Paper ID #17353A Graduate Project on the Development of a Wearable Sensor Platform Pow-ered by Harvested EnergyDr. Sasan Haghani, University of the District of Columbia Sasan Haghani, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of the District of Columbia. His research interests include the application of wireless sensor networks in biomedical and environmental domains and performance analysis of communication systems over fading channels.Daniel Albano, Northrop Grumman Corp. Daniel Albano is a graduate of the University of the District of Columbia’s Electrical Engineering
cases, and these provide theoretical and practical background in conducting experiments.References1. I. M. Abdel-Qader, B. J. Bazuin, Real-Time Digital Signal Processing in the Undergraduate Curriculum, IEEETransactions on Education, vol.46, no.1, February, 20032. D. Jacoby and R. Saint-Nom, Nice experiences teaching SP in Argentina, Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing,IEEE International Conference on acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2689-2692 vol.5, 20013. J. P. Frantz, H. Choi, R. Baraniuk, DSP Education at Rice University,4. S. Gallardo, F. Barrero, S. L. Toral, M. J. Durán, eDSPlab: A remote-accessed instrumentation laboratory for digitalsignal processors training based on the Internet, IEEE Industrial Electronics, IECON 2006
dark arts (of Cyberspace) universities are offering graduate degrees in cybersecurity,” IEEE Spectr., vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 26–26, Jun. 2014.[2] M. Lloyd, “Negative Unemployment: That Giant Sucking Sound In Security,” Forbes, 21- Mar-2017.[3] B. NeSmith, “The Cybersecurity Talent Gap Is An Industry Crisis,” Forbes, 09-Aug-2018.[4] A. Bicak, X. (Michelle) Liu, and D. Murphy, “Cybersecurity Curriculum Development: Introducing Specialties in a Graduate Program,” Inf. Syst. Educ. J., vol. 13, no. 3, p. 2015.[5] S. A. Kumar and S. Alampalayam, “Designing a graduate program in information security and analytics,” in Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Information technology education - SIGITE ’14
the big rocks (i.e., conceptual must-haves) (b) Develop program goals (c) Develop program-level learning outcomes (d) Develop two to four proficiency levels for each learning outcome (e) Distribute the proficiency levels across the program's curricular and co-curricular elements, creating a curricular map / spreadsheet (f) Design the courses and co-curricular elements to ensure that the assigned proficiency levels are appropriately taught and assessed (g) Collect periodic quantitative program assessment data on aggregated student achievement of the proficiencies and qualitative feedback from instructors and students (h) Regularly analyze the collected data and revise program (courses, co
Applied not 40% Did not Matriculated apply Admitted matriculate 51% 60% 87% 39% (a) (b) (c)Figure 1. (a) Application to TAMU; (b) Admissions to TAMU; and (c) Matriculation to TAMU.Factors - Graduate School SelectionParticipant responses on factors that influenced their selection of a graduate school were codedinto four categories based on previous research10. The categories included institutional factors,department factors, faculty factors and personal factors. Response percentages for
dissertation, which documented the lived experience of nonprofit executive directors, pro- vides a foundation for her focus on leadership as a way of being for staff and volunteer leaders in the sector.Dr. Brandy B. Walker, University of Georgia Dr. Brandy Walker is public service faculty at the J.W. Fanning Institute for Leadership Development at the University of Georgia. She holds a Ph.D. in Learning, Design, and Technology and is interested in applied research on perspective changes in community contexts, experiential learning in higher education, and community-engagement.Dr. Julie A. Coffield, University of Georgia c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 2018 AEEE
agents for change”[7].Several studies describe the elements of interdisciplinary education including Borrego andNewswander who review the graduate-level IGERT programs at 98 institutions and indicate thatthe national efforts for interdisciplinary graduate education include: (a) grounding in multipletraditional disciplines, (b) integration skills and broad perspective of the interdisciplinarydomain, (c) team work, and (d) interdisciplinary communication [5]. Boix Mansilla’s workincludes development of rubrics which can be useful to assessing students’ interdisciplinarywork. The performance criteria promoting interdisciplinarity in the rubrics include: (a) beingwell grounded in the disciplines, (b) advancing student understanding, and (c) showing
articulation and online delivery of undergraduate engineering degrees. In addition to conducting research on color image fusion and real-time implementation of algorithms, she is the immediate past chair of the Middle Atlantic Section of the American Society for Engineering Education and a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. She enjoys observing the intellectual and professional growth in students as they prepare for engineering careers.Dr. Gbekeloluwa B. Oguntimein, Morgan State University Dr. Gbekeloluwa B. Oguntimein received his B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Chemical Engineering from Iowa State University in 1974 and 1979 respectively. He has over 30 years teaching and research experience
