Paper ID #14402Can Service Learning Impact Student Learning and Motivation in a Re-quired Engineering Probability and Statistics Course?Dr. 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.Timothy J Clarkin, University of Colorado - Boulder Mr. Clarkin is pursuing a M.S. in Civil Systems Engineering at University of Colorado at Boulder, with a focus in Water Resources and a certificate in Engineering for Developing Communities. Eventually, he would like to work on water supply systems in
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
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
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
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
; Exposition. Indianapolis, IN.6. Clark, R. M., Norman, B. A., & Besterfield-Sacre, M. (2014). Preliminary experiences with “flipping” a facility layout / material handling course. In Y. Guan & H. Liao (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference. Montreal, Canada.7. Clemens, B. M., Nivargi, C., Jan, A., Lu, Y., Schneider, E., & Manning, J. (2013). Adventures with a flipped classroom and a materials science and engineering MOOC: “Fools go where angels fear to tread.” In Proceedings of Materials Research Society Symposium (Vol. 1583). Boston, MA.8. Ghadiri, K., Qayoumi, M. H., Junn, E., & Hsu, P. (2014). Developing and implementing effective
details of the activity and their impressions of how they might see that option workingfor them. Students were expected to attend at least 6 professional or research presentations, andwere expected to consider other options such as: a. Membership of professional associations and attendance at meetings b. Site visits c. Attendance at public talks d. Attendance at professional conferences e. Enrolment in courses f. Reading magazines, websites, newspapers g. Reading journals, booksOne of the public talk options was a public lecture given by the third author near the end of hisstay.Assessment was based on: Plan - 5% (constituting) Career Development Goal (1%) – is this clearly stated with some background, or
LearnersResearch QuestionsPart of the reason for offering the MOOC was to help answer the following questions: If learners are asked a set of preliminary questions will they be more engaged in the course? Are students who were sent a set of supplies for hands-on activities more likely to participate in the activities? Are these learners more engaged in the course?In order to answer the first question as towhether learners were more engaged if theywere asked a set of preliminary questions, thelearners were separated into two groups, an Agroup and a B group. The A group was theInquiry-Based Group. This group was given aset of 5-10 preliminary questions before anyvideos or content was delivered. As an example,learners were asked what the images shown
disciplinary boundaries and increasingtransdisciplinary cooperation and understanding, (b) enhancing engineering students’ abilityfor teamwork and communication, and (c) developing engineering students’ creativity atsolving engineering problems in innovative and comprehensive ways. It has been largelyrecognized in most parts of the world that engineers today need to be equipped with not onlythe engineering skills traditionally defined in engineering professions but also a broaderunderstanding of social, economic, environmental, and legal aspects in order to cope withincreasingly complicated problems ahead.11 Engineering disciplines, therefore, are urged toopen up boundaries, collaborate with a wide range of disciplines, and consolidate non-engineering
) AnnualConference Proceedings, 10-13 June, 2012, San Antonio, TX, USA.9 Chronicle Staff. (2015). “Benefits of study abroad are not universal, paper says,” The Chronicle of HigherEducation. January.10 Nussbaum, M. (2004). “Liberal education and global community.” Liberal Education, 90(4), 42-48.11 Hovland, K. (2006). “Shared futures: Global learning and liberal education.” Diversity Digest, 8(3), Association ofAmerican Colleges and Universities, Washington D.C., pp. 1, 16-17.12 Marcus, R.R., Hayter, D., Koivula, M., and Garcia, A. (2013). Global Learning Inventory 2012-2013. CaliforniaState University, Long Beach.13 Olson, C., Green, M., and Hill, B. (2006). A handbook for advancing comprehensive internationalization: Whatinstitutions can do and what
seven 100 pointproblems to get back to a B average. Using the 4 point scale, a zero on the first problem can beredeemed to a B by only three additional problems with perfect scores; a condition which stillrequired effort but is more achievable.Evaluation by the PrinciplesThe basic principle of the flipped classroom is that instruction is moved out of class and practiceand assessment are moved into class. This is clearly achieved in both courses where half of thelessons in Statics and almost all lessons in Solid Mechanics are ‘flipped’. The learningenvironment remains structured through the course notebook and in in class practice problemswhich are designed to build the student’s understanding of each topic. Student engagement isfurther
