adjacencies”, asshown in Figure 3. Students may show atoms touching for some but not all of these positions.The guidelines stipulate that a correct answer should have atoms touching for at least 5 externaladjacencies and 1 internal adjacency. Figure 3. Illustration of the internal and external adjacencies on the FCC (111) plane.2. Study 1: Introductory Materials Science Coursea. Description of ImplementationCourse Description:Study 1 investigated student learning throughout an introductory materials science andengineering course at a large research institution. This course is primarily taken by sophomoreand junior students across the engineering school, and covers common introductory topics suchas crystal structures, mechanical properties, and
Paper ID #28123Board 16: Mechanical Engineering Division: Competency Based Assessmentin DynamicsDr. Kurt M DeGoede, Elizabethtown College Professor of Engineering and Physics, Elizabethtown College. His research interests in biomechanics include developing clinical instruments for rehabilitation. Dr. DeGoede teaches upper-level undergraduate mechanical engineering and design courses and the first-year introduction to engineering course. He is also developing a collaborative study abroad program in West Africa built around social enterprise initiatives. c American Society for Engineering
Paper ID #28121Board 13: Manufacturing Division: Improving Student Engagement in aSenior-Level Manufacturing Course for Mechanical Engineering StudentsDr. Joshua Gargac, University of Mount Union Joshua Gargac is an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Mount Union in Alliance, OH, where he advises the mechanical engineering senior capstone projects and SAE Baja team. In addition, Dr. Gargac teaches first-year engineering courses, computer-aided design, kinematics and dynamics of machinery, and manufacturing science. He received his BSME from Ohio Northern University and a PhD in Bioengineering
organizationaldetails, there is some discussion of the material shared at the annual meetings. More relevant tothis study are the analyses of the divisions’ publications and related documentation. Hubbard[14] and Osorio & Solomon [15] performed bibliometric analyses of ASEE conference papers bymembers of the divisions, with the latter going so far as to map topics and vocabulary used inthese documents with the Sci2 network analysis and visualization tool.MethodsThe authors went through established SLR processes of identification, screening, eligibility, andinclusion, as outlined by Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, and the Prisma Group [16]. Figure 1in the Results section illustrates the details of the number of articles remaining after each of thestages
Paper ID #28111Board 2: Biomedical Engineering Division: Student Assessment of ActiveLearning Elements in 100-level Introductory Biomedical Engineering CourseNicole Lauren Ramo, University of Michigan Nicole earned a B.Sc. degree in mechanical engineering with a concentration in bioengineering from Ket- tering University (Flint, MI, USA) in 2012. The experiential learning program at Kettering allowed Nicole to work as a research assistant at Henry Ford Hospital’s Bone and Joint Center (Detroit, MI, USA) for 2.5 years where she developed a love of research. Nicole went on to earn her PhD in bioengineering from Colorado State
assistants and has received multi-agency funding for energy systems analysis and develop- ment. Sponsor examples include the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy and NASA. Dr. Haynes also develops fuel cells and alternative energy systems curricula for public and college courses and experimental laboratories. Additionally, he is the co-developer of the outreach initiative, Educators Lead- ing Energy Conservation and Training Researchers of Diverse Ethnicities (ELECTRoDE). He received his Bachelor of Science degree from Florida A&M University and his graduate degrees (culminating in a Ph.D.) from Georgia Tech; and all of the degrees are in the discipline of Mechanical Engineering.Dr. Rosario A. Gerhardt
College Teaching identifies traits of successfulteachers and presents these traits in a functional framework useful as a tool for improvement.While the model is effective at outlining a mechanism to move towards status as a “CompleteExemplar,” the categories of the model are broad, subjective, and can be difficult to preciselyidentify. Through development of a rubric, this paper seeks to improve educators’ understandingof Lowman’s model by sharing a series of examples. Teachers in contemporary movies andtelevision are identified to represent several of the nine cells within the two-dimensional model.A previous paper provided an initial assessment of several famous actors portraying teachers.However, the examples in this previous paper are
Iowa State University. Her main areas of research is in construction management focusing on contracts, procurement, project delivery methods, estimating, and risk management, in addition to the cultural aspects of construction projects. She is also an ExCEED fellow; her teaching pedagogy focuses on adopting active learning techniques in her classes, to increase student attainment and motivation beyond the classroom.Ms. Katrin Terstegen, Cal Poly Pomona Katrin Terstegen is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Architecture at California State Polytech- nic University, Pomona, where she teaches architectural design studios, as well as seminars with focus on materials. She was a Senior Associate for
leadership as an undergraduate student (sophomore) in 2014. He is also a member of the mathematics, education, and engineering honor societies: Kappa Mu Epsilon, Kappa Delta Pi, and Tau Beta Pi respectively. He has extensive experience in curriculum development in K-12 and creates material for the Technology Student Association’s annual TEAMS competition. David has co-authored two texts related to engineering, Principles of Applied Engineering for Pearson-Prentice Hall and Introductory Engineering Mathematics for Momentum Press. His research interests include: model/method transferability, threshold concepts to inform curriculum development, information asymmetry in higher education processes (e.g., course articulation
the UbDmindset made the process much more efficient.Course Outcomes. Seven new courses and four significantly revised courses were introducedinto the new program. See Table 1. Similar to the program outcomes, the UbD approach ofidentifying the enduring understandings was used for all courses to determine student learningoutcomes.Table 1. New and Revised Courses Type Course Topic New Metrology New Applied Mechanics New Thermodynamics New Materials New Design for Producibility New Continuous Improvement New Production Planning Revised Electronics Technology Revised Computer-Integrated Manufacturing Revised Mass Production Revised Manufacturing ManagementIn addition, the Capstone design course for