used here to model environments. Students useseveral pre-made models, within which various environmental parameters can be adjusted. Students canplay with the parameters, transform the environment, and see the consequences as they run the simulation.Activity #1: Stream TablesThe first activity has students use stream tables to investigate the erosion of a streambed and the associatedgeologic features it creates. Students make observations about the erosional features that appear in thestreambed. A class discussion about their observations follows, embedded in the larger context of thecourse. This is the only activity that uses an actual stream table.Activity #2: Introduction to NetLogoThe first computer-based erosion simulation is a virtual
completion of this course, students should have the ability to: 1. Create preliminary vertical and lateral structural systems that are integrated with a comprehensive architectural design. a. Develop structural framing configurations based on Page 26.1407.5 conventional systems. b. Develop preliminary designs, integrated with studio projects, for vertical and lateral load resisting systems including preliminary sizes for slabs, beams, columns, walls and braces
. According totheir model, there are three primary influences on student outcomes: student pre-collegecharacteristics and experiences, organizational context and peer environment (Table 1). Page 26.1431.4 Table 1: Terenzini and Reason Conceptual Framework of College Impact: Primary Influences inStudent Learning (adapted from Terenzini and Reason (2005)8.Primary Influence ExamplesStudent Pre-college Characteristics Socio-demographic traitsand Experiences Academic preparation and performance Personal and
to increased self-efficacy in STEM fields and increased interest in pursuing a career in science or technology.Additionally, girls participating nationally in Tech Trek camps report large increases in comfort,enjoyment and interest in pursuing a career in programming as a result of taking core classes inmobile app development using App Inventor from MIT.1.0 Introduction The American Association of University Women (AAUW) research report ”Why SoFew? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)”[1] found thatwomen are vastly underrepresented in STEM majors and fields compared with their male peers.But “Why So Few?” also showed that those numbers can change when girls realize theirpotential in STEM at an early
, the focus shifts downthrough the survey questions. The responses on the survey did not affect the students score onthe survey. They received full credit for completing the survey.Results:The RADD results in Table 1 shows data for the past 10 years. From Fall of 2004 to Fall of 2014the results show an improvement demonstrating that as an assessment tool, RADD is working.Table 1. RADD Results. YEAR Require Stdev 3i Analysis Stdev 3k Design Drawing Sample -ments Sample 3k (Ave) Sample 3d (Ave) 3g (Ave) Size 3i (Ave) Size Size 2004-5, Fall 60.0 67.0 51.0 39.0 13 2005-6, Fall 73.0
security. She currently volunteers on the BYU red team, and is the CCDC coordinator for the school. Page 26.437.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Cyber War is not Gender War: Experiences of Creating a Productive Heterogeneous Environment in Cybersecurity ResearchAbstractWhile degree enrollments continue to see an increase in female enrollment, there remains adistinct gender gap in STEM disciplines 1. In particular, the Technology and Computing spacehave always struggled to recruit and retain women. A similar trend is seen
programs. Developing our understanding about this unique group ofstudents, while learning how to best educate and motivate them.Writing proficiency is an area that has been discussed for some time.1 Employers have indicated Page 26.1777.2that engineering technology students are unable to articulate clearly, in particular they arelacking in writing skills..2 Regardless, the work place demands the ability to convey thoughts andconcepts in writing.2 While this is the case, and is often known, academia is not consistent in thedevelopment of writing proficiency.1,3-5The authors believe that well-crafted exercises used throughout the curriculum provide
but not solarge as to invalidate the tools. Steps should be considered to educate students about potentialbias.IntroductionTeamwork is an integral part of Engineering and Engineering Education.1 Well-designed groupand team projects can help students gain valuable teaming skills, and accrediting bodies requirethese skills of engineering graduates.2,3 But teamwork is not without its problems. Social loafingand “I better do it myself, if I want an A” syndrome are part of many peoples experiences withgroup and teamwork.4 A well-designed peer evaluation process can improve the studentexperience and lead to more powerful learning outcomes.Peer evaluation can be used to foster a better team experience and to equitably recognizeindividual student’s
