, providing practice for the student, is essential for successful learning andretention of programming. Feedback time during these sessions becomes more limited as thenumber of students increases, hence supplemental instruction (SI) can be utilized to increasefeedback and student interactions. Here, we demonstrate how the implementation of SI, asdeveloped by UMKC, in combination with tablet based demonstrations and hand-written/program-specific examples are effectively used to improve student grades and courseevaluations. Weekly SI sessions were developed to reiterate key concepts from the lab for thatweek and also provided students with a peer-friendly environment where they could engage inquestions/discussion without the presence of the course
teaching with the use of atablet-pc and digital ink technology. Digital ink-technology is the term used for writing on atablet-pc screen using free hand writing. The students in the class did not use tablet-pc. Theauthor had developed complete PowerPointTM based lectures, several animations, multimediacontent and several example problems around this approach targeted to engineers.Based on all the information that was given at the interview and from what had been gleanedfrom literature, the author decided to start his new job by utilizing the blackboard to teach in thetraditional method to address the falsely perceived lack of depth and rigor. The lectures weremostly oriented to writing the notes and solving several example problems on the
AC 2008-1421: USING TECHNICAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SERVICELEARNING TO PROMOTE AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE IN ANUNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING PROGRAMWilliam Jordan, Baylor University WILLIAM JORDAN is the Mechanical Engineering Department Chair at Baylor University. He has B.S. and M.S. degrees in Metallurgical Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines, an M.A. degree in Theology from Denver Seminary, and a Ph.D. in mechanics and materials from Texas A & M University. He teaches materials related courses and does research concerning appropriate technology in developing countries. He also writes and does research in the areas of engineering ethics and engineering education.Glenn Blalock
instruments have been developed to help classifypreferred learning styles, and among the most widely-used is the VARK test, which profileslearning preferences according to degree of utilization in four categories: Visual (V),Aural/Auditory (A), Read/Write (R), and Kinesthetic (K). In responding to a series of questionsabout situations where information is to be communicated, takers of the VARK test are classifiedaccording to how strongly they prefer to rely on each style when learning. Results vary from apreference on a single learning style (typically rare), to learners who utilize all four learningstyles with approximately equal preference (more common).The VARK test was administered to undergraduate engineering students in both the Middle Eastand
of an engineering activity as the work actual-ly progressed. Cases are often written, or may be presented, in segments with each portionterminating at a critical decision point. Cases illustrate examples of good and bad engi-neering. Since cases represent real engineering activity, the judgments and decisions re-quired of students can be critically compared by them and their peers with those made bythe professionals in the case. Students discover their decisions may be as good as thosemade by the principals in the case, and perhaps better. Even when answers differ, explor-ing the nature of the difference and the underlying reasons can be valuable. Fmphasis incase use is on how results were obtained rather than demonstrating validity of a
in which guest lecturers (faculty) presented their research. We modified the course to(1) inspire students by focusing on grand challenges [3-4], (2) engage students in their learning,(3) engage upper-level students as mentors in the process, and (4) facilitate early development ofscientific writing and presentation skills. In the modified course, students work in CATMEcreated teams, guided by mentors and instructors, to investigate how each of the fivebioengineering tracks (referred to as “approaches”) may be used to investigate the grandchallenge.Course Design and OfferingsThe goal of the Introduction to Bioengineering course is to introduce freshman students to thebreadth of bioengineering, allowing each student to gain knowledge of the
engagement. Inshort, active learning is any activity that engages students in a classroom, and demands studentsto do significant learning activities and analyze what they are doing, rather than simply focusingon traditional lecture. Student engagement in classroom via review, discussion, application andpractice, demonstrated that the students learn more than in traditional classrooms. In-classreading and writing exercises also, improve student engagement in learning process even in largesize classes.To improve student engagement in the class size of up to 40, in senior mechanical engineeringcourses, such as machine design. Every student was provided with similar problem havingdifferent variables to solve. The instructor was solving a similar problem
