design, open-ended problem solving, laboratory work, etc. As the learning styles ofstudents can vary considerably [1-7], achieving this goal can be very challenging even whenother variables which impact student learning are taken into account. Various teaching methodssuch as case studies, projects based learning, contexts based learning, computer based learning,etc, address the learning styles of different student populations [2], [8-11]. In this paper, weconcentrate on student populations who favor “learning by doing” [3], [6]. We will use the term“learning by doing” to refer to the approach of learning by solving many individual problems orthrough practice as opposed to studying the theory with which the problems are solved.The instructor of a
approach helps improve students’ academicperformance. Some course-projects are selected for presenting in a university-wide research andscholarly projects symposium. Feedbacks from the student perception of teaching effectiveness(SPTE) and ABET evaluations show that the student-centered project-oriented approach ispromising to increase the learning experience in STEM education.Keywords: Hands-on experience; learner-centered education; microprocessor based systems;STEM education; team-project;IntroductionIn STEM education, important goals include generating skilled workforce to fulfil the industryrequirements and preparing researchers to deal with the future challenges. There are variousissues that to be addressed for success in STEM education at
Paper ID #33070A University-designed Middle School Remote Summer Engineering AcademyMrs. Zahraa Krayem Stuart, Stony Brook University Zahraa Krayem Stuart received Bachelor of Engineering in Electrical Engineering from Stony Brook University in 2016. In 2017, she joined the PhD program in Electrical Engineering Statistical Signal Processing. Zahraa designs, develops, and instructs engineering teaching laboratories for both high school and middle school students since 2016.Dr. Monica Bugallo, Stony Brook University M´onica F. Bugallo is the Vice Provost of Faculty Affairs and Diversity, Equity & Inclusion and Professor
: contemporary issues of engineering education in general, and those of the Middle East and the Arab Gulf States in particular. Page 11.308.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2006 Case Studies in Geotechnical/Foundation Engineering: Engaging Students and Bringing the Practice into the ClassroomIntroductionLecturing or “teaching by telling” is the traditional and the most widely used form of instructionin most engineering institutions. The major drawback of the lecture approach is that it usuallyresults in long periods of uninterrupted instructor-centered, expository discourse, relegatingstudents to the role
. For this study, the case was the CSCE instrument with each facultymember serving as an individual unit of analysis. The courses taught by the faculty participantsranged from small (46 students) to large (over 200 students). The course structures were alsodifferent and included lectures, laboratories, workshops, and recitations (mandatory groupproblem solving sessions). In addition, the range of experience between faculty membersencompassed first time instructors to others with over five years of teaching at the same institution.Description of caseThe CSCE instrument consists of two major sections. Section one is split into two main categories,in-class and out-of-class activities. In category one, students are expected to answer
worked as a de- sign engineer, as a Visiting Professor at Los Alamos National Laboratory, as a Professor at the University of Arkansas and the University of Utah, and as the Chief Water Consultant of an international engineer- ing and sustainability consulting firm he co-founded. He served as the first co-Director of Sustainability Curriculum Development at the University of Utah where he created pan-campus degree programs and stimulated infusion of sustainability principles and practices in teaching and learning activities across campus. Dr. Burian currently is the Project Director of the USAID-funded U.S.-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Water at the University of Utah. He also serves as the Associate
area greater predictor of STEM degree attainment than SAT or ACT scores [1]. Additionally, theNational Council of Teachers of Mathematics names spatial skills as a necessary skill to develop,yet the curricula in K-12 education often does not explicitly teach these skills [2]. Currently, alarge Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) is underway to do just that – explicitly teach spatialskills. As part of the RCT, we examined the implementation process from the teachers’ point-of-view. Specifically, this paper analyzes teachers’ concerns when they implemented the spatial skillscurriculum in grade 7 science and mathematics classrooms. The spatial curriculum consists of 9 modules with each module containing a short lecture,a video demonstration
crucial for them to quicklydevelop their scholarship foci, and research plans to allow them to achieve tenure.A successful tenure program requires a balance of teaching, scholarship, and service; however,developing a robust research and scholarship agenda while trying to maintain the excellence inteaching and a broad service agenda is a challenge. In addition, teaching-oriented colleges oftenlack research laboratories, have a very limited number of graduate students, and offer little or nostartup funds to new faculty. Because of economic constraints, both administrators and facultyare being asked to do more with less support [6]. Simply put, the “action figure” portrait oftoday’s engineering/engineering technology professor[7], who has to do it
