ranges, by team (includes only peer comparisons—not self or instructor). Each row is a team (4 teams from spring 2007 and 2 from fall 2007). Team % ranges = 3 % ranges = 2 % ranges = 1 % ranges = 0 % ranges < 1 A: Spr 07 5 20 60 15 75 B: Spr 07 0 10 65 25 90 C: Spr 07 0 20 40 40 80 D: Spr 07 0 0 60 40 100 E: Fall 07 5 25 55 15 70 F: Fall 07 0 25 60 15
multiple scales (involving communities, high schools, collegestudents, and professors) as well as integrate research into service projects with the aim ofincreasing community awareness of research and higher education. Based on findings fromevaluating our collaboration and student participation, we discuss a model of service-research forgraduate programs.Overview of research projectBiofuels are currently derived from corn and soybeans in the US to make ethanol and biodiesel,respectively. While energy and greenhouse gas savings are realized, several significant tradeoffshave arisen including a) increase in food prices and b) a shift in environmental burden to impactsmanifesting as eutrophication and hypoxia (i.e. the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico
- Page 24.1195.14systems: lecture 2 hours, lab 2 hours. ABET outcomes (and modified outcomes) covered by thiscourse: a, b, c, d, kERE 3024 Unified Robotics III:This is the third course in a four course sequence combining mechanical engineering, electrical& computer engineering and computer science to develop both the theory and practice ofrobotics engineering. The focus of this course is actuator design, embedded computing andcomplex response processes. The principles of operation and interface methods for variousactuators will be discussed. Various feedback control mechanisms including motion control andforce control will be implemented using software executing in an embedded system. Thenecessary concepts for real-time processor programming
close family were invited to the presentations(figures 2 &3).Figure 1 (a): camp activities Figure 1 (b): camp activities 5Dr. AC. Megri 2020 ASEE Annual ConferenceFigure 2 (a): last day presentation Figure 2 (b): last day presentationFigure 3 (a): last day presentation Figure 3 (b): last day presentationWorkshop Activities:Camp activities are organized in a pedagogical manner, where teaching hours are separated byrelaxation and fun activities to facilitate learning and avoid boredom. Our teaching approachdoes not leave any student behind and try to make all the students active and contribute to
Paper ID #8981What’s in the Soup? Auto-ethnograhies from an Engineer, a Physicist, andan English Professor Regarding a Successful Multidisciplinary Grand Chal-lenge ProgramDr. Anneliese Watt, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Anneliese Watt is Professor of English at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. She teaches and re- searches technical and professional communication, rhetoric and composition, medicine in literature, and other humanities elective courses to engineering and science students. Her graduate work in rhetoric and literature was completed at Penn State, and her recent research often focuses on engineering and
., “Implementing an English and Engineering Collaboration,” in Liberal Education in Twenty-First Century Engineering: Responses to ABET/EC2000 Criteria, (eds: Ollis, D.S., Neeley, K.A., and Luegenbiehl, H.C., Peter Lang Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 270-279.6. Kennedy, A., Ollis, D., and Brent, R, , “Cross-College Collaboration to Enhance Spanish Instruction and Learning,” Proceedings of ASEE Annual conference, 2005.7. Laffitte, B., Ollis, D., and Brent, R.,, “Cross-College Collaboration of Engineering with Industrial Design” Proceedings of ASEE Annual conference, 2005.8. Krupczak, J., “Science and Technology of Everyday Life: A Course on Technology for Liberal Arts Students,” Proceedings of ASEE Annual conference, 19969
Paper ID #9669A Multidisciplinary MOOC on Creativity, Innovation, and Change: Encour-aging Experimentation and Experiential Learning on a Grand ScaleDr. Kathryn Jablokow, Pennsylvania State University Dr. Kathryn Jablokow is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Design at Penn State University. A graduate of Ohio State University (Ph.D., Electrical Engineering), Dr. Jablokow’s teaching and research interests include problem solving, invention, and creativity in science and engineer- ing, as well as robotics and computational dynamics. In addition to her membership in ASEE, she is a Senior
