the challenging time of the pandemic and/or the program being held entirelyvirtually, or whether we would have experienced the same faltering engagement if this programwere running in a typical in-person, non-pandemic academic setting.An additional challenge we are facing is a lack of diversity in our mentorship pool, across gender(just two of the mentors in the ISMP TEAM group are women) and engineering discipline, as wellas an underrepresentation of black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) program participants.This lack of diversity is similarly reflected in the SMSE advisory board and alumni pools fromwhich the program mentors were selected, and is a critical challenge that the SMSE is working toaddress. That said, the students
testing were discussed inthe class. Topics covered several products drawn from different industries including surgicaltools, surgical simulators, chair controls, display monitors, using virtual reality in usabilitytesting, and more.The weekly paper (self-reflection) was a weekly assignment in which students discussed themain key takeaways from the lecture and the in-class research review discussions. They alsolisted the main concepts that they will include in their usability portfolio.Usability Portfolio was the last assignment that students completed by the end of the semester.Students were asked to build an e-portfolio to use as a resource when conducting future usabilitystudies. In completing this assignment, students used information from
still create a sense of belonging, a synchronous engineeringgraphics course was taught in a split format, with 50% students attending classes in the physicalclassroom monitored by two TAs, and the other 50% students attending classes remotely. Allstudents met the instructor via Zoom meetings twice a week remotely. All course materials wereposted online by implementing an ILEARN framework on Canvas in a flipped classroom setting.Students learned online Interactive Lessons for background knowledge including videos, audios,PowerPoint, and quizzes, then Emulated one or two problems by following recorded videos.During the synchronous Zoom meeting, students completed class Activities to demonstrate ahigher-level understanding. A weekly Reflection
1 Percentage of students repeating lower-division Math and Physics CoursesFor students who pass their lower-division courses and continue pursuing a STEM field, thisdoes not often translate into success in math-intensive engineering courses. Figure 2 shows thepercent repetition rate for various lower and upper-division ECS courses. Many courses acrossECS consist of repetition rates above 20%. This alludes to students not retaining the materiallearned in their previous pre-requisite courses, and consequently, students continue to repeatcourses and extend their graduation date as reflected in the graduation trends in 4, 5, 6-yeargraduation rates, shown in Figure 3. Although the 4-year graduation rate has consistently stayedat 5% since 2009
, and students are given specifications to which they must adhere while devising asolution. This method requires students to apply theoretical knowledge obtained throughcoursework and lectures to solve a given problem as specified by the instructor. In some cases,the instructor may provide a model design solution that the students can reference as they devisetheir own answer to the provided prompt [5]. Professors act as facilitators of this process,guiding students to resources where appropriate and providing students with the tools necessaryto shape their design approach.This model progresses through three main stages: the development of a prototype, testing andredesign, and then reflection on the task, culminating in the creation of a report
of the 25-item Science Teaching EfficacyBelief Instrument (STEBI) developed by Riggs and Enochs (1990). The instrument was originallydesigned to assess the levels of teachers’ self-confidence in teaching science topics, as well astheir general beliefs about whether teachers have an influence on student learning outcomes. Theinstrument consists of two scales, the Personal Science Teaching Efficacy Belief scale, WySLICEYear 1 PD Preliminary Survey, and the Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy scale and uses a5-point Likert scale with response categories: ”strongly agree,” ”agree,” ”uncertain,” ”disagree,”and ”strongly disagree.” For WySLICE, the questions were modified to reflect efficacy belief andoutcome expectancy for teaching computer
(hereinafter referred to as 2011 Plan).2011 Plan is another major strategy that reflects the national will after the 211 Project and 985 Pro- 1ject. The implementation of this project is a strategic measure and a practical need to promote theintensive development of higher education, and a major action to deepen the reform of scientificand technological system.The construction of world-class universities and first-rate disciplines (hereinafter referred to asDouble First-rate Initiative) was a crucial measure taken by the Chinese government in October2015, to improve higher education after 211 Project and 985 Project, and to ensure that the nationbecomes rich in human-resource potential. It is also
