statistically significant interactions at the scale level, although several occur at theitem level. As expected from research regarding female engineers and technologists, they haveabove median measures of traits representative of both masculine and feminine genderorientations. They exhibit below median levels of explicit sexism as measured by the SATWscale, but above median levels of implicit sexism as measured by the implicit associations tests(IATs).Higher levels of implicit sexism are also reflected in the SATW items that drew the greatestdisagreement as measured by the Net Support Percentage (NSP), i.e., the percent of responsesthat were not 4s or 5s. Selecting “3 – Neither Agree nor Disagree” on particularly embeddedideas is a typical approach of
shown below. 4 Table 1 Current ABET Minimum Standards Review year Semester hours of Semester hours of engineering science science and mathematics 2018-2019 [23] 48 32 2019-2020 [24] 45 30These changes reflects a change in approach. The minimum number of hours was once definedin terms of numbers of years (1.5 years of engineering science and 1.0 years of math/science). Ithas now been changed to just require a certain number of semester hours
additional projectdata in combination with the survey data, ensuring that students understand that their instructorsare not performing the detailed survey analysis will help to mitigate concerns that students mayanswer in the manner that they believe they are expected. The influence of different instructorswithin a specific class is outside of the scope of this paper.The survey alone is not well-suited to assess which specific pedagogical elements were moreinfluential in promoting sociotechnical thinking or shaping engineering habits of mind. Instead,the other data sources generated within the overall project – namely, focus groups, assignmentdata, and faculty reflection logs – are being analyzed to better answer this question. Analyzingthese data
include a prescriptive number of credit hours. Mentored Experience (ME): Early career experience under the mentorship of a civil engineer practicing at the professional level, which progresses in both complexity and level of responsibility. Prior editions of the CEBOK referred to this as “E” for experience. The CEBOK3TC wanted to emphasize early career mentoring as part of the experience and adopted this new terminology to reflect and promote the importance of mentoring. Self-Developed (SD): individual self-development through formal or informal activities and personal observation and reflection. This is a new component of a typical pathway that was introduced in the CEBOK3. The CEBOK3TC
fewer formulas a world violates, the more probable it is. Each formula has an associated weight that reflects how strong a constraint it is: the higher the weight, the greater the difference in log probability between a world that satisfies the formula and one that does not, other things being equal.”Given a set of statements (F ) and a set of weights associated with them (w) representing theimportance of each constraint, Markov Logic Network could evaluate multiple design alternatives,or test multiple values for each priority. Such an approach, potentially allows engineering designersto systematically adopt a more inclusive and reflective attitude by being conscious of the normative,and subjective aspects of
high school science classroom, each student 1)located and drilled holes in metal and plastic, 2) tapped a threaded hole in metal, and 3)assembled a completed working pencil-top fidget device.Cycling a classroom of ~25 students through a safety talk and all fabrication process steps todevice competition took four 45-minute class periods, and these activities were repeated acrossmultiple periods each day. To assess indirectly the activity’s impact, students (N = 79) filled outan exit survey with questions posed against a Likert-like response scale. 35.44% and 65.82% ofrespondents respectively reported never using a drill press or threading a hole prior to thisproject. Reflecting on the project, 89.87% agreed or strongly agreed it demonstrated
: 1) collaboration; 2) data practice; 3) published information; and 4)scholarly communication. Given the semi-structured nature of the interviews, it is not surprisingthat the themes reflect the sections of the interview instrument itself. The first theme“collaboration” describes the natural of research practice among the researchers in the privateinstitution; the remaining three themes show the activities related to their research practices. Table1 summarized the main themes and sub-themes found in this study. The details of these themesare described below in this session. Table1: Summary of main themes and subthemes in this study Main Theme Subthemes Collaboration Collaborating for
what theresults mean and how they compared with engineering students. The results showed that thefaculty participants tended to prefer a more reflective than active learning style, a more intuitivethan sensory learning style, a more visual than verbal learning style, and were essentially neutralwith regard to preferring a sequential or global learning style. Comparison data fromengineering students provided contradictory learning styles preferences. Students tend to prefermore active than reflective learning styles, more sensory than intuitive learning styles, and amore sequential than global learning style. The only category where faculty participants learningstyles preferences aligned with engineering students’ learning styles preferences
