benefits and challenges of creating a multidisciplinarysenior capstone course from the perspective of engineering faculty. From this study five overallthemes emerged: 1.) multidisciplinary courses reflect real world, 2.) students are primarybeneficiaries of multidisciplinary courses, 3.) current university structure and organization cancreate obstacles, 4.) senior capstone is a critical component in engineering education, and 5.)dedication of resources. The paper will conclude with recommendations for working with facultyto create a more multidisciplinary learning environment for students and initial thoughts on thenext steps in the development process.Capstone as Part of Engineering EducationThe requirements of a 21st-century engineer are
not an easy practice. Students discover the characteristics of story as they experience it with the class.In this sense, storytelling is emotionally co-imagined. Previous work25 defines the SBL as an environment where individual participantsact as both storyteller and audience member. In both of these roles, specific use of theconcepts of mindfulness48 and social proof39 provide a theoretical foundation and drawsfrom constructs in socio-cognitive psychology. In the context of mindfulness, the aim isto consciously create new categories and levels of awareness. In practice this is done bydiscussion through reflective questions from both facilitating teacher and the class.Relevant here, is that while there is a syllabus that
engineering education of critical self-reflection andfocusing on problems. This is not surprising because as early as the nineteenth century theUnited States possessed a Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education that hadsponsored the first of these major reflections, and subsequently several more. Socially relevantissues in engineering education (and STEM education more generally) are often identified bynationally distributed reports from blue ribbon panels. In engineering these date back to theMann report of 1918, through the 1923 Wickenden study, the 1940 Hammond Report, the 1955Grinter Report, the Goals of Engineering Education report (1968), Engineering Education andPractice in the United States (1985), The Engineer of 2020 (2004), to
andmotivation were significantly better than respective predicted values.DisclaimerThe views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect theofficial policy or position of the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Department of Defense, or the U.S.Government.IntroductionPrevious studies at the Pennsylvania State University found the general driving factors of studentsatisfaction and motivation, which were used to move forward into quantitatively modelingstudent satisfaction and motivation. The models will show the significant factors with thecategories of Instructor Interaction and Feedback, Classroom Environment, and Modes ofTeaching for overall student satisfaction. The significant factors were then implemented into atest
voluntary.The pedagogical theoriesThe pedagogical theories supporting the Para didactic Laboratory activities are: i) constructivismas proposed by Jean Piaget; ii) experiential learning according to David Kolb and John Dewey;iii) reflective learning according to Donald Schön and John Dewey. And as support tools: i) thefour stages of competence of Noel Burch; ii) the theory of Flow created by MihalyCsikszentmihalyi.ConstructivismAccording to Jean Piaget for the process of learning to be efficient it must take into account thecurrent stage of cognitive development of the students and create situations that allow them todevelop new cognitive structures to absorb the knowledge and develop the skills andcompetences required at each stage of their learning
to identify and adopt the individual, college anduniversity level practices most likely to support minority engineering persistence.Context & BackgroundNational leadership and STEM outreach to produce talent for the knowledge economy areat the highest levels, with the President of the United States championing STEMeducation in eight consecutive “State of the Union” addresses (2008-2016). The resulthas been an important resurgence in awareness of STEM careers, particularly inengineering, as reflected in the quadrupling of size of a large public university’s Collegeof Engineering the past 10 years.However in spite of the growth, the college’s struggle to graduate more engineers mirrorslongstanding challenges to reduce attrition, retain and
MapsConcept maps have been widely applied as a heuristic tool in engineering education to promotemeaningful knowledge structures for students. A concept map allows a student to organize acollection of concepts and to identify/present the relationships between each other using a graph3- 4 . Studies suggest that concept mapping be a valid tool to categorize and to reflect changes instudents’ structures of knowledge in STEM disciplines 3, 5. However, concept maps emphasizethe macro relationships among concepts and may not reflect students’ understandings of anindividual concept.Concept inventories referred to here comprise of a series of instruments for the assessment ofstudents’ conceptual understanding of STEM disciplines. The questions were
