toengage at the individual, institutional, and network levels. Adjustments from deadline-drivenactivities to competency-driven deliverables reflected the need to meet HSIs where they are, justas faculty and staff are asked to meet their students where they are.Finally, work-based andundergraduate research-based experiences repositories complemented with culturally-responsiveinstruction are being made easily accessible.BackgroundThe ALRISE Alliance is NSF’s Eddie Bernice Johnson INCLUDES Alliance that was awardedin August 2021 with the vision of developing a Networked Improvement Community (NIC)comprised primarily of two-year Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) and emerging HSIsrepresented by their educators and community partners who collaborate
guidelines onwhat should take place at a hackathon or how to host one because every hackathon is unique.Hackathons are often tailored for achieving specific goals. These goals range from focusing on aspecific computing disciplines to promoting the inclusion of certain groups within technology.Traditional hackathons have, however, frequently come under discussion for lacking inclusivityand diversity. Technology is a crucial component of contemporary society, and those whodevelop it should consider the varied viewpoints and experiences of the consumers they serve.Inclusive hackathons are a crucial step in developing a more diverse and equitable IT sector.These events assist in ensuring that the goods and services we use daily reflect the needs
this first cohort,and we met that goal. Ten proposals, representing 11 different institutions, were received, vettedfollowing NSF practices (e.g., teams responded to clarifying questions to ensure alignment withthe Hub goals), and selected. We met our overarching objectives of having a set of grantrecipients that reflect the S-STEM program diversity. Recipients include small privateinstitutions, large research institutions, minority-serving institutions, community colleges, andregionally focused institutions that represent a wide geographic footprint. Campus-specificprojects being advanced by this budding community of practice focus on how to recruit low-income students from different institutional contexts, topics with a community college
curriculum (four days). Figure 3 shows changes in these measurespre- and post- implementation. Figure 3. Pilot data collected on day 1 and day 4 of a soft robotics implementation (n=10 students).Reflections on Pilot Study, ChangesImplementation Student participants were focused and engaged in the activities. We received feedbackon the survey in a prompt asking, “Is there anything else you’d like to tell us?”. One student commented,“I really enjoyed all of the activities from the week. They were very engaging and informative.” Anotherstudent noted the desire for similar activities at their school, saying, “I really enjoyed the class, wereally need something like this at [school name].” In addition to students generally being interested inthe
. Fig. 3. The leaning tower of Pisa3.3. Pedagogical ActivitiesTo engage students, the suggested pedagogical activities include: 1. Discussion of tipping and footprint concepts – Reflective discussion can help students to understand the two approaches clearly, and when and how to apply them to their lives. These discussions can be constructive for students who need help with the retention and application of information. 2. Demonstration of tipping, even applying forces on the table in the classroom to using an elastic band to capture the geometry of the footprint, can help students to retain the concept. 3. Design projects foster the ability to formulate, ideate, experiment, and learn from concrete
questions. Table 1: EIs and Associated Themes Engagement Indicators Themes Higher-Order Learning Academic Challenge Reflective and Integrative Learning Learning Strategies Quantitative Reasoning Collaborative Learning Learning with Peers Discussions with Diverse Others Student-Faculty Interaction Experiences with Faculty Effective Teaching Practices Quality of Interactions Campus Environment Supportive EnvironmentAfter EI scores
such as ADAaccommodators and tutoring staff were interviewed and brought up important issues andadvantages of take-home tests.Instructor RoleOne major advantage identified by the instructors is the ability to ask more interesting questions: “it allows us to be more flexible and ask questions that are perhaps a little bit more reflective of real engineering questions that students might encounter.” (Instructor 3)The allowance of more time on a test can be important as students are allowed to answer morecomplex questions that may be more representative of real-life problems. Additionally, it allowsinstructors to address higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, testing application and understandingof content instead of just memory. One
. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 The development of an artificial intelligence classifier to automate assessment in large class settings: preliminary resultsAbstractThis evidence based practice paper presents preliminary results in using an artificialintelligence classifier to mark student assignments in a large class setting. The assessmenttask consists of an approximately 2000 word reflective essay that is produced underexamination conditions and submitted electronically. The marking is a simple pass/faildetermination, and no explicit feedback beyond the pass/fail grade is provided to the students.Each year around 1500 students complete this assignment, which places a significant andtime-constrained marking load
