Undergraduate Education (VALUE) rubric from the Associationof American Colleges and Universities (AACU) [4]. Figure 4 shows the adapted VALUErubric which students completed for each presentation. Figure 4. Adapted peer evaluation rubric based on Oral Communication VALUE rubric from AACU [4].All groups received an average score of 4 from their peers in each category except for the“What’s in a Lever” group which received a 3 in Organization and Delivery with studentscommenting on the lack of clarity in the video. The authors noted that not all comments fromstudents were reflected in the peer evaluation scoring. For example one student commentedon “Is Elastigirl ‘Stretchier’ than a Rubber Band” that the “material seemed a
pedagogy [1]. John Dewey [8] who is most commonly associatedwith the theory of experiential learning described this learning approach as simply ‘learning bydoing”. This echos Confucius’s famous quote that states the following: I hear and I forgot, I seeand I remember, I do and I understand. Critical pedagogy is a philosophy of education and socialmovement. Critical pedagogy includes relationships between teaching and learning. Itsproponents claim that it is a continuous process of what they call "unlearning", "learning", and"relearning", "reflection", "evaluation", and the impact that these actions have on the students, inparticular students whom they believe have been historically and continue to be disenfranchisedby what they call "traditional
the overall lessons we learned from this experience and discuss next summer’splans as a result of our analysis and self-reflections.1. IntroductionIn recent years, Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) educators,professionals, business leaders, and policymakers have recognized and highlighted therequirement to build a strong and technologically trained workforce. This requires a strongeducation system with qualified and trained educators. While the American college leveleducators are willing to train this workforce, the K-12 education system is currently challengedby a crisis of inadequate teacher preparation in STEM disciplines leading to low studentpreparation and performance1. Furthermore, the K-12 science teachers will be
teach engineers how to effectively workin teams [11, 12]. Pandemic is a cooperative game where players are members of a Center forDisease Prevention and control team tasked with treating and curing four global diseases. As acooperative game, players only win against the game instead of against each other. In that study,we found, through reflection and experiential learning, the students were able to not only extractproper teamwork but also put it into practice [11, 12].However, we recognize the Pandemic game does not cover all teamwork skills and may onlysimulate the use of other skills at a mediocre level. As such, the goal of this work in progress isto identify other commercial games capable to address the shortcomings of Pandemic for upper
varioussituations such as: lack of awareness, general disinterest for their studies, struggle interpretinghomework or assignments, difficulties when expressing themselves both written and verbally,lack of reading habits, little or no discipline for studying, little retention of acquired knowledge,and low grade reflection, independence, and/or generalization. These situations, when added tothe fact that the course requires the use of mental processes that are generally complex andrequire creativity, ingenuity, and discipline, can cause a high desertion rate and a low retentionrate. This is, consequently, reflected in the low passing rate, which is currently about 35%.Second, the teaching method being implemented by many faculty has lost sight of the fact
) in close relation to the content/robot programming (the C). The multi-lab-driven method(MLDM) was employed to construct the TCK of ROS of students in the context of designing anautonomous mobile robot system. A sequence of multiple labs were assigned to students to covervarious topics in the ROS. A variety of labs that reflect the ROS experiments and assist studentsin better understanding robotics programming were elaborately managed. Based on students’performance on various lab assignments, lab reports, presentations, the final robot project,students’ input to the official course evaluation administered by the university, and a comparisonto the instructor’s previous years of teaching experience, we propose that the MLDM is effectivein
children. Through it the accumulated wisdom of a culture is transmitted. Eggleston’s paradigm is similar to the “Scholar Academic ideology” proposed by Schiro. “Scholar academics” writes Schiro, “assume that the academic disciplines, the world of the intellect, and the world of knowledge are loosely equivalent. The central task of education is taken to be the extension of the components of this equivalence, both on the cultural level as reflected in the discovery of new truth, and on the individual level, as reflected in the enculturation of individuals into civilization’s accumulated knowledge and ways of knowing” [12]. Jerome Bruner a distinguished American psychologist wrote: “A body of
