motivatingfellow students as employees, negotiating with suppliers, and financial decision-making.Controversial IssuesPerhaps the majority of discussion regarding the formation of HSE focused on a few issues,described in the following sub-sections. While some of these issues were anticipated, othersproved more controversial than originally expected.Bonuses and CompensationAdvisors and supervisors of student agencies at other universities warned that one of the mostdifficult issues would be formulating policies regarding bonuses and salaries for managers.Discussions reflected differing perspectives on the value of simplicity, flexibility, and incentives.The simplest alternative is to pay each manager a fixed percentage of profits of his/her enterpriseat
. c. Empathy: ability to feel what another person is feeling. d. They must know what it feels like not to understand. They must be creative, able to explain a concept by using stories, drawings, analogies, or metaphors. e. Be well organized, with good planning and preparation skills. Page 12.669.8 f. Be capable of reflecting on his/her performance. g. Whenever a new material is taught, allow for reviews by using sample exercises/questions to ensure if the student understands the material. h. Too much correcting, especially early in your relationship, may discourage the
70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70Difference +10 +9 +7 +12 +10 +8 +10 +5 +9 +5 +9 +19 +17 +16 Page 12.1314.11 Figure 1. Comparison of QuACO and COS Results for the Fall 2004 SemesterThe results indicate that all of the program outcomes are meeting the critical minimum of 70%.In general, however, students perform as well as or better than their own self-evaluation. It isdifficult to determine if this is a true self-reflection or if students are simply “hedging their bets.”Students seem to over-predict their abilities in outcomes (a) An
havepresented the framework of the model and use an example of student work to furtherdemonstrate how the model works. We also present a modified-jigsaw cooperative-learningapproach that is suitable for providing engineering laboratory experiences for large classes thatinvolve 100 or more students. A specific example of weekly laboratory assignments is alsopresented to demonstrate how the modified-jigsaw approach works. Student evaluations to ourwork are overwhelmingly positive.AcknowledgementsThis material is partially based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation underGrant No. 0536415. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed inthis material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views
industrial concentrationstudents to fundamental manufacturing processes, primarily involving metals. Concepts,terminology, and technology, rather than analysis, are emphasized. Video footage of vintage andmodern manufacturing processes and equipment is incorporated into essentially every lectureperiod to help illustrate, and increase students’ comprehension of, the course material.Furthermore, multiple industrial tours are scheduled and conducted to get the students out in thefield to see, hear, occasionally smell, and subsequently reflect upon and report on real-worldmanufacturing processes, equipment, and enterprises. These two pedagogical aspects of thecourse are included specifically to address the needs of students who prefer visual and/or
Career Services personnel as well as engineering faculty to guarantee thatthe resumes would satisfy both technical and non-technical reviewers. Often in the past, studentswould seek out either Career Services staff or engineering faculty for informal resume critiques,but this exercise forced them to go through the process of seeking input from both, resulting inenhanced quality of the resumes created.In the first few weeks of class, students also identified and reflected upon their career goals forthe next year, the next five years, and beyond. The class discussed salaries to be expected,potential job options, possible benefits, opportunities for advancement, and lifelong learning.Students and faculty also spent time as a group discussing how to
student learning and immediate feedback on student performance. Research on learning theoryhas long shown that immediate feedback is an effective tool in increasing learning efficiency11.For the case study at hand, the effect of immediate feedback is reflected by the trend thatstudents in the fall 2005 class had highest improvement on quiz and homework scores. As aresult of solving problems in class with instructor’s guidance, the fall 2005 students not onlylearned material but gained confidence on the material such that they were more successful incompleting homework assignments and were better prepared for quizzes. Consequently, thecompletion and submission rates of homework assignments for the fall 2005 were observed to bemuch higher compared
for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Chicago, USA.31 Kimmel, H., Burr-Alexander, L.E., and Bloom, J., “Engineering Design Competitions: A Motivating & Learning Experience”, International Conference on Engineering Education, October 16-21, 2004, Gainesville, Florida.32 Somers, L. and Callan, S., “An Examination of Science and Mathematic Competitions”, National Science Foundation Grant Report, June 1999.This paper is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. ESI-0554405. Anyopinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and donot necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation
. We make the followingobservations from Fig. 1: • Organization was noticeably improved; this could probably be attributed to the fact that all assignments in this sample were laboratory reports were apparently created using standardized guides or templates. • Neither author noted much change in the quality of the content of laboratory reports. This is somewhat surprising, given the expectation that students at this level would be adapting to the idiom of their professional communities of discourse. A possible explanation is that wide discrepancies in participants’ writing samples were noted, and this range of responses was reflected in the overall rating. • Evaluations of mechanics showed problems
. They feared that studentlearning is difficult to stimulate in evening classes because almost 90 percent of these studentsheld a full-time job. Their comments were well taken because PowerPoint presentations can bemisused. As mentioned by Estes et al., PowerPoint presentations may incorporate more materialthan the students are able to absorb, provide an inflexible structure that can hide spontaneity, andcause passivity 4.The author valued the comments from other faculty but did not want to be pressured tocompletely change his teaching style to adapt to the CCNY norms of teaching. The fact of thematter is that people have different learning styles that are reflected in different academicstrengths, weaknesses, skills, and interest5. In this paper
, and Cocking’s5 text HowPeople Learn (HPL) provides a framework for such learning environments. This frameworkemphasizes the importance of not only centering on the formalism of the knowledge to belearned, but also on factors centering on the learner, how they learn the specific content,assessments (both formative and summative) and issues of community (e.g. in undergraduateeducation this could include the classroom, department, university and specific profession)The general instructional design principles governing problem-based learning are: • Provide a context for knowing (conditions of when and how to use the knowledge) • Encourage reflection, refine and reapplication of knowledge • Continual test of knowledge (formative assessment
-alone software product and not as a web-basedapplication. Additionally, this data shows that decreasing the time delays inherent to a networkor software application does not improve learning in a proportional manner. From a cost-benefitspoint of view, only changes that result in the near-elimination of network delays to levels lessthan 60 ms are worthwhile. Page 12.1241.9Students’ subjective comprehension are harder to model than either objective comprehension orenjoyment ratings, possibly because a student’s self-confidence is more a function of personalitytraits rather than reflective of the learning experience. The graph is, therefore
it. They are being heldresponsible for coming to class every time and participating in class. They would much rather befree to skip class when they want to and get the notes off the web or from a friend. With the firstclass I taught using clickers, this was a major issue and was reflected in the end-of-termevaluations. In the conclusions section, I will describe how I tried to deal with that with mysecond class.The final disadvantage, that I have found is that it takes time to develop good questions andmultiple choice responses for use in class. The numeric format of the clickers only allows asingle number to be entered, so numeric problems must be structured to allow the students toenter the numbers in a reasonable format (e.g., rather than
software was better than theirown program to complete the project and understand the concepts, and whether or not it shouldbe given to the students in the future semesters. The results from this evaluation were promisingwith a score of 4.47 and 4.24 respectively (with “1” as worst and “5” as best) for these questionsand the same was reflected in the quality of reports submitted by the students. It was noted thateven the weak students in the class had minimal mistakes in the solution which supports the Page 12.1285.6underlying concept behind the development of this software
/journal/2003/mills_treagust03.pdf6 Moesby, E. "Presentation to the Study Board at Victoria University”, July 18th, 20067 Moesby, E., “Reflections on making a change towards Project Oriented and Problem-Based Learning, (POPBL)”, World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education 2004 UICEE, Vol.3, No.2, 2004. Page 12.1452.14
beginning of the semesterTeams of four students are formed within the first three weeks of semester. In the first session,students learned about the available projects through descriptions and videos; a plant visitfollowed in the second week. To create healthy competition among teams and to ensure high-quality projects, teams were set up according to the characteristics of the members. Using thestudents’ academic record, teams’ average grade point average (GPA) were equal or very close.Also, an online questionnaire, developed by Richard Felder and Barbara Soloman at NorthCarolina State University, was used to evaluate students’ learning style and strategies [7]. On thisquestionnaire, a person’s learning style, such as active and reflective, sensing
