order to meet the requirements forparticipation, the students had to be taking their first semester of coursework in the engineeringprogram. Participants were asked to complete interviews and surveys at the end of the fall andspring semesters. The interviews and surveys had participants reflect on their experiences in theirmath, science, and engineering classes and involvement in engineering activities. Questions fromthe interviews were based on the previously discussed models of affect and engineering identity.This study uses data from the first two semesters. A total of 17 participants completed the firstround of interviews and 13 participants completed the second interview. Three participantsillustrating a range of strengths in their
language and cultural resources and how students draw on differentsets of talk depending on the context, whether near or distal from the activity at hand. It contendsthat without a deeper understanding of the role of non-dominant ways of speaking in the act ofbecoming and belonging, efforts to diversify engineering will remain elusive. Ultimately, thispaper summarizes these ideas through a conceptual model for engineering learning environmentsthat value and leverage the resources that students bring from their communities. By creatingmore equitable and socially just solutions, engineering education can better serve the needs ofdiverse populations and ensure that the profession is truly reflective of the communities it serves.Keywords: language and
average grade forgroup A. The blue bars represent anonymous exams, while the red bars indicate non-anonymousexams. As noted earlier, the final exam had a lower average score, which is reflected across the 3ethnicities shown. Figure 4 also shows that anonymizing the exam leads to performanceimprovement for Ethnicity 2. Ethnicities 1 and 3 showed no difference. Figure 4: The average grade by ethnicity for the 4 exams considered for Group A in Class A. The error bars represent the standard error. Group A started with anonymous exams and then switched. Figure 5: The average grade by ethnicity for the 4 exams considered for Group B in Class A. The error bars represent the standard error. Group B started with non
the engineering school. Please note thatthe collection of the 2020 survey data was completed just before the breakout of the COVID-19pandemic in March 2020 in North America; thus the data reflected the student experiences priorto the pandemic.The bulk of these data sets were from the National Student Engagement Survey (NSSE) data thatthe university collected on a three-year basis (that is, 2017 and 2020 data). We included the 5following variables from the NSSE data into our study: 10 engagement indicators that fall underfour themes (i.e., academic challenge, learning with peers, experience with faculty, and campusenvironment),1 six variables
-making process that maynot have emerged organically (Crandall et al., 2006). The questions in the fourth sweep arebroadly divided into four categories, 1) expert-novice contrasts, 2) hypotheticals, 3) experience,and 4) aids. Question prompts include, "Would a novice have noticed the same cues you did inthis situation?" or "How could additional training have offered an advantage here?"(Crandall etal., 2006). Some of the prompts are skipped if they were covered in earlier discussions on theproblem.At the conclusion of the CDM, the interviewers determine if enough information has beencollected to satisfy the eight dimensions of KAM. Reflecting on the results of the interview sofar, the interviewers determine which of these dimensions require
, or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.References[1] H. Okahana, C. Klein, J. Allum, and R. Sowell, “STEM Doctoral Completion of Underrepresented Minority Students: Challenges and Opportunities for Improving Participation in the Doctoral Workforce,” Innov High Educ, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 237–255, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10755-018-9425-3.[2] R. Sowell, J. Allum, and H. Okahana, Doctoral Initiative on Minority Attrition and Completion. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools, 2015.[3] B. M. Gayle, D. Cortez, and R. Preiss, “Safe Spaces, Difficult Dialogues, and Critical Thinking,” ij-sotl, vol. 7, no. 2, Jul. 2013, doi: 10.20429/ijsotl
generated will be valuable for educationalpolicy, philanthropic support, and employer decisions, guiding strategic investments in designand fabrication studios to enhance workforce skills development. This study has two parts; thefirst employs qualitative methods, consisting of interviews and focus groups with over 48students, 15 alumni and 15 employers to identify common themes that reflect makerspaces’impacts on students’ careers. From this data, we aim to create a universal framework forassessing the link between makerspace experiences and career readiness across diverseinstitutions and studios. The second part of the iterative study will consist of the development ofa quantitative survey instrument utilizing this grounded, qualitatively
