. Page 26.186.2 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 An Inductive Qualitative Analysis of Student Interviews on Engineering Global PreparednessAbstractInternational experiences are increasingly viewed as an essential component of engineeringeducation. However, limited research has been conducted that leads to 1) a comprehensivedefinition of engineering global preparedness, 2) determination of how global preparedness isachieved, or 3) delineation of how particular experiences impact the development of students’engineering global preparedness. This paper discusses preliminary research findings from thesecond phase of a multi-institutional research project that investigates
qualityof quantitative demography. In this paper, we present best practices for asking demographicquestions, and offer suggestions to deal with the tension of concise as well as precise questions.Part 1: Why to ask and how to frameWhile the external message of engineering claims that all people can be engineers, the culture ofengineering is such that students from backgrounds that are underrepresented in engineeringprograms often feel relegated to only peripheral participation in engineering12. Students whohave differently-identified gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability status,backgrounds, or attitudes may not feel that they can fully participate in engineering communitiesof practice when they see only normative (i.e
tocommission the development of a seminar to help prepare these new faculty for a heavy teachingload. The seminar was intended to meet the following criteria: 1) be of short duration, 2) bebased on methods supported by research, focusing on 'best practices in engineering education',and 3) be suitable for new faculty, graduate assistants and part-time faculty.The authors (holding both engineering and education degrees) received an internal grant andcollaborated with instructional designers from the university's E-learning center to develop andfacilitate the training. The purpose of this seminar is to promote the best practices, to guidefaculty and teaching assistants new to teaching in the engineering fields, to advance theirconfidence and satisfaction
detailed discussions of methods specific to planning and executingsuccessful multi-site research studies in higher education settings.The goal in this paper is to share experiences and advice to begin a broader discussion in thefield about multi-site research studies in engineering education. The focus is on studies ofundergraduate and graduate students, faculty and administrators. This paper discusses the issues,considerations, and tradeoffs involved in planning and executing multi-site engineeringeducation research studies.MethodsTo prepare this paper, one researcher (author 1) distributed a set of questions to which the firstfour authors responded. The fifth author drafted the results based on a simple thematic analysisof the responses. All
, misses much of the largerpicture and places too much of the onus to change on the faculty members.BackgroundIn 2006, the author completed a study that was aimed at shedding some light on the parts of theuniversity teaching picture that for too long had been left in the dark: the good teaching.[1] Theresearch was initially inspired by the disjuncture between the plethora of negative critiques ofteaching in research universities and the author’s personal experience as a graduate student andinstructional consultant in those settings. Excellent teaching in those settings had been generallyoverlooked in the literature, and much of the existing research on effective teaching was focusedon instructors’ actions – what they did in their classrooms
assessment tool. The rubric and scoring guide (tomanage inter-rater reliability and insure objectivity) will be defined in a future manuscript.IntroductionResearch in elementary engineering education follows on broad interest in equipping studentswith 21st Century knowledge and skills and specific concern for raising awareness and interest inengineering careers.1 Generally, K-12 engineering education initiatives intend to inspirestudents’ career awareness and interest with the hope of increasing the numbers of engineers anddiversifying the career pipeline. In 2009, the Committee on K-12 Engineering Education raisedconcern for the “paucity of data” (p. 154) regarding impact of current programs. To guide futureengineering education curricula
having theproblem, and the many more who support the common cultural understanding of thephenomenon as a problem. To help focus the thinking in this framework, McDermott proposes athree-stage framework to take different levels of the problem into account. In Stage 1, anindividual is conceptualized as having problems completely on their own; any problemsidentified are simple evidence of the individual’s own intellectual, moral, cultural, etc. deficits.In Stage 2, an individual is viewed as experiencing problems on the basis of social structuresmuch larger than them; and any problems identified can be explained as the natural result ofhaving been socialized to occupy that position in society. Finally in Stage 3, the problem isviewed as being
