numerous elements. The System Engineering and Freshman Designcourse at the University of Southern Indiana is intended to help students develop qualities neededto prepare them for the remainder of their collegiate courses and for their career. In addition,freshman students gain exposure to engineering design early in their college education which is 1essential to continuing in the engineering courses. Researchers suggest that the learner-learnerinteraction can enrich learning outcomes [1]. Thus, peer-oriented educational activities such as thecreation of a functioning miniature racing car are critical in the learning journey of engineeringstudents
Academy is a summer programdesigned to provide Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE) incoming undergraduateengineering students with extra support through providing a bridge experience to refresh theirmath, science, and writing skills as well as assimilate them to campus facilities. Students areexpected to attend all the disciplines regardless of their background and intended area of study.Beginning in the summer of 2013, the chemistry portion has focused on student preparation forChemistry I, which is required for almost all the undergraduate engineering programs at MSOE.However, due to the diverse student backgrounds and lack of motivation, as noticed through theyears by faculty teaching Carter Academy, the chemistry enrichment experience was
systems design, development, and consultation firm. She joined the faculty of the School of Engineering and Computer Science at Baylor University in 1997, where she teaches a variety of engineering and computer science classes, she is the Faculty Advisor for the Women in Computer Science (WiCS), the Director of the Computer Science Fellows program, and is a KEEN Fellow. She has authored and co- authored over fifty peer-reviewed papers.Kevin Kulda, Baylor University Kevin is a Senior at Baylor University studying Computer Science and Information Systems. He is simul- taneously a Baylor Honors Student and a Baylor Business Fellow. Kevin’s senior thesis will investigate the intersection of machine learning and
writing, public speaking,communication, team work, and the other topics required by modern industries. Capstone designcourse or course sequences are offering a common way that the engineering programs meet thesecriteria, being key elements in engineering and engineering technology undergraduate programs.Students usually engage in these course subjects near the beginning of their senior year. Thesenior capstone design projects course has several objectives. One objective is to enable studentsto integrate theoretical and practical skills gained throughout their lecture and laboratory courses.Another objective requires that senior capstone design experiences build on knowledge gainedfrom earlier courses. The teamwork spirit and associated concepts
differentiates the course from the traditionally taught MAT 1130Precalculus I course. The main differences include the added lab hour for the brief review of thefoundational and fundamental College Algebra concepts and the implementation of activities asboth group work and/or board work. These activities had students up, moving, conversing, andworking together to complete tasks within the classroom and lab. Figure 2 provides an exampleof the simple additional reading/writing questions attached to particular content quiz questions. Table 2: Pedagogical Differences of MAT 1130 Precalculus I and the newly created MAT 1125 Integrated Precalculus IMAT 1130: Precalculus MAT 1125: (NEW COURSE
new material. In the activity sessions, students work on hands-onexperiments, computer simulations, and/or problems with support from the instructor andteaching assistant. The new aspects of this statics course are: (1) the blended format; (2) thedevelopment of novel activities for the classroom and laboratory; (3) the use of a “lightboard”, inwhich the instructor writes on a glass board while facing the video camera, to record the mini-lecture videos; (4) the flexibility for the instructor to “flip” any desired percentage of thesemester’s lectures; (5) the collections of videos and activities are available for instructors acrossmultiple campuses. Direct assessments and student surveys indicate that the blended format wasgenerally effective
the comments. Google Docs is familiar to many students and requires nosoftware purchase [13]. This study was successful with many students. Despite this successusing Google Docs, there remains questions of anonymity and the willingness of some studentsto share information when peers have visible access to their responses.Many studies [12] [14] recognize the importance of teaching center or facilitator intervention inthe mid-semester evaluative process. Diamond’s study [15], for example, used a longitudinalstudy with SGIDs, where facilitators were central to the mid-semester evaluation process. Theyasked key standardized open-ended questions: “1) What aspects of this course/instructionenhance your learning? 2) What aspects of this course
