theirqualitative feedback.In order to gain data on the activity, the author developed a survey with short answer and Likertscale questions to be administered following the final exam in the course beginning with the Spring2021 semester. The author also gathered feedback from 13 students who had participated in theAMechanics Race activity in the course prior to the Spring 2020 semester (COVID-19 pandemic)using the same survey. The survey is given in Appendix B, Figure 14 and results are presented.Survey Questions- Short AnswerPlease write 1-2 sentences summarizing your opinion (positive/neutral/negative) of theAMechanics Race activity and provide any feedback for the professor. • Past Students (prior to Spring 2020)- 13 Responses o “Enjoyable
distinction between its program objectives and program outcomes,(b) demonstrates the relationship of Criterion 2 [a] – [k] to each objective, and (c)demonstrates the assessment measure and metrics associated with each objective. OnJanuary 3, 2008 it was communicated to ABET that a response to this finding would beprovided at a later date.Finally, in response to the findings, the MET Program Spring 2008 Assessment Reportwas submitted to ABET prior to the 2008 Summer Meeting. This report included arevised version of the previously submitted attachments, along with assessment resultsand analysis in a tabular format. Following the 2008 Summer Meeting the final responseon August 15, 2008 from ABET was that the MET Program be reaccredited.I believe that it
wouldalso be helpful to administer the survey to a similar group of students who did not receive theintervention. Based on the lack of literature about the growth mindset in engineering curricula,this area of study has much potential.Appendix A: MINDSET SURVEYAttitudes about difficult classes and learning1. What have you heard about the difficulty of MSE 308? a. It’s really hard b. It’s kind of hard c. It’s not too hard d. It’s not hard at all2. What have you heard about the time commitment involved with MSE 308? a. It takes a ton of time b. It takes a lot of time c. It takes a moderate amount of time d. It is not too time intensive3. What else have you heard about MSE 308? (short answer)4. What are you expectations for your
; Exposition. Indianapolis, IN.6. Clark, R. M., Norman, B. A., & Besterfield-Sacre, M. (2014). Preliminary experiences with “flipping” a facility layout / material handling course. In Y. Guan & H. Liao (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference. Montreal, Canada.7. Clemens, B. M., Nivargi, C., Jan, A., Lu, Y., Schneider, E., & Manning, J. (2013). Adventures with a flipped classroom and a materials science and engineering MOOC: “Fools go where angels fear to tread.” In Proceedings of Materials Research Society Symposium (Vol. 1583). Boston, MA.8. Ghadiri, K., Qayoumi, M. H., Junn, E., & Hsu, P. (2014). Developing and implementing effective
this first flipped iteration were similar to final grades fromthe previous three lecture-format offerings (see Table 4). However, when examining thenumber of students earning a D or F grade, more students from the flipped classroom earnedlower than a C in the course when compared to the average of the three previous courseofferings (p < 0.001( χ2 = 39.53, df = 16). Table 4: Final Course Grades, Fall 2009 to Fall 2012 Percentage of Students Receiving Grade A B C D F Other Fall 2012 12 23 23 24 16 2 Spring 2011
. The thermocouples were arrangedat two different elevations (0.9 m and 1.8 m from ceiling) as shown in Figure1(a) andFigure 1(c). Figure 1(c) is a generic 3D model for the room showing the surrounding rooms,window and door locations, and the twelve thermocouples. The room was conditioned using theexisting building HVAC system and the temperature was controlled by a thermostat located onthe left side wall of the room. The hallway on the west side of the room was kept at highertemperature than the room temperature. The thermocouples were labelled for better analysis as Figure 1. Office used for experimental data collection (a) actual office with hanging thermocouples, (b) actual office with included equipment and furniture, (c
and F. Pearson, "Women's Perceptions of the Climate in Engineering Technology Programs," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 89, pp. 309-314, 2013.[11] J. D. Burns, R. J. Budreau, G. L. Harding, W. M. Pace, M. E. Prygoski and J. A. Piller, "A Redesigned Engagement and Recruitment Strategy for Engineering Technology Programs at a Regional Campus," in ASEE IL-IN Section Conference, West Lafayette, 2018.[12] R. L. Mott, G. P. Neff, M. J. Stratton and D. C. Summers, "Future directions for mechanical, manufacturing, and industrial engineering technology programs," Journal of Engineering Technology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 8-15, 2002.[13] S. Zakani, B. Frank, R. Turner and J. Kaupp, "Framework for the Transferability Between
