feedback to make progress, and perform better on a finalwritten exam and overall in the class. Instructors were better able to follow the progress of theirclass, give more detailed and individualized feedback, and adjust content level based on thestudents in their course. Oral assessments proved to be an effective tool to aid students indeveloping exam preparation, active discourse, and self-evaluation.IntroductionSignificant challenges for instructors at the university level are found in assessing students’progress in a course, adapting the course to fit student learning pace and style, and providingadequate feedback that motivates students [1]. Grades and paper corrections of writtenassignments and exams are often delayed and underutilized by
instructional resources and conducting interdisciplinary quasi-experimental research studies in and out of classroom environments. Dr. Menekse is the recipient of the 2014 William Elgin Wickenden Award by the American Society for Engineering Education. Dr. Menekse also received three Seed-for-Success Awards (in 2017, 2018, and 2019) from Purdue University’s Excellence in Re- search Awards programs in recognition of obtaining three external grants of $1 million or more during each year. His research has been generously funded by grants from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Purdue Research Foundation (PRF), and National Science Foundation (NSF).Ahmed Ashraf Butt, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN Ahmed Ashraf
leveland beyond. STEM lacks the gender and racial diversity that mirrors the American populationand there is an increasing need to fill engineering positions in the industry [1]. There have beenmany efforts to encourage K-12 students to pursue careers in STEM, creating a nationalmovement that includes summer camps, classes, and after school programs [2]. Higher educationis starting to look at the institutional level change needed to support D&I efforts in order toattend to the diversity of their student population [3]. While there is a focus in engineeringeducation research on best practices and a focus on change, there is limited scholarship focusedon understanding the “on-the-ground” work of engineering educators working to address D
predictor of achievement, prior studies show conflicting results as to whether collegeentrance exams predict academic achievement in engineering, especially beyond students' firstyear of college [1-7]. Additional work suggests that HSGPA and college entrance exams predictpersistence in the first semester of college, but there is limited research examining how priorachievement relates to persistence towards degree completion [8]. Due to these mixed results, itis critical to understand not only whether students’ HSGPA and entrance exam scores bothpredict college achievement and persistence, but why they are or are not predictive. Furthermore,as universities use both criteria (HSGPA and entrance exam scores) for admission decisions [9],it is important
point-scale from 1 to 4: (4) flawless work, (3) quality work, (2) average work, and(1) needs improvement. This assessment sheet is targeted to increase student awareness on thetechnical areas in which they need to improve and provide opportunities for continuous growthand successful progress. Once students receive their assignments, they have to option to revisetheir work and correct any errors. Survey results from this study reveal that this alternative studentassessment relieves pressure and helps counteract self-inflicted stress and anxiety, whilepromoting student efficacy and increased competence and knowledge of engineering content andprinciples.I. MOTIVATION AND BACKGROUNDReceiving a college degree may lead to securing employment post
categorized as “learning by doing” [1]. The approach uses ill-structured problems toreflect realistic scenarios that students encounter when they become professionals, rather thantextbook-type problems with known solutions. Gallagher et al. [2] defined the role of the teacheras a facilitator and students as self-directed learners in this approach. The concept hinges onlearning occurring within small groups; and the given problems as the tool to enhance skills inproblem solving. The given problem is intended to stimulate self-directed learning [2]. Overall,the aims of problem-based learning include collaborative and interdisciplinary problem solving,critical thinking, active learning, and motivation for learning [1], [3].Though often interchanged in
, industry ready engineering graduates from the academic systemand proposes to resolve the gap through an integrated framework.1. BackgroundTertiary education, and in particular engineering education, is critical to India’s aspiration ofbecoming a competitive player in the globalized world [1]. Post the economic reformsbeginning in the early nineties, the enrolment to engineering education has increased from ameager 200 thousand in 1947 to 34 million in 2017-18 [2]. Engineering institutions havemushroomed without adequate infrastructure, effective governance and good faculty,resulting in poor quality of education [3]. Thus, the exponential growth of engineeringeducation has significantly affected the quality of engineering graduates in India. The
