] K. E. Gerdes, E. A. Segal, and C. A. Lietz, “Conceptualising and measuring empathy,” Br. J. Soc. Work, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 2326–2343, 2010.[16] J. Zaki, “Empathy: A motivated account,” Psychol. Bull., vol. 140, no. 6, pp. 1608–1647, 2014.[17] J. L. Hess and N. D. Fila, “The manifestation of empathy within design: findings from a service-learning course,” CoDesign, vol. 12, no. 1–2, pp. 93–111, 2016.[18] J. B. Scott, “The Practice of Usability: Teaching User Engagement Through Service-Learning,” Tech. Commun. Q., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 381–412, 2008.[19] W. A. Sugar, “What Is So Good about User-Centered Design? Documenting the Effect of Usability Sessions on Novice Software Designers,” J. Res. Comput. Educ., vol
teams are highly committed to the projectsthroughout the semester; (iii) mentors are available and responsive to students, have internalsupport and value student work; and (iv) instructors constantly communicate with mentors andstudent teams, facilitate the student-mentor relationship and monitor the design and developmentprogress of each student team. As each project has its unique type, constraints and scope ofdesign or experiments, team office hours or interactive Questions and Answers (Q&A) sessionsthat are periodically scheduled throughout the semester between each team and instructor arevery helpful. Instructors can use these team office hours and Q&A sessions to better controlproject progress, address student needs and resolve
laboratory environments.Acknowledgement This research is funded by the National Science Foundation NSF NRI #1527148. Anyopinions, findings, or conclusions found in this paper are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.References1. National Robotics Initiative 2.0: Ubiquitous Collaborative Robots (NRI-2.0) (nsf17518) | NSF - National Science Foundation.2. Tucker C, Kumara S. An Automated Object-Task Mining Model for Providing Students with Real Time Performance Feedback. In: ; 2015:26.178.1-26.178.13.3. Hu Q, Bezawada S, Gray A, Tucker C, Brick T. Exploring the Link Between Task Complexity and Students’ Affective States During Engineering Laboratory Activities. In: ASME 2016
” boundary condition) to find v(r). Sketch v(r) in the figure. c) Find the volume flow rate Q by integrating v(r) over the cross section of the tube. By which factor is Q changed if the diameter of the tube is increased by i) a factor of 1.5 and ii) a factor of 2, without changing the pressure gradient p/L?ReferencesArney, D. C., W. P. Fox, K. B. Mohrmann, J. D. Myers, and R. A. West. 1995. Coremathematics at the United States Military Academy: Leading into the 21st century. Problems,Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 5(4), 343–367.Carr, S.H. 2003. Engineering First at Northwestern University: Where are we in 2003?Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference &Exposition, June
. 5. Total cost and profit.In the electric field of a line of charge example, a thin, uniformly charged rod of length L withtotal charge Q generates an electric field. Students are guided to find the strength of the field atdistance d in the plane that bisects the rod. Figure 1 Line of ChargeThe total charge Q is divided into many small point-like charges ΔQ located at points 𝑦𝑖 and theelectric field from each of them is determined. The net field can be found by summing the fieldsof all the point-like charges ΔQ and forming a Riemann sum. By taking the limit as the numberof point-like charges ΔQ increases to infinity, the Riemann sum will converge to a definiteintegral. The integral can be
. Battalora and B.A. Teschner, “Industry–University Partnerships: Engineering Education and Corporate Social Responsibility,” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., vol. 144, no. 3, p. 04018002, Jul. 2018.[10] E. Conlon and H. Zandvoort, “Broadening ethics teaching in engineering: beyond the individualistic approach,” Sci. Eng. Ethics, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 217–232, Jun. 2011.[11] C. Mitcham, “A historico-ethical perspective on engineering education: from use and convenience to policy engagement,” Eng. Stud., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 35–53, Mar. 2009.[12] Q. Zhu and B. K. Jesiek, “A Pragmatic Approach to Ethical Decision-Making in Engineering Practice: Characteristics, Evaluation Criteria, and Implications for Instruction and Assessment
, 2004, pp. 77–80.[37] M. S. Kim and Y. S. Kim, “Analysis of perceived creativity and design team interaction,” in ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 2007, pp. 559–568.[38] Z. Qian, Y. Lan, J. Feng, and Q. Yiping, “Teamwork approach for senior research projects for college undergraduates,” in 2012 7th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE), 2012, pp. 1999–2001.[39] N. Gonzalez, L. Moll, and C. Amanti, Funds of Knowledge : Theorizing Practices in Households, Communities, and Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005.[40] C. G. Vélez-ibáñez and J. B. Greenberg, “Formation and Transformation of
