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
their instructor (e.g., I sought feedback from my instructor about potential errors inmy objective-statements; α = .87). Feedback-Seeking Peers. A total of 6 items assessed students’ direct feedback-seekingfrom their peers (e.g., I asked other students for suggestions on how I could improve my designcomponents; α = .87). Value of Feedback. A total of 5 items assessed students’ perceptions of the value ofobtaining feedback (e.g., Feedback on my technical writing can help me become a betterprofessional engineer; α = .83). Cost of Feedback. A total of 7 items assessed students’ students’ perceptions of the costof obtaining feedback (e.g., My colleagues would think poorly of me if I asked them for feedbackon my problem statement
subsequent undergraduate research. The Research Methods course will be broadly focused by providing a general approach toresearch and graduate school preparation appropriate for all majors in the Engineering College.Alternative approaches from the literature that are used to teach students how to conduct researchwill be compared and contrasted. Course topics will include: finding a research mentor,literature search skills, using the scientific method for approaching a research problem,developing a research methodology, writing a funding proposal, delivering a researchpresentation, and selecting and applying for graduate school. The motivation for this work,course details, learning objectives, course schedule, and course assignments will be
value. Each of the three components are discussed in depth. Successfulstudents using this model have produced peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations,awards, new businesses, and grant funding. To quantify what students are learning, what makessuccessful students, and how this type of learning can be supported, learning objective data from28 students were collected during a semester to explore the different pathways that studentschoose. This work defines the learning objective creation process, explains how it is used forassessment in a cardiovascular engineering course, and suggests how to implement thisassessment strategy in other courses. Example learning objectives from a variety of students arepresented and discussed, as well
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
; visualizing and assessingproblems and synthesizing decision strategies); (3) Self-directed/learning autonomy; (4) Changemanagement and innovation, and (5) Social connectivity (peer relationships). The paperconcludes with suggestions for next steps toward a practical teaching and learning resiliencemodel for educators.IntroductionGraduates must be prepared to enter the workforce with technical capabilities, but also withhigher level competencies. Writing on lean engineering education and the role of competencymastery, Flumerfelt et.al, refer to engineering problems learners face in the industry as “multi-disciplinary” requiring competencies like systems-thinking, innovation and adaptivecompetencies [1]. They emphasize the need for “the engineering
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
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
quizzes. Activereadings serve as pre-work, as mentioned in section 3, to prepare students for completing in-classactivities by enhancing their foundational knowledge, especially the remembering andunderstanding levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (BT) [34, 35] for relevant concepts. Next, we have arange of in-class activities where students follow guided instructions and discuss with peers intheir small groups. During each of these in-class activities, students perform at least one of thefollowing tasks: code completion, code snippet debugging, answering multiple-choice questions,writing pseudocode, and drawing flowcharts. Each of these tasks falls under different BT’scategories, demands the use of different skills, and requires students to pay attention
involving large datasets Writing First year • Receive writing feedback from peers and Community consultants • Develop writing skillsParticipants We conducted interviews with participants who were in the 2017 or 2018 cohorts duringsummer 2019, i.e., participants who recently completed two-year D3EM program trainingrequirements. All students in the 2017 and 2018 cohorts were invited to participate in aninterview. Three cohorts of students have completed at least one year in the program. Studentsmay still participate in D3EM activities after the two-year training. All participants werecurrently in their 3rd or 4th year 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
might be all but one. In this method,students can also choose to work towards the grade they want in order to spend their timeelsewhere (Nilson, 2015). Another instructor might use a mix of traditional grading and pass/failgrading. For example, to earn an A in a course, a student may have to receive an average examscore of 80%. The instructor can also set bars for specific grade levels such as a C resulting fromfailing a peer evaluation. In all of these systems, missing one element on the overall gradechecklist results in a lower grade.As all elements become pass or fail, the specifications for an assignment must be made veryclear. Writing good specifications is a lot like writing good requirements for a project. Just likerequirements in
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
