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
3 of 4 8. Engineering Technology T123 Issues in Engineering 1 • “Writing Proficiency in Engineering Technology Students and Skill Technology Education 5 of 5 Development in the Classroom” #11907 9. First Year Programs M427 Design in the First 1 • “Implementing and Evaluating a Peer Review of Writing Exercise in a Year: Challenges and 3 of 6 First-Year Design Project” #12126 Successes 10. Materials T536 (Technical Session 1) 1 • “Writing, Speaking, and Communicating-Building Disciplinary
to the technical solution; highlighting the gap inknowledge; announcing the importance of the project; and identifying harms and benefits ofproblem and solution.Not all of these moves are necessary to communicate to a reader from a related community ofpractice, whose technical knowledge and understanding of tacit assumptions closely match thatof the writer: for instance, a supervisor or peer working in the same area, for whom certainmoves (e.g., the real-world problem or how the technological solution links to it) are self-evident. But in order to communicate projects to non-expert audiences, all of these moves areneeded. Fig. 1. Proposal evaluation sheet. This document was used at several stages in the proposal-writing process
assessing and improving team function, because these types ofexperiences affect student’s self-efficacy and motivation, which in turn affect their persistenceand retention in engineering.Peer assessments are widely used to both evaluate team function and to understand studentexperiences. Conventionally, they take a top-down approach: the creator of the peer assessmenttool identifies acceptable team behaviors and the students assess each other on those behaviors.They also typically focus on positive aspects of teaming behavior. In this preliminary researchstudy, we take a rather different approach to investigating the engineering student experience onteams. First, it is a bottom-up approach: students themselves describe their teammates and
courses in mechanical engineering, materials science and biomechanics. In addition to her research in engineering education, Dr. Goldberg studies the biomechanics of human movement, focusing on gait rehabilitation. She is a member of ASEE, the Society of Women Engineers and the American Society of Biomechanics.Dr. Jennifer Rich, Hofstra University Jennifer A. Rich is Associate Professor of Writing Studies and Composition at Hofstra University. She has published widely in writing studies, rhetoric, Shakespeare, and popular culture. She has recently published a book-length guide to the philosophy of Theodore Adorno. She is working on a study of Post-Nazi era German identity.Amy Masnick, Hofstra University Dr. Amy
, 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
pedagogical aspects of writing computer games. John has held a variety of leadership positions, including currently serving as an ABET Commissioner and as Vice President of The Pledge of the Computing Professional; within ASEE, he previously served as Chair of the Computers in Education Division. He is a past recipient of Best Paper awards from the Computers in Education, First-Year Programs, and Design in Engineering Education Divisions, and has also been recognized for his contributions to the ABET Symposium. Dr. Estell is a Senior Member of IEEE, and a member of ACM, ASEE, Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu, Phi Kappa Phi, and Upsilon Pi Epsilon.Ms. Heather Marie Sapp, Ohio Northern UniversityMr. David Reeping, Ohio Northern
: Implementation of ProjectAbstractThe objectives of our educational research are as follows: 1) Faculty from engineering andfaculty from the social sciences and humanities shall develop strong working relationships andtogether implement and evaluate strategies for working across disciplines. 2) Students ofengineering and their counterparts in the liberal arts and humanities shall engage in peer-to-peerlearning and work together to solve problems. 3) Liberal arts and humanities content will bebetter integrated into the engineering curriculum. 4) Engineering students will understand thevalue and relevance of their General Education. 5) The engineering programs will be betterpositioned to assess their performances on the “soft skills” ABET outcomes (above
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
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
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
worked individually. The instructors walked around the roomto check on student understanding and ask and answer questions.For both Engineering 82 and Math 45, all PowerPoint slides and tablet writing shown in thecontrol section were contained in the video watched by the inverted section. For both courses,all students completed the same problems that students in the control section completed ashomework. In Engineering 82, students in the inverted section completed specified problemsduring class meeting time (and turned them in at the end of class) and turned others in ashomework. In Math 45, students in the inverted section used in-class time to work on anyproblems from the homework assignment and turned in all of their work as homework. As a
