comprehensive review of this literature here, wecite and discuss selected works that have influenced our thinking.A large body of research evidence suggests that active learning techniques – broadlytaken here to mean any form of instruction that engages students beyond passivelyreceiving information – promote learning10,11. A particularly convincing study conductedby Hake in the 1990’s demonstrated that physics students exposed to some form of“interactive engagement” developed higher levels of conceptual understanding than thosein “traditional” instructional settings12. Active learning grounds the SCALE-UP projectat North Carolina State University13, many of the integrated engineering curricula thatemerged in the 1990’s14, and some of the emerging
fields of science andengineering degrees. In a study conducted in 2004, he found that over 40 percent of recentscience and engineering graduates attended community college at some point in their educationalpathways. Tsapogas (2004), among the 1999 and 2000 science and engineering (S&E)graduates, almost half (or 44%) had attended a community college sometime during theirpostsecondary education career prior to graduating.Women in STEMThe literature on women in STEM highlights the not only the underrepresentation of thispopulation but also the urgent need to increase the number of women pursuing STEM areas ofstudy. While the percentage of women enrolling and obtaining bachelor degrees is at an all timehigh, the percentage of individuals
(Hernandez)5) Research: Proposition structure and substance (Hernandez) a. Students serve on a review panel (NSF proposals)6) Writing styles: informative, concise, and complete (Minerick)7) Reverse engineering of a proposal (from articles in 3a) (Minerick) a. DUE: 3 page proposal8) Advisor expectations of graduate student assistants - communication (Hernandez)9) Finalize research topic for your proposition (Hernandez) Page 15.630.4 a. DUE: Student’s 1-page proposition with clear proposal objectives10) Proposal Budgets (S. Denson) a. DUE: First draft of Budget, Budget Justification11) Discussions with Instructors: Feedback
have most or all of the following characteristics:4 ≠ Carry academic credit ≠ Engage participants in an active learning process that is student-driven, but guided by a Page 15.665.4 faculty mentor ≠ Produce a tangible outcome or product, such as a business plan, policy recommendation, book, play, or DVD ≠ Involve a team of students, often working on a project that is interdisciplinary in nature ≠ Include a community partner(s) and create an impact on the larger community as well as on the student participants ≠ Focus on student learning outcomes ≠ Help students define a career path or make
each ‘deliverable’; each document or presentation that would be evaluated. ProfessorO___ noted that during his time as a coach, this format left students focusing on eachindividual deliverable but overlooking the project as a whole. Professor O___’s solutionwas a document that gave a project overview, and then individual documents for eachdeliverable. Page 15.1209.6Several formats for the overview were considered, with various level of detail. Oneimportant element that all team members agreed upon was the necessity of anintroduction that linked the project to ‘real world’ work, giving students an understandingof the usefulness of the projects. In
Education, Louisville, KY, June 2010.[6] Simmons K, Sample S and Kedrowicz A, “Prioritizing Teamwork: Promoting Process and Product Effectiveness in a Freshman Engineering Design Course,” Paper submitted for presentation at the 117th Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, Louisville, KY, June 2010.[7] Felder RM and Brent R, The ABCs of Engineering Education: ABET, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Cooperative Learning, and so on. Proceedings ASEE Conference, 2004, Session 1375. Page 15.789.12 ME 1000 LECTURES Week Day Primary Category Official title (syllabus
Achievement Applicable to the Body of Knowledge Required for Entry Into the Practice of Civil Engineering at the Professional Level, Reston, VA, September. (http://www.asce.org/raisethebar)4. Bloom. B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst. E. J., Hill, W. H., and Krathwohl, D. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. David McKay, New York, NY.5. Fridley, K.J., et al., 2009. Educating the Future Civil Engineering for the New Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge,” Proceeding of the 2009 ASEE Annual Conference, June 2009, Austin, TX. Page 15.654.136