actions, the simplest being the goals are reflect deeply help individual beliefs. In this case itwould be possible for the evaluation instrument to measure static student beliefs more thanpeer’s performance. However if responses change significantly over the duration of the capstonecourse then some change to goal structures is occurring. While not providing a definitiveevaluation tool, this work can potentially lead to methods to gauge changes to an individual’sability to function of a team. Judging student efficacy on a team is also addressed by the fourthquestion. It has been recently shown that unskilled individuals are less aware of skill distinctionsin others 14.MethodologyPeer evaluations were given in a the first course of a two course
meetsthe students’ overwhelming desire to ‘attend class’ at the time and place of their choosing. Theundeniable benefit of podcasting is its ability to allow students to pause a class for reflection orto replay portions of a class for review.IntroductionFor some time now, technology-enabled teaching methods (e.g., distance learning, virtual/remotelaboratories, podcasting, and on-line, hybrid or blended courses) have promised greaterefficiencies for education delivery and improved student access, and is purported to better matchthe learning style and preference of today’s students. Few scientifically rigorous studies havebeen conducted to test the effectiveness of these methods because, most likely, the methods areevolving at a rapid pace as the
test their solution to the event’s problem. The last half-dayconsists of demonstrations and presentations of their design to their classmates and the teachingteam. In most implementations, these final presentations are also assessed, often forcommunication, to decouple the success of the physical prototype from the presentation andcourse grade. In several implementations, students have also completed some preparatory workin advance, and reflections on their experience afterwards. See Appendix A for full schedules ofMech, Tron, and ECE Days.While many of the Engineering Design Days implementations have some competitive aspect, theprizes are often merely bragging rights. The problems posed to students are carefullyconstructed to ensure most
motivational goals for learning with respect to course favoritism are reflective of a statedependence rather than a trait the students hold with respect to the way they approach learning.Thus, motivational goals of engineering students are likely to shift, some substantially, based ontheir affinity for a course. The implications for our findings are such that if students favor acourse they are more likely to engage in learning at the mastery level and seek deeperunderstanding and develop more complex knowledge of subjects based on intrinsic factors. Incontrast, if students disfavor a course they are likely to be driven by external factors, like grades,or simply passing and getting through, and are much less likely to develop and retain deep
’ professional formation, the role of reflection in engineering learning, and interpretive research methodologies in the emerging field of engineering education research. His teaching focuses on innovative approaches to introducing systems thinking and creativity into the environmental engineering program at the University of Georgia. Page 26.1184.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Narrative Inquiry in Engineering Education Research: Exploring Ways of Constructing Narratives to have Resonance with the Reader and Critical Research
Numeric Cognitive Metacognition Critical thinkingFigure 7: The Learning Domains Wheel for snapshot analysis and selection of learning domains categories to achieve realistic outcomes measurement with easier PIs classification processThe cognitive domain involves acquiring factual, conceptual knowledge dealing withremembering facts and understanding core concepts. Procedural and metacognitive knowledgedeal essentially with problem solving, which includes problem identification, critical thinking andmetacognitive reflection. Remembering facts, understanding concepts and problem solving areessential, core
forPerformance-Approach (Revised) (5 items), Performance-Avoidance (Revised) (4 items), andMastery Goal Orientations (Revised) (5 items) from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales(PALS) [10]. To measure self-regulation, we used the Metacognitive Self-Regulation scale (12items) and the Time and Environment scale (8 items) from the Motivated Strategies andLearning Questionnaire (MSLQ) [11].For qualitative data, we collected all course assignments: Reaction Papers, Reflection Papers,Strategy Documents, and Final Papers. Students wrote Reaction Papers to document theirthoughts on TEDTalks and readings that were assigned as homework. Students wrote ReflectionPapers to document their thoughts after in-class discussions and after reflecting on the
