0.665 Factor 2 (projects and case studies) 2 0.676The data analysis sorted the 11 ABET outcome items into two groups. It was found that items 1 Page 25.1339.6through 5, 7, and 11 were grouped together into factor 1, and items 6 and 8 through 10 weresorted together into factor 2. On reflection, the authors decided to term these factors “technicaldevelopment” and “professional development.”The outcomes grouped under technical development mostly refer to the “number crunching”skills in engineering, specifically outcomes 1 through 3, 5, and 11. The other two, items 4 and 7,can be thought of as soft skills that
experiment server while still maintaininga secure level of communication. With this interface, no add-ons or plug-ins will need to beinstalled on any computer, and anyone with a web browser and internet access will be able to usethe interface to control an experiment remotely.AcknowledgmentsThis work is partially supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Numbers EEC-0935208, EEC-0935008, and DUE-0942778.Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are thoseof the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.Bibliography[1] Ambrose, S. A., & Amon , C. H. (1997). Systematic design of a first-year mechanical engineering course at Carnegie Mellon
the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe National Science Foundation.Bibliography[1] Avouris, P. (2004). Supertubes. IEEE Spectrum , 41-45.[2] Buzatu, D. A., Biris, A. S., Biris, A. R., Lupu, D. M., Darsey, J. A., & Mazumder, M. K. (2004). Electronic Properties of Single-Wall Carbon Nanotubes and Their Dependence on Sythetic Methods. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications , 1215-1219.[3] Meletov, K. P., Krestinin, A. V., Arvanitidis, J., Christofilos, D., & Kourouklis, G. A. (2010). Thermally Induced Softening of the Radial Breathing Modes of Bundled Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes. Fullerenes, Nanotubes, and Carbon Nanostructures , 538-544.[4] Saito, R., Dresselhaus, G., & Dresselhaus, M. S
reflect the views of the NSF. Page 25.892.17References[1] Millard, Don, "Work in Progress: Hands-On Exploration of the "Big Ideas" in Electric Circuits," 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Diego, CA, October 28-31, 2006, pp. M4D-3 to M4D-5.[2] Martinez, Angel and Steve Warren, "RASCL: A Portable Circuit Prototyping Laboratory," 2007 Annual Conference and Exposition, American Society for Engineering Education, Honolulu, Hawaii, June 24-27, 2007.[3] Millard, Don, "Workshop - Improving Student Engagement and Intuition with the Mobile Student Pedagogy," 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education
-1106529, Research Experience for Teachers in Manufacturing for Competitiveness in theUnited States (RETainUS). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe National Science Foundation. Page 25.13.12Appendix – PHREEQC Program Input Files USING HYDROGEN USING DITHIONITESOLUTION 1 PHASES Temp 25 Dithionite pH 7 Na2S2O4 = 2Na++ (S2O4)2- pe 4 Log_ k -4.58
cost low.AcknowledgementsSupport provided by the National Science Foundation CMMI-1000954. Any opinions, findings,and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1] Lidwell, W., Holden, K., and Butler, J., Universal principles of design: 125 ways to enhance usability, influence perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions, and teach through design: Rockport Pub, 2010.[2] Otto, K.N., and Wood, K.L., Product design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000.[3] NASA," Common Lunar Lander Detailed Design Study",JSC-26094,Houston, TX, 1993.[4
in engineering.Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are thoseof the authors and do not necessarily reflect views of the National Science Foundation. Page 25.1367.17
progresses, the fact those online students have less interaction with the instructor is reflected Page 25.1396.15 by the increase in their time spent on the exercises and their perceived difficulty levels.3. When the difficulty level (NDI) of the lab exercise is high, as seen in Lab 6 (NMR), on- campus students may learn slightly better than the on-line students. Lab 6 is generally considered by students as much more difficult than other labs. Students' behavior in this lab is worth careful study.4. Lab 7 has relatively low NDIs and high PPIs across all semesters. This may have an interesting implication, i.e. students tend to learn
Foundation under Grant No.EEC-1106529, Research Experience for Teachers in Manufacturing for Competitiveness in theUnited States (RETainUS). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe National Science Foundation.Bibliography1. University of Georgia, River Basin Center (no date). Georgia’s Aquifers. Retrieved January 8, 2012, from http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/education/summit/general/geology/ aquifers.htm.2. Brain, M., & Lamb, R. (2000, October 9). How Nuclear Power Works. Retrieved July 6, 2011, from http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm .3. Texas Mining and Reclamation Association [TMRA] (no date). In
programs, the size of the population studied will expand and the influence of one ortwo students on the overall average performance will be reduced. Furthermore, study of theoverall program goal of increasing retention and graduation rates from CEAS will need to bepostponed until sufficient time has passed for students to graduate.AcknowledgmentsPartial support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation's Science,Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP) under Award No.0757055. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. The authors would also like to thank
thesurvey and we will have a better chance to examine the relations between engineers and students.AcknowledgementThis material is supported by the National Science Foundation under EEC Grant Numbers 1129403and 1129411. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations presented are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1] Field, D.A., (2004). Education and training for cad in the auto industry. Computer-Aided Design, 36 (14), 1431-1437.[2] Hamade, R.F., Artail, H.A. & Jaber, M.Y., (2007). Evaluating the learning process of mechanical cad students. Computers & Education, 49 (3), 640-661.[3] Ye, Z., Peng, W., Chen, Z. & Cai, Y.-Y., (2004