Project Labs. Page 10.473.5Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Education C P M S D M E o C M r e M t i e l M D C P m o a o c a A B C r D f c e a i e o p r t c
Static(S)/Dynamic(D) Project management Problem solving Application
s tudents todevelo p res earc h s k ills (s uc h as reviewing literature, c o nduc ting experim ents , Res po ns e Res po ns eAns wer Optio ns Perc ent Co untNot met 0.0% 0Partly met 0.0% 0Mostly met 20.0% 1Completely met 80.0% 4 answered questio n 5The s ec o nd o bjec tive is to help
one to what we need in the current project. We then make thenecessary changes to tailor the (old) code to our needs. We believe that this step will greatlyimprove our students’ performance and their test results.References[1] S. Brown and Z. Vranesic, Fundamentals of Digital Logic with VHDL Design, 3rd edition, McGraw Hill.[2] A. B. Marcovitz, Introduction to Logic Design, 3rd edition, McGraw Hill.[3] R. S. Sandige, M. L. Sandige, Fundamentals of Digital and Computer Design with VHDL, McGraw Hill.[4] F. Vahid, Digital Design with RTL Design, VHDL, and Verilog, 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons.[5] J. F. Wakerly, Digital Design, Principles and Practices, 4th editon, Prentice Hall.[6] J. Pang 2015. “Active Learning in the
students discussing a complex, real-worldscenario that includes current, multi-faceted, multidisciplinary engineering issues. Before the 30-40 minute long discussion begins, student participants all read a short scenario that presentssome technical and non-technical aspects of the topic.EPSA scenarios address topics such as impacts of power generation, resource utilization, andnatural or man-made disasters. Examples of the scenarios used in the EPSA are presented inAppendix A.Prior to commencing their discussion, the students are given a set of leading questions that serveto prompt and focus the discussion. These questions ask the students to determine the mostimportant problem/s and to discuss stakeholders, impacts, unknowns, and possible
#12 and #15 seemed touse multiple browsers while accessing the OWLS. Student #12 opened live graph in one browserand LEWAS intro in another, while student #15, first opened two browsers, then opened fourbrowsers, which can be detected by the alternating colors in the graph. Fourth, most of the usersclosed their browser/s after completing the task, but students #7 and #8 kept their browsers openeven after their class. Moreover, student #7 seemed to go back and forth for using the OWLSbrowser between 3.30 and 3.40 pm. Fifth, there seems to be a frequent activity trend in whichstudents were accessing the system for the OWLS-based task. Students were mostly navigatingfrom the home page (grey color) to the watershed summary (dull green), to the
gratefully acknowledge the alumni participants in this study and the contributions ofour research team. Finally, we acknowledge the generous support of this work from theHasso Plattner Design Thinking Research Program.References1. National Academy of Engineering, U. S. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.2. Wigner, A., Lande, M., & Jordan, S. S. (2016). How can maker skills fit in with accreditation demands for undergraduate engineering programs?. In 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.3. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.4. ABET Student Learning Outcomes, Retrieved from
101884.00 1.80 2.62 3.51 -0.23 4.39 Thrusting 9.75 101864.00 1.80 0.43 0.79 -0.06 0.90 Thrusting 9.80 101896.00 1.50 4.27 -2.27 3.52 5.98 Slowing 9.85 101874.00 1.20 0.18 -2.18 1.90 2.90 Slowing 9.90 101933.00 0.90 -4.40 -9.35 0.29 10.34 ImpactNote that 0.06 G at t = 8.85 is really zero and the bus is not moving. The acceleration (Y direction)values per 0.05 seconds are 0.58, 1.67, 3.48, …, 3.51, 0.79, -2.27, -2.28, and -9.35 at impact.Notice that right before impact, acceleration was negative at t = 9.80 s. This makes sense becausethe fuel was all consumed around starting
, construction processes, and sometimes architectural design. Common stakeholdersinclude faculty within the department who teach and advise, the students who must take the course(s), andindustry advisors' knowledge to be demonstrated by students they may hire.In this manuscript, we present the current design of a year-long capstone in architectural engineering,present the evaluative process undertaken for improvements, a stakeholder input analysis on the re-designprocess, then lastly introduce the resulting model that is currently being piloted. The fundamental challengeleading to the presented stakeholder review with considerations for a new approach is the tension betweenindividual learning and scholarship with the benefits of developing an effective
