for the 2019 summer cohort as to whatneeded to be cut from the schedule to accommodate a 6-week versus 10-week research program.It was decided that REM students would not need to prepare or present a research paper; instead,we asked that they only prepare and present a poster to capture their research. There were alsosome professional development topics that were either cut from their schedule or given in ashorter timeframe, especially with respect to writing research papers and pursuing differentcareer pathways.Design Element #1: Forging connection between theory, research, and application. Theprogram was designed to help deepen participants’ understanding of the connection betweentheory, research, and application, making them better
of the International Education Committee and elected member of Leadership Organizing Physics Education Research Council (PERLOC) in the period 2015-2018.Dr. Esmeralda Campos, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico Dr. Esmeralda Campos is a postdoc researcher at Writing Lab at Tecnologico de Monterrey, and she has taught undergraduate physics courses at the School of Engineering and Sciences. She obtained her bach- elor degree in Engineering Physics at Tecnologico de Monterrey in Mexico. She studied a Master degree in Education, with a specialization in Science teaching and learning, and moved forward to the PhD in Educational Innovation, both at Tecnologico de Monterrey. She has focused her research in
original thinking and self-confidence in students to carry their own projectideas. Faculty-guided student research projects also help some students to pursue higher studiesin their chosen discipline.Students taking the capstone classes are also expected to communicate their work effectively notonly to peers in the classroom, but also to audience in others disciplines and perhaps to thecommunity they live in. For this, they have to understand how to use appropriate and relevantcontent to develop and explore ideas in writing [3]. In the final project report and/or in thepresentation, students must be able to (i) display skills at many levels: sentence, paragraph, andin the entire essay; (ii) use evidence to support a claim in an academic argument
from six to twelvehourly sessions. Additionally, students were assigned to a group. Each group was givena particular case from NSPE and asked to write and present an opinion as if they were anNSPE Board of Ethical Review (BER): summarizing the case, identifying the ethicalquestions and appropriate ethical canons, researching similar cases, and citing how otherBERs ruled and determining whether the engineers involved in the case acted in anethical manner. If the team could not come to a unanimous decision, they would have towrite both a majority and minority opinion. Unlike the previous assignment prior to theSpring 2005 semester, students were required to vigorously discuss and defend theiropinions on the cases.Changing the ethics assignment
continued technological and economicsuccess for nations such as ours will rely on scientists and engineers able tocollaborate with peers, partners, and competitors from many locations around theworld. Engineering educators acknowledge that this era of globalization hasextensive implications for the curriculum and are thus experimenting in search ofappropriate changes to keep the next generations competitive. Many internationalprogram models for engineers are emerging at campuses across the country, withfocus on language and culture study, study abroad, student exchange, internationalprofessional internships, projects carried out by global student and faculty teams,distance learning partnerships with schools abroad, and so on. Another sign of
ERC was such thatstudents lived in suites with a shared common meeting space, which facilitated collaborativework and study. Through structured activities outside of the classroom, the FiR facilitatedlearning that enhanced engineering academics (e.g., advising, study groups, tutors), communitybuilding (e.g., informal drop-in coffee nights, rock climbing), and supported the RC programcommon values. Success of these programmatic activities was assessed qualitatively (i.e.,student’s perceptions articulated through reflective writing) and quantitatively (i.e., academicperformance in key freshman engineering courses).Qualitative Life Skills SuccessesTo fully assess the successes of the ERC, we chose to first qualitatively examine the experiencesof
of teaching. Thus, in recent years, peer evaluation of teaching [2] has taken its placealongside student evaluations in determining teaching competence. But faculty remain uneasyabout their student evaluations, regarding them almost fatalistically as something potentiallyimportant over which they have little control.The goal of this work is to present the cases of a number of engineering and computer-sciencefaculty who did manage to improve their scores, in hopes that they can serve as role models. Weidentify several aspects of their teaching where change made a difference. Then we comparetheir observations to what the published literature reveals. We conclude with recommendationsfor faculty who want to improve their scores.Our respondents
