group exam than by the individual exam, and it isimportant to provide fast feedback.Before the exam, students must prepare sufficiently to be ready to actively engage during theexam. Without adequate preparation, students may find it too easy to passively rely on the groupconsciousness and may not be capable of identifying gaps in their own knowledge during thediscussion. To encourage individual accountability and active discussion during the exam, thestudents must follow two rules. 1. Each student must write some of the answers. 2. All students must agree on every answer submitted.When there is a “hung jury”, students can be encouraged to record the top two positions with asupporting argument for each. This becomes an answer the group
overview of the curriculum structure is next, and the restof the time is spent working through a kit or kits to give teachers insight into the studentexperience of the curriculum. The teachers, in this way, move between the “teacher” and“student” roles to get a broad perspective.It is not unusual for children from economically disadvantaged homes to enter kindergarten withfewer experiences and early childhood education than their more affluent peers (Reardon).Because of this, the team decided to not use the EiE kits in grades K-1, but rather to focus theestablishment of foundational skills the children would use throughout their elementary years atRachel Freeman, enabling them to participate in the engineering implementation fully as theymoved up
lab activity favorable and were happy to be actively doing and problemsolving with peers. Students cited the open-ended and collaborative nature of the in-lab problemsolving session where the mock organizations convened to discuss how they could improveproduction and cut costs. Some students wrote that this was their favorite lab. Other studentsremarked on enjoying getting insight on the workings of both the product and the productionprocess. Page 25.66.10Student outcomes, as gauged from submitted student technical reports, were generallyencouraging, with most students completing the writing assignment competently, and studentswho mastered the
a better leader, having strongerprofessionalism, interacting professionally with a liaison or advisor, not dwelling on “pettyhuman idiosyncrasies,” understanding the importance of clearly defined roles andresponsibilities, portraying ideas, communicating better, writing peer-evaluations, and learningteamwork in a group environment.Alumni interviewees varied in their ratings of the degree to which the IDEALS modules helpedthem produce a high quality design solution. Six of them indicated that the modules were of nohelp, two of little to no help, seven of little help, two little to moderate help, eight of moderatehelp, and three of great help. Many suggested the benefit gained was more indirect, in the formof team communication and the
acid plant engineering at Monsanto, and traffic engineering in the City of Cincinnati. Her positions in the high-tech field stemmed from her undergraduate degrees in civil engineering and mathematics from Vanderbilt University. Contact information: mstrutz@purdue.edu.Dr. Matthew W. Ohland, Purdue University, West Lafayette Matthew W. Ohland is Associate Professor of engineering education at Purdue University. He has degrees from Swarthmore College, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the University of Florida. His research on the longitudinal study of engineering students, team assignment, peer evaluation, and active and col- laborative teaching methods has been supported by more than $11.6 million from the
). Page 25.299.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2012 Change in Elementary Student Conceptions of Engineering Following an Intervention as Seen from the Draw-an-Engineer TestAbstractChange in elementary students’ conceptions of engineering has been studied using the Draw-an-Engineering Test (DAET) prior to and following a curriculum intervention. This instrument asksstudents to draw an engineer doing engineering work and then write about what the engineer isdoing, typically in a sentence or two. Children in participating grade 2-4 classrooms completedthe DAET in a pre-post fashion during academic year 2010-2011. Classrooms were chosen basedupon teacher participation in professional development
AC 2012-4042: DEVELOPING EXPERIMENTS FOR THE VIBRATIONCOURSE WITH MINIMAL EXPENDITUREDr. B. S. Sridhara, Middle Tennessee State University B. S. Sridhara is a professor in the Department of Engineering Technology at Middle Tennessee State University. He received his B.S.M.E. and M.S.M.E. degrees from Bangalore University and Indian In- stitute of Science, Bangalore, India. He received his M.S.M.E. and Ph.D. degrees from Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey, and Auburn University, Alabama. Sridhara has published sev- eral peer-reviewed articles in the areas of acoustics, vibration, finite element methods, and engineering education.Mr. Daryl Hunter White, Middle Tennessee State University Daryl
AC 2012-5155: DEVELOPING INQUIRY-BASED LABORATORY EXER-CISES FOR A MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUMProf. Sriram Sundararajan, Iowa State University Sriram Sundararajan is an Associate professor of mechanical engineering at Iowa State University. He is currently the Associate Chair for Undergraduate Programs and oversees curricular and program matters including assessment and continuous improvement efforts. His research areas encompass scanning probe microscopy, multiscale tribology (friction, lubrication and wear), and surface engineering. More recently, he has focused on atom scale mapping of thin film material systems using 3D-atom probe microscopy. He has authored over 50 articles in peer-reviewed journals and
