more diverse in acceptedcategories or more accepting of complex identities that may not fit a single category7(p8). Thesechanges reflect shifting social norms, and appropriate assumptions about the individuals beingasked demographic questions7,8. For example, the first US census, conducted in 1790, countedboth (Whitea) males and (White) females, which was a novel approach at the time. However, ittook 180 years, until 1970, for the census to differentiate people of Hispanic or Latino originfrom those who identified as White, a change introduced to help measure anti-discriminationcompliance9. Beyond simply including new categories or dimensions of demographics, smallchanges in how questions are asked such as a shift from “select one” a response
Illinois at Chicago B.S. Purdue University c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Continuous Evaluation of Student Class Performance Using Group Based, In-class QuizzesIntroductionTraditional methods of evaluating student performance in the classroom involve assigningweekly homework assignments, semester long projects, conducting examinations (e.g., mid-terms/finals), and holding arbitrary pop quizzes. Amongst these methods homework assignmentsare a traditional indicator of a student’s continuous learning of the subject matter. Traditionally,performance on homework assignments reflects the level of understanding that the student has ofthe material that is covered in the
identified.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1361417. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.References1. Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., & Hall, T. S. (2010). Diffusion of Engineering Education Innovations: A Survey of Awareness and Adoption Rates in U.S. Engineering Departments. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 185-207.2. Hall, G., & Hord, S. (1987). Change in Schools: Facilitating the Process: State University of New York Press.3. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and
Figure 1: Study ProcessLearning StyleWe relied on the Index of Learning Style (ILS) that assesses preferences on four learningstyle dimensions using a model developed by Felder and Silverman12. The model defineslearning style as ‘the characteristic strengths and preferences in the ways individuals take inand process information’ and asserts that individuals have preferences along four bipolardimensions: Active-Reflective, Sensing-Intuitive, Visual-Verbal, and Sequential-Global.Hawk and Shah have described the styles as follow 8. Active learners prefer doing things,particularly in groups. Reflective learners work better alone with time to think about the taskbefore doing it. Sensing learners like facts, data, and experimentation and work well
currently included in the CCW framework, such as spiritual capital. Thus,we believe that our work has the potential to extend these frameworks.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), undergrant number 1463808. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressedin these findings are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.References1. Frehill LM. The Gendered Construction of the Engineering Profession in the United States, 1893-1920. Men Masc. 2004;6(4):383-403. doi:10.1177/1097184X03260963.2. Pawley AL. What counts as “engineering”: Towards a redefinition. In: Pawley AL, Riley DM, eds. Engineering and Social Justice: In
, promotingracial understanding, and helping others in need) are more associated with personality traits. A T-test did not confirm that any of the changes were statistically significant. Possiblereasons may be attributed to: we were unable to match the results of individual participants fromtime 1 to time 2—all responses were anonymous and we did not include a way to match time 1and time 2 responses for each participant; the sample size at time 1 (n = 84) was noticeablysmaller than the sample size at time 2 (n = 115); the time between surveys was only 3 weeks;apart from requiring field observations and testing prototypes with actual children, no otherinterventions were made to promote self-awareness or social-awareness (e.g. critical reflection
that were (at the time of this paper) informally committed. These experienceshave led us to carefully document and reflect on our recruitment experiences and in what followswe present data and analysis of these experiences. In turn, we speculate about the broadercontext that may be generating the unusual difficulties we have faced in securing fieldworkparticipation.Encountering difficulties in mediated recruitmentIn the first phase of research, we employed a direct recruitment strategy, which involved aresearcher directly contacting potential study participants (i.e. new engineers) and asking them tobe involved. While this process yielded eight engineers who consented to be part of the study,none ultimately were enrolled in the study because
becomeresponsible for their own learning, which necessitates reflective, critical thinking aboutwhat is being learned22. In PBL, students are asked to put their knowledge to use and tobe reflective and self-directed learners.”23Barrows and Kelson24 identify five goals behind the design of PBL instruction. Self-directed learning is explicitly stated. The goals are the following: 1) construct knowledge; 2) acquire problem-solving skills; 3) become self-directed learners; 4) develop effective collaborative skills; and 5) enhance intrinsic motivation to learn.The act of engaging in SDL is an essential component of the student learning in PBL.Whether this is implicit for the students or made explicit by their facilitators, the studentsare
