was as good(87.8%), if not better, than other students (77.6%). However, under-represented minorities(65.4%) and first-generation students (64.7%) did not fare as well. A number of studies havedemonstrated that first generation students, in particular, face some unique challenges [2]–[5].These students can lack the cultural capital their continuing peers have including the skills andknowledge to build social networks with their academic peers and the ability to tap institutionresources.These observations have encouraged us to consider implementing changes to our freshman levelcourses that can support the development of social networking skills and encourage theidentification and use of resources such as faculty and graduate teaching assistant
AC 2008-1374: USING ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIO REPOSITORIES AS ASTUDENT RESOURCE FOR MSE APPLICATIONSAaron Blicblau, Swinburne University of Technology "Aaron Blicblau graduated as materials engineer and worked in the manufacturing and steel industry for ten years. He then commenced lecturing at Swinburne University of Technology specialising in materials science and engineering to students ranging form first year to final year. . He has been involved in implementing novel teaching procedures to improve the learning aspects of students as well as his own teaching processes. Over the past few years he has adopted and implemented active learning measures including problem based and project based
.[8] D. E. Graff, et al. (ed.), Research and Practice of Active Learning in Engineering Education, Pallas Publication in Leiden University Press, Amsterdam, Nederland, 2005.[9] D. Paulson and J. Faust, “Active Learning for the College Classroom,” Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 3-24, 1998.[10] P. Pheeney, “Hands on, minds on: Activities to engage our students,” Science Scope, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 30-33, 1997. Page 23.264.14[11] S. Burd, et al. (ed.), “Virtual Computing Laboratories: A Case Study with Comparisons to Physical Computing Laboratories,” Journal of Information Technology
Associate Dean of the College of Engineering, Technology, and Architecture at the University of Hartford. He is also an Associate Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering. He holds a BSEE from Aleppo University, an MS from Ohio University, and a Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University.Beth Richards, University of Hartford Beth Richards is director of Rhetoric and Professional Writing Program at the University of Hartford, where she is teaching technical writing, critical literacy, business and management communication, and editing, as well as first year writing course conducted jointly with introduction to engineering and design.Abdul Hai Sofizada, SHEP Abdul Hai Sofizada is the Policy
middle school teachers (teaching Biology and Math) were selected toparticipate in research dealing with tissue engineering. Teachers worked for six weeks (fourdays a week) within the research laboratory on formation of porous structures usingbiodegradable polymers. Teachers were exposed to the technique of forming porous structuresusing chitosan and gelatin solution in various shapes using the apparatus available in thelaboratory. A low cost freeze drying system that is safe for operation by sixth grade students wasdeveloped. The overall cost of performing the experiment is also significantly cheap and lesstime consuming.An envisioned project for the current academic year under implementation in the sixth grade isfreeze drying chitosan-gelatin
Paper ID #37981Modifying a Junior Year Machine Design Project to Break Down KnowledgeSilos in the Mechanical Engineering CurriculumDr. Ashley J. Earle, York College of Pennsylvania Ashley is an Assistant Professor in the Mechanical and Civil Engineering department at York College of Pennsylvania. She received her B.S in Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering and B.A. in Interna- tional Studies from Lafayette College. She then pursued her Ph.D in Biomedical Engineering at Cornell. During her Ph.D. she discovered her love of teaching and decided to pursue a future at a Primarily Un- dergraduate Institution, bringing her to
described previously in the Long-Range Plan section, a variety of innovative changes weremade in the laboratory component of this course to increase the hands-on nature of the laboratoryexperience and to teach the iterative nature of the engineering design process. Those changeshave been presented previously 14. These hands-on laboratory exercises posed the greatestchallenge in the development of a distance-learning version of EGR1301. The laboratoryexercises needed to be portable and needed to fit into a small box for shipping and, at the sametime, needed to deliver a quality learning experience similar to that which our students oncampus were exposed to. Considerable development time was allotted to this task, andbrainstorming sessions were held
