. Nikias, C. (2004, December 9). Does Engineering Have to be Boring? Viewpoint – Education Report, Engineering News Record.2. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999) How People Learn. Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.3. Svinicki, M. (2004). Learning and Motivation in Postsecondary Classrooms. Bolton, MA: Anker Press.4. Fink, L., Ambrose, S., & Wheeler, D. (2005) Becoming a professional engineering educator: A role for a new era. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 185-194.5. Halpern, D., & Hakel, M. (2002). Applying the science of learning to university teaching and beyond. New Directions for Teaching and Learning(No. 89) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Paper ID #21635Understanding the Socializer Influence on Engineering Students’ Career Plan-ningRohini Abhyankar, Arizona State University Rohini Abhyankar is a second year graduate student at Arizona State University’s Engineering Education Systems and Design doctoral program. Rohini has a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering from Syracuse University and Master’s and Bachelor’s degrees in Physics from University of Delhi, India. Rohini has over ten years each of industry and teaching experience.Dr. Cheryl Carrico P.E., Virginia Tech Cheryl Carrico is a part-time faculty Research Scientist for Virginia Tech and owner
into his triad of performancecategories: the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domain. The relation between the ProgramOutcomes and these domains has been explored in depth in the engineering education literature6,8, 19 . However, it is commonly overlooked that Bloom’s and Tyler’s theories are firmly rooted inthe tradition of behaviorist psychology and as such are based on further fundamentalassumptions in this field, which at that time exhibited quite strong epistemological andontological views. For six decades behaviorist thinking dominated the field of with the totalityof its claims to virtually eclipse the consideration of internal states of the mind from the scientificdiscussion. These concepts equally shaped the thinking in
yourself.ExplanationWe are doing a study to determine how to get more engineering professors involved in inclusivepractices. We are exploring the idea of professors using inclusive teaching methods to helpstudents succeed in ECE classes. We are defining inclusive teaching methods as initiatinginteractions with students in class or office hours intended to improve their capacity, interest, orbelongingness in engineering (as defined on the tip sheet). In other words, inclusive teachinginvolves bringing typical mentoring strategies into the classroom on a smaller scale. The tipsheet gives many examples of these strategies. • So that we can get your understanding of the definition, what are some examples that come to mind when you think of inclusive
Paper ID #29757Work-in-Progress: Novel Ethnographic Approaches for InvestigatingEngineering PracticeProf. Brent K Jesiek, Purdue University-Main Campus, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Dr. Brent K. Jesiek is an Associate Professor in the Schools of Engineering Education and Electrical and Computer Engineering at Purdue University. He also leads the Global Engineering Education Collabo- ratory (GEEC) research group, and received an NSF CAREER award to study boundary-spanning roles and competencies among early career engineers. He holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Michi- gan Tech and M.S. and Ph.D
Paper ID #23131Engineering Undergraduates’ Task Interpretation during Problem-Solving inThermodynamicsDr. Oenardi Lawanto, Utah State University Dr. Oenardi Lawanto is an associate professor in the Department of Engineering Education at Utah State University, USA. He received his B.S.E.E. from Iowa State University, his M.S.E.E. from the University of Dayton, and his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Before coming to Utah State, Dr. Lawanto taught and held several administrative positions at one large private university in In- donesia. He has developed and delivered numerous international
AC 2010-1634: CONFLICT BEHAVIOR AND ITS INFLUENCE ONENGINEERING DESIGN TEAMSXaver Neumeyer, Northwestern UniversityAnn McKenna, Northwestern University Ann F. McKenna is the Director of Education Improvement in the McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science at Northwestern University. She also holds a joint appointment as a Professor in the School of Education and Social Policy as well as a Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and is the co-Director of the Northwestern Center for Engineering Education Research (NCEER). She received her BS and MS degrees in Mechanical Engineering from Drexel University and Ph.D. in Science and Mathematics Education from the University of
