. She is Chair of the ASEE Long-Range Planning Committee and a member of the Engineering Deans Council as co-chair of the EDC Undergraduate Experience Committee. She is also a member of the Executive Committee for the Global Engineering Deans Council. Carpenter is a past Vice President of Professional Interest Councils for ASEE and past President of WEPAN. Currently she chairs a Pilot Program Ad-Hoc Committee for the Gulf Scholars Program for the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. She is an ASEE PEV for General Engineering, Dr. Carpenter regularly speaks at the national level on issues related to the success of women in engineering and innovative STEM curricula.Dr. Cindy Waters, Naval Surface
because my advisor can be pretty critical too. There's a lot of times where you don't necessarily feel built up or whatever.” (Kelly)Negative Mentorship A relationship between a “She was not planning to student and his or her have an undergraduate superior that has impacted student come work under her, student in an unfavorable so she just like wasn’t very
classes and/or careers. Similar frustrations were expressed withregards to the engineering career fair (which occurs near the beginning of each Fall semester).While the engineering career fair was not a tracked CE/EVEG exploration event (see Table 1),students in each general classification (but particularly lost EVEG students) reported negativeexperiences in terms of available employers, providing valuable insight and supporting thenotation that post-graduation plans strongly influence major selection. Among the eventsdiscussed within the discernment papers, the student panel discussion appeared to be the mostsuccessful, due to the relatively high student participation (42 total experiences) and overallpositive impact across all student major
demonstrate that overallknowledge is not diminished when peer instruction is the primary form of learning.IntroductionThe authors, along with many other engineering educators, have been strong proponents ofactive learning. Active, collaborative, cooperative, and problem‐based learning have beendemonstrated repeatedly to be more effective than lecture alone [2]. Students are 1.5 times lesslikely to fail in courses that use active learning [3]. When one of the authors was granted aFulbright Scholar Award to teach a biochemistry course in Uganda, the plan was to reproduceteaching methods used in the United States such as clicker questions, think-pair-share, and teamactivities which would be easy for the students to adopt [4]. However, within the first
. Educ. Res., vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 287–298, 2004.[7] S.-M. R. Ting and R. Man, "Predicting academic success of first-year engineering students from standardized test scores and psychosocial variables," Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 75–80, 2001.[8] J. C. F. De Winter and D. Dodou, "Predicting academic performance in engineering using high school exam scores," Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 27, no. 6, p. 1343, 2011.[9] B. D. Jones, M. C. Paretti, S. F. Hein, and T. W. Knott, "An analysis of motivation constructs with first‐year engineering students: Relationships among expectancies, values, achievement, and career plans," J. Eng. Educ., vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 319–336, 2010.[10] R. Steinmayr, A. F. Weidinger, M
Baccalaureate,” Soc. Sci. Q., vol. 92, no. 5, pp. 1169–1190, 2011.[17] S. L. Morgan, D. Gelbgiser, and K. A. Weeden, “Feeding the pipeline: Gender, occupational plans, and college major selection,” Soc. Sci. Res., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 989– 1005, 2013.[18] J. Price, “The effect of instructor race and gender on student persistence in STEM fields,” Econ. Educ. Rev., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 901–910, 2010.[19] J. D. Speer, “The gender gap in college major: Revisiting the role of pre-college factors,” Labour Econ., vol. 44, no. December 2016, pp. 69–88, 2017.[20] L. Russell, “Can learning communities boost success of women and minorities in STEM? Evidence from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,” Econ. Educ. Rev
licensed Professional Engineer. He has also taught high school and attended seminary. You can find more of his engineering education work at educadia.org or on his YouTube channel.Miss Tessa Sybesma, Montana State University Tessa is in her fourth year of study at Montana State University and has participated with a campus re- search team for the last year. She is currently enrolled in Industrial and Management Systems Engineering and has interests in facilities planning, change management, and project management. She also finds ed- ucation, human development, and peer support to be motivating topics. While at MSU Tessa has been involved with CRU, a campus ministry, and is currently vice president of Alpha Pi Mu, an
/24772[5] G. Zavala and A. Dominguez, “Engineering students’ perception of relevance of physics and mathematics,” in 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, LA, pp. 26664.1 – 26664.20, 2016. https://peer.asee.org/26664[6] J. W. Creswell, Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, 4th ed., Boston: Pearson, 2011.[7] A. Field, Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 5th ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2017.[8] OECD, Science Competencies for Tomorrow's World: Volume 1: Analysis, OECD, 2007. Available in https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264040014-en
