Page 26.805.12 transformative learning: A dialogue between John M. Dirkx and Jack Mezirow.” Journal of Transformative Education, 4(2), 123–39.2. Downey, G. L., Lucena, J. C., Moskal, B. M., Parkhurst, R., Bigley, T., Hays, C., … Nichols-Belo, A. 2006. The globally competent engineer: Working effectively with people who define problems differently.” Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 1–16.3. Downey, G. 2011. Epilogue beyond global competence: Implications for engineering pedagogy. In G. L. Downey and K. Beddoes (Eds.), What is global engineering for? The making of international educators (pp. 415–432). Morgan & Claypool.4. Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. 2010
informaladvancement structures in other labor market sectors.15-17 Of course, this does not imply thatovert and subtle processes of discrimination and bias are absent in federal agencies; just that (a)LGBT employees have baseline legal protections not guaranteed in other sectors, and (b) moreformalized advancement structures in federal agencies mean that, at least in theory, hiring,promotion, and disciplinary procedures are under greater scrutiny to align with anti-discrimination policies. As such, although organizations in the private, non-profit and educationsectors likely vary widely in their treatment of LGBT professionals, the differential experiencesof LGBT professionals in STEM agencies documented here may be equally if not more extremein other
: Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Items Agree (+4) (+2) (0) (-2) Disagree (-4) a. Compared to the traditional lecture and exams, two project reports/case studies helped me better understand the basic concepts of the design aspects of the water and wastewater treatment processes. b. Compared to the traditional lecture and exams, project reports/case studies helped me better understand the practical applications of environmental engineering. c. Compared to the traditional lecture and exams, project reports/case studies helped me better understand how to write a
, L.J., Ikeda, E.K., & Yee, J.A. (2000). How service learning affects students. Higher Education Research Institute, University of California Los Angeles. 5. Billig, S.H. & Waterman, A.S. (2003). Studying service learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 6. Blum, L. & Frieze, C. & Hazzan, O. & Dias, M. B. (2006) “ A Cultural Perspective on Gender Diversity in Computing” Proceedings of ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education 2006 7. Brainard, S.G. and L. Carlin (1998), “A six year longitudinal study of undergraduate women in engineering and science,” Journal of Engineering Education, 87: 369-376. 8. Braxton, J. M., Hirschy, A. S., &
Economic Perspectives, 7(3), 167-174.17. Durden, G. C. & Ellis, L. V., (1995), “The effects of attendance on student learning,” American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings), 85(2), 101-112.18. Senior, B. A., (2008), “Correlation between absences and final grades in a college course,” Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference of the Associated Schools of Construction, Auburn, Alabama, April 2-6, 2008, on CD- ROM.19. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R., (eds.), (1999), “How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school”, National Academy Press, Washington, D. C., Chap. 3, 39-66.Buckles, S. G. & McMahon, M. E., (1971), “Further evidence on the value of lecture in elementary economics,” Journal of
evaluating preparation in mathematics and physics, incor- porating non-traditional teaching methods into the classroom, and engaging her students with interactive methods.Miss Manisha Tripathy, Texas A & M University Manisha Tripathy is a Masters student in Computer Science and Engineering Department at Texas A&M University.Currently she is working as a Student Worker with Engineering Academic and Student Affairs at Texas A&M University.She did her B Tech in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering from KIIT University,India . Prior to joining as a master’s student,she worked as an Assistant System Analyst at Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.Her work primarily included java development and application manage
Paper ID #13341The Touchstone Engineering Leadership Development ProgramDr. Jay B. Brockman, University of Notre Dame Dr. Jay Brockman is the Associate Dean of Engineering for Experiential Learning and Community En- gagement. He received his Ph.D. in Computer Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University and previ- ously worked for Intel Corporation. He is also a founder of Emu Solutions, Inc., a startup company that is commercializing research in the area of high-performance computing.Dr. Victoria E Goodrich, University of Notre Dame Dr. Victoria Goodrich is the Director of the First-Year Engineering Program at the
