(75 minutes) and a weekly laboratory session (4 hours).Students complete six laboratory modules, each two weeks in duration, during the laboratorysessions (see Table 1). Most modules require two in-class laboratory periods to complete, oneperiod designated as a planning period and the other as an experimental period. Following thefirst laboratory period, students write a planning report (a technical memo) in groups of 3-4 andfollowing the experimental period the students individually write a summary report (a technicalmemo). The final laboratory module requires a 20-minute group presentation and a fulllaboratory report. Thus, the course, as implemented in the past, required 10-14 writtenassignments, but had been lacking instruction in
Engineering Education, 2017 Assessment and Implementation of an Interdisciplinary General Education MinorIntroduction General education, also known as liberal education, is argued to be a key component ofhigher education as it develops the breadth of knowledge and skills individuals need to thrive ina complex society.1 However, as a utilitarian view of higher education gains ground, generaleducation has come under threat, particularly for engineering degrees, which comprise morecredits than most. Balancing the competing purposes of professional and liberal educationintroduces challenges at the university level, particularly at schools housing a variety of degreeprograms. These challenges to liberal
measures are not sufficiently robust8. The challenge is to find a balancebetween credible assessment and efficient deployment and analysis.This project explores the well-documented methodology of concept maps used in more than 500prior educational studies9 can be repurposed to gather and analyze student learning with the goal oflarge-scale and efficient assessment in mind. This research seeks to address: 1. How can semi-structured instruments, such as concept maps, provide evidence for knowledge acquisition in non-technical fields where ‘perfect’ answers are not the desired student-outcome, such as understanding and recognition for social context? 2. Can the results from concept mapping activities be linked
success in engineering practice (ABET, Inc., 2016)1. Metacognitionis key to the development of life-long learning, yet is rarely directly addressed in engineeringeducation. Metacognition, defined as “knowledge and cognition about cognitive phenomena”(Flavell, 1979, p. 906), is a higher-order thinking skill and provides the key to developing life-long learning skills necessary for ABET and for an effective work career. This paper will reporton the authors’ study of the development of metacognition and life-long learning skills ofgraduates of the Iron Range Engineering (IRE) program, an innovative problem-based learningprogram that integrates metacognition instruction with engineering content. The IRE programoffers a unique setting for studying
individual fits or does not fit within “the system” and whatthe individual can do to help develop a better fit. For example, several studies have looked at theeffects of a non-inclusive culture in engineering and how to make students, especially those fromunderrepresented groups, more resilient in this “chilly” environment 1-3. Additionally, researchsuggests that the degree to which the individual’s personality aligns with the dominant values ofthe environment they are in, such as an engineering program, the higher their likelihood forsatisfaction and success in that environment4. Some recent studies have begun to look at the engineering culture itself to see if, insteadof programs to help make students more resilient, there might be ways to
identity, career motivations,and agency through engineering. The survey was designed for students in their final senior design, orcapstone course, just prior to entering the workforce. We developed the survey using prior nationalsurveys and newly written questions categorized into six sections: (1) career goals and motivation, (2)college experiences, (3) agency, (4) climate literacy, (5) people and the planet, and (6) demographicinformation. We conducted focus groups with students to establish face and content validity of thesurvey. We collected pilot data with 200 engineering students in upper-level engineering courses toprovide validity evidence for the use of these survey items to measure students and track changes acrossthe undergraduate
information unless actively engaged.31 For this reason, Engle32,33 suggeststhe importance of social framing, where activities are framed to allow an intended connectionbetween what is learned and the transfer context (i.e., intercontextuality), and students arereminded and encouraged to generalize to a new situation or setting. Lobato34 argues that it is notthe multiplicity of contexts that impact the transfer, but rather purposefully drawing of students’attention towards patterns and properties between the contexts.35MethodA summary of participants in the program within each semester covered are shown in Table 1.Data sources for this project come from a multi-year research effort, comprising regularinterviews of students and instructors, focus
