the total responses, such asadaptable, organized or resourceful, just to name a few. It was interesting to note that 21% of theresponses directly attributed creativity to a person who is artistic (Figure 1b). If this is comparedto the first question, it suggests that students realize art elements and principles can be animportant aspect of divergent thinking. The responses also show that students see a creativeperson as someone who is confident and sees problems from a different perspective. Figure 1: a) Frequency of words in responses to the question “What does creativity mean to you?” (left) b) Summary of responses to the question “What are some characteristics creative people display?” (right).Proposed Research DesignIn Fall 2016
HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.Takahira, S., Goodings, D., & Byrnes, B. (1998). Retention and performance of male and femaleengineering students: An examination of academic and environmental variables. Journal ofEngineering Education, 88, 297−304.Veenstra, C. P., Dey, E. L., & Herrin, G. D. (2009, Winter). A model for freshman engineeringretention. Advances in Engineering Education, 4, 1−33.Zhang, G., Min, Y., Ohland, M., Anderson, T. (2006). The role of academic performance inengineering attrition, Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering EducationConference and Exposition, Session 1336.Zhao, C., Kuh, G. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement.Research in Higher Education, 45 (2), 115-138.
Engineering Education, 94(1), 57–72.10. 2010 U.S. Census Data. (2010). Retrieved January 10, 2014, from www.census.gov/2010census/data11. Miller Jr., J. A. (2003). The Science and Engineering Workforce: Realizing America’s Potential. Rep. No. NSB 03-79.12. Keith, J. L., Ayer, D. B., Rees, E., Freda, D. V., Lowe, J. K., & Day, J. (2003). Brief of Amici Curiae Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Leland Stanford Junior University, EI Du Pont de Nemours and Company, International Business Machines Corp., National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, National Action Council, 02-241.13. Wulf, W. A. (1988). Diversity in Engineering. The Bridge, 24(4).14. Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st
Topics/Lessons FrequencyCOUNT RANKING Figure 4. Additional SOLIDWORKS Functionality/Tools Frequency and RankingsClassroom Activities and Outcomes Survey Table 4. Course Related Skill Gains Factor Mean Std. Deviation Design Skills a. Understanding of what engineers “do” in industry or as faculty 3.30 0.64 members b. Understanding of engineering as a field that often involves non- technical considerations (e.g., economic, political, ethical, 2.90 0.94 and/or social issues) c
; analysis of potential students (students, who take the course are juniors and do not have a prior knowledge in the field of mechanism kinematics and design and its applications); • Determine faculty role in the learning process and develop an instructional plan; • Identify faculty interested in collaborative research and education activities across disciplines; • Design cross-disciplinary research project activities, assignments, and assessments that are congruent with the three major desired student outcomes: (a) critical thinking, (b) responsibility for one’s own learning, (c) intellectual growth, congruent with the discussion project goals.Project Activities Specific GoalsThe goal of the project
will likely pay more attention to global codes of ethics as they are quite familiar with the existing codes of ethics and have curiosity and imagination about whether these codes of ethics are applicable in other cultures. (b) so far as we know, only a few scholars (mainly philosophers) have claimed that there are some characteristics unique to the engineering profession that define engineering as a globalized profession. It is unclear if we can conclude that this phenomenon is due to the traditional mission of philosophy that is “seeking the truth” essential for defining an object. (c) some business leaders, often with extensive experience traveling to different countries
the following: a) a faculty member fromengineering education department, who is also the director of education and global initiatives atVirginia Tech’s premier research institute called the Institute of Critical Technologies andApplied Sciences (ICTAS) and a faculty member from civil and environmental engineering, b)one post doc having background in electrical engineering and engineering education, c) fourdoctoral and one master’s degree students having backgrounds in computer science, mechanicalengineering, chemical engineering, environmental engineering and engineering education, and d)six undergraduate students from computer science, civil and environmental engineering,electrical engineering, biological systems engineering, and crop and
their project around. Each group mustthat were experienced in using the data that the students could select a freely available large data set from the internet.select from. The students in that section presented their Repositories for these data sets include kaggle.com andprojects as both posters, viewable by students and faculty in hadoopilluminated.com. Some examples include crimethe College of Engineering, and as videos posted online. statistics for Philadelphia, a bike sharing system in Boston,Instructor B had slightly fewer students at 68, but provided a and air quality data from Italy. Once they select the data, themore detailed framework for the project. The students in that groups must define their
