an excellent interdisciplinary learning experience in such courses.Bibliography 1. Incropera, Frank, P.; Dewitt, David, P., “Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, 4th. Edition”, J. Wiley, 1996.2. Kreith, Frank, Bohn, Mark,S., “Principles of Heat Transfer, 6th. Edition", Brooks/Cole, 2001.3. Arpaci, Vedat, S., “Conduction Heat Transfer”, Addison Wesley, 1966.4. Ӧzışık, Necati, M,.“Boundary Value Problems of Heat Conduction ", International Textbook Company, 1968.
ideasborrowed from environmental ethics seem particularly relevant. One such methodology, firstdeveloped by Johnson, termed a morally deep world view, cautions that both the individual andthe system(s) in which that individual is embedded, matter from an ethical point of view.3 Asecond approach uses the development first offered by Thomas Berry4 and further refined bySwimme 5 and Swimme and Tucker.6 This paradigm takes us from an individual or localperspective on ethical reasoning to an Earth and Universe perspective which is alive, integratedand dependent. Berry described three universal principles that ought to govern our response toethical dilemmas. Those principles include differentiation, subjectivity and communion orcommunity. Here
being conducted by Dr. Daylene Meuschke and Dr. Barry Gribbons, who head the Institutional Research Office of Collegeof the Canyons. Implementation has been facilitated by the invaluable organizationalsupport provided by CREATE Project Manager Gabrielle Temple. Assistance with thecreation of the research design was provided by CREATE Evaluator Dr. Jean Sando. References 1. Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century (2005). National Academy of Engineering of the National Academies. ISBN 0-309-55006-8 (pdf). National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055. 2. Cullen, E. , Fairhurst, C., Alfano, K, Barnow, B., Henson, S, DeRocco, E
, posture assessment, lifting safety, and anthropometry.The course has an “S” designation associated with it, as it is formally recognized as a service-learning course by the university. This designation communicates that students in the course willapply the course material in a meaningful way to fill a community need. The overall projectaccounted for 30% of the course grade. This included five deliverables: reflective journal (10%),preliminary operations analysis report (30%), preliminary design recommendations report (30%),final technical report (10%), and project showcase (20%).The journals were done individually by each student, and the other deliverables were completedby teams of 5 to 6 students. Students were assigned to groups by the course
& Exposition, Seattle, WA, June.3. Stewart, J., Van Kirk, J., and Rowell, R. (1979). Concept maps: a tool for use in biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 41 (3), 171-175.4. Novak, J.D. (1998). Learning Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahway, NJ.5. Novak, J.D., and Canas, A. J. (2008). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition Technical Report, IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 2008-01.6. Ingec, S. K. (2009). Analysing Concept Maps as an Assessment Tool in Teaching Physics and Comparison with Achievement Tests. International Journal of Science
, Atlanta, GA, United states, 2005. [3] Cornelius J. Dennehy, Steve Labbe, and Kenneth L. Lebsock. The value of identifying and recovering lost GN&c lessons learned: Aeronautical, spacecraft, and launch vehicle examples. In AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 2010. [4] J.D. Novak. Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps(tm) As Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations. Taylor & Francis, 1998. [5] J. S. Bruner. The Process of Education. A Harvard paperback. Harvard University Press, 1960. [6] J. S. Bruner. The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31:21–32, 1961. [7] Kirsten R. Butcher and Tamara Sumner. Self-directed learning and the sensemaking paradox. Human–Computer Interaction
is that their curricularhave to meet the requirements of many audiences. The difficulty of developing a communityof scholarship that meets the needs of all these audiences is illustrated by extreme examplesof the questions that the public need to answer in deciding what action they ought to take inresponse to such happenings as the GM and Volkswagen automobile scandals. Anengineering view of technological literacy is inadequate for the task it is expected to do. Aninterdisciplinary approach is clearly necessary.References[1] Krupczak, J., Blake, J. W., Disney, K. A., Hilgarth, C. O., Libros, R., Mina, M and S. R. Walk (2102).Defining technological literacy, Proceedings Annual Conference of the American Society for EngineeringEducation. Paper
. It has 256kB of on-chip SRAM, which has been adequate for the largearray blocks required for sample buffering and DSP processing. It also includes DMA, I2S, andI2C, which are all used in this work. This microcontroller allows for both fixed-point and floatingpoint DSP.The board itself does not include audio resources and the K65’s DAC is only 12-bits. Becauseaudio is the primary application used in the DSP labs, another board (i.e., a CODEC board) isrequired to provide these features.In-House designed CODEC boardThe CODEC board is based on Texas Instrument’s TLV320AIC3007 Stereo Audio CODEC.This CODEC has many configuration options and requires a low chip count for basic audioinputs and outputs as can be seen in Figure 1. The block diagram
Paper ID #17493The Case of an Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) Department inthe Internationalization Process of a Research I Public InstitutionDr. Fabiola P Ehlers-Zavala, Colorado State University Fabiola P. Ehlers-Zavala was named INTO Colorado State University (CSU)’s Center Director in Novem- ber 2014, having previously fulfilled the role of INTO CSU Academic Director (March 2013-November 2014). In her CD capacity, she works with Colleges across campus, and has a particular interest in the preparation of international students pursuing engineering degrees at the undergraduate and graduate lev- els. She earned
