Page 10.904.1would find this effort worthy of potential adaptation in their program. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering EducationII- OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECTThe following major objectives were set at the inception of the project; 1. To develop an experiment for examination of fatigue failure theories, 2. To create an opportunity for collaborative research and design efforts between engineering student(s) and faculty, 3. To generate a modular, cost-effective, reproducible apparatus with outstanding design characteristics, 4. To make all information necessary
students to harness their knowledge of physics, biology, physiology,engineering, and mathematics to formulate dynamic models of physiological systems. Our overallaim is to enhance students’ ability to apply and foster a deep appreciation of the power ofmathematics in addressing real-world biomedical engineering challenges.References[1] L. M. Almeida and L. A. Kato, “Different approaches to mathematical modelling: Deduction of models and studens’ actions,” International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 3–11, 2014.[2] S. Andr´as and J. Szil´agyi, “Modelling drug administration regimes for asthma: a romanian experience,” Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications: International Journal of the IMA, vol. 29, no. 1
AbstractDesign tasks are ubiquitous, complex, ill-structured, and challenging to students and professionalengineering designers. Successful designing depends on having not only adequate knowledge butalso sufficient awareness and control of that knowledge, known as metacognition. Researchsuggests that metacognition not only enhances learning outcomes but also encourages students tobe self-regulated learners who are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally activeparticipants in their learning process.This article evaluates the extent to which students‟ task interpretation of the design project isreflected in their working plans and monitoring/regulating strategies. Butler and Cartier‟s Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) model was used to evaluate the
Learning Engineering Survey(APPLES). Five research questions were posed in the survey design: • Do women express a loss of interest during their program? • Is there a chilly climate for women in the college? • Do women‟s self-efficacy levels change during the program? • Do academic performance levels play a role in women‟s retention in engineering? • Do women have an adequate support structure in the college?The survey generated 116 responses from 2 solicitations, with women students representedfrom every major across all four undergraduate years. An unintended outcome was that thesample largely consists of women with high grade point averages. Thus, this paper offersinsight on top performing women‟s self-efficacy and
k CA CB (2)Here, the rate constant k has units of [m3 / (moles-s)]. The rate expressions for each reactant arerelated to the intrinsic reaction rate defined by equation (2) by their respective stoichiometriccoefficients where the latter are negative for reactants and positive for products. rA rB rC r (3) - 1 -1 1i. Model GeometryThe geometric model and dimensions are the same as that of the T-micromixer. A 3-D diagramof the model is shown Figure 1. Product Reactant B
outcomes were developed initially in draft form. Performance criteria were thenidentified for each of the outcomes. Rogers defines performance criteria as the “specific,measurable statements identifying the performance(s) required to meet the outcome and areconfirmable through evidence”24. Developing the performance criteria helped the faculty tofurther refine the outcomes. The number of performance criteria per outcome was limited to fouras an accepted rule-of-thumb as they were being developed. The template in figure one was usedas the learning outcomes and performance criteria were identified.The advisory board for the program was convened and asked to provide input on all theoutcomes and performance criteria that were identified by the
projects. In traditional design projects, students interact with engineers, engineering faculty and students. · Engineering and non-engineering issues are addressed in a service-learning design project.In a service-learning design project, students will · Work with team member(s) outside of the engineering discipline · Be required to communicate effectively with a diverse audience · Experience the positive impact of engineering and technology on communityThus, service-learning design projects compliment traditional design projects in the training ofengineering undergraduates regarding teamwork, oral and written communications, and design.In past ASEE proceedings, J. Duffy of University of Massachusetts-Lowell described
2114242. 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.References[1] P. Moen, “The Uneven Stress of Social Change: Disruptions, Disparities, and Mental Health,” Soc. Ment. Health, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 85–98, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1177/21568693221100171.[2] Z. Abrams, “Student mental health is in crisis. Campuses are rethinking their approach,” Monit. Psychol., vol. 53, no. 7, p. 60, 2022, doi: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/10/mental-health-campus-care.[3] T. N. Hanh, Peace Is Every Step. Bantam Books, 1992.[4] J. Kabat-Zinn, Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face
’ comprehension of NLP, preparing them forfuture developments in the subject and developing the practical skills necessary for their jobs.Keywords: Natural Language Processing (NLP), Undergraduate Education, Interactive Tools, PythonLibraries, Interdisciplinary Case Studies.1 IntroductionThe rapid advancement of digital technology, especially in artificial i ntelligence ( AI), i s s ignificantly re-shaping the landscape of higher education. Traditional lecture-centered teaching is increasingly being sup-plemented by dynamic, technology-enhanced approaches. In today’s education, AI-powered platforms andvirtual learning environments have become essential, leading to a new emphasis on adaptable, personalizedlearning experiences that cater to diverse
discuss the design process at all. This may have allowed them to createprojects that were closer to their original conception. However, the quality of the projects (theirsturdiness, complexity) was not different among the groups.In the third session, the difference between the builders and the programmers was again clear.The builders would build structures and find a way to work in their mechanisms later, while theprogrammers would first build their mechanism(s) to be programmed and then later find a way toconnect it to a larger structure. The ideas for the final projects also came from separate places. Inthe third group, one programmer was very anxious to use the programming structure calledEvents, and created her entire project around that. On
to show the basic retention numbers andthen allowed for further deeper exploration of student retention by showing the retention brokenout by many different subcategories of students.IntroductionLearning communities have a long history including the Meiklejohn “Experimental College” atthe University of Wisconsin in 1920. In the past couple of decades they have emerged as a wayto improve the retention for first year students.During the 1980’s and 1990’s there was a renewed interest in improving undergraduateeducation in the United States. The Boyer Commission in 1998 released its report, ReinventingUndergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities1, on the state ofundergraduate education. It recommended 10 ways to
Leadership in Quality and the Association for Institutional Research.Dan Merson, The Pennsylvania State University Page 25.254.2 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Design in Context: Where do the Engineers of 2020 Learn this Skill?Increasingly, engineers must design engineering solutions that consider the contexts in whichthey are implemented. Examples like China‟s Three Gorges Dam, the development of next-generation fusion nuclear power, and the One Laptop per Child program illustrate thecomplexities and the stakes of current and future
, 2011 Design in Context: Where do the Engineers of 2020 Learn this Skill?Increasingly, engineers must design engineering solutions that consider the contexts in whichthey are implemented. Examples like China‟s Three Gorges Dam, the development of next-generation fusion nuclear power, and the One Laptop per Child program illustrate thecomplexities and the stakes of current and future engineering projects. The National Academyof Engineering [1, 2] argues that the “Engineer of 2020” must not only be technically capable, butalso be able to understand the contextual requirements and consequences of their work.ABET program accreditation criteria[3] promote contextual engineering practice in several of
. 45+ team-Building Activities for College Students. https://tophat.com/teaching-resources/ebooks-and-guides/45-team-building-activities-for- college-courses/ January 25th, 2023[5] K. Hall. Science of Team Science. 2019 ERC Conference, Arlington, VA https://peer.asee.org/31863[6] J. R. Morelock, and H. M. Matusovich. All Games Are Not Created Equally: How Different Games Contribute to Learning Differently in Engineering. 2018 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah 10.18260/1-2-29766[7] C. A. Bodnar, D. Anastasio, J. Enszer, and D. D. Burkey. Engineers at play: Use of games as teaching tools for undergraduate engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(1), 147-200[8] S
