that the confidentiality of responses wasnecessary to encourage students to be more forthright in their appraisals.The revised survey was posted online for universal use in the fall and spring 2004 semesters at:http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/labgroup/selfeval.html (pre-lab form) andhttp://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/labgroup/posteval.html (post-lab form). Students are firstasked to enter their name and campus identification number, identify up to three laboratorycourses in which they are enrolled, and then report the date of the survey, their academic status,and major(s). Drop-down menus and radio buttons minimize incidental reporting errors andmake it easier to analyze the data. Students are asked to rate their proficiency for each
-Couetil, N., Reed-Rhoads, T., & Haghighi, S. (2012). Engineering students and entrepreneurship education: Involvement, attitudes, and outcomes. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28, 425-435. 11. Duval-Couetil, N., Reed-Rhoads, T. & Haghighi, S. (2011). Investigating the impact of entrepreneurship education on engineering students. Paper presented at the NCIAA Conference, Washington D.C. 12. Zimmerman, J. (2008). Refining the Definition of Entrepreneurship. (Doctoral Dissertation). UMI Dissertation Publishing 13. Martin, R.L. & Osbrg, S. (2007). Social Entrepreneurship: The Case Definition. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Social
assessment s to evaluate my 35%tiveness as a teacher, so I to know more about howata will be used before Into this. 18%assessment stuff is just 12% 0%her fad foisted on us byeditation agencies and is of e to me as a faculty 0% ber. A1 A2 A3 A4
and testing these hands-on laboratoryprojects in their introductory AI courses.The paper presents an overview of our project and some preliminary results of testing some ofthe material at the authors’ departments. This paper reports on the first phase of the projectwhich was accomplished during Summer and Fall 2004.4. Overview of the ProjectThe project is geared toward the development of several intro AI projects, each of whichinvolves the design and implementation of a learning system which will enhance a particularcommonly-deployed application. Instructors may select which project(s) to assign throughout asemester or may give students options to select from.The projects are easily adaptable. Our designs are modular and object-oriented
application of the method. Modern finiteelement developments have become very sophisticated, and the available softwaredeveloped for the user has become very easy to use. It has become more important thanever to insure that the analyst, in his/her search for the best modeling method, correctlyuses the tools available.What Type of Education is Required to Carry Out a Proper Element Analysis?When FEM first appeared in the 1960's it was introduced into the engineering curriculumat the graduate level. As the method and computer technology matured, FEM wasintroduced at the undergraduate level in engineering and engineering technologyprograms, even in some two-year technology programs. Graphical user-friendlyinterfaces (GUI) have significantly reduced the
inInterdisciplinary Studies and the topic has taken a front-line position in science and engineeringresearch in the US with the introduction of the Science and Technology Centers (STC) andEngineering Research Centers (ERC) by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1980’s. Thepreponderance of such centers in research education is clearly articulated by Schuler, who statesthat at some schools “interdisciplinary programs and centers… have become as numerous as thetraditional academic departments 2.” Finally, in 1998 ABET introduced its Engineering Criteria2000, which mandates that “Engineering programs will demonstrate that their graduates canfunction on interdisciplinary teams.” It turns out that interdisciplinary studies in engineeringeducation is rather
, and advocates.5.0 AcknowledgementThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under GrantsNos. 1025207 and 1025220. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe National Science Foundation.6.0 References 1. ABET (2008). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs Effective for Evaluations During the 2009- 2010 Accreditation Cycle, 21 pp., ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission. www.abet.org 2. Aidoo, J., J. Hanson, K. Sutterer, R. Joughtalen, and S. Ahiamadi (2007). International senior design projects – more lessons learned, National Capstone Design Course Conference
have been separated intothree groups aligned with the previous tables. As expected the industrial comments emphasizethe need for competency in a manufacturing environment and help facing the current businesschallenges. Academics, and to the most part other respondents mentioned the many problemsfacing the academic institutions. This is understandable given that manufacturing education isvery much a publicly funded process that serves private industries. Recommendation: The comments should be read to gain further insight to the quantitative survey responses and better understanding of other perspectives.References1. Jack, H., “The State of Manufacturing Engineering Education”, An SME Technical Paper, November 20052. Danielson, S
of Requirements 4 One thing needs work 3 Few things need work (criteria for success, constraints, assumptions, or limitations) 2 Missing all or most of the standard introduction parts of the memo.Table 3. Share-Ability (Ease of Use) Score SummaryScore Description of Requirements 4 Easy-to-read-and-use procedure in memo format. 3 Readable and usable, but not in memo format. 2 Procedure is difficult to read and useThe 60 teams received feedback from 152 students; each team received between 1 and 4 peerreview(s). The 152 peer reviews were then qualitatively analyzed to understand the nature of the Page
