learning opportunitiesprovided to students as well as to the methods used to assess learning. These programmaticchanges provided motivation for the enhancement of a writing-based approach known as free-writing that has been utilized by the author for many years. The free-writing activities have beenused to provide students with a unique opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of keyconcepts in the introductory physics course. The original motivation for the free-writingactivities themselves was inspired from the strategies highlighted in the Angelo and Crosshandbook on classroom assessment techniques [1]. There Angelo and Cross outline a number offormative classroom assessment strategies (CATs), most of which have a writing component.Along
on behalf of Pearson in2015 [1] and found that Tablet usage remains high and growing – especially for younger studentsat 78% (66% usage of laptops). At lower grades elementary school iPads are common, butChromebooks are becoming more popular [1]. Chromebooks can be purchased with or withouttouch screens, but in the coming years it is anticipated that touchscreens will become morepopular [2]. Smartphone usage has increased across all grade levels and is most prevalent amongolder students. In 2015, 53% of elementary school students, 66% of middle school students and82% of high school students used smartphones in school regularly. The availability ofsmartphones in Higher Ed has increased from 84% in a 2014 [3] to close to 100% in a 2017study
Hispanic students. Architecture, engineering, and technology students make upbetween 10% and 30% of the entering first year students. There was an application process forthe program. Students who were accepted, would be a part of a cohort of students who met witha lead instructor weekly, with the program being run as a 1-credit course. Additional instructorsfrom the student life side were also available to help facilitate activities, and connect students toco-curricular and extra-curricular aspects of college life. The present paper will describe some ofthe programming and assignments of this pilot program, and discuss some of the relatedstrengths, weaknesses, challenges, and successes. A primary focus of the programming was tohelp students
Distributed System of Governance in Engineering Education.” In it, we analyze diversity discourses among faculty and administrators in engineering programs across the Unites States, and the initiatives deployed in the name of diversity. We use methods of discourse analysis to study how the term “diversity” is leveraged in different contexts to enact certain methods of recruitment and retention of particular populations.Introduction Diversity initiatives have been a priority in university settings for decades, but havelargely not delivered on their promises. The percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded toHispanic, Black and Native American students is in the single digits [1], and the proportion ofwomen in
effect of thislimitation is that the department has only one instructional lab. In addition, being an old program,the lab was originally designed for some of the more traditional Bioengineering fields, such asbiomechanics and instrumentation. About 15 years ago, in 2006, a new Bioengineering building was constructed reflecting thechange in the field to areas related to molecular biology and tissue engineering, among others.The instructional lab was moved to a new home in a lab which contained chemical hoods andcell culture hoods, but was still nevertheless setup with stations designed for physiological andinstrumentation studies (Figure 1). Figure 1: Main lab area with 16 stations each with data acquisition devices (Biopac & NI myDAQ) for
reflexivity toward awarenessof the politics imbued in technology as well as the often exclusionary cultures entangled therein.Further this research brings field work observations of these groups and their practices(designated as Study 1) into conversation with interviews of engineering education researchers(designated as Study 2). In that vein, this examination asks: What might an analysis of thepractices and mindsets of feminist hacker and opensource science hardware groups contribute tothe world of engineering education, specifically for educators interested in change-makingstrategies for creating a more equitable higher education environment that takes on issues ofracism, sexism, heteronormativity, ableism, etc.?With a theoretical grounding in the
electricalengineering with control systems and computer systems, as shown in Figure 1. In the 21stcentury, as low-cost embedded computers have become ubiquitous in every aspect of oureveryday lives, very few new products are strictly mechanical. Even refrigerators and coffeemakers are Internet connected and able to share their status and be controlled from a distanceover the network. All of the new products in the Internet of Things are in some sense a productof mechatronics engineering. This emerging network of devices provides a growing opportunityfor new mechatronics engineers and the schools that educate them.A significant limitation in engineering education is providing all students sufficient laboratoryaccess to gain practical experience in classroom