education classes take a case study approach. This paper will describe the implementation of this hybrid GE/senior project course and will present the assessment of the first year of this program’s implementation. Introduction In January 2013, the California State University Board of Trustees mandated that, unless excepted, undergraduate degree programs, including engineering degrees, be limited to 120 units. Title 5 § 40508 [1] states that “[a]s of the fall term of the 2014-2015 academic year, no baccalaureate degree programs shall extend the unit requirement beyond 120 semester units…” This mandate and short timeline for implementation necessitated swift action for proposals to be submitted and approved via campus curriculum committees and
Brainstormingtended to focus students on generating holistic systems. The results suggest why different ideageneration tools are important for novice engineers, and which in contexts students may find thetools most valuable. This investigation has value for educators who are considering how to fostervaried concept development in the early phases of design.References[1] D. P. Crismond and R. S. Adams, “The Informed Design Teaching and Learning Matrix,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 101, no. 4, pp. 738–797, Oct. 2012.[2] S. R. Daly, S. Yilmaz, L. . Murphy, and A. Ostrowski, “Tracing problem evolution - factors that impact design problem definition.,” Des. Think. Res. Symp. 11 Peer Rev., Nov. 2016.[3] J. Kim and D. Wilemon, “Focusing the fuzzy front-end in new
Paper ID #18232A Classification System for Higher Education MakerspacesDr. Vincent Wilczynski, Yale University Vincent Wilczynski is the Deputy Dean of the Yale School of Engineering and Applied Science and the James S. Tyler Director of the Yale Center for Engineering Innovation & Design. As the Deputy Dean, he helps plan and implement all academic initiatives at the School. In addition, he manages the School’s teaching and research resources and facilities. As the James S. Tyler Director of the Center for Engineer- ing Innovation & Design he leads the School’s efforts to promote collaboration, creativity, design
textbook for the students tosolve and submit. After the assignments were collected, the instructor would grade two of the 50 Students Completing 45 40 35 30 Course 25 20 15 10 5 0 F S S F S F S F S F S F S F S F S F 10 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17
opinions, findings, and conclusions orrecommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1] Bailey, M., Baum, S., Mason, S., Mozrall, J., & Valentine, M. (2009, October). RIT EFFORT_Career_Life_Survey. Establishing the Foundation for Future Organizational Reform and Transformation: ADVANCE EFFORT@RIT. https://www.rit.edu/nsfadvance/sites/rit.edu.nsfadvance/files/docs/faculty%20career%20life %20survey.pdf[2] Bailey, M., Marchetti, C., DeBartolo, E., Mozrall, J., Williams, G., Mason, S., Valentine, M., Baum, S., & LaLonde, S. (2011). Establishing the foundation for future organizational reform and transformation at a
. In order to answer the question, “dDo web-based programming environments increase learner content gains during and after initialinstruction?” this study focused on a subset of the pre/post assessment questions related to thefundamental CS theory. Table 5.3.1 contains some of the questions from the actual assessment. Itis important to note that question seven, regarding the illustration of sequential operation, onlycontained graphical illustrations while all the remaining questions were related to real codestatements in one of three programming languages: C++, Python or Logo. Table 5.3.1 Assessment question and corresponding computer science concept(s). Q Session (Lang) Location Assessment Question (Summary
≡ = = = 0.1659 (1) Tl ωm ω$ mwhere Ti is the torque drained from the motor by the leadscrew (N·m), Tl is the torque supplied tothe leadscrew by the motor (N·m), l is the leadscrew angular velocity (rad/s), and m is themotor angular velocity (rad/s). The leadscrew pitch is Ta v v$ m p≡ = = = 2.022 ×10−4 (2) f a ωl ω$ l radwhere Ta is the torque drained from the leadscrew by the linear axis (N·m), fa is the forcesupplied to linear axis by the leadscrew (N
AmericanSociety for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT., June 2004. Page 24.220.97. Moor, S., Keyser, D., and Piergiovanni, P., “Design-Build-Test: Flexible Process Control Kits forthe Classroom,” ASEE Conference Proceedings (2003).8. Bequette, B.W., Aufderheide, B., Prasad, V., and Puerta, F., “A Process Control Experiment Designed for aStudio Course”, AIChE Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, November 2000.9. Smith, C.A., Corripio, A.B., Principles and Practice of Automatic Process Control, Second Edition, p. 566(1997