purpose. We argue that when such design problems fall short, it notbecause they are not authentic, but because they may be missing other elements. Perhapssurprisingly, even in the popular culture design problems, this missing element may bemeaningfulness or relevance [15], a central tenant of constructionist learning [6].Engineering courses tend to privilege the technical aspects of engineering [16], though analysisof authentic engineering design practice characterizes this work as sociotechnical [17, 18], andresearch has increasingly suggested reflecting this in engineering programs is valuable [19, 20],providing students with opportunities to grapple with complex factors and ethics [21, 22]. Suchproblems create opportunities to connect with the
the engagement levels could be analyzed.In addition, affective engagement data was also collected via class reflection papers at the end ofeach semester in the third and fourth semester of the program. The third-semester reflectionpaper assignment had 12 prompts which asked students to discuss their reasons for applying,their expectations for the program, and their perceived role in the program. The fourth-semesterreflection paper was more open-ended and asked students to reflect on their overall experience inthe Endeavour Program and also to describe how they felt that the pandemic had impacted theircollege experience. The reflection papers had no page limit but had a minimum lengthrequirement of two pages.Data AnalysisDescriptive
developing pedagogy that encourages students in reflective learning and personal self reflection in engineering classes in addition to her passion for engineering ethics and conceptual learning.Dr. Alison R. Kennicutt, York College of Pennsylvania Alison is an Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at York College of Pennsylvania. She received her B.S. in Civil Engineering and her M. Eng. and Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, NY. Her research interests are in drinking water treatment of emerging contaminants and the production of disinfection byproducts. At York College, Alison loves to use hands- on exploration, both in the field and the lab, to trigger curiosity and get
theexperiment. All the students in civil engineering (100%) agree that the use of the device reflectedtheir course content, reflected real practice, reflected their academic area, practice and coursecontent, while slightly more than 50% of the students in other STEM disciplines agree the same.All the civil engineering students (100%) agree that using the device helped them developinterest in the subject area while 60% agree that they have become motivated to learn the coursecontent because of using the device. Most of the civil engineering students (80%) agree that theirknowledge in the subject area increases after they used the device, while 60% agree that usingthe device has increased their confidence in the subject area. The percentage change
we discuss NO CHANGE course outcomes for engineering education pedagogy. the relevance of this course to other MADE environmental grand challenges. We are unsure exactly what the reviewer is asking us to do. 1 In the Discussion, comment on how you could improve We have discussed our study limitations CHANGE MADE and extend data collection in future iterations in order to and have provided reflections on how we learn more about the cognitive and
Research uses 2 or 3 Research uses and cites sources and barely cites sources and generally 3 or more sources. them. cites them. Ideas generated are one2b) Define the person’s or are missing. Ideas generated reflect Ideas generated reflect Ideas generated reflectproblem, review
organizational aspects.The term ‘polarity’ reflects the way certain organizational aspects are commonly perceived asirreconcilable as co-existent. When the resources required to conduct various organizationalfunctions are finite, one can imagine how difficult it would be to negotiate priorities whenorganizational actors or units have a hard time seeing the value of organizational aspects otherthan the ones they are advocating for. The tendency to reduce the complexity of organizationallife into what is explained only by one or few of the organizational aspects, cannot but result in a‘paradox’ - the organizational elements are logical when considered independently, but seemcontradictory when juxtaposed [2]. In other words, without understanding their
personal nature of the direct emails; theyincluded mention of the participants’ names, universities, and the name(s) of identified K-12STEM outreach program(s). The response rate may have also been affected by the COVID-19pandemic, which caused major disruptions in higher education, starting around mid-February2020.Program coordinators represented 46 distinct colleges and universities and provided informationon 131 K-12 STEM outreach programs, with 34 program coordinators describing more than oneprogram. Table 3 summarizes characteristics of survey respondents and Table 4 of programs.The total number of institutions in Table 3 reflects the number known to the authors, includingfrom direct emails and respondents who supplied their affiliations when
who takes the leading role.Informal STEM Learning OpportunitiesProductive informal STEM education aims to engage “young people in STEM learning andactively [support] inclusion and [broaden] participation by young people in STEM learning”[12]. Science museums provide a wide range of informal STEM education programs for childrenand their families. Positive benefits of these programs have been widely documented, but someresearchers argued that science museum programs reflect dominant cultures [13]. Families inunderrepresented populations can be isolated from this content. STEM night programs, anotherpopular informal STEM program, encourage local family involvement. Educators attempt toreflect the local population’s characteristics such as