statements that do not align with true stakeholder needs.Furthermore, other studies have shown that engineering students may struggle to collect andanalyze qualitative stakeholder data as part of their problem identification and definitionprocesses [10], [13], [19]. These data collection and analysis challenges are partially related tostudent difficulties encountered while planning information gathering interactions withstakeholders [10], [13], finding and accessing stakeholders who can best provide neededinformation [10], [13], and translating conflicting or ambiguous stakeholder responses intospecific needs and/or requirements [10], [18], [19]. Problem identification and definitionprocesses also generate large amounts of qualitative data that
,process, or system. 1. Develop a plan of study for your undergraduate career 2. Articulate holistic issues that impact engineering solutions 3. Solve problems using systematic engineering approaches and tools 4. Model an engineering system 5. Synthesize information from several sources 6. Communicate information effectively 7. Contribute effectively to an engineering teamThe second course is a project-based course. Student teams are formed, and each section has a specifiedproject. Student teams progress through an engineering design process to design and prototype a deviceaccording to their section. Foundations of Engineering (2) (ENGE 1216) course objectives are as follows:Foundations of Engineering (2): As a
trained model performs better thanthe other two methods.For this study, the recall parameter is the most useful since we want to identify the students atrisk that could benefit from the course intervention. Our model gives a 57% recall, which isunfortunately not high, but is better than selecting students at random. The instructor plans tocontinue gathering data to improve the classification model.To answer the second research question (can we improve the student experience and performancein the course via an intervention based on early predictions?), we analyzed assessment scoresfrom students in each of the four groups A, B, C and D.Student final grades 125 100
in both physical practice(e.g., developing or testing a physical prototype) and/or virtual practice (e.g., developing a CADmodel or drawing). Students in the PRL MCoP often engage in physical and virtual practice;experience ‘it worked’ and ‘it didn’t work’ moments; and revise their knowledge, technique,designs, and manufacturing processes accordingly. For example, consider how Brittany managesthe end of her casting project. With her project due in about two weeks, she has successfully casther major part but realizes a concern. Although she has conferred with CAs and has a plan forfixturing and machining her casting, this will be her first time post-machining, and she is unsurehow it will go. She explains that she normally prefers to ask CAs
(instructors, TA’s, peer educators); think-pair-share questions, clickerquestions followed up with instructor feedback based on student answers, working in groups onconstructive and interactive tasks, etc. It may be clear how individual activities that traditionallytake class time can be replaced with online course activities. It is this author’s contention thatwith careful design and planning, even interactive activities traditionally done face-to-face canbe done well in an online environment as well.By designing an online course with connecting and engaging elements – Zoom office hours,screencast skeleton notes, “SCORED” (SMART, Connecting, Original, Revisited, Engaging,Diverse) discussion prompts, and frequent synchronous assessments – and by
requirements remainedrelatively stable. We then summarize the lessons learned from these revisions and talk about howwe plan to manage changes in the future. Finally, we offer suggestions on how others might goabout industrializing their own software development projects.IntroductionIndustry and academic professionals continue to call for more collaboration in Computer Scienceand Information Technology education [1]. Project-Based Learning (PBL) [2] and ActiveLearning [3] are key instructional approaches that benefit from a strong industry connection. Inthis paper, we talk about our experience in injecting industry practice into the core of the project-based course: the project itself.One of the authors of this paper is a university professor; the
to discuss “which courses they were going to be taking” and“possibly share class notes and were planning to work together on group projects”. Students hadacquired a sense of belonging and were more motivated to continue to be enrolled in engineeringcourses. One key aspect was that students were highly interested in conducting research which inturn they had already contacted some of the faculty members by the beginning of week one ofthe fall quarter. One student stated, “he allowed me to join his research even though I wasn'tofficially settled into school yet”. It appeared that their motivation level had seen an increasefrom when they initially attended the one-week program in comparison to their first week ofbeing enrolled at a four-year
