environments with the goal of improving learning opportunities for students and equipping faculty with the knowledge and skills necessary to create such opportunities. One of the founding faculty at Olin Col- lege, Dr. Zastavker has been engaged in development and implementation of project-based experiences in fields ranging from science to engineering and design to social sciences (e.g., Critical Reflective Writing; Teaching and Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering, etc.) All of these activities share a common goal of creating curricular and pedagogical structures as well as academic cultures that facilitate students’ interests, motivation, and desire to persist in engineering. Through this work, outreach, and
has published over 55 peer-reviewed or invited papers and is the recipient of numerous teaching and advising awards including the WPI Trustees’ Awards for Outstanding Teaching and for Outstanding Advising. From 2004 to 2010 he served as a Senior Science Fellow of the Association of American Colleges and Universities.Prof. Kent J Rissmiller, Worcester Polytechnic Institute Associate Dean, Interdisciplinary and Global Studies Associate Professor, Social Science and Policy Stud- ies Page 23.874.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2013 Long-Term
suggests that incorporating experiential learningactivities into MOOCs may provide another way to promote commitment and retention, but inpractice, the job is not an easy one. MOOCs are generally described as being one of two types:cMOOCs or xMOOCs17. In general, cMOOCs adopt a connectivist learning approach and focuson knowledge co-creation by leveraging social media and peer interaction, while xMOOCs takea behaviorist learning approach and focus on more traditional interaction with fixed content,centralized discussion forums, and automated or peer-graded evaluation. The MOOC studiedhere was designed as a combined cMOOC/xMOOC with both connectivist and behavioristcharacteristics. Translating experiential learning activities to fit either type of
. Traditional assessments didnot encourage the development of ill-structured problem solving skills. In order to assessproblem solving skills, Woods and his colleagues devised questions that enable students todisplay the processes they use to solve problems.17 They also made evaluations of attitude andskill towards lifelong learning. Rustin assessed his engineering students by allowing theexamination to be taken during a period of several days to condition his students to be dependenton the library.19 Since there is usually no single preferred solution, Rustin evaluated his studentsin detail, including the reasonableness of assumptions and value judgments made. In terms ofdifficulties in writing examination questions, Carter had made significant
supervisors, peers, subordinates, clients, and others. With support from National ScienceFoundation grant EEC #1158728, the present study used a newly developed online deliverysystem to provide personalized multisource feedback to a sample of 206 undergraduate STEMstudents in a science and technology problem-solving course. PersonalityPad.org is anautomated multisource feedback platform that allows users to generate their own personalizedmultisource feedback. This process incorporates prevalent 360-degree feedback strategies and“best practices” for effective feedback administration. A longitudinal experiment within aninterventional framework evaluated the hypothesis that multisource conscientiousness feedbackwould provoke goal-directedness and
teaches undergraduate courses in engineering & society, and graduate courses in engineering education. Lisa completed an Undergraduate Degree in Environmental Science at the University of Guelph, and a Master’s Degree in Curriculum Studies at the University of Toronto. Her current doctoral research focuses on teaching and learning in engineering with an emphasis on the teaching of STSE (Science, Technology, Society and the Environment). She has also conducted research on science teacher education, the first year university experience, the assessment of undergraduate research experiences, peer teaching and gender issues in science and engineering
the development, implementation, and assessment of model-eliciting activities with realistic engineering contexts.Matthew Verleger, Purdue University Matthew Verleger is a doctoral candidate in the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. He received his B.S. in Computer Engineering and his M.S. in Agricultural and Biological Engineering, both from Purdue University. His research interests are on how students develop mathematical modeling skills through the use of model-eliciting activities and peer review as a pedagogical tool.Judith Zawojewski, Illinois Institute of Technology Judith Zawojewski is an Associate Professor of Mathematics and Science Education at Illinois
Feminist Research in Engineering Education (FREE, formerly RIFE, group), whose diverse projects and group members are described at feministengineering.org. She received a CAREER award in 2010 and a PECASE award in 2012 for her project researching the stories of undergraduate engineering women and men of color and white women. She received ASEE-ERM’s best paper award for her CAREER research, and the Denice Denton Emerging Leader award from the Anita Borg Institute, both in 2013. She helped found, fund, and grow the PEER Collaborative, a peer mentoring group of early career and re- cently tenured faculty and research staff primarily evaluated based on their engineering education research productivity. She can be contacted
difficulties with online writing tools” [7, p. 3].Computer Science faculty were surveyed in June 2020 by Bizot et al [8]. 450 faculty respondedto the survey which had been distributed to the Computing Research Association (CRA) and theACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) mailing lists. Thefaculty reported that they changed their pedagogical techniques after the move online. Beforemoving online, 250 faculty had used active learning in their classes. After moving online, 34.9%discontinued active learning, 43.4% made minor changes and 21.3% made significant changes.Collaborative projects and labs were also impacted by the move online. Of the 180 faculty whoused collaborative projects, 13.9% discontinued them, 71.7% made