classification tool that is a 2x2 contingency table [9]. Thematrix can provide insight to the types of errors students are making. In this study, the confusion matrixprovides a convenient way to score question outcome (correct or incorrect) on the concept inventoryexam regarding student oral reasoning, as reflected in the transcribed student “think-alouds”. Ofcourse, the ideal outcome is a correct response with the correct oral reasoning (i.e., correct for the rightreasons). A correct answer can also occur with flawed oral reasoning. These two outcomes are the toprow of the confusion matrix in Table 1. If a student answers incorrectly, the student may have correct orincorrect reasoning. These two outcomes are the second row of the confusion matrix. The
Thinking into a Neural Engineering High School CurriculumAbstractEngineering design and computational thinking are critical to contemporary STEM research.This is reflected in the Next Generation Science Standards, which call for broadly exposingK-12 students to engineering design and computational thinking as core practices. Thedevelopment and investigation of pathways to successfully integrate these practices in all sciencedisciplines are presently limited. Here, we propose a framework for efficiently connectingcomputational thinking practices with engineering design, and describe a four weekNGSS-congruent module that strategically weaves opportunities for high school life sciencestudents to apply engineering design and
use all the tools acquired in their undergraduateprograms. Simultaneously, students can contribute to one of the goals of society through researchand development of emergency housing in Puerto Rico [4] The paper presents the instructionaldesign, results, and evaluation of the Design-Build course, and finally reflects about lessons learnedand relevance of this type of interdisciplinary learning scenario.2. Methods and Results. 2.1. Method / Semester Project.The design project consisted of conceptualizing a group of emergency houses. Four smallliving units with the same floor plan, interconnected by a central open space where thepersons will be able to interact and develop a sense of community. These small units areexpected to be self
et al., 2008; Christensen and Schunn, 2007;Davis and Sumara 2006; Grinter, 1956; Jonassen, 2000; NAE, 2004; Silk and Schunn, 2008).Proposed ApproachThe central idea in this proposed approach is to have students work on two parallel projects, oneis the technical redesign of simple kitchen appliances (e.g., a toaster), and the other the design oftheir academic path (i.e., courses to take, extracurricular activities, habits, skills, etc.). While thestudents work on these two parallel projects, a periodical intervention will help them connect thetechnical approaches to their academic project. For example, using journals and reflection tounderstand how students had to frame a problem, ask for help, evaluate options, and decide toimprove a toaster
participates in a one-credit class, ENGR 291. Learningobjectives for the course include: • Articulate different definitions and related sub-themes that could comprise peer advising, peer mentoring, interpersonal communication, and leadership soft skills. • Evaluate current level of development in soft skills and develop a plan for future reflection, evaluation, and adjustment to said skills. • Demonstrate effectiveness as an Engineering Peer Advising Leader and build confidence in providing advising assistance to engineering students. • Articulate familiarity with different resources and involvement opportunities in the College of Engineering and campus-wide opportunities and
Jared Markunas who assisted in the development of the survey that will inform the engagementguide prototype.References[1] D. R. Fisher, A. Bagiati, and S. Sarma, “Developing Professional Skills in Undergraduate Engineering Students Through Cocurricular Involvement,” J. Stud. Aff. Res. Pract., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 286–302, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1080/19496591.2017.1289097.[2] G. Young, D. B. Knight, and D. R. Simmons, “Co-curricular experiences link to nontechnical skill development for African-American engineers: Communication, teamwork, professionalism, lifelong learning, and reflective behavior skills,” in 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings, Madrid, Spain, Oct. 2014, pp. 1–7. doi: 10.1109/FIE
adjacent activities context. Kirn & Bensonfound that students’ choices in the present, including how they solved engineering problems, wereconnected to how they thought about their futures. In our study, we wonder whether students’engineering-adjacent participation may also be connected to their FTP development. We anticipatethat a majority of Kirn & Benson’s interview questions [5], some of which we adapted to ourcurrent context while others were added or removed, will help us explore connections betweenstudents' current actions and their future goals. To better capture students’ actions, we havedeveloped interview questions to guide participants to reflect on their future goals, share theirpresent actions related to involvement in
