fromtalent identification up to bachelor’s or master’s degree completion. This paper outlines thedevelopment, implementation, and evaluation of the Holistic Programmatic Approach for Transfer(HPAT) model. The model is built on a well-thought-out program design reflected in a transferarticulation agreement and a joint commitment to quality and student success. Integral to theapproach is the requirement that the rigor of the curriculum at the community college matches thatof the 4-year partner. In addition, faculty, administration, and staff work synchronously andcollaboratively to provide intentional student support at each institution, with financial assistanceup to the master's degree completion. Holistic student support implements the
Technology (ICAT). Her research interests include interdisciplinary collaboration, design education, communication studies, identity theory and reflective practice. Projects supported by the National Science Foundation include exploring disciplines as cultures, liberatory maker spaces, and a RED grant to increase pathways in ECE for the professional formation of engineers.Dr. David Reeping, University of Michigan Dr. David Reeping is a Postdoctoral Fellow with the Engineering Education Research Program at the University of Michigan. He earned his Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Virginia Tech and was a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow. He received his B.S. in Engineering Education with a
𝑊 = ∫ 𝑝𝑑𝑉 𝑉𝑖 The interview protocol was broken up into three separate stages (Figure 2) thatprogressively investigated students’ interpretations of the first law and the provided interviewprompts. To start, participants were asked open-ended questions about the first law ofthermodynamics to better understand how they conceptualized the first law prior to any furtherprompting. Afterwards, students proceeded to separately address one in-discipline and one out-of-discipline interview prompt. Interview questions during the second stage were modeled afterthe dynamic transfer framework [22] by first asking questions that primed students to identifyrelevant target tools and to reflect on their
school is right for them, and also promote professionaldevelopment of the faculty member. It is recommended that higher education institutes promoteindependent studies to improve their visibility while faculty, especially at teaching institutes, useit as a vehicle to continue to engage in fundamental research for professional development. Theparagraph below is the reflection written by the student at the culmination of this study.“Through this independent study, I gained invaluable experience with applying theory to a real-life scenario through modifying/improving the dimple(s) based on the flow structure studiedusing computational methods. Upon commencement of the study, I had limited experience usingCAD software and no experience in executing
Kudo Cards to praise students for their achievements, critical reflection journalingand collaborative inquiry to improve teaching practice, and formation of a cross-institutionalaffinity group among EESTEM II participants to magnify equity-mindedness by developingequity agents. A total of 72 people attended the webinar out of the 128 registered. Seventeen oftwenty responses to the post-webinar survey indicated that the webinar exceeded or mostly mettheir expectations for learning how to build equitable learning environments in CTE and STEM.Fifteen agreed that their confidence level for implementing strategies to foster an equitableSTEM/CTE learning environment improved. All participants agreed that some or many of theirquestions were answered
capture students interest in and perceivedvalue in learning EE. The questions asked how likely students are to major in EE, if learning SSin interesting, and if students think learning the different SS topics will benefit their career.For both instructional variables, we use subjective student opinions rather than a measure of theteaching style or amount of homework assigned; our commentary is not meant to reflect on thequality of the given instructor. For the instructional quality variable, we use responses to aLikert style question that asked students to rate the overall quality of instruction in SS. Forinstructional quantity, we asked students to self-report the average numbers of hours they spenton homework each week and what percentage of
nationally representative surveyon postsecondary faculty, and thus results from our study reflect data from more contemporarycohorts of faculty. In addition, the ECDS has comprehensive data, including demographic andindividual-level factors, PhD institution and program characteristics, and measures regardinghow well PhD programs prepare students for their faculty position in terms of skill sets. Theseaforementioned variables are aligned with our adapted theoretical framework (Fig. 1). We restricted our analytical sample to individuals with a science, engineering, or socialscience PhD, and to those who hold a teaching position within the U.S. Thus, our sampleincludes tenure-track faculty, lecturers and other non-tenure track teaching personnel
