librarian’s services to gather literatureresearch material (in question 2), but did not state the percentage of this material that was relevantto their objectives (in question 4).***Q: see survey in Appendix ASurvey AnalysisThe following analysis was performed using the data from Table 1:• Based upon the answers to survey question 1 (Appendix A, Q1: Over the last year, approximately how many hours did you spend on background research? i.e., background searching to acquire data that would be used for either scholarship activity or classroom teaching), the total number of hours per month over the last year spent by all the faculty members (14 in total) within the College of Engineering and Technology on acquiring background research
, J. Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Vol. 124, 2002, p. 908 – 920.Anderson, J. D., 2001, Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, McGraw-Hill.Carberry, A. R., Lee, H. S., & Ohland, M. W. (2010). Measuring engineering design self‐efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 71-79.Haapala, K.R., Zhao, F., Camelio, J., Sutherland, J.W., Skerlos, S.J., Dornfeld, D.A., Jawahir, I.S., Clarens, A.F., Rickli, J.L. (2013). A Review of Engineering Research in SustainableManufacturing, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 135, 2013, p. 041014-1 – 16.Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Assume, & K.Hakuta (Eds). Child development and education in Japan (p. 262-272). New York: Freeman.Li, Q., McCoach, D. B
://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1154354.[3] Roger Williams University. (2017). Fast Facts. Retrieved from http://rwu.edu/about/who-we-are/fast-facts.[4] National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). College Navigator: Roger Williams University. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=Roger+Williams+University&s=all&id=217518.
, 54(4), 856-865.Neuendorf, K. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.Norusis, M. (2005). SPSS 14.0 Statistical Procedures Companion. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall, 152, 183.Papadopoulos, C., & Roman, A. (2010). Implementing an Inverted Classroom Model inEngineering Statics: Initial Results. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference andExposition, Louisville, KY.Perneger, T. (1998). What’s Wrong with Bonferroni Adjustments. BMJ, 316, 1236-1238.Piazza The Incredibly Easy, Completely Free Q&A Platform. (2015). Retrieved fromhttps://piazza.com, last accessed September 24, 2015.Quade, D. (1967). Rank Analysis of Covariance. Journal of the American Statistical Association,62(320), 1187-1200
. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (Online), 9(1), 23.[9] Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. (2009). Thinking about computational thinking. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 260-264.[10] Israel, M., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education, 82, 263-279.[11] Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48-54.[12] Bennett, J., & Müller, U. (2010). The development of flexibility and abstraction in preschool children. Merrill
of India and US”. 49th ATMAE Annual Conference, November 2-6, 2016, Orlando, FLDakeev, U., Mazumder, Q., Yildiz, F.& Baltaci, K. (2015). “Motivation and Learning Strategies of Students in Kyrgyzstan”. 122nd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, 2015, Seattle, WAFonseca, D., Valls, F., Redondo, E. & Villagrasa, S. (2016). “Informal interactions in 3D education: Citizenship participation and assessment of virtual urban proposals”. Computers in Human Behavior. 55 (1) 504-518Gray, S. A., Nicosia, K. & Jordan, R. C. (2012). “Lessons learned from citizen science in the classroom”. Democracy & Education, 20 (2), 1-5Reisel, J. R., Walker, C. M. & Cancado, L. (2016). “Successful Undergraduate
/ssie/under- grad/objectives-outcomes.html. 4. Large, J. (2006). Communication is engineering: Responding to needs of industry in a capstone course. 2006 Annual Conference & Exposition, Chicago, Illinois, 1-10. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/838. 5. Retherford, J. Q., & Ellenburg, K. S. (2016). Impacts of a university-wide service learning program on a senior undergraduate capstone course. 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1-10. doi:10.18260/p.25548 6. Wilk, R. D. & Anderson, A. M. (2002), Development of communication skills across the engineering curriculum. 2002 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Montreal, Canada, 1-14. Retrieved from
practice. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2603-2612). ACM.[5] Lindtner, S., Greenspan, A., & Li, D. (2015, August). Designed in Shenzhen: Shanzhai manufacturing and maker entrepreneurs. In Proceedings of The Fifth Decennial Aarhus Conference on Critical Alternatives (pp. 85-96). Aarhus University Press.[6] Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.[7] House, Robert, et al. "Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to project GLOBE." Journal of world business 37.1 (2002): 3-10.[8] – (n.d.). Maker Faire. Retrieved from makerfaire.com, March 18
