Education, Life time member Society of Manufacturing Engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engineers PUBLICATIONS (i)Most Closely Related [1] W.J. Stuart ’Problem Based Case Learning - Composite Materials Course De- velopment – Examples and classroom reflections’ NEW Conference, Oct 2011 [2] W.J. Stuart and Bedard R. (EPRI) ’Ocean Renewable Energy Course Evolution and Status’ presented at Energy Ocean Pacific & Oregon Wave Energy Trust Conference, Sept. 2010. [3] W.J. Stuart, Wave energy 101, presented at Ore- gon Wave Energy Symposium, Newport, OR, Sept. 2009. [4] W.J. Stuart, Corrosion considerations when designing with exotic metals and advanced composites, presented at Corrosion Conference of Exotic Met
part.Measurement and Instrumentation course uses a variety of sensors and measurement techniquesto monitor machining processes (sensors including vibration, acoustic emission, cuttingdynamometers). Data acquisition and processing for tool breakage and quality control ofmachined parts has been added to the course curriculum. This course is a core curriculum coursefor all concentration for BSET. Similarly Quality Control course is a core curriculum one. Bothof them include laboratory experiments based on the equipment and instrumentation provided bythe funding of this project. The manufacturing and prototyping related courses reflect thecompetitive trend in the evolution of manufacturing towards increased flexibility, high speedmachining, remote quality
luncheonkeynote speaker, and concluded with a reception. The students enjoyed attending the conferenceto increase their knowledge about design-build and to interact with the industry. The studentswrote a reflection paper about their experience attending the conference.Outcomes and EvaluationStudents completed a course-specific evaluation at the end of the semester. This evaluation wasin addition to the standard university course evaluation given at the end of the semester. Theeight students who were enrolled in the course completed the evaluation. The students reportedthat they were very satisfied with their course and their experience attending the DBIA RockyMountain Chapter Annual Conference. When the students were asked whether or not they
equations and calculations. The curricularmaterials developed in our workshop specifically target research-identified misconceptions, andare intended to help students distinguish between similar concepts.Lessons LearnedWe will present three general lessons we’ve learned through our collaboration and reflection. Inpresenting these findings we distinguish between researchers and instructors, but note that mostengineering educators perform some combination of the two roles. Additionally, we note thatmany of these lessons refer to commonly held intuitions about the interactions of research andpractice in education. We seek here to surface and further develop these intuitions intoproductive public discourse.1. We need to attend to the differences in
American students more strongly than any otherminority group. AfA students were also influenced by social supports. Compared to the othergroups, AfA were less influenced by influence from others but had a higher level of influencefrom pre-college activities. The relatively high influence from interest in STEM as well as pre-college activities is mostlikely explained by the fact that many of the African American students in our sample went toSTEM focused high schools and were recruited specifically from them. Our data reflect thispotential explanation, as AfA were relatively more influenced by recruitment and financialavailability (scholarships) compared to their peers. The finding that exposure to STEM classesmotivated these AfA students to
) (b) Fig. 2: (a) Sample learning roadmap in Gridlock; (b) Sample KWS in GridlockIn the initial run of Gridlock, help was provided in a way that required students to actively seekanswers to their problems. Although there were mechanics to allow students self-reflecting theirlevel of proficiency, there was no connection between the learning roadmap and the identifiedstudent needs in KWS. When surveying students on the utility and usability of gameinterventions, they voiced their different views of system improvement. Some felt that thecurrent support was just right to provide necessary assistance in identifying domain knowledgeas “(KWS) concisely pointed you in the right direction", and "(Roadmap) contained volumes
cases, the spring represented the continuation of a project begun in the fall (e.g., for asenior design class). The semi-structured interviews 1) gathered background information aboutparticipants, 2) explored participants’ descriptions of the team functionality during the project,and 3) asked participants to reflect on the experience in the context of their engineeringeducation and identities. Each interview was audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Typically,the interviews lasted 45 minutes and each was conducted as least three weeks a part.For each participant, data analysis followed the process outlined by Hycner [9] and included thefollowing general steps: 1. Bracket or block out personal views of the phenomenon of interest to minimize
