all students in a class arecalled upon to do other than simply watching, listening, and taking notes.” 1 Research hasdemonstrated that active learning improves student retention. 2,3 Therefore, educating more SCSEfaculty in active learning techniques and providing them a support structure should help with acampus goal of retaining and supporting a diverse student population. Additionally, improvingstudent outcomes through increased faculty commitment to active learning would help ensurethat students are able to make timely, continuous and satisfactory progress toward degreecompletion.Active learning mitigates several structural barriers to inclusion of underrepresented minoritygroups such as women in science and engineering. 3 Moreover, two
the overall fuzziness of that goal hardly contributes to a common set ofactionable processes. However, as a diverse field of researchers, we can hope that a diversity ofsmall steps will eventually coalesce around that ideal. One particular subgoal, as set out in 1, isincreasing an instructor’s capability for accurate formative assessment, or the process of makingstudent learning readily visible using a variety of in-situ tools. Formative assessment differs fromtraditional assessment (ie, traditionally scored tests or homework) in that it aims to illuminatesome of the underlying knowledge structures held by the student, not just their ability to meet anormative proficiency of skills. In that way, formative assessment is a manner of
) fields to meet the demands of an expandingSTEM workforce.1 A large part of this struggle is that a large percentage of the population,including women, African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans, are underrepresented inSTEM fields.2,3 Over the past few decades, there has been a steady increase in the representationof women and minorities in STEM fields post-college, but the demographics of these fields hasremained largely unchanged and unbalanced.4,5 This is due in large part to limited supply offemale and minority graduates from STEM fields of study, which arises from the differences inpreparation and educational experiences of these students.6 Many interested in reducing thisdisparity have recommended focusing on increased teaching
charts (Plots A and C in both figures)reflect Anatomy course scores and the bottom bar charts (Plots B and D in both figures) reflectStatics course scores. Data is initially presented with regards to the MCT instruments applicationin a pre- and post-testing format for both classes and then data is presented for the PSVT:R in thesame fashion. Kurtosis and skewness will be discussed as relevant descriptive statistical data foreach bar chart and comparisons can then easily be made between the Anatomy and Statics preand post-performance on both instruments. A typical bell curve centered on the mean has beenprovided to aid visual confirmation of data normality.MCT ResultsBased on the pre-MCT results, the Anatomy course (Fig. 1, Plot A) had kurtosis
science teachers’ integration of the engineering design process to improve science learning. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Systematic Review of the Funds of Knowledge Framework in STEM EducationIntroductionFor over two decades, there have been significant and consistent calls to increase the quantity anddiversity of engineering graduates to not only support the workforce demand but also to improveengineering solutions to better reflect the demographics of the U.S. population.1–4 However, thecall to increase the diversity of engineering often has been centered on simply increasing thepercentages of underrepresented groups in engineering. Once these
these considerations.IntroductionPhenomenography is a qualitative methodological approach that seeks to identify the variety ofways people experience a given phenomenon 1-3. Due to its widespread applicability to bothclassroom practice and educational research, this approach has steadily gained popularity sinceits official introduction in 1981 3,4. Today, phenomenography is recognized as one of the topemergent methodologies in engineering education 5. As the use of phenomenography has grown,so too has the variation in phenomenographic methods 6,7. While literature commonly drawsattention to the distinctions between work by Ference Marton in Sweden (e.g. purephenomenography and later “new” phenomenography 1,3,4,8) and John Bowden in Australia
requires practical andrelevant training. Historically, there has been concern that graduate students, especially in thescience, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields, were not receiving adequate trainingto prepare them to teach as graduate students and as future faculty.1, 2, 3, 4 However, more recentresearch has shown that when engineering graduate students receive instructional training, theyare more likely to use teaching methods to engage undergraduate students.5, 6 For instance,Lattuca, Bergom & Knight (2014) found a modest correlation between engineering faculty whoreceived training on student-centered teaching methods as graduate students and the likelihoodthat they will use these pedagogies as faculty as opposed to more
