involves elements of Project Management, which arereviewed during the quarter. The culmination of the quarter involves the completion of a ProjectProposal by each student, which is reviewed by their academic advisors. Winter quarter (SP II) iswhen the students focus on manufacturing the parts which were analyzed and documented fromthe previous quarter. Along with additional purchased parts, students are required to produce aworking device by the end of the quarter. During this period their project proposals, renamed asproject reports, are continuously updated to reflect new observations, analyses, and revisionswhich come about during the manufacturing process. Finally, during Spring quarter (SP III) thestudents perform various tests on their
member expanding on the pre-workshop materials, then attendees shared theirperspectives in discussion groups while SDEI members served as moderators and note-takers.This paper provides a model for other student groups of the planning, structure, content, andoutcomes of an Unlearning Series. Responses from participant surveys conducted at the close ofthe summer and group reflections amongst SDEI committee leaders are also presented. Thisfeedback has been translated into lessons learned presented at the conclusion of this paper.IntroductionIntegrating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) topics in university coursework intended toprepare future planners, designers, and builders has proven to be a challenge. Faculty membersin these fields base
investment in this area is essential. Without this investmentthe academy’s stated commitment to broadening participation in engineering rings hollow.Funding AcknowledgementThis research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Alliances for GraduateEducation and the Professoriate (AGEP; award numbers: 1821298, 1821019, 1821052, and1821008). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations are those of only theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.ReferencesChakraverty, D. (2020). The imposter phenomenon among black doctoral and postdoctoral scholars in STEM. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 15, 433-460. https://doi.org/10.28945/4613Griffin, K. A. (2019). Redoubling our efforts: How
citationpractices belie a more complex system of relationships. Historically, they have established powerrelationships among authors, ideas, and larger sociotechnical systems within the university[26].Our citations reflect our reading practices while establishing field boundaries and contours andultimately funneling into the larger economy of the university. They undergird this universityeconomy in a number of ways: (a) we form communities of practice/discourse communities inhow we cite, excluding and including particular ways of knowing; (b) we give particular ideaspower and visibility in how we cite; (c) we decide whose work matters, who should be tenuredand promoted, who belongs; and (d) we teach ethics and intellectual property through citations.These
the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect theviews of the National Science Foundation.References[1] I. A. Toldson, I, “Why historically black colleges and universities are successful with graduating black baccalaureate students who subsequently earn doctorates in STEM (editor’s commentary),” J. Negro Educ., vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 95–98, 2018.[2] R. Winkle-Wagner and D. L. McCoy, “Feeling like an “Alien” or “Family”? Comparing students and faculty experiences of diversity in STEM disciplines at a PWI and an HBCU,” Race Ethn. Educ., vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 593-606, 2018.[3] R. T. Palmer, R. J. Davis, and T. Thompson, “Theory meets practice: HBCU initiatives that promote academic success among African Americans
the problem in this manner, they tend to quickly formulate solutions to this well-defined problem [12] and ultimately commit Type III Errors.Wholistic mastery of engineering problem framing skills is vital to engineering students such thatthey can apply them to scenarios with poorly defined problems as practicing engineers. Soleexposure to well-defined problems in engineering courses leads students to develop untenablehabits such as little reflection on what could be done or the scenario as a whole and subsequentlack of proactive behavior to find the information needed [13]. While these students may be ableto solve well-defined problems upon graduation, they may be unable to do such when the problemis in a realistic context as design problems
researchers.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.2016753. 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 would also like to thank the participants for their insights and theadvisory board members Cynthia Finelli and James Pembridge for mentorship in guiding thisstudy.References[1] E.A. Walker, J.M. Pettit, and G.A. Hawkins, Goals of Engineering Educaiton: Final Report of the Goals Committee, in Engineering Education 1968. p. 367-446.[2] E. de Graaff, “Ten years in engineering education research: looking back ahead,” Taylor & Francis
. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Identifying Signature Pedagogies in a Multi-Disciplinary Engineering ProgramAbstractThis work-in-progress is part of a larger research and evaluation project designed to realignprogram goals with teaching and learning practices in a large, multi-disciplinary engineeringscience program at a research-oriented Canadian university. The ultimate goal of this work is todefine and develop a set of key teaching and learning practices that reflect program goals andfuture directions. Drawing from Shulman’s work on signature pedagogies, which are defined asthe modes of teaching and learning that are unique to a particular discipline or
manner, andencouraging faculty to use the document. The intent of the workshop was not to dictate to facultywhat exactly to do in their respective classrooms but rather to spur discussion and encourageself-reflection on class structure, logistics, and teaching philosophy.After introducing the concept of inclusive teaching through an interactive dialogue, the benefitsof an inclusive classroom were discussed. Following this, demographic information comparingthe percentage of women and URMs in the department to the COE as a whole was included.Whether or not the specific department had higher or lower than average female/URM studentenrollment, the importance of creating a welcoming climate in the department, and the role itplays in attracting and
counterparts are controlled for socioeconomic status, education, and access [2],[3]. In the U.S., the federal Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Initiative documented HD in the following areas: infant mortality, cancer screening and management, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, and adult and child vaccinations [4]. Using vision health as an example, this is reflected in U.S. Latinx populations (Mexican-Americans) who have a prevalence of diabetic retinopathy that is 2to 2.5 times greater than other U.S. population groups (Caucasian population), despitediabetic retinopathy arising as a complication of diabetes that can be managed anddelayed with timely intervention [5], [6]. Furthermore, age is a known risk factor forprimary open angle glaucoma
discipline. These scores were generated from theclose-ended questions requiring students to choose from a scale of 1 to 5. A snapshot of somesummaries of the quantitative assessments using the 5-point rating is presented in Table 1.Table 1: SET assessment on a 5-point scale Parameter Average Standard Score Deviation Found ways to help students answer their questions 2.38 0.99 Helped students to interpret subject matter from diverse perspectives 2.00 0.94 (e.g., different cultures, religions, genders, political views) Encouraged students to reflect on and evaluate what they
the concluding session rank the students andthe student groups are presented with cash awards reflective of their ranking.Graduation, Awards, and Final Remarks Session The NSTI program ends with a graduation ceremony and closing remarks meeting. In this meeting,Dr. Yusuf Mehta, CREATES’ Director, concludes the program by providing the students and ceremonyattendees with final remarks on the program’s success and lessons learned. It is also an opportunity forstudents to discuss their experience with the program administrators and their parents.LONG-TERM IMPACT ON CAREER CHOICES OF COHORTSOutreach Findings To evaluate the extent to which the goals of the program were achieved, parents of NSTI programgraduates were contacted by
this materialare those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.Reference[1] Chandramouli, M., & Jin, G., & Heffron, J. D., & Fidan, I., & Cossette, M., & Welsch, C. A., &Merrell, W. (2018, June), Virtual Reality Education Modules for Digital ManufacturingInstruction, Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Salt Lake City, Utah.10.18260/1-2—31225[2] El-Mounayri, H. (2005, June), Virtual Manufacturing Laboratory for Training andEducation, Paper presented at 2005 Annual Conference, Portland, Oregon. 10.18260/1-2--15154[3] Yingxue Yao, Jianguang Li, Changqing Liu, A Virtual Machining Based Training System ForNumerically Controlled Machining
pounds is eight out of ten. The class averagecontinues to be lower than eight per Figure 2. This indicates the levers were not failing above 30pounds and they were also heavier than necessary. If the students were achieving the specifiedtolerance, the success scores would be nine or higher.ABET Outcome 3a was met but not improved. The student outcome is improved because thescores went up per the assessment. However, the T-test reveals the scores were not significantlydifferent. In fact, there is a 95% chance they were the same.The difference between Lab 6a and 6b labs was not obvious. It was unclear if this was due tolack of understanding in applying FEA or if their assumed failure mode was not reflected in theirchosen orientation properties
Applications” innext phase of the project.AcknowledgementThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1935646. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.References[1] G. Giffi, P. Wellener, B. Dollar, H. Ashton Manolian, L. Monck, and C. Moutray, “Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute skills gap and future of work study,” 2018.[2] S. A. Ambrose, M. Lovett, M. W. Bridges, M. DiPietro, and M. K. Norman, How learning works : seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco: US: Jossey- Bass, 2010.[3] S. A. Ambrose and L
