and other learning activities in engineeringcourses. In recruiting interview participants, we strategically oversampled for marginalizedracial/ethnic and gender identities to ensure diverse perspectives. During the interview process,we observed that student participants reflected on their strengths and connected them to theirwork in and beyond engineering courses, suggesting the potential of APPI to be used both as anasset-based pedagogical intervention and as a research method for collaborative sense-makingwith students about their experiences. We believe that students were able to better recognize andactivate their assets because of APPI’s roots in social constructivism, which enables participantsto engage in collective inquiry and dialogue
. The interviewer asked open-endedfollow-up questions to prompt participants to reflect on these emotions, repeating this process forall eight contexts.We conducted and recorded hour-long interviews with 20 undergraduate students described inTable 1. We transcribed excerpts of interview recordings of four contexts: doing a problem setfor Mechanics 1 alone, doing a problem set for Mechanics 1 with friends, making something in amakerspace for yourself, and making something in a makerspace for Electronics 1. The firstauthor conducted line-by-line open coding [11] of three interview transcripts from a second-,third-, and fourth-year participant each, from which themes of emotional configurationsdeveloped organically. She shared the coded
considered at the institutional level. On top of pursuing a collegeeducation, these students have to balance work and family. The main goal of this research is tounderstand how institutions can meet nontraditional students where they are and be supportive oftheir collegiate endeavors. The study is guided by the following research question: what are theexperiences of nontraditional students in engineering with university support systems?We utilized various data sources such as journal reflections, interviews, and participatory designto triangulate our research. Most recently, we conducted a participatory design session to createpersonas of nontraditional students in engineering with actual students who are living these lives.These personas can then
teamwork in URPs, as well as the methods and processesthat students use to manage teamwork effectively.Methods: The study was conducted in a 10-week summer, full time, onsite REU program at alarge Midwestern University. Fourteen students from all over the US worked in teams on avariety of research projects in the fields of engineering and applied energy at the host university.At the end of the program, the students completed a guided reflection, and the collected data wasthematically analyzed to reveal perceptions about their experiences working as a team.Results: Students reported diverse strengths in teamwork, such as the importance of differingperspectives and experiences, positive mentorship dynamics, and the value of adaptability andeffective
. Participantsfound it difficult to extend their goals because graduation was so far away and there were fewopportunities for reflection within their programs. Implications from this work will help students,faculty, and administrators begin conversations about student goals and encourage students toengage in reflective practices to determine the value of the doctoral degree for them along withwhether their courses and research align with their goals.INTRODUCTION & LITERATURE REVIEW Attrition is high in engineering graduate programs. The 10-year completion rate forengineering PhDs is only 60% depending on the discipline [1], with attrition rates at approximately35% for women, 24% for men, and as high as 57% for African American engineering
multipleevidences that support each proposed interpretation and use. The concept of reliability reflectshow consistently the instrument measures what it is designed to measure—in other words, howmuch the scores are consistent [1], [7]. Finally, fairness is about considering and avoiding thedifferent ways the instrument might be biased against or in favor of certain groups, both in termsof how they are scored and how the scores might impact groups differently [8]. These threeconcepts are important when considering the development of an instrument because evidences ofthese concepts can ensure that the information one gets from the instrument are relevant for awide population and that it actually reflects what it is intending to measure [5].With the rise of
that do not directly reflect our espoused beliefs [14]. We can,however, better predict our future behaviors by engaging in self-reflection related to our previousbehaviors, thus helping to build awareness for future judgements [15]. Due to the inherentcomplexity associated with judgements in a process safety setting, a lack of awareness maycause engineering practitioners to behave outside of their typical set of beliefs, sometimesresulting in poor or uninformed judgements.We are studying chemical engineering students to understand how their beliefs and behaviorscompare in the context of process safety judgements and how they react to any differences sothat we can prepare students to acknowledge the inherent complexity of how they
