and analytical perspectives, 5 and improve teamwork ,communication , and project management skills . IPRO Projects are based on realproblems, often involving sponsors that reflect the diversity of the workplace: corporations,entrepreneurial ventures, non-profit organizations, and government agencies. Theprojects cover a broad range of topics and include service learning, research, design,process improvement and business planning assignments.Every undergraduate student is required to take two IPROs. A majority of IPRO studentsare majoring in engineering, architecture and computer science, but the program alsoinvolves undergraduate students
attending college and completing degrees. The approach taken was to offer scholarshipsto low-income, academically talented students pursuing an undergraduate or graduate degree incomputer science, mathematics, or engineering, with the stipulation that the students would berequired to participate in a specially designed scholastic achievement program called CSEMScholars. It was hoped that this program would provide them with a mixture of motivationalactivities that were aimed at promoting personal, academic, and professional development, andwould create a support community of students with shared experiences which was activelycultivated by holding interactive meetings in a relaxed environment.Although we initially had planned to cover particular
metacognitive reflections about their participation in these informal learningenvironments.Background and MotivationThe conceptualization of “thinking about thinking” has evolved since Flavell [8] first discussedmetacognition. Researchers have agreed that metacognition consists of knowledge of cognitionand regulation of cognition [8, 19, 20, 25]. Knowledge about cognition describes individuals’self-knowledge, knowledge about strategies, as well as appropriate application of differentstrategies in practice. Knowledge about cognition consists of three types of knowledge includingdeclarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and conditional knowledge [10]. Regulation ofcognition indicates that individuals are capable of planning, managing information
demonstrating how diverse teams can often provide better solutions to problems. One teacher wrote: “I am so excited to think about the possibility of teaching students that have had a real hands-on experience.” Another teacher put it this way: “One of the questions that students often ask is ‘when am I ever going to use this?’ Some ask a similar question, ‘what can you do with a math or science degree besides teach?’ This project will help answer these questions for my students.” One principal commented about their teachers being excited about the project: “When these teachers learned that Tech was planning this project, without hesitation, they wanted to participate. In fact, they already have ideas on
a multi method longitudinal study conducted at a Historically BlackCollege/University (HBCU) in fall 2006 and spring 2007 using a sample of 51 high achieving(GPA > 3.0) Black STEM students. The Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) was used as atheoretical framework to provide insight regarding factors influencing the post baccalaureatedecisions of high achieving Black STEM students. Survey findings revealed a statisticallysignificant association between STEM discipline and post baccalaureate plans. Qualitative datafrom a focus group will shed light on factors influencing the aforementioned finding.IntroductionThe literature indicates that the representation of minority science, technology, engineering, andmathematics (STEM
learning30 and co-generation.31 The students receive researcher’s expert opinion,which provides the benefits of cognitive apprenticeship.21In each iteration, two separate groups of students work toward building two identical robots. Forone group, the teacher and researcher use traditional qualitative observation, brainstorming,discussion, questionnaire, and feedback methods to analyze the outcomes of the iteration.7,8 Forthe second group, in addition to the traditional methods, the teacher and researcher follow someadvanced systems engineering approaches under the cognitive apprenticeship of the expertresearcher. The DBR is treated as a continuous improvement (CI) method,32 and resembles as theDeming or Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle.33 The teacher
design process. Once the teachers completed the summer workshop,they developed a six-week unit that included grade appropriate, standards-based engineeringlearning modules they would instruct during the school year.Data collection and analysisData were collected via teacher interviews (n = 2 interviews per teacher; 6 interviews total),implementation plans (n = 1 plan per teacher; 3 plans total), informal classroom observations (n= 10), and supporting documents (e.g., lesson plans, teacher-developed lesson materials, andstudent work). Data analysis entailed the use of grounded theory and content analysis. The firststep entailed open coding of the data, specifically transcripts from interviews and field notes andteachers‟ implementation plans
