Propulsion Systems P 6 Q 7 R 5 Energy S 5 Average Students Per Team 7.5As summarized above, each design team in Fall 2018 ranged in size from 4 to 11 students, withan average of 7 students per team; past design teams have ranged in size from 3 to 32 students.Each team is managed by a DTL. The DTL selection process is up to the capstone professors’discretion. The DTL is often appointed by the professors after a formal interview process
) 3 Overall, I feel I learned a lot from today’s 2.00% 0.00% 3.00% 28.00% 67.00% 4.58 session(s) The instructors were good communicators 2.00% 0.00% 5.00% 31.00% 62.00% 4.51 Today’s topic was very well introduced 2.00% 1.00% 6.00% 27.00% 64.00% 4.5 The material covered was very well 2.00% 1.00% 6.00% 33.00% 58.00% 4.44 presented The hands on session(s)/field trip helped me 2.02% 0.00% 9.09% 29.29% 59.60
proceedings, San Antonio.https://peer.asee.org/31357[10] Pearson Weatherton, Y., & Chen, V. C. P., & Mattingly, S. P., & Rogers, K., & Sattler, M. L. (2012,June), Sustainable Engineering Internships: Creation and Assessment Paper presented at 2012 ASEE AnnualConference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas. https://peer.asee.org/21976[11] Powers, K., & Chen, H. L., & Prasad, K. V., & Gilmartin, S. K., & Sheppard, S. (2018, June), Exploring HowEngineering Internships and Undergraduate Research Experiences Inform and Influence College Students' CareerDecisions and Future Plans Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Salt Lake City, Utah.https://peer.asee.org/30491
summarize the case study, and identify which canon(s) in the ASCE Code ofEthics was violated and which ethical theory was the most applicable. Students also discussedwhat could have been done to avoid ethics violations and what they may have done differently.Students were given an opportunity to develop their own discussion questions for the classdiscussion, but the following example discussion questions are provided: 1. What was the main event or action that caused this situation? 2. How do you think a civil engineer was involved? 3. What potentially did the civil engineer fail to do? 4. Does a civil engineer have the responsibly to do something for this situation? Explain. 5. What actions from those involved could have prevented the
2015. [Paper ID# 14123].6) Jacobs, R.L., Bu-Rahmah, M.J.. “Developing employee expertise throughstructured on-the-job training (S-OJT): An introduction to this training approachand the KNPC experience.” Industrial and Commercial Training. 44(2) pp 75-84,2012.7) Robles, M.M. “Executive Perceptions of the Top 10 Soft Skills Needed inToday’s Workplace.” Business Communications Quarterly. 75(4) pp 453 - 465,2012.8) Ito, R. “Toyota’s In-House Education and Professional Development forEngineers.” International Journal for Engineering Education. 9(1) pp 16 - 19,1993.9) Batley, T. “Management Education for Professional Engineers.” Journalof European Industrial Training. 14(7) pp 9-16, 1990.10) Yusoff, Yuzainee Md, Azami Zaharim
gaps.References1 Nyquist, J. D., Manning, L., Wulff, D. H., Austin, A. E., et. al., “On the Road to Becoming a Professor: The Graduate Student Experience,” J Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, Vol. 31, Issue 3, 1999.2 Brent, R., Felder, R. M., Rajala, S. A., “Preparing New Faculty Members to be Succesful: A No-Brainer and Yet a Radical Concept,” ASEE Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June 18-21, 2006.3 Gehringer, Edward, “Improving Scores on Course Evaluations: Experienced Faculty Tell What Works,” ASEE Annual Conference, Austin, TX, June 14 – 17, 2009.4 Hill, Warren, “Student Evaluation of Teaching – Myths and Realities,” ASEE Annual Conference, Chicago, IL June 18-21, 2006.5 Dee, C., Kay, “Reducing
, is an assistant teaching professor of Civil Engineering at Missouri University of Science and Technology. He received his BS (2001), MS (2003) and PhD (2009) in civil engineer- ing with emphasis in structural engineering, from University of Tehran, Iran. His research interests and experiences are in the field of computational mechanics, cement-based composite materials as well as in- novative teaching techniques. Dr. Libre is the manager of Materials Testing lab at Missouri S&T, teaches mechanics of materials and develops digital educational resources for the engineering students. He had the opportunity of leading several scientific and industrial research projects and mentoring graduate and undergraduate
Department tours and participant research presentations 3:30 - 4:30 pm Return to hotel 5:00 - 6:30 pm Networking dinner and distinguished speaker 6:30 - 7:30 pm Panel discussion with newly recruited faculty members Day 2 8:00 - 8:30 am Breakfast 8:30 - 9:30 am Interactive session with program host(s) 9:30 - 11:30 am Campus tour 11:30 am DepartureAssessment MethodsAt the completion of the program, attendees completed a post