” (see Appendix A)and a laboratory component titled “Engineering Applications” (see Appendix B). The twocomponents were taught back-to-back on the same day, and the class met twice a week. Theadvantage of the back-to-back format was that students were able to apply immediately conceptscovered in lecture-recitation component. According to the students, they thought the formatgave them the opportunity to make the concepts real and less abstract, and secondly, it helpedthem to understand and retain better the topics covered in class. In the following sections, theauthors will describe the course content in module 1, 2, and 3. The contents of these modulescan be found in Appendix A and Appendix B. Students was assessed by exams (an exam wasgiven at
understanding of how tools can be utilized to createbetter, if not “optimal”, solutions to achieve desired design objectives.Course objectivesAfter completing this course students should be able to: (a) develop models of physical systems(mechanical, fluid, hydraulic, pneumatic, electric) using Matlab and its Simulink and Simscapetoolboxes, (b) analyze system behavior with respect to parameter modifications, (c) integratesystems across different physical domains (e.g. electro-mechanical), and (d) understand thecontrol aspects to achieve desired system behavior.After completing this course the students should be able to apply MATLAB software, includingSimulink and Simscape, to:1. Perform basic operations and create scripts.2. Model and simulate multibody
gathering data to support innovation in thedelivery of instruction. Efforts will also be made to gather control group data.References 1 Bairaktarova, Diana, Matthew Reyes, Nooshin Nassr, and Dan Thomas Carlton, “Identifying Motivational Factors and Lived Experiences that Enhance Spatial Skills in Novices and Experts in STEM Disciplines,” American Society for Engineering Education, 2015. 2 Metz, Susan Staffin, Susan Donohue, and Cherith Moore. (2012) “Spatial Skills: A Focus on Gender and Engineering” In B. Bogue & E. Cady (Eds.), Apply Research to Practice (ARP) Resources. Retrieved January 31, 2017 from http://www.engr.psu.edu/AWE/ARPResources.aspx 3 Segil, Jacob L
proposedprocess.To further investigate these conclusions, Fisher's comparisons were conducted with a confidencelevel of 99% as illustrated in Figure 6-a,b,c. The outcome of these comparisons further supportsour initial conclusions that the improvement in students’ writing performance due to theimplementation of the proposed process is significant. (a) (b) (c)Figure 6 – Fisher pairwise comparisons of, (a) initial lab 1 vs revised lab 1; (b) initial lab 1 vs initial lab 7; (c) revised lab 1 vs revised lab 7In addition to SLO 1, students also completed surveys
results.Homework assignments, examinations, end of semester design problem/project and student exitsurveys are used as metrics to check efficacy of pedagogy. This course on finite element methodstargets ABET criteria a,b,e,g,i,k.Paper OutlineThis paper describes (i) analytical mathematical techniques, viz., solution of differential equationsby the method of variables separable and Galerkin’s method of weighted residuals and (ii)computational tools, viz, MATLAB and its partial differential equations toolbox (pdetool) for anundergraduate elective course in finite element methods.In this paper, an introduction, literature review and brief philosophy of this study and the classdemographics are first described. A skill assessment exam is conducted to
. Dowling and J. Zhou, "The Power of an Idea: The International Impacts of theGrand Challenges for Engineering," Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 4-7, 2016.[3] National Academy of Engineering, "NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering," vol. 2016,2008.[4] D. Kilgore, B. Sattler and J. Turns, "From fragmentation to continuity: engineering studentsmaking sense of experience through the development of a professional portfolio," Studies inHigher Education, vol. 38, pp. 807-826, 2013.[5] M. Eliot and J. Turns, "Constructing professional portfolios: Sense-making and professionalidentity development for engineering undergraduates," J Eng Educ, vol. 100, pp. 630, 2011.[6] J. Turns, B. Sattler and D. Kilgore, "Disciplinary knowledge, identity, and navigation
handbook for faculty development.Blackmore, J. A. (2005). A critical evaluation of peer review via teaching observation within higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(3), 218-232.Boatright, B., & Gallucci, C. (2008). Coaching for instructional improvement: Themes in research and practice. Washington State Kappan, 2(1), 3-5.Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014). Increasing the use of evidence‐based teaching in STEM higher education: A comparison of eight change strategies. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 220-252.Coggins, C. T., Stoddard, P., & Cutler, E. (2003). Improving Instructional Capacity through School-Based Reform Coaches.Cornett, J., & Knight, J. (2009
