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
anonymity. All recruitment procedures were IRB approved, and allparticipants were compensated with a $25 gift card for their time. Despite attempts at a purposivehomogenous sample, our sample is one of convenience. Specifically, the sample represents fourEDS from a Western land-grant institution who participated in semi-structured, one-hourinterviews during the Spring of 2016. Table 1. Participant Demographics Participant Degree Completion Domestic Pseudonym Engineering Major at Time of Interview /InternationalTrisha Mechanical Last Year InternationalEdward Civil
in class and during field trips. The course thus helps empower them, helps themgain confidence in the classroom, but also experience a foretaste of being a collegestudent. By the end of the pilot course in Summer 2016, we asked students if they feltthey could be engineers or inventors in the future. A strong majority (91%) agreed theycould. Several aspects of the bootcamp are unique, and we would like to share the keylearnings. They include: 1) The application process, which was based on non-cognitivevariables. No grades were required. Applicants needed to deliver a 2-min video showingtheir motivation and how they would improve their school cafeteria. Students needed tohave a curiosity towards STEM fields and the invention process. A
each teacher’s affiliation (see Table 1 for details). The commonclass time was three hours per week, with an additional 3 hours for B&P students on aseparate day of the week, led by the B&P teacher, to make up for the difference in credithours and instruction time. CE students also had two hours of extended class time regularlyon a different day as needed, led by the CE teacher, to ensure a commonly available time forall CE students to convene for training, discussions, collaboration, or experience sharingamong project groups. Totals of 10, 22, and 22 students took the courses in the first, second, and third years,respectively. Students were mainly recruited from the three teachers’ affiliated departments,with a fourth teacher from
. To make these objectivesaccessible to K-12 audiences, the IC provides a structured, simplified approach for teachers toguide students through an open-ended design problem within a domain of the students’ choosing.In this paper, we will describe the K-12 InVenture Challenge and the K-16 ecosystem in which itis situated. Then, we will focus on research outcomes related to the following guiding questions:1) To what extent does participation in the IC affect K-12 teachers’ self-efficacy for teachingengineering and entrepreneurship content? 2) What are teachers’ perceptions of the program’simpact on students?Background and OriginsThe IC was originally developed as a high school-level competition with materials created byhigh school science
Psychology from Stanford University. Her current research interests include: 1) engineering and en- trepreneurship education; 2) the pedagogy of ePortfolios and reflective practice in higher education; and 3) redesigning the traditional academic transcript.Dr. Sheri Sheppard, Stanford University Sheri D. Sheppard, Ph.D., P.E., is professor of Mechanical Engineering at Stanford University. Besides teaching both undergraduate and graduate design and education related classes at Stanford University, she conducts research on engineering education and work-practices, and applied finite element analysis. From 1999-2008 she served as a Senior Scholar at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, leading the
large vessels. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 The Need for Measuring Transformative Experiences in Engineering EducationAbstractTransformative experiences (TE) are specific moments when students 1) apply practices and/orknowledge from their coursework to everyday experiences without prompting (also calledmotivated use); 2) view everyday objects or situations through the lens of course content(expanded perception); and 3) express value course content in new ways because it enricheseveryday experience (experiential value, which we also term affective value). This constructdraws heavily on John Dewey’s seminal work in education and experiential learning.Transformative experience has been
; Clase 1, previously documented many of theconsiderations for program content, duration, format and administration. Through aninternational compare and contrast of somewhat similar programs, both credit and non-credit, theaforementioned paper described their methodology as: The methodology employed encompassed a time-phased set of inter-related activities as described below. A compare and contrast was performed by identifying and normalizing categories of cost, availability, and curriculum Program offerings, nationally and internationally, were mapped to the normalized data for cost, availability and curriculum A compare and contrast was performed by characterizing and normalizing best practices
