used in standard lecture classrooms so students do not need to wait till their senior year to see examples of process equipment. He also leads a strong program in bioreactor design for biomanufacturing of cartilage tissue and cells for immunotherapy.Dr. Prashanta Dutta, Washington State University Prof. Prashanta Dutta has received his PhD degree in Mechanical Engineering from the Texas A&M University in 2001. Since then he has been working as an Assistant Professor at the School of Mechanical and Materials Engineering at Washington State UniversitDavid B. Thiessen, Washington State University David B.Thiessen received his Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Colorado in 1992 and has been at
Paper ID #42137Exploring Interdisciplinary Identity Formation in Graduate StudentsMs. Susan Wainscott, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Susan Wainscott is the Engineering Librarian for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas University Libraries. She holds a Master of Library and Information Science from San Jose State University and a Master of Science in Biological Sciences from Illinois State University.Dr. Dustin B. Thoman, San Diego State University Dr. Dustin Thoman is a Professor in the Department of Psychology and the Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education at San Diego State University. His scholarship
Samvada International Research Institute which offers consultancy services to institutions of research and higher education around the world on designing research tracks, research teaching and research projects. His first book The Integral Philosophy of Aurobindo: Hermeneutics and the Study of Religion was published by Routledge, Oxon in 2017. For more information, please visit: https://plaksha.edu.in/faculty-details/dr-brainerd-princeMr. B. Lallian Ngura, Centre for Thinking Language and Communication (CTLC), Plaksha University B. Lallianngura has completed post-graduate studies in philosophy from the University of Delhi. He is pursuing doctoral research in philosophy at IIT Bombay. He is a part of the research team at
Paper ID #43910Educating the Whole Engineer: Leveraging Communication Skills to CultivateEthical Leadership CharacterMrs. Farnoosh B. Brock, Prolific Living Inc. Farnoosh Brock went from electrical engineer and project manager at a Fortune 100 to an entrepreneur, published author (4 books), speaker and trainer in 2011. She has coached and trained hundreds of professionals at all levels of the organizations in their Mindset, Leadership and Communication Skills. She delivers her workshops at universities such as Johns Hopkins, Duke and Wake Forest and has spoken her message at many places such as Google, Cisco, MetLife, SAS
Paper ID #42016Contextualizing Technological Stewardship: Origins and Implications of anApproach to Responsible Tech DevelopmentDr. Kari Zacharias, University of Manitoba Kari Zacharias is an Assistant Professor in the Centre for Engineering Professional Practice and Engineering Education at the University of Manitoba. She studies intersections and meeting points between engineering ways of knowing, being, and making, and other ways of understanding the world.Mr. Renato B. Rodrigues, University of Manitoba Renato Bezerra Rodrigues is a Ph.D. student in Engineering Education, with degrees in engineering and philosophy. He
in Lafayette, IN. She enjoys partnering with Purdue University to provide unique educational experiences for her students as they consider potential college and career opportunities.Kaitlyn B. Myers, Purdue University Kaitlyn B. Myers is a mathematics teacher at Jefferson High School in Lafayette, IN. Kaitlyn teaches the honors and college-prep levels of pre-calculus/trigonometry. She utilizes her past experiences in undergraduate research, graduate-level mathematics, and teaching at a collegiate level. Kaitlyn enjoyed partnering with Purdue University’s COE to provide her students a firsthand experience with the Engineering Design Process.Prof. Tamara J Moore, Purdue University Tamara J. Moore, Ph.D., is a
demographics.6.0. References[1] I. Leslie, Curious: The desire to know and why your future depends on it. Basic Books, 2014.[2] S. D. Anthony, C. G. Gilbert, and M. W. Johnson, Dual Transformation: How to Reposition Today's Business While Creating the Future. Harvard Business Review Press, 2017.[3] S. R. Daly, E. A. Mosyjowski, and C. M. Seifert, "Teaching creative process across disciplines," The Journal of Creative Behavior, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 5-17, 2019.[4] B. K. Beyer, Practical strategies for the teaching of thinking. ERIC, 1987.[5] J. J. Duderstadt, "Engineering for a Changing World," Holistic Engineering Education: Beyond Technology, p. 17, 2010.[6] M. J. Jacobson and U. Wilensky, "Complex