the questionnaireadapted from the Engineering Student Survey and Students Persisting in Engineering Survey[30]. The self-reported ethnicities of WISE students indicated higher percentages of White andAsian students than the overall undergraduate population. GPA and percent of time studyingduring a typical week were normally distributed as assessed by histograms and q-q plots. Datawere self-reported and not available for undergraduate women STEM majors who did notparticipate in WISE.Table 1. Participant Characteristics from the WISE Mentee Survey (N = 51) Characteristic n Percentage Ethnicity Asian & Pacific American
deepening? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX.19 Cousins, J. B., & Earl, L. M. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 397-418.20 Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation, (4th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.21 Stufflebeam, D. L., & Coryn, C. (2005). Evaluation theory, models, & applications, (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.22 Patton, M. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York: Guilford.23 Johri, A., & Olds, B. M. (2011). Situated Engineering Learning: Bridging Engineering Education Research and the
. Eng. Entrep., vol. 4, pp. 55–78, 2013.[8] N. Duval-Couetil, T. Reed-Rhoads, and S. Haghighi, “Engineering students and entrepreneurship education: Involvement, attitudes and outcomes,” Int. J. Eng. Educ, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 425–435, 2012.[9] Q. Jin et al., “Entrepreneurial Career Choice and Characteristics of Engineering and Business Students,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 598–613, 2016.[10] M. W. Ohland, S. A. Frillman, G. Zhang, C. E. Brawner, and T. K. Miller, “The effect of an entrepreneurship program on GPA and retention,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 293–301, 2004.[11] P. Shekhar, A. Huang-Saad, J. Libarkin, R. Cummings, and V. Tafurt, “Assessment of student learning in an
, but to also introduce them along the way to some basictheoretical knowledge needed to understand the complexity of the final product. The researchteam’s expectation was that exposing the participants to an introductory level of knowledge fromvarious fields will stimulate their interest and will help them identify engineering areas that areof specific interest to each of them. The workshops activities were split between hands-on, Q&Aand presentations, with the latest starting with a brief introduction to the theory of bio-inspiredrobot mechanisms, 3D modeling, animation, STL generation, slicing, G code generation, printingof the robot segments, and concluding with the prototype. The workshops focus was on theconnection between 3D computer
; Exposition, 2017.[36] D. J. Wilde, “Team Creativity,” in Education that Works: The NCIIA 8th Annual Meeting, 2004, pp. 77–80.[37] M. S. Kim and Y. S. Kim, “Analysis of perceived creativity and design team interaction,” in ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 2007, pp. 559–568.[38] Z. Qian, Y. Lan, J. Feng, and Q. Yiping, “Teamwork approach for senior research projects for college undergraduates,” in 2012 7th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE), 2012, pp. 1999–2001.[39] N. Gonzalez, L. Moll, and C. Amanti, Funds of Knowledge : Theorizing Practices in Households, Communities, and Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
(Q) are shown in Table 1 foreach of the three courses in the capstone sequence. We consider 1-5 scores greater than 4 and 5-1scores less than 2 to be exceeding expectations. The results in Table 1 show students meet orexceed expectations in these metrics. Tracking these results through the academic year providesinsights in how perceptions of team satisfaction and task conflict change over time. For example,we observe that Team Satisfaction scores degrade by about 12 to 15% and Task Conflict scoresincrease by 14 to 18% during the capstone period.Table 1. Results of the CATME peer-assessment tool showing results from six survey questions for each of the three terms of the capstone sequence. Scale range is 1-5. For (Q
UMI Workshop June 18-20, 2018 Monday, June 18th 6:00 pm Welcome Reception & Dinner The Alexandrian Hotel Tuesday, June 19th 7:30 am Breakfast 8:00 am Welcome and Introduction 8:05 am Introduction of Potential New Partners 8:15 am Overview of Status of the Project 8:30 am Q&A 10:15 am Morning Break 10:30 am Session – Mega/REU/RET 12:00 pm Working Lunch 1:30 pm
