problem often reflected the presuppositions, preferences, and expectations of others in thegroup, along with the acceptable procedures and structures constituting the organization. Themethods participants followed for working on a problem or project depended on instruction andguidance from coworkers and managers reflecting the preferences and expectations of others inthe organization. The complexity and ambiguity of some of the problems reported by the newengineers in this study agrees with the descriptions of ill-structured problems provided byJonasson, Strobel, and Lee46. They characterized the everyday problems of engineering as ill-structured, having multiple, often conflicting goals and multiple solutions. Furthermore, non-engineering
key unique aspect is that this classroom was designed for engineering classes and is “owned”by the engineering department. In addition to allowing the customization of the classroom forengineering needs, this ownership helps to build the sense of attachment in both engineeringstudents and in the faculty.AssessmentFinal development and IRB approval of the formal assessment of this space is underway. A keyelement of that assessment is an assessment of student engagement. Student engagement hasbeen shown to be an appropriate target for assessment of learning spaces which reflects learningquality.28 Student engagement is also a direct reflection of our goal of seeing student-to-studentinteraction and student-to-faculty interactions increase.A
morescholarly activities, and engineering education is a case-in-point. The post-WWII and Sputnikeras saw a massive influx of federal support for research in higher education, increased hiring ofresearch-oriented faculty members, and curriculum revisions that reflected faculty members'interests. By 2000, engineering education looked more like that in a traditional science than in aprofession.3 Government, business, and professional societies pressed for engineering educationreforms in order to sustain America's technological and economic leadership. Consistent with Finkelstein et al.,1 one explanation for the failure of engineeringprograms to provide graduates with important professional skills is that most engineeringstudents are taught by
difficulty formulatingthe problem.ScaffoldingBased on the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development, scaffolding is a cognitive supportmechanism that enables learners to perform cognitively based tasks that are just beyond theirability.11 Scaffolding includes instructional assistance that helps problem solvers find thesolution that they would not be able to find otherwise.12 The degree of assistance will depend onthe expertise of the problem solver and the difficulty of the problem. Barron et al. suggested thatan effective form of scaffolding is to have students and instructors reflect on the relationshipbetween problem solving activities and the goal state throughout the problem solving process.13Although many forms of modeling and coaching have
. This procedure establishes thevalidity of the instrument. Consequently, the first step in creating this tinkering and technicalself-efficacy instrument was to survey experts in the field of engineering. The experts consistedof a volunteer sample of engineering faculty, students, and practicing engineers, who aremembers of ASEE. There were a total of 101 respondents (71 members of ASEE, 24 engineeringstudents in a design course at a large university located in the southwest, and 6 engineeringfaculty at the same institution). The gender composition of the ASEE experts is unknown butthere were two females in the ASU faculty group and four female engineering students. It isreasonable to expect that the gender composition of the ASEE group reflects
annotations without support. In addition,this paper uses the answers to these questions to comment on the educational significance ofwriting effective annotations.IntroductionBecause research tells us that “experience alone is a poor teacher,” [1] the engineering educationcommunity is exploring activities that can support the student’s making meaning (and learning)from their experiences. Recently, much attention has been devoted to having students constructportfolios—collections of artifacts, possibly annotated, put together to tell a story and/or supporta set of claims. Such portfolios can provide students with an opportunity to reflect on theirexperiences, share their experiences with others, and see experiences as a building block forfuture
between collective r esponsibility cpf"vjg"hcewnv{"ogodgtÓu"fguktg"vq" maximize his/her autonomy; ‚ The tension between collective r esponsibility and faculty collegiality0ÑThe challenges inherent in the curricular change process often lead to conversations that defaultto issues of content. This is understandable because it reflects faculty interest and expertise in Page 13.906.4general and their point of frustration in terms of student performance. It also demonstrates theirmental models and ladders of inference44 as well as the curse of knowledge45 Î all of theautomatic and largely invisible patterns of thinking in which experts
conducted a three-year study of 460 students at seven institutions,investigating why students leave or persist in science, mathematics and engineering (SME)majors8. Using ethnographic interviews, Seymour and Hewitt studied attrition among SME Page 13.137.4majors, with the aim of deriving a set of testable hypotheses from student reflections. Theyevaluated how students weighed numerous factors in deciding to leave SME for non-SMEmajors or, conversely, to persist in SME majors despite challenges and setbacks. Seymour andHewitt's work suggests that students are leaving engineering not for lack of ability, but becauseof structural and cultural factors
taken within the major, lackof course choice, and interconnectivity of courses with many prerequisites [Nespor 1990, Tonso2006]. In addition, the rigor of many engineering programs and the need for collaborative workfosters a strong sense of camaraderie [Dryburgh 1999]. All of these factors are reflected in theconstructed culture of engineering schools; in order to foster the development of an engineeringidentity, the culture of engineering schools frequently revolves around the idea that engineeringstudents are ‘different’ from other students. This manifests in ways such as overt displays ofgroup belonging (such as school jackets or t-shirts) or pride in isolation from the rest of theacademy [Dryburgh 1999, Godfrey 2001].Given the gendered
