how to improve as well as an understanding of how to make animprovement10.Because quality feedback is important, investigating the traits of good feedback is critical. Theaim of this study is to examine how students perceive and respond to feedback received from aGraduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) and their peers. This study is part of a larger project thatfocuses on the feedback that students receive as they iterate through multiple drafts of theirsolutions to MEAs. In addition, this study is part of a greater research endeavor to developpedagogical approaches around feedback on open-ended problem solving that enhancesinstructor and peer feedback and facilitates students learning to interpret and respond to feedback.II. MethodA. SettingThree
qualitativeexploration of the ways the authors addressed the issue of data integration, or mixing. During thequalitative phase we examined the same sample to explore the themes that emerge regarding theissue of integrating the data. The sample chosen for this study included 16 journal articlespublished in seven journals from 2005 to present. Table 1 summarizes how the data werecollected from the sample population for the two major phases of the project. Table 1. Research Design: Questions, Data Collection and AnalysisResearch Phenomenon of Interest Data Collection Data AnalysisQuestion How do current articles Articles were identified based on Elements from each article published
active learning, Page 24.1207.4 4) Gives prompt feedback, and 7) Respects diverse talents and ways of learning.A more thorough discussion of the student-centered theoretical framework behind the invertedclassroom can be found in a recent review paper by J. Bishop and M. Verleger 7.Research Project DescriptionThis paper reports on one of the research questions associated with a two-year study on theinverted classroom approach conducted at the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering at theUniversity of Toronto, which is a large research-intensive public university. The study comparesthe relative perception and performances of two cohorts, one
Cognition in Context). Within Cognitive Psychology, he has been working with Prof. Daniel Morrow, on the nature of complex human problem solving and learn- ing. The current research projects aim to improve self-care (e.g. taking medications) and health outcomes among older adults. These interdisciplinary projects leverage expertise in computer science, medicine, human factors, and education to improve provider/patient collaboration related to self-care. He has fur- ther interest in investigating relationships among professional expertise, cognition, decision-making, risk perception, and workload in complex task domains such as accounting and behavioral economics.Prof. Lawrence Angrave, University of Illinois Urbana
method. The detailed experiments showed a contrastinguser identity participation behavior in their ways of communication; for example, the use by anorganization and organization-affiliated users of lower authoritative information sharing. Thisstudy provides recommendations for the development of reliable content analysis systems forhumanitarian organizations and disaster response agencies in real-time [20].Intersectional self-expressions in Twitter are examined by Johri et al. (2018) during a hashtagactivism campaign for engineering diversity. Authors analyzed the self-expressions ofparticipants on a project to increase engineering diversity (# ILookLikeanEngineer) and foundthat, consistent with the viewpoint of intersectionality, in addition to
accessiblesmartphones in the digital world today can be a better choice for smart and effective learning.Moreover, it will have more significance with increasing online studies in the current pandemicscenario. In this paper, an AR mobile tool prototype developed for engineering education isdiscussed. The app includes limited opensource 3D models, interaction abilities, teachingcontent, and quiz feature and was evaluated with a survey. This paper will introduce the project,present an overview, design framework, implementation process, testing, and survey results. Thesurvey results show that the app is effective and useful in learning.KeywordsAugmented Reality, Engineering Education, STEM Learning, 3D Models, Unity, Vuforia,Android app.1 IntroductionEducation
integrate design into theengineering curriculum (e.g., Crawley, 2002) and to identify effective ways for assessment (Dym et al.,2005). Some faculty were comfortable engaging in a pedagogy based on project-based learning (PBL)(Smith et al., 2005). Employers started to recognize the qualities that PBL provides for students, includingcommunication, teamwork skills and interest in life-long learning (Oakes, Coyle, & Jamieson, 2000;Smith, 2004).The constantly changing nature of the engineering curriculum, in concert with economic, social andglobal contexts, continuously call for engineering faculty to adapt, by incorporating new content as wellas utilizing effective educational interventions. A recent study on The Global State of the Art
