distance education is nothing new, the pandemic of COVID-19 forcedinstructors to rapidly move their courses online whether or not they had ever received priortraining in online education. In particular, there is very little literature to guide instructors insupporting students in online engineering design or project-based courses. The purpose ofthis research is to examine engineering students’ report of social support in their project anddesign-based courses at a large research university during the move to online instruction due toCOVID-19 in the Spring 2020 semester and to provide recommendations for instructors teachingthese types of courses online in the future. Our study is framed by social constructivismand social capital theory. We surveyed
students16-18, capstone students15, experts16,19, and elementary teachers19.The two streamlined methods are compared to actual behaviors observed as studentscomplete a design project. Students were given a weeklong design project to complete in ateam. The project focused on the problem of their professor needing to accommodate morestudents in his office during office hours. The exact wording of the prompt used in this study isincluded in the appendix.Whether the team engaged in problem formulation activities was measured simply by observingthe number of teams that came to his office to observe the environment for which they weredesigning (i.e., his office) or ask a key user (i.e., the professor) questions about his needs andwants. All other problem
the CommunityCollege system for lower division courses.All campuses will develop a capstone which will comprise the design/development of a solutionfor a specific problem by a team of students from a variety of disciplines working together. Forexample, this could be a solution for a problem in the developing world which has the capacity toinclude many elements of liberal arts, humanities and social sciences such as historical context,anthropology, geopolitics, economics, sustainability, environment, politics and political structureand a complete understanding of the society’s culture and ethics. Engineering solutions are butone piece of the project solution, and students will work in teams with others from differentdisciplines.The minor will
Page 15.1080.1 Public Schools working to integrate technology into their classrooms. TEC will be extended to include teachers on the White Earth Reservation.Jack Patzer, University of Pittsburgh Jack Patzer is Coordinator of the Bioartificial Liver Program in the McGowan Institute for© American Society for Engineering Education, 2010 Regenerative Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. Page 15.1080.2© American Society for Engineering Education, 2010 Model-Eliciting Activities – Instructor PerspectivesAbstractAs part of a larger NSF-funded project to develop Model-Eliciting Activities (MEAs) inengineering courses (MEDIA), the
Consultant at McKinsey & Company; and was a training development specialist for KBR's Engineering Division. She has a Ph.D. in the Join Ph.D. Program in English and Education at the University of Michigan.Lisa Getzler-Linn, Lehigh University Lisa Getzler-Linn, Ph.D., is the Associate Director of the Integrated Product Development Program at Lehigh University. She oversees the IPD Capstone Projects and continues to institute new processes to encourage IPD student development of the higher order competencies required by industry. Her diverse background includes undergraduate studies in Theater Arts and Business, practical experience as a successful entrepreneur and graduate work in
. For over 14 years prior to join- ing TCNJ, he was engaged in medical device technology and product development for the Biosurgery and Regenerative Medicine markets. He coordinates the BME Capstone Senior Project course, wherein stu- dents design and prototype novel medical devices within the Design Control framework, preparing them for development careers in the medical device industry. He earned a BS degree in Chemical Engineering with Certificates in Biomedical Engineering and Personnel Management from the University of Rochester, followed by a Doctorate in Chemical Engineering from Rice University for research investigating fluid dynamic shear force effects on platelet activation and genetic regulation of
U of M. She is a member of the Association for Institutional Research, the Association for the Study of Higher Education, and the American College Personnel Association.Donald Carpenter, Lawrence Technological University Dr. Donald D. Carpenter is Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at Lawrence Technological University (LTU). In this role, he is an instructor for several engineering courses (from freshman to senior level) that involve ethics instruction. Dr. Carpenter is also Director of Assessment for LTU and recently served as Founding Director for LTU’s Center for Teaching and Learning. Dr. Carpenter has conducted funded pedagogical research and development projects, has published
Cutting Edge” series of faculty teaching enhancement programs.Ruth Streveler, Colorado School of Mines RUTH A. STREVELER is the Director of the Center for Engineering Education at the Colorado School of Mines and Research Associate Professor in Academic Affairs. Dr. Streveler holds a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Master of Science in Zoology from the Ohio State University, and a Bachelor of Arts in Biology from Indiana University at Bloomington. She is co-principle investigator of three NSF-sponsored projects: Developing an Outcomes Assessment Instrument for Identifying Engineering Student Misconceptions in Thermal and Transport Sciences (DUE
