Paper ID #26649Students’ Engagements with Reflection: Insights from UndergraduatesWendy Roldan, University of Washington Wendy is a second-year PhD student in Human Centered Design and Engineering at the University of Washington studying the development of equitable engineering education. Her work draws from the fields of engineering education, design, and learning sciences.Dr. Jennifer A. Turns, University of Washington Jennifer Turns is a Professor in the Department of Human Centered Design & Engineering at the Univer- sity of Washington. She is interested in all aspects of engineering education, including how to
Paper ID #25328Development and Implementation of a Reflective Journaling Method for Qual-itative ResearchDr. Benjamin David Lutz, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Ben Lutz is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering Design at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. His research interests include innovative pedagogies in engineering design, conceptual change and develop- ment, school-to-work transitions for new engineers, and efforts for inclusion and diversity within engi- neering. His current work explores how students describe their own learning in engineering design and how that learning supports
Paper ID #27069Engineering Students’ Self-Reflections, Teamwork Behaviors, and AcademicPerformanceMs. Saira Anwar, Purdue University, West Lafayette Saira Anwar is a third-year doctoral student at School of Engineering Education, Purdue University. She is interested in exploring the effects of using technology to enhance students’ learning. Further, she is interested in understanding the ways and interventions that can be designed to deal with conceptually hard concepts in STEM courses especially programming and software engineering courses. Prior to Purdue University, Saira worked as Assistant Professor in Computer
students’perception of engineering as especially important in biomedical engineering because it is both heavilyinterdisciplinary and heavily human focused [9,10]. In biomedical engineering, content traditionallyseen as mechanical, electrical, and chemical engineering is merged into novel curricula that are human-focused, creating conditions where biomedical engineering students may develop a differentunderstanding than students from other engineering majors.The purpose of this paper is a preliminary analysis of students’ reflections on the epistemologicalboundaries of engineering. We want to understand the boundaries that students establish regardingengineering and the way in which they articulate those boundaries. As an initial step towards that goal
for making a difference in their community and world or personalagency. Personal agency is a capability that every individual holds; it is described by Bandura asan individual’s beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control over events that affect their livesthrough purposeful and reflective actions. Agentic actions allow students to explore, maneuverand impact their environment for the achievement of a goal or set of goals. This study identifieshow cognitive processes of forethought, intention, reactivity, and reflection shape a students’agentic behavior and together influence first-generation college students’ goal of making adifference in their community through their engineering degree.Data for this study came from a large-scale
theamount of diversity that can be displayed within the context of a single assignment. It isimportant to note that we are not analyzing the assignment solutions for correctness but onlylooking at the thinking and organizational strategies used at this time.2. Theoretical Foundations based in Writing to LearnLearning to program is a complex process that could benefit from Writing to Learn (WTL)strategies. The struggles of novice programmers is well documented [1]. A commonly citedfactor is “fragile knowledge,” which is knowledge that is incomplete and superficial [2].Students who effectively employ metacognitive strategies, such as reflection and self-assessment, are more likely to master the problem solving skills that are essential toprogramming
reflection on their learning accessed their feedback more often thanthose who do not [6]. So it is hypothesized that students who do reflections will score higher onproposed factor 2 (timely review of feedback) than those that do not. Of the 1213 students, 226were enrolled in sections of the course that used structure-reflection [6]; 874 were enrolled insections that did no or minimal (e.g., minute paper) reflection. To test the hypothesis that thescores obtained for factors associated with timely review of feedback were higher for sectionsthat did reflection than those that did no or minimal reflection, a Kruskal-Wallis test and aWilcoxon Rank test were used. These two non-parametric tests were chosen over the parametrict-test due to the Likert
quality. Although qualitativeresearchers often conduct phenomenography collaboratively, most often a single individual leadsthe data collection and analysis; others primarily serve as critical reviewers. However, qualitymay be enhanced by involving collaborators as data analysts in “sustained cycles of scrutiny, de-bate and testing against the data” [1, p. 88], thus interweaving unique perspectives and insightsthroughout the analysis process. Nonetheless, collaborating in this intensive data analysis processalso presents unique challenges. In this paper, we (1) describe the processes we are applying inan integrated team-based phenomenographic study, (2) identify how the team approach affectsresearch quality, and (3) reflect on the challenges
