Paper ID #33805 funded programs, including NSF ITEST, NSF AISL, Department of Education Math Science Partnership, and NSF ATE programs. She participates in the STELAR PI and Evaluator summits sponsored by NSF and recently presented a novel approach for culturally relevant evaluation methods. She is an active member of the American Evaluation Association and specifically of the STEM Education and Training topical interest group. She provides university faculty with evaluation plans and support for privately and federally funded STEM grant proposals.Connor J. Hill, University of Idaho American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Reflections on
Paper ID #32643Reimagining Energy Year 3: Reflections on a Course OfferingProf. Gordon D. Hoople, University of San Diego Dr. Gordon D. Hoople is an assistant professor and one of the founding faculty members of integrated engineering at the University of San Diego. He is passionate about creating engaging experiences for his students. His work is primarily focused on two areas: engineering education and design. Professor Hoople’s engineering education research examines the ways in which novel approaches can lead to better student outcomes. He is the principal investigator on the National Science Foundation Grant
Paper ID #34030Going Virtual: Reflections from Research and School Educators onNavigating Professional Development and STEM Club OpportunitiesMr. Amari Simpson, University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign Amari T. Simpson is a third-year Ph.D. student at the College of Education at the University of Illinois. He has worked as a STEM educator in Boston for two years, and his research interest centers on STEM pre-college program effects on students. He currently serves as a Research Assistant in the College of Engineering. He received a Bachelor’s degree in psychology from Middlebury College and a Master’s degree in
practicesand shift institutional culture, the research team hosted a symposium focused on theimportance of teaching at the core of an institution. The attendees included 98 STEMfaculty from several universities all interested in the topic of reflective teaching. Many ofthe participants had been trained in evidence-based instructional practices and faculty peerobservation. A survey of participants asked these faculty to reflect on the idea of a T1classification and how it might be framed in the broader conversation about enhancingSTEM teaching. The survey responses were grouped based on change quadrants. Theresponses indicated alignment around reflective teaching, inclusive classroom practices,and recognition of excellence in pedagogy.Introduction and
teachers and students. The diversity of the teacher workforce in the USA,however, does not reflect the diversity of the student population, resulting in most Americanstudents coming from different backgrounds than their teachers [1]. When teachers do notunderstand the different backgrounds of their students, learning can be inhibited. As Delpit [2]explains, “We educators set out to teach, but how can we reach the worlds of others when wedon't even know they exist?” (pg. 14).One way educators can learn more about the cultures of their students is through the use ofethnographic observation methods [3,4]. Through studying the communities and homes of theirstudents, teachers can identify local and familial funds of knowledge that students bring
acknowledging the importance of its personnel relationships, the project’s externalevaluation has gathered ongoing data about the communication between key faculty and staffstakeholders. The evaluation has focused on surfacing and making explicit targeted aspects ofpeer relationships that might otherwise have been taken for granted: levels of connectedness,trust and common understanding. Findings about the strengths and weaknesses of individualrelationships were used to engage the PIs in formative reflections about how those relationshipswere impacting the momentum and success of their project.As Patton has pointed out, a defining characteristic of evaluation is “the systematic collection ofinformation about the activities, characteristics, and
learning and development as researchers: (1) social science researchin design education, (2) mixed methods research, and (3) evidence-based teaching. To that end,we strategically invited engineering education research mentors to our team, deliberatelystructured our mentor conversations with literature readings to foster growth, and purposefullydocumented this process by continually responding to reflection questions in a professionaldevelopment journal. Our approach to include our own professional development in ourResearch Initiation in Engineering Formation grant has proven instrumental in collecting dataand in connecting us with the engineering education community.Choosing Mentors and Developing a Mentoring PlanOur engineering education
Paper ID #32300Creating the Skillful Learning Institute: A Virtual Short Course forBuilding Engineering Educators’ Capacity to Promote StudentMetacognitive GrowthDr. Patrick Cunningham, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Patrick Cunningham is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technol- ogy. His professional development is focused on researching and promoting metacognition, self-regulated learning, and reflection among students and faculty in Engineering Education. Dr. Cunningham has been a PI/Co-PI on two NSF-funded grants and led Rose-Hulman’s participation in the Consortium to Pro- mote
both in and out of the classroom. In 2020, this activitywas conducted as a virtual webinar and student questions were asked in the Q&A feature whichwas monitored by the meeting host.After listening to the dean’s interview, students are asked to write a one-page reflection paper inwhich they are asked to describe what they learned from the interview: (1) what is needed to besuccessful in the engineering profession; (2) the expectations of, or norms for, engineeringstudents; and (3) the lessons learned from the examples provided regarding the differencebetween successful and unsuccessful engineering teams. These reflections play an important rolein helping students understand the importance of valuing diversity in engineering teams
to market-driven design approaches and tools in an engineering design course. Thefollowing research questions (RQs) are explored:RQ1: To what extent do undergraduate engineering students’ initial conceptions of design account for the market context, such as competition and consumer considerations?RQ2: In what ways do these design conceptions change after introducing market-driven design techniques and tools in a design course?RQ3: What types of student assessment (e.g., surveys, written reflections, project reports) are significant predictors of evolving design conceptions at a topic level? andRQ4: Does the introduction and use of a market simulator tool correspond with a change in design conceptions?By exploring how current
. Turns, University of Washington Jennifer Turns is a Professor in the Department of Human Centered Design & Engineering at the Univer- sity of Washington. She is interested in all aspects of engineering education, including how to support engineering students in reflecting on experience, how to help engineering educators make effective teach- ing decisions, and the application of ideas from complexity science to the challenges of engineering education. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Engineering with Engineers: Fostering Engineering IdentityIntroductionThe Mechanical Engineering Department at Seattle University was awarded
, Energy.Theoretical FramingIn order to investigate the impact of the program on faculty identity and motivation, weemployed the Longitudinal Model of Motivation and Identity (LMMI) to frame our research [8].The LMMI combines Self-Determination Theory [9] and Possible Selves Theory [10] to studymotivation and identity development during an experience. This model gives us the capability toobserve how the program has made an impact on individual faculty members as well as seeingthe impact of the program holistically across the participants.The LMMI has previously been used to study graduate teaching assistants’ motivation andidentity development as teachers [8]. For that work, one data collection measure included havinggraduate teaching assistants reflect on
Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Engineering Education Guilds: Understanding Their Vision for InnovationIntroductionThe major aim of this project is to understand how, and the extent to which, engineeringeducation guilds (e.g., the Consortium to Promote Reflection in Engineering Education (CPREE)and the Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network (KEEN)) foster propagation and adoption oftheir respective pedagogical innovations. Engineering education guilds like CPREE and KEENseek to work at the forefront of educational innovation by creating networks of instructor changeagents who design and implement a particular innovation in their own context to further theprofessional formation of
unique strengths in an engineering context. The new framework expands uponuniversal design principles and provides guidelines that are anchored in a strengths-basedapproach and centered around three core elements: a culture of inclusion, teaching and learning,and instructional design. The application of the standards across the three courses has commonelements (e.g., the ability to choose standard versus creativity-based assessments) anddifferences to reflect instructor style and course content (e.g., incorporation of design aspects inmore advanced courses). It is anticipated that the use of these standards will improve learningoutcomes and enhance the educational experience for neurodivergent students.MotivationNeurodiversity is a term that has
and what aligns most closelywith our conceptual definition. Our continuing work will reflect the revised definition. Weanticipate completing revisions to our definition soon and plan to publish our revised definitionand operationalization strategy at the Frontiers in Education Conference in Fall 2021.Using our definition of overpersistence, the historical sample (with known outcomes) isidentified and relevant data markers attached to each student in the sample using R [2]. Afterbeing compiled, the data is moved from R to SPSS [3] for analysis. We are using Chi-SquaredAutomatic Interaction Detection (CHAID) [4] to identify the indicators of overpersistence.CHAID requires large sample sizes and uses both F and chi-squared tests to create a
