Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. In addition to his industry experience, he has spent two years, while completing his PhD in Computer Science and Engineering, as a National Science Foun- dation GK-12 fellow - teaching and bring real-word STEM applications in two urban high schools. He has authored peer-reviewed articles, presented at national/international conferences, and taught under- graduate/graduate courses in both Hardware Security (computer science & engineering) as well as STEM Education and Outreach.Dr. Andrea Carneal Burrows, University of Wyoming Dr. Andrea C. Burrows received a Curriculum and Instruction: Science Specialization research Ed.D. from the University of Cincinnati, M.S. in Science
by analyzing in detail the context where the negotiations were made, and seestep-by-step how the teams were able to reach agreement. Figure 5. Images from “Sticky Notes” Tool 02: Using Sticky Notes, a boundary object to negotiate in larger teams These boundary objects shown in Figure 5, were usually present with large groups of individualsinvolved in the negotiation (i.e. when externals were invited to a meeting). “There were just toomany people to have everybody write on the board,” a student remarks. Sticky notes entailedlittle squares that have an adhesive on one of its sides and that could be placed on a surface. Theyshowed to be useful when there were large amounts of
favorable for materials courses, offering some evidence the applied focus has beenwell received. Other information collected from students (e.g. exit interviews, surveys, impactstatements) also suggest the applied focus has been well received with average responses on a 10point scale being in the 9 to 10 range in most cases.MSU’s materials program is in some ways similar to the University of Arkansas (UA)approaches described a few years ago that were reported to be favorably received bypractitioners4. Both align more closely to professional (as opposed to academic) models forlaboratory activities. MSU uses professional specifications (e.g. ASTM, AASHTO, state DOT)as opposed to laboratory manuals. Also, writing assignments are more closely aligned
further engagestudents in their coursework and to introduce freshman to some of the basic concepts ofengineering. A form of “student-centered education” where the instructor acts as a guide to theexperiential learning process is preferred over the traditional class lecture format according toSpencer & Mehler[10]. Hixson[4] refer to this as instructor “role-modeling,” where the instructoradvises and nudges the students through a thought process. The decisions are ultimately made bythe students and they are the owners of their solution. The research presented by Ambrose[1]similarly advocates the use of experiential learning opportunities. To better provide students withtimely feedback, the in-class methods of peer instruction, case studies, and
), CHBE unidisciplinary (n=194). Table 1. Project Timeline Week BIOE CHBE BIOE CHBE Crossdisciplinary Crossdisciplinary Unidisciplinary Unidisciplinary 1 Receive project & begin Receive project Receive project & Phase I & begin Phase I begin Phase I 2 Complete Phase I, meet Meet with BIOE peers & Complete Phase I Complete Phase I with CHBE peers & share review Phase I write-up Phase I write-up 3 BIOEs support CHBE
contributions. Video gamedesigners also have embraced badges to encourage longer game play, providingrecognition/rewards and the ability to show those badges to peers as a measure of achievementin the game.5 The Open Badge Infrastructure (OBI), on the other hand, is an initiative to takebadging into a truly internet-centric environment. In particular, the OBI is attempting to distill themost important characteristics of a badging system and creating open protocols that allow thosewho bestow credentials to communicate across organizations and communities.According to Havalais the OBI “represents a framework for making badges (microcredentialswith icons) machine-readable, portable, and verifiable in distributed digital networks… OBI-compliant badges
coordination, as well as thestrength of the student and academic affairs collaboration, mostly depend on the institutionalenvironment and the characteristics of the students, faculty, and staff who will participate12, 13.First-Year SeminarsSince the late 1800s, the primary focus of first-year seminars has been to assist students duringtheir adjustment to college and to increase their chances of being successful14 (Boyer, 1987).Gardner (1986) contends that students are much more likely to be successful throughout collegeif a strong foundation is provided during their first year. As such, the purpose of first-yearseminars is to help students establish a connection with the college as well as their peers. Ageneral assumption is that students will acquire
to be critical in expediting acquisition ofresearch skills. In other words, each class period was designed to facilitate hands-on and minds-on learning opportunities through peer-peer and peer-instructor interactions. A significant number of communication- based activities were integrated throughout the course, including in-class and out-of- Research class written responses, in-class discussion Triangle pairs and discussion groups, poster
