moreclear that student not only have to be able to conduct experiment following a given procedure, butthey also have to be able to develop experimentation on their own for an specific purpose. Currentstatement for student outcome (g) is expanded and presented as student outcome (4) in the 2016proposal. The current student outcomes (f) and (h) are combined and are presented as studentoutcom5 in the 2016 proposal. Student outcome (i) is reworded and is presented as student outcome(6) in the 2016 proposal. Student outcome (d) is reworded and is presented as student outcome (7)in the 2016 proposal. Student outcome (j) is not included in the 2016 proposal and student outcome(k) is a requirement of part (b) of criterion 5 in the 2016 proposal.Table 9
Paper ID #19225The Development and Evaluation of Expert Witness Role Play Instruction forTeaching Engineering EthicsMs. Alison J. Kerr, University of Tulsa Alison Kerr is a graduate student at The University of Tulsa. She is pursuing a doctoral degree in Industrial-Organizational Psychology. Her research interests include training development and evaluation as explored across a variety of academic disciplines and organizational settings. She is currently assist- ing on a number of training projects aimed at developing engineering students on relevant non-technical professional skills including ethical practice and
on areas that theywere weak in based on performance on previous problems. Our hope was that this would helpdirect students’ study habits and improve overall learning. Also, for this semester the number ofin class quizzes was further reduced, with 4 quizzes for statics and 2 for dynamics. Also thestatics exam was given over 2 class periods, as a common time for both sections of students wasnot available due to the students’ schedules. Table 1: Description of courses included in the study ID Assessment Term Class Period Instructor(s) N* Homework Fall 2013 TR 8:00-10:45am A&B 37 TH Homework Spring 2014 TR 8
with accessibility codes? 3. Will the organization provide on-site orientations for students? If yes, will the orientations include the following: a. Hours available for students to be at the learning site(s) b. Informing students where to park c. Informing students of the closest public transportation options d. Procedures for checking-in at the learning site(s) e. Procedures for students and supervisors to track students’ hours f. Organizational dress-code g. Tours of the learning site(s) h. Introduction to the students’ work areas i. Introduction to other employees/volunteers j. Confidentiality training: k. Safety and emergency
*Indicates not significant (α=.05) Table1: Paired t-test for differences between pre and post EECI scoresThe reason that the difference was not significant for question 19 is more difficult to explain andcould demonstrate a problematic question that requires further revision. This question reads:Question 19Fill in the blanks for this statement:If the net present value of all of the cash flows associated with an investment opportunity is apositive value at a company's "required" rate of return, then the internal rate of return for thatinvestment is ______ than the company's required rate and the investment is a ______investment for this company. a. Lower, Good b. Lower, Bad c. Higher, Good d. Higher, BadAs will be
and novel instructional methods.high school. Eng One is common to all departments. Upon IMPLEMENTATIONcompleting 11 courses within three semesters, students withsufficient academic standing are promoted to second year To facilitate student engagement, the Faculty of Engineering(“Term 3”). Academic Terms 3 through 8 alternate with 4- and Applied Science employs a First Year Engagementmonth mandatory co-op work placements. Approximately Coordinator. The coordinator is responsible for a) facilitating70-80% of Eng One students meet the promotion professional learning opportunities, b) promotingrequirements for Term 3
Paper ID #18773Energy Engineering Undergraduate Degree Program: Lessons Learned fromProgram Development and LaunchDr. Greg Kremer, Ohio University Robe Professor and Chair of Mechanical Engineering, Ohio University Program Director: Energy Engi- neering Director: ”Designing to Make A Difference” ME / EnE senior capstone design experience. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Energy Engineering Undergraduate Degree Program: Lessons Learned from Program Development and LaunchIntroduction:The National Academies have identified energy issues as among the most significant facinghumankind in this
study the questions. Step 7: What is the underlying theory? 2. Layout the activities that make up the project Instructor’s tasks are to design the curriculum and promote constructivism approach in the class by: Provide learning goals that include: reasoning, critical thinking, understanding and use of knowledge, self-regulation, and mindful reflection. Provide the necessary conditions for: a. Complex and relevant learning environments; b. Social negotiation; c. Multiple perspectives and learning modes; d. Ownership in learning; e. Self-awareness of knowledge construction. 3. What students do as learners and as teams: In each project ask students to
