isuseful information to share with the community, as a case study about what worked, what did notwork and lessons learned moving toward the second iteration. This first assignment of the projectwas on exploratory grounds, aiming to overcome two major challenges: a) transfer to a big classof an activity and assessment type that the instructor has successfully used in smaller senior levelclasses; and b) the unpopularity of this specific class among students. Past surveys have pointedto two main reasons the class is unpopular: first, students do not immediately recognize this classas a CEE class, therefore association to CEE is a conscious, consistent effort throughout thesemester; second, similar to what has been reported in the literature (e.g. [13
centroid (or neutral axis) of the beam (Figure 2). Shearstress is an essential concept in material science, and it would be expected that practicingengineers who utilize this concept in their daily work would have a better conceptualunderstanding of shear stress than engineering students. In addition, performance in the SOMCIreveals shear stress misconceptions that participants may have. b !+,-(0) Geometric Centroid/ Neutral Axis '+,- h
2 3 4 5 Question 6 (a) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4.5 4.55 4.6 4.65 4.7 4.75 4.8 4.85 4.9 4.95 5 Peer Self 1 2 3 4 5 Question 6 (b) 7
thepercentages of success (blue bars) & failure (red bars) per question and Figure 3 represents thesummarization of these results. For this first study, two main concepts were selected to beconverted into PBH: non-perpendicular axis and 2D equilibrium with springs as shown in Figure3.a. Forces and Vectors with Non-Perpendicular Axis b. 2D Particle Equilibriumc. 2D Equilibrium with Springs d. 3D Particle Equilibrium Figure 2. Percentage of Correct/Incorrect Answers per Topic (First Midterm Examination) Figure 3. Percentages of Success/Failure per First Midterm Topic (Summary of 4 Sections)Same procedure was repeated for the second part of the class. The main topics covered for thismidterm
on travelers asthey use different transportation modes. For this activity, small groups of students are directed toa) consider the transportation modes various stakeholders can use to travel from "Point A" to"Point B"; b) determine how each of these modes is impacted by COVID-19; c) compare andcontrast these impacts, the unique challenges associated with each potential mode of travel, andmake a recommendation to the stakeholders. Scenarios considered include a group ofundergraduate students attending a conference, a mother traveling with a toddler and a baby tovisit family, and a couple in their 60s traveling to their vacation home. Instructors are challengedto adapt scenarios as needed by selecting destinations and transportation modes
: 1. An overview of: a. The project; b. The social, political and environmental context; and c. The technical work proposed 2. A progress report on the technical work and issues faced 3. Near final details on approximately 40% of the final report content and two technical appendices 4. A forward-looking update on: a. What is going to be achieved by final report submission; b. The time/budget spent compared to the proposed timeline; and c. An evaluation of the roles being undertaken and their effectivenessAdditionally in Week 6, students submit a “40% Design” report electronically as a single PDF filefor evaluation and feedback (analogous to an early draft report
have tofabricate the voussoirs yourself. 4 The thick semicircular arch does not require abutments on most surfaces because its weight creates enough frictionto resist the thrust.Figure 3. Top: students constructing the thin parabolic arch (left) and the completed thin parabolic arch(right); Middle: students constructing the thin semicircular arch (left) and the completed thinsemicircular arch (right); Bottom: students constructing the thick semicircular arch (left) and thecompleted thick semicircular arch (right)References [1] D. Billington, The Tower and the Bridge, New York: Basic Books, 1983.[2] R. Hooke, A description of helioscopes, and some other instruments, London, 1676.[3] B
7. Percentage of students recommending the stated classes to be taught in a non- traditional mannerConclusions and RecommendationsAn interactive Statics course incorporating components of a traditional classroom, an invertedclassroom, and those suggested by noted researchers in the field of Statics education werecombined to form a hybrid learning environment. Findings relate to peer instruction, numericproblem solving, course learning gains, and student feedback as follows: (a) The use ofisomorphic questions in a modified peer instruction sequence revealed student learning gainsstemming from the peer discussions. These gains are in agreement with published research inother fields. (b) The sequence in which
