Engineering, Mathematics, and Physics.Undergraduate students from each major assisted faculty in the development of the VR lessons.One undergraduate research assistant from each of the five STEM areas assisted the faculty indeveloping and testing the lessons. The research assistants gained experience in the lessondevelopment process starting from establishing learning objectives, and then storyboarding andprototyping.The implementation of these lessons was in the following courses 1) Introduction to AerospaceEngineering, 2) Aerodynamics-I, 3) Molecular Cell and Genetic Biology, 4) Molecular Cell andGenetic Biology Laboratory, 5) Signals and Systems, 6) Microprocessors, 7) Pre-Calculus andAlgebra, 8) Calculus 1, 9) Differential Equation, 10) Physics I
. Franke, M. Ing, A. Turrou, N. Johnson, and J. Zimmerman, "Teacher practices that promote productive dialogue and learning in mathematics classrooms", International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 97, pp. 176-186, 2019. Available: 10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.009.[10] "Occupational Information Network", 2013.[11] J. Luft, J. Kurdziel, G. Roehrig, and J. Turner, "Growing a garden without water: Graduate teaching assistants in introductory science laboratories at a doctoral/research university", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 211-233, 2004. Available: 10.1002/tea.20004.[12] G. Marbach-Ad, C. Egan and V. Thompson, "Preparing graduate students for their teaching
rather than setting up and operating laboratory equipment).There is another important remainder for engineering education researchers and instructors:over half of the selected articles are from industry where power distance is obvious and stablebetween team leaders / managers and employees. This phenomenon is less likely to bepromoted or present in academic teams. The role of leadership moderating the relationshipbetween cultural diversity and team effectiveness might not be a significant factor in the contextof engineering education.LimitationThere are two limitations of this paper relating to the sources of literatures we include andanalyze and the selection process. From the spectrum of included papers, we find that themajority is from
. degrees in Science and Technology Studies (STS) from Virginia Tech. Dr. Jesiek draws on expertise from engineering, computing, and the social sciences to advance understanding of geographic, disciplinary, and historical variations in engineering education and practice.Dr. Aditya Johri, George Mason University Aditya Johri is Professor of Information Sciences and Technology at George Mason University where he also directs the Engineering Education and Cyberlearning Laboratory (EECL). Dr. Johri studies the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) for learning and knowledge sharing, with a focus on cognition in informal environments. He received the U.S. National Science Foundation’s Early Career Award in
supporting discourse and design practices during K-12, teacher education, and college- level engineering learning experiences, and increasing access to engineering in the elementary school ex- perience, especially in under-resourced schools. In 2016 she was a recipient of the U.S. Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE). https://engineering.tufts.edu/me/people/faculty/kristen- bethke-wendellDr. Melissa R Mazan, Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine Professor and Associate Chair, Department of Clinical Sciences Director, Tufts Equine Respiratory Health Laboratory American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Her research focuses on the development of achievement motivation in educational settings and the interplay among motivation, emotions, and learning, especially in STEM fields.Dr. S. Patrick Walton, Michigan State University S. Patrick Walton received his B.ChE. from Georgia Tech, where he began his biomedical research career in the Cardiovascular Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. He then attended MIT where he earned his M.S. and Sc.D. while working jointly with researchers at the Shriners Burns Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital. While at MIT, he was awarded a Shell Foundation Fellowship and was an NIH biotechnology Predoctoral Trainee. Upon completion of his doctoral studies, he
. Also, many newlearners do not realize that copying and pasting other work, especially from online sources, isplagiarizing. An article by Brothers displays a pyramid chart, which is the result of a study byNational Testing Laboratories in Bethel, Maine (p. 78).9 The learning pyramid chart in thatarticle reveals the average retention rate for various methods of teaching and retention. Lectureretention is about 5% and reading about 10%. Creating an atmosphere of collaboration,participation, and learning-by-doing increases learning retention up to 50%, according toBrothers. Many learners come to class, sit and put in their time. Teachers must help studentsunderstand that attendance is a good start, but it not enough to justify a grade showing
