task-oriented, focussed on two tasks. Firstly, the group worked to analyse theaggregated data from the experiment kit, and jointly write a paper to report it. Secondly, eachparticipant worked on a design for their own research study. In contrast to workshop one, most ofthe input in this workshop was from the participants, presenting and discussing their experiencesof using the experiment kit to completion, and reflecting on research in general. The tasks of theworkshop leaders were in structuring interventions to maximise the effectiveness of the analysisand writing, and in working with participants on their new study designs. Page 11.296.4The
engineering enrollment (23%) occurs between the freshmen andsophomore year [5].Once they pass this point, however, women who do commit to a major inengineering are as likely as men to graduate as engineers [6]. Moreover, those women whochoose to leave after the first year perform as well or better than their peers in their freshmenclasses [5]. In other words, competent women are disproportionately opting out of engineeringcareers during their first year.First year undergraduate courses thus play a pivotal role in a student’s decision to major inengineering. But current first year programs do not motivate enough women to becomeengineers.Recent studies show that women are generally more interested in science and engineering whenit involves teamwork
challenge to getting more underrepresented minoritystudents to graduate school is get them to more frequently consider the graduate school option.The myths and reasons given by students on why they do not consider or want to attendengineering graduate school are many. Engineering faculty have the prestige to effectivelycounteract the attitudes about graduate school that the students have formed based onmisinformation, peer pressure, the mass media, campus information sources, and family not toattend graduate school.4 Here are some of these attitudes: • Tired of school7 • Want to start earning a living7 • Want to work at least a while before going to graduate school7 • Going to graduate school results in loss of industrial
to, say,the norms of a writing seminar where all are expected to acquire the skill without finding outwho is incapable at writing. What seemed to be coming up in this interview was a daily experience of beingconstructed as incapable, in programming (for Isaac) and/or in engineering. We call this thecultural construction of ability, of being “not cut out for” the discipline. The disability at play inthis educational fact is not one that often gets labeled or spoken out loud in those terms, thoughneither is it only living inside one student’s head. The sort of ability hierarchies at play herehave a mutually acknowledged meaning and institutional consequences. By cultural constructionof ability we mean to acknowledge the many levels on
of research.17In the next section, each author was asked to share the story of their experience with SOI in theirown words, with the aim of providing readers an opportunity to “‘experience’ a set of key ideaswhile also coming ‘into contact with...different languages, modes of communication, and forms ofinquiry”17 (p.51). The authors were provided with guidance for the structure of these accounts,specifically (1) authors should aim to write approximately 1500 words or less about their case, (2)accounts should be written in first person, (3) accounts should include a brief history of the projectand a basic description to provide readers with context, and (4) accounts should close with a briefdiscussion highlighting what the author found
to write, submit and present aconference paper for the annual Freshman Sustainability Conference held at the end of the springsemester. The paper is graded by a member of the university’s writing center and counts for20% of their course grade. To incorporate the same writing component in the freshman honorsservice learning course, we have each team submit a paper to the same conference. The servicelearning papers include a summary of the community organization and the project, a review of anaspect of technology involved with the project, and reflection on their experience with thespecific project as well as the concept of service learning. The paper evolves in components andis also graded by the writing center. The first component is an
project themselves or their goals. An EDS who can seethemself as a tenured professor in the future has more distance, or a far future, than a studentwho can only project themself to the near future of graduation. Finally, connectedness is whetheran individual views the present and future as connected. A student may be able to set goals in thefuture but may not see how the tasks they are performing now (e.g., writing literature reviews)are connected to their future goals (e.g., starting up an engineering company). Perceived instrumentality (PI) can be further split into endogenous and exogenousperceived instrumentality. Tasks are perceived as having endogenous PI if a participant seesthem as useful towards their emerging identity, or
writing, public speaking,communication, team work, and the other topics required by modern industries. Capstone designcourse or course sequences are offering a common way that the engineering programs meet thesecriteria, being key elements in engineering and engineering technology undergraduate programs.Students usually engage in these course subjects near the beginning of their senior year. Thesenior capstone design projects course has several objectives. One objective is to enable studentsto integrate theoretical and practical skills gained throughout their lecture and laboratory courses.Another objective requires that senior capstone design experiences build on knowledge gainedfrom earlier courses. The teamwork spirit and associated concepts
