, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219–225. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3Scott, M., Stelzer, T., & Gladding, G. (2006). Evaluating multiple-choice exams in large introductory physics courses. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 2(2), 020102–1 – 020102–14. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.020102Simkin, M. G., & Kuechler, W. L. (2005). Multiple-Choice Tests and Student Understanding: What Is the Connection? Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 3(1), 73–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4609.2005.00053
numerous awards include the first Fraunhofer-Bessel Research Award from the Humboldt Society in 2006; the 2015 Boyer Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching Engineering Innovation from the College of Engineering; and 2006 and 2015 Mars Fontana Best Teacher Awards from the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at The Ohio State University. During his tenure as Graduate Studies Chair over the past four years, Wolfgang Windl has pioneered and successfully introduced the first holistic admission protocol within the MSE Department and is currently helping to extend this approach to the College of Engineering and the OSU Graduate School. c American Society for Engineering
mindset can be used to further engi- neering education innovations. He also does research on the development of reuse strategies for waste materials.Dr. Daniel Knight, University of Colorado, Boulder Daniel W. Knight is the Program Assessment and Research Associate at Design Center (DC) Colorado in CU’s Department of Mechanical Engineering at the College of Engineering and Applied Science. He holds a B.A. in psychology from Louisiana State University, an M.S. degree in industrial/organizational psychology and a Ph.D. degree in education, both from the University of Tennessee. Dr. Knight’s research interests are in the areas of K-12, program evaluation and teamwork practices in engineering education. His current
time was quitereasonable, especially in light of the notion that the most students appreciated the overallflexibility of this approach, and their overall performance was greater than previous offerings ofthe course. As of this writing, we are repeating this experiment for the current CPE 233 course inorder to re-visit the validity of our results.Bibliography[1] Bishop, Jacob Lowell, and Matthew A. Verleger. "The flipped classroom: A survey of the research." ASEENational Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA. Vol. 30. No. 9. 2013.[2] Gibbs, Graham, and Claire Simpson. "Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning." Learningand teaching in higher education 1 (2005): 3-31.[3] Kerr, Barbara. "The flipped classroom in engineering
Research Conference (pp. 397–407). Puerto Rico: HighBeam Research.23) Buechler, D. N., Sealy, P. J., & Goomey, J. (2014). Three pilot studies with a focus onasynchronous distance education. Paper presented at Proceedings of 121st ASEE AnnualConference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN.24) Kiat, P. N., & Kwot, Y. T. (2014). The flipped classroom experience. In Proceedings ofIEEE CSEE&T (pp. 39–43). Klagenfurt, Austria: IEEE Xplore Digital Library.25) Mok, H. N. (2014). Teaching tip: The flipped classroom. Journal of Information SystemsEducation, 25, 7–11.26) Simpson, W., Evans, D., Eley, R., & Stiles, M. (2003). Findings from the HEI “Flip”project: Application issues. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education
) c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Paper ID #25118Implementation and First-Year Results of an Engineering Spatial Skills En-hancement ProgramDr. Alexander John De Rosa, Stevens Institute of Technology (School of Engineering and Science) Alexander De Rosa is a Teaching Assistant Professor at Stevens Institute of Technology. He gained his Ph.D. in 2015 from The Pennsylvania State University. Alex specializes in teaching in the thermal- fluid sciences and has a background in experimental combustion. At Stevens he advises the Society of Automotive Engineers and enjoys research in various areas of engineering education
physics to other disciplines.Ms. Jill Davishahl, Western Washington University Jill Davishahl is the Director of Pre-Engineering Program Development and faculty member at West- ern Washington University. She spends her time teaching, developing and implementing innovative cur- riculum, and managing National Science Foundation grants. She is passionate about inspiring the next generation of engineering students to think outside of the box, especially those that are walking along a non-traditional pathway.Dr. Lee Singleton, Whatcom Community College Lee Singleton is a professor at Whatcom Community College, in Bellingham, WA. He holds a BS in mathematics from Harding University, a MS in mathematics and PhD in biomedical
Katherine McConnell is a Senior Professional Development Advisor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder. She is currently a student at the University of Col- orado Denver pursuing an EdD in Leadership for Educational Equity with a concentration in Professional Learning and Technology. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Mapping & Strengthening Curriculum-Based Industry/Academia IntersectionsAbstractThis theoretically-grounded research paper presents a study out of the University of ColoradoBoulder focused on mapping the use of industry-based problems and examples across theundergraduate core curriculum in
Engineering Education, 2020 Blended Learning: Electrical Circuits for non-EE studentsAmardeep Kaur and Theresa Swift, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MOAbstractWith the advent of technology, the modern world is always changing around us. Our classroomsare becoming diverse with not just diversity of thought but also the diversity of culture, age, andlearning styles and pace. Our academic institutes are creating welcoming environments for thestudents with learning disabilities in addition to the students with physical difficulties. Aseducators, its our responsibility to utilize the tools of our times to create more dynamic classesby promoting more engagement, better learning experiences and providing different