areas.Aside from the trivia based questions, the team also consulted online educational portals in orderto find appropriate activities to act as “final challenges” or problem solving activities for thestudents [12]. These “final challenges” were word games and math puzzles that encouragecritical thinking, teamwork, and technical problem solving. Figure 2: Board game and all components. This is the format that was presented to the middle school students.The final board game and all of its components were reviewed to ensure the finished product metboth the educational standards and project goal of a functioning game for engineeringenrichment for middle school students.Study DesignIn order to test the functionality of the game and measure its
social engagement of their students, observation of the cognitive engagementof students proves problematic. To address this issue, Chi and Wylie developed the ICAPframework [7]. The ICAP framework intends to link the often-elusive cognitive engagement toovert, observable behaviors. Foundational to this study is the use of a survey tool based upon theICAP framework. This survey, the In-Class Cognitive Engagement (ICCE) survey has emergedfrom the development of a larger project targeting student engagement cognitively and socially[8]. Development of the ICCE survey remains ongoing. Here, we seek to discuss studentperceptions of this instrument. This research is positioned as meaningful towards the largerproject aim of measuring student engagement
: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council, 2009.[7] D. P. Crismond and R. S. Adams, “The informed design teaching and learning matrix,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 101, no. 4, pp. 738–797, 2012.[8] D. E. Kanter, “Doing the project and learning the content: Designing project-based science curricula for meaningful understanding,” Sci. Educ., vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 525–551, 2010.[9] M. M. Hynes, “Middle-school teachers’ understanding and teaching of the engineering design process: A look at subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge,” Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ., 2010.[10] T. J. Moore, J. A. Kersten, and K. A. Smith, “A Framework for Quality K-12
9. Design Creativity 12. Risk and uncertainty Communication 16. Communication Collaboration 21. Teamwork 8. Problem recognition and solving Curiosity 23. Lifelong learning Initiative 22. Attitudes Persistence / grit 22. Attitudes 21. Teamwork Adaptability 22. Attitudes 13. Project management
intentional scaffolding of the entrepreneurial mindset [19]. In their ElectricCircuits course, Question Formulation Technique (QFT) and Entrepreneurially Minded CircuitDesign-Build-Test with Value Proposition method are used to implement EML [19]. The authorsof the paper “Entrepreneurial Mindset and the University Curriculum [20]” applied technology-based and a dynamic live case-study with color graphics animated computer simulation in theirentrepreneurial course. The live case-study involves multiple student visits to companies.Students construct a company supply-chain under the professor’s guidance. Bilen, et al,suggested providing students with multiple exposures to an entrepreneurial mindset [21].Chasaki described a seven-week mini-project “Cyber
Paper ID #25558DIME: A Dynamic Interactive Mathematical Expression Tool for STEM Ed-ucationMr. Donald Joseph Beyette, Texas A&M University Donald Beyette is a master thesis student at Texas A&M University studying machine learning, graph theory, and GPS navigation. Current research projects focus on content analysis, systems to model users learning behavior, hypersonic navigation, and GPS antispoofing techniques.Mr. Michael S. Rugh, Texas A&M University Michael S Rugh is a second year PhD student focusing on mathematics education within the Curriculum and Instruction PhD track in the Department of Teaching
winner. He was recently named as the Center for Digital Education’s Top 30 Technologists, Transformers and Trailblazers for 2016.Dr. Valentini A. Pappa, Texas A&M University Energy Institute, Texas A&MMr. Jeffrey D. Sammons, Texas A&M University Associate Director, Texas A&M Energy Institute c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Does Student Satisfaction Equal Learning? A Differentiated Design Strategy for Course Improvement:Lessons Learned from Learning Outcomes and Grade DistributionAbstractThere has been an increasing need for qualified engineers worldwide, and yet even withexpanding engineering programs, positions remain unfilled and projects suffer from lack
formative quizzes with multiple correct answers anddetailed, instant feedback. This approach led to improved learning gains among the surveyed,which was promising as the online course was slated for implementation at Boeing with thepotential for thousands of users. One major complaint was the simplicity of the quizzes, sincedrawing figures and more substantial responses from the students were not possible.Teaching by Examples and Learning by Doing (TELD) is a pedagogy based around cooperativeand interactive learning, but requires specific resources for successful implementation. Huang etal.4 developed an online platform that utilizes the TELD method where lectures containembedded quizzes and homework assignments as well as design projects could be
