learning as a required outcome and graduate attribute for our engineeringstudents, and advocates for careful deliberation regarding the definition of lifelong learning,especially in regards to the recently proposed changes to ABET EC-2000 Criteria 3.1. Introduction and objectives In the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Manitoba, a large research university incentral Canada with an accredited engineering undergraduate program, two studies wereundertaken to explore students’ educational experiences and perceptions. One study was designedto be a formative assessment tool for an introductory Thermodynamics course that wasrestructured using Student Centered Learning methods to explore the instructor’s and students’experiences and
Paper ID #15266Student Persistence Through Uncertainty Toward Successful Creative Prac-ticeNajla Mouchrek, Virginia Tech Designer, Doctoral Student in the Individualized Interdisciplinary PhD in Human Centered Design at Vir- ginia Tech. Master in Design at the Graduate Program in Design, Innovation and Sustainability, School of Design, University of the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Bachelor in Social Communication at the Faculty of Philosophy and Human Sciences, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Her current research fo- cus on the application of co-creation and participatory design activities on education
Further, well-implemented undergraduate research programs allowstudents to develop mentoring relationships with faculty members that have been linked toacademic success.5 Participation in undergraduate research has also been linked to increases ingraduate school attainment and in students’ interest in science and engineering careers.1,6,7,8,9In contrast to the above findings, there is little information on the relationship betweenparticipation in summer (or other semester-long) research experiences for undergraduates andgrowth in STEM-specific professional identity. Hunter et al.10 conducted a seminal study thatfocused on the development of professional identity, among other factors, experienced by risingseniors due to participation in a
, learning, motivation, and other concepts underpin many diversity efforts and are tied to positive outcomes, there are minimal examples available in the literature that purely explore the theories from the perspective of Black women and their identity in the context of STEM. Womanism, a theoretical perspective grounded in the experiences of Black women across the diaspora has the opportunity to inform STEM education efforts that focus on Black women in an exciting and informative way. Presently, there is a gap between this critical, yet often absent social science theory and STEM education research and practice. Through the experiences of eight Black women in STEM disciplines at various levels (e.g. current students, graduates, or working
fortriggering the formulation of an Engineering Ambassador role identity? Analyses reveal students’ substantial personal investment in their role as an engineeringstudent and an emerging ambassador. The decision to participate is often driven by personalinterests and experiences, and is tied to a deep sense of importance for the work. Similarly,choice of presentation topic is also often personal. Presentation skills reveal new courses offuture action; ambassadors describe increases in confidence and many report using the skillsimmediately. Opportunities to meet other ambassadors are singled out as a major benefit, andstudents use newly acquired programmatic knowledge to shape the role expectations at theirinstitution. Although not necessarily
faculty’s meticuloustutelage and veritable concern with the students under their auspices. They cared about and forus, and that has been shown to be an effective mediator of student learning.51,52 To suggestanything to the contrary about the faculty there or their effect on undergraduates’ level oflearning would be not only a misrepresentation but also an arrant insult to them and their efforts.One could point to this as evidence that Tulane did indeed ultimately offer a nurturingenvironment for its engineering students. That was true at the individual faculty member level,though it may or may not have extended above to the higher administration. Dwelling on this,however, misses the broader point.Initial impressionsThis narrative so far has relied
accreditation philosophy based on assessments of student learning and continuous improvement principles. Today, according to the accumulated evidence in Engineering Change, engineering education in the United States has changed dramatically. Engineering programs and faculty members have reengineered their curricula, teaching methods, professional development practices, program assessment and decision making, and, to some extent, their hiring, promotion, and tenure criteria. Perhaps most important, graduates in 2004 were measurably better prepared than their counterparts of a decade ago in all of the nine learning areas assessed. The greatest increases were in understanding of societal and global
charter schools easier. As a result, charterschool boards aren’t composed of parents, teachers or community members, thus eliminatingimportant stakeholder input in the decision-making process and operation of the public charterschools.In November, a special session of the Louisiana legislature convened to create Act 35 whichaltered the criteria upon which state authorities could intervene at the local school district level.The new act redefined how school performance was deemed failing or not. The language statedthat an entire school district would be considered “Academically in Crisis” if 30 or more schoolsin the district had a failing rating and/or if 50% or more of the students in the district wereenrolled in failing schools. This new
such a high stakes venture, sheincreases attention to the importance of WOV skills. The instructor also allows for a questionand answer session, whereby other groups can interrogate their choices and justification.Therefore, by the second week of their college career, these students have created and given theirfirst formal proposal presentation, an early entry into professional engineering practices. In semester II, the faculty member allows for a different experience in professionalcommunication practices: a board-meeting style consensus exercise. In this scenario, studentsdetermine, through the same research process, their individual nominees for texts (one perstudent), present and justify their nomination, listen to other proposals
origins ofthis separation, and where and how engineering-SJ connections actually took place (ProgressiveEra, New Deal, Counter-culture movement of 1970s, Counter-neoliberal movement at turn of21st century), and what conditions led to their separation (and seeming incommensurability)throughout the late 20th century. The grant gave us the legitimacy to develop, pilot and makepermanent our course Engineering and Social Justice, in an institutional setting that tends to beconservative and aligned with powerful corporate interests. The official course description statesthat it “offers students the opportunity to explore the relationships between engineering andsocial justice through personal reflection and historical and contemporary case studies
G. Adams is the Department Head and Professor of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech. She previously served as Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies in the School of Engineering at Virginia Commonwealth University and was a faculty member and administrator at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL). Her research interests include: Teamwork, International Collaborations, Fac- ulty Development, Quality Control/Management and Broadening Participation. She is an honor graduate of North Carolina A&T State University, where she earned her BS in Mechanical Engineering, in 1988. In 1991 she was awarded the Master of Engineering degree in Systems Engineering from the University of Virginia. She received her