improve technical writing instruction in laboratory courses, a multidisciplinary team ofprofessors in the departments of Writing and Engineering (1) developed a curricular frameworkthat integrates common practices of teaching technical writing in tandem with existing engineeringlaboratory courses and (2) trained a set of students to be Engineering Writing Fellows (EWF),undergraduate engineering students who tutored peers in their technical writing assignments. Thispaper will share the student and instructor opinions of these initiatives employed in the LinearCircuits Analysis Laboratory course. Analysis of the initiatives was conducted via student surveyand comparison of student writing pre and post EWF tutoring. Results show students
, students did their best to adapt to the new way of learning, but the change intheir educational experience was drastic. In particular, students lost the opportunity to engagewith peers in person and form personal connections with them. This is especially concerninggiven that, as Alexander Astin writes, “the student's peer group is the single most potent sourceof influence on growth and development during the undergraduate years" [15, p. 54][3].The existing knowledge base repeatedly validates the importance of peer support in both socialand academic systems in college. Ideally, students should have all the resources they need tocommunicate with peers, whether in a physical or virtual learning environment. However, webelieve that due to the abrupt
report on thehelpfulness of feedback from both the course instructor and student peers, the results were notconclusive17,18. More generally, while there are many studies comparing peer and instructorfeedback in other domains such as English writing, rigorous characterization and comparison ofpeer and expert feedback in engineering design is limited.Taking a grounded theory methodological approach19, the wider aim of this research is toanalyze actual feedback provided by students and course instructors in design review meetingsthat utilize peer review and to expose the characteristics of each, with the ultimate intent ofevaluating and comparing their benefits and suitability. The focus of this paper is on the first stepof this process, which is
possible scenarios,practicing cooperative learning elements and using vocabulary according to context. The role ofthe PLTL coordinator is to observe the group interaction while allowing students to generatetheir own knowledge on how to teach the concepts and will intervene only when needed.After each training session, peer leaders were asked to write a two-page reflection on whatworked and did not work in their groups, in planned activities, and logistics. There was no timelimit for the reflection. According to Mezirow [15], reflective thinking is considered a learningtool that promotes higher thinking skills and deep learning among adults. Prompt questions werethe following: 1) How was the process to create the session? What worked and what did
, providing practice for the student, is essential for successful learning andretention of programming. Feedback time during these sessions becomes more limited as thenumber of students increases, hence supplemental instruction (SI) can be utilized to increasefeedback and student interactions. Here, we demonstrate how the implementation of SI, asdeveloped by UMKC, in combination with tablet based demonstrations and hand-written/program-specific examples are effectively used to improve student grades and courseevaluations. Weekly SI sessions were developed to reiterate key concepts from the lab for thatweek and also provided students with a peer-friendly environment where they could engage inquestions/discussion without the presence of the course
of team based collaborative learning. In addition to theshort-term knowledge gain acquired through peer instruction, we also measured long-termretention of final exam material four months’ post-final. On both the final exam and the fourmonth post-final retest, students scored significantly higher on material taught through TBL.Thus, team based learning, which includes a combination of reading, writing, kinesthetic andaural methods of learning, demonstrated significant short- and long-term gains in contentretention.BackgroundThe Johns Hopkins University Biomedical Engineering (BME) course Molecules and Cells is amandatory class for BME majors, primarily taught during fall of their sophomore year. Inaddition, approximately ten percent of the
, which are presented withoutconnecting the use of concepts to real-world problems. Currently, less than half of the threemillion students entering higher education to pursue a STEM field persist to earn a STEMdegree3. The drop-out rate from STEM is even more prominent in minorities and women4;however, participating in undergraduate research and developing a strong peer network has beenshown to increase persistence5,6,7,8,9. While we seek to engage students in research experiences toencourage persistence, in the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign’s (UIUC)Bioengineering Department attrition is not a major problem, but by engaging students in focusedresearch experiences we seek to increase persistence in scientific research after graduation
