Paper ID #29649Faculty Development Mini-Modules on Evidence-Based Inclusive Teachingand Mentoring Practices in EngineeringDr. Sarah Ilkhanipour Rooney, University of Delaware Sarah I. Rooney is an Assistant Professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Delaware. She seeks to bring evidence-based teaching prac- tices to the undergraduate curriculum. She received her B.S.E. and M.S.E. in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) and her Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).Prof. Joshua A Enszer
Paper ID #30608Inclusion of Industry Professional Experts in biomedical engineeringdesign courses at-scaleCollin W Shale, Johns Hopkins University Collin Shale is a junior lecturer with the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Johns Hopkins Uni- versity. Collin received his bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering from Marquette University, and he received his master’s degree in bioengineering innovation and design from Johns Hopkins University, where he worked on projects relating to infection prevention for intravenous infusion and tuberculosis di- agnostics. Collin is an instructor for the capstone
Paper ID #30836From Cornerstone to Capstone: Students’ Design Thinking and ProblemSolvingKaylee A Dunnigan, NYU’s Tandon School of Engineering Kaylee Dunnigan is a fourth-year undergraduate student working towards her B.S. in Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at the NYU Tandon School of Engineering. They are the head of research and development for the Introduction to Engineering and Design at Tandon. In this position they de- velop semester long design projects for students, hands-on labs, as well as mentor students throughout these projects. They have worked previously at Sandia National Labs Advanced Materials Labs
Paper ID #31445What is care in Engineering teaching?Dr. Jorge A Baier, Pontificia Universidad Catholica de Chile He is an associate professor in the Computer Science Department and Associate Dean for Engineering Education at the Engineering School in Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile. Jorge holds a PhD in Computer Science from the University of Toronto in Canada and a Master’s Degree in Engineering Sciences from Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile. His research focuses on areas of automated rea- soning in Artificial Intelligence; specifically, automated planning, search and knowledge representation
Engineering Fundamentals Department at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. She teaches a MATLAB programming course to mostly first-year engineering students. She primarily investigates how students develop mathematical models and simulations and ef- fective feedback. She graduated from the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University with a doctorate in engineering education. She previous conducted research in Purdue University’s First- Year Engineering Program with the Network for Nanotechnology (NCN) Educational Research team, the Model-Eliciting Activities (MEAs) Educational Research team, and a few fellow STEM education graduates for an obtained Discovery, Engagement, and Learning (DEAL) grant. Prior to
Paper ID #29309Comparison of Job Market and Employer Interest in UndergraduateEngineering Students: An Exploratory AnalysisDr. Alexis Ortiz-Rosario, The Ohio State University Alexis Ortiz-Rosario is a assistant professor of practice in the department of biomedical engineering at The Ohio State University. He holds a B.S. in industrial engineering from the University of Puerto Rico Mayag¨uez, and a M.S. and PhD in biomedical engineering from The Ohio State University. His current position entails teaching measurements and instrumentation courses, leading micro and nano educational labs, as well as mentoring students in
Paper ID #28967Countering Threats to Licensure with ASCE’s Engineer Tomorrow InitiativeMr. Bradley Aldrich PE, American Society of Civil Engineers Bradley F. Aldrich, P.E., F.NSPE, F.ASCE is a Senior Associate and former President of Aldrich + Elliott, PC an environmental engineering firm and also serves as vice-chair of the Board of Professional Regula- tion for Engineers in Vermont. He earned his bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Vermont. Over his thirty-five year career, Mr. Aldrich has held project management and leadership positions with a national general contractor and several
Paper ID #29779Implementing Bluebeam Software in Architectural Engineering Design CoursesMichael James Deigert P.E., California Polytechnic State University, San Luis ObispoDr. Anahid Behrouzi, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Anahid Behrouzi is an assistant professor of architectural engineering at California Polytechnic State University - San Luis Obispo. She has been involved with STEM education beginning in 2003 as a volunteer and summer instructor with the North Carolina Museum of Life and Science. She has been engaged with undergraduate/graduate course delivery in the topic areas of engineering
