Engineering Education Research: Reflections on an Example Study,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 102, no. 4, pp. 626–659, 2013, doi: 10.1002/jee.20029.[10] J. Walther et al., “Qualitative Research Quality: A Collaborative Inquiry Across Multiple Methodological Perspectives,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 398– 430, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20170.[11] S. Tan, “The Elements of Expertise,” Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, vol. 68, pp. 30–33, Feb. 1997, doi: 10.1080/07303084.1997.10604892.[12] C. Aaron, E. Miskioglu, K. M. Martin, B. Shannon, and A. Carberry, “Nurses, Managers, and Engineers – Oh My! Disciplinary Perceptions of Intuition and Its Role in
wealth,” Race Ethn. Educ., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 69–91, 2005.[18] C. G. Vélez-Ibáñez and J. B. Greenberg, “Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge among U.S.-Mexican Households,” Anthropol. Educ. Q., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 313–335, 1992.[19] A. L. Pawley and C. M. L. Phillips, “From the mouths of students: Two illustrations of narrative analysis to understand engineering education’s ruling relations as gendered and raced,” presented at the ASEE Annual Conference, Indianapolis, IN, 2014.[20] J. Walther, N. W. Sochacka, and N. N. Kellam, “Quality in interpretive engineering education research: reflections on an example study: Quality in interpretive engineering education research,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 102, no. 4, pp
time to rest, affecting their mental health.Future work will focus on assessing other type of support interventions that were implementedduring the outbreak of COVID-19. Considering the perceived need for a balance academic load,we also plan to explore ways to improve curriculum planning and assessment patterns inengineering education. During the second semester of 2020, we collected students’ self-reports oftime-on-task to identify peaks of academic workload in specific weeks and subjects. Furtherstudies will be conducted to understand how these self-reported data could help teaching staff andstudents reflect about course planning and time management, respectively.AcknowledgementsThis work was supported by CORFO under grant no. 14EN12-26862
online classes.Participating instructors also discussed various strategies to overcome these barriers during thefocus group setting. Our research team is currently working to also identify these strategies andtheir effectiveness in overcoming barriers to using active learning in online teaching.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant NoDUE-1821488. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation.References[1] M. Dancy, C. Henderson, &, C. Turpen, (2016). How instructors learn about and implementresearch-based instructional strategies: The
Covid-19 on Higher Education around the World. 2020.[2] J. J. B. Joaquin, H. T. Biana, and M. A. Dacela, “The Philippine Higher Education Sector in the Time of COVID-19,” Front. Educ., vol. 5, no. October, pp. 1–6, 2020, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2020.576371.[3] T. Khraishi, “Teaching in the COVID-19 Era: Personal Reflections, Student Surveys and Pre-COVID Comparative Data,” Open J. Soc. Sci., vol. 09, no. 02, pp. 39–53, 2021, doi: 10.4236/jss.2021.92003.[4] D. Chadha et al., “Are the kids alright? Exploring students’ experiences of support mechanisms to enhance wellbeing on an engineering programme in the UK,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–16, 2020, doi: 10.1080/03043797.2020.1835828.[5] M. Schar, A
data.ConclusionThis work is still in-progress. Our study has been set up with three undergraduate courses involving twofaculties. In this emulation students get the opportunity to perform through all standard softwaredevelopment phases in Agile method including requirements analysis, user-story backlog creation. Oncethe backlog is ready, developers plan for sprints and drive each sprint equipped with daily-scrum,retrospective and planning the next sprint. The entire process is driving through use of IST&P. Once thisstudy is done, our collected data will give us an insight about how this protocol impacts the learningeffectiveness and how it engages the students. We believe that the empirical data will give us a positiveresult reflecting the engagement and
and home. He left hisemotional side at home and was a commanding force at work. He identified as an “extremeprofessional.” William described that he deliberately did not bring his family to work events,attend happy hours, or befriend coworkers. Because he described this separation as being “basedon race,” we interpreted his experience as inauthentic in comparison to the White participants.William also experienced isolation because of the lack of peers on his level in the workplace.Structural racism was reflected in various forms throughout the interviews. All three participantsdescribed the hiring process as based on merit. This can prove to be disadvantageous tominoritized individuals, given they often don’t have the same opportunities to
