Conference Session

Educational Strategies in Architectural Engineering

Collection

2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Gouranga Banik, Tennessee State University

Tagged Divisions

Architectural

Paper ID #14075Integration of Project Management Course to Satisfy ABET’s RequirementsDr. Gouranga Banik, Tennessee State University Gouranga Banik, Ph.D., P.E., PMP., F.ASCE, is the departmental chair and professor of civil and archi- tectural engineering at Tennessee State University. Dr. Banik completed his Ph.D. in civil engineering at Iowa State University. He has 11 years of experience working in both the private and public sectors as an engineer and/or project manager. A registered professional engineer and certified project manager (PMP), Dr. Banik has more than 40 refereed publications in the area of civil

Conference Session

Instructional Strategies in AE Education

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Stan Guidera, Bowling Green State University

Tagged Divisions

Architectural

). Page 15.1078.3Study MethodologyThe study population was drawn from students from four sections of the design foundationscourse. The course enrollment consisted of architecture, construction, and interior designstudents, most of which were enrolled in their first semester of post-secondary education. Thecourse also included students who were undecided or were from other disciplines although thesestudents numbered less than 10 in total. There were four sections of the class, each with 20students. Three instructors were assigned to the course, one of which taught two sections andtwo taught one section each. All four sections followed the same syllabus for assignments andclass schedule.The data were collected using a paper survey which was used to

Conference Session

Teaching Innovation in Arch Engineering II

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Erich Connell, East Carolina University; David Batie, East Carolina University

Tagged Divisions

Architectural

collaborative and interactive course, from technicalsupport to administration without which failure is inevitable and success is impossible.How (did we break the box?)Material – Faculty developed a common syllabus that highlighted the issues ofcontemporary practice from the built environment. Students were recruited based ontheir interest to learn about the disciplines from the built environment and the opportunityto participate in a team project with online students. Students learned about the coursefrom informational sessions with faculty at the respective universities and a poster wascreated and posted throughout the schools. Course goals, the method of the instruction,the requirements for participation and the opportunities that an on-line

Conference Session

Innovative Teaching in Architectural Engineering

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Blythe Marlow Vogt, Kansas State University

Tagged Divisions

Architectural

Page 25.1335.4 5. Syllabus and internet classroom was updated for online learning with assistance from on- campus instructional developer 6. Online message board became a required activity for the course and points were assigned to capture student engagement. Message board postings were required from students in one of three forms each day. (a) question (b) response to student question (c) helpful hintCourse offering/usage statistics were documented: 1. Online classroom was visited maximum of 89 times by a single student in 21 day offering period, the minimum was 35 visits 2. The highest traffic times were 2pm (92 visits), 5pm (81 visits), 11am (74 visits) and 9pm (71 visits) each day 3. The highest

Conference Session

Teaching Innovation in Architectural Engineering I

Collection

2007 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Ming-yin Chan, Hong Kong Polytechnic University; Kwok-wai Mui, Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Tagged Divisions

Architectural

2.8(B7) Links to external resources (e.g. EPD) 4.4 4.0(B8) Intranet (Departmental) 3.2 3.6(B9) Format of documents at Web 4.5 4.1(B10) Overall satisfaction of materials at the Web N/A 3.3(C1) Interactivity of course materials 4.6 3.0(C2) Facilitator feedback (e-mail/post message) 5.1 2.2(C3) Facilitators’ involvement in chat room 4.3 1.6(Cc4) Peer discussion at chat room 4.4 3.2(C5) Online quiz (w/ explanation