personalexperiences and attributes among engineering students to influence retention among all students;of particular interest is retention of females, since this population of engineering students hasconsistently reflected higher attrition from the field of study. The role of context in thedevelopment of instruments for retention studies needs to be studied more thoroughly.For this work, we are developing a new survey instrument to explore the effects of context onengineering retention; this article describes the pilot test of the instrument. Seven factors relatedto retention, as reported in engineering education, science education, and educational psychologyliterature, were identified as relevant to measuring educational context and therefore selected
a longitudinalcomparison of responses from the same participants. While the survey was administered to alarger sample, we limited the present analysis to students who self-identified as studyingtowards an engineering major in both years and who answered at least two of the three designquestions. The final longitudinal sample included responses from 110 students, across thefour institutions.Demographic information was gathered from students in the first year of the APS. Genderwas determined based on students’ self-reports. Reflecting the oversampling of women inthe APS study, 37% of the participants in this sample were women (n = 41).Students also were identified in terms of what we refer to as representation status in thispaper—that is
given.2. Expanding own contribution and providing 11. EXP EXPANDING additional information. Elaborating on a topic that is somewhat understood. But then I was like that would be like ice cubes Reflecting on own understanding. Clarifying and water expand
, ERM perception indicated that Engineering Education Page 13.970.8was an avenue for educating engineers that provided holistic education in discipline content,engineering basics and liberal education. Further, open-ended responses strongly suggested thatthis group viewed engineering education as understanding the uniqueness of engineeringcognition, developing experiences that brought about deep learning, and study how experiencesallow a student to develop into a reflective practitioner. The perceptions were strong on processand research in engineering education. The perception of dual careers as being an engineer andan engineering educator was
previousclass.What is also of interest is that the report scores were statistically different by the Student’s t-testanalysis (95% confidence level) between classes 1 and 4, and between classes 2 and 4. Nostatistical difference was evident when the report scores of the class using CPR (class 3) wascompared to any of the other classes.ConclusionsAlthough there is no direct correlation between the effectiveness of reviewing skills in theproject report quality as reflected by score, the grader of the reports was much more satisfiedwith the writing quality. This probably allowed for finer scrutiny of the content required in thereport; somewhat following the expectation that CPR scoring of low difficulty on the practiceassignment could be increased to moderate
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
institutions that are considered primarilyteaching institutions. Concomitantly, the roles of faculty members have changed to reflect theincreased importance of research. Although research output is one key component in theevaluation of salary increases, promotion, and tenure, sustaining active research in primarilyteaching institutions can be challenging at best. Furthermore, as research activities in mostinstances are commonly pursued by the faculty through externally funded programs, obtainingsuch external funding can be somewhat problematic at teaching – versus research - institutions.This paper discusses multiple ways of motivating and assisting faculty to conduct research andscholarly work at what has traditionally been a highly teaching-focused
some minor modifications, the voice of students as reflected in their evaluations can also be incorporated into this methodology. However, such a modification is outside of the scope of this paper and is not discussed here. The House of Quality is the principal tool used in QFD. It is depicted in figure 1.Figure 1: The House of Quality (QFD)The customer requirements are entered in the left column and are translated into coursecharacteristics under technical requirements. The customer requirements are prioritized under thecustomer importance column. An interesting feature of using this approach is to comparecharacteristics of the course with similar courses available at other institutions so as to be able toattract more students
usually obtain more specific and useful information when we probe concrete and non- routine events than when we ask about general rules and procedures . . . probing in the CDM is not limited to responses that can be objectively anchored and verified. Questions can sometimes require the decision makers to reflect on their own strategies and bases for decisions . . . the probes are designed to obtain information at its most specific and meaningful level . . . thus we ask the decision- maker to select an incident that was challenging and that, in his or her decision- making, might have differed from someone with less experience.” (p. 465-466)In our case, we asked faculty to describe two specific
the course of thetask by talking with other people, investigating research documents, utilizing pastresearch, and reflecting on their previous experiences. This speaks to the role ofexperience, tradition, and history “doing design” and “being a designer.” Page 13.273.16The theme of ‘depth’ emphasized designers’ stance on the importance of solid contentbackground in the discipline. Designers stressed the importance of depth of knowledge.While there are certainly skills associated with design tasks that are separate from contentknowledge, content knowledge is a foundation for decision making. Content knowledgehelps build intuition, and informs
defining, designing for, and planning for assessment ofstudent motivation is the QFD. This method has been effectively used to design learningactivities that motivate students and ultimately produce positive measureable results in academicsuccess. Learner centered games that focus on student interests provide an effective pathway tostudent motivation and academic success. Successful games include simple web based gamesthat may take only a few hours to create to complex gaming environments that form a frameworkfor an entire course. Students that are motivated through specifically designed course activitiescan not only provide opportunities to create environments that motivate and engage students tothink reflectively about engineering content and to
