to either develop or employ an already developed and validated instrument. In thiscase the instrument employed is a survey previously employed by Miller and Doyle (1987). Intheir excellent article in MIS Quarterly [3], the authors presented the survey instrument anddiscussed the results of a survey of 276 executives from various financial services firms in SouthAfrica. Their survey instrument, a seventy six (76) question survey which was validated fromother studies, was modified to reflect changes that have taken place since their study wasconducted over 20 plus years ago.Figure 1: Updated DeLone model [2]In the Miller and Doyle study, the authors focused on 21 South African financial service industryfirms. Their study consisted of 276
course.100% of the students agreed that this course is very good or good as a learning experience.One major concern of the faculty that was also expressed by the students was the prerequisiteknowledge and skills required from for this course. 33% of the students think that they have theprerequisite knowledge and skills for this course. They felt that if there was a physics instructorto have elaborated on the concepts and the calculations of the frequency, wavelength, withreference to waves and sound as well as on the concepts and calculations of the focal lengths,angles of reflection and refraction of light, they might have had the computations of the digitalsound processing and digital imaging easier than what they experienced in the
mathematical models of the robot manipulator in a prerequisite course. Studentsexperience the degree to which these models reflect actual robot motion. • Objective 3: Experiment. Devise an experimental approach, specify appropriate equipment and procedures, implement these procedures, and interpret the resulting data to characterize an engineering material, component, or system.Students are provided little a priori information on the sensors and operation of the robot end effectors.Student must therefore device their own experimental procedures to gain the requisite understanding ofthese subsystems. • Objective 5: Design. Design, build, or assemble a part, product, or system, including using specific methodologies, equipment, or
defined these skills as the ability to apply prior knowledge to a newsituation, organize concepts, resolve disagreements, generate new ideas, engage in inquiryprocess and synthesize information. For instance, Evelyn described how she fosters problemsolving in her classroom: “One of the traits of people who have been very successful in theirlives... they have been able to problem solve and look at situations from different angles and trydifferent solutions. And in the classroom, one of the things that I try to get the students to do is,when they find themselves stuck to the point where they don’t know how to proceed or they don’tsee that they can go any further…, getting them to reflect on steps – you know, what do I know sofar, what is it that we
for the course, but it is also a criticalengineering skill for students. This paper presents a model for classroom practice, which is basedon the peer review, tutoring, and teaching literature, to develop both knowledge and skills instudents.IntroductionActive and project-based learning (PBL) strategies provide a great means for students to enhancetheir learning and further develop critical engineering skills [1-6]. PBL provides complex tasksbased on challenging questions or problems that involve the students' problem solving, decisionmaking, investigative skills, and reflection. The activities are student centered and focus on real-world problems and issues, which further helps motivate students to learn. However, studentsstill struggle with
program phase we used avariety of surveys and instruments to collect relevant data, including demographic information,self-assessment of readiness for an experience abroad, and general measures of culturalorientation (using the MGUDS-S survey12), and global engineering competency. Other surveysallowed the participants and their research hosts to evaluate all major program components.Finally, a series of exercises and assignments provided participants with reflective learningopportunities, while also giving the program team rich insights about student experiences.In the remainder of the paper we present preliminary results of our program evaluation, includingevidence of the quality and success of the program generally and a number of major
an emphasis on intrinsic motivation9 to encourage participation by faculty,industry fellow, and students. I then present an evaluation of the model based on data collectedfrom interviews with industry fellows, self-reflection by the instructor, and post-course surveysof students to argue that all three of the challenges mentioned earlier are addressed. Finally, Iprovide an argument for why Industry Fellows is novel as compared to other models foracademic-industry collaboration, such as guest speakers and student internships. I conclude by Page 22.866.2summarizing the model and its key characteristics. In the balance of this paper, I use the
