-Organization ofEngineering Education in the United States, Europe, and Latin America. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(4),433–447; Mitcham, C. (2009). A historico-ethical perspective on engineering education: From use and convenienceto policy engagement. Engineering Studies, 1(1), 35–53; Sato, Y. (2007). Systems Engineering and ContractualIndividualism: Linking Engineering Processes to Macro Social Values. Social Studies of Science, 37(6), 909-934;Zhu, Q. (2010). Engineering Ethics Studies in China: Dialogue Between Traditionalism and Modernism.Engineering Studies, 2(2), 85–107
- 1308, 1998.[6] V. Ramakrishnan, Y. Zhuang, S. Z. Hu, J. P. Chen and K. C. Tan, "Development of a Web- Based Control Experiment for a Coupled Tank," Proceedings of the American Control Conference, vol. 6, pp. 4409 - 4413, 2000.[7] C. Batur, Q. Ma, K. Larson and N. Kettenbauer, "Remote Tuning of a PID Position Controller via Internet," Proceedings of the American Control Conference, pp. 4403 - 4406, 2000.[8] F. M. Schaf and C. E. Pereira, "PID Controller Remote Tuning Experiment with Learning Environment Integration," Proceedings of 12th IFAC Symp. on Information Control Problems in Manufacturing, pp. 261- 266, 2006.[9] K. P. Ayodele, O. Akinwale, L. O. Kehinde, O. Osasona, E. O. B. Ajayi and O. O. Akinwunmi, "Advanced
Universality-Diversity Scale. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 33, 157–69 (2000).9. Kottke, J. L. Additional evidence for the short form of the Universality-Diversity Scale. Personal. Individ. Differ. 50, 464–469 (2011).10. Jesiek, B. K. The Origins and Early History of Computer Engineering in the United States. IEEE Ann. Hist. Comput. 35, 6–18 (2013).11. Richardson, J. W., Imig, S. & Ndoye, A. Developing Culturally Aware School Leaders Measuring the Impact of an International Internship Using the MGUDS. Educ. Adm. Q. 49, 92–123 (2013).12. Yeh, C. J. & Arora, A. K. Multicultural Training and Interdependent and Independent Self-Construal as Predictors of Universal-Diverse Orientation Among School Counselors. J. Couns. Dev
workstations. Max (A)= (MTBFj- Availability MTTRj)/ MTBFj Utilization of each workstation as well as the average Utilization utilization of the FMS specified periods (days, weeks, Max(U j) = Q j / PCj mouths) Tooling Information on various aspects of tool control,This project uses a hypothetical case problem for designing a factory that produces 5 parts. Theseparts run through a series of processes, including: (1) Loading/Unloading, (2) Turning, (3)Milling, (4) Drilling and (5) Cleaning, with different machining sequences6. A list of workstationprocessing
on their ability withrespect to the following four items: • Clearly describe a problem orally (Q15) Page 26.1178.6 • Clearly describe a problem in writing (Q16) • Explain my ability to others (Q17) • Ask probing questions that clarify fact, concepts, or relationships Q(22) 100% 80% Unanswered 60% A great deal Moderate 40
curriculum: a problem-andproject-based approach,” International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, 2012.[14] Bohn, J.H., “Integrating rapid prototyping into the engineering curriculum – a case study,” RapidPrototyping Journal 1997, 3(1), 32-37.[15] Ann, S.H., Montero, M.,Odell, D., Roundy., S., and Wright, P.K., “Anisotropic material properties of fuseddeposition modeling ABS,” Rapid Prototyping Journal 2002, 8(4), 248-257.[16] Sood, A., Ohdar, R.K., and Mahapatra, S.S., “Parametric appraisal of mechanical property of fuseddeposition modeling processed parts,” Materials and Design 2010, 31, 287-295.[17] Sun, Q., Rizvi, G.M., Bellehumeur, C.T., and Gu., P., “Effect of processing conditions on the bondingquality of FDM polymer filaments,” Rapid
communications technologies for process automation—an experimental study," ISA transactions, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 461-470, 2012.[12] Y. H. Elawady and A. S. Tolba, "general framework for remote laboratory access: A standarization point of view," in 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Signal Processing and Information Technology (ISSPIT), 2010.[13] A. Tekin, F. Ata and M. Gökbulut, "Remote control laboratory for DSP‐controlled induction motor drives," Computer Applications in Engineering Education, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 702-712, 2012.[14] S. Hong, X. Zheng, B. Dalage, V. Kristiansen, Ø. Strøm, M. S. Shur, T. A. Fjeldly, J.-Q. Lu and T. Ytterdal, "Conducting laboratory experiments over the Internet," IEEE Transactions on Education, vol