, carrier flow and small-signal models; (iii) light emission and detection with semiconductor junctions. Students received videos weeks before the class and the average length of the video was 23 minutes. Some concepts were covered over 2 or 3 videos (to be discussed in a single class). The class was organized as described in the figure below.Before class In class After class Watch the videos Quiz Students Take notes Discuss about Check their understanding Write question questions from video Extend their learning Group activity
assess impact of good supply chain practices such as coordinated decision making in stochastic supply chains, handling supply chains during times of crisis and optimizing global supply chains on the financial health of a company. She has published her research in Journal of Business Logistics, International Jour- nal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management and peer-reviewed proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education.Lei Xie, Texas A&M University Lei Xie is a doctoral student at Texas A&M University. He is currently majoring in Human Resource Development in the Department of Educational Administration & Human Resource Development. His research interests include conflict
to develop a comprehensive theoretical and numerical multiscale strategy to accelerate the battery design process. He has presented his work nationally and internationally and has publications in several peer-reviewed journals. Currently, he is investigating the kinetics of nanoparticle dissolution at the mesocontinuum level using the phase field method. The goal is to develop a com- prehensive, theoretical and numerical strategy to predict the dissolution kinetics of small particles from experimentally measurable parameters to accelerate the particle engineering process during formulation development. Example applications include researching the effects of engineered particle size distribu- tions in solid dosage
Paper ID #30819Program: Study DesignMs. Rebecca Balakrishnan, University of Manitoba I am a career development professional with 8 years of experience working with post-secondary students at University of Manitoba on all aspects of career exploration, planning and job search. This takes a variety of forms, including one-on-one appointments, facilitating workshops, and writing resources. Recently, as part of my Master of Education in Counselling Psychology thesis, I have collaborated with faculty in the Faculty of Engineering to integrate career development activities into the Biosystems Engineering curriculum.Dr
students in general and underrepresented groups in particular. Project RISE(Retention Initiative in Science and Engineering) initiated campus Learning Centers in gatewaycourses. Through this program, various centers have been developed and staffed since the 1990s.There are viable learning centers in Chemistry, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering,Mathematics, Physics, and Engineering (Statics, Dynamics, Mechanics of Materials). In addition,the university supports the MTU Writing Center, Modern Language Learning Lab, Center forComputer-Assisted Language Instruction, and tutoring services. The Learning Centers areutilized in two ways. First, students who need help with homework or course concepts can obtainassistance on an as-needed basis from
Improving Engineering Education through Creativity, Collaboration, and Context In a First Year CourseAbstractOver the past few years, Computer Science and some Engineering disciplines have suffered froma decrease in student enrollment, poor retention, and low women and minority representation. Wesuggest three issues with first-year courses that contribute to this trend. First, students find itdifficult to see how their assignments and course material relate to real-world applications.Second, students tend to perceive engineering as an individual endeavor requiring littleinteraction with peers. Last, early engineering assignments are often overly constrained, possiblyto ease grading, allowing minimal room for student creativity.In this
effort into these courses in order to retain these students in engineeringmajors. However, many of the students in the MSU class, approximately 90%, will decide not tomajor in engineering. While this is a beneficial outcome for the students involved, it limits theamount of faculty effort that the college is able to invest in this course. Other pre-engineeringcourses (e.g., Howard and Musto5; Pazos, Drane, Light, and Munkeby8) use peer team projects orsoftware that students will use in follow-on engineering classes to motivate students to continuein engineering. The typical student in MSU’s pre-engineering designation is not mature enoughto successfully navigate this type of project. In addition, the one-hour format of the course limitsthe types