-structuredengineering tasks for collaborative problem solving.Collaborative problem-solving processes in ill-structured tasksGe and Land [9], [10] defined four problem-solving processes necessary for effectively solvingan ill-structured task in groups: exploring the problem (P1), planning solutions (P2), attemptingto solve (P3), and evaluating the solution and considering alternatives (P4). Researchers arguethat these processes are associated with better learning outcomes; thus, it is important forstudents to engage in all four as they solve this type of task [11], [12]. Our previous workdebuted a literature-based framework that outlines and defines these processes within the contextof undergraduate engineering group work as demonstrated through verbal
approach forms the basis of course design. This approach enables the incorporation of the opinions as well as the preferences of various constituencies such as potential employers, accreditation boards, parents, state and national professional regulation boards etc. This step utilizes the four stage ‘House of Quality’ approach to quantify priorities. 1. Course Planning: This step incorporates the voice of end users (employers, accreditation board, professional development societies etc). This step is akin to asking the question: ‘What outcome do you expect out of this course?’ Once these opinions are ascertained, they are prioritized in arrange from highest priority to lowest priority 2. Component Deployment: This step
individual’s behaviors and attributes. Thebehaviors are engaged in a cyclical manner through the following four phases:1. Observation of a problem, which may be posed by another individual or formed by the problem solver in response to other results, a puzzling real world situation or pattern, etc. This phase involves orienting oneself to the nature, elements, and structure of the problem.2. Conjecturing solution paths involves imagining several possible plans of attack without actually carrying them out, quickly evaluating the potential effectiveness and requirements of each, then making a decision on how to proceed. This is often informed by previous problem solving efforts.3. Execution of a plan involves proceeding with the chosen
design and implementation ofcollaborative ill-structured tasks using a research-based framework that outlines the necessaryelements of such tasks: an introduction to the problem that provides context, a description of theproblem itself, the specific task(s) students are expected to achieve as a group, supplementarymaterial that provides information useful for solving the task, and scaffolding tools that studentscan use to develop plans, draw diagrams, and generate solutions [6]. This paper presents amethod to evaluate the design of ill-structured tasks in relation to the interaction processes thatstudents used in their groups. The paper showcases the use of our method by evaluating thedesign of one ill-structured task, and provides suggestions
level, instructors are designing new teachingstrategies. At the second level, the researchers are designing a model for teaching developmentfor faculty. In addition, how does conceptualizing teaching as a design process inform a teachingdevelopment model for instructors? Literature Review We build in this project on other frameworks for research in education that examine howeducational products (e.g., curriculum) or processes are designed for the classroom. In many ofthese cases, there are models, resources or tools being designed to support teaching and learning.For example, in research about the design of curriculum, Clements describes multiple stages inthe life of the materials from the ideal curriculum to the planned curriculum to the
Making Academic Change Happen (MACH) project. The UW membersof the REDPAR team (i.e., the authors of this paper) investigate the academic change processesoccurring across the schools through a participatory action approach, co-producing knowledgewith the team members.In the case of incorporating new teaching methods and curricular designs to STEM academicprograms, education entrepreneurs manage both technological innovations and the people andorganizations that will implement the innovations. In the proposal development stage, REDapplicants strategized about which curricular innovations would be best suited for theirinstitutional contexts. They planned how to implement these changes, but these plans were notoften made in open deliberations
toendure.The proposed measurement framework of SoTE defines nine different criteria. Each criterioncovers one part of the educational system and also the approach. Accordingly, each criterion hasits own set of key performance measures (KPMs). For every KPM, there is one or more keyperformance indicator (KPI) to enable the measurement. Every KPI has its own analytic rubricthat will aid the calculation of different indicators including a one main indicator called theSustainability Indicator (SI) – See Figure 2. The nine criteria are expanded into 34 KPMs.The sustainability criteria upon which we judge SoTE is shown in Table 1. Criterion 1,Leadership and Governance, measures the sustainability of the institutional strategic plans andthe degree of its
the first trial semester (Fall 2006) indicate that students who attended and did notattend the games were similar on most demographic and experience variables. However, studentswho attended the games had higher average GPA, and felt more positive about the IPRO theywere joining; they were also more likely to feel positive about their team functioning at week 5.However, participation in the games was not associated with any difference in mastering theknowledge base in teamwork, or in their self-assessed competence in teamwork at the end of thesemester. At the team level, teams where at least one member attended the games weresomewhat more likely to submit good initial project plans, and significantly more likely tosubmit a good Midterm Report
