multiplesubskills. Then, under the expert’s guidance and support (coaching and scaffolding), theapprentice attempts the process. As the apprentice gains competence, the expert graduallyreduces their support (fading), allowing the apprentice to practice independently and achieveproficiency [11].One of the critical challenges students encounter when transitioning from academia to industry iseffectively applying the theoretical knowledge acquired in school to real-world practice [28]. Theapprenticeship model of undergraduate research directly addresses this issue by allowingstudents to work closely with experienced mentors on real-world projects [26]. This model ofresearch immerses learners in real-world contexts, provides direct mentorship and feedback
comparatively low retention and graduationrates.The paper is organized as follows. Section II outlines the project’s aims and goals. In section III,we present the methodology, including the outline of assessment metrics, both qualitative andquantitative; the timeline of the project; and course descriptions and the philosophy behind thedesign of the integrated curricula. The first results are provided in section IV, followed by theirdiscussion in section V, which also includes the transpired project limitations and changes that weare planning to implement for the second cohort. The conclusions are given in section VI.II. MotivationThe primary motivation behind exploring co-teaching in interdisciplinary STEM courses in thisproject is to enhance student
) Statics, 3) Construction materials/Mechanics of Materials, 4)Construction Safety/Safety Engineering, 5) Construction Estimating, 6) ConstructionScheduling, 7) Mechanical Systems, 8) Electrical Systems, 9) Engineering Graphics, 10) VirtualDesign/Construction, 11) Engineering Economics, 12) Contracts and Specs/Legal Aspects, 13)Project Management, 14) Construction Means and Methods, 15) Heavy Civil Construction, 16)Temporary Structures/Construction, 17) Surveying, 18) Geotechnical Engineering/SoilMechanics, 19) Structural Engineering/Design, 20) Concrete Design, 21) Steel Design, and 22)Senior Design/Capstone.After identifying the courses for which they have experience teaching, the faculty were asked toidentify the frequency with which they update
Small class sizes 90 52 University Characteristics Financial aid 26 15 31% (172) Location 25 15 Mission 21 12 Transfer process 10 6 Faculty 101 50 Senior design project 42 21 Department Academics Learning environment
an engineering students’ weekly activity is completing homeworkproblems, problem sets, or working on projects. While a significant amount of research hasexamined how students work together to complete design projects and learn design [4]–[6] fewstudies have examined students solving homework problems or projects in engineering sciencecourses, an understudied area of research [7]. Lord and Chen [8] have called for more researchinto the “middle years” of the engineering degree, where students must take a number ofdisconnected courses with high levels of mathematical problem solving that are not highlyengaging for students.Douglas and colleagues have answered this call by examining the types of problems in typicaltextbooks [9], students' use of
organized by professional organizations [6]. Examples of largenationwide competitions include the Human Powered Vehicle Challenge sponsored by theAmerican Society of Mechanical Engineering [7], the Concrete Canoe Competition sponsored bythe American Society of Civil Engineering [8] and IEEEXtreme Coding Competition by theInstitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers [9]. The American Society for Composites hasbeen holding a global student simulation challenge to encourage students to take up careers inaerospace fields [10]. Some of these large national competitions requires a significant amount ofinstitutional support in terms of both spaces for construction and costs for the project and travel[11]. Other ways to promote CBL is through a
practice and teach biomimetics.Jeffrey H Rosen (Program Director)Julia Varnedoe (Research Associate II) Julia Varnedoe is a Research Associate II for the Center for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics, and Computing (CEISMC) at Georgia Tech. She works with the curriculum development team to create innovative programs that address the needs of students and teachers in the K-12 community. Current projects include the NSF funded BIRDEE (Biologically Inspired Design for Engineering Education) curriculum, STEM-ID, and K-12 InVenture Prize. Prior to joining Georgia Tech, she had a successful career in marketing communications for Delta Air Lines, and has spent the past 14 years as an educator. Varnedoe graduated with a B.S
toattract a multidisciplinary group of students to inspire discussion and different ways ofthinking around the political, cultural, and technical components of a near-zerocarbon energy future. We demonstrate that students not only learned the material, but also gaineda greater appreciation for the climate crisis and how to engineer for sustainability. Coursecontent and structure was aimed to be as interactive as possible, including extensive in-classdiscussion activities as well as two large group projects where students presented their findingsto the class. We intentionally incorporated content and student activities on social equity,environmental justice, and the unequal impacts of a changing climate. Assessment was viastudent course evaluations
