-BASED LEARNINGAbstractThis research paper evaluates the influence of class size in a project-based learning course. Theimpact of the student-faculty ratio and the overall class size on the learning process has beendiscussed and debated in the pedagogical literature for many years.1, 2 A significant number ofthese studies has been particularly limited to K-12 education, generating a passionate discussionon public policy and cost of education. There is relatively limited data on the impact of class sizeon undergraduate engineering education. This study investigates the influence of class size on thelearning process by evaluating student perception of learning and the achievement of learningoutcomes. Assessment data and an end-of-semester survey
perceptions of the peer review process.The study was implemented over two semesters with iterative revisions in instruction madebetween semesters based on initial findings. Results suggest that peer review can increasestudent performance, as long as reflections are used to prompt student revision, regardless of theclass delivery method or assignment type.IntroductionEarly in their careers, engineers spend 20-40% of their time writing; as they move to middlemanagement, the writing requirements increase to 50-70% of their day; finally, engineers insenior management spend 70-95% of their days writing [1]. Despite job requirements for writingthat cut across professions [2], in most disciplines writing is rarely emphasized outside of Englishcomposition
media-rich tools and protocols with firm research support to provide assistance and repeatedreview. 1 This study can be seen as an effort to handle one of the knottiest issues in undergraduate STEMeducation nationally, namely the large fraction of students who simply will not succeed withoutsignificantly upgrading competencies they should already possess. We do not believe that the answer isto re-teach in ways that have already failed for these students. Indeed, each student with STEMdeficiencies has their own unique set of misunderstandings, misconceptions, and uneven skills. It is not asituation that lends itself to blanket re-teaching
companies with leadership demographics “in the top quartile of racial/ethnic diversity were30 percent more likely to have financial returns above their national industry median” (Hunt,Layton and Prince, 2015, p. 1) while companies in the bottom quartile for both ethnic/racial andgender diversity lagged behind in their industry. While the demonstrated link between diversityand financial performance is not causal, several possible reasons behind the link have beenhypothesized, such as the ability of diverse engineers to better understand customer needs and todesign improved products.The final construct looked at diversity as a way to improve the work environment. Because ofthe power of diversity to foster creativity and provide new perspectives on a
decade educators and researchers haveengaged in the conversation about what it means to be an engineer and what educational andcurriculum reformations are necessary to produce the type of engineer the world needs [1]–[3]. Tothis end, engineering education research has sought to highlight the importance of intentionalinstructional strategies, educational innovations and their ability to evaluate the effectiveness ofthese approaches on student learning. This gave way to increased calls for the use and creation ofactive learning environments to ensure student engagement and knowledge retention. Activelearning researchers [4]–[6] posit students learn more and are better able to transfer knowledge ofkey concepts when they are actively involved in the
collected similar data from 21non-focal participants who were more senior engineers at the various field sites as they interactedwith the focal participants.The primary analytic approach for this sort of ethnographic research is constant comparativeanalysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In simple terms, this process involves iterative cycles ofanalysis, which identify objects (in the most broad sense) of interest that, in turn, refine later datacollection. So, our analysis involves concurrent engagement in data collection and data analysis,leading to a preliminary “grounded theory” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In conducting our analysis,we use the standard three-level coding procedures for constant comparative analysis: 1) opencoding involving the
that engineers urgently need“cross-boundary skills” to enable working “across disciplinary, organizational, cultural, andtime/distance boundaries” (p. 82).1 Hanneman & Gardner more generally identified boundaryspanning skills and competencies as increasingly important for college graduates, includingengineers.2-3 And in his studies of professional work in software and R&D units in global firms,Johri found that engineers and other technical professionals are frequently expected to assumekey roles as “boundary spanning knowledge brokers.”4To shed further light on the boundary spanning realities of engineering practice, the authors areleading a larger research project focused on two main questions: 1) What specific boundaryspanning roles
