increased interest and offerings of higher education facultydevelopment programs in recent years, coaching in higher education settings, particularly in the engineeringdisciplines, remains relatively rare. If coaching does take place, it typically occurs on a small-scale or in singlediscipline programs. Rarely, if ever, does intercollegiate coaching occur. This study reports on the effectiveness ofa large-scale coaching effort, with 73 faculty participants from 15 engineering disciplines at more than 30universities across the country.Beginning in the summer of 2019, a diverse group of engineering faculty participated in the InnovatingCurriculum with Entrepreneurial Mindset (ICE) faculty development workshop. This intensive three-dayworkshop
Paper ID #30469Enhancing STEM retention and graduation rate by incorporating innovativeteaching strategies in selected STEM introductory coursesDr. Nikunja Swain P.E., South Carolina State University Dr. Swain is currently a Professor at the South Carolina State University. Dr. Swain has 25+ years of experience as an engineer and educator. He has more than 50 publications in journals and conference proceedings, has procured research and development grants from the NSF, NASA, DOT, DOD, and DOE and reviewed number of books on computer related areas. He is also a reviewer for ACM Computing Reviews, IJAMT, CIT, ASEE, and other
authors have changed thehomework structure of each course to smaller assignments after every lecture (hereby referred toas “daily” for the sake of brevity). Each section of these courses was taught by one of theauthors. Overall, 33 sections of courses from 2015-2019 were analyzed, resulting in a samplesize of N = 633 students total. These students were split into 540 traditional students and 93non-traditional students. “Traditional” in this case refers to students who enrolled in college © American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 2020 ASEE Annual Conference and Expositionimmediately after completing high school, while “non-traditional” refers to students who spenttime in other activities
and workshops on campus and at other campuses, to share titles of texts, authors, andarticles in the area, and to share perspectives on justice, history, equity, and potential newdirections within teaching in higher education.This consultation with experts in active learning and inclusive teaching informed the literaturereview and course materials review during summer 2019. Literature review included traditionalengineering education sources such as ASEE proceedings and JEE papers, but also included thereview of websites of many university-level centers for teaching and learning. These includedresources that broadened the scope of the literature to include education research and scholarshipbeyond the STEM domain, and were rich sources of
AeromechanicsII. AAE 20401 is an aerospace structural mechanics lab course for second-year students wherethey had the opportunity to use the Virtual Lab software. When implementing the Virtual Labs,we characterized the content, assessment, and pedagogy of the course under the BackwardCourse Design Model to identify how the Virtual Lab software could be integrated into thecoursework. After a year of getting feedback on the software from the students and investigatingthe pedagogical approaches on how to use it, we introduced a new format on the use of thevirtual lab in Fall 2019. This paper describes the latest version of the lab course with theintegration of the Virtual Lab software. The curriculum design, presented in this paper, is auseful reference for
the University of Idaho College of Engineering,” InternalUniversity of Idaho Publication, 1985, 2012.[2] James Peterson and Herbert Hess, “Feasibility, Design, and Construction of a SmallHydroelectric Power Generation Station as a Student Design Project,” ASEE 1999 AnnualConference.[3] Herbert Hess and Justin Schlee, “Upgrade of a Successful Undergrduate Energy Project ina Remote Wilderness Location,” ASEE 2010 Annual Conference, AC 2010-2347.[4] Herbert Hess, Lance Funke, and Chris Hoene, “Undergraduate Students PerformSuccessful Cogeneration Study for University,” ASEE 2019 Annual Conference, Paper #26096.[5] Ankit Gupta, “Capstone Design by Year,” University of Idaho Department of MechanicalEngineering, May 2019, [Online] https
Paper ID #31294Faculty feedback on hub-based approach to national dissemination oflow-cost desktop learning modulesKatelyn Dahlke, Washington State University Katelyn Dahlke received her B.S. in chemical engineering from Iowa State University in 2013. She received her M.S. and Ph.D, in chemical engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2019. She completed a postdoc doing hands-on engineering education research at Washington State University. She will be a faculty associate at the University of Wisconsin Madison starting in Summer 2020.Prof. Bernard J. Van Wie, Washington State University Prof
connection to industry. This paper reviews theactions taken to develop this culture based on the four essential areas of change. It also providesinsights on lessons learned thus far and plans to reach long term goals in the coming years.IntroductionIn 2017, the Mechanical Engineering Department at Seattle University was awarded a NationalScience Foundation grant to revolutionize the department. The project leverages thedepartment’s small size and close ties with industry to create a culture of “Engineering withEngineers.”This paper summaries the current status of the five-year project and is an updated version of theNSF Grantees Poster papers presented at the 2018 and 2019 ASEE Annual Conferences [1], [2].The project background and objective are
