understanding through group work focused on a project. If this processis sound, then why are many professional topics relegated to single activities in a seminarcourse, not being tested at all or students just being asked to know they exist? If onlyrequired within the senior design team experience, it is possible that only the studentassigned to write up the team experience (if a requirement at all) will wrestle with thetopic.How does a program add the new topics? The Department of Civil Engineering at TheUniversity of Texas at Tyler which is the newest program to be added to the College ofEngineering and Computer Science began hiring faculty and admitting students in 2005.The students who made up the first graduating class in 2008 were actually
existing entities, beoutcompeted, or find a new, unexpected niche in the ecosystem.Just as organisms, processes and resources are all equally important features of naturalecosystems, conceptual ecologies are constructed of various forms of conceptual entities. In anarticle titled “Why ‘conceptual ecology’ is a good idea” Andrea diSessa10 writes, “…conceptualchange involves a large number of diverse kinds of knowledge, organized and re-organized intocomplex systems.” The various types of knowledge he is referring too include memories,concepts from other fields, fundamental assumptions about knowledge and the universe,perceptual schema or organizational conceptual hierarchies. The diversity and complexity ofconceptual ecologies is no less important
Teacher Education, and Journal of Hispanic Higher Education. She earned her Ph.D. in Reading/Writing/Literacy from the University of Pennsylvania and has been a faculty member at UTEP since 2008.Miss Helena Mucino, University of Texas, El Paso Helena Muci˜no is a Ph.D. student in the Teaching, Learning, and Culture program at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP). She holds a master’s degree in Musical Education Research from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). She is currently working as a Research Assistant for an NSF-funded project at UTEP dedicated to broadening the participation of Latinx students in higher edu- cation. c American Society for Engineering Education
to which students actually achieve thelearning goals of the course. And most students do perform well in CE 4200, which is notunexpected for mature undergraduate students in an upper-division course. From inceptionthrough 16 semesters of instruction, the percentage of students who “passed” the course with agrade of “C” or better varied from 90% to 100%, average 97%. The overall course gradebreakdown per semester was “A”: 19% to 78%, average 47%; “B”: 15% to 66%, average 41%;“C”: 0% to 16%, average 10%; “D”: 0% to 7%, average 1%; and “F”: 0% to 7%, average 1%. As regards assignments, Figure 3 identifies that learning exercises for CE 4200 includefive writing assignments, two quizzes, six bonus assignments, the Mock FE Exam, and the
information into “chunks,” know whatinformation is relevant in the problem, reason from fundamental principles, take time todefine and redefine the problem to themselves, analyze the problem into parts, look forfamiliar patterns in the problem, spend considerable time sketching the problem, applywell-developed strategies, check their solutions, and learn from errors. The essentialelements of problem solving in this model are summarized in Table 1a. Table 1a. Problem-Solving Processes Based on the Wankat & Oreovicz (1993, pp. 71- 72) Problem Solving Model (A Prestep and Six Operational Steps)I Can 1 – Expresses anxiety or uncertainty 2 – Expresses confidenceDefine 1 – Lists knowns and unknowns
perspective of engineers which have been “generalized” (names changed) fromreal cases brought before the board for review [49]. These cases deal with an array of issues,typically with a microethical focus. The write-ups are fairly short and do not include a lot ofcontext. As such, the people from the public being impacted by the engineer’s decisions are notclear. Such case studies were used in the class as part of homework assignments from 2000 to2017, with different cases selected in different years. It is unclear that the students connectedthese cases with real people or situations, as they seem very hypothetical (e.g., Engineer M…).In 2016 the class lecture included short examples of individual engineers whose professionalengineering license was
than simply an “obedient engineer”. The framework proposes that theentrepreneurial mindset of students is increased by promoting curiosity, encouragingconnections, and creating value. The results from this work provide insight into the impact andimplications resulting from applying the KEEN framework to the engineering classroom viaonline discussions.Keywords: writing, journals, reflections, assessment, KEEN, curiosity, connections, creatingvalue.1 IntroductionThe entrepreneurial mindset is a “growth-oriented perspective through which individualspromote flexibility, creativity, continuous innovation, and renewal” [1]. While theentrepreneurial mindset can be useful in starting a new company, this mindset is also critical toexisting
