critiques, as well as design revisions. In the humancomputer interaction sessions that had elements of studio learning, the authors indicate that spaceand time limitations hindered the development of both larger group work and revisions26.3. MethodsThis section of the paper is broken down into three subsections (research context, data collection,and data analysis), to facilitate comprehension. This research uses a case study methodology toanalyze student interaction within the class. The case study method is a good fit for this studybecause of the uniqueness of the environment.3.1. Research contextThe course was taught by two male instructors with occasional help from three teachingassistants. The laboratory where class took place (figure 2
(focused) schools or are designated a STEM school. In SouthCarolina, a number of elementary and middle schools have been designated a STEM school.These schools seek out annual field trips to allow their students to have firsthand STEM Page 26.1395.2experiences such as laboratory experiences within college level courses, aquariums, architecturalfirms, research labs, and manufacturing companies to mention a few.Gifted and talented Fourth and Fifth Grade students from Richland School District 2 schoolshave been conducting a field study (ALERT)2 at The Citadel every other year. Recently, the offyear visit is with an architectural firm at the school and
the standalone technical communication courses in the Departments ofChemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Civil and Environmental Engineering at theUniversity of Texas at Austin [3]. Finally, rather than using a standalone course to teach writing,a number of engineering departments try to interweave the teaching of writing into a sequence ofengineering courses. Such a course sequence occurs with two upper-level laboratory courses inthe Mechanical Engineering Department of Virginia Tech [4]. However, with recent increases in engineering undergraduate enrollments [5], many suchcourses are stretched. Faculty are asked to teach greater loads, often without additional resources.One such example is Pennsylvania State University
. He is also involved in efforts to improve writing skills in engineering students.Prof. S. Lance Cooper, Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign S. Lance Cooper is Professor and Associate Head for Graduate Programs in the Department of Physics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He received his B.S. in Physics from the University of Virginia in 1982, his Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Illinois in 1988, and he was a postdoctoral research associate at AT&T Bell Laboratories from 1988-1990. Cooper’s research interests include optical spectroscopic studies of novel magnetic and superconducting materials at high pressures, high magnetic fields, and low temperatures
communications,and senior capstone design project courses, teaching laboratories and projects helpedimprove student participation, got the students actively involved and excited about theprojects and the material being taught, motivated the students to better master coursecontent and taught the students to learn to think and reason more clearly, accurately,relevantly, logically, rationally, ethically and responsibly.This paper discusses how the judicious, sensible and affable use of the Socratic Methodin the aforementioned educational settings facilitated the development of students whoare learning to possess the basic skills of thought and reasoning such as the ability to:identify, formulate and clarify questions; gather relevant data; identify key
undergraduate years as a liminalspace or time[4,7] during which students can explore possible selves and possible professionalidentities. Ibarra and Petriglieri characterize this kind of activity as identity play, acharacterization we share. They define identity play as “people’s engagement in provisional butactive trial of possible future selves”[6]. We have identified a number of course experiences aspotential sites for this identity play. These include: • the lab courses where students put on lab coats and safety goggles as they become familiar with standard laboratory equipment and protocols and the technical knowledge of chemistry; • a communication course where students visit schools as the subject matter expert to
field notes when thestudents were taught theoretical background, engaged in practical work to make their own robot,and compete with each other to win the final race. Field notes were taken when invited speakerstalked about their research interests. We observed the students as they worked at the electric-electronic laboratory and they tested their robot models on the race courses. We identifiedstudent-student, student-faculty, and student-mentor interactions. These observations were ameans for us to observe the iterative processes through which robot models were developed.We transcribed the interviews verbatim and analyzed them using the constant-comparativemethod30. We triangulated the findings from interviews with the field notes and
demonstrate non-technical student outcomes, including those pertaining to ethics,global issues, economics, and understanding of environmental and societal contexts.2When the objective is to improve student writing skills (“learning to write”), an integrated, orwriting across the curriculum (WAC) approach to teaching technical writing is consideredfavorable over the alternative of isolated, stand-alone communication courses that oftendecontextualize writing.3-4 In the integrated approach, communication instruction and practice isdistributed throughout the curriculum and embedded in technical courses, well beyond thestandard inclusion of laboratory reports in laboratory classes. Such an approach also maximallyleverages the writing process towards the
. Vernier was heavily involved in teaching and content development with the Fundamentals of Engineering for Honors (FEH) program.Mr. Patrick M. Wensing, The Ohio State University Patrick M. Wensing is an NSF Graduate Research Fellow and Graduate Teaching Assistant at The Ohio State University. Mr. Wensing received his B.S. degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from The Ohio Sate University in 2009. Since 2009, he has been working toward a Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering at Ohio State. Mr. Wensing currently teaches and develops content for the laboratory portion of the Fundamentals for Engineering for Honors (FEH) program and is actively involved in humanoid locomotion research.Mr. Craig E Morin
