given many workshops and pres-entations. Her research in this area has been funded by the NSF, DOE, Sloan Foundation, EiF, and the NCIIA. She is an associate editor of the Journal of Engineering Education.Larry Shuman, University of Pittsburgh Larry J. Shuman is Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, School of Engineering, University of Pittsburgh and Professor of Industrial Engineering. His areas of interest are improving the engineering education and the study of ethical behavior of engineers. As Associate Dean, he has introduced a many curricula innovations. He has been principle or co-principle investigator on over 20 sponsored projects funded by the NSF, HHS and DoT, the RW Johnson Foundation
that low performers overestimate theirabilities across multiple contexts 14, 15. In evaluating peers in engineering courses anothervariable is where the teamwork experience falls on the spectrum of team projects. On oneextreme of this spectrum are fully cooperative experiences in which the team works togethertowards a common goal. This extreme is defined by a single shared experience. On the otherextreme are “divide-and-conquer” projects. Here a team assigns each individual separate taskswhich each contribute to a shared team goal. Such approaches—an example is the jigsawteaching technique—are defined by unique experiences for each individual. This approach iscommon to many capstone design courses.This report looks at peer evaluation in a
context, increase the non-technical aspect,develop soft and management skills, consider the international challenge, and use new learningstrategies to help engineers update their knowledge during their entire career (2). It was evidentthat a cultural change was necessary to switch from “sink or swim” culture to a less competitiveand collaboration-based environment. In fact, we need a change of paradigm from a teacher-centered to a student-centered pedagogy (4).StructureThe road to success for this project requires everyone’s contribution and involvement. Eachperson’s opinion and contribution must be requested and valued. What is especially important isto avoid giving people the impression that changes are imposed upon them. In the same way
Work in Progress: Development of a Simplistic Agent-Based Model to Simulate Team Progress within an Innovation-Based Learning CourseAbstractThis work in progress discusses the development of a simplistic agent-based model used tosimulate probabilistic team behavior within an Innovation-Based Learning (IBL) course.Innovation-Based Learning is a non-traditional learning model that encourages students to learnboth technical and entrepreneurial skills by working on a team project. The course pushesstudents to think innovatively, especially on problems with “unknown unknowns” typical ofcomplex systems. In IBL, students are expected to learn and then apply the core concepts theylearn into their innovation projects and track all
Laura Hirshfield is a postdoctoral researcher and lecturer at the University of Michigan. She received her B.S. from the University of Michigan and her Ph.D. from Purdue University, both in chemical engineering. She then transitioned into the engineering education field by completing a post-doctoral appointment at Oregon State University investigating technology-aided conceptual learning. She is currently doing research on self-efficacy in project-based learning.Prof. Debbie Chachra, Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering Debbie Chachra is an Associate Professor of Materials Science at the Franklin W. Olin college of Engi- neering. Her education-related research interests include self-efficacy, design, intrinsic
Education, Aalborg University, Denmark. Guest professor at KTH Royal Institute of Technology and Guest Professor at UTM University Technology Malaysia 2011-2013. President of SEFI 2009–2011 (European Society for Engineering Education). Founding Chair of the SEFI-working group on Engineering Education Research. During the last 20 years, Dr. Kolmos has re- searched the following areas, primarily within Engineering Education: development and evaluation of project based and problem based curriculum, change from traditional to project organized and problem based curriculum, development of transferable skills in PBL and project work, and methods for staff development. She is Associate Editor for the European Journal of
rates.To tackle this challenge, a team of STEM faculty members at Alabama A&M University(AAMU), a land-granted HBCU, has redesigned the gateway courses in computer science,mechanical engineering and construction management by replacing the lecture-dominatedpractices with evidence-based teaching pedagogies. In this study, two evidence-basedpedagogies, problem-based learning and project-based learning have been implemented andtested in different levels of STEM gateway courses in the last three years. An assessmentframework has been established to analyze the effect of the implemented pedagogies.Continuous assessment data have been collected and compared with the baseline data collectedin the lecture-dominated same courses. Student surveys have
