research courses could also considerincluding references related to the dissertation writing process (e.g., institutional templates, writing centerinformation, online resources) to better prepare students for the transition to the writing phase of theirdoctoral program. Finally, gatherings could be offered for those students in the writing phase (e.g.,,writing retreat or writing day) to provide a space for them to share with their peers and make meaningfulprogress on their dissertation.Future work will focus upon completing interviews with doctoral students of the program during theSpring 2024 semester to better understand the results obtained about their experiences and perceptions ofcoursework and research activities (i.e., pre-writing and
feedback quality (Task, Gap, and Action) forstudents who received the intervention, with the largest gain in students writing peer commentswith more actionable feedback We also found a significant difference in the length of peerfeedback comments between the class with the intervention and the class without theintervention. However, throughout data analysis, we observed gaps in our chosen framework,and as such, we are developing and testing an improved rubric to quantitatively rate studentfeedback. This paper will help instructors learn an approach toward aiding students in writingactionable feedback, improving the overall quality of qualitative peer comments. Further, wepresent the development of a rubric that can be used to assess peer feedback
can change the ways we collaborate, learn, read, and write. Teaching engineering communication allows her to apply this work as she coaches students through collaboration, design thinking, and design communication. She is part of a team of faculty innovators who originated Tandem (tandem.ai.umich.edu), a tool designed to help facilitate equitable and inclusive teamwork environments.Mark Mills, University of Michigan Mark Mills (he/him) is a Data Scientist on the Research & Analytics team at University of Michigan’s Center for Academic Innovation. He directs and supports analytics across CAI’s portfolio of educational technologies. His experience is in prediction and classification of longitudinal and hierarchically
Paper ID #40991Board 76: Expansion of Peer Tutoring Program to In-Class Sessions in MultipleDisciplinesDr. Cara J Poor P.E., University of Portland Dr. Poor teaches many of the integral undergraduate civil engineering courses at University of Portland, including hydraulics, fluids, and environmental engineering. Dr. Poor is a licensed professional engineer with ongoing research in green infrastructure. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Expansion of Peer Tutoring Program to In-Class Sessions in Multiple DisciplinesAbstractPeer tutoring has been used for
Iron Range Engineering on the Mesabi Range College Campus. 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 of Engineering.” Darcie holds a Master of Engineering degree in Environmental Engineering (2019) and Bachelor of Science degree in Biological Engineering (2017), both from Utah State University. She is passionate about student success and support, both inside and outside of the classroom.Dr. Elizabeth Pluskwik, Minnesota State University, Mankato Elizabeth leads the Engineering Management and Statistics competencies at Iron Range
their identities in cis-heteronormative and masculine society andengineering spaces [12], nonbinary students in higher education experience frequent gender-based discrimination [11], microaggressions [13], and even fear of victimization in hostileenvironments [14]. Frequent exposure to hostile environments can result in nonbinary studentsexperiencing heightened levels of minority stress [15], [16], isolation [17], depression andanxiety [18]. Unsurprisingly, trans* and gender nonconforming students have 10% lower rates ofretention than cisgender and heterosexual peers, while LGBQ students have 7% lower rates ofretention than cisgender and heterosexual peers [19].It is well established that support networks created for cisgender students promote
ethical decision-making as they are carried out into deliberate discourse in asocial space amongst peers. To investigate the SIMDE framework, students were asked tosolve a professional AI ethics problem in a dilemma-based seven-step learning activity.The qualitative results of this paper examine how constructs in the SIMDE conceptualframework were present in student responses, and what students learned from peerdiscourse that led them to either justify their gut-reaction decision or change their mind.We found that students are impacted by perspective-taking, they use reasoning to defendtheir position rather than seek and appraise truth, and moral self-reflection helps themlearn more about themselves. Moreover, even when students learn new
research interests include STEM+C education, specifically artificial intelligence literacy, computational thinking, and engineering.Junaid Qadir, Qatar University Junaid Qadir is a Professor of Computer Engineering at Qatar University, Doha, Qatar, where he leads the IHSAN Research Lab. His research interests include computer systems, networking, machine learning applications, and ICT for development (ICT4D). With over 150 peer-reviewed publications in leading journals such as IEEE Communication Magazine and IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, he has received prestigious teaching awards and research grants from organizations like Facebook Research and Qatar National Research Fund. Junaid Qadir is also an ACM
