both graduate-level and senior undergraduate students. Mostenrolled students are Mechanical Engineering undergraduates who take the course as anadvanced elective, with the remainder coming from Mechanical Engineering or Bioengineeringgraduate programs. The course, which has reached capacity enrollment (30+ students) formultiple years, is taught in a computer laboratory with one student per computer. The instructoris accompanied by one graduate teaching assistant (GTA) during active learning class sessions.The overall learning objective of the course is to teach students to use modern computersimulation software to solve engineering problems in a virtual space. Students programsimulated models to represent realistic dynamic behaviors of
. o Finishing preliminary experiments and project progress report by July 15, 2017. o Developing system prototype and finishing final project report before Fall 2017 semester. o Participating in the Nineteenth Annual Student Research and Creativity Conference (late April/early May, 2018). During the project, the student • Presented and obtained the advisor’s feedback on the student’s research at scheduled meetings. • Improved the student’s scientific knowledge by discussing scientific literature with the advisor and other colleagues. • Received training in lab safety and responsible conduct of research. • Became involved in lab operations such as ordering laboratory supplies
using different methods. This concept studies both linear and angular displacement, velocity, and acceleration of the connected rigid bodies. • Synthesis of the mechanism to follow certain motion criteria.Moreover, some of the other skills that students gained during this experiential learning activitywere: • Prototype simulation using commercial software ADAMS (Automated Dynamic Analysis of Mechanical Systems) to obtain the motion variables • Motion simulation and modeling of the prototype by writing a code in MATLAB (Matrix Laboratory) based on the theoretical equations learned throughout the term • Laser-cutting experience by fabricating the mechanism, which is in-line with the results of analyses and simulations • Soft skills
demarcated, which makes contextual conditions important tothe analysis [8]. A case study methodology is not bound by any specific type of data but, more sothan other methodologies (e.g. historical, laboratory, etc.), requires the convergence of differenttypes of data sources for strengthening the validity and accuracy of the findings [8]. This meansthat case study research often requires multiple research methods for collecting data. One way that validity can be constructed in case study research is through the process ofcomparing and converging multiple sources of evidence, otherwise known as “triangulation” [8].For the case of Julie’s teaching and coaching, data included field notes, audio and visual materi-als (i.e. digital audio
, Brooklyn, NY, where he is serving as a research assistant under an NSF-funded ITEST project.Dr. Vikram Kapila, NYU’s Tandon School of Engineering Vikram Kapila is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at NYU Tandon School of Engineering (NYU Tandon), where he directs a Mechatronics, Controls, and Robotics Laboratory, a Research Experience for Teachers Site in Mechatronics and Entrepreneurship, a DR K-12 research project, and an ITEST re- search project, all funded by NSF. He has held visiting positions with the Air Force Research Laboratories in Dayton, OH. His research interests include K-12 STEM education, mechatronics, robotics, and con- trol system technology. Under a Research Experience for Teachers Site, a DR K-12
Paper ID #29001The Impacts on Peer Tutors of Leading Group Supplemental Instruction forFirst-Year Engineering StudentsMs. Caroline Ghio, Northeastern University Caroline is a fourth-year undergraduate student at Northeastern University, majoring in chemical engi- neering. Outside of class, Ghio works as a chemistry tutor and participates in undergraduate research in a biomaterials laboratory on campus.Ms. Sydney Anne Morris, Northeastern University Sydney Morris is a third year undergraduate student studying chemical engineering at Northeastern Uni- versity. She has been involved in the Connections Chemistry Review
Paper ID #29366The Role of Timely Actionable Student Feedback in Improving Instructionand Student Learning in Engineering CoursesDr. Petros Sideris, Zachry Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Texas A&M University Dr. Sideris is an Assistant Professor at the Zachry Department of Civil and Environment Engineering at Texas A&M University, since 2017. Prior to joining Texas A&M, Dr. Sideris was an Assistant Professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, where he also served as the Director of the Structures and Materials Testing Laboratory. He received his Master’s (2008) and Ph.D. (2012) in Civil
