posed to 22/23 enrolled students. Figure 6: Fall 2018 Quantitative DataBased on all the student answers summarized in Figure 6, but specifically for QuantitativeQuestions B, E, G, and H, the author believes the results are compelling that students are indeedmeeting the learning objective to identify the contributions of culture to structural engineeringprojects.Fall 2019 ResultsIn Fall 2019, 18 enrolled students completed an anonymous pre-test and post-test survey. Data wastied to student usernames in order to measure the effect the course had on each student. To maintainanonymity, a separate university employee administered the survey and aggregated the data. In thesurvey, students were asked to use a scale from 0
point), Interactive lecture plustraditional lab (2 points), and Interactive lecture plus project-based lab (3 points). “Traditionallecture” was defined as chalkboard or whiteboard style presentation; “traditional lab” wasdefined as guided activities; “interactive lecture” was defined as active learning or problem-based instructional approach; and “project-based lab” was defined as open-ended type ofactivities or projects. The active learning scores for the five courses were averaged to obtain theaverage active learning score for each institution. Fig. 1 (a) shows the average active learningscores broken down by Basic Carnegie Classification and Fig. 1 (b) shows the average activelearning scores with respect to class size, where small is 0-25
tubular structural engineering, Corby, UK, 1965 5. Right figure: Mr Joe Chilvers, an undergraduate student during a lecture at the University of Surrey, Guildford, 2014. b. Using physical models in a ‘making and learning process’ which implies that students will learn about structural concepts during the process of making physical models. In this case, the scale and the material used to make the models are some key factors of the method. Making small scale models is an
students (enhancing outcome i), andallowing the students to comprehend contemporary issues in stormwater system design(enhancing outcome j). The design of a bio-infiltration pond and associated monitoring systemalso requires the students to develop a set of experiments that can be applied consistently byfuture students to monitor the effectiveness of the pond (enhancing outcome b). Finally, thestudents must effectively communicate with local stormwater managers to ensure that theirdesign is meeting jurisdictional needs (enhancing outcome g). Overall, this senior design casestudy project satisfies the necessary ABET student outcomes, while allowing the students toachieve a few of the outcomes (b, c, g, i, and j) at a higher level when compared to
areevaluated by some form of a final report. In the traditional civil engineering curriculum, undergraduate students take courses withboth lecture and laboratory formats. While the lecture courses provide the opportunity forstudents to absorb new information, the purpose of a laboratory is to expose students to thephysical problems associated with a course and reinforce course content. The traditional type oflaboratory has well-planned experiments, typically containing step-by-step guides leading thestudents through each experiment. Generally in groups of four or five, students in-turn conductthe experiment, regurgitate the results, and prepare a laboratory report, arguably fulfilling ABETstudent outcome (b) “an ability to design and conduct
. Copies of the three project reports are availablefrom the authors1,2,3.B. Learning ObjectivesUpon completion of this course the student should be able to: 1. Work effectively as a member of an interdisciplinary project design team, bringing unique skills perspectives and background not shared by all team members, and using information provided outside the student’s own background to complete the design. 2. Carry out a sports facility design including the evaluation of considerations such as economics, ethics, societal, environmental impacts, and constructability. 3. Write a project report that is of a quality commonly found to be acceptable in the engineering profession. 4. Orally present the results of an
2, 4.4, 4.2 to 4.5 8333 Pavement Rehabilitation Graduate 1, 4.8 8343 Advanced Pavement Materials Graduate 1, 4.7 8990 Special Topic: Warm Mixed Asphalt Graduate 1, 5.0A: Construction Materials Laboratory was a non-credit producing part of CE 3313 from 2008 through 2013, andbecame a 1 credit hour producing laboratory (CE 3311) in 2014.B: All evaluations data is organized as follows: number of semesters evaluated, average evaluation, range ofevaluations (ranges provided only if course evaluated more than one time). Evaluations are on 5 point scale.C: Representative