fivecompetencies that prepare them to solve these challenges. Most incoming scholars lackexperience in identifying specific research mentors. This program assists with that task. Throughthe first competency, also known as talent, the scholars engage in hands-on projects to helpdesign innovative solutions through deep immersion in an academically rigorous environment.This paper describes the improvement efforts post COVID-19 to the course goals, structures,designs, and targeted recruitment efforts for the GCSP during the face-to-face and online coursedelivery, focusing on engineering research and introducing interested students to how to identifya research topic and choose a mentor. In addition, it includes reflections and insights gainedfrom the course
: Containing Design: Rethinking Design Instruction to Support Engineering Device Development for Low-Income CountriesAbstractWork-in-Progress: One of the primary benefits of a makerspace is the concentration of tools,materials, and expertise in one place [1]. Without makerspaces, design education in many low- tomiddle-income countries (LMIC) stops with a “paper” design and does not move onto a physicalprototype. More than 75% of registered makerspaces are in North America and Europe [2], andless than 4% of registered makerspaces are in Africa [3].As part of a joint project between Duke University (NC, USA) and Makerere University(Kampala, Uganda), “twin” makerspaces were built at the respective universities. At Makerere,this makerspace was a first
student participants ofinternational research experiences that involved deep interactions with communitymembers and in regions with more cultural differences developed different competenciesthan students who traveled to regions with more cultural similarities and fewer communityinteractions (Verbyla et al. 2023). On the other hand, Maltby et al. (2016) found thatnursing students who completed international experiences in developing countriesdeveloped similar competencies as students who traveled to industrialized countries.We studied the impact of a six-week summer international research experience on theskills and abilities of student participants. The overall goal of the broader project was tohelp students: 1) understand wastewater treatment
Paper ID #39333Work in Progress: Measuring Interdisciplinary Teams´ Sustainable Designwith an SDG lense – Case StudyHolbeein Josu´e Vel´asquezDr. Miguel Andres Guerra, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ MiguelAndres is an Assistant Professor in the Polytechnic College of Science and Engineering at Uni- versidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ. He holds a BS in Civil Engineering from USFQ, a M.Sc. in Civil Engineering in Construction Engineering and Project Management from Iowa State University, a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering with emphasis in Sustainable Construction from Virginia Tech, and two Grad- uate Certificates from
-question surveyabout team development stages, followed by qualitative analysis of team-based written artifacts.Available written artifacts included the following: a team contract, developed by the team during Week 4 of the semester; a CATME® peer review, administered online during Weeks 7 and 8; team-based commentary about the results of the team development survey, noting similarities and differences among team members’ results, as part of a project and team status update submitted during Week 12; team-based commentary about additional progress toward team development since Week 12, as part of the final project and team status update submitted during Week 15, and a final CATME® peer review
makerspaces support both curricular and co-curricular design projects andlearning at many institutions. As the Covid-19 pandemic has forced most universities toswitch to fully remote or some combination of hybrid and remote courses, many of thephysical activities necessary for prototyping are in flux. What has happened tomakerspaces and how have they tried to maintain their key role in both co-curricular andcurricular learning?In Spring 2020, most shut down all in-person operations. The Fall 2020 semester has seena whole gamut of models for classroom teaching and teaching labs. Many universitieshave allowed their labs and makerspaces to open in a limited capacity, but some havesuspended all, or almost all, operations. To keep supporting the students
student experiences to assure all students have access to equitable opportunities to successfully transition to professional practice.Dr. Robin Fowler, University of Michigan Robin Fowler is a lecturer in the Program in Technical Communication at the University of Michigan. She enjoys serving as a ”communication coach” to students throughout the curriculum, and she’s especially excited to work with first year and senior students, as well as engineering project teams, as they navigate the more open-ended communication decisions involved in describing the products of open-ended design scenarios. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021IntroductionA
