~1200community attendees.IntroductionThrough the service learning structure, both students and community partners help to fulfill eachother’s needs. A robotics service learning [1] course at Fairfield University teaches theprinciples of robotics through hands-on activities and requires each student to participate in amentoring relationship with a local high school robotics team. These types of programs havebeen implemented at other universities [2-5]. Through these relationships, students gain a deeperunderstanding of the principles of robotics from the classroom, through teaching those principlesto others and helping their mentored team solve problems. Students gain an appreciation for, andcapability to, inspire younger generations to engage in STEM
project, Virginia Tech Partnering with Educators and Engineers in Rural Schools (VTPEERS) focuses on the collaborative design, implementation, and study of a series of hands-onengineering activities with middle school youth in three rural communities in or near Appalachia.Launching our project has involved coordination across stakeholder groups to understand distinctvalues, goals, strengths and needs within these unique communities. In the first academic year,we are working with nine (9) different sixth grade science teachers across seven (7) schools inthree (3) counties. The aim of this engagement-in-practice paper is to document our lessonslearned in navigating the day-to-day challenges of (1) developing and facilitating curriculum atthe
partners (and a new engineering program) for service learningBackground and MotivationService learning as a pedagogical strategy is well documented. At its best, service learningallows an opportunity to bridge technical education in the classroom to practice. Additionally, itencourages student development of communication skills, leadership, critical thinking, activelearning, and cultural understanding [1]. These skills learned through service learning benefitstudents upon graduating, as they will be expected to interact with people from diversebackgrounds in order to solve complex problems. For engineering students, these goals andneeds are no different, as engineers work on multidisciplinary projects that
center of its kind in Westmoreland County with the goal of being a hub of collaboration, creation and innovation in New Kensington” (http://newkensington.psu.edu/, 2018).Project Design and PartnershipThis year, the project for the SUST 200 class is to create a living wall within the existingcommunity garden near The Corner, and both are located along the “Corridor of Innovation”(Figure 1). The community garden is situated between two dilapidated buildings. The idea is todetract from their condition by installing a living wall in front of the lower portion of thebuildings. One wall would entail a matrix of burlap sacks with each pocket containing a flowersuited to the environs. The other wall would display a sign to acknowledge the
offered during AY2016-17,enrolling over 5,000 students across all six colleges – including Engineering,Computing, Design, Liberal Arts, Business, and Sciences. It was one of 24 coursesoffered in the College of Engineering. In addition to addressing course-specificlearning outcomes, Center-affiliated courses are expected to address one or more ofthe Center’s four learning outcomes related to sustainability and communityengagement, which are: Develop Knowledge & Skills 1. Students will be able to identify relationships among ecological, social, and economic systems. 2. Students will be able to demonstrate skills needed to work effectively in different types of communities. 3. Students will be able to evaluate how
to take ‘gatekeeper’ courses such as Pre-Calculus and Calculus (NCES, 2016).Purpose StatementAlthough, only in the preliminary stages of data collection, the primary goal of this work is toaddress the challenge of broadening participation in STEM, particularly among UR boys bybuilding on a pilot afterschool STEM program for UR boys. Specifically, this project proposesthe STEM Engagement through Mentoring (SEM) model as a way to address the followingquestions:1) In what ways do fathers/mentors motivate students to become aware of, interested in, and prepared for STEM careers?2) To what extent does involvement in SEM shape the students’ STEM identity?3) What impact does working with the SEM program have on the self-efficacy of pre-service
course express an intention to continue computer science education at a local community college. We found that many students enjoyed creating programs and were proud of their success in creating these programs. Based on written reflections. Many of our undergraduate student assistants state that they learned a tremendous amount from this experience. We also observe improved teaching and communication skills.1 Program OverviewOur four-week introductory computer programming course follows a university-style schedule:two ninety minute lecture periods per week along with a separate weekly two hour lab session.Lecturers from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly), serve both ascourse designers
learning program sponsored by the A. James ClarkeSchool of Engineering and supported by College Park Scholars (CPS) and the Office ofUndergraduate Studies (STS, 2018). The primary goal of STS is to “give studentsanalytical skills that help connect science and technology to broader social needs” (UMDSTS, 2018) and typically serves engineering and computer science majors. The roboticsservice-learning course is an elective within the STS curriculum. The service-learning program started as a way to match STS student interests inSTEM and robotics with demand from community organizations seeking STEM relatedprogramming and outreach. Seeing an appropriate match, STS piloted a 1-credit roboticsbased service-learning practicum with a nearby public
