angle shotsin the app to give the object its 3D form. This formula of 36 pictures was successful in the app,but led to failure during initial attempts with the ReMake software. During initial effort, themesh software failed to create a 3D object. Rather, a 3D object would appear to be acombination of the table the object was placed and the object itself.After more in-depth research, the team began a new trial with the information learned4. Throughthese sources, it was learned that the use of our reflective wall plug-in iPhone charger was notthe ideal subject for meshes created by the software. The software has trouble recognizing pointswhere the light is being reflected consistently, which meant certain actions would have to betaken in order to
application of their knowledge inother courses such as: EGT116 (Introduction to Manufacturing), 265 (Manufacturing Processesand Metrology), 365 (CNC & Manufacturing Process Planning), 405 (Metrology and GeometricTolerancing), 465 (Automated Manufacturing Systems) and 380 (Machine Design). The changesin the EGT 212 course will be made under the basic assumptions of constructivism teachingphilosophy.ConstructivismIt is a theory based on scientific and observational studies about how people learn. “It says that people construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world, through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences.” [12]When we learn something new it has to be reconciled with our previous experiences
-world challenges and problems [6]. PBL is particularly helpful for engineering students.Students learn about a subject by working for an extended period of time to investigate on acomplex question, challenge, or problem [6]. Therefore, a four-stage project is required forstudents to develop an injection molded product, which starts from product conceptual design,developing detailed 3D models and 2D engineering drawing, conducting Moldflow simulation toimprove the design, applying Mastercam to generate CNC tool path for mold fabrication,installing the mold and machine setup, fabricating the parts, inspecting the quality, and writing aself-reflection report to summarize the learning and analyze how to improve the quality andeliminate molding
thermodynamics), were flipped and involved pre-recorded videos and self-reflection guides, which we call Flip Lecture Sheets (FLS). FLS reflections had to be completedbefore class and were meant as a mechanism to ensure students actively watched the videos. Thelast three weeks (thermodynamic cycles) were focused on application and the course project.Pre-recorded videos were not used in this part of the course because the focus is on integratingthe knowledge gained throughout the course and applying that knowledge to solve more complexproblems. The culminating project was a key part of the last three weeks. From start to end,students were given progressively greater ownership and responsibility in applying knowledge.A theoretical framework guiding this
-point Likert scale. This data has received on-goinganalysis to compare the 2015 and 2016 cohorts, and to provide insight into any future changes.Perceptions of online lectures: In 2015, 73% of students agreed or strongly agreed that the onlinelectures were helpful, and 79% agreed in 2016. When asked if they prefer online lectures to in-person lectures, such as those in their other engineering courses, approximately half of both the2015 and 2016 cohorts agreed they would prefer online lectures. This was also reflected in thequalitative responses, where an average of half the respondents expressed a preference for theonline lecture format over the in-person format. These results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.Addition of tutorials: As mentioned
0% Very Bad 0%DiscussionAs seen in the previous section, there was very good agreement between the grades assigned bythe instructor and the students. The difference is statistically insignificant, and would not alterthe overall final course grade of any of the students. The instructor believes that similar resultswould have been obtained had the comparison been between the grading of the instructor and aTA. While it is premature to generalize this result, due to the limited number of samples, onemay reflect on the findings to deduce some lessons learned. The sample course was a seniorengineering one in which almost all the students had previously attended one or two courses withthe same instructor in
a host of instructional strategies andeducators have been significantly lagging in using them[1]. In fact, Henderson and Dancy [7] arguethat the improvement in engineering education lies not in finding more effective instructionalstrategies but in using the proven strategies.This paper describes our attempt to introduce a few RBIS in a rural Indian engineering college.We introduced simple strategies such as using audio-visuals, think-pair-share, formative feedback,problem-based learning in lab sessions, and project-based learning in design courses in a one-dayworkshop. Eighty faculty members, in two batches, attended the workshop, which itself used manyof the above RBIS. The participating faculty members reflected on the strategies in
