Paper ID #24997Exploring Faculty Perceptions of Students Characteristics at Hispanic Serv-ing InstitutionsDr. Meagan R. Kendall, University of Texas, El Paso An Assistant Professor at The University of Texas at El Paso, Dr. Meagan R. Kendall is helping develop a new Engineering Leadership Program to enable students to bridge the gap between traditional engineer- ing education and what they will really experience in industry. With a background in both engineering education and design thinking, her research focuses on how Latinx students develop an identity as an engineer, methods for enhancing student motivation, and
design thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, and communication skills (visual,written, and oral) that are necessary for success in engineering and computer science disciplines.The Common Threads: Course ThemesThe design of an introductory engineering course – broadly defined as a course thatencompasses multiple majors, acclimates new students to a university learning environment, andintroduces them to the broader field of engineering –has been explored at many institutions. Suchcourses have been designed with specific outcomes in mind, such as improving student skills inengineering problem solving and teamwork [1], integrating real-world engineering challengesinto the curriculum [2], and community building [3][4]. In many cases, multiple
students with funding for four semesters as theywork toward a Master’s Degree in their chosen major. With this opportunity in mind, theCollege of Engineering Dean’s Office and the four department Chairpersons formed a committeeto develop a summer training program that prepares the Teaching Fellows for the classroomexperience. The program has four stages: 1) Orientation, 2) Instruction, 3) ClassroomImmersion, and 4) Individual Practice. In this paper each stage is described in detail. Thisintensive training program with its novel use of classroom experience in summer programs hasprovided the Teaching Fellows the opportunity to gain the confidence and skills to succeed intheir Fellowship requirements. A full description of the program and assessment
in physics, some critical questions are raised. (1) What factors serve tomotivate students to participate in on-line discussions outside of class? (2) Can studentmotivation and performance be linked to students’ individual learning styles? (3) Can studentparticipation in on-line discussions be linked to enhanced understanding? To address thesequestions, formal learning style assessment data along with results from a survey conducted in anintroductory course for non-majors during the 2000 academic year will be shared.I. IntroductionA growing number of technology-based educational tools currently exist within the domains ofscience, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET) education. In addition, the use ofeducational technologies is
displacement of Bedouins. Ari’s international community service to Palestinian rights align with international law and the Geneva Convention.Christine Reiser Robbins, Texas A&M University, KingsvilleDr. Hua Li, Texas A&M University, Kingsville Dr. Hua Li, a Professor in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at Texas A&M University-Kingsville, is interested in sustainable manufacturing, renewable energy, sustainability assessment, and engineering education. Dr. Li has served as P.I. and Co-P.I. in various grants funded by NSF, NASA, DoEd, DHS, etc.Jianhong Ren, Texas A&M University, KingsvilleDr. David Ramirez, Texas A&M University, Kingsville Dr. David Ramirez is a tenured Associate Professor of the Department
Session 2330 Reflective Journals: An Assessment of a Vertically Integrated Design Team Project Francis S. Broadway Department of Curricular and Instructional Studies Edward A. Evans, H. Michael Cheung, Helen K. Qammar Department of Chemical Engineering Rex D. Ramsier Departments of Physics, Chemistry, and Chemical Engineering The University of Akron Akron, Ohio 44325Abstract: The use of affective/associative reflective journals and skill
, creating mind maps, and reflection writing. Finally, whole-class orextensive metacognitive teaching methods include student-developed tests or grading rubrics,self-assessment of assignment, and creating concept maps. Further study of the search resultsreveals that many metacognitive teaching methods have been the subject of scholarly study,including, for example, rubrics22, self-assessment23, student-written exam24 and concept map25.These studies all demonstrate positive outcomes for student learning, attitude, or both. Given the overwhelming evidence of effectiveness, the question is why are metacognitiveteaching methods not widely adopted in science and engineering disciplines? Given this nation’sneed for more and better trained engineers
