Paper ID #12382Reflecting on reflection: How educators experience the opportunity to talkabout supporting student reflectionDr. Jennifer A Turns, University of WashingtonDr. Brook Sattler, University of Washington Dr. Sattler is a Research Scientist for the Center for Engineering Learning & Teaching (CELT) and a Multi-Campus Coordinator for the Consortium to Promote Reflection in Engineering Education (CPREE) at the University of Washington. Her research interests include understanding and promoting self-authoring engineers.Dr. Lauren D. Thomas, University of WashingtonDr. Cynthia J. Atman, University of Washington
commentariesfocused on concepts like “research quality,” “rigor,” and “systematic research,” as well asaccompanying shifts in the various criteria used to evaluate funding proposals and peer reviewedpapers. The field’s topical foci are also something of a moving target given a long and episodichistory of efforts to reinvent the form and content of engineering curricula. As the methods anddesired outcomes of engineering instruction change, so does the engineering education researchagenda. Further worth noting are rising pressures to relate research to practice, as reflected inmandates to identify the “broader impacts” associated with scholarly work in the field.This paper speaks to these challenges through the lens of our team’s recent experiences workingon a
Paper ID #12165On an Upward Trend: Reflection in Engineering EducationMs. Lauren A. Sepp, University of Washington Lauren is a first year PhD student at the University of Washington, studying Human Centered Design & Engineering. As a research assistant in the Center for Engineering Learning & Teaching, her research interests focus on engineering education and the importance of tactile learning.Mania Orand, Human Centered Design and Engineering Mania Orand is a researcher in the field of Human Computer Interaction at the University of Washington. Her research interests are on using reflection in designing web and
Paper ID #11501What’s Muddy vs. What’s Surprising? Comparing Student Reflections aboutClassJessie Keeler, Oregon State University Jessie Keeler is a graduate student in the School of Chemical, Biological, and Environmental Engineering at Oregon State University. She received her B.E. from the Youngstown State University in chemical engineering and is pursuing her M.S. also in chemical engineering with an emphasis on engineering education.Dr. Bill Jay Brooks, Oregon State University Bill Brooks is a Postdoctoral Scholar in the School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engi- neering at Oregon State University. As
Paper ID #13540Leveraging Reflection to Deepen Engineering Graduate Student InstructorProfessional DevelopmentDr. Tershia A. Pinder-Grover, University of Michigan Tershia Pinder-Grover is an Assistant Director at the Center for Research on Learning in Teaching (CRLT) and the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching in Engineering (CRLT-Engin) at the University of Michigan (U-M). In these roles, she is responsible for teacher training for new engineering graduate student instructors (GSIs), consultations with faculty and GSIs on pedagogy, workshops on teaching and learning, and preparing future faculty programs. Prior
Paper ID #11839Using Phenomenography: Reflections on Key Considerations for Making Method-ological DecisionsEmily Dringenberg, Purdue University, West Lafayette Emily Dringenberg is a PhD Candidate in Engineering Education at Purdue University. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering (Kansas State ’08) and a Master of Science in Industrial Engineering (Purdue ’14). Her current dissertation research focuses on using qualitative methods to ex- plore the experiences of students engaging with engineering design problems. Additionally, her research interests include transfer of learning, personal epistemology
broad areas of practice. He was a co-founder of the Canadian Engineering Education As- sociation, and currently holds the role of Past-President. His research areas include engineering education and applied research and development activities in partnership with industry. Page 26.742.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Exploring the Self in Engineering Education: The Design of a Self-Reflective Workshop Series to Position Students for Self-RegulationIntroductionThe development of students as lifelong learners has become a widely accepted goal forinstitutions of
requires by trial and error with some support from professional developmentprograms1.Professional development programs are typically low in attendance when employed andfaculty that do not attend indicate that the programs have low relevance to their own Page 26.1701.2teaching1,3. Felder et al. also indicate that many instructors are unaware of alternatives totraditional lecturing, as this is the way they were taught; they explain low studentperformance and low student evaluations as a reflection of the student, and not of theirteaching. A large component of this incorporation of alternatives is a perceived lack ofdiscipline-specific examples, making it
. Interviewparticipants were selected using a cross-case matching methodology based on their globalpreparedness measure scores (i.e., high vs low scorers). Twenty-five undergraduate engineeringstudents enrolled at the three collaborating universities were interviewed. Interview data wereholistically reviewed with an a priori coding schema based on the research objectives and thenre-coded according to the final coding schema by multiple research team members for inter-raterreliability purposes, and arbitrated where necessary.Differences in students’ reflections emerged based on the depth of their engagement with theculture and community in the host country in which they had participated in an internationalexperience. The results from this study broaden the
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
taught courses on the development of reflective teaching practices, and has presented workshops on learning how to learn and developing metacognitive awareness. He has published and presented on engineering design, engineering pedagogies, and instructional development topics. Page 26.80.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Pedagogy of Larger Concerns: Grounding Engineering Faculty Development in Research on Teaching ConceptionsAbstract:This paper presents how the results of a study on teaching conceptions have come to exert both aphilosophical and