useful subscales that associate with SRMDM. The revised instrument which wasdeveloped through several iterations (Orr, Martin, Ehlert, Brotherton, & Manning, 2021) (Ehlert,et al., 2019) is called the Multidimensional Inventory of Decision-Making Competency (MIDC)(Ehlert, et al., 2019).MIDC is based on four factors: Impulsivity, Avoidance, learning, and Information Gathering.Impulsivity encompasses making a decision without considering the consequences; Avoidancetargets refraining from making decisions for oneself and allowing other people (i.e. parents orfriends) to make decisions on their behalf; Learning focuses on reflecting on past decisions andInformation Gathering, which includes collecting information, assessing strategies
components: personal information management, personalknowledge internalization, personal wisdom creation, and interpersonal knowledge transferring.Information management consists of collecting, evaluating, and organizing information.Knowledge internalization includes analysis, learning, and reflection. Wisdom creation is ahigher order of thinking that adds problem-solving and creativity to the process. Finally,knowledge transfer includes sharing and communicating what was learned in the othercomponents.There are many overlapping concepts between PKM models and how Luhmann implemented hisZettelkasten. Jarche [4] offers the simplest model which is seek, sense, and share. The steps ineach system are key aspects of what faculty are expected to do for
, as we each brought our own disciplinarybiases and (mis)understanding/(mis)perception of writing and thinking. These disciplinary andconceptual differences were also reflected in our assessment expectations and rubric design. 4However, despite the challenges encountered, our meetings did serve as a space in which weentered critical dialogue with one another about what writing means, what thinking entails, themulti-dimensions of engineering problems, ethical decisions in problem solving, and anawareness of student limitations as well as our own limitations. We asked each other questionssuch as: is it ethical to expect our students to find solutions in a “writing,” non-technical, non
of Computing in EngineeringThe need to learn computer programming is well understood in some engineering disciplines; forothers, the application of programming is less evident (Arjmandi, Woo, Mankelow, Loho,Shahbaz, Auckaili, & Thambyah, 2023). Coding builds independence, computational thinking,and the ability to reflect on and critique one’s efforts (Siu, 2022). For example, when studentslearn to debug code, they are learning the process of finding solutions to their errors and beingable to view things through a critical problem-solving lens (Siu, 2022) … just the things thatengineers need to know how to do. Therefore, this course familiarizes students withmicrocontrollers, an integral part of many modern, technological devices, with a
, students were asked to complete the modulesin class in a self-paced activity. This self-paced format seemed to be a good fit for studentsexploring standards, with one student saying: Personally, I really preferred this type of module for AM standards over the typical lectures. Not to say that technical standards and AM standards aren't important, but it would be difficult to fully learn and understand them by just sitting through lectures about them. I thought the reflections and case study were the best activities to have gone through in the modules. Showing how to find standards and then trying to apply them and give reasoning to where they can be used was a good exercise, and made the overall topic
differences could be driven by other factors, such as characteristics ofparticipants in these groups, different environments or context that they face, among other things.Tech companies have for decades favored A/B tests to understand adoption choices bycustomers. They also conduct experiments to determine the most effective approaches formanaging people and maintaining a productive environment. An example is Lazear (2000) whostudied the impact of piece rates on productivity. The study estimated a 44% overallimprovement in productivity due to piece rates by gradually implementing a new compensationscheme. Around 22% of this was due to greater effort (the incentive effect), and the remaining22% reflected sorting (better new hires) or potentially some
and computing. We began our work by designing a computational thinkingdiagnostic that can be administered to students as they enter the engineering program in order todetermine student's ability to use the principles and practices that are learned by studyingcomputing. We can report that 3584 students were participants during the development of theEngineering Computational Thinking Diagnostic (ECTD) and the last 469 were involved inexploratory and confirmatory analysis.Engineers use computing to design, analyze, and improve systems or processes. ABET citescomputing as a foundational skill for engineering proficiency [1], [2]. The Taxonomy for theField of Engineering Education Research also reflects the importance of computational thinkingas a
submit student feedback, reflections onstudent performance, and proposed action for course improvements.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Each ToolEach assessment tool has advantages and disadvantages. Table 2 shows the strengths of eachtool. Excel, Google Forms, and Canvas are readily available to the university community. Whilethe spreadsheet-based methods are easy to use, they are tedious for the coordinator to compile.Spreadsheet tools and SearchLight require faculty to submit an outcome score for each student atthe conclusion of the course. While these scores are linked to signature assessment instruments,it is not clear how faculty aggregate performance and determine the scores. Canvas overcomesthis limitation by clearly linking the
