,Adam Barker, and Jake Knapp, without whom I would never have learned so much nor had somuch fun doing so. I extend sincere thanks to the The Helen Riaboff Whiteley Center of theFriday Harbor Laboratories of the University of Washington for providing the peacefulenvironment that enabled me to complete this manuscript. And finally, I am grateful to thestudents in my Software Engineering and Interaction Design courses, whose openness andenthusiasm to learn are ever an inspiration.References Cited 1. Amabile, Theresa. How to Kill Creativity. Harvard Business Review 6(5), 1998. 2. Blumenfeld, Phyllis, Elliot Soloway, Ronald Marx, Joseph Krajcik, Mark Guzdial, and Annemarie Palinscar. Motivating Project-Based Learning: Sustaining the
, evaluated, refined, and Page 22.959.15improved their knowledge of Robotics, and they developed effective skills for using LEGORobotics in the classroom.References1 Carbonaro. M. Rex, M. & Chambers, J. Using Lego Robotics in a Project-Based Learning Environment.2 Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. NY, NewYork: Basic Books.3 Johnson, J. (2003). Children, Robotics and Education. Artif Life Robotics.,7, 16-214 Verner , I.M. & Ahlgren, D.J. (2004). Robot Contest as a Laboratory for Experiential EngineeringEducation. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 4(2), 1-155 Nalajala, T.D. (2003
Department Head of the Department of Engi- neering Education at Virginia Tech. He is the Director of the Multi-University NSF I/UCRC Center for e-Design, the Director of the Frith Freshman Design Laboratory and the Co-Director of the Engineering First-year Program. His research areas are design and design education. Dr. Goff has won numerous University teaching awards for his innovative and interactive teaching. He is passionately committed to bringing research and industry projects into the class room as well as spreading fun and creating engage- ment in all levels of Engineering Education. Page 22.904.1
not necessarily true formany students. To partially address this deficiency, few instructors: 1. Draw sketches of components on the board, use textbooks and internet resources to show them the pictures and videos of components either in good condition or those that have failed during normal operations or in service. 2. Bring real components (whether failed or in good condition) as educational aids to the classroom. This is not always possible as some components may be heavy to carry. Page 22.924.6 3. Divide students in small groups and bring each group in to a laboratory that contain machinery (for example pumps
facilities including significant analysis, CAD, rapid prototyping,machining, and engineering laboratories. Capstone student teams take real-life design projectsfrom concept generation and modeling to a working prototype including documentation.Companies that sponsor Capstone projects provide BYU an educational grant of $20,000 whichprovides an initial budget for each team of $1,500. Approved costs that exceed the initial budgetare the responsibility of the sponsoring company. All documentation, drawings, and prototypescreated by the student teams are provided to the sponsoring company. In addition, BYU grantsall intellectual property that may be developed by the team to the sponsoring company. Thispractice is similar to what occurs in industry as
and fault detection. In the NASA University Research Center (URC) Structures, Propulsion and ControlEngineering (SPACE) Laboratory, research is being conducted on a testbed version of theJWST.9 This fellow’s research explores using control algorithms, such as an H-infinitycontroller, to perform control of the mirror shape, adjust for disturbances, and allow for precisionpointing of the telescope at a simulated source target.4. Background Mathematical Concepts The hands-on activities and demonstrations presented in this paper reinforce some Page 22.1613.5abstract mathematical concepts covered in Algebra II and Pre-Calculus
of ideas – considering how to address the challenge and possible approaches 3. Multiple perspectives – obtaining input from various sources; literature, others, etc. 4. Research and revise – conducting an experiment, doing some calculations 5. Test your mettle – testing your findings by some means 6. Go public – telling others what you foundA series of three applets and associated lesson plans were developed: (1) Linear Relationships; Page 22.1655.4(2) Mass and Volume and (3) Structure Property Relationships. During the Fall of 2010, theapplets and lessons were beta tested in five individual classrooms/laboratories with 150
, 1907–39," Social Studies of Science, vol. 19, pp. 387-420, 1989.15. K. Henderson, "Flexible Sketches and Inflexible Data Bases: Visual Communication, Conscription Devices, and Boundary Objects in Design Engineering," Science, Technology, and Human Values, vol. 16, pp. 448-473, 1991.16. K. Henderson, On Line and On Paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.17. B. Latour and S. Woolgar, Laboratory Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.18. E. Duncker, "Symbolic Communication in Multidisciplinary Cooperations," Science, Technology, and Human Values, vol. 26, pp. 349-386, 2001.19. J. Gainsburg, et al., "A “Knowledge
