on themusical bridges and seemed to be more engaged in the project than students in previous years.And females, in particular, seemed to prefer the musical bridges over a more traditional bridgeproject. The author plans to continue to use some variation on the musical bridge project forfuture solid mechanics courses. Questions, however, remain: did students find the musical aspectof the project more engaging or would another type of interdisciplinary project be just asengaging? Did the musical bridge project result is improved learning? Were students morecreative? Did their critical thinking skills improve? Future projects will attempt to explore thesequestions and more.ReferencesBarnard, S., Hassan, T., Bagilhole, B., Dainty. A. (2012
took the course were sought after by industry. Afollow up graduate course is also part of the authors’ agenda.References[1] Final Report: NSF Workshop on Billion-Transistor Systems found in Princeton University website in http://www.princeton.edu/~wolf/nsf-workshop/final-report.html.[2] A. Morales and S. Agili “Signal Integrity Challenges,” Editorial Page, Ingeniare. (Chilean Journal of Engineering) Revista Chilena de Ingeniería, vol. 17 Nº 1, January-April, 2009.[3] L. Green, “Understanding the Importance of Signal Integrity,” Circuits and Devices, November 1999.[4] D. Smolyansky , “Signal Integrity Key for Gbit Interconnects,” EE Times, December 8, 2003[5] B. Young, Digital Signal Integrity, Modeling and Simulation with
Long-term Education Reform and Development Plan (国家 中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要), http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A01/s7048/201007/t20100729_171904.html3. R. Jones, Exporting American Higher Education, ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, 20094. Z. Zhou, C. Pezeshki, Understanding Change and Development of Engineering Education in China, ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, 20145. R. Parker, Motivation and Vision of xxx, Journal of International Higher Education (internal journal), Vol. 4, No. 3, Sept. 20116. Q. Zhu, B. Jesiek, J. Yuan, Engineering Education Policymaking in Cross-National Context: A Critical Analysis of Engineering Education Accreditation in China, ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, 20147. X. Tang, Q. Zhu, H. Pang
; therefore, students are not familiar with concept ofproportional control.Lab 4: ZigBee set up and manual testingThis lab is designed to familiarize students with ZigBee modules. Each team receives twoZigBee radios. Students learn to use the free software X-CTU to set up the radios for wirelesscommunication, as illustrated in Fig. 1. There are two settings to be used: One is two radiostalking exclusively to each other. In this case, the radios are configured such that the DestinationAddress High/Low (DH/DL) of one radio is the Serial Number High/Low (SH/SL) of the otherradio. The other setting is for one radio (coordinator) to communicate with multiple radios. Inthis case, the coordinator has 0 as DH and FFFF as DL, as shown in Fig. 1 (a, b).A
achievement gap for historically under-represented minority groups.Dr. Gustavo B Menezes, California State University, Los Angeles Menezes is an Associate Professor in Civil Engineering Department at CalStateLA and president of the International Society for Environmental Geotechnology (ISEG). Since becoming part of the faculty in 2009, Menezes has taught 9 undergraduate courses, is the current adviser of the American Society of Civil Engineers student organizations and has participated in several teaching workshops, including one on ”Excellence in Civil Engineering Education” and another in ”Enhancing Student Success through a Model Introduction to Engineering Course.” He is currently the PI of TUES project to revamp the
formation of engineering identity especially among veteran students.Dr. Keith A. Landry, Georgia Southern University Keith Landry, PhD, PE, F.ASCE Colonel (Retired), US Army Assistant Dean for Research Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering College of Enginering & IT Civil Engineering & Construction Management Department Georgia Southern University Statesboro, GADr. Joyce B. Main, Purdue University, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Joyce B. Main is Assistant Professor of Engineering Education at Purdue University. She holds a Ph.D. in Learning, Teaching, and Social Policy from Cornell University, and an Ed.M. in Administration, Planning, and Social Policy from the Harvard Graduate School of
Paper ID #19023Enhancing Industrial Robotics Education with Open-source SoftwareJoshua B. Hooker, Michigan Technological University I am an undergradute Software Engineer at Michigan Technological University in Houghton, Michigan and I will be graduating in the December of 2017.Mr. Vincent Druschke, Michigan Technological University Vincent Druschke is a graduate student at Michigan Technological University. Hailing from Iron Moun- tain, Michigan, he is currently pursuing a Master’s degree in Computer Engineering and anticipates grad- uating in December of 2017.Prof. Scott A. Kuhl, Michigan Technological University
