engineering practice in order tostrengthen the innovative capacity of the U.S. Engineering Workforce in industry for world-classcompetitiveness and national security purposes.2. Strengthening U.S. Engineering Education for CompetitivenessToday, as never before, America’s future technological competitiveness will depend largely on our abilityto innovate and to revitalize the core capacity for continuous innovation within the U.S. EngineeringWorkforce in America’s industry. 1 Innovation ... as the Council on Competitiveness points out ... “will bethe single most important factor in determining America’s success through the 21st century.”2To compete … America must innovate.Consequently, as the National Academies’ report, Rising above the Gathering Storm
, lectures and student-centered instructionalstrategies.InstrumentsData were collected using four instruments – two for students and two for faculty. We brieflydescribe all four instruments (see Table 1) however our results at this time only consider datafrom the student instruments. All instruments were in an online format. Page 13.501.4Instrument DescriptionStudent background • Provides student demographic data and data on non-course specific experiences in their engineering department. • Collected once per
course/instructor evaluation or from one-on-oneconversations with the student teams. No direct or indirect assessment was undertaken becausethe focus of the improvements were on the collaboration and not on assessing the interaction forABET.Indirect MeasuresBy 2006, the course structure and content had been improved to the point where the focus ofimprovements turned to assessment. As a first attempt, a survey was given to both the SE and BEstudents in the 2006 experience to start an informal assessment on what they thought about thecollaborative experience. To gather this initial baseline data, the BE and SE students were askedto answer questions (enumerated in Table 1) on a Lickert scale of “1” through “5” where “1” wasan indication that they
va (t) = Ra ia (t) + La (t) + vc (t), (1) dt dω cm (t) = Bω(t) + J (t) + cr (t), (2) dtwhere va is the applied voltage, Ra and La are the armature resistance and inductance, iaand va the applied armature current and counter emf voltage, cm and cr the motor torqueand load torque and B and J the viscous friction and inertia. Two additional relations alsohold, vc (t) = K1 ω(t), (3) cm (t) = K2 ia (t
logistical problems began toappear, including shortages of satellite broadcast channels, broadcast studio classrooms, andclassrooms at ODU's receiving locations, and an increase in the number of distance educationstudents who are not located near a ODU receive site (termed "siteless" students). These sitelessstudents include those located outside the of Virginia, those located overseas, and those in themilitary, especially aboard ships.1 Several years ago, this prompted an increase in coursesdesigned to be delivered via CD-ROM or internet streaming delivery. However, both of thesedelivery methods require the student to be sitting at a computer, and the latter requires a highspeed internet connection (either DSL or cable). For many students, one or
. Page 13.1346.4Discussion of Student WorkAs previously noted the students are required in the earlier part of the course to workindividually on exercises, but in the later part of the course work in groups on larger projects. .The group size varies with the class size. Student group projects are discussed below and thenare shown in figures.Fire Detection, Alarm, and Suppression System for an Industrial Gear Unit Factory ProjectA student group programmable logic controller project assignment is shown in figure 1-A.The actual student group work hardware board is shown in figure 1-B. The hardware board usesan Automation Control “brick” logic controller for detection and notification for the factory firealarm system project. Note that the hardware
being maintained.One of the individuals responsible for popularizing the use of concept inventories in Physicseducation is Richard Hake, Professor Emeritus at Indiana University. In Hake’s words1 “I see noreason that student learning gains far larger than those in traditional courses could not eventuallybe achieved and documented in disciplines other than physics, from arts through philosophy tozoology if their practitioners would:1. reach a consensus on the crucial concepts that all beginning students should be brought to understand2. undertake the lengthy qualitative and quantitative research required to develop multiple- choice tests of higher-level learning of those concepts, so as to gauge the need for and effects of non
