well as undergraduate female Engineering students. In this section, werepresent the data collection method, data analysis and results from each group segment.Part A: Undergraduate Female StudentsA survey was administered to students who have been involved in organizing and running theoutreach event for a year or more. The students cover most disciplines of Engineering, includingElectrical, Computer, Mechanical, Mechatronics, Civil and Computer Science. The first part ofthe survey consisted of 6 questions and was constructed to evaluate the event’s effectiveness indeveloping the following skills [7]: (A) leadership skills (B) understanding of Engineering concepts (C) self-confidence (D) communication skills (E) presentation skills
, , what’s thevalue of parameter A, B, and C?8. Given the partial fraction expansion as follows, , what’s thevalue of parameter A, B, C, D, and E?EvaluationEvaluation of the course aims to answer three questions: 1) Does adaptive release improve student performance by identifying the special needs of each student? 2) Do feedback loops help to maintain effective instructor-student interaction? 3) Do feedback loops help to improve student performance?The evaluation plan includes the following items: 1. Prerequisite test on background knowledge in the first lecture; 2. In-class quiz and group discussion every week (also serve as attendance list); 3. Homework (7 assignments
of engineering mathematical contentinto the introductory electrical engineering course, we will be collecting data for three differentgroups. A student who took one or both of the introductory circuits courses EE2050 (LinearCircuits I, primarily DC) and EE2060 (Linear Circuits II, primarily AC) in the last five academicyears will be included in the study. The student will be placed into a group as follows: Group A: The student was enrolled in EE100 during academic years 2013 to 2015, prior to enrolling in EE2060. Group B: The student was enrolled in EE1000 during academic years 2016 to present, prior to enrolling in EE2060. Group C: The student was not enrolled in either EE100 or EE1000 prior to enrolling
students under 18 years of age, or who responded, “not agree”,were included in our dataset. This study was approved as an exempt study under the humansubject protections regulation, 45 CFR 46.101(b) by our Institutional Review Board (IRB).2.2. Survey Sample PopulationOur study was conducted using a convenience sample of n=84 undergraduate students across thecontrol (n=23) and treatment (n=61) groups (Table 2). Further demographic information for oursurvey population can be found in Table 2. Gender and ethnicity splits favored women (3%) andunderrepresented students (2%) slightly more than our department’s population percentages.Students were predominately within the 18 – 20 year range (M=19.62, SD=1.57), as expectedfor a freshman level course
applications.The average grade on the two demonstration lab reports for all students in the course was B+.The distribution of grades on these assignments followed a fairly normal distribution. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration Copyright ©2018, American Society for Engineering Education Session ETD 305ConclusionsIn this paper, a new laboratory delivery approach to teach the concepts of sustainability atWestern Carolina University has been presented. This new approach aims to fill the gap inmeeting the learning objectives due to the lack of laboratory resources. The assessment resultsfor
of engineering: The 9 African American experience. Baltimore, United States: John Hopkins University Press.Svrluga, S. (2015, November). U. Missouri president chancellor resign over handling of racial incidents. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/09/missouris-student- government-calls-for-university-presidents-removal/?utm_term=.f174fdd3df52T aylor, A., Waters, R., Bhaduri, S., Lutz, B., & Lee, W. (2017). Student attitudes about diversity: “If the field of engineering were more diverse, what would that mean for you?” In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
(eds). Using Reflection and Metacognition to Improve Student Learning: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy.pp. 18 – 48. Sterling, VA: Stylus.10. R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.APPENDIXTable A1. Quiz Wrapper Questions. 1. Approximately how many hours did you spend in total preparing for this quiz? 2. What percentage of this time was in the 24 hours prior to the quiz? 3. What did you consider your level of preparation for the quiz: a. Excellent (participated in class, completed homework, solved / re-solved problems) b. Good (attended class, completed homework, looked over worksheet solutions
know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6-36. doi:10.1080/17439884.2013.770404Lai, K.-W., & Hong, K.-S. (2015). Technology use and learning characteristics of students in higher education: Do generational differences exist? British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 725-738. doi:10.1111/bjet.12161Ng'ambi, D. (2013). Effective and ineffective uses of emerging technologies: Towards a transformative pedagogical model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 652-661. doi:10.1111/bjet.12053Miertschin, S. L., Stewart, B. L., & Goodon, C. E. (2017). Mobile devices and lifelong learning: The students' perspective. Computers in Education, 8(1), 80-93
