National Science Foundation under AwardNo. DUE ATE 2325500. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressedin this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation.References[1] C. Harrington, D. Lyken‐Segosebe, J. M. Braxton, and L. A. Nespoli, “Community college faculty engagement in the scholarship of teaching and learning,” New Drctns Community Coll, vol. 2021, no. 195, pp. 157–173, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1002/cc.20474.[2] C. Kelly-Kleese, “UCLA Community College Review: Community College Scholarship and Discourse,” Community College Review, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 52–68, Jul. 2004, doi: 10.1177/009155210403200104.[3] “Mentor Connect - Home.” Accessed: Jan. 15
principles of ADEP work. People listen to one another. They develop ideastogether. The build relationships that can last for many years. Some of the authors of this paperhave been collaborating for decades.Acknowledgement This work is supported by the National Science Foundation under GrantNumber 2317076. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation. NSF EDA-Eng Diversity Activities: IEC Asset Driven Equitable Partnerships (ADEP) Workshops – Sharing What WorksAppendix: Asset Driven Equitable Partnerships (ADEP) Equity RubricThis rubric has been developed by IEC to
from prospective students of the engineering bridgeand success programs on recruitment) and the third stage (comparison of perspectives fromstudents and program leaders) is under revision. Additional professional development activitiesinclude more training on qualitative and quantitative data analysis, presentations at conferences,and mentoring undergraduates and graduates in STEM education research.AcknowledgementThis work was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation under grant EES-2320120 andEES-2450295. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National ScienceFoundation. We are grateful to mentor Dr. Walter Lee, advisory
and high schoollevels. These efforts are aligned with the mission of the American Society for EngineeringEducation (ASEE) Women in Engineering Division (WIED), which advocates for increasedparticipation and retention of women in STEM. Evidence suggests that aligning engineeringeducation with themes of societal impact can be especially effective. In the U.S., womencomprise the majority of medical school students, reflecting a broader interest in careers thatcontribute to human well-being [4]. To attract more female students to engineering, andelectrical engineering in particular, it is crucial to emphasize the field’s role in improvingquality of life through innovations in medical devices, communication systems, andsustainable energy
Foundry-guided courses. Specifically,the intervention includes the purposeful pairing of the Engineering for One Planet (EOP)framework [1] with the Renaissance Foundry model (i.e., the Foundry) [2] in an undergraduatechemical engineering course that requires student teams to address societal challenges as learningoutcomes. The Bio-Foundry Initiative was initially funded by a VentureWell Faculty grant thatprovided support for the first iteration of the initiative that focused on biomimicry elements. Thiswas expanded upon by an American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) EOP Mini-GrantProgram wherein the biomimicry elements were integrated into the nine principles reflected in theEOP framework. Both represent an expansion of the normal course
had five or fewer years of teaching experience, indicating asignificant presence of relatively new educators. Four participants had between five and ten yearsof experience, while two had been teaching for ten to fifteen years. Three participants had overfifteen years of teaching experience, showing expertise within the group. Notably, all participantsreported that they teach a lab at least once per year. Additionally, sixteen out of eighteenparticipants required their students to submit at least two lab reports per year, while theremaining two did not require lab reports. Eleven of the eighteen participants personally gradedthe lab reports, reflecting a hands-on approach to student assessment.The Use of RubricsThe use of rubrics for technical
supported by the United States National ScienceFoundation under Grant No. by National Science Foundation Awards No. 1903419 and 1903423through the Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) program. Any opinions,findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. This study wasapproved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Purdue University Northwest and theUniversity of Toledo under protocol numbers IRB-2020-1119 and IRB-301407-UT, respectively.The authors may be contacted to get access to any material that has been developed as part ofthis module.References [1]. T. Tunggal, "Why is Cybersecurity Important?" UpGuard, Jan
relate them to their“new” knowledge when working on their lab work.Program FindingsA total of 11 students participated in the camp. These students were asked to complete an exitsurvey on their last day. The anonymous survey collected data on their prior skills/knowledge onrobotics, their expectations, and reflections. The low sample size of 11 was not sufficient for astatistical data analysis. Nevertheless, we performed a thematic analysis of the collected surveydata to understand the perspectives and experiences of the attendees.The students entered the camp with different levels of prior experience. Out of 11 participants,36% had no prior experience participating in robotics camps and competitions. Between 45%and 63% of the participants
