, and Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. At Rose-Hulman, he co-created the Integrated, First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering and Mathematics, which was recognized in 1997 with a Hesburgh Award Certificate of Excellence. He served as Project Director a Na- tional Science Foundation (NSF) Engineering Education Coalition in which six institutions systematically renewed, assessed, and institutionalized innovative undergraduate engineering curricula. He has authored over 70 papers and offered over 30 workshops on faculty development, curricular change processes, cur- riculum redesign, and assessment. He has served as a program co-chair for three Frontiers in
projects in education need to createconnections between research results and the concerns of instructors in the classroom24. Othershave pointed to the need for changes in professional development for engineering educators inorder to increase the connections between research-based teaching practices and classroomuse25,26. There are a multitude of practical questions faculty have about incorporating suchinteractive teaching strategies (e.g., whether to grade or assess student work? what kinds of tasksare useful?). Our professional development model could be characterized as a professionallearning community27. Borrowing from K-12 models for teacher professional development thatemphasize the need for ongoing, sustained professional development
byan unaffiliated engineer and an unaffiliated K-12 educator for accuracy of engineering, scienceand mathematical content, pedagogy, grade-level appropriateness and accessibility to teachers.The K-12 educator also reviews the author-provided standards alignments. More specifically,teacher reviewers assess whether 1) the educational standards are at the appropriatecomprehension or knowledge level for the targeted grade range, 2) student actions are clear andlikely to yield the standard’s objective, and 3) the provided assessment tools serve to adequatelyassess the standard(s). If accepted-for-publication lessons and activities are found lacking inNGSS and/or CCMS alignments, a TeachEngineering editor makes appropriate alignmentsbefore
, and 51/144in terms of Quality of math and science education for higher education and training [2]. Also, the 2012Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Programme for InternationalStudent Assessment (PISA) ranks the US as being 27th and 20th of 34 member countries in mathematicsand science, respectively [3].While UAF is primarily a research institution, its members broadly recognize that a strong STEMprogram is a vital component to the continued success of the university and our nation. As part of thisvision, the university is working hard to achieve a stable and robust college UAS and aerospaceprogram. The program’s initial efforts have included building awareness of the UAS program, andeducating research faculty on how
the use of an intermediary software tool, Code Composer Studio to compileand program whereas the Beagleboard interfaces directly with MATLAB. Analysis of theusefulness of the hardware upgrade was carried out by assessing students' acceptance of the DSKversus the Beagleboard-xM in terms of its usefulness and usability over four key laboratoryexperiments: Digital Audio Effects, Touch-Tone Phone, Voice Scrambler-Descrambler, andSampling and Aliasing. The extent to which the two hardware platforms were able tosuccessfully achieve learning outcomes in the course is also presented.IntroductionReal-time signal processing as part of an introductory signal processing course complements in-class lectures by using project-centric and industry hardware
) Advisory Boardand is currently a member of the SUNY Plattsburgh Alumni Association Board of Directors, the SUNYPrrovost’s Open SUNY Advisory Council (POSAC), the Faculty Council on Teaching and Technology(FACT2), the SUNY Council on Assessment (SCoA), the SUNY Shared Services Steering Committee, theSUNY Language Consortium, the SUNY Alliance for Strategic Technologies, and the Executive Boardfor the SUNY Information Technology Exchange Center (ITEC). Kim received her bachelor’s degree inComputer Science from SUNY Plattsburgh and master’s degree in Education in College Student Personnelfrom the College of Saint Rose. Page 26.1204.2
Technology. At Rose-Hulman, he co-created the Integrated, First-Year Curriculum in Science, Engineering and Mathematics, which was recognized in 1997 with a Hesburgh Award Certificate of Excellence. He served as Project Director a Na- tional Science Foundation (NSF) Engineering Education Coalition in which six institutions systematically renewed, assessed, and institutionalized innovative undergraduate engineering curricula. He has authored over 70 papers and offered over 30 workshops on faculty development, curricular change processes, cur- riculum redesign, and assessment. He has served as a program co-chair for three Frontiers in Education Conferences and the general chair for the 2009 conference. Prof. Froyd is a
Sarasota, FL.Dr. Angela R Bielefeldt, University of Colorado, Boulder Angela Bielefeldt is a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder in the Department of Civil, Envi- ronmental, and Architectural Engineering (CEAE). She serves as the Associate Chair for Undergraduate Education in the CEAE Department, as well as the ABET assessment coordinator. Professor Bielefeldt is the faculty director of the Sustainable By Design Residential Academic Program, a living-learning community where interdisciplinary students learn about and practice sustainability. Bielefeldt is also a licensed P.E. Professor Bielefeldt’s research interests in engineering education include service-learning, sustainable engineering, social