) Studying alone 2.36 (0.85) 1.94 (0.65) Studying with others 5.36 (0.29) 5.53 (0.27) Page 26.1206.7Table 4. Student responses to survey questions (1 strong agreement, 3 neutral, 5 strong disagreement). CEE549 CEE542 Q# Question Description μ (COV) μ (COV) 4 Having an online project instead of a final exam was overall an excellent decision 1.53 (0.72) 1.82 (0.41) 5
: A Description of CPR. 2007, (2003).15. Gehringer, E. F. Electronic Peer Review and Peer Grading in Computer-Science Courses. Thirty-second SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer Science Education (2001).16. Liu, E. Z., Lin, S. S. J., Yuan, S. & Chiu, C. Web-Based Peer Review: The Learner as Both Adapter and Reviewer. IEEE Trans. Educ. 44, 246–251 (2001).17. Moreira, D. A. & Silva, E. Q. A Method to Increase Student Interaction Using Student Groups and Peer Review over the Internet. Educ. Inf. Technol. 8, 47–54 (2003).18. Ngu, A. H. H., Shepherd, J. & Magin, D. Engineering the ‘Peers’ System: The Development of a Computer-Assisted Approach to Peer Assessment. in Research and Development in
this case asks the student to draw the vector vˆQ,guess as a guessto the true velocity direction vector vˆQ of point Q. The question will be graded ascorrect if the true velocity direction is within a certain tolerance δ, that is, if vˆQ − vˆQ,guess < δ. Other question formats within PrairieLearn include numericalanswers and multiple choice. On the right side of the question page, the student can seetheir current mastery score, as well as question-specific information including thecurrent recommendation level, the number of points that will be awarded if this questionis answered correctly, the number of points that will be deducted if this question isanswered incorrectly, and the number of times this question has already been attempted.The
. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: an overview. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 273-290.10. Ngunjiri, F. W., Hernandez, K. A. C., & Chang, H. (2010). Living autoethnography: Connecting life and research. Journal of Research Practice, 6(1), Article-E1.11. Reed-Danahay, D. E. (1997). Auto/ethnography: Rewriting the Self and the Social. Berg.12. Wall, S. (2008). Easier said than done: Writing an autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(1), 38-53.13. Wall, S. (2008). An autoethnography on learning about autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(2), 146-160.14. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods . SAGE
Annual Conference &Exposition. 2005.35. Zhu Q, Zoltowski C, Feister M, Buzzanell P, Oakes W, Mead A. The development of aninstrument for assessing individual ethical decision-making in project-based design teams:Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods. 121st ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.2014. Page 26.1363.13
, pp. Session AC 2007-894.11 R. K. Yin, Case study research: Design and methods, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2014.12 J. J. Pembridge, "Mentoring in engineering capstone design courses: Beliefs and practices across disciplines," Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2011.13 M. Q. Patton, Qualitative research & evaluation methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2002.14 B. Lutz, C. Hixson, M. C. Paretti, A. Epstein, and J. Lesko, "Mentoring and facilitation in entrepreneurship education: Beliefs and practices," presented at the National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance, San Jose, CA, 2014.15 J. W. Creswell, Research design: Qualitative
between the interviewer and astudent when the student was asked to define critical thinking.A Well, I would define critical thinking as the employment of reason in order to reach a conclusion especially in regards to problem solving.Q Okay. Um, can you elaborate a bit more on that, like give me more explanation to it? Page 26.235.3A Um, more explanation of?Q Your, what you believe, maybe your reas—how you reason through something.A Okay. Um, (pause) well, I mean, you have to, well, I mean, I consider the multiple aspects that, um, are, it’s hard to phrase, let’s see…This student is having
predictive mathematical models,” Computers & Education, 61, 2013, pp. 133- 143.[5] R. White, “Predicting likely student performance in a first year Science, Technology, Society course,” International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 12(1), 2012, pp. 72 - 84.[6] L. Lackey, W. Lackey, H. Grady, and M. Davis, “Efficacy of using a single, non-technical variable to predict the academic success of freshmen engineering students,” Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 2003, pp. 41-48.[7] Q. Jin, P.K. Imbrie, J. Lin, X. and Chen, “A multi-outcome hybrid model for predicting student success in engineering,” 118th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada.[8] A. Olani
