12.775.9Calculus I and II, Differential Equations, Physics I and II, Chemistry I and II, Earth andEnvironmental Systems, Engineering Design, Statics, Thermodynamics, technical writing, andbegin early-level disciplinary courses in the second semester of the sophomore year.Among their challenges: adapting to the intensity of a pre-engineering curriculum and learning toadjust their expectations of themselves in relation to their peers. Because they have previouslyidentified themselves by their high grade point averages and high class standings among highschool peers, a common adjustment MT students must make is recognizing that not everyone canremain at the top of this new environment. Because all students on this campus are high-achieving, sometimes
undergraduate research, the students as the newcomers workunder the direction of faculty mentors and graduate students as the old-timers. The old-timersprovide expertise and resources to enable the student newcomer to engage in the practice ofresearch. Peer undergraduate researchers being a part of the research laboratory community alsoplay a key role in fostering a successful experience. Figure 1 illustrates the data collected duringthis effort in the context of the CoP theoretical framework. The two main tools utilized were theNational Engineering Students’ Learning Outcomes Survey (NESLOS) and weekly self-reflective journal entries. The figure illustrates that pre-NESLOS was administered at thebeginning of the REU experience (during the first day
and communication with technical and non-technical peers. Students worked in teamsof three and four to solve ill-defined problems presented by the instructor. Topics coveredConstruction Waste, Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Recycling Education, PublicTransportation, and Campus Transit. Deliverables, including a technical report, an oralpresentation, and an analytical reflection, were used as data for this project. Students weresurveyed to assess their perceptions of problem-based learning. There were seventy-twoparticipants over three semesters. One preliminary result from both the survey and qualitativedata is that students felt confident about working with others from different disciplines. Studentsmostly commented positively about their
involving large datasets Writing First year • Receive writing feedback from peers and Community consultants • Develop writing skillsParticipants We conducted interviews with participants who were in the 2017 or 2018 cohorts duringsummer 2019, i.e., participants who recently completed two-year D3EM program trainingrequirements. All students in the 2017 and 2018 cohorts were invited to participate in aninterview. Three cohorts of students have completed at least one year in the program. Studentsmay still participate in D3EM activities after the two-year training. All participants werecurrently in their 3rd or 4th year in
quizzes. Activereadings serve as pre-work, as mentioned in section 3, to prepare students for completing in-classactivities by enhancing their foundational knowledge, especially the remembering andunderstanding levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (BT) [34, 35] for relevant concepts. Next, we have arange of in-class activities where students follow guided instructions and discuss with peers intheir small groups. During each of these in-class activities, students perform at least one of thefollowing tasks: code completion, code snippet debugging, answering multiple-choice questions,writing pseudocode, and drawing flowcharts. Each of these tasks falls under different BT’scategories, demands the use of different skills, and requires students to pay attention
environments in different ways thantheir male peers altering their continued interest in computer science.Personal FactorsPersonal factors such as motivation, sense of belonging, personal fulfillment, and identity caninfluence persistence to degree. Research shows that while these personal factors are unique toeach student, educational environments can be structured or altered to influence some personalattributes in ways that positively impact retention.Motivation can impact how students face and persevere through challenging concepts and coursework. Research using project based computer game development has shown that assignmentscan be structured to facilitate student motivation and encourage them to work through difficultmaterial [13]. Motivational
other benefits of UR are found to be better operating skills of the equipment and machine tools, better understanding of technical and professional writing, better interpersonal and public speaking skills and so on. Those interpersonal and professional skills better prepare them for industry jobs. All the students participating in UR were more successful in job searches as compared to their peers. • Faculty also benefitted from UR, especially with more teaching loads at primarily undergraduate institutes. The findings from this study suggests that both faculty and students can be benefitted by engaging undergraduate students early in their college career and engaging them longer in the project
