. Similarly, Mold Making I and II were taught in the springsemester.Combining the laboratories in this way allowed a different approach to teaching the laboratorysections. Since the enrollment numbers for each section were small, instructors decided thatlaboratory sections of various courses could be offered concurrently. Instead of having dedicatedlab time for each course, they could all be combined (Table 4). Combining the laboratories wasnot as complex as it may appear. Although a student could take nearly any course in anysemester they mostly followed the traditional schedule pretty closely. This meant that in the fallsemester for example, students were either in Machining I, or Die Making I and II. In alaboratory populated by a larger number of
minutes. The students in the classroomsaw the same SEM images as the operator, with a real time view of the sample preparation tableand the laboratory environment. At all times they could converse with the laboratory instructorand ask questions.Figure 2: This is the actual implementation of the system. Photo was taken during an actualclassroom teaching. Page 23.295.5Since it is a mobile system, it can be easily moved into any other laboratory, such as fordemonstrating an Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) or Transmission Electron Microscope(TEM). We have also used it for conducting virtual tours of a cleanroom nanofabricationlaboratory, where the
Paper ID #7152Authenticity Promotes Student Engagement and Learning in a Stand-AloneTechnical Communications CourseDr. Shannon Ciston, University of California, Berkeley Dr. Shannon Ciston is a lecturer in the Chemical Engineering Department at the University of Califor- nia, Berkeley, where she teaches courses in technical communications, first-year design, and pedagogy. Dr. Ciston holds degrees in Chemical Engineering from Northwestern University and Illinois Institute of Technology. Her research interests include aspects of engineering student experience, identity, and motivation, especially among first-year students and
we have all these LMS, why do we need another one? The main consideration for LMSsoftware development was the requirements for teaching courses (online or hybrid). None ofthem catered to Internet accessible remote laboratories. With this scenario, an LMS has beendeveloped to support remote laboratory delivery. Along with the standard features, the newlydeveloped LMS allows management of the laboratory experiments, performance of experimentsby the students, access control, experiment time allocation, a queue for experiment performance,weekly surveys, and tracking of facility usage.6. Developed Learning Management SystemThe LMS has been developed to support an Internet accessible remote laboratory facility. TheLMS is implemented using a
electronics applications," in Technologies Applied to Electronics Teaching (TAEE), 2012, 2012, pp. 359-364.[12] M. Tawfik, E. Sancristóbal, S. Martín, C. Gil, A. Pesquera, S. Ros, R. Pastor, R. Hernández, G. Díaz, J. Peire, and M. Castro, "Towards a Better Deployment of Remote Laboratories in Undergraduate Engineering Education," in Using Remote Labs in Education: Two Little Ducks in Remote Experimentation, J. G. Zubía and G. R. Alves, Eds., ed Bilbao: University of Deusto, 2011.[13] M. Tawfik, E. Sancristobal, S. Martin, R. Gil, G. Diaz, J. Peire, and M. Castro, "On the Design of Remote Laboratories," in Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), IEEE, Marrakesh, 2012, pp. 1-6.[14] M. Tawfik, E
present in textbooks.11 Page 23.780.2The current investigation has aimed to integrate some aspects of research into a geotechnicalengineering laboratory course with limited impact on the existing content of the course (i.e.,maintaining emphasis on conventional geotechnical engineering testing). This experience is notintended to be production-level research, but instead an introduction to research methodologyand perspective for undergraduate students. Various teaching methodologies have beenincorporated to the introductory geotechnical engineering laboratory at California PolytechnicState University, a primarily undergraduate institution. The
the price of a textbook,students can purchase a low-cost analog hardware development platform and components, withaccess to downloadable teaching materials, reference designs and lab projects to design andimplement analog circuits as a supplement to their regular laboratory exercises.Colleges have traditionally had to build and maintain centralized teaching labs. These labs, withtheir specialized equipment and trained lab assistants, are expensive and hard to maintain. Withthe Analog Discovery design kit, can help to build distributed labs - labs that can be found indorm rooms, cafeterias, and libraries - anywhere students want to work. However, theimportance of working with real laboratory equipment cannot be ignored. The Digital
undergraduate engineering programs.Dr. Peter H. Meckl, Purdue University School of Mechanical Engineering Peter H. Meckl is a Professor in the School of Mechanical Engineering, where he has served since 1988. Peter obtained his BSME from Northwestern University and MSME and Ph.D. degrees from MIT. His research interests are primarily in dynamics and control of machines, with emphasis on vibration reduc- tion, motion control, and engine diagnostics. His teaching responsibilities include courses in systems modeling, measurement systems, and control. In addition, he teaches a course entitled Technology and Values, which introduces students to the social and environmental impacts of technology through a series of readings and
