Paper ID #47038BOARD #122: Using Internships as Means for Indirect Assessment of ABETCriteria 3 ”1-7” Student OutcomesDr. Robert B Bass, Portland State University Robert Bass, Ph.D. is an associate professor in the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering at Portland State University. His research focuses on electrical power systems, particularly distributed energy resources. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Work In Progress: Using Internships as Means for Indirect Assessment of ABET Criteria 3 “1-7” Student OutcomesMotivationThe Electrical &
-classroom engineering project experiences through student organizations andcompetitions have been offered at universities across the world for many decades. Whileinstructor-led “traditional” teaching approach in engineering classrooms is essential fordeveloping analytical rigor among students, it may be insufficient for preparing them to solvecomplicated socio-technical problems that engineers often face in the real world [1]. As a result,project experience in college helps to develop systems-level thinking abilities that engineers needto solve open-ended problems [1]. Overall, this type of project experience has led to a higherself-perception of development of soft skills such as problem solving, creativity, critical thinking,integrity, teamwork
education requirements there is still work to be done toconnect research efforts to practice. This paper contributes to the literature by synthesizingpreviously conducted research and providing recommendations for future research and practiceto improve cooperative education. Specifically, through this literature review we explore two keyquestions: 1. What major trends exist in the literature published through the American Society of Engineering Education on the topic of co-ops and cooperative education? 2. Based on the published literature, what opportunities exist for further exploration of co- ops and cooperative education?Methods To conduct this literature review, we leveraged an evidence-based framework forconducting
Engineering Sciences from Dartmouth College, and PhD in Mecha ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Work-In-Progress: Exploring Knowledge, Skills, Attributes and Technical Learning in a Work-Integrated Learning Engineering ProgramIntroduction Throughout the history of engineering education there have been continued calls for theneed to educate and prepare engineering students for the “future of work” [1]. According toscholars, these calls can be traced back to the 1918 Mann Report [2] and continue through therecent Transforming Undergraduate Education in Engineering reports [3]-[6]. Additionally, therehave been tensions between academia and industry on competency development and what itmeans
group had a higherpercentage of students that earned a PhD. A REU site established in 2017 with the goal of broadeningparticipation of URM groups in engineering had a target of 60% of students coming from limited research 1 [Work in Progress] Broadening Participation and Building Students’ Self-Efficacy Through Experiential Learning Undergraduate Research Experiences focused on STEM Research for Social Changeopportunity institutions, 50% coming from URM groups in engineering (based on gender, ethnicity andrace), and at least 40% first-generation students. During the first 5 years of the program, 67% ofparticipants were female, 38% were a
engineering using a Mastery-Based assessment model and design courses and first-year multidisciplinary courses.Rebecca Holcombe ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025Exploring Engineering Students’ Learning Experiences After Participating in a Mastery- and Project-Based Learning InterventionIntroduction As calls have increased to promote active learning, project-based learning has beenrecommended as an experiential pedagogical methodology in engineering education to supportthe development of real-world skills among students [1]. Additionally, mastery-based assessmenthas emerged as a grading approach to effectively assess learning in engineering classrooms [2]and for students to reframe
their paid laboratory work. Development of this pathway also allows for standardization of student training andassessment of testing skills, making collected data quality more consistent. Upon completing thebadges and the overall pathway, students gain digitally curated credentials showing demonstratedmastery of mechanical testing concepts and skills, which can be presented to their professionalsupervisors at the ASCC and at their future employers. These pathways can also be used forworkforce development and continuing education, to update current worker skills and knowledgein a directed and efficient manner.1. Introduction and Objectives As advanced manufacturing continues to mature and evolve, the development of effectivetools
profession. Previous research has explored the use of artifact elicitation as a qualitative researchmethod in engineering education, building on the principles of photo elicitation, where visualprompts are used to evoke more profound, reflective responses [1]. This method allows for morecomprehensive insights than traditional semi-structured interviews, connecting participants'creations to their personal experiences. Artifact elicitation, similar to informational interviews,enables students to connect their theoretical knowledge to real-world contexts. This approachcould provide a framework for understanding how student interactions, such as informationalinterviews, might elicit more profound reflections and personal insights. Biases
