active project-based learning, multi-disciplinary concepts, contextualizing course concepts within industrypractices, documentation of skills in an e-portfolio, and collaborative peer engagement unlikeanything currently available in Introduction to Engineering courses in the MOOC community.The course goals, structure, and implementation of this course, including the best practicesmentioned above, will be described in the next few sections. Preliminary course effectivenessresults from the first offering of this course, including student performance and feedback fromand end-of-course survey, will also be discussed along with instructors’ reflections on theexperience.Course DescriptionAs described previously, this initiative and structure being
based primarily on student process and reflection, rather than concrete technical goals. Students also have a a high degree of autonomy in defining the specific trajectory and outcomes of their projects. This, combined with a group of incoming students with an array of backgrounds in design and fabrication, means that each project, and process, is unique. Thus, the course of each project and the advice given to students at any point may vary. Advice is typically given verbally. Because of the open-ended nature of projects and process-driven emphasis of assessment, students transitioning from high school can find this course challenging. They are often uncomfortable with the decrease in summative feedback they are used to receiving and unsure
value professional skills.Because there is somewhat limited research in chemical engineering education related to theformation of professional skills, we also incorporate research from engineering education andeducation research more broadly. Specifically, we sought to build on research showing thatdiverse teams tend to be more creative; this strengths-based view of diversity aligned to ourparticular context and our efforts—as part of an NSF REvolutionizing engineering and computerscience Departments (RED) project—to better support diverse student success. We thereforeconjectured that providing students with an opportunity to reflect on their own and theirteammates strengths, and then to critically assess their team’s collective gaps would
their own group.”Scientific historical accounts reflect Homo sapiens, essentially our human evolutionary ancestry,has only existed for a meager 200,000 years in the 4.6 billion years since the origin of the Earth.During this short stint in history, we have experienced an unending series of conflicts. History isproliferated with these many human recorded conflicts; conflicts premised on differences inreligion, ethnicity, race, gender, geography and so many more. Our very limited circumference oftrust is illustrated even here in our great United States, through a myopic lens and ethnocentricminds-eye. Who should we like? Who should we trust? Who should we not like and/or trust? Inthe end, who is the next person or group that individually or
achievementHowever, most evaluation tools are developed by instructors. As such, the desired behaviorsas listed are top-down rather than bottom-up. How the students themselves are perceivingtheir own learning environment is vitally important to their persistence in engineering[12][14]. A second study suggests that, though many behaviors overlap, some aspects ofteammate behavior viewed as important to students are not reflected in most instructor-created peer assessments. This study lists eleven behavior components important toteammates in engineering education settings. The more unexpected components of poor teambehavior include expecting teammates to contribute beyond their “fair share”, beingunwilling to take on tasks beyond clearly articulated
project to reflect on anddiscuss progress, brainstorm additional ideas related to project implementation, problem-solve,identify potential fields and faculty for potential inclusion or expansion of the communities, anddiscuss research and evaluation. The second community was the community of leaders (LC) forthe leaders of the discipline-based faculty development communities. The CLC was led by thePIs, with all members of the research team as participants. The CLC afforded an opportunity forthe community leaders to become oriented to a faculty learning community and a safe space todiscuss successes and areas for potential growth for their own teaching and as leaders of theirown communities. The third community was the teaching development
aligned to the learning outcomes (includes the use of formative and summative assessments, • strong task design, • support for diverse learners, and; • refining course instructional sequence and design to increase coherence in the learning progression and content. • Create a student-centered syllabus and course map for the revised course. • Design rigorous learning experiences for the targeted course that actively engage students to achieve or exceed the course learning outcomes. • Develop new approaches and repertoire of research-based practices to more effectively implement the course design. • Develop reflective practitioner skills to enact continuous improvement
from concreteexperiences to reflective observation to abstract conceptualization to active experimentation.[4]Students need to come to an understanding of why the material is important to learn, to learningimportant new concepts, to using the concepts for active experimentation before making newconnections and using the newly acquired knowledge for other purposes. By their nature, labexperiments tend to focus on the active experimentation portion of the cycle. However, activeexperimentation is going to be less effective for learning unless students are given theopportunity to access the other portions of the cycle through purposefully designed activities.[3]When new labs are developed or old labs redesigned, there is an opportunity to
