learning. Original PLTL workshops have six essential components26: (1) ThePLTL workshop is integral to the course; (2) faculty and peer leaders work together to prepareworkshops and train peer leaders; (3) peer leaders are well trained; (4) workshop materials arechallenging and at an appropriate level; (5) organizational arrangements promote learning; and(6) the department administration encourages innovative teaching. In the standard setting, a peerleader works with six to eight students during weekly workshop sessions. The peer leader meetswith the same students each week.Our approach to PLTL is modeled after a successful HP-funded project in the UTEP Departmentof Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) that targeted a gatekeeper course in the
different aspects of active/real-world learning style preferences by adoptingone of two approaches: 1) a structured and engaging classroom lecture environment with on-paper, problem-solving exercises, or 2) a hands-on, kinesthetically-active laboratory environmentwith integrated on-paper, problem-solving exercises. Pre- and post-SLO assessments revealedthat students learned from both types of SLOs. Analysis of course exam grades revealed thatstudents who attended one type of SLO did not consistently outperform students who attendedthe other type of SLO. Students whose preferences for sensory learning (as indicated by theirscores on the Index of Learning Styles) were most strongly matched by the style of their SLOgroup (i.e., strongest sensory
require a transformational change in how we prepare our learners across all ages. Therefore, fundamental research that describes the knowledge, skills, and attitudes learners’ bring to their engineering education that influences what they learn as well as how students develop the ability to learn, think, innovate, and problem solve like an engineer will challenge current assumptions about how we teach and assess for understanding. Learning to engineer will require three major strands of inquiry that centers on understanding: 1) learners acquisition, comprehension, and synthesis of domain specific knowledge to achieve contextual goals; 2) the learning progressions of learners and their
Program (IPRO) at Illinois Institute of Technology is aproject-based experiential learning experience with the primary learning objectives of [1]strengthening multidisciplinary teamwork skills, [2] improving communication skills, [3]learning project management, and [4] recognizing ethical behavior. In the last four yearswe have developed a multipart assessment system for the purposes of measuring ourachievement of these and other IPRO learning objectives. In this paper we will discusshow we measure learning objectives attainment at the project team level and theinconsistencies in those measures that prompted us to better define our learningobjectives, and align our assessment measurement instruments with these newdefinitions. We conducted rank
public has periodically engaged in these discussions, those who fundhigher education – state and federal government, business and industry, and philanthropicfoundations – have wielded the greatest influence.1 Financial accountability is a dimension ofthese concerns, but the evaluation and assessment of educational effectiveness has emerged overthe past two decades as an important corollary.The current period of emphasis on accountability in the U.S. began in the 1980s and is roughlycontemporaneous with expressions of heightened concern about the quality of engineeringeducation programs and practices. The pressure for greater accountability, and the nationalconversations about the appropriate metrics for judging and ensuring educational quality
Achieving Black STEM Students (HABSS) longitudinal study. Her research explores psychological and sociocultural factors affecting international STEM students’ undergraduate process. Page 13.178.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008An Examination of the Use of Social Cognitive Career Theory toExplore Factors Influencing the Post Baccalaureate Decisions of High Achieving Black Engineering Students Page 13.178.2 1 An Examination of the Use of Social Cognitive
including students, faculty, and other stake-holderssuch as employers, the tools used in the learning enterprise including traditional and moderntechnology tools, and the environment for learning. Using the framework presented, variablesassociated with the task, the players, the tools, and the environment can be visualized andanalyzed in 3-dimensional space using multidimensional scaling and neural network methods.One aspect of the framework, reflections from an engineering faculty member, is analyzed todemonstrate how strategic planning can be facilitated through assessment and analysis with theframework.1. Model for strategic assessment planningAdapted from the Task, Operator, Machine, Environment (TOME) framework from the humanfactors