with program faculty. Finally, students created portfolios and individualdevelopment plans which would be expected to support their career development, but studentsreported that these requirements were more onerous than helpful. The D3EM program serves asan example of how impactful programs can be designed to encourage students to explore avariety of potential future career pathways, particularly beyond tenure-track faculty positions.Implications from the findings include the continued implementation of such programs andsustained efforts to change the conversation about PhD careers that reflect the job market andgraduate student interests.Introduction In the past decade, graduate engineering education has emerged as a research
poor high school preparation andrecognized and articulated a need for better preparation for the rigors of college in general andengineering specifically as factors in their decisions to leave engineering. Example responsesincluded: I think that it [high school] did not teach me in the reality of college and the difficulties accompanied by it. –Latina Did not reflect the type of work or the amount of work that one encounters in their first year of engineering.—Caucasian MaleAlthough these students do not reflect the majority of respondents, it is important for researchersand practitioners alike to give credence to such comments in order to understand the entire set offactors that may be impacting engineering
associated with adaptive outcomes.19 This scale is composed oftwo subscales: one that measures the belief that effort leads to positive outcomes (4 questions)and the other that measures the belief that effort has a negative, inverse relationship withintelligence/ability and does not contribute to positive outcomes (5 questions). A sample itemreads, “It doesn’t matter how hard you work – if you’re not smart, you won’t do well.” All theitems of the scale are listed in the Appendix. Each item of the scale was answered on a six-pointLikert scale (Strongly disagree = 1 to Strongly agree = 6). After reversing the five itemsmeasuring the inverse relationship, items were averaged to form a composite measure of effortbeliefs, with higher scores reflecting a
aboutengineering design, and engineering design pedagogical content knowledge, or a amalgamateknowledge of engineering design, students and how the two interact, was measured using ahands-on think-aloud interview tasks that asked teachers to reflect on a hypothetical studentdesign and observations of a STOMP classroom. To examine self-efficacy, an online engineeringdesign self-efficacy survey was administered to teachers enrolled in STOMP and to teachers notenrolled in STOMP as a comparison group for analysis.With the support of STOMP, it is possible that teachers develop knowledge of engineeringdesign and feel more comfortable using engineering design in the classroom. Preliminaryevaluation of this program shows that teachers feel STOMP helps them learn
communicating their design solutions through engineering reports, presentations and design reviews; 4. Improve students’ life-long learning confidence and skills, particularly meta-cognition via reflection; 5. Provide students with ample opportunities to build lasting interpersonal relationships with classmates, as well as Materials Engineering students and faculty. 6. Encourage students to consider their commitment to social justice and being a socially responsible engineer; 7. Make students aware of the importance of support courses through direct application of science and math in real-world problems.To meet these objectives several experiences are presented to the students throughout the first-year sequence. The
research questionsaddressed in this paper are: How can we best measure the global preparedness of graduate andundergraduate engineering and business students? What are the differences in preparednessbetween the two domain specific student groups? Which elements of student profiles best predictglobal preparedness within and across the two student groups? In designing both the engineering global preparedness index (EGPI) and the businessglobal preparedness index (BGPI), similar subscales of the previously described generic globalcitizenry instrument were utilized as these subscales have been closely aligned to global theory.To make the instrument domain/field specific, the individual survey items were altered withinthe subscales to reflect
. First, we conducted anexhaustive review of the literature on Millennial students, and identified three strikingcharacteristics of Millennial students (i.e., their preferences for collaborating with peers,connecting with one another, and creating for social change). Second, we followed up thisliterature review by reporting survey and focus group data collected from the select sample ofengineering graduate students. Specifically, the survey includes demographic information aboutthe cohort including birth year, gender, race/ethnicity, and semesters of teaching experience. In Page 15.948.2addition, we asked participants in the study to reflect on
varioussituations such as: lack of awareness, general disinterest for their studies, struggle interpretinghomework or assignments, difficulties when expressing themselves both written and verbally,lack of reading habits, little or no discipline for studying, little retention of acquired knowledge,and low grade reflection, independence, and/or generalization. These situations, when added tothe fact that the course requires the use of mental processes that are generally complex andrequire creativity, ingenuity, and discipline, can cause a high desertion rate and a low retentionrate. This is, consequently, reflected in the low passing rate, which is currently about 35%.Second, the teaching method being implemented by many faculty has lost sight of the fact
, Page 13.1231.2think holistically, and engage in self-directed learning. Leah Jamisen, Dean of Purdue'scollege of engineering, also calls for "reflection,"3 a critical practice of moral and ethicaldevelopment4. While many of these skills have appeared to some extent in engineeringaccreditation criteria, engineering programs traditionally focus on the science andengineering content in their curricula, rather than developing and measuring skills like“life-long learning”. In an effort to intentionally strengthen students’ development inthese other areas, we turned to the research literature to discern how the variousconstructs such as moral development or self-directed learning, are linked to controllableaspects of the learning environment
Inventory, andmethodology, the Let Me Learn® process, for characterizing the individual learning processes ofstudents. The Let Me Learn® (LML) process is a comprehensive strategy for buildingmetacognitive awareness in students. LML differs from learning styles approaches in thatlearning styles typically identify the learner with a personality type or category rather than aprofile reflecting degree of preference for multiple interacting patterns. Another key difference Page 13.1345.2is that LML emphasizes the learner’s capacity to use his/her patterns consciously andstrategically to adapt to different learning expectations, rather than merely seeking
Use of Self Assessment and Reflection in Professional Courses”7, “SustainableAssessment: Rethinking Assessment for the Learning Society”8, and “Redesigning Assessmentfor Learning Beyond Higher Education”9. The first of these provides useful information forengineering faculty who wish to use student self-assessment either as an input for assigninggrades or as a formative assessment tool to improve their courses. The latter articles are helpfulin understanding the critical role of self-assessment and reflection in the learning process.A few more recent articles were found with direct relevance to engineering education. Simon Page
of nodes on each map as well asnoting whether students chose to represent their thoughts using words or symbolic notation.Prior to the second of two regular semester exams and the final exam, research instructorsconstructed mind maps to be used as the exam keys. Faculty members teaching the same class,but not using mind maps, were asked to review the keys and state whether or not the mind mapadequately reflected those course concepts on which students would be tested. Followingediting of the mind maps to reflect faculty consensus on the concepts to be tested, the examswere administered and graded using the mind map key.Results and Observations: Phase 1 ≠ Observation 1: Students constructed their mind maps in a manner consistent with the
small informal spaces to meet in ad hoc pairs or group exercise and reflection (hotel next small groups for further discussion to a stream and bike/walking path) • time scheduled in the middle of the day for assimilation/reflection and unstructured discussion • reception to kick off the event on first evening • daily common meals (breakfast, lunch and dinner
describe this by stating, “Involvement maybe reflected in play so much that individuals relinquish basic needs for its sake; highly playfulindividuals tend to become so absorbed that their focus of awareness is narrowed andinvolvement is heighted” [6]. Narrowed focus and heightened involvement parallel a “flowstate”. The variables effecting immersion, engagement and flow were investigated by Hamari etal. in the context of educational game design [7]. They found that games which are challengingcompared to the skill level of the player led to increased engagement and immersion, inagreement with Flow theory.In their systematic review of game-based learning, Bodnar et al. found that of 191 papersconsidered, 54 included a measurement of emotional
use the well-known expectancy-value achievement model by Ecclesand Wigfield [14]. In this model, students’ self-schemata (which we frame in this study as STEMidentity) predicts their expectations of success (which we frame as students’ self-efficacy), whichpredicts their achievement-related choices (which we frame as STEM career aspirations as wellas STEM study strategies), as do the subjective values students assign a task (which we frame asperceived STEM degree utility).In this model, self-efficacy can be viewed as the extent to which students believe they arecapable of learning and understanding academic topics, as well as successfully performingacademic tasks to their own standards [15]. Career aspirations in STEM reflect the extent
Foundation under Grant No. NSF 14-32426,14-31717, and 14-31609. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in the materialsprovided are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. understand and assess the students’ STEM affect. Each component of the theoretical frameworkis described in the following paragraphs.STEM-literacy for the 21st Century is multifaceted and includes content knowledge and habits ofmind5. For the purpose of this study, we refer to STEM-literacy as the union of students’understanding of STEM content and their ability to reason critically about structures using civilengineering principles. The STEM content relevant to the Structures course was
