zero as shown in Fig. 4 (a) and will increase eventually.The pendulum will keep moving forwards and pass the varticle projection of the CoP as shown inFig. 4 (b). This is a case where the counterclockwise force is not sufficient enough to prevent fromfalling for the given parameters. (a) (b)Fig. 3. Simulation results when the pendulum does not fall. (a) Position x vs velocity x˙ of the CoM. The dot is the initial conditionwhere x0 = 0.05 m and x˙ 0 = 0.1 m/s. The solid line is |xo + x˙ o | and the dashed dotted line is the movement of the CoM for q > 0.The square is the position of u = 0.25 m. (b) The trajectory of the CoM. The dashed vertical
the profession [11], ABET has included mandatoryevaluation through Criterion 3’s Outcome 6 [12]: ability to develop and conduct appropriateexperimentation, analyze and interpret data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions. Outcome6 consists of four elements [13]: designing an experiment, conducting an experiment, analyzing data, andinterpreting data. According to Abdel-Magid [14], the last three elements can easily be addressed in atypical engineering laboratory course; however, the first element of “designing an experiment” is ratherdifficult to address in an undergraduate course. Some educators argue that it is better to have students runfewer but more open-ended experiments than many well-prescribed and guided experiments [13-15
comments showing students' perceptions oftheir knowledge, skills, or abilities with regard to the learning objectives or topics and theirexperience with the topic. The Planning dimension was applied to comments that indicatedgoal setting, actions planned to improve on their learning, and rationales for the selection ofaction(s) to achieve the goal. Within a dimension, levels were applied to indicated students'engagement in thinking, from a surface level (e.g., awareness) to a deep level (e.g., sense-making).Table 2. Metacognitive regulation dimension coding scheme [25], [28] Dimension Description Evaluating (E): Student’s comments represent an assessment of their thoughts or performance influenced by outside factors (grades, feedback
students’ desiredundergraduate major(s) while enrolled in an introductory mathematics course (Calculus I) takenat a four-year institution.Quantitative experimental data were collected from N=712 undergraduate Calculus I students ata private, highly-selective U.S. university during the fall 2020, fall 2021, and spring 2022semesters. Students took the Mathematics Attitudes and Perceptions Survey (MAPS) [6] and/orthe Short Form Test Anxiety Inventory (TAI-5) Questionnaire [26] at both the start and end ofthe semester. Of the N=712 responses, N=209 were matched responses (students completed atleast one question on both the pre- and post-survey). These matched survey data anddemographic information (gender) have been used to evaluate the change in
Experiences in World War IIGiven that World War II ended only a few years before the Directory was compiled, it is notsurprising that many engineering library staff were veterans or had worked in positions thatsupported the war effort. Although men were more likely to serve in the armed forces, womenalso served in various roles.U.S. Army veterans included Harry C. Bauer, Director of Libraries at the University ofWashington from 1947-59. Bauer served from 1942-45 as a combat intelligence officer in theU.S. Army Air Forces and was awarded a Bronze Star, Purple Heart, and Air Medal. HowardHovelstad, Acting Director of Libraries at the University of Maryland, served from 1943-46.John S. Mehler, Librarian, University of Alaska served from 1941-46. Charles
[4] Gesun, J. S., Major, J. C., Berger, E., Godwin, A., Jensen, K. J., Chen, J., & Froiland, J. M. (2021). A Scoping Literature Review of Engineering Thriving to Redefine Student Success. Studies in Engineering Education, 2(2), 19–41. http://doi.org/10.21061/see.9[5] Cross, K. J., & Jensen, K. J. (2018). Work in Progress: Understanding Student Perceptions of Stress as part of Engineering Culture. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference Proceedings Salt Lake City, UT.[6] Godfrey, & Parker, L. (2010). Mapping the Cultural Landscape in Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering Education (Washington, D.C.), 99(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010
Paper ID #37889Can the COVID-19 pandemic boost collaborative onlineinternational learning (COIL) in engineering education? – Areview for potential implementationsErick Vasquez Erick S. Vasquez is an Associate Professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering at the University of Dayton. His educational research interests are community-based learning, open-ended laboratory experiments, teamwork, collaborative and active learning, and Transport Phenomena computational modeling. Erick was born in El Salvador and there received his BEng in Chemical Engineering at UCA. He obtained his MS from Clemson University
Paper ID #37557Social responsibility attitudes among undergraduatecomputer science students: an empirical analysisQuintin Kreth (Doctoral Student) I am a doctoral student in the Georgia Tech School of Public Policy. My research is primarily on the factors influencing faculty research productivity at mid-major research universities.Daniel S. Schiff PhD Candidate, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public PolicyJeonghyun LeeJason BorensteinEllen Zegura (Professor) © American Society for Engineering Education, 2022 Powered by www.slayte.com
,” Journal of Design Research, vol. 4, no. 2, 2004, Accessed: Jul. 01, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/JDR.2004.009841[5] G. Pahl and W. Beitz, Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007.[6] N. Cross, Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design, 4th edition. Chichester, England ; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2008.[7] K. Hansen and K. Zenobia, Civil Engineer’s Handbook of Professional Practice. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.[8] K. Ulrich and S. Eppinger, Product Design and Development, 5th Edition, 5 edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2011.[9] J. Jin, P. Ji, Y. Liu, and S. C. Johnson Lim, “Translating online customer opinions into