industries that had a great sense oftraditional values and environmental awareness, and explored Taiwan's culture through the eyesof local students. The cohort was a resounding success, with overwhelming positive studentfeedback. Overall, the SJSU GTI program has been very successful and has met the objectivesset for it. Embedding continuous assessment and improvement into this program has allowed usto adapt to changes and provide the participants with an intensive global experience.1. Purpose of the GTI ProgramIn the globally competitive 21st century, corporations have been aggressive in expandingmarkets and their workforces across the globe. In order for engineers to thrive in such anenvironment, they need to understand and prepare for this new
Satisfaction Table 4 Data collection procedures and schedules Phases Contents Duration(1) Pre-tests Demographics , computer experience, GPA Two weeks Knowledge on selected subjects through Concept Inventory Learning disposition measured through MSLQ(2) Collaborative learning Online discussion for collaborative learning Ten weeksthrough online discussion Students' Self-report on collaborative learning process Instructors
Children’s Hospital, and the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago.Dr. Sheryl Elaine Burgstahler, University of Washigton Dr. Sheryl Burgstahler founded and directs the DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology) Center and the Access Technology Center. These two centers promote (1) the use of main- stream and assistive technology and other interventions to support the success of students with disabilities in postsecondary education and careers and (2) the development of facilities, computer labs, academic and administrative software, websites, multimedia, and distance learning programs that are welcoming and accessible to individuals with disabilities. The ATC focuses efforts at the UW; the DO-IT
as compared to first-year students. The lower expectation of seniorstudents suggest that engineering instructors should consider ways to engage upper level studentsin creative behaviors. Future research includes a longitudinal study to examine how creative self-concept changes in progression through the engineering curriculum.Introduction The concept of creativity has been an important research topic since the 1950’s and1960’s.1 Educators and scholars with diverse domains of expertise have studied creativity, theskills associated with creativity, and techniques to increase creativity in their respective fields.2-6However, even in the field of psychology, where the most research pertaining to the topic hasbeen produced, researchers
through the NSF sponsored Engineering Coalition of Schools for Excellence in Education and Leadership (ECSEL) program. The main effort made under the ECSEL program was centered on creating a projectdriven approach to teaching engineering design to incoming students 1 . In 1992, seventeen students participated in the pilot section of ENES 100, which was anchored around the design and construction of a swing set. Afterwards, five design projects were developed to form a design project cycle. Those projects were based on the development of a wind mill, a solar desalination still, a weighing machine, a postal scale, and a humanpowered water pump. The motivation was that the design project cycle would ensure that the projects remained fresh for
and HCI practitioners.IntroductionNumerous studies have identified reflection as an essential element in learning, development ofexpertise, and supporting motivation.[1,2,3,4] As Rodgers put it “reflection is identified as astandard toward which all teachers and students must strive” and “the cry for accomplishment insystematic, reflective thinking is clear”.[5] While reflection is generally understood as animportant part of learning, it is emerging as a critical area of scholarship in engineeringeducation.[1] Operationalizing the concept of reflection in classrooms in order to help engineeringstudents engage in reflection has been a challenge and educators are seeking ways to best addressthis issue.[6,7,8]Similar to educators in engineering
currently no easy methods tosynthesize research results, share research data, and indeed validate research studies effectively.In general, topics related to data and data sharing are largely treated as taboos in the engineeringeducation research space. Data sharing mechanisms to enable fundamental research inengineering education that has the potential to address systemic problems have not yet beenclarified. The research goal of this paper is to identify and understand patterns for data sharingmechanisms in order to inform design requirements for data sharing practices and infrastructurein engineering education.1. IntroductionThe scientific community is increasingly recognizing the necessity for sharing scientific databeyond the initial purposes
