, design, andimplementation of engineering and technology in engineering field. It is generally expectedengineering technologists often work under professional engineers. However, InternationalEngineering Technologists Agreement (IETA) stipulates an engineering technology shalldemonstrate “the competence for independent practice as an engineering technologist asexemplified by the International Engineering Alliance (IEA)1 competency profile.” IETA(Sydney Accord) provides knowledge profile for engineering technologists as: a systematic,theory- based understanding of the natural sciences applicable to the sub-discipline,conceptually-based mathematics, numerical analysis, statistics, and aspects of computer andinformation science to support analysis
that engineering technologyand related disciplines tend to be male dominated. The reporting students most frequentlyidentified as white, followed by Asian and Hispanic. Most students attended a suburban, publichigh school and about 47% of students reported receiving no support as they prepared to attendcollege.Key Words: Undergraduate students, matriculation, retention, graduation, engineeringtechnologyIntroductionThe work offered in this paper was intended to address recommendations 3 and 4 from a reportpublished by the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) [1]. This recommendation suggeststhat researchers focus on understanding the population of ET (Engineering Technology) studentsthrough understanding why they choose ET, socioeconomic
capture.For this study, we asked students to record their activities within 13 different categories as shownin Table 1. We created a shared Google Sheet for each participant to record their data in 30-minute increments each day. For every increment, a student would select from one of the 13categories that described their activity for that 30-minute time block. Additionally, students wereasked to also include what class an activity was associated with, the location of the activity, andany additional notes they could provide. Figure 1 shows a sample screenshot of the Google Sheetstudents were asked to fill out each day. Each shared workbook included 14 identical sheets, onefor each day students were asked to record their data. For the categories column
Design (CAD). c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019Enhanced Student Learning Experience in Technical Drawing and CADthrough Augmented Reality and Micro Credentials Yue (Jeff) Hung1, Daniel Weinman1 1 Farmingdale State CollegeAbstractComputer Aided Drafting and Design is a required freshman course for Mechanical EngineeringTechnology AAS and BS and Manufacturing Engineering Technology BS programs atFarmingdale State College. The course teaches students technical drawings and computer aideddesign (CAD) which includes 2D computer aided drafting, and 3D modeling. These topics areclosely related. The students who excel in these topics will have
systemcontrollers [1]. Therefore, the course lectures include a significant amount of time presentingmathematical derivations and discussing control theory. Students can easily lose their interest inabstract concepts such as those covered in this course and, consequently, their understanding ofthe course material will not reach the desired level by the end of the course. Active learning hasbeen shown to improve student engagement and increase the depth of theoretical knowledge.Therefore, including hands-on activities would be beneficial in resolving such issues [2,3]. Anadditional motivation to include hands-on projects and demonstrations in our control systemdesign course is that these activities support the attainment of ABET student outcome (6
theincreasing influence of engineering design and computing in shaping our lives, education standardsshould require all students to have significant and equitable STEM experiences. Such arequirement would foster an interest in STEM subjects and careers in more, diverse students, whilereducing the focus on STEM pipelines.IntroductionAs a response to a recent essay from Lecturer Stuart Reges on “Why Women Don’t Code,” [1]Professor Barbara Oakley of Oakland University supported his premise that women often choosenon-STEM disciplines, but attributed part of the responsibility for limited science, technology,engineering and mathematics (STEM) diversity to faculty from the humanities and social scienceswho “malign” STEM disciplines and
connection of concepts and applications. Students can often learn to solvetextbook problems, without deeply understanding the connection between various courses andfundamental engineering concepts. Therefore, although engineering curricula are well-designedand highly structured, a few research studies have reported that students who successfullycompleted the engineering education still faced challenges during the college to career transition[1, 2].The advances of additive manufacturing technologies have provided a unique platform tointegrate multiple mechanical engineering topics and courses to enhance both graduate andundergraduate education. Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has been well-accepted asan additive manufacturing approach for
