selected . Approximately 15% of the course is allocated to lectures by industrial personnel whoare-experts ‘in process modeling and its applications. Industrial lecturers included Dr. C. Ed Eckert (ApogeeTechnology, Verona, PA), Dr. Iver Anderson (Ames Laboratory, Iowa), Dr. John Benjamin (Alcoa, AlcoaCenter, PA), Dr. Praveen Mathur (Praxair, Tarrytown, NY), Dr. B. Lynn Ferguson (Deformation ControlTechnology, Inc.) and Chris Schade (Lukens Steel, Coatsville, PA).For the topics included in the two-quarter course, the engineering science base resides in one or more of thefollowing areas: solid mechanics, fluid mechanics, heat transfer, mass transfer and diffusion, and reactionkinetics. Because of the intrinsic interdisciplinary nature of the course
members of the Alliance for Optical Technology, werevery effective in the initial definition and development of the program. Second, we would like to thank theNASA Marshall Space Flight Center, the U. S. Army Missile Command, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory,Advanced Optical Systems, Inc., Dynetics Inc., Hughes Danbury Optical Systems, Nichols Research, theNational Institute for Standards and Technology, SCI Inc., and Speedring for offering support for the studentonsite practicum thesis projects. Third, we would like to thank Bob Berinato, Dynetics, Inc. for his continuedsupport and for teaching several of the Optomechanical Design and Manufacturing classes. Classes were alsotaught by Ned Bragg, OETC, Inc.; David Pollock, UAH: and Jim Spann
AC 2009-504: INTRODUCING BIONANOTECHNOLOGY INTOUNDERGRADUATE BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERINGAura Gimm, Duke University J. Aura Gimm is Assistant Professor of the Practice and Associated Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Duke University. She teaches courses in biomaterials, thermodynamics/kinetics, engineering design, and a new course in bionanotechnology. Dr. Gimm received her S.B. in Chemical Engineering and Biology from MIT, and her Ph.D. in Bioengineering from UC-Berkeley. Page 14.802.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2009 Introducing
Simulation of the Thermal Method for Nondestructive TestingIntroductionThe thermal nondestructive testing (TNDT) method is widely used for inspection of industrialparts and components. The method involves heating the object and subsequently measuringthe temperature of its surface. This change in temperature provides information about the testobject’s structure. The surface temperature changes if the discontinuity exists inside theobject.The laboratory training allows students to understand the fundamental processes, which takeplace during the TNDT procedure. Students are able to simulate this procedure use FEMLABsoftware package. This interactive software package is based on application of partialdifferential equations for
instruction and twohours of laboratory per week. This paper presents the design of the course, including anassessment-based approach for selection and rotation of supplemental instruction work groups,explores results of the pre- and post-assessments for two semesters of Engineering Physics I, andpresents implications for this course as well as for interfaces with subsequent courses inengineering curricula.IntroductionEngineering programs in the School of Engineering at Southern Illinois University Edwardsvillerequire two semesters of University Physics, a calculus-based sequence with associated labs.These courses are taught in the Department of Physics and require a pre-requisite of Calculus Iwith a grade of C or better and a co-requisite of Calculus
its efficiency in terms of theprogram’s educational contents, its target audiences, and its outreach impacts.IntroductionInterest is growing in the reorientation of educational programs to make them moreoutcome-based and results-oriented [1-4]. Outreach programs, as parts of recruitmentefforts of educational institutions, are especially appropriate for outcome assessment. Theresults of such assessment allow evaluation of the accomplishment of the objectives andprovide for fine tuning of outreach activities leading to the improvement of the quality ofthe educational programs.Assessment tools used to evaluate the accomplishment of the outcomes of conventionaleducational programs that include class and laboratory activities may not be
: engineeringprofessors who serve as directors that oversee the programs agenda; otherengineering faculty who teach some engineering courses; Guilford Countyteachers, who served as instructors for the mathematics and science; one (1) highschool counselor who facilitates the career explorations and invites otherprofessionals as guest speakers; technicians who conduct the laboratory sessions;six (6) engineering undergraduate students who served as student teachers andmentors; and one (1) engineering undergraduate who serves as the photographerand mentor. The funds for the director come from the College of Engineeringoutreach and specific sessions such as the CAMSS nanotechnology programis funded by the specific research center. Once the Guilford
