Frontiers in Education, Indianapolis, IN. 3. Rais-Rohani, M., A. Walters, A. Vizzini. 2010. Emporium based redesign of statics: an innovative approach to enhance learning and reduce costs. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper AC 2010-610. 4. Handelsman, J., D. Ebert-May, R. Beichner, P. Bruns, A. Change, R. DeHaan, J. Gentile, S. Lauffer, J. Stewart, S.M. Tilghman, W.B. Wood. 2004. Education: Scientific Teaching. Science, 304 (5670), 521-522. 5. Borrego, M., J.E. Froyd, T.S. Hall. 2010. Diffusion of engineering education innovations: a survey of awareness and adoption rates in US engineering departments. J. Eng. Ed. 99 (3), 185-207. 6. Michael, J. 2007
Writing Project, 23: 32-35.[8] Sundararajan,S., Faidley,L.E., Meyer,T.R. (2012). Developing inquiry-based laboratory exercises for a mechanical engineering curriculum, 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Page 26.924.12 Exposition.[9] Burke, K., Ouellette, J., Miller, W., Leise, C., and Utschig, T. (2012). Measuring Writing as a Representation of Disciplinary Knowledge, International Journal of Process Education, 4: 13-27.[10] Greco, C., Reasoner, J.D., Bullock, D., Castillo, C.L., Buford, P.S., and Richards, G.G. (2011). Efficacy of Lab Reports for Electric Circuits Laboratory Assessment, Proceedings of ASEE.[11] Goldberg, R
] Benjamin, S.," Learning for Mastery", UCLA Evaluation Comment Vol. 1, 1968, pp. 1-12.[27] Block, J.H., Airasian, P.W., Bloom, B.S., and Carroll, J.B., Mastery learning: Theory and practice: Holt, Rinehart and Winston New York, 1971. 15[28] Keller, F.S., Sherman, J.G., and Bori, C.M., The Keller plan handbook: Essays on a personalized system of instruction: WA Benjamin, 1974.[29] Sangelkar, S., Ashour, O.M., Warley, R.L., and Onipede, O., "Mastery Learning in Engineering: A Case Study in Statics", ASEE Annual Conference, Indianapolis, IN, 2014.[30] Brosvic, G.M., and Cohen, B.D.," The horizontal-vertical illusion and knowledge of results", Perceptual and motor
Accessed: 12/3/1429. National Academy of Engineering (2007) Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic Science and engineering. Washington. NAE & National Academy of Science. Cheltenham. UK. Edward Elgar.30. Burke, R.J. & Mattis, M.C. (2007). Women and Minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering & Maths. Cheltenham. Edward Elgar.31. Bell, A.E., Spencer, S.J., Iserman, E., LOGEL, C.E. R. (2003). “Stereotype Threat and Women’s Performance in Engineering”. Journal of Engineering Education. October. pp. 307-312.32. Bell, S. (2009). Women in Science in Australia. Federation of Australian Science & Technological Societies. Australia.33. Hørby, M., Madsen L., Dahms M
--- studieordning.pdf5. Milwaukee School of Engineering CE Program website (retrieved on January 26, 2015), http://catalog.msoe.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=8&poid=410&returnto=2356. Meier, R., Barnicki, S. L., Barnekow, W., Durant, E., Work in Progress – A Balanced, Freshman-first Computer Engineering Curriculum, Proceedings of the 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, pp. F3H-17 - F3H-18, 2007.7. Meier, R., Barnicki, S. L., Barnekow, W., Durant, E., Work in Progress – Year 2 Results from a Balanced, Freshman-first Computer Engineering Curriculum, Proceedings of the 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, pp. S1F-17 – S1F-18, 20088. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, CE Program website (retrieved on January 26, 2015
-boomers = a labor shortage? Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service. 3. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduate engineers leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 4. Huang, G., Taddese, N., & Walter, E. (2000). Entry and persistence of women and minorities in college science and engineering education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. 5. Adelman, C. (1998). Women and men of the engineering path: A model for analyses of undergraduate careers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 6. Eris, O., Chachra, D., Chen, H. L., Sheppard, S. D., Ludlow, L., Rosca, C., . . . Toye, G. (2010). Outcomes of a longitudinal
: Jossey-Bass,1997.13. Fink L.D., "Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses", San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 200314. Saroyan A., Amundsen C., "Rethinking teaching in higher education: From a course design workshop to a faculty development framework", Sterling, VA, Stylus Publishing, LLC,2004.15. Toohey S., "Designing courses in Higher Education", Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press,1999.16. F.P. Deek, F.P., Kimmel, H., & McHugh, J., “Pedagogical changes in the delivery of the first course in computer science: Problem solving then programming”, Journal of Engineering Education, 87, 3, pp. 313-320, July 1998.17. Meier, R.L., Williams, M.R., and Humphreys, M.A
