Design and the Arts at Arizona State University. Alrajhi also serves as a teaching assistant in the College of Architecture and Planning at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. In 2015, he received a Bachelor’s degree in Architecture (BArch) from Qassim University, Saudi Arabia. Pursuing his long-term goals, Alrajhi obtained a full scholarship to continue graduate studies in the United States. He earned a Master’s degree in Architecture (MArch) from Arizona State University in 2020. Generally, Alrajhi’s ar- eas of interest are architectural education, learning environments, design thinking, and curriculum design.Dr. Brian Carl Nelson, Arizona State University Brian C. Nelson is a professor of educational technology with
common goal to solve a problem, contribute information, and share tools.Students were asked to take the initiative of assigning roles within a team (e.g. a file manager, acommunicator, an editor). The chemistry faculty identified the students from the technicalwriting course who had previously taken the chemistry course and encouraged their contributionsas “knowledgeable peer”/“experienced peer” with their chromatography lab experiences.Technical writing course students wrote summaries of relevant information based on retrievedarticles, and posted the original and the summary to “group files”. Students were to read eachothers work in preparation for planning and building a PowerPoint presentation. The softwareautomatically labeled each uploaded
week’stopics. Students maintained Strategy Documents to plan and evaluate weekly academic goals(e.g., splitting up weekly problem sets into daily quotas). In lieu of a final exam, students wroteFinal Papers in the form of a letter to their high school self (or to a friend in high school). Theseletters included what students wished they had known before coming to college and whatstudents wanted to share from the “Engineering the Mind” course.Data analysisWe used multiple methods to analyze the data because we wanted to capture various nuances ofthe course. For quantitative methods, we calculated the average score of the items for each scalefor each student. For example, the mindset scale had eight items, each with a score ranging fromone to six (Likert
(IPSCAI) program has been proposed [20],[21]. The program is basedon the Super Collaborative Graduate School Program but focusing on local UICs. Duringdoctoral study, students are employed and paid by participating companies. The governmentplanned to provide financial support to participating universities and companies. Although theprogram is still in the planning stage, it is expected to stimulate local business development.Japan has established programs for high-level talent training and is tracking the impact of theseprograms to improve the prospects for young researchers. In addition, the Japan NationalInstitute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTP) has established the Japan GraduatesDatabase (JGRAD) [22]. By tracking PhD human resources
Paper ID #32288Instrumentation for Evaluating Design-learning and Instruction WithinCourses and Across ProgramsSteven Santana, Harvey Mudd College American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Instrumentation for evaluating design learning and instruction within courses and across programsIntroductionThis work-in-progress (WIP) paper communicates the initial planning and design ofinstrumentation, deployed through action research, to assess students’ growth in designlearning and their belonging and identity in engineering. The ultimate goal of the datagenerated through this
video) in order to put them in a more‘readable’ format, but the outcomes were essentially the same. For instance, the answer to onequestion regarding assumptions for an air tank purging question was: “Assumptions: Shape of tank, Location of valves: hot air input top right, cold air output left bottom. It has quantitative temperatures. We have five temperature measuring devices throughout the tank. One at input, output, and three inside. Plan: Create a flow control valve on input and output. Use the flow control valves to regulate input and output volume. We have reached our equilibrium when the output temperature is the same as the input temperature
building.B) The Hazelwood Initiative (HI) is an organization whose Mission and Goal is dedicated to the betterment of the Hazelwood neighborhood. HI was the driving force that lead to the development of the "Master Development Planning in Hazelwood and Junction Hollow" document which set forth a plan to work towards their goal. It's office is located at 5125 Second Avenue in Hazelwood. The project was to help design a system to make the Hazelwood Post Office handicap accessible.C) Hill House Association. The Hill House Association is located in the Hill District of Pittsburgh and provides a comprehensive array of services to the surrounding neighborhoods. The Hill House Association is currently working with Denys Candy, the managing
Nephrotex, we developed a coding schemebased on Safoutin and colleagues’ (2000) design attribute framework, which stems from ABETstudent outcome criterion 3c. Their original coding scheme consisted of fourteen elements: needrecognition, problem definition, planning, management, information gathering, idea generation,modeling, feasibility analysis, evaluation, selection/decision, implementation, communication,documentation, and iteration. We selected and modified 7 of the 14 codes that were applicable toNephrotex (Figure 5). We removed need recognition and modeling because students are giventhe needs statement and the modeling tools within the internship program. We removed ideageneration and implementation because students do not create a novel
