Paper ID #25873Impact of Active Learning Classrooms on Feedback-Supported Student Learn-ingDr. Jae-Eun Russell, University of Iowa Dr. Russell serves as the Associate Director for the Office of Teaching, Learning & Technology at the University of Iowa. She completed her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from the University of Iowa. Her research examines instructional practices that support successful student learning. Her research also in- volves autonomous motivation, self-regulated learning, technology adoption, and learning analytics adop- tion.Prof. Mark S. Andersland, University of Iowa Mark S. Andersland is an
engineering.Dr. Jessica E. S. Swenson, University of Michigan Jessica Swenson is a post doctoral fellow at the University of Michigan. She was awarded her doctorate and masters from Tufts University in mechanical engineering and STEM education respectively. Her current research involves examining different types of homework problems in undergraduate engineering science courses, flexible classroom spaces, active learning, responsive teaching, and elementary school engineering teachers.Mr. Max William Blackburn, University of Michigan Max Blackburn is a fifth year undergraduate Electrical Engineering student at the University of Michi- gan, focusing in Power systems and Energy. He is currently assisting Dr. Cynthia Finelli with
Paper ID #26222Exhibiting Productive Beginnings of Engineering Judgment during Open-Ended Modeling Problems in an Introductory Mechanics of Materials CourseDr. Jessica E. S. Swenson, University of Michigan Jessica Swenson is a post doctoral fellow at the University of Michigan. She received her doctorate and masters from Tufts University in mechanical engineering and STEM education respectively. Her current research involves examining different types of homework problems in undergraduate engineering courses, teaching in flexible classroom spaces, active learning, responsive teaching, and developing elementary engineering
pursuing STEM majors. Her research interests include student attitudes toward diversity, integrating socioscientific and sociopolitical issues in the college STEM classroom, and increasing the representation and retention of underrepresented minorities in STEM.Mr. Nelson S. Pearson, University of Nevada, Reno Nelson Pearson is a Ph.D. student at the University of Nevada, Reno. His research interest includes social networks and the integration of diverse populations, engineering culture, supporting a sense of belonging- ness, as well as engineering pedagogy. His education includes a B.S. and M.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Nevada, Reno.Mr. Justin Charles Major, Purdue University, West Lafayette
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
Paper ID #25835Teaching Undergraduate Engineering Students Gratitude, Meaning, and Mind-fulnessMs. Julianna S. Ge, Purdue University, West Lafayette Julianna Ge is a Ph.D. student in the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. At Purdue, she created and currently teaches a novel course for undergraduate engineering students to explore the intersections of wellbeing, leadership, diversity and inclusion. As an NSF Graduate Research Fellow, her research interests intersect the fields of engineering education, positive psychology, and human de- velopment to understand diversity, inclusion, and success for
student learning and success, and the impact of a flexible classroom space on faculty teaching and student learning. She also led a project to develop a taxonomy for the field of engineering education research, and she was part of a team that studied ethical decision-making in engineering students.Trevion S. Henderson, University of Michigan Trevion Henderson is a doctoral student in the Center for Higher and Postsecondary Education (CSHPE) at the University of Michigan. He recently earned his master’s degree in Higher Education and Student Affairs at The Ohio State University while serving as a graduate research associate with the Center for Higher Education Enterprise. Trevion also hold’s a Bachelor’s degree in
Evaluation in the School of Education at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University where she taught graduate level courses in mixed methods research. She is the author of the 2018 SAGE textbook, An Introduction to Fully Integrated Mixed Methods Research.Dr. Marian S. Kennedy, Clemson University Marian Kennedy is an Associate Professor within the Department of Materials Science & Engineering at Clemson University. Her research group focused on the mechanical and tribological characterization of thin films. She also contributes to the engineering education community through research related to undergraduate research programs and navigational capital needed for graduate school.Dr. Courtney June Faber
South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. She is the recipient of the ASEE CE Division Seeley Fellowship and the Mechanics Division Beer and Johnston Outstanding New Mechanics Educator Award. She is a fellow of ASCE and ASCE/SEI. She received her PhD from Georgia Tech, and also holds degrees in both Civil Engineering and Visual and Performing Arts from Purdue UniversityDr. Kristen S. Cetin, Iowa State University Dr. Kristen S Cetin is an Assistant Professor at Iowa State University in the Department of Civil, Con- struction and Environmental Engineering.Dr. Bora Cetin, Iowa State University Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental EngineeringDr. Benjamin Ahn, Iowa State
) for the Academy for Excellence in Engineering Education (AE3) at UIUC. At the national level, she served as the Executive Director of the biomedical engineering honor society, Alpha Eta Mu Beta (2011-2017) and is an ABET evaluator (2018-present).Ms. Angela Wolters, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Director, Women in EngineeringDr. Brian S. Woodard, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Dr. Woodard received his Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign in 2011. His Aerospace research interests currently focus on the effects of icing on the aero- dynamics of swept-wing aircraft. In engineering education, he is also interested in project-based learning and