assessments. In total, she has been on the leadership of more than $24 million dollars in research awards. Her research on evaluation of online learning (supported by two NSF awards #1544259,1935683, ) has resulted in more than 20 peer-reviewed conference and journal publications related to engineering learners in online courses. She was a FutureLearn Research Fellow from 2017-2019; a 2018 recipient of the FIE New Faculty Fellow Award and was the 2021 Program Chair for the Educational Research Methods Division of ASEE.Julie S Linsey (Professor) Georgia TechTracy Anne Hammond (Professor) Dr. Tracy Hammond is the current Secretary of the Faculty Senate and passionate about Faculty governance. Hammond is Director of the TAMU
environments congruent withtheir traits and that congruency is associated with better outcomes [47], [48]. P-E fit is a multi-level construct encompassing fit between the person and organization (P-O), person and job (P-J), person and workgroup (P-G), and person and supervisor (P-S) in addition to fit betweenperson and vocation (P-V). I located two studies of women leaving the engineering professionthat utilized one P-E fit theory, Theory of Workplace Adjustment (TWA). These studies foundthat women leave the engineering profession due to a mismatch between their needs andworkplace values [1] and confirmed that gender differences exist in their reasons for leaving[19]. Findings from other studies on workplace factors suggest the exploration of fit
teachers made in-the-moment that didand did not align with the planned curricular materials.Teachers’ instructional decision making To examine the kinds of supports that teachers use during instruction, we adapted theGess-Newsome (2015) instructional decision-making model that synthesizes other existingmodels of teacher professional knowledge (e.g., Ball et al., 2008; Grossman, 1990; Marks, 1990)as it articulates relationships among professional knowledge and teachers’ classroom practice. Inparticular, this framework helps articulate the ways that teachers’ topic-specific pedagogicalknowledge (TSPK), amplifiers and filters (i.e., teacher beliefs and prior knowledge), andteachers’ personal pedagogical content knowledge and skill (PCK&S
infrastructurerelated to the formal institutionalsupport to the change initiative. Instructional The support resources directed to enhance the faculty´s training pedagogical knowledge. Flexibility of The flexibility of timing, content and sequence of the instruction. Curriculum Time
influencing their post-graduation career plans? RQ2. What areas of thinking related to junior and senior engineering students’ career plans are influenced by socializers? RQ3. What areas of thinking related to junior and senior engineering students’ career plans are influenced by specific socializers?To answer these questions, we examined interviews with 62 engineering juniors and seniors fromsix different universities in the U.S. To frame our study, we used Eccles et al.'s Expectancy xValue Theory of Achievement Motivation as this framework provides concrete examples ofways that socializers influence student outcomes.5-7Background Literature and Theoretical FrameworksAlthough research shows that socializers
, broadening participation initiatives, and S-STEM and LSAMP programs.Dr. Susan M Lord, University of San Diego Susan M. Lord received a B.S. from Cornell University and the M.S. and Ph.D. from Stanford Univer- sity. She is currently Professor and Chair of Integrated Engineering at the University of San Diego. Her teaching and research interests include inclusive pedagogies, electronics, optoelectronics, materials sci- ence, first year engineering courses, feminist and liberative pedagogies, engineering student persistence, and student autonomy. Her research has been sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Dr. Lord is a fellow of the ASEE and IEEE and is active in the engineering education community including
Research and Education c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Implementation of an Introductory Engineering Course and its Impact on Students’ Academic Success and RetentionAbstractThis Complete Research paper will describe the implementation of an introductory course(ENGR194) for first semester engineering students. The course is meant to improve retention andacademic success of engineering first-year students in the College of Engineering at the Universityof Illinois at Chicago. The implementation of this course is part of an ongoing National ScienceFoundation (NSF) Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (S-STEM)project. This paper reports on the impact of combinatorial
