. The course includes a series eight (8) of heavily weightedindividualized chapter-based homework sets that are intended to encourage students to preparefor lecture, to practice solution techniques and to apply concepts to solve multi-step problems. Page 15.727.3The course also includes two projects designed to familiarize students with modern tools. Thefirst project requires the student to create a tool to compute the centroids, moments of inertia ofchannel, T, modified I sections using Excel®. The second project requires the use of Maple® forthe analysis of an individualized simply supported beam. The analysis requires the student to: a)Derive
face-to-face courses.IntroductionChemical Materials Science is typically taught as a 4 lecture per week course. Studentperformance is evaluated via weekly homework and 2-3 exams per quarter. Past offerings of thisand other similar materials science courses have included features such as lab experiments andopen ended materials selection projects done in groups. These group projects typically involvedwritten and/or oral reports in order to improve soft skills and allow promotive interactionbetween the students. Collaborative learning has been a key feature of many courses at our Page 15.321.2university, and has been used extensively in other
)courses use primarily Cisco routers and switches that students connect in various configurationsand program to give them the desired functionality for a given exercise or project. While remoteaccess to a router via the Internet is possible, it must be done in a secure manner, such as througha VPN connection. Because the laboratory supports several courses, instructors change deviceconnections and configurations as needed, sometimes on a daily basis. This instability leads todifficulty in managing distance students’ remote access to the lab.An attractive alternative is the use of realistic simulations that give distance students a learningexperience as close as possible to that of the on-campus students. Some important general
AC 2010-2197: CREATION OF A GREATER CARIBBEAN REGIONALENGINEERING ACCREDITATION SYSTEMHugo Pirela, InterAmerican Development Bank Dr. Hugo Pirela is a representative of the Interamerican Development Bank in the Dominican Republic and leads the Greater Caribbean Region Engineering Accreditation System project.Gisela Coto Quintana, SINAES Dr. Gisela Coto Quintana is the International Consultant on the Greater Caribbean Region Engineering Accreditation System project, and is an engineering accreditation expert in the SINAES, an accreditation agency in Costa Rica.Juan Luis Crespo Marino, Universidade da Coruna Dr. Juan Luis Crespo Mariño is a Research Associate on the Greater Caribbean Region
models can be incorporated into the framework as shown in Figure 2. Thehighlighted areas indicate the approximate range of topics for each type of course.Project Goals and ObjectivesThis work will develop a framework for developing and evaluating courses onengineering and technology for non-engineers. The objectives for this project are to: o Refine and validate the proposed framework for evaluating general education engineering courses. o Pilot test the framework through development of pilot courses. o Establish the foundation for a repository of engineering for general education and technological literacy course materials based on this framework.The framework shown in Figures 1 and 2 will serve as an organizational infrastructure
measured the impact that professionaldevelopment training for pre-college engineering had on these beliefs. We examined this in thecontext of a specific, well-regarded, pre-college engineering program, Project Lead the Way(PLTW). We measured teachers’ views before and after training and teaching their first PLTWcourse, as compared to changes observed with a control group of STEM teachers. Some pre-existing differences reached statistical significance: Prospective PLTW teachers were morelikely than control teachers to identify sources of support for engineering in their schools, reportthat science and math concepts were integrated with engineering instruction; and to supportgreater access to engineering. Over time, teachers from both groups were
, University of Washington Priti N. Mody-Pan is the Director of Evaluation at the Center for Workforce Development. Her responsibilities include overseeing funded projects related to the Global Alliance, writing and editing proposals, fundraising, conducting research projects on institutional best practices in diversity, writing reports, managing an international exchange program, conducting program evaluations, marketing, and working with international and national organizations. Ms. Mody-Pan received her Master of Public Administration (MPA) and Master of Arts in International Studies (MAIS) degrees from the University of Washington and her BA in Political Science and East Asian Studies
for students,12 more than80 percent of returned Fulbright scholars say they have recommended that students orcolleagues participate in an international exchange program.13After they return to their U.S. campuses, almost all Fulbright Scholars continue tomaintain their connections to their colleagues and host institutions abroad. Three-quartersof returned Fulbright Scholars continue collaborating on specific projects with colleaguesfrom their host institution or country.14 Approximately one-quarter of returned Fulbrightscholars initiated at least one institution-to-institution exchange program between theirhome and host institutions.15 These exchanges typically include student and faculty
these preconceptions. Consequently, student learningin design is hampered.The intent of this study was to identify preconceptions students bring to design and to framethem in terms of the cognitive literature. The preconceptions were explored using two sequentialfocus group discussions based on the questions, “What did you learn about design?” and “Whatdid you need to un-learn to do design?”The participants in this study had completed an intermediate level design class. The class usedmultiple design-build-test projects supported by lectures to teach design. The semester followingthis class, one design team was selected for the focus group discussions because they initiallydemonstrated low design ability but performed at a high level by the end
