Multidisciplinary Team Dynamicsin Capstone Courses The peer evaluation survey consisted of thirteen questions which were selected to measure thedegree to which team members felt they and their peers were contributing to the team’s goals. Thesequestions can be found in Appendix B. Holland et al. (2010) implemented the same peer evaluationsurvey questions in a cross-disciplinary cross-department program AEC design studio (less techni-cal but a similar construct to this pilot). Such questions were selected, in that it had demonstratedefficacy in collecting team performance characteristics (Dominick et al. 1997; Geister et al. 2006)when deployed in other multi-disciplinary settings (Jones et al. 1993). Questions included perceptions of the extent that each
especially in improving the quality of communication andencouraging the students to share also unfinished steps of the process to receive feedback fromtheir peers and instructors earlier in the process, and ease the difficulty of commenting otherparticipants work. This intensive peer learning and feedback worked well during the collocatedsessions of the course, but the higher communication barriers of the current online tools hinderedit a lot during the remote sessions. The ultimate goal of such a platform would be to make theremote collaboration more enjoyable and more productive than collocated face-to-face work.ReferencesBarron, B. and Darling-Hammond, L., 2010. Prospects and challenges for inquiry-basedapproaches to learning. The nature of
LearningAccreditationAlthough not a motivation, this approach does simplify ABET accreditation. Normally projectwork and professional skills are distributed through a TBL curriculum. This makes it verydifficult to isolate and assess these topics. A common approach is to create one course to carrymany of the topics, or heap most of the assessment categories into the capstone course. With aPBL core the assessment topics can be assessed at a natural pace in the spirit of continuousimprovement. For reference the ABET ETAC and EAC criteria are listed 7 . Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) Criteria: (a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as
. Components of the 4th grade team’s project. Image A is the 3D-printed spikes for walking on ice. Image B is a model of a shoe designed to be used as part of the competition displayThe 3rd grade class identified homelessness and vacant homes as major problems in their city. Toaddress this problem, students opted to design new spaces for homeless people to live. The finaldesign was a house with a door for people to enter, walls for protection, and storage space. Ittook several iterations to get this design to a printable state. Both teams selected their primarydesigns for entry into the competition. Team members with designs that were not selectedcompromised by creating complimentary designs to be displayed alongside the team’s
detailed itinerary helpedthe students to understand program expectations and budget their time while abroad.7. Pre- Program Activities – Preparing the StudentsPrior to the departure, the students attended orientation meetings to prepare them for the programand for travel abroad. These meetings were especially important for students who had nottraveled abroad before. Topics covered included: a) Passport and visa requirements b) Registering for international travel at the university c) Emergency contact information d) Cultural differences and expectations for behavior in each country e) Suggestions for packing f) Student stipends g) Pre-program surveys of expectations h) Itinerary while in the host countries8
Paper ID #18570Assessing Sustainability in Design in an Infrastructure Course through Project-Based LearningCapt. Jeremiah Matthew Stache P.E., U.S. Military Academy Captain Jeremiah Stache is an assistant professor in the Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY. He received his B.S. from the U.S. Military Academy, West Point; M.S. from both the University of Tennessee, Knoxville and Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla; and is currently a Ph.D. student at Mississippi State University, Starkville. He is a registered Professional Engineer in the states of
of materials produced in laboratory delivery. Several summaryevaluations assessed during past years the quality and impact of an implemented hands-onactivities. The overall analysis of these activities provided us with insight on how to improve thelearning process.After every course an overall course improvement assessment is performed using the ABETcriteria [9] most pertinent to the course Student Learning Outcomes and also based on ourperformance criteria developed using the ABET criteria.Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) Aligned with ABET Student Outcomes (a-k) ABET Student Outcomes b c d e f g j Apply their knowledge of mathematics and science and SLO 1