team effectiveness in terms of productivity, employeeand customer satisfaction and manager judgments. Based on this hypothesis, they found thatpotency and interdependency are among factors described as important attributes of an effectiveteam through the study of real teams in the field. Guzzo [3] defines team effectiveness throughgroup-produced outputs and the capability to perform well in the future. O’Leary-Kelly, et al.[10] proposed that goal setting has a strong effect on effective team performance through meta-analytic approach. After reviewing many laboratory and field studies on the effects of a task,Locke et al found that specific and challenging goals setting contributes better performance [9
appropriate for any assignment – in any class – that includes an open-endedproblem-solving component, including laboratory and design-oriented assignments.Moreover, the rubric can be used to track the development of critical-thinking skills asstudents progress through the curriculum. It is not expected that a freshman – or even theaverage senior – will score at the “Accomplished” level. Rather, instructors must decidewhat level of performance is reasonable for students in their class, and assign gradesaccordingly: freshmen may be expected to perform somewhere between the “Beginning”and “Developing” level, for example, with seniors expected to perform consistently at the“Competent” level. Applying this rubric to assignments at multiple points in
developing nation after the onset of a natural disaster. Studentsworked individually in various laboratories and were provided access to a variety of materials,tools, and supplies while engaged in the challenge. Students were also provided with a turbiditysensor, connected to a computer interface, which allowed them to evaluate how well their deviceremoved potential contaminates from a water sample. On average, the participants completed thechallenge within one hour, 21 minutes, and 16 seconds. Prior to assessment, all identifiableinformation was removed and student portfolios were assigned a letter. Traditional Assessment. While designing a solution to the design challenge, eachstudent utilized an engineering notebook to document information
mechanism for ensuring course consistency was the course andsubordinate lesson objectives, as approved by the department program director. In all cases, theseobjectives were not altered, either to increase or reduce content.Using lesson objectives as the guiding parameter, lesson restructuring followed a generallyconsistent pattern. First, any lessons under the 40 class format that were “drop periods” (used toprovide students with compensatory time) were eliminated from the schedule. Additionally,lessons used as working group sessions for larger projects and laboratories were rolled intoadjacent lessons that presented new material. It should be noted that this action reduced workinggroup session time from 55 minutes to a shortened period as allowed
University. Her research interests include design education research at K-16 levels.Dr. Michael L. Philpott, University of Illinois, Urbana-ChampaignJulia Laystrom-Woodard, University of Illinois, Urbana-ChampaignDr. Marcia Pool, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Dr. Marcia Pool is a Teaching Associate Professor and Director of Undergraduate Programs in the Depart- ment of Bioengineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). She has been active in improving undergraduate education including developing laboratories to enhance experimental design skills and mentoring and guiding student teams through the capstone design and a translational course following capstone design. In her Director role, she
Embedded Systems: Using Microcon- trollers and the MSP430 (Springer 2014). From 2013 to 2018 served as Associate Dean of engineering at UPRM. He currently directs the Engineering PEARLS program at UPRM, a College-wide NSF funded initiative, and coordinates the Rapid Systems Prototyping and the Electronic Testing and Characterization Laboratories at UPRM. He is a member of ASEE and IEEE.Dr. Luisa Guillemard, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus Luisa Guillemard is a psychology professor at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayag¨uez Campus. She has a M.S. in Clinical Psychology from the Caribbean Center of Advanced Studies in Puerto Rico [today the Carlos Albizu University] and a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from
undergraduate education. This passion led her to pursue a career as a lecturer, where she could focus on training undergraduate chemical engineering students. She has been teaching at UK since 2015 and has taught Fluid Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Computational Tools and the Unit Operations Laboratory. She is especially interested in teaching scientific communication and integration of process safety into the chemical engineering curriculum.Dr. Renee Kaufmann, University of Kentucky, College of Communication and Information, School of Informa-tion Science c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 “All communication is important”: Comparison of Incoming FreshmenCommunication Expectations to
a master’s degree in engineering management at George Washington University in 2007. In 2016, he earned a Ph.D. in the Minority and Urban Education Unit of the Col- lege of Education at the University of Maryland. Bruk worked at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, where he focused on nanotechnology, from 2003 to 2005. In 2005 he left JHU/APL for a fellowship with the National Academies where he conducted research on methods of increasing the number of women in engineering. After a brief stint teaching mathematics in Baltimore City following his departure from the National Academies, he began working for the Center for Minorities in Science and Engineering (CMSE) in the Clark School of