engineering curriculum todemonstrate to engineers, scientists and other technical professionals how to systematicallydisassemble and analyze an assembly, as well as its components. In the early 1990’s, the Instituteof Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) first introduced these concepts of reverseengineering and product dissection, thus making them cornerstones of introductory engineeringcourses. Many studies have been conducted in introductory and undergraduate level engineeringcourses, finding that virtual product dissection can be used as a proxy for physical dissection inorder to have an impact on learning and creativity.While these studies have been systematic in nature, they have only explored product dissection inundergraduate co-located
designed. CAD, which is the use of a wide-range of computer-based tools fordesigning and developing products, is an important geometry-authoring tool for the productlifecycle management. It ranges from 2D vector-based drafting systems to 3D parametric surfaceand solid design modeling systems. In the product lifecycle a physical prototype can be producedfrom drawings or from a computer-aided manufacturing system (CAM). The prototype is thentested for design compliance and produced for mass production in the manufacturing division.When Internet technologies were adopted in the engineering design industry in the 1990's, workin engineering design was restructured. Collaboration is the trend of today in order to benefitboth higher education and
expression. Thereaction rate expression that we will use in this tutorial is from Hermann17 and has been modifiedby removing the reverse reaction rate: mol EB 21874 cal mol p p rEB = −7.491× 10 −2 exp − pEB − Styrene H 2 (3) g cat s kPa 1.987 cal T KP mol K Notice that the reaction rate has units and that the concentration term is partial pressure withunits of kPa.HYSYS
relationships among those concepts or ideasor, in other words, how the concepts interfere on one another. This is done through two basiclaws of the interaction of parts, which can be, for example, “cause” or “not cause”. However, Page 9.545.2 Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2004, American Society for Engineering Educationin a “cause” case, we need to inform if the action of a given concept is in the direction ofstrengthening or weakening the other(s) concept(s). That is: – if Ci↑ → Cj↑ or Ci↓ → Cj↓, then wij > 0
, electrical, environmental, and mechanical engineering. TheEngineering Division also delivers graduate degree programs (M. S., M. E. and Ph. D) andresearch in engineering systems. The Gourman Report ranks the CSM Engineering Divisionfifth among general engineering programs2.This paper describes the results of using a laboratory course sequence as a centerpiece during anABET evaluation during the 2000-2001 Evaluation Year under the new EC 2000 criteria atCSM. The EC 2000 criteria are described on the ABET website.3 The CSM Self Study Reportwas completed at the beginning of the Fall Semester 2000 and the ABET team visited campusduring the middle of the Fall Semester 2000. The preliminary results from the team exitinterview were encouraging, so we would
Doctoral students as course instructors: Three engineering teaching assistants’ socialization experiencesAbstractThe purpose of this study was to explore and understand the types of socialization experiencesthat result from engineering graduate teaching assistants‟ (TAs) roles as course instructors.Socialization refers to an individual‟s process of becoming a part of a group. In the context ofdoctoral education, socialization can be a complex area to study, largely because there are manyroles and groups for which graduate students can be socialized.Using situated learning, more specifically the communities of practice literature, as thetheoretical framework, this study looked at how three doctoral engineering TAs, with experienceas
, and the practicesetting. 1,2Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borkos (1999) proposed a refined model of PCK for science teaching.Their model includes the following five components: 1) orientations toward science teaching; 2) knowledge and beliefs about science curriculum, 3) knowledge and beliefs about student understanding of specific science topics, 4) knowledge and beliefs about assessment in science, and 5) knowledge and beliefs about instructional strategies for teaching science” (p. 97).3An overarching component of this model is that a science teacher‟s knowledge is stronglyinfluenced by the stance or generalized orientation a teacher may take within his/her ownpractice. Teachers‟ orientations have also been described as