that mayfacilitate community participation while at the same time achieving many of the tasksrequired during an HE design project. The research questions that guided this study were: 1. What are the key characteristics of specific design methods that have been used/proposed in the HE and related literature? 2. What are other conditions (e.g., philosophical commitments, culture of the community, engineers’ skills and mindsets, and others), not specific to any design stage, may facilitate meaningful community participation?In this paper we present the methodological approach used to answer the research questionsand share representative results of each research phase. More specifically, we start bydiscussing Boyer’s notion
study of smartness in engineering culturealso has practical implications, such as for inclusive classroom design.1. IntroductionThe construct of smartness and the field of engineering are inextricably linked. While the publicoften has limited understanding of engineering as a profession [1-3], one central theme is thebelief that engineering, with its emphasis on math and science, is difficult [4, 5]. As with anysocietal narrative, there is a gap between the public perception of engineering as a profession andthe reality of engineering work. For example, we see this in emphasizing the importance of mathand science skills while ignoring key engineering characteristics such as creativity, teamwork,and communication. The collective emphasis on
[1]. Additionally, through industry and public institutions weknow that engineers do not work in isolation, but in teams [2]. There is a need for a moreauthentic course experiences where engineering students can build content knowledge but alsoknowledge in how to collaborate with peers.Background: Educational researchers Chi and Wylie began to investigate groups of twos andthrees in different learning contexts to better understand what occurs in these group dynamicsand how do these dynamics affect learning [3]. They created the ICAP framework which allowsone to categorize students’ levels of cognitive engagement into one of four modes based on theirovert observable behaviors: Interactive, Constructive, Active, Passive (aka ICAP). In general
student perspective is summarized and discussed to provide insight into the effect of student participation in HFOSS projects as part of an undergraduate computing program.KEYWORDS HFOSS, Humanitarian Computing, Free and Open Source Software, Computing Education 1 INTRODUCTION Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is software that is developed transparently with source code and other artifacts accessible and a license such that anyone can study, modify, and share the software. FOSS has gained a significant market share across a range of applications including operating systems, cloud computing, databases, and big data. In fact, the majority of enterprise, mid-market, and small businesses are widely adopting FOSS [1]. In addition, many major
, special education and engineering education.Ms. Yuxin Xu, University of Washington Yuxin (Ziva) Xu is a second-year undergraduate student at University of Washington, Seattle. Her research areas of interest include reflection in engineering education, equity in engineering, and human-computer interaction. Address: 746 1035 NE Campus Pkwy, Seattle, WA 98105 Phone: 206-209-6202 Email: yxxuziva@uw.edu c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Students’ engagements with reflection: Insights from undergraduatesIntroductionIn this research paper, we situate our work in an understanding of reflection as a form of thinkingthat involves stepping out, thinking about, and connecting forward [1
Paper ID #26347Teaching Circuits and Electronics Laboratory – Beyond the Brick and Mor-tar WallsMr. Dohn A. Bowden, University of Massachusetts, Lowell Dohn Bowden is a doctoral student in Research and Evaluation in Education in the College of Education at University of Massachusetts Lowell, 1 University Ave, Lowell, MA, 01854; dohn bowden@uml.eduMs. Christina Phillips, University of Massachusetts, Lowell Christina Phillips is a doctoral student in Mathematics Education in the College of Education at University of Massachusetts, Lowell, 1 University Ave, Lowell, MA 01854;christina phillips1@student.uml.eduProf. Jay A. Weitzen
Gratitude, Meaning, and MindfulnessIntroductionIn this work-in-progress research paper, we evaluate the impact of a novel interdisciplinary coursein which we taught undergraduate engineering students about gratitude, meaning, mindfulness,and other topics relevant to thriving. In this paper, we define thriving as the process in whichstudents develop and refine asset-based competencies that allow them to achieve optimalfunctioning in engineering. The one-credit elective course was developed at a large midwesternuniversity as the first step to investigate whether non-cognitive competencies relevant to thrivingand wellbeing could be taught. Currently, thriving remains an underexplored area in engineeringcontexts [1]. We hypothesize that interventions
statement: 1) a number of definition, 2) mathematical reasoning or process, andscientific or engineering reasoning related to either 3) a specific example being discussed in classor 4) the course content outside of a specific example. We conclude the paper by presenting anexample of how coded question-initiated dialogue can be analyzed to investigate the type ofcontent being discussed by the instructor and the students. Analyzing two different engineeringscience courses, we find that one course featured more students and instructor questionsaddressing science and engineering reasoning, which maps to our expectations of the coursebased on our observations of them.IntroductionResponsive teaching is a particular form of formative assessment that
