approach through exercises that require them to design concurrent services, predict thetiming, implement the services with RM fixed or dynamic priorities and then trace and compareactual timing to predicted for verification of not only correct function and output, but the abilityof their systems to meet timing constraints (deadlines for response). Through a series ofchallenging exercises (six in total), they are introduced to concurrent programming (POSIXthreads for Linux) that must be mapped to specific cores (e.g., with CPU core thread affinity) forAMP. Through work on these exercises, RMA is reinforced and emphasized with more and morechallenging requirements and constraints. The exercises include simple problems at first, withthe use of
, complicated solutions. 4. Disrespect for effective Low-Tech solutions. 5. Belief that creation of something new is always better than improvement of an existing one. 6. Lack of design capability. 7. Avoidance of contradictions in problem solving - drive to optimize existing solutions or add Hi-Tech patches. 8. Adoration for analysis and no understanding of synthesis. 9. Unskilled in defining core of a problem and deciding that a solution is ‘good enough’. 10. Weak communication skills through means other than equations and calculations. 11. Weak communication skills through sketches/pictures/drawings. 12. No understanding of quality process beyond SPC. 13. Prefer working as
toa design task. Kilgore et al.[12] refer to the consideration of global and societal implications ofengineering design as “breadth of problem-scoping,” and the “context” of engineering (p. 321).Their conceptualization of contextual competence focuses on broad thinking and problem-scoping activity, a critical part of the design process, in a specific engineering design task.While working through design tasks is one avenue to enhancing one’s contextual competence,research suggests that other activities also influence the development of student’s contextualcompetence. Through analyzing six institutions with exemplary engineering programs in a casestudy format, Lattuca et al. found that these campuses offer a variety of curricular experiences
times a week,including three 50-minute sessions and one 165-minute flexible or “flex” period. The flex periodis the cornerstone of the revised course structure, as it allows for several different teaching andlearning strategies that would not be possible in the shorter periods. These periods arespecifically designed to be active learning sessions, which allow for better integration ofindividual concepts to attain a higher level of application. While the 50-minute sessions involveshort lectures and the solution of multiple stand-alone problems, several of the flex periods areused for combined analytical and laboratory-type experiences that extend far beyond simplesingle-concept problems similar to those found in most textbooks. Other uses of the
represent devices and processes and may be low or high in terms ofphysical or functional fidelity (p. 318).” In an educational context, Alessi (2002) 4 proposed thatsimulations are “any program which incorporates an interactive model (one which can berepeatedly changed and rerun) and where the learning objective is for students to understand thatmodel, whether through discovery, experimentation, demonstration, or other methods (p. 177).”For our purposes, we define simulations as – A simulation is an interactive computational model with user control of specific variables (inputs) and multiple methods for displaying common relationships of interests (outputs, e.g. graphs) to experts (scientist perfecting the models or
[1]. Additionally, through industry and public institutions weknow that engineers do not work in isolation, but in teams [2]. There is a need for a moreauthentic course experiences where engineering students can build content knowledge but alsoknowledge in how to collaborate with peers.Background: Educational researchers Chi and Wylie began to investigate groups of twos andthrees in different learning contexts to better understand what occurs in these group dynamicsand how do these dynamics affect learning [3]. They created the ICAP framework which allowsone to categorize students’ levels of cognitive engagement into one of four modes based on theirovert observable behaviors: Interactive, Constructive, Active, Passive (aka ICAP). In general
a multistory structure as described above.This was done for various combinations of numbers of stories, shores and reshores and resultedin the development of a total of 84 training cases. Another set of 15 cases was not used duringtraining the model. These 15 cases were used during evaluation of the trained model. Thecombinations of number of stories, shores and reshores are designated through out the paperusing alpha-numeric characters, such as, N8S3R1 represents an 8 story building with 3 shoresand 1 reshore construction sequence. The training data included three inputs – the number ofshores to be used, the number of reshores to be used, and the number of stories of the structure –and three outputs – the maximum load on a shore, the
