economic difficulties have led state governments to pressfor a lowered rate of increase in funding for state-supported universities. Private donors whohave often generously supported colleges and universities are also feeling financial strain as theycontemplate their plans for charitable donations9. On the other side, Dunbar et al.10 and Logue11found students are under increasing pressure to complete their degrees, find gainful employmentin a very tough economic climate, and begin repaying student loans that are approaching acrushing level of burden. Both sides have a vested interest in increasing the efficiency andeffectiveness of undergraduate engineering education.Bell12 discussed the similarities that universities have to a manufacturing
dataanalysis and results, the discussion of the results and conclusions and future work.Related workIn the field of Education, ICTs have enjoyed a sustained increase in their implementation andusage in areas as diverse as evaluation, planning, teaching, and educational management. Furtheranalysis into these facts, made by Llorente and Marín [7], have led them to state that the rate ofstudent learnings, regardless of their educational level, is mediated by the use Information andCommunication Technologies, which in recent times have undergone a continuous process ofevolution and growth.Present reality is that most students, particularly those subject to this study, are digital natives.According to Delgado [8], a digital native can be understood as
use in multiple contexts (c.f., Rodell, 2013; Colquitt etal., 2019). The original instrument uses four subscales, procedural, distributive, interpersonal, andinformational justice. However, Colquitt and Roddell (2015) suggest a two-factor solution that collapsesinterpersonal and informational into distributed and procedural is also acceptable. In our survey,students responded to the derivative instrument for three different contexts: (1) Courses they had takenin previous semesters, (2) Their capstone course, and (3) Their TechCom course. We plan a moreextensive reporting of the instruments’ development and validity in future work that is not possible in aWIP.In addition to the grading justice and fairness instrument, we asked two additional
Indian scenario) by paying for their services. Therefore, by doing just one ‘major project’ work, the students do not get enough experience in the institute to handle the real projects when they reach the industry. b) In such a scenario, often the main objectives of the project work of developing skills such as, planning, leading teams, communication, working in teams, decision making, and such others do not get developed by just one ‘major project’ offering in the last program. This is much to the disadvantage of the student, as most of the times the ‘major project’ is a group activity. Therefore, the requisite project handling skill- sets hardly gets developed as it is offered only once in
field and prior engineering identity studies. In particular, we seek tounderstand which factors may influence Hispanic students’ engineering identity development.We begin by answering the following research questions: 1. How do the engineering identity, extracurricular experiences, post-graduation career plans, and familial influence of Hispanic students attending a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) differ from those of Hispanic students attending a Predominantly White Institution (PWI)? 2. How do the same measures differ for Hispanic students attending a PWI from those of non-Hispanic white students at that PWI? 3. How do the same measures differ for Hispanic students attending an HSI from those of non-Hispanic
, significantly and positively predicted likelihood of being retained in an engineeringmajor. Studying with other students and participating in an internship program also positivelypredicted retention in engineering. Women and students who in their first year felt more likely tochange major were less likely to be retained, while students with a parent employed as anengineer and who at college entry were planning engineering as a career were more likely to beretained. The results not only indicate engineering identity can be important for retention inengineering, but several characteristics and experiences that relate to engineering identity arealso associated with retention in engineering.IntroductionNational reports have indicated colleges and
. Despite this broad confusion, authors frequently do not provide clarification of themeaning of the words they are using, leading to the situation where the literature of curriculardesign is not only confusing, it is positively ambiguous 18.Just how academics perceive the term curriculum and what is meant when they use it dependslargely upon the context. A synthesis of the literature suggests curriculum can be described ascomprising some or all of the following six aspects: a concept – how one thinks about a curriculum in the abstract or meta level – identifiable when one talks about a curriculum rather than the curriculum 12,17; an artifact – a document or set of documents – in other words, the written, published, planned