laboratories that are advancingunderstanding of this new field of science and engineering. The Pennsylvania NMT (Nanofabrication Manufacturing Technology) partnershipwas established in 1998 as a state government response to the nanotechnology workforceand research needs of industry. Its guiding principle, since its inception has been thesharing of the Penn State Nanofabrication Facility, a NSF National NanofabricationUsers Network (NNUN) site, with educational institutions across Pennsylvania. TheNMT Partnership has grown into a unique team effort involving over 30 institutions ofhigher education, secondary schools including vocational-technical schools, and privateindustry. The NMT Partnership has firmly established Pennsylvania as the
inthe current user interface and navigation components.The interactive drawing and response tool portion of the tutorial was presented separately toapproximately eighty students in an introductory engineering graphics course at PurdueUniversity. These students had some basic experience with multiview drawing and had completedseveral simple problems of this nature in course laboratory exercises. The students were asked tocomplete ten problems in the interactive drawing and response module and were asked tocomplete a short survey regarding the interactive tool. From these responses, the followingoverall opinions were noted: • The students consistently found the tool to be easy to use. • The error messages were not clear or were somewhat
outside speaker – an engineer from a racing team – discussed his duties andresponsibilities on an actual team, both in preparation for and during a race. He brieflytouched on tire pressure, recording, adjusting wing angles, ambient conditions and theireffects on the car.12. Develop an understanding of the role of the “factory” in the manufacture of the engine, chassis, tires, etc.No activity in initial course offering. We are seeking a guest lecturer for the next courseoffering.Dynamics ModuleIt is not possible to present details on from all the modules in this paper, so we will usethe vehicle dynamics module and the engine module, as representative examples.Approximately three weeks of lecture and four weeks in the laboratory were devoted
school year studying in state-of- the-art science,mathematics, computer laboratories and smart classrooms. The program goal is toenhance the participants' academic ability and interest in technology by providinghands-on opportunities to work on research projects with university faculty andmentors. We will also examine the influence of incorporation of Technology on bridging theDigital Divide and Computer Equity for groups under-represented in science,technology, engineering and mathematics. A review of the effects of technology on ourparticipants in their educational attainment at the secondary and post-secondary levelsis presented.2. Introduction The Center for Pre-College Programs at the New Jersey Institute of Technologyhouses an Upward
hands-on learning, and the success of the close tie between theory and applicationhas led us to consider introducing laboratory experiences in courses that have traditionally beenlecture-only courses. The just-in-time design principle led us to conceptualize the other threecourse design concepts.2.2 Attached Learning.Attached learning [6, 7, 9] is a course development principle which requires that instructorsopenly promise students that all course contents would not only be delivered just-in-time forapplication on their weekly laboratory projects, but will also help them be successful on anexciting, hands-on, industry-style design project. Thus, all course contents would be “attached”to something they will look forward to with high anticipation
usinganimation techniques to trace the progress of the pollutants or its remedies.There are many other suitable applications, in the fundamental sciences such as physicsand chemistry, and in applied areas such as oil exploration and protein crystallography.Use of this facility is also of obvious benefit in teaching computer technology.Collaborative applications also provide lessons in teamwork, leadership, andresponsibility in ways that conventional course delivery cannot. Perhaps such a facility’sgreatest advantage is in showcasing cross-disciplinary activities, where one may find, forexample, chemical, medical, and computer technologists working on different aspects ofthe same problem, with each gaining insight and respect for the work of the others.A
usinganimation techniques to trace the progress of the pollutants or its remedies.There are many other suitable applications, in the fundamental sciences such as physicsand chemistry, and in applied areas such as oil exploration and protein crystallography.Use of this facility is also of obvious benefit in teaching computer technology.Collaborative applications also provide lessons in teamwork, leadership, andresponsibility in ways that conventional course delivery cannot. Perhaps such a facility’sgreatest advantage is in showcasing cross-disciplinary activities, where one may find, forexample, chemical, medical, and computer technologists working on different aspects ofthe same problem, with each gaining insight and respect for the work of the others.A
