programs at CSULBthereby improving the diversity of the profession.Bibliography[1] T. Camp, S. Zweben, D. Buell, and J. Stout. “Booming Enrollments: Survey Data,” ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE '16), pp. 398-399, March 2016.[2] W. M. DuBow, B. A. Quinn, G. C. Townsend, R. Robinson, and V. Barr. “Efforts to Make Computer Science More Inclusive of Women.” ACM Inroads 7, 4 (November 2016), pp. 74-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2998500[3] NCWIT. (2016, April 28). Recruit Strategically: A “High Yield in the Short Term” Workbook for Attracting Women to Undergraduate Computing and Engineering. [Online]. Available: https://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/recruitstrategicallyworkbook_print.pdf[4
: The Exercise of Control. New York, N.Y. W.H. Freeman andCompany. 1997.[6] Jenkins, Maura, and Robert G. Keim, “Gender Trends in Engineering Retention,” inProceeedings of the 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Savannah, Georgia,October, 2004.[7] Ting, S.R. “Predicting Academic Success of First-Year Engineering Students fromStandardized Test Scores and Psychosocil Variables.” International Journal of EngineeringEducation, Vol 17, No.1, 2001, pp. 75 – 80.[8] Jin, Q., Imbrie, P. K., Lin, J.J. J., and Chen, X. C., “A Multi-Outcome Hybrid Model forPredicting Student Success in Engineering.”, Proceedings of the 2011 ASEE Annual Conference& Exposition, Vancouver, British Columbia, June, 2011.[9] Brainard, S. G., and Carlin, L., “A
Study Student's Exhibition, didcomplete visual identities and package designs for the project and added valuable feedbackduring Team meetings: Evan Ardanaz, Angel Juarez, Jamie Liu, Jackson Magnaye, MatthewPerrotti, Francesca Robinson, and Alessandra Sardella.References 1. James L.Huff, Carla B. Zoltowski, and William C.Oakes, “Preparing Engineers for the Workplace through Service Learning: Perceptions of EPICS Alumni,” Journal of Engineering Education (January 2016): 43 – 69. 2. John S. Lamancusa, Jose L, Zayas, Allen L. Soyster, Lueny Morell, and Jens Jorgensen , “The Learning Factory: Industry-Partnered Active Learning,” Journal of Engineering Education (January 2008): 5 - 11. 3. Alan J. Dutson, Robert H. Todd
Integration Of Self-assembling Systems For Engineering Innovation (ODISSEI); Photosynthesis Biorefineries (PSBR)FY’14,15 2-Dimensional Atomic-Layer Research and Engineering (2-DARE)FY 16, 17 Advancing Communication Quantum Information Research in Engineering (ACQUIRE) New Light and Acoustic Wave Propagation: Breaking Reciprocity and Time-Reversal Symmetry (NewLAW) NAE GRAND CHALLENGESRESTOR A SEED R E S RESIN CBE BioFlex
completing a course in engineering economy. Regardless of the pedagogical techniques, students experience significant improvement in conceptual understanding of economy concepts during the course.This research provides a necessary first step towards identifying capabilities and limitations inour capacity in teaching engineering economy and can provide important feedback with regardsto what works and what does not work for improving student’s conceptual understanding offundamental concepts.References: 1. Chappuis, J., Stiggins, R,J, Arter, J., Chappuis, S. Classroom Assessment for Student Learning: Doing It Right - Using It Well. Pearson, 2012, ISBN: 0132685884, 9780132685887. 2. Methods of Assessment. The
major. However despite a lack of connection between their identity andengineering, some students may persist in engineering based upon factors such as the desire toearn an engineer’s salary. Students with lower academic performance have been shown to persistin engineering if they identify with the engineering major or feel as if they were getting futureusefulness or enjoyment from engineering.6,10Engineering programs across the country have varying formats and matriculation processesranging from: common course(s) for First-Year Engineering (FYE), direct admittance to anengineering discipline, or programs in which all students are initially undesignated11. Studentsenrolled in common FYE were more likely to persist to the third semester than
formation in a multicultural and interdisciplinarysetting coupled with hands-on doing based on repetitive do-test-learn cycles that areconstantly assessed and communicated by the teaching team.Design, whether as design science or design thinking has been with us for quite some time.Already in the 1950´s B. Fuller, a renowned scientists and inventor described design scienceas: “…the effective application of the principles of science to the conscious design of ourtotal environment in order to help make the Earth’s finite resources meet the needs of allhumanity without disrupting the ecological processes of the planet” Buckminister Fuller [17].There is relevant criticism to be considered as well. The three perspectives, based on Kimbell2011, are that
. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 Edition, Biomedical Engineers, on the Internet at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/biomedical-engineers.htm.[2] Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 Edition, Occupational Information Included in the OOH, on the Internet at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/occupational-information-included-in-the-ooh.htm.[3] C. G. Prober and S. Khan, “Medical Education Reimagined: A Call to Action.,” Acad Med, vol. 88, no. 10, pp. 1407–1410, Oct. 2013.[4] T. Jong, M. C. Linn, and Z. C. Zacharia, “Physical and Virtual Laboratories in Science and Engineering Education.,” Science, Vol. 340, Issue 6130
allow students to better develop into adult learners upongraduation. References1. P. Mortimore and C. Watkins, Understanding Pedagogy and its Impact on Learning, SAGE, 1999.2. M. S. Knowles, The Modern Practice of Adult Education, Andragogy versus Pedagogy, New York: Associated Press, 1970.3. M. Knowles, The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species, Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company, 1973.4. S. B. Merriam, "Andragogy and Self-Directed Learning: Pillars of Adult Learning Theory," New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, pp. 3-14, 2001.5. Educational Technology and Mobile Learning, Accessed March 2017. http://www.educatorstechnology.com/2013/05/awesome-chart-on-pedagogy-vs- andragogy.html.6. S. Bell, "Project-Based
there is less than a 95% probability that the two groups are actually different.The significance of differences in overall student score for the questions of the pre- and post-testwere determined using a one-tailed t-test (Equation 4). x 0 t (Equation 4) s/ nWhere: ̅ = Mean score on concept inventory, end-of-semester = Mean score on concept inventory, beginning-of-semester s = Standard deviation, end-of-semester n = Number of students, end-of-semesterThe internal consistency of the concept inventory was evaluated with the Kuder-RichardsonFormula 20 approach (Equation 5). k j 1 p j q j k
with a variety of long-termcareer objectives including premedical students pursuing a baccalaureate inenvironmental engineering.Table 1. Summary of six seminal learning opportunities including a course at theUniversity of Cincinnati (CEE600) and a course at the Missouri University of Scienceand Technology (CE390/CE4099).Description; Co-leaners Outcome(s)Time frameCEE600 MDG7: Ensuring Author Development and deliveryEnvironmental 3 additional faculty of a term-length, dual-levelSustainability (dual-level, approx. 80 undergraduate course with two tripsterm-length course) and 40 graduate students abroad to IndiaAutumn, 2004
problems in their communities and beyond using the Game Changers as examples of innovative solutions.• Q: If you were going to grade our infrastructure systems (at the local, state or national level), what grade(s) would you give and why? Can you justify the grade(s) using similar criteria as in the Report Card? o Activities: For older students, teachers assist in exploring why the various infrastructure categories received the grades that they did, bring in local infrastructure “experts” to assist with the discussion and assessment. Additionally, depending on the infrastructure that is being considered, teachers
) “Educating Generation Net-- Can U.S. Engineering Woo and Win the Competition for Talent,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 97, No. 3, pp. 246-257. 3. Tavrou, S., Thong, C., & Steele, C. (2011) Increased female participation into engineering education through specialised courses, Australasian. 4. Matusovich, H.M., Streveler, R.A. and Miller, R.L. (2010) “Why do students choose engineering? A qualitative, longitudinal investigation of students' motivational values,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 99, No. 4, pp. 289-303.5. Mattern, N., & Schau, C. (2002) “Gender differences in science attitude-achievement relationships over time among white middle-school students,” Journal of Research in
Learning Communities: Building Connections among Teaching, Learning, andTechnology. Jeffrey S. Nugent, R. Martin Reardon, Fran G. Smith, Joan A. Rhodes, Mary Jane Zander,Teresa J Carter. 1, s.l. : International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 2008, Vol. 20.51-58. 12AppendicesAll new faculty and academic staff are invited to participate in anonymous surveys at the end of eachsemester of their first year. This survey is Appendix 1: Biannual Survey. The post survey is for new facultyonce they have been at UW-Platteville for two years, and can be found in Appendix 2: Post SurveyAppendix 1: Biannual Survey 1. If you attended any meetings of the New Faculty Learning Community
. https://c9.io/ 4. Wu, L., Liang, G., Kui, S., & Wang, Q. 2011. CEclipse: An online IDE for program- ing in the cloud. In 2011 IEEE World Congress on Services, IEEE, pp. 45-52. 5. https://www.codecademy.com/ 6. http://cscircles.cemc.uwaterloo.ca/ 7. Pritchard, D. and Vasiga, T. 2013. CS circles: an inbrowser python course for begin- ners. In ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pp. 591-596. 8. Guo, P. 2012. Online Python Tutor: Embeddable web-based program visualization for CS education. http://pythontutor.com/.9. Brusilovsky, P. and Sosnovsky, S. 2005. Individualized exercises for self-assessment of programming knowledge: An Evaluation of QuizPACK. ACM Journal of Educa- tional Resources in