developed a STARS chemistry prep course. WSU has incorporated structured problem sessions where students work in small groups on problems directly related to their current math and chemistry classes. Each university also designed a year-long STARS Seminar series to build study and learning skills. Seminars include topics such as time management, group study, regular reflection on goal-setting and keys to success, learning to learn and cultivating an open mindset, note-taking, asking for help and utilizing resources, reading textbooks, and developing relationships with faculty.Figure 2: Sample UW and WSU First Year Curriculum University of Washington Sample STARS Washington State University Sample
accuracy (CE) beforecommunicating the solution (S). Finally, reflect on the process through self-assessment (S).Data Collection MethodsFaculty were not required to use PROCESS in their classes and the level of integration of thePROCESS problem solving structure into classroom lectures varied across instructors. Beforethe semester started, faculty were provided with Figure 1, the PROCESS rubric, and acomprehensive user guide complete with code definitions and grading examples to help themdetermine whether they wanted to utilize PROCESS in their classroom instruction as a problemsolving structure. In addition, all course sections were assigned a graduate teaching assistant thatparticipated in a four-hour interactive training session on grading with
progressing towardsexpectations. In addition, interpretations of student achievement could then be linked to the kindsof learning experiences that do or do not promote desired outcomes. Interpreting students’performance or achievement over time and sharing assessment results with students enablesstudents to understand their strengths and weaknesses and to reflect on how they need to improveover the course of their remaining studies. Assessing student learning at the end of a program orcourse of study known as summative assessment provides information about patterns of studentachievement, but without programmatic opportunity to improve achievement of assessedstudents, and without student opportunity to reflect on how to improve and demonstrate
parallelarrangements is used to demonstrate the underlying resistance addition rules. Although thisserves as a good hands on experiment to test the principles of resistance, it often leaves studentswith very few possible combinations to build in the lab, and does not reflect the innatecomplexity of even the most basic of modern circuits. Moreover, typically students aredisconnected from the theory when using rudimentary laboratory equipment to make fairlysimple measurements. Since it has been demonstrated that a more engaged and active approachto physics education has a more lasting effect on the retention of material [2], it was our goal to Page
them to offer insights into how theirexperience on the project has impacted their current careers.Deanna, the bioengineering team member and student team leader, is currently enrolled inphysician assistant school. Reflecting back on her experience in the project, she said, “Well, I think I actually took a lot more away from that project looking back on it in the last year or so than you realize, like, being on it…”After graduation Deanna worked as a clinical research coordinator before starting physicianassistant school. Her job as a clinical research coordinator involved interacting with patients andcommunicating with both physical therapists and physicians. She described having to determinewhere to direct patients’ questions
included tall building,long span and cantilever systems, foundations and the structural aspects in the design anddetailing of cladding.The catalog description and learning outcomes presented below reflect these two goals. ARCE 316 – Structural Integration in Architecture Catalog Description: Integration of structural systems into architectural design. Preliminary design of structures including the development of gravity load carrying systems and lateral load resisting systems. Introduction to tall building and long span structural systems. Introduction to cladding systems. Taken concurrently with third year architectural studios. Learning Outcomes: Upon
that the nature ofthe information provided by reviewers impacts the actions taken by the reviewee to reduce thegap.Giving feedback is an important skill for engineering professionals both in industry16 andacademia17. In engineering education, this skill is linked to the fulfillment of multiple studentoutcomes, particularly those related to problem solving, design, communication, andprofessionalism18. Feedback provides a means for thinking deeply about someone else’s work,reflecting on one’s own work, and receiving and interpreting criticism. Although an ability toprovide high quality feedback is an important skill in engineering, it is lacking amongengineering professionals19, professors20, researchers17, and students21. There is
26.192.4In the second lab exercise students use an ultrasonic rangefinder module [4] with the Arduinomicrocontroller board to determine the distance to nearby objects and to generate a warningwhen collisions are imminent. The rangefinder module comprises an acoustic transmitter that, oncommand from the microcontroller, transmits a burst of 40 KHz sound, and a receiver thatdetects returning echoes of the signal when it reflects from nearby surfaces. The rangefindermodule then notifies the microcontroller that the echo has been detected. Students are givenprewritten code that measures the time interval between transmission and detection and returnsthe distance to the reflecting object. Once the students have this code running and generatingdistances
