context to students majoring in bioengineering, civilengineering, or environmental engineering has been very successful in promoting studentlearning (and motivation to learn).References1. Blanchard, S., N. Egiebor, J.D. Sweeney, L. Zidek, C. Sechrist, S. Hulbert, J. Osborn and M. Swearingen. “Blank Slate Engineering at Florida Gulf Coast University – Innovative and Multidisciplinary from the Ground Up”. Proceedings of the 2006 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June, 2006.2. National Academy of Engineering. The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century, 118 pages, 2004. Available on-line at: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10999.html?onpi_newsdoc05172003.3. National Academy of Engineering. Educating the Engineer of
rolling asshown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Rolling Wheel Used to Illustrate Various Types of Problems Used to Assess Knowledge of Key Concepts in Dynamics. Page 12.1541.4Traditional ProblemFor the wheel shown in Problem 1, the wheel’s radius is 2 ft, the instantaneous velocity at thecenter of the wheel is 4 ft/s to the right. Express the velocity of points A and B as vectors usingthe coordinate system indicated on the figure.DCI Type ProblemFor the wheel shown in Problem 1, what is the direction of the velocity of point B at the instantshown if the wheel is rolling to the right without slipping?(A) Straight Down (B
Engineering Education, 2007 A General Engineering Technology Program in Motorsports TechnologyAbstractSouthside Virginia, in particular the cities of Danville, Martinsville and the surrounding area, isthe home of Virginia International Raceway and a rapidly growing motorsports industry. Thereis a strong need for educational opportunities to support manufacturing and related industries inthis region. In the early 2000’s Patrick Henry Community College in Martinsville established anassociate of applied science degree in Motorsports Technology to help meet the need fortechnical support personnel. As the industry has grown it has become evident that engineers andtechnologists are needed at the baccalaureate and
experiments, so that KCL and KVL are illustrated by thefirst one, given in the third laboratory session, and the transient part will be reserved for a laterlab, when more appropriate to the course material.Summary and conclusionThis experiment was a great success, in that it did produce the desired understanding in thestudents. It had the flavor of a 1960’s “happening”. The present plan is to continue using it, with Page 12.51.10some of the modifications suggested. We are presently considering an addition to illustrateKirchhoff’s voltage law, which we plan to combine with the current law part of the presentexperiment. The RC transient part will then
transferring in the year 2005-06. As of fall ’06, 84.4% of ASU students that had transferred to Georgia Tech since thebeginning of the program in mid-80’s, have either graduated from or are currently enrolled inone of the 5 different engineering majors. The range of the comparable figure denoting thesuccess rate for transfer engineering programs of all other institutions in Georgia is 72% to 92%,which validates the quality of our program. The students complete the core courses inhumanities, mathematics and science as well as some freshman and sophomore level engineeringcourses in order to have a seamless transfer to the junior level at Georgia Tech. As is customaryin most if not all undergraduate engineering programs, ASU also conducts an introductory
by theNortheastern Nevada Mathematics project is described. The Northeastern Nevada MathematicsProject is a three-year Math Science Partnership project funded through the Nevada Department Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Annual Conference Copyright © 2007, American Society for Engineeringof Education. It is a sub-grant award from the U. S Department of Education. The professionaldevelopment/research team consists of a mathematician, math education faculty, math consultantfrom the department of education and the regional professional development coordinators.Thirty- seven teachers from 22 schools were selected from rural areas in Nevada. These teachersare in the
well and it will be maintained. Proceedings of the 2007 Midwest Section Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education 7 Table 5 Assessment Evaluation of the Metrology course.No. Learning Outcomes Program 6* 7 8 S/NS** Outcomes1 Variable Gage R & R – long form a, b, c 1 1 4 NS2 Variable Gage R & R – short form “ 1 2 S3 Attribute