engineer and background experience.5 Incontrast, a first year instructor at Kabul University receives only $80 per month and $200 permonth during their second year. Eventually through academic promotion at Kabul University, asenior instructor can earn up to approximately $650 per month at the time of this writing. It iscritically important to the future success of engineering education at NMAA and at KabulUniversity that both schools be able to retain a highly qualified faculty. Page 14.694.4Developing Faculty in a Developing NationBetween January and August 2008 we deployed from West Point to Afghanistan to developcourses for the civil engineering
requirement for the First Year Success sections) prior tosubmitting their final report. UMBC also has a Writing Center located in the Learning ResourceCenter on campus that provides assistance to the students in the preparation of their reports.Each team is also required to make a formal oral presentation using PowerPoint at which eachteam member is required to present (the First Year Success sections are also required to give apractice presentation prior to their formal oral presentation with the instructor). Specific Page 14.813.3guidelines for the presentation are discussed in class and the students are also given a gradingrubric for the
and Bowers (1997) of studentsstudying physics found that reading is, in fact, more important than hearing.IntroductionHaving been challenged by a member of the public—specifically a K-12 school teacher—toprovide authoritative source(s) of the STATEMENT, what was envisioned as a simple search andproof would ultimately reveal a lack of evidence for the cited statistics. The STATEMENT beingreferred to here is that people (or students) learn (or recall/remember): • 10% of what they read • 20% of what they hear • 30% of what they see • 50% of what they hear and see • 70% of what they say (and write) • 90% of what they say as they do a thingThere are various forms and permutations of the STATEMENT found in published
connected-automated Vehicle Technologies, Transportation Data Analytics, and Alter- native Fuel Vehicles. Dr. Bhavsar has published in peer reviewed journals such as the Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technology, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and the Environment and Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board. Dr. Bhavsar was pre- viously a postdoctoral fellow in a connected vehicle research program in the Glenn Department of Civil c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Paper ID #18938 Engineering at Clemson University, where he worked on
summer experience.Many participants evolved a new understanding of research as a result of participating in thesummer experience. In particular, they better recognized the collaborative nature of research andthe challenges that can arise as part of the process of doing research. Participants acquired bothtechnical and professional skills that they found useful, such as learning new programminglanguages, becoming proficient at using new pieces of equipment, reviewing technical literature,and improving presentation and communication skills. Undergraduates benefited fromdeveloping new relationships with their peers, while the teacher participants benefited fromdeveloping relationships with faculty and staff at the university. While most of the
contribute. Career development activities included resume writing, interviewskills, and professional etiquette. These lectures were frequently open to all students in theJESS program, regardless of enrollment in the senior design course in that semester.Table 2 summarizes the effects of graduate school recruitment strategies on the senior designcohorts. Of the 40 students participating in the three senior design cohorts, 16 (40%) continuedon to graduate school. Undergraduate students in the COE are permitted to register for up tothree graduate courses in their senior year. Students in the JESS program who took advantage ofthis dual-enrollment program were eligible to receive a higher scholarship. Two senior designstudents completed masters
project that will look good on theirresume, and assist landing a post education job or entering graduate school. For example, oneselected topic was “Forecasting Ford Motor Company (USA) Sales”. This project wasimplemented in R and used historical data, regression models, and a neural network. A secondtopic was an “Analysis and Model of Firearm Policy to domestic violence”. This project wassearching for a longitudinal relationship between changes in firearm policy, and changes indomestic violence rates. The project was implemented in Python. During the semester, studentsmeet at least every two weeks with an adviser, write a proposal, perform algorithm and codereviews, and provided demos of data collection and analysis progress. The class concludes
. This expanded list ofcompetencies is then validated using a dataset of engineering job advertisements.Methodology Researchers must determine the frame of articles to include and the source. Gomez-Jauregui et al. provide a critical review of the Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and GoogleScholar databases as potential sources for comprehensive literature reviews [31]. The authorschose Scopus as the source for this study because it provides complete information for citedarticles and extensive functionality to filter the articles selected. The authors based the Scopus database search on the title, abstract, and keywords toidentify peer-reviewed research articles related to soft skills. The Boolean search then considereda wide range of
