Collection

2016 Rocky Mountain Section Conference

Authors

Keith E. Holbert

2016 ASEE Rocky Mountain Section Conference Comparison of Traditional Face-to-Face and Online Student Ratings of Two Online Delivered Engineering Technical Electives Keith E. Holbert School of Electrical, Computer and Energy Engineering Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-5706AbstractArizona State University delivers one of only two ABET-accredited, fully online baccalaureatedegree programs in electrical engineering. This paper reports on the melancholy reception bytraditional face-to-face students who enrolled in the online version of the courses, whereas theonline students were pleased with the

Collection

2016 Rocky Mountain Section Conference

Authors

Jing Guo; Kathy Kasley; John M. Santiago

2016 ASEE Rocky Mountain Section Conference The Challenges of Teaching Engineering Labs Online Dr. Jing Guo, Dr. Kathy Kasley, and Dr. John Santiago College of Engineering, Colorado Technical UniversityAbstractThe paper presents the Engineering Department’s development and the pilot delivery of anonline laboratory experience to support the electrical and computer engineering online deliveryof a previously on campus course, “EE110: Introduction to Engineering”. The most significantchallenges in support of students in the construction, debug, and measurement of circuitparameters include the following: (1) replacing face-to-face interaction with both the

Collection

2016 Rocky Mountain Section Conference

Authors

Jing Guo; John M. Santiago

2016 ASEE Rocky Mountain Section Conference Flipped Classroom Method in Teaching “Introduction to Engineering” Course Online Dr. Jing Guo and Dr. John Santiago Colorado Technical University (CTU), College of EngineeringAbstractThis paper presents a flipped classroom method used in developing and delivering an onlinecourse entitled, “Introduction to Engineering”. The course includes a combination of mini-lectures and labs. Two one-hour chat sessions held synchronously are used where: (1) instructorsneed to hold one chat session for answering the mini-video lectures, reading material andproblem sets, (2) and another hour for

Collection

2016 Rocky Mountain Section Conference

Authors

John M. Santiago; Jing Guo

Society for Engineering Education, 2016 79 2016 ASEE Rocky Mountain Section Conferenceinterview in order to promote more honest feedback and a less threatening environment. Theinterview was conducted by the College of Engineering Dean and Engineering DepartmentChair. Table 1 are meeting notes summarizing the results from student comments. In general,the overall content and instructional delivery was well received. The content was further refinedand developed during the quarter correcting minor errors identified by student feedback. Fourstudents were able to make the focus group meeting when usually 7-8 students out of 11 are

Collection

2016 Rocky Mountain Section Conference

Authors

Jason C. Ganley

experiments that illustrate principles in fluidic,thermal, and chemical systems. Students engage in two eight-hour laboratory work days eachweek. The course is designed to deliver experiential learning; students generate an experimentaldesign to achieve broad-based objectives, and perform extended experimental work with longlaboratory times. The active phase of learning that is naturally present in laboratory work isenhanced by providing latitude to the students in their experimental plans, and by allowing themto reflect on their lab experiences when repeating an early experiment at the end of the Session.KeywordsExperiential learning, unit operations laboratory.1. IntroductionThe curricula of most Chemical Engineering departments in the United

Collection

2016 Rocky Mountain Section Conference

Authors

Clifton B. Farnsworth; Evan Bingham; Justin E. Weidman

that the students researched that much more meaningful to them.The travel itinerary for this study abroad course included visiting and seeing sites in sevendifferent cities. With the theme of “mega” being adopted for this trip, the featured sites includedsome of the biggest skyscrapers, bridges, cities, and other engineered works in the world, bothhistoric and modern. Table 1 shows a generic itinerary, including the cities and principal sitesvisited, that was utilized during the travel portion of this course. Some of these site visits © American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 178 2016 ASEE

Collection

2016 Rocky Mountain Section Conference

Authors

Evan Bingham; Clifton Farnsworth; Justin Weidman

It is hard to take it seriously, especially when your answers are not graded 3 People are anonymous so they act dumb 3 YOU CANT WriTE Whaterver YOU WAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNTTTTTTT 3 Limited time to think of the answers 2 You can fall behind 2 My phone does not work 2 Low battery 2 Easy to slack off 2 You can steal answers 2 Easily Distracted 1 It drives the speed of the lecture 1 Technical difficultiesSome top disadvantages of using interactive polling, is the idea that if questions are unanimous,there is no incentive to take it seriously. With the three groups tested in this study, each used thequestions as a sounding board for jokes or