that ourapproach can be replicated in other fields and other student populations.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants1842166 and 1329283. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. We thank the SPHERE research group for their helpful feedback.References[1] S. Kovalchuk, M. Ghali, M. Klassen, D. Reeve, and R. Sacks, “Transitioning from university to employment in engineering: The role of curricular and co-curricular activities,” in 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2017.[2] R. Korte, S. Brunhaver, and S. Zehr
creating awareness about Industrial Distribution and related STEM fields among the public.Ms. Soo Jeoung Han, Texas A&M University Soo Jeoung (Crystal) Han is currently a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Educational Administration & Human Resource at Texas A&M University. She worked in business and academic institutions in South Korea for more than five years. Her research interests reflect her diverse work experiences including the field of virtual team collaboration, cross-cultural team diversity, shared leadership development of teams, and global/women leadership. Currently, she has published journals and book chapters in the field of collaborative learning, team leadership, and e-learning.Prof. Michael
, 1524601, and 1524607. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe National Science Foundation.References1. K. Schneider, A. Bickel, and A Morrison-Shetlar, “Planning and implementing a comprehensive student-centered research program for first-year STEM undergraduates,” Journal of College Science Teaching, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 37-43, 2015.2. K. Schneider and A. Bickel, “Undergraduate research apprenticeship model: graduate students matched with STEM first-year mentees,” Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 25-31, 2015.3. J. Frechtling. “The 2002 user-friendly handbook for project evaluation,” National
National Science Foundation for their support through a Graduate ResearchFellowship (DGE-1333468). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of theNational Science Foundation.References[1] C. E. Foor, S. E. Walden, and D. A. Trytten, ““I wish that I belonged more in this whole engineering group:" Achieving individual diversity,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 103–115, 2007.[2] J. M. Smith and J. C. Lucena, “‘How do I show them I’m more than a person who can lift heavy things?’ the funds of knowledge of low income, first generation engineering students,” J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 199–221, 2016.[3
students to work cooperatively in interactive learning groups. Participants were then asked to complete an online Figure 1. Venturi survey administered over Qualtrics© at the end of the semester. flow meter The survey prompted participants to reflect on their LC- DLM instruction and report how well they believed being taught concepts with LC-DLM influenced their learning experience Figure 1. Venturi flow meter compared with other course concepts they learned with regular lectures in the same class. Participation in theexperiment was
traumatic events are perceived and handled within engineering environments by allmembers of the engineering education community. Specifically, the messaging around emotionalexpression should be examined to determine what explicit and implicit barriers are constructed inengineering. Through advanced understanding in this area we can begin to create models thatsupport students through challenges that manifest in and out of the engineering classroom.AcknowledgmentsThis work was funded by grants from the National Science Foundation (EEC-1531586/1531174,DGE-1333468). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. The
as density, transitivity, and reciprocity in the network [2]. This approach is amethodological and pedagogical innovation because it has the potential to inform and providefeedback about the participants’ work, promote reflection on their collaborative practices andcontribute to cohesion, dialogue and the flow of knowledge within the team to continuouslyimprove the internalization of the new educational model.Keywords: Educational Change, Teacher Collaboration, Social Network Analysis, EducationalInnovationResearch Background and MotivationThis work-in-progress research is being carried out at a large multi-campus private university inMexico and focuses specifically on the area of engineering and sciences. The institution ischaracterized by
Nativeand Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander students was too low to draw meaningfulconclusions about racial differences in scholarship receipt. The source of these racial/ethnicdifferences is unknown. For instance, they might reflect different levels of opportunity forscholarships or differential application processes for scholarships, as we did not measure whetherstudents had applied for, but not received, a scholarship. The phi value indicates that this overalleffect size for the distribution of scholarships across race/ethnicity was small.Research Question 2With respect to research question 2, there were statistically significant differences in motivationbetween scholarship recipients and non-recipients. More specifically, independent
]–[4]. Engineeringknowledge is not value neutral and—depending on how it is selected, organized, demarcated,delivered, and evaluated—it can have discriminatory effects on different populations (e.g., [5]–[7]. Often students are implicitly asked to leave aspects of themselves at the door before enteringthe classroom in order to learn “objective” engineering knowledge [8]. This history of theengineering profession means that class biases were baked into its educational systems, helping toexplain why students from low-income and working-class backgrounds describe the culture andcontent of undergraduate engineering programs as foreign, if not hostile (e.g., [9]). Critically reflecting on what knowledge “counts” as engineering knowledge is
mathematics (STEM) electives in high school. APh.D. student fellow from Drexel University and teacher from the Science Leadership Academy(SLA) in Philadelphia will teach robotics and engineering principles through open-endedprojects that address several of the NEA grand challenges. These projects are structured usingconstructivist pedagogy that ties into five core values: inquiry, research, collaboration,presentation, and reflection. We will introduce this study into an ethnically diverse robotics classcomprised of sophomore, junior, and senior students. The predisposition of students to studytopics relating to robotics will be assessed at the start of the study and then after each project hasbeen completed. Initially, predisposition will be