ClassroomIntroductionEngineering educators point to a persistent problem that positions the engineering profession inapolitical and neutral terms. We call this the “neutrality problem” and describe it as placingmoral weight not on the work of engineers but instead the ad hoc uses of engineered artifacts.The problem appears in common assumptions that, for instance, guns are only as violent as theirusers intend them to be, absolving engineers of moral responsibility for the socio-technicaloutcomes that they helped to produce. The “neutrality problem” has a long history of beingchallenged by critically engaged engineering educators. Some challenge the problem by callingfor “non-canonical engineering ethics canons,”1 others advocate for a “peace paradigm” to beincluded in
communication at Pennsylvania State University. He is the author of The Craft of Scientific Presentations (Springer-Verlag, 2013) and founder of the web- site Assertion-Evidence Approach, which receives more than 200,000 page downloads each year. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 The Assertion-Evidence Approach to Technical Presentations: Overcoming Resistance in Professional SettingsSummary The assertion-evidence (AE) approach to presentations is a non-traditional way [1-4] forengineers and scientists to share their work with their audiences. In short, the approach calls onpresenters to build each talk on messages (not topic phrases), to support those messages with
datalimitations, research has not yet been able to document LGBTQ inequality relative to theexperiences of non-LGBTQ students at the same institution. In this paper, we utilize new surveydata on over 1700 students (both LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ) from eight engineering collegesacross the U.S. to paint the landscape of inequalities for LGBTQ students. Specifically, we ask,(1) do LGBTQ students experience greater marginalization than their classmates and (2) is theirengineering work more likely to be devalued? (3) Do LGBTQ students experience greaterpersonal consequences than their peers in terms of stress, insomnia, and unhappiness? (4) Dothese LGBTQ inequalities vary by school? We find that LGBTQ students face greatermarginalization, devaluation and personal
, statics and stress, filtration and chemical precipitation, and soon). These engineering concepts are not abstracted from social, political, and economicconsiderations. Rather, engineering is imbued with social context. The RPG offers studentsopportunities to reflect on economic, geographical, economic, and philosophical issues whilelearning the technical skills they need to make informed decisions to address the needs of arapidly expanding population.Introduction and Statement of the ProblemIn 1945, when the French mathematician Jacques Hadamard sought to uncover the thoughtprocesses of mathematicians, he approached Albert Einstein, who suggested that “combinatoryplay seems to be the essential feature in productive thought.”1 For many years
Proceedings that same year, Steneck, Olds, and Neeley(2002) argued that the EC2000 criteria “provide[d] opportunities for more clearly defining andstrengthening the role of liberal education in engineering” (p. 1). More specifically, they claimedthat “Liberal education can contribute significantly to the development of all the programoutcomes defined by ABET and is essential to seven of them” (d-j) and to the requirement thatthe major design experience prepare students to deal with “economic; environmental;sustainability; manufacturability; ethical, health, and safety; social; and political” issues.1Recognizing that the new scheme for accreditation specified outcomes but not how the newrequirements should be met and that many engineering educators
university to employment represents a major transition with personal, economic,and societal implications. In recent years, the study of transitions has attracted renewed interest frompolicy makers and researchers in the light of changing labor market patterns, the diverse transitionpathways of young people, the transformation of professional knowledge, and an increasingdisjuncture between students’ academic training and the specific skillsets sought by employers [1, 2,3]. Yet very little is known about this transition in the field of engineering [4]. Most studiesconcentrate on the job readiness of engineering graduates [5, 6]. Fewer studies have explored howthe knowledge, skills, and experience that engineering students gain in university facilitate
full list in Table 1). While the rubric was designed to allowfor assessment of a variety of project types, it has only been applied to civil engineering studentdesign projects.5The rubric includes two four-point rating scales to aid evaluators in judging capstone reportsbased on the 16 sustainable design criteria. The earned points scale [0-3] captures the extent towhich students consider each sustainable design criterion in their capstone projects. Evaluatorsassign a score of 0 to projects that show no evidence of incorporating the design criterion, whilea score of 3 is assigned if the project shows evidence of extensive criterion application. Thepotential points scale [0-3] describes the extent to which each sustainable design criterion
, continue to draw concern from the EngineeringEducation community as well as from other member professional societies, most notably theAmerican Society of Civil Engineers.1 Criterion 3 covers the familiar “a-k” student learningoutcomes in engineering, while Criterion 5 covers the overall structure of the curriculum (e.g.,relative amounts of math and science, engineering fundamentals, and humanities and socialscience content). ABET’s seemingly abrupt departure from a common ideal of a liberallyeducated engineer—after two decades of alignment among ABET’s EC2000 “a-k” learningoutcomes and goals articulated in numerous blue ribbon reports from the National Academiesand the professional societies2-5—raises a number of questions.The process has offered
