, as well as several years of electrical and mechanical engineering design experience as a practicing engineer. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering from Swarthmore College, his Master’s of Education degree from the University of Massachusetts, and a Master’s of Science in Mechanical Engineering and Doctorate in Engineering Education from Purdue University.Ms. Ann E. Delaney, Boise State University Ann Delaney is the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Coordinator and the SAGE Scholars Program Director in the College of Engineering at Boise State University. SAGE Scholars is an NSF-funded S-STEM scholarship program which is part of the Redshirting in Engineering Consortium. As part of this program
Research and Education c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Implementation of an Introductory Engineering Course and its Impact on Students’ Academic Success and RetentionAbstractThis Complete Research paper will describe the implementation of an introductory course(ENGR194) for first semester engineering students. The course is meant to improve retention andacademic success of engineering first-year students in the College of Engineering at the Universityof Illinois at Chicago. The implementation of this course is part of an ongoing National ScienceFoundation (NSF) Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (S-STEM)project. This paper reports on the impact of combinatorial
engineering curriculum todemonstrate to engineers, scientists and other technical professionals how to systematicallydisassemble and analyze an assembly, as well as its components. In the early 1990’s, the Instituteof Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) first introduced these concepts of reverseengineering and product dissection, thus making them cornerstones of introductory engineeringcourses. Many studies have been conducted in introductory and undergraduate level engineeringcourses, finding that virtual product dissection can be used as a proxy for physical dissection inorder to have an impact on learning and creativity.While these studies have been systematic in nature, they have only explored product dissection inundergraduate co-located
months, we collected data using aseries of survey tools including two Upper Elementary School and Middle/High School StudentAttitudes toward STEM (S-STEM) Surveys (Technology and Engineering and 21st CenturySkills) [8] and the Alternative Uses Test (AUT) [9][10]. Additionally, we conducted interviewswith representative youth about their perceptions and attitudes towards the surveys.While the AUT results showed a positive change in the youth, initial results from pre-postSTEM-S evaluations showed insignificant and sometimes negative shifts in youth's intereststowards Technology and Engineering, and 21st Century Skills. Interviews showed that youthstruggled to accurately assess changes in themselves due to the time lapse between pre-postprogram
-serving community college hasestablished a scholarship program for financially vulnerable community college students whowish to move to a four-year university to obtain a bachelor's degree in a STEM field. Developedthrough a S-STEM grant NSF Scholarship, the program included cooperation between STEMteachers, college employees, administrators, student organizations and industry partners, four-year colleges, local high schools and professional organizations. In addition to providingfinancial support, student access to academic capital was enhanced by an intensive math reviewprogram, tutoring, study groups, additional training, and internship opportunities for research.Access to cultural and social capital was increased by providing scholars with
] S. Brunhaver, R. Korte, S. Barley, and S. Sheppard, “Bridging the gaps between engineering education and practice,” in Engineering in a Global Economy, R. Freeman and H. Salzman, Eds. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2018, pp. 129–165.[3] C. Carrico, K. Winters, S. Brunhaver, and H. M. Matusovich, “The pathways taken by early career professionals and the factors that contribute to pathway choices,” Proceedings of the 2012 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, TX., June 2012.[4] C. J. Atman, S. D. Sheppard, J. Turns, R. S. Adams, L. N. Fleming, R. Stevens, R. A. Streveler, K. A. Smith, R. L. Miller, L. J. Leifer, K. Yasuhara, and D. Lund
-publications/publications/The-Green-Report.pdf[3] American Society for Engineering Education, "Transforming Undergraduate Education in Engineering: Phase I: Synthesizing and Integrating Industry Perspectives - Workshop Report," National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 2013.[4] L. J. Shuman, M. Besterfield-Sacre, and J. McGourty, "The ABET "Professional Skills" - Can They Be Taught? Can They Be Assessed?," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 41-55, 2005.[5] L. Deslauriers, L. S. McCarty, K. Miller, K. Callaghan, and G. Kestin, "Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
