student organization at my university, Drexel University in Philadelphia,sponsored a movie night. The movie was The Island, a 2005 film about a group of individualswho are maintained on an island as living spare body parts for the original individuals fromwhom they were derived. The film centers around selected individuals on the island whodiscover their actual purpose and identities and the conflicts this raises between the world of theisland and the world outside. I (DLM) was asked to lead a discussion on the film and, sensing theopportunity for a broad consideration of ethical and moral issues, asked the mixed graduate andundergraduate audience the following question: Who has encountered an ethical issue of anykind either at work or on campus
teaching, research, and service. Dr. Ofori-Boadu is a dedicated instructor, advisor, mentor, and role model who has served over 1,500 undergraduate and graduate students. Andrea has received almost $2M from funding agencies to include the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Engineering Information Foundation (EIF), the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), the National Housing Endowment (NHE), and East Coast Construction Services (ECCS). In 2019, she received her prestigious NSF CAREER grant to construct substantive theories that explain professional identity development processes in undergraduate architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) women in the United States. In 2020, Dr. Ofori-Boadu received a
capable of success, but oftensuffer higher levels of doubt, anxiety and stress regarding their engineering coursework. Thereare multiple factors influencing this gender difference, including but not limited to: lack ofwomen faculty for mentoring and acting as role models [14], [15]; ongoing gender-basedstereotypes and bias in STEM fields by both men and women [8], [9], [10], [16]; workplacehabits that reinforce gendered work assignments [10], [13] and lack of community to provideencouragement and support throughout the program [2], [4], [10], [14], [15].The focus on self-efficacy is based on studies that have shown a direct relationship betweenretention of women in engineering programs and self-efficacy. The more women believe in theirabilities
whether the patterns identified above – and their significantrecruitment implications – could be explained by the sex/gender of the first year engineeringstudents surveyed and/or by their Millennial Generation status (born between 1981-2000).Preliminary analysis of the 2013 data suggests that the answer may be both/and rather thaneither/or. In the 2013 survey, 89.8% of female respondents indicated that they did not make theirpersonal decision to major in engineering until their sophomore, junior, or senior years in highschool. However, 69.8% of the male students provided the same answer. Secondly, whereas25.6% of the 2013 female respondents indicated that making a difference, helping, or serving asa role model for others was one of their top
survey instrument that intendsto seek broad demographic details for students in their first and last year of engineering studies. Theresulting survey instrument is informed by the Self-Determination Theory as a framework, and thesurvey has evolved through reflective in-person interviews intended to elaborate on students’ nuancedexperiences in engineering education as well as their perception of engaging with the surveyquestions. The resulting instrument, despite being broader and directive with respect to EDIAcontent, saw limited change in how the participation rate of students drops off when questions relatedto gender identity, sexual orientation, and or experience of sexism are posed. These questions areseen to act as gatekeepers, and students
, PeteKonstantopoulos participated in each lab discussion and offered suggested improvements basedon his particular classroom structure. His primary focus was on helping the graduate andundergraduate students develop the lessons and labs they would eventually use in his classroomduring the school year. In addition to consulting on lesson development he also spent some timelearning how to use Matlab; specifically the bioinformatics toolbox and he was particularlyinvolved with improving the image processing and robotic labs.Staff Reflections on Implementations of the LabsThe university students found that the implementation of the labs was a balancing act betweenkeeping students attention and engagement and making sure the lab concepts were learned. Theyfound
already displayed a passion for AI before joining the program. Both of these factors limit our findings. 2. Confirmation bias: Some survey questions used language that may have contributed to a confirmation bias — a commonly acknowledged issue with Likert surveys. 3. Retrospective study: The research presented is retrospective, hence, there was no prospective course design to act as a control experiment. The number of students in the class (n = 30) is low to draw any strong statistical conclusions. 4. Lack of diverse population of students: Although the student population represented in our paper is gender-balanced (17 girls and 13 boys), there is no representation of African Amer- ican or Native