across all 26-items for all three strategies (i.e., 78 itemscollectively). However, VECTERS can be considered as three sub-instruments addressing thestrategies of formative feedback, real-world applications, and student-to-student discussion.Therefore, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient calculations were applied to each of the three sub-instruments. As recommended by DeVallis 16, Cronbach’s alpha levels of 0.7 or higher weredesired.Construct validity. VECTERS construct validity was evaluated by examining relationshipsbetween respondents’ self-reports of extent to which the three strategies are currently beingimplemented and are planned to be implemented. For each strategy, a 2x3 matrix was produced;these indicated the relationship between
scaffoldingprompts can foster students’ participation in effective collaborative problem-solving interactionsthat include not only attempting to solve but also exploring the task, planning how to solve, andevaluating the completed solution [7]. This study investigates the impact of scaffolding promptson collaborative problem-solving interactions and quality of groups’ final task solutions so thatinstructors can better understand how to design effective ill-structured collaborative tasks forundergraduate engineering students.Collaborative Problem-Solving InteractionsGe and Land’s research in collaborative problem solving has stressed the importance of fourproblem-solving processes necessary for effectively solving an ill-structured task in groups.These
some even leavefor opportunities outside of school all together. As the field of engineering education researchgrows, more opportunities arise to examine what happens between the declaration of a major andthe planned graduation date that prompts so many students to exit the field. Much researchdiscusses how and why students initially choose a major (e.g., [1],[6]), but further discussion ofwhat happens between major declaration and planned graduation date is lacking in the existingliterature.Major selection is the focus of a large body of research involving higher education (e.g. [1], [2],[7], [8]). Research looking into major selection has been pursued from a variety of perspectives.Some research has focused on a broad range of college majors
valuable in professional life (96%), improved their leadershipskills (92%), and had gained appreciation for the value of project planning (100%) and technicaldocumentation (96%). It is anticipated that lessons learned from the project sequence willprovide the framework for cross-disciplinary freshman and sophomore assignments in hostinstitution’s PBL curriculum in the future.Keywords: Project management, Rube Goldberg machines, Project Based Learning1. IntroductionAccreditation of engineering programs has long provided a means of quality control of graduatesin the United States.1 In recent years, this practice has come to reflect an emphasis on theoutcomes of student learning rather than on restrictive earlier notions centered on what is
Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile. Jorge holds a PhD in Computer Science from the University of Toronto in Canada and a Master’s Degree in Engineering Sciences from Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile. His research focuses on areas of automated rea- soning in Artificial Intelligence; specifically, automated planning, search and knowledge representation. Currently his research focuses on understanding how machine learning techniques can be applied to the intelligent decision-making process, on the applicability of AI techniques for enhancing emotional health in Engineering Education. He is also an assistant researcher at the Millennium Institute for Foundational Research on Data
and how towrite a scientific paper. However, the idea behind the final project is always to give the studentsan experience of developing a full software application by collaborating with stakeholders andfollowing appropriate methods for requirements analysis, design, implementation, qualityassurance and project planning. In the course projects or project based courses where students aregiven a project and asked to implement a complete software system by analyzing therequirements and designing the system using UML and object oriented methods. Students get theopportunity to learn how to write documentations, test cases, and to validate their work withstakeholders. Such senior level course projects provide students with the experience ofteam
research plan, (4) research ethics, (5) graduate school familiarityand applying for graduate school, (6) presenting your research plan, and (7) professional skills. To complement the lectures, assignments for the course are shown in Table 2. The skillsand concepts to be reinforced by each assignment are also shown in Table 2. Assignments fallinto the same seven areas as listed above for course topics/lectures.Table 2: Course Assignments Topic Skills/Concepts Reinforced 1 Finding a Mentor Faculty/Student Interaction Research Interests Self-Reflection Identifying Potential Mentors Web research Meeting Mentors Oral and Written Communication 2