), the John A. Curtis Lecture Award from the Computers in Education Division of ASEE (1998, 2005, and 2010), and the Brigadier General Roland E. Thomas Award for outstanding contribution to cadet education (both 1992 and 1993) at the U.S. Air Force Academy. He is an active ABET evaluator and an NCEES PE exam committee member.Dr. Thad B. Welch III P.E., Boise State University Thad B. Welch, Ph.D., P.E. received the B.E.E., M.S.E.E., E.E., and Ph.D. degrees from the Georgia Institute of Technology, Naval Postgraduate School, Naval Postgraduate School, and the University of Colorado in 1979, 1989, 1989, and 1997, respectively. He was commissioned in the U.S. Navy in 1979 and has been assigned to three submarines and a
is the past chair of the IN/IL section. He is a fellow of the Teaching Academy and listed in the Book of Great Teachers at Purdue University./ He was the first engineering faculty member to receive the national Campus Compact Thomas Ehrlich Faculty Award for Service-Learning. He was a co-recipient of the National Academy of Engineering’s Bernard Gordon Prize for Innovation in Engineering and Technology Education and the recipient of the National Society of Professional Engineers’ Educational Excellence Award and the ASEE Chester Carlson Award. He is a fellow of the American Society for Engineering Education and the National Society of Professional Engineers.Dr. Carla B. Zoltowski, Purdue University, West Lafayette
Paper ID #12024Using Robotics as the Technological Foundation for the TPACK Frameworkin K-12 ClassroomsAnthony Steven Brill, NYU Polytechnic School of Engineering Anthony Brill received his B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Nevada, Reno, in 2014. He is currently a M.S. student at the NYU Polytechnic School of Engineering, studying Me- chanical Engineering. He is also a fellow in their GK-12 program, promoting STEM education. He conducts research in the Mechatronics and Controls Laboratory, where his interests include controls and multi-robot systems.Dr. Jennifer B Listman, NYU Polytechnic School
benefit 20% 0% a) Take more time to figure out 67% 73% the solution2. What is the challenges did you feel b) As freshmen, it is hard to work 20% 55% when the instructor used the on a problem from scratch problem-based learning (PBL) in c) No much challenge for me 20% 9% this course? d) Other 0% 0% a) Give more time to work on the 67% 27% problem if time is permitted3
articulation and online delivery of undergraduate engineering degrees. In addition to conducting research on color image fusion and real-time implementation of algorithms, she is the immediate past chair of the Middle Atlantic Section of the American Society for Engineering Education and a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. She enjoys observing the intellectual and professional growth in students as they prepare for engineering careers.Dr. Gbekeloluwa B. Oguntimein, Morgan State University Dr. Gbekeloluwa B. Oguntimein received his B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Chemical Engineering from Iowa State University in 1974 and 1979 respectively. He has over 30 years teaching and research experience
courseinstruments that will be shared with the civil engineering department for assessment. Thiscooperative work has been so successful that the geography department is adding sections foranticipated enrollment of 750 in the 2015-2016 academic year in service to the entire college ofengineering.Addressing Gaps and RedundanciesOne of the initial goals of the curriculum re-design was to eliminate gaps between courses(course B expects its pre-requisite course A to cover a topic, but A does not or there is a time-gapbetween A and B greater than 1 year) and redundancies (courses A and B both discuss a topic).Two often cited examples were the discussion of shear and moment diagrams in 3 successivecourses (redundancies), and the teaching of graphics in the
the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education [3,4, 5, 7, and 9].Most of the questions was directly involved with checking students’ knowledge and fewquestions was of Likert-type items from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Assessmentof Sustainability Knowledge and perception is given below. The percentages indicate resultsfrom the design engineering students from The Petroleum Institute.Sustainability Knowledge and Perception survey1. Why is it important to recycle? (Choose all that apply) a) Recycling decreases the amount of habitat lost due to resource extraction. (30%) b) Recycling typically takes less energy to process recycled materials than to use new materials. (35%) c) Recycling cuts down on the
