, faculty mentoring, extra-curricular activities, peer group support interactions, and research/work experiences.A pilot group of 92 students from ten different engineering programs and four different entrylevels, joined the project. At the end of the first year indicators shows encouraging preliminaryresults. 97.9% students in the study group performed above the college-wide average. Freshmensuccess indicators in terms of academic performance, retention, and sense of belonging were upand career goal planning and actions began to show.BackgroundSuccess in higher education institutions by itself is a subjective concept that depends on themetrics defining it. Factors such as retention, quality, completion, and attainment are typicallyaddressed by
career paths, reflect on how their personal strengths [8] andinterests align with a particular path and consider what educational experiences would supportthe development of necessary skills required.When the assignment was originally developed in Fall 2018, students submitted a writtenreflection on two career pathways of interest, incorporating strengths, relevant skills and aconsideration of a day in the life of an engineer in this career. While this assignmentincorporated some element of choice in relation to career paths to reflect on, it required no actionbeyond reflective writing and students had limited experience upon which to base their response.Students indicated during focus groups that the reflective writing nature of the assignment
c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Paper ID #29553 Carter Neal is an Instructor in English at the University of Waterloo, where he teaches communications courses in the sciences and Engineering.Dr. Katherine Zmetana, University of Waterloo Katherine Zmetana teaches Communications in the Engineering Profession at the University of Waterloo. She has taught communications and technical writing in the health and science professions for over 20 years.Dr. Rania Al-Hammoud P.Eng., University of Waterloo Dr. Al-Hammoud is a Faculty lecturer (Graduate Attributes) in the department of civil and environmental
balcony. The Competition was limitedby requiring students to design alternative viable solutions and using the alternative solutionsas the Competition. Each member of the group had to investigate and design a uniqueframing plan. Finally, the Benefits were to be articulated through evaluation metrics considered in the design such as cost and constructability. An example of the written proposal is shown in Appendix 1.3.) Peer Evaluation (10%) Two rubric evaluations are conducted. Failure to complete the peer reviews by the deadline will result in zero score for the peer evaluation portion of the project. Due: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 & Friday, December 7, 20184.) Presentation (15%) Each team is to give a
Paper ID #30695Designing Little Free Libraries for Community Partners in a First-YearGraphics and Design CourseElizabeth Johnson, Playful Learning Lab Elizabeth is an undergraduate student studying Mechanical Engineering. She works as a peer mentor for the Engineering Graphics and Design course and is a Research Assistant in the Playful Learning Lab.Elise Rodich, University of St. Thomas Elise Rodich is studying mechanical engineering with a minor in materials science at the University of St. Thomas. She works for the Playful Learning Lab as an undergraduate student researcher on a variety of projects, including the
CAC and ETAC. In this example, let’sfocus on CAC and ETAC student outcomes 1 and 2. Below is a list of questions that were used inan examination to test and demonstrate achievement of the student outcomes. 1. Write a program that accomplishes the following Generates a random number Asks the user to guess the random number generated If guess is not between 1 and 10, print message “no!” If user has guessed the number correctly, print out “You got it!” Otherwise, print the correct random number generated. 2. Write a Java program that asks the user to enter three integers. Use an if else statement to print out the largest integer. 3. Write a for loop that asks the user to enter five integers
might be all but one. In this method,students can also choose to work towards the grade they want in order to spend their timeelsewhere (Nilson, 2015). Another instructor might use a mix of traditional grading and pass/failgrading. For example, to earn an A in a course, a student may have to receive an average examscore of 80%. The instructor can also set bars for specific grade levels such as a C resulting fromfailing a peer evaluation. In all of these systems, missing one element on the overall gradechecklist results in a lower grade.As all elements become pass or fail, the specifications for an assignment must be made veryclear. Writing good specifications is a lot like writing good requirements for a project. Just likerequirements in
traditional lecturing with assigned homework andquizzes, with the lab section of the course being the time for modeling projects and the seniordesign project.Learning DesignThe final learning design was developed based on modeling-based learning. The development ofa four-phase process from these frameworks has previously been reported on [citation blindedfor peer review]. The four phases of the modeling process that students used during theirmodeling activities were: (1) planning the model, (2) building the model, (3) evaluating themodel, and (4) reflecting on the model. Table 1 below overviews the tasks that students didduring each phase of the modeling process.Table 1. Overview of learning design for the modeling projects during the course. Phase