, but rather many paths that can be taken to manage design andconstruction factors while meeting each project’s unique needs. Students studying in theconstruction related professions need to be prepared to work with all of the possible projectdelivery methods.References 1. AIA/AGC Recommended Guidelines for Procurement of Design-Build Projects in the Public Sector. Washington, DC: The American Institute of Architects and Associated General Contractors of America, 1995. 2. AIA/AGC Primer on Project Delivery. Washington, DC: The American Institute of Architects and Associated General Contractors of America, 2004. 3. The Architect’s Handbook of Professional Practice, by Joseph A. Demkin, AIA. New York, NY: John
the semester.The Milestone based assessment approach was first developed in the unit MechatronicProject 332, and this paper describes its use in that unit. This unit is a semester long projectin which students design and build a toy car to navigate autonomously around a track (Figure1). The vehicle is controlled through differential steering (Figure 2), and powered throughtransistor amplifiers which are developed by the students (Figure 3): Figure 1: The Circular Track Figure 2: Car layouts showing differential steering Page 13.895.3 Figure 3: Transistor
andexpectations of women and URMs, also overlap with the attributes of more flexible thinkingenvisioned for the Engineer of 2020 2.ApproachOur funding was awarded on March 1 2007. Our group is roughly divided into three teams thatwork both independently and together on various tasks that are often inter-related:1- The engineering team (Jacobs, Valle, Lee) is primarily responsible for designing the problems and developing their solutions.2- The digital media team (Ashmore, Schrank/Thomas/Upton) works on programming and visual implementation of the computer simulations.3- The evaluation team (Newstetter, Harrell) works on clarifying the learning goals and conducting assessment.In addition, Prof. Rosser is in charge of the overall project goals
to avoid similar problems in the future.Considerations of group composition, group size, and what topics to discuss are examined.I. IntroductionTraditionally, Assistant Professors begin their career with a minimum of preparation for certainaspects of the job. For example, many new faculty members are straight out of graduate schoolwithout experience developing research directions or preparing classes. According to work byBoice, new faculty generally take 4-5 years to build necessary experience before starting to meetthe standards set by their institutions.1 Such lengthy adjustment periods have a negative impacton faculty performance and thus on the probability of tenure. Common actions new faculty take to improve their performance include
Campus Coordinator for the Texas Alliance for Minority Participation program from 1993 to 2002, and is currently the Department Chairperson for Physics, Engineering, & Architecture. He has been involved in numerous initiatives to integrate the findings of physics and engineering education research with education practice. Page 13.1227.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 The Fifth Year of the EDGE Program – A New BeginningAbstractThis paper presents a brief description and history of the EDGE (Early Development of GeneralEngineering) Summer Bridge Program that was initiated in 2003 1 and
-project surveys of the value of the community servicethey provided in relation to their educational goals and their personal lives. Results from thefinal survey are presented in Figure 1 below. Students' Feelings Towards I was appreciated at my site "Service-Learning" Site tasks were meaningful Site supervision was OK 3.50 Site training was good 2.85 3.10 Service site was helpful
solutions toquizzes, tests or review sessions. This Tablet PC was also used to directly control remote labequipment and to send its "apparent" desktop, along with hand-written annotations, to the studentPCs thus allowing the students to "see" the operation of the remote lab equipment as well tooperate the remote equipment by proxy via the Teacher Desktop Station (see Fig. 1). From thisexperience, it was apparent that the student PCs were “closed boxes from which information canbe published or into which information can be drawn, but they are not able to interactspontaneously with other closed boxes”3. Furthermore, for more active on-line learning,Boettcher4 noted the rise of “performance content that is generated spontaneously in the processof
of the course itself. The course,compulsory for all first-year engineering students has long been perceived as “difficult”, witha higher fail rate than other first-year courses, and somewhat of a “gatekeeper” for passage tothe discipline-specific final three years.IntroductionDespite New Zealand’s reputation for innovative technology and its status as a developedcountry with a relatively high standard of living, amongst the OECD countries it has thelowest proportion of its university graduates in engineering. A potential mismatch existsbetween the increase in the number of engineering graduates demanded by industry and theprofession 1 and the decrease in the number of final-year high-school students studyingphysics and other engineering