, Conference Proceedings. Virginia Tech, United StatesDepartment of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, United StatesCollege of Engineering, University of Notre Dame, United StatesDepartment of Engineering Education, United States: American Society for Engineering Education; 2011.4. Tonso KL. On the Outskirts of Engineering: Learning Identity, Gender, and Power via Engineering Practice. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense; 2007.5. Jorgenson J. Engineering Selves: Negotiating Gender and Identity in Technical Work. Manag Commun Q. 2002;15(3):350-380. doi:10.1177/0893318902153002.6. Du X-Y. Gendered practices of constructing an engineering identity in a problem-based learning
2017 ASEE Southeast Section Conferenceprompt/adaptive feedback on individual or group works. Q 8: The in-class activities helped you improve your understanding of the lectureThis metric is directly connected to the first 4 discussed above. It directly gives the impact of theclass structure and approach on the overall main goal which is student learning. Responses arechosen from the following list: (1) Strongly agree, (2) Agree, (3) Neither agree or disagree, (4)Disagree, (5) Strongly disagree.Students from UC campus are more likely to agree that the activities in class have contributed toimprove their understanding of the lecture. Similar observation was made for most students of theother campus. A percentage of students have disagree or were
E., Water cooled concentrated photovoltaic system. Int J SmartGrid Clean Energy, 2012, pp. 2–6.[33] Chong, K-K., Tan, W-C., Study of automotive radiator cooling system for dense- arrayconcentration photovoltaic system. Sol Energy, 2012, Vol. 86, pp. 2632–2643.[34] Babic, D., Murray, D B., Torrance A. Mist jet cooling of grinding processes. Int J MachTools Manuf, 2005, Vol. 45, pp. 1171–1177.[35] Royne, A., Dey, C., Design of a jet impingement cooling device for densely packed PVcells under high concentration. Sol Energy, 2007, Vol. 81, pp. 1014–1024.[36] Russell C. R. Optical concentrator and cooling system for photovoltaic cells. US patent,RE30584, 1981.[37] Zhu L., Wang, Y., Fang, Z., Sun, Y., Huang, Q., An effective heat dissipation
wireless propagation characteristics and perform specific wireless experiments outsidetraditional labs. By experimenting with the mobile platform students will enhance their hands-onand programming skills, and will become more competitive in the wireless industry job market.AcknowledgementDr. Otilia Popescu’s work was supported in part by the Virginia Space Grant Consortiumthrough the 2015 New Investigator Program.References 1. Wyglinski, A. M., Orofino, D. P., Ettus, M. N., & Rondeau, T. W. (2016). Revolutionizing software defined radio: case studies in hardware, software, and education. IEEE Communications Magazine, 54(1), 68-75. 2. Ge, F., Chen, Q., Wang, Y., Bostian, C. W., Rondeau, T. W., & Le, B. (2008, March
(3.7%) expressed dissatisfaction. Table 2 – Open-ended design project survey results (percentages) on usefulness, project management, teaming and leadership: Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD).Q# Survey Item SA A D SD SA+A D+SD4 I enjoyed the open-ended design projects. 59.3 37.0 3.7 0.0 96.3 3.76 I gained knowledge and skills that may be applied to my career from participating in the open-ended design challenges. 37.0 59.3 3.7 0.0 96.3 3.71 The program’s PBL activities have helped me
/10.18260/p.25671McDermott, R., & Varenne, H. (1995). Culture as disability. Anthropology & EducationQuarterly, 26(3), 324-348.Mihelcic, J. R., Paterson, K. G., Phillips, L. D., Zhang, Q., Watkins, D. W., Barkdoll, B. D.,Fuchs, V. J., Fry, L. M., & Hokanson, D. R. (2008). Educating engineers in the sustainablefutures model with a global perspective. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 25(4),255-263.Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how thesociology of. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociologyand history of technology, 17.Ramírez, M. C., Bengo, I., Mereu, R., & Silva, J. C. (2011). Participative methodology for
instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59. doi:10.1007/BF02505024Mitola III, J., & Maguire Jr, G. Q. (1999). Cognitive radio: making software radios more personal. Personal Communications, IEEE, 6(4), 13-18.Noam, E. M. (1995). Taking the next step beyond spectrum auctions: open spectrum access. Communications Magazine, IEEE, 33(12), 66-73.Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Sohoul, M., et al., Next generation public safety networks: a spectrum sharing approach, IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 54, Iss. 3, March 2016.