towards degree completion will be assessed through pre andpost-semester surveys, reflections, and final exam/presentation scores. At the two south valleycampuses, students will be primarily be assessed to identify the length to which FC-E-POGILpedagogy is successful in improving knowledge gains. The impact of the two pedagogies onknowledge gains will be evaluated by conducting a one-way repeated measure analysis ofvariance (ANOVA). The ANOVA analysis will assess the difference in participants’ summativeknowledge gains based on final exams and presentations as the summative assessment method ateach respective campus. Institutional data on student’s majors and progress towards graduationand will indicate if participation in these courses helps meet
that ourapproach can be replicated in other fields and other student populations.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants1842166 and 1329283. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. We thank the SPHERE research group for their helpful feedback.References[1] S. Kovalchuk, M. Ghali, M. Klassen, D. Reeve, and R. Sacks, “Transitioning from university to employment in engineering: The role of curricular and co-curricular activities,” in 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2017.[2] R. Korte, S. Brunhaver, and S. Zehr
] participants, ResearchExperiences for Undergraduates [REU] or Research Experience and Mentoring [REM]participants, Young Scholar Program participants).This study brings particular challenges in development and implementation that we discuss in therest of this paper. In particular, program evaluation often focuses on immediate or outcomessome time after the event (often up to 6 months). In this study, we take advantage of the unusuallength of the ERC grant duration (10 years) to be able to reflect on the long-term impact ofSTEM programs in the development of identities and motivations along career pathways. In thisWork in Progress paper, we describe the ongoing process for developing the first round ofsurveys, as well as discussing considerations for
rooted in the nexus ofhumanitarian practice, sustainability awareness, social justice, and professional practice. It willemphasize student teamwork, along with greater consideration of social and economic factors,improved communication with diverse constituents, and reflection on an ethical understanding oftheir decisions and solutions. It also requires that faculty members be empowered to mirror thesevalues and skills in their instruction and mentoring. The RED grant connects professional skillsdirectly to the ability to develop and evaluate solutions within these broader contexts.In this work in progress (WIP), we review our progress towards achieving this vision including:• Establishing a foundation for a revised engineering canon that
creating awareness about Industrial Distribution and related STEM fields among the public.Ms. Soo Jeoung Han, Texas A&M University Soo Jeoung (Crystal) Han is currently a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Educational Administration & Human Resource at Texas A&M University. She worked in business and academic institutions in South Korea for more than five years. Her research interests reflect her diverse work experiences including the field of virtual team collaboration, cross-cultural team diversity, shared leadership development of teams, and global/women leadership. Currently, she has published journals and book chapters in the field of collaborative learning, team leadership, and e-learning.Prof. Michael
. Each team writes self-reflection journals everytwo weeks and presents the progress of their projects. By the end of this semester, the foodpantry staff will be invited to join students’ final presentations and give feedback to students ontheir projects as well as their service learning. 3) “Understand and improve the water quality in the St. Johns river”: This project allowed 13students in 4 teams to start thinking of larger scale community issues. It required juniors toconduct research of designing systems to monitor water quality in our local waterways. Theyvisited local water treatment plants to learn the fundamentals of water analysis and thendesigned, developed, and tested their monitoring system by collaborating with JU MarineScience
this material are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe National Science Foundation.References[1] A. Hunter, S. L. Laursen, and E. Seymour, “Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development,” Sci. Educ., vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 36–74, 2007.[2] E. Seymour, A. Hunter, S. L. Laursen, and T. DeAntoni, “Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three‐year study,” Sci. Educ., vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 493–534, 2004.[3] A. D. Patrick and M. Borrego, “A review of the literature relevant to engineering identity,” in American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE
, 1524601, and 1524607. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe National Science Foundation.References1. K. Schneider, A. Bickel, and A Morrison-Shetlar, “Planning and implementing a comprehensive student-centered research program for first-year STEM undergraduates,” Journal of College Science Teaching, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 37-43, 2015.2. K. Schneider and A. Bickel, “Undergraduate research apprenticeship model: graduate students matched with STEM first-year mentees,” Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 25-31, 2015.3. J. Frechtling. “The 2002 user-friendly handbook for project evaluation,” National
