chance to reflect on their improvements and progressand realize where designs might fail. This is a critical piece in the engineering self-efficacy development[13]. Second, it allowed the professor the opportunity to understand which students required moreindividual support and design coaching in the classroom. Those that were independently problem solvingand constructing could be left to their own devices. Those that were stuck were offered more guidance andprompting to help move the activity along. If the activity were done in teams, those that struggled to getstarted might not get the opportunity to independently construct limited fidelity prototypes due to the natureof team dynamics and would miss this critical part of the design realization
workshop but rather a year-long teacherprofessional development program that provides teachers with 100 contact hours to acquire andapply new knowledge and reflect on their teaching practices. Several studies emphasizecontinuous PD that occurs periodically throughout the school year to best support teachers asthey make adjustments to their lessons and teaching practices. [17,18,19,20]. In addition to PDduration, teachers in AMP! learn how to shift their current lessons to include more effectivestrategies such as inquiry-based and team based lessons [21,22]. Inquiry based teaching can bedescribed as an open communication between teachers and students to freely ask questions topromote conceptual understanding and puts an emphasis on lesson
characteristicsof engineers in the future. Writing in the year of 2020, when engineering education yet againfaces looming paradigm shift driven in part by a global pandemic and major powers’ adjustmentin attitudes and strategies to globalization, we attempt to reassess visions of “engineers for thefuture,” as reflected through policy discourses in the United States and China, two major playersin global engineering education. For this purpose, we present a careful reading of recent policydocuments published by the US National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and the ChineseMinistry of Education (MoE).The NAE (2018) report Understanding the Educational and Career Pathways of Engineersresulted from a study commissioned by the Academy to “understand
groups (SA4)When students reflected on what they needed from their study groups, some trends were similarto those of lab groups. For example, 21.3% of students prioritized individual accountability intraditional learning while only 14.1% did so in remote learning. This downward trend is similarto what students said about their lab groups. With regard to individual accountability, whilestudents made more frequent comments about interpersonal and social skills in remote learningwith regard to their lab groups, the increase in these types of comments in their study groups wasmuch larger. Students in remote learning mentioned interpersonal and social skills with respectto their peer groups at over twice the frequency (22.7%) of students in
and Physiology I 25 Heart rate Measurement CEGR 324 Structural Analysis and Lab (Sec 1) 9 Stresses and Strains CEGR 324 Structural Analysis and Lab (Sec 2) 6 Stresses and Strains IEGR 305 Engineering Thermodynamics (Sec 1) 10 Specific Heat Capacity IEGR 305 Engineering Thermodynamics (Sec 2) 23 Specific Heat Capacity PHYS 206 University Physics II 23 Sound/Reflection and Refraction of Light TRSS 414 Traffic Engineering 30 SoundMSLQ AnalysisThe Motivated Strategies for
respect. The significance of faculty being available to meet may reflect the significantdemands that especially minoritized women face in managing multiple priorities on their time.One ethnographic study recounts how Inez, a minoritized multiethnic female student, felt hinderedacademically by her professors’ lack of availability outside of office hours [11]. Anotherminoritized female student, Kitatoi, expressed her frustration with attempting to receive help fromher instructors outside of office hours [39]. As a single mother, Kitatoi had competing prioritiesand a more flexible instructor could have better assisted her learning alongside her continued focuson other important obligations. Cole [41] also found that minoritized students believe
ofengineering, and a time for students to reflect upon and decide the majors and specialties theywill pursue thereon (Ngambeki, 2009). It is also a time when students’ beliefs of engineering andits education are reinforced (Hutchison et al., 2006). The content and experiences offered aspart of these courses present an opportunity to support students in developing their beliefs andattitudes towards engineering. We teach students that engineers design, apply math andscience to solve problems, program, make decisions, have different areas of specialty, but oftenmiss or convey only implicitly that engineering at its core is a human endeavor, one that ispracticed for people, with people, and as people (Fila et al., 2014). To engineer better meansengineering
between higher educationinstitutions and governments in securing their repatriation. Back in their home countries, manyinternational students faced issues with unstable internet access, limited space to work and studyin their own homes, and time zone differences which made it difficult to adapt to and learn in theremote setting. These difficulties were compounded for Asian international students by a rise inanti-Asian sentiment and hate crimes in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Significantincreases in Sinophobic slurs on Twitter, social media, message boards, and other platforms ofAmerican culture reflected a shift toward blaming the Chinese for the COVID-19 pandemic andamplified negative bias against both international and U.S. Asian students
deepening myunderstanding and empathy with my participants’ experiences.With this mentioned, I am aware that my subjectivities as someone within the community that Iam researching could present a quality threat to the findings of this research. To mitigate thisthreat, I engaged in memoing processes to help me to reflect upon all of the ways in which mysubjectivities could influence the findings. Additionally, I engaged in a “critical friends” protocolwith trusted mentors and colleagues to ensure that my framework was appropriate, my analysismethods were sound, and that my findings were representative of what the data present [33].Results & DiscussionSTEM IdeologyA recurring theme among all four participants was the reflection upon and
