research as it relates totechnology and engineering education and the contribution of this model to understandingstudent attitudes in the domain of engineering and design thinking. While collaborative learningis important the present research is an opportunity to assess its impact on students beyond theacquisition of new knowledge.Introduction Collaboration is frequently listed among skills required for graduates to succeed in the21 century workforce. Engineering standards include developing “an ability to function on stmultidisciplinary teams” as well as “an ability to communicate effectively.” Active learningapproaches, including collaborative learning practices, foster student engagement and learningthat is better aligned with the
&M University and an Asso- ciate Professor in the Zachry Department of Civil Engineering. His research focuses on solid mechanics and materials science. His speciality is welding physics and the fatigue and fracture behavior of struc- tural weldments under cyclic loading. Results from his research have been incorporated in national and international codes of recommended practice for buildings as well as railway and highway bridges.Dr. Carol L. Stuessy, Texas A&M University Dr. Carol Stuessy has been associated with Texas A&M Univerrsity since 1989 as a professor of science education in the Department of Teaching, Learning and Culture. Her specialties include research design using mixed methods approaches
Paper ID #14604Recommended Practices for Managing Large, Multi-Site Engineering Edu-cation Research Data Collection ProjectsDr. Maura J. Borrego, University of Texas - Austin Maura Borrego is Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Curriculum & Instruction at the University of Texas at Austin. She previously served as a Program Director at the National Science Foun- dation and an associate dean and director of interdisciplinary graduate programs. Her research awards include U.S. Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE), a National Science Foundation CAREER award, and two
feel like I need to be helping others be successful. So, I think my role has been one of trying to facilitate the success of others. For example, at Washington State, I attempted to help younger faculty be accepted for doing this kind of work. Networking them with one another, being an advocate for them, helping them with grant proposals, and so on. So they who had the potential to go much further than I, if they could get the training off to a good start, I could have much more impact by doing that.”Intellectual support, teaching: In addition to supporting colleagues’ research efforts, individualintellectual support can also focus more on teaching or practice. For example, David Voltmerrecalled that he was a “champion of a certain
condition. Thus,even though we see a difference between the cycles related to Attitudes, the impact of the VCPcycle on Attitude ratings is unclear, and could just be an artifact of the Attitudes differences theparticipants brought to each cycle prior to the start of the VCP. Additionally, the lack ofinteraction between Cycle and Time for Adoption indicates that both Time and Cycle impactedAdoption ratings. Therefore the VCP was likely leading to the Adoption of research-basededucation practices by the faculty, and even more so in Cycle 2. Cycle 1 was specifically designed to bring together faculty that had a shared interest in aparticular course. Therefore, F-VCP participants engaged in Cycle 1 were directly working withfaculty that were
engineering and science at Science Leadership Academy in Philadelphia. John came to SLA through the Philadelphia Teaching Residency Program as a Noyce Scholar. Prior to teaching, John spent a few decades as an entrepreneur, co-founding WAM Systems, a global provider of supply chain planning and optimization solutions to large manufacturers. Before WAM, he designed spacecraft at GE for many years. John holds engineering degrees from Penn State and Villanova. When not teaching science and engineering, John can be found playing jazz clarinet, practicing yoga, or inventing oddities in his workshop.Jessica S. Ward, Drexel University Jessica Ward serves as the Director of Operations for the DragonsTeach program. She previously
course is minimal as theTAs receive course credit rather than pay for this extra time and the course can be taught by agraduate student.Taking an iterative, design research approach to this course, [5] surveys are collected before andafter each semester, and the content is revised as necessary. The TAs response to the courseranges from not seeing the point to becoming deeply engaged and committed to learning more toimprove their teaching. There remains a concern about the need to repeat content for new TAs,aligning the pedagogical theory with the current needs of the TAs, and integration with eachcourse specifically, in order to help TAs develop pedagogic content knowledge.The current iteration of the course is focused more on aligning with the
