for the data analyses andthe write up of research reports for the purpose of continuous curriculum improvement. Rim has a PhD inInstructional Systems/Educational Technology from the Florida State University (FSU). Rim also holds a M.Scdegree in Instructional Systems and a Certificate in Human Performance Technology from FSU, and a B.Sc inInformation Technology from Notre Dame University. Rim’s major project and research interests includetechnology integration in education; assessment and evaluation; learner-centered methods and strategies; and anyother methods that assist in enhancing human performance and learning improvement. Rim has authored and co-authored several published articles in peer-reviewed journals, and conferences
I’d like to ask you about what you currently do for class. • What are the goals of your class? o When your course is over, what should your students be able to do? o Can you identify words on the following chart that describe the types of objectives you would like the students to be able to do (show Eberly chart)? o • To what extent do students achieve those goals? o What kind of activities do you do during class? o What Data do you hope students will learn? o What Skills do you hope students will learn? § Gathering data § Assessing data § Writing
offering of ENGR 204 was in theFall 2014 semester with 30 students completing the course (31% of the engineering students inMath 143). These students were able to meet other first-semester engineering students, receive“inside information” on how to succeed in their engineering studies, set up a meaningfulschedule to manage their time, navigate the educational system, and take advantage of theresources available to them (instructors/professors). They also participated in two final projects:designing a Rube Goldberg Machine and writing a Becoming a World-Class EngineeringStudent paper.This paper will present the overall design of the class, comparison of math grades and first
syllabus more effective tostudent’ s learning experience. A traditional syllabus can be enhanced by describing it in a warmand friendly tone, clarifying relationship among course goals and assignments, and by specifyingrationale of assignments, to name a few. Examples of how and why these factors can make asyllabus more effective are also discussed. 2.0 Previous StudyA number of papers have been published focusing on different aspects of syllabus. Numerousarticles are also available on internet sites of education instructions that provide templates, tipsand guidelines on how to write a “ good” syllabus. These publications generally focuses on, (i)general purpose of the syllabus, and (ii) checklists and best
role of emotion in student learning, and synergistic learning. A recent research project uncovers the narratives of exemplar engineering faculty that have successfully transitioned to student-centered teaching strategies. She co-designed the environmental engineering synthesis and design studios and the design spine for the mechanical engineering program at UGA. She is engaged in mentoring early career faculty at her univer- sity and within the PEER National Collaborative. In 2013 she was selected to be a National Academy of Engineering Frontiers of Engineering Education Faculty Member.Karen Sweeney Gerow, University of Georgia Karen Sweeney Gerow is pursuing her PhD in the Lamar Dodd School of Art at the University
Page 26.1092.2pedagogical workshops, attending a theater performance focusing on inclusive teachingstrategies, and presenting a short lesson to a small group of their peers. The GSIs choose theworkshops based on their teaching responsibilities with topics including: teaching discussionsand laboratory sections, managing office hours, grading, and teaching problem solving skills.The theater performance allows GSIs to observe a novice instructor in a STEM classroom,identify strategies to improve the overall class environment, and reflect on how their suggestedstrategies improve the overall class environment upon a second performance of the sketch.10During the practice teaching or microteaching session, GSIs develop a short 5-min lesson,present it
production, CO2 emissions, and the liquidwaste that the plant produces). This allows the students to have practical experience on sometopics such as thermodynamic cycles, measurements of composition at the site plant, knowingactual equipment of pumps, pipelines, and so on.The paper describes the innovative elements added to the PBL teaching strategy in order toconnect all these issues. It also presents some of the research results, such as the engagementthat is achieved by students, which lead them to the writing and publishing of papers with theirown ideas. We are dealing with a new generation of engineers who are used to seeing, touching,and having first-hand experience more than they did ten years ago. They are highly motivatedwith the things