knowledgestudents have assimilated through various courses in their major for professional success. ProjBLpedagogy has been adopted and implemented in ME425. This engaged pedagogy aims to helpstudents enhance their cognitive, non-cognitive and critical thinking skills through engineeringdesign tasks.CMG250 has been identified as one of the most critical courses in the Construction Managementmajor. ProjBL has been adopted and implemented for CMG250 course. In this course anindependent project is assigned to each student to calculate the estimation of a building project.The students work on the project with their peers with necessary guidance from the instructor.The project aims to improve students’ study habits, and enhance their abilities for
activity, I spent time looking ahead and/or making plansPreference ● This activity required me to write ● This activity allowed me to present my thinking in more than just a written format ● This activity caused me to go out of my comfort zone ● This activity was completed in small groups ● This activity required me to work individually ● This reflection felt pretty structured ● This activity required me to use skills that I do not normally use ● This activity allowed me to express my reflection using my personal strengths in communicationPrivacy ● I had to share my experiences with educators for this reflection activity ● I had to share my experiences with peers for this reflection activity ● I had to share
descriptive statistics to understand patterns in graduate programs, job titles, andindustry sectors. We found that even when positions did not include “engineer” in the job title,many alumni remained in engineering-related sectors or reported that their positions were relatedto engineering. We also leveraged Sankey diagrams to represent the “flow” of individuals acrossdifferent positions. These diagrams revealed the breadth of career pathways, with alumni movinginto and out of engineering positions. Second, we performed a content analysis on write-inresponses in which alumni expanded upon their survey answers. Within the interpretive limits ofthe data, we observed two general ways in which alumni framed their careers. In “positive”presentations
contribute to students’ stress andanxiety, and have been shown to impact achievement and retention. This study uses ethnographicmethods to investigate how expectations are socially constructed in engineering programs andhow students’ come to internalize these expectations. Data was collected in ten focus groupswith a total of 38 participants at two universities with different institutional characteristics. Thequalitative analysis drew on constant comparative methods and proceeded from topic coding ofsources of expectations to interpretive coding of mechanisms in which students internalizedexperiences. More specifically, sources of expectations were identified as academics, superiors,peers, extra-curricular, and from outside the major. The rich
factor loading issues. One item,“incorporating feedback,” cross-loaded on both factors.Table 2. Factor structure and factor loadings for skill sets Item Communication Research Skills Skills Oral presentation 0.793 Writing technical reports, conference proceedings, or journal 0.788 publications Creating visual displays such as posters or prototypes 0.714 Networking with industry 0.442 Networking with my peers
reading, listening, writing, and hearing about a concept, but also includes using these skills to tackle a challenging objective. As such, the course has both technical, as well as experiential learning objectives. The main technical objective included learning to apply engineering analysis and tools to the design and fabrication of working machines. Computer-Aided Design (CAD), basic shop tools, power and energy analysis, and free body diagrams were the main engineering tools focused on in the course. The experiential learning objectives included creativity, teamwork, persistence, and project management. It is important to achieve these learning objectives for all students regardless of their background, so inclusivity is also an
discussed in class.The objective of the final board game project was for student groups to create a fully functioningboard game that would teach about climate change and civilization collapse. This final projectmade with the assistance of graphic design students from the College of Fine Arts, required thateach group turn in a completed game that was placed in a box with all of the required pieces.Each group had to write and submit a well-written rule book that could be used to teach someonehow to play the game. The final paper portion of the assignment was meant for students tocommunicate how they thought their board game accomplished the goal of educating their targetaudience about climate change. Also, it was asked that students write about what
communities audiences, including nontechnical audiences • Outreach and EducationMethodsThis research was conducted out of a larger study intended to study graduate engineeringstudents’ rhetorical academic engineering writing patterns, employing the National ScienceFoundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) as a platform for studying astandard and relatively short, yet authentic, writing experience. The NSF GRFP is an annualcompetition in which graduate students in their senior year of undergraduate or their first orsecond years of graduate school compete to win three
