safety, and sustainable infrastructure.Mr. Edward Stephen Char Jr., Villanova University BS EE Villanova University 1996 MS EE Villanova University 1998Dr. John Komlos, Villanova University Page 26.27.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 ✁✂✄☎ ✁✂✆✄✝☎ ✁✂✞✟✂✠☎✠✡ ☛✠ ☞ ✌✄✂✍☎✎✡✏✑☞✝☎✒ ✓☛✄✝✡✏✔☎☞✄ ✕✠✖☛✠☎☎✄☛✠✖ ✗✘✙✚✛✜✚✢✣✚✤ ✥✦✚✛✦✜✚✧ ★✢✩ ✪✫✫✚✫✫✬✚✢✭✮✯✰✱✲✳✴✱✵✶✷✷✸✹✺✻✸ ✼✹✶✻✽✾✿✶❀❁ ✽❂❃✸✾❄✽❅ ✺✹ ✸ ✹✽❆ ❇✾✺❈✽❉❀❊❃✸✿✽❅ ✸❇❇✾✺✸❉❋ ●✺✾ ❀❋✽ ✾✽❍■✶✾✽❅ ●✶✾✿❀❊❁✽✸✾ ✽✹❏✶✹✽✽✾✶✹❏❑▲▼❑◆❖❑◗❑ ❖ ❘❙❙❚❯ ❱❲❖❳ ❑❨ ❩❖◆❳❱❬❭❑❪◆ ❑▲▼❑◆❖❑◗❑ ❨❪❳ ◆❑▼❫◆❱❑❴ ❖ ❱❲❑ ❘❙❵❙ ❛❜❝❝ ❛❞❪❡ ❢❫❩❑◆❑◗❑❣❤✐❥❦❦❧♠♥♦♣q rs❦ t
. 3 Page 26.10.42 Three-Dimensional MomentsGiven a three-dimensional density distribution function f (x, y, z), the (p+q+r)order moments are defined in terms of the Riemann integral as: +∞ +∞ +∞ mpqr = rxp ryq rzr f (x, y, z)dxdydz −∞ −∞ −∞ where ri is the normal distance to axis i, i = x, y, z, and p, q, r = 0, 1, 2, ... The integration extends over the domain of f . For an object with limitedvolume in the x, y, z space, the integration extends over the volume of theobject. The second order moments about x,y, and z axes, i.e., p
13 (Q) / % 40 14 discrimination rQ P 30 4 6 73 8 10 5 20 2 11 12
measure undergraduate engineering students’ decisions toparticipate in out-of-class activities and the students’ outcomes from involvement in theseactivities. Specifically, this paper details the development of the items and face and contentvalidity for the Postsecondary Student Engagement Survey (PosSES). The instrument development is guided by a thorough literature review, web searches, a Q-studyusing focus group meetings, a panel of experts, and finally, think aloud sessions to determineface and content validity. The instrument measures positive and negative involvement outcomesand factors that promote and prevent participation decisions in out-of-class activities; andengineering identification, sense of belonging, engineering major
0% Content-Specific Questions Yes No Page 26.415.7Content Questions and Keywords used to evaluate responses Questions Keywords Tissue, engineering, creating, regenerating, growing, organic matter, making, cell function, Q-1: What is tissue engineering? building, forming, examining, manipulating
% 100% 83%The last session was the 'round table' discussion where participants could ask any question(s)they wanted. A few of the questions from the participants, and the corresponding answers arelisted below. Answers will be in an abbreviated form rather than a full discussion. Q: How to submit multiple proposals a year and still have them be different? Ans: Change the lead investigator to reflect focus of research and/or tasks. Can also expand area(s) of potential topics or focus more on one subset. For instance the focus of a task can change based on where it will be submitted. Q: How to choose/select grad students? Ans. Will change with time. A MS student from home institution is easier as you
interesting?”. Surveys from 2013-14 hadadditional questions “Was this activity challenging?” and “How creative were you feeling?”Results from each activity are summarized in Table 1, shown as means scores ± standarddeviations. Note some activities did not permit enough time to get a significant sample of surveyresponses. Page 26.1034.10Students felt they learned the most from Instrument Acoustics 2, Music Information Retrieval,Speaker Building, and Waves and Sounds. Consistently among the most enjoyable are the gameshow-style Analog & Digital and Music Production. The most interesting were Analog & Digital Q A&D
) critically evaluating the state of research andrecommending improvements, and (c) identifying neglected topics that require the attention ofresearchers. Our completed systematic review will contribute in each of these three areas.Bibliography1. Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., Nesbit, J. C., & Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A Page 26.1754.10 meta-analytic survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 901-918.2. Sabo, K. E., Atkinson, R. K., Barrus, A. L., Joseph, S. S., & Perez, R. S. (2013). Searching for the two sigma advantage: Evaluating algebra intelligent tutors. Computers in
