questions were based upon Tinto’s (1987, 2010)work and divided into two areas: drivers and barriers to university: preferences andexpectations of study [15, 16]. The questions were built around “Agreement Likert Scales” andpresented in a matrix fashion.The findings of the study are presented in tabular format utilising descriptive statistics basedupon percentages. The reason for this is reflective of the research philosophy that underpinsthe project; it is important that the findings and outputs are fully accessible to a range ofcolleagues including non-academic support staff. 2.2 SamplingTwo different cohorts were sampled, the first comprising 150 students on a ‘GeneralEngineering Foundation Programme’ at pre-undergraduate level, the
response to self-reported vulnerabilities and concerns of engineeringstudents. This paper presents data from practical efforts to identify and mitigate anxiety amongengineering students. A group of twenty-seven engineering and engineering technology studentswho were part of a scholarship program was asked to submit journal entries in which theyreflected on their fears and anxieties related to their participation in their degree program.Prominent themes which emerged from student reflection included time management and itseffects on academics and social activities, the likelihood of degree completion and success inengineering-specific coursework (e.g. senior capstone projects), and aspects of life followinggraduation such as handling accumulated
, proposing a conceptualmodel of the factors that influence global competency levels, and also identifies the baselinelevels of global competency for benchmarking. The resulting conceptual model and globalcompetency measures will be useful toward larger scale inquiries to evaluate how participationin study abroad programs, international experiences, culturally-relevant curricula, and otherrelated activities can contribute to changes in students’ ability to work in diverse environments.The Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale short form (MGUDS-S) measures the“universe-diverse orientation” construct, which “reflects an attitude of awareness of both thesimilarities and differences that exist among people”2. Higher MGUDS-S scores have
not only was this exhausting, but that it worked against theirmastery of the concepts: Having a whole day of lectures, theoretically, allows students to focus on the work and ask questions in a ordered, consecutive manner. Unfortunately, owing to the long days [specifically in CHE3005W] this was not achieved practically as the long hours is exhausting for the student and the lecturers. Additionally, it was difficult to not really know anything about the topic at 10h00 and then by 18h00 essentially finishing two weeks worth of information. If one did not understand a concept or if one needs time to reflect on the work to fully understand it, meridian was the only time to do so to ensure that one
encouraging collaboration andreducing competition may increase achievement. Cooperative learning is one such instructionalstrategy that has been shown to improve affective outcomes, such as self-efficacy in students.12Cooperative Learning Group learning can take a variety of forms, and many of the terms to describe these formsare used interchangeably (e.g., cooperative, collaborative and problem-based learning13). Thesegroup learning varieties have been found to increase student motivation and achievement, butdiffer in terms of level of task structure, the assignment of roles to group members, use of sharedmaterials, involvement of instructors, and built-in reflection on the process. One particular grouplearning structure used in the current
practical and intellectually appropriateresearch design?In this paper, we consider one such idea: The prevailing stigma of research conducted on smallpopulations in research on equity. Whatever its source or however explicit (or not) its ideologicalorigins, disregard of the “small n” population as non-meaningful reproduces a marginalization ofstudents. It also casts particular human experiences as aberrant by virtue of statistical rarity. Butmost profoundly, researchers’ definition of small or large “ns” reiterates the value or necessityfor established categories (say, racial demarcations, or binaries of ability and disability), whilewe instead believe that critical reflection on categories is necessary for any address of power andprivilege. Our
). Rather than establishing this binary, we think it might be helpful toconsider positivism and interpretivism along continua or spectra, in which ICR measures mightbe helpful in the context of some qualitative studies but inconsistent in the context of others. Tofurther raise questions about the use of ICR, we next describe our own qualitative work inengineering educational research and we describe our discussions and considerationssurrounding ICR in our attempts to ensure quality in our own qualitative research. Intercoder Reliability and Quality: Reflections on a Qualitative Multiple Case StudyTo contextualize our discussion of ICR measures and quality, we begin with a brief descriptionof our own ongoing qualitative work: a multiple case study