engineeringclassrooms across the United States2.In order to prepare our future engineers with competencies well beyond those expected of pastengineers, as the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) and the NationalAcademy of Engineering (NAE) say we must, engineering education itself must change andbecome more effective and efficient3, 4. We must draw on available engineering educationresearch to improve our classrooms and our teaching both now and into the future. Page 23.252.2This is not a simple task, as there are many barriers to overcome. Some are barriers of individualfaculty members, and others reflect their work environment. Some examples of
is like acknowledging that students at any given agearen’t all the same height: It is not a statement of worth, but of reality”.2 In a differentiatedclassroom and laboratory, the teacher proactively plans and carries out varied approaches tocontent, process, and product in anticipation and response to student differences in readiness,interest, and learning needs.According to Tomlinson, our teaching style “can influence a students’ IQ by 20 points in eitherdirection, that’s a 40 point IQ swing”.2 Key concepts of differentiated instruction include but arenot limited to: More qualitative than quantitative. Merely assigning more or less work based on a learner’s ability is typically ineffective. Rooted in assessment. Evaluation
Paper ID #14478Integration of Strategic Highway Research Program 2 Products within theEntire Civil Engineering CurriculumDr. Yusuf A Mehta, Rowan University Dr. Mehta is a Professor at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Rowan University and Director of Center for Research and Education in Advanced Transportation Engineering Systems (CREATEs). Dr. Mehta has extensive experience in teaching pavement materials and pavement systems. Dr. Mehta has published several technical and educational papers in leading professional organizations.Dr. Parth Bhavsar, Rowan UniversityDr. Ayman Ali, Rowan University
AC 2008-937: INCORPORATION OF BROADBAND ACCESS TECHNOLOGY INA TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMWarren Koontz, Rochester Institute of Technology Warren is currently a professor in the College of Applied Science and Technology at RIT and chair of the Telecommunications Engineering Technology program. He joined RIT in December 2000 after retiring from Bell Laboratories. He began his thirty two year career at Bell Labs as a member of technical staff in the Electronic Switching Division in Naperville Illinois. He was involved in a variety of projects at a variety of Bell Labs locations, including international assignments in The Netherlands and Germany. At the time of his retirement, he
individual laboratory assignments.Text SelectionIt is imperative that the instructor use a text which completely covers the key topics foreach course. Additionally, the text must be technically accurate, readable, concise andhopefully filled with example programs and graphics (to accommodate visual learners).Finding a textbook that meets these requirements and emphasizes technical problemsolving is not an easy task.Generally texts address the use of programming and software code development to solvebusiness problems, display and graphics problems or engineering problems. The textselected for the first two courses of the sequence is based upon the solution of scientificand engineering problems (5). In addition to the basic C++ language features
Session 1526 PS/18 DSP Does It Mahmood Nahvi, Professor Electrical Engineering Department California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaContents:1. Summary2. Introduction3. Objectives of the Course and Laboratory4. Students' Background5. Laboratory Facilities6. Experiments7. Programming DSP Boards and Chips8. Discussion and Conclusion9. References1. SummaryUndergraduate engineering students are generally more enthusiastic about subjects whichprovide them with
involved in using continually-evolving system-level design tools and theefforts made to reduce their learning times.IntroductionABET 2000 requires providing students with a significant hands-on design experience.Graduating electrical engineering students should have the ability to develop system-leveldesigns for a variety of applications, implement these designs in functional hardware, and test thehardware in real-life operating conditions. To achieve such professional competence, studentsshould be required to participate in a sequence of hardware design experiments and projects.These laboratory exercises aim at: a) sharpening students’ abilities to design complex digitalcircuits and systems, and to interface these designs to peripheral devices, b
AC 2012-4579: REGULATORY COMPLIANCE TRAINING IN BIO/CHEMICALENGINEERING COURSESDr. Arthur Felse, Northwestern University P. Arthur Felse is a lecturer in the master’s of biotechnology program and the Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering at Northwestern University. His responsibilities include teaching, student advis- ing, coordinating master’s research training, and managing the biotechnology teaching laboratory. Before joining Northwestern University, Felse completed his postdoctoral training at the Polytechnic Institute of New York University, where he was awarded a NSF fellowship. He and his colleagues at Polytechnic Institute received the EPA’s Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award in 2003
