interviews with some of these earlycareer engineers as they participate in and reflect upon product design, process testing, datapresentation, and workflow planning. Our objective is to show how engineers conceptualize theusers of their products and take them into account during the design process. Our analysisfollows these engineers as they produce documents, drawings and presentations and highlightsthe role of more senior engineers who provide feedback and corrections to help the newengineers understand who the user of the product will be, what the user expects from the product,and how the company would like the user to behave.FindingsWe found that engineers anticipate the user of the products and systems they design and thatlearning about the
she also serves as co-Director of the VT Engineering Communication Center (VTECC) and CATALYST Fellow at the Institute for Creativity, Arts, and Technology (ICAT). Her research interests include interdisciplinary collaboration, design education, communication studies, identity theory and reflective practice. Projects supported by the National Science Foundation include exploring disciplines as cultures, liberatory maker spaces, and a RED grant to increase pathways in ECE for the professional formation of engineers.Steve Robert Harrison, Dept of Computer Science, Virginia Tech Steve Harrison is the Director of the Human-Centered Design Program at Virginia Tech, an associate professor of practice in Computer Science
. Expectancy-value theory (EVT)suggests that achievement-related decisions reflect individuals’ expectations of success orcompetence beliefs related to a particular task, and the subjective task value they associate with agiven option17, 18, 19. These beliefs and values are shaped by individuals’ personal identities, pastexperiences, the social context in which they are embedded, and their interactions with a givenset of cultural norms18, 19. Eccles and colleagues identify four types of subjective task value: Interest-enjoyment value: the extent to which an individual anticipates enjoying an activity. This type of value is likely to be integrated into an individuals’ self-concept. Attainment-achievement value: how a choice aligns with
writinginstructor present. The techniques were evaluated primarily by student reflection at the end of thesemester. Additionally, student writing assignments were evaluated to determine students’performance on selected writing tasks. Table 1 describes the writing tasks assigned throughoutthe course.Table 1: Assignments given in the Fall 2016 course Laboratory Module Assignments (all technical memos) Temperature Sensing Experiment Individually written Technical Memo (1 week turn around) Individually written revision (1 week turn around) Double Pipe Heat Exchanger Group-written Planning Report (1 week turn around) and
actions of engineers and the technologies for which they are responsible,giving priority to public safety in normative endeavors to define right and wrong within the fieldof engineering.These tendencies are reflected in the emphases of various engineering ethical codes, where avariety of ideals and rules for action are outlined, aimed at and applying to the individualengineer.2,3,4,5,6,7 This orientation could be described as “micro-ethics,” aimed at fostering thecapacities of individual engineers to engage in ethical reflection, decision-making, and action. Inrecent years, the focus of engineering ethics has expanded, encompassing the responsibilities ofprofessional and social organizations, “macro-ethics.”8,9 This shift has raised and
, group C was assigned paper homework and group D wasassigned WeBWorK.On the day of the quiz, homework was collected at the start of the class period. To ensure thatquiz score would reflect the student’s understanding gained from the homework, both instructorsrefrained from answering any questions prior to and during the short 10-20 minute quiz(instructors could clarify problem statements but refrained from giving hints during the quiz).The quizzes were graded by a common third-party (neither instructor) grader under a specificcommon rubric. The grader had no previous knowledge of which test groups students belongedto during the grading of the quizzes. To verify the effects of either homework format on quizgrades, any quiz grades belonging to
engineering educators to develop teaching models andactivities to promote using problem decomposition and recomposition in engineering educationon the basis that professional engineers use more decomposition/recomposition that studentscurrently do.AcknowledgementsThis material is based partially upon work supported by Utah State University during Dr Song’sPhD candidature. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of that institution. Partof this material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Grant No.EEC- 1463873. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the
underlyingstructure. This duality of basic computation manifests itself in other higher level processes aswe discuss it later.Another cause may be the control and use of electronic devices by biological computingagents. Our use of an electronic device can certainly reflect the way we use our ownbiological computing device (i.e., our mind). Their utilization, however, depends on how weuse them. So far, we have used electronic devices in various ways, including programming(text-based and visual), office work, communication, visual arts, video games, virtual reality,modeling and simulations. These range from easy tasks (e.g., automation of repetitive andvoluminous work) to complex tasks (e.g., solving systems of differential equations for whichthere is no