- Networking among postdocs Networking - Identifying collaborators Personal Reflection - Identifying professional interests and values - Project assignments allocation Project Management - Project financial management, funding allocation - Not just doing, but finish projects and publications - Giving guest lectures in classesTeaching and Learning - Teaching a course - Developing teaching philosophy/teaching dossier - Managing deliverables to meet the deadline Time Management - Ability to work under time pressurediscipline were generated and appended to the
groups (SA4)When students reflected on what they needed from their study groups, some trends were similarto those of lab groups. For example, 21.3% of students prioritized individual accountability intraditional learning while only 14.1% did so in remote learning. This downward trend is similarto what students said about their lab groups. With regard to individual accountability, whilestudents made more frequent comments about interpersonal and social skills in remote learningwith regard to their lab groups, the increase in these types of comments in their study groups wasmuch larger. Students in remote learning mentioned interpersonal and social skills with respectto their peer groups at over twice the frequency (22.7%) of students in
because culture influences what constitutesintelligence and intelligent acts [9, 10]. Indeed, conceptions of “smartness” in school often caterto analytical abilities, while ignoring other types of intelligence, such as creative or practicalabilities [11]. This emphasis on analytical abilities is magnified even further in engineeringschool, where math and engineering science dominate the curriculum. This cultural norm ofvaluing analytical intelligence above all else reflects white, middle class constructions ofintelligence. This reality contributes to the exclusionary narratives about who belongs inengineering as the qualities that are revered in academia (e.g., brilliance, rigor, seriousness,rationality, objectivity, etc.) are all traditionally
/assignments. Therefore, as part of this study, the participating faculty regularlyengage with two social science research experts in engineering education who serve as mentorsfor survey, focus group, evaluation, and reflection best practices in course design andassessment.In sum, the unique features of the HEPE offer the following features: (i) students working inteams, (ii) students working across disciplines, (iii) students working on an open-ended problem,(iv) students having access to professors from multiple disciplines, and (v) students havingaccess to external expertise and critique. The next section (section 4.2) describes the details ofthe course offering.4.2 Course implementation structureTwenty-one students are enrolled in the initial
each team as well as expert involvement.Table 1Additional details on the composition of each team, as well as relevant information on the SIL experts. Data Collection and Analysis During the IDC, the first author assumed the role of a non-participant observer and collected all the data used in this study. Following an ethnographic approach, he did not engage in any of the activities in which the students participated throughout the IDC and interacted with them only when observation alone did not provide data on instances he believed to be relevant to answering the overarching research question (e.g., when participants worked quietly, independently, or engaged in self-reflection). Main sources of data consisted of extensive field notes, videos
asking the participants about their “story” (for example, “How did you get intoengineering?”), followed by reflecting on their engineering identity, sense of belongingness inengineering for themselves and for other students, and their present and future activities and plans in CE.Interviews were conducted by two members of the research team and were approximately one hour long.Qualitative Data AnalysisInterviews were professionally transcribed, and transcripts were reviewed by the interviewers to correcterrors. Initial qualitative analysis was conducted using descriptive coding (Miles and Huberman, 1994);responses to questions about belongingness were coded with the intention of capturing how participantsdescribed their sense of belongingness in
order to optimize the classification effort while attempting toinform us of feedback activity nature and level. For example, we recognize the importance ofneed analysis and the emphasis that experts place on this stage verses novices, and so theimportant coding classifications of problem identification, representation and communication areprominent in our model. Additionally, the verification classification is available at each stage, asthis reflects best design practice. Figure 1. A generalized engineering design process model with coding classifications Initiating Planning
and organizational contexts. We aim to further explore how,through their participation in the routine practices of the undergraduate curriculum,students make themselves, and are made by others, into engineers. The specific focushere is on how a particular “ideology of engineering”2 is reflected in the discourse ofparticipants in presentations for a first year projects course. In particular, this paperdetails how engineering discourses serve to depoliticize complex social issues, and toreframe them as technical issues that can be resolved through design and refinement ofinnovative technologies. A second and related goal is to contribute to recentmethodological discussions in engineering education3, and specifically to introduce
and reflection in engineering learning, and student development in interdisciplinary and interprofessional spaces.Dr. Nicola W. Sochacka, University of Georgia Dr. Nicola Sochacka is the Associate Director for Research Initiation and Enablement in the Engineering Education Transformations Institute (EETI) in the College of Engineering at UGA. Supported by over 1.5M in funding, Dr. Sochacka’s research interests include systems thinking, diversity, STEAM (STEM + Art) education, and the role of empathy in engineering education and practice. Her work has been recognized through multiple best paper awards and keynote presentations at international and national conferences and workshops.Dr. Stephen Secules, Florida
