conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.References[1] A. Olewnik et al., “Investigating the Role of Engineering Problem Typology in Helping Engineering Undergrads Effectively Communicate Their Experience,” presented at the ASEE Annual Conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2020.[2] D. H. Jonassen, “Toward a design theory of problem solving,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 63–85, 2000.[3] D. H. Jonassen, “Engineers as Problem Solvers,” in Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, Aditya Johri and Barbara M Olds, Eds. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 103–118.[4
Health, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 173–182, Sep. 2008, doi: 10.3200/JACH.57.2.173-182.[12] J. G. Bulo and D. M. G. Sanchez, “SOURCES OF STRESS AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS,” p. 10, 2014.[13] S. M. Monroe, G. M. Slavich, L. D. Torres, and I. H. Gotlib, “Major Life Events and Major Chronic Difficulties Are Differentially Associated With History of Major Depressive Episodes,” vol. 116, no. 1, p. 9, 2007.[14] J. Hunt and D. Eisenberg, “Mental Health Problems and Help-Seeking Behavior Among College Students,” Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 3–10, Jan. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.08.008.[15] P. C. Francis and A. S. Horn, “Campus-Based Practices for Promoting Student Success: Counseling Services
. Crawford, "Undergraduate learning portfolios for institutional assessment," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 91.2, 2002.[5] J. Turns, K. Xu and M. Eliot, "Turns, Jennifer, Kejun Xu, and Matt Eliot. "AC 2008-2601: EFFECTIVENESS AND PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIOS: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’PORTFOLIO ANNOTATIONS.," vol. 13, 2008.[6] M. Miletic, V. Svihla, E. Chi, J. Gomez, A. Datye, S. Kang, Y. Chen and S. M. Han, "The design of digital badges to certify professional skills in engineering.," 2020.[7] J. B. Schuman, "Work in Progress: Awarding Digital Badges for Demonstration of Student Skills.," American Society for Engineering Education, 2019.[8] W. M. Vagias, "Likert-type scale response anchors.," Clemson International
engineering faculty and practicing engineers,” Engineering Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 137–159, 2013. [8] J. Walther, S. E. Miller, and N. W. Sochacka, “A model of empathy in engineering as a core skill, practice orientation, and professional way of being,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 123–148, 2017. [9] J. Walther, M. A. Brewer, N. W. Sochacka, and S. E. Miller, “Empathy and engineering formation,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 11–33, 2020.[10] M. Pantazidou and I. Nair, “Ethic of care: Guiding principles for engineering teaching & practice,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 205–212, 1999. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs
. Butterfield, "Linking leader anti-prototypes and prototypes to gender stereotypes," Gender in Management: An International Journal, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 128-140, 2017.[3] E. Bonilla-Silva, "Rethinking racism: Toward a structural interpretation," American sociological review, pp. 465-480, 1997.[4] C. Seron, S. Silbey, E. Cech, and B. Rubineau, "“I am Not a Feminist, but...”: Hegemony of a Meritocratic Ideology and the Limits of Critique Among Women in Engineering," Work and Occupations, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 131-167, 2018.[5] K. Crenshaw, "Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics," U. Chi. Legal F
by choosing a different path of study. Phase II of the project begins in Fall 2017with data collection on self-regulated decision making, major fit, and self-regulated learning inorder to map real-world behaviors (major changes) to self-regulated decision-making theory20.AcknowledgementThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) underGrant No. 1554491. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed inthis material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.References1. Pascarella ET, Terenzini PT. Predicting voluntary freshman year persistence/withdrawal behavior in a residential university: A path analytic validation of Tinto’s model. J
Development, vol. 72, pp. 187-206, 2001.[9] M. K. Ponton, J. H. Edmister, L. S. Ukeiley, and J. M. Seiner, "Understanding the Role of Self- Efficacy in Engineering Education," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 90, pp. 247-251, 2001.[10] A. R. Carberry, H. S. Lee, and M. W. Ohland, "Measuring engineering design self‐efficacy," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 99, pp. 71-79, 2010.[11] T. D. Fantz, T. J. Siller, and M. A. Demiranda, "Pre-Collegiate Factors Influencing the Self-Efficacy of Engineering Students," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 100, pp. 604-623, 2011.[12] H. M. Matusovich, R. A. Streveler, and R. L. Miller, "Why Do Students Choose Engineering? A Qualitative, Longitudinal Investigation of