from highest to lowest. The factor loadings for the first factor rangefrom 0.51 to 0.85, the second factor from 0.64 to 0.87, and the third factor from 0.46 to 0.90. Thecoefficients of internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α) for the three factors ranged from 0.81to 0.88. Table 3 Final factor loadings for the EERSE item structureItem Category F1 F2 F3 General Research Tasks (Cronbach’s α =0.85) 1 Write a peer-reviewed paper for disseminating findings from a research study 0.85 2 Present my research findings to an audience at a conference 0.74 3 Select an appropriate theoretical framework for a research
performance are shownbelow in Table 2 (this is directly taken from [8-9]). Referring to Table 1, it would be interesting touse the parameters from ‘measures of performance’ column as a measure to know what is the aimof the research that the faculty members are involved in. Knowing these measures, would behelpful in determining which type of scholarship is being associated with the research process. Table 1. Boyer’s model of scholarship [8-9] Type of Purpose Measures of PerformanceScholarshipDiscovery Build new knowledge - Publishing in peer-reviewed forums through traditional - Producing and/or performing creative work within established
questions • One-or-Two Level 3 questions. These assess Fluency, the application of multiple concepts in a new way. Following the language analogy, Level 3 shows fluency of the thermodynamics language, able to write and speak about complex topicsA defined grading rubric delivered via online Learning Management System (LMS)Conceptual Fluency moves away from generous and sometimes laborious partial credit andtowards a binary grading technique using a strictly-defined rubric. We award full credit for a fullyconceptually and numerically correct solution. For any answer with numeric or conceptual errors,we initially award no points. Defined partial-credit is discussed below.We also adopted a new LMS to help us quickly operationalize and
shown that access to peer role models increases academicpersistence [1], [2]. It has also been shown that retention of URM and women is increasedthrough project-based learning or experiential learning pedagogies and techniques[3]-[10].Moreover, URM students often have a limited perspective of their contributions to improvingtechnology due to social issues such as a lack of exposure to engineering and science professionsand having personal role models in their local community who are scientists or engineers.Furthermore, when URM students enter STEM fields, many fail to see the connection betweentheir studies and real-world problems because gateway courses in current curricula fail to makethat connection explicit [10], [11
writing, public speaking,communication, team work, and the other topics required by modern industries. Capstone designcourse or course sequences are offering a common way that the engineering programs meet thesecriteria, being key elements in engineering and engineering technology undergraduate programs.Students usually engage in these course subjects near the beginning of their senior year. Thesenior capstone design projects course has several objectives. One objective is to enable studentsto integrate theoretical and practical skills gained throughout their lecture and laboratory courses.Another objective requires that senior capstone design experiences build on knowledge gainedfrom earlier courses. The teamwork spirit and associated concepts
semester to the second semester. One of the essential institutional supports thatencouraged both professor and student engagement in the project was the funding used toemploy a teaching assistant (TA) familiar with the content of the course as well as themakerspace. From Spring 2019 to Fall 2019, Dr. Cook had thought that an overhaul of herproject would be necessary to generate more engagement and output from students. Instead ofthese large changes, researchers alongside Dr. Cook found that familiarity with the makerspace,prior experience with an open-ended project, and peer support for students seemed to producesuperior student engagement and output without vast pedagogical shifts.BackgroundIn recent years, substantial educational resources have
&I intheir everyday teaching.In this research paper, we present the journeys of 12 college level educators who have beenidentified by peers in the engineering education community as individuals practicing inclusiveteaching. These stories are intended to complement a) research that identifies issues of Diversityand Inclusion in engineering and b) research that documents efforts to address these issues.Although there are many studies that seek to understand the issues and explore potentialsolutions to different D&I concerns, these open-ended interviews highlight stories from the threesub-themes. These sub-themes show that doing work to support D&I requires communitysupport, requires learning from experiences, either one’s own or from
helpful in refining this specific OEMP assignment and developing generalguidelines for writing OEMPs on any topic. If multiple students are not making reasonable, well-justified assumptions, this suggests that the problem should be redesigned to provide morescaffolding that helps students make more realistic assumptions or more explicitly prompts themto write out their justifications. Second, having students metacognitively reflect on their ownassumptions is an important factor in their development of engineering judgment. Byunderstanding what assumptions students are making and the impact these have on design,instructors can highlight productive beginnings of engineering judgment and help studentsunderstand when they have made assumptions that