there are a myriad of reasonsthat instructors may decide to forgo live demonstrations, two common reasons for doing so arethat they doubt the effectiveness of live demonstrations, or that the time required to develop andimplement an effective demonstration prohibits instructors from utilizing them.As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, instructors around the world were forced to adapt theircourses to be delivered remotely. While the vast majority of classes have returned to traditionalin-person formats, instructors retain the skills required to produce effective teaching videos. Ithas been shown that online laboratory activities can have some unique advantages [1]. Thispresents an opportunity for instructors to develop pre-recorded demonstration
ascending survey during an NSF training session. Thepossible responses to survey questions were listed worst-to-best. Both the questions and possibleresponses were detailed focusing on the goal, experience and performance associated with eachlevel. I do not remember if the performance level was mentioned. If so, it was not necessary. Ithought I could use this experience to better determine the effectiveness of pedagogicaltechniques based on student feedback.I had five pedagogical goals for the Engineering Materials course I was teaching. They were: 1: Students will successfully perform at the analysis and synthesis levels of Blooms Taxonomy throughout the course. 2: Students will value the integrated laboratory experience. 3
Session 2665 Incorporating Engineering into High School Algebra and Trigonometry: An Initiative of the Georgia Tech Student and Teacher Enhancement Partnership (STEP) Program William H. Robinsona, Adam O. Austina, Demetris L. Geddisa, Donna C. Llewellynb, and Marion C. Usselmanc a School of Electrical and Computer Engineering/ b Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning (CETL)/ c Center for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics
. Giddlings, and J. C. McRobbie, “Evolution and Validation Form of an Instrument For Assessing Science Laboratory Classroom Environments”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), pp.399-422, 1995.2) M. Barak and Y. Doppelt, “Promoting Creative Thinking Within Technology Education”, Paper presented at the International Workshop for Scholars in Technology Education, WOCATE, George Washington University, Washington DC, September 1998.3) N. D. Perkins, Technology Meets Constructivism: Do They Make a Marriage?, T. M. Duffy & H. D. Jonassen Eds., “Constructivism and Technology of Instruction: A Conversation”, ;;.45-55, Hillsdale, NJ, 1992.4) S. Waks, “Lateral Thinking and Technology Education”, Journal of Science
Layne Professor of Mechanical Engineering at WKU, and primarily teaches in the dynamicsystems and instrumentation areas. His industrial experience includes positions at Michelin Research and OakRidge National Laboratory, as well as extensive professional practice in regional design and manufacturing firms.He can often be found with his four children in his home machine shop building steam engines and repairing jeeps. Page 10.20.6“Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2005, American Society for Engineering Education”
planning.The program incorporates Information Technology (IT) to facilitate students’ creativity andindependent thinking. Lectures, tutorials, laboratory sessions, design projects, practical training,industrial visits and seminars are employed to equip the students with principles and practicalaspects of CE.In both institutions, students typically complete the degree course requirement in four years. Atthe UF, a bachelor degree study is divided into two phases: general education and upperdivisions. In the first two years, students take: Writing for Engineer, Humanities, Social &Behavior Science ,General Chemistry, General Chemistry Laboratory, Analytical Geometry &Calculus, Physics with Calculus and Physics Laboratory (see Table 1).In the
engineer, should never be lost as part of the educational process,and cannot be reproduced by “virtual” laboratory experiences, useful though some of them maybe. Another compelling reason for hands-on experience in laboratory is preparation for research.This is often overlooked in these arguments, but lab can be a place where the student makes uphis or her mind that research may be interesting or not interesting to pursue. In my own personalexperience I can remember one lab in particular that was not particularly exciting, but stirred myinterest in research, because it was set up like a research project. Similar anecdotal stories havebubbled up from our students in my teaching experience at Villanova and elsewhere. In our laboratory
Session 2793 Do’s and Don’ts of Introducing Active Learning Techniques Kevin Nickels Trinity UniversityAbstractEach year at ASEE we hear of all sorts of wonderful active learning techniques that engineeringeducators are using to involve their students in the classroom. This paper relates the experiencesof one new engineering educator in trying out some active learning techniques in his classroom. As with other teaching techniques, instructors must carefully evaluate active learning tech-niques not only for pedagogic soundness but also for fit with their