Paper ID #32597Design Science in Engineering Education ResearchDr. Johanna Naukkarinen, Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology Johanna Naukkarinen received her M.Sc. degree in chemical engineering from Helsinki University of Technology in 2001, her D.Sc. (Tech) degree in knowledge management from Tampere University of Technology in 2015, and her professional teacher qualification from Tampere University of Applied sci- ences in 2013. She is currently working as a post-doctoral researcher and project manager with the School of Energy Systems at Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology LUT with main research
Assessments. Analysis of Arguments Constructed by 142 Freshman Only Mix of International First-Year Engineering Students Majors Journal of Science Addressing Electromagnetic Induction and Mathematics Problems Written Argumentation Across the Curriculum 173 Lower Division Mix of Communication Majors Computer Automatic Argument: Assessment of 30 Mixed Computer Applications in Final Project Reports of Computer Undergraduates Engineering Engineering Engineering Students. Education
engineering students. Significant challenges for second career undergraduateengineering students are demands outside of school, such as lack of childcare, living as workingoff campus, and family and work responsibilities interfering with schoolwork. The significantdifferences in mean levels of experienced demands, resources, and outcomes across the threestudied groups highlight the need for faculty and administrators to develop and implementstrategies and interventions tailored to support the needs of different engineering studentpopulations.AcknowledgementThis project was supported by NSF Division for Undergraduate Education, Scholarship in STEMprogram (Award #1833896).Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Significance Testing for Study Variables
women in engineering degree programs and effective pedagogy in undergraduate engineering curriculum.Dr. James J. Pembridge, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Univ., Daytona BeachDr. Yosef S. Allam, Colorado School of Mines Yosef Allam is a Teaching Associate Professor in the EPICS first-year engineering program at the Col- orado School of Mines. Prior to joining Mines, he was an Assistant Professor in the Engineering Funda- mentals Department at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and an Affiliate Director for Project Lead The Way in Florida, as well as an Instructor in the First-Year Engineering Program at The Ohio State University. He graduated from The Ohio State University with B.S. and M.S. degrees in Industrial and
early feedback from thestudents was encouraging. The early feedback also confirmed the difficulty of changing thetraditional knowledge delivery and the overall resistance to change by participants (students andfaculty) in general. A set of actions have been identified by the team to address the challenges inthe near-term. As the department prepares for the next phase of the project, the experience wegained and the lessons we learned from implementing the KI modules will benefit theengineering education community as we seek to improve students learning experience, promotecritical thinking, and ultimately improve their problem solving skills.5. Acknowledgement The authors acknowledge the financial support from National Science Foundation
discussion. Finally, the role-structuring process is meant to get allmembers of the group to participate with interest. This approach gives the students enoughmaterial at the beginning of the project that they can relate it back to prior personal experiencesand individually acquired knowledge21. Then, the instructor gives the students a task that relieson the input from everyone in the group to think critically on the topic. The final part of theprocess requires that all students participate in order to complete the task without hinderingprogress. It is noted in this approach that convincing students to embrace a different viewpointon a topic can be challenging and sometimes sensitive due to upbringing or past experiences, soa structured approach to
were used as guides but major input on the survey opinionaire questions came fromsenior undergraduates who have been working on this project as Research Assistants. Four areaswere identified as good indications of student engagement; a desire to learn more, asking morequestions in class, talking/thinking about the material more, and coming better prepared for class.It is interesting to note that these categories were initially arrived at by discussion with theundergraduate assistants and yet they closely match the engagement criteria used by otherresearchers8 as well as the CASEE survey. Each of these four areas was subsequently evaluatedusing a five point Likert scale (Table A2). In addition, students were asked what theirimpression was of
rightshows the image projected to the class, and the screen on the left shows the instructor. Themovie can be scrolled forward, backward, or paused using the controls on the screen. Page 14.1210.5 Figure 1. Screen-shot of the lecture capture systemOne way the professor used screencasts was to create explanations of the homework, quiz, andexam solutions. In this case, the instructor went through detailed solutions of each of theproblems. This approach is more comprehensive than simple annotated solutions, because it ispossible to show the student where in the text or lecture notes the concept is described, talkthrough setting