that in the USA the female retention rate in CS programs is not very high; aconsiderable number of women change their mind about having a career in CS soon afterentering the program. When setting up the study, we were curious about the female retention ratein CS programs in Armenia. That information is even more interesting now, in the light of abovepresented data.Through interviews with university administrators, we established that in Armenia changingone’s major is an extremely rare act; apparently, in the soviet educational system the procedureof changing a major is so complicated that it is hardly ever practiced. Therefore, there is noofficial data reflecting student satisfaction with their major. Nevertheless, our survey results shed
possible high school GPA to matching bridgestudents. Additionally, students for the control cohort are matched to reflect the relativedistribution of College of Engineering and University Studies students: a more accuraterepresentation of the overall group. It should be pointed out that University Studies students forthe control cohort were those that indicated engineering as their first choice of major but weredeferred to US.A pre- and post-program survey was administered online at the start of the program and sixweeks into the fall semester to gauge student feedback. Students are asked to evaluate theirbridge experience in relation with their current semester.Results and discussionA demographic summary of STEP Bridge participants for the first
Page 12.404.2below.Consideration of customer needs in design: Customer-oriented product development is becomingmore and more important due to globalization, increased competitiveness, rapid technologicalchange and discriminating customers2. As a part of the product development process,engineering design should reflect the results of a multifunctional team’s work on identifyingtechnical design characteristics based on gathering and understanding customer expectations. Forexample, a product may not meet customer requirements if the marketing division in a companydoes not work as a team with the product development division. This may result in low profitssince the target customer’s needs are not incorporated to the design adequately.Risk and
draft versions of the teaching award were sent in advance to all Section membersto allow time for review and reflective thought. Both alternatives are included in the Appendix.The first alternative would recognize faculty members who have demonstrated exceptionalcontributions to engineering or engineering technology education through outstanding classroomperformance. This award is targeted at more experienced faculty. The second alternative wouldrecognize new faculty (less than five years of teaching experience) who has demonstratedexcellence in the classroom. The basic purpose of alternative two was to promote moreparticipation and involvement by junior faculty at the annual Section conference. Respondentswere asked if there is a need for a
knowledge to make some judgment on the quality of their solutions.4. Model Documentation: A written, deliverable product should be produced at the end of theMEA. This is typically in the form of a memo to the company, but could also be in the form of acomputer program, algorithm, or even a physical product. Their documentation helps students toreview and reflect upon the development of their model, and allows the instructor to examine thestudents’ conceptual understanding of the material and their problem solving strategies.5. Generalizability: The solutions to the model should be readily usable to the client – thisrequires that the product memo be clear, well-written, and easy to implement. A strong MEAalso requires the solution to be readily
design notebooks. MCPS teachers were especiallyhelpful to the undergraduates in their efforts to teach the design process to the high-schoolstudents by agreeing to grade their students’ assignments (some of which were conceived andassigned by the capstone students) and logbooks at the request of the engineering students. Inaddition, the engineering students were periodically required to generate progress memos, a mid-semester report, and a final design report as part of their requirements for ME 4015. At theconclusion of the robot redesign at mid-semester, the engineering students made a 30-minuteprofessional presentation to faculty advisors, teachers, and high-school students. After thisevent, time was dedicated to self-reflection by the
andsocial sciences legs and the obligation to develop these within the profession broadly, asa matter of basic professional competence.The 20th century has seen a major expansion in the math and science ‘legs’ that supportcivil engineering education. Reflecting this heritage, the natural science and math ‘legs’are separately and explicitly articulated in the current ABET outcome 3(a) [An ability toapply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering] . The importance of mathand natural science to civil engineering education is further emphasized by splitting thisABET outcome 3(a) into four separate outcomes in the current working draft of thesecond edition of the BOK. In addition there are ABET outcomes 3(c) [An ability todesign a system