major. By far, a 100% ofundergraduate placement for totally 2006 graduates has been maintained at the JI. Over 80% ofthe graduates pursued higher level studies in graduate schools, mainly in the US. Among thestudents who pursued graduate studies in US universities, over 55% were admitted to the top 10engineering schools. The students who chose employment after graduation were placed inengineering as well as non-engineering organizations.Different forms of multi/inter-disciplinary effort have been tried with some successes achievedand lessons learned [1][2][3]. Publications suggest that integrating curricula and organizingactivities across disciplines are not easy [4][5]. Yet it is believed that interdisciplinary curriculaand activities relate
offer students a hands-on learningexperience. Many first-year engineering courses at schools like Northwestern University,California Polytechnic State, and University of St. Thomas have predefined projects in their first-year curriculum [1-3]. These projects’ goals are to develop fully functional prototypes that cancomplete specific sets of tasks and meet certain requirements. This allows for the difficulty levelbetween projects to remain the same and provides a clear grading system for the prototypes. Another form of projects available throughout engineering curriculum are open-endedprojects (OEPs). OEPs have fewer restrictions and require the development of a unique, workingprototype through brainstorming and iterative design. It
this course by analysis of the neuralnetworks model for function approximation project.1. IntroductionIn higher education, especially, in engineering education, all the effort of educators is focused oneducating students to be qualified for their future professions. To achieve these learning outcomesin engineering education, a variety of pedagogical considerations have been implemented andexperimented. There have been a large number of pedagogical efforts proposed and implemented,such as inquiry-based learning (Behrouzi and Kuchma, 2016), project-based learning (Khorbotly,2015; Wang et. al., 2017; Zhao et. al., 2017; Luo, 2015), cooperative learning (Akili, 2012), activelearning (Luo, 2015; Akili, 2014; Oliveira, 2015), divide-and-conquer
accreditation body that accredits programs in the UnitedStates and many countries throughout the world [1]. These programs are accredited under oneof four accreditation commissions: Engineering Technology (ETAC), Engineering (EAC),Computing (CAC), and Applied and Natural Sciences (ANSAC). These commissions differ inseveral accreditation criteria while maintaining a common fundamental theme. Accreditation isassociated with quality education by ensuring that graduates are prepared for professionalpractice or ready for further studies [2, 3]. In addition, graduation from an ABET-accreditedprogram is a requirement for many professional engineering licensing bodies.While the focus in recent years has been on having a continuous improvement process that
University of Delaware, and her Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering (2014) from New York University. She is passionate about translational research and engineering education. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 GENDER AND RACIAL DISPARITIES IN STUDENTS’ SELF-CONFIDENCE ON TEAM-BASED ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS Jenni M. Buckley, PhD1,3, Sara Grajeda, PhD2, Amy E. Trauth, PhD1, Dustyn Roberts, PhD4,1 1 University of Delaware, Department of Mechanical Engineering 2 University of Delaware, Center for Research in Education and Science Policy 3 University of Delaware, College of Education and Human Development
Information systems.IntroductionSeveral studies have pointed out the need to foster a diagnosis and an intervention concerninggender equality in academic contexts (1-14). Studies carried out by Amâncio (9-10) demonstratedthe existence of gender patterns in access and mobility processes to which are linked gender biasesand stereotypes that place women on the "margins" of knowledge production. Recent studiesdeveloped in Portugal (15) describe how women and men are socially perceived according toessentialist dichotomous principles, which favour the invisibility and devaluation of women.Legislation on the promotion of gender equality in educational institutions in Portugal is relativelyrecent compared to other European countries and it is the result of a
during the firstsemester, transfer students go through a period of adjustment. Investigation into these transitionshas brought to light the reality of “transfer shock” [1] and its consequences for transfer studentson multiple levels: personal, social, and academic. In recent years, research has focused on thecomplexity of such factors, like background, prior educational experiences, the transfer process,social adjustment, and academic progress, to reduce transfer shock [2-6]. These studies haveutilized diverse methodological and analytic approaches, from institutional data, quantitativeanalysis of survey responses, to more recently some qualitative analysis of focus groups and open-ended questions. These results create a picture of the barriers
Science and Engineering Fairs (Evaluation)Science and Engineering (S&E) fairs are a valuable educational activity that are believed toincrease students’ engagement and learning in science and engineering by using inquiry-focusedlearning, engaging students in authentic scientific practices and engineering design processes [1-3], and emphasizing creativity [4, 5]. Proponents also argue that S&E fairs enhance students’interest in science and science careers [6, 7] as well as engineering [2]. From the fair, studentsreport that they have learned more about the scientific process and engineering design, althoughthey may not all feel their attitudes towards STEM fields has improved [2, 8]. In this paper, wefocus on science attitudes, but because