A. Stevens, eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, 1983, pp. 15–33. Page 8.1202.8 Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright c 2003, American Society for Engineering Education[11] , “Toward an epistemology of physics,” in Cognition and Instruction, L. Resnick, ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, 1993, pp. 105–208.[12] B. E YLON AND M. L INN, “Learning and instruction: An examination of four research per- spectives in science education,” Review of Educational Research, 58, 1988, pp. 251–301.[13] R. H
2 ECE 2 MEGrade Distribution: The number of students receiving A grades in their project work was foundto be 79%. The percentage of B grades was 14% and the number of C grades was 7%. This gradedistribution appears to indicate grade inflation. The large number of A’s relative to the number ofB and C’s is related to the number of projects that were judged to be worth 1 unit (9 credit hours)per student. In this review, it was determined that 29% of the projects completed weremarginally worth 1 unit or did not worth 1 unit at all. However, It must be emphasized that an Agrade should reflect one unit of excellent work by the student, a B grade should reflect one unitof
12 Other 4 Undecided 4 2) My printed circuit board in Lab 1 worked: a) on the first try 22 b) with minor repairs in the lab session 12 c) only after help outside lab from the teaching staff 3
areincluded in this paper as a reference for completeness.The method has been tested and improved by multiple instructors in Introduction to EngineeringDesign1 classes and Physical Science classes. Both classes are structured around developingquality teams to understand concepts or developing innovative products.Included in this paper is detailed team performance criteria that help teams identify their teamcharacteristics (see Appendix A: TIDEE Team Assessment Criteria), a handout that is given tothe students prior to the meeting (see Appendix B: TIDEE Team Meeting Handout), and detailedimplementation instructions complete with agenda for running the meeting. The package isdeveloped as a turnkey process that can be effectively used by a novice.The
Learning S r c ral Anal i in A B ilding ha Teache Katherine Acton University of Minnesota DuluthAbstractThe Swenson Civil Engineering Building, opened in 2010, was constructed with the goalof providing a space in which, and from which, Civil Engineering students can learn.Multiple exposed structural systems allow students the opportunity to visualize the wayin which the building is designed to carry load. The building is LEED certified. A largehigh-bay lab is open to view, so that class work and research is visible to students as theypass through the halls of the building.The high bay lab features two 15-ton gantry cranes. The gantry cranes have beenanalyzed in the
, where each question has answers lettered (i.e., A, B, C, D)and the quiz taker reads their results based on these (i.e., “If you answered mostly As, you…). Inaddition to careful wording, we saw this format as a means to mitigate the sense of being ranked.We wanted to invite members of the organization to comfortably place themselves on thetrajectory toward becoming community engaged, not reject it as out of reach. Thus, to also offeropportunities to learn and grow, we linked the categories (e.g., mostly Bs) to descriptions andideas; for example: “Your program is characterized as for the community. The role of the community is consultant. There may be an advisory board that the organization selected or identified out of
,” Review of educational Research, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 249-276, 1998. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS [12] A. M. Langan, C. P. Wheater, E. M. Shaw, B. J. Haines,This material is based upon work supported by a Miller Grant W. R. Cullen, J. C. Boyle, D. Penney, J. A. Oldekop, C. Ashcroft, and L. Lockey, “Peer Assessment of Oralfrom Iowa State University. Presentations: Effects of Student Gender, University
Engineering program. The course scopefocuses on issues related to the professional practice of civil engineering, and is intended toaugment and enrich the student’s civil engineering core courses. Topics include professionalregistration and practice, engineering ethics, contemporary issues, and fundamental concepts ofbusiness, management, and public policy. The course objectives are: 3 a. Apply the ASCE Code of Ethics to the solution of an ethical problem confronting a practicing engineer, b. Explain the elements of project management in the military, public service, and private sectors, c. Describe the business and public policy issues for public and private practice, d