that reflect gender stereotypes when doing a routinesearch,” was that 42.9% of females report as true compared to 34.4% of males. Furthermore,students seem to recognize gender bias when searching online with Latinx students reportingthe highest at 28.8% with the least being those who identified as Other at 16.1%. Our survey didnot directly ask students whether they had heard of or were aware of the concept of algorithm.bias. The survey questions were to determine if students had perceived any bias in their dailyinteraction with search engines and AI. Fig. 3. Government should regulate search engine resultsAdditionally, most students (83%) agreed that private companies should regulate themselveswith regard to correcting
examining and creating a comprehensive roadmap for includinginnovative ideas and best practices in engineering curriculum enhancements.The opportunity for this workshop was created by a confluence of needs, resources, and interdisciplinaryinterests. Integrating previous experiences with service learning and social innovation learningopportunities, our interests matched NSF IUSE’s exploration and development (E&D) implementationframework. The workshop, funded by NSF, implemented and reflected the steps of design thinking asincreasing the engagement of students is a classic human-centered opportunity. This opportunity prioritizesthe engagement of the targeted stakeholders, rather than experts who are often at a distance from theproblems they seek
students in engineering education programs have typically been trained through ABET-accredited engineering programs. Despite ABET’s communication requirement, engineeringundergraduate students have limited opportunities to learn to write in their discipline [7]. Often,explicit writing instruction is limited to two courses: one in first-year writing, and one thatfocuses on engineering writing. The other writing engineering students do is integrated implicitlyin design and laboratory coursework. In these contexts, writing practices are often renderedinvisible as students are asked to fill forms, draw sketches, and incorporate appropriate equationsinto reports rather than write essays or reflections [6]. Instructors do not emphasize writingprocesses
anonline environment. To reflect the differences between online teaching during the pandemic andtraditional online teaching, remote instruction has been labelled emergency remote teaching(ERT) [2]. The abrupt and emergency nature of the transition to ERT (hereafter called remotelearning) has led to the notion that the quality of higher education decreased as a result of thepandemic. But, at the present time, insufficient evidence is available to assess to what degreehigher education and learning may have been compromised by the shift to remote learning. Earlyresearch assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on higher education in China andSouth Korea has found that students engaged in increased and proactive communication withpeers and
feedback on how well an initial list of practices aligned with engineers’own academic and professional engineering experiences and asked for suggestions of additionalpractices that were reflective of their experiences. In addition, our team reviewed responses froman earlier study phase in which participants identified types of engineering skills they felt wereimportant in their work to capture those practices not on our original list [34]. Our team thensought feedback on the clarity of items through an informal focus group of undergraduate andgraduate engineering students in one of the authors’ labs. Finally, we conducted pilot interviewswith an additional seven engineering students to further check clarity and comprehensiveness ofthe list of
. Creativity is needed tofind paths of integration, as it is pointed out in the report released by the National Academies ofSciences, Engineering, and Medicine arguing for the integration of STEM with the arts and thehumanities [3].Lastly, as the social impact of technology and science becomes more pervasive and complex, theneed for a more integrated, post-disciplinary approach to their understanding grows in urgency.This paper is ultimately part of a larger conversation about the educational system at the collegelevel and the impact this model has on the conception and application of science and technologyin today’s world.1. Two Cultures: STEM, the Arts and the Humanities at an Engineering SchoolOur reflections are based on our experiences at a small
students’perceptions of and reflections on the skills developed throughout the courses taken throughouttheir undergraduate engineering curriculum. Students in a senior design sequence were surveyedduring each semester of the course about their perceptions of senior design and the skills andprevious courses that were most relevant to design. The study was conducted within a large,public, MSI over the course of five semesters of the Mechanical Engineering Senior designsequence. Relationships between particular course groups and the skills students perceived asimportant for design were found. The results demonstrate that students perceived EngineeringCore Courses, Engineering Design Courses, and Engineering Track Core Courses as important inpreparing them for