mentors related to Academic Programs andCareers and 100% reported influential experiences related to Teaching and Learning andBuilding Relationships. In exploring Academic Programs and Careers further, many of theexperiences were related directly to the undergraduates’ academic and career paths and exposureto graduate school and laboratory careers. In Teaching and Learning, REU students describedvarious methods and strategies (i.e., demonstration, questioning, and discussion) the graduatestudents used to teach them about their research project. In regards to Building Relationships, thegraduate students were described as mentors, collaborators, and supervisors. In summary, thisresearch provides insight into role of the graduate student mentors in
concepts and methods and enthusiasm for learning.Equipment DevelopmentA search of relevant literature quickly reinforces the notion that equipment for this training isusually developed in-house. This is true of universities, community colleges, technical institutes,and even on-line training. Much of the equipment is large, highly realistic, and definitely notportable.Universities and community colleges have developed equipment to teach electrical code in arealistic fashion. At the Milwaukee School of Engineering, there is a laboratory with a nicerange of electrical panels for teaching distribution wiring. The laboratory focuses primarily onthe motor loads. Students get a strong experience in investigating existing installations and inbuilding
seems maybe the only effective and feasiblesolution. There is a need for new learning tools and practical experiences which can now be metby new teaching methods, such as virtual learning. In recent years due to the Internet advances,and the fast development of computer technologies, E-Learning has been well accepted in manydifferent education areas and at many universities. Computing and communication technologyhave had a significant impact on engineering education, improving online, distance, andcollaborative learning, as well as the use of the virtual and remote experiments, laboratories andsimulations. On the other hand, the renewable energy technology has a great development rateand it is mandatory also for professionals, engineers, and
toolkits designed specifically for the needs of the construction industry including internship programs for undergraduate students. Proceedings of the 2013 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Conference Copyright © 2013, American Society for Engineering Education 101Proposed Laboratory-based Teaching Framework for SustainabilityThis section describes the proposed laboratory-based teaching framework for sustainability. Theframework will make a stepping-stone of the BIM-based teaching approach that has beendeveloped in the previous study.8 The BIM-based teaching approach integrates BIM
applications for the TI hardware tools. It includes compilers for each of TI’sdevice families, source code editor, project build environment, debugger, profiler, simulators,and many other features.The laboratories are weekly 3-hr long sessions. The students are assigned a pre-lab exercise,which usually consists of prerequisite reading material, such as going through user manuals,datasheets, and other time-consuming but necessary activities. They work collaboratively ingroups of two or three per experimental station, and are supervised by a teaching assistant.However, each lab requires an individual submission of a number of deliverables, clearly identi-fied in the lab manuals. Typically, the deliverables themselves require the successful completionof
Engineering at Nazarbayev University accepted its first cohort of students.The core building-blocks of the School of Engineering at Nazarbayev University are: problem-centered learning, the ‘upside-down’ curriculum, mathematics in context, design orientation, andcombining simulation with laboratory and workshop practices. These core building-blocks are allconnected through the central themes of safety and sustainability, transferable skillsdevelopment, and management and entrepreneurship.The School of Engineering’s teaching program has been developed in partnership withUniversity College London, considered one of the world’s best universities. Students are taughtin an “engineering systems” fashion, with all first year modules common with the
modules are completed, students should: 1. Have a working knowledge on regulatory compliance through good laboratory practices training. 2. Have a working knowledge on safety compliance, risk assessment, and hazard mitigation in a laboratory environment. 3. Understand the risks of regulatory and safety non-compliance. 4. Have functional knowledge to work with professionals in RC and SC areas. 5. Have the ability to write and understand RC and SC documentation. 6. Understand the interplay between technical aspects and compliance aspects of CHE profession.General teaching methodology RC and SC modules are designed to be used in lecture, laboratory or design courses. Allinstruction in these modules was done through