semester-longteam research experience. The students impacted by one and/or both of these initiatives areexpected to form an excellent talent pool for traditional graduate engineering programs, as wellas non-traditional graduate programs planned for the near future at our university, such as thegraduate programs of the ERC-supported Bioengineering Department and/or Joint School ofNanoscience and Nanoengineering. The content organization of the paper is as follows: (a)Development of Nanotechnology-I: An interdisciplinary nanotechnology theory-cum-laboratorycourse, (b) Development of Nanotechnology-II: A semester-long hands-on research-basedcourse, (c) Infusion of nanotechnology modules in existing undergraduate courses, (d)Organization of REU
studentsfrom majors other than engineering. Page 22.65.13References 1. Bransford, J., A.L. Brown, and R.R. Cocking. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2. McKenna, A.F., B. Yalvac, and G.J. Light. 2009. The role of collaborative reflection on shaping engineering faculty teaching approaches. Journal of Engineering Education 98(1): 17-26. 3. Ohland, M. W. Sheppard, S. D., Lichtenstein, G., Eirs, O., Chacra, D., & Layton, R. A. (2008). Persistence, engagement, and migration in engineering programs, Journal of Engineering Education 97 (3), 259-278. 4
Engineering Education: Undergraduate Curriculum,” International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 575-580, 2003.[5] M. A. Gennert, and C. B. Putnam, “Robotics as an Undergraduate Major: 10 Years' Experience,” Proceedings of 2018 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2018.[6] V. V. Vantsevich, "Education in Mechatronics," Mechatronics in Action: Case Studies in Mechatronics – Applications and Education, D. Bradley and D. W. Russell, eds., pp. 197- 218, London: Springer London, 2010.[7] A. Hassan, V. Rault, and P. Truchot, "Implementing of Project-Based and Skill Assessment Pedagogy in Mechatronics Course." 2018 19th International Conference on Research and Education in
Date DateFig. 5(a) Roof Inner Temperature (July 21-Aug Fig. 5(b) Roof
•Select projects appropriate to the participant technical knowledge levels andParticipants resources availableChallenges •Provide support to overcome the knowledge barrier •Peer Interactions •Explain possible handling approaches for interdependent projects and remedies for lagging teams Page 25.259.6 •Allocate administration time and attention fairly among the participants a) Advancing the state of the art in conventional manufacturing processes such as metal- casting, b) New trends in manufacturing such as rapid prototyping, c) Emerging
. Engr. Ph.D. 2011 (b) Appointments 2014-Current Assistant Professor, Texas A&M University—Kingsville 2011-2014 Post- Doctoral Fellow, University of Texas at Austin 2008-2011 Research Scientist Associates, University of c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Paper ID #20602Texas at Austin 2001-2008 Graduate Research Assistant, Georgia Institute of Technology 1998-2000Graduate Research Assistant, Korea University, Korea(c) Products Most closely related publication • Choi, J.-W., Duncan, I.J., and Rodin, G.J., Microcracknucleation in porous solids under predominantly compressive stress state with
combatperformance and safety. The U.S. Marine Corps has published a technical manual formaintenance of M16A4, Organizational and Intermediate Maintenance Manual with RepairParts List (RPL) for M16A2, M16A4, M4, and M4A1 [20], which comprises 370 pages andcontains information on general equipment description and data, principles of operation,troubleshooting, organizational maintenance, etc. Figure 1 shows two excerpts from the manual:Figure 1(a) shows an inspection procedure during cleaning and Figure 1(b) shows the steps inreassembly. The maintenance manual for M16A4 [3] is in PDF format and mainly contains textand figures. (a) (b)Figure 1. Excerpts from Organizational and Intermediate
Paper ID #21296Teaching Mechanical Design for Mechatronics Engineering Students Using aProject-based Sequential Learning ApproachDr. Bahaa kazem Ansaf, Colorado State University, Pueblo B. Ansaf received the B.S. degree in mechanical engineering /Aerospace and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in mechanical engineering from the University of Baghdad in 1996 and 1999 respectively. From 2001 to 2014, he has been an Assistant Professor and then Professor with the Mechatronics Engineering De- partment, Baghdad University. During 2008 he has been a Visiting Associate professor at Mechanical Engineering Department, MIT. During 2010 he
position motors, occupant sensors, seat control switch Door: mirror switch, central ECU, power window lift, door lock Safety and investigation: automotive black box.FlexRay is a high speed communication protocol used to communicate among different devicesin an automobile system. It is a multi-master network and was created to increase reliability,quantity and speed of data being communicated among the vehicle’s ECU. FlexRay networkingstandards work on the principle of TDMA and have dual-channel architecture. It has a hostprocessor which controls the communication process via communication controller and busdriver. Each FlexRay node has two physical channels A and B facilitating data rate of up to10Mbps per channel. It can be employed as