shouldinculcate females towards this direction. All in all, the key issue appears to be ‘motivation’(Fingleton et al. 2014).ReferencesBix, Amy Sue. 2000. “Engineering Education in the United States Has a Gendered.” IEEE, Technology and Society Magazine 19(1):20–26.Douie, Vera. 1950. Daughters of Britain. edited by Ronald. London.Eagly, Alice H. and Linda L. Carli. 2003. “The Female Leadership Advantage: An Evaluation of the Evidence.” The Leadership Quarterly 14(6):807–34.Eccles, J. S. and B. L. Barber. 1999. “Student Council, Volunteering, Basketball, or Marching Band: What Kind of Extracurricular Involvement Matters?” Journal of Adolescent Research 14(2012):10–43.Escueta, Maya, Tushar Saxena, and Varun Aggarwal. 2013. Women in Engineering
the technology and materials used. Table 2. Comparison of three inexpensive 3D printing technologies Name Technology Price Material Price/Mat Resolution Speed MakerBot FDM $2500 ABS, PLA $50/kg 100 µm varies Replicator 2X Pegasus SLA DLP $3000 FSL3D $138/kg 50 µm 1s/layer Touch resin Mini Metal FDM $2300 Metal Clay $200/kg 100 µm varies MakerExample 2. Figure 4 shows MakerbBot Replicator 2X 3D printer improvements by adding extrafan(s). Figure 4-a shows the 3D printer extruders as purchased, Figure 4-b depicts a
Paper ID #15380A Scavenger Hunt to Connect the As-Built World to Structural EngineeringTheoryDr. Matthew Swenty P.E., Virginia Military Institute Matthew (Matt) Swenty obtained his Bachelors and Masters degrees in Civil Engineering from Missouri S&T then worked as a bridge designer at the Missouri Department of Transportation before obtaining his Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from Virginia Tech. He worked at the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center in McClean, Virginia focusing on concrete bridge research prior to joining the faculty at the Vir- ginia Military Institute (VMI). He teaches engineering mechanics and
(ENGR101), was specifically designed and offered during the fall quarter of the 2015-16 school year asa part of a NSF S-STEM grant, Program for Engineering Excellence for Partner Schools(PEEPS). PEEPS is a cohort scholarship program that provides engineering students withfinancial, academic, and social support3. ENGR 101 was developed by two engineering faculty, aVISTA member, and supported by a curriculum expert, to expand the benefits of PEEPS to alarger number of students and to establish interventions and practices in engineering classroomsthat better support diversity on our university’s campus. The specific course goals were todevelop and enhance students’ engineering identity and sense of belonging within the College ofEngineering in order
needs. Thesenames were given to the professor who then contacted them, described the pilot project, andchose a topic(s) for the capstone course.A company in the entertainment industry that agreed to participate had technical staff that werelocated at a distant location. Despite this distance, they were willing to work with students viavideo teleconference, multimedia and the internet. They also committed their time to supportingthe capstone and mini-capstone projects to 1 hour per week. The other participant in theeducation industry was in the local vicinity and therefore could make a presentation on site andcollaborate with the students in person.Busy industry technologists were offered the following incentives to make presentations tostudents
prospects with sponsor(s)Research Labs Manufacturing Research Recruitment of in-class, trained Research experience,Doubling as Lab Invites Class Students students who previously used jobsEducational to Participate in Lab equipment; feedback with freshSpaces Meetings perspective Environmental Studies of Publications, research data and Training on effective use Waste and Operation from access to “free” space and student and 3D printers,Extracurricular 3D Printers in MakerSpace researchers
noticedisciplinary aspects of their students’ engineering design.AcknowledgementsThis work was conducted at the Tufts University Center for Engineering Education andOutreach. This project is funded by the National Science Foundation DRK-12 program, grant#DRL-1020243. The authors would like to thank the Novel Engineering team for theirassistance, particularly Dr. Mary McCormick and Brian O’Connell for their help in conductingthe interviewers. The authors would also like to thank the six teachers who participated in theinterviews.References1) Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics, and ICT Education, 6(1), 51-72.2) Robertson, A. D
% Change Average Teacher Focused 2.75 2.75 0 Teacher Focused Average Student Focused 3.875 3.875 0 Student Focused Faculty 3 PRE POST % Change Average Teacher Focused 3.75 3.75 0 Teacher Focused Average Student Focused 2.875 3.5 21.7 Student FocusedTable 2. shows the results for the self-reported RTOP survey, and Table 3 presents the results forthe recently developed Faculty Teaching and Learning Awareness Survey.For all three surveys, it is clear that Faculty 1's self-reported results demonstrate a significantchange from the beginning to the
follow-up interview researchfor the next five years. The overarching goal of the study is to better understand what kinds ofvariables seem to motivate middle and high school boys and girls in the U. S. South to pursuecomputer science education as well as what kinds of variables seem to influence educationalpersistence and successful entry into the computing workforce. The purposes of our largerresearch project are multiple: (1) To assess the effectiveness of a project-based camp curriculum that integrates digital composing, rhetoric, and design with computer science and engineering education; (2) To better understand the dynamics of collaborative/team-based and competitive projects in groups of middle and high school boys and