explore if such a relationship exists in the context ofengineering.Research QuestionsThe main goal of this study is to describe the characteristics of team interactions that relate toachievement and self-efficacy. However, before investigating these correlations, we establishedthe reliability and the validity of the instruments we developed. We investigated three researchquestions: 1. Is there a correlation between the self-efficacy scores, measured by the instrument designed for this study, and student achievement? Page 13.415.4 2. What type of team interactions correlate with self-efficacy? 3. What type of team
TOPICS AND LAB EXPERIMENTSClass Lecture Topics Weekly Lab Experiments 1 Course Policies & Introduction Lab Procedures & Safety Regulations 2 Lattice Points, Lines, Planes3 3 Bravais Lattices, Crystal Structure 4 Properties of X-Rays4 #1: Powder Diffractometer 5 Filters & X-Ray Tube #1: Acquiring & Indexing a Pattern 6 Bragg’s Law & Laue Equations 7 X-Ray Methods #2: Intensity Calculations 8 Scattering of X-Rays #2: Phase Identification using ICDD-PDF 9 Structure Factor 10 Diffraction by Polycrystalline Material #3: Alignment & Calibration 11 Summarize Part I of X-Ray
tell if high orlow grades were a result of the grader’s predisposition or the quality of the team’s submissions. The other problem the faculty encountered was the inability of some advisors to objectivelygrade the work of a team with which they had such a strong association. As mentionedpreviously, each advisor worked closely with the design teams and tended to have at least asubconscious desire to see the team succeed. Some advisors appeared unable to give their team alow grade, perhaps because they felt that a low grade was indicative of a failure on their part asan advisor to mentor or assist the team appropriately. Therefore, the overall grades for thecourse were usually very high. Table 1 shows the mean grade point averages (GPA
; ∋ ( % ∃ ) ∗ + , − . / 0 1 . ∃ 23−# 4 ∋ 24# 4 5 4 6 ∋ 7 87 7 9:!;∋, 0 7 7 :! 3− 4 ! 5< ! 3− Page 13.328.2
lingering questionat the end of class and submitting it upon exit or working out a problem in the middle of classwith a neighbor might have been viable. These will be examined in future course offerings.Using Projects and Open-Ended ExamsTeaching engineering economy in a decision-making context lends itself to the study of anumber of real, open-ended problems. To this end, I assign four projects (the first is minorcompared to the other three) throughout the semester: 1. Find and evaluate two loans (from a newspaper or the Web) for the car of your choice and illustrate which is better. (Performed with two randomly selected partners.) 2. Develop an automated spreadsheet that takes user inputs about a project (investment, horizon
professionals are often perceived by the publicto be concerned with their own personal interests and material goals rather than with the needs ofsociety 1- 4. In other words, the public’s perception of engineering and the goals of engineering asa field are inconsistent. The failure of society to recognize the important contributions ofengineers and the field of engineering to society has been cited as a potential factor that hascontributed to the steady decline in engineering enrollment over the last decade, as well as thepersistent under-representation of women and minorities in the field6.In order to address these concerns, the Engineering Division and the Liberal Arts andInternational Studies Division at the Colorado School of Mines (CSM), with
. Industrial engineers inthe service sector total 54,310. The breakdown is shown in Figure 1. Health and safetyengineers employed nationwide number 24,620. Subtracting manufacturing and mining,for the service industries, the breakdown is shown in Figure 2. These figures must betaken with caution. Not only are there jobs that are not tracked for industrial engineers,the percentage error for each category ranges from 0.3% to nearly 50%. The largestRMS error found in the categories related to pay. Still, it is the best data available.People with the job title of industrial engineer comprise 8% of engineers nationwide.Add in those using the title of health and safety engineers and that percentage rises to 9%.Since the BLS does not provide degree
expert in the discipline of engineering, thedifference might be confusing to a novice. Although many engineering students do not feel thecontent of the general speech course applies to them, the truth is that the content—listeningcritically, audience analysis, and the classical canons of rhetoric—actually has deep connectionswith engineering [1]. However, the engineering student needs to see those connections. That many of the students do not make connections between the principles of the generalspeech course and the presentations they make in engineering was made apparent in a study atour institution. This study surveyed co-op supervisors on the presentation skills of ourinstitution’s students. The study revealed that the differences in
