diversity.4 The program consists of five classes,unique to the minor, that span across two academic years (4 semesters) and relies on the use ofcohort-based program structure, near-peer mentoring, and project-driven learning. The cohortstructure allows for close relationships to form, combatting the social isolation that historicallymarginalized students may feel in CS classes. Peer mentoring benefits students by offeringfurther academic, social, and professional development support within the program. Project-based learning provides strong ties to students’ major area(s) of study (primarily biology andbiochemistry) and supports students’ future success in fields that are becoming increasingly data-driven.1 Finally, the minor program courses focus
projects; completing Clifton Strengths testand individual career assessment before attending the class. For weekly classes, studentsparticipate in small and large group discussions to gain an understanding of course topics.Following the 50 min lecture, students participated in the post-lecture activities such as smallgroup peer reviews for reflective writing, discussion of the application of PM skills, and Q&Awith guest lecturers (see Table 1).Table 1. Course Content Week Course Topic Learning Activity 1 Introduction Icebreaker game 2 Project Charter Building project charter for thesis/ research
Activity Creation 2 review Peer assessment or review 121 Blended Learning Flipped classroom 89 Flipped ClassroomThe five tool types are directly from Section 21.5 of The Cambridge Handbook of ComputingEducation Research [22]. The tool types are (1) tools that support writing code, (2) games thatteach programming, (3) assessment and feedback tools, (4) code visualizers/simulators, and (5)E-Books.Re-examining motivations and challengesThe survey has been created by the research team but attempted to directly build and possiblyrecreate the findings of Hovey et al. [4]. The options, specifically for benefits and challengesquestions, come
group game design or problem-solving activities.Online students were asked to complete similar activities at home by themselves. Students wereasked to write reflections on the weekly activities. Both in-person students and online studentsparticipate in peer review of work products produced by other students or teams. The creators ofthe works being reviewed classified the reviews as meaningful or not useful. All studentsparticipated in the peer evaluation of the final 2D and 3D game products. A gamification andbadging system were introduced in the revised CIS 487 course. Table 1. The Weekly Topics and Activities for CIS 487 Week Software Engineering Topic Activities 1 Game Design Evaluation
onmindsets that are discipline-specific, including maker mindset [8] and the entrepreneurialmindset [9]. The extant literature on mindsets is abundant and highlights the need for relevantmindsets toward specific task performance [9] – [11].The term ‘research mindset’ has been used by some researchers [10]–[12], but has yet to beexplicitly defined. A few studies call out the presence of research mindset and the relatedconstruct of researcher identity [13], [14]. Efforts in this space aim to better understand howmindset plays a role as researchers engage in various research tasks like defining researchproblems, conducting literature reviews, designing and conducting experiments, writing upresults, and working on a research team. Research is a task, or
compriseundergraduate and graduate students at different stages of their studies, and all participatingstudents are graded and receive credit toward their degree for at least two years. Students choosefrom a wide variety of VIP teams based on personal interest. Participation in VIP teams providesthe time and context for students to [5]: • acquire in-depth experience and insights within their field of study; • learn and practice research and professional skills; • make substantial contributions to real-world projects; and • experience different roles on large, multi-disciplinary teams.The VIP structure provides opportunities for students to develop leadership and collaborationskills through peer support and peer management, which provide students
, and (3)benefitting from peer feedback. The study aims to supplement traditional teaching techniqueswith an entrepreneurial and multidisciplinary-minded project that helps students reinforce skillsthat are relevant for the globally connected world. The results indicate that the interventionsuccessfully motivated students to develop their communication and collaboration skills. Thefindings of this study showcase the effectiveness of entrepreneurially minded andcommunication-focused projects that engineering instructors should consider integrating intomid-level discipline specific engineering coursework.1. Introduction1.1 Problem Identification The global connectivity offered by modern technology brings numerous advantages toadvanced
perspectives.Quantitative Data:To triangulate the qualitative data collected through journal entries and open-ended surveyquestions, we collected and analyzed quantitative data regarding the students’ perceived impactof the DEI sessions. In the online post-survey, using a Likert-style scale, we asked students torank eight aspects of the RAMP program with regard to the following two questions: 1) Howsatisfied were you with the following RAMP program activities? and 2) What have youaccomplished by participating in the RAMP program?For the first question, the RAMP program activities ranked included the following: Calculus class,Calculus tutoring, Introduction to Engineering, Industry partner meetings, Near-peer mentors,Writing computer programs, DEI sessions, and