. 2005;134(3):52-59. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027998.5. Lucas B, Hanson J, Claxton G. Thinking like an Engineer Implications for the Education System.; 2014. http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/thinking-like-an-engineer-implications-summary.6. ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission. Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2017 & 2018. 2017. view-source:http://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting- engineering-programs-2017-2018/. Accessed February 11, 2017.7. National Society of Professional Engineers. What is a PE? 2017. https://www.nspe.org/resources/licensure/what-pe. Accessed February 11, 2017.8. Sheppard SD, Macatangay K, Colby A, Sullivan WM
Paper ID #18877Are Students Overworked? Understanding the Workload Expectations andRealities of First-Year EngineeringMs. Darlee Gerrard, University of Toronto Darlee Gerrard is a Coordinator for pre-university science and engineering outreach programs in the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering at the University of Toronto. She is also a Ph.D. student in the department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning at OISE (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education) in the collaborative Engineering Education program. She received her Hon. B.Sc. from the University of Toronto, B. Ed. from Brock University, and Masters degree
are located at 3 o’ clock.Figure 4: Skills that students identified as needing improvement as reported in a) the pre-assignment survey andb) the post-assignment survey.Figure 5: Skills that students disclosed as those they worked on throughout the semester as part of the self-reflectionassignments as reported in a) the pre-assignment survey and b) the post-assignment survey.Figure 6: Skills that students disclosed as those they improved upon throughout the semester as reported in the post-assignment survey.Part 2: Likert-Scale and Open-Ended QuestionsWe used the collective responses from the 31 total respondents to Survey 2 for the Likert-scaleand open-ended questions. Note that only 30 students responded to all of the questions in part 2of
Collaborative Learning, 1(1):89–115, March 2006. [3] C. Crouch and E. Mazur. Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9):970–977, September 2001. [4] R. J. Dufresne, W. J. Gerace, W. J. Leonard, J. P. Mestre, and L. Wenk. Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7(2): 3–47, March 1996. [5] J. Piaget. The early growth of logic in the child. Routledge, London, 1964. [6] W. Doise and G. Mugny. Sociocognitive conflict. In The Social Development of the Intellect, volume 10, pages 77–101. Pergamon, Amsterdam, 1984. [7] S. D’Mello, B. Lehman, R. Pekrun, and A. Graesser. Confusion can be beneficial for learning. Learning and
content in the coated zeolite, the contact angle measurement demonstrated that the hydrophilicity of the membrane alsoincreased. When the Si/B ratio was 25, the zeolite-coated mesh showed super-hydrophilic and underwater super-oleophobic. The zeolite-coated meshshowed high chemical stability in an oil rejection rate, when the filtrations were repeated several times successively with the same membrane even underacidic, basic or hot water conditions. The thermal stability of the zeolite-coated mesh provided a simple method to reproduce the by simple re-calcination. The re-calcination has been proceeded for three times on the same membrane, which did not reduce the oil rejection performance. Theboron-introduced MFI-type zeolite-coated mesh can also
general information; they were not program, a total of 38 students enrolled in three pre-calculusfamiliar with exact cut-off scores for these placements. Even courses: MATH107 (University Mathematics B I),when these cut off scores were communicated to students, MATH108 (University Mathematics I-B), and MATH 110they found it difficult to follow. The cut off scores for Fall (University Mathematics B II - Trigonometry and2017 entering class, who will be tested in Spring and Differential Calculus). As indicated in Figure 6, 35 studentsSummer 2017: moved to next course in Mathematics sequence by securing For placement in Math 111 (Calculus-I
, A Survey of Capstone Engineering Courses in North America, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 84, No. 2, April, 1995.[5] Hirsch, P., Shwom, B., Yarnoff, C., Anderson, J.C, Kelso, D.M., Olson, G.B., and J.E. Colgate, Engineering design and communication: The case for interdisciplinary collaboration, International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 17 No. 4-5, pages 342- 48, 2001.[6] Dehaene, W., Gielen, G., Deconinck, G., Driesen, J., Moonen, M., Nauwelaers, B., Van Hoof, C., and P. Wambacq, Circuits and systems engineering education through interdisciplinary team-based design projects, Proceeding of the 2011 IEEE International Symposium of Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), Rio De Janeiro, May 15-18, 2011
