Average Time Spent on Task (s) Participants 1 8 80.74 2 8 12.35 3 4 41.56 4 4 91.40 5 5 45.83 6 6 65.54 7 7 33.17 8 8 6.76 9 8 17.21 10 8
. RM Felder & R Brent. Teaching and learning STEM: A practical guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 2016 15. MT Chi. “Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities.” Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105. 2009. 16. S Loucks-Horsley, N Love, KE Stiles, S Mundry, PW Hewson PW. Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2003. 17. T Tolnay, SA Spiegel, & JZ Sherer. Development and Use of the Engineering Learning Classroom Observation Tool (ELCOT). 2017. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Columbus, OH. June 245-18, 2017. Downloaded on March 12, 2018 from: https://www.asee.org
), National Center for Education Research, Washington, 2007, pg. 1-34.13 Bjork, R. A., J. Dunlosky and N. Kornell, “Self-regulated Learning: Beliefs, Techniques and Illusions,” Annual Review of Psychology, Annual Reviews, 64, 2013, pg. 417-444.14 Moulton, Carol-Anne E., Adam Dubrowski, Helen MacRae, Brent Graham, Ethen Grober, and Richard Reznick, “Teaching Surgical Skills: What Kind of Practice Makes Perfect?” Annals of Surgery, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 244:3, Sep. 2006, pg. 400-409.15 Blackwell, Lisa S., Kali H. Trzensniewski, and Carol S. Dweck, “Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement Across an Adolescent Transition: A Longitudinal Study and an Intervention,” Child Development, Society for
matrix to record overlaps between our criteria and those from eachof the three frameworks. For example, if a researcher considered the minimizes natural resourcedepletion criterion to correspond with STAUNCH©’s biodiversity criterion, then he or sherecorded a “1” in the appropriate matrix cell in her/his individual scoring matrix. After individualcompletion of matrices, the three researchers met over several sessions to compare and contrastscores. Subsequently, each researcher re-evaluated his or her matrices to make amendmentsbased on group conversations.Finally, individual matrices were compiled and totaled to produce a collaborative matrix for eachframework. For instance, if two researchers found that Rubric Criterion A (e.g
of Illinois. Deerwester, S., S.T. Dumais, G.W. Furnas, and T.K. Landauer. 1990. “Indexing by Latent Semantic Analysis.” Journal ofthe American Society for Information Science 41 (6):391–407. Drake, M., P. Griffin, R. Kirkman, and J. Swann. 2005. “Engineering Ethical Curricula: Assessment and Comparison ofTwo Approaches.” Journal of Engineering Education 94:223–231. Feister, Megan Kenny, Carla B. Zoltowski, Patrice Marie Buzzanell, and David H. Torres. 2016. “Integrating EthicalConsiderations in Design.” American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, New Orleans,LA, June 26-29. Felder, Richard M., and Rebecca Brent. 2003. “Designing and Teaching Courses to Satisfy the ABET EngineeringCriteria.” Journal
aid, first-generation college-attendance and socioeconomic status.Research Question: Is there a critical threshold (minimum) for high school grade point averageand standardized test score(s) that accurately predicts underrepresented minority student success,defined as six-year graduation, in engineering? Does the threshold vary by higher educationinstitution? We investigated whether the data supports using a singular combined threshold usingboth high school grade point average (HSGPA) and standardized test scores, or whether the datasuggests using another model for predicting success in engineering as measured by a six-yearengineering graduation rate.Background: During 2005-2015, 81% of all U.S. undergraduate engineering degrees wereawarded
., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77-101, 2006.[18] L. Archer, J. DeWitt, J. Osborne, J. Dillon, B. Willis, and B. Wong, “‘Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous’: primary school girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations,” Pedagog. Cult. Soc., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 171-194, 2013.[19] C. Murphy and J. Beggs, “Children’s perceptions of school science.,” Sch. Sci. Rev., vol. 84, no. 308, pp. 109-116, 2003.[20] J. Osborne, S. Simon, and S. Collins, “Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 1049-1079, 2003.
