Paper ID #28012Work-in-Progress: A Professional Learning Community Experience in De-veloping Teamwork Teaching MaterialsDr. Bonnie S. Boardman, University of Texas, Arlington Bonnie Boardman is an Assistant Professor of Instruction in the Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering Department at The University of Texas at Arlington. Her primary research interests are in the engineering education and resource planning disciplines. She holds a B.S. and Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering from The University of Arkansas and an M.S. in Industrial Engineering from Texas A&M University. 2019 FYEE Conference
Paper ID #28010Full Paper: A Makerspace Project for New Transfer StudentsDr. Bonnie S. Boardman, University of Texas, Arlington Bonnie Boardman is an Assistant Professor of Instruction in the Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering Department at The University of Texas at Arlington. Her primary research interests are in the engineering education and resource planning disciplines. She holds a B.S. and Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering from The University of Arkansas and an M.S. in Industrial Engineering from Texas A&M University.Mr. Martin Kendall Wallace, University of Texas at Arlington Martin K. Wallace is
Paper ID #28011Work-in-Progress: The Development of a Co-Taught Student Success Coursefor FreshmenDr. Bonnie S. Boardman, University of Texas, Arlington Bonnie Boardman is an Assistant Professor of Instruction in the Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering Department at The University of Texas at Arlington. Her primary research interests are in the engineering education and resource planning disciplines. She holds a B.S. and Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering from The University of Arkansas and an M.S. in Industrial Engineering from Texas A&M University.Dr. Lynn L. Peterson, University of Texas, Arlington Dr
year student awareness of the possible career paths in surveying engineering.Future work will focus on implementing version one of the immersive laboratories, as well asincluding more terrains (from off campus locations), surveying exercises (e.g., total station andtopographic mapping), and making refinements in the handling of the instrument and virtualreality environment.AcknowledgementsStudents Eric Williams, Vincent Pavil, John Chapman, Joe Fioti, Malcolm Sciandra, andCourtney Snow are acknowledged for their involvement in the data collection and modeling ofthis research.References[1] F. M. Fung, W. Y. Choo, A. Ardisara, C. D. Zimmermann, S. Watts, T. Koscielniak, E. Blanc, X. Coumoul and R. Dumke, "Applying a Virtual Reality Platform
short student engagement activity. Typically, this could bea think-pair-share about applications of the innovation, classroom survey of what type(s) ofengineering would work on this project, or even getting a show of hands to demonstrate who hadseen the innovation previously (typically less than a quarter). This provides opportunity forstudents to connect to ideas that interest them, and to see the contexts by which engineers worktogether on similar projects.Table 1. Example engineering innovations used in a first-year engineering course. Topic Innovation Major Relation(s)* Wearable sensors that detect glucose Biomedical, Chemical, Health
assigning members to teams using instructor-specified criteria.,” Advances in Engineering Education, vol. 2 (1), pp.1-28, 2010.[3] N. F. Jackson and S. Magun-Jackson, "Improve Your Strengths and Manage Your Weaknesses: Using the StrengthsFinder Profile in Team Development," in ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, Nashville, 2003.[4] B. Read-Daily, K. M. DeGoede, and S. L.Zimmerman, “Gallup StrengthsFinder in Engineering, ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition” in ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, Salt Lake City, Utah. 2018.
