mustfit the criteria established by the constraints of the system. Impractical solutions are notentertained other than to remove them from consideration. Continual reflection (e.g., “Am Icloser to solving the problem?”) guides all the remaining considerations. Pragmatism is forward-looking (what can and should be done) rather than focused on exploring the past. In this way, thepragmatic approach is direct and actionable; practitioners seek a direction and justification to thenext steps one should take.The theoretical frameworks most suited to the Lean LaunchPad®/Customer Discovery processare action research and design-based research (DBR). The practitioners and scholars engaging incustomer discovery, action research, or DBR are vested in the
. Black and D. Wiliam, “Assessment and classroom learning,” Assess. Educ. Princ. policy Pract., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 7–74, 1998.[2] S. M. Brookhart, “Feedback that fits,” Engag. whole child Reflections best Pract. Learn. teaching, Leadersh., pp. 166–175, 2008.[3] K. E. Dunn and S. W. Mulvenon, “A critical review of research on formative assessment: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education.,” Pract. Assessment, Res. Eval., vol. 14, no. 7, 2009.[4] H. Hattie, J., & Timperley, “The power of feedback,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 81–112, 2007.[5] A. Kluger and A. DeNisi, “The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a
of improving students’ development along one or more of the patterns. Additionally, we believe CSR is a particularly appropriate method for this study because the method permits teaching practices to be studied in the context of a real classroom. The classroom setting within our case study contrasts the laboratory setting used by a large number of studies that have informed the development of the matrix (e.g., [6][9]). The controlled conditions of these research studies do not accurately reflect engineering practice which often requires engineers to work on teams over long durations to solve complex problems. Additionally, the clinical setting does not reflect an educational setting in which a teacher is available to help guide and
]. Engineering from a 21st century perspective, focuses onfinding solutions aligned with the needs and expectations of clients, while adhering to ethical andsocietal expectations of making the world a better place for others to live in [14]. There isevidence that the structure of some engineering programs may not be conducive to developing amindset aligned with 21st century engineering [15]. Given the potential for makerspace projectsto be aligned with a 21st century philosophy of engineering, there is justification for assessing ifstudents are developing a 21st century engineering mindset.Belongingness and InclusionThrough the use of makerspaces, students may gain a sense of how much they perceive theybelong and are included in situations reflective of
. 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
. Where questions about educational missionand values are skipped over, assessment threatens to be an exercise in measuring what'seasy, rather than a process of improving what we really care about.2. Assessment is most effective when it reflects an understanding of learning asmultidimensional, integrated, and revealed in performance over time. Learning is acomplex process. It entails not only what students know but what they can do with whatthey know; it involves not only knowledge and abilities but values, attitudes, and habits Page 12.289.5of mind that affect both academic success and performance beyond the classroom.Assessment should reflect these
with the assumption that most of the students have very little useful knowledge of the topics to be covered.”In contrast to their results we have a fairly strong loading on ITTF6. ”In this subject I concentrate on covering the information that might be available from a good textbook.”We believe that this may reflect some differences in learning culture, though both our and Page 25.855.6Prosser and Trigwell’s studies draw on a significant number of responses from Swedish aca-demics. The difference in our study is that all responses were collected from a single faculty 5at a single university
= -2.636, p = 0.008), algorithmic logic(Z = -5.915, p = 0.000), and programming output (Z = - 2.000, p = .046). Specifically, afterreviewing the pseudo peer diagram, thirty-three students identified a change should be made bymarking the error area; nineteen students merged their diagram with the pseudo peer diagram;and eighteen students revised their own diagrams by reflecting on the pseudo peer diagram.As illustrated in Figure 2, most students acknowledged the value of the pseudo peer diagram Page 25.885.7implemented in lecture. They agreed that pseudo peer diagrams facilitated their noticing of initialideas of the system (Question 1
Page 15.413.8higher scores for only three criteria (one criteria was the same, and R1 had to leave thepresentation early and was not present for the Q/A session, and thus did not respond with respectto Criterion 7). This is consistent with scores from the HPV presentation, and appears to reflect asystematic difference between these two reviewers.With respect to the comparison of faculty and alumni scores, the most significant differencesoccur for Criteria 1, 7, and 9 (Organization, Questions and Answers, and Problem Definition).The alumni’s familiarity with the FSAE competition may help to explain their more generousevaluation of Criteria 1 and 9. The higher alumni score given to the Question and Answercriterion is consistent with the student
coauthoredwith individuals located at the same universityversus those publications featuring authorsfrom multiple universities (F(2, 91) = 9.715,p<0.001). Further, a Tukey MultipleComparisons test shows that a difference inmeans exists between authors with anengineering education department and thosewho do not have an engineering educationdepartment (Figure 2). Authors affiliated with Figure 2. E-I Index by Availability ofan engineering education department have a EER Resourcessignificantly lower E-I Index, however thepositive index value reflects that most authors Page 24.279.7tend to collaborate outside their collocated
