diff --git a/ASEE_paper.aux b/ASEE_paper.aux index 6229b31..277dab3 100644 --- a/ASEE_paper.aux +++ b/ASEE_paper.aux @@ -1,18 +1,47 @@ \relax \bbl@beforestart +\citation{passow2017,evans1993} +\citation{bot2005} +\citation{hume1739} +\citation{kant1781} \babel@aux{english}{} +\citation{lillis2001} +\citation{conrad2017} +\citation{nilson2015} +\citation{bloom1971,kulik1990} +\citation{nilson2015} +\citation{nilson2015,blackstone2018} +\citation{passow2012} +\citation{burguillo2010} +\citation{carlile1998,morrison2004} +\citation{awang2008} +\citation{bell2010} +\citation{burguillo2010,michieletto2018} \citation{nilson2015} \citation{kluyver2016} \citation{student1908} -\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Laboratory schedule for 14-week semester in upper-level engineering course. Each box represents an assignment that includes measurements, statistical analysis, and lab report. The "Mass Measurement Contest" asks students to use a combination of methods from weeks 1-9 to predict the mass of an object attached to a vibrating beam. The final two weeks are used to measure a first-order convective heat transfer problem, incorporating statistical uncertainty, finite element analysis, and verification. \relax }}{2}\protected@file@percent } +\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Laboratory schedule for 14-week semester in upper-level engineering course. Each box represents an assignment that includes measurements, statistical analysis, and lab report. The "Mass Measurement Contest" asks students to use a combination of methods from weeks 1-9 to predict the mass of an object attached to a vibrating beam. The final two weeks are used to measure a first-order convective heat transfer problem, incorporating statistical uncertainty, finite element analysis, and verification. \relax }}{3}\protected@file@percent } \providecommand*\caption@xref[2]{\@setref\relax\@undefined{#1}} -\newlabel{timeline}{{1}{2}} +\newlabel{timeline}{{1}{3}} \bibstyle{unsrtnat} \bibdata{ASEEpaper} -\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {2}{\ignorespaces Plotted above in (a) is the average change in lab report grade as a function of the first Report~\#0 - A statistical analysis of three sample populations. The specification for passing Report \#0 is shown as a red line at 70 points. The green area above the ``Linear model change in grade''=0 shows the students that continuously improved their report grades throughout the semester. The dark red section in the lower-left, that has no student data, would be students that performed poorly and continued to decrease quality. The light-red section between 70 and 100 are the students that decreased quality to the point of risking failing Report~\#6. The yellow section between 70 and 100 above the orange risk section are students that decreased quality, but maintained high enough marks to not risk failing lab reports. There are three populations of students from Fall 2018 $\square $~markers and Fall 2019 $\circ $~markers:\IeC {\nobreakspace }Red indicates students that failed Report~\#0, but their scores increased throughout the semester, Green indicates students that passed Report~\#0 whose scores continued to increase throughout the semester, and orange are students that passed Report~\#0, but their scores decreased throughout the semester. The orange marks in the red sections, "maintain poor quality" were at risk of failing other lab reports. In (b), box plots of the scores from 2018 and 2019 on reports 0-6 are plotted. The median is shown by a horizontal line, the notches indicate the confidence interval, the whiskers denote the range of scores, with outliers marked as circles, and the upper- and lower-quartiles are shown by the boxes above and below the median lines. The red-dashed line indicates the specification for a passing grade on the reports. \relax }}{3}\protected@file@percent } -\newlabel{quality}{{2}{3}} -\bibcite{nilson2015}{{1}{2015}{{Nilson and Stanny}}{{}}} -\bibcite{kluyver2016}{{2}{2016}{{Kluyver et~al.}}{{Kluyver, Ragan-Kelley, P{\'e}rez, Granger, Bussonnier, Frederic, Kelley, Hamrick, Grout, Corlay, et~al.}}} -\bibcite{student1908}{{3}{1908}{{Student}}{{}}} -\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {3}{\ignorespaces Plotted above is a histogram of the reported errors from Fall~2018 and Fall~2019 for the mass measurement contest. The average mass reported in Fall~2018 and Fall~2019 was 18~$\pm $~33~g and 41~$\pm $~27~g, respectively with error reported as standard deviation. The actual mass measurements were 32~$\pm $~2~g. The histogram is the error=(reported value - the actual value). \relax }}{4}\protected@file@percent } -\newlabel{contest}{{3}{4}} +\bibcite{passow2017}{{1}{2017}{{Passow and Passow}}{{}}} +\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {2}{\ignorespaces Plotted above in (a) is the average change in lab report grade as a function of the first Report~\#0. The specification for passing Report \#0 is shown as a red line at 70 points. The green area above the ``Linear model change in grade''=0 shows the students that continuously improved their report grades throughout the semester. The dark red section in the lower-left, that has no student data, would be students that performed poorly and continued to decrease quality. The light-red section between 70 and 100 are the students that decreased quality to the point of risking failing Report~\#6. The yellow section between 70 and 100 above the orange risk section are students that decreased quality, but maintained high enough marks to not risk failing lab reports. There are three populations of students from Fall 2018 $\square $~markers and Fall 2019 $\circ $~markers:\IeC {\nobreakspace }Red indicates students that failed Report~\#0, but their scores increased throughout the semester, Green indicates students that passed Report~\#0 whose scores continued to increase throughout the semester, and orange are students that passed Report~\#0, but their scores decreased throughout the semester. The orange marks in the red sections, "maintain poor quality" were at risk of failing other lab reports. In (b), box plots of the scores from 2018 and 2019 on reports 0-6 are plotted. The median is shown by a horizontal line, the notches indicate the confidence interval, the whiskers denote the range of scores, with outliers marked as circles, and the upper- and lower-quartiles are shown by the boxes above and below the median lines. The red-dashed line indicates the specification for a passing grade on the reports. \relax }}{5}\protected@file@percent } +\newlabel{quality}{{2}{5}} +\bibcite{evans1993}{{2}{1993}{{Evans et~al.