her PhD in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell in 2008.Dr. Lisa Schneider-Bentley, Cornell University, College of Engineering Lisa Schneider-Bentley has been the Director of Engineering Learning Initiatives in Cornell University’s College of Engineering since 2002. Learning Initiatives’ programs enhance the educational environment of the College by facilitating opportunities for collaborative learning, undergraduate research, teaching skill development, peer instruction, and leadership development. Schneider-Bentley received her Ph.D. in Sociology from Cornell in 1997. Before taking her current position, she taught Sociology as an as- sistant professor at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, and then served as Senior
mechanical engineering coursework. The app needs to besimple yet effective and useful to comprehend complex models. So, the prototype app was testedto verify the requirements proposed and was evaluated by anonymous participants (that includedgraduate students and some faculty from the university peer survey system). Section 2 presentsthe related works in the field of AR for education, section 3 presents the features of thedeveloped app, the framework of the software, and the evaluation results. Section 4 presents thefuture direction for the app and section 5 provides the conclusion.2 Related LiteratureThe current use of AR in education is mainly focused on teaching for younger students as itprovides active interaction and engagement and can lower
ABET-TAC Accreditation in 2006. We spent much time inthe preceding years deciding on what direct measures of assessment we should do in whichcourses in the curriculum. After our process was set up, we wanted to do what Moskalrecommends, which is after an initial assessment process is set up, “greater attention can be paidto concerns of validity, trustworthiness, triangulation, and the completeness of the plan”6.In Borrego’s review of engineering research including such topics as assessment, it was foundthat the reliability and validity of the tests and homework assignments developed by programsare usually not established7. This is certainly the case for our EET program. We write all ourown tests, quizzes, etc., with no peer review, pre-test
them as individual assignments, and the last one as acomprehensive group project. Individual projects accounted for 30% of the total course grade,and the group project accounted for 10%. Like labs, projects were submitted online throughWebCAT. 50% of the project grade was based on passing WebCAT testcases, and writing cleancode observing styling standards. The other 50% of the grade was assigned manually by the TAsfor the implementation approach including the degree the approach was flexible, maintainable,and well-documented.After the transition, the group project was changed to be merely a design assignment with nocoding. Students were required to submit a UML (Unified Modeling Language) class diagram ofa COVID-19 real-time data visualization
of their experiences withand reactions to engineering coursework. In particular, differences between experiences ofpersisters and non-persisters in their first two years of study are compared to identify factors thatmay strongly influence non-persisters to switch out of engineering.Prior research on the same data set has found that at the onset of their first year, non-persistersare already less intent on finishing an undergraduate major, and they experience a sharp decreasein intrinsic psychological motivation to continue studying engineering after their first year. Thecurrent work shows that non-persisters do not take significantly less engineering courseworkthan their peers during their first year, and students who ultimately choose non
; for instance, Grove & Wasserman [14] examined the trajectories of college students’ GPA,while similar studies focused on undocumented youth [14] or compared students with ADHD and theirneurotypical peers [15]. These cases, however, include little or no mention of major or concentration, andso new work is needed to study GPA in the engineering context. In engineering education, many studiesthat propose a longitudinal approach to GPA focus more on between-subjects variables or treat a singlemeasure of GPA as an outcome. For instance, Durik et al. [16] and Bernold et al. [17] both include GPAas outcome variables, but they focus on students’ two-year cumulative GPA in time-delayed analysesrather than examine GPA across multiple time points
AC 2007-1694: INTRODUCTION OF VIDEO JOURNALS AND ARCHIVES IN THECLASSROOMAlexander Haubold, Columbia UniversityJohn R. Kender, Columbia University Page 12.985.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2007 Introduction of Video Journals and Archives in the ClassroomAbstractWe report on two innovative approaches of using video recordings in project-based coursestargeted at journaling student and team performance and project progression. The first approachis strictly managed by instructors and staff, and involves periodical recording of studentpresentations, which are made available to students for self and peer evaluation. The secondapproach is loosely managed