students to how their understanding and enthusiasm were effected by using K’nexFinally the students were asked to respond to the following multiple choice question: What statement below most accurately reflects your opinion of using K’nex pieces in atechnical engineering course? a. They are useful and enhance the learning experience b. They are not particularly useful but they are fun and enhance the learning experience. c. They neither supported nor detracted from my learning experience d. The requirement to use K’nex posed a needless constraint that detracted from my ability to conduct a seismic experiment
help students to bettercomprehend engineering problems. To evaluate this hypothesis, a few visualization methodswere implemented in the flipped classroom including:a) Instructor built simple foam models to show design details and potential loadings and stresses.Figure 1 shows sample foam models used in Mechanics of Materials course. The instructordisplays and interacts with the foam models during lectures to visually show deformation andfailure modes. More than 80% of students reflected in SET data that these foam models veryhelpful in their learning. However, they suggested that letting them to interact with the modelswill be more beneficial. (a) (b) Figure 1. Foam models to
discovers newinsight that the initial level of preparedness proved crucial in the academic excellence (over ascore of 90 for the final grade) of a student. (a) (b) (c)Figure 3. Distribution of final scores for three preparedness levels based on the quiz scores: a.low preparedness (quiz <65%); b. medium preparedness (quiz between 65% and 85%); c. highpreparedness (quiz >85%).A t-test performed on three levels of preparedness further conformed to the observation. Thedifferences in the means of the quizzes and final exams for low, medium, and highly preparedstudents are presented in Table 2. The comparison of final scores for medium and lowpreparedness indicates that students with low preparedness have significantly lower
AB and BD. A 1.5 m C Spring balance 2m B 3m D 2m
pedagogies.During fall of 2017, Professors 1 and 4 taught a total of three additional statics sections using themodified curriculum. Table 1 includes a summary of the eight sections taught. Section C, taughtby Professor 1, used the existing, non-modified, curriculum. Professors 2 and 3, who taughtsections B and D, used the modified curriculum and were experienced with using physicalmodels in the classroom but historically only taught by lecturing with minimal active-learningmethodologies. All four professors attended weekly meetings to review the upcoming lessonplans and activities during the fall of 2015.Assessments on the new curriculum were made using a concept inventory [10] administered toall students at the beginning and end of the quarter. In
Fall 2014 2011 Course Number CEE 3412 CEE 3412 CEE 3412 CEE 3402 CEE 4404 Course Title Structural Structural Structural Structural Reinforced Design Design Design Steel Design Concrete Design Credit Hours 3 3 3 3 3 Instructor Professor A Professor A Professor A Professor A Professor B Lab Integrated Into No a No a No a Yes Yes Course? Required/Elective Required Required Required
participatingfaculty is provided by Riley, Beaudry, and Bettencourt-McCarthy [1].Defining Excellent TeachingIf students learn more or more effectively because faculty are better teachers, then we are servingour purpose and efforts to improve teaching are worthwhile. Many contributions to the literaturethat attempt to define effective teaching include this concern: good instruction should be tied tostudent achievement [2]. If there are many ways to ensure student achievement – related to thestudents themselves, the conduct of the instructor, the learning environment, and other factors –how can we possibly hope to define the sort of instruction that produces achievement (a) flexiblyenough to allow for diversity in delivery by diverse faculty and (b) narrowly
were in no waysconstrained on their use of the time. One group had a member that became ill over the weekend,so the ill cadet worked from his room while still contributing, even utilizing videoteleconferencing (VTC) to help with his team’s submission requirements.Five judges reviewed the submissions and scored the position papers based upon the rubric thatis in Appendix B. The judges came from the Civil Engineering Division and the EnvironmentalEngineering Division of West Point, as well as the Department of Homeland Security.At the completion of the competition, the participants were given an individual survey usingSurveyMonkey ®. The survey addressed their experiences with the competition, the website,and their perceived educational benefit