afriendly and encouraging environment for female undergraduate students. Some of the reasons are:(1) Female students are not invited to join a team of male students.(2) Female students feel shy or discouraged from joining a team.(3) Female students are assigned note-taking or report-writing tasks, while male students work inteams on computing and project development.(4) The team members may not consider Female students' ideas or suggestions.(5) Teams schedule their meetings on days/times at a location that female students do not prefer.(6) Course instructors do not observe the team dynamics, so they are unaware of female students'struggles and challenges in teams and fitting into the profession.(7) The course instructor/male students are biased
. When a member of your team asks about the resolution to the design concerns, the P.E. tells your colleague that if they raise the concern again the P.E. will have them fired. [Question 1. Likert scale, responses choices: very unethical, somewhat unethical, neither ethical or unethical, somewhat ethical, very ethical] Please select the response that best describes how you interpret the ethics of this scenario. • [Q01.1] How ethical do you think it is for the P.E. to act this way? • [Q01.2] How ethical would your peers think it is for the P.E. to act this way? • [Q01.3] How ethical would current engineering professionals think it is for the P.E. to act this way?Scenario 2: Code SharingHaving been edited since the
improvegender-based performance. However, this could also be due to the sampling bias.The analysis from the second class showed similar trends; hence, we do not elaborate on theresults from the second class here.Summary: We draw two conclusions from our evaluation. First, we observe that anonymousgrading can lead to better grades for certain ethnicities (Ethnicity 2). Secondly, we observe thatanonymous grading does not lead to better grades when considering gender. Figure 7: Grade differences between two genders considered for the two groups.Potential PitfallsWe have found three main limitations of our study. 1) Writing style: The assessments we are considering are handwritten in-person submissions. Some identifiers, like handwriting or
and importance of keeping studentsengaged and motivated, effective teaching philosophy, and the importance of inclusion regardingstudent diversity. This scale included nine items.Course Design & Delivery scale measured participants’ perceptions of their ability to incorporateeffective teaching practices, writing student learning outcomes, course design and implementation.This scale also included aspects like designing and implementing blended classes, catering forstudents with diverse needs, etc. Eight items were a part of this scale. Table 1. Overview of Scales within the Instrument Scale (# of items) Definition Example Items The Teaching- Students
Engineering at Pennsylvania State University. She earned her B.S. in Chemistry from The University of South Dakota, her M.S. in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering and her PhD in Engineering Education from Purdue University. Her research expertise lies in characterizing graduate-level attrition, persistence, and career trajectories; engineering writing and communication; and methodological development.Prof. Karen A. Thole, Pennsylvania State University Karen A. Thole is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering and the Department Head of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering at the Pennsylvania State University.She was recognized by the White House for being a Champion of a Change in her efforts to help establProf
and scholarly approach. The structured framework has guided the comprehensiveexamination of relevant literature in a manner reflective of best practices in scholarly writing. Thereview used research databases, search strings, and inclusion criteria for an unbiased search toprovide a narrative description that elaborates meaning full story about the existing research in thisfield.Search ProcedureMultiple search databases were queried to select papers to write a literature survey. EBSCO host,Wiley Library, and IEEE Xplore databases were selected because they provide the advanced searchoption to apply practically identical search strings to select papers to ensure that the chosen papersalign with the objectives and focus of your research. EBSCO
either experiences with mentors, peers, and/or other instructors as having influenced theirprocess of preparation, though a large portion of respondents specified that interactions withinstructors influenced their process of preparation, but not peers or mentors. Many respondentsdescribed their experiences in seeking and receiving feedback as a TA from both peers and mentorsas beneficial. A few respondents stated that no one has helped them prepare. Regarding concernsfor a career in academia, many expressed worries regarding the pressures of research, potentiallack in work-life balance, low salaries, and the difficulties of finding a faculty position.Additionally, some expressed concerns regarding the culture of academia; including factors