), influenced our efforts to develop the teaching standards used for this project. In addition, a framework that articulates what informed design thinking entails – students using design strategies effectively; making knowledge-‐driven decisions; conducting sustained technological investigations; working creatively; and reflecting upon their actions and thinking – was another foundation upon which this work was built (Crismond & Adams, 2012). The final set of the design teaching standards (see Table 1 for details) created for this project is organized around three dimensions: Dimension I – STEM Concepts – Teachers’ understanding of science, technology
styles of active/reflective, sensing/intuitive, visual/verbal andsequential/global before instruction of the case study. The results confirm that the majority of thestudents were active, sensing, visual and sequential learners. These characteristics are ideal forthe use of cases and hands-on interactive instruction. Overall, the students found the use of casesmore engaging and the cases elevated their interest in laboratory discussions and course content.External evaluation of the student reports suggest that the use of cases did not significantlyimprove the quality of the student laboratory reports, however, student interpretation andanalysis of data slightly improved. Purpose of Study Laboratory courses
were the Engineering Disciplines Team Concept Map, Hand PumpLaboratory Team Report, Simply Supported Beam Laboratory Report, Alpine Tower StaticsLaboratory Wiki and Grand Challenges Video Project.A team leader was designated for each of these five assignments, which provided every studentwith an opportunity for an intentional leadership experience. As the first assignment was given,the instructor led a class discussion on the roles of team members and team leaders. After thedeliverables for team assignments were submitted and in order to reflect individually on theexperience, students were required to submit a Self-Reflection using a journaling tool inBlackboard. The intent of these structured reflections was to reinforce and foster
science teaching methods course and volunteered for a follow-up engineeringprofessional development institute, which was the context for this study. Data sources includedvideos of the teachers solving design problems, teachers’ written and oral reflections onengineering teaching experiences, and researcher field notes from the after-school week. Wegenerated thick descriptions of the cases of Ana and Ben and used these to develop conjecturesabout their engineering epistemologies. Following microethnographic methodology andstrategies from discourse analysis, we re-examined transcripts and other data artifacts forconfirming and disconfirming evidence of these conjectures.We found that Ana and Ben framed engineering learning as building knowledge
colleagues. Yet, teamwork skills are rarely “taught” inengineering curricula; in fact, compared to business representatives, university educators havebeen found to underestimate the value of teamwork KSAs. Instead, students are expected todevelop teamwork and leadership skills via a sink-or-swim approach where they are assignedgroup work and left to perform as they can. Often, these poor teamwork experiences combinedwith the lack of training and opportunities for guided reflection lead to students disliking workingin groups, impacting not just the cognitive but also the affective domain of learning.In response to this identified weakness, a committee of representatives from the Faculty ofEngineering and other support units at the University of
student experience3 and favors learning styles that are intuitive, verbal, reflective,and sequential, as defined by the Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Styles (ILS). Felder andBrent point out the futility of trying to tailor instruction individually4 and Alghasham posited thateducational planners desiring to enhance teamwork should group students of mixed learningstyles.5-7 A balanced pedagogy blending learning styles will challenge students to step outsidetheir comfort zone to “stretch and grow.”3 This allows those that favor the opposite end of thelearning style spectrum, sensory, visual, active, and global, to benefit from the proposedpedagogy. Through the approach presented, new graduates will have a better chance to apply anappropriate
leadership and teamwork11.Developmental bibliotherapy (guided reading) is a tool that uses fictional written stories to helpdevelop social, emotional, or psychological growth at all levels of development12-13. In 1949,Shrodes identified four stages of developmental bibliotherapy: 1) identification - where thereader identifies with a character in a story; 2) catharsis - when a reader is able to experience theemotions of the character of the story; 3) insight – a deeper understanding which is achievedthrough reflection on the identification that the reader makes with the characters and situations ofthe story; and 4) universalization - when a reader is able to apply the insights the reader hasgained through reflection to situations they encounter in
their own experience through immersion and examination. Teams documentedtheir observations using blogs that focused on the same general area of inquiry they wouldpursue in Lumbisi. The blogs were available to the garden community and organizers, as well asother teams, allowing them to dialogue about their understanding of the subject. Research teamsalso were required to review other teams’ blogs and comment on observations.During the course development, coordination across educational units, universities, organizationsand countries flowed surprising smoothly and without issue. Perhaps the greatest challenge of theentire effort came when devising a course name that would reflect the interests of engineers,social scientists, planners and