of Institutions of HigherEducation [1]. As the 4th largest academic unit on VCU’s campus, the School of Engineering iscomprised of 2,000 students with demographics that reflect the diverse community in which itserves. The development of collaborations such as public-private partnerships and projects withlocal communities has been VCU Engineering’s essential ingredient for talent development, notonly because of well-established relationships with the business community, but also becausethese community partnerships give way to a continuum of college-bound students that translatesinto a sustainable diverse STEM pipeline. The desire to expand the number of public-privatepartnerships within the local community, however, presents both
understanding of engineering design.II. IntroductionThe National Research Council reports that the U.S. “will need a steady supply of well-trainedengineers, scientists, and other technical workers...to succeed and prosper in the twenty-firstcentury.”1 Because our society is becoming increasingly dependent on engineering andtechnological advances, it is also recognized that all citizens need to have a basic understandingof engineering processes and uses to make informed choices and understand our world. Toaddress these needs, there has been a growing nationwide interest to include engineering in bothformal and informal pre-college education. In reviewing early attempts at K-12 engineeringeducation, the NRC found that including engineering in K-12
, the students reacted positively to theseengagement pieces, although some of them showed concerns about cutting into the class time.ReferencesDicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in Education: A SystematicMapping Study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 75–88.http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.18.3.75Felder, R., & Silverman, L. (1988). Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. EngineeringEducation, 78(7), 674–681. https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/31039406/LS-1988.pdfFelder, R., Woods, D., Stice, J., & Rugarcia, A. (2000). The Future of Engineering Education II. TeachingMethods That Work. Chemical Engineering Education, 34(1), 26-39.http
ABET assessment cycle is beginning.The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, it discusses the strategies designed by the Schoolof Engineering at Universidad Icesi to effectively engage faculty members in the implementationof a sustainable and continuous improvement process. Second, it presents early results obtainedfrom the implementation of these strategies, including the perceptions of faculty members aboutthese changes.Background and supporting literatureThis paper presents a work in progress related to the consolidation of a continuous improvementprocess at the School of Engineering at Universidad Icesi. As presented in [1], the continuousimprovement process of an academic program can be explained as a PDCA (Plan–Do–Check-Act
might not connect with underrepresented students. Maintaining interest in the major is important for engineering programs concerned with improving retention rates. In traditional design-‐based courses, it is common practice to observe engineering teams gravitating to a final solution without deeply understanding the nature of a problem. Beginner engineering students tend to spend less time in the problem scoping phase of the design process and forget to consider the true needs of the user [1], [2]. Students from outside the engineering fields or high school students may have never engaged in the engineering
this robot will provide an opportunity to educators to explore theknowledge of mechatronics that will eventually open a whole new world of learning to them.IntroductionRobots are much more likely to be used as learning tools for several subjects across theengineering curriculum. Designing a simple and low cost educational robot has become anincreasingly popular project for engineering and technology programs [1-2]. Robots are currentlyused in engineering and technology classrooms and are being incorporated into education. Mostof the schools use a robotics project in the Introduction to Engineering course to expose thefreshmen students to assembling, programing, and integrating systems to perform the task.The intent of this project is to design
-specifichands-on research by utilizing small internal grants designed for undergraduate research. Thisstudy mostly focuses on the strategies of engaging undergraduate students in teaching focuseduniversity settings. The teaching focused primarily undergraduate institutes (PUI) have limitedresources and funding for research compared to that of major research universities (R1).Therefore, some of the strategies may work better at the PUI setting compared to R1 setting.Literature ReviewThere have been many research studies on the various aspects of undergraduate research (UR)including benefits of UR, faculty perceptions of UR, students’ perceptions of UR, strategiestaken by individual faculty, or discipline or even universities. Craney et al. [1
