, social constructions and hierarchies, historical background, andsocioeconomic status among other social constructs. As Anzaldúa explored her ownupbringing and lived reality, she deconstructed those spaces she inhabited where she faceddiscrimination and ambiguity to imagine and (re)shape a third space where new realitiescould exist [16]. Through a process of self-reflexivity, Anzaldúa explains, Nepantla becomesa (re)imagined space rather than a dichotomy of worlds [16]. Anzaldúa claims that Nepantlasoften emerge through writing – the writing that comes from deep and critical reflection thateventually leads to a process that catalyzes transformation.Nepantla is also a way to explore the world through lived experience and engage indecolonial
M.S. in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering and her PhD in Engineering Education from Purdue University. Her research expertise lies in characterizing graduate-level attrition, persistence, and career trajectories; engineering writing and communication; and methodological development.Dr. Kim-Doang Nguyen, Florida Institute of Technology Dr. Kim-Doang Nguyen is an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at the Florida Institute of Technology. His research interests include engineering education research, data science, machine learning, robotics, and dynamical systems. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024How Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Undergraduate
, persistence, and has beenlinked to a boost in students’ motivation to learn (Ditta, Strickland-Hughes, Cheung, & Wu,2020). Undergraduate research experience was also found to better equip students for graduateschool or careers (Sell, Naginey, & Stanton, 2017; Altman, et al., 2019). Through undergraduateresearch, students learn professional skills such as maintaining notes, identifying researchproblems, reading scientific literature, collaborating with peers in a research setting, and writingand presenting findings to an audience in their field of discipline (Carpenter & Pappenfus, 2009).Undergraduate research is said to be one of ten high impact practices shown to enhance andimprove college student performance and success (Kuh, 2008). A
], but less is known regarding howengineering students develop these recognition beliefs. Existing identity work has illustrated that students perceive recognition differentlydepending on who the recognition is coming from [10], [13], [14]. The difference betweensources of recognition is most often explored in terms of the prevalence of recognition fromdifferent groups including peers, family, and faculty. Engineering faculty have been identified ashigh impact sources of recognition, but this has been mostly explored with respect to thefrequency of interaction with engineering students in an educational context [13], [15], [16].While recognition from engineering faculty has been considered supportive of students’ overallrecognition beliefs
ZPD was proposed by Lev Vygotsky as a sociocultural theory that describes learning anddevelopment [10]. The ZPD conceives learning as the space between what a learner can dowithout assistance and what the learner can do with competent assistance. A common way totranslate implications from the ZPD to the design of learning interventions is by providingstudents with scaffolding. Scaffolding refers to all types of support and guidance offered in theclassroom either by the instructor or peers or supported by technology [11].In the context of higher education, scaffolding refers to teaching techniques or tools that supportstudents' learning. Students are provided with learning supports that help them accomplish tasksthat they normally would not be
interviewee's consent. The interview was fully structured, and the interviewersfollowed the interview protocol to ensure that all the points were covered. iv. Analysis ● Transcription: The eight completed interviews were then transcribed using the online platform “otter” [ 21]. Then the transcripts were revised by the research team to ensure transcription accuracy. ● Coding: We adopted the thematic analysis coding approach with the following six-step process [22]: Familiarization We started by reading the interviews and familiarizing ourselves with their details. In addition to memoing and writing early insights. Coding We started with one
Multilingual Board GameIntroductionSerious games are a category of games that are often used in education to provide access tocomplex systems. In past research and curriculum development, engineering teachers haveimplemented curriculum around STEM-focused games [1], such as for urban planning [2],transportation engineering [1], chemistry education [3] and computational thinking [4]. Due tothe increased interactive engagement of games compared to lecture [5], [6], [7], engineeringeducators have utilized games to positively impact students' learning. However, theseeducational games are often only available in English. Students whose first language (L1) is notEnglish may be limited in how they present their ideas to peers in these playful spaces
course has an introductory Physics class in Mechanics and a Writing course asprerequisites. Participants consist of students enrolled in the course (1,2). Enrolled students aretypically in their first or second year and often select this class to explore engineering as theirmajor. Students learn engineering design and manufacturing techniques, utilizing their learningto solve ill-defined problems on teams. Projects require both conceptual design and tangible,mechanical solutions for an external client. In addition to engineering design, students learnteamwork through activities centered in giving and receiving feedback, resolving conflict, andleadership. Teams create contracts, meeting agendas, and project management documents as theywork
