technical writing Written Design Teamwork
transformation: the theory Mediated Learning Experience (MLE) from Feuerstein[23][26] and Maturana’s understanding of learning as a space of transformation for both thelearner and the teacher [27] [28].Mediated Learning Experience. Feuerstein defines the role of the mediator (or agent) asfundamental to promoting cognitive changes in a student. A teacher, a parent, or anadvantaged peer can fulfill this role, depending on the objective of transformation. Themediator must have maturity, experience, and the ability to organize, reorder, group, andstructure the stimuli or information the student receives based on a specific task or goal [26].This means that the agent mediates between the world and the student (subject), transformingthe stimuli the student
aid in the formation of peer-to-peer relationships[3] through a shared identity as a “maker”.Makerspaces are unique learning environments that center around the act of “making,” a broad term thatincludes almost all forms of creative manufacture such as sewing, woodworking, mechatronics, etc.Communities of practice form within these spaces as the collaborative use of machines and technologiespromote the sharing of ideas, knowledge, and experience[4] and a shared identity as a maker. Hilton[5]found that participation in university Makerspaces led to an increase in engineering design self-efficacyamongst undergraduate engineering students. Tomko[2] demonstrated that engagement in Makerspacesincreased engineering students’ motivation and
conducted on how female and low-income students function in a cooperative,learner-based studio environment and advance understanding of the role different levels ofmentorship (peer, senior members, assistants, and faculty) play in the PWS model and how itimpacts the performance of female members of the cohorts. By working together in a team-basedenvironment, the PWS built strong connections among the PWS scholar cohort. The PWS isdeveloping well-rounded students who are afforded hands-on experiences, and the opportunity towork in multi-disciplinary team environments and gain exposure to real-life projects in computerscience, engineering, and technology. These experiences, combined with professionaldevelopment and mentorship, will enable scholars to
, technical support, and encouragement. • GiggleBot programming workshop. One ExCITE student volunteer demonstrated three GiggleBots [16] to the CS I students. Three CS I students and five ACM/ACM- W members participated. Among these five students, two were freshmen, and three were upperclassmen. The presenter demonstrated how to drive a GiggleBot with a pre-programmed Microbit [17] and then let the participants do the same. The students also plugged markers into the GiggleBots, to let the robots draw lines on the papers on the floor by moving. Then the students were divided into groups to write programs for the robots on the computers in the lab and then download their code to the robots to
criticism include forums where methods, ideas, assumptions, and reasoning can beevaluated and critiqued by the community. In the context of EER teams, these venues could beformal (e.g. an advisory board meeting or peer review process) or informal (e.g. a hallway con-versation or sidebar conversation during a meeting). They might be internal, only including groupmembers, or external to the group. The modes of communication in a venue may be spoken (e.g. ameeting or phone call) or written (e.g. an email or peer review). Additionally, the venue could havevaried degrees of collaboration involved in the critical activities (e.g. a team discussion regardingthe solution to a problem vs a team delegating tasks to be completed). We anticipate that
, which included extrinsic factors (financial remuneration,professional prestige, job accessibility, and job security), intrinsic factors (personal interests,self-efficacy, outcome expectations, professional development opportunities), and interpersonalfactors (influence of family members, teacher and educators, peers; social responsibility). Therelative importance of many of these factors was found to vary between individualistic andcollectivist cultures.Factors relevant for selecting majors and interest in different engineering majors has been foundto differ among demographic groups. For example, while an affinity or belief in one’s ability inmath and science was cited most frequently among their reasons for selecting their engineeringmajor
computing and engineering students, wewill need to develop a research agenda that further elucidates this nascent area of study. Weparticularly expect that intentional work will be needed to uncover the as-yet poorly understoodecosystem surrounding TNB computing students, their advocates, and their allies. In particular,we see a clear need to understand intersections with race and disability, as the 2015 U.S.Transgender Survey showed that TNB people of color and people with disabilities had worseoutcomes than their already marginalized peers [3]. In order to be a force for change for thisgoal, we held a virtual workshop to develop a research agenda that includes TNB students inBPC/BPE for inclusive and intersectional policy, practices, and