discussion wasutilized, leading to a 100% agreement at the end. Researchers shared the same intention oflooking for figurative language and other instructors’ stylistics. First, researchers read a randomsample of 10 video transcripts and developed initial categories that were used to code the rest ofthe videos. The first round of codebook analysis revealed three initial categories: figurativelanguage, technical figurative language, and teaching style. In the second round, researcherswent through all the excerpts coded as figurative language and developed further categories ofcodes reflecting the figurative language type. The codes created in the first and second roundsare shown in table 1. The following metaphors and figurative language were
to completing the exam. The remaining 25 minutes of exam periods werereserved for students to reflect and complete a survey about the flipped course format. The surveyresponses were anonymous and collected in an envelope handled by the students.Prior to flipping the course in 2019, ENGR 383 was taught in the traditional lecture-based format forwhich students were expected (but not required) to come to class and take notes. In this format,students were graded on weekly homework assignments and a single group project, as well as threehigh-stakes exams, the last of which was a long comprehensive final exam. Student participation,which was not graded, was limited to responding to the instructor’s timely questions, sometimesvolunteering with a
theinterdisciplinary nature of M3 , this production paradigm calls upon a variety of skills acrossMaking (e.g., programming, digital fabrication, basic electronics tool use, and theory) along withproduction engineering concerns (e.g., volume production and supply lines). Altogether, M3illustrates a means for how to design and produce a wide array of products that can reflect theinterests of both creators and consumers. Through M3 , creators’ production process can gobeyond the traditional ’boutique’ manufacturing approach (i.e. the production of a singlyproduced, specific artifact) to the production of many.M3 as a production approach has implications for how we might educate students starting fromhigh school for jobs, education, and leadership roles that
equitably with female students.MethodsData CollectionThe study presented here is part of a larger research project, investigating what contributes todissatisfaction of female students in teams. As a part of that study, we first interviewed fifteenfemale students before interviewing five male students; prior work presents an analysis of thefemale student interviews (Hirshfield & Fowler, 2018), and this paper focuses on the findingsfrom the interviews with male students. Students were first asked to reflect on their projectexperiences, answering questions about their project, their team, how their team divided up theproject work, and if there was anything they wished they had done differently in the project.Next, students were shown a graph
the small sample size and the need to account forsample variation between pre- and post-surveys. Statistical significance, including the Bonferroniadjustment, has been reported. Responses from open-ended questions were also included in theanalysis.4. Results4.1 RQ1: To what extent did the program impact teachers' self-reported confidence in theirresearch-related skills? Table 1shows pre- to post- confidence change for research-related statements. The tableshows an overall increase in confidence for all the statements with some statistically significantimprovements. “Understanding content of technical/research journals” confidence shows astatistically significant increase (p ≤ 0.003), reflecting the effort placed in helping teachers
research strategy enabled both statistical analysis ofparticipants’ quantitative ratings, as well as individual student’s rich personal reflections on theirown experiences and leadership development to be compared with other participants [20, 21].Our study adheres to an approved Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol.Participant DemographicsOur first cohort of ExCEL scholars consisted of six male students, with two identifying asHispanic/Latino. Scholars varied in terms of their math preparedness, with two previouslycompleting Advanced Placement (AP) Calculus, one completing honors Calculus, and threecompleting Precalculus. Upon entry to The Citadel, scholars’ average score on a math placementexam was 66.7%, with scores ranging from 47.1% to
environments as well as the transition to virtual delivery.Introduction to Engineering Courses at Both InstitutionsLafayette College and University of Delaware are two different types of institutions and thestructure of the introduction to engineering class reflects those differences. Lafayette College is asmall, undergraduate-only institution with a total enrollment in the introduction to engineeringcourse of around 200 students in 2020. At Lafayette College, introduction to engineering is afall-semester course where students are assigned to two modules with each module lasting forhalf of a fourteen-week semester. This course is required for all engineering students at LafayetteCollege and students receive a full course credit for the course
material are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1] Museum of Science. (2021). Engineering is elementary. Available: http://www.eie.org/. [Accessed January 25, 2021].[2] Tufts University, About us: Center for engineering education and outreach. Available: http://ceeo.tufts.edu/about/. [Accessed February 15, 2021].[3] E. R. Banilower, P. S. Smith, K. A. Malzahn, C. L. Plumley, E. M. Gordon, and M. L. Hayes, Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc., 2018.[4] S. Brophy, S. Klein, M. Prtsmore, and C. Rogers, “Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 369-387, 2008.[5] M. W