their participation in the program would supporttheir current or future teaching and overall growth as a teacher. Students must also submit arecommendation letter from their adviser.The program consists of five main activities. First, students complete a 3-credit STEM Teachingcourse that focuses on evidence-based course design and instructional practices (fall semester).Second, students participate in the Peer Observation of Classroom Activities program byconducting 4 engineering classroom observations along with other graduate students and afaculty member (both semesters). Observers receive training on and use the ClassroomObservation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS). Third, students write and receivefeedback on a teaching philosophy
to studentsLarge classes can improve the student experience in at least four ways.1 The ASEE Engineering Technology listserv, ETD-L@listproc.tamu.edu; SIGCSE-members@listserv.acm.org, forComputer Science educators; and discussion@podnetwork.org, from the Professional and OrganizationalDevelopment NetworkThe first is community. A large class can grow into a supportive learning community. Studentshave more opportunity to partner with, and learn from, other students. Questions are answeredmore quickly on Piazza or a message board. Students can learn from their peers. Clicker-stylepolling provides immediate feedback, regardless of class size. It can even work better in a largeclass, since there is bound to be a critical mass of students who have
. Students write about their experience during the last ten (10) minutes of class. Students wrote they felt “refreshed” after the meditation experience and were going to try to add reflective time to focus on stress management into their schedules. Many students were very concerned about their Life Stressors Index and wrote about coping mechanisms they plan to employ in order to improve their own lives. They also wrote about how they will look for signs of distress in their construction crews and work to improve work-life balance for themselves and their subordinates.Week 4 – Leadership, Personality, and Learning Styles The module begins by juxtaposing the definitions of leadership and management. For this first class in the
active learning and peer-to-peerinteraction in the online environment. Expert talks feature faculty members from variousinstitutions and industry professionals discussing their research and industry related-work aroundspecific challenges within each theme and promote deeper understanding of the issues.Throughout the course, students also work on a project involving entrepreneurially-mindedlearning (EML). They identify an opportunity to create value related to one or more of the fourthemes; perform customer discovery and needs analysis; imagine and develop a futuristicsolution to address the needs; identify and research current technologies, which, when furtherdeveloped, could enable the development and implementation of their futuristic solution
the 2019 RAMP program, and how wepropose to continue this iterative process in the 2020 RAMP program. As we write this, RAMPin 2020 is expected to be fully online, a virtual program, as we shelter from the Covid-19 virus.Finally, we suggest why the PAR approach may be especially helpful for creating moresupportive and beneficial environments for women in engineering majors.In Section 2.0 RAMP student recruitment and demographics are discussed. The design andimplantation of PAR focus groups and online survey methods are presented in Section 3.0.Section 4.0 shows the results of data analysis and Section 5.0 summarizes the contributions andoutlines future work.2.0 RAMP Student Recruitment and DemographicsThe RAMP program is advertised to all
neutral and 14% disagreed. Questions 10and 11 evaluated the communications skills. Over 90% agreed that the project successfullyenhanced their skills on writing effective reports and reporting the solution to the customer while10% were neutral and 5% disagreed. Similarly, 91% strongly and 9% agreed that the projecthelped them to improve their skill on working with their peers. Survey Results 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 No.6 No.7 No.8 No.9 No.10 No.11
spatialability has been shown to be a predictor of student success in first-year engineering students [12].The students are also trained to develop metacognitive skills and work to develop growth mindsets,both of which have been linked to success in STEM courses [13–15]. Importantly, this seminar isalso serving as the launch point for peer and faculty mentoring.Engaged engineering projects: As part of this project, Scholars are invited to participate inEngaged Engineering projects which focus on enabling our Scholars to tackle real-world/authenticdesign challenges [16] with the goals of improving sense of belonging [17, 18], and gainingengineering skills that are required for upper level capstone senior projects, and, more broadly, theworkplace [19]. We
