and motivation,and institutional fit. After examining all these proposed characteristics, the author believes that there haveemerged three broad characteristic categories.2.1. What Characteristics of Engineering Students Have Been Measured?The first category includes characteristics that are shaped by external factors. Example external characteristics inthis category are institutional environment, curriculum requirement, peer or adult influences, average income ofengineers, etc. The common feature of these characteristics is that they are the engineering related properties ofthe community where a student is situated. An individual student is not able to change these characteristicsthrough personal endeavor. Instead, these characteristics will
(3) CAC Criterion 3 d, “an ability to function effectively on teams to accomplish acommon goal. Five performance criteria were developed for this outcome. The performancecriteria measure students ability to: 1. Plan group meetings and time management and assign team roles (leader, recorder, etc) 2. Distribute project tasks evenly to team members 3. Resolve conflicts professionally within the group (Example will be an assignment to identify potential problems and indicate how they will resolve them) 4. Track progress of team members to ensure project is on schedule (Through submission of progress reports) 5. Share ideas, complete assigned task on time, help others, and be professional to each other (through peer
self-directed and independent, yet collaborative, learners who possess animproved ability to speak, write and listen and the mental discipline needed to applysound judgment and problem-solving skills to novel problems.Motivation for Using the Socratic Questioning and Some Specific Techniques forImplementing the Socratic MethodTeaching occurs not just through imparting information but also through arousingintellectual passions and enthusiastically presenting an example of thought in action. Allknowledge, like all education, is ultimately driven by the questions asked. Asengineering educators, one of our tasks is to pose the right questions, and help students tolearn to ask the right questions and to learn to formulate reasoned answers. These
female students participating in co-op experiences?Herein, we employed a survey instrument, National Engineering Students’ Learning OutcomesSurvey (NESLOS), derived from ABET criteria and extensive literature review, to assessstudents’ learning outcomes as a result of participating in a co-op experience. Survey itememphasis was placed on assessing knowledge and skills pertaining to but not limited to: (1)problem-solving, (2) writing and communication skills, (3) understanding and applyingknowledge, (4) teamwork, (5) confidence gains, (6) organization and management skills, and (7)interest and engagement of project. In this paper, we present key findings of what studentslearned and valued, insight into variations across female and male students
open courseware site12 (http://ocw.mit.edu)and the Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching site13(http://www.merlot.org).There are two example modules shown in the appendix at the end of this paper, for thematerial and energy balance course and for the transport phenomena course. Page 13.271.4Current modules are available for the courses, and topic areas as seen in table 2 below.These modules are currently under peer review from leading educators around the nationas well as industrial members of the CACHE Corporation.Chemical Engineering Core Course Module TitleMaterial and Energy Balances Application of
. Tristan T. Utschig is Assistant Director for the Scholarship and Assessment of Teaching and Learning at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Formerly, he was Associate Professor of Engineering Physics at Lewis-Clark State College in Idaho where he developed and directed the pre-engineering program at the college. Dr. Utschig’s research in engineering education has focused on assessment at various levels from the classroom to program and institutional assessment. He has regularly published and presented work on a variety of topics including teaching diversity, using technology in the classroom, faculty development in instructional design, assessment instruments and methodologies, and peer
fall 07, 27 scholarships were awarded in the amount of $1800/semester.Administering the grant in its first year has been rewarding and challenging. This paper willprovide insight into the structure of the award winning proposal and information related to Page 13.824.2application demographics and the selection process.Grant Proposal StructureSuccessful grant proposal needs an excellent teamwork, leadership, and administrative support ofan academic institution. The grant writing team has been mindful of specific instructions,limitations, and requirements of S-STEM proposal.ELITE ProposalKansas State’s Enhancing Lives through Technology and
produced by approximately 130 participants. 3. “Innovative Thinking” is the course described in this paper. 4. “Bridge to Engineering” is a ready to launch 3-credit 6-module course aiming at bridging thegap between Science and Engineering. Students are engaged in a creative problem solving processfrom exploration to demonstration. They: • Explore historical, current, and new technologies, • Discover new knowledge, • Become more creative and inventive, • Interact with peers and team members and lead teams, • Share their knowledge and solutions with others, and • Put it all together for the betterment of the community. 5. Workshops. Dr. Raviv has been delivering workshops and seminars on Innovative Thinking
