of the course content reflects the needfor continuous improvement in engineering content, as well as, a growing body of literaturewhich points to the need for instructor led intercultural intervention for intercultural knowledgeand competence growth. This paper focuses on the integration of intercultural competence in thecontext of developing future engineers who have both the skill set and mindset to understandengineering projects and services within a “global context”. Central to this goal is a baselineunderstanding of intercultural learning theory which is briefly delineated from a theoreticalperspective. The course is then examined as a case study. And finally, assessment of studentlearning growth is considered in terms of quantitative
that when compared to more traditional learning approaches,cooperative learning results in higher test scores, higher levels of critical thinking, higher levelsof transfer, and improved ability to work in groups (Johnson and Johnson, 1989). Students wholearn in cooperative environments tend to be more actively engaged and motivated by the topicand have more frequent student-student as well as student-faculty interactions (Lord, 2001).Project PhasesThe project was separated into three phases: a conceptual design phase, a calculations andprototyping phase, and a construction and reflection phase. Rubrics for each phase of the projectwere distributed to the class and are included in the Appendix of this paper.Phase 1: Conceptual Design. During
tocurriculum planning and teaching coursework for all courses with a civil engineering specificdesignation. ABET and ASCE prefer that civil and environmental engineering faculty to belicensed in order to teach any course with significant design content, typically reflected in thecourse title and catalog description. The civil engineering faculty members are currentlylicensed as professional engineers while the environmental engineering faculty members arelicensed or in process of professional licensure as of the start of the fall 2016 semester.The Need for New Engineering ProgramsCurrently, thirty-two public and private universities in Texas graduate approximately 10% of allengineering students in the USA, about 65,000 current students in total as of
that themost effective and socially responsible practices combine content, approaches, anddispositions from both the humanities and engineering, so they can navigate their waythrough the integrated space of these disciplines. Now in its second iteration, the courseoffers students opportunities to reflect on social justice and ethical issues whiledeveloping the qualities of compassion, empathy, and curiosity.Background and ContextSanitation is a Human RightInevitably, students and professionals must navigate the ethical labyrinth of imperfectoptions and make difficult human and design decisions. In “Humanitarian EngineeringPast and Present,” students are supported in their ethical decision-making by theknowledge that while sanitation is a basic
, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate 6.6 By 2020, protect and restore water‐related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes The next section begins by explaining the theory of change underlying the USPCSAW project and guiding its activities. It then introduces the project components and describes their alignment with the Water SDG targets. The subsequent section presents the multi‐level assessment approach and results. The final section discusses the challenges and successes of the USPCASW project with particular reflection on the benefits of having a
context of the student’s temperaments as determined by the Keirsey Temperament Sorter.Results are presented discussing the impact of team composition on both team and peer ratings.Literature ReviewEngineering curricula have been historically very technically focused, with larger classes focusedon a specific engineering topic1. This style of instruction does not accurately reflect anengineer’s job requirements, which often include multi-disciplinary problem-solving andworking in groups. Under recent ABET guidance, there has been an increased push for project-based learning that integrates complex, group problem-solving to better align with employer’sneeds2. There is a large body of research related to how to best select individuals for
have easy access to technology or the time to spend preparing forclass due to other obligations such as work.AcknowledgementThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, ornot-for-profit sectors. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed inthis paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the university.ReferencesBishop, J.L. and Verlager, M.A. (2013) “The Flipped Classroom: A Survey of the Research” Proc. of 120nd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, ASEE, Washington, D.C.Bishop, J.L., and Verlager, M.A. (2013) “Testing the Flipped Classroom with Model-Elicting Activities and Video Lectures in a Mid-Level Undergraduate Course
, ASCE updated the series findings to reflect currentconditions, Failure to Act: Closing the Infrastructure Investment Gap for America's EconomicFuture (available at http://www.asce.org/failuretoact/). These reports cover 10 of the 16categories addressed by the Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, and give specific figureson the cost of infrastructure inefficiencies, including the: • cost to each family’s disposable income, • impact to American jobs, • added cost to U.S. businesses, and • overall impact to the U.S. economy. Figure 2: Failure to Act: Closing the Infrastructure Investment Gap for America's Economic FutureThe 2011 and 2012 infrastructure sector-specific reports of the Failure
Deputy Chairman of the Boar respectively of the Housing andBuilding National Research Center (HBRC) in Cairo, Egypt, for their partnership and continuoussupport of the program. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressedin this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. 16 APPENDIX AADVERTISING BROCHURES (2015 & 2016) 17 APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS FOR STUDENT WORK PRODUCTSA. Summary of your personal experience (1-2 pages) Times New Roman (12) Single Space Brief Description of your research, including project title(s), team and mentors Brief