. Sturgill, A. Kirk, and G. B. Dadi, "Estimating earthwork volumes through use of unmanned aerial systems," Transportation Research Record, pp. 1-8, 2017.[5] S. Siebert and J. Teizer, "Mobile 3D mapping for surveying earthwork projects using an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) system," Automation in Construction, vol. 41, pp. 1- 14, May 2014.[6] R. E. Pereira, S. Zhou, and M. Gheisari, "Integrating the use of UAVs and photogrammetry into a construction management course: Lessons learned," presented at the 35th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2018), 2018.[7] J. B. Sharma and D. Hulsey, "Integrating the UAS in Undergraduate Teaching and Research
declinein Cluster 3’s cumulative GPA (Fig. 2(b)).Research Question 3: Does retention vary across clusters? To test this research question, we examined three models for retention. Major retention, R1,is whether a student has switched their major since admission. This represents the university’sofficial recognition of a change of major. Engineering retention, R2, is whether a student hasswitched from their engineering major since admission but is still attending University A in anon-engineering major. Finally, university retention, R3, is whether a student is a current studentor not at the university as a whole. A chi-squared test for equal proportions was used to compareeach retention rate across clusters. We compare p-values of these tests to
the importance of imaginal capacity in the understanding and transformation ofreality (Anzaldúa, 2015; Freire, 2005; Marcuse, 1969; Scarry, 1985). Similar to the qualityillustrated by Royce, imagination here is not a tool for creativity or fantasizing a situation orindividual(s). The reason we build on liberatory perspectives as complementary to whatdiscussed by Royce and Buber is that these frameworks urge attention to broad social andpolitical structures that may influence our ethical reasoning and decision-making, in explicit orimplicit manners. Such factors may play a significant role at the institutional level when we thinkabout the culture of engineering practice and its conventional norms and structures and in generalthe role each
of application of the approach. Semester Course Project Phase Fall Lab Course 1 Sensor(s) Spring Lab Course 2 Measurement system Fall/Spring Capstone 1 and 2 Prototype Fig. 1 Distribution of Intellectual Effort.It is important to point out that the Lab Course 1 is a prerequisite of the Lab Course 2, and theLab Course 2 is a prerequisite of the Capstone 1 course. Therefore, the sequence of coursesimposes a constrain to the approach for those students that miss one of the courses in thesequence for
context ofan integrated, project-based learning program for upper-division students. Using a commonscience fiction read as a case study for learning ethics in an engineering context has strongpedagogical value. The exercise is both morally sound and engaging. The student engineersparticipating in the experience effectively extracted, discussed, and reflected on ethical themesfrom the reading. Most importantly, they connected their ethical learning in this context to realworld applications.References[1] A. Segall, “Science fiction in engineering instruction: to boldly go where no educator has gone before,” in ASEE Annual Conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2002, pp. 7.993.1- 7.993.8.[2] L. Dubeck, M. Bruce, J. Schmucker, S. Moshier, and J
Improvement. Alexandria, VA. Assoc. for Supervision and Curriculum Dev., 2002.[8] B. S. Bloom, Human characteristics and school learning. New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill,1976.[9] J. Moore, “Mastery grading of engineering homework assignments,” Proc. - Front. Educ.Conf. FIE, November, 2016.[10] Gutmann, G. Gladding, M. Lundsgaard, and T. Stelzer, “Mastery-style homework exercisesin introductory physics courses: Implementation matters,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 14,no. 1,, 2018.[11] S. M. Williams and B. P. Newberry, “First-year experiences implementing minimumself-paced mastery in a freshman engineering problem-solving course,” ASEE Annu. Conf.Proc., 1998.[12] S. Sangelkar, O. M. Ashour, R. L. Warley, and O. Onipede Jr., “Mastery learning
Resources make the decision based on apparent qualifications? How do we ensure faculty is prepared to teach for the College? Dimension 2- Course Assignments 10, 11, 13, Who and what determines which course(s) adjunct faculty will 14, 15, 16 teach and which specific adjunct faculty to assign to a specific course? Dimension 3- Faculty Performance 18, 19, 20 Are adjunct faculty rated? If so, by whom? How often? Dimension 4- College Communication Who is tasked with informing adjunct faculty of
. [Online]. Available: https://michaelhyatt.com/why-after-action-reviews-are-so-important/ K. Elissa, “Title of paper if known,” unpublished.[4] A. Badir, J. Liao, T. Kunberger, G.I. Papkov, L.D. Nguyen, and R. O’Neill, “Exam wrappers, reflection, and student performance in engineering mechanics,” in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition 2018, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, June, 2018.[5] P. Gezer-Templeton, E. Mayhew, D. Korte, and S. Schmidt, “Use of exam wrappers to enhance students’ metacognitive skills in a large introductory food science and human nutrition course,” Journal Of Food Science Education, vol 16, no. 1, pp. 28-36, 2017.[6] K.J. Metzger, B.A. Smith, E. Brown, and P.A.G. Soneral, “SMASH: A