professional designers inengineering, visual and performing arts, architecture, and science were six key themesabout the experience of designing. These themes, which were discussed in theexperiences of all ten participants in this study, included getting starting on a design,collaboration as a key aspect, the importance of a strong content base, the ever-changingnature of the design space, the role of context, and the challenge and satisfaction ofseeing a design task from beginning to end.IntroductionDesign tasks have been classified as specific types of problems, 1, 2 and the designapproach has been labeled as a specialized way to view and complete a problem3. Designhas often been associated with fields within engineering, however a number of
: Scholarship Requirements 1. Publications accepted or published in the years in which you are under review Include the full reference citation and state if publication is peered-reviewed 2. Conference presentations completed or accepted for the years under review Include statement if peer-reviewed, level of conference, i.e. international, national, regional, state, or local; etc. 3. Papers published in Conference Proceedings. Same information as in #2. 4. Grants funded in the year under review 5. Projects such as original literature, art, music, movies, etc reviewed and shown 6. Editing or peer-reviewing the work of others for publication or presentation 7. Any other information that
capable of using any or all of these patterns but have preferences which the LCIquantifies. The scaled responses are scored on a scale of 1 (Never Ever) to 5 (Always) and thereare seven statements associated with each of the four learning patterns, so scores for each patternrange from 7 to 35. Each individual pattern is measured along a continuum of “Use First” (25-35), “Use as Needed” (18-24), or “Avoid” (7-17). Once a student understands his/her ownlearning patterns, he or she can: • Forge or intensify use of patterns that he or she prefers to avoid or use only as needed, but needs for particular tasks • Tether, or reduce, use of preferred, but task-inappropriate, patterns • Understand, appreciate and value peers who have
, describing teacher feedback, assessments of conceptualunderstanding, and actions taken to improve the lesson based on this data.Review of LiteratureNano-scale phenomena are playing a greater and greater role in every aspect of contemporaryscientific research. Nanoscience, engineering, and technology (NSET) have wide-rangingapplications in medicine, defense, development of electronics, environmental science, andmaterials science, to name a few.1-3 It follows from this information that we will need manymore workers in the nano-industries; one estimate suggests that the United States will need twomillion workers in NSET fields in the next decade alone.4
. The categoricalqualities of the data led to a decision to use a nonlinear statistical technique in order to analyze it.Logistic regression12 was chosen because of its ability to handle ordinal, nominal and continuousvariables.A process of recoding the variables was undertaken to resolve problems in variables with disjointvalues that disrupted the modeling. For example, the variable measuring a student’s overallreading proficiency quartile from the cognitive test in the 1988 base year (BY) data collection,“BY2XRQ,” had seven potential values. These values were members of the set [1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8,9] and represented “Quartile 1 Low,” “Quartile 2,” “Quartile 3,” “Quartile 4 High,” “Legitimate
descriptivecriteria for six levels of team performance from emerging to mastery. CEA assessmentcommittee members determined that a score of four on the six-point scale represents WSU’sstandard for graduating seniors. This will allow students to exceed expectations (with scoresbetween 4.0 and 6.0) in future years as the ABET skills are more directly addressed within thecurriculum. Figure 1 illustrates the criteria for ABET skill 3f, understanding of professional andethical responsibility. See Appendix A for the entire rubric. Page 13.32.6ABET Skill 3f. Understanding of professional and ethical responsibilityStudents clearly frame the problem and begin the
accuracy would drop slightly to 70.5%.Results from training and testing the same model using student data from different cohortsindicate the ANN model’s predictive performance is generally stable across different cohortyears. Also, a model trained with earlier year (2004) freshman cohort’s data has maintained itspredictive power very well when tested with student data from later (2005 and 2006) cohorts.IntroductionAs Thomas Friedman described in his best selling book ‘The World is Flat’1, the world hasbecome flatter because of the numerous new technologies and developments in the past decades.Engineers in India, China or other parts of the world today are now able and eager to competedirectly with the engineers from the United States. An alarming
the first year remainedvirtually unchanged into their fourth year. That is students constructed hopeful images ofengineering, images with high expectations and high status. We also have an interestingasymmetry in our data; many students had vague images of the day-to-day work of engineering,but they had more vivid and extended imagery about what their lifestyles would be when theywere employed as professional engineers 1.Another asymmetry that emerged was that students identified with a particular image ofengineering work, the designer, whom they recognized as an engineer whose status anddistinction was regarded as higher than that of a draftsperson. In this paper we discuss howstudents’ images of engineering work and engineers changed over