Engineering students see their signals (voltages and current functions oftime) on oscilloscopes. Civil and mechanical engineering students visualize in their minds,loading, shear and moment diagrams in order to predict deflections. Freebody diagrams areessential to the solution of statics problems. It is wrong to deny engineering students theadvantages of visualizing math functions in their math courses. But the Dirichlet function andthe other “monstrous” functions that scared the 19th century mathematicians cannot bevisualized. Limit the first course in calculus to the piece-wise continuous and monotonicfunctions that the engineering students need and are able to visualize. Let us concede it isunsound to teach everything all at once and let these
Paper ID #37248Exploring Transformative Learning from a Summer Bridge ProgramMs. Sukeerti Shandliya, University of Cincinnati Sukeerti Shandliya is a doctoral student in Engineering and Computing Education and a GRA in the De- partment of Engineering and Computing Education at the University of Cincinnati. Her research interests include engineering workforce development, DEI in STEM, experiential learning, development of global competencies and cultural competencies in higher education and the workforce. She has completed her bachelor’s in Electronics and Communications Engineering from Banasthali University, India
Program Evaluation Aligned With the CDIO Standards Doris R. Brodeur and Edward F. Crawley Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyAbstractThe CDIO Initiative is a collaboration of engineering programs at universities in morethan eight countries in North America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia.Collaborators have developed a set of twelve standards that characterize CDIO programsand provide the basis for program evaluation. This standards-based program evaluationextends the evaluative criteria of ABET's EC2000 and other outcomes-based approaches.Evidence of overall program value is collected from multiple sources, using bothquantitative and qualitative methods. Evidence and results
than to imagine what could be. This focus reminds us of learning geometryas a method of proving what one already ‘knew’ (such as the sum of two sides of a triangle islarger than the third side) rather than constructing new knowledge. We see visual communicationas being an important way to explain to others a vision in one’s mind which may not yet exist. Given these observations, we recommend that engineering educators consider expandingtheir use and teaching of visual communication to include representing processes, using physicalmanipulables alongside graphics, and discovering new knowledge. In addition, we encouragethose who do research to consider additional ways of observing, measuring, and evaluatingstudents’ development of various
Paper ID #22470Creating a Concept Inventory - Lessons LearnedDr. Nancy E. Study, Pennsylvania State University, Erie (Behrend College) Dr. Nancy E. Study is on the faculty of the School of Engineering at Penn State Behrend where she teaches courses in engineering graphics and rapid prototyping, and is the coordinator of the rapid prototyping lab. Her research interests include visualization, standardization of CAD practices, and haptics. Nancy is a former chair of the ASEE Engineering Design Graphics Division and is currently the Circulation Manager and Treasurer of the Engineering Design Graphics Journal. She received
Paper ID #11971Adaptive Expertise and its Manifestation in CAD Modeling: A Comparisonof Practitioners and StudentsMrs. Elif OzturkDr. Bugrahan Yalvac, Texas A&M University Bugrahan Yalvac is an associate professor of science and engineering education in the Department of Teaching, Learning, and Culture at Texas A&M University, College Station. He received his Ph.D. in science education at the Pennsylvania State University in 2005. Prior to his current position, he worked as a learning scientist for the VaNTH Engineering Research Center at Northwestern University for three years. Yalvac’s research is in STEM
Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, Session 10806[11] A. Guerra, R. Ulseth, and A. Kolmos, PBL in Engineering Education: International Perspectives on Curriculum Change, Sense Publishers, Springer, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, 2017.[12] J. E. Mills and D. F. Treagust, “Engineering Education – Is Problem-Based or Project-Based Learning the Answer,” Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, The Australasian Association for Engineering Education, Inc., pp. 2 – 16, 2003.[13] L.S. Vigotsky, Thought and language, Cambridge, MA: M.I.T Press, 1962.[14] L.S. Vigotsky, Mind in society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.[15] A. Kozulin, “Vygotsky’s theory in the