program of praxis and theory will be introduced. Then considering differentstages in a liberatory process, the role of critical thinking in liberation struggle will be discussedand evaluated. Finally, paper focuses on contribution of liberatory scholars and in particularPaulo Freire and Gloria Anzaldúa in addressing promising components of critical thinking suchas relation, communication, and imagination. This paper aims to raise awareness regardingliberation scholarship as a resource for researchers and practitioners in engineering education.IntroductionThe necessity of addressing critical thinking in higher education has been demonstrated by manyscholars. 1-4 Within the context of engineering education, changes in accreditation criteria are
writing courses. Developed and refined over the last 20years, the DocuScope tool has heretofore successfully demonstrated its strength as a researchtool to sort corpora into identifiable genres, for example, identifying the statistically significantpatterns and moves that differentiate histories, comedies, and tragedies in Shakespeare’s plays[1, 2], as well as its potential as an educational tool in writing courses. At Carnegie MellonUniversity, the tool has been used for these purposes in a graduate-level writing course fordesign students [3, 4], which created a writing classroom environment that functioned like acritique-based design studio; a corpus of student texts from the class could be analyzed inaggregate to visualize the rhetorical
absolutely or relative to the greater epistemic authority of engineering and the physical andnatural sciences.To support this argument, this paper systematically explores the EELE cases along threedimensions: 1) How engineering inquiry is positioned relative to traditional liberal educationmodes of inquiry; 2) How the interactions between technology and society are framed, includingwhere the motive force for social change is located; and 3) How the “fundamentals” ofengineering are understood in relation to the steering of technology in broader social, political,and organizational contexts. Before elaborating each of these dimensions, we review themethodology used in analyzing the case studies and provide a brief map of those case studies inlight of
students explore engineering majors, and co-teaches ”Technical Communi- cation”, a class that focuses on presentation techniques . Her interests are in Academic Integrity, Online Classes, Digital Technology, Public Speaking, and Engineering Education. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Pre-post assessment in a speaking communications course and the importance of reflection in student development of speaking skillsMotivationIn a 2015 survey by Chapman on fears, 28% of Americans reported being afraid or very afraid ofpublic speaking, falling just below “Robots Replacing Workforce” and just above “PropertyDamage due to Natural Disasters” [1]. So, why is it that we are so afraid of
(‘engineer’ was in their job title) in a variety of different environments in thesecompanies, including engineering consulting, manufacturing, continuous improvement, qualitycontrol, research and development, third party testing, and corporate management. Accordingly,these engineers come from various disciplinary backgrounds and universities. All names ofpersons and companies are pseudonyms. See Table 1 for further details.During workplace observations, instances of problem solving activity were recorded throughethnographic field notes or through audio and video recording. These recording modalities wereapplied in the context of participant observation, during which we accompanied the engineersthrough their daily routines, supplemented with periodic
the global community, and have become more prominent at this culturalmoment. In an effort to address the topics of social justice, equity, and inclusion manyuniversities and groups of faculty and students have focused on ways to educate STEM studentand faculty populations.There is a complex and continually developing body of literature discussing and reflecting onreform efforts both in engineering education and more broadly. This literature can simplisticallybe classified into three general types: (1) calls for action that explain and provide evidenceconcerning the needs for reforms [1], e.g. , [2]; (2) research describing the reform process e.g. ,[3], [4], and; (3) research examining why most reform efforts fail [5], [6].This third type of
orientations to the issues.Given how frequently one or more of these are shared to set the stage for presenting diversitywork, perhaps these elements make up a collective normative context for our diversityunderstanding (Figure 1).Figure 1. A common diversity context including a pie chart representing representation numbers, a pipeline representing retention factors, and quote bubbles representing the voices of marginalized students from qualitative research or personal experience.Affordances and Limitations of Our Ordinary Diversity ContextOnce again, establishing a shared context is critical for productive conversation or work on anytopic, including diversity. In addition, this context may represent key components of a