pedagogy that help to improve student engagement and understanding.Dr. Shannon Katherine Gilmartin, Stanford UniversityDr. Helen L. Chen, Stanford University Helen L. Chen is a research scientist in the Designing Education Lab in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Director of ePortfolio Initiatives in the Office of the Registrar at Stanford University. She is also a member of the research team in the National Center for Engineering Pathways to Innovation (Epicenter). Helen earned her undergraduate degree from UCLA and her PhD in Communication with a minor in Psychology from Stanford University in 1998. Her current research interests include: 1) engineering and entrepreneurship education; 2) the pedagogy of
thatsuggested differences either in characterizations or approaches to innovative engineering designand included academic major24, year in school26, and gender27. All 33 participants are listed inTable 1.Table 1. Study Participants and Key Demographic InformationPseudonym Engr. Major Year in School Gender Project(s) described during interview Dana Aeronautical Senior Female Senior design Maria Industrial Junior Female FYE design project Jessica Biological Sophomore Female FYE design project Esteban First-Year First-year Male Personal project (3-D printed longboard) Elon Mechanical Senior Male Personal project (lamp
engineers will need to be prepared to exploit these tools togenerate effective solutions to human challenges. Thus, the ability to use and create moderncomputational tools derived from and validated by experimental data is required to support engineeringdesign and problem solving in our fast-changing and global society.This study explores both how students engage in experimentation strategies and how they combine thosestrategies with the modeling and simulation process. Specifically, this study will identify how studentsmodel phenomena and solve a design problem, starting from experimental data. The research questionsare: (1) How do students use external representations in each step of the modeling and simulationprocess? (2) How do students
Discussion Over the time period from April 10th, 2014 to March 20th, 2015, ACE had 3117 walk-invisits with 882 unique students. Additionally, ACE had 211 appointment visits with 61 uniquestudents. The average student came to ACE for 3.5 visits, with an average visit time of 1.3 hours,for a total time of about 4.5 hours. The average GPA of students visiting ACE was 3.07.A. Demographics Of the students visiting ACE, 73% were male and 27% were female, compared to theCollege of Engineering’s population of 82% male and 18% female, as seen in figure 1. Thisagreed with a previous study at Lehigh University showing that females were overrepresented inchoosing to receive tutoring17. The majority of students visiting ACE are not Hispanic or
numbers. Similarly, Chazan described tensions he facedwhen leading a discussion his Algebra 1 class 49. The students had been solving a problem aboutcomputing employees’ average monetary bonus, when an argument emerged around whether toinclude the employee that did not get a bonus. Chazan recounted that he was excited to see hisstudents sharing their ideas, listening to one another, and drawing on their own experiences, butwas uneasy about how to assist them in resolving their disagreement in a mathematical way thatwould help them develop confidence in their abilities. In science, Hammer described tensions heexperienced when teaching a high school physics course 50. In one episode, for instance, hedescribed feeling torn between wanting to support
then compared how each methodof course delivery used by a student with the resulting grade on the quiz/exam. This informationwas used to determine if the mode of lecture delivery (in-class or online) impacted students’performance on examinations.1. IntroductionAlthough distance learning and video lectures have been available for the past 50 years (e.g.,Open University1), recent advances in video and online technology along with decreasing cost ofthis technology, have made this approach much more accessible to teaching faculty. This hasopened up the possibility of adding an alternative instructional delivery method, like a videolecture, to increase accessibility to lecture content by reaching students who were unable toattend in-person lectures
Page 26.1225.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Persistence in Engineering: Does Initial Mathematics Course Matter?AbstractThis study is situated within a larger project that seeks to understand how students that start inprecalculus and struggle in their math courses persist and complete an engineering degreeprogram. The specific aims of this study are to determine 1) the extent to which students thatstart in precalculus persist in engineering after one year, 2) correlations between the grade inengineering students’ first math course and/or the level of that course and persistence inengineering one year later, and 3) the relative number of students that
(DFW) fromthe course, has experienced near-constant improvements since Freeform and its ABC structureswere introduced. This improvement has not yet been empirically assessed, though the decrease inthe DFW rate is important because student persistence (defined as students’ continuance to thenext stage towards completion of their program) is a key challenge for many core engineeringcourses. In this study, the authors utilize rigorous cross-sectional regression methods todetermine whether this drop in DFW rates can be directly attributed to increased implementationof ABC features. More specifically, we ask the following two research questions: 1. Is there significant improvement in the DFW rate after controlling for other key student
