senior faculty in the Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering at West Point.Dr. Kristen L. Sanford Bernhardt, Lafayette CollegeAndrea L Welker, Villanova University Dr. Andrea L. Welker, PE is an associate professor in the Civil and Environmental Engineering depart- ment at Villanova University. Dr. Welker, a geotechnical engineer, teaches the following classes: Geology for Engineers, Soil Mechanics, Soil Mechanics Laboratory, Geotechnical Capstone Design, Foundation Design, Geosynthetics, Geoenvironmental Engineering, and Professional Practice. Most of Dr. Welker’s research focuses on the geotechnical aspects of stormwater control measures. In addition to her teach- ing and research duties, Dr. Welker is the
program is toenable students to work on interdisciplinary engineering projects requiring an understanding ofelectrical and computer design and systems analysis. Over the course of three years in theprogram, students are required to complete coursework in both the SE and ECE departments,including two joint laboratory courses in the third year and a team-based, interdisciplinarycapstone project in the fourth year.Participants for this study were second-year engineering students within the SE and ECEdepartments. Data for this study was collected between October 2009 and March 2010, focusingon the first cohort of LEP students and their non-LEP counterparts. The first cohort to begin thisprogram started in the fall of 2009 with 14 students. Of those
University of Wisconsin - Madison, and a faculty fel- low at the Wisconsin Center for Education Research (WCER) and the Center on Education and Work. Dr. Nathan studies the cognitive, embodied, and social processes involved in STEM reasoning, learn- ing and teaching, especially in mathematics and engineering classrooms and in laboratory settings, using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Dr. Nathan has secured over $20M in external re- search funds and has over 80 peer-reviewed publications in education and Learning Sciences research, as well as over 100 scholarly presentations to US and international audiences. He is Principal Investiga- tor or co-Principal Investigator of 5 active grants from NSF and the
) Page 22.1675.15 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Tag c Tag c Tag c Tag c Tag c assessment 114 simulation 77.5 concept 71.5 how people learn 53.5 survey 58 engagement 50 retention 74 knowledge 66 concept 51 discipline 53.5 laboratory 50 ethics 62 teamwork 55 active learning 44 teamwork 48.5 skill 48 survey 59 ethnography 53.7 design 39 women 47 experiment 47.5 model 48.5
. Page 22.1246.16References1. Erwin, B., M. Cyr, and C. Rogers, Lego engineer and RoboLab: Teaching engineering with LabView from Kindergarten to graduate school. International Journal of Engineering Education, 2000. 16(3): p. 181-192.2. Resnick, M., Behavior construction kits. Communications of the ACM, 1993. 36(7): p. 64-71.3. Verner, I.M. and D.J. Ahlgren, Robot contest as a laboratory for experiential engineering education. ACM Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 2004. 4(2): p. 2-28.4. Petre, M. and B. Price, Using robotics to motivate ‘back door’ learning. Education and Information Technologies, 2004. 9(2): p. 147-158.5. Sklar, E. and A. Eguchi. RoboCupJunior — four years later, in Proceedings of the
, PhD, is professor of Educational Psychology, with affiliate appointments in Curriculum & Instruction and Psychology at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, and a faculty fel- low at the Wisconsin Center for Education Research (WCER) and the Center on Education and Work. Dr. Nathan studies the cognitive, embodied, and social processes involved in STEM reasoning, learn- ing and teaching, especially in mathematics and engineering classrooms and in laboratory settings, using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Dr. Nathan has secured over $20M in external re- search funds and has over 80 peer-reviewed publications in education and Learning Sciences research, as well as over 100 scholarly
teachers for the week to participatein a teaching laboratory. During the week, the teachers are responsible for teaching the modulesto the students in a highly supported environment, surrounded by SENSE IT staff, available toassist with any questions or concerns. The opportunity for teachers to implement the materialswith students enables the teachers to review the materials again, better understand how theymight teach the materials to students in their classes and offer more time for the mentalpreparation required for implementing new classroom activities.As mentioned, the SENSE IT teachers also participate in four school-year professionaldevelopment workshops. The workshop materials involve the development of sensors, evaluationneeds, and STEM
suspicious thatseveral students in his Thermodynamics-II were using textbook solution manuals to do theirhomework assignments. After advising students several times that they are not benefitting fromusing the solution manual and warning them that the University policy considers such usage asplagiarism, the instructor found a web-site address written on a note in his office. The note wasslipped under his office door by one of the students in the course. The web-site was hostingsolution manuals for 10 mechanical engineering, 10 electrical engineering, and five civilengineering courses. In addition, the website included laboratory reports for a materials coursein mechanical engineering. Apparently, the site was hosted and managed by one of the