and communication with technical and non-technical peers. Students worked in teamsof three and four to solve ill-defined problems presented by the instructor. Topics coveredConstruction Waste, Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Recycling Education, PublicTransportation, and Campus Transit. Deliverables, including a technical report, an oralpresentation, and an analytical reflection, were used as data for this project. Students weresurveyed to assess their perceptions of problem-based learning. There were seventy-twoparticipants over three semesters. One preliminary result from both the survey and qualitativedata is that students felt confident about working with others from different disciplines. Studentsmostly commented positively about their
engineering and education to aid the generations who aim to become future engineers.Luisa Chiesa, Mechanical Engineering, Tufts University c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Work-in-Progress: Learning Assistant “Noticing” in an Undergraduate Engineering Science CourseMany engineering educators are exploring new approaches to support more productive learningbehaviors during required engineering science courses. These approaches range from pedagogyworkshops for faculty to programs fostering student reflection and meta-cognition. Someengineering departments are also establishing “learning assistant” (LA) programs thatincorporate pedagogically trained undergraduate students as
engineering students and eightpreservice teachers. T-tests were used to compare participants’ pre-/post- scores on a codingquiz. A post-lesson written reflection asked the undergraduate students to describe their roboticslessons and what they learned from interacting with their cross disciplinary peers and thefifth/sixth graders. Content analysis was used to identify emergent themes. Engineering students’perceptions were generally positive, recounting enjoyment interacting with elementary studentsand gaining communication skills from collaborating with non-technical partners. Preserviceteachers demonstrated gains in their technical knowledge as measured by the coding quiz, butreported lacking the confidence to teach coding and robotics independently
. These embedded forms are not made up of “individual acts of meanness by members of[the dominant group],” but by institutional history9.In her distinguished lecture, McIntosh addressed White privilege and the surrounding myths thatpeople can unknowingly propagate. She began by speaking of her upbringing in a “normal”family and of her father working as an engineer at Bell Labs. As circumstance in her life gaveher reason to pause and reflect, she realized that as a White woman, she was allowed to considerherself normal, as she was part of what society considers normal. She referred to her seminalwork, White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, in which she discussed earnedstrengths and unearned powers9. These unearned powers accrue into
honorsstudents. Preliminary analysis show a student population with normal distributions on the active-reflective, sensing-intuitive, and sequential-global Felder Learning Styles scales and anextremely skewed visual-verbal distribution favoring visual learners with less than 5% of thetotal population self-rated as moderate to strong verbal learners. We report on a comparison ofthe Felder Learning Styles scales, assignment preparation time, and course performance. Theseresults provide insights into significant predictors of student success based on learning style andcurriculum type. The ultimate goal is to provide appropriate preparatory course materials to
have toldme in the past that it is hard for them to listen to a woman because ... ‘it’s like ... in my mind it’sstill set that I know what I’m doing because I’m the guy ...’” [10, p. 281]. While she successfullygraduated with a mechanical engineering degree, Sandra reflected, “I can understand where theyare coming from ‘cause maybe that’s the culture in his family and where he’s from” [10, p. 281].Put simply, Sandra’s friend had deeply held beliefs that women were less knowledgeable thanmen; nevertheless, her male friend’s beliefs were his issues alone and not a reflection of her orwomen as engineers. The idea that to belong in engineering is to be male is embedded in the fielddue to the historical traditions of being a masculine-oriented
interviewed twice to capture new experiences and changes in perspectivesafter switching job roles, or after graduating and starting their first full-time positions. Anothergroup of subjects is being asked to respond to a series of guided reflection prompts during theirinternship or co-op rotations, culminating with an exit interview. This work goes beyondinvestigating how early career engineers grapple with technical problems to more broadly studythe nature of their encounters with boundary spanning situations and challenges, in part viewedthrough the boundary spanning typology and themes identified during the first project phase.This paper offers additional details about the development and evolution of our ethnographicinterviewing protocol, as well