student language reflect or challenge entrenched ideologies in the engineeringcurriculum? Do student’s perceptions of Con/Decon problems help us gain insight into how theyprescribe a proper engineering education? What do students believe to be a complete education?In Cech’s [19] phrasing, what is supplemental and what is fundamental?Our primary study questions are as follows:R1: Given that students are conditioned to work with decontextualized problems, what is theirattitude towards contextualized ones?R2: What strategies are students using to create context?4Research Design and MethodologyIn fall 2018, we adapted the Problem Rewrite Assignment (in an engineering ethics course,ENEE200) in order to better understand how students perceive
regarding theinstructional process. One girl appreciated the neat and detailed power point lecture notes, whileanother girl wished that hand outs had been given out. This would have been beneficial as the girlscould write notes for further reflection. It would have been a great addition to the lecture notes thatthe girls already had online access through the HBCU’s Blackboard Education Suite.Mixing of Cement Pastes: Four themes emerged from data analysis.Doing: Sixty-two percent (62%) of the girls made ‘doing’ statements to include calculating,measuring, timing, mixing, and ramming. One girl noted that ‘…mixing and ramming the cementpaste was really fun, and exciting but also pretty messy at the same time…’Comprehending: Fifty-two percent (52%) of
i. Adequacy of reference material 10. Support for you as an individual learner i. Individualized instruction 11. Course Summary i. Course reflection in open formatResults from these assessment tools for the overall class are presented after the technical portionis first discussed.Course Setup: Defining the ProblemThis 15-week ‘Engineering Experimentation’ course was divided into three modules. ModuleOne spanned the first three weeks and consisted of experimentation on foundational knowledgeexperiments, where students learned basic concepts about the measurement chain, uncertainty,technical writing, and presenting. These experiments are briefly described as follows: 1. Sump
7 Understanding imposter syndrome 7 Visualizing data 8 Writing Abstracts 9 Making Posters 10 Closing SymposiumWorkshop presenters were experts in the workshop topic areas, and presented interactive, one-hour sessions. All workshops were presented by faculty or staff on campus with the exception ofone workshop for which a post-doctoral researcher was brought to campus. The openingsymposium welcomed students and allowed students to get to know their fellow summerresearchers. Specifically, students were asked to reflect on M.A. Schwartz’s essay, “TheImportance of Stupidity in Scientific Research”. As a result of this activity, most studentscommitted to documenting a non-academic, “novice” experience during the summer
programs through theanalysis of undergraduate curriculum offerings. The focus of this research is to identify trends inthe supply chain, technology, engineering technology, science, management, and other typical“core” course mixes in technology-related supply chain programs at different universities in theUnited States. During this investigation of different programs, it was found that changes occurringin the industry and market needs have been reflected in differing programs’ curricula. This researchis also intended to develop a better understanding of how technology-related supply chain contentis being taught in institutions of higher education and to compare the development ofundergraduate programs over time. An interesting outcome of this
evaluating their model--whether they were considering their model tobe good or bad based on the conditions in the real world or the requirements of the course.Table III: Evaluation of Open-ended Modeling Problem OneEvaluation Frameof Model Course Real WorldGood Broderick: The model used all Broderick: His model reflects his personal experience with the of the course content that he behavior of people and weather (his representative elements) in had learned up to the point at Michigan during the winter. which OEMP1 was given
sucheducational opportunities13. Students participating in “science communication activities inauthentic settings, creating written, oral and visual science messages suitable for various non-technical audiences, and engaging in fruitful dialogues with those audiences”13 (p. 288).Reviewing articles that report on public science communication learning, Baram-Tsabari andLewenstein13 found that academic programs attend to goals ranging from “affective issues,content knowledge, methods, reflection, participation, and identity” (p. 285). Ideally, a scienceprogram gives students an opportunity to speak, think, and do as scientists and engineers withreal audiences if they are to make inroads to attain these goals 12. This means students andaudiences negotiate
