ComponentBased on these results, we decided to add another component to the peer evaluations and anothercomponent to the grade awarded by course faculty and project mentors. In addition to asking thestudents to grade each other, we asked them to provide support for the grades they awardedwhich would be provided to the other students anonymously. We did this by asking them toprovide for each other member of the team two strengths and one area for potentialimprovement. If they awarded a grade lower than B (82) to a fellow student they wereencouraged to provide additional areas for improvement. We also asked them to consider areasbeyond technical competence. For course faculty and mentors, we asked them to provide a gradeat each review period to describe
change,an additional concern students are likely to encounter is leadership development. Therecent global recession has highlighted the need for students to develop leadership skillsfor successful careers.In today’s competitive and dynamic economy, quality leadership is an integralcomponent for not only career success, but also organizational success. Leaders are theprincipal problem solvers and decision makers, and can have a significant impact on thesuccess of every organization in every industry. As future leaders of businessorganizations, it’s important for students to have an understanding of the leadership rolesthey will perform in the workplace.Recognizing the future leadership roles of students, it’s essential that they have
for this opportunity, please e-mail Philip by 4/01/09 with the following information: a. names of team members (with “lead” team member identified) b. team member proposed duties and payment distribution c. project time line (with “mid-term” meeting date identified)6. In addition to the emphasis-specific modules, an additional “Core Topics” module needs to be developed. Core topics include: a. Introduction of ASCE Report Card (0.5 lesson) b. ASCE Code of ethics (0.5 lesson) c. Licensure (0.5 lesson) d. Sustainability (0.5 lesson) e. Public financing (1 lesson) f. Planning (1 lesson) g. Teamwork (0.5 lesson) If you are interested in helping develop this module, please
Year of College,” NACADA Journal, 19(2), 1999, pp. 5-9.[11] Lotkowski, V. A., Robbins, S. B., & Noeth, R. J., “The Role of Academic and Non-academic Factors in Improving College Retention,” ACT Policy Report, Iowa City, IA, 2004.[12] Hackett, G., Betz, N. E., Casas, J. M., & Rocha-Singh, I. A., “Gender, Ethnicity, and Social Cognitive Factors Predicting the Academic Achievement of Students in Engineering,” Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39(4), Page 15.1223.11 1992, pp. 527-538.[13] Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W., “A Social Cognitive Framework for Career Choice Counseling,” Career
-paperexaminations are becoming an anachronism. Paper exams ask students to work in anenvironment that feels artificial—without the information infrastructure that they depend onin their other classwork, and that they expect to use on the job after they graduate. Thispaper compares a particular form of online exams, the “open-book open-Web” exam withexams taken on paper. The choice of format has a myriad of implications, most of whichare not apparent at a glance. This paper considers several categories of differences,including coverage of material, administering the exam, challenges of grading, how todiscourage cheating, and the tradeoff between difficulties associated with handwriting anddifficulties with coding the exam. It is based on the results of two
values in the self-regulation of their learning outcomes. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 101-124). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum5 Miller, R.B., DeBacker, T., & Greene, B.(1999). Perceived instrumentality and the incentive value of academic tasks. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26, 250-260.6 Simons, J., Dewitte, S., & Lens, W. (2000). Wanting to have versus wanting to be: the influence of instrumentality on goal orientation. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 335-351.7 Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.8 Yasar, S. (2008). Discourse in Freshman