Rogers of the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology has performed a lot of research inassessment. In her presentation on portfolios, she states the need to know the “importance of clearunderstanding of outcomes desired from portfolio use” are a “clear purpose” and the portfolio’s designshould be “driven by [a] desired outcome and skills to be assessed.” Rogers says portfolios serve as“growth model[s]”, “showcase[s]”, and “hybrid[s].” For the assessment of the portfolio, Rogers suggestsusing scoring rubrics that are “linked to performance criteria”, “known to [the] students”, and have“scales consistent with [the] purpose of assessment.” Rogers warns that the primary focus of the portfoliois not the portfolio itself but is “teaching and learning
approximation is negligible if the meshing is refined.Because of symmetry about the vertical axis, half of the problem, forθ ∈ [−π / 2, π / 2] could be solved.4. Finite Element SolutionThe transient solution uses two time steps. The first time step of ∆t = 0.1 s is usedfor the initial portion of the solution where the nonlinear terms are most important.The second time step of ∆t = 100 s is used for the long term solution.Results for the transient solution (t=[0, 5000] s) are shown in figures 2 and 3.Notice that because the bottom half of the duct is insulated, temperatures in thebottom half of the pipe are higher than in the top half. Minimum temperature after5000s is 753 K, which is reasonably close to the steady state value (obtained in aseparate FE
see their responsibility to contribute topublic policy and communication of science and engineering to the general public.Concluding RemarksLeaders of Tomorrow offers an enriched experience for engineering students at theUniversity of Toronto and, although it is early in its development, we have madesignificant progress. Our aspirations are guided by our Vision: An engineering educationthat is a lifelong foundation for transformational leaders and outstanding citizens.ReferencesKomives et al., 2005Komives, S. R., Owen, J. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Mainella, F. C., and Osteen, L. Developing a LeadershipIdentity: A Grounded Theory. J. College Student Dev. 46, No. 6, November/December 2005, p 593-611.McCahan, et al, 2004McCahan, Susan; Bagley
, Boston, Mass.10 Ulrich, K. and S. Eppinger, 2004, Product Design and Development, 3rd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.11 Cagan, J. and C. M. Vogel, 2002, Creating Breakthrough Products: Innovation from Product Planning to Program Approval, Prentice Hall, NJ.12 Green, M. G., 2005, "Enabling Design in Frontier Contexts: A Contextual Needs Assessment Method with Humanitarian Applications," PhD Dissertation, Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas, Austin.13 Davis, D., S. Beyerlein, O. Harrison, P. Thompson, M. Trevisan, and B. Mount, “A Review of Literature on Assessment Practices In Capstone Engineering Design Courses: Implications for Formative Assessment,” Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual
9 Occurance Detection Severity RPNComponent Function(s) of Component Failure Mode Effects of Failure Potential Cause of Failure Current Design Controls
, professionals (corporate management, etc), family, friends and society ?Week four: In nine-ten pages, respond to the following questions: 1. What technical challenge did s/he address? 2. Why did the investigator(s) undertake the task(s) of interest ? 3. What achievement or resolution of the technical challenge was resulted? 4. What social challenges arose during the individual or team effort, and how were the social challenges resolved ? ( within a corporation ? family ? society at large ? other ? ) 5. What recognition, if any, did the investigator receive
entire book.Week three: Summarize the book in a single page (three paragraphs), which explain 1. What were the social and technical settings of the time ? 2. What was the particular technical challenge addressed, and why was it important ? 3. What was discovered/found, and how was it received by competitors, professionals (corporate management, etc), family, friends and society ?Week four: In nine-ten pages, respond to the following questions: 1. What technical challenge did s/he address? 2. Why did the investigator(s) undertake the task(s) of interest ? 3
, FL (2005). Her research interests are in a cross-section of cognition and technology. Together with Dr. Zywno she is a holder of a nationally funded grant to support their research in engineering education. She is a member of ASEE, SME, and a registered Professional Engineer.Malgorzata Zywno, Ryerson University MALGORZATA S. (GOSHA) ZYWNO Gosha Zywno, M.Eng. (U. of Toronto), Ph.D. (Glasgow Caledonian U.), is a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Ryerson University. Dr. Zywno is a recipient of several university, national and international teaching excellence and achievement awards, including the 2005 ASEE Sharon Keillor Award, 2002 3M Teaching Fellowship and 2005 Canadian
