variable consisting of twogroups, while the engineering concept knowledge of Statics, along with the subjective cognitiveload scores will serve as the dependent variables to be measured using multivariate analysis ofvariance (MANOVA).Pre-testStudents will first complete a pre-test to identify their baseline Statics knowledge regarding trussanalysis and the method of sections. Figure 1 shows an example of a sample pre-test questionwhere students will be asked to solve for internal forces of truss members using the method ofsections.Figure 1. Pre-test sample question.1 Reprinted from Vector Mechanics for Engineers: Statics & Dynamics, (p.320), F., Beer et al, 2016, McGraw-Hill Education.Group 1: Partially
basicfriction problems. Figure 1 shows an example of a sample pre-test question where students willbe asked to solve for unknown external forces acting on an object involving friction.Figure 1. Pre-test sample question.1 Reprinted from Vector Mechanics for Engineers: Statics & Dynamics, (p.442), F., Beer et al, 2016, McGraw-Hill Education.Group 1: Embedded-Formatting ExamplesFollowing traditional instruction students in this group will be given a worked example that issetup using embedded-formatting, which will be used as reference material to solve a similar in-class problem. At the end of class students will be given a homework assignment, where theywill be provided another worked example utilizing embedded
, electronics, and electromagnetics. These three two-course sequences are alsopart of the focus of an effort funded by the National Science Foundation whose overall goal is torevolutionize engineering education5. A team of educators has broken each of the courses into aset of five learning studio modules (LSMs). After LSMs 1-2, 3-4, and 5, respectively, in each ofthe core competency areas, a knowledge integration (KI) module is conducted to illustrate howLSM concepts from signals/systems, electronics, and electromagnetics can be applied together tosolve real-world engineering problems.This paper presents and discusses innovations in teaching and learning electromagnetics LSMsaimed at increasing the student engagement, especially as related to class pre
improvement in engineering education, conceptual change and development in engineering students, and change in fac- ulty beliefs about teaching and learning. He serves as the Publications Chair for the ASEE Educational Research and Methods Division. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Students’ Conception and Application of Mechanical Equilibrium Through Their Sketches1. Introduction and Relevant LiteratureSketching is central to engineering practice, especially design[1]–[4]. When constructingsketches, a student/engineer must synthesize various pieces of knowledge and reasoning into anideally self-consistent graph or set of graphs. University educators have
assignmentassigned for that week. These problem sets were comprised of problems from the class textbook9or modeling problems created by the professor and executed in Microsoft Excel or MatLab. Thesampling of what was recorded was determined by the problems the students decided to work ontogether in the group. Some recorded sessions begin with students having started the problems inthe problem set while others work on all four problems from start to finish together. While this isnot ideal for research purposes, it captures the authentic ways in which students work and doesnot require them to do anything out of the ordinary as a participant in this study.Table 1: Overview of Data Corpus Group Assignments
research 1. Its questions are tailored to identify students’ implicit assumptions in aspecific field and may be applied both pre- and post-instruction. There is no currently existing CIfor networking and telecommunications. Our initial results seem to suggest that the developmentof a CI for this field would be very useful. However, we would like this CI to be applicable to adiverse set of students, with respect to both their culture and their educational level(undergraduate and graduate). At the moment, the development of such a CI is still in an earlystage.In summary, this study expands the breadth of knowledge on student preconceptions in STEMby including the subject of QoS in telecommunications, identifying some of thepreconception(s
in the Department of Mechanical and Civil Engineeringat the University of Evansville have undertaken a similar, multi-year study, in an attempt tofurther quantify and support the findings of these studies.Method and Study ParametersData from three different courses in the Mechanical and Civil Engineering curriculum werecollected for this study. Table 1 contains information regarding the study parameters and thethree instructors (listed as A, B, C) associated with each course included in this semester. Foreach of the courses in this study, there are typically 3-4 exams each semester, approximately 20-25 homework assignments and 8-10 quizzes. Average enrollment for ENGR prefix classes isapproximately 20 students per section. For CE prefix