Paper ID #6407Making the Most of Site VisitsLindsey Anne Nelson, Purdue University, West Lafayette Lindsey Nelson is a Ph.D. student in Engineering Education at Purdue University. Her work centers upon helping engineering students connect meaningfully with global problems. She received her B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Boston University and her M.A. in Poverty and Development from the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. Her research interests include engineering design for poverty alleviation, sustainable design, the public’s understanding of engineering, poverty mit- igation, student
Session 1648 Problem-Based Learning and Interdisciplinary Instruction James C. Wood, Ph.D., Lynn G. Mack Tri-County Technical College/Piedmont Technical CollegeAbstractThis paper describes the development and implementation of a problem-based learning approachfor interdisciplinary instruction in introductory courses for engineering technology majors.Required general education courses in mathematics, physics, and communication have beenintegrated with introductory engineering technology courses. This project was undertaken toimprove the retention of students in engineering technology curricula and
Session XXXX Board Notes and Questioning: Two Time-Tested Techniques for Effective Teaching Allen C. Estes, Ronald W. Welch, Fred Meyer United States Military AcademyAbstractThe ExCEEd (Excellence in Civil Engineering Education) Teaching Workshop is celebrating itsseventh anniversary this year. So far, 171 schools have participated and this long runningAmerican Society of Civil Engineering program has produced 307 graduates. Last year, theUnited Engineering Foundation provided funding to expand the program to include electrical,chemical, and mechanical engineers
. Trick (1996). “Mallard ™: Asynchronous Learning In Two Engineering Courses,” Frontiers in Education Conference, 1996. pp. 1023 - 1026 vol.3.13. NEEDS Digital Library for Electrical Engineering, http://www.needs.org14. MERLOT (Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching), http://www.merlot.org15. M. Suzanne Donovan, John D. Bransford, and James W. Pellegrino, eds. (1999). How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.16. Bransford , John D., Ann Brown, and Rodney R. Cocking, eds. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.17. Atkinson, R. (2003). “Transitioning From Studying Examples to Solving
, irreversible, andintegrative. By troublesome, they mean the concept or capability is difficult for students to learn;for example, it may be conceptually complex. By transformative, they mean it changes the waythe student views the discipline and knowledge of the subject. By irreversible, they mean oncethe student “sees” this new view, she/he will not revert to a more naïve perspective that she/hepreviously had. Finally, by integrative, they mean it allows the student to see connectionsbetween elements that were previously disjointed.Development of curriculum based on the identification of threshold concepts has recently beenenacted in engineering.3 However, in addressing threshold concepts, we must be mindful thatmany approaches to instruction do not
used to describe, make sense of, explain, or make predictions about asystem.Reality: the problem must be set in a realistic, authentic engineering context that requires thedevelopment of a mathematical model for solution. In a well-designed MEA students mustresolve a complex scenario by extending their knowledge of and experience with concepts andmodels. Realistic assumptions should be used by the students to assess the quality of theirsolutions. The MEA must create the need in the minds of the students for problem resolution,ideally making them behave like professional engineers.Generalizability: students must create models that are sharable, transferable, easily modifiable,and/or reusable in similar situations. The model must be generally
significant problems have arisen. Companies have spentmillions of human activity hours, have required a lot of resources and have created products withno value at all. Managers have made a countless number of costly mistakes which may haverequired rectification. Factories have had a great deal of products that were neither needed norappreciated by the customer and this situation has resulted in overstock of inventories. All theseproblems can be summarized in one word: Waste, what the Japanese manufacturers refer to as“muda.” For many years, there were several attempts to decrease this “muda.” The mostsignificant among these techniques are “lean thinking.” With lean thinking, demand is anticipated and it is the engine that moves the
Paper ID #39713Board 112: Creating an Institutional Culture of Empowering Faculty forStudent-centered Learning through a Pilot ProgramDr. Sally J. Pardue, Tennessee Technological University Sally Pardue, Ph.D., is an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Tennessee Tech University, and former director (2009 - 2018) of the Oakley Center for Excellence in the Teaching of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.Dr. Kumar Yelamarthi, Tennessee Technological University Kumar Yelamarthi received his Ph.D. and M.S degree from Wright State University in 2008 and 2004, and B.E. from University of Madras