to new technologies through network simulation.1 – IntroductionIn the design of new systems, modeling and simulation allow us to verify new architecturesbefore their actual implementation. In the analysis of existing networks, modeling and simulationallow us to identify bottlenecks and evaluate the impact of new users, applications or changes tothe network infrastructure. Using OpnetTM as a software tool to simulate and model computernetworks, our course on Communication Networks Modeling, Simulation and Testing, in theTelecommunications Engineering Technology program at Texas A&M, teaches our students toevaluate and identify limitations in network architectures and protocols.Moreover, one of our goals is to teach them to integrate new
tion session security,” in 2nd Smart Cities Symposiumdetection. (SCS 2019), 2019, pp. 1–4. DOI: 10.1049/cp.2019.0178. All experiments are run on an ollama model inference with [3] A. O. Salau, E. D. Emmanuel, A. Alemran, C. K. Dixit,NVIDIA RTX A6000 graphic card with a dedicated 48 GB and S. L. Braide, “Exploring large language models forGPU. natural language processing,” in 2024 Second Interna- tional Conference Computational and Characterization
disciplines and in various contexts.In terms of student learning and attitudes, we agreed that many bright students tend to “turn theirbrains off” when in the laboratory. Some students expect to be told (either through a protocol,teaching assistant or instructor) what each step should be rather than to solve problems forthemselves. Because of compartmentalization, students often make the same mistake repeatedly.We surmised that a reason for such an approach to laboratory coursework is the attitude that thepurpose of education is certification (grades, diploma) rather than acquisition of knowledge andskills. Without the ability to generalize, students see the required assignments of a course ashaving no meaning or relevance beyond those particular
behaviors by evoking inthem positively valenced emotions through the provision of personalized feedback andvalidation. Odafe [33], for example, reflecting on his experience with administering oralassessment in an algebra course, observes “when students feel that their contributions are valued,they will start to 'own' and value the subject of mathematics and this could indicate a turningpoint in student attitudes towards the subject.” Boedigheimer and colleagues [34], whoconducted oral exams across multiple courses in the same field, similarly recognize “studentswho performed well appreciate the immediate praise.” In her thermodynamics course, Zhao [35]found that students who volunteered to take the oral exam “tended to feel that the class was
programs such as the Accreditation Board for Engineering andTechnology (ABET), many universities around the world have been making major efforts torecognize the challenges faced by engineering educational programs and make changes toachieve what many are calling “Excellence in Engineering Education”. As one example of theprograms developed recently, in 2002, the National Academy of Engineering launched the Page 11.610.2Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education (CASEE) 1. Its purpose isto understand at a deeper level what should be taught in engineering and how to teach thestudents, by recognizing how they learn. Through its
the pedagogical characteristics to understand the equipment operationalaspect of teaching in response to changes in the power industry. capabilities and limitations. Students use simulation packages to validate the experimental results while at the same time Index Terms—discrete Fourier transform, harmonics, least learn through hands-on experiments how varioussquare error, optimization equipment/sensors can be used in the design of power system for steady state, dynamic, and transient conditions as well as
, Ireland, Scotland, England, France, Czech and Slovak Republics, Finland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Taiwan. His early experience involved teaching in Alberta and at universities in North Dakota and New Jersey.Dr. Kathryne Newton, Purdue University, West LafayetteDr. Susan Kubic Barnes, James Madison University Susan K. Barnes is an Assistant Professor in the College of Education at JMU and Director of Operations for Barnes Technologies International, LLC (BTILLC). She has more than 18 years of experience in education, assessment, and evaluation. Barnes served as a third-party evaluator for projects funded by U.S. Department of Education, including Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) grant
involved in K-12 STEM education for American Indian students and connecting applications of traditional indigenous knowledge within science and engineering education. Dr. Jarratt-Ziemski is Mississippi Choctaw. Page 12.956.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2007 Intersections between Science & Engineering Education and Recruitment of Female and Native American StudentsAbstractAuthors will present an extensive overview of women and minorities in science, technology,engineering and math; provide discussion of the importance of multicontextuality as a tool in theuse of effective pedagogy