. Grading and Feedback15. The grading criteria are clear.16. Adequate time is provided for writing the lab report.17. Helpful feedback on reports is available.Fifteen students out of nineteen taking the EE342/PHY342 lab course in the Fall 2007 semestercompleted the FANL form at the end of each of the labs. Although the students’ evaluationvaried from lab to lab and from aspect to aspect within a lab, overall, the students rated all thelabs to be very effective. This is based on the fact that majority of the students either “Agreed” or“Strongly Agreed" with all the above seventeen statements for all the labs. Students’ evaluationalso pointed out a few areas for each lab that needed further improvement. For example, thestudents, who carried out the
Systems Engineering. The major topicsconsist of the principles of energy conversion, ship stability and operability, and theory ofweapons systems, respectively.The courses are taught by officers with at least a Masters degree in Electrical Engineeringand civilians with PhDs in Electrical Engineering. A civilian and an officer are co-coordinators of the course. They are responsible for implementing the topic areas chosenby the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department Curriculum Committee via asyllabus, textbook choice and learning objectives. In cases where an appropriatetextbook isn't available, the instructors write the required course material. In addition,laboratory or “practical exercises” have been developed by course instructors for
1971. The AIC ConstructorCertification Commission was organized under the sponsorship and support of the AIC. Thecommission expanded the qualifying process to include examination and offering of certificationprocess which is recognized internationally to AIC members and nonmembers alike. Thecertification process is developed with the support and input of peers with the objective of settinghigh standards for the education, knowledge, skills, and conduct of the certified constructor.The Construction Manager Certification Institute (CMCI)3, an independent administrative bodyof the Construction Management Association of America (CMAA) administers the CMCertification Program. The Institute is comprised of construction management
-3.6 3.6-3.8 3.8-4.0 GPA Range Figure 2. Actual GPA history in academic year of 200-2001, 2003-2004, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007.Due to the strong competition, the minimum GPA required for receiving scholarship wasincreased from 3.0 to 3.25 in 2006. To apply for the scholarship, students need to fill out theapplication form, write an essay about their goal towards high performance computing, alongwith a faculty recommendation letter. Upon receipt of the scholarship, students agree tomaintain a GPA of 3.25, successfully complete a minimum of 12 credit hours per semester,and maintain a major in science, mathematics or engineering. Recipients are
characterizes our students, alumni, faculty, staff and graduates, and itwill let us join the knowledge society in an increasingly more effective way.The international dimension emphasizes these activities and include: the development ofalliances and agreements with universities and research centers abroad; the presence in ourundergraduate and graduate programs of visiting teachers, visiting and advising of academicprocess; exchanging teachers and researchers with academic peers of other higher educationinstitutions; having our teachers complete their studies abroad; exchanging of undergraduate andgraduate students with similar international universities by dual degree programs, exchangeprograms, foreign language studies, apprenticeships, research and
approach we will again use the conservation of mechanical energy for the mass bulletsystem and write kinetic and potential energy and set them equal to each other as below. (MB + mb) gH = ½ (MB + mb) VB2 (8)where the symbols MB, mb, and H were defined previously in solution 1 and 2. VB is the speed ofthe bullet and the block after collision. From Eqn. 8, we also obtain the same value for the finalvelocity of the block and the bullet (VB) equal to 4.43 m/s as in solution 1 and 2. Now, byapplying conservation of linear momentum as in Eqn. 4, we obtain the initial speed of the bullet(vb) as 143 m/s.Critical evaluation of solutionsIn this new problem solving approach, instead of presenting the correct
pursuing one. To serve this population, and enable theirrich practical work experiences to enhance the education of our traditional on-campus students,we are implementing the following scenario.Local technical workers stay in their offices at lunch-time sitting at computers armed withheadphones and microphones to attend, and participate in, an electric circuits class via aninternet connection. Other students, on the university campus, sit in a traditional classroomsetting augmented with room microphones. Both groups of students view the electronicwhiteboard that is generated by the instructor writing on a Tablet PC projected to the campusclassroom through an LCD projector and to the off-campus students through Adobe Connectsoftware. Two students
