Collection

2004 GSW

Authors

Eyad Masad; Dan Zollinger

Masad and Zollinger 2004 ASEE Annual Conference-Gulf Southwest Section Integrated Approach for Teaching Laboratory Courses and Basic Properties of Construction Materials By Eyad Masad and Dan Zollinger Department of Civil Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3136 Tel: 979 845 8308 Fax: 979 845 0278 Email: 979 845 8308 ABSTRACTA common course in the curriculum of civil

Collection

2004 GSW

Authors

Randall D. Manteufel; Jason B. Pleming

Session XXXX Laboratory Tank Draining Uncertainty Analysis Exercise Randall D. Manteufel Mechanical Engineering Department University of Texas at San Antonio Jason B. Pleming Mechanical Engineering Department University of Texas at San Antonio AbstractInexpensive and simple tank draining exercises amenable to uncertainty analysis arepresented. The tanks are simple to construct and allow direct

Collection

2004 GSW

Authors

Ahmed Musa; Virgilio Gonzalez

implementation of a new course in communications through thecreation of a computer-based laboratory for modeling and simulating communicationsystems. The lecture course in a typical Electrical Engineering (EE) curriculum, alongwith this laboratory, provide a totally integrated delivery system for teaching a widespectrum of topics ranging from transmission/reception concepts and applications toperformance analysis of fiber optic networks. The laboratory is easily implemented byconstructing a PC-based computer network supporting several simulation tools. Studentsare able to access a variety of software packages for analysis of different communicationsystems. The topics covered in the laboratory can be divided into three categories:communication signals

Collection

2004 GSW

Authors

Jenna Terry; Paul Ruchhoeft

) has recently initiated a campus-wide approach to theteaching of writing with a special program specifically designed for teaching “writing inthe discipline” in order to provide students with the needed skills. The rationale behindthis initiative is that general composition courses cannot adequately prepare students fordiscipline-specific writing.Technical communications training has not been offered as a formal course at theUniversity of Houston for some time. In our Cullen College of Engineering it has beenmore or less up to the individual faculty members in their own courses to providetechnical communication instruction on a “need to know” basis. Laboratory coursesusually require written and sometimes oral reports. Typically the “design

Collection

2004 GSW

Authors

Paul Ruchhoeft

Song The Smart Materials and Structures Laboratory (SMSL) supports research and teaching in the area of smart materials and structures. The main research activities include: • Active vibration control using piezoceramic materials and shape memory alloys, • Passive vibration control using shape memory alloys and magneto-rheological (MR) fluids, • Health monitoring using smart materials, and • Teaching tools using smart materials. With funding from National Science Foundation, NASA, and University of Houston, the laboratory has state-of-the-art equipment, including six sets of dSPACE digital data acquisition and real-time control systems, three sets of

Collection

2004 GSW

Authors

Brian Nutter; Tanja Karp; Sunanda Mitra

teachlast year. He is affiliated with TTU’s Computer Vision and Image Processing Laboratory (CVIAL). Hisresearch includes Superresolution and Autostereoscopy.TANJA KARPDr. Karp received the Dipl.-Ing. degree in electrical engineering (M.S.E.E.) and the Dr.-Ing. degree (Ph.D.)from Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany, in 1993 and 1997, respectively. In 1995 and1996, she spent two months as a Visiting Researcher at the Signal Processing Department of ENST, Paris,France, and at the Mutirate Signal Processing Group, University of Wisconsin at Madison, respectively,working on modulated filter banks. In 1997 she joined the Institute of Computer Engineering at MannheimUniversity, Germany, as a Senior Research and Teaching Associate. From

Collection

2004 GSW

Authors

Mohammed E. Haque; Murtuza Aluminiumwalla

impossible to rely on site visits.Considerable pedagogical advantages can be achieved by the integration of the informationtechnology (IT) and various visualization techniques in teaching engineering technology.Although the classroom environment in Engineering and Construction Science is highlystructured by the instructor, teaching students to be critical thinkers is essential in the virtualclassroom of the future. The objective of this research was to develop a virtual walk-throughmodel of a reinforced concrete building construction. The techniques that were used in thisresearch employed a generic programming architecture and visualization media, which werediscipline independent, and can be adapted to any other technology education domain

Collection

2004 GSW

Authors

Shunmugham R. Pandian

diversity, and so on.The half-life of knowledge gained in many engineering fields is estimated between two-and-a-half and three years6. Since engineering students have only four years to study therequisite engineering and non-engineering courses, they necessarily need to learn manyimportant newer fields on their own by way of “learning by doing” projects.Several leading universities have emphasized innovative approaches to engineeringeducation, such as “hands-on learning”, “learning by/while doing”, and “project-basedlearning”. The tangible and intangible benefits of such active learning approaches aremost widely gained through practical laboratory and project-based instruction7, 8.To quote Professor Seymour Papert, the creator of the Logo language

Collection

2004 GSW

Authors

Ronald Barr; Marcus Pandy; Anthony Petrosino; Barbara Austin

Challenge-Based Instruction in Biomechanics Using the VANTH Internet Modules Ronald Barr1, Marcus Pandy2, Anthony Petrosino3, and Barbara Austin3 Department of Mechanical Engineering1, Department of Biomedical Engineering2, and Department of Curriculum and Instruction3 The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78712 AbstractThis paper discusses the biomechanics learning modules developed as part of the VaNTHeducational coalition. The pedagogical framework for these modules is based on the widelypublicized book “How People Learn” (HPL). The HPL teaching