- content/uploads/2012/01/EUR-ACE_Framework-Standards_2008-11-0511.pdf.(13) Passow, H. J. J. Eng. Educ. 2012, 101, 95. Page 26.1177.10(14) Brett, J.; Behfar, K.; Kern, M. C. In The Essential Guide to Leadership; Harvard Business Review, 2009; pp. 85–97.(15) Halverson, C. In Effective Multicultural Teams: Theory and Practice; Halverson, C. B.; Tirmizi, S. A., Eds.; Springer, 2008; pp. 81–110.(16) Pelled, L. H.; Eisenhardt, K. M.; Xin, K. R. Adm. Sci. Q. 1999, 44, 1.(17) Watson, W. E. Acad. Manag. J. 1993, 36, 590.(18) Horwitz, S. K. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2005, 4, 219.(19) Manning, M. L.; Lucking, R. Clear
both mean value and standarddeviation, to return a numerical track quality indicator, which will inform the user whether or notthe given case of operation if feasible. In order to numerically determine the track quality, Q, anequation that effectively ranks each situation was elaborated.Additionally, serious wear marks were noticed on the Elizabethtown College outdoor athletictrack, which makes it one of the most difficult cases to achieve (Table 3). On the other hand,readings were collected from the new outdoor athletic track at Alvernia University (Reading,PA), to quantitatively rank more than one typical quality of outdoor tracks. It was found that theanalyses of these readings were much more conclusive, making it a far easier case. However
(ECDH), digital signature algorithm (ECDSA), and integrated encryptionscheme (ECIES) are placed. In all of these security protocols which are standardized by severalnational and international organizations, the main computation is point multiplication. Theelliptic curve point multiplication is defined as Q = k.P, where k is a positive integer, and Q andP are two points on the elliptic curve. The efficiency of computing point multiplication dependson finding the minimum number of steps to reach Q from a given point P.Some of the educational goals in this step were (a) understanding the implementation platforms(commonly referred to as hardware [ASIC/FPGA] or software platforms [microcontrollers])through which the overheads were derived, (b) soft
support during the research process. Additionally,authors would like to thank University of Michigan - Flint institutional review board, faculty and staff fororganizing necessary field trips and to various locations related to current study and equipment support. References[1] Savoji, A. P. (2013). Motivational strategies and academic achievements in traditional and virtual university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences; 84 (2013), 1015-1020[2] Mazumder, Q. H. and Ahmed, K. (2014). “A Comparative Study of Motivation and Learning Strategies Between Public and Private University Students of Bangladesh” Proceedings of the 2014 ASEE North Central Section Conference
., Skokan, C., Kosbar, L., Dean, A., Westland, C., Barker, H., Nguyen, Q. & Tafoya, J. (2007). “K-12 outreach: Identifying the broader impacts of four outreach projects.” Journal of Engineering Education, 96 (2), 173-189.14. Tafoya, J., Nguyen, Q., Skokan, C. & Moskal, B. (2005). “K-12 outreach in an engineering intensive university.” Paper in the Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, Portland, Oregon (11 pages). REPRINT: Proceedings of 4th ASEE/AaeE Global Colloquium on Engineering Education, Sydney, Australia, September, 2005.15. Moskal, B., Skokan, C. & Duffield, J. (2004). "GK-12 learning partnership: An outreach program in engineering education.” Paper in the
evaluated by the authors. Session 1 Session 2 Presentation Q&A Presentation Q&A 0.4286 0.9333 0.7241 0.5926 no input 4 8 10 12 -1 8 0 2 0 0 4 2 4 11 1 23 29 23 16 Observation: 1. The value of 0.4286 indicates the results could have been better but was still a worthwhile effort. Recall the value could go negative. Note there 23 out of 39 students indicated the