PCM’s framework helps the course designer see the relationship of standard traditional methods of assessment (e.g., plug and chug problems, laboratory experiments, projects and presentations) in creating an engineering professional’s knowledge set. It provides a framework to balance the knowledge and skills since neither a “book smart” student nor the student who randomly tinkers makes the best engineer. ● Freedom to be flexible in selecting course components to meet objectives: The ideal method of teaching content depends on a number of changing factors such as student ability and background, instructor expertise, and resources available. Ideally, a course designer can select freely from the wide range of
period. The MEA was launched in the laboratory setting which was facilitated by twoGTAs supported by four undergraduate assistants. Student teams of 3-4 students developedDRAFT 1 of their memo with procedure and results. This draft entered a double-blind peerreview process. In preparation for the peer review, students participated in a calibration exercisein which they practiced giving feedback on one prototypical piece of student work using theMEA Rubric, were provided an expert‟s review of that student work, and reflected on what theyneeded to do differently to improve their ability to give a peer review. For the actual peerreview, each student reviewed one other team‟s solution to the MEA. Each team was assigned atleast 3 peer reviewers. Each
is required by someengineering programs but not by others within the school, thus providing a reasonable controlgroup with which to analyze retention differences. Retention was considered over eight cohortyears revealing a first-year retention rate of 86% for those taking the FYEP course, compared to78% for those not taking the course. Retention to the senior year was 64% for FYEP students,compared to 54% for the rest. Although the graduation rate seems higher than the average, theydo have selective admittance into their engineering program. Baylor University has implementeda freshman engineering course focused on laboratory experiences and two design-build-testprojects.24 The first offerings of this course have shown first-year retention
forth) and degree of development.From Fall 2002 to Spring 2009, MEAs were implemented by GTAs in the laboratory setting of arequired first-year engineering course at Purdue University. During this period, UGTAs were notinvolved in assessing student work on MEAs, though they did support classroomimplementation. However, in Fall 2009, UGTAs, serving as either peer teachers (classroominstructional team members and graders) or out-of-classroom graders, became equallyresponsible with the GTAs for providing feedback on and evaluating students’ MEA work. Thisrecent staffing change brings challenges to implementing open-ended engineering problems.UGTAs, particularly sophomores, have minimal academic, teaching, or professional experience,as compared to
10-15 minutes per student. For a small group ofstudents (like the group in this pilot study) this was not an overwhelming time commitment. Forlarger groups of students, we would evaluate a representative sample of the portfolios to keep thefaculty time commitment at a reasonable level.Here is an example of a student reflection for a report presented in the portfolio to demonstrateachievement of outcome k: This project demonstrates my ability to use statistical analysis and laboratory techniques to solving engineering issues that arise in the mill environment. The Page 22.253.12 report presents a logical method of studying
. 10 The U.S. occupation authorities actually jump-‐started the whole process by allowing small and medium-‐sized enterprises to trade in their existing machinery for equipment that had been seized in the reparations program. This continued after independence in 1952 with prefectural governments and cooperative organizations playing the key role of matching the needs of local firms with available machinery. Prefectures also supported small local laboratories for improving production practices in industries of local interest (Morris-‐Suzuki 1994). There was no master plan. Rather a multitude of overlapping ministries competed with one another to
AC 2011-2517: CONSIDERATION OF HAPPENSTANCE THEORY IN MA-JOR SELECTION AND MIGRATION IN A LARGE ENGINEERING PRO-GRAMOdis Hayden Griffin, Jr., East Carolina University O. Hayden Griffin, Jr. is Professor and Chair of the Department of Engineering at East Carolina University. He has over 35 years experience in industrial and government laboratories and academia.Sandie J. Griffin, Sandie J. Griffin is an academic advisor with over 15 years of university experience. She holds a BA in elementary education from Virginia Tech and an MS in academic advising from Kansas State University. Page 22.376.1