creating userstories–short and simple product feature descriptions written from the user’s perspective–for theproduct they would later develop in the final project. The final phase of the study leverages thefinal project, conducted within the Scrum framework, where user stories are implemented asproduct increments.IntroductionAgile methodologies are transforming how today’s products are developed, delivered andupdated, particularly in dynamic and innovation-driven industries [1, 2]. In contrast to Waterfallmethodologies, a traditional sequential project management approach where each phase must becompleted before moving on to the next, Agile methodologies prioritize incremental and iterativedevelopment, flexibility, and collaboration, allowing for
student’s internship, they are usually assigned a mentor tohelp guide them through their day-to-day job responsibilities. Mentors may be academic mentorswho are faculty from the student’s academic institution, or industry mentors who are employeesfrom the company where the student chooses to intern. For mentors themselves, mentoring astudent intern could serve as an opportunity to help them gain insight into their own careers andhow they have evolved since entering the workforce [1].Relevant research on mentor experiences in engineering internships primarily focuses onacademic mentors as opposed to industry mentors [2]-[4]. The research that focuses on industrymentors’ perspectives on engineering internships is also limited in comparing students
, self-efficacy, opportunities for professionaldevelopment, academic support etc. have significant influence on retention in Science, Technology,Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) as well as increases to the STEM workforce[1], [2]. These factors havebeen found especially compounding in historically underrepresented groups in STEM fields, includingEngineering[3]. Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) internship programs partner with nationallaboratories, principal investigators (PI’s), graduate mentors and STEM student groups to assess, explore andexamine science, technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) topics. Such a program is curatedintentionally to retain and increase the STEM workforce by addressing the challenges faced by STEM
Based Learning ProgramIntroductionIn this research-track paper, we seek to identify the relationship between engineering identity andbelonging and neurodiversity in a co-op based program. Neurodivergent characteristics, such asattention to detail, creativity, and pattern recognition, align well with careers in STEM (Science,Technology, Engineering, Mathematics), yet retention of neurodivergent students withinengineering programs is lower than neurotypical students [1]. Neurodivergent students whograduate or attempt to enter the workforce in a STEM discipline face bias and decreased successrates in job attainment after graduation [2]. By exploring neurodiverse engineering students’engineering identity and sense of belonging in a co-op based
Graduate education in engineering often requires graduate students to balance multipleroles that shape their academic and professional identities. Indeed, in addition to developing theirresearch skills, graduate students are often asked to assume teaching and mentorshipresponsibilities. These responsibilities are seen as opportunities that can significantly contribute tothe student’s personal and professional growth [1]. However, these roles are sometimes viewed assecondary when compared to their research within the academic environment, reflecting a broadertendency to prioritize the latter over teaching in STEM opportunities/programs [2]. This limitationhas been reported to hinder the development of pedagogical skills in graduate students [3
upon a previous offering from 2018within Texas A&M University’sCollege of Engineering (COE) targeting juniors and seniors. The curriculum was purposefullydesigned to include experiential learning criteria [1, 2, 3, 4] as well as metacognitive educationalstrategies [5, 6, 7, 8, 9] that have been long proven to offer enhanced academic experiences forundergraduate engineering students. This course targeted second-year students, offering a semi-rigorous, two (2) credit-hour course to prepare students for upper-division coursework and industryinternships. Often, in engineering education, second-year students aren’t deliberately targeted andare vulnerable to falling through retention gaps [10, 11 12, 13, 14, 15]. Therefore, targeting second-year
locations around the world working in full-time co-op positions or research projectswhile simultaneously completing the final two years of a bachelor’s degree as full-time students.The aim of this paper is twofold: (1) to give the background and frame the positions of bothfacilitators and professors, emphasizing their complementary roles, and (2) to analyze responsesfrom students, professors, directors, and facilitators to determine what their perception is of theinteraction and collaboration of these positions. This is because a support model like this is thefirst of its kind and is unique, not found in the same capacity elsewhere in the world of academia.Based on its history of success, similar models are beginning to be implemented at