graduate student. This work adds to the relativelyscarce body of literature on graduate level engineering education and will influence theorydevelopment to add to the national conversations on graduate-level completion and departure fromthe engineering PhD.Introduction and Literature ReviewAttrition at the graduate level is an important issue faced by universities, yet it remains a complexphenomenon that is not completely understood. While attrition is difficult to quantify, because ofthe way attrition is counted or reported by different universities, studies estimate that forty to sixtypercent of doctoral students leave their program in some disciplines [1]. Within engineering,factors such as academic culture [2], academic capabilities [3], and
Engineering Exams Work-In-Progress (WIP)Introduction The use of scoring rubrics for assessing student’s task is becoming more common acrossuniversities in the US. Rubrics are scoring guides that states the criteria for evaluating a task anddefine the levels of quality of work and are used for evaluating student’s assignments[1]. Rubricsmay help focus both students and instructors on the most important elements of the assignedtasks. Rubrics may also help in reducing the subjectivity of conventional assessment techniques.Professors have used scoring rubrics for a student’s written response to evaluate his/herunderstanding in subjects such as English, social studies, economics, law, natural and physicalsciences[2-5]. The dissatisfaction among
Education: New Perspectives on a Student-centered Metric of SuccessAbstract. Retention in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)programs is a national problem. Although many studies have attempted to identify characteristicsof students at high risk of attrition and other interventions to aid these populations, few haveadequately questioned the metric of success itself: retention. To be specific, “retention” tracks onlythe percentage of students who begin their undergraduate career in a chosen major and successfullymatriculate, which may be too coarse of a measure for several reasons: (1) it counts as successesstudents who remain in an initially chosen STEM major, but flounder, (2) it counts as failuresstudents
assigned activities at different times and in different places,the collaborative work may not become as effective anymore. This phenomenon of falling behindin collaborative learning and team-based activities are observable through late and missingsubmissions, in which, both are consequential to student performance. In this paper, we presentour Introductory Computer Science (CS1) course model, particularly highlighting the process ofgroup work and collaborative learning. Next, we introduce a novel multidimensional scaffoldingmethodology focused on the following dimensions: (1) chunking by difficulty, (2) chunking bytime, (3) chunking by focus, and (4) chunking by collaboration. This approach focuses on refininginstructor-to-student mediums through
engineering curricula, design projects provide opportunities for students todemonstrate understanding of their technical knowledge through solving a complex problem [1].Additionally, project-based learning allows students to acquire and apply valuable non-technicalskills such as teamwork, systems thinking, communication, ethics, and creativity [2, 3]. Industrydemands that students be able to engage effectively in the practice of engineering, whichincludes not only technical knowledge but also the ability to apply that knowledge to new andcomplex situations in the real world [3, 4]. Therefore, the teaching of engineering should focuson getting students to think independently, rather than simply asking students to replicate theexisting knowledge of
districts, museums, botanical gardens, zoos, universities, corporations, and Army tank maintenance training. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Streamlining the Process of Evaluating the Educational and Diversity Impacts of Engineering Research Centers through a Common Assessment InstrumentIntroductionThe National Science Foundation (NSF) has funded 74 nationwide Engineering ResearchCenters (ERC) since 1985. These ERCs have been leading forces in conducting advancedcomplex multidisciplinary research to address critical engineering challenges [1]. A core featureof ERCs is improving engineering education and diversity experiences internally within thecenters
undergraduate years with myriad systems, resources, and interventions, each designed tohelp students be successful in their studies. Increased efforts are being made to ensure qualitylearning environments that include “solid and effective teaching, strong levels of studentengagement, deep learning, and value-added skills development” [1]. Despite these initiatives,the undergraduate engineering experience remains primarily lecture-based and teacher-centred,with more than half of all instructors concerned that their students are ill-prepared for the rigorsof engineering [2]. A recent survey of engineering students confirms that their undergraduateclasses are lecture-based and that learners are experiencing cognitive overload in these content-intensive
of engineering as a profession, and belongingness andinclusion, as associated with work within makerspaces. We found significant positivecorrelations among the variables, positive levels of motivation, growth mindset, knowledge ofengineering as a profession, and belongingness. We found differences in levels for gender,engineering majors, and student class standing. We discuss the implications for our findings inthe context of undergraduate engineering student learning in makerspaces.IntroductionMakerspaces, a location with tools (electronic and hand) for rapid prototyping, have becomemore widely used in undergraduate engineering preparation programs [1]. There is a generalexpectation that students using the makerspaces will gain deeper