peerreviews and periodic reflections on team dynamics. Interestingly, Giurintano, et al. [8], found aneed to focus on teamwork and leadership coaching after observing a lack of effective teamworkamong interdisciplinary teams. They adopted an approach similar to that discussed here withseveral capstone lectures devoted to teamwork and related topics. They also providedspecialized training to interdisciplinary teams. However, an important difference from ourapproach is that their capstone instructors developed and provided the training. The authorsreported that 70% of students surveyed felt that the material was valuable and only 6% said thatit had no value to them. This outcome supports the validity of our approach.MethodologyOur university is
factors whendesigning programs for students. Additionally, researchers should reflect on these factors whenevaluating the effect of programs or institutions on student outcomes.Organizational Knowledge TransferManagement literature on organizational knowledge transfer emphasizes ways in whichknowledge is shared across organizational boundaries and between organizational units toenhance performance and innovation2. Organizational knowledge transfer is “the process throughwhich organizational actors—teams, units, or organizations—exchange, receive and areinfluenced by the experience and knowledge of others”2 (p. 832). Knowledge type, andorganizational and social characteristics affect how knowledge transfer works. Tacit, specific,and complex
-coding Learning Prior coursework and grades in Math, Physics, Chemistry, as well as specialized topics like Statistics, Drafting, Manufacturing…Team experiences Whether the student has been asked to work in a team, of what size and nature and how they perceive that experience. Student outcomes include robust data set in the form of exams, in-class assignments andhomework. This study is focusing on Computational Thinking aspects of this class, thus allreported grades are filtered to assignments that reflect CT and/or CS topics, unless otherwisestated. An example of topics omitted include questions about the general engineering designprocess
public university in theMidwestern United States, participated in this study. 24 of them answered a post-activity ques-tionnaire which reflected, among other things, the demographic information. The respondentsconsisted of 83% CS majors and 17% non-majors. Three-fourths of the respondents were males.About 46% of them identified as Caucasians and an equal number were Asians, while 4% of therespondents were African-Americans and 8% Hispanics.3.2 ProceduresThe students of the course were given two assignments in the form of online-discussions on the twotools: (1) Piazza (http://piazza.com), a popular online-discussion forum used in thousandsof courses across the world, including CSE courses at this university, and (2) CONSIDER, the webapp we
community, and can often lead the establishment of new and shiftedcommunity boundaries. They can provide opportunities for shared discussion and reflection bydifferent communities, as well as an initial platform for exploring the development of new,shared understandings and practices by different communities. Therefore, based on the theoriesand prior work described above and building on established relationships with communitypartners, the Making Connections project began a process to better understand the types ofculturally-embedded making familiar to community partners, engage in extended dialog withcommunity partners and collaborators about specific making activities and practices, and thenweave the funds of knowledge shared by community
. Students reflections and informal interviews show that thestudents are satisfied with the experience and that they highly value gained insights and skills.IntroductionExperiential learning1-3 is a well recognized part of Kolb’s experiential learning cycle/spiral4-6 thatis used as a powerfull pedagogical strategy in many engineering programs. Creating products isthe essense of manufacturing, thus the product realization-based learning seems a natural modelfor learning manufacturing engineering7. Project-based learning (PBL) pedagogy is well acceptedin education8, 9. It is also emphasized as one of the high priority education methods/pedagogiesrequired in manufacturing engineering education10. PBL pedagogy is successfully implementedin a
for students,makerspaces encourage experiential and situated learning experiences through communities ofpractice. Experiential learning is not merely a technique that can be utilized to provide studentswith an experience from which they can learn, but a philosophy of education (Dewey, 1986; A.Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2005). This experiential learning philosophy is characterized by several tenets:learning is (1) a process not an outcome, (2) relearning, (3) resolving conflicts, (4) holisticallyadapting to the world, (5) interacting with the environments, and (6) creating knowledge (Kolb1984). This perspective is built on the notion that knowledge is created from reflecting upon atransformative experience, exemplified through the processes of the