Paper ID #41712The Justification Effect on Two-Tier Multiple-Choice ExamsDr. Pablo Frank Bolton, Smith College I am a Lecturer in the Computer Science department at Smith College. I received my PhD. from the George Washington University under the direction of Professor Rahul Simha. I currently teach a variety of undergraduate courses and have taught graduate courses in the past. My research is currently focused on STEM, especially on the areas of identifying misconceptions, creating scalable and informative assessments, and in the use of active learning techniques such as learning-by-teaching, and peer learning
, aligning with the profession’s values, and developing a professional identity[6]. Thus, the study of social belonging confidence in students, particularly through professionalsocialization, is a key step in understanding persistence in the field of ML/AI. We study socialbelonging through the lens of confidence, another predictor of persistence [7]–[9]. We define socialbelonging confidence as how confident a person feels that they will fit in with the social and culturalaspects of a profession and develop meaningful relationships with their peers. Belonging uncertainty,defined by Walton and Cohen [10], may be interpreted as a lack of this confidence.Lower levels of confidence have been found to negatively affect persistence of women and girls
complexity. R is also open source, making the platform and packagemore accessible to the community. We chose to write our package in R because of theexisting packages for analyzing data from MIDFIELD, namely midfieldr [16] andmidfielddata [17]. The midfieldr contains ready-to-go functions for properly processing dataat the student level, and the second package is a stratified random sample from MIDFIELDfor users to practice on and explore. The data produced from this project will be madeavailable in a similar format. We anticipate the output synergizing with the broader goal ofexpanding access to and participation in MIDFIELD’s development [18].Data CollectionAlthough originally intended for project communication alone and standardization to
many knowledge sources, practices, andmethodologies that inform how they design and conduct research and their future orientations inthe discipline. Both graduate student researchers co-designed with the end user to developprojects or products [1]. Graduate student researchers in engineering education constantly designresearch studies, tools, and environments with their advisors, peers, and other researchers.However, opportunities to co-design engineering projects with learners and educators are lesscommon for engineering education graduate students. Yet the work that graduate studentresearchers develop can influence K-12 educators and students and vice versa. Thus, graduatestudent researchers must have experience working with learners and
encouragestudents to discuss their predictions of what will happen with their peers, rather than justanswering with iClicker, as this has been shown to further improve student learning [8, 14].Lastly, we plan to reshoot some of these videos utilizing best practices to improve theireffectiveness, such as showing demonstrations from a first-person perspective [14], writing outkey information as the demonstration is given rather than just displaying it [15], and focusing onvisual tabletop demonstrations [16]. We believe that these changes can further improve thequality of demonstration videos to improve the overall educational experience of our students byproviding high quality, exciting demonstrations to them in a course where they previously didnot have
transition issues, and articulation. Harrison holds a B.A. in Education (Kenyatta University, Kenya), a M.A. in Special Education (WVU), and Ed.D. in Curriculum and Instruction (WVU). Short Bio: Dr. Hyoung Jin Cho is a Professor in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Central Florida. His research interest is in miniaturized sensors and sample handling devices. He has published over 120 peer-reviewed journal and proceeding papers and has 12 and 6 patents granted in the U.S. and Korea, respectively. He earned his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Cincinnati in 2002, M.S. and B.S. in Materials Engineering from Seoul National University in 1991 and 1989. He worked
andcourse satisfaction and can work concurrently with self-reflection opportunities.Recent developments in the field suggest that incorporating positive psychology can enhancemore established practices and lead to student “flourishing.” Flourishing is defined as “growingvigorously; thriving; prosperous” and can be applied as a goal in a classroom setting through“teachers and students using their own strengths, seeing the strengths in others and mobilizinggroup-level strengths to achieve a common goal” [23]. When using common positivepsychology, or “the scientific study of human flourishing,” one study found the students in thecourse that integrated positive psychology in “required readings, writing assignments, andengaged learning activities” had
