construction safety courses. Though limited inthe sample size, the investigation showed that the majority of the courses (90%) coveredtopics such as introduction to OSHA, workers’ rights, employers’ responsibilities, and healthhazards. To a smaller percentage, these courses included topics such as hazard analysis,hazard communication, as well as specific safety topics such as falls, fire protection, electricalhazards, etc.Regarding expectations from the industry for recent graduates entering the constructionindustry, the available information is dated, and does not reflect the technological advances,as well as current expectations for the industry. Specifically in 1995[10], a survey of ACCEprograms conducted by Suckarieh and Diamantes showed that only
or dismisses information that contradicts a shared group belief[12]. In an engineering classroom, a shared group belief is the engineering education’s pillar ofmeritocracy. To avoid identity-protective cognition, an unconscious bias curriculum forengineering education should illustrate how bias mitigation techniques leads to a system moreaccurately reflective of merit.ModuleThe curriculum is designed for a class of approximately 40 upper division engineering studentsand is intended to take about 45 minutes to run. The curriculum is suitable for lower divisionstudents with only minor modifications, though differences in how students would react to thecurriculum at different grade levels is beyond the scope of this exploratory study. The
addition to helping students understand systems from an emergent perspective, computationalatomistic approaches also expose students to computational materials science techniques. Thereis a widespread consensus among academics, national labs and industry that computation willplay an increasingly important role in MatSE and that both undergraduate and graduateeducation should reflect that [13]–[15]. There are multiple ways to integrate computation intoMatSE education. One approach taken by several departments is for students to solve problemsusing computational tools designed for research and industry [16]–[21]. The advantage of thisapproach is that students learn to use tools they are likely to encounter in professional settings. Asecond approach
were forced to reflect on the changesthat could be made to the course without the opportunity to use a 24 hour world-classmakerspace. In the design of exercises for the online component we looked to students’ ownliving situations to understand the possible scope. Students had a range of opportunities forprototyping at their homes and apartments, with few instances where students had completelyequivalent materials for prototyping. Internet connectivity, installed programs, and quality ofremote equipment varied by student as well. Obviously, the Create goal would be impossible toachieve so we adjusted learning outcomes at the Understand through Analyze steps. Inessence, students would be required to communicate and defend their process rather
about ethical, racial, and cultural diversity determines their instructionaldiversities” (p. 126), and plurality in class. Teachers’ awareness of students’ cultures can betterequip them to interact with diverse students [12]. The plurality in culturally responsive teachingtheory reflects cultural synergies within the class, developed from the notion that race, class,culture, ethnicity, and gender shape the diverse students’ learning styles, requiring multipleinstructional strategies for the common learning outcomes [12]. Therefore, cultural synergies canbe viewed from three aspects. It requires various teaching techniques in class to accommodatevarious students’ learning styles; it is reflected on relevant curriculum by locally
usually last an hour, but theinstructional videos were intentionally short (average ~ 7 min), having been adapted to suitstudents' relatively shorter attention spans while watching educational videos online. To promoteproblem solving skills and higher level thinking, students were required to attempt severalpractice problems after watching the instructional videos. Zhang et. al. [14] reported that studentswho used interactive video content showed 20-30% higher achievement of learning outcomes inpost-gain tests, compared to students who did not use video, or used video without interactionand reflection. This aligns with the observations of this study which indicated that the diversifiedresponsiveness and interactivity of learning tools are
learning experience, and research activities done at a distance. To gather thisinformation from REU/RET graduate mentors and undergraduate students, surveys weredeveloped and administered electronically. Items for the surveys were both Likert type items andopen ended to gather in depth information about how they moved from face to face to online/virtualclassrooms and how they addressed challenges along the way. The data included an analysis ofstudent reflections comparing perceptions from the spring 2020 semester of the COVID-19pandemic through to the present spring 2021 semester. Information focused on student perceptionsduring that time period. Qualitative and quantitative data were gathered and analyzed using theme-pattern analysis for both