}}{{Evans, Beakley, Crouch, and Yamaguchi}}} +\bibcite{hume1739}{{3}{1739}{{Hume}}{{}}} +\bibcite{kant1781}{{4}{1781}{{Kant}}{{}}} +\bibcite{lillis2001}{{5}{2001}{{Lillis and Turner}}{{}}} +\bibcite{conrad2017}{{6}{2017}{{Conrad}}{{}}} +\bibcite{nilson2015}{{7}{2015}{{Nilson and Stanny}}{{}}} +\bibcite{passow2012}{{8}{2012}{{Passow}}{{}}} +\bibcite{burguillo2010}{{9}{2010}{{Burguillo}}{{}}} +\bibcite{carlile1998}{{10}{1998}{{Carlile et~al.}}{{Carlile, Barnet, Sefton, and Uther}}} +\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {3}{\ignorespaces Plotted above is a histogram of the reported errors from Fall~2018 and Fall~2019 for the mass measurement contest. The average mass reported in Fall~2018 and Fall~2019 was 18~$\pm $~33~g and 41~$\pm $~27~g, respectively with error reported as standard deviation. The actual mass measurements were 32~$\pm $~2~g. The histogram is the error=(reported value - the actual value). \relax }}{6}\protected@file@percent } +\newlabel{contest}{{3}{6}} +\bibcite{morrison2004}{{11}{2004}{{Morrison}}{{}}} +\bibcite{awang2008}{{12}{2008}{{Awang and Ramly}}{{}}} +\bibcite{bell2010}{{13}{2010}{{Bell}}{{}}} +\bibcite{michieletto2018}{{14}{2018}{{Michieletto and Pagello}}{{}}} +\bibcite{kluyver2016}{{15}{2016}{{Kluyver et~al.}}{{Kluyver, Ragan-Kelley, P{\'e}rez, Granger, Bussonnier, Frederic, Kelley, Hamrick, Grout, Corlay, et~al.}}} +\bibcite{student1908}{{16}{1908}{{Student}}{{}}} diff --git a/ASEE_paper.bbl b/ASEE_paper.bbl index 4a4cafd..e288406 100644 --- a/ASEE_paper.bbl +++ b/ASEE_paper.bbl @@ -1,10 +1,56 @@ -\begin{thebibliography}{3} +\begin{thebibliography}{16} \providecommand{\natexlab}[1]{#1} \providecommand{\url}[1]{\texttt{#1}} \expandafter\ifx\csname urlstyle\endcsname\relax \providecommand{\doi}[1]{doi: #1}\else \providecommand{\doi}{doi: \begingroup \urlstyle{rm}\Url}\fi +\bibitem[Passow and Passow(2017)]{passow2017} +Honor~J. Passow and Christian~H. Passow. +\newblock {What Competencies Should Undergraduate Engineering Programs + Emphasize? A Systematic Review}. +\newblock \emph{Journal of Engineering Education}, 106\penalty0 (3):\penalty0 + 475--526, jul 2017. +\newblock ISSN 10694730. +\newblock \doi{10.1002/jee.20171}. + +\bibitem[Evans et~al.(1993)Evans, Beakley, Crouch, and Yamaguchi]{evans1993} +D.~L. Evans, G.~C. Beakley, P.~E. Crouch, and G.~T. Yamaguchi. +\newblock {Attributes of Engineering Graduates and Their Impact on Curriculum + Design}. +\newblock \emph{Journal of Engineering Education}, 82\penalty0 (4):\penalty0 + 203--211, oct 1993. +\newblock ISSN 10694730. +\newblock \doi{10.1002/j.2168-9830.1993.tb01075.x}. + +\bibitem[Hume(1739)]{hume1739} +David Hume. +\newblock \emph{A treatise of human nature}. +\newblock Dover, 1739. + +\bibitem[Kant(1781)]{kant1781} +Immanuel Kant. +\newblock \emph{Critique of pure reason}. +\newblock MacMillan, New York, NY, 1781. + +\bibitem[Lillis and Turner(2001)]{lillis2001} +Theresa Lillis and Joan Turner. +\newblock {Student Writing in Higher Education: Contemporary confusion, + traditional concerns}. +\newblock \emph{Teaching in Higher Education}, 6\penalty0 (1):\penalty0 57--68, + jan 2001. +\newblock ISSN 1356-2517. +\newblock \doi{10.1080/13562510020029608}. + +\bibitem[Conrad(2017)]{conrad2017} +Susan Conrad. +\newblock {A Comparison of Practitioner and Student Writing in Civil + Engineering}. +\newblock \emph{Journal of Engineering Education}, 106\penalty0 (2):\penalty0 + 191--217, apr 2017. +\newblock ISSN 1069-4730. +\newblock \doi{10.1002/jee.20161}. + \bibitem[Nilson and Stanny(2015)]{nilson2015} L.~Nilson and C.J. Stanny. \newblock \emph{Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, @@ -12,6 +58,56 @@ L.~Nilson and C.J. Stanny. \newblock Stylus Publishing, 2015. \newblock ISBN 9781620362440. +\bibitem[Passow(2012)]{passow2012} +Honor~J. Passow. +\newblock {Which ABET Competencies Do Engineering Graduates Find Most Important + in their Work?} +\newblock \emph{Journal of Engineering Education}, 101\penalty0 (1):\penalty0 + 95--118, jan 2012. +\newblock ISSN 10694730. +\newblock \doi{10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00043.x}. + +\bibitem[Burguillo(2010)]{burguillo2010} +Juan~C Burguillo. +\newblock Using game theory and competition-based learning to stimulate student + motivation and performance. +\newblock \emph{Computers \& education}, 55\penalty0 (2):\penalty0 566--575, + 2010. + +\bibitem[Carlile et~al.(1998)Carlile, Barnet, Sefton, and Uther]{carlile1998} +Simon Carlile, Stewart Barnet, Ann Sefton, and James Uther. +\newblock {Medical problem based learning supported by intranet technology: A + natural student centred approach}. +\newblock In \emph{International Journal of Medical Informatics}, volume~50, + pages 225--233. Elsevier Sci Ireland Ltd, jun 1998. +\newblock \doi{10.1016/S1386-5056(98)00073-2}. + +\bibitem[Morrison(2004)]{morrison2004} +Jillian Morrison. +\newblock {Where now for problem based learning?} +\newblock \emph{Lancet}, 363\penalty0 (9403):\penalty0 174, jan 2004. +\newblock ISSN 1474547X. +\newblock \doi{10.1016/s0140-6736(03)15298-1}. + +\bibitem[Awang and Ramly(2008)]{awang2008} +Halizah Awang and Ishak Ramly. +\newblock Creative thinking skill approach through problem-based learning: + Pedagogy and practice in the engineering classroom. +\newblock \emph{International journal of human and social sciences}, 3\penalty0 + (1):\penalty0 18--23, 2008. + +\bibitem[Bell(2010)]{bell2010} +Stephanie Bell. +\newblock Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. +\newblock \emph{The clearing house}, 83\penalty0 (2):\penalty0 39--43, 2010. + +\bibitem[Michieletto and Pagello(2018)]{michieletto2018} +Stefano Michieletto and Enrico Pagello. +\newblock Competitions and industrial tasks as a way to learn basic concepts in + robotics. +\newblock In \emph{2018 IEEE International Conference on Autonomous Robot + Systems and Competitions (ICARSC)}, pages 173--178. IEEE, 2018. + \bibitem[Kluyver et~al.(2016)Kluyver, Ragan-Kelley, P{\'e}rez, Granger, Bussonnier, Frederic, Kelley, Hamrick, Grout, Corlay, et~al.]