Let’s Get Students More Involved! -- Experiences from the Collaboration between the IEEE University Partnership Program and Chinese LibrariesAbstractInvolving students is not uncommon in university libraries. Students can greatly reducelibrarians’ workload, provide peer reference services, and change the image of librarians to thepublic. With the prevalence of e-resources, more users choose to work from their ownworkplaces and reduce their visits to physical libraries. To understand actual needs of end usersand offer better services in this digital era, it is very important for librarians to reach out tostudents and work with them closely in their routine work. However, it is quite challenging toidentify student
of the sustainability culture present at RHIT as indicated by anycampus sustainability commitments. By analyzing the current state of sustainability education atRHIT and its relevance in meeting the institution's strategic goals, we can pave the way for abrighter and more sustainable future. Upon review of the school’s course catalog, courses werecategorized as fitting into four tiers related to the level of sustainability coverage and thepotential for incorporating sustainability content. Survey data was collected from currentstudents and faculty to assess perceptions of sustainability coverage in courses. Finally, wereviewed sustainability-related degree programs and course offerings at peer institutions toassess how these institutions
andlearning. The use of students as observers for college teaching brings a unique and valuableperspective to the evaluation process. This observation approach offers benefits for the studentobservers, instructors, and the overall teaching enhancement mission of institutions. One of themain benefits of student observer programs is that they provide instructors with an opportunity toreceive constructive and formative feedback on their teaching from a different perspective thantheir peers or their students. By observing, recording, and possibly discussing these aspects withthe instructors, student observers can provide authentic insights into the effectiveness of teachingmethods and offer real-time, firsthand constructive feedback for improving
their research. Also included are literature research techniques, methods for acquiring off-site material, and strategies for pursuing their research interests once the students leave this program and return to their classrooms. The workshop is conducted in a PC-Lab and the participants are actively engaged in first-hand experience in using the search engines for their literature search. 2. Communicating Science Effectively Workshop. Is held in the first week and consists of three components: “Writing Science,” which will support trainee co-authorship of research results; “Speaking Science,” a means to prepare undergraduate trainees for effective slide presentations; and “Presenting and
informal peer mentoring network structure as there was no formal mentoringprogram in place at the department level. Zoe shared one of her peer mentoring episodes, when my tenure stuff was official, I just did an open invite at a coffee shop away from campus, so it was kind of in a protected place, and I said, “Anybody who wants to come and talk to me, you can ask me anything you want about my process and my experience,” and I gave them a copy of my stuff, and pretty much all the assistant professors showed up. It ended up being like a two-and-a-half-hour-long discussion.In addition, Zoe and a couple of other untenured faculty members engaged in peer mentoringduring their writing sessions at a local coffee shop (see Figure
BB CPS PP MATLAB 1. Prior experience in-class -0.21 0.36 -0.07 0.29 2. Prior experience out-of-class -0.15 -0.29 -0.29 0.14 3. Prior comfort 0.21 0.21 0.14 -0.21 4. Communication with instructors 0.07 -0.21 0.50 0.14 5. Communication with peers -0.64 0.29 0.36 0.86 6. On-going feedback 0.86 0.00 -0.57 0.14 7. Reviewing course material outside of class
the university, the students take 15 courses including courses in art,cultural diversity, history, literature, mathematics, natural science, philosophy, social sciences, theology,and writing. The students also complete courses to graduate with a B.S. in General Engineering. Inaddition to the liberal arts core courses and engineering courses, all students also participate in a weeklyone-hour reflection seminar that they are enrolled in along with their peers in the same cohort. An aim forthe pedagogy and curriculum in the courses coded as engineering and the reflection seminars is to utilizethe affordances of a liberal arts framing to engineering to provide students opportunities to experience aliberal engineering education more
discussed and resolved, resulting in 100% agreement in coding. Moredetails about the development of the codes is provided in the next section.Development of CodesAfter all 10 of the recorded interviews had been completed, a thematic analysis was conductedthrough multiple views of each video. Throughout the videos, key moments were identified astimes where students were actively engaging with or describing their thinking around the tasks.This meant that times when students were reading the directions or writing their responses on theactivity sheet were not considered key moments. After repeated viewings and analyticaldescriptions of the key moments in videos were compiled, themes were developed. Studentsbroadly engaged with the problems using either