conditions and more restrictedmobility than their white, male, Canadian educated counterparts.23, 24 Her study providesimportant evidence to support the claim that engineers’ career mobility and workingconditions reflect existing socio-political disparities in the province.Our literature review highlights three critical dimensions of engineering career pathresearch. First, administrative decisions do not reflect the full range of human experience.In more concrete terms, we cannot assume that engineers’ lived realities will conform tothe dual track model proposed by human resource managers. Second, not all career pathsare made equal. It behooves us, as critical engineering education researchers, to examinethe full range of mobility patterns, working
Total =Reflections This was an elective course which did not have a set curriculum yet and was run as atrial. We got to experiment a little with the course presentation. The authors were trying tobase this module on the Montessori method of education. The Montessori method is based onthe principle of auto education. When a proper prepared environment is built, the eager mindteaches itself. The learning happens through play, and the result is that the child learns in away that cannot be forgotten at the end of the semester. This method was developed by Dr.Maria Montessori to teach preschool age children and is a popular method of education inyounger children. Recently there has been some use of this method in EngineeringEducation[2
(UndergraduateResearch Experience and Creative Activity) program to work on an extension to the summerresearch project during the academic year. Four participants from summer 2020 received a teamURECA grant ($4000) to continue working on an extension of their summer project for the2020-2021 academic year. While these post-summer activities were encouraging, they wereperformed by non-scholars and therefore may not be reflective of the potential positive impact ofthe summer research program on S-STEM scholars.4.3 Conference AttendanceSending college students, especially underrepresented students, to attend a professionalconference like the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing and the Richard TapiaCelebration of Diversity in Computing has become more and
student body is 44% Hispanic/Latinx, 19% Asian, 17% African-American, 11%Caucasian, and 6% Two or more races. The college’s student body is 60% female and 39%male. 48% of students received Pell grants. In this project, we explore the effects of providinglow-income, underrepresented, and female students with hands-on research experience in STEM.In doing so, we hope to encourage them to continue their studies of science and technical fieldsand to give them practical context for applying what they learn in their classes. In this paper, weexamine the role of project-based learning on student retention in the technical fields. Theultimate goal is to have scientists and engineers with ethnic backgrounds better reflecting thepopulation in the
a specific project, thereby enablingthe acquired knowledge application [15-30]. PjBL goes beyond the relationships betweenknowledge and thinking, helping students to know and to do. In fact, it is focuses on doingsomething and learning on the way. PjBL main features from the student learning viewpoint are:1. In PjBL or PBL the focus is on the student competencies to design and to reach the solution,around students’ concerns and skills, the end product being a reflection of them.2. In PjBL the students solve problems, through self-management, project management, andcritical knowledge are enhanced, as they manage the work, offering frequent feedback, self-assessment and consistent opportunities for students to learn from experience.3. PjBL
workshops(e.g., NETI, ASEE section meetings, the ASEE National meeting, CW workshops), and haverecruited six participants in our Action Research Fellows program. By studying the context inwhich instructors adopt and utilize the CW, we will be able to provide recommendations forencouraging use of the CW and of other pedagogical innovations.AcknowledgmentsWe acknowledge the support from National Science Foundation (NSF) through grants DUE1821439, 1821445, 1821638, 1820888, and 1821603. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions orrecommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe NSF.References[1] S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth, “Active
improve their problem solving skills and to address their misconceptions.Acknowledgements:Portions of this project were supported by a National Science Foundation (NSF) IUSE Grant(DUE-1504730). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.References:[1] ACT, INC. "Profile Report-National."[2] Jacquez, R. B., et al. "Building a foundation for pre-calculus engineering freshmen throughan integrated learning community." Page 10 (2005): 1.[3] Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N. Talking about leaving. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1997.[4] Santiago, L., Coolbaugh, A.R., Veeramachaneni, S.S., and Morris, M.L., Board# 129
which 21 werehigh school students, and 37 Solutions Architects including 10 high school students.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1801024. 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] S. Fayer, A. Lacey and W. Watson, A. “BLS spotlight on statistics: STEM occupations-past, present, and future,” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistic, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2017/science-technology-engineering-and- mathematics-stem-occupations-past-present-and-future/pdf/science
