participants, yet no statisticallysignificant change in the learning mindset of the participants.Keywords: engineering pathways, career paths, STEM, underrepresented students, grit, growthmindset, high schoolIntroductionThe need for a more diverse STEM workforce has been established as a national concern for theUnited States [1], [2]. An effort toward making science accessible to all students needs to bemade in order to increase the representation of underrepresented groups in science fields of study[3]. With the implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards, there is also a push toincrease the visibility and understanding of engineering at the K-12 level in order to preparestudents for 21st century jobs [4], [5].One major roadblock for
. The projectspecifically addressed the sizing of components of an existing SAE Baja race car gearbox (sizethe shafts, keys, gears, and bearings). Phases 1 and 2 of the project asked students tocalculate/estimate the external loads acting on the input and output shafts of the gearbox. Inthese first two phases students were able to start experiencing a typical real-world situation inwhich, unlike textbook problems, the loads acting on the system were unknown and had to bedetermined. It required searching the internet, consulting textbooks, inspecting the Baja, andmaking assumptions. In the last phases, the students compared the results of their sizingcalculations to the existing components and applied critical thinking skills (discern the true
., The Citadel Ron Welch (P.E.) received his B.S. degree in Engineering Mechanics from the United States Military Academy in 1982. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Civil Engineering from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana in 1990 and 1999, respectively. He became the Dean of Engineering at The Citadel on 1 July 2011. Prior to his current position, he was the Department Head of Civil Engineering at The University of Texas at Tyler from Jan 2007 to June 2011 as well as served in the Corps of Engineers for over 24 years including eleven years on the faculty at the United States Military Academy.Dr. William J. Davis P.E., The Citadel William J. Davis is Dept. Head & D. Graham Copeland Professor of
study of smartness in engineering culturealso has practical implications, such as for inclusive classroom design.1. IntroductionThe construct of smartness and the field of engineering are inextricably linked. While the publicoften has limited understanding of engineering as a profession [1-3], one central theme is thebelief that engineering, with its emphasis on math and science, is difficult [4, 5]. As with anysocietal narrative, there is a gap between the public perception of engineering as a profession andthe reality of engineering work. For example, we see this in emphasizing the importance of mathand science skills while ignoring key engineering characteristics such as creativity, teamwork,and communication. The collective emphasis on
ofdisengagement” in relation to engineering students’ commitment to socially responsibleengineering.BackgroundThere is a need for engineers to use their skills to contribute to solving global problems. Whileprogress has been made, such as in strides toward achieving the UN Millennium DevelopmentGoals [1], much work remains as highlighted by the UN Sustainable Development Goals [2].The National Academy of Engineering considered the role of engineering in meeting these needsin 2004, stating: “We aspire to a future where engineers are prepared to adapt to changes inglobal forces and trends and to ethically assist the world in creating a balance in the standard ofliving for developing and developed countries alike.” [3, pg. 51] It is unclear to what
to illustrate how sociotechnical factors impact problem framing andsolution processes ([1]-[4]). Thus, engineering curricula reinforce the notion that technicalproblem-solving processes can be separated from the social context in which the problememerged—and in which the solution will reside. In contrast, practicing engineers acknowledgethe importance of social contexts and diverse perspectives in their work ([5]-[9]). Students withinsuch traditional curricula often incorrectly expect engineering and social problems to be separatefrom each other based on their experiences in the classroom, leaving them ill-equipped to thinkcritically about the ambiguity of sociotechnical problems that they will encounter in theworkforce [7].This misalignment
systems. Dr. Tzouanas is an ABET Program Evaluator (PEV) for Engineering and Engineering Technology programs. He is also member of AIChE and ASEE.Dr. Lisa Deane Morano, University of Houston, Downtown c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Solar Powered Aquaponics System: Modeling Real World Solutions through Engineering TechnologyI. IntroductionOne of the challenges we face as the word population expands is that our needs for food water andenergy also expand. The central questions is how to balance all of these needs. This is sometimescalled the energy-water-food nexus and it has enormous implications for food policy and the futuretechnology needs [1]. How can we grow more