inverted sections with those in control sections (i.e., traditional coursemodel). Treatment and control students completed the same measures (e.g., content assessmentsand student attitude surveys) and faculty members, who taught in both conditions, alsocompleted reflection papers related to their experiences. The guiding research questions for thestudy and an overview of the assessment measures are shown in Table 1 below (more details onassessment measures are included in a subsequent section of this paper). In the final year of thestudy, the researchers designed what they felt were “best practices” for the inverted model in allsections of their courses and the same outcome measures were used.Table1.EvaluationQuestionsandOutcomeMeasures
Paper ID #15565Impact of Non-Cognitive Factors on First-Year PerformanceMr. Ryan R. Senkpeil, Purdue University, West Lafayette Ryan Senkpeil is a Ph.D. student in Engineering Education at Purdue University who’s research is focused on non-cognitive factors that impact engineering student performance and developing interventions to improve students’ non-cognitive factors.Dr. Edward J. Berger, Purdue University, West Lafayette Edward Berger is an Associate Professor of Engineering Education and Mechanical Engineering at Purdue University, joining Purdue in August 2014. He has been teaching mechanics for nearly 20 years, and
: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20.Chen, H. L., Lattuca, L. R., Hamilton, E. R. (2008). Conceptualizing Engagement: Contribution of Faculty to Student Engagement in Engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 3, 339-353.Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73-105.Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (2004). What have we learned about engagement in the last twenty years? A Volume in: Research on Sociocultural
introduction, looping structures, plotting tools, mathematical operations, and Boolean logic.3.3 Research questionIn order to investigate the effect of the supplemental videos on student achievement in“Computing Tools for Engineering Design”, we explored the following research question: Does the mode of lecture delivery (in-class or online) impact students’ performance on examinations?4. ResultsAs noted, students in the Fall 2015 cohort were given the option of attending lectures in-person,viewing videos of the lectures online, or using a combination of in-class and video lectures toprepare for their quizzes. Given the nature of the survey question asked, we grouped option b) “Iprepared primarily using the video lectures” and option
Curras, University of Wisconsin, Platteville Dr. Curras earned her PhD in Geotechnical Engineering at the University of California at Davis. She has been a faculty member at the University of Wisconsin-Platteville since 2000, and she currently is serving as the Chair of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and as the Assistant Dean for Student Services for the College of Engineering, Mathematics, and Science. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Implementation of an Engineering-Based Retention Center and its Impact on Student SuccessIntroductionUndergraduate student retention and graduation rates are, and have been for many years
teaching practices impact the student experience in theStructures course? To answer the guiding research questions, we utilized a mixed-methodapproach to collecting and analyzing quantitative and qualitative data. The following sectionsdescribe the theoretical framework guiding the evaluation, the analytical methodology,preliminary findings, and future work.Theoretical FrameworkA two-pronged theoretical framework guided the study. First, we explored the notion of STEM-literacy for the 21st Century. Second, we aimed to define and use constructs of affect to i This material is based upon work supported by the National Science
sense of global citizenship totake hold in a student's life in both present and future behaviors.MethodsThis research is part of a larger study funded by the National Science Foundation invested indeveloping curriculum tools to teach sustainability more effectively as an integrated part ofcoursework from sophomore to senior year in engineering and other science majors. This largerstudy is currently in its third year and operates on the principle that certain majors/disciplineshave unique psychographic characteristics that influence the manner in which they engage insustainability topics and that best practice instruction methods for engineering students are likelyto differ from those in other disciplines.The institution involved in this study
Paper ID #15401Stimulating Creativity in Online Learning Environments through IntelligentFast FailureDr. Kathryn W. Jablokow, Pennsylvania State University Dr. Kathryn Jablokow is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Design at Penn State University. A graduate of Ohio State University (Ph.D., Electrical Engineering), Dr. Jablokow’s teaching and research interests include problem solving, invention, and creativity in science and engineer- ing, as well as robotics and computational dynamics. In addition to her membership in ASEE, she is a Senior Member of IEEE and a Fellow of ASME. Dr. Jablokow