cases hence the use of a collective case study design. Crowe et al. [17] were of theopinion that each individual case should be analyzed separately before conducting a cross-casecomparison to explore the similarities in their perceptions of self-assessment. Drawing on Croweet al. [17], the multiple data sets were coded separately and analyzed using the NVivo dataanalysis software. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted on both data sets. The finalcodebook was conceptualized using both the self-regulation theory [15] and the student self-assessment cycle [3]. The authors completed multiple iterations of coding and engaged in criticalreviews of codes by peer debriefers [16]. Thereafter, a cross-case comparison was conducted toexplore the
Paper ID #38654Board 88: Work in Progress: Impact of Electronics Design Experience onNon-majors’ Self-efficacy and IdentityTom J. Zajdel, Carnegie Mellon University Tom Zajdel is an Assistant Teaching Professor in electrical and computer engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. Dr. Zajdel is interested in how students become motivated to study electronics and engineer- ing. He has taught circuits, amateur radio, introductory mechanics, technical writing, and engineering de- sign. Before joining CMU, Tom was a postdoctoral researcher at Princeton University, where he worked on electrical sheep-herding of biological
InquiryThroughout the larger effort described above, our team of five became acutely aware of thechallenges we faced as individuals and a collective in attempting to utilize design thinking in amore traditional engineering course design context. Certainly there were successes, inspiringmoments, and personal growth. There were also moments of doubt, conflict, and even despair aswe considered our experiences and the potential to expand those experiences to our peers. Thuswe decided to investigate the tensions we were experiencing in bringing design thinking to ourdistinct course design context.We utilized a collaborative inquiry [15] approach to investigate the tensions we experienced andhow they informed our application of design thinking in engineering
G141210 8 6 4 2 0 Agree Neutral Disagree I want to use Mastering in the rest of this course. I like the instant feedback on the Mastering platform. I like the fact that I am challenged in problems with different parameters from my peers to really show that I understand the concept and I can apply it. I love writing down my steps on paper while solving the problems on Mastering online. I feel that I can learn better (in the sense that I can solve harder problems or am aware of more knowledge points that I might have overlooked before) with more integration of Mastering into my course. I
additional experiencesto share during their capstone experiences. The resulting evidence of DT use was measured inthe final reports that senior students write at the end of their capstone experiences.MethodsBioengineering students who completed one of two elective courses in Biodesign and/orparticipated in a Summer Clinical Immersion were considered exposed to the intervention. TheBiodesign courses were new electives and we intended them to be open to many students. Assuch, they did not have extensive pre-requisites (Calculus II, Physics, and our Intro toEngineering course). The students who enrolled in these courses had an interest indesign/building devices, the class fit their schedule, or this was the one elective whose pre-requisites they met
@iupui.edu raj.s@austin.utexas.eduAbstractIn this full research paper, we aim to enhance the instructional delivery of the CIT 21400(Introduction to Data Management) course at IUPUI to improve students’ learning experience andto engage students better as they learn and apply the foundational database concepts. Introductoryprogramming courses such as database programming and design represent crucial milestones inIT education, as they reflect students' ability to solve problems and design appropriate solutions.But, for novice programmers learning SQL (Structured Query Language) programming andlogical database design concepts is a challenging task because while writing SQL programs,students not only have to apply
Summer 2022. After opening the DesignCube, students are able not only to access commontools and material for their prototyping activities, but they can also move freely from oneworkstation to another to engage, brainstorm and discuss with peers. There is also storage roomfor prototypes. Figure 10: Students inside Makerere DesignCubeFigures 10 and 11: Summer Program Participants with the DesignCubeStudents from both schools have had the opportunity to collaborate on biomedical designprojects in the Makerere DesignCube (Figure 10). Eight Duke students travelled to Makerere inSummer 2022 through a DukeEngage program, a service-learning program where