-valuetheory of achievement motivation (EVT) [29]. EVT seeks to explain how individuals choosebehaviors based on their outcome expectations and the value they place on that outcome [30].Subjective task value can be broken into four dimensions: 1. Attainment Value: A task has attainment value if it provides a way to confirm or support an aspect of how one sees one’s self. 2. Interest Value: A task has interest value if an individual enjoys or expects to enjoy doing the task. 3. Utility Value: A task has utility value if it benefits future plans. 4. Cost Value: A task can also have perceived cost(s) associated with performing the task.While EVT is more commonly used to predict a subject’s behavior, for this paper, the STVconstruct of
recommendations in the curriculum and overall planning with minor focus onresearch activities. The accessibility of these experts for all the faculty members is limited. Toovercome these issues, IUCEE was established with a vision to improve the quality and globalrelevance of engineering education in India [1].Research performance is a significant factor that is commonly used in comparing universities. Theconcept of research performance is defined in two parts: one is research (all faculty are expectedto engage in research) and the other is performance (which is evaluated based on the quality of thepublished work) The different parameters considered under research component are research skillsand techniques, research funding, research management
what to teach and how to organize assessment. The change to mastery-basedgrading has achieved the primary objective, but it has also engendered a culture shift of studentswho experience this system. Conversations about grading with students are more focused onauthentic learning issues than they were with the traditional system and students have shown thatthey understand and embrace the values associated with mastery-based grading.References[1] M. W. Durm, “An A is not an A is not an A: A history of grading,” Educ. Forum, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 294–297, 1993.[2] A. Kohn. Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and other Bribes, Bridgewater, NJ: Replica Books, 1993.[3] K.D. Hjelmstad and A
successful engineering managers and systems engineers. Specific methods andtechniques taught and applied are operations strategy, product design and selection, total qualitymanagement, capacity planning, facility location, facility layout, work system design, leansystems, and scheduling. This course is required for those pursuing the Engineering Managementmajor and an elective for other engineering and non-engineering majors. The students in thecourse represent a diverse academic cross-section consisting of Engineering Management to non-engineering majors, honor students academically excelling to low-GPA at-risk students, andfrom sophomores (second year) to seniors (graduating). The three-credit hour course meets for75 minutes every other day on a 1
faculty who visit each section that week. ● Robot Scoring of Small Number of Points in Week 8. This is a high pressure deadline where students are tasked with demonstrating a fully functioning robot that can score a designated small number of points. Students that fail to reach this objective, create a plan with their section tutor. Partial credit is possible if the robot can score points within a week after the deadline. This partial credit grade is used as one the metrics used in this study to identify teams that are struggling with design challenges. ● Oral Presentation in Week 10. Each team gives an oral presentation of their robot, use of theory and project management in the design process. ● In Section Robot
, transportation system (or urban planning), energy production, and everything else, as it has held for child labor and steamboat boilers [10]. It is because values such as profit maximization, subjection of nature, and control over society are part of the hegemonic ones nowadays that green-revolution- like agriculture is largely preferred over agro-ecology. That is, not only does technology shape society (item 2 above), society (or those particularly powerful there), on its turn, does also shape technology, choosing its development pathway based on those ethical-political values taken (for some) as the preferred or best ones. They, indeed, shape one another, constituting a
, this class focused on approaches to equip studentswith better understanding of design process and product development. Some of the key featuresof this course were17 : 1. Learning and implementing the skills/approaches used in designing 2. Plan and organize data related to projects 3. Informing students with importance of analysis, evaluation and synthesis in designing 4. Use of important and fundamental concepts of work environment 5. Focused on inculcating ethical values related to work 3.2. Survey Instrument:The survey instrument used in this study comprises of two questionnaires, to measure andanalyze empathy in students of junior year in mechanical engineering. Junior year students indesign methodologies class
and E. Russell Johnston, Jr., Outstanding New Mechanics Educator Award from the Mechanics Division of ASEE. Professor Hanson brings four years of military and industry experience to the classroom. Upon completing his Ph.D. in structural engineering at Cornell University, he taught for two years at Bucknell University. He is a registered Professional Engineer.Dr. Matthew D. Lovell P.E., Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Matthew Lovell is an Associate Professor in the Civil Engineering Department at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, and he currently serves as the Senior Director of Institutional Research, Planning, and Assessment office. He is also serving as the director of the Making Academic Change Happen