Assessment of a web-enhanced course in numerical methods

International Journal of Engineering Education

Volumn 21, Issue 4 PART I AND II, 2005, Pages 712-722

  Kaw, Autar K ^a   Besterfield, Glen H ^a   Eison, James ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 24944522798     PISSN: 0949149X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Holistic Numerical Methods Institute (HNMI), Committed to bringing customized numerical methods to undergraduates, http://numericalmethods.eng.usf. edu accessed June 2003.
2. A. K. Kaw, N. Collier, M. Keteltas, J. Paul and G. H. Besterfield, Holistic but customized resources for a course in numerical methods, Computer Applications for Engineering Education, 11, 2003. pp. 203-210.
3. Maple 9.5, Advancing mathematics, http://www.maplesoft.com/ accessed June 2004.
4. MATHCAD 11, The industry solution for applying mathematics, http://www.mathcad.com/ accessed February 2004.
5. MATHEMATICA 5, The way the world calculates, http://www.wolfram.com/ accessed February 2004.
6. Matlab 13, Increasing the scope and productivity of engineering science. http://www.mathworks.com/ accessed June 2004.
7. J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown and R. R. Cocking, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School, National Academy Press, Washington DC (1999).
8. N. Sonwalker, The sharp edge of the cube: pedagogically driven instruction design for online education, Syllabus Online Magazine, December 2001. http://www.syllabus.com accessed September 2002.
9. Demographic Survey of Students from Numerical Methods Course (Summer 2001, Summer 2002, Spring 2003), University of South Florida (2003).
10. R. Likert, A technique for the measurement of attitudes, Archives of Psychology, 140, 1932, p. 55.
11. B. S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, David McKay Co (1956).
12. N. Sonwalker, Changing the interface of education with revolutionary learning technologies, Syllabus Online Magazine, November 2001. http://www.syllabus.com accessed September 2002.
13. N. Sonwalker, A new methodology for evaluation: the pedagogical rating of online courses, Syllabus Online Magazine, January 2002. http://www.syllabus. com, accessed September 2002.
14. IMS, Open specifications for interoperable learning technology, http://www.imsglobal.org/, accessed February 2004.
15. AICC. See http://www.readygo.com/aicc/ accessed February 2004.
16. SCORM, Sharable content object reference model, http:// projectinterconnect.org/scorm/scindex.htm/ accessed February 2004.
17. User-friendly handbook for project evaluation: science, mathematics, engineering and technology education (NSF 93-152, revised 2/96). http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/RED/EVAL/Handbook/handbook.htm accessed February 2004.
18. User-friendly handbook for mixed method evaluations (NSF 97-153). http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/REC/pubs/NSF97-153/start.htm accessed February 2004.
19. R. R. Hake, Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, American J. Physics, 66, 1998, pp. 64-74.
20. D. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, 5th Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY (2001).
21. B. Ryan and B. Joiner, MINITAB Handbook, 4th Ed., Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA (2001).