future MSEclub visits, while also making them available to other teachers in their classes.The Summer Research Program participants must provide weekly progress report presentationsas they receive nurturing feedback to foster continuous improvement in effective scientificcommunication skills. As part of the evaluation strategy, oral communication is evaluatedindividually using a presentation rubric to assess each participant’s enthusiasm, eye contact,preparedness, clarity of speech, content organization, use of visual elements, writing,comprehension, knowledge, timing, and results (i.e. objectives, findings and research progress).After each presentation, the results are discussed with the participants focusing on strengths andareas for
techniques in academic areassuch as writing/composition, science education, and geography instruction. The areas of designand technology have proven to be especially effective topics for ACJ assessment, and are ofspecial interest to the authors.This introductory paper examines the fundamental principles of comparative judging andadaptive comparative judging, and discusses some of the most recent and relevant research onthis topic. Key web-based ACJ tools and products are briefly reviewed—especially as they relateto academic settings. Applications in the areas of portfolio evaluation, graphics assessment, andpeer critiquing are also explored.Adaptive comparative judging has proven to be a method or assessment tool that is relativelystraightforward to
distance-learning format, was developed first and beta-tested on ourcampus. The first-semester course was developed over the last year and underwent beta testingat a nearby four-year institution that does not offer engineering in Fall 2006. Fundamentally, thedistance-learning project is designed to provide students, who attend local community collegesbecause of limited financial resources, with an opportunity to explore the engineering professionand to build course credits that would transfer to four-year engineering programs. Withoutfreshman and sophomore engineering credits, transfer students are typically forced to extendtheir undergraduate tenure three or more years.Our School of Engineering and Computer Science has embarked on several recent
Page 25.1266.7material. This gives an overall indicator at a basic level. With time constraints on exams, it isunlikely that the exam will contain many questions on each aspect of technological literacy.Essay questions, such as a question asking students to consider the benefits and drawbacks of aspecific technology, can give an indicator of abilities at a higher level. Evaluation is moresubjective and it may be difficult to separate an evaluation of the student’s technological literacyfrom their ability to write an essay.To track their progress over time, similar questions may be asked in courses throughout thecurriculum. Short answer questions, as well as essays, may be added to other courses that coverthis content. Other assignments may be
combination of technical expertise, hands-on experience, andethical considerations. It is characterized by a reflexive and iterative consideration ofcomprehensive but often ambiguous or limited data from various sources and perspectives. Thisprocess allows engineers to analyze the fundamental causes of an engineering challenge andproduce solutions that address the problem while considering its impact on all relevant parties[2]. As described by Bennett et al. [2], engineering judgment encompasses selecting the rightproblem to solve, establishing relevant criteria, applying key concepts appropriately,communicating decisions clearly, and striving to optimize societal well-being. Unlike traditionalengineering skills, which may rely on procedural
as essential for consolidating knowledge and fostering engagement. "Ipractice all the time. There should be more weight given to the practical subject" (Student 5,Interview 2). Others emphasized the importance of theory as the foundation for understandingand applying complex concepts. "For me, the theoretical part will always have more weightsince it is like the fundamental pillar" (Student 6, Interview 2). These perspectives underscorethe challenge of designing courses that cater to both preferences while maintaining academicrigor.This diversity reflects broader debates in STEM education about the optimal balance betweentheoretical instruction and hands-on learning. Research highlights that while theoreticalknowledge is crucial for
purpose of engineering education.This question is irrelevant to engineering practice over the short term since engineering is what itis, and definitions don’t directly affect GDP or employment. Yet for engineering educators thedefinitions of engineering do matter since they inform what we should do. Definitions also pointout potential conceptual imprecisions; if we do not interpret a definition the same way then thereis a potential for miscommunication and subsidiary ideas may themselves be imprecise.Mitcham and Schatzberg point out 1 that definitions are fundamental to philosophy, and ourphilosophy, whether explicit or not, determines how we educate 2. More practically, definitionsserve as objectives, helping to determine the ultimate aims of
AC 2008-1104: IMPLEMENTING A CIVIL ENGINEERING PROGRAM AT THENATIONAL MILITARY ACADEMY OF AFGHANISTANStephen Ressler, United States Military Academy Colonel Stephen Ressler is Professor and Head of the Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering at the U.S. Military Academy (USMA) at West Point. He earned a B.S. degree from USMA in 1979, a Master of Science in Civil Engineering degree from Lehigh University in 1989, and a Ph.D. from Lehigh in 1991. An active duty Army officer, he has served in a variety of military engineering assignments around the world. He has been a member of the USMA faculty for 16 years, teaching courses in engineering mechanics, structural engineering, construction