research based assessment method with the rubric helps students togenerate ideas, read high-level journal publications and adopt techniques to the analysis andconstruction of prototypes. There were 13 groups, each group has at least five members. Twosample students’ project are shown in Table 1.Table 1: Sample students project work from spring 2017 ME 335 course (a &b) Abstract Analysis Results Prototype and Test Results a The target of this venture is to investigate the effect of clearance in the joints and link flexiblelity in slider-crank mechanism of an automobile engine. To better understand the slider-crank mechanism, the mechanism is simulated and
(2007).8 Beichner, R. J. et al. The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE- UP) project. Research-based reform of university physics 1, 2-39 (2007).9 McGee Banks, C. A. & Banks, J. A. Equity pedagogy: An essential component of multicultural education. Theory into practice 34, 152-158 (1995).10 Strickland, B. Kierkegaard and Counseling for Individuality. Personnel & Guidance Journal 44 (1966).11 Gneezy, U., Leonard, K. L. & List, J. A. Gender differences in competition: Evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society. Econometrica 77, 1637-1664 (2009).12 Tatum, H. E., Schwartz, B. M., Schimmoeller, P. A. & Perry, N. Classroom participation and
://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2684812 2. G.W. Hislop, H.J.C. Ellis, S.M. Pulimood, B. Morgan, S .Mello-Stark, B. Coleman, and C. MacDonell. A multi-institutional study of learning via student involvement in Humanitarian Free and Open Source Software projects. International Computing Education Research Workshop, Omaha, NE, Aug. 2015. 3. [H23] H.J.C. Ellis, G.W. Hislop, and M. Purcell. Project selection for student participation in humanitarian FOSS. In Proc. of the ACM SIGITE Conf. on Information Technology Education (SIGITE), 155-156, 2013. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2512276.2512326 4. R.S. Moog, and J.N. Spencer, (Eds.). Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL). Oxford University Press, 2008. 5. H.H
updated value is presented in this paper and new output data are included from the models.Rate Expressions and Material Balances Rate expressions are typically introduced to both chemical and environmentalengineering students when the subject of chemical reaction kinetics arises. Although actual rateexpressions can only be determined through the use of experiments, initial information can beobtained by simply assuming that the rate expression may derived directly from the molecularityof the system. Thus, elementary reactions with the following forms: (Reaction a) A à Products, (Reaction b) B+D à Products
Paper ID #17908The History of the Engineering Libraries Division, Part 2: 1960-2017Mr. Michael J. White, Queen’s University c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 The History of the Engineering Libraries Division, Part 2: 1960-2017IntroductionThe Engineering Libraries Division (ELD) of the American Society for Engineering Education(ASEE) is one of the oldest professional communities of engineering and technical librarians inthe world. It is also one of the few engineering organizations where librarians and professors arerecognized as academic professionals. First organized as a regional committee in 1941
the school were classified as English Language Learners; 76.4% ofstudents were Hispanic, 8.8% White, 8.4% African American, 3.6% Asian/Pacific Islander, and2.5% Native American. Both authors helped facilitate all activities.Taking a design-based approach, in this, our second iteration of the innovation, we implementeda design-reflect-design protocol over three 50-minute class periods on consecutive days. Thepurpose of this protocol was to provide an opportunity for designers and observers to reflect oncommunication patterns in design challenges. Students were assigned to one of two roles for theentire process: (a) design-team member in three-to-four member groups, or (b) design-team peer-observer. Peer-observers were assigned to only five
averageof 38 pages were generated by each transcript. Appendix B includes a sampling of the interviewquestions that were asked during the individual interviews. The final data sources that were utilized in the study were two separate group interviewswith Black Americans and Black Africans. By grouping the interviewees into separatecategories based on country (or continent) of origin, the lead researcher attempted to identify andunpack within-group differences between these two groups of undergraduates. The duration ofthe group interview with the Black American participants was approximately one and a halfhours, and the length of time for the group interview with the Black African students was onehour and eight minutes.Analysis A