individually, and may be done in a labperiod, over the course of several weeks, or be structured as a capstone experience.Instructors usually observe the results of students’ work and evaluate projects based onthe specifications provided at the beginning of the assignment. As important as it is forstudents to meet the stated criteria, it is difficult to evaluate students’ critical thinkingwhen only seeing the end result of the process. Critical thinking is a reflective process; toassess it, we must “get inside the student’s head”. Students must self report what theirthought processes were and that must be done in the narrative form - either orally or inwriting. For convenience and assessment documentation purposes, having students writea reflective
Productivity Paradox of Information Technology', Communications of the ACM, 36 (1993), 66-77.6 Colin Potts, 'Software-Engineering Research Revisited', Software, IEEE, 10 (1993), 19-28.7 Walt Scacchi, 'Managing Software Engineering Projects: A Social Analysis', Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on (1984), 49-59.8 Walt Scacchi, and D Hurley, 'Understanding Software Productivity', Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering: Trends for the Next Decade, 4 (1995), 273-316.9 Viljan Mahnic, 'A Capstone Course on Agile Software Development Using Scrum', Education, IEEE Transactions on, 55 (2012), 99-106.10 B Lakhanpal, 'Understanding the Factors Influencing the Performance of Software Development Groups
thefield is acknowledging its role in preparing students to tackle complex problems and developinnovations that will advance quality of life, economic growth, and national security. Efforts toenhance students’ interdisciplinary knowledge and skills include the development ofinterdisciplinary design courses through the NSF-funded SUCCEED Coalition and ABET’s lateraccreditation mandate for undergraduate programs to prepare new engineers to work onmultidisciplinary teams7. Borrego, Froyd and Hall observed that the high level of awarenessamong engineering department chairs of interdisciplinary capstone design projects was “anobvious response to ABET EC2000 criteria”8 (p. 197).Richter and Paretti9 provided further evidence of the burgeoning interest in
planning. Maximum freedom to the developers of the courses and educational projects, within well defined framework of attainment targets, learning objectives, and distribution of study loads over the various disciplines and skills to be attained.Other survey respondents suggested that curriculum changes should be grounded in empiricaldata as well as other evidence of prior success: Having data (e.g. a comparison of other curricula) to support decisions. Past success --- ECE department here at Our University changed its curriculum in a dramatic way about twenty years ago and became a symbol for change in electrical engineering undergraduate curricula. Given the positive effects of that effort, we
cohorts. The initialfaculty cohort team comprises five of the six facilitators of the new cohorts. Moreover, all sevenmembers of the initial faculty cohort continue to meet. This community of practice is leading thedevelopment of additional workshops, implementation of an assessment/evaluation framework todocument the effect of active learning as this continues and expands through SCSE, writing grantproposals to enable further dissemination of the multidisciplinary cohort model approach acrossa college of engineering and science, and supporting each other’s individual research endeavors.IntroductionThis paper describes Work in Progress (WIP) efforts to increase active learning in a college ofengineering and science. Motivation for this project
curricula. To observe potential effects ofdesign education, students from two curricula at a large research-intensive state university arebeing studied. The control group is a major focused on engineering mechanics, which has atheoretical orientation that focuses on mathematical modeling based on first principles and haslittle formal design education prior to the capstone experience. The experimental group is amechanical engineering major that uses design as a context for its curriculum. In order to providea uniform basis for comparing students across projects and years, the authors use a task-independent protocol analysis method grounded in the Function-Behavior-Structure (FBS)design ontology. This paper presents results from the first-year of the
2006-2042: REPRESENTATION ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION:ENGINEERING ISSUES AND PARALLELS FROM THE VISUAL &PERFORMING ARTSWilliam Lee, University of South Florida Bill Lee is a Professor of Chemical Engineering with a significant interest in the practical and philosophical aspects of the educational process. He currently has several projects with faculty in the Visual and Performing Arts, exploring issues in the educational process, problem solving, and creativity.Mernet Larson, University of South Florida Mernet Larson is a Professor of Art History who has written and taught in the areas of art history, art theory, art criticism, and educational aspects of art. She is also a professional
