forinfrastructure projects, and (3) what is the student’s level of interest in including FEP forinfrastructure projects and SI in the CM curricula? Figure 1 illustrates the content of the module,the objectives, the instruments used to evaluate each objective, and the type of analysesimplemented. The results and limited data of this pilot study should not be generalized; however,this study should serve as a platform to highlight the potential importance of coupling Front-Endplanning tools with sustainable infrastructure projects in our CM curricula instead of merelyfocusing on vertical construction. Figure 1: Research OverviewProblem-Based Learning ActivityThe authors developed a Problem-based Learning (PBL) module that
Paper ID #29167in the engineering education community including serving as General Co-Chair of the Frontiers in Educa-tion Conference, President of the IEEE Education Society, and Associate Editor of the IEEE Transactionson Education (ToE) and the Journal of Engineering Education (JEE). She and her coauthors received the2011 Wickenden Award for the best paper in JEE and the 2011 and 2015 Best Paper Awards for the IEEEToE. In Spring 2012, Dr. Lord spent a sabbatical at Southeast University in Nanjing, China teachingand doing research. She is on the USD team implementing ”Developing Changemaking Engineers”, anNSF-sponsored Revolutionizing Engineering Education (RED) project. Dr. Lord is the 2018 recipient ofthe IEEE Undergraduate Teaching Award
Engineering Division (SWED)Key Words: Software Engineering, Agile Software Development, User documentation, ActiveLearning, Real-world project, Technical Communication.Introduction“Complexity kills,” Microsoft executive Ray Ozzie famously wrote in a 2005 internal memo [1].“It sucks the life out of developers; it makes products difficult to plan, build, and test; it introducessecurity challenges; and it causes user and administrator frustration.” If Ozzie thought things werecomplicated back then, one might wonder what he would make of the complexity softwaredevelopers face today with software users that expect flexibility from software in many the areas offeatures, connectivity options, high performance, multiple platforms, including the Internet
step would be to include a qualitative assessment of the issue in order to captureeducational methods that are required in SDC in the near future. References[1] A. Ragheb, H. El-Shimy and G. Ragheb, "Green architecture: A concept of sustainability,"Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 216, pp. 778-787, 2016.[2] M. Roseland and M. Spiliotopoulou, "Converging urban agendas: Toward healthy andsustainable communities," Social Sciences, vol. 5, (3), pp. 28, 2016.[3] K. I. Vatalis et al, "Sustainability components affecting decisions for green buildingprojects," Procedia Economics and Finance, vol. 5, pp. 747-756, 2013.[4] C. Carmody, "Considering future generations Sustainability in theory and
cybersecurity micro-credential enables the researchers to develop, expand, and tailor materials for a wide variety oftarget audiences – from individual state requirements (e.g., when cybersecurity is a portion of alarger set of CS standards) or more general national-objectives. To accommodate this flexible,ground up approach the researchers aimed to build infrastructure (i.e., micro-credentials) tosupport rigorous and content-rich, virtual PD for K-12 teachers to instill cybersecurity principlesand content knowledge in their students (Dark and McNair, 2015).The micro-credential PD that was created utilized Loucks-Horsley’s (2010) seven principles thatare common to effective PD experiences for STEM teachers including: 1) revolving aroundclarity related
conjecture at this point. Introduction and Background In 2005, the Journal for Engineering Education (JEE) fielded a special issue focused on The art and science of engineering education research which was drawn largely from a report by the National Academies (The Engineer of 2020). The bottom line of the NAE report [1], and the JEE special edition [2] was that change is hard, but that undergraduate engineering programs must have the ability to change to meet societal needs. It is now 2021, sixteen years after The Engineer of 2020 concept introduction. Our professional disciplines have come through a pandemic, and we all have changed in the face of strong, and sometimes mandated
, there is no clear definition in theliterature of what a mutually-beneficial partnership entails, across the full range of educational,research, and professional development and service activities carried out within the engineeringand technical community. The authors of this paper established informally that educators in bothengineering and engineering technology are often challenged by this lack of research on soundrecommendations regarding collaborative efforts. This paper is intended to be the start of alarger systemic literature review.IntroductionTo date, no broad, holistic studies have been conducted on best practices for maintaining multi-faceted relationships between industry and academia. There has been some research oncollaboration