aspectrophotometer (Figure 3b). As a take-home exercise, the students were also asked to estimatethe amount of gold they synthesized in their experiment. (a) (b) Figure 3. (a) Students working in the chemistry lab; (2) Absorbance reading of colloidal gold solution.Electrospun nanofibers were the second type of nanomaterials the students learned and practiced.After demonstration by the team leader, the students prepared their own biodegradable nanofibersamples collected on aluminum foils using different parameters. They could use these samplesfor electron
the program. After a lot of internal faculty discussion and consultation withWMD experts external to AFIT, the decision was made to design the program to incorporatenuclear (N), chemical (C) and biological (B) weapon technologies, while focusing on thefoundational science behind the production, effects and mitigation. While these are still verybroad, some areas considered WMD by some would be excluded. An example of this is high-yield non-nuclear explosive weapons. In considering the course content and objectives, it was apparent that developing graduateswho were experts in all three major areas (N, C or B) was an unachievable goal in the time givento our master’s students (18 months to 2 years.) It was determined that each student would
two; constraints; Time and budget system. Requires two Additional safety constraints. processors. mechanism needed.Embodiment DesignBased on the advantages and disadvantages, especially the time and budget requirements,Concept 2 was selected for the capstone project. A preliminary prototype was assembled inSolidworks as shown in Figure 1 (a), based on which, further evaluation checks and optimizationof the design were also conducted and the refined prototype was shown in Figure 1 (b). Whendesigning and building the prototype vehicle, many mechanical variables had to be considered toensure the
assessmentof the region by interviewing and surveying various stakeholders at two clinical care facilities(see Table 2).The first healthcare facility visited (Site A) was a large regional hospital in a metropolitancommunity. The second facility (Site B) was a small health clinic operated by a mission in arural village. In each case, students worked in multidisciplinary teams surveying or interviewingadministrators, healthcare workers, and patients to collect relevant data. Survey instruments,which were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at WNE prior to the trip, wereused to gather pertinent information from volunteers in a confidential manner. All respondentswere asked demographic information to develop group statistics. Additionally
as a calling b : a person who is trained in or follows any branch of engineering. as a profession a branch of engineering 4. one who operates an engine c : a person who carries through an 5. colloq one who skillfully manages or enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance carries through some enterprise. 4. a person who runs or supervises an engine or an apparatus engineer (v). 1. to lay out, construct or manage as an 1. to lay out, construct, or manage as an engineer
project deliverables including a toy design proposal with rationale for how italigned with the developmental needs of a particular age group and a final design report thatincluded field notes from testing with children targeted by their toy design (see Appendix B forsample assignment guidelines given to students). Figure 1 illustrates several final projectssubmitted by the interdisciplinary teams. Data Sources and Analysis. Online surveys using Qualtrics were administered to ENGand ECE students at two time intervals: at the start of the semester before projects wereintroduced (pre) and at the end of the semester after all project deliverables were submitted(post). Survey questions for both groups focused on several key issues: (1) a priori
and evaluating and implementing pre-recruitment strategies, developing andcoordinating delivery of new faculty development opportunities around inclusive, equitable andjust practices, and ensuring our Promotion and Tenure practices clearly align with the college’svalues and goals as explicitly laid out in the Strategic Plan. The “messaging” coming from COEleadership has been consistent and ongoing as well, ensuring alignment with our core values(please see McMurtrie, B. 3 for a recent example).2. Approach: School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental EngineeringFaculty and staff members who engage in School transformation in formal ways need to beassured that their efforts will be recognized and valued through the approbations and