, only minor logistical modifications were made from the CIT-Ematerials.5.2.2 Infrastructure-Themed Group ProjectsThe learning outcomes of the project included that the students would be able to: (a) describe civilengineering practice and a typical project, (b) define the typical engineering project structure, (c)discuss how societal needs are incorporated into a project, (d) describe the need for and howinnovation manifests itself, and (e) describe what makes a civil engineering project successful (ornot). Note the overlap with holistic definition of the civil infrastructure perspective provided byNSF CIS, the inherent connection to ASCE’s BOK. The student groups of 3 to 6 students Page 6 of 16
’ finalpresentations in which students presented a comprehensive overview of the problems, thecommunity stakeholders they engaged, their process for addressing the problem, and their finalsolution. The two evaluators agreed on final scoring while applying the rubric and viewing thepresentation together.Table 1. Grand Challenge Scholars (GCS) Rubric for Evaluating Student WorkGCS Program Rubric Criteria RefCompetency a. Identify the problem1. Hands-on b. Collect data with supporting methodologyProject/ Research 16,17Experience c
Number Contact StressTruck # Content Volume Weight Weight Tire Type 3 Weight (empty) of Tires Patch (lbs/ in2) (ft ) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs/tire) (lbs/ ft3) (lbs) (in²)1 Cylinder Water6. a. Which truck trailer and its content will cause the maximum damage to the pavement? b. Which truck trailer and its content will cause the least damage to the pavement?Key geometric concepts were reviewed. This focused on equations and strategies to calculateareas of cross section and volumes
Ziotopoulou was born and raised in Athens, Greece. She joined the Charles E. Via Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Virginia Tech as an Assistant Professor in August 2014 after finishing her Ph.D. studies at the University of California, Davis. Before moving to the United States, she completed her undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering with an emphasis in Geotechnical Engineer- ing at the National Technical University of Athens, Greece in 2007. For her doctoral research, Katerina worked on the development, implementation, calibration and validation of a constitutive model for lique- fiable soils and to that end worked closely with the Division of Safety of Dams of California and Fugro West Inc. She is
. One of the most surprisingresults was w the lack of o confidence identifying g bridge or rroof trusses. This topic iss coveredextensiveely in previoous classes annd was revieewed throughhout the sem mester in Struuctural Anallysis.Howeverr, it appears the t students incorrectly think that anny non-orthoogonal membber is a trusssmember. For examplle, as shown in Figure 1, numerous llateral bracess for bridge beams may belabeled trrusses. Becaause of rich bridge b traditiions near booth universitiies, the bridgge truss exam mpleswere prim marily from a few structu ures in
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
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
) graduates,DA1-DA12.Note also that all individual elements of the Graduate Attribute Profiles refer to associatedelements (designated, for example, WK1, SK4, DK7) in an accompanying Knowledge Profile,provided as Appendix B of this paper. The IEA Knowledge Profile describes the types and levelsof knowledge required of engineering, engineering technology, and engineering techniciangraduates in eight different domains—natural science, mathematics, engineering fundamentals,engineering specialist knowledge, engineering design, engineering practice, engineering insociety, and research literature. The Knowledge Profile effectively adds a third dimension to thetwo-dimensional Graduate Attribute Profiles, providing a rich description of the
rationale behind the criteriaand (2) communicating expectations to avoid misunderstandings and provide consistency amongvisits.The Commentary is broken into parts A through D. Part A describes the purpose of theCommentary. Parts B and C provide a description of the BOK2 and the applicable ABETcriteria, respectively. The most essential part is Part D (Understanding the CE Program Criteria)which divides the CEPC into 10 sections and examines each element of the criteria individually.The Commentary is covered in much greater detail in two 2015 ASEE papers2,5.With the approval of the new CEPC and the companion Commentary, the CEPCTC’s work isdone. After assisting with the communication effort, such as participating in the ASCE CEPCwebinar6, the CEPCTC