awarded Georgia Tech a contract to develop online professional development (PD)courses for STEM teachers. Electronic professional development (ePDN) courses are designed tomodel best practices in teacher PD by incorporating inquiry-based learning and by promoting thetypes of active interaction and reflection by participants that normally occur in effective face-to-face professional development sessions. In this study, the collaborative online courses and theirimpact on teachers’ professional development are described. Additionally, a case study approachwas employed to examine the effectiveness of online PD courses in classrooms and schools.Each teacher experience after completing the robotics course was presented as a case, and eachcase was used
other engineers will work through the first four stages of design as stated by Ullman [13] (product discovery, project planning, product definition, and conceptual design) in detail throughout the remainder of the semester. Aspects of the design process which have been stressed in this course should be reflected in your design team's methodology and approach to the problem. To culminate the course, a final report will be turned in to the instructor and a presentation will be made to the class regarding your design process and final design."The above project statement reflects the primary learning goals of the course, where the projectis intended to be the culmination of the course requirements. In addition to the above
Page 22.1266.3concepts is an active process involving visual thinking; looking is not seeing, nor is seeingnecessarily believing, understanding, and being able to demonstrate knowledge. Upon viewing anew concept students often reflect about their own tacit knowledge and try to make a connectionto the new concept, thereby creating their own knowledge. Unfortunately, as educators we oftenassume we don’t have control, or even awareness, of such connections in each of our students’minds, thus it is exceedingly difficult to correct miss-steps along the way. However, by taking aproactive and creative approach, we can guide the visualization process through seeded commonexperiences generated in the classroom, study hall, or laboratory. Setting
- and post-quizare recorded in Table 3 for each of the learning style categories. Recall that the learning stylecategories are paired. So a student is either “Active” or “Reflective”, either “Sensing” or“Intuitive”, either “Visual” or “Verbal” and either “Global” or “Sequential.” Therefore theaverage delta computed as ݖ݅ݑݍݐݏെ ݖ݅ݑݍ݁ݎ ܽݐ݈݁ܦൌ ൬ ൰ ݔ100 ݖ݅ݑݍ݁ݎis found and compared for each of these pairs of learning styles. The goal of this analysis is todetermine if one learning style is benefiting more from the ALM than another learning style.From Table 3, note, for instance, that the Delta
client’sneeds a service-learning pedagogy is employed. Service-learning occurs when “Students engagein community service activities with intentional academic and learning goals and opportunitiesfor reflection that connect to their academic discipline” (Cress et al, 2005)5. Reflection is anintegral part of learning and helps to develop critical thinking skills (Jacoby, 1996; Tsang, 2000;Tsang, 2002).6,7,8 The development of these critical thinking skills enables engineeringundergraduates to develop a broader appreciation of and ability to deal with the constraintsfacing the engineering profession and the ever changing world. Currently senior project designstudents are asked to reflect on their experiences in the form of monthly 500 word essays
minimum quantitative score that is desired across all axes. On a five pointscale, this minimum might be set to a value of 3.0. That does not mean that a score of below 3would be entirely inappropriate, but rather, a score below 3.0 might require reflection by thefaculty member.However, a department chair may also be looking for scores that are excessively high. Forexample, on a five point scale, scores of 4.5 and above might not be indicative of effectivenessbut of popularity. A professor who pushes students to the edge of their comfort zones mayreceive lower evaluations from weaker students, thus lowering their overall scores versus a Page
datums, manufacturingvariation, and geometric tolerances and their boundaries.The second laboratory unit focuses on applying geometric tolerances in order to reflect designintent. Students are given a design scenario that includes: 1) an engineering drawing with basicdimensions, 2) a description of the process where the design is used, and 3) a list of acceptablevariational requirements that the design must meet. Students then use the process description andthe variational requirements to derive tolerances for the drawing, and complete a follow upworksheet to explain which requirements drive the tolerance scheme. Through this exercisestudents learn how to reflect design intent in an engineering drawing through the use ofgeometric tolerances
Page 22.1282.2scaffolding for learning, while students exercise autonomy by directing these open-endedprojects themselves. Over the course of the projects, students create one or more significantphysical deliverables to reflect their work. 2-9Central to an authentic PjBL experience are the constructs of student autonomy and self-directedlearning (SDL). These PjBL aspects are meant to encourage students’ initiative as well asresponsibility for and ownership of their own learning. Hence, SDL allows students to serve asagents of their own learning. Students are given a high level of choice in learning activities toencourage connections to their personal goals as well as intrinsic and attainment values.10 Incases where student choice is not