extended to similarly innate forms of neurodivergence, thusly: bysituating similarly these forms of neurodivergence as something one can ‘have,’ person-firstlanguage perpetuates the idea that neurodivergence can always be separated from the self – andtherefore removed or ‘cured.’Steps towards the neurodiversity paradigmThe earliest instance of neurodiv* term use I found in the EER literature was in an articlepublished in 2015, three years after Walker first introduced the neurodiversity paradigm inpublished writing [2] and one year after she first posted “Neurodiversity: Some Basic Terms &Definitions” online [6]. Though all analyzed articles were published after these important works,none directly referenced Walker, and none were entirely
which can be found in Appendix B.Students were placed in different groups for the two activities. Each instructor provided feedbackfor all groups in both activities.An initial brainstorming exercise was completed at the very start of the program, where studentswere asked to work in groups and write on post-it notes in response to the following prompt:“About 50% of neonatal (newborn) deaths worldwide are due to hypothermia. Some reasonsinclude that newborns lack sufficient body fat and metabolic rates to maintain body temperature.Brainstorm: 1. Possible approaches to avoid hypothermia-related neonatal deaths in developingcountries. 2. What additional information do you need?” [8].The final direct assessment was made by evaluating student
Paper ID #38078A Self-Study of Faculty Methods, Attitudes, and Perceptions of OralEngineering ExamsDr. Darcie Christensen, Minnesota State University, Mankato Dr. Darcie Christensen is a probationary Assistant Professor in the Department of Integrated Engineering at Minnesota State University Mankato. She teaches for Iron Range Engineering, which is located at the Minnesota North Campus in Virginia, MN. Dr. Christensen received her Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Utah State University in the Summer of 2021. The title of her Dissertation is ”A Mixed-Method Approach to Explore Student Needs for Peer Mentoring in a College
engage the students in theideas of the articles, we provided students with three reading questions that they would respondto before coming to class. The questions are listed below: 1. What do you want to know more about regarding air pollution exposure across race and poverty level? What questions do you have? 2. How might past policies and events help you make more sense of the paper's findings? 3. As the study’s authors write: “A focus on poverty to the exclusion of race may be insufficient to meet the needs of all burdened populations.” The researchers found that even after accounting for poverty, they saw differential impacts based on race. Why do you think it is important to separate out race and poverty level and
by Monfort et al., [15], we also drew ontheir methods. We added and adjusted questions to fit the participants’ primary stance as learners as opposed toemerging educators and to fit the disciplinary shift from ‘science’ into ‘engineering’. We sought to use broad,general, terminology to avoid evoking a socially desirable response from participants (e.g., ‘good teaching’ asopposed to ‘effective learning’)[21]. Such concerns also motivated having an undergraduate peer with lowerpower distance to participants be the interviewer [22,23]. The major interview questions appear in the appendix.Participants were interviewed once using typical interview techniques that included asking probing questions togather specific examples and deeper explanation
quantitative summarydimensions such as total word count, the number of “big” words (longer than 6 letters), andpercentage of the dictionary’s words appearing in the text, as well as various psychologicalcategories, using both standard and custom dictionaries [8]. The psychological portion using thestandard dictionary reports four summary measures (analytical thinking, clout, authenticity, andemotional tone) and nine dimensions (linguistic, drives, cognition, affect, social, culture,lifestyle, physical, perception, and conversation).The four LIWC summary measures provide their analysis of the text as a dichotomy comparisonfrom a normalized percentage of several variables [7]. Lower analytical thinking scores indicatemore informal, personable writing
apprenticeship technology, a bachelor’s in technol- ogy and engineering education with a minor in CAD, and a master’s degree in education technology. I am currently working toward my Doctorate in curriculum and instruction. My dissertation research focuses on motivational theories and inspirational instruction. My wife Kathy also works at Rose-Hulman in Academic Affairs, while my son Curtiss attends Rose- Hulman majoring in computer science and software engineering and my daughter Kirsten lives in Hawaii and is working toward her Master’s in English and writing. I am very honored to be a part of this great organization. Thank youDaniel Tetteh-RichterDr. Kay C. Dee, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Kay C Dee
Fast-Forward Engineering Program is a summer bridge and scholarship programat Louisiana Tech University funded by the National Science Foundation that allows risingsophomore engineering students to continue their curriculum ahead of schedule [1]. Eligibility isbased on unmet financial need and on-track degree progression to achieve a 4-year graduation.The program allows students to get more interaction with the faculty as well as increasedinteraction with their peers. The program also allows students to take part in local industry visitsso that students may see first-hand various engineering workplace settings. Due to COVID-19,the industry visits were virtual for the Summers of 2020 and 2021. Students participated in Zoomlectures from industry