Center for STEMLearning at the University of Colorado Boulder. Thanks to Garrison Vigil for assistance withdata collection and processing.1. Hekkert, P. Design aesthetics : principles of pleasure in design. Psychol. Sci. 48, 157–172 (2006).2. Billington, D. P. The Art of Structural Design. A Swiss Legacy. 210 (Princeton University Art Museum, 2003).3. Pugh, K. J. Transformative Experience: An Integrative Construct in the Spirit of Deweyan Pragmatism. Educ. Psychol. 46, 107–121 (2011).4. Dewey, J. Experience and Education. 116 (Touchstone by Simon & Schuster, 1938).5. Dewey, J. Art as Experience. vii–371 (Perigee by Penguin Group, 1934).6. Dutson, A. J., Todd, R. H., Magleby, S. P. & Sorenson, C. D. A review of
textbooks in the syllabus, as well as additional tutorialsprepared by the instructor. The required and recommended references for this course are:Capehart B.L. et al, Guide to Energy Management, Doty, S. and Turner, W.C., EnergyManagement Handbook, Morvay, Z. and Gvozdenac, D., Applied Industrial Energy andEnvironmental Management, and Putman, R.E. Industrial Energy Systems: Analysis,Optimization and Control13-16.The class is planned for 10 weekly lectures of 4-hour each which represent 11 weeks on a regularquarter. This represents a normal quarter or can be adapted to summer sessions; this class isrecommended for both scenarios. Lectures are considered to be classes that are given completelyby the instructor or a specialist of the topic being
California State University attached a robotic arm to theASEP platform and the assembled new arm-rover system was called Articulated SuspensionExploratory Platform System (ASEPS).There are twelve planned weekly labs during the semester, each consisting of two portions. Thefirst portion covers the description of the lab project, including objective(s), required parts/partdescription and step-by-step tutorial instructions. The second part requires the students to applythe knowledge learned from the lecture and the first lab portion to solve the specific project. Toincrease the quality of writing [13] and presenting, the students will be asked to submit designoverview reports in the end of each lab and give bi-weekly oral presentations on their
Paper ID #11208Development of the Whole Student through an Engineering Abroad ServiceLearning Program: Rainwater Catchment/Filtration System in GuatemalaJo-Ann Panzardi PE, Cabrillo College Jo-Ann Panzardi is a Professor and Chair of the Engineering Department at Cabrillo College, Aptos, California since August 1995. She is also the Program Director of a USDE Title III STEM grant and Project Investigator of a NSF EAGER grant and NSF S-STEM grant. She received her BS in Civil Engineering from Polytechnic Institute of New York and her MSCE in Geotechnical Engineering from University of Maryland. She is a registered civil
their PI or advisors, the influences that impact their careerdecision-making, and other relevant matters. Qualitative data gathered from interviews with bothstudents and faculty (and former faculty) was analyzed and coded for themes. Page 26.555.8 The researchers recruited participants by first making contact with key faculty and staff atinstitutions that were selected for one or more of the following reasons: (1) pre-existingprofessional connections with the principal investigator(s); (2) ten or more Black engineeringtenured or tenure-track faculty as of 2012 data; (3) and/or contact was made at a nationalengineering-related
.AcknowledgementsLaboratory space and equipment was generously provided by the Armour College ofEngineering, Illinois Institute of Technology. We would like to thank Craig Johnson for helpingequip the laboratory and for supporting students in our machine shop. We would also like tothank our many engineering students who provided constructive feedback throughout the pilotimplementation.Bibliography1. Eagan, M., Hurtado, S., Chang, M., Garcia, G., Herrera, F., & Garibay, J. (2013). Making a Difference in Science Education: The Impact of Undergraduate Research Programs. American Educational Research Journal, 50(4), 683-713.2. McLaughlin, D., Schmitz, S., & Mean, E. (2013). Report on the Learning Experiences of Undergraduate Students in a Novel
that they wanted to avoid keepinga design notebook, which is a requirement for the EPICS class. After discussions with the currentstudent leaders, it was determined that the actual differential of work between EWB-USA andEPICS is not that significant and the benefits of the additional accountability of being graded forcredit motivated the change in policy to limit the number of audits.The EPICS curricular and assessment processes aligned very well with the EWB-USA structureand philosophy. Both EPICS and EWB-USA promote and rely on strong student leaders. TheEPICS structure did not reduce the student leadership and it allowed the inclusion of theprofessional mentors. The relationship between the professional mentor(s) and the faculty
Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel- final_feb.pdf 2. National Academy of Sciences (U.S.), Institute of Medicine (U.S.), and National Academy of Engineering. (2011). Expanding underrepresented minority participating: America's science and technology talent at the crossroads. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 3. Hurtado, S., Cabrera, N., Lin, M., Arellano, L., & Espinosa, L. (2009). Diversifying Science: Underrepresented Student Experiences in Structured Research Programs. Research in Higher Education, 50, 189–214
, S., Johnson, D., and Johnson, R. (2005) “Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom- Based Practices.” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 87-101.7. Smith, K. (2011) “Cooperative Learning: Lessons and Insights from Thirty Years of Championing a Research-Based Innovative Practice.” Proceedings of the 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, SD.8. Prince, M. (2004) “Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research.” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 93, No. 3, pp. 223-331.9. Yadav, A., Subedi, D., Lundeberg, M. A., and Bunting, C. F. (2011) “Problem-based Learning: Influence on Students’ Learning in an Electrical Engineering Course.” Journal of Engineering Education
retention of the concept(s) taught.Neither Trevelyan or Carberry and Ohland discuss what preparation in pedagogy might beuseful in preparing students to teach although for some peer tutoring the students are givetraining and paid. It is argued here that substantial prior training may lead to more effectivelearning exchanges irrespective of whether it is undertaken as a tutor with one or twostudents, perhaps in a cooperative learning group, or as an instructor with a class of twentystudents.However, this brings into question the role that educational studies may have more generallyin engineering programmes.It is argued that students may benefit more if they have to teach an unfamiliar subject and thetraining may be linked to the preparation
understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. EducationalResearcher, 15(2): 4–1424 Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. HarvardEducational Review, 57(1): 1–2225 Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea?International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), (pp.1405-1416)26 Skogh, I.-B. (2006). Innovative performance: How can it be assessed? In T. Ginner & J. Hallström(Eds.), Forskningskonferens i teknikdidaktik: Styrdokument och klassrumsverklighet i skolansteknikundervisning. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press.http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp_home/index.en.aspx?issue=01727 ASEI (2005), Association of Swedish Engineering Industries, Alla barns
material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under GrantNumbers DRL-0733613 and DUE-1245590. Page 26.1500.11References 1. Berland, M., Martin, T., Benton, T., Petrick Smith, C., & Davis, D. (2013). Using learning analytics to understand the learning pathways of novice programmers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(4), 564- 599. 2. Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1990). Epistemological pluralism: Styles and voices within the computer culture. Signs, 128-157. 3. Roth, W. M. (1996). Art and artifact of children's designing: A situated cognition perspective. Journal of the Learning
-2214. 2. Basoglu, E. B., & Akdemir, O. (2010). A comparison of undergraduate students’ English vocabulary learning: Using mobile phones and flash cards. The Turkish Journal of Educational Technology, 9(3), 1-7. 3. Thornton, P. & Houser, C. (2005). Using mobile phones in English education in Japan. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 217-228. 4. Lan, Y-F., & Huang, S-M. (2012). Using mobile learning to improve the reflection: A case study of traffic violation. Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 179-193. 5. Wallace, S., Clark., M., & White, J. (2012). ‘It’s on my iPhone: Attitudes to the use of mobile computing devices in medical education, a mixed-methods study. BMJ
material contained inthe videos was covered in class.Experimental Group 2. This group consists of five sections of ENG1101 taught fall 2014 by twofaculty members. The 308 students in this group were strongly encouraged to complete thereading and watch the video(s) prior to class, however, neither pre-lesson quizzes nor clickerquestions were used. Material covered in the video was typically not covered during class.Experimental Group 3. This group consists of five ENG1101 sections (293 students) taught fall2014 by three faculty members. Before attending class, students in Group 3 were expected tocomplete the reading assignment and watch the pre-lesson videos. To encourage preparation,short pre-lesson quizzes covering video content were also
enrolled in the class seeking their opinions, evaluations,and any comment(s) they may wish to offer. Twenty six out of a total of 30 students returned the“questionnaire” on time! The opinions expressed and comments made were, by and large,positive to say the least. After regrouping, and rephrasing to correct the English language; thecomments offered by the ex- students, could be summarized as follows: The adjunct was easy to approach every time and every where, and was always helpful, His input into the course has dramatically improved students’ understanding of the material, enlivened the experience, and made the course more meaningful, Many students felt that the adjunct faculty was eminently qualified to teach
