and after the adjustments, but again, minor changes were required to make it fullyoperational. The presuppositions that went into the design and implementation were insufficientto achieve functionality. There is some recognition of this problem in the literature on engineering laboratories.Feisel and Rosa [1] point out the lack of consensus on what constitutes proper laboratoryinstruction and the overall lack of consensus on what constitutes an appropriate laboratoryexperience. They decry the dearth of literature on learning objectives associated withinstructional engineering laboratories. In any earlier paper, Ernst [2] proposed as objectives thatstudents “should learn how to be an experimenter”, that the lab “be a place for the
instructors.Active distance learning environments typically capitalize on high-speed Internet connectionsusing televised lectures and demonstrations via satellite connections, video streaming, orconferencing applications. Typical streaming, collaboration, and conferencing applicationsinclude Adobe Connect Pro, MSN Messenger, Yugma, iPod/iPad, Google Chat, Skype,Facebook, YouTube, and others are typically utilized in the on-line teaching environment4.Couse Delivery Methodologies 1. Synchronous/real-time lectures Planning, designing, and implementing active learning in a distance education environment is similar to those activities for traditional classes except that planning for courses without face- to-face contact makes the design process particularly
GCS program components, including 1) hands-onproject/research experience, 2) interdisciplinary curriculum, 3) entrepreneurship, 4) globaldimension, and 5) service-learning. The authors discuss potential applications of the rubric toevaluate course-level outcomes, including student projects from an interdisciplinary courseentitled “Creatively Applying Science for Sustainability.” In the course, students work to addressa societal Grand Challenge in a semester-long project and in interdisciplinary student projectsthat tackle Grand Challenges on an international scale. This rubric fills a literature gap inassessing 21st century global engineering skills by measuring capabilities based on five key NAEGCS program components and provides a mechanism
participating, impactof each specific demonstration, responses by student gender, and responses by studentreported ethnic background; in order to evaluate the impact of demonstration inclusionacross multiple audiences.College Instructed Service CoursesThe engineering faculty behind the courses in this study all have traditional MechanicalEngineering undergraduate and doctoral degrees, but their home department and researchinterests are within the Institute for Excellence in Engineering Education, which is part ofthe Herbert Wertheim College of Engineering, at the University of Florida. This studyexamines the impact of demonstrations within three courses: 1) Computer Programmingfor Engineers Lab (MATLAB and C++), 2) Circuits, and 3) Dynamics. The
,whileSTEMandeducationfacultyteachcollegiatelevelcontentcoursesbothfacultiescouldbenefitfromrichercollaborationandcoordination.HowcanfutureK16+educatorsdevelopapipelineofSTEMmajorsandgraduateswithoutpartnershipsbetweenthefaculties?Weproposeacapstone model in which teams report to a multi-disciplinary advisory panel rather than a singleSTEM advisor. This paper highlights how a single Electrical and Computer Engineering and ComputerScience (ECECS) capstone project can 1) be influenced by a societal need, 2) develop soft skills of acapstone team, and 3) create lasting mutually beneficial partnerships between academic faculties andexternal partners.Purpose/Problem/Gap Learning, development and concept synthesis can take many paths – natural learning progressionsoften being though the manipulation and unguided interactions with our environment. Consider a childapproaching
of Labor, the job outlook is on the rise and willcontinue to expand for at least the short- to medium-term future [1]. To respond to the industryneeds for FPGA design skills, universities are updating their curriculum with courses inhardware description languages and programmable logic design. Although most traditionalelectrical and computer engineering programs have updated their curriculum to include topics inhardware description language and programmable logic design (FPGA/CPLD), only 19.5 % of 4-year and 16.5 % of 2-year electrical and computer engineering technology programs at USacademic institutions currently have a curriculum component in hardware description languageand programmable logic design [2].To effectively meet the next
possibility of a whole new generation of students primed forscience, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and careers. Makingpractices, facilities, and integrated makerspaces have been enthusiastically embraced withinengineering education programs at high school and university levels, and are proliferatingrapidly within diverse educational settings. Perhaps surprising to many within engineering andother STEM fields, making practices are also being embraced and adapted within thehumanities,1 particularly a branch of humanistic inquiry labeled “digital humanities.”2 Ashumanists organize research practices and supporting theoretical frameworks around making,new possibilities arise for using making practices to integrate technical
