actively involved in the Ideas Clinic, a major experiential learning initiative at the University of Waterloo. She is also re- sponsible for developing a process and assessing graduate attributes at the department to target areas for improvement in the curriculum. This resulted in several publications in this educational research areas. Dr. Al-Hammoud won the ”Ameet and Meena Chakma award for exceptional teaching by a student” in 2014 and the ”Engineering Society Teaching Award” in 2016 from University of Waterloo. Her students regard her as an innovative teacher who continuously introduces new ideas to the classroom that increases their engagement.Prof. Monica B. Emelko, University of Waterloo Dr. Monica Emelko is
Paper ID #22178The Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge: Supporting ASCE’s Grand Chal-lengeDr. Decker B. Hains, Western Michigan University Dr. Decker B. Hains is a Master Faculty Specialist in the Department of Civil and Construction Engi- neering at Western Michigan University. He is a retired US Army Officer serving 22 years on active duty with the US Army Corps of Engineers and taught at the United States Military Academy at West Point (USMA). He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from USMA in 1994, Master of Science degrees from the University of Alaska Anchorage in Arctic Engineering in 1998 and
released in February 2008.The BOK1 has already impacted accreditation criteria and civil engineering curricula. TheBOK2, while being more recent and not yet addressed within accreditation criteria, is motivatingadditional change in some civil engineering curricula. The BOK2 is essentially a coordinated listof 24 outcomes presented within three outcome categories: Foundational, Technical andProfessional. The outcomes define the desired level of achievement (LOA) defined according toBloom’s Taxonomy for the cognitive domain3,4. Additionally, the BOK2 has recommendedoutcome achievement targets for each portion of the fulfillment pathway: for the baccalaureatedegree (B), post-baccalaureate formal education (M/30), and pre-licensure experience (E
Paper ID #21989Keeping a Prospect on the Line and Then in the Boat: Recruitment and Re-tention Efforts that Make a DifferenceDr. Ronald W. Welch, The Citadel Ron Welch (P.E.) received his B.S. degree in Engineering Mechanics from the United States Military Academy in 1982. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Civil Engineering from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana in 1990 and 1999, respectively. He became the Dean of Engineering at The Citadel on 1 July 2011. Prior to his current position, he was the Department Head of Civil Engineering at The University of Texas at Tyler from Jan 2007 to June 2011 as well
engineeringeducation paper about HB101’s role in the CE program at West Point.Questions:1. What year did you graduate from the Civil Engineering Program at USMA?2. Rate your agreement with the following statements about your experience with HB101. HB101 was an enjoyable experience and I am glad I participated in it. I learned something of value in HB101. HB101 was a valuable part of the CE program, even though not truly a CE course. The HB101 experience was a model of responsible drinking behavior. a. Strongly Disagree b. Disagree c. Neither Agree or Disagree d. Agree e. Strongly Agree3. Did HB101 affect the way you view and consume beer? If yes please explain how.4. What was the most valuable thing you
studentswithin the context of an already full curriculum.Bibliography1. Beakley, G. C., D. L. Evans, and J. B. Keats. 1986. Engineering: An Introduction to a CreativeProfession, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY.2. Herrmann, N. 1996. The Whole Brain Business Book: Unlocking the Power of Whole Brain Thinking inIndividuals and Organizations, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.3. Kao, J. 2007. Innovation Nation: How America Is Losing Its Innovation Edge, Why It Matters, andWhat We Can Do To Get It back, The Free Press, New York, NY.4. Nierenberg, G.I. 1982. The Art of Creative Thinking, Barnes & Noble Books, New York, NY.5. Cooper, R. K. 2006. Get Out of Your Own Way: The 5 Keys to Surpassing Everyone’s Expectations,Crown Business, New York, NY.6
Paper ID #28789Lessons Learned from the Implementation of Board Certification in theMedical ProfessionDr. Decker B Hains P.E., Western Michigan University Dr. Decker B. Hains is a Master Faculty Specialist in the Department of Civil and Construction Engi- neering at Western Michigan University. He is a retired US Army Officer serving 22 years on active duty with the US Army Corps of Engineers and taught at the United States Military Academy at West Point (USMA). He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from USMA in 1994, Master of Science degrees from the University of Alaska Anchorage in Arctic
require them to retrieve material from memory” in order to reallylearn [5, p. 122]. The modules interleave content, video and practice which gives the studentsthe opportunity to check their understanding by performing low-stakes assessments that are inthe same format as the summative module quizzes. The practice is typically presented in theformat of an online quiz. Some practice questions present new concepts directly in the question,like the ‘hotspot’ instrument question shown in Figure 3a. Others use randomized parametersthat allow for unlimited attempts. Formative feedback is provided immediately upon completionto help the students master a concept (Figure 3b). (a) Practice with new content (b) Practice with