Computing Students. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.Anderson, C. (2012). Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. New York, NY: Crown Business.Antonucci-Durgan, D., Wood, S., Turano, P., Hahn, T., Hassildine, E., & Vogel, D. (2014 Creating Mobile “Makerspaces” to Support Experiential Learning. State University of New York (SUNY). Retrieved from https://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/handle/1951/68231.Bajarin, T. (2014, May 19). Making It. TIME. Retrieved from http://time.com/104210/maker-faire-maker-movement/.Barrett, T. W., & Pizzico, M. C., & Levy, B., & Nagel, R. L., & Linsey, J. S., & Talley, K. G., & Forest, C. R., & Newstetter, W. C. (2015, June). A
Science Education, 2009. 31(3): p. 459-480.3. Barr, R.E., Planning the EDG curriculum for the 21st century: A proposed team e ort. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 1999. 63(2): p. 9.4. Sorby, S.A., & Baartmans, B. J. . A longitudinal study of a pre-graphics course designed to improve the 3-D spatial skills of low visualizers. in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Engineering Design Graphics and Descriptive Geometry. 1998. Austin, TX.5. Sorby, S.A., A New And Improved Course For Developing Spatial Visualization Skills. 2001, ASEE Conferences: Albuquerque, New Mexico.6. Sorby, S.A., The role of spatial training in improving spatial and calculus performance in engineering students. Learning and
EngineeringEducation.” Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2015 AnnualConference and Exposition. ASEE: Seattle, WA.26 Rogers, J. David, G. Paul Kemp, H. J. Bosworth, & Raymond B. Seed, R. B. 2015.“Interaction between the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Orleans Levee Board precedingthe drainage canal wall failures and catastrophic flooding of New Orleans in 2005.” Water Policy17(4): 707-723.27 Riley, Donna M. 2008. Engineering and Social Justice. San Rafael: Morgan & Claypool.28 Lachney, Michael. 2014. “Building the LEGO Classroom.” In LEGO Studies: Examining theBuilding of a Transmedial Phenomenon, Mark J. P. Wolf (editor). New York: Routledge. Pp.166-186.29 Nieusma, Dean, & James W. Malazita. 2016. “Making" a
. (1966). The axioms and principal results of classical test theory. Journal ofMathematical Psychology. 3(1), 1-18. doi: 10.1002/j.2333-8504.1965.tb00132.xRoach, A. T., Niebling, B. C., & Kurz, A. (2008). Evaluating the alignment among curriculum,instruction, and assessments: Implications and applications for research and practice.Psychology in the Schools, 45(2), 158-176. doi: 10.1002/pits.20282Sandin, B., Harshman, J., & Yezierski, E. (2015). Formative assessment in high schoolchemistry teaching: Investigating the alignment of teachers’ goals with their items. Journal ofChemical Education, 92(10), 1619-1625. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00163Tamim, S.R. & Grant, M.M. (2013). Definitions and uses: Case study of teachers
their advisors in chemistry and physics. NARST Annual International Conference, 2008. 5. Hewitt, N., & Seymour, E. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview. 6. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.7. Ohland, M. W., Sheppard, S. D., Lichtenstein, G., Eris, O., Chachra, D., & Layton, R. A. (2008). Persistence Engagement and Migration in Engineering Programs. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 259–278.8. Yoder, B. L. (2012). Engineering by the Numbers (Tech. Rep.). American Society for Engineering Educators.9. Tonso, K. L. (1999). Engineering Gender
University of New York Farmingdale.Mr. Jamshid E Farzidayeri, Middle Tennessee State University Jamshid Farzidayeri is a Graduate Teaching Assistant for the Department of Mechatronics Engineering and a Ph. D. student in Computational Science at Middle Tennessee State University. Jamshid’s current research is the application of the energy principle to material segregation in rotating cylinders and his in- terest are energy systems, robotics, and space science. Prior to commencing his graduate studies, Jamshid worked as a Field Service Engineer for Beckman Coulter and has received Bachelor’s degrees in Mecha- tronics Engineering and Business Administration. He grew up in Hays, Kansas, and enjoys camping, gaming, and
Paper ID #18597How Do Engineering Students’ Achievement Goals Relate to their ReflectionBehaviors and Learning Outcomes?Miss Damji Heo, Purdue University Damji Heo received B. A. degrees in Educational Technology and Psychology from Ewha Womans Uni- versity in 2012 and M. Ed. degree in Educational Psychology from the University of Texas at Austin in 2014 respectively. Currently, she is doing her Ph. D. in Learning, Design, and Technology program at Purdue University since 2015 and a graduate research assistant in School of Engineering Education at the same university. Her main areas of research interest are learning
workshop was advertised and communicated to future transferstudents, but none seemed to adequately communicate their high level of enthusiasm andappreciation for the workshop experience.The initial results indicate the workshop is making a difference. In addition to participantsexpressing strong favorable views of the workshop, it also appears to be helping students in theclassroom. The grade point average (GPA) of all students enrolled in the College of Engineering(as of spring 2017) is at 2.98. The students who attended the workshop average 3.14. Althoughthis margin is small, it’s the difference between a “C+” and a solid “B”. In the world ofrecruiting and job offers, the difference is huge. Many employers won’t even consider a studentbelow a