presentation and discussion of technical and computational issues projects should address 3. Follow-up Reflection Assignment 4. Review computational approaches in final reports Figure 2. Schematic of the instruction and assessment in BME design class.Details about each of the numbered steps are provided below.1) The invention activity is given as a homework assignment. Students are asked to review a previous team’s report with a critical eye regarding the technical/computational components of the team’s work. The homework includes two invention activities. In the first, students are asked to generate a list of the technical details that all design
bydegree requirements, availability of suitable textbooks, and other resource and pedagogicalissues. So the perception that faculty don’t immediately respond to good assessment data maysimply reflect the conservative nature of the academy in responding to curricular issues.In addition to the work on institutional change models, other authors have attempted to addressfactors that support or hinder institutional change. For example Litzer6 reports that affectedfaculty and administrators must clearly perceive value in the changes proposed.New Elements to the Change ModelWhat seems to be missing from these change models is the role time plays in institutionalization.Responding to faculty prudence regarding change, an important aspect of sustaining
that make a good engineer, and others. Inresponses to such questions students described how they imagined engineering workplaces andthe work of engineering. We found that students in their first year of preparation to becomeengineers knew little about what kind of work they would be doing in the future as engineers.That is, they developed hopeful images of engineering. In some cases these images were alteredor augmented in later years to become more mundane. For some students images from the firstyear remained virtually unchanged into their fourth year. Our discussion reflects how students’identities are affected both by common, widely circulating images of engineering and theabsence of real workplace experiences in the undergraduate
these signs that engineering education may not be providing graduates with sufficientattributes to commence their careers, it is interesting to observe that little research has beenreported on engineering practice.There are very few recent reports of systematic research on engineering practice, with thepossible exception of certain aspects of engineering design14. Florman5 complained that "Theaverage citizen has very little idea what we do, often confusing us with people who run trainsor take care of boiler rooms." In fact it is still not easy for the interested citizen to find acoherent written account that could provide a comprehensive answer.On reflection, the reason for this gap in the research literature might be explained by therelatively
, consulting and reassessing as and when necessary iv. Metacognitive monitoring of oneself, people needing attention and the general process of the case, problem, project or situation.The time dimension provides for instant reflex actions (short term), and deliberative diagnosisand action with review and reflection (long term). The survival dimension involves theconstruction of learned routines that become tacit over time enabling the professional to respondquickly to situations with increasing responsibility and complexity.None of these studies provide detailed information on what the graduates are actually doing intheir work and hence can provide information to evaluate in detail the strengths and weaknessesof their undergraduate
change with time and relate toexperiences they are having on campus.In his third year, Joe talks about balancing skills and knowledge with “willingness to learn andexplore”. During this time he is trying to decide if he should pursue industry or research and hisinterview responses reflect his struggle with this decision. His basis for distinguishing thebetween two career avenues is not clear.By her fourth year, Anna’s beliefs about skills needed for success are more grounded inengineering. Similar to Hillary’s answer in the first year, Anna’s answers are generic. Annatalks about having “many, many skills: writing skills; people skills; management skills; skills tobe aware of, of umm, the project as a whole and where you’re going with it” and
) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Inaddition, the authors thank Dr. George Toye for tending to the database storage needs of theproject, Elizabeth Lee for her assistance in coding the data, Mia Clark for her assistance inediting, and Patrick Ferguson for providing data on the School, as well as Claire Dwan and hertranscription services.References1. S.D. Sheppard, K. Silva, "Descriptions of Engineering Education: Faculty, Student and Engineering PractitionerPerspectives," 2001 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, October 9-11, 2001, Reno, NV.2. L. Saks, “Undergraduate Science Majors
secondary classroom, and the application/presentation component. This willprovide more closure to the lesson and allow teachers the opportunity to synthesize the data thatthey collect and make sense of it. Additionally, while teachers work on their presentations, theywill have opportunities to interact with members of the professional development team anddiscuss conceptual questions in small groups. The post-lesson discussion period will also bemore directed towards means of classroom implementation to provide a more organized forumfor teachers to reflect on implementation.It is important to note that although we were interested in exploring how teachers connectedconcepts from quantum dots to their curricula (research question 1), we were not able
order to apply the findings ofthis research to future school settings, the data collection would have to be limited to a quantityand scope that would not be onerous to busy educators. Thus a strategic decision was made tolimit the set of potential variables to a more manageable size. The BY data from 8th grade wasthe earliest data collected about the students and represented the earliest point in the NELS studyat which academic assessments could be made. Prior research findings in the literature were Page 13.55.5used to select a smaller set of variables to be tested. A set of 66 variables was selected. Thesevariables reflected aspects of
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