-Regulated Learning While Learning Electric Circuit Concepts with Enhanced Guided Notes AbstractMeasuring self-regulated learning (SRL) skills of engineering college students while usingenhanced guided notes (EGN) promotes a better understanding of how students deal with note-taking activities. This study focused on students’ task interpretation, cognitive strategies, andSRL processes including planning, monitoring, and regulating strategies while using EGN in anelectric circuits course. The main objectives of this study were to (1) understand how students’SRL skills changed after using EGN; and (2) evaluate how students’ conceptual understandingon electric circuits improved after using
activity within our modeling-based learning experience.Final design. All three of these bodies of literature inform our final learning design, pullingtogether pedagogical and learning theories while structuring the actual activity into four uniquephases. Figure 1 shows how the alignment of these bodies of literature produced the final design. Figure 1. Alignment of theory and practices to produce our final learning design.The final modeling-based learning experience design consists of four phases. First is Planningthe Model, where students work together to pull from their experiences and observations of thephenomenon within a group to create and explore different modeling pathways. In this stepstudents develop and document a plan for
. Next, we plan to distribute surveys to engineering faculty and students tosee how their perspective differs from employers.Dissecting the Meaning of Hands-On AbilityGiven that most engineers spend little time actually doing hands-on work, we wished todetermine why that ability is so important. With input from members of a mechanicalengineering department external advisory board, we identified a list of reasons that “hands-onability” is important. A survey was then developed for the purpose of rating each of the reasons.Respondents are asked to rate the various aspects of hands-on ability in importance using a 1-5scale, 5 being very important and 1 being not important. Thus far, the survey has beendistributed to employers at an on-campus career
workforce.Dr. Joyce B. Main, Purdue University at West Lafayette Joyce B. Main is Associate Professor of Engineering Education at Purdue University. She received an Ed.M. in Administration, Planning, and Social Policy from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and a Ph.D. degree in Learning, Teaching, and Social Policy from Cornell University. Dr. Main examines student academic pathways and transitions to the workforce in science and engineering. She was a recipi- ent of the 2014 American Society for Engineering Education Educational Research and Methods Division Apprentice Faculty Award, the 2015 Frontiers in Education Faculty Fellow Award, and the 2019 Betty Vetter Award for Research from WEPAN. In 2017, Dr. Main
motivating and assisting faculty to conduct research andscholarly work at what has traditionally been a highly teaching-focused university. As part ofthis initiative a number of novel institutional programs have been devised and implemented. Thisinitiative encompasses programs such as creating faculty professional development funds;offering faculty awards in the form of money and time allocation; presenting distinguishedscholar awards; publicizing and celebrating scholarly work; formally incorporating researchgoals in annual plans at the college/school, department, and individual faculty levels; and otherincentives. The impact of these efforts has resulted in a significant, measurable increase inresearch and scholarly work over the last four years
educational and research programs related to sustainability; coordinates and assists in the implementation of greening efforts for the campus; and participates in campus planning for sustainability. She is actively involved in programs and education surrounding renewable energy, climate action planning, and climate adaptation and resilience.Dr. Li Ding, California State University - Northridge Dr. Li Ding is a Lecturer in the Department of Manufacturing Systems Engineering and Management at California State University Northridge. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Vertical Integration of the Liberal Arts in Engineering Education WIP
evaluation plan alsoincludes long-term impacts, but this is not included in this paper. The survey included closedand open-ended questions regarding participants’ familiarity, confidence and engagement inconducting engineering education research and using research to inform teaching or curriculum.An analysis of the pre-survey illustrates the considerable variability in participants’ backgroundsin engineering education research; however, all participants emphasized a need for betterunderstanding of choosing a conceptual framework for education research, using principles ofrigor in education research, and developing a plan to answer a research question. The aggregateanalysis of pre-post changes indicate gains in the level of familiarity for