StatisticsThe descriptive statistics provide insights into the participants’ characteristics and perceptions inthe study. Cumulative GPA, a measure of academic performance, shows a mean of 3.63 (SD =0.350) out of 4.00, indicating that participants generally achieved high levels of achievement.Personality traits such as Extraversion and Task control, which were rated on a 7-point scale,reflect the participants’ tendencies in group settings. The mean of 4.52 (SD = 1.418) forExtraversion indicates a propensity to actively contribute in groups, while the mean of 3.69 (SD= 1.442) for Task control suggests a balanced approach to task delegation. The mean of 7.60 on a9-point scale (SD = 1.52) indicates positive perceptions of team members’ contributions
to their team, which can help or hurt the team's productivity. The course instructor is not involved in most team interactions and, thus, is less equipped to judge the influence of individual students on team dynamics. Peer evaluation tools fill this gap by eliciting feedback from the people most familiar with the team (i.e., team members). This process informs the instructor about team dynamics and helps teams improve their dynamics and performance [17].To utilize peer evaluation opportunities to improve team performance and reflect on areas ofindividual growth, students must be familiar with desirable teamwork behaviors and must be ableto clearly communicate constructive feedback to their peers. Unfortunately, it is rare for peerfeedback
engineering professoriate, and leveraging institutional data to support reflective teaching practices. She has degrees in Electrical Engineering (B.S., M.Eng.) from the Ateneo de Davao University in Davao City, Philippines, where she previously held appointments as Assistant Professor and Department Chair for Electrical Engineering. She also previously served as Director for Communications and International Engagement at the Department of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech, Lecturer at the Department of Engineering Education at The Ohio State University, and Assistant Professor at the Department of Integrated Engineering at Minnesota State University, Mankato. She holds a Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Virginia
learning in your academic setting (pp. 93-110). Society for the Teaching of Psychology.[12] S. Freeman et al., "Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, vol. 111, no. 23, pp. 8410-8415, May 2014, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111[13] S. Anwar and M. Menekse, “Unique contributions of individual reflections and teamwork on engineering students’ academic performance and achievement goals,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 36, no. 3, Art. no. 3, 2020.[14] S. Anwar, "Role of different instructional strategies on engineering students' academic performance and motivational constructs," 2020.[15] A. I. Leshner, "Student-centered, modernized graduate
to advance equity and inclusion, and using data science for training socially responsible engineers.Muhammad Ali Sajjad, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York First year, first semester PhD student in Engineering Education at University at Buffalo. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Work in progress: stigma of mental health conditions and its relationship to conditions’ knowledge and resource awareness among engineering students.AbstractThis work in progress paper considers intergroup contact theory to explore how increasedawareness of mental health resources and heightened contact with people living with MHCsamong engineering undergraduate students reflect in lower
, andthe environment is also vitally important. There is increasing recognition among engineers,educators, and industry leaders of the importance of preparing engineers to account for thesesociocultural dimensions [1]-[4]. We use the term “sociotechnical dimensions” or “practices” torefer to social or contextual factors such as ethics, engagement with stakeholders, and therecognition of power and identity and their role in engineering broadly. Environmental factorssuch as sustainability and the potential future impacts of engineering work are also categorizedas sociotechnical dimensions as they draw attention to possible consequences to the naturalenvironment. A call for broader engineering skills is reflected in the Accreditation Board
, there was a lull in 2020 with no articles published, which could be attributedto a variety of external factors affecting academic research output globally. However, a steadyrecovery is observed with one publication each in 2021 and 2022, culminating in a significantsurge to nineteen articles in 2023. This dramatic increase reflects a burgeoning interest and apossible inflection point in research on generative AI applications within the realm of engineeringeducation, possibly propelled by increased digitalization and technological dependence in learningenvironments post-2020. Such a trend not only signifies a growing scholarly focus on integratingAI into engineering pedagogy but also suggests a robust engagement from the academiccommunity in
0.495 Positive little, javascript 4 0.361 Positive learning, engineer 3 0.12 Positive science, engineering 3 0.523 Positive engineering, math 3 0.695 Positive machine, learning 3 0.12 Positive engineering, course 2 0.122 PositiveRQ3: How do social media user sentiments vary when they discuss about engineeringprofession?Table 3 reflects positive sentiments in discussions on professional education