synchronousengagement between the learner and live content. A semester long course devoted to a singlereal-time dramatic event that has broad impacts in engineering. Educators may identifysignificant events as the Kansas City Hyatt walkway and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapses.Although these became very valuable learning moments in engineering education, theirdiscussions or laboratory reenactments exhibit synchronicity between the instructor and thelearners and not the learners and the events. The students are learning about the eventasynchronously supported by a longer thread of scholarship performed and interpreted by severalothers. All of the relevant conclusions from academia and practice are available in the publicdomain. Therefore, the students may be
solving in statics. Journal of EngineeringEducation, 99(4), 337-353.[20] Forbus, K. D., Whalley, P. B., Overett, J. O., Ureel, L., Brokowski, M., Baher, J., & Kuehne, S. E. (1999).CyclePad: An articulate virtual laboratory for engineering thermodynamics. Artificial Intelligence, 114, 297-347.[21] Taraban, R., Craig, C., & Anderson, E. E. (in press). Using paper-and-pencil solutions to assess problemsolving skill. Journal of Engineering Education.[22] Reif, F., & Heller, J. I. (1982). Knowledge structures and problem solving in physics. EducationalPsychologist, 17(2), 102-127.[23] Daw, N. D., Niv, Y., & Dayan, P. (2005). Uncertainty-based competition between prefrontal and dorsolateralstriatal systems fro behavioral control. Nature
Figure 9. Lower End Master Bill of MaterialManufacturing Processes. The students investigated options of casting and CNC-machiningbillet for the lower-end design prototype. Due to budget and time constraints, the team decidedto manufacture the lower-unit from billet aluminum. Using the capabilities of the EngineeringTechnology Department’s manufacturing laboratories; the students decided that they werecapable of manufacturing all of the prototype parts in-house. Rather than go into detail of everystep in manufacturing every part, the following touches on some key points of interest. Thestudent team created manufacturing routings for every part. These routing helped the studentsplan steps taken to create the part and provide an overall
drag; turbomachines.The three courses are taken sequentially beginning with the first semester (Fall) of thesophomore year. Average section size is about 25 students, with a maximum of 35. All threecourses are team-taught by a pair of faculty members and utilize a four meeting per week format,in which there are three 50-minute periods (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) used primarily forlectures. The fourth period is a 165-minute “flex” period that meets on Thursdays, and can beused for lectures, laboratory exercises, exams, or for overarching problem solution periods.Aside from the integration of concepts described previously and the use of overarching problemsas described herein, Mechanics I and II are taught in a fairly traditional manner
Technological University DR. JEAN KAMPE is currently department chair of Engineering Fundamentals at Michigan Technolog- ical University, where she also holds an associate professorship in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering. She received her Ph.D. in metallurgical engineering from Michigan Tech, an M.Ch.E. in chemical engineering from the University of Delaware, and a B.S. degree in chemical engineering from Michigan Tech. She was employed as a research engineer for five years at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC, and she held an associate professorship in the Department of Engineering Education at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, working there for ten years in first-year
Institute. His academic back- ground is notable for a strong emphasis on research and teaching. As a researcher at Georgia Tech, he worked on system design of Aerospace vehicles. His research is focused on system level design opti- mization and integration of disciplinary analyses. Dr. Khalid has held the positions of adjunct professor at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) and SPSU. He has also worked as postdoctoral fellow at Georgia Tech.Scott C Banks, Georgia Tech Research Institute Scott Banks is a Research Engineer with the Georgia Tech Research Institute’s (GTRI) Electronic Systems Laboratory (ELSYS). Scott has a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering degree from Stevens Institute of Technology and
, results of which have been published in over 100 articles in journals and conference proceedings. Dr. Nemes has also held a number of positions in industry and government, including posts at the Kennedy Space Center and at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington DC.Kirsten S. Hochstedt, Penn State University Kirsten S. Hochstedt is a Graduate Assistant at the Leonhard Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Education. She has received her Masters degree in Educational Psychology, with an emphasis in educa- tional and psychological measurement, at Penn State and is a doctoral candidate in the same program. The primary focus of her research concerns assessing the response structure of test scores using item