-structured, well-structured or a combination of the two b) reasons for teaching the preferred problem type(s), and c) reasons for not teaching a certain type of problem Feelings about teaching ill- a) Whether they feel comfortable or not teaching ill- structured problems structure problems, b) why, and c) what would make them feel more comfortable Frequency of solving ill-structured a) Whether they solve ill-structured problems on a problems regular basis and b) why and for what purpose Difference in problem solving a) What they would
full basement 41 ft 112 ft (a) Building 1 One-story reinforced concrete building with a 1950 basement (b) Building 2 45 ft 50 ft 45 ft 35 ft 36’ Connected 54-ft tall
application based. Semb, Ellis, and Araujo concluded that the teaching style initially employed can havesome influence on retention.2 Specifically, students studying in a system of instruction in whichthey completed many iterations of each problem showed better retention than students learningin a more conventional style. Marshall B. Jones defined the term “overpractice” as the amountof additional practice that a subject is given after correct performance has been achieved.4 Jones’overpractice concept recognizes that while the amount of learning decreases with each repetition, Page 15.986.3the amount of overpractice relates positively with
, 2010.[13] F. Parkin, Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique. Landon, UK: Tavistock, 1979.[14] M. Saks, “Defining a profession: The role of knowledge and expertise,” Professions &Professionalism, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-10, 2012.[15] B. S. Bloom, M. D. Englehart, E. J. Furst, and E. J. Krathwohl, Taxonomy of EducationalObjectives, the Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York,NY: David McKay, 1956.[16] L. W. Anderson and D. R. Krathwohl, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing:A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, NY: Longman, 2001.[17] K. J. Fridley, D. B. Hains, L. Nolen, B. E. Barry, and B. L. Hartmann, “Is it time for a thirdedition of the civil engineering
Change FlexTable columns that are displayed Page 23.733.18 Lab Activity Problems Compute the pressure at the hydrant under the following conditions. Condition Pipe Length Pipe Material Pipe Diameter Flow Demand Liquid (ft) (in) (gpm) A 2500 Cast Iron 4 180 Water, 68°F B 1500 Glass 4 180 Water, 68°F C 1500
participants.Table 3. Coding scheme used for the study Main Code Schemes Evaluation of solution quality How students rate their final solution, including (a) on a scale of 1-10 and (b) why they rate their solution this way Resources used for solution (a) What resources students propose to use to formulate a development solution and (b) how they would use them Time requested to solve the problem (a) What specific amount of time they would use to solve the problem and (b) why Creativity How students rate their creativity (a) on a scale of 1-10 and (b) why & (c
state licensing board.ASCE’s aspirational education levels (B + M/30) have been defined by the BOK2 outcomes. [37]These two driving forces are not currently in alignment because they establish two differenteducation and knowledge levels for the profession.As the discussion continues over how to implement BOK2 criteria into civil engineeringcurriculums, it is important to note that neither version of the BOK has a direct licensureoutcome. The description of BOK2 outcome 24, “Professional and Ethical Responsibility,”broadly refers to licensure, but it does not include the important components of licensure statutesand regulations such as the reasons for licensure, how the “practice of engineering” is defined,and the use of the engineer’s seal. [1
students participating in the tutoring passed the course and all of the participants experienced Page 25.312.7improved performance as a result of this effort. The distribution of grades for participatingstudents was: A(0), B(3), C(2), F(1). The final grade distribution for all students enrolled in thecourse was A(3), B(5), C(5), F(2). The other student failing the class did not attend regularly,had no interest in the tutoring offer and did not take the final. The typical failure rate for thiscourse is between 30% and up to 50%.ConclusionsMaking available laboratory space for students to study in with minimal supervision and havingbasic tutoring