differentresults. For example, the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) [19]–[21] includes25 elements grouped into “Classroom design and implementation”, “Content”, and “Classroomculture”, each rated on a scale from 0 (never occurred) to 4 (very descriptive). The TeachingDimensions Observation Protocol (TDOP) [22], [23] identifies observed activities every twominutes, using codes such as “Lecturing while writing” and “Lecturing from pre-made visuals”.The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) [24] was adaptedfrom TDOP, and includes Peer Instruction practices such as “individual thinking/problemsolving” and “discuss clicker question in groups”. The Science and Engineering ClassroomLearning Observation Protocol (SEcLO) [25
from the peer-reviewed literature. Case Study summary: Student teams prepare a written Case Study summary in both courses (Appendix A2, B2), along with a list of references, recommended readings, and discussion questions. Policy Memo: Students choose an issue of interest to them and they write fully documented 2- 3-page policy memos. Case Briefs: Students read reviews of U.S. Supreme Court cases and summarize the cases in a standard case brief, including details on the facts, issue, holding, rationale, and opinions.Promoting critical thinking skills Addressing wicked problems requires astute critical thinking skills for “actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered
, including those who remain in theprogram after transfer, are supported with annual scholarships of up to $6000, depending onfinancial need. In addition to scholarship money, students participate in a variety of programactivities throughout the school year in the form of academic seminars, extracurricular events,professional development, faculty mentoring, peer mentoring, academic advising, andundergraduate research opportunities. Noteworthy elements of the program in years three and fourinclude 1) the selection and award of the fourth and final cohort entering the program, 2) atransition of leadership to a new principal investigator for the program at the two-college, and 3)the increase in number of students who have continued with the program
, a portfolio approach isalso being implemented this term. For the learning module materials, each student completes apre-exercise survey asking about their prior knowledge, provides evidence of their attempts toperform the exercise, and then writes a reflection about what they have learned.The opportunity has presented itself to use CATME [12] to create and assess student teams. Thissoftware, developed at Purdue University, has three elements: one for team creation, another forpeer evaluation, and a third for students to practice peer evaluation on “standardized studentteam members” which allows for some rater norming and reliability. This tool is not being usedin EG397 during the Spring 2023 term but is being examined for future
Next stepsDuring the Spring 2023 semester, we continued to support students as they progress on theirprojects. As of May 2023, we conducted three workshops to support students as they work onone of their final products, writing and presenting an academic paper. The first workshop wasfocused on tools to organize the literature review, such as summary tables and synthesis matrices(cf. [18]). The second workshop revisited the Message Box [22] to help teams think of theiraudience for the academic paper, and also provided an opportunity for peer review, which allowsfor critique and revision of their work, the sixth feature of gold-standard PjBL [19]. The thirdworkshop focused on effectively presenting research via spoken presentations and posters
institutions will be presented.IntroductionVirtual mentoring is not a new practice, it has been in existence for over 20 years [5], [6] [7], [8],[9]. The online setting can seamlessly connect undergraduate students across the country withmentors, and the GradTrack program was initially started in 2021 during the COVID-19pandemic. Virtual mentoring has also been shown to increase sense of community, STEMachievement, career self-efficacy, and drive to persist in mentors and mentees [10].The GradTrack mentoring structure is a scalable group and peer mentoring model, with 2graduate student mentors from Purdue with 5-7 URM undergraduate student mentees fromacross the United States and Puerto Rico joined in a mentoring circle. The second iteration of
University Press, 2014, pp. 601-632.[3] P. Sageev and C. J. Romanowski, "A Message from Recent Engineering Graduates in the Workplace: Results of a Survey on Technical Communication Skills," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 685-693, 2001.[4] C. A. Hubka et al., "A Writing in the Disciplines Approach to Technical Report Writing in Chemical Engineering Laboratory Courses," presented at the ASEE Annual Conference, Tampa, Florida, 2019. Available: https://peer.asee.org/32019[5] D. Miller and J. Williams, "Incorporating Peer Review Into The Che Laboratory," presented at the ASEE Annual Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2004. Available: https://peer.asee.org/13191[6] K. Wright and P. E. Slaboch
