theprogram.1. Pursuance of Career in the Area of UAV Technologies or Related AreasA total of 15 participants from all three years continued their involvement in the UAV researchprojects. The REU site has been able to motivate the students for career in UAV Technologies,which is one of the main objectives of the Site. This is also echoed in the students’ writtencomments collected by the external evaluator from the participants at the end of the summerPrograms. Some of the comments are: a) “I would highly recommend this program to everyoneinterested in UAVs,” b)“Learning how to code for UAVs and working with an awesome team,” c)“This program greatly increased my knowledge in computer science and UAV technologies. I nowfeel much more confident in my
. Gerber, and K. Ku (2011). “The pace of technological innovation inarchitecture, engineering, and construction education: Integrating recent trends into thecurricula.” J. Inform. Technol. Constr, 16, 411–432.[5] B. T. Johnson, and D. E. Gunderson (2009). “Educating Students concerning recent trends inAEC: A survey of ASC member programs.”Associated Schools of Construction: Proc., 45thAnnual Conf., Proc., 45thASCAnnualConf., T.Sulbaran, ed., Univ. of Southern Mississippi,Hattiesburg, MS.[6] Wu, W., Mayo, G., McCuen, T. L., Issa, R. R., & Smith, D. K. (2018). Building InformationModeling Body of Knowledge. I: Background, Framework, and Initial Development. ASCEJournal of Construction Engineering and Management, 144(8).[7] L. Wang, F. Leite
; Southerland (2019) Refined codes to create 2 Group B Collaborative final codebook Independent coding; 3 Groups 1-4 Final codebook reconcile through discussion Figure 2. Analytic approach.For our first coding cycle, we applied a modification of Grinath and Southerland’s (2019) codingscheme for categorizing teaching moves of university biology teaching assistants to onetranscript. This scheme
1. State name, occupation, course subject, level of students, and active learning methods utilized. How familiar are you with Peter Liljedahl’s research? 2. Describe what it was like using active learning methods in your classroom for the first time. a. What aspects of the methods were either effective or ineffective at achieving the learning outcomes for the lesson. b. How did the students respond to the methods? 3. What strategies have you used for developing classroom problems? a. [Ask this question only if the respondent notes they have used textbook problems] Do you have any recommendations or best practices in converting these types of
filter meaningless words such as “a”, “the”, “by”, “of”, “and”, “but”, etc. b) Data ManagementA learning statement submitted to the text mining program can have many attributes, such as thestudent who wrote it, the semester when the learning statement was generated, the section of thecourse taught by a particular instructor, and the assignment based on which the learning statementwas created, etc. These attributes, together with the learning statement itself, are very importantfor future analysis when large number of learning statement are accumulated. For example,researchers can compare the learning statements generated in two different sections of the samesemester, to see the difference of focus between the instructors who taught the two
, "Reviewing Intuitive Decision-Making and Uncertainty: The Implications for Medical Education," Medical Education, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 216-224, 2002.[22] B. Adelson, "Problem solving and the development of abstract categories in programming languages," Memory & Cognition, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 422-433, 1981.[23] D. P. Simon and H. A. Simon, "Individual differences in solving physics problems," in Children's thinking: What develops?, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1978, pp. 325-348.[24] E. M. Miskioglu and K. M. Martin, "Is it Rocket Science or Brain Science? Developing an Instrument to Measure 'Engineering Intuition'," in Proceedings of the 126th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Tampa, FL, 2019.[25] T. J
realizing the need to substitute in forthe pressure in terms of volume. The final point was awarded for a correct overall solution.Results (a) Attempt 1 (b) Math problem (c) Attempt 2 (d) Popoulation scores in each phase of the activity, mean score indicated and outliers shown. Figure 2: Student scores (out of four points) in the three phases of the in-class activity (n=177). Histograms shown (a-c) and (d) box and whisker plot.Figure 2 details the scores of students on the in-class activity. Four points was the maximumpossible point score. Only five students achieved a full score (entirely correct solution) on thefirst attempt at the boundary work problem