knowledge of the field and also investconsiderable effort and resources in updating their technical curricula and laboratories toaccommodate these new developments in their field. Therefore instructional design in thisenvironment needs to respond to this continually changing technical landscape. Page 15.1109.1On the other hand, faculty tenure and promotion decisions in computing disciplines arefrequently based on successful research and peer-reviewed publication. Upgrading curricula isseldom well recognized and rewarded for faculty in higher education academic environments.Thus, updating of curricula places additional stress on busy faculty members
theseconcepts in a deductive manner.Some courses in chemical engineering, such as process dynamics and control and processoptimization, are computer intensive and can benefit from dynamic process simulators andother software packages. Henson and Zhang (2000)6 present an example problem whereHYSYS.Plant, a commercial dynamic simulator, is utilized in the process control course. Theprocess features the production of ethylene glycol in a CSTR and the purification of theproduct trough distillation. The authors utilize this simple process to illustrate concepts suchas feedback control and open-loop dynamics. Clough (2000)7 presents a good overview of theusage of dynamic simulation in teaching plantwide control strategies.A potential pedagogical drawback to
educationinfrastructure components such as laboratories, instructional materials, and teaching facilitieswould need to be developed and installed.Yet, there are an estimated 30,000 Technology Education teachers across the U.S. who providekey components of the infrastructure needed to implement engineering education in K-12education. These components include: time in the school curriculum; physical facilities that lendthemselves well to engineering design-based instructional activities; technical expertise; and asthis study indicates, a substantial and increasing desire to implement more engineering,mathematics, and science content and methods in their programs. It’s a scenario of opportunityand challenge. Despite the contributions Technology Educators have been
effectiveness of this approach versus traditionallecturing. Problems and challenges that could arise when offering the course for the first time arealso addressed. Embedded in this experience and its related protocols are the emphases onengineering design and the practice, teamwork and leadership development, organizationalmanagement, and oral and written communication skills. The paper concludes by confirming thatdiscussions, through an open forum, are judged to be superior to traditional lectures in improvingcritical thinking, cultivating desirable personal attributes, and acquiring problem-solving skills.IntroductionLecturing or “teaching by telling” is the traditional and the most widely used form of instructionin most engineering institutions. The
THESIS MATHEMATICS CONTEXT – Industrial Experience Figure 1 – Representation of Aero-Astro Program in Aircraft Systems EngineeringThe System Design and Management (SDM) program is designed to educate technicallygrounded leaders for enterprises concerned with complex products and systems. The degreetherefore requires and builds upon strong disciplinary backgrounds with the curriculum stressingfundamentals through the teaching of relevant concepts and tools. The overall program, as Page 10.143.3represented in Figure 2, builds upon a curriculum that combines technical
and experimentation: Unfortunately, the advent of the computer and itsimpact on teaching engineering has made it easy to produce computer-based models at theexpense of physical models. This fact is behind a general trend of teaching applied engineeringsubjects with minimal students’ involvement with physical set-ups including laboratoryexperiments. Carrying out laboratory experiments and generating experimental data, visiting aproject site, and using pencil and paper to produce a schematic, are gradually fading away. Thesetraditional tools were instrumental in developing an engineering common sense. It is argued herethat generating data from physical models is potentially a great learning tool, particularly whenthe model is built by the
Page 13.617.3and discussions of best practices for in-class implementation. As part of the grant, participantswere given laboratory equipment and software for use in their classrooms, providing continuityand motivation to implement these activities in their schools.DECS workshop participants were also given a memory stick containing curricular materials andsupport documentation for the lab experiments. They were encouraged to register on theElectronics in Schools Strategy (EISS) website3. This website provides teachers with access to adedicated training resource and in-depth support material, designed to help promote, teach andsupport Electronics, Communications and Technology (ECT) within school curricula.II PedagogyWorkshops were developed