two opposing stances: 1) We can be race-and gender-blind because the educational system is a meritocracy. There is at leastadequate opportunity for anyone to meet whatever standards are set. Diversity is not amajor issue because you can “take a peek” at it at the end of the process; 2) There is nomeritocracy. Meeting our standards and diversifying is “tough” because we can’t hire fromanywhere. Only those schools that have the same prestige as us (Michigan, Georgia Tech,Stanford) are worth even considering. Although he recognizes that this statement does nothave a basis in data he brushes off the concern by saying, “Maybe…I haven’t exploredthat…space yet.”The absent presence in his discussion is what the standards are that drive faculty hires
combined findings from both phases of the study.2. Research Question(s)Mixed-methods research follows from a pragmatic perspective, hence the research questionsguide and determine the entire process such as selection of research design, sample size, and datacollection methods11-13 The research questions for this study are: 1. The overarching research question is: “What is the relationship between engineering students’ programming self-efficacy beliefs and their experience learning computer programming?" 2. The quantitative research question is, “Are there differences in students’ programming self-efficacy beliefs after taking an introductory computer programming course?" 3. The tentative qualitative question is
toprofile the quality of reflection. Table 1 summarizes the dimensions of reflection.Table 1: Summary of Reflection Dimension Attributes. Dimension Attributes Descriptive Problem or concern is identified and described. Comparative Outside perspectives and/or data are gathered to reframe the problem, question assumptions and/or preconceived notions and provide basis for comparison/critique. Evaluative Conclusions are made with a broadened perspective of how teaching impacts the learning environment and how students learn. Decisions to implement a change or to continue with current teaching style
section; the“scientific method” students outperformed “neurotransmission” students on scientific methodquestions, while “neurotransmission” students outperformed “scientific method” students onquestions pertaining to neurotransmission.Research QuestionsBecause creating digital video is not a widely accepted form of communication expected ofundergraduate students, the following research questions were proposed for this study: 1. Does learning differ between students who create media while receiving media- literacy instruction and students who receive media-literacy instruction alone without creating any media? 2. Do “video term-paper” projects and lessons in media literacy improve student
engineering education, and community partnerships in secondary education. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 WIP: Examining micro-interventions to improve classroom community in introductory engineering classroomsThe field of engineering education, like many areas in higher education, is steeped in tradition.Engineering departments are known for traditional lecture-style classrooms with highenrollment, particularly at the lower levels, where direct instruction, along with grades basedlargely on a handful of multiple choice exams, are the norm [1]. Introductory courses -- the startof an unforgiving workload -- serve to “weed out” students at an early stage, and typically
-based instructional practices (i.e.active learning, cooperative learning, think-pair-share, etc.) and opportunities for their inclusion.Following the TLE, sequentially, two additional faculty review the video and are privy to thepre-observation reflection statement, the comments from the TLE, and any other reviews orannotations that preceded their own reviews. The peer reviewers are provided a table ofinstructional attributes, adapted from Berquist and Philips (1975) to guide their review (Table 1).The reviewers are also provided a list of evidence-based instructional practices and theiroperational definitions. Table 1. Table of attributes used to guide peer-review. Instructor’s Organization (The instructor…) presented the material in an
to a recent study, students aretethered to digital technology [1]. Therefore, digital technology is now essential for them toconstruct and manage their lives. For this reason, this generation has different expectationsregarding how they learn and how they want to be taught.A hallmark of digital technology might be interactivity. Interactivity can be achieved throughdiverse experiences, including two-way or reciprocal communication [2-4], tailored content (i.e.,customization or personalization) [5-6], and synchronous interaction with a system [2].Interactivity is viewed as residing in the medium or technological feature itself. It suggests andpermits interaction [7-8]. Therefore, the very presence of interactive features can constitutediverse
have learned from those experiences.Data Sources: There were 9 participants in this study—2 alumni, 6 seniors, and 1 junior. Allparticipants have completed the GCSP requirements and have described most of theirexperiences in their final portfolios. The primary data source was the portfolios which describedtheir GCSP experiences. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 3 of the currentstudents who will be graduating this semester. In the future, we will conduct additionalinterviews using the portfolios for artifact elicitation to gain further insights into the meaningstheir chosen GCSP experiences hold for them as they navigated the process of becoming a GrandChallenge Scholar-Engineer.Data Analysis: Open and axial coding methods were