aspirations in an urban community college: Differences between immigrant and native student groups. Community College Review, 37(3), 209-242. [9] Donaldson, J.F., and Graham, S. (1999). A model of college outcomes for adults. Adult Education Quarterly, 50(1), 24-40. [10] Goldrick-Rab, S. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for improving community college student success. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 437-469. [11] National Center for Education Statistics (2018). Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_104.80asp?current=yes. [12] US Census Bureau (2018). Educational Attainment. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/topics/education/educational
: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry,” Educ. Res., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 5–8, 2003.[6] S. Barab and K. Squire, “Design-based research : Putting a stake in the ground,” J. Learn. Sci., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2004.[7] L. T. Louca and Z. C. Zacharia, “Modeling-based learning in science education: Cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions,” Educ. Rev., vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 471–492, 2012.[8] M. Kapur and K. Bielaczyc, “Designing for productive failure,” J. Learn. Sci., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 45–83, 2012.[9] M. Kapur, “Productive failure,” Cogn. Instr., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 379–424, 2008.[10] H. A. Diefes-Dux, T. Moore, J. Zawojewski, P. K. Imbrie, and D. Follman, “A framework
. Cheville, and G. L. Herman, “Promoting DBER-Cognitive Psychology Collaborations in STEM Education,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 5–10, 2018.[6] M. A. McDaniel et al., “Maximizing undergraduate STEM learning : Promoting research at the intersection of cognitive psychology and discipline-based education research,” 2017.[7] K. Goodman, J. Hertzberg, T. Curran, and E. E. Austin, “Visual Expertise in Fluid Flows: Uncovering a Link Between Conceptual and Perceptual Expertise,” (in submission), 2019.[8] L. S. Scott, J. W. Tanaka, D. L. Sheinberg, and T. Curran, “A reevaluation of the electrophysiological correlates of expert object processing.,” J. Cogn. Neurosci., vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 1453–1465, 2006.[9] J. W
and Lucas [15]. The study will be exploratory and the intervieweeswill be asked to give their personal perceptions of how they see the phenomenon and alsoregarding how and why they have developed those viewpoints.One week before the interview, the interviewees will receive the interview protocol, includingthe questions and short texts presenting the three contemporary challenges the informants aresupposed to reflect upon. The following questions will form the basis for the interview. 1. How do you think these challenges affect the development of your discipline and the educational program(s) you are involved in? 2. What do you expect the situation to be 10 years from now? 3. How do you prepare your students for the future with
outside engineering about stayingin the program. Students from outside the major often express a combination of sympathy andrespect for engineering students, based on the perception that their majors are very difficult. Acouple of examples demonstrate what engineering students hear from their peers outside ofengineering: “Other students? Um. Yeah. That’s for sure. They definitely, you know say, oh she’s an engineering major. She has to study a lot so, you know, she can’t hang out with us too much.” S- Whenever I mention my major, people always go, ...tell me that they’re sorry. I- And this is people you mean other students or faculty or... S- No, they’re students. So, I feel like they’re…they’re…I feel like they kind of
increased bonding with team members and with the community andenhanced communication skills in the process [16]. This program sometimes included non-technical students in the team. Fruchter and Emery [17] defined the learning of students in cross-disciplinary teams in four phases: island of knowledge, awareness, appreciation, andunderstanding. Ilgen et al. [18] proposed three similar stages in team learning: forming,functioning, and finishing. Diverse and complex perspectives of team members at the beginningconverged to commonly agreed perspectives in a team learning environment. In addition,learning from the most knowledgeable and well-performing member(s) in the team increasedwith the difficulty level of assigned tasks. The literature on the