the Fall of 2018. Eachinterview used journey maps to elicit students’ identity trajectories and probed further into theirshort and long-term goals and current educational environments, especially in response to theCOVID-19 global pandemic and its impact on engineering education. In this research, wespecifically use journey maps as a reflective tool for students to document their “high points” and“low points” within a particular semester (i.e., Summer 2019 to Fall 2019 or Winter 2019 to Spring2020). We also used journey maps as an artifact to guide the interviews and operate as an elementof procedural and communicative validation [11]. In alignment with the identity trajectory model,these journey maps allow us to differentiate between the most
incorporate computers only forresearch (Wang et al., 2011). If integrated ETS instruction reflects these narrow views, studentswill not develop an understanding of the breadth of technologies and/or how they support scienceand engineering. Therefore, professional development and teacher preparation is needed toensure teachers have robust understandings and confidence to implement ETS instruction(Brophy et al., 2008; Dare Ellis, & Roehrig, 2014; Roehrig et al., 2012).The ill-defined nature of ETS instruction can also pose unique challenges for teachers. By nature,science instruction that incorporates engineering is student-focused, involves active learning, andemphasizes process rather than a single correct answer. This is a stark contrast with
TechnologyStudies (STS). Throughout the fall 2019 semester, I began to question the ways in which I hadbeen recruited and channeled, as a woman with an interest in science and math, into studyingengineering. Upon taking an introductory STS course, I was introduced to reflecting criticallyabout engineering as a field of study. This led me to enroll in a graduate seminar, EngineeringStudies, which provided me with a much deeper introduction to STS-inflected studies ofengineering, including engineering education. During this time, my professor, along with apostdoctoral fellow, were co-PIs for a study of student experiences in engineering education andhad already convened a group of undergraduate students who were in the process of interviewingtheir peers
beneficial to theirlearning, before and then after the online transition, and their mode preferences for each regardingonline vs. Face-to-Face. By comparing student reactions across courses, we gain insights onwhich components are easily adapted to online delivery, and which require further innovation.COVID was unfortunate, but gave a rare opportunity to compare students’ reflections on F2Finstruction with online instructional materials for half of a semester vs. entirely online delivery ofthe same course during the second half. Although the instruction provided during the second halfof the semester may not be the same as what would have been provided had the course beendesigned as a fully online course from the beginning, it did provide the
National Societyof Professional Engineers (NSPE) 1935 Code of Ethics specified a duty to “seek to promote thepublic welfare” [3], emphatic recognition of social responsibility did not consistently appear inethical codes until the third phase, which began post-WWII and continues today.A defining feature of the current phase is that all engineering codes of ethics explicitly prioritizesocial responsibility in their first canons: “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of thepublic” [1]. Differences exist among codes to reflect unique areas of technical focus, and codesare updated periodically in response to changing social and professional values. For example, in2003, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) added “and protect
findings, the following discussion is divided into two parts. The first considersthe relation between ethical reasoning and moral intuitions across cultures, and the seconddiscusses how these are affected by education.Ethical reasoning and moral intuitions across culturesNo evidence was found for the effects of gender, age, political orientation, or religious affiliationon ESIT or MFQ variables, indicating these instruments would be biased. This provides supportfor their use outside the Western cultural contexts in which they were developed, sincedifferences in ESIT and MFQ scores appear to genuinely reflect differences in ethical reasoningand moral foundations. The failure to identify differences in reasoning between participants withdifferent
A lack of cultural fit in design solutions has prevented design adoption and diffusion inmany humanitarian engineering and global development efforts. Design requirements aredeveloped to reflect the target user’s needs and product specifications. A lack of cultural fit inthe design solutions suggests there may be a lack of details in the design requirements thatprevents the requirements from conveying cultural information crucial to design success. Usingan experimental case study approach, this study investigates the effects of the Cultural ElementRequirement Assessment (CERA) on design requirement detail. CERA is a formal method thatintroduces culture when developing design requirements. The method was designed to improvecultural