the instruction on the theory of ergonomics, without much opportunity ofcarrying out lab activities. However, it is important to provide students with the real lifeexperience of poor and good ergonomic designs. The students should also understandfactors that need to be considered in ergonomic design. As a result, several educatorsattempted to engage undergraduate students in real life ergonomic examples or casestudies in the theory class by various approaches.Several educators and researchers aimed at providing hands-on experience to theundergraduate students in the human factors and ergonomics class. Stone and Moroney[1] discussed the importance and the necessity of teaching human factors and ergonomicsat the undergraduate level. They
accreditation reinforces skills such asproblem-solving, it can be quite challenging to fully incorporate the macro-ethical socialdimensions of sustainable development3,5,6. In this study, we focus on the challenge ofintegrating macro-ethical socio-technical thinking skills through stakeholder value mapping20,21,22 . This challenge is not unique to courses focused on sustainability. The challenge of integratingmacro-ethical socio-technical thinking is common to all engineering curriculum23,24,25. Previouswork on the integration of macro-ethical issues into engineering courses have fallen into twobroad categories: 1) understanding institutional patterns of macro-ethical interventions inengineering curriculum26,27,28 and more fine-grained qualitative
School of Engineering and Applied Science requires allEngineering students to take a two-term cornerstone design sequence that focuses onhuman-centered design. The sequence gets students focused on Engineering Design as both arequired tool for engineering systems and as a necessary social function.Over the last twenty years, this cornerstone design sequence has been the subject of severalpapers presented at ASEE Conferences.1-13 Since the School of Engineering switched todedicated First Year Advising in 2013, all first year students are strongly advised to take DTC1and 2 as first year courses.15 This means that approximately 512 students took DTC1 and 2AY2015-16 and 487 students in AY 2016-17.Design-Thinking and Communication (DTC)OverviewAll
confident intheir ability to do well in their major.IntroductionThis paper describes the Engineering Freshmen Intensive Transition (E-FIT) program, which is aweek-long summer boot camp designed based on best practices for retaining students [1] and theBiology Intensive Orientation for Students (BIOS) program at Louisiana State University (LSU)[2]. Studies have shown that difficulty adjusting to college life for new students can lead to lowgrades and issues with persistence in completing a degree. [3], [4]. Stress can also negativelyaffect first-year students and in some cases lead to students dropping out of college [5], [6].Furthermore, studies show that students who are academically unprepared for the rigors ofuniversity courses leave school
, 2016). Using this approach, it is important toacknowledge context is a major factor in how the phenomenon is experienced. This research alsoacknowledges individual’s experiences shape how they perceive, assume and understand thephenomenon.Data CollectionThe Tohono O’odham Nation is comprised of 11 districts: Baboquivari District, San LucyDistrict, Chukut Kuk District, San Xavier District, Gu Achi District, Schuk Toak District, Gu VoDistrict, Sells District, Hickiwan District, Sif Oidak District, and Pisinemo District. As of 2016,the Tohono O’odham have a total of approximately 34,000 enrolled members.Three participants (1 male, 2 female) were recruited from personal and professional contacts.There were no incentives offered to participate in
entrepreneurship during their undergraduate education.Formal entrepreneurship programs (e.g., majors, minors, and certificates) have quadrupled from1975 to 2006 [1]. Moreover, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other funding agencies--including the Kern Family Foundation, the Kauffman Foundation, VentureWell and theLemelson Foundation-- have invested in promoting entrepreneurship and innovation inengineering education [2]. Similarly, the Entrepreneurship and Engineering Innovation (ENT)Division of the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) is also supporting themovement through its mission to “foster and disseminate approaches to educate and stimulatefaculty and students at all levels on entrepreneurship, including partnerships with
in students’ affective domain valuing of the roles of creativity, analysis, andinvestigation in engineering design. The adoption of Engineering Design Days is expandingacross the Faculty of Engineering as a result. We discuss lessons-learned and strategies forensuring the sustainability of Engineering Design Days.1 Introduction1.1 HackathonsHackathons have been gaining in popularity for many years. For example, the University ofWaterloo’s annual “Hack the North” hackathon has been running since 2014 [1] and smallerstudent society-sponsored internal hackathons have been running for several years. Hackathonsare broadly appealing, widely recognized to improve non-technical skills, and are typicallycharacterized by focused intensity