competitiveness of the US economy. This endeavor has become a national priority1.However, the ECE enrollment and attrition trends in recent years are sources for concern.Enrollment in U.S. institutions of higher education has grown steadily at all levels rising from14.5 million students in 1994 to 20.7 million in 2009, but such a growth is not fully reflected inscience and engineering. Institutions of higher education in the United States granted engineeringdegrees in the mid-2000s at a lower rate than in the mid-1980s. The number of Americanstudents earning bachelor’s degrees increased by 16% over the past 10 years, however, thenumber of bachelor’s degrees earned in engineering decreased by 15%. Nationally, less than50% of the students who enrolled in
have produced, piloted, and internally distributed 64 curriculum modules and/or labs.The purpose of this paper is to provide preliminary results of an investigation of the relationshipof learning setting and instructional use of experimental centric learning, especially for students ofcolor. Learning settings studied include: 1) traditional classrooms, 2) lab settings and 3)homework. Variations by instructional use included: 1) instructor demonstration, 2) cooperativeand 3) independent student use. Student outcomes reflect gains in: 1) pre-requisites to learning; 2)immediate short-term learning; 3) long-term and transferable outcomes and 4) selected ABETcharacteristics (importance and preparedness). Findings indicate that both setting and
-order thinking skills canbe developed through practice, feedback, and reflection. (Miri, 2007; Sawyer, 2013).In order to build the STEM workforce of tomorrow, faculty must be trained to implementevidence-based pedagogies that foster higher-order thinking skills. Specifically, learningenvironments must foster and support critical and creative thinking skills. While there arecountless examples of institutions focusing faculty development efforts on promoting criticalthinking, very few place an explicit emphasis on the creative aspect of higher-order thinking. Thesingular example we identified that emphasized critical and creative thinking was focused in theliberal arts (Five Colleges of Ohio, 2012). Higher education must shift the paradigm that
anengaging platform. In order to present students and teachers perception about this newmethodology, Kahoot system is presented in five different approaches: Introduction of anew concept or topic; Reinforcement of knowledge; Encouragement of reflection andpeer-led discussion; Connection of classrooms and Challenge for learners to make theirown Kahoot quizzes. Some of these purposes presented were studied in Physics I andChemistry courses for freshman students and Physics II course for sophomore students inan Engineering School.IntroductionImmediate feedback enhances students’ learning. For students, it’s a chance to go furtherby breaking misconceptions and changing learning routes. For teachers, it’s a practicalopportunity to feel the “temperature
groups were presented with an Owl’s Dilemma at the beginningof each week or Concept. The dilemma was presented in an inquiry-based fashion for Group Aand required that they share their thoughts about the dilemma. Group B, on the other hand wasjust presented with the dilemma and not asked to comment on it. Both groups were asked toreflect on Owl’s Solution at the end of each week or Concept. Figure 10 shows the percentage oflearners in each group who reflected on Owl’s Solution. Group A learners were consistentlymore likely to reflect on Owl’s Solution than Group B learners. In weeks 5 and 6, 12.9% and15.4% more learners from Group A reflected on Owl’s Solution than learners from Group B.This indicates that Group A learners were more engaged with
learners receive and process information. The FSLM incorporates someelements of the Myers-Briggs model and the Kolb’s model. The main reasoning for its selection inthe DLMS evaluation is that it focuses on aspects of learning that are significant in engineeringeducation.The FSLM consists of four dimensions, each with two contrasting learning styles: Processing(Active/Reflective); Perception (Sensing/Intuitive); Input (Visual/Verbal); and Understanding(Sequential/Global). The details of the dimensions can be found in Ref.6. In order to determine anindividual’s specific learning style, Felder and Soloman13developed the Index of Learning Style(ILS) survey. Each of the 44 questions within the survey is designed to place the learner’spreference within
students directly,and also the faculty indirectly – resulting in a more inspiring classroom environment. Simplystated by Harold Hongju Koh, “Theory without practice is as lifeless as practice without theory isthoughtless 15.”It is well researched and documented that problem based learning is well suited for engineeringprograms for students to engage in complex, ill-suited, and open-ended problems to fosterflexible thinking and support intrinsic motivation 16. These characteristics in turn can increaseopportunities for group discussion over potential solutions, provide opportunity for criticalinstructor feedback, and essential self-reflection of the learning.A. Kolb and D. Kolb define Experiential Learning Theory as the “process whereby knowledge
