. The All-in-One Guitar-Playing Robot Video and Game. Online. URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEFxJFFA5OQ2. J.-D. Yoder, B. Jaeger, and J. K. Estell, “One-Minute Engineer, Nth Generation: Expansion to a Small Private University,” 2007 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, AC 2007-1599.3. J. Renaud, C. Squier, and S. C. Larsen, “Integration of a Communicating Science Module into an Advanced Chemistry Laboratory Course,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 83, no. 7 (July 2006), pp. 1029-1031.4. J. K. Estell, L. Laird, and J.-D. Yoder, “Engineering Personified: An Application of the One Minute Engineer,” 2008 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, AC 2008-171.5. J. K. Estell and J. K. Hurtig, “Using Rubrics for the
teaching assistants assignedto a Numerical Methods course that the first author teaches. The common practice is theassignment of a 10hr/week TA in the spring semester and none in the summer semester. Withanywhere from 40-70 students taking the class, the first author had to critically think about thebest use of the assigned TA. Should the TA spend time to maintain generous office hours, gradecomputer projects, assist in programming and experimental laboratories, or grade homeworkassignments? The question we are trying to answer in this paper is whether grading thehomework problems improve the student performance. We are not questioning the importanceof assigning the homework problems but if they help the students if picked for a grade.Cartledge3
responses; 2) stimulate the students’ learning interests in understanding thefundamental physics theories.As the future work, we will look into expanding this haptic-augmented learning into otherengineering courses to improve student learning. Additionally, more judicious design ofexperiments and data analyses are necessary to reveal the potential of haptics in an Engineeringclassroom.AcknowledgmentPartial support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation's Course,Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) program under Award No. 0737173 to Drs.Weihang Zhu, Kendrick Aung, Jenny Zhou and Malur Srinivasan at Lamar University. Anyopinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those ofthe
Analog Electronics Microcontrollers & Microprocessors Instrumentation & Measurement Practical Laboratory SkillsQuestion Writing: Agreement on a core BOK was the beginning point for drafting examquestions. The BOK was distributed to the volunteer content experts, and they were asked toidentify the topics that they felt best qualified to work on. Simultaneously, the SME organizedmultiple web-based training sessions to explain how to write effective questions. The trainingsessions were augmented by standardized question development tools from the SME. Theseincluded question writing guidelines, standardized question forms, and rubrics for
students have not had sufficient grounding in the “design” process. Emphasis for themhas been placed upon “analysis”, and they come to our Systems Engineering courses lacking inunderstanding as to how to truly design a system. We accept it as a responsibility that this is acore notion and skill, and that no student shall graduate at the Master’s level without anappropriate level of mastery in this arena. Further, the two-step process of architecting followedby detailed subsystem design is often not well understood, even after an undergraduate course ortwo that emphasizes design, including a design “laboratory”. For those that have the appropriatebackground, an attempt is made to enhance the design process through a formal use of ways of“thinking
. However, feedback from graduate student TAs and Instructors involved in advancedengineering courses indicates that students perform better in teams and are more able to communicate theirconcepts after taking ENG 1430.Bibliography 1. Ambrose, S. A. (1997). Systematic design of a first-year mechanical engineering course at Carnegie Mellon. Eng. Education , 2 (86). 2. Brassard, M. (1996). The Memory Jogger Plus, GOAL/QPC. 3. Brent, R. M. (2001). New faculty an orientation to the profession. Proceedings of the 31st ASEE/IEEE Conference, 31, pp. S3B/1-S3B/3. New York. 4. Byrd, J. (1995). Teaming in the design laboratory. ASEE , 84, 225±341. 5. Catalano, G. D. (1996). Adding hands-on design to an engineering curriculum
resulting from vehicle bodymodifications, electric power failures, and the failure modes associated with conventionalvehicles that could potentially result in catastrophic effects. Examples would include a “stuck”accelerator, defective cruise control, failure of the traction control, and loss of regenerativebraking, to name only a few. Students learn to employ Design Failure Mode Effects Analysis(DFMEA) techniques to identify potential problems affecting personal and vehicle safety as wellas reliability. Methods are implemented to remove or mitigate such failures. The effectivenessof their DFMEA is first demonstrated in the laboratory using the HIL and later on a chassisdynamometer before finally being driven on the road.Vehicle CompetitionWhile