of the United States to create new technology for cities,and 3) the National Academy of Engineering Grand Challenges - to Restore and Improve UrbanInfrastructure.References 1. Coyle, E. J. (2016, March), Systemic Reform of STEM Education: The Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) Consortium Paper presented at 2016 EDI, San Francisco, CA. https://peer.asee.org/27403 2. National Academy of Engineering. (2012). Infusing Real World Experiences into Engineering Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 3. Coyle, E. J., Krogmeier, J. V., Abler, R. T., Johnson, A., Marshall, S., & Gilchrist, B. E. (2014, October). The vertically-integrated projects (VIP) program—leveraging faculty research interests
. (2014). Resilience assessment for geotechnicalinfrastructure assets. Infrastructure Asset Management, 1(4), 95-104.[5] American Society for Civil Engineers (2009). The Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025.Reston, VA: ASCE.[6] Dong, J. and Chen, P. (2014). A Case Study: How Collaborative PBL Affects Learning ofMinority Students in Engineering Courses at Senior Level. ASEE Annual Conference &Exposition, Indianapolis, IN.[7] Fernandes, S. R. G. (2014). Preparing graduates for professional practice: findings from a casestudy of Project-based Learning (PBL). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 139, 219-226.[8] Wu, W. and Hyatt, B. (2016). Experiential and project-based learning in BIM for sustainableliving with tiny solar houses. Procedia
the development of both practice-based experience and critical thinking.In order to prepare undergraduate engineering students for the ill-defined, unfamiliar types ofproblems they will face after graduating, service-learning projects can be utilized to fosterstudents’ critical thinking through providing (a) a real-world context in which to solveengineering problems, (b) realistic data sources (including information that may be ambiguous,irrelevant, or incorrect), and (c) the industry-standard analytical and design software tools withwhich to integrate realistic information in solving the real-world problem. This paper presentsthe benefits of service-learning projects for emulating real-world engineering practice and itprovides a profile of a
Society, 2015.[4] B. Swartz, S. B. Velegol, and J. A. Laman, “Three Approaches to Flipping CE Courses : Faculty Perspectives and Suggestions,” 120th ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo., 2013.[5] A. Lee, H. Zhu, and J. A. Middleton, “Effectiveness of flipped classroom for mechanics of materials,” ASEE’s 123rd Annu. Conf. Expo., no. May, 2016.[6] A. B. Hoxie, T. Shepard, and R. Feyen, “The Flipped Classroom : A Means to Reduce Cheating?,” 122nd ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo., no. Paper ID #11445, p. 16, 2015.[7] J. Laman, M. L. Brannon, and I. Mena, “Classroom Flip in a Senior-Level Engineering Course and Comparison to Previous Version,” in American Society for Engineering Education, 2012.[8] G. S. Mason, T. R. Shuman, and K
removed using conventional engineeredsystems for water and wastewater treatment and b) become less toxic to living organisms. Thelecture modules provided balanced coverage related to the opposing perspectives on the stabilityof nanomaterials. Therefore, the lectures provided a unique opportunity for the respective groupsof students to be exposed to the opposite end of the life cycle than what would be covered withinindividual departments.The cross-departmental teaming exercise was facilitated following the lecture modules to allow Page 26.426.4students in both classes to collaborate to identify potential solutions to the complex challenge
,Engineering Disasters, and Technology, Society, and Values). The Civil Engineering departmentat Oregon Tech has a strong laboratory component in its curriculum with a majority ofprogrammatic courses including a laboratory. Given the motivations of these two departmentsand mutual interest of the project faculty in bridges, and Conde B. McCullough (Figure 1) inparticular, the faculty identified the potential for a field course to tour important Oregon bridges.Emphasizing those constructed to complete the Oregon coast highway, the course brings thehistory of these bridges together with their design and construction details. Changes in bridgedesign practice were discussed as an analog to the development of civil engineering moregenerally. Figure
groups (4 to a group) received at least a score of 9,indicating successful achievement of the “b” student outcome goal.Student Outcome “k” – Ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering toolsnecessary for engineering practice.Structural Module #2 demonstrates the use of modern engineering tools (i.e., RISA 2D2structural analysis program) to distribute the loads on a selected part of the structure to selectedcolumns. Loads such as dead load, wind load, snow load including snow drift, live loads andcontingency loads are distributed to the selected columns. Loads are distributed through joist,W-shape beams and a truss. The truss is model in RISA 2D and member forces and deflectionsare calculated with the software. Most student