and in experiential learning for undergraduates in science and engineering. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Specifications Grading in an Upper-Level BME Elective CourseRecent trends in BME education emphasize aspects of the engineering profession such as designprocess, entrepreneurial mindset, and active problem-solving. However, the grading strategy inmost traditional BME courses revolves around assigning points to student work based onapparent quality or degree of completion. Awarding “partial credit” is time-consuming and oftenis not closely mapped to learning objectives [1]. As a result, students often focus on how manypoints they earned relative to their perceived level of effort
doughs, Bi-pin LED light bulbs, Battery packs, Motors, Switches, and *Buzzers. *optional - may impact cochlear implantStandardsScience Standards (NGSS):K-2-ETS1-1 Ask questions, make observations, and gather information about a situation people want tochange to define a simple problem that can be solved through the development of a new or improvedobject or tool.3-5-ETS1-2 Generate and compare multiple possible solutions to a problem based on how well each islikely to meet the criteria and constraints of the problem.3-PS2-3. Ask questions to determine cause and effect
the physics if they conduct experiments and see for themselves how thephysics principles work in “real life.” As a consequence, there are no independent learningobjectives for the lab portion of a physics course, or it is often unclear to students what they needto learn in labs. However, recent data[1] from three institutions and nearly 3000 students showthere was no statistically measurable lab benefit in boosting content mastery of physics.Students perform similarly on questions whose target content was reinforced by a lab activity ason questions whose target content lacked an associated lab activity. This result, althoughsurprising, makes a strong case for reexamining the purpose of labs and how they are taught. Another cause of the
SystemsAbstractStandards-based grading (SBG) is gaining popularity in K-12 education as it measures students’proficiency on a number of course objectives rather than to give a single grade that does not byitself convey how well the student understands each of the core concepts from the course.Whereas a single grade may be assigned based on the extent to which the student demonstratesproficiency on a number of course objectives, the focus is to give the student, as well as othereducators, a more detailed breakdown of the assessment of individual course objectives.This paper describes the implementation of SBG in a junior-level signals and systems course.SBG has been implemented in various undergraduate engineering courses [1-5] in recent yearsbut, to date, no one
Report on Scale Validation Results for the Engineering Ethical Reasoning Instrument (EERI) AbstractAs evidenced by the ABET criteria and numerous publications, the growing need to foster ethicalawareness and judgment in engineering students is pronounced. Despite this, the ability todefinitively show accreditation boards, such as ABET, that good work is being done is scarcelyachievable since the most effective methods of evaluation are too time consuming. In an effort tostandardize at least some means by which ethical reasoning can be measured in engineeringstudents, a team researchers developed the Engineering Ethical Reasoning Instrument (EERI) [1].This instrument was based on a second
c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019The Motivations of STEM MentorsIntroductionSchool-Based mentoring (SBM) currently is the most widely available and fastest-growing formof mentoring in the United States [1]. One challenge limiting mentoring programs is their abilityto attract and retain mentors. Why mentors decide to become involved and the conditions underwhich they persist as mentors are questions that require robust answers due to the importance ofcultivating deep relationships between mentors and mentees in order to obtain positive results[2], [3], [4]. While we know some demographics about individuals who mentor, we know lessabout why mentors decide to become mentors and why they persist. Existing research points
facility space, managing multiple functions, includingoperations, maintenance and energy management”, “responsible for managingsupervisors, with a staff of one to five employees”, and “manages more than one millionsquare feet, predominantly office space” [1]. This summary of responsibilities suggeststhat facility management is a multi-faceted discipline that involves management of physicalspace, people and time. Therefore, the facility management role draws from many topicsincluding decision making, information management, organizational and servicemanagement [2]. After a systematic review of 83 journal articles, Nenonen et al.[3]identified management, engineering (including informatics), and architecture as the topthree disciplines mostly applied
will have positive impacts on training and educatingstudents in areas of design optimization, computational, and simulation methods.IntroductionAccording to the Oxford Dictionary, the word “optimize” in a general setting can be defined asmaking the best or most effective use of a situation, opportunity, or resource without violatingany constraints. Modern optimization methods were pioneered by Courant’s paper [1] on penaltyfunctions, Dantzig’s paper [2] on the simplex method for linear programming, and Karush,Kuhn, and Tucker, who derived the KKT optimality conditions for constrained problems [3]. Theuse of nonlinear optimization techniques in structural design was pioneered by Schmit [4].Today, many engineering problems involved in design