the credit hour load of students in a liberal education environment where generaleducation requirements are sizeable. This course has added new learning outcomes toaccommodate laboratory experience as well as use of simulation software to enhance studentengagement and at the same time provide the students with multiple options that encouragedifferent learning styles. The course has been designed for four credit hours consisting of 180minutes of lecture time, 120 minutes of laboratory time and 60 minutes of tutoring time everyweek of the fourteen week semester. The contact time has been distributed so as to promotescaffolding of the learning process. The learning outcomes established for this course includeABET1 outcomes ‘a’ and ‘e’ as well as
Page 23.253.13a specific laboratory component.ASSESSMENTIn the University of Texas at Tyler Civil Engineering department, assessment of programoutcomes is taken very seriously, both to satisfy ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineeringand Technology) accreditation requirements as well as to simply improve the teaching andlearning that occurs within the program. One of the key mechanisms for performing thisassessment process is the collection of embedded indicators, a graded event or a portion of anassignment that directly demonstrates student accomplishment of a program outcome.19Embedded assessments are more efficient than many other methods because they rely on datathat already exists within the academic program.20 Embedded indicator
Paper ID #6624Structural Elective Course for Special Building SystemsDr. James P. Mwangi P.E., California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Dr. James Mwangi received his Bachelor’s of Science degree from the University of Nairobi at Kenya, a Master’s of Science degree from the University of Lagos at Nigeria and a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of California, Davis, all in in Civil Engineering (structures). Dr. Mwangi is currently an associate professor in the Architectural Engineering Department at California Polytechnic State Uni- versity, San Luis Obispo. He teaches undergraduate and
: Comparison of Industrially-situated Virtual Laboratories to Capstone Physical Laboratories. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(3), 540–573.3. Gilbuena, D., B. Sherrett, E. Gummer and M. D. Koretsky. (2011). Understanding feedback in an authentic, ill- structured project through discourse analysis: interaction between student and instructor objectives. 2011 Research in Engineering Education Symposium: Program and Proceedings, 2011, 700-709.4. Johnson, G.R. (1979). Verbal Interaction in Junior/Community College and University Classrooms: Do Disciplines and Settings Differ? Research in Education, Aug 1979.5. Bostian, C.W. (1991). The Mechanics of Effective Classroom Teaching. Engineering Education, 81(1), 9-11.6. Felder, R.M. (2002). The
greater flexibility of a digital controller1. This course wasoriginally taught in a traditional, lecture oriented fashion due to the lack of laboratory equipment.This traditional approach of teaching control systems ignores the gap between theory and reality.No matter what illustrated examples used in textbooks or lectures, students are only exposed to Page 23.825.2equations, matrices, block diagrams, frequency response, and signal flow graphs. Even simplesystems, such as a single-input, single-output DC motor can be abstract when described only onmathematical terms. Not only do demonstrations and experiments help students bettercomprehend
teaching tools have been implemented elsewhere [5, 6, 7]; we areinterested in creating opportunities for students to experience project failures – and thenovercome those failures.We have developed a two-semester course sequence for entry-level engineering students (i.e.freshmen and sophomores), giving them a chance to learn from failures (and success). The firstsemester is a 2-credit course, consisting of a 1-credit classroom lecture and a 1-credit laboratoryelement; the second semester is a 1-credit laboratory course. The classroom portion is a seminar-style presentation of systems engineering tools such as requirements flow, work breakdownstructures, design drivers, trade studies and risk assessment. For the laboratory portion of bothsemesters
attributed to a student’s ability to learn. For example, the teachingstyle of most university professors contradicts the typical learning styles of most students in awide range of disciplines. And in regard to curriculum, the vast majority of university systemsacross the United States have managed to squeeze more and more theoretical information intoengineering curricula, while limiting the contact of undergraduate students with physical, hands-on projects, through laboratories and design projects. In 1988, a paper was published by Richard Felder and Linda Silverman entitled Learningand Teaching Styles in Engineering Education which has become one of the most referenceddocuments in the field of Engineering Education [1]. In that paper, Felder