Paper ID #14403Introducing Students to Interdisciplinary Perspectives of Building and UrbanDesignDr. Abbie B Liel P.E., University of Colorado, Boulder Dr. Abbie B. Liel is an associate professor of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder.Sarah J. Welsh-Huggins, University of Colorado, Boulder Ms. Welsh-Huggins, LEED Association, is a Ph.D. Candidate in Civil Engineering, studying the life- cycle economic, structural, and environmental impacts of buildings under hazard events and designed for sustainable, green design features. She also recently completed her M.S. in
Transportation Subcommittee under President’s Environmental Sustainability Committee. In addition to those duties at Villanova University, she is also Panel Member of various re- search projects sponsored by The National Academies and University Representative of Transportation research Board. Her teaching and research area include various aspects of transportation engineering, traffic safety, and sustainable infrastructure.Dr. Susan B. Mackey-Kallis, Villanova University SUSAN MACKEY-KALLIS, an Associate Professor in the Communication Department at Villanova Uni- versity in Pennsylvania and is currently serving as the chair of Villanova’s International Leadership Team, which is focused on developing a comprehensive and
Military Academy. His current research interests include laboratory and field determination of geotechnical material properties for transportation systems and the use of remote sensing techniques to categorize geohazards. He has published over 85 peer reviewed articles relating to his research and educational activities. Dennis holds BS and MS degrees in Civil Engineering from the University of Missouri-Rolla (now Missouri University of Science and Technology), an MBA from Boston University and a Ph.D. from the University of Texas-Austin. He is a registered professional engineer in Arkansas and Colorado.Dr. Decker B Hains P.E., Western Michigan University Dr. Decker B. Hains is a Master Faculty Specialist in the
AC 2011-1012: USING THE EXCEED MODEL FOR DISTANCE EDUCA-TIONRonald W. Welch, University of Texas, Tyler Ron Welch is Professor and Head, Department of Civil Engineering at The University of Texas at Tyler. He is a registered Professional Engineer in Virginia. Until 2 Jan 2007, Ron was an Academy Professor at the United States Military Academy (USMA). Ron received a BS degree in Engineering Mechanics from the USMA in 1982 and MS and Ph.D. degrees in Civil Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1990 and 1999, respectively. Ronald Welch@uttyler.edu.Clifton B. Farnsworth, University of Texas, Tyler Clifton B. Farnsworth is an Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Texas
AC 2008-1104: IMPLEMENTING A CIVIL ENGINEERING PROGRAM AT THENATIONAL MILITARY ACADEMY OF AFGHANISTANStephen Ressler, United States Military Academy Colonel Stephen Ressler is Professor and Head of the Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering at the U.S. Military Academy (USMA) at West Point. He earned a B.S. degree from USMA in 1979, a Master of Science in Civil Engineering degree from Lehigh University in 1989, and a Ph.D. from Lehigh in 1991. An active duty Army officer, he has served in a variety of military engineering assignments around the world. He has been a member of the USMA faculty for 16 years, teaching courses in engineering mechanics, structural engineering, construction
AC 2008-2324: A "GLOBAL" CURRICULUM TO SUPPORT CIVILENGINEERING IN DEVELOPING NATIONSFred Meyer, United States Military Academy Colonel Fred Meyer is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering at the United States Military Academy and serves as the Civil Engineering Division Director. He received a Bachelor of Science degree from USMA in 1984, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Civil Engineering from Georgia Tech in 1993, and 2002, respectively. He is a registered Professional Engineer in Virginia. Colonel Meyer has been a member of the USMA faculty for over five years and teaches courses in basic mechanics, structural steel design, reinforced concrete design
2006-673: STUDENT ENGAGEMENT ACROSS THE CIVIL ENGINEERINGCURRICULUMWarren Cambell, Western Kentucky University He received his Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from Colorado State University specializing in fluid mechanics and water resources. He is currently the Hall Professor of Civil Engineering at Western. Prior to coming here, he was the City Hydrologist for Huntsville Alabama. As a karst (cave and limestone) researcher, he feels he has come to Mecca. His goals are to improve flood mapping and stormwater system design in karst areas.Shane Palmquist, Western Kentucky University Shane M. Palmquist is an assistant professor of civil engineering in the Department of Engineering at Western