engineering students at the J.B. Speed Schoolof Engineering (SSoE) at the University of Louisville must take.The interest barrier, defined in this paper as “student beliefs related to the significance and/orusefulness of engineering”, inherently includes student perception(s) related to the level ofpleasure experienced in conducting engineering-related tasks or activities. Research has identifiedinterest as the most significant retention impediment for SSoE students; specifically, an increasein interest predicted which students remained in engineering. Yet the significance of the interestquestion extends well beyond SSoE to engineering programs all over the country.First-year engineering makerspace courses can have a positive impact on first-year
follow-on group. It would providevaluable experience to the students if more clients could be recruited from the community.AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank the following ME students who participated in this project: Arlint,A., Durbin, T., Hayes, T.S., Jefferson, S., Jewett, S., Maltbie, J., Mihalec, B., Milne, S., Richards,T., Ward, M., and Willard, J..References[1] R. H. Todd, S. P. Magleby, C. D. Sorensen, B. R. Swan, and D.K. Anthony. “A survey ofcapstone engineering courses in North American,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 84,pp.165-174, April 1995.[2] A. J. Dutson, R. H. Todd, S. P. Magleby, and C. D. Sorensen. “A review of literature onteaching engineering design through project-oriented capstone courses,” Journal
1449490. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions orrecommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1] C. B. Zoltowski, B. K. Jesiek, S. A. Claussen, and D. H. Torres, “Foundations of Social and Ethical Responsibility Among Undergraduate Engineering Students: Project Overview,” in Proceedings of the 2016 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 26-29, 2016, New Orleans, LA, USA. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/foundations-of-social-and-ethical-responsibility-among- undergraduate-engineering-students-project-overview[2] D. S. Fuentes, G. M. Warnick, B. K. Jesiek, and R. Davies, “A Longitudinal
as an Assistant Professor.Dr. Anidza Valent´ın-Rodr´ıguez, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Success Expectations of Low-Income Academically Talented Students in Engineering - A Preliminary Study at a Hispanic- Serving InstitutionIntroductionThis paper describes findings on interviews conducted with Hispanic engineering studentsinterested in participating in an S-STEM fellowship program at the University of Puerto Rico,Mayagüez Campus (UPRM). The program seeks to increase the retention, persistence, andsuccess of Low-Income Academically Talented Students (LIATS) at the College of Engineering(CoE). The
into engineeringeducation curriculum to promote creativity in engineers.AcknowledgementThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1561660 and 1726358, 1726811, and 1726884. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions orrecommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1] K. H. Kim, “The Creativity Crisis: The Decrease in Creative Thinking Scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking,” Creativity Research Journal, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 285–295, 2011.[2] K. H. Kim and R. A. Pierce, “Torrance’s innovator meter and the decline of creativity in America,” The Routledge
engineering ethics: Assessment of its influence on moral reasoning skills,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 29–34, 1998.[6] J. Henrich, S. J. Heine, and A. Norenzayan, “The Weirdest People in the World?,” Behav. Brain Sci., vol. 33, no. 2–3, pp. 61–83, 2010.[7] Q. Zhu, C. B. Zoltowski, M. K. Feister, P. M. Buzzanell, W. Oakes, and A. Mead, “The development of an instrument for assessing individual ethical decision-making in project-based design teams: Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods,” in Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2014.[8] R. I. Murrugarra and W. A. Wallace, “A Cross Cultural Comparison of Engineering Ethics Education
Learning Work? A Review of the Research", Journal ofEngineering Education, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 223-231, 2004.[3] S. Freeman et al., "Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering,and mathematics", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 111, no. 23, pp. 8410-8415, 2014. Available: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111.[4] L. D. Feisel and A. J. Rosa, "The Role of the Laboratory in Undergraduate EngineeringEducation, " Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 121-130, 2005.[5] R. Krivickas and J. Krivickas, "Laboratory Instruction in Engineering Education", GlobalJournal of Engineering Education, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 191-196, 2007.[6] J. S. Rolston and E. Cox, "Engineering for the Real World: Diversity
workincludes organization of Mini-Maker Faire with multiple courses and collaboration with anotheruniversity.References 1. Anderson, C., (2012). Makers: The New Industrial Revolution, Random House Business: New York, NY. 2. American Society for Engineering Education. (2016). Envisioning the Future of the Maker Movement: Summit Report. Washington, DC.3. Barton, A. C., Tan, C., & Greenberg, D. (2017). The makerspace movement: Sites of possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teachers College Record, V 119 (7).4. Bloom, B. S.; Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I
