to correlateassessment to grading. The manner in which this was implemented is documented inAppendix A – D. In this particular example, the assessment documentation was carriedout in the subject matter area of Engineering Experimentation (Narayanan, 2007 & 2008).Appendix A shows how data collection was correlated to assessment. The grading wasadministered using Washington State University’s Rubric. Rubrics offer help andchallenge the user to determine the levels of growth and learning that would be assessedas well as the methods to assess student learning at various stages (Bresciani, 2003).A sample matrix is shown in Appendix B. The data obtained was tabulated using aLikert Scale. Several “Primary Traits” or “Characteristics” were
was the selection of the appropriatetitles. The selection process consisted of several steps: 1. Using market analysis to choose the field of engineering 2. Indentifying books with content suitable for Mathcad integration 3. Evaluating these books for content quality 4. Deciding on processing priorityMarket analysis revealed 4 main areas with a need for Mathcad-enabled content (listed in theorder of priority): 1. Mechanical Engineering a. Civil b. Structural c. Machine design 2. Electrical Engineering 3. Aerospace Engineering 4. Environmental Engineering Page 14.866.6Next, we indentified
understanding of influences of the support program, focusgroups were conducted at the conclusion of ICE with six to eight students per group. The majorthemes concerned what the students learned, how the program helped to prepare students for thefall, and social aspects of the program. The students emphasized that they learned differencesbetween studying for high school and college. “I realized that uh, I know everybody tells you it’s not like high school, but you can’t ever really make that decision until you get here. But I realized that in high school I really didn’t need to do my homework, I could just sneak by, I could do whatever needed just to get a B, I was fine with just a B. and I realize now that I can’t do the same
Travel Guides Ltd. UK. 7. United Nations (2000) Millennium Declaration: UN A/Res/55/2. 8. Bielefeldt, A. (2006) Attracting Women to Engineering that Serves Developing Countries.” ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. 9. Norwood, S. and Striebig, B. (2009) WATER: A Model Partnership for Sustainable Development and International Education. Accepted for publication in the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. 10. Brown, J. et al. (2008) Local drinking water filters reduce diarrheal disease in Cambodia: A randomized, controlled trial of the ceramic purifier. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 79(3): 394-400. 11. Van Halem, et al. (2009
AC 2009-368: AN EXAMINATION OF STUDENT EXPERIENCES RELATED TOENGINEERING ETHICS: INITIAL FINDINGSJanel Sutkus, Carnegie Mellon University Dr. Janel Sutkus is Director of Institutional Research and Analysis at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She received her doctorate from the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the University of Michigan, and also holds degrees from Cornell College (BA in psychology and music) and the University of Iowa (MA in higher education administration). Prior to earning her Ph.D. she was a college administrator for 15 years at two small, private liberal arts colleges. While at the University of Michigan, she taught
, C., LeBold, W., Linden, K., and Shell, K. (1986). The Relationship between Undergraduate Work Experience and Job Placement of Engineers. Engineering Education, 78(4): 232-236.9. Joseph, A. and Payne, M. (2008). Cooperative Education: A Critical Link between Post Secondary Education and Beyond. Proceedings of the National University of Singapore’s 2008 International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Dec 3-5, 2008, 194-198.10. Rogers, B. and Weston, W. (1987). A Survey of Recent Engineering Graduates: The Relationship of Cooperative Education to Job Factors. Journal of Cooperative Education, 23: 33-39.11. Schuurman, M., Pangborn, R., and McClintic, R. (2008). Assessing the Impact of Engineering Undergraduate
AC 2009-2084: RUBE GOLDBERGINEERING: LESSONS IN TEACHINGENGINEERING DESIGN TO FUTURE ENGINEERSShawn Jordan, Purdue University SHAWN JORDAN is a doctoral candidate in the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. His research interests include virtual cross-disciplinary engineering design teams, creativity, and innovation. He holds bachelor's and master's degrees in Electrical and Computer Engineering. He also founded and led an interdisciplinary Rube Goldberg team to two national championships.Nielsen Pereira, Purdue University NIELSEN PEREIRA is a third-year doctoral student at Purdue University where he is pursuing a degree in gifted education. He is coordinator of student
on the qualitative data collected from thethree assessment tools used during the 2006 camp to better understand the results of thestatistical analysis completed by Weavers et al. (2008) on the 2006 activity evaluation card data.1During FESC 2006, the participants were given an evaluation card for each session in which theyparticipated and were asked to rate the following components on a scale of 1 to 5: (a) the qualityof the activity overall, from “Poor” (rating of 1) to “Excellent” (rating of 5); (b) what the activitytaught them, from “Nothing” to “A Lot”; (c) how fun the activity was, from “Boring” to “SuperCool”; and (d) how comprehensible they found the activity leader, from “Hard to Understand” to“Easy to Understand” (see Figure 1). In
