within department curricula. PD.2 Examination of disparities related to identityPP.3 Expand the definition and balance of scholarly (racism, sexism, xenophobia, classism, work that is valued in computing departments. ableism, homophobia, transphobia, and more)PP.4 Recognize and address the oppressive nature (e.g., and how they’re reflected in CS education and ableism, elitism, misogyny, and racism) of the the tech industry. hiring, promotion, and tenure processes. PD.3 Reflection on the current state of identity-PP.5 Provide comprehensive, IIC-informed professional inclusive computing in schools, departments, development for faculty, staff
preferencing personal experience or expertknowledge but suggesting that the knowledge in the textbook may imperfectly reflect theexperiment being performed.The quantitative results with the highest scores are questions 1 and 12. Students agree that theyconsider as many different solutions as possible and that they like to use their intuition to solveproblems. Most students strongly agreed that they consider as many different solutions aspossible to problems with a common response being “There are always multiple ways to get toan answer in engineering, you just have to be creative enough to find that route.” A student whoagreed with this question showed more reflection in the response “I feel like I am getting betterat trying to diversify my thoughts
, acceptance of responsibilities, level of participation, time commitment, and work load. 2. Work Contribution: Below, write how much (by percentage) yourself and each group member contributed to the overall project 3. Group atmosphere: How would you assess yourself and each member of your groups in terms of your ability to work together effectively and create a functional atmosphere from 1-5? Please explain your answer. 4. Self-Reflection. What areas of the project do you feel like you could have improved upon/supported your group better? 5. How would you rate your groups' use of time? (Keep in mind your Gantt Chart and if it was followed) 1- Procrastinated heavily to 5 - Met every deadline 6. How would you
additional assignments. The goal of these assignments wasthat students could either learn a new skill or improve upon what they had previously learned.The additional assignments included the following options: • SOLIDWORKS Tutorials – 3% each (up to 15%) • Build your own item – 5% each (up to 10%) • Build your own assembly – 15 % • Make your own tutorial – 10% • Learn to use a different CAD tool – 5%Each assignment required deliverables such as proof of completion, for example an engineeringdrawing of the item they built, and a written reflection on what they learned from completing theassignment. Students could earn up to 35% towards their CAD grade from any combination ofthe assignments they chose.Starting in week three of the
least once.Course description. Experiential Leadership is a “field-study” course, which at our universitymeans that students follow a common syllabus and structure but do not meet regularly as a class.Students individualize the syllabus to meet their own learning objectives. In consultation withcourse instructors and their mentor, they select readings, podcasts and videos; identify andpursue activities that promote capability development; and track their progress. The assignmentsincorporate elements of reflection, narrative exploration, learning with others through teamwork,and learning from industry professionals [2]. The course is graded.To create the Leadership Development Plan, each student reviews the descriptions of the JHLPleadership
perspectives. This work-in-progress paper describes the mixed-methods researchdesign considerations in formulating the study with emphasis on the quantitative portion.Detailed development of the qualitative portions of the study are still in progress and will bereported at future date.Positionality Statement The authors openly acknowledge and reflect on their subjective stance and potentialbiases by providing a positionality statement that encompasses our backgrounds and experiencesas they may relate to this work. We begin with this statement to assist readers in understandingpossible influences this bias may have in our process. Bruce Carroll is a white male engineeringeducator with a tendency toward an emic account from the institutional
analysisof the autoethnographic account of the first blind student to complete the introductory ECEcourse at our institution, Stanford University. This work also expands the role of the blindstudent to become a co-researcher, actively guiding the direction of this work while receivingmentorship from research team members on qualitative research methods.In this work, we begin with the analysis of seven reflection journal entries written by the blindstudent and relevant discussion session notes recorded by the lead researcher. These data weregenerated and collected via the autoethnography method and analyzed by applying the CAREmethodology, using a grounded theory approach, during which we completed open and focusedcoding. We then identify