this option.AcknowledgementsThis project is funded in part by Microsoft Research, as well as with support fromHewlett-Packard Philanthropy, DyKnow, Inc., and our institution.Bibliography[1] DyKnow Vision, Inc. http://www.dyknowvision.com/[2]T. Angelo and P. Cross. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers. 2nd ed. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1993.[3] S. Kirtley interviewed in “New Interactive Software Is an A+ Tool,” Converge Online. [Online]. Available:http://www.convergemag.com/story.php?catid=232&storyid=96769[4] S. Kirtley, D. Mutchler, J. Williams, et al, “The world is our classroom.” Presentation at the HP HigherEducation Mobile Technology Solutions Conference, November 4-5, 2004.[5] S. Kirtley, Z. Chambers
S F W F W S Su F W Su F Instructional 02 02 03 03 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 Assessment n=65 n=54 n=27 n=57 n=25 n=36 n=42 n=32 n=32 n=36 n=27 How effectively does the 1 instructor organize and 4.67 4.31 4.42 4.65 4.44 4.53 4.75 4.63 4.75 4.69 4.56 structure the course? How well does the instructor 2 define and meet objectives 4.68 4.30 4.24 4.62 4.48 4.56 4.52 4.53 4.59 4.57 4.59 of the course? How well does the instructor 3 arouse interest and transmit 4.45 4.11 3.96 4.37 4.00 4.37 4.19 4.41
Page 12.1304.3section of the paper. The other problem, as the authors have observed among their tutees, students and friends,is that a student who is proficient at solving problems often experiences difficulties inarticulating methods for solving the problem. If a student knows how to read and approach,and/or can decode mathematical and scientific texts, s/he will still encounter problems if s/he isnot able to distinguish between various terms, their usage, and significance in specific contexts.So the student’s ability to solve problems is an indication that some information they obtain hasbeen transferred to long-term memory where s/he can easily recall the topics, but it is obviousthat not all of the information was transmitted. Most
., & Simmons A. (1998). Affinity disciplines and the use of the principles of good practice for undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 299-318.4. Buckley, K. (2003). How principles of effective online instruction correlate with student perceptions of their learning. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida.5. Busch, S., & Johnson, S. A. (2005). Professors' Transition to Online Instruction. Distance Learning. 2, 29- 346. Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as a lever. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin.7. Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (Eds.). (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
demands of professional engineering practice.Major reviews of education in the 1990’s in the USA2 and in Australia 3, resulted in significantchanges in both countries. The respective reports resulted in ABET’s Program Outcomes(EC2000)4 and the Australian Graduate Attributes5 (AMEA), which both advocated a shift of theinstructional paradigm from the previously input-, content- and process-oriented system to anoutcomes-based approach.The concept of outcomes-based education revolves around a list of desired educationaloutcomes. In the application of this concept to instructional design, the outcomes are brokendown into learning objectives6, 7, subsequently learning activities are selected and delivered inorder to achieve the learning outcomes. The
students progress from basic data collection and reverse engineering projects throughmore open-ended, industry-sponsored capstone design experiences. The team ofmultidisciplinary faculty from Engineering and Communications who teach the sophomore levelcourses have observed the difficulty students have tackling the fundamental open-ended natureof true design problems and have subsequently revised the sequence. For the Fall of 2005 theSophomore Clinic sequence was revised to introduce Dym et al.’s converging-divergingframework for design by incorporating a series of three projects of increasing complexity withaccompany activities designed to reinforce the converging-diverging concepts. For the thirdproject in the series, roughly sixty students
curriculum. Overallthe work adds to knowledge of how best to train and teach PM, informs the debate on the bestpedagogical approaches, identifies modelling issues about how and where to start on themodelling journey, about how best to develop 3D modelling capabilities in users.Bibliography1. Bhavnani, S. K., John, B. E. & Fleming, U. (1999) The Strategic Use of CAD: An Empirically Inspired, Theory-Based Course. Proceedings of CHI 1999, May 15-20.2. Bhavnani, S. K. & John, B. E. (1996) Exploring the Unrealised Potential of Computer-Aided Drafting.3. Bhavnani, S. K. (2000) Designs Conducive to the Use of Efficient Strategies. Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems 2000.4. Hartman, N. W. (2004) Defining Expertise in the Use