knowledgestudents have assimilated through various courses in their major for professional success. ProjBLpedagogy has been adopted and implemented in ME425. This engaged pedagogy aims to helpstudents enhance their cognitive, non-cognitive and critical thinking skills through engineeringdesign tasks.CMG250 has been identified as one of the most critical courses in the Construction Managementmajor. ProjBL has been adopted and implemented for CMG250 course. In this course anindependent project is assigned to each student to calculate the estimation of a building project.The students work on the project with their peers with necessary guidance from the instructor.The project aims to improve students’ study habits, and enhance their abilities for
Construction (ASC)competition. The ASC competition then serves as the model for the culminating event, in whichthese 12 students leverage their experience to assume a leadership role among their peers. Nearthe end of the second semester, students transition from their traditional capstone coursesequence to a culminating design event. During this transition, the 12 students who participatedin the ASC competition form teams of 12-15 students each, which they will lead as they competeacademically to “win” a design-build contract for a real project. Teams integrate students’experiences from four sub-disciplines represented in the major: construction, environmental,geotechnical, and structural engineering. Additionally, both faculty members and
School Psychology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has extensive research experience in the field of psy- chology. Her thesis explored the influence of individual differences in executive functioning on learning outcomes in active learning environments.Dr. Chuang Wang, University of Macau Dr. Wang is Distinguished Professor of Quantitative Research Methodology at the University of Macau. His expertise includes educational research design, statistical data analyses, and program evaluation. He has published 7 books, 19 book chapters, 103 peer-reviewed journal articles, and 12 conference proceed- ings. Dr. Wang also has 18 invited presentations and 98 paper presentations at national and international
introduced the basics of scientific literature searches, hypothesis creation, andresearch methods. The worksheet was instructor-led, but also served as a reference guide as theparticipants completed their research projects. The next activity introduced participants to peerreview and feedback. The participants were able to present their proposed research topics to theirpeers and instructors and get “peer review” feedback, which they integrated into their projectdesign.The next activity was an introduction to writing college-level research reports and incorporatingcitations, beginning with how and why sources are used and how to cite sources properly. Thesession then covered data, information, and statistical analysis. The instructor pointed out
Mentz, University of Wisconsin-Platteville Randy Mentz joined the University of Wisconsin-Platteville staff in 2003 as a field technician for the university’s Pioneer Farm in the Agro-Ecosystem Research program. Mentz’s main duty was operating and maintaining edge-of-field runoff monitoring stations that were designed to measure and sample storm and snowmelt runoff water from farm fields. With experience, he took on additional responsibilities, such as data management, quality assurance, methods development, data analysis, presenting at conferences, grant writing support, grant administration, training and supervision, outreach, and project management. Mentz joined the Division of Professional Studies in June
Engineers. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Misunderstandings, mistakes, and dishonesty: A post-hoc analysis of a large- scale plagiarism case in a first-year computer programming courseIntroduction In this evidence-based practice paper, we discuss the issue of plagiarism in a first-yearengineering computer programming course. Plagiarism is an issue that can plague any coursethat asks students to submit independently created work. Traditionally, plagiarism has beenassociated with writing assignments, and there are a wide variety of tools and interventionsavailable for both identifying and preventing plagiarism on these assignments. However,although computer programming courses also report a
of designing solutions for ill-structured problems [2]. Wewanted to understand this reflection-in-action component. Like the “water” that the fish swimthrough in Wallace’s story, we see parallels to the ways in which our design students navigatethe design processes they engage in. Here, questioning “what the hell is water?” is a moment ofreflection-in-action. Schön writes that professional practitioners often consider their actionswhile they are doing them and states that they ask questions like “‘What features do I noticewhen I recognize this thing? What are the criteria by which I make this judgment? Whatprocedures am I enacting when I perform this skill? How am I framing the problem that I amtrying to solve?’” (pg 50).Our goal for our