emergence of new global cultural forms, media, and technologies ofcommunication, the relations of affiliation, identity, and interaction within and acrosslocal cultural settings have been reshaped, which is termed globalization (Burbules &Torres, 2000)[6]. Although globalization in education is highly recognized and upheld byscholars and educators, the target needs of students in global education courses are stillseen as content and language focused. The experiences, beliefs, and cultural expectationsof students from a variety of backgrounds are not yet reflected in the pedagogy andevaluation practices (Pincas, 2001)[27]. One of the outcomes of increasing access toeducation at a distance through global online courses, as Moore (2006)[23] points
Open-Ended Mathematical Modeling ProblemsI. IntroductionModel-Eliciting Activities (MEAs), a special case of open-ended mathematical modelingproblems1,2, can be exploited so that the inherent complexity and nature of a problem can beharnessed to promote effective learning across a wide variety of learning objectives. MEAs canbe used to provide first-year engineering students with opportunities to engage not only incomplex and iterative authentic problem solving but also guided problem formulation3, peerfeedback4, and reflection on team solution progress - all with an overarching emphasis on thedevelopment of effective teaming5 and communication skills.MEAs, which are a manifestation of the models and modeling perspective2,6, were
difficulty estimates ranged from.13 to .94. We find these initial reliability statistics very good given the short scale.Validity Results for Construct M2No correlation coefficient was greater than .11 when studying Construct M2 with the externalcriteria. This pattern of correlation coefficients suggests that Construct M2 is representing a latenttrait that may not be reflected in engineering coursework. Further, the pattern of results is differentthan that observed for Construct M1. We did compute the Pearson correlation coefficient forscores representing both M1 and M2. The degree of association was .44. While this value doessupport a significant relationship, descriptively it is only moderate. As such, it appears that there isevidence to support
𝐾 = 1 − 𝑝expectedWith 1.0 as a maximum, Kappa scores of approximately 0.70 and above indicate goodagreement13. As seen in Table 1, the results reflected quite good consistency between the twosemester data sets. Scores at the category level are similarly high, indicating agreement if aphrase was or was not tagged with any contained speech act by both annotators. Also includedare the speech act tag descriptions and sample phrases seen in posts. Speech Act Tag Description Sample Cue Phrases Kappa Question Category Represents a question N/A 0.94 A
Page 15.1343.2investigated the culture of design firms,10,16-17 global partnerships within high-tech industry,18and socialization of professional engineers19 all with the goal of making recommendations forpractice. The purpose of this paper is to use techniques from applied anthropology to illustratehow domain analysis2 can be used to advance research in engineering education.As a methodology, domain analysis is well suited to answer complex questions. Complexquestions feature “a community” as a crucial element of study, and reflect activities within asocial environment. Different people can answer these very open-ended questions differently.Moreover, complex questions connect together with other questions. Indeed, the benefit toconducting
based learning as well as co-op and internship experiences that students have had by their senior year. The perceivedimportance of these skills was comparable for each group.Local Findings:The local findings seem to contradict the national results because all of the students either agreeor strongly agree that their skills have improved since coming to the university. The manyopportunities for teamwork and collaboration in the engineering curriculum and in outsideinternships made possible through university–industry collaborations at North Carolina A&Tappear to have bolstered the students’ initial strong confidence in this area. A sample ofstudents’ free responses to a reflection question is shown in Table 6. These responses
ones that I knew would not be practical.”and Creativity “I’ve learned more about the design process and problem solving and have developed more cognitive skills that help with creativity.” “I learned about some of my strengths and weaknesses, especially in comparison toSelf-awareness my peers.”Students were also asked to reflect on what aspects of the project were most and least valuable.Overall and in agreement with responses on learning outcome gains (Table 1), students felt thatthe most valuable aspects during the project were learning and applying the design process (e.g.,developing ideas, meeting customer needs, generating concepts, sketching and drawing concepts
. Students only referred back to mentors when they had completed a taskand were looking for another, more experienced person to check their work. Students realizedmentors played a large role in FRC, but the students’ actions from creating an internal studentcouncil to the day-to-day work ensured the robotics club was student focused.Green Team Page 23.1130.7 The mentors installed a reflective approach that allowed students to find their placeamongst the team’s work and subgroups. Mentors and student leaders implemented preseasonand postseason interviews with every student to cover issues, desires, working relationships, andinput on the year
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
