) .58 Skipped non-engineering related class[5] .41 Turned in non-engineering related assignments late[5] .41 Came late to non-engineering related class[5] .38 Turned in non-engineering related assignments that did not reflect .29 your best work[5]11b. Academic Disengagement (Engineering Related) .70 Skipped engineering related class[5] .54 Turned in engineering related assignments late[5] .51 Turned in engineering related assignments that did not reflect your .48 best work[5] Came late to engineering related class[5
, and advocate for a holistic consciousnessof the factors that many underrepresented students face in engineering.Critical TheoriesAccording to Horkheimer21, there is a distinction between traditional and critical theory.Traditional theory seeks to only understand or describe society, while critical theory seeks tocritique and change society as a whole. Critical theory recognizes the complexity of socialprocesses and its main task is “to reflect upon the structures from which social realities and thetheories that seek to explain it are constructed” (p. 139).22 Although critical theory originated inthe Frankfurt School with a focus on a criticism of modern social structures,22 critical theoryprevails in other fields such as sociology and
. 6) The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning is an area of scholarly work that is receivingincreased attention in higher education and many engineering education faculty are embracingmore scholarly approaches to teaching and learning. Streveler, et al.2 outlined a wide range ofinquiry in engineering education, and was informed by scholars in and outside the field ofengineering education (e.g., Hutchings and Sulman, 1999; Lohmann, (n.d.); and Streveler,Borrego, Smith, 2007 as cited by Streveler, et al.2). Table 1 summarizes the variety of ways inwhich engineering faculty can engage in engineering education research and practice in fourlevels of inquiry. Level 0 Teach: Teach as taught and without reflection Level 1 Effective
activity has been conducted once a semester in the Iron Range Engineeringprogram since the Fall 2017 academic year and twice a semester in the York College ofPennsylvania program since the Fall 2018 academic year.Feedback was collected via student surveys, student and faculty reflections. Preliminary analysisof student feedback and faculty reflections indicates increased learner engagement, enhancedreview of technical content and a different type of learning experience. Faculty reflections alsonoted that the activity helps students to self-identify those concepts they had successfullymastered and those needing more review. This activity has brought value to the overall learningprocess and will continue to be used to improve teaching and student
christel.heylen@mirw.kuleuven.be 2 Jos Vander Sloten, Faculty of Engineering, Division of Biomechanics and Engineering Design, K.U.Leuven, Belgium Technical communication and technical writing are important skills for the daily work- life of every engineer. In the first year engineering program at KU Leuven, a technical writing program is implemented within the project based course ‘Problem Solving and Engineering Design’. The program consists of subsequent cycles of instructions, learning by doing and reflection on received feedback. In addition a peer review assignment, together with an interactive lecture using clicking devices, are incorporated within the assignments of the
made sketches. Each set of blocks on the graphic organizer represented onecomplete panel for the novel. Most students ended up with between 20-30 panels in theirfinal novel. A post activity writing reflection was used to assess the student’s opinion of thegraphic novel activity, attitudes towards science/engineering and what they thought theylearned from the activity. The rubric used to analyze the writing reflection (Appendix 4)and the students’ self-assessment is compared to the assessment of the final product.Results: Initially all four grades were assigned the project but the 5th grade class was notable to complete the assignment in time for inclusion in the results. However compliancewas 83% for the rest of the population. Table 1
Procedure Experimental Group Control Group Pre-Test Heat transfer concept questions Sequential and Emergent The Nature of Science (with Processes (with reflection reflection prompts); prompts); Diffusion example with no Training Module Diffusion as an example of mention of emergent processes an emergent process (with (with reflection prompts) reflection prompts) Diffusion concept questionsTest for
and equipping faculty with the knowledge and skills necessary to create such opportunities. One of the founding faculty at Olin College, Dr. Zastavker has been engaged in development and implementation of project-based experiences in fields ranging from sci- ence to engineering and design to social sciences (e.g., Critical Reflective Writing; Teaching and Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering, etc.) All of these activities share a common goal of creating curricular and pedagogical structures as well as academic cultures that facilitate students’ interests, moti- vation, and desire to persist in engineering. Through this work, outreach, and involvement in the commu- nity, Dr. Zastavker continues to focus