comparison of initiatives acrossthe project.AcknowledgementsThis work was funded by ELA4ATTRACT (project 101128703— ELA4ATTRACT—ERASMUS-EDU-2023-CBHE). This project has been funded with support from the EuropeanCommission. This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannotbe held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein. Theauthors would like to thank all project representatives for their contributions to this work inprogress, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback.References[1] A. Canales, M. I. Cortez, M. Sáez, and A. Vera, Brechas de género en STEM, PontificiaUniversidad Católica de Chile, 2021. [Online]. Available:https://www.mat.uc.cl/archivos/mujeres-y
how to re-contextualize engineering science engineering courses to better reflect and prepare students for the reality of ill-defined, sociotechnical engineering practice. Current projects include studying and designing classroom interventions around macroethical issues in aerospace engineering and the productive beginnings of engineering judgment as students create and use mathematical models. Aaron holds a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering from Michigan and a Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Astronautics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Prior to re-joining Michigan, he was an instructor in Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder.Prof. Rachel Vitali, The University of Iowa Dr
tosupporting women in mechanical engineering plays a vital role in overcoming the uniquechallenges faced by women in this field. Through targeted support, mentorship, and professionaldevelopment opportunities, such initiatives are instrumental in attracting and retaining women inthe discipline. As the field of mechanical engineering continues to evolve, creating spaces for allstudents, including women, to thrive and connect is crucial for growing a strong engineeringworkforce. Ultimately, these efforts will contribute to a stronger, more resilient engineeringcommunity that reflects a broad range of perspectives and talents, driving progress andinnovation in the field.References[1] “The Future of Women in Engineering,” NAE Website. Accessed: Jan. 15
JusticeAbstractThis Work in Progress (WIP) paper explores the impacts of Whiteness in engineering spaces,particularly for faculty of color. Given that predominantly white institutions and corporationsdominate the field of engineering, Whiteness creates an environment where people of color mustact in ways that appease Whiteness as a survival tactic. Using a collaborative autoethnographicapproach, this WIP describes these structural issues in an effort to name and acknowledge howWhiteness in engineering spaces leads to racial injustice in the discipline.IntroductionEngineering–both as a discipline and profession–reflect the larger societal dynamics. Thesedynamics include systemic biases and historical privileges that have been bestowed uponyounger generations
expressed in this materialare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.References[1] L. L. Espinosa, J. M. Turk, M. Taylor, and H. M. Chessman, “Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education: A Status Report,” Washington, DC, 2019.[2] D. Shapiro et al., “Tracking Transfer: Measures of Effectiveness in Helping Community College Students to Complete Bachelor’s Degrees, Report No. 13,” Herndon, VA, 2017.[3] K. H. Strickland, “Transfer Students: The True American Ninja Warriors,” About Campus, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 27–30, 2018.[4] M. Fay, “Community college STEM pathways: Policy fact sheet,” New York City, NY, 2022.[5] L.A. Lyon and J. Denner, “Broadening
integration challenges,reinforced the importance of "learning how to learn" - an essential outcome for engineeringgraduates.Students also reflected on the value of early exposure to hands-on tinkering, troubleshooting, andindependent projects during undergraduate coursework. They recommended that future studentscultivate a mindset focused on understanding the "why" behind technical content, rather thanonly procedural knowledge, to better transfer skills to novel scenarios.Overall, the senior design project experience provided an authentic, open-ended learningenvironment that required persistence, critical thinking, and systems-level problem-solving.Insights from this debriefing will inform future enhancements to project scaffolding, supportstructures
improve students’ learning outcomes at scale,improve diversity within STEM disciplines, reduce failure rates, and support skilldevelopment [1], [8]–[12]. Active learning involves engaging students directly in the learningprocess through activities and discussions, rather than passively listening to a lecture. Itemphasizes higher-order thinking and often includes collaborative exercises such as problem-solving, peer teaching, and group work [13] and can vary widely, from brief interactiveactivities within lectures to entirely problem-based learning courses [14]. This method iscontrasted with traditional lecture-based instruction by encouraging students to activelyparticipate and reflect on their learning. By involving students in active
