Engineering at Valparaiso University. Dr. Freeman joined the faculty in 2003. As a graduate student and Lecturer at Iowa State University, Dr. Freeman worked with three engineering-oriented learning communities. Dr. Freeman is currently the Vice-Chair of the Calumet Section of IEEE. Page 11.105.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2006 A QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION TOOLFOR AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING LEARNING COMMUNITY Page 11.105.2IntroductionIn the changing technological environment of the early 21st century, all technical and non-technical
information7. A successful program, cognizant of thissituation, could implement interdisciplinary studies programs that combined, forexample, technology development and ecology, to help students make connections andsee relevancy and meaning in what they are studying, while fulfilling general educationor distribution requirements. Similarly, capstone experiences can be tailored to bothallow synthesis of learning across the four years as well as providing professional skills(i.e., resumes, interviewing, financial planning skills, etc.) that will help them succeedpost-graduation. Page 11.365.7 As discussed below, both the instructional format for each
their training costs to the university. These costs do not include theinternet subscription or purchasing a personal computer or laptop. It is clear that in the future,with any increase in the number of students, the training costs will be reduced. The training cost Page 11.490.7of a term is evaluated and determined at the end of the term. The total annual training costs arecalculated by the university and announced publicly.The fields of study in the virtual university have no limit for enrollment of the students, althoughonly at the beginning, because of the hardware limitations, some fields of study may have a limitfor enrollment. This
. However, design,coordination, execution, and evaluation of these activities are time-intensive and requireindividual attention to be the most effective.It takes immense creativity, organization, and patience for any instructor to conduct a gradedcourse focused on the Identity curriculum. Independent studies are the best ways so far, but oftenare not possible until the end of the students’ tenure in school.At-risk populations may benefit from some early attention to Identity aspects. Support programsaddress this need by matching first year engineers with role models, either peers (BigBrother/Big Sister model) or professionals (E-mentoring or on-site mentoring programs).Interestingly, these programs are usually not part of the formal curriculum of
theirunderstanding through reflective writing. In this paper, we will share with you the pilot studyoutcomes regarding student learning, retention, and satisfaction based on the implementation ofthe Collaborative Learner-constructed Engineering-concept Articulation and Representation Page 11.918.2(CLEAR) instructional model. The study compared students from two sections (blended vs.traditional instruction) taking a sophomore level chemical engineering course.Theoretical FrameworkSocial constructivists view learning as being a product developed from individuals interactingwith each other and the environment10-12. One form of this social constructivists
provided in the Resources section.3. The questionnaire design and response analysisFive engineering students spent the first half of the REU program (one month) at BucknellUniversity and the second half (one month) at Virginia Tech. At Bucknell University, thestudents were introduced to some product platform and family concepts by dissecting differentfamilies of disposable cameras and refrigerators. As a small part of the program at Virginia Tech,the students were assigned to study the learning tool. Since the students have similar educationbackground and have experienced very identical environment (e.g., REU program), they wereexpected to be quite similar in utilizing the product platform and family knowledge they havestudied. This study assumes
MET 2004 pilot freshman learning community had 21 students and the attrition ofthis learning community in the fall of 2005 was 14%. Twelve of these learningcommunity students returned to RIT in the fall of 2005 and 10 stayed in either MET andManufacturing Engineering Technology (MFET) programs which are identical programsin the freshman year. There were a total of 45 MET freshman students in the fall of2004 as they lost a total of 10 students for an attrition rate of 22.22%. One year attritionrates for MET freshman students were 17.02% for 47 students in 2003, 14.63% for 41students in 2002, 14.7% for 34 students in 2001, and 3.22% for 31 students in 2000.A study of this learning community found that two variables, grade point average