presented above. Such advice isstrongly reflective of a postfeminist sensibility. This is not to say that the women on the siteidentity personally with postfeminism as a philosophy or are even aware of it. The advice theyprovide, however, aligns with dominant postfeminist narratives and cultural ideas about howwomen can achieve success in the contemporary workplace. They emphasize the need forwomen to overcome any other issues or obstacles they may encounter as individuals (whether ornot they perceive of them as being related to gender). Women on the site promote the idea of a‘can-do’ woman who takes control of the situation and is confident.Minimizing and ReframingOne common piece of advice to women often with respect to gendered barriers was to
cultureof STEM departments [21], makes it more difficult for students who do not reflect these imagesto enter the community of practice [2], [22, p. 1207]. Engineer, researcher, student, and educator roles are commonly enacted by engineeringdoctoral students during their graduate studies [23]. While these academic roles may align with adoctoral students’ interests, they may also be strictly defined by the institution that the doctoralstudent serves. For example, a doctoral student may or may not be interested in being in the roleof an educator but may have to be a TA as part of their graduate program. However, regardlessof how interested they are in that role, the expectations and structure of their behaviors whenenacting that role are
community college faculty can contact the MNT-ECor visit our website (micronanoeducation.org) for more information on joining this program.AcknowledgementsThis project was supported by the Micro Nano Technology Education Center (MNT-EC), NSF ATEDUE 200028, and by the Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN), NSF EEC 1227110. Theopinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the author(s) and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References: 1. J. A. Hewlett, “Broadening Participation in Undergraduate Research Experiences (UREs): The Expanding Role of the Community College,” CBE-Life Sciences Education, Aug. 2018. 2. G. Bangera, S. E. Brownell, “Course-Based
undergraduate research. The survey questionswere generated based on recurrent conversations the faculty advisor had with his undergraduatestudents during research meetings, office hours, or arbitrary settings. Moreover, the survey1 Cohort 2 information is in parenthesesincluded an open-ended question that provided students an opportunity to reflect and share abouttheir experiences in engaging in a research group setting. Descriptive statistics were employed foranalysis and presentation of data results. The authors note the following limitations of the study:(a) small sample size; (b) self-developed survey instrument; (c) convenient sampling procedure.The administered survey consisted of nine questions for Cohort 1 and Cohort 2: Question 1: Faculty
competency. 9Fig. 2: Comparison of IDI scores pre- and post- program. Eleven students showed an increasingtrend and seven students showed a decrease.Conclusions The Sustainability Across Sectors – Sweden program impacted students’ short- and long-term academic and professional paths. The summative teaching evaluation scores reflect thatstudents gained new cultural perspectives and that the program integrated Swedish culture intothe curriculum. Students also recognized the program in the larger context of their engineeringmajor at Purdue University. The short-term benefits continued and evolved to shape studentschoices regarding graduate school, thesis research topics, additional intercultural
the team’s stated goals clear from the beginning? How successful do YOU think the team was in achieving its stated goals?IQ15. Considering all your activities (academic, social, work, family, etc) at the time, what priority was your project work, and why?Proposed Data AnalysisWe will use an inductive-deductive thematic analysis approach to our data analysis [20]. Usingthe literature on teaming and psychological safety, we will create a preliminary code book. Then,based on the interview data, we will update the code book to reflect ideas and concepts that arisefrom the data.Expected ResultsBased on the literature review, we expect to find themes related to psychological safety, includingpersonal characteristics, past experiences
focused on gaining exposure tothe engineering in ski resorts including lift operations and snow making processes while buildingstudent-student and student-faculty relationships. During the 4-hour bus ride to the ski resort,students were asked to read a scholarly article on one of eight topics related to ski resorts.Students met in small groups with others that selected the same ski related topic and gave areport out to the larger group. At the ski resort, students had a behind the scenes tour of the liftoperations and of the snow making process. Students had the rest of the day to ski or take alesson with other women on the trip. The evening included a team building workshop whichincluded reflection on the day’s activities and how their
awareness activities, transfer transition support, cohesive learningcommunities, and scholarships. The program’s emphasis on an uncommon pathway toengineering reflected both the anticipated attraction of new students plus the shift of students totwo-year pre-engineering programs in response to the Tennessee Promise initiative, whichprovides free tuition at all state community colleges beginning in the fall of 2015. The proposedpathway to a senior engineering school was designed to pre-empt the unintended but wellrecognized consequences of students starting their engineering training at two-year schools byimproving student preparedness for transfer, providing structured support for students preparingto transfer, and rapidly establishing connection
influencedtheir grade, (3) impressions of other members in the study group, (4) opinions about the mostvaluable and least helpful parts of the study group and (5) reflections on how participating in thestudy group changed their confidence in completing the engineering degree and their feelingsabout being a student at ASU. Pseudonyms were given to participants to ensure theconfidentiality of the interview.ResultsThere were 22/50 respondents for the post-survey (response rate of 44%). Of these, 16 could bematched to the pre-survey, due to the fact that some students did not use the same personal codethat they generated on the pre-survey. Of the 16, 14 had been placed in PLSGs, and one hadbeen placed in TARs (one student did not identify a group).Table 2
