be considered as creating new knowledge––the teachers were afforded the uniqueopportunity to explore those distinctions during the program. Several teachers participated in thedesign and implementation of engineering apparatus that were in turn used in addressing theirresearch questions. Another teacher designed and supervised the implementation of anengineering measurement system from the low cost materials available in the laboratory fordeveloping the stress-strain curve for hydro-gels reinforced with nano-particles.16The National Research Council publication, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, andSchool,3 describes best practices for supporting students as they develop flexible knowledge. Oneoutcome of the “How People Learn” (HPL
. Faculty members often expose students to standards in laboratory exercisesthroughout their college careers. These subtle opportunities are documented in the paper.ABET criterion and outcomes used to evaluate engineering and engineering technologyprograms now emphasize the use of standards, especially in the design process. This is a newchallenge for the engineering educator. Given that new engineering educators teach theirstudents about standards, it is necessary to become familiar with available information that mayhelp students as well as typical best practices for academic libraries. Acquiring access tostandards is the first step in using standards. The next step is to acquire skill and learn how tocritically read and apply them.The literature
Student Association Outstanding Mentor Award, the Drexel University ECE Outstanding Research Achievement Award and the International Liquid Crystal Society Multimedia Prize. In 2003, he received a NASA/ASEE Summer Faculty Fellowship to research NEMS/MEMS adaptive optics in the Microdevices Laboratory at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.Eli Fromm, Drexel University Dr. Eli Fromm is the Roy A. Brothers University Professor and Director of the Center for Page 15.1273.1 Educational Research in the College of Engineering of Drexel University. He has held a number of academic leadership positions and
learned in the Matlab programming laboratory as a fundamental component of the design project.3 Project Rules (As given to the student teams) ◦ Your materials budget for this project are the ones given to you in your “kit”. You may ONLY use the given materials to make your trigger mechanism. You will need to get film developed into 4x6 inch prints. Pick one person in your team who is responsible for that. They will need to pay that cost, keep the receipt, and submit those receipts and a form to get reimbursed. Reimbursement takes a few weeks after the form has been received. IMPORTANT: Without a receipt you cannot get reimbursed. ◦ No flammable gases, liquids, or solids are allowed ◦ No open flames
. (Iowa State University 2000), all in civil engineering. He has been on the faculty of the de- partment of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering at Iowa State University of Science and Technology since 2001, and currently holds the rank of Associate Professor and is the holder of the Weg- ner Professorship. Dr. White is the Director of Earthworks Engineering Research Center at Iowa State University and is in charge of the Iowa State University Geotechnical Mobile Laboratory. Dr. White has taught graduate and undergraduate courses in introduction to soil engineering, foundation analysis and design, experimental testing, soil behavior, and soil stabilization and compaction. Dr. White has research interests
school students’essays in which the subjects described their image of a scientist. They found that the typicalAmerican high school student had a stereotypical notion of what a scientist looks like anddoes at work. They described this shared image from the national sample as: The scientist is a man who wears a white coat and works in a laboratory. He is elderly or middle aged and wears glasses. He is small, sometimes small and stout, or tall and thin. He may be bald. He may wear a beard, may be unshaven and unkempt.…He is surrounded by equipment: test tubes, Bunsen burners, flasks, and bottles…He spends his days doing experiments…He experiments with plants and animals, cutting them apart
development ofskills related to teaching, professional communication and the job search3.Table 1: GSGA Survey ResultsSKILL RATINGConduct independent research 3.57Teach (small “seminar” or “problem-based” learning courses 2.00Teach (large “lecture” course) 1.79Teach (laboratory) 2.05Assess performance outcomes from teaching, supervising, or leading 1.70Prepare written credentials (CV, resume, cover letter) 2.14Interviewing skills
whole experience are summarized. Hopefully, thisdocumentation will help others in planning similar experiences for engineering undergraduates. Enhanced analytical and computational capabilities and higher strength materials have led tolighter, larger and more complex and unconventional civil structures. To design such structures,one must be able to evaluate their overall behavior under both static and dynamic (seismic)heavy overloads, both in laboratory and field environments. The inherent non-linearities indescribing the material behavior and the interaction between the components of a structure,makes simply using analytical tools for studying the response inadequate. This can only be doneby experimental testing. Research projects for the
. Gioia earned his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Penn State University, and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from West Virginia University. He also worked as a post-doctoral research fellow at the Na- tional Energy Technology Laboratory in Morgantown, WV, where he researched waste heat recuperators in Supercritical CO2 Power Cycles from 2016-2017.Samantha (Sami Bortz ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Sustainability-Focused Project-Based Learning in a Heat Transfer Course Christopher J. Gioia Department of Physics & Engineering Slippery Rock University