ofcommunication methods.ReferencesAACU. (2010). Written communication VALUE rubric. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/WrittenCommunication.cfmAbulencia, J. P., Vigeant, M. A., & Silverstein, D. L. (2013). Using video media to enhance conceptual learning in an undergraduate thermodynamics course. In Proceedings of the 2013 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Atlanta, GA.Cheville, A. & Derr, B. H. (2016). Using videos to elicit self-explanations of emergent electromagnetic concepts. In Proceedings of the 2016 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. New Orleans, LA.Daley
and indirect (amplified and/or reflected) attack methods 6. Quantifying the number of IoT bots in a botnet of unknown composition 7. Determining the resiliency of target systems during an attack and quantifying the number of devices a target system can withstand while remaining fully functionalAppendix A: Infrastructure Hardware DetailsAppendix B: Python ScriptsServer Side:#Script to establish a server side socket to test maximum bandwidth based on hardware resources#Using a file to send data for an extended period of timeimport socketimport os#VariablesB_size = int(raw_input("Enter the buffer size:\n"))Bind_port = int(raw_input("Enter the port number to connect on:\n"))#Establish the server and listen for connectionsdef
Ratio table shows the odds of the event occurring at two different levels of thepredictor. Level B (previous affiliation with the University) is the reference level for the factor.Level A indicates the student has a previous affiliation to the University. The Odds Ratios tableshown in Table 2 indicates that a student is 86% less likely to enroll in classes if that studentdoes not have a previous affiliation with the University. Table 2 Odds Ratios Table for 'From UA' variable Level A Level B Odds Ratio 95% CI NUA FUA 0.1414 (0.0764, 0.2616) Odds ratio for level A relative to level
intervention.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Award IDNo. 1609204 through NSF’s Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) as a part of theImproving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) program. We thank the course instructorsand students for their participation.References[1] Flori, R. E., Koen, M. A., Oglesby, D. B. (1996). Basic Engineering Software for Teaching(BEST) dynamics. Journal of Engineering Education, 85(1), pp. 61-67.[2] Chickering, A. W., Gamson, Z. F. (1991). Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practicein Undergraduate Education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 47, 63-69.[3] Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of
Paper ID #23065Modernizing Capstone Project: External and Internal ApproachesProf. Karen H. Jin, University of New Hampshire Karen H. Jin has been an Assistant Professor of Computer Science in Computing Technology program at UNH Manchester since Spring 2016. She previously taught as a lecturer for over ten years in University of Windsor and Dalhousie University. Her interest in computer science education research focuses on devel- oping new empirically supported theories and practices in teaching programming, software engineering and project-based learning with industrial relevance. She received her Ph.D. and M.Sc. in
)identifying the ways that each component of the engineering identity framework is constructedand deployed in the departmental documents and b) identifying emergent themes in the data.Trustworthiness We cultivated trustworthiness in our analysis in the following three ways. We ensuredthat we could access the broadest number of documents possible by pursuing multiple avenues ofdata collection: in addition to seeking documents from electrical and computer engineeringfaculty and administrators, we did a comprehensive internet search to gather documents that mayhave been overlooked or unavailable to department sources. The research team met regularly todiscuss findings and resolve differences in interpretation. The team also memoed and kept
stronglikelihood that the senior design data is under-powered and a larger sample size may reveal astatistical differences. In conclusion, both the junior and senior design phase 1 reports show anincreased use of engineering standards as students gain more exposure to engineering standards. 2.85 2.54 2.67 2 2 ** Use of Engineering Standards Use of Engineering Standard a. Jr Design b. Sr. DesignFigure 1. Assessment of the use of engineering standards in (a) junior design (b) senior design.Grey – Cohort 1, Blue – Cohort 2, Yellow