): Preparing Junior ColleaguesAbstractDespite the importance of professional development, for most graduate students as up-and-coming faculty members professional development is informal at best. Graduate programs oftenemphasize gaining technical knowledge, skills, and abilities through courses and researchprojects, but provide less opportunity for future faculty members to gain experience withteaching, service, communication, assessment, proposal writing, etc. To provide this experience,we developed the Rising Engineering Education Faculty Experience (REEFE). Founded ontheoretical and practical models of graduate student development, REEFE is an innovativefaculty apprenticeship program for engineering education graduate students that places
ininstances where students were briefly asked to reflect, or where educators included opportunitiesfor reflection. For example, in a paper entitled, “Using Rapid Feedback To Enhance StudentLearning,” 17 reflection is casually referenced as, “Students are given time to reflect on thequestion posed, discuss it with their peers, and then must select from the possible solutions.”Whereas reflection is discussed as the main focus in a paper entitled, “A Personal Account onImplementing Reflective Practices,”18 and is referenced to throughout the text.Understanding the scope of reflection can lend insight into the type of attention that reflection isreceiving in scholarly work related to engineering education. The trends revealed in oursystematic review find
institute,and also write a 10 page paper in English for their home advisor. If the grade they receive issatisfactory, they can receive 3 professional elective engineering credits for their work. These pioneering and highly committed students are then also placed in internships in companies that – in the ideal scenario – offer an internship project where the students can apply their former academic research experience. 2 2015 ASEE Northeast Section Conference Guidelines for a Research Project for IEP students at TU BraunschweigStudents of the University of Rhode Island (URI) International Engineering Program (IEP
working-class families. Value isplaced on students’ leadership experience and potential as we expect the GTI fellows to sharetheir learning and influence their peers after their study-tour. So, the impact goes beyond the 21-25 GTI fellows we select each year.2. Evolution of GTISince 2004, we have sent over 180 GTI fellows to Asia through the GTI program1 2 3. The firstthree cohorts (2004-2006) visited Taiwan and China, the next three traveled to India (2008-2010), the next three visited Taiwan and China (2011-2013), and the last cohort (2014) visitedTaiwan. During this eleven-year period, we have made four programmatic shifts. First, in 2005,we extended the scope of GTI from a focus on the global economy to include environmental andenergy
theteacher and organized around defined problems. The problem is the initial and focal point of thelearning process. POL is complex problem-based in the context of a team working together toreach a project goal that is typically highly challenging and includes individual and groupactivities, discussions, and a writing process. POL additionally teaches project management andteamwork competencies4. Mills and Treagust5 summarized the main differences of PBL andPOL. Some of the major differences they observed included project tasks are closer toprofessional work and thus use a longer period of time in comparison to PBL, POL is more Page 26.154.2focused
making based on initial problem articulation to address tradeoffs,performance, design requirements, and broader impacts. The challenges allow for peer teaching andclass discussions of what answers/decisions are justifiable, as well as an opportunity to clear up anymisconceptions. Table 2: Summary of In-class Activities Analysis Phase Multidisciplinary Systems for In-class PBL Activities Coffee maker, Vehicle suspension, Land use planning, Wyndor Glass Co. Define manufacturing, Radiation therapy treatment design Represent Stereo speaker, Vehicle suspension, Student motivation to study in college Stereo speaker
design and/or solve engineering problems using theoretical, experimental, and numerical approaches, while appreciating the applicability and limitations of these approaches. Students will be able to think critically, analyze data, and generate appropriate data if needed. They will also be able to communicate their results and findings both orally and in writing. Above all, they will be prepared to successfully complete their engineering education.These objectives were distilled down to specific student learning outcomes (SLOs) that areshown in the figure below. By focusing on the objectives and SLOs of the core program, wewere able to avoid focusing on the traditional linear progression of core content and have begundeveloping