and Use Committee (IACUC), and grant writing and proposalpreparation. Additionally, a session on technology transfer is provided.A mid-term report is due after 4 weeks, and at the end of the program a presentation poster is tobe presented to the public, faculty, and fellow students, with a demonstration of the projectdesigned.The program has been successfully conducted in the summers of 2022 and 2023, with intentionsto proceed into summer 2024. The current year's participation data is encouraging, featuring 31undergraduate students, which constitutes 10% of the school's undergraduate body. Thedistribution across academic years includes 3 seniors, 8 juniors, 14 sophomores, and 6 freshmen.Fairfield University's summer research initiative
what we consider to be higher-level research tasks. (Ten of 12 studentsresponded to the pre survey, while nine responded to the post survey. Seven responded to both.)Initially, students reported they were “somewhat” or “very” comfortable in their ability to dogeneral tasks such as “working independently,” “problem solving in general,” and “managing mytime.” This is contrasted with their lower initial comfort levels in doing more specific—perhapshigher-level—research skills , such as “defending an argument when asked questions,”“identifying limitations of research methods and designs,” “understanding journal articles,” and“writing scientific reports and papers.” Following the REU program, however, the resultsshowed a change. On average, they
– Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Joint Program.Catherine G. P. Berdanier, Pennsylvania State University Catherine G.P. Berdanier is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Pennsylvania State University. She earned her B.S. in Chemistry from The University of South Dakota, her M.S. in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering and her PhD in Engineering Education from Purdue University. Her research expertise lies in characterizing graduate-level attrition, persistence, and career trajectories; engineering writing and communication; and methodological development. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Exploring Engineering Graduate Students’ Perceptions of
, Credible, Emotion, Structure) and the OCAR structure (Opening, Challenge, Action, Resolution) form Writing Science. ● Draft your story: The majority of the workshop was used as time for the undergraduates to create drafts of their stories. They were reminded to think about their audience -- who do you want to tell your story to? And reminded that they could choose to tell a story about their experience working on the institutional change project, another story about their undergraduate experience, or a story about experiences that led them to choose to study a STEM field for their major. ● Peer feedback: Students read their stories aloud, and gave each other feedback (in some cases, they asked each other questions
transcripts using a dual approach that incorporates bothChatGPT and traditional human analysis techniques.Data AnalysisThe research team created the ARM Development Guidelines to streamline the quick ARMmethod-based analysis as follows: Write a short (~1-2 pages) Analytic Research Memo (ARM) about any noteworthy codes that emerged from your coding. Potential things to keep in mind as you write your ARM include: • Who is this interviewee? How do they self-identify (both with regards to their engineering identities and their non-engineering identities)? • How do they explain or justify their identities? • How do they perceive engineering? Does this perception relate to how they see themselves as engineers (or not see themselves as
writing and communication; and methodological development.Dr. Julio Urbina, Pennsylvania State University JULIO V. URBINA, Ph.D. is a Professor in the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at The Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Julio Urbina received his BSEE degree from Universidad Nacional de Ingenieria, Lima, Peru, in 1990, and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign in 1996 and 2002, respectively. He has worked at Jicamarca Radio Observatory, Arecibo Observatory, and University of Arkansas. Dr. Urbina’s research has used radio and radar technologies to study the Earth’s middle and upper atmosphere. He conducts research in RF and
of Central Florida Professor Hyoung Jin Cho is the Associate Chair of the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Central Florida. He coordinates two undergraduate programs – B. S. Mechanical ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Paper ID #43410Engineering and B. S. Aerospace Engineering. He has published over 130 peer-reviewed journal andproceeding papers. He has 12 and 6 patents granted in the U.S. and Korea, respectively, in the areas ofsensors, microfluidic devices, and micro/nanofabrication. His current research focus is on miniaturizedenvironmental sensors and sample
writing, hands-on work, programming, and more. This allowed eachof us to take on roles aligned with our capabilities and learn from each other's expertise. Ibenefited greatly from collaborating with peers who could fill my gaps and enhance mystrengths”. Another student captured the essence of interdisciplinary learning: "I really enjoyhaving research in a team... I can also see more different research fields closely becausedifferent students may have a different research focus." These comments illustrate the richnessof learning and innovation that arises from a mixture of diverse viewpoints and experiences.Positive mentorship dynamics: The role of mentors in shaping the team experience was aunique aspect. Reflecting on the impact of mentorship, a