scientificdiscovery and, according to the Girl Scouts of America website, “help them see how they canactually improve the world.”Introduction/BackgroundNowadays, more and more scientists, engineers and innovators are needed to contribute andsucceed in the global competitive economic environment. As a result, this requires qualityscience, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. However, insufficientnumbers of American students pursue education and training in the STEM fields. After noticingthis challenge, STEM has become a great effort by many to increase STEM-related activities,which have the potential to promote collaborative learning and inquiry as well as to contribute tothe development of the 21st century skills [1]. The US government
surveyacross six sections of preliminary design at a small southwestern university to measure whetherchoice affects student motivation. The preliminary design courses were also co-taught bycommunication instructors. We found no link between perceived choice and final course grademost likely due to high final grades but did notice interesting interactions within the cohesion ofsenior design groups.IntroductionThe inclusion of engineering capstone courses that culminate a student’s senior year havebecome ubiquitous in undergraduate engineering programs. Capstone courses present studentswith opportunities in experiential learning activities [1] and problem-based learning that offerstudents choices about how and what they learn [2]. In these types of
Engineering and Language Attitudes in the U.S. A QuandaryGlobalization and the international projection of engineering In the last 30 years, the literature on engineering education has been paying increasingattention to the changes that the field has experienced due to the advancement of globalization.The goal of this concerted effort is to determine and validate the set of skills the job marketdemands from the engineer in the 21st century. There is consensus among researchers that in the context of globalization the U.S.engineering programs either adapt their curricula to meet the expectations of the globalworkforce or take the risk of becoming irrelevant [1]. Irrelevance refers to the currentcurriculum
include papers discussing software tools to help students draw FBDs,papers on the assessment of FBDs, and papers on techniques to help students draw FBDs.Tools that have been developed to help students draw FBDs include an app [1], and animatedGIFs to guide students in a step-by-step procedure for drawing FBDs [2]. Free-body diagramerrors that have been reported include ones that demonstrate a misunderstanding of the physicssuch as forces drawn at the centroid [3], incorrect or missing friction forces [3, 4, 5], andincorrect direction of the weight [4, 5]. Other errors in drawing FBDs include missing arrows[6], missing axes [4], and misaligned or unlabeled vectors [7]. Davis and Lorimer [8] developeda rubric for assessing FBDs in six separate
analysis, corpus linguistics, and discourse analysis. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Graduate Engineering Peer Review Groups: Developing Communicators & Communityabstract This study investigates student perspectives of graduate engineering peer review groups(PRGs). PRGs offer an ongoing supportive community for graduate students to improve theirwriting, presentations and posters through reciprocal discussion-based feedback. This studyconsiders data collected through semester surveys of PRG members over five years across twolarge public research universities in the United States. Each group met for 1.5 hours to review 1-3 pieces of student work each
, do research (e.g., [1][2]); however, in many academic research communities,students, not experts, make crucial decisions about methodological designs, techniques, andpractices as part of their everyday laboratory work. How then do students learn the subtle,foundational work of asking research questions, producing and interpreting evidence, anddrawing evidence-based conclusions? How can educators encourage and improve this learning?One valuable way to study students’ everyday decision-making about research is to watch howgraduate and undergraduate students work together to produce and assess evidence inlaboratories, in formal or informal graduate/undergraduate partnerships that we call GradUPs.We draw from the theory of situated learning in
a program, then describe how aninstructor uses gruepr, then present the design of the program, and finally provide initial analysisof gruepr and results from its recent use by 6 faculty members in the formation of teams within18 sections of a project-based, first year engineering course.IntroductionIt is no coincidence that engineering colleges are striving to provide the appropriate environmentto nurture and support team-based pedagogies to meet learning outcomes and prepare students tofunction as effective team members before entering the workforce. Research shows that team-oriented projects are becoming a customary pedagogy in both first-year and capstoneundergraduate engineering courses [1]. Additionally, team-oriented coursework is one
experiences are traditionally a major component of hands-on learning in engineeringcurricula and intended to impart a practical understanding of how science applies to the real-world [1]. Students in laboratory courses often conduct experiments or complete demonstrativetasks by following “cookbook”-style instructions [2], [3]. This passive process directs thestudents’ focus towards completing prescribed steps (i.e., following a procedural recipe), butrarely challenges students to think critically about what they are doing and ought to be learningconceptually [3] - [5]. Although students may develop a practical understanding of process skillsthrough tangible, hands-on lab experiences, the effectiveness of cookbook laboratory exercises toimpart