” offemale engineering undergraduates are as good as, if not better than, those of their male peers.”14 Because the outcome of preparatory and programmatic interventions has been largely positivefor URM students while remaining, in the aggregate, neutral for women, we seek to extend thisinquiry into self-confidenc to a different group of students. While much prior research hasfocused on tying differences in confidence to different trajectories of academic study, such asselecting a major or switching out of STEM majors, we wanted to investigate the interactionamong self-confidence, gender, and majority or URM status for those who “stuck with it,”persisting as engineering majors throughout their academic career.Given the persistent gender gap between
course of one semester. We present an overview of FEAL, its administration process withinthe CLS, and a detailed account of our evaluation methodology. We also highlight key lessonslearned on the engagement and success achieved by individual activities, and outline plannedimprovements to in-class activities based on the obtained results.Assessment of Collaborative LearningNumerous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of collaborative active-learningpedagogies compared to traditional lectures across STEM fields [1][2][3][4] and computerscience education in particular [5][6][7]. Active-learning techniques include think-pair-shareexercises [8][9], peer instruction [10], group problem solving, activities in CLS environmentsand extensive
which aligns “with contextual knowingand with synthetic and evaluative tasks. (p. 4)” 31 Another tool, originally termed the curriculardebrief and now termed the Engineering Professional Skills Assessment (EPSA), was developedat Washington State University to measure all of the ABET professional skills criteriasimultaneously 32, 33. This assessment places students on teams and tasks them with a complex,real-world scenario, giving them merely 45 minutes to “determine the most important problem/sand to discuss stakeholders, impacts, unknowns, and possible solutions. (p. 2)” 33 Other morecommonly used tools such as performance reviews and peer assessments have also beenreported.In order to help engineering students acquire proficiency in
at College of Engineering Pune (COEP) as the founder head of the innovation Center. Dr Waychal earned his Ph D in the area of developing Innovation Competencies in Information System Organizations from IIT Bombay and M Tech in Control Engineering from IIT Delhi. He has presented keynote / invited talks in many high prole international conferences and has published papers in peer- reviewed journals. He / his teams have won awards in Engineering Education, Innovation, Six Sigma, and Knowledge Management at international events. His current research interests are engineering edu- cation, software engineering, and developing innovative entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs. He was chosen as one of the five outstanding
help triangulate findings from the framework study. This studyprovided descriptors for aspects of engineering practice using terminology that is meaningful inany discipline3. For example, one of the 85 aspects is “Reduce costs (either in design,construction, operations or maintenance) use detailed technical and business knowledge toachieve required cost reductions while minimizing performance loss”. Not all engineers work inevery aspect, however, each aspect is supported by detailed evidence from the study. Someaspects have been part of every participant’s work, such as “Coordinate work of peers,subordinates and superiors; perform technical checks on work, watch for roadblocks, mayprovide advice and feedback, may review technical competence
focusimprovement of their aural comprehension skills.IntroductionThe history of education is filled with innovation in approaches for enhancing student mastery ofmaterial while also allowing more efficient delivery of instruction. New technologies in theclassroom are often attractive to faculty members because they can be used to foster learning inways that are not possible through a traditional lecture style format. As instructors, faculty havemoved from the not so distant past of writing on a black board, to writing in multiple colors on awhite board, to using overhead projectors with preprepared slides, to using overhead projectorswith PowerPoint[1], to using television sets in classrooms to watch videos in person or fromdistant classrooms[2, 3], to
feel that the assessment survey techniquedescribed here has merit and is a worthwhile contribution. The characteristics for this techniquethat most strongly recommend it are: 1. It is brief 2. It is administered at regular periodic intervals 3. It provides timely feedback about the class’s last assessment results either from the perspective of the instructor’s expectations, or peer expectations (descriptive statistics of the student’s last assessment).We believe that the surveys are generic, and should therefore be applicable in the Engineeringcurriculum where there are extended projects, such as lab based or design courses. Readersinterested in incorporating assessment techniques into their college classroom should see