, in general, have found the Social Media platforms to be effective forlearning as well as in supporting overall class-deliverables. It can be concluded that the P-valueis greater than 0.05 for all variables indicating there is no significant difference in means of pre-and post-course results. Table 1: Paired t-test analysis of the Effectiveness of Social Media Variable Course Absolute t Degree P- S.N. Mean of Value Difference Freedom 1. Effectiveness of Social Media Sustainability
buried in the technical details and forgetabout the key points and concepts taught in the lectures. This new form of assignmentencourages students to focus on key-points and concepts they learned in the lectures, and learnhow to apply them to solve complicated problems. Furthermore, this teaching method informsstudents of which concepts are fundamentally important. It helps students understand thewording used on quizzes and exams. It also helps build up a positive relationship betweenstudents and the instructor such that students could focus on learning instead of testing.2. The TGO Teaching MethodThis method was first introduced by Dr. Mattew Morrison at the University of South Florida [1].It was inspired by the instruction provided to enlisted
4 (14.3%) Lack of guidelines, realized to become a good writer Not interested 1 (3.6%) Busy schedule, know enough about writingWhen asked, 70% of the students reported that they had writing assignments in other engineeringcourses other than English and technical writing courses. Some general questions about thewriting assignments in relation to the course content were asked. The results are as follows. 72% of the students agreed or strongly agreed that these assignments improved their learning experience 85% of the students agreed or strongly agreed that these assignments instilled interest in the subject matter 60% of the students agreed or strongly agreed that
have been taught using a traditional lecture model, withsome sessions involving problem solving, set of problems as homework and the evaluation wasdone with two partial exams and a final exam. The professor had to have at least a master’sdegree in Structural Mechanics but a doctorate in the field was preferred. The percentage ofstudents failing the course was over thirty percent and the motivation was not optimal accordingto feed back provided by the professors at end of term. Our university has been working on anew educational model [1-5] that includes a more active role by the student during the sessions.The participants of this study are the students enrolled in two different courses, Mechanics ofStructures I and Mechanics of Structures II
education) [3].The majority of these studies focused on predicting student academic performance [4],identifying the role of motivation, personality and other psychosocial factors in the performanceof students [5]. Several other studies were conducted to assess the effectiveness of differentlearning environments (i.e classroom instruction vs. online courses), and blended learning [6][1], there were contradicting findings considering student performances. Other studies wereconducted to assess differences in various content delivery techniques in engineering classroomsin general, and for engineering statistics in particular [3] [7]. These studies provide valuableguidance for instructors teaching statistics in an engineering context. However, it is
current mechanical engineering class where the topic is firstintroduced to the students and the military significance. It is important to note that the militarysignificance is not a direct usage of the technology (we do not repair an aircraft or jam a radio),but only examples of engineering topics in military applications. Since the class is required to bean open enrollment class for any engineering student, topics must be general and non-classified inthe event non-us citizens are enrolled. The one exception was that some of the guest lectures wererestricted to U.S. citizens due to content. Because of these restrictions, attendance is notmandatory for these specific lectures. Table 1: Course Topics
rather than passively absorbing lecturematerial during class time [1]. Because lecture material is generally watched individually,outside of class, students are able to self-pace their learning. A flipped class approach wasadopted in an introductory computer aided design and drafting course. The course is required foragricultural engineering and agricultural engineering technology majors and is a popular electivetaken by physics majors. The current flipped format has been in place for six years. Fifteenhomework assignments, due on average every week, comprise 45% of the grade. Thus, eachhomework assignment is worth about 5% of the final grade and no late assignments are acceptedwithout prior approval. For a variety of reasons, including
problems with social significance, and the interdisciplinary nature of projects. Craemer [12] identified Introduction to Engineering (ENGS21) as a pivotal course in the curriculum for generating interest among students, especially women.While there is no easy answer to the question of how to achieve gender parity, they are somesimple steps that may be taken at other schools to increase gender diversity including: Hiring female students to serve as teaching assistants and mentors, Focusing on interdisciplinary, project-based, student-driven projects, and Offering courses for non-majors.References[1] NSF (2015). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2015. National Center for