No. 2 February 2007American Chemical Society(10) Vapor Pressure And Normal Boiling Point Predictions For PureMethyl Esters And Biodiesel Fuels Yuan, W; Hansen, A.C.; Zhang, Q;Fuel 84 (2005) 943–950 Page 26.318.12 Appendix: Biodiesel Lab Activity Worksheet Biodiesel Processing LabObjectives: To determine process parameters for a chemical conversion process: converting wastedeep fryer oil (triglyceride (TG) source) into fatty acid methyl ester (FAME = biodiesel) using ahomogeneous alkaline catalyst based process.Tasks:1. Listen to process outline presentation
, pp. 131–141, Apr. 2008.[10] L. Williams, E. Wiebe, K. Yang, M. Ferzli, and C. Miller, “In Support of Pair Programming in the Introductory Computer Science Course,” Computer Science Education, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 197–212, 2002.[11] C. D. Hundhausen, N. H. Narayanan, and M. E. Crosby, “Exploring studio-based instructional models for computing education,” in SIGCSE, 2008, vol. 8, pp. 392–396.[12] J. Cuny, “Address to the Computer Science Community,” 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/legacy/pdf/CS10K_Cuny.pdf. [Accessed: 13-Apr-2015].[13] Q. H. Mahmoud, “Revitalizing Computing Science Education.,” IEEE Computer, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 98–100, 2005.[14] A. J. Blood and R. J. Zatorre, “Intensely
implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 15. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 16. Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014). Teaching Engineering Practices. Journal of ScienceTeacher Education, 25(2), 197-210.
from the cooling tower, so the following equations can be employed Q mstm (h5 h6 ) UATlm ma (h3 h4 ) mmu hmu (7)where mstm is the mass flow rate of the steam, U is the heat transfer coefficient for the condenser,A is the surface area of the condenser, and Tlm is the log-mean temperature difference of thecondenser. For convenience, and in order to make the equations solvable, the averagetemperature between T1 and T2 is given as being equal to T4, which would naturally vary with theother temperatures. The objective of the exercise is to generate a graph of powerplant efficiencyas a function of outdoor humidity for a given outdoor temperature. Since Equation (7) cannot besolved explicitly
. (2013). “Assessing the Ethical Development of Civil Engineering Undergraduates in Support of the ASCE Body of Knowledge.” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice.17. Harding, T. S., D. D. Carpenter, and C. J. Finelli. (2013). “Two Years Later: A longitudinal look at the impact of engineering ethics education.” Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, GA, June 23-26, 2013.18. Jesiek, B. K., Q. Zhu, S. E. Woo, J. Thompson, and A. Mazzurco. (2014). “Global Engineering Competency in Context: Situations and Behaviors.” Online Journal of Global Engineering Education, 8(1).19. Flanagan, J. C. (1954). “The Critical Incident Technique
Implementation of a Mechatronics Learning Module in a Large First-Semester Engineering Course. IEEE Transactions On Education, 53 (3), 445-454.7. Durfee, W. K. (2003). Mechatronics for the masses: a hands-on project for a large, introductory design class. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19 (4), 593-596.8. McLurkin, J., Rykowski, J., John, M., Kaseman, Q., & Lynch, A. J. (2013). Using multi-robot systems for engineering education: Teaching and outreach with large numbers of an advanced, low-cost robot. Education, IEEE Transactions on, 56 (1), 24-33.9. Nedic, Z., Nafalski, A., & Machotka, J. (2010). Motivational project-based laboratory for a common first year electrical
Achievement Motivation, J. T. Spence, Ed. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.[16] Q. Jin, S. Purzer, and P. K. Imbrie, “Measuring first-year engineering students’ knowledge and interest in materials science and engineering,” Proc. Am. Soc. Eng. Educ. Ann. Conf., San Antonio, TX, 2012.[17] H. M. Matusovich, R. A. Streveler, R. L. Miller, and B. A. Olds, “I’m graduating this year! So what IS an engineering anyway?” Proc. Am. Soc. Eng. Educ. Ann. Conf., Austin, TX, 2009a.[18] H. M. Matusovich, R. A. Streveler, R. L. Miller, and B. A. Olds, “Competence in engineering: A tale of two women,” Proc. Am. Soc. Eng. Educ. Ann. Conf., Austin, TX, 2009b.[19] S. Brunhaver, C. Carrico, H. Matusovich, R. Streveler, P. Boylan-Ashraf, and S. Sheppard
= × 𝐴 × ∆𝑇 (1) 𝑑𝑡 𝑅 𝑑𝑄 The thermal power ( ) , due to amount of heat (Q) passing through the target in a time 𝑑𝑡unit, is dissipated from the target surface by means of convection, conduction, and radiation.According to Albatici et al.(2008), the contribution of conduction is not as important a factor asconvection and radiation 8. Fokaides et al. (2011), Ham et al. (2013), hypothesized that the mainheat transfer from the target to the sensor of the thermal camera is due to thermal radiation andthermal convection as given in equations (2) and (3) 4,8 . The calculation of the R-value in