communication and management acumen (e.g., technicalwriting, technical presentations, and project management). Such an approach is essential topreparing future engineers for the workplace [1]. The challenge becomes providing studentswith effective exposure to both kinds of skills within engineering programs.Traditionally, the development of such skills has been a matter of content-specific courseworkintegrated into a school’s engineering program(s). (A classic example is the technical writingcourse often offer by English or communication departments and required of engineeringundergraduates.) As institutional resources shrink and student demand increases, the need tofind alternative methods for offering training in these “soft-skill” areas grows
Engineering Education, 2019 Stuck on the Verge or in the Midst of a Sea Change? What Papers from the 2018 Annual Conference Tell Us About Liberal Education for Engineers Full fathom five thy father lies; Of his bones are coral made: Those are pearls that were his eyes: Nothing of him that doth fade, But doth suffer a sea-change Into something rich and strange --Shakespeare, The Tempest (1611), Act 1, Scene 2In their editors’ preface, “A Sea Change in Engineering Education,” Ollis, Neeley, andLuegenbiehl (2004) argued that ABET had “freed undergraduate curricula from their disciplinaryfetters” and faculty from “our
in which to get there. In addition to his engineering work, he also competes on Saint Louis Universities division 1 cross county and track and field team year round. Since he first stepped foot on campus he has continually pursued community service and giving back.Mr. T. Alex Ambro, Saint Louis UniversityWilliam HiserMr. Andrew RiddleDr. Sanjay Jayaram, Saint Louis University Dr. Sanjay Jayaram is an associate professor in the Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Department of Saint Louis University. He obtained his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from University of Central Florida in 2004. He teaches control systems/mechatronics, space systems engineering and astronautics related courses as well as engineering
each homeworkassignment is similar between the two courses. The number of homework’s assigned in bothclasses is the same. Syllabus excerpts regarding the homework policy for MECH 310 and MECH311 are in Table 1 and 2.Table 1. MECH 310 Syllabus ExcerptHomework is a practice in applying new course concepts. Effort is more important thancorrectness. Working in groups is allowed and encouraged. Any late homework will automaticallyget 50% of the points reduced unless the instructor is notified the day before the homework is due.Document aid of any kind received on all homework, e.g. Jane Doe helped with part (b)or referred to solution on the internet for this problem. You do not need to document aidreceived from the instructor. You must turn in all
theirprototype but were not always intentional in how they planned or conducted their interactions.These three perspectives point to specific gaps in student knowledge related to user interactionsthat future design pedagogy might target to help students elicit requirements and solicit designfeedback from users more effectively.1. IntroductionThose who have a relationship of use with design solutions – defined as “users” – play animportant role in engineering design projects [1]. The use of any technology is defined by thosewho use that technology [2]–[7], and user acceptance strongly influences which technologiesbecome widely adopted [7]–[10]. Designers may interact with users for a number of reasons,such as to elicit user requirements or to solicit
sustainable design have gone from “nice-to-have” to an essential element, taking on an ever-expanding prominence with owners,occupants and regulators. Thankfully, engineering education has been expanding its boundariesrapidly to encompass the emerging disciplines that are the foundational elements of thisimportant focus area [1] Frequently, the focus is on new construction, but much of the bestenergy savings can be found in renovation of older structures, and, typically, the more complexthe systems in those older buildings, the bigger the potential savings as those structures arebrought up to modern standards. This means that graduates of modern engineering designprograms need to have a solid knowledge base from which to draw, including being capable
moreholistic design paradigm. Engineering design itself is described as “a creative decision-makingprocess that aims to find an optimal balance of trade-offs in the production of an artifact that bestsatisfies customer and other stakeholder preferences” [1]. Sustainable design only requires thatsustainability principles be incorporated into this complex decision-making process to promoteconsideration of and balance between the economic, environmental, and social systems duringproject development [2]. Describing this innovative approach to design, Skerlos et.al. [1] statesthat sustainable design “brings focus” to the design process, while McLennan [3] describes thatsustainable design “expand[s] the definition of good design to include a wider set of
effective. 175 responses were received and analyzed. Evaluation of student responsesindicates broad agreement on the effectiveness of high-impact learning activities. A potentialconcern, however, is that certain critical elements of high-impact teaching strategies, such as“metacognitive thinking” and “questioning”, were not considered important by the students. Wesuggest that additional data be collected to account for variability in students’ learningexperiences and teaching preferences over a longer period of time. 1 IntroductionStudent learning and success is the core objective of any educational institution regardless of thelevel of education. There