.Petroski, H. (2011). The essential engineer: Why science alone will not solve our global problems. Vintage.Pierrakos, O., Beam, T.K., Constantz, J., Johri, A., & Anderson, R. (2009) On the development of a professional identity: engineering persisters vs engineering switchers. Paper presented at the 2009 39th IEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Imagining and Engineering Future CSET Education (FIE 2009), Piscataway, NJ.Rosenthal, L., London, B., Levy, S. R., & Lobel, M. (2011) The roles of perceived identity compatibility and social support for women in a single-sex program at a co-educational university. Sex Roles, 65(9-10), 725-736.Schwartz, S. J., Luyckx, K., & Vignoles, V. L. (Eds
nodes, and edges corresponding to the hiring of one program’s graduates by anotherprogram. In the hiring graph, a directed edge from program A to program B indicates that Ahires at least one Ph.D. from B as its faculty member. Our hypothesis is that “schools tend to hirePh.D.s from peer or better schools”. We note that a lot of resources are placed in the hiringactivity, including assessment from domain experts, academic review, salaries and so on, andtherefore the hiring decision reflects the academic quality of the faculty member in acomprehensive way.Our rationale for employing the hiring graph has several reasons. First, this is based on ourhypothesis that “universities tend to hire Ph.D.s from peer or better programs”. This is
) make faculty and studentsaware of some common challenges and b) provide guidance on dealing with these challengesfrom both a faculty and a student perspective.IntroductionThere are many advantages of pursuing advanced degrees at U.S. universities. Some of them areachieving leadership in many scientific disciplines, top caliber academics with internationalexposure, high national spending on research and development, talented colleagues, hundreds ofschools, freedom of thought, conscience and expression, competitive egalitarian society, highstandards of living, and generous stipends.For students coming from India or China, these advantages may not be enough. Funding,limitations on employment after graduation, expensive tuition and also visa
chaptersI. Introduction Aug. 22, 24 Ch. 1II. Basic tools and concepts A. The economic perspective Aug. 27, 29, 31 Ch. 2 B. Sustainable development Sep. 5, 7, 10 Ch. 5EXAM 1 Sep. 12 Ch. 1, 2, 5C. Cost/benefit analysis Sep. 14, 17, 19 Ch. 3D. Property rights, externalities, Sep. 21, 24, 26 Ch. 4III. Natural resources A. Introduction Sep. 28, Oct. 1, 3 Ch. 7EXAM 2 Oct. 5 Ch. 3, 4, 7 B. Depletable resources 1. Energy Oct. 10, 12, 15, 17, 19
launched inSummer 2017. It was also run Fall of 2017 with a few edits based upon feedback received in thefirst run of the course.Below is a general outline of the process used. A more detailed description with reference toMSE 598 follows. 1. Analysis and Design a. Initial Interest Conversation b. Kick-off Meeting c. Course Design - Course Map i. Course Objectives / Outcomes defined ii. Module Objectives defined 1. Sequence by module / week 2. Map to course outcomes / objectives 3. Define how each objective will be assessed iii. Content Identification
research, statement of the problem, 2) literature review, research design, sampling,measurement, data analysis, and 3) documentation and presentation. In each unit, the relevantchapters and activities were included so once the first unit was finished, the students wouldcomplete all the activities and move to the next unit. Figure 2 shows the structure of the courseand how the activities would contribute to the proposal development (the complete courseoutline can be found in Appendix B). The only exception was the weekly article review in whichstudents were to read at least, two recent articles in the area of their interest and briefly describewhat they had found. They were also, to maintain a weekly online journal in which they wrote asummary of
Paper ID #27132Impact of Research Experience Programs on National and International Un-dergraduate Engineering StudentsDr. Jacques C. Richard, Texas A&M University Dr. Richard got his Ph. D. at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1989 & a B. S. at Boston University, 1984. He was at NASA Glenn, 1989-1995, worked at Argonne National Lab, 1996-1997, taught at Chicago State University, 1997-2002. Dr. Richard is a Sr. Lecturer & Research Associate in Aerospace Engi- neering @ Texas A&M since 1/03. His research is focused on computational plasma modeling using spectral and lattice Boltzmann methods for studying