feature of the new coursesequence is requiring students to work in a team environment on design projects of increasingcomplexity as they move through the program, to ensure that students develop the skills,knowledge, and attitudes required to be successful design engineers in industry. Development ofan effective assessment plan is critical for measuring the benefits of this new course sequence.Since the courses in the design sequence are taught by a large number of faculty, and asignificant number of part-time faculty, a uniform set of evaluation tools was developed whichwill be used for every course in the sequence. This paper describes the rubrics developed, andsome preliminary evaluation data which was collected to test and calibrate the
JOHN J. DUFFY is a Professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department, the Coordinator for the Solar Engineering Graduate Program, and the Director of the Center for Sustainable Energy at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. He has written over 70 papers on solar engineering, environmental analysis, and education. He has integrated service-learning into nine engineering courses at the undergraduate and graduate level with local and international projects and is the principal investigator on an NSF grant to integrate service-learning into the entire curriculum of the college of engineering at UML. He also coordinates the Village Empowerment project which has designed and installed over
engaging and interactive ways of learning core concepts and typical common practices needed and expected by employers in the industry, such as using and developing test code, troubleshooting, and design documentation2) Using projects to create a meaningful product that used core concepts and developed transferable skills, such as team work, project management, and communication skills3) Building a social community within the learning environment that supported and motivated students throughout their computer science education. This was Page 13.245.2 essential in a program that had few to no majors at any given time to tutor students
tasks/projects, designs the process that teaching will be based on, setsthe assessment/expectation standards, and forms the teams. Teams that are given the design taskinfluence team composition by providing feedback to the instructor, the design process theyfollow, and expectations. All these actors and their activities in this dynamic design learningenvironment are influenced by predominantly outside parties setting the desired outcomes fordesign learning (individual and team level learning, and grades), design outcomes (perceptionsregarding teaming, communication - design report and artifact performance), and long termeffects (retention, increased interest in engineering). Figure 1 depicts these relationships. In thefigure, arrows indicate
AC 2008-1756: EVALUATING THE EFFECT OF RE-DEFINITION OF LEARNINGOBJECTIVES ON INTER-MEASURE CORRELATION AND VALIDITYDaniel Ferguson, Illinois Institute of Technology Daniel M. Ferguson, MBA, MSIE, is a Senior Lecturer in the IIT Stuart School of Business, and Associate Director for Research and Operations of the Interprofessional (IPRO) program. He was brought in specifically to focus on IPRO courses, and has led over 50 IPRO project teams in the past four years. He has an undergraduate degree in liberal arts and mechnical engineering, and graduate degrees in Business and Industrial Engineering. For over 20 years he led consulting businesses specializing in financial and information process
-based teaching and learning. Clearly, implementing new processes ofassessment of outcomes for ABET is having a significant effect on our programs. We have beenfortunate to have other influences, as well, including good counsel from external advisory boardsand the resources from an endowed center for engineering education, both of which have beeneffective in fostering change.Over the last 15 years, these diverse drivers for change have nurtured nearly 50 major projectsfor which substantial funding was available. These 50 initiatives, however, do not begin torepresent the totality of the effort because many individual faculty and small groups of facultycarried out projects to improve what they are doing in their own classes without the benefit
to be reified. A broaderdefinition of Making, one that acknowledges that all communities and cultures have beenengaged in design and generative practices throughout history and circumstance, could lead tomore inclusive, welcoming, and interesting making experiences for all learners.The Making Connections project seeks to contribute to this conversation around making withinthe engineering education community by challenging common definitions and perceptions of“what counts” as making. As a partnership between a large Midwestern science and technologycenter and several local communities of color, Making Connections explores culturally-embedded making practices and provides a platform to potentially expand and revise what isconsidered making
traditional department than for students in thenon-traditional department. However, students in the non-traditional department showedstatistically significantly higher levels of collaboration compared to the traditional department.This work contributes to the ongoing conversation about engineering identity development bybeginning to explore the pedagogical approaches that impact students’ engineering attitudes.Implications of results are discussed.MotivationThe purpose of this research paper is to ascertain the impact course activities that areintentionally designed to develop engineering identity in students has on engineering identitydevelopment. The overarching goal of this project is to help students persist in engineering,particularly those