were LCA can illustrate adequate resourcescomparative to figure it out, Idifferences in environmental disliked the software exercises and healthimpacts, such hard to stay as whether interested product A or B has a greater likely impact upon climate change, as in materialshown in the previous examples. The incompatibility of some software with certain computers made it difficult to work on some of the assignments.ThereWhat are however significant suggestions do you have limitations to LCA results
, Engineering educationPractice Cycle for Increased Allendoerfer, Bates,Transformation in Engineering Ewert, and UlsethEducation”“An Exercise to Promote and Krupczak and Mina Complementary goalsAssess Critical Thinking in (a) ConnectionsSociotechnical Context” Engineering education Engineers and non-engineers“Initial Results in Developing an Krupczak and Mina Complementary goalsEngineering Reasoning (b) ConnectionsAssessment for General Engineering educationEducation
contribution out of 10 points and provide anexplanation. Beginning with projects starting in the spring of 2015, a new peer rating system wasimplemented. This rating system asked students to rate each of their teammates on seven traits:Helping, Listening, Participating, Persuading, Questioning, Respecting, and Sharing. Theseratings were based on a 4-point scale with 4 being the maximum and most positive rating. Thisteammate rubric is shown in Appendix B. Peer feedback in this work is reported at the teamlevel; the overall average for each project and the standard deviation for the team membersworking on that project are the reported variables. This teaming rubric was introduced byBenzley et al. 14. To assess the impact of Basecamp on sponsor feedback
representative.Problem descriptions are provided in the Appendices B and C.Like previous projects, the work was staged with specified deliverables. In the first stage, prior tomodeling, analysis, or design, students were tasked with thinking critically about the market servedby the product in question including stakeholders, funding mechanisms, and available resources.The Stage 1 task list for Fall 2016 is provided below. Stage 1 Describe the operation and major elements of a selective laser sintering system. Identify all stakeholders. Interview stakeholders to determine target applications and appropriate cost target. Identify target materials for use in the prototype system
Commons [EngineeringLibrary], Garage Physics, and Discovery Building), and University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign (Undergraduate Library and Granger Engineering Library) for meeting to share yourexperiences and ideas.ReferencesAdobe Systems Incorporated. (2017). “Adobe KickBox.” Retrieved from: https://kickbox.adobe.com/.Bieraugel, M. & Stern, N. (2017). “Ascending Bloom’s Pyramid: Fostering Student Creativity and Innovation in Academic Library Spaces.” College & Research Libraries, 78(1), 35- 53.Forest, C. R., Moore, R. A., Jariwala, A. S., Fasse, B. B., Linsey, J., Newstetter, W., …. Quintero, C. (2014). “The Invention Studio: A University Maker Space and Culture.” Advances in Engineering Education, 4(2
. (2016). Meet the Dean. Retrieved from https://engineering.tamu.edu/about/ovcd/dean 4. Paretti, Marie C., Pembridge, J. J., Brozina, S. C., Lutz, B. D., et al. (2013). "Mentoring team conflicts in capstone design: Problems and solutions." American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference. 5. Sullivan, Brian T. and Karen L. Porter. (2016). “From One-shot Sessions to Embedded Librarian.” C&RL News, 77.1, 34-37. 6. Texas A&M University. (2013). Announces initiative to increase engineering enrollment. Retrieved from http://engineering.tamu.edu/news/2013/01/23/texas-am-announces- initiative-to-increase-engineering-enrollment-to-25-000-students 7. Tucci, Valerie K. (2011) “Faculty/Librarian
confidential numbering system developed by the teaching assistants. Each team gradestheir graders based on the quality of feedback provided. The instructions used to grade thegraders are shown in Figure 2. A cardinal and ordinal score are assigned to the graders, similar tothe peer grading process of the reports. Figure 2 – Instructions for the grading the grader processThe central purpose of grading the graders is to provide accountability during the peer gradingprocess. For example, if Team A does not provide any feedback justifying the grade theyassigned to Team B, then Team B will assign Team A low scores due to poor feedback quality,which negatively affects the overall grade for Team A. Grading the graders also
Paper ID #19892Making Connections: Challenging the Perceived Homogeneity of MakingDr. Gina Navoa Svarovsky, University of Notre Dame Gina Navoa Svarovsky is an Assistant Professor of Practice at the University of Notre Dame’s Center for STEM Education and the College of Engineering. She has studied how young people learn engineering for over a decade.Dr. Marjorie B. Bequette, Science Museum of Minnesota Marjorie Bequette is Director of Lifelong Learning at Science Museum of Minnesota.Lauren Causey, Science Museum of Minnesota c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Making Connections