?, 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, 2007.[8] Jacob, S. M., & Issac, B.; The mobile devices and its mobile learning usage analysis, Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Vol. I, 19-21 March, Hong Kong, 2008.[9] Giurgiu, L., & Barsan, G.; The Impact of iPhone in education; BulletinScientific, 13(2), 2008.[10] Caverly, D., Ward, A., & Caverly, M.; Techtalk: mobile learning and access. Journal of Developmental Education, 33 (1), pp. 38-39, 2009.[11] Yu, F., & Conway, A. R.; Mobile/Smartphone use in higher education. Proceedings of the 2012 Southwest Decision Sciences Institute, pp. 831-839, 2012
., Leifer, L. J. (2005). “Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning.” Journal of Engineering Education. 94(1), 103-120.6. Felder, R. M, Brent, R. (2001). “Effective Strategies for Cooperative Learning.” Journal of Cooperation and Collaboration in College Teaching. 10(2), 69-75.7. Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. (2005). “Pedagogies of Engagement: Page 26.1240.13 Classroom-Based Practices.” Journal of Engineering Education. 94(1), 87-101.8. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., Mount, M. K. (1998). “Relating Member Ability and Personality to Work-Team Processes
and since instructors arepart of the student’s academic program, the instructor may fully participate in the resolutionprocess.The authors intend to continue refining the workshop content. Additional case studies will beadded and the current cases will be streamlined so that workshop participants can completemultiple cases. Ultimately, the workshop and case studies will be made available as an onlineresource for faculty and students. Page 26.1246.11Bibliography1. Howe, S. "Where Are We Now? Statistics on Capstone Courses Nationwide," Advances in Engineering Education, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring 2010.2. W. Felps, T. R. Mitchell, and E
Science Teacher Education, 2014. 25: p. 197-210.11. Shulman, L.S., Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 1986. 15: p. 4-14.12. Shulman, L.S., Knowledge and teaching: Foundation of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 1987. 57: p. 1-22.13. Abell, S.K., Research on science teacher knowledge, in Handbook of research on science education, S.K. Abell and N.G. Lederman, Editors. 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associaties.: Mahwah, NJ. p. 1105-1150.14. Park, S. and Y.-C. Chen, Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2012. 49: p. 922-941.15
caseof MITES and E2@MIT, over the course of the labs, we spent small amounts of timedescribing actual details of the Gertboard, and only focused on their specific workingsduring the final project periods as required by particular student projects.Figure 7. Raspberry Pi Model B (right) connected to a Gertboard via ribbon cable (left).Deployment of the Raspberry Pi/Gertboard assemblies in 2014 was as successful than2013’s BeagleBone Blacks in terms of student progress and project complexity. Inaddition, the increased usability and protection afforded by the Gertboard completelyremoved the danger of partial/complete loss of student work, and greatly improved thespeed and efficiency of student wiring when interfacing with the board due to the
te brain &s synt convergent divergent te he ld te ga ui
exposed is the wide range of skills andproficiency with pre-requisite knowledge and skills that are often assumed as second nature at this Page 26.1426.8level of education. Students in this course had issues with content such as the equation for astraight line and the conversion of units from rpm to rad/s. In addition, student reflections oftenprovided only cursory responses to the questions and had a right/wrong-bias or behaviorallyfocused mindset. For example, in response to a question on calculating the torque-angular speedrelation for a linear motor, a considerable number of students remarked that their errors weredirectly related to their
the engineering economy coursedid a good job of teaching them how to plan for retirement.The breakdown of the economics courses taken by the 105 students responding was: 52microeconomics, 31 macroeconomics, and 22 both micro and macroeconomics. All 105 studentssaid that the engineering economy course was more valuable than the economics course(s) theypreviously completed. In fact, 93.3% of the students (98 out of 105) felt as though every student(non-engineering and engineering) should take a course like this engineering economy course.Over 87% of the students (92 out of 105) said they felt as though a course like the engineeringeconomy course would be a good course to offer as a General Education (Social and BehavioralSciences at Penn State