convergent parallel mixedmethod design, collecting both quantitative and qualitative data, simultaneously, to answer tworesearch questions 1) What trends are Program Officers seeing in the Broader Impacts criterionand 2) Which Broader Impacts statements are being addressed in Project Summaries submitted tothe National Science Foundation. The quantitative approach consisted of examining 82 awarded Project Summaries in theEEC division to obtain a quantifiable assessment of the extent to which PIs who applied to EECaddressed the Broader Impacts suggestions outlined in NSF’s Proposal and Award Policies andProcedures Guide. The qualitative approach involved interviews of four program officers from theEEC division regarding the trends in addressing
their general education requirements. One of these options isto complete a Pathways Minor: an interdisciplinary minor that covers several general educationlearning outcomes that is centered around a common theme. The goal of pathways minors is tohelp students 1) develop their general education skills through classes that are related to andbuild on each other in an intentional way and 2) reflect meaningfully on how these classesconnect to their majors and future careers. This paper will explore the educational environment demonstrated in a three coursesequence that makes up the core of a Pathways Minor in Innovation. The Learning PartnershipsModel, based on self-authorship theory, will be our primary guide for understanding thisenvironment
them in identifying and crafting of new writing assignments thatcan be deployed in their junior and senior level courses. The idea was that integrating Englishfaculty with Engineering and Science faculty with specific attention to developing writingassignments would yield productive results for students while also building stronger connectionsbetween the scholarship on writing and rhetoric and STEM education. It was exploratory innature, focused on a grounded theory.12 There were 3 overarching, conceptual phases in thisfaculty learning community and our subsequent study: 1) Discovery. Driving question: What are the main communicative practices needed by STEM students in the workplace? This phase will focus on the identification
approach to identity and motivation, and the use of collaborative design-based interventions to promote educators’ and students’ motivation and identity exploration around the curriculum. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 1 Work in Progress: Developing and Inter-Relating the Role Identities of Engineering Ambassadors through Hands-On Outreach Activities Joanna K. Garner Old Dominion University Michael Alley The Pennsylvania State University
superpower status of U.S. science and technologyand outlines steps that the U.S. Department of State (DoS) should implement to bettercarry out its mission to, “create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for thebenefit of the American people and the international community.”6The NRC report offers four, complementary activities that should be undertaken by theDoS to upgrade science and technology capabilities within the Department, including:6 1) utilize the Department’s existing resources more effectively in responding to dramatic changes in the global landscape; 2) engage more fully with the widely dispersed science and technology capabilities within the U.S.; 3) upgrade science and technology capabilities of U.S
thatengineering programs that wish to retain highly socially motivated students should explore theinfusion of social context into engineering courses beyond the first year, as well as the requiredbalance of technical and non-technical coursework in their curriculum and opportunities forcourse choice.BackgroundEngineering has an important role to play in addressing a number of important challenges facingsociety and the world.1-3 These challenges embrace the interface between humans andtechnology, and addressing these issues will require creative, systems-level thinking. A diversityof engineering students with a range of talents and attributes will be needed to meet the demandsof society.4 This includes students who are motivated toward engineering due to
address societal problems through technical solutions is foundationalto official articulations about the engineering profession. 1 Questions, however, have been raisedabout how this vision translates into practice. They point to limitations in engineers’ training and,by extension, competency in determining and promoting the “social good,” 2 as well as to anincreasing number of contemporary cases involving engineers’ failure to protect the public’shealth, safety, and welfare. 3 Integral to the engineering profession’s service ideal is a relationaldimension that portrays engineers as inextricably connected to society. However, in their day-to-day work, engineers tend to make complex and critical decisions – often with significant
across various professional contextsconceive of and frame the ethical dimensions of their work can assist with future cross-sectordialogue, and potentially conflict resolution. In this paper, we present the results to date of atwo-year NSF-funded project which employs a novel approach for comparative analyses ofmeanings of responsible innovation (RI) and ethics in genetic engineering, biotechnology, andsynthetic biology, while cultivating socially-responsible cultures of research and development(R&D) among graduate students, faculty, and practitioners.The project innovates in four key respects: 1) it focuses on bioengineering, specifically in areasin which engineering ethics programs have not routinely been applied--genetic engineering