Coyne9employed mathematical models to support bioengineering students engaged in physiology tobetter understand issues of ergonomics and body movement. Models are also created as complexvisualizations used to analyze specific properties and behaviors of materials. Adhikari10 created avirtual modeling environment to analyze specific asphalt properties using 2D and 3D discreet Page 22.1075.2elemental modeling process. These examples reflect sophisticated modeling techniques that areappropriate in pre-engineering and college engineering courses. In several of these examplesstudents are engaged in multiple drawing iterations prior to physically or virtually
discussed. Explicitly, educators will emphasize regional requirements. With an emphasis on engineering technology, reflection of the current state of performance and regional goals, in this case Indiana, illustrates why an evolving academic curriculum is in order. To compete in a global environment, as part of a large economic region, Indiana falls short. A key to continued competitiveness is a workforce educated and trained for the 21st century. Currently, for an adult population holding a bachelor’s degree, the Hoosier state ranks 41st among all states (tied with TN)6. Furthermore, the aging demographic threatens Indiana’s position as a business friendly environment and may open a gap between the skills a workforce possesses and
extemporaneous narratives lastingas long as 15 to 20 minutes. A few insights could be gleaned from this initial exercise.First, the diversity in terms of intellectual cultures was clearly reflected in the stylisticapproaches to the assignment. As a result of this diversity, it became obvious that freereign would have to be given to the group, and the organizers could not exercise toomuch control over the timing and flow of discussion. Also, it was clear that such anexercise broke the ice among participants and allowed people to relate to one another.An overall sign of the extent of camaraderie that evolved early on was the fact that by theend of the day, people were referring to the entire collectivity and project using thepronoun “we,” instead of using
elaborated on topics whereappropriate, to include informal questioning concerning issues that were deemed important, butnot reported in the group share activity. The activity culminated with students reflecting on theirlearning experience with descriptive notes and drawings in their engineering notebooks.1. Many, Many Microbes. This activity began with facilitators distributing two photographs ofmicrobes to each team of four students and rotating the sets of pictures to another group until allteams have seen all sets of photos. Through a whole group discussion, students brainstormedtopics such as living vs. non-living, characteristics of microbes, where they live, what they eat
, includes not only the analytic element but also development of recommendations forthe solution of the problem at hand. Moreover, they argue that systems engineering includespolicy analysis in addition to technical or analytical aspects, reflecting the fact that complexsystems inevitably involve trade-offs that involve underlying values articulated through writtenor unwritten policy.6The essence of this brief background is that systems engineering is not a set of tools, amethodology, a checklist, a technology, or a process, yet systems engineering often requiresanalytical tools, methods, checklists, technology, and processes. Rather, it is a way of thinking –systems thinking – that reflects an understanding and appreciation of goals (value
ideasmight contribute to improved motivation, one must still acknowledge that there are other largerreasons for the continuing decline of STEM education in the USA.Having taught university-level undergraduate and graduate courses in a wide variety of STEMtopics for over 30 years, this author has observed an equally disturbing decline in the relativeperformance of U.S. students in relation to students from other countries. This observation isoften reflected in the consistent and continued „dumbing down‟ of course concepts,acknowledged by many academics who have taught in STEM disciplines for any length of time.In view of this continued decline of competency among U.S. university graduates, it is notsurprising that more and more companies are looking
grateful for support provided by the National Science Foundation’s Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement Program, under Phase 2 grant DUE-0717905. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Page 22.139.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Adaption of a Virtual Laboratory Curriculum: A Preliminary Study of Implementation at Other InstitutionsAbstractThis paper describes the adaption and implementation of
