became useful in designing the final instrument was a Q-matrix that weupdated throughout the redesign. A Q-matrix15, 16 is similar to a table of specifications17 exceptthat it is a matrix of concepts (horizontal) and items (vertical). A Q-matrix can be used torepresent the mapping between items and FKs. We had two different versions of Q-matrices, oneat the item level and one at the item response level (e.g., “A”, “B”, “C”, etc.; our items weremultiple-choice). Table 1 shows a portion of one of our item level Q-matrices. In this table, wehave four items, four concepts (“FK.c#”), and four misconceptions (“FK.m#”). The cells arecoded dichotomously: a “1” indicates that solving the item requires proficiency with thatconcept. An item can be coded
analysis uncovers whether team memberscorrectly perceive the relationships among their teammates. These initial findings openopportunities for future work on the role social network analysis can play in the analysis ofcollaborative learning.1. IntroductionReal world engineering design problems are frequently solved by teams; therefore, as educators,we are required, both by ABET and common sense, to give students the skills and attitudes thatenable them to work effectively in teams. One of the key skills is the ability to engage incollaborative learning with team members. In the process of acquiring the knowledge necessaryto solve the design problem, collaborative learning gives students the opportunity to both learnfrom and to teach their peers
toacquire conceptual understanding of the topics taught. Consequently, a course’s assessmentshould at least in part evaluate this conceptual understanding. 1 To achieve this, there are multipleassessment methods that could be used, as for example essays or oral exams. However, many ofthese methods require a very high time investment on the part of the instructor, which is, in manycases, simply not possible. For large classes, multiple-choice tests are among the most efficienttypes of assessment. Although much care has to be taken in their development, machine-basedscoring of multiple-choice tests can significantly reduce an instructor’s work load, freeing uptime for more face to face interaction with students. However, one main point of criticism
accumulation processes. Three categories of conceptualunderstanding are included in the RACI: (1) first order calculus, (2) mass flow, in particularwater flow, and (3) heat transfer.Pilot testing of the RACI took place in a sophomore civil and environmental engineering course.Results from pilot testing indicated the presence of persistent misconceptions among the studentsin all three categories of understanding. Student performance on the RACI went from 56% to59% after instruction. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha;values were 0.77 for the entire instrument and ranged from 0.64 to 0.76 for the three conceptcategories of the RACI.Introduction Mass and energy balances are fundamental process models adopted by
with industry and peers involved with TAMUK’s JavelinaInnovation Laboratory (JIL). Exposure to these curricular design experiences are wrapped in asupportive layer of peer mentoring to promote student success. Cascading vertically, Page 26.331.5undergraduate seniors mentor juniors, juniors mentor sophomores, and sophomores mentorfreshmen. This STEP project is being piloted in four undergraduate engineering programs in theTAMUK Frank H. Dotterweich College of Engineering (i.e., mechanical, civil, chemical, andenvironmental).The CASCADE objectives are:1. Infuse concepts of the design process across all four levels of the engineering
to the three groupings found through qualitative analysis. Results of this mixedmethods study indicate that previous qualitative results are generalizable to a differentengineering population. This work brings us a step closer to developing a valid instrument toassess motivation based on FTP for use alongside performance assessments, allowing for betterunderstanding of how the affective domain influences cognitive performance in engineering.Introduction:The study of student motivation in engineering has developed around one of two conceptualizationsof motivation: 1) short-term task-specific motivation and 2) student motivation toward long-termgoals. Task-specific motivation seeks to understand student motivation for performing andcompleting
framework for quantifying simulateddesign problem complexity, we present a metric of complexity, tractability 𝑻, supported by datafrom real student work on a simulated engineering design problem.TheoryEngineering Design EducationDesign is a critical part of the engineering profession [1], [2]. As a result, design is a centralfocus of engineering education in terms of teaching, learning, and assessment [3], [4]. In a recentstudy, Sheppard and others [5] interviewed faculty and students about the field of engineeringand concluded that design is the most critical component of engineering education. One facultymember asserted that “guiding students to learn ‘design thinking’ and the design process, socentral to professional practice, is the
