AC 2011-1850: THE 4+1 PROGRAM AND DISTANCE LEARNING MEET-ING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMESDaniel W. Walsh, California Polytechnic State University Daniel Walsh is currently a Professor of Biomedical and General Engineering, and a Professor of Materials Engineering at the College of Engineering at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. He received his B.S. (Biomedical Engineering) , M.S. (Biomedical Engineering) and Ph.D. (Materials Engineering) degrees from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York. Prior to joining Cal Poly, Dr. Walsh was employed by General Dynamics Corporation, as a principal engineer and group leader in the Materials Division.Lanny Griffin, California Polytechnic State
AC 2011-1486: RECRUITMENT STRATEGIES FOR GENDER EQUITY:LESSONS FROM COHORT 1 AND COHORT 2 ADVANCE INSTITUTIONSAnna M. Zajicek, University of Arkansas Anna M. Zajicek is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Arkansas. Her scholarship has been devoted to the intersectional nature of social inequalities, discourse, and social change. She has been involved in interdisciplinary research projects examining successful strategies to institutionalize programs and policies aimed at the advancement of historically underrepresented groups in STEM disciplines. Her current publications focus on institutional transfomation, women in STEM disciplines, and the integration of an intersectional perspective in social science
found that, irrespective of gender, students who had a 5% higher self-evaluation scorethan their team evaluation score actually received lower course grades than those who under-valued their contribution to their team. These results indicate that small, engineering-focusedinstitutions may provide a learning environment and underlying support system for women thatresult in greater self-efficacy; or they may indicate that this type of institution attracts womenstudents who already have a strong commitment to the study of engineering and the necessarytenacity to succeed in this field.IntroductionTeamwork in engineering education provides students with important experiences that arerepresentative of the modern engineering workplace.1, 2 While
between the experiences of women in undergraduate engineering programs and their malecounterparts.1-5 Many existing explanations of women’s under-representation in engineering andphysical sciences are based on differences in intrinsic values, psychological needs, preparation,work-related values, family obligations, and lack of “critical mass.”3,6-14 Without ruling out thepossible significance of these factors, this paper explores an alternative factor, one over whichthe engineering profession itself might have greater control: the culture of our classrooms. Inparticular, we introduce several frameworks from the psychology and gender studies literaturethat shed light on how classroom climate plays a role in student experience and, in turn, in
engineering design experience aimed at a design course that iscollaborative, multi-disciplined, hands on, aerospace industry focused, and helps studentsidentify strengths and weaknesses they may have when working in team environments [1][2].While focusing on aviation projects, the faculties from both the engineering and aviationprograms seek to address the issues faced by students in both programs in a way that benefits thestudents. Practical projects provide the students with the understanding that their work isaddressing a relevant industry need. Additionally, design projects such as this one introducesstudents to the type of group dynamics that they are likely to encounter at their future sites ofemployment where they will be expected to perform
22.742.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Generalizing the Particular:Rethinking the Role of the Case Study in Building Technology Courses Page 22.742.2 In many ways my argument is best made as a tale of two textbooks (and for this audience Iwill assume well-known textbooks) in the development of two different building systemscourses that were started in a nine lecture-hours per week trial by fire in the summer of 2003.The first text is Norbert Lechner’s Heating, Cooling, Lighting (HCL), at last now moreconfidently subtitled in its third edition, Sustainable Design Methods for Architects.1 Secondwe have the quintessential all-systems tome, Mechanical and
identifies the ability to communicate effectively as a key student outcome for anaccredited engineering program.1 The requirement includes the ability to orally communicateinformation specifically as a technical presentation. To meet this criterion programs typicallyutilize a public speaking course as part of their curriculum. This is followed by opportunities forthe students to apply their acquired skills usually in the form of senior project presentations orcourse project talks.At Rowan University, engineering undergraduates as part of their engineering clinic series areexposed to good public speaking practices in their sophomore years. Nevertheless, the studentsfail to deliver compelling presentations during the junior and senior engineering
