Paper ID #10256The Effectiveness of ”Interactive” Slide Presentations for Promoting StudentEngagement in University Engineering CoursesSean A Wirth M.S. Civil Engineering student @ CU Boulder from 2011-2014. Part-time adjunct instructor and CADD Technician. Carried out observations of in-class student engagement levels under direction of Abbie Liel, Ph.D.Dr. Abbie B Liel P.E., University of Colorado Boulder Dr. Abbie B. Liel is an assistant professor of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder.Prof. John S McCartney, University of Colorado Boulder John S. McCartney
Transportation Subcommittee under President’s Environmental Sustainability Committee. In addition to those duties at Villanova University, she is also Panel Member of various re- search projects sponsored by The National Academies and University Representative of Transportation research Board. Her teaching and research area include various aspects of transportation engineering, traffic safety, and sustainable infrastructure.Dr. Susan B. Mackey-Kallis, Villanova University SUSAN MACKEY-KALLIS, an Associate Professor in the Communication Department at Villanova Uni- versity in Pennsylvania and is currently serving as the chair of Villanova’s International Leadership Team, which is focused on developing a comprehensive and
Engineering Department at Lawrence Technological University will offer a program in which our graduates have: (a) an ability to apply knowledge and principles of mathematics, science, and engineering in the solution of civil engineering problems (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze data and interpret results (c) an ability to design a civil engineering system, component, or process to meet desired project needs (d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams including participation in a senior-level design project sequence (e) an ability to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve engineering problems
engineering, where a master’s degreeis already a common requirement for employment.Curricular TransitionA side-by-side comparison of previous and revised curricula including the co-terminal option canbe found in Appendix B. The previous BS program satisfied accreditation requirements andserved the needs of students taking the FE exam prior to Spring 2014. The Oregon Tech generaleducation requirements were satisfied: three credits of college-level algebra or higher, nine Page 24.336.6credits of humanities, 12 credits of social science, 18 credits of communication and six credits ofmath/science electives. The faculty referenced the ASCE Body of
," Concrete Products, pp. 28-31, 3 December 2013.[17] B. M. Shahrooz, R. A. Miller, K. A. Harries and H. G. Russell, "NCHRP Report 679 : Design of Concrete Structures Using High-Strength Steel Reinforcement," National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2011.[18] Y. F. Houst, R. J. Flatt, P. Bowen, H. Hofmann, J. Widmer, U. Sulser, U. Maeder and T. A. Bürge, "Influence of superplasticizer adsorption on the rheology of cement paste," in The Role of Chemical Admixtures in High Performance Concrete, Monterrey, Mexico, 1999.[19] Z. Wu, W. Choi, A. Mirmiran, S. Rizkalla and P. Zai, "Flexural Behavior and Design of High-Strength Concrete Members," in Seventh International Symposium on the Utilization of High Strength/High- Performance
models were fostered prior to travel through a series of pre-trip meetingsbetween the students, the faculty advisor of the student chapter, and the Bridges to Prosperitystaff. Through these meetings, the students developed a shared set of goals to be accomplishedduring the trip, created a detailed construction schedule, designated task leaders for eachconstruction task, and discussed and planned for various scenarios that might be encountered inthe field. Interdependence was high due to the complex and high-stakes nature of the project. Forexample, quality control naturally required certain team members to check the work of others,which was described by one student as follows: [B]efore we could back fill you must be 100% sure of your
, etc.). Thequestionnaire used in the Fall 2013 semester is included as Appendix A with answers andexplanations and reflections of the authors. Continued improvement of the questionnaire wasconducted with the help of sustainability teaching colleagues across the U.S. leading to animproved questionnaire included as Appendix B, but not used in the assessment. The assessmentwas conducted by having students complete the questionnaire prior to AND after completing allthe module elements. The results from the Fall 2013 semester are reported next.ResultsOf the 24 students invited to complete the literacy questionnaire in the Fall 2013 semester, 17submitted full responses for both the pre- and post-module instances. The average score on thepre-module
cartridge. The smart pen user must writeon special “dot paper” (see Figure 1b)) that allows the pen to orient itself. The dots arepractically not visible to the naked eye and give the dot paper a slightly gray appearance.a) Smart Pen. b) Writing with Smart Pen on Dot Paper to Create Pencast. Figure 1. Smart Pen and Creating Pencast. Page 24.790.4Figure 2. Pencast Sample Screen Shot Page 24.790.5Compatible DevicesPencasts can be viewed on the several software platforms listed above by any device that canaccess these platforms. The authors have primarily utilized the familiar