, Spencer P. Magleby, Carl D. Sorensen, “A Review of Literature on Teaching Engineering Design Through Project Oriented Capstone Courses,” Journal of Engineering Education (January 1997): 17 - 28. Spring 2017 Mid-Atlantic ASEE Conference, April 7-8, 2017 MSU4. Milo Koretsky, Christine Kelly, and Edith Gummer, “Student Perceptions of Learning in the Laboratory: Comparison of Industrially Situated Virtual Laboratories to Capstone Physical Laboratories,” Journal of Engineering Education (July 2011): 540 - 573.5. Heshmat A. Aglan and S. Firasat Ali, “Hands-On Experiences: An Integral Part of Engineering Curriculum Reform,” Journal of Engineering Education (October 1996): 327 – 330.6. Stupak P.R., S. Rumrill, B. S
bias cheat sheet.” (Jan. 31, 2017).Borrego, M., Newswander, C., McNair, L. D., and Paretti, M. (2009). “Using concept maps to assess interdisciplinary integration of green engineering knowledge.” Advances in Engineering Education, 2(3).Burian, S. J. (2014). “Using a sustainable infrastructure rating system in the civil engineering capstone design course.” Proc., 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN.Davidson, C. I., Allenby, B. R., Haselbach, L. M., Heller, M., and Kelly, W. E. (2016). “Educational materials on sustainable engineering: Do we need a repository?” Elementa, 4(89).El-adaway, I., Pierrakos, O., and Truax, D. (2015). “Sustainable construction education using
of the scholars while making long lasting connections.We look forward to sharing our findings throughout the program, and at the completion of ourfive-year study, we will share our complete findings and recommendations. Our goal is to seekout our opportunities for continuation of the STEM Scholars Masters Program through futureNSF grants.ReferencesFlowers, L. (2011). Online courses can be used to boost minority numbers in STEM fields. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education. 28 (22), 19.Johnson, W. B. (2016). On being a mentor: A guide for higher education faculty. New York, NY: Routledge.Appendix AProgram Management ChecklistJanuary Encourage students to apply for new cohort Process Awards Scholar Spot Update
”. 3) The third and final section of the survey asked students to rate themselves on a 0-100 scale across four dimensions with respect to four tasks. The four dimensions were “how successful they would be”, “their belief in their ability to perform the tasks”, “how motivated they would be to perform the tasks”, and “the degree of anxiety they would feel in performing the following tasks”. The four tasks were a. Identify a problem b. Formulate a problem c. Generate a problem solution d. Ability to evaluate appropriateness of generated solution in context.Results and DiscussionThe majority of students (over 70%) across all three departments agreed with the followingstatement “I am
. Mar P´erez-Sanagust´ın, Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile Mar P´erez-Sanagust´ın is a researcher and Assistant Professor at the Computer Science Department of the Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile and the Director of the Engineering Education Division at the same university. Her research interests are technology-enhanced learning, engineering education, MOOCs and b-learning.Miss Manuela De la vega, Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile Manuela de la Vega is an Education Data Analyst in the School of Engineering at Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile. She creates qualitative and quantitative instruments for measuring and evaluating teaching and learning experiences in Engineering. She
Proofing and Prevention, process mapping and instructions on theactivity.Students were divided into pre-determined groups of approximately eleven students each; two groupswere from Wednesday lab (A and B) and two groups were from Monday lab (C and D). Each group wasfacilitated by one of the authors or teaching assistants. Groups A and C met in one class room, and Band D moved to anotherroom. How to BrainstormThe first activity was to 1) Clearly, understand the problem and formulate a simplecreate a process flow question based on the problemdiagram for the lab 2) Clarify the goal of the eventassignment. Students brain- 3) Spend two minutes generating at
participants were not required to know advanced engineering design concepts. Thetraining offered by this workshop will consist of (a) overview and only the necessary detail of theSTEM concepts that apply to electronic circuit design and analysis (b) application of theseconcepts to hands-on project-based laboratory activities. The participants build the essentialknowledge base from basic STEM principles and are expected to see and experience the linkbetween the theory and practice of electronics. The educators work with kits containing electricalcomponents which can be placed on the circuit assembly board using snap connectors andconnected together to create basic and advanced circuits. The survey questionnaire administeredupon conclusion of each
the videos? At home, school, on the bus, other? 4) While watching the videos, did you: a. Take notes? b. Pause the video periodically? c. Write down questions when necessary? d. Re-watch sections when necessary? e. Other? 5) Lecture videos vs. traditional classroom. The lectures are: a. Much better than traditional class b. Better than traditional class c. About the same d. Worse than traditional class e. Much worse than traditional class 6) The lecture videos helped me learn course concepts a. Strongly agree, agree, no opinion, disagree, strongly disagree 7) General