to foster higher student retention rates inintroductory computer programming courses.References: DiSalvo, B., & Bruckman, A. (2011). From interests to values. Communications of the ACM,54(8), 27-29.Newhall, T., Meeden, L., Danner, A., Soni, A., Ruiz, F., & Wicentowski, R. (2014, March). Asupport program for introductory CS courses that improves student performance and retainsstudents from underrepresented groups. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium onComputer science education (pp. 433-438). ACM. Goldweber, M., Barr, J., Clear, T., Davoli, R., Mann, S., Patitsas, E., & Portnoff, S. (2013). Aframework for enhancing the social good in computing education: a values approach. ACMInroads, 4(1), 58-7Guzdial, M. (2009
unwillingness to answer the question.Some students expressed frustration about the fact that even if they have already applied whatthey perceive are effective learning strategies, their performance in the class was stillunsatisfactory (“I don't know… I put more effort into learning this material than all of myclasses combined, and then some more. To say that I was disappointed in the results is anunderstatement.”) There are a select few, however, who chose to provide ambiguous responses(“Nothing”; “N/A”; “not applicable”) or expressed unwillingness to comment on their learningprocess as part of the survey (This is a bad question please stop asking it. It[’s] not relevant, Iget it I could [have] done more but that’s not point of the spot surveys”). The
Nebraska, Lincoln Dr. Guru is a computer scientist and educational researcher who focuses on curriculum development in both formal and non-formal educational settings. His expertise includes systems thinking and design, op- erations research, statistical modeling, and simulation. He has taught several graduate and undergraduate courses in statistics, systems engineering, operations research, and business analytics. Dr. Guru has pre- viously served as the Director of Research Strategy at the Jeffrey S. Raikes School of Computer Science and Management at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln. In addition to his academic experience, Dr. Guru is an expert in supercomputing; he has 10 years of experience in building and
. D., and B. Stein. The Ideal Problem Solver. New York: Freeman, 1983.Brent, R., & Felder. R. M. (2014). Want your students to think creatively and critically? How about teaching them? Chemical Engineering Education, 48(2), 113-114.Daly, S. R., Mosyjowski, E. A., & Siefert, C. M. (2014). Teaching creativity in engineering courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 103 (3), 417-449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jee.20048Dannenhoffer, J. F., Green, M. A. (2017). Use of a Full-motion Flight Simulator for Teaching Aircraft Performance and Dynamics, 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 9-13 January 2017, Grapevine, Texas.Diaz, A. Freeing the Creative Spirit. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1992.Napolitano, M. R., Aircraft Dynamics
of evidence- based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. US Department of Education.2. Ruey, S. (2010). A case study of constructivist instructional strategies for adult online learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 706-720.3. Maor, D., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). An online questionnaire for evaluating students' and teachers' perceptions of constructivist multimedia learning environments. Research in Science Education, 35(2), 221-244.4. Rovai, A. P. (2004). A constructivist approach to online college learning. The internet and higher Education, 7(2), 79-93.5. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual review of
. S., 1955) parameters as showed in equation (2). Ai is thelink transform for the i th joint; i 1,2,..., n and n is the number of links. cosi cos i sin i sin i sin i ai cosi sin cos i cosi sin i cosi ai sin i i 1 Ai i (22) 0 sin i cos i di 0 0 0 1 Baxter
to the question “List the part(s) of today’s program you enjoyed most,” were more varied,but many fell into two general categories: • Nearly half of the responses (37/75, 49%) included some element of the overall experience that was enjoyable, such as learning something new, interacting with the University students, and the satisfaction of getting the circuit to function correctly. • A large portion of responses (30/75, 40%) included specific portions of the project that were enjoyable, such as learning how to wire circuits or learning about how computers work.There were relatively fewer responses to the question “List two ways to improve today’s program.” • A majority of the responses (40/67, 60%) indicated that no