likely to engage whenmentors are closer to their same age or experience.The exact implementation of PLTL model varies between courses, but every implementation usesan undergraduate student to present material and to provide help with homework problems. Withinthe courses assessed, implementation of the PLTL model has varied between using externalvolunteer attendance sessions versus mandatory in-class sessions. Each of these implementationstyles has advantages and disadvantages. External volunteer attendance sessions allow for a betterrelationship between the peer leader and the attendees. The disadvantage of making it a volunteersession is reduced participation unless it is heavily incentivized. The mandatory in-class peer ledgroups have the
astandard application software package. It involves both classroom instruction and hands-ontraining. The assessment method used in this course includes regular tests and exams andindustry based certification.Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics Curriculum at Mechanical EngineeringTechnology, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia The engineering Technology curriculum at Old Dominion University includes variouscourses that focus on the areas of robotics, mechatronics, and automation14. All students in theMechanical Engineering Technology Program are required to take Automation and Controls andAutomation and Controls Lab as a part of their core courses. The assembly line includes threeindustrial robots and one machine vision station, as
of 2013 withprocess control and safety, we restructured both courses with two major goals in mind: (1) activelyreading textbooks and references, and (2) reflecting on learning and self-assessing learningtechniques.In previous years, thermodynamics consisted of a lecture followed by solving problems in groups.In 2012, students began class with a sort activity related to the required reading for that day,followed by a brief, not-graded “concept clarity” written assignment, then class problem solvingbased on the students’ feedback. Instead of having 7-10 homework problems per week, students didjust 3 problems plus one reflection assignment per week. In process control and safety, the coursepreviously had three projects as the only assignments
the level of IPv6 readiness ofinternational universities is largely unknown. Secondly, the quality or “effectiveness” ofuniversities that have IPv6 web services enabled is also unknown. This study addresses thesetwo challenges by providing the first known published assessment of the IPv6 enablement ofuniversities within a global scope.Though the need to become ready for IPv6 implementation may not be on the forefront of auniversity’s list of priorities, the effects of not becoming IPv6 ready can have negativeimplementations much sooner than administrators may anticipate. A university’s adoption ofIPv6 can affect the institution’s teaching, research, innovation, and budget.1 Partneringinstitutions and research facilities that are already IPv6
].Studying the discontinuity events encountered by the students during a course will serveas a metric to assess global preparedness efficacy (GPE) to navigate the disruptioncaused by the novelty and complexity of the problem space. Resolving a discontinuityempowers students to act in ways that reflect the growth and resilience needed toappreciate the complexity of a problem space and arrive at solutions. The ratio ofresolved to total discontinuity events will determine the global preparedness efficacy.GPE offers a way to evaluate mastery of ABET criteria 3h in a systematic manner.Research SettingData was collected from students taking the [name of the course] course at XYZUniversity. The program currently focuses on educating students to engage with
Planning Application Research Questions Page 26.1358.10In addition, a learning outcomes assessment was conducted using pre-course and post-coursequestionnaires which included thirty-two questions grouped in six learning outcome categories:programming skills, critical thinking; problem solving, logistics of app elements functionality,target audience, and presentation of the app prototypes. Fifty-five students enrolled in theconcurrently taught courses from the three disciplines (i.e., computer engineering,communication and multimedia studies, and urban planning) completed the questionnaires.Knowledge gains were assessed on a Likert scale
completed at this point. Therefore, assessing the prototypes forcompleteness and extent of testing completed at this point has been found to be a good predictorof team effectiveness. The prototypes are assigned a score of 1-5 for completeness, where 5indicates a completed prototype and 1 indicates that no prototype is likely by the end of thecourse. Testing was also rated on a 1-5 scale, where 5 indicates that prototype verification testingis complete and 1 indicates that testing was not planned or discussed. This validated rubric ispresented in Table 2. In addition to scoring the executive summary, grades are determined basedon oral and written reports and whether the final projects met the specifications laid out by theteam and their advisor at