Paper ID #44352Enabling K-14 Educators in Developing and Deploying Advanced ManufacturingCurriculaDr. MD B. Sarder, Bowling Green State University Dr. Sarder is a professor & director of the School of Engineering at Bowling Green State University (BGSU). Prior to joining BGSU, he worked at the U.S. Air Force Academy as a distinguished research fellow. He served as an associate professor, and graduate director of the logistics, trade, and transportation program at the University of Southern Mississippi (USM). Dr. Sarder has a record of excellence in research, teaching, and services as evidenced by the number of funded
students: oneundergoing a traditional cumulative assessment (Group A) and the other experiencingthe modified ‘chunking’ assessment structure (Group B). Paired t-tests were employed tocompare the results between the two groups. The results reveal that Group Boutperformed Group A with a 24% increase in final assessment scores. Additionally,Group B exhibited higher levels of engagement with the material during the assessmentweek. These findings suggest that modifying the assessment structure by dividing thefinal assessment into multiple portions may reduce cognitive and testing fatigue, leadingto improved student performance and increased engagement. Further research coulddelve into the underlying mechanisms driving these effects to inform the design
definitivefindings from this multi-year panel-type longitudinal experiment will only be available once allmeasurements (M1-M5) for all three cohorts (blocks) are made, validated, and analyzed.6. References[1] R. T. Palmer, D. C. Maramba, and T. E. Dancy II, "A qualitative investigation of factors promoting the retention and persistence of students of color in STEM," Journal of Negro Education, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 491-504, 2011.[2] G. L. Cohen, J. Garcia, V. Purdie-Vaughns, N. Apfel, and P. Brzustoski, "Recursive processes in self-affirmation: Intervening to close the minority achievement gap," science, vol. 324, no. 5925, pp. 400-403, 2009.[3] S. L. Clark, C. Dyar, N. Maung, and B. London, "Psychosocial pathways to STEM
. In a collaborative paper or proposal, allauthors will review and follow these guidelines. The appropriateness of the use of one's previouswork and the limitations was also discussed.Based on the statistical analyses conducted using the survey responses from individuals withresearch experience, significant differences were observed between different years of researchexperience and specific survey questions. The analysis revealed strong significance (p < 0.05) forthe following questions: Q1.a & Q1.b. These significant differences suggest that years ofresearch experience have an impact on respondents' perceptions of the importance andsatisfaction of scholarly works in those areas. However, for the remaining survey questions
% (C-) is a 0, a score less than 83% (B-) is a 1, a score less than 93% (A-) is a 2, and above 93% is a 3. • The second measure is assessed by a teamwork survey that gauges the efficiency of teamwork, collaboration, and the overall teamwork experience. Appendix I provides the full list of twelve survey questions. We have chosen question #7 (“Do you feel that your team has functioned effectively as a team whose members together provide leadership, create a collaborative and inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives through the project experience”) as the specific measure. Note that although this survey question is directly taken from the ABET SO #5 language, we have
rubric were also provided to the students. Throughout the project, the followingcourse learning outcomes were assessed. • Develop the governing equation for a mechanical system. • Derive the state space representation of a mechanical system. • Predict the response of a system using software. • Describe the effect of inertia, stiffness, damping elements on a mechanical system response. (a) (b) (c) (d)Fig. 2 Diagrams of sdof torsional systems with (a) top disk clamped and masses attached to the bottom disk (b) top disk clamped and no mass on the bottom disk (c) bottom disk clamped and masses attached
bottom and top fivepercentage female representation for the BS degree level.3.1 Bachelor’s degrees (BS) The prevailing story of diversity for women in engineering is derived from the genderpercentage of total BS degrees awarded as represented by Figure 1(a). This is the origin of theone-fifth lament, but the data does show movement around 20%. When additionallydisaggregating by race, Figure 1(b) shows a slow but steady increase in White, Multi, Hispanicand Asian women. The percentages for Black and Native women do indeed appear to remain thesame over the 16-year period. Figure 1: Percentage BS Degrees Awarded in Engineering by ASEE-reporting Institutions (a) Disaggregated by Gender; (b
’-4” a. Longitudinal view (looking west) Pearland, TX 8’-0” 29.581656N 5’-1” -95.392880E b. Transversal view (looking south) c. Location of the bridge Figure 1: Pictures of the Clear Creek Pedestrian Bridge, Pearland, TX.Figure 2 shows the elevation view of the pony truss, the bottom horizontal truss, a typical crosssection, and the steel schedule extracted from the construction drawings. For betterunderstanding of the drawings, students carried out the following activities: a) Field visit, comparing the design details with the actual construction. Figure 3