improve the performance between pair of nodes.1. IntroductionRecently, wireless network is very popular due to its many advantages including mobility, cost,easy deployment, etc. In addition, it has been developed and applied to lots of application such assensor network, ad hoc network, LAN, vehicular network, body network, IoT, etc. One of thedriving forces of such a rapid growth in wireless network is a convenience in installation. Sincewireless network creates the connectivity without wire, network connectivity can be easilyestablished in the most of environment conditions to create or extend the network. For example,instead of installing the cable over the mountain or river, install the antennas to create one ormulti-hop wireless connection
the advent of free massive open online courses (MOOC). The goingdigital movement in higher education is true and has begun to pick up pace.It would be very difficult to find a collegiate student that is not technology savvy,dependent, and/or welcoming of more gadgets, screens, and/or keyboards. On theother hand, it would not be hard to find a collegiate faculty member, junior or seniorranking, who resists and/or struggles with technology adoption in his/her classroom.There is a wide gap concerning technology acceptance between generations in highereducation. The following statement by Ramasubbu (2015) illuminates the trend: 1 The elusive generation gap is construed as being widest when one of
literacy” has a specificmeaning that is not generally found in fiction permits a qualitative view of the rise in use ofthe term over a time frame of decades, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Google NGram word frequency vs. time graph of the terms “technological literacy”, “science literacy”, and “information literacy” (value divided by five) for 2012 dataset of American English with a smoothing of 1 for the time period 1970 - 2008.The term technological literacy seems to have first come into use around the 1950’s where itwas used more by happenstance than deliberately. Before 1980 technological literacy mostoften referred to the benefits of, or need for: vocational education, skills for living in a worldwith rapid technological
out, there is a dearth of research conducted on programs designed to not only retain, but aidin the retention and success of these students.The course at the Wright State University called Preparatory Math for Engineering (EGR1980)has been run since 2008, with the latest iterations being implemented in 2012. Students that placeinto either developmental math or college algebra are enrolled in the course. Many of theseplacements, however, are below where the student should be placed based on previously completedcoursework. However, these students have scored a 24 or lower on the ACT math test, or havetaken the university math placement exam and been placed at this level based on that score. Figure 1. Highest math course enrolled in three
implementation ofthe proposed procedure was statistically significantly higher than the exam average score in thesections without the implementation of the procedure. A survey was conducted in the classesregarding the proposed procedure. The feedback information from the survey was very positive.This paper will also present these results of the data analysis of the student survey.1. IntroductionFor a mechanical engineering program, one of the main learning outcomes is that students candesign machine components. To design a safe component, students are required to apply theappropriate failure theories to evaluate the factor of safety at possible weak points. In order toapply failure theories for evaluating the factor of safety, students must know the
(Jones et al., 2008), such as drug-resistant staphylococcal ortuberculosis infections. Because of these pressing issues, it is keenly important for engineers andbiological scientists to understand risk sciences to improve the design and selection ofengineering controls and other mitigation strategies.A ten-day long, yearly short course was developed to train engineers, biological and socialscientists in QMRA approaches - the Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment InterdisciplinaryInstructional Institute (QMRAIII). Participants of QMRA III (1) attend lectures from the topscientists in the QMRA field; (2) engage in specific hands-on exercises; (3) under the mentorshipof a program faculty member and teaching assistant, conduct a QMRA as a research
Foundation’s Revolutionizing Engineering Departments (RED) program isunlike any other national initiative focused on undergraduate STEM education. In addition toproviding schools with resources to incite “revolutionary” change within engineering orcomputer science departments, RED teams are expected to serve as national models foraddressing systemic issues and instigating sustainable change in engineering and computerscience education. The RED program’s portfolio currently includes two cohorts composingthirteen geographically-dispersed teams using unique change strategies to address localchallenges shaped by institution-specific factors.1 Figure 1. Geographic Distribution of RED Teams in 2015 & 2016 CohortsThe RED Consortium’s
undergraduate research projects related to greentechnologies for the entire duration of this partnership. Our college made a commitment to 1) encourage our STEM faculty to attend Re-Energize professional development opportunities to learn and include green energy educational modules into our STEM curriculum; 2) seek space to establish a "start-up green lab" on our campus with Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program pass through funding from the four-year institution so that faculty can conduct classroom demonstrations and our students can perform undergraduate research. This initiative is meant to diversify and continue our undergraduate research program as we include our William R. Sinkin Eco Centro