relative prevalence and strength of certain factorsindicative of potential for organizational change. These factors underlie many postsecondary educationimprovement interventions’ theories of action and take into consideration the context in whichpostsecondary initiatives are situated. Finally, we reflect on the practicality of our research model towardsinforming and revising an intervention’s theory of action, as well as its feasibility for other efforts toimprove and study related change in postsecondary education organizations.IntroductionInterventions to improve postsecondary teaching and learningIn response to public opinion, as well as research in postsecondary education, the US continues efforts tostrengthen postsecondary education to
instructor was strict with punctuality and had control over class participation. On theother hand, he made students participate and asked questions that made students think andengage. Often our interviewees compared their positive experience in their second semesterwith negative ones in the first semester. They criticized the distant and blackboard-focusedinstructors they had in their first semester. Student also pointed out that they did not believeinstructors took into account the fact that there were some important differences regardingthe academic preparation among first year students.Self-awareness and Self-efficacy When students reflected on their moments of crisis and how they overcame it, all ofthem suggested that their failures were
homework assignments, midterm and final exams,and a final project. The final project required students to propose an electromagnetics-relatedproblem they would like to explore computationally, develop a computational model for theirproblem using MATLAB or a similar software package, and present their results in the form of ascientific journal paper. Example problems included finding a way to reduce lossy reflections offsolar cells and determining the maximum distance a railgun can launch a projectile.The professor perceived a few problems in this previous version of EENG 386. Students wouldfrequently clamor to see more example problems and applications during class time. While aclear attempt was made to devote time to these aspects of the course
reflections about their SRLstrategy use. While the intervention may have impacted student self-report of their SRL strategyuse, two benefits occurred: improved rapport with the researcher, who provided the intervention,and a greater fluency of SRL strategies in the reflections and interviews30.The survey distributed at the end of semester included four sections with 86 items. Some itemswere adapted to be applicable to an engineering course from the Motivated Strategies forLearning Questionnaire (MSLQ)31,32. Other survey items were written in three sections16: a 13item goal orientation section, a 28 item FTP section, and 16 items on task and course specificproblem-solving self-efficacy33. The MSLQ31,34,35 has been well-documented, and the MSLQ andMAE
betterunderstanding of racism in the same way sociologists do, for example. However, by not namingracism, we allow racism to persist.Data Driven ResearchData driven research is crucial to elucidate many pathway impediments in engineering, informthe community and move toward strategies for improvement. It is important that this researchtakes multiple forms: large quantitative studies, small qualitative investigations and personalself-reflections. We need to expand the categories of data we collect, where possible, includinggeneration in college status, veteran status, disability, LGBTQA (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual,transgender, queer or questioning, and ally or asexual). We also need to collect demographicvariables aligned with our current understanding of
-84. doi:10.1002/tl[12] Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 933–940. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.034[13] Greiffenhagen, C. (2011). Making rounds: The routine work of the teacher during collaborative learning with computers. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. doi:10.1007/s11412-011- 9134-8[14] Hall, S. R., Wait, I., Brodeu, D. B., Soderholm, D. H., & Nasu, N (2002). Adoption of active learning in a lecture-based engineering class. In Proceedings of the 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.[15] Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H
California, Santa Cruz. Beckett’s continuing dissertation research examines a community-university collaboration situated in a low-income, predominantly Latino community, that created and used digital stories as artifacts and learning tools to engage members of the community (parents, teachers, district officials, union leaders, students, non-profit service providers, etc.) in reflection and dialogue around the economic, social, and cultural barriers that constituents face when advocating for student academic achievement, and to identify the strengths and solidarities that can be created to change the school system to better serve the student body (Beckett, Glass, & Moreno, 2012). Beckett has presented her research at