willevaluate the selected metrics. This paper summarizes the committee report.IntroductionScholarship of teaching [1] is often compared with the scholarships of discovery and synthesis.Shulman [2] further categorized the scholarship of teaching as discovery scholarship within theeducational domain [3] and scholarly teaching as teaching that (a) focuses on learning outcomesand teaching practices, (b) originates with knowledge of pedagogy and course content, and (c)includes self-reflection, discussions with peers, and participation in peer evaluation [4].When engineering faculty members attend to the different ways in which students learn, thestudents become more engaged and also learn more course content and connections betweenengineering concepts
Academic Librarianship, 34:1, pp. 25 -30, 2008.3. Acar, B. S., Newman, I. A. “Students as Tutors-Learning Problem-Solving Skills by Tutoring PBL” International Journal of Engineering Education, 19:5, pp. 712-716, 2003.4. Denayer, I., Thaels, K., Sloten, J. Vander and Gobin, R. “Teaching a structured approach to the design process for undergraduate engineering students by problem-based education” European Journal of Engineering Education, 28:2, pp. 203 – 214, 2003.5. Said, S. M., Adikan, F. R. Mahamd, Mekhilef, S. and Rahim, N. Abd “Implementation of the problem-based learning approach in the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Malaya” European Journal of Engineering Education, 30:1, pp. 129 - 136, 2005.6
, “Engineering Education Excellence: Start-up to Number One,” Proceedings of the 2008 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2008, American Society for Engineering Education. 2. B. Eswaramoorthy, “The Life History of G. Viswanathan”, Arivu Pathippagam, Chennai, India, 2008. 3. Kadhambari S. Viswanathan, “My Grandpa”, MWN Press, Chennai, India, 2003 4. G. Viswanathan, “Higher Education Development: Strategies and Related Thinking”, Beijing, China, 2008. 5. G. Viswanathan, “Co-creation Roadmap for Building Competency, Capacity and Capability: VIT University – A Case Study”, Chennai, India, 2008
., Agongino, A., Eris, O., Frey, D., and Leifer, L., “Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, andLearning,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94, No. 1, January 2005, p. 103. 15. Dutson, A.J., Todd, R.H., Magleby, S.P., and Sorensen, C.D., “A Review of Literature on Teaching DesignThrough Project-Oriented Capstone Courses,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 76, No. 1, 1997, p. 19. 16. Dillon, J., and Salinas, J., “Footballs, Rockets, and LEGOs: A Hands-on Approach to Enhancing theQuality of Engineering Design Education,” Proceedings of the 2008 American Society for Engineering EducationAnnual Conference and Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA, Jun 22-25. 17. Shay, L., Hanlon, P., and Goda, B., “Experience with Multidisciplinary Design
Page 14.653.9Finally, we wanted to identify the student’s interest on entrepreneurship programs. Students wereasked, “If a new Technology Entrepreneurship Program is offered to provide the basic skills tocreate new business opportunities, I would be most interested in." Response options included (a)a major (30 credit hours); (b) a minor (21 credit hours); (c) Certificate (12 credit hours); (d) 1-3courses, and (e) not interested (See figure 5). Figure 5: Interest in ProgramsAs we can see in figure 5, students have an inclination to a minor program rather that acertificate or majors. However, a Graduate Certificate in Technology Entrepreneurship should bethe logic next level needed to promote entrepreneurial spirit across student population
present results (Item III). Why? A client would want to see results. Without results, your team has only attempted part of the task (provided the client with a solution); your team would not have provided evidence that it actually works.).Item IV includes any other requested information.” Page 14.891.5 TO: Name, Title FROM: Team # RE: Subject I. Introduction A. In your own words, restate the task that was assigned to your team (~1-2 sentences). This is your team’s consensus on who the client is and what solution the client needs. B. Describe what the
help providevocational-technical education programs and services to youth and adults in middle school, highschool and college level " (Wileman, 14).Since the early 1980s there has been very little research to use when selecting specific types ofvisuals that will be most effective and efficient in facilitating student achievement of designatedlearning objectives. What is urgently needed is systematic research efforts focused on three basicareas designed to provide data on: (a) what specific individual difference variables in learnersactually make a difference in student achievement in the teaching learning process, (b) which ofthese individual difference variables interact significantly with different kinds of visualizationused to complement