method of teaching, which emphasises memorization and standardised testingthrough lectures, rote learning, and memorization, may impede the development of criticalthinking, problem solving, and creative thinking skills that are essential in everyday life. Inaddition, the conventional teaching methods can be monotonous and inflexible, which cancause students to lose interest and motivation in their studies. To make students more attentivein class, students centered approach need to be implemented.Variety of instructional strategies are in practice to engage the students in learning, to enhancestudent learning, and also to provide opportunity for students to reflect on their learning. Onesuch student-centered instructional strategy is Process
Paper ID #37979Understanding Expert Perceptions of PBL Integration in IntroductoryAerospace Engineering Courses: Thematic Analysis of Focus Groups withPBL and Aerospace Engineering InstructorsDr. Andrew Olewnik, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York Andrew Olewnik is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Education at the Univer- sity at Buffalo. His research includes undergraduate engineering education with focus on engineering design, problem-based learning, co-curricular involvement and its impact on professional formation, and the role of reflection practices in supporting engineering
’ intendedresponses and may not be drawing adequate conclusions from their results. This study uncovershow undergraduate engineering students, predominantly of Latinx backgrounds, reflect upon thestatement “I see myself as an engineer” and the justification they provide to explain their timeperspective. Specifically, this study will focus on answering the following research question: Inwhat ways are students reflecting on the question “Do you see yourself as an engineer?” and why?Theoretical FrameworkEngineering Role IdentityOur conceptual understanding of engineering identity begins with the theory of role identity. Arole identity is based on an individual’s social position and is defined by the meanings andexpectations associated with the role in a given
inengineering education. We sought to identify how exemplar engineering students describe familypatterns that influence their engineering success. Career genogram construction and semi-structured interviews reflected intergenerational family patterns that contributed to the success ofthree exemplar senior students in engineering. Case-studies were selected using ExemplarMethodology (ExM). Data was collected on familial career exposure and attitudes, resulting inthe development of genograms. Findings reflect supportive communication, encouraged help-seeking, and reliable support were normed in each family system. Observing family memberswith engineering experience, engaging in pre-college STEM-related activities, and familyattitudes about the value of
course and an undergraduate science course. Participants describedtheir values and motivations in relation to their learning though stories about specific aspects ofthe course curriculum. An empathy map, a design thinking tool, was used by investigators toanalyze each interview, identifying needs and insights about students’ engagement in eachcourse. Based on this initial understanding of student learning challenges, researchers generatedideas to improve learning. Participants were then invited to join small focus group discussions toshare their feedback and contribute their own ideas on the reimagined learning experience.From researchers’ reflections and collaborative discussions, three themes emerged in relation tofundamental learning problems
scores for all eight items were averaged to calculate the mean self-efficacystrength scores. Lower scores were indicative of weaker self-efficacy percepts, while higherscores were indicative of stronger self-efficacy percepts. The computed Cronbach’s α was.89, reflecting adequate internal consistency.Outcome Expectation (OE). Ten measures were used to determine participants’ OE, inspiredby Lent et al. (2003). Participants were required to answer their level of understanding withstatements that contained positive outcomes resulting from obtaining a Bachelor of Sciencedegree in engineering (e.g., “graduating with a BS degree in engineering will likely allow meto earn an attractive salary”). Their answers were ranked from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
to provide diverse perspectives on pressing topicswithin academic and non-academic communities. Individuals participating in panels are usuallybrought together to express a wide range of viewpoints and to combine ideas, research, andexperiences. We see an opportunity to extend panel discussions to have enduring impact bybroadly distributing the data synthesized during the panel discussions. The use of paneldiscussions as a research endeavor has the potential to broaden researchers' ways of knowing, yetknowledge transfer from panel conversations to peer-reviewed publications has to this point beenminimal.This paper highlights a methodology for analyzing panel discussions, discourse content, andpanelist reflection to produce research results
these environments. However,whether LGBTQ students experience self-concept or social fit may determine avoidancebehaviors that may ultimately lead them to abandon a STEM major and their STEM career goals.The disclosure of LGBTQ identity to others then reflects both higher self-concept fit and socialfit in that LGBTQ students can be their “true selves” in STEM environments and have theirLGBTQ identities validated by their peers. The decision to compartmentalize LGBTQ identitieswithin STEM environments reflects social identity threat posed by a lack of self-concept and/orsocial fit. Given what prior research has indicated about the LGBTQ climate in STEM, then,these environments would be expected to pose more social identity threat than many