possession.Truly filled with hope and outward expression.I came in thinking “oh, life would be grand”For a Black womxn who was of high demand.But I speak my truth and my peers despise,I do my work, but my advisor deniesI live my life, but I can’t seem to advanceAnd they wonder why I am sick of this song and dance. - Fantasi Nicole, The Holistic Soul Scholar Black womxn continue to be caught in the matrix of oppression regarding theirintersectional identity within an engineering doctoral context. We, as in Black womxn, are bothhypervisible and invisible, overvalued and undervalued, respected yet demeaned, and admiredyet shamed [1]–[5]. With the desire to make a difference in the world and in our
with little design experience or understanding ofengineering practice. This paper provides suggestions on how these challenges can beovercome and, in particular, how self-assessment rubrics can help eliminate much of thetraditional design course assessment workload for teachers. This paper provides suggestionsfor preparing incremental self-assessment rubrics for a capstone design course. While bothself- and peer-assessment can provide significant assessment time-saving for tutors, self-assessment also promotes student learning, according to recent education research.Appropriately designed rubrics can also provide students with guidance on levels ofattainment required for design tasks and students also learn to assess design
crucible of faculty tenure selection, are ableto perform as well as they do? The cursory reference to teaching in our faculty advertisementswould seem to indicate that such ability is a hygiene factor—something given little value until itis obviously missing. Alternately, a faculty search committee may feel that their students arebright enough to require only the most rudimentary skill on the part of an instructor.If, on the other hand, outliers are selected for their grantsmanship rather than teaching, why don’twe just leave them all on soft money and let them write their own salaries? Or for that matter,why don’t they just go to a research park and negotiate a reduced rate of institutional overhead?Salaries for research faculty would probably
with a solution for a peer. This paper discusses an example for executing these MCNP demonstrations and provides preliminary assessment plan in improving student gains in understanding these topics. Key words: modeling & simulation, education research, nuclearIntroduction In 1996, The American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) began holding newfaculty workshops to help new faculty “understand how to become more effective educators andsupport their quest to gain tenure.”1 The next year, Harvard University physicist Eric Mazur Page 24.1040.2published his manual on peer instruction and began a campaign to question
assessing the course through observing student progress and theoccasional written report or presentation, all assessment items for the course were designed toreplicate preparation for and participation in a peer-reviewed technical conference. A call forpapers was distributed which students responded to by submitting a short abstract. The abstractswere ‘accepted’ and the students then had to write a full technical paper. A double-blind peerreview was performed within the class to include critical analysis practice for students. Thecourse culminated in a ‘two-day’ conference, but to fit within a standard course schedule the twodays were not sequential nor were they full day lengths. The first ‘day’ was oral presentationsheld during regular class time
student learning and development theory andapplication.Evaluation methodology literature reviewMethods for evaluating learning communities have been proposed by Moore,16 Tinto, Love, &Russo,17 Wilkie, 18 and The Living-Learning Program Report.19 Moore used Perry’s20 theory ofintellectual development as a basis for measuring the effects of learning communities. A surveyinstrument, the Measure of Intellectual Development (MID) an essay-writing test derived fromPerry’s work was used to determine impacts from the learning community. The MID was givento learning community participants and also to peers who were then scored on a 1.0 to 5.0 systemrelating to where they stand in Perry’s intellectual development scheme. Intellectualdevelopment was
ethicalresearch practices; and develop individual abilities including reading, writing, and tool use thatare critical to conducting research. This paper presents an overview of the pilot offering of the course as well as initialevaluation of the data collected to inform future improvements of the course. The belowevaluation questions were used to help guide the evaluation efforts: 1. In what ways the course has, or has not, met student expectations? 2. What are the challenges that students reported in taking the course and what are the strategies to resolve the challenges? 3. What are the challenges that instructors reported in teaching the course and what are the strategies to resolve the challenges?Course DesignThe