Students obtain knowledge and skill in the consumption, design, and execution of advanced research in technology management and their area of specialization Students demonstrate knowledge of academic units and faculty roles in technology study programs in higher education.Admission of a student to the Consortium-Based Ph.D. in Technology Management Program isbased upon the attainment or completion of: a) A Master's degree in a relevant field from an accredited university. b) A graduate grade index of 3.5 on a 4.0 scale. c) The Graduate Record Examination (GRE) or Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) taken within 5 years of application—scores should be competitive, with no minimum score specified. d) Five
Transducer Using a Copper Vapor Laser. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, Vol. 48, No. 3, May 2001.5. Minerick, A., Elmore, B. (2006), Using Research as a Tool for Student Recruiting. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Chicago, Illinois, June 18-21, 2006.6. Webb, A. & Knowles, M. (2005, March 1). Oxford Lasers Proposal for the Supply of a Turnkey Laser Micro- Machining & Part Marking System.7. Stone, W., & Kuhn, Z. (2007). Integrating Laser Machining Applications into a Quality Course for Engineering Technology Students. Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference
methods early was beneficial to their workshop. One participantexpressed, “It was something to get the ball rolling ahead of time and start thinking about thingsearly. I think it worked out well.” Furthermore, the practice workshops were found to beeffective at discovering where the instruction was unclear. An instructor explained, They were definitely helpful for people to point out A) the issues with my code [content]… and B) where things get confusing. While you are writing up your notes … it is almost impossible to figure out where things get confusing.If a graduate student familiar with a program became confused during a practice workshop, itacted as a clear indication that an inexperienced audience would likely struggle
considered. They are: 1. Mathematics, 2. Engineering, 3.Biology, 4. All others. The mathematics majors appear to have the numbers advantage; theyscored the highest grades, clearly well above the rest of the class. The engineering and othermajors had the next highest median scores with almost 75% of the groups scoring a grade of B orbetter (80+ points). The scores for biology majors appear to be more varied. The top 25thpercentile scores for biology and engineering majors are similar (at about 87 points), however,the lower 25th percentile of biology scorers appear to be the lowest scores in the class. It shouldhowever be noted that the biology group not only included some undergraduate students but isalso traditionally a non quantitative major.The
AC 2011-231: DETERMINING IMPACT OF A COURSE ON TEACHINGIN ENGINEERINGRobert J. Gustafson, Ohio State University Robert J. Gustafson, P.E., PhD, is Honda Professor for Engineering Education and Director of the Engi- neering Education Innovation Center in the College of Engineering and a Professor of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering at The Ohio State University. He has previously served at Ohio State as As- sociate Dean for Undergraduate Education and Student Services (1999-2008) and Department Chair of Food Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department (1987-1999). After being awarded his PhD. Degree from Michigan State in 1974, he joined the faculty of the Agricultural Engineering Department at
because we spent time on it. b) Like the way the medical school author from School C designed slides for non-biology majors c) The TA’s helped a lot with the understanding of this section d) The material I this section I found to be of ease. I do understand the complications of connecting this info to following section from an educators’ point of view. The quiz and exams are based on this section and I don’t believe enough emphasis is present in the lectures. Maybe this could be tweaked, so that the oral connects more with the slides and what we should have to know for our edification. e) Great teacher! This is the most clear of all the lectures. After her explanation everything became clear, she made
2006-2635: TECHNOPOLIS CREATION - A SURVEY OF BEST PRACTICESFROM AROUND THE WORLDCarmo D'Cruz, Florida Tech Dr. Carmo A. D’Cruz is Associate Professor in the Engineering Systems Department at Florida Tech. A twenty-year veteran of the semiconductor industry, Dr. D’Cruz has studied and taught at Engineering and Business schools. His experience ranges from R&D and engineering to manufacturing, operations, marketing and Business Development. His research areas include Technopolis Creation and Engineering Entrepreneurship. He has developed pioneering courses in Systems Engineering Entrepreneurship, Technical Marketing, High Tech Product Strategy and Technology Commercialization
begin experimenting with theflipped classroom model in earnest.References1. Barlow AEL, Villarejo M. Making a difference for minorities: Evaluation of an educational enrichment program. J Res Sci Teach. 2004 Nov 1;41(9):861–81.2. Russell SH, Hancock MP, McCullough J. Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science(Washington). 2007;316(5824):548–549.3. Seymour E, Hunter A-B, Laursen SL, DeAntoni T. Establishing the Benefits of Research Experiences for Undergraduates in the Sciences: First Findings from a Three-Year Study. Sci Educ. 2007 Jul;88(4):493–534.4. Lopatto D. Undergraduate Research Experiences Support Science Career Decisions and Active Learning. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2007;6(4):297–306.5