2022 ASEE Southeast Section Conference Data Acquisition for Collegiate Hybrid and Solid Rocketry - An Undergraduate Research ExperienceAbstract Involving undergraduate students in engineering research provides an opportunity and anavenue to gain in-depth and hands-on experiential learning with topics related to their major.Students involved learn about contributions to the field they study through research andunderstand the value of meaningful contributions, specifically experimentation and hardwaredevelopment. Working with a research advisor provides students with mentoring, teamwork, andinteraction with peers and graduate students. Research experience for undergraduate studentsprovides a unique
Paper ID #36227Python for chemical engineers: an efficient approach to teachnon-programmers to programProf. Gennady Gor, New Jersey Institute of Technology Dr. Gennady Gor received Ph.D. in theoretical physics from St. Petersburg State University, Russia in 2009. He continued his postdoctoral research in the United States, at Rutgers University, Princeton University and Naval Research Laboratory. In 2016 he joined the Chemical and Materials Engineering department at NJIT as an assistant professor. He authored more than 60 peer-reviewed publications, and is the recipient of the National Research Council Associateship (2014) and
highschool students who have just completed their junior year. Students come from all aroundthe country, and in some cases from abroad. IEP’s purpose is to provide participants withan overview of all fields in engineering, while giving the students a taste of college life, alook at career opportunities, and a chance to meet professional engineers as well asengineering faculty. Students work on several projects, attend lectures, write reports,code programs, give presentations, do problem solving and design, go on field trips, andinteract with a very diverse group of peers.In this paper we describe the IEP program, and provide an overview of its selectionprocess and its structure and content. We examine how effective the program has been,and describe
senior member of IEEE and is a member of ASME, SIAM, ASEE and AGU. He is actively involved in CELT activities and regularly participates and presents at the Lilly Conference. He has been the recipient of several Faculty Learning Community awards. He is also very active in assessment activities and has presented more than a dozen papers at various Assessment Institutes. His posters in the areas of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Socratic Inquisition have received widespread acclaim from several scholars in the area of Cognitive Science and Educational Methodologies. He has received the Assessment of Critical Thinking Award twice and is currently working towards incorporating writing assessments that
, and the Chair of the Graduate Program Committee in the Department of EECS, the ABET coordinator for the BS in Computer Science Program, and a member of the faculty senate at CSU. Dr. Zhao has authored a research monograph titled: ”Building Dependable Distributed Systems” published by Scrivener Publishing, an imprint of John Wiley and Sons. Furthermore, Dr. Zhao published over 150 peer-reviewed papers on fault tolerant and dependable systems (three of them won the best paper award), computer vision and motion analysis, physics, and education. Dr. Zhao’s research is supported in part by the US National Science Foundation, the US Department of Transportation, Ohio State Bureau c American
currently working towards incorporating writing assignments that enhance students’ critical thinking capabilities. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Assessment of Gregorc Style DelineatorsAbstract Anthony F. Gregorc is a phenomenological researcher who is internationally recognizedfor his work in learning styles. In 1969, with the introduction of his Energic Model of Styles,researchers were provided with a valuable tool for helping individuals gain a betterunderstanding of Self and others. This work evolved into the Mind Styles Model in 1984.Gregorc Style Delineator is based upon a psychologically-formulated matrix of four descriptivewords. Gregorc indicates that there are
programming platform that provides feedbackon incorrect code entries. The homework problems generally require fewer than 5 lines of codeto answer a homework problem relating to a single programming concept (e.g. define a variable,write an expression comparing two variables, write an if statement), whereas the projects ask thestudent to write a program that accomplishes a specific task requiring blocks of code that can beup to 30 lines long.The comparison being made takes account of two separate semesters of the course, Fall 2016 andFall 2017. In 2016, the programming component of the course was a 6-week portion of thecourse with Chapters 1-6. For this study, the researchers only used Chapters 1-5 to be consistentwith the chapters used in 2017. In