engineering communication. We then present ourfindings on the ways in which the deficit model has recently been enacted in engineeringcommunication contexts. Next, we present a framework of key concepts integral to publiccommunication so that engineers can reflect upon how these dimensions affect the wayscommunication with the public is carried out. The paper concludes with a discussion ofsignificance, intersecting issues, and future work.Overview of the Deficit ModelThe deficit model, a term originally coined by science studies scholar Brian Wynne,1 refers toapproaches to science and engineering (S&E) communication and outreach that are based on thebelief that publics are critical or skeptical of, and not interested in, S&E because they do
is a paradox of knowingwhat exactly wholly “Scientific” and “Non-Scientific” is and where everyone’s teaching,learning, and research practices lie on this spectrum. Deciding on important technological andpedagogical/philosophical underpinnings for “Indigenizing the curriculum” may help situate therole of AI more transparently and equitably. Using AI programs to thematize the perspectivesand experiences of individuals, groups, and organizations, and using them as a starting point toaddress Indigenous-related concerns in the curriculum may also be useful.References[1] M. Fee, “The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Canadian Literature,” 2012.[2] M. Belarde-Lewis, S. Cote-Meek, M. Parkhurst, N. A. D., Duarte, M. Dutta
. JannikEikenaar. Advice on research methodology and methods was provided by Prof. Sylvia Bartolic.The UBC Centre for Community Engaged Learning provided background on CEL and advice onsurvey questions.References[1] G. Fore et al., “An Introduction to the Integrated Community-Engaged Learning and Ethical Reflection Framework (I-CELER),” in 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, Salt Lake City, Utah, Jun. 2018, p. 29793. doi: 10.18260/1-2--29793.[2] G. D. Kuh, “High-Impact educational practices,” Peer Rev., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 30–31, Sep. 2008.[3] K. A. Smith, S. D. Sheppard, D. W. Johnson, and R. T. Johnson, “Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom-Based Practices,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 87–101, 2005, doi
set ofavailable tools as it continues to grow. A detailed description of the current state of the frameworkis provided in the EdTech Overview section.To evaluate the ontology, we presented the preliminary findings to engineering faculty andsolicited their feedback regarding (i) what type(s) of product they may already be using and why,(ii) what other type(s) of product may be of interest to them, and (iii) what type(s) of productis/are currently not of interest to them and why. Data were collected through one-hour-longfaculty interviews in which the use of the educational-technology tools was discussed amongother topics. Using this feedback, the resulting database of products continues to be refined,including respective type labels for each
engineering transfer partnership when we began our S-STEMproject. We now know our preconceived notions only lightly orbit the current reality.” Thissaying has become symbol of our NSF DUE (Division of Undergraduate Education)-funded S-STEM project, the Kansas City Urban Renewal Engineering (KCURE) scholarship program.Now in its third operational year, the KCURE program supports the transfer of low-income civiland mechanical engineering students. When our research team applied for S-STEM funding, weassumed we had a solid engineering transfer student partnership between MetropolitanCommunity College (MCC) and University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC).However, the MCC engineering coordinator’s retirement three years into KCURE programoperations
inelectrical engineering and information technology [20]. In September 2022, we presented aworkshop and paper at the Southern Association for Institutional Research (SAIR) Conference inNew Orleans, LA [21 , 22]. In October 2022, we presented a paper about international anddomestic students in the five most popular engineering disciplines, chemical, civil, electrical,industrial, and mechanical, at the Frontiers in Education (FIE) conference in Sweden [23].AcknowledgmentsWe are grateful for the support of the National Science Foundation through Grants 2142087 and214903.References[1] M. W. Ohland, S. D. Sheppard, G. Lichtenstein, O. Eris, D. Chachra, and R. A. Layton, “Persistence, engagement, and migration in Engineering,” J. Eng. Ed., vol. 97
Paper ID #34730Guided Learning Sequences as an e-Learning Enhancer During COVID-19Emergency ConditionsDr. Gibr´an Sayeg-S´anchez, Tecnologico de Monterrey Dr. Gibr´an Sayeg-S´anchez is professor – consultant in the Science Department in Tecnologico de Mon- terrey, Puebla campus. He studied a PhD in Financial Science in EGADE Business School (2016), a MSc in Industrial Engineering in Tecnologico de Monterrey (2011), and a BEng in Industrial and Systems En- gineering in Tecnologico de Monterrey (2006). Dr. Sayeg-S´anchez has more than 10 years of experience in teaching statistics, mathematics, and operations research; and