the majority agreed that the format was effective in their learning.Additional results from comparing the two courses, as well as examples of student-generatedmaterials are presented and discussed in context of the overall research aim.Introduction: Engineering students face increasingly complex problems whose solutions often requireinterdisciplinary teams and significant interaction with diverse stakeholders [1-6]. Exploringcontemporary issues in society within engineering classrooms may help prepare students forthese challenges. One contemporary issue with significant engineering considerations is theadvancement and proliferation of hydraulic fractured oil/gas well stimulation, or “fracking” [7].Fracking has substantially increased
player may get hurt more than the larger player (although an equal forceis exerted on both players)1.These misconceptions can survive even after extensive direct instruction. Concept inventories arespecifically designed tests that target common misconceptions, so they serve as useful tools toassess student learning and effectiveness of teaching practices. Performance on the DynamicsConcept Inventory (DCI) at the end of a large size dynamics class taught by traditional methodsshows a student average of only 32.1%2 . Such a low score shows that simply learning the correctequations needed to solve a problem does not mean a student has mastered the conceptualcontent of a topic 3, 4.Considerable effort has been spent trying to find instructional
PDP. The identical questionnaire was administered a second time after theseminar and again three months later. We compare different formats of the seminar as well asinstructors from different academic disciplines. The focus is laid especially on instructors inSTEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) versus non-STEMdisciplines. The data obtained suggest that (1) there are differences between STEM and non-STEM instructors with respect to their initial beliefs, (2) there is noticeable development of theinstructors’ conceptions about teaching and learning as a result of participation in the program,and (3) different formats of the same program may display widely differing effectiveness.1 IntroductionIn recent years
Social network analysis (SNA) is a type of analysis that enables researchers to examinethe relationships among members of a given system or group.15 The network analysis approachenables researchers to identify, visualize, and analyze the informal communicative patterns andnetworks that underlie the formal organizational structure.16 In contrast to the “organizationalchart” that might show how communication is supposed to flow within the organization, networkanalysis shows the actual communication and relationships that emerge within the organizationor team. In this approach, several key terms must be defined (for the definitions offered here, seeWasserman & Faust, 1994, ch. 1). Actors refer to the social entities, who are the
2012(nUniversity 1 = 81, nUniversity 2 = 64) and spring 2013 (nUniversity 1 = 186, nUniversity 2 = 34). Informedconsent procedures were followed according to guidelines by each university’s institutionalreview board. Table 1 shows the gender and academic level distributions for students whoparticipated in the study.Table 1Participants’ Gender and Undergraduate Level Fall 2012 Spring 2013 n % n % Gender Male 91 62.76 168 76.36 Female 54 37.24 52 23.64 Undergraduate Level Lowerclassmen
reliability of .8 is generally considered asign of good measurement. But simply summarizing the reliability with a single number maskstwo very important facts: (1) the precision may vary considerably across the ability distribution,and (2) different test questions provide more and less information at different points in theability distribution.We believe these points are becoming increasingly relevant as testing becomes a larger issue incollege instruction. With questions about accountability and efficiency gaining in prominence,and with a new interest in the possibility of differentiated instruction, we think it is a good timeto examine the status quo of classroom testing in large undergraduate classes. We do this byanalyzing testing data from two
Effects Grades: Sizeness and the Exploration of the Multiple‐Institution Database for Investigating Engineering Longitudinal Development through Hierarchal Linear Models Page 26.280.2Introduction In a recent study, an effect entitled sectionality was probed to determine the effect ofdifferent course sections at various schools had on students’ grades.[1] A caveat of that studybrought up numerous times in lectures and via private correspondence – one left out of theoriginal paper – was the effect of class size (or sizeness) for the same introductory courses.While anecdotally, faculty from all over the country had discussed with the researchers in thepast few years that
relationships that become difficult to correct. Using DBL, thecorrect relationships are clearly identified through the student’s decisions. While DBL shares manycharacteristics with existing methods, it is presented here as a new pedagogy that has not beenstudied prior to this paper.DBL has similarities to existing active learning methods [8-13], but differs in several importantways. First, a general to specific decision set provides the structure for solving novel problems.Second, students receive help with their understanding when they have trouble making thosedecisions. The goal of this method is to build expertise and to increase the chance that a studentcan solve novel and complex problems by: 1) Improving student understanding through the