laboratory for undergraduates. Journal ofEngineering Education, 97(2), 213-222.National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in thenew century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.National Academy of Engineering. (200). Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineeringeducation to the new century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National ResearchCouncil. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington DC:National Academy Press. Page 15.51.10National Research Council Board for Engineering Education. (1995). Engineering education:Designing an adaptive system. Washington DC
Paper ID #32917Serious Games in Engineering: The Current State, Trends, and FutureJaveed Kittur, Arizona State University, Polytechnic campus Javeed Kittur is currently a doctoral student (Engineering Education Systems and Design) at Arizona State University, USA. He received a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and a Master’s degree in Power Systems from India in 2011 and 2014 respectively. He has worked with Tata Consultancy Services as Assistant Systems Engineer from 2011-2012, India. He has worked as an Assistant Professor (2014 to 2018) in the department of Electrical and Electronics
Paper ID #15028A Review of the Literature Relevant to Engineering IdentityAnita D. Patrick, University of Texas, Austin Anita Patrick is a STEM Education doctoral student and Graduate Research Assistant in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and College of Liberal Arts at UT Austin’s Population Research Center. She received her BS in Bioengineering from Clemson University where she tutored undergraduate mathemat- ics and science courses, and mentored undergraduate engineering majors. Prior to coming to UT, she independently tutored K12 and undergraduate mathematics and science. Her research interests include
: Five ProfilesHere we present profiles of five different learning communities that exist partly or wholly withinthe community of engineering education. These learning communities represent a breadth ofdifferent models for learning communities, implemented to satisfy a breadth of faculty needsunder a variety of constraints. Features of these communities are summarized in Table 1.University of Alaska FairbanksOffice of Faculty Development Faculty Learning Community Program:Flipped Class Learning CommunityIn 2013, the University of Alaska Fairbanks Office of Faculty Development initiated a programof faculty-led Faculty Learning Communities. This program was designed with facultyownership in mind: facilitators were selected from interested faculty
inducesadditional stress partly because it seems to create an interminable process of identifying andaccomplishing a collection of goals, without even a clear idea of success. Profoundly, sheimplies that a primary objective might be to simply demonstrate an ability to handle variouskinds of stresses (“I have to be like a well-rounded person who can handle these kinds ofstresses”), because in her mind that constitutes well-roundedness as an engineering student. Thisbelief that experiencing high amounts of stress correlates to one’s legitimacy as an engineeringstudent emerges throughout the data, as does the frustration (“I just need more hours in the day”)which accompanies an inability to effectively and consistently satisfy the system of
support is by providing the opportunity for faculty to attend workshops,professional meetings, and collaborate with like-minded engineering faculty. Thus, the faculty isprovided with personal and professional support necessary for the daunting challenge ofcurriculum reform2. An additional opportunity is support for navigating the unique challenges ofprogrammatic changes, the kinds of changes that might be necessary for preparing the Engineerof 2020. Page 22.1004.2There are many professional development opportunities for engineering faculty such asworkshops and seminars that seek to help faculty develop a more student-centered approach totheir
AC 2011-850: GENDER AND ENGINEERING: USING PHOTO ELICITA-TION AS A METHOD OF INQUIRYKatherine M. Morley Katherine is an undergraduate student in Aeronautical Engineering at Purdue University. As a member of the Society of Women in Engineering, and a participant in the Women in Engineering Program at Purdue University, she took interest in feminist engineering research. She is particularly interested to learn how engineering is conceptualized and gendered.Alice L. Pawley, Purdue University, West Lafayette Dr. Alice L. Pawley is an assistant professor in the School of Engineering Education and an affiliate faculty member in the Women’s Studies Program at Purdue University. She has a B.Eng. in Chemical Engineering
Paper ID #33691Self Reflection of Engineering Majors in General Chemistry IIDr. Patricia Muisener, Stevens Institute of Technology Dr. Patricia Muisener is an Associate Teaching Professor and Associate Chair of Graduate and Undergrad- uate Education in the Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department at Stevens Institute of Technology. She teaches and coordinates the General Chemistry I and II course sequence. She was previously at the University of South Florida as a faculty member and Assistant Chair in the Chemistry Department. She holds a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from University of Massachusetts at Amherst and a M.S
