determine construct grouping PRESCORE POSTSCORE DIFFSCORE CONSTRUCT Mean Group Mean Group Mean Group Affective Mentalizing (AM) 0.6786 A 0.7857 B C 0.1071 D Affective Response (AR) 0.7486 A 0.7657 B C 0.0171 D Emotion Regulation (ER) 0.6286 A 0.6571 B 0.0286 D Perspective Taking (PT) 0.6857 A 0.7943 C 0.1086 D Self-other Awareness (SOA) 0.6929 A 0.7929 C 0.1000 DThe Tukey tests show that none of the PRESCORE means are significantly different from eachother
Appendix B: Expectationsfor Working with Collaborators and Need Experts).Examples of Accessible Design ProjectsHere we describe three example projects: Climbing Higher, e-NABLE Device and Research, andWild Thing Challenge and show examples of student-built prototypes (Fig. 1). To supportprototyping and best practices, students have access to a makerspace and are mentored by facultyand an independent design consultant. • Climbing Higher. Accessible climbing wall for adults with cognitive disabilities, in collaboration with Outdoors for All, a national organization that provides accessible recreational activities [17]. The team designed thermochromatic holds that change color when held by a climber in order to track progress
change.Dr. Abhik Roy, West Virginia University Abhik Roy is a professor educational psychology in the Department of Learning Sciences & Human Development (https://lshd.wvu.edu/) within the College of Education & Human Services at West Virginia University. Dr. Roy holds a Ph.D. in Program Evaluation with expertise in data science, visualization, and social network analysis and is an evaluator on multiple federal grants spanning both the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. He currently conducts research in (a) the use of machine learning to evaluate programs, (b) using predictive networks to assess change, and (c) deep learning architectures for text classification
Various Sizes,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 565–589, 2012.[10] S. W. Rogers and R. K. Goktas, “Exploring Engineering Graduate Student Research Proficiency with Student Surveys,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 263– 278, 2010.[11] J. P. Kotter, Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2012.[12] J. A. Gambatese, A. A. Karakhan, and D. R. Simmons, “Development of a Workforce Sustainability Model for Construction,” The Center for Construction Research and Training, 2019.[13] T. M. Evans, L. Bira, J. B. Gastelum, L. T. Weiss, and N. L. Vanderford, “Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 282– 284, 2018
examination of volitional personality change,” Journal of Research in Personality, vol 85, 2020.[16] A. Hira, C. Beebe, K. R. Maxey, and M. M. Hynes, “ “But, what do you want me to teach?”: Best practices for teaching in educational makerspaces (RTP),” in Proceedings, 2018 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 2018, Salt Lake City, UT.[17] B. S. Robinson, N. Hawkins, J. Lewis, and J. C. Foreman, “Creation, development, and delivery of a new interactive first-year introduction to engineering course,” in Proceedings, 2019 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 2019, Tampa, FL.
] National Science Board. Revisiting the STEM Workforce. National Science Foundation. 2015.[8] National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, “Developing a National STEM Workforce Strategy,” Jul. 2016.[9] American Society of Civil Engineers, “The Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025,” American Society of Civil Engineers, 2007.[10] M. D. Kirschenman and B. Brenner, “Civil Engineering Design as the Central Theme in Civil Engineering Education Curriculum,” Leadership and Management in Engineering, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 69–71, 2011.[11] D. B. Knight and B. J. Novoselich, “Curricular and Co-curricular Influences on Undergraduate Engineering Student Leadership,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 44–70
the identification and deconstruction ofmechanisms that hinder diverse pathways into engineering, promote a liberal approach toengineering education, and support individual diversity.References[1] J. B. Main, K. A. Smith, A. W. Fentiman, and K. L. Watson, “The next Morrill Act for the 21st century,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 152–155, 2019.[2] A. F. Mckenna, J. Froyd, and T. Litzinger, “The complexities of transforming engineering higher education: Preparing for next steps,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 188–192, 2014.[3] C. M. Campbell and K. A. O’Meara, “Faculty Agency: Departmental Contexts that Matter in Faculty Careers,” Res. High. Educ., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 49–74, 2014.[4] S. Billett