CommunityChange is hard, a truism that can be highlighted in engineering education in many ways. Themomentum of engineering education in traditional forms, and even the experiences of people inprofessional careers, is hard to shift, but many have tried.1 One can argue that the shift toABET’s EC2000 outcomes-based assessment was meant to serve as a change agent, but after adecade of implementation, engineering education looked pretty much the same. Small changesin programs sometimes stuck, and sometimes programs faded back to the way they were beforeany interventions were attempted. With the idea that maybe things could be different, thatmaybe change could last, a group of engineering educators got together to imagine what anengineering program could look
as these and present solutions for such challenges through acombination of technology and approach to teaching.1. introductionA primary goal of engineering education is to provide students with requisite technicalgrounding along with practice and experience in the design and evaluation of real andpractical systems. This goal becomes increasingly difficult with the expanding body ofknowledge, integration of concepts across disciplines, and complexity of design toolsneeded in engineering industries.1 While an expert/apprentice model of education maybe more fitting to preparing engineers for professional practice, traditional instructionmodels include in-person lectures covering fundamental technical concepts with thebulk of practice and
satisfaction that extends their scholarship on SocialCognitive Career Theory11. In this process model, the authors posit that worksatisfaction is influenced by 1) one’s affective traits, 2) participation in goal-directedactivities, 3) environmental supports and resources, 4) work self-efficacy and 5) bothexpected and received works conditions and outcomes. The relationship betweenenvironmental supports and resources and work satisfaction is both direct and indirect.Indirect factors include one’s participation in and progress toward goal-directedactivities as mediated by work self-efficacy and work conditions and outcomes. Theadvantage of this work satisfaction model is that it acknowledges both subjective andpsychological forms of well-being along
engineeringcurriculum. The six-week program consisted of four stages, introduction to Roboticsengineering, hardware design, robotics programming, and project development. The applicationof this courseware proved to be an effective way for students to realize their academiccapabilities and engage themselves in group projects. The course was held at Vaughn College ofAeronautics and Technology in Queens, New York. Based on the planned course layout the courseware has been developed as follows: (1)Introduction to Robotics engineering, such as engineering design steps and industrialapplications. The robot design implemented by college students who won the World Roboticscompetition has been utilized as an example in the class lecture; (2) Hardware design with
currently professor and academic Coordinator of College Engineering c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Paper ID #13289courses 1-DeVry Brazil Education Group. Has experience in the field of chemistry and Petrochemistry,and Mechanical Processes for the industry. Experience and knowledge in the area of transformationprocesses and information technology. Developed consulting for large companies in the area of controland technological innovation. Know the transformation processes of thermoplastics, with emphasis intechnology
to be accessible via a computer, tablet, or smartphone. The currentlyworking prototype was developed using HTML5 with Javascript. While the prototype wasdesigned for multiple platforms, it was primarily implemented and tested for iPads for the studyreported in this paper.Appendix A presents a series of screenshots from the working prototype on a tablet, whichillustrates the steps in one of the activities. In the beginning, the user is presented with a briefscenario or context for the activities (Fig. A-1). Immediately following, the user is presentedwith the initial screen that introduces the technical communication problem (Fig. A-2) and thenasked to (1) identify a problematic segment of a text (Fig. A-3), and (2) select an
critical industries of thiscentury: consumer electronics, food, solar & wind power, and advanced battery manufacturing toname just a few.” 1 Educational efforts presented in this paper are closely tied to the latest trendsspecified in "Investing in Next-Generation Robotics" platform by President Obama (June 24,2011) 2. The President has launched the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP), a nationaleffort bringing together industry, universities, and the federal government to invest in the Page 26.1250.2emerging technologies that will create high quality manufacturing jobs and enhance our globalcompetitiveness. One of the key steps being
the level of IPv6 readiness ofinternational universities is largely unknown. Secondly, the quality or “effectiveness” ofuniversities that have IPv6 web services enabled is also unknown. This study addresses thesetwo challenges by providing the first known published assessment of the IPv6 enablement ofuniversities within a global scope.Though the need to become ready for IPv6 implementation may not be on the forefront of auniversity’s list of priorities, the effects of not becoming IPv6 ready can have negativeimplementations much sooner than administrators may anticipate. A university’s adoption ofIPv6 can affect the institution’s teaching, research, innovation, and budget.1 Partneringinstitutions and research facilities that are already IPv6