blind student for her efforts in the course and explaining how parts andswelled drawings were perceived throughout the course.References[1] S. A. Sorby, "Educational research in developing 3‐D spatial skills for engineering students," International Journal of Science Education, 31-3, pp. 459-480, Feb. 2009.[2] C. Potter, and E. Van der Merwe, "Perception, imagery, visualization and engineering graphics," European journal of engineering education, 28-1, pp. 117-133, Mar. 2003.[3] B. Beck-Winchatz, and M. A. Riccobono. "Advancing participation of blind students in science, technology, engineering, and math," Advances in Space Research, 42-11, pp. 1855-1858, Dec. 2008.[4] D. Fitzpatrick, “Teaching science subjects to
. J., in a Charming Python interview. Retrieved from http://gnosis.cx/publish/programming/charming_py-thon_8.html.[7] Pieterse, V., Derrick G. K., & Boake, A. “A case for contemporary literate programming”, SAICSIT, 75, 2-9, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa, 2004.[8] Hurst, A. J. “Literate programming as an aid to marking student assignments”, Proceedings of the 1st Australasian conference on Computer Science education, 280-286, 1996.[9] Childs, B., Dunn, D., & Lively, W. “Teaching CS/1 Courses in a Literate Manner,” Proceedings of the TeX Users Group Conference, St. Petersburg, Florida, July 24-28, Volume 16, No. 3, p. 300-309, 1995.[10] Shum, S. & Cook, C. “Using Literate Programming to Teach Good
issue of how to useengineering ethics education to promote social development is still to be further discussedand improved by scholars. Awakening scholars' attention to this issue is also one of thepurposes of this paper.AcknowledgementThe paper is supported by China Association of Higher Education (No. 2016GCZD02) andthe title of the project is The Cultivation System of Green Engineering Education Talents fromthe Washington Accord.References[1] Chen, S. , and Ravallion, M. 2013. “More relatively‐poor people in a less absolutely‐poorworld”. Review of Income and Wealth,59(1): 28.[2] Griffiths B, Tan K. 2007. “Fighting Poverty Through Enterprise: The Case for SocialVenture Capital”. Transformational Business Network.[3] Wieser, Christina . 2011
teachersexcelled or struggled with. Teachers were sent a link to an electronic form via email everyThursday. The first question in the log asked if they taught the curriculum that week. If no, theform ended. If yes, the form continued and asked questions such as which module(s) they taught,how much time they spent, and their use of materials among other things. The focus of the analysisconducted here was on the second to last question of the survey which focused on teacherreactions. The question asked about teacher concerns: “Please describe your reactions to thisweek’s spatial skills teaching? (e.g., anything especially helpful? hard? Confusing?). Theresearchers used the Concerns Based Adoption Model to code for three Stages of Concern [12]:Personal
]. Available: https://vinepair.com/wine-blog/why-wine- bottles-have-punts-bottom/.[11] T.-R. Hsu, Applied engineering analysis, 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2018.[12] T.-R. Hsu, “Mathematics for Engineering Education,” in IEEE Conference, San Jose.[13] “STEM- the What, the Why, and the How,” Medium, 16-Jul-2019. [Online]. Available: https://medium.com/@thestempedia/stem-the-what-the-why-and-the-how-7d03a853a364.[14] R. W. Bybee, STEM Education Challenges and Opportunities. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association, 2013.[15] NOAA Headquarters, “The mathematics of weather prediction,” Phys.org, 13-May-2016. [Online]. Available: https://phys.org/news/2016-05-mathematics-weather.html.[16] S. Taranovich, “The
‐chip device. Journal of Engineering Education, 2013. 102(1): p. 117-140.3. Cadwell, B., Teaching Systems Engineering by Examining the Engineering Education System, in ASEE Illinois/Indiana Section Conference, . 2007: Indianapolis, IN.4. Cattano, C., T. Nikou, and L. Klotz, Teaching systems thinking and biomimicry to civil engineering students. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education & Practice, 2010. 137(4): p. 176-182.5. Chenard, J.S., Z. Zilic, and M. Prokic, A laboratory setup and teaching methodology for wireless and mobile embedded systems. IEEE Transactions on Education, 2008. 51(3): p. 378-384.6. Guardiola, I.G., C. Dagli, and S. Corns, Using university-funded research projects to teach
difference between “right” and “wrong” 2) An ethical dilemma can have multiple decisions that are equally ethical 3) The ethical decision making process is a rational, thought based process 4) Two people can arrive at different decisions to an ethical dilemma and still be ethical 5) A person’s experiences can influence their ethical decisions 6) An office culture can influence ethical decisions 7) A person’s culture can influence ethical decisionsQuestions 8-13 were rated on a similar scale, with the questions asked once for each class andstudents filling in the content for the course(s) they were enrolled in. Questions 8-10 wereanswered for the capstone course and questions 11-13 were answered for the steel design course