., Implementation of an Ultra-low Cost Heat Exchanger Learning Module to Address Energy Balance Concepts. in 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana.4. Beheshti Pour, N., Thiessen, D., Van Wie, B. (2018). Improving Student Understanding and Motivation in Learning Heat Transfer by Visualizing Thermal Boundary Layers, International Journal of Engineering Education, 34(2A), 514-526.5. Adesope, O., Beheshti Pour, N., Van Wie, B., Thiessen, D., Work in Progress: Fostering Cognitive Engagement with Hands-on Learning Pedagogy. in 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Tampa, Florida. https://peer.asee.org/336226. Recktenwald, G., Edwards, R., Howe, D., Faulkner, J., Hsieh, C., The engineering of everyday
. R. (2015), Maker: #BucknellMakers Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington.25. S. Vossoughi, P. K. Hooper, and M. Escudé, (2016), Making Through the Lens of Culture and Power: Toward Transformative Visions for Educational Equity, Harvard Educational Review Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 206-232.26. Vossoughi, S. and Bevan, B. (2014). Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. Commissioned paper for Successful Out-of-School STEM Learning: A Consensus Study, Board on Science Education, National Research Council, Washington, DC.27. Wang, Y., & Cui, S., & Zhan, W., & Yalvac, B. (2019, June), Board 52: Cultivating the Maker Culture through Evidence-Based Pedagogies Paper
, 2006.[4] K. Aung, "Design Exercises and Projects in Energy Engineering Course," in ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2005.[5] E. Spayde, M. W. Priddy and A. A. Knizley, "Development and Implementation of a Study Tool for Cumulative Problem Solving in Thermodynamics," in ASEE Southeastern Section Conference, Raleigh, 2019.[6] J. P. Abulencia and M. A. Vigeant, "Using Video Media to Enhance Conceptual Learning in an Undergraduate Thermodynamics Course," in ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2013.[7] M. Bailey and J. Chambers, "Using the experiential learning model to transform an engineering thermodynamics course," in Annual Frontiers in Education, 2004.[8] P. T. Goeser and S. Ruiz, "The Development of MATLAB
STEM departments,” Psychol. Women Quart., vol. 39., no. 2, pp. 210-225, 2015.[5] L. Davis and R. Fry, “College faculty have become more racially and ethnically diverse, but remain far less so than students. PEW Research Center, 2019. [On-line]. Available: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/31/us-college-faculty-student-diversity/. [ Accessed December 12, 2019].[6] D. F. Zellers, V. M. Howard, and M. A. Barcic, “Faculty mentoring programs: reenvisioning rather than reinventing the wheel,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 552-588, 2008.[7] J. Roy, “Engineering by the numbers. Engineering college profiles and statistics,” ASEE, 2019.[8] A. J. Jaeger, K. J. Haley, F. D. Ampaw, and J. S. Levin
. Sheikhfaal, and W. Howard, "Adapting Mixed-Mode Instructional Delivery to Thrive within STEM Curricula," in Proceedings of ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Tampa, FL, USA, June 16 – 19, 2019.[16] T. Tian, R. F. DeMara, and S. Gao, "Efficacy and perceptions of assessment digitization within a large-enrollment mechanical and aerospace engineering course," in Comput Appl Eng Educ. 2019; 27: 419– 429, 2019.[17] F. Vahid, COVID-19: Quickly switching a CS1 (or other) class online, Mar. 2020. Accessed on: Apr. 2020. [Streaming Video]. Available: https://zoom.us/rec/play/usEtd7qt_Dg3GdXB4wSDC_IqW9XoKP-sg3caqfpez0izB3BXY 1rwZbFDM7PDeFfoaT9_bjwuI2RdKQ77[18] F. Vahid and K. Downey, CS1/2 online -- UCR's story since 2013, Mar
2020].[2] "Closing the Skills Gap 2019," Wiley Education Services & Future Workplace, Louisville, KY, 2019.[3] C. Richard, K. Ramachandran and I. Pandoy, "Looming talent gap challenges semiconductor industry," Deloitte-SEMI, 2018.[4] "The Skills Gap in Wireless Infrastructure Training and Education: A Strategy for Improvement," Wireless Infrastructure Association , 2016.[5] "TUEE Transforming Undergraduate Education in Engineering Phase I: Synthesizing and Integrating," ASEE, Arlington, VA, 2013.[6] B. S. Bloom, Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, New York: Longmans, Green, 1956.[7] D. R. Krathwohl, B. S. Bloom and B. B. Masia, Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives, Handbook II
, findings, conclusions andrecommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe National Science Foundation.References[1] J. Roy, Engineering by the numbers. Engineering College Profiles & Statistics ASEE, 2019.[2] N. Dlodlo and R. N. Beyers, “The experience of girls in a fabrication engineering environment,” Gender Technol. Develop., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 127-135, 2009.[3] APS Physics, Bachelor’s degrees earned by African Americans, by major. https://www.aps.org/programs/education/statistics/aamajors.cfm accessed Nov 24, 2019.[4] A. A. Bergerson, B. K. Hotchkins, and C. Furse, “Outreach and identity development: new perspectives on college student persistence,” J. College Stud. Retention, vol