, experiment, evaluate, iterate, and innovate [1].Computer science education research has generally focused on engagement [2], [3] compellingdomains for learning computing [4]–[9], and specific pedagogical strategies[10], [11]. However,as a nation we have yet to make major strides in developing computing literacy as a core 21stcentury STEM skill for tackling multidisciplinary problems [12]. Computing is seen as uncooland approaches to teaching it may be uninspiring [13]. Yet demand for computer scientists in thejob market remains robust: over 1.4 million computing-related jobs are estimated to be availablenationally in 2018, with US universities only meeting a third of that demand in degreeproduction [12].Music, a ubiquitous part of human culture with
assessment tool. The rubric and scoring guide (tomanage inter-rater reliability and insure objectivity) will be defined in a future manuscript.IntroductionResearch in elementary engineering education follows on broad interest in equipping studentswith 21st Century knowledge and skills and specific concern for raising awareness and interest inengineering careers.1 Generally, K-12 engineering education initiatives intend to inspirestudents’ career awareness and interest with the hope of increasing the numbers of engineers anddiversifying the career pipeline. In 2009, the Committee on K-12 Engineering Education raisedconcern for the “paucity of data” (p. 154) regarding impact of current programs. To guide futureengineering education curricula
fellow Hispanic-Serving Institutions, our college made a commitment to 1) Encourage our STEM faculty to attend Re-Energize professional development opportunities to learn and adopt green energy educational modules into our STEM curriculum over the next three years 2) Seek space to establish a "start-up green lab" on our campus with MSEIP pass through funding from the four-year institution so that faculty can conduct classroom demonstrations and our students can perform undergraduate research. This initiative is meant to diversify and continue our undergraduate research program and include our EcoCentro facility into this program 3) Promote additional related outreach and educational Re-Energize efforts to
Newtonian mechanics that students utilize to analyze and design in future courses.However, studies have shown that students tend to have different misconceptions in statics. 1-5Statics remains one of the courses where achievement levels are sometimes not satisfactory,6even though it is one of the basic courses in engineering that forms the foundation for theengineering curriculum. One particularly challenging area for instructors is to show “intangible”mechanics principles that may seem too abstract for students. For instance, analysis of internalforces of members in a truss system may be easily procedurally calculated leading to a solutionthat may not have a true intuitive meaning for the student. Thus, visualization is necessary tohelp the
that haveemerged as a contrast against didactic teaching in formal environments [6, 10, 18, 22]. Theseinclude – “lifelong learning” [1, 10, 19], “non-formal learning” [18], and “self-directed learning”[29, 34]. Scholars who have studied informal learning see it in different ways. In the domain ofscience education research is directed towards investigation of interest-driven learning of sciencein out-of-school settings museums or out-of-school groups, science camp and enrichmentprograms [3, 20, 25]. We are aware of these debates surrounding informal learning and arecognizant that one of the goals of our studies will be to investigate students’ understanding ofout-of-class and non-coursework related learning. In other words, how do students
) ▪ Identifying, analyzing, and implementing possible solutions with the goal of achieving the most efficient and effective combination of steps and resources ▪ Generalizing and transferring this problem-solving process to a wide variety of problems” (p. 7).This definition of computational thinking, as well as the dispositions described by the CSTA &ISTE and the core computational thinking concepts listed in the Teacher Resources (2011) areconsistent with core concepts of engineering design and mathematical modeling.STEM + Computational (STEM + C) Thinking projectThe proposed project is designed to address three critical aspects of STEM+C education: (1)clarity in what integrated thinking, engineering thinking and computational
postdoctoral research at the Harvard Medical School. He has 7 years of industrial research experience in environmental consulting and is dedicated to training young professionals. Page 26.1243.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Preliminary Evaluation of a Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) Program: A Methodology for Examining Student OutcomesAbstractThe current study presented an initial evaluation, following Year 1, of a National ScienceFoundation (NSF) sponsored Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program inchemical
. For many, it is integral to the way theycommunicate with one another and document their activities. As such, their perceptions of theseconnections are possibly different than those of the authors, who might see social media as eithera distraction, or a potential “add-on,” to the learning and practice of engineering.Increasing our understanding of the students’ attitudes and dispositions towards social media,engineering and leadership can inform the development of engineering education and practice.Therefore, this study explores two related research questions: 1. How are social media, engineering and leadership related to one another from a student perspective? 2. How do student self-perceptions of their leadership skills change