Enterprise Integration Technologies (EIT). To successfully transfer RASSP technology, the RASSP E&F effort must teach engineers and scientistshow to use the RASSP top-down design concepts and give managers an appreciation for the potential payoff of Page 1.27.5 1996 ASEE Annual Conference ProceedingsRASSP technology, thereby simultaneously creating a technology push and technology pull. To accomplishthis goal, the RASSP E&F team has adopted a multi-faceted approach. This approach is designed to help pushand pull individuals and organizations through the five step technology transfer
is a Fellow of the ASME.Dr. James I. Craig, Georgia Institute of Technology Prof. Craig has been on the faculty at Georgia Tech for more than fifty years and continues to teach as an emeritus professor and to develop classroom engagement methods and tools. His past research is in the general area of experimental structural mechanics, dynamics and structural control with applications to aerospace and earthquake engineering. He is coauthor of a textbook on structural analysis with application to aerospace structures.Dr. Bonnie H. Ferri, Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Bonnie Ferri is a Professor in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Georgia Tech and a Vice Provost. She performs research in
autonomy in each course. The robots developed in each course progress from tele-operation to line-following to total autonomy. • Tight integration of lecture material with laboratory assignments [11]. • Community-building. Many activities serve to build a sense of community amongst Robotics Engineering Figure 2. Robotics laboratory late at night before a term majors. These include Meet-and- project is due. Greet events early in the school year, the establishment of an honor society and Women in Robotics Engineering student groups, and the shared Robotics Teaching Lab open 24/7. The Robotics Teaching Lab, shared across all five core courses, also
college of engineering.Roberta Harvey, Rowan University Roberta Harvey is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Writing Arts at Rowan University. She has been part of the faculty team that teaches Sophomore Clinic I since 1998 and played a key role in the development of the integrated design and communication pedagogy of the course. In addition to engineering communication, her areas of interest and expertise include interdisciplinary learning, collaborative learning and teamwork, meta-cognitive learning, information literacy, and student learning outcomes assessment.Paris von Lockette, Rowan University Paris von Locketter is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Rowan
programas possible. Therefore, we teach the required Capstone Design and Senior project courses with amix of ME and MET students. Prior to creating the ME program, we taught these courses to amixture of MET, Applied Technology, and Manufacturing option students where the emphasiswas given to product development and completion of a small production run. With thedevelopment of the new ME program, we decided to teach these classes with a combination ofME and MET students and take advantage of the strong research and development approach. Wedesigned the stronger R&D approach to expose the MET students to applications of the theoriestaught to the ME students. On the other hand, we expose the ME students to the hands-on shopskills involved in
somethingdifferent about the engineering experience for female and male students.The gap in high school preparation in math and science between males and females is closing,but despite similar coursework, female students still lag significantly behind males inengineering. Margolis and Fisher (2002) speculate that the pre-college “tinkering” that is socommon amongst male pre-engineering students leads to a greater comfort level in collegecourses. Many female students do not have this “tinkering” experience, and develop a drop inself confidence in laboratory classes. According to McIlwee and Robinson (1992), by not sharingthe “culture of the tinkerer” the female students are placed at a disadvantage, and this furtherundermines their confidence in their
andfuture workforce needs. As input, we will train students from diverse backgrounds, i.e., thosestraight from high school, community college, and those enrolled in a four-year program. Inparticular, this program is intended to serve non-traditional students such as veterans, thoseseeking retraining, and those who have attempted but never completed a post-secondary degree.Through our training, students will acquire useful, hands-on skills necessary for thebiomanufacturing industry. Based on interviews with industry partners, we identified that themajor area of need is in process control and engineering of downstream bioproduct separation.The principal aims of this work are summarized as: 1. Establish a biomanufacturing process teaching laboratory
curriculum to its current state. This will befollowed by a brief discussion of future improvements in Section 5, and concluding remarks andin Section 6.2. Course Content Undergraduate mechatronics education at the University of Utah is provided by a two-semester course sequence at the third year of the Mechanical Engineering program. The course isa fundamental component of the Mechanical Engineering design experience. Subject materialincludes mechanisms, sensors and actuators, micro-controllers, systems modeling, and feedbackcontrol. As typical of undergraduate curricula, lecture and homework assignments are used tobuild an understanding of fundamentals that are then reinforced by laboratory experiments andfinally practiced in a course