with varying levels of diversity by a matrix of factors(i.e., gender identity, race/ethnicity, international student status, and disability status). We alsointerviewed students who had large shifts in their attitudes about teaming and diversity orbelonging during the semester. We interviewed a total of 36 students. Interviews and surveycollection transpired from 2016-2019 across three different sites. At the first two sites, weconducted two 60-90 minute semi-structured interviews with each participant. The first interviewprotocol delved into students’ backgrounds, beliefs, and approaches to teaming. The secondinterview protocol focused on particular teaming experiences and interpersonal interactionsoccurring in their first-year engineering
publishing and attending education her students and if that value can be shared with conferences. Michelle sets a goal of writing a paper others and publishing it at the ASEE annual conference. • complete IRB training now so that she can survey This paper will require a survey of students. students • makes connections with colleagues that can help frame questions • requests funding from an appropriate sourceReferences1. Guo, J., & Santiago, J. M., & Phillips, P. A. (2019) “Combining Flipped Classroom and Integrating
new schools to develop GCSPs as part of the NAE GCSP Proposal review committee. She is also actively involved in the Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network (KEEN), focused on students’ de- velopment of entrepreneurial mindset through GCSP and curriculum. Amy recently received the 2019 KEEN Rising Star award for her efforts in encouraging students to develop an entrepreneurial mindset. Amy has contributed to the development of a new hands-on multidisciplinary introduction to engineering course and a unique introduction to engineering MOOC. She is interested in curricular and co-curricular experiences that broaden students’ perspectives and enhance student learning, and values students’ use of Digital Portfolios to
Annual Conference and Exposition, 2019.C.J. Lissenden, G.S. Wagle, and N.J. Salamon, “Applications of Finite Element Analysis forUndergraduates,” ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, 2002.The Materials Society, Verification & Validation of Computational Models Associated with theMechanics of Materials, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 2019.D.W. Mueller, “Introducing the Finite Element Method to Mechanical Engineering StudentsUsing MATLAB,” ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, 2003.M. Pike, “Introducing Finite Element Analysis in Statics,” ASEE Annual Conference andExposition, 2001.N. Smith and J.L. Davis, “Connecting Theory and Software: Experience with an UndergraduateFinite Element Course,” ASEE Annual Conference and
, and R. Davies, “A Longitudinal Study of Social and Ethical Responsibility Among Undergraduate Engineering Students: Comparing Baseline and Midpoint Survey Results,” presented at the 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2018.[9] D. R. Berg and T. Lee, “Incorporation of Liberal Education into the Engineering Curriculum at a Polytechnic,” presented at the 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, LA, 2016.[10] D. R. Berg, “Impacts of Engineering: An Introductory Course in Engineering Featuring Social Justice,” engrXiv, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.31224/osf.io/mqwdb.[11] J. A. Leydens and J. C. Lucena, Engineering Justice: Transforming Engineering Education and Practice. Wiley-IEEE Press, 2017.[12] J. Hess, S
Paper ID #31679Work in Progress: Quantifying Learning by Reflecting on Doing in anEngineering Design, Build and Test CourseMrs. Shan Peng, University of Oklahoma Shan Peng is a pursuing a MS in Data Science and Analytics at the University of Oklahoma. Shan is working with Professors Janet K. Allen and Farrokh Mistree in the Systems Realization Laboratory at OU. Her MS thesis is about design and development of a text mining program to facilitate instructors gain insight about students’ learning by analyzing their learning statements in engineering design, build and test courses. Shan is a winner of the ”2019 NSF/ASME
servingunderrepresented groups and communities. The variety of programs could be beneficial to theseoutcomes. However, it remains to be seen how such programs will evolve as society changes,technology develops, and digital devices become more ubiquitous.Table 1 - Collected data from studies included in systematic qualitative review – methods and outcomes First Author, Year Delivery Method Proposed Outcomes Achieved Outcomes Country Level Balaban I. et al., cloud-based digital learning ecosystem "digital competence acquisition, in progress Italy, Spain, primary and 2019 [33
response data indicates that studentscompleting the first-year course positively value the design and peer mentorship experience, andtheir STEM confidence, affinity towards math and science, and their sense of belongingimproves. Since the redesign in 2017, the first to second-year retention rate has increased from42% in 2016 to 57% in 2017, 70% in 2018, and 73% in 2019; and the first to third-year retentionrate has increased from 38% in 2016 to 50% in 2017 and 60% in 2018. In addition, the seniormentors feel that peer mentorship experience is an excellent addition to the curriculum andgained valuable insights while mentoring first-year students.IntroductionFreshman first-year experiences have been shown to impact student GPA [1] and retention [2
