Conference Session

Innovations in First Year Programs

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

James Lewis, University of Louisville; Jeffrey Hieb, University of Louisville; David Wheatley, University of Louisville

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

, analyzes, and reflects on intellectual work. These eight elements leadto eight categories of questions present in critical thinking: (1) what is the purpose, (2) what isthe question that is being answered, (3) what is the point of view, (4) what are the assumptions,(5) what are the implications, (6) what information is needed, (7) what inferences are being Page 15.798.3made, and (8) what is the most fundamental concept? The intellectual standards describe thecriteria used to evaluate the quality of the critical thinking and the intellectual traits are thecharacteristics associated with a mature critical thinker. For more information on the Paul

Conference Session

Research on the First Year I

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Javarro Russell, James Madison University; Olga Pierrakos, James Madison University; Megan France, James Madison University; Ronald Kander, James Madison University; Robin Anderson, James Madison University; Heather Watson, James Madison University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

largely unavailable,especially for PBL projects specific to undergraduate engineering.One reason for the unavailability of tools used for classifying PBL projects is the lack ofprogram and course assessment studies for those implementing PBL. PBL-driven assessmentshould (1) be based in a practice context, (2) reflect the students’ development from novice to anexpert practitioner, and (3) engage in self-assessment and reflection6. Assessment at the programand course level provides opportunities for engineering educators to assess the types of PBLprojects they are using. These assessment processes identify how well learning outcomes arebeing obtained by the students. By applying assessment methods to PBL projects andunderstanding how learning

Conference Session

Innovations in First Year Programs

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Thomas Curran, University College Dublin; Colleen Doyle, University College Dublin; Enda Cummins, University College Dublin; Kevin McDonnell, University College Dublin; Nicholas Holden, University College Dublin

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

years ago to reflect the wide scope of research andacademic activity within the discipline and particularly its relationship with biology and lifesciences. The move was also compatible with international trends towards “bio” engineeringtitles, especially in North America. It was considered that the new title for the undergraduateprogram offered the opportunity to integrate engineering and biology in a more explicit manner.After the successful outcome of an initial design competition1,3 to coincide with the retitledprogram name, it was considered timely to introduce a new academic module with a similarformat called “Biosystems Engineering Design Challenge”. It was decided that the focus shouldbe on designing and building a working bench-scale

Conference Session

Design in the First Year

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Richard Bennett, University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Will Schleter, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

Forms Page 15.1063.8To facilitate grading in a large class, much of the feedback from the projects is obtained by theuse of online forms. Each student is required to fill out an online form as part of their grade.The online forms are used both for students to record their data, as well as to reflect on theirperformance as a team.The first team project that the students accomplish is usually an estimation project (e.g. Paint theJumbotron Orange). The feedback form for this project focuses on the performance as a team.The questions asked are:  List all the members of your team.  Did your team choose a leader?  Did your team make a plan

Conference Session

Innovations in First Year Programs

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jeffrey Ringenberg, University of Michigan; Marcial Lapp, University of Michigan

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

fina inalists are chosen from the pool of lab section wininners by thecourse staff based upon the comm ments received and also on the quality of the preresentations.Once the period of online reflecti ction and finalist selection is complete, the two finalists fin deliverthe actual exam review lecture fo for the entire class. Once the teams finish, the class cl is given fiveto ten minutes to reflect on the prresentations with their peers while the course staff

Conference Session

Potpourri of First-Year Issues

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Rod Paton, University of Auckland; Chris Smaill, University of Auckland; Gerard Rowe, University of Auckland

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

attended the lectures, tutorials andlaboratory sessions of several engineering courses. He also enrolled in two university coursesin order to learn social-sciences research methods. The teacher’s focus was on the peerassessment, problem-solving and feedback used in lectures and tutorials to promote effectivelearning and encourage students to take responsibility for their own learning. Models(conceptual frameworks) were then constructed to reflect the actions of students and theinteractions students have with their lecturers and tutors. The result was a comprehensiveview of what is expected of first-year engineering students from a high school teacher’sperspective. This view, together with the data on which it was founded, is outlined in

Conference Session

Mentoring First Year Students

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Dan Budny, University of Pittsburgh; Alaine Allen, University of Pittsburgh; Jeremy Tartt, University of Pittsburgh

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

1 – 5 scalewas used, with a value of 1 students strongly disagreeing while the value 5 correlates to thestudents strongly agreeing). The results shown in Table 2 reflect a neutral response and that thestudents endured a relatively small degree of emotional strain from unacceptable grades duringhigh school. TABLE 2 – ENGINEERING STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE DURING HIGH SCHOOL. QUESTION #1 QUESTION #2 QUESTION #3 GENDER GENDER GENDER CLASSMEN M&F M

Conference Session

Service Learning and Societal Issues in the First Year

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

John K. Estell, Ohio Northern University; Kenneth Reid, Ohio Northern University; Jed Marquart, Ohio Northern University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