social responsibility7. Engagement in service learning also correlated with positivegains in social responsibility attitudes of engineering students. Similar findings have been seenoutside of engineering as well, where engagement in service increased student’s awareness of theworld and of personal values8, such as social responsibility. Service learning is only onepedagogical approach, however, that may be influencing student’s views of social responsibility.This paper explores what other in-class experiences students highlight as being influential tothose views.Research QuestionsThis research was guided by the following research questions: 1. What types of courses do engineering students reference as being influential to their views of
undergraduate research experience”1 the program wasinitially created in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, andexpanded in 2015 to the rest of the School of Engineering. The pairing of this researchopportunity with communication instruction is intended to provide a professionalizingexperience, giving students an understanding of the world of academic and industry research.This year-long communication intensive course enrolls approximately 170 students fromdepartments across the School of Engineering, including Aeronautics and Astronautics,Biological Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Civil and Environmental Engineering, ElectricalEngineering and Computer Science, Materials Science and Engineering, MechanicalEngineering, and
, problem solving, and studentengagement during class using a structured behavioral observation protocol known as theTeaching Dimensions Observation Protocol (TDOP). Several of the traditionally-taught classsessions were also observed for comparison, with positive results noted. Also, a comparison ofstudents’ conceptual and exam performance in the two flipped sections versus the “traditional”section enabled direct assessment of the benefits of the new approach, with significantdifferences not being detected. Further assessment of the flipped “pilot” classroom includedstudent engagement, instructors’ reflections, and two perception instruments measuring students’overall experience in the class.1. Introduction and Literature ReviewNumerous
instructors at four Canadianinstitutions.Although there is research on engineering ethics education3,4,5,6, there is a gap in examining howengineering instructors view the inclusion of ethics and the other hallmarks of STSE in their ownteaching. This research was designed to help fill this gap in the field, focusing on three keyresearch questions: (1) How do undergraduate engineering instructors describe their teachinggoals and practices?; (2) How do undergraduate engineering instructors describe their teachinggoals and practices with respect to exploring the relationship between engineering, society andthe environment (i.e. STSE)?; and (3) What are the specific challenges or enabling factors inexploring the relationship between engineering, society
emerged through the collaborative inquiry process. We concludewith a question about the implications of this exploration for individual researchers, thecommunity, and policy makers that warrant further conversation.IntroductionThe Boyer report,1 Scholarship Reconsidered, articulated a new paradigm for scholarly activitiesthat goes to the core of academic life: “the meaning of scholarship itself” (p. 1). Boyer expandedthe concept of scholarship, traditionally viewed as the scholarship of discovery, to include threeequally important areas: the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application, and thescholarship of teaching. This view of scholarship has influenced policy conversations within andoutside of academia – shaping reforms in the
education.1. IntroductionPedagogical research has long been concerned with the issue of how feedback can best promotestudent learning. In a review, Shute1 defines formative feedback as “information communicatedto the learner that is intended to modify his or her thinking or behaviour for the purpose ofimproving learning”(p.154). In the context of engineering design education and capstone designcourses in particular, formative feedback is regularly provided to students in design reviewmeetings. These are held at various points in the project progression, often coinciding with thecompletion of major design milestones, and are attended by students, the course instructor, theproject client, and other stakeholders.Traditionally design reviews have been
easier to compare and contrast. The first narrative is a constructed Page 26.1184.4narrative and is in first person, using direct student quotes whenever possible, and includedconnecting words and phrases as needed to make the story coherent. The next constructednarrative was also in the first person and was based on the same interview without using directstudent quotes, where attention was paid to crafting a story that involved the protagonist having agoal and responding to events. The final narrative was a thematic analysis of a narrative and wastold from the researcher’s perspective with direct quotes (see Table 1 for a summary of
. Page 26.1410.3Introduction and Literature ReviewStudent absences may be attributed to illness, family emergencies, transportation problems,boredom, social life, other course work, or general lack of interest in either the subject matter orthe professor.1 Lack of class attendance can have a number of consequences for both facultymembers and students. Faculty members may need to repeat information or explanationsnumerous times and in a variety of delivery formats.2 Sleigh, Park and Clump, among severalother researchers, provide evidence that supports the positive correlation between classattendance and academic performance within college classes across disciplines and on nationallicensure examinations.2 – 5 Blerkom et al. reviewed attendance