Engineering at East Carolina University. She received a MS in Chemical Engineering from NC State University. Her research interests focus on biomaterials and bioprocessing. Educational efforts include the development of a bioprocess engineering laboratory, engineering program outreach, as well as curriculum development.Gene Dixon, East Carolina University Gene Dixon is an assistant professor in the Department of Engineering at East Carolina University. He received a BS in Material Engineering from Auburn University, an MBA from Nova Southeastern and a PhD in Industrial and System Engineering and Engineering Management from the University of Alabama – Huntsville. His professional experience
of Academics since 2001. He is a member of ASEE, a member of the Society for Psychological Type, and a member of AAHEA. As a faculty member, he taught courses in history, government, and industrial psychology.Cory Prust, Milwaukee School of Engineering Dr. Prust is Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering at the Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE). He received his Ph.D. degree from Purdue University in 2006. He is a former Technical Staff member at Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is a Member of the IEEE and typically teaches courses in the areas of signal processing and embedded systems.Steven Reyer, Milwaukee School of Engineering Dr. Reyer is
, Xi’an, China, in 1993, the M.S. degree in electrical engineering from Beijing Polytechnic University, Beijing, China, in 1999, and the Ph.D. degree in computer engineering from Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, in 2003. From 1993 to 1996, he was an Engineer with the 41st Electrical Research Institute, Bengbu, China. From 2000 to 2003, he was a research assistant with the Visualization, Analysis, and Imaging Laboratory (VAIL), the GeoResources Institute (GRI), Mississippi State. He is currently an Assistant Professor with the Department of Engineering Technology, Prairie View A&M University, Prairie View, TX. His research interests include image and signal processing, and
counterparts in succeeding. Moving toward achieving this goal, thedepartment has allowed a new option to complete the required Senior Project course. The courseis required for the bachelor of computer science which consists of 120-semester credit hours ofcourse and laboratory instruction; the Senior Project is intended to provide an integratededucational experience or capstone [1-8]. Although the course is a one-credit-hour, one semestercourse, it is in fact a comprehensive course which requires a broad range of skills acquired overthe student’s course of study. Many studies have shown the importance of the Design Project inintegrating different aspects of their course work [1-8]. The new option allows students,especially females ones, to take
Institute of Technology Richard A. Layton is the Director of the Center for the Practice and Scholarship of Education and Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. He received a B.S. from California State University, Northridge, and an M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Washington. His areas of scholarship include student team-building, team-formation and peer-evaluation, laboratory reform, data analysis and presentation, and system dynamics. Prior to his academic career, Dr. Layton worked in consulting engineering, culminating as a group head and a project manager. He is a guitarist and songwriter with the classic alternative rock band
Engineering Sciences, an undergraduate bachelor of science degree program in the MSU College of Engineering. He also is an Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering. Dr. Sticklen has lead a laboratory in knowledge-based systems focused on task specific approaches to problem solving. Over the last decade, Dr. Sticklen has pursued engineering education research focused on early engineering; his current research is supported by NSF/DUE and NSF/CISE. Page 15.864.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2010 Measuring the Effect of Intervening
. The weeklong TEC camp is Page 15.962.2designed to expose campers to a wide range of engineering disciplines early in their educationsin order to inspire campers to consider college majors and careers in these important fields. Thecamp is highly interactive with hands-on projects in areas such as webpage design, robotics,structural design, and transportation engineering. Campers are given the opportunity to exploreengineering through interactive courses, seminars and laboratories that are lead by Georgia Techprofessors and graduate students. Campers are encouraged to interact directly with the graduatestudents and to ask questions about life
mechanically inclined tend to score betteron the MAT.The dataset also gave us the opportunity to identify prior experiences that might lead to morepositive attitudes about engineering. The list of activities with statistically significant correlationwas dominated by hands-on and design activities. This type of information may be relevant forattracting more young people to the engineering field.AcknowledgmentsThis work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. EEC-0835987.References1. ABET, “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs: Effective for Evaluations During the 2006-2007 Accreditation Cycle,” ABET, Engineering Accreditation Commission, 2006.2. Feisel, L. D. and A. J. Rosa, “The Role of the Laboratory in
