community and they know that I would never ask them to participate in ademonstration in which they will look foolish in front of their peers. In no time, I will havestudents jumping up out of their seats to take part in a demonstration. I also let them take outtheir phones and take pictures when we do demonstrations. Students really enjoy this.Example from Physics 230 (Changing Views of the Universe)The second and third short writing examples come from the Physics 230 course and were givennear the start of the Spring 2020 semester. These examples are illustrated in Figures 2 and 3.The example shown in Figure 2 was distributed on the first day of class. Students wereinstructed to submit their responses electronically prior to the second day of class
) as a publication and its review process, and 3) bestpractices in peer reviewing (i.e., organization, quality considerations, tips for writing reviews).Triads then attend a synchronous session together, and after an icebreaker activity and a briefoverview of the program, they conduct a mock review of a short, published manuscript togetheras a triad during the session. The mock review makes use of a Structured Peer Review form,which helps triads organize their reviews (strengths, weaknesses and recommendations) andprovides the team with insights on what participants are taking into consideration as they conducttheir review. (The Structured Peer Review form, which was developed by the project team, isshown in Figure 2.) The session concludes
Paper ID #32312Bias in First-Year Engineering Student Peer EvaluationsLea Wittie, Bucknell University Lea Wittie is an Associate Professor in the department of Computer Science in the Engineering College at Bucknell University. She has spent the past 4 years coordinating the first year Engineering student Introduction to Engineering and over a decade participating in the program before that.James Bennett, Cornell University James Bennett is a biomedical engineer specializing in medical device design and development. He has earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biomedical Engineering from Bucknell University and is currently
Paper ID #34637Visualizing Arguments to Scaffold Graduate Writing in EngineeringEducationDr. Kristen Moore, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York Kristen R. Moore is an Associate Professor in the Department of Engineering Education at University at Buffalo. Her research focuses primarily on technical communication and issues of equity, inclusion, and social justice. She is the author of Technical Communication After the Social Justice Turn: Building Coalitions for Action (2019), in addition to a range of articles. She has received a number of awards for her research, including the Joenk Award for the best
, students did their best to adapt to the new way of learning, but the change intheir educational experience was drastic. In particular, students lost the opportunity to engagewith peers in person and form personal connections with them. This is especially concerninggiven that, as Alexander Astin writes, “the student's peer group is the single most potent sourceof influence on growth and development during the undergraduate years" [15, p. 54][3].The existing knowledge base repeatedly validates the importance of peer support in both socialand academic systems in college. Ideally, students should have all the resources they need tocommunicate with peers, whether in a physical or virtual learning environment. However, webelieve that due to the abrupt
Paper ID #33981Near-Peer Mentoring and Early Exposure to Computer Science –Quantitative and Qualitative ResultsDavid Hartenstine, Western Washington University David Hartenstine is a Professor of Mathematics at Western Washington University. He earned his PhD at Temple University.Perry Fizzano, Western Washington University Perry Fizzano earned his BS degree in Computer Science from Widener University and his MS and PhD in Computer Science from Dartmouth College. He had stints in academia and industry prior to joining WWU in 2005. He served as department chair from 2012 - 2019. His research interests are in optimization
own reviews, which violates the college level governance documents’ specification thatfaculty will not be responsible for initiating the review of their teaching. In addition, eachdepartment chair brought their own expertise and approach to the process of review. While thiscan allow for each chair to tailor the approach to the individual faculty member under review, itdoes not ensure that the evaluation addresses the criteria required to write a robust letter insupport of the faculty’s teaching to be included in a successful dossier for promotion and tenure.Because of a lack of standard procedures, the department chair benefits from a peer review ofteaching program in several ways, including eliminating uncertainty around who is
Paper ID #32353Pair-to-Pair Peer Learning: Comparative Analysis of Face-to-Face andOnline Laboratory ExperiencesDr. Nebojsa I. Jaksic, Colorado State University, Pueblo NEBOJSA I. JAKSIC earned the Dipl. Ing. (M.S.) degree in electrical engineering from Belgrade Uni- versity (1984), the M.S. in electrical engineering (1988), the M.S. in industrial engineering (1992), and the Ph.D. in industrial engineering from the Ohio State University (2000). He currently serves as a Pro- fessor at Colorado State University Pueblo teaching robotics and automation courses. Dr. Jaksic has over 90 publications and holds two patents. His