. Scanlon, and M. Pruett, "They Choose to Attend Academic Summer Camps? A Mixed Methods Study Exploring the Impact of a NASA Academic Summer Pre-Engineering Camp On Middle School Students in a Latino Community," Journal of Pre- College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 22-30, 2018, doi: 10.7771/2157-9288.1196.[3] L. C. Carol, F. C. Alberto, and T. T. Patrick, "Learning Professional Confidence: Linking Teaching Practices, Students' Self-Perceptions, and Gender," vol. 24, ed: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000, pp. 173-191.[4] D. B. Rosenthal, "Images of Scientists: A Comparison of Biology and Liberal Studies Majors," vol. 93, ed: School Science and Mathematics, 1993, pp. 212
<= 0) { wallHeight = Get next input cin >> wallHeight; } For loop statement for i = 0; i < 5; i = i + 1 for (i = 0; i < 5; i = i + 1) { Put i to output cout << i; } And/or/not (a < b and a < c) or (not(a > d)) (a < b && a < c) || (!(a > d))The language features listed above eliminate many common errors by beginning programmers,and enable the Coral simulator to provide clear helpful feedback on syntax
(ASHRAE standards for example).4) The device must average the air velocity of the air in the duct with at least the number of points specified by ASHRAE standards.For this project, two teams of four students competed. To avoid replication, one requirement wasthat the physical principle of response of the device should be different. As a result, the projectshown in Figure 5-a was based on heat transfer and the prototype shown in Figure 5-b was basedon differential pressure. (a) (b)Fig. 5 Picture of Prototypes for the Duct Mounted Airflow Measurement System Project, (a)prototype based on heat transfer principles and (b) based on differential pressure.Project 2017
functions, b. Noting low-level functions, c. Noting system boundaries, and d. Noting system inputs and outputs. 3. Students functional modeling ability as measured by Question 4 would decrease each year following initial instruction during sophomore year.Figure 2: Rubric for assessing function-flow responses used to assess Questions 2 and 3 on the FunSkillinstrument.3.3 ScoringTo score the FunSkill instrument, three strategies were employed. For Question 1, responseswere scored simply as correct or incorrect as to whether the students correctly identified theresponse as a function or not. Question 1 was scored only by one rater, an undergraduate studentat the university where this study occurred. Correct and
: Cambridge University Press, 1959.[2] B. E. Seely, “Patterns in the history of education reform: A brief essay,” in Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Education to the New Century, National Academy of the Sciences, Ed. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005, pp. 114-130.[3] C. M. Vest, “Educating engineers for 2020 and beyond,” in Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Education to the New Century, National Academy of the Sciences, Ed. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2005, pp. 160-169.[4] J. J. Duderstadt, “Engineering for a changing world: A roadmap to the future of engineering practice, research, and education,” in The Millennium Project. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of
-centered design charrettes for K-12 outreach,” interactions, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 74–77, 2018.[5] E. Rose, A. Davidson, E. Agapie, and K. Sobel, “Designing our future students: Introducing User Experience to teens through a UCD charette,” in Proceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication, 2016, pp. 1–6.[6] A. T. Jeffers, A. G. Safferman, and S. I. Safferman, “Understanding K–12 engineering outreach programs,” Journal of professional issues in engineering education and practice, vol. 130, no. 2, pp. 95–108, 2004.[7] G. S. Jakubowski, “Is there a role for ASEE in K-12 education?,” ASEE Prism, vol. 11, no. 5, p. 41, 2002.[8] B. Moskal and C. Skokan, “Supporting the k-12 classroom through
rather than the main body frame.Again, this was seen as a negative factor in the drone design. The upper part of the main bodyframe also appeared to be difficult to manufacture. Figure 3. FHJ Aviation Students’ Design by Figure 4. FHJ Aviation Students’ Design by Team B Team C Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Copyright ã 2020, American Society for Engineering Education 4 Project Completion at West Texas A&M UniversityAfter selecting the most appropriate design
Paper ID #30127Conceptualizing a theory of ethical behavior in engineeringMr. Luan Minh Nguyen, Iowa State University Luan M. Nguyen is an MA/Ph.D. student in Anthropology/Civil Engineering, who completed his Master of Science in Biochemistry at Iowa State University and his Bachelor of Science in Chemistry at Hartwick College. His first master’s thesis focused on the structural analysis of the schizophrenic gene DISC1 using transmission electron microscopy and hydrogen-deuterium exchange mass spectrometry. For his second master’s thesis, he focuses on identifying the individual and institutional factors that contribute
