proposed in this paper, a side by side comparison was conductedbetween students who had experienced the active learning classroom versus students coveringthe same course content with a lecture-based style. Students from the active learning classroomsachieved A’s in their subsequent computer science course 1.5-2.5 times more often than studentsfrom the traditional lecture-based classroom.1 IntroductionComputer Science skills are of great importance in today’s workforce. The majority of jobstoday require some level of interaction with a computer. Given that computer science skills areso important, it is vital that we prepare the next generation in the best way possible. The firstyear of exposure to computer science is critical and an improper
Project TESAL. Participants particularlyvalued being active participants in learning, opportunities for collaborating with peers andoutside experts around the work of teaching, focusing on subject matter content acrossmathematics and science and students’ learning of that content, and the sustained ongoing natureof Project TESAL where the work teachers did in professional development was fully relevant totheir work as classroom teachers. These strengths align directly with best practices forprofessional development and for overcoming the challenges of professional developmentspecifically on math-science integration and engineering design instruction.IntroductionRising Above the Gathering Storm 1 identified the need to “encourage more US citizens
has several apparent benefits: From a student perspective, the summer course allows one to get ahead on degree requirements, freeing up time in the academic year to pursue a minor, dual major, concentration, semester abroad, etc. From a faculty perspective, increasing enrollment has in recent years placed a strain on resources, which is eased when some students take a course during the summer instead of during the academic year. 1 From an administrative perspective, offering the summer course is both a service to students and a modest source of tuition revenue.However, this practice also raised a concern. In the typical ChE
occupations: African Americans make up less than 5% ofscientists and engineers, and Hispanics 6% [1]. We are particularly interested in the lack of pre-college engineering and design emphasis inSTEM education. Currently, there is an engineering renaissance across the country that iscapturing the imagination of young innovators. This interest includes coding, hardware andsoftware hackathons, and the bourgeoning “Maker” movement. The Next Generation ScienceStandards (NGSS), which are increasingly becoming part of K-12 curricula, emphasizesengineering and design principles. The NAE and NRC Center for Education established theCommittee on K-12 Engineering Education. This committee stresses that STEM educationshould include engineering design training
and after the adjustments, but again, minor changes were required to make it fullyoperational. The presuppositions that went into the design and implementation were insufficientto achieve functionality. There is some recognition of this problem in the literature on engineering laboratories.Feisel and Rosa [1] point out the lack of consensus on what constitutes proper laboratoryinstruction and the overall lack of consensus on what constitutes an appropriate laboratoryexperience. They decry the dearth of literature on learning objectives associated withinstructional engineering laboratories. In any earlier paper, Ernst [2] proposed as objectives thatstudents “should learn how to be an experimenter”, that the lab “be a place for the
based on the needs of various open positions. Engineering leadership programs,created to address industry identified non-technical skill deficits, should produce students withbehavioral indicators that meet the non-technical competencies for entry-level employment. Byunderstanding from the recruiters’ perspective, the behavioral indicators relevant for engineeringleaders, engineering leadership development programs can better prepare and evaluate studentscompleting their programs. The purpose of this study is to explore recruiters’ perspectives of which engineeringleadership behaviors are important for students to communicate during the on-campus recruitingprocess. The research questions for this study are: 1. What activities during
instructors.Active distance learning environments typically capitalize on high-speed Internet connectionsusing televised lectures and demonstrations via satellite connections, video streaming, orconferencing applications. Typical streaming, collaboration, and conferencing applicationsinclude Adobe Connect Pro, MSN Messenger, Yugma, iPod/iPad, Google Chat, Skype,Facebook, YouTube, and others are typically utilized in the on-line teaching environment4.Couse Delivery Methodologies 1. Synchronous/real-time lectures Planning, designing, and implementing active learning in a distance education environment is similar to those activities for traditional classes except that planning for courses without face- to-face contact makes the design process particularly
activities including: problem solving sessionsand computer-based activities with commonly-used software (MS Excel, Bridge Designer, andSkyCiv). The majority of these activities are performed in groups of three which provides acollaborative environment for students to share ideas and pose questions to other students thatrequire critical thinking.Construction Cost Estimating is also required for both construction management andconstruction engineering students. Traditionally, the course meets for 2 hours of lecture and 2hours of laboratory time with lecture time devoted to covering topics related to the laboratoryinstruction. Under the blended course format this changed. Approximately 1 hour of lecture timewas placed online. The students were asked to
