expectations (expected consequences of a particular behavior), self-efficacy(confidence about being successful at a task), and goal setting (identifying a desired outcome).The cognitive apprenticeship model is characterized by expert guidance provided by a mentor to Page 24.1226.3the novice in an authentic task or setting within a community of practice.16 This model differsfrom the traditional apprenticeship model by (a) allowing the objectives of the learningassignments to dictate the types of tasks given to students rather than the demands of theworkplace; and (b) decontextualizing knowledge so that it can be applied in diverse settingsrather than a
- 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
given purpose (i.e.,evaluation)2. Within the context of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET),the lowest levels in any learning hierarchy model are incompatible with required ABET programoutcomes. According to ABET1, three of the required 11 ABET student outcomes include 1) theability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering (i.e., ABET studentoutcome [a]), 2) the ability to design and conduct experiments (i.e., ABET student outcome [b]),and 3) the ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems (i.e., ABET studentoutcome [e]). It is important that engineering faculty of all disciplines continuously push theenvelope and work to elevate student learning and comprehension so that
the U.S. Navy (SPAWAR). She held a Fulbright fellowship at the Center for Wireless Communications (CWC) at the University of Oulu in Finland. She has received teaching excellence awards from her Division and the College of Engineering. She has received funding for her research from the NSF, the US Navy, NASA, and the business community. She is an ABET IEEE ETAC Commissioner and an active program evaluator.Mr. Thomas B. Stout, Tidewater Community College Thomas Stout is an associate professor of Electromechanical Controls Technology at Tidewater Commu- nity College in Chesapeake Virginia. He has worked in industrial maintenance, mechatronics and safety. He earned his BS degree from Old Dominion University in 2004
material are thoseof the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.Bibliography1 American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES). 2005. Diversity. Available online at: http://www.aaes.org/diversity/index.asp.2 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). 2005. ASEE Statement: Diversity. Available online at: http://www.asee.org/about/statementDiversity.cfm.3 Beede, D., Julian, T., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. 2011. Women in stem: A gender gap to innovation. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. Available online at: http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/women-stem-gender-gap-innovation4 National Science Foundation, National
models were fostered prior to travel through a series of pre-trip meetingsbetween the students, the faculty advisor of the student chapter, and the Bridges to Prosperitystaff. Through these meetings, the students developed a shared set of goals to be accomplishedduring the trip, created a detailed construction schedule, designated task leaders for eachconstruction task, and discussed and planned for various scenarios that might be encountered inthe field. Interdependence was high due to the complex and high-stakes nature of the project. Forexample, quality control naturally required certain team members to check the work of others,which was described by one student as follows: [B]efore we could back fill you must be 100% sure of your
Course Grades 10 Frequency 8 6 4 2 0 A B C D E (>=90%) (80-89%) (70-79%) (60-69%) (<= 59%) Letter Grade Figure 5. Project and Final Grade DistributionDiscussionResults appear to indicate that using a combination of Automated and Manual quantity takeoffmethods yield optimal estimates and understanding of the construction tasks (as measured by theproject grade). The authors are not suggesting that it is the
Paper ID #9314Implementation and Assessment of a Failure Case Study in a Multi-DisciplineFreshman Introduction to Engineering CourseDr. James E. Lewis, University of Louisville James E. Lewis, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Fundamentals at the J. B. Speed School of Engineering at the University of Louisville. His research interests include paral- lel and distributed computer systems, cryptography, engineering education, undergraduate retention and technology (Tablet PCs) used in the classroom.Dr. Norb Delatte P.E., Cleveland State University Norb Delatte is Professor and Chair of the
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
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
Paper ID #8617Forming a Coalition to Decrease Freshout Rampup Time in the EngineeringWorkplace: A Business Plan for an Academic, Industry, and GovernmentPartnershipDr. Steven W Villachica, Boise State University Steve Villachica is an Associate Professor of Instructional and Performance Technology (IPT) at Boise State University. His research interests focus on leveraging expertise in the workplace in ways that meet organizational missions and business goals. He is currently working on an NSF grant to increase engineer- ing faculty adoption of evidence-based instructional practices [NSF #1037808: Engineering Education
performance, it is found thatstudents who earned an “A” submitted almost all assigned homework during the semester. Onthe other hand, if the students submitted only 63% of their homework, chances of their success inthose courses were little. Another observation states that homework score is also correlated withthe final course grade. For example, when a student earned an “A” on the course, his/herhomework score was above 90 on average. Similar conclusion can be made for those studentswho scored “B,” “C,” “D,” and “F.” Many TAMIU students work very hard in their courses, yeta regular class time may not be sufficient to create and interactive environment to address all theproblems that students may have for the course. This situation is true for the