transferable skills are incorporated directly intoexisting courses. Whereas “bolting-on” focuses on the explicit development of transferable skillsas separate modules along with the core curriculum. The “integration” approach weavestransferable skill development throughout the entire curriculum in a systematic manner [9,10].Pedagogical approaches like project-based learning, experiential learning, active learning, andinterdisciplinary collaboration have been used for transferable skill development [11].Additionally, many engineering courses rely on engineering design problems to develop skilltransferability in students [12,13]. Assessment methods employed to evaluate skill transferabilityare surveys and reflections [14], standardized tests [15], and
of studentresponses and prompting the AI to summarize the the responses. After a few passes, similargroupings were combined, and we asked the AI to identify specific quotes that reflected thistheme.Only students 18 years and older participated. All procedures were approved by our IRB, and allparticipants completed a Statement of Informed Consent form before taking each of the surveys.Thirty-three to 40 students participated in each of the PHY120 surveys and 33 to 38 participatedin the EGR360 surveys.We also surveyed two additional populations at the mid-term and end of term. A parallel group offirst-year students not enrolled in PHY120, but taking a Calculus course instead (non-PHY120),and a group of four second-year students participating
provocative lens toprovoke thoughts from the students by having them reflect and juxtapose their current learningexperience in engineering classrooms with hypothetical environments envisioned by hook. Theoutcome of such reflection and juxtaposition can provide foundational knowledge to assist in theefforts to identify “features” in engineering classrooms and pedagogies that perpetuate cisgenderand heteronormative elements in engineering education. It must be noted that this is a pilotresearch study that strives to produce knowledge to help contribute to future efforts to reimagineengineering classrooms and pedagogies. Thus, no direct engagement with faculty andadministrators is expected in this pilot study.Literature review In engineering
For the assignment this week, take some time to reflect on your experiences in college so far. You may choose to read some of the resources provided (or not). Discuss elements among the following that are of interest to you – you do not need to discuss all of these elements. • What has been your mental health / wellness status this semester? Describe times you have felt happy, excited, confident, successful, stressed, anxious, disappointed, and/or tired. Discuss sources of these feelings: physical health / illness, homework, exams, family issues, financial issues, etc. • Describe a situation where you reached out for help and received support – from friends, family, on-campus resources. • Describe positive actions you are taking to
participation in postsecondary spaces. We willdefine disability and describe our choice to use both identity- and person-first language. We willdiscuss our choice to prioritize research that highlights disabled student voices.Our literature review will explore: which disabilities have been the focus of research in highereducation; problematic practices that require increased disabled student self-advocacy rather thansystemic changes; the reasons for students’ reluctance to use accommodations; the weaknesses ofthe accommodations approach; and suggestions for moving beyond accommodations. We willconclude by offering recommendations and reflections for researchers who want to researchdisabled students.The purpose of this paper is to provide a place to
shift towards renewable energy sources [1].This policy-driven shift necessitates a workforce adept in renewable energy integration.Consequently, a re-evaluation and subsequent update of engineering curricula and workforcedevelopment programs are imperative to align with these emerging demands [2]. However, anotable misalignment can be identified between current engineering curricula and the practicalneeds of the energy sector [3]. This discrepancy mainly arises from the lag in updatingeducational content to reflect rapidly evolving industry requirements [4]. Educators often findthemselves grappling with unclear guidelines on the factors influencing course redesign,leading to a slow renewal process, ineffective teaching strategies, and outdated
, andalso a component involving the ways the actual work done influences students’ perception oftheir preparation. § RQ1: How does participation in environmental engineering and science experiences outside of the classroom contribute to the ways students construct early career trajectories? § RQ2: How does participation in environmental engineering and science experiences outside of traditional classrooms influence students’ perception of their preparation to construct and participate in professional judgment processes?BackgroundOverview of the STEMcx Environmental Justice ExperienceThis data analyzed in this research reflects the experiences of one intern in the STEMcxEnvironmental Justice Internship. STEMcx is an
toincorporate the IDEO model of innovation, wherein projects were validated according to theirdesirability, feasibility, and viability. Desirability considers the users’ needs, where feasibilityand viability reflect the technical ability to develop a solution and marketability potential,respectively. Teams are expected to propose a single unmet clinical need at the conclusion ofCIP and validate it as a potential project according to IDEO model. Here we report on two yearsof our revised CIP, using data from pre- and post-program surveys. Surveys assessed studentexperience, confidence, and perceived necessity of interdisciplinary teaming, primaryethnographic research, and secondary research. Paired data from 28 students was available (14BME, 14 IMED