that it is more efficient to encourage students to adapt to hybrid or onlinelearning than it is to try to design systems to adapt to each student’s learning style.From 2009 through 2012, our Industrial Engineering Technology program at SouthernPolytechnic State University converted all of our major courses to a Converged Course format.The Converged Course format can fit the needs of both traditional and non-traditional students.A 2013 ASEE conference paper17 presented the format and a very simple measure ofperformance. In 2015, Southern Polytechnic State University merged with nearby KennesawState University. This merger has not affected our Converged Course offerings. It was however,a time for reflection. It was noted that another three years
earlier, an expert may have avoided this pitfall. For a novice to avoid thestoppage, they would have to recognize the stoppage and where it fits into the adaptation ofGick’s 6 problem solving strategy. There student may have known that there must be someanswer to the self-posed question: “Why is there pressure?”. If the solution seeker was able to Page 26.703.10recognize their own stoppage it might have forced a moment of self-reflective metacognition.That self-reflection could lead to the realization that there must be some well-defined schemathat could have been used by an expert to reach the solution, thereby implying that their ownschema is
Rogers identified provide a methodfor understanding how individuals in a system may adopt innovations.This study takes place in the context of a set of long-term faculty development groups. Thegroups follow the SIMPLE model for faculty development: Sustainable, focus on Incrementalchange, include Mentoring, be People-driven, and emphasize interactive LearningEnvironments5–7. Through these groups, engineering faculty meet regularly over the course of anacademic year to learn about evidence-based instructional practices, identify innovations thatserve a need in their classes, implement these innovations, and reflect on their effects. Theinnovations selected by the participating faculty and their reflections on choosing and using theseinnovations
while it is happening instead ofthe reflective state many survey and interview methods propose. Because of the desire to capturedata within the moment, it is particularly important that the methods used are appropriate andsufficiently enticing to garner and immediate response for the population being studied. Page 24.1365.2This present study is part of larger study that examines the ways students develop conceptualunderstanding. In the current phase of the study we want to gather information aboutengineering students while they are engaged in learning practices in engineering classrooms.Specifically, we want to understand student motivation and
Agent award, the 2006 Hewlett-Packard Harriett B. Rigas Award, and the 2007 University of Washington David B. Thorud Leadership Award. She is a Fellow of the IEEE.Dr. Jim L Borgford-Parnell, University of Washington Dr. Jim Borgford-Parnell is Associate Director and Instructional Consultant at the Center for Engineering Learning & Teaching at the University of Washington. He taught design, education-research methods, and adult and higher education theory and pedagogy courses for over 30 years. He has been involved in instructional development for 18 years, and currently does both research and instructional development in engineering education. Jim has taught courses on the development of reflective teaching practices
resistance to activelearning methods and the ways faculty respond to this challenge. Since trained observers who arenot involved parties in the classroom (i.e., neither students nor instructors) are conducting ourobservations, we have had to continually reflect on the precise detection, perception, recognition,and judgment of certain events to ensure our observations are accurately capturing what isoccurring in the classroom. This experience is much different than training observers to obtaininter-rater agreement, used often by researchers to ensure that observations are reliable acrossmany different observers. Instead, we have examined ways in which we can confirm the eventswe are recording are a valid depiction of classroom behaviors.In this paper
. A description of how strategies areidentified using student’s written work and audio reflections will be included to promote futurework in problem solving research.Theoretical FrameworksProblem Solving StrategiesAlthough there are many frameworks in place for problem solving strategies, for the context ofsophomore and junior level engineering students we selected Nickerson’s framework as the mostapplicable7. Previous research indicates that Nickerson’s framework of problem solvingstrategies are applicable to undergraduate engineering students’ problem solving approaches8.Nickerson divides problem solving strategies into nine types: subgoaling, working backwards,hill climbing, means-end analysis, forward chaining, considering analogous