Award. Her dissertation proposal was selected as part of the top 3 in the 2018 American Educational Research Association (AERA) Division D In-Progress Research Gala. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021Negotiating Belongingness: A Longitudinal Narrative Inquiry of a Latina, First-GenerationCollege Student’s Experience in the Engineering CultureAbstractResearch studies have long argued that a sense of belonging is essential for minoritized students’continued engineering persistence. Common factors that have been found to promote a sense ofbelonging include campus diversity, institution’s culture, perceived class comfort, facultyinteractions, and peer support. Yet
, but the studies were based only on studentperspectives, whereas, student final grades were not included in the analysis to confirm studentsreport. Student classroom engagement greatly involves peer-to-peer interaction and not student-to-machine interaction. Nevertheless, student classroom engagement is complex and broad to behandled in one direction. Some researchers classified student behavior as a predictor of classroomengagement [11]. Likewise, Appleton, Christenson, and Furlong [12] classified factors thataffected student classroom engagement into two categories namely; the indicators and thefacilitators. The author further divided indicator factor into three categories namely: affective,behavioral, and cognitive and the facilitator
asfrequent interactions with faculty and peers and more participation in academic activities, is mostimportant for student persistence. Townsend and Wilson [4] concurred, identifying that theseinteractions contribute to a student sense of belonging at the institution. Rendón [18] found thatthe more students perceive an interaction as being positive, the more they view themselves as anintegral and valued member of their college, critical for an overall positive experience. A number of studies have identified academic integration in college as more importantthan social integration for transfer student persistence. For instance, Townsend and Wilson [4]found that community college transfers make their social connection in the classroom, and
fit, drawing on best practices and published research [22,23]. After a presentation and facilitated discussion, the eleven summer REU students were askedto “write a paragraph about how you are uniquely well-suited for success in materials science. Itcan be about your skills, interest, experience, perspective, values, or anything else.” Individualinterviews followed the subsequent week, between the developmental, research preparation andconceptualization period and the latter half of the summer, focused on execution. From weeks five through ten, students were tasked with executing their projects, underthe hierarchical mentoring teams of their graduate student and faculty mentor teams, which attimes included postdocs and additional, peer
peers.Five FG engineering students with high quantitative belongingness were selected for aninterview. A semi-structured interview protocol based in interpretive phenomenological analysiswas used to elucidate the students’ experiences that fostered belongingness. Separate themesfrom each student were created from coding and then overarching themes unified a sharedexperience.The following overarching themes were prevalent among the participants: similarity toclassmates, recognition as an engineer by peers, limited questioning of belongingness, andbelongingness is a state of mind. The results depict that elements of engineering identity play apart in making students feel they belong (e.g., recognition), but in some cases, belongingness isdistinct from
electrical engineering, computer science and mathematics byapplying evidence-based teaching strategies—student-centered problem-based teaching(SC-PBT), example-based teaching, and just-in-time teaching (JITT); (3) incorporating classroom andlaboratory activities that require active student engagement, conceptual understanding, criticalthinking, and problem-solving; and (4) Employing model students to lead SupplementaryInstruction (SI) courses with evidence-based peer-to-peer learning strategies. The studentassessment data indicated the effectiveness of the evidence-based instructional practices, the SIpeer-to-peer learning strategies, as well as existing engagement challenges. In addition, positivefeedback was obtained from the student survey data
undergraduate teaching assistantships in the flipped classroom, anenvironment in which TAs take on a more important role than in a traditional classroom. Flippedlearning builds upon active learning, a constructivist approach to learning that emphasizeslearning by doing [18-20]. Active learning is based on the principles that students are activelyresponsible for their own learning within a collaborative process with peers and tutors [21].Flipped learning takes this further by moving the passive and individual-focused parts of STEMlearning – the first introduction to the material – out of the classroom entirely. This frees classtime to be devoted to interactive activities, such as problem-based learning, that reinforce coursematerial without sacrificing
increase the inclusiveness of our department, hypothesizing thatmarginalized students feel too much uniqueness and too little similarity with peers. ODT positsthat people prefer groups that provide sufficient inclusiveness within the group and sufficientdifferentiation between the in-group and the out-group. We wondered if ODT could also beapplied to individual identity, such that individuals seek out an identity that is neither too similarto nor too distinct from their peers. We conducted two studies in our R1 university department totest if high and low levels of uniqueness and similarity were indeed associated with negativefeelings. We found that the average student was not necessarily averse to high or low levels ofthese two factors. In Study