(EPAR),” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 86, no. 2, April 1997, pp. 183-187.11. S.K. Starrett, M.M. Morcos, “Hands-on, minds-on electric power education,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 90, no. 1, Jan. 2001, pp. 93-99.12. C.J. Finelli, A. Klinger, D.D. Budny, “Strategies for improving the classroom environment,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 90, no. 4, Oct. 2001, pp. 491-497.13. S. Shooter, M. McNeill, “Interdisciplinary collaborative learning in mechatronics at Bucknell University,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 91, no. 3, July 2002, pp. 339-344.14. T. W. Simpson, H. J. Thevenot, “Using product dissection to integrate product family design research into the classroom and improve
of our current approach is to develop and implement a marketing plan to takebetter advantage of the World-class Engineer vision during the first two years of our programs.We hope that by getting this vision into the minds of our students early in their academic careers,we can help them make better decisions to maximize their preparation to enter the increasinglyglobal marketplace. We are developing marketing and advising materials to make studentsaware of the many opportunities that are available to them to make progress toward being aWorld-class Engineer. In addition we have instituted a World-class Engineer Alumni Awardthat brings successful, young graduates back to campus to speak with current students about theexciting opportunities and
Paper ID #14626Sources of Anxiety among Engineering Students: Assessment and MitigationDr. Paul M. Yanik, Western Carolina University Dr. Paul Yanik is an Assistant Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering Technology at Western Carolina University. His areas of research include human-robot interactions, assistive devices, pattern recognition, machine learning, and engineering education.Dr. Yanjun Yan, Western Carolina University Yanjun Yan received her B.S. and M.S. degrees in Electrical Engineering from Harbin Institute of Tech- nology (China), and the M.S. degree in Applied Statistics and the Ph.D. degree in
& Learning Technologies from the University of Missouri. His research/teaching focuses on engineering as an innovation in pK-12 education, policy of STEM education, how to support teachers and students’ academic achievements through engineering, engineering ’habits of mind’ and empathy and care in engi- neering. He has published more than 140 journal articles and proceedings papers in engineering education and educational technology and is the inaugural editor for the Journal of Pre-College Engineering Educa- tion Research. Page 26.740.1 c American Society for Engineering
Paper ID #11547Design of an extended engineering curriculum to increase retention and eq-uityProf. Diane Grayson, University of Pretoria Diane Grayson is Extraordinary Professor of Physics at the University of Pretoria and Director: Institu- tional Audits at the Council on Higher Education, which is responsible for quality assurance in higher education in South Africa. She designed the ENGAGE program when she was academic development manager in the Faculty of Engineering, Built Environment and Information Technology at the University of Pretoria. ¨Dr. Erika Muller, University of Pretoria, RSA Dr Erika M¨uller
Paper ID #29215Integrating Evidence-Based Learning in Engineering and Computer ScienceGateway CoursesDr. Xiang Zhao, Alabama A&M University Dr. Xiang (Susie) Zhao, Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the Alabama A&M University, has over 20 years of teaching experience in traditional on-campus settings or online format at several universities in US and aboard. Her teaching and research interests include numerical modeling & simulation, high performance algorithm design, data mining, and evidence-based STEM teaching pedagogies. Her recent research work has been funded by DOE
State School Officers). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.[4] Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 77–84.[5] Brophy, S. P., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in the P-12classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education 97(3), 369–387.[6] Roselli, R. J., & Brophy, S. P. (2006). Experiences with formative assessment in engineering classrooms.Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 325-333.[7] Biesta, G .(2004). Mind the gap! Communication and the educational relation. In Bingham, C., & Sidorkin,A .eds. No Education without relation. New York: Peter Lang.[8]Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: A user's manual
, (2005), Measuring the mind: Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.2 Devon, R., Engel, R., Turner, G. (1998), “The Effects of Spatial Visualization Skill Training on Gender and Retentionin Engineering,” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 4: 371-380.3 Dollár, A., Steif, P. S. (2006), “Learning modules for statics,” International Journal of Engineering Education 22(2):381-392. Retrieved from http://www.ijee.dit.ie/ OnlinePapers/Interactive/Statics/Learning-Modules-for-Statics-Dollar-Steif.html4 Huang, M., Gramoll, K. (2004). “Online interactive multimedia for engineering thermodynamics,” Proceedings ofAmerican Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference &
and representations in engineering education. And also holds a B.E. degree in Electrical Engineering from The City College of New York where she worked as a research assistant in the are of Remote Sensing and Atmospheric Science. Tosin is also a graduate of the General Electric Edison Engineering Leadership Development Program (EEDP). During her time at General Electric (GE) her roles included working as an Electronic Component Quality Engineer for GE Switchgear Systems. Her research interest include: High Performance Computing, Data Analytics, and STEM EducationDr. Alejandra J. Magana, Purdue University, West LafayetteDr. R. Edwin Garcia, Purdue University, West Lafayette
Paper ID #9944Identity-trajectory as a Theoretical Framework in Engineering EducationResearchLauren D. Thomas, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Page 24.688.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014 Identity-trajectory as a Theoretical Framework in Engineering Education Research ! Page 24.688.2IntroductionIdentity theories have been recently used in engineering education research1,2 as a means tounderstand student belonging3
Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000, 165-169.2. Hake, R.R., “Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses”, American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 1998, 64-71.3. Klosky, J.L., and Schaaf, R.V., “Hands-On Demonstrations in introductory mechanics”, Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference, 2002, 1815.4. Keller, F. S., “Testimony of an educational reformer”, Engineering Education, 1985, 144-149.5. Dareing, D. W. and Smith, K. S., “Classroom demonstrations help undergraduates relate mechanical vibration theory to engineering applications”, Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference, 1991, 396.6. Hata
Technology Education. Accessed Jan 2008. 10. Virginia Tech Department of Engineering Education. Accessed Jan 2008. 11. Doumont, JL. “Trees, Maps and Theorems: Effective Communication for Rational Minds”. Brussels, Belgium: Principiæ, 2009.12. Personal communication, Blakeslee, October 2009.13. Mullinix, B. "A Rubric for Rubrics: Reconstructing and Exploring Theoretical Frameworks". in Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network Conference. 2007. Pittsburgh, PA.14. Mullinix, B. "Rubrics". 2009, Accessed Jul 2009. 15. Meuller, J. "Authentic Assessment Toolbox". 2009, Accessed Jan 2009. 16. Bargainnier, S., "Fundamentals of Rubrics, in Faculty Guidebook - A Comprehensive Tool for Improving
consideredtheir gender to be one of their prevalent identities but only half of the men included it. While thesmall class sizes offered by small schools are beneficial in many ways, limited representation ofwomen and gender non-conforming students can potentially increase feelings of isolation.Representation among the faculty has been shown to go a long way in supporting these studentsand increasing their sense of belonging [35]. This is especially important in small school settingswith few engineering professors available. Schools should be hiring with diversity in mind andintentionally trying to increase representation of genders and races among the faculty. A supportive environment that encourages and accommodates a variety of interestsoutside
academic success in technical disciplines (software engineering, human-computer interaction, public administration, and others). For the last 20 years, he has been anadult educator and formed his own instructional design company about 5 years ago. He iscoming to realize that he has been surrounded by like-minded people, where he has beenprofessionally rewarded for excelling in a specific understanding of technical competencies.The third author is situational constructivist through and through, although she has been accusedof behaviourism by the second author! She is aligned most closely with interpretivism. Hereducation is in the fine arts, creative arts, education, and serendipitously, engineering education,and she identifies as a non-engineer
should spend more time discussing the applicationsas well as the conceptual underpinnings rather than focus solely on strategies and techniques tosolve problems. They should also introduce more ‘word’ problems as these problems arecommonly encountered in physics and engineering courses. Learning the strategies of solvingword problems in mathematics would better prepare students to solve these problems in latercourses. Faculty in physics courses should focus on helping students learn how to interpretinformation in a word problem and to set up the solution. They should also be more mindful ofnotational and representational differences between physics and engineering courses. Faculty inboth physics and mathematics courses should provide more