/she indicated his/her “teaching methods, which do receive very goodratings by the students, were being challenged for no apparent reason”. This response provides Page 22.693.9good information on areas of improvement for future studies.What Students Learned from Doing the Faculty InterviewsAs part of their reporting, students were asked to reflect on what they learned from the interviewexercise. They uniformly reported they enjoyed the exercise and had a good discussion with thefaculty member. In many cases the discussion went well beyond the particular focus of thepublication and, per the classroom discussion, the original time requested
Learning and Challenges Faced during a Summer Undergraduate Research ExperienceAbstractUndergraduate research experiences offer many benefits to our students and serve as a primarymechanism to recruit students to graduate school and expose them to the practice of research,which also enables students to learn problem solving in the context of discovery and innovation.This paper employs a mixed-methods approach and a Community of Practice (CoP) theoreticalframework to investigate how participation in summer undergraduate research promotes situatedlearning. The mixed-methods approach, incorporating pre- and post- survey instruments as wellas weekly self-reflective journal entries were utilized to study undergraduate researchers
paradigm is not easy (Finelli, Daly, &Richardson, 2014). In order to train teachers for this new scenario, many institutions offeropportunities for teacher development through specialized courses. However, there is verylittle evidence of the effectiveness of these courses.In this scenario, active learning methodologies appear as a way to improve conceptualunderstanding and thinking skills of science and technology students for flexible use in thecurrent context. Although there is a clear evidence of the benefits of active learning,professors still use traditional teaching methods.Helping teachers moving towards a new conception of teaching and learning needs a way ofprofessional development that creates opportunities to reflect and rethink
explanations [9]. However, thefield of engineering has not yet established a clear idea of what “disciplinary engagement”means.Engineering at its core is about creating solutions to problems using mathematics, science, andcreativity through a design process. The engineering curriculum reflects this by containingdifferent types of courses that teach the mathematical models of natural phenomena (i.e.engineering science courses, or technical core courses), laboratory and experimental techniquesand processes (i.e. lab courses), and fundamentals of engineering design (i.e. design courses).These courses all ask students to engage disciplinarily in different ways, all in support of theoverall practice of engineering to create new solutions. Prior research
. Second, they work regularly with the course instructor as a member ofthe instructional team to better understand the content that they will deliver in class. Third, theyfacilitate active learning in classes of near peers, and reflect on their learning and practice inwriting. LAs have become widely used in science courses at many universities and there isresearch evidence that the programs effectively enhance the success of the students in LA-facilitated courses and of the LAs themselves [6], [7]. To date, the implementation and researchabout engineering LA programs is sparse.At a large public university, we identified specific logistical barriers and educational goals in theCollege of Engineering and adapted the LA Program developed in the
educational design study results in journals or presented ateducational conferences. The essence of the transformation faculty went through was the“reflection” they did [10], as they interacted with their colleagues at the conferences or duringthe peer-review phases of their manuscripts. The authors noted that the participating faculty’s iterative design efforts were the mostcritical [11]. In the second round implementing their instructional designs, the faculty were morelikely to fully engage in metacognitive and self-reflective thinking regarding their approaches toteaching and understanding of student learning. When university faculty actively engaged ineducational research and became the agents of transforming the culture of STEM
identity is more thanlearning the technical skills and knowledge required to perform engineering work, it alsoincludes aligning one’s sense of self with the field of engineering. In addition, engineeringidentity has shown to be an important factor for broadening participation in engineering, as theidentity development experience also reflects one’s perceived similarity with others in the field,providing a sense of belonging or “fit” [8]. Previous research has demonstrated engineeringidentity also precedes persistence in engineering degree programs through degree completion [4,6, 9], though these studies were somewhat limited in terms of their generalizability due toreliance on small, localized samples.The purpose of this study then is to test the