institution’s engineeringcurriculum. It provided students with many unique learning experiences due to the generalunavailability and novelty of courses of this nature, especially when offered as an elective coursewithin a Mechanical Engineering degree instead of being exclusive to students studying degreesin microfabrication. At the conclusion of the semester, students taking this course were providedwith an opportunity to evaluate the course in both the lecture and laboratory portions of the class.Twenty of twenty-three students enrolled in the course participated in the survey, yielding an87% response rate. Table 1 shows the questions and the results from the survey. Each of thequestions dealt with a characteristic of teaching excellence. The
Paper ID #37222Work in Progress: Developing a Foundational Engineering Course toImprove Students’ Sense of Belonging and Increase DiversityDr. Timothy Frank, U.S. Air Force Academy Lt Col Timothy Frank is the Deputy Department Head for Curriculum Development and Associate Pro- fessor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the United States Air Force Academy. In this role, he develops leaders of character for the Air Force and Space Force by advising, teaching, and mentoring cadets. He received his B.S. and M.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Illinois, and Ph.D. from Stanford. Lt Col Frank is a registered
experts in teaching and research directly related to the light hydrocarbon industry and shalefuel conversion. Second, we will send the survey to our list of 26 industrial partners. Thesepartners range from multinational oil and gas companies to boutique consulting and advisoryfirms focusing on oil and gas, energy, and chemicals. This list also includes national laboratories(i.e., Argonne, Oak Ridge, Pacific Northwest, and Sandia), international universities, andfoundations. The list will also be distributed through networks of the CISTAR faculty to expertsin the field. Together, this list encompasses a wide range of experts across a number of divisions.If the first survey reveals a lack of input from a particular sector, purposeful sampling will
CUNY since 2017. He Completed his Electrical Engineering degrees (BE, ME, PhD) at CUNY and undergraduate in Physics in Europe. He worked in industry for AT&T Bell Labs and Verizon Commu- nications for 23 years as a telecommunications engineer specialized in fiber optical system research and development. He is teaching pre-Engineering Physics courses, conducts research in fiber sensors and mentors student research projects.Prof. Vazgen Shekoyan Dr. Vazgen Shekoyan is a professor of physics and his experiences include pedagogy, CubeSat, etc.Dr. Rex Taibu Dr. Rex Taibu has taught studio physics classes for several years. His teaching experience has shaped his research focus. Currently, Dr. Taibu is actively engaged
. Broaderdissemination of the modules throughout the curriculum helps thread design content into othercourses. Those opportunities are being explored with the assistance of the UndergraduateCurriculum Committee in their effort to adopt a Teaching Across the Curriculum model forspecific engineering skill sets, including design.References1 Olds, B.M., M.J. Pavelich, and F.R. Yeatts, “Teaching the Design Process to Freshmen and Sophomores,” Engineering Education, July/August 1990, pp. 554-559.2 King, R. H., et al. "A multidisciplinary engineering laboratory course." Journal of Engineering Education 88.3 (1999): 311.3 Miller, Ronald L., and Barbara M. Olds. "A model curriculum for a capstone course in multidisciplinary engineering
. Serving as a model for waterquality and quantity management, students engaged in hands-on experiences using a small-scalewetlands setup in the Cook Laboratory for Bioscience Research at Rose-Hulman Institute ofTechnology. In independent research projects, undergraduate research students measured waterquality parameters including TSS, BOD and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and optimizedremoval of various contaminants. In the classroom in Environmental Engineering Laboratory,students measured water quality parameters of various water bodies within a watershed andresearched the impacts of excess nutrients on water quality and economies. Students toured theconstructed treatment wetlands and were able to learn directly from a peer who had
. The inclusion of these physical artifacts not only allowsstudents to be introduced to the exciting technology of additive manufacturing, but also to learnabout geometry, physical constraints, and the connection between digital design and physicaloutput.Development Platform Selection In parallel with teaching materials and laboratory projects being created in the area of 3Dprinting, the research team will be developing a Texas Instrument LaunchPad- based IoT deviceto be used in the workshops which will become one of the major building blocks for STEMeducational modules. The IoT Building Monitoring Device (IBMD) will be composed of aCC3200 LaunchPad, a plug-in BoostXL-Sensor pack, and a battery. These three items will behosed in an