IntroductionAlthough there are many standardized questionnaires used to assess students’ self-regulatorybehavior and motivation to learn, the MSLQ is one of the more widely used in general educationresearch [1, 2, 3]. The MSLQ is a self-report instrument specifically designed to assess students'motivational orientations and their use of different learning strategies. . By focusing on the rolesof both motivation and cognition during learning, the MSLQ reflects the research on self-regulated learning, which emphasizes the interface between motivation and cognition [4, 5].Prior research using the MSLQ has found relationships between constructs on its motivationalsubscales such as: intrinsic goals, extrinsic goals, task value, control of learning beliefs, self
Positive Learning Behaviors and Dispositions for First-Year Engineering StudentsIntroductionWe know that students who apply to competitive engineering colleges and universities excel ontraditional measures of cognitive ability, such as GPA and standardized test scores. Despite thesequalifications, however, many students leave engineering. Their reasons include excessivecoursework and diminished interest 1, poor teaching and advising2, and lack of confidence inmathematics and science skills3. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in academicperformance between departers and persisters who started in STEM majors 1. These findingssuggest that we must look beyond students’ academic ability to help students persist
in graduation explained by the construct. Including two closely related variables in thesame model can cause confusing and even misleading results. Additionally, looking at eachvariable individually allows us to use the most data since records with missing data must bedeleted listwise. In other words, a student cannot be included in the regression if they aremissing any of the variables in that regression. The coefficient, β , can be used to calculate thelog of the odds of an event (eq. 1). Positive values indicate that the presence of one unit increaseof the variable increases the likelihood of the event. In this case, the event of interest isgraduation. log(odds of event)=β 0 + β x
otherschools/colleges on campus. We have held eight collaborative workshops/events. 1. Speed Networking: The goal of these events is to begin to explore potential partnerships between engineering and other schools and colleges on campus that could lead to new curricula and course delivery models. The events focused on discussions to identify opportunities for engineering faculty to collaborate with faulty from other units to develop interdisciplinary curriculum in the areas of professional skills, social justice, humanitarian practice, peace, and sustainability. We characterize these events as Collaborative Leadership since we needed to provide a forum for different faculty to meet and begin to develop their
c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017Trailing or Failing? A Hidden Mental Health Issue: The Changing FuturesProject 1. AbstractThe ‘Changing Futures Project’ aimed to directly tackle an issue that has been long reportedin both academic and professional body spheres, that of student failure in engineering education[1,2] . It focused on the experiences of 96 Engineering & Applied Science students who wereclassified as ‘failing’ or ‘trailing’ in one or more modules. One of the unforeseen outcomes ofthe project was the high numbers of students who reported that they had been experiencingmental health problems at the time when they found themselves failing. By putting in a seriesof academic and individual support
; Brookfield, 1995; Mezirow andAssociates, 1990). We reflect any time we draw on prior experiences and use our interpretationsto inform our choices and actions impacting the present or future. The Consortium to PromoteReflection in Engineering Education (CPREE) has recently made considerable progress inpromoting reflection in higher education engineering programs (Sepp, et al. 2015; Turns, et al.2014; Turns, et al. 2015; Harding, et al. 2015; Carberry & Csavina, 2015; Csavina, Carberry &Nethken, forthcoming; Summers, et al. 2016). This exploration investigates two fundamentalquestions of interest: (1) how do engineering practitioners, educators, and students definereflection, and (2) what aspects of reflection are valued by these individuals
method focuses in the professor actively exposing theconcepts and students passively taking notes. Therefore, this method does not allow for activestudent participation and does not develop teamwork skills that are needed in a professionalsetting. By having the professor be the main character in the classroom and students act asempty vessels waiting to be filled with information, students often lose interest in the matteraltogether and oftentimes withdraw from the course or fail.Due to the previously exposed deficiencies, this study aims to improve students’ learningexperience with the objective to develop basic abilities any professional engineer must have.These abilities include: (1) ability to understand the problem (take, mold, analyze), (2