programsurvey was used to probe participant ‘s abilities/confidence in research. Their results indicateddirect relationships between research skills and research self-efficacy. These researchers alsofound that research skills and self-efficacy were good predictors of career aspirations.8 However,the measures used to assess research self-efficacy were not ideal. For example, items such as “Ihave the ability to have a successful career as a researcher,” and “I have a strong interest inpursuing a career as a researcher” are reflective of the student’s career goals, but may not reflecttheir beliefs in their current research capabilities. This concern about the quality of self-efficacyitems for assessing the gains in REU programs was highlighted earlier by
hearing student’s comment on what - Pre/post-class is confusing: "When to use which feedback cards for formula" – this depends entirely on students in two determining the type of data; after Degree and type sections of the course class this day, 33% of hearing students of difficulty that - Reflection and in the class and 0% of DHH students topic has for discussion of student felt they had high level of knowledge DHH students research team
by peer tutoring orexplaining a problem to other students. Students who peer tutored or took the lead in explaining aproblem to his/her peers would be awarded a peer tutor certificate. A peer tutor certificate wasaccounted five points (a very small percentage) toward the final grade.2. 6. Integration/AlignmentLast but not least important, all the major components of the online course were integrated. That is, thelearning goals, the materials, the teaching/learning activities, and the feedback and assessment all wereclosely aligned with and supported each other, which was critical to achieve the learning goals andstudent’s success. The course objectives reflected different levels of learning that necessitated differentkinds of assessment. The
should use reflection of past experiences, successes, failures in order to anticipate future events Students should seek opposing views in problem evaluation process in order to better understand solution impacts Students should engage and evaluate of other students’ work Encourage a critical dialogue among studentsTable 2. Survey questions to assess changes in students’ perception of engineering Rate how difficult (not difficult to extremely difficult) you find each of the following topics Math, Physics, Chemistry, English-Composition, Classical Literature, Economics, Art, History, Political Science, Speech Communication, Biology, Social Scienced Psychology, Foreign Languages Based on your
that when compared to more traditional learning approaches,cooperative learning results in higher test scores, higher levels of critical thinking, higher levelsof transfer, and improved ability to work in groups (Johnson and Johnson, 1989). Students wholearn in cooperative environments tend to be more actively engaged and motivated by the topicand have more frequent student-student as well as student-faculty interactions (Lord, 2001).Project PhasesThe project was separated into three phases: a conceptual design phase, a calculations andprototyping phase, and a construction and reflection phase. Rubrics for each phase of the projectwere distributed to the class and are included in the Appendix of this paper.Phase 1: Conceptual Design. During
to develop models to reflect the reality. Clear examples can teachstudents how to collect data, develop base model, improve it to advanced models, analyze theobtained results, and think about usability of their simulation results. These learning outcomes canclearly demonstrate valuable educational objectives.This paper, presents an example where a group of students were assigned to develop a simulationmodel for the BGSU Students Union (BTSU) Cafeteria. Managing a university cafeteria oftenexhibits challenges for the food services located in the cafeteria. One challenge regards waitingtimes. This study was focused on reducing the average waiting time of the diners in the queues,while increasing overall efficiency of the food services.The
up for an absence from the laboratory session orto prepare for a lab practical exam. The results reflect the instructor’s observation of eachstudent’s predominant participation mode, and do not attempt to assess the impact of anoccasional F2F student performing a makeup lab remotely.Table 2 shows a summary comparison of outcomes between the two cohorts, with the top sectionshowing measured statistical performance outcomes and the bottom section showing the resultsof a student perception survey rating different aspects of the lab experience on a 5-point scale,where 5 is most favorable and 1 is least favorable. The statistical data in the top section of Table1 shows retention and success, amount of work completed, student time to completion