a learning community that is focusing on the Computer Aided Drafting andDesign and Manufacturing Processes courses.At Farmingdale State College, Computer Aided Drafting and Design (CADD) is a requiredfreshman course for Mechanical Engineering Technology AAS and BS and ManufacturingEngineering Technology BS programs. It is a 3-credit and 4-contact hour course. The courseconsists of a lecture component and a laboratory component. In the lecture component, theinstructor introduces the class materials to the students. The students will then practice theirCADD skills in the laboratory component. The course teaches students technical drawings, 2Dcomputer aided drafting, and 3D modeling. These topics are closely related. The course isessential for
accepted into a graduate course of study focusing on biomedical ultrasound at the University of Rochester in 1992 and received his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering in 1998. He served as a scientist and an assistant professor of research in the Diagnostic Ultrasound Laboratory of Dr. Robert C. Waag at the University of Rochester from 1998 until 2000 at which time he was accepted into a tenure track teaching position in the Electrical Engineering Department at the Rochester Institute of Technology where he received tenure and a promotion to Associate Professor in 2006. His interests include biomedical applications of electrical engineering including signal processing and embedded systems
Paper ID #37075Non-traditional Delivery of Hands-on ManufacturingCoursesIsmail Fidan (Professor) Dr. Fidan serves as a Professor in the Department of Manufacturing and Engineering Technology at Tennessee Technological University. His research and teaching interests are in additive manufacturing, electronics manufacturing, distance learning, and STEM education. Dr. Fidan is a member and active participant of SME, ASEE, ABET, ASME, and IEEE. He is also the Associate Editor of IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging, and Manufacturing Technology, Journal of Engineering Technology, Journal of Advanced
also active in educational research and course and curriculum development. He is a Fellow of the ASME.Dr. James I. Craig, Georgia Institute of Technology Prof. Craig has been on the faculty at Georgia Tech for more than fifty years and continues to teach as an emeritus professor and to develop classroom engagement methods and tools. His past research is in the general area of experimental structural mechanics, dynamics and structural control with applications to aerospace and earthquake engineering. He is coauthor of a textbook on structural analysis with application to aerospace structures.Dr. Bonnie H. Ferri, Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Bonnie Ferri is a Professor in the School of Electrical and Computer
Engineering Education”After the PLC overview, we proceeded to the programming software. The best methodfor teaching the software is via lab activities that require the students to develop ladderlogic programs designed to control a process. The six laboratory activities that weutilized are the: Industrial start cycle with an automated stop function; Conveyor systemwith indicating lights; Timing six sequential outputs; Automated palletized materialhandling system; Computerized parking garage; and the Vehicle intersection traffic lightcontroller.Laboratory Activity One - Industrial start cycle with an automated stop function.The goal of this laboratory activity is to create a program and wire input and outputdevices that will replicate an industrial
in History (emphasize in Education and Material Culture)from West Texas A&M University; Bachelors of Science in Mass Communications/Journalism (emphasize in Public Relations) from West Texas State University. Outreach Coordinator for the WTAMU Department of Engineering and Computer Science, duties in- cluding the design and conducting of outreach to area primary and secondary schools, organization and coordination of a summer engineering camp along with workshops for secondary teachers and profes- sional engineers. Part time instructor for the WTAMU Department of Communications, duties including teaching of a basic communications class.Dr. Freddie J Davis P.E., West Texas A&M University
four-mask, nine-step nMOS process using 100 µm rules for use with 4-inch wafers that can be completed bystudents working in teams of four in six two-hour laboratory periods. Our masksets and theprocesses used were developed in less than a year, primarily by senior level students in materials,chemical, and electrical engineering.I. IntroductionVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, under the auspices of the VirginiaMicroelectronics Consortium (VMEC), the Bradley Department of Electrical and ComputerEngineering, and the Materials Science and Engineering Department, has developed an 1,800 ft 2Class 10,000 cleanroom for teaching the elements of the microchip fabrication process to amultidisciplinary cohort of students from all areas