this course rely heavily on basic mathematics and algorithms derived directly from thismathematics, but it also provides the student with the opportunity to develop programs withdirectly visible results. In addition, many of the algorithms can be compartmentalized, providinga weekly or bi-weekly division of laboratory time. A disadvantage of using computer graphics at this level is that the initial learning curveand overhead can be quite steep. It takes considerably more code for a program to read inputfrom a mouse or other pointing device and then use that to format and control graphical outputthan it does to work with simple scanf's and printf's. And while the results are often moresatisfying to the student since the programs now
Session 1566 Better Preparing Students for Basic Measurements Courses Mark Barker Louisiana Tech UniversityAbstractThis paper will examine the difference in performance between two groups of students enrolledin the junior- level Mechanical Engineering course Basic Measurements (MEEN 382). Thiscourse covers measurement theory and application in a lecture and laboratory format. Theprimary difference between these two student groups is their curriculum background, due to achange in the Mechanical Engineering
. Preliminary assessment results will begiven at the presentation of this paper.The module begins with the presentation of basic digital imaging methods and issues, using PChardware and web cameras available in the department electronics lab. As student proficiencygrows, they advance in teams to the High Tech Tools and Toys Laboratory, which supports fivededicated imaging stations. At each station, the students face a particular imaging problem, whichthey solve using a variety of hardware and software tools. Solutions are structured to make surethe students can be reasonably successful with their novice level of understanding. The ‘Toolsand Toys’ include different cameras, frame grabbers and digital channels, and imaging softwareranging from MATLAB to
established two research laboratories. He serves as the founding Direc- tor of the Evaluation and Proficiency Center (EPC) in CECS, and is an iSTEM Fellow. He received the Joseph M. Bidenbach Outstanding Engineering Educator Award from IEEE in 2008.Dr. Baiyun Chen, University of Central Florida Dr. Baiyun Chen is an Instructional Designer at the Center for Distributed Learning at the University of Central Florida. She designs and delivers faculty professional development programs and teaches graduate courses on Instructional Systems Design. Her research interests focus on using instructional strategies in online and blended teaching and learning, professional development for teaching online, and application of emerging
Paper ID #22025 University. Subsequently, he was a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Computer Science, also at Stanford University. He has been with the Department of Aerospace Engineering at Illinois since 2006, where he now serves as Associate Head for Undergraduate Programs. He holds an affiliate appointment in the Coordinated Science Laboratory, where he leads a research group that works on a diverse set of projects (http://bretl.csl.illinois.edu/). Dr. Bretl received the National Science Foundation Early Career Development Award in 2010. He has also received numerous awards for undergraduate teaching in the area of dynamics and control, including all three teaching awards given by the College of
the first course ofCalculus for engineering students, and it has been taught once a year since 2012. The goal for thecurricular project is to complete a sequence of three Fis-Mat courses corresponding to the firstthree courses of Physics and the three Calculus courses for engineering students. So far, we havegained experience in a) implementing Modeling Instruction as well as teaching from a Modelsand Modeling perspective, b) taking advantage of the classroom settings, c) tailoring theactivities to enhance active learning, d) using the technology and the laboratory equipment in anefficient and meaningful way, and e) designing activities that provide formative and summativeassessment to all (students, teachers, and researchers).The main goal
, critical thinking, constructing new knowledge based on these answers, and problemsolving.5, 6 Studies conducted with science students found that inquiry-based science activitieshave positive effects on students’ science achievement, cognitive development, laboratory skillsand understanding of science content as a whole when compared with more traditional teachingapproaches.7, 8 Students participatingin hands-on activities, performingtheir own science experiments learnmore than those who do not.9, 10 Ahands-on inquiry-based approach isparticularly appealing to studentswith disabilities (special education),teaching them to use kinestheticmodalities, verbal modalities,pictorial representations andcreativity.11 Other studies have shownthat students in
in curriculum reform, and has led an NSF supported effort to integrate Mathematica laboratory sessions into the freshman calculus sequence at Wright State University.Anant Kukreti, University of Cincinnati Anant R. Kukreti is Associate Dean for Engineering Education Research and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Cincinnati (UC). He is the lead investigator for the UC adoption of WSU's National Model for Engineering Mathematics Education. He teaches structural engineering, with research in experimental and finite element analysis of structures. He has received two Professorships, and won four University and two ASEE Teaching Awards.Brian Randolph, University