not inclusive to people of color, and overt racial incidents. Garcia et al. (2020)revised the model to shift away from a deficit perspective, recognizing the diverse forms ofcultural wealth these minoritized students bring to higher education. The model also emphasizesthe importance of higher education institutions in fostering an inclusive environment thatembraces and amplifies these unique racial and ethnic perspectives.For this study, this framework allowed us to elicit through interviews and explore throughthematic analysis how RDI-supported URM students reflected on various aspects of theirindividual development and their perceptions about the value of the RDI workshop. This studyaims to broaden the applicability of the existing model
diversity and equity, which is reflected in her publications, research, teaching, service, and mentoring. More at http://srl.tamu.edu and http://ieei.tamu.edu.Prof. Pauline Wade, Texas A&M University Pauline Wade was formerly the assistant director for the Craig & Galen Brown Engineering Honors and Grand Challenge Scholars programs. Previously, she was a tenured faculty member at the University of the Philippines, Cebu (UP), in the Department of CompuDr. Shawna Thomas, Texas A&M University Dr. Thomas is an Instructional Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at Texas A&M University. She is a member of the Engineering Education Faculty in the Institute for Engineering
student who may not otherwiseview themselves as an engineer—a curious person, an entrepreneur, a person with great ideasthat society needs, or a part of the university’s ecosystem—may be able to demonstrate theirpotential to themselves and to their community through their lived experiences viastory. Providing time for students to develop and tell their stories is a powerful way to validatethe vast experiences students bring with them to college. Likewise, faculty want to know theirstudents, and students want to know themselves. Our own work with story in this context wasinspired by the Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network (KEEN) on Stories project starting in2020 and reflects our interest in instilling an entrepreneurial mindset in our
urban communities within the mid-Vancouver Islandregion.1.2 OverviewThis paper is the first in a series that chronicles the development and honing of the survey instrumentand the preliminary results, analyses and observations leading from it. The primary purpose of thispaper is to summarize the iterative process that was involved in creating the surveys. Subsequentpapers will provide detailed analyses of the survey results.The presentation of the development of the survey mirrors our iterative process, which moved frominitial development of a fourth-year survey, follow-up interviews, a reflection based on the responsesand literature, followed by a first-year survey, and follow-up interviews. While the primary objectivefor both the survey and
(InternationalProfessional Engineering Educator Registered) title was achieved through the project“Pedagogical training of engineering educators—EnTER" (created in 2018). This wasachieved with the support of the only professional regulatory body that overseesengineering teaching professionals, the International Standard Classification ofOccupations (ISCO), with code 2311 (ISCO Code 08) as “Higher education teachingprofessional: Engineering educator" [4–6]. Thus, this article will show how the reviewedprograms are structured, and will provide a proposal for engineering that seeks to reflect,innovate, and rethink its teaching practices. Some research shows that engineering teachingpractices closely linked to the concept of traditional science are recognized, but in
]. Results from the case-study questions during the firsttwo years proved inconclusive and student comments reflected their confusion in trying torespond to the case studies, so this part of the survey was dropped in subsequent years. Resultsof the case study responses from 2020 and 2021 are not included in this discussion. This studypresents the results of the Likert scale questions, which were consistent across all four years ofthe study period. Values reported below are the averages for all responses, based on the 5-pointscale defined for each question.Results and DiscussionThe social justice focused instruction showed an effect on the first-year environmentalengineering students’ understanding of social justice, their perspectives on equity
Disability Black Rachel Master’s Services Joy 8 F Coral 11 F Product White Cori Bachelor’s Marketing Charlie 7 MData SourceThe data source for this study were videos from each family engaged with the kits, as well asshorter clips where families described and/or reflected on their progress, prototype, andexperience. Each family self-recorded and shared videos with the research team