Boomer is a graduate student completing his master’s degree in aerospace engineering at the University of Michigan. His focus in engineering education research has been towards bridging the gap between the undergraduate engineering curriculum and engineering industry practice.Cindy Wheaton, University of MichiganDr. Aaron W. Johnson, University of Michigan Aaron W. Johnson (he/him) is an Assistant Professor in the Aerospace Engineering Department and a Core Faculty member of the Engineering Education Research Program at the University of Michigan. His lab’s design-based research focuses on how to re-contextualize engineering science engineering courses to better reflect and prepare students for the reality of ill-defined
, e.g., course department, as confounders for model to remove. Using this method,for the difficult dimension, the model learns to identify words that are more correlated withhigher difficulty ratings but not correlated with quality ratings.From these word lists, two of the authors manually annotated the words that were valid membersof the different dimensions based on fixed criteria. For example, the word “helping” would countas helpful but not clear because helpful words should reflect positive social behavior while clearwords indicate effective communication. Next, we adapt these lists to the original CCE dataset bycomputing the nearest neighbors to the words in each dimension, using word embeddings trainedon the CCE text data [22]. Computing
and assessed in different contexts.More specifically, Chinese immigrant STEM workers comprise a high percentage of all foreign-born workers in the U.S. Therefore, comparing the Chinese and American teamwork assessmentsystems can be conducive to constructing a generalizable understanding of teamwork assessmentin cross-cultural contexts [11].In addition, much literature discusses how to develop and assess teamwork. For example,portfolios, reflections, observations, tests, rubrics, and questionnaires are common teamworkassessment methods. However, less literature outlines how teamwork in engineering educationmight be implemented in different cultural contexts. We must fill this gap because abundantliterature already points to the importance and
slowlyincreased (Cunninghame et al., 2016), this group still remains largely underrepresented in STEMdisciplines (Moon et al., 2012). This discrepancy in representation reflects larger issues ofmarginalization in STEM fields and higher education at large. Current support structures fordisabled people remain ineffective, as accessing necessary resources requires navigatingphysical, cultural, and bureaucratic barriers (Groen-McCall et al., 2018). These barriers onlycontinue to widen for disabled students planning to pursue engineering careers (Prema & Dhand,2019), as seen in the high unemployment rate for disabled scientists and engineers, which isgreater than that of the entire U.S. labor force (Lee, 2010; NSF, 2017). Yet, disability is rarelyincluded
Paper ID #42409Exploring Variance in Undergraduate Research Participation: A Quantitativeand Qualitative Investigation among Students with Differing Levels of InvolvementDr. Andrew Olewnik, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York Andrew Olewnik is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Education at the University at Buffalo. His research includes undergraduate engineering education with focus on engineering design, problem-based learning, co-curricular involvement and its impact on professional formation, and the role of reflection practices in supporting engineering undergraduates as they
, 1971). By acquiring multiple sources of information about the sameevent occurring in a social setting, researchers can integrate and triangulate these data, enhancingthe analysis’ depth and accuracy. Therefore, in this research project, the researcher engaged inextensive first-hand observation in classroom settings throughout the semester, collectedstudents’ written responses reflecting their class, and conducted open-ended interviews designedto validate our findings with students’ perspectives. Second, investigations of instructors’ pedagogical practices in naturalistic settings, versusin a laboratory or through lab-based experiments, can yield different findings (Le Compte &Goetz, 1982). Indeed, identifying instructor’s
people working at such high levels of Iron Range Engineering gave me the chance to prove what I can do and feel like I am capable of being an engineer (Student 6, para. 2)Student 3Student 3 was a participant who only made connections between four of the framework elements(no mention of Knowledge) and showed limited connections between those that were mentioned.Their co-occurrences happened less frequently than those in Students 6 and 10’s reflections. As areminder from Table 2, student 3 mentioned Skills, Values, and Epistemology in 40% ofparagraphs and Identity in 100%. This correlates with the size of the nodes in Figure 4.Four out of the five paragraphs in Student 3’s