. Putting theory into practice, she teaches a service-learning course at UCSC wherein interdisciplinary teams of students work in an layered apprenticeship model with community mentors to design and implement sustainable solutions to water, energy, waste, transportation and social challenges using ”green technology”. Dr. Ball has worked as a research fellow with two NSF Centers for Learning and Teaching and most recently on several NSF projects that focus the integration of engineering and social science to support the advancement of experiential learning for sustainability in higher education.Linnea Kristina Beckett, University of California - Santa Cruz Linnea Beckett is a PhD Candidate in Education at the University of
on structural engineering, and a PhD in Civil Engineering from the University of Colorado Boulder.Dr. Angela R. Bielefeldt, University of Colorado - Boulder Angela Bielefeldt is a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder in the Department of Civil, Envi- ronmental, and Architectural Engineering (CEAE). She serves as the ABET assessment coordinator for the department. Professor Bielefeldt is the faculty director of the Sustainable By Design Residential Aca- demic Program, a living-learning community where interdisciplinary students learn about and practice sustainability. Bielefeldt is also a licensed P.E. Professor Bielefeldt’s research interests in engineering education include service-learning
Grade for Program Assessment? October 2003http://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/do-grades-make-the-grade.pdf Accessed1/2/16[19] Regan, P. J. (2010). Read Between the Lines; the Emancipatory Nature of FormativeAnnotative Feedback on Draft Assignments. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 23(6), 453–466. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-010-9168-2[20] Beare, P. G. (1986). The Contract--An Individualized Approach to Competency-BasedLearning and Evaluation. Proceedings of the annual conference of the international society ofIndividualized instruction, Atlanta Georgia.[21]Suslick, K. S. (2005). A non-coercive, menu driven grading scheme, 1–2. Journal ofChemical Education 62(5), p408-9.[22] Green, K. H., & Emerson, A. (2007). A new
teaching and learning, and reflection – with a goal of enhancing our collectiveunderstanding of this form of scholarship and the ways to use it in engineering education: ● The systems thinking example highlights an approach for connecting research to practice, which was developed based on a synthesis of design thinking literature, vehicle design literature, and studies of engineering practice. The result of this synthesis was a set of design principles that was used in the development of courses and lessons that prepare students to use systems thinking techniques within the design process. ● The innovation example unpacks the process of developing a framework of design for high- impact innovation
a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering from Georgia Tech. Prior to her time at Georgia Tech, she received her B.S. in Aerospace Engineering from MIT and her M.S. in Systems Engineering from the University of Virginia. Her research interests include engineering design education (especially in regards to the design of complex systems), student preparation for post-graduation careers, and innovations in research-to-practice.Dr. Walter C. Lee, Virginia Tech Dr. Walter Lee is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Education and the Assistant Di- rector for Research in the Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Diversity (CEED), both at Virginia Tech. Lee’s research interests include co-curricular support
elaborate processes inquiry and organization-specific implication per uniquecontexts.Study of education interventions, thus, must attend to a variety of intended, as well as unplanned, “levels”of impact. Yet studies investigating organizational change in higher education have predominantlyconsidered the university as the unit of analysis, a macro-level analysis[24]. In fact, researchers studyingeducational change in PEOs have called for more attention to the understudied meso-level of disciplines,departments, programs, and the schools and colleges within a university setting[52]. Fumasoli &Stensake[24] called for attention to departmental-level practices as, “factors of change…the [potential]link between the micro and macro” (p. 490
Your Processes." BPM (Demos) 940 (2012): 40-44.[10] Blaisdell, Stephanie, and Catherine R. Cosgrove. "A theoretical basis for recruitment and retention interventions for women in engineering." age 1 (1996): 1.[11] Belgarde, Mary Jiron, and Richard K. Lore. "The retention/intervention study of Native American undergraduates at the University of New Mexico." Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 5.2 (2003): 175-203.[12] Ross, Sheldon M. Introduction to probability and statistics for engineers and scientists. Academic Press (2014).[13] Freivalds, Andris, and Benjamin Niebel. Niebel's Methods, Standards, & Work Design. Mcgraw-Hill higher education (2013).