, representing all five major branches of engineering offered atSchulich (Mechanical, Chemical and Petroleum, Civil, Electrical and Computer, andGeomatics), who supervise the individual lab sections; a fine arts instructor and acommunications instructor; in addition, the course also has a full time technician, 20-24engineering teaching assistants, 4-8 fine arts/industrial design teaching assistants and 4-6communications teaching assistants.Communications instructor as Solo InstructorThe primary role of the communications instructor in ENGG 251/253 is that of sololecture instructor. As one of the two lecture instructors, the communications instructor isresponsible for half the lectures each semester, as well as at least two laboratory periodsof
Page 15.685.7of PLTL activities. This exercise led to the development of general peer leader selectionstandards and training activities. Selection standards required a minimum gpa of 2.9 and acourse grade of an A or B in the course for which they would be a peer leader. Trainingrecommendations resulted in the addition of a formalized pre-semester and post-semesterworkshop with all peer leaders meeting together, rather than in discipline-specific trainings. Inphysics, a decision was made to effect change in laboratory experiments to de-emphasizeformulaic outcomes and produce better interconnection with lecture and workshop materials.One of the members of the advisory board worked with the chemistry faculty on a programoutcome that promotes peer
sponsored by industry, and two projects were service-learning projectswith external customers. Each industry project sponsor provided a donation to the college andalso provided funding for all of the necessary materials for the project. The donations were usedto help fund the course, which included student travel to the sponsor site and funding for theservice-based projects.Students were provided a dedicated laboratory space in which they could work on and store theirprojects. Figure 1 shows students working on two of the projects, the robotic mower and thespin bike power meter. All sponsors of the projects were very satisfied with the final products.Two of the projects are being continued on as projects for capstone design courses, and two
ofthinking. The observation of such developments seems promising, with a view to helpingstudents develop into the technically excellent, innovative and humanistic professionals as was Page 15.776.8envisioned by the think tank and described in the beginning of this paper. Future work willfurther evaluate this and explore the interplay of specific influences and the range of concreteoutcomes to share an effective model for innovation in engineering education curriculum well-suited to the challenges of the 21st century.AcknowledgementsPartial support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation's Course,Curriculum, and Laboratory
diagnostic applications. She recently was voted to be the Graduate Ambassador for Chemical Engineering Department at MSU and also has won an award for maximum number of publications in a year. She is associated with Medical microDevice Engineering Laboratory (M.D.-ERL) at MSU working under Dr. Adrienne Minerick. Soumya is an active member of AIChE, AES, ASEE, SWE and Sigma-Xi.Anurag Srivastava, Mississippi State University Anurag K. Srivastava received his Ph.D. degree from Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), Chicago, in 2005, M. Tech. from Institute of Technology, India in 1999 and B. Tech. in Electrical Engineering from Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, India in 1997. He is working as
as their Page 9.696.1“laboratory” to test their learning in real organizational settings.Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2004,American Society for Engineering EducationThe survey was based on the learning objectives for the course. It was sent to all former studentsof the course.Structure of the CourseIt is with the Mission of our programs and the desire to enhance innovation leadership skills inour students that we created a new course on Implementing Innovation for our graduate studentsin Engineering and Technology Management at the
, at the same time as the students undertake their project, they are also enrolled in atleast three examinable subjects. By having a group of two or three students work on onetopic, an extensive amount of work can be achieved.From the commencement of the project the students are given the choice of submitting eithera formal engineering report (of approximately 35 pages) or preparing a technical paper inaccordance with guidelines of the ASME9 or SAE10. These two organizations provideextensive information on the preparation of manuscripts for submission to conferences orjournals. Should the students decide to submit a “paper” they are also required to submit adetailed laboratory manual for corroboration of their work.Very few students from an
Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2004, American Society for Engineering Educationteaching and learning and attend conferences such as ASEE where we interact with our peers.But I contend that we, as academics, are isolated from the day-to-day activities in industry. Evenour research work is generally done in our own labs away from the industries we are doing thework for. Given that very few graduate engineers with bachelor degrees pursue research, alsogiven the fact that I teach mostly first year students, it seemed appropriate that I shouldinvestigate work in industry rather than doing research at a laboratory. I felt that this experiencewould be more directly transferable and of more
. Many engineering educators have recognized the importance of a close relationship with industrial constituents and the benefits that such a relationship can have on student outcomes.1-4 The second challenge is to continually develop new laboratory facilities and faculty expertise necessary to teach courses in the emerging areas. As part of the extensive assessment efforts required by the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology5, Valparaiso has established a close relationship with a number of key stakeholders and routinely seeks their suggestions for revisions to the curriculum and the program learning objectives. However, in a relatively small department such as ours, it can be very difficult to recruit faculty members whose
mostinterest to them. Both teachers, Table 3, and students, Table 4, found rapidprototyping and industrial design to be a engaging topics. Table 3 – Teachers: What Sub-Topic(s) are most interesting to you? Teacher Comment NotesThe FDM fused deposition modeling.The new research At the end of the day, workshop attendees were introduced to research at the Laser AidedHands on activity with the LAMP. Manufacturing Process laboratory at UMR.The FDM process in general to learn the use ofdifferent polymers can result in working parts.Modeling in the computer using Unigraphics.The FDM machine's
technologies offered by this service. In the near future, UMIPS will support IP specific toour own internal solid-state electronics laboratory as well as MEMS foundries.C. UMIPS interface and accessUMIPS is managed internally at Michigan, but it is currently accessible by all researchers in theacademic community for noncommercial use. UMIPS has received and posted submissions fromboth the University of Michigan and other research institutions. The repository can be viewed viathe main internet portal, pictured in Figure 2, where nonproprietary descriptions of the IP compo-nents are listed and organized by function and process technology. Researchers wishing to utilizeIP in their designs submit a request for IP to the management team and authentication
individual work at the blackboards • Laboratories • In class design challenges • In class “jeopardy” (game show) • In class student presentations on material of choice Page 9.1095.6Figure 4: Captivating students with the tension test lab and newspaper bridge design challenge “Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2004, American Society for Engineering Education”The last element of generating intellectual excitement was essentially a degree ofpropaganda. Referring to other courses and electives in the department, talking aboutongoing
building strategies. Through weekly meetings, the team focused their research effortsand learned a great deal about each system. During this semester, several architecture studentsbecame interested, and in the spring twelve students enrolled in a studio class. Together,engineers and architects completed the prototype house design in April 2001 (McGowan, 6). The architecture studio, similar to an engineering laboratory course in the practical,hands-on experience it provides, but more open-ended and design oriented most labs, provides afavorable environment for approaching large design/build projects. The studio class was verytime-consuming for everyone involved. The classformally met twelve hours a week, with a weeklyreview in which industry
Conference & Exposition Copyrightø 2004, American Society for Engineering EducationStudent ResponseAs mentioned before, the student assignments were group activities. The intent was toencourage cooperative learning. In general, students were quite receptive to the use of Mathcad,although they had no prior exposure to the software. The author had to familiarize the studentswith the essential features of Mathcad, before they were given the assignment. As part of thecourse, a two-hour-per-week computational laboratory makes it possible for the author to teachthe basics of this software. Eleven students answered a survey which is summarized in Table 1
link between our research activities and activities at other institutions by bringing theirresearch experience to the University of Nevada classroom and laboratory and by buildingrelationships during their stay.Assessment: Assessment will be a collaborative effort between the College of Engineering andCollege of Education and the Office of Institutional Analysis. The formative and summativeevaluations will be both quantitative and qualitative in nature. Evaluations will includeattitudinal questionnaires, student evaluations, enrollment databases, observations, personalinterviews, and demographics. This mixed-method approach will allow both multivariate anddescriptive analyses.3. Activities and ProgressCurriculum Reform of the First Year