technologies with power systems, probabilistic production simulations, and integrated resource planning. In recent years, he has authored a number of ar- ticles and has given numerous presentations on outcomes-based engineering curriculum development and the implementation of the ABET Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs. He has authored and/or co-authored over 45 articles, a textbook which has been translated into Chinese, 22 technical reports, 12 summary papers, and 15 discussions and reviews. His professional experience includes: (1) over 32 years of university administration, teaching, consulting and research, and (2) five years of full-time work in industry.Dr. Mojtaba B. Takallou P.E., University of Portland
this first flipped iteration were similar to final grades fromthe previous three lecture-format offerings (see Table 4). However, when examining thenumber of students earning a D or F grade, more students from the flipped classroom earnedlower than a C in the course when compared to the average of the three previous courseofferings (p < 0.001( χ2 = 39.53, df = 16). Table 4: Final Course Grades, Fall 2009 to Fall 2012 Percentage of Students Receiving Grade A B C D F Other Fall 2012 12 23 23 24 16 2 Spring 2011
3. Engineering design (High level & Detailed) b) Other externalities 3. Strategic partnerships/ a)Design for maintainability, Science
, 2014.10. Park, Chan S., Contemporary Engineering Economic Analysis 5th, Prentice Hall, 2011.11. Park, Chan S., Fundamentals of Engineering Economics 3rd, Prentice Hall, 2013.12. Sullivan, William G., Elin M. Wicks, and C. Patrick Koelling, Engineering Economy 16th, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2015.13. White, John A., Kenneth E. Case, and David B. Pratt, Principles of Engineering Economic Analysis 6th, John Wiley, 2012.14. White, John A., Kellie S. Grasman, Kenneth E. Case, Kim LaScola Needy, and David B. Pratt, Fundamentals of Engineering Economic Analysis, Wiley, 2014.15. Bodie, Zvi, Alex Kane, and Alan J. Marcus, Investments 10th, McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2014.16. Benartzi, Shlomo, Save More Tomorrow: Practical Behavioral Finance Solutions to
Paper ID #11677Comparison of Direct and Indirect Assessment of a Summer EngineeringEconomy Course taught with Active Learning TechniquesDr. Simon Thomas Ghanat, The Citadel Dr. Simon Ghanat is an Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. He received his Ph.D., M.S. and B.S. in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Arizona State University. His research interests are in Engineering Education and Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. He previously taught at Bucknell University and Arizona State University.Dr. Kenneth Brannan, The Citadel Ken Brannan is a
consideration. The presentworth (PW) and Costs (C) associated with those alternatives are provided in Table 1.Alternatives are labeled A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H, for simplicity. Using incremental BCRanalysis, determine the best alternative to be recommended.Solution (Note: All cash flows presented from now on are to be understood as to be multipliedby 1000. So for example, in table 1, the cost of alternative A is to be understood as $4 million($4,000 *1000), the PW Benefit of alternative H as $20 million (20,000 *1000), and so forth.):Step 1) Since the potential alternatives are already provided, step 1 is already taken care of. Step2) we calculate the BCR of each alternative, which is shown in Table 2; only those alternativeswith BCR ≥ 1 are further
26.620.6thinking in terms of groups rather than of individuals.” By understanding and implementing theoutcomes, framework, and tools for actively teaching engineering economics, future engineerscan continue evolving as problem solvers and innovators.References1. Lavelle , J., K. Needy, H. Umphred .”Engineering Economy: A Follow-up Analysis of Current Teaching Practices.” ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, 1997, Session 1239.2. Johnson, D., R. Johnson, and K. Smith , “Maximizing Instruction Through Cooperative Learning,” ASEE Prism, February 1998, pp. 24-29.3. O’Conner, John. Turning Average Instruction Into Great Instruction. R&L Publication, 2009.4. Bloom, B. S.; Engelhard, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl, D. R. Taxonomy
Page 26.541.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Development of “Engineering Economics Career” Mobile App Weihang Zhua, Alberto Marqueza, Julia Yoob a Department of Industrial Engineering b Department of Professional Pedagogy Lamar University, Beaumont, TX, 77706, USA Abstract: This paper presents the cross-platform mobile app development process of anewly developed app for an Engineering Economics course. The new mobile app was designedbased on the formative assessment of our apps that were developed and used in
RECEIVING SPECIFIC LETTER GRADES 30% 25%Percent of Class receiving a Specific Letter Grade 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% A BA B CB C DC D E Letter Grade at end of Course Sp 04 F 05 Sp 07 F 09 F10 F11 Figure 1. Grade Frequencies (as Percent of Class) in Selected Semesters4. Fall ’09 (F 09): The format was changed so that time value
, financial statements andfinancial accounting with special emphasis on the balance sheet and income statement, and costaccounting was covered. In part A of the case study, the students (working in groups of 4) wereassigned an in depth financial statement analysis on the large U.S. retailer that would sponsor thecase study problem for part B of the case study. The students were required to complete an indepth analysis of three years of corporate financial statements by completing a series of ratiocalculations. This would give the students real life practice working with corporate financialstatements and also allow them to gain an understanding and background of the large U.S.retailer that would be sponsoring the real life case study competition in
Category 1 $926.11 Category 2 $472.99 Category 3 $454.08The hospital does not know the exact number of patients that they would expect to see in theevent of a tornado but they are interested in determining the average cost per patient. a. Determine the decision tree for this problem. b. Determine the expected value at each decision node. c. Determine the expected value for the costs associated with treating each patient.Observations, Conclusions and Future ResearchIn the teaching of the cost analysis, mathematical procedures are involved. A common problemis that at times students may be able to find the numerical solution but fail to understand
, was below average in class performance. This student had a terrific attitude and seemedto want to learn for the sake of gaining the knowledge, not just for the grade. Our strugglingStudent 3 (class rank 17) had the third highest number of views and finished almost at the bottomof the class (barely earning a B). Students 3 and 12 would likely not have been as successfulwithout the videos. Out of curiosity, we noted the students who mentioned the videos as beinghelpful to their learning in the discussion board. They are shown in red in Figure 6.While this is just one class of 18 students, the analysis of the viewing data, coupled with thewritten feedback on the class, revealed some interesting information on videos views andperformance. If we
Paper ID #11778Comparison of Engineering Economics Learning Outcomes and Student Per-ceptionDr. Paul J. Kauffmann P.E., East Carolina University Paul J. Kauffmann is Professor Emeritus and past Chair in the Department of Engineering at East Car- olina University. His industry career included positions as Plant Manager and Engineering Director. Dr. Kauffmann received a BS degree in Electrical Engineering and MENG in Mechanical Engineering from Virginia Tech. He received his Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering from Penn State and is a registered Profes- sional Engineer in Virginia and North Carolina.Dr. Joseph Wilck, East