Elements for Microwave Engineering, in Electromagnetics, 2014. He was the recipient of the 1999 Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE) Marconi Premium, 2005 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) MTT-S Microwave Prize, 2005 UMass Dartmouth Scholar of the Year Award, 2012 Colorado State University System Board of Governors Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching Award, 2012 IEEE Region 5 Outstanding Engineering Educator Award, 2014 Carnegie Founda- tion for the Advancement of Teaching Colorado Professor of the Year Award, 2015 American Society for Engineering Education ECE Distinguished Educator Award, 2015 IEEE Undergraduate Teaching Award, and many other research and teaching awards.Prof. Ali Pezeshki
relation to others’ expectations.Acknowledgment:This work was supported through funding by the National Science Foundation (NSF EEC 1752897). Anyopinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References 1. Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. International Universities Press: New York. 2. Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. Guilford Press: New York. 3. Scheff, T. J. (2003). Shame in self and society. Symbolic interaction, 26(2), 239
lead to learning (formally or informally) and the development of newperspectives and ideas. Wenger’s ideas around communities of practice [27] which integratesocial learning theory and social constructivism, stem from this viewpoint. Wenger describescommunities of practice as a group of individuals, with a shared domain or area of interest, whoengage in collective learning to achieve a common goal [29]. This practice occurs withinhistorical and social contexts, and learning occurs within the community through socialconstructivism [27]. The Zone of Proximal Development, the distance between what a learnercan accomplish independently and what s/he can accomplish with help from peers [30], isutilized to push community members forward in their
. The contents, opinions, and recommendations expressed are those of the author(s) anddo not represent the views of the National Science Foundation. We would also like to thank ourparticipants for contributing their personal experiences to this research. References[1] O. Amsterdamska, “Demarcating epidemiology,” Sci., Technol., & Human Values, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 17-51, Jan. 2005.[2] A. C. Barton, V. Johnson, and the students in Ms. Johnson’s Grade 8 science classes, “Truncating agency: Peer review and participatory research,” Res. in Sci. Edu., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 191-214, Jun. 2002.[3] M. Eisenhart and L. Towne, “Contestation and change in national policy on
Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 328–375)." (1986).(4) Carver, Charles S., and Michael Scheier. Principles of self-regulation: Action and emotion. Guilford Press, 1990.(5) Gläser-Zikuda, Michaela, et al. "Promoting students' emotions and achievement–Instructional design and evaluation of the ECOLE-approach." Learning and Instruction 15.5 (2005): 481-495.(6) Järvenoja, Hanna, and Sanna Järvelä. "How students describe the sources of their emotional and motivational experiences during the learning process: A qualitative approach." Learning and instruction 15.5 (2005): 465- 480.(7) Kleinginna, P. R., & Kleinginna, A. M. (1981). A categorized list of emotion definitions, with suggestions for a consensual definition. Motivation
/oradaptation of these examples and models. We further acknowledge the need to adapt knowledgetransfer models into practices for administrators and faculty that take into account uniqueorganizational contexts.ConclusionWe have highlighted and discussed four foci related to improving and diversifying engineeringpathways in college: structural issues, data driven research, academic leadership and knowledgetransfer. We look forward to receiving input from the community to advance the discussion.References1. Besterfield-Sacre, M., and L.J. Shuman (2016). Innovation through Propagation II: A Roadmap for Engineering Education. In Proceedings of the 2016 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, New Orleans, LA2 Foor, C. E., & Walden, S. E. (2009
Science Foundation under award DUE-1626287.References[1] T. Grose, Ed., “Retention range: The wide variation among 2007 freshmen,” ASEE Connections, Feb. 2016. [Online]. Available: http://createsend.com/t/y-45B6B3EF48CE7A3C#databyte. [Accessed Oct. 4, 2017][2] E. Seymour and N. M. Hewitt, Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997.[3] R. M. Marra, K. A., Rodgers, D. Shen, and B. Bouge, “Leaving engineering: A multi-year single institution study,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 6–27, Jan. 2012.[4] O. Eris, D. Chachra, H. L. Chen, S. Sheppard, L. Ludlow, C. Rosca, T. Bailey, and G. Toye, “Outcomes of a longitudinal administration of the persistence in