Assistant, Ms. La Shon N. Lowe is gratefullyacknowledged. Mrs. Josie A. Latham, SEEP program coordinator is acknowledged for hercontinuous coordination of the program. Dr. Evelyn J. Leggette, Associate Vice President forAcademic Affairs is acknowledged for her sustained support of the program.References[1] Robert W. Whalin and Qing Pang, “Summer Enrichment Program to Enhance Retention”, ASEE SoutheastSection Conference, Charleston, South Carolina, April 2011.[2] Robert W. Whalin and Qing Pang, “Preliminary Assessment of Summer Enrichment Program”, ASEE SoutheastSection Conference, Starkville, MS, April 2012. Page 26.1440.15[3] A. Reyes, Mary R
Engineering. His motivation and passion pushes him into research in wireless commu- nication, especially in Bluetooth Low Energy and Near Field Communication as well as building projects and fostering innovation with faculty and staff members. As part of the Learning Environments division, Page 26.210.2 the idea to develop, oversee and assess engaging students to expand their knowledge and creativity by innovating new technologies application for Engineering Education is currently under way to engage the university and the community. Concluding, Mr. Lugo’s ambition is to encourage students to focus in science
. Obviously anumber of improvements are needed for further implementation of these methods and studentdevelopment model to provide the level of results envisioned for graduating engineers. Animportant future step is development of more robust assessment methods to obtain performancedata from the various student enrichment activities described in this paper, beyond current resultsfocusing merely on clicker quiz data. A larger, universally focused improvement will beinstitutionalizing the documentation process to more broadly capture and encompass studentdevelopment activities, longitudinal data trends, and related assessment evidence throughexpanded functionality of web-based software. This type large-scale advancement wouldconstitute an important
Institute for Science Education. xii, 105 p.4. Suresh, R., The Relationship between Barrier Courses and Persistence in Engineering. Journal of college student retention, 2007. 8(2): p. 215-239.5. Lambert, A., P. Terenzini, and L. Lattuca, More than meets the eye: Curricular and programmatic effects on student learning. Research in Higher Education, 2007. 48(2): p. 141-168.6. Volkwein, J.F., The Assessment Context, in Assessing Student Outcomes: Why, Who, What, How?, J.F. Volkwein, Editor. 2009, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.7. Vogt, C.M., Faculty as a Critical Juncture in Student Retention and Performance in Engineering Programs. Journal of Engineering Education, 2008. 97(1): p. 27-36.8. Jewell, R.T., M.A. McPherson
easily be shared by instructors ofdifferent experience level. A long term goal of DBL is to allow students to solve novel and complexproblems with minimal instructor support.In this tutor, students were asked to draw a T-v phase diagram for a refrigeration cycle they hadnever seen before. At any point in the drawing process, students could submit their work to receivefeedback. Upon submission, the tutor evaluated the student drawing to determine the mostgeneral/important understanding for which the student needed help. Rather than showing thecorrect answer, the tutor asked additional questions designed to assess the student’s understanding.The tutor’s response was contingent on the student’s answers, potentially resulting in furtherassessments
. Stephen J Krause, Arizona State University Stephen Krause is professor in the Materials Science Program in the Fulton School of Engineering at Arizona State University. He teaches in the areas of introductory materials engineering, polymers and composites, and capstone design. His research interests include evaluating conceptual knowledge, mis- conceptions and technologies to promote conceptual change. He has co-developed a Materials Concept Inventory and a Chemistry Concept Inventory for assessing conceptual knowledge and change for intro- ductory materials science and chemistry classes. He is currently conducting research on NSF projects in two areas. One is studying how strategies of engagement and feedback with
equilibrium, mechanical energy, heatcapacity and steady state, among others was presented by Olds et al.27 The Heat and EnergyConcept Inventory (HECI) was developed by Prince et al.12 to assess prevalent misconceptionsrelated to temperature vs. energy, rate vs. amount of heat transfer and others. Using HECI on373 undergraduate students from 10 different universities, the authors demonstrated that studentmisconceptions are both prevalent and resistant to change.Real-life examples, hands-on experiments and projects have been used to help students intackling thermodynamics abstract ideas, and to connect them to actual hardware. Flotterud etal.28 described a micro-combined heat and power system, sized for residential distributed powergeneration, that was