Engineering. Her dissertation research broadly focused on global issues related to sustainable waste management and plastic pollution. After earning her PhD 2021 from the University of Georgia, Amy developed skills in qualitative research methods in engineering education at Oregon State University. As part of this training, she used interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) to examine engineering faculty well-being and collaborated on the development of a reflective tool for researchers to build skills in semi- and unstructured interviewing. Building on her postdoctoral training, Amy aims to merge her methodological interests to pursue research questions in the nexus of engineering education, sustainable development
from a Critical Feminist lens. Kinzie[1] reflected on their personally discouraging experience with science in college and theorized tounderstand inequities in women’s participation with four pathways: ‘nevers,’ ‘departers,’‘joiners,’ and ‘persisters.’ [13] examined STEM mentoring programs in their meta-analysis usinga Critical Feminist approach. Gender, oppression/patriarchy, challenges within institutions, andsystemic challenges were identified as obstacles for girls and women in STEM and the authorscritiqued STEM mentoring programs failed to address concerns for individuals who do not fitinto the binary gender category and the intersectional oppressions. There are many cases wherethe authors apply a Critical Feminist lens without explicitly
Exams as growth opportunity X critically. When they're getting information Extend examples to new problems X X from the teacher, they don't have to think Having students take roles X critically about it because the teacher said Learning from peers X X it. It must be right, you know. More problems are better X XTo operationalize this resource, Avery More time on topic = more learning X Negotiate confusion Xprovided class time for students “to set up the Reflective thinking of
in a multimediaenvironment. Considerable cognitive processing is required for a meaningful learning experiencespecifically in a multimedia environment, which can exceed the limited capacity of workingmemory [25]. Thus, multimedia design principles have been proposed for combining texts,pictures, audio and animations, as well as other guidelines such as providing opportunities forfeedback, reflection and controlling the pace of the presented material [25], [26]. Theseguidelines can help design XR environments to prevent cognitive overload for students.Experiential learning considers learning by doing. According to Kolb [27], learning involves fourstages of concrete experience, reflective thinking, abstract conceptualization and
contributing to the team’s work, keeping the team on track, expecting quality,having relevant knowledge and skills, and interacting with teammates. The survey questionsrooted in conflict research (Gonzalez & Hernández, 2014, and Harrison & Klein, 2007) wereused to probe three types of conflicts: task, process, and relationship. We used the termsdisagreement and conflict interchangeably in this paper.The survey also collected demographic data. The sample demographics reflected the gender andracial distribution of the engineering student population at our institution, of which 13% werefemale, one third identified as Hispanic, one third as Asian, 16% as White, 6% as AfricanAmerican, and the rest as either mixed race, Native American, Native
education with focus on engineering design, problem-based learning, co-curricular involvement and its impact on professional formation, and the role of reflection practices in supporting engineering undergraduates as they transition from student to professional. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Validation of a Measure of Design Framing AgencyAbstractIn this research paper, we investigate the structure and validity of survey data related to students’framing agency. In order to promote increased opportunities for students to engage in and learnto frame design problems that are innovative and empathetic, there is a need for instruments thatcan provide information about
). Comprehending and acknowledging the subtletiesof student effort is essential for educators, researchers, and institutions seeking to elevate theoverall quality of the educational experience. At its core, student effort involves the commitment and diligence demonstrated bystudents in their academic endeavors (Shu, 2022). This commitment manifests in various forms,including time spent on studying, engagement in coursework, active participation in classdiscussions, and the pursuit of additional learning opportunities (Khachikian et al., 2011; Shu,2022). The quantitative dimension of student effort is often reflected in the number of hoursdedicated to academic tasks, the thoroughness of preparation, and the consistency of work habits(Berland &
researchers to the field—for example, in National ScienceFoundation Research Initiation in Engineering Formation (RIEF) grants, and CAREER BroaderImpacts and Educational Plan activities—which require traditionally-trained faculty to developengineering education research skills. Reflecting this shift, the number of qualitative researcharticles in engineering education reflects the increase in interest in qualitative methods and theneed for introductory material for pivoting researchers. It has been the norm for engineeringeducation researchers to partner with emergent and pivoting engineering faculty members tomentor them through this transition, but the process is often time- and resource-intensive. To meetthis need, we have developed this primer on