perceptionsof doing engineering work, regardless of occupational title. We also believe that a sequentialregression model will show that engineering belief measures predict a significant proportion ofvariance in perceptions of having jobs “related to” engineering, over and above SCCT variables.AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank the Purdue University Davidson School of Engineering, whosePipeline Center funded this project. This work was also supported by the NSF (DGE-1333468).Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are thoseof the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1] E. Cech, “The Self-Expressive Edge of Occupational Sex Segregation
makerspaces critically calls attention to the practices of makerspaceswhich may be inequitable. However, makerspace practitioners rarely engage or are engagedin this type of work. There is an opportunity to bring together the generous and the critical tosupport the design of more equitable university makerspaces.Different stakeholders within engineering education have different definitions of equitywhich are drawn from their lived experiences. The purpose of our framework is not to putforth a definition of equity we believe everyone should use, rather we believe the frameworkcan help us structure conversations on equity in makerspaces through a shared understanding.Against this backdrop, our research is informed by Vossoughi et al.’s definition
Statistics [8], first-generation college students were characterizedas students’ whose parents did not have postsecondary educational experience. Another studystated, “first-generation college students include students whose parents may have some college,postsecondary certificate(s), or associate’s degree, but not a bachelor’s degree” and this definitionclosely aligns with the definition set forth by the Federal TRiO program (i.e., outreach and studentservice programs created to serve students from disadvantaged backgrounds) [9, p. 8]. There areinconsistencies and numerous ways in defining first-generation college students, so much so thatWhitley et al. [10] found at least six different definitions. However, regardless of how first-generation
and community populations Example(s) Integrate design thinking Increase the difficulty of and Introduce a design project in activities into technical labs time spent on lab projects which students design for and because the challenge was how with an elementary school you developed as an engineer classTable 3. Comparison of Similar Heuristic Observed in All Three Datasets Team Meetings Instructor Interviews Course Papers Title Increase activity within lecture Get students active in lecture Increase activity in lecture Description Add hands-on
partners will benefit from an improved hiring pool of highly preparedand experienced candidates and from a constant stream of engineering solutions provided by ourstudent teams. Furthermore, this project will help underserved populations at UC Merced succeedprofessionally through the incorporation of collaborative and experiential learning, therebymaking engineering education more inclusive. Finally, the proposed PDT will help make theengineering profession equally attractive and accessible to all students which, in turn, will lead toa more diverse STEM workforce.References[1] S. Howe, L. Rosenbauer, J. Dyke Ford, N. Alvarez, M. Paretti, C. Gewirtz, D. Kotys-Schwartz, D. Knight and C. Hernandez, "Preliminary Results from a Study Investigating
searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43–55.Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefsabout knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of EducationalResearch, 67(1), 88–140.King, P. M. & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding andPromoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults. San Francisco:Jossey Bass.King, P.M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2001). “The Reflective Judgment Model: Twenty Years ofResearch on Epistemic Cognition,” in B.K. Hofer and P.R. Pintrich, eds., PersonalEpistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing, Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.King, P. M. & Kitchener, K. S
. 2001.[5] N. Cross, Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer-Verlag, 2007.[6] D. Crismond and R. S. Adams, “A Scholarship of Integration : The Matrix of Informed Design,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 101, no. 4, pp. 738–797, 2012.[7] S. R. Daly, R. S. Adams, and G. M. Bodner, “What Does it Mean to Design? A Qualitative Investigation of Design Professionals’ Experiences,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 187–219, 2012.[8] H. Wang, T. J. Moore, G. H. Roehrig, and M. S. Park, “STEM Integration : Teacher Perceptions and Practice STEM Integration : Teacher Perceptions and Practice,” J. Pre- 13 College Eng. Educ. Res., vol. 1
accuracy and noteswere taken by the interviewer at the time of the interviews.Qualitative modeling with the FRAM. The FRAM consists of four steps: (1) functionidentification and description, (2) variability identification, (3) variability aggregation, and (4)control mechanism identification [25]. The functions that comprise each model, identified anddefined in the first step, represent all actions that occur within the system. Each function ischaracterized by up to six factors: input(s), output(s), precondition(s), resource(s) or executivecondition(s), control(s), and time. A function may be a foreground function if it is the primaryprocess of concern or a background function if it affects the process but is not directly involved.The first three
] Committee on Revitalizing Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century, Board on Higher Education and Workforce, Policy and Global Affairs, and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Graduate STEM education for the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2018.[8] J. L. Lott, S. Gardner, and D. A. Powers, “Doctoral student attrition in the stem fields: an exploratory event history analysis,” Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 247–266, Aug. 2009.[9] E. Crede and M. Borrego, “Learning in Graduate Engineering Research Groups of Various Sizes,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 565–589, Jul. 2012.[10] E. Horowitz, N. Sorensen, N