also tend to forget how much practice is really needed to improveone’s level of performance. The basic goal of these modules is to address the most basicfundamental concepts in electric circuits with simple, focused exercises that give novice learnersthe repeated practice with feedback[1] that helps them develop their circuit analysis skills.This paper is organized as follows. The Method section details the homework modules, studentcharacteristics and the student opinion survey, while the Results section describes quantitativeand qualitative outcomes. Last is the Summary and Conclusion section.MethodOnline Homework Modules. There are many concepts that students must learn in electric circuits.For this pilot study, we chose Ohm’s Law, op amps
students to consider/pursue majors inscience, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. It also indicates that some programcomponents are more influential than others. In terms of respondents, most had participated inrecent program years, although a few were involved since the program inception. Thedistribution of participants is shown in Figure 1. It is important to note that the number ofresponses exceeds 43 since many of those responding participated in more than one year of theprogram. The current grade of respondents is shown in Figure 2. Most of the respondents arecurrently in high school or college. Figure 1. Participation Year for GEE Survey Respondents
their parents and teachers, while achieving its educational objectivesfor the first year engineering students as well as the education students.IntroductionENGR 100: Exploring EngineeringENGR 100: Exploring Engineering is a first-semester course taken by all engineeringstudents as well as interested students from the college of Arts and Sciences, with atypical enrollment of 200 students. The course follows a modular structure, wherein allstudents attend overview lectures on engineering, teamwork, ethics, and the disciplines,but break into much smaller sections for an in-depth exploration of a given discipline(called a “seminar”) [1, 2]. Each student takes three of nine possible seminars, sostudents arrive at the end of the semester through very
graduatestudents were given the SISC survey. In both cases, the pre-surveys were administered to themiddle school students by the classroom teacher before the GK-12 Fellow’s first visit to theclassroom. A total of thirty-two classes were given the EISC survey and twenty-eight the SISCsurvey. Parental consent forms were distributed and collected, enabling an analysis of a total of1008 surveys. Of these, 651 were engineer in the classroom surveys, and 357 were scientist inthe class surveys.Statistical AnalysisIn each survey, students rated 16 belief statements based on a five-point scale: strongly disagree(1); disagree (2); not sure (3); agree (4); and, strongly agree (5). Scoring was reversed for threenegatively worded statements. Two non-evaluative
global competence in engineers when making hiring decisions,as considered by large companies who employed more than 10,000 employees or who hadannual revenue exceeding $1 billion (US$) per year, was particularly strong. The majority ofrespondents (70%) indicated that companies were willing to provide training and experience tohelp engineers obtain success in a global engineering environment. In addition, a majority ofrespondents (59.9%) indicated that companies valued the efforts of higher educationalengineering institutions to prepare engineers for success in a global environment with only 4.8%of respondents indicating that they did not value this effort of higher education engineeringinstitutions. However, only 27% of respondents agreed that
definitions are found in Table 1. Page 22.749.3Table 1. Definitions of learning outcome domains Domain Definition Knowledge Facts Information Skills Abilities that require knowing how to do something. Application of knowledge. Attitudes Values (including adaptability, awareness, empathy, flexibility, openness, respect, etc.), opinions.The ProgramsGEARE program: Two global programs for engineering students were the focus of this study. The GEARE(Global
and experiential learning activities to complementin-major learning experiences. Rather than choosing a somewhat random set of out of majorlearning experiences, such as an unrelated internship experience, or another unrelated publicservice experience, followed by an unrelated economics subject, students gain integrativelearning experiences that, again hypothesized, enhance their confidence in non-engineeringdisciplinary knowledge and abilities complementary to their engineering knowledge andabilities. Figure 1 presents a global initiative “learning space”.MethodsAn undergraduate freshman survey was designed, tested and distributed to engineering freshmenat the end of their freshman year (after choosing engineering as a major).10 A survey was
Education emerged. 12 The number of papers from the American Society forEngineering Education (ASEE) annual conference that included the terms “global” or“international” in their titles has been increasing, as shown in Figure 1. The diversity of thisliterature cannot be fully described here. However, the papers fall into a few general categories: - International experiences via exchanges, study abroad, and service projects - International collaboration via distance models - Developing student skills to work internationally Page 22.751.2 - Assessing global competencyFigure 1. Number of papers in the ASEE Annual