15% Team Final Poster Presentation 15% The grading scale was as follows: A: 90-100%, B: 80-89%, C: 70-79%, D: 60-69%, F: 0-59%. The course grading was designed to be highly dependent on individual work submitted(70%) where as the rest 30% was based on the team submitted material (which included theposter and oral presentation). Although the laboratories were conducted in teams, each studentsubmitted their own abstract for grading. The use of abstracts facilitated this grading formatbecause each student could reasonably produce a 1 page report each week, without dependenceon others in the team. The classical laboratory format of having a team submit a multi-pagereport is often criticized by students who cite
. Applin, T. J. Kaiser, “Design of a Microelectronic Manufacturing Laboratory,” Proceedings ASEE AnnualConference, June 18-21, 2006, Chicago, Illinois.3. T. J. Kaiser, A. Lingley, M. Leone, B. Pierson, “MEMS Fabrication as a Multidisciplinary Laboratory,”Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference, June 24-27, 2007, Honolulu, Hawaii. Page 15.745.15 13
Scholarship.Margot Vigeant, Bucknell University Margot Vigeant is Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering and Associate Dean of Engineering at Bucknell University. She is very interested in first-year engineering education.Donald Visco, Tennessee Technological University Don Visco is a Professor of Chemical Engineering at Tennessee Technological University, where he has been employed since 1999. Prior to that, he graduated with his Ph.D from the University at Buffalo, SUNY. His current research interests include experimental and computational thermodynamics as well as bioinformatics/drug design. He is an active and contributing member of ASEE at the local, regional and national level. He is the 2006
AC 2010-1394: ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE MONITORINGMETHODS UTILIZED BY MANUFACTURERS TO BECOME MORECOMPETITIVEWilliam Loendorf, Eastern Washington University William R. Loendorf is currently an Associate Professor of Engineering & Design at Eastern Washington University. He obtained his B.Sc. in Engineering Science at the University of Wisconsin - Parkside, M.S. in Electrical Engineering at Colorado State University, M.B.A. at the Lake Forest Graduate School of Management, and Ph.D. in Engineering Management at Walden University. He holds a Professional Engineer license and has 30 years of industrial experience as an Engineer or Engineering Manager at General Motors, Cadnetix, and
Frontiers in Biomedical Devices Conference and Exposition, Irvine,California, BioMed2009-83132[14] A. Sanoff, 2005, “Competing Forces,” ASEE Prism, American Society of Engineering Education, v.15, n. 2, pp. 24-29.[15] B. Wolcott, 2007, “Filling the Void,” Mechanical Engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engineering, v. 129, n. 2, pp. 24-27 Page 15.1031.10
James Kwon, “Innovative Engineering Technology Curriculum Integrated with Web-based Technology in Robotics, Mechatronics, and E-quality,” International Mechanical Engineering Conference and Exposition (IMECE), Lake Buena, Florida, USA, November 13-November 19, 2009.5. G. Al-Kindi, B. Shirinzadeh, Y. Zhong, “A Vision-based Approach for Surface Roughness Assessment at Micro and Nano scales,” ICARCV 2008, p. 1903-1908, 2008.6. K. Rajneesh, P. Kulashekar, B. Dhanasekar, and B. Ramamoorthy, “Application of digital image magnification for surface roughness evaluation using machine vision,” International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, v 45, n 2, p. 228-234, 2003
participation, 40% for homework, and40% for the final written paper. The grading rubric is shown below in Table 1. The rubricproved to be a useful tool in evaluating student performance, where final grades ranged from Hto B, and follows the recommendation of McKeachie and Svincki2 for grading writtenassignments.Students were provided guidance in the syllabus about respectful class discussion techniques aswell as homework formatting and plagiarism. There were two types of assignments in the class.One was a relevant current event review, and the other was a relevant webpage evaluation. Theinstructors chose these types of assignments to encourage students to discover, consider, andevaluate the credibility of a large amount of information readily available
AC 2010-1298: ATLAS - ACADEMIC TEACHING AND LEARNING ASSISTANTSSTUDY: THE USE OF PEERS AS ‘QUALITY MANAGERS’ IN ENGINEERINGCLASS INSTRUCTIONBeverly Jaeger, Northeastern University Beverly K. Jaeger, PhD is a member of Northeastern University’s Gateway Team, a select group of full-time faculty devoted to the First-year Engineering Program at Northeastern University (NU). While she concentrates on first-year engineering courses and instructs across all engineering disciplines, Dr. Jaeger also teaches specialty courses in the Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at NU in Digital Simulation, Facilities Planning, and Human-Machine Systems.Corey Balint, Northeastern University