women and BLIstudents often leverage a deficit-based approach, which frames students as the subjects that needto be fixed rather than systems that perpetuate inequities [39], [40]. Ultimately, a deficit frameworkfails to acknowledge the larger ecological context in engineering that shapes student experiencesand the development of their identities as engineers.Theoretical Framework Our research questions seek to identify a variable structure for predicting first-year studentengineering identity recognition by self and others. Engineering role identity reflects the ways inwhich students describe themselves as the kind of people who can do engineering [41] and consistsof three constructs: interest in the subject, beliefs about the ability
teaching approach, weleverage the insights of the HPL framework to explore how undergraduate engineering studentsinteract with data skills in relation to the HPL elements when reflecting on their own data skillslearning experiences. Our interview protocol, guided by the HPL framework, delves into studentperspectives on self-reflection, knowledge acquisition, and assessment related to data skills.4. METHODS4.1 Participant Recruitment and Selection.In this study conducted at a southeastern United States institution, 177 students completed arecruitment survey. All interested mechanical engineering (ME) students were automaticallyselected, as only a small number of participants were ME students. Meanwhile, interestedaerospace engineering (AE) students
are reflected in numerous publications and presentations at prestigious IEEE; ASEE conferences, Wiley’s & Springer Journals. His research primarily revolves around understanding Cognitive Engagement Analysis, Assessing Methods in Engineering Education, and Facial Expressions (emotions) in the Learning process. He is a member of various technical committees, serving as a reviewer for esteemed journals and international conferences including ASEE, Springer (JAIHC) , JCEN, and IEEE Transaction on Education. His commitment to advancing education, paired with his extensive academic and professional experiences, positions him as a promising researcher in engineering education.Dr. Angela Minichiello, Utah State
credits enrolled in a specific semester. They also alluded to types of assignments,such as homework and exams, which could amplify learners’ academic stress [4]. This is not onlyreflected in the number of students who listed ‘academic stress’ when thinking about workload,but also in some reflections from faculty members. (Student workload) is the time that all academic work entails in a given period of time. It includes study, classes, workshops, exercises, etc. It includes direct work (classroom or tutored) and indirect work (self-employed). But it is also affected by their personal lives and their conditions, such as: work, people in their care, travel distance, socioeconomic conditions, sports, etc. (Faculty, RS3
, ensuring a personalized match in research interests.The coordination team's efficacy is evident in the program's 100% placement rate last year,successfully pairing students with appropriate mentors and projects, reflecting a keenunderstanding of both student and faculty needs.A key aspect of the program is its dual focus on hands-on research and educational seminars.Students engage directly in real-world research under expert guidance, applying classroomtheories to practical scenarios, fostering innovation and inquiry. Concurrently, weekly seminarscover essential topics like research ethics, intellectual property rights, IRB and IACUCprotocols, and grant writing skills, and technology transfer.The program’s holistic structure develops not just
interviews, starting in week six of their co-opterm and concluding in the final, 16th week. The first interview asked them to reflect on the firstsix weeks of their term. Interviews two through nine had them reflect on the previous week’sevents, and any ongoing design issues that they worked on over several weeks that were still thefocus of their attention. In the final week, the participants were asked to reflect on their overallexperience of designing that term, and what they learned over their co-op. Altogether, thisresulted in a dataset of 772 minutes of transcribed interview data, with an average of 257 minutesof transcript per participant.The interview transcripts were analyzed using an iterative thematic analysis approach [22]. Thedataset was
significant increase from the 17.8% recorded in 2010[1]. However, this growth has not been reflected in the workplace. Between 2001 and 2019, thenumber of women engineers in the workforce only rose from about 10% to 14% [2]. Theunderrepresentation of women is particularly pronounced in mechanical, electrical, and computerengineering, with only 17.5%, 15.6%, and 20.4% of bachelor’s degrees in these fields awarded towomen [1]. Furthermore, women represent only 9%, 10%, and 12% of working engineers inthese respective fields [3].For underrepresented minorities, the statistics are even more dismal. Bachelor’s degrees inengineering awarded to Black or African American individuals have risen only slightly from4.5% in 2010 to 4.7% in 2021 [1]. Hispanics now
Paper ID #44474Work-in-Progress: Human Capital Formation as a Framework for Entrepreneurshipand Venture Design EducationDr. Helen L. Chen, Stanford University Helen L. Chen is a Research Scientist in the Designing Education Lab in Mechanical Engineering and co-founder of the Integrative Learning Portfolio Lab in Career Education at Stanford University. She earned her undergraduate degree from UCLA and her PhD in Communication with a minor in Psychology from Stanford. Her scholarship is focused on engineering and entrepreneurship education, portfolio pedagogy, reflective practices, non-degree credentials, and reimagining how