node generationmore easily across groups (Fig 3). The identity line was included on the graph as a way tovisually compare how the amount of nodes changed for each student between the pre- and post-CMs. Points that are located above the identity line indicate that students had more nodes ontheir post-CMs than their pre-CMs, while points located below the line suggest students hadmore pre-nodes than post-nodes. Solid lines are a representation of a smoothed, nonparametrictrend line (LOESS: Locally Weighted Scatter-plot Smoothing), with each color linecorresponding to the dots of the same category. The gray areas capture the 95% confidenceintervals around each of the trend lines. The results of this test forces four questions to beaddressed
-assessment of their understanding, identity, and sense of belonging, in additionto their math background are factors associated with success in CS courses [38, 39, 40, 41].Whereas, Lewis et al. [42] emphasized that perception of the student’s abilities was a major factorin their decision to study computing.Lastly, the students might be left behind if they do not know where to ask for help. Even though itis the student’s responsibility, the environment like family, friends, advisors, and teachers plays asignificant role [12]. Our findings also highlight the need for self-advocacy but also add theimportance of having a growth mindset.Policies and Staff Support: Redmond et al. [15] discovered that early exposure to CS is one ofthe most critical factors
process of analyzing others’ designs and generating feedback would be more productive thanthe actual written feedback itself.In our analysis of student feedback processes, we also draw on the framework of culturalhistorical activity theory (Engestrom, 1999). We view the social practice of evaluating anengineering design and generating feedback as a complex activity system where learners’ actionsare influenced by existing tools (e.g., a feedback worksheet), norms (e.g., classroom rules), andcommunity history (e.g., friend relationships among a group of children). To provideconstructive and effective feedback, learners need to find a balance between these potentiallycompeting activity system elements. For example, the social dynamics between the
: Multicultural teaching in the standards based classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Song, W., Furco, A., Lopez, I. and Maruyama, G. (2017). “Examining the Relationship between Service-Learning Participation and the Educational Success of Underrepresented Students.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 24 (1), 23-37.Wilson, R. E., Bradbury, L. U., & McGlasson, M. A. (2015). “Integrating service-learning pedagogy for preservice elementary teachers’ science identity development.” Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26, 319-340.Xue, Y. and Larson, R.C. (2015), "STEM crisis or STEM surplus? Yes and yes," Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.Appendix Table A-1
contributed to the training and development of faculty in developing and evaluating various engineering curriculum and courses at UPRM, applying the outcome-based educational framework. She has also incorporated theories on social cognitive career choices and student attrition mitigation to investigate the effectiveness of institutional interventions in increasing the retention and academic success of talented engineering students from economically disadvantaged families. She’s also involved in a project that explores the relationship between the institutional policies at UPRM and faculty and graduate students’ motivation to create good relationships between advisors and advisees.Dr. Christopher Papadopoulos, University of
world; how to give good presentations; and about the dynamics of human resource management.” · “Not only did I learn a lot of information about a wide variety of subjects, but I learned how to solve problems critically and completely.”The impact of the ILTM program on our students while they are at Bucknell is exceptional. Wehope that it is at least equally relevant to their future careers, preparing them to become leadersof institutions that can take advantage of the unprecedented technological, information, andenvironmental changes occurring in the world today, and that also understand the need to actethically and responsibly to sustain a healthy balance between man and his technologies and theglobal environment
" influences the professional identity of undergraduate STEMstudents. It builds on existing research to show that students who participate in these activitiesfeel greater satisfaction and are more invested and involved in their chosen major. This suggeststhat "capitalization" acts as a key driver in connecting students to their field of study andpreparing them for future careers. Interestingly, the study also found that informal peermentoring can lead to increased participation in "capitalization" activities and improvedprofessional identity outcomes.Micari, et al., 2005 posit that undergraduates in the sciences often experience a disconnect fromtheir instructors, in that they perceive their teachers as preferring a top-down relationship asopposed to
, learning outcomes assessment, and intercultural learning. She is also the Director of the Intensive English Institute at Illinois.Aaron Daniel Lewicki, University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana I am currently a graduate student in the College of Education at the University of Illinois studying organi- zation development and strategic design. I have interests in professional identity development and social cognitive learning experiences and their impact on college students.Valeri Werpetinski, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Valeri Werpetinski is a Specialist in Education in the Center for Teaching Excellence at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Seung Won Hong, University of Illinois at Urbana