This research is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. EEC-0648267. We also acknowledge the support of Mitchell Nathan, L. Allen Phelps and our othercolleagues in the UW-Madison School of Education. Page 15.227.12Bibliography1. Sheppard, S., Macatangay K., Colby, A., Sullivan, W. (2009). Educating Engineers: Designing for the Futureof the Field. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.2. Trevelyan, J. (2007). Technical coordination in engineering practice. Journal of Engineering Education, 96 (3),p. 191-204.3. Wirsbinski, S., Anderson, K. J. B., Courter, S. (2009
Design Connections Connections (a) Technology Survey Courses (b) Technology Focus Courses Technology Topic Area
new minors in entrepreneurship or manufacturing design, and other interview protocols forstudents in various academic and co-curricular activities.Data collection was completed by fall 2008. Personal and group interviews were fullytranscribed and entered into Nvivo, a software program that supports the management andanalysis of qualitative data. Each team analyzed the data from the two case studies it conducted.Coding and preliminary analysis of data began when each team completed its visits. Case study Page 15.710.8reports were shared with key informants at each site to a) ensure accuracy in reporting, b) enablesubjects who requested the
Travel to Kenya for A subset of the students enrolled in the courses 31 fieldwork ECE Certificate A subset of the students enrolled in the courses Honors thesis Research / Design 2 Dedicated courses Essential Design Core Team EDSGN 452. A 24 Mashavu Core Team EDSGN 452. B 12 WishVast Core Team EDSGN 452. C 7 Venture integrated Mashavu Biomedical Design BIOE 401 48 into the Course Mashavu Systems Design EDSGN 597C
A. R., Kleinbach M. Energy: Its Use and the Environment. 3rd Edition, Orlando,Florida: Harcourt, Inc., 2002.[2] Pecen, R. & Timmerman, M.A., “A Hands-On Renewable Energy Based Laboratory forPower Quality Education” Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering EducationAnnual Conference & Exposition, 2001, Session 1333.[3] Lakeou, S., Ososanya, E., Latigo, B., Mahmoud, W., Karanja, G., & Oshumare, W., “Designof a Low-Cost Solar Tracking Photo-Voltaic (PV) Module and Wind Turbine CombinationSystem”, Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education AnnualConference & Exposition, 2006, Session 1992.[4] Al Kalaani, Y. & Rosentrator, K., “Introducing Renewable Energy Education into anEngineering
Test 4 [ t (1,42) 2.52 , p .05 ]. Although the difference for the Page 15.1338.7Final Exam is not statistically significant, the corresponding letter grade for the Final Exam wasa “B” for the 2006 class, and a “C” for 2005 class.Table 2. Comparison of Circuits student performance for Spring 2006 and Spring 2005. Experimental Comparison DifferenceCategories Spring 2006 (ILN) Spring 2005 (non-ILN) N=41 N=28Quiz Average 4.7 3.4 1.3*(out of 5)Homework Average
iv nc i lit c ge r sh R igu t ai at ab Ex ra itm de o tr u b er lia t ou m a re re
Conference, April, Houston, TX, 2006.5. Modified from Hollifield, B., Habibi, E., “The Alarm Management Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide,” Fidlar Doubleday, Kalamazoo, MI, 2006.6. ABET, Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, October 31, 2009, page 3, available online at http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Criteria%20and%20PP/E001%2010-11%20EAC%20Criteria%2011-03-09.pdf (referenced January 7, 2010).7. Marlin, Thomas, private communication (November 16, 2009). Page 15.136.10
. Page 15.459.4 2The research issues addressed in this early stage of the project included1: (a) characterization andimprovement of the Quality-of-Service (QoS) that could be supported by WiFi networks formultimedia applications; (b) study of fan roaming and the hand-offs between APs required tosupport roaming; and (c) system reliability, cost and effectiveness. The design issues that arosein the creation of the testbed included1: (a) the creation and deployment of the on-demand web-based applications used by fans; (b) design of the WiFi network and the video-clip collection andcompression system; and (c) integration and reliable operation of the overall system for eachhome game at Purdue.The