. Systematic review techniques have recentlygained traction in the field of engineering education. A systematic review performed over aspecific area of practice can consolidate results from many studies into a synthesis of bestpractices.This paper presents the best practices for teaching introductory circuits which were identifiedthrough a systematic review of prior research. Relevant publications were identified andappraised with a set of coding criteria generated by the researchers. The coding results wereexamined and used to write a mixed-methods synthesis of consensus, disagreement, quality, andlimitations amongst studies identified by the systematic literature review. The results of thereview may inform educational techniques employed in post
collaborative and cooperative learning (group work with a commongoal) [4, 5] and group-based instructional methods [6] – [10], and problem-based learning, all ofwhich feature opportunities for students to engage with learning content in a non-passive way.As mentioned, cooperative learning is one example of active learning used in engineeringeducation. The benefits of active learning (including cooperative and collaborative, and incontrast to competitive approaches) include maximized student learning, improved quality ofstudents’ interpersonal relationships with peers, and more positive attitudes to experiences inUniversity, as found by Johnson et al’s [11] meta-analysis of 305 studies of cooperative learning(encompassing active and collaborative
the day. Education was not necessary to earn a living, it was merely a luxury for the elites and the rich. Education 2.0 originated from the need to read and write and was developed in the model of Industry 2.0, with emphasis on repeatability, uniformity, efficiency, and mass production. Industry needed lots of people to do same type of tasks and the education paradigm evolved to meet that need. Engineering education, which modeled the industrial set-up most closely followed a highly linear path with curriculum being divided into a set of courses with a distinct prerequisite structure where students would have to pass one class to move onto the next. This arrangement, mirrored the assembly line and turned out to be the most efficient
classrooms. By teaching both educators and students, theimpact of this program can reach a larger audience and potentially increase student interest inSTEM through these educators and peers if not the program itself. OK Go Sandbox also attemptsto increase student interest in STEM subjects, as well as provides resources for both educatorsand students, hoping that by supporting both, student learning will be as successful as possible.Survey LogisticsOK Go Sandbox has an email list of educators who have expressed interest in their content, andthis population of individuals was presented with a survey regarding their use and opinions ofOK Go Sandbox. 88 participants responded to this survey and the data collected indicates theeffectiveness of OK Go
of stipend provided,comparing research topics at the different institutions and by the dates that they receive theiroffers on.All REU sites provide students with hands-on research opportunities with faculty mentorship [1].Most sites offer a variety of research training programs and technical seminars (e.g., [2]) andtraining in technical writing (e.g., [5]). Sites are also required to offer training in research ethics[1]. Many sites also provide training about how to select and apply to graduate school (e.g., [5]),for students who choose to pursue further education. However, even with all of these programs(some of which may be offered outside of normal work hours), the bulk of student time at REUsites is spent on research activities.2.2
materials based solution or answer relatedquestions. Students then summarized their professional interactions and findings in memo stylereports addressed to their respective instructors.The second assignment addressed the learning objective that students "demonstrate anunderstanding of laboratory techniques used in biomaterials and biomechanical engineering".This assignment asked groups of students at institute B to execute an experimental protocolrelated to materials tensile testing and then write up their findings in the style of an academicjournal article. Students at university A received these written reports and were instructed to usethem to generate a step by step protocol that they could use to replicate the original results. Thesestudents
results in active participationduring the lecture with students seeing results in real time. In addition to working in parallelduring the lecture phase, immediately following the lecture the students try in-class exercisesdesigned to reinforce the concepts from the lecture. The hands-on in-class exercises havereceived very positive feedback from the students. Often the material seems to make sense whileI’m lecturing and giving examples, but when the students have to write the code themselves, theyoften realize they do not know the material as well as they thought they did. Students can askquestions and get one on one help during the in-class exercise portion of the class. The greatestimpact of the in-class exercises is a higher level of retention