compared to traditionalteaching methods (Lee et al., 2008).These learning theories point to six common elements that have pedagogical implications thatwill be detailed later: (1) Active Construction of Knowledge: most theories emphasize thatlearners actively construct meaning rather than passively receive information. (2) ContextImportance: most theories (Situated Learning, Communities of Practice, Authentic Learning,Ecological Systems) emphasize the importance of authentic contexts. (3) Reflection Component:many theories highlight reflection as crucial to transforming experience into learning. (4) SocialDimension: most theories emphasize the social nature of learning. (5) Application Focus: thesetheories value the application of knowledge in
experimentation affect the formation of different skills of engineering students in the direction ofchip design and manufacturing.Key Words: kolb’s learning theory; experiential learning spiral model; practical higher-order cognitiveskillsINTRODUCTIONEngineers, entrusted by the public, are required to apply their professional knowledge and skills to engagein practice, design, and innovation, thereby creating engineering solutions to address societal needs [1].They participate in the application, operation, design, and development of projects and must possesshigher-order cognitive skills, such as analysis, evaluation, and creativity [2], [3], [4], [5]. However,current educational models in engineering education have limited effectiveness in cultivating
design) class is a required course for first year civilengineering majors and is the first class they take inside of the civil engineering departmentduring the 4-year curriculum. The course consists of three 50-minute classroom lessons and one165-minute laboratory lesson per week over a 14-week semester. This course becomes thestudents first impression of evaluating the department’s competence and character. The coursestrives to provide fundamental experiences such as site analysis, surveying tasks, and Autodesk®Civil 3D® (Civil 3D®) skills [1]. Currently, portions of the class do not serve students well.These learning modules are confusing and complicated. Compounding this issue is the annualincrease in the size of Autodesk’s Civil 3D
shown in Figure 1. These elements, such as career goals, evolve across one’slifespan and are shaped by personal and social factors (Richardson & Watt, 2018). As one’s self-efficacy changes, one's outcome expectations and goals will also change, affecting performance.Additionally, outcome expectations may change independently of self-efficacy, changing one’sgoals and affecting performance. The process repeats in a cycle in which one’s performanceattainment will become a past experience, impacting self-efficacy and outcome expectations,which then impacts future performance (Lent, 2002).Figure 1: Adapted subset of SCCT performance model from Lent (2002).Research DesignThis study adopts a phenomenological research design to explore engineering
categorized by Murray [1] inareas such as: • Adaptation: adjustment to the organizational culture • Collaboration: effective partnership with others • Communication: clear expression of ideas, thoughts, and solutions • Technical competence: knowledge about the technical domain • Context: knowledge about the organization • Maturation: general professional capabilities and • Socialization: connection with others for a purposeMore recently, Baukal, Stokeld and Thurman [2] highlighted the need for improved skills ininterviewing, project management, critical thinking, teamwork, communication, and lifelonglearning. While curricula have been evolving to close the professional skills gap for engineeringgraduates [3], there is still work
skills, even though employers deem them critical to the success of new employees[1]. Additionally, students may not know the best way to communicate these skills to employersin interviews or other interactions, and may have limited mechanisms to verify their effort andskill development in these areas.At a large public university such as the University of Michigan, the professional competenciesneeded by students vary depending on their field of study, so any tool used campus-wide needsto be flexible to the requirements of the different units. At the same time, a single tool used by allis easier for the university to support, and has the advantage of building brand recognition withboth employers and students. Additionally, because various units
(McNamera 2012). Methodology A three-prong approach was taken to understand the various stakeholders surrounding theBridge Experience and its relation to IDPro. This included: 1) attending and presenting IDPro asan avenue for students to satisfy the Bridge Experience requirement, at a meeting with College ofEngineering Leadership involving Assistant Department Heads, 2) networking with and meetingwith academic program coordinators to see where IDPro can fit in their academic plans forstudents, and 3) creating stakeholder maps/diagrams to determine the connections betweenvarious stakeholders, IDPro and the Bridge Experience. One of the components behind understanding how IDPro can fit within the
students also participated in the formal mentoringprogram with an experienced researcher as their faculty mentor and a network of mentors acrossthe NHERI sites.Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from NSF NHERI REU student participantsthrough pre-program and post-program assessments. These assessments were developed from thegoals of the NHERI REU program which include to (1) provide meaningful research experiencesto undergraduate students, (2) provide mentorship from an experienced faculty researcher, and(3) foster a community of researchers in natural hazards engineering research. This paper delvesdeeply into the mentoring experiences of students, highlighting the structure of the mentoringprogram and the outcomes from the students