in mechanical engineering at ASU. Her interests include innovative teaching pedagogies for increased retention and student motivation, innovations in non-traditional delivery methods, as well as structured reflective practices throughout the engineering curriculum.Dr. Benjamin Emery Mertz, Arizona State University Dr. Benjamin Mertz received his Ph. D. in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Notre Dame in 2010 and B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology in 2005. He is currently a part of a lecturer team at Arizona State University that focuses on the first-year engineering experience, including developing and teaching the Introduction to Engineering course. He also teaches
conduct quantitative and qualitative analysis on students’activity participation by asking students to reflect on their experiences and performing the sameanalysis that has been performed on the activities after the students complete their first semester.The authors are particularly interested in understanding if introducing students to Chickering’sstudent development theory will cause more diversity in students’ choices of what vectors theyparticipate in. The authors plan on expanding the submission form students use to report theirparticipation to include self-reporting of what vectors they believe they engaged in and an areafor students to comment and reflect on their experience.ConclusionStudent development in the first year is complex and
matter, pedagogical approaches, political and personal preferences, orother criteria as dictated by a dynamic group of stakeholders. Many changes originate from aclearly defined need or mandate, while others may sneak in without a full analysis of the course.Repeated and often subtle changes compound to have a significant impact on the course, creatinga narrative reflecting the intents of the faculty and the concerns of the institution as course goalsand methods are updated in each subsequent semester.This paper describes a process to employ engineering education research methods to describe thenature, development, implications, and motivation behind of course changes. We define a sixstep process focused on the use of artifact analysis to
student-student learning through online collaboration, where students and staff have interactive discussion forums, access to units, assessments items and engage with lecturers, tutors and other students.20 3. Reimagined learning experience through media-rich study materials and virtual learning environments.21 4. Providing modern tools (such as e-Portfolio) for storing, organizing, reflecting and sharing student learning with others.22 5. Online peer support, seminar groups and workshops to improve the students study skills.Deakin University students also have an opportunity to alternate and combine on-campus andonline education study modes into the undergraduate engineering program on a course-by-course
helpimprove performance in Calculus I.Another change will be how the EBC is delivered to the students. UNC Charlotte is changingcourse management systems from Moodle to Canvas, effective fall 2017. For 2016, the programwill remain in Moodle, with plans to use Canvas for 2017. The migration from Moodle toCanvas is expected to be relatively easy based on pilot studies.In order to maintain its usefulness, the EBC is modified and updated annually to reflect changesin the campus and university policies. The Forum interaction portion of the Boot Camp has roomfor growth. For example, student workers are developing a menu of topics and questions that canbe used as prompts. These improvements, combined with better timed communications with theparticipants
contract, thus many courses plan to implement Top Hat.Second, we plan to develop online quizzes to test students on weekly lectures, readingassignments, and online material in both new courses. Online quizzes are also being piloted thissemester in our Intro 160 course. There is evidence to suggest that quizzes promote self-reflection and a deeper understanding. [4] These online quizzes can also serve as assessment ofthe course content, allowing course coordinators to make adjustments in real-time based on quizresults. [3, 5] Third, particularly in the hands-on course, we will provide online tutorials, videos,and lectures--commonly known as "flipping the classroom." [5] This strategy will be largelyimplemented in the Design Practicum course to
implementation.The video was first incorporated into the class in the fall of 2015. Grades on the technicalcomponents of the lab reports increased from the spring of 2015 with an average of 65.2% to thefall of 2015 with an average of 73.1%. It should be noted that this difference is not based on acontrolled study, but a first investigation of the preliminary data available. The number ofstudents in the spring of 2015 and fall of 2015 was about the same around 300. The distributionof students that take the intro course in the fall and spring is random, and associated primarilywith registration. These consistent factors indicate that the grade increase could reflect the use ofthe video, but further examination is necessary to provide any statistical
aproject report. In the web publication, audience expands beyond the classroom, the informationis stored in the cloud, and shared with general public. Traditional class project reports are sharedonly with an instructor and teammates, and usually poorly managed afterward. In the webpublication, use of graphs, pictures, and video clips becomes essentially important elements tomake an effective communication. Developing web publication skills have several benefits,which include: 1. Visual and multimedia communication: Visual and multimedia communication skills are becoming more important than ever in digital communication. This growing need should be reflected in engineering communication. With the web publication, students