candidates taking these two routes to Membership, they must: (a) have obtained anaccredited honors degree or an acceptable equivalent in a recognized engineering ortechnological discipline; (b) have received adequate training; (c) have received sufficientresponsible experience; and (d) have attained the age of 25. However, most professionalinstitutions in the United Kingdom have waived the age requirement.Under the Formal Training Route, candidates are required to have two years of pre-approvedformal training followed by two years of responsible experience for all disciplines except civil,environmental, geotechnical, and structural disciplines. These four disciplines require three yearsof pre-approved formal training followed by one year of
analytics from the LMS,students who viewed the course content more frequently earned either an A or B in the class,suggesting a link between increased student preparedness and performance.BackgroundSeveral science and engineering educators are committed to using different methods andtechniques to improve student learning and engagement [1-3]. To shift engineering education,multiple ways to present concepts can aid student understanding and learning in science andengineering. Using case studies to enhance civil engineering education is not a new concept [4-5]; rather, both the student and instructor can learn new insights through this process regardingstrategies to improve learning and teaching. Case studies can be an effective way to teach
contains a chart that is used in class toteach one of the most challenging topics in the course: combined stresses. The chart illustrates asolid cylindrical member that is subjected to various forces, torques, and moments. The rows ofthe table contain the internal forces/torques/moments and the columns of the table distinguishbetween the state of stress at points A, B, and C. The instructor can work with the students in aninteractive manner to determine which equation is appropriate in each cell in the table, and askchallenging follow-up questions, such as “is point B in flexural tension or compression?” Thedesign of the handout facilitates a variety of pedagogical approaches, including “pair-share.”This format allows the instructor to teach
confidence, motivation, expectancy, andanxiety). A confidence interval was derived by bootstrapping the data since normality wasrejected. The PI (Project Impact) items in the survey shown in Table 2, were also averaged andbootstrapped.Table 2. Survey administered to a) senior students upon completion of the capstone project,and b) recent graduates Item Statement/Question Rate how the project affected your ability to (1-No Impact; 3-Moderate Impact 5-High Impact): PIa Apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering PIc Design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability
. Sturgill, A. Kirk, and G. B. Dadi, "Estimating earthwork volumes through use of unmanned aerial systems," Transportation Research Record, pp. 1-8, 2017.[5] S. Siebert and J. Teizer, "Mobile 3D mapping for surveying earthwork projects using an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) system," Automation in Construction, vol. 41, pp. 1- 14, May 2014.[6] R. E. Pereira, S. Zhou, and M. Gheisari, "Integrating the use of UAVs and photogrammetry into a construction management course: Lessons learned," presented at the 35th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2018), 2018.[7] J. B. Sharma and D. Hulsey, "Integrating the UAS in Undergraduate Teaching and Research
Paper ID #5882Development and Application of a Sustainable Design Rubric to Evaluate Stu-dent Abilities to Incorporate Sustainability into Capstone Design ProjectsMary Katherine Watson, Georgia Institute of Technology Mary Katherine Watson is a Ph.D. candidate in Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) at Georgia Tech (GT). Through support from a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, she has been working to improve the quality of sustainability education in CEE at GT through development and application of a variety of assessment tools and educational interventions. In addition to research in the field
Paper ID #9656Prevalence of inscriptions in transportation engineering text: Clues to con-textFloraliza Bornilla Bornasal, Oregon State University Floraliza B. Bornasal is a doctoral student in the School of Civil and Construction Engineering at Ore- gon State University. Her research is currently in engineering education focusing on the transference of expertise among working professionals and undergraduate students. Prior to pursuing her doctoral degree at OSU, she worked as an engineering intern and project inspector for Garfield County Public Works and as an AmeriCorps Volunteer-in-Service-to-America (VISTA) aiding in