. Newberry, B. (2004). The dilemma of ethics in engineering education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(2),343-351.7. Herkert, J. R. (2001). Future directions in engineering ethics research: Microethics, macroethics and the role ofprofessional societies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(3), 403- 414.8. Wulf, W. A. (2004). Keynote address. In National Academy of Engineering, Emerging Technologies and EthicalIssues in Engineering (pp. 1-6). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.9. Luegenbiehl, H.C. (2007). Disasters as object lessons in ethics: Hurricane Katrina. IEEE Technology and Society,26(4), 10-15.10. Johnson, D. G., & Wetmore, J. M. (2007). STS and ethics: Implications for engineering ethics. In E. Hackett, O.Amsterdamska, M
Resources Statistics, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2007, NSF 07-315 (Arlington, VA: February 2007). Available from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd5. Clewell, B (1996).Access to Mathematics and Science Careers For Underrepresented Minority Students: Research Findings and Explorations . A Report from the National Science Foundation Minority Postdoctoral Research Fellows and Mentors Annual Meeting.6. Adya, M., & Kaiser, K. M. (2005). Early determinants of women in the IT workforce: a model of girls' career choices. Information Technology & People. 18, 230-259.7. Miller, P. H., Blessing, J. S., & Schwartz, S (2006). Gender Differences in High-school
in an engineeringor technology major, but, ultimately, in whatever field-of-study they ultimately pursue.References1. Huber, M.T., Hutchings, P., and Gale, R. (2005). Integrative learning for liberal education. Peer review 7 (4): 4-7.2. Association of American Colleges and Universities (2002). Greater expectations: A new vision for learning as a nation goes to college. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.3. American Institutes for Research (2006). The national survey of America’s college students. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.4. Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co., Inc.5. Tinto, V. (1987
further created a growing concern regarding the ability ofAmerica to remain competitive. With improved telecommunications and digitization, moreengineering can be done without close proximity3. However, off-shoring is likely to have littleimpact on the most highly educated engineers. Thus, engineering education is evolving, withmore emphasis on graduate education, as outlined in a recently released series of reports by theNational Academy of Engineering4, 5. Educators recognize that undergraduate researchmotivates students to apply for graduate school.The Boyer’s Commission6 asserted that research universities often miss opportunities to enrichand strengthen undergraduate education by providing exposure to faculty research and theresearch process
development outside the classroom,incorporate contemporary issues during problem solving, and determine the impact of engineering solutionsin a global and societal context.9. Can explain professional practice issues, leadership principles and attitudes, management concepts andprocesses, and concepts of business, public policy, and public administration. Table 2 ABET Criterion 3 (a-k)Demonstration (incl. Process & Measurements) that Graduates have:(a) ability to apply knowledge of math, engineering, and science(b) ability to design and conduct experiments(b) ability to analyze and interpret data(c) ability to design system, component or process to meet needs within realistic constraints such asregulatory
Operations Knowledge Post TestReference List1. Anderson, J.R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51, 355-365.2. Anderson, J.R. (1987). Skill acquisition: Compilation of weak-method problem solutions. Psychological Review, 94,192-210.3. Belmont, J.M., Ferretti, R.P., & Mitchell, D.W. (1982). Memorizing: A test of untrained mildly mentally retarded children’s problem-solving. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 87(2), 197- 210.4. Beyer, B. (1987). Practicing strategies for the teaching of critical thinking. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.5. Brown, A.L., Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A., & Campione, J.C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J.H. Flavell & E.M
technological advancements, there is heightened expectation on engineering colleges to help respective economies to grow and sustain societies. An international forum would be useful to discuss the varied challenges and opportunities faced by engineering colleges around the world and to network and forge collaborations among the colleges.” 7 The goals of the GEDC are to: a. Provide a forum for exchange of information and discussion of experiences, challenges and best practices in leading an engineering school b. Provide a means for engineering deans to partner in innovation, and collaborate
AC 2009-1724: COLLABORATIVE TEACHING TO CREATE INTEGRATEDBUILDING ENVELOPESKevin Dong, California Polytechnic State University Page 14.338.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2009 Collaborative Teaching to Create Integrated Building EnvelopesAs a former practitioner the rewards for offering courses that expose students to the principlesand issues surrounding design in a context that emulates real world situations is invaluable. Twoyears ago an idea developed into a course which includes students from three differentdisciplines; architecture, architectural engineering, and construction management, as well as,faculty from these same disciplines to create an all