. While these courses differ bydiscipline, all are similar in that they are lecture sections of the course (i.e., no laboratory ordiscussion sections), they are one of the first courses taken in the disciplinary sequence (i.e., asophomore-level gateway course), they typically enroll only students of sophomore status (afterstudents have declared their major), and they enroll a large number of students. Each section hadenrollments of between 73 and 148 students, with an average enrollment of 108 students. Thetotal population sampled was 539 students. No students were enrolled in more than one courseduring the survey administration. I employed a series of two student surveys, which were based on the Student Response toInstructional Practices
4,5,15,16.In engineering in particular, graduate education is highly understudied, and relies heavily onoutside disciplines to study graduate attrition. While it is likely that theories of socialization stillhold, and can be interpreted across disciplines, there are contextual differences in disciplinaryacademic culture that do not align well9,12,17. For example, reliable funding is one of the primarycauses for attrition in the humanities, although, as Crede and Borrego 18 note, this reasoning doesnot typically apply to graduate engineering students, who are upwards of 80% fully funded.Advisor relationships do still play a strong role in the attrition process, as does the laboratoryculture, since a student’s laboratory is like a family and plays
.20227Kitto, K. L. (1998). Innovative research and laboratory experiences for undergraduate students. In Frontiers in Education Conference, 1998. FIE’98. 28th Annual. IEEE.Landis, R. B. (2005). Retention by design: Achieving excellence in minority engineering education. National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering.Litzinger, T., Zappe, S. E., Hunter, S., & Mena, I. (2015). Increasing integration of the creative process across engineering curricula. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1b), 335–342.Mumford, M. D., Medeiros, K. E., & Partlow, P. J. (2012). Creative thinking: Processes, strategies, and knowledge. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 30–47.Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Reiter
effective implementation of theinteraction processes when solving ill-structured problems in groups?MethodsParticipants were 21 undergraduate students (6 females) from two 50-minute discussion sectionsthat met weekly as part of an introductory engineering course at a large, public university.Groups of 3-4 students were assigned during the first week via software that minimized theisolation of any student minority. Skill levels of individual students were not controlled. Bothsections took place in a laboratory classroom and were taught by the same graduate teachingassistant and two undergraduate course assistants. In both sections, groups solved the same ill-structured task. All task work was done within each section, and the task was not revealed
University in 2002 as a research engineer working for the Ohio University Avionics Engineering Cen- ter. He has worked on projects covering a wide variety of avionics and navigation systems such as, the Instrument Landing System (ILS), Microwave Landing System (MLS), Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), LAAS, WAAS, and GPS. His recent work has included research with the Air Force Research Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, aimed at understanding and correcting image geo-registration errors from a number of airborne platforms.Ms. Audra Hilterbran, Ohio University Audra Hilterbran is an instructional technologist in the Russ College of Engineering and Technology at Ohio University, Athens, Ohio. She works with faculty to design and
we have to plan classroomand laboratory sessions by considering all approaches, we can customize one-on-onediscussions and self-study sessions to learning approaches and styles of individuals. Studentshave to be aware that they need to occasionally step out of their preference and work usingother styles and approaches. Learning styles and approaches characterize students at study;therefore, they were included in the assessment.Teamwork (team behavior), which includes egoless behavior, is an important dimension,especially in case of software engineering. The IEEE software engineering body ofknowledge 2 states that a software engineer must be able to interact cooperatively andconstructively with others to first determine and then meet both
of refining our interview protocoland planning to recruit students who registered for MCB80x but did not receive the at-home lab-kit. We will then perform a comparative analysis of the findings from the two groups in order tounderstand the similarities and differences in the range of student experiences between them.Additionally, we will also focus on understanding the effectiveness of the use of the at-home lab-kits and provide recommendations to instructional designers for developing effective labexperiences for engineering and other STEM courses.References 1. Atiq, S. Z., Chen, X., Cox, D. D., & DeBoer, J. (2015). International STEM Classrooms: The Experiences of Students Around the World Using Physical Remote Laboratory
