of the course theyteach and previous online teaching experiences. Best online teaching practices are beingdiscussed in terms of ways of delivering the lectures, assignments, examinations,communication, class initiation, and attendance and participation requirements. These questionshave been investigated via a survey conducted at University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCCharlotte). Based on the survey, faculty and student challenges with online teaching and facultyperception of ideal online-teaching environment are also discussed. The results show that thereare some variations among these factors mentioned above.IntroductionMotivation:As distance education becomes more widespread, the benefits of distance education are veryclear: in
-through video clip (instructor’s video recording demonstrating howto work on the course), a link to an introductory activity (introduce yourself), and a link to asyllabus which contains a syllabus quiz. The syllabus quiz covers important points that studentsshould be informed before starting the course. With unlimited attempts, the completion of asyllabus quiz with 100% success releases the first learning module.Course EvaluationThe renovated course was offered first time during the fall 2011 and students were asked to Page 25.787.5participate in the study that reflects on their experience of the online course delivery. Ananonymous survey was
applications. Several EE professors had agreedupon a System Engineering curriculum scheme (See Figure 2). At the yearend of2013, the capstone DCS then was renamed as“Dynamic System Simulation andImplementation (DSSI).”DSSI aimed to help students synthesize and integrate skillsand knowledge acquired throughout the SE course.Figure 2: An illustration (at round 0) of System Engineering curriculum scheme that categorizes 100-300 courses into cornerstone, keystone and capstone, respectively.Self-improvement from round 0 to round 1From round 0 to round 1, the DCS professor decided to do self-reflection on previousSC syllabus and examination of System Engineering course structure. Figure 3 listsfour standard steps in system engineering design shown in
AC 2012-4451: A REVIEW OF CAPSTONE COURSE DESIGNS USED ININDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMSDr. Denise H. Bauer, University of Idaho, Moscow Denise H. Bauer received her Ph.D. in industrial engineering from Pennsylvania State University in 2007. She received a M.S. in industrial engineering as well as a B.S. in engineering dcience from the University of Tennessee. Bauer’s research in engineering education centers around the use of technology mainly as a means of communication for remote engineering group work. She received a NAE CASEE postdoctoral fellowship to study what communication methods students used to communicate with group members during online classes and their feelings on their importance. She is also
. in Engineering Mechanics from Iowa State University in 1992. His main interest areas include Computational Mechanics, Solid Mechanics, and Product Design and Development. He has taught several different courses at the undergraduate and graduate level, has over 50 publications, is co-author of one book, and has done consulting for industry in Mexico and the US. He can be reached at Karim.Muci@sdsmt.edu.Dr. Mark David Bedillion, Carnegie Mellon University Dr. Bedillion received the BS degree in 1998, the MS degree in 2001, and the PhD degree in 2005, all from the mechanical engineering department of Carnegie Mellon University. After a seven year career in the hard disk drive industry, Dr. Bedillion was on the
;V), they cite challenges such as the need for increasingcoverage of verification and validation while reducing costs, coping with complexity and scale ofsystems when performing verification and validation, and the inability to apply formal methodsat appropriate abstraction levels, especially for a typical engineer.The Embedded Systems Survey found that university professional development courses came in8th place with respect to the respondents’ self-assessment of effectiveness. Only 18 percentbelieved that such courses were effective compared to 43 percent for online training courses.The amount of self-reported training per year decreased almost 25 percent from 2012 to 2013from 11.7 days to 9 days. It would appear that University degree
tosystems engineering in this paper. Planning for this new academic track took place in Fall, 2011;the pilot of the Introduction to Systems Engineering course occurred in Spring, 2012 and Fall,2012. The course is consciously structured after the introductory course at the University ofVirginia (UVa), the transfer target for a majority of PVCC students, to ensure that the transfercredit is accepted and students are prepared for success. Based on our experiences in the pilots,the syllabus became slightly modified to prepare students for study in other undergraduateprograms in systems engineering. Course goals, objectives, and content are described. Finally,we offer student reflections on their experiences and course utility as they prepare to
conceptual discussions.Problem definitionTo overcome that deficiency, to improve teaching, and enhance learning of students, instructorshave over time developed novel and innovative concepts [7] that include, but are not limited, to: 1. Course projects Page 25.231.2 2. Software assignments 3. Journal reading and research 4. Online help, class handouts, and other ancillary materials.However, most of such efforts rely on instructor’s experience and his/ her desire and initiative toimprove teaching skills. Since many OR instructors are not familiar enough with the vastresources available in the area of student learning, they usually do not