, none of the available tools accurately reflected the laboratory materialenough to warrant use in the course. Most of the existing simulators either did not use thedesired antenna configurations or did not facilitate altering the desired parameters of interest.The tools that did allow the detailed examination of the desire parameters of interest were toocomplicated and contained too many features for the simple pre-lab exercise. Also, none of thetools attempted to explain the underlying theory in a way suitable for students. Thus, it wasdetermined that a simulation tool should be developed by the university to facilitate the needs ofthe dipole antenna laboratory study.The end product of this development is a suite of four simulation tools
approach of this research is to employ an outreach program as a non-classroom basedpedagogy of engagement. A number of non-outreach opportunities outside the classroom forengineering students have been studied to determine if they do indeed encourage intentionallearning goals and active reflection by the student on what he or she learns throughout theexperience.[22-25] These opportunities range from volunteer community service to field education,such as internships and co-ops.[26] Research has shown that these experiences not only allowstudents to gain a sense of civic responsibility, but that they also help students to developprofessional teamwork and communication skills, assist in identifying career paths, preparestudents for the demands of
disciplines to utilize this new teaching/learning paradigm, developproject-centric coursework, deploy the project-centric course to BSC students, and form the basisfor continuous improvement in the curriculum as needed to reflect this new teaching/learningparadigm. The BSC professors were provided the necessary mentoring and tools to develop anddeploy a course that facilitates multidisciplinary teaching/learning, thus advancing thepreparation of current and future generations of scientists, engineers, and educators.Project-Centric Cyberinfrastructure Education: Course DevelopmentImplementation of a project-centric teaching paradigm was aimed at engaging students inapplying the concepts of cyberinfrastructure. During the process of course development
, and a take-home activity; details for each are included below.Within a set of activities, the middle school students should be exposed to educational activitiesranging from basic comprehension to design and evaluation to reflecting on what they’ve learnedat home. The design team used Bloom’s Taxonomy7 as a guideline in this, and similar goalshave been set for other middle school engineering modules8. Kits developed to date include HeatTransfer, Chemical Energy, Electrical Energy, Solar Power, and Wind and Water Power.Instruction Manual: The instruction manual consists of a guide sheet, lesson plans, handouts,and assessment forms. The contents of the Instruction Manuals are available online so teacherscan browse and decide which kit(s) to use
that welearned is to have all of the required materials prepared well in advance.This EDP was also more difficult for the students. They have a large variety of materialsto choose from (as opposed to being restricted to a two-liter soda bottle) and amultifaceted problem: focus on scoring or attacking the opponent, speed versecontrollability, etc.; the number of tradeoffs is significant. The LEGO sets are capable ofbuilding very complex machines but the rules of the contest limit the size that the cadetscan use and a single nine volt battery power supply rewards those who design efficiently.The student satisfaction with the EDPs throughout the course is reflected in the followingstudent comments: “The past 26 lessons have been quite
misconduct. These will always be fundamental concerns. But there ismore to engineering ethics than this. There is the more positive side that focuses on doing one'swork responsibly and well, whether in the workplace or in community service22.Service learning may be defined as22: Credit-bearing educational experience in which studentsparticipate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs and reflect onthe service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of the course content, abroader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility.The concept of service learning is not new to higher education, or to the engineeringprofession22. The idea of integrating service with education has
multidisciplinary senior capstone design class and the criteria that itspecifically was responsible for meeting. It was (and is) felt that this course was the maincomponent that links the curriculum together, and, therefore, it was also the linchpin of verifyingfulfillment of the various criteria.The first document also focused on certain curriculum issues that were present at the time in2000. Several of the survey and interview questions used for all data sources (students, alumni,industry recruiters, etc.) reflected concerns about certain classes, course sequences, and overallcurriculum flow. Although not intended as such, this document provided a history of these issuesfor new faculty to review and become familiar with history of curriculum development