, resulted in a higher grade (maximum of 79).Students were then asked to share how they came to the new/correct answers, whether fromwebsites, videos, peers, or other resources. These resources were not factored into the grade butwere used to help guide that student and the entire class to useful resources. If a student wereusing potentially incorrect or weaker sources, the instructor corrected it. If the sources werestrong, they could be shared with other students to help the entire class build a database of usefulresources.A similar, but separate retake policy was also implemented in a junior-level Signals & Systemscourse, where students were able to retake examinations, in order to improve their grade andbetter understand the material. This
Paper ID #11687A thematic analysis comparing critical thinking in engineering and humani-ties undergraduatesMs. Amy Elizabeth Bumbaco, University of Florida Amy Bumbaco is a PhD candidate in the Materials Science and Engineering Department at University of Florida, USA. She is working on engineering education research as her focus. Her current research interests include first year engineering education, critical thinking, qualitative methodologies, and peer review. She received her BS in Materials Science and Engineering at Virginia Tech. She founded an ASEE student chapter at University of Florida and is
that each student gained the necessarytechnical skill to be able to be an active contributor to the team project and be successful in theremainder of their academic career. It is vitally important that every ECE student be able to solder,build circuits, and write basic programs as early as possible in their curriculum. There was also asignificant reduction in the amount of documents that the students had to submit. This wasnecessary due to the higher level of difficulty required to complete the projects.Quantitative ResultsThe quantitative results were obtained by evaluating the individual and team assignments as wellas the final course grades for the original course during the Fall 2014 and Winter 2014 quartersand the enhanced course during
organization its leadership and reflexive Used with permission from CRC/Taylor and Francis Group, New York.6 In Crandall’s 2006 book, Leadership Lessons from West Point, Sean Hannah reflects somewhattongue in cheek about ‘spotlight Rangers.’ These are young Army Rangers-in-training who doand say exactly the right thing when the instructor is around, but who act irregularly otherwise.The spotlight Ranger represents true Ranger values only when the spotlight is on him, but asHannah says, he is soon found out, rejected through peer-evaluations and washed out of Rangerschool.Hannah further notes: “[Authentic leaders] are highly aware of social cues and followers needs, expectations, and desires. This
Paper ID #25249Board 115: Preparing Next Generation of Manufacturing Leaders: A Caseof REU Site in CybermanufacturingDr. Bimal P. Nepal, Texas A&M University Dr. Bimal Nepal is an Associate Professor in the Industrial Distribution Program at Texas A&M Univer- sity. His research interests include integration of supply chain management with new product development decisions, distributor service portfolio optimization, pricing optimization, supply chain risk analysis, lean and six sigma, large scale optimization, and engineering education. He has authored over 100 refereed articles in leading journals and peer
graduate school would be a good choice for me 4.08 clarify whether I wanted to pursue a STEM research career 4.08 work more closely with a particular faculty member 4.00 get good letters of recommendation 3.80 have a good intellectual challenge 4.28 read and understand a scientific report 4.24 write a scientific report 4.00 ask good questions related to the scientific process 4.20 set up a scientific experiment
experience. Finally, thirteen percent (13%) of interviewees stated each of thefollowing as positive aspects of this teaching approach: 1) promotion of liveliness, engagement, orattentiveness during class, and 2) repetition or reinforcement of material, sometimes aiding memory orleading to clarification of difficult material. These results are in line with the significant difference in thelab report scores in the two classes. With more communication and interactivity, students were able to askspecific questions, communicate their interpretations, and receive feedback from instructor and peers. Thislikely helped them to write clear explanations and discussions of their results in the lab report. Table 4: Summary of Interview Responses
timing devices. Prepare charts, graphs, and diagrams to illustrate workflow, routing, floor layouts, material handling, and machine utilization. Evaluate data and write reports to validate or indicate deviations from existing standards. Read worker logs, product processing sheets, and specification sheets, to verify that records adhere to quality assurance specifications. Figure 4. TasksThe machines, equipment, tools, and software, or Tools and Technology, an industrialengineering technologists may use are listed in Figure 5. Tools used in this occupation: Coordinate measuring machines CMM—Direct computer-controlled coordinate measuring machines DCC-CMM