proposed tobe widely adopted in engineering education because prior research have suggested its effectivenessin improving students’ problem-solving skills, collaboration skills, and academic achievement [1].By converting lecture-based courses into a project-based learning environment, students learn tocollaboratively solve multidisciplinary, complex problems.Moreover, it has been reported that students’ participation in PBL activities could be beneficial fortheir epistemological development [2]. Personal epistemology refers to students’ reflections on “thelimits of knowledge”, “the certainty of knowledge”, and the “criteria for knowing” [3]. Expertengineers demonstrated higher level of epistemological development than novices [4]. Priorresearch
alsomentioned that it is much better when the presentations are made available on-line; the studentsbelieved that this option saved time. It is not clear from the answers whether the time savingsare reflected in the classroom, whether it contributes by increasing the total amount of materialscovered or by saving student time spent writing.(2) What are the goals of teaching engineering and the types of skills and attitudes that need to be learned?The participants reported that one of the main goals of teaching engineering was to develop abasic knowledge (n=4) and that there was a conflict between knowledge and grades (n=2). Onestudent compared the goal of engineering to the process of checking boxes; being prepared forgraduate school and the real
phenomenological study was conducted on the categories of variations in students’ perceptions towards learning as they go through a course that fully utilized CPBL in a whole semester. The main purpose is to identify students’ perception towards CPBL in two aspects: the student perceptions and acceptance/rejection, and the benefits and improvements that students gained along the learning process. The paper illustrates the extent of acceptance and effectiveness of CPBL method for an engineering class taught by a lecturer who had undergone a series of training on cooperative learning and problem based learning, but is new to implementing CPBL. Through classroom observations, students’ self-reflection notes and interviews with
specific setting.19 Observation of the expert helps the novice to develop aconceptual model of the task which provides a useful framework within which the novice canorganize, interpret, and reflect on feedback from the expert.19 The apprenticeship model is thecore of the undergraduate research experience, whereby a faculty researcher mentors anundergraduate student through hands-on, authentic, self-directed scientific investigation thatmakes an original contribution to the field.Out-of-class experiences are as equally effective as class-related experiences on improvededucational outcomes, suggesting that a holistic approach fosters students’ college success.20Extra-curricular opportunities for undergraduate students to be involved in faculty
multimodal approach. Each student first answeredthe questionnaire questions. These questions were targeted to get students' individual opinionsabout challenges they experience in their STEM courses, strategies to stay focused in theircourses, and steps students take to mitigate these challenges. Later, we divided these studentsinto seven focus groups comprising five groups of four students and two groups of five students.In the focus groups, students collectively reflected on their learning challenges and strategies thatworked for them. Also, students suggested the factors that influenced their decision on theirfuture in a STEM career. The students' focus group discussion were video recorded. Further, theresearchers wrote the reflection memos to
rankhigher on the spectrum then they did originally. By the end of the semester both the first-yearME 110 and senior ME 465 students also increased the number of steps they had in their processand the maps went into more detail of steps using that common language previously mentioned.ConclusionsFrom the research and the data collected during that time a few conclusions can be drawn. Thefirst is that students entering the mechanical engineering department as a freshman compared towhen they prepare to leave the school after graduation their knowledge of the design process hasgrown to reflect what they have learned over their education. Another conclusion is that it isimportant to teach the steps to the design process to the students as first year
Iowa State University. Her research interests include learning and teaching an- alytics, dashboards, online learning, self-regulation, student engagement, and reflective practices. Her current work aims to examine how instructors’ teaching strategies and methodologies may be informed and improved by interpreting data visualizations (i.e., dashboards) in both in-class and online environ- ments.Dr. Evrim Baran, Iowa State University Evrim Baran is an associate professor of educational technology in the School of Education and Human Computer Interaction at Iowa State University. She conducts research at the intersection of technology in teacher education, human-computer interaction, and learning sciences. Her research