extent to which the three strategies are (1) currently being implemented, and (2)are planned to be implemented. The supposition was that those scoring higher on VECTERS’value and expectancy items would be more likely to currently be integrating a classroom strategyand would be more likely to plan on using the strategy in the future (either initiating orcontinuing to use). Regarding costs, a cost-increases-with-usage hypothesis was supposed bysome on the research team even though expectancy theory supported the cost-decreases-with-usage hypothesis.Construct validity was further examined by applying orthogonal (varimax) rotation factoranalysis. Analysis was applied to VECTERS’ three sub-tests (formative feedback, real-worldapplications, and
Page 12.1340.3for planning, scheduling, monitoring, and constructively intervening across a set ofnumerous interacting activities to realize a stated goal at a predetermined time. A fourthsubject is less well defined than the previous three, yet it is probably the most frequentlymentioned. The fourth subject stresses the value of perceiving a system as a set ofinterconnected components whose pattern of interconnections may reveal importantcharacteristics to people who must make decisions about interventions intended toimprove the performance of the system. Several decades ago, the subject wasoptimistically, and perhaps arrogantly, labeled general systems theory22,23. The name hasdropped from favor, but the essence of the subject is cited by
learning among diverse students: 1, 11 2) the stallingof innovation in STEM education:15 and 3) the wide-spread reliance on lecture and thereceive/memorize cognitive demand as the primary instructional strategy.12 Thusalternative faculty development models are needed.From a NSF Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) perspective, facultydevelopment has been a key component in the Transforming Undergraduate Education inSTEM (TUES) and Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) Programssince the Solicitation has a component calling for projects devoted to developing facultyexpertise. Further, with many of the proposals focused on the curriculum development,faculty workshops play a major role in the dissemination plan. For a number of
to single individuals,”6. Furthermore, the team itself performs cognitive tasks inthat “they detect and recognize pertinent cues, make decisions, solve problems, rememberrelevant information, plan, acquire knowledge, and design solutions or products as an integratedunit.”7. This is not to say, however, that team cognition is a natural outcome of working on ateam. In fact, it requires a lot of effort and is a distinguishing feature of high-performance teams8 . Team members come with differing perspectives, backgrounds, and expectations and from thisdiversity a shared mental model must emerge9.An individual’s mental model is an “internal conceptual representation of an external systemwhose structure maintains the perceived structure of that
one-pointvariation. Exact agreement ranged from a high of 60% to a low of 20%. Overall, the resultsindicated sufficient agreement for use with formative assessment (for enhancing teaching andlearning). For summative use, five of the assessments should prove adequate in documentingstudent growth, including the Team Contract, Team Member Citizenship, Growth Planning,Growth Progress, and Professional Development assessments. The remaining two, TeamProcesses and Growth Achieved, may need to be revised to improve agreement. Suggestions forimprovement include revisions to rubric descriptors for each level of performance, improvedFrame-of-Reference rater training to decrease rater errors and increase accuracy, and, lastly,incorporation of Behavior
area that needed to be changed in the next workshop. The workshop organizersthen ranked the changes that needed to be made according to their priority for change and thendesignated people were responsible for making changes for the next workshop. This processprovided a continual improvement plan for the workshops and a second source of data for ourholistic assessment of changes in the faculty that attended the workshop.Focus groups At the closing banquet each university was asked to give their perspective on threequestions. The first question asked what was the most important thing they had gained from theworkshop; the second question asked them to indicate in what class they were planning onimplementing the program; and the third
Recognition: Student will be able to: Recall or locate data in the text for quizzes Create ideas for the idea pitch and new venture analysis Acquire customer/market data Analyze customer/market data Prepare a customer/market analysis Acquire competition data Analyze competitor data Prepare a competitor analysis Acquire data for a product design and/or production plan/team plan/organization plan Prepare a product design and/or production plan/team plan/organization plan Construct a scenario based financial analysis Integrate the four feasibility analysis components into a final report2. Presentation Skills: Student will be able to: Develop a two minute