. 12, 2018.[2] L. Wimsatt, A. Trice, and D. Langley, “Faculty Perspectives on Academic Work and Administrative Burden: Implications for the Design of Effective Support Services.,” Journal of Research Administration, vol 30, no. 1, pp. 77–89, 2009.[3] K. M. Hannum, S. M. Muhly, P. S. Shockley-Zalabak, and J. S. White, “Women leaders within higher education in the United States: Supports, barriers, and experiences of being a senior leader,” Advancing Women in Leadership, vol. 35, pp. 65–75, 2015.[4] E. Judson, L. Ross, and K. Glassmeyer, “How Research, Teaching, and Leadership Roles are Recommended to Male and Female Engineering Faculty Differently,” Research in Higher Education, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 1025–1047
activities. The DET survey is a five-point Likert-scale that consists of 40 items.The instrument focused on measuring the participants’ perceptions and familiarity with the DETconcepts. A S-STEM survey was also administrated to the teachers’ students at the beginning andthe end of the school year. The S_STEM survey is a five-point Likert-scale with 37 items. TheS_STEM survey captured the students’ attitudes towards the STEM fields and the 21st-centuryskills. In the paper we will describe the research conducted and discuss the implications forcultivating STEM literacy and integrated STEM education. Both pre- and post-comparison resultsand correlation results are presented.IntroductionSTEM fields play a crucial role in generating technological
these programsthrough learning how participants in K12 STEM outreach programs define mentoring. Thispaper focuses on one research question from our pilot study: How do university student mentor definitions of “mentoring” compare to those of faculty / staff program coordinators?Theoretical FrameworkTo categorize participants’ definitions of mentoring, the research team utilizes Pfund et al.’s [14]attributes of effective mentoring relationships, which are “supported by the literature andsuggested by theoretical models of academic persistence” [p. S238]. This framework was chosenbecause of the ample existing metrics and examples of measurable learning objectives provided,which can be mapped to experiences participants share in their
subgroups.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grantnumbers DUE #1834425 and DUE #1834417. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions orrecommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe NSF.References[1] O. Ha and N. Fang, "Spatial Ability in Learning Engineering Mechanics: Critical Review," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, vol. 142, no. 2, p. 04015014, 2015.[2] J. G. Cromley, J. L. Booth, T. W. Wills, B. L. Chang, N. Tran, M. Madeja, T. F. Shipley and W. Zahner, "Relation of Spatial Skills to Calculus Proficiency: A Brief Report," Mathematical Thinking and Learning, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 55-68, 2017.[3] S. A. Sorby
motivating them to choose a career path in thearea of UAV technologies.AcknowledgementThe project is funded by the NSF’s EEC Program. We would also like to thank Lockheed MartinCorporation and Northrop Grumman Corporation, and NASA Armstrong Flight Research Centerfor hosting the participants and giving them a tour their research labs and facilities. We wouldalso like to thank Northrop Grumman Corporation and Lockheed Martin Corporation for theircontinued support of the UAV Lab at Cal Poly Pomona.References[1] S. Bhandari, Z. Aliyazicioglu, F. Tang, and A. Raheja, “Research Experience for Undergraduates in UAV Technologies,” Proceedings of American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, 25-28 June 2018
manufacturing systems; control of large-scale complex systems; robotics/mechatronics; and adaptive and robust control of nonlinear dynamic systems.Prof. Satish Bukkapatnam, Texas A&M University Satish T. S. Bukkapatnam received his Ph.D. and M.S. degrees in industrial and manufacturing engineer- ing from the Pennsylvania State University. He currently serves as Rockwell International Professor with the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering department at Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. He is also the Director of Texas A&M Engineering Experimentation Station (TEES) Institute for Manufacturing Systems. His research in smart manufacturing addresses the harnessing of high-resolution
' judgment of his or her abilityto perform the task) play a more significant role. These results are novel given that all examsvaried based on content only, and there was no variation in format and difficulty level of theexams.AcknowledgmentWe want to thank Dr. Morgan Hynes for helping us in the data collection process.References[1] S. Y. Chyung, A. J. Moll, and S. A. Berg, "The role of intrinsic goal orientation, self- efficacy, and e-learning practice in engineering education.," J. Eff. Teach., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 22–37, 2010.[2] J. M. Dennis, J. S. Phinney, and L. I. Chuateco, "The role of motivation, parental support, and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college students," J. Coll. Stud