Paper ID #18334Design Meets Disability Studies: Bridging the Divide between Theory andPracticeDr. Sarah Summers, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Dr. Sarah Summers earned her PhD in Rhetoric and Composition from Penn State University and joined the RHIT faculty in 2014. Her work focused on writing in the disciplines, particularly at the advanced undergraduate and graduate levels. She teaches courses in writing and engineering communication, in- cluding technical and professional communication, intercultural communication, digital writing, and grant writing.Prof. Renee D. Rogge, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
at The University of Memphis. During those years, he worked in the areas of reading and writing processes, metacognition, self-regulated learning, teacher education, and school and program evaluation. Dr. Hacker moved to the University of Utah in 1999 and has continued his research in the previous areas and has added to them research in the area of the detection of deception. Also at the University of Utah, he served as chair of the Teaching and Learning Department. His publications have appeared in the Journal of Educational Psychology, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, and Journal of Experimental Education. At both universities, Dr. Hacker has maintained a strong
, haveexperimented with forms of media production as alternatives to writing for producing anddisseminating scholarly work. Both of these projects focus on the production of new mediaforms, such as web pages, games, and interactive digital art pieces, as the result of scholarlywork, rather than merely as methods for producing more traditional written/publication material.More recently, thanks largely to the proliferation of 3D printing hardware and related grantsfrom the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Andrew Mellon Foundation, digitalhumanists have begun incorporating making practices into their research and pedagogy.Makerspaces and critical design labs such as those at the University of Victoria, the University ofToronto, the University of
technical learning [1][2], however in most cases where fiction is used, it supports professional learning in areas likeethics. In this paper, the authors go beyond the presentation of a case study where literature wasused to frame and guide discussions around ethics in an engineering course by coding studentartifacts for values. Specifically, the student engineers participating in a seminar course wererequired to read and reflect in writing on Prey by Michael Crichton [3]. To set the stage for thiscase, some of the moral philosophy arguments around the use of fiction are discussedculminating in the conclusion that fiction is an appropriate tool in the teaching of ethics. Then,we will examine how literature has been broadly used in technical courses
/laboratory format and is designed for Electronic, Computer, Mechanical, andManufacturing Engineering Technology students organized into cross-functional teams.The outline of the paper follows the course outline described in TAC of ABET “Self-Study Questionnaire - TC2K Visits” 1IntroductionStudentThe course is an interdisciplinary course with mixed teams of Mechanical (MET),Manufacturing (MFG), Electronic (EET), and Computer (CET) Engineering Technologystudents. In general, the course is an integration of LabVIEW-based virtualinstrumentation and data acquisition techniques and a physical/mechanical measurementslab 2. Since the teams contain students from multiple majors, we cultivate a peer-learningenvironment where the EETs and CETs help the METs
exercises and class discussion,• participate in small group brainstorming, discussion and problem solving,• complete four homework assignments,• complete two hands-on activities: build and fly a rocket from Ref. 15 and participate in the annual departmental Egg-Drop competition e.g. see Ref. 16,• write a final term paper,• and several times a semester fill out a one minute anonymous index card where they are asked to complete the following sentence: “I’ve been sitting here for an hour and I’m still wondering about …”The index cards are similar to the “one-minute papers” suggested by Richard Light inRef. 5. They provide an opportunity for students to ask any question in a “safe” (non-public) environment. They allow a time for reflection on
Page 10.120.1 Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Educationyears of the standard four year study program (4YSP) are spread over the first three years of the5YSP.The 5YSP is fully integrated into the mainstream program in the sense that all students on the5YSP attend the same classes, have the same time-table, textbooks and lecturers and write thesame tests and exam papers as the mainstream students. This contributes to increased credibilityof the extended program and prevents stigmatising students as being 'at risk'. Faculty thus takeownership of the extended program and do not view it merely as an
mathematics, science, and engineering principles and engineering design in a real world practice setting. • Develop understanding and gain experience in interpersonal, team, and presentation abilities. • Develop understanding and gain experience in the economic, legal, organizational and business realities that operate in a commercial company or government agency. • Acquire an appreciation of the social, environmental and ethical implications of industry or government decision-making and practice. • Gain experience in setting and carrying out career plans through resume writing, interviewing and networking training. • Further develop as an individual, gaining self-awareness and appreciation of