were interested ininteractive teaching strategies and were interested in continuous improvement of their teaching.In the second phase, the group leaders formed a teaching development group of their own for ayear before facilitating groups at their own institutions. Four teaching design groups, eachcomposed of 4-7 instructors, met regularly over the course of an academic year. The instructorswere primarily from engineering but some groups included other STEM instructors (includinggraduate students).Throughout the project, we collected meeting notes for each phone conference with the groupleaders. Later in the project, we collected group leader reflections and participant surveys inorder to document the design and implementation of the faculty
applied, transformative, purposive knowledge and growth.51, 52Because professionalization is also an important goal in engineering education, our listculminates with several goals that build from affective, ethical, and cognitive foundations to themore specific abilities we expect of graduating engineering students. Each student and program instructor will be able to 1. recognize in context, discuss, and demonstrate attitudes, behaviors and personal reflection about their rights and responsibilities to themselves, others, society, and the natural world 2. recognize in context, discuss, and demonstrate attitudes, behaviors and personal reflection about their habits and growth, as well as others’, and the implications of
how it can be represented in a particularengineering discipline (Stages 1-3). Students then learn technical skills that can be applied to areal-world data derived from that same GC (Stages 4-5). Students end by reflecting on the skillsrequired for their problem solving and the relevance of those skills to other aspects of the GC(Stage 6). More details about each stage are provided in the following sections.Stage 1: Multi-Disciplinary Overview. The course instructor provides an overview of a GCtheme, often incorporating information from outside engineering (e.g., a guest technical expertfrom another field; general-interest or political/economic assignments; an in-class debate). Thisoverview (and the interactions with students) provides the
bereplaced by new and scientifically correct ones. Most importantly, learners’ naive theories needto be taken into account. Some strategies therefore begin by triggering the learners’ priorconceptions and allowing them to reflect on their thinking. Next, students are provided withcontrasting evidence to generate a contradiction to their former naïve theories. In essence, theconceptual change framework suggests inducing a cognitive conflict between an individual’sideas and contrasting evidence.Research has shown that in science such instructional strategies are effective in changingstudents’ ideas. For example, Hake6 showed that student-centered learning methods improveconceptual understanding more than traditional learning methods. In this manner
be reflected in the different types of resourcesprevalent within these “worlds.” The research described in this paper aims to deepen insight ofengineering concept representation, description, and usage in academia and practice (i.e. theworkplace).Two specific issues guided the use of roundabout design as the medium for analyzing conceptuse, representation, and description: 1) roundabouts are specific transportation design facilities emerging in use and design within the United States, and 2) the design of roundabouts served as the larger context for an ongoing case study exploring concept use, representation, and interpretation in engineering activity and interactions.The application of roundabouts as a
Paper ID #12492Exploring Ethical Validation as a Key Consideration in Interpretive ResearchQualityDr. Joachim Walther, University of Georgia Dr. Walther is an assistant professor of engineering education research at the University of Georgia (UGA). He is a director of the Collaborative Lounge for Understanding Society and Technology through Educational Research (CLUSTER), an interdisciplinary research group with members from engineering, art, educational psychology and social work. His research interests range from the role of empathy in engineering students’ professional formation, the role of reflection in
;7, 10 provides exposure to different views, ideas,and perspectives;10 leads to opportunities for negotiation;11 and supports questioning among teammembers;7, 12 among other benefits. Through social interactions with other learners, studentshave an opportunity to learn through reflection on their own experience and benefit from hearingthe experiences of others.13 Learner-learner interactions present an opportunity to learn bothcontent and these “group behavior or group leadership skills” (p. 462)14. According to Verzat,Byrne, and Fayolle15 “in the case of teamwork, doing it rather than listening about how importantit is, is likely to have a more direct impact on student understanding” ( p. 359). Burdett9 surveyed344 senior business students
, proposing a conceptualmodel of the factors that influence global competency levels, and also identifies the baselinelevels of global competency for benchmarking. The resulting conceptual model and globalcompetency measures will be useful toward larger scale inquiries to evaluate how participationin study abroad programs, international experiences, culturally-relevant curricula, and otherrelated activities can contribute to changes in students’ ability to work in diverse environments.The Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale short form (MGUDS-S) measures the“universe-diverse orientation” construct, which “reflects an attitude of awareness of both thesimilarities and differences that exist among people”2. Higher MGUDS-S scores have
practical and intellectually appropriateresearch design?In this paper, we consider one such idea: The prevailing stigma of research conducted on smallpopulations in research on equity. Whatever its source or however explicit (or not) its ideologicalorigins, disregard of the “small n” population as non-meaningful reproduces a marginalization ofstudents. It also casts particular human experiences as aberrant by virtue of statistical rarity. Butmost profoundly, researchers’ definition of small or large “ns” reiterates the value or necessityfor established categories (say, racial demarcations, or binaries of ability and disability), whilewe instead believe that critical reflection on categories is necessary for any address of power andprivilege. Our
understanding have been identified. The basicobservations were identified by common code and grouped under shared themes which arepresented in the Results section. As is the case with grounded theory, validity in this qualitativestudy is established through saturation. That is, when continued data analysis and reflection donot bring forth any new facets or insight, the effort is confirmed to be complete. The datacollection occurred in two different sections – one in the spring and one in the fall – wheresimilar problems were given to both groups, but an alteration of scope for the fall group wasintended to provide more focus in the coding process