improve undergraduate education as an Education Innovation Fellow (EIF) in the Grainger College of Engineering.Dr. Robert Thomas Baird, University of Illinois Center for Innovation in Teaching and Learning c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Paper ID #29904 As Associate Director at the Center for Innovation in Teaching & Learning Robert helps guide the testing, evaluation, and use of campus emerging technologies in the classroom and online. He has extensive experience in technology-enhanced classrooms, online teaching environments, and web-based student writing and multimedia
approaches have been used to increase students’ interest in cybersecurity.The game-based learning approach proposed in [6] provides motivation to students’ willing tostudy the power grid through inclusion of the physics of power systems, cyber physicalvulnerabilities, energy markets, and control systems. The game provides the mechanism forunderstanding the impact from computer security, growth of customer base, power generationassets, energy markets, automation, and human operator decisions on the stability of a smallelectric grid.The study in [7] presents a peer-based learning approach with cybersecurity co-curriculumactivities conducted and assessed using a student survey. Results demonstrate the efficacy of theseactivities in increasing students
engineering schools or Canadian faculties ofengineering and tend to employ faculty with training in STS or related disciplines. They aremandated to teach STS concepts to undergraduate engineering students, often fulfilling specificaccreditation requirements. The embedded STS department model can thus be understood as aresponse to these requirements chosen by a small number of engineering programs from among avariety of other avenues of response. Perhaps the most common response chosen has been torequire engineering students to fulfill the non-technical accreditation requirements by enrollingin ethics courses or writing courses offered by departments outside of engineering. Anothercommon response has been to require that engineering professors include
5 FS BME 674 Medical Imaging 3 S CIS 200 Programming Fundamentals 4 FS ECE 512 Linear Systems 3 FS ECE 540 Applied Scientific Computing for Engineers 3 FS ECE 772/3 Theory & Techniques of Bioinstrumentation Lecture/Lab 3 F Sub‐Total Credit Hours 36 COMMUNICATION CORE Credits Semester ENGL 100 Expository Writing 1
co-lead designer of Hands- on Standards STEM in ActionTM —a set of learning modules for preK-5th grades - in use in 35 countries and selected as finalist for two international awards. Dr. Strobel received the 2018 Science Educator of the Year Award from the Academy of Science - St. Louis and the 2018 STEM Excellence Award from the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), and served as an Invited Member on the National Academy of Engineering Committee for Implementing Engineering in K-12. Dr. Strobel founded the Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), has served on the board of IEEE Transactions in Education, and currently serves as Associate Editor for the Australasian
professionalism, NA 16 NA / 50 Lg, MS Civ69 EE25 leadership / peer evaluated discussion of contemporary issue, case study, reflection journalID Institution Course, Student Topics / Pedagogy Pre Post Pre/post cc Rank, Majors% n n response rates, %Risk-Elect Public, Cost/Risk tech risk, safety, uncertainty, whistleblowing, NA 8 NA / 89 Lg, R1 elective, So
requirements.• Tools • Work in pencil. • Write on 8.5 in. 11 in., gridded engineering paper. • Use a straight edge, compass, and/or protractor to draw diagrams. • Staple multi-page submissions together.• Presentation • Include no more than one problem per page. • Number pages per problem if more than one page is needed. • Each problem should have a neatly drawn figure(s). • Figures should be large enough to be easily read. • Variables should appear on figures. • Variables should be described using words and symbols. • Write legibly, in clear, easy-to-read print. • Completely erase any extraneous material. • No crossed-out material should appear on the solutions. • Leave blank lines
service and engineering. He has written texts in design, general engineering and digital electronics, including the text used by Project Lead the Way.Rachel Rosenbaum, Virginia Tech Department of Engineering Education Rachel Rosenbaum is a junior in Industrial and Systems Engineering with passions in project management and engineering education. She was in the Galipatia LLC freshman year, a CEED Peer Mentor sophomore year, and has recently started research with the ECLIPS team. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 First-year engineering program evaluation: Understanding senior students’ perceptions about their first-year experienceAbstractThis Complete Research paper
desired performance level. At this point, students are self-regulated learners: they canset their own learning goals, determine how to best accomplish these goals, and monitor their progressin accomplishing them [1, Part II]. When self-regulated learners perceive deficits in their learning, they exhibit adaptive help-seeking:asking others for the resources necessary in order to learn independently [16], [17]. Students may engagein formal (approaching an instructor) or informal (approaching a peer or friend) help-seeking behavior.Students who use more metacognitive, cognitive, and resource management strategies are more likely toseek help when needed. Furthermore, students who exhibit high self-esteem appear more likely to seekhelp when needed
