Paper ID #23505Work in Progress: Redesigning Curriculum to Foster Student SuccessDr. Krystal S. Corbett, Louisiana Tech University Dr. Krystal Corbett is a lecturer for the Mechanical Engineering Department at Louisiana Tech Univer- sity. She teaches in their prestigious Living with the Lab first year program as well as other mechanical engineering related courses. She received her B.S. and M.S. in Mechanical Engineering (2008/2010), M.S. in Mathematics (2012), and Ph.D. in Engineering Education (2012) at Louisiana Tech University. Formerly, she was the Director of Curricula at the Cyber Innovation Center (CIC) where she
Paper ID #23490Work in Progress: Developing a Model for Student-led Peer Mentorship Pro-gramsDr. Krystal S. Corbett, Louisiana Tech University Dr. Krystal Corbett is a lecturer for the Mechanical Engineering Department at Louisiana Tech Univer- sity. She teaches in their prestigious Living with the Lab first year program as well as other mechanical engineering related courses. She received her B.S. and M.S. in Mechanical Engineering (2008/2010), M.S. in Mathematics (2012), and Ph.D. in Engineering Education (2012) at Louisiana Tech University. Formerly, she was the Director of Curricula at the Cyber Innovation Center (CIC
Year Summer Experience (FYSE) program is a three-week residential summerorientation program focused on the development and strengthening of math-intensiveengineering problem solving skills. All new students offered admission to the School ofEngineering and students who applied to engineering but were instead admitted to the Divisionof Letters and Sciences (L&S) were invited to participate in the program. Recruitment andselection of participants is geared toward inclusion of women, racial/ethnic minorities, first-generation college students, and engineering admits with relatively weak mathematicspreparation. Approximately 40-60 first-year students participate in the program each summer.The participants are required to live in the provided
switched for Workshop 2 such that the participants will complete 8 CADmodules first and then the 4 origami modules. Workshop 3 will consist of 12 origami modules andWorkshop 4 will consist of 12 CAD modules with each module increasing in complexity anddifficulty. All 4 workshops will be deployed in Fall 2018 to first-year female engineering student. Itis estimated that there will be 50 - 75 participants in each workshop cohort.References [1] M. S. Khine, Visual-spatial Ability in STEM Education. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2016. [2] M. C. Linn and A. C. Petersen, “Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis,” Child development, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1479–1498, 1985. [3] G. Park, D
Christian College. Her research interest revolves around technology innovations in education, software estimation, software design and curriculum design of software engineering course(s).Dr. Muhsin Menekse, Purdue University, West Lafayette Muhsin Menekse is an Assistant Professor at Purdue University with a joint appointment in the School of Engineering Education and the Department of Curriculum & Instruction. Dr. Menekse’s primary research investigates how classroom activities affect conceptual understanding in engineering and science for all students. His second research focus is on verbal interactions that can enhance productive discussions in collaborative learning settings. And his third research focus is on
0 200 400 600 800 1000 time (s) Fig. 2, Temperature versus Time ChartThe heat transfer equation in case Bi < 1 is given as follows [11]: The first term of this equation is time dependent. In this first term, m is the mass of the sphere, cis the specific heat of the sphere, T(t) is the time dependent temperature of the sphere, and t is thetime.The second term represents the convection heat loss at the outer surface of the sphere. In thesecond term, h is the convection coefficient, As is the surface area of the sphere, and T is
– think of trying to gather more new contacts than your roommate. In projects,we will continue to emphasize how all students have unique talents to bring to their teams.References[1] T. Rath, StrengthsFinder 2.0, New York: Gallup Press, 2007.[2] M. L. Loughry, M. W. Ohland and D. J. Woehr, "Assessing teamwork skills for assurance of learning using CATME team tools," Journal of Marketing Education, vol. 36, pp. 5-19, 2013.[3] S. Zemke and D. Elger, "Curricular elements that promote professional behavior in a design class," in ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, Chicago, 2006.[4] J. Asplund, S. Agrawal, T. Hodges, J. Harter and S. J. Lopez, "The Clifton StrengthsFinder 2.0 Technical Report," Gallup Inc., Washington DC, 2014.[5] S. J
., Falconer, K., Benford, R., Bloom, I., & Judson, E. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP): Training guide. (ACEPT Technical Report No. IN00-2). Tempe, AZ: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.[3] Judson, E. & Sawada D. (2002). “Tracking Transfer of Reform Methodology from Science and Math College Courses to the Teaching Style of Beginning Teachers of Grades 5-12,” Journal of Mathematics and Science: Collaborative Explorations, vol. 5, pp. 189-207.[4] Ross, L., Judson, E., Krause, S. J., Ankeny, C. J., Culbertson, R. J., & Hjelmstad, K. D. (2017, June). “Relationships between engineering faculty beliefs and classroom practices,” in 2017 Proceedings of the