” activities is an increased sense of agency – self confidence in theability to complete projects and make change in the world [3, 4]. While there is good evidencethat agency and self-efficacy are critical for student success [5], relatively little is known aboutwhat agency looks like in maker contexts, nor how it develops over time. In this paper, weinvestigate if and how student agency develops within a high school maker program.Theoretical FrameworkSelf-efficacy is an individual’s belief in their ability to complete tasks in a given domain [6]. Arobust body of literature has shown that individuals’ self-efficacy is an important predictor oftheir likelihood of engaging, persisting, and successfully participating in many academicdomains [7], and is
students’ effectiveness as team membersworking together on a final design project and presentation. A new integration program wasimplemented for six sections of a Design Thinking course during the Fall 2016 semester, whileanother six sections of the introductory Design Thinking course were taught without the formalintegration. In both classes, a multi-part team project was assigned for the last half of thesemester. Teams were periodically asked to rate each team member’s performance using theComprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME) tool. By analyzing theresults of this peer evaluation in integrated versus non-integrated format of the course, weexamine the student contributions and grades in the final project and their
concepts. This paper focuses on the fundamental purpose of thisprogram and the preparation to implement it. The Motivation section describes the objectives ofthis program. It details the different tasks initiated to achieve the objectives. It states the variousassessment activities developed and implemented to track the progress of the project. The sectiontwo “Assessment” analyses the results of the surveys. It explains how the students were assessedin order to understand their academic background, their goals, their expectations from the lab andtheir idea of an ideal mentor. Extensive surveys have proved to be an appropriate groundwork forimplementation of the pilot program launched in Fall 2008. It compares skills reported by thestudents at the
canprovide students with opportunities to develop a wider variety of desirable competencies2,3,4,while opening up pathways for engineering programs to positively impact communities inneed. Yet while there is broad consensus on the benefits of local community engagementprograms in engineering schools, scholars express contrasting views regarding activities andplacements of students in communities abroad5,6,7. Additionally, many humanitarian projectshave failed over the years because they do not properly involve community members and donot take into account the cultural, social, historical, and political realities where projects areundertaken.8 This can create tensions between the needs of university programs and theirpartner communities, which often
. Page 22.1447.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 The Effect of Previous Team Experiences on Students’ Perceptions of Interdisciplinary Engineering ProblemsAbstractWith a growing number of interdisciplinary engineering programs and courses, researchers arebeginning to characterize interdisciplinary learning objectives, student development in theseprograms and courses, and the dynamics of interdisciplinary engineering teamwork. Focusing onstudents at the very beginning of the major coursework, this study examined second-yearstudents‟ perceptions of interdisciplinary engineering project teams. In addition, the studyattempted to define the conditions which give rise
University. His background is in mathematical sciences and mathematics education. Luke’s primary research interests include math anxiety and student success in higher education. He is currently involved in projects surrounding the topics of transfer student success, cognitive and symbol load, math anxiety, and qualitative research methods. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Using Design-Based Research Methods to Scale an Expanding InterventionIn this work-in-progress paper, we share the methodological decisions we made to supportresearch within the ongoing implementation of a large-scale, five-year NSF
demand. The most salient feature of PCM rests in the multiple curricular configurations that result from the use of four interrelated and parallel designs for organizing curriculum: Core, Practice, Connections, and Identity. The four parallels offer opportunities to optimize student learning through the creation of a curriculum that is more meaningful, powerful, and engaging in the education of confident and competent engineering professionals. Projects presented at past ASEE conferences are innovative because they address specific parallels, thus fleshing out a student’s overall education. The PCM not only offers a way to see education as a whole, so as to identify the gaps, but also a way to
