Paper ID #281062018 Best Zone II Paper: Comparison of Student and Faculty Perceptions ofIntent and Effectiveness of Course Evaluations in an Engineering Curricu-lumDr. Thomas P. James P.E., Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Tom James is presently a Professor of Entrepreneurship at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. His major interests are new product development and global business ventures. He currently teaches courses in accounting, finance, and entrepreneurial studies. In addition to teaching, Dr. James directs the ES- CALATE program, a living-learning community focused on integrating entrepreneurship and technical
Cybersecurity with a Self-Learning KitAbstractThere is an exponential growth in the number of cyber-attack incidents resulting in significantfinancial loss and national security concerns. Secure cyberspace has been designated as one ofthe National Academy of Engineering (NAE) Grand Challenges in engineering. Broadly, thesecurity threats are targeted on software programs, operating system and network with theintention to launch confidentiality, integrity and availability violations. Existing undergraduateand graduate-level cybersecurity education curriculum rely primarily on didactic teachingmethods with little focus on student centered, inquiry-based teaching, known to improve studentlearning. With growing number of security incidents taking place, it
commitment,including individuals’ willingness to coordinate efforts across the degree program and teach ESIin their own courses. Given shrinking credit hours for engineering degrees and an increasingnumber of topics, it can be challenging to find space in the curriculum for standalone ethicscourses [9]. These courses can be offered outside of the engineering department as part of thegeneral education or liberal arts requirement, but this approach can be met with a lack of studentengagement if the topics appear disconnected from their engineering preparation [10].Given these considerations, micro-insertions of ESI have been promoted as an effective approach[11]. Micro-insertion is the integration of ethics in technical courses “without substantial
solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context (j) a knowledge of contemporary issues.In this research, we define contextual competence as an engineer's ability to anticipate andunderstand the constraints and impacts of social, cultural, environmental, political, and othercontexts on engineering solutions.How can engineering programs best develop their students' ability to integrate context anddesign? This paper reports results from two national studies, funded by the National ScienceFoundation, which are exploring educational practices and outcomes at diverse institutions.Prototype to Production: Processes and Conditions for Preparing the Engineer of 2020 (P2P)surveyed faculty members, students, alumni
curriculum redesign focused on incorporating content- based writing approaches. In the Department of English, Cat teaches in the Core Writing Program where her pedagogy incorporates creative writing workshops and collaborative writing.Prof. Eva Chi, University of New Mexico Eva Chi is an Associate Professor in the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering Department at the University of New Mexico. The research in her lab is focused on understanding the dynamics and structures of macromolecular assemblies including proteins, polymers, and lipid membranes. Undergrad- uates, graduate students, and postdoctoral scholars are trained in a multidisciplinary environment, utilizing modern methodologies to address
Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment at Arizona State University.Mrs. Lindy Hamilton Mayled, Arizona State University Lindy Hamilton Mayled is a PhD candidate at Grand Canyon University. She is pursuing her PhD in Psychology of Learning, Education, and Technology. Her background in in K-12 education where she has served as a high school science teacher, Instructional and Curriculum Coach, and Assistant Principal. Her research and areas of interest are in improving STEM educational outcomes for Low-SES students through the integration of active learning and technology-enabled frequent feedback. She currently works as the Project Manager for the NSF faculty development program based on evidence-based teaching
, Gül3, and Lee, Kristen4 1 Penn State Brandywine 2 Penn State Berks 3 Iowa State University 4 University of San FranciscoAbstractThis work presents the results of an assessment instrument designed to assess the progressivelearning of ethics in the engineering curriculum at different stages known as acclimation,competency, and proficiency, and to determine the relation of the development stages with threecomponents that contribute to learning: interest, knowledge and strategic processing. Thequestions in the instrument were defined following the Model of Domain Learning (MDL) tocapture the
from out. The 1st and 2nd or filling of a tank orapplication of the 1st heat-transfer, or time which all other laws are typically vessel. Applicationlaw to determine rate-of-change of classes of problems applied to analyze of the 1st lawheat and/or work, or system temperature. can be derived. common devices: requires theto determine the Examples here Conservation of pumps, turbines, integration of thefinal (or initial) include the heating energy is frequently heat exchangers, etc. instantaneous formstate, depending on of a filament with an stated in this form Various simplifying for as controlgivens. Many