worked in the College of Engineering at Drexel University for more than 9 years with a focus on recruitment, grant facilitation and STEM program management. During her tenure in the College of Engineering, Jessica successfully coordinated with multiple faculty members in the submission of approximately 600 grant proposals, including co-writing, editing and serving as the Program Manager for 5 awarded STEM edu- cation grants totaling more than $12M. She has collaborated with University offices and College faculty and professional staff in the facilitation of recruitment strategies to increase the quality and quantity of undergraduate and graduate enrollment, including supervising the planning and implementation of Open
analysis suggest three emergent themes. First, theparticipants specified the entry point for implementing instructional innovation. That is to say,the departmental culture was emphasized as a key structural support to ensure the sustainabilityof the implemented innovation. The second emergent theme articulated by the participants, wasthe recognition of individual skills and abilities within the SIIP community. Specifically, theexpanded peer interaction fostered an environment for complimentary skills to thrive. Forexample, some of the STEM faculty were more comfortable than others with flipping theirclassroom, particularly with large service courses with over 100 students, and were able to sharebest practices or personal success stories. Finally
nowavailable throughout senior design for students to hone their oral communication skills. Studentspresent their projects to a broad range of audiences, including high school students, peers,alumni, and industry. At the end of the semester, all students deliver a final oral presentationjudged by a diverse panel of evaluators.B.2.b. Industry support for other professional topicsWhile the IAB strongly believes in the importance of effective communication skills, industryvolunteers have stepped forward to share with students their personal passions and expertise inother areas of professionalism.Implementing a test plan – A representative from a prominent local company helps students bycoaching and evaluating them on how to write an effective test plan
scales) and categorical responses (e.g., structured or fixed responsequestions). In addition to these closed-ended formats, researchers also use open-ended questions.Open-ended questions can be added onto existing fixed-choice questions (e.g., including an“other” option that allows respondents to specify an answer excluded from the choices), or usedas a standalone question (i.e., where respondents are not provided any answer optionswhatsoever and must write or type in their response). For example, a researcher could use aclosed-ended question to ask for a respondent’s level of education and offer choices rangingfrom “high school” to a “doctoral degree” while providing the “Other” option or simply ask,“What is your highest level of education
academically when they regulate their learning19–22. SRL has beenoperationalized to measure aspects of students’ metacognition, motivation, and behaviors relatedto their academic self-regulation, such as the Self-Regulated Learning Interview Scale (SRLIS)developed by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons19. SRLIS, a semi-structured interview protocolfocused on “hypothetical learning contexts”23 based on research with K-12 students comprises 14themes19,20, including self-evaluation, organizing and transforming, goal-setting and planning,seeking information, keeping records and monitoring, environmental structuring, self-consequences, rehearsing and memorizing, seeking social assistance (peers, teachers, adults),and reviewing records (notes, books, tests).Prior
) enabled participation in common activelearning strategies (e.g., group discussion and peer-to-peer learning) among the students whileout-of-class. Specifically, we share findings related to student resistance to requiredparticipation in an online forum in first year calculus.Literature Review Active learning. It is typical for instructors in science, technology, engineering, andmathematics (STEM) to adopt more traditional pedagogical approaches1. Traditional approachesare often linked to a belief that students come into class “empty,” waiting to be filled with all theknowledge that the instructor can give them1. With this mindset, the role of the instructor is todisseminate as much knowledge as possible within the time allotted; the role
also was the associate director of operations for the Engineering Education Re- search Center from January 2011 to September 2013. Her work experience includes two years as a project manager in the planning department of the Port Authority of Allegheny County in Pittsburgh, and a re- search associate at the University of Novi Sad’s Institute for Traffic and Transportation Engineering. Dr. Vidic has published in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings, including those of ASEE and INFORMS. She currently is participating in collaborative research on improving engineering students’ learning strategies through models and modeling and is interested in the assessment and effectiveness of model-eliciting