Page 24.647.6participate in the survey. A single, follow-up reminder email was sent approximately one-weeklater. The email messages provided a brief description of the study and advised the students thatall data would be collected anonymously (survey responses did not collect identify information).No incentive was provided for students to complete the survey. The nature of the surveyquestions did not require extensive analysis or manipulation of the data. A copy of the survey isincluded in Appendix B of this manuscript.ResultsThroughout the three different academic terms in-which I have read geo-poetry to my CE371classes, I found myself increasingly more comfortable with my routine, day-to-dayresponsibilities in the classroom. My interpersonal
Raspberry Pi Foundationwith the intention of teaching computer programming concepts in schools. Currently, it is used in Page 24.761.12many monitoring and accessibility applications and various other applications. It does not have ahard disk but uses a SD card for booting and persistence storage. The Model B of Raspberry Pi,which is used in our LEWAS Lab, has 512MB RAM, 2 USB ports, an HDMI port, a VGA videoport and an Ethernet port. Figure 10 shows how Raspberry Pi can be connected to the sensors tocollect data and how the data will be stored in the database.Figure 10. The flowchart to show different components of the system to be developed for
Paper ID #9656Prevalence of inscriptions in transportation engineering text: Clues to con-textFloraliza Bornilla Bornasal, Oregon State University Floraliza B. Bornasal is a doctoral student in the School of Civil and Construction Engineering at Ore- gon State University. Her research is currently in engineering education focusing on the transference of expertise among working professionals and undergraduate students. Prior to pursuing her doctoral degree at OSU, she worked as an engineering intern and project inspector for Garfield County Public Works and as an AmeriCorps Volunteer-in-Service-to-America (VISTA) aiding in
previous assessment of the course, 2) Instructor Comments & Observation on current semester, and 3) Recommendations to improve students' performance in achieving course learning outcomes in future offering. This section is critical to document recommendations for improvement, ensures continuous improvement among several faculty members teaching the course, and is an evidence of assessment based improvement. Table 1 present a sample of comments and recommendation compiled for the spring 2012 assessment of the course.4 Sample of these changes are shown in Figure 2(b).4) Develop “Students Assessment of Course Form” Form: The old student survey asks students
. This graphical format was explained as follows: “Sections in bold font arepolicies established by the ABET Board of Directors. Sections not in bold font are policies andprocedures established by the ABET Accreditation Council and Commissions.” A subsequentparagraph further indicated that “Changes to statements not in bold may be proposed by theCommissions or the Accreditation Council and must be approved by the AccreditationCouncil.”18Both of these provisions contradicted the ABET Governing Documents (Article 6.B. of theConstitution and Section 4.A. of the Bylaws), which require that policies, procedures, andcriteria be approved by the ABET Board of Directors. ASCE considered this an issue of greatimportance because the ABET Accreditation
aligned with the master’sprogram criterion; and the remaining three outcomes aligned with new provisions in the CEPC.To make the CEPC less prescriptive, the requirement for probability and statistics was removed,but a requirement for an additional area of science beyond chemistry and physics was added.The then-proposed CEPC was submitted to the ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission(EAC) in June 2006. These criteria were approved by the ABET Board of Directors in October2007 and were implemented for accreditation visits starting in the fall of 2008. These criteria3 arecurrently in effect, are shown in Appendix B, and are referred to as the existing criteriathroughout this paper.The second edition of The Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for
Introduction, 5th line, insert “to” before “gain”? fixed b. 2nd page, 2nd full paragraph, 1st line, change “describe” to “described”. fixed c. 2nd page, 2nd full paragraph, 4th line, change “strength” to “strengthen” fixed d. Insert “the” before “bridge” on the 1st line of the 2nd paragraph on page 6. fixed e. First sentence of 2nd paragraph in Discussion, should “analysis” be “analyses”? and insert “of” between “interpretation” and “technical”. fixed f. 3rd sentence of 2nd paragraph in Discussion, change “is on a topic” to “are on a topic” fixed A reviewer commented on the draft While reviewing the paper, I identified some grammar/spelling errors, but only a few. I encourage another careful review. I reviewed your
Paper ID #9138Structural Engineering Practicum: The First Course in a Master’s ProgramProf. James H. Hanson, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Dr. James Hanson is an Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Tech- nology where his teaching emphasis is structural analysis and design. Over the last nine years he has conducted research on teaching students how to evaluate the reasonableness of their results. He is the recipient of several best paper awards and teaching awards including the American Concrete Institute’s Young Member Award for Professional Achievement in 2006 and the Walter P
Paper ID #10710Integrating a Real-Time Remote Watershed Monitoring Lab into Water Sus-tainability EducationMr. Walter McDonald, Virginia Tech Walter McDonald is a PhD Student, jointly advised by Drs. Dymond and Lohani, in the CEE program at Virginia Tech with a focus in water resources engineering. He received a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Texas Tech University and a M.S. in Civil Engineering from Texas A&M University. He has had extensive training in hydrology and currently works in the LEWAS lab where he conducts water sustainability research. He has also developed and implemented curricula for introducing the
Paper ID #8445Integration of Information Technology Software in aMr. Erik R. Wright P.E., United States Military Academy Major Erik Wright is an Instructor in the Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering at the United States Military Academy. Erik’s civilian education includes a BS in Civil Engineering from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, a Master’s of Civil Engineering from Norwich University and a MS in Civil Engineering from Purdue University. MAJ Wright is a Registered Professional Engineer in Indiana. MAJ Wright’s military education includes the Engineer Officer Basic Course, Maneuver Captain’s Ca
the ASCEcode on structural loads.In addition to the change in the course sequence, a new grading scheme was adopted for the two Page 24.1393.2structural engineering courses. Grades are not determined based on a typical “points” system.Instead, an outcomes-based grading scheme is used in which students must demonstrate masteryof specified learning outcomes to pass the class.To illustrate how the outcomes are defined and implemented, Table 2 lists the outcomes thatwere covered on the first exam. (The full list of outcomes for the course is given in the syllabus,which is provided as Appendix A.) The letter in the outcome label (“A”, “B”, or “C
” = Faculty, “PE” = Practicing Engineer, “DCP” = Domestic Construction Professional, “ICP” = Indigenous Construction Professional. “OP” = Other Professional (scientist, geologist, business), “B” = Beneficiaries, “NGO” = Non-governmental organization collaborator. Boldface Type = intense level of involvement likely.This relationship between DCP mentor and student is fostered by the give-and-take betweenthem during the design and implementation phases of a project and can be further enriched byDCP workshops given prior to travel. This workshop and relationship building process has beenutilized by the authors in preparation for several international project implementation trips.Table 3 lists potential workshop topics, many of which focus on
-semester point, you will be evaluating each team members’ participation (including yourself) from the beginning of the semester to now. You will provide a recommended grade (e.g., A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C-, D+, D, D-, F) next to each of your name and your colleagues’ names on the spreadsheet posted to Blackboard. You must also provide supporting prose for all responses, including yours on a separate Word document”.The students’ grades are meant to inform the final grade, and are not used as the soleassessment mechanism. At the end of the semester, during the final presentation, theinstructor assigns each group a grade, based on the final presentation, and thedeliverables from the entire semester. After the grades
students (enhancing outcome i), andallowing the students to comprehend contemporary issues in stormwater system design(enhancing outcome j). The design of a bio-infiltration pond and associated monitoring systemalso requires the students to develop a set of experiments that can be applied consistently byfuture students to monitor the effectiveness of the pond (enhancing outcome b). Finally, thestudents must effectively communicate with local stormwater managers to ensure that theirdesign is meeting jurisdictional needs (enhancing outcome g). Overall, this senior design casestudy project satisfies the necessary ABET student outcomes, while allowing the students toachieve a few of the outcomes (b, c, g, i, and j) at a higher level when compared to
were in no waysconstrained on their use of the time. One group had a member that became ill over the weekend,so the ill cadet worked from his room while still contributing, even utilizing videoteleconferencing (VTC) to help with his team’s submission requirements.Five judges reviewed the submissions and scored the position papers based upon the rubric thatis in Appendix B. The judges came from the Civil Engineering Division and the EnvironmentalEngineering Division of West Point, as well as the Department of Homeland Security.At the completion of the competition, the participants were given an individual survey usingSurveyMonkey ®. The survey addressed their experiences with the competition, the website,and their perceived educational benefit