experimenting with the curriculum to reduce the number of engineering credit hours,introduce of a project-based design spine, and the creation of a variety of structured curricularpathways aligned to the interests of our students. As more engineering programs diverge fromthe dominant pattern we can begin to empirically examine the impact of our program designchoices and, in time, both close the leaky pipeline of women pursuing engineering degrees aswell as increase the migration into the degree.References[1] L. B. Cavagnaro and H. Fasihuddin, “A Moonshot Approach to Change in Higher Education: Creativity, Innovation, and the Redesign of Academia,” Lib. Educ., vol. 102, no. 2, 2016.[2] M. W. Ohland, S. D. Sheppard, G. Lichtenstein, O. Eris, D
in Engineering Research and Learning,” in Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, A. Johri and B. M. Olds, Eds. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 713–730.[2] S. McChrystal, T. Collins, D. Silverman, and C. Fussell, Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World. New York: Penguin, 2015.[3] R. Stevens, A. Johri, and K. O’Connor, “Professional Engineering Work,” in Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, A. Johri and B. M. Olds, Eds. New York: Cambridge, 2014, pp. 119–137.[4] D. H. Jonassen, “Engineers as Problem Solvers,” in Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, A. Johri and B. M. Olds, Eds. New York: Cambridge, 2014, pp. 103–118.[5] ABET
-determination theory variablesincluding competence, autonomy, and relatedness, with the addition of effort scale items inaccordance with recommended practices [33]. As the number of student responses is very small,we share frequency distributions below.Competence, according to SDT, refers to a sense of accomplishment and self-efficacy related toa focus area [19]. Three questions contributing to the competence construct were, “during thiscourse I felt…” a. that I was successful in completing difficult tasks. b. that I was taking on and mastering hard challenges. c. very capable of learning the material.As illustrated in Fig. 1, most of the answers to this question were positive with three negativeresponses to “I felt that I was taking on and
Education (ASEE). “Innovation with Impact: Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Innovation in Engineering Education.” [Online]. Available: https://www.asee.org/member-resources/reports/Innovation-with-Impact 8[3] Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology (ABET). “2021-2022 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs.” https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting- engineering-programs-2021-2022/ (accessed March 28, 2021)[4] B. Newberry and J. Farison. “The Current Status and Uses of The General (Undesignated) Engineering Program with A Case Study,” in 2003 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Nashville
: “a. There is no interest in having program criteria for multidisciplinary engineering programs. b. While there is general satisfaction with the program evaluators being provided by the various societies, working with ABET, there was also the opinion expressed that this constituent group has a minimal role, if any, in the selection, training, and evaluation of the program evaluators. Further, few of the faculty (members) in multidisciplinary engineering programs are selected by the professional societies to be program evaluators. c. There may be a need for supplemental materials both for multidisciplinary programs preparing to be visited, and for the multidisciplinary program evaluators. d
75.9 82.8 30Appendix A lays out the survey questions. The Required Element column lists the items to beassessed. Some additional information under Beneficial Elements was also included. TheQuestions column gives the questions that the students responded to. The Metric Description liststhe choices the students could use to respond to the questions. The Researcher Response Metriccolumn information was used by the professor to review the student proposal. Appendix B showsthe results of the student survey. Each numbered row corresponds to a student and his or herresponses. The column headings (C through W) are the questions. The individual studentresponses are below the headings. The professor’s review of the same student proposal
terminology at that time) thatwere more specialized to the degree program and were mapped to the ABET General Criterion 3a-k outcomes. As part of a college-wide review, all engineering degree programs uniformlyadopted the ABET General Criterion 3 a-k Student Outcomes this past year. Table 3 provides the Page 23.220.5current Student Outcomes for the NSE program.Table 3. Student Outcomes for the NSE Program (ABET General Criterion 3 a-k3). NSE Student Outcome a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret