, our research delves into the realm of student-teacher dynamicsthrough the lens of learning styles, as evaluated by the Silverman-Felder Index of Learning Styles(ILS). This study aims to contribute to the discourse within engineering education by examining thecorrelation between the alignment of student and instructor learning styles and its impact onstudent academic performance. The Silverman-Felder ILS, a well-established tool, delineateslearning styles across four dimensions: active/reflective, verbal/visual, sensing/intuitive, andsequential/global. We operationalize alignment as the proximity in four-dimensional space betweena student's ILS score and that of their instructor. Initial findings based on a cohort of 300 Cadets atthe United
iterativeprocess [42]. However, the vast majority of the design activities involved more of a trial anderror or tinkering approach to building the prototype.Table 3. NGSS Promoted in Engineering Interventions Category N NGSS Physical Science Core Ideas 24 NGSS Life Science Core Ideas 10 NGSS Earth & Space Science Core Ideas 8 NGSS Engineering Design Performance Expectations* 3-5 ETS1-1: Define a simple design problem reflecting a need or a want that includes 33 specified
state of the literature in aspecific area without using formal quality examination in the inclusion or exclusion criteria [6].An ScR may also indicate whether conducting a systematic review would be appropriate [7].2.1 The Scoping Review Protocol. During the initial phase of the ScR, the research team must becritically reflective of the process, re