Kranov (2009) argues, this type of writing center support produces anenvironment where “students learn through interaction with faculty and peers to becomemembers of their disciplinary communities” that “mimics the adult learning communities thatthey are most likely to encounter after finishing their degrees and beginning their professionallives, thus fostering life-long learning skills” (Kranov, 2009).Scientific Writing Learning CommunitiesThe creation of “scientific writing learning communities” has been another pedagogical modelthat has been shown to be highly popular in addressing doctoral level academic and professionalwriting within engineering. Researchers and practitioners have recently argued that currentprogram designs aimed at
Paper ID #33605Differential Effects of Bridge Program Participation on PerceivedBelonging and Peer Support for STEM Degree Seekers during the COVID-19PandemicMs. Megan McSpedon, Rice University Megan McSpedon is a graduate student in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at Rice University. Her research interests include the future of work, school to work transition, and learning throughout the lifes- pan.Dr. Margaret E. Beier, Rice University Margaret Beier is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Rice University in Houston, TX. She received her B.A. from Colby College, and her M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the Georgia
column (the maximum grade is the total number of badgesavailable). In the comment section, the instructor adds the recently earned badge name. Thestudents are encouraged to write (or draw) each badge earned onto their name signs.Below are the specific EM/KEEN course objectives [3] that students will gain with throughoutthe course if you implement this type of system. KEEN Related Course Outcomes/Learning Objectives [3]: • Develop an appreciation of hard work & recognize the benefits of focused and fervent effort • Accept responsibility of their own actions and credit the action of others • Demonstrate an ability to set, evaluate, and achieve personal & professional goals • Be able to teach and learn from peers
engineering students and develops aconceptual model focusing on STEM Identity for conducting further research. The College ofEngineering at an urban research university is acutely aware of the increased need for retentionprograms in engineering colleges across the US. To respond to this need, a unique mentorshipprogram, the LMP, was established as one of the main components of an Engineering LearningCommunity (ELC) for first-year engineering students. Students self-select into the ELC programand, upon being registered, are assigned a peer mentor. The peer mentors are sophomorethrough senior-level undergraduate engineering students in the college who hold looselystructured meetings with the mentee students. The peer mentors are in turn supported by
who work cohesively towards the cohorts' success. A combination ofcurricular and co-curricular activities was selected according to evidence-based best practices [1-5] and implemented to support the academic development of CREATE scholars throughgraduation with an engineering degree. Curricular support includes tutoring, intrusive advising,regular progress reports from instructors, and peer and faculty mentoring. Co-curricular supportincludes community-building activities, a minimum of two mandatory theme seminars based onevidence-based best practices, and two required "choice" activities, including participation in joband internship information sessions, student clubs, engineer's week, K-12 outreach,undergraduate research, and study abroad
practice-based knowledge and writing knowledge andemphasized the importance of visualization tools in learning certain concepts.An Engineering Way of DoingAn engineering way of doing appeared most frequently across the interviews, and three relatedcodes emerged: being a student; hardness, rigor, and quality; and how classes should be taught.First, being a student captures participants’ beliefs about how engineering students should act,including approaches to classes, as well as reflections about their experiences being anengineering student during the pandemic. Each participant reflected on their approach to classesduring the pandemic. For example, participant 1001M described his work style as “get ahead,stay ahead” and did not feel his peers were
assessing the course through observing student progress and theoccasional written report or presentation, all assessment items for the course were designed toreplicate preparation for and participation in a peer-reviewed technical conference. A call forpapers was distributed which students responded to by submitting a short abstract. The abstractswere ‘accepted’ and the students then had to write a full technical paper. A double-blind peerreview was performed within the class to include critical analysis practice for students. Thecourse culminated in a ‘two-day’ conference, but to fit within a standard course schedule the twodays were not sequential nor were they full day lengths. The first ‘day’ was oral presentationsheld during regular class time