specific skills were then elaborated as quantitative and qualitative skills as below:Qualitative learning objectives: 1. Explain what constitutes weak (and strong) technical writing style in a journal paper 2. List the phases of an LCA and explain what is done in each phase 3. Discuss the similarities and differences between EIOLCA and process based LCA 4. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of process based and EIOLCA 5. Discuss the similarities and differences between ReCiPe and TRACI impact assessment methods 6. Determine the appropriate functional unit for an LCA 7. List online resources for following LCA literature 8. List names and regions (where they were developed) of major life cycle inventory databases 9. List
intangible factors that students use to identify asengineers such as “making competent design decisions, working with others to share ideas andaccepting responsibility”4. At minority serving institutions, African American and Latina/ostudents’ identity development is shaped by the positive experiences with faculty and peers intheir programs25. In identifying as engineers, students express a certain pride in the rite ofpassage of overcoming the challenges of the engineering curriculum3,25. There are some genderdifferences with regards to engineering identity; women are less likely to identify as engineersthan men, especially freshmen female students4. Significance of Study The majority of the research in
significantly more likely to attend college and three times as likely to major in engineering than compared to a group of students 21with similar background and achievement in science and math. A similar study was conducted in order to evaluate Project Lead the Way (PLTW), a nonprofit organization that promotes preengineering courses in middle and high schools. This study found that PLTW graduates were five times more likely to select engineering courses compared to firsttime freshmen at fouryear 22 institutions, and their average freshman GPA was higher than their peers. Because there is
were most involved in creating it; students who participated less in thetechnical aspects of projects may not observe the same improvements in engineering self-efficacy as their more-involved peers. Page 26.1328.2In this study, we are focusing on the relationship between the tasks that students take on inproject work and student’s beliefs and characteristics: specifically, academic self-confidence,engineering self-efficacy and gender. We are examining the relationship between the tasks thatstudents take on during a project course and the students’ incoming and outgoing confidence andself-efficacy levels, by exploring the following research
results from the past three years of SBL activities, will be presented. Studio-Based Learning Studio-based learning (SBL) techniques have been used in a variety of disciplines, most notably in architectural education. 2 The technique is rooted in a type of constructivist learning theory called sociocultural constructivism. 3 The SBL approach typically encompasses four key steps (see Figure 1). 4 First, students are given meaningful problems for which they have to construct solutions. Second, students present theirConstruct Present solutions to the entire class for discussion and feedback. Third, students’ peers
education research, interdisciplinarity, peer review, engineers’ epistemologies, and global engineering education.Mr. Corey T Schimpf, Purdue University, West LafayetteDr. Alice L. Pawley, Purdue University, West Lafayette Alice Pawley is an Associate Professor in the School of Engineering Education and an affiliate faculty member in the Gender, Women’s and Sexuality Studies Program and the Division of Environmental and Ecological Engineering at Purdue University. She was co-PI of Purdue’s ADVANCE program from 2008-2014, focusing on the underrepresentation of women in STEM faculty positions. She runs the Feminist Research in Engineering Education (FREE, formerly RIFE, group), whose diverse projects and group members are
eventually raises aWIT flag. Each stage acts as a showcase for a particular topic. At the midpoint of the semester,the groups present the RGMs to the class. Their presentations must explain how each stageoperates and the chosen physics principle it demonstrates. The group is graded on the physicscontent of their presentation, their adherence to criteria, and an individual schematic write-up. Aportion of the grade is reserved for an undefined “wow factor.” The details of the latter are leftpurposely ambiguous. Designers flourish mastering the interplay between aesthetics and utility,and rise to an open ended challenge. Page 26.615.4Figure 1 An
visuals. Some topics are multiple choice reading and writing more engineering Learning not well explained. No questions but no in their challenging project to enough self testing simple programs. programming problems to challenge questions in the Facebook is used language by solving synthetize their screencasts. but there is no different what they have understanding group discussion. engineering learned. and expand problems