National Science Foundation for their support through a Graduate ResearchFellowship (DGE-1333468). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of theNational Science Foundation.References[1] C. E. Foor, S. E. Walden, and D. A. Trytten, ““I wish that I belonged more in this whole engineering group:" Achieving individual diversity,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 103–115, 2007.[2] J. M. Smith and J. C. Lucena, “‘How do I show them I’m more than a person who can lift heavy things?’ the funds of knowledge of low income, first generation engineering students,” J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 199–221, 2016.[3
students to work cooperatively in interactive learning groups. Participants were then asked to complete an online Figure 1. Venturi survey administered over Qualtrics© at the end of the semester. flow meter The survey prompted participants to reflect on their LC- DLM instruction and report how well they believed being taught concepts with LC-DLM influenced their learning experience Figure 1. Venturi flow meter compared with other course concepts they learned with regular lectures in the same class. Participation in theexperiment was
traumatic events are perceived and handled within engineering environments by allmembers of the engineering education community. Specifically, the messaging around emotionalexpression should be examined to determine what explicit and implicit barriers are constructed inengineering. Through advanced understanding in this area we can begin to create models thatsupport students through challenges that manifest in and out of the engineering classroom.AcknowledgmentsThis work was funded by grants from the National Science Foundation (EEC-1531586/1531174,DGE-1333468). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. The
as density, transitivity, and reciprocity in the network [2]. This approach is amethodological and pedagogical innovation because it has the potential to inform and providefeedback about the participants’ work, promote reflection on their collaborative practices andcontribute to cohesion, dialogue and the flow of knowledge within the team to continuouslyimprove the internalization of the new educational model.Keywords: Educational Change, Teacher Collaboration, Social Network Analysis, EducationalInnovationResearch Background and MotivationThis work-in-progress research is being carried out at a large multi-campus private university inMexico and focuses specifically on the area of engineering and sciences. The institution ischaracterized by
Nativeand Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander students was too low to draw meaningfulconclusions about racial differences in scholarship receipt. The source of these racial/ethnicdifferences is unknown. For instance, they might reflect different levels of opportunity forscholarships or differential application processes for scholarships, as we did not measure whetherstudents had applied for, but not received, a scholarship. The phi value indicates that this overalleffect size for the distribution of scholarships across race/ethnicity was small.Research Question 2With respect to research question 2, there were statistically significant differences in motivationbetween scholarship recipients and non-recipients. More specifically, independent
, ERM perception indicated that Engineering Education Page 13.970.8was an avenue for educating engineers that provided holistic education in discipline content,engineering basics and liberal education. Further, open-ended responses strongly suggested thatthis group viewed engineering education as understanding the uniqueness of engineeringcognition, developing experiences that brought about deep learning, and study how experiencesallow a student to develop into a reflective practitioner. The perceptions were strong on processand research in engineering education. The perception of dual careers as being an engineer andan engineering educator was
previousclass.What is also of interest is that the report scores were statistically different by the Student’s t-testanalysis (95% confidence level) between classes 1 and 4, and between classes 2 and 4. Nostatistical difference was evident when the report scores of the class using CPR (class 3) wascompared to any of the other classes.ConclusionsAlthough there is no direct correlation between the effectiveness of reviewing skills in theproject report quality as reflected by score, the grader of the reports was much more satisfiedwith the writing quality. This probably allowed for finer scrutiny of the content required in thereport; somewhat following the expectation that CPR scoring of low difficulty on the practiceassignment could be increased to moderate
and analytical perspectives, 5 and improve teamwork ,communication , and project management skills . IPRO Projects are based on realproblems, often involving sponsors that reflect the diversity of the workplace: corporations,entrepreneurial ventures, non-profit organizations, and government agencies. Theprojects cover a broad range of topics and include service learning, research, design,process improvement and business planning assignments.Every undergraduate student is required to take two IPROs. A majority of IPRO studentsare majoring in engineering, architecture and computer science, but the program alsoinvolves undergraduate students