-represented minority (URM) status; 50% were females. Students were asked to write aresponse to a case statement before the REU program began and at the program’s conclusion.The case statement asked students to imagine they were graduate students planning a researchproject and to create a rough plan to execute this research project with the goal of submitting aconference paper (see Appendix). The post-REU case statement was identical to the taskprovided for the pre-REU data collection. However, students were also asked in the post-REUtask to compare their post-REU plan with their pre-REU plan, revise their pre-REU plan, andnote any sources of inspiration for their plans (e.g., research partners, courses or labs). Studentsfirst wrote their plans on
on Pine Ridge Reservation and ethnographic research on Rosebud Reservation. That reservation research is part of an ongoing National Science Foundation (NSF)-sponsored Pre-Engineering Education Collabora- tive led by Oglala Lakota College (a tribal college) in cooperation with South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, and SDSU. She has recently served as a principal investigator for a South Dakota Space Grant Consortium project designed to create interest in STEM education and careers among high school girls at Flandreau Indian School. She has publications in peer-reviewed regional conference proceedings and international journals and has recently co-edited a book about bringing engineering to Native Hawai
top three I-statements. Next, we developed eachparticipant’s identities and associated characteristics based on the dominant motifs and I-statements found in the interviews. Finally, Discourses that influenced the identities that emergedfrom each participant’s interview were identified in order to draw connections to widerinfluences in the social and political landscape.From this analysis process, six Discourses were identified: pedagogical, economic,individualistic, peer collaboration, math, and research. Pedagogical Discourses were the mostfrequent in students’ interviews (excluding discourses directly related to solving the problems).Many of the Discourses highlighted the practices, expectations, and language uses associatedwith being a
engineeringstudents. Some evidence suggests that social messages affect women more than men. Womenwho pursued careers in mathematics, sciences, and technology consistently reported that themessages sent to them about capabilities in these male-dominated fields served as crucial sourcesof their self-efficacy21, a finding echoed in interviews conducted by Hutchison et al.15 withsecond-year engineering students. Other researchers have shown more generally that beingencouraged by peers and faculty makes students more likely to put forth effort and persevere intheir majors4, 11, 15.Fewer studies have focused on examining the influential role of emotional and physiologicalstates on the students’ sense of efficacy in engineering. Hutchison et al.20 found that
debt and finding a job. As a cohort, the studentsparticipated in periodic vertically-integrated discussion groups with faculty mentors and theirpeers at multiple levels of seniority, and were introduced to university resources designed toaddress specific student needs. Results of a follow-on survey suggested that peer-to-peerdiscussions can be useful in alleviating anxiety on particular topics. It was also observed that theinteractions facilitated by these group discussions are helpful in developing a sense ofcommunity and shared enthusiasm among the cohort.Keywords: Engineering student anxiety, Remediation1. IntroductionSources of anxiety among engineering and engineering technology students may stem from bothacademic and non-academic demands
typical federal granting agency time period ofthree years does not allow sufficient time for data collection, processing, and the comprehensiveanalysis to publish a book without multiple no-cost extensions.Another challenge to publication of this work is disciplinary differences in the treatment ofconference publications. In disciplines like computer science, full-paper peer reviewedpublications at the best conferences are of similar stature to journal publications. In socialscience disciplines, conferences have less stature and full proceedings often aren’t published.Without rigorous full-paper peer review, the engineers on our team are unable to get academiccredit for this work. This practice has inhibited the team from publishing in social
participants. Results indicate that many strategies exist and “goodness” ofstudy guides does not necessarily map onto successful exam performance. Also, students mayneed detailed training on how to develop a useful study guide. Finally, we have found that theremay be a benefit to peer-sharing of study guides.IntroductionCourse examinations are ubiquitous throughout highereducation, regardless of the subject area.When an instructor announces an exam, one question is sure to follow: “Can we use our bookand/or notes on the exam?” [That this is asked, and not some default assumed, speaks to thevarious answers that students often receive to the question above.—this sentence is awkward]One approach used across fields is to disallow students access to their
proposal, while working in a research group with a faculty, and oftengraduate student, mentor; 2) Mentoring, which consists of a multi-tiered approach designed tosupport the students with trained peer mentors often former LEARN® participants assigned toeach student in the program, paired laboratory/faculty mentors, and a LEARN® programcoordinator; and 3) Community Building, which consists of living/learning opportunities, socialprogramming, and other non-research related extracurricular activities. It is hypothesized that theLEARN® program participants will:1. Demonstrate higher fall-to-fall retention, credits earned, GPA, and graduation rates compared to matched intra-institutional comparison groups;2. Demonstrate developmental gains in