author to debrief and discuss the next steps.Results to DateOur summary of intermediate results (n = 8) is presented in Table 1. Our presentation of quotesprovides an example of how we mapped participants’ words (raw data) to the a priori themescorresponding to the CCW framework. Additionally, we include an example of an emergenttheme. The rightmost column in the table indicates whether the participant categorized theirstatement as an unearned advantage or disadvantage (or both). Table 1: Forms of capital and wealth salient in testimony data. Unearned Theme Evidence Advantage or
fromthe Faculty of Arts and Science (Psychology, Drama and Physics), and from the Faculty ofEngineering and Applied Science (Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, GeologicalEngineering, and Mechanical Engineering) consented to participate in the project.This four-year study is following a cohort through an undergraduate program using fourapproaches to assessing TIS as illustrated in Figure 1, including: • standardized instruments • meta-rubrics used to score artefacts created by students for academic purposes • in-course assessment of TIS • group problem-solving sessions independent of academic workThe study is documenting the costs, time commitment, participation rates, and correlationsbetween these approaches, and evaluating the
themajority of problems. The practice is quite common: out of the 83 engineering undergraduatesand alumni we interviewed, all but three had experienced the practice. 1 And, as we indicatedabove, our research has also found that female students are particularly troubled by left-of-centergrading, suggesting that the practice may have major implications for the retention of diversepopulations. 1LOC grading is a subset of norm-referenced grading. Norm-referenced grading, popularlyknown as grading on a “curve,” involves grading students on the basis of their rankings within aparticular cohort. It is typically contrasted with criterion-referenced grading, which involvescomparing students’ achievements with clearly stated criteria for learning outcomes and
displayed the decrease of Napoleon’s army during the Russian campaign would be veryhelpful in formulating effective interventions. This is the ultimate intent of very preliminarywork presented in this paper.Progress through a Four-course Mathematics SequenceLike many engineering programs, undergraduate engineering curricula at Texas A&MUniversity require four courses in mathematics: Calculus I, Calculus II, Multi-variable Calculus,and Differential Equations. Catalog descriptions of the curricula indicate these four courses aretaken in a sequence in consecutive semesters. What percentages of students take and completethese four courses as presented in the course catalog? Figure 1 depicts results of 14,047
placingcommunication, ability to work in teams, and interpersonal skills in the top five of a ranking ofseventeen traits by importance to engineering practice.1, 15While the development of teaming skills is useful in its own right, teamwork also promotesactive learning, a process by which students meaningfully engage with the material rather thanpassively “soaking up” knowledge. Active learning enhances student understanding ofmaterial.16 In team-based project work, students apply material taught in class to concrete goalsand learn from, teach, and support one another as their skills grow. ‘Encouraging cooperationamong students’ (collaboration, rather than competition) and ‘encouraging active learning’(internalizing knowledge through interacting with it) are
communication, project based learning, and technical writing. . Thereare two longer writing assignments in the course; the assignment we have focused our researchon is the second project, P2. This assignment required students to design their own staticsresearch question, solve the problem using topics covered in Introduction to Solid Mechanics,and complete a written summary. This written summary contains an abstract, free bodydiagrams, final calculations, and a poster presentation. The purpose of the project is to givestudents experience in designing their own problem and solving it, writing a professionaltechnical paper, and class presentation.The questions that this research seeks to answer are: 1. How did the changes in the assignment worksheet
studentperception and the team’s performance.1. Introduction and Literature ReviewCommunication is an important component of education for any discipline, but it is vital toengineering. In the past, engineers’ lack of communication amongst themselves, as well as withcolleagues from different fields, has resulted in devastating outcomes, such as the crash of theMars Climate Orbiter (MCO) in 1999. A lack of communication between the engineers workingfor Lockheed Martin Astronautics (LMA) and those in NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratoryresulted in English units, rather than NASA’s standard metric units, being utilized in softwarethat was used to calculate trajectory models. Furthermore, the absence of communicationbetween NASA engineers working for different
., materials science, civil engineering) who, in turn, provideprofessional development for colleagues in their respective departments. The professionaldevelopment is designed to promote student-centered pedagogy among undergraduateengineering courses. The theoretical underpinnings of the advocated pedagogy are stronglyrelated to tenets laid out in How Students Learn 1. In general, the professional developmentencourages instructors to move their classrooms toward being environments where students havevoice, instructors are responsive to varying student backgrounds, and relevancy betweencoursework and real-world applications are made clear. In sum, these are considered student-centered pedagogical strategies.A goal of the IUSE project evaluation is to