LSU, the goal is to improve theoverall 2nd-3rd year retention and ultimately improve the cumulative 6th year graduation rate by2-3% per year so that it approaches the current university average for all entering freshmen(59%). Building upon the lessons learned from the first STEP grant, these goals will beaccomplished through the following actions: 1) development and implementation of a pre-engineering learning community at BRCC; 2) integration of Supplemental Instruction/academicsupport in core STEM/Engineering courses at both institutions; 3) provide the environment andtraining necessary to develop mentoring relationships between students (particularly transferstudents entering LSU); 4) provide opportunities for faculty development and
tocommission the development of a seminar to help prepare these new faculty for a heavy teachingload. The seminar was intended to meet the following criteria: 1) be of short duration, 2) bebased on methods supported by research, focusing on 'best practices in engineering education',and 3) be suitable for new faculty, graduate assistants and part-time faculty.The authors (holding both engineering and education degrees) received an internal grant andcollaborated with instructional designers from the university's E-learning center to develop andfacilitate the training. The purpose of this seminar is to promote the best practices, to guidefaculty and teaching assistants new to teaching in the engineering fields, to advance theirconfidence and satisfaction
organizations to determine if implementing a big data solution will bringvalue to their organization. There are three key areas involved with a big data infrastructurewhich includes data acquisition, data organization, and data analysis.Mobile service providers (MSPs) are particularly faced with big data issues because of theproliferation of wireless devices and mobile applications. Most of these devices access theInternet using cellular networks. Cellular networks are becoming the primary method foraccessing the Internet 1. MSPs must contend with the challenge of managing and planning theirnetwork resources to address the continuous increase in traffic demands. Due to the increasedtraffic from mobile applications, MSPs are generating huge amounts of
GCS program components, including 1) hands-onproject/research experience, 2) interdisciplinary curriculum, 3) entrepreneurship, 4) globaldimension, and 5) service-learning. The authors discuss potential applications of the rubric toevaluate course-level outcomes, including student projects from an interdisciplinary courseentitled “Creatively Applying Science for Sustainability.” In the course, students work to addressa societal Grand Challenge in a semester-long project and in interdisciplinary student projectsthat tackle Grand Challenges on an international scale. This rubric fills a literature gap inassessing 21st century global engineering skills by measuring capabilities based on five key NAEGCS program components and provides a mechanism
host and across different hostsusing container-based virtualization technology. Afterward, we will evaluate and compare theperformance of such implementation with a cluster built on physical machine.1 IntroductionThe practical exercises included in laboratory-based course play an important role in engineeringand science educations. Many academic institutes developed the laboratory-based courses to helpstudents to accelerate their learning in different types of laboratories such as real, simulation, oronline [1]. Especially in Information Technology education, hands-on exercises through thelaboratory became an essential component of the course because it provides students with anopportunity to learn and observe how to apply the concepts
American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Work In Progress – Content Independent Classroom Gamification Chris Cain1, Anne Anderson2, and Matthew E. Taylor1 1 School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Washington State University 2 School of Design and Construction, Washington State UniversityAbstract This paper introduces Topic-INdependent Gamification Learning Environment (TINGLE), aframework designed to increase student motivation and engagement in the classroom through theuse of a game played outside the classroom. A 131-person study was implemented in aconstruction management course. Game statistics and survey responses were recorded to estimatethe effect
to argue for the relevance of thisunique, novel, and effective case for increasing engineering students’ ethical reasoning abilities,particularly broadening their awareness of the scope of stakeholders impacted by engineeringdecisions and their ability to empathize with those stakeholders.Keywords: Engineering ethics; Ethical reasoning; Case study; Deepwater Horizon; ReflexivePrinciplism 1IntroductionThe April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico was a tragedythat led to the loss of 11 human lives. In 2015 the explosion continues to impact those 11individual’s families;1 it continues to have a far-reaching