Paper ID #14676Investigation of Probabilistic Multiple-Choice in a Structural Design CourseMajor Adrian Owen Biggerstaff P.E., U.S. Military Academy Major Adrian Biggerstaff is an Assistant Professor at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY. He received his B.S. from the United States Military Academy, and M.S. degrees from Stanford University and Missouri University of Science and Technology. He is a member of ASEE and is a registered Pro- fessional Engineer in Missouri. His primary research interests include sustainable design, construction engineering, and engineering education.Lt. Col. Brad Wambeke P.E., United
Paper ID #14730The Case for a Master’s Degree for Civil Engineering LicensureMr. Mark William Killgore, American Society of Civil Engineers MARK W. KILLGORE, PE, D.WRE, F. EWRI, F. ASCE Mark Killgore has worked as Director, Raise the Bar for the American Society of Civil Engineers since 2011 focusing on the future educational prerequisites for professional licensure. He spent over 30 years as a consulting engineer and project owner in the hydro and water resources sector. He also served as adjunct faculty at Seattle University where he taught water resources engineering and fluid mechanics. He is currently a research
Paper ID #17112Using Concept Maps for Assessment and Improvement of a Multi-Section In-troduction to Engineering CourseDr. Mary Roth, Lafayette College Mary Roth is the Simon Cameron Long Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania. She received her degrees in civil engineering from Lafayette College (B.S.), Cornell University (M.S.), and University of Maine (Ph.D.). She joined the faculty at Lafayette in 1991 and her research interests include risk assessment for earth retaining structures, site investigation methods in karst, and engineering pedagogy. She has authored
Paper ID #15026Why This Flip Wasn’t a Flop: What the Numbers Don’t Tell You AboutFlipped ClassesDr. Heather Noel Fedesco, Purdue University, West Lafayette Ph.D. Purdue University, Brian Lamb School of Communication; Post-doctoral Research Fellow, Purdue University, Center for Instructional ExcellenceProf. Cary Troy, Purdue University, West Lafayette Cary Troy is an associate professor in the Lyles School of Civil Engineering. His research focuses on environmental fluid mechanics, physical oceanography, and Lake Michigan hydrodynamics, as well as innovative and effective pedagogical techniques in large engineering courses
Paper ID #15308Faculty-practitioner Collaboration for Improving Civil Engineering Students’Writing SkillsProf. Susan Conrad, Portland State University Susan Conrad, Professor of Applied Linguistics, is the head of the Civil Engineering Writing Project, in which engineering faculty, engineering practitioners, and writing specialists collaborate to improve writ- ing instruction in civil engineering courses. She has written numerous articles and books about English grammar, discourse, and corpus linguistics.Dr. William A Kitch P.E., Angelo State University Dr. Kitch is Professor and Chair of the Civil Engineering
Paper ID #14392Licensure Issues of Strategic Importance to the Civil Engineering Profession- and ASCECraig N Musselman P.E., A & E Consulting Craig N. Musselman, P.E. is a practicing civil and environmental engineer and is the Founder and Pres- ident of CMA Engineers, a consulting engineering firm with offices in New Hampshire and Maine. He holds B.S.C.E. and M.S.C.E. degrees from the University of Massachusetts and has more than 40 years experience in the planning, design and construction administration of public works facilities. Musselman is a former member of the New Hampshire Board of Licensure for Professional
in Figure 2. Also, deflection videos of select cases areshown in Figure 3. These representations were used in the classroom to assist the authors inpresenting some of the concept, and at the same time students had access to these files on line(Note: An Adobe Reader is required to run the videos). (a) (b) (c) (d)Figure 1. Simply support interactive image (a) Reactions, (b) Shear diagram development, (c)Moment diagram development, (d) Deflection diagram (which is a video) and location offlexural characteristics (a) (b) (c
education.To assess how the teaching materials impact student learning, two assessment instruments havebeen developed: 1. A concept map instrument that assesses student understanding of infrastructure and the systems aspects of infrastructure, and 2. An “Infrastructures Views Survey” (IVS) that seeks to determine students’ a. Understanding of the importance of infrastructure to society, b. Appreciation of the infrastructure problems in the US, c. Understanding of the potential solutions to infrastructure problems, and d. Interest in infrastructure challenges and solutions, including the pertinence of in- frastructure management to their future careers.This paper provides background on the