to understand and do well in thesubject (or competence and performance), and recognition by meaningful others (e.g., peers,instructors, family, etc.)[42], [43]. This framing is based on prior work in science education.Carlone and Johnson [44] developed a framework for science role identity from interviews withwomen of Color professionals that included performance, competence, and recognition. Later, intranslating this framework to undergraduate students in physics, Hazari and colleagues [45] addedinterest as an important facet of the student experience and developed quantitative measuresassociated with the four constructs. They found that for undergraduate students, performance andcompetence were not two separate factors but rather a single
point in the past was negotiated with the otherdepartments in sort of an agreement that they came to in how the students will be graded. I don'treally know the details of that it's been there for longer than I have…And we've just kind of keptdoing that same thing.” It must be noted that instructors had autonomy to write their own midterm exams as Jacknoted that the instructors were “responsible for making the tests for their sections,” but not thefinal exam as the final was a standardized, multiple-choice exam for all sections and was writtenby the course supervisor. In triangulating this finding with the public documents from the institution, such as thefaculty and student handbooks, it showed consistency in one dimension and
American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE), The Collaborative Network for Engineering and Computing Diversity (CoNECD), Frontiers in Education (FIE), as well as major psychological con- ferences.Catherine G. P. Berdanier, Pennsylvania State University Catherine G.P. Berdanier is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Penn- sylvania State University. She earned her B.S. in Chemistry from The University of South Dakota, her M.S. in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering and her PhD in Engineering Education from Purdue University. Her research expertise lies in characterizing graduate-level attrition, persistence, and career trajectories; engineering writing and communication; and
twentieth centuries. The creation of MIT'sUndergraduate Research Opportunities Program in 1969 encouraged an explosion in popularitysuch that Undergraduate Research Programs (URPs) became fairly common globally by the1990s.Developing and maintaining URPs benefit students, faculty mentors, and the university equally.Incorporating a research component along with a sound academic foundation enables students togain research and professional experience, work on real-world applications, develop oral andwritten communication skills as well as better relationships with faculty and peers [1]. Accordingto Thiry et al. [2], "Through coursework and out-of-class experiences, students describedlearning to work and think independently, to take responsibility for
, technical support, and encouragement. • GiggleBot programming workshop. One ExCITE student volunteer demonstrated three GiggleBots [16] to the CS I students. Three CS I students and five ACM/ACM- W members participated. Among these five students, two were freshmen, and three were upperclassmen. The presenter demonstrated how to drive a GiggleBot with a pre-programmed Microbit [17] and then let the participants do the same. The students also plugged markers into the GiggleBots, to let the robots draw lines on the papers on the floor by moving. Then the students were divided into groups to write programs for the robots on the computers in the lab and then download their code to the robots to
criticism include forums where methods, ideas, assumptions, and reasoning can beevaluated and critiqued by the community. In the context of EER teams, these venues could beformal (e.g. an advisory board meeting or peer review process) or informal (e.g. a hallway con-versation or sidebar conversation during a meeting). They might be internal, only including groupmembers, or external to the group. The modes of communication in a venue may be spoken (e.g. ameeting or phone call) or written (e.g. an email or peer review). Additionally, the venue could havevaried degrees of collaboration involved in the critical activities (e.g. a team discussion regardingthe solution to a problem vs a team delegating tasks to be completed). We anticipate that
: Statistics educators broadly agree that “(a)nyserious discussion of statistical thinking must examine the role of 'variation'” [3]. In this work,we use the phrase “statistical variability” to refer to variability as it is viewed by statisticians: anubiquitous phenomenon to be directly studied and modeled.Despite its importance, prior failures in engineering can be traced to the neglect of variability [4].In the 1950s, design of aircraft for “the average man” led to uncontrollable aircraft [5]. At theheight of this issue, as many as 17 pilots crashed in a single day [6]. Similar issues persist inmodern engineering practice: As of writing, female passengers are crudely modeled as a scaledversion of the male median in automobile crash test practice [7
cases hence the use of a collective case study design. Crowe et al. [17] were of theopinion that each individual case should be analyzed separately before conducting a cross-casecomparison to explore the similarities in their perceptions of self-assessment. Drawing on Croweet al. [17], the multiple data sets were coded separately and analyzed using the NVivo dataanalysis software. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted on both data sets. The finalcodebook was conceptualized using both the self-regulation theory [15] and the student self-assessment cycle [3]. The authors completed multiple iterations of coding and engaged in criticalreviews of codes by peer debriefers [16]. Thereafter, a cross-case comparison was conducted toexplore the
