-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics 66, 64.[3] Jungst, S., Likclider, L. L., & Wiersema, J. (2003). Providing support for faculty who wish to shift to a learning-centered paradigm in their higher education classrooms. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 3(3), 69-81.[4] Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 11(23), 8410-8415.[5] Hattie, J, Biggs, & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills
is an assistant professor of civil engineering at Rowan University. His research primar- ily concerns multi-scale geomaterial behavior under coupled processes across various time scales, with emphasis placed on microstructure characterization, constitutive model formulation, and computational geomechanics, for applications in geological storage and energy geotechnics. Prior to joining the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at Rowan, he worked in the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin. At Rowan, he teaches courses in geotechnical engineering and ge- omechanics. He is a recipient of James S. Lai Outstanding Graduate Award from the geosystems group at Georgia Tech
person with a strong technical background can be more convincing when different opinions on a task are raised. A complex capstone project normally requires different technical skill sets, and a single faculty member may not be able to efficiently advise students on all these aspects. Therefore, the faculty advisor needs to help students build a supportive environment by identifying and securing technical supports and advising mentor(s). At the same time, the faculty advisor needs to follow up with the team on advice they received and, when necessary, to step in and make a decision on behalf of the team. For example, when a mentor gives unrealistic guidance, the faculty advisor needs to communicate directly with the mentor
may feel if they have low self-efficacy in this area of engineering and design.Lesson PlanPrep: Structured Practice:• Gather supplies 10 minutes• Fill bucket with water • Collaboration with partner(s). Must present finalGrouping: design before using materials. Have to spend 10• Instruction will be given as an entire group. minutes planning without touching materials. Must build exactly what is on
parameters,” SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars – MechanicalSystems, vol. 8 no. 2015-01-2355, pp. 1128-1136, 2015.[8] L. Fredette, J.T. Dreyer, T.E. Rook, and R. Singh, “Harmonic amplitude dependent dynamicstiffness of hydraulic bushings: Alternate nonlinear models and experimental validation,”Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, vol. 75, pp. 589-606, 2016.[9] L. Fredette, S. Rath, and R. Singh, “Nonlinear fluid damping models for hydraulic bushingunder sinusoidal or transient excitation,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, vol. 233, no. 3, pp. 595-604, 2019.[10] L. Fredette and R. Singh, “Effect of fractionally damped compliance elements on amplitudesensitive dynamic
education centers: Catalyzing the improvement of undergraduate stem education. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 47. doi:10.1186/s40594-018-0143-2Deci, E. L., & Moller, A. C. (2005). The concept of competence: A starting place for understanding intrinsic motivation and self-determined extrinsic motivation. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 570-597). New York: Guilford Press.Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self- determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.Draeger, J. (2013). Why bother with the scholarship of teaching and learning? InSight: A Journal of
conducted to find if the identified gap betweenthe perception of managers and workers can be satisfied. The assuring outcomes show mostparticipants (over 80%) believe managers and workers can find a common ground to reconcile andaddress the differences in their perception (see Figure 2).Exploring workers’ and managers’ responses to the question provide insightful information thatcan shed light on the subject matter. They argued we (i.e., managers and workers) already havecommon ground. In response to the interview question an interviewee mentioned that “Yes, Ibelieve that we already have an overall common ground, no one wants to get hurt or see someoneelse.” A construction worker added that “I believe the manager[s] feel the same way about
many tours need tobe scheduled for the class. Determine whether safety equipment needs to be provided by theinstructor or is available at the site. Typically it must be provided, and alumni and companiesassociated with the department are often willing to make donations toward these student learningopportunities. Also confirm whether there are any weather restrictions on the site tour. In generalthe author has found that they can occur in almost any weather so long as some decking is inplace to shelter the tour.After this meeting, plan a short follow up meeting to schedule the tour(s) and talk through whatyour expectations are. Find out any restrictions and talk through what will be shown on the tour.Determine whether the tour will be co-led or
