20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AaeE) Conference, , Adelaide, Australia.[40] Fink, L.D. 2013. Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. John Wiley & Sons.[41] French, M.J. 1998. Conceptual design for engineers. 3rd ed. London: Springer-Verlag.[42] Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., and Grote, K.-H. 2007. Engineering design: a systematic approach. Third ed. London: Springer-Verlag.[43] Mellor, S.J., and Balcer, M.J. 2002. Executable UML: A foundation for Model-Driven Architecture. Addison-Wesley, Indiannapolis, IN.[44] Knight, P.T. 2001. "Complexity and Curriculum: a process approach to curriculum-making
affective issues in mathematics education, professional development of preservice and in-service teachers, and engineering education. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Integrated Engineering in Elementary Education: Tackling Challenges to Rural Teacher TrainingAbstractResearchers worked with a rural education cooperative to deliver engineering educationprofessional development to 38 elementary teachers. Teachers received training in Engineeringis Elementary (EiE) and Family Engineering curriculum and then implemented those lessonswith their 2nd-5th grade students. Researchers administered pre- and post- measures to gaugechanges in teachers’ and students’ knowledge
assist in supporting the Communities. In the case of campuses pursuing G.E. Paths,an FLC will be created for each path. For all campuses there will be an FLC created to developthe minor. Each FLC has a suggested size of 12. Table 2 Three FLCs models on each campus University Northridge Los Angeles Pomona Approach Integrating liberal Integrating Liberal Arts Across Integrating Liberal arts and the Curriculum with an Urban Arts into upper level engineering with a Sustainability Theme engineering courses G.E. Path theme with the energy
determiningthe appropriate integration points, timing, and interactive tactics for weaving all of the contentfrom Table 3. Whether delivering the material through in-class activities or industry ledexercises, this process allows her to see how soft skills development can be integrated andreinforced across multiple points in the curriculum, and how industry partnerships can beleveraged to enhance the overall learning experience. The approach is unlike previousprofessional formation activities, which delivered professional content in silos. As an example,Table 4 illustrates how anchoring concepts and professional learning might come together in aknowledge integration activity.Table 3: Content for professional formation thread Professional Formation
efforts maintaining minimal reference to learning outcomes assessment datameasured for accreditation. The lack of utilization of digital technology and appropriatemethodologies supporting the automation of outcomes assessment further exacerbate thissituation. Furthermore, learning outcomes data measured by most institutions is rarely classifiedinto all three domains of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy and their corresponding categories of thelevels of learning. Generally institutions classify courses of a program curriculum into three levels:introductory, reinforced and mastery. The outcomes assessment data is measured for mastery levelcourses in order to streamline the documentation and effort needed for an effective programevaluation. A major
Paper ID #16749Towards a Scholarship of Integration: Lessons from Four CasesDr. Freddy Solis, Purdue University, West Lafayette Freddy Solis is a postdoctoral researcher in the College of Engineering at Purdue University. He holds a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering with an emphasis on innovation management and engineering education, an MBA, a Master’s in Civil Engineering from Purdue University, and a Bachelor’s in Civil Engineering from the Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Mexico. His research focuses on all aspects of innovation, drawing from multiple schools of thought, with a special emphasis on typologies such as enabling
, no. 3, pp. 497–510, 2008.19. A. Gross, J. Harmon, and M. Reidy, Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to thepresent. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2002.20. J. Fahnestock, “Rhetoric of science: Enriching the discipline,” Technical Communication Quarterly, vol. 14, no.3, pp. 277–286, Summer 2005.21. J. Swales, “On models of applied discourse analysis” in Research and Practice in Professional Discourse, C.Candlin, Ed. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press, 2002.22. L. Flowerdew, “An integration of corpus-based and genre-based approaches to text analysis in EAP/ESP:countering criticisms against corpus-based methodologies,” English for Specific Purposes, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 321–332, 2005.23. C. R
a teaching and learning community that spans the disciplines. 3. Dedicating time in departmental faculty meetings to first personalize the vision of this proposal for their department and then to share teaching pedagogies tried in classes as well as techniques for implementing classroom changes, thus creating learning organizations within each department.The three routines described are focused on continuous learning and improvement. They developnew ideas that lead to changes. Furthermore, they make continual changes to the overallstructure, seek grassroots innovation, and involve people with different views, thus increasingbuy-in among the major stakeholders. The passing of expertise in integrating active learning intoSTEM curriculum is