engaged in creating and editing materials for themselves as part of establishingtheir digital professional presence.As an example activity, the CV/resume peer-editing exercise required participants to eithercreate or revise their existing CV/resume or personal statement, and then bring it to a moderatedbreakout room discussion for peer review. Peer review was chosen because it provided studentswith the opportunity to view a variety of writing styles and provide constructive comments, bothof which can lead to improvement in students’ writing [6-7]. To encourage critical feedback anda collegial environment, breakout room discussions were moderated by program coordinators[8]. Some students were further motivated by the peer-review exercise and took
final tests and revisions. Day 10: Design Challenge - Conference How do engineers share their ideas through speaking and writing? Groups prepare for and engage in a conference-style share-out, where they present their designs and design process with peers from other classes, school administration, and parents. Design Brief Design Task: You are working as engineers to design a playground structure that would be fun and safe for all children, including children who use wheelchairs. Criteria: Playground equipment MUST be: Constraints: The playground equipment, ● Sized for ● Functional ● Must fit on the cardboard square given. wheelchair ● Fun
willing to meet with instructors outside ofclass9. Krause writes that engagement does not guarantee learning is taking place, but learningcan be enhanced if it provides students with opportunities to reflect on their learning activities10.In our project, students were encouraged to reflect on the lessons learned from the activitieseither in writing or in a class postmortem discussion.There is consensus among members of our department’s professional advisory board thatprofessional practice invariably requires strong verbal and written communication skills. Todevelop their oral communications skills, students need opportunities to present their work aswell as observe their peers doing the same. Some instructors believe that the project
culturaldimensions as they pertain to UI features (e.g., content, organization, navigation, verbal rhetoric,tone, design) in two websites that are produced by the same company for two different countries[11] - [12]. Students seek to assess how effective the sites are in meeting their audiences’ needs.They write a draft report to the hypothetical Marketing Director of the company website thatthey chose (this report is not sent out), conduct a peer review of other students’ draft reports,revise and finalize their own report, and create and present an oral presentation to their peers.This report assignment involves active, collaborative, problem-based learning [13]. The reportassignment counts for 20 percent of the final grade and is holistically graded with
discussionsto write rules and norms for their teams helps to raise awareness in students of these issues. Theresults show a positive impact of the introduced interventions, especially around teamwork andcollaboration with peers. The results offer insights on how we can continue this study and followthe cohort of students through time to see if the impact lasts beyond the first year.Pre-/Post-survey data ResultsResults from comparing the pre- and post-survey results are shown in Table 2. A value of 1indicates No Agreement and 7 indicates Strongly Agree. There was no significant difference inthe survey results for Question 1 either from the beginning to the end of Fall 2020 or between theend of Fall 2019 and Fall 2020. When comparing Fall 2019 (no
Engineering Education, 2021 Minority Student Experiences in Engineering Graduate Programs: Socialization and Impact on Career TrajectoriesAbstractThis paper examines the academic and social interactions during graduate engineering programenrollment among racially underrepresented doctoral and master’s students and how thoseinteractions shape their career goals. Using socialization theory, this study explored dailyinteractions of students with faculty and peers, overall perceptions of fit, knowledge about thegraduate school process, and opportunities for mentoring provided in the institution as well asthrough outside engagement during industry internships. The findings presented in this paperbuild upon an earlier study conducted
develop the skills and writing habits to complete doctorate degrees in engineering. Across all of her research avenues, Dr. Matusovich has been a PI/Co-PI on 12 funded research projects including the NSF CAREER Award with her share of funding be ingnearly $2.3 million. She has co-authored 2 book chapters, 21 journal publications and more than 70 conference papers. She has won several Virginia Tech awards including a Dean’s Award for Outstanding New Faculty, an Outstanding Teacher Award and a Faculty Fellow Award. She holds a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Cornell University, an M.S. in Materials Science from the University of Connecticut and a Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Purdue University.Dr. Stephanie G
