engineering students. The first objective of this study is to explore theengineering epistemological beliefs among students in introductory engineering courses, using aunique methodological approach, Q methodology. The second objective is to examine whethersuch epistemological beliefs are related to student academic outcomes among first yearengineering students.This study focuses on students in introductory engineering courses for two reasons. First,introductory STEM (including engineering) courses are often large, posing difficulties forinstructors and students to closely examine and discuss concepts and knowledge covered in thecourses. Students’ epistemological views in these courses can be potentially used to relate tostudents’ course performances
support model [1]. TheSupplemental Instruction (SI) program provides optional, non-remedial sessions designed todeliver content review and additional practice opportunities while developing transferable studyeffectiveness skills to benefit the student in all coursework at the institution.Results from other studies have revealed that regular session attendance positively impactedexam scores, overall course grades and DFWQ% (Ds, Fs, Q-drops, Withdraws) rates, and thatparticipants had an overall favorable perception of the SI program [1]-[5]. Some works havesought to determine factors that affect attendance in SI sessions, by using qualitative data onstudents attitudes to predict behaviors of attendance [6], [7]. This work in particular found
the data, e.g., when only one or two out offour members completed the assessment, and incorporating qualitative research methods such asfocus groups, interviews, and observations for a more thorough analysis.References[1] National Academy of Engineering. 2004. The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering inthe New Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.[2] ABET, "Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2018 - 2019," ABET, 2018.[Online]. Available:https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2018-2019/. [Accessed 30 Jan 2019].[3] Bodnar, L. J., & Lagoudas, M. Z., & Hodge, J. Q., & Smith, T. A., & Orozco, J. A., & Corso,J. G., & Sanchez, C
slim majority (54%) of studentsreported that their sketches got better over the course of the semester. Very encouragingly, 95%of students reported that it will be important for them as they go through their engineeringeducation to take advantage of any opportunity to improve their representation skills. Figure 12 Post-Survey Q 4- 7: Do you agree/disagree with the following statements Q4 - After this semester I have an INCREASED appreciation for the value of sketching, drawing, making diagrams etc in helping me… Q5 - After this semester I have an INCREASED appreciation for the
satisfaction with your assigned mentor 6 14 46 21 Your overall satisfaction with all aspects of the mentoring 9 13 48 17 program.The peer-mentoring program also included periodic visits by the engineers from localcompanies. Several students attended the organized events and interacted with the engineers toform a better idea about the engineering profession. Many of the engineers shared theireducational experiences, gave insightful advice and tips on time management and priorities. Thecasual interaction with the visiting engineers after the Q&A sessions typically received highmarks from the
, Engineering, and Mathematics,” Mt Sinai J Med, vol. 79, no. 5, pp. 610–623, 2012. 3) J. Sablan, “The Challenge of Summer Bridge Programs,” Am. Behav. Sci., vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 1035–1050, 2014. 4) T. T. Ishitani, “Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation college students in the United States,” J. Higher Educ., vol. 77, no. 5, pp. 861–885, 2006. 5) S. M. Ostrove, J. M., Long, “Social class and belonging: Implications for college adjustment,” Rev. High. Educ., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 363–389, 2007. 6) S. P. Ackermann, “The benefits of summer bridge programs for underrepresented and low transfer students,” Community /Junior Coll. Q. Res. Pract., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 211– 224, 1991
customer statements and Q & A’s. The project is broken into subsystems thatare addressed one at a time though iterations are needed throughout the design, as the designchanges in one subsystem would likely affect other design choices that had been made prior.Custom web-based simulators were provided to students to help them with modeling and designdecision making. The final deliverables of this project include a few visual/physicalrepresentations of various aspects of the design and a design report.Research MethodThis research effort aims to understand how first year students’ understanding of the designprocess changes before, during, and after engaging in the class activities in this course. Datacollected are the visual representations of
, G. (2001). A promising prospect for minority retention:Students becoming peer mentors. Journal of Negro Education, 69(4), 375-383.[26] Brainard, S. G., & Carlin, L. (1998). A six-year longitudinal study of undergraduate womenin engineering and science. Journal of Engineering Education, BLAH, 369-375.[27] Sandvall, E., & Calder, D., & Harper, M., & Jackson, Z. B., & Baker, B. J. (2017,August), Peer Mentoring in the First-Year Engineering Experience Paper presented at 2017FYEE Conference, Daytona Beach, Florida. https://peer.asee.org/29428[28] Tahmina, Q. (2018, June), Assessing the Impact of Peer Mentoring on Performance in aFundamentals of Engineering Course Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference &Exposition
their STEM majors. Introduction to Engineering Fields: The purpose of this component is to introduce the Scholars to different types of engineering including bioengineering, chemical engineering, industrial engineering, mechanical engineering, civil and materials engineering, electrical and computer engineering, and computer science - as disciplines and as major programs offered at University of Illinois at Chicago. It intends to familiarize the Scholars with career options, path to graduation, research areas (undergraduate and postgraduate), and future outlook. Each of these sessions is typically a 30- to 45-minute presentation followed by a lively Q&A
mark next to the SIX MOST IMPORTANT. a. Abstracting b. Brainstorming c. Building d. Communicating e. Decomposing f. Evaluating g. Generating alternatives h. Goal setting i. Identifying constraints j. Imaging k. Iterating l. Making decisions m. Making trade-offs n. Modeling o. Planning p. Prototyping q. Seeking information r. Sketching Synthesizing s. Testing t. Understanding the problem u. Visualizing v. I prefer not to answer24. What did you struggle with the most on your project?25. What did you enjoy the most about your project (what shouldn’t change)?26. What tools and resources would you have wanted
interest in civic engagement.Results and DiscussionThe data for each question and their classification is given in Table 5 including average valuesfor the pre- and post- test, standard deviations (shown using σ-PRE for pre-test data and σ-POSTfor post-test data), and the results from the analysis. SS means statistically significant with arrowindicating a statistically significant increase or decrease while HIGH means an average responseof 4 or higher on both the pre-test data and the post-test data. The survey questions are given inTable 6. The questions are also given in Table 6 in their post- test forms.Table 5: Summary of results for each question along with analysis Q# PRE σ-PRE POST σ-POST P(T<=t), α = 0.05, N = 376 1 4.452