pandemic also disrupted the traditional way of teaching science and presentedteachers with new instructional tools. Another term for a disruption that has a positive effectis “disruptive innovation”. One 4th grade teacher added her own thoughts at the end of herinterview about the trajectory of STEAM education in her classroom and COVID-19’s“disruptive innovation”. As teaching and learning return to “normal”, she hopes that teachersreflect on what really worked during remote learning and incorporate those effective practicesback into in-person instruction: “I'm impressed with educators and what we've been able to do in such a short amount of time, and I think that we should not walk away from what we learned when we were remote
, and People of Color (BIPOC) in higher ed thrive. Dr. Z. is also a first-generation college graduate, child of immigrants, and a published author. He is a former McNair Scholar, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine-Ford Foundation Fellow, Herman B. Wells Graduate Fellow, International Counseling Psychologist, former Assistant Professor at the University of Kentucky, and current Post-Doctoral ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Paper ID #41726 Research Scholar at the University of Pittsburgh. Dr. Z.’s research program focuses on examining the impact of
suggestedtopics were confirmed to be added to the curriculum. Similarly, due to the professional diversityfactor, the number of proposed alternative names per topic and subtopic confirmed was alsoless than in Experiment 2. And like in Experiment 2’s discussion, the results show that with moreautomation (consensus building for the data analysis of topics, subtopics, and name analyses)outputs a quicker data analyses duration. Table 4 – Experiments 1, 2, & 3 Comparisons Experiment 1 [21] Experiment 2 [18] Experiment 3 Total Number of 19 22 31 Experts Total Number of <300
] include: “using ratings systemssuch as Greenroads, ENVISION, and/or LEED to introduce students to metrics related to societalwell-being”, and case studies of past CE projects that “failed to address the needs of anunderserved community (e.g., the 2014 Flint, Michigan, water supply crisis)” [11, 12]. There arean increasing number of examples of efforts to introduce issues of equity in concert withinfrastructure in the literature. Sanford et al. conducted a systematic review of literaturedescribing interventions that have been implemented in practice [13]. Examples include Casperet al.’s efforts to integrate social justice into first and third year civil engineering courses [14],case studies developed by Judge [15], and Castaneda et al.’s
) appear to have increased in their share of thetotal agency investments in STEM education over that same time frame. Also revealed from thisvisualization is how highly-invested agencies tend to have a handful of highly invested programsand then multiple smaller efforts. Because most STEM investments are funded via multipleappropriations from Congress, this graphic demonstrates that the approximately one billion dollarincrease in Federal STEM education funding is being utilized by multiple entities and notnecessarily just the few whose missions more closely overlap with achieving effective STEMeducation.Top funded programs listed in the inventory can be seen in Table 5. Of these ten investments,which encompass nearly 39% of fiscal year 2021’s STEM
ability tocreate code in a specific language. In the following sections, a brief introduction tophenomenography, a description of the study exploring student understanding of conditional andrepetition structures, and the results of the study are presented. The final section discusses howthese results can be utilized in the development of an assessment instrument as well as what stillneeds to be done in order to reach the final destination.Phenomenography as a Research MethodologyPhenomenography is an educational research method developed in the early 1980’s by a researchgroup in the Department of Education at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden18. It arose outof work exploring the ways that students experienced learning, approached their
of quality, not falling within the scopeof the journal, lack of assessment data, etc.) it will be rejected. Those manuscripts not rejectedenter the review process, and are distributed to an associate editor (AE) on the basis of thetechnical area of the manuscript. Each manuscript is assigned at least three (3) reviewers. Aminimum of two (2) reviews must be performed before a decision can be taken. Once thesereviews are in hand, the AE prepares a preliminary decision, if necessary giving requirementsand recommendations to be met by the author(s). The EIC reviews the preliminary decision, editsit as necessary, and communicates the decision to the author(s). This process continues withrevisions that are submitted until a satisfactory manuscript
associations and professional societies,government agencies, national standards bodies, and international standards agencies.” Hardingand McPherson (2009) 7 describe the present sphere of standards organizations in his ASEEpaper.Two surveys describe the libraries’ best practices for standards. The original plan to do a surveydid not appear necessary after finding these two surveys. Both surveys cover large academiclibraries. Brian S. Mathews (2006)8 wrote about “top engineering schools” while Lorraine F.Pellack (2004)9did a survey of 34 libraries that are members of the prestigious Association forResearch Libraries (ARL). In 2003, Pellack’s survey indicated that there are many librariesdoing special ordering with format half of the libraries buying
laboratories for physiology research by undergraduate students in biosciences and biomedical engineering. Adv Physiol Educ 2008. 32: p. 256- 260.4. Moraes, C., K. Wyss, E. Brisson, B. Keith, Y. Sun, and C.A. Simmons, An undergraduate lab (on-a-chip): Probing single cell mechanics on a microfluidic platform. Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering, 2010. 3(3): p. 319-330.5. Carson, S., J.R. Chisnell, and R.M. Kelly, Integrating modern biology into the ChE biomolecular engineering concentration through a campus wide core laboratory education program Chemical Engineering Education, 2009. 43(4): p. 257-264.6. Dymond, J.S., L.Z. Scheifele, S. Richardson, P. Lee, S. Chandrasegaran, J.S. Bader, and J.D. Boeke