cognitive connections needed19 (Stark &Lattuca, 1997).Purpose The researcher was motivated to conduct the research study as a result of her work withhigher order thinking skills (HOTS) 25 years ago at a regional educational laboratory in Chicago,Illinois. The purpose of this research study was to examine whether a critical thinkingintervention would increase students’ critical thinking skills. This study was conducted over athree-year period as a mixed methods, quasi–experimental design examining STEM students’critical thinking skills at a Historically Black College and University (HBCU). A standardizedcritical thinking test, the Cornell Critical Thinking Test, was administered to students enteringthe Pre-Freshmen Accelerated Curriculum
development for many years and decided to approach thisaugmentation of engineering education from within the technical domain we are most familiarwith. The ‘laboratory’ for this endeavor has been a graduate level engineering design course thatis offered at Georgia Institute of Technology every spring, namely, ME6102 Designing OpenEngineering Systems. We have jointly orchestrated this course for many years. In the followingsections, an overview of this course, its context and content, the way it is structured andorchestrated, and in particular the fashion in which it serves as a vehicle and example for re-designing engineering education are presented
-on project activities. Outside of class time, students make extensive useof computer labs for their CAD work, and the college machine shop (Learning Factory) for theirprototyping tasks. A perennial problem that still has not been adequately solved is providingspace where students can store their projects in-process. The course budget for equipment andsupplies is $10,000 per year, and comes from student laboratory fees.IV. Results4.1 Assessment ToolsFormative and summative assessment tools were used to gather student feedback for continuousimprovement of course content and delivery. Four assessment tools were used: a. Best/Worst Design Essays b. Ranking of 23 Design Activities c. Design Survey d. Student Self-assessment of course
Konseyi(MDK). The journal focuses exclusively on scholarly educational research in engineering Page 15.656.3education. We offer a large international readership and a highly cited archive. Its articles covera wide range of subjects including what knowledge and competencies engineers must possessand how they are learned and assessed, how educational methods, materials, infrastructure, andfaculty affect learning, and how to attract, engage, and retain diverse human talent to engineeringDr. Susan Lord directs the Optoelectronics Laboratory at USD. Her research interests are in theareas of optoelectronics and materials. She has worked as a Research
follow: Core Curriculum: The university has a core curriculum requirement which includes 6 semester credit hours of freshman composition (FC), 6 credit hours of “writing within the curriculum” in 300- and 400-level courses (W), 9 credit hours of humanities, literature, and fine arts (HU/L/FA), 9 credit hours of history and social and behavioral sciences (HI/SB), a 6 credit-hour depth (or sequence) study in a discipline in either HU/L/FA or HI/SB, 12 credit hours of natural science (NS) and mathematics (MA) to include 2 credit hours of laboratory (mathematics must be at the calculus I level or higher), and either 6 credit hours of foreign language (FL) or computer (C) in addition to the HU/L/FA requirement (FL courses can count
of twenty-two African American women engineering faculty was held to discuss the challenges andbarriers that affect the tenure and promotion process. The discussion led to the identification ofsix significant factors affecting successful attainment of tenure for Black women faculty inparticular. The most important factor identified by the senior faculty within the group waseffective mentoring. Other factors included support of the home department, community support,and existing laboratory infrastructure. While there were no real surprises from this survey, thelack of resources to follow-up with the group to effect change caused this initiative to go intohibernation. (It should be noted that Dr. Mead was a member of the Leadership Task Force
learning. Page 22.81.5Table 2. Kolb's Model of Experiential Learning with Suggested Learning Strategies.Kolb's Stage of Example Learning/Teaching StrategyExperiential LearningConcrete Experience Simulation, Case Study, Field trip, Real Experience, DemonstrationsObserve and Reflect Discussion, Small Groups, Buzz Groups, Designated ObserversAbstract Conceptualization Sharing ContentActive Experimentation Laboratory Experiences, On-the-Job Experience, Internships, Practice sessionsKolb went a step
scientific and professional meetings, including several invited papers. To date Dr. Schonberg has received over 35 contract and grants from a variety of federal, state, local, and private funding agencies, including the U.S. DoT, NASA, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the Army Research Office, Sandia National Laboratories, the U.S. Army Missile Command and the Engineering Foundation. In 1995 Dr. Schonberg received the AIAA’s Lawrence Sperry Award for his work on the design of spacecraft protection systems. In 1998, Dr. Schon- berg was promoted to the membership rank of Associate Fellow in the AIAA and in 2000 was selected to receive the Charles Beecher Prize for one of his recent papers on orbital debris