waste casks.The effectiveness of this collaborative module in promoting cross-disciplinary learning wasassessed through an analysis of student responses to an anonymous survey. The results show thatthe module was effective in (a) teaching students the fundamental principles of diffusion, (b)fostering peer-to-peer teaching and learning, and (c) emphasizing the importance of teamworkand problem-solving across disciplines. The results also indicate that students developed abroader view regarding the applicability of their knowledge beyond their own disciplinaryboundaries. Given its universality, this materials-focused teaching module has the potential toserve as an effective model to foster interdisciplinary teaching and learning between
and 0 ftlb at 113 degrees for Nylon rope. The relationship shown inFigure 10 was used to drive the computer model. As may be noted this is almost linear. Figure 10 Moment applied to the arm by a nylon rope bundle as a function of the angle of the throwing arm.Dynamic Analysis Figure 11 The Sling (P) and throwing arm (L).The dynamic components of the Onager as determined by the students are shown in Figure 11.The equations derived by the students, to describe the positions and motion of these components, Page 26.70.11are as follows:Position of center mass of the arm xB = B cos θB
context of the conceptWave (B) (B1) an event (B2) a dynamic (B3) part of a larger,dynamic process dynamic processField (C) (C1) a system (C2) a multi- (C3) a system within arelational dimensional system, larger system(views the “whole” as containing multiplethe sum of its “parts”; subsystems andclassifies the type of engaged inorganizational relationships withrelationship the other
for the lesson. From the learning goals, a fewlearning objectives (A, B, C), represented as blue squares, are developed. The learning objectivesare mapped to different levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. Depending on the complexity of thesimulation tool, learning objectives up to the “Analyze” and “Synthesize” levels can be achieved.In the figure, the three learning objectives A, B, and C map to the levels “Apply” and“Understand”.Activities are created to help the student achieve each learning objective, and are represented asyellow triangles. Again, the letters A, B, and C are used to show the mapping of specificactivities with their corresponding learning objectives and their levels of Bloom’s taxonomy.These activities can be simulation-based
. Page 26.1309.12[2] A. M. Paudel, "Fostering Diversity and Educational Learning among Engineering Students through Group- Study: A Case Study," ASEE-RMS, Ogden, UT, 2012.[3] A. M. Paudel and S. A. Kalevela, "Fostering Diversity and Educational Learning among Minority Engineering Students through Group-Study: A Case Study," ASEE Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, GA, 2013.[4] ABET. General Criteria 3. Student Outcomes [Online]. Available: http://abet.org/DisplayTemplates/DocsHandbook.aspx?id=3149[5] B. A. Camburn, B. U. Dunlap, V. K. Viswanathan, J. S. Linsey, D. D. Jensen, R. H. Crawford, et al., "Connecting Design Problem Characteristics to Prototyping Choices to Form a Prototyping
. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/biomedical-engineers.htm 6. Dana, R. (2006). Chemical engineering Using the Engineering Literature (pp. 120-141): CRC Press.Litzinger, T., Lattuca, L. R., Hadgraft, R. & Newstetter, W. (2011). Engineering education and the development of expertise. Journal Of Engineering Education 100, 123-150. 7. Jonassen, D., Strobel, J. & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lesson for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education 95, 139-151. 8. Jamison, A., Kolmos, A. & Holgaard, J. E. (2014). Hybrid learning: An integrative approach to engineering
-box project. Table 1 presents the student outcomes for engineering technologyaccredited programs that were used in the project. For the full description of the studentoutcomes ‘a’ through ‘k’, please see ABET´s report on engineering technology accreditationprogram7.Table 1 – Engineering Technology ABET student outcomes as it pertains to the garden-in-a-box project ABET Engineering Technology Relation to the garden-in-a box project baccalaureate student outcomes7 plant selection for garden determining amount needed for water and plant(b) use of STEM for engineering
and Professional Communication, both from NMSU. She is currently a Ph.D. student in the NMSU Rhetoric and Professional Communication program.Dr. Ricardo B. Jacquez, New Mexico State University Ricardo B. Jacquez, Ph.D, PE, is Regents Professor of Civil Engineering and Dean of Engineering at New Mexico State University. For the past 21 years he has served as the principal investigator and project director for the Louis Stokes New Mexico Alliance for Minority Participation. Page 26.1576.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015The Summer Undergraduate Research Bridge