perspectives through real-time interaction among students, small groups, andinstructors.HP Wireless Tablet PCs are used to discuss and experiment with diagrams and processes in real-time. This allows combining lectures and problem-solving sessions into a single class session.Our hypothesis is that: 1) an in-depth learning of theory is accomplished, and 2) studentengagement is enhanced. Presentation of theory by the instructor is integrated with applicationwhile the theory is still in the student’s short-term memory. Students no longer have to wait for aseparate session such as a recitation session to apply the concepts. This approach often takes lesstime. In addition to accelerating the learning process, expert instructors find this approach
outcomes for all students. Unfortunately, by 2004, assessment data from follow-on courses in engineering indicated that the course was not meeting all of its intended objectives.This data was supported by student surveys on program objectives and anecdotal informationfrom faculty in physics, computer science, mathematics, and engineering. Discussions betweenfaculty in computer science, physics, and engineering over the following year led to theconclusions that (1) a new introductory programming course was needed to meet the needs ofengineering and the physical sciences and that (2) traditional curriculum review and informalcommunication between departments was insufficient for a timely and successful redesign.Requirements AnalysisThe first step in
structure is shown in Figure 1 below. In each graphic, the top portion of the labelgives the academic terminology while the equivalent industrial term is given below. Page 13.1068.3 Industry Coordinator/ Director of R&D Sponsor/ Customer Student Team Faculty Advisor/ Consultant Figure 1 – Structure of Senior Design CourseThe student team is at the center of the structure to emphasize that they are the
have experienced them, suggest some best practices that we havediscovered, and discuss relevant departmental and institutional issues.IntroductionCurrently students interested in studying for a B.S. in engineering who work full time and/or livea fair distance from a university campus typically have limited options. 1) Enroll in fullyonline/video courses which are separate from the traditional on-campus courses. 2) Attendtraditional day-time courses requiring long commutes and/or difficult arrangements to be awayfrom work for a significant amount of time. 3) Find a program offering evening courses, andstill possibly face long commutes. 4) Enroll in a course that is offered at a local classroomfacility remote from the host campus. In our region
engineering education as a meansfor bringing clarity to presentation of concepts is well articulated and documented in researcharticles [1-6]. The digital tool becomes more attractive especially when the curriculum is socrowded that the instructor must rush through a number of important topics during the semester.The economic dispatch problem (EDP) is a classical power systems (PS) analysis problem that isbroached briefly at the introductory level in typical electrical engineering (EE) undergraduateprograms. The question that presents itself is: What is the most efficient way of introducing thetopic given the fact that there are so many other topics that are deemed appropriate or importantfor a first course in power systems? Furthermore, it is very
to teach a microprocessor and microcontroller course wherestudents learn assembly language programming by carrying out hands-on experimentsby programming the 8051 microcontroller9. Ten exercises were developed and aredescribed below.Software-Only ExercisesExercise 1: The purpose of the exercise is to introduce students to the microcontrollerboard and software development tools by having them build a simple project, whichmoves a value into the registers r1 and r2, using the widely used instruction mov source,destination. Project development includes creating the project code, building theexecutable file and debugging it.Exercise 2: The main objective of this lab is to provide students with an in-depthknowledge of the build and debug process
humans modify nature to meet their needs anddesires [1]—enables efficient economic productivity and a very comfortable standard of livingfor U.S. citizens. However, with each new technological innovation, humans, deliberately orinadvertently, alter the balance of biotic and abiotic systems in the environment which oftendegrades the ability of ecosystems to persevere. In addition, the adoption of technologicalinnovation necessitates changes within our social systems (e.g., educational, legal, political, andeconomic systems) as individuals and communities coordinate their efforts to design, manage,use, and dispose of these technological products and by-products.As technology grows more complex and ubiquitous, it is increasingly important that all