Conference Session

FPD IX: Research on First-year Programs Part III

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Stanley M. Forman, Northeastern University; Susan F. Freeman, Northeastern University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

successfully able to begrouped into the major categories. These responses included being able to correctly cite works,having ambition(!), being able to see deception in an argument and being involved in classactivities. Page 25.1350.7Global awareness (3.0%)The last category focused on engineers being aware of the linkage between their work and theneeds of the society at large. It was a surprise at first that so few respondents mentioned this,but, on reflection, it may indicate that this is not a skill or attribute particularly lacking in today’smore globally aware student body. This is assumed to be a good omen!Discussion of Pareto application and Use

Conference Session

FPD II: Hands-on Curriculum in the First Year

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Beverly K. Jaeger, Northeastern University; Susan F. Freeman, Northeastern University; Richard Whalen, Northeastern University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

,immersive or integrated.Post-Survey. Reflection, review, feedback, assessment, and iteration are familiar elements to students inthe Northeastern University Engineering Program. As such, following completion of the machine scienceactivities in each section of the course, students again completed a survey to evaluate specific componentsof the machine science initiative. Likert-style and open-ended questions focused on amount learned, skillsacquired, pace of instruction and the learning experience, quality of support materials and tutorials,potential applications, the prospect of continuing the module in future course offerings, and suggestionsto improve implementation. Appendix B contains the full questionnaire.Results and DiscussionPre-Survey

Conference Session

FPD VII: Research on First-year Programs Part II

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Mitchell Pryor, University of Texas, Austin

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

semanticsdictate – distinguish between procrastination, deferment, or scheduling issues. On area of futurework under consideration is customizing student surveys after each module to discern this datafrom the student. The survey questions could be modified to for students either rapidly or slowlycompleting different units. Such questions, could prompt students to reflect on their own withrespect to their pace and potentially self-improve behavior. It additionally could help coursedevelopers to generate a more complete picture of student effort and improve course content.Bibliography 1. Cuseo, J., 2007, “The Empirical Case Against Large Class Size: Adverse Effects on the Teaching, Learning, and Retention of First-Year Students. Journal of Faculty

Conference Session

First-year Programs Poster Session

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

John Reap, Virginia Tech; Holly M. Matusovich, Virginia Tech; Rachel A. Louis, Virginia Tech

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

2. and Mointoring Activation 4. Reaction and 3. Control • Behavior Reflection • • Context Figure 1: Simplified Diagram of Pintrich’s Self-Regulated Learning FrameworkOur project is centered in the Motivation/Affect domain where we seek to understand how anintervention impacts motivation for learning. In this framework, as in much of Pintrich’s work,motivation is defined broadly and includes elements firmly grounded in a variety of differentmotivation theories 1, 4. Capitalizing on this broad definition, our

Conference Session

FPD VIII: Crossing Bridges and Easing Transitions into the First Year

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Helen M. Doerr, Syracuse University; Jonas Bergman Arleback, Syracuse University; AnnMarie H. O'Neil, Syracuse University

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

terms of time when the outer edge of the ripple is moving at a constantrate. There was a substantial gain on this item of 32 percentage points from the pre-test (n = 8,16% correct) to the post-test (n = 24, 48% correct). In the other symbolic item (Q18), thestudents had to interpret the meaning of the parameters in an exponential growth function: “Themodel that describes the number of bacteria in a culture after t days has just been updated fromP(t)=7(2)t to P(t)=7(3)t. What implications can you draw from this information?” There was asubstantial gain on this question of 36 percentage points from the pre-test (n=19, 38% correct) tothe post-test (n=37, 74% correct). This likely reflects the emphasis in the model developmentsequence on making

Conference Session

FPD XI: Tidbits and Cookies

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Benjamin Emery Mertz, Arizona State University; Sara A. Atwood, Elizabethtown College

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

non-persistence), the frequency of responses wascompared between institutions. The data was also analyzed with respect to gender for thelarge and medium-sized schools (the female population at the small school was too smallto be used in this analysis).Methods:Data for this study were taken from student essays written as part of an in-classassignment. As a part of this assignment, the students were asked to respond to theprompt, “Engineering is a very broad field of study. What is it about engineering thatinterests you?” Two engineering education researchers reviewed and coded thesequalitative reflections independently. The independently coded responses were comparedand discussed until a consensus was formed. The coding categories and

Conference Session

FPD IV: Innovative Curriculum Elements of Successful First-year Courses

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Brian M. Argrow, University of Colorado, Boulder; Beverly Louie, University of Colorado, Boulder; Daniel W. Knight, University of Colorado, Boulder; Nathan E. Canney, University of Colorado, Boulder; Suzana Brown, University of Colorado, Boulder; Adam J. Blanford, University of Colorado, Boulder; Corrina Ladakis Gibson, University of Colorado, Boulder; Eric Donnelly Kenney

Tagged Divisions

First-Year Programs

required to select two of the four majorsthat had been presented in the plenary sessions then compare and contrast the two majors, reporton an out-of-class discussion about the majors with another student, and then reflect upon theirassessment of the major relative to their current interests. After the completion of the second setof major discussions in Weeks 7-9, the essay assignment was repeated for those remainingmajors. The plenary assignments concluded with a third and final essay in which the studentswere asked: “Which major or majors most made you consider engineering as a profession, and Page 25.851.6why?”; “Which major or majors appealed