e.g. see Figure 1; through thewearing of “Ask me about ALEKS™” buttonsworn by peer advisors during orientation andby having fliers available on a table duringpreregistration. Following summer orientation,approximately one week later, a second emailis sent reminding students of the opportunity;this email garners the most responses withmany students electing to receive licenses oneto two weeks following STEM summerorientation. In addition, advisors who interactwith students also receive fliers and
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
of the White House Office of Science and TechnologyPolicy said in a 2010 speech at the New York Hall of Science [1]: “After all, we wouldn’t teachkids how to play football by lecturing to them about football for years and years before allowingthem to play. And if education is about the ‘lighting of a flame not the filling of a pail’—weshould be putting the tools of discovery, invention and fabrication at the fingertips of everychild—inside and outside of the classroom.”The maker culture typically emphasizes “informal, networked, peer-led, and shared learningmotivated by fun and self-fulfillment.” [2] It has grown up outside of formal learning structures,but many educational institutions are now actively seeking ways to adopt this culture
aerospace topics. Thus the course ishorizontally integrated across the curriculum. Likewise, a unique aspect of the Sailplane Class isthat it is also vertically integrated, with students entering as freshman and remaining throughtheir senior years, allowing for students to interact across their experience levels. All are requiredto give presentations and reports to promote both peer and expert feedback of their efforts.While the class focus is on the fabrication of a sailplane (or, for the past several years, on ahuman-powered airplane), two years ago radio-controlled airplanes were introduced into theprogram to augment student experiences.Course StructureTypically, the course enrollment is approximately thirty-five students. The objectives for
, innovative and novel graduate education experiences, global learning, and preparation of engineering graduate students for future careers. Her dissertation research focuses on studying the writing and argumentation patterns of engineering graduate students.Dr. Monica Farmer Cox, Purdue University, West Lafayette Monica F. Cox, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the School of Engineering Education at Purdue Univer- sity and is the Inaugural Director of the Engineering Leadership Minor. She obtained a B.S. in mathemat- ics from Spelman College, a M.S. in industrial engineering from the University of Alabama, and a Ph.D. in Leadership and Policy Studies from Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Teaching interests
education research, interdisciplinarity, peer review, engineers’ epistemologies, and global engineering education.Mr. Corey T Schimpf, Purdue University, West Lafayette Page 26.1630.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Undisciplined Epistemology: Conceptual Heterogeneity in a Field in the MakingIntroduction “…conceptualization and theorization may be complemented by technique, but the technique cannot be substituted for this intellectual labor.”1In 2006, a group of leading engineering education researchers produced a research agenda
study at their own pace outside of the classroom or can beused to supplement lessons in the classroom. In addition, online videos are a useful referencematerial that students can review as needed later in their careers. Videos have also been used to demonstrate a wide variety of experiments and techniques.For example, the Harvard BioVisions series includes videos on aseptic technique and DNAmicroarray experiments.6 Several excellent experiment videos are also available on videosharing websites like Vimeo and YouTube (e.g. purification of green fluorescent protein byhydrophobic interaction chromatography11). The largest library of video experiments is providedby the Journal of Visualized Experiments (JOVE), a peer-reviewed online
learning outcomes. While it is often assumed that participation inentrepreneurial experiences beyond the classroom are critical for developing the entrepreneurialmindset and entrepreneurial knowledge and skills20,27,28, these experiences are often clusteredtogether with little analysis of structure, levels of institutional support, or levels of studentparticipation, or. For instance, Duval-Couetil et al. (2012)20 used a wide range of“entrepreneurship-related activities” to compare the involvement of students who did and did notparticipate in entrepreneurship courses. These activities included the experiences of conducting amarket research, giving an “elevator pitch,” writing a business plan, participating in a non-creditentrepreneurship workshop
. Experimental activity took place from Week 11 to Week 17. Duringthat time, in the first half of the classes, the teacher lectured in classroom and then conductedreading and discussion sessions. Students were asked to read individually and then discusstheir reading with peers. That is, students learned course related knowledge and also shared itwith other; in this way their reading comprehension and professional knowledge acquisitioncould be enhanced. In reading discussion activity, group B students recorded their notes andannotations by hand writing. Group E students could use the system to read learning materialand take digital annotations on learning content. Thus, the system recorded learning behaviorand operational processes of students in group E
