alternativestrategies for course redesign) as a support tool as they develop and revise courses.MethodsSetting and ParticipantsThe setting of this study was a second-year embedded systems course meant for electrical,computer, and software engineering students at a large university in the midwestern UnitedStates. A team of nine educators (Table 1) formed an x-team (a cross-functional, collaborativeteam with diverse expertise) to make revisions to the course over each of the next four semesters.The team formed and met 2-3 times per week during the summer before the first course iteration.The team then continued to meet about once per week during the Fall 2017 semester, from whichdata for this study was collected.Data CollectionPrevious studies have found
instrument (StRIP instrument; DeMonbrun et al., 2017). Survey 1 wasadministered between the fifth and seventh weeks of Winter 2017. This timing allowed studentsto gain an understanding of the types of instruction most frequently used in the course.Additionally, prior experience items asked them to draw upon experiences in an engineeringcourse in the previous academic semester. Survey 2 was administered between the thirteenth andfifteenth weeks in the course, immediately prior to final examinations. This allowed students toaccurately depict their responses to each type of instruction frequently experienced in the currentcourse as well as their general evaluation of the course (evaluation construct items). In Survey 1, students were asked to
. As a result, in 200-level programming classes, faculty membersspent lots of time reviewing fundamental programming concepts that had already been taught inthe introductory course. Another observation is that students often procrastinated taking theirhigher-level programming courses because of unfavorable experiences in the introductory course.Based on the above observations, the goals of this project were to: (1) improve students’performance, (2) help students retain their programming knowledge/skills, (3) motivate studentsin learning programming, (4) improve classroom engagement, and (5) give students a betterprogramming experience in the introductory course so that they will not defer enrolling in 200-level programming classes.Research
gives four options, one from each quadrant (i.e., AC,AE, CE, RO). Students then mark the options one through four according to their personalpreference. These scores and then added together to determine where the student’s fall on eachspectrum.The responses were then totaled according to a proprietary algorithm provided by the Hay Group.The data was programmatically checked for integrity, and the results were input into aspreadsheet.The LSI does not use the individual scores to plot the student’s learning style on the AC−CE andAE−RO axes so additional columns were added to compute these values. These values are bestexplained by example. Student 6 in the study scored CE=24, RO=33, AC=23, and AE=40 so thecomputed values are AE−RO=7 and AC−CE=-1
variables, we used items from Sustainability and Gender in Engineering(SaGE) (Godwin, Potvin, Hazari, et al., 2013) and Hazari et al.(Hazari et al., 2010).SaGE contained the phrasing of items as seen in Table 1. To generate the three domainareas for our survey we replaced the word “subject” with “math”, “physics”, or“engineering” to form three sets of questions that addressed performance/competence,interest, and recognition for each domain area. Our dependent variable is a newly createdtwo-item engineering identity scale consisting of one visual and one verbal item relatingto the extent to which respondents believe their personal identity overlaps with theidentity of an engineer (Borrego, Patrick, Martins, & Kendall, 2018). This factor was on
from a desire to: enhance learning through increasedengagement of the students (see Astin, 1999); increase retention rates; pay greater attention topersonal development of graduate attributes as well as intellectual or epistemological development(as defined by Perry, 1999; Schommer-Aikins, 2002); develop students’ self-directed learning andgroup collaboration abilities; and also help students conceptualize technical and non-technicalcontent in more effective ways.Peer learning groups or Faculty Learning Communities (FLC) can help motivate individuals todevelop new competencies and empower them to enact change. In studying how small groupsaccomplished widespread change, Edintaite (2012) identified three desirable elements: (1)individual
properties of materials and the processes used tocreate and control those properties [1]. The discipline has its roots in metallurgy, but today itincludes the study of nanomaterials in a wide variety of applications, including energy technology,biotechnology, and many others. In short, materials science does not only deal with metalsanymore.As such, materials science and engineering encounters and investigates phenomena that can becomplicated and complex. Here, complicated refers to phenomena that require a non-trivial seriesof causal links to explain. Complex, however, refers to phenomena that require a systemsframework to explain. Specifically, complex systems share the following aspects: (1) they involvemultiple related processes; (2) their