existing knowledge schema.8 They can be used by students as a study tool, andby instructors for enhancing teaching, facilitating curriculum planning, and as an assessment ofstudent learning.9Concept maps are typically created through a series of steps.6 These include (a) defining the top-ic or focus question; (b) identifying the key concepts that apply to this domain; (c) ordering con-cepts from general to specific; (d) drawing links between concepts; (d) creating phrases that de-scribe the link; and (e) cross-linking concepts in different segments or domains of knowledge onthe map. When used for assessment, they can be scored quantitatively through techniques in-volving counting of concepts, links and propositions and qualitatively based on the
firm or a constructioncompany, when commencing a project, to create a project charter as set forth in PMBOK5.Ignoring this component likely will not affect the development of a project management plan.II. Overview of CE ManagementA. Course DescriptionAn overview of ECE4243 Civil Engineering Management Practices (CE Management) is acomponent of the Course Purpose Document9 (see Appendix B): The purpose of ECE4243 is to provide an overview of the concepts and standards of project management practices in the construction industry. The course introduces students to the five project management process groups: initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and controlling, and closing. Students analyze and evaluate various
overallexceptional. The resulting score for the TwoMinute Follies is thus well above 50%, an indicatorthat the assignment is of high value in engaging students actively in their own education. First Data Set: West Point, CE350 Infrastructure EngineeringThe largest data set available for assessing student response to the Two-Minute Folly assignmentis given in Appendix B. The vast majority of the data is in written form and is overwhelminglypositive. Data is presented for multiple semesters.Looking in detail at the most recent semester, Fall 2014, via the end of course survey, there were40 responses from a total of 55 students to a free response survey question that addressedExecutive Summaries (EXSUMs, a one-page written report) and the Two-Minute Follies
Society for Engineering Education (ASEE).Dr. Yvette Pearson Weatherton, University of Texas, Arlington Dr. Yvette Pearson Weatherton received her Ph.D. in Engineering and Applied Science (Environmental Engineering) from the University of New Orleans in 2000. She is Associate Chair of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington, a Program Evaluator for the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET, and a registered Professional Engineer in Louisiana.Dr. Andrew P. Kruzic P.E., University of Texas, ArlingtonDr. Heather L. FrostMr. Ziaur Rahman, The University of Texas at Arlington Ziaur Rahman received his Bachelor of Science (B. Sc.) degree in Civil Engineering from Bangladesh
ASCE guidelines to be better aligned with the project scope, timeline, andknowledge base of the student authors. The student reviews were conducted entirelyqualitatively. In their reviews, students were expected to: a) briefly summarize the subjectmatter of the manuscript; b) comment on overall writing style and organization of themanuscript; c) identify specific problems with spelling, grammar, and/or sentence structure; d)comment on relevance and thoroughness of literature review provided in the manuscript; e)evaluate the methodology used for numerical content in the manuscript; and f) providerecommendations for improvement to the manuscript. The instructor provided similar feedbackand provided a grade (that was independent of the student
years. Although some of the students focused on thecreative aspect of the project more than the civil engineering aspects, they nevertheless createdsomething new, understood the concept of concrete design better through hands-on activities,experimented with new materials, and found the experience interesting.References1. Crofton, F. S. “Educating for Sustainability: Opportunities in Undergraduate Engineering.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 2000: 397-405.2. Woodruff, P. H. “Educating Engineers to Create a Sustainable Future.” Journal of Environmental Engineering, April 2006: 434-444.3. Davidson, C. I., Matthews, H. S, Hendrickson, C. T, Bridges, M. W., Allenby, B. R., Crittenden, J. C., Chen, Y., Williams, E., Allen, D. T., Murphy, C
onbusiness and economics, more cross-cultural studies, more on nano-, bio-, and informationtechnologies, more on the fundamentals behind these increasingly central technologies, and soforth. Unfortunately, the typical undergraduate engineering program already requires around 10percent more coursework than other degree programs, and a typical engineering student needs Page 24.1362.54.8 years to complete it. Simply adding these new elements to the curriculum is not an option.The options would seem to be: (a) cutting out some of the current requirements, (b) restructuringcurrent courses to teach them much more efficiently, or (c) increasing the time