nature resources over the long term.By doing this ideally, we should get rid of the single minded pursuit of profits in the short termand make the right decisions. But how these can be done in reality is difficult, because we can’talways give a straight answer priori for a specific eco-engineering project. Rather, the answersonly come from the planning, design, and engineering process. By which each agent of theprofessional discipline will negotiate in project with each others.Intertwining Generalist Pedagogy into Participatory PlanningLet’s retrospect the situation we face right now. As a planner, designer or engineer, how can wefind the actual position or correct orientation in the triangle and deal with the conflict by differentdimensions
Session umber 8-3 Establishing Multiple Assessment Methods for Accreditation ripendra Sarker and Cajetan M Akujuobi Department of Engineering Technology Prairie View A&M University Prairie View, TX 77446 AbstractProgram Outcome (Criterion 3) is one of the eight Criteria used by the Accreditation Board forEngineering and Technology (ABET) in assessing the quality of a program. The objective of thiscriterion is to assess the professional attainment of graduates over several years
Paper ID #18653Using a Techno-Economic Model to Promote Consideration of Uncertainty inBioengineering DesignXuwen Xiang, Oregon State University Xuwen is currently a doctoral candidate in Chemical Engineering at Oregon State University. He currently has research focused on techno-economic analysis of glucosamine and lipid from algae.Prof. James D. Sweeney, Oregon State University James D. Sweeney is Professor and Head of the School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental En- gineering at Oregon State University. He received his Ph.D. and M.S. degrees in Biomedical Engineering from Case Western Reserve University in 1988
onsmart materials is to focus on the following aspects of teaching and learning: Page 9.1101.2 “Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2004, American Society for Engineering" Teaching • Nurture curiosity, creativity, critical thinking and enterprise. • Remain relevant to the demands of a rapidly transforming society. Learning • Merge academic rigor with the thrill of discovery. • Stimulate minds and encourage cross-disciplinary discourse.The success of this
performance can be immediate; students canwork through entire problems instead of small analytical pieces, since the technology reducestime to “crunch numbers”; and finally, students can get a better conceptual understanding asmore information is available and since modeling in a software package can be modified quicklyto conduct a sensitivity analysis for example. 3 With this in mind, computers were selectively integrated into two lessons of anintroductory mechanical engineering design course in order to facilitate the teaching of QualityFunction Deployment (QFD) methods using QFD Designer v.4 software from Qualisoft. 4 In theopinion of the instructors, the use of QFD software adds value to the teaching of the QFDmethod by providing a
is not enough today.What is continuous improvement? Despite many complete books written on the topic, mostfaculty and administrators remain unsure. In an article in Quality Digest, Danny Langdon4states, “Continuous (Process) Improvement is designed to utilize the resources of the Page 6.271.2 Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2001, American Society for Engineering Educationorganization to achieve a quality-driven culture. Individuals must think, act, and speak quality.An organization attempts to reach a single-minded link between
AC 2010-2428: LEARNING BARRIERS IN SERVICE COURSES - AMIXED-METHODS STUDYQaiser Malik, Michigan State UniversityPunya Mishra, MSUMichael Shanblatt, MSU Page 15.833.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2010 Learning Barriers in Service Courses: A Mixed- Methods StudyAbstractThis paper reports the results of a longitudinal study conducted on a service course offered tonon-electrical engineering majors at a large Midwestern university. The study focused onunderstanding the reasons why students perform relatively low in service courses. The mixedmethod approach was used to measure the performance in two different ways and
UniversityProcess Control School of Chemical Engineering and BioengineeringFall, 2004 Richard L. Zollars Semester Tuning ProjectOver the latter portion of the semester you are going to be asked to tune a controller tomeet certain specifications for a heat exchanger that is located in Chattanooga, TN. Theschematic for this system is shown below. To assist you you will be given a contact for another engineering student at theUniversity of Tennessee, Chattanooga. That person will conduct the tests you requestaccording to your instructions.The first task is to determine the dynamics for this system. Keep in mind that the systemmay be idle when the