learners are like the self-regulated learners Zimmermandescribes in that they are “metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participantsin their own learning.”15 In addition to masters of learning processes, self-directed learners areself-starters, with intention to develop and conceptions of themselves as highly capablelearners.16,17 As Rogers notes, self-directed learners possess positive self-regard, a self-actualizing tendency, and openness to experience.7,18Cognitive and metacognitive factors in SDL include students’ abilities to recognize needs,develop strategies for planning, monitoring, and adapting learning processes, reflect on theircognitive processes, and engage in accurate self-evaluation of performance or mastery
Award for Women in Engineering Education in 2016. Dr. Davis received a B.S. degree in Computer Science from Loyola University, New Orleans in 1985 and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Louisiana, Lafayette in 1987 and 1990, respectively. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Examining the Efficacy of Exam Wrappers in a Computer Science CourseAbstract (Evidence-based Practice)An exam wrapper is a guided reflection activity that students undertake following an exam.Students are typically asked to reflect on their preparation, performance, and plans for preparingfor the next exam. The
programand reflects on the applicability of the activity in a wide range of engineering courses. Second, itdescribes a qualitative study to answer the research question, to what extent is the YTU activityeffective in terms of student engagement and connection to the course objective? Data wascollected from two groups of students who participated in this creativity course and completedtwo peer teaching activities. Each student taught a 15-minute lesson to a group of peers,submitted a detailed lesson plan, and wrote self- and peer-assessments after class. These lessonsincluded both content sharing (i.e., presentation about the topic) as well as an activity and a finalassessment tool to ensure that their peers had met the student-defined learning
to participate in ‘teachingsquares’. In these ‘teaching squares’, the faculty members participated infacilitated discussions on class session planning, observed each other andcollected learning assessment data as evidence of attainment of studentlearning outcomes. In this paper, results from these interventions on theattainment of specific workshop outcomes among faculty includingimplementation of some best practices in teaching will be reported. Specificattitudes and misconceptions related to teaching among higher educationpractitioners in India will be discussed.BackgroundAll India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) dashboard [1] shows 3124approved engineering education institutions in India with a total faculty countof 338,193
Programming 1 and Programming 2 at OhioNorthern University has used the term project theme of developing K-12 educational softwarefor many years, but until 2014 the project was done without the benefit of having a client tosatisfy. Consequently, the instructor could only provide feedback on the technical aspects of theimplementation, and most of the feedback was summative. With the recent establishment of anengineering education degree program, the opportunity arose for providing the programmingstudents with a meaningful client-driven design experience. The engineering education majors,acting as clients, developed lesson plans for STEM outreach programs as part of a fall semestercourse that were afterwards supplemented by software applications
’ difficulties and to generate suggestions about effective instructional interventions. Inthe sections that follow, each of the three dimensions contained in the IPS model are discussedindependently. This discussion is followed by a presentation of the model itself.Problem Solving ProcessSince Polya’s seminal work in mathematics,8 the utility of learning and using a sequence of stepsduring problem solving has been widely accepted. Although several specific models exist, ageneric 4-step model captures most: (1) Represent the Problem, (2) Goal Setting and Planning,(3) Execute the Plan, and (4) Evaluate the Solution. In the first step, problem representation, thestudent must read the problem statement and discern the objective. Correct execution of this
Engineering Careers (PEARLS) and for Building Capacity at Collaborative Undergraduate STEM Program in Resilient and Sustainable Infrastructure (RISE-UP). Both projects are funded by NSF.Dr. Sonia M. Bartolomei-Suarez, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus Sonia M. Bartolomei-Suarez is a Professor of Industrial Engineering at the University of Puerto Rico Mayag¨uez (UPRM). She graduated with a BS in Industrial Engineering from UPRM (1983), a MSIE (1985) from Purdue University, and a PhD in Industrial Engineering (1996) from The Pennsylvania State University. Her teaching and research interests include: Discrete Event Simulation, Facilities Planning, Material Handling Systems, Women in Academia in STEM fields
;• continual assessment; and• extensive feedback.Active learning involves activities that engage students in doing something, instead of onlyobserving what can or should be done. Students are made aware of their own learning actionsand that they must consciously plan, implement, monitor and evaluate these actions. Thesignificance of this principle is in accordance with research results which show that activelearning has the strongest positive influence on academic improvement.13 Face to faceinteraction is the main mode of communication between facilitators (lecturer and tutors) and thestudents, but is not in a traditional lecture style format. The course is presented in a computerlaboratory where facilitator-student and student-student interaction are