Engineering Design AssessmentIntroductionHistorian of education Diane Ravitch [1] argues: “Education means to lead forth, but it isimpossible to lead anyone anywhere without knowing where you want to go” (pg. 25).Educational standards developed by instructors and institutions play a critical role in leadingstudents—they define what students should know and what they should be able to do at a certainlevel. In other words, standards provide a destination for where we want students to be at acertain point in their education. However, simply knowing the destination is not enough to helpstudents get there. We have to have a roadmap to guide students in their travels and to determineif they have arrived at the destination
degrees di = deg(vi ). De-fine the degree sequence of G to be the non-increasing sequence {di1 , · · · , din }. For example, Figure 1 shows a graph whose degrees sequence is [2,2,2,1,1]. Thegraph contains 5 vertices. The number of edges, |E|, can be calculated, deg(vi ) = 2|E|.In the above sequence, there are 2+2+2+1+1 2 = 82 = 4 edges. Graphs of this nature canbe used to represent a range of social and natural phenomena including the worldwide web, food chains, and the famous ”small world” problem (see Strogatz, 2001 fora review). Here, we use them to represent classrooms. Figure 1: Graph with degree
Maintained Situational phases of interest are hypothesized to beprimarily state-based, while Emerging and Well-Developed Individual phases are considered tobe trait based. Over time, and through repeated activation, states can develop into traits, throughneural reorganization during brain development12. This is one reason why early experiences thatfirst “catch” and then “hold” one’s interest are thought to have such a sustained effect on laterinterest development13, 14. Hidi and Renninger’s model provides empirically driven descriptive characteristics ofstudents in each phase of interest (see Table 1). These descriptive characteristics allow insightinto measurable indicators of interest that go beyond surface level descriptors like
engineering careers were measured byonly one item each. Further, there are other studies that investigated the impact of only a handful of out-of-classactivities. For example, Flowers9 looked at activities, such as student union, athletic andrecreation, and clubs and organization. Similarly, Huang and Chang (2004) focused on activities,such as attended a club meeting, joined a club, and led a club10. In a similar pattern, Webber,Krylow, and Zhang11 investigated community/service projects and interactions with faculty andstaff. To the best of our knowledge, Elkins, Forrester and Noel-Elkins6 included the highestnumber, 14 as shown in Figure 1, of out-of-class activities in a single study to measure students’perceived sense of campus community. The
gatekeeping courses. Among many factors to this failure, an important one isattributed to the lack of engaging pedagogy inside and outside classrooms. Through this NSFWIDER Program sponsored planning project, a team of faculty and administrators at AlabamaAgricultural and Mechanical University (AAMU) are implementing evidence-based instructionalpractices in foundation courses in STEM curricula. Recognizing that it is essential to implementeffective pedagogy in gateway courses where most attrition occurs, this project has conducted apilot study, which focuses on: (1) collecting baseline data about the extent to which evidence-based practices are currently being used in STEM gateway courses; (2) redesigning threefoundational gateway courses in
Full Range of Leadership in Student Teams: Developing an InstrumentIntroductionThe federal government and industry have called for engineers to play a more prominent leadershiprole in business and public service.1-3 Increasing the technical literacy in high levels of leadershipmay help shape decisions which support well-informed, economically sustainable innovation andsolutions to problems facing our planet.1; 3 Because formative experiences during undergraduateyears help engineers shape their professional identities,4; 5 purposefully helping students cultivatetheir leadership skills is an important step toward meeting those calls. Leadership scholars suggestthat shared leadership may be a more effective leadership
-regulation. The results are discussed with respect to their implications for instruction in engineering education. Keywords: active learning; hands-on learning; motivation; cooperative learning IntroductionVarious reports published within the past decade highlight a wide range of problems withengineering curricula, especially the lecture-dominated form of transmitting core engineeringconcepts to students [1-5]. These reports also show- that students’ motivation in learningengineering concepts continues to wane resulting in reduced interest in engineering careers andlow student-retention in engineering programs. Researchers have proposed different approachesto tackling this problem [6-7
higher education. For a number of years within engineering education, engineeringaccreditation boards in the US, Canada, and internationally, have recognized lifelong learning asone of the key competencies of engineering graduates. Characteristics of the lifelong learnerinclude the ability to “set goals, apply appropriate knowledge and skills, engage in self-directionand self-evaluation, locate required information, and adapt their learning strategies to differentconditions” (p. 292-293)1, 2. Inherent in these skills of lifelong learning is the ability for one to bea self-regulated learner with the ability to plan, monitor, control, and adjust his or her behaviourto achieve a desired outcome. In a learning context, self-regulation is highly