the lower-division level. The program was modeled on previous programsthat had been shown effective at retaining URM students [1] [2]. First and second year studentswere targeted for this research program because over 70% of the STEM students who leaveCSUB without a degree leave in the first two years. The first two years are a critical interventionperiod for promoting success and retention.In [3], we described the first two years of the program and presented preliminary results withrespects to attitudes and awareness, along with one-year retention data. In this paper, we look atthe full four years of the program to analyze multi-year retention rates, the survey and interviewdata collected during the program, and the follow-up surveys
of student feedbackregarding the level of their interest in programming before and after robotic activities, thechallenges of programming a robot, and their overall rating of integrating robotic activities inprogramming classes are presented and discussed.IntroductionIntroductory computer programming is a core subject in the curriculum of computer sciencemajor. The subject is frequently taught in three different courses; namely, CS 0, CS 1, and CS 2.The topics covered in CS 0 are often related to various fundamental concepts in computing andcomputer algorithms. Many computer science programs place a particular emphasis on computeralgorithm in CS 0 to familiarize students with programming logic. In CS 1, students learn towrite computer
multipleinstructors, ranging from graduate students to full-time faculty members. It is notable thatstudents taking this course during the spring semester are considered “off-semester” students.Traditionally, students enter the program in the fall and take the courses in a Fall-Springsequence. In contrast, off-semester students take the courses in a Spring-Fall sequence. Duringthe traditional sequence, each major-granting engineering department offers information sessionsin the Fall for students taking the course. However, because of the reduced number of studentstaking the off-semester sequence, this resource is not available to them in the Spring semester.The Foundations I course offered during Spring 2018 contained eight explicit learning outcomes: 1
learning has dramatically beendecreasing [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. According to a survey done by the Business HigherEducation Forum in May 2012, 35% of four-year college students were math proficient but notinterested in STEM [7]. In another survey, 42.1% of college students were not proficient and notinterested, 15.2% were not proficient but interested, 25.4% were proficient but not interested andonly 17.3% were proficient and interested. The middle two categories “not proficient andinterested” and “proficient but not interested” contribute to approximately 41%. The students inboth categories need some effort to either improve their learning outcome or to keep themfocused during the learning process to retain their interests. Many
true value is known. However, in real life, the correct value remains anunknown and an analyst is only able to specify a range for the measured value with a probability. Uncertainty is typically indicated using an interval along with a certain probability (usually95%). For instance, if the measured value of a variable is 𝑥𝑥̅ and the uncertainty is u x with 95%confidence, then Eq. (1) means that the true value of x would fall within the defined range 95percent of the time on average.𝑥𝑥 = 𝑥𝑥̅ ± 𝑢𝑢𝑥𝑥 (1) The uncertainty of an instrument is typically indicated by its manufacturer. As a rule ofthumb, if the uncertainty of a device is unknown, one can
EntrepreneurialIntentions within either engineering or business majors [1], or on the psychological side of inten-tions [2], this current work bridges the gap between intentions and Entrepreneurial Actions.Our work is based on qualitative semi-structured interviews of participants in the EngineeringMajors Survey (EMS) 1 . All 16 interviewees participated at least at two of the three nationally-representative, longitudinal Engineering Majors Surveys. The EMS is a survey designed to ex-plore engineering students’ technical, innovation, and entrepreneurial interests and experiencesover time. The interviewees in this study had relatively high Entrepreneurial Intentions comparedto the average of all EMS participants. Furthermore, they are categorized into three groups
, Wilfrido Alejandro Moreno1,2,3 1 Complex Systems & Education Network – ISTEC (SCED-ISTEC) 2 University of South Florida(USF) - Electrical Engineering Department 3 Ibero-American Science and Technology Education Consortium (ISTEC)ABSTRACT The proposed framework for ethics training, allows for a contextualized and meaningfulThe contemporary society characterized by learning model for new engineers favoring theinter/multi/trans-disciplinary, globalization, inter/multi/trans-disciplinary with
Engineering Department. She served as Co-PI on an NSF RET Grant and a USDA NIFA grant, and is currently co-PI on three NSF-funded projects in engineering and computer science education, including a Revolutionizing Engineering Departments project. She was selected as a National Academy of Education / Spencer Post- doctoral Fellow and a 2018 NSF CAREER awardee in engineering education research. Dr. Svihla studies learning in authentic, real world conditions; this includes a two-strand research program focused on (1) authentic assessment, often aided by interactive technology, and (2) design learning, in which she studies engineers designing devices, scientists designing investigations, teachers designing learning experiences