, consequential learning.” Inthis paper, we encapsulate our work in this last year (no cost extension) of the grant through thelens of our 17 published or in preparation journal articles.Our research in equity and inclusivity has had three foci: student climate, conceptualization ofoppression and privilege, and organizational change. This research has addressed themes of peerrelations, the relation between epistemology and climate, assessment metrics for understandingsystems of power, reflection on problematic norms that frame engineering culture, anduncontested informal practices that produce gendered and racialized inequities across theinstitution. Our research in meaningful, consequential learning has focused on activities andassessments that align
sustainability, and July focused on convertingproject course implementation to online formats (due to COVID-19).In order to facilitate effective sharing of information and peer learning, SUMMIT-P uses twoprotocols during project meetings that provide a format for effective and fruitful discussion. Thetwo protocols, Descriptive Consultancy protocol and Success Analysis with Reflective Questionsprotocol, have historically been applied in the K-12 education community [4]. The DescriptiveConsultancy protocol [5], originally developed by Nancy Mohr and revised by Connie Parrishand Susan Taylor in August 2013, was modified by McDonnough and Henschel [6] and has beenadapted for this project to help presenters think more expansively about a particular
Educational Research (CLUSTER), is a dynamic in- terdisciplinary team that brings together professors, graduate, and undergraduate students from engineer- ing, art, educational psychology, and social work in the context of fundamental educational research. Dr. Walther’s research program spans interpretive research methodologies in engineering education, the pro- fessional formation of engineers, the role of empathy and reflection in engineering learning, and student development in interdisciplinary and interprofessional spaces. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Investigating professional shame as experienced by engineering
institutions. course DataFest[12] using on the data source and have immediate multiple datasets of variety domain expert support applications fields; availability. Temple: multiple climate datasets[13]The proposed approachTo address the above-mentioned limitations, we propose to develop data-enabled engineeringproject (DEEP) modules guided by the latest research on experiential learning theory (ELT).Experiential learning (EL) is the process of learning through experience, and is more specificallydefined as “learning through reflection on doing”[15], [16]. Kolb helped to develop the moderntheory of experiential learning, which focuses on the learning
how students iterativelyconstruct and “manipulate” theoretical objects in pursuit of scientific models with the ways theyconstruct and manipulate physical objects – particularly with respect to tinkering.The course contextIn the iteration of the course described here, students are undergraduate preservice science andengineering teachers in a UTeach replication site. The semester began with the question: ”is everycolor in the rainbow?” Students are provided with a range of materials - colored gels, printer inks, 3Figure 1: Source wavelengths (left), reflected wavelengths (red and blue), and perception (twocones, indicating magenta.flashlights, and markers; we also have the science education
both in-person and remote modalities. While it was expected that students would miss out on the planttour aspect of industry visits, a surprising observation was that the PI noticed the drive to andfrom each site had been an opportunity to get to know the students and discuss what they hadlearned. This organic conversation was hard to replicate in an online environment. On thepositive side, geography no longer limited which sites and companies participated in industryvisits. Further, the virtual format pushed the focus of the “visit” from specifics of productionprocesses towards more personal reflections of the speaker’s career trajectory in engineering.This was especially relevant as many of the speakers were Louisiana Tech alumni. We
- andpost-STEM interviews with a member of the research team. Of these 16 students, four alsoparticipated in the mentoring experience. The interviews (conducted remotely) focused onstudents' career interests, understanding of what STEM entails, and reflection about the 3Dprinting unit. Students (n=214) completed a STEM Interest survey consisting of four sets ofquestions, each set focusing on one element of STEM. Students took this survey twice, once atthe start of the quarter (pre) and once at the end of the quarter (post). The survey was takenverbatim from Kier et al. (2013) [7] with eight additional negatively worded questions to checkfor response consistency. Additionally, following each mentoring session, students (n=16),mentors (n=12), and
differences among individuals and groups6. Protects human health and physical safety of users and society7. Promotes human well-being and enhances quality of life for usersand society8. Evaluates economic impacts of environmental design criterion9. Evaluates economic impacts of a social design criterion10. Considers affordability for users and/or demonstrates costcompetitiveness or cost reduction for client/sponsor11. Evaluates economic costs and benefits to inform decisions12. Final design impacted by trade-offs among environmental, social,and economic criteria and reflects balance of dimensions13. Uses and/or creates innovation(s) in its specific field to achievesustainability14. Worked with experts from other disciplines (i.e., outsideengineering