rigors of an engineering curriculum, asignificant number of students participated in an art, dance, music, theater, or creative writing class(55%), taken a class on leadership topics (47%), and/or participated in student clubs outside ofengineering (44%) during college. There also were important differences in rates of participation bygender, underrepresented racial/ethnic minority status, and first generation college student status.Overall prediction of engineering task self-efficacy and innovation self-efficacy was relatively low, witha model fit of these learning experiences predicting engineering task self-efficacy at (adjusted r2 of) .200and .163 for innovation self-efficacy. Certain patterns emerged when the learning experiences weresorted
, WELCOME. She is the principal investigator for several grants related to recruitment and retention of diverse engineering students, including a National Science Foundation Research Experiences for Undergraduates site and a Research Experiences for Teachers site.Olga Pierrakos, James Madison University OLGA PIERRAKOS is an Assistant Professor in the School of Engineering at James Madison University. Prior to this, Dr. Pierrakos served as National Academy of Engineering CASEE Postdoctoral Engineering Education Researcher (PEER) at Virginia Tech and aspects of this published work were a result of this postdoctoral appointment. Dr. Pierrakos holds a B.S. in Engineering Science and
arrive at general consensus ofwhat appears to be widely accepted definitions, and to shed light on how common terms areused.Active learning is generally defined as any instructional method that engages students in thelearning process. It is widely accepted that active learning requires students to take part in “pre-planned” learning-related activities, believed to spark and stimulate their learning, while in theclassroom 5, 6 .These activities would include: reading, writing, solving problems, answeringquestions, participating in a discussion, etc.; and most important, students must be engaged inthinking tasks while actively involved. It is generally understood that during active learning, lessemphasis is placed on transmission of information
and stimulate their learning, while in theclassroom. (5, 6) These activities would include: reading, writing, solving problems, answeringquestions, participating in a discussion, etc.; and most important, students must be engaged inthinking tasks while actively involved. It is generally understood that during active learning, lessemphasis is placed on transmission of information and more on developing students’ skills.Additionally, during an active learning cycle, emphasis is placed on students’ exploration oftheir own abilities, including: their thinking process, their value system, their intellect, and theircourage to express themselves orally and in writing. Active learning is contrasted to thetraditional lecture where students passively
and conceptual information used to frame the problemin terms of needs/constraints; 2) design practices used (e.g., generating ideas, consideringmultiple stakeholders, remaining tentative); and 3) stylistic choices (e.g., organizing theirresponse, depicting context). We developed three DST scenarios and tested them in a chemicalengineering program over a three-year period (n=580). To make data analysis feasible, twoundergraduate peer-learning facilitators analyzed each DST independently (14 PLFscontributed), following minimal training. Results. Using a validity-as-argument approach (Linn,1994), we argue that the DST provides valid information about design problem-framing ability,provided the information is used for course improvement purposes
towards degree programs, those completing IEP may be at an academic advantagewhen compared to students with a similar academic background but who do not attend anintensive language training program. By improving students’ ability to communicate in thelanguage of instruction, IEP-attending students can become better equipped to engage in thelearning activities that lead to academic success, such as critical listening, taking notes, readingtextbook materials, understanding class lectures, performing writing assignments, interactingwith English-speaking peers in group assignments, and seeking assistance from English-speakingfaculty outside of the classroom. Regardless of a student’s field of study, an improved ability tounderstand and communicate in
AC 2007-1234: SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO? ENGINEERING STUDENTS'PERSISTENCE IS BASED ON LITTLE EXPERIENCE OR DATAGary Lichtenstein, Stanford University Gary Lichtenstein, Ed.D., is a Consulting Associate Professor of Engineering at Stanford University, specializing in quantitative and qualitative research methods. His areas of intellectual interest include engineering education, community-based research, and education evaluation and policy. His extensive teaching experience includes courses on qualitative research methods (for graduate students), and on writing and critical thinking (for students ranging from high school to professionals). He lives in southeast Utah. He can be contacted at
paper, asks students to put away their books, and writes amath problem on the blackboard, learners may expect that they are required to complete theproblem on their papers in silence and that they will be evaluated on their work. The gamelearners would assume themselves to be playing is the “test” game. By contrast, if an instructorintroduces a visitor from a nearby engineering firm and asks that visitor to present a dilemmafaced by her organization, learners may assume a very different kind of game – one in which thegoal is to solve a problem so that they can offer advice on how to overcome a real-life challenge.When novice elementary teachers are asked to complete an engineering design task, we mightexpect stability in an “engineering game