] ASME, "ASME Vision 2030 project: Drivers for Change Data Actions & Advocacy," ASME, New York2013.[3] A. Kirkpatrick, S. Danielson, and R. O. Warrington, "Reduction to Practice," Mechanical Engineering, vol. 134, pp. 38-39, Nov 2012.[4] A. Kirkpatrick, "ASME Vision 2030: Designing the Future of Mechanical Engineering Education," in Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration, Phoenix, AZ, 2013, pp. 1-38.[5] M. Prince, "Does active learning work? A review of the research," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 93, pp. 223-231, Jul 2004.[6] S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, et al., "Active learning increases student performance in science
] state, “spatial reasoning is a mental process that involves thinkingabout relationships between three-dimensional (3D) objects.” From the early 1990’s researchershave been studying the importance of spatial reasoning skills. Most researchers who have studiedspatial skills or their components state the fact that engineering, architecture, and most scientificjobs require people to have good spatial thinking skills [2]. People with high spatial abilitybenefit particularly as they have enough cognitive capacity for mental model construction.Researchers like Hsi et al. [3] have been recommending the need to introduce spatial skills inintroductory engineering courses and emphasizing the need for including these skills throughoutengineering
other student support programs like livinglearning community, research experience for undergraduates, and supplemental instructionthereby study their combined effect on overall student retention and graduate rates.References[1] Z. S. Wilson et al., "Hierarchical mentoring: A transformative strategy for improving diversity and retention in undergraduate STEM disciplines," Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 148-156, 2012.[2] P. B. Thayer, "Retention of students from first generation and low income backgrounds," 2000.[3] E. T. Pascarella, C. T. Pierson, G. C. Wolniak, and P. T. Terenzini, "First-generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes," The
faculty, and more learner-centered teachingpractices evidenced. In general, across the larger network, while some faculty met with othersacross departments because of scheduling, for the most part, faculty stayed with their own.But this was not entirely the rule. Other faculty appear to be Brokers across disciplines. Mech4,for example has In-degree of 14, and Out-degree of only 8, indicating that s/he is approached bytheir colleagues nearly twice as much as s/he looks to their colleague for help in teachingpractice. This is a typical Source pattern of someone who has expertise to give.Figure 3. Network of a Source Broker across DepartmentsMaterials5, on the other hand, with In-degree of 12 and Out-degree of 15, approaches othersmore often than s
engagement with students’ course ratings andcourse performance by analyzing learning analytics data (e.g., site access, timestamps, etc.)captured within the learning management system. Additionally, students from both online and in-person sections will be invited to participate in focus group interviews to explore faculty-studentconnections and course enjoyment. Furthermore, a follow-up study will further assess theimpact on student outcomes, student motivation, effort regulation and self-efficacy between thein-person and online sections as part of a retention study.References[1] M. Borrego, J. E. Froyd, T. S. Hall, “Diffusion of Engineering Education Innovations: A Survey of Awareness and Adoption Rates in U.S. Engineering Departments,” Journal
prioritize what to review for the exam.Works Cited[1] M. Prince and R. Felder, "Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 123-138, 2006.[2] L. Benson, M. Orr, S. Biggers, W. Moss and S. Schiff, "Student-Centered Active Cooperative Learning in Engineering," International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1097- 1110, 2010.[3] R. Beichner, J. Saul and D. Abbot, "Student Centered Activities for Large Wnrollment Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) project," in Research Based Reform of University Physics, College Park, MD, American Association of Physics Teachers.[4] H. Oliver-Hoyo and R. Beichner, "SCALE-UP: Bringing
students.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under GrantNos. 1664264 and 1664266. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe National Science Foundation.References[1] N. A. of Engineering., “Educating the engineer of 2020 : adapting engineering education to the new century.” National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2005.[2] N. Nielsen, N. R. C. (U.S.)., and P. C. on E. on S. I. in U. S. Education., “Promising practices in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education : summary of two workshops.” National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2011