category of transfer college, Fall 1996 to Fall 2006. State of Iowa. Retrieved from http://www.regents.iowa.gov/Meetings/DocketMemos/ 06Memos/nov06/1106_ITEM03d.pdf4- Cejda, B. D. (1997). An examination of transfer shock in academic disciplines. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 21, 279–288.5- Chang, J. C. (2002). Women and minorities in the science, mathematics and engineering pipeline. ERIC Digest.6- Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American community college (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.7- Creswell, J. W. (2007). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.8- Eggleston, L. E., &
-k Learning Outcomes Outcomes a-k Outcomes OutcomesAnalytical Ability a,c,f 1,2,4 Oral Communication e,g 6Teamwork e,f 6,7 Written Communication e,g 6Project Management b,e 6,7 Visual Communication e,g 6Math Skills b
addition, we found that students in thecapstone courses were more likely to support their decisions with evidence. In the figure below,we show the results of the previous study8.Figure 1 (a): Average number of decisions (b): The percentage of decisions supportedmade per team report for capstone BME (nine with evidence, broken down by whetherteams) and ME (four teams) courses and the evidence is created by student team, orEDC (ten teams) first year course. Average sought by team from other sources, such asnumber of decisions supported with evidence, literature, patents, or experts in the field.including CADEX specific evidence, for eachcourse.When looking specifically at the type of
Page 15.800.2view students can have from certain parts of the campus. In such an energy rich environment and with theprevious ideas as a starting point, we considered developing an introductory Physics course to a generalstudent audience rich in energy concepts [5], more linked to the real world than we would have taught itotherwise. The course taught in a more engaged manner was meant to alleviate student understanding andusage of energy concepts. This paper describes our efforts in this direction along with an evaluation of thecourse outcome. The course was taught twice in a slightly different fashion. The comparison of theoutcomes is further discussed.(a) Campus view (b) Nuclear plant cooling tower
AC 2010-636: THE EMERGENT NECESSITY FOR DEMOLITION ANDRECONSTRUCTION CONTENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGYCURRICULUMMark Shaurette, College of Technology, Purdue University Mark Shaurette, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Purdue University, West Lafayette BBCN, Building Construction, University of Florida, 1975 MS, Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1980 Ph.D., College of Technology, Purdue University, 2007 Mark’s 30+ years of construction industry experience includes owning and operating a custom homebuilding company in addition to senior management positions with one of the largest homebuilders in the nation as well as a regional commercial/residential development
problematic since technical staff is short in supply and unfortunately manycompromises had to be made.References1. Beswick, D., Julian, J., and Macmillan, C. [1988], A national Survey of Engineering Students and Graduates, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Australia.2. Johnson, P. (chair), (1996), Changing the Culture: Engineering Education into the Future, Barton, ACT : Institution of Engineers, Australia.3. Moorehouse, C.E. (1964). “Engineering Courses in Australian Universities”, The Australian University, 2.4. Williams, B. Sir (1988), Review of the Discipline of Engineering, Canberra: AGPS.5. Finniston, M. Sir (1980), “Engineering Our Future”, Committee of Inquiry into the Engineering Profession, London: HMSO
takers.Preliminary results of the interviews.45 minute interviews were conducted with 14 test takers to obtain more detailed informationabout students responses to the test items. Students were shown their original test paper (nomarks were made by graders on the papers) and asked four questions about their response to eachsub-questions: a. How confident were you in your response to this question? b. Is this question similar to problems you have solved in some other setting? If yes, please describe the setting. c. Talk me through your answer to this question. d. Did you have other ideas about how to solve the problem that you did not write down?Our review of the interviews reveal some