by Monfort et al., [15], we also drew ontheir methods. We added and adjusted questions to fit the participants’ primary stance as learners as opposed toemerging educators and to fit the disciplinary shift from ‘science’ into ‘engineering’. We sought to use broad,general, terminology to avoid evoking a socially desirable response from participants (e.g., ‘good teaching’ asopposed to ‘effective learning’)[21]. Such concerns also motivated having an undergraduate peer with lowerpower distance to participants be the interviewer [22,23]. The major interview questions appear in the appendix.Participants were interviewed once using typical interview techniques that included asking probing questions togather specific examples and deeper explanation
quantitative summarydimensions such as total word count, the number of “big” words (longer than 6 letters), andpercentage of the dictionary’s words appearing in the text, as well as various psychologicalcategories, using both standard and custom dictionaries [8]. The psychological portion using thestandard dictionary reports four summary measures (analytical thinking, clout, authenticity, andemotional tone) and nine dimensions (linguistic, drives, cognition, affect, social, culture,lifestyle, physical, perception, and conversation).The four LIWC summary measures provide their analysis of the text as a dichotomy comparisonfrom a normalized percentage of several variables [7]. Lower analytical thinking scores indicatemore informal, personable writing
Fast-Forward Engineering Program is a summer bridge and scholarship programat Louisiana Tech University funded by the National Science Foundation that allows risingsophomore engineering students to continue their curriculum ahead of schedule [1]. Eligibility isbased on unmet financial need and on-track degree progression to achieve a 4-year graduation.The program allows students to get more interaction with the faculty as well as increasedinteraction with their peers. The program also allows students to take part in local industry visitsso that students may see first-hand various engineering workplace settings. Due to COVID-19,the industry visits were virtual for the Summers of 2020 and 2021. Students participated in Zoomlectures from industry
ResultsBackground of the LHETM Model’s DevelopmentA comparative study by Bao et al. (2009) reveal that Although Chinese high school graduatesoutperformed their American peers in content knowledge, the top-performing Chinese students weresignificantly less likely to achieve the highest scores in the Lawson Classroom Test of ScientificReasoning (CTSR). This discrepancy might be attributed to findings from later research by Ding(2018), which indicated that Chinese students demonstrated less improvement in controllingvariables and hypothetical deductive reasoning throughout their middle and high school education.These observations resonate with my nine years of teaching experience in China, where studentsexcelled in exam settings but often lacked sensitivity
programming instruction, and how to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) technology for peer-like knowledge construction.Junior Anthony Bennett, Purdue University I am a Graduate Research Assistant, and Lynn Fellow pursuing an Interdisciplinary Ph.D. program in Engineering Education majoring in Ecological Sciences and Engineering (ESE) at Purdue University, West Lafayette IN. I earned a Bachelor of Education in TVET Industrial Technology – Electrical from the University of Technology, Jamaica, and a Master of Science in Manufacturing Engineering Systems from the Western Illinois University. I am a Certified Manufacturing Engineer with the Society for Manufacturing Engineers and have over a decade professional experience
community [8].Early studies have indicated that co-curricular experiences contribute to engineeringundergraduates’ professional identity development [8, 25, 26]. For example, Eliot et al. [27]found that engineering students’ experience in internships, co-ops, and volunteer work helpedthem construct their professional identity. The researchers further suggested that students’professional identity formation was shaped by multiple factors, such as their interactions withtheir family, peers, faculty, and employers [27]. Similarly, Villanueva and Nadelson [9]demonstrated that professional identity development was influenced by their experiences,personal and professional knowledge, and professional interactions. Thus, it is important thatengineering
has become more explicitin recent years, the preamble to the National Society of Professional Engineers’ (NSPE) [14]code of ethics has stated for decades, “The services provided by engineers require honesty,impartiality, fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health, 1safety, and welfare” (emphasis added). Likewise, ASCE has recently integrated a specific focuson equity with/for peers into their code of ethics [15]. Non-discrimination and anti-discrimination (each of which are ostensibly DEI-related) were recently introduced into the IEEEcode of ethics [16] and NSPE code of ethics [17], respectively. These