○ I can communicate design work in writing. ○ I can communicate design work verbally. ○ I can communicate design work graphically. ● Management and Planning ○ I can monitor progress toward team goals. ○ I can divide a project into manageable components or tasks.Table 4: Engineering Identity and Belonging Survey Category Survey Item Definition ● I understand what it means to be an engineer. Interest ● I enjoy learning engineering. ● I am interested in learning more about engineering. ● I find fulfillment in doing engineering. Recognition
advantage of opportunities to work in 6.20 1.87 *** engineering-related internships or co-op jobs. Answer "not applicable" if you have not had any such opportunity to take advantage of.PART4 I have taken advantage of opportunities to participate in 2.63 .88 .00 study groups with my engineering peers. Page 13.522.14Code Indicator Stem Estimate S.E. pPART5 I have taken advantage of opportunities to participate in 2.40 .82 .00 review sessions conducted by an instructor in at least one course related to my engineering
versus global). Along each of these dimensions, students are categorized as having amild, moderate, or strong preference in each of these four learning style scales.This study takes place in a mid-size, public university in the western United States. The samplefor this study includes mechanical engineering undergraduate students across four sections of arequired programming course in MATLAB, taught by the same instructor. These students wereprovided the Index of Learning Styles at the beginning of the semester. Students wereadministered a weekly quiz to assess their ability to write code, but construction of thisassessment varies by section to favor different preferences of one of the four Felder-Solomanlearning style dimensions. Performance on
each. During the first brainstorm session,students were allowed to discuss with each other topics within the local wicked problem thatinterested them. A follow up discussion was facilitated by the teaching assistants and generalresearch topics were then established by the TAs based on student interests. Students alsoidentified deliverables they would like to see for this project, and these were then incorporatedinto the syllabus.At the second brainstorming session students completed personalized index cards stating theirresearch interests with the class project and then worked for the first time with peers on theirselected group project. In groups of 3 to 8, they shared ideas with each other on the topicssummarized by the TAs and wrote these
maximum) In-class Lecture, students takes Lecture using KACIE video (5-15 min.) notes, solve problems Each student work on his/her KACIE based on white board sheet developed for EACH of the demos concepts Mandatory submission of sheets Peer discussions allowed Teacher work with individuals on demand Repeated view of video lectures
of three versions of a survey, each in adifferent language, with three different cultural groups.6 Thematic analysis was used to identifyconceptual, contextual, and semantic issues with the survey implementation with samples fromthe three distinct cultural groups. These findings were evaluated holistically with quantitativefactor analysis and item analysis to evaluate and improve specific survey items.Another approach was identified by Onwuegbuzie, Bustamante, and Nelson.7 In their ten-stepInstrument Development and Construct Validation framework, they discussed a number ofapproaches to writing survey items (e.g. literature review, Delphi study, personal reflection).These authors utilized both quantitative and qualitative data to validate
. Recognition itemsincluded “my advisor sees me as an engineer,” and “my peers view me as an engineer.” Onepossible reason for this finding is that graduate students may not view the opinions of faculty andpeers as related. Another potential reason is that they do not need to rely as much on theirperceptions of the opinions of others. Unlike undergraduates, graduate students may have otheraccomplishments or validations that serve as recognition, including engineering bachelor’s ormaster’s degrees, full-time work experience, or licenses. Recognition items may need to bemodified and added in order to consider graduate students’ unique acknowledgements such asobtaining a bachelor’s degree in engineering or being a co-author on a published peer
faculty at Rowan University since 1998 and is currently Professor and President’s Fellow. She was Chair of Civil and Environmental Engineering until very recently. Under her leadership, the Civil and Environmental Engineering Program had seen considerable growth in student and faculty numbers. Her area of expertise is in micro-geomechanics and has published over 100 peer reviewed conference and journal papers including several papers on engineering education and the unique undergraduate curriculum at Rowan University, especially the Engineering Clinics. She has been involved in various outreach activities to recruit more women and minorities into engineering and is Program Chair Elect of the Women in Engineering
knowledge is critical to thedevelopment of the course curriculum and the focus that teachers give to specific topics coveredthroughout the course.Social Recognition Page 15.1269.7Finally, social recognition has historically played an important part in identifying expert teachersfor study.6 For example, awards are often given to teachers that have been recognized by thecommunity as successful. Recognition can also take the form of grants or monetary funds orpublication of writings. Publications, in particular, represent a form of teaching scholarshipwhere teachers are recognized as experts when reports of their teaching practices are submittedto
formulatingquestions and hypotheses, justifying theories and methods, and arguing the relevance andsignificance of results. Innovative thinking is meaningless without the ability to communicate anidea in a meaningful way. Future innovators and entrepreneurs must be armed with the skills tocommunicate with their colleagues and peers as well as with decision-makers if they are topromote their work effectively.Given the growing societal impacts of scientific research, STEM practitioners have aresponsibility to communicate to the general public and enhance understanding of science [3],[4]. Public skepticism is increasingly directed at science based issues appearing to conflict withsome public values or religious beliefs. Targeted training of STEM students in
