, and in considering the types of questions their students would ask. Once theteachers have completed the activity/experiment, they will discuss the experiment with thefacilitator to learn more about the fundamentals governing the experiment.Throughout the activity, facilitators will record any questions asked by the teachers. In addition,if teachers email facilitators with questions after the activity, those questions will also berecorded. As stated previously, FAQs are provided in the kits; however the FAQ list is living andgrowing with each workshop offering. Updates to FAQ sheets are posted on the cloud drivematerials.Upon completion of the activity, there is a reflection and assessment time. Teachers are providedwith student assessment
result (third bar inFigure 3) was from a different data set. The second data set required more analysis than the firstsince a data range was given for each frequency instead of a single number. This higher level ofinterpretation was more difficult for the students. Combined uncertainty was one of the morechallenging concepts that was addressed in the class and this was reflected in the final examperformance. Student performance on the linear regression analysis was good and in-line withhomework. However, calculation of the coefficient of determination proved more difficult. Percent of Students Correctly Answering the Question 84
were able to finalizetheir prototype using 3D printing.This paper documents the process of the design and implementation of a student project introducedto a first year undergraduate Engineering Design course. Implementation and evaluation of thenew project is broken into three phases carried across three semesters. Over 300 students and 12separate faculty members have undertaken this project. The paper starts with the coursebackground, theoretical considerations in deciding on this student project, followed by theimplementation of each phase, student feedback, and finally instructor feedback from all thesections. The authors conclude by sharing the reflection of the multi-semester project.Introduction At the Pennsylvania State University
which seem irrelevant by themselves but can be applied to biggersolutions.”The students who worked on this project in the previous year were given a similar survey. Whenasked to discuss their impressions/take-aways from working on a project with real-worldapplications, one student responded: “It reinforced my love for what I was doing and gave me anunderstanding of the possibilities my major has to offer.”Table 1: Course survey results based on 14, 13, and 14 responses, respectively. *Students whotook the course and survey in 2018. **Same students that took the course in 2018 and the surveyin 2019 (reflections on the course). Question Spring 19 Spring 18* Spring 18
design course, which is in the 3rd year, and trackretention of these first-year students to the second year and beyond and see if their initialexperience may have impacted their desire to continue on an engineering path.References:[1] Dym, Clive L., et al. "Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning." Journal of Engineering Education 94.1, 2005, 103-120.[2] Knight, Daniel W., et al. "Improving engineering student retention through hands-on, team based, first-year design projects." Proceedings of the International Conference on Research in Engineering Education. 2007.[3] Green, Graham. "Redefining engineering education: the reflective practice of product design engineering." International Journal of Engineering Education 17.1
. Our results also highlight the importance inmonitoring and facilitating the experience of international students, which also represents animportant area for further study.References[1] ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission, “Criteria for accreditting engineering programs,” 2014.[2] National Academy Of Engineering, The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. 2004.[3] A. Godwin, A. Kirn, and J. Rohde, “Awareness without action: Student attitudes after engineering teaming experiences,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 33, no. 6a, pp. 1878–1891, 2017.[4] S. B. Berenson, K. M. Slaten, L. Williams, and C.-W. Ho, “Voices of women in a software engineering course: Reflections on collaboration,” J. Educ
works? The hope wasto nudge students towards an understanding of math that is not based on rules and rotememorization but instead is based on understanding the big concepts and knowing how thoseconcepts contribute to the myriad of tools used as part of the mathematician’s toolbox to solveapplication problems.To help along this journey, the instructors designed a few specific activities designed to generatediscussions about math, what it means to understand math, and even what it means to be good atmath. To start the course, students were asked to read, reflect on, and write a response to thewell-known essay, The Mathematicians Lament, by Paul Lockhart. This was followed up withan in-class discussion in which students were asked which part of