theimportance of engineering ethics. Educators have begun incorporating engineering ethics incurricula in a variety of formats: as a component in introductory or capstone courses, a centralelement in stand-alone courses, and/or through deliberate integration across curriculum [1], [2].The main approaches in teaching of ethics continue to use case studies or case-based discussionssupplemented by moral theory and/or professional codes of ethics. Service learning is anotherapproach that has increasingly been used and reported as an effective pedagogical strategy ininstruction of engineering ethics [3]-[5]. In the U.S., the main driver in incorporating ethics inengineering curriculum was the changes in ABET engineering criteria requirements on
study design paired twosequential rigid-body motion topics in Engineering Mechanics: Dynamics to test the effect offlipped vs. traditional lecture on both student learning and engagement. We alternated instructionalmethodology (traditional lecture + flipping) between the two sections of Dynamics in spring 2018.The traditional lecture sessions were taught with hand-written note lectures (with limited activelearning) and completed two typical numerical homework problems per topic. For the flippedsessions, students watched instructional lecture videos prior to class, worked through a hands-onin-class activity, and completed analytical questions related to the in-class activity whichsubstituted for 1 of the 2 homework problems on each topic. Paired
literature review that are typically encountered by civil engineers. The students were asked torespond to each statement using a 5-point Likert scale including strongly disagree, somewhatdisagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, and strongly agree. The statements areprovided in Table 1. Table 1. Survey StatementsQID Statements 1 It is important to adhere to applicable laws and regulations even when unethical actions cannot be traced back to you. 2 Your obligation to your employer is secondary to your obligation to society. 3 During an open bid for a project, it is acceptable to work with other contractors to determine their bids. 4 It is acceptable to underbid on a
systems and advanced robotics. Her teaching excellence has been recognized by numerous awards. More recently, she is interested in developing inclusive teaching best practices that will support students with diverse learning styles for improved learning outcomes. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 An Evaluation of a Digital Learning Management System in High School Physics Classrooms 1 Meera Singh, 1Qiao Sun, and 2Cassy Weber meera.singh@ucalgary.ca; qsun@ucalgary.ca; CWeber@MindFuel.ca 1 Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, The
. Joyce, C.S.C., Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching which recognizes faculty members who have a profound influence on undergraduate students through sustained exemplary teaching. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 EVALUATION OF A FLIPPED CLASSROOM IN STRUCTURAL STEEL DESIGNIntroductionAn upper-division structural engineering design course focusing on structural steel design wasreformatted to follow a “flipped” classroom model. Flipped classrooms place greater emphasison self-study for basic concepts to allow for more interactive, example-based learning duringtime spent within the classroom [1]. By spending more time preparing for a
to create this sought-after learning environment in the context of a single-semester laboratory course?Students in engineering laboratory courses experience hands-on, open-ended, inquiry-basedlearning. This type of learning is pedagogically favorable to the passive learning that sometimesoccurs during lecture-based content delivery. The problem with labs, however, is that studentsmust often invest much time in data collection, reduction, and analysis for the sake of learningwith no tangible outcome, artifact, or external benefit. Contemporary student populations valueand engage better with learning activities that have some impact complimentary but external totheir own learning [1].Project-based educational laboratory courses can be
various academicinstitutions, with some positive overall results. A main goal pursued with those initiatives is toimprove the students’ spatial visualization skills, as measured by their scores in a standardizedvisualization test, by comparing the pre-initiative and the post-initiative performance of thestudents. Thus having as well an indication of the effectiveness of the implemented initiative.There are several tests that have been applied to measure spatial visualization skills of students[1, 2], and there are numerous studies that have collected and analyzed information regardingdemographics, spatial visualization skills, and academic performance [3, 4]. Of interest arestudies where spatial visualization skills have been linked to abilities
made.IntroductionSustainability is, as stated in the United Nations Report on the World Commission onEnvironment and Development [1], the consideration of impacts to and preservation of theeconomy, the environment, and social equity (often referred to as “the three ‘E’s” ofsustainability) in the execution of any plan or project. Its growth as a field of study and as astandard of practice is understandable in light of concerns about dwindling resources, populationand developmental growth, and environmental sensitivity based on global warming and othernatural phenomena. Engineering in general, and civil and construction engineering in particular,is a field uniquely well-equipped to tackle the issues of incorporating sustainability into projectexecution. Indeed, the study