collected from undergraduate engineering students assigned to groups in thecomparison and treatment conditions from Fall 2019 to Fall 2022. Data was collectedelectronically through the CATME teammate evaluations and project reflections(treatment, n = 137; comparison, n = 112). CATME uses a series of questions assessed on a5-point Likert scale. Quantitative analysis using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Covariance(ANCOVA) showed that engineering students in the treatment group expected more quality,were more satisfied, and had more task commitment than engineering students working withintheir discipline. However, no statistically significant differences were observed for teamworkeffectiveness categories such as contribution to the team’s work
; and the integration of reflection to develop self-directed learners. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Indicators of Change in Mechanical Engineering Instructors’ Teaching Practices Across Five YearsAbstractCurrent best practices in teaching and learning are often not implemented in engineering courses,including those of mechanical engineering. The low rate of the adoption of best practices inteaching and learning can be attributed to the variation in training among individual educatorsand a lack of time to learn about and implement new teaching strategies. A significant disruptionto higher education in 2020 created an opportunity for instructors to change their
solicitation of the College of Engineering in 2020 and a three-yearredesign was undertaken and completed in Fall 2023 with its third iteration.This paper assesses how the redesign achieved the initial goals and how its delivery reflects thedesired characteristics. Four course outcomes were adopted: 1) Develop creative solutions byapplying engineering design, math, science, and data analysis, 2) Construct an effectiveprototype or model using technology and tools, 3) Demonstrate improved power skills(communication, teamwork, information literacy, professionalism), and 4) Employ NSPE Codeof Ethics to examine case studies and extrapolate for other situations. In terms of the courseoutcomes, this paper describes how students self-assessed their achievement
participant identity, allresponses were collected anonymously to encourage free sharing without repercussions [17].Moreover, respondents indicated who could read their story by answering the question, “Whowould you share this story with?” and they had the option of answering: 1) Everyone 2)Researchers Only, or 3) No one [17]. Participants who chose options 1 and 2 were used to completedata analysis and reported responses to this question were filtered by option 1.SenseMakerData collection was accomplished through the platform SenseMaker. Sensemaking is a researchapproach used to understand complex and ambiguous data such as narratives [18]. This tool usesmixed methods analysis to allow participants to use quantitative responses to reflect on their
Ethics Narrative Game [Research Paper] Knowing what's right doesn't mean much unless you do what's right. -Theodore RooseveltFostering ethical decision-making skills in undergraduate engineering students is central toABET accreditation and crucial to student engineers’ success in future careers [1]. This ongoingresearch focuses on the development of a narrative game called Mars: An Ethical Expedition(Mars) [2]. The game draws on the contemporary learning theory of situated cognition to providestudents with a situated, contextualized, and playful platform for using and reflecting on theirethical reasoning abilities [3, 4]. The game aims to be an engaging and
Group Week Module F Humans in Space Both GroupCourse DesignAeroverse was offered as a for-credit, pass/fail course that focused on introductory fundamentaltopics and therefore had no pre-requisite requirement. As such, students were expected to attendevery class and submit assignments for grades. The assignments included pre-readings beforeevery class, a pre-reading quiz, a pre-class reflection, an in-lab worksheet, a post-class quiz, and apost-class reflection. The post-class reflection recorded how enjoyable students found the class andhow confident they were that the class allowed them to meet certain learning objectives. The latterresults were compared to the pre-class reflection that
organizational change at the graduate level within one university’s College ofEngineering (COE). As members of this center strive to make equity-focused changes within theCOE, we must ensure our thinking considers the decentralized nature of graduate educationwithin the institution. Moreover, we must also grapple with faculty resistance to change,regardless of reason. The purpose of this work-in-progress research study is to report on thedevelopment of a reflection instrument that can be used to assist change leaders in determiningtheir unit’s readiness for change. In particular, we will report on instrument development,piloting results, and the current instrument iteration. We leverage the Competing Values CultureFramework (CVCF) to better understand
approaches to • Student reflections community-engaged research • New programs and curricula • Disseminate community-engaged STEM • Research products graduate traineeship model. • Publications and conference presentations • Trainees publish papers with authors from • Collaborative grant proposals multiple disciplines; • Student placement statistics • New transdisciplinary collaborations. • Community of diversity recruitment • Trainees articulate and analyze the advocates