related to the bridge tour including a history of computational,mechanical and graphical methods of structural analysis, a survey of other bridge engineers inthe United States, and a comparison of the design philosophies of Conde McCullough and Swissengineer Robert Maillart [5]. The richness of the resulting discussions and the range of topicswere unlike anything the instructors had experienced before and were certainly the result of theunique format and rich field component of the class.The singular assignment for the course was a portfolio of the bridges that were visited includingfactual content about the bridges that included their condition ratings and structural assessments,but also a reflective component that requested that the students
games and choose your own adventure books is that once youplay or read them, you can enjoy a new story by selecting different options the second time.Stories allow individuals to ‘borrow’ the experiences of others as they discover the implicationsof new ideas or move through the stages of organizational socialization [19]. This is notrestricted to formal organizations, stories in social movements are how we understand the impactof the movement on the “mainstream” [20].It is important to note that these stories are not powerful because they are new, but because theyhave been discovered by someone who can see their relevance. Stories can be discoveredthrough reflecting on one’s own experience, through encountering others who share anexperience
other times one-on-oneinterviews were possible. All interviews were recorded and transcribed, with data codingunderway through Nvivo.Analysis and Coding of Project DocumentsEWB-USA shared all project documents they have collected with our team (over 6000 documentsrepresenting approximately 500-600 projects). University of Wisconsin-Stout student researchassistants cataloged these files–noting the type of chapter (professional or student) and thechapter’s location, the type of project, the documents that existed, and the dates the documentscovered. From there, we carefully chose thirty projects to reflect a variety of project types, EWBchapters, and geographic areas. We chose a mixture of water, sanitation, and other infrastructureprojects in
process because of the nature of the reflections (e.g., describing what they ate in considerable detail).ParticipantsThis paper describes the first stage of analysis in this project. For this stage, we used data fromthe 2016 cohort of RSAP, which included 91 students who participated in three different tracks:Europe (Italy, Switzerland, and Germany), China, and the Dominican Republic. Demographicinformation for this cohort is in Tables 2 and 3. In general, the program has larger representationof women and underrepresented students than the population of the College of Engineering(CoE), and the 2016 cohort is no different. All participants signed consent forms agreeing toparticipate
protocol in which students were asked to describe their engagementin the course activities. Specifically, the protocol included a series of questions intended to elicitstudents’ reflections on their experience with the engineering design process along withadditional questions related to various other aspects of the course including collaboration, theintegration of math and science, and students’ overall perceptions of the course. A total of twelveinterviews were conducted with the six students in the case study sample, one interviews witheach student at the end of two of the semesters in which they were enrolled in the engineeringcourses. Interviews were conducted during the final week of the academic year in which studentswere enrolled in the
observer and was at the preschool for allplanned lessons and activities, went on the two field trips, and participated in the teachers’planning time. All planned lessons and activities were video recorded and later transcribed.These were not analyzed for the part of the study being reported here.A modified form of lesson study was the method used to collect data from the teachers. Lessonstudy is where teachers work together to study curriculum and formulate long-term goals forstudent learning, write lesson plans, conduct the lessons, watch each other and collect data whilethe lesson is taking place, reflect on the lesson by sharing data and using it to illuminate studentlearning, and develop new goals for the next lesson [44]. The director of the
, which opens up questions about howto determine what amounts to a “good” concept map. This is particularly evident when student-generated concept maps cannot be analyzed against an absolute target,. Further, without theability to define hierarchies of key concept to sub-concept in dynamic socio-technical systems,there is a challenge to assess the orientation of knowledge acquisition for students [3], [4]. Thisresearch considers traditional scoring of concept maps that tend to emphasize node andconnection quantity [5] (i.e., the number of concepts expressed), which might be problematic forliberal arts courses demanding engineering students critically reflect and rethink their priorassumptions and heuristics about the relationship between