ConclusionsThe results from both semesters of data collection clearly illustrate a correlation betweenpercentage of correct answers on lesson review questions and anonymity provided to the student.The provision of anonymity enabled the student to place self-doubt and fear of embarrassmentaside in order to answer according to his/her own understanding6, 7. The results from thepopulations using clickers as their response method were reflective of what one would expectfrom a class containing students of varying capabilities and levels of comprehension.Conversely, the results of the populations using hand-raising as their response method wereexcessively inflated. The lack of anonymity amongst these populations inaccurately skewed thedata dramatically in
included both the theoretical andpractical aspects of the peer tutoring process, was used as part the training process.Topics included everything from the writing process, to working with grammar andmechanics, as well as how to conduct face to face tutorials. The Fellows continued tomeet weekly with their supervisor throughout the semester. The Writing Fellows wereasked to write two reflection papers, one during the training week about their writingbackground and one at the end of the semester about various aspects of the program todetermine the effects of the program.ResultsResults show that WF experience has an effect on student performance. On the firstreport of the semester, 69 students (out of 71) turned in the design project report
AC 2009-1276: ASSESSING GROWTH OF ENGINEERING STUDENTS USINGE-PORTFOLIOS: A MDL-BASED APPROACHChristine B. Masters, Pennsylvania State UniversityAlexander Yin, Pennsylvania State UniversityGül Okudan, Pennsylvania State UniversityMieke Schuurman, Pennsylvania State University Page 14.239.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2009 Assessing Growth of Engineering Students Using E-Portfolios: A MDL-Based ApproachAbstractOverall premise of the work presented is to study the potential of e-portfolios as a viablemechanism for student reflection and assessment of growth on attributes that are part ofbecoming a World Class Engineer. These
game design mechanicswere also taught via weekly board game sessions conducted inside and outside of class wherestudents both played and deconstructed the mechanics of the games experienced. In the latterpart of the course, a major course project was assigned in which four teams of students inconjunction with graphic design students developed unique games meant to teach others aboutclimate change and civilization collapse. Specific game mechanics were not prescribed; instead,student teams were encouraged to explore a variety of mechanics and design elements that bestsuited their chosen audience and game theme. In addition to this final board game product,students wrote a reflective paper to (a) explain how the board game accomplished the goal
E X Q28 to focus on.] (-) When I have a big decision to make... [I try to think of all the possible G 1 Q82 options.] When I have a big decision to make... [I consider the pros and cons of each E 1 Q83 option.] Q93 [I often reflect on my decision after implementing it and seeing the outcome.] L 3 [I often reflect on my decision PROCESS after implementing it and seeing
are learning about how the brain works, we will assign weeklyreflection papers so that students express how the lecture, the classic experiment, and the smallgroup discussion have influenced the way they view learning through provided prompts. Theprompts will probe students on the following experiential processes: self-reevaluation, socialliberation, dramatic relief, and environmental reevaluations.In addition to weekly reflection papers, we will assign reading and watching assignments forhomework. For example, students will read book excerpts and watch videos of TED Talksrelated to how the brain works. These readings and videos will be accompanied by short writtenassignments called reaction papers. These reaction papers will have prompts
reliableinstrument.Internal reliability of each was measured by Cronbach’s alpha for each of the four factorsand for the instrument overall. The reliability ranged from 0. 614 to 0.672 for the fourfactors and was 0.602 for the instrument overall. In general, this shows a marginal levelof internal reliability, which is something that will need to be addressed in furtheriterations of the instrument.DiscussionIn general, our analysis did result in four discrete factors that reflect the acceptance orresistance to two distinctive aspects of ill-structured problem solving: ambiguity andmultiple perspectives. With further development, an instrument of this nature could beused by classroom instructors to gauge where students are with respect to majorthresholds in how they
their model using different mathematical andcomputational pathways. The Planning the Model step occurs largely prior to instruction in thecourse, giving the students full opportunity to explore different ways to solve the problem.Second is Building the Model, where students actually create one of their modeling solutionpathways individually. During the Building the Model step, students program the model anddocument their thinking process through a final report and in-code comments. In the third step,Evaluating the Model, students meet with their team and other teams to compare solutions inorder to identify key differences in how the problem could be solved, documenting theevaluation process. Finally in the Reflecting on the Model phase students