, faculty mentoring, extra-curricular activities, peer group support interactions, and research/work experiences.A pilot group of 92 students from ten different engineering programs and four different entrylevels, joined the project. At the end of the first year indicators shows encouraging preliminaryresults. 97.9% students in the study group performed above the college-wide average. Freshmensuccess indicators in terms of academic performance, retention, and sense of belonging were upand career goal planning and actions began to show.BackgroundSuccess in higher education institutions by itself is a subjective concept that depends on themetrics defining it. Factors such as retention, quality, completion, and attainment are typicallyaddressed by
write-up/procedure that other students would follow about their module(with a 100% correct report attached by the team) and, finally, a detailed project report. At the endof the semester, the student groups would archive all of this electronically and send it to theinstructor as well (for the teams to use in the follow-on years). Detailed information was providedto the students on the syllabus as to why this activity was occurring. This has been repeated below: While there is an increasing movement towards "hands-on" learning, especially in engineering, such an approach is mainly focused on modified laboratory experiences and/or out-of-classroom experiences. However, most of the contact hours in a curriculum
Paper ID #12048The Power and Politics of STEM Research Design: Saving the ”Small N”Prof. Amy E. Slaton, Drexel University (Eng. & Eng. Tech.) Amy E. Slaton is a Professor of History at Drexel University. She write on issues of identity in STEM education and labor, and is the author of Race, Rigor and Selectivity in U.S. Engineering: The History of an Occupational Color Line .Prof. Alice L. Pawley, Purdue University, West Lafayette Alice Pawley is an Associate Professor in the School of Engineering Education and an affiliate faculty member in the Gender, Women’s and Sexuality Studies Program and the Division of
’ experiences with e-bookpublishing was helpful for the group in proceeding with the project. In his interview, Richardadded: …In my experience …the publishing companies…sometimes might have some input, while other faculty did not have exactly the same experience when they were trying…to publish more traditional books…I had some explanation to for this…they tried either to talk to some publishers and the orders of the textbooks…the chapters and things like that…basically at different doors…so in that sense I had delivered more experience than some others had.The professors could easily write the assigned chapters within their content expertise but e-bookpublishing presented unfamiliar technical, economic, and social
interview howshe felt that she maintained a good interpersonal relationship with her engineering peers and professors.Additionally, as the epigraph of this paper indicated, Rebecca was a high-performing student and hadachieved several markers of traditional success as an engineering student, including high grades andprestigious internships. Furthermore, at the time of the interview, she had planned to pursue a degree in aprofession outside of engineering following her graduation. However, as will be clear in our findings, herrole as an engineering student was important to understanding her core identity. 1We chose to present Rebecca’s case of shame as a mechanical engineering student because it
) educational technology, (3) the student’s rolein the engineering college, and (4) the professor’s role in the engineering college. Theparticipants were instructed to write 10 words or phrases that come to their mind when they thinkabout each of the questions and rank their answers in the order of importance. Following theindividual questions, ten questions were discussed in a focus group. The results of the studyshowed that when it comes to evaluation of education and teaching methods, students would liketo see more opportunities to give input in the system and be more involved as part of the creationin all levels and steps. Current literature on Excellence in Engineering Education stresses theimportance of skills and knowledge but leaves out two
challenges students’ understanding and reinforces their knowledge.A key learning approach implemented in this method is collaboration, where students work withtheir peers to complete the required tasks, as opposed to working individually. The effectivenessof collaborative learning compared with individual learning has been established in other studies.In a meta-analysis of 168 studies, Johnson et al. [7] found that collaborative learning activitiesimproved academic achievement, quality of interpersonal interaction, improved self-esteem, andimproved perceptions of greater social support. Similarly, Springer et al. [8] found thatcollaboration improved academic achievement, student attitudes, and retention in academicprograms. The peer learning that