{kluyver2016} Thomas Kluyver, Benjamin Ragan-Kelley, Fernando P{\'e}rez, Brian~E Granger, diff --git a/ASEE_paper.blg b/ASEE_paper.blg index e85eff5..0a9ae1d 100644 --- a/ASEE_paper.blg +++ b/ASEE_paper.blg @@ -3,44 +3,50 @@ Capacity: max_strings=100000, hash_size=100000, hash_prime=85009 The top-level auxiliary file: ASEE_paper.aux The style file: unsrtnat.bst Database file #1: ASEEpaper.bib -You've used 3 entries, +Warning--I didn't find a database entry for "bot2005" +Warning--I didn't find a database entry for "bloom1971" +Warning--I didn't find a database entry for "kulik1990" +Warning--I didn't find a database entry for "blackstone2018" +Warning--can't use both volume and number fields in carlile1998 +You've used 16 entries, 2481 wiz_defined-function locations, - 570 strings with 4987 characters, -and the built_in function-call counts, 1417 in all, are: -= -- 106 -> -- 91 -< -- 4 -+ -- 34 -- -- 28 -* -- 102 -:= -- 232 -add.period$ -- 10 -call.type$ -- 3 -change.case$ -- 5 -chr.to.int$ -- 3 -cite$ -- 3 -duplicate$ -- 72 -empty$ -- 117 -format.name$ -- 33 -if$ -- 300 + 673 strings with 7260 characters, +and the built_in function-call counts, 6486 in all, are: += -- 595 +> -- 254 +< -- 18 ++ -- 106 +- -- 74 +* -- 481 +:= -- 1005 +add.period$ -- 64 +call.type$ -- 16 +change.case$ -- 29 +chr.to.int$ -- 16 +cite$ -- 17 +duplicate$ -- 343 +empty$ -- 610 +format.name$ -- 100 +if$ -- 1404 int.to.chr$ -- 1 -int.to.str$ -- 4 -missing$ -- 4 -newline$ -- 24 -num.names$ -- 9 -pop$ -- 32 +int.to.str$ -- 17 +missing$ -- 19 +newline$ -- 102 +num.names$ -- 48 +pop$ -- 127 preamble$ -- 1 -purify$ -- 3 +purify$ -- 16 quote$ -- 0 -skip$ -- 49 +skip$ -- 209 stack$ -- 0 -substring$ -- 49 -swap$ -- 19 -text.length$ -- 2 +substring$ -- 327 +swap$ -- 74 +text.length$ -- 5 text.prefix$ -- 0 top$ -- 0 -type$ -- 18 -warning$ -- 0 -while$ -- 12 +type$ -- 103 +warning$ -- 1 +while$ -- 61 width$ -- 0 -write$ -- 47 +write$ -- 243 +(There were 5 warnings) diff --git a/ASEE_paper.log b/ASEE_paper.log index 6a8a51f..de6cd92 100644 --- a/ASEE_paper.log +++ b/ASEE_paper.log @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.20 (TeX Live 2019/Arch Linux) (preloaded format=pdflatex 2020.1.13) 30 JAN 2020 20:54 +This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.20 (TeX Live 2019/Arch Linux) (preloaded format=pdflatex 2020.2.1) 3 FEB 2020 19:16 entering extended mode restricted \write18 enabled. %&-line parsing enabled. @@ -265,200 +265,23 @@ Package: natbib 2010/09/13 8.31b (PWD, AO) \bibsep=\skip49 LaTeX Info: Redefining \cite on input line 694. \c@NAT@ctr=\count114 -) -(/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/lipsum/lipsum.sty -(/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/l3kernel/expl3.sty -Package: expl3 2019-10-28 L3 programming layer (loader) - -(/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/l3kernel/expl3-code.tex -Package: expl3 2019-10-28 L3 programming layer (code) -\c_max_int=\count115 -\l_tmpa_int=\count116 -\l_tmpb_int=\count117 -\g_tmpa_int=\count118 -\g_tmpb_int=\count119 -\l__seq_internal_a_int=\count120 -\l__seq_internal_b_int=\count121 -\g__kernel_prg_map_int=\count122 -\c__ior_term_noprompt_ior=\count123 -\c_log_iow=\count124 -\l_iow_line_count_int=\count125 -\l__iow_line_target_int=\count126 -\l__iow_one_indent_int=\count127 -\l__iow_indent_int=\count128 -\c_zero_dim=\dimen135 -\c_max_dim=\dimen136 -\l_tmpa_dim=\dimen137 -\l_tmpb_dim=\dimen138 -\g_tmpa_dim=\dimen139 -\g_tmpb_dim=\dimen140 -\c_zero_skip=\skip50 -\c_max_skip=\skip51 -\l_tmpa_skip=\skip52 -\l_tmpb_skip=\skip53 -\g_tmpa_skip=\skip54 -\g_tmpb_skip=\skip55 -\c_zero_muskip=\muskip11 -\c_max_muskip=\muskip12 -\l_tmpa_muskip=\muskip13 -\l_tmpb_muskip=\muskip14 -\g_tmpa_muskip=\muskip15 -\g_tmpb_muskip=\muskip16 -\l_keys_choice_int=\count129 -\l__intarray_loop_int=\count130 -\c__intarray_sp_dim=\dimen141 -\g__intarray_font_int=\count131 -\c__fp_leading_shift_int=\count132 -\c__fp_middle_shift_int=\count133 -\c__fp_trailing_shift_int=\count134 -\c__fp_big_leading_shift_int=\count135 -\c__fp_big_middle_shift_int=\count136 -\c__fp_big_trailing_shift_int=\count137 -\c__fp_Bigg_leading_shift_int=\count138 -\c__fp_Bigg_middle_shift_int=\count139 -\c__fp_Bigg_trailing_shift_int=\count140 -\c__kernel_randint_max_int=\count141 -\g__fp_array_int=\count142 -\l__fp_array_loop_int=\count143 -\l__sort_length_int=\count144 -\l__sort_min_int=\count145 -\l__sort_top_int=\count146 -\l__sort_max_int=\count147 -\l__sort_true_max_int=\count148 -\l__sort_block_int=\count149 -\l__sort_begin_int=\count150 -\l__sort_end_int=\count151 -\l__sort_A_int=\count152 -\l__sort_B_int=\count153 -\l__sort_C_int=\count154 -\l__str_internal_int=\count155 -\c__str_replacement_char_int=\count156 -\l__tl_analysis_normal_int=\count157 -\l__tl_analysis_index_int=\count158 -\l__tl_analysis_nesting_int=\count159 -\l__tl_analysis_type_int=\count160 -\l__regex_internal_a_int=\count161 -\l__regex_internal_b_int=\count162 -\l__regex_internal_c_int=\count163 -\l__regex_balance_int=\count164 -\l__regex_group_level_int=\count165 -\l__regex_mode_int=\count166 -\c__regex_cs_in_class_mode_int=\count167 -\c__regex_cs_mode_int=\count168 -\l__regex_catcodes_int=\count169 -\l__regex_default_catcodes_int=\count170 -\c__regex_catcode_D_int=\count171 -\c__regex_catcode_S_int=\count172 -\c__regex_catcode_L_int=\count173 -\c__regex_catcode_O_int=\count174 -\c__regex_catcode_A_int=\count175 -\c__regex_all_catcodes_int=\count176 -\l__regex_show_lines_int=\count177 -\l__regex_min_state_int=\count178 -\l__regex_max_state_int=\count179 -\l__regex_left_state_int=\count180 -\l__regex_right_state_int=\count181 -\l__regex_capturing_group_int=\count182 -\l__regex_min_pos_int=\count183 -\l__regex_max_pos_int=\count184 -\l__regex_curr_pos_int=\count185 -\l__regex_start_pos_int=\count186 -\l__regex_success_pos_int=\count187 -\l__regex_curr_char_int=\count188 -\l__regex_curr_catcode_int=\count189 -\l__regex_last_char_int=\count190 -\l__regex_case_changed_char_int=\count191 -\l__regex_curr_state_int=\count192 -\l__regex_step_int=\count193 -\l__regex_min_active_int=\count194 -\l__regex_max_active_int=\count195 -\l__regex_replacement_csnames_int=\count196 -\l__regex_match_count_int=\count197 -\l__regex_min_submatch_int=\count198 -\l__regex_submatch_int=\count199 -\l__regex_zeroth_submatch_int=\count266 -\g__regex_trace_regex_int=\count267 -\c_empty_box=\box32 -\l_tmpa_box=\box33 -\l_tmpb_box=\box34 -\g_tmpa_box=\box35 -\g_tmpb_box=\box36 -\l__box_top_dim=\dimen142 -\l__box_bottom_dim=\dimen143 -\l__box_left_dim=\dimen144 -\l__box_right_dim=\dimen145 -\l__box_top_new_dim=\dimen146 -\l__box_bottom_new_dim=\dimen147 -\l__box_left_new_dim=\dimen148 -\l__box_right_new_dim=\dimen149 -\l__box_internal_box=\box37 -\l__coffin_internal_box=\box38 -\l__coffin_internal_dim=\dimen150 -\l__coffin_offset_x_dim=\dimen151 -\l__coffin_offset_y_dim=\dimen152 -\l__coffin_x_dim=\dimen153 -\l__coffin_y_dim=\dimen154 -\l__coffin_x_prime_dim=\dimen155 -\l__coffin_y_prime_dim=\dimen156 -\c_empty_coffin=\box39 -\l__coffin_aligned_coffin=\box40 -\l__coffin_aligned_internal_coffin=\box41 -\l_tmpa_coffin=\box42 -\l_tmpb_coffin=\box43 -\g_tmpa_coffin=\box44 -\g_tmpb_coffin=\box45 -\l__coffin_bounding_shift_dim=\dimen157 -\l__coffin_left_corner_dim=\dimen158 -\l__coffin_right_corner_dim=\dimen159 -\l__coffin_bottom_corner_dim=\dimen160 -\l__coffin_top_corner_dim=\dimen161 -\l__coffin_scaled_total_height_dim=\dimen162 -\l__coffin_scaled_width_dim=\dimen163 -\c__coffin_empty_coffin=\box46 -\l__coffin_display_coffin=\box47 -\l__coffin_display_coord_coffin=\box48 -\l__coffin_display_pole_coffin=\box49 -\l__coffin_display_offset_dim=\dimen164 -\l__coffin_display_x_dim=\dimen165 -\l__coffin_display_y_dim=\dimen166 -\g__char_data_ior=\read1 - -(/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/l3kernel/l3deprecation.def -File: l3deprecation.def 2019-04-06 v L3 Deprecated functions -)) -(/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/l3backend/l3backend-pdfmode.def -File: l3backend-pdfmode.def 2019-04-06 L3 backend support: PDF mode -\l__kernel_color_stack_int=\count268 -\l__pdf_internal_box=\box50 -)) -(/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/l3packages/xparse/xparse.sty -Package: xparse 2019-10-11 L3 Experimental document command parser -\l__xparse_current_arg_int=\count269 -\g__xparse_grabber_int=\count270 -\l__xparse_m_args_int=\count271 -\l__xparse_v_nesting_int=\count272 -) -Package: lipsum 2019/01/02 v2.2 150 paragraphs of Lorem Ipsum dummy text - -(/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/lipsum/lipsum.ltd.tex -File: lipsum.ltd.tex 2019/01/02 v2.2 The Lorem ipsum dummy text -)) (./ASEE_paper.aux) +) (./ASEE_paper.aux) \openout1 = `ASEE_paper.aux'. -LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OML/cmm/m/it on input line 41. -LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 41. -LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for T1/cmr/m/n on input line 41. -LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 41. -LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OT1/cmr/m/n on input line 41. -LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 41. -LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OMS/cmsy/m/n on input line 41. -LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 41. -LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OMX/cmex/m/n on input line 41. -LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 41. -LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for U/cmr/m/n on input line 41. -LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 41. +LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OML/cmm/m/it on input line 40. +LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 40. +LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for T1/cmr/m/n on input line 40. +LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 40. +LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OT1/cmr/m/n on input line 40. +LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 40. +LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OMS/cmsy/m/n on input line 40. +LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 40. +LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for OMX/cmex/m/n on input line 40. +LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 40. +LaTeX Font Info: Checking defaults for U/cmr/m/n on input line 40. +LaTeX Font Info: ... okay on input line 40. LaTeX Font Info: Trying to load font information for OT1+ptm on input line 4 -1. +0. (/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/psnfss/ot1ptm.fd File: ot1ptm.fd 2001/06/04 font definitions for OT1/ptm. @@ -472,16 +295,16 @@ Package caption Info: End \AtBeginDocument code. (/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/context/base/mkii/supp-pdf.mkii [Loading MPS to PDF converter (version 2006.09.02).] -\scratchcounter=\count273 -\scratchdimen=\dimen167 -\scratchbox=\box51 -\nofMPsegments=\count274 -\nofMParguments=\count275 +\scratchcounter=\count115 +\scratchdimen=\dimen135 +\scratchbox=\box32 +\nofMPsegments=\count116 +\nofMParguments=\count117 \everyMPshowfont=\toks29 -\MPscratchCnt=\count276 -\MPscratchDim=\dimen168 -\MPnumerator=\count277 -\makeMPintoPDFobject=\count278 +\MPscratchCnt=\count118 +\MPscratchDim=\dimen136 +\MPnumerator=\count119 +\makeMPintoPDFobject=\count120 \everyMPtoPDFconversion=\toks30 ) (/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/oberdiek/epstopdf-base.sty Package: epstopdf-base 2016/05/15 v2.6 Base part for package epstopdf @@ -545,79 +368,103 @@ e * \@reversemarginfalse * (1in=72.27pt=25.4mm, 1cm=28.453pt) -LaTeX Font Info: Trying to load font information for U+msa on input line 43. +LaTeX Font Info: Trying to load font information for U+msa on input line 42. (/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/amsfonts/umsa.fd File: umsa.fd 2013/01/14 v3.01 AMS symbols A ) -LaTeX Font Info: Trying to load font information for U+msb on input line 43. +LaTeX Font Info: Trying to load font information for U+msb on input line 42. (/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/amsfonts/umsb.fd File: umsb.fd 2013/01/14 v3.01 AMS symbols B ) LaTeX Font Info: Font shape `OT1/ptm/bx/n' in size <12> not available -(Font) Font shape `OT1/ptm/b/n' tried instead on input line 50. +(Font) Font shape `OT1/ptm/b/n' tried instead on input line 49. (/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/ucs/data/uni-0.def File: uni-0.def 2013/05/13 UCS: Unicode data U+0000..U+00FF -) [1 +) +LaTeX Font Info: Font shape `OT1/ptm/bx/n' in size <8> not available +(Font) Font shape `OT1/ptm/b/n' tried instead on input line 85. + + +Package natbib Warning: Citation `bot2005' on page 1 undefined on input line 85 +. + +[1 {/var/lib/texmf/fonts/map/pdftex/updmap/pdftex.map}] -<./lab_schedule.png, id=8, 799.788pt x 411.939pt> + +Package natbib Warning: Citation `bloom1971' on page 2 undefined on input line +104. + + +Package natbib Warning: Citation `kulik1990' on page 2 undefined on input line +104. + + +Package natbib Warning: Citation `blackstone2018' on page 2 undefined on input +line 108. + +[2] +<./lab_schedule.png, id=12, 799.788pt x 411.939pt> File: ./lab_schedule.png Graphic file (type png) -Package pdftex.def Info: ./lab_schedule.png used on input line 103. +Package pdftex.def Info: ./lab_schedule.png used on input line 165. (pdftex.def) Requested size: 361.34999pt x 186.11253pt. - [2 <./lab_schedule.png>] -<./track_progress/report_quality.png, id=14, 505.89pt x 361.35pt> + [3 <./lab_schedule.png>] +<./track_progress/report_quality.png, id=18, 505.89pt x 361.35pt> File: ./track_progress/report_quality.png Graphic file (type png) Package pdftex.def Info: ./track_progress/report_quality.png used on input lin -e 155. +e 252. (pdftex.def) Requested size: 252.94499pt x 180.67456pt. -Overfull \hbox (18.06749pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 155--156 +Overfull \hbox (18.06749pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 252--253 [][] [] -<./track_progress/report_scores.png, id=15, 505.89pt x 361.35pt> +<./track_progress/report_scores.png, id=19, 505.89pt x 361.35pt> File: ./track_progress/report_scores.png Graphic file (type png) Package pdftex.def Info: ./track_progress/report_scores.png used on input line - 161. + 258. (pdftex.def) Requested size: 216.81pt x 154.86469pt. -Overfull \hbox (2.28001pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 153--165 +Overfull \hbox (2.28001pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 250--262 [][] [] [] -<./track_progress/mass_measure.png, id=16, 505.89pt x 361.35pt> +<./track_progress/mass_measure.png, id=20, 505.89pt x 361.35pt> File: ./track_progress/mass_measure.png Graphic file (type png) Package pdftex.def Info: ./track_progress/mass_measure.png used on input line -192. +296. (pdftex.def) Requested size: 361.34999pt x 258.10966pt. -(./ASEE_paper.bbl [3 <./track_progress/report_quality.png> <./track_progress/re -port_scores.png>]) [4 <./track_progress/mass_measure.png>] (./ASEE_paper.aux) ) - +(./ASEE_paper.bbl [4] [5 <./track_progress/report_quality.png> <./track_progres +s/report_scores.png>] [6 <./track_progress/mass_measure.png>]) + +Package natbib Warning: There were undefined citations. + +[7] (./ASEE_paper.aux) ) Here is how much of TeX's memory you used: - 16957 strings out of 492167 - 297896 string characters out of 6131558 - 534504 words of memory out of 5000000 - 21165 multiletter control sequences out of 15000+600000 - 551324 words of font info for 68 fonts, out of 8000000 for 9000 + 6774 strings out of 492167 + 94102 string characters out of 6131559 + 199672 words of memory out of 5000000 + 11008 multiletter control sequences out of 15000+600000 + 25936 words of font info for 62 fonts, out of 8000000 for 9000 1141 hyphenation exceptions out of 8191 - 45i,7n,67p,1923b,487s stack positions out of 5000i,500n,10000p,200000b,80000s -{/usr/share/texmf-dist/fonts/enc/dvips/base/8r.enc} -Output written on ASEE_paper.pdf (4 pages, 295663 bytes). + 45i,7n,46p,1870b,485s stack positions out of 5000i,500n,10000p,200000b,80000s +{/usr/share/texmf-dist/fonts/enc/dvips/base/8r.enc} +Output written on ASEE_paper.pdf (7 pages, 310585 bytes). PDF statistics: - 47 PDF objects out of 1000 (max. 8388607) - 27 compressed objects within 1 object stream + 58 PDF objects out of 1000 (max. 8388607) + 35 compressed objects within 1 object stream 0 named destinations out of 1000 (max. 500000) 21 words of extra memory for PDF output out of 10000 (max. 10000000) diff --git a/ASEE_paper.pdf b/ASEE_paper.pdf index 57da2ed..1c60c81 100644 Binary files a/ASEE_paper.pdf and b/ASEE_paper.pdf differ diff --git a/ASEE_paper.tex b/ASEE_paper.tex index 5a7e12e..5b19813 100644 --- a/ASEE_paper.tex +++ b/ASEE_paper.tex @@ -49,80 +49,100 @@ \section*{Abstract} In this paper, I discuss novel features in an upper-level engineering course -that have been used to enhance technical writing, prepare students for -engineering design, and enhance problem-solving skills. I redesigned the course -in Fall 2018 to prepare students to make engineering decisions and accomplish -design goals. My short-term objectives were to prepare the students to start -their capstone projects senior year and improve technical writing. The -laboratory course includes a number of novel features: specifications grading, -interactive Jupyter lab handouts, and a project-based competition with -\$150-prize. Students spent the first 9 weeks of the course following -experimental procedures and writing lab reports. In the project-based +that have been used to enhance technical writing and problem-solving skills. I +redesigned the course in Fall 2018 to prepare students to make engineering +decisions and accomplish design goals. My short-term objectives were to prepare +the students to start their capstone projects senior year and improve technical +writing. The laboratory course includes a number of novel features: +specifications grading, interactive Jupyter lab handouts, and a project-based +competition with \$150-prize. Students spent the first 9 weeks of the course +following experimental procedures and writing lab reports. In the project-based competition, the students designed their own set of experiments including finite element analysis and experimental procedures. The students were graded upon their approach to the problem and quantification of uncertainties in measured and predicted values. I awarded a cash prize to the most accurate mass measurement. I discuss the impacts of specifications grading, project-based -competition, and detail the measured improvements -in technical writing throughout the semesters in Fall 2018 and Fall 2019. The -impacts were measured based upon a standardized rubric and qualitative -interviews. +competition, and detail the measured improvements in technical writing +throughout the semesters in Fall 2018 and Fall 2019. The impacts were measured +based upon a standardized rubric and qualitative interviews. %------------------------------------------------ \section*{Introduction} -Engineering is difficult. Engineering students are expected to create models, -take measurements, make predictions, and validate results. - -As academics, we tend to favor rational design e.g. Newton's laws, differential -equations, thermodynamics - -Students are drawn to engineering for its empirical appeal e.g. learn by doing, -create and measure approach - -Rationalists and empiricists have been at odds for centuries, marked especially -by the conflict between David Hume's Treatise of Human Nature and Immanuel -Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. - -Since the divide between rational and empirical thought, there is skepticism -from both sides as to the validity in the work of modeling and measurement. - -Models will claim measurements are incorrect, while measurements will claim -models are not representing reality. - -Modern engineers are expected to build innovative designs with rational models, -but also validate and correct these designs with emprical measurements and -insights. - -Engineering design has to use both rational and empirical ideas to accomplish -goals. - -Use models to predict results - -Use measurements to interpret results - -validate predictions with measurements - -relate quantitative rational model to empirical measurements +Engineers are expected to create models, take measurements, make predictions, +validate models and communicate difficult concepts. The ABET outcomes rated +with highest importance from practicing engineers, employers, and recent +graduates are