, higher education is part of a broader inequitable system. If inequities that occur beforecollege divert students from pursuing STEM degrees, changes to university programs will havelittle impact.The current work is a quantitative study focused on studying the systemic factors that impact therepresentation of women among chemical engineering graduates. We note that the granularity ofour analysis is limited by the use of institutional data. For example, we have ACT scores as acrude proxy for opportunity gaps in high school (the hypothesis being that opportunity gapswould be reflected in this metric).Following the framework of Costello et al. (2023), wehypothesize that the lack of representation of women in chemical engineering could be due to (1
2 Identity/purpose Protecting public health (through natural systems) 2 Influencer Critically thinking about policy, not blindly following 1Strong consensus around faculty definitions of “unprofessional” attributes related to narrowmindsets about project scopes and roles. An unprofessional engineer might assume they knoweverything, disregard the bounds of their own technical expertise, not value stakeholder feedbackor multi-disciplinary collaboration, and not consider interconnections between technical andsocial contexts as important factors to consider. There was moderate consensus that anunprofessional engineer would be a poor communicator with poor interpersonal skills. Beingmean or
lab and met faculty and graduate students in the department. The programculminated in a Hackathon where teams of up to five students developed an application of theirchoosing and then presented their product to other students and three judges (the professorleading the program, a teaching assistant, and the institution’s chief software engineer). Havingannounced the Hackathon at the end of the day prior to the competition, the lead professor notedthat students had – without prompting – self-selected their own teams by the start of the nextsession that essentially divided students into all-male teams and teams of women with one malestudent. Interestingly, the two teams of mostly women took first and second place, the latter ofwhich consisted of
, theymodel a “floating” teakettle sculpture, Figure 5 (Center). For this FBD, the center of mass cannotbe directly above the stream of water, so students learn that a moment reaction is needed tosupport the kettle in its floating positon. Finally, students model a pair of scissors to practicedrawing systems of FBDs with equal and opposite forces, Figure 5 (Right).Figure 5: (Left) Forks and coins balancing on a glass. (Center) “Floating” tea kettle sculpture. (Right) Scissors cutting cardboard.Week 5 – Rigid Body EquilibriumDuring this week, students perform various plank positions to determine the effect of differentdirectional forces acting on their hands and feet to explain the efforts required to performelevated hand
, similar to the role of a tutor. Participants P2 and P4 started by focusing on creating ortrying example problems with another student, with P4 making sure to note that they try to leadthe other student towards an answer without directly telling them what to do or why. P4: How I help other people is usually with a practice problem, but I’ll try to like not just to give them the answer. I’ll try to walk them through the process and my reasoning behind it. Then, if they get stuck on a certain area between those steps, I’ll try to go more in depth as to like what’s going on in that step, like why that’s happening.Then, these participants work to help that student understand it on a deeper level by connecting itto earlier
core subjects like science. Regardless of the grade level,course name, or area of expertise; engineering educators must carefully consider the tradeoffsand synergies of technology integration through the lens of broad, liberatory student outcomesthat move beyond academic achievement alone.Author positionalityEducation is political, and it can never be objective or neutral.3 Educational researchers inparticular need to interrogate our positionality4 by asking three questions. Why this? Why now?Why me? My unique identity constellation, my experiences, my values, and my context are allrelevant to this work. I am a woman with a privileged racial identity who is a graduate student ata predominantly white institution. I approach this paper from the
of each student discipline. Forexample, this graduating class only had three HVAC graduates while there were over 20architectural technology graduates. We did consider that each discipline form a disciplinarygroup to act in the fashion of a consultant to provide the IPD approach we were promoting.However, we felt there was to high a probability of students reverting to the typical segregatedapproach most prevalent today. To prevent this, we used an integrated team approach used bymany local industry consultants. We ended up with three teams, each to develop their ownbuilding. This still resulted in some teams not being staffed with certain disciplines. Forexample, two teams had no environmental personnel. However, since each of the three