face significant challenges that prevent broadernational success [1-3]. Educators have increasingly realized that relying solely on traditionallectures is ineffective for engaging a new generation increasingly connected to the digital world,and have therefore initiated numerous efforts to integrate technology into the teaching-learningprocess [4, 5]. In addition to this, there is an increasing recognition that learning complexengineering concepts can benefit from more in-depth clarity pre-requisites than previouslyunderstood [6]. Teaching-learning models that blend technology with traditional lectures to ensurequality of instruction have been reported promising for engaged and effective learning of higherlevel skills [7, 8]. Exploiting more
in an Engineering ClassroomIntroductionThis research paper describes a study that examines a testing effect intervention deployed in anengineering classroom setting. The testing effect is based on the premise that learning isimproved when students engage with newly acquired information by challenging themselves toanswer questions about the content instead of using other means of interacting with the content,such as rereading a text. The testing effect has been established in laboratory research studies[1]. To translate this finding into educational practice, classroom research studies [2]-[6] aim todefine the conditions for which the testing effect remains robust in authentic classroom settings.In the classroom domain, a testing effect
(US) have outpaced men inhigher education enrollment and degree obtainment 1. However, their representation in STEM(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields, and especially in the engineeringfield, has significant scope for improvement 2 3. Figure 1 provides the percentage engineeringbachelor's degrees awarded to female students of all engineering bachelor's degrees in the USfrom 2006 to 2014. While the earlier downward trend is reversed, the significantunderrepresentation of women in engineering remains. Percentage engineering bachelor's degrees awarded to female students from the US engineering institutions 20.5 20 19.5 19 18.5
program because in this framework students are led to view the coursecontents as unconnected pieces. Thus, students lack the understanding of how theseunconnected course materials build on each other to form the core knowledge expected of acompetent electrical engineer. This lack of understanding manifests itself in low studentmotivation, interest, and knowledge regarding the discipline. Furthermore, it results in studentsperceiving a lack of value and career opportunities relative to the amount of effort required togo through the program [1]-[4]. As a result, attrition rates in engineering departments havebeen higher than expected. For example, the number of American students earning bachelor’sdegrees increased by 16% over the past 10 years
torevolutionize engineering education to prepare next generation workforce capable of addressingincreasingly complex and “wicked” problems facing humanity today [1]-[3]. Rittel and Webberoriginally defined “wicked problems” as complex, open-ended, and ill-structured challenges withsocietal, economic, cultural, and political implications [4]. These are problems that cannot besolved using a habitual in engineering technical-rational approach [5] that is based on theory andbest empirical evidence, or through the use of routine expertise that relies on extensive domain-specific knowledge and experience. Rather, these are problems that must be addressed throughadaptive expertise, defined as the ability to apply prior knowledge to new ill-defined
qualitative, secondary analysis, we addressed the followingresearch questions: 1. What have been the primary contributions of digital and non-digital games to the learning process in engineering education? 2. To what extent have digital and non-digital games transformed the engineering education learning process?We have answered these research questions by open coding for the primary learningcontributions of published GBL implementations in engineering education, and by a prioricoding for how transformative each game is, according to an appropriate theoretical framework.Theoretical FrameworkThe theoretical framework we used to answer our second research question was theReplacement, Amplification, and Transformation (RAT) framework for
academically and professionally than those who aredisengaged or distracted in class. There is ample evidence that the academic achievement oftoday’s students falls below desired levels and that the lack of academic engagement is a majorcontributor [1, 2]. Devising effective solutions to the lack of engagement can be challenging, duethe multiplicity and complexity of the factors affecting it. Such factors include studentpreparation, socioeconomic background and teaching style effectiveness [3-5]. In this study, weextend our previous work that proposes a solution to this problem by specifically addressing twosignificant contributors to disengagement: the inadequate preparation of students for theircourses and the traditional teaching style. Although our
study and proposedmethods. Based on feedback obtained at the conference from the broader research community, thestudies will be refined. The current phase includes three parts, (1) problem formulation; (2)protocol development; and (3) pilot study. For (1), two different ill-structured problems weredeveloped in the Civil Engineering domain. The problem difficulty assessment method was usedto determine the appropriateness of each problem developed for this study. For (2), a protocol wasdeveloped in which participants will be asked to first solve a simple problem to become familiarwith the interview format, then are given 30 minutes to solve the provided ill-structured problem,following a semi-structured interview format. Participants will be