of the topics they are about to learn. The learning begins withresearch, teacher lectures, group discussions, and revisions to the original ideas of the unit. Nextis a section of the Legacy Cycle called “test your mettle” in which students are required to showwhat they have learned. This can be accomplished in a tradition paper and pencil test format orcan be explored through projects, papers, or presentations. To finish out the Legacy Cycle, thestudents must “go public” with what they have learned, presenting their findings in front of theirschool or community through the format of a newspaper article, poster, or presentation. This willforce the students to be accountable for their learning to their peers and community. Knowingthat they
to evaluate students’ learning and facilitate their deeper understanding of the coursecontent.ReasoningThe typical technical written exam (in STEM courses) is the most common way to assess astudent’s learning when the class sizes are large, or the professor has multiple sections.However, it may not be the most accurate assessment technique in general and certainly is notreflective of how the students will be expected to perform once they become professionals.Never will a student be expected to create a report of analysis for a well-defined problem withoutexternal resources or help, without peer review, in an hour, only to wait for someone to reviewtheir report without any opportunity to further explain or defend their analyses. Not only
areable to focus on smaller groups of WiSE-FPP Associates. WiSE Associate cohorts areconsistently diverse; on average 45% of all participants are international students, including (butnot limited to) students from China, Turkey, India and eastern European countries. The diversityembedded in the WiSE program mirrors the increasing diversity of the professional world. Theinterdisciplinary mix provides an additional layer of skill and knowledge necessary for successas associates become more familiar and comfortable with peers from outside their discipline. Page 25.1481.5In the midst of its fifth year, WiSE-FPP is an active and growing program, whose
connects all participants‟ research around a well defined goal. Theadvantage of the latter is the ability of the participants to see and experience connections amongdifferent research projects to achieve a common goal.A project director leads and manages the research site. The director is responsible for thefollowing activities: Conceptualizing and writing the project proposal to a funding agency, with clear presentation of the theme of the research site and associated components, Engaging all project Principal Investigators and faculty members during the proposal stage to ensure buy-in and commitment with the project, if funded, for the project duration and including departmental and other appropriate administrators in
design courses in thespring semester of 2003 with the addition of a communications instructor from the University’sCollege of Arts and Sciences.2 The impetus for the team-teaching model was tied to students'perceived weakness in their communication skills as documented in alumni surveys. Theintentional integration of engineering and communication paid large dividends in the preparationof students for employment immediately following graduation. ERAU AE alumni survey data inthe area of skill preparation in technical writing shows an increase from 28.2 percent “VeryGood” responses for the classes of 1999 through 2002 to 50 percent “Very Good” responses forthe class of 2004. 3The success of the team-teaching format encouraged the pursuit of other
their sensors with computers, write programs togather raw signals, implement calibration curves, and perform data manipulation and datalogging. In later modules, students program their own communications protocols for wirelesstransmission of the sensor data and connect their computerized sensor stations together to form adistributed wireless sensor network15. Additional modules explore the use and implications ofthis technology for biosciences and environmental research.B. The CurriculumThe SENSE IT curriculum is comprised of four educational modules. In Module 1, “Sensordevelopment,” students learn about the principles of transducers, design, analyze and calibrateelectronic circuits around their transducers in order to make numerical
. Advancing research in this area is consistent with an increased emphasison preparing students for professional practice5. Stakeholders’ varying definitions of keyabilities makes it more difficult to assess professional skills6 relative to technical outcomes, suchas ability to apply theories or formulae7-9. Conducting multi-institution studies on theseoutcomes has been a challenge because professional skill assessments have relied on a variety ofmeasures, including feedback from multiple sources such as faculty, peers, and self-reflections10,peer evaluations11, project rubrics12, and portfolio analyses13-17.Lattuca, Terenzini and Volkwein18 assessed outcomes across multiple institutions in anevaluation of the impact of new ABET accreditation