Paper ID #10447A MOOC with a Business PlanMr. Eugene Rutz, University of Cincinnati Academic Director in the College of Engineering & Applied Science with academic and administrative oversight of distance learning programs, combined degree programs and high school dual enrollment. Experience as educator, practicing engineer and educational researcher.Jim Tappel, University of CincinnatiDr. BJ Zirger, University of Cincinnati Page 24.71.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014
standard. The Standard that weare concerned with for this discussion is Standard 2 that addresses student learning anddevelopment. There are four sub-statements to this Standard dealing with a) interculturalunderstanding, b) language and communication, c) academic growth and d) student development.It is important to note here that the second sub-statement that deals with language is notapplicable to the WPI program being discussed. With the remaining 3, there are 24corresponding queries. Space does not permit a detailed presentation of each of the 24 queries and how the WPIprogram does or does not satisfy them. We present only a summary here. Copies of the completeset of standards and queries will be distributed at the presentation. Standard
Date DateFig. 5(a) Roof Inner Temperature (July 21-Aug Fig. 5(b) Roof
after the workshop, in comparisons to that of before the workshop, showed higher average ratings in their interest in STEM field and pursuing a college degree program, thereafter. b) MORE-Transfer and Retention Program (MORE-TRP) This 2-week summer workshop is intended to improve the recruitment and retention of highly motivated Hispanic and other minority students in the Systems Engineering program at TAMIU. Page 24.1021.8 A major goal is to facilitate the transfer of Laredo Community College (LCC) students into the Systems Engineering Program at TAMIU by allowing them to take the first two years of coreand
laptops, internet access, and work space with whiteboards.Students’ teamwork, including their conversations and notes on whiteboards, were video-recorded.Eleven teams volunteered to be videotaped as they responded to written feedback from TAs, andthe individual team members committed to being interviewed following the MEA. After thecollection and initial analysis of data, Team A and B were selected among the eleven teams.There were basically two rationales behind choosing these two particular teams: (1) they had Page 24.611.7nearly complete data sets (i.e., written documents, interviews, and video-recordings), and (2)both had similar TA feedback
most widely used is the Bruel & Kjaer (B&K) impedance tube Type 4206 [12].This tube has become almost the industry standard in acoustic applications. It is well-built withquality materials and has proven to produce consistent results for industrial and otherapplications. The objective of this work was to develop a low-cost alternative to this tube foreducational use especially in developing countries where cost is a primary issue for promotinghands-on educational activities. We wanted to use a PVC tube, an inexpensive speaker, studiomicrophones and off-the-shelf materials for the construction of the tube. A low-end laptop withintegrated sound card was used for data acquisition and custom developed MATLAB softwarewith a Graphical User
research program at SFSU.Project BackgroundThe project was to miniaturize the receiving coil size in the two-coil wireless power transferscheme, by significantly reducing the turn-on voltage of the AC-DC boost converter that is usedto rectify the harvested AC power. The circuit is to be used for biomedical implants so that theminiaturized receiving coil can be fit into miniaturized implants. The research group in SFSU hasproposed a new approach, which uses a controlled switch, to efficiently convert the received low-voltage AC power to a high-voltage DC power4, 5. The participating students were asked toimprove a prototyping board, as shown in Fig. 1 (a), to eliminate all the extra wires, so that thefinal circuit is like Fig. 1(b
, etc.). Thequestionnaire used in the Fall 2013 semester is included as Appendix A with answers andexplanations and reflections of the authors. Continued improvement of the questionnaire wasconducted with the help of sustainability teaching colleagues across the U.S. leading to animproved questionnaire included as Appendix B, but not used in the assessment. The assessmentwas conducted by having students complete the questionnaire prior to AND after completing allthe module elements. The results from the Fall 2013 semester are reported next.ResultsOf the 24 students invited to complete the literacy questionnaire in the Fall 2013 semester, 17submitted full responses for both the pre- and post-module instances. The average score on thepre-module
professional development (TPD) is necessary. In the past 20years, many teachers have experienced TPD in engineering2. However, for most teachers, it hasbeen a one-time opportunity because engineering is not a required subject to be taught in class inmany states and lack of funding limited continuous support for teachers after their initialengineering TPD2.TPD is designed to change teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions, so such changes areexpected to influence teachers’ classroom practices and result in improved student learning3,4.However, one-time TPD is not enough to achieve desired teacher change because (a) changingpractice requires prolonged engagement with a new practice, (b) it might be hard for teachers tomake an immediate change after