-cutting skills of communication, teamwork, life-long learning,research experience, and laboratory experience will be woven throughout the curriculum.Students will build their ePortfolios around the theme of sustainability and the supportingprinciples and cross cutting skills. Students will be asked to select artifacts (assignments,laboratory reports, project presentations and exams) that illustrate the theme, principles, andskills. Periodically, students will be asked to reflect on a component of the ePortfolio and write areflection paper describing their knowledge in that component and identifying gaps in theirknowledge. These papers will serve several purposes. Students will have the opportunity to seeclearly how courses in the curriculum
numbers, thereby offering a unique environment for engineeringeducation. The Picker Program’s faculty of eight, five of whom are women, share a commonvision for engineering education reform.Within the Department of Education and Child Study at Smith, research programs focus oneducation in the sciences, mathematics, and technology. The Department’s undergraduate andgraduate teacher preparation programs and the Smith College Campus School (preK-6), whichserves as a laboratory for education research, provide fertile ground for developing and field-testing K-12 engineering education initiatives. Department of Education and Child Study facultymembers are working closely with the Picker Engineering Program to ensure that besteducational practices are
project was funded by the U.S. Department of Education Fund for theImprovement of Post Secondary Education (FIPSE), and was carried out over the last four years.The assessment was carried out under the auspices of UMR’s Laboratory for InformationTechnology Evaluation (LITE), and guided by the LITE model for evaluation of learningtechnologies. The fundamental premise of the model is that evaluation should consist of thetriangulation of multiple research methodologies and measurement tools. Five representativeevaluation studies, consisting of eight experiments, are presented here. The studies range frominitial research consisting of basic experimentation and usability testing; to applied researchconducted within the class room; to a large multi
/testing projects that focus on experimental work in the laboratory involve a surprisinglylarge number of activities. For example, a recent beam testing project involved a study ofbackground issues, specimen design including development of a spreadsheet, preparation ofspecimen drawings, development of an instrumentation plan, preparation of a materials list,acquisition of materials, installation of strain gages, fabrication of formwork and rebar cages,casting of concrete, preparation of test setup and data acquisition system, testing, and dataanalysis, including comparison of data to pretest predictions based on computer analyses.Teams encounter many challenges in conducting project activities. They realize the usefulness ofthe project proposal as
Session Number: 2102 Dissemination of Innovations from Educational Research Projects: Experience with Focused Workshops P.K. Raju, Department of Mechanical Engineering, pkraju@eng.auburn.edu Chetan S. Sankar, Department of Management, Gerald Halpin, Department of Foundations, Leadership, and Technology, Glennelle Halpin, Department of Foundations, Leadership, and Technology Auburn University, AL AbstractDuring 1996, we formed the Laboratory for Innovative Technology and Engineering Education(LITEE). The
Recommendation: Business topics, automation/controls, product design, and lean manufacturing should be priorities for curriculum changes.5. Education MethodsThe process of delivering a curriculum is addressed in Table 6. There were clear responses thatcooperative education, internships, laboratories, and project work are very high priorities. This isa clear message that ‘hands-on’ education is a very high priority. As would be expected there aremismatches in priorities between academics and manufacturers.Table 6 - Education Method Priorities Top Second Manufacturing Academic Priority Priority Priority PriorityCertifications 7
different institutions and their different approaches toteaching software verification, it is important to understand the differences in the institutions’profiles’ and activities. This section provides background information on the two programs’profiles in this article.Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE)The Milwaukee School of Engineering offers an accredited Bachelors of Science degree insoftware engineering, and has been accredited since 2002. As an institution, there is a strongemphasis on small class sizes (14:1 student to faculty ratio) and extensive laboratory experience.Students graduating from MSOE spend on average 600 hours in laboratories related to theirmajor. Institutionally, there is more square footage devoted to lab space than
course curriculum content. The author has previously used a similar approach in other research projects to obtain meaningful results. 1. What should be counted as appropriate goals and accomplishments in an undergraduate engineering course that has a significant laboratory component? 2. Does the discovery approach practices utilized by the instructor providing reasonably acceptable paths toward accomplishing the specified learning goals in the chosen course? 3. What do students actually accomplish in the designed course and the laboratory exercises? How has discovery approach helped them in meeting their learning goals? 4. How has the instructor’s organizational techniques contributed towards students
to practice. An interestingobservation is that manufacturers prefer co-op experiences where they lead the education, whileacademics prefer laboratories where they lead hands-on learning.Table 6 - Education Method Priorities 2012 2011 Top Second Academics Manufacturers Top Second Priority Priority Top Priority Top Priority Priority PriorityCertifications 13 8 8 3 7 8Communication 3 7 1 2 3 8** Co-op or internship 63
moreefficient and increase performance.5 Development ToolsSemiconductor companies make their revenue based on how many chips they sell. This is thereason why recently most of the companies have code size or performance limited versions oftheir development tools for free in order to motivate designers to use their products. In practicalstudent assignments and laboratory exercises, the size of problems given fit within therestrictions of the free versions available. Students are encouraged to download these versions ontheir computers, so they can work anywhere rather than to be tied to the laboratory and itsavailable hours, which was the case some years ago when the platforms were rather expensivefor students to buy.Not only are the development tools