specific to the subject, basedon understanding of the subject’s life and career, and more general questions designed to furtherthe more general aims of a study to be based on a group of related interviews.Training of Undergraduates in Human Subjects TrainingBoth Ms. Irvin, Ms. Hiteshue, as well as the PI, Dr. Lanzerotti, completed Human Subjects Page 24.962.6Training through the institution’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to conducting the oralhistory interviews of the distinguished leaders. This course is “suitable for investigators andstaff conducting research with human subjects at the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)and for
laboratory access iswithheld until all team members complete the assignments.IntroductionThe Integrated Product and Process Design (IPPD) Program1-4 is an innovative educationalinitiative at the College of Engineering of the University of Florida (UF). In weekly classesspanning two consecutive academic semesters, (eight months), students from various engineeringand business disciplines are taught how to design products and processes. Then, working in smallmultidisciplinary teams under the guidance of faculty coaches and industrial liaison engineers, Page 24.1240.2the students design and build an industrial product or design a manufacturing process
researchare free; two are commercial standalone tools. This prevents students from viewing the vul-nerabilities as a whole problem. We think this could be useful for a course that is focused onsecurity testing but not for an introductory course on software testing.Garousi7 presents open modern software testing laboratory courseware that is similar to theone we report in this paper, but he uses several tools and SUTs. One of his findings is thattesting educators should align the choices of SUTs and tools with the ultimate goal of thecourse at hand, the type of students, and the time and resources available to the students inthe course.Other forays into improving the teaching of software testing have been reported. For in-stance, Cowling5 describes how
) suggests that in terms of student comprehension, using only a well designed fullyautomated online course is as effective as traditional classroom/textbook/lab instruction51. Theeffect size for future more advanced ITSs incorporating the above mentioned capabilities isexpected to equal or even exceed the effect size of one-on-one tutoring.Bloom’s effect size however does not take into account the much smaller cost of ITSadministered courses, nor does it take into account the fact that it requires on average less timefrom the student to go over an ITS course as compared to the total time required to travel toschool, attend lectures, perform laboratory experiments, do homework assignments, go to officehours, study for exams, take exams, and other
Auburn University. He is the co-founder and director of the NSF-funded Laboratory for Innovative Technology and Engineer- ing Education (LITEE). LITEE has recently been recognized by the National Academy of Engineering as one of the 29 programs in the country that have successfully infused real-world experiences into under- graduate engineering education. He is also the founder and director of the Auburn Engineering Technical Assistance Program (AETAP) Prior to coming to Auburn in 1984, Dr. Raju held faculty positions in sev- eral universities in India and visiting positions at the Catholic University of America, Purdue University and the Technical University of Berlin. Dr. Raju received his Ph.D. from the Indian
. Page 23.1368.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2013 What’s Trust Got to Do with It? Assessing a Research-Based Mentoring Program for Novice EngineersAbstractWhile the importance of trust has largely been explored in large business organizations, littleattention has been given to the role of trust in one-on-one mentoring relationships betweenengineers1. Trust has been relatively understudied in academic settings, especially in mentoringrelationships between undergraduate and graduate students in research laboratory settings. Byassessing ways of creating and maintaining trust in engineering relationships, we will be able tocreate more comprehensive guidelines on building
and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Missouri Rolla. Dr. Ertekin has also been a Certified Manufacturing Engineer (CMfgE), awarded by the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME) since 2001, and a Certified Quality Engineer (CQE) awarded by the American Society for Quality (ASQ) since 2004. In addition to positions in the automotive industry, Dr. Ertekin has held faculty positions at Western Kentucky University and Trine University. In 2010, he joined Drexel University’s College of Engineering as an associate clinical professor. He has been instrumental in course development and the assessment and improvement of the Engineering Technology (ET) curriculum, including integrated laboratories
designed so that they can be generalized and customized by a department to derive specificlearning outcomes and goals. With these Standards, the CDIO Initiative envisions a curriculumthat • is organized around mutually supporting disciplines, but with CDIO activities highly interwoven; • is rich with student design-build projects; • features active and experiential learning; • is set both in the classroom and in a modern learning laboratory; and • is constantly improved through a robust assessment and evaluation process. Figure 1 – Twelve CDIO Standards 1. CDIO as Context 7. Integrated Learning Experiences Adoption of the principle that product and
diligently.2.4. Standardized and iterative formative assessmentsIn this category, alternative grading approaches are applied for formative assessments orassessment for learning [13] through standardized and iterative feedback. In the literature,standardization approaches include specifications grading [14] and standards-based grading [2],which, in our view, involve an explicit mapping between learning outcomes and assessmentresults. Such standardization has also been commented on as an essential element forcompetency-based education [25]. Generally, the literature has reported positive learning effectsin various course contexts such as mathematics [26], [27], chemistry laboratory courses [28], andsoftware projects [29]. Standardization can also