Genaro Zavala is a Full Professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the School of Engineering and Sciences at Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico. He collaborates with the Faculty of Engineering of the Universidad Andres Bello in Santiago, Chile. Professor Zavala is National Researcher Level 1 of the National System of Researchers of Mexico. He works with the following research lines: conceptual understanding, active learning, development of assessment tools, faculty development and studies in STEM. Genaro Zavala was appointed to the editorial board of the Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research journal of the American Physical Society for the period 2015 to 2018, vice president of the
as general trends and takeaways.IntroductionAs technology and the age of information continue to evolve, the need for engineers that aretrained both technically and professionally is greater than ever. ABET calls for an engineeringcurriculum where students learn how to communicate effectively, work on teams, problem solve,and understand how to gain new information when needed [1]. Similarly, the National Academiespaint the picture of ”the Engineer of 2020” who has skills in leadership, communication, andcreativity. The Engineer of 2020 practices resiliency, agility, and lifelong learning [2]. On top ofthat, an extensive study done in [3] looked at information from over 16,000 participants and over36,000 job postings to discover what
keyinsights learned from using PAR for formative assessment and explain why this approach may beespecially helpful in creating more supportive and beneficial environments for women inengineering education.1.0 IntroductionResearch, Academics and Mentoring Pathways (RAMP) to Success is a summer bridge programoffered to female engineering students entering the University of Massachusetts Lowell as firstyear students in the Fall semester [1]. This six-week program is designed to provide new studentsa smooth transition from high school to the University environment, allowing them to build acommunity of friends and explore the resources available to them during the relatively quietersummer session. First implemented in 2018, RAMP enrolled 22 students in
students learn more aboutthe field of engineering, they also develop conceptions of their own engineering identity andbelonging. Prior work has shown that identity and belongingness are key factors influencingstudents’ pathways into, through, and potentially out of engineering [1—3]. Investigations intoidentity and belongingness can, therefore, inform efforts to recruit and retain a large, diverse bodyof engineers [4]. As faculty are at the forefront of students’ first experiences with the field ofengineering, equipping them with the knowledge of their influence on students’ identity formationand belongingness is imperative.Faculty members are a prominent source of influence on students’ perceptions of identity andbelongingness. Course instructors
advantages: It does not rely on therequirement of earning a degree in engineering and could be applied across a variety of fieldsof study, it is not based on enrollment at a fixed point in time, and it can be used as the dataset continues to grow. Most importantly, while other common heuristics use grades, successin certain consecutive courses, or even demographics; our method only uses enrollment (andhence enrollment gap) data. This is a significant advantage given that the enrollment data isalways available; whereas other commonly used feature heuristics for retention determinationare not always available or may only apply to subsets of students.IntroductionNational reports such Rising above the gathering storm [1] have focused national attention
conclude by comparing and evaluating the differences found in the resultsfrom both courses.1. IntroductionNational calls for reform in science education 1 recommend a shift in instructional focus toincorporate the student as an active member of the educational process. The National Academyof Engineering is also promoting new initiatives to support innovative work in engineeringeducation 2 Ebert-Mar, Brewer & Allred 3 indicate that learning is a constructive process thatrequires active participation by not only the teacher but also the student. Active involvement ofstudents in large engineering classes can become a challenge. A possible approach includes“hands-on” experiences in the lab and small interactive classrooms 3. However
basedenvironments. A comparative analysis was also conducted to identify the differencesbetween face-to-face and online learning settings. Based on the findings of the analysisand the data gathered from the survey participants, a number of design methods andtechniques that would influence the development of effective online course deliverysystems are developed. This study is the first step in a longer program of research thatwill ultimately yield enhanced systems for online learning.1. IntroductionEffectiveness of online learning settings has become an important research question asthe number of online programs increase dramatically in the last decade. Numerousresearchers studied the effectiveness of online education. Since the research problem hasmultiple
