To assess the current status of first year programs, two surveys of first year programs in engineering were circulated through the ASEE Freshman Programs Division (FPD) listserv. The first survey was sponsored by the FPD, and the second survey was sponsored by the NAE Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education (CASEE). Participation in the surveys involved 91 institutions in the FPD survey and 49 institutions in the CASEE survey.The FPD survey focused on program structure, staffing, and how advising and tutoring is accomplished. Of the participating institutions, approximately two-thirds of the institutions were about evenly grouped in one of four categories: programs conducted by a formally recognized department or division, by someone on the dean's staff, by a responsible faculty member or group of faculty members in addition to their teaching or research duties, and programs conducted in individual engineering disciplines. The remainder of the programs had unique features that did not neatly correspond with one of the other categories. The paper also presents survey data on how faculty, graduate and undergraduate students, and others are used in teaching, advising, and tutoring; advising services and how these are handled; and availability and administration of tutoring services.The CASEE survey focused on the content of the curriculum and the teaching methods. An estimated 20% of the entering students were not ready to study engineering (range 0 to 90%). The overwhelming weakness reported was mathematics. Twelve institutions reported some effort to integrate courses and one institution reported all courses were integrated. Honors programs of some sort were conducted by 67% and bridge and/or retention programs by 88%. The curriculum appears to be fairly standardized. Only the engineering courses had extensive professional activities such as socially relevant examples, interpersonal skills, leadership skills, and teamwork. Most of the engineering design courses include hands-on projects.Data from the combined surveys provide a broad picture of the current status of first-year engineering programs. Survey results should serve as a valuable reference for engineering educators who are establishing, modifying, or evaluating a first-year program.

The abbreviated summer class schedule, which results in longer class times, can present several barriers to learning. One significant factor is the lack of time needed for knowledge construction. As students stretch and reform their schemas to synthesize new material, they often generate inappropriate perceptions of critical class material. An effective strategy for addressing this is to provide a variety of active learning techniques that engage students and focus on their different learning styles.In this paper, data from two class sections of engineering economy taught in a compressed summer term were examined to see how well the student's self-assessment of the course objectives compared to direct assessment measures. Teaching techniques used in these classes include incorporating learning objectives directly into the teaching of course material, both student and instructor-generated crossword puzzles, student-generated Pictionary, clickers, starting each class with a song about money, using real money and magnets to illustrate applications of different interest factors, Muddiest Point paper, think-pair-share, individual and group problem solving, brainstorming, case studies, debates, and a number of other useful techniques. The student's self-assessment of learning objectives was measured through a survey and the direct assessment was done through the use of mid-term and final exam questions. To assess the correlation between self-assessment and direct assessment, one-tailed tests at a level of significance of 0.05 with 50 degrees of freedom were performed. A correlation was found to be significant at the 0.01 level and so overall, it appears that the students had an accurate perception of their own course performance. The paper will discuss the student self-assessment of the course objectives, the direct assessment of course objectives, and some of the teaching and learning techniques used to enhance the course.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Laboratory and pilot-plant scale studies were conducted to investigate the occurrence of anaerobic reduction of oxygen requirements in excess biological phosphorus removal (BPR) systems. The investigation was accomplished through application of chemical oxygen demand (COD)/oxygen-utilization mass balance techniques. Reductions of 0 to approximately 50% in the oxygen required for organic stabilization were achieved during treatment of synthetic and raw wastewaters. The reductions were attributed to stabilization occurring in the anaerobic reactors and represent a potential aeration energy savings that could be realized with BPR systems in addition to any savings associated with denitrification. Factors which influence the occurrence and magnitude of anaerobic stabilization include the composition of the influent wastewater, and the strength of the influent wastewater. It was concluded that substantial reduction of oxygen requirements can occur as a result of anaerobic stabilization and that the principal mechanism is probably metabolism by bacteria, such as fermenters, that do not accumulate phosphorus.zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Water Environ. Res., 64, 824 (1992).

No abstract

The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering has recently adopted an expanded set of fifteen program outcomes identified in the American Society of Civil Engineers Body of Knowledge and conducted work leading to development of common course goals with appropriate levels of cognitive achievement based on Bloom's taxonomy. In addition, the department has adopted a holistic process for investigating and analyzing the linkage of individual course goals in various discipline-specific areas of concentration within the curriculum. Sequential course outcome maps or "threads" have been developed, or are under development, for each of the department's major discipline tracts (structural, environmental, site development, and transportation engineering). A major objective in developing this framework for assessment was to evaluate the effectiveness of how well course goals are linked within the undergraduate curriculum and provide a basis for incremental improvement. Creation of course goals, outcomes, and cognitive level linkages yielded additional curriculum assessment benefits including: