Paper ID #18261Exploring School-to-work Transitions through Reflective JournalingMr. Ben David Lutz, Virginia Tech Ben Lutz is a PhD student in the Department of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech. His research in- terests include innovative pedagogies in engineering design, exploring student experiences within design settings, school-to-work transitions for new engineers, and efforts for inclusion and diversity within en- gineering. His current work explores how students describe their own learning in engineering design and how that learning supports transfer of learning from school into professional practice as well
Paper ID #17613Educational Support through the Career Life-Span of Professional WorkingAdult Learners: An Integrative Theoretical and Experiential Reflection fromthe Learner’s PerspectiveDr. Mitchell L Springer PMP, SPHR, Purdue University, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Dr. Mitchell L. Springer PMP, SPHR, SHRM-SCP Dr. Springer currently serves as an Executive Director for Purdue University’s Polytechnic Institute lo- cated in West Lafayette, Indiana. He has over 35 years of theoretical and Defense industry-based practical experience from four disciplines: Software Engineering, Systems Engineering, Program Management
industry (see Figure 1 forbreakdown of participants’ organization types). Most responses (85%) were received from theWest/Mid-West region of the United States, and the results presented in this work reflects thesefindings. The answers were considered as those from potential participants indicating theirpersonal preferences on different aspects of the program. In this survey, participants were askedseveral questions relating to professional development for engineering educators in college andindustry. 2-year academic Non-profit institution, organization 89
a host of instructional strategies andeducators have been significantly lagging in using them[1]. In fact, Henderson and Dancy [7] arguethat the improvement in engineering education lies not in finding more effective instructionalstrategies but in using the proven strategies.This paper describes our attempt to introduce a few RBIS in a rural Indian engineering college.We introduced simple strategies such as using audio-visuals, think-pair-share, formative feedback,problem-based learning in lab sessions, and project-based learning in design courses in a one-dayworkshop. Eighty faculty members, in two batches, attended the workshop, which itself used manyof the above RBIS. The participating faculty members reflected on the strategies in
of active learning practices in the classroom. As part of the analysis, welooked at beliefs about student-centered learning strategies and at classroom practices at twoseparate times (one at the beginning of the semester, or start of the professional developmentseries, and one at the end of the semester when the professional development series was ending).The study was framed by the following research question: To what extent are faculty beliefs about student-centered strategies reflected in instruction practices in the undergraduate engineering classroom?Review of Related ResearchStudent-Centered Teaching in Engineering EducationStudent-centered teaching strategies address key course concepts and skills in an engaging
, Materials, and Practice; 6. Motivation Theory and Content Relevance andFuture Value to Students; 7. Two-Way Formative Feedback and Reflective Practice by Students andInstructors; 8. Web-Enabled Tools and Resources for More Effective and Efficient Teaching andLearning; 9. Planning for Classroom Innovation in an Upcoming Course”1. Assessment of theimplementation of these principles is conducted through the Reformed-Teaching ObservationProtocol (RTOP), which is an instrument “designed to constructively critique details of classroompractice,” such as cooperative learning and interactive engagement3. This instrument allows for ameasure of effectiveness and faculty fidelity to student-centered teaching in the classroom. TheRTOP evaluation assesses the
groups. We found no significant differences acrossQuestions 1 and 4.Conclusions and ImplicationsOur data shows that participation in the Teaching Circle positively improves student evaluationscores for some questions, and it significantly improves them in some cases. In 5 of the 12questions analyzed, the intervention group showed positive improvement after participated in theTeaching Circle (Table 3). From our first analysis using linear regression, while the controlgroup had significantly decreasing scores before and after term 0 for two questions (Questions 15and 23), the intervention group did not reflect this decreasing trend in scores. In one other case,the Intervention After scores were significantly greater than those of the Control After
proper measurement that we can make required changes to anexisting process in order to increase either efficiency or effectiveness. Proper measurementrequires that we identify sufficient measurement points throughout our process, and, that thesemeasurement points are reflective of how the process is running.One can also choose too many measurement points. Too many points can lead to excessivemeasurement so that all that is accomplished is taking measurements.Defining the Distance Education ProcessDistance education as a process, among other activities, includes an experiential understandingand continuing market-based exploration of target-rich environments, distance deliverymediums, adaptive learning, the use of predictive analytics and
theworkshop into practice, while diving deeper into the pedagogy of online teaching. The maindeliverable at the conclusion of the online course was a reflective action plan that would be usedto kick off the formal instructional design consulting hours. Once participants concluded all threephases of the Institute, they were awarded a stipend of $1,500 for their successful completion.Participation in the first Faculty Institute was solicited through targeted invites to facultyteaching online sections that were well-respected within their departments and across campus.Included in the inaugural Institute were Program Directors, an Associate Department Head, theDirector of our teaching center, and the Chair of the Faculty Senate. It was hoped that
, Writing and Learning Disabilities Vol. 6, pp. 223-247.9. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K.A. (1991), “Active Learning Cooperation in the College Classroom,”Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.10. Fairhurst, A.M., & Fairhurst, L.L. (1995), “Effective Teaching, Effective Learning,” Palo Alto, CA: Davies-black Publishing11. Dale, E. (1969), “Audiovisual Methods in Teaching,” (3rd ed.), New York: Dryden Press.12. Wankat, P.H. (1999), “Reflective Analysis of Student Learning in a Sophomore Engineering Course,” Journal ofEngineering Education, Vol.88, (no.2), 195 -203.13. Finelli, C., Klinger, A., & Budny, D.D. (2001), “Strategies for Improving the Classroom Environment,” Journalof Engineering Education, Vol 90, (no.4), pp. 491