such asCalculus, and increase their sense of belonging, preparedness, and self-efficacy. To understandstudent perspectives and experiences, we utilized Participatory Action Research (PAR) toconstruct a series of formative assessments prioritizing the views and participation of the RAMPstudents themselves. PAR was selected as a research and assessment strategy due to its emphasison student participation and empowerment linked with action for positive change. Onlinesurveys and four focus groups involved the students in topics geared towards developing apsychologically safe space for sharing experiences, providing feedback on program activities,and reflecting on personal goals, values, and aspirations. Based on our findings, we identify
toconduct tasks. Similarly, competence describes a student’s belief in their ability tounderstand content. Performance and competence are closely linked. In later quantitativestudies of identity, these factors were combined into one performance/competence factor,thus reflecting student’s self-perception of performance as linked to their actualperformance. Recognition describes how parents, relatives, friends, and instructors seethe student in a given context. This framework was expanded by Hazari, Sonnert, Sadler,and Shanahan (2010) in their quantitative analysis of physics identity with the addition ofinterest to the framework. Interest describes one’s enjoyment in learning or interest inlearning about engineering. The PCIR framework refers to the
apprenticeship framing presumethat expertise comes through scaffolded, reflective, and social performance leading towardcontextually adaptable mastery. These contrasting frames, supported by case studies, provide atheoretical basis for improved curricular culture change.Introduction: Pedagogical change is curricular culture changeEducational experiences are embedded in curricular cultures. By curricular cultures, we meanparticular sets of assumptions, practices, and skills regarding teaching and learning that areshared by a community, or, in more colloquial terms, “the way we do things around here” withrespect to the curriculum. An individual course typically includes a particular set of expectations,roles, activities, artifacts, and underlying
complementary, and both are necessary if engineers are to helpsolve the most serious problems our societies face [3-4]. This call for engineering education toposition itself so students can meet modern challenges was laid out by the leaders of the NationalAcademy of Engineering (NAE) in their influential reports, The Engineer of 2020 [5-6]. There isnow a need to reflect on how engineering education has positively changed in the decade sincethose reports, and to consider what still needs to be tackled.Our research aligns with one of the key recommendations of The Engineer of 2020: to developengineers whose communication skills will allow them to become successful professionals and,who, in turn, will drive technological and social change. Specifically
still emerging, although there have been some paperspublished using this approach15, 16. Tomkins and Eatough17 discuss strategies for use of IPA infocus group settings, highlighting the need for a sensitive approach that acknowledges thedifferences of group-based interactions. Themes from both individual and group interviews arereported in this paper.Positioning and methodological rigor – A key aspect of all qualitative research is the analyst’srole as researcher and research tool, as their understanding and interpretation are central to theproject’s success. To clarify those roles and enact boundaries, IPA calls for a reflective dialoguebetween analyst and participant13. Throughout the process of analysis, the researcher ‘brackets’their
, we focus on human diversity as reflective of “broad heterogeneity in socialidentities and statuses represented among individuals in a shared engineering experience” [1].We see these dimensions as situated in, interacting with, and influenced by the cultural andsocial norms in which individuals operate. In turn, individuals affect those cultural norms.Understanding these aspects is increasingly recognized as an important part of learning tobecome an engineer. Though traditional engineering education has been, and to a large extentstill is, focused on students acquiring technical knowledge [2] [3], in the workplace engineers arerequired to bring more than technical expertise to solve problems. As part of their work, theyoften draw on different
Paper ID #16372Making an Impact on Engineering Education Communities: Learning fromthe Past and Looking ForwardDr. Cheryl Allendoerfer, University of Washington Dr. Allendoerfer is a Research Scientist in the College of Engineering at the University of Washington.Dr. Ken Yasuhara, University of Washington, Center for Engineering Learning & Teaching Ken Yasuhara is a research scientist at the Center for Engineering Learning & Teaching (CELT), a campus lead for the Consortium to Promote Reflection in Engineering Education (CPREE), and an instructional consultant in the Office for the Advancement of Engineering Teaching