than the opportunity for learning.Similarly, each theory contains the idea that students must be allowed and encouraged tohave a sense of ownership over their work and the learning process. They must have alevel of autonomy. Students whose autonomy and individuality are supported in theclassroom will increase their feelings of competence or self-efficacy, which makes themmore internally motivated. These students are more likely to give themselves internalrewards, such as a sense of satisfaction for a job well done, rather than to seek externalrewards from teachers or peers. Since there is such a high level of common ground among the various social-cognitive theories, this paper will focus on only two of them: achievement goal theoryand
learned, and the improvements needed to use this new capability.IntroductionThis paper considers the opportunities opened by electronic presentation1 of engineering coursematerial. As course material gets completely converted, and classrooms become reliablyequipped with electronic presentation facilities, instructors are finding significant changes. Thetime spent in drawing and writing on the board is saved, freeing the instructor to focus on thestudents. What was covered in a 75-minute lecture before, is now covered in 30.A ‘safe’ option is to stretch out the lecture and add more examples and discussions. The downside is that many students are already put to sleep by the normal pace of lectures, which is set toaccommodate the student needing the
divided into different teams (6 teams with 4-6 people per team). The teams werechosen based on student preference (first or second choice) and were arranged so that there was agood mixture of majors (at least 3 majors per team) and experience (sophomore-graduatestudent). Each team is responsible for a different segment of the project and must work co-currently with the rest of the teams in designing the entire project. Class members assume teamroles such as leader, data collector, liaison with other teams etc, and are ultimately responsiblefor their aspect of the project, research and report writing. However, volunteers from the EWBChapter are invited to assist in the research and/or problem solving. Each team is assigned amentor (a faculty
experience bydesigning and fabricating adapted tricycles.Course StructureIn spring 2011 and spring 2012, the course met two times per week for a 75-minute lecture withan additional weekly two-hour lab time. Lecture time consisted of a combination of mini-lectures, self-directed group workshop problems and videos to support the technical content.Homework was due weekly and included originally developed real world design problems. Thesemester-long project comprised 40% of each student's final course grade (in lieu of a finalexam). Each team had a dedicated peer mentor, a senior Mechanical Engineering student whohad previously taken Component Design, who helped his or her team run team meetings, preparemeeting agendas, answer design questions, and
participants are enthusiastic about this program.1. IntroductionMentoring relationships have the potential to help women engineering students master specificskills (e.g., giving talks, writing proposals, writing dissertations / theses, managing one’s career,supervising and mentoring students, running a lab); explore career choices; obtain a differentperspective on research problems; and learn how to cope with stress, manage time, and meetfamily and work responsibilities. A mentor can also be a role model to encourage the student tocomplete her degree, and can provide valuable information on how to establish oneselfprofessionally. Because of the unique research advisor / student relationship and the isolation in a
demonstrations), and by peerevaluation (students assess contributions of all their team members at the end of each project).Both the instructor evaluation and peer evaluations showed that students gained teamwork skills.One group reported having problems with a team member; comments from the peer evaluationshowed that despite some difficulties with team dynamics, students feel that they gained valuableexperience in dealing with a difficult team member.The structure of the course (which is broken down into 3 projects) also helps with thedevelopment of teamwork and leadership skills. With a 3 person team, each team member getsto serve as a group leader for a project, since leadership roles are rotated from one project to thenext. Team dynamics solidify as
a problem. Students spend a minute or two thinking about an answer or solution and then pair up to discuss (share) their answers. The instructor may ask for several students to share their answers with the whole class. (f) Student demonstrations: Student demonstrations can be a quick way to make a point more vivid, give students a chance to hear from their peers, and give everyone in the class a “think break.” In the assessment phase, each team makes a presentation defending the recommendationof the engineer/manager they were assigned to play. The presentations are normally restricted to10 to 15 minutes so that the students are required to present their view point succinctly.Sometimes, they also