things.Methodological overview The methodological approach for this project came about via both theoretical (literature)and practical considerations. While the cultural construction literature tends to emphasize theoryand analysis, we tried to assemble a robust and consistent methodological approach to investigatecultural construction in a particular setting. In McDermott’s early writing at the time of his datacollection (1970’s) he aligned himself methodologically with three primary traditions:ethnography, ethnomethodology, and discourse/interaction analysis17,18,19. As an investigation ofculture, the work relies on ethnographic methods and approaches, such as the incorporation ofmultiple qualitative data streams, ethnographic field noting20, and one
impactsummative assessment later in the course1. Competency integrated standards of achievementprovide guidelines for improvement including strengths and weaknesses of the course, contentchanges, methods of content delivery, and assessment8.Competency is defined as having the ability to do a set task(s) focusing on the application ofknowledge and not only on the acquisition of knowledge or skills8,9. Using competency basedstandards, the strengths and weakness of a course could be effectively determined8. One methodis to define a competency based curriculum, where students have to achieve a minimum level ofknowledge in their studies to graduate. These competencies provide a set of guidelines for studentsto move closer to their educational goals. These
development work on participants’ role identities aspresenters and engineering ambassadors Participant Comment about Presentation Development Primary RI Component(s) Alex “We sat through a presentation on public speaking…and how AP, Presenter we organize a presentation that was great. I really loved that because that gave me a new perspective on formatting a presentation that can get the topic across to the audience without distracting or boring them.” “I felt a lot more confident in my presentation skills to be SP, Presenter honest. I feel
packages. They then improve and reevaluate this design13.The study recruited teachers from Massachusetts, Maryland, and North Carolina. Allparticipating teachers received three days of professional development on the curriculum unit(s)that they would be teaching (assigned based on alignment with which science topics theyreported teaching). They then implemented their assigned unit during the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years. As part of this implementation, students completed all written work in anengineering notebook which was returned to the researchers when the unit was completed. Theengineering notebooks were developed for the efficacy study by consolidating worksheetsalready included in the teacher’s guides for the units and binding
particular, the facilitator emphasized the importanceof setting a clear team mission and goals, achieving team motivation through the careful balanceof each team member’s interests, and a team culture that promotes and encourages contributionfrom each team member.Students then participated in a modified version of the fort-building activity, which was intendedto be more structured and reflective of the knowledge students had just been provided. To thisend, the goal of the second build was modified to "maximizing the team score, objectivelymeasurable by a given metric". The metric to be maximized was (n + s)(h – 4) – y, where n, s, h,and y were defined as the total number of towers, the number of square towers, the height of thetallest tower (in
Paper ID #16951Teaching Engineering Design in an Academic Makerspace: Blending Theoryand Practice to Solve Client-based ProblemsDr. Vincent Wilczynski, Yale University Vincent Wilczynski is the Deputy Dean of the Yale School of Engineering and Applied Science and the James S. Tyler Director of the Yale Center for Engineering Innovation & Design. As the Deputy Dean, he helps plan and implement all academic initiatives at the School. In addition, he manages the School’s teaching and research resources and facilities. As the James S. Tyler Director of the Center for Engineer- ing Innovation & Design he leads the
traveling and resulted in short reportsafter travel.Site visit reports: Participants completed reports for each site visited. These forms consisted offive question prompts and resulted in formative, reflective reports that captured their experiencesat each visit and also acted as informal journals that they could use in the future to identifytrends, concepts and/or innovations that they found notable. The reports also served as a recordfor their continued investigation into their individual inquiry question(s).Sector Reports: Upon return, participants were paired up on teams based on their specific areaof renewable energy expertise to complete sector reports which compared and contrasted theGerman and U.S. energy industry, educational pathways
. Harvard Business Review, 79 (1), p. 106‐116.11. Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2008). Barriers and promises in STEM reform. Presented at National Academies of Science Promising Practices Workshop, Washington DC, 2008.12. Byers, T., Seelig, T., Sheppard, S., and Weilerstein, P. (2013). “Entrepreneurship: Its Role in Engineering Education,” Bridge Link. Eng. Soc., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 35–40.13. Giersch, S., & McMartin, F. P., & Nilsen, E., & Sheppard, S., & Weilerstein, P. (2014). Supporting Change in Entrepreneurship Education: Creating a Faculty Development Program Grounded in Results from a Literature Review. Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana. https://peer.asee.org