beneficial involvement. Threshold theories of studentinvolvement predict diminishing or negative returns at higher levels of involvement. These studieshave measured level of involvement as either number of activities or number of hours involved inactivities [58], [63], [64]. These studies fit nonlinear functions of involvement with respect ofacademic outcomes, finding that at high levels of involvement the benefits leveled off or evendeclined slightly. Vetter et al.’s [17] findings about the significance of quality of involvement overquantity of involvement echo these findings, concluding that “co-curricular programs andactivities are of greatest benefit when they encourage students to engage more deeply… only oneor two meaningful co-curricular
inengineering specifically [12-15, 28-29, 31-33, 38]. There were cross-cultural differences in the studies’ findings. In the study from UAE[26], women with higher SES were less likely to choose STEM majors and careers (Fig. 1),unlike in the US and UK where studies found higher SES to significantly impact the likelihoodof persisting in and choosing a STEM major, respectively [22, 24]. In Caspi et. al.’s study [16] inIsrael, they found no gender difference in ninth grade students’ choice of a STEM major whereasgender differences were found early on (i.e., prior to intervention) in STEM attitudes in USstudents [13]. Fig. 1 Likelihood of persisting in and choosing a STEM major Importantly, these studies support the
Mission College S-STEM ATE* S-STEM HSI* Laredo College IUSE AISL HSI* ATE Miami Dade College S-STEM S-STEM* ATE* Palo Alto College IUSE S-STEM* ATE* West Hills CC S-STEM ATE* S-STEM S-STEM* Central Arizona 2 College ATE* HSI* LA Harbor College S-STEM Lee College IUSE HSI-F19 NMSU Grants ATE HSI* Phoenix College DRK12 HSI* HSI-F19 San Joaquin Delta S-STEM
) C(S) P(S) y(t) - Figure 1. PID Controller Feedback Systemwhere x(t) is the desired value (i.e., set point) e(t) is the error (i.e., x(t) – y(t)) w(t) is the controller output (i.e., actuator output) y(t) is the actual output (i.e., process variable (PV)) C(s) is the transfer function of the PID controller in the Laplace domain P(s) is the transfer function of the plant in the Laplace domainLet F(s) be defined as the Laplace transform of a function f(t): ∞ 𝐹𝐹(𝑠𝑠) = ℒ {𝑓𝑓(𝑡𝑡)} = ∫0 𝑓𝑓(𝑡𝑡) 𝑒𝑒 −𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑where s is the transform variable.Taking the Laplace
Agenda for Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2014.[3] B. London, S. Rosenthal, S. R. Levy, and M. Lobel, “The influences of perceived identity compatibility and social support on women in nontraditional fields during college transition,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology, vol. 33, pp. 304-321, 2011.[4] N. D. Watkins, R. W. Larson, and P. J. Sullivan, “Bridging intergroup difference in a community youth program,” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 51, pp. 380-402, 2007.[5] R. F. Catalano, M. L. Berglund, J. A. M. Ryan, H. S. Lonczak, and J. D. Hawkins, “Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs,” The
(2)where I is the improvement factor, and the subscripts s and u stand for shaded and unshadedCOP, respectively. Figure 1. Thermocouples wrapped on the refrigerant pipes across the condenser. Note the temperature of the pipe leaving the condenser was used; the one entering the condenser was measured for reference purposes only Figure 2. Canopy used to shade the condenser For the simulated part of the study, data for a 3-TR unit were simulated from Carrier website[10] and the results were compared to the experimental
explore. For this paper, researchers present findings from theanalysis of the final cohort(s) of the original pilot program with an emphasis on characteristics ofinterest, as well as an exploration of the factors involved in place-attachment for alumni.IntroductionThe Bowman Creek Educational Ecosystem (BCE2) in South Bend, Indiana is a community-university, cross-institutional partnership [1] developed with a multiplicity of outcome aims – toattract and retain underrepresented groups in engineering and science; to improve the quality oflow-income neighborhoods; and to build STEM literacy across the regional workforce. Corepartners in the BCE2 pilot have involved a diversity of higher education institutions (Ivy Techcommunity college, Indiana
advances in virtualreality (VR) tools – including inexpensive hardware and open source software, there is anopportunity to incorporate the use of virtual environments into this traditional course and bridgethe disconnect between classroom material and realistic flight dynamics and controls. This paperoutlines the development of a virtual reality environment to aid in teaching the design andevaluation of flight controllers using classical control techniques. This environment is beingdesigned to provide a collaborative space where user(s) can manipulate the locations of poles andzeros of a controller for a dynamic system (such as an aircraft) and visualize its response. Such anenvironment will enable the user(s) to visualize how controller design