performance criterion considered, often withanchored details at each level [16]. For subjective or summative artifacts, like reflective essays ordesign reports that may not have specific required components, a holistic rubric may align betterwith the desired outcomes. Often, a holistic rubric has performance criteria defined within asingle rating system for the entire work and doesn’t provide much performance feedback as partof the rubric itself [16]. For either type of rubric, performance criteria must be developed. Forthis project, students would not be gaining any feedback and would be scored based on theirapplication, placing it in a summative category rather than formative. Student essays would nothave specific required components and instead
and third goalsoutlined above. This relates to finding future success in the workforce and confidence indeploying 21st century workforce skills such as teamwork. The results suggest that students inYear 3 had more fully reached these goals than any previous year of CT CLICKs, reflecting astrengthened and continuously improving program. The improved results in Year 3 are attributedto a restructuring and redesign of faculty training materials which are presented in the trainingmanual delivered in fall 2019. In early fall 2019, workshops and associated resources wereredesigned to include a greater focus on student goals, the student and team building experience,and creating ways to develop workforce skills within the CT CLICKs classroom-based
each FLC meeting, there is also an opportunity for faculty to reflect, take notes,and consider assessment techniques when implementing these strategies.Faculty receive individual support through coaching and timely feedback from the FLCfacilitators. Twice a year, a facilitator meets one-on-one with each participant. The first session isat the start of the program, and it focuses on getting to know the faculty member and their goalsof the FLC. The second session is in the spring as they begin to plan their KEEN Card. Thefacilitator provides feedback during and outside of the FLC meetings, particularly for theirasynchronous work of these small implementations and their KEEN Card plans.Data Collection and Analysis
. Theauthor will not remain onsite during the entire 10-week program, so the initial on-site meetingswill be replaced with one-on-one video conference mentorship meetings that occur weekly forthe remainder of the summer. Prior to each of these meetings, the student will send an emaildetailing their accomplishments for that week and experimental plans for the upcoming week.Additionally, the student will be asked to share a personal reflection about their time abroad inthis weekly email update.Additional personalized training It is recognized that even with this training program, some students may still strugglewith aspects of their research projects. As such, additional one-on-one training will take place onan individual basis as needed. This
for the lab assignment or for the course. We would like the information to be accurate and correctly reflect your experience within the lab environment, so the surveys will be 100% anonymous. The instructors will not know who completed/did not complete the survey nor will the instructors know how a particular student answered the questions. The surveys may be completed on a voluntary basis, but we hope that you will take the time to provide feedback for our research. Thank you in advance for assisting with our research! _______________________________________________________________________________________________ * Number of labs included in study was reduced due to COVID-19 instructional changes.Figure 5: Invitation to students to complete
eventwas over, students reflected on their design and design process. The activity was structured sothat all students were challenged, and few were able to complete all parts of the activity.The remote instruction environment of 2020 necessitated changes to the activity structure. Theobjective shifted from introducing students to problem solving and design, to providing anactivity where students would get to know their classmates by working in groups. The overalltime commitment was the same: 2, 8-hour days, 1 week apart; but the task was very different asit had to be completed at home. For 2020, students were instructed to purchase an AdafruitCircuit Playground Express microcontroller, and used MakeCode and MakeCode Arcade toproduce a video game
principles and adapts thepractices to the online environment [1].” In the summer 2020, DoIT continued to provide various forms of the training creatingPIVOT+. In this professional development, faculty are welcomed to participate eithersynchronous/asynchronous engaging in ten modules over 10 days. Participants “review contentand complete reflection activities asynchronously in a Blackboard course while preparing theircourse materials for online delivery [1].” Effective practices for using technology, teachingonline, and key essential tools are discussed. Additionally, experienced faculty were asked toserve, during the two weeks, as peer mentors. As a part of PIVOT+, the College of Engineering and Information Technology (COEIT)invested