microwave circuitry.Dr. Diane L Zemke Diane Zemke is an independent researcher and consultant. She holds a Ph.D. in leadership studies from Gonzaga University. Her research interests include teamwork, small group dynamics, dissent, organiza- tional change, and reflective practice. Dr. Zemke has published in the International Journal of Engineering Education, the Journal of Religious Leadership, and various ASEE conference proceedings. She is the author of ”Being Smart about Congregational Change.” c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Learning to Read and Take Notes in DynamicsIntroductionABET criterion 3i states the need for students to become life-long learners [1
hypotheses rather than conclusions. First, PIsexpect undergraduate lab workers to express “interest” and “excitement” about research. Weworry that assessing students according to how a professor perceives their “enthusiasm” canunintentionally exclude students who differ from the professor, such as by gender, race, class, orculture. Second, members of the two labs tell stories about failure to undergraduates in differentways, which serve as powerful modes of socialization. Discourse styles as reflected incommunities’ storytelling may influence undergraduates’ sense of belonging. Third, we tried anew methodology of inviting students to discuss their different kinds and levels of expertise withregards to the concept of T-shaped expertise, i.e., having
unfortunate realities14. Although the 3 large fundamental engineering courses in this study pose a different set ofissues, which often implies that quality teaching is not possible in large classes, researchers ineducation10,42,54,75 suggested the contrary –quality teaching is quite possible in large classes whilefocusing on student-centered, cooperative, active experimentation, and high-level thinkinglearning, instead of the traditional teacher-centered, individual, reflective observation, androutine-drill learning. Almost 2 decades ago, Felder23 had recommended the need to change the pedagogy usedin engineering classrooms. According to his study at that time, many engineering classes in1999 were taught in exactly the same way that
knowledge – higher level learning skills which are nottraditionally emphasized in the undergraduate classroom. Therefore, these higher levellearning skills become not just purely aspirational goals but need to be actualized in order tomake the KI based pedagogy effective. This is where an active learning model can prove veryeffective. This paper describes such an active learning model developed and implemented in2017 for the introductory electronics course in the junior year. This learning model consists ofthree key components which are described in details - the concept introduction or pre-workcomponent, the concept exploration or classwork component, and the concept reflection orpost-work component. In addition, new assessment techniques tailored
outcomes, but thecriterion invites programs to develop its own in addition to those. Some programs chooseto alter the seven outcomes to reflect the strengths and uniqueness of their specificprogram. This was encouraged in the early years of EC2000, but it became clear to mostprograms that this provided little benefit and potentially caused problems.11 Today mostprograms use the ABET criterion 3 student outcomes verbatim. This example takes thatapproach.Identify where in the curriculum these outcomes are met. The student outcomes aregenerally attained through the curriculum, which for most programs means four years oftargeted coursework. It is therefore important to assess the degree to which any course inthe curriculum supports the attainment of
of education [31] since personaldevelopment also addresses “being”, “agency” and “identity”; terms which are also oftenconfused. Without wanting to become someone else (ambition and or identity) there is nopurpose to the pursuit of knowledge and skill. “Becoming” is how we gain the experiencefrom which wisdom as it is commonly understood is derived through self-reflection. 2Academic courses tend to emphasise knowledge at the expense of as skill and rarely directlyaddress being [31].Yet knowledge, skill, and a sense of identity and agency are of little use in a world in whichrapid changes give knowledge and skill finite lifetimes. Thus a more important question maybe how does an educational organization ensure that graduating students are
Engineering Education, 2018Teacher Implementation of Structured Engineering Notebooks in Engineering Design-based STEM Integration Units (Fundamental)In the classroom, engineering notebooks allow students to develop their ideas, take notes, recordobservations, and reflect on what they have learned. Structured notebooks are used to helpstudents engage with material at greater depth through analyzing questions, formulatingpredictions, and interpreting results. Notebooks are an important resource for teachers toformatively assess students’ ideas. By incorporating notebooks into classroom instruction andusing them to guide feedback to students, teachers can use notebooks to support student learningof engineering design in STEM integration.This
thatinform women’s decisions to enter each respective sector. More importantly, there is vanishinglylittle work on women’s decisions to enter different engineering careers in contexts where womenare well-represented.In our paper, we discuss participation of women in engineering in Malaysia, a context wherewomen represent a high share of both academia and industry (e.g., overall, 45% of theengineering workforce) [3]. Findings from the 2013 Malaysian MWFCD Women in the LaborMarket Study conclude that women are about 46% of the public and 51% of the privateengineering, manufacturing, and construction work sector [4]. Studying the Malaysian contextwill help us gain purchase on the way choices are driven by “preferences for science” [5],reflective of