Proceedings, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, INFORMS Transactions on Education, and the International Journal of Engineering Ed- ucation, and others. She authored the book Oral Communication Excellence for Engineers and Scientists, published in summer 2013. Over the past 15 years Dr. Norback has given over 40 conference presen- tations and workshops at nation-wide conferences such as ASEE, where she has served as chair of the Liberal Education/Engineering & Society (LEES) Division. She has been an officer for the Education Forum of INFORMS and has served as Associate Chair for the National Capstone Design Conference. Dr. Norback has a Bachelors’ degree from Cornell University and a Masters and PhD from
cofounder and director of Lehigh University’s Masters of Engineering in Technical Entrepreneurship (www.lehigh.edu/innovate/). He joined the Lehigh faculty in 1979 as an assistant professor of Mechanical Engineering, was promoted to associate professor in 1983, and to full professor in 1990. He founded and directed of the Computer-Aided Design Labs in the Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics Department from 1980 to 2001. From 1996 to the present, he has directed the University’s Integrated Product Development (IPD) capstone program (www.lehigh.edu/ipd). The IPD and TE program bring together students from all three undergraduate colleges to work in multidisciplinary teams on industry-sponsored product development projects
transfer of learning from school into professional practice as well as exploring students’ conceptions of diversity and its importance within engineering fields.Dr. Marie C. Paretti, Virginia Tech Marie C. Paretti is a Professor of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech, where she directs the Vir- ginia Tech Engineering Communications Center (VTECC). Her research focuses on communication in engineering design, interdisciplinary communication and collaboration, design education, and gender in engineering. She was awarded a CAREER grant from the National Science Foundation to study expert teaching in capstone design courses, and is co-PI on numerous NSF grants exploring communication, design, and identity in engineering
participants typically spend between 15 and 25 hours to completethe project. More information may be found in Reference 1.ParticipantsStudent participants were from the same cohort in the first term of the senior capstone laboratorysequence at Oregon State University. This class included 27 students majoring in bioengineering,45 students majoring in chemical engineering, and 9 students majoring in environmentalengineering. These students were assembled into 27 three-student teams who all participated inthe virtual laboratory project which was administered between two physical laboratory projects.They had a choice between the three virtual laboratory projects; 15 teams worked on the VirtualCVD Laboratory Project (45 students) and the remainder worked
: are they related?,” in American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, 2009.[20] T. A. Ward, “Common elements of capstone projects in the world’s top-ranked engineering universities,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 211–218, 2013.[21] B. J. Zimmerman, “Attaining Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Perspective,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation, M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. . Zeidner, Eds. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press, pp. 13–39.[22] P. Rivera-Reyes, O. Lawanto, and M. L. Pate, “Students’ Task Interpretation and Conceptual Understanding in an Electronics Laboratory,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 265–272, Nov. 2017.[23] P. Rivera-Reyes, “Students’ Task Interpretation and
. studentswere given assignments that required them to use a makerspace to complete), from introductorycourses that open to non-engineering students to capstone design courses for senior engineeringmajors. The number of courses for which the space was utilized by students was expected toincrease in the next academic year.Data CollectionWe have designed our project using both instrumental and collective case study frameworks[31]. We are currently in our instrumental case study phase, detailing the particulars of eachuniversity program. Following the completion of our instrumental work we will engage in acollective case study framework to determine similarities and differences across programs toform a comprehensive perspective of makerspaces embedded
providing ataxonomy of problems with classes of attributes.Jonassen [2] proposed a classification of problems on a continuum between ill-structured andwell-structured problems. For well-structured problems, the parameters of problems are specifiedin the problem statement; they possess knowable, correct solutions that are determined bypreferred solution paths; and they apply a limited number of regular rules and principles that areorganized in a predictive and prescriptive arrangement [2]. The kind of problems most oftenencountered in engineering education programs (except for capstone and assorted designexperiences) is the story (word) problem, which is well structured. When learning to solve storyproblems in engineering, students learn to