, q. Seeking information physics and chemistry. r. Sketching Synthesizing s. TestingSatisfaction with the Project t. Understanding the problem u. Using creativity 9. I am happy with my
(Vol. 28, pp. 425–435). Retrieved from https://uspfodc.us/resources/41/download/Engeering_Students_and_EShip_Education_- _Involvement_Attitudes_and_Outcomes.pdfEpicenter. (2017). Epicenter Program: National Center for Engineering Pathways to Innovation. Retrieved from http://epicenter.stanford.edu/page/aboutJin, Q., Gilmartin, S. K., Chen, H. L., Johnson, S. K., Weiner, M. B., Lerner, R. M., & Sheppard, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial Career Choice and Characteristics of Engineering and Business Students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(2), 598–613.Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education 1876-1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2
). Specifically, they valued practicalexamples of how to be more receptive, what to do in problematic situations, how to respond tobias, as well as the ‘coming out’ activity (3). 5.1.4. Recommendations for improvement to Safe Zone Level 1 workshopsSeveral respondents indicated that the conference workshops did not offer sufficient time (12).One suggestion, if scheduling for longer workshops is not possible, was to have the option ofparticipants to voluntarily stay afterwards for more discussion and Q&A, at the discretion of thefacilitator. Further suggestions for improvements of future Safe Zone workshops were to providehandouts as a packet at the beginning of the session (note: that was the norm but it’s possiblethat a facilitator forgot
D: Student infographic examples - Example infographic posters from fall and winterquarters. The infographic with the most votes among their peers in each section for the fallquarter is reflected below in Figures D1-D3. The winter quarter top vote earners are shown inFigures D4-D5. Figure D1: Infographic on Peer Learning from Monday section (Team D), F2016Figure D2: Infographic on Reading from Wednesday section (Team Q), F2016Figure D3: Infographic on Questioning from Friday section (Team II), F2016Figure D4: Infographic on Questioning from Tuesday section (Team 9), W2017Figure D5: Infographic on Questioning from Thursday section (Team 18), W2017Appendix E: Peer and instructor assessment of infographic examplesThe infographic rubric
state and nextsteps. In A. Johri & B. M. Olds (Eds.) Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 497-518). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. SanFrancisco: Jossey-BassNGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States.Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Tafoya, J., Nguyen, Q., Skokan, C., & Moskal, B. (2005). K-12 Outreach in an EngineeringIntensive University. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education AnnualConference & Exposition (ASEE).The National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington
: Strategies for Product Design, 4th ed. West Sussex, England: Wiley, 2008.[34] N. Crilly, “Fixation and creativity in concept development: The attitudes and practices of expert designers,” Univ. Camb. Dep. Eng. Trumptington Str. Camb. CB2 IPZ UK.[35] E. P. Torrance, “Encouraging Creativity in the Classroom,” Duboque Iowa William C Brown Publ., 1970.[36] B. J. Lucas and L. F. Nordgren, “People underestimate the value of persistence for creative performance.,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 232–243, 2015.[37] N. L. Leech and A. J. Onwuegbuzie, “An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation,” Sch. Psychol. Q., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 57–584, Dec. 2007.