did was a division of labor, however, most of the machining and designing of process plans we did together. This allowed us to remain on the same page, and always to understand what the other person was doing and why. An important part of teamwork is compatibility. My partner and I were fortunate enough to work well together, however, this may not always be the case. In the engineering world, personality screenings are often done to determine which people should work together on a team, and which should not. When personality screenings aren't done, it is important to be able to work together nonetheless, and to focus on the project goals as opposed to personal differences. Many people learned this lesson while
. Page 15.200.3Note that besides the concepts of ask, imagine, plan, create, and improve as presented in thedesign process model in the “Engineering is Elementary” unit, we also added test, time anddocument in the process. The test concept is an implicit activity that links create and improve—after a design is created, it can be tested to identify opportunities for improvement. This testingprocess is included in the Engineering is Elementary units, although it does not appear in theirdiagram. The time concept came from Bailey’s original rubric. As teachers need to design lessonplans to carry out design process and also monitor students’ process, we choose to include it inour rubrics. The document aspect was also included in Bailey’s original
concept andadhered to the size constraints of the project. This work is an update on this process.Student Design Desktop Modules – The Process PlanIn an effort to best describe the overall goal of the project, it is illustrative to sketch out a long-termimplementation plan. As such, a seven-year plan is provided, which allows ample time forfeedback and refinement of the ideas. While seven years might seem like a long time, the processhas refinement/feedback steps incorporated directly. The outline of this process plan is providedbelow.Year 1: Students design and build a desktop module to demonstrate a single thermodynamicsconcept.Year 2: Students take existing student-designed modules from the previous year and refine them tobetter demonstrate
whereby a standinggraduate faculty committee and an appointed Enhancing Graduate Education (EGE) committeeworked together to create a sustainable process for periodic program review that included aframework for interpreting the five new university-level graduate student learning competencies:Knowledge, Application, Context, Communication, and Leadership. Also required wasdevelopment of a methodology for assessment and continuous improvement. This approachearned a very positive 2013 MSCHE evaluation: “university assessment practices of graduateStudent Learning Outcomes [were] particularly thoughtful ...[including] the plans, examples ofimplementation [and] the support structure.The recently developed framework for graduate SLO assessment allows
, &Azevedo, 2007). Pintrich (2000) provides an overview of the common themes of models of self-regulation, where models can be organized along two dimensions: (1) phases of regulation, which includeforethought (planning or activation); monitoring; control; and reaction (reflection); and (2) areas ofregulation, which include cognition; motivation; behavior; and context.4.3 Proposed model to study faculty adaptability as self-regulationOur revised self-regulation model in adaptability is shown in Figure 2 below. It is inspired by the cyclicalmodel proposed by Zimmerman (2000); however, it is modified to include a willingness aspect for eachphase of the cycle. A similar modification has already been proposed by Zimmerman & Moylan (2009)who
, research suggests that preserviceteachers do not feel academically prepared and confident enough to teach engineering-relatedtopics.This interdisciplinary project provided engineering students with an opportunity to developinterprofessional skills as well as to reinforce their technical knowledge, while preserviceteachers had the opportunity to be exposed to engineering content, more specifically coding, anddevelop competence for their future teaching careers. Undergraduate engineering studentsenrolled in a computational methods course and preservice teachers enrolled in an educationaltechnology course partnered to plan and deliver robotics lessons to fifth and sixth graders. Thispaper reports on the effects of this collaboration on twenty
2013. Thegraduate student was selected by the CTT faculty leadership and was a top performing studentwho recently experienced the undergraduate civil engineering curriculum under study. The civilengineering department head invited pre-selected faculty members to participate on theCurriculum Transformation Team (CTT). Some faculty declined the invitation, citingcommitments to other priorities. Thirteen faculty (including the head advisor), three graduatestudents, one undergraduate student, and one educational developer formed the CTT whichconvened in November 2013 for bi-weekly meetings. The CTT leader had an additional timecommitment for planning and follow-up purposes which included meetings on opposite weeks ofthe CTT meetings.Step 2) Gather