turn allows researchersto capture meaningful, authentic, and credible emergent themes unbiased by social response. Wepresent a short summary of results to show the dominant narratives of attrition achieved throughthis method; however, the main focus of this paper is to present the method itself, which has thepotential to be extended and modified to aid in other large data mining efforts to answer otherresearch questions related to sensitive topics.1. Introduction and Literature ReviewAccording to the Council for Graduate Schools,1 graduate attrition ranges between 24%-68%across disciplines. While engineering disciplines tend to be at the low end of the range, due toreliable funding and a low time to graduation relative to students in the
macro-scale, focused on a systems-level perspective of how engineering edu-cation can become more effective, efficient, and inclusive. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Characterizing Students’ Global Competence Development Paths Through a Global Engineering ProgramIntroductionGlobal competence is increasingly recognized as an important skill for engineering students todevelop in preparation for their entrance into the engineering workforce [1], [2]. A variety ofglobal engineering programs have been developed to achieve this goal [3], and several studieshave assessed the outcomes of such programs [1]. To date, literature on global engineeringprograms has emphasized program
degree completion, and documenting the influence of co-op experiences on academic performance. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Cluster Analysis Methods and Future Time Perspective Profiles of Second-Year Engineering Students in a Major- Required CourseIntroductionThis paper meets our two goals of (1) identifying homogeneous groups of second-yearengineering student FTPs and (2) introducing commonly used cluster analysis techniques andproviding an example of how to implement said techniques within an engineering educationcontext. One specific aspect of motivation, Future Time Perspective (FTP) [1
general, the commentswere focused primarily on Contributing and secondarily on Having Related Knowledge, Skills,and Abilities; not all five CATME dimensions. However, when detailed comments are given,they often provide additional insights into peer ratings and explanations for the CATMEexception codes. These insights into team functional or dysfunctional behavior provideinformation to the instructor that goes well beyond what can be obtained from the peer ratingsalone.1. IntroductionWorking in teams is widely viewed as a key skill for having a successful career. However,effective team behavior does not necessarily come naturally to many students. In engineeringeducation, developing teamwork and communication skills, among other things, are
) Mary A. Sadowski has been at Purdue since 2003 and until September 1, 2011 served as the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Programs and Learning in the Purdue College of Technology where she provided leadership for strategic initiatives in undergraduate education. She was Dean of Purdue Extended Campus from 2011 to 2015 and professor of Computer Graphics from 2015 -2017 when she officially retired from Purdue. As a professor of Computer Graphics, her research interests include enhancing visualization skills, cre- ative thinking, and learning styles. She developed a Delphi instrument to gather data to create a concept inventory for engineering graphics and has worked with a team to develop and test the fully developed
in specific courses in the core curriculum to the more complex, authentic problems and projects they face as professionals. Dr. Koretsky is one of the founding members of the Center for Lifelong STEM Education Research at OSU. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Cultivating the Next Generation: Outcomes from a Learning Assistant Program in EngineeringIntroductionA growing tension in higher education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics(STEM) disciplines is the need to produce a greater number of STEM graduates [1] whilemaintaining learning effectiveness in the resulting large-enrollment STEM courses. One way tomitigate this tension is to create
, such as the iterative nature of the composing and knowledge-gathering parts ofwriting, and continual reference to the task materials that define the criteria upon which the writtendocument will be evaluated. We anticipate broadening this study using these methods in order todevelop heuristics for engineering academic writing, and to study the ways in which expertengineering writers overcome issues such as writer’s block. The findings and representations ofdata as shown in this paper offer much to the engineering education research community in termsof method development and analysis of large quantities of time-resolved data representingauthentic engineering communication skills.1. IntroductionDespite the fact that national calls for