approximately the same, and the perception ofhighly disparate regulatory effects may be caused by more heavily publicized risks.” (Morrall2011: 452) Other studies have suggested that “the regulatory principles may not befundamentally irreconcilable. Instead, the ways they are implemented may be a major cause ofregulatory divergence.” (emphasis added) (Fung 2014: 452) We began with a mental model of the differences between the U.S. and the EU thatassumed divergence based on differences in history and culture, as depicted in figure 1 below.After we conducted detailed analysis of the evolution of attitudes toward technology-based riskand the way those attitudes are reflected in regulatory and educational systems, we modified themodel as depicted in
development and design skills.To address the goals of this study, the survey used in the GT study16 was modified to includequestions related to perceptions of Engineering Mechanics in addition to SustainableDevelopment and Sustainable Design. The Engineering Mechanics questions serve as a point ofreference to which questions related to Sustainable Development and Sustainable Design can becompared. The survey asked students to rate how important they felt certain engineering skillsand abilities in all three areas are, and how confident they are in their abilities to exercise thoseskills on a 7-point scale. Students were also asked to rate their interest in a variety ofsustainability topics and reflect on the source of their sustainability knowledge
greatly contributed to the globalizationof markets, education, and societies which give place to a massive flow of information and therapid creation of new knowledge. This generates new careers and occupations that requirecontinuous learning and specialization (Candy, Creber, & O'leary, 1994).Several researchers agree that engagement, interaction, reflection, analysis, and discussion fosterautonomous learning (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Little, 1996; Weimer, 2002). Kuh et al. (2009) defineengagement in education as the individual effort to participate in educational activities inside oroutside the classroom. The level of engagement of a student will depend on two main factors: (1)the time and energy invested by the student participating in
thathelped engineering transfer students’ make the adjustment to their new receiving institutions; and(2) to increase awareness of opportunities to enhance transfer receptivity at four-year institutionsfor transfer students in engineering programs. More specifically, we explore the followingresearch questions:RQ1: When engineering transfer students are asked to reflect on their transitions to their receiving institutions, what themes emerge regarding: a. Factors that helped them adjust to the receiving institution? b. How the sending institution could have enhanced their success or eased their transition? c. How the receiving institution could have enhanced their success or eased their transition?RQ2: What
increase in class size from the Fall 2016 semester compared to the Fallsemesters of the three previous years (from an average of ~93 to 196 students). Theobserved decrease in progression may reflect the increase in class size.Then, we looked at the effects of grades on students’ progression. Firstly, we tested thestatistical significances of the differences in the grade distributions of progressed andnon-progressed students using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. The corresponding p-valuesare shown in Table 1. We found that the two distributions are statistically significantlydifferent except for MECH in Fall 2016 and CBE in Fall 2014. This finding preliminarilyshows the significant effects of grades achieved for a student’s decision on progression.We
have begun applying constructivist project-basedlearning and higher ordered thinking into their classrooms. Higher order thinking can be definedas a complex mode of thinking often resulting in multiple solutions. According toResnick,“higher order thinking involves uncertainty, application of multiple criteria, reflection,and self-regulation (Resnick, 1987).” In broader terms, higher order thinking can be classifiedusing Bloom’s taxonomy, overlapping with levels above comprehension (Bloom, 1956). Whilesimple recall of information is an example of lower order cognitive thinking skills, higher orderthinking skills involve analysis, evaluation, and synthesis (Zohar, 2003). Therefore, an essentialgoal of STEM education is to develop these higher
Q insulation=3,623 kJwhich is a rather large number compared to the other heat sources considered above. Uponfurther reflection, one should realize that even when the refrigerator is unused, as long as it isplugged in, it will consume electricity (i.e., compressor will run) throughout the day and night,and imperfect insulation is, largely, to blame.Others: All other heat source contributions may be lumped into an arbitrary constant without theneed for in-depth analysis. For simplicity, it is assumed zero.Putting everything together, rounding up to the nearest integer, the actual COP is Q c Q food +Q opening+Qinsulation+Qothers 898+10+3623 4531 COP actual
) for the creativity scales todetermine if there were any significant changes pre- and post-REU by item. We saw significantchanges in two items on one of the creativity scales (Creative Identity): “In general, mycreativity is an important part of my self-image” (t=2.000, p=.046); “I am confident that I can becreative in my coursework” (t=2.121, p=.034).Research Question #2: How did participation in the CREATE REU impact student perceptionsof creativity and the research process?Student participants were asked to reflect on how learning about the creative process and itsrelationship with the scientific method had impacted their understanding of research. While 4 ofthe 11 students did not feel that the training impacted their understanding of