, we had many new ideas and ways to improve our final product."The informal observations of the authors are that student teams generally found the preparationof the posters to be time consuming, and that teams sought confirmation more with this activitythan with any other; for example, students more often asked “Is this right?” of their instructorsthrough this process than at any other time in the course. The assumption is that this was due tostudents having little to no prior experience preparing research posters. After the competition,students generally reflected that they wished they had been more organized, but now that theexpectations were known, it would be more straightforward if they had to repeat the process.Many teams described

Conference Session

Administering First-Year Programs

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Gretchen Hein, Michigan Technological University; Amber Kemppainen, Michigan Technological University; Susan Amato-Henderson, Michigan Technological University; Jason Keith, Michigan Technological University; Melissa Roberts, Michigan Technological University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

turbinecriteria that are listed in Table 3. The overall height of the design was to limit the materialsstudents must acquire, allow students to easily transport their design, and permit the design to betested in the IDEAS Center. Page 15.1372.9 Table 3. Wind Turbine Design/Construction Criteria Horizontal Axis Wind TurbineOverall Height: 3 ftTurbine Blade (minimum of 3 blades) that are 1 ft long with adjustable pitchAxis Hub must be non-reflective, black (for speed measurement)For testing, must be able to attach a string to the hub where the string will spool smoothly Vertical

Conference Session

Research on The First Year II

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Junqiu Wang, Purdue University; P.K. Imbrie, Purdue University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

the course assignments requires your team to meet regularly as well as have equal contributions from all members. For this evaluation you should reflect on the performance of hypothetical member of your team, Kris. During the team meetings, you noticed that Kris never came prepared. Furthermore, Kris did not work well with the other team members to complete assignments. Finally, while Page 15.1136.3 working on the course assignments, Kris's role on the team was never clear, which did not help ensure a synergistic effort by everyone else on the team. During the team meetings, you noticed that

Conference Session

Multidisciplinary First Year Programs

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Andrew Lowery, West Virginia University; Steve Kane, West Virginia University; Vicki Kane, West Virginia University; Robin Hensel, West Virginia University; Gary Ganser, West Virginia University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

No.NNG05GF80H. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those Page 15.820.2of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NASA or the NASA WV Space Grant Consortium.While improved student performance in calculus was the primary objective of this effort, theexperience of developing and implementing the math-engineering joint projects has resulted inimproved communication between both departments and has helped the math faculty see howstudents work in groups to discuss and solve problems and to create reports and presentations oftheir work. The interactive nature of these problems

Conference Session

Innovations in First Year Programs

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Zane Mitchell, University of Southern Indiana; Marco Lara Gracia, University of Southern Indiana; Ronald Diersing, University of Southern Indiana; Glen Kissel, University of Southern Indiana

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

start of the program the student had some background on the wind industry in generalfrom courses he took in high school and from reading independently articles related to theinstallation of wind farms in Indiana. However, what makes a difference in his case are hisability to work with numbers, his advanced analytical and problem solving skills and his interest,knowledge, and experience in computer programming. In addition to that, the student is able towork hard in an independent way which reflects his motivation. In projects of this naturecreativity is a critical and to date the student has delivered creative work.The student spent the first part of the summer reading material about the wind industryworldwide and eventually focused his

Conference Session

Potpourri of First-Year Issues

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

S. Scott Moor, Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

assignments or tests, or to ask questions IV. Performance Engagement 15. Getting a good grade 16. Doing well on the tests 12. Being confident that I can learn and do well in the classThe second part of the instrument used asks students directly for their reflections on the learningspace (Now they are asked for their opinion). The questions for this part of the survey areshown in Table 2. This includes four Likert-scaled items asking students to directly comparetheir experiences in the classroom of interest to other classrooms. These questions ask directlyabout interaction with other students and the instructor, time spent on group activities and time

Conference Session

Administering First-Year Programs

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Russell Korte, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; David Goldberg, University of Illinois, Urbana

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

intheir home departments. That these efforts were important and largely successful is reflected instudent blogs and the student presentations at iCheckpoint and iExpo; many of these studentcommunications discussed the missing basics, the iCommunity, the iTeams, and other iFoundryconcepts explicitly and favorably.Still, prior to iCheckpoint there was a palpable rise in student frustration—and faculty concern.At the end of September and beginning of October, students complained about the classwork, theprojects, the meetings, just about everything that was going on, but then something interestinghappened. First, in ENG100++, the steam turbine cars started to work. Then, at roughly thesame time, the students had to get their act together to present