course difficulty in engineering schools located inother countries, in order to discuss implications for different educational systems. 5. AcknowledgmentsThis work was supported by CORFO under grant no. 14EN12-26862.The authors wouldlike to thank Paolo Fabia, Angela Parra, and Sebastián Vásquez for motivating this study asstudent representatives in 2019, aiming to create a shared meaning for course demandamong students, teaching staff, and managers.6. References[1] D. Gerrard, K. Newfield, N. B. Asli, and C. Variawa, “Are students overworked? Understanding the workload expectations and realities of first-year engineering,” in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, 2017.[2] M. Christie and E. de Graaff, “The philosophical and
solving skills. Many researchersand practitioners propose moving from using the acronym STEM to science, technology,engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM). The difference in STEM and STEAM is theinclusion of arts of any kind, aligning artistic creativity with STEM learning. Zimmerman andSprung concluded that motivation and self-confidence in computing for females is increasedwhen they can learn CS in the context of a content area, they are already comfortable with [1].Recognizing this cross-disciplinary connection approach, Mississippi State Universityresearchers in 2014 integrated a physical art component module that enabled girls to designrobots using crafting material, with positive results. In 2019, the team piloted a 4-day camp
Braced Frame Analysis o Single Story Buildings: Grocery Store, Steel Warehouse o Multistory Buildings: AISC 3 Story Steel Building, 4 Story Building o Bracing Vs. Shear Wall Analysis Rigid Frame Analysis: 4 story Building – Unbraced Rigid FrameVI. AssessmentAssessments of the changes in the Structural Analysis, Structural Steel Design, and ReinforcedConcrete Design courses are being conducted using the Student Outcomes from the 2019-2020ABET Engineering Programs Criterion 3.10The student outcomes that are specifically assessed in the Structural Analysis course are asfollows: 1. an ability to identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying principles of
interview and think-aloud sessions are also ongoing. Theresearch team holds bi-monthly meetings in which each member independently reviews eachtranscript and generates a set of themes related to the reading and writing practices and cognitiveframeworks used by each engineer. These emerging themes inform our interpretation of theevaluative frameworks that engineers use while they read and wrote genres in the context ofsocially situated activities. After independently reviewing each transcript, the team membersthen discussed the similarities and differences that were found among each other’s perspectives.Preliminary results from the initial round of coding with the mechanical/aerospace andelectrical/computer engineers were presented at the 2019 ASEE
publications over the years in manufacturing engineering, materials research as well as educational research. He is a member of American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) and has taught seminars for the Society of Manufacturing Engineers nationally as well as glob- ally. He continues to serve as a consult for corporations as well as a researcher to educational institutions providing expertise and models to help enhance and sustain advanced manufacturing programs. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 The Manufacturing Education Dilemma: Operating Efficiency vs. Productivity by
. Effective for Reviews during the 2020-2021 Accreditation CycleIncorporates all changes approved by the ABET Board of Delegates Engineering AreaDelegation as of November 2, 2019. Retrieved from https://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/E001-20-21-EAC-Criteria-Mark-Up-11-24-19-Updated.pdfAssociation of American Colleges & Universities. (2009). Member Survey Findings. Retrievedfrom https://www.aacu.org/about/membership/surveytalkingpoints.https://www.aacu.org/leap/hipsAidoo, J., & Sipes, S. M., & Hanson, J. H., & Lovell, M. D. (2013, June), Capstone DesignAlumni Survey Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta,Georgia. https://peer.asee.org/19283Brouwer, R., & Sykes, A., & VanderLeest, S. H
for Accrediting Engineering Technology Programs, 2020 – 2021. ABET,Baltimore, MD, 2019. Available: https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-technology-programs-2020-2021/. [AccessedJanuary 22, 2020].[18] ABET ETAC Side By Side Criteria Final 01 01 19. ABET, Baltimore, MD. Available:http://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ETAC-Side-By-Side-Criteria-Final-01-01-19.pdf. [Accessed, January 22, 2020.][19] E. M. Cooney, “Adapting the VALUE Rubrics to ABET ETAC Outcomes A-K.” Paperpresented at the 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana.https://peer.asee.org/20027.[20] AACU, Written Communication VALUE Rubric. Association of American Colleges andUniversities