surveys were administered at the beginning, middle, and end of the semesterto generate paired data used to investigate trends over time (Figure 2). Each survey took less than20 minutes to complete and gathered demographic information including age, genderidentification, race/ethnicity, and intended major(s)/minor(s). Survey 1 and Survey 3 consisted offour parts: self-ranking of technical skills competency (beginner, intermediate, advanced, orexpert), self-ranking of confidence in essential parts of the engineering design process using a five-point Likert scale (Figure 3), degree of agreement with statements related to general engineeringself-efficacy using a five-point Likert scale (Figure 4), and open-ended questions related to thosetopics. The
row. In Figure 2, this was the standard deviation for each ofthe three rows for each of the four dimensions under “Rater 1” label. Then the three row-wisestandard deviations were averaged, then placed in a matrix of average dispersions andreferred to as the dispersion for the Rater 1’s ratings for all the team members including Rater1’s self-rating. This procedure was repeated for Rater 2 and 3 accordingly. The same methodswere used to calculate the dispersion matrix for the rest of the secondary school teams as wellas the FYE comparison group.Figure 2 - Raw Peer Evaluation DataA repeated measure ANOVA was used to compare the differences in dispersions between theK12 and FYE comparison samples for each of two peer reviews. The time delay
representation on their performance,” Edu. Research, vol. 1 (10), pp 505-511, 2010.[8] K. Fisher, “Exercises in drawing and utilizing free-body diagrams,” Physics Teacher,vol . 37 (7), pp 434-435, 1999.[9] D. Rosengrant, A. Van Heuvelen, and E. Etkina, “Do students use and understand free-bodydiagrams?”, Phys. Review. Special Topics - Physics Education Research, vol. 5(1), 13p, 2009.[10] D. Rosengrant, A. Van Heuvelen, and E. Etkina, “Free-Body Diagrams: Necessary orSufficient?”, in 2004 Physics Education Research Conference, Sacramento, California, August4-5, J. Marx, P. Heron, S. Franklin, Eds. American Institute of Physics, 2005, pp 177-180.[11] J. Court, “Free-Body Diagrams Revisited -I,” Physics Teacher, vol. 37, pp 427-433, 1999.[12] T. Litzinger
Imaging,” in Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, Hyderabad, India, 2014, pp. 378–389.[2] R. Ellis, The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press, 1994.[3] S. D. Krashen, Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981.[4] K. J. Krahnke, “Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition,” TESOL Q., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 300–305, Jun. 1983.[5] S. D. Krashen and T. D. Terrell, The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. The Alemany Press, 1983.[6] J. N. Williams, “Memory, Attention, and Inductive Learning,” Stud. Second Lang. Acquis., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–48, 1999.[7] C. Frederick and L. Sun, “Work in Progress
Technical College Jill Davishahl is a faculty member in the engineering department at Bellingham Technical College where she teaches courses ranging from Intro to Engineering Design to Engineering Statics. Outside of teach- ing, Jill is working on the development of a Bachelor of Applied Science in Engineering Technology and is currently PI on the NSF funded ATE project grant in renewable energy as well as PI on an NSF funded S-STEM project. She holds a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Washington.Mr. Eric Davishahl, Whatcom Community College Eric Davishahl is faculty and engineering program coordinator at Whatcom Community College. His teaching and research interests include
what the right cross sectionshould look like. Consequently, Tanner’s response was coded as mental action.Guessing. Responses that used the word “guess” or explained that the student arrived at aconclusion by chance or without showing evidence of deliberate reasoning were classified asguessing. For instance, Mia responded with, “No, I just guessed on each question.” In this case,she specifically had “guess” in her response. The other students’ who responses involvedguessing also reported using other strategies. These are further discussed in the section oncombined strategies below.Guiding rule. Guiding rule implies that in the participant responses, the student(s) used astandard or criteria to judge which option is likely to be the answer for
education, and educational psychology, as well as an external evaluator and an advisory board member on several NSF-funded projects (CAREER, iCorps, REU, RIEF, etc.). c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Paper ID #23514Dr. Jacques C. Richard, Texas A&M University Dr. Richard got his Ph. D. at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1989 & a B. S. at Boston University, 1984. He was at NASA Glenn, 1989-1995, worked at Argonne National Lab, 1996-1997, taught at Chicago State University, 1997-2002. Dr. Richard is a Sr. Lecturer & Research Associate in Aerospace Engi- neering @ Texas
