all) team members may have had introvertedpersonality styles. Overall the team performed well (i.e., a B grade) on a very challengingproject. There was no indication of disciplinary divergence on this team. 4 3.8 Common 4-point Scale 3.6 3.4 3.2 3 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 WBDS15 Project Student Team Members
-1504576 from the National Science Foundation(NSF). This support is gratefully acknowledged. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, orrecommendations expressed in this paper are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflectthe views if the NSF.IX. ReferencesAllen, D., Murphy, C., Allenby, B., and Davidson, C. (2006). “Sustainable engineering: a model for engineering education in the twenty-first century?” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 8(2), 70-71. 10.1007/s10098-006-0047-6.Auchey, F. L., Mills, T. H., Beliveau, Y. J., and Auchey, G. J. (2000). “Using the learning outcomes template as an effective tool for evaluation of the undergraduate building construction program.” Journal of Construction Education, 5
and problem being addressed ‐ Relevant research of your need including at least 5 in text citations ‐ Competitive Landscape of 5 products addressing your need ‐ Patent Landscape of 5 products addressing your need ‐ Include a complete bibliography with formal citations in the style of your team’s choosing citing ALL resources used (including those used for competitive and patent landscape). ‐ Brief justification for your citation style used (2-3 sentences) Quality of Work (Max 10pts) ‐ Thorough analysis of your need. ‐ Detailed descriptions of competitors and patents ‐ All citations are properly formattedAppendix B: BME 352 EX 2 Relevant Research
administrative pathways 2.50 2.00 3.33Note: The results are reported as an average on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 =agree; 4 = strongly agree).ReferencesBerk, R. A., Berg, J., Mortimer, R., Walton-Moss, B., & Yeo, T. P. (2005). Measuring the effectiveness of faculty mentoring relationships. Academic Medicine, 80(1), 66-71.Blackwell, J. E. (1989). Mentoring: An action strategy for increasing minority faculty. Academe, 75, 8-14.Cawyer, C. S., Simonds, C., & Davis, S. (2002). Mentoring to facilitate socialization: The case of the new faculty member. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(2), 225-242.Fowler, E. J. (2009). Survey research methods
pharmacokinetics for chemicalengineers. Chemical Engineering Education. 2010;44: 262-266.22. Erzen, F. C. a. B., Gulnor, and Cinar, A. Development and implementation of an educationalsimulator: GLUCOSIM. Chemical Engineering Education. 2003;37: 300-305.23. Yerrick, R., Lund, C., Lee, Y. Exploring simulator use in the preparation of chemicalengineers. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2013;22: 362-278.24. Nicodemus, G., Falconer, J. L., Medlin, W., McDanel, K. P., Knutsen, J. S. Improvingstudent interaction with chemical Engineering learning tools: screencasts and simulations. ASEEAnnual Conference. Indianapolis, 2014.25. Finlayson, B. A. Introduction to Chemical Engineering Computing. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley & Sons, 2014.26. Davies
.” Journal of KunmingUniversity of Science and Technology, Vol. 14, No. 2: 5-10.[11] Dong, X. 1996. “The Background and Status Quo of Engineering Ethics Education in the UnitedStates.” Research in Higher Education of Engineering, No. 3: 73-77.[12] Xiao, P. 1999. Engineering Ethics [Gong Cheng Lun Li Xue]. China Railway Publishing House.[13] Yu, B., and Fan, Y. 2014. “An Overview on Engineering Ethics Research in China.” Journal ofKunming University of Science and Technology Vol. 14, No. 3: 10-17.[14] Wang, W. and Ren, J. 2007. “A New Start for Engineering Ethics in China: A Review of EngineeringEthics Conference.” Studies in Ethics No. 4.[15] Wang, Y., and Liu, Z. 2014. “A Quantitative Analysis on Engineering Ethics Education Research inChina
Piazza in one of four ways: a) posing a question or problem directlyrelated to topics covered in lectures; b) asking a follow-up question to another question; c)answering a question; or d) improving upon another response. To ensure high quality ofquestions are being asked, the teaching team (composed of the instructor and four teachingassistants) actively monitors the questions as they are being posted, and flag anything that isincorrect, repeated, or too simple. Students are encouraged to work in groups and discuss theirideas while creating the questions and/or answers. The questions that students create areprimarily concept or problem-based questions related to the course content being covered inclass (i.e., some topics are better suited for
). Sampling Designs in Qualitative Research: Making the Sampling Process More Public. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 238–254.13. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. SAGE.14. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Design: From Theory to Practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X0528226015. Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4 edition). Boston: Pearson.16. Marra, R. M., Rodgers, K. A., Shen, D., & Bogue, B. (2009). Women Engineering Students and Self-Efficacy: A Multi
Paper ID #20201Modifications to a Senior Capstone Program to Improve Project Manage-ment and Design-Cycle Pedagogies and Enhance Student LearningMr. Cory Mettler, South Dakota State University Cory Mettler has been an Electrical Engineering instructor at South Dakota State University since 2005. During much of that time, he was employed in industry and was acting as an adjunct for the University. He developed and managed a microelectronics division for an R&D firm who specialized in Nondestructive Testing analysis. He also was employed as the Chief Sales and Marketing Officer for a consulting firm who specialized in
expressed interest in the work we are doing. Many of our corporate partnershave content similar to the planned modules, which they use for their own internal staffdevelopment and are willing to share with our students. These partners facilitate trainings for ourupperclassmen leaders during their course meeting times, which occurs either in-person or viaweb conferences. We will continue to enlist their help in developing future modules anddelivering content whenever their schedule allows. Having this type of support from industrypartners gives validity to our efforts to make diversity competence a marketable skillset for ourengineering students. ReferencesBenderly, B. L. (2015, January). Checkered careers
, 249–265 (2013).12. Young, M.F., Slota, S., Cutter, A.B., Jallette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., Simeono, Z., Tran, M., & Yukhymenko, M., "Our Princess Is in Another Castle: A Review of Trends in Serious Gaming for Education." Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 61-89 (2012).13. Bodnar, C.A., Anastasio, D., Enszer, J.A., & Burkey, D.D., "Engineers at Play: Games as Teaching Tools for Undergraduate Engineering Students.” Journal of Engineering Education, 105(1), 147-200 (2016).14. Young, M. F., Slota, S. T., Travis, R. & Choi, B. “Game narrative, interactive fiction, and storytelling: Creating a “time for telling” in the classroom.” In: Garo P. Green and James C. Kaufman, eds. Video Games and Creativity
Paper ID #18442A Systems Approach to Analyzing Design-Based Research in Robotics-FocusedMiddle School STEM Lessons through Cognitive ApprenticeshipDr. S. M. Mizanoor Rahman, New York University Mizanoor Rahman received his Ph.D. degree in Mechanical Engineering from Mie University at Tsu, Japan in 2011. He then worked as a research fellow at the National University of Singapore (NUS), a researcher at Vrije University of Brussels (Belgium) and a postdoctoral associate at Clemson University, USA. He is currently working as a postdoctoral associate at the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, NYU Tandon School of
experiencing a nano-lesson or series oflessons?” The S-STEM survey was designed for K-12 students. The survey invites students toprovide information about their attitudes toward science, technology, engineering and mathsubjects, postsecondary pathways, and career interests. The first four sections of the survey haveitems that load onto one four constructs. Each construct contains a series of items set on a 5-pointLikert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The four constructincluded the following (for construct items, see Appendix B):1. Math: Mathematics self-efficacy, interests, and perceptions of its future value2. Science: Science self-efficacy, interests, and perceptions of its future value3. Engineering
Dev. Quart, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 3-18, 1999.(3) J. S. Eccles (Parsons), T. F. Adler, R. Futterman, S. B. Goff, C. M. Kaczala, J. L. Meece, and C. Midgley, “Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors,” in Achievement and Achievement Motivation, J. T. Spence, Ed. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman, 1998.(4) S.R. Brunhaver, H.M. Matusovich, S. Sheppard, R.A. Streveler, C. Carrico, and A. Harris,“Engineering students’ professional pathways. A longitudinal mixed-methods study,” Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society for American Engineering, June 26-29, 2016. New Orleans, LA.(5) C. Carrico, A. Harris, H.M. Matusovich, S.R. Brunhaver, R.A. Streveler, and S. Sheppard, “Helping engineering students get jobs
. 112.27. Denoyelles, A., J. Raible, and R. Seilhamer, Exploring Students' E-Textbook Practices in Higher Education. Educause Review, 2015.28. Liberatore, M.W., Material and energy balances zybook, 2016, Zybooks.com.29. Lepek, D. and M.-O. Coppens. Nature-Inspired Chemical Engineering: Course Development in an Emerging Research Area. in the Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Meeting. 2016. New Orleans, LA.30. Mazur, E., G. King, B. Lukoff, and K. Miller. Perusall. 2016 [cited 2016 August]; Available from: http://perusall.com/.31. Liberatore, M.W., Active Learning and Just-in-time Teaching In a Material and Energy Balances Course. Chemical Engineering Education, 2013. 47: p. 154–160.32. Liberatore, M.W., C.R. Vestal
, I., and Thornton, R. 2010. Use of interactive lecture demonstrations: A ten year study. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 2, 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020119.[16] Koretsky, M., Falconer, J., L., Brooks, B., Gilbuena, D., Silverstein, D., Smith, C., and Miletic, M. 2014. The AIChE Concept Warehouse: A web-based tool to promote concept- based instruction. Advances in Engineering Education. 4(1), 1-27.
thehighest risk while still supporting those struggling to make efficient progress through thecurriculum. Our hope is that as the rate of student engagement with the assessment improves, sowill its impact on students.References[1] Tyson, C. (2014, September 10). The 'murky middle.' Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/09/10/maximize-graduation-rates-colleges- should-focus-middle-range-students-research-shows[2] Bloom, J. L., Hutson, B. L., & He, Y. (2008). The appreciative advising revolution. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.[3] Meyer, M., & Marx, S. (2014). Engineering dropouts: A qualitative examination of why undergraduates leave engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(4
, Boulder, CO, November 2003.10. Hilpert, J., Stump, G., Husman, J., Kim, W., Chung, W. T. and Lee, J. (2009). “Steps Toward a Sound Measure of Engineering Students Attitudes: Pittsburg Engineering Attitudes Scale-revised”, Proceedings of the 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Antonio, Texas, October, 2009.11. Yoder, B. L. (2012). “Engineering by the Numbers”. American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, DC. http://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/ collegeprofiles/2011-profile-engineering- statistics.pdf.12. Beggs, J. M., Bantham, J. H. and Taylor, S. (2008). “Distinguishing the Factors Influencing College Students' Choice of Major”, College Student Journal, v42(2), pp
Paper ID #19483The Inequality of LGBTQ Students in U.S. Engineering Education: Reporton a Study of Eight Engineering ProgramsDr. Erin A. Cech, University of Michigan Dr. Erin Cech is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Michigan. Before coming to Michigan in 2016, she was a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stan- ford University and was on faculty at Rice University. She earned her Ph.D. in Sociology in 2011 from the University of California, San Diego and undergraduate degrees in Electrical Engineering and So- ciology from Montana State University. Cech’s research
also beused in the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) Career Readiness programoffered on our campus as part of career preparation education for engineering students [21].References 1. Ledbetter, S. (October 13, 2015). America’s Top Fears. Retrieved from https://blogs.chapman.edu/wilkinson/2015/10/13/americas-top-fears-2015/2. Nixon, S., Brooman, S., Murphy, B., & Fearon, D. (2016). Clarity, consistency and communication: using enhanced dialogue to create a course-based feedback strategy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-11.3. Boyce, J. S., Alber-Morgan, S. R., & Riley, J. G. (2007). Fearless public speaking: Oral presentation activities for the elementary classroom. Childhood
., Lee, Y.-G., & Hill, L. B. (2016). Building a better future STEM faculty: How doctoral teaching programs can improve undergraduate education. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison.9. Adams, K. A. (2002). What colleges and universities want in new faculty: Preparing future faculty occasional paper series. Washington, D.C: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/pff/pdfs/PFF_Adams.PDF10. Austin, A. E., Campa III, H., Pfund, C., Gillian-Daniel, D. L., Mathieu, R., & Stoddart, J. (2009). Preparing STEM doctoral students for future faculty careers. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Spring(117), 83
: completely prepared, veryprepared, moderately prepared, slightly prepared, not at all prepared). a) Math b) Science c) Technology (use of computers and software packages) d) Engineering (using math and science to solve real-world problems) e) Graphical tools (use of programs such as CAD) f) Graphical communication (understanding engineering drawings and 2-D representations of 3-D objects) g) Writing h) Speaking22. Had you completed a calculus class (not pre-calc) prior to starting coursework in the College of Engineering (yes or no)23. How confident are you about your time-management skills? (Completely confident, very confident, moderately confident, slightly
-269.9. White, H. D.; Griffith, B. C., Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectualstructure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1981, 32 (3), 163-171.10. Small, H., Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society forInformation Science 1999, 50 (9), 799-813.11. Morillo, F.; Bordons, M.; Gómez, I., An approach to interdisciplinarity throughbibliometric indicators. Scientometrics 2001, 51 (1), 203-222.12. He, Q., Knowledge Discovery Through Co-Word Analysis. Library Trends 1999, 48 (1),133-159.13. Peters, H. P. F.; Van Raan, A. F. J., Structuring scientific activities by co-author analysis.Scientometrics 1991, 20 (1), 235-255.14. Borgman, C. L.; Furner, J
. (2012). Design Heuristics in Engineering Concept Generation. Journal ofEngineering Education. 101:4, pp. 601-629.29. Florida, R. (2004). America’s Looming Creativity Crisis. Harvard Business Review, Oct. 2014, pp 1- 9.30. Yilmaz, S., Jablokow, K., Daly, S., Silk, E. (2014). Investigating Impacts on the Ideation Flexibility ofEngineers, 121st ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Indianapolis, IN., June 15-18, 2014.31. LaDuca, B., Ausdenmoore, A., Katz-Buonconintro, J., Hallinan, K. P. (2017). An Arts-Based InstructionalModel for Student Creativity in Engineering Design. To appear in J. of Engineering Pedagogy.32. I-ACT Website www.udayton.edu/iact/index.php accessed Jan 20, 2017.