dark arts (of Cyberspace) universities are offering graduate degrees in cybersecurity,” IEEE Spectr., vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 26–26, Jun. 2014.[2] M. Lloyd, “Negative Unemployment: That Giant Sucking Sound In Security,” Forbes, 21- Mar-2017.[3] B. NeSmith, “The Cybersecurity Talent Gap Is An Industry Crisis,” Forbes, 09-Aug-2018.[4] A. Bicak, X. (Michelle) Liu, and D. Murphy, “Cybersecurity Curriculum Development: Introducing Specialties in a Graduate Program,” Inf. Syst. Educ. J., vol. 13, no. 3, p. 2015.[5] S. A. Kumar and S. Alampalayam, “Designing a graduate program in information security and analytics,” in Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Information technology education - SIGITE ’14
but could be clearer or more elegant; The program is not professionally indented or documented.• Mastered: The program functions correctly as specified; It is well-written and elegant, uses a professional indentation style, and is well-documented. Assignment Level Outcome a. Simple Digital I/O Apply #1 b. Analog I/O (A/D and PWM) Apply #1 c. Hardware + Timer Interrupts Apply #1 d. Cloud communications Apply #1 e. Local / Serial Communication Apply #1 f. Finite State Machines Apply #1
, respectively, as well as a “Comments/Suggestions” box for open endedrecommendations. These questions (together with the TA evaluation section) provide a holisticreview of all major aspects of a course, allowing the instructor to obtain broad and detailedstudent feedback to support future changes in the course delivery.The rating scale used in the questions of the course evaluation surveys is selected to match thescale of the rating system of each university. Thus, course evaluation surveys administered inUniversity A use a 6-point scale (A to F), whereas, course evaluation surveys administered inUniversity B use a 5-point scale (A to E). “University A” refers to the Department of Civil,Environmental and Architectural Engineering at the University of
and A. Mantzavinou, “Design thinking in development engineering education: A case study on creating prosthetic and assistive technologies for the developing world,” Development Engineering, vol. 3, pp. 166–174, 2018.[15] D. I. Levine, A. M. Agogino, and M. A. Lesniewski, “Design thinking in development engineering,” International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 32:3, pp. 1396- 1406, 2016.[16] M. Palacin-Silva, J. Khakurel, A. Happonen, T. Hynninen, and J. Porras, “Infusing Design Thinking into a Software Engineering Capstone Course,” in IEEE 30th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T), pp. 212-221, 2017.[17] L. B. Nilson, Teaching at Its Best, 4th ed. San
, Michigan: ThreeJoy Associates Inc, 2016, ch.4, pp. 93-116. 5. T. J. Kriewall, K. Mekemson, "Instilling the entrepreneurial mindset into engineering undergraduates", The Journal of Engineering Entrepreneurship, vol. 1, no.1, pp. 5-19, 2010. 6. S. Purzer, N. Fila, K. Nataraja, "Evaluation of Current Assessment Methods in Engineering Entrepreneurship Education", Advances in Engineering Education, vol. 5, no.1, pp. 1-27, 2016. 7. J. D. Novak, and B. Gowin, Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1984, pp. 36-37, 93-108. 8. M.K. Watson, E. Barrella, “Using concept maps to explore the impacts of a learning-cycle-based sustainability module implemented in two institutional
, pp. 531-555, 2018.[3] C. J. Atman, S. D. Sheppard, J. Turns, R. S. Adams, L. N. Fleming, R. Stevens, R. A. Streveler, K. A. Smith, R. L. Miller, L. J. Leifer, K. Yasuhara and D. Lund, Enabling Engineering Student Success: The Final Report for the Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education, San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2010.[4] R. Koul, "Work and Family Identities and Engineering Identity," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 219-237, 2018.[5] G. Lichtenstein, H. Loshbaugh, B. Claar, H. Chen, K. Jackson and S. Sheppard, "An Engineering Major Does Not (Necessarily) an Engineer Make: Career Decision Making Among Undergraduate Engineering Majors," Journal of Engineering Education
, "SimPlus: An Experimental Simulation Tool", in Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference (ASEE'04), June 2004, Salt Lake City, Utah. Session 2420.8. Rajaei, H. Eid E., Kannungo, D., Ringerberg, J., 2011, "JSimPlus: A Tool for Teaching Simulation Techniques", in the 14th Communications and Networking Simulation Symposium, CNS'11, sponsored by ACM/SCS, April 4-11, Boston.9. Law, A. 2007, “Simulation Modeling & Analysis”, 4th Ed, McGraw Hill10. Harrell C, Ghosh B, and Bowden R, 2012 “Simulation Using ProModel”, 3rd Ed, McGraw Hill11. Chamberlain T, 2013, “Learning OMNeT++, Packt Publisher12. Virdis A, 2019 “Recent Advances in Network Simulation, the OMNeT Environment and its