learning. This coursetypically has 59-120 sophomore and junior level mechanical engineering students enrolled andhas been taught in a flipped format, using the SCALE-UP model (Beichner, 2008), for severalsemesters. By design, the course relies heavily on peer-to-peer instruction through cooperativelearning, and beginning in the semester of Spring 2016, the instructor aimed to move fromcooperative groups to high performing teams using principles of team-based learning (L. K.Michaelsen, Knight, & Fink, 2002). Three primary research questions were examined: 1) whateffect does the implementation of TBL have on individual student learning, compared to anoffering of the course prior to implementation; 2) what effect does the implementation of
Figure 4: Overview of the Double-Blind Peer Review Process.single paragraph regarding at least five technical points that they learned through completing thecapstone report.3.3 Double-Blind Peer Review Process In order to implement a double-blind peer review process, we implement an LMS quiz. In order toincrease the effectiveness and learning aspect of the double-blind peer review process, GTA and facultyinstructor review the final capstone report submissions. Furthermore, GTA and faculty instructor selectthe top 10 high quality capstone paper submissions according to certain criteria, such as formatting ofthe capstone report, quality of writing, quality of figures, and quality of the analysis provided. Afterreviewing the capstone report
responding to writing activities encouragingstudent engagement. The workshop discussed related issues such as graphic organizers,cognitively guided instruction, and challenging culturally relevant experiences that will requirestudents to use technology while working with peers in different collaborative arrangements. Figure 6. A summary of the 2013 STEM-MORE Faculty Development Workshop survey Page 24.1021.14This workshop allowed STEM faculty to explore how they can become part of a learningcommunity to support their students’ learning by collaborating with faculty delivering freshmenseminars that pays away for freshmen mentors, supplemental
found that incorporating new technologies to establish great relationshipsamong the professor and students are a part of the interactive teaching. Warschauer and Healey30provided an overview of current teaching practices and research related to the uses of computersin the language classroom. Lu and Bol20 found that peer review has become commonplace incomposition courses and the results of their research from both semesters showed that studentsparticipating in anonymous e-peer review performed better on the writing performance task andprovided more critical feedback to their peers than did students participating in the identifiable e-peer review. Lowes et al.19 studied the online professional development courses with thediscussion forums and
work reports on the second year of this ongoingstudy of the differences in perception of academic integrity issues among students and faculty.The study grew out of an effort to formalize and increase the rigor of instruction regardingplagiarism in technical writing. The scope expanded to include an instrument administered toboth students and faculty in (REDACTED) that aimed to characterize the degree to whichdifferent cheating behaviors are considered bad or ethically unacceptable. For example, is thesharing of a homework with a peer who was ill before the due date more or less “wrong” thanasking an earlier section of a course what is on an exam before walking in to take the exam? Inaddition, students who are in their first or second semester
lab experience? 3. How can an engineering program introduce elements of design of experiment in the curriculum without overwhelming both students and faculty? 4. How can the students’ lab work be assessed to measure the achievement of learning objectives related to lab experience and to outcome 3.b in particular? 5. How can a faculty member assess the write-up he/she prepares and gives to the students for a design of experiment component in a lab course? 6. How can the engineering program evaluate the student’s lab experience in the curriculum and develop an action plan for further improvements?The present work aims at addressing these open-ended questions and proposes some possibleanswers.Experience of
Paper ID #28232How to be an effective journal and conference paper reviewer withoutbeing a jerkDr. Julie P Martin, Clemson University Julie P. Martin is the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering. She is an associate professor of engineering education at The Ohio State University, a past president of WEPAN, and a Fellow of ASEE. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021Reviewers and editors are essential to the publishing process, and yet no one evertells us how to write a constructive review. Reviewers typically
Classroom: Active Learning Problem-Based Learning Real-World Applications Supplemental Instruction Peer Tutoring/Semi- Individual InstructionClickA Daytoinadd the title Flipped ClassroomVideo LectureBefore Class Students watch video lectures night before. Most watch 1 time, some up to 3 times. Repeat segments as needed. Take notes.ClickA Daytoinadd the title Flipped ClassroomIn Class Whatever you Do, Do NOT Lecture … Click