how people learn. Making Learning Whole3 is an example of aninstructional framework that integrates many of the latest findings on how people learn, andproposes seven principles on how to design an individual or set of learning experiences in waysthat facilitate comprehensive learning in a variety of course designs. Perkins describes his approach as learning by wholes and uses a sports metaphor toexpound on the following seven principles: 1) Play the Whole Game; 2) Make the Game WorthPlaying; 3) Work on the Hard Parts; 4) Play Out of Town; 5) Uncover the Hidden Game; 6)Learn From the Team; and 7) Learn the Game of Learning. Each of these will be described inlayman’s terms. “Play the Whole Game” speaks to the need to design
Paper ID #16789Social Consciousness in Engineering Students: An Analysis of Freshmen De-sign Project AbstractsMaya Rucks, Louisiana Tech University Maya Rucks is an engineering education doctoral student at Louisiana Tech University. She received her bachelor’s degree in mathematics from the University of Louisiana at Monroe. Her areas of interest include, minorities in engineering, K-12 engineering, and engineering curriculum development.Dr. Marisa K. Orr, Louisiana Tech University Dr. Orr is an Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering and Associate Director of the Integrated STEM Education Research Center (ISERC) at
grammar, punctuation,and spelling in primary and secondary schools, but once they reach university, they are nottaught as explicitly the approaches to writing within their discipline or how to write forprofessional purposes. Teaching this within an engineering curriculum could improve students’confidence in their ability to write in the professional world, addressing audiences with differentneeds and interests.We believe the same problem regarding lack of explicit instruction may exist for teamworkskills. Anecdotally, we know students are often asked to work in teams without being providedguidelines for how effective teams function. We can help students learn teamwork by discussingsuch simple things as how to develop an agenda for a meeting to
engineering (CVEN) program recently underwent acomprehensive Program (Re)Design (PRD) process in order to align the program with bothASCE’s second edition Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge (BOK2) and ABET learningoutcome criteria. The integrated PRD process is detailed in an earlier paper (Brumbelow, Fowler,Morgan, & Anthony, 2014). The current paper illustrates the significance of the PRD systemapproach to inspire transformative change. Faculty who participate in the PRD process, as part ofthe program’s Curriculum Transformation Team (CTT), experience a major shift in perspectivefrom apprehension of the scope and need for the change to seeing the curriculum asinterconnected and an iterative process to enhance student learning. In addition
Paper ID #14839Utilization of an Engineering Peer Tutoring Center for Undergraduate Stu-dentsDr. Ben Pelleg, Drexel University Dr. Ben Pelleg is an Assistant Teaching professor for the engineering core curriculum department at Drexel University. He earned a B.S. degree in applied and engineering physics from Cornell University in 2008 and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Drexel University in 2014.Miss Kristin Imhoff, Drexel University Kristin Imhoff graduated from Drexel University with her Bachelor’s in Mechanical Engineering in 2009. She began her career at Drexel in 2009 as an academic advisor for the Mechanical
, broader impacts associated with scientific and engineering research, and innovative curriculum design in STEM-related fields. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 An Earthquake Engineering Education Research Methodology for Game-Based LearningAbstractThe authors present a research paper about an innovative research and development (R&D)methodology for game-based learning to integrate engineering education and 21st centurylearning. Prior to game development, a literature review on gaming revealed a lack of systematicmethods for integrating research into design and implementation strategies of many game-basedlearning environments, much less one for
San Diego and his Ph.D. from UC Berkeley, all in Chemical Engineering. He currently has research activity in areas related engineering education and is interested in integrating technology into effective educational practices and in promoting the use of higher-level cognitive skills in engineering problem solving. His research interests particularly focus on what prevents students from being able to integrate and extend the knowledge developed in specific courses in the core curriculum to the more complex, authentic problems and projects they face as professionals. Dr. Koretsky is one of the founding members of the Center for Lifelong STEM Education Research at OSU. c American Society for