systematic verification process.This paper focuses on explaining the Logical Model designed for simulation studies.Subsequently, it presents a list of common performance measures used for verification. The mainbody provides four examples demonstrating this verification approach. Appendix A, delvesdeeper into the motivation for the Logical Model by presenting an initial system analysis beforemodeling. Appendices B to F, contain supporting documentation for the model outputs andcalculations used in the four examples in the main body.A basic understanding of classical queuing theory and discrete-event simulation concepts isassumed for this paper.2. Logical ModelThe Logical Model concept was introduced in a discrete-event simulation course in spring
. (a) (b) Figure 2: Icons representing (a) Entrepreneurial Mindset (b) Technical SkillsetResults and Assessments:The projects were designed to be open-ended and poorly defined explicitly to encourage studentsto engage in mindset and skillset development. These projects lent themselves particularly todeveloping the skillsets of • Simplifying complicated, real-world systems into ideal mathematical model representations. • Justifying idealization and simplifying assumption choices. • Choosing appropriate dimensions, directions of motion, and relative coordinates for these systems. • Conducting appropriate analysis for the modeled systems. • Numerically modeling
incomputer science. Instructor B identifies as a female Assistant Professor with a background inElectrical Engineering. For simplicity, we will refer to Instructor A’s class as section A, andsection B for Instructor B. Through bi-weekly meetings between the two faculty members, bothsections are kept in sync throughout the term. However, leveraging the flexibility offered by PNP,each faculty member can adopt their own teaching style or implement common active learningapproaches based on their teaching strengths and observations of the classes.For example, following Teplitski et al [8] and Aflalo [9], both faculty members implemented apre-exam, question writing activity. Students worked in small groups to review course contentand develop questions
labPart A: Half-wave Rectifier CircuitIn the first part of lab, students learn about the half-wave rectifier circuits input and outputresponses with three different load conditions: A) The load is only a light bulb, B) The load isthe motor that they build, and C) The load is the light bulb parallel to the motor.A 3D printer box was provided for the four diode installations in rectifier circuits, as shown inFigure 4. This box increases the safety of the lab environment. This approach offers a superioralternative to traditional breadboards, which may not provide adequate protection againstaccidental contact with diodes. Students apply a half-wave rectifier circuit in Fig 4. a, where theload is only a light bulb, and measure the input and output
) for a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering at UC San Diego. Courses that incorporate the chemical process project are shown in bold. Laboratory and capstone courses where students also work in teams are italicized. A) A 3-year upper division chemical engineering course schedule is typically followed by students admitted freshman or sophomore year. B) A 2-year course schedule is typically followed by transfer students admitted junior year. A) Fall quarter Winter quarter Spring quarter Sophomore Material and Energy Chemical Reaction Thermodynamics Year
; Hammond, T., 2018 Kinsey, B., Examining Industry Perspectives PSVT:R and Self-efficacy Scale N=278 ME, Towle, E., Related to Legacy Data and EE, Civil, for Hwang, G., Technology Toolset first year and O'Brien, E. Implementation upperclass J., Bauer, C. F., & Onyancha, R. M., 2007Rafi, A., & The Relationships of Spatial self-efficacy scale N=225, F=75,Samsudin, K. A., Experience, Previous Mathematics M=1492007 Achievement
, the training extends beyond this course alone.) 5. How? A question that is in my experience universally not addressed is how to negotiate the workplace and advocate for ethical behavior. This is particularly critical for early career professionals who may not have the power in the workplace to be able to speak up for or effectuate ethical behavior. This part also explicitly brings in professional codes, ex: ACM [8].THE QUESTION DIRECTED TEACHING AND LEARNING MODEL: THE WHY, WHO, WHAT, WHERE, HOW, AND WHEN OF TECH ETHICS 1. WHY care and worry about ethics a. Why do ethics matter? b. Why do you care about ethics? Do you? c. Impact of Technology on Society: Personal, Political, Environmental, Economic
general, a broader research base on SBPs is likely to be useful inmeeting program goals.AcknowledgementsThis work is supported by the National Science Foundation under award #2119930. Anyopinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those ofthe author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References [1] What Works Clearinghouse Summer Bridge Programs. 2016; https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=WWCIRPS661, Publisher: National Center for Education Statistics. [2] Yoder, B. L. Going the distance: Best practices and strategies for retaining engineering, engineering technology and computing students. American Society for Engineering Education. 2012
