percent of the studentsreported feeling frequently stressed, the response option indicating the greatest amount of stress.Note that no student reported a complete lack of worry about keeping up with schoolwork, nordid any student indicate an absence of stress.In Item Three, all but one student indicated some lack of time for pursuing non-academicactivities; a full twenty-five percent of students reported frequently feeling unable to pursue non-academic activities due to a lack of time. Finally, data from Item Four reveal that ten percent ofthe students reported feeling frequently that they did not have a social life, while another forty-one percent reported occasionally feeling this way. Thus, these data reflect a population thatfrequently is
learning literature, Prince discusses that “the core elements of activelearning are student activity and engagement in the learning process.” 1 These general definitionsof active learning have inevitably led to a multitude of teaching techniques being grouped withinthe vast spectrum of active learning.Furthermore, it has been acknowledged by several researchers1, 3, 4 that active learningencompasses numerous strategies that facilitate student activity and engagement. These activitiescan include (but are not limited to): the pause technique,5 class discussions,6 informal small-group approaches,7 formal small-group learning,7 brainstorming, debates, role playing,8simulations, peer teaching and one-minute reflection papers.9 Alternative active
theirunderstanding of the skills they perform. His definitions of the different dimensions of designthinking are below: 1. The active dimension, built on theories of intellectual development, characterizes the designer’s ability to think actively and independently 2. The abstractive dimension characterizes the ability of the designer to engage in reflective, complex and abstract thought 3. The adaptive dimension characterizes the designer’s ability, to strategically shift between the thinking skills and levels represented in the active and abstractive dimensions as a function of external stimuli and internal directionNeeley associates the abstractive dimension with innovation, and the active dimension
, have considerable power (Kezaret al., 2011) to shape a change process. No individual within or partnered with the departmentshould be seen as inconsequential.Institutional context drives how change leaders empower stakeholders to become change agents.Kezar and Eckel (2002) observed several strategies of stakeholder empowerment in threedifferent higher education institutions. Reflecting a high level of trust in senior administrators,one institution kept strategic planning informal, which communicated that the change processwas flexible and not heavy-handed. Another developed an institution-wide process for solicitinginput and investing stakeholders with power to affect plans and outcomes. The third operatedunder devolved authority, entrusting
Michael Moore32.MaterialsThe interface used is RStudio Version 0.99.491 licenced under the terms of version 3 of theGNU Affero General Public License. Furthermore, R 3.2.3 GUI 1.66 Mavericks build (7060),part of the Free Software Foundation’s GNU Project, is the selected environment forperforming this study.Data cleaningThe dataset for this study was a reflection of real-world data, so in order to a successful KDD,it was needed an arduous effort in the data cleaning process. Data cleaning seeks an unifiedlogical view of databases with issues such as encouraging a single naming convention orprovision of strategies for data handling such as outliers or missing data30. This stage includedto deal with extrem outliers and in order to reduce their
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
specificcontent area, and micro-communities of practice as those reflecting collaboration of smallercohorts of STEM faculty, in-person and virtually.This study addresses the following research questions: 1) How do engineering faculty involvedin a community of practice engage in knowledge transfer? 2) How does knowledge transfer ofspecific evidence-based instructional practices occur in an engineering faculty community ofpractice?Conducted within a large research project aimed at exploring stages of pedagogical change, thiswork utilizes a qualitative methodology. Nine faculty in a first-year engineering departmentparticipated in hour-long semi-structured interviews exploring use of EBIPs and collaboration.Interviews were analyzed using thematic coding to
been found in related work.Background and Theoretical FrameworkIn his social cognitive theory, psychologist Albert Bandura put forth a framework of humanfunctioning that accorded a central role to individuals as determinants of the course of their ownlives. This perspective countered dominant behavioristic theories, which viewed human behavioras the product of external stimuli and reinforcements. According to Bandura, the capacity to planahead, to reflect, and to self-regulate enables humans to exercise a large degree of control overtheir environments and behavior. People originate thoughts, ideas, and actions, all of which makethem agents in their own lives. Central to human agency is a belief that one can bring about theoutcomes one is