. References[1] National Research Council [NRC], A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012.[2] NGSS Lead States, Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013. doi: 10.17226/18290.[3] C. M. Cunningham and W. S. Carlsen, “Precollege engineering education,” in Handbook of research on science education, vol. II, N. G. Lederman and S. K. Abell, Eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 2014, pp. 747–758.[4] C. M. Cunningham and G. J. Kelly, “Epistemic practices of engineering for education,” Sci. Educ., vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 486–505, May 2017, doi: 10.1002/sce.21271.[5] M.M. Johnson, G.J
2. Northwestern University CHEM E 520-0 Professional Development Course inChemical and Biological Engineering 1 ARDEI-related lesson and assessment plan. Assessments Lesson Week Intended Incidental Plan Activity Objective(s) Objective(s) Ongoing All Journal reflections 7 N/A /Weekly Groups of 3-4 students were given a set of 3-4 ARDEI-related terms. Why this Students provided definitions on 2 course? sticky notes and then rotated to other 2
positionality from a first-person viewpoint, enabling our voices to shine more clearly.Author 1’s Positionality:I come to this work from a place of personal interest. I have always been interested in learning,teaching, and mentoring. I had the opportunity to engage with this process of becoming aprofessor in a much more structured, scaffolded, and safely strategic environment than iscommon for engineering faculty. I have a master's in chemical engineering; thus, I feel veryconfident in my engineering identity, ability to comprehend and communicate the material, andmy familiarity with both the difficulty of the learning process and the struggles of being a studentthrough an engineering program. I was co-teaching with my master’s advisor, who also
objectives that can be phrased as‘by the end of this course; students will be able to ….’ This will help simplify decisions for theentire semester, from what activities to do during class and what homework to assign to whatkind of questions you put on your assessments, leading to a much more impactful experience foryour students [12].Provide this list of objectives in an easily accessible place for your students (such as on thecourse management system). Clearly convey to your students at the start of the course andthroughout the semester that these objectives are driving all your course decisions. Highlight atthe start of each unit, each week, or even each class which objective(s) are to be supported by theactivities and homework problems. And
successful implementation of ABET student outcomes 1-7,” in 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, 2021. [2] ABET, “Fundamentals of program assessment workshop,” ABET, Tech. Rep., 2019. [3] G. Watkins, “Incorporating new ABET outcomes into a two-semester capstone design course,” in Proceedings of the 2022 Capstone Design Conference, Dallas, Texas, 2022. [4] K. Meah, D. Hake, and S. D. Wilkerson, “A multidisciplinary capstone design project to satisfy ABET student outcomes,” Education Research International, vol. 2020, 2020. [5] D. C. Davis, K. L. Gentili, M. S. Trevisan, and D. E. Calkins, “Engineering design assessment processes and scoring scales for program improvement and accountability,” Journal of Engineering
Academy, Department of the Army,DoD, or U.S. Government. Reference to any commercial product, process, or service by tradename, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise neither constitutes nor implies endorsement,recommendation, or favor.References[1] B. Esmaeili, P. J. Parker, S. D. Hart and B. K. Mayer, "Inclusion of an Introduction to Infrastructure Course in a Civil and Environmental Engineering Curriculum," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, vol. 143, no. 2, 2017.[2] D. P. Billington, "Engineering in the Modern World: A Freshman Course in Engineering," in Frontiers in Engineering Conference, 1993.[3] S. D. Hart, J. L. Klosky, J. P. Hanus, K. F. Meyer and J. A. Toth, "An Introduction to
Arch E. North Carolina State Clemson University Cal-Poly San Luis Obispo Milwaukee School of University (SLO) Engineering Northwestern University University of Illinois Penn State University Missouri S&T UCLA New Jersey Institute of Technology Berkeley University of Arkansas Penn State University John Hopkins University University of Texas @ Cornell University Arlington One external review trend indicated that only 2 courses were designed explicitly with theconsideration of mixed undergraduate and graduate students. That said, many of these universities
• System(s) are identified with boxes with dashed lines FF Perform material • Write the overall mass balance for the entire system 02.04 balances on a multi- • Write a full set of component mass balances for the entire unit process without system recycle and bypass • Write the overall mass balance for each unit in the system streams • Write a full set of component mass balances for each unit in the system • Identify whether the problem is solvable (degree-of- freedom analysis) • Select, with
for thecriterion of measuring self-concept among stem undergraduates but were worth studying.This systematic review sought to find the essence of the construct measured in the identifiedsurveys. This study investigated which component(s) the survey claimed to measure, and towhich construct, self-concept or self-efficacy, the component was described to represent. Thecomponents and their associated construct(s) are listed in the results. Although the search waslimited to papers assessing self-concept, the search revealed papers that measured self-efficacyusing scales that the authors described as self-concept. So, it seemed befitting to classify bothconstructs in the analysis.It is likely that these components or sub-constructs would vary for
