teaching fundamentals sessions weregiven by Kresta. Kresta continued to offer three of those sessions for eight of the next thirteenyears. Over the period these forums ran, over 120 new faculty members were introduced to basicknowledge about educational fundamentals, and more importantly to the idea that the Faculty ofEngineering expects a well grounded approach to teaching. The text by Wankat and Oreovicz5was provided to all participants while it was in print; the on-line version is now referenced. The impact of these sessions was documented in two short articles, and shared with othercolleagues in several conference presentations and invited talks 1,2. A summary of the teachingsessions is included as an Appendix.Active Learning WorkshopDr
Paper ID #10107Personnel Improvement Plan: a professionalism assignment for engineeringstudentsDr. Mohammad Habibi, Minnesota State University, MankatoMr. Ronald R Ulseth, Iron Range Engineering Ron Ulseth, P.E. is Co-Director of IRE as well as an instructor of technical competencies in thermody- namics, fluid mechanics, and heat transfer. Ulseth has been teaching engineering fundamentals courses since 1988. He was a lead developer in the Itasca Community College Engineering program. Ulseth led a team of ˜10 engineering educators from around the United States to develop the Iron Range Engineering program. In addition to
is that we had more content than we couldreasonably address within time available for the course, so focusing on objectives and outcomeshelped us pare the material down to its most important components.A revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy [3] was used to write learning outcomes and objectivesin measurable terms. As a result of an iterative process between SME and curriculum designers,course level learning objectives were aligned with the learning outcomes; likewise, module-levellearning objectives were aligned to course-level learning objectives to ensure that each learningmodule could help learners to achieve intended learning outcomes. To exemplify this point, thetable below lists learning outcomes, course-level objectives, and Module 1’s
the communication example,if a participant writes down an idea clearly, but struggles to articulate it, what score should begiven? Second, because there is no sliding scale for quality, evaluators must base their scores ontheir subjective understandings of a definition. If two evaluators actually agree upon the actions aparticipant did but end up giving the participant differing scores of 3 and 4, how do they accountfor discrepancies in scoring? The need for detailed rubrics also extends past the hiring process to the promotion ofengineers. A lack of clearly defined behavior traits can make it difficult for supervisors toacknowledge progress of an employee, and for employees to keep track of their growth in acompany. For example
discipline.IntroductionFaculty today are often inundated with responsibilities that span advising to research. Time isscarce, and anyone who teaches technology courses quickly understands the challenge ofremaining current with best practices in theory and application that are utilized in industry. Anarduously developed classroom lecture, demonstration or exercise can, and often does, becomeextraneous in mere weeks with the advent of a new software suite or technology. The constantcycle of developing new teaching materials to replace outdated versions can be a dauntingchange. When discussing the creation of an innovative educational environment, Maier andWeidner write, “As a general matter, innovation represents change, and there is usually built-inresistance to change
past decade. Asubstantial amount of work that was once done in-house is now outsourced so they haveto deal with a huge range of suppliers and commodity components to assemble ‘systemsof systems’. Training programs for technology executives have been used to elucidatethe features of complex systems that would benefit from cooperative training and whereno provision currently exists. The outcomes include improved characterization ofrequirements and identification of further educational development that can beundertaken both inside companies and in university graduate programs.IntroductionCompanies engaged in the design, production and field-support of complex systems areexperiencing a broad and fundamental change in how they do business. Over the
communicate with customers and suppliers regarding SE activities/tasks.The third day of the seminar is an orientation to many of the System Engineering resources thatare available to participants as they continue their independent study. Representatives fromcontent providers will be present in a symposium format to discuss the details of their specificofferings. The students will then proceed on their own using the course catalog to pursueadditional education for subject matter that fits their individual need. By the end of this program, Page 13.33.8a pilot run of 100 students will have attended the SE Fundamentals seminar.Follow On PlansAs
adding online students to their existing courses using NEW,and these efforts gradually expanded to allow students to complete an MS in Computer Science Page 15.687.4entirely online.The open-source NEW system has similar functionality to many widely-used commercialsystems for online synchronous course delivery. The primary interface is a computer-basedwhiteboard, which can be used to display slides, share images of running applications, write, ordraw. The system includes audio, so that the instructor's voice is broadcast along with theimages, and students in the distance environment who have microphone-equipped computers canparticipate via voice
Paper ID #28557Work in Progress: Comparison of ’Boot Camp’ and Traditional AcademicCourse Delivery for Cybersecurity EducationMr. Ben Bernard, North Dakota State University Ben Bernard is a Doctoral Candidate in the Department of Computer Science at North Dakota State University and is the Computer Services Specialist for the Department of Architecture & Landscape Ar- chitecture at NDSU with fifteen years of service. Bernard has been professionally recognized for his contributions to NDSU’s new cybersecurity educational programs and is the first to be awarded an MS in Computer Science with an Cybersecurity focus at
Paper ID #18103How may Adjuncts Enrich Engineering Education? Challenges and Oppor-tunities for Bringing the Practice into the ClassroomDr. Waddah Akili, Iowa State University Waddah Akili has been in the academic arena for over 37 years. He has held academic positions at Drexel University, Philadelphia, Penna (66-69), at King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia (69-87), and at the University of Qatar, Doha, Qatar (87-00). Professor Akili’s major field is geotechnical engineering and materials. His research work & experience include: characterization of arid and semi arid soils, piled