should be factored into pairing new GTAs as peer level contacts. mentors. We needed to have Midway through fall 2015, we We allowed instructors to vote on more efficient changed the format so that the format change to gain buyin. weekly training everyone had to review slides Providing documents with meetings. We prior to the meeting and then used annotations (voice and/or spent meetings the meeting time to allow Q&A on significant written notes) that help going through all slides. The new format reduced instructors understand the material common slides and the meeting time by at least 15 is
error signal is 𝑒 𝑛; 𝛩 =𝑋 𝑛 − 𝑋 𝑛, 𝛩 13.The goal of any optimization algorithm is to minimize a given error metric. For simplicity,consider the replacement of the argument t by the argument n to describe the sampled-datasystem, where n represents a sample instance. The output 𝑋(𝑛) can be represented as e f 𝑋 𝑛 = 𝑅 𝑛 (Eq. 9) g f where 𝐴 𝑞 and 𝐵 𝑞 are polynomials, whose ratio 𝐵(𝑞)/𝐴 𝑞 is the true transfer function ofthe unknown system. The forward shift operator is represented by q, defined such that𝑞j" 𝑋 𝑛 = 𝑋(𝑛 − 𝑖).The output of the prediction filter
category 0.36 CATS overall and 0.26 0.22 0.29 0.39 0.29 0.22 0.17 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.15 average scores on associated categories Note 1: Discrimination Index DI = (C1 – C4)/Q, where C1 (C4) is the number of correct responses from students in the upper (lower) quartile with respect to overall score, and Q is the average number of students in each quartile14. Note 2: Pearson Correlations: (ASCI Post, CATS-avg-assoc) = 0.525; (ASCI , CATS-avg-assoc) = 0.451; (ASCI Post, CATS-overall) = 0.162; (ASCI Post, Final Exam) = 0.508; (CATS-overall, Final Exam) = 0.426. Note 3: CATS scores are normalized to range from 0 to 1 for
CBIE course (14 CBIE-Civil), and 15students fully completed the survey in the PBIE course (all civil engineering majors). Surveyswere discarded if not fully completed. Tables 2 and 3 show the demographics, college majordistribution, and SAT V+Q scores of the students in the PBIE and CBIE courses.Table 2. Demographics of survey respondents: gender, race, and age Course Gender Race/Ethnicity Age (N=Pre/Post) Asian/Pacific African Male Female Hispanic White 18-24 25-34 35+ Islander American CBIE 58.4% 41.6% 11.0% 17.2
for each class period.Questions posted to the Piazza discussion board were answered by the instructor, teachingassistants, and/or peers and ones that were common were addressed by the instructor at thebeginning of each class period. Questions submitted to the in-class drop box were also answeredby the instructor at the beginning of each class period. This Q&A was used to promoteconstructive learning. However, as students were not required to submit questions and/oranswers to the questions, this activity was only applicable to some of the students, those whosubmitted the questions and/or answers. In future offerings of this course, this activity could bemodified to requiring students to submit either question(s) that they have or a summary
” Karmen Harris. “Implantable RFID Tags to Track Students” Larissa Hall. “iPad Carrying Case” Ashley James. “High-Tech Band-Aids” Taylor Kelly. “Special Education Progress Monitoring Software” Abagail Lewis. “The Relaxed Rider. A Stroller for Autistic Children” Cameron Lucero. “Technology Aiding Disabled Children at Heartspring in Wichita, KS. Senior Design Proposal” Brandon Mais. “Developing an Interactive iPad App to Assist in Daily Task Management for Children with Developmental Disabilities” Geoffrey Miller. “Q-Sensor Wrist Watch/Head Band Event Counter” Bryn Mayfield. “Hammock Swing with Ergonomic Inserts” Zac Myers. “Shock Resistant iPads” Jacob Nagely. “Sleep Sensors to Aid Heartspring Children with
instrumentation available to properlysupport their opinions. Each group was required to write a report, give a presentation, and give amock deposition.Figure 5: Images show the reconstructed skull of the infant as well as the sketch of the kitchenwhere the incident occurred. This information was provided to the students.An interesting aspect of the implementation was that the groups presented only to the faculty for10 minutes followed by 10 minutes of Questions and Answers (Q&A). This was instituted toprevent from later groups learning from the questioning of the previous ones. Simple rubricswere used for grading, which were broken down as 40%, 40% & 20% for facts, Q&A andconduct respectively. Performance was incentivized by 10 extra points