participantsapproach solving TMCT items will also be explored. Finally, tactile hands-on spatialinterventions will be developed for sighted students to encourage tactile spatial skills.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation under GrantNo. 1712887. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.References[1] P. C. Kyllonen and J. Gluck, “Spatial Ability: Introduction to the Special Issue,” International Journal of Testing, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 215–217, Sep. 2003, doi: 10.1207/S15327574IJT0303_1.[2] D. Kane and Goodridge, Wade, “Quantifying Spatial Skills
significantly, as reflected in application,acceptance, and confirmation numbers. In 2024, the program received 514 applications, with 340acceptances and 241 confirmed participants. This growth indicates the success of streamliningoperations using Lean methodologies, which have enhanced the camp’s appeal while maintaininghigh levels of engagement.The integration of 5S and Lean methodologies significantly improved operational efficiency andparticipant experiences. The camp minimized downtime and enhanced engagement byeliminating inefficiencies, optimizing activity sequences, and introducing standardizedcommunication protocols. Lean tools such as Value Stream Mapping and Gemba Walks werecrucial in identifying bottlenecks and reallocating resources to high
education for all students. Fundingsupport has been provided through Vancouver Island University’s Inquiry and Time-Releasegrants.6.0 References[1] https://engineerscanada.ca/news-and-events/news/reflecting-on-a-decade-of-30-by-30-and-advancing -gender-equity-in-engineering [fetched 06.Feb.2025][2] https://engineerscanada.ca/indigenous-engineering-in-canada [fetched 06.Feb.2025][3] L. Lattuca, P. Terenzini, H. K. Ro, and D. Knight, “America’s Overlooked Engineers: Community Colleges and Diversity in Engineering Education,” National Science Foundation, Jun. 2014.[4] M. D. Sullivan, C. C. de Cohen, M. J. Barna, M. K. Orr, R. A. Long, and M. W. Ohland, “Understanding engineering transfer students: Demographic characteristics and educational
sometimes random interactions in thehallway. For future interviews, we will focus on understanding how interactions come to pass at amore basic level and attempt to map these interactions to the 5C Model as part of analysis.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.[award number blinded]. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressedin this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation.References[1] M. Gibbon and D. Pokhrel, "Social network analysis, social capital and their policyimplications," Participatory Learning and Action, vol. 36, pp. 29-33, 1999. [Online].Available: https://pubs.iied.org
, revealing their existing knowledge structure. Portfolio A compilation of collection of a student’s work, demonstrating their skills and knowledge development over time. Presentations or Performance Evaluate a students’ ability to demonstrate their understanding through presentations, projects, or performances. Rubrics Use scoring rubrics to provide a structured and objective way to evaluate student work and performance.Table 2: Indirect Measurement Methodologies Self-Reports A student’s reflection report on their prior learning experiences and
their learning paths.Our curriculum design also reflects the principles of Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP)[7], encouraging students to integrate their cultural backgrounds in identifying the socialproblems and evaluating whether and how these problems can be tackled using edge AIsolutions. Students are encouraged to engage in projects with the final projects in mind sothat they can regard their cultural backgrounds and experiences as valuable assets to createfeasible solutions for their community issues. In this process they can critically evaluate thesocietal inequities and injustices, which empowers the students to question and challenge thestatus quo and allow active participation.Instrument and Data collectionTo assess SCCT factors, 21
placement. As the COVID-impacted studentscontinue to progress through the programs, the effects on time to graduation and retention will bemonitored. As mentioned previously, the data in this study currently do not consider thesocioeconomic factors of the students, but this may be added as the demographics of incomingstudents change and the longer-term impacts of COVID on the K-12 system continue to be felt.The insights gained from this work will be used to inform the development of academic supportand retention programs within SEAS. A 2022 ASEE workshop outlined a retention program thatincluded a range of student-focused strategies, including summer bridge programs, the use of e-portfolios to reflect on learning, collaborative courses that
beassumed. This is why a combination of survey data, reflection journals, and focus groups wasbuilt into the structure of the research side of the program. The ways these methods were shapedto protect students while still gaining information will be discussed in the Assessment Planbelow.Protection of Students While EducatingThe protection of minoritized students while educating about DEIA is often overlooked in thename of convenience. Despite good intentions, many students end up being placed in positions ofhypervisibility, complete invisibility, or token minority status in DEIA training spaces [10]. Forexample, speaking about the experience of Black American students in a training space with onlytwo non-white students, one of which identifies as