andlearning. The use of students as observers for college teaching brings a unique and valuableperspective to the evaluation process. This observation approach offers benefits for the studentobservers, instructors, and the overall teaching enhancement mission of institutions. One of themain benefits of student observer programs is that they provide instructors with an opportunity toreceive constructive and formative feedback on their teaching from a different perspective thantheir peers or their students. By observing, recording, and possibly discussing these aspects withthe instructors, student observers can provide authentic insights into the effectiveness of teachingmethods and offer real-time, firsthand constructive feedback for improving
compared to that of the topic-quiz reflection. These results might beexplained by the fact that students were requested to write a 1-page reflection for both the topicquiz and DYOP. It is reasonable that for some levels to increase, others must decrease. Sinceproblems designed by students on the DYOP were of similar complexity as those they completedon quizzes, a decrease in percent coverage at the Understand and Apply levels indicates lessemphasis placed on engagement at these levels during reflection rather than less engagement atthem. Indeed, it would be difficult for students to engage at the Analyze level without first havingengaged fully in the Understand and Apply levels. The decrease in N/A (-20.6%), however, can beattributed to a decrease
developing feedback literacy. The framework also draws from Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick's [20] principles of good feedback practice, emphasizing the role of peer and self-assessment in feedback processes. In the context of Scrum, this dimension reflects the framework's collaborative nature, where feedback sources are not limited to the traditional instructor-student dynamic but include peers and self-reflection [22]. 2. Feedback Timing: Timeliness in feedback is highlighted by Hattie and Timperley's [19] model of effective feedback, which emphasizes the importance of immediate feedback in learning processes. This aspect is mirrored in the Scrum methodology, where regular sprint reviews and retrospectives [23] provide
-level attrition, persistence, and career trajectories; engineering writing and communication; and methodological development. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024A longitudinal investigation of international graduate students’ first-year experiences inU.S. engineering programsKeywords: Attrition, longitudinal study, SMS, time series data, International doctoral students,EngineeringAbstractThe purpose of this full research paper is to explore international engineering graduate students’experiences in U.S. graduate programs through one year of short message service (SMS) (i.e., textmessage) survey data. Although international graduate students constitute a high proportion ofengineering students in
identify meaningful and recurrent aspects of disabled students’ experiences inengineering from the transcribed interviews. The second round of coding used pattern coding toorganize aspects of these experiences into sub-themes. Presented in this paper are aspects relatedto intersectionality within two of the co-researchers’ disabled identities. The research team employed multiple measures throughout the research process to buildtrustworthiness and quality (Tracy, 2010; Saldaña, 2016). During all stages of the researchprocess, we carefully reflected on our positionalities and how they could influence and/or biasthe work. We met multiple times throughout the data analysis and writing process to providediverse perspectives, interrogate our
and program leadership team have been continuously improving the course interms of structure, teaching materials, etc. since it’s first offered in 2018. Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is an Artificial Intelligent (AI)language model developed by OpenAI. Since 2018, it has gone through four iterations ofdevelopment, from GPT-1 to GPT4 [5]. When the authors asked how ChatGPT defined itself, itadded, “It is designed to generate human-like text based on the input it receives, specifically builtto understand and produce text that can mimic human writing styles across various genres andtopics” [6]. ChatGPT (GPT-3) made its public debut in late 2022, it did not immediately strikethe academic world as applicable but was more
students with motorimpairments may have difficulty using a keyboard or mouse to write code [10]. As a result, allthese students may require specific tools and resources tailored to the nuances of the field [10].Homing in on higher education computing curriculum, this research aligns with the growingemphasis on inclusive practices in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics)fields [12]. Historically, STEM disciplines have grappled with, and are still grappling with,issues of diversity and inclusivity [12]. This literature review explores how accessibility isintegrated with STEM curricula, thereby contributing to the broader conversation on fosteringdiversity in education.Study OverviewGiven the continuously evolving landscape of