their homework or exams were graded as they would have in the lecture-based section. Figure 1 illustrates how students interact with MasteringEngineering in practice. To begin, stu-dents open a MasteringEngineering problem on their smart device—an iPhone 5s in this case (Fig-ure. 1(a)). From their pre-class preparation or the 10-minute mini-lecture at the beginning of theclass, they recognize that they can solve Part A using Ohm’s law. If they do not recognize this, theycan request a hint from MasteringEngineering, or seek help from peers, the circulating teachingassistants, or instructor. They then derive the Ohm’s law expression for the desired current in theirnotebook (Figure, 1(b)) and enter it into MasteringEngineering as an expression
Paper ID #18162Engineering Undergraduates Concurrently Seeking K-12 STEM Teacher Li-censure: Fuels the Soul or Too Many Barriers?Dr. Malinda S. Zarske, University of Colorado, Boulder Malinda Zarske is a faculty member with the Engineering Plus program at the University of Colorado Boulder. A former high school and middle school science and math teacher, she has advanced degrees in teaching secondary science from the Johns Hopkins University and in civil engineering from CU-Boulder. Dr. Zarske teaches undergraduate product design courses through Engineering Plus as well as STEM education courses for pre-service teachers
. Then, we revised them and added more categories as needed toidentify more specific utterances. Table 2 provides descriptions and examples for each discoursemove.Table 2The Discourse Moves Used to Investigate the Characteristics and Function of the IndividualStudents’ Contribution during Dialogue Moves Description Example Claim Proposing the initial idea; “Metal C has the greatest first response to questions on coefficient” the activity sheet. “So, elastic modulus of metal A is greater than metal B” Accept (1) Expression of acceptance “I agree” and/or agreement with peer’s
using the content categories that emerged during the Lew andSchmidt (2011) study. This study centers around students, however, the content categoriestranslated naturally to ones that might be expected for faculty. To affirm these categories, otherstudies such as Valli (1990) and Tom (1985) were referenced. The prescribed categoriesnaturally fit into the more general categories identified by those studies. The pre-definedcategories comprised: a) self, b) peers, c) products and d) teaching strategies. The emergentcategories comprised: e) students and f) classroom resources (see Table 2).To code for quality (or depth), the reflective statements were reviewed for the dimension ofreflection achieved. Key words and phrases that alluded to specific
Analysis of Motivation Constructs with First-Year Engineering Students: Relationships Among Expectancies, Values, Achievement and Career Plans," Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 99, pp. 319- 336, 2010.[2] A. Bandura, "Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change," Psychological Review, vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 191-215, 1977.[3] M.M. Chemers, L.Hu, B.F. Garcia, "Academic Self- Efficacy and First-Year College Student Performance and Adjustment," Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 93, No. 1, pp. 55-64, 2001.[4] R. Marra, K. Rodgers, D. Shen, and B. Bogue, "Women Engineering Students and Self-Efficacy: A Multi-Year, Multi-Institution Study of Women Engineering Student Self-Efficacy," Journal of
] A. Abdreatos and A. Zagorianos. “Matlab GUI applications for teaching control systems,” 6 th WSEASinternational Conference on Engineering Education, pp. 208-211, 2009[7] B. Venkatalakshmi, R. Balakrishnan, V. Saravanan, and A. Renold. “Impact of simulation softwares as teachingtools in engineering learning – An instructional design choice,” 2016 IEEE Global Engineering EducationConference, pp. 868 -873, 2016
Mechanical and Electrical Engineering at Monterrey Tech (ITESM-Monterrey Campus). Teaches courses in CAD/CAE, Mechanical Design, Finite Element Method and Optimization. His interest are in the area of product development, topology optimization, additive manufacturing, sustainable design, and biomechanics.Mr. Timothy Neil Thomas, CADENAS PARTsolutions LLC Tim Thomas is a founding partner and CEO of CADENAS PARTsolutions and continues to evangelize the importance of standardization techniques in design processes. Tim has 28 years of CAD technol- ogy development and application experience. Previously he spent thirteen years at Structural Dynamics Research Corporation (SDRC) where he was the Director of CAD Development. He
responses and questions mid-way through the second cohort again led to morequestions. The questions began to focus more on the interplay between entrepreneurship andengineering (i.e. how does entrepreneurship impact engineering), looking for outside influencesthat students sought in the form of books and mentors, and clarifying some of the questionsasked above. These questions are shown in Table 4. Second List of Questions 1. Ask about what experiences they have had with A) family (parents, siblings, aunts/uncles, cousins) B) friends (roommates, significant others) C) work/internships that have inclined them to be interested in entrepreneurship/have a positive attitude toward entrepreneurship. 2. Are you a part of any student