report of a three-year study of engineering education led by Leah Jamieson andJack Lohman [2], one of the seven recommendations was: Expand collaborations andpartnerships between engineering programs and a) other disciplinary programs germane to theeducation of engineers as well as b) other parts of the educational system that support the pre-professional, professional and continuing education of engineers. The 3D frameworkaddressed these recommendations.This is a process that aligns the attributes of graduates with their post-graduate plans in a waythat is customized for each student in the program. In the first dimension, the academicfoundation, core courses required of all students have been converted into course bricks thatinclude
of this last model yielded the highest significance with the best overallfit as summarized in Table 4. Correcting for generalization bias, the regression model adj.R2=.360 indicates a large effect size and a good level of prediction [29]. Moreover, theindependent variables explain 36.0% of the variability of the model’s dependent variable.The overall results of the model show that the numbers of online program graduates and fulltimeonline faculty have positive impacts on the number of student veteran and active duty membersthat are enrolled in online graduate engineering programs. Table 4. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis VARIABLES B SEB β
the study in this paper demonstrate actualreal-world help-seeking behavior, albeit self-reported, not intentions to seek help in the future,which may or may not become reality. This distinction is particularly valuable and, thus, thiswork will provide insights that can (a) help undergraduate students and (b) guide futureeducational research.Furthermore, previous work on learning strategies often focuses on particular learning strategiesor individual populations of students with specific characteristics, such as students academicallyat-risk 17,18 . The current work described here asked an intentionally broad range of students, fromacademically high-achieving to students academically at-risk, in order to compare and contrastthe learning
financial literacy skills, engineering economy students were offered theopportunity to take an anonymous, short online pre-course and post-course financial literacysurvey for 0.5% extra credit for each survey, without regard to how many questions theyanswered correctly. The six financial literacy questions [10] came from the FINRA/GeorgeWashington Financial Literacy standard block of questions as follows: 1. Suppose you have $100 in a savings account earning 2 percent interest a year. After five years, how much would you have? A. More than $102 B. Exactly $102 C. Less than $102 D. Don’t Know 2. Imagine that the interest rate on your savings account is 1 percent a year and inflation is 2 percent a year. After one year, would
-Procedure-Manual-11- 16-17.pdf, Nov. 16, 2017 [Jan. 30, 2018]. [3] C. J. Nemeth, “Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments,” Social Cognition, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 273-291, Sep. 1995. [4] P.L. McLeod, S.A. Lobel, and T.H. Cox Jr, “Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups,” Small group research, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 248-264, May 1995. [5] R. Guimera, B. Uzzi, J. Spiro, and L. A. N. Amaral, “Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance,” Science, vol. 308 no. 5722, pp. 697-702, Apr. 2005. [6] T. R. Kurtzberg, “Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams,” Creativity Research Journal, vol. 17, no
latest products and saythey do admire ‘beautiful’ objects. We did not explore their understanding of the term beautifulin this context.In looking at student comments about the two videos from 2017 and 2018 it may be possible todiscern a generational shift whereby some of the basic premises about allocation of resources andequity are already deeply embedded in young adults [Appendix B]. This is true even as thesesame students show evidence for strongly held pro-business beliefs, what might be characterizedas “libertarian” views. [Appendix C]. Thus, there may be little advantage to presentinginformation about things students have already accepted and it might be more useful to expandupon other ideas and generate a next level of questions in the
expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the National Science Foundation.ReferencesReferences with asterisks (*) indicate papers included as data in our analysisAbdul Jabbar, A. I., & Felicia, P. (2015). Gameplay engagement and learning in game-based learning: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 740-779. doi: 10.3102/0034654315577210* Andrianoff, S. K., & Levine, D. B. (2002). Role playing in an object-oriented world. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, Cincinnati, Kentucky.Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making
to orient the solar panel to track the sun. Topics in this module include: a. Solar irradiance, spectral irradiance, solar irradiation b. Effects of atmosphere on solar radiation c. Relationship between solar time and local time d. Zenith angle, azimuth angle, and sun’s position e. How to orient solar panels to receive maximum solar energy available f. A trade off between performance and cost The module includes an activity where students are asked to write a program to track sun’s position for a given date, time, and location. An example is shown in figure 1 where the sun’s elevation angle throughout a day is shown for Grand Rapids, Mi on May 29th. Elevation Angles on May 29th in