5-8, 17 4 4 3, 4, 17 6-7 5 9-10, 17 6-7 6 2, 10, 14, 17 8 7 11-13, 17 9-10 8 1-2, 17In general, the three courses have similar objectives allowing the design of common blendedmodules. This work focuses on the designing stage of blended modules containing boththeoretical and applied content, common to three courses: Data Analysis for Engineering I,Inferential Statistics and Simulation Experiments
processing of oceanplastic debris. However, in order for the HEU to operate as intended; changes in the HMCconcept needed a substitution for its man-powered compression process. As seen in Figure 1below, applying heat temperatures that ranged from (150 to 180)°C [4] generated possibilities tohand-compress plastic waste at manageable pressures. Figure 1 Hand-Driven Compression Data [5]To achieve functional success, two challenges were presented during conceptual design for asystem that is capable of processing ocean plastic. The first challenge was the need to substitutethe HMC’s hand-compression method by use of a linear actuator, and the second challenge wasto integrate a heating process to soften plastic debris. Figure
generated just prior to the team quiz for each course. Also, theanswering/asking team combination is announced just prior to each round so that the teams do notknow which team they may be paired with in advance. Each round has 20 questions and the scores arerecorded by the moderating team.For instance, in Round #1 above, Team #6 first asks 20 questions to Team #3 and then Team #3 askstheir team’s first 20 questions to Team #6. Even within the teams, individual responsibilities areallocated properly: - 1 student is responsible for asking (reading out the questions) - Another student is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the questions - Another student is responsible for checking the scores entered by the moderating
, aviation, cognitive learning and human factors.While our interest lies in defining the content of an introductory ergonomics course for IEundergraduates, we find that the HFES Accreditation Guide8 provides valuable information. First,it acknowledges that the field of human factors/ergonomics is broad and their expectation is thatgraduate programs will vary considerably. They also define what they feel should be common toall programs, i.e., the core competencies that provide a general background in humanfactors/ergonomics. This is what we seek to define for our own undergraduate ergonomicscourses. Figure 1 shows the three core areas defined by HFES. Of most interest to our purpose, istheir requirement that each program should have a three-credit
conceptual question, discuss thequestion within peer groups, and then re-respond to the same concept question.Instructors can use student responses to guide class-wide discussions with the aim ofcorrecting conceptual misunderstandings. Learning gains have been documented in bothbiology[12] and computer science[13].Numeric Problems. Full length numeric problems were solved in-class by the instructor(ILPS) in a traditional “white-board” style or by the students during in-class groupproblem solving sessions (GPS). The numeric problems were developed after the peerinstruction concept questions and used to bridge the gap between the conceptual nature ofpeer instruction and the mathematical skill set instructors hope to generate in
, the timing of the content delivery, and context, play a significant role in theeffectiveness of this delivery model. Initial results indicate that students are demonstratingmastery of applied ethics-based knowledge and abilities between beginner and intermediatelevels by the end of the cooperative education program.IntroductionDemonstration that graduates of an engineering program have met student learning outcomes isrequired to be compliant with ABET expectations for accreditation. Professional skills constitute Page 24.69.2a significant part of these learning outcomes.[1] There are many ways to demonstrate mastery ofthese learning outcomes
challenges during the semester long project.Question 1. Which one of the following has presented you with the greatest challenges incompletion of your Capstone project? a. Using curricular/technical knowledge gained in your courses or learned independently to solve the problem b. Dealing with communication problems, delays, different personalities, company specific constraints (policies, protocols, procedures), scope changes, or prioritization? c. Internal capstone team issuesThe results from this question can be seen in Figure 1. Students overwhelming reported that thegreatest challenges were related to the working within a professional work environment. This isconsistent with previous research that reports frustration with
aims to help shift its undergraduate engineering education offeringtowards such a balance.5. References 16[1] Marbach-Ad, G., Egan, L. C., and Thompson, K. V., “Concluding thoughts”, In G. Marbach-Ad, L. C. Egan, and K. V. Thompson (Eds.), Cham: Springer, pp. 223-226, 2016.[2] ABET, “General criterion 3. Student outcomes from criteria for Accrediting EngineeringPrograms”, 2019. Retrieved from https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2019-2020/#GC3.[3] Ananiadou, K., and Claro, M., “21st century skills and competences for new millenniumlearners in OECD countries”, Paris: Head of Publication Service, OECD, 2009.[4] Winberg, C