problem solving and communication \cite{passow2017,evans1993}. +Problem-solving comes in two main forms, rational design including mathematical +models, computer models, and propagation of error and empirical design including +measurements, curve-fitting, and statistical models. An upper-level engineering +course is the ideal place to combine these rational and empirical design +approaches. As academics, we tend to favor rational design e.g. Newton's laws, +differential equations, thermodynamics. Students are typically drawn to +engineering for its empirical appeal e.g. learn by doing, create and measure +approach \cite{bot2005}. Rationalists and empiricists have fought for +centuries, marked especially by the conflict between David Hume\cite{hume1739} +and Immanuel Kant\cite{kant1781}. The divide between rational and empirical +thought creates skepticism in both design methods. I see the divide between +engineering professor and engineering student as a skepticism between +rationalists and empiricists. Despite skepticism between rational and empirical +approaches, engineers are expected to build innovative designs with both rational +models and validate \emph{and} empirical measurements and insights. We relate +quantitative, rational models to quantitative, empirical measurements through statistical +quantities e.g. confidence intervals and safety factors. Engineers have to +communicate rational and empirical ideas to accomplish goals. Technical writing is crucial to communicating model predictions and measured results. Despite the necessity for strong writing skills, students struggle to -meet professors'\cite{lillis2001} and employers'\cite{conrad2017} expectation -for quality writing. In order to improve student writing, I used specification -grading\cite{nilson2015}. Specification grading introduces pass-fail grading of +meet professors'\cite{lillis2001} and employers'\cite{conrad2017} expectations +for quality writing. I used specification +grading\cite{nilson2015} to allow student to learn from failures in their +writing and respond to feedback. Specification grading introduces pass-fail grading of the lab reports similar to competency-based education or mastery -learning\cite{bloom1971, kulik1990}. - +learning\cite{bloom1971, kulik1990}. Students are given a detailed rubric and +a minimum standard for passing the course. Failed assignments can be revised by +using a token system\cite{nilson2015}. Specification grading is meant to decrease +the time and effort spent on individual assignments, so that time can be spent +providing feedback\cite{nilson2015,blackstone2018}. Technical writing is a skill that +every practicing engineer uses to communicate ideas and findings. + +The role of an upper-level engineering laboratory is to teach the connection +between rational and empirical design and technical writing. Technical writing +cannot be taught in isolation from technical context\cite{passow2012}. It is +important for an upper-level engineering class to emulate engineering design as +much as possible. The combination of rational and empirical design and technical +writing fits into the general approach of problem-based and project-based +learning, (PBL and PjBL, respectively). The difference between PBL and PjBL is +that in PBL the instructor specifies tasks to be performed in basic steps. In +contrast, PjBL specifies a greater task and the students create strategies and +approaches\cite{burguillo2010}. Both PBL and PjBL have shown tobe effective in the +classroom\cite{carlile1998,morrison2004}. Students +search, solve, create, and share approaches\cite{awang2008} using math models +and measurements, then sharing with technical documents or graphs. Project-based +learning can have a positive effect on students' attitudes towards the +course\cite{bell2010}. Competitions in PjBL helps motivate +students to approach more difficult concepts in a +classroom\cite{burguillo2010,michieletto2018}. + +The goals of this upper-level engineering project-based laboratory are to +improve and evaluate problem-solving skills and improve technical writing +skills. The problem-solving skills were evaluated with six problem-based +learning (PBL) laboratories and a Project-based learning (PjBL) contest that had a +cash prize. The technical writing skills were improved using specifications +grading in all seven laboratories. %------------------------------------------------ \section*{Methods} -The course focuses on technical writing and measurements. The laboratory schedule -is shown in Fig.~\ref{timeline}. Lab \#0 was used to introduce statistical +The course focuses on problem-solving and technical writing. The laboratory schedule +is shown in Fig.~\ref{timeline}. Labs \#0-4 and 6 were PBL activities where +students were given basic steps and asked to write technical documents. Lab \#5 +was a PjBL activity; I specified that the class needed to measure the mass of an +object using a vibrating beam. Lab \#0 was used to introduce statistical significance in measurements. We relate discussions of rational models and empirical measurements with statistical analysis. All students worked with the same data set and submitted reports graded with the rubric in the appendix A.1. Lab \#1 asked @@ -130,7 +150,7 @@ students to quantify differences in machining methods between band saw and computer numerical control (CNC) parts. Labs \#2-4 asked students to quantify differences between rational predictions using analytical and numerical models and empirical measurements. In Lab \#5, the students were asked to perform a -design of experiments, create a predictive model, and use engineering judgement +design of experiments, create a predictive model, and use engineering judgment to measure the mass of an object on a vibrating beam. The final Lab \#6 included a combination of rational predictions using lumped-mass assumptions, finite element analysis, and empirical measurements. @@ -153,7 +173,7 @@ the full kinematic deflection of a beam under static load. \end{figure} The laboratory course includes a number of novel features: specifications -grading, interactive lab handouts, and a project-based competition with +grading, interactive lab handouts, and a PjBL competition with \$150-prize. I use specifications grading for lab reports \cite{nilson2015}. Each lab report is graded based upon a pass-fail criteria and a standardized grading rubric. Lab groups of two students were given the @@ -165,13 +185,13 @@ myself to offer more criticism. The goal was to help the class improve technical writing skills or at least maintain a reasonable quality for professional engineers. -The lab handouts