Award. Her dissertation proposal was selected as part of the top 3 in the 2018 American Educational Research Association (AERA) Division D In-Progress Research Gala. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021Negotiating Belongingness: A Longitudinal Narrative Inquiry of a Latina, First-GenerationCollege Student’s Experience in the Engineering CultureAbstractResearch studies have long argued that a sense of belonging is essential for minoritized students’continued engineering persistence. Common factors that have been found to promote a sense ofbelonging include campus diversity, institution’s culture, perceived class comfort, facultyinteractions, and peer support. Yet
policies (e.g. tenure clock extensions) and developingresources for faculty and evaluators (e.g. guidance on writing COVID impact statements). Wenext discuss emergent challenges as well as implementation strategies, including working withcampus stakeholders, promoting awareness of policies, and adapting existing programmingtargeting recruiting, retaining, and promoting faculty from underrepresented groups. Weconclude by offering guidance for how institutions can remain attentive to COVID-19 impactson faculty careers in the coming years, with a focus on ongoing evaluation of new policies andprogramming, and institutional research to monitor equity
(15.2%) compared to enrollment patterns in the general student population (21.7%). Disparitiesin enrollment are partnered with inequitable rates of course completion, with historicallyunderserved students completing 71% of these courses with a grade of C or better, compared toan 82% course success rate for their peers. These demographics mirror national demographictrends that indicate student access to degree and career opportunities in STEM offered by twoyear colleges disproportionately favors students who identify with hegemonic norms in STEM[2],[3]. The SEECRS project represents one institutions attempts at designing programming todismantle structures that reproduce these disparities.Beginning in 2018, Whatcom Community College started
International Online Learn- ing; Sloan-C Blending Learning; eLearning Consortium of Colorado Conference; SUNY Online Learning Summit (SOL); DOODLE; the Teaching and Learning with Technology Conference (TLT), and the Con- ference on Instructional Technologies (CIT). All of her presentations focused upon the various topics that support her mission for student success and efficient class management. Loretta has been recognized by Open SUNY as an Open SUNY Fellow Expert Online Instructional Designer. In addition, she is a member of the MERLOT Teacher Education Editorial Board and a MERLOT Peer Reviewer Extraordinaire. As a certified Quality Matters Master Reviewer and peer reviewer in general, she peer reviewed numerous
by stress patterning; (2) low-cost, crack-tolerant, advanced metallization for solar cell durability; (3) thin film processing and nanoscale surface corrugation for enhanced light trapping for pho- tovoltaic devices; and (4) microsphere-based manufacturable coatings for radiative cooling. He has close to 70 publications in peer-reviewed journals and over 200 invited/contributed papers at academic insti- tutions, national laboratories, and conferences. He received a UNM Junior Faculty Research Excellence Award in 2005 and an NSF Career Award in 2001. He is a recipient of STC.UNM Innovation Award consecutively from 2009 to 2018, and he was elected as the 2018 STC.UNM Innovation Fellow. Dr. Han holds 17 UNM
specialties include water quality, water resources, remediation of contaminated soil and water, environmental sustainability, hydrology, hazardous waste management, and STEM ed- ucation. Dr. Clark has been blessed to have the opportunity to edit three books, produce nearly forty peer-reviewed publications, in addition to over fifty presentation to national and international audiences. He has also served as a reviewer for numerous technical journals and a panel reviewer for the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education, and the Environmental Protection Agency nu- merous times. Dr. Clark’s research interests include combining chemical and environmental engineering techniques for hazardous waste handling
country of study (ie. mismatchbetween Australian and China writing styles) may cause complications for students who are in awriting-intensive program [1]. Other challenges include engaging in a new social environment [10] requiring students tosocially and emotionally adapt while potentially leading to culture shock or cultural clashes [1,3,9,12]. This can be aided with supporting relationships among international peers or withdomestic students, as these forms of mentoring are successful in previous literature [4,5]. Mostmentoring opportunities discussed in the literature focus on connecting international studentswith other international students and do not engage much with domestic students, but the desireto connect with domestic students
, Gabe has gained significant appreciation for the importance of clearly- defined, structured, and supported pathways for program participants. Gabe has a Bachelor’s degree from San Francisco State University in English; Creative Writing. He lives in the East Bay and enjoys exploring new rivers, lakes, and beaches in the area.Mr. David Gruber, Growth Sector American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Experiential Learning during COVID-19: A Systemic Approach for Increasing Diversity in Smart ManufacturingAbstractExperiential Learning is a key component in Engineering and Engineering TechnologyEducation. However, the current engineering an