theperformance descriptors associated with each score for each rubric dimension. Within eachdimension, raters could give a score of 0, 1, 3, or 5. These score options reflect the conceptualdistinctions between performance descriptions. For example, the additional energy literacydemonstration required to move from a score of 1 to a score of 3 was seen as greater than theadditional demonstration required to move from a score of 0 to a score of 1. Each sub-principlewithin the DOE framework was mapped directly to one or two rubric dimensions to facilitateconsistent scoring based on tangible indicators of energy literacy.Data collection Project posters and abstracts from an annual high school energy science/designcompetition held in the Pacific
. These embedded forms are not made up of “individual acts of meanness by members of[the dominant group],” but by institutional history9.In her distinguished lecture, McIntosh addressed White privilege and the surrounding myths thatpeople can unknowingly propagate. She began by speaking of her upbringing in a “normal”family and of her father working as an engineer at Bell Labs. As circumstance in her life gaveher reason to pause and reflect, she realized that as a White woman, she was allowed to considerherself normal, as she was part of what society considers normal. She referred to her seminalwork, White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, in which she discussed earnedstrengths and unearned powers9. These unearned powers accrue into
honorsstudents. Preliminary analysis show a student population with normal distributions on the active-reflective, sensing-intuitive, and sequential-global Felder Learning Styles scales and anextremely skewed visual-verbal distribution favoring visual learners with less than 5% of thetotal population self-rated as moderate to strong verbal learners. We report on a comparison ofthe Felder Learning Styles scales, assignment preparation time, and course performance. Theseresults provide insights into significant predictors of student success based on learning style andcurriculum type. The ultimate goal is to provide appropriate preparatory course materials to
approach to teaching professional communication, andintroduce our larger research project, which aims to assess the effectiveness of our program.Finally, we shall briefly reflect on whether the small communication class is really as inefficientas some have suggested. The purpose of this study is to develop the theoretical groundwork fora larger study we are just beginning to conduct on the efficacy of our professionalcommunication program. Using the investigative tools of narrative research and discourseanalysis, we hope ultimately to determine the degree to which our program, which maintainssmall classes and focuses on cultivating students’ rhetorical judgment, effectively graftsprofessional communication onto our students’ burgeoning
engineering studentswas that critical thinking was often similar or equivalent to problem solving. However, Englishstudents saw critical thinking as a way of forming opinions, forming and defending an argument,and making connections. Common themes for both groups included aspects such as broadeningideas, needing deeper understanding, and needing reflection and metacognition. Both groupsutilized the concepts common throughout their major classes as the physical representation ofcritical thinking. The embodiment of course concepts as critical thinking may be supported bythe idea of engineering identity and self-efficacy. Students may choose engineering, and stick toit, because they relate to the concepts and to how engineers think. However, faculty
complementary, and both are necessary if engineers are to helpsolve the most serious problems our societies face [3-4]. This call for engineering education toposition itself so students can meet modern challenges was laid out by the leaders of the NationalAcademy of Engineering (NAE) in their influential reports, The Engineer of 2020 [5-6]. There isnow a need to reflect on how engineering education has positively changed in the decade sincethose reports, and to consider what still needs to be tackled.Our research aligns with one of the key recommendations of The Engineer of 2020: to developengineers whose communication skills will allow them to become successful professionals and,who, in turn, will drive technological and social change. Specifically
implement the SSDS and illustrate the findings when usingthis survey pre- and post- course with students who participated in WPSI across threeuniversities during the Fall of 2014. Results from these components are triangulated withstudents’ end-of-semester written reflections and participating instructors’ course experiences.This qualitative component allowed us to consider how WPSI might be improved in future Page 26.508.3iterations, as well as broader implications of the SSDS and WPSI for engineering educationcourses and curriculum.For anonymity, throughout this paper we will refer to course offerings as Course 1, 2, and 3. Thisframing puts the
each other (and to themselves).”3 Thesedefinitions reflect the complex social and communicative processes that need to be unraveled tooffer a complete understanding. While student design contexts differ in important ways fromprofessional practice,4-5 the program-based engineering education context represents animportant space for novice engineers to learn about and develop understandings that will impacttheir future engagement in design. In the context of design, there are many different values, such as innovation or a primaryconcern for safety, that guide design decisions and processes and can impact how designers thinkabout the ethical issues related to their designs and the implications of their “everyday” ethicaldecisions. This is
motivational goals for learning with respect to course favoritism are reflective of a statedependence rather than a trait the students hold with respect to the way they approach learning.Thus, motivational goals of engineering students are likely to shift, some substantially, based ontheir affinity for a course. The implications for our findings are such that if students favor acourse they are more likely to engage in learning at the mastery level and seek deeperunderstanding and develop more complex knowledge of subjects based on intrinsic factors. Incontrast, if students disfavor a course they are likely to be driven by external factors, like grades,or simply passing and getting through, and are much less likely to develop and retain deep