is an Assistant Professor and Director of ECU Engineering, Inc. at East Carolina University. His research interests include engineering management themes including leadership, followership, team work, organizational culture and trust. Before coming to ECU, he worked in various positions in industry for Chicago Bridge and Iron, E. I. DuPont, Westinghouse Electric, CBS, Viacom and the Washington Group. Dr. Dixon received a BS in Material Engineering from Auburn University, an MBA from Nova Southeastern University and PhD in Industrial and System Engineering and Engineering Management from The University of Alabama Huntsville. He is currently writing a book on the logistical flow of worship
strategy for implementing the program. The strategy provides studentswith a 30-credit-hour program completed in four, 15-week semesters and one summer session.Each semester, students attend three extended weekend sessions, featuring face-to-faceinstruction and live peer interaction. This is complemented throughout the semester withdistance education in a variety of forms including WebCT, listserve announcements, e-mail,audio files, facsimile, and telephone. The summer semester requires one extended weekend oncampus.Graduate Education at a DistanceWith the capability and affordability of today’s personal computers and related peripherals,distance education is becoming more popular across the country. “Formally defined, distanceeducation is a form
” both mimic engineering practice andfollow the cognitive apprentice model. Scaffolding is provided by the instructor through thestandardized report format and rubric with direct feedback on performance to students. Page 12.93.5As well as a team report, each student submits a one page statement outlining their experienceson the project and completes a peer evaluation of their teammates. Students rate each teammember’s contribution to the team through a series of qualitative and quantitative questions.While completing the peer evaluation the student is asked to consider the work done by
Session 1566 Enhancement of an Introductory Course in Dynamics and Machine Elements Andrew N. Vavreck, Ph.D. Penn State University, Altoona CollegeAbstractThis paper discusses improvements which were made to an introductory dynamics and machineelements course at Penn State Altoona, in Altoona, Pennsylvania, in the Fall of 1998. Theimprovements included implementing two team design projects, one on kinematics and theother incorporating kinetics and machine elements as well; inclusion of peer assessment of thedesign projects; balanced incorporation of
the lab courses. At the sametime, the three courses are scaffolded so that students’ build experimentation, communication, andteamwork skills over three semesters. In particular, Thermal Fluids Lab is aligned in the samesemester students take Fluid Mechanics, a semester after they have had Thermodynamics, and aterm before they take Heat and Mass Transfer. It incorporates a significant individual writing as-signment and final team project, in addition to a number of focused experiments with team-basedassignments.The first offering of Thermal Fluids Laboratory was delivered, as it was originally conceived, inFall 2019. Students attended in-person lectures, worked in teams in-person during the lab period,reviewed peer written work during in
engaged in creating and editing materials for themselves as part of establishingtheir digital professional presence.As an example activity, the CV/resume peer-editing exercise required participants to eithercreate or revise their existing CV/resume or personal statement, and then bring it to a moderatedbreakout room discussion for peer review. Peer review was chosen because it provided studentswith the opportunity to view a variety of writing styles and provide constructive comments, bothof which can lead to improvement in students’ writing [6-7]. To encourage critical feedback anda collegial environment, breakout room discussions were moderated by program coordinators[8]. Some students were further motivated by the peer-review exercise and took
theDepartment of Biomedical Engineering at a large southwestern research institution. Studentsincluded 5 females and 6 males from various institutions across the country and representeddiverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Most students were rising sophomores and had varyinglevels of prior research experience. Due to the small sample, sample demographics are notdiscussed in detail to protect student confidentiality.Measures Scientific Communication Self-Efficacy Rating Scale (SCSE). The SCSE is a 24-item,three-factor scale developed at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer center to measurebiomedical students’ self-efficacy for writing, presenting, and speaking on scientific topics[17].Items use a 5-point Likert scale with anchors ranging
Faculty Presentation - Written Communications (writing style, reference citations)6 10 Faculty Presentation - Project Documents – SAP, HSP, QAPP, Work Plan Peer Evaluations13 11 Draft project documents14 12 Return draft documents © American Society for Engineering Education, 2021 2021 ASEE Midwest Section Conference16 13 Final project documents The initial deliverables for the Pre-Capstone class include development of Team Namesand Team Logos. The student teams are then presented with detailed information regarding thescope of the ensuing