]. Available:https://www.neads.ca/en/about/media/CombinedReport_Nov28.pdf[3] M. Lizotte and S. Clifford Simplican, “Doctoral Students With Disabilities: Challenges InGraduate Programs And Research Methodology,” J. Study Postsecond. Tert. Educ., vol. 2, pp.181–193, 2017, doi: 10.28945/3900.[4] S. A. Smith, E. Woodhead, and C. Chin-Newman, “Disclosing accommodation needs:exploring experiences of higher education students with disabilities,” Int. J. Incl. Educ., vol. 25,no. 12, pp. 1–17, 2019, doi: 10.1080/13603116.2019.1610087.[5] R. Vergunst and L. Swartz, “‘He doesn’t understand that he’s struggling with the way Ifelt’ – university students, psychosocial disability and disclosure in the Western Cape, SouthAfrica,” Disabil. Soc., vol. 36, no
UnitedStates was becoming aware of the need for more NDM technologies. Further, these samestakeholders recognized that more technology would only come through increased interest andcompetence in the topic(s), recognition of its importance in a public and private capacity, and as aresult of the two, increased development of exploratory engineering. Serabian’s [7] chief wonderwas thus what role engineering education would play in advancing NDM technologies.Specifically, they asked, would engineering education practice focus on whether students coulduse the relevant technologies, rather than leave that to technicians, or would the focus be onteaching students theory that would allow them to develop new technologies? At a time in whichfunding was an issue
groups such as women and racial/ethnic minorities.Of course, the professional field of engineering provides its own formal definitions, including viaaccreditation standards for higher education, including the U.S.’s Accreditation Board forEngineering and Technology [14]. Unsurprisingly, the first student outcome for ABETaccredited engineering programs is “an ability to identify, formulate, and solve complexengineering problems by applying principles of engineering, science, and mathematics (p. 5).[14] However, other standards emphasize the importance of social awareness and interpersonalcommunication to the modern practice of engineering. [15] For example, the 2019 ABET studentoutcomes include 2. an ability to apply engineering design
introduced and developed via the collaboration of employeeswho are not co-located. [11] There is evidence that electronically virtual capstone teams havebeen used successfully in engineering since the early 2000’s. [11] Previous work with remoteengineering capstone design teams shows the need for tools that facilitate centralizedmechanisms for document sharing, communication, and team collaboration. [12]Communication and Interaction. A longitudinal study of multi-university, multi-disciplinaryengineering capstone projects with virtual team members involved in product developmentprojects highlights the importance of selection and use of communications tools. [13] This workfound that depending on the project stages, virtual team collaboration should
becomes the only synchronously available instructionalcoach for small groups. Prior work [25]–[27] indicates that TAs can serve as effective co-instructors, particularly in facilitating team-based activities; however, TAs do require oversightand coaching in order to be effective in their role. In a large-enrollment course setting, the sheernumber of TAs required to support course activities necessitates robust professional developmentand a clear plan for TA management by course instructor(s) [29], [30].In this paper, we present strategies for offering large-enrollment FYE courses in an entirelyonline setting; and we critically examine the effectiveness of this approach by comparing studentoutcomes between FTF and online course formats. Our
the sorting task. Each sorter was presented with all of the final ideason a set of numbered cards with one idea per card. They then sorted the cards into groups ofsimilar ideas and created a descriptive name for each group. Finally, they recorded their groupname and the ideas (numbered cards) were placed in that group. Each idea was only sorted intoone group. Once the ideas were sorted by the stakeholders, this raw data was structured intomatrices of 0’s and 1’s using the open source programing language R [31]. This step generatedindividual and total matrices, which served as an input for the representation step. The sortingstep was an onsite activity and was completed in two hours, with each stakeholder sorting theideas individually. Prior
research directionsare proposed.Keywords: curriculum, design, design thinking, discoursesIntroductionCurriculum is defined as a plan which is intended to provide the learning experiences to individualsin an educational setting [1]. It is the most important part of an education system irrespective of thetype of education. Although it is critical, curriculum is often criticized for not providing all therequired learning experiences as it is intended to. Curriculum development is a process used todevelop and implement the curriculum plan and evaluating it against the set standards [2].Curriculum planning deals with making choices at different stages in the development process, andplanning choices are strongly influenced by the value system(s) of the
the findings fromthe FGs to involve students, faculty, and administrators in bringing about the changes thatstudents seek in the College of Engineering.References[1] S. T. Tripathy, K. Chandra, and D. Reichlen, “Participatory Action Research (PAR) as formative assessment of a STEM summer bridge program,” ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo. Conf. Proc., 2020, doi: 10.18260/1-2--33957.[2] K. Chandra and S. Tripathy, “Research, Academics and Mentoring Pathways (RAMP) to Success,” 2019. https://www.uml.edu/docs/RAMP2018-Final-Report_tcm18-309285.pdf (accessed Mar. 06, 2021).[3] M. Ong, J. M. Smith, and L. T. Ko, “Counterspaces for women of color in STEM higher education: Marginal and central spaces for persistence and