Hands-On Undergraduate Geotechnical Engineering Modules in the Context of Effective Learning Pedagogies, ABET Outcomes, and Our Curricular Reform

Dewoolkar, Mandar M.; George, Lindsay; Hayden, Nancy J.; Neumann, Maureen D.

doi:10.1061/(asce)1052-3928(2009)135:4(161)

Cited by 34 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study also does not assess the programmatic changes from the DLR reform efforts. These two issues are discussed in other papers (see Dewoolkar, George, Hayden, & Neumann, 2009;Dewoolkar, George, Hayden, & Rizzo, 2010;Dewoolkar, Porter, & Hayden, 2009;Hayden et al, in press). We also did not assess the effect that service learning projects had on the communities involved; this issue will be examined and discussed in another article.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 88%

The Socially Responsible Engineer: Assessing Student Attitudes of Roles and Responsibilities

Lathem

Neumann

Hayden

2011

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background A state university's Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) programs initiated curricular reform efforts that incorporated systems thinking and service learning as part of a National Science Foundation Department Level Reform (DLR) grant. Purpose(Hypothesis) The purpose of this study was to examine changes in students' perceptions of engineers' social responsibilities and technical knowledge that were influenced by the programs' DLR curricula reforms. A secondary goal was to test the validity and reliability of a student attitude survey. Design/Method A longitudinal, concurrent, mixed method study was implemented over a four‐year period. A survey was developed and administered to 125 graduating CEE seniors. Qualitative analyses included open‐ended survey responses and interviews with faculty, students, and focus groups. Results Student attitudes declined during the first two years of implementation with students citing dissatisfaction with course changes. Yet, no statistically significant difference was found for students' self‐reported technical knowledge and social responsibilities by graduating class or major. Female students, however, showed a positive statistically significant difference in their self‐perceptions of increased technical knowledge and engineers' social responsibilities. Adoption of new language was noticeable for students in the Class of 2009, indicating that concepts of systems thinking and service learning were beginning to be assimilated. The student attitude survey was determined to be a valid and reliable instrument. Conclusion Students caught in the middle of program reform are likely to resist change and express dissatisfaction. Assessments of student attitudes allowed implementers to evaluate their reform efforts' successes and shortcomings and enabled them to adapt and modify their strategies accordingly.

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 88%

The Socially Responsible Engineer: Assessing Student Attitudes of Roles and Responsibilities

Lathem

Neumann

Hayden

2011

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They require students to employ their previously acquired skills to anticipate ground behavior and design accordingly. The feedback students receive on their decisions helps improve their analysis and evaluation abilities (Dewoolkar et al, 2009). Risk allocation, hereby, is one aspect of the students' projects that they are expected to reflect on.…”

Section: Advanced Graduate Level Geotechnical Engineering Coursesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Geotechnical Baseline Reports and Risk Allocation Frameworks in Geotechnical Engineering Education

Hashash¹,

Jammoul

et al. 2014

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of the Geotechnical Base Line Reports (GBRs) and related risk allocation has been employed in engineering practice for the underground construction industry since the 1970's. The GBR framework has been quite successful in reducing disputes associated with changed ground conditions and resulted in more efficient and less contentious project delivery. This framework is seeing, albeit slowly, broader adoption in the geotechnical engineering community and beyond underground construction. However, students of geotechnical engineering are almost never exposed to this approach of mitigation of risks that arise from uncertainty in ground conditions. The development of a GBR and related components might at first glance seem counter to the conventional geotechnical engineering training. The GBR framework requires engineers to quantify ground conditions and soil properties and avoid broad or vague description of these quantities. This paper highlights the benefits of integrating the GBR and risk allocation approach in geotechnical engineering education and proposes a framework to achieve this integration within existing curricula.

show abstract

“…Engineers should applaud efforts to create a systematic, fact-based approach to determining whether we have achieved our goals as educators. As geotechnical engineers, we should be finding ways to make our classes indispensable to the effort (Dewoolkar, et al 2009). …”

Section: Figure 5 Distribution Of Geotechnical Engineering Faculty Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geotechnical Engineering Education: The State of the Practice in 2011

Welker

2012

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hands-On Undergraduate Geotechnical Engineering Modules in the Context of Effective Learning Pedagogies, ABET Outcomes, and Our Curricular Reform

Cited by 34 publications

References 12 publications

The Socially Responsible Engineer: Assessing Student Attitudes of Roles and Responsibilities

The Socially Responsible Engineer: Assessing Student Attitudes of Roles and Responsibilities

Integrating Geotechnical Baseline Reports and Risk Allocation Frameworks in Geotechnical Engineering Education

Geotechnical Engineering Education: The State of the Practice in 2011

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About