No. 1, 9-20 http://www.lifescied.org/content/6/1/9.full.pdf+html (3) Tyler E. Mains, Joseph Cofrancesco Jr. MD, MPH, FACP, Stephen M. Milner, MB. BS. DSc, FACS, Nina G. Shah MS, Harry Goldberg, PhD. (2015) “Do questions help? The Impact of Audience Response Systems on Medical Student Learning”. Postgraduate Medical Journal. (4) Michaelsen, L.K., Watson, W.E., Cragin, J.P., and Fink, L.D. (1982) “Team-based learning: A potential solution to the problems of large classes”. Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal 7(4): 18-33 (5) Richardson Lab, Kinemage http://kinemage.biochem.duke.edu/ (6) B. Alberts, D. Bray, A. Johnson, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts, P. Walter (2009) Essential
as a whole, students from 1990 would find much that they recognize in the chemicalengineering curricula of today, while they might not recognize the classroom activities or co-curricular opportunities as familiar.. In discussion of these results at the AIChE 2016 AnnualMeeting, it was observed that a stable curriculum is a sign of a stable body of knowledge and amature field, rather than a sign of stagnation.Works Cited1. Pintar, A., B. Aller, T. Rogers, K. Schulz, and D. Shonnard. “Developing an Assessment Plan to Meet Abet Ec2000.” Paper presented at the American Association for Engineering Education, Charlotte, NC, 1999.2. ABET. 2017. Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2017-2018. http://www.abet.org/accreditation
following numeric values: A+ 4.3 B+ 3.3 C+ 2.3 D+ 1.3 F 0.0 A 4.0 B 3.0 C 2.0 D 1.0 W -1.0 A- 3.7 B- 2.7 C- 1.7 D- 0.7Analyses were performed both with and without numerical W’s included in the analysis.To identify significant covariates for DE Grade, potential independent variables were investigatedusing the traditional lecture data set. The potential variables included: • ACT Math, • Prior GPA (in previous math courses), • Number of Repeats (how many times students repeated previous math classes), • First Time (whether or not this was the first time students had taken DE), and
" Procedural Knowledge Communicative Interactions Teacher RTOP Journal SEC Avg SEC RTOP Journal SEC Avg SEC Avg Avg Mod/Con Avg Avg Mod/Con A 1 2 1.09 0 1.8 2.25 1.13 1 B 0.8 0.8 1.32 2 2.2 2.2 1.38 1 C 0.4 2 1.23 0 0.8 2 0.88 0 D 0.8 2.25 1.41 1 2 2.63 1.13 1 E 2
Engineers Talk about the Importance of Talk: A Report on the Role of Oral Communication in the Workplace.” Communication Education 52 (1), 1-16 (2003).3. M. Miceli, “Say What?: The Importance of Effective Communication in Engineering.” JOM 63, no. 12 (December 10, 2011): 25.4. B. L. Shwom, K. P. Keller, “The Great Man Has Spoken. Now What Do I Do?” Communication Insight 1 (1), 3–6 (2003).5. E. R. Tufte, The Cognitive Style of Powerpoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within, p. 9-14. Cheshire: Graphics Press, 2006.6. M. Alley, The Craft of Scientific Presentations: Critical Steps to Succeed and Critical Errors to Avoid, New York: Springer Science, 2013.7. J. Tapper and W. E. Cole, “EET Graduate Survey Results.” Proceedings of the 1998 ASEE
Paper ID #19088Initial steps toward a study on the effectiveness of multimedia learning mod-ules in introductory physics courses for engineersProf. Douglas Scott Goodman, Wentworth Institute of TechnologyDr. Franz J Rueckert, Wentworth Institute of Technology Dr. Rueckert is an experimental physicist specializing in condensed matter. His research interests include magnetic and electronic properties of perovskite materials and, more recently, novel approaches to physics education.Dr. James O’Brien, Wentworth Institute of Technology James G. O’Brien is currently Chair of the department of Sciences and Associate professor of