Improve on making the workers life easier by making the job easier, either physically or mentally. We make the costumers lives easier by increasing quality through decreased variation.” (2499) Serving Others “Work in a plant setting doing work on chemicals, food, oil, etc. I hope to do something that helps change the world.” (6496) Working with “There are many options for careers in mechanical engineering. Usually MEs receive Others a project and work with others to complete it. I imagine myself working in the automotive industry working on projects that improve a segment of the vehicle.” (6031)As demonstrated by
Paper ID #27617Freehand Sketching on Smartphones for Teaching Spatial VisualizationDr. Lelli Van Den Einde, University of California, San Diego Van Den Einde is a Teaching Professor in Structural Engineering at UC San Diego and the President of eGrove Education, Inc. She incorporates education innovations into courses (Peer Instruction, Project- based learning), prepares next generation faculty, advises student organizations, hears cases of academic misconduct, is responsible for ABET, and is committed to fostering a supportive environment for di- verse students. Her research focuses on engagement strategies for large
of generating diverse and originalideas with fluency and speed. Even during design experiences, neither the importance ofcreativity nor various methods to boost it is covered, leaving students mostly on their own for alimited duration for “brainstorming”. However, creativity and originality are among the mostsignificant skills employers want today; and they are also projected to be in demand in years tocome (see Figure 1).Figure 1. A Comparison on Skills Demand – 2018 vs. 2022 (The Future of Jobs Report, 2018,pp.12 [4])To a certain extent, this rather ad hoc approach to creativity is due to a lack of knowledge on thecognitive and neural mechanisms underlying divergent thinking, and creative ideation moregenerally. In their extensive review
teaches a variety of courses supporting the department of Civil & Environmental Engineering at the University of Tennessee. Among many structural engineer- ing courses, Dr. Retherford manages the Senior Design Project course for all undergraduate seniors.Dr. David A. Saftner, University of Minnesota Duluth David Saftner is an Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota Duluth. He received a BS in Civil Engineering from the United States Military Academy and MS and Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from the University of Michigan. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Lowman’s Model Goes Back to the MoviesAbstractLowman’s Two Dimensional Model of Effective
rules are provided.III. Research Design The overall goal of this project is to understand how engineering educational games andapps may inherently embedelements of engineering norms ofknowing, thinking and doing thatreflect and perpetuate climates andcultures of inequality, whichpreclude or stifle the formation ofunder-represented minority womenengineers. Towards achieving thisgoal, a Mixed Method SequentialExploratory Research Design wasproposed and approved by theInstitutional Review Board at aTier 1 institution of higher Figure 1: Gender demographics of the participants in theeducation, located in the initial phase of the engineering education softwareNortheastern region of the US
) C2000 microcontroller and MATLAB-based EmbeddedCoder toolbox. The main objective of this project is to familiarize students with real-timeimplementation of advanced electric machine drive concepts such as field-oriented vector controlby programming high-performance industrial microcontrollers. Hands-on experience withelectric drives is also provided through the operation and control of machines. This laboratorycourse, designed to follow the advanced lecture course on electric drives, aims to improvestudents’ understanding of theory. Experiments, hardware and instruments for the proposedlaboratory course are discussed.IntroductionIn the past, due to the convenience of their torque and speed control, DC machines were usedmost widely for
potential of “going viral,” being shared and viewed by exponentiallygreater numbers of people through social media and other forms of online communication. Forinstance, the Moral Machines project, hosted by the MIT media lab, has collected responses frommore than 16 million people worldwide.[6] A similar approach can and should be used to increaseknowledge of and access to engineering ethics education.Improving engineering ethics education and researchThis second part of the paper briefly reviews previous efforts and online resources to improveaccess to engineering ethics education, potential problems associated with the effective use ofthese resources, and the ways the modules and website described here would address theseproblems, improving
’ identified. Thestudent outcomes, l to n listed below, for the ECET program are identical to the outcomes c, dand e of program criteria for Electrical/Electronic(s) Engineering Technology and similarlynamed programs4. The outcomes a and b of the EET program criteria of ETAC-ABET aresupported by student outcomes ‘a to k’ of our ECET program. l. The ability to analyze, design, and implement control systems, instrumentation systems, communications systems, computer systems, or power systems. m. The ability to apply project management techniques to electrical/electronic(s) systems. n. The ability to utilize statistics/probability, transform methods, discrete mathematics, or applied differential equations in support of electrical