omega thermocouple temperaturereader in Figure 4c. Figure 4. Thermocouples installed at different positions (a & b) and plugged into a thermocouple temperature reader (c)Pressure quick disconnects were welded to the refrigerant lines as shown in Figure 5 and 6.Pressure gages are currently installed to allow pressure reading and the pressure disconnectswould allow future pressure transducer installation which could be connected to an Arduino or aDAQ system that allows bigger data storage and analysis. Six pressure gages were installed asshown in Figures 7 and 8. The project cost was around $4,295 as shown in Table 1. Figure 5. Quick disconnect connectors welded into the refrigerant pipes
, “MECHANICAL DISSECTION: AN EXPERIENCE IN HOW THINGS WORK,” Proc. Eng. Educ. Conf. Curric. Innov. Integr., pp. 1–8, 1992.[14] J. S. Lamancusa, J. E. Jorgensen, and J. L. Zayas-Castro, “Learning Factory-A New Approach to Integrating Design and Manufacturing into the Engineering Curriculum,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 103–112, 1997, doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.1997.tb00272.x.[15] J. V. Farr and D. M. Brazil, “Leadership Skills Development for Engineers,” IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 110–118, 2010, doi: 10.1109/EMR.2010.5645763.[16] T. E. Doyle, B. W. Baetz, and B. Lopes, “First-Year Engineering Bicycle Dissection as an Introduction To Sustainable Design,” Proc. Can. Eng. Educ. Assoc., no. August, pp
postonly survey originally developed by The Program Evaluation Group for Science enrichmentprograms.The data tables and corresponding graphs generated from responses to the Student FeedbackSurvey are presented next. 1(a). This program helped me understand science 26.51% 55.42% 16.87% better. (n = 83) 1(b). Because of this program, I feel better about 45.78% 36.14% 14.46% being able to learn science. (n = 83) 1(c). I learned some things in this program that I 39.02% 37.80
qualitative and quantitative results, we will seek to understand how the two partscan inform each other. For the factors that are already identified, further research willbe undertaken to understand how the factors influence engineering students’epistemological development. Additionally, future research will be focusing on theadvantages and disadvantages of different forms of SDPs as regards to students’epistemological development.Reference[1] J. C. Wise, S.H. Lee, T. Litzinger, R.M. Marra and B. Palmer, “A report on a four-year longitudinal study of intellectual development of engineering undergraduates,”Journal of Adult Development, vol.11, no.2, pp.103-110, Apr. 2004.[2] R. M. Felder and R. Brent, “The intellectual development of science
color ball in the same color or creating tube for each animal. patterns 1Links to the activities which include pictures and descriptions will be provided when paper is unblinded. References[1] J. Wing, “Computational Thinking,” Commun. ACM, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 33–35, 2006.[2] W. Sung, J. Ahn, and J. B. Black, “Introducing Computational Thinking to Young Learners: Practicing Computational Perspectives ThroughEmbodiment in Mathematics Education,” Technol. Knowl. Learn., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 443–463, 2017.[3] S. P. Jones, “Computing at school in the UK : from guerrilla to gorilla,” Commun. ACM, no. April, pp. 1–13, 2013.[4] A. Dasgupta, A. M. Rynearson, S. Purzer, H. Ehsan, and M. E. Cardella
system.This bulkhead is 3D printed and can be customized based on the motors available. If desired, thisbulkhead could be expanded to separate the vessel into two watertight compartments. Within thisbulkhead, routing points are included for cables connecting the sensor package to the electronicspackage. The electronics package sits on a shelf that conforms to the curvature of the hull. Thisshelf provides a level mounting platform for the electronics while elevating them above the innersurface of the hull in case there are any leaks. For this application, the electronics package isprotected in a separate IP67 waterproof case that was on-hand.The electronics package consists of a Pixhawk flight controller, a Raspberry Pi 3 B+, and anArduino Uno. The
arebeginning in the Senior Design/Capstone courses, with the goal that content and activities willgradually be filtered into other courses starting with the first-year experience.7These efforts seek to address the gaps in engineering education noted above by (a) involving aspecialist in ethics and technology in the context of engineering education, (b) embeddingengineering ethics within straightforwardly “technical” courses, (c) illustrating how professionaland engineering questions encountered in upper division engineering education benefit from apan-ethical perspective, and (d) subjecting these decisions to the critical review of clients whowill have to face any ethical dilemmas arising from engineering decisions.Working to fulfill the Future of
expected time on the problem framing. They may not haverecognized the importance of discussing the possible problems of the company through thequestions.Table 1. The first strategies followed by the teams to generate individual questions. Team strategy Teams Explore the data and post individual questions (as proposed). G, K Not show the exploration of the data and post the individual questions. A Explore the data, post the individual questions, and provide general F, H, L, M, P findings from all the questions. Explore the data, post the individual questions, and fully answer and B, C, D, J, N, E, analyze each of the questions.Individual Data-exploratory