three materials andmanufacturing courses form prerequisites for the Final Year Project that runs for the last twosemesters and consists of designing, constructing, and testing of a complex mechanicalproduct. During the last year, students can also opt for electives offered in this area, such asAdvanced Materials Technology, Corrosion Engineering, etc. Course outcomes for the MScourse from a recent semester are shown in Fig-1. Materials Science: Course Outcomes Letters in parentheses denote ABET-based program outcomes/performance indicators (a,b,e,j), and Bloom’s taxonomy (cognitive) levels (L1,L2,L3,L4). Upon the successful completion of this course, students should be able to: 1. Understand the basics of engineering materials and
the instructor on quality costs followed by the evaluation: a. During the first round, students were given the definitions of quality costs and asked to identify them as to whether each of them is a quality cost. If a potential cost is identified as a quality cost, students would then have to classify it as prevention, appraisal, internal failure, or external failure cost. b. The second round of identification was done using the proposed model with the same questions in random order. Students were asked to use the proposed model for validation if they already knew the answer and change it to what the model suggested, if different.4. Chi-Square (χ2) test of association was used
Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA., 2013.[3] M. Boynton, “People not print: Exploring engineering future possible self-development in rural areas of the Cumberland Plateau,” Ph.D. dissertation, Engineering Education, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA., 2014.[4] L. W. Perna, “Studying college choice: A proposed conceptual model,” in Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. 21, J. C. Smart, Ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2006, pp. 99–157.[5] R. K. Yin, Case study research: Design and methods, 4 th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, 2009.[6] M. B. Miles, A. M. Huberman, and J. Saldaña, Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA
life activities of such individual,(B) a record of such impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.” ForAmericans with disabilities, the right to equal opportunity is protected by law. Under ADA,hiring discrimination is prohibited and reasonable accommodations must be made for employeeswith disabilities. Particularly relevant to colleges and universities, The Rehabilitation Act of1973 prohibits institutions that receive federal funding from discriminating against individualswith disabilities, as well as from excluding such individuals from participating in or benefittingfrom federally-funded programs and activities. American institutions of higher educationreceiving federal funds are, like workplaces, required to make
theperspective or details that have been revealed, can be thought of as acceptable, or academicallydishonest. These cases have the greatest variety in rationale behind them, but generally centerupon what “acceptable” collaboration is. For instance, we ran into many cases where groups ofstudents had very similar code. Upon speaking to parties involved, the following story mightevolve: - Student A and B worked together closely, but have clearly different submissions via comments and style, and report each other as collaborators. - Student C, in a panic, asks Student B for help after Student B submitted their project. Their submission is very similar to Student B, and thus Student A, but they do not report working with Student A
Paper ID #31009Design Course in a Mechanical Engineering CurriculumDr. Jamie Szwalek, University of Illinois at Chicago Dr. Jamie Szwalek is currently a Clinical Assistant Professor at University of Illinois at Chicago in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering.Dr. Yeow Siow, The University of Illinois at Chicago Dr. Yeow Siow has over fifteen years of combined experience as an engineering educator and practi- tioner. He received his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. from Michigan Technological University where he began his teaching career. He then joined Navistar’s thermal-fluids system group as a senior engineer, and later brought
Comments sometimes Comments do not advance the move class conversation advance the conversation, conversation or are actively forward but sometimes do little to harmful to it move it forward Frequency of Actively participates at Sometimes participates but Seldom participates and is Participation appropriate times at other times is “tuned out” generally not engaged Class participation deserving of an A grade will be strong in most categories; participation that is strong in some categories but needs development in others will receive a B; a
students working on the project. Inhind-sight, we should have had seven to 10 students both years. As stated in the introduction, wehad seven desired outcomes for each of the students. The rubric below shows the ranking foreach student in the study for the two years thus far. Each student was given a ranking on a 1-10scale assessing their observed performance in each area. Student C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 M Year 1 a 10 10 9.5 10 8 10 10 10 b 9 9 9 9 9 9 9.5 10 c 9