2019 FYEE Conference : Penn State University , Pennsylvania Jul 28 Work in Progress: An Introduction to Computer Vision for First-Year Electrical and Computer Engineering Students Daniel T. Klawson, Nathaniel A. Ferlic, and Cheng Peng Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park Abstract-- This work-in-progress paper will detail one of of machine learning, artificial intelligence, image processing,ENEE101’s newest modules, computer vision. ENEE101 is the and self-driving cars.introductory course to electrical and computer engineering (ECE)at the University of Maryland (UMD) [1] [2]. This
: Undergraduate Academic Policy Trends across Institutions over the Last Thirty Years INTRODUCTIONMIDFIELD (Multiple Institution Database for Investigating Engineering LongitudinalDevelopment) is a database, made up of multiple higher education institutions across the U.S.,which is intended to allow for the easy comparison of the institutions. The MIDFIELD databaseincludes data from the late 1980’s until present, which encompasses the SAT/ACT scores,students’ GPA and major for each semester, students’ attained degrees, year graduated, and otherpieces of data. However, in order to better understand the differences across institutions, anunderstanding of academic policies should be conducted
personal growth and confidence in theirengineering design ability.References [1] Esparragoza, et al., "Assessing interactions among students geographically dispersed during multinational design projects," presented at the 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, 2014. [2] H. Maury-Ramírez, R. J. Pinzón, and I. E. Esparragoza, "International Collaborative Learning Experience through Global Engineering Design Projects: A Case Study," in Cooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering, ed: Springer, 2008, pp. 212-215. [3] E. Esparragoza, S. K. Lascano, and J. R. Ocampo, J. R., Assessing interactions among students geographically disperse during multinational design projects. ASEE, 121st
State University Dr. Deborah Grzybowski is a Professor of Practice in the Department of Engineering Education at The Ohio State University. She received her Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering and her B.S. and M.S. in Chem- ical Engineering from The Ohio State University. Her research focuses on making engineering accessible to all students, including students with visual impairments, through the use of multiple pedagogy models including VR, art-infused curriculum, and 3D printed models.Dr. Christopher Douglas Porter, The Ohio State University Department of Physics Dr. Porter obtained undergraduate physics degrees from Universitaet Leipzig, and from The Ohio State University. He completed his M. S. and Ph. D. in physics
coding majorthemes, misidentification of session topics, and heterogeneous sessions. These limitations can beovercome by the systematic literature review and coding of individual papers which should becompleted for the development of the first-year engineering education primer.References 1. Lauer, P. A. (2004). A Policymaker's Primer on Education Research: How to Understand, Evaluate and Use It. Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED518626.pdf 2. Weiner, S., & Lande, M., & Jordan, S. S. (2018, June), What Have We "Learned" from Maker Education Research? A Learning Sciences-base Review of ASEE Literature on the Maker Movement Paper presented at 2018 ASEE
and domestic students to integrate in the classroom.References[1] K. Goodman & E.T. Pascarella, “First-year seminars increase persistence and retention: Asummary of the evidence from how college affect students,” Association of American Collegesand Universities, pp. 26-28, 2006.[2] S. R. Porter, & R. L. Swing, “Understanding how first-year seminars affectpersistence,” Research in Higher Education, 47(1), pp. 89-109, 2006[3] A. W. Astin, What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.[4] G.L. Downey, J.C. Lucena, B.M. Moskal, R. Parkhurst, T. Bigley, C. Hays, B.K. Jesiek, L.Kelly, J. Miller, S. Ruff, J.L. Lehr, & A. Nichols-Belo, “The globally competent engineer:Working effectively with
. 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
required totake. Additionally, at these institutions, graduate students have served as instructors of record.They will be invited to participate in the study as well. We also plan to collect data from thestudents of these first-year programs using an exploratory survey. The questions on the survey willseek to gather information about students’ initial interest in engineering prior to enrolling in theirrespective institutions, their general perception of the first year courses they have just completed,what their intended majors are, what types of activities they engaged in during their first yearcourse and if/how these activities fueled or increased their desire to continue to pursue theirengineering degrees.References[1] S. L. Christenson, A. L