degree in Building Construction and Real Estate from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 2016. She has worked as a construction engineer for various general contracting companies in the Mid-Atlantic region.Dr. Dhaval Gajjar, Clemson University Dr. Dhaval Gajjar is an Assistant Professor at Clemson University’s Nieri Family Department of Con- struction Science and Management in the College of Architecture, Arts and Humanities. Dr. Gajjar has conducted research over the last 11 years on construction workforce and talent attraction strategies, project delivery, project close-out and post-occupancy evaluation. He has authored over thirty (30) publi- cations and proceedings disseminating the research
negotiate complex engineering design projects. Her scholarship is grounded in notions of learning as a social process, influenced by complexity theories, sociocultural theories, sociolinguistics, and the learning sciences.Dr. Wilhelmina C. Savenye, Arizona State University Dr. Wilhelmina ”Willi” C. Savenye is a Professor Emeritus of Learning, Design and Technologies / Educational Technology at Arizona State University. She is a former Education Director, and currently serves as Senior Education Advisor, for the NSF Engineering Research Center for Bio-mediated and American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021
courses/projects inundergraduate degrees are the most conducive learning opportunity for engineering students tolearn and practice ethical decision making in an engineering design context that simulates real-world scenarios.Engineering ethics importance has been recognized by organizations such as the NationalSociety of Professional Engineers (NSPE), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and theAccreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). For example, in the past, theNAE convened committees to envision the engineer of 2020 engineering two decades in advance[1], [2]. They predicted the demands and changes in engineering with growing complexity inapplications that truly interest society globally [1]. It stated that the codes of
generators, frequency synthesizers, switching power supplies, and high-speed digital circuits. He is co-inventor on a patent for the design of electronic instrumentation used to steer oil wells while drilling. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Work-in-Progress: Enhancing Engineering Students’ Troubleshooting SkillsAbstract Several Engineering faculty at Kennesaw State University have observed over the pastfew semesters that students are often unable to fulfill the original design requirements set fortheir senior project due in part to their limited ability to effectively troubleshoot the technicalissues they
strategies in the statics classroom. Currently, Dr. Cutler works as an assessment and instructional support specialist with the Leonhard Center for the Enhance- ment of Engineering Education at Penn State. She aids in the educational assessment of faculty-led projects while also supporting instructors to improve their teaching in the classroom. Previously, Dr. Cutler worked as the research specialist with the Rothwell Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence Worldwide Campus (CTLE - W) for Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.Dr. Swaroop Ghosh, Penn State Swaroop Ghosh received the B.E. (Hons.) from IIT, Roorkee, India, the M.S. degree from the University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, and the Ph.D. degree from Purdue
theproposal. To illustrate, sometimes an idea stews for a good while in the form of an initial concepton which a team of colleagues continues to ponder and explore a direction for a particular topic andthe viability of the project. Conversations through collaborative interaction, among team members,are critical in bringing the most effective articulation of proposal pieces, and the multitude of pointsof views, from a collaborating team, enable a powerful array of avenues in building to the mostcompetitive proposal: in short, a group genius approach is far more productive than a solo centeredmodel. For example, the working group may have continual conversations, read, try things in thelab, ponder and pilot aspects of the work, etc., before even
foundthat team conflict is highly negatively correlated with team performance and team enjoyment incapstone design courses, with 1 in 4 students reporting that they experienced significant conflict,with the majority of cases consisting of conflict of a personal, or relationship, nature [1].In 2015, a series of teamwork training modules were developed by the Teamwork Clinic throughthe collaboration of various departments on campus [2]. Each of the six modules were designedto integrate seamlessly into courses with large or lengthy design projects, with the goal thatstudents apply what they learn directly to their team processes and team projects. This papercontinues to expand on work that has been published about the first four teamwork modules inthe
),25 sections of MATH 200 (Calculus I), 12 sections of MATH 201 (Calculus II) and 9 sections ofMATH 301(Differential equations) per semester. Students in these sections include majors fromMath and partner disciplines ranging from the School of the Arts to Humanities and Science,Business, and Engineering. At the onset of the project, the two PIs (one from Math and one fromEngineering) conducted a faculty survey to gauge current attitudes, level of interest in theproject, and the degree to which faculty felt the math courses listed above impacted theirstudents’ success. Broadly, the survey showed that engineering faculty were interested in howmathematics courses were (or should be) preparing students for engineering courses and thatlower level