roles in the team. Each team may utilize different tools and address the problem from adifferent perspective. Some students can assume a role as clinicians, as for example, to ‘diagnose’the disease by conducting a series of pathological tests including blood tests and checking thephysical symptoms. In doing so, the students need to learn what the symptoms are for dengue andwhat sort of laboratory tests are required to diagnose such a case. This dengue management projectwill specifically require students to use various computational and web based tools to discover theidentity of the virus, given some preliminary biological data under the supervision of the instructorand in consultation with the researchers and sequences to test a hypothesis
within Penn State system.It should be noted that both MATH 140 and PHYS 211 are foundational courses (“gateways”) formany science and engineering majors at the Penn State University and important prerequisitesfor later work in many STEM disciplines. MATH 140 (4 contact hours) is an important buildingblock in the education of any professional who uses quantitative analysis and includes standardintroductory topics in differential calculus, integral calculus and their applications. PHYS 211 (5contact hours) is a calculus-based introduction to classical mechanics, and laboratory exercisesare an integral part of this course. PHYS 211 covers the following topics: kinematics, dynamics,laws of conservation, and their applications. Moreover, both MATH
) for a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering at UC San Diego. Courses that incorporate the chemical process project are shown in bold. Laboratory and capstone courses where students also work in teams are italicized. A) A 3-year upper division chemical engineering course schedule is typically followed by students admitted freshman or sophomore year. B) A 2-year course schedule is typically followed by transfer students admitted junior year. A) Fall quarter Winter quarter Spring quarter Sophomore Material and Energy Chemical Reaction Thermodynamics Year
ethics.This program began with College-wide, dean’s level administration and support. Thecommunication lab and consultations space was centrally located in the main College ofEngineering building. It was in this space that the director, administrative assistant, and graduateteaching fellows also occupied office space. PhD students from the College of Humanities withinterests in instructional communication, writing/composition, and communication across thecurriculum served as strong ambassadors for the importance of disciplinary expertise. In additionto classroom instruction, communication laboratories, and student consultations, the programdirector and graduate teaching fellows offered monthly workshops targeting engineering facultyon topics related
large public state university and taking part in the same researchproject. The internship was an 8-week program in the Biomedical Engineering (BME)Department funded by the Massachusetts Life Science Center (MLSC). All three students wereworking in the same lab co-hosted and mentored by the two laboratory Principal Investigators, aswell as undergraduate and graduate students in the lab. In-depth interviews with the three internsand their parents/caregivers were conducted and analyzed to understand parental relationships,mentorship relationships, and components of the home environment in developing STEMidentity and interest. Faculty mentors were also interviewed and provided perspectives on skillsets and confidence coming into the internship and
degrees on time [15], [16]. Future work will studystudents’ on-time graduation and degree completion, as well as the factors contributing to theseparamount problems in the academic community.Conclusions and RecommendationsSeveral academic as well as non-academic factors hinder minority students’ interest, persistence,and success. These factors include poor-quality teaching and advising, a challenging curriculum,deficiencies in mathematics, uninspiring courses, lack of sense of belonging, a lack of interactionbetween students and faculty, financial difficulties, a lack of hands-on projects as well as theavailability of infrastructure and laboratory facilities [1]–[3], [8]–[11]. All of these factorsgreatly contribute to major change and dropout
that a key quality of problem solvers is the ability to learn from failure,students were given the latitude needed to find for themselves what works and what does not (evenif foreseen by the faculty mentors).The project typically involves six students during a given semester: i.e., on average two studentsper sub-team. Since an important objective of our initiative is for students to develop hands-on © American Society for Engineering Education, 2022engineering design and research skills, participating students work in the laboratory (wheneverpossible) and maintain a 10 hour-a-week work schedule during the academic year. The students'work schedules in the laboratory are designed such that there are overlaps; thus, there
after the successful launch of both boats (right).USCGA Project DescriptionIn contrast to the course at USNA, cadets at USCGA typically enroll in the boat design/buildcourse as a first-year student (freshmen). The design portion of the course is an optional one-credit lecture offered during the fall semester. The build or construction portion of the course isoffered in a one-credit laboratory format during the spring semester. Both semesters areconsidered “Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory” electives and do not affect the students’ GPA. Studentscan join each class independently, meaning a student may enroll in the build portion in the springwithout participating in the design portion in the fall. Typical enrollment for the fall is upwardsof 20