study of first-year S&E students in 1990 found that fewer than 50percent had completed an S&E degree within five years.3 Furthermore, retention of engineeringstudents is a primary goal of Women in Engineering (WIE) and Multicultural Engineering(MEP) programs.Understanding why some students leave engineering to study another discipline at theiruniversity is an important factor in addressing low retention. Studies from Seymour and Hewitt6and Brainard and Carlin7 provided our communities with results essential to developing anunderstanding of why students from those institutions during that time period chose to leaveengineering. However, WIE, MEP, college of engineering administrators and faculty have anongoing need for these data from
discipline, the lines between academic and socialintegration in the student experience are blurred such that a general term such as “sense ofbelonging” is more appropriate. Two main themes emerged from the data with regards tostudents’ sense of belonging: (a) the impact of participants’ connectivity with peers, faculty andthe College of Engineering; and (b) the extent of participants’ socialization to the engineeringprofession. The primary contribution of these findings is a better understanding of theengineering student experience that suggests a revision to Veenstra et al.’s Model of EngineeringStudent Retention. In addition, these findings extend previous recommendations related to first-year engineering instructional and student support
that emerges from these complex interactions it becameapparent that the „object‟ of our research interest was neither “out there” [19, p. 37] to beobserved in a materialistic sense, nor was it is it solely „in the individual‟s head‟. Rather, itextended beyond the individual, in that it was constituted through, and emerged from, the sharedlived experience ["Lebenswelt" in: 20] of groups of individuals [21]. Put another way, this meantthat the reality we were interested in investigating was socially constructed [22-24], by theparticipants and the researcher [1] in the data gathering situation. Illustration: To clarify this point, this illustration considers an example from the above-described study that is concerned with
modelProbabilistic neural networks (PNNs) was first proposed by Specht13 in the early 90’s, to fulfiltheir predominant role as classifiers. By implementing a statistical algorithm called kerneldiscriminant analysis, PNNs are capable of mapping input patterns to any number ofclassifications. The basis of the algorithm divides operations into a multilayered feed forwardneural network with four layers, (1) Input Layer, (2) Pattern Layer, (3) Summation Layer, and(4) Output Layer. Figure 1 shows a typical PNN architecture. In the model, the input layer Page 25.498.3distributes data to “neurons” in the pattern layer, and the neuron of the pattern layer computes
undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press; 1997. x, 429 p. p.4. Ohland MW, Sheppard SD, Lichtenstein G, Eris O, Chachra D, Layton RA. Persistence, Engagement, and Migration in Engineering. Journal of Engineering Education 2008;97(3).5. Astin AW. What matters in college? : Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass; 1993. xxi, 482 p. p.6. Lord S, Brawner CE, Camacho M, Layton RA, Long RA, Ohland MW, Wasburn M. Work in Progress: Effect of Climate and Pedagogy on Persistence of Women in Engineering Programs. Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education, Saratoga Springs, NY 2008.7. Lord S, Camacho M, Layton RA, Long RA, Ohland MW, Wasburn M. Who's making it? Race
will use the list of themes and codes developed by Garcia etal.’s (2019) servingness framework as a starting point of a priori codes, while also employingopen coding to identify structural characteristics that are specific to this context and do not fit thelist of codes in Garcia’s study. To identify the cultural characteristics, we will utilize valuecoding, defined by Saldaña (2016) as the application of codes unto data that reflects the values,attitudes, and beliefs about the phenomenon under study [21]. In this case, these codes will applyto the institution’s values, attitudes and beliefs about their role in serving Latinx students. Oncethe structural and cultural characteristics have been identified, we will conduct a second round ofcoding
empirical study of expert problem-solving that frames the process of anexpert solving an ill-structured (“authentic”) problem in terms of the decisions that experts make[16]. They find a remarkably consistent set of approximately 30 decisions that experts make asthey solve problems, such as deciding to decompose the problem into smaller pieces, deciding onan appropriate abstract representation of the problem (e.g. diagrams or equations), and decidingon the failure modes of a potential solution. These empirical findings are in line with theory thatsuggests decision-making represents the core processes in solving a variety of complexproblems, such as design problems [17, 18]. Central to Price et al.’s empirical model of problemsolving is an expert’s