improvement. The paperwill include details on the experiment and the guided peer review process, as well as logisticalsolutions to achieve the blind peer review.IntroductionThe ability to write effectively is a critical professional skill for the practicing engineer, and thus avital outcome for engineering programs.1 Though many programs require specific writing intensivecourses to build these skills, it is also important that students practice writing as an integral part ofthe broader work of engineering in design and laboratory courses.2 In particular, laboratory reportsare a logical vehicle to synthesize the work of experiment design, analysis, and technical writing.However, simply requiring students produce written reports is of marginal value if
design competition. Thecompetition focused on the noise and space problem specific to Bern Dibner Library andchallenged students to find a solution. Although the competition was successful, it had limitedappeal among the student population and could not be recreated in libraries lacking a noiseproblem. After the competition concluded, we (the librarians) conducted a focus group with thestudent contestants and learned which elements of the competition worked well and whichneeded to be revised. In this paper, we present a newly inspired library competition: HackDibner. In designing Hack Dibner we had four specific goals in mind. (1) The competitionneeded to appeal to a large base of the student population, (2) create a triangle of
, from launch to glider landing, is the winner. While the rocket and the glider aredesigned and built separately, the design and placement of the mechanism that holds the glider onthe back of the rocket is a team effort.Airships: Students in the airship group utilize the popular air swimmers toy, a lightweight nylonbladder about four feet long, shaped and colored like a fish and filled with approximately 4.5cubic feet of helium to make it buoyant. Each of these floating vehicles is outfitted with flappabletail for propulsion and a pitch control device consisting of a weight that a second small DC motormoves along a track to control pitch. The tasks for the students are twofold: 1) experiment withdifferent tail shapes to determine best
their learning.This paper describes the design and implementation of virtual office hours for courses in thethermal-fluid sciences (Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, and Heat Transfer). Further, itreports on students’ learning experiences.IntroductionA virtual environment can provide students and faculty with more flexibility in meeting time,location, content delivery, and type of interaction. Traditional office hours are historically notwell attended [1]. Additionally, an instructor’s office can only hold up to three students. Virtualoffice hours have no limit on attendance and can also provide a low-stakes platform fordiscussions, allowing students to better articulate their thought process. Successful virtualsessions are dependent on
hidden curriculum in relation to ESI education. This paper aims to create awareness ofthe influences of hidden curriculum and how making these factors visible can support thethoughtful and effective integration of ESI into the engineering curriculum.Introduction and BackgroundHidden CurriculumThe concept ‘hidden curriculum’ was first coined by Phillip Jackson in his work “Life in theClassrooms” based on observations in elementary school classrooms [1]. With roots in educationand sociology [2], hidden curriculum “serves as one valuable theoretical framework from whichto examine the social functions of higher education” [3, pp. 4]. Hafferty and Gaufberg posit thereare four categories of curriculum. The formal curriculum is the “stated and
, the resultsand analysis of this self-grading exercise are shared, in terms of the scoring differences betweenthe student and the instructor, and whether this scoring differential changed with time.Qualitative feedback provided by the student based on this experience is also discussed. Lastly,the takeaways from this study and opportunities for future work are highlighted in the conclusionsection.Literature ReviewEducators actively seek out opportunities that provide the best possible environment for studentsto succeed, but the interest and investment level of each student is highly variable. Huff andJohnson [1] and Ndoye [2] noted that when students take responsibility and are more aware oftheir expectations they often become more enthusiastic
chance” at education. UVU has a high number of non-traditional students (age 25 or older – 34%), students with spouses (45%) and/or children underage 12 (20%) [1]. It also has the largest percentage of low-income (48%) and first-generation(38%) students of any of the universities in the state. These factors affect the overall graduationrate, which is low at 33% (nationally standardized IPEDS rate for completions within 150% oftime; UVU IR 2019) [1]. UVU’s students live at home or in off-campus housing, which makes itvery difficult to organize activities for student programs. Many students do not have time tospend much time outside of class on campus, leading some to feel little connection with otherstudents.New Engineering ProgramsTo meet one of