6 • Social Sciences (Section D) 6 3 3 • Lifelong Learning (Section E) 3 3 0 • Comparative Cultural Studies (Section F) 6 0 6 • U.S. History and Government 6 0 6 Chico 48 28 20 •Oral and Written Communication, Critical 12 12 0 Thinking, Quantitative Reasoning (Group A) • Natural Sciences with Laboratory (Group B) 6 6 0
, embedded cyber-physical systems, and engineering education. He is the lead author of the textbook Introduction to Embedded Systems: Using Microcon- trollers and the MSP430 (Springer 2014). From 2013 to 2018 served as Associate Dean of engineering at UPRM. He currently directs the Engineering PEARLS program at UPRM, a College-wide NSF funded initiative, and coordinates the Rapid Systems Prototyping and the Electronic Testing and Characterization Laboratories at UPRM. He is a member of ASEE and IEEE.Dr. Luisa Guillemard, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus Luisa Guillemard is a psychology professor at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayag¨uez Campus. She has a M.S. in Clinical Psychology from the Caribbean Center of
customized in a variety of ways. The basic avatar ishumanoid but its shape is modifiable. For example, size, build, color, and hair style ofavatars can be changed. Users can also create or buy clothing, and attach 3D objects totheir avatars to further customize them. The system also allows users to use non-humanoid character representation if they choose to do so.All objects and 3D information are streamed in real-time to all clients. System works inreal time; therefore, any modification that is done by a user is broadcasted to all users.Using SL’s 3D modeling and programming language, one can build virtual laboratories. Page 12.1008.8 3000 2500 2000
database to assist faculty in the development and implementation of innovativeassignments to build students’ communication skills. Incorporating these two learning techniques forwritten assignments was found to be most challenging in Capstone and laboratory courses; therefore,examples of successful implementation in each are presented. Workload impact was found to be minimalwhen the faculty member had obtained tools at a CxC workshop or institute and also took advantage ofthe Engineering Communication Studio resources. Student acceptance was documented via course-endquestionnaires and selected focus groups. Both assessment approaches have yielded consistently positivestudent responses. Other assessment methods are in development, but early
6,0/8,0 287 (56%) 6,67 November (80,2) 5,6/7,8 S4 226 (38%) 6,42 (44, 13) MarchConclusionIn the spring of 2009 we will graduate our first students with the new curriculum entirely inplace. Then, we will be able to compare the “new” with the “old” students. However, we alreadyknow, after two years of implementation, that some of the changes that were made will have tobe adapted in order to attain the original objectives. For example, four major team projects ineach program require new versatile laboratory and demand more supervising resources. In orderto teach communication skills and team work
programming. Most recently, his research is in Computer Science Education, where he is investigating student software design and metacognition.Sally Fincher, University of Kent at Canterbury Sally Fincher is a lecturer in the Computing Laboratory at the University of Kent where she leads the Computing Education Research Group. She holds a B.A. in Philosophy & Computer Science (University of Kent, UK) and an M.A. in English (Georgetown University, Washington DC). She is Editor of the journal Computer Science Education, jointly with Renée McCauley. Her principal research areas are Computer Science Education and patterns and pattern languages, especially patterns for interaction design
videowas the thermodynamics of elastomers and the video for this stage is yet in production. The coreelement of this material is the recording of a laboratory experiment that produces a³FRXQWHULQWXLWLYH´RXWSXW. For the first task, the video of the experiment stops short of showingthe result and students have to predict that result and provide an explanation associated with theirprediction. Then the video shows the actual results and students move to an application of thedescribed phenomenon and asked to solve it with a minimal support from the instructor. Page 22.891.6Instructional Materials for the Raw VideoWith the purpose of the video
AC 2012-3131: DO STUDENTS DREAM BEYOND LEDS? INNOVATIVEQUALITIES OF IDEAS GENERATED BY FIRST-YEAR ENGINEERINGSTUDENTSNicholas D. Fila, Purdue University Nicholas D. Fila is a doctoral student and graduate research assistant in the School of Engineering Educa- tion at Purdue University. He received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical and computer engineering from the University of Illinois. He has published conference papers on cooperative learning and team innovation. His research focuses on teamwork, innovation, and laboratory education.Dr. Senay Purzer, Purdue University, West Lafayette Senay Purzer is an Assistant Professor in the School of Engineering Education and is the Director of Assessment Research for