Paper ID #11629Framework for Evaluating Simulations: Analysis of Student Developed In-teractive Computer ToolKelsey Joy Rodgers, Purdue University, West Lafayette Kelsey Rodgers is a graduate student at Purdue University in the School of Engineering Education. Her research focus is investigating how engineers’ understand, develop, and use mathematical models and simulations. Her research also focuses on feedback. She is currently conducting research in first-year engineering on the Network for Nanotechnology (NCN) Educational Research team. She previously conducted research with the Model-Eliciting Activities (MEAs
whole is anessential part of their research. At the end of the semester, students communicate their results inthe following forms: (1) abstract, (2) technical report, and (3) oral presentation supported bymulti-media materials. A check list and grading criteria were developed that includes all theelements of the DoM.After completing the course, twenty-one students have demonstrated success in obtainingfunding and/or creating formal work products. Table 1 summarizes their accomplishments whichconsist of a collection of grants/industry stipends, published papers30-39, presentations at aUniversity research showcase, and software releases. The most notable results came fromstudents A, B, G, and H who had multiple work products. The remainder
“Critical Engineering Challenges”, I thinkit is problems in today’s society. I thought I would be working in a team of 3-4, working onsome sort of project that saves gas. I thought I would be doing lots of planning & engr. des.work.”Q2. Confidence and Success.A2. “Having an idea that I will be working on a motorcycle mademe a little scared due to my lack of motorcycle knowledge. I felt that I wouldn’t be THAT greatat building/machining b/c I’ve done only a little work with mechanical engineering. I did havesome confidence because I helped build a tricycle in engr. des. when I originally had no tricycleknowledge. I had about 50% confidence.”Q3. Faculty Mentoring. A3. “Initially, I thought I would be spending all my time with theresearch advisor
gates, b) using a 16 to 1 Multiplexer(MUX), and c) employing an 8 to 1 MUX. Each part was worth 5 points. The mean score onthis section 12.5 out of 15 points, while the median was 13.75. As the class average was above80%, we can consider this result to indicate satisfactory proficiency overall. A second example(1P) involves the behavior of a sequential logic element: the JK flip-flop (FF). Given a diagramof the JK FF with a negative-edge triggered clock input, and a timing diagram showing the pulsetrain waveforms for the clock, J and K inputs, the student was to predict the output of the JK FF.On this item, students scored an average of 4.35 out of 5 points. Again, the average above 80%appears to indicate satisfactory proficiency.Circuits 2
designed toalso enhance the educational experience. Over 92% of students participants agreed that theexperience enriched their education (Figure 3C). Four percent of students disagreed. Page 26.25.9 Figure 2: Distribution of student responses for survey questions on (a) mentorship and (a) the overall value of the experience. Figure 3: Distribution of student responses for survey questions on the impact of the research experience on (a) interest in pursuing additional undergraduate research experience and/or graduate school, (b) seeking a career in research
, etal.18 The two statistical tests explored in this paper are the Chi-square test and the t-test toanalyze retention rates and students’ GPA respectively. B. Statistical OverviewThe Chi-square test is used to compare frequency of occurrence for those results that come fromcategorical (discrete) data, such as retention rates. A specific version of this test is the Pearson’s Page 26.34.4Chi-square test that compares the expected value of an occurrence to the actual occurrence rate.Retention rate data is discrete because a person can only be in a state of ‘Yes’ (the person wasretained) or ‘No’ (the person was not retained). Alternatively term
and transformations as well as global business pressures.Traditional undergraduate programs are not equipping graduates with the skills needed for thecomplex challenges of the 21st century. 1 These pressures are leading industry to ask thequestions; a) how can we partner with academia and the government to advance personalizedlearning and b) how can we leverage our investment and intellectual capital to increase thequantity/quality and knowledge transfer of the current STEM workforce, education pipeline andlabor supply?Disruptive changes: Ageing: Roughly a quarter of the nation's 637,000 aerospace workers could be eligible for retirement in 2015. 2 Globalization: Engineers work through global multidisciplinary and distributive