Total:___ ___Picture taken _____ Measurements complete: _______Comments: Page 8.675.10“Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2003, American Society for Engineering Education”Addendum 3: Peer Assessment Form Team Citzenship Rating Form: Name: __________________________ EM103 Introduction to Design Date: ________________ Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Please write the names of all the members of your team, INCLUDING YOURSELF, and rate the degree to which each member fulfilled his
Foundation Design the students are asked to research a geotechnical topic of theirchoosing using a variety of sources. The students are asked to find four sources: one source thatis available/accessible to the general public, one general web source, one peer-reviewed journalarticle, and one other type of printed reference such as a conference or technical periodicalarticle. They are then asked to summarize the information in these sources. Lastly, they are askedto compare the sources considering the intended audience, contradictions amongst the sources,communication style, quality, trustworthiness, and biases. The ability to properly format thebibliography continues to be the most troublesome aspect of writing for the students. In addition
among students who leave Engineering,5 otherstudies draw attention to additional factors that discourage students from continuing inEngineering majors. The factors include the level of self-confidence of Engineering students andinteraction with faculty, staff and peers.5Theoretical frameworkAstin’s theory of student involvement1 is most appropriate for this study. The theory of studentinvolvement highlights the development of students and how factors within the collegeenvironment affect the persistence and perception of students. Astin posited that “studentinvolvement refers to the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotesto the academic experience” (p. 297). Astin1 further explains that involvement is defined bywhat
Curriculum Mapping Worksheet (CMW)A good example of how multiple course-level outcomes contribute to a program-level outcomewould be with respect to the program outcome g. Rubric-based analyses of laboratory reportsare made in five courses in the curriculum. An attempt was made to sample reports at variouslevels (sophomore-junior-senior) in the curriculum. Rubric-based assessments of presentationsfrom at least two different courses also contribute to satisfying this outcome. In addition tohaving the instructor assess the presentation, student-peer evaluations and additional facultyevaluations (other than the instructor) are reported. Along with course exit and senior exitsurveys addressing communication skills, the program-level outcome is
(high melting point, low weight, high strength, or high flexibility)? ≠ Cost – what is a reasonable cost for the consumer: initial purchase costs, upkeep, disposal, etcFigure 3: Students testing set of liquids on a plastic penny and copper penny surface. By the end of the first day, the following learning should be achieved: (a) Writing Hypothesis - students will demonstrate that they can write a hypothesis using the correct form and accurately reflecting the question being posed (b) Following Procedures - students will identify the materials needed for each activity Page 15.961.6
organization. Research activity andproject based instructional best practices could cover effective activity planning, includingpitfalls to avoid, and departmental / university protocol.While there typically are orientation sessions for grant writing provided by senior faculty orfoundation administrators, this can be one of the more difficult areas for those new to academia.Tips for effective, or at the very least, ineffective methods from colleagues in the same contentarea could make the difference in a successful R&D program or grant proposal.Another area of concern for new faculty deals with the successful implementation of courses ofindependent study. Best practices, or even departmental SOP’s could help to provide definitionof consistent
between various responsibilities and the order of howinformation and responsibility flows within the team. The PM is responsible for the overallmanagement of the project and team while still having a specific technical responsibility on theteam. The selection of the PM is an extremely important decision. This person must not onlyhave developed a love for discovery, but have had previous experience on the team so as tounderstand the overall goals of the project. This person should possess leadership skills and havethe respect of their peers. Almost always, the selected PM comes from students who participatedas junior members of the team and performed well. The PI selects the PM with input from thelikely ELs, who themselves are usually selected
Total:___ ___Picture taken _____ Measurements complete: _______Comments: Page 8.610.10“Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2003, American Society for Engineering Education”Addendum 3: Peer Assessment Form Team Citzenship Rating Form: Name: __________________________ EM103 Introduction to Design Date: ________________ Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Please write the names of all the members of your team, INCLUDING YOURSELF, and rate the degree to which each member fulfilled his