grade I did and what I did wrong and what I could do to improve it. When you watch a video on being critiqued (well for me at least), I'm more focused and tuned in.”Q6 The feedback was “I don't think there is necessarily a difference in how personal itpersonal. TP (one mode or the other) is. It did allow you to catch the(7) professor's tone more easily.” “I think audio is more personal. Additional ideas were discussed and many key things that you might not include in writing were discussed in the video. It allows you to connect to the professor
program.Results and Discussion6 instructors volunteered to be recorded. Of these 6, 3 were teaching their first semester, 2 theirfourth, and 1 his 13th semester. The participants came from 3 different departments (EngineeringMechanics, Civil and Environmental Engineering, and Astronautical Engineering), though theywere all teaching the same course (an introductory Fundamentals of Engineering Mechanicscourse) for the recording.A summary of the numerical results from the survey is provided in Figure 3. Each bar representsthe average value of the participants’ responses to the survey questions. Higher numbersrepresent greater agreement with the statement made in the survey
] pointed out significant challenges in preparing teachers to introduceengineering design challenges: • Teachers lack fundamental skills. • Implementation is often abbreviated in the rush to build something. • Few teachers explicitly discuss design challenges with students in the context of the scientific and mathematical concepts. • Teachers are weak in the integration of concepts from science and mathematics. • Few opportunities for engineering faculty members to provide professional development to substantial numbers of teachers. • Most economical long-term solutions require improved pre-service preparation for teachers, probably using an interdisciplinary approach
geometric and living order approaches to project management.The Course Roadmap is re-presented at the beginning of each week’s web conference, remindingstudents each week where we are in the overall progression of the course, and providing alaunching point for exploration of geometric and living order applications, bridged by relevantlean management practices. Figure 3: Course Roadmap for Technical Project Management [22]Examples of How the Course Roadmap is Applied in What and How We TeachOur teaching and working with practicing engineers continues to inform and evolve what andhow we teach as we interact with students and their real-world projects. While we continue toteach fundamental project management concepts and tools, much
Paper ID #5971Faculty Development Through Industrial InternshipDr. Vedaraman Sriraman, Texas State University, San Marcos Vedaraman Sriraman is a Professor in the Department of Engineering Technology at Texas State University- San Marcos. In the past, he has served as the Manufacturing Engineering program coordinator, Chair of the Department of Engineering Technology and Assistant Dean in the College of Science at Texas State University. He has received several gramts form the NSF and SME-EF to initiate new curriculum and laboratories. Dr. Sriraman has received several teaching awards and has served as the faculty advisor to
the effect of the tool on student engagement andlearning through surveys, student focus groups, and field observations of participatingcourse sections. We asked students about their experience with the quizzing,feedback, writing of open-ended responses, and their interaction with the faculty. Ourinitial impressions are that students think that feedback is important to their learningand that although writing is more work than multiple-choice questions, it is a valuablelearning tool. Students even felt that writing on quizzes was helpful in preparing formultiple-choice quizzes. Student comments often included feedback for developingthe tool but also provided evidence to instructors that the time spent providing semi-personalized feedback was
) writing and using instructional objectives, (b)adopting active learning strategies, and (c) effective use of diagnostic, formative, and summativeassessments. Pre and post assessment of participants’ conception of teaching was captured by a20 question multiple-choice instrument that included demographic material (pre) and courseevaluation (post) as appropriate. Item categories on the instrument were drawn from Bransford’sHow People Learn (HPL) framework 1, a framework that is acknowledged as a practical way oforganizing what we know about teaching and learning today. Participant responses wereaggregated into four categories that derive from this framework (learner, knowledge, assessment,and community) and investigate how teaching methods
culty working together? My focus is shifting from what am I going to teach to what are my stu- Prof H Asst m both dents going to do? Prof I Asst m both I am trying one engaging activity per lecture this semester in my course. Prof J Asst m both I would like to learn more about clickers/polls to use during class. Could you write a letter for my P and T case about my participation in the Prof K Asst f both grant and observations? I think it would be a good idea to keep this with me each semester as a re- Prof
AC 2009-1432: EDUCATING FEDERAL ENGINEERS TO BEENTREPRENEURIAL THINKERS AND LEADERS – WHO WOULD OFTHOUGHT?Sharon deMonsabert, George Mason University Dr. deMonsabert is an Associate Professor of Civil, Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering. She is the program director for the Certificate in Technical Entrepreneurship for the Federal Government. She teaches courses related to Sustainable Development, Environmental Systems and Engineering, and Technical Entrepreneurship. Dr. deMonsabert was recently appointed to the position of Fellow for Academic Curricula at George Mason University.John Lanzarone, U.S. Army Corps of EngineersMico Miller, George Mason UniversityBarry Liner, George Mason
educators, which is identified as a responsibility of thegovernment and would, therefore, qualify as a systemic reform.Another addressed motivation from a more fundamental standpoint [47]. The authors recallthat most teachers elect to teach as a means of “last resort and are often the residuals from thepopulation of applicants that wish to proceed to higher education” [47, p. 197]. A parallelclaim was made regarding teachers' motivations that “teachers in conflict-affected,emergency, or post-crisis situations may not originally have intended to enter the profession,but did so to respond to the needs of their communities or the lack of other livelihoodopportunities” [48, p. 2]. A separate article identified social utility and personal utility