participating, impactof each specific demonstration, responses by student gender, and responses by studentreported ethnic background; in order to evaluate the impact of demonstration inclusionacross multiple audiences.College Instructed Service CoursesThe engineering faculty behind the courses in this study all have traditional MechanicalEngineering undergraduate and doctoral degrees, but their home department and researchinterests are within the Institute for Excellence in Engineering Education, which is part ofthe Herbert Wertheim College of Engineering, at the University of Florida. This studyexamines the impact of demonstrations within three courses: 1) Computer Programmingfor Engineers Lab (MATLAB and C++), 2) Circuits, and 3) Dynamics. The
,whileSTEMandeducationfacultyteachcollegiatelevelcontentcoursesbothfacultiescouldbenefitfromrichercollaborationandcoordination.HowcanfutureK16+educatorsdevelopapipelineofSTEMmajorsandgraduateswithoutpartnershipsbetweenthefaculties?Weproposeacapstone model in which teams report to a multi-disciplinary advisory panel rather than a singleSTEM advisor. This paper highlights how a single Electrical and Computer Engineering and ComputerScience (ECECS) capstone project can 1) be influenced by a societal need, 2) develop soft skills of acapstone team, and 3) create lasting mutually beneficial partnerships between academic faculties andexternal partners.Purpose/Problem/Gap Learning, development and concept synthesis can take many paths – natural learning progressionsoften being though the manipulation and unguided interactions with our environment. Consider a childapproaching
. The items aredesigned to be administered online. The instrument was developed and tested over the course ofthree data collections (N = 1365) in post-secondary energy science engineering courses.Reliability and validity evidence as well key findings from analysis of student responses to theinstrument are summarized. This material is based upon work supported by the National ScienceFoundation under Grant No. 1245018. IntroductionStudent engagement in classroom learning is an important construct in post-secondary STEMeducation research, particularly in the field of engineering education [1]. Research situatesstudent engagement an essential cognitive, behavioral, and affective components of
of Labor, the job outlook is on the rise and willcontinue to expand for at least the short- to medium-term future [1]. To respond to the industryneeds for FPGA design skills, universities are updating their curriculum with courses inhardware description languages and programmable logic design. Although most traditionalelectrical and computer engineering programs have updated their curriculum to include topics inhardware description language and programmable logic design (FPGA/CPLD), only 19.5 % of 4-year and 16.5 % of 2-year electrical and computer engineering technology programs at USacademic institutions currently have a curriculum component in hardware description languageand programmable logic design [2].To effectively meet the next
statisticallysignificant differences between groups with different funding types. Items related to choosingresearch interests and allocation of graduate teaching assistantship positions. A follow-up studyhas been devised to examine these research questions further, in addition to other questionssurrounding the graduate student experience, in a more systematic fashion.IntroductionThere is an established need to increase the number of STEM professionals in the United Statesto maintain a competitive edge globally in science and technology.1 Although undergraduateeducation is invaluable to the creation and support of a stable economy, graduate educationdevelops the critical thinking skills and tools for innovation that will help ensure the nation’sprosperity.2 This
. She also earned a Masters of Industrial and Systems Engineering from Auburn University (AU). Glenda is a Gates Millennium Scholar and her research interest include academic/industry partnerships, student transitions, and broadening participation in engineering. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Situating Augmented Reality in the K-12 ClassroomIntroductionNational dialogue and scholarly research illustrate the need for science, math, technology, andengineering (STEM) innovations in K-12 environments [1]. President Barack Obama affirms thisneed by stating, “… Leadership tomorrow depends on how we educate our students today-especially in STEM.” In response, there has been an
possibility of a whole new generation of students primed forscience, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and careers. Makingpractices, facilities, and integrated makerspaces have been enthusiastically embraced withinengineering education programs at high school and university levels, and are proliferatingrapidly within diverse educational settings. Perhaps surprising to many within engineering andother STEM fields, making practices are also being embraced and adapted within thehumanities,1 particularly a branch of humanistic inquiry labeled “digital humanities.”2 Ashumanists organize research practices and supporting theoretical frameworks around making,new possibilities arise for using making practices to integrate technical