Science Foundation (NSF) GraduateResearch Fellowship. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed inthis material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.References:[1] P. J. Denning, “Viewpoint Remaining Trouble Spots with Computational Thinking,” pp. 33–39, 2016.[2] U. Ilic, H. I. Haseski, and U. Tugtekin, “Publication Trends Over 10 Years of ComputationalThinking Research,” Contemp. Educ. Technol., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 131–153, 2018.[3] C. Concepts, A Framework for K-12 Science Education. 2012.[4] J. M. Wing, “Computational Thinking : What and Why ?,” no. November, pp. 1–6, 2010.[5] T. T. Yuen and K. A. Robbins, “A Qualitative Study of Students’ Computational ThinkingSkills in a
-solving skills and provide them with the culminates in a final design project that requires students totheoretical technical background required in any engineering construct and program a robot that is capable of playingfield. Students are typically required to take a physics and/or “soccer.” It should be noted that direct contact with suchother science course(s), a math course, and an introduction to advanced applications is frequently not encountered until theengineering course. This introduction to engineering course last two years of study.may focus on teamwork, interdisciplinary collaboration,design principles, and a conceptual overview of the various BACKGROUNDengineering disciplines. In
Concern Overall, many students showed While no formal sta s cal analysis A major concern was that stu‐enthusiasm to using the iPads was performed, instructors observed dents who elected to use the vice paper to pencil. The ability no major difference in scores for iPad, would lose the opportunity to create straight lines and cir‐ those who u lized iPads and those to refine the motor skills neces‐cles, set different line types and who did not. sary to sketch technical drawings colors, and easily erase lines if by hand. an error was made, resulted in There are
understanding of their stories and get additional information about their identitiesand community development as they progress through their engineering degree pathways. Wewill see if the similarities in their stories persist or begin to diverge, how well they adapted tocivilian life, and how they are affected by the design of FYE courses.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under GrantNos. 1664264 and 1664266. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe National Science Foundation.References[1] N. A. of Engineering., “Educating the engineer of 2020 : adapting engineering education
completion among college students. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 83-88.[4] Bembenutty, H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2003). The relation of motivational beliefs and self-regulatory processes to homework completion and academic achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois.[5] Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., Nye, B., & Greathouse, S. (1998). Relationships among attitudes about homework, amount of homework assigned and completed, and student achievement. Journal of educational Psychology, 90(1), 70.[6] Bonham, S., D. Deardorff, and R. Beichner. 2003. Comparison of student performance using web and paper- based homework in college-level physics. Journal
a, e, i Customer Discovery b, d, e, f, i, k Evaluating Solutions b, c, d Ideation b, c, d, l Rapid Prototyping g, h, q Design Iteration c, h, l Potential Value Evaluation e, i, j, k, m, n, o Market Forces e, i, j, k, n, o*Topic Area “p”, not categorized above, focuses on teamwork, which is extensive in the first-year design course and is therefore covered throughout.Based on coverage of each Topic Area, we rated each (a-q) EM outcome as to the mode(s) bywhich it was covered: Introduced, Developed Skills, and/or
subjects and as students would take the material more seriously. Weunderstand that this is not going to be an easy task especially for large programs but can be donein a smaller program [24] and deserves more attention, given the very clear associated benefits.We believe such an addition will further strengthen the implementation of a “cornerstone-capstone” approach [25].Finally, although this course includes a Student Rating of Teaching Effectiveness (SRTE) surveyat the end of the semester, given its potential role in helping students to choose an appropriatemajor and improving their soft skills and their impacts, which would not be fully realized untillong after the completion of the course, we are recommending (additional) student survey(s
they may be able to trackthe impact of the integrated project as students’ progress through the curriculum.References 1 Striebig, B., Ogundipe, A., and Morton, S. 2014. Lessons in implementing sustainability courses into the engineering curriculum. 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, June 15-18th, 2014, Indianapolis, IN. 2 Striebig, B. 2016. Applying US EPA sustainability criteria to capstone design. Engineering for Sustainability. ASEE SE Section Annual Conference, March 13-15, 2016. Tuscaloosa, AL. 3 Striebig, B. and Morton, S. 2016. A Sustainability Indicators Based Curriculum. Engineering for Sustainability. ASEE SE Section Annual Conference, March 13-15, 2016. Tuscaloosa, AL. 4 Striebig