Conference Session

Introducing Programming in the First Year

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Gregory Bucks, Purdue University; William Oakes, Purdue University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

and assessments that have been developed. The mostcommonly used within engineering is the Felder-Silverman learning styles model [4], with itsassociated assessment, the Index of Learning Styles (ILS). This model categorizes studentsbased on four dimensions, which characterize different aspects of student learning: sensingversus intuitive, visual versus verbal, active versus reflective, and sequential versus global. Interms of learning programming content, the two most important scales are the visual versusverbal scale and the sensing versus intuitive scale.There have been numerous studies that have looked at the learning styles preferences ofengineering students [5-7], and those preferences are consistent across populations [8]. Whatthese

Conference Session

Service Learning and Societal Issues in the First Year

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Brian Savilonis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute; David Spanagel, Worcester Polytechnic Institute; Kristin Wobbe, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

Engineering 15% 39% 60% 77% 60% Science/Math 80% 58% 30% 21% 31% Other 5% 3% 9% 2% 8%PTW was disproportionately male (77%), while GC tracked the gender ratio of the First Year Page 15.472.7class as a whole (see Table 3). HTW and FTW were disproportionately female relative to theentering class. We speculate that there are two not unrelated underlying reasons for the biases:the students select courses that reflect their disciplinary interests and/or the students choose

Conference Session

Design in the First Year

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Michael Pacella, University of Maryland, Baltimore County; Taryn Bayles, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

inexpensively and efficiently build something toaccomplish a set objective given a series of problem constraints. The design project alsorequires students to evaluate and reflect on not only their own work, but the work of theircolleagues in the class as well. The skills of synthesis and evaluation later becomecrucial as students progress through their years as upperclassmen and enter the researchor industrial fields. My own experience in undergraduate research and advancedengineering courses, particularly the senior design course, has clearly demonstrated this. The design project also fosters the development of communication skills in youngengineers. By working in diverse design groups of 4-6 students as part of a discussionsection of ~30

Conference Session

Design in the First Year

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Noelle Comolli, Villanova University; William Kelly, Villanova University; Qianhong Wu, Villanova University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

problems, which are open-ended, with more than one solution,to freshman[1]. Most freshman still learn by acquiring knowledge from the teacher, assumingthat all knowledge is a collection of facts that are right or wrong[2]. Therefore asking them toachieve the next leaving of learning that is required of engineering design is not an easy task. Felder and Silverman in their paper “Learning and Teaching Styles in EngineeringEducation” nicely laid out the need for a teaching style that benefits the majority of engineeringstudents involves some hands-on and reflective activity, not just lecture[3]. Active learning,especially problem based learning, has been shown effective at increasing student interest incourses, and improving their retention of

Conference Session

Service Learning and Societal Issues in the First Year

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Carol Sevier, Boise State University; Seung Youn Chyung, Boise State University; Cheryl Schrader, Boise State University; Janet Callahan, Boise State University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

develop a strong rapport with them. ≠ There are numerous opportunities for reflection including challenges working through the engineering design process and understanding their client and the challenges their disability creates for them.The engineering design process is new for most freshman engineering students. They often havelittle hands-on experience; many of their experiences have been textbook or computer-based.Students are required to brainstorm multiple design options and evaluate them as to which ismost likely to meet the project requirements, cost and schedule goals. They are encouraged todevelop prototypes using inexpensive, readily available materials including corrugatedcardboard, duct tape, PVC pipe and wire. These

Conference Session

Mentoring First Year Students

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Daina Briedis, Michigan State Univesity; Nathaniel Ehrlich, Michigan State University; Colleen McDonough, Michigan State University; Jon Sticklen, Michigan State University; Thomas Wolff, Michigan State University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation (NSF). The authors also wish to thank Karen Clark, Research Assistant,Institute for Public Policy and Survey Research, Office for Survey Research at MSU for hertimely and efficient programming, survey administration, and data retrieval. We are alsoindebted to Mr. Timothy Hinds, the instructor of EGR 100, who has generously allowed us touse his class as a contact point for the CF program.Bibliography1. Seymour, Elaine and Nancy M. Hewitt (1997). Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO, Westview Press.2. Keller, J.M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. Instructional-design theories and models: An

Conference Session

Research on The First Year II

Collection

2010 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Melissa Dagley-Falls, University of Central Florida; Michael Georgiopoulos, University of Central Florida; Cynthia Young, University of Central Florida

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

/TakingRetentionSeriously.pdf33. Habley, W. & McClanahan, R. (2004). What works in student retention. Retrieved June 26, 2007, from ACT,Inc. Web site: http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/reports/retain.html34. Braxton, J. M. & Hirschy, A. S. (2005). Theoretical developments in the study of college student departure. InA. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 61-87). Westport, CT: Praeger.35. Braxton, J. M. & Mundy, M. E. (2002). Powerful institutional levers to reduce college student departure.Journal of College Student Retention, 3(1), 91-118.36. Kitchener, K. (1986). The reflective judgment model: Characteristics, evidence, and measurement. In R. Mines& K. Kitchener (Eds.), Adult cognitive development. (pp. 76