conversation about how we teach and train engineers to workin diverse teams in first-year programs and beyond. Students also showed a decrease in teamratings of their effectiveness over the course of the semester. This decrease may not be an overallreduction in students’ effectiveness in teams. In fact, student reflections on teaming activities andcases of conflict in teams decrease over the course of the semester. Instead, we believe that thisshift occurs as students learn more about what it means to be a good team member, become morecomfortable giving their peers feedback and subsequently deliver ratings that are more realistic.As part of understanding students’ perceptions of working on diverse teams, we have beenpaying close attention to how
theirengineering communities. They meet many of their fellow classmates and use this informationwhen forming study groups and/or reaching out to their peers for assistance.Authentic Scenario (Relevancy)An authentic project is assigned to pique student interest and demonstrate the applicability of thecourse. For this study, we used the 2007 collapse of the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis, MN [19].Students are asked to reflect on their past and current understandings in the form of reflectionquestions: “What engineering concepts do you need to explain the cause of the collapse?” “Whatrole will this course play in preparing you to understand the cause of the collapse?” This allowedcourse concepts, often seen as abstract, to be directly applied to an authentic
level (α), statistical power level (1-β), andsample size (n). Thus, “…when any three of them are fixed, the fourth is determined” [37,p 98].When using NHST, an effective way to minimize the probability of committing Type I and TypeII errors and ensure that significant results reflect important substantive meaning, is to conductan a priori power analysis to determine an optimal sample size given an expected effect size [37,34]. Below we discuss an a priori power analysis conducted prior to testing the engineeringvalues, self-efficacy, and identity scales. To determine a meaningful Effect Size (EF), that our scales of engineering values, self-efficacy, and identity need to be able to detect we conducted an a priori power analysis using
printer are that itprovides students with complete design freedom to create a variety of models on computersoftware in one afternoon, select the best designs, and create physical models for live testing.Over a period of three years, undergraduate engineering students in a structural materialslaboratory class, designed and 3D printed simple connections, lateral beams, and trusses; andthey conducted stress analyses. As part of the class assignment, students reflected on theirexperiences. Based on students' final written portfolios for the class, the majority indicated thatdesigning with computer software, combined with 3D printing, increased their creativity anddesign confidence, and enhanced their self-efficacy and identity as engineers who
, J. A. Hicks, W. Davis, and R. Smallman, “Free will, counterfactual reflection, and the meaningfulness of life events,” Social Psychological and Personality Science, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 243–250, 2015.[7] M. D. Alicke, J. Buckingham, E. Zell, and T. Davis, “Culpable control and counterfactual reasoning in the psychology of blame,” Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 1371–1381, Oct. 2008.[8] K. Epstude and N. J. Roese, “The functional theory of counterfactual thinking,” Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 168–192, May 2008.[9] P. M. Gollwitzer and V. Brandstätter, “Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 186–199, 1997.[10] P. M
well with their desire to have their studentsthinking about customer needs, making an impact, and reflecting on the consequences of theirwork. Dean A at a primarily undergraduate-focused institution remarked: I think as our engineering students think about how they're going to solve world problems and how they're going to make a difference in the world, how do they do that with an entrepreneurial mindset, and how to think about what does it really mean to create value, how do we do that and what are the things that you think about. It's not about just for the technology but really understanding customer needs, and what is the real need. It's not just about developing a really cool hammer and then not looking
Results of a Spreadsheet Tool,” is the first recorded use of “empathy” in theDesign in Engineering Education Division (DEED) of ASEE [17]. Like many of itspredecessors, Eggert’s paper only mentions “empathy” once when describingprofessionals’ interpersonal style, which includes “empathy, tolerance, honesty, trust, andpersonal integrity” [17]. As part of a person’s “style,” empathy is considered apsychological trait, one that reflects an engineering designer’s personality. The concept “empathic design,” coined by Leonard and Rayport, had gainedprominence prior to its presence in engineering education [18]. The first reference to“empathic design” in DEED appeared in 2011. Titus and colleagues called empathicdesign “the ideal form” of human