[1]. Additionally, through industry and public institutions weknow that engineers do not work in isolation, but in teams [2]. There is a need for a moreauthentic course experiences where engineering students can build content knowledge but alsoknowledge in how to collaborate with peers.Background: Educational researchers Chi and Wylie began to investigate groups of twos andthrees in different learning contexts to better understand what occurs in these group dynamicsand how do these dynamics affect learning [3]. They created the ICAP framework which allowsone to categorize students’ levels of cognitive engagement into one of four modes based on theirovert observable behaviors: Interactive, Constructive, Active, Passive (aka ICAP). In general
instructors.IntroductionTeams are common in engineering courses, for a variety of pedagogical and logistical reasons.Working in teams, especially without significant support from instructors or mentors, is stressfulfor some students and can lead to negative outcomes [1]. Many potential pitfalls have beenidentified in the literature and resonate with us from our combined >20 years of teaching a team-based first year engineering course, including inequitable task allocation [2-4] and inequitablegroup conversational dynamics [5,6].To minimize students’ negative experiences with teamwork, faculty should critically considerhow they choose to support teams. Many factors necessarily impact that decision, including classsize, team size, and student level. There are a
successive programming courses. The results were analyzed using mixedmodel ANOVA for repeated measures of questions on self-efficacy, intimidation by programming,and feelings of inclusion.Statistically significant results include: We observed a decrease in self-efficacy during the termfor both courses in our study, although the effect is small and the decrease is slightly larger forURM students than non-URM students in Course 1; and a decrease in inclusion for students inCourse 1, though again the effect is small. Overall, the perceptions of URM students are similarto non-URM students.Introduction and MotivationA recent survey by the National Science Foundation showed that higher education is stillstruggling to increase the number of
the United States. As an academic, he has published papers at national and international conferences, and in academic journals.Mr. Ishmael Boynton Preer c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Student Perspectives on the use of iPads for Navigating Construction Drawings: A Case StudyIntroductionThe rate of educational technology integration continues to increase as faculty become moreagreeable to the positive impact that it has on student learning [1]. Pilgrim, Bledsoe & Reily(2012) [2] in their research, New Technologies in the Classroom state that "integratingtechnology into instruction means students are utilizing technology to enhance higher-levelthinking
entirely different level as opposed to being a participant. The student team leaders are nowpeer-teachers that must be able to lead the activities and probe the students for understanding ofthe models and system behavior demonstrated in the activities. This paper presents a roadmap forusing hands-on discovery activities that may better engage students of the current generation.The paper presents the learning objectives, two of the successful activities, student perspectiveson leading and learning, and lessons learned on how to implement these activities in theclassroom.Literature ReviewSystems thinking [1], [2], [3] is applied to understand complex system behavior in many settingssuch as tourism [4], nursing [5] and education [6]. There continue
student perspective is summarized and discussed to provide insight into the effect of student participation in HFOSS projects as part of an undergraduate computing program.KEYWORDS HFOSS, Humanitarian Computing, Free and Open Source Software, Computing Education 1 INTRODUCTION Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is software that is developed transparently with source code and other artifacts accessible and a license such that anyone can study, modify, and share the software. FOSS has gained a significant market share across a range of applications including operating systems, cloud computing, databases, and big data. In fact, the majority of enterprise, mid-market, and small businesses are widely adopting FOSS [1]. In addition, many major
year of college are often faced with a number of challenges such as anew, higher-level curriculum, managing their time effectively, as well as developingrelationships with faculty and other students [1]. The greatest proportion (over 50%) of thestudents leaving an institution has been found to be between the first and second years of study[2, 3]. In a study of engineering student attrition at the University of Pittsburgh over a six-yearperiod, of the freshman attrition, half was accounted for by freshman that are placed on academicprobation at the end of their first term [4].Within first year engineering programs, mathematics is often one of the largest contributors toattrition in the first year [5]. Many schools across the country have