Paper ID #15082 Dr. Richard H. Crawford is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin and is the Temple Foundation Endowed Faculty Fellow No. 3. He is also Director of the Design Projects program in Mechanical Engineering. He received his BSME from Louisiana State University in 1982, and his MSME in 1985 and Ph.D. in 1989, both from Purdue University. He teaches mechanical engineering design and geometry modeling for design. Dr. Crawford’s research interests span topics in computer- aided mechanical design and design theory and methodology. Dr. Crawford is co-founder of the DTEACh program, a ”Design Technology” program for K-12, and is active on the faculty of the
second and third laboratory exercises of the semester(Lab 2 and Lab 3, respectively). In addition, a one‐week‐long Lab Practical exercise (Lab 3b) wasperformed after Lab 3, as shown in Table 2. The remaining lab exercises (Labs 1, 4, and a four‐week‐long design project) were conducted with no differences in instruction and were not used asa part of this study. Table 1. Laboratory agenda for M, W, F lab sections and Tu, Th lab sections. Lab Minutes M, W, & F Lab Section Activities Tu & Th Lab Section Activities Week 1: 0–15 TA gives introductory lecturette TA gives introductory lecturette Week 1: 15–45 Students work in groups to prepare Students work in groups to prepare
sectors. Back- ground in engineering, program and project management, managed manufacturing and industrial engi- neering departments and teams in the aerospace, electronics and telecom industries. Educator, with ex- perience managing departments, programs, research and teaching undergraduate and graduate, business administration and general education courses. Authored, published and presented research papers in con- ferences, peer reviewed journals, with multidisciplinary interests in technology, business, quality systems, organizational leadership and education. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 AN ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER STARTUP KIT FOR FUNDAMENTALS OF
infrastructure Figure 2: Sample of grouping of "stickie" notesRound 2: Online poll to request ideasof learning outcomes Process – Five members of the CIT-E community, all of whom were PIs on the NSF grant that funded the project, are members of the “management team.” This management team simplified the wording of the outcomes from Round 1 and split the original outcome 3 into two distinct outcomes (3 and 4 in the new list). Furthermore, one additional outcome was added to coincide with exercises that been successfully conducted at University Y in which students go out into the local area and inspect real infrastructure (number 8 in the list below): 1. solve open-ended infrastructure
Engineering Education Research (CEER) which examines innovative and effective engineering education practices as well as classroom technologies that advance learning and teaching in engineering. He is also working on National Science Foundation (NSF) funded projects exploring engineering design thinking. His areas of research include engineering design thinking, adult learning cognition, engineering education professional development and technical training. He has extensive international experience working on technical training and engineering educaton projects funded by the Asian Development Bank, World Bank, and U.S. Department of Labor, USAID. Countries where he has worked include Armenia, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, China
other people's kids.” This was a way for her to integrate her whole self into work.Natasha, meanwhile, is a self-proclaimed “megalomaniac.” She knew that in order for her toremain engaged she must be challenged, “I'm the type of person, when you challenge me, yougive me something to go for, and I believe that's something that entices me, I'm going to goforward balls to the wall.” Knowing this about herself coupled with her “strong will” and“outspoken” nature, have garnered her opportunities to work on complex problems that havepushed her abilities and earned the respect of her peers, […] I came in worked on a project where I didn't know anything about coding really, and I've learned five languages to get a project done. Being guys
Paper ID #16129Engineering Students’ Self-Concept Differentiation: Investigation of Identity,Personality, and Authenticity with Implications for Program RetentionMs. Kylie Denise Stoup, James Madison University Kylie Stoup is a senior honors engineering student at James Madison University. Ms. Kylie Stoup grad- uates with a BS in Engineering in May 2016. She is in the second year of her 2-year-long engineering capstone project so far, involving the design and implementation of a greenway system in Harrisonburg. Her career interests include transportation infrastructure and city planning with a focus in social equity, as
. http://www.cs.wisc.edu/ markhill/DineroIV.[21] Gurpur M. Prabhu. Computer architecture tutorial, 2006. URL http://www.cs.iastate.edu/˜ prabhu/Tutorial/title.html. http://www.cs.iastate.edu/ prabhu/Tutorial/title.html.[22] P. Stanley-Marbell. The sunflower tool suite. URL http://sflr.org/. http://sflr.org/.[23] M. Perner. Mikrocodesimulator mikrosim 2010: the ultimate cpu-simulation program, November 2013. URL http://www.mikrocodesimulator.de/index eng.php. http://www.mikrocodesimulator.de/index eng.php.[24] CSIM. Atl programs. URL http://www.atl.external.lmco.com/projects/csim/. http://www.atl.external.lmco.com/projects/csim/.