metals and piping industry as a principal engineer have allowed me to promote necessary skills which need to be developed in the classroom so that the students have success upon graduation. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 The Retention and Usefulness of Concept Maps as Advance Organizers1. Introduction:A concept map is a type of node-link diagram designed to show the interconnected knowledgestructures that a person possesses in a particular subject area [1]. The diagram consists of nodes,representing key concepts in the given subject area, and links representing key relationshipsbetween those concepts. An example of a concept map of engineering structures can be seen inFigure 1 below
’s, and use a case study from aspecific biomedical engineering capstone sequence to illustrate how the availability of rapidprototyping has impacted capstone projects and biomedical engineering education at theundergraduate level.The Early History of Rapid PrototypingRapid prototyping (RP) is the process by which a computer-aided design (CAD) file is used tocontrol an automated technology in order to produce a physical model.1 Its origin is often cited tobe with the release of the first technology by 3D Systems in 1987 and it was primarily used tocreate a first generation prototype to quickly verify a design.1 The first commercializedtechnologies in the 1990’s were based upon addition or removal of liquids, powders or solids(Table 1). Liquid
discuss the proposed ideas or directly rejected themcompare to successful groups. We conducted two studies (Study 1 and 2) to explore the learning processes incollaborative settings. Specifically, we investigated the effective dialogue patterns and verbalmoves for productive interactions, and how these collaborative interactions are influenced by theinstructional materials provided for students to engage. For both studies, we compared the dyads’performance in collaborative learning condition with individual students’ learning outcomes insolo condition. While all the analysis for the Study 1 is finalized and reported in this paper, theverbal analysis for the Study 2 is still in progress, therefore we only report the overall learningresults
refers to educating adult, self-directed learners. A searchfor the two topics in the Journal for Engineering Education returns 277 articles associated withthe term pedagogy compared to 2 for andragogy, for a ratio of over 138:1. For the InternationalJournal of Engineering Education the ratio is 119:1. A similar search of all ASEE conferencearticles since 1996 returns over 104:1. The initial conclusion of these findings is that the topic ofandragogy is less prevalent than pedagogy in engineering education publications. This isproblematic considering these two learner orientations bring with them a set of conflictingunderlying assumptions regarding the learner themselves, with the pedagogical assumptions lessconsistent with ABET student outcomes
orientation, resource management, and academic performance. Additionally, many STEMscholars expressed interest in participating in future mentoring programs. The success of thementoring program, coupled with Learning Center initiatives and support from the NSF STEMclub, enhances the STEM experience of women and underrepresented population at Penn StateHarrisburg.1. IntroductionPenn State University at Harrisburg (PSH) is an undergraduate/graduate university that enrollsapproximately 5000 students, made up of 10% Asian, 12% Black/African-American, 7%Hispanic/Latino/Latina, 66% White, 3% Multi-race, and 2% other, with approximately 40%women and 60% men. STEM faculty member at this university received an NSF grant to aid inincreasing both enrollment and
design. Literature in engineering curriculum development and facilitationsuccessfully focuses on creating conceptual and epistemological impact. Although the role ofstudent emotion is implied in such literature, it is rarely the focus of study and often does notconsider the relationships between instructor, curriculum, student learning and student emotion.Tonso and Bales note how emotion plays an important role in undergraduate design courses associal and emotional task functions within teamwork can contribute to a student’s role andinvolvement on a team.1-2 Literature in science education speaks to the role which emotion canhelp or hinder learning.3 We suggest that when educators consider student emotion as part oftheir instructional design
Bioengineering and Ph.D. in Engineer- ing and Science Education from Clemson University. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 The Role of Engineering Doctoral Students’ Future Goals on Perceived Task UsefulnessIntroductionThis research paper explores how engineering doctoral students’ experiences influencedevelopment and utilization of future time perspective towards degree completion. Engineering doctoral programs serve to generate innovative engineers motivated to solveglobal problems. However, engineering graduate programs are plagued by high attrition rates andlow minority enrollment.1 These problems limit the creation of diverse role models and solutionsin