Paper ID #21415Rewards of an Engineering Prerequisite AssignmentDr. Cynthia Jane Wilson Orndoff Esq., Florida Southwestern State College Dr. Cynthia Orndoff received a J.D in 2014 from Ave Maria Law School and a B.S. in 1984, an M.S. in 1997 and a Ph.D. in 2001, all in Civil Engineering from University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Prior to Florida SouthWestern College, she was an Associate Professor at Florida Gulf Coast University and an Assistant Professor in Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Missouri, Columbia. She has taught courses in infrastructure management, planning, transportation and
competitions. In recent years, competitions have found favor among schools anduniversities especially because competitions provide hands-on experience. Engineeringcompetitions provide students with the opportunities to participate in authentic tasks, tobecome engaged in planning and design, to solve complex problems, and to work with teams(Carberry, Lee, & Swan, 2013). In a previous study, Kusano and Johri (2014) found thatengineering competitions supported the development of student autonomy, and thedeveloping autonomy provided students a sense of empowerment over their own learningtrajectories. The Kusano and Johri (2014) findings support examination of the broader scopeof professional responsibilities and the acquisition of professional skills
SEEM TO MATTERABSTRACTIn this paper we explore engineering student gains in confidence in professional andinterpersonal skills and intrinsic psychological motivation to study engineering. These twofactors were selected because they have been shown in other work from the Academic PathwaysStudy (APS) sponsored by the Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE) tobe directly related to post-graduation plans and to several dimensions of the undergraduateexperience. We focus on students with positive confidence and/or motivation gains during theirfirst two years of college, and show that these students are distinct from those with negative orno gains in terms of persistence in the engineering profession, confidence in math and
company. Rosales is also working with the Colorado State University Depart- ment of Electrical and Computer Engineering on integrating professional skills development into the engineering curriculum.Ms. Andrea M. Leland, Colorado State University With nearly twenty years combined experience in higher education and private industry, Andrea Leland has distinguished herself as a dynamic communicator and tireless ambassador of engineering education and research. For the past twelve years she has worked in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Colorado State University to advance its mission through well-planned communication strategies and relationship building. Leland has played an integral role in
in each core with their monitors on support arms allowing easymovement. Computer connections are accessible at the desktop. In addition, each clusterincludes electric power, water and compressed air. Students break into groups of three forcomputer work, and can break into groups of two, three, four or six for other activities. Whennot in use for formal classes, students use it as an informal learning space.Use of the room for classes has just begun. We are currently assessing the basic configuration ofthis space. Student surveys, room observation and instructor interviews are planned ascomponents of this assessment.Initial indications are that the room is well liked in spite of some early technical glitches.Students, particularly groups
nation were recruited,resulting to about 235 and 275 student participants, respectively for the pre- and post- surveys.In this paper, we present key findings of what students learned and valued, present outcomeswhich should be better addressed during the experience, student career path goals, etc. Thestrength of the research design plan is that the results can be generalized to other REU sites andcan be replicated across scientific disciplines and institutions at various levels and scales. These Page 13.231.3findings can aid REU site program directors and undergraduate research faculty advisors toimprove their program and assessment
instrument: 1, 2 & 3 carry a combined weight of 50%. The first two are concerned withconcept identification and concept mathematical expressions with a 20% weight, while applyingthe concepts carries a 30% weight. The solution method or plan is also assigned a 30% weight,while the final results are assigned a 20% weight. It is noted that applying the concepts(competency 3) and presenting a solution plan or approach (competency 4) are given a combinedweight of 60%, in order to emphasize the conceptual and procedural competencies as significantcomponents of the cognitive learning process. The assessment rubric is displayed in Table 6. Conceptual and Score Weight
a global work force1, 2, 3. Research, such as the pivotal work ofSeymour and Hewitt4 and Tobias5, has demonstrated that, in many cases, faculty teachingpractices can greatly affect the quality of STEM education. In particular, faculty teachingpractices can have a direct impact on student achievement (e.g., student involvement,engagement, knowledge construction, and cognitive development) and, as a result, on studentdecisions to persist in engineering6, 7, 8.Historically, the translation of research to actual classroom practice has been slow, thusindicating that a sustained effort is required to implement institutional change. As part of a largerproject, we aim to develop an evidence-based plan for motivating transformative change infaculty