Equation (5), was the number of strings of modules[S Mod ], in parallel, possible. This value was calculated for both the values calculated in theprevious step. PIde S Mod = (5) PoutModules [ ]The short circuit current of the modules I scMods was calculated using Equation (6). Thisvalue was important because it must be less than the maximum system current of the inverter orthe system could potentially fail. I scMods = S Mod * I sc
. Through the interaction with remotely accessible realequipment via the GUI, the users should be able to visualize the experimental process, gain afeeling of immersion into a real laboratory environment, and also be able to adjust the input andimmediately observe the experimental output. Usually, the GUI is composed of an instrumentcontrol section, an experimental input section and an experimental results section. In theinstrument control section, the options may include lighting, audio and video and dataacquisition functions. In most real-time setups, a global video view providing an overview and alocal video view zooming in on the analyzed object(s) are streamed in real time. In addition, theusers are often given the option to save the video
Chemical Engineering Division: Assessment of Teams, 3513 paper 832 An Approach to developing Student=s skill in Self Assessment Donald R. Woods and Heather D. Sheardown Department of Chemical Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton ON L8S 4L7Abstract: Self and peer assessment can be vital parts to any team assessment. Theassessment can be of the overall team or of the performance of team members.Assessment is a judgment as to the degree to which a goal has been achieved. Instudent self assessment, the judgment is made by the student. In this paper the fiveprinciples of assessment are summarized. Assessment is about performance notworth; is based on evidence not intuition
total score (p=0.02, t=2.06). Page 7.479.7 “Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education” All Male Male Female Equally Dominated Dominated MixedAudience x 1.57 1.72* 2.09* .88* s .69 .86 .70 .99Purpose x 1.95 1.69 2.09 1.50
provided in [50].Expected Impact Table 1 shows the possible impact on different audiences in different settings and environments. Theefficacy of the program discussed in this paper is based on teaching at the undergraduate/graduate(formal) and K-12 (informal) levels. It may be pointed out that no formal education research wasconducted to generate the Table 1. Thus, the data provided here is qualitative and is based on theassessment of instructors, parents and other professional observers (one of the observers had a doctoratein education). Table 1 Learning level (Basic, Intermediate, Advance), underlying STEMS areas (S, T, E, M), expected impact (Low,Normal, High), learner interest (Low, Normal, High), possible audience types (Families
provided in [50].Expected Impact Table 1 shows the possible impact on different audiences in different settings and environments. Theefficacy of the program discussed in this paper is based on teaching at the undergraduate/graduate(formal) and K-12 (informal) levels. It may be pointed out that no formal education research wasconducted to generate the Table 1. Thus, the data provided here is qualitative and is based on theassessment of instructors, parents and other professional observers (one of the observers had a doctoratein education). Table 1 Learning level (Basic, Intermediate, Advance), underlying STEMS areas (S, T, E, M), expected impact (Low,Normal, High), learner interest (Low, Normal, High), possible audience types (Families
’ actual work has been found poor.15In light of these issues, many researchers have defined engineering retention as simply thenumber of engineering graduates who report being employed in an engineering occupation.16-21By this measure, as of 2008, an estimated 1.2 million out of 2.5 million individuals withengineering as their highest degree were retained in engineering.22 Nonetheless, an obviouslimitation of counting engineers in this way is that, unlike using degree-job relatedness, “it willnot capture individuals using S&E knowledge, sometimes extensively, under [other]occupational titles”.21 In other words, defining engineering based on occupational classificationdoes not capture the full range of career paths that engineers take.14,23
Copyright 2004, American Society for Engineering Education Figure 1. Humanities (Reprinted with permission of Nick D. Kim)Grade inflation is widely reported in the literature; and virtually all reports of it are critical.* Acomprehensive overview of grade inflation is given in the CQ Researcher28 and Professor John-son s book29 provides a thorough quantitative study of the subject. In addition, circumstantial evi-dence has been reported which suggests that grade inflation has encroached upon engineeringeducation.27, 30-35 It has recently been reported that at Northwestern University s McCormickSchool of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 48 percent of grades are in the A