resources,and their application to academic research workflows.Keywords: Information Literacy, Game-based Learning, Online LearningIntroductionThe “digital natives” (applied to those born after 1990) constitute the first generation to havegrown up with the Internet and various forms of digital technologies(1). As the most networkedgeneration ever enters higher education, smartphones, text messaging, and various social mediaplatforms pervade their daily activities. Despite their unquestionable technological savvy, anexpanding body of information literacy studies indicates that most of these students lack (2-5)fundamental information literacy skills upon entering higher
. Specifically, we conducted thirdand final interviews with 4 (3 female; 1 male) of the 11 participants that were interviewed asfirst-year engineering students. Consequently, we now have 12 interviews (4 individualsinterviewed 3 times apiece) to analyze as a set. We are systematically examining theseinterviews to find psychological themes regarding how participants experience and perceivesocial and technical ways of being engineers—and how they develop in their thinking.Although analysis is ongoing, preliminary findings for this phase of the study are informative.First, these engineering students, upon entering their first-year of engineering education, connectengineering to a broad narrative that is deeply connected to their social experiences (e.g
CommunityChange is hard, a truism that can be highlighted in engineering education in many ways. Themomentum of engineering education in traditional forms, and even the experiences of people inprofessional careers, is hard to shift, but many have tried.1 One can argue that the shift toABET’s EC2000 outcomes-based assessment was meant to serve as a change agent, but after adecade of implementation, engineering education looked pretty much the same. Small changesin programs sometimes stuck, and sometimes programs faded back to the way they were beforeany interventions were attempted. With the idea that maybe things could be different, thatmaybe change could last, a group of engineering educators got together to imagine what anengineering program could look
as these and present solutions for such challenges through acombination of technology and approach to teaching.1. introductionA primary goal of engineering education is to provide students with requisite technicalgrounding along with practice and experience in the design and evaluation of real andpractical systems. This goal becomes increasingly difficult with the expanding body ofknowledge, integration of concepts across disciplines, and complexity of design toolsneeded in engineering industries.1 While an expert/apprentice model of education maybe more fitting to preparing engineers for professional practice, traditional instructionmodels include in-person lectures covering fundamental technical concepts with thebulk of practice and
detailed discussions of methods specific to planning and executingsuccessful multi-site research studies in higher education settings.The goal in this paper is to share experiences and advice to begin a broader discussion in thefield about multi-site research studies in engineering education. The focus is on studies ofundergraduate and graduate students, faculty and administrators. This paper discusses the issues,considerations, and tradeoffs involved in planning and executing multi-site engineeringeducation research studies.MethodsTo prepare this paper, one researcher (author 1) distributed a set of questions to which the firstfour authors responded. The fifth author drafted the results based on a simple thematic analysisof the responses. All
. The lab consists of hands-on exercises that providethe student with the opportunity to program the hardware to perform some simple useful controlfunction(s) and to make projects that can be controlled through the Internet. To implement thecourse the faculty choose to use low-cost universally available hardware that is available from avariety of online sources. The microprocessor platform utilized is the Raspberry Pi and theassociated open-source microcontroller platform is the Arduino Uno. The Arduino Uno shown inFigure 1 below has been around for some time and has been cloned by numerous vendors. Due toits longevity, there are many accessories (known as shields) available from the same vendors. Aquick search of Amazon.com will provide one
addressed in this study. (1) Do students participating in a flipped instructional delivery section of an engineering course learn more than those in a traditional lecture-based section of the same course? (2) After controlling for prior academic achievement (in general, using college GPA upon course entry) and initial levels of content-specific achievement (using pre-quizzes associated with each topic), do students participating in a flipped instructional delivery section of an engineering course perform better on content-specific achievement measures than those in a traditional section of the same course? Page
ofqualified engineering educators (as well as other education specialists) and the governmentinvited them from Europe, especially from Germany. The history of Russian science andengineering in the 18 – 19 centuries is full of European professors, who taught students inMining Institute (founded in 1773) and Road Institute (founded in 1809). The late 19 Centurywas the time when the first polytechnic schools were established in Russia, such as Polytechnicschool in Kazan (1890) to satisfy the needs of growing Russian industry.Engineering education in the Soviet times was the necessary tool to satisfy tremendous internalneed for industrial specialists, while globalization was not the beacon to follow [1].Internationalization existed, however, in a form of