Paper ID #15922Fundamental Research: Developing a Rubric to Assess Children’s Drawingsof an Engineer at WorkDr. Julie Thomas, University of Nebraska - Lincoln Julie Thomas is a Research Professor of science education in the College of Education and Human Sci- ences at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Thomas’ research has focused on children’s science learning and teacher professional development. Proud accomplishments include collaborative efforts – such as No Duck Left Behind, a partnership with waterfowl biologists to promote wetland education efforts, and En- gineering is Everywhere (E2), a partnership with a
school board was impressed. ‘Oh, that foundation in New York thinks we should do something different, so let’s do it.’… They listened to us because we were from the outside… The Sloan Foundation had leverage.”Pierre did go on to stress, however, that the reputation and leverage needed to be coupled withsound planning: “It’s not just the name [of the foundation]. You had to design the school with theright curriculum. You had to place it…within an existing high school that had a principal whoreally supported it and solved every problem they had.”DiscussionThe engineering education pioneers described many different ways in which they helpedfacilitate others’ success. We next examine their accounts in terms of Lave and Wenger’s threedimensions
. In: Duit R, Jung W, von Rhoeneck C, eds. Aspects of Understanding Electricity. Proceedings of an International Workshop in Ludwigsburg 1984. Kiel, Germany: Schmidt and Klaunig; 1985:72-99.2. Gott R. Predicting and explaining the operation of simple dc circuits. In: Duit R, Jung W, von Rhoeneck C, eds. Aspects of Understanding Electricity. Proceedings of an International Workshop in Ludwigsburg 1984. Kiel, Germany: Schmidt and Klaunig; 1985:63-72.3. Treagust DF, Duit R. Conceptual change: a discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cult Stud Sci Educ. 2008;3:297-328.4. McDermott LC, Shaffer PS. Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example
’ acceptance and preferencesregarding various aspects of tablet technology. They can serve as an initial guide to help identifyand develop effective teaching strategies cultivating communication and critical thinking skills ina tablet-enhanced collaborative learning environment. A follow-up study with results from directmeasures would complement the analysis presented here and provide useful information forfuture implementation.Bibliography[1] Scardamalia, M., & Berieter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledgebuilding: a challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences,1(1), pp.37–68.[2] Koc, M. (2005). Implications of learning theories for effective technology integration andpreservice
and ReliabilityValidity is “an integrated evaluative judgment of the degree to which empirical evidence andtheoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of inferences and actions basedon test scores or other modes of assessment.” 28 For the purposes of this study, a literaturereview, group of first-year engineering instructors, and panel of experts were used to establishface and content validity. This process was necessary to ensure that the assessment tool coveredconcepts related to the subject, with the appropriate coverage of the topic.29 The dissertationexamination committee for this study served as the primary panel of experts. In addition, thefirst-year engineering program director and two experienced graduate teaching
,dialogue/discourse)—introducing such interventions may have contributed to significantchanges.Conclusion In this paper we take a first step toward addressing the culture of disengagement. Theresults of this study can serve to inform the larger research project and how to integrate CD intothe curriculum. First of all, the data we collected using the SSA were comparable to thenormative data and baseline data from the SCS-R and Measures of (Dis)engagement,respectively. Therefore, the absence of statistical significance is more than likely a result oflimitations of the data collected and the nature of the design project than an error on the part ofthe instrument. Moving forward, the larger research project will include additional steps to
to examine the approaches used by students and experts to solve theseproblems. This paper describes a knowledge representation framework developed by Hahn andChater [41] for analyzing a person’s episode of reasoning while solving a problem and presentssome preliminary results of the application of this framework to students taking a course insignal and systems. This course occurs in the junior year of an electrical engineeringundergraduate curriculum at a larger public university. The preliminary results demonstrate thatthe framework can be successfully used to distinguish between different types of reasoning thatstudents use when solving problems in this course. This study is part of a larger effort that istrying to determine if there is a
IEEE Transactions on Education, and past chair of the Educational Research and Methods Division of ASEE.Dr. Jeffrey E. Froyd, Texas A&M University Dr. Jeffrey E. Froyd is a TEES Research Professor in the Office of Engineering Academic and Student Affairs at Texas A&M University, College Station. He received the B.S. degree in mathematics from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He was an Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. At Rose-Hulman, he co-created the Integrated, First-Year Curriculum in Science