influencedtheir grade, (3) impressions of other members in the study group, (4) opinions about the mostvaluable and least helpful parts of the study group and (5) reflections on how participating in thestudy group changed their confidence in completing the engineering degree and their feelingsabout being a student at ASU. Pseudonyms were given to participants to ensure theconfidentiality of the interview.ResultsThere were 22/50 respondents for the post-survey (response rate of 44%). Of these, 16 could bematched to the pre-survey, due to the fact that some students did not use the same personal codethat they generated on the pre-survey. Of the 16, 14 had been placed in PLSGs, and one hadbeen placed in TARs (one student did not identify a group).Table 2
engineering major's significancein other countries.Theoretical-based coursework is one of the contributing factors of large numbers of first-year E/CSleaving the engineering field [10]. Such coursework makes relating concepts taught in class toreal-world scenarios quite difficult and creates a negative feeling of engineering concepts amongE/CS students. Students tend to enjoy their coursework if they can see the benefits in real-worldapplications and the flexibility to solve real-world problems. E/CS curriculum should be updatedaccordingly to reflect technological advancement in the field. Teaching students, especially first-year students, outdated technologies and innovation could discourage students from continuing intheir majors. Students might
reflect the self-regulative learning experiences oflearners.The MSLQ in the Freeform context In 2008, an active, blended, and collaborative (ABC) teaching and learning environmentfor a core engineering science course (Dynamics), named Freeform, was developed and adoptedby a team of mechanics instructors [28]. With the goal of a student-centered classroom, Freeformtransformed a lecture-based pedagogical environment to a highly-networked pedagogicalenvironment. The hybrid nature of course resources (i.e., instructor-produced videos, hybridtextbooks which combined a traditional textbook and significant white space for note taking, anda course blog) allowed the students to actively, collaboratively engage in the class and managemultiple
will use the list of themes and codes developed by Garcia etal.’s (2019) servingness framework as a starting point of a priori codes, while also employingopen coding to identify structural characteristics that are specific to this context and do not fit thelist of codes in Garcia’s study. To identify the cultural characteristics, we will utilize valuecoding, defined by Saldaña (2016) as the application of codes unto data that reflects the values,attitudes, and beliefs about the phenomenon under study [21]. In this case, these codes will applyto the institution’s values, attitudes and beliefs about their role in serving Latinx students. Oncethe structural and cultural characteristics have been identified, we will conduct a second round ofcoding
used whenappropriate.In conclusion, whilst the first cycle of the Changing Futures Project has been immenselysuccessful, it is extremely resource intensive and would not have happened had the twoacademics responsible not had a personal desire to support students. No additional funding ortime was allocated to run the project which continues to be administered on a mixture of good-will and unpaid overtime! Despite this, the primary outcome of seeing the fortunes of some ofthe weakest students being turned around has been exceptionally rewarding. In reflecting uponthe project, ten key recommendations for institutions, colleagues and students are made:Recommendations for Institutions: 1. Financial Resources: Should be ring-fenced to provide a
, is a social and discursive practice and understanding itrequires paying close attention at the micro-level. The concept of genre, in turn, highlightsthe recurrent and situated nature of discursive practices, and provides robust methodologicaltools for studying the production, reproduction, and change of discourse. For example, instudying the electronic discourse of a group of computer scientists, Orlikowski and Yates[18] identified the repertoire of genres enacted by the participants over time and showed howthese discursive actions reflected their collective purposes as well as the shared norms andrelations of their occupational community. Similarly, learning in any given setting that relieson repeated discursive acts, which can be
students have reported the greatestgrowths and appreciations for the opportunity. A number of success stories, as recounted by thescholars themselves, are reflected below:The NSF S-STEM Scholarship has been an unfamiliar, yet amazing opportunity and experiencelast semester. I say unfamiliar because I never imagined being part of scholarship program atsome point in my college life. The many workshops provided like graduate school speeches andspeeches from New York City College of Technology alumni were very inspiring. These speakersprovided me with an abundance of information about graduate school and in a way encouragedme to make the most out of my undergraduate studies by taking the opportunities that areoffered. Mandatory meetings and advisement
exit these models (p<0.001). Similarly,these students were over 70% less likely to exit the red classification (p<0.001). Studentsin soft applied fields were also less likely to exit the yellow classification (p<0.05), whileundeclared students were less likely to exit the red classification. The linear and non-linear predictors were significant for the yellow and red exit models, and like the yellowentry model, the coefficients suggest that the risk of exiting either model increases until amid-term point, tapers off, and then increases again towards the end of the semester. Thisfinding is likely explained by the weight of assignments during these periods of thesemester (midterm and final examinations), and thus, may simply reflect the
perceivethemselves to fit into a given group, in this case engineering,5 which in turn affects how theyprogress along the academic and career path in their field.6The engineering identity framework utilized in the study is partially based off a physics identitymodel composed of four basic factors: performance, competence, interest, and recognition.5,7Performance describes a student’s belief in their ability to perform in their classes or whenconducting engineering tasks.8 If a student performs poorly in class, they are less likely toidentify themselves as an engineer. Competence describes a student’s belief in their ability tounderstand engineering material, which is often similarly reflected in a student’s performance inclass.8 Interest describes how