to the local industries in STEM fields is also considered for future. References 1. X. Kong, K. P. Dabney, and R. H. Tai, “The Association Between Science Summer Camps and Career Interest in Science and Engineering”, International Journal of Science Education, Communication and Public Engagement, 2013. 2. M. Yilmaz, J. Ren, S. Custer, and J. Coleman, “Hands-On Summer Camp to Attract K–12 Students to Engineering Fields”, IEEE Educational Society, 2010.3. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, http://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering- technology-programs-2017-20184. G. C. Weaver, K. Haghighi, D. D. Cook, C. J. Foster, S. M. Moon, P. J. Phegley, Tormoehlen, R. L
supported coursewith an A or a B and is recommended for the position by their instructor. Many of these coursesare freshman-level mathematics and chemistry courses, as well as some sophomore-levelengineering courses. PAL leaders attend class for the section(s) they support so they are aware ofthe current material being discussed. This also allows them to build rapport with the instructor aswell as the students enrolled in the section(s) they support. Leaders then hold two 80 minutesessions each week. During sessions, leaders facilitate collaborative activities and studentdiscussions related to course topics as well as provide a safe place to ask questions and makemistakes along the way. We intentionally hire undergraduate students, rather than
Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.Edington, S., Holmes Jr., A. L., & Reinke, P. (2015). A tale of two common reads: Models for developing a successful common reading program for first-year engineering students. In American Society for Engineering Education.Godwin, A., Potvin, G., Hazari, Z., & Lock, R. (2016). Identity, critical agency and engineering: An affective model for predicting engineering as a career choice. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(2), 312–340.Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 700–717.Jordan, K. L
. Kowalchuk, J. Nicklow, L. Graceson-Martin, L. Gupta, J. Mathias, J. Tezcan,and K. PericakSpector. (2009). Evaluation of a new engineering residential college initiative.Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Conference. Austin, TX.[7] Crisp, G., & Cruz, I. (2009). Mentoring college students: A critical review of the literaturebetween 1990 and 2007. Research in Higher Education, 50(6), 525-545. DOI:10.1007/s11162-009-9130-2[8] Hug, S., Thiry, H., & Tedford, P. (2011). Learning to love computer science: Peer leadersgain teaching skill, communicative ability and content knowledge in the CS classroom. InProceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 201-206.DOI: 10.1145/1953163.1953225
No solution or Simple Detailed solution solution(s) to the problem very vague solution solutionResponsibility Describes who is responsible for or To For With should be involved in the solution, (Government (The (Farmer or with reference to the With / For / To needs to fix the designers community framework problem) know best) member involvement in
aimed at improvingthe engagement, retention, and graduation of students underrepresented in engineering. Thesecomponents include: “intrusive” academic advising and support services, intensive first-yearacademic curriculum, community-building (including pre-matriculation summer programs),career awareness and vision, faculty mentorship, NSF S-STEM scholarships, and second-yearsupport.This work in progress paper describes the implementation of the Redshirt program2 at each of thesix Redshirt in Engineering Consortium institutions, providing a variety of models for how an1 For brevity, we will use the acronyms listed in this table in place of the full names of theinstitutions throughout the paper.extra preparatory year or other intensive academic
PowerPoint slides that were discussed in lecture. Theslides included descriptions of common rating problems including giving everyone on the teamthe same scores across all dimensions, giving the same teammate the same scores across alldimensions, bimodal ratings (giving one teammate all 1’s and others all 5’s), etc. This lecturealso included a discussion of what information you are trying to give your teammates whenrating them and how the results of the evaluations can be interpreted in order to improve teamperformance. General comments were also made regarding what the rating patterns looked likein the class without identifying individuals or teams that used poor rating patterns. The goal wasto help students reflect on their own ratings and
of improv-inspired games used in the class 1. No-Um Speech Purpose - Requires active listening to teammates, using their ideas without hesitation;requires that students begin giving a solution without forethought to the outcome. Gameplay- A team stands in a line in front of class and gives a speech on an impromptutopic. The topic could be related to course content. One person from the team begins speaking,and must continue talking without pause or saying a crutch word like um, uh, like, etc. As soonas the player says one of these words or pauses for > 1 s, a bell is rung and the next teammatemust immediately pick up where the previous teammate left off. The answer must continue, as ifa single person was saying the answer