institutions that are considered primarilyteaching institutions. Concomitantly, the roles of faculty members have changed to reflect theincreased importance of research. Although research output is one key component in theevaluation of salary increases, promotion, and tenure, sustaining active research in primarilyteaching institutions can be challenging at best. Furthermore, as research activities in mostinstances are commonly pursued by the faculty through externally funded programs, obtainingsuch external funding can be somewhat problematic at teaching – versus research - institutions.This paper discusses multiple ways of motivating and assisting faculty to conduct research andscholarly work at what has traditionally been a highly teaching-focused
some minor modifications, the voice of students as reflected in their evaluations can also be incorporated into this methodology. However, such a modification is outside of the scope of this paper and is not discussed here. The House of Quality is the principal tool used in QFD. It is depicted in figure 1.Figure 1: The House of Quality (QFD)The customer requirements are entered in the left column and are translated into coursecharacteristics under technical requirements. The customer requirements are prioritized under thecustomer importance column. An interesting feature of using this approach is to comparecharacteristics of the course with similar courses available at other institutions so as to be able toattract more students
responses toQuestion 3, which asked participants to choose the solution they deemed best from among thealternatives they listed in response to Question 2. Question 3 also asked for solution evaluation,so we expected that it would be more likely than the other questions to make design rationalemore visible. This was the main reason we focused this initial examination for evidence of lifecycle consideration on Question 3 responses.The Question 3 responses were coded using a scheme that reflects a simplified version of lifecycle. Our life cycle model parallels established models (e.g., the Environmental ProtectionAgency’s1) and recognizes the following stages or processes: design, construction, normaloperation, maintenance/modification, and disposal
insulatingmaterials and the impact on heat loss. The insulation materials include straw, felt,and sawdust, all which are readily available in the students‟ environment. Tofacilitate student comprehension, modifications to the parameters result inchanges in the corresponding graphics that reflect the impact in real applications.For example, if students input changes in the thickness of a material, that materialincreases in thickness on the screen.Figure 2: A screenshot of the control panel and animated demonstration ofparameters controlling heat loss rate.A final goal for the software is to encourage students to derive solutions tonumerical problems. Figure 3 displays a screen shot which requires users tomanually input the result of a calculation in a textbox
Website: http://www.esm.psu.edu/dci/ (GrayEt al. 2003). The DCI was administered pre and post course as a timed assessment onlinethrough the Dynamics class Blackboard website. Each semester, the instructor also administered a self-developed exploratorysurvey of 15 questions to assess that semester’s broadcast environment and pedagogy viathe class Blackboard website. While the survey was reviewed by a learning expert andanother faculty at a different university to remove bias and determine appropriateness ofthe questions, a focus group of students was not employed to validate the survey.Approximately 10% of the questions on the survey changed each semester to reflect theexact circumstances of that semester’s class. Questions on the survey
limited our scope to the current or first choiceof major so as to allow for each student to be counted only once in the cross-major comparisons.Our analysis included only juniors and seniors. We believe these students were more likely thanunderclassmen to graduate in the major they selected (thereby minimizing responses fromstudents who may later decide to transfer out of the major). Furthermore, we expect that juniorsand seniors have completed more major-specific coursework resulting in responses that reflect amore complete picture of the specific major’s engineering curriculum. We did not include 5thyear (or more) seniors in our analysis.In order to determine the effects of collapsing men and women students of both junior and seniorlevel
was so I knew what to expect from them.PT01 My team was confident in its ability to overcome adversity (e.g., interpersonal conflict, assignments).PT02 I feel a sense of accomplishment in my team's ability to work together.PT03 This team gave me confidence in the ability of teamwork to solve problems.PT04 My team had the collective abilities (e.g., communication, interpersonal, technical) to accomplish course assignments.PT05 I was confident that our team produced acceptable solutions to course assignments.GS02 My team used clear, long term goals to complete tasks. Page 14.249.3GS03 My team reflected upon its goals in