. from Cornell University and the M.S. and Ph.D. from Stanford University. She is currently Professor and Coordinator of Electrical Engineering at the University of San Diego. Her teaching and research interests include electronics, optoelectronics, materials science, first year engineering courses, feminist and liberative pedagogies, and student autonomy. Dr. Lord served as General Co-Chair of the 2006 Frontiers in Education Conference. She has been awarded NSF CAREER and ILI grants. She is currently working on a collaborative NSF-funded Gender in Science and Engineering project investigating persistence of women in engineering undergraduate programs. Dr. Lord’s industrial experience includes AT
plagiarism [4]. This online plagiarism detection and tracking tool matches the documents submitted by the students and tries to find out the similarities in sentences or paragraphs. ≠ Essay Verification Engine (EVE)5: EVE is very efficient software tool which verifies essays, reports and projects. Within 15 minutes, EVE can compare 4 papers. It has large number of composite seeking algorithms to match the submitted assignment from the internet. Page 14.160.64 http://www.copycatchgold.com/5 http://www.canexus.com/ ≠ Plagiarism.org6: This is an online service which helps to stop
understand the conditions that mayencourage engineering students to be more entrepreneurial and innovative. Among Epicenter’s severalresearch projects is an ongoing longitudinal survey study of the development of engineering students’career goals around innovation and engineering, referred to as the Engineering Majors Survey (EMS -2016). The EMS study follows a nationally representative sample of engineering students from theirundergraduate experiences through graduation and into the workplace (Gilmartin et al. 2017). Withinthis survey are measures of engineering task self-efficacy and innovation self-efficacy, as well as 39background learning experiences and extra-curricular activities spanning high school throughundergraduate education, which form
offer in case another one does notfollow. We found that those who listed ‘only job offer’ as an important factor in their jobdecision were less likely to be satisfied with their employed position. On the other hand,some listed ‘only job offer’ more positively, often as a result of securing their idealposition early in their search process or receiving a full-time offer following a prior workexperience. How are students being supported during the job search and negotiationprocess? A recent report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that engineering andarchitecture jobs are projected to increase only 3% between 2014 and 2024, which is thelowest increase of any job sector.17 Therefore, faculty and advisers can play anincreasingly
asterisk).A brief survey of motivation literature provided guidance for developing the assessment plan ofstudent motivation (part 3). Several theories exist for describing factors contributing to studentmotivation [7]. Among some of the popular motivation theories in the engineering educationliterature are those of Self-Determination, Expectancy-Value, and Social-Cognitive theories ofstudent motivation. The Self-Determination Theory of motivation assumes that students aremotivated intrinsically by their feelings of competence, autonomy, and relatedness in theirlearning [8-9]. Stolk and Martello, for example, used this theory of motivation to assess theimpact of disciplinary integration in a project based engineering course [10]. The Expectancy
, engineeringethics, statistics, engineering economics and computational tools such as MATLAB. Othertopics that are touched on over the course of the semester include intellectual property, dataacquisition and engineering graphics. The course itself consists of two class meetings per weekwith one class meeting focused upon content reinforcement through active learning strategiessuch as think-pair-share, group discussions and case studies. The second class meeting isprimarily focused upon the design project and includes lab based experiments, data analysis andgroup discussions.Course grades for the Freshman Engineering course include a variety of lab based assignments inconjunction with the semester long design project (literature review, lab reports, final
from othercolleges are frequently enrolled. Although the course is intended for freshmen, it is equallyattended by sophomores, and juniors. Some senior and graduate students (primarily outside theCollege of Engineering) are also enrolled.The class is taught in a CLS with a maximum capacity of 260 students. Students are organized inround tables of up to six persons. Each table is equipped with 1-2 whiteboards and a tablenumber. An A-type whiteboard is also available per three tables. The space is further equippedwith over 20 screens placed around the room so that projected material is visible from everytable and angle. The CLS layout, as it is seen from the instructor’s station point of view, isshown in Figure 1.Fig. 1. Instructor view of the
because “everything's very tied together and it's better to have a wide base of knowledge.”Within engineering contexts, Caleb recognized reflection as necessary to making sure projectsteps were documented and that students were reflecting on how they have grown through aproject because it is one of the things he has been asked to do in his classes. When asked abouthis fellow students’ reactions to professors prompting students to reflect, he said, “when it comesto non-engineering things, I’ve certainly witnessed if not experienced it myself, why are wedoing this.” Caleb suggested students tend to focus on the end product rather than the means andprocesses of a project. He hypothesized this focus on the end product, could be related to someof the