required e lective courses rose from50% to 80% over a four-year period. For this reason, DSP-oriented labs and senior designcourses have become very popular in recent years. A number of these courses focus onprogramming of DSP chips: typical examples are given in [2,3,4,5,6,7,8].This paper describes the implementation and assessment of a DSP-based laboratory course that istailored to the particular needs of students at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). In 1970,WPI developed a unique outcome-oriented, project-based engineering curriculum, referred tolocally as the WPI Plan [9]. The WPI Plan is distinguished by several features: · Courses are offered in four seven-week terms, identified by the letters A, B, C, and D. Students
actions, with the fundamental text content. In the right hand sideof the screen, we offer active code, animation clips, interactive videos in 2D and 3D, 3Dobjects, 360 degree panoramas and virtual facility tours, and others, that enhance the Page 8.761.5learning process, and together with the text, images and other media re-enforce theProceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.Copyright © 2003, American Society for Engineering Education.subject area.According to our experiences, such multi-facetted computing support in education offersa well-rounded experience, that is significantly more
worthwhile contribution to its field. Inaddition, it is expected to provide a literature review and assessment data. It should also providea clear rationale for why the work was done, and what direct value it has. What specific need willit meet, and how?A further factor in getting a manuscript accepted is clarity in its writing. While many of theJournal’s authors are non-native English speakers, this clarity is more the result of consistentlogical thought on the part of its author than of expertise in the use of English.Downey: The journal accepts empirical research manuscripts, theoretical analyses, andthoughtful reflective essays. It is crucial that a manuscript “enhance understanding of engineersor engineering.”Many manuscripts in engineering
AC 2009-1088: A MATLAB GUIDE®-BASED GUI TOOL TO ENHANCETEACHING AND UNDERSTANDING OF HISTOGRAM MATCHING IN DIGITALIMAGE PROCESSINGShanmugalingam Easwaran, Pacific Lutheran University Shanmugalingam Easwaran holds Ph.D., MS (Clemson University, SC), and BS (University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka) degrees in Electrical Engineering. He is currently an Assistant Professor in the Computer Science and Computer Engineering department at Pacific Lutheran University (WA). Prior to this, he was an Assistant Professor at Xavier University of Louisiana (LA). Before joining the academia, he was in the industrial sector working for companies such as NYNEX Science and Technology, Periphonics Corporation, and 3Com
the development of empathy for the community, as is (again) adopting a mindset thatde-emphasizes one’s prior knowledge in order to develop an unbiased view and holisticunderstanding of a community’s true needs.4.3 CommunicationEffective communication skills are an essential component of utilizing empathic designtechniques to understand users’ needs, within or outside of service-learning contexts. Walther,Miller, and Kellam8 developed a series of four modules for cultivating empathic communicationskills among engineering students. These modules included (a) a direct focus on improvingspecific communication skills such as talking, listening, and observing, (b) role-playingactivities, (c) reflective writing exercises, and (d) “rich picture
6 2471 67 Integrate information from multiple 7 2477 65 sources Master fundamental concepts and methods 2 2466 61 in the major Use current technology 3 2453 60 Develop a solid base of knowledge 1,2 2466 58 Make connections across disciplines 7 2461 52 Understand ethical responsibilities 9 2314 35A finding of note in this table is that 35% of respondents indicated that their project workexpanded their understanding of ethical responsibilities. While this is a somewhat smallproportion, this is one of
across the quarter, the same four students are used as examples Page 13.783.10 Figure 3. Number of courses in which students used technology during class.for each week. The students used as examples were chosen based on 3 criteria; the made acomment on each survey, the comment was coherent, the comment represented commentsechoed by a number of other students in the course. “For some things it is important to have a hard copy, or to physically write something down. Aside from those, tablets are great as long as they get used in a way that allows students to stay active and engaged in the material
studentsexperience the curricula differently even if the fundamental concepts may be the same. Thismakes it more difficult to admit new students at these levels at this time. Another factor is theclass size. The goal is to cap class size at 21 students. In summer 2010, the number of students ineach group was 22, 23, 15, and 16, respectively.All students came from schools with very traditional Dominican classrooms that emphasizememorization of concepts rather than critical thinking. Students in Groups 1 and 2 had noprevious experience in engineering and technology classrooms. This was also the case for somestudents in Groups 3 and 4.Students attended MACILE from 7:45 AM to 3:30 PM Monday through Friday for 5 weeks,from June 28 through July 31. They received