verbally-oriented curriculum and assessment structure, and the fact that they could succeed in this structure, as evidenced by the conceptual understanding they demonstrated in oral exams and informal dialogues, meant that the course as a whole had succeeded” (p. 309).39This passage also ties into the idea of sharing authority with students, a process that may benegotiated when using the funds of knowledge approach. Similarly, an article by Tan andCalabrese Barton40 explored teaching science for social justice, which takes “an anti-deficit stancetowards students;” in this study they also expanded the “roles [students] play[ed] in scienceclassrooms by providing ample opportunities for them to negotiate their participation and
- matics education exploring the connection between high school ACT mathematics scores and freshmen mathematic/engineering class grades.Dr. Marisa K. Orr, Louisiana Tech University Dr. Orr is an Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering and Associate Director of the Integrated STEM Education Research Center (ISERC) at Louisiana Tech University. She completed her B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering, as well as a Certificate of Engineering and Science Education at Clemson University. Her research interests include student persistence and pathways in engineering, gender equity, diversity, and academic policy. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Predicting Success
what prevents students from being able to integrate and extend the knowledge developed in specific courses in the core curriculum to the more complex, authentic problems and projects they face as professionals. Dr. Koretsky is one of the founding members of the Center for Lifelong STEM Education Research at OSU.Dr. Alejandra J. Magana, Purdue University, West Lafayette Alejandra Magana is an Associate Professor in the Department of Computer and Information Technology and an affiliated faculty at the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. She holds a B.E. in Information Systems, a M.S. in Technology, both from Tec de Monterrey; and a M.S. in Educational Technology and a Ph.D. in Engineering Education
Computer Science (1991) from Johns Hopkins University and a Ph.D. in Physics (1998) from the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has been twice selected as a visiting ´ Chaire Joliot at the Ecole Sup´erieure de Physique et de Chimie Industrielles at Paris Tech and has orga- nized extended workshops on the physics of glasses and on friction, fracture and earthquakes at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics. He has received several awards for his educational accomplishments, and in 2011 he received an award from the university’s Diversity Leadership Council for his work on LGBT inclusion. His education research focuses on integrating computation into the undergraduate core curriculum
“Tailored Instruction and EngineeringDelivery Using PROTOCOLs” (TIED UP). In ‘tailored instruction’, the course syllabus will bere-organized into an integrated modular concept format where complex engineering conceptswill be presented as networked sub concepts in a web interface, creating a virtual neural space.Each of these networked concepts and sub-concepts will be further linked to several learningtools such as animations, short concept lecture videos (4-6 minute duration) and mandatedstudent activities that are designed leveraging latest insights from established theories of neuroand cognitive science with the help of a number of PROTOCOLs. PROTOCOLs are systematicbrain based learning principles to be followed while delivering a new concept
,whether that be in industry, academia, or clinical settings7,10,11.We propose to connect student learning to engineering practice by interweaving a grandchallenge problem throughout multiple courses and experiences in the curriculum. Byinterweaving the problem throughout the undergraduate curriculum beginning freshman year, wetreat student engagement and retention as a process instead of an event4. To implement thisconcept, we developed the Cancer Scholars Program (CSP), a challenge-inspired experiencefocused on an overarching societal problem: cancer. Traditionally, students learn engineeringskills in isolated coursework without a connection to real-world problems, facilitating loss ofinterest. Additionally, students are rarely exposed to co
et al 11found that the variables contributing most to the likelihood of integrating technology werepositive experiences, comfort with the strategy, belief that the strategy was a valuableinstructional tool, and personal efficacy. Researchers have also highlighted the conflict ofintrinsic motivation with external costs as predictors of implementation.12, 13 Ertmer referred toexternal costs such as hardware and external support as first-order barriers, but found thatsecond-order barriers were more often the gatekeepers of implementation. Second order barriersinclude factors such as belief in success and confidence in the effectiveness of a strategy.In general, implementation of an educational reform often meets limited success for one or