Michigan. His undergraduate degree is in Agricultural Engineering Technology from Michigan State University. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Measuring the Impact of Experiential LearningAbstractThis is a research paper submitted to the Educational Research and Methods Division.Numerous institutions are focusing on expanding experiential learning opportunities (e.g. client-based projects, international service trips, team competitions, etc.) for engineering students. Kolb[1] defines experiential learning as an iterative process involving conceptualization, activeexperimentation, concrete experience, and reflective observation. Experiential learning has alsobeen identified as an
class activities found in the scholarly literature. Thesepractices were grounded in experiential and cooperative learning such as visits from experts,round-table discussions, reflections, but still included traditional learning activities such asassigned readings and lectures. Outside the classroom, students actively worked with communitypartners to improve thriving in the community.Gratitude - Gratitude consists of feelings of appreciation for someone in response to receivingintentional benefits, especially at some cost to the benefactor [2], [3]. There are both interpersonaland intrapersonal benefits of gratitude. Gratitude is one of the strongest correlates to emotionalwellbeing [4], life satisfaction, optimism, and reduced anxiety [5]. In
discussion of the advancement of EER. More broadly, identifying such boundaryknowledge can facilitate new understanding of how the social construction of knowledge occursin interdisciplinary fields beyond engineering education. As a first step toward these largerobjectives, we review relevant literature and outline our participants as well as our analytic plan.BackgroundDisciplinary-specific norms reflect a field’s priorities and values, as well as assumptions aboutwhat qualifies as rigorous, trustworthy, or quality scholarship [1]. The ramifications ofdisciplinary normativities include which methodologies are widely endorsed, which questionsare investigated, and what is considered knowledge. As such, these normativities set theboundaries of a
of criticalthinking (Chinn et al. 2014). Both the broad term of critical thinking and the more niche term ofsystems thinking share similar meanings of thoughtful analysis or analytical reasoning, and callto mind King & Kitchener’s Reflective Judgement Model (King & Kitchener, 1994, 2001, 2004),a stepping stone between the cognitive development research started in the 1970s and morerecent epistemological research. This researcher argues that discovering the epistemic beliefs offaculty and the ideas being disseminated to students in their chemical engineering classroomswill prove useful in the field of chemical engineering education as well as related academicfields concerned with systems and critical thinking.TheoryResearch preceding
recognize the existing efforts of educators and fostertheir curricula and scholarship ideas. A series of three workshops were conducted in 2018 byvisiting educators engaged in engineering education at both two and four-year HSIs. Before,during, and after the workshop series, attendees were asked to reflect on three guidingeducational philosophies: intrinsic motivation, students as empowered agents, and designthinking. Thirty-six engineering educators from thirteen HSIs from across the Southern UnitedStates participated in one of two, two-day workshops where attendees prototyped examples ofhow they would implement these philosophies at their home institution. Using these prototypes,participants identified the assets they already had and resources
reflects the ability to bounce back from adversity and unfavorable conditions.Previous studies have shown the importance of resilience to succeed in the workplace, as well asacademic career. Being resilient is particularly significant in engineering programs; encouragingstudents to develop resilience may be a key catalyst for academic improvement and subsequentcareer success.While the literature pertaining to academic resilience is well-developed, there are not manyinstruments that measure the construct. With a focus on engineering students. The current studyexamines the structure validity of the Academic Resilience Scale (ARS -30). Participantsincluded 113 engineering students enrolled in an engineering class who completed an onlinesurvey of the
he’s such a lovely polite person, he’s not going to argue with me, and he hasn’t tested it yet, so he doesn’t have the evidence to counterclaim or whatever. So I would have really stolen from him the opportunity to think that through. (Interview 5)In her reflection, Margaret recalls specific details of Charlie’s latest rocket design. She notes thathe had been attending to a particular problem—how to keep the rocket from leaking out air. Shealso acknowledges her own understanding of the mechanics underlying his design—the weightof the rocket needed to be considered alongside how well it traps air. While she was aware thatCharlie’s design was too heavy to be launched, she let him try out his ideas on his own. Shereasons that if she were to