bring in from their home environments/cultures to recognizing thesystemic ways in which classroom mathematics activities can hinder this “home” mathematicalthinking from becoming integrated into the “school math” students are learning. 5Third, these studies suggest an entanglement between teachers’ noticing of the substance (notjust the correctness) of students’ reasoning and their noticing of equity-related issues ofparticipation and positioning. McDuffie et al. (2014) documented how growth in teachers’attention to the substance of student reasoning was accompanied by growth in their noticing of(in)equitable participation patterns and power
perspectives regarding ESI. At theend of the survey, respondents were asked to provide their email address if they werewilling to be contacted for a follow-up interview. Of the 1448 survey respondents, 230indicated willingness to participate in an interview.The second phase of the study involved conducting interviews with educators to learn moreabout their ESI instructional practices and general perspectives regarding the integration ofESI into the engineering curriculum and educational experiences of engineering students.Between September 2016 and April 2017, 52 survey respondents were contacted forinterviews with the intention of conducting 36 interviews. Selection of these individuals wasbased on an iterative and collaborative process within the
students are required to learn materials that “others” prescribe. It hasto be done as per a set schedule, i.e. in prescribed time blocks, semesters or quarters, andfollowing a prescribed prerequisite structure. After finishing four years of curriculum studentsgraduate and join the workforce. Current education paradigm uses the “Empty ContainerParadigm.” It is assumed students will start a given course knowing nothing about the topic andwhile they are enrolled in it knowledge will be poured in their head as is done in an emptycontainer. In this current model, learning occurs individually, there is a lot of emphasis onprerequisite structure and requirement for basic knowledge, and assessment is based on grades intests rather than acquiring of a
-guided study on how systems engineers develop their expertise. Additionally,many systems engineers have an integrative role, “requiring a deeper understanding of a widerange of areas than provided by a focused education” [Ross et al., 2014]. Anecdotally, manyuniversity faculty agree that successful systems engineers can only be made through experience,as evidenced in part by the relatively few programs in systems engineering, especially at theundergraduate level1. As Adcock et al. [2015] note: “current undergraduate engineering education1 A brief note on terminology is appropriate here. While there are many graduate engineering programs that addressthe problems posed by complex engineering systems, these programs tend to focus on the science of
mental imageryis engaged for both blind and sighted people when interpreting engineering graphics.Mental imagery is cognitively part of visuospatial working memory, used for reasoning [11], andnot merely an internalization of the visual percept (actual sight). Mental imagery differs fromvision in that vision is a bottoms-up process, where visual stimuli are processed into sight, versusa tops-down process where knowledge is processed into imagery [8]. Some visual processes donot occur in mental imagery [12], but mental imagery does seem to depend on areas of the brainrelated to higher levels of integration in typical visual processing [13].Since this study examines how a blind student learned engineering graphics, understandingdifferences in the
implementationcosts and multiple advantages for both students and faculty. Along with the obvious benefit ofdeveloping team problem solving and discussion skills, students receive fast feedback on theirperformance, the instructor spends less time reviewing the exam (in class and with individuals),and the classroom environment benefits from the added value placed on collaboration andreciprocal learning. This paper describes a number of variations on the team testing idea anddiscusses how factors in the course affect the type of team test to develop.In a team test, the students complete an individual test paper as well as a group test paper. Theindividual component enforces individual accountability and allows the instructor to askquestions in formats that do
are writing intensive and have the technicalwriting course as a prerequisite. Even more of a problem, many Penn State engineering studentswork in internships and co-op experiences without having taken the technical writing course,even though the companies expect those students to write. Worse yet, in those internships, ourstudents are evaluated alongside engineering interns who have had the experience of a technicalwriting course. To address this situation, the Mechanical Engineering Department at Penn State haspiloted an engineering writing course that connects to its required junior-level design course,which is writing intensive. What distinguishes this engineering writing course from traditionaltechnical writing courses is that the