assessment, development of computer-aided environ- mental analysis and management tools, environmental performance measurement, international project management and education, and sustainable development. She has published peer-reviewed journal and conference papers on the life-cycle environmental implications and LCA of construction methods and materials, extended producer responsibility in the construction industry, environmental decision support tools, and integrating service-learning and sustainability in coursework. She has developed construction management curriculum for Egyptian, Palestinian, Tunisian, and US university students. Her research in- tegrates concepts in economics, engineering, management
instruction to lead to equivalent outcomes13, and in some cases even improved outcomes14.In this paper we describe a controlled study testing how students who used truss tutor forhomework performed on examinations in comparison with peers who did handwrittenhomework. 1. Description of computer tutorThe tutor has been described previously8. As seen the screenshot in Figure 1, the user can definemultiple subsystems, by selecting bars, partial bars, and pins. Page 26.384.2 Figure 1. Screen shot of full display of tutor for
Discovery for a „Design-your-own-circuit‟ experiment. Student teams are asked to design their own circuits based on certain constraints such as the minimum number of voltage sources, meshes, supernodes, target mesh currents and node voltages, AC voltage dividers, filters etc. Teams then build and analyze their circuits, record measurements, discuss observations and write a technical report. In addition to acquiring design skills, students acquire problem-solving, team-building, and technical communication skills.Evaluation and AssessmentThe authors evaluated and assessed this integration over the course of two semesters Spring 2014and Fall 2014. a) Formative assessment: Since formative assessment takes place during the learning
3 4 In order to develop leadership skills, technical skills and other essential soft skills requestedby industry, the program requires that the students attend a team building week during the summer,go to weekly workouts, develop and join leadership workshops, read leadership books, write bookreports, practice giving presentations, participate in a summer internship, take extra classesimportant to an engineering curriculum and maintain a 3.0 GPA. The results of all those activitiesare recorded and analyzed using a powerful tool called the Hoshin Kanri X-Matrix for strategicplanning to evaluate the success of the program and to teach
anddiscuss. To aid this description, Q-set 1 “reasons for participating in out-of-class activities” isused as an example. First, participants were asked to recall the reasons that they participate inout-of-class activities and write the reasons on a blank paper. This step allowed the participantsto recall their decision-making processes freely. Second, participants read the Q-set and, if any oftheir reasons were not on the cards, use one blank card per missing reason to record each missingreason. These new reasons formed the basis of new items. Third, participants sorted Q-set 1 into three groups: ‘yes’ (this is a reason that I participate in out-of-class activities), ‘maybe’ (this may be a reason that I participate) and ‘no’ (this is not a
, make crude comments, like, “You’re not actually smart,you’re just getting good grades because you’re a girl.”Responses: a. Just blow it off. I know what I’ve done b. Say “Listen, you don’t know me. I worked just as hard as you did, and I earned my grade. I don’t appreciate those comments.” c. Email the guy and in writing ask him to stop. d. Talk to the professor or someone else in charge and ask for their help in stopping Page 26.1434.4 the comments.Scenario 2: Sexual jokeWe asked respondents to respond to Scenario 2 as either the student or as the student’s
senior design requirement. However, evaluating these documents posesdifficulty for faculty and other reviewers due to the variability in the types, nature andcomplexity of projects and the reviewers’ own style of writing and reviewing documents.Developing tools to limit how these variables affect document assessments is difficult, especiallywhile trying to retain flexibility to address a wide variety of project types. Page 26.1747.2Capstone projects have been the focus of many studies. Studies focused on assessment ofcapstone projects have looked at teamwork, peer evaluations, presentations, reports, andtechnical competency2. Assessment
. Many of the quicker students had to wait for their peers to finish writing theirnotes. This issue will be addressed in the survey data section of the paper. Getting back to thevideo lectures posted after the class. At times, when the content was not covered sufficientlybecause of the slower in-class lecture techniques, a video lecture was recorded with redundantlecture content after the class – usually posted within a day of the lecture. The video lecturematerial is summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Video Lecture Topics Lecture Lecture Topic Covered Topic Covered Number Number Passive Sign