reviewBeliefs are personal episodic constructs that include affective and evaluative components [1].Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning represent a “conceptual map for instructionaldecision making” [2, pp. 86] and are reflected in their practices (e.g., [1], [3]-[4]). Currentliterature supports that teachers’ beliefs are firmly held and hard to change (e.g., [5], [6]). It isparticularly challenging for experienced teachers to shift toward student-centered beliefs becausetheir views have been established, whereas newer teachers are more receptive to student-centeredclassrooms [7]. A study by Luft [7] found that professional development for fourteen secondaryscience teachers on inquiry based practices have varying levels of impact. Although
-defined radios.Mr. Qi Cao, Chinese University of Hong Kong Qi Cao is a postgraduate student and teaching assistant at Department of Information Engineering, CUHK. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Engineering Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship: A Course-Level Implementation Case in Hong KongIntroductionAdvancements in technology have transformed modern society. However, new global challengesand emerging issues have arisen alongside technological advancement. These include (but arenot limited to) climate change mitigation and adaptation, cyber attacks, and inequalities in health,education, and infrastructure [1].On 30 December 2015, The United Nations (UN
field and prior engineering identity studies. In particular, we seek tounderstand which factors may influence Hispanic students’ engineering identity development.We begin by answering the following research questions: 1. How do the engineering identity, extracurricular experiences, post-graduation career plans, and familial influence of Hispanic students attending a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) differ from those of Hispanic students attending a Predominantly White Institution (PWI)? 2. How do the same measures differ for Hispanic students attending a PWI from those of non-Hispanic white students at that PWI? 3. How do the same measures differ for Hispanic students attending an HSI from those of non-Hispanic
translating those strategies to design tools and education. She teaches design and en- trepreneurship courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels, focusing on front-end design processes.Dr. Diane L. Peters, Kettering University Dr. Peters is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Kettering University. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Engineering Industry Perspectives and Policies Related to Employees’ Pursuit of Engineering Doctoral TrainingI. IntroductionSupporting multiple pathways through engineering education, including at the graduate level, is acommonly cited priority in conversations about the future of engineering [1], [2]. Similarly,increasing the
. In this program, he is tasked with organizing all guest speaker visits, coordination of the student selection process, organizing the course capstone experience and any additional student affairs interactions required in the program. Prior to joining the UK College of Engineering, Tony served 24 years on active duty as a United States Air Force Commissioned Officer. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Engineering Leadership Development Program: A Tenth Year Review and AssessmentAbstractIn 2007, the University of Kentucky College of Engineering created the Pigman LeadershipDevelopment Program. The program had the following three objectives: (1
visioncourses to demonstrate the connections between microstructure and materials functions,particulary as they related to electrical and optical applications.IntroductionPhotovoltaic solar cells are semiconductor-based optoelectronic devices that convert (sun) lightenergy directly into electric power. Solar cells are now an established and important technologyfor renewable electricity generation, and are making a substantial and increasing contribution toworld energy needs. Global photovoltaic generating capacity increased by 50% from 2015 to2016, and the cumulative installed capacity now exceeds 300 Gigawatts, enough to supply about2 percent of the world's total electricity consumption [1]. Based on these trends, photovoltaicscience and engineering
assessing cohort composition within such courses, for methods employed incourses’ learning outcomes assessment, and for course or program degree-credit and recruitmentapproaches.IntroductionDespite their increasing prevalence, most Engineering Leadership (EL) courses are still optionalor elective for engineering undergraduates [1]. Herein, we present data showing variation amongengineering students in key attributes related to leadership and career development – and,correspondingly, related to learning experiences in EL courses. This variation appears to be atleast partly systemic: attributes vary, on average, in association with student group affiliationsand demographics. This paper discusses how knowledge of these patterns of student variationcan
awarded to Black orAfrican American students in engineering technology than in engineering [1-3]. The rationale forthis trend is unknown, and the amount of research on this very small part of the academe doesnot explore the issues that affect the decisions made by these students as they confront thequestion of what to do with their careers. Various techniques employed by recruiters at differentinstitutions have diverse results, while academic, and environment, may have a role in thechoices made by these students. Understanding these students, their similarities within aninstitution, as well as between programs is anticipated to provide greater ability to recruit, retain,and encourage more diversity within these student populations.Literature