calls withinengineering for civic engagement, diversity, equity, inclusion, and social and environmentaljustice.IntroductionAn engineering instructor recently told us, “For those of us who were trained as engineers in the1980's and have taught the past 20 years, there's a bit of a Pavlovian response thatcommunication means writing.” Indeed, “communication = writing” is a widely accepted proofamong engineering instructors and is confidently echoed by engineering students when asked,“What is communication?” Those with broader perspectives include “and presenting” to theequation, but even some of the most experienced and open-minded engineers and engineeringprofessors we have met stop there. Engineering students, becoming competitive in
courseAbstractRecent years have shown increased success in the use of undergraduate students as teachingassistants or supplemental instructors in core chemical engineering courses. While typicallyutilized in traditional lecture-based courses, there is significant promise in utilizingundergraduate students as a peer resource in a lab-based course. This paper summarizes howundergraduate teaching assistants, referred to at Louisiana State University as coaches, wereintegrated into a junior level lecture/laboratory course. The course is designed to teachexperimental statistics in the lecture component (two days a week) with the students performingexperiments on three different unit operations (one day a week) for 3 four-week experimentalcycles. The main
breakdown of women and men responses in the above data(in Table 6). Figure 3 shows that despite women feeling very strongly (over 80%) about feelingbonded with classmates and peers, women strongly agree only 52% that they will have betterpeer support in classes upon return. However, the male students had higher percentage (75%) ofstrongly agreeing about expecting better peer support in classes upon return. Overall, 92% ofwomen (strongly agree and agree) left feeling they will have better peer support whereby the87.5% of males (strongly agree and agree). Figure 3: Women vs. Men Responses: bonding with classmates and impact on their networkingThe post-survey prompted students to enter free form response to the questions: “Write asummary of your
majors than peers who identify as men [6], [16]. This sectionhighlights three barriers to sense of belonging: negative faculty interactions, negative peerinteractions, and stereotype threat. Though it has clearly been established that sense of belonging is an important factor inretaining women undergraduate engineering students, there are some potential barriers that havebeen documented to prevent students from experiencing belongingness. Blair et al. found thatfaculty have the ability to positively or negatively impact women STEM majors’ success [17].Upon studying faculty in a variety of STEM programs, researchers identified three-primarypositions related to how faculty members approach the idea of gender equity: gender blindness,gender
in the areas of research, teaching, and service. LEGACY wasintentionally developed to prepare and diversify the next generation of engineering leaders inacademia. Rybarczyk et al. (2011) argue that postdoctoral training should include independentresearch experience, productivity in the form of peer-reviewed publications, and improvement inscholar’s skills in grant writing (Rybarczyk et al., 2011). To prepare scholars, LEGACY trainsscholars in grant creation and management, research program development, and career mapping.Additionally, as LEGACY Director, Dr. Cox works with scholars to independently brandthemselves using social and professional networks so that more people can learn about thescholar and their work. Scholars also receive
delivery oftechnical content.5. Major AssignmentsTechnical Summary: Each week the students are required to write up a technical summary. Thesummary should be 1-2 short paragraphs that describe a technical topic in the news that week.Students choose a topic that is aligned with their technical background. This exercise mimicssharing information over email with a manager or their peers about something the studentrecently read. The summary should use a common language, not techno-speak jargon, andhighlight what is novel about the topic in a concise and compelling manner.1-minute Challenge: Every two weeks the student is asked to stand in front of the class anddiscuss their technical summary from that week. Notes and slides are not permitted for
andalignment of the existing instrument with the needs, perspectives, and experiences of a diverseset of design instructors and design students; and revise the instrument to ensure its broaderapplicability across engineering contexts. Each co-creation workshop tasks participants to reflectbefore, during, and after the workshop on views of empathy in engineering design. The sessionsthemselves have involved peer dialogue, critique, and co-construction of empathy models.At the time of this writing, we have led two co-creation workshops, each including two separategroups based on scheduling needs. As an example, we share the design of the initial co-creationworkshop here. The first half of the initial co-creation workshop asked participants to respond
as a psychometrician, program evaluator, and data analyst, with research interests in spatial ability, creativity, engineering-integrated STEM education, and meta-analysis. As a psychometrician, she has revised, developed, and validated more than 10 instruments beneficial for STEM education practice and research. She has authored/co- authored more than 70 peer-reviewed journal articles and conference proceedings and served as a journal reviewer in engineering education, STEM education, and educational psychology. She has also served as a co-PI, an external evaluator, or an advisory board member on several NSF-funded projects. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023