textbook problems in which the data required to solve the problem is presentedunambiguously and in its entirety. There is ongoing debate about the effectiveness, orotherwise, of this traditional didactic teaching approach and Hargrove and Dahleh 1 believethat engineering educators must develop more innovative methods for learning in order toreplicate real-world problem solving. Indeed, many practitioners have supplemented theirlectures and tutorials with project-based and problem-based learning activities in an attempt toprovide variety and alternative learning mechanisms for students 2-6. Page 15.441.2The problem with this procedural approach to
several successful Engineering Technology programs and a TechnologyEducation program within our department. In 2007, faculty these programs workedtogether to provide engineering education professional development experiences fornearly 400 teachers; who in turn have taught thousands of K-12 students. This wasfacilitated with the assistance of a $1.7 million grant, and visiting faculty from severalleading design centers in England. This conceptual framework is partially a result of thefindings of that project. Within our Technology Education program, this is ourframework for preparing technology teachers. These teachers promote technologicalliteracy and engineering. The four elements of the framework are 1) Design, 2) Living, 3) Productivity
inform developers of teamdesign thinking measurements. Curricular and pedagogical efforts are currently in place to develop an understanding ofengineering design among high school students through formal and informal experiences.Engineering in K-12 Education 5 presented discussion of a variety of curricular efforts. Includedin these are The Academy of Engineering, Engineering: An Introduction for High School,Engineering by Design, Engineering Your Future: A Project-Based Introduction to Engineering,Engineers of the Future, The Infinity Project, INSPIRES, Learning by Design, Principles ofEngineering, TeachEngineering.org, TECH-Know, A World in Motion, Engineering the Future
several successful Engineering Technology programs and a TechnologyEducation program within our department. In 2007, faculty these programs workedtogether to provide engineering education professional development experiences fornearly 400 teachers; who in turn have taught thousands of K-12 students. This wasfacilitated with the assistance of a $1.7 million grant, and visiting faculty from severalleading design centers in England. This conceptual framework is partially a result of thefindings of that project. Within our Technology Education program, this is ourframework for preparing technology teachers. These teachers promote technologicalliteracy and engineering. The four elements of the framework are 1) Design, 2) Living, 3) Productivity
accompany them here in the US are going right with them. This is far from the truth. It isfrequently only the highly repetitive, low skill jobs that are associated with the high volume output thatgoes. What remains here is the required high level of manufacturing knowledge needed to bring thenext generation of products to the line. Often left out of the discussion is the need for increasededucation in manufacturing to insure we keep this capability. Following are some quotes taken from theBureau of Labor Statistics Overview of the 2008-18 Projections, Production Heading:From the Significant Points section:Job opportunities are expected to be good in the manufacturing sector, particularly in growing, high-technology industries. (1)From the Nature of
the US Army Corp of Engineers Engineering Research and Development Center on the development, design, and implementation of groundwater treatment technologies. His research interests are the development of technologies for the remediation of contaminated media and the development of non-traditional feedstocks for producing biofuels. Dr. Hernandez has over 80 technical presentations at state and national conferences and over 15 peer reviewed publications. He is the principal investigator on projects funded by the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and private industries
up on re-entry1). This very real and recent project is used tohighlight most of the basic principles and themes presented in the body of the course and to serveas an example of the philosophy of innovative design that the students are taught. The studentsare then totally immersed in the actual course problem/challenge: in this case the development ofa solution for the contingency land landing of the Orion space capsule, which results in the safelanding of all crewmembers without injury. Key experts familiar with the technical problem—inthis case landing dynamics, impact attenuation, and biomechanics—present all the relevantinformation that describes the problem statement, requirements, and constraints. Students aretaught the necessary tools
orientation andcommitment to professional practice. The D4P is a four-year sequence of classes that werecarefully designed through a joint industry and university effort to provide all engineeringstudents with hands-on learning and the continuous practice of a broad set of professional skillsin better preparation for careers as engineering practitioners. The program builds these technical,managerial, and professional skills by increasing project intensity, technical difficulty, andprocess complexity one step (course) at a time. EGR 186 and 286 are multi-disciplinary coursesfollowed by the disciplinary CENE 386W, 476, and 486C. Each preceding D4P course serves asa prerequisite to the proceeding one and fosters the accumulation of skills and knowledge
project around the work of others12 Steps to a Better Proposal 8. Grammar and spelling count 9. Format and brevity are important 10. Know the review process 11. Proof read the proposal before you submit it 12. Submit your proposal early and proof read it after you submit it Writing a good proposal takes commonsense and effort—it‛s not magic
the Economy Invest in the Building Standards & •$70 million for NIST to support standards and measurements for health Blocks of American Architecture Innovation IT, smart grid, green manufacturing and other emerging US industries Spur Productive Clean Energy •$300 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy Entrepreneurship and Research Promote Efficiency within Dept of Energy to support transformational discoveries •$170
2011 2013 2015Source: Budget of the United States Government, FY 2011.FY 2010-2015 data are budget projections.© 2010 AAASENGINEERING R&D IN THE FY 2011 U.S. FEDERAL BUDGETThe FY 2011 Federal R&D Investment $147.7 billion, 0.2% increase from FY 2010 Basic Research – $31.3 billion, 4.3% increase Applied Research – $30.3 billion, 6.9% increase Development – $81.5 billion, 3.5% decrease Equipment and Facilities – $4.6