obtain employment outside of academia. In termsof the effect on career outcomes, previous studies found evidence that postdoc training enhancesresearch productivity and increases research output [14], [15]. However, postdoc experiencedoes not significantly influence STEM PhDs’ earnings up to 15 years after PhD graduation [15],[19], [21]. The importance of analyzing the effect of postdoc experiences that vary by field of studyhas been stressed by Horta [14] and Kahn and Ginther [19], for example, in part because thedifferences across fields of study reflect their distinct traditions and identities, especially atadvanced levels of academic training [22]. Since the differences in postdoc experience acrossfields of study exist even within
asmall subset of the resources provided (typically 2-4 resources) while overlooking the others,rather than consistently using all nine resources at their disposal. Four resources stood out asbeing most popular: peer collaboration, the lecturebook, online videos, and the course blog,which reflected the findings of Wirtz et al.34 at the departmental level within the context of theFreeform environment.Examining relationships between resource usage and academic performance Using the cluster analysis from their previous paper, Stites et al.18 examined how the nineresource-usage correlated with the students’ academic outcomes in the course (i.e., a higher finalgrades and better exam performance). Combining survey data and academic
. Weconclude that the FLDoE framework may be used as a foundation, but not the sole source, forimportant AM knowledge areas, leaving opportunity for the development of an AM body ofknowledge that reflects employer expectations and geographic variations.1.0 IntroductionManufacturing has evolved from the time that Henry Ford operated the first assembly line in1913. The ability to make products in volume, allowed the US to dominate the world inmanufacturing output, and increase its gross domestic product. In 1951, units of operation inproduct assembly began to be infused with technological innovations, evolving into what is nowknown as advanced manufacturing. Advanced technologies, systems, and processes have notonly transformed the assembly line, but
digital simulations of theirunmodified rocket kits. Software-simulated unmodified rocket launches established an altitudebaseline, which was validated by experimental launches of a real rocket built to kit specificationsand instrumented with an accelerometer and altimeter. Students then brainstormed and exploreda variety of design modifications, using modeling software to evaluate the potential impact ofeach change on rocket altitude. Next, students modified their rocket kits to reflect changes theymade in the computer model to increase flight altitude. Modified rockets were then instrumentedwith accelerometer and altimeter sensors and flown. Students evaluated the resulting flight datato determine how well the rocket modifications they selected
engineering science courses and humanities and social science courses. So, while the technical engineering science courses focus and - and privilege the technical, the humanities and social science courses in many universities do just the opposite.The separation of technical and social within the curriculum reinforces the perceivedseparation in students’ minds, which is not reflective of engineering practice where the twohave to be considered simultaneously.Requirements vs. electiveSome interviewees also commented on the challenges associated with teaching ESI inrequired versus elective courses. Elective courses are conducive to high engagement andmotivation because student self-select into them based on prior interest. An interviewee whohas
content of several existing classes were adjusted to better reflect nationaltrends in Aerospace engineering education. The intention of the Introduction to Flight course within theMechanical Engineering curriculum is to motivate sophomore level undergraduate students to differentaspects of aerospace engineering so that they can make an informed decision about pursuing aerospaceengineering as their career. The topics covered in the course are shown below - 1. Aviation Pioneers 10. Thrust to Weight Ratio and Lift to Drag 2. Parts of Airplane (Activity) Ratio (Gimli Glider activity) 3. Nomenclature of Airplane and Airfoils 11. Finite Wing Aerodynamics
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Stongly the instructor understand where Agree Disagree students had difficulty Figure 4. Student perception about the use of poll app for understanding course materialsFaculty Reflection on the Use of Poll EverywhereThe use of Poll Everywhere in the current course offered several benefits in many aspects ofteaching and learning. It enhanced active learning and interaction with peers for problem solving.It should be noted that in both semesters the instructor provided worksheets with practiceproblems or case studies depending on
engineering were recruitedto participate in this study, however, the unforeseeable decrease of the newly admitted Veteranengineering students reduced the size of the population from which the sample could be drawn.The second limitation related to the unequal representation of majors and genders, particularlyfor Veteran students as shown in Table 2. As such, the degree to which the data might beexamined is limited. For example, it was believed that, relative to other majors, civil engineeringstudents tend to demonstrate higher social responsibility; the current data did not allow suchacross-major examination as no Civil Engineering Veteran students participated. Nevertheless,the gender and major representation in the sample was a close reflection of