75.9 82.8 30Appendix A lays out the survey questions. The Required Element column lists the items to beassessed. Some additional information under Beneficial Elements was also included. TheQuestions column gives the questions that the students responded to. The Metric Description liststhe choices the students could use to respond to the questions. The Researcher Response Metriccolumn information was used by the professor to review the student proposal. Appendix B showsthe results of the student survey. Each numbered row corresponds to a student and his or herresponses. The column headings (C through W) are the questions. The individual studentresponses are below the headings. The professor’s review of the same student proposal
perceptions of theGE+ major and community formation within the degree program. Students were offered a smallincentive in the form of a “coffee card” for a free drink at the engineering center coffee shop. Page 26.816.4The respondents included 25% female (n=5) and 75% male (n=15) students, with their academicstandings representative of the spectrum of experience: seven seniors, two juniors, fivesophomores and six first-year students.Administered via Qualtrics® Research Suite online survey software, the full survey consisted of28 items, including 20 Likert-style ratings (see Appendix B).11 Survey questions queriedattitudes towards professional
. Informed Designer Patterns Design strategies Beginning Designers Informed Designers A. Problem solving vs. problem framing Understand the challenge 1 7 B. Skipping vs. doing research Build knowledge 1 7 C. Idea scarcity vs. idea fluency Generate ideas 1 7 D. Surface vs. deep modeling Represent ideas
, [and] collaborative learning.”1 Faculty at FloridaGulf Coast University (FGCU) set out to improve their gateway course to the engineeringcurriculum, a one-credit hour course common across three of the four programs within the U. A.Whitaker College of Engineering, being mindful not only of including identified high impacteducational practices, but also incorporating the University’s upcoming 5-year QualityEnhancement Plan (QEP), which focuses on “improving student learning in relation to Writing,Critical Thinking, and Information Literacy.”b The result of these efforts is a course with anemphasis on the development of information literacy, teamwork, and communication skills,focusing on engineering innovations related to the Grand Challenges
Paper ID #11121The Paul Peck Program: A Multi-Year Leadership Development ProgramMs. Alistar Erickson-Ludwig, Drexel University (Eng. & Eng. Tech.) Ms. Alistar Erickson-Ludwig serves as the STEM Program Coordinator in the College of Engineering at Drexel University. She focuses on outreach and education programs for current undergraduates, k- 12 students, and the community. She concentrates on the Greater Philadelphia Seaperch Underwater Robotics Competition, Summer Diversity Program, Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day, and Engineering Projects in Community Service (EPICS) at Drexel, among others. In collaboration with
Paper ID #12827Integrating Research in Sustainable Energy and the Environment across Dis-ciplines through a NSF funded REU SiteDr. Hua Li, Texas A&M University-Kingsville Dr. Hua Li, an Assistant Professor in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at Texas A&M University- Kingsville, is interested in sustainable manufacturing, renewable energy, sustainability assessment, and engineering education. Dr. Li has served as PI and Co-PI in different projects funded by NSF, DOEd, DHS, and HP, with a total amount of more than 2.5 million dollars.Prof. Mohamed Abdelrahman, Texas A&M University-Kingsville Dr. Abdelrahman
Paper ID #13550Multidisciplinary Vertically Integrated Teams Working on Grand ChallengesMs. Magdalini Z Lagoudas, Texas A&M University Magda Lagoudas, Executive Director for Industry and Nonprofit Partnerships, Dwight Look College of Engineering, Texas A&M University. Mrs. Lagoudas holds a BS and MS in Mechanical Engineering. She worked for the State of New York and industry before joining Texas A&M University in 1993. Since then, she developed and taught courses in the Departments of Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Technology. In 2001, she joined the Spacecraft Technology Center as an Assistant
Paper ID #13673Interdisciplinary Design Course Structure: Lessons for Engineering Instruc-tors from a Capstone Design CourseDr. Karl Olsen, Washington State University Dr. Olsen has been a member of the WSU faculty since 2009 and is an committed to developing innova- tive and effective teaching methods. He has taught a diverse section of coursework and is very active in developing ways to improve the undergraduate education at Washington State University. He uses innova- tive teaching approaches and is extremely receptive to student feedback. His enthusiasm for engineering courses is contagious. Students witness a