is an Academy Professor with the Department of Physics and Nuclear Engineering. He graduated from USMA in 1993 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering. He is an aviation officer who served in B Co., 3-23 Av Hunter Army Airfield, GA as a UH-60 helicopter flight platoon leader and an assistant battalion operations officer. LTC Allen served as a Company Commander for A Co. 78th Aviation Bn, Camp Zama, Japan. He earned a Master of Science degree in Nuclear Engineering from The University of Florida in 2003. He was an assistant professor in the West Point Department of Physics from 2003 – 2006 teaching core physics and nuclear engineering. After leaving the department, he served two years as a reactor
thesequestions in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. Question 7: Compare the brightness of the bulb in circuit 1 with that in circuit 2. Which bulb is BRIGHTER? (A) Bulb in circuit 1 because two batteries in series provide less voltage. (B) Bulb in circuit 1 because two batteries in series provide more voltage. (C) Bulb in circuit 2 because two batteries in parallel provide less voltage. (D) Bulb in circuit 2 because two batteries in parallel provide more voltage. Circuit 1 Circuit 2 (E) Neither, they are the same
%+/*!! :.;" ?8" )$%" !!!" !!" ($%" '$%" &$%" #$%" *+,,-./"0"1+.,-23"*3343.2" 1+.,-23"*3343.2" *+,,-./"*3343.2" 5678393.2"" CD-E"5FGHD-E":15I" CJ8K7"5FGHD-E":15I" !!! CD-E"5FGHJ8K7":15I" CJ8K7"5FGHJ8K7":15I" !,A$#%B"!!,A$%)B"!!!,A$%#B"!!!!,A$%%#" Figure 7. The Role of Motivation by APCM GroupAs shown in Figure 7, students who ultimately graduated in engineering indicated that EGR 101increased their motivation to study engineering more strongly than students who ultimately didnot graduate, which is consistent with the results of Figure 3. The statistically significantdifference was for the Purpose Seekers
their pathway to degrees inengineering. Areas worthy of exploration include (but are not limited to) the following: 1. What are common characteristics of students who successfully transfer into four year engineering degree programs? a. Demographics b. Internal factors (cognitive & affective) c. External factors (community & college – sending & receiving institutions)? 2. What transfer pathways (i.e. vertical, lateral, swirl) are most commonly used by students who successfully transfer into four year engineering degree programs? a. Do these pathways vary by student race, gender, prospective engineering major at receiving institution, and existence or lack
indicated thatfirst year students seemed to test low on their ability to calculate one component of a vector.We continued in the fall of 2013. In the second study, we focused on determining whether usingan animated MATLAB solution calculator would quantitatively improve first-year students’performance. The solution calculator was rewritten to animate a rocket flying straight up. It’saltitude was calculated by a laptop computer running the MATLAB application with variouselevation angles chosen by the student. We tested the students on calculating the height of abuilding given a base-line and elevation angle (see diagram in Appendix B).The main idea of this paper is to measure the improvement in first year students’ performancedue to the use of an
-336. with GIS.A GIS-based N. Bozon, C. Sinfort, B. Paper presents an air Available in STIC &atmospheric dispersion Mohammadi, pollution prediction tool Environnement, Calais: France,model2 University of used to model agricultural hal-00468863, version 31 March Montpellier, France pesticide dispersion. 2010.(2) MethodsGaussian Plume Equation The Gaussian plume equation models downwind dispersion of pollutants from a pointsource (i.e., a stack) at the origin of a local coordinate system (x,y,z=0) based on the assumptionthat wind velocities have
them better understand both the terms and the context inwhich they are applied. To do this, the teachers and professional development providers createdVenn diagrams to show how each term is used in engineering, in science, and where there isoverlap. The Venn diagrams were developed with the teachers and should be consideredpreliminary in nature. They are presented here in Figure 1 in a linear format for ease of reading.Figure 1.Venn diagrams for design, analysis, models and systems DESIGN 1. SCIENCE a. Design an experiment. b. Knowledge for knowledge sake (not product driven). c. Generalization. d. Design experiment Predict results. 2. ENGINEERING a. Purposeful End result is a product
engineering experiments, as well as analyze and interpret data (b) - Function effectively on multi-disciplinary teams to accomplish assigned tasks (d)4- Inquiry Skills (SLO4) Page 24.124.3 - Conduct research in electrical engineering discipline as part of life-long learning (i) - Evaluate engineering systems as pertained to novelty and contemporary issues (j)5- Profession Skills (SLO5) - Apply the rules of the code of professional conduct and ethics in electrical engineering (f1) - Provide alternative outcomes for a given conflict of interest or dilemma (f2)6- Communication Skills (SLO6) - Write technical reports that conform to standard
description of the anticipated size and configuration. A minimum of eight individual parts were required. 2. Presentation of detailed dimensions for each individual part. Hand sketches of the configuration including final sizing of each part with particular emphasis on mating dimensions. 3. Complete 3D CAD models of parts and assembly. 4. Final set of dimensioned drawings. Specifically: a. Isometric of assembly b. Orthographic of assembly c. Exploded view of assembly d. Parts list e. Dimensioned views of each parWhile the course content was the same, it should be mentioned that the semester length andprofile of the students is slightly different than during the fall or spring