$5.00 per yard Juki Industrial Sewing By Appointment User Provided Machine Wacom Cintiq 13HD Drop-in No Charge Creative Pen Display Button Maker Drop-in $2.00 per 10 buttons Cutting Board and Cutting Drop-in No Charge Tools Epson Perfection V800 Drop-in No Charge Photo Flatbed Scanner Einscan-S 3D Scanner Drop-in No Charge Ultimaker 3 3D printers Operated by Makerspace 3 hours per user per month, (Extended) Student Advisors Only No Charge 3D Printer Pen* By Appointment
quantify the education outcomes in this project. The developeddataset and assessment approaches are being integrated into a single education module for theenhancement of mechanics education across the U.S.AcknowledgementThe authors appreciate the financial support of National Science Foundation, project number is1712178. We also appreciate Fabrisonic LLC for providing the 3D printed aluminum materials.References[1] G. L. Gray, F. Costanzo, D. Evans, P. Cornwell, B. Self, and J. L. Lane, The dynamics concept inventory assessment test: A progress report and some results, in American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2005.[2] D. Montfort, S. Brown, and D. Pollock, An investigation of students
professor of Chemical Engineering at West Vir- ginia University (WVU) in January 2013. He is now Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering since August, 2019. His research group at WVU focuses on the development and implementation of process systems engineering methods for process design and intensification, advanced control and state estima- tion, modular energy systems and sustainability. He received his B.S. degree from the University of S˜ao Paulo in 2003 and his Ph.D. from Tufts University in 2007, both in Chemical Engineering. Upon comple- tion of his Ph.D., he was a research associate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a postdoctoral associate at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Lima has served as the
Conference.Gordon, D. M., Iwamoto, D., Ward, N., Potts, R., & Boyd, E. (2009). Mentoring urban Blackmiddle-school male students: Implications for academic achievement. The Journal of NegroEducation, 78(3), 277.Greer, R. P., Henderson, J. A., Summers, R. G., & Morphew, J. W. (2017, June). Engagement inPractice: Success Gleaned from the St. Elmo Brady STEM Academy. In 2017 ASEE AnnualConference & Exposition. doi:105860/choice.41-1054Haik, Y., Sivaloganathan, S., & Shahin, T. M. (2015). Engineering design process. NelsonEducation.Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G. Sadler, P.M., & Shanahan, M.-C. (2010). Connecting high school physicsexperiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study.Journal of Research in
, explaining why the design is notergonomic, and offering possible solution(s) to make the design/part ergonomic. Besidesengaging the students, the assignments allowed the instructor to directly assess students’learning of the concepts from the theory lectures. The students found the assignmentsinteresting and were more engaged to the topic as those ergonomic examples relate totheir daily life. The enthusiasm and interests of the students in those exercises werereflected in the course evaluation as well. It can be concluded that the exercises engagedstudents more intensively in the course and helped them to understand the applications ofergonomics. Finally, the assignments and final term paper/case study helped to achieveseveral learning outcomes
statistically significant change from Year 1 based on two-tail z-test at 95% confidence.References1. Sinatra, G. M. “The “worming trend” in conceptual change research: The legacy of Paul R. Pintrich,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 40, issue 2, pp. 107-115, 2005.2. Farnsworth, C. B., R. W. Welch, M. J. McGinnis, G. Wright, “Bringing Creativity into the Lab Environment,” in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia, 2013.3. Ramos, R. F., “Introduction of Active Learning Techniques Increases Student Learning in a Systems Physiology Laboratory Course,” in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2014.4. Sieving, A. L., M. Pool, S. A. Jewett, T. Eustaquio, R. Madangopal, A. Panitch, K. Stuart, A. E. Rundell
all post-assessmentresults must be compared relative to a non-flipped method. It has been determined that the nextcourse offering for this course will utilize active learning but the flipped classroom techniquewill not be used. The instructor hopes to gather the missing data at that time for comparison. In addition to baseline knowledge comparison, a simple review of daily assignments andexams seems to indicate lower student grades than typically seen by the instructor (averages inthe 70’s%). This could have been attributed to other changes such as the introduction of an e-book, whereas a traditional text version was used prior to the semester when the flipped approachwas used. General confusion appeared to result for many students as