the pathogen are part of innovativeapproaches using Synthetic Biology. New drugs that come into the Federal Drug Authoritypipeline use the randomized group clinical study which relies heavily on average results from agroup to a drug rather than individual results. Engineers currently have tools to make theseimportant discoveries and change the mechanisms of actions of medicinal therapies.Challenge 3- Restore and improve urban infrastructure.How does cost economy and sustainability influence the future of transportation systems? Highlyurbanized areas such as Hong Kong have one of the highest density of humans living in a smallcity footprint. They have the challenge of having to move citizens from Point A to Point B in acost effective manner
all non-engineering degree programs. At University B, however,the engineering physics degree program had a Choice Value just above the physics and appliedmathematics and statistics degree program Choice Values. Table 2: Total choice values by degree program at five diverse institutions. Choice Values Engineering Degree Program (all B.S.) CU Boulder Univ. B Univ. C Univ. D Univ. E RU/VH# RU/H Mast. L Mast. M Bacc/Div Aerospace Engineering Sciences 185.8 8.5
conducted a needs assessment of the faculty, staff, and students. In this study,we investigate current course offerings and ask: 1) What did the lecturers expect students to learn, and what did the students actually learn? 2) How much of current climate related classes are overlaps of previous material as a) listed in the syllabus and b) perceived by students? 3) What do instructors self-report as being needed to manage these topics better?MethodsIn Fall 2014, we interviewed nine faculty members from five departments and two academicadvisors who participated in teaching or recruiting for climate related courses in engineering,architecture, policy, and social sciences. The faculty members ranged from mature lecturers(taught the class
engaged in team projects. This integration ofengineering with other disciplines would further enhance the experience of students and betterprepare them for teamwork after graduation by enhancing learning and facilitating self-efficacyand innovation.References 1. Holley, K.A., 2009, "Best Practices Related to Interdisciplinary Education," ASHE Higher Education Report, 35(2), 89-99. 2. Hotaling, N., Hermann, C. D., Fasse, B. B., Bost, L. F., and Foresta, C. R., 2012, “A Quantitative Analysis of the Effects of a Multidisciplinary Engineering Capstone Design Course,” Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 630-656. 3. Zohar, Ori. Letter to the author. 25 Jan 2015. TS
and engineering projects. She also co-directs the Welcome Project (welcomeproject.valpo.edu), a first-person story collection about identity and inclusion.Dr. Jeffrey Dale Will, Valparaiso University Will completed his B.S.E.E., M.S.E.E., and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign and has been a full-time faculty member in the Electrical and Computer Engineering De- partment at Valparaiso University since August of 2001. He teaches courses in senior design, computer architecture, digital signal processing, freshman topics, and circuits laboratories and is heavily involved in working with students in undergraduate research. Will is also a 2013 recipient of the Illinois-Indiana ASEE
Using Evidence-Based Principles, in The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Management, D.M. Rousseau, Editor, Oxford University Press: New York.10. Crawford, V., Brophy, S.P. (2006) Adaptive expertise: Theory, methods, findings, and emerging issues. Symposium Report.11. Bransford, J.D. and Schwartz, D.L. (1999) Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education. 24: pp. 61-100.12. Sterian, A., Adamczyk, B., & Rahman, A. (2008). A Project-Based Approach to Teaching Introductory Circuit Analysis. 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, pp. 1-6.13. S.M. Batill, S.M. (2000) Teaching Engineering Decision Making Using a Multidisciplinary Design Paradigm
://www.usnews.com/education/online-education/articles/2013/01/08/online-course-enrollment-climbs-for-10th-straight-year[2] Trowler, V. (2010) Student engagement literature review, Lancaster University Department of EducationalResearch.[3] Ohland, M. W., Sheppard, S. D., Lichtenstein, G., Eris, O., Chachra, D., & Layton, R. A. (2008). Persistence,engagement, and migration in engineering programs. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 259-278.[4] Mendez, G., Buskirk, T. D., Lohr, S., & Haag, S. (2008). Factors associated with persistence in science andengineering majors: An exploratory study using classification trees and random forests. Journal of EngineeringEducation, 97(1), 57-70.[5] French, B. F., Immekus, J. C., & Oakes, W. C. (2005). An