faculty mentors was concerned about the lack of a "socialcomponent of the program", and recognizing the time and effort that the fellows had put in.Other suggestions included having an "end of program social" recognizing the fellows that had Page 14.975.8completed the program, and to "give the new fellows a chance to meet." Another fellowcommented that although she "didn’t feel isolated", more interaction with the other fellowswould “help with the sense of community."B. Preparation for a Faculty Career Mentored teaching experiences are certainly an important part of preparing for a facultycareer, and were the most obvious outcome of the GTF
rubric is that it reminds the reader to consider a variety of factors when reviewing each application. This is particularly helpful when evaluating students who come from non-traditional backgrounds.” “It gave me a framework to consider a wider variety of factors in considering potential graduate students that went far beyond the simple GPA, GRE metrics.” “The questions in the rubric prompted me to specifically look for that information in an applicant’s file which I may have otherwise missed.”Faculty were also asked to rank the value they placed on various application components prior toand after the implementation of the rubric. Those components included a) letters of evaluation, b)CV/resume, c) personal
Paper ID #15079Imperative Issues and Elusive Solutions in Academic Integrity: A Case StudyDr. Scott R. Hamilton, Northeastern University Scott Hamilton is the Director of Graduate Professional Development at Northeastern University’s College of Engineering. He is a registered Professional Engineer and has both a MS and PhD in civil engineering and a MS in engineering management from Stanford University and a BS from the United States Military Academy, West Point. He is a retired US Army Corps of Engineers officer who has had assignments in the US, Germany, Korea, and Afghanistan. During his military career he spent over 10
will strengthen the case for the existence ofexperience capital.References 1 Bowles, S., & Gintis, S. (2002). Social capital and community governance. The Economic Journal 112(483), 419-436. 2 Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. (R. Nice. Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 3 Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital (R. Nice. Trans.). In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). NY: Greenwood Press. 4 Aslanian, C. (2001). Adult students today. New York: College Board. 5 Bean, J., & Metzner, B. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition
collaboratively in partnerships withmiddle school Science teachers. The GK-12 Fellows, from engineering and science disciplines,spent one to two days each week over an entire school year in the middle school classrooms.Their primary objectives in the classrooms were co-developing and co-teaching student lessonsfocused on science and engineering concepts.The Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI-B) and supporting focus group datawere used to measure the GK-12 Fellows’ teaching efficacy. The STEBI-B was originallydeveloped by Enochs and Riggs to measure elementary Science teaching efficacy. TheSTEBI-B has been validated and found to be a reliable instrument for measuring Scienceteaching efficacy. Since its development, modified versions have
-minute lesson incorporating active learning teachingmethods.18 Like the microteaching session that occurs prior to the start of the term, the TAspresent a lesson to a small group of their peers and receive feedback. Unlike the earliermicroteaching sessions, the TAs may have the opportunity to win a small prize (i.e., $5 giftcertificate) for the TA who incorporates active learning into their lesson most effectively. Sincethere are many active learning teaching strategies, for the purpose of this TA training,participants are asked to select one of six active learning teaching methods for their lessons: (1)the minute paper, (2) think-pair-share, (3) brainstorming, (4) case studies, (5) inquiry learning,and (6) cooperative groups (See Appendix B for
Science, Mathematics and Engineering Mentor- ing from the White House; the 2008 Hewlett-Packard/Harriett B. Rigas Award from the IEEE Education Society; the 2013 Distinguished Educator Award from the ASEE Electrical and Computer Engineering Division; and was named an IEEE Fellow in 2014. Dr. Schrader earned her B.S. in electrical engineering from Valparaiso University, and her M.S. and Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University of Notre Dame.Dr. Darryl P. Butt, University of UtahTimothy AndersenDr. Tammi Vacha-Haase, Boise State University Tammi Vacha-Haase currently serves as the Dean of the Graduate College at Boise State University. She received her Ph.D. in 1995 from Texas A&M University. Dr. Vacha