reflections on the guest speakers account for approximately 30% ofthe grade. Reviews of the lectures from the fall 2019 course suggested that students wanted to see moreof the “day in the life of a chemical engineer.” In the fall of 2020, alumni presentations from avariety of industries were added to the lecture schedule. Alumni talked about their job andindustry, the career path, provided advice on life during college and after the degree. This changewas easy to implement because the lectures were operating in a virtual format due to COVID-19restrictions on the number of in-person students allowed. While the students really respondedpositively to the addition of alumni speakers, even in a virtual format, reviews asked for abalance between alumni
offer professional development which shares and reflects on these strategies. These challenges that international students often face are important because mostacademic failures can be traced back to the first year of transition for an international student[13]. Additionally, all of these challenges can make it more difficult for students to feel a senseof belonging on campus, and this is important because this supports students' engagement andmotivation in their studies [10, 14]. While most universities offer some support to students, many large universities have onespecific international organization or center that is meant to meet the needs of all internationalstudents. These large centers focus on the broader student
through distance education in the time ofthe fourth industrial revolution: Reflections from three decades of peer reviewed studies",Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 2020.[8] W. Ibrahim and R. Morsi, "Online engineering education: A comprehensive review,"American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Washington, DC,2005, pp. 1–10, 2005.[9] B. Mischewski and A. Christie, "Understanding the feasibility of micro‐credentials inengineering education," 29th Australasian Association for Engineering Education Conference(AAEE 2018), Engineers Australia, p. 758, 2018.[10] C. M. Stracke, and A. Bozkurt, "Evolution of MOOC designs, providers and learners andthe related MOOC research and publications from 2008 to
explanations. The whiteboard in the classroom was not used during lectures other than to project lecture slides onto it. This was decided based on the image quality especially for students joining the class via Zoom meeting. • During in class problem solving, instructors demonstrated how to solve example problems using the same problem solving strategy used in physics class (outlining problem definition with given and identifying what to find, listing appropriate assumptions and coming up with a solution plan/method, solving the problem, and reflecting on the results). • The assigned textbook is the 8th edition of Fluid Mechanics by Frank M. White [15]. Throughout the semester, reading materials were
-generationstudents (FGS) Hao [66] states: “I made a conscious effort to talk to my FGS individually during office hours to discuss their progress in class and ask them if I have met their pedagogical needs. Some of the questions I asked were: Is the pace of the class working for them? How are the readings so far? Do they face significant challenges with the assignments? … there are so many unwritten rules of the academy that FGS must learn on their own without the parental or family guidance that their peers typically have, we must serve as mentors to these students.”I tried these approaches in my introductory engineering course for first-year students. The initialassignment in the course asked the students to reflect on their personal
of professional valuesand attitudes). According to Eaton et al. [1], some teaching activities in the online environmenthave “the potentials to cultivate deeper learning experiences, but they can fail to do so ifactivities are not designed and implemented properly.” The rapid switch to online instruction inMarch 2020 did not allow faculty members to train, plan and reflect upon the best teachingmodes for online instruction, unless they had previously taught an online class. Therefore, aswith many other researchers, we consider the Spring semester to be an example of remotelearning rather than planned online learning [3].In October 2020, the Chronicle of Higher Education conducted a survey among faculty membersin US institutions to gain
own words.This instrument was developed to measure indicators of impact on the SCCT constructs ofoutcome expectations and self-efficacy. Figure 2: Outcomes and Subscales of the Pre/Post Test. Note: * indicates significant differences favoring Academy Cadets.To supplement the pre/post assessment we collected qualitative data through interviews andstudent reflection journals. At the end of each day of the Academy, students were givenreflection prompts about the day’s activities. Students kept an electronic journal which captureda record of all their responses to each prompt. These journals were analyzed and comparedagainst the findings from the pre/post survey to better understand student attitudes towardSTEM, big ideas students took
Fall 2020 semester, were evaluated alone. There was no “stronglydisagree” in the 3rd Yr. MFG CRSE response and an increase in the “Agree” response. The modeand median in this group alone were 2 and 3 respectively. These findings may indicate that theCOVID-19 requirements do pose a concern for those trying to pursue academic requirements. Thispoint would have to be further investigated with a follow up study. Representative comments fromthis group also reflect the results of the compiled surveys (Table 6). Comments reflect thatrespondents recognize the importance of the protocol for safety, but it does affect their NJITMakerspace usage time. In addition, PPE such as the gloves presented a concern in practice. Thiswould need to be further