also typical of engineering fields, although a bit high for thisinstitution (the freshman engineering class at this university was 18% female). As expected, 76%of respondents were first year students, while 14% were transfer students. Participating facultycame from a range of engineering programs including Biosystems, Chemical, Industrial andSystems, Mechanical, Polymer and Fiber, and Computer Science and Software Engineering.Instruments A battery of attitude scales was assembled for the purposes of this study from theliterature. The first 17-item scale assessed students’ Beliefs about Engineering, with half of theitems reflecting beliefs related to engineering as a helping or communal profession (e.g.,“Engineers are helping to solve
as an Assistant Professor in 2004. From 2008 to 2011, he was a Research Engineer at the Georgia Tech Research Institute where he fabricated scalable multiplexed ion traps for quantum computing applications. Prof. Geddis returned to NSU as an Associate Professor in 2011. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 2016 ASEE ConferenceAbstractThis paper presents the initial pilot findings from a multi-year project that is initiating experimentalcentric approaches to learning in electrical engineering courses via the use of an Analog DiscoveryBoard (ADB). The specific audience emphasized in the paper reflects participants in circuits-content courses; the majority
in computational electronics, electromagnetics, energy storage devices, and large scale systems.Dr. Mandoye Ndoye, Tuskegee University c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 2016 ASEE ConferenceAbstractThis paper presents findings from a multi-year project that is initiating experimental centricapproaches to learning in electrical engineering courses at 13 Historically Black Colleges andUniversities. The tool supporting to experimental student-centered learning at these institutionswas an Analog Discovery Board (ADB). The content or setting of use reflect introductory,circuits, and supporting electrical engineering courses. The students were 1st, 2nd, and 3rd
100 students who have done at least one form of engineering internship. Engineering - Internship-Supervisor Evaluation For each of the following performance characteristics please place an “x” in the line that best reflects your experience with this student. Thank you so very much!Attitude/Application to Learning4 Outstanding and extremely enthusiastic3 Interested and industrious2 Average1 IndifferentAbility to Learn4 Learns very quickly3 Above average in learning2 Average1 Slow to learnDependability4 Completely dependable x3 Above average in dependability2 Usually dependable1 Below average in dependabilityWriting Ability4 Consistently clear
different views of SRL, in general SRLtheorists “view students as metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participantsin their own learning process” [5]. Thus, we can summarize most major SRL theories with thegeneralized framework of SRL, shown in Figure 1. Performance Phase Self-Control Self-Observation Forethought Phase Self-Reflection Phase Task Analysis Self-Judgment Self-Motivation Beliefs Self-Reaction Figure 1 Phases and Sub
response to self-reported vulnerabilities and concerns of engineeringstudents. This paper presents data from practical efforts to identify and mitigate anxiety amongengineering students. A group of twenty-seven engineering and engineering technology studentswho were part of a scholarship program was asked to submit journal entries in which theyreflected on their fears and anxieties related to their participation in their degree program.Prominent themes which emerged from student reflection included time management and itseffects on academics and social activities, the likelihood of degree completion and success inengineering-specific coursework (e.g. senior capstone projects), and aspects of life followinggraduation such as handling accumulated
integrates requiredcourses with career planning and support, followed by a paid internship with a partner company,completed by final reflection and placement. The net cash outlay for a participant is $4,400 withthe opportunity to earn the equivalent or more during the paid internship. We have developedtwo tracks for the program, one in Innovation and one in Technology. Each track shares severalfoundational courses and has been designed to meet the diverse needs and prior skills of ourtarget population.Courses/core curriculumManufacturing certificate programs are offered at MassBay Community College and are part ofthe engineering department offerings. The college is an open access institution and thecertificate programs do not have prerequisite
general, we interpreted student engagement with and case-study application of the E4SJcriteria as an indication students not only understood the criteria, but could also analyze andevaluate them well enough to argue for or against their inclusion/exclusion in the process ofdeciding which criteria were the most or least effectively engaged. Furthermore, student use andevaluation of the criteria to an actual engineering case study constitutes a form of sociotechnicalapplication, wherein students analyzed and reflected on the complex interplays of the social andthe technical. Overall, the E4SJ criteria evaluation process via case studies provided studentswith concrete, specific opportunities to evaluate the utility of the criteria and to understand