they complete research boot campexperiences,especially translation, including entrepreneurship. Participate in a clinical immersion Another lecture will cover graduate school experience in summer to grasp theclinical preparation. Students create a mock FDA impact their research may haveresearch document for a new device submission. ECE 398 Innovation and Engineering Design (2 credit hours) provides the tools Continue research throughout yearYear 3: needed for problem identification, solution Interact with research mentor andFocus on assessment, market
evidence suggests that practicing engineers are increasingly expected to actas boundary spanners who can participate in and manage diverse local and global teams,translate competing stakeholder demands into effective design solutions, and leverage expertknowledge from multiple fields and specialties. The larger project represented by this paperresponds to this reality by proposing boundary spanning as a core meta-attribute for engineeringstudents and early career professionals. This paper more specifically offers a detailed descriptionof the study design for a major phase of this research project that involves conducting in-depth,semi-structured interviews about boundary spanning experiences with more than two dozen earlycareer engineers in the
Paper ID #14814The Development of a Measure of Engineering IdentityDr. Allison Godwin, Purdue University, West Lafayette Allison Godwin, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Engineering Education at Purdue University. Her research focuses what factors influence diverse students to choose engineering and stay in engineering through their careers and how different experiences within the practice and culture of engineering foster or hinder belongingness and identity development. Dr. Godwin graduated from Clemson University with a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and Ph.D. in Engineering and Science Education. She is the recipient of
Paper ID #16568The Role of Shared Physical Space in Affording the Creation of Shared Con-ceptual Spaces in Design Project TeamsDr. Penny Kinnear, University of Toronto Penny Kinnear currently works with the Engineering Communication Program at the University of Toronto where she focuses on the development and delivery of Professional Language support for a highly student body. She has a background in applied linguistics, second language and bilingual education and writing education. She is co-author of the book, ”Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Education: An in- troduction through narratives.” Her current research
Paper ID #16380Vertical Integration of the Liberal Arts in Engineering EducationDr. Bingbing Li, California State University - Northridge Dr. Bingbing Li is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Manufacturing Systems Engineering & Management at California State University Northridge. He teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in Manufacturing Systems Engineering. His research includes additive manufacturing (laser additive manufacturing, 3D bioprinting, FDM & SLA for plastics), sustainable design and manufacturing, and sustainability analysis of nanotechnologies.Dr. Robert G. Ryan, California State
studiesarticulate how to motivate engineering faculty to interact across engineering disciplines, letalone, with non-engineering faculty such as educational experts. Therefore, the research teamsought to understand, how can we develop a culture of collaboration among STEM facultyaround the issue of implementing teaching innovation including RBIS’s? The specific guidingresearch question for the current study is how do faculty in STEM describe their experienceparticipating in the Strategic Instructional Innovations Program (SIIP) – a program designed topromote and support the implementation of teaching innovation?This qualitative study employs an exploratory phenomenological approach, using semi-structured interviews with 12 STEM faculty across academic
tocommission the development of a seminar to help prepare these new faculty for a heavy teachingload. The seminar was intended to meet the following criteria: 1) be of short duration, 2) bebased on methods supported by research, focusing on 'best practices in engineering education',and 3) be suitable for new faculty, graduate assistants and part-time faculty.The authors (holding both engineering and education degrees) received an internal grant andcollaborated with instructional designers from the university's E-learning center to develop andfacilitate the training. The purpose of this seminar is to promote the best practices, to guidefaculty and teaching assistants new to teaching in the engineering fields, to advance theirconfidence and satisfaction
- proaches to closing the achievement gap for historically under-represented minority groups.Dr. Emily L. Allen, California State University, Los Angeles Dr. Emily Allen is Dean of the College of Engineering, Computer Science, and Technology at California State University, Los Angeles.Mr. Harsh Gadhia, California State University, Los Angeles Graduate Student Department of Computer Science, California State University, Los Angeles. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Golden Eagle Flight Plan Online: A Web-Based Advisement Tool to Facilitate Developmental Advising Harsh Gadhia, Chengyu Sun, Deborah Won, and Emily AllenMotivationAcademic