/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.664Lin, Q. (2008). Preservice teachers' learning experiences of constructing e-portfolios online. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3), 194-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.07.002Lorenzo, G., & Ittelson, J. (2005). An overview of e-portfolios. Educause Learning Initiative. Educause Learning Initiative, 1(27). Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3001.pdfMacias, J. A. (2012). Enhancing project-based learning in software engineering lab teaching through an e- portfolio approach. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55(4), 502-507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TE.2012.2191787McCready, T. (2007). Portfolios and the assessment of competence in nursing: A
thebeginning of the year, the engineering students took the Kolb learning style quick assessment.Retrieved from https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=kolb+quick+assessment. This quickassessment consists of twenty questions that determine the learning style or preference of astudent as described in table 1. Engineering students with project teams consisted mostly ofstudent learning styles that are converging and assimilating. However, each team also had one ortwo students with learning styles of diverging and accommodating. Therefore, each teamconsisted of individual learning preferences that tend to complement one another. Also, in orderto have successful capstone projects, faculty rearranges and balances out the makeup of theteams in terms of academic
38% 2 35% Fig. 7. Survey Response – Question # 14 (I feel that undergraduate research is preparing me for more demanding research in the future).A summary of the results from all fifteen questions is provided in Table 1. It may be noted thatthe weighted average for each question is listed in the last column of this table. Table 1. Survey Responses – Summary. Survey Response (No. of students) Weighted Q 1 2 3 4 5 Response 1 6
errorsand debug the software logic mistakes. Most of all they will benefit from this hand-on experienceby involving in the entire process of construction from the beginning to the end in the field ofrobotics and automation [5].A Hand-on introduction Course to roboticsThe author teaches an undergraduate-level robotics and automation course for MechatronicsEngineering Technology students at a U.S. university. The course covers the following topics: Introduction to generic Robotics and background [Activity: viewing related video and Q &A; prepare the hardware and the software for the project; set up the teams.] Introduction to LEGO Robotics system (hardware & software) [Activity: Familiarize LEGO parts and open
into two three-credit classes over two semesters. Typically there are around sevenprojects supporting five to eight students depending on the complexity of the project. At thebeginning of the year, the engineering students took the Kolb learning style quick assessment.Retrieved from https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=kolb+quick+assessment. This quickassessment consists of twenty questions that determine the learning style or preference of astudent as described in table 1. Engineering students with project teams consisted mostly ofstudent learning styles that are converging and assimilating. However, each team also had one ortwo students with learning styles of diverging and accommodating. Therefore, each teamconsisted of individual learning
] Wbp Wbp 100 d. Fuel Efficiency, ηBT = [percent] mf q fSpeed Regulation of a DC motor with Pulse Width ModulationDuring this signature lab, students used a method called “Pulse Width Modulation (PWM)” toregulate the speed of a DC motor. The DC motor is probably the most important type of actuatorsused for instrumentation and control. It is widely used in agricultural machinery, medical robots,home appliances, etc. Numerically controlled lathes (mills) and 3D printing are two moderntechnologies enabled by the precision control of the speed and position of motors
% N=68Table 4. Demographics: Engineering Major, Academic Standing, Qualitative SAT, GPA Q Course Engineering Major Standing GPA SAT Civil Chem. Elec. Indust. Mech. Sophomore Junior Test, 12.2% 37.4% 5.2% 13.0% 32.2% 63.5% 34.8% 551 2.98 N=43 Control, 11.0% 33.3% 3.2% 8.9% 43.6% 68.6% 29.3% 556 2.95 N=68Data analysisThe survey responses were pooled based on engineering dimension