potential to provide an ideal venue forapplying previously proven collaborative teaching and learning techniques commonly used insmaller engineering laboratory and discussion sessions to a larger, more traditional lecturesetting. Currently, the range of use of Tablet PCs in the classroom includes enhancing lecturepresentations,13,14 digital ink and note taking,15 E-Books (books in electronic format) that allowhyperlinks and annotations,16 Tablet-PC-based in-class assessments,13,14 and Tablet-PC-basedclassroom collaboration systems such as Classroom Presenter,17 Ubiquitous Presenter,18NetSupport School,19,20,21,22 and DyKnow.23As part of the ONE-STEP program a Summer Engineering Teaching Institute (SETI) will beheld to help California community
Technology (2MNGT) 6. Science (2SC)Total 6 Assoc degrees 10506. Greater 1. Science (2SC) 1. Information Sciences andAllegheny TechnologyTotal 1 Assoc degree 1 BS degree 7567. Hazleton 1. Electrical 1. General Engineering – Engineering Technology Alternative Energy & Power (2EET) Generation Track 2. Information Sciences 2. Information Sciences and and Technology (2IST) Technology 3. Mechanical Engineering Technology (2MET) 4. Medical Laboratory
, Vol. 77, Pages 120-130.9. Douglas, Elliot “Guided-inquiry Lessons for Introduction to Materials,” Proceeding for the 2008 American Society of Engineering Education National Conference, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, June 2008.10. Gleixner, Stacy, Elliot Douglas, and Olivia Graeve, “Engineering Project Laboratory Modules For an Page 22.1243.15 Introduction to Materials Course,” Proceeding for the 2008 American Society of Engineering Education National Conference, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, June 2008.11. Habitat for Humanity, “Where We Build – Local Affiliate Search Results,” http://www.habitat.org/cd/local/ affiliate.aspx?zip
learners the opportunity to explore: a) design, b)testing, and c) the production of tools, technology, structures, and materials. Learning throughEngineering Design and Practice presented students with a series of projects over a yearlonginformal experience. In our case, learners were presented with engineering design problemswhere solutions are achieved via an actual project. Participants had access to a wide range ofresources that included human and content rich media, Arizona State University art museum andengineering laboratories, the Phoenix Zoo, the Arizona Science Center, a number of differenttypes of hardware and software technologies. The project therefore is the culmination of thelearning process, and the solution is the finished product
- neers. He’s the PI on two NSF S-STEM grants providing academic and career guidance to students in CSEM fields. He js a Professor of Electrical Engineering within the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering at ASU. Prior to joining ASU, he worked at MIT, IBM, AT&T Bell Laboratories and Raytheon Missile Systems. He has consulted for Eglin Air Force Base, Boeing Defense and Space Systems, Honeywell and NASA. He has authored over 190 technical papers and three engineering texts. He has given more than 60 invited presentations - including 13 plenaries. Since 1994, he has directed an extensive engineering mentoring-research program that has served over 300 students. He’s an AT&T Bell Labs Fellow, Boe- ing A.D
efficiency of integrating software projects into courses.AcknowledgmentsThis research was supported by the National Science Foundation Division of UndergraduateEducation (DUE) Course Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) Program and theEngineering Education and Centers (EEC) Innovations in Engineering Education, Curriculumand Infrastructure (IEECI) Program under grants DUE-0837661, DUE-1022958 and EEC-0935145. This research is also supported through a software grant from Parametric TechnologyCorporation (PTC). The authors would also like to thank their collaborators, Ann Shoplik andPamela Piskurich of the Carnegie Mellon C-MITES program, Jack Zhou of Drexel University,Nathan Klingbeil of Wright State University, Glenn Beltz of the University
26. learning styles accreditation 27. sustainability women in engineering 28. learning faculty development 29. experiential learning distance education 30. performance cooperative learning 31. curriculum undergraduate research 32. engineering education research technology 33. virtual laboratories programming 34. problem based learning experiential learning 35. problem solving