outcome expectations as manyquestioned their likelihood for success in the tenure-track job market.Following Stake’s (1995) third step of pattern recognition, more precise content was developedthrough grouping associated data, developing fuse codes, and refining the themes identifiedacross the interview data. This process enabled the researchers to identify common backgroundexperiences that influenced career interests and, ultimately, career decisions. For instance,postdoctoral scholars who experienced strong, formalized mentoring as students desired toreplicate mentoring in their laboratories, and those who had support and resources to do so feltempowered and optimistic they could continue this work as a professor. Those who experiencedbarriers
internships in Manufacturing and Quality Engineering. His current work is investigating the implementation of select emergent pedagogies and their effects on student and instructor performance and experience in undergraduate engineering. His other interests include the philosophy of engineering education, engineering ethics, and the intersecting concerns of engineering industry and higher education.Prof. Charles Morton Krousgrill, Purdue University at West Lafayette Charles M. Krousgrill is a Professor in the School of Mechanical Engineering at Purdue University and is affiliated with the Ray W. Herrick Laboratories at the same institution. He received his B.S.M.E. from Purdue University and received his M.S. and Ph.D
district curriculum specialist in theWE2NG program was a huge asset to the other teachers participating that summer and played acritical role in vertical and horizontal collaboration efforts.Summer Program WE2NG summer trainings begin with an orientation session that includes an introduction to campusand the various research projects connected to the WE2NG program, as well as a laboratory safetytraining. In the weeks following orientation, teachers spent two and a half days per week immersed ina research project that best fit the needs of their classroom goals. They also spent one day per weekat a teacher-training workshop (various topics), one day per week on an industry field trip related towater and energy, and a half day focusing on
, which is rooted in the concept of providing a hands-on learning experience tostudents. As hands-on learning is the prevalent way of education in ET programs throughout theworld, a majority of the courses taught in the programs have a laboratory component. On theother hand, capstone design projects (senior design projects) are a common hands-on course forfinal year undergraduate students across all engineering and technology disciplines.The capstone design courses provide an opportunity for undergraduate students to get involvedin open-ended real-world problems. The courses help students explore the societal need to applytheir knowledge gained over the years of undergraduate engineering or engineering technologyeducation. Starting with the
idea of doing research on one’s ownteaching [18] are both relevant. This idea has also been taken up (independently) in the US byAngelo and Cross [22], and Cross and Steadman [23]. The former concerning ClassroomAssessment Techniques (CATS), and the latter, classroom research. We are strongly influencedhere by the position of Patricia Cross, who claimed that teaching in higher education would notacquire status until teachers treated their classrooms as laboratories for research. The “new”discipline of engineering education research, the question of who should be doing it, and how itcan be accomplished with rigor has been discussed at FIE and ASEE since 2000 [24]. Takentogether, these essays argue that there is such a thing as a “scholarship of
80% lecture as demonstrated in study afterstudy.Student participation in engineering classrooms is limited and highly structured. The studentexperience is largely to solve problems in a methodical fashion, and accessing knowledgethrough sequential presentation of textbook material. Though laboratory assignments arecommon in undergraduate engineering, historically, the majority of the student experience hasconsisted of strictly following prescribed steps to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. In theirseminal work with science, engineering, and math undergraduates Seymour and Hewitt found themajority of engineering teaching to be a deductive transmission of facts, controlled by theteacher, and leaving little room for students to understand
% 0% 1-20 20-50 50-75 75-100 100+ Number of students in section Figure 12. Section sizes in a given courseThe most common section size is 20 to 50 students for both type of introduction courses, but theytend to use different classroom types (Figure 13). Large lecture halls are the most commonclassroom for both course types. Higher fractions of the introduction to engineering courses usesmall classrooms and small group tables, and a higher fraction of the introduction to disciplinecourses use large lecture halls, smart classrooms (multimedia-enhanced), and laboratories. Theinterpretation of the different types of
Laboratory in the School of Engineering at Rens- selaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) and Professor of Practice in the Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering department from 1999 to 2015. He also worked at GE Corporate from 1987 to 1991, con- sulting and introducing world-class productivity practices throughout GE operations. In 1991 he joined GE Appliances and led product line structuring efforts resulting in $18 million annual cost savings to the refrigeration business. Later as a design team leader he led product development efforts and the initial 1995 market introduction of the Built-In Style line of GE Profile refrigerators. His last assignment at GE Appliances was in the Office of Chief Engineer in support of