naturalized trajectory of success in mathematics courses. This iswhere we find Peter. Calculus 1, a single-semester class on the flowchart, took him foursemesters. Peter has been at State U. for three years according to calendar time(accumulating student debt during this time), but according to “flowchart time” he is stillin his first year. Denied progress along the engineering flowchart, Peter finds himselftaking classes in the College of Arts and Sciences. Taking these classes does more thanadd to the amount of time and money Peter has given State University; it also distanceshim from peers in the College of Engineering while simultaneously pushing him outsidethe boundaries of the trajectory that the flowchart normalizes and legitimizes.Even inside
mixed section is featured - else themixing is done in the discussion without a dedicated heading. Templates for writing dissertationsand journal articles recommend the divided format [see 30]. This reporting approach often alignswith how the design was conducted, e.g., a quantitative phase followed by a qualitative phase ortwo phases concurrently, but more integrated designs with multiple stages are not easily splitcleanly between quantitative and qualitative results.Some designs have transgressed the separate quantitative and qualitative results sections andinstead framed their results from their themes. Fogg-Rogers, Lewis, and Edmonds [34] in theEuropean Journal of Engineering Education and Crede and Borrego [35] in the Journal ofEngineering
, many researchers and educators areinvestigating anxiety interventions and their effects on student outcomes in science andengineering courses to improve student outcomes for underrepresented groups in STEM[12–15].For instance, Harris et al. tested the effectiveness of test anxiety interventions such as expressivewriting and reappraising physiological arousal on exam performance [13]. They found that theseinterventions, though they did not change the level of self-reported test anxiety in students, didincrease exam performance. Other studies have similarly shown that expressive writing exercisescan be effective in increasing cognitive abilities, particularly when performing problems requiringa high working memory [14]. Many other studies have
Podcasts Questionnaire” (SSEPQ), as proposed by[12], was used. The questionnaire, validated by its creators, consisted of 10 Likert-type items thatevaluate student's perception regarding learning podcasts and their content adequacy, ease of use,usefulness and benefits (See Appendix). This SSEPQ questionnaire, having five response optionsranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, was distributed by email to students toanswer. In addition to the SSEPQ questionnaire itself, students were invited to freely write downany further comments in an open-ended format.In order to further inquire upon students' perception regarding the general working strategyproposed (FC + P strategy), a survey known as “Student Response to Instructional Practices
understandings of the ABET skills and how they maybe expressed in student team performance, set program outcomes or performance benchmarks,apply results to teaching improvements, and track longitudinal growth. It also offers richopportunities for faculty development and collaboration with industry professionals. Thecurricular debrief method can also be used as a teaching tool, so that students can practice theirABET professional skills in just one class period, gaining insight from faculty and peer feedback.The Scoring Tool: Guide to Assessing ABET Professional SkillsFirst, a rubric to be used as the rating tool was developed for the ABET professional skills.“Rubrics are scoring guides that describe the various levels of student performance for a
including the process of identifying the problem, designing the data collection method to address the problem, analyzing the results and making decisions. A low level response to this simply identified experimental design as an outcome. Situated Nature Place the laboratory experiment in the context of their future professional environments or scenarios. Communication/Documentation Develop written and oral communication skills and practice report (Comm/Doc). writing, including reporting results to clients
lab 0 1 Project review grading with the rubrics 2 5 Contrast between student vs. professional culture 2 8 Giving constructive feedback 5 9 Too little time in lab to complete a project 0 15 Writing a team contract 0 20Table 6. Tallies of curricular factors ranked as “most helpful 3” or “least helpful 3” fordeveloping professional teamwork. Effect of Teammate’s Actions on the Professional Teamwork Most Positive
and uses of IPA. All of the authors of this study have proposed and utilized IPAas a methodology in nationally funded research studies, dissertations, or both. As such, all ofthe authors have found and defended the value of IPA for understanding a topic of interest inengineering education. In writing this work the authors hope to promote the use of IPA, whileproviding a transparent dialogue related to the critique of methodological changes. Given thegoal of promoting this methodology, the authors may not evaluate the methodological changesto the same level as someone who is critical or skeptical of the methodology. While theauthors attempt to set this aside and provide a critique grounded in the traditions of IPA, thepositionality of the
framework such as the use of summerbridge programs, fall outside of the purview of instructional strategies. Furthermore, manystrategies related to peer interaction were combined into a single active learning category, andtraditional strategies such as the use of lecture or guided practice, not often touted by reformists,are not included. For the current study, Borrego and colleagues (2010) innovative instructioncategories were modified to examine student perceptions of faculty instructional strategies. Toadapt Borrego and colleagues (2010) framework, categories that were not directly related toinstructional strategies (for example, implementing summer bridge programs) were removed.Category names and descriptions were also modified to align with
, is tainted by prevalent acts that are considered unethical,” adding that it is “tainted byillegal acts”2.As a part of the effort to curb unethical behavior, the mandate of construction related accreditingbodies have instituted requirements for literacy of ethics in the curriculum. The AmericanCouncil for Construction Education (ACCE) requires ethics integration in constructioncurriculum (at least 1 semester hour). The ACCE also states: In addition, oral presentation, business writing, and ethics must be integrated throughout the construction-specific curriculum. Example courses in this division include: Human relations, psychology, sociology, social science, literature, history, philosophy, art, language, political