are hosted as interactive Jupyter\cite{kluyver2016} -notebooks. Students access a server to process example test data, enter their -experimental data, and plot results of analytical predictions. The background -information is rendered as html with links to resources such as Student's 1908 The -Probable Error of a Mean\cite{student1908}, animations, or Wikipedia articles. -The goal was to provide resources that prepare the students for capstone -engineering projects and ultimately for professional engineering projects. +The lab handouts are hosted as interactive Jupyter\cite{kluyver2016} notebooks. +Students access a server to process example test data, enter their experimental +data, and plot results of analytical predictions. The background information is +rendered as html with links to resources such as Student's 1908 ``The Probable +Error of a Mean''\cite{student1908}, animations, or Wikipedia articles. The +goal was to provide resources that prepare the students for capstone engineering +projects and ultimately for professional engineering projects. The project-based competition asks lab groups to measure the mass of an object attached to a vibrating beam. In weeks 10 and 11, the students create a design of @@ -191,15 +211,41 @@ predicted results. \section*{Results and Discussion} The course focused on improving technical writing and making measurements. In -Fig.~\ref{}\quality}(a), the scores of each lab group is fit to a linear model to -determine the change in report grade per report. The goal was to have the entire -class in the green "continuous improvement"-area. In Fall~2018, 92\% of the -class continually improved and in Fall~2019, 72\% of the class continually -improved their scores. The "maintain quality" area represtents students -that wrote report of high quality initiially, but did not improve during the -course of the class. - -\begin{figure}[ht] +Fig.~\ref{quality}(a), the scores of each lab group is fit to a linear model to +determine the change in report grade per report between Labs \#0-4. The goal was +to have the entire class in the green ``continuous improvement''-area. In +Fall~2018, 56\% of the class continually improved and in Fall~2019, 59\% of the +class continually improved their scores. The ``maintain quality'' area +represents students that write reports of high quality initially, but do not +improve during the course of the class. In Fall~2018 and Fall 2019, the students that +maintained quality accounted for 43\% and 36\%, respectively. The remaining 1\% +and 4\% of the class did not improve or maintain report grades, in Fall 2018 and +2019, respectively. We show the grades from Labs~\#5-6 in Fig.~\ref{quality}(b). +Lab~\#5 was the PjBL contest and marked a significant increase in expectations. +The results of this study, suggest that students were able to incorporate +feedback from teaching assistants and myself and show improvements in technical +writing. The Labs increased in difficulty, so even the groups of students that +maintained their grade at the specified level show marked improvement in +communicating difficult concepts. + +Regarding the effectiveness of specifications grading in technical writing, +there is still a normal distribution of grades with the class mean between 80 +and 85~points and grades increased throughout the semester. One argument against +specifications grading is that students may not be motivated to increase their +grade, because the set point does not change. I find here a clear increase in +grades throughout the semester, and the students that were in the maintaining +poor quality regime did fail and redo lab reports. The students that did not +improve found great difficulty in Labs~\#5-6. + +% 2018 2 s = 2/52 maintain poor qual +% 2018 0.56 improve +% 1-0.56-2/220=43% + +% 2019 10 o = 10/83 maintain poor qual +% 2019 0.59 improve +% 1-0.59-10/228 = 36% + +\begin{figure}[ht!] \begin{subfigure}[t]{0.5\textwidth} \begin{centering} @@ -215,7 +261,7 @@ course of the class. \end{subfigure} \caption{Plotted above in (a) is the average change in lab report grade as a function of - the first Report~\#0 - A statistical analysis of three sample populations. The + the first Report~\#0. The specification for passing Report \#0 is shown as a red line at 70 points. The green area above the ``Linear model change in grade''=0 shows the students that continuously improved their report grades throughout the semester. The dark red @@ -239,9 +285,30 @@ course of the class. specification for a passing grade on the reports. \label{quality}} \end{figure} -\begin{figure}[ht] +The PjBL Lab~\#5 activity results are plotted in Fig.~\ref{contest}. The +histogram of errors based upon reported results demonstrate the range of +effectiveness of each lab group's experimental work. In Fall~2018 and Fall~2019, +the average and standard deviation in error to measure a 32-g object was +18.3$\pm$32.8~g and 11.4$\pm$26.7~g, respectively. While top three most accurate +reports had errors less than 4\%. + +This PjBL Lab qualitatively had the highest enthusiasm and participation from +the students. Student SET responses included, ``I liked the mass measuring +contest!'', ``I liked using ANSYS and the competition.'', ``I liked the +competition where the answer was unknown. I think that was the most beneficial +thing we did and I think more of those labs would be helpful.'' Attendance to +announce winners of the contest was not mandatory, but over 90\% of the class was +present. Students compared answers, studied methods, and results. After the +object masses were given to the class, they revised their methods one more time +to reduce errors in their data collection and processing. The benefit of the +contest was the increased enthusiasm in studying beam dynamics and finite +element methods. Even students that had very high errors, had finite element +models with demonstrated convergence, fast fourier transform analysis of natural +frequencies of cantilever beams. These competitions work best when the learning +happens whether or not the group wins\cite{burguillo2010}. + +\begin{figure}[ht!] \includegraphics[width=5in]{./track_progress/mass_measure.png} - \caption{Plotted above is a histogram of the reported errors from Fall~2018 and Fall~2019 for the mass measurement contest. The average mass reported in Fall~2018 and Fall~2019 was 18~$\pm$~33~g and 41~$\pm$~27~g, respectively with @@ -249,10 +316,41 @@ course of the class. 