instructors for specifictopics in a course. The focus in the work is student prediction of grade on a test of specificknowledge. His conclusion, consistent with much of the other literature, is that higher-performing students are more accurate in predicting their grades.Based on the literature reviewed, several points stand out as relevant for our work. 1) Theaccuracy of student self-assessment appears to be linked to the length of time they have studied aparticular area - depth in the field rather than time as a student. For example juniors in adiscipline are better able to judge their performance in disciplinary course than are freshmen, butseniors taking a freshman level course outside their primary are of study are not particularlyaccurate; 2
enhanced learning obtained from integrating elements of the learning environmentwhere it yields optimal results considering learning, costs, and complexity9,10,11. An SIenvironment seeks to integrate course content and the learning process with content from othercourses, the educational setting, accessible assessment/feedback, and family and studentinvolvement. Integration of the educational setting takes advantage of the many opportunities forguided learning in settings outside of the classroom and laboratory and allows for makingstronger connections by instructing students in different mental and/or emotional states. Interests Goals STUDENT Aspirations Values Activity #1: Activity #2
AC 2008-2601: EFFECTIVENESS AND PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIOS: ACONTENT ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ PORTFOLIO ANNOTATIONSJennifer Turns, University of WashingtonKejun Xu, University of WashingtonMatt Eliot, University of Washington Page 13.471.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 Effectiveness and professional portfolios: A content analysis of students’ portfolio annotationsAbstractThe engineering education community is exploring activities that can support the learning fromexperience. One such activity involves having students construct professional portfoliosconsisting of: 1) a professional statement in which the student makes claims about
students in an academic scholarship program going intograduate school full-time and over a 30% rate of such transfer students.I. IntroductionFor some time, there has been a growing concern about the future of the United States in terms Page 13.1287.2of new discoveries and inventions. One of the people leading this battle cry is Professor Romer,“a big-name Stanford University economist.”1 He argues that discoveries don’t simply appearwhen inspiration strikes, but reflect the effort put into innovating. The bottom line for thisconcern is that the number of undergraduate engineering degrees being earned in the UnitedStates has been declining since 1996
of the research plan we are presently usingto study CADEX in the context of a senior level biomedical engineering design course.IntroductionSeveral recent reports stress that the competitive advantage of the U.S. lies in its role as a leaderin technological innovation1,2. These reports make statements such as “leadership in innovationis essential to U.S. prosperity and security”3 and “innovation will be the single most importantfactor in determining America’s success through the 21st century”1. These reports send aresounding message that engineering education in the U.S. needs to emphasize and developknowledge and skills that are essential to innovation in a rapidly evolving technological society.From an education standpoint, there are many
communities) and recruitment (community programs, camps). The Page 13.1251.2overarching goal defined by the sponsoring agency, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation,was to “support programs to increase retention and recruitment efforts, and to improve studentlearning through better undergraduate teaching.” 1 The breadth of our university initiative ispresented in Appendix A, along with information about assessment methods for each component,resulting publications and reports, and institutionalization status.We believe our experience, particularly in affecting lasting change at our institution, providessome valuable lessons not only for recipients
multidisciplinaryteams.;. All of the programs have some form of competitive presentation of project results at theend of the semester. Each of the partners has distinctive features, as summarized in Figure 1. Page 13.544.4The lead university, Illinois Institute of Technology, has the IPRO – Interprofessional ProjectsProgram -- with the broadest scope of projects of the four collaborating institutions, coveringservice learning, entrepreneurship, process improvement, and product/ venture development. Allundergraduates are required to participate in two IPRO projects as part of their GeneralEducation requirement. Students select projects, though some projects now