torched for thesoldering process (Fig. 8). Upon construction, the trusses are loaded into a compressive test untilfailure. A post-destructive analysis is performed to determine the cause of failure (joint ormember failure), a comparison of actual and predicted loads, and if the predicted failingmember(s) was the first to fail.The primary requirements for the truss design was to span 14 inches, with 0.5 inches of supportat each end, support a theoretical minimum load of 325 lbs., and use no more than 84 linearinches of brass. The metrics of performance are: The predicted max load was compared to actualtesting max load, to depict the discrepancy between theory and practiced based on factors such ascraftsmanship, joint methods, etc.; the overall
submission’s time. Note that this time may be anunderestimate, as the time doesn’t include the time the student spent reading the instructions anddeveloping the first submission. If two successive submissions are separated by at least 10minutes, we assume the student was perhaps taking a break (this is not a perfect measure but thebest we can do as we cannot directly observe the student), and thus we exclude that time fromthe total time. For every student (two are shown in Figure 2), such total time is computed. Wethen compute the average of the shortest 20% of such times to yield the baseline time. The sameapproach is done for the number of attempts per student. Figure 2: Definition of struggle rate for a particular CA.Figure 2’s
sub problem (Table 1) to describe participantperformance on each of the three problems presented during the think aloud interview. Codes Meaning Explanation Students identified all components of a S Successful successful solution to a design step. Students were assigned this code when they UDI Unsuccessful - Did Incorrectly attempted a design step, but were unsuccessful in its completion. Students were unaware of a necessary
. Kowalchuk, J. Nicklow, L. Graceson-Martin, L. Gupta, J. Mathias, J. Tezcan,and K. PericakSpector. (2009). Evaluation of a new engineering residential college initiative.Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Conference. Austin, TX.[7] Crisp, G., & Cruz, I. (2009). Mentoring college students: A critical review of the literaturebetween 1990 and 2007. Research in Higher Education, 50(6), 525-545. DOI:10.1007/s11162-009-9130-2[8] Hug, S., Thiry, H., & Tedford, P. (2011). Learning to love computer science: Peer leadersgain teaching skill, communicative ability and content knowledge in the CS classroom. InProceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 201-206.DOI: 10.1145/1953163.1953225
integrating these materials into researchor application projects. The research team embraces others who are interested in teaching aboutmicrocontrollers to enhance collaboration on these topics. The team had designed a commonhardware platform for laboratory modules at an affordable price to learners, which reflects theconcepts of active learning. Thus, learners are motivated to engage in the activities andexperiments because they can follow the instructional steps well and maintain interest.References1. S. Hsiung and F. Feng, “What does it take to delivery hands-on courses?”. Proceedings of the 2015 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Engineering Technology Division, Session 12044, Seattle
(hereinafterreferredtoasScholars)selectedfortheprogramwillreceiveone-yearscholarships,withanoptiontocontinuecontingentuponreceiptofadditionalprogramfunds:1.Tuition2.Mandatoryorgeneralfeesasdeterminedbytheinstitution.Optionalormiscellaneousfeeswillnotbecovered.3.Bookallowance4.TravelfundingforonecybersecurityconferenceperacademicyeartocontinentalUS-heldconferencesonly.5.One-timecostoflaptoportabletforcourseworkand/orelectronicbooks(returningscholarswhocontinuefromprioryear(s)and/orcontinueforanadditionaldegree/certificatewillonlyreceiveonelaptop)Rightnowthisprogramisfocusedonourdistanceeducation–offeredMasterofScienceinInformationSystemsprogram,butweareworkingtoexpandourdistance
ofsustainable innovation scaling which occurs at the organizational level [5]. Wenger et al.’s,model of Community of Practice was implemented as to encourage the sustainability ofinnovation central to Coburn’s model [6]. Briefly, Rogers outlines a model of personal adoption of innovation which includes fiveaspects. First is knowledge or awareness where there is exposure to innovation. In our facultydevelopment program, this occurs during the workshops. Secondly, to adopt innovation, onemust exhibit a growing interest. Next, the individual must either accept or reject the innovationfollowed by the implementation or trial phase where the innovation is tested. Lastly, theinnovation is sustained through the confirmation or adoption phase. The second