., students elaborating, paraphrasing, or reflecting onconflicts between prior and new knowledge) compared to when the format was inconsistent. Theresearchers found a main effect of text type, F(1, 73) = 8.43, p < 0.010, η2 < 0.10, significantinteraction between text type and epistemic beliefs, F(1, 73) = 15.08, p < 0.001, η2 < 0.17, but nomain effect of epistemic beliefs, F(1, 73) = 2.75, p < 0.100. Second, students recalled moretextual information when the text representation was congruent with student epistemic beliefsthan when the text representation was incongruent with student epistemic beliefs. For instance,the metaphorical group recalled more textual information from a metaphorical than from arational text, t(47) = 2.49, p
focuses on evaluating methods of effective practice of an engineering design summerprogram for middle school students. The paper reflects on findings and observations regardinggender groupings in STEM, and how they affect student learning and confidence. In 2009,President Obama's Administration implemented the "Educate to Innovate" program to emphasizeSTEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education. Women and men hold nearlyequal professional positions in the biological sciences, and close to that in math, yet womencomprise less than 30% of the science and engineering workforce as a whole.1 Students as youngas kindergarten express the belief that fields of study such as science and math are “boysubjects.”2 The societal norm that males
theirunderstanding of the skills they perform. His definitions of the different dimensions of designthinking are below: 1. The active dimension, built on theories of intellectual development, characterizes the designer’s ability to think actively and independently 2. The abstractive dimension characterizes the ability of the designer to engage in reflective, complex and abstract thought 3. The adaptive dimension characterizes the designer’s ability, to strategically shift between the thinking skills and levels represented in the active and abstractive dimensions as a function of external stimuli and internal directionNeeley associates the abstractive dimension with innovation, and the active dimension
idea about history and grandeur of thecampus and also to let them visualize college life in general. On Friday, June 24, UniversityAdmissions Office representatives came over to meet with the students and parents to explainthem the admission procedure and the financial aid opportunities for eligible students. Program Evaluation, Effectiveness, and Survey Results Daily and program surveys were conducted to assess the effectiveness of miniGEMS 2016. An overall understanding of the skills needed to be an engineer were reflected in the answers on the daily surveys, the lab notebooks, the final essay and presentation, miniGEMS summative survey, and results from the post-survey data. The daily surveys provided quality control daily
seemed better able to capture the essence of the experience. These non-traditional assignments were created as a means to challenge the students’ thought processeswhile effectively communicating the experience. Reflection, analysis, and critical thinking werecomponents necessary to complete each assignment.Open-form EssayEssays generally come in 2 forms: open- and closed-form essays.9 Closed-form essays are thesis-driven essays in which there is a conventional format. Examples of these essays include thetypical researched arguments that are usually found in any writing course, as well as technicalreports, which have their own formal requirements. Open-form essays are very different. Ratherthan seeking to prove a known and researched thesis, an
, have considerable power (Kezaret al., 2011) to shape a change process. No individual within or partnered with the departmentshould be seen as inconsequential.Institutional context drives how change leaders empower stakeholders to become change agents.Kezar and Eckel (2002) observed several strategies of stakeholder empowerment in threedifferent higher education institutions. Reflecting a high level of trust in senior administrators,one institution kept strategic planning informal, which communicated that the change processwas flexible and not heavy-handed. Another developed an institution-wide process for solicitinginput and investing stakeholders with power to affect plans and outcomes. The third operatedunder devolved authority, entrusting
guide the students, but they do not disseminate knowledge (Hung, Jonassen, and Liu 2008, 5). This reflects the student- centeredness that is typical of PBL. Moreover, a course using the didactical concept of PBL is self-directed, self-reflected and problem-focused (Hung, Jonassen, and Liu 2008, 4). The purpose of PBL is not only to increase the students’ knowledge about a given topic but to also make them gain experiences in fields like communication, teamwork, problem solving, independent responsibility for learning as well as sharing information and respect for others (Wood 2003). In view of this, it is evident that the EWB Challenge clearly is an example for PBL. A list of generic skills and attitudes PBL enhances is provided in
results in personal growth: Whendescribing their favorite aspects of out-of-class activities, specifically outside of academic andengineering settings, Michael and Isabel emphasized how "fun" is meeting new people, going todifferent places, and doing a variety of different things. As they were reflecting, they explainedhow being exposed to these experiences helped shape their perspectives. Isabel provided anexample of how she enjoys getting different points of view and learning from her interactionswith the students from German club, making her a well-informed person: In German club, sort of, [pause] a lot of the people in the foreign language department are also international studies majors so, like, talking to them about the news