evaluation results using pre and post knowledgeassessment tools in sections graded with SBG method and sections with traditional method.Introduction Laboratory based courses are an essential part of an engineering education. More andmore engineering programs are placing greater emphasis on the importance of hands-onexperience offered by laboratory courses. Compared to the efforts and resources invested inpurchasing expensive state-of-the-art lab equipment and developing innovative lab modules,little attention is paid to assessing student learning and reflecting on the teaching methods in labcourses. Without careful design and assessment, instructors are more likely to push students intobusy work, without achieving real learning and
to help first yearstudents practice applying the design process and gain design abilities and skills [3]. Are thesefirst year courses effective at helping students better understand the design process? Most of theassessments of such first year courses have focused on students’ motivation, retention, self-efficacy, engineering identity, etc. [4-7]. Assessment of the design process knowledge has takenthe form of surveys; close-ended questions such as multiple choice questions; open-endedquestions such as reflections and essays; talk-aloud protocols; performance of final designs;design reports; etc. [8-11]. Saterbak and Volts [12] and Zhu and Mertz [13] used students’critique of a Gantt chart that lays out a flawed proposed 14-week design
institution, include Calculus II and Calculus-basedphysics II. Select topics, as described in the mechanical engineering departments’ coursedescription include: Theoretical and applied classical engineering thermodynamics of non-reacting substances; The first and second laws The properties of ideal and real substances Gas mixtures The behavior of closed and open systems for reversible and irreversible processes Thermodynamic cyclesLearning outcomes can be generated which reflect, and build on these topics. Sample learningoutcomes include but are not limited to: Know the units, symbols and vocabulary of thermodynamics Use traditional thermodynamic tables and diagrams as well as software-based tables to
variety ofaesthetic issues in the form of practical and creative assignments. The course consists oflectures on photography skills, fluid physics, visualization techniques, critique sessions, and aguest lecture. Assignments consist of images paired with written technical reports, and self-reflection sessions to learn "effective communication" skills. Other course objectives evaluatedthrough students’ assignments and projects are "creative thinking" and "integrative thinking".Some samples of student works are presented. This course proved to be very successful inattracting all students (male and female) in both engineering and non-engineering majors.IntroductionThere has been a great interest in bridging the science and art in recent. Three
fastest-growing segment reaching 30% of the U.S. populationwhile becoming the youngest group comprising 33.5% of those under 18 years by 2060 [14].The demand for skilled workers in STEM fields will be met when workers reflect the diversity ofthe population [15], therefore more students—of all ages and backgrounds—must be broughtinto community colleges and supported through graduation: a central focus of communitycolleges everywhere [16] [17]. While Latinx students are as likely as Caucasian students tomajor in STEM, their completion numbers drop dramatically [18] as Latinx students often havedistinct needs that evolved from a history of discrimination in the educational system [19] [20][21].HSIs do not by default support Latinx students in
theories. In her transformation model of experiential learning experiences, students gothrough four stages: 1) Reflective observation: students identify barriers that represented an entity theory they held; 2) Abstract conceptualization: participants in an experiential learning environment identify alternative incremental implicit theories; 3) Active experimentation: students’ engagement in embodied experiences helps them discuss future work and provides them with concrete enacted experiences; 4) Concrete experiences: students engage in exercises that represent “aha experiences” that help them recognize new incremental implicit theories. [35, p.67].In the context of our study, first and second-year
technologies; 5. to reflect now on the responsibilities ofprofessional engineers; 6. to work as members of multidisciplinary teams; 7. to communicatethe results of their work to involved stakeholders; 8. to be motivated to take USE aspects intoaccount when developing technologies.Through the three courses of every USE trajectory, students are gradually exposed to thetheory and practice of a given topic. The first course (exploration) is based mostly on lecturesand students have to conduct only small cases studies. At the end of the course there is a finalexam. In the second course (specialization), there is a mix between theory and practice.Students attend lectures on a weekly basis but they also have to conduct one or two smallprojects with a group