Paper ID #29077Peer Mentoring for Women in STEMProf. Sin´ead C Mac Namara, Syracuse University Sin´ead Mac Namara is a structural engineer and Associate Professor teaching in both the School of Ar- chitecture and the College of Engineering of Syracuse University. She studied civil and structural en- gineering at Trinity College Dublin and Princeton University. Her research is concerned with structural art, shell structural design, alternate pedagogies for interdisciplinary education, and investigations to fos- ter creativity and innovation in engineering curricula. Mac Namara co-authored a book Collaboration in
”Reimagin- ing Energy: Exploring Inclusive Practices for Teaching Energy Concepts to Undergraduate Engineering Majors.” He has also co-developed a unique interdisciplinary course, Drones for Good, where engineer- ing students partner with peace studies students to design a quadcopter that will have a positive impact on society.Dr. Joel Alejandro Mejia, University of San Diego Dr. Joel Alejandro (Alex) Mejia is an assistant professor of Integrated Engineering at the University of San Diego. His current research investigates how the integration of the historically and culturally accumulated wealth of knowledge, skills, and practices - also known as funds of knowledge - and engineering design can serve as a pathway to
Paper ID #28658I graduated, now what?: An overview of the academic EngineeringEducation Research job field and search process.Dr. Erin J McCave, University of Houston Erin is an Instructional Assistant Professor in the Cullen College of Engineering at the University of Houston. She joined the University of Houston after completing a postdoctoral/lecturer position split between the General Engineering program and the Engineering & Science Education Department and a Ph.D. in Bioengineering from Clemson University. Erin’s research interests include preparing students for their sophomore year, minority student engineering
Paper ID #30452Accelerated Learning and Assessment in Engineering Mechanics: Designingan Interactive Tool to Support Students’ LearningDr. Nicole P. Pitterson, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University Nicole is an assistant professor in the Department of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech. Prior to joining VT, Dr. Pitterson was a postdoctoral scholar at Oregon State University. She holds a PhD in Engi- neering Education from Purdue University and other degrees in Manufacturing Engineering from Western Illinois University and a B.Sc. in Electrical and Electronic Engineering from the University of
teaching and advising awards including the UIC Award for Excellence in Teaching (2017), COE Excellence in Teaching Award (2008, 2014), UIC Teaching Recognitions Award (2011), and the COE Best Advisor Award (2009, 2010, 2013). Dr. Darabi has been the Technical Chair for the UIC Annual Engineering Expo for the past 7 years. The Annual Engineering Expo is a COE’s flagship event where all senior students showcase their Design projects and products. More than 700 participants from public, industry and academia attend this event annually. Dr. Darabi is an ABET IDEAL Scholar and has led the MIE Department ABET team in two successful accreditations (2008 and 2014) of Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Engineering
published in the Journal of Engineering Education in 2008, 2011, and 2019 and from the IEEE Transactions on Education in 2011 and 2015. Dr. Ohland is an ABET Program Evaluator for ASEE. He was the 2002–2006 President of Tau Beta Pi and is a Fellow of the ASEE, IEEE, and AAAS.Dr. Susan M Lord, University of San Diego Susan M. Lord received a B.S. from Cornell University in Materials Science and Electrical Engineering (EE) and the M.S. and Ph.D. in EE from Stanford University. She is currently Professor and Chair of Integrated Engineering at the University of San Diego. Her research focuses on the study and promotion of diversity in engineering including student pathways and inclusive teaching. She is Co-Director of the
interests include improving the representation of young women in engineering fields and the development of Generation Z students.Dr. Steven W. Beyerlein, University of Idaho Dr. Beyerlein has taught at the University of Idaho for the last 27 years. He is coordinator of the college of engineering inter-disciplinary capstone design course. He is also a co-PI on a DOE sponsored Industrial Assessment Center program in which several of the student authors have been involved. Dr. Beyerlein has been active in research projects involving engine testing, engine heat release modeling, design of curricula for active , design pedagogy, and assessment of professional skills.Mr. Dan Cordon, University of Idaho, Moscow Clinical faculty