Collection

2004 GSW

Authors

Bonnie Boardman; Lynn Peterson

commoncomponent and a one-credit-hour department-specific component. The interdisciplinary course,meeting one hour per week, involves team-teaching, the professional community, and scarceteaching resources. The departmental component is in a laboratory format. Discipline-specificlabs allow departments to assign problems related to their own discipline and introduce non-common content. Most importantly, it also provides departments with the opportunity to get toknow their students and allows the students to feel connected to a department.Each departmental representative on the committee presented a list of topics covered in theirdiscipline-specific course. This data was accumulated and then comparisons made so that a listof topics common to all

Collection

2004 GSW

Authors

H. R. Myler

Southern Methodist University (SMU), but discovered that the programwas skewed towards digital signal processing. Our new program complements and subsidizes theInfinity curriculum with laboratory exercises using the National Instruments ELVIS system thatintroduce the student to four fundamental areas of Electrical Engineering: logic, RLC networks,amplification and electromagnetics. The purpose of this course is to effect early engagement ofstudents into the field to enhance both recruitment and retention. Results of student satisfactionsurveys as well as faculty and lab assistant experience are reported. IntroductionThe State of Texas commissioned a statewide study for higher education, public colleges

Collection

2004 GSW

Authors

Richard Bannerot; Ross Kastor; Paul Ruchhoeft

whether that class is a laboratory, alecture or a design class. Unfortunately, the form is usually directed toward classroomperformance in lecture classes with questions like: • Did instructor presented material clearly and effectively? • Did the instructor encouraged interaction with the class? • Was the teaching assistance available and helpful? • Did the facilities adequately met course needs?These questions hardly seem appropriate for a course with no lectures, with no teachingassistants and for studio courses that must be held in a lecture room because no otherfacilities are provided. Finally, instructor/student interaction is desirable for the studentwhen the student has the choice. When students are forced to participate

Collection

2004 GSW

Authors

Ms. LaQuasha M. Morgan; Ms. Faye Moore,; Dr. David A. Kirkpatrick

include enhancing facilities, maintaining strongindustry relations, and consistently advancing the curriculum. These are some examplesof how engineering technology departments have tried to eradicate these problems.Enhancing facilities, for example, has been resolved by continuing to improve classroomand laboratory equipment that is even more conducive to learning. Improving the facultyand staff offices to better serve the needs of students is also a common technique. Somehave tried upgrading and enhancing teaching support equipment and resources.Maintaining strong industry relations has been accomplished by meeting biannually withthe Industrial Advisory Committee. Others have solved this issue by arrangingproductive internships for all

Collection

2004 GSW

Authors

Rafic Bachnak; Korinne Caruso; cody ross

-on laboratory activities,and science and technology exhibits1 [9]. Specifically, the program involves attracting11th grade students to attend a two-week Science and Technology workshop. Theworkshop is designed to introduce students to job opportunities in the food industry and1 This project is funded in part by the CSREES-USDA, award # 2002-38422-12160 “Proceedings of the 2004 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference Texas Tech University Copyright  2004, American Society for Engineering Education”agriculture, expose them to college life, involve them in hands-on activities, andencourage them to pursue science and engineering careers. Students are recruited toparticipate in a follow-up

Collection

2004 GSW

Authors

Wayne J. Zimmermann

Computer Science has taken the position implied 3. Placement service by this factor. Based on the belief that by 4. Course offering offering the appropriate courses retention would be improved we began the process of creating a 5. Faculty  small collection of courses designed to teach and 6. Laboratory illustrate the elementary concepts and viewpoints 7. Financial assistance related to engineering. For TWU this approach 8. Student’s desires seemed to be the best and most feasible for addressing the issues linked to retention. Since

Collection

2004 GSW

Authors

Donald J. Bagert; Stephen V. Chenoweth

, but not one of the course instructors. This paper describes the format ofthis project, and results of its successful implementation during the fall 2003 term at Rose-Hulman. Course DescriptionThe Software Requirements and Specification course teaches the basic concepts and principles ofsoftware requirements engineering, its tools and techniques, and methods for modeling softwaresystems. Topics include: • Problem analysis • Requirements elicitation • Functional and non-functional requirements • Requirements tracking and change managementThe course is taken for four-quarter hours of course credit, consisting of four contact hours perweek for 10 weeks. Two sections of this course were

Collection

2004 GSW

Authors

Kenneth Van Treuren

EducationThere is also a space provided for written comments. The potential exists for students tobe painfully honest about their experiences. This part of the survey could also beconstrued as a popularity poll for professors. If the students are honest in theirevaluation, then the possibility exists for the department chair to get a good assessment ofthe faculty and identify any areas or professors that need improvement. As BaylorUniversity places in importance on quality teaching, this is of utmost importance.The fourth page asks the students to assess the faculty overall, department staff,engineering facilities overall, and the engineering equipment overall. The scale rangesfrom “needs improvement” to “outstanding”. The rest of the survey consists of