(system).The general system analysis steps to problem solving are outlined in Figure 1.The initial step is producing a diagram illustrating the system and clearly delineating all theinput/output variables (V) that affect the behavior of the system and listing all the pertinentindependent equations (E) between the variables. The difference in the number of variables andindependent equations establishes the number of degrees of freedom (DoF) in the system. TheDoF value can be used as a check point on the mathematical reasoning or formulation of theproblem. If the DoF is zero, the solution of the problem is determinate with only one solution;but if V > E, there may be several alternative solutions, which defines the problem as a designcase
six learning outcomes in more detail:1. We refrain from addressing “Describe the difference between centralized and distributed software configuration management. [Familiarity]” 4 due to the constraints posed by teaching in the first year: software configuration management is beyond the scope of programming-in-the-small.2. We achieve the same mastery level on “Demonstrate the capability to use software tools in support of the development of a software product of medium size. [Usage]” 4.3. We exceed the recommended mastery level on “Describe how available static and dynamic test tools can be integrated into the software development environment. [Familiarity]” 4 by letting students have hands-on experience with testing tools such as
recession, tuition prices are skyrocketing, student loan debt has surpassed$1 trillion, parents, who have leveraged their homes through equity loans and first loans - for thesecond time, are losing faith in the value of education, state funding is dwindling, federal grantsare shrinking, and donor dollars are smaller5”. These are the times in which we live. Change isinevitable. We can continue to do what we do, until such time when we can’t, then, we must dosomething else. This is the prevalence of the literature today.There is a growing trend toward college and university mergers. Marcus6 states “…it’s a kind ofprivate sector-style consolidation that is becoming increasingly common, not only for publicinstitutions, but also for nonprofit
of responsible science and social science writing. What is less often Page 26.1564.2addressed by even the most thoughtful researchers, however, is the available field of existingresearch options, as such; the universe of possible, credible methodological choices orevidentiary standards.1, 2 We believe that reflection on those parameters would support a morerobust inquiry into STEM education subjects, as would explicit contextualization of researchers’chosen methods or standards along societal terms: that is, attention to the question of whichsocietal conditions may determine researchers’ embrace of quantitative or qualitative methods
students are motived by their engineering mentor’s engagement in their learning and driveto seek improvement. The authors were also enthused by the desire to make a difference, makingtheir learning experience more meaningful. Design projects that address problems posed by realclients, especially those that involve third-world problems, provide that opportunity. Through anevaluation of the design curriculum the authors made recommendations to strengthen studentengagement in engineering education.1 Introduction and BackgroundContext based education methods, where students are presented with application before science,are proven to be significantly more effective than traditional approaches that teach science first,then apply it to real life.1,2 The
the German Institute ofEconomics, the country currently needs 117,000 engineers, scientists, IT experts and technicians. Page 26.337.2U.K is also faced with a chronic shortage of science graduates and especially engineers, whereseveral industries are struggling with a shortage of engineers in the area of power generation,aerospace and manufacturing. Sub-Saharan Africa alone needs 2.5 million new engineers andtechnicians if the region was to achieve the UN Millennium Development Goal of improvedaccess to clean water and sanitation [1].The number of engineering graduates enrolled in Asian countries and their population trendshows that the
terms of theundergraduate and graduate degrees they earn at colleges and universities. Yet, in spite ofsuch advances, most science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields stillremain sharply gender segregated, with men making up the majority.1 This is nowheremore evident than in engineering. According to statistics, women earn 57% ofundergraduate degrees, but only 18% of baccalaureates in engineering.2-3 These trendsare a cause for concern because occupational gender segregation fuels the wage gapbetween men and women, which perpetuates gender inequalities.4 Additionally, a dearthof women in engineering represents the potential loss of human capital that could help toadvance scientific and technological discovery.5In response to this
