IBAT College

As a result of the modern phenomenon of globalization, accrediting agencies and employers alike are emphasizing the importance of non-technical (also called key, transferable, or generic) skills (critical thinking as in design, group skills, and communication skills) in engineering education in addition to the traditional technical skills.While the use of group activities within the context of active, student-centered learning in the basic lecture-based learning environment provide students the opportunity to learn key skills to an extent 1,2 , those skills are better learned in the group-based learning environment 3,4,5 , the two main examples of which are problem-based learning (PBL) and project-based learning.There are, however, many uncertainties regarding how best to teach or facilitate learning in the group-based learning environment.This paper discusses some of those issues and summarizes the results of a year-long practical study to determine some best practices in this approach to teaching and learning.

ABSTRACT As global governments continue to inoculate populations in the aftermath of the SARS-CoV-19 epidemic, health protection and related problems such as vaccination reluctance have sparked conflicting emotions and discourses. Stakeholder concerns about vaccination promotion have arisen in this context. Consequently, this research investigates vaccination uptake behavior using an integrated framework that includes protective motivation theory and an extended version of the theory of planned behavior. Except for perceived severity, empirical study results based on the structural equation modeling technique demonstrated a positive relationship between PMT factors (i.e. perceived vulnerability, reaction efficacy, self-efficacy, and cost response) and intention to vaccinate. TPB factors (attitude, perceived behavior control, subjective norm, personal moral norm, and descriptive norm) were also found to have a positive connection with intention. The model’s utility and suitability are indicated by the predictive and explanatory potency score (R2 = .415). Study implications for COVID-19 vaccine uptake promotion and ideas for future investigations are explored in light of our findings.

Speed and customer satisfaction are the keys to the success of information technology companies engaged in software. Software development companies currently have several stages of the process, namely analysis, development, testing and deployment. The obstacle that is currently being found is the distribution of the website results that have been created because currently it is still manual and has not used Continuous Integration (CI). The problem that occurs is the time it takes to deploy for developers and sometimes forget to execute. Using CI greatly simplifies deployment and even manages to schedule deployments as desired. One of the popular CI software is Jenkins. With the many plugins Jenkins has, it is possible to build a feature-rich CI system. Based on the results of analysis and testing conducted by the company, the company is satisfied with using Jenkins because it helps speed up and simplify the process of developing Website software there.

In order to collaborate with people in the real world, cognitive systems must be able to represent and reason about spatial regions in human environments. Consider the command "go to the front of the classroom". The spatial region mentioned (the front of the classroom) is not perceivable using geometry alone. Instead it is defined by its functional use, implied by nearby objects and their configuration. In this paper, we define such areas as context-dependent spatial regions and present a cognitive system able to learn them by combining qualitative spatial representations, semantic labels, and analogy. The system is capable of generating a collection of qualitative spatial representations describing the configuration of the entities it perceives in the world. It can then be taught context-dependent spatial regions using anchor pointsdefined on these representations. From this we then demonstrate how an existing computational model of analogy can be used to detect context-dependent spatial regions in previously unseen rooms. To evaluate this process we compare detected regions to annotations made on maps of real rooms by human volunteers.

BackgroundThe Rehabilitation Strategies Following Esophagogastric cancer (ReStOre) randomized control trial demonstrated a significant improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness of esophagogastric cancer survivors. This follow-up, exploratory study analyzed the biological effect of exercise intervention on levels of 55 serum proteins, encompassing mediators of angiogenesis, inflammation, and vascular injury, from participants on the ReStOre trial.MethodsPatients >6 months disease free from esophagogastric cancer were randomized to usual care or the 12-week ReStOre program (exercise training, dietary counselling, and multidisciplinary education). Serum was collected at baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1), and at 3-month follow up (T2). Serum biomarkers were quantified by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).ResultsThirty-seven patients participated in this study; 17 in the control arm and 20 in the intervention arm. Exercise intervention resulted in significant alterations in the level of expression of serum IP-10 (mean difference (MD): 38.02 (95% CI: 0.69 to 75.35)), IL-27 (MD: 249.48 (95% CI: 22.43 to 476.53)), and the vascular injury biomarkers, ICAM-1 (MD: 1.05 (95% CI: 1.07 to 1.66)), and VCAM-1 (MD: 1.51 (95% CI: 1.04 to 2.14)) at T1. A significant increase in eotaxin-3 (MD: 2.59 (95% CI: 0.23 to 4.96)), IL-15 (MD: 0.27 (95% CI: 0 to 0.54)) and decrease in bFGF (MD: 1.62 (95% CI: -2.99 to 0.26)) expression was observed between control and intervention cohorts at T2 (p<0.05).ConclusionsExercise intervention significantly altered the expression of a number of serum biomarkers in disease-free patients who had prior treatment for esophagogastric cancer.ImpactExercise rehabilitation causes a significant biological effect on serum biomarkers in esophagogastric cancer survivors.Clinical Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03314311).

