and developing arguments in writing. Thisstudy draws on experiences from changing a course previously relying onmandatory attendance towards challenging and encouraging the students‟contribution to each other‟s learning. Page 26.1586.21. Introduction: Tools For TransformationImagine coming into a classroom, an auditorium housing 150 students. After settingup your computer and PowerPoint-presentation, the bustle quiets down and you beginby welcoming the crowd to your country and university. Though they come from allover the world,from different societies, cultures and schooling, thestudents have twothings in common: all of them are engineering students, and; none of
the motor under various operatingconditions. Surprisingly, upon finalizing the laboratory exercise, a portion of the studentsreturned their reports with estimations of the power that were several orders of magnitude off thenominal motor values.An article written by Kay10 suggested that the robotics curriculum content of the course shouldbe focused on the topics that are interesting to the student, as an example she presented a list oftopics that would be suited to fit better the skills of a specific major, but not those of the othertwo majors. Kay’s argument for tailored curriculum content stemmed from her frustration intrying to find a robotics textbook that would cover specific topics relative to robotics forundergraduates in her major area
VicePresident of Product Management & Engineering for the wireless terminals division of SamsungTelecommunications America. He began his career as an associate professor of electricalengineering at Lakehead University, Canada. He has authored more than 30 technicalpublications and received five patents with several patents pending.Dr. Justin P. OpatkiewiczB.S. U.C. BerkeleyPh.D. Stanford UniversityDr. Opatkiewicz joined the NanoEngineering Department at UC San Diego in 2012 to lecture in avariety of core courses in the Chemical Engineering curriculum. He has won the Teacher of theYear Award for both the NanoEngineering department and the Jacobs School of Engineering in2014. While at Berkeley, Dr. Opatkiewicz created and taught the course
Paper ID #11218PROGRAMMING A SIX AXIS MOTOMAN HP3C ROBOT FOR INDUS-TRIAL SORTING APPLICATIONMr. Hamza Kadir, Purdue University Calumet (College of Technology) Alumni Hamza Kadir, M.Sc., currently works as a Controls Engineer in the Packaging Machinery OEM indus- try. He completed his Masters from Purdue University Calumet, majoring in Mechatronics Engineering Technology. He conducted his M.Sc. Directed Project at the Nick and Nancy Wilson Mechatronics En- gineering Technology Laboratory. This project involves integration of modern automation tools for an intelligent part sorting system. He has previously worked with use of
Paper ID #11535A Series of Singular Testimonies: A New Way to Explore Unearned Advan-tages and Unearned DisadvantagesDr. Julie P Martin, Clemson University Julie P. Martin is an assistant professor of Engineering and Science Education at Clemson University. Her research interests focus on social factors affecting the recruitment, retention, and career development of underrepresented students in engineering. Dr. Martin is a 2009 NSF CAREER awardee for her research entitled, ”Influence of Social Capital on Under-Represented Engineering Students Academic and Career Decisions.” She held an American Association for the
, the length of the testscan be reduced and the precision of measurement improved. Computerized adaptive tests (CAT)have gained wide acceptance in high-stakes applications, including major admissions tests suchas the GMAT, the GRE, and the MCAT, and in vertically integrated assessment of studentproficiency in mathematics and reading, as in the MAP assessment widely used in K12 educationsettings. Computer adaptive testing is also a central component of many of the designs for thenew common core assessments.In a typical CAT, an examinee’s estimated ability is updated after each item response by takingeither the mode of the likelihood, or the posterior mean or mode. After ˆ k has been estimated(for the student after answering item k), the next
and acommunity college, we identify students’ funds of knowledge, or the knowledge gained fromstudents’ family and cultural backgrounds, that is crucial to engineering innovation but neglectedin the curriculum they encounter in college. These funds of knowledge include defining andsolving problems in the midst of financial and material scarcity; building, fixing, and adaptingtechnical artifacts and systems; and empathizing with marginalized groups and communities. Wesuggest that these knowledges position LIFGs as effective innovators of engineering design forcommunity development, though few pursue this path because of financial constraints. Finally,we identify future pathways of this exploratory research, including a) an
http://www.chapman.edu/wilkinson/research-centers/babbie-center/survey-american-fears.aspx. 2. E. Friedland. “Oral Communication across the Curriculum: What’s a Small College to Do? Report of a Collaborative Pilot by Theatre and Education Faculty.” The Journal of General Education, Volume 53, Number 3-4, 2004, 288-310. Page 26.916.13 3. D.M. Hardison and C. Sonchaeng. “Theatre voice training and technology in teaching oral skills: Integrating the components of a speech event.” System, Volume 33, 2005, 593–608.4. R.A. Berk, and R.H. Trieber. “Whose classroom is it, anyway? Improvisation as a
government agencies. In 2010, Dr. Lambrinidou co-conceived the graduate level engineering ethics course ”Engi- neering Ethics and the Public,” which she has been co-teaching to students in engineering and science. She is co-Principal Investigator on a National Science Foundation (NSF) research and education project developing an ethnographic approach to engineering ethics education. Page 26.322.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Canons against Cannons? Social Justice and the Engineering Ethics ImaginaryAbstractWhat if social
undergraduate program with little designexperience in between.In recent years, as conceptions of engineering design thinking have broadened and become morecomplex [3], the capstone-cornerstone curriculum model has been shown to be inadequate [12].Consequently, there are now programs that are taking an integrated design approach wheredesign experiences are incorporated throughout the curriculum [13], [14]. This gives students amore holistic engineering design experience, allows time for design thinking to develop, andexposes students to various design scenarios. For example, the biomedical engineeringdepartment at the University of Wisconsin-Madison requires that students enroll in six semestersof design courses. Students work in teams to solve a real
develop an attachment to the engineering department space, to be a showcase for theprogram, and to provide a 24/7 informal learning space when not being used by classes.Assessment of the space shows that it is pleasant and well-liked by both students and faculty andis working well for teaching a range of classes.At Michigan State University, a more comprehensive approach to first-year engineering wasestablished in 2008 which integrated cornerstone courses, an engineering living-learningresidence hall, computer labs, and a project work space.11,12,13 Similar to NortheasternUniversity, Michigan State’s enrollment is comparable in size (about 700+ first-year engineeringstudents each fall). Researchers discovered that engineering students living in
in undergraduate classes (problem based learning, games and simulations, etc.) as well as integration of innovation and entrepreneurship into the Chemical and Petroleum Engineering as well as broader engineering curriculum. In addition, she is actively engaged in the development of a variety of informal science education approaches with the goal of exciting and teaching K-12 students about regenerative medicine and its potential. Page 26.250.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Assessing the Impact of Game-Based Pedagogy on the Development
Paper ID #12357Communication Class Size and Professional IdentityDr. Corey Owen, University of Saskatchewan Corey Owen received his PhD in English from Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada in 2007. Since then, he has been teaching in the Ron and Jane Graham School of Professional Development in the University of Saskatchewan’s College of Engineering. His research focuses on issues of rhetoric, identity, and learning theory, as well as medieval ethics and literature.Prof. Debora Rolfes, University of Saskatchewan Debora Rolfes is an assistant professor in the Ron and Jane Graham School of Professional
as fosterUniversity – Community College partnerships to offer nanotechnology programs. Penn State hasbeen offering an 18 credit hour capstone semester in nanotechnology to Pennsylvania communityand private two-year colleges (at the community college tuition rate) for 15 years, as part of thePennsylvania Nanofabrication Manufacturing Technology (NMT) partnership. Studentscomplete their first 3 semesters at their local college, then complete the capstone semester at thePenn State - University Park campus. The 6 courses used in the capstone semester are freelyavailable, including curriculum, power point and video presentations of all lectures, andlaboratory experiments2. They also offer remote-access to their instrumentation for
Paper ID #11775Does Motivation Matter for Conceptual Change: Developing Effective Qual-itative Research ApproachesDr. Holly M Matusovich, Virginia Tech Dr. Matusovich is an Assistant Professor and Assistant Department Head for Graduate Programs in Vir- ginia Tech’s Department of Engineering Education. She has her doctorate in Engineering Education and her strengths include qualitative and mixed methods research study design and implementation. She is/was PI/Co-PI on 8 funded research projects including a CAREER grant. She has won several Virginia Tech awards including a Dean’s Award for Outstanding New Faculty. Her research