such ashift can be problematic. Instructor assessment of student learning and student feedback throughend-of-course evaluations will be presented in this paper, as well as recommendations for futureinstructors wishing to apply similar changes.IntroductionMost universities offer courses that fall into one of the three following formats: first, a coursethat meets 3-times a week for 50-55 minutes (MWF); second, a course that meets twice a weekfor 75-80 minutes (TR); or lastly a course that meets once a week. The United States MilitaryAcademy does not offer courses that directly fall into these common formats, but rather into twocategories: a 40 lesson course with 55 minute duration lectures that occur on “Day 1” or a 30lesson course with 75
a comparative understanding of howcurricular knowledge differences arise due to disciplinary differences, which eventually lead todifferences in students’ development of identity in each discipline. Using these three disciplineswill allow us to examine how the process of student engagement with knowledge in puredisciplines (Chemistry and Biochemistry) differs from that in an applied one (ChemicalEngineering). From our preliminary analysis of the first-year data, we show how students’ choicewhat to study relates to their emerging identity.IntroductionGee [1] notes there are four different ways to view identity: nature identity, institution identity,discourse identity, affinity identity. First, nature identity is developed from the
, 1986) and individual-driven proactive behaviors (Ashford & Black,1996). Therefore, we operationalized Weidman’s conceptual framework (shown in Figure 1)by integrating these specific mechanisms in order to understand both how the institutionshapes undergraduate socialization (through institutional tactics) and how studentsthemselves take an active role in the socialization process (through proactive behaviors).Scales measuring institutional tactics and proactive behaviors have been used together instudies of organizational behavior (Kim, Cable, & Kim, 2005; Ashforth, Sluss, & Saks,2007) but never in the context of higher education.In this paper, we examine this portion of our model, namely the relationships betweenstudents
to inform pedagogical interventions to foster motivation and thusimprove students’ learning.IntroductionStudents’ motivation has received a lot of attention in the field of Higher Education. Thelearning context, that includes the educational approaches, cultural context, or physical settingin which teaching and learning occur, can influence student motivation, which subsequentlyinfluences students’direction, intensity, persistence, and quality of the learning behaviors [1]–[3].Within higher education, there is an increasing trend towards student-centred methodologies,such as project based learning (PBL). Literature states that PBL actively engages students inthe learning process, leading to, among others, increased intrinsic motivation
[1]. Society demands engineers capable of co-creatinga sustainable society. The need to integrate sustainable development as a red thread throughall education has existed for a long time, and with the formation of the 17 sustainabilitydevelopment goals (SDGs) [2] in combination with the contemporary climate debate, thisneed is even more obvious regarding engineering education in 2030 than it is now.In addition to the challenge of sustainability, another challenge is posed by the industrydemand for engineers who are experienced in project management and who have the ability tolearn and adapt quickly, given that career paths will change more rapidly in the near future[3], [4], [1]. Therefore, these future requirements for employability
problems,knowledge, and material resources, as we as outsiders might see these.Using interaction analysis, we analyze and report on the interactions within one group as theyworked through design phases of a long-term project - a light-up class portrait. We bringattention to moments of uncertainty and found that they act as pivot points that learners can useto position themselves and others, to control problem-solving discourse, and ultimately to directprojects toward features, resources and practices that served their interests. We also saw thatwhile some students were able to use their projects to pursue personal learning goals andidentities, others were not.BackgroundDevelopment of expertise requires learning over long periods of time [1] and
University c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 WIP: Assessing the Creative Person, Process, and Product in Engineering Education.Introduction: why assess creativity?This work-in-progress paper investigates different instruments for assessing individual creativity,an essential tool to engineers. Historically, the basis for most modern engineering curricula canbe traced to the 1955 ASEE recommendations on engineering curricular, aka the Grinter report[1] that recommends “an integrated study of engineering analysis, design, and engineeringsystems for professional background, planned and carried out to stimulate creative andimaginative thinking […]”. The National Academies of