proficiency in the engineering designprocess, however, portfolio assessment offers a promising alternative.While there is no single definition of an assessment portfolio, among features that manyportfolio-based programs, both past and ongoing, have in common is their understanding that aportfolio is “a purposeful collection of student work that exhibits to the students (and/or others)the student’s efforts, progress, or achievement in given area(s). The collection must includestudent participation in selection of portfolio content; the criteria for selection; the criteria forjudging merit; and evidence of student self-reflection.” 28 Archbald and Newmann 29, andPaulson, Paulson, and Meyer 30 were among the first proponents of the idea that students
illuminated the forms of their own activity, by identifying and exposing its limitations, and provided a way of posing further questions about practice. They had already asked themselves: “What ends am I pursuing, as a family member, in the work place, as member of this or that organization?” Aristotle gave them the resources for asking “But what is it all for? What is my end qua human being?” And Aristotle’s reflections on the human qualities needed to achieve worthwhile ends, on the virtues, coincided with and deepened their own reflections. [...] The only other thinker to whom such workers responded in a similar way was Marx. He too had asked their questions.” 9Aristotle (384-322 BC) was a student of
intriguingopportunity to reflect on how engineers imagine what engineering is and what its proper role insociety ought to be.This paper contributes one such reflection, carefully analyzing Grand Challenges as a way tointerrogate broader social and cultural meanings surrounding engineering, technology, and theirrelationships to major social and environmental problems. While sympathetic to the impulseunderlying the report, namely to direct engineering energies toward “the century’s greatchallenges,” 4 our analysis identifies key assumptions embedded in Grand Challenges that arelikely to constrain efforts to develop robust solutions. This paper argues that, in importantrespects, Grand Challenges relies on a problematic and increasingly outdated understanding
described in this paper. Student Assessment of Learning Gains Instrument (SALG) PLP Learning Course evaluation Environment Interview/Focus group Pre- and Post survey Learning reflection journal Affective Interview/Focus group Outcome Video and audio analysis Pre- and Post survey Learning reflection journal Cognitive Interview/Focus group Outcome Pre- and Post
and reflect ontheir IREE experiences, (2) allow professional and social network opportunities among theparticipants, and (3) assess the challenges and opportunities faced by the program participants.At the IREE re-entry meeting, individual hour-long interviews and two-hour thematic focusgroups were conducted with 56 participants.For the scope of this paper, we present and discuss select focus group and interview data relatedto three different themes: (1) gender differences, (2) second generation Chinese immigrants, and(3) African and Hispanic Americans. Preliminary data analysis reveals some of the unique issuesfaced by each student population, as well as some of the cultural images encountered inside andoutside of various cultural
Successful Undergraduate Research Program for Science and Engineering UndergraduatesIf current trends continue, the percentage of whites in the United States by 2020 will decline to63.7% (down from 75.6% in 2000) and by 2050, almost half of the U.S. population will benonwhite1. The group predicted to make up the majority of the nonwhite population areHispanics2, but other underrepresented minority groups will also grow substantially. Hispanicsmake up roughly one in every five high-school-age youth, compared with one in ten in 19902.Those trends are expected to be reflected in the state of Washington as well, but Washington alsohas a relatively large population of Alaska Indians/American Natives (AI/AN), about 1.6% of thepopulation
emphasizeresearch-based methods including use of clearly defined learning objectives and implementingactive learning techniques in the classroom. Such methods can be very useful and have beenshown to be successful; however, for the new engineering educator, the implementation of suchmethods can be mentally and emotionally challenging and time consuming.This paper provides the authors’ reflection, as two relatively new engineering educators, on theirpersonal implementation of learning objectives and active learning techniques in the classroom intheir second and third years of teaching. We feel that our comparative evaluations are unique andhelpful because we teach at two different teaching-focused institutions and have employedmethods and techniques that we
: Underrepresented Minorities in Engineering: A Data-Based Look at Diversity” and the NACME databook. Research in progress includes projects funded by the National Science Foundation on women’s interna- tional participation and collaboration in science and engineering and on career outcomes of engineering bachelor’s degree recipients. In addition, she is working on analyses of supply and demand for engineers and scientists. Support for this research was provided by NACME with additional support via a grant from the National Science Foundation, Research on Gender in Science and Engineering HRD#0827461. Any findings or conclusions are those of the author and do not reflect those of the National Science Foundation