M. Kaushik
*,
Nalini C. Iyer
- Department of Instrumentation Technology,
B.V. Bhommaraddi College of Enineering & Technology, Hubli, Karnataka, India
Abstract
The proposal describes about a course activity designed for fifth semester students of Instrumentation Technology for the course Process Instrumentation. The quantifiable short term outcome of the acitivity is to propose a sensor model with new operating principle. Student undergoes phases of field exercise, lab experimentation, literature survey that helps in proposing a sensor model. Course activity has been designed to address exploratory learning, better communication skills and industrial perspective of the course. Thus strengthening Process Automation vertical at program level. This progress justification can be made by mapping the rubrics formed for the evaluation of activity with the attainment of program outcomes.
References
- Kaushik M, Preeti Nalini C Iyer, �Prototype implementation: an effective method in process automation�, Journal of Engineering Education Transformations volume 28n no 2 and 3, Oct 2014 and Jan 2015
- Nalini C Iyer , Kaushik M, �An Experiment on Enhanced Learning through Field Exercise� , Proceedings of IEEE MITE 2013 International conference on MOOC, Innovation and Technology in Education pg 53 2013
- Jennifer M. Case , Gregory Light, �Emerging Methodologies in Engineering Education Research� Journal of Engineering Education January 2011, Vol. 100, No. 1, pp. 186�210
- Edward F. Redish, Karl A. Smithg �Looking Beyond Content:Skill Development For Engineers� unpublished
- Caroline Baillie, Jonte Bernhard, � Educational Research Impacting Engineering Education unpublished
- Richard M. Felder, Donald R. Woods, James E. Stice, Armando Rugarcia , �The Future Of Engineering Education; Teaching Methods That Work� Chem. Engr. Education, 34(1), 26�39 (2000).
- Janis Swan and Elizabeth Godfrey, �Sustained improvements in teaching and learning in Engineering Education� A Research Report, University of Waikato
- Bhavya Lal, �Strategies for Evaluating Engineering Education Research�, Workshop Report unpublished
- Linda P.B. Katehi, Katherine Banks, Heidi A. DiefesDux, Deborah K. Follman, John Gaunt, Kamyar Haghighi, P.K. Imbrie, Leah H. Jamieson,Robert E. Montgomery, William C. Oakes, and Phillip Wankat, �A New Framework for Academic Reform in Engineering Education� , Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition
- Motoei Azuma, Fran�ois Coallier, Juan Garbajosa, �How to Apply the Bloom Taxonomy to Software
- Engineering�, Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice, 2004
- http://www.abet.org/special-reports/
- The University of Wisconsin-Madison http://teachingacademy.wisc.edu/archive/Assistance/cour se/blooms.htm
- Laury Bollen, Boudewijn Janssen, Wim Gijselaers, �Measuring the effect of innovations in teaching methods on the performance of accounting students
- http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/teachingguides/ pedagogical/blooms-taxonomy/
- http://ww2.odu.edu/educ/roverbau/Bloom/blooms_taxon omy.htm
- http://www.unco.edu/cetl/sir/stating_outcome/documents /Krathwohl.pdf
- http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ Papers/Prince_AL.pdf
- Michael Prince, �Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research�, Journal of Engineering Education, July 2004, pp. 1-9.
- Nancy Van Note Chism,Elliot Douglas,Wayne J. Hilson, Jr, �Qualitative Research Basics: A Guide for Engineering Educators�, Rigorous Research in Engineering Education NSF DUE-0341127, 2008
- W.H. El Maraghy, �Future Trends in Engineering Education and Research� , Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing: Proceedings of the 8th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, pp. 11-16