eight designers in industry who were invited to evaluate senior design projects in the fall of2019. They appreciated the addition of large interdisciplinary teams with increased complexityand scope, but noted that those projects were in a completely different category from thoseproduced by smaller single-discipline teams. They added that they were only interested inreviewing the interdisciplinary projects.References[1] S. Datar, D. Garvin, & P. Cullen, “Rethinking the MBA: Business education at a crossroads.” Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA, 2010.[2] S. Mendo-Lazaro, B. Leon-del-Barco, E. Felipe-Castano, M. Polo-del-Rio, and D. Iglesias- Gallego, “Cooperative Team Learning and the Development of Social Skills in Higher
engineering students with engineering experiences in multiple disciplines isby incorporating a hands-on lab component into the course to introduce various activities fromdiffering disciplines of engineering [3].Course and Lab BackgroundFirst-Year Engineering Honors LabThe first-year engineering program at Ohio State University was the result of the university’smembership in a coalition in the early 1990’s encouraging college engineering programs toengage students in more engineering experiences in their first year. The goal of the first-yearengineering experience is to introduce new engineering students to a variety of engineeringdisciplines and teach them basic technical skills through a variety of in-class activities, labs, anddesign experiences
should have pressed harder to develop the initial, pre-draft outcome rubrics to allow moretime for the constituent survey as the committee would have liked more responses to consider.Nonetheless, a survey open for two weeks is better than no survey. This survey proved critical as it wasused by the CEBOK3TC to determine which outcome statements should be revised and to develop theappropriate levels of achievement for the outcomes.Following the first full draft of the CEBOK3 outcome rubrics, the CEBOK3TC developed and conducted afinal survey seeking input on the outcomes. The survey was structured to allow respondents to providefeedback only on the outcomes they wished to review. Once the respondent selected the outcome(s) ofinterest, they were
alsotake an associated thematic independent research course to investigate thoroughly previousresearch in the selected theme. All Ph.D. students must undertake a doctoral research project,preferably in the second summer semester of study. This course introduces students to therequirements of management research. Finally, students work on the dissertation, an originalinvestigation of a research question(s) related to technology management.The minimum curriculum requirements are: Management Core Courses (15 credit hours) Technology Management Courses (9 credit hours) Associated Doctoral Seminars (12 credit hours) Research Methods Courses (12 credit hours) Independent Research Project (3 credit hours) Doctoral
Paper ID #30075Licensure Requirements for Teaching Civil Engineering Design Courses inthe United StatesDr. Brian J. Swenty P.E., University of Evansville Brian J. Swenty, Ph.D., P.E. is a professor in the Mechanical and Civil Engineering Department at the University of Evansville. He earned his B.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Missouri-Rolla (Missouri S T) and his M.S. degree in civil engineering from the University of Florida. He is a licensed professional engineer in California, Florida, Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana. He has held positions as an active duty Army officer, a senior civil engineer with a
work supported by the National ScienceFoundation under Grant No. (NSF 1845979). Any 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. Support was also provided by Ms. CarolineCarpenter, the President of East Coast Construction Services and Executive Member of thePiedmont Chapter of the National Association of Women in Construction (NAWIC).ReferencesAssociation of American Colleges and Universities, “Facts and Figures: The income gaps inhigher education enrollment and completion,” AAC&U News – Insights in Campus Innovationsand Liberal Education, June/July 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.aacu.org/aacu
Society of Civil Engineers. Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge: Preparing the Future Civil Engineer. 3rd ed. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2019. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/book/10.1061/9780784415221.4. Structural Engineering Institute. A Vision for the Future of Structural Engineering and Structural Engineers: A Case for Change.; 2013. http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/visionforthefuture.pdf.5. Surovek A, Rassati GA. Is Structural Engineering Education Creating Barriers to Innovation and Creativity? In: 6th Structural Engineers World Congress. Cancun, Mexico: EERI; 2017.6. Sola E, Hoekstra R, Fiore S, McCauley P. An Investigation of the State of Creativity and