explanations that address scientifically oriented questions. 3. Learners formulate explanations and conclusions from evidence to address scientifically oriented questions. 4. Learners evaluate their explanations in light of alternative explanations, particularly those reflecting scientific understanding. 5. Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations.The rubric is used to elucidate the extent to which teachers utilize a learner centered versus ateacher centered pedagogy with respect to each of these five curriculum features. Each of thesefeatures are evaluated with one question prompt on the rubric, with the exception of feature twowhich includes two question prompts, as shown in Appendix A. For each of these prompts
. Thereporting module is being developed not only to give student immediate feedback regarding thedegree to which their perceived content mastery matches their actual mastery, but to provide theinstructor, a convenient manner in which to identify struggling students. Preliminary AssessmentSections will be used beginning in the first weeks of class in hopes of making students aware ofany deficiencies they exhibit, while offering resources to combat their deficiencies early enoughin the course to make a difference.Reading and Reflection ExercisesReading and Reflections exercises will be available to all students, but may be required (if theinstructor wishes) for students not passing a given PAS. The reading and reflection exercises willcontain brief
each retained factor. In addition, we calculated Pearson correlations to findassociations among measures of engineering identity and research identity, as well as the factorsassessing the independent variables.Table 1. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Survey Measures of Engineering and ResearchIdentities Factor Survey Items Factor Loading Engineering I consider myself an engineer 0.86 Identity I am proud to be an engineer 0.75 (α= 0.83) Being an engineer is an important reflection of who I am
selected was a website which couldbe developed during the course as a series of assessments. A range of online assessment tools have been reported in the literature including websites, blogs,wikis and e-Portfolios (Bishop et al., 2014; Carroll et al., 2006; Chao, 2007; Chen et al., 2005; Juddet al., 2010; Miyazoe and Anderson, 2010; Reijenga and Roeling, 2009). These tools are generallyused to facilitate collaboration between students, enable self-reflection and in some cases enhancecommunication. However, one study reported that when student input was tracked the contributiontended to be individuals entering their own information and very little editing by team membersoccurred (Judd et al., 2010). Chao (2007) reported very positive feedback
(data not shown), the ‘no miss’ policy for all ‘required’exercises was relaxed slightly and students were allowed ‘one miss’. Thus, every student wasassigned a single, ‘free pass’ that could be used for any ‘required’ exercise. Table 2 suggeststhat the change to a ‘one miss policy’ corresponded to a reduction in the motivation of studentsto complete ‘optional’ exercises as reflected in a downward distribution of the percentage ofTable 2. Percentage-distribution of letter-grades among all students.Grade Spring 11 Autumn Spring Autumn Autumn Spring Autumn (‘traditional’ 11 12 12 12 13 13 format) (8am
curricular assignments for outcomes assessment to achieve a high level of automation ofthe data collection process. The EvalTools® 6 FCAR module provides summative/formativeoptions and consists of the following components: course description, COs indirect assessment,grade distribution, course reflections, old action items and new action items; COs directassessment; PIs assessment ; student outcomes assessment; assignment list; and learning domainsand skills levels assessment distribution [35,49,50,51,63,64]. The FCAR uses the EAMU performancevector, conceptually based on a performance assessment scoring rubric, developed by Miller andOlds [59], to categorize aggregate student performance. Heuristic rules and indicator levels forEAMU performance
process and artifacts. Students view and critique these to becomefamiliar with the kinds of representations that the notebook affords and the extent to which thenotebook can tell the story of another engineer’s ideas and outcomes. After this mentor textdiscussion, the students embark on a design task and create their notebooks as they work. Mid-design share-outs or gallery walks of the notebooks are important in this phase. Finally, the thirdphase involves students reviewing their notebooks with their design team, ideally as they preparea report or other more formal written artifact about their design, and the teacher and whole classof students reviewing multiple notebooks to reflect on design processes and phenomena. Other supporting