cohorts. The initialfaculty cohort team comprises five of the six facilitators of the new cohorts. Moreover, all sevenmembers of the initial faculty cohort continue to meet. This community of practice is leading thedevelopment of additional workshops, implementation of an assessment/evaluation framework todocument the effect of active learning as this continues and expands through SCSE, writing grantproposals to enable further dissemination of the multidisciplinary cohort model approach acrossa college of engineering and science, and supporting each other’s individual research endeavors.IntroductionThis paper describes Work in Progress (WIP) efforts to increase active learning in a college ofengineering and science. Motivation for this project
section. These two coursesections share the same hybrid structure, the same material, assignments, activities, assessments,course schedule, meeting times, and the same instructor. The only difference is the deliverymethod for live material. Students in the HF2F section are physically present for the classmeeting, and students in the HSOL section are digitally present for the class meeting. HSOLstudents interact in real time with HF2F students and with the instructor. Studies support thisneed for peer and instructor interaction, and suggest that it helps to overcome social andacademic isolation common with purely online courses13, 14.There is some technology required for the converged classroom. It is necessary to have a coursemanagement system
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
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
extent to which educationalinterventions rarely meet the needs of all students. Depending on the level of engagement withthe sites (which may be extensive in the case of qualitative or site visit approaches), a multi-sitedesign can prompt researchers to write implications and recommendations that are relevantacross a wider range of local settings. Conducting studies across multiple sites allows educatorsand researchers to understand the conditions under which interventions are most likely topositively impact students.When multi-site studies are published in the peer-reviewed literature, certain details related toarranging for and managing the sites are often overlooked or removed for space considerations.Tradeoffs and failed negotiations are
data from sources internal to the university. A mixed methods approach wasutilized for data gathering. Internal data collection included: faculty and student surveysregarding conceptual gaps, a student helpdesk survey, a student prerequisite survey, a studentsupplemental resources analysis, and student focus groups. Discussions with foundational mathand science faculty who taught courses supplemental to the engineering curriculum, alsooccurred to seek clarification of content and terminology taught (Fowler, Anthony, Poling,Morgan, & Brumbelow, 2014).Step 3) Gather data external to the university. External data was gathered from employers,advisory board members, and former students using electronic surveys. The CTT conducted areview of peer
-stereotyped groups that results from awareness of the expectation that they will underperformrelative to their peers.6 Belonging can be domain-specific, and instruments for measuring belonging in specificsubject areas have been developed.12 For example, math belonging is associated with increasedconfidence in one’s own math abilities and belief in the utility of math. Good, Rattan, & Dweck7found that women who perceived a gender stereotype in their college calculus classesexperienced a drop in math belonging, and that drop predicted lower course grades and intent topursue math in the future. Information about belonging is provided by cues from students’ learning environment .7Thus, a learning environment that increases belonging by
Aurora, CO, where I found that my true passion was in explaining problem- solving skills and the workings of nature to those with varied interests. I joined the Teaching Faculty at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, CO in 2012, where I teach and write new lecture and lab curriculum for General Chemistry, Physical Chemistry and Thermodynamics. There, I have been truly inspired by the bright and motivated students that fill our campus. Like many Coloradans, I enjoy as much hiking and camping in the beautiful Rocky Mountains as I can fit into my schedule, a little bit of skiing, as well as listening to and performing music. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016Insights into
suggests that incorporating experiential learningactivities into MOOCs may provide another way to promote commitment and retention, but inpractice, the job is not an easy one. MOOCs are generally described as being one of two types:cMOOCs or xMOOCs17. In general, cMOOCs adopt a connectivist learning approach and focuson knowledge co-creation by leveraging social media and peer interaction, while xMOOCs takea behaviorist learning approach and focus on more traditional interaction with fixed content,centralized discussion forums, and automated or peer-graded evaluation. The MOOC studiedhere was designed as a combined cMOOC/xMOOC with both connectivist and behavioristcharacteristics. Translating experiential learning activities to fit either type of