education pedagogy. Results of this research have been published in peer review journals on the followingtopics: 1) A comparison of student satisfaction of course delivery among online, blended, and regular students (Byrne and Tang 2006); 2) A gender study of the perception of the learning effectiveness of instructional tools used in online and blended learning (Byrne and Tang 2007); and 3) A study as to whether or not online students cheat more than regular students and a demographic profile of students who plagiarize or collaborate on exams (Tang, Byrne et al. 2007). One of the studies suggests that both students and faculty generally prefer face-to-facelecturing and individual tutoring (Byrne and
notes taken from traditional lectureenvironments.Project-based learning activities featured in Cornerstone environments include:collaborative/cooperative/peer learning in that projects are typically team-based andparticipative; just-in-time instruction in the form of lectures and class interactions that addressissues instructors anticipate students will soon address; topic integration in that students mustcall upon many skills to diverge/converge towards their design solution; problem-based learningin the many smaller problems they encounter through the course of completing their project; anda context which mimics that of the professional environment in which most students willeventually find themselves. Students involved in these projects find
planning, robotprogramming, and the coordinate grid. Since the students had not yet been introduced to the X-Y coordinate system, a grid utilizing the cardinal directions of north, south, east and west wasused (see Figure 1). The grid was comprised of 3” squares which made it easy for groups of 4 or5 students to work together. Using a simple robot programming language developed for thistask (see Figure 2), students were asked to work with their group members to write a programthat would cause an industrial robot to move five 2” square wooden blocks, each having oneletter written on them, to designated grid locations to spell “ROBOT”. Small font size lettersprinted on the grid helped the students place the blocks at the same grid location at the
, Madison. When not slogging through lines of simulator code, he enjoys brewing award-winning beer.Anthony Gregerson, University of Wisconsin, Madison Anthony Gregerson is a Ph.D. student in electrical and computer engineering at the University of Wiscon- sin, where he recently won the 2012 Exceptional Service Award for teaching assistants. He is a member of the UW’s Teaching Academy and the Delta Program in Research, Teaching, and Learning. He has eight years experience teaching as a tutor, Teaching Assistant, and instructor and occasionally writes about test- ing and assessment for PlusError.com. When not teaching, he designs real-time processing systems for CERN’s Large Hadron Collider.Michael T. Braun, University of
tools, toolevaluation and web information seeking.2. Literature Review2. 1 Novice Researchers’ DifficultiesNovice researchers in a new field usually face various kinds of challenges. Hockey7 portrays thefirst year of PhD as the most crucial and difficult period because students “initially encounterand experience intellectual and social processes at their point of maximum novelty”(p1). Muchresearch has been done about the challenges and issues first-year PhD students or junior researchstudents face, including social isolation, productivity, financing, discrepancies with advisers, andunequal accesses to peer culture and academic culture7,9–13. An important area of doctoral studythat has received little attention is the development of
AC 2012-5469: INTERDISCIPLINARY PEDAGOGY FOR PERVASIVE COM-PUTING DESIGN PROCESSES: AN EVALUATIVE ANALYSISDr. Lisa D. McNair, Virginia Tech Lisa McNair is an Associate Professor in the Department of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech where she serves as Assistant Department Head for Graduate Education and co-directs the Virginia Tech Engi- neering Communication Center. Her research includes interdisciplinary collaboration, communication studies, identity theory, and reflective practice. Projects supported by the National Science Foundation include: interdisciplinary pedagogy for pervasive computing design, writing across the curriculum in stat- ics courses, and a CAREER award to explore the use of e-portfolios
of ASME, SIAM, ASEE, and AGU. He is actively involved in CELT activities and regularly participates and presents at the Lilly Conference. He has been the recipient of several Faculty Learning Community awards. He is also very active in assessment activities and has presented more than thirty five papers at various assessment institutes. His posters in the areas of assessment, Bloom’s Taxonomy, and Socratic Inquisition have received widespread acclaim from several scholars in the area of cogni- tive science and educational methodologies. He has received the Assessment of Critical Thinking Award twice and is currently working towards incorporating writing assignments that enhance students’ critical thinking
to the newspaper articles on the nuclear crisis16-18, and they either confirmedtheir initial suggestions on how to improve the risk communication process addressed in thearticles, or they refined them with more sophisticated ideas learned from the summary sheets.Lesson 6 was a summary session in which students presented their group projects to an audienceof peers and teachers. Students were broken into groups of four and required to present an Page 25.675.5original project of their choosing that integrated some of the concepts and models that they learned in class. While students were given the liberty to choose a problem of their liking