literature have assessed the benefits of undergraduate research as perceivedby students themselves. These perceived benefits include accumulation of new skills,understanding of new content, gaining knowledge in research methodology, ability to workindependently, etc.1,7 It is important to note that the perceived benefits are not limited to thosestudents who pursue graduate degrees.1 One study discusses long term benefits reported bystudents involved in undergraduate research, these students also recognized the influence of afaculty mentor.8,9 Some studies even report that undergraduate research may be useful forimproving the retention rates of minority students, it may be noted that this study was limited tobiology students.10 The influence of
the enhancement of human capabilitiesfrom now on.Assessment and broader impactIn this course, we use a pre/post course questionnaire to assess student understanding of 1) SJ asa concept, 2) the past and present intersections of engineering and SJ, and 3) students’ currentrelationship with SJ as engineering students. In the pre-course questionnaire, student responsesvaried but included recurring themes, as many students respond 1) as either accepting ignorance(“I have almost no understanding of social justice”) or focusing on retributive justice (“when thelegal system decides consequences of crimes”); and they respond 2) mainly in a negative way(“engineers causing harm to people via flawed designs”) and very few in a positive way
; funds of knowledge; physical and digital manipulatives and their application in engineering courses; engineering identity; cultures of engineering; retention, recruitment, and outreach for underrepresented minorities in STEM; and engineering discursive practices.Dr. Wade H Goodridge, Utah State University Wade Goodridge, Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering and Technology Education at Utah State University, has taught Solid Modeling, CAD, Introductory Electronics, Surveying, Statics, teaching and Learning, Assessment and Evaluation, and Introductory Engineering courses at Utah State University. Goodridge has been teaching for the Utah State College of Engineering for more than 15 years. He holds dual
and Assessment at Duke’s Center for Instructional Technology. She also teaches Sociology of Crime through the Continuing Studies program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Dr. Martin A. Brooke, Duke University Martin A. Brooke received the B.E. (Elect.) Degree (1st. Class Hons.) from Auckland University in New Zealand in 1981. He received the M.S. and Ph. D. in Electrical Engineering from The University of Southern California in 1984, and 1988, respectively. He is currently an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering at Duke University. Professor Brooke was an Analog Devices Career development award recipient from 1988-1993, won a National Science Foundation Research Initiation Award in 1990, the
first-year engineering students at multiple institutions in the spring of 2016 to betterunderstand how pre-college engineering programs and activities influence the experiences ofstudents in first-year engineering programs.Summary of Work Completed Over the Past YearMajor work completed over the past year included an analysis of the relationship between pre-college engineering participation and students’ grades in their First-Year Engineering courses, alarge scale survey of First-Year Engineering Students pre-college engineering experiences anddifferences in participation between different engineering majors, and the development of aquantitative instrument to assess students’ experiences of the transition from pre-college to first-year
Paper ID #16486Measuring the Impact of Service-Learning Projects in Engineering: HighSchool Students’ PerspectivesTamecia R. Jones, Purdue University, West Lafayette Tamecia Jones is currently a doctoral student in the Engineering Education department at Purdue Uni- versity with a research focus on K-12 engineering education, assessment, and informal and formal learn- ing environments. She is a graduate of Johns Hopkins and Stanford University. Originally trained as a biomedical engineer, she spent years in the middle school classroom, teaching math and science, and consulting with nonprofits, museums, and summer
a 21 item online survey. The survey items were taken from both validated instruments andthe ABET Criteria 3 course outcomes: a, b, and e. Survey data was collected from the testpopulation (students given the project) and compared to a control population (students not giventhe project) to assess the impact of the project on engineering self-efficacy. The results indicatethere is a statistically significant gain in student engineering skills self-efficacy, studentperception of their ability to analyze and interpret data, ability to solve engineering problems,and organize a presentation.IntroductionAccording to the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET), engineeringgraduates must have the ability to apply math and science to
-of-use, energy requirements, time oftreatment and efficacy. They made observations about the effectiveness of their particularmethod by inspecting the reduction color, turbidity, and odor. In addition, they kept track of thetime it took to purify one liter of water. Students also calculated the amount of time it wouldtake to purify the minimum amount of water necessary for sustaining a person in one day asrecommended by the World Health Organization and assessed the appropriateness of using eachof the technologies in the developing world. Following this class session, students researchedtheir respective purification technique and reported back to the class on its mechanism forremoving contaminants as well as its limitations. The students