satisfaction with academic facilities, such as classroom and Facilities and Services laboratories, and services, such as academic advising. Overall Satisfaction with General satisfaction with the overall quality of the college experience. This Collegiate Experience question is asked at the end of the survey to obtain a Gestalt judgment response.A similar process was used to recruit students for the focus groups (i.e., invitation from theAssociate Dean and follow-up reminders). Each group lasted from 1 ½ to 2 hours and included Page 12.1162.8students from
must perform an annual assessment. Theprimary reason for this assessment is to demonstrate the learning community is meeting its statedoutcomes. There are three general reasons to assess any project or program- to improve theprogram or project; to inform stakeholders whether the program, or project, is achieving it’sgoals; or to prove a program, or project is meeting, or has met its intended goals. [6]Traditionally, the evaluation in EELC is done via different tools. For the material at hand theevaluation has been done by homework, quizzes, tests, and laboratory reports. In addition tothat, one-on-one interviews are conducted, with each student, twice during the term and wouldidentify weakness and strengths for each student. The interview
College’s Engineering StudentSuccess Center during the academic year and had rigorous training in advising and mentoring.The peer mentors formally interacted with the EXCEED students through active participation inthe projects and activities and leading nightly small discussion groups and informally duringmeals and break times.Campus Resource Hunt: Teams of students went on a photo “scavenger” hunt to discover theresources across campus, including the library, counseling, registrar, bursar’s office, writingcenter, and tutoring and advising centers.College of Engineering Tour: Students went on a comprehensive tour of the buildinghighlighting classrooms, student club space, laboratories, and department offices.Student Panels: Groups of current
these individuals we examined the NSF award Page 23.594.10database, particularly the Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) andTransforming Undergraduate Education in STEM (TUES) award base, as well as the engineeringeducation literature. The leaders of the first round of VCPs are: Dr. Ken Connor and Dr. LisaHuettel in the circuits VCP, Dr. Edward Berger and Dr. Brian Self in the mechanics VCP, Dr.John Chen and Dr. Milo Koretsky in the thermodynamics VCP, Dr. Lisa Bullard and Dr. RichardZollars in the mass and energy balance VCP, and Dr. Mary Besterfield-Sacre and Dr. JenniferTurns in the FOEE VCP.In the first year, each Faculty
partnership programs. His expertise includes assessment in teaching and learning outcomes in k-12 and in higher education, diversity, leadership, community outreach, and curriculum development.Prof. David O Kazmer, University of Massachusetts, LowellDr. Olga Pierrakos, James Madison University Dr. Olga Pierrakos is an associate professor and founding faculty member of the James Madison Univer- sity Department of Engineering, which graduated its inaugural class in May 2012. At JMU, Dr. Pierrakos is the director of the Center for Innovation in Engineering Education (CIEE) and director of the Advanced Thermal Fluids Laboratory. Her interests in engineering education research center around recruitment and retention, engineer
Agricultural Engineering and his doctorate in Engineering Science with minors in Civil Engineering and Applied Statistics from Louisiana State University. Dr. Moriassi is a research hydrologist at the USDA- ARS Grazing Lands Research Laboratory. His research focuses on the development of watershed-scale models of hydrological processes, the development of model evaluation guidelines, and the application of these models on water quality and quantity issues.Dr. Ann L. Kenimer, Texas A&M University Dr. Ann Kenimer is a professor and associate provost for undergraduate studies at Texas A&M University. She earned her bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Agricultural Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic In- stitute and
Technology programs has been to educate engineers-practitioners. Thus, curriculum of ET students is more oriented towards hands-on experience in laboratory settings and has less commitments to pure theoretical knowledge. Also, it should be said that some students, which officially belonged
well as in real-world applications to societally relevant energy andenvironmental issues.Participating teachers received this content in multiple modes. They were exposed to differentconcepts while working in the research laboratories as well as during their design activities. Inaddition, they attended a number of lectures both in the US and in the UK. All of these differentvenues allowed participants to gain both theoretical and practical knowledge about a number ofconcepts relative to all three areas: mathematics, science, and engineering. One teacher sharedhis perceptions of the greatest benefit of the program when he said, “as a teacher
LTU Leadership Curriculum Committee, supervisor of the LTU Thermo-Fluids Laboratory, coordinator of the Certificate/Minor in Aeronautical Engineering, chair of the First Year Engineering experience, and faculty advisor of the LTU SAE Aero Design Team.Dr. Donald D. Carpenter P.E., Lawrence Technological University Page 23.266.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2013 Campus-wide Course Modification Program to Implement Active & Collaborative Learning and Problem-based Learning to Address the Entrepreneurial MindsetAbstractWhile active and
Paper ID #7355Defining Engineering in K-12 in North CarolinaDr. Laura Bottomley, North Carolina State University Laura Bottomley received a B.S. in Electrical Engineering in 1984 and an M.S. in Electrical Engineering in 1985 from Virginia Tech. She received her Ph D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from North Carolina State University in 1992. Dr. Bottomley worked at AT&T Bell Laboratories as a member of technical staff in Transmission Systems from 1985 to 1987, during which time she worked in ISDN standards, including representing Bell Labs on an ANSI standards committee for physical layer ISDN standards