different types of learners.Hypermedia and Student AchievementExisting studies on the efficacy of instructional hypermedia are still inconclusive 5, 6, 7, 8. A recentmeta-analysis7 of 46 studies of the effects of hypermedia on student achievement found 60% ofthem reporting positive results of hypermedia instruction, while 40% reported no significantdifferences or negative results. Few of the studies reported in the literature meet even rudimentaryscientific requirements for selection, manipulation and control of potential mediating variables 6, 9,10 . As well, educational researchers face many difficulties in trying to conduct controlled studies inuniversity settings, where threats to validity and reliability are often beyond the influence of
in classroom settings. As an anecdotal example, a professor at University of Notre Damedescribes teaching virtually during COVID-19 lockdown as follows: “I am continually repressing my lifelong, trained habit of uttering simultaneous encouragement through ‘continuers,’ those back-channel cues that encourage the speaker to go on.” [11]Group feedback including laughter, fatigue, visual engagement, head tilting, and auditory cues are nolonger accessible to teachers during COVID-19. This may have a serious negative impact on the ability ofteachers to adapt their teaching to the responses of the class. For instance, in physical classrooms, when ateacher notices students becoming drowsy, they may opt to ask questions of the class or add some
), a review ofbranch specific websites (e.g. search for “Navy education benefits”) for education benefitsrevealed the most common and longstanding programs that are highlighted in this paper.History / BackgroundSince its inception in 2009, the Post-9/11 GI Bill has been a transformative investment of morethan $53 billion to support the post-secondary education of more than 1.4 million servicemembers, veterans, and their families [1]. Prior to World War 1, there was little to none in theprovision for veterans’ participation in higher education. It seems the only compensation was inthe form of pensions for some disabled veterans following the Revolutionary War. Thiscompensation continued into the next century through the Civil War [2]. However
GPAs compared to theircounterparts who did not receive mentoring.2 Mentoring has the potential to progress students whilenurturing their academic success resulting in student persistence and graduation. Mentoring can lead topersonal and professional development. In a recent study, researchers found that 74% of participantsbelieved that their mentoring program led to personal development.1 For example, a mentee shouldgrow personally through a mentoring relationship by gaining confidence, communicating moreeffectively, and becoming more knowledgeable among other growth factors. Further, researcherssuggest that collaboration, shared decision making, and systematic thinking are important elements in acollaborative mentoring relationship.1 It is
-traditional students with limited time to spend on/off campus activities due to employmentneeds, while in previous schools, the student population, especially those who reside on campus,are better positioned to participate in the extracurricular and enrichment programs. Hence, thisresearch contributes a critical perspective to the literature: how a limited set of WiC supportprograms that can be implemented with small local to nonexistent funding but with dedicatedfaculty members can improve the experience of women students in computing degree programseven in and through a global pandemic.The short-term purpose of this research work is to improve the experience of the womencomputing undergraduates as they complete their degrees while the broader goal
Engineers,” 2005 ASEE AnnualConference and Exposition: The Changing Landscape of Engineering and Technology Education in a Global WorldConference Proceedings, Portland, OR, United States, pp. 14577-14585.8. Nickels, K., 2000, “Do's And Don'ts Of Introducing Active Learning Techniques,” 2000 ASEE AnnualConference and Exposition: Engineering Education Beyond the Millennium Conference Proceedings, St. Louis,MO, United States, pp. 2209-2214.9. Demirel, Y., 2004, “Effective Teaching And Active Learning Of Engineering Courses With Workbook Strategy,”2004 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Engineering Education Researches New Heights ConferenceProceedings, Salt Lake City, UT, United States, pp. 4371-4384.10. Marshall, J., 2009, “Creating An Active
University. She received her M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Carnegie Mellon in 2009, and her B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Brown University in 2007. Her work has focused on studying the engineering design process through cognitive studies, and extending those findings to the development of methods and tools to facilitate more effective and inspired design and innovation. Dr. Fu is a recipient of the NSF CAREER Award, the ASME Design Theory and Methodology Young Investigator Award, the ASME Atlanta Section 2015 Early Career Engineer of the Year Award, and was an Achievement Rewards For College Scientists (ARCS) Foundation Scholar.Prof. Mitchell Nathan, University of Wisconsin - Madison Mitchell J. Nathan is a
