been used by researchers to understand how teaching andlearning occur in classrooms [22]-[27]. In the context of engineering education, classroomobservations have become more common to conduct research related to curricular practices [28].As our research questions centered on how engineering practices were taught and understandinghow classroom time was utilized, classroom observations served as an ideal method throughwhich to collect data.To guide the data collection, the project leadership team (EM, LL, JLM, and SD) developed anditerated an observation protocol. The observation protocol consisted of 35 practices, which weredrawn from literature on engineering competencies [1], [5], insights from student interviewsprobing the emphasized skills
test, while there was nostatistically significant difference between the two interventions for the retention test. The VRlesson was also found to result in higher emotional arousal and lower cognitive engagement. Theauthors suggested that the excessive emotional arousal caused by VR high immersion distractsthe learner from cognitive processing of the information. On the other hand, Lai et al. resultsindicated that students using AR perceived a significantly lower extraneous cognitive loadcompared to those who learned with conventional multimedia [49].There were mixed results in terms of student preference. While students preferred the AR morein [37] and [49], projection-based VR with TV screens was found to be preferred by students inthe study
will contribute to a large project,where the full texts of the chosen abstracts will be review and analyzed.MethodsThis scoping review was guided using the Arksey and O’Malley Five-Stage Framework forStructured and Systematic Scoping Reviews. Stage one of the framework requires identifying aresearch question, which went through a series of iterations. Initially, the research question “Howdo engineering programs integrate Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) frameworksinto their curriculum to meet the needs of the diverse populations they serve?”, was posed to geta general understanding of the place that JEDI frameworks have in engineering programs. Afterfurther consideration of the question, it was decided that it needed a better
classstructure and teaching practices allows researchers and instructors to determine how to augment aclass for a clearer and easier learning experience.There are many related articles that focus on at least one of the domains of learning for engineeringstudents; however, most have different focuses or are not directly applicable to this paper’sresearch. For example, many related studies were testing or creating a tool used to evaluate a class'sability to teach with one or more of the domains, versus testing how to better teach one or all ofthe domains or discover how students learn with each domain [8-13]. One of these studies createda teaching template for schools so they are more aware of what engineering students should learnduring their capstone
study created ateaching template for schools so they are more aware of what engineering students should learnduring their capstone research [15]. Another study tested the program EvalTOOLs 6 to determinehow well a class performed in connecting to each of the three domains and how it may be helpfulfor determining which domains need more development [13]. A related study tried to evaluateeach hierarchical level with an analysis of students’ grades [6]. Other studies attempted to developnew analytic tools to evaluate students learning with the cognitive domain [7], [14].Another related study focused on testing a few hierarchical levels instead of reviewing learningthrough all of the hierarchical levels of the cognitive domain [8]. One article