agents for change”[7].Several studies describe the elements of interdisciplinary education including Borrego andNewswander who review the graduate-level IGERT programs at 98 institutions and indicate thatthe national efforts for interdisciplinary graduate education include: (a) grounding in multipletraditional disciplines, (b) integration skills and broad perspective of the interdisciplinarydomain, (c) team work, and (d) interdisciplinary communication [5]. Boix Mansilla’s workincludes development of rubrics which can be useful to assessing students’ interdisciplinarywork. The performance criteria promoting interdisciplinarity in the rubrics include: (a) beingwell grounded in the disciplines, (b) advancing student understanding, and (c) showing
Paper ID #18435Investigating National-Scale Variation in Doctoral Student Funding Mecha-nisms Across Engineering DisciplinesDr. David B Knight, Virginia Tech David Knight is an Assistant Professor and Director of International Engagement in the Department of Engineering Education and affiliate faculty with the Higher Education Program, Center for Human- Computer Interaction, and Human-Centered Design Program. His research tend to be at the macro-scale, focused on a systems-level perspective of how engineering education can become more effective, efficient, and inclusive.Dr. Maura Borrego, University of Texas, Austin
. b) Outline the systematic curriculum design model used to create a new interdisciplinary architectural engineering program.III. Literature ReviewKlein (1990), an interdisciplinarian, provides a basic and widely-cited definition ofinterdisciplinarity, “Interdisciplinarity is a means of solving problems and answering questionsthat cannot be satisfactorily addressed using single methods or approaches” (p. 196). Thisdefinition encapsulates the field of architectural engineering. In this particular study, thedisciplines were housed in departments of architecture, construction science, civil engineering,electrical engineering, engineering technology and industrial distribution, and mechanicalengineering. The faculty and senior management in
class finished their work infifteen minutes. This group who had the most readings and discussions about technologicalliteracy were clearly identifying main points of Tech Tally in particular their understanding threedimensions for the literacy as well as emphasis of critical thinking and the importance of criticalthinking and decision making in all design, and technological and engineering literacy cases. Q1. What is Tech lit? a. Being able to use many different forms of technology in practical way b. Know about basics and ideas of technology and artifact to apply to life experience c. How to use technology to solve problems d. Understand technology and the ideas that come with it
survey answers. Data were collected and analyzedaccording to a protocol approved by the Institutional Review Board for Social and BehavioralSciences (IRB-SBS). Data were not collected from students who opted out of the study.Student focus groupsFocus groups were conducted by two third-party observers from the University of VirginiaCenter for Teaching Excellence who were not affiliated with the course. Pizza and soft drinkswere provided during the focus group interviews. Focus group questions were open-ended andgave students the opportunity to expand on their experiences in the course (Appendix B). Focusgroups were recorded and later transcribed for qualitative analysis.Invitations to participate in the focus groups were sent to all students in
RP Challenge and Lab ExamCourse Evaluation: Theory: Homework/Class Work 10% Quizzes 10% 2 Tests 30% Final Exam 20% Lab Work: 4 Open-ended Lab Projects 30% Total 100% (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Figure 1: a) Roland CNC mill; b) UP printer; c) MakerBot Replicator; d) Flashforge Creator Pro; e) Next Engine 3D scanner; and f) Hand-held 3D scannerOpen-ended Hands-on Lab ProjectsThe following open-ended lab projects have been designed for the AM
defining sustainability or answering objective questions (e.g., multiple choice).Assessments of design skills capture higher-order cognitive processes which may require bothconceptual and procedural knowledge; for example, students applying sustainable design to theircapstone projects. Assessments of beliefs, attitudes, or interests reflect self-knowledge and aremore indicative of motivation to perform sustainable design or act sustainably, rather than ademonstrated ability to do so.Accordingly, the research questions guiding this review were:1. What tools are available for assessing students’ (a) conceptual knowledge, (b) design skills or application of knowledge, and/or (c) beliefs/attitudes/interests related to sustainability?2. Which fields
for engineers are becoming a trending topic.This paper explores the different ecosystems of entrepreneurship offered at faculties ofengineering across Canada. We explore two research questions in this paper: a) What is thegrowth, in demand and availability, of entrepreneurship courses in engineering schools, and b)What are the different components of an entrepreneurship ecosystem in engineering facultiestoday. The intent of this research is not to compare which program is better; rather, it is toexplores the different ways of how entrepreneurship is taught in engineering schools. Byproviding a systematic map of the current entrepreneurial landscape in engineering faculties, thisresearch can benefit professors and program directors who are