techniques and gained a lot of new skills and knowledge about composite manufacturing,NDI evaluation, machining, edge and other defect treatments, testing, evaluation and report writ-ing and presentation. At the end of the experiments, undergraduate and graduate students learnedabout the data collections, analysis, presentations, technical report writing and conference paperpreparations. This is one of the most intensive activities for both undergraduate and graduatestudents in engineering. Some of the students joined our group used these research activities astheir own Engineer 2020 requirements in the College of Engineering at WSU. One of the under-graduate students (A.S.A. Shairi) is also a co-author of this work and made a lot of
Aerospace Structures 2 course and toadapt and improve the active learning activities for future semesters.KeywordsActive learning, aerospace engineeringIntroductionAerospace Structures 1 is a fundamental course in the Aerospace Engineering program thatintroduces students to basic structural analysis techniques for aircraft and spacecraft. Studentsenrolled in this course are typically in their junior year, and they have the option of taking thecourse in the fall or spring semester. Approximately 80 students per year enroll in AerospaceStructures 1, with a fall semester enrollment of around 25 students and a spring semesterenrollment of around 55 students. This course meets three times per week, Monday, Wednesday,and Friday, for 50 minutes each day
engineering students?AbstractDespite well-intentioned efforts, our nation’s education system is still not proficiently arming ourK-12 students with the tools to succeed and compete in science, technology, engineering, andmath (STEM) fields. To help close achievement gaps, engineering in K-12 classrooms offers areal-world application of the fundamental science and math principles that students learnthroughout their STEM education.K-12 engineering efforts are increasing around the nation, often grounded in current research oninquiry- and project-based learning, which has become popular as a result of the research inneuroscience and psychology on cognitive development. The past decade’s increase in project-based instructional methods in K-12 education
foundational knowledge of the designprocess. Our pre to post-institute measures revealed significant increases in their knowledge ofdesign and increases in their ability to communicate the similarities and/or differences betweenscientific inquiry and engineering design. Implications and directions for further research arediscussed.IntroductionEducation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is fundamental to thegoals of solving a myriad of international issues including meeting food, energy, health, andenvironment needs. Achieving these goals requires a populace educated in STEM. Key topublic knowledge in STEM is the development of highly capable and inspirational K-12 teachersprepared to teach STEM. Using the extant literature
the students. If students are motivated to spend more time on S-L projects,they are free to do so and should learn more in the process.The approach of S-L is consistent with the theories and empirical research of a number ofleading educators and developmental psychologists, including Dewey, Kolb, andKohlberg, as discussed by Brandenberger 3 and Jacoby1. The approach is also consistentwith the recent change in paradigm in education from a focus on teaching to a focus onlearning.4,5 Astin et al.6 found with longitudinal data of 22,000 students that serviceparticipation had significant positive effects on 11 outcome measures: academicperformance (GPA, writing skills, critical thinking skills), values (commitment toactivism and to promoting
engineering design process, students were given the opportunity tosolve real-world problems just as engineers do while learning how engineers use science in theirwork. Science is so fundamental to what engineers do that essentially engineering is puttingscience to work [5]. Students were able to utilize physical science concepts to conceive,construct, test, and analyze the design of a product. They were also able to reconstruct, retestand reanalyze results to determine whether design modifications were effective, demonstratingthat engineers not only create new products, but they also redesign them to make them workbetter.Working in teams, the students were presented with the real-world challenges that actualengineers had to confront before there
Debra Gilbuena is a graduate student in Business Administration and Chemical Engineering at Oregon State University. She currently has research in the areas of solar cell development through thin film technology, business plan writing and engineering education. Debra has 4 years of experience including positions in semiconductor manufacturing, propellant manufacturing, electronics cooling and sensor development, an area in which she holds a patent and has provided international consulting. Debra was awarded the Teacher's Assistant of the Year Award for the College of Engineering at Oregon State University for her work as a Teacher's Assistant in thermodynamics courses. She has interests in