and communication with technical and non-technical peers. Students worked in teamsof three and four to solve ill-defined problems presented by the instructor. Topics coveredConstruction Waste, Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Recycling Education, PublicTransportation, and Campus Transit. Deliverables, including a technical report, an oralpresentation, and an analytical reflection, were used as data for this project. Students weresurveyed to assess their perceptions of problem-based learning. There were seventy-twoparticipants over three semesters. One preliminary result from both the survey and qualitativedata is that students felt confident about working with others from different disciplines. Studentsmostly commented positively about their
environments in different ways thantheir male peers altering their continued interest in computer science.Personal FactorsPersonal factors such as motivation, sense of belonging, personal fulfillment, and identity caninfluence persistence to degree. Research shows that while these personal factors are unique toeach student, educational environments can be structured or altered to influence some personalattributes in ways that positively impact retention.Motivation can impact how students face and persevere through challenging concepts and coursework. Research using project based computer game development has shown that assignmentscan be structured to facilitate student motivation and encourage them to work through difficultmaterial [13]. Motivational
-represented minority (URM) status; 50% were females. Students were asked to write aresponse to a case statement before the REU program began and at the program’s conclusion.The case statement asked students to imagine they were graduate students planning a researchproject and to create a rough plan to execute this research project with the goal of submitting aconference paper (see Appendix). The post-REU case statement was identical to the taskprovided for the pre-REU data collection. However, students were also asked in the post-REUtask to compare their post-REU plan with their pre-REU plan, revise their pre-REU plan, andnote any sources of inspiration for their plans (e.g., research partners, courses or labs). Studentsfirst wrote their plans on
debt and finding a job. As a cohort, the studentsparticipated in periodic vertically-integrated discussion groups with faculty mentors and theirpeers at multiple levels of seniority, and were introduced to university resources designed toaddress specific student needs. Results of a follow-on survey suggested that peer-to-peerdiscussions can be useful in alleviating anxiety on particular topics. It was also observed that theinteractions facilitated by these group discussions are helpful in developing a sense ofcommunity and shared enthusiasm among the cohort.Keywords: Engineering student anxiety, Remediation1. IntroductionSources of anxiety among engineering and engineering technology students may stem from bothacademic and non-academic demands
proposal, while working in a research group with a faculty, and oftengraduate student, mentor; 2) Mentoring, which consists of a multi-tiered approach designed tosupport the students with trained peer mentors often former LEARN® participants assigned toeach student in the program, paired laboratory/faculty mentors, and a LEARN® programcoordinator; and 3) Community Building, which consists of living/learning opportunities, socialprogramming, and other non-research related extracurricular activities. It is hypothesized that theLEARN® program participants will:1. Demonstrate higher fall-to-fall retention, credits earned, GPA, and graduation rates compared to matched intra-institutional comparison groups;2. Demonstrate developmental gains in
, faculty mentoring, extra-curricular activities, peer group support interactions, and research/work experiences.A pilot group of 92 students from ten different engineering programs and four different entrylevels, joined the project. At the end of the first year indicators shows encouraging preliminaryresults. 97.9% students in the study group performed above the college-wide average. Freshmensuccess indicators in terms of academic performance, retention, and sense of belonging were upand career goal planning and actions began to show.BackgroundSuccess in higher education institutions by itself is a subjective concept that depends on themetrics defining it. Factors such as retention, quality, completion, and attainment are typicallyaddressed by
Paper ID #12048The Power and Politics of STEM Research Design: Saving the ”Small N”Prof. Amy E. Slaton, Drexel University (Eng. & Eng. Tech.) Amy E. Slaton is a Professor of History at Drexel University. She write on issues of identity in STEM education and labor, and is the author of Race, Rigor and Selectivity in U.S. Engineering: The History of an Occupational Color Line .Prof. Alice L. Pawley, Purdue University, West Lafayette Alice Pawley is an Associate Professor in the School of Engineering Education and an affiliate faculty member in the Gender, Women’s and Sexuality Studies Program and the Division of
interview howshe felt that she maintained a good interpersonal relationship with her engineering peers and professors.Additionally, as the epigraph of this paper indicated, Rebecca was a high-performing student and hadachieved several markers of traditional success as an engineering student, including high grades andprestigious internships. Furthermore, at the time of the interview, she had planned to pursue a degree in aprofession outside of engineering following her graduation. However, as will be clear in our findings, herrole as an engineering student was important to understanding her core identity. 1We chose to present Rebecca’s case of shame as a mechanical engineering student because it
engineeringlectures. Unlike speeches, most engineering lectures include use of detailed visuals such as slidesor diagrams, and sequential procedures. DHH students constantly look away from their laptopdisplay to search and study the visuals. As a result, they spend less time watching lecture visualsand gain less information than their hearing peers. However, the need to process simultaneousaural and visual information can also be taxing for hearing students, and previous studies haveshown that they also benefit from real-time speech-to-text transcription.We evaluated the real-time display of captions (RTD) usability by both deaf and hearing studentsin an engineering class. It further examined the factors that influence hearing students' use ofRTD as an
currently working on writing a book chapter for Algebraic and Combinatorial Computational Biology, an Elseiver publication. Additionally, Prof. Ghosh-Dastidar has extensive experience mentoring more than thirty students through different programs such as the NYC-AMP program, City Tech’s Emerging Scholar Program, and MAA NREUP grants.Dr. Diana Samaroo, NYC College of Technology and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York Diana Samaroo is an Associate Professor and Chair of Chemistry Department at NYC College of Technol- ogy, CUNY. Her pedagogical research is the area of peer led team learning in Chemistry and integrating STEM into curricula. With a background in biochemistry, her research interests are in the
purposefully avoidstreating minority gender identities as an afterthought13,25. The ability to select as many labels asappropriate prevents situations in which a respondent might have to choose between “Male” and“Transgender Male,” a situation that can be alienating. Our approach also balances length withinclusion13. In this configuration, a woman who identifies with her biological sex would be ableto select both “female” and “cisgender” to describe herself. If an individual’s gender identity didnot fall into the categories listed in the survey, they were prompted to write in their specificidentity next to “a gender not listed.” The phrasing of this item was crafted to treat write-inresponse as equally valid as the other options provided13.We defined
engineering students who have made it beyond traditional exit points inengineering, and into upper division courses. This understanding will be developed throughaddressing the following research questions (RQ):RQ 1) What experiences, affective domain traits, and social capital resources explainengineering students’ development of engineering role identity and feelings of belongingness?RQ 2) In what ways are these experiences unique for first generation engineering students whencompared to continuing generation peers?This increased understanding will be further utilized by the research team in subsequentqualitative phases of the research project by exploring grounds for causation and thedevelopmental role of any significant factors play in development
the 2019 RAMP program, and how wepropose to continue this iterative process in the 2020 RAMP program. As we write this, RAMPin 2020 is expected to be fully online, a virtual program, as we shelter from the Covid-19 virus.Finally, we suggest why the PAR approach may be especially helpful for creating moresupportive and beneficial environments for women in engineering majors.In Section 2.0 RAMP student recruitment and demographics are discussed. The design andimplantation of PAR focus groups and online survey methods are presented in Section 3.0.Section 4.0 shows the results of data analysis and Section 5.0 summarizes the contributions andoutlines future work.2.0 RAMP Student Recruitment and DemographicsThe RAMP program is advertised to all
published by the National Science Foundation, How People Learn [1]effectively communicates the characteristics of an ideal learning environment as (a) knowledge-centered, (b) learner-centered, (c) assessment-centered, and (d) community-centered. “Briefly, alearner-centered approach attempts to expose students' prior conceptions and connect newlearning to them; a knowledge-centered approach promotes conceptual understanding andorganization of the knowledge; an assessment-centered approach gives frequent opportunities forformative feedback; and a community centered approach uses students' peers in the learning andalso attempts to connect students to the way professionals might work” [11]. Active learning,cooperative learning, peer-led team learning
” programs and “first yearseminars”, international first year experience conferences (see, for example, the EuropeanFirst Year Experience 2015, www.uib.no/en/efye_2015), centers such as the NationalResource Center for First Year Experience and Students in Transition (www.sc.edu/fye), andan international journal on the first year experience (https://fyhejournal.com/index ). In SouthAfrica about a third of students drop out or fail their first year of university study4 .Some of the things first year students typically struggle with are: choosing a career direction,managing their time, mastering academic skills such as effective study methods and academicreading and writing, assessing their own understanding of their work, coping with the fastpace and