interesting ideas andhave conducted Q&A sessions for the first years. • What they like: They like being part a cross-departmental academic community, getting greater exposure to project classes, getting access to highly sought-after project classes, mentoring by NEET faculty (which is helping them to shape their paths), and that the threads are in areas that are likely to be in demand when they graduate. It is important to them that the duration of their degree will remain the same as what it would have been if they had not been in NEET. • What could be improved: They feel that: the project experience should start in sophomore fall itself (rather than waiting till sophomore spring) and these could be
Richard Mu. We are especially grateful toEE lab manager Steven Clark for putting up with our constant (and usually panicked) requests forparts and supplies. Finally and perhaps most importantly, we want to acknowledge the dozens ofTAs who have been the public face of the course and who have poured countless hours into ourstudents.References [1] S. Ambrose, M. Bridges, M. Lovett, M. DiPietro, and M. Norman, How Learning Works: 7 Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossy-Bass, 2010. [2] Q. Malik, P. Mishra, and M. Shanblatt, “Learning barriers in service courses: A mixed methods study,” in 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition. Louisville, Kentucky: ASEE Conferences, June 2010. [Online]. Available: https
Association (NEHA). [Online]. Available: https://www.neha.org/about- neha/mission. [Accessed April 26, 2018].[11] American Academy of Sanitarians (AAS). [Online]. Available: http://www.sanitarians.org/. [Accessed April 26, 2018].[12] B. Logan, B. Rittmann, and C. O’Melia. “Research frontiers in environmental engineering.” [Online]. Available: Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors Foundation (AEESPF), http://www.aeespfoundation.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Research_Frontiers.pdf. [Accessed April 26, 2018].[13] J. Mihelcic, C.C. Naughton, M.E. Verbyla, Q. Zhang, R.W. Schweitzer, S.M. Oakley, E.C. Wells, and L.M. Whiteford. “The grandest challenge of all: the role of environmental engineering to achieve
Council, Report of a Workshop on the Pedagogical Aspects of Computational Thinking. Washington, D.C.: The National Acadamies Press, 2011.[9] V. J. Shute, C. Sun, and J. Asbell-Clarke, “Demystifying computational thinking,” Educational Research Review. 2017.[10] J. M. Wing, “Computational Thinking,” Commun. Assoc. Comput. Mach., 2006.[11] J. M. Wing, “Computational thinking and thinking about computing.,” Comput. Think. Think. about Comput., 2008.[12] V. Barr, C. Stephenson, and B. V. Barr, “Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is Involved and what is the role of the computer science education community?,” ACM Inroads, 2011.[13] M. Israel, J. N. Pearson, T. Tapia, Q. M. Wherfel, and G. Reese
a larger change from Survey 1 to Survey 2 than from Survey 2 to Survey 3. Thethree highest changes were seen in developing a prototype for a design challenge (Q8), settingdesign criteria (Q5), and using an iterative process to complete the design challenge (Q10).Table 3. Engineering design process results. Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 3 Difference Q Step P value Average Average Average btw 1 & 3 Identifying a design problem from 1 3.40 4.30 4.20 0.80 <0.005 the community Incorporating
; though teams were able to follow up with a Q&Asession with the stakeholder via Skype, they still felt unprepared without further communicationwith the actual customer. An obvious constraint was economic in nature, but the focus oncommunity forced teams out of their comfort zone to take a human-centered societal approach totheir design – why did the previous implementations fail? How would you ensure that thesemistakes were not repeated? How would you teach system maintenance to a community thatdoes not have electricity? This project is an ideal example of a mock project, as success is notdefined solely by educated attention to technical solutions but by its value and utility to thecustomer; indeed, this technology exists and is readily
increases student engagement. Using video,students can pause or rewind if the content didn’t make initial sense. The professor can simulatequestion and answer approach in a F2F classroom in an online environment by using interactivevideo. Student feedback found in Appendix A, shows that interactive video experimented during2016 provides a more engaging experience and documented elsewhere by the authors [4].Because watching a video is mostly a passive experience, the authors wanted students to havemore interaction with the videos to increase engagement. In EE 110 for example, embeddedquestions were posted on top of the videos to simulate a Q&A conversation with students.Interactions were added without redoing the 9 hours of 70-plus videos using