interest, includingpotential future collaboration [1].Some of the adjunct faculty-particularly those who are seniors in specific industries- could offerimportant linkages for the development of industrial affiliate programs, co-op activities, summertraining opportunities, and employment opportunities for new graduates. They may also providenew ideas for senior design projects, topics for graduate theses, or render help in theestablishment of collaborative research programs.When a choice has been made and the candidate has accepted, it is important that he/ she feelswelcome and be assisted in becoming familiar with his/ her new surroundings. To expedite theprocess, new adjuncts should sit together with their new colleagues and go over all
engineering identity in graduate school and underrepresented group. Nathan holds master’s and bachelor’s degrees in electrical engineering from Illinois Tech. He also worked as an engineer at LG electronics mobile communication company.Mr. Kevin A. Nguyen, University of Texas, Austin Kevin A. Nguyen is a Ph.D candidate in the STEM Education program at University of Texas at Austin. He has worked on NSF grant projects related to engineering students’ resistance to active learning and how funding impacts STEM graduate students. His own dissertation work examines learning, marginalization, and environmental citizen scientists. He has a B.S. and M.Eng in Environmental Engineering both from Texas Tech University.Dr. Maura
critical aspects (or Dimensions of Variation) and their variation within. For our project,we conducted 11 iterations for phase 1. For some, the first author performed by himself, while inothers, the other co-authors play the role of the “devil’s advocate” asking for further validationand new iterations were needed (literature accepts either one researcher or teams of researchersfor phenomenographic research [6]). In total, we found nine (9) “Dimensions of Variation”(DoV) or “Critical Aspects” in this phase, which means that for each dimension of variation, wefound two or more critical features or ways in which the critical aspect varies. One exampleborrowed from our study is the dimension of variation related to how participants were able to“see
research paper aims to support such investigation bydeveloping a survey instrument to measure student beliefs, experiences, and attitudes related totheir online undergraduate engineering courses. Survey instrumentation was undertaken as partof a larger, National Science Foundation (NSF) funded project investigating the course-levelpersistence of online undergraduate engineering students. A Model of Online Course-levelPersistence in Engineering (MOCPE) was developed by the research team to guide surveyinstrumentation based on theories of student motivation relevant to persistence in online andengineering education. Longitudinal survey responses from a sample of current onlineundergraduate engineering students will be combined with clickstream data
This study utilized quantitative research analyses (i.e., descriptive analysis, t-tests, andtwo sample proportion Z-tests) of engineering identity development of Hispanic students. Thisstudy is part of a larger project focused on engineering identity across multiple institutions [3].However, after collecting our initial data, we noticed interesting trends that motivated us to focuson the Hispanic student population. This section explains the methodology followed in ourquantitative study of engineering identity of Hispanic students; including a description of thetarget institutions, the survey instrument, and how data were collected, cleaned, and analyzed.Participant Demographics and Institutional Information Participants in the study
incitement to discourse,” Educational Researcher, 36(1), 25-32, 2007. 135 J. Walther, N. W. Sochacka, & N. N. Kellam, “Quality in interpretive engineering education research: Reflections on an example study,” Journal of Engineering Education, 102, 626– 659, 2013.6 J. Walther, A. L. Pawley, & N. W. Sochacka, Exploring ethical validation as a key consideration in interpretative research quality. Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.24063, 2015.7 J. Walther, & N. W. Sochacka, Qualifying qualitative research quality (the Q3 project): An
, and particularly forengineering undergraduates (Felder, Felder, and Dietz, 1998; Prince, 2004; Hake, 1998; Colbeck,Campbell, and Bjorklund, 2000; Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1998a,b; Springer, Stanne, andDonovan, 1999; Terenzini, 2001). The project was further informed by the positive learning andretention outcomes reported following curricular innovations to integrate math, science, andengineering content in undergraduate engineering programs at other institutions (Carr, 2003;Froyd and Ohland, 2005; Olds and Miller, 2004). The expected benefits for first-yearengineering students of the Engineering Math Workshops innovation include: a more thoroughunderstanding of the mathematical concepts in the core course; an enhanced ability