Objective” Analysis,as well as a “Goal Action Form”. These exercises were modeled after and are available online inthe University of Waterloo’s Self-Assessment Career Development eManual. The student’sresults are posted to their private offline reflection workbook.Meaningful reflection often includes dialogue and conversation with a coach, a mentor, anadviser, or a peer. At this stage the professor, or other adviser, often must help students build asolid vision of their future goals. Once the audience and the future goals have been selected thestudent then must analyze what to include in their portfolios.Once, the students have completed their preplanning phase, they are ready to begin gatheringartifacts that represent their best IT efforts and
education, student groups work closely with a faculty member to tackle variouscourse-related projects within the classroom. In contrast, collaborative learning, which is morewidespread in higher education, entails a faculty member acting as a mentor or facilitator tostudent groups that do most of their work outside of the classroom (Matthews, Cooper,Davidson, and Hawkes). Collaborative learning promotes discussion, peer teaching, and criticalthinking (Russo).The primary difference between active learning and older models of learning is that the teacher isno longer the sole source of knowledge in the classroom. Much of the recent fascination withcollaborative learning has, in fact, grown out of our changing view of what knowledge is--ourassumptions
postingcomments and questions to the listserv. The listserv will be moderated in that all postings willfirst be sent to me. I will then determine their appropriateness and forward them on to thelistserv. You are encouraged to actively participate in any listserv discussions that may takeplace. I expect that all postings will be professional in nature and adhere to proper “e-mailetiquette.” You may use the listserv to pose questions to your peers regarding material beingdiscussed in class, homework questions, lab questions, etc. You may also use the listserv to posea topic for discussion related to our in-class discussions. Feel free to discuss other items ofrelated interest such as “physicsy” items in the news, etc. In addition, I will occasionally use
is, learning how to deal constructively with criticism and how tosupport one’s ideas in argument.The fundamental purpose of a doctoral program is to help the student become a professional whogenerates ideas within an extremely specialized field. Undergraduates spend most of their timereading and writing about established theories and research. By contrast, doctoral studychallenges the student’s ability to learn in a completely different way. It focuses study in onediscipline, and requires that one conduct original research and formulate her own theories.Challenge: As she progresses in graduate work, most of the student’s learning will come througha series of formal and informal exchanges in which others—both faculty and peers—willchallenge
ABET6.Our undergraduate program strives to produce engineers who are a step ahead of their peers andhave begun to look beyond entry-level jobs. Our primary goals are to improve the educationalprocess outside the classroom and to encourage students to take a more active role in their ownpersonal and curricular development. In order to connect student activities and abilities to theobjectives of our overall program, we established a set of “six tools” that we feel are essential forgraduates to become successful engineers. Further, we would like to implement a project thatencourages our students to make connections among their curricular options and between theirstudents and extracurricular pursuits. Another goal is to add to the department’s
proposition, its commercial feasibility, the various risk factors, and the resourcesrequired. The class was divided into five separate groups, but all groups worked on the sameoverall problem. Additionally, excerpts from the writings of thought leaders on innovation, suchas Carlson, Christensen, and Porter, were included. To give us more time for extendeddiscussions, the class met twice a week, for two lecture hours each time. The syllabus for the fallof 2009 is shown in figure 1.Our institution operates on a somewhat unusual academic calendar where each semester is splitinto two seven-week terms. Terms A and B are taught in the fall (September to December) andterms C and D are taught in the spring (January to April). During each academic term
Learning Laboratory (ITLL) and Program at theUniversity of Colorado at Boulder, hands-on curricula are an integral part of lower divisionengineering projects courses and K-12 engineering outreach programs. 2 3 An extensiveevaluation plan has been developed to investigate the efficacy of these curricula. One componentof this evaluation plan is the assessment of student skill development. This type of assessment isaccomplished by several methods, including instructor assessment, peer assessment, and self-assessment. The present study focused on student self-assessment of skills in the ITLL First-Year Engineering Projects course.Student skill self-assessment is a useful component of the projects course evaluation plan.Instructors from a wide range of