children’s epistemic understanding fromsustained argumentation. Science Education, 96, 488-526.[4] Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on Grade 10 students’argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 47(8), 952-957.[5] NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: TheNational Academies Press.[6] Osborne, J. F., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S.-Y. (2016). The development andvalidation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6),821-846.[7] Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science
) Keeping Team on Track, 4) Expecting Quality, 5) HavingKnowledge/Skills, using a behaviorally anchored peer-evaluation scale. Each team memberresponded to a series of statements for the other members of their team (Fig. 5). Students ratetheir peers in all categories using the same scale, and different statements. Appendix B includes acomplete listing of the categories and statements for each category.Fig. 5: Example screen of peer evaluation tool (CATME) utilized by students in “Introduction toEnvironmental and Ecological Engineering” (Fall 2016). Instructors are able to see individual student evaluations of each other, as well asaggregate evaluation, and aggregate evaluation corrected for the student’s self-evaluation. TheCATME system
. D., and B. Stein. The Ideal Problem Solver. New York: Freeman, 1983.Brent, R., & Felder. R. M. (2014). Want your students to think creatively and critically? How about teaching them? Chemical Engineering Education, 48(2), 113-114.Daly, S. R., Mosyjowski, E. A., & Siefert, C. M. (2014). Teaching creativity in engineering courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 103 (3), 417-449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jee.20048Dannenhoffer, J. F., Green, M. A. (2017). Use of a Full-motion Flight Simulator for Teaching Aircraft Performance and Dynamics, 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 9-13 January 2017, Grapevine, Texas.Diaz, A. Freeing the Creative Spirit. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1992.Napolitano, M. R., Aircraft Dynamics
discrete inductors) in terms of a standard conductortype and implement zones of protection appropriate to the perceived length of the line. Studentsalso use phase and negative-sequence inverse-time overcurrent protection to detect faults alongthe line in a separate experiment.Building on the operation of individual relays, two additional experiments introduce theimportance of communication and coordination between devices in a power system. Studentscreate a circuit combining components from the previous experiments and establish acommunication link to each relay through an SEL-2032 communications processor. Thecommunications processor distributes an IRIG-B timing signal to all relays from an SEL-2407satellite-synchronized clock, which the relays
formation in a multicultural and interdisciplinarysetting coupled with hands-on doing based on repetitive do-test-learn cycles that areconstantly assessed and communicated by the teaching team.Design, whether as design science or design thinking has been with us for quite some time.Already in the 1950´s B. Fuller, a renowned scientists and inventor described design scienceas: “…the effective application of the principles of science to the conscious design of ourtotal environment in order to help make the Earth’s finite resources meet the needs of allhumanity without disrupting the ecological processes of the planet” Buckminister Fuller [17].There is relevant criticism to be considered as well. The three perspectives, based on Kimbell2011, are that
(especially around gender), b) minimized the bias in the survey language, andc) was validated [18]. For the full details of the steps taken to design and validate the survey, thereader is referred to our previous paper [18]. A brief overview is provided here for readerconvenience. The survey tool was used to evaluate our hypothesis that there are three broaddecision factors used by secondary students when considering whether to study engineering.These decision factors are: Perceptions – of the profession and the undergraduate programs,Achievement – to meet programs’ entrance requirements, and Confidence – self-perception ofqualifications and traits (See Table 1). Our first research question was used to determine thelevel of importance that secondary
course, key activities took place before class, during class, andafter class. Before class and at least one week in advance, lecture notes were given to students,pre-recorded video lectures were posted, and the FLS was also given. Students were expected towatch the videos ahead of class. At the beginning of class, students submitted a hard copy of theFLS, which included (a) their questions about the material covered in the video, (b) a signatureacknowledging that they watched the video, and (c) feedback to continuously improve the pre-recorded video. FLS submission counted as part of the homework grade. During class,approximately one-third of the time was focused on answering and discussing the questionssubmitted on the FLS. This process