with delegation and Focus on wellbeing)Core incorporates the “Leader as Teacher” culture at Micron. Mid to senior level leaders areinvited to be a sponsor for each cohort training group. This includes participation in modules 1and 7 where they as sponsor share personal examples of how Micron’s core values andleadership attributes have made a difference in their life and helped them improve theirleadership capabilities. It also includes an open forum allowing participants to ask questions ofthese leaders.Amplifier (Empowering Leadership Practices)Amplifier is an immersive leadership development experience that merges theory and practicalskill development with personal reflection and a deep dive into the systems and processes thatdrive the
, programming the robot to find its way to find entrance and cross the bridge, and reachingthe trebuchet to load the payload.By comparing responses in pre- and post-bootcamp surveys, students indicated an increasedconfidence and ability to solve problems in Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry, Pre-calculus andCalculus. Additionally, the students expressed an increase in realizing the importance of math inlearning CS and ENGR concepts. The paper will discuss the quantitative and qualitative resultsof the surveys. The authors will assess the students’ performance in the ALEKS, discipline-basedprojects, as well as the student success in the math courses during the Fall 2020 online semester.Faculty reflections on the online bootcamp and the differences with
to non-Hispanic White or Asian male genderedpopulations [43]. In the United States, among the students enrolled in undergraduate STEMprograms in 2018, only 18% represented racially minoritized populations [46]. Regardingentrepreneurship, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) reported similar negative trendsin 2012 with racially minoritized business owners only making up 22% of all U.S. businessowners [34] despite reflecting 33% of the U.S. population [48]. These disparities look even morestark when examining the representation of racially minoritized or marginalized populations inSTEM entrepreneurship [4], [5], [24]. These inequalities formed by unequal systems of powercan be further examined through the lens of intersectionality [15
action; and 4) developing teaching methods with a storytelling focus in engineering and science educa- tion. Founder of the Design Entrepreneuring Studio: Barbara helps teams generate creative environments. Companies that she has worked with renew their commitment to innovation. She also helps students an- swer these questions when she teaches some of these methods to engineering, design, business, medicine, and law students. Her courses use active storytelling and self-reflective observation as one form to help student and industry leaders traverse across the iterative stages of a project- from the early, inspirational stages to prototyping and then to delivery.Dr. Ville M. Taajamaa, City of Espoo Ville M. Taajamaa
cultivate an engineeringworkforce that represents our entire population [1-4]. Research has shown positive educationalbenefits when students interact with those who come from different perspectives and livedexperiences, contributing to improved complex thinking, intellectual self-confidence andengagement, improved motivation to understand the perspectives of others, greater feelings ofcitizenship, and a stronger motivation to achieve [5-11]. Measurable performance benefits havealso been observed in the workplace [12-16]. These reasons and others reflect the importance ofbuilding an engineering workforce with the breadth of knowledge, perseverance, andunderstanding of societal needs required to address today’s global challenges.STEM programs in
sense of belonging to a community. Theysaid this is tough to do at a distance and they were not sure how it best can be done.It is worth noting that in reporting findings from the survey we focused on the responses of justthe few individuals who had selected Neutral or Dissatisfied in answering the survey questions.The overwhelming number of respondents were quite satisfied with all aspects of the program. Infact, majority of the written comments were provided by those who marked Satisfied or VerySatisfied and whose writing reflected appreciation for positive experiences across all surveyquestions. However, there is room for improvement in the MEM program based on the handfulof written remarks that indicated some level of critique and were
more complicated. In the case of engineering, it has been argued that the assumptionof the rigor and prestige involved in the pursuit of an engineering major imposes additionalpressures related to competition and achievement, which could reflect in poorer mental health.Furthermore, such pressures might be heightened for underrepresented groups that keep facingcumulative challenges while pursuing an engineering degree. While some recent work hasexplored stress and mental health indicators of engineering undergraduates, comparisons of suchindicators across disciplines are scarce. This study examines the differences in wellbeingindicators, perceptions of stress, competition, and achievement between undergraduates inengineering, non-engineering