-based project courses, there is a long history of classroom research examiningclassroom interactions -- much of it beyond the scope and theoretical grounding of this study.Mehan, through a careful analysis of classroom interactions, described traditional interaction as apattern of initiation-response-feedback (I-R-F);18 where individual students would be asked aquestion by the teacher, would respond, and feedback or evaluation would be provided to thestudent. Mehan provides an excellent comprehensive review of the development of interest inclassroom interactions as the subject of research from the 1960s until 1998.19 Research inlanguage, math, and science classrooms continues to reflect a more socio-cultural perspective.Interest in the concept
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
arrive at the answer. 85) Feedback should be aligned with goalsFeedback should be aligned with the purpose of the assignment and its evaluation criteria. Morespecifically, feedback should clarify what good performance is in terms of goals, criteria, andexpected standards.6) Feedback should encourage reflection, self-adjustment, and improvement “[Growth mindset] is about telling the truth about a student’s current achievement and then, together, doing something about it, helping him or her become smarter.”—Carol Dweck [25]Merely providing timely and specific feedback is insufficient: teachers must encourage self-assessment and expect the
industry or Page 23.758.4research relevant problems. This provides the “Concrete Experience” component of the cycle ina similar manner as a case study. The “Reflective Observation” part of the cycle may beaccomplished by providing key times for student questions, critique, and assessment questionsthroughout the learning modules. These observational opportunities may be designed toencourage the students to reflect on the innovation history, processes, problem, theoreticalframeworks, ideas, and / or decisions. The “Abstract Hypothesis and Conceptualization”component of the Kolb cycle may be addressed through the use of the course content
because of increased use of surveys in general through web-based forms39-41. Steps were taken to account for differences between the sample of responses and the overall population. This adjustment weighted cases based on the population and response distributions by gender, discipline, and race/ethnicity within an institution as well as varying response rates of a campus so that the sample reflected the overall population of undergraduate engineers from the sample of institutions. In addition, missing data were imputed based on procedures recommended by Dempster, Laird and Rubin42 and Graham43 using the Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software (v.18). To reduce data from survey
beneficial to theirlearning, before and then after the online transition, and their mode preferences for each regardingonline vs. Face-to-Face. By comparing student reactions across courses, we gain insights onwhich components are easily adapted to online delivery, and which require further innovation.COVID was unfortunate, but gave a rare opportunity to compare students’ reflections on F2Finstruction with online instructional materials for half of a semester vs. entirely online delivery ofthe same course during the second half. Although the instruction provided during the second halfof the semester may not be the same as what would have been provided had the course beendesigned as a fully online course from the beginning, it did provide the
more complicated. In the case of engineering, it has been argued that the assumptionof the rigor and prestige involved in the pursuit of an engineering major imposes additionalpressures related to competition and achievement, which could reflect in poorer mental health.Furthermore, such pressures might be heightened for underrepresented groups that keep facingcumulative challenges while pursuing an engineering degree. While some recent work hasexplored stress and mental health indicators of engineering undergraduates, comparisons of suchindicators across disciplines are scarce. This study examines the differences in wellbeingindicators, perceptions of stress, competition, and achievement between undergraduates inengineering, non-engineering
from similar backgrounds (0.40) d. Completing my STEM degree will help combat stereotypes about people who share my social identities (0.58)Overall, several of our initial findings are consistent with Yosso’s CCW framework but suggestsome important ways in which the framework can be further developed to reflect the experienceof our survey participants. First, our findings suggest that aspirational capital consists of threesub-dimensions: external-aspirational capital is encouragement and motivation provided byfamily and other close connections, internal-aspirational capital is internal drive and motivationto persist, and resistant-aspirational capital is the drive to succeed in order to serve as a rolemodel for other
Survey of UndergraduateResearch Experience (SURE), the Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment(URSSA), and instruments that measure engineering identity and sense of belonging. We alsodeveloped open-ended, qualitative questions that invited self-reflection. These questionscovered topics such as how students define “engineer,” circumstances in which they did anddid not feel like engineers, and how students with research experience would explain thevalue of that experience to potential employers or a graduate admissions committee. In spring2019, a survey of 64 questions was administered to all enrolled students in our engineeringschool, and 28% of students responded. Respondent demographics were representative of theschool’s student
instead of being passivelisteners. Active learning is defined in [13] as “any instructional method that engages students inthe learning process.” The motivation comes from educational experience when students dealwith active learning and reflection [14-15]. However, traditional engineering education involveslistening to lectures, completing homework, taking exams, and receiving feedback after gradingis done. This education model may adversely affect the students’ active participation.The utilization of information and communication technologies in engineering education canallow students to be active learners by letting them control how, when, and where they studydepending on their learning needs and styles [16]. Therefore, engineering education