sucha claim. Through a series of attitudinal surveys, knowledge assessments, and observationsfocused on the individuals’ experience and the engineering design process, the effects of ateaching experience.IntroductionEngineering is an active discipline and therefore should be taught actively. At the undergraduatelevel, this active aspect is typically lost among the countless hours spent within the classroom,learning through lecture, reading, and abstract thinking. Over the past two decades, engineeringeducation has begun to move away from employing passive teaching methodologies towardmore active approaches. This movement is guided by published principles [1], theories [2-4], andguidelines [5, 6] that assert that good practice in undergraduate
-test. This was done in case one of the tests proved harder than the other,thereby confounding the interpretation of a trend in the scores. Concept Test A During a drought, the lake level drops from A to B. 1. Which is the first to happen? A. erosion at D B. erosion at G C. deposition at C D. deposition at E Several wet years follow the drought and raise the lake level back to A. 2. Deposition quickly starts at C A. True G B. False F E 3. Erosion continues for a short time at G D C
components used in the online classroom. A previous baseline architecture for theSystems Engineering and Engineering Management (SEEM) department’s initial online Page 12.1046.5course, Fundamentals of Systems Engineering, consisted of four key elements (Pennottiet al, 2004): 1. Getting started instructions that prepare learners for participating in the course. 2. Course content which learners use to understand the course concepts. 3. A team project to apply the course concepts in a controlled but realistic environment. 4. Online discussions to share both learner and instructor experiences and perspectives.For this paper, we developed a
referenced in the Third International and Mathematics and Science Study(TIMSS)1. The 1983 report A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform2charged federal and state governments to reform the educational system so that USstudents can be better prepared to compete against international economic competitors. Itbrought forth a federal challenge to state governments to conduct reforms on a grandscale. Although studies have released claims on the inaccuracy of A Nation at Risk, ithowever sparked a nationwide interest and dialogue in high school curricula reform byincreasing the quality and number of science and mathematics courses. Yet again, we arereminded by the recent release of the 2006 report A Test of Leadership: Charting theFuture of
commitment to studying engineering grew stronger over time. Examination forlevel of commitment was guided by the review of the question, “How committed are you topursuing an engineering degree? And why”? A total of 60 engineering students longitudinallyparticipated in Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 of the study. In Year 1, 27 first year students (45%)stated that they were very committed to completing the major in engineering. The number ofsecond year students that were very committed increased to 49 students (81.6%), representing a37% increase from the previous year. Third year students showed only a 5% increase, to 52, thatindicated that they were very committed (Table 1). Correspondingly, the number of students thatindicated that they were “somewhat
Science at “the University” has already been very successful at increasing enrollment, retention, and graduation in recent years. Yet, further improvements are attainable. Our overall goal is an annual increase in STEM graduation rates – fromFigure 1. Students working during the Bridges to approximately 220 students per year to aEngineering pilot. sustainable 300 students per
interventions. “Education is what survives when what has been learned has been forgotten”1 B. F. Skinner (1904 - 1990)1. Introduction: Outcomes-based education in engineering educationThe rapid societal and technological changes of the last decade have resulted in a sustainedtransformation of engineering work and the engineering profession. Engineering graduates todayare expected to be equipped with a whole set of new technical abilities as well as an awareness ofthe social and environmental implications of engineering work. In many countries thesepressures have led to reforms of the engineering education system in an attempt to better equipstudents for the changed and changing
modifications in the software, itsimplementation, and teaching and assessment practices.IntroductionForty years ago, in the UK, the average lecture audience size was 19 1, while the averagediscussion group size was just four 2. By contrast, present-day University course sizes of twohundred or more are routine. Funding has not increased sufficiently to match this increase instudent numbers 3, 4. Consequently there has been a significant increase in instructorworkload, one that threatens the quality of education.Assessment takes an increasing percentage of instructor resources as course sizes grow. It hasbeen suggested 5 that for courses of more than 100 students, preparing and marking just thefinal examination requires more instructor time than all