, and artifact descriptionsused for assessment in ENGR291 ABET Learning Outcome and Performance ABET Learning Outcome and Performance Indicator(s) Indicator(s) Students will have the ability to design and con- B.1 Average class grade for the final experiment duct experiments to analyze and interpret data full report submitted during the final exam pe- (Outcome B) riod (Air Rocket experiment, Module 4) B.1 Design and conduct an experiment to solve a given experimental problem. Students will have an understanding of both F.1 Average grade for individual essay on professional responsibilities and workplace student-selected ethics case study (Module 3
Prism 24:2, p.24-35.Olson, S., National Academy of Engineering, & Prospects, and Priorities (Forum). (2016). Grand Challenges for engineering : Imperatives, prospects, and priorities : summary of a forum. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Ramakrishna, B.L. (2017) “NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering” http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/14365/GrandChallengeScholarsProgram.aspx Retrieved 03/07/2017.
. Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE. Rapid City, SD, SB3-1-SB3-5.[8] Wineburg, S., (1998). Reading abraham lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22 (3), 319-346.[9] Schwartz, D.L., Bransford, J.D. & Sears, D., (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In Mestre, J.P. ed. Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective. Greenwich, CT :: IAP.[10] Golter, P., Van Wie, B. & Brown, G., (Year). Comparing student experiences and growth in a cooperative, hands-on, active, problem-based learning environment to an active, problem-based environmented.^eds. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings
material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Division ofGraduate Education under Grant Numbers DGE-1535462/1535226. Any opinions, findings, andconclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
encourage more women andunderrepresented students to pursue engineering and to consider more fully the wide range ofengineering disciplines available.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1505006. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.ReferencesBandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287.Wharton, A. (1992). The social construction of gender and race in organizations: A socialidentity and group mobilization perspective. In P. Tolbert & S
to havea voice, but that they may be changing the dynamics of the whole scene. Analysis of videorecordings of designers’ activity, for example, could confirm or disconfirm this sense.Through further analysis, we intend to explore how a pedagogical partnership between peerobservers, design team members, and classroom instructors might positively influence all thestakeholders’ practices related to engineering design/communication.References[1] Cennamo, K. S., Brandt, C. B. & Scott, B. (2010). Adapting the studio to design-baseddisciplines: Research-based strategies for effective practice, in P. Doolittle (ed.), Proceedings ofthe 2010 Conference on Higher Education Pedagogy (pp 14-15), Blacksburg, Virginia, Centerfor Instructional
, 32(1), 17-19.10. Bolyard, J., & Moyer-Packenham, P. S. (2008). A review of the literature on mathematics and science teacher quality. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 509-535.11. National Research Council. (2006). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy.12. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.13. Center for Educational Policy (CEP). (2007). Choice, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: CEP.14. Czerniak, C. (2007). Interdisciplinary science teaching. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, 537–559. New York: Routledge.15
understand the rigor and intensity of anengineering curriculum before committing to the engineering bachelor degree.ChallengesSimilar to most academic programs, even successful AS/BE programs experiencechallenges that require monitoring. Notable challenges that can impact a dual/jointprogram include having consistent data, alignment of curriculum, providing adequatesupport services, and supporting student with academic difficulties.Data ConsistencyThe lack of conformity with regards to data poses significant challenges when dealingwith different institutions. One major question is whether a joint/dual degree programstudent should be classified as such when s/he first enters into a program at thecommunity college or at some defined stage afterwards