in an active laboratory experience.5 Both senior projectswere designed to give undergraduate students an opportunity to introduce and experience amultidisciplinary research project, which is common to the fields of MEMS and BioMEMS. Page 13.1042.3Furthermore, team projects provided an opportunity for peer learning, teaching, and tutoring aswell as expository instruction from faculty members.II. Typical project structureA typical senior project in BioMEMS consists of three quarters, and an additional fourth quarteras an advanced optional research during the following summer. Throughout the course of theirprojects, senior students are required to
the fourth year of the program, a new course that enabled fourth-year students to simulate thepractice of a project manager was thought to be a great idea. In this way, the idea of project Page 13.673.2teams formed by first-year students and led by a more experienced student, not a course peer,could be put into practice. This asymmetric team setup has eventually proved to be an excellentlaboratory to develop personal competences such as leadership.3Leadership development has ultimately come to our attention as a natural evolutionary step inour efforts to improve the effectiveness of PMP students. The education part of the PMP coursewas
maintain a log book for the duration of the project. Thislog book could be examined by the instructor at any time. Two interim written reports wererequired. At the conclusion of the project, an oral presentation was given, in which all of thestudents participated. Finally, after a short space of time for a final edit based on comments fromthe oral presentation, a final written report was submitted. The students received both an individual and a team grade for the course. The individualgrade was based on the student’s performance within the team, as evaluated both by the Page 13.1410.4instructor and by the student’s peers. Peers twice
to new instructors as theylearn to teach. Many are the way of ABET, faculty and student evaluations, and the expectationsof ones peers. They have been updated to reflect the changing methodologies of teaching andthe “student centeredness” of learning in Chickering and Gamson’s3 "Seven principles for goodpractice in undergraduate education." 1. Encourages contacts between students and faculty. 2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students. 3. Uses active learning techniques. 4. Gives prompt feedback. 5. Emphasizes time on task. 6. Communicates high expectations. 7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning.Note that there is no reference to knowing the subject matter as this is certainly a given
integratedactivities, the program has been brought back to 183 students. Figure 1 depicts the enrollmentdata for the manufacturing engineering program. It clearly shows a precipitous decline after theinitial startup spike and highlights a period of growth as a result of the recruiting strategies used.Since there has been a steady enrollment increase since 2004, it is unclear whether a true steady-state enrollment has been found. At the time of writing, the Fall 2007 applications are exceedingany prior year application rates. Historically, the manufacturing engineering program has aaccepted application fall show rate of roughly 70 percent, thus indicating Stout’s program is afirst choice program for students. This show rate is significantly higher than most
, sponsorsand each other.TeamingAfter the first year it was apparent that the students needed more team-work skills. An entirelecture and lab period dedicated to basic team skills along with team check up surveys have beenadded to the class. The challenge to keep students on a functioning team for twenty weeks cannotbe understated. Formal teaming knowledge, skills and attitudes are stressed and the students aretaught Tuckman’s ideas of team development based on “Forming, Storming, Norming andPerforming.”4 There is also training on communication and conflict resolution. The studentstake the CATME5 online survey several times during the project and receive peer feedback ontheir teaming performance. Finally the students are made aware of Social Styles
it helps create a feeling of community and classroom cohesion. Students get to know the instructor and other students through verbal interactions.Disadvantages of Asynchronous On-line Learning - Lack of human contact. Some students need or want the face-to-face contact with instructors and other students. Some students say that they learn better when they can see a person's face and converse in real time with a peer or instructor. - Requires self-discipline. The primary drawback of asynchronous on-line learning is that students must be self-disciplined. Students must take the initiative to login to participate in on-line discussion groups and to complete other course assignments. Some students