intend students to learn as a result of instruction41. Theoriginal taxonomy was developed by Benjamin S. Bloom42 in the early 50s and it hassince been translated into 22 languages and is one of the most widely applied and mostoften cited references in education43. The original taxonomy represented a multi-tieredmodel of classifying thinking according to six cognitive levels of complexity:Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. Thetaxonomy was later revised by Lorin W. Anderson and David R. Krathwohl40 and the sixlevels of learning in the revised Bloom’s taxonomy (together with representative verbsused to write learning outcomes at each level of learning) are:‚ Remember (recognize, recall…)‚ Understand
integrate a broad range oftechnologies and skills. Students are given the opportunity to crystallize the ideas learned earlierand to implement comprehensive systems across an organization. The Master’s Research Projectfocuses on the research and selection of an appropriate topic on one of the research orapplications in the field of wireless communication systems. Each project is to be evaluated by apanel consists of five judges (normally two from university and three from industry) and gradedby “H” for Honors, “S” for Satisfactory and “U” for Unsatisfactory. Each group is responsibleto submit a final project report and make a 50 minute formal presentation. Following is the listof MSWC courses: 1. WCM601 Analog and Digital Communications
: National Academies Press, 2007.4. Bandura, A., Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1997.5. Pajares, F., "Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings," Review of Educational Research, Vol. 66, No. 4,1996, pp. 543-578.6. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B., Lyons, H. and Treistman, D., "Relation of ContextualSupports and Barriers to Choice Behavior in Engineering Majors: Test of Alternative Social Cognitive Models,"Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 50, No. 4, 2003, pp. 458-465.7. Schaefers, K. G., Epperson, D. L. and Nauta, M. M., "Women's Career Development: Can TheoreticallyDerived Variables Predict Persistence in Engineering Majors?," Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 44, 1997,pp
growing multinational organizations. 8 • An increasing presence of multinational R&D facilities is in countries like China and India. 8 • The level of R&D in the India and China is growing. 8,9,10 • Of the growing trained workforce in the emerging economic environments, a large number of them would prefer to stay home and work for a multinational firm than move overseas. 11 • Even those who are already in the developed economies may move back home because of the changing work environments. 11,12 • The global competition for S&E workforce is growing. Countries like the UK, Ireland, Germany and Australia are actively in the pursuit of trained workforce from the developing economies
d x dx & EQUATION OF MOTION m - c - kx ? f ( t ) 2 dt 2 dt 1 /|yt NUMERICAL PROCESSING h(t ) ? e sin yd t DISPLACEMENT INTEGRATION / DIFFERENTIATION myd a1 a1* h (s
tocollege rather than because of a specific interest in this subject matter. Considering this to be thecase, perhaps this course and other similar freshmen-level experiences should be designed toprimarily prepare the student for the rigor of university-level work rather than be an indepthanalysis of a specific topic. For the next offering of this class, I plan on reevaluating its contentto make sure that the content appeals to more students.Bibliography1 Lau, A. S., Pangborn, R. N., Wise, J. C., & Marra, (2001) R. M. Student assessments of engineering first-yearseminars. Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.Session 2793.2 Hasenberg, C., Natter, B., & Sukhwant, J. (2005
su at al rro nk er l un di ng s Figure 3: Interpretation of Midwest Floods Problem codesThe aggregate percentages of statements within the design detail and design context areas of thecoding scheme are shown in Table 5. Design detail refers to the
AC 2007-1116: A NATIONAL MODEL FOR ENGINEERING MATHEMATICSEDUCATIONNathan Klingbeil, Wright State University Nathan W. Klingbeil is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Robert J. Kegerreis Distinguished Professor of Teaching at Wright State University. He is the lead PI for WSU's National Model for Engineering Mathematics Education. He is the recipient of numerous awards for his work in engineering education, including the CASE Ohio Professor of the Year Award (2005) and the ASEE North Central Section Outstanding Teacher Award (2004).Kuldip Rattan, Wright State University Kuldip S. Rattan is a Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering at Wright State University