1gets the index card for Team 2:Team 1 uses the starting locationand vectors given on Team 2’s indexcard to find the particular name onsenior walk that was originallyassigned to Team 2. Team 1 takes apicture at their final location, andboth Team 1 and 2 are given bonuspoints if the name assigned to Team2 can be seen in this picture. Figure 6: Example of a completed map and index card for Orienteering LabConclusionsIn this paper, we summarized the hands-on lab activities that support the mathematical conceptsin E-Math course. Most of our labs were developed utilizing the equipment that were readilyavailable to us in our department, but we hope that the ideas would be easy to modify for thosewho want to
, K., & Vermeulen, B., & Bair, J. T., & Bradley, T. H. (2017, June), Confidence of Undecided First-Year Engineering Students in Choosing Their Major and Implications for Retention Paper presented at 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio. https://peer.asee.org/28067[2] VanDeGrift, T., & Liao, S. (2017, June), Helping First-Year Engineering Students Select a Major Paper presented at 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio. https://peer.asee.org/28432[3] Carnasciali, M., & Thompson, A. E., & Thomas, T. J. (2013, June), Factors influencing students' choice of engineering major Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia
, pp. 9–11, 1979.[2] J. Luce, J. Anderson, J. Permaul, R. Shumer, T. Stanton, and S. Migliore, “Service-learning: An annotated bibliography linking public service with the curriculum,” 1988.[3] G. H. Roehrig, T. J. Moore, H.-H. Wang, and M. S. Park, “Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration,” Sch. Sci. Math., vol. 112, no. 1, pp. 31–44, 2012.[4] N. A. Tran and M. J. Nathan, “Pre-college engineering studies: An investigation of the relationship between pre-college engineering studies and student achievement in science and mathematics,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 143–157, 2010.[5] N. Tsupros, R. Kohler, and J. Hallinen, “STEM education: A
, D. Kotys-Schwartz, and B. Louie, “Comparing Mentor and Mentee Perspectives in a Research-Based Undergraduate Mentoring Program,” no. November, p. 229, 2013. [3] N. Islam and A. A. Weimer, “Outcomes of the Student Mentoring and Research Training (SMART) Program,” no. 1, p. V005T07A028, 2019. [4] B. Pelleg, K. Imhoff, K. Ayers, and P. Boettcher, “Utilization of an Engineering Peer Tutoring Centre for Undergraduate Students,” 2016. [5] S. Lehr, H. Liu, S. Klinglesmith, A. Konyha, N. Robaszewska, and J. Medinilla, “Use educational data mining to predict undergraduate retention,” Proc. - IEEE 16th Int. Conf. Adv. Learn. Technol. ICALT 2016, no. 1, pp. 428–430, 2016. [6] Y. Min, G. Zhang, R. A. Long, T
categories suggests there are many areas of opportunity toengage students. The next step in this research is to expand the analysis to include additionalsemesters, include non-common questions which have similar classifications, examine non-academic factors (e.g., level of class participation) which may also impact performance, and toultimately develop intervening protocols to improve the overall performance of all students.References[1] Demel, J., “Bringing About Marked Increases In Freshman Engineering Retention,” Proceedings of the 2002FIE Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada.,2002.[2] Choate, L. H., and Smith, S. L.,”Enhancing development in 1st‐year college student success courses: Aholistic approach,” The Journal of Humanistic Counseling
science education in the K-12 system,” Science and Children, 46(9),8-9, 2009.[2] T. Kolbe, and S. Jorgenson. “Meeting Instructional Standards for Middle-Level Science:Which Teachers Are Most Prepared?,” The Elementary School Journal, 2018; 118 (4): 549 DOI:10.1086/697540.[3] T. Ivey, N. Colton, J. Thomas, and J. Utley. “Integrated Engineering in ElementaryEducation: Tackling Challenges to Rural Teacher Training,” in Proceedings of the ASEE 123rdAnnual Conference and Exposition, New Orleans, LA, June 26-29, 2016, Paper ID# 15860.[4] Department of Education. “Secondary Teaching Education Undergraduate Requirements,”Department of Education at University of Michigan. University of Michigan, 2019, http://www.soe.umich.edu/academics/bachelors/secondary
Classroom Interaction, 46(1), 37-48.[3] Bellinger, David B; DeCaro, Marci S. (2015). Mindfulness, anxiety, and high-stakes mathematicsperformance in the laboratory and classroom. Consciousness and Cognition, v. 37 pp. 123–132.
components): Teamwork: 3 or 4 person teams Unique drawings: Modified assignment per team Sketching skills: Individually complete dimensioned multiview drawings Making skills: Using another team’s drawings, individually manufacture piece(s) from wood with basic shop tools; assemble using press fit, paint Evaluation skills: Interpret / critique drawings during build; critically evaluate 3D print 3D design skills: Model, print accessories, evaluate prints, redesign CAD models Implementation: This assignment takes place over a number of assignments – a timeline is provided to the right, with approximate timing for in- and out-of-class activities. The instructor provides instruction and supplies. Students work