newgraduates’ communications skills and readiness for industry roles could be improved and raisedquestions about the extent to which real world conditions were reflected in coursework. Duringthe decade of AIC testing, graduating seniors showed erratic performance and had relatively lowscores in communications, job cost management, and planning and scheduling. The three strandsof assessment together suggested improvements for revising the capstone course and developingthe program curriculum.Development of Instructional ImprovementsInstructional methods for the capstone course were redesigned to increase student engagementand persistence. Faculty workshops conducted by BGSU’s Center for Faculty Excellence and theliterature provided ideas on new
’ development, achievement, and persistence through encouraging the integration of social and academic lives within a college or university and its programs, and through quality interaction with peers, faculty members, and the campus environment5. (pp. 49–50)Learning communities help students to make friends right away so that they can then settle inand focus on academics. Johnson et al8, wrote about how using cooperative learning in learningteam environments helps to reduce anxiety, helps to increase motivation, and promotesemotional bonding. In the learning teams, the first year seminar course, and the academicstrategies course students are asked to reflect and write about their experiences. Research asshown the importance of
ofTechnology requires student to complete a three hour course during each of their first twosemesters [16]. In addition, Miami University has a zero-credit hour course entitled GrandChallenge Scholars Experience, which has requirements such as attending seminars,presentations of other Scholar’s research, and completion of reflections and progress reports[17]. Lafayette College has scholars enroll in a quarter hour credit class during each semesterthey are working on their research competency [11]. The University of Toronto, while outside ofthe United States, is part of NAE GCSP and requires a Grand Challenge specific course for theInterdisciplinary Curriculum component called the Interdisciplinary Approach to Addressing theGrand Challenges [18
, students may learn how to use laboratory equipmentand observe that the course theory is reflected in tangible systems. However, it isquestionable that the cookbook approach helps the students develop experimental skills, sincethey follow instructions systematically with the belief that these instructions lead to theexpected results. The instructions are never questioned by the students while experimentalistsare usually aware of the limitations of their experimental methods and are constantly strivingto develop better methods. When questioned about the instructions, students are oftenincapable of explaining why the instructions asked them to proceed in a certain way ratherthan in a different way. In addition, the traditional approach does not
program served as the basis from which this team was developed,and as such the team follows many guidelines that are listed in Lagoudas and Froyd’s [1] workon multidisciplinary teams. Some of these guidelines include: Small Team size,Multi-disciplinary Team Construction, and Faculty, Industry, and Graduate Student teamsupport. In short, this team may be seen as an instance of the AggiE-Challenge program as thebenefits derived reflect those discussed in Lagoudas and Froyd’s work [1]. In addition to thisframework, a semester long research course focusing on aspects of Systems Engineering (SE)similar to that taken in Valasek and Shyrock’s work [2] on capstone design at TAMU wasadopted for the Railbot program.Team Size: Small TeamIt has been the
in established lab groups at the university.Using the Qualtrics online survey software, we conducted pre-experience and post-experiencesurveys of the participants to assess the effects of participating in this summer research program.At the beginning of the summer, all participants provided their definition of technical researchand described what they hoped to get out of their research experience, and the undergraduatestudents described their future career and educational plans. At the conclusion of the summer, apost-experience survey presented participants’ with their answers from the beginning of thesummer and asked them to reflect on how their understanding of research and future plansinvolving research changed over the course of the
enduser throughout the design process; (2) all students participate in a lecture on ethics that focusesprofessional ethics as it relates to a case study as well as their own projects, and (3) students wereasked to reflect on ethics periodically throughout the semester as a component of the course. Theauthors chose this program for this study in part because of the emphasis on the role of the enduser throughout the design process, and the emphasis on ethics education in this program, to probeif students in such a program interact distinctly with regard to ethical versus technical concernsrelated to design. We focused on two classes, which are comprised of project teams consisting of3 to 9 students each. Each class shared a common theme, advisor
had submitted large scale proposals (~$2M each for 5 years), we anticipatedsignificant alignment among team members regarding project goals and approaches. However,team members from most institutions reported that re-establishing the conceptual basis and theplanned operations of the project was an important step in the development of their teamdynamics. The significant time lag between submitting the proposal and securing funding(almost nine months) was proffered as a major causative factor in the need to re-align projectgoals and approaches. One team reflected: Our proposal was based on what we thought the future might look like. When we would write a sentence, we put four things in that sentence, and the sentence makes it look