of the engineeringcourses throughout the curriculum. The courses include Introduction to Engineering, EngineeringGraphics, Calculus and Analytic Geometry, Problem Solving for Engineers (MatLabprogramming course), Materials Science and Engineering, Thermodynamics, Virtual MachineDesign, Engineering of Manufacturing Processes, Quality Control and Reliability, Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Controls I, Controls II, Senior Design Projects, and IndependentResearch/Design Projects.In education, in general, three sets of objectives can be identified: cognitive, affective (refer toattitudes and values), and skill learning22 (expertise gained by training and practice). Engineeringeducation emphasizes cognitive and (to a lesser degree) skill
of view, and to continually makethe concepts more personal. The point of the individual discussion was not to delve too deeply into a particulardisaster or individual ethical decision, necessitating a decision tree or other analyticalformalisms. Rather, the purpose of each debate was to extend the thinking of the students andinfuse an ethical framework from which to view historical and current events with theexpectation that this approach would follow the students to more focused case studies that theywould see in the latter part of the engineering curriculum. The students appreciated both thehigh- and personal-level ethical discussions and communicated their enjoyment of being able tosimultaneously appreciate the technical and human
engineering. Her research interests address a broad spectrum of educational topics, but her specialty is in how people learn problem solving skills.Hannah Christine Zierden, The Ohio State UniversityMr. Kevin Robert Wegman Kevin is a first year graduate student studying Nuclear Engineering. He graduated last fall with a B.S. in Chemical Engineering. Kevin has taught with the EEIC for the past three years, twice as a UTA and once as a GTA.Dr. Rachel Louis Kajfez, Ohio State University Dr. Rachel Louis Kajfez is an Assistant Professor of Practice in the Engineering Education Innovation Center and the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geodetic Engineering at The Ohio State Univer- sity. She earned her B.S. and M.S
resultingfrom primary stress. It would be appropriate to include a course in structural analysis usingFEA, but there is not time in the curriculum for it. Instead, the specialized ship structuralanalysis software MAESTRO is introduced in the ship structures course. MAESTRO is amodified FEA program developed by Professor Owen Hughes of Virginia Tech and currentlymaintained by DRS Technologies, Advanced Marine Technology Center where it has beenupdated and modernized over the years. MAESTRO analyzes ship and ship structures using apanel method (where the panel is in effect an element of the FEA). It was specifically designedfor ship structures. Because of this, it is relatively easy for students to use to conduct basic shipstructural analysis.MAESTRO is
, and applied ethics journals. Herkert previously served as Editor of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine and an Associate Editor of Engineering Studies. He is or has been an active leader in many professional or- ganizations including the Society for Ethics Across the Curriculum, the Society on Social Implications of Technology (SSIT) of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the National Insti- tute for Engineering Ethics, and the Engineering Ethics and Liberal Education/Engineering and Society (LEES) Divisions of the American Society for Engineering Education. In 2005 Herkert received the Ster- ling Olmsted Award, the highest honor bestowed by LEES, for ”making significant contributions in
Paper ID #13565Learning from Senior-Level Engineering & Business Development Profes-sionals to Create Globally Competent Engineers via On- and Off-CampusActivitiesDr. Jane L. Lehr, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Jane Lehr is Chair of the Women’s & Gender Studies Department at California Polytechnic State Uni- versity, San Luis Obispo. She is also an Associate Professor in Ethnic Studies, Director of the Science, Technology & Society Minor Programs, and Faculty Director of the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minor- ity and Underrepresented Student Participation in STEM Program at Cal Poly. She
ofretention in the major by 2.3 times compared to first-year students from prior years, while non-participation lowered the odds of retention by 1.35 times.IntroductionIn 2011, President Obama called for U.S. engineering schools to graduate an additional 10,000engineering students every year.1 One impetus for making this appeal, as explained by the JobsCouncil, was that engineers drive innovation, creating jobs for skilled and unskilled workersalike.2 In short: more engineers can drive economic recovery, and by extension, stability. Inresponse to the appeal, many engineering school deans recognized that one solution was toimprove the retention rate of engineering students,3 specifically first-year retention, which at thetime was reported to be around
. Ultimately, the success of this partnership has been a result ofGWHF’s appreciation of the learning opportunity that this work brings to undergraduateengineering students, and their ability to implement projects in complex environments. At the Spring 2015 Mid-Atlantic ASEE Conference, April 10-11, 2015 Villanova Universitysame time, the success of this partnership has been a result of VU’s appreciation of the projectpartner’s needs, and their ability to leverage humanitarian design projects with undergraduateengineering curriculum. Throughout this process, students have been able to gain valuableexperience in an international setting, collaborate with experts in the humanitarian technologyfield, and develop applied skills in engineering