, 2006, 170(3):971-986. [3] Thursby J G , Kemp S . Growth and Productive Efficiency of UniversityIntellectual Property Licensing[J]. Research Policy, 2002, 31(1):109-124. [4] Kao C , Hung H T . Efficiency analysis of university departments: An empiricalstudy[J]. Omega, 2008, 36(4):p.653-664. [5] Liu wei , Cao jianguo, Zheng linchang, et al. Evaluation of scientific andtechnological innovation capability of Chinese universities based on principal componentanalysis [J]. Research and development management,2010(06):125-131. (in Chinese) [6] Dong yelu. Evaluation of scientific and technological innovation ability ofChinese universities based on factor analysis [J]. Research on scientific management,2015(6):32-34. (in Chinese) [7] Guo
inaugural Faculty Associate for Mobile Learning. He has a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Wyoming (Laramie, Wyoming). He has approximately 25 publications/presentations. He is a member of the American Society for Engineer- ing Education (ASEE). He is the recipient of David S. Taylor Service to Students Award and Golden Apple Award from Boise State University. He is also the recipient of ASEE Pacific Northwest Section (PNW) Outstanding Teaching Award, ASEE Mechanical Engineering division’s Outstanding New Edu- cator Award and several course design awards. He serves as the campus representative (ASEE) for Boise State University and as the Chair-Elect for the ASEE PNW Section. His academic research
those who did not to determine if thereexists a similar pattern to that found with students who took the surveys and those who did not.Question Q20 – How do you think you are doing in your engineering courses? – was only addedto the mid-semester survey in the fall 2019 semester. The main motivation when the survey wasfirst done was assessing student performance in their mathematics and science courses. Theauthors plan to report on results of this newer survey question in future work.References[1] S. Gratiano and W. Palm, Can a five-minute, three-question survey foretell first-yearengineering student performance and retention?, Proceedings of the 123rd ASEE AnnualConference & Exposition, New Orleans, LA.[2] M. Anderson-Rowland, A first year
. When reading, I try to connect the things I am reading about with what I already know.Reference[1] G. Mason, T. R. Shuman, and K. E. Cook, "Inverting (Flipping) Classrooms – Advantages and Challenges," presented at the 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia, 2013/06/23, June 2013. Available: https://peer.asee.org/19842[2] R. Bachnak and S. C. Maldonado, "A Flipped Classroom Experience: Approach and Lessons Learned," presented at the 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2014/06/15, June 2014. Available: https://peer.asee.org/19942[3] C. J. Prust, R. W. Kelnhofer, and O. G. Petersen, "The Flipped Classroom: It's (Still) All About Engagement," presented at
work under the auspices of the National Science Foundation (NSF) undergrant number # 1644743. However, any items expressed in this paper do not necessarilyrepresent the views of NSF or its affiliates.References[1] M. Z. Lagoudas, S. Y. Yoon, and R. Boehm, “The Implementation and Assessment of an I- Corps Site: Lessons Learned,” Proceedings of the 126th American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference and Exposition, Tampa, FL, USA, 2019.[2] G. Lichtenstein, and T. Monroe-White, “Entrepreneurial mindset assessment reviews,” 2016. Available: https://venturewell.org/wp-content/uploads/EMAR-v1-1.pdf[3] S. Zappe, “Avoiding construct confusion: An attribute-focused approach to assessing
, students recognize the importance of solving problems completely with thecorrect comprehension of physical and mathematical meanings of variables in the governingequations.References[1] M. S. a. C. C. B. Z. Dymond, "The Influence of Grading Bias on Reinforced Concrete Exam Scores at Three Different Universities," in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT, June 24-17, 2018.[2] A. Karimi, "Bringing Uniformity in Topic Coverage and Grading Fairness in Multiple," in International Mechanical Engineering Congress, 2015.[3] A. C. K. a. W. Sander, "Grades and Student Evaluations of Teachers," Economics of Education Review, pp. 59-63, 1999.[4] C. E. Work, "Nationwide Study of the Variability of Test Scoring by Different
REACT is currently limited to teachers within the state, we feel the best way to reachother states is by sharing our model with other research institutions around the country. We arecurrently working with a research group at Cornell University to implement a similar annualworkshop that will serve their region. 10References[1] A. King, “From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side,” Coll. Teach., 2010.[2] C. Papanastasiou, “School, teaching and family influence on student attitudes toward science: Based on TIMSS data for Cyprus,” Stud. Educ. Eval., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 71–86, Jan. 2002.[3] J. Osborne, S. Simon, and S
Summary and Future DirectionThe authors piloted a ND EPSCoR NATURE bridge camp at TMCC during the summer of 2019.The authors wanted to prepare participants for college in a manner that would also get themexcited about and interested in pursuing a STEM degree and career. The structure of the campconsisted of face-to-face sessions and three independent projects aimed at developing a mindsetthat will ultimately help participants succeed in college. Each independent project built uponknowledge gained during that face-to-face sessions and previous independent project(s). Theauthors believe this systematic process of progressively giving the participants moreresponsibility and less instruction over the course of the camp helped to promote the self
community was purposefully expanded to include center and university, parents andwomen of color in STEM to further improve the self-efficacy of the girls [27], [28].MethodologyThis research is part of a larger exploratory, longitudinal, 2-year mixed methods study. Theinitial phase was focused on unveiling areas of challenge in student perception, CT thinkingpractices, and STEM +CT integration. Student voice was optimized to help refine and evolve theintegration of STEM and the CT activities. CT thinking practices were pulled by the universityresearch team from Weintrop et al.’s Taxonomy of CT [15]. Those practices include DataCollection, Data Creation, Understanding a System as a Whole, Understanding the RelationshipBetween Parts of a System
will soon build on the current momentum from this seedgrant project to scale up our study.AcknowledgmentsThis work is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant#1738214. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper,however, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.References[1] M. H. Davis, “Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensionalapproach,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 113-126, 1983.[2] J. J. Shah, S. M. Smith, and N. Vargas-Hernandez, “Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness,” Design Studies, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 111-134, 2003.[3] Ş. Purzer, W. P. Myers, and D
, and economic criteria and reflects balance of dimensions13. Uses and/or creates innovation(s) in its specific field to achievesustainability14. Worked with experts from other disciplines (i.e., outsideengineering) to enhance process or final designMethodsIn Fall 2019, 35 civil engineering seniors at The Citadel were recruited to apply the SustainableDesign Rubric to their capstone projects. In place of one of their regular Water and WastewaterSystems classes, students attend an active 1.5 hour session to learn about and apply the Rubricthrough individual reflection and group discussions. For participating in the session, studentsearned bonus points on one of the course’s design projects. Students were in their first semesterof a two-semester
-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities,” Top. Cogn. Sci., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 73–105, Jan. 2009.[4] S. Freeman et al., “Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 111, no. 23, pp. 1–6, 2014.[5] C. E. Wieman, “Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 111, no. 23, pp. 8319–8320, 2014.[6] M. Stains et al., “Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities,” Science (80-. )., vol. 359, no. 6383, pp. 1468–1470, 2018.[7] P. Shekhar and M. Borrego, “After the workshop: A case study of post-workshop implementation of active
, S., 2012). Additionally, University budget cuts and tuition increases areforcing more traditional students to take jobs in addition to their study activities. These and manyother factors are increasing the demand for more individualized learning (Schuwer & Kusters2014). Each learner has different characteristics, learners are not a homogenous mass, but varyconsiderably in terms of educational background, income, age and learning experience. Thisdiversity of the student body is growing fast (Bates, A. W. 2005). Thus, it is becoming increasinglyimportant for universities to meet this growing demand.Meeting the individualized learning demand, requires a blend of innovation and knowledge,particularly knowledge about the students. There is a
2017 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Section Annual Conference Impact of Entrepreneurial Mindset Integration in a First- Semester Engineering Course Benjamin S. Kelley Baylor University School of Engineering and Computer ScienceAbstractDuring the fall semester offering of EGR 1301: Introduction to Engineering, EntrepreneurialMindset (EM) topics were introduced as class topics on three separate occasions in two differentcourse sections. To measure if exposure to and practice of the specific EM topic of Create Valueimpacted student EM awareness two different self-assessment instruments were administered tothese and several other EGR