the extent to which they interacted with their completed homework post-submission, for bothstudent sets. The magnitude of this increase is greater for SVC than OSU students. To study this further,the data were analyzed for each individual student to document their specific change in behavior. Thisa)b) Figure 3: Sankey plot detailing the change in individual student behaviors when receiving back graded homework for (a) SVC and (b) OSU. This is an expansion of the data in Figure 2. The left side of each plot indicates student behavior in previous courses, while the right side shows student behavior in MHP courses. Upward flows (green) indicate student progress towards more effective study behavior in the MHP courses, while downward flows
learning. Students who received explicit training inASTM standards were also asked 1) to participate in a mid-semester assessment survey abouttheir training by the librarian and 2) to provide their ASTM standards reports for analysis. Thepre-test, post-test (Appendix A), and assessment survey (Appendix B) were anonymous; thestudent ASTM standards reports were collected and de-identified, per UB IRB protocol#STUDY00003053. The population included 500 engineering students, and of those, 473participated in the pre-test, 371 participated in the post-test, and 104 agreed to allow us toanalyze their standards report.Although this paper does not aim to address the findings of all these methods as the primaryargument, the authors move into the results of
Mathematics Majors Homework Quiz – Other Types of Equations NAME: __________________________________ MAT 1050: College Algebra Score: ___________ a. Find a problem from the homework that 1. Solve the following: would be solved using the same process. 𝟒 𝟐 𝒙+𝟏 −𝟓 𝒙+𝟏 = −𝟒 b. Without solving, what mathematical cues caused you to choose that particular problem from the
factor. Rating of A Rating of B Rating of C Rating of D Member A ratings of all members 27 24 24 25 Member B ratings of all member 25 30 23 22 Member C ratings of all members 25 25 25 25 Member D ratings of all members 25 27 25 23 avg=25.5 avg=26.5 avg=24.25 avg=23.75 25.5/25=1.02 26.5/25=1.06 24.25/25=0.97 23.75
for effective software engineering includeknowledge of the: software process – requirements, design, validation and evolution; and toolsand techniques (a) to model various artifacts in the requirements and design phases, (b) supportverification and validation, and (c) maintenance activities post software deployment. The non-technical (soft) skills include effective: communication, team management and participation, andtime management, among others.In this paper we present our experiences of integrating learning and engagement strategies (LESs)into face-to-face (F2F) learning environments with the expectation of improving student learningand engagement for both software engineering and software testing undergraduate classes. Theexperiences
Stakeholder Metrics Since the students were not beholden to the instructors for a grade, no formal evaluationof the students was undertaken. However, a short evaluation form for the course and instructorswas given to the students at the end of the course, including five questions: (1) What do you feel were the strengths and weaknesses of these instructors? (2) How do you feel the instructors could improve their teaching of this course? (3) Please rank the instructors from 1 (low) to 5 (high) on the following aspects: a. Instructors well prepared b. Encouraged independent thinking c. Learned greatly from instructor d. Interested in helping participants e. Overall rating (4) How do you
question they will address and why the work is important. Students are asked to summarizethis information succinctly in one sentence, as suggested by [5]. The completed sentence shouldread “The topic I am studying is X, because I want to find out Y, in order to help my readerunderstand Z.” where X is the topic of study, Y is the question that needs to be answered, and Z isthe significance of the work.In addition, this worksheet is also designed to help students to determine if the problem they planto address is a practical or conceptual problem [5], [6], by answering the following questions: a. Practical Problem: What do you want your reader to do after reviewing your work? b. Conceptual Problem: What should the reader think after
Trigger” condition.ConclusionsThe impact detector project provided the mechanical engineering students with hands-onexperience that they had not previously encountered. For some students, it was the first time theyhad used a hand drill or soldering iron. The project also served to highlight many aspects of thecourse and show how these concepts can be combined to create an actual useful device. The instrumentation and measurement course supports the following student outcomes for the mechanical engineering program: b. Students have an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data. g. Students have an ability to communicate effectively. j. Students have a knowledge of contemporary
IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2016.[7] T. B. Murdock, L. H. Anderman, and S. A. Hodge, “Middle-grade predictors of students’ motivation and behavior in high school,” J. Adolesc. Res., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 327–351, 2000.[8] J. R. Austin, D. S. Isbell, and J. A. Russell, “A multi-institution exploration of secondary socialization and occupational identity among undergraduate music majors,” Psychol. Music, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 66–83, 2012.[9] J. C. Weidman, “Undergraduate socialization: A conceptual approach,” in Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, vol. 5, New York, NY: Agathon, 1989, pp. 289–322.[10] E. M. Ellis, “The impact of race and gender on graduate school
“Practice of engineering”…engineering Ark. Code § 17-30- teaching of advanced engineering subjects or 101(4)(A) related courses Idaho “Practice of Professional Idaho Code § 54- Engineering”…teaching upper division 1202(10) engineering design subjects Kentucky “Practice of engineering”…the teaching of Ky. Rev. Stat. engineering design courses in any program §322.040(1)(b) accredited by EAC-ABET or equivalent Missouri “Practices as a professional § 327.181.1 RSMo
university andcomprehensive university respectively. The first configuration in table 4 shows (a)more academic scientists, (b) fewer graduate students, (c) fewer funding projects,and (d) fewer academic papers with higher consistency. This finding explains whyengineering advantage university policies pay more attention to the introductionand cultivation of high-level scientific research talents. The second configuration intable 4 shows that (a) fewer academic scientists, (b) more graduate students, (c)fewer academic papers and (d) fewer library resources with high consistency, whichshows that engineering advantage university attaches great importance toengineering innovation students. The third configuration in table 4 shows (a) feweracademic
. Loekemoer and J.A. Nel, “Exploring the impact of information andcommunication technology on employees’ work and personal lives,” SA Journal of IndustrialPsychology, vol. 42, ed. 1, Jun. 2016.[2] P. Hanafizadeh, S. Ghandchi and M Asgarimehr, “Impact of Information Technology onlifestyle: A literature review and classification,” International Journal of Virtual Communitiesand Social Networking, vol. 9, is. 2, Apr.-Jun. 2017.[3] S. Deb, “Information technology, its impact on society and its future,” Advances inComputing, vol. 4, is. 1, pp. 25-9, 2014.[4] D. J. Fuchs, “The dangers of human-like bias in machine-learning algorithms,” MissouriS&T’s Peer to Peer, vol. 2, is. 1, May 2018.[5] B. J. Erickson, P. Korfiatis, Z. Akkus, and T. L. Kline
. FBD’s are correct 2. Used Factor of Safety Equations correctly for all applicable problems. 3. Internal forces/torque of members were found correctly for all problems 4. Deformation/stress equations were applied correctly for all applicable problems 5. All final answers included proper UNITS and correct directions (positive/negative) 6. All the steps were clear and made sense. Student had a clear idea of solving the problem Section 2: Comments: Point Scale: 4.0 Flawless Work (6/6) 3.0 Quality Work (5/6) 2.0 Average Work (4/6) 1.0 Needs Improvement (3/6)Based on the proposed scale, the instructor confirmed that having an overall average of 2.0 orhigher at the end of the semester, guaranteed students earning a letter grade of B or higher.However
. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 880–900, 2014.[11] S. Howe and J. Goldberg, “Engineering Capstone Design Education: Current Practices, Emerging Trends, and Successful Strategies,” in Design Education Today: Technical Contexts, Programs and Best Practices, D. Schaefer, G. Coates, and C. Eckert, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International, 2019, pp. 115–148.[12] K. H. Sienko et al., “Global health design: Clinical immersion, opportunity identification and definition, and design experiences,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 34, no. 2(B), pp. 780–800, 2018.[13] R. P. Loweth, S. R. Daly, J. Liu, and K. H. Sienko, “Assessing needs in a cross-cultural design project: Student perspectives and challenges,” Int. J. Eng
' efficacy beliefs. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(2), 177.[11] Matusovich, H. M., Streveler, R. A., & Miller, R. L. (2010). Why do students choose engineering? A qualitative, longitudinal investigation of students' motivational values. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(4), 289-303.[12] Jones, B. D., Osborne, J. W., Paretti, M. C., & Matusovich, H. M. (2014). Relationships among students’ perceptions of a first-year engineering design course and their engineering identification, motivational beliefs, course effort, and academic outcomes. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(6A), 1340-1356.[13] Dickrell, P., & Virguez, L. (2018) Engineering Design & Society: A First-Year Course