and outside of class time. To achievethis goal, design projects designed to make students work in teams are assigned during the courseof the semester. Active learning techniques are not new [1-7]. On the other hand, its support forteaching at the university level has been a hot topic of research in recent years [8-19]. Accordingto Bonwell and Eison, Active Learning is described as follows: "When using active learningstudents are engaged in more activities than just listening. They are involved in dialog, debate,writing, and problem solving, as well as higher-order thinking, e.g., analysis, synthesis,evaluation." [4].According to Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, Cooperative Learning is described as follows: "Is aninstructional paradigm in which
is the teacher’s responsibility to teach themeverything they need to learn. These students like the traditional teaching method oflecturing. It has been extensively studied in the literature that other learning styles such asactive learning, self-learning, and cooperative learning are more effective1. As pointedout by Donawa et al2, the primary purpose of all education is to teach students how tolearn effectively. Various efforts have been made to get the students actively involved in thelearning/teaching process3, 4, 5 over the last century. Extensive research on peer teaching4suggests that having students teach each other is an extremely effective way to increasestudent learning. Recently, Plett et al6 experimented with students grading
MESA Community College Program (MCCP) assists community college students so that they can transfer to four-year institutions as majors in math-based fields. The MESA Engineering Program (MEP) helps students at major California universities to attain degrees in engineering and computer science. Specific MESA services offered to all participants include: individualized academic planning, community building, learning opportunities, study skills training, peer group learning, mentoring, career exploration, professional development, and transfer assistance. Furthermore, MESA provides rigorous academic development that offers pre-college students math and science curriculum based on the California Math and Science Standards, while creating
engineering companies, the need for marketing and business development, project procurement, and project financing b. Legal aspects of engineering: contracts and agreements, terms and conditions of engineering services, legal adjudication including Alternate Dispute Resolution c. Professional risk management techniques: insurance requirements for design professionals, peer review processes, and product quality management d. Personnel/career management including professional licensure and society participation Additionally, the course presented an overview of future trends and challenges to theengineering profession, focusing mainly on
engineering companies, the need for marketing and business development, project procurement, and project financing b. Legal aspects of engineering: contracts and agreements, terms and conditions of engineering services, legal adjudication including Alternate Dispute Resolution c. Professional risk management techniques: insurance requirements for design professionals, peer review processes, and product quality management d. Personnel/career management including professional licensure and society participation Additionally, the course presented an overview of future trends and challenges to theengineering profession, focusing mainly on
engineering companies, the need for marketing and business development, project procurement, and project financing b. Legal aspects of engineering: contracts and agreements, terms and conditions of engineering services, legal adjudication including Alternate Dispute Resolution c. Professional risk management techniques: insurance requirements for design professionals, peer review processes, and product quality management d. Personnel/career management including professional licensure and society participation Additionally, the course presented an overview of future trends and challenges to theengineering profession, focusing mainly on
accessed inconstant-time rather than variable-time. This would disable any attacker from writing a spy program tobrute force the key and data out of the cache data stored during execution of the DCF algorithm. DCFalgorithm can be implemented successfully using C++ programming language. In the implementation ofDCF algorithm, cache is flushed periodically during encryption or decryption time. This would disablethe attacker from tapping the cache for data. On the downside, there was a (not so noteworthy)performance hit on the encryption process, but on a brighter note, the DCF algorithm stands strongagainst the cache timing attack. Page 7 of 8References[1] J. Daemen and V. Rijmen, “AES Proposal: Rijndael
discussions at many of the section meetingsmade that clear. If one wants to pursue a pathway to rigorous research in engineering education, theresearch methodology in engineering education should be no different than the samemethodological approach used in technical engineering research: 1. define the research questionor hypothesis, 2. write a proposal or plan, 3. seek funding or other appropriate support, 4. do thework rigorously, and 5. publish the results in peer-reviewed journals. In this sense, engineeringeducation research should be considered favorably in promotion and tenure. One caveat ineducational research is that the student (human subject) is the target of study, and it makes the“experiment” more complicated. Thus, it is reasonable