department and the other was from the former students who tookthis course before. The presentation of the director of undergraduate program is important to thestudents because he/she is the one the students have to look for if there are class schedule relatedand academic problems. The students must know at least two people. One is their academicadvisor and the other is the director of undergraduate program. During the presentation, they hadan idea of what the departmental expectation was and what to do and what not to do. Thepresentation of former students gave the current students the idea of the course at a peer level.The presentation given by the former students was about their term project. After thepresentation, the students had a Q&A
Page 26.810.11zero, position increases the speed in one direction (red) along the constraint line, while movingthe slider down from the mid position increases the speed in the opposite direction (orange). Thethrottle is also selectable as either Q (heat) or W (work), and the associated rate of change in thespecific internal energy, as defined by the first law of thermodynamics, eq. (1), determinemovement along the constraint line. The adjustable slider and selectable constrain lines enablethe player to explore the entire surface at a fast or leisurely pace. This feature, along with thecontinuously updated “Current Position” information box allows the player to observe how thevarious thermodynamic properties change throughout the different
light designs. A decision was made to utilize z-axis designwithout mirrors.A budget was also created for this project and is presented in detail in Table 1 below. Page 26.19.4 Material Quantity (Q) Price (P) Total Cost (Q*P) Projector 1 $530 $530 Resin 2(Liters) $42 $84 Tint 1 $10 $10 Permatex Ultra 1 $6 $6 Black Hi-Temp RTV Silicone Gasket Maker Non-stick sheets 4 (Boxes
scale of 5, what is your experience using the followingPre and Post-Tests programming languages?Students took three workshops two hours each in the laboratory. They received a pre-test beforeand a post-test after each workshop. Please refer to Appendix A for the test items. Tests resultswere analyzed by comparing students’ performance before and after taking the workshop todetermine learning gains. Our quantitative variables were the Score Gain (SG), defined as themean difference between scores on each question, and the Average Normalized Gain (NG),defined as: 𝑁𝐺 = 𝑆𝐺/(𝑄 − 𝑝𝑟𝑒), were Q is the question value and pre is the
, IdealFirstly, descriptive statistics was performed to have an interpretation if there was a gapbetween expectations and perceptions. To determine the significance in differences wasused Mann Whitney test was used (Normality Test was used, but every Q had a non-normaldistribution). In Tangibles dimension, Q2 (Sequence on topics) and Q5 (Topics and RealExamples – Study Cases) as a significant difference between perception and expectation Page 26.1312.7(P100points willTedious be Course selected. TheseComfortprojects are in the “Projects with more weight” column, and
expert, the webinars are hosted on a videoconferencing platform that allows presenters and attendees to be seen simultaneously;there is no “sage on the stage.” Presenters begin with information about their experienceand expertise, but “Q&A” always makes up a large part of the discussion, allowingparticipants to develop a clearer understanding of how the strategies shared might applyon their campus. As such, these online webinars are not simply an opportunity to increaseknowledge; they are an opportunity to foster a sense of community among theparticipants.As part of the application process for Pathways teams, applicants are now required toinclude in their application the reasons why they want to be a part of the Pathwayscommunity of practice
Peer Instruction: A Study of Four Computer Science Courses. Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. ACM, 2013.[17] OpenDSA: Open Source Interactive Data Structures and Algorithms. http://algoviz.org/OpenDSA/. February 2015.[18] Open Learning Initiative at Carnegie Mellon University. http://oli.cmu.edu/. February 2015.[19] Senack, E. Fixing the Broken Textbook Market. U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Student PIRG, January 2014.[20] Simon, B., S. Esper, L. Porter, and Q. Cutts. Student Experience in a Student- Centered Peer Instruction Classroom. Proceedings of the ninth annual international
networks made up of multiple capacitors exclusively in series,parallel or hybrid series/parallel combinations. However, they were not asked in this course todetermine how the voltages split up across capacitors in a network (e.g. series) connected to avoltage source, as they were required to do with a series resistance (e.g. voltage divider) Page 26.362.10network. While they were expected to understand that the same amount of electric currentpasses through each and every one of the resistors in a purely series resistor circuit, they did notrecall or apply here the relationship between charge and voltage across a capacitor (Q = CV),that they