class. The ability to schedule appointments with the instructor alongwith twelve set office hours per week was made available if students requiredadditional time or a more personal environment. Ninety minutes was allotted forthe completion of each exam. These exams were composed with a sixty minutecompletion time in mind to remove time pressure felt by students. No more thanthree students remained at the end of any midterm exam.AssessmentTo assess the efficacy of the online course, three techniques were employed: 1)student gain scores on the statics concept inventory were compared between theonline and recitation sections, 2) student performance on common exam items werecompared across the two groups, and 3) students in the online section were
analyze the amount of oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico from the April2010 BP Deepwater Oil Spill.Since PIV is an optical method of visualization, it is ideally suited to the highly visual subject ofteaching fluid mechanics. The device used in the fluid mechanics course is manufactured byInteractive Flow Studies, LLC, called Educational Particle Image Velocimetry1 (ePIV), as shownin Figure 1. Figure 1. Educational Particle Image Figure 2. Typical inserts used in the ePIV. Velocimetry (ePIV) device. Vendor supplied shapes.The ePIV device utilizes fluid seeding techniques for flow visualization. A closed loop watersystem is seeded with neutrally buoyant particles with diameters ranging between 10 and
women students enrolling in, and graduating from, theCollege of Engineering and Applied Science. The GoldShirt Program is a key strategy forachieving these bold goals. Supported in part by the National Science Foundation, the GoldShirtProgram provides a performance-enhancing preparatory year for under-prepared studentsdirectly admitted to the engineering college. This GoldShirt year includes coursework inmathematics, physics, chemistry, project-based engineering design and the humanities to preparestudents to enter the regular engineering curriculum in their second year of college. MostGoldShirt students live together in a living and learning environment focused on engineeringexcellence.The pilot cohort (cohort 1) entered the program in fall
century skills will be comparedto the skills sets defined in a framework developed by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills(see Table 1) LEARNING AND INNOVATION SKILLS 1 Creativity and Innovation 2 Critical Thinking and Problem Solving 3 Communication 4 Collaboration INFORMATION, MEDIA AND TECHNOLOGY SKILLS 1 Information Literacy 2 Media Literacy 3 Information, Communications, and Technology Literacy LIFE AND CAREER SKILLS 1 Flexibility and Adaptability 2 Initiative and
graduate students to better understand their roles as mentors.The principal learning outcomes for the undergraduate researchers fit into three broad categories: ► Conduct and document a research experiment; ► Function effectively on a multi-disciplinary research team; and ► Summarize both the technical and experiential aspects of the research experience.These learning outcomes are summarized in Table 1 along with performance metrics andlearning opportunities. We defined performance metrics as specific skills or abilities that weexpected our students to demonstrate by the end of the research appointment. Learningopportunities represented tasks or activities completed by the undergraduate students, whichhelped them to achieve the learning
decisions. Our results also show that despite a perceived lack of autonomy, some GTAscontinue to act autonomously when faced with decision-making in the classroom. These resultscan help inform faculty as they seek to support GTAs in the GTAs‟ teaching responsibilities.IntroductionFor many years, graduate students have served as laboratory assistants and graders forundergraduate engineering courses. Due to recent efforts to increase hands-on activities inengineering education, many institutions are now also employing graduate teaching assistants(GTAs) as course instructors and lecturers 1-3. While researchers have studied GTAs in thehumanities and physical sciences, little is known about GTA experiences in engineering. Thepurpose of this study is to
Page 22.758.2are vital for the future generations and they speak to this need. “Concerns about the lack ofexposure to engineering for all children and ensuring a larger, more reliable supply of futureengineers have been accompanied by the realization that we have not yet determined the bestway to expose children to engineering skills and concepts. We are still investigating whichaspects of engineering are developmentally appropriate for children of different ages and whatkinds of experience are most effective. Because engineering has not generally been emphasizedin pre-college settings, the body of literature on how children learn engineering is small.However, a few of the critical findings that have emerged are synthesized in this article.”1