andcomputer science). While some schools are adding programs in mechatronics and robotics, this isnot always feasible. An alternative is to increase exposure to programming and electrical contentin traditionally mechanical engineering courses, such as through the incorporation ofmicroprocessors across the curriculum.This work investigates the incorporation of microprocessors (specifically Arduinos) into theMechanical Engineering curriculum. The goals of this effort are to increase students’ familiaritylevel with microprocessor capabilities, to increase exposure to mechatronic systems, to allow forhigher fidelity prototypes in class projects, and to provide an accessible and inexpensive way forstudents to explore applications of what they learn in
the ways in which this identity is influenced by stu- dents’ academic relationships, events, and experiences. Dr. Groen holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in Civil Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology.Dr. Lisa D. McNair, Virginia Tech Lisa D. McNair is a Professor of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech, where she also serves as Director of the Center for Research in SEAD Education at the Institute for Creativity, Arts, and Technology (ICAT). Her research interests include interdisciplinary collaboration, design education, communication studies, identity theory and reflective practice. Projects supported by the National Science Foundation include exploring disciplines as cultures
participated in the lecture. This sparked the Board of Directors at the museum, inthe summer of 2004, to consult with one of the University of Maryland, Baltimore Countyprofessors (and co-author of this paper) who presented in the 2003 program regarding thepossibility of revising the program to incorporate active learning and project-based lectures.The general format of the restructured YESS program now includes weekly guest speakersfollowed by an episode of Who Wants to Be an Engineer (a game developed by Professor DavidSilverstein2 from the University of Kentucky, Paducah) and a weekly hands-on activity. Thisyear the program was designed to instruct the high school students on how to move frombrainstorming a problem to designing, building, and
, computer-integrated testing devices such as table-top windtunnels and materials testing devices, animation, electronic publishing, digital audio/videoproduction, etc. 2 Concurrently, high school Technology Education programs turned to digitaldesign and prototyping tools, such as CAD, 3D modeling, rapid prototyping technologies (CNCrouters, mills, lathes), robotics and programmable controllers, and the like).In the mid-1980s, Technology Education pedagogy began to shift from the “project method” to aproblem-based learning pedagogy the field referred to as “the technological method,”3 now morecommonly called “technological design” or “engineering design.” It is now fairly routine to seeTechnology Education students using tools of all kinds—both
. Richard Millman is the Director of the Center for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics and Computing (CEISMC) and Professor of Mathematics at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He received a B.S. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Ph.D. from Cornell University in Mathematics. He was the President of Knox College (Galesburg, IL), Provost of Whittier College (Whittier, CA) and the founding Provost for California State University, San Marcos. He has twice served 2-year terms as a Program Officer at NSF, was interim chair of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Kentucky, and is the Principal Investigator and Project Director of ALGEBRA CUBED
identifyadvantages and disadvantages of various instructional and assessment methods as they relate toteaching within the engineering domain. Specifically, by the end of the course, students shouldbe able to: Practice strategic course planning by aligning various components (i.e. objectives, instruction, and assessment) for a specific course, Write clear and concise objectives for a course they are teaching, Identify advantages and disadvantages of various instructional methods (i.e. active learning, problem-based learning, discussion, collaborative learning), List methods of classroom assessment including the advantages and disadvantages of each (multiple-choice tests, constructed-response tests, and projects
service area. It was a logical location for distribution in a rural area that lackedalternative educational resources. With only three months available to design a customized Page 11.43.4Tandberg 880, evaluate the new NetOp School software and devise a teaching strategy—anuncomfortably short amount of time—the ENTC faculty in charge of the project faced aconsiderable challenge.Since the ENTC department had not as yet attempted a distance learning course, no equipmentwas available. The distance learning department stepped in and loaned ENTC a new Tandberg880. A similar system was already installed at the high school. The distance learning staff