ownership of their courses. It was believed thatdeveloping this collaborative joint ownership, akin to a Community of Practice (COP) 8, wouldprovide a means for faculty to share common interests and passions for improving their coursesand then subsequently sharing knowledge and best practices to accelerate learning and change9.These smaller, course-centric communities (henceforth, called innovation COPs to reflect thelanguage used among the faculty in the program) were organized into a larger SIIP-widecommunity that sought to facilitate knowledge sharing across these innovation COPs. Whileeach innovation COP was composed of three to nine faculty members, SIIP as a whole hasengaged over 200 faculty members from 15 departments, creating a fairly rich
each retained factor. In addition, we calculated Pearson correlations to findassociations among measures of engineering identity and research identity, as well as the factorsassessing the independent variables.Table 1. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Survey Measures of Engineering and ResearchIdentities Factor Survey Items Factor Loading Engineering I consider myself an engineer 0.86 Identity I am proud to be an engineer 0.75 (α= 0.83) Being an engineer is an important reflection of who I am
achievementHowever, most evaluation tools are developed by instructors. As such, the desired behaviorsas listed are top-down rather than bottom-up. How the students themselves are perceivingtheir own learning environment is vitally important to their persistence in engineering[12][14]. A second study suggests that, though many behaviors overlap, some aspects ofteammate behavior viewed as important to students are not reflected in most instructor-created peer assessments. This study lists eleven behavior components important toteammates in engineering education settings. The more unexpected components of poor teambehavior include expecting teammates to contribute beyond their “fair share”, beingunwilling to take on tasks beyond clearly articulated
project to reflect on anddiscuss progress, brainstorm additional ideas related to project implementation, problem-solve,identify potential fields and faculty for potential inclusion or expansion of the communities, anddiscuss research and evaluation. The second community was the community of leaders (LC) forthe leaders of the discipline-based faculty development communities. The CLC was led by thePIs, with all members of the research team as participants. The CLC afforded an opportunity forthe community leaders to become oriented to a faculty learning community and a safe space todiscuss successes and areas for potential growth for their own teaching and as leaders of theirown communities. The third community was the teaching development
aligned to the learning outcomes (includes the use of formative and summative assessments, • strong task design, • support for diverse learners, and; • refining course instructional sequence and design to increase coherence in the learning progression and content. • Create a student-centered syllabus and course map for the revised course. • Design rigorous learning experiences for the targeted course that actively engage students to achieve or exceed the course learning outcomes. • Develop new approaches and repertoire of research-based practices to more effectively implement the course design. • Develop reflective practitioner skills to enact continuous improvement
received the Australasian Association for Engineering Education award for excellence in Engineering Education in the Teaching and Learning category. Dr Rowe is a member of the IET, the IEEE, the Institution of Professional Engineers of New Zealand (IPENZ), ASEE, STLHE and AaeE. Page 13.1273.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 The transition from high-school Physics to first-year Electrical Engineering: How well prepared are our students?AbstractThe demand from industry for an increasing number of engineering graduates in NewZealand reflects international concerns and is compounded by a
support learning. We donot consider the full spectrum of social media tools, nor do we focus on the most current (forinstance, twitter). The origins of this study were shaped by the most rapidly-maturingtechnologies of the late 2000’s, as well as those that appeared to offer the highest relativeadvantage compared to other technologies (see the diffusion of innovations discussion below).These rapidly-maturing technologies are blogging and video, and both lend themselves tosubstantial user-generated content.The scholarship on blogging as an educational tool continues to emerge. Much recent work hasfocused on the use of blogs for reflective, self-expressive, peer critique, or highly-individualizedauthoring, and in many cases each student in a class