__ Making decisions __ Making trade-offs __ Modeling __ Planning __ Prototyping __ Seeking information __ Sketching __ Synthesizing __ Testing __ Understanding the problem __ Using creativity __ Visualizing Figure 1. Text of the design activities task.The first-year administration of the APS survey yielded 147 responses to the design-activitiesquestion that were suitable for analysis
fleeting.The following vignette is an example of a typical type of interaction that is not planned andemerges momentarily to address a specific purpose before passing quickly. This vignette alsoshows how these types of interactions seem occasioned by the fact that new engineers frequentlywork in isolation and more senior engineers only sometimes check in on the progress of theirwork or in order to correct them.This case involves a chemical engineer, Curtis, who works in the position of developmentalengineer for Large Southern Steel Mill. The title of “developmental engineer” was part of aprogram initiated by the company to bring in and train new engineering talent, in order toinculcate them into the ways of the company (thus not requiring the “re
provides a set of common outcomes for allcenters to design their evaluation plans and regularly evaluates whether centers are leveragingthe efforts of other ERCs. However, ERCs currently undertake evaluation in relative isolationfrom other ERCs despite NSF’s encouragement of instrument sharing [3]. The nature of thisoften-solitary assessment results in each center developing and using similar but also divergentevaluation tools. A consequence of these multiple ERC assessments has created redundancy inthe investment of effort and resources at each center. Divergence in data collection from theseredundant efforts has made cross-center comparisons difficult, if not impossible.A consortium of three ERCs (Center for Bio-mediated and Bio-inspired
analysis.Shahrin Mohammad, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Shahrin bin Mohammad is a Professor in Civil Engineering and currently the Dean of the Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) with more than 26 years of experience in teaching, supervising and research. He has been the IT Manager, Head of Dept, Deputy Dean at the faculty and Di- rector of Academic Quality, UTM. He has been deeply involved in planning and managing academic pro- grammes and has conducted more than 65 lectures/workshops related to outcome based education (OBE) and Quality Assurance. He has also been one of the referred person on OBE, ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management System, Engineering Accreditation and on Academic Quality
M.S. in Counseling with an emphasis in Student Development in Higher Education from California State University, Long Beach. For the past nine years at both two and four- year institutions, he has served students interested in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). As the Assistant Director of Advising for the Engineering Student Success Center at San Jos´e State University, he supports students with personal, academic and professional growth.Ms. Eva Schiorring Eva Schiorring is Senior Researcher for the Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges. Since joining the RP Group in 2000, she has served as project director for ten major projects, including a statewide, multi-year
, then move on to discuss transitioning from bell-curve gradingto specifications grading in a statistics class, and finally creating a first-year engineering coursefrom scratch using specifications grading. In all three cases, the move to specifications gradingtook a few twists and turns, but overall, we plan to continue to use specifications grading.Through the diversity of course types, we hope to show how specifications grading can be usedflexibly in different types and levels of engineering courses. As we explain, in each case studythere are particular goals, benefits, and challenges of specifications grading in different types ofcourses that can help faculty guide implementation.Case StudiesCase Study 1: Senior Capstone DesignAt a small
PBSL Activities The four PBSL activities are as follows: 1) “I am an instructor in a STEM class”: At the moment of the writing, we are still discussingwith a local high school for details. We plan to conduct this activity in fall 2017. 2) “Design customized food barrels for a food pantry”: This project challenges sophomoresto work on a project that is not strictly designed (assumptions, contexts, etc.) but has a concreteend goal. Through communication with employees at the local food pantry, 16 students in 8teams interacted with them at each step of their projects such as design, development, and testphases to maintain constant goal alignment. This activity is being implemented into theTechnical Communications course this semester
, marking ¼ mile distances along routes, and developing maps which can be distributed within the neighborhoods.C. Hazelwood Initiative The Hazelwood Initiative (HI) is an organization who’s mission is dedicated to the betterment of the Hazelwood neighborhood. HI was the driving force that lead to the development of the "Master Development Planning in Hazelwood and Junction Hollow" document which set forth a plan to work towards their goal. It's office is located at 5125 Second Avenue in Hazelwood. Project: Design of an accessible entrance to the Hazelwood Post Office. The team will document the existing entrance and its accessibility obstacles with photographs, measurements and interviews and provide a