their sessions, some measures were not utilized by Instructor B.The outcomes of student performance were categorized into two levels: (a) individuallevel performance and (b) team level performance. Here, individual level performanceindicates individual students’ scores from their own performance on enculturation factorsand team level performance indicates that students in the same team received the samescores as reflection of teamwork for an activity on enculturation factors. The mostfrequent number of team members was four and a few teams had three, due to the lack ofstudents or attrition. Table 2 shows characteristics of the measures utilized in this study,related enculturation factors of each measure, and the level of performance. Details
Education, Savannah, GA. https://engineering.purdue.edu/MIDFIELD/Papers/paper08.pdf6. Meadows, L.A., Fowler, R., and Hildinger, E. S. (2012). Empowering students with choice in the first year. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas. Retrieved from: https://www.asee.org/public/conferences/8/papers/4128/download7. Meyers K. L., Silliman, S. E., Gedde N.L. and Ohland, M. W. (2010). A comparison of engineering students’ reflections on their first-year experiences. Journal of Engineering Education, 99, 169-178
this paper are those ofthe authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science FoundationReferences:(1) Yawson, R. M. An epistemological framework for nanoscience and nanotechnology literacy. Int J Technol Des Educ 2012, 22, 297-310.(2) Resources: Courses Browse Visually. https://nanohub.org/resources/courses (accessed May 25, 2014.(3) Veety, E. N.; Ozturk, M. C.; Escuti, M.; Muth, J.; Misra, V. In Tilte, Indianapolis, Indiana2014(4) Rodgers, K. J.; Kong, Y.; Diefes-Dux, H. A.; Madhavan, K. In Tilte2014.(5) Schlosser, P.; Trott, B.; Tomasko, D.; Clingan, P.; Allam, Y.; Merrill, J. In Tilte, Chicago, Illinois2006.(6) Abernathy, S. M.; Carruthers, B. E.; Presley, K. F.; Clingan, P. A. In Tilte, San Antonio, Texas2012.(7
. Davis. Using strengths of first-year engineering students to enhance teaching. In Proceedings of the 122nd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Seattle, WA, June 2015. [7] Matthew Meyer and Sherry Marx. Engineering dropouts: A qualitative examination of why undergraduates leave engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(4):525–548, 2014. [8] Kerry L. Meyers, Stephen E. Silliman, Natalie L. Gedde, and Matthew W. Ohland. A comparison of engineering students’ reflections on their first-year experiences. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2):169–178, 2010. [9] David E. Goldberg and Mark Somerville. The making of a whole new engineer: Four unexpected lessons for engineering educators and education researchers. Journal of
majoruniversities are lower: 20% at Ohio State,3 27% at UT Austin,4 24% at NYU,5 26% at UCBerkeley,6 and 28% at Georgia Tech.7 It is suspected that the low enrollment numbers are aresult of social issues and curricular policies. While social change is outside the scope of highereducation faculty control, curriculum changes can be used to encourage women as well as retainthem in engineering programs.There is evidence that certain curriculum practices are more enticing to women and motivatethem to stay in engineering. Strategies to attract women to engineering have included teamwork,service projects, and social impacts of engineering projects. These strategies reflect the higherpercent of degrees awarded to women in areas like environmental and biomedical
,identifying design requirements and functions for the expected solution, developing andevaluating design concepts, developing a baseline solution and project plan, and meeting theirproject plan milestones. Table 1 lists all the projects titles student teams pursued as part of thesecond project. They represent a wide range of applications, which reflect different studentinterests. Table 1. Project Titles Interactive Maps Bike Rack Drip Irrigation Automated Animal Feeder SeKure Bike Bust Stop Awning Smart Lifejacket F.L.O.P. Board-Based Transportation Lock Methane Collection Box
designs and teaches courses in mechanical engineering at ASU. Her interests include innovative teaching pedagogies for increased retention and student motivation, innovations in non-traditional delivery methods, as well as structured reflective practices throughout the engineering curriculum.Amy Trowbridge, Arizona State University Amy Trowbridge is a Lecturer in the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering at Arizona State University (ASU), focused primarily on freshmen engineering. She is also Director of the Grand Challenge Scholars Program at ASU. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Assessing the Impact of Incorporating the NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering as a
, only 5% of B.S. engineering graduates have been AfricanAmerican and only 7-8% have been Hispanic.2Shoring up the leaky STEM pipeline, particularly for underrepresented groups, is of nationalimportance. The first two years of college are particularly important for STEM retention.1 Onestrategy employed by some universities to remedy the gap in retention rates is the creation ofsummer bridge programs.3. Research BackgroundResearch suggests this achievement gap does not reflect a difference in student ability but ratherstructural inequalities in K-12 educational experiences between students from high-performing,well-resourced schools and students from under-performing, low-resource schools.4 Studiesshow abilities, attitudes, and college
proctoring period.Furthermore, problems with variants can be used both for practice and for assessment.QuizPack, an automated assessment system for C programming was found to encourage practiceand enhancement accomplishment in programming when used in such circumstances5.We believe that the immediate feedback of Cody is most beneficial when the student is close tobeing able to complete a solution unaided -- the desired goal state of the learning. Using Cody’sfeedback to infer how to fix fundamental defects in algorithmic is not likely to be veryproductive use of time for the student. Stopping when Cody accepts a solution as correct alsodoes not encourage further reflection on code improvement that might be sorely needed if thesolution was obtained