Materials Engineering 2 Cambridge University (UK), Material Science Dep. MSci Materials Science 3 University West (Sweden) BEng Materials Science and Engineering 4 University of Illinois (US) BSc Materials Science and Engineering 5 McMaster University (Canada) BSc Materials Engineering This set of courses was selected in order to reflect the different needs in North America,continental Europe, and the UK. Figure 3 indicates how they compare to each other. Page 26.201.4Figure 3. Curricula/syllabus assignment to the scope of Materials Science
and WSU Distinguished Fac- ulty Fellow. He is the founding editor of the Journal of Applied Statistical Methods. His areas of interest are in research and experimental design, psychometrics, applied robust and nonparametric statistics, and quantitative and qualitative program evaluation. Page 26.252.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Assessing the Learning Gains of Manufacturing Students in an Integrated Hands-on Curriculum1. Introduction Traditional engineering instruction tends to favor intuitive, verbal, deductive, reflective
activities, poster presentations, and oralpresentations. The weekly meetings with mentors and/or faculty generally focused on researchand included discussions of the previous week's work as well as future plans. The weekly writingassignments consisted of progress reports in which the students reflected on accomplishmentsand challenges during the preceding week. In some occasions, the writing assignments weremore than just a progress report and included extra requirements: (1) each student was asked, aspart of one report, to provide a concise and descriptive title for their research project, assumingthis title would be used to describe a technical paper, research poster, and/or research report;(2) each participant provided a list of specific
have transferred to a 4-year university. This subsection willalso be information when we compare the responses from transfer students to traditionaluniversity students in the future. Self-efficacy was assessed by asking the students to indicatetheir level of agreement to six statements on a 5-point Likert scale.We also asked all students to indicate what hurdles they expect to face if and when they enter a4-year university institution (refer to Section 1 of Appendix A, however note that the specificwording was designed for the existing transfer students. The wording was changed for theanticipating students to reflect their future concerns). This subsection was designed to assess theissues and concerns transfer and potential transfer students
continuous improvement is necessary in the capstone assessmentprocess. While incremental improvements have been made over the past several years, there isstill a level of dissatisfaction among the students taking the course. This is especially evident inthe students who spend the most time on the projects during the build semester. The gradingsystem does seem to more accurately reflect the quality of work and commitment of eachstudent, but there still seems to be frustration among the more dedicated students. To address the dissatisfaction of the more dedicated students, two additional changes willbe implemented during the next build semester. First, every student is going to be asked to givea bi-weekly five minute progress update for their
global labor market. Furthermore, the most talented employees arethe ones with the greatest opportunity to be mobile. In this context, academic mobilityrequires a wide variety of personal qualities: talent to interact efficiently with other people;analytical thinking; communicative skills that include cross-cultural communication; thecapacity for self-awareness and self-reflection; a willingness to act in the cross-culturalenvironment; as well as respect and tolerance. An academically mobile student is ready for life changes. This quality is revealed inspecific socio-psychological attitudes [4]. Among other factors that allow for academicmobility, it is necessary to note a students’ capacity for independent design of theireducational
that was determined to be reflective of increasingly greater ability to deliver successfulprofessional fee-based programs.Criteria of this model included elements such as: Years of applicable experience Academic rank Quantity of scholarship Page 26.428.3 Quality of scholarship Years of teachingUnfortunately, as might be expected, there was disagreement between participatingfaculty/instructors on many of these aspects; example being, is one journal article more reputablethan another, or, are “X” conference papers equal in value to “Y” of something else. In the end,this model proved less effective than
circuit analysis courses, the authors of this paper have integrated Analog Discovery-based in- class and out-of –class group exercises in the course curricula. With in-class experiments, the process that leads to student activity and engagement is “learning”, “doing” and “reflecting”, while out-of-class experiments follow “recall”, “doing” and “reflecting”. Research has shown that introducing activity into lectures can significantly improve recall of information 4. In both courses, students were trained on the use of the ADB, after which they were provided the boards for use throughout a semester. The Circuits I course had 21 students in total over the course of two academic semesters; Spring and Fall 2014, and the activity