. Why then are innovative changes necessary in the civil engineering education?What especially is the European answer?2. Definition of a Civil EngineerTo answer the above question it is necessary to know who is or what it means to be a civilengineer. One of the many ways to define a civil engineer is as follows:A civil engineer is an academically educated and practice-oriented professional who has anduses scientific, technical and other pertinent knowledge and skills to create, enhance, operateand maintain safe and efficient buildings, processes or devices of practical and economicvalue, for industry and the community.3. The Professional Formation Framework of Civil Engineers in EuropeThe definition given is part of the declaration of the
AC 2007-2270: INSPIRING STUDENTS — THE KEY TO LEARNING FOR THEFUTUREScott Hamilton, U.S. Military AcademyFred Meyer, U.S. Military Academy Page 12.903.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2007 Inspiring Students—The Key To Learning For The FutureAbstractThis paper considers the implications of preparing engineering students to enter, live, and besuccessful in a “Flat World.” Clearly the exact needs of the future are not known for certain, butwe do know that civil engineers of the future will need to be flexible, adaptive, life long learners.All academic institutions and all disciplines aim at preparing students for the future, at ourinstitution the mission
2006-2475: BUILDING A WATER TOWER AND LEARNING ABOUT A ROLEFOR SERVICE LEARNING IN THE CIVIL ENGINEERING CURRICULUMEnos Inniss, University of Texas-San AntonioLeslie Inniss, Florida A&M University Page 11.294.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2006 Building a Water Tower and Learning about a Role for Service Learning in the Civil Engineering CurriculumAbstractService learning is loosely defined as student participation in activities designed to serve amember of the community in a capacity that has a strong relationship to information presented ina particular class or in classes. Based on the experience of having students build a water
a 21 item online survey. The survey items were taken from both validated instruments andthe ABET Criteria 3 course outcomes: a, b, and e. Survey data was collected from the testpopulation (students given the project) and compared to a control population (students not giventhe project) to assess the impact of the project on engineering self-efficacy. The results indicatethere is a statistically significant gain in student engineering skills self-efficacy, studentperception of their ability to analyze and interpret data, ability to solve engineering problems,and organize a presentation.IntroductionAccording to the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET), engineeringgraduates must have the ability to apply math and science to
andstyles, but there was no attempt to unify any of the classes. The primary point of similarity wasthat all the surveys and exam questions administered in this study were the same and were madetogether. All the exam questions were presented in a multiple-choice format to reflect the mostcommon method of questioning on the FE exam.University A required students to take the FE exam and students were reimbursed for the examcost if they passed. At University A, most senior students (approximately 75% or more per year)in civil engineering take the FE review course and depend on it as their sole source ofpreparation for the exam. Universities B and C strongly encouraged students to attempt the FEexam prior to graduation. At University B, review sessions
activities, such as accessing the online module files. The frequency of students’ accessing of the files was tracked and analyzed. We were particularly interested whether the use of modules is more or less favored but “A”, “B” or “C” students.Results The results presented in this paper are categorized by the above information sources. User-interface analysis and usability testing. Page 23.415.12 In tune with the Learning Object Review Instrument (LORI), the six participants created reviewson eight broadly interpreted dimensions of quality. The themes on each dimension and students’supportive
many areas still needed development (see Appendix A). In futureofferings, the author will modify the schedule so that there is one day for in-class peer review ofdraft reports. The author believes that this additional step will allow students to receive feedbackfrom student peers and will provide students with an opportunity to read reports from othergroups and to see how other teams present their results.Assessment of the course outcomes was done using the rubrics completed for the project reportsand presentations (see Appendixes A and B) and a comparison of student concept maps drawn atthe start and at the end of each module. There are many resources available that describe the useof concept maps as an assessment tool5 (e.g., Stoddart et al