familiar with. These questions probe the‘baseline confidence’ in learning new skills. In contrast to the responses regarding skills that arefamiliar to the students, these results show a peak at the end of the first year. The questionregarding thermodynamic calculations has the highest result at each survey point. This maysimply reflect the wording of the question, which uses the term ‘basic.’ This may have increasedthe confidence students portrayed. The figure shows an erosion of confidence in things whichare new or unfamiliar to the students. This erosion from the end of the first-year introductioncourse ranges from 3-13 % of the peak confidence reported.ConclusionsThe survey results show that the first-year introductory course is well received
Classes by aQuiz-Based Approach," Chemical Engineering Education, vol. 46, pp. 213-217, 2012.[15] Friess W.A., and Davis M.P., "Formative Homework Assessment Strategies to Promote Student Self-Reflection and Improve Time Management: APilot Study," in Proceedings of the ASEE NE 2016 Conference, Rhode Island, RI, 2016.[16] Howard, A. K. T., & Cole, A. D., "Weekly Quizzes in Lieu of Homework in Large Sections," in ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Baltimore, MD, 2023.[17] Mawhinney, V.T., Bostow, D.E., Laws, D.R., Blumenfeld, G.J., Hopkins, B.L, "A comparison of students stuying-behavior produced by daily, weekly, and three-week testing schedules," Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 257-264
sufficient for ensuring access, as interestedparties will naturally find and take advantage of them. However, this belief reflects a meritocraticapproach that overlooks disparities in access to such opportunities [8]. It absolves theopportunity holder of responsibility, placing the onus entirely on the seeker. Those who accessthese opportunities often do so through privileged pathways, tapping into their social capital orhidden networks that are not equally accessible to all demographic groups [1, 7]. Thelong-standing adage epitomizes this phenomenon, “It's not what you know but who you know.”We advocate for a move from “if we build it, they will come” to “if we build it, we need to invitethem in.” For postdocs, this means actively promoting
datacollection or recruitment, and ensuring public availability. Accompanying disadvantages includeethical ambiguity, a lack of control during interviews, and a lack of follow-ups. Balancing thesetrade-offs, we believe that podcasts are a valuable, existing data source for engineering educationresearchers and the larger qualitative research community. This paper introduces a new process tosignificantly reduce the overhead time and resources required to collect qualitative data whensimilar podcast data already exists, which has important implications for qualitative researchers.Introduction and BackgroundQualitative research typically involves analyzing interviews, focus groups, reflections, videos,and other types of documents. These data sources are in
general. These results were all positive.Self-reflections through answering the question “What have I learned from this lab experience?”provide further insight into students’ gain in knowledge and confidence in their programmingskills. Finally, the question “What I liked the most about this lab experience?” forces students tothink positively about their experiences and thus learn better. The retention rates for the first-yearstudents did not change when the LEGO SPIKE robotic lab was replaced by the myCobots roboticlab.Students’ testimonials show their pride when they were able to program lab robots to accomplishthe robotic tasks as specified. Statements like “Finally some real robots, not LEGO toys!” and “Ijoined this program to learn about
, findings,conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1] C. Ramirez, Y. Sermet, and I. Demir, “HydroLang Markup Language: Community-drivenweb components for hydrological analyses,” J. Hydroinform., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 1171–1187,Aug. 2023.[2] D. Kirkpatrick and J. Kirkpatrick, Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. Oakland,CA, USA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2006.[3] D. L. Stufflebeam, “The CIPP model for evaluation,” in International Handbook ofEducational Evaluation, T. Kellaghan and D. L. Stufflebeam, Eds. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Springer, 2003, pp. 31–62. doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-0309-4_4.[4] C. A. Manduca and D
Research on Learning and Teaching in Engineering at University of Michigan in 2003 and served as its Director for 12 years. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 WIP: The Responses of Engineering College Students with Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) to Instructional PracticesIntroductionThe evolution of instructional practices in higher education reflects the need to enhance studentengagement and learning outcomes. Lecture-based instruction is a teacher-centered approach [1][2], while active learning is a student-centered teaching approach [3]. Active learning outperformslectures in developing critical thinking, problem-solving