innovative solutions to the world’s most difficult problems.Indeed, as reports by both the National Academy of Engineering and ABET have concluded, thechallenges that must be addressed by the next generation of engineers are becoming increasinglycomplex as society continues to grow more interconnected [1-2]. To be effective engineeringleaders in a global workforce, engineers need strong communication skills that will allow themto interact with a wide-ranging audience, including entrepreneurs, policy makers, communityleaders, and the general public—most of whom do not necessarily have a background inengineering, science, and technology.This study explores four specific communication capabilities—writing, creating and deliveringoral presentations
responses), with results as shown in Figure 1. The survey results show that theimplementation through SIIP of context-rich collaborative problem solving is a high-fidelityimplementation, with high student satisfaction. In particular, the length and difficulty of theactivity was perceived as about right by students, and they felt that the grading scheme was veryfair (65% fair versus 9% unfair). In terms of content, students considered the material to be veryrelevant to the course (71% relevant versus 8% not relevant) and interesting (70% interestingversus 7% not interesting). The collaborative format of the activity was thought to be verywell-supported by the TAs (91% helpful versus 4% not helpful) and students much preferred todo the worksheets in
Page 26.1621.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Understanding Curricular Approaches to Communication as a Global Competency: A Study of the Teaching and Learning of Communication Skills at Three UniversitiesIntroductionAs society grows more global and interconnected, the challenges that must be addressed by thenext generation of engineers are becoming more complex [1-2]. Engineers need deep technicalexpertise, of course, but they also need what have typically been called 21st-century skills, forexample, critical thinking, problem solving, teamwork, and communication. Technicalknowledge and “soft” skills are
proactively support students versus optional support designed todevelop a student’s self-awareness. Our findings suggest that career service professionals usetheir beliefs about students as a basis for decisions on how to support students. Implications ofour study include considerations for how we inform students regarding knowledge and skillsassociated with successfully obtaining a first job post-undergraduate degree and how thoseknowledge and skills may be different from ones necessary to obtain an engineering degree.IntroductionA diverse and highly skilled engineering workforce is needed to address today’s grandchallenges involving sustainability, medicine, information technology, and learning.1 Yet manysmart, capable engineering graduates leave
fully investigated. A greater number of talentedengineers is needed, and understanding how to increase diversity in engineering through out-of-school experiences affect choices of engineering careers will contribute to improving the typesand numbers of engineers entering the workforce to meet the challenges of the 21st century.In this paper, we used the lens of possible selves to address the following research questions: 1)How do students’ out-of-school high school experiences affect students' engineering identitynow and in the future?; 2) Are these experiences different by gender?; and 3) How doesengineering identity now and in the future predict students’ choice of engineering in college?MethodsThe data for this study come from the Outreach
), learningopportunities designed and delivered by the Center, and the faculty, staff, administration andstudents are the muscles that work to facilitate the changes.Stepping away from the metaphor, the framework that informs our work focuses on four settingsand three lenses from which to consider each setting. The four settings are: 1. Faculty, 2. Class/Students, 3. Administrators, and 4. the University.While the first three may be obvious, the forth is included not as an umbrella for the first three.The University is identified as a setting so that we explicitly consider the University as a whole,considering the institutional needs and strategic shifts. Considering the needs and shifts of theinstitution alongside those of faculty, students, and
provided a sense of community and place to receive advice to address these and other challenges. We found that the proposed collaborative qualitative research methodology was useful for not only exploring the experiences of new faculty, but also supporting the development of EERs. Introduction As the demands and expectations for faculty increase, many institutional leaders and future faculty question whether the typical graduate school model provides the necessary training for an academic career [1]–[4]. Prior studies suggest that graduate education provides students with anticipatory socialization of the role of a
the activity and how it is viewed (4, 6). It is known that external influences such ascompetition, deadlines and restrictions can impact a person’s situational motivation for a specificactivity (12); all are factors to consider in educational environments.Hidi and Renninger proposed a four-phase model of interest development that suggested adynamic relationship between curiosity and interest (13). If curiosity is satisfied, then interest andengagement can occur. Furthermore, curiosity has been associated with a need for competencein Deci’s theory of intrinsic motivation (5). As Arnone, Small, Chauncey, and McKenna noted,“When curiosity is ignited, the interest component can then enter into the dynamic” (p. 188) (1).Alternatively, interest can