, sustainability, air Page 25.1186.5pollution, etc.), a panel of graduate students (to discuss applications, scholarships, graduateschool experiences), or 2-hour tours at local research laboratories (such as the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Association, National Center for Atmospheric Research, the United StatesGeological Survey, or National Renewable Energy Laboratory). The research experienceculminated with a research symposium where each student gave a 15-minute presentation withpowerpoint slides. The students were also required to submit a final written report. Studentswere encouraged to work with their mentors to submit a conference abstract, and
. The SJSUundergraduate AE Program has been known for its strong emphasis on laboratory education withadvanced equipment, full and balanced aeronautics and astronautics curriculum, and emphasis onapplications. The combined MAE faculty number 10 full-time, supplemented withapproximately 12 part-time lecturers from industry.A College Assessment Task Force (ATF) was formed in the Fall of 1997 to provide leadershipand support to all engineering programs for developing and implementing program assessmentplans. Faculty members attended national workshops and conferences on assessment andbrought back ideas to work with their colleagues. The task force has developed a collegeschedule, a framework, templates for various instruments for gathering
well as school and camp curriculums centered around Artificial Intelligence. Previously, he has worked as an instructor at Mathnasium, where he taught math to K-12, and as a lab assistant in an undergraduate laboratory at the University of Florida.Jacob Casey Yarick, University of Florida Jacob Yarick is an undergraduate student at the University of Florida pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Aerospace Engineering and Bachelor of Science in Astrophysics. He works under the EQuIPD program where he designs, creates, and teaches lessons related to Python programming and Artificial Intelligence. Previously, he has worked at the Kika Silva Pla Planetarium, and the Calusa Nature Center & Planetarium. He has also tutored
closeone-on-one working relationships between research scientists and participating teachers. EachRET experience was structured to include the following components:1) Collaborative development of agenda, expectations, and goals for the specific research project and overall laboratory experience.2) Safety training and an overview of the laboratory facilities and equipment.3) Hands-on experiences in current laboratory techniques and studies being performed by scientists, which could lead to integration of cutting-edge science into inquiry-based learning. Page 22.1552.54) Focused research project with mentor scientist.5) Regular meetings with the
graduatestudents teaching in the undergraduate program. Also, the class size for lecture and laboratorysections are intentionally kept small, even during the first-year, in order to be consistent with themission of the School. Laboratory sections are geared to be between ten and fifteen students.Lifelong learning in the curriculum. A rubric was developed to assess students on thedemonstration of knowledge and awareness of lifelong learning, of application of skillsconsistent with, and of behavior associated with someone who is a lifelong learner. Performanceindicators constituting evidence that lifelong learning is occurring included: ● recognition of the need for further education and self-improvement; ● recognition of the necessity of continuing
populations. Participating teachers attend a ten day,six hour per day summer workshop, that is offered simultaneous to the graduate student summersession, and this workshop addresses the applications of mathematics and science to engineering.Joint sessions are held during the summer session among graduate students and teachers,allowing for collaboration and brainstorming on lesson plans that will be implemented during theacademic year. The bond between the graduate students and the teachers begins to developduring the summer and is strengthened throughout the academic year. These workshops aretaught in collaboration with expert district teachers, university faculty, and engineers andscientists from a local national laboratory. Each workshop further
immerseundergraduate students in the research community by giving them a full year of lab experiencethat also offers a global perspective on research challenges and opportunities in the field ofbiomedical engineering. It is our hope that this will inspire students not only to enter a graduateprogram, but also to seek a program with an international component.An additional, and equally important, goal of CURE is to build relationships between personnelin the three collaborating institutions by linking the collaborators and their work with each otherthrough these students. We conceptualized the participating student as a resource that would beshared by the collaborating laboratories and, thus, would be prepared by the Georgia TechTech/Emory PIs and mentors to
. Glasgow, H. B., Burkholder, J. M., Reed, R. E., Lewitus, A. J., & Kleinman, J. E., 2004. Real-time remote monitoring of water quality: a review of current applications, and advancements in sensor, telemetry, and computing technologies. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, vol. 300, no. 1-2, pp. 409–448.38. Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V., 2006. Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A Comparative Literature Review. ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 1–24.39. Balamuralithara, B., & Woods, P. C., 2009. Virtual laboratories in engineering education: The simulation lab and remote lab. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 108–118.40. Gomes, L., & García-zubía, J. (Eds
see when preferential treatment was given to white students overstudents of color in engineering spaces. Often these events made participants questionwhether or not they belonged in the spaces they occupied because they were frequentlyremoved from those spaces automatically. For instance, Luz described her experience in thebiomedical engineering laboratory as she was doing research over the summer as detrimentalto her decision to continue in engineering for graduate school. She was under the supervisionof a white Ph.D. student, and worked in the lab with another Latina student and one whitestudent. She described the preferential treatment from the Ph.D. student toward his whitementee as follows: You could just tell, like, if we asked