you are doing in your science course? and Q15 –Have you received any extra help outside of class from your science instructor or graduateteaching assistant?The results are given in Tables 1 and 2. To calculate the mean surveyed science grades a 4, 3, 2,and 1 were assigned to A, B, C, and D or F, respectively. If a student answered not sure, thatresponse was not included in the calculation of the mean. The results indicate that in each of thethree years the mean surveyed science grade of the students who did not get help was slightlyhigher than the mean surveyed science grade of the students who got help. The spread, i.e.variances of the two groups were close. The only year in which the mean differences is verystatistically significant is 2019
). We received and documented consent for participation in the assessment study from857 students.Of these 857 students, a total of 767 students participated in the pre-data collection and 634participated in the post-data collection. For the AEV group, the average score for stress tolerancedecreased from 4.51 in the pre-survey to 4.35 in the post-survey (p75%; for Level I, success in last column is > 60%)Variable Level N Mean SD Min Max ≥ .8 (%)A02Investigate the market: use information B 125 0.764 0.383 0 1 64.00^ B 61.60
Committee (Protocol # 2017-2018-20). Parental consent to datacollection was obtained for each student prior to commencement of programming. All data wasanonymized by secondary school classroom educators prior to assessment to maintain studentconfidentiality. Students without parental consent to data collection were not accounted for instudent counts or metrics of performance, nor were they administered surveys. Students and instructorsDiscovery participants included university-preparatory biology, chemistry, and physics studentsfrom two schools in the school board (“School A”, N=77 students; “School B”, N=53 students).When quantified for SES factors, these schools scored in the second from bottom (“School A”)and top (“School B”) quintiles in
andprobability in team settings. Specifically, only one of the five prompts demonstrated significantlydifferent interpretations across the age and student status demographic. This finding, however,does not encapsulate the extreme levels of variation witnessed across demographic groups in thevarious prompts within this study, as noted in Appendix B and C. The variation suggests thatambiguous terminology elicits extremely different interpretations in both collegiate andprofessional settings; however, interpretation cannot be predicted based on demographics.As a result, educators must take measures to teach students about ambiguous terminology andhow teammates can perceive both time and probability based vague language completelydifferent from one another
students over what theylearn and how, while also decreasing time spent on higher quality evaluation. Specifications grading, an evolution of contract grading [1], is a novel grading approachintroduced by Nilson [2] designed to help motivate students to focus on learning rather thanfeeling the need to obsessively count points. In a specifications grading approach, facultyprovide clear specifications of what is required to earn a given grade in the class. Rather thanbasing grades on point totals or a weighting system, students are given the option to completespecific assignments or bundles of assignments that link to a specified grade. Each assignment isgraded on a pass/fail basis where passing is typically defined as B or B+ level work
instructions.MethodsResearch QuestionsThis research is guided by the following research questions: 1. Does performing origami-based tasks and/or orthographic projections-based tasks positively impact spatial perception, mental rotation, and/or spatial visualization abilities? If so: • What proportion of origami/CAD activities generates the greatest increase in PSVT scores? • What proportion of origami/CAD activities provides a quicker increase in PSVT scores? 2. Does the level of previous experience in origami/CAD impact PSVT scores?Workshop DesignFour 12-week workshops utilizing origami and/or CAD exercises were developed. Workshop Aconsisted of four origami modules followed by eight CAD modules; workshop B is the reverse
in Appendix B. As statedpreviously, a rotating facilitator model is expected to be helpful for institutions with large enrollments. Itis important to note that the current semester enrollment in the course (including BME major, BMEminor, and non-minor students) is approximately 100. However, with the anticipated growth of the newBME major program, the enrollment is anticipated to increase to approximately 300 students peracademic year. By examining our preliminary smaller cohorts, we will consider this model to besuccessful if both students and facilitators perceive the rotating facilitators as beneficial towards studentskill development and an overall positive experience and manageable demands on facilitators.References:1. Newstetter