sustainability engineering education has been widelyrecognized. However, reflecting the concept of sustainability in the course content and providingsufficient sustainability education standards are also issues that need to be considered. Some highereducation institutions have added sustainability courses to their construction courses and madethem compulsory courses for students. But there is a challenge in sustainable design education:recognizing the need for change and applying it to the enterprise [5]. Therefore, it still needs todiscover an appropriate way to improve sustainable education. Through appropriate engineeringactivities and education, students can increase their understanding of the world and theircommitment to sustainable development [6
mentor can be accessible at any time and any place frompotentially any smart device. AcknowledgmentsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1831964. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. References[1] E. National Academies of Science, and Medicine, NASEM. (2019). The Science of Effective Mentoring in Science, Technology, Engineering, Medicine, and Mathematics (STEMM) Available: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/pga/bhew/mentoring/index.htm[2] F
National Science Foundation grant #1849430. Any opinions,findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authorsand do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1] S. Brophy, S. Klein, M. Portsmore, & C. Rogers, “Advancing engineering education in P‐12 classrooms,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 369-387, 2008.[2] S. Purzer, J. Strobel & M. E., & Cardella, M. E. (Eds.). (2014). Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices. Purdue University Press[3] N. V. Mendoza Díaz, & M. F. Cox, “An Overview of the Literature: Research in P-12 Engineering Education,” Advances in Engineering
priority in their position, which could misrepresent how thegeneral population of engineering faculty feel about student mental health. Finally, this surveyfocused on faculty self-reported confidence levels about communicating with students aboutdifferent mental health concerns rather than quantifiable skill levels. Literature shows that evenwith trained therapists, there is little relationship between confidence and competence when itcomes to treatment efficacy. In fact, it has been found that therapists who have higher levels ofself-doubt can help facilitate better patient outcomes [25]. This is possibly due to positive self-reflections that result in improved therapeutic interventions. As a result, lack of confidence doesnot necessarily mean
behaviors,encouraging monitoring of those behaviors, encouraging reflection of those behaviors, gradingthe process as a whole not only the result, and using a standardized assessment to do so [10].Researchers and teachers using these methods can create relevant, dynamic, impactful, andvalue-added changes to their curriculum, the approach leveraged in this work.Study MethodsFelder and Brent’s 2003 article [7] defines a model by which to create course material basedupon accreditation requirements. The model is summarized in Figure 1. Figure 1: Elements of Course Design [7]From the defined model and as shown in the figure, course improvements are a continuous cycleof learning objectives, instruction methods, and assessment
upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1848498. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. The authors wish to thank Dr. Elizabeth Litzler, the Project Evaluator, for hervaluable input, and Hannah Chiou for her assistance in reviewing codes. Additionally, we thankthe students, advisors and faculty who participated in the study for sharing their experiences.References[1] M. T. Cardador, "Promoted up but also out? The unintended consequences of increasing women’s representation in managerial roles in engineering," Organization Science, vol. 28, pp. 597-617
pedagogy.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1915614. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1]. Evaluation Consortium, University at Albany (2016) Experimental Centric Based EngineeringCurriculum for HBCUs Leadership Team, HBCU Year Three Report.[2]. Gough, A., & Gough, N. (2018). Beyond Tinkering and Tailoring: Re-de/signingMethodologies in STEM Education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics & TechnologyEducation, 18(3), 284–290.[3]. Astatke, Y., & Connor, K. A., Newman, D., Attia, J. O., & Nare, O. E. (2016, June),Growing
the College of Engineering and the engineering technology programs since 2010. Thesestudents were then assigned an admissions-type category to reflect how they entered anengineering technology program for the first time: • New First Time Freshman: A student who enrolled at Texas A&M University as an incoming freshman and selected one of the engineering technology programs at time of admission. It should be noted that this category only existed prior to academic year (AY) 2014-2015. After that, all freshmen entering the college were required to start in General Engineering. • Entry to a Major: A student who entered as a General Engineering student but then entered an engineering technology program
, which can leadto discoveries of new knowledge and innovations. These learning outcomes can impact classmates,community members, and/or society. Figure 1. The progression of active learning pedagogies employed within the Cardiovascular Engineering course.Overview of the Innovation-Based Learning PedagogyAs with many active learning pedagogies, IBL works between two frameworks Constructivist andCynefin. The IBL pedagogy uses aspects from the traits of constructivism: student-centeredlearning, interdisciplinary lessons, collaborative lessons, reflection, and assessments [4
of race/ethnicityand gender. A survey instrument measured the students’ attitudes toward professionalconnectedness (PC), a sense that engineers should apply their skills to help others, using 19 itemswith a 7-point Likert-type response scale. A key methodological inconsistency in the dataset washow students were allowed to report their race/ethnicity in the demographic question at the endof the survey: 1088 students selected a single race/ethnicity category, while 2305 students couldidentify multiple racial/ethnic categories. The results show that constraining students to select asingle race/ethnicity likely fails to accurately reflect the multiracial identities of many students.For example, the percentage of students who responded to the