peers,faculty, and family [10], [19] but are extended to include any institution or person whoserecognition of an engineering identity matters to the recipient. These definitions guidedconversation around the process in which recognition is qualified and interpreted by participantsin this study.This study proposes a model of determining meaningful recognition and examines the proposedmodel’s use as influenced by participants’ time spent practicing and developing an engineeringidentity. Rather than reflect on the “strength” of an engineering identity, this use of participants’experience with an engineering identity is derived from the existing work that considersbiographical and time-oriented trajectories of identity development [24], [25
Tech, her MS degree in Biomedical Engineering from the joint program between Virginia Tech and Wake Forest University, and her PhD in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Surrey.Dr. Lauren Lowman, Wake Forest University Lauren Lowman is a Founding Faculty member and an Assistant Professor in the Engineering Depart- ment at Wake Forest University and has served in this role since 2018. In this role, she has developed new interdisciplinary curriculum that bridges engineering fields and reflects the Wake Forest University motto of Pro Humanitate (”For Humanity”). Lauren received a Ph.D. and M.S. in Civil and Environ- mental Engineering with a focus in Hydrology and Fluid Dynamics from Duke University, and a B.A
demands. Because the data is derived from a standardtreatment of Statics topics, this work has potential to benchmark rate of student learning, t0discover of key points of difficulty, and to provide critical reflection on recalibratingexpectations and approaches.2. Learning CyclesThere are various interpretations and uses of “learning cycles” in engineering and scienceeducation that are implemented at the scale of classroom activities and lessons within courses2.1 Access the Concept Warehouse at https://newjimi.cce.oregonstate.edu/concept_warehouse/.2 Vertical curriculum spirals [16] are also cyclic, but this scale is beyond the scope of this article.Perhaps most frequently cited is the Experiential Learning Cycle developed by David Kolb
representationof women in science (62%) while Argentina has 52%, Chile trails with 30% [2].STEM disciplines mirrors this underrepresentation, with areas such as computer science, physics andmathematics the least represented by women [1]. Factors that influence career selection in STEMdisciplines are deep-rooted gender stereotypes in Latin America, reflected both at family and societallevel [4], [5], [6]. Many countries and / or universities have yet to incorporategender equality as policy.Various initiatives are being developed that focus on promoting equality and empowerment of women(UN and UNESCO) [1] [2] The European W-STEM project coordinated by a research group operatingout of a university in Barranquilla, Colombia, has focused on three relevant
f5 Geography How the environment and physical location affect individuals’ perceptions of STEM f6 Finances How the economic status of a country and individuals affect STEM and individuals f7 Prestige Having the latest trend and showing off had affected STEM and individuals SOCIOCULTURAL: the ways habits, traditions, and beliefs consciously or unconsciously reflect a majority of F3 society groups F3.1 Institutions Group of people who come together for a common purpose f8 Family Certain life situations between common ancestors that help shape preferences f9 Friends Relationship of mutual affection between people that helps shape preferences f10 Schools
) formulated a teaching model which guided the training of new faculty.The model served faculty well as they provided instruction and developed learning activities.The model remained unchanged for about 15 years until a team of faculty conducted amethodical review of the literature, reflected on desired outcomes, and deliberated about the rolethat this model played in achieving the institution and department’s mission and vision. Theresult was an updated teaching and learning model which was presented at the ASEE NationalConvention in 2017. As was emphasized in a previous paper, the faculty believed strongly thatthe teaching and learning model be viewed as a living document that must be applied andregularly challenged, discussed, and updated to ensure
beappropriately answered in 2+ sentences, with the average being about 2-3. An example of aLevel 3 prompt is “What was the best part of your weekend?” While this prompt could result insimilar answers, responses may reflect the respondent’s personal interests and activities theyenjoy.Finally, Level 4 prompts are the most personal and require the highest level of thought for therespondent. This level challenges respondents to think the most critically about their experiences,interests, and feelings. These prompts could be appropriately answered in 2+ sentences, with theaverage around 3-4. An example of a Level 4 prompt is “What are you grateful for?” Thisrequires the respondent to assess themselves through deeper thought not required by the otherlevels