The subjects I teach include instrumentation, control & automation and chemical process technology. I mostly use problem and project-based learning and am an advocate of all student-centred learning techniques. My research area is spatial cognition and

He is co-PI of the DETECT project. He collaborates frequently with ProSTAR

Abstract NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Exchange Faculty Perspectives on International Collaborations Introduction The College of Technology at Purdue University in the United States of America and the Faculty of Engineering at the Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) in Ireland have pioneered faculty exchange during 2005 as one important lynchpin of their overall collaborative programme. The authors, explicitly supported by their respective faculty and School/Department leadership teams, pioneered the implementation of the first faculty exchange between the two institutions. The main purpose of the paper is to document key issues in developing successful faculty exchanges and to document perspectives and key learnings emanating from the development and implementation of such an exchange process. Reasons for collaboration • Gain perspective of other country’s approaches In an increasingly globalized environment, formal engagement between US and European educational institutions is of particular benefit to both of us. As educators, we can benchmark many elements of our ‘home’ processes and approaches to our discipline and share ‘best in class’ approaches. Faculty exchange provided an enriched context for us as educators intent on continuous improvement and the pursuit of educational excellence. . • Increase the understanding of international dynamics As globalization advances in all fields, valuable international partnerships are created by those who choose to engage internationally. Together we successfully grappled with the particular contexts/issues associated with international collaborations as we delivered ‘win-win’ partnerships. International perspectives and international collaborative skill sets are of increasing importance to today’s young engineers and technology professionals. Faculty exchange was an initiative which assists us in better facilitating today’s and tomorrow’s students to engage internationally and to develop increasingly important international perspectives. • Have a different experience (e.g., mini-sabbatical) The opportunity of a faculty exchange between Purdue University and the Dublin Institute of Technology was a mutually attractive prospect. Attending an education conference at DIT in 2004, Professor Stephens was surprised at how easily and well he related to the styles of engagement he found at DIT. Feeling very much at home in Ireland (despite no known Irish roots!), it appeared an attractive prospect to Dr. Stephens to develop his relationship with DIT further. Mr. McHale, who shared Dr. Stephens’ academic interest area (Operations/Quality Management), had pursued his interest in international affairs and engagement throughout his

Abstract NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Quality Indicators for Engineering & Technology Education Abstract In recent years the development and use of university rankings, comparisons, and/or league tables has become popular and several methodologies are now frequently used to provide a comparative ranking of universities. These rankings are often based on research and publication activity and also not uncommonly focus on indicators that can be measured rather than those that should be measured. Further, the indicators are generally examined for the university as a whole rather than for university divisions, departments or programs. Implicit also is that placement in the rankings is indicative of quality. This paper provides an overview of the methodologies used for the more popular rankings and summarizes their strengths and weaknesses. It examines the critiques of rankings and league tables to provide appropriate context. The paper then examines the issue of how a university (or a college or program) could be assessed in terms of the quality of its engineering and technology programs. It proposes a set of indicators that could be used to provide relative measures of quality, not so much for individual engineering or technology programs, but rather of the university. Introduction & Methodology Today's world, and by all indicators the world of the future, seems to be increasingly competitive [1] and demanding. Resource scarcity, an increasing imperative for efficiency and effectiveness, manifestly more available information and escalating expectations for quality are but some of the factors that have caused universities, colleges, departments and programs to attend to evaluation, accreditation and invariably rankings and comparisons [2, 3]. Furthermore, increased global and intra-national mobility as well as widespread access to information has created the opportunity for individuals to more carefully research their selection of universities to attend [4]. Perhaps in response to such pressures, there seems to have been an upsurge in the number of agencies, centers, corporations and others concerned with rankings and comparisons (see Appendix A). The International Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence (IREG), The Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), The University of Illinois Education and Social Science library has compiled an extensive set of resources on rankings, which are reproduced in the appendices with permission. There have been numerous conferences addressing this topic as well [5, 6]. Notably, many of the most significant players in the ranking/comparison field have agreed upon a formal set of principles that define quality and good practice for rankings and comparisons [7]. These are presented in Appendix B. The authors, in collaboration with their university reference librarians and institutional researchers, conducted an extensive review of the periodical, book, and conference literature. This activity surfaced over 20 different ranking/rating/comparison schemes with significant presence [samples are provided in Appendices C and D] and undoubtedly a multitude of additional ones exist. But, the authors are compelled to ask – What purposes are served by such comparisons [3, 8, 9, 10] and why so many?