., Conley, C., and Gash, R., (2008) “Implementing a Civil Engineering Program at the National MilitaryAcademy of Afghanistan”, American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA.7. Felder, R., and Silverman, S., “Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education”, Engineer Education,78(7), 1988.8. Steward, B., Brumm T., and Mickelson S., “Understanding the patterns in student learning styles to guidecurriculum innovation”, North Midwest Section Proceedings, American Society for Engineering Education, 2003.9. Stice, J.E., “Using Kolb’s learning cycle to improve student learning,” Engineering Education., 1987.10. Schaaf R., and Klosky J.L., “Classroom Demonstrations in Introductory Mechanics”, Journal of Professional
the COVID-19 pandemic.The survey results show a clear student preference when it comes to online course organizationand it is recommended that instructors continue to utilize LMS features, such as assignmentposting, online calendar events, weekly announcements, online assessments, etc., even whenonline courses return to in-person instruction. Future work should aim to explore optimizingattributes of the Flex Model classroom to enhance student learning experiences.References[1] C. Hodges, S. Moore, and B. Lockee. "The Difference Between Emergency RemoteTeaching and Online Learning." Educause Review. 2020. 27.[2] U. of Pittsburgh. “University of Pittsburgh COVID-19 Standards and Guidelines:Instruction,” [Online]. Available:https
expresses his deep appreciation.Last but not least, Professor Gulten Gulay at Istanbul Technical University, the IAESTE-Turkeyhost, made the Istanbul study-abroad visit a wonderful experience in all senses. To her, and herstudents, the first writer is indebted.References1. National Academy of Engineering (2004). The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century, Washington, D.C.2. Griffiths, J. H. P, Irfanoglu A., and Pujol S. (2007). Istanbul at the Threshold: An Evaluation of the Seismic Risk in Istanbul. Earthquake Spectra, v.23(1), 63-75.3. Adobe Systems Inc. (2008). Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro software.4. Kearsley, G. and Schneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement Theory: A Framework for Technology-Based Teaching and Learning
Education. Int. J. Engineering Ed., Vol. 13, No. 4, p. 248-261.10. Reisslein, M, Tylavsky, D., Matar, B., Seeling, P., and J. Reisslein, 2007. Active and Cooperative learning in a freshman digital design course: Impact on persistence in engineering and student motivation orientation, Proceedings of the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education, pp. S4A-1 – S4A-6.11. Thompson, M. K. 2009. ED100: Shifting Paradigms in Design Education and Student Thinking at KAIST. In Proceedings of the 2009 CIRP Design Conference.12. Clark, M. M. 2009. Transport modeling for environmental engineers and scientists. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 629 p
, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, New York, 2008.5 Duderstadt, J. J, “Engineering for a Changing World: A Roadmap to the Future of Engineering Practice,” TheMillennium Project, University of Michigan, 2008.6 The Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2007.7 Achieving the Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025 – A Roadmap for the Profession, American Society of CivilEngineers, 2009.8 Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century: Preparing the Civil Engineer for the Future, ASCEBody of Knowledge Committee. 2004.9 Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century: Preparing the Civil Engineer for the Future, SecondEdition, ASCE Body of Knowledge Committee. 2008.10 Bloom. B. S., Englehart, M
previous assessment of the course, 2) Instructor Comments & Observation on current semester, and 3) Recommendations to improve students' performance in achieving course learning outcomes in future offering. This section is critical to document recommendations for improvement, ensures continuous improvement among several faculty members teaching the course, and is an evidence of assessment based improvement. Table 1 present a sample of comments and recommendation compiled for the spring 2012 assessment of the course.4 Sample of these changes are shown in Figure 2(b).4) Develop “Students Assessment of Course Form” Form: The old student survey asks students
Disagree (b) Figure 3: Responses Obtained from Pre- and Post-Teaching Surveys Related to Students’ Interest in SHRP 2 Products: (a) Pre-Teaching Survey and (b) Post-Teaching Survey. 90 CES CEM CEP ETEImportance of SHRP2 Products to 75 Students (Pre-Survey %) From Neutral 60
levels. So the nullhypothesis cannot be rejected and conclude that that “no significant differences in the year toyear and among face-to-face, hybrid, and fully on-line options”. That means, similar trends areobserved in the semester to semester and for all three course delivery options. However, it isobvious from the data that hybrid received more responses than the other two options. In order to © American Society for Engineering Education, 2016verify it more, a single factor ANOVA was performed and the data are presented in Table 1(b).Since F > Fcritical (in this is the case, 8.611 > 5.143), therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected.The means of the three delivery options populations are not all