thenames of every component [they] used.”Figure 8 suggests that students were able to grasp the core mechanics of arch stability afterconducting the activity. Students claimed that understanding how a hanging chain’s shape isdetermined from equilibrium helped solidify their understanding of how an arch is able to stand,and that a catenary is the optimal shape for an arch. Students also commented on theirunderstanding that the “[s]urface area of the blocks affects stability” and that “friction plays acrucial role in keeping the blocks together”.The Tanks and Culverts activity displayed positive results for understanding how granular mediabehaves in pipe structures. Most students seemed to grasp how gravity, in conjunction withfriction, produces the
College. Her research interest revolves around software estimation, software design and curriculum design of software engineering course(s).Dr. Muhsin Menekse, Purdue University, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Muhsin Menekse is an assistant professor at Purdue University with a joint appointment in the School of Engineering Education and the Department of Curriculum & Instruction. Dr. Menekse’s primary research investigates how learning activities affect students’ conceptual understanding of engineering and science concepts. His second research focus is on verbal interactions that can enhance productive discussions in collaborative learning settings. And his third research focus is on metacognition and its
of their thermaldesign margins explaining how they are using a model and sensitivity analysis before concludingthat many different situations had been considered. Therefore, while the project expertunderstood the complexity of the design and discussed the actual quantified margins ofuncertainty, we see by move 4’s question that this explanation was insufficient for the reviewer.At this point, we see the manager interject in move 4 in an attempt to explain in a differentmanner by indicating that some parts can be changed out to help with the thermal balancing,suggesting the use of a simulator, and insisting that the project expert has done everything theycan at this point. At a CDR there can still be uncertainties about the overall project
that the effects ofgender on other forms of SI available to students be examined. This outcome could be madepossible by expanding the scope of the research to other freshman engineering courses with moremale and female lecturers. Lastly, partnering with counterparts at other universities can provideadditional data to support and augment findings presented here.References[1] S. E. Carrell, M. E. Page and J. E. West, "Sex and Science: how professor gender perpetuates the gender gap," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 125, no. 3, pp. 1101- 1144, 2010.[2] L. MacNell, A. Driscoll and A. N. Hunt, "What's in a name: exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching," Innovative Higher Education, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 291-303, 2015
) highlightsthe following data about sources of academic research funding: The federal government provided 59% ($32.6 billion) of the $54.9 billion of academic spending on S&E R&D in FY 2009. Industry's % of funding for academic R&D declined steeply after the 1990s, from above 7% in 1999 down to about 5% by 2004, but has seen a 5-year increase to about 6% in 2009.While this indicates that industry funded research is relatively low (6% overall in 2009), someUS universities within engineering, especially at large R1 schools, receive a considerably higherpercentage of their research funding from industry than the overall 6% reported by the NSBreport. Using the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Higher Education Research andDevelopment
engineering technology programs. Development of common assessment tools havehelped in standardizing the assessment process. Appendix Faculty Course Assessment Report (FCAR)Course No.__MET-455_____ Course Title _____Lean Engineering____ credits __3_ Semester ___Spring ___ Year____2015_____ Instructor _______Alok K. Verma______Catalog Description: Lecture 3 hours; 3 Credits. Prerequisite: Senior Standing and MET 200. This course looks atthe history of lean and six sigma philosophies, their principles and implementationmethodologies for creating a world class enterprise. Topics in Lean include five s, valuestream mapping, cellular manufacturing, pull system
fluid volume flowrate qvhot m3/s 2.0 2.0 Specific heat of hot fluid Cp,hot kJ/kg-K 4.180 4.187 Density of hot fluid ρhot kg/m3 988.76 980.3Table 2 Calculated values used to design and size a heat exchanger [4] Symbol Units Formulas Measured or calculated value for: 50°C 70°C Mass flowrate (Hot fluid) qmh kg/s (ρhot) (qvhot) 0.033 0.032 Heat power emitted from hot fluid Qe W (3) 519.0
Prism 24:2, p.24-35.Olson, S., National Academy of Engineering, & Prospects, and Priorities (Forum). (2016). Grand Challenges for engineering : Imperatives, prospects, and priorities : summary of a forum. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Ramakrishna, B.L. (2017) “NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering” http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/14365/GrandChallengeScholarsProgram.aspx Retrieved 03/07/2017.