, thefactors that do not share a letter are significantly different. It is interesting to note thatstudent-centeredness has received the least rating as compared to the other factors. This couldbe due to heavier expectations from faculty by the students. Factor N Mean Grouping Devotion 25 4.5543 A knowledge 25 4.5467 A Discipline 25 4.4649 A Delivery 25 4.4340 A Student Centeredness 25 4.1474 B Table 3: Grouping Information Using Tukey MethodParticipantsWe analyzed the academic performance of students who voted in
Paper ID #10447A MOOC with a Business PlanMr. Eugene Rutz, University of Cincinnati Academic Director in the College of Engineering & Applied Science with academic and administrative oversight of distance learning programs, combined degree programs and high school dual enrollment. Experience as educator, practicing engineer and educational researcher.Jim Tappel, University of CincinnatiDr. BJ Zirger, University of Cincinnati Page 24.71.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014
0.752 29.68 30.20 02.365 a IDEA Identity Exploration 0.830 3.33 3.21 8.687 ** b Experimentation/Possibilities 0.782 3.50 3.36 5.741** b Negativity/Instability 0.785 2.77 2.80 2.650 * a, b Other-Focused 0.628 2.63 2.55 5.875** a Self-Focused 0.654 3.44 3.34 3.625 ** Feeling "In-Between" 0.768 3.09 2.77 20.502 ** a, b EBAE Certainty of knowledge 0.501 4.47 4.62 0.409 Simplicity of knowledge 0.472 7.45 7.36
level of effort in the community. 2. Create a safe, supportive, and fun environment to support the social aspects of the community. 3. Explore areas of teaching, learning, and instruction of interest to the group. 4. Have members bring examples or issues from their current courses, rather than create artifacts. Focusing on current issues/examples would support relevancy and hopefully support a practical, rather than theoretical approach.To support these goals we asked members to be willing to: a) preview an idea with the club toimprove it, b) try the idea out in class, and c) review what happened in class with club.The co-author, a faculty in mechanical engineering with a strong expertise in pedagogy andworking with small
of revenue growth. I.E., tie overhead to revenue growth considering type/delivery of program. Create a ProSTAR expense allocation model differentiated by type/delivery of program: non-credit, distance and distance-hybrid. Compare and contrast the hiring of a marketing resource given two scenarios: (a) an internal marketing individual, serving traditional programs and ProSTAR programs, and (b) a .5 FTE resource combined with the engineering equivalent resources targeting individuals (professional working adult learners) in both engineering and technology fee- based programs.In summary, ProSTAR presented the following 2012-2013 academic year end information: 5 Years – year over year
effective teaching practices. While the context of this studywas specifically our engineering faculty teaching large engineering courses, these efforts can be adaptedand generalized to similar contexts and settings, and they can provide a framework for other professionalfaculty development.References1. Dancy, M. & Henderson, C. (2010). Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics, 78, 1056-1063.2. Eccles, J. S., Barber, B. L., Updegraff, K. & O’Brien, K. M. (1998). An expectancy-value model of achievement choices: The role of ability self-concepts, perceived task utility, and interest in predicting activity choice and course enrollment. In A. K. L. Joffmann, K. A. Renninger & J
Paper ID #10107Personnel Improvement Plan: a professionalism assignment for engineeringstudentsDr. Mohammad Habibi, Minnesota State University, MankatoMr. Ronald R Ulseth, Iron Range Engineering Ron Ulseth, P.E. is Co-Director of IRE as well as an instructor of technical competencies in thermody- namics, fluid mechanics, and heat transfer. Ulseth has been teaching engineering fundamentals courses since 1988. He was a lead developer in the Itasca Community College Engineering program. Ulseth led a team of ˜10 engineering educators from around the United States to develop the Iron Range Engineering program. In addition to
Paper ID #8652Work in Progress: Providing Continuing Education for Teachers in the Do-minican Republic Using Online Modules Developed through a First YearCapstone ProjectMr. David Reeping, Ohio Northern University David Reeping is a sophomore majoring in Engineering Education with a minor in Mathematics and an undergraduate research assistant. He is a Choose Ohio First scholar inducted during the 2012-2013 school year and the recipient of the Remsburg Creativity Award for 2013. Also, he is a member of the freshman honorary society (Alpha Lambda Delta / Phi Eta Sigma) and the mathematics honorary society (Kappa Mu Epsilon