AC 2011-107: MACROERGONOMIC ANALYSIS OF INSTRUCTIONALTECHNOLOGY ADOPTION: A CASE STUDY ON TABLET PC ADOP-TIONLeanna M. Horton, Virginia Tech Leanna Horton is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Industrial and Systems Engineering Department at Virginia Tech and is a member of the Industrial Ergonomics and Biomechanics Laboratory. Her research is focused on the effects of job rotation on muscle fatigue and performance.Kahyun Kim, Virginia Tech Kahyun Kim is a graduate student currently pursuing Ph.D. in Industrial and Systems Engineering at Virginia Tech with a concentration on human factors and ergonomics. Her research interest is in the impact of various factors on team collaboration and effectiveness as well as team
. Page 22.1045.5 • Multimedia Design*: This course is focused on 2-dimensional layout and learning a variety of software skills. This course contains minimal math content. • Architectural & Civil Engineering Design+: This course covers a wide variety of topics. One of the topics covered, for ~1.5 days, is the statistics of human factors and its usefulness in design. • Prototyping Laboratory: This course requires students to complete the design and prototyping of a variety of projects utilizing a variety of 3-dimensinal fabrication tools. The strong design component contains a substantial measurement and calculation component due to numerous and subtle calibrations and corrections that are
semestersof calculus, and during their high-school studies they must have already studied particlekinematics and dynamics. Simulation software and computer algebra systems allow students toexperiment with phenomena which are too complex to calculate or too expensive to bereproduced in a laboratory, or are simply not accessible to the senses. A computer algebra systemis essentially the ability to manipulate concepts, using computer expressions, which aresymbolic, algebraic and not limited to numerical evaluation. A computer algebra systems canperform many of the mathematical techniques which are part and parcel of a traditional physicscourse. The successful use of computer algebra systems does not imply that the mathematicalskills are no longer at a
Bioengineering and Director of the Engineering Education Research Center at Washington State University. He has led numerous multidisciplinary research projects to enhance engi- neering education. He currently leads projects creating and testing assessments and curriculum materials for engineering design and professional skills, especially for use in capstone engineering design courses. He has been a Fellow of the American Society for Engineering Education since 2002.Paul B Golter, Washington State University Paul B. Golter obtained an MS from Washington State University and recently defended his PhD degree and is currently the Laboratory Supervisor in the Voiland School of School of Chemical Engineering and Bio-engineering
Understand fundamentals of several program educational recognized major civil engineering areas objectives; apply knowledge of four technical areas appropriate to civil engineering.2. An ability to Design and conduct field and laboratory 3(b) An ability to Conduct civildesign and studies
. Eng. Ed, Vo l. 18, No. 6, p. 644, 200219. Sheppard, K. and Gallois, B., The Design Spine: Revision of the Engineering Curricu lu m to Include a Design Experience each Semester, A merican Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference Proceedings, Charlotte, North Carolina, June 1999, Session 322520. Sheppard, S. et al. (2008), “Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field”, Jossey -Bass.21. Stiver, W., “Sustainable Design in a second year engineering design course, I. J. Eng. Ed., vol 26, no 2., pp. 1-6, 201022. Topper, A., and Clapham, L., Fro m Experiments to Experimentation; A New Philosophy for First Year Laboratories, C2E2 2001, Victoria23. Wolf, P. and Christensen Hughes, J. (eds.) (2007), Curriculu m
, within engineering we know little about how studentsapproach open-book testing, particularly with regard to how they spend their time on differenttasks and how this division of time may affect performance.The study in this paper examined the testing behavior of 8 senior materials science andengineering students at a large public university in the southeastern US. Students completed fourengineering problems during individual laboratory sessions while engaged in a think-aloudprocedure (i.e., verbally explaining their thought processes as they worked through theproblems). The problems were designed to vary in terms of their closed or open-endedness andthe number of decision points involved in their solution. Students’ think-aloud protocols
”, Proc. Amer. Soc. for Eng. Educ. Conf. and Expo., Portland, OR.[11] Felder, R., Brent, R. [2004], “The intellectual development of science and engineering students part 1. Models and challenges”, J. Eng. Educ., Vol. 93, No. 4, pp. 269-277.[12] Felder, R., Brent, R. [2004], “The intellectual development of science and engineering students part 2. Teaching to promote growth”, J. Eng. Educ., Vol. 93, No. 4, pp. 279-291.[13] McKeachie, W., Svinicki, M. [2006], Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers (12th Edition) Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.[14] National Training Laboratories, Bethel ME, http://www.ntl.org/, 19 January 2011.[15] Bailey, M. [2007] “Enhancing life-long learning and