perceptions, whichwe believe warrant serious consideration when recruiting and designing programs for supportingtheir transition into higher education. ReferencesAgar, M. (1994). Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. William Morrow& Company.Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B. M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2004). Discourseanalysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: A microethnographicperspective. Routledge.Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2010). Organizingschools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press.Castanheira, M. L., Crawford, T., Dixon, C. N., & Green, J. L. (2001
Libraries’ Efforts in Inclusion and Outreach Activities Using Social Media,” LIBRI, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 34–47, 2015.[11] B. M. Moskal, C. Skokan, L. Kosbar, A. Dean, C. Westland, H. Barker, Q. N. Nguyen, and J. Tafoya, “K-12 Outreach: Identifying the Broader Impacts of Four Outreach Projects,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 173–189, 2007.[12] M. Borrego, “Development of engineering education as a rigorous discipline: A study of the publication patterns of four coalitions,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 5–18, 2007.[13] E. Specking and R. Almaian, “An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach to Engineering Outreach Decisions,” in IIE Annual Conference. Proceedings, 2013, p. 1078.[14] S. H
as 2008 Beijing Olympic stadium (Bird’s Nest), the Great Wall and Three Gorges Dam; 2. Cultural sites with engineering significance including the Terra Cotta Warriors, the Forbidden City and Tiananmen Square; 3. Businesses sites including DuPont, GE, HP, AECOM, IBM, Lenovo, Air Products & Chemicals, and Shanghai Xin Tai Printing Company; and 4. University sites including Southeast University in Nanjing and the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China in Chengdu.When visiting a company, students often attended a presentation and a Q&A session led by thehost to discuss what the business does, how the business works in a global environment, and whatimpact the business has on China and on the
workshop.- Student topics. This activity was rated as highly rewarding by students. Most of the students (undergraduate and many graduate) had not yet had an opportunity in their academic career to organize and lead a classroom discussion. Feedback from students was overwhelmingly positive. Students appreciated the opportunity to work through the process of organizing and leading a facilitated discussion and noted the boost in confidence this activity provided them for general public speaking skills. Students also noted value in the expectation that they were to provide questions of other student presentations. Students liked having the limits of a 30- minute period for the presentation and Q&A with a buffer for the instructor to fill
, aspects of teamwork, or work that is not deemed to use or be a direct precursor to CTconcepts (e.g. statistics). The pedagogical approach used a semi-flipped classroom whereinstudents are expected to engage in the materials and come to class prepared. The typicalsequence of assessment is shown in Figure 1 and as follows.Figure 1 Pedagogical overview of HFYE 1. Reading – The course is supported by an online textbook which includes programming exercises. Problems are assigned from the text book weekly. 2. Q&A – Each class starts with a question and answer session based on the readings to focus the class session. 3. Readiness Assessment Test (RAT) - Students take this initial quiz to assess their self- guided learning
that programsmeet and surpass the standards necessary for technical fields; and that programs are “leading theway in innovation, emerging technologies and anticipating the welfare and safety needs of thepublic”9. One of many papers written that discusses the designing and teaching of courses tosatisfy ABET regulations was presented by Richard M. Felder and Rebecca Brent10. Topics suchas ethics and technical skills are readily available, but there is room for growth in the area of lifeand soft skills for engineering graduates. As far back as 1998 where Duyen Q. Nguyen wrotethat engineering careers remain technical but are shifting towards soft-engineering due to themultidisciplinary nature of the changing workplace11. The two areas he included
, 82(3): 330-348.[9] Cross, N. (2000). Engineering design methods : strategies for product design (3rd ed.): Wiley.[10] Neeley Jr, W. L. (2007). Adaptive design expertise: A theory of design thinking and innovation. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.[11] Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social science research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.[12] Foster, C., Lande, M. & Jordan, S. (June, 2014). An Ethos of Sharing in the Maker Community. Proceedings of the 2014 American Society for Engineering Education (DEED Division); Indianapolis, IN[13] M. Q. Patton, Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002