Paper ID #34559Computer Science and Computational Thinking Across the Early Elemen-taryCurriculum (Work in Progress)Dr. Kenneth Berry, Southern Methodist University Dr. Kenneth Berry is the Associate STEM Director at the Caruth Institute in the Lyle School of Engi- neering at Southern Methodist University (SMU). He has worked as an education specialist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory until he received his doctorate in Educational Technology in 2001. He then taught at the Michael D. Eisner School of Education at California State University at Northridge (CSUN). In 2009, he moved to Texas to work at the Science and
Com- puter Engineering the University of Denver where he was on the faculty from 1986 - 2019. He has received all of his degrees in Electrical Engineering: the B.S. degree from the University of Florida, Gainesville, in 1974; the M.S. degree from the University of New Mexico, in 1978; and the Ph.D. degree from the University of Colorado, Boulder in 1991. Dr. DeLyser, a member of the U.S. Air Force between 1965 and 1986, held a teaching position at the United States Air Force Academy, served as a development engineer at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory at Kirtland AFB in New Mexico and was the Requirements Officer for the Nellis AFB Ranges in Nevada. Prior to 2000, his research areas included pedagogy, outcomes
working with various faculty members and administrators at Gaston College to seek additional grant funding to repeat this project and extend this model to other subject areas.Phyllis EssexFraser, Gaston College Phyllis Essex-Fraser received an MSc in Zoology (Molecular Physiology) from the University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada in 2003. That same year, she began teaching in the Science Department at Gaston College. In addition to her teaching duties, she has developed core, transferable courses for Gaston College’s AAS in Biotechnology, participated in the development of the curriculum for a week-long workshop in Biotechnology for regional community college Faculty (2006
) based upon provenpedagogical methods. The two course sequence is named VECTOR (Vitalizing ElectromagneticConcepts To Obtain Relevancy) and adapts existing teaching techniques and laboratories toaddress three inter-related objectives: A) Create an undergraduate curriculum in electromagnetics which is relevant to students and shows the impact of this field on emerging knowledge and technologies. B) Employ modern tools, skills, and techniques to emphasize fundamental concepts rather than teach legacy materials emphasizing rote, analytical solutions. C) Create an effective introductory EM course which will pipeline students into the electromagnetics-photonics curriculum at OSU, including graduate programs.These goals, described in
Session 1426 Total Design Studio Massoud S. Tavakoli Kettering UniversityAbstractAt Kettering University (formerly GMI Engineering & Management Institute), three conditionsreduce the effectiveness of how the engineering design process is taught, especially in capstonedesign courses: 1) fragmented approach to teaching design, 2) short quarter system (11 weeks ofinstruction), and 3) alternating work and study terms required by, and essential to Kettering’scooperative education program. As a potential solution, with help from NSF and
Session 1647 New Issues for Administrative Action Warren R. Hill, Dean College of Applied Science and Technology Weber State University Ogden UT 84408-1801IntroductionThere are a number of important issues facing administrators in Engineering Technologyprograms today. Beyond the more obvious issues such as tenure, teaching loads, what constitutesresearch, faculty salaries and terminal degrees, there are a host of other critical issues, five ofwhich are discussed here. While one can come up with
courseofferings. Teaching independent study courses of six to eight students does not require thecourse material to be completely polished, and the students can be evaluated without spending alot of time grading written homework or exams. Furthermore, the students can be used todevelop projects and handouts that will later be used as hands-on laboratory exercises orclassroom demonstrations. At the same time, the students are getting the background necessaryfor them to be valuable to a research program.This paper presents the results of teaching an independent study course in mechatronics to agroup of six mechanical engineering students. The course included both undergraduate andgraduate students working in teams of two. The first ten weeks of the course
Effectiveness and Promoting Undergraduates' Innovation Experiment by CDIO Management", Research and exploration in laboratory, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 90-92, 2010[7] M. Zhou, "Chinese university students’ acceptance of MOOCs: A self-determination perspective. " Computers & Educations, vol. 92–93, pp. 194-203, 2016[8] C. M. Santos, R. A. Franco, D. Leon, D. B. Ovigli, and P. D. Colombo Junior, "Interdisciplinarity in Education: Overcoming Fragmentation in the Teaching-Learning Process." International Education Studies, vol. 10, no.10, pp. 71-77, 2017.