design settings. Her published work appears in journals such as Journal of Mechanical Design, Journal of Engineering Design, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Journal of Engineering Education, European Journal of En- gineering Education and Technovation. She is a member of IIE, ASME, and ASEE. She is also a National Research Council-US AFRL Summer Faculty Fellow for the Human Effectiveness Directorate (2002- 2004), an invited participant of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) Frontiers in Engineering Education Symposium (2009), and a Fulbright Scholar to Ireland (2010).Carolyn Plumb, Montana State University Carolyn Plumb is the Director of Educational Innovation and Strategic Projects at Montana State
(2011-2014), she worked in the National Science Foundation’s Division of Undergraduate Education on research and evaluation projects related to the use of technology in STEM education. Dr. London masters mixed methods and computational tools to address complex problems, including: science policy issues surrounding STEM learning in cyberlearning envi- ronments; evaluation and impact analysis of federal investments in R&D; and applications of simulation & modeling tools to evaluate programs.Dr. Edward J. Berger, Purdue University, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Edward Berger is an Associate Professor of Engineering Education and Mechanical Engineering at Purdue University, joining Purdue in August 2014
continue with their own experimentation in Logo. The Logo componentof the course culminates with a project. The time allocated to this project is approximately onemonth. Table 1 gives a summary of the topics and tasks in each tutorial. Topic Tasks Tutorial 1 Introduction Explore the Logo environment. Explore Logo commands for drawing basic shapes: square, rectangle; triangle Tutorial 2 Regular polygons Explore: Relative and absolute orientation and movement of the turtle. Deduce
, 21st century skills, and design and evaluation of learning environments informed by the How People Learn framework.Antonia Ketsetzi Antonia Ketsetzi is a graduate student in the Department of Teaching Learning & Culture at Texas A&M University. She received her BS degree in Mechanical Engineering at the Technological Educational Institute in Crete. She received her M.Sc degree in Environmental Technologies at University of Crete in Greece. Ketsetzi’s research is in How People Learn / Engineering Design and evaluation of educational innovations. She also serves as a Research Assistant in the project. Antonia Ketsetzi, M.Ed. Texas A&M University ketsetzi@tamu.eduDr. Xiaobo Peng, Prairie View A&M
Curtis Yes sir.19 [00:04:45] Will Credit… Credit is due where it belongs.In this exchange, a mentorship interaction emerges without notice from an unexpected prompt.Although he is sitting two feet from Curtis, Will is unaware of what Curtis is working on until anoise draws his attention. Then he is surprised by Curtis’s project and expresses some incredulitytowards Curtis’ role on the project. After prompting from Curtis, Will forms an ad hoc purposefor applying some mentorship and gives Curtis mild feedback, followed by light praise and workadvice about taking credit where credit is due. This final piece of advice could be seen asattempting to provide a more experienced perspective on how one might navigate
Paper ID #17322Inventing the Precedence Diagram as Preparation for Future LearningMr. Robert Semmens, Stanford University Rob Semmens should soon be a graduate of the doctoral program in Learning Sciences and Technology Design program in Stanford’s School of Education. His current research interests include the development and assessment of training techniques relevant to spatial thinking. Previously Rob worked on projects for the Army Research Institute and the Asymmetric Warfare Group. He developed instructional approaches to improve Army training, and conducted analysis of the contribution of technology to learning. Rob
for improving professional formation in engineering and design activities:RQ1: Does compassionate design enable students to develop self/social awareness? RQ2: Doescompassionate design appeal to a different type of engineering student? and RQ3: How does thecompassionate design framework impact the students’ design process? The primary focus of thisstudy was to find a way to measure changes, specifically increases and decreases, in students’self-awareness and social-awareness to help answer RQ1. The results of this study can serve toinform the larger research project and how to integrate transformative approaches into thecurriculum.Introduction The Grand Challenges facing engineering are essentially human challenges and,therefore
arecollaborating on an NSF-funded program to document the impact of the emerging EER&Icommunity. It describes the goals of the project, what has been done to date, what theparticipants have learned, and what remains to be done.The goals of the program include; (1) Identifying the broader EER&I network, (2) Identifying examples of EER&I impact, (3) Organizing and hosting a summit of EER&I leaders to develop a systematic process for documenting the impact of EER&I, (4) Piloting the process, and (5) Compiling and disseminating best practices.The Engineering Education Research & Innovation community is growing and becoming welldefined. It includes faculty, postdocs, and graduate students in