the project. The second mechanism involvedcomparative analysis of the average performance of the students prior to and after the assignmentof the group project. The first questionnaire included the following questions:1) Which of the following has been the best source for learning concepts of thermodynamics? a) Text book b) Class notes c) Peer-to-peer mentoring d) Group discussion e) TA Recitation2) Which form of assessment has been the most useful in helping with self evaluation of performance in the course? a) In-class quizzes b) Home works c) Midterm exams3) Which form of assessment has been the most useful in helping with learning concepts of thermodynamics? a) In-class quizzes b) Home works c) Midterm examsThe
Paper ID #12614Results & Lessons Learned from a Chemical Engineering Freshman DesignLaboratoryProf. Anthony Edward Butterfield, University of Utah Anthony Butterfield is an Assistant Professor (Lecturing) in the Chemical Engineering Department of the University of Utah. He received his B. S. and Ph. D. from the University of Utah and a M. S. from the University of California, San Diego. His teaching responsibilities include the senior unit operations laboratory and freshman design laboratory. His research interests focus on undergraduate education, targeted drug delivery, photobioreactor design, and
one-on-oneassistance with a project.Students keep a notebook of their work on the projects and turn in a formal report documentingeach project. Students must also present a demonstration of each final project to the instructor.As it is structured, this course provides a mechanism to assess ABET outcomes b, d, e, and h. Inthis paper, we present the logistics of the course, a sample of projects completed, and the courseassessment for ABET outcomes.IntroductionProject based learning is not a new concept and has been shown to be an effective teachingmethod1, 2. EE 380, Junior Projects, is a two-hour course required of all electrical and computerengineering majors which is typically taken the last semester of the junior year. (See [3] and [4]for
into GPS accuracy and position calculation, we pose these questions to ourstudents: (1) “How exactly do GPS receivers solve for position, (2) How accurate isGPS?, and (3) How is accuracy related to satellite geometry?Given N satellite positions {x i , yi , z i }, i=1, N (in Earth-Centered, Earth Fixed, or ECEFcoordinates), and N pseudo-range measurements {R i }, i=1, N, we are interested insolving for the user position {x, y, z} and receiver clock offset relative to GPS systemtime (b). Note that the pseudo-ranges {R i } represent the sum of true range from userposition to each satellite, and a range offset term (Cb), which is the propagation speed(speed of light) multiplied by the clock offset. ( x − xi ) + ( y − yi
the coordination number and direction of contact in the hard sphere model of BCC(Figure 1d) Page 26.313.3 a) b) c) d) Figure 1. The five bases used in this experiment.a. Station 1At this station, students are presented two clear acrylic sided boxes (Figure 2). One box has theFCC (100) plane at its base while the second box’s base represents the simple cubic (100) plane.This station forces students to compare the structures and notice that they are equivalent planes
further disjointed since the laboratory instructor was not completely “in tune” with what was discussed each day in class. b) The setup and tear down of the lab equipment took up a significant amount of time and the students gained very little insight from those processes. c) During the lab the students suffered from “cookbook syndrome”. It seemed that they were preoccupied with the rote following of instructions rather than intellectual thought. Students would not pause prior to an experiment to predict what might happen nor would they reflect on their results. It was not uncommon to see students collect nonsensical results, write them down, and move on without sensing that something was wrong. d) The primary
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
successful effortsto improve student learning in structural dynamics based on forced vibration testing1,2 of large-scale and full-scale buildings.Figure 1-(a) Building to shake (b) Computational model (ETABS3).Course descriptionCourse objectives: Reinforce dynamic structural analysis concepts relevant to engineers Visualize structural response to dynamic loading Demonstrate the physical existence of natural frequencies and mode shapes in real structures Create analytical models that accurately represent the structures being investigated Compare experimental quantities with analytical model quantities such as natural frequency and mode shapes Experimentally determine the structural damping
Organization affiliation in USFig. 4 b. Authors Organization affiliation worldwideFig. 5 Analysis by Funding AgenciesMore interesting results were obtained by applying visualization techniques to the networks extracted using Page 26.36.6Sci2 Tool--co-authorship, bibliographic coupling, and co-citation networks. 5Co-authorship network represents the size and structure of the collaborators network for each author in thestudy. For this network, size of the nodes depends on the number of paper authored by a specific author, andthe thickness of the edges depends on the number of common papers