more advanced computingskills in future semesters.3. CURRICULUM OVERVIEWFor our curriculum, we designed two block courses – a) Block 1 – App Inventor and b) Block 2 –OOP using Java. Each block course consisted of 28 hours of instructional time, divided between 7days (7 Saturdays). We offered Block 1 for the first time in Spring 2014 where 30 middle schoolstudents (from grade 7 and 8) participated. Since these block courses were not offered as part ofany regular school curriculum, students met every Saturday for 4 hours with the instructors. Block2 course was offered to the same set of students during Summer 2014 following the same Saturdayschedule. Apart from the in-class 4 hours of instructional time, students were not provided withany
. Phung, “Student learning trends in a freshman-level introductory engineering course,” in 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), April 2017, pp. 152–156. [4] L. A. Meadows, R. Fowler, and E. S. Hildinger, “Empowering students with choice in the first year,” in 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas, Jun. 2012. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/21282 [5] L. L. Wu, R. M. Cassidy, J. M. McCarthy, J. C. LaRue, and G. N. Washington, “Implementation and impact of a first-year project-based learning course,” in 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, LA, Jun. 2016. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/25566 [6] B. C. Fabien and K. L. Vereen
about the interaction possibilities and their relation to the expected learningoutcomes from their work in both remote and face-to-face laboratories. We also consider howremote laboratories can be integrated into engineering courses from the students’ viewpoint,in order to preserve the essential learning of practical skills and also to make students betterprepared for future engineering practices.This study therefore endeavours to address the following research questions through the lensof interactions in the engineering laboratory: a. Is the remotely controlled laboratory implementation appropriate for first-year engineering students? b. Can remote laboratories help in learning essential personal and professional
-oriented skills such as the use of computer-based tools and engineeringcommunications.Figure 2: Instructor responses to questions regarding course pedagogy.Outcomes Assessed for ABETIn order to explore the relationships between course content, structure, and desired outcomes webreak desired student outcomes into two categories: a) The “official” student outcomes that are formulated and tracked as part of the formal, ABET assessment process and which tie directly to the ABET a-k student outcomes, and b) Outcomes based on the instructor’s personal views as to the most important student outcomes for the course.While there is overlap between these two categories they are not always the same.Table 2 lists the ABET a-k outcomes and shows which
. 𝑊: 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 (a) 𝑊: 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚; 𝐿: 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑠 (b)Figure 1. (a) self-weighted support beam (b) self-weighted support beam with distributed loadsAbove two support beams were used to reflect different aircraft operational scenarios, forexample, the aircraft wing when the aircraft is still on the ground and in the straight-level flight,𝑊 and 𝐿 were used to respectively approximate the weight and lift that the wing has in the twoscenarios.The next lecture period after the introduction of beams, a tour of an adjacent aircraft hangar wasgiven
Paper ID #21438Engineering Industry Perspectives and Policies Related to Employees’ Pur-suit of Engineering Doctoral TrainingMs. Erika Mosyjowski, University of Michigan Erika Mosyjowski is a PhD student in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the University of Michigan. She also earned a Master’s in Higher Education at Michigan and a Bachelor’s in Psychology and Sociology from Case Western Reserve University. Before pursuing a PhD, Erika had a dual appointment in UM’s College of Engineering working in student affairs and as a research associate. While grounded in the field of higher education
student B in Table 6 indicate that there are some positive feelings forthe assignment and suggest an impact on the students’ experience. Comments like those fromstudent D and student E in Table 7 from the nanotechnology course describe their perceivedincreased understanding of the course content from working on the crossover activity. In thefuture, the researchers would like to incorporate more qualitative data into the assessment todetermine if the crossover activity is meaningful for the students. There was some initial resistance in the science fiction course for the crossoverassignment as many of the students were seniors and hoping for a more relaxed class than thecourses related to their major. Because of the high number of seniors