project around the work of others12 Steps to a Better Proposal 8. Grammar and spelling count 9. Format and brevity are important 10. Know the review process 11. Proof read the proposal before you submit it 12. Submit your proposal early and proof read it after you submit it Writing a good proposal takes commonsense and effort—it‛s not magic
AC 2010-989: FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENT SUCCESS IN A SUMMERRESEARCH PROGRAM: FORMAL VERSUS INFORMAL RELATIONALSTRUCTURESMonica Cox, Purdue University Monica F. Cox, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. She obtained a B.S. in mathematics from Spelman College, a M.S. in industrial engineering from the University of Alabama, and a Ph.D. in Leadership and Policy Studies from Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Teaching interests relate to the professional development of graduate engineering students and to leadership, policy, and change in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Primary research projects explore the
students to chat in real-time and participate in virtual face-to-face communication with the instructor. We emphasize that IVLP is still in its prototype stageand requires further testing and enhancements and this paper only reflects our initial results.The rest of this paper is organized as follow. In Section 2 we briefly describe the basic coursedelivery model used in IVLP. In Section 3 we describe the architecture and then we go over thelayout and implementation of IVLP and provide details about individual modules of the system. Page 15.45.22. IVLP Delivery MethodologyThe Integrated Virtual Learning Platform is a pilot project developed by the
Industrial and Management Engineering from Montana State University.Penny Knoll, Montana State University Professor Knoll was in the commercial design-build sector of construction in Phoenix, Arizona, from 1987 to 1999 and owned her own design-build construction firm for eight years before retiring the firm to take the full time position at Montana State University in 2000. She is the program coordinator for the Construction Engineering Technology (CET) program as well as the graduate program, Master of Construction Engineering Managment. These programs are housed in the Department of Civil Engineering. Professor Knoll teaches the CET capstone course, CET 408, Construction Project Management
. Experimentation in the modules allow for students to explore topics such asaerodynamics, mechanics of materials, dynamics and transport at an introductory level. At theuniversity, all of these topics are covered in a freshman introduction to engineering course. Thestudents conduct four module experiments; then after this guided instruction, the freshmen workin small teams to develop experiments. In some cases the student chosen experiments may beextensions of those they have completed or changed to incorporate these principles in othersports related testing. These team projects are a major component and design part of the course,after which the students submit a final laboratory report and present their finding in an oralpresentation. Additionally
Institute of Technology Richard A. Layton is the Director of the Center for the Practice and Scholarship of Education and Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. He received a B.S. from California State University, Northridge, and an M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Washington. His areas of scholarship include student team-building, team-formation and peer-evaluation, laboratory reform, data analysis and presentation, and system dynamics. Prior to his academic career, Dr. Layton worked in consulting engineering, culminating as a group head and a project manager. He is a guitarist and songwriter with the classic alternative rock band
Rosa2 address hands-on skills: Instrumentation,Experiment, Data Analysis, Design, Psychomotor, and Sensory Awareness. While the emphasisin the early part of the 20th century was on the practical, it shifted to the theoretical in mid-century because it was believed that scientifically trained engineers would create morerevolutionary products3. The pendulum has more recently shifted back to the practical withgreater emphasis on project-based learning4. Even as engineering work becomes increasinglysophisticated, practical ability and intuition about physical phenomenon remain important.In addition to grade point average, employers pay attention to practical experience. Recruitersroutinely ask about hands-on experiences outside of classes during
choices to pursue engineering, prioritizecategories to describe humanitarian engineering, level of interest and participation inhumanitarian engineering, and investigate thinking about engineering experiences as a sense ofagency and as community development. The results of this survey provide insight intoawareness of humanitarian engineering across various learning environments. Our data indicatethat a large portion of females and males are attracted to humanitarian projects. The data alsosuggest that humanitarian engineering experiences are interesting pursuits and attracters forstudents that are ethnic minorities. These important results sculpt our understandings about waysto attract and retain a diverse group of engineers
impediments. AsAllan Goodman, president and CEO at the International Education Institute aptly stated in aspeech delivered at Chatham University, “Languages convey much more than facts. Since theyare the repositories of culture, knowing them enables us to gain perspective” (Allan, 2009, pg.368).5 Therefore, interaction among students with differing native tongues provides invaluableopportunities to improve their language skills and cultural awareness simultaneously. Studentsfrom varying backgrounds, enrolled at Middle Tennessee State University, are exposed to peer-led-team-learning environments through the Experimental Vehicles Program (EVP), aninterdisciplinary collaboration in engineering projects. Figures 1 – 4 show examples of thevehicles built
or live television situations. Page 15.86.4 Figure 2: Cameras in the real life studioThe control room is also used in the teaching of switching between different camera feeds andpre-recorded material. The control room (shown in figure 3) is where instructions are given tothe camera operators and where special effects are added. Concepts such as real time chroma(green screen) and transition effects are all taught. Using a series of monitors, camera switchingcan be taught so students can produce television. Figure 3: Vision switching deskOne of the major projects in this course is a