in engineering such aswomen and ethnic minority students. The authors suggest that future research should includethe re-development of the social engagement concept to reflect distinguishing characteristics ofengineering fields.Introduction During the last two decades, the retention and academic success of engineering studentshas emerged as a major topic for discussion among policy makers and researchers in highereducation. However, the current record of engineering student retention and graduation doesnot suggest a positive outlook. Based on the most recent U.S. Bureau of Labor Statisticsprojections 1, the demand for qualified engineering graduates will grow 11% between 2008 and2018, yet the number of engineering graduates remained
whether a protocol would be effective for this purpose. Many observation protocols are meant to evaluate the quality of teaching, rather than simply provide a description of teaching moves [15], sometimes referred to as Teacher Discourse Moves (TDMs). Evaluative protocols tend to require subjectivity and inference and work well in situations where observations are completed by peers, versus external observers [4]. Evaluative protocols are often unstructured and reflective, which does not provide a standardized base for comparison or aggregation of data between class sessions or courses that we are seeking [3]. 2. The protocol should be pedagogically agnostic, not specific. We are interested in capturing
scores of each of the five constructs (e.g., CONTENT, QUES,etc.) each reside near the midpoint of the scale, to avoid construct measures that are not overlyskewed. The second parameter, validity, takes many forms, but they each indicate, in differentways, the degree to which the instrument accurately measured the intended underlying construct.Content validity for this survey is exhibited by showing that this instrument reflects all of thedimensions of interest described by the FPMID, including: independent content engagement(CONTENT), independent questioning (QUES), positive feelings (FEEL), use of feedback(FEED), and perseverance (PERSEVERE). As a way to establish construct validity, we examinethe degree to which all items on the FIDES
them to become involved in instructional development. 3. Did the NETI motivate participants to join the ASEE? Question 18 asked whether the participants were members of the ASEE and whether the NETI motivated them to join. 4. Has the NETI promoted scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching and learning? Questions 5, 6, 16, and 18 asked (a) whether participants had engaged in practices that characterize scholarly teaching (reading education-related papers, attending education- related seminars, workshops, and conferences, using classroom research to assess the effectiveness of their teaching, and reflecting on and attempting to understand the processes of teaching and learning in general and their
curricular assignments for outcomes assessment to achieve a high level of automation ofthe data collection process. The EvalTools® 6 FCAR module provides summative/formativeoptions and consists of the following components: course description, COs indirect assessment,grade distribution, course reflections, old action items and new action items; COs directassessment; PIs assessment ; student outcomes assessment; assignment list; and learning domainsand skills levels assessment distribution [35,49,50,51,63,64]. The FCAR uses the EAMU performancevector, conceptually based on a performance assessment scoring rubric, developed by Miller andOlds [59], to categorize aggregate student performance. Heuristic rules and indicator levels forEAMU performance
process because of the nature of the reflections (e.g., describing what they ate in considerable detail).ParticipantsThis paper describes the first stage of analysis in this project. For this stage, we used data fromthe 2016 cohort of RSAP, which included 91 students who participated in three different tracks:Europe (Italy, Switzerland, and Germany), China, and the Dominican Republic. Demographicinformation for this cohort is in Tables 2 and 3. In general, the program has larger representationof women and underrepresented students than the population of the College of Engineering(CoE), and the 2016 cohort is no different. All participants signed consent forms agreeing toparticipate
, or the difference between what studentsindicated were their personal study habits compared to how they would tell a student who caresonly about understanding to study, reflecting on their epistemological beliefs. Elby found thatmost students study differently, focusing on formulas and practice problems rather than onconcepts and real-life examples, than how they would tell someone else who is trying to acquire Page 24.684.4a “deep understanding.”21(pS56) He concludes that “[s]tudents perceive ‘trying to understandphysics deeply’ to be a different activity from ‘pursuing good grades’...” as one result of studentsbelieving rote learning is
individualfaces many obstacles along the way. Accurate self-knowledge is threatened by self-serving1,2and confirmation3,4 biases, by dissociation between implicit and explicit cognitive processes,5and by our tendency to misconstrue self-relevant information.6 Unfortunately for us, self-understanding may be more important than ever. The complexities of modern social life demandan accordingly complex sense of self,7 and there is evidence to suggest that such complexity isbest complemented by emphasis on acquiring accurate self-knowledge.8,9 Self-reflection andintrospection may provide added insight,10, 11, 12 but essential aspects of one’s own character areoften inaccessible to introspection,13,14 or vulnerable to a host of interpretation biases.15,16, 17