: a review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 29.2. Bangert, A. W. (2004). The Seven Principles of Good Practice: A framework for evaluating on-line teaching. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(3), 217-232.3. Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. (1980). Problem-based learning an approach to medical education. New York: Springer.4. Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1998). The challenge of problem-based learning (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page Limited.5. Council on Competitiveness. (2004). Supercharging U.S. innovation and competitiveness. Paper presented at the First Annual High Performance Computing Users Conference, Washington D.C.6. Duch, B
AC 2009-2390: MAINTAINING THE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PIPELINEDouglas Sugg, United States NavyBruce Galloway, United States NavyJohn Fishell, STEP Page 14.856.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2009 Maintaining the Scientist and Engineering PipelineAbstract:Technology is advancing at an ever increasingly rapid pace. This is particularly true in theDepartment of Defense (DoD). Test and Measurement Systems (TAMS) require a continuedinflux of scientists and engineers properly trained to advance the TAMS support structures fornew and advanced technology applications while maintaining existing support structures forcurrent equipment. The demand for
University that earned a grade of A in apre-calculus course in the first semester had the same engineering retention rate as students whoearned a B in the first semester calculus class.1 Yet, if those same students are placed based ontheir SAT math scores, such students would probably fail calculus if taken in their firstsemester.1 A recent study on parameters that affect student success indicated that the gradeearned in a student’s first college level mathematics class was significantly correlated to whetheror not those students persisted in engineering, while the level at which they began mathematicsstudy at the university was not.2 French, et al. conclude in their study of indicators of engineeringstudents’ success and persistence, that
integral portion of lower division engineering curricula for Civil, Mechanical, andManufacturing Engineering. These courses are crucial in the engineering education process forthese disciplines because they introduce students to the engineering approach in problem solving,provide basic principles that are used in following courses, and let lower division studentsrecognize if they are equipped for an engineering curricula. In addition, many questions for theFundamentals of Engineering exam have their roots in these courses.Providing the proper teaching environment for these courses is a challenge for faculty anddepartment administrations because a) there are numerous students that must be accommodated,b) the students deserve a quality experience to
this problem, the nextstage of the development is to build a large 6-DOF Stewart Simulator.References 1. Beer, F., “Mechanics for Engineering Dynamics”, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1987. 2. Wang, B., “Impact Model for Motions of a High-speed Planning Boat in Regular Waves”, Journal of the Page 14.1114.10 Chinese Institute of Engineers, v 7, n 3, p 197-206, July, 1984. 3. Blank, R., “Field Test Results Prove GPS Performance and Utility”, IEEE PLANS, Position Location and Navigation Symposium, 1986, p 287-296.4. Tsujita, T., “Analysis of Nailing Task Motion for a Humanoid robot”, International Conference on
students forexams), (b) school factors (leadership, class schedules, other concurrent reform initiatives, andsupportive network), and (c) teachers’ level of content and pedagogical knowledge.6-9 Thesections that follow will discuss each of these factors in more detail and explain how each factorinfluences teachers’ implementation of pedagogical reforms, specifically focusing on inquiry-based practices.Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning have been found to be influential in theimplementation of reforms.6-9 In a study that investigated the implementation of an inquiry-based chemistry curriculum in a large urban district, it was suggested that teachers’ beliefs aboutteaching and learning, as well as the presence of a supportive network at
AC 2009-1085: DESIGNING GLOBAL EXPERIENCES FOR ENGINEERINGSTUDENTSSonya Seif-Naraghi, University of California, San Diego Page 14.431.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2009 Designing Global Experiences for Engineering StudentsAbstractParticipation in a foreign study program can teach students valuable skills outside theirtechnical skill set. It has been recognized in academia and industry alike that engineersrequire an ever-broadening skill set in order to function competitively. Considering theincreasingly globalized nature of the industry, an understanding of other cultures andstrong cross-cultural communication skills will prove invaluable. Understandably