other essential topics with which students often struggle. Suchinteractions among students and peer mentors aid in improving student attitudes and their senseof belonging at the institution.Having Dr. Brooks attend the statics class as a student caused a great deal of reflection on Dr.McDonald’s part. It quickly became clear that many mathematical processes were only lightlytouched upon, in favor of dwelling on ‘this is how you work the problem’ discussions. Having amathematician in the audience makes one pay attention to how mathematics is presented andapplied. Engineers often take mathematical shortcuts without providing much in the way ofexplanation; this was quickly pointed out!One of the first opportunities that engineering students have
with COVID by setting up a designated study area that is only mine.” • “Adaptability, one of my strengths, has allowed me to accept the situation and work with what has happened.” • “I have adapted and modified my life to use connectedness in new ways. I am able to talk and reach out to others by other means rather than face to face during these times by the use of technology such as zoom.”Ongoing Research: Strengths, Social Identity, and Social NetworksSurveys and interviews by the external evaluator have not explicitly asked students to reflect onthe “strengths from a social justice perspective in engineering and computer science as context”model of mentoring and advising – instead, the evaluator has focused, to date
Bennett, New York Hall of Science Ms. Bennett currently serves as Director of Creative Pedagogy at the New York Hall of Science, respon- sible for developing and implementing new initiatives that reflect NYSCI’s core pedagogical approach known as DESIGN, MAKE, PLAY —a child-centered approach to STEM learning that inspires curiosity and playful exploration, builds confidence with new skills and tools, and fosters creative problem solving and divergent thinking. Drawing on 30 years of experience in informal and formal education, she helps translate this approach into practice by creating professional development experiences for our young mu- seum facilitators and K-12 educators, developing apps to stimulate STEM
themselves with thehands-on lab in aerospace structural mechanics. Subsequently, we learned that Virtual Labs alsoallowed students to collect virtual data that prompted students to further reflect during the dataanalysis process in addition to the data obtained during the hands-on labs. Thus, the courseprovided students with both virtual and hands-on experiences to enhance their understanding ofthe subject matter. At the same time, the course promoted the learning of data analysis,modeling, equipment usage, error analysis, teamwork, and communication by engaging thestudents in both the virtual and hands-on labs. In Spring 2020, we experienced an extraordinaryevent: the school closures and remote learning caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. During
Fall 2018 visitedthe same Duke Energy hydroelectric generation facility mentioned above, and received a powerplant tour from one of their engineers. During the Spring 2020 semester, students visited andtoured the Eaton corporation facility located in Arden, NC. A project personnel chaperoned thescholarship recipients during this trip.For all field trips, NRC scholars were asked to write reports highlighting their technicalobservations. The following is a reflection excerpt by one scholar after the tour of Oconeenuclear station: “The immense size and convolution of the operation of the plant is astounding. There is a certain pressure felt while standing in the control center. It is seemingly my own experience that tells me I
accomplish no matter where the students were learning. Teams made short videos describing their design and capturing five consecutive launches, including distance measurements. Videos were uploaded to VoiceThread so students could watch and learn from each other’s designs. Teams worked in two phases: an initial design and a re-design, in order to reflect the iterative nature of engineering. 2. Propose ten redesign ideas of a simple device: This project offered teams the opportunity to practice the ideation process and to demonstrate the fact that multiple solutions can exist for open-ended problems. 3. Design a pandemic tool: Now that students felt comfortable working remotely and have gotten to
construction, as this distinguishes ex-perts and novices. According to cognitive load theory (CLT), for learning to occur, workingmemory needs to accommodate the additive needs of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cogni-tive loads [9]. From this perspective, interactive exercises empower the user to optimize theirown learning through the ability to decrease intrinsic cognitive load of the problem, allowingidentification of what they know and what they don’t, as well as provide opportunity for meta-cognitive reflection – all of which has been shown to increase development of more complexknowledge [10]. When done properly, educational technologies and e-learning environments cangreatly optimize the elements of CLT for effective learning [11