process.1. IntroductionThe motivation for differentiated instruction (DI) is based on the observation that any classenvironment will consist of learners of different abilities, interests, learning styles and culturalbackgrounds. This implies that learners will respond to instruction differently, and the one-size-fits-all teaching approach, commonly utilized in college classrooms, is less than optimal from thestandpoint of student learning. DI acknowledges the diverse characteristics of the individuallearner by designing learning experiences that are adapted to meet the unique learning needs of astudent with the expectation of improving student success compared to the one-size-fits-allparadigm. In the DI model [1], an instructor can differentiate
thePresident’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in 2012, there is a projectedneed for 1 million more STEM professionals than the U.S. will produce at the current rate over thenext decade [1]. More specifically, the U.S. will need to increase the number of students whoreceive undergraduate STEM degrees by about 34% annually over current rates to meet that need[1]. The recruitment and retention of more ethnic minorities into STEM fields is needed to assistin closing the gap between the current supply and demand for STEM professionals. Minoritieshave historically been underrepresented in STEM. In fact, underrepresented minorities (AfricanAmerican, Native American and Hispanic) earned just 18.9% of all bachelor’s degrees awarded
. Oneillustrative example of evolution of engineering curriculum is the ASEE-commissioned “Reportof the Committee on Evaluation of Engineering Education”, the so-called Grinter report from1955 [1]. The first draft of the Grinter report called for two models of engineering education, withmost engineering students being prepared for industry and the remainder given a more advancedscientific preparation [2]. However, most engineering schools, wanting access to governmentresearch funding, protested, leading to the final report calling for a single model with an increasedfocus on science.The Grinter report recommended that all engineers should gain a background in the sixengineering sciences of solid mechanics, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, heat and
landing and two circuitseach with an enroute, arrival, and instrument approach segment. Each pilot completed fivesessions in an Advanced Aviation Training Device (AATD). Three segments were chosen fromeach circuit for initial analysis: takeoff, enroute 1, and approach 1. EEG brainwaves observedacross multiple frequency bands were found to have changed over the segments. In particular, wefound that the theta band, often an indicator of drowsiness, decreased for the majority ofparticipants. We also computed the engagement index, which was generated as a composite ofthree EEG channels: alpha, delta, and theta. The engagement index is a measure of workload andmental activity, and it seemed to correlate with the participant’s training and flight
-12 students be given the opportunity to interact with science and engineeringconcepts both formally and informally. While the introduction of Next Generation ScienceStandards (NGSS) has encouraged more integration of engineering in the K-12 classroom,universities engaging with K-12 populations is a value-added proposition, especially in the caseof high school students seeking exposure to engineering as a college major and future career [1].When universities and high schools collaborate on education outreach, students are more likelyto be exposed to real-world applications of basic engineering concepts, which gives them morein-depth insight into engineering [2], [3].This paper shares the best practices in designing a long-term summer program
(FGCU). Success in this course is critical to success in follow-up mechanics coursesand upper-level engineering courses. Data has been collected on students’ performance onhomework, quizzes and exams, and also on the students’ thoughts on learning and coursedelivery. Thus far, we have concluded that the use of traditional hand-written homework,frequent assessment via quizzes [1], or the Pearson Mastering Engineering [2] software forformative assessment did not have a significant impact on students’ performance on exams. Itwas also observed that neither traditional nor online homework scores correlated well with examscores; however, in-class quizzes did correlate with final exam scores. Most recently, using theMastering Engineering Online system
with whether those students eventually leaveengineering. We use this information to compare students who stayed in engineering againstthose who left using quantitative data on how certain and interested they initially were inengineering as well as qualitative responses describing why they switched disciplines or leftengineering.IntroductionAs STEM students and workers gain national attention, a growing body of research seeks toexamine why students choose to pursue STEM-based majors as demonstrated in many previousreports [1]-[4]. Supporting this growth, the National Science Board put together a reportexamining the STEM pipeline, the process of students moving from early education, throughhigh school and college, and into STEM careers [5