. This percentage for engineering courses was mere 0.86%. This is unfortunate since theinfrastructure required for online education has been primary developed by engineers.The perceived obstacles in widespread integration of online courses in engineering curriculumscan be divided into two categories: physical obstacles and cultural obstacles. A major physicalbarrier is how to provide hands-on trainings, which traditionally take place in laboratories andmachine shops, in an online setting. However, this may not be a major problem since, contrary towhat one may expect, the data shows that online education is primary “local”. A little over half ofall students who took at least one online course took some face-to-face courses at the sameinstitution
in experimental mechanics, piezospectro- scopic techniques, epistemologies, assessment, and modeling of student learning, student success, student team effectiveness, and global competencies He helped establish the scholarly foundation for engineering education as an academic discipline through lead authorship of the landmark 2006 JEE special reports ”The National Engineering Education Research Colloquies” and ”The Research Agenda for the New Dis- cipline of Engineering Education.” He has a passion for designing state-of-the-art learning spaces. While at Purdue University, Imbrie co-led the creation of the First-Year Engineering Program’s Ideas to Inno- vation (i2i) Learning Laboratory, a design-oriented facility
in a chemical engineering laboratory for four semesters studying separation of human red blood cells from whole blood. After that, she spent four semesters studying engineering education, resulting in four publications. She also volunteers at a free clinic called Physicians Care Connections, the Dublin Food Pantry, and Sandlot Children’s Sports Camp. This fall she will begin her masters in Biomedical Engineering at Wright State University.Dr. Derek Breid, Saint Vincent College Derek Breid is an assistant professor of Engineering at Saint Vincent College. His interests include inte- grating active learning techniques into classic engineering courses, and studying the mechanical behavior of soft materials.Dr
Aerospace Engineering at Illinois since 2006, where he now serves as Associate Head for Undergraduate Programs. He holds an affiliate appointment in the Coordinated Science Laboratory, where he leads a research group that works on a diverse set of projects (http://bretl.csl.illinois.edu/). Dr. Bretl received the National Science Foundation Early Career Development Award in 2010. He has also received numerous awards for undergraduate teaching in the area of dynamics and control, including all three teaching awards given by the College of Engineering at Illinois (the Rose Award for Teaching Excellence, the Everitt Award for Teaching Excellence, and the Collins Award for Innovative Teaching
between the traditionally taught course andthe course taught with the active incorporation of concepts. A laboratory portion of the coursepreviously contributed to the course grade, but a curriculum change moved the laboratorycomponent into a separate course during the year concept maps were incorporated. Differenttypes of assessments were used at the two institutions in this study. No final exam was given inthe course at IUPUC. Instead, a standards-based approach to grading was used, with quizzes overspecific topics. Quizzes were graded “Pass” or “No Pass” based on specifications determined bythe instructor [19]. Students could re-attempt quizzes. The traditional course offering had 15students enrolled in the previous academic year. Both courses
, which will be discussed with examples below.Different views on technology and engineeringThere have been many attempts to understand the diversity and nature of young people’sviewpoints on engineering and technology. The Dutch BѐtaMentality [8] project discoveredfour profiles related to adolescents and technology: High Techs, Career Techs, SociallyMinded Generalists, and Non Techs. High Techs enjoy both science and technology. Theyare hands-on people who like practical examples and laboratory work. High Techs like tounderstand how things work and often have technology-related hobbies. Slightly less thanforty percent of the boys and a quarter of the girls fall into this category. Career Techs enjoytechnology as long as it works, but are not
to enhance theoverall quality of life in their cities. Collaborative, community-based projects to improve thebuilt environment can serve as a laboratory for student engagement, providing valuableexperience in a practical, real-world setting. The UAB Civil Engineering department has made aparticular effort to involve undergraduate and graduate engineering students in community-basedinitiatives with the goal of enhancing engineering education while improving the communitiessurrounding the university.Such efforts need not be ad hoc. Because of the successful involvement of engineering studentsin community-based initiatives, the UAB Civil Engineering department has developed a 3-credithour elective course where students can be part of this