oninefficiency of the old, and ultimately, critically evaluate the value of evidence (Boom 1956;Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Bertram, B. M. 1973). The result of this paper will be based on a 40 minutes lecture, which goal is to helpstudents learn the concept and application of Material Requirement Planning (MRP) in the mosteffective manner. Learning, for the purpose of a mere 40 minutes lecture, will therefore besuperficially defined as the ability to understand, the ability to recall, and the ability to apply theknowledge meaningfully (Sekaran, 2003). 2.2. Demographic Survey At analyzing the hypotheses, we wanted to know how experienced our students are withthe technology (Breeze). To analyze the students, a demographic and
given to students following the information literacypresentation. Typically they are given 2–3 weeks to complete it. By linking informationcompetencies to assignments related to class material, we move beyond decoupled instructionthat is quickly forgotten to “just-in-time” need-based instruction.Library Assignment1. Select a chemical substance from Table B.1 in your text that begins with the same letter as your first name or the nearest possible letter (for example Andy Aniline). Find and report the information listed below for this substance in references other than the course text or CD, and properly cite the references. Organize your report neatly and show all units. (a) Specific gravity, molecular weight, normal melting and boiling
. Student clickson the shielding blocks placed on the table, which moves them next to a scale, allowing the student tomeasure their thickness. Next, clicking on the block moves it to the space between the radiation sourceand the detector. Counts can then be measured by setting the time interval and clicking on the counterbutton. Process is repeated for different number of shielding blocks; thus gathering data for differentthicknesses. Entire process can then be repeated for blocks made of different material. Figure 4 showsthe thickness measurement step. Figure 5 shows the lead shielding blocks, next to labels A, B, C, …, foruse in the shielding experiment. Figure 6 shows two of the shielding blocks placed in between theradiation source (on the left
at Eastern Cape Technikon in South Africa, 4. Solus, a company that developed the solar refrigerator, League City, Texas, and 5. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas. Page 6.596.1 Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2001, American Society for Engineering EducationDuring the REEP summer academy, faculty members from across the United States volunteeredto provide hands-on instructional workshops and tours to local industries. All students
volumetric flow rate will be as you predicted in #1?Questions (Post-exercise) 1. Was your prediction for the volumetric flow rate correct? 2. What factors in this exercise do you think influence the actual volumetric flow rate? 3. If two fans are placed in series with each other will the flow rate: a. Increase by a factor of 2 b. Decrease by a factor of 2 c. Stay the same 4. If two fans are placed in series with each other will the total differential pressure across the fans: a. Increase by a factor of 2 b. Decrease by a factor of 2 c. Stay the same 5. If two fans are placed in parallel with each other will the flow rate: a. Increase by a factor of 2 b. Decrease
was unstable as were surfaces. Weintroduced surface energy so that the students knew a) that the underbonded atoms added energy Page 7.218.4 Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2002, American Society for Engineering Educationto the crystal and b) they were familiar enough with the concept to understand nucleationphenomenon and coarsening.Polymers were included as another material. By introducing the students to organic chemistry wewere able to lead them through the formation of long chain molecules by polymerization andfrom this they
Note Pad (write notes and brief documents) 8 “To Do” List (track tasks by date, category, & priority) 9 Graffiti Writing (Palm hand writing system by stylus) 7 Download Programs and Games (from Internet) 12 Wireless Transmission (Beaming Data - IR Port) 9 Hot Sync ( Synchronize between Palm and Computer) 7 Table 2. Learning Strategies vs. Student Use Learning Strategies Student Use A. Trial and Error (only) 1 B. Reference Manual