-level electrical and computer engineering course. The primary source ofdata was 21 transcribed audio recordings of design meetings and is supplemented withinterviews, reflections, and course artifacts. Thematic analysis revealed 10 themes that representconnections and disconnections between the process used and a common five-stage designthinking process (empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test). These themes demonstrate someof the opportunities and challenges related to design thinking within an engineering coursedesign setting. In particular, they suggest that engineering course design is a relevant context fordesign thinking, but one to which design thinking methods do not always naturally translated.Future work should focus on better
implement the SSDS and illustrate the findings when usingthis survey pre- and post- course with students who participated in WPSI across threeuniversities during the Fall of 2014. Results from these components are triangulated withstudents’ end-of-semester written reflections and participating instructors’ course experiences.This qualitative component allowed us to consider how WPSI might be improved in future Page 26.508.3iterations, as well as broader implications of the SSDS and WPSI for engineering educationcourses and curriculum.For anonymity, throughout this paper we will refer to course offerings as Course 1, 2, and 3. Thisframing puts the
decisions today, related to yourdesign project?”). We found that students reliably accounted for the decisions observed.Based on these subconstructs, we developed Likert statements written as simple concepts [48]with a 7-point bipolar scale, with a middle option to reduce measurement error [49]. Researchsuggests that using item-specific scales, as opposed to the commonplace agree/disagree scale,can improve the quality of responses [50]; we thus avoided agree/disagree scales and focused ondeveloping scales that reflected the construct we sought to measure. For instance, we avoidedscales that focused on frequency (e.g., always to never), as in our discourse analysis, weobserved that even infrequent decisions were sometimes very impactful. This
” Mechanical EngineeringResearch quality was considered throughout the data collection and analysis process, based onthe Qualifying Qualitative Research Quality (Q3) framework by Walther, Sochacka, and Kellam[17]. The belongingness responses from each student were coded using in vivo codes [18]. Invivo codes brought richness to the analysis and reflected the exact words used by the students[17]. Multiple coding and theming passes, as well as a constant comparative method, were usedacross interviews to tightly link the themes to the data [19]. Authors had ongoing conversationsabout emergent results and addressed borderline cases. Memos were kept throughout theanalytical process to document and make apparent the researchers’ perspectives.The qualitative
acrucial, albeit often overlooked, element of promoting the success, persistence, and retention ofminority students within STEM disciplines [11]. Furthermore, recent studies have highlightedthe relationship between race and gender (for example) in STEM identity development,demonstrating the importance and effectiveness in understanding identity in shaping Blackstudent experiences, particularly regarding student engagement as well as barriers to successwithin STEM majors [12] [13].Regarding HBCUs, these institutions seek to provide and preserve cultural aspects that are notgenerally reflected or offered to minoritized students within Predominately White Institutions(PWIs) and broader society. In reviewing the impact of institutional climate on
selected to gain a broadrepresentation of the engineering disciplines (bioengineering, computer science, chemicalengineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, industrial engineering, and mechanicalengineering) and age (millennials with a mean age of 22.1 years). The social groups used toidentify the students reflected diversity in self-identified gender (15 female, 15 male, and 2transgender) and race/ethnicity (9 Asian, 9 White, 4 Black/African American, 7 Hispanic/Latino,and 3 multiracial students). As mentioned above, students were asked open ended questions onattributes of leaders and the findings presented in this paper focus specifically on 10 questionsrelated to prototypical attributes of leaders. Samples of these questions
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
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
. One of the degree plans is housed in a traditional engineering department whereidentity formation is implicit (i.e., our control group), and one is a non-traditional engineeringdegree plan where identity development is explicit. Therefore, before describing the researchmethods used to assess engineering identity development of students in both departments, whatfollows is a summary of how the departments implicitly and explicitly attempt to developengineering identity, particularly in the non-traditional department.Engineering identity development in the non-traditional department is scaffolded across a rangeof activities, from project-based learning and reflection to the deliberate study of other identities,such as entrepreneur and leader. By