: • # of accidents (based on instructor • total # of chips observation) • minimum # of chips collected by an • # of chips collected by E-W individual approaches • maximum # of chip collected by an • # of chips collected by N-S individual approachesAt the end of each scenario these MOEs will be tabulated to demonstrate how well each level ofcontrol serves demand. See Table 1: Page 15.249.6Table: 1 Measures of Effectiveness for Each ScenarioScenario # Chips E- # Chips Tot
foundations of systemsengineering.IntroductionIt is increasingly recognized that the context of engineering is one dominated by systems and that thepractice of engineering is typically directed towards design of engineering systems, ranging from thesmall to large scale and even complex systems of systems. Engineering curricula, with their traditionalfocus on the disciplinary contributions to design, encourage a mindset in which students seek technicalsolutions often rooted in a specific engineering discipline with little regard for the context in which theirproduct, system, or service may be deployed, the societal or business need(s) it may fulfill or even itsrelations to all the other engineering, business or ‘environmental’ domains that can
ASEE North Central Section Outstanding Teaching Award (2004), and both the CECS Excellence in Service (2004) and Excellence in Teaching (2002) awards at Wright State University.Richard Mercer, Wright State University RICHARD E. MERCER is an Associate Professor in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics at Wright State University. He received his Ph.D. in Mathematics from the University of Washington in 1980. Professor Mercer is active in curriculum reform, and has led an NSF supported effort to integrate Mathematica laboratory sessions into the freshman calculus sequence at Wright State University.Kuldip Rattan, Wright State University KULDIP S. RATTAN is a Professor in the
AC 2010-2293: UASPP: THREE YEARS OF HELPING MIDDLE SCHOOLTEACHERS DEVISE THEIR OWN HANDS-ON ENGINEERING AND SCIENCEACTIVITIESShannon Davis, University of ArkansasCarol Gattis, University of Arkansas CAROL S. GATTIS Dr. Gattis is the Associate Dean of the Honors College and Associate Professor of Industrial Engineering at the University of Arkansas. She formerly served as Director of Recruitment, Retention, Honors and Diversity for the College of Engineering at the University of Arkansas. In this latter role, she directed and developed new programs for the college-wide efforts in recruitment, retention and diversity.Bryan Hill, University of Arkansas BRYAN W. HILL
reasons arefurther distinguished from those who get correct answers from incorrect reasons.The dichotomy between sub-scores in {0, 1} and sub-scores in {2, 3} also implies that eachscore p arises from a unique triad of sub-scores, though the ordering of the sub-scores is notunique. For example, a score p = 7 can be realized as (2 + 2 + 3) or (2 + 3 + 2), but 7 cannot berealized as (1 + 3 + 3); in other words, 7 can be realized only from two 2’s and one 3. Thus,each score represents a unique level of total quality, but a given score does not uniquely indicatethe level of quality derived from each individual criterion. As a result, this scoring systemprovides a monotonic scale against which to measure overall quality of work, but does not favorthe
Engineering, Inc.; MMS-A/E; Skidmore,Owings & Merrill LLP; Spencer Engineering, Inc.; Thorton-Thomasetti Group; andWalter P. Moore and Associates, Inc. The authors are very grateful to the Office ofInstitutional Research, Planning, and Assessment at Rose-Hulman for their assistancein developing and administering the surveys. The authors would also like to thankProfessor Mark Yoder from the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department atRose-Hulman for assistance with the Electrical Engineering examples.References1. Puri, P. S. (Moderator) “Computer Misuse – Are We Dealing with a Time Bomb?”, Forensic Engineering: Proceedings of the First Congress, Task Committee on Avoiding Failures Caused by Computer Misuse, Forensic Engineering Division
. Theauthor would also like to thank Darla Cooper, Michelle Barton, and Kathy Booth of the @ONEScholars Program, and Charles Iverson of Cañada College for invaluable input, discussions,comments, and suggestions.References1. Birk, J., & Foster, J. (1993). The importance of Lecture in General Chemistry Course Performance. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 180-182.2. Meltzer, D. E., & K. Manivannan, K. (1996). Promoting Interactivity in Physics Lecture Classes. The Phys. Teacher, 34, 72-76.3. Felder, R.M., Felder, G. N. & Dietz, E. J. (1998). A Longitudinal Study of Engineering Student Performance and Retention. V. Comparisons with Traditionally-Taught Students, J. Engr. Education, 87, 469-480.4. Rodger, S. H. (1995). An