Mathematics and minor in Economics) with High Honors from Swarthmore College in 1980. She went on to earn an MS in Operations Research from Stanford University in 1981 and a Ph.D. in Operations Research from Cornell University in 1984. After 30 years at Georgia Tech in a variety of roles, Donna became the Executive Director of the new Institute for STEM and Diversity Initiatives at Boise State University in January 2015. Donna’s current interests center around education issues in general, and in particular on increasing access and success of those traditionally under-represented and/or under-served in STEM higher education.Dr. Vicki Stieha, Boise State University Vicki Stieha, Ph.D. is a faculty member at Boise
Advances in Engineering Education FALL 2017Teaching Ethics as DesignROBERT KIRKMANKATHERINE FUANDBUMSOO LEEGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlanta, GA ABSTRACT This paper introduces an approach to teaching ethics as design in a new course entitled DesignEthics, team-taught by a philosopher and an engineer/designer. The course follows a problem-basedlearning model in which groups of students work through the phases of the design process on aproject for a local client, considering the design values and the ethical values in play in each decisionalong the way. Their acquisition of ethical thinking skills and moral imagination are assessed
interviews and observations,and later through the transcripts, once available. Constant categorization refers to revising thecategorization as coding continues and as new information is added. As Merriam details, thisprocess starts out very inductive, but becomes more and more deductive as themes develop andcategories crystalize until a saturation point is reached in the interview process. The analysiswas in response to the research question at all times and as Merriam suggests: (a) was assensitive to the data as possible; (b) was exhaustive; (c) was mutually exclusive; and (d) wasconceptually congruent.29FindingsAs described above, data analysis consisted of the coding and categorization of the transcriptsthrough a method of constant categorization
increase students’ learning and development7. A well-definedframework is often useful in organizing and coordinating the assessment process to ensureconsistent methodology and data analysis.Assessment of students requires a systematic gathering of information about student learning andthe factors that affect learning, undertaken with the resources, time and expertise available, forthe purpose of improving the learning. The three main steps in assessment include: (a)articulating learning goals, objectives or outcomes, (b) gathering information about how wellstudents are meeting the goals set, and (c) using the data obtained for improving the process of Fall 2017 Mid-Atlantic ASEE Conference, October 6-7 – Penn State Berkslearning
Summer 2016 Traditional (N = 24) Online (N = 11) Online (N = 16) Grades Percentage A+- 37 18 38 B+- 13 37 38 C+- 17 27 12 D+- 8 9 0 F 21 0 6 W/CW 4 9 6Comparing the grades of the students of the same course offering in traditional format and two onlinecourse
mindfulness and its impact on gender participation in engineering education. He is a Lecturer in the School of Engineering at Stanford University and teaches the course ME310x Product Management and ME305 Statistics for Design Researchers. Mark has extensive background in consumer products management, having managed more than 50 con- sumer driven businesses over a 25-year career with The Procter & Gamble Company. In 2005, he joined Intuit, Inc. as Senior Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer and initiated a number of consumer package goods marketing best practices, introduced the use of competitive response modeling and ”on- the-fly” A|B testing program to qualify software improvements. Mark is the Co-Founder
themembership of five other organizations for survey respondents. A total of 3,093 professionals inscience, technology, and engineering completed the survey online. Respondents included womenand men, aged 18 to 65 and up, with at least two years of experience as an engineer, frommultiple sectors (academia, corporate, government, military, and nonprofit). The survey data wasweighted to be representative of the gender and race distribution of engineers in the U.S. usingthe 2015 Current Population Survey2 (see Appendix A for details about the weights of the data).The weighted data was used in regression analyses but not bivariate and univariate analyses (seeexplanation of both terms below). Appendix B lists the demographic distribution of the
Paper ID #18620The Native Healthcare Engineering Internship: Interprofessional Approachesto Improving Rural HealthcareMs. Charlee Millett, Montana State University I’m an undergraduate nursing student at Montana State University. Originally from Anchorage, AK, and I am involved with Caring for Our Own Program (CO-OP), which is for American Indian/Alaska Native students.Dr. William J. Schell IV P.E., Montana State University William J. Schell holds a Ph.D. in Industrial and Systems Engineering – Engineering Management from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and M.S. and B.S. degrees in Industrial and Management Engi