, two are administered in the first year for a cohort: (1) an introductionto computer science course where teachers learn fundamental CS topics and programming in ahigh-level programming language (e.g., Python), and engage in problem solving and practicecomputational thinking, and (2) a course in pedagogy for teachers to learn how to teach K-8 CS,including lesson designs, use of instructional resources such as dot-and-dash robots, andassessments. Then, the following academic year after the summer, the PD program holds a seriesof workshops on five separate Saturdays to support teacher implementation of their lessonmodules during the academic year, reflect and improve on their lessons, reinforce on CSconcepts and pedagogy techniques, review and
professional learning model supports middleschool science and STEM teachers, many of whom have limited experience with computationalthinking, to implement these units in their classrooms.Professional LearningWe designed a professional learning approach, called the CT-Integration Cycle (Biddy et al.,2021; Gendreau Chakarov et al., in press), that supports teachers to design, adapt, implement,and reflect on instructional activities that use programmable sensor technologies. Thisprofessional learning model usually consists of an in-person summer workshop series and fourfull-day workshops throughout the school year. Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the summerworkshop shifted to a remote platform, and the school year workshops shifted to 90-minutebiweekly
thatcan paint the evolution of students’ knowledge and skills over time over a set of learningexperiences (Clements & Sarama, 2004; Simon, 1995; Sztajn et. al., 2012; Corcoran, Mosher &Rogat, 2009; Maloney and Confrey, 2010). We use a theoretical framework based on adaptiveexpertise and design thinking adaptive expertise to further advance a design learning continuum(Hatano and Inagaki, 1986; Schwartz, Bransford & Sears, 2005; McKenna, 2007; Neeley, 2007).Project OverviewThis research project has been to explore and understand how open-ended, hands-on makingwork and activities are reflected in the learning trajectories of students and their learning gains inthe product-based learning, undergraduate engineering classroom. The aim is to
. During his time at Rose-Hulman, Sriram has served as a consultant in Hadoop and NoSQL systems and has helped a variety of clients in the Media, Insurance, and Telecommunication sectors. In addition to his industrial consulting activities, Sriram maintains an active research profile in data science and education research that has led to over 30 publications or presentations. At Rose-Hulman, Sriram has focused on incorporat- ing reflection, and problem based learning activities in the Software Engineering curriculum. Sriram has been fundamental to the revamp of the entire software engineering program at Rose-Hulman. Sriram is a founding member of the Engineering Design program and continues to serve on the leadership
contribute to the development of students’ self-efficacy, identity, andsense of belonging? and 2) How does early exposure to computer science through courseworkand career awareness affect the experience of CS/M Scholars? Data sources are focus groupinterviews, surveys of the Scholars and a comparison group, and Scholars’ written summaries ofconversations with their mentors. The summary presented here draws upon the latter two datasources. The summaries written by students reflect their perceptions of the mentoring experienceand along with the focus groups and surveys provide multiple points of triangulation, givingimportant insight into their experience with the program overall.Survey Sample – Scholars & Comparison StudentsAll CS/M Scholars are
mixture ofanecdotes, advice, and study findings contributing to participants’ knowledge of transitions intoengineering education, the RIEF grant process, and mentorship in engineering education. Groupactivities at the virtual workshops were focused on participants’ reflecting about their ownmentorship experiences and needs, their motivations for participation in EER, and ways theycould actively enhance their involvement in the EER community.Community Building in Year 2Our team’s Summer 2021 networking event was designed to reduce these barriers to entry intoengineering education research by facilitating mentor-mentee introductions. Participants in theevent are asked to create a short slide introducing themselves as either prospective mentors
when they apply to either graduate school or apply for an industrial position. Thesearticulation skills are practiced in class in the form of personal reflections. The four requirementsof the project are that the scholars work in a group, they use their new and growing STEMskillset, the project must benefit the community, and it must be sustainable. In this casesustainable means that the project itself can continue for multiple years, with new studentspossibly taking over. The projects that are currently under way include STEM educationprogramming, Mental Health Information, Expanding Local Food Options, and AssessingCollege Energy Usage.Program GoalsThe program, as funded by the NSF S-STEM grant, has four goals set forth in the