learning. Original PLTL workshops have six essential components26: (1) ThePLTL workshop is integral to the course; (2) faculty and peer leaders work together to prepareworkshops and train peer leaders; (3) peer leaders are well trained; (4) workshop materials arechallenging and at an appropriate level; (5) organizational arrangements promote learning; and(6) the department administration encourages innovative teaching. In the standard setting, a peerleader works with six to eight students during weekly workshop sessions. The peer leader meetswith the same students each week.Our approach to PLTL is modeled after a successful HP-funded project in the UTEP Departmentof Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) that targeted a gatekeeper course in the
) at Queen’s University, Kingston, On- tario, Canada in the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science. Educational research interests include engineering education development, cultural change in higher education, higher-order thinking develop- ment and assessment, outcomes-based data-informed continuous improvement, educational data visual- ization & reporting and authentic performance-based assessment.Ms. Natalie Simper, Queen’s University Natalie Simper coordinates a Queen’s research project investigating the development and measurement of general learning outcomes. Natalie comes from an Australian Senior-Secondary/ Post-Secondary teaching background, with experience at the State-wide level in curriculum
at Purdue University.Leah Jamieson, Purdue University Dean Leah Jamieson is the John A. Edwardson Dean of Engineering/Ransburg Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Dr. Jamieson earned a BS degree from MIT and MA, MSE and PhD degrees from Princeton. She is co-founder and past director of Purdue's Engineering Projects in Community Service (EPICS) program. Dr. Jamieson is the 2007 President and CEO of the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineering and she is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. Her research interests ;include engineering education,computer engineering and signal processing
semester, meaning that most of the students who left without a degree had committed atleast eight semesters of time and tuition to their chosen degree program.Continuing WorkThe continuing evolution of this project (both in scope and size) will next involve the use ofmore recent data to determine which findings hold true. Additionally, the pool of variables willbe expanded to include specific course outcomes and other semester variables (e.g. number ofhours attempted, number of hours completed). The goal of understanding these students is to beable to identify them early and help them make strategic decisions about defining and reachingtheir goals. The strategic pathways will be identified by studying students with similar indicatorsthat adapted
practitioners areeducated for their new professions”4(p52). According to Shulman, signature pedagogies have threestructural dimensions – surface (operational acts of teaching and learning), deep (assumptionsabout how best to impart knowledge) and explicit (moral dimension that comprises a set ofbelieves about professional attitudes, values and dispositions). Signature pedagogies inprofessional disciplines also have three temporal patterns: an initial pedagogy that frames andprefigures professional preparation, capstone apprenticeships and a sequenced and balancedportfolio4. Engineering, with its mix of analysis courses, laboratories and design studios, ischaracterized by the latter. Shulman also notes that a signature pedagogy can also be illustratedby
also acquired and practiced in other contexts, such as seniordesign or capstone projects, the selected approach of focusing on only laboratory or statisticscourses was considered suitable first step for the initial pilot stage.Catalog descriptions were coded for cognitive level of data analysis content based on Bloom’staxonomy [6], with demonstration of understanding coded as 1, application coded as 2, andanalysis coded as 3. Note that no higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy were identified in anycourse description. Therefore, these three levels were used to assign a quantitative rank to eachcourse. For example, a Statistical Topics in Electrical Engineering course with the description,“This course examines the use of probability and statistical
Paper ID #16509Balancing the Influence of Driving and Restricting Factors to Use ActiveLearningDr. James J. Pembridge, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach James J. Pembridge is an Assistant Professor in the Freshman Engineering Department at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. He earned a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering, M.A. Education in Curriculum and Instruction, and Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Virginia Tech. His research has focused on mentoring as pedagogy for project-based courses and understanding the adult learning characteristics of undergraduate students.Dr. Kari L. Jordan, Embry-Riddle
oftenspanned more than one of the above cited subcategories.The Teaching and Learning category captures any instructional intervention designed to improvestudent educational outcomes. More interventions were coded to this subcategory (57.3% of allinterventions) than any other subcategory (see Table 2.a). Aside from “Other,” which contains Page 11.496.5118 discrete interventions, the most common teaching- and learning-related interventions were:teams (17.3% of all articles), collaborative/cooperative learning (16.9% of all articles), lecture(traditional) (13.0% of all articles), projects (11.4% of all articles), active learning (10.4% of allarticles