characteristic information forinitial comparative purposes, be misleading since they provide little insight into the variation anddistributions of the credit hours. To provide a more descriptive presentation of the credit hourrequirements in today’s curricula, simple plots are provided for each data set. Figure 1 providesa summary of the total credit hours required for degree. Figure 1(a) provides the percentage ofprograms requiring various total credit hours and Figure 1(b) illustrates the cumulativepercentage of programs requiring the same various total credit hours. The most commonrequirement is 128 total credit hours with the next most common being 132 total hours. Figures2-6 provide similar presentations of the credit hour requirements for
delete each outcome. Lessons learned about the process – This round was a valuable in allowing some “give and take” dialogue about the outcomes. While full community participation was never expected, the sharply diminished participation in this round seems to either a) indicate fatigue with the process which had proceeded for about 2 months at this time, or b) highlight the difficulty in arranging high turnout for synchronous online meetings. Findings/Results – the findings are summarized in the following table. Outcome Wording A B C D Retain Reword Delete Abstain 1) Analyze and
thorough review of the literature related to this differentenvironment.In addition to updating the model, the commentary slides will also be updated and together, theimproved model and commentary is expected to be incorporated into the annual new instructorworkshop beginning in the summer of 2022. The overall assessment has been beneficial in thecontinuous improvement process, and the authors feel strongly that having a teaching andlearning model is something all programs should consider adopting if they do not already haveone.References[1] B. Wambeke, B. E. Barry, and J. C. Bruhl, “Teaching Model as a Living Document,” in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, 2017, [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/28924.[2] A. C. Estes, R
AC 2010-1193: A REPEATED EXPOSURE EXPERIMENT TO IMPROVEKNOWLEDGE RETENTIONDeborah McAvoy, Ohio University Deborah McAvoy is an Assistant Professor in the Civil Engineering Department within the Russ College of Engineering and Technology at Ohio University. Her research interests are in the field of traffic engineering, specifically driver behaviors, human factors, highway safety and traffic operations. Page 15.81.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2010 A Repeated Exposure Experiment to Improve Knowledge RetentionIntroduction and BackgroundImproving
further developed by ASCE Committees. In its own way, all three of these themesare being developed by the LDDI with regards to the land development area of civil engineering.The BOK Committee has developed 15 outcomes to define the “what” dimension of the civilengineering BOK (see Appendix A). Eleven of these are taken directly from the AccreditationBoard for Engineering and Technology (ABET) and four other outcomes were developed by thecommittee. In a similar vein, the LDDI group collectively established a list of desired knowledgefor civil engineering graduates that would like to enter the land development field (Appendix B).These topics were generalized into seven categories (Planning, Design, Surveying, Environmentalrequirements, Construction
profession and those who regulate the engineering profession, not ABET, to set the required body of knowledge. ABET cannot do what is beyond its scope of authority. Even if ABET could require universities to increase their credit requirements for a bachelor’s degree, the resulting five-year or longer bachelor’s programs would provide far less flexibility than B+M/30, at substantially greater cost to students, and would significantly increase the potential for decreased enrollments. It is difficult to create for any constituency a rationale as to why this would be preferable to the proposed B+M/30 requirements.6. What are some of the implications of these changes for engineering education in the US?First, it should be recognized that this
they have learned.A Proposed Workshop ModelThe issue of what should or should not be included in the soil mechanics curriculum (includingthe lab portion) has long been debated. Karl Terzaghi’s7 opening comments to the FirstInternational Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Design contained a number ofimportant and challenging statements dealing with the teaching of soil mechanics—many ofthese issues are relevant today as they were in 1936.While it is beyond the scope of this paper to address these issues, it might be sufficient to quoteJ. B. Burland8 from his Nash lecture on his personal view on the teaching of soil mechanics whostrongly suggested that the profession reread Terzaghi’s comments on the teaching of soilmechanics and cited
variables, self-efficacy and respectivelyperformance outcome.Notes: Significance of Standardized Path Coefficients * p < .05; ** p < .01; 1 Squared Multiple Correlations (explained variance); Figure 3. Path Coefficients for the proposed model of GIS LaboratoryGoodness-of-Fit MeasuresAll major goodness-of-fit statistics recommended in the literature (35, 36) indicated a good fitfor the proposed models, as follows: a) Goodness-of-fit index, GFI = .99, and adjusted-goodness-of-fit, AGFI = .95, are equal or higher than .95, b) Comparative fit index, CFI = .99, higher than .95, the recommended value, and c) Root mean square error of approximation, RMSEA = .02, smaller than .06, a value