leader and leadership,identifying that leadership is a process and a leader engages individuals in the process (Guthrie,Jones, Osteen, & Hu, 2013). Students also evaluate the role of followers in the leadershipprocess. Challenging students to consider personal values and beliefs about leadership, they areasked to design personal vision statements that will demonstrate their commitment to ongoingtechnical and leadership development. Professional outcomes include technical success, degreeprogram completion, resume development, and resume building. Individual outcomes includecongruence of values and actions. Assessing the individual learning module, we recommend students write and justify theirpersonal definition of a leader
commentariesfocused on concepts like “research quality,” “rigor,” and “systematic research,” as well asaccompanying shifts in the various criteria used to evaluate funding proposals and peer reviewedpapers. The field’s topical foci are also something of a moving target given a long and episodichistory of efforts to reinvent the form and content of engineering curricula. As the methods anddesired outcomes of engineering instruction change, so does the engineering education researchagenda. Further worth noting are rising pressures to relate research to practice, as reflected inmandates to identify the “broader impacts” associated with scholarly work in the field.This paper speaks to these challenges through the lens of our team’s recent experiences workingon a
disciplinary-based education research forher professional development. The area of her focus is in an advanced area of her discipline (e.g.,not the first-year experience), although she will not have a Ph.D. in this area. During her M.S.degree (which was disciplinary, rather than education focused), she undertook a substantial revi-sion to the way in which disciplinary writing conventions were taught and assessed in an upper-level undergraduate course.Julian is a full professor in an engineering department at teaching-focused college (in the area inwhich he earned his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D.). Julian’s primary efforts involve teaching undergrad-uate courses, participating in major departmental efforts and innovations, and contributing tolarger
’ traditional problem-solving.8 But instructor effects might account forsome of these results, since more dedicated instructors are perhaps more likely to attemptreforms. Mazur’s study at Harvard8 avoided this issue, since he gave the same exam to his ownstudents 6 years apart; but the small gains in problem-solving performance he documented (from63% to 69% correct) could have arisen from his improved skill, developed over six years, atteaching problem-solving efficiently, enabling him to spend some class time on Peer Instructionwithout a trade-off. Furthermore, the lack of any published PER results (that we know of)highlighting a trade-off, such as higher conceptual gains at the expense of lower performance ontraditional problems, could result from
menu ofchoices, identify resources and supply relevant literature background.Faced with this issue, we introduced strategies and tools to help students explore potentialresearch topics in a timely manner through log-files and discussions with peers and faculty.Once the question was formulated in the timely manner, students were usually able to identifyresources and gather necessary information. In most cases, the proposed scope of work wasoverly ambitious and did not consider the need to validate the simulation data, and facultyintervention to correct deficiencies was required.Throughout the semester, we help students develop skills in technical report writing andcommunicating orally. We emphasize that organizing information into a coherent
the class sizewas smaller and it was more convenient to run a Think-Pair-Share6 activity, not all that differentfrom Mazur’s Peer Instruction pedagogy. When I ask students to explain their answers to thequalitative concept questions, I was astonished to discover that students rarely drew free bodydiagrams. They ignored the physical principles discussed in class and, instead, relied on theirown physical intuition. Mazur2 reported something similar when he recalled a student asking,“… how should I answer these questions? According to what you taught us, or by the way I thinkabout these things?”During the recitation sections, starting in 2007, we would discuss how the systematic problem-solving process, including free body diagrams, could be
engineering.Prefer thesis-based: • Thesis forces students to develop independent thinking skills including the ability to identify and acquire any necessary resources and new skills largely on their own. • Communication (technical writing, presentation, team management) and time management skills developed during a thesis are beneficial in the work environment. • A thesis allows us to see and evaluate a body of work.What skills (technical and nontechnical) do you expect Master of Environmental Engineeringgraduates to possess over those of their B.S. Civil Engineering peers? • Solid understanding of basic concepts/technologies in the field with ability to design systems from problem to solution. • Advanced fundamental
EG 201 Principles of Psychology College Writing & Physics I & Lab College Writing Physics II & Lab