revisedobjectives required a fundamental shift from a numerical list of minimums (i.e. number of hoursteaching, number of PhD faculty in department, etc.) to an open list of objectives that eachinstitution could then tailor to their specific programs. Institutions are also now required toprovide assessments that “identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the achievement ofprogram outcomes and program educational outcomes” (p. 2) [1]. Program education objectivesare the overarching statements that define the career and professional achievements expected ofthe program graduates, and program objectives are the more narrowly defined descriptions ofwhat students are expected to know and be able to do by graduation – the skills, knowledge, andbehaviors
wherestudents apply concepts and technologies of current lighting trends in energy efficiency to thepractice of implementing and maintaining successful lighting systems. The project focuses on: 1. Identifying current LEED Platinum certification for Homes, 2. Correlating LEED standards to appropriate lighting design strategies, 3. Designing an energy efficient lighting system for new Habitat for Humanity construction, and 4. Creating and delivering consumer education for homeowners to successfully maintain their lighting system.The pedagogical discussion focuses on the appropriate combination of the art and science oflighting so that students design functionally effective lighting systems that are also
facts and formulas" as opposed to “aninterconnected web of concepts"1. There is a tendency to approach Mechanics problems byidentifying the applicable equations as opposed to recognizing underlying concepts. It is notalways students’ tendency to critically evaluate the information given and methodically analyzeusing engineering intuition. Even when they do, often times they have preconceivedmisconceptions that hinder effective analysis. Effort must be made to refocus students so theyapproach Mechanics as “an interconnected web of concepts.” Traditional pedagogicalapproaches do not encourage this. As such, alternative approaches must be.Elby et al.1,2,3 researched the role of students’ perceptions of Physics in hindering conceptmastery. The
Student Growth in Communication Skills AbstractGlobal Systems: Economics, Engineering and the Environment is a course about globalizationand its impact on our students as professionals and as citizens. The three core student learningobjectives for this course are: (1) to increase each student’s awareness and understanding of thecomplex process of globalization, (2) to increase each student’s ability to communicate orally toprofessional groups, and (3) to increase each student’s motivation to become more involvedprofessionally and personally with sustainability issues.The focus in this paper is on assessing the impact of the course experience with respect to growthin
statistical evidence, both activities increased student awareness of thesafety and environmental issues associated with the spill. IntroductionThe 2010 Gulf Coast oil spill was one of the worst environmental disasters in Americanhistory. The incident began with an offshore drilling rig, the Deepwater Horizon.According to Transocean's website[1], the Deepwater Horizon was built in 2001 in SouthKorea and was designed to operate in water up to 8,000 feet deep, drill 5 ½ miles down,and accommodate a crew of 130. It floated on pontoons and was moored to the sea floorby several large anchors. The rig, which was under contract to the oil giant BP, was doingexploratory drilling but was not in production. At the time of
Department at the University of Wyoming wascontacted by one of our alumnus in the Spring of 2008 concerning development of an industrialcontrols course. The alumni had graduated in the early 1980’s developed a highly successfulindustrial control company that provided service to the chemical, mining, oil, petrochemical, gas,and automotive industries [1]. The alumnus was interested in supporting the development of acourse that emphasized the design of programmable logic controller (PLC) based systems vital toa wide range of industries and to support the ongoing demand for engineers educated inindustrial control concepts and applications. Further, the alumnus pledged financial support todevelop a physical laboratory and the required instrumentation to
22.766.2Introduction: Sophomore mechanical engineering students at Texas A&M University at Qatar takeMechanical Measurements Course (MEEN 260) as the first course to provide a practicalfoundation for designing and conducting engineering experiments. The topics studied in thiscourse (Figure 1) are: understanding and comparing sensor technologies, designing andanalyzing signal processing circuits, understanding the process and potential problems of dataacquisition and digital filters, and quantifying measurement uncertainty using statistical dataanalysis. Developing technical writing skills is a significant part of the course as well. The finalobjective of this course is to enable students to properly design, conduct an engineeringexperiment, report