activity has been conducted once a semester in the Iron Range Engineeringprogram since the Fall 2017 academic year and twice a semester in the York College ofPennsylvania program since the Fall 2018 academic year.Feedback was collected via student surveys, student and faculty reflections. Preliminary analysisof student feedback and faculty reflections indicates increased learner engagement, enhancedreview of technical content and a different type of learning experience. Faculty reflections alsonoted that the activity helps students to self-identify those concepts they had successfullymastered and those needing more review. This activity has brought value to the overall learningprocess and will continue to be used to improve teaching and student
explanations [9]. However, thefield of engineering has not yet established a clear idea of what “disciplinary engagement”means.Engineering at its core is about creating solutions to problems using mathematics, science, andcreativity through a design process. The engineering curriculum reflects this by containingdifferent types of courses that teach the mathematical models of natural phenomena (i.e.engineering science courses, or technical core courses), laboratory and experimental techniquesand processes (i.e. lab courses), and fundamentals of engineering design (i.e. design courses).These courses all ask students to engage disciplinarily in different ways, all in support of theoverall practice of engineering to create new solutions. Prior research
identity is more thanlearning the technical skills and knowledge required to perform engineering work, it alsoincludes aligning one’s sense of self with the field of engineering. In addition, engineeringidentity has shown to be an important factor for broadening participation in engineering, as theidentity development experience also reflects one’s perceived similarity with others in the field,providing a sense of belonging or “fit” [8]. Previous research has demonstrated engineeringidentity also precedes persistence in engineering degree programs through degree completion [4,6, 9], though these studies were somewhat limited in terms of their generalizability due toreliance on small, localized samples.The purpose of this study then is to test the
their model using different mathematical andcomputational pathways. The Planning the Model step occurs largely prior to instruction in thecourse, giving the students full opportunity to explore different ways to solve the problem.Second is Building the Model, where students actually create one of their modeling solutionpathways individually. During the Building the Model step, students program the model anddocument their thinking process through a final report and in-code comments. In the third step,Evaluating the Model, students meet with their team and other teams to compare solutions inorder to identify key differences in how the problem could be solved, documenting theevaluation process. Finally in the Reflecting on the Model phase students
, soteaching staff are dealing with larger workload [6], [8]. Consequently, they spend less timereflecting about curriculum and teaching practices [9], [10], and they resist to fulfillingadditional assessment requirements at a program level [4]. Besides lacking opportunities to reflect, most faculty lack opportunities to collectand analyze meaningful learning data due to the complexity of assessing student learningoutcomes on a program level [11]. To deal with this challenging but essential task,teaching staff rely on both quantitative (e.g., quiz results, test scores, mid-term students’satisfaction and end-of term evaluations) and qualitative data (e.g., open-ended responsesto end of term comments from students and colleagues) to identify
thatproblem. They may instantly consider application of a particular formula and then look for clueswithin the available information that matches the variables in the formula. To be effectiveproblem-solvers, however, students must learn to construct accurate and appropriateunderstandings and knowledge about the relationships between task characteristics (i.e., purpose,structure, and components of tasks) and associated processing demands. This personalknowledge about the problem-solving task at hand is known as metacognitive knowledge abouttask (MKT) [13]. Ideally, the MKT helps students enact more effective self-regulation,particularly task interpretation processes. Students’ engagement on a task as a whole, includingtheir active and reflective
others would also consider your recovery successful/unsuccessful? Why or why not? g. Has your event affected your future behavior? Based on their class section, participants were either given the “unsuccessful” recovery or“successful” recovery first, followed by the other option. This difference was implemented tomitigate the potential effects of the first failure type reflection on the answers for the other (i.e. anegative reflection could influence the next positive reflection). How an individual responds tofailure can give a good amount of information pertaining to the general trends of saidindividual’s motivation. For analysis of this qualitative data we used emergent thematic analysisto code and subsequently identify thematic