study of engineering PhD students with extensivework experience prior to enrolling in doctoral study, a group we call returners. Thoughgraduation age data suggests returners are in the minority of engineering doctoral students, theyare an important group to understand. In addition to representing an under-researched pathwaythrough advanced engineering training, given the combination of returners’ rich real-world workexperience with advanced engineering training, these students may be uniquely poised todevelop innovative solutions to important problems of contemporary society. Creative cognitiontheory suggests in part that innovation is likely to occur at the intersection of multipleexperiences or perspectives.1 Based on such work, we suspected
partners. The students work in teams to design, build, and test proof-of-concept systems.25This process prepares students to enter the workplace. The workplace has been changing rapidly.Now, engineering students are required to work and function in a multidisciplinary environmentupon graduation. Because of that, many educational institutions have incorporatedmultidisciplinary capstone design in their curricula.There is a limited qualitative and quantitative research on multidisciplinary teams and theireffectiveness since educational institutions have only recently started to take more initiative inthis area. The existing literature shows that multidisciplinary students are better off with jobplacement than monodisciplinary students;1 however, the
having theproblem, and the many more who support the common cultural understanding of thephenomenon as a problem. To help focus the thinking in this framework, McDermott proposes athree-stage framework to take different levels of the problem into account. In Stage 1, anindividual is conceptualized as having problems completely on their own; any problemsidentified are simple evidence of the individual’s own intellectual, moral, cultural, etc. deficits.In Stage 2, an individual is viewed as experiencing problems on the basis of social structuresmuch larger than them; and any problems identified can be explained as the natural result ofhaving been socialized to occupy that position in society. Finally in Stage 3, the problem isviewed as being
). We do note, however, that thissituation did not emerge as a theme in our interviews, probably because—as Meadows andSekaquaptewa argue—students saw their assignment to non-technical work as self-determined,and therefore not an issue they thought to complain about.Part I ResultsStudents routinely encounter problems in their teamsConsistent with the EC2000 criteria, 98% of students (n=664) reported participating on at leastone team, with the average student participating in three teams in the most recent year.Table 1 shows that team problems are very common: 85% of engineering students reported atleast one team problem in their STEM classes in the most recent year. Moreover, many of theseissues appear to have limited students’ opportunities to
degreein mechanical engineering while the other had worked in the construction field. Although neitherhad experience in engineering education methods, faculty members from a nearby engineeringcollege provided guidance. Before designing individual courses, the teachers generated twodocuments intended to form the foundation of all ensuring coursework. The first of thesedocuments, entitled the Academic Standards, focused on five key areas for student development:1) STEM career exploration, 2) collaborative teamwork skills, 3) STEM skills and knowledge, 4)open-ended hands-on design, and 5) communication skills. The second, called the Grade LevelExpectations, broadly outlined the learning outcomes for each of the program’s four years. Theseexpectations
pedagogy that help to improve student engagement and understanding.Dr. Shannon Katherine Gilmartin, Stanford UniversityDr. Helen L. Chen, Stanford University Helen L. Chen is a research scientist in the Designing Education Lab in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Director of ePortfolio Initiatives in the Office of the Registrar at Stanford University. She is also a member of the research team in the National Center for Engineering Pathways to Innovation (Epicenter). Helen earned her undergraduate degree from UCLA and her PhD in Communication with a minor in Psychology from Stanford University in 1998. Her current research interests include: 1) engineering and entrepreneurship education; 2) the pedagogy of
computerskills that make it difficult to put them into the same classroom (page 29)”. For makerspaces tomake significant contributions to enhancing the participation of women and multiculturalstudents in STEM fields, we must make them attractive environments for these constituencies. Inthe paragraphs below we illustrate how the various elements of our programs try to achieve this.DiscussionOne way in which we have tried to attract a variety of audiences is by providing multiple formatsfor participation: (1) a long-term after school program, (2) periodic “Maker Meetup” workshopsin our space, and (3) introductory outreach events. The 21st Century afterschool programprovides an opportunity to work with the same group of middle school students over the