level programs. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 The Role of Engineering Identity in Doctoral-Level Engineering Students’ ExperiencesIntroductionThis research paper explores the role of engineering identity in graduate student success. Identityand belonging have been consistently linked to student success and retention in engineering, butthe majority of studies focus on undergraduate students 1–3. Graduate school presents uniquechallenges to students’ development of engineering identities and is both a key element of theSTEM pipeline and a point at which many students leave academia 4. To improve retentionamong engineering doctoral students (EDS), this paper
government have called for increasingthe enrollment of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) as lessthan 20 percent of those earning bachelor’s degrees in engineering are women 1. According tothe Congressional Joint Economic Committee, about 14 percent of practicing engineers arewomen 2. Multiple organizations and governmental agencies have invested in STEM educationprograms to research the gender disparity. Possible reasons that have been raised regarding lowfemale and minority engineering rates include misconceptions of what engineers do 3, lack ofrole models in engineering 4, and a shortage of engineering experiences for girls in earlyeducation 5. In spite of informal STEM programs out of the classroom, there has been
are discussedThe “Science of Team Science (SciTS)” is emerging as a research area to explore how large-scale research (initiated in the medical research context) endeavors can be best accomplishedacross multiple institutions and potentially hundreds of colleagues 1–3. The Science of TeamScience literature has high value in studying collaborations in engineering and particularly theways in which students learn to become collaborative members of their research teams. SciTSfindings have only recently been introduced in an engineering and graduate engineering studenteducational context 3. Most of these studies promote competency- or logistical- bases forsuccess: that by having the right conditions for success, all teams will be able to be
al., 2015) and research onstudents’ innovation and entrepreneurial skills (Duval-Couetil & Dyrenfurth, 2012; Dyer,Gregersen, & Christensen, 2011). In this study, we ask who are the entrepreneurs of tomorrow,what motivates them, and what learning experiences influence their career pathways.2.0 Starter or Joiner?An aim of this study is to understand students’ entrepreneurial intent, specifically asking Howvaried are entrepreneurial career goals among today’s undergraduate engineering students?(RQ 1)We begin by considering what entrepreneurial intent is. There exist many definitions ofentrepreneurship, such as the activity of starting a business, taking on risk in the hope of profit,or the discipline of managing innovation in the
conducted data analysis. Through the research, studentsgained hands-on research experience and had a better understanding of the mechanical propertiesand their statistical descriptions of materials. Some students showed great interest in doingresearch in future. Through this research, it was shown that some fundamental commonquestions or topics raised by the students during their courses can be used as undergraduateresearch projects. Students benefit greatly from such research projects.1. IntroductionThe mechanical properties of materials gathered from tensile tests are critical strength data formechanical design. In the course MECH2500- Mechanics of Materials, tensile tests wereconducted on an Instron Universal Testing machine to obtain a stress
Entrepreneurially Minded Learning (EML). The paperreviews relevant EML learning objectives and how these can be addressed through use of aMaker Lab in the context of a product innovation course, a single course-based learning module,and extracurricular activities.IntroductionThe Maker Movement is taking the country by storm. From the emergence of educational andcommunity makerspaces to the programs spawned by the White House’s annual National Day ofMaking, the Maker Movement is generating enormous excitement in hands-on creation and isstimulating interest in innovation and entrepreneurial activities. THE MAKER Movement Fig. 1: The Maker Movement
, theprograms available to students clearly developed the skills and knowledge necessary for venturecreation. There seemed to be a gap between the cultivation of skills and knowledge for newventure creation and the engagement of students in actual new venture creation.Looking more broadly, this phenomenon does not seem to be limited to the University ofVirginia. According to data, the number of entrepreneurship programs offered at institutions ofhigher education has been skyrocketing since the 1970’s [1–3]. However, there has beeninsufficient evidence to support that an increase in traditional curricular entrepreneurshipeducation leads to an increase in venture creation [4,5]. As of 2012, approximately 2,100colleges and universities in the United