foreign students is diverse,thus, insight around these needs is a starting point for developing communication programs thatsuccessfully provide value.Literature ReviewFew studies specifically examine the communication needs of graduate engineering students oridentify resources and training efforts that address these needs. Nonetheless, academics andpractitioners alike seem to agree that engineering graduate students are faced withcommunication challenges reflective of the complexity of the material that they mustdisseminate, and thus would benefit from supportive efforts to hone their skills.Many guides and textbooks are available to help teach the international student population inU.S. universities in general, but less is specifically geared to
and Self-management Relaxation exercise Learning misconceptions Teaching Practice Small Group Activity Course Learning Teaching Practice Individual Reflection Outcomes followed by review Bloom’s Taxonomy Teaching Practice Small Group Activity Effective Teaching Teaching Practice -- Course Design -Syllabus Course Planning -- Course Design – Session Course Planning Individual Reflection Plans, Good Questions followed by review Instructional Design Learning Theory -- Framework Active Learning Methods Active Learning Activity design in small
are supported by communities that focus on developing software to solve societal challenges and improve the human condition. These projects provide rich opportunities for computing students to practice and learn both technical and professional skills. In addition, the transparency of HFOSS projects provides students with an opportunity to create a portfolio of their contributions to real- world projects. This paper reports on three different undergraduate courses where students learned by participation in an HFOSS project. The paper provides an overview of each class and description of results. Student reflective writing about their class experiences was used to gather unstructured observations about the student experience and learning. This
to project success. Laurillard’s [11] conception ofteaching as a design science provided the conceptual framework: (a) teaching improvementshould be encouraged; (b) improvement begins with self-reflection; (c) a teaching communitysupports change; (d) teaching change needs to be designed; (e) participating in a teachingcommunity supports engagement with new teaching designs; and (f) teaching changes should bedocumented and shared [11]. In a non-judgmental teaching community, faculty can take risks,sharing successes and failures, receive constructive feedback, and build on each other’s ideas.The design principles for this faculty development project were grounded within Laurillard’sconceptual framework [1], [11]. Thus, adaptive design
). Rather than establishing this binary, we think it might be helpful toconsider positivism and interpretivism along continua or spectra, in which ICR measures mightbe helpful in the context of some qualitative studies but inconsistent in the context of others. Tofurther raise questions about the use of ICR, we next describe our own qualitative work inengineering educational research and we describe our discussions and considerationssurrounding ICR in our attempts to ensure quality in our own qualitative research. Intercoder Reliability and Quality: Reflections on a Qualitative Multiple Case StudyTo contextualize our discussion of ICR measures and quality, we begin with a brief descriptionof our own ongoing qualitative work: a multiple case study
authentic STEM experiencesto students in grades K-12 in order to foster students’ engagement and interest in STEM [8].The problems that we face in our rapidly evolving global society are multidisciplinary in nature,requiring the integration of multiple subjects to develop solutions. The complex andmultidisciplinary nature of these real-world problems is a driving force behind arguments forintegrated STEM approaches to teaching and learning in K-12 classrooms. Indeed, researchershave argued that integration across the STEM disciplines provide the best opportunity forstudents to experience authentic learning environments and that teaching without integration“does not reflect the natural interconnectedness of the four STEM components in the real
engineering and education to aid the generations who aim to become future engineers.Luisa Chiesa, Mechanical Engineering, Tufts University c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Work-in-Progress: Learning Assistant “Noticing” in an Undergraduate Engineering Science CourseMany engineering educators are exploring new approaches to support more productive learningbehaviors during required engineering science courses. These approaches range from pedagogyworkshops for faculty to programs fostering student reflection and meta-cognition. Someengineering departments are also establishing “learning assistant” (LA) programs thatincorporate pedagogically trained undergraduate students as
thedesign cycle [4]. However, few studies have explicitly examined student learning through thelens of the knowledge and practice expectations of a 21st century engineer [14]. Yet, 21st centuryskills have been embraced by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET)and are included in the standards for engineering programs [15]. The 21st century skills includecollaboration and teamwork, creativity, communication, emotional competency, culturalcompetency, ethics, leadership and management, critical thinking, and content knowledge. Afundamental shift in the ABET engineer paradigm with the adoption of the 21st centuryframework reflects a focus on engineers as being at the service to society. The ABET standardssuggest that there is