32~$\pm$~2~g. The histogram is the error=(reported value - the actual value). \label{contest}} \end{figure} +I also polled the current senior capstone project teams that took this +project-based upper-level engineering lab course in either 2018, 2019, or not at +all. Students comments about the course included ``Was a great and helpful +class'', ``Great class! Very helpful for senior design'', and ``ME3263 was a great +course for technical writing.'' The students were asked how useful each skill +that was introduced in this course was in relation to accomplishing a senior +capstone project. Over 50\% of the class of 270, agreed that all eight skills +were useful and 50\% of the class considered technical writing to be a +\emph{crucial skill}. The last question in the survey was: ``How prepared did +you feel starting senior design with your background from ?'' +Of the students that took the course in Fall 2018 and Fall 2019, over 45\% felt +prepared and students that hadn't taken the course only less than 30\% felt +prepared. Using a one-way analysis of variance on the responses +(0:unprepared-4:very prepared), 121 students from Fall 2018, 24 from Fall 2019, +and 17 N/A, the f-statistic 2.2 with a p-value of 0.11 between all three. +Considering just the difference between Fall 2018-Fall 2019, the f-statistic is +0.01 and p-value of 0.93. There is a statistically significant difference +between students that took the PjBL course and those that did not. This +measurement gages the students' perceived preparation for the senior capstone +project. + +\begin{figure}[ht!] + \includegraphics[width=5in]{./track_progress/survey_prep.png} + \caption{Plotted above is a histogram of the responses from senior capstone + project students that either: took the project-based laboratory course + concurrently with capstone, in the previous year, or not at all. The students + were asked to rate the necessity of eight problem-solving and technical + writing skills that were introduced in this project-based laboratory course.\label{contest}} +\end{figure} %------------------------------------------------ \section*{Conclusions and Future Work} + + %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- % REFERENCE LIST %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- diff --git a/ASEEpaper.bib b/ASEEpaper.bib index e92ca63..f5e1d32 100644 --- a/ASEEpaper.bib +++ b/ASEEpaper.bib @@ -1,3 +1,17 @@ +@book{kant1781, + title={Critique of pure reason}, + author={Kant, Immanuel}, + publisher={MacMillan, New York, NY}, + year={1781} +} + +@book{hume1739, + title={A treatise of human nature}, + author={Hume, David}, + year={1739}, + publisher={Dover} +} + @book{nilson2015, title={Specifications Grading: Restoring Rigor, Motivating Students, and Saving Faculty Time}, author={Nilson, L. and Stanny, C.J.}, @@ -29,14 +43,12 @@ @article{conrad2017, author = {Conrad, Susan}, doi = {10.1002/jee.20161}, - file = {:home/ryan/Downloads/Conrad-2017-Journal{\_}of{\_}Engineering{\_}Education.pdf:pdf}, issn = {1069-4730}, journal = {Journal of Engineering Education}, month = {apr}, number = {2}, pages = {191--217}, title = {{A Comparison of Practitioner and Student Writing in Civil Engineering}}, - url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jee.20161}, volume = {106}, year = {2017} } @@ -54,3 +66,128 @@ volume = {6}, year = {2001} } + +@article{passow2017, + author = {Passow, Honor J. and Passow, Christian H.}, + doi = {10.1002/jee.20171}, + issn = {10694730}, + journal = {Journal of Engineering Education}, + month = {jul}, + number = {3}, + pages = {475--526}, + title = {{What Competencies Should Undergraduate Engineering Programs Emphasize? A Systematic Review}}, + volume = {106}, + year = {2017} +} + +@article{passow2012, + author = {Passow, Honor J.}, + doi = {10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00043.x}, + issn = {10694730}, + journal = {Journal of Engineering Education}, + month = {jan}, + number = {1}, + pages = {95--118}, + title = {{Which ABET Competencies Do Engineering Graduates Find Most Important in their Work?}}, + volume = {101}, + year = {2012} +} + +@article{evans1993, + author = {Evans, D. L. and Beakley, G. C. and Crouch, P. E. and Yamaguchi, G. T.}, + doi = {10.1002/j.2168-9830.1993.tb01075.x}, + issn = {10694730}, + journal = {Journal of Engineering Education}, + month = {oct}, + number = {4}, + pages = {203--211}, + title = {{Attributes of Engineering Graduates and Their Impact on Curriculum Design}}, + volume = {82}, + year = {1993} +} + +@article{awang2008, + title={Creative thinking skill approach through problem-based learning: + Pedagogy and practice in the engineering classroom}, + author={Awang, Halizah and Ramly, Ishak}, + journal={International journal of human and social sciences}, + volume={3}, + number={1}, + pages={18--23}, + year={2008}, + publisher={Citeseer} +} + +@article{batdi2014, + title={The effects of a problem-based learning approach on students’ attitude + levels: A meta-analysis}, + author={Batd{\i}, Veli}, + journal={Educational Research and Reviews}, + volume={9}, + number={9}, + pages={272--276}, + year={2014} +} + +@article{bell2010, + title={Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future}, + author={Bell, Stephanie}, + journal={The clearing house}, + volume={83}, + number={2}, + pages={39--43}, + year={2010}, + publisher={Taylor \& Francis} +} + +@inproceedings{michieletto2018, + title={Competitions and industrial tasks as a way to learn basic concepts in + robotics}, + author={Michieletto, Stefano and Pagello, Enrico}, + booktitle={2018 IEEE International Conference on Autonomous Robot Systems and + Competitions (ICARSC)}, + pages={173--178}, + year={2018}, + organization={IEEE} +} + +@article{burguillo2010, + title={Using game theory and competition-based learning to stimulate student + motivation and performance}, + author={Burguillo, Juan C}, + journal={Computers \& education}, + volume={55}, + number={2}, + pages={566--575}, + year={2010}, + publisher={Elsevier} +} + + +@inproceedings{carlile1998, + author = {Carlile, Simon and Barnet, Stewart and Sefton, Ann and Uther, James}, + booktitle = {International Journal of Medical Informatics}, + doi = {10.1016/S1386-5056(98)00073-2}, + issn = {13865056}, + keywords = {Graduate medical program,Intranet,Problem based learning}, + month = {jun}, + number = {1-3}, + pages = {225--233}, + publisher = {Elsevier Sci Ireland Ltd}, + title = {{Medical problem based learning supported by intranet technology: A natural student centred approach}}, + volume = {50}, + year = {1998} +} + +@article{morrison2004, + author = {Morrison, Jillian}, + doi = {10.1016/s0140-6736(03)15298-1}, + issn = {1474547X}, + journal = {Lancet}, + month = {jan}, + number = {9403}, + pages = {174}, + title = {{Where now for problem based learning?}}, + volume = {363}, + year = {2004} +}