. Page 26.980.2 One vantage point in which adoption can be viewed from is that of the instructor.Specifically, CBAM’s Stages of Concern (SoC) can be utilized as it focuses on how instructors’beliefs and attitudes change as they progress through the implementation process6. Concerns arethe elements that construct the different SoC’s as summarized in Table 1. Self Concerns Stage 0 Participant is not concerned or involved with the innovation Awareness Stage 1 Participant is generally aware of the innovation but has not Informational considered the demands or requirements of its use. Stage 2 Participant is unsure about their ability to meet the demands of the Personal
proposition that one way to help educators be more reflective is to give them anopportunity to discuss (or be interviewed about) an activity they do with students. To addressthis proposition, we use a “multiple perspectives methodology” featuring essays from seveneducators about their experiences of being interviewed about a reflection activity they have donewith students. The educators’ essays suggest that the interviews were experienced as(1) a reflection opportunity, (2) a chance to reflect on the activity that was the focus of theinterview, (3) a chance to reflect on reflection as an educational activity, and (4) a chance tobridge reflection and other points of personal interest. The results presented in this paper providea basis for suggesting
analysis.MotivationWe need more engineers and community colleges provide a pathway for additional engineeringstudents [1, 2]. Currently, there are seven million students in community colleges nationally andover two million students in public California community colleges [3, 4]. Understanding andimproving pathways to engineering via the community college route has the potential tocontribute currently untapped engineering talent to help fill the projected engineer deficit.Metrics should be established in order to assess the current rate of success and identify areas ofimprovement in community college transfer programs.Background on transfer program goalsSuccess of engineering transfer programs can be defined by how well it meets its objectives. Theauthors
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2014.2. Prince, M.J., et al., Use of research-based instructional strategies in core chemical engineering courses. Chemical Engineering Education, 2013. 47(1): p. 27-37.3. Froyd, J.E., et al., Estimates of use of research-based instructional strategies in core electrical or computer engineering courses. IEEE Transactions on Education, 2013. 56(4): p. 393-399.4. Borrego, M., J.E. Froyd, and T.S. Hall, Diffusion of engineering education innovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in U.S. engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education, 2010. 99(3): p. 185-207.5. Association of American Universities. AAU Undergraduate STEM Education
Engineering Education, 2016 The Converged Classroom: A follow-up studyIntroductionLearning new ways to utilize technology is a common challenge 1. Distance learning has beenwith us for over 100 years. With changes in technology, distance learning has steadily changedto more closely resemble traditional face to face instruction. First, paper based correspondencecourses were supplemented by lectures recorded on video tape. Later, computer based trainingprovided the first elements of interaction. With the spread of the internet, materials moved fromthe computer to web pages. There were discussion boards where students could interact withinstructors and other students. Finally, there came the advent of real time class meetings
conceptualunderstanding.IntroductionEvaluating a student's understanding of the concepts presented in an undergraduate engineeringcurriculum is a significant challenge but “understanding conceptual knowledge is critical to thedevelopment of competence in engineering students and in practicing professionals”1.Researchers of conceptual change argue that the manner in which conceptual knowledge iscategorized is indicative of a problem solver’s ability and, additionally, that the verycategorization of that knowledge effects the solver’s ability to effectively represent a problem 2.An instructor's role includes facilitating student knowledge acquisition and also aiding thatstudent in effectively organizing it. A student may not have the ability to effectively relate newmaterial to prior
protocol documents the first day ofclass and any mention of active learning practices to be used throughout the term. Afterwards,the daily classroom observation protocol is completed for each instance of active learning thatoccurs during each of the class periods. This protocol documents several aspects of activelearning: 1) basic course details, including start and stop times for the activity, 2) informationabout each active learning instance, including the level of difficulty and novelty of the materialbeing discussed, 3) the type of active learning, 4) the degree of faculty participation in theactivity, 5) how the instructor introduces the instance of active learning, and 6) student responseduring the activity.In order to ensure the reliability