classes thanthose in the TPS classes. Overall, comparing IEPS and TPS classes revealed that attitudestowards communication, motivation, and engineering identity improved significantly more forthose in the IEPS classes compared to those in the TPS classes. The paper concludes bydiscussing future directions for research in engineering instruction/communication.Introduction:This research paper assesses outcome differences between a traditionally taught public speakingcourse and one integrated with engineering specific content. Communication underpins theevolution of every field of science [1], [2], and plays a central role in the process of science—notonly in sharing the findings upon which scientists build knowledge, but also in
and learn from their design. Notably, this stance is markedly different from how she says she 1taught her students in the past: “Oh I would have totally told him that it was going to be tooheavy.” (Interview 5) We open with this example to illustrate the kind of pedagogical sense-making andreflection that, we argue, is critical for teaching engineering design. Teaching engineeringinvolves being flexible in noticing and responding to student thinking [1]–[3], drawing onnuanced understandings of the design process [4]–[7] to make decisions about how to supportstudents’ engineering learning. However, to date there are few examples in the
the understanding of engineering knowledge (Adams et. al, 2006).Figuereido (2008) proposes a model of engineering epistemology consistent of four dimensionsof engineering: (1) engineer as sociologist (2) engineer as designer (3) engineer as scientist (4)engineer as doer. In sum, there is a pressure to educate future engineers able not only to applymathematics and science to address social issues but also to be competent in the navigation ofsocial science, humanities and engineering design (Hynes & Swenson, 2013).Adams et. al (2006) formulated a research agenda for Engineering Education. This proposal stillguides future authors in the description of the Journal of Engineering Education (JEE). In thefive central research areas proposed, the
communicated through letter grades (i.e., discrete, ordinalclassifications of student performance [1]), be as meaningful and trustworthy as possible.Unfortunately, the components of grades and corresponding standards of success often vary soextensively across instructors that grades are rendered effectively meaningless [2].The meaning and trustworthiness of an assessment score or grade, often referred to as itsvalidity, absolutely requires reliability—that is, the consistency of a score, regardless of when theassessment is conducted, when it is scored, or by whom it is scored [3], [4]. Unfortunately,attaining reliable assessment scores can be challenging in the many engineering courses thatutilize open-ended performance tasks to authentically assess
students overcome difficulties in overall visualization skills. Research indevelopmental psychology shows individuals with the growth mindset are often more activelyengaged in the training process and as such gain higher improvement in skills of study. However,students' mindsets in spatial visualization skills were rarely studied. To understand and describe therelationship between mindset and (1) willingness to participate in a skill-development workshop and(2) visualization skills growth, in this paper, we studied 490 students from three first-yearengineering courses that heavily emphasized their spatial visualization skills. We assessed allstudents’ spatial visualization skills via the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test: Visualization ofRotations
must consider the impact of engineering solutions inglobal, economic, environmental, and societal contexts [1].” For students to be prepared for theworkforce they must be aware of current topics impacting their field and their everyday life.Also, future ABET outcome 2 challenges educational institutions to contribute solutions tocurrent challenges that meet the needs of the program’s constituents [1]. These topics are not justbeing addressed in ABET, but also within organizations such as the National Science Foundationwhere two of their 10 Big Ideas, “Convergence Research” and “Broadening Participation”, aimto merge ideas, techniques, and fields in order to formulate solutions [2]. ‘Wicked’ problemsallow the incorporation of these concepts
vary among scholars, research on expertise has described a number ofcharacteristics. Defined as specialized domain knowledge [1], expertise may be developedthrough experience [2], [3]. This experience is coupled with an ability to learn from internal andexternal feedback [3] and a strong ability to build associations and even run mental simulations[4]. Expertise development is often described as a continuum that begins with the stage of novice[5], [1]; a novice is characterized as one who is merely at the beginning of their quest forspecialized knowledge within a domain [6], [7].Patel and Groen describe progression along the novice to expert pathway as occurring in threedistinct stages of developing and applying specialized domain knowledge