change. In the past, what we nowidentify as design thinking was often driven by tacit knowledge, intuition, and personalpreference of expert designers. The potential now is to enhance this approach through cross-disciplinary, evidence-based research.Due to the widespread use of design thinking, and the preponderance of practical and academicliterature, many conceptualizations exist. However, a recent study by Carlgren, Rauth, andElmquist7, sought to bridge these gaps by exploring the literature and conducting interviews withmembers of six leading organizations. The result was a framework, aligned with both theacademic literature and authentic practice, that presents design thinking activity across threelevels of abstraction: (1) mindsets that
including demographicdata. We vetted the instrument with an advisory panel for an additional level of validation and piloted thesurvey with undergraduate engineering students at two universities collecting completed responses from196 participants. Our reliability analysis and additional statistical calculations revealed our tool wasstatistically sound and was effectively gathering the data we designed the instrument to measure.IntroductionIn the United States, multiple reports including the Innovative and Entrepreneurial University Report [1],the Engineer of 2020 [2], and expository papers on the state of engineering education [3]-[5] haveindicated that post-secondary engineering education in the U.S. is lagging behind when compared tocompetitors
a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (being“strongly disagree”) to 5 (being “strongly agree”). The 11 items are shown in Table1 below.Furthermore, we hypothesized that items on the survey will load unto factors as illustrated in Fig.1 below:Table 1: Description of Survey Items Item # Coding Item Description Trust(Value) Question 1 VAL 1 I receive the benefit I intended when I communicate with this classmate Question 4 VAL 2 Interactions with this classmate are not productive/useful. (Reversed)Question 7 VAL 3 My interactions with this person are valuable
pedagogies on student learning and success, and the impact of a flexible classroom space on faculty teaching and student learning. She also led a project to develop a taxonomy for the field of engineering education research, and she was part of a team that studied ethical decision-making in engineering students. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 WiP: Developing an Observation Protocol to Categorize Formative Assessment in Engineering CoursesIntroductionStudent assessment is a necessary component of engineering education that gives instructorsinsight into their students’ learning [1]. Two broad types of assessments include summativeassessment and formative assessment
engineers over the last 10 years. The first was developed for graduatestudents at Polytechnic University and included 14 modules that focused mainly on structuraland geotechnical applications [1]. The second, developed at the American University of Beirutwas an undergraduate course that included both civil engineering and electrical engineeringstudents [2]. This undergraduate course covered a large breadth of instrumentation in multiplecivil engineering disciplines (i.e. geotechnical, structural, and environmental).The course developed and described in this paper differs from the first two courses in that itincludes both graduate and undergraduate students, attempts to include sensors used in thetransportation and water disciplines, and is focused
’ emotional state (using the Positive and NegativeAffect Schedule, PANAS), and validity and reliability. MANOVA analysis indicated there wasno significant effect of survey focus on positive or negative affect, F(4,646) = 1.075, p = .368,but that data was not missing at random in the IBM survey, 𝟀2(503) = 580.80, p = .009). WithExploratory Factor Analysis, the latent constructs were tested and the list of items refined. Theimplications of these findings for the full survey and for future studies will be discussed. Introduction: the GRADS ProjectAmidst calls for an increase in STEM graduates in the U.S., attrition among engineeringgraduate students remains a serious issue [1]. Previous studies have indicated that the
techniques.IntroductionRecent reports have highlighted the need for Australian businesses to be able to innovate andthink creatively in order to be able to effectively compete in the global market into the future[1, 2]. Nominally, the Australian engineering sector should be able to effectively meet thisneed for creativity and innovation. Having a creative and innovative demeanor is one of theexpected traits of a professional engineer within Australia, as set out by the Australianengineering accreditation body, Engineers Australia [3]. It is therefore important to assess ina global context, whether Australian engineering graduates do effectively possess therequired skills to be able to be creative.Despite the need for creativity, inclusion of material that is
in the S/W V&Vtopics being covered in the class. The student outcomes assessment data and pedagogicalassessment data are presented and discussed in this paper. The class management strategies fordelivering ALTs are presented in a separate accompanying paper in this conference.1. Introduction and RationaleTraditionally in engineering education, student-centered lectures have been the predominantmodel of teaching. However, it has been suggested [1] that this may not be the most effectivemethod for imparting knowledge in all disciplines, as students may not be able to retain andapply knowledge they have gained to the extent that is required in their professional careers.Therefore the current push is towards flipped class rooms [2] and