, however the implementationand sustained use of the teaching techniques vary significantly based upon the required facultyeffort 1. The two most cited barriers to implementing RBIS’s in core electrical engineeringcourses included 1) concern for requiring too much class time which could potentially underminetheir efforts to cover the course content and 2) the cost of preparation time to implement RBIS 1.As a result, engineering education researchers were urged to provide details of implementationand the underlying educational research principles in addition to evidence of efficacy whenattempting to convince STEM faculty to apply RBIS’s in their classroom 2. Potential adoptersshould seek out the background information to make informed decisions
influencers to the metacognitive action of help-seeking resulting in internal conflict during a recursive HSB decision process. Additionally,results emerge casting HSB as a must-learned skill for engineering students. Gender and ethnicconcerns are discussed.IntroductionHelp-seeking behavior is of particular importance when evaluated against the requirements forABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology). Graduates from ABETaccredited institutions must have: “an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, andengineering; an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems; an ability tofunction on multi-disciplinary teams; …and an ability to engage in life-long learning”1(p41). Inorder to achieve these objectives
toengage with each other to debate and discuss their respective understandings of the designproject and different design concepts, and be able to co-construct a shared meaning that willcreate a coherent product. This is different from the collaboration required of routine work.Students in these types of projects cannot simply subdivide the projects into smaller individual,independent tasks that can be reassembled into a coherent whole as that is not the way in whichdesign happens.1 Design teams need to be able to leverage the individual perspectives andunderstandings of the team members to develop, as a team, a collective understanding of andrelationship between the interdependent components of their work. Thus, the concept of asingularity of
course in Mechanical Engineering). Her main areas of research are the development of agile turbulence-tolerant processes and organizational concepts for knowledge and technology-intensive organizations, the development of knowledge management solutions and e-learning tools (e.g. knowledge maps) for various fields, as well as accompanying research for complex organiza- tional development processes in heterogeneous research networks. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Social Familiarity in Virtual Learning EnvironmentsAn Empirical Approach on Engineering Students’ Interaction in Collaborative Minecraft Scenarios (Research Paper) 1. IntroductionIndustry
definitional frameworkIntroductionThe curriculum is one of the most important artifacts an institution creates 1. It has the powerto both determine and to drive educational outcomes and “there can hardly be a moresignificant concept than ‘curriculum’ with which to understand higher education” 2,p.6. It is,however, one of the least studied. One of the most notable results of a “review of theliterature on curriculum in higher education in the UK, the USA and Australia … is thedearth of writing on the subject” 3.Higher education is in the middle of rapid and disruptive change. To remain relevant, notonly should our curricula be designed to meet the needs of students, industry, employers, andsociety but they should be “flexible and adaptive in a dynamic
, & McGourty, 2005). The Shuman et al.(2005) discussion of professional and ethical responsibility clearly discussed ethicalresponsibilities within the scope of an overall professional responsibility. In earlier work,Besterfield-Sacre et al. (2002) delineated professional traits as professional image; positivework ethics; independent learning, thinking, and motivation; continued desire for learning;and being goal-oriented, organized, and able to manage time (Besterfield-Sacre, Shuman, &Wolfe, 2002). AAES identified professionalism as a foundational, Tier 1 personaleffectiveness competency and professional ethics as a Tier 4 Industry-Wide TechnicalCompetency in their Engineering Competency Model (2015). As with any categorizationprocess
surrounding the assessment tool.IntroductionIncreasing the number of Americans who graduate with a degree in science, technology,engineering and mathematics (STEM) is of compelling national interest as the world is becomingmore technologically-dependent.1 As society changes there is a continual need for new devices,tools, and services. Therefore, what is represented as “technology” constantly changes. Theunderlying meaning of technology is fairly stable, but the term is employed differently acrosscontext and application. In society, a variety of technologies are used to provide people withthings like food, healthcare, shelter, transportation, and entertainment. In educational settings,computers and other information technologies help individuals