Paper ID #7189Engaging Early Engineering Students (EEES): A Fourth Year Report froman NSF STEP ProjectDr. Jon Sticklen, Michigan State University Jon Sticklen is the Director of the Center for Engineering Education Research at Michigan State Univer- sity. Dr. Sticklen is also Director of Applied Engineering Sciences, an undergraduate bachelor of science degree program in the MSU College of Engineering that focuses both on engineering and business. He also is an Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering. Dr. Sticklen formerly led a laboratory in knowledge-based systems focused on task
activities and laboratory projects. Thelearning objective of the course reflects criteria recommended by the National Academy ofEngineering (NAE)1 and ABET14. In our offering of this course, four weeks of general lecture Page 23.42.4provided an overview of the engineering profession, with a focus on topics of failure analysis,design methodology, human-centered design, engineering in society, leadership and ethics.Students then partook in two sets of five-week modules.In the Fall of 2010, a 5-week leadership module was incorporated into the freshman engineeringdesign course; it was offered as the mechanical engineering module alongside
Education (CIEE) and Director of the Advanced Thermal Fluids Laboratory. Her interests in engineering education research center around recruitment and retention, engineer identity, engineering design instruction and methodology, learning through service, problem based learning methodologies, assessment of student learning, as well as com- plex problem solving. Her other research interests lie in cardiovascular fluid mechanics, sustainability, and K-12 engineering outreach. Dr. Pierrakos is a 2009 NSF CAREER Awardee. Dr. Pierrakos holds a B.S. in Engineering Science and Mechanics, an M.S. in Engineering Mechanics, and a Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering from Virginia Tech.Dr. Jacquelyn Kay Nagel, James Madison University
through selected quotations how the proposedresearch mentoring models exist and apply to each of the mentoring relationships, regardless ofgender composition, research area, type of laboratory or experimental work, etc. The coachingmodel is explained first from the perspective of 3 mentoring pairs: Mia and Annie (both female),Nate and Scott (both male), and Russell and Rachel (male mentor and female mentee). Thesupervisory model follows, as demonstrated by Dwayne and Amelia (male mentor and femalementee), Keeley and Veronica (both female), and Drake and Shannon (male mentor and femalementee). These gender pairings are summarized in Table 2Error! Reference source not found
membersprovide an invaluable link between industry and the engineering school by mentoring our studentsone-on-one. Because of students’ intense schedules, we do not require mentoring; however,students who elect to work with a mentor consistently perform better than those who do not.Clearly, the relationship that develops between a dedicated experienced professional and a young“apprentice” has no substitute.Between 1987 and 1999, our program grew to reach about 65 percent of our upper-level studentsat some level of instruction—either via our “stand-alone” three-credit technical electives10 or viashort modules integrated into design project, internship, laboratory, and other engineeringcourses. Our TC faculty tailored the short modules (typically five or
the development of technology-based firms. These are mainly located at or near universities and science and technology parks. They are characterised by institutionalised links to knowledge sources including universities, technology- transfer agencies, research centres, national laboratories and skilled R&D personnel. Specific industrial clusters and technologies may also be targeted such as biotechnology, software or information and communications technologies. A main aim is to promote technology transfer and diffusion while encouraging entrepreneurship among researchers and academics. In some countries, technology incubators not only focus on new firms but also help existing technology-based
an Assistant Professor of civil and environmental engineering with a specialty in geotechnical engineering. Her civil engineering research projects typically involve testing geosynthetic materials, as well as instrumenting and monitoring large-scale civil engineering structures constructed with geosynthetic inclusions to determine their performance behaviors in the field. Warren has more re- cently become involved in the educational research arena and is currently implementing classroom inno- vations in a core civil engineering undergraduate course to determine and assess the impact of interactive learning as part of a course, curriculum, and laboratory improvement grant
of experiences infirst-year courses extend into the second year and beyond in engineering programs.AcknowledgementsThis paper is based on research supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.HRD# 0936704. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.References1. Cline, M. and G.J. Powers. Problem Based Learning via Open Ended Projects in Carnegie Mellon University's Chemical Engineering Undergraduate Laboratory. in Frontiers in Education. 1997. Pittsburgh, PA.2. Douglas, D.M., et al. Writing in the Engineering Design Lab: How Problem Based Learning Provides a
typically at an individual level, whether throughhome assignments or class exercises.As noted by Williams12 (2009), following Dewey’s Laboratory School, classrooms can berestructured to accommodate non-individual learning as well, to mirror practices of theworkplace. Assignments can be made collaborative so that students are working together andlearning from one another. For example, time could be set aside in Engineering Economicsclasses every week for collaborative problem-solving exercises.IACBE4 (2011) accreditation requirements include teamwork and engineering economicscourses can help students progress toward meeting outcomes in this area. ABET’s Criterion 3also encourages teamwork (3Ad, 3Bc) in engineering technology programs (ABET5, 2011
years of grantfunding.The project had four distinct phases. In Phase One, Cohort A, high school participants, engagedin an intensive summer university experience. While participating in classroom and laboratory-based experiences, they were exposed to cutting-edge research in NASA-Related Earth SystemScience. In collaboration with university faculty, graduate students and a professionaldevelopment team of master teachers, Cohort A systematically developed NASA-related STEMK-12 teaching modules for secondary students. The proposed module development activitieswere designed to help teachers translate their new NASA-related scientific knowledge during thesummer research experience into their instructional practices in the classroom.Cohort A