Jacobs Excellence in Education Award, 2002 Jacobs Innovation Grant, 2003 Distinguished Teacher Award, and 2012 Inaugural Distinguished Award for Excellence in the cate- gory Inspiration through Leadership. Moreover, he is a recipient of 2014-2015 University Distinguished Teaching Award at NYU. In 2004, he was selected for a three-year term as a Senior Faculty Fellow of NYU-SoE’s Othmer Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies. His scholarly activities have included 3 edited books, 7 chapters in edited books, 1 book review, 55 journal articles, and 109 conference papers. He has mentored 1 B.S., 16 M.S., and 4 Ph.D. thesis students; 31 undergraduate research students and 11 under- graduate senior design project teams
have access to this technology. The remainder of this paper details the approach taken and lessons learned implementing 3D printers into a firstyear engineering design course. First, implementation details including specific tools, techniques and equipment used in the labs are provided. Next, the instructional approach developed to introduce the concepts and techniques linking CAD with 3D printing is presented. Preliminary results of this effort are then discussed by presenting (1) the print log data collected throughout the semester that provides an indication of the use and success rates associated with the printers and (2) data collected from a survey designed to determine the perceived effectiveness of the system and student
institutionalization strategies thatwere eventually employed. We will also discuss this project’s contribution to a greaterSTEM presence and culture on campus which has resulted in our Latino/Hispanic studentsapproaching full representation in STEM and engineering majors on our campus. (Figure 1) Approaching Representation 50% Percentage of STEM majors who are Latino Percentage of Latino students 40% 30% 34% 32% 34% 20% 26% 23% 19% 20% 10
faculty5,10. For these reasonsand more, learning communities should be a more visible and common means to helpengineering faculty to learn, share, and thrive.Building a Faculty Learning Community: A High Bar?How should a faculty learning community be formed? How should it operate? And who shouldset the process into motion? The most visible recommended practices for faculty learningcommunities in higher education come from the highly influential pioneering work of Milt Coxand his colleagues at Miami University. From their literature directed toward learningcommunity builders10,13–15, we might infer that: 1. A learning community must gain broad support within the hierarchy of an institution, including deans and departments and faculty. 2. A
the knowledge about the field of engineering and simultaneously provide development ofinvaluable professional skill sets to the engineering student. In this first year of study we look atthe design parameters of the project where students from various STEAM based fields must designa living, talking, interactive pumpkin patch as part of a community exhibit.MATERIALS AND METHODS The project itself was a community based learning experience in which students from variousmajors collaborated to design an interactive pumpkin patch. The student group this first year wascomposed of 44 students of which 13 were science majors, 12 were engineering majors, 10 wereliberal arts majors, 4 were business majors, 4 were nursing majors, and 1 was an education
Page 26.753.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015International DivisionThree choices of session topics: 1. Global Research Opportunities in Engineering and Engineering-related fields 2. International Research Compliance- Guidelines and Rules of the Game 3. International Collaborations, Experiences, Partnerships, Service Learning Facilitating successful global research among Engineering and Technology scholars: The case study of agricultural supply chain Page 26.753.2 Facilitating successful global research among Engineering and Technology scholars: The case study
Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (ETAC). Each commission accreditsprograms in its discipline. Despite harmonization efforts over the last few years, differences inseveral of the criteria do exist. This paper will provide explanations and cite criteria used in theETAC commission.There are a lot of terms and supporting documents used by ABET that need to be defined. Someof the more important ones are listed below. 1) Team Chair (TC). The Team Chair represents ABET and is the central point of contact once a program’s request for evaluation has been accepted. The Team Chair is a highly experienced Program Evaluator who helps the Program Evaluators and program being evaluated. 2) Program Evaluator (PEV). The Program
application of the skills they need to becompetitive in the global marketplace. Page 26.168.2The National Science Foundation Advanced Technological Education (NSF ATE) programfunding for the project that initiated this work ended in August of 2011, and follow-through byCIS faculty in continuing the problem-based learning methodology has been inconsistent.IntroductionTwo metro-Denver community colleges participated in the Colorado ATE Partnership (CATEP)in order to advance technician education in the region. This NSF/ATE-funded project (DUE#0802439)1 had a shared vision to develop a model for Information and CommunicationsTechnology (ICT) responsive to