engineering decreased by 15%. Nationally,less than 50% of the students who enrolled in engineering curriculum complete the program [1].At Colorado State University, we typically lose 40% of our electrical and computer engineeringstudents during the first two years of their undergraduate engineering program [2]. The causes for the declining attrition trend can be attributed to many factors from socialsupport systems available to students, to low self-efficacy due to poor academic performance, tolack of perceived value and career opportunities relative to the amount of effort required to gothrough the program, to the rigid ECE curriculum structure and the lecture-style learningenvironment that discourage active and inquiry-based learning [1,3,4,5
doctoralstudents have favored simplicity of design and rapid data collection from local populations ofstudents.1 However, local sampling can lead to poor representation of engineering doctoralstudents among engineering disciplines and minority groups. Students from programs ofdifferent sizes and disciplines across the country are often not considered, thus hindering theability to generalize quantitative results and observe the true variability of the doctoralengineering student population.We seek to collect survey data from a minimum of 5,000 engineering doctoral students fromacross the country to examine their identity and motivation profiles within the context ofprevious academic and research experiences in STEM fields. To promote recruitment of
of user-centereddesign (UCD) and human-computer interaction (HCI) during the mid to late 1990s. Unlikesimple descriptions of real people, personas are fictional, “hypothetical archetypes” [1]constructed from purposeful research about product users. Personas help to communicate thegoals, values, needs, and actions of targeted users and to develop empathy and interest for usersduring early stage design. Scenarios are narrative descriptions (i.e., “stories”) of “typical andsignificant” user activities that help designers define specific product features that reflect a userfocus [2]. Today, use of both personas and scenarios are widely recognized; designers mayimplement personas and/or scenarios in the context of product usage models that enable
mixed-methods design to lay thegroundwork for subsequent research on teams, specifically in the context of new measurementand analysis strategies for team dynamics, interactions, and learning. Research questions reflecttracking micro-level patterns of teams from project launch, through process development, to finalsolution. The research questions are: 1. What micro-level patterns of behavior a. influence the effectiveness of sharing (e.g., inclusiveness, openness, and mutual encouragement) in team member interaction? b. enable winning teams to form a cohesive identity in the initial stage of the project? c. enable teams to make the best use of available resources, including each other, mentors from
of Technology Transfer, 31(3), 367-375.Chubin, D. E., May, G. S., & Babco, E. L. (2005). Diversifying the engineering workforce. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 73-86.Fussell, S. (2016). The alarming downsides to tech industry diversity reports. Retrieved from http://gizmodo.com/the-alarming-downsides-to-tech-industry-diversity- repor-1789797486Maranto, C. L., & Griffin, A. E. C. (2011). The antecedents of a ‘chilly climate’ for women faculty in higher education. human relations, 64(2), 139-159.McCandless, D. (2016). Diversity in tech. Retrieved from http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/diversity-in-tech/McGee, E. O., Robinson, W. H., Bentley, L. C., & Houston II
were surveyed at the end of the first week of classes and again at the endof the semester. Surveys were developed using items from Dweck’s Implicit Theories ofIntelligence Scale, which has shown good internal consistency, α = .88 and test-retest reliability,α =.79 (Dweck, Chiu & Hong, 1995). We also used items from Pintrich’s Motivated Strategiesfor Learning Questionnaire, which has also shown good internal consistency, α = .89 (Pintrich,Smith, Garcia, & Mckeachie, 1993). The scales were adjusted to use a 7-point Likert scale (1 =not at all true of me to 7 = very true of me.). The number of items per scale were reduced to notoverburden participants. The students in the redesigned sections also completed a memo exercisewith open-ended
followingprocedure: 1. Review paper title. If obvious (e.g.: Understanding the Benefits of the Flipped Classroom in the Context of Sustainable Engineering) then create new code or fit into existing codes 2. If practice was not obvious from title move on to abstract and look for practices to code. 3. If practice was not obvious from abstract, open full document and scan article to determine practice. Code as above. 4. If no educational practice was evident after steps 1-3 leave code blank.Using the list of open codes, a process of axial coding11 was applied to categorize the differentopen codes. Categories were chosen based on the aspect of the practice (e.g. overall courseformat, specific technique
learning, civic engagement and community. Laura holds a PhD in Sociology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 WIP: The Impact of Project Based Service Learning on Students' Professional Identities and Career Readiness 1. Introduction Project based service-learning (PBSL), as an innovative pedagogy and strategy, has beenintegrated into engineering education through curricular, co-curricular and extra-curricularactivities in many universities to improve engineering education with many favorable impacts onstudents [1-10]. There is evidence that PBSL has a positive influence on student learningoutcomes, as well as on an