. Page 26.1552.1210. Oyserman, D.; Destin, M.; Novin, S. Self Identity 2014, 1–16.11. Fugate, M.; Kinicki, A. J.; Ashforth, B. E. J. Vocat. Behav. 2004, 65, 14–38.12. Ibarra, H. Adm. Sci. Q. 1999, 44, 764–791.13. Ibarra, H. Identity transitions: possible selves, liminality and the dynamics of career change; 2005.14. Kerpelman, J. L.; Pittman, J. F. J. Adolesc. 2001, 24, 491–512.15. Godwin, A.; Potvin, G. Int. J. Eng. Educ. (In Press. 2015.16. Pizzolato, J. E. Cultur. Divers. Ethnic Minor. Psychol. 2006, 12, 57–69.17. Committee on K-12 Engineering Education. Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects; Katehi, L.; Pearson, G.; Feder, M. A., Eds.; The National Academies Press
the Summitagenda in Appendix A). Because group input was a key objective, almost half of each panelsession was devoted to Q&A with the audience. Detailed session notes capture theconversations for these and all sessions at the Summit.6Table 1. Research-Based Panel Sessions at the Epicenter Research SummitSession Title Central Questions for PanelistsResearch on Students’ How can we learn about students’ entrepreneurialEntrepreneurial Development development through an interactive lens, i.e., the interplayand Pathways between individual characteristics and contexts? How diverse are students’ entrepreneurial pathways? What are the implications for
. Research in Engineering Education Symposium (REES) 2015, Dublin, Ireland.3. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.4. Beddoes, K., Schimpf, C., & Pawley, A. L. (2013). Engaging Foucault to Better Understand Underrepresentation of Female STEM Faculty. ASEE Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA.5. Schimpf, C., Santiago, M. M., Hoegh, J., Banerjee, D., & Pawley, A. (2013). STEM Faculty and Parental Leave: Understanding an Institution’s Policy within a National Policy Context through Structuration Theory. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology 5, no. 2: 102-125.6. Brawner, C. E., Orr, M. K., Ohland, M. W. (2014). The Accidental Engineer. ASEE
Q Programs 1 100 151 152 1 Computer Science & Engineering MS Spring 2015 2 99 148 150 1 Petroleum Engineering ME Spring 2015 3 97 148 158 1 Computer Science & Engineering MS Spring 2015 4 95 148 153 1 Biomedical Engineering PhD Spring 2015 5 91 145 161 1 Mathematics (interdisciplinary) PhD Spring 2015 6 90 144 150 1 Aerospace Engineering MS Fall 2015 Conditional 7 87
Satisfaction Measures:question was missing). (m) Personal satisfaction from work (n) Satisfaction with quality of work unitSurvey respondents were asked “do you consider (o) Satisfaction with working conditionsyourself to be one or more of the following,” with (p) Employee empowermentthe following response categories offered: (q) Co-workers cooperation“Heterosexual or Straight,” “Gay, Lesbian, (r) Satisfaction with procedures (s) Overall job satisfactionBisexual, or Transgender,” or “Prefer not to say.”Respondents who answered “prefer not to say” were excluded from
different sections. The dataobtained for each question was analyzed using a basic excel spread sheet. The following surveyquestions (Q) were analyzed for this report.Q1. Have you taken Engineering Physics 2 or an equivalent course (electricity and magnetism) Page 26.256.3in the past? (Circle one) [Yes] [No]. 3Q2. Have you taken any other electrical eircuit related or equivalent course in the past? (Circleone) [Yes] [No].Q3. Rate in 5 (high) to 1 (low) scale, how much your previous physics background helps you tounderstand the electrical circuit concepts
students required an alternative route (a program in Mexico oradditional training to achieve the scores necessary for admission consideration). Table 2 belowshows the three groups. Page 19.19.9Table 2: Application Group Table Post Post GRE Post GRE Degree Student * Group Department Confirmed Accepted Note TOEFL V Q Programs 1 100 151 152 1 Computer Science & Engineering MS Spring 2015 2