pseudonyms), was much slower than the class norm (e.g., in labprogramming assignments), and two students appeared to particularly excel. By the end of terminterviews, the professor and other students could pick out who in particular was struggling andslow, as could Isaac himself, who reflected “I just don’t think I have the brain for programming.”This happened, in spite of the fact that programming in the professional world is rarely a timedactivity with “winners” easily noticed, and in spite of the fact that the students with whom hecompared himself arguably did not belong in an introductory programming class. Specifically,two out of the five students arrived through non-traditional pathways (a second bachelor’sdegree, a community college transfer
communitiescommunity?”Pragmatic “Concepts Transparency “Knowledge Present results to designValidation – “Do underlying research Empathy produced… educators andthe concepts and design… Open-ended and meaningful in the researchers and discussknowledge claims compatible with non-leading social context applications and utilitywithstand reality in the field” questions underexposure to the investigation”realityinvestigated?”Ethical Validation Interview conducted Relaxed and Study results reflect Potential
considerations in the design of the course. This sociable environment and desirable community represent the next factors in themodel, Campus Connectedness and Sense of Community. Lee and Robbins have identified socialconnectedness as an aspect of the self that reflects individual awareness of interpersonalcloseness with the social world as a whole28-30. Campus connectedness is the characteristic ofsocial connectedness relating to a student’s connectedness and feelings of belonging with theirpeers in the context of a college environment31. While the collaboration that occurs in learninggroups is found to be an important factor to student persistence, it is the responsibility of aninstitution to provide an encouraging environment beyond the
). Categories not relevant to active orinteractive pedagogies removed from original framework. Lecture and guided practice categories added.These strategy descriptions were used to create survey items for student self-report measures(example items are including in the measures section below). The first six instructionalapproaches align with Chi’s (2009) descriptions of interactive learning, and the last two alignwith Chi’s (2009) descriptions of active learning. Although not entirely comprehensiveaccording to more recent accounts (Borrego, et al., 2013), the categories likely reflect manyforms of instructional strategies students engage with in their engineering courses and can beused to conduct a multidimensional examination of classroom
stepsfor solving problems: (1) define the problem, (2) gather pertinent information, (3) generatemultiple solutions, (4) analyze and select a solution, and (5) test and implement the solution.Pappas [36] stated that in order to solve engineering design problems, students require the use ofcreative critical thinking approaches that include: reflection, writing as thinking, visualization,unstructured brainstorming, and understanding the nature of “intentional change” in personalgrowth.Despite the proliferation of definitions, frameworks, and step-by-step approaches for problemsolving, there is a consensus regarding some of the important skills associated with effectiveproblem solving. It seems that all the approaches identify that effective problem
terms “studentskills” and “learning objectives” were each used by a single individual.Using fewer terms to identify and describe course outcomes and using them moreconsistently, suggests participants had greater familiarity with the design and development ofcourses as opposed to programs. Participants were also more comfortable talking about theircourses and course outcomes rather than the program, again suggesting greater familiaritywith the concept of courses having outcomes than they were with programs having outcomes.Familiarity with courses rather than program curricula was noted by Stark et al. 36. Theliterature that discusses curriculum in higher education also reflects this focus on courses 1,with an emphasis on course rather than
”indicates the validation team’s certainty about their judgements using a three level scale: 1 = notvery sure, 2 = pretty sure, and 3 = very sure, and “Relevance” reflected how well they thought anitem measured what was intended to be measured, using the following scale: 1 = low/norelevance, 2 = somewhat relevant, 3 = highly relevant. Netemeyer, et. al.9 also recommendedretaining items with sureness and relevance levels higher than the means. The items included inthe questionnaire have Sureness > 2.17, which means the judges were quite sure about theirjudgments, and Relevance > 66%, which means more than 66% of the judges rated this item asrelevant to what was intended to be measured. After the content validation process, all 37 itemswere