features can be chosen as datums. After Step 4 is done, fourdatums are built. As shown in Figure 5, Datum A is the right surface in the part’s side view;Datums B and C are the bottom surface and the left surface of the part in its left view; Datum Dis the center axis of the large hole. Figure 5. Datum establishmentAfter the datums are set up, Step 5 of the algorithm implements the second layer of the model byidentifying and locating the features from the datums. This process applies to the datum featuresor other features that must be controlled by feature control frames. Basic dimensions withreference to the established datums are used to locate these features. The algorithm prompts eachrepresentative feature to
models had magnified displacements toallow students to easily visualize the deformation. While magnifying the displacements makesthe models less “real”, it helps students to understand how deformation occurs in the object,similar to the method of using physical foam models. A sample view of an AR model from thecourse being viewed on a computer and in AR is shown in Figure 1a and b, respectively. Therewere minimal technical challenges when using the Sketchfab application in class. One suchchallenge was that students with older cell phones, approximately 5 students out of over 100,were unable to use the AR feature (Figure 1b). However, these students were still able to viewand rotate the model on their cell phones using the online viewer in the
(FEM)simulation images are shown in Figure 1. The simulations evaluate displacement, where blue regionsare those that do not experience displacement and red regions (and regions transitioning to red) arethose that experience greater displacement. Besides fabricating fully working devices, anotherobjective was to observe and record the output of the actuators. 25um (a) (b) (c) 2mm Cold Arm Hot Arm 400um (Flexure arm) Figure 1: The electro-thermal actuator (a) design, (b) FEM
differences between experimentand theory. A full description of the activity is provided in Appendix A. Figure 2. Activity #2, Particle equilibrium (a) experimental setup and (b) schematic.Activity #3 (in classroom, Week 5): Moments – Student completed four problems designed toreinforce the concept of a moment caused by a force, as well as moment magnitude anddirection, in both two and three dimensions.Activity #4 (in conference room, Week 7): Rigid Body Equilibrium Analysis– Studentsperformed a theoretical equilibrium analysis of a horizontal bar that supports a mass, and issupported by a pin and a cable. The problem was supplemented with an online simulation [34]. Afull description of the activity is provided in Appendix B.Activity #5 (in
concepts in the study of free vibrationresponses. A spring-mass-damper vibrating system with a single DOF is built in ANSYS.Under the initial displacement and velocity applied, the free responses are plotted in Figure 1.Figure 1(a) shows the response with damping effect ignored. It is obvious that the harmonicvibration amplitude remains unchanged with time, which is one characteristic of undamped freevibration. Damping is introduced to the system for investigating the damping effect on vibrationresponses. Figure 1(b) shows the underdamped response in which the damping ratio is less than1. The vibration amplitude, instead of remaining as a constant, decreases exponentially with − ttime because of the factor e n in its
deliverables spread over one semester: 1. Concept map exploring connections between energy and (a.) poverty, (b.) food production, processing, and distribution, and (c.) the environment (group assignment, each group picks one of the options) 2. Preliminary documentation of clients’ needs, characteristics, and perspectives. Includes discussion board participation, interview results, on-line and in-person research (individual assignment) 3. Preliminary decision matrix memo documenting 6 different user perspectives (group assignment) 4. Jigsaw assignment where team representatives investigate different cooling technologies and report back to their teams, (e.g., Refrigeration vapor-compression system, Evaporative
inphysics. The AAPS survey asks students to indicate their level of agreement with each surveyitem on a 5-level scale: A) Strongly Agree B) Agree Somewhat C) Neutral or Don’t Know D) Disagree Somewhat E) Strongly DisagreeThe mechanics part of physics is highly similar to Engineering Dynamics. For the reader’sconvenience, three example items included in the AAPS Survey [10] are shown below: Survey item No. 16: When answering conceptual physics questions, I mostly use my “gut” feeling rather than using the physics principles I usually think about when solving quantitative problems. Survey item No. 17: I am equally likely to draw pictures and/or diagrams when answering a multiple-choice question or a corresponding free
: A3 A4 P 2000 a b D A1 A2 G A9 G xCHF h fg " qCHF A7 A8 P 2000 (8) A5 A6 G The FD factor ( FD at L ), which is evaluated at each axial location L in the pipe, accountsfor the nonuniform behavior of the APS and is as follows4: KD C L