focuses on involving postsecondary studentsto better their experiences at different levels, psychological and physical [1]. Instructors haveinvolved students in 1) individual and collaborative activities with hands-on, experiential,problem-based or inquiry-based components and 2) feedback strategies using peer feedback andinstructor feedback [2],[3]. These active learning and collaborative pedagogies enhanceinteraction and increase student engagement with content and peers and better learning andachievement in in-person, blended, and online STEM courses [4], [5], [3].Even with such innovative pedagogies and resulting higher grades, STEM students may feelunsatisfied with the course experience citing lack of interaction as the main reason [6
instead places it upon the student, allowing students to form theirown questions about topics, develop their own interpretations, and collaborate with their peers[2]. Osborn and Nag claim that this approach aligns better with both Maslow's Hierarchy ofNeeds as well as Bloom's Taxonomy of Thinking, and though limited in their exploration ofthese approaches, they have seen promising preliminary successes.When specifically discussing first-year engineering courses, it is important to consider factorsbeyond teaching and learning styles, such as the ability of students to build relationships withtheir peers. Research from Sorby, Monte, and Hein focuses on developing a common first-yearengineering program at Michigan Technological University. While
first of three primary assessments is a team project, segmented intoa project proposal, final team pitch, and final team report. Prior to beginning work on thisproject, students are given opportunities to work with a variety of peers during class activitiesand then given structured time during class to form a team of two or three total members. Thisproject provides students a framework for exploring problem spaces of which they share mutualcuriosity, developing multiple ideas to address this problem, discuss their ideas with experts,develop and deliver an inspiring pitch, and write a brief implementation plan and complete abusiness model outline.The second assessment is an active learning, peer teaching activity [7]. Students prepare a 15
learned, according to the students, was research methods, design research,teamwork, and communication. Finally, three peer-reviewed papers primarily written by studentspresented at international conferences demonstrate the program was successful in producingpublishable results.Keywords design education, design research, undergraduate research1. Design Education for Undergraduate Students Engineers increasingly work in new interdisciplinary fields of endeavor that addressorganizational challenges and societal issues related to public policy, sustainability, and economicdevelopment [1]. Although the challenges will change over time, engineers who can applyessential design skills can help people solve problems even as new technologies replace the
students in STEM (Ong et al., 2018; McGee, 2018), understanding how Black PhDstudents navigate their engineering studies could be particularly insightful in boosting the enrollment rateand retention. However, all the information related to engineering experiences are only disseminatedtraditionally in the form of peer-reviewed scholarly manuscripts, which has limited impact to those whochoose to read such literature. Given the current socio-political climate in the aftermath of two pandemics(i.e., racism-20 and COVID -19), greater awareness of the ways students from traditionally marginalizedgroups in higher education interact and make sense of their environments is of paramountimportance. Black students have shared stories of microaggressions
femalestudents impact the cultural climate in each engineering discipline?; 2) What is the male students’perception of the cultural climate for women in their engineering discipline?; 3) Is there adisconnect between the cultural climate female students experience and the perception malestudents hold of the cultural climate?; 4) What can be done to create meaningful changes to thecultural climate for women at the university level? To answer these questions, we designed asurvey and semi-structured interview for female and male engineering students across the threechosen engineering disciplines. Our study is consistent with the literature, finding that women arestill experiencing a chilly cultural climate due to peer tensions, gender discrimination, and
National Academy of Engineering. The S-STEM program engages students inan interdisciplinary approach to managing nitrogen that incorporates biology, geosciences, andengineering. The program integrated research opportunities, community engagement,coursework, and faculty and peer mentoring strategies to support student success. S-STEMscholars engage in biweekly meetings that include roundtables with scientists and engineers fromacademic, government and industry. Students also engage in presentations of their own thesisprojects, writing workshops, and discussions with community partners.ParticipantsTwelve graduate women students participated in this study. Although the program focuses onSTEM broadly, our participants account for graduate women