used with cautionand only adjust the model if they are consistent with theory. In this case, the wording ofQ8Eng_k and Q8Eng_l are very similar and these measurement items capture similarinformation about students’ competence beliefs; therefore, this modification was made and theresulting model better reflects the data implied matrix.Figure 2. Confirmatory factor analysis of the latent constructs of identity: interest (Int),recognition (Rec), and performance/competence (PC) beliefs for 2790 students in first-yearengineering at four U.S. institutions during the fall semester of 2015. All paths are significant atthe p < 0.001 level. Image generated using the semPlot package in R74,75.The confirmatory factor analysis indicates that the data do
QuestionsFollowing from this perspective, we aim to address the following questions: • How do representations of students by instructors function during a meeting in which instructors are working to determine grades for the course? More specifically: o How do the instructors position themselves and one another? o How do the instructors position students within categories that have consequences for success and lack of success? o How do these positionings reflect an instantiate particular ideologies and sets of values regarding calculus and its role in engineering?4. Research Context, Data, and MethodsOur research focuses on a the Access Program, a diversity-promoting program in
environment19.In more recent work, these benchmarks are replaced with engagement indicators that arecategorized into four themes: academic challenge, learning with peers, experiences with facultyand campus environment48. The course material delivery framework outlined in this paper 1focuses on some of these benchmarks including higher order learning, reflective and integrativelearning and learning strategies (all under the “academic challenge” theme).There have been several research efforts over the past many years to improve engagement inengineering classrooms. These include the use of a technology-centered classroom20, formationof learning
Paper ID #14971Measuring Student Response to Instructional Practices (StRIP) in Traditionaland Active ClassroomsMr. Kevin A. Nguyen, University of Texas, Austin Kevin Nguyen is currently a Ph.D. student in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education department at University of Texas at Austin. He has a B.S. and M.Eng in Environ- mental Engineering both from Texas Tech University. As an engineering education researcher, he has worked on projects regarding self-reflection, teamwork, active learning, and participatory science com- munities.Dr. Maura J. Borrego, University of Texas, Austin
fit within Zimmerman’s model of self-regulated learning. Students are encouragedto arrive with forethought, engage in performance, and reflect at the end of the tutoring session,time permitting. Additionally, tutors are trained on Gardner’s intelligences, learning styles, and thinkingstyles. Tutors are provided ample material and training to understand how to engage a studentbased on their demonstrated intelligences, learning styles and thinking styles. Trainingemphasizes to tutors that students receive and process information in a variety of ways. As peertutors they have the opportunity to create and increase learning opportunities for students15. Thetraining these tutors receives impacts their feedback efficacy16.III. Results and
variability in the data14. However, this instrument did notinclude several characteristics of the FTP cone types identified in our subsequent qualitativework. The study described in this paper attempts to further refine our survey instrument bycreating items that quantitatively capture latent constructs reflected in our qualitative findings .MethodsUsing an instrument in research that does not assess what the researchers are presuming tomeasure can lead to incorrect results and wrong decisions18. In refining the MAE survey, carewas taken in the process of choosing factors, developing items, and testing for validity andreliability.Developing ItemsFactors were chosen based on the results from our previous qualitative research. Code categoriesthat were
-making process become even more complex whendecisions are made in small group settings. There is research evidence that group interactionsand discourse processes can facilitate learning with reflection and co-construction of knowledge(e.g., [4] and individual achievement [5]). However, these verbal interactions may also preventsuccessful collaboration and lead to unproductive results (e.g., [6]). The purpose of this studywas to examine the relationship between verbal interactions that occur in a team and theindividual achievement and team performance. More specifically, the study explored: 1. To what degree the question, conflict, and reasoning episodes relate to students’ individual performance? 2. What is the strength of
mathematics (STEM) electives in high school. APh.D. student fellow from Drexel University and teacher from the Science Leadership Academy(SLA) in Philadelphia will teach robotics and engineering principles through open-endedprojects that address several of the NEA grand challenges. These projects are structured usingconstructivist pedagogy that ties into five core values: inquiry, research, collaboration,presentation, and reflection. We will introduce this study into an ethnically diverse robotics classcomprised of sophomore, junior, and senior students. The predisposition of students to studytopics relating to robotics will be assessed at the start of the study and then after each project hasbeen completed. Initially, predisposition will be