Academy, served as a development engineer at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory at Kirt- land AFB in New Mexico and was the Requirements Officer for the Nellis AFB Ranges in Nevada. Prior to 2000, his research areas included pedagogy, outcomes based assessment, the study of periodic gratings used as antennas and in antenna systems, high power microwave interactions with large complex cavities, anechoic chambers, and anechoic chamber absorbing materials. Since 2000, he has been concentrating on engineering education pedagogy, engineering program accreditation, and outcomes based assessment for both engineering programs and general education. He continues to do research that advances inclusive excellence for engineering an
survey conducted using the “VR game development” keywords yielded 120 ASEEconference publications over the years including subjects such as VR centered project-basedlearning, system usability scale for Oculus Rift and Samsung Gear equipment, use of VR inSTEM e-learning, teaching drilling trajectory concepts, virtual laboratories for solar powertechnology. Architectural design education, engineering technology, graphics modeling andanimation courses were some of the application areas found. The following section list a few ofthe VR publications with a game content built in. A group of authors from foreign and USuniversities developed a VR game for GIS learning environment [3]. The authors focused on theownership content, stimulation of lateral
research team is also working on practical uses of laser scanningand digital twin to improve performance of ship repairs.In support of the three pillars, VDSP established three separate laboratories. Establishment of aDigital Shipbuilding Lab at VMASC (Figure 6) is tailored to hands-on engagement and project-based learning of Digital Shipbuilding skills. This lab is opened to stakeholders in early 2019throughout the region and state for training, technology development and research, andoutreach efforts including conferences, workshops, recruiting/job fairs, and STEM events. InAugust of 2019, VDSP partnering with the City of Newport News and Newport News Shipyard,opened the Brooks Crossing Innovation Lab (BCiLab). This lab is a first of its kind in
Department of Engineering Technology and Industrial Distribution at Texas A&M University. Prior to joining the faculty at Texas A&M, he was a senior product development engineer at the 3M Corporate Research Laboratory in St. Paul, Minnesota. He received his B.S. in mechanical engineering from Michigan State University and his S.M. and Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Johnson’s research focuses on engineering education, design tools; and computer-aided design methodology. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Warehouse workforce preparedness in the wake of Industry 4.0: A systematic literature
Laboratories and an adjunct faculty member in Electrical and Computer Engi- neering at the University of New Mexico. His broad research interests include engineering education, as well as control and optimization of nonlinear and hybrid systems with applications to power and energy systems, multi-agent systems, robotics, and biomedicine. He is a recipient of UCSB’s Center for Control, Dynamical Systems, and Computation Best PhD Thesis award.Ms. Alejandra Hormaza Mejia, University of California, Irvine Alejandra Hormaza Mejia is a PhD student in the department of mechanical and aerospace engineering at the University of California, Irvine. She received her B.S. in chemical engineering and M.S. in mechan- ical and aerospace
university usually did not follow theseguidelines although they believed writing to be an important tool for student to learn andunderstand.Universities and colleges have implemented various forms of writing for engineers over theyears; however, the implementations have mainly been at the course level and not an overallcurriculum change [4]. The need to assess the ABET outcome communicating with a broadaudience is usually the main driver of these changes with programs assessing how well thestudents communicate within the criteria set for the respective assignments. This means that thewriting is usually limited to laboratory write-ups, small class project reports, and a capstonepaper (usually written as a team). In addition, most programs offer no
homework. Eric has been a member of ASEE since 2001. He currently serves as awards chair for the Pacific Northwest Section and was the recipient of the 2008 Section Outstanding Teaching Award.Dr. Brian P. Self, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Brian Self obtained his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Engineering Mechanics from Virginia Tech, and his Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Utah. He worked in the Air Force Research Laboratories before teaching at the U.S. Air Force Academy for seven years. Brian has taught in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo since 2006. During the 2011-2012 academic year he participated in a professor exchange, teaching at the Munich