Indiacoming in second with 21.05%, Mexico with 10.53%, and all other countries with 5.26%. Theresults of the first authors' affiliation country distribution in the mental health field in engineeringeducation research point to an American source for this kind of work. It is crucial to recognize anypotential biases in these results. The inclusion criterion of articles written only in English is onesignificant factor that may distort the representation of nations and thus artificially increase theamount of research from the United States. Moreover, the apparent dominance of Americanresearch may not fully reflect the amount of funding or involvement that practitioners in othercountries have given to research on mental health in engineering education
mathematicians. He instituted similar study groups forAfrican-American students, which turned the tide on their high failure rates. Treisman’s modelhas been implemented in universities nationwide since, with consistently powerful effects,including at the University of Texas, Austin, where he currently teaches.Despite the demonstrated success of PLSGs over the past 40 years, we have yet to find empiricalevidence that the model's effectiveness has resulted from peer interactions. The current studysought to capture peer discussion features reflective of discipline-based cognitive processing. Wehypothesized that when group members asked questions and had discussions at higher levels ofthe cognitive processing dimension of Bloom’s revised taxonomy, a tool
learning, enabling students to comprehend, reflect, and apply their learning toward solving new problems. Al- though critical thinking could be used toward solving challenging problems, it is sometimes considered as a similar concept of “challenging level” among students and instructors. This study aims to investigate this similarity issue by evaluating students’ opinions based on critical thinking, and challenging level of course as- signments in computer and software engineering courses. Students are asked to rank each assignment based on how much each assignment stimulated their critical think- ing, and how much it challenged them. Moreover, instructors provide their opinions about critical components of each course assignment for
were also encouraged to conduct a class debriefingsession related to the questionnaire content as either an orientation or reflection, at the beginningor end of the course, respectively. Because it was conducted as a class activity, it was permittedthat all students would complete the items; however, student assent and parent consent wereneeded for student data to be included in our analysis.Student ParticipantsExamining the construct validity of the questionnaire was conducted in two stages, first for EFA,then for CFA. The data for each stage were drawn from consenting student responses to the itemsat 6 high schools in consecutive years. In the first year, nearly 500 students were enrolled in theclasses, but the number of fully consenting
enhancingteamwork skills among STEM students, underscoring the importance of behavioral theory ineducational strategy development.IntroductionTeamwork in STEM education holds paramount significance as it mirrors the collaborativenature of modern professional workplaces. STEM field involves solving complex problems thatrequire multidisciplinary approaches with effective teamwork [1]. This necessity is reflected inthe curriculum of STEM education, which frequently incorporates project work and groupassignments to simulate real-world challenges. These educational strategies are not just aboutteaching technical skills; they are also about fostering an environment where students learn tocollaborate effectively, share ideas, negotiate solutions, and manage group
understanding of how the design problem-solving behaviors ofundergraduate engineering participants differ based on their levels of spatial ability while, whysuch differences exist and how they might affect their learning outcomes is yet to be known. Futureresearch provide us some insight into it.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis work was made possible by a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF #2020785).Any opinions, findings, and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material arethose of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. 11REFERENCES 1. R. Gorska and S. Sorby, "Testing instruments for the
interactions. Again, this section reflects the NSF emphasis on working cohesively acrossdifferent institutions, disciplines, and areas of expertise to solve large, complex problems.Section 3. Culture of Inclusion Items: Respondents are presented with 11 items, based on theliterature, that measure feelings of inclusion within a group. When we present the visual forcommunicating about the survey below, we will discuss the evidence in support of using it. In the2022 survey, these items were presented to each respondent randomly. The reason for this was todetermine if these 11 items still fell into two factors as they did in 2021, even when not presentedtogether as sets of items.Section 4: Recruiting and Mentoring Activities: In previous iterations of the