different instructors (color-coded including one who did not flip the class) showquite different results even though common or block exams were used in all threesections. The flipped classroom always had the lowest DWF rate, but not that the“flipped B” instructor (green) achieved lower DWF rates the second time he taught thecourse suggesting that the use of the flipped classroom may take some experience - evenwith substantial help—to implement most effectively.SummaryWe have provided here an executive summary of several efforts to transform the facultyculture with respect to teaching and with the result that student achievement and successhas been strongly enhanced. These preliminary results reflect the efforts of individualfaculty members who have
material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Division ofGraduate Education under Grant Numbers DGE-1535462/1535226. Any opinions, findings, andconclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
series of qualitative, longitudinal interviewswith students selected from normative and non-normative groups to understand how theynavigate their engineering experiences and define their educational trajectories over the firsttwo years of college. This data is being deductively analyzed based on our existing identity andintersectionality frameworks, as well as inductively coded for emerging themes on howstudents feel belongingness within engineering culture.This project seeks to move traditional demographic data beyond socially constructedperceptions of others and allows for the representation of student diversity from the perspectiveof each participant. This increasingly accurate reflection of diversity provides novel insight intothe
encourage more women andunderrepresented students to pursue engineering and to consider more fully the wide range ofengineering disciplines available.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1505006. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.ReferencesBandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287.Wharton, A. (1992). The social construction of gender and race in organizations: A socialidentity and group mobilization perspective. In P. Tolbert & S
methodology towards assessing this project has been adapted over the course of sevenyears. The original methodology was based on the learning outcome of whether students couldcomplete the soldering of a circuit board. Upon reflection, the first year’s methodology whileadequate limited the focus and didn’t capture the full range of skills development of the students.The original methodology was focused around the deliverable itself to assess the success of theproject and learning objectives. In the second and subsequent years, additional assessments havebeen added to try to capture the full magnitude of the process. These assessments focus on specificskills obtained, level of collaboration and transfer of skills between majors, soft skills learned
Engineering program hasmaintained a female enrollment of 25-40% women over the duration of the program. TheMetallurgical Engineering program increased their female graduation rate from 17.5% to 25%during the five years of the C&A program.While the statistics show a substantial bias towards female enrollment in Industrial Engineering,it is also recognized that Industrial Engineering is often viewed more gender friendly than mostengineering majors. Nationally, 17% of engineers are women while women comprise 29.7% ofIndustrial Engineering majors. The relatively large number of Mechanical Engineering majorssupported through the C&A program reflects the large size of the students in that major. At theconclusion of the C&A program, overall
asupplement to more important learning. The course design outlined below reflects our bestattempts to use the lens of disability students to show STEM and the liberal arts as organic,essential, and generative partners.Course background and overviewAs an academic field, Disability Studies solidified in the 1990s alongside a social model ofdisability that rejected biological definitions of “normal” bodies and medical perspectives thatidentified disabilities as problems to be fixed. As a result, the study of disability fractured, oftenhighlighting conflicts between academic and professional interests4. At its foundation, the goal ofour Introduction to Disability Studies course is to bridge the chasm between theories andresearch in disability studies and
MethodsTwo distinct approaches were taken to develop an efficient and effective method to manufacturea customized AFO. Both followed a general delineation involving 3D scanning of the lower leganatomy, data manipulation, 3D modeling, and 3D printing. However, the sub-processes differedbetween approaches.3D Scanning with FARO Arm3D scanning capabilities were utilized in the data acquisition phase to capture the lower leganatomy. A FARO Arm Platinum laser scanner was used in the first approach. This type ofscanner utilizes laser triangulation technology, projecting a laser line onto the subject beingscanned. As the laser light reflects off the scanned subject’s surface, a camera detects thereflection. Using trigonometric triangulation, the device