the focal outcome. The variability of these local itemsand scales is considerable. One study's review of instruments used in studies published inarchival journals or conference proceedings identified 286 outcome items that mapped to one ofthe 11 EC2000 outcomes. Between 20 to 40 survey items were associated with each of 11 a-koutcomes.7 The item bank containing these items was subsequently reduced through editing, re-writing, and writing original items and became the foundation for developing nine factoriallyderived scales that (with two exceptions) map unambiguously to the EC2000 learning outcomecriteria.In addition to the measurement uncertainties evident in the wide variety of available items andinstruments scattered throughout the
engineeringlectures. Unlike speeches, most engineering lectures include use of detailed visuals such as slidesor diagrams, and sequential procedures. DHH students constantly look away from their laptopdisplay to search and study the visuals. As a result, they spend less time watching lecture visualsand gain less information than their hearing peers. However, the need to process simultaneousaural and visual information can also be taxing for hearing students, and previous studies haveshown that they also benefit from real-time speech-to-text transcription.We evaluated the real-time display of captions (RTD) usability by both deaf and hearing studentsin an engineering class. It further examined the factors that influence hearing students' use ofRTD as an
of the curriculum tostimulate learning through independent thinking, communication with peers, and interaction withthe instructor. Voluntary peer tutorials were held each week by outstanding juniors in chemicalengineering who took the course the previous year. Also, short writing assignments were used toprovide the instructor with background information about each student, provide midtermfeedback to the instructor, and to stimulate student thinking about certain tangential aspects ofthe course; like careers, history and famous women in engineering.For the blended instruction course (experimental group), new elements included the following:1) course was set up under university-licensed software as a web-based course using WebCT(even though it
might be all but one. In this method,students can also choose to work towards the grade they want in order to spend their timeelsewhere (Nilson, 2015). Another instructor might use a mix of traditional grading and pass/failgrading. For example, to earn an A in a course, a student may have to receive an average examscore of 80%. The instructor can also set bars for specific grade levels such as a C resulting fromfailing a peer evaluation. In all of these systems, missing one element on the overall gradechecklist results in a lower grade.As all elements become pass or fail, the specifications for an assignment must be made veryclear. Writing good specifications is a lot like writing good requirements for a project. Just likerequirements in
-doctoral fellow at Carnegie Mellon Uni- versity, Pittsburgh (2001 – 2003) and BHP Institute for Steel Processing and Products, Australia (1998 – 2001). Dr. Manohar held the position of Chief Materials Scientist at Modern Industries, Pittsburgh (2003 – 2004) and Assistant Manager (Metallurgy Group), Engineering Research Center, Telco, India (1985 – 1993). He has published over 65 papers in peer-reviewed journals and conferences including a 2007 Best Paper Award by the Manufacturing Division of American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), three review papers and three book chapters. He has participated in numerous national and international conferences. He is a member of ASM International, TMS, ACerS, AIST, ASEE
currently working on writing a book chapter for Algebraic and Combinatorial Computational Biology, an Elseiver publication. Additionally, Prof. Ghosh-Dastidar has extensive experience mentoring more than thirty students through different programs such as the NYC-AMP program, City Tech’s Emerging Scholar Program, and MAA NREUP grants.Dr. Diana Samaroo, NYC College of Technology and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York Diana Samaroo is an Associate Professor and Chair of Chemistry Department at NYC College of Technol- ogy, CUNY. Her pedagogical research is the area of peer led team learning in Chemistry and integrating STEM into curricula. With a background in biochemistry, her research interests are in the
purposefully avoidstreating minority gender identities as an afterthought13,25. The ability to select as many labels asappropriate prevents situations in which a respondent might have to choose between “Male” and“Transgender Male,” a situation that can be alienating. Our approach also balances length withinclusion13. In this configuration, a woman who identifies with her biological sex would be ableto select both “female” and “cisgender” to describe herself. If an individual’s gender identity didnot fall into the categories listed in the survey, they were prompted to write in their specificidentity next to “a gender not listed.” The phrasing of this item was crafted to treat write-inresponse as equally valid as the other options provided13.We defined
software system calledCalibrated Peer Review.23 This system was developed at UCLA, is currently in use at about 100institutions for writing instruction, and is now under development for use with presentations atLouisiana State University.24Bibliography1. Payne, D. and B. Blakely, eds. "Multimodal Communication: Rethinking the Curriculum". 2004-2008, ISUComm at Iowa State University: Iowa City, IA. Page 15.1021.102. Payne, D. and B. Blakely, eds. "ISUComm Foundation Courses: Student Guide for English 150 and 250". 2007, ISUComm at Iowa State University: Iowa City, IA.3. Carnegie Mellon Enhancing Education Program