project team of three to four students is assigned a corporate mentor.For a period of eight weeks, students are expected to work no less than 8 hours per week, hold atleast one weekly team meeting to discuss progress, and send minutes of these weekly meetings totheir corporate mentor and the University. At the end of the term, each team presents their finalreport and submits a detailed written report on their assigned project to the corporate client andthe University.Each student is supported with a $1,000 assistantship funded by the corporate client and payableupon successful project completion and positive peer evaluation feedback. With $20,000dedicated annually to student assistantships plus $5,000 allocated for University projectmanagement
information. With the help and support of library and academic writing staff, we insist uponsources beyond the Wikipedia or simple web resources. Through the nature of Innocentivechallenges, students quickly find that none of the familiar simple Googling searches are effectiveto provide high quality detailed information. This stage of the project opens up an opportunity toshow the value and depth of really good quality academic review papers or engineering journals.The Assignment: IdeationOnce students have submitted their reports on background research into the problem, we meetduring class and the class is broken into groups of students according to their chosen designchallenge. Depending upon the preference of the instructor, some groups are
Poor, 2-Poor, 3-Fair, 4-Good, 5-Very Good, 6-Excellent 2. Overall, the course is: 1-Very Poor, 2-Poor, 3-Fair, 4-Good, 5-Very Good, 6-Excellent 3. On average, for every hour I spent in this class, I spent about ___ outside of class completing work in this course (including studying, reading, writing, doing homework or lab work, etc.). 1-1/2 hour or less, 2-More than 1/2 hour, but less than one hour, 3-More than one hour, but less than two hours, 4-More than two hours, but less than three hours, 5- More than three hours 4. The course activities (e.g., assigned readings, lectures, discussions, labs, projects, etc.) were effective in helping me accomplish the learning
. The Center provides professional development training for 46 T-STEM Academies, five T-STEM Early College High Schools, and all Texas school districts, public and private. She collaborates with Whitacre College of Engineering Faculty, as well as faculty from other universities writing grant proposals. Over 10 years, Fontenot has secured more than $3.8 million for STEM education ($3,133,000 of this in the last five years). Fontenot teachers Professional Communications for Engineers: practical applications to written, oral, and internet communications, as well as an introduction to engineering ethics and service learning (2001-current).Mr. Richard A. Burgess, National Institute for Engineering Ethics Richard Burgess
applying standard problem-solving procedures, butthey must also have passion, adaptability and an eagerness to learn. Successful graduates need tobe innovators, effective collaborators in interdisciplinary and multicultural environments,excellent communicators, leaders, and lifelong learners1. Engineering education is not alone inneeding to rethink the educational strategies that best prepare students for success. Based uponresearch emerging from the learning sciences, Sawyer’s description of a successful collegegraduate (in any field) has much in common with the National Science Board (NSB) report.Sawyer writes that to be successful in the knowledge age, graduates will need to develop a deepand integrated understanding of complex subjects
integration, greenhouse designand business strategy development. Each group had a particular objective to accomplish, andworked independently but in coordination with other subgroups. To keep the group cohesive,each week the class met to update the entire class on each sub-group’s progress. This divisionallowed subgroups to obtain an expertise in a particular objective—while honingcommunications skills, so that the venture remained as one unit. Additionally, due to the range ofbackgrounds within each subgroup, members were able to learn from their peers from otherdepartments and colleges. Next, we discuss the various sub-groups and their work.Emergent IntegrationAn important aspect of the iSPACES venture was the infusion of systems, design
projects, teams and teamwork and reflective writing, this university will teachleadership identity development along with the knowledge, skills and abilities required of thenext generation of engineering leaders.IntroductionKouzes and Posner1 suggest that leadership is “everyone’s business”. East Carolina University(ECU) has committed to distinguishing itself by taking a unified institutional approach topreparing leaders. The ECU has identified itself as “The Leadership University” in its strategicposition and its marketing. As part of this position, the university seeks to define studentlearning outcomes related to leadership development in a way that is straightforward andadaptive while allowing academic units the flexibility to identify and