Initiative (WPSI). The acronym was changed from“WPSE” to WPSI. We dropped the “E” as our intent was never to be exclusive to non-engineering students or faculty members. At ASEE 2014, we presented preliminary results fromthe first WPSI iteration. Following the 2014 conference, we identified the need for a valid,reliable, and easily replicable assessment measure that could be used both within and outside ofWPSI to measure the attainment of a series of sustainability-related learning objectivesthroughout the engineering education research community.1 In this paper, we present the ongoingdevelopment and refinement of this measure, the Sustainability Skills and Dispositions Scale(SSDS). This instrument evaluates students’ attainment of learning
at The Ohio State University to accomplish two major goals: (1) to providean inclusive learning environment in order to accommodate the learning styles of all studentsthrough the incorporation of online multimedia learning modules to be completed prior to class,and (2) to provide more in-class studio time with activities designed to increase active learning.The 15-week course covers a wide variety of fundamental engineering topics and laboratoryexercises but emphasizes problem solving and computer programming in MATLAB and C/C++.The class met for four 125-minute sessions per week in classrooms with studio-style seatingarrangements in groups of four with a desktop computer for each seat. In this research project,we asked the evidence-based
hypothesized that increases ininterest and attainment value, and decreases in perceived psychological cost value, would beassociated with higher academic achievement among undergraduates in engineering and withretention (maintaining enrollment in the college of engineering the following year).Participants in the current study included first-year students from an urban metropolitanuniversity enrolled in a school of engineering (n = 376, 21.8% female) in Fall 2013. Participantscompleted a self-report survey assessing their motivational beliefs twice during the first semester(Time 1 [T1]: first week of the semester; Time 2 [T2]: thirteenth week of the semester). Interestin engineering was measured by a single item. A five-item scale was used to measure
bemeasured.Moreover, the ability to evaluate one’s course in the context of curriculum development can alsobe daunting. The task is made more streamlined using the First-Year Introduction to EngineeringCourse Classification Scheme, but this tool only quantifies the content (the objectives) of thecourse.1 Assessment and any associated performance metrics are not captured directly using thismethodology, so while the tool is useful for quantifying course objectives, its use as anassessment tool is limited – especially in the context of a curriculum review. Thus, byconstruction, the opportunity to remind the users to consider a one to one correspondencebetween the performance objectives and assessment is lost. Ensuring the balance of assessmentand objectives is
identifying information-rich cases may reduce bias whileallowing qualitative analysis for in-depth research questions.The purpose of this paper is to describe an outlier analysis followed by a cluster analysis toinform purposeful sampling as part of sequential mixed-methods studies. Three hypotheses aretested: 1) Purposeful sampling can be performed using statistical methods that weight criteriaequally for all prospective participants. 2) Outliers represent critical cases of groups within adesired population for maximum variation or contrast sampling techniques 3) Due to outliernature, sample size affects the quality of critical cases identification.The sample included adults in academia and industry who competed a lifelong learning scale
Engineering course Although recent literature in engineering education has focused on student enjoymentof coursework and its influence on student retention, 1- 3 very little research has incorporatedtheoretical frameworks which identify the specific roles that student beliefs and emotionsplay in course engagement. 4 To supplement self-report measures when assessing students’emotions in learning environments, many educational researchers have attempted to tiephysiological responses to students’ beliefs, affects, and motivation – including those thatutilized self-reported bodily responses, brain imaging, galvanic skin responses, andcardiovascular responding. 5- 12 Some researchers in education, but not many, have utilized thebiological marker
participants andoften lacks evidence of validity. This paper examines the perceptions and use of engagedthinking, a term that encompasses critical and reflective thinking, by six students throughout a10-week Research Experience for Undergraduates summer program. An analysis of a series ofinterviews conducted with each student throughout their research experience presented themesrelated to prerequisites for engaged thinking (background knowledge, disposition, andtransitional circumstances) which could address some of the shortcomings that have previouslyprevented undergraduate research from reaching its full potential.IntroductionThe development of critical thinking skills represents one of the primary goals of undergraduateengineering education.1-3 In