anything. And so, yes, it was a good experience, yes, it was incredibly stressful because it was extra, it was always seen as extra.” (Mitchell)While participation in this program may not have resulted in grant money, publications, orteaching credits, benefits and outcomes described by participants do relate to their developmentas researchers and educators and can affect the characteristics, output, and metrics used whenbeing considered for promotion and tenure. Some faculty participants did not make thisconnection, but others did with varying degrees of reflection on the applicability of their growthin communication and collaboration skills related to more tangible promotion and tenure metrics. Table 1: Applicability of Participation in
, andthe application of knowledge and skills to problems that are representative of those faced bypracticing engineers” (p. 124) [8]. As such, learning effectiveness is first and foremostunderstood as relating to certain outcomes.However, measures of learning effectiveness go well beyond learning outcomes. Other measurescan be attitudes such as motivation [9, 10], satisfaction [9, 11], and initiative [7]. Some studiesmeasured learning effectiveness based on resources, teaching activities, and services provided[12], or instruction, curriculum management, and technological media [2]. As these measuresbetter reflect aspects of teaching practices, they may better represent teaching effectiveness thanlearning effectiveness. Notably, learning
visualdemonstration, to bring their words to life; 2) To connect an accompanying narrative describingeach lived experience, thus, expressing the world as they see and experience it. Throughphotography, reflection, and critical dialogue, five undergraduate students at a large southeasternPWI shared their stories and agreed on actionable measures to improve Black engineeringstudents’ experiences at their university. During semi-structured interviews, participants describedthe images they captured related to the research prompts. Using an inductive approach, weconducted a reflexive thematic analysis, and six themes emerged related to the students’experiences: (1) finding comfort, (2) building community, (3) fitting in, (4) experiencingfrustration, (5
a specific topic. Each module has stated learningoutcomes aligned with the program mission and the training needs of the STEM outreachprograms. Each module also provides skill development under the Future Skills framework.Within the module, participants are provided with key information and theory, participate inshort active learning activities, and are provided with reflection opportunities to self-assess onwhat they’ve learned. Modules topics are as follows: 1. Organizational Introduction 2. Anti-Racism in STEM 3. Classroom Management 4. Communicating with Parents 5. Conflict Resolution 6. Future Skills 7. Gender Equity 8. Inclusion and Accessibility 9. Indigenous Worldviews 10. Managing Stress/Mental Health
withreflection behaviors and academic performance. The results indicated a mastery approachsignificantly affected exam scores and the total number of reflections, while a performance-approach only affected exam scores [56]. The findings suggest that mastery-approach studentswould adopt self-reflection strategies at higher rates than performance-approach students. Asimilar pattern was found in a study of motivational orientations in pharmacy students and theirexam scores on multiple-choice and short-essay exams [57]. Findings indicated that the mastery-approach orientation correlates with higher scores on essay exams, while performance-avoidanceorientations correlate with lower scores on either exam type. These results align well with theliterature, as
, the study abroad program was given the green light, and the projectimplementation period in Costa Rica was three weeks. During the program, each student was required to write two journals: a technical one to detailtheir daily work and accomplishments and a second to reflect on their international and culturalexperience. Writing a technical journal can be a valuable way for students to reflect on their daily workand progress. It can also serve as a record of their accomplishments, which may be helpful whenpreparing resumes or applications in the future. Students can use the technical journal to describethe tasks they performed, the challenges they faced, and the strategies they used to overcomethose challenges. They can also reflect on
design as a result of feedback), and reflection (reflecting on design aspects ordesign decisions). The study also examined parent facilitation techniques during the engineeringexperiences and the ways in which older children demonstrated moments of agency duringinteractions with a parent at an interactive engineering exhibit [29].Moving beyond the designed informal learning context [30] of the museum, more recent work aspart of the Head Start on Engineering (HSE) Project and Research Exploring ActivityCharacteristics and Heuristics for Early Childhood Engineering (REACH-ECE) Project has goneon to explore how families engage in engineering across a number of different settings, includingcommunity programs, early education programs, and the home