rapidprototyping machine. This is nice experience for students but does not directly connect to the bigideas for this course. Although important, adjusting design elements for ergonomic factors andsafety also did not directly relate to the producibility of a product. So these content areas weremoved to other courses. The previous course had students create and assemble appropriateadvertisement brochures for product promotion and write manuals for the products. These topicsdid not connect at all to any of the big ideas and were eliminated. In the end, so much contentwas changed that the old course was simply eliminated and a new one developed.Table 2. Some Big Ideas for Design for Producibility Some Big Ideas • Level of producibility significantly
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
movie and television examples are becoming dated anddo not resonate with new faculty. Additionally, determining one’s place in Lowman’s modelremains difficult. As evidenced by the authors’ experience writing this paper, debating where anindividual sits in a category, while entertaining, is not a simple task. This paper describesdevelopment of a rubric to assess teaching in both of Lowman’s dimensions and applies therubric to contemporary movie and television teachers.In this paper, the authors present a summary of Lowman’s Two Dimensional Model of EffectiveCollege Teaching1. Next, development of a rubric to assess which style of instruction bestdescribes an instructor is presented. The rubric is applied to several contemporary teachers
[34]. Pratt [34] further discussed that much of the writing and discussion aboutandragogy is based on the assumption that adults should be taught collaboratively.Conti [8, 9] offered a slightly differing perspective that complements Knowles’ flexibleapproach, reporting that adult students’ preference for a learner-centered or student-centeredinstructional approach was situational. In cases where adults are focused on short-term needs,such as passing an examination, they prefer a teacher-centered approach and in cases where theyseek skills development they prefer a student-centered approach.Student engagement and andragogy share a number of elements. Both entail (a) a learner-centered curriculum, (b) learning activities related to the
Paper ID #28120Board 12: Liberal Education/Engineering & Society Division: Examining theRelationships Between How Students Construct Stakeholders and the WaysStudents Conceptualize Harm from Engineering DesignAlexis Papak Alexis Papak is a Research Assistant at the University of Maryland, College Park with the Physics Edu- cation Research Group. They completed their Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering Physics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Their research interests are centered around how race and identity relate to STEM teaching and learning. c American Society for Engineering