b) The Policy Track.Although a Winter and two Summer sessions are offered, the standard Academic Year iscomprised of a Fall and a Spring semester.All seniors in “all” engineering programs and concentrations are required to complete a “SeniorProfessional Seminar”. As in many conventional settings, the format, the requirements, and theset of activities of the seminar enable the seniors to make sound and informed decisionsregarding their transition into a professional environment or pursuit of graduate studies.However, as compared to its past version; what has made this re-formatted seminar much better Page 26.1366.2received and interesting to
personal commercial or sales pitch. Term Essay – Students write a 500-word essay on a contemporary issue related to computing technology or a 500-word proposal for funding of a start-up company.Students are given letter grades in the course (A, B, C, D, F) rather than being graded Pass/Fail.There are two reasons for this. First, the College of Engineering policy requires it, and, second,it emphasizes the importance of the course. Currently, grades are based on student performanceon four assignments (10-points each) and three examinations (20-points each). The assignmentsare discussed in more detail below. Examinations are primarily objective (true/false, multiplechoice, and fill-in-the blanks) and given at the one-third and two-third
for the jobs of the future. USCongress Joint Economic Committee.[6] VERNER , I.M. & AHLGREN, D.J., (2004) Robot Contest as a Laboratory forExperiential Engineering Education. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing,4(2), 1-15[7] FABIANE B., & VAVASSORI B., (2012). Exploring the educational potential ofrobotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988[8] MELCHIOR, A., COHEN, F., CUTTER, T. & LEAVITT, T., (2005). More than Page 26.97.7robots: An evaluation of the FIRST robotics competition participants and institutionalimpacts. Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University.[9] BERK, L &
course is required of allBSCE seeking students. General goals of typical university introductory courses exist in CvEEN1000 as well, including: (a) build community within the student cohort and with the department,(b) introduce students to relevant campus and professional organizations, (c) acclimate studentsto university life, and (d) provide a broad understanding of a profession and its associated fieldof study. As such, the course satisfies several of the general university requirements forintroductory courses. For the Civil and Environmental Engineering Program, the coursespecifically supports achievement of selected BOK outcomes including the areas ofcommunication, teamwork, contemporary issues, leadership, ethics, and the broader
exam problems not involvingtrusses; these results are shown in Table 1. For these non-truss problems, there should be noeffect of the homework condition explored here. It can be seen that the means in the two sectionsare nearly the same. Indeed, there are no significant differences from one instructor to the other.Thus, as judged by exam scores, all instructors are equally effective. This comparison acrosssections suggests inherent differences in the students in the two sections would not affect thesubsequent results related to the effects of instruction.Table 1: Comparison of students in each pair of sections (A and B) on all non-truss examproblems; shows no differences across sections and from one instructor to the next
approach: we taught students in a B. the drug takes effect lecture format about a standard one- immediately compartment model for C. the system is open pharmacokinetic analysis. Their quiz D. the drug accumulates over focused on the concepts important to time in the area of interest the connectivity of the models, E. the system is homogenous important assumptions, and the equations they would be using (Box 2. Which 2 of the following might occur if you 1
, “Who will be responsible for data management?” has four potential answers: PI and/or coPIs, Trainees (graduate students, postdocs or technicians), More than one of the above, and Not clear. The questions asked in the University Rubric are listed in Appendix B. DART Rubric 32The Data management plan as A Research Tool (DART) project seeks to evaluate the content of data management plans as a means to inform the development of library services in managing and curating research data. With support from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), librarians from Oregon State University, the University of Oregon, Penn State University, the George Institute