engineering education research as a psychometrician, program evaluator, and institutional data analyst. As a psychometrician, she revised the PSVT:R for secondary and undergraduate students, developed the TESS (Teaching Engineering Self-efficacy Scale) for K-12 teachers, and rescaled the SASI (Student Attitudinal Success Inventory) for engineering students. As a program evaluator, she evaluated the effects of teacher professional development (TPD) programs on elementary teachers’ attitudes toward engineering and students’ STEM knowledge through a NSF DRK-12 project. As an institutional data analyst, she is investigating engineering students’ diverse pathways to their success.Dr. Teri Reed, Texas A&M University Teri
unsafeoutcomes.The goal of this paper is to briefly re-introduce the art of estimation in engineering. This isevident when dealing with entrepreneurial thinking where projections and estimations need to bequickly calculated and frequently modified as necessary. Estimation specifically allowsentrepreneurs to make quick inexpensive decisions, which would otherwise cost time andresources. This paper shares research work that involves various, example-based estimationmethods that are useful in engineering. The methods provide rough predictions of expectedoutcome, allowing students to intelligently guess a reasonable range of expected outcomes, givenbasic raw data within its necessary parameters. The methods include: • Segmentation • Fermi Estimation
engineering student populations.Dr. John K. Antonio, University of Oklahoma Dr. John Antonio is Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and holds the Howard & Suzanne Kauffmann Chair in the Gallogly College of Engineering at the University of Oklahoma (OU). Dr. Antonio received his PhD in electrical engineering from Texas A&M University in 1989. He was a faculty member at Purdue University and Texas Tech before joining OU as professor and director of computer science in 1999. He has been an investigator for a number of funded research projects. As Associate Dean, Dr. Antonio represents the Dean’s office on matters related to academic programs and services, including outreach, recruiting, scholarships, advising
activities from the pilot program to be leveraged across multiple K-12 age ranges as part of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) outreach activities. To date, this program has been in place for three academic sessions of each course. Thework presented here will cover results and observations to-date, preliminary evaluations ofeffectiveness relative to standard (non-pilot) program instances, and plans for future work. Gradedistribution, pass/fail percentage, and anonymous student feedback surveys are utilized asmetrics to evaluate the impact of the pilot program’s changes for each of these courses.Description of Program The pilot program utilizes experiential learning tools in the form of hands-on projects,classroom
mechanics related to fracture, composite materials and glaciology. In recent years, he has focused on issues of mathematical education and outreach and he has developed a wide range of K-12 outreach projects. His current interests include the mathematical education of teachers, the scholarship of outreach, computational mathematics, and complex dynamics.Dr. Sonya E. Sherrod, Texas Tech University Sonya Sherrod holds a B.S. and an M.A. in mathematics and a Ph.D. in curriculum and instruction. Her research interests include instructional approaches that help students (K-12) learn mathematics concep- tually and instructional strategies that motivate preservice teachers to relearn mathematics conceptually, to empower
learning, and to promote attendance. An average of10 audience response questions was provided in each lecture for both courses. These wereapproximately 25% conceptual questions and 75% calculation based equations. Three midtermexams were administered for each course. The 1st year course included a final exam while the 4thyear course included a final project. Student grades were based on homework assignments fromthe textbook ( 15% 1st year course, 10% 4th year course), class participation ( 5% 1st year course,10% 4th year course), midterm exams (50% 1st year course, 45% 4th year course), final exam orproject (30% 1st year course, 25% 4th year course) and laboratory assignments (10% 4th yearcourse). The first two exams for both courses had an