valuable in professional life (96%), improved their leadershipskills (92%), and had gained appreciation for the value of project planning (100%) and technicaldocumentation (96%). It is anticipated that lessons learned from the project sequence willprovide the framework for cross-disciplinary freshman and sophomore assignments in hostinstitution’s PBL curriculum in the future.Keywords: Project management, Rube Goldberg machines, Project Based Learning1. IntroductionAccreditation of engineering programs has long provided a means of quality control of graduatesin the United States.1 In recent years, this practice has come to reflect an emphasis on theoutcomes of student learning rather than on restrictive earlier notions centered on what is
and the learningobjectives; in Section 3, we explain the methodologies we used to facilitate project-basedlearning and to encourage team work; in Section 4, we present the design of the winning team; inSection 5, we discuss the results of the Bocce game and the assessment of the learningobjectives; a reflective discussion is provided in Section 6; finally, we conclude in Section 7.2. Project description and learning objectivesThe project requires students to build Raspberry Pi controlled autonomous robots with thecapability of playing indoor Bocce game. The jack or pallino of the Bocce game is a wirelessrouter which is at a fixed location. The goal of the robot is to get as close to the jack as possiblewithin certain time interval and not
they are working towarddegree completion.Program ManagementThis one-of-a-kind scholarship program has a complex structure and requires carefulcoordination. Because the program continues to evolve and develop, we created a checklist toensure all key tasks are correctly completed throughout the year (see Appendix A). The checklistcomponents include information on marketing and recruitment, communications, student supportservices, event coordination, and program evaluation and assessment activities; and it is crucialfor replicating and improving program management. In some aspects, the working checklistbecomes a reflective journal for the current year. While there were aspects we planned out beforeimplementation, some facets of the program are
African American, eight were White or Caucasian, two were mixed race,and one was Hispanic. The STEM/Literacy afterschool program met twice a week from 4-5:30pm at Kiser PK-8 School from October through April. The program was facilitated by two KiserSTEM instructors and two undergraduate engineering students from the University of Dayton.Although the engineering activities were initially designed to be facilitated in a single, 30-60minute classroom session, the addition of the literacy component and incorporating more timefor reflection and redesign made it such that a single activity was generally facilitated over four,90 minute sessions. On the first day of the activity, the students engaged in a read aloud andengagement activity focusing on the
bridge, full-scale bakery, etc. Emphasize the importance of iteration and the acceptability of failure Ensure that there is reflection time each period to discuss how the content of the day might be incorporated into the math or science classroom.The summary plans for each day were as follow: Day 1: Pre-assessment. What Do EngineersDo? Similarities, differences, and synergisms between engineering and science. Bridge Building– defining and working toward criteria, and within constraints. Day 2: Baking Like an Engineer.What to do when the answer’s not in the book: test engineer approaches; simple experimentalapproaches; data presentation; data analysis. Day 3: That Bridge Again – returning to anengineering problem with more context
hesitant to explain their answers or commenton their solutions once they had reached the end of the mathematical process. Students neglectedcritical elements in the communication process like the interpretation and reflection steps ofmathematical modelling. The use of mathematics to justify engineering decision-making is ofgreat importance to practicing engineers (Gainsburg 2012), and justification requirescommunicating the results of these interpretation and reflection steps.“Once they have the answer, I wish i did this more, but getting students to comment on the result.Ok, here's the result, give me some comments. Tell me why you expect the terms up her or downhere, or at least rationalize why this makes sense, or take some limits of
providesstudents with the opportunity to reflect on the state of their learning. The checkpoint includesmultiple choice and true/false questions that assess the various learning outcomes of theanimation. Students are given feedback on the correctness of their answer and an explanation ofthe correct answer with an indication of the topic to review in the animation for the assessedconcept. Students can return to the checkpoint at any point in their current session to continuetheir progress through the questions. Although feedback and progress status are given to thestudents, it is important to note that these checkpoints provide formative self-assessment and arenot intended to be a computer-assisted learning system that adjusts to the