from similar backgrounds (0.40) d. Completing my STEM degree will help combat stereotypes about people who share my social identities (0.58)Overall, several of our initial findings are consistent with Yosso’s CCW framework but suggestsome important ways in which the framework can be further developed to reflect the experienceof our survey participants. First, our findings suggest that aspirational capital consists of threesub-dimensions: external-aspirational capital is encouragement and motivation provided byfamily and other close connections, internal-aspirational capital is internal drive and motivationto persist, and resistant-aspirational capital is the drive to succeed in order to serve as a rolemodel for other
, reasoningand reflecting (Davis, 2003; Driel, Verloop & Vos, 1998; Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999; Veal,Tippins & Bell, 1998). The framework does not advocate for prescriptive ways for teaching for thetransmission of facts and principles (Fenstermacher, 1978; 1986); instead, effective teaching in thisframework provides grounds for students for choices and action (Green, 1971)—a fundamental aspect indesign education. The framework views pedagogy as a process of exchange of ideas: a teacher grasps thecontent knowledge; is aware of how he or she “commuted from the status of learner to that of teacher” 6(Shulman, 1987, p. 12
example diagram of this bi-factor CFA model is depicted in Figure 1.This general factor needs to be parsed out when evaluating the structural validity of the sixsubstantive scales because an acquiescence factor (response bias or general attitude) has beenwidely reported in psychological research with self-report measures (Paulhus & Vazire, 2007).Some respondents have a general tendency to endorse all the items highly across measurementscales, whereas others have a general tendency to provide lower ratings across the board. It iswell documented that self-ratings of many psychological constructs reflect this general factor,including personality (e.g., Messick & Jackson, 1961), interests (e.g., Tracey, 2012), and affectand perceptions at
expand the number of students who can benefit from conducting research as the designprojects are embedded directly into the curriculum and are taken by all students in the program.Undergraduate research has been shown to help students take ownership of their own learningand helps them to see the real-world relevance of research as they learn problem-solving skills[1 – 3]. Inquiry-based projects are beneficial because they require a significant investment ofstudent time and effort over an extended period with frequent constructive feedback from facultyand regular opportunities for reflection [4, 5]. This paper addresses the process of developmentof performance indicators and presents the results of assessment and evaluation of both ETACABET and
which has long dominated discussions around STEMdiversity.The pipeline metaphor has been the object of critique because it focuses on restricting valves(like math requirements) and on the patching of leaks in order to maintain a “neatly linear marchthrough set academic gatekeepers” [5]. This image not only reduces the complexity of STEMexperiences but leaves the “pipeline” itself—that is, the cultures of STEM—unseen andunchallenged. Lacking sociocultural context, it is “an ill-suited frame to understand STEMidentity formation, particularly for women and underrepresented minorities” [5], and it does notacknowledge that traditional scientific culture reflects learning styles associated with white men[6],[7]. Since identity is generally understood
and value, while others speak to the social aspects of learning in theinstructional setting (e.g., relatedness). In this way, the analysis attempted to understand thesocial interaction and environment.After the first examination of the transcripts in which the deductive codes were explored, thetranscripts and codebook were revisited to explore patterns across the coded segments and todevelop themes. These themes are presented in the Findings and Discussion.LimitationsThe focus groups were limited to the perspectives of those present. Since participation wasvoluntary, it cannot be assumed that the voices were reflective of the rest of the students in thecourses. Recruitment in qualitative research has been linked to interest in the subject
. While it is important to cater to students’ individual differences inunderstanding, it is equally important to cover all the content outlined in the curriculum guide toensure that students acquire all the benefits associated with the content as outlined in thecurriculum. 3) Differences in level of understanding of math and science contentPete was a content expert in math and tended to rely on this background knowledge, usingexamples from this discipline to teach in his classroom. On the other hand, Allison and Grace werecontent experts in science and would emphasize their teaching based on their science contentknowledge. Since Eric was both an expert in physics and math, his implementation reflected abalance in math and science content. This