Page 13.236.2engineering education.1 Supporting this mindset, the nature of developmental research has beenhas been described as “The systematic study of designing, developing and evaluatinginstructional programs, processes and products that must meet the criteria of internal consistencyand effectiveness”.2 Central to the theme of advancing rigorous educational research, thisresearch has leveraged the Type I developmental research framework which will be brieflydescribed here.Research MethodologyRichey3 describes Type I developmental research as context-specific, usually involving fieldobservations and/or case studies. Type I research primarily focuses on a product design,development, validation and evaluation of a specific tool, technique or
Page 13.1038.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 Research Experience for Undergraduates in Nanotechnology: Analysis of Participants 1997-2007AbstractNanotechnology is considered by many to be the next “industrial revolution.” The NationalScience Foundation (NSF) estimates that by 2015 nanoscale science and engineering will be $1.5– 2.0 trillion industry with the U.S. needing approximately 1 million workers. Workforcedevelopment programs are needed to excite undergraduates about possible education and careeropportunities to ensure that the U.S. maintains its competitive edge in this fast-growing field.The National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN) is an integrated geographically-diverse
characteristics as well as service characteristics (1, 2, 3, and 4). The concept of ‘TotalQuality Management (TQM)’ is often used synonymously and sometimes in conjunction withthe basic principles of lean engineering and Six Sigma.It should be noted that while the principles of Six Sigma are generally used in the context ofproduct design and manufacturing industries, their scope is not merely limited to these two fieldsof endeavor. Six sigma principles find much wider scope of expression in other industries aswell. For instance, the service industry such as banking, finance, health services, restaurantmanagement etc routinely utilize six sigma concepts in order to ensure the availability of qualityproducts so as to gain and maintain an edge over their
educationalexperience than track B or it does not. If it does, the success of the track should be monitoredthrough specific learning outcomes. If it does not, then there is really only one track andstudents’ choices are essentially meaningless. Page 13.1362.6While student learning outcomes are a useful set of requirements by which to define success ofan educational program, they are not easy to measure. Two examples of student learningoutcomes are: 1. Ability to function on multidisciplinary teams (ABET d); 2. Understanding of Professional and Ethical Responsibilities (ABET f)How does one measure these outcomes to determine if the engineering
. Page 14.1161.4The lecture files would be posted on the university online learning system the Friday before the week thatthe material was to be covered. The students were encouraged to print out the files, review the materialboth in the book and in the files before coming to class. The initial reaction from the students wasextremely positive as they immediately recognized the time savings from having to copy notes off thewhiteboard. They also became aware that the quality of the notes they were given were far better than theones that they had been creating themselves in other classes. Shown below is a page from one of thehandouts of a “complete” set of lecture notes.Figure 1 – Sample of Full (completed) notes given to the 20053 (spring 2005
questions were based on the critical learningobjectives and designed to interact with the clickers using Turning Technologies TurningPoint® Page 14.101.32008 plug-in software for Microsoft® Office PowerPoint® 2007. Student responses to the clickerquestions were recorded using a Turning Technologies TurningPoint ResponseCard® radiofrequency (RF) wireless response system (Figure 1) or by raising hands.Figure 1. Turning Technologies TurningPoint ResponseCard® RF wireless response system.The system includes a universal serial bus (USB) receiver, 25 response cards, installation CD,and an instruction packet (not shown).Answering by using the clickers and
a hard time adapting to saving their classnotes on the server. One undergraduate student indicated that the display was too small Page 14.1305.10and he preferred an 8 x 11 page.We conducted anonymous surveys in several classes in the Master of Science in WirelessCommunications graduate degree program to evaluate students’ assessment of theirengagement in learning and improvement in the speed of learning when tablets PCscombined with DyKnow were used in the class. Two key questions to which theyresponded included: 1. Classes taught with a Tablet PC keep me more engaged in learning than classes taught with desktop or laptop computers for
Course a b c d e f g h i j k WTSN 111/112. Exploring Engineering I/II 2 4 2 2 4 2 3 ME 271. Engineering Mechanics 4 1 2 2 2 ME 311. Mechanics of Deformable Bodies 4 1 1 2 2 ME 302. Engineering Analysis 4 2 4 ME 331. Thermodynamics 4 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 ME 273. Science of Engineering Materials 4 2 4