research projects. He has collaborated extensively with colleagues across the University on the design, analysis, and presentation of data from both surveys and experiments. He is a co-author on peer-reviewed publications and a co-PI on funded research projects each year. He teaches both undergraduate and graduate level courses in statistical methods, regression analysis, statistical research design, and data analysis. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Towards Creating Motivationally Supportive Course Structures for Introductory CalculusAbstractThis paper reports the qualitative phase of a sequential explanatory mixed
format. For example, in a face-to-face format, collaboration and pairprogramming works well. Some instructors have even been successful implementing distributedpair programming in an online course [5]. However, in a flexible schedule, online format (Flex),the implementation of these activities is particularly challenging. In the Flex format, studentsstart the course at different points in the semester, work at their own pace and may not beworking on the same module at the same time. The asynchronous nature of the class makes itparticularly difficult for students to interact with each other. We propose the use of discussionboards within the learning management system to help create peer-to-peer code sharingexperiences in a Flex class. In this
Women in Computer Science (WiCS), the Director of the Computer Science Fellows program, and is a KEEN Fellow. She has authored and co- authored over fifty peer-reviewed papers. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Code Hardening: Development of a Reverse Software Engineering Project AbstractIn CSI 2334, “Introduction to Computer Systems” (CompSys), at Baylor University, we introduce agroup project to the students whose purpose is to simulate a team project on the job. Group projectsare used very frequently to provide a similar learning environment which capitalizes on the benefitsof peer-to-peer instruction, or cooperative learning. In this group
undergraduate world where engineersare often working in groups consisting of peers of different levels of age, knowledge andexperience [1]. Therefore, exposing students to a cross-cohort project would introduce them to anenvironment more similar to what they would experience in the future. This type of projects, hashad positive impact on students’ learning by providing the opportunity for them to see theapplication of theoretical course concepts through design and analysis of engineering systems [2].Literature Review: Current research has shown that multidisciplinary group projects inengineering education is beneficial to students since it better reflects the standard practice inindustry [3, 4]. Though this paper is discussing an interdisciplinary
graduated courses in their senior year.Novel Technical Elective – Cpr E 432 Cyber Security PracticumThis course focuses on the design and implementation of a secure networked environment that ispenetration tested by peers in the course. Evaluations are made of each environment andwhether it withstood testing, as well as what vulnerabilities were able to be exploited. After thisattack phase, students complete an evaluation of their security plans and take the necessaryremediation steps to further harden their networked environment. The lecture targets the tacticsneeded to be taken by the students in their weekly lab practicum. In addition to using technicalskills, students use their technical writing skills in their design documents
amicroaggression scale than their White peers (Forrest-Bank & Jenson, 2015). As these slightinsults may be intentional or unintentional, microaggressions likely have contributed to theracial/ethnic and gender disparities in the engineering field. Within the last decade, engineeringeducators have expressed interest microaggressions and how these interactions impact thelearning environment, later workplace. Table 1 Microaggression Taxonomy, Sue et al. (2007) and Lewis and Neville (2015) Microinsult Microinvalidation Microassault Ascription of Alien in own land Assumptions about Intelligence style & beauty
increase the likelihood of first-yearand second-year student retention for low-income STEM students as compared to theirincome/high school GPA-ACT (or SAT)/geography-matched peers within STEM? RuralArkansas has experienced economic hardships that have severely limited STEM education-relatedresources for K-12 students as school systems in these areas have continued to struggle financially[3]. Data have also shown that students from rural areas receive limited exposure to academicenrichment programs. This can lead to lower levels of confidence as well as the belief that theyare not prepared to be successful in STEM programs [4]-[11]. Secondly, can the PTG supportinitiatives significantly increase the average first-year and second-year GPA for low
learninginclude that students dislike forced interaction, dislike the increased responsibility for their ownlearning, and prefer instruction solely from an expert perspective [7]. The distribution ofcriticisms of active learning techniques are adopted as identifying elements of their practice inthe corresponding three categories: ‘Increased Interaction’, ‘Increased Responsibility’ and‘Decreased Expertise’. Decreased expertise in this context involves removal of the professor asthe primary authority for information as presented from the peer-directed activity; their peers areviewed as having decreased expertise compared to the knowledge of the instructor. It is ofinterest if there is parity in the criticism of the presented active learning activities in