engineering educator might be expected to possess. This has profoundimplications for the design of future courses for beginning teachers of engineering and alliedsubjects.(b) Findings related to becoming a professional engineering educatorOne of us (John) was much affected by the fact that much of the discussion seemed to focus onthe personal problems of the teacher, in particular the teaching versus research conflict. Itseemed there were no lines of accountability and that everything was governed by a strongmotivation to write papers to be published in internationally peer reviewed journals. He alsonoted a similarity with the problems faced by the beginning schoolteacher and considered thatthe workshop should have begun with a discussion of
(modified from [7] Figure G-1; dashed linesand elements in blue added by the author)The only explicit mention of listening in the BOK3 is in the discussion of communication, whichhas both cognitive and affective outcomes: In creating designs that benefit all, the civil engineer must be able to listen and convey information appropriately to diverse audiences. …When civil engineers communicate, they integrate multiple forms of communication appropriate for the audience, such as listening, observing, speaking, writing, as well as nonverbal, visual, and graphical communication. [7, p. 44]Despite the lack of explicit discussion of listening with respect to other outcomes within theBOK3, these connections are present. The professional
also fostergreater buy-in from the faculty, the majority of whom in the department were hired after theprevious assessment plan was developed. However, while the engineering programs in thedepartment decided to write all of their performance indicators from scratch, the computerscience program took a different approach.There were two “Aha!” moments that critically shaped the development of the CS assessmentplan. As mentioned earlier, the first occurred when examining the list of 52 eKSOs and realizingthat they were performance indicators, some with a noticeable degree of alignment to indicatorstypically used in assessing ABET Student Outcomes. By choosing those eKSOs that exhibitedsuch alignment, the program could form the nucleus of an
apparent from focus group data. First,holistic relationship-based learning was just as important to faculty as it was to students.However, faculty perspectives on student-faculty relationships were different than theperspectives of students, and limitations and qualifications to relationship-based learning werenoted. Faculty also noted the importance of peer relationships for STEM student success.Second, faculty were aware of and tried to accommodate and intentionally include students ofdiverse social identities, particularly low income and transfer students. Social identity was notnoted as a barrier to students’ success; rather as something to be taken into account in terms ofteaching and learning. Third, practical money-saving strategies were
, Mu, An, & Chen, 2018). Webots has a curriculum based on thee-puck robot. Analysis and feedback of this curriculum has show that Webots has potential tocreate an educational and explorative environment (Guyot & Rohrer, 2011)2.4 The Robot Operating SystemThe Robot Operating System (ROS) is a light, open-source framework developed to standardizeinternal and external communication between robotic components (Quigley, et al., 2009). Itconsists of a group of libraries and packages for building reusable, language-independent robotapplications. It utilizes peer-to-peer communication of specified nodes such as publisher,subscriber, service, and client nodes. It runs on top of a Linux Ubuntu operating system.Extensively used throughout
EER, yet who are experts within their own engineeringdiscipline. Engineering faculty frequently have little experience conducting rigorous researchusing established social science theories and methods. RIEF mentors are experiencedengineering education researchers. Mentorship in the context of a RIEF grant is unique, as it isdifferent from graduate student training or peer mentorship between faculty in the samediscipline. Common conceptions of mentorship include a novice receiving guidance from anexpert, whereas RIEF PIs and co-PIs are both experts in their own domains. Mentoringrelationships between faculty are understudied, especially in the context of faculty with expertisein different disciplines that have unique training needs. Therefore
ameliorate stigma with taking maternity leave, the policy states that “Faculty membersshall not be disadvantaged for compensation, promotion, or advancement because they have beengranted a tenure review extension. However, should the faculty member choose to revert tohis/her original timeline, this would be allowed. For this, the employee must notify his/hersupervisor in writing by March 30 of the academic year prior to the original tenure year. “The Benefits and Challenges of a Statewide ApproachThe statewide approach has a number of advantages, most specifically ● Key players at the top can encourage cooperation across the institution ● System focus provides a system-level platform to bring up issues of equity and fairness ● Project data