. Page 26.814.12Appendix A: Toys included in the review Toy Name Area of Focus Number of Reviews MindWare Imaginets Art & Other 192 MindWare Physics Physics concepts 51 Workshop MindWare Q-BA-MAZE Engineering & 51 2.0: Big Box Construction MindWare Microscope Kit Math & Science 50 & Book MindWare Chaos Tower Engineering & 43 Construction MindWare Snap Circuits Physics concepts 26 Rover MindWare Equate Math & Science 51 MindWare KEVA Engineering and 50 Contraptions (200 Plank) Construction MindWare Snap Circuits
occurredwithin the last 30-45 days, from any relevant and reputed magazine or newspaper or journal. Thenews item or event should be directly related to and should meet one or more course objectives.Each student will Open the URL link and present the topic to the class for 5 minutes – what,when, where, its impact as it relates to the course learning outcome. This will be followed by abrief Q&A session. Students are assigned grades for participating in this activity. Each studenthas to complete the following tasks: identify the source and event (or news), the location of theevent/news, how is the event/news tied to the current course, and what is the importance of thenews/event. The student will also have to discuss quantification as applicable to the
), ordisagreeing (4), or strongly disagreeing (5) to specific questions (1, 2, 3, 4) in the surveydiscussed in Section 3. Table A.1. Data Collection – Sections 1 & 2. Section 1 Section 2 Q 1 2 3 4 5 Q 1 2 3 4 5 Overall 1 15 3 1 0 0 1.26 1 20 11 1 1 0 1.48 1.37 2 14 4 1 0 0 1.32 2 22 8 2 1 0 1.45 1.39 3 14 4 1 0 0 1.32 3 21 11 0 1 0 1.42 1.37 4 12 5 2 0 0 1.47 4 19 11 0 3 0 1.61
Page 26.810.11zero, position increases the speed in one direction (red) along the constraint line, while movingthe slider down from the mid position increases the speed in the opposite direction (orange). Thethrottle is also selectable as either Q (heat) or W (work), and the associated rate of change in thespecific internal energy, as defined by the first law of thermodynamics, eq. (1), determinemovement along the constraint line. The adjustable slider and selectable constrain lines enablethe player to explore the entire surface at a fast or leisurely pace. This feature, along with thecontinuously updated “Current Position” information box allows the player to observe how thevarious thermodynamic properties change throughout the different
, IdealFirstly, descriptive statistics was performed to have an interpretation if there was a gapbetween expectations and perceptions. To determine the significance in differences wasused Mann Whitney test was used (Normality Test was used, but every Q had a non-normaldistribution). In Tangibles dimension, Q2 (Sequence on topics) and Q5 (Topics and RealExamples – Study Cases) as a significant difference between perception and expectation Page 26.1312.7(P100points willTedious be Course selected. TheseComfortprojects are in the “Projects with more weight” column, and
networks made up of multiple capacitors exclusively in series,parallel or hybrid series/parallel combinations. However, they were not asked in this course todetermine how the voltages split up across capacitors in a network (e.g. series) connected to avoltage source, as they were required to do with a series resistance (e.g. voltage divider) Page 26.362.10network. While they were expected to understand that the same amount of electric currentpasses through each and every one of the resistors in a purely series resistor circuit, they did notrecall or apply here the relationship between charge and voltage across a capacitor (Q = CV),that they
for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.19 Schlossberg, N. K. (1981). A model for analyzing human adaptation to transition. Counseling Psychologist, 9(2), 2-18.20 Schlossberg, N. K. (1984). Counseling adults in transition. New York, NY: Springer Publishing.21 Schlossberg, N. K., Lynch, A. Q., & Chickering, A. W. (1991). Improving higher education environments for adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.22 Weiss, M. L., McKelfresh, D. A., & Yang, R. K. (2006). Transfer student marginality. Journal of Student Affairs, 15, 50-57.23 Diamond, A, M. (2012).The adaptive military transition theory: Supporting military students in academic environments (Doctoral dissertation