2023 student responses to theresponses of each Fall 2023 course individually. Those results are included in Appendix A. Thep-values were obtained for each Likert scale item and for each course comparison. The p-valueswere compared to an α-value of 0.05 to test for statistical significance. The Cohen's d effect sizewas also calculated to show how much of a difference existed between the responses of thestudents using the zyBook and the students using WileyPLUS. In general, a Cohen's d of around0.2 is considered a small effect size, while 0.5 is considered a medium effect size and 0.8 isconsidered a large effect size.The survey results for the PANAS scale questions about emotions were also analyzed. Eachresponse was assigned a number (1 = A few
, newacademic professionals, and experienced researchers to manage scholarly work like papers,proposals, and other similar documents. To produce high-quality scholarly work, it is essential tofollow best practices that are designed to ensure that the research is rigorous, the writing is clearand concise, and the work is presented in a format that is appropriate for the intended audience.University education is anticipated to incorporate both a foundation in research and a focus onfostering a research-oriented mindset. In this approach, educators actively involve students inongoing knowledge-generation processes while simultaneously equipping them to tackle theevolving challenges they will encounter beyond the realm of academia [1]. Additionally
expectations set forth by ABET.IntroductionThe landscape of undergraduate engineering management programs in the United States hasexperienced an evolution captured by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology's(ABET) recognition of the need for traditional engineering disciplines alongside a morecomprehensive discipline that integrates leadership, communication, and teamworkcompetencies as seen in (Figure 1. Engineering Managers manufacture fiscal and enterprisevalue in creating, designing, and implementing technical projects, products, or system solutions[1]. The West Point Engineering Management (EM) Program embodies this approach. It ishoused in the Department of Systems Engineering at the United States Military Academy(USMA) as one of
),Disclosure (α = .61), and Conflict Management (α = .62) [13].C. Interpersonal Reactivity Index measures perspective taking in two subscales: EmpathicConcern, and Perspective Taking. Each subscale included 7 items on a 5-point Likert scaleranging from A - “Does not describe me well” to E - “Describes me very well”. Both subscaleshave appropriate internal consistency alphas with Empathic Concern (α = .68 - males and α = .73- females) and Perspective Taking (α = .71 - males and α = .75 - females) [14].D. General Self-Efficacy Scale measures a sense of agency [18] and is a 10 item (4-point Likertscale ranging from 1 = Not at all true to 4 = Exactly true), unidimensional scale. It measuresperceived self-efficacy: (1) facilitating goal setting, (2) effort
"Assessment by Competences", "AnalyticalRubrics," and "Undergraduate Engineering Education" were used in the literature search.Academic articles in English from the previous two decades were prioritized. Furthermore,benchmarking analyses were organized based on PMG partnerships with North Americaninstitutions (the University of Central Florida, the University of Florida, the University ofPittsburgh, and the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign) [24]. Additionally, the EWGparticipated in workshops with PMG experts and training for two years. Also, the MecekLaboratory's team from Argentina provided workshops founded on competency-basededucation.Table 1. Competencies of the new curriculum of Industrial Engineering Technical 1. Design
. ● Develop research skills for example, library search, reading a research paper, literature review, writing reports, writing papers, research presentations. ● Present a final paper and final presentation. ● Document their activities through weekly presentations, an online engineering notebook, changes to courses when adapting ECP, a laboratory manual, and bill of materials. ● Attend research meetings where students report and demonstrate their activities.Training Modules[1] Effective Library and Literature Search A session on the effective use of the University’s library for literature search was conducted onTuesday July 14, 2020 by one of the authors (RJ) who is the Head Access services/systems. Thepresenter demonstrated how to
. Long, “Engineering matriculation paths: Outcomes of Direct Matriculation, First-Year Engineering, and Post-General Education Models,” in 42nd Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings. IEEE, 2012, pp. 1–5. [2] J. Sklar, “The impact of change of major on time to bachelor’s degree completion with special emphasis on stem disciplines: A multilevel discrete-time hazard modeling approach,” Trans., California: California Polytechnic State University, 2014. [3] G. Ricco, I. Ngambeki, R. Long, M. Ohland, and D. Evangelou, “Describing the pathways of students continuing in and leaving engineering,” in 117th American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Louisville, KY, 2010. [4] J. L. Wessel, A. M. Ryan