engineering design course for bothsections. Average, maximum, minimum and standard deviation grades are shown as percentagesfor both Section 01 and 02 (n=84). The average final grade was 84%, where most grades fell inthe B range (80-90%), indicating a high success rate in the course.Table 4. Grades for Section 01 and 02 of the green engineering design course, expressed as percentages (n=84). Project Progress Final Individual Final Final Midterm HW Proposal Report Video Report Participation Exam Grade Avg 90 82 89 87 96 90 96 71 84 Max 102 99 98
Paper ID #19429Enhancing Student Meaning-Making of Threshold Concepts via Computa-tion: The Case of Mohr’s CircleMr. Hayden William Fennell, Purdue Polytechnic Institute Hayden Fennell is a Ph.D. student in the department of Computer and Information Technology at Pur- due University. He holds an M.S.E. degree in Materials Science and Engineering from Johns Hopkins University and a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of South Carolina.Prof. Genisson Silva Coutinho, Instituto Federal de Educac¸a˜ o, Ciˆencia e Tecnologia da Bahia Genisson Silva Coutinho is a Ph.D. student at the School of Engineering
graduate levels. His tremendous re- search experience in manufacturing includes environmentally conscious manufacturing, Internet based robotics, and Web based quality. In the past years, he has been involved in sustainable manufacturing for maximizing energy and material recovery while minimizing environmental impact.Dr. Yalcin Ertekin, Drexel University (Tech.) Dr. Ertekin received his BS degree in mechanical engineering from Istanbul Technical University. He received MS degree in Production Management from Istanbul University. After working for Chrysler Truck Manufacturing Company in Turkey as a project engineer, he received dual MS degrees in engi- neering management and mechanical engineering from Missouri
Don't. Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia.3. Matusovich, H., Streveler, R., Miller, R. and Olds, B. (2009, June), I’m Graduating This Year! So What IS an Engineer Anyway? Paper presented at 2009 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, Texas.4. Pierrakos, O., Beam,T.K., Constantz, J., Johri, A, and Anderson, R. (2009, October), On the Development of a Professional Identify: Engineering Persisters Vs Engineering Switchers. Paper Presented at 2009 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Antonia, Texas.5. Watson, M.K., Ghanat, S.T., Michalaka, D., Bower, K. and Welch, R. (2015, August), Why Do Student’s Choose Engineering? Implications for First-Year Engineering Education
werecorrelated more with negative reasons than positive ones. (In contrast, for middle school boys,the strength of correlations was about the same for the positive and negative reasons.) A finalsuggestion is to distribute highly rated activities throughout the week. Frustration is part oflearning and cannot be eliminated entirely. Activities, such as building, that are dependably funshould occur multiple times.AcknowledgmentThis work is supported by National Science Foundation under grant number 1426989.References 1. Veltman, M., Davidson, V. and Deyell, B. (2012) “Richer Connections to Robotics through Project Personalization,” Advances in Engineering Education, Summer 2012. 2. Chubin, D., Donaldson, K., Olds, B. and Fleming, L. (2008
). "Understanding student differences." Journal of engineeringeducation 94(1): 57-72.Felder, R. M. and L. K. Silverman (1988). "Learning and teaching styles in engineeringeducation." Engineering education 78(7): 674-681.Felder, R. M. and B. A. Soloman (n.d.). "Index of Learning Styles." Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html.Felder, R. M. and B. A. Soloman (n.d.). "Learning styles and strategies." Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSdir/styles.pdf.Fleming, N. D. (2001). Teaching and learning styles: VARK strategies, IGI Global.Gasiewski, J. A., et al. (2012). "From Gatekeeping to Engagement: A Multicontextual, MixedMethod Study of Student Academic Engagement in Introductory STEM Courses." Research inHigher Education 53
functionality and are resilient to withstand most disasters and severe weather events. B: Good, Adequate For Now The infrastructure in the system or network is in good to excellent condition; some elements show signs of general deterioration that require attention. A few elements exhibit significant deficiencies. Overall, the infrastructure is safe and reliable, with minimal capacity issues and minimal risk. C: Mediocre, Requires Attention The infrastructure in the system or network is in fair to good condition; it shows general signs of deterioration and requires attention. Some elements exhibit significant deficiencies in conditions and functionality, with increasing vulnerability to risk