Design-Build-Test-Communicate ClassIntroductionIn the following paper, we describe our initial experiences in replacing the detailed analyticrubrics used for assessment in our team-taught first-year engineering technical andcommunication course with a holistic rubric. We address the issues we identified with theanalytic rubrics we had been using, the holistic rubric we developed to address these issues, andthe preliminary understandings we’ve developed--through our own reflections and an informalonline survey of our students--of the impact of this change on our teaching and our students’experiences in the course.Rubrics are frequently used to convey assessment criteria to students; their use in post-secondaryeducation has been shown to have
confirming student preference foractive, engaged learning experiences. All teams were able to complete a product in time (mostlythrough a large push right up until the deadline). Additionally, students documented andcommunicated their experiences through a written final report and presentation. Bothrequirements allow students to reflect on the project, making activity, and better understandwhere there was room for improvement. Unsurprisingly, the largest point of reflection is toavoid procrastination.In the surveys, students reported exploring more than one engineering discipline during theproject with exposure to Civil, Mechanical, and Electrical being the most common majorsreported. The students found communicating with their group members as one
apartment for the twelve-week research experience. From an evaluative standpoint, students were given a survey both pre and post travel,which included questions on their perception of their global aptitude (or awareness) and howwell prepared the students felt from a cultural and technical standpoint (post survey only) (Table1). A Likert scale was used as follows: “Strongly disagree” (1), “Somewhat disagree” (2),“Neither agree nor disagree” (3), “Somewhat agree” (4), “Strongly agree” (5). Students alsocompleted journal entries approximately twice a week reflecting on their cultural experiences,technical and research progress, and any other topics they found important. These journals actedas a method to reflect on all experiences while abroad
completed in two parts: withindividual students brainstorming for a period of time and then working together to exchangeideas and brainstorm as a pair. After completing the redesign activities, students were asked aseries of reflection questions related to the difficulty and engagement of the activities as well asquestions about their experiences, if any, with similar kinds of activities. We have preliminaryfindings from the cog labs conducted with all students working in pairs and a few comparisonsbetween the two sets of cog labs. Redesign ChallengeStudents were provided information about the relative access people worldwide have to drinkingwater. And they were given a labeled diagram and description of a solar still that can producepure water
about harvesting Ex: "Harvest" Ex: "Ease of harvesting"Extract not mentioned without mentioned with specific or technical mentioned elaboration details about harvesting Ex: "Extraction" Ex: "ease of extracting"Table 2. Scheme used to code student reflections on the jigsaw activity. Students were given ascore of 1 if the idea was present and a score of 0 if the idea was absent.Code Description and examplesPerspective They got to understand a different perspective or point of viewtaking Ex: “It is helpful to get different perspectives and clear up misunderstandings”Peer They learned
enumerates numerous additional reasons that engineers may not use physicallibraries, ranging from the practical (having to travel some distance compared to the convenienceof remotely accessing online resources) to the psychological (the phenomenon of libraryanxiety).21-27 To overcome this, the scholarly record reflects numerous innovative efforts bySTEM liaison librarians to reach these hermetic students and researchers. Previous initiativesrecorded in the literature include reorganizing staffing at service points to provide subjectspecialists with more time for advanced research questions,28 revamping libraries’ web presenceto make subject specialists more visible,29 launching satellite reference services within academicbuildings,30-32 creating
review and the iterative process ofdeveloping classification systems. For instance, in both cases we used an inter-raterevaluation process to increase the reliability of the final results. The second phase was morequalitative, so we followed the eight “Big-Tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research37.For instance, to meet the “credibility” criteria, we extensively used the “member reflections”approach by sharing the interview transcripts and our results with the participants of ourstudy. The use of RTR, especially, allowed us to enhance the opportunities and the quality ofthe “member reflections” as our participants were highly engaged in reviewing and revisingthe transcripts and providing feedback on the analysis. The combination of