enhances the learning environment in a numberof ways: i) it can assist in the design and development of personalized course content based onindividual learner needs, preferences, and feedback; ii) it can provide statistics on learnerbehaviors and preferences to help identity useful incentives to maintain engagement andopportunities for potential improvement in course delivery; and iii) it opens new communicationchannels to share information and feedback between students and teachers.Challenges and Limitations Using CRM-Augmented LMS SystemsThe first author’s forays integrating CRM capabilities into technology infrastructures began inthe 1990s, as a lead designer of CRM systems for large commercial companies. The purpose ofthese systems is to
circumstantial problems affect integration efforts yielding negativeresults [41]. A school’s climate must be stable to get students engaged in STEM fields, otherwisewe sell future generations short. A report from American College Test (ACT) Inc. emphasizesthe critical role governments have to maintain resources to support STEM programs so thatteachers can prepare students for STEM college coursework [42]. Sufficient funding is anexternal factor in forming STEM programs which can grow independent from externalchallenges.Teachers’ Adaptability and Attitude: Al Salami, et al. [43] create a model to examine teachers’attitudes towards a few elements. “…teachers need to develop positive attitudes toward teachingbeyond their disciplines, positive attitudes
engineering instructor. The recommendations fall into five categories: 1. Establish rapport with the class 2. Articulate clear learning objectives for the course 3. Structure the content and delivery to facilitate learning 4. Involve students in class time 5. Hold students accountable for learningThe lessons learned and the recommendations summarized here have led the author towardsimplementing the “classroom flip” strategy. The paper concludes with a summary of ongoingwork to evaluate the effectiveness of the flip approach.1.Establish Rapport with the ClassOftentimes students have a distorted perception of the educational process and the role of theteacher and learner in that process. They might hold the assumption that the
presentation 2History:Since 1970, diversity programs have existed in the college of engineering with a focus to recruit, retain and graduate underrepresented students in engineering. Two programs were created to support underrepresented student populations within engineering which are identified as women, ethnic minorities (African American/Black, Hispanic, Native American and Native Hawaiian) and students with marginalized identities (i.e. first generation, low socio‐economic status, etc.). Before their establishment, there was little attention from the engineering college given to recruitment efforts for underrepresented populations. In the years following
Paper ID #37921A Cultural Approach to Teaching Teamwork inUndergraduate Engineering CoursesJoanna G Burchfield Dr. Joanna Burchfield is an Assistant Professor of Communication for the College of Engineering at the University of South Florida. Her current research interests focus on the links between interpersonal and intercultural communication competency and undergraduate engineering students’ professional proficiencies and professional identity development. Specifically, Burchfield’s research explores how the application of an interpersonal communication based curriculum impacts undergraduate engineering
are engineering topics. Davis for examplequestioned whether or not ‘software engineers’ were engineers.3 Williams argues that thefuture of engineering lies in accepting this multiplicity. She argues that engineering isexpanding within its own walls rather than responding to the world outside. Toaccomplish this goal it will need a broader education that encompasses the liberal arts.The author questions what would happen if matters continue as they are? One answer isthat the number of technicians will grow considerably. Students will enter a particularroute, graduate into the field and find there is no way out. They will become specialists.The consequences for employment are profound if the specialism dies. This was aprediction that was made as
. Page 11.1372.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2006 Use of Rubrics for Assessment of a Senior Project Design CourseAbstractRubrics are becoming an essential link between instruction and assessment. This paperdescribes the application of rubrics to gauge the performance, skills, and competencies ofstudents as they complete their senior projects in the EET and CET programs at DeVryUniversity, Addison, IL.ABET’s requirement for accredited programs to implement outcomes-based models hasstimulated the growth of formalized assessment programs within the engineering andengineering technology communities.The use of rubrics as an assessment tool allows faculty to: (a) Improve studentperformance by collecting data on student skills and
solution ofproblems stated as analogies [7]. The test is designed to assess analytical thinking. The testcontent is drawn from various academic subjects. No specific prior training in any one particularacademic discipline is assumed. Positive correlations have been shown between MAT scoresand subsequent success in graduate programs in academic disciplines [7].The ACT Science Reasoning Test, the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), the CriticalThinking Assessment Test (CAT) and the Miller Analogies Test (MAT) were taken as modelsfor developing an Engineering Reasoning test. The term “Engineering Reasoning” was adoptedas more appropriate than “engineering” or “technological literacy.” Like science reasoning,engineering reasoning points to a specific