, U.K., Ashgate, 2008, pp. 57-80.[5] S. E. Dreyfus and H. L. Dreyfus, "A Five-Stage Model of the Mental Activities Involved in Directed Skill Acquisition," California University Berkley Operations Research Center, No. ORC-80-2, 1980.[6] R. R. Hoffmann and G. Lintern, "Eliciting and representing the knowledge of experts," in Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 203-222.[7] R. R. Hoffman and J. Smith, Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.[8] S. E. Dreyfus, "The Five-Stage Model of Adult Skill Acquisition," Bulletin of Science, Technology, & Society, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 177-181, 2004.[9] D
. This individual treatment of engineering competencies was also reflected in thetreatment of the ABET learning outcomes at the onset of their accreditation changes to outcomes-basedassessment. For example, in an unpublished review of the Journal of Engineering Education from2006-2011 conducted by the first author to explore publications on the teaching and assessing of theengineering ‘professional skills’ (e.g., teamwork, communication skills, ethics, professionalism, andlifelong learning) in response to Shuman et al.’s 2005 article3, 11 out of the 12 articles that met thecriteria focused exclusively on one or two student outcomes4-15. During this time period, there were noarticles published in this journal that considered the conceptual or
], [14], [18], [19].Need for a STEM Observation ProtocolIn addition to the challenge of defining STEM education, there have been challenges in assessingintegrated STEM instruction in K-12 classrooms. Given the rapid development of both K-12engineering and integrated STEM, it is critical that researchers have access to valid and reliableinstruments to determine the efficacy of different teaching and curricular approaches related toboth teacher effectiveness and student learning. The lack of a protocol designed specifically forsuch teaching will lead to reliance on the use of teacher self-report data or the use of protocolsthat measure “just good” teaching without consideration of the nature of the discipline(s) beingtaught. Existing instruments
Rater 4 -0.91 -0.99 -1 -1.17 -1.25 -1.26 -1.43 -1.41 -1.46 -1.5 -1.51 -1.54 -1.71 -1.76 -1.82 -2 -2.01 -2.06 -2.5Figure 6. Calculation of the range of rater severity from FACET parameter estimationFurther diagnosis revealed some of the overarching areas of disagreement. For example, Table 2reveals statistically significant bias regarding how Rater 5 scored the first PROCESS item,“Identify the Problem,” and Rater 3’s rating of the second item, “Represent the problem.” Thescores the
program, 40% of the population is comprised of women, a stark contrast to thesmall percentage of women represented in more traditional engineering programs. We felt thatinterviewing a proportionally larger number of women in a context different than traditionalengineering programs might provide insight into their construction, understanding, and valuingof knowledge(s). We acknowledge that this might risk having the male student having tokenrepresentation, and a follow-up study and analysis plans to address this gender imbalance.Data Collection: Participants were recruited from the AME capstone course and were chosenbecause the course is only taken by students approaching graduation; we felt that these studentshad ample experience with the program
regulatory move,asking the group “how to work best together?” M2 responds in a joking manner with, “I thinksharing ideas is a good idea,” his gaze moving over the other group members while smiling. M1echoes M2’s response, evoking laughter from all group members. Following this interaction, theGTA addresses a separate, nearby group and offers several suggestions as to how to think aboutthis first bullet point. The group members in the study all look over and listen to the GTA’ssuggestions. After listening to the GTA’s advice, M1 laughs to his group and states, “Well thatdidn't really help.” The group laughs, then goes back to writing independently before F1 asks,“Are you guys writing actual stuff or just generic teamwork things?” M2 responds with a
the authors, and the Commission cannot be heldresponsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.7. References[1] S. Swarat, P. H. Oliver, L. Tran, J. G. Childers, B. Tiwari, and J. L. Babcock, “How Disciplinary Differences Shape Student Learning Outcome Assessment,” AERA Open, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 233285841769011, 2017.[2] G. W. G. Bendermacher, M. G. A. oude Egbrink, I. H. A. P. Wolfhagen, and D. H. J. M. Dolmans, “Unravelling quality culture in higher education: a realist review,” High. Educ., vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 39–60, 2017.[3] B. J. Harper and L. R. Lattuca, “Tightening Curricular Connections: CQI and Effective Curriculum Planning,” Res. High. Educ., vol. 51, pp. 505–527, 2010.[4
learning, which may inturn increase STEM grades. Finally, we will also determine whether the scale has predictivevalidity over longer time periods on the psychological variables assessed in this study.We are optimistic about the potential to develop a reliable measure of STEM study strategies, aswell as explore whether intervening to change students’ study behaviors can improve importantSTEM outcomes.AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to the National Science Foundation (NSF-DUE #1565032) for funding thisstudy.References[1] Rach, S., & Heinze, A. (2011). Studying mathematics at the university: The influence of learning strategies. Presented at the 35th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Ankara
. The proposed creativity enhancing activitieswere created by Destination Imagination, a non-profit educational organization dedicated toteaching the creative process [28, 29].2. Background and MotivationCreativity is a construct that is commonly used, yet in research related terms, it evades consensusin definition [17] - [19]. This can undermine consistent findings when examining the efficacy ofcreativity enhancement and assessment. Although a single agreed upon definition has not beenestablished, Plucker, et al.’s survey of research on creativity found that there appears to be someconsensus that creativity has two basic characteristics: originality and usefulness [17]. For thisstudy, the definition proposed by Plucker, Gehetto, and Dow will
, 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