interactive studentenvironment to discuss case studies and test student understanding of concepts using polls. In eachmodule, students were assigned readings and individual and team assignments. Further, weeklytechnical discussion forums on the blackboard were used to create, develop, and engage in SEconcepts-related dialogue. Each required deliverable was designed to facilitate access to otherstudents' points of view and requires the student to assess other peers' points of view, providingautonomy to select a system of interest and a scenario to how a student relates a specific concept.A core component of the course was the hands-on project. Students were divided into three teamsand assigned the Can-Sat competition 2021-22 guide. This intention was
-oneinstruction. The student would present weekly findings to his/her mentor, read scientific paperstogether, and plan future experiments. In addition to conducting research with mentors, menteesare required to attend three lunch meetings throughout the summer experience. These lunchmeetings focus on professional development and mentoring; providing an opportunity forstudents to discuss research progress with peers [12].The 2021-2022 SURE participants included 32 undergraduate students from various disciplinesacross campus. The participants were from the Civil and Construction Engineering Department,Mechanical Engineering Department, Electrical Engineering Department, MathematicsDepartment, Chemistry Department, Biology Department, Physics Department
teaches courses and conducts research related to Thermodynamics, engineering and public policy, engineering education, and gender in engineering and science. She is the co-author on an engineering textbook, Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics, which is used worldwide in over 250 institutions and she is an author on over 95 peer- reviewed publications.Caroline SolomonDr. Elizabeth Litzler, University of Washington Elizabeth Litzler, Ph.D., is the director of the University of Washington Center for Evaluation and Re- search for STEM Equity (UW CERSE) and an affiliate assistant professor of sociology. She has been at UW working on STEM Equity issues for more than 17 years. Dr. Litzler is a member of ASEE, 2020-2021
between what they learn infoundational math and science courses and other multidisciplinary coursework (e.g., core coursesin writing, humanities, social sciences, etc.), and how to transfer and apply that knowledge toengineering courses, projects, and professional experiences [3].Despite accreditation criteria elevating contextual competence and other professional practiceoutcomes (e.g., effective communication, teamwork, ethics and leadership), as well as a plethoraof national studies calling for a different approach to engineering education, institutional andstructural issues continue to complicate curricular change [10], [2], [5]. One issue stems from alack of incentive for faculty collaboration across departments to develop consensus around
) 0.007 Traditional 33.71 (5.82) 33.36 (5.68) 0.301 Self-efficacy Mastery experience (prior success) Mastery 4.10 (0.56) 4.25 (0.66) 0.005 Traditional 4.19 (0.52) 4.12 (0.53) 0.248 Vicarious experience (peer success) Mastery 4.63 (0.71) 4.78 (0.76) 0.012 Traditional 4.46 (0.53) 4.52 (0.63) 0.289 Social Persuasions (support for success) Mastery 4.38 (1.05) 4.54 (0.91) 0.018 Traditional 4.41 (0.92) 4.45 (0.87) 0.388 Physiological State (anxiety) Mastery 2.21 (0.96
more than $17 million in external funding, including grants from the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Defense in the domain of vibration, control and acoustics. He is the author or co-author of more than 350 peer-refereed technical publications, including 135 journal papers, two textbooks and five book chapters. A fellow of the American Society of Mechan- ical Engineers, Jalili has chaired numerous society committees and edited several engineering academic journals. In addition, he is the recipient of more than 30 international, national and institutional awards for his research, leadership, teaching and service. In his four years as the Head of Mechanical Engineering
benefits: flexibility,enhanced interaction with peers and instructors, professional skills development, and student-to-studentengagement. Although most engineering studies have found no differences in measured learning gains [16,22-23], several studies have [24-25]. These conflicting results have given faculty “push back” support for notadopting due to “significantly” more preparation time [26] with limited room to overhaul the course reasonsoften given. In looking to study other possible flipped values, Velogel and Zappe [27] looked at if flippedclassrooms created a more motivating climate. In Copridge et al. [28] their investigations found thatinstructor presence, better feedback, and just-in-time conversations were identified as