, University of Minnesota, Twin CitiesProf. Tamara J Moore, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Tamara J. Moore, Ph.D., is the Executive Co-Director of the STEM Education Center and Associate Pro- fessor of Mathematics/Engineering Education at the University of Minnesota. Her research and teaching pursuits are situated in the learning and teaching of STEM fields through the integration of these subjects in formal and non-formal learning environments. Her particular focus is how engineering and engineering thinking promote learning in K-12 mathematics and science classrooms, as well as in higher-education engineering classrooms through the paradigm of STEM integration. She is creating and testing inno- vative
studies resources 5. Develop new 4. Match programs, if student needs necessary to programs Figure 1. The MethodologyNext, the institutional resources available to assist women in engineering were identified. Thecollege sponsors a mentoring program that is administered through the office of the college dean,and a student organization, Women in Engineering and Science (WES), sponsors socialactivities. Although these existing programs may meet the needs of some students, it is possiblethat new programs may need to be developed to
Classrooms: Dimensioning the Behaviors That MatterThis research paper describes the findings from an exploratory study. Student retention inengineering disciplines, from program initiation through commencement, is recognized as achallenge by higher learning institutions across the US. Numerous studies have identified thatprofessors who can establish strong and positive rapport with their students have an immediateand positive impact on students’ learning, engagement, motivation and academic success,resulting in a positive long-term influence on retention. Previous work has defined fifteenspecific faculty behaviors that establish positive rapport between students and professors in otherdisciplines. However, these past studies may not be generalizable
active, while men were slightly more visual, intuitive, and reflective.Our results suggest that incorporating outreach projects and emphasizing communication andinterpersonal skills appeals to women in undergraduate engineering programs. This course couldbe used as a model for first-year courses to recruit and retain women in engineering.Furthermore, the outreach activity not only allows engineering students to contribute to society,but exposes young K-8 women to engineering and role models.Introduction Page 15.933.2Women continue to be underrepresented in engineering and technology fields. According to datacompiled by the National Science
, USA.7. Smaill, C., Rowe, G. B. & Godfrey, E. (2009). How much do they really understand? An entry-level test on electricity and electromagnetics. Proc. ASEE Annual Conference, Austin, USA.8. Tait, H., & Entwistle, N. (1996) Identifying students at risk through ineffective study strategies. JSTOR Higher Education, Vol. 31, No 1, 97-116.9. Webster, T. J. & Dee, K. C. (1998). Supplemental Instruction Integrated Into an Introductory Engineering Course. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 377-383.10. Steif, P. S. & Hansen, M. A. (2007). New practices for administering and analyzing the results of concept inventories. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(3), 205-212.11. Felder, R.M. & Brent
diagram instruction and a conceptposttest was given after phase diagram instruction was completed. The concept test consisted ofthree beakers of water with varying amounts of sugar in each solution as indicated by density ofdots in the beaker. The unsaturated solution showed a low density of dots. The saturated solutionshowed a moderate density of dots and with a small mound of saturated sugar at the bottom ofthe beaker. The supersaturated solution had a high density of dots that represented excess solutein solution beyond the equilibrium solubility limit. Students were told to choose the correct label(unsaturated, saturated, or supersaturated) for each beaker and give the reasoning for theirchoice. Four different interventions were tested
, it is exceedingly difficult to find a champion of this line ofargument: even philosophers seem to suggest by their silence that while philosophy might beimportant for engineering, they themselves as philosophers play no necessary role. MichaelDavis, in his well-cited 1998 Thinking Like an Engineer written from his perspective as a“trespassing” [22] philosopher, argues at least implicitly for this view position. “Philosophers,”he articulates in the introduction to his work, have long made themselves useful by pointing outthe obvious in fields not their own - which is all I intend to do” [23]. On these views, it is moreimportant that engineers come to identify, reason through, and resolve issues with their ownwork than it is to bring
education and the retention of engineering students. She received her B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Idaho in 2002. Her research is directed by Dr. George M. Bodner and Dr. Deborah K. Follman.Deborah Follman, Purdue University Deborah K. Follman is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Education at Purdue University. She received a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Cornell University in 1994 and a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from North Carolina State University in 2000. Her research interests include engineering education and gender equity, specifically regarding self-efficacy, issues of gender on student cooperative learning teams, and curriculum