Education as a Rigorous Discipline: A Study of the Publication Patterns of Four Coalitions,” Journal of Engineering Education, 96, pp. 5–18, 2007.3 Spalter-Roth, R., N. Fortenberry, and B. Lovitts, What Sociologists Know About the Acceptance and Diffusion of Innovation: The Case of Engineering Education, Washington, DC: American Sociological Association, 2007.4 Henderson, C., A. Beach, and N. Finkelstein, “Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, pp. 952–984, 2011. doi:10.1002/tea.20439.5 Jamieson, L.H. and J. R. Lohmann, Innovation with Impact: Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Innovation in Engineering
of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at The Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina. Dr. Bower’s research into teaching and learning forces on improving active learning environments and the development of principled leaders attributes in engineering students. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Non-Tenure Track Faculty Professional Development OpportunitiesAbstractWith the growth of academic programs to include online coupled with the requirement toprovide full benefits to adjunct faculty who are teaching more than 9 credit hours in asemester, The Citadel, a primarily teaching focused college, has begun to shift from a nearlycomplete tenure track faculty to a
eleven years on the faculty at the United States Military Academy.Ally Kindel Martin, The Citadel Ally Kindel Martin is the Director of Student Engagement, Projects & Finance in the School of Engi- neering. In her position, she has worked with the Supplemental Instruction program, launched STEM Freshmen Outreach initiatives, created an Engineering Mentor Connection program, and revitalized the Engineering Career & Networking Expo. She holds a M.Ed. in Higher Education and Student Affairs from the University of South Carolina. Previously she worked as a Student Success Adviser and focused on early intervention initiatives. She has taught courses including First Year Seminar, Keys to Student Success and
with the first summer cohort of 24 students in 2009 and has continued with the essentialqualities unchanged thru the summer of 2016 (and presumably beyond). The SEEP is open toany student who has applied to and been accepted to enroll at Jackson State University for thefall semester with a major in one of the five ABET accredited engineering (or computer science)degree programs. Major components of the SEEP program are (a). students are enrolled forcredit in College Algebra (3hrs) and University Success (2 hrs.) the first summer term and inTrigonometry (3 hrs.) the second summer term, (b). SEEP students are housed together incampus dormitories, (c). classes are in mornings (M-Th) in the two story modern (2009)Engineering Building where all
) instructors encourage/provide authenticity, autonomy,support, interest, and novelty (three sub-themes comprising the meaningful components ofproject contexts theme) in their innovation projects and (b) embrace the unique and unexpectedstudent outcomes that innovation projects can provide.Analyzing Engineering Students’ Understanding of Innovation through Process MapsIn addition to interviews, we developed a process mapping activity to explore students’conceptions of innovation at a more abstract and procedural level. The process mapping task 1provided an open-ended way for students to identify the components and processes they wouldemploy when developing
) education. Afterpilot classes were developed, in 1998 the FC curriculum was implemented college-wide. In2003, the university adopted a track system with the FYE foundational courses separated intothree tracks: Track A (aerospace, agricultural, biomedical, civil, industrial, mechanical, andnuclear engineering), Track B (computer and electrical engineering), and Track C (chemical andpetroleum engineering). Track A was primarily project-based and used Mindstorms, Legos,magnetic balls, and beams to build structures. Track B focused on circuit design and computerprogramming. Only Track C maintained the FC curriculum until 2013. The target population ofthis study is first-time-in-college (FTIC) chemical or petroleum engineering students who startedin
higher levels of project performance through improved teamwork (Van Knippenberg,van Ginkel, & Homan, 2013). Two layers of diversity attributes were identified by researchers:(a) the surface level (e.g., age, gender, race, and physical disabilities; Mannix & Neale, 2005);and (b) the deep level (e.g., cognitive ability, personality traits, values, beliefs, and attitudes;Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002). However, the majority of studies on team diversity havefocused solely on surface-level attributes because deep-level diversity tends to be difficult tomeasure. The present study aims to explore micro-level patterns of behavior where effects ofdeep level diversity are manifested to create a collaborative environment and attenuate