, M. Taylor, M. Hammerle, “Do International Students Appreciate Active Learning in Lectures?”, Australasian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 22, pp.1-14, 2018. [7] L. Deslauriers, L.S. McCartya, K. Miller, K. Callaghan, G. Kestin, “Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, vol. 116, no.39, pp. 19251–19257, 2019. [8] M. Liebelt, S. Eglinton-Warner, W. Soong, S. Al-Sarawi, B. Ng, B. Phillips, M. Sorell, An Engineering Approach to Engineering Curriculum Design: 28th Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) Annual Conference (AAEE-2017
Paper ID #31472Exposure of undergraduate research students to entrepreneurialactivities to motivate future research careersProf. Ranji K Vaidyanathan P.E., Oklahoma State University Dr. Ranji Vaidyanathan is presently the Varnadow Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at the Helmerich Research Center at OSU Tulsa. He was previously the Director of the New Product Develop- ment Center (NPDC) and the Inventors Assistance Service (IAS) at Oklahoma State University. Dr. Vaidyanathan has eighteen U. S. patents and twenty-two pending patent applications. He has de- veloped six different products from concept stage to
," The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 1553-1568, 2008. [8] M. Sabharwal, "Job satisfaction patterns of scientists and engineers by status of birth," Research Policy, vol. 40, pp. 853-863, 2011.[9] S. N. Colakoglu, "The impact of career boundarlessness on subjective career success: The role of career competencies, career autonomy, and career insecurity.," Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 79, pp. 47-59, 2011.[10] M. A. Robinson, "How design engineers spend their time: Job content and task satisfaction," Design Studies, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 391-425, 2012.[11] R. Garcia-Chas, E. Neira-Fontela and C. Varela-Neira
1 month after site visit 11. Office of Assessment distributes narrative report to 1 week after receipt of narrative report Department chair, Dean, and others involved in site visit; department distributes to program faculty and staff and initiates discussions regarding improvement 12. Office of Assessment meets with department chair Before November of next academic year and college dean to discuss recommendations and identify outcome(s) to be added to program’s IE plan. 13. Office of Assessment enters outcomes into IE plan. By December of next academic year 14. Department report on progress of outcomes annually. July 1st (annually)team. A team of 4 to 6 members - 2 to 3 external reviewers (at least
), by a NSF CAREER Award to C.L. (Grant No.DMR-1554435), by a NSF CAREER Award to A.S. (Grant No. DMR-1555153), a NSF Grant toN.H.P (Grant No. DMR-1945482), and by a NSF Grant to P.B. (Grant No. DMR-1709857). Thismaterial is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate ResearchFellowship under Grant No. 1746047. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions orrecommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflectthe views of the National Science Foundation.References [1] K. Thornton, S. Nola, R. Edwin Garcia, M. Asta, and G.B. Olson. Computational materials science and engineering education: A survey of trends and needs. JOM, 61(10):12–17, 2009. [2] R.A. Enrique, K. Thornton
. [Online]. Available: https://universaltechnews.com/it-ot-cybersecurity-convergence-arc- viewpoints-blog/.[5] J. Manyika and et. al., "Unlocking the Potential of the Internet of Things," McKinsey Global Institute, McKinsey and Company, June 2015.[6] THECB, "Lower-Division Academic Course Guide Manual," Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Austin, TX, 2019.[7] Center for Academic Cyber Defense, "2019 Knowedge Units," [Online]. Available: http://www.iad.gov/NIETP/documents/Requirements/CAE- CD_2019_Knowledge_Units.pdf. [Accessed 2020].[8] ABET, "Criteria for Accrediting Computing Programs, Effective for Reviews During the 2020-2021 Accreditation Cycle," ABET, Inc., Baltimore, 2019.[9] J. K. Nelson, D. Davis, S. Smith and M
, c, d, a, c, d, b, d 15References[1] H.R. Goldberg and C.D. Hanlon, “The Knowledge Paradox: The more I know, the less I canclearly explain,” Medical Education 53:13-14, 2019.[2] M. Prince, “Does Active Learning Work?” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol 93, Issue3, pp 223-231, July 2004.[3] S. Freeman, S.L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M.K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M.P.Wenderoth, “Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, andmathematics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415, 2014.http://www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8410[4] S.J. Dickerson, R.M. Clark, and A. Jain, (2017) No
following potential impediments on their likelihood ofinfluencing the tenure process: • Teaching load requirements, • Expectation of peer-reviewed journal publications, • Service expectations, • Availability of funds for research in their fields • Appreciation for area of research by tenure review committee(s) • Competition within department for funds, • Availability of Teaching Assistants (TA) to assist with grading, • Availability of students to employ as researchers, • Quality of students to employ as researchers, • Availability of faculty mentoring, • Quality of faculty mentoring, • Interdepartmental politics, and • Managing work-life balanceResultsThe responses to the survey were collected