the notes correctly through a monitor [12]. The recorded videos are embeddedin the interactive mobile apps (see the following section for details) developed particular for thiscourse as shown in Fig. 1, and they are accessible to students through their smart portabledevices (e.g. smartphone and tablets) anywhere at any time. a) Help App – Videos b) Recorded Review Video – Learning Glass Figure 1. Recorded Review VideosVirtual Office Hours - It is not unusual that students do not make full use of the office hoursuntil quizzes and exams. Reasons they typically provided were either too much trouble to cometo campus only to ask a few questions or the time conflict with other scheduled
infrastructure. In this study, survey find-ings were used to address the following research questions: 1. What are civil engineering students’ views on: a. The most and least important infrastructure components? b. Impact of infrastructure revitalization on their future careers? c. Current condition of the infrastructure? d. Willingness to consider non-traditional solutions to infrastructure challenges? 2. Are there regional differences in students’ views of infrastructure (comparing students in the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Southwest, and West)? 3. Are there gender differences in students’ views of infrastructure? 4. How do students’ views of infrastructure change as they progress through civil engineer
identifiedtopics.Core topics within the Tree are allocated to one of three Schedules. Schedule A represents thekey skills necessary to function in the workplace as a cadet engineer. Schedule B representsthe core knowledge that all Civil Engineers must acquire in their studies. Schedule C representsthe specialty-specific knowledge for each discipline, with each student required to completethe version of Schedule C that corresponds to their intended major – Water, Structures orGeotechnical Engineering. In order to pass the respective Topic Tree subjects, studentengineers must complete all of the relevant schedules (A for the Student Engineer subject, Band one C for the Cadet Engineer subject) as well as a sufficient number of topics overall (240and 600
AC 2007-939: ASSIGNING CIVIL ENGINEERING STUDENTS TO CAPSTONECOURSE TEAMSVincent Drnevich, Purdue University Vincent P. Drnevich, P.E. is a professor of civil engineering at Purdue University since 1991. He was Head of the School of Civil Engineering from 1991 to 2000. Prior to that, he was on the faculty at the University of Kentucky. He served as Chair of the Civil Engineering Division of ASEE. He is Fellow and Life Member in the American Society of Civil Engineers, a Fellow of ASTM International, and active in the National Society of Professional Engineers.John Norris, Purdue University John B. Norris is a Doctoral Candidate at Purdue University's Krannert Graduate School of
following questions, indicate whether the activity allowed you to: Apply – transfer and use what you have learned in different settings that present novel challenges and opportunities Integrate – connect and grasp the relevance of what you are learning from different courses, out‐of‐class experiences, and life beyond the institution Reflect – think about your thinking and experiences in and out of the classroom, on and off the campus You may indicate more than one. 1. (a) Have you participated in a “First‐Year” seminar? Yes No (b) Have you participated in a “First‐Year Experience” class? Yes No 1c. Do you consider “First‐Year” seminar or “First‐Year Experience
ferrite, etc. Even though the textbook presents the picture of dryclinker (Figure 1a), it would be more helpful to show crystalline structures of alite, belite, aluminate andferrite in micro scale. In addition, the textbook published by Cengage only provides a picture of anhydrousPortland cement in figure 1b. The SEM image of Portland cement could be beneficial for students. (a) (b)Figure 1: 1. Pictures of (a) dry clinker and (b) Portland cement [1]Figure 2a shows SEM images of alite, belite, aluminate and ferrite in clinker [6]. With advances in imageprocessing and optical technology, we can provide students visualization of the micro-structures of thesecrystal
student responses and thinking processes through the evolution of responsesfrom individual to team to individual; identifying factors that may influence student thinkingprocesses during these exercises; and developing suitable performance measures. The findingswill inform instructors on the effectiveness of these active learning exercises in the classroom.This paper reports on the salient results of this two-year experience. In particular, it is discussedand demonstrated how the decision worksheets and written evidence from active learningexercises were used to extract information to help understand how students: (a) learn about andapply knowledge of new and career-relevant information; and (b) influence each other’s learningprocesses when