scoring scale. Students completing Modules 1-5 couldonly earn a maximum of a ‘B’ letter grade with scores in the 90s since they learned less thanwhat is usually covered in the course. However, students completing Modules 1-7 could earnan ‘A’ even with a numerical score in the 80s because they covered more content than isnormally taught. A grade of ‘C’ or better was required to pass the course. Modules had tobe completed in chronological order, with up to three weeks allotted for each of Modules 1-4and four weeks for Module 5. The time spent on each module is shown in Table 1 with thetraditional schedule for comparison.Table 1: Number of weeks spent on each module in a traditional 16-week, face-to-face course,compared to the flipped-mastery design
NS 0.404 a Chemer, et al. 0.51 b 0.10 b NS 0.24 b NS 0.11 b Model 1 = Complete instrument (28 Items), Model 3 = Reduced instrument (12 Items) a p<0.001, bp<0.01, cp<0.05, NS = Not SignificantConclusion A shortened version of a survey instrument, based on the Mediation Model of ResearchExperiences (MMRE) theoretical framework was developed and evaluated for use in a datadriven, proactive advising process. Items for the shortened instrument were drawn from twosources, with slight differences in wording between questions on the two instruments for thesame underlying constructs. Results from this work indicate that the source instruments aremeasuring somewhat different definitions
difference between the student experiences across and withinthe academic years through the Student’s t-test for evaluation.Results and AnalysisWe refer to the student groups in the four separate academic years as the following. ● 2019-2020 academic year: the 2019 cohort ● 2020-2021 academic year: the 2020 cohort ● 2021-2022 academic year: the 2021 cohort ● 2022-2023 academic year: the 2022 cohortResearch question 1: Students’ motivation change across the pandemicFigure 1 compares the student ratings on their perception of the following, a) whether they were able to master the skills taught in the course. b) whether they could figure out how to learn the most difficult course material. c) whether they could do almost all the work in
High engagement No/weak conceptual Strong conceptual change change2.3 Purpose of the StudySince the seminal work of Posner and the follow up study by Pintrich, several studies haveexamined the roles of cognitive, motivational, and affective factors on knowledge revision. Thiscurrent study aims to synthesize findings from these various studies to determine the variablesthat influence conceptual change and their relative effectiveness. Specifically, this systematicreview aims to achieve the following objectives: a. Identify the main categories of factors that predict conceptual change or knowledge revision. b. Identify the main categories of factors that
analysis capability contributes to the optimization of desired control, and to the development of a deeper understanding of control principles and their practical application. b. Practical Application and Interdisciplinary: The project focuses on the practical application of engineering concepts, to provide a better understanding of theoretical knowledge, in addition to the implementation and testing of important concepts for a professional in the Control and Automation area, such as mathematical identification of systems, PID control and microcontroller programming. In parallel, the interdisciplinary integration between the areas of Instrumentation, Microcontrollers, Control Systems and
. Survey Results on two 60-min recitations per week.e) Students’ performanceIn this section, we present the effectiveness of peer-led recitation on the students’ pass rate forthree semesters, fall 2022, spring 2023 and fall 2023. In this hardware course, students needgrade A or B to pass the course. We use the same teaching materials and course syllabus in thesethree semesters. Figure 9 shows the course pass rates of three semesters, fall 2022, spring 2023and fall 2023. The pass rate of spring 2023 is about 2% higher than fall 2022, while the pass rateof fall 2023 is about 6% higher than spring 2023. Figure 10 shows students’ peer-led recitationattendance rates for three semesters. The percentage of students who attended more than half
Paper ID #43782Unveiling Demographic Influences and Differential Career Preferences amongEngineering Graduate Students: A Comparative Analysis of Mechanical,Electrical, and Computer EngineersDr. Ebony Omotola McGee, The Johns Hopkins University Dr. Ebony McGee is a Professor of Innovation and inclusion in the STEM Ecosystem in the School of Education and the Department of Mental Health in the School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University. Dr. McGee is an electrical engineer by training and an 11-time NSF investigator awardee. She is the leading expert on both race and structural racism in STEM, with all its toxic