subfactors identified through factor analysis14; each subfactor isin turn comprised of individual items. The constructs include:- Motivation, consisting of 25 items in four subfactors: Control, Challenge, Curiosity and Career.- Metacognition: consisting of 20 items in four subfactors: Planning, Self-monitoring/Self- Checking, Cognitive Strategy and Awareness.- Deep Learning, consisting of 10 items in two subfactors, Motive and Strategy.- Surface Learning, consisting of 10 items in two subfactors, Memorization and Studying.- Academic Self-Efficacy, consisting of ten individual items that do not form specific subfactors.- Leadership, consisting of 20 items with four subfactors, Motivation, Planning, Self- Assessment and
, personalconceptualizations and prior learning experiences related to the problem [11]–[13]. Taskinterpretation is broadly defined as students’ judgment about the required cognitive processes toanswer a problem [14]. Studies reported that people who can self-regulate appropriately (i.e.,engage in coherent planning, enacting, and monitoring activities) based on a correct andcomplete interpretation tend to be more successful in academia [15], [16], problem-solving [17]–[19], and engineering design [4], [20], [21].Task Interpretation in Self-Regulated Learning Task interpretation refers to one’s understanding of a problem, including knowledge ofthe required cognitive process to solve it [14]. Students’ interpretation of tasks is considered asan important work
Process Engineering Given a part design, select appropriate Plan and analyze part design forM1 machining processes and tools to make the P1 productivity part Determine the important operating Analyze and improve manufacturingM2 P2 parameters for each of these machines processes Describe selected manufacturing processes, Analyze tolerance charting in partM3 P3 including their capabilities and limitations design Identify and operate conventional lathe
courses) can requirestudents to spend considerable time outside of classroom that could be spent on other (possiblymore productive) activities13.In our future work in this area, we plan to explore the differences between in-class and onlinelearning more directly by comparing student cohorts in traditional, in-class lectures to those withsupplemental online resources as described in this paper. As well, we plan to investigate theeffect that outside of class viewing has on student study time by surveying students who areparticipating in these courses.1. P. McAndrew, E. Scanlon, “Open learning at a distance: lessons for struggling MOOCs,” Science. Vol. 342, pp. 1450–1451, 2013.2. P.S. Peercy and S.M. Cramer, “Redefining quality in
manufactured material. The overarching question forthe student to answer for the mock court and mock jury was why the material degraded andeventually failed. The degraded material provided the sample for analysis and characterization.Individual student problem solving required tier one prerequisite fundamental knowledge inSTEM disciplines in order to identify a strategic plan for root cause analysis of a failed material.Tier two application of this knowledge enabled systematic characterization of the failedsubstance to be conducted. Lastly, advanced knowledge and analytical skills completed the threetier scaffolding necessary to guide the student working on the PBL project. The student’s finalwritten report and expert testimony presented to the mock
Engineering Students and Critical Thinking: A Preliminary AnalysisAbstractIn 2007, the University of Louisville began implementation of their multi-year QualityEnhancement Plan (QEP) Ideas to Action (i2a): Using Critical Thinking to Foster StudentLearning and Community Engagement, whichfocuses on improving the critical thinking skills ofundergraduate students and more effectively preparing them to contribute to society and theworkforce. The Paul-Elder critical thinking framework was selected to serve as the structure fori2a initiatives. In addition to the QEP, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology(ABET) revised the accreditation criteria in 2000 to require program assessment according toeleven outcomes that
enrollment [19]. Therefore, the need for and potential of the S-STEMProgram at Kennesaw State University are enormous.Program expectations for students include progression items (target GPA, course enrollment andstatus), connective activities (faculty mentors, advisors, industry partners, outreach), and optionalactivities (living learning community, career services events, undergraduate research, studentorganizations, tutoring). Achievement of these expectations is driven through the mentor/menteerelationship where both provide and accept feedback, and advice and resources are activelysolicited and provided to encourage students’ responsibility for their learning. The first year ofthe project primarily focused on planning, marketing, and recruitment
University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), and the BSc degree in Computer Engineering from Qazvin Azad University. He has over 11 years of experience in manufacturing industry. He has worked as a Process Quality Manager, Planning & Quality Systems Manager, Production Planning & Control Manager, and Material Control Supervisor at MAPNA and NeyrePerse industrial groups. His research interests include Intelligent Mechatronic Sys- tems, Medical Robotics, Companion Robots, Brain-Controlled Robots, Computer Vision, 3D Scene Re- construction, and Machine Vision. His current research is focused on designing and implementation of the gesture and mind-controlled robotic systems. His research has been published in peer