Page 8.784.6 “Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright ©2003, American Society for Engineering Education”a car are requested. The students are also required to identify their skills in writing, graphics,leadership, teamwork, analysis, drafting, planning and research/library, as well as their strengthsand weaknesses. This information is then used to assign the teams12, which consist of 4-6 teammembers. Teams are balanced using the following criteria: major13, background, academicperformance, gender and ethnicity14, and access to transportation off campus to purchasematerials for the construction of the project. The team application also requires the
laboratories. 4. Assembling a combination of the old and new equipment. 5. Writing the Science Workshop templates and/or setting up Quattro spreadsheet templates. 6. Running and debugging the exercises. 7. Writing up the exercises in the form of a workbook, complete with brief summarys of the information to be presented in short mini-lectures.Although we were rarely seen out of our classroom, the work was exhilarating. We often hauledcolleagues out of the hall and said “You’ve gotta see this!” For the first time, we were actuallyseeing some physics that we had previously only talked about. We felt a bit like Galileo musthave when he first peered through that eyepiece at
classes outside of the college. We begin with the first day of class in the fall when teams of 4 or 5 students are asked toparticipate in a tower building contest using Jenga blocks. This first day exercise allows thestudents to get to know some of the people in their section and to become acquainted with theirsection instructor in an informal atmosphere. During the remainder of the semester, the studentswork in teams on laboratory projects, presentations, and in homework study-groups. Sophomore Clinic is team-taught by faculty from engineering and college writing in the fallsemester and faculty from engineering and public speaking in the spring. The curriculum inSophomore Clinic is coordinated so that the students’ writing and speaking
ASME, SIAM, ASEE and AGU. He is actively involved in CELT activities and regularly participates and presents at the Lilly Conference. He has been the recipient of several Faculty Learning Community awards. He is also very active in assessment activities and has presented dozens of papers at various Assessment Institutes. His posters in the areas of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Socratic Inquisition have received widespread acclaim from several scholars in the area of Cognitive Science and Educational Methodologies. He has received the Assessment of Critical Thinking Award twice and is currently working towards incorporating writing assignments that enhance students’ critical thinking capabilities
: Why All Americans Need to Know More about Technology, describes the importance of being literate about technology in the 21st century2. In their 2006 report, Tech Tally3, the NAE defined technological literacy as “an understanding of technology at a level that enables effective functioning in a modern technological society.”5The report on an NSF sponsored workshop at the National Academy of Engineering in 2005includes the statement that technological literacy is important because, “We live in a technological world. Living in the twenty-first century requires much more from every individual than a basic ability to read, write, and perform simple mathematics. Technology affects virtually every aspect of
thelevel of risk associated with the task; meaning that if a worker spends more than a certainamount of time with one or more of his or her joints held past a certain angle, then he or she is atrisk for an injury due to posture. The assessment tools only truly vary in terms of level of detail,so students are encouraged to use more than one so that they can compare their findings with dif-ferent tools. Students are responsible for finding a work task, they must observe the task for atleast two hours, and they then must write a 1-3 page brief that describes the task, findings fromthe assessment, and suggestions for task improvement. Students generally select single persontasks such as clerking at a grocery store and changing the tire on a wheel.This
to the group and present their findings. Thisprocess requires that all group members develop effective communication skills. At thecompletion of the teaching session, each student is evaluated by the others in the group, whichcan result in the identification of strengths and weaknesses. The instructor is available to providerecommendations on better communication practices. This peer-oriented review and evaluationprocess can result in improved communication skills.Criterion 3(h) focuses on a student’s ability to recognize the need for and to engage in life-longlearning. This ABET criterion is highly linked to the second major motivating factor whichresulted in the change in the course pedagogy. After the authors of this paper reflected on