semesters from Fall 2012 to Summer 2014. Fall 2012 class was taught in the traditional lecture format and used as the control group in the Page 26.1087.5 study. All subsequent semesters were taught in the flipped format with slight variations.Results and DiscussionA student needs a “C” or better grade to successfully complete the course and continue furtherinto the curriculum. In Fall 2012, only 54% of the students that started the semester received themarks required to take further courses in the curriculum. This number includes the 28% thatdropped the course during the semester. It should be noted that the course is not designed to be aweed-out
participants get a broad view of practical engineering.This paper is organized to deliberately integrate the mechanics of the camp operation and theunderlying philosophy of those same mechanics. These camps differ from others in the literaturein many ways. The philosophical basis for the camps seems to be completely unique. Asampling of the literature concerning summer camps yields a variety of publications aboutengineering camps for middle and high school students10,11. Reference 11, in particular, containsa discussion of the types of camps available and their purposes. Many camps are focused onrobotics. Some are single gender. None of the references discovered mentioned an elementaryengineering camp, and the typical numbers of attendees was under
National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow. He received his B.S. in Civil Engineering in 2011 with a minor in philosophy and his M. S. in Civil Engineering in 2015. His research focuses on understanding engineers’ core values, dispositions, and worldviews. His dissertation focuses on conceptualizations, the importance of, and methods to teach empathy within engineering. He is currently the Education Director for Engineers for a Sustainable World and an assistant editor for Engineering Studies.Mr. Paul D. Mathis, Purdue University, West Lafayette Engineering Education PhD undergraduate student at Purdue University. Previously a high school educa- tor for six years with a masters in education curriculum and BS
of learning management systems for large-sample educational research studies, student applications of the design process, curriculum development, and fulfilling the needs of an integrated, multi-disciplinary first-year engineering educational environment through the use of active and collabo- rative learning, problem-based and project-based learning, classroom interaction, and multiple represen- tations of concepts. Page 26.1701.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Video-Annotated Peer Review (VAPR): Considerations for Development and
ofwhat to expect when we encounter something new14. Conceptual knowledge is theunderstanding or interpretation one may have about concepts. This can then be carried into futuresituations, providing the holder with an idea of what to expect in that situation15. Conceptualknowledge can be related to the “Understanding” level of Bloom’s Taxonomy16. While thislevel is not often considered to be difficult for students, it is one of the foundations of higherlearning. Higher thought is likely to be clouded if that foundation is weak, unclear, ormisunderstood15. When concepts are well-understood, students are often able to explain relatedproblems, make inferences from the problem, integrate other ideas, predict outcomes and applyconceptual knowledge to
participation inthoughtfully organized service that is conducted in and meets the needs of the communityand that is integrated into and enhances the academic curriculum of the students; andprovides structured time for the students to reflect on the service activity in such a way asto gain further understanding of course content. (Bringle & Hatcher, 1995) The studentsdo a verbal reflection once every 2 weeks. The plan is to provide the following questionstowards the end of the project. This will help us have a record of what students havelearning. Page 26.1367.5There are currently about 15 active members in SWID and 5 of them are working on thecommunity
hasspecific objectives that will support these goals. They are: (1) develop and maintain an effectiveliaison between BRCC and LSU; (2) utilize scholars to develop a peer ambassador/mentorprogram facilitating transfer success; (3) establish and conduct a pre-transfer academiccounseling program; (4) expand existing seminars to orient and integrate BRCC and othertransfer students into LSU and (5) invite BRCC math, science and engineering faculty toparticipate in ongoing Faculty Development.Activities of the program to date have included outreach, professional development, advising,and developing an overall assessment tool. All scholars participated in outreach activities thatconsisted of Peer-to-Peer talks at BRCC each semester and Shadow Days at LSU