participants to educational theory and mentored teaching practice.The intermediate level certificate is achieved upon completion of a course on fundamentaleducation theory (PSPFC 1001) and a mentored teaching practicum (PSPFC 1002): • PSPFC 1001 introduces graduate students to principles of learner-centered teaching and provides opportunities for students to design lesson plans, practice implementing those lesson plans through micro-teaching sessions, self-reflect on those experiences, and give Page 26.741.4 and receive peer feedback. The course size commonly ranges from 16 to 20 students. • For PSPFC 1002, students
AbstractIn this research paper, we explore student responses to Utility Value Interventions in staticscourses. Introductory engineering mechanics courses (e.g., statics, dynamics) are critical pointswithin a curriculum, and student performance in these courses can have a strong influence onfuture success. And while these courses are often thought of as “weed out” courses, the ubiquityof these courses for engineers is what makes them an important place for students to develop themotivation to persist through their engineering education. One particularly promising tool for thisdevelopment has been Utility Value Interventions (UVIs) in which students are given opportunitiesto reflect on how their coursework aligns with their lives through short writing
) aremeasure relevant available to students and public, library of exemplars available [39, 40, 42, 43]content/practice Authenticity: Reflects real world content in context [30, 39, 44] Meaningfulness: Includes worthwhile educational activities, includes stakeholder voices [39, 40, 45, 46] Quality: Content reflects field, as judged by content experts [39]Criterion validity: degree to Systematic validity: Assessment induces changes in educational system thatwhich the assessment tasks are enhance its ability to foster learning [37, 41, 46, 47]systematically related to an Fairness/Bias: Equitable
novices offered a greater proportion of factors from thenatural and social frames of reference, versus technical and logistical frames, which indicated arather broad approach the problem. We argue that this may reflect the novices’ relativeinexperience with engineering concepts. While the four experts’ responses differed in terms oftheir representations through a “breadth of problem scoping” coding scheme, two of theresponses echoed a characteristic top-down, breadth-first approach to design. The difference inprotocols presents challenges in comparing expert and novice behavior, and methodologicalissues of collecting less information from a greater number of subjects versus collecting moreinformation from fewer subjects were addressed. Because
/building at a higher rate than men. As Felder et al. have argued, allengineering students tend to be visual rather than aural learners, so these differences in definitiondo not necessarily reflect any actual gender differences in learning style.10 Rather, they could bea reflection of gender differences in perception. Furthermore, it is quite interesting that a greaterproportion of men than women included improving humankind in their definitions ofengineering. Considering the weight of women’s development literature that documents theirsocialization as caregivers and connected knowers, we wonder if women engineering studentscontinue to set the study and practice of engineering apart from other activities that they wouldconsider to be in service to
the semester, just after the Teaching Assistants have provided feedback tostudents on their first draft solution to the Paper Plane Challenge MEA, and near the end of thesemester, just after giving students feedback on their first draft solutions to the third MEA,Student Travel Modes. These interviews were conducted with individual Teaching Assistants,lasted approximately 30 minutes, and were audio-recorded. The interview protocol for the firstsemi-structured interviews is presented in Appendix B. The second interview followed the sameprotocol, but the interview participants were also asked to reflect on any changes (in theirexperiences with grading the MEAs, such as changes in what they found challenging aboutgrading the MEAs, changes in
reflection exercises and interactivetheatre sketches on the importance of diversity19,20.MethodologyCritical ethnography and IntersectionalityEthnography, a primary tool of anthropologists, is a common method used to understand culturefrom the perspective of insiders of that culture. Ethnographic methods include participantobservation, field memos, interviews, and focus groups interviews21,22. Our research is rooted incritical ethnography, which “begins with an ethical responsibility to address processes ofunfairness or injustice within a particular lived domain” (p. 5)23. Critical ethnographers take anactive social justice position in making visible oppressive power relations within a culture andapplying their findings to have positive impacts on