Paper ID #9048The PEER Collaborative: Supporting engineering education research facultywith near-peer mentoring unconference workshopsDr. Alice L Pawley, Purdue University, West Lafayette Alice L. Pawley is an associate professor in the School of Engineering Education with affiliations with the Women’s Studies Program and Division of Environmental and Ecological Engineering at Purdue University. She has a B.Eng. in chemical engineering (with distinction) from McGill University, and an M.S. and a Ph.D. in industrial and systems engineering with a Ph.D. minor in women’s studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She
. Neither did these organizations sponsor this research nor were/are they responsiblefor our observations about the training. Books, journal articles and web articles were the majorsources for public domain research. The three organizations whose observed learningstrategies will be discussed are:• An aerospace design and manufacturing company: The Boeing Company (Let us call it Company A)• A construction and consulting company: Black & Veatch Corporation (Company B), and• A flight control system designer and manufacturing company: Rockwell Collins, Inc. (Company C)All three organizations are remarkably strong in developing robust business strategy andinvest heavily on learning, especially on technical training that provides a
Paper ID #8611Educating Engineering Educators to Nurture 21st Century Indian EngineersProf. Farrokh Mistree, University of Oklahoma Farrokh Mistree holds the L. A. Comp Chair in the School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma. Farrokh’s passion is to have fun in providing an opportunity for highly motivated and talented people to learn how to define and achieve their dreams. Farrokh received his B. Tech (Hons) degree in Naval Architecture in 1967 from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur and his Ph.D. in Engineering from the University of California
-Hill.7 Grady, J. (1993). System Requirements Analysis. San Francisco, CA., McGraw-Hill.8 Kerzner, H. (2009). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling and Controlling. 10th ed. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons (p. 83).9 Blanchard, B. S. & Fabrycky, W. J. (2011). Systems Engineering and Analysis. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall (p. 34). Page 24.335.15
). Digital Omnivores, Social Media and Social Capital: Expatriatesinteractions using Smartphones in Stockholm (Doctoral dissertation, Södertörn University).Li, D., & Segal, B. (2012). The Changing Landscape of The Canadian Mobile Audience.International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 7(1).Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course. Babson Survey Research Group: TheSloan Consortium.Balaji, M. S., & Chakrabarti, D. (2010). Student interactions in online discussion forum:Empirical research from ‘media richness theory’perspective. Journal of Interactive OnlineLearning, 9(1), 1-22.Beck, R. J. (2010). Teaching international law as a partially online course: The hybrid/blendedapproach to pedagogy. International Studies Perspectives, 11
the program gives good results.As an example, the results of the 2012-2013 academic year program polls are given. Theprogram participants and the leaders of the industry training departments were interviewed.The interviews gave the following results.1. Have you obtained a lot of new information during the program?a) Almost all information was new for me.b) I knew some facts, but most of the information was new for me.c) I knew almost everything; however, my knowledge was structured in the course of theprogram.d) I did not learn anything new.The majority of the program participants chose the “b” answer.2. Name the modules or parts of the program which were underdeveloped and did notmeet your requirements.None of the program
Paper ID #9052Using Faculty Communities to Drive Sustainable Reform: Learning from theStrategic Instructional Initiatives ProgramDr. Geoffrey L Herman, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Dr. Geoffrey L. Herman is a visiting assistant professor with the Illinois Foundry for Innovation in Engi- neering Education. He earned his Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign as a Mavis Future Faculty Fellow and conducted postdoctoral research with Ruth Streveler in the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. His research interests include creating systems