tandem to promote learning. For example, a new ill-definedsituation or problem requires analysis wherein prior knowledge and/or skills are used todeconstruct concepts, to examine the interrelationships of the parts and determine theircontribution to the whole. While organization employs compare and contrast strategies to resolveconflicts between prior knowledge and the new challenge in a systematic effort to create aconsistent value system. Both skills are thus used iteratively to formulate new mental models thatwill facilitate inquiry, reflection and application of the newly acquired knowledge to futureencounters. In their groundbreaking work, Felder and Silverman10 concurred, “most of what welearn on our own (as opposed to in class) originates
with do-it-yourself (DIY) kits they could use at home alongside a neuroscience MOOC.2. Research questionsIn order to better understand the experiences of students who were sent at-home laboratory kitsto use alongside this MOOC, we ask four primary research questions:1. How can we characterize the ways in which students around the world use onlineresources with the at-home lab kits? What online behaviors can we identify for the students inthe treatment group when they are likely to be using the kits at home? For example, how muchtime do they spend online watching lab videos that demonstrate kit experiments?2. How is their use of the kits reflected in their online individual and collaborativebehaviors? What patterns of behaviors (e.g
by each option.Several example issues addressed by the curriculum committee may best aidunderstanding of its role in program-wide coordination: 1. The committee identified more stringent enforcement of course prerequisites as a needed area for improvement based on ABET criteria. Course chairs investigated the common option courses in which prerequisites were most often violated. The committee as a whole considered the listed prerequisites agreed that in some of the cases the prerequisites were unnecessarily restrictive relative to student progress. The university course change process was initiated to adjust these prerequisites to more accurately reflect the prior knowledge needed for the course
subsequent analysis by quantitative methods, so the above summary features areused as a framework to quantify summary writing quality as part of an ongoing effort. Types ofsummary features24-26 coded include 1) the author and the title of the physics text, 2) a clear topicsentence that states the main idea of the original text, 3) all other major supporting points thatstate economically and are 4) arranged in logical order, 5) a concluding sentence that effectivelybrings the summary to a close, but 6) no unnecessary minor details or 7) reflections added; 8)paraphrase, 9) the writing is unified and coherent throughout, 10) word choice, 11) grammar,mechanics, and spelling.To avoid scoring bias, as pointed out earlier, the project uses two trained
. IntroductionThe complexity of engineering problems tend to require a team approach in order to solve them.Thus, team projects are often part of the engineering curriculum. In addition, teamwork is oftenused as a learning mechanism and means for assessment. The intention is that students help oneanother through social construction so that they can tackle problems and projects of greater scalesand complexities than achievable individually, and that the team setting reflects the real context ofworking in industry. However, there are numerous questions and challenges to student teams. Inaddition to the usual challenges of student dissatisfaction with teams due to unfair distribution ofworkload and responsibilities, we have found that effective teamwork does
in their minds from their courses and research, studying for exams,reflecting on content, improving writing skills, and as practice for future career meetings andreports. Taking notes during a live lecture or online asynchronous lecture, such as in the‘Flipped Classroom’ not only helps students learn content and concepts, but it also boostsWriting Across the Curriculum efforts. With the advances in technology and teachingtechniques, student note taking has changed, if not totally become neglected by students.Besides writing and/or diagraming with traditional paper and pen, newer methods includewriting on a laptop or tablet or using digital recording devices. But students are rarely taughthow to take notes during their educational experience
practices 12, 13, 23, 26, 27. Thosereferences applicable to multidisciplinary teaming are: • Basic design and teamwork principles for student teams and best practices identified 1, 10-14 • Teaching teams with software applications 26 • Pinpointing the importance of reflection in teaming experiences 27 • Teamwork problems for large classes 28 • Teamwork and management skills 35 • Gender issues 39.Evolution of the KU Teaming ProjectThe teaming project at KU began in the early 1990s as an independent study project for onestudent, an Algerian student who spoke fluent French and wanted to find a control systemsposition with a company in a country where his French language ability would be an asset. Hewas later successful in