of X-raydetectors, neutron gas-filled detectors, alpha/beta proportional counters, and alpha PIPSdetectors. While we have no reactor or a high energy electron LINAC, we take pride in our sub-critical facility for fission, transport, and shielding experiments and a 3-MeV NEC Pelletron ionaccelerator for Ion Beam Scattering (IBS) experiments. Organic laboratory capabilities areenhanced by the presence of a Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) research located atWest Point. The Nuclear Science and Engineering Research Center (NSERC) is collocated withthe NE Program and it serves to enable cadet research with DTRA and other DOD partners. Itsstaff of three Army officers all has MCNP expertise, and they provide periodic teaching supportto the NE
Page 23.417.14 Skills for Complex Global Environments, 10.1109/TEE.2010. 5508819, pp. 1-14.21. Samanta, B., and Turner, G. (2013). Development of a mechatronics and intelligent systems laboratory for teaching and research, Computers in Education Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 60-72.22. Craig, K. C. (1999). Mechatronics at Rensselaer: a two-course senior-elective sequence in mechanical engineering, IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, pp. 452-458.23. Craig, K. C. (2001). Is anything really new in mechatronics education? IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol.8, no. 2, pp.12-19.24. Tomizuka, M. (2002). Mechatronics: From 20th to 21st century, Control Engineering Practice, vol.10, pp. 877
ideas. Participants could attend workshopsof their choice fitting their professional and teaching interests. The workshop described in thiswork was attended by 30 participants and the workshop slides and references were disseminatedto all 150 Summer School attendees.Particulate systems can be found in more than 90% of chemical and pharmaceutical processes.5Integration of laboratory experiments and demonstrations that include particulate systems is anexcellent way to integrate particle technology into the traditional engineering curriculum andfamiliarize students with this important technology and the pharmaceutical industry. Thepharmaceutical industry employs one in eight chemical engineers, second only to the chemicalprocess industry. The
applications in MET courses,” Proc. ASEE Annual Conf., 2002.4. K. A. Gibbons et al., “An approach to using undergraduate student teams to develop undergraduate laboratory experiences,” Proc. ASEE Annual Conf., 2012.5. K. Mallikarjunan, “Development of learning modules to teach instrumentation to biological systems engineering students using MATLAB,” Proc. ASEE Annual Conf., 2012.6. A. Asgill, “Developing biomedical instrumentation laboratory exercises for engineering technology,” Proc. ASEE Annual Conf., 2009.7. C. R. Sekhar et al., “A course on biomedical instrumentation utilizing laboratory based on system design approach,” Proc. ASEE Annual Conf., 2011.8. ABET-ETAC, http://www.abet.org/.9. LabVIEW software, National Instruments, http
biomedical engineering from Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. She coordinates the departmental graduate program and teaches both undergraduate and graduate courses in computer engineering, primarily in designing digital systems for hardware. She is the PI for Scholars in Engineering (SiE), an NSF S-STEMS scholarship for undergraduate and Master’s students. She is a member of the Morgan team that is developing online laboratory courses for undergraduate students. Her research expertise is in algorithm optimization for FPGA implementation and her research group has developed a novel biologically inspired image fusion algorithm. She has over 35 journal and conference publications combined.Mrs. LaDawn E. Partlow M
for EE and CE students. Robert E. Choate. Western Kentucky University.Proceedings of the 2004 ASEE annual conference & exposition Session 2266[4] Using laboratory experiences to facilitate the teaching of heat transfer to electrical engineering technologystudents. Robert Edwards, ASEE 2006 conference proceedings session 5[5] Development of a modern integrated thermal systems design laboratory- A follow up. John Abbitt. 2012ASEE southeastern section annual conference proceedings Page 23.302.10
Paper ID #6564Curriculum Exchange: ”Make Your Own Earthquake”Dr. Sandra Hull Seale, UCSB Dr. Seale earned the B.S.E. in Civil Engineering from Princeton University in 1981, the S.M. in Civil En- gineering from MIT in 1983, and the Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from MIT in 1985. Dr. Seale is currently working as the Project Scientist and Outreach Coordinator for the Seismology Research Laboratory at UC Santa Barbara.Dr. Thalia Anagnos, San Jose State University Dr. Thalia Anagnos is a professor in the General Engineering Department at San Jose State University, where she has taught since 1984. She also serves as the co
Paper ID #5926Introducing Freshmen Engineering Students to Civil Engineering at the Uni-versity of FloridaMs. Zhang Lei, University of Florida Ms Lei Zhang is the graduate students at University of Florida (UF). She earned her BSCE in 2010 from the Tongji University, in her place of birth, Shanghai, China. After that, she came to the United States and is doing her Master degree in civil engineering. She was the instructor for the STEP-UP program for the College of Engineering at UF and was awarded the most outstanding instructor. She is the teaching assistant for the Introduction to Engineering, Public Works Planning