use of the direct and indirect assessments in parallel to fullycharacterize student curiosity as it relates to an EM. Future work will focus on adapting theexisting codebook to better align with the 5DCS constructs in the context of a first-yearengineering classroom and to differentiate between overt covert social curiosity, sub-constructsdistinguished by Kashdan et al., [25] in the Revised Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale (5DCR).References[1] D. Pusca and D. Northwood, “Curiosity, creativity and engineering education,” Global Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 152–158, 2018. [2] T. B. Kashdan, P. Rose, and F. D. Fincham, “Curiosity and exploration: facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth
A: Ability to determine the scope of a software project by taking into account various constraints. B: Ability to develop a software project plan. C: Ability to enact a software project plan. D: Ability to estimate various software project parameters. E: Ability to measure and control software products and processes. F: Ability to manage software project risk. G: Ability to lead a diverse team of software developers.Figure 1: Self-assessed contribution of course
Paper ID #19060Institutionalizing Campus Innovation and Entrepreneurship Programmingby Optimizing a Faculty Grantmaking Process: A Case StudyVictoria Matthew, VentureWell Victoria Matthew is Senior Program Officer for Faculty Development at VentureWell, where she plays a lead role in the Pathways to Innovation Program, Epicenter’s faculty development and engagement strategy. She designs in-person and online convenings, engages experts, and curates content that fosters the Pathways faculty goals of integrating entrepreneurship and innovation into undergraduate engineering. Prior to joining VentureWell, Victoria worked for
Paper ID #35123Self-publish textbook for Embedded System Education using an MSP432microcontrollerDr. Byul Hur, Texas A&M University Dr. B. Hur received his B.S. degree in Electronics Engineering from Yonsei University, in Seoul, Korea, in 2000, and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, in 2007 and 2011, respectively. In 2017, he joined the faculty of Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. USA, where he is currently an Assistant Professor. He worked as a postdoctoral associate from 2011 to 2016 at the University Florida previously
thequestions and maps specific design representations to the rows and columns. Each of therepresentations is briefly discussed and some of the failed attempts in earlier versions of thecanvas are disclosed along with the reasons they did not work in the authors’ capstone courses. A B C D E Design Are we Why should Does our (still) able Choices we build it How What system to build it System
, although notaltogether satisfactorily. The post-assessment responses showed significant improvement overthe pre-assessment responses, but, again, this was not deemed entirely satisfactory for the cohort.Open-ended pre- and post-assessment questions were administered to the teachers. The responsesto these questions were independently evaluated by McGinnis-Cavanaugh and Ellis using thescoring rubric shown in Appendix B. On average, response scores went up 83% and 60% (seeAppendices B and C) on questions 1 and 2, respectively, showing significant improvement inboth the understanding of both basic mechanics concepts and educational theory with regard tostudent engagement. The assessment questions were as follows: 1. A gymnast stands on a
Paper ID #33644Building a Sense of Community in a Multidisciplinary, Split-level OnlineProject-based Innovation Design CourseDr. Melissa Mae White, University of Florida Dr. Melissa Mae White develops and instructs course curriculum in Engineering Innovation and Engi- neering Entrepreneurship to the students in the Herbert Wertheim College of Engineering at the University of Florida. She works with faculty and students to build an ecosystem focusing on creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship across campus and in the community. She received her Bachelor of Science degree in Biomedical Engineering with a minor in
Paper ID #16431Creating and Validating a Model to Support Aerospace Engineering Stu-dents’ Coordination of Knowledge about a DesignMs. Elizabeth Scott Fleming, Georgia Institute of Technology Elizabeth ”Scottie-Beth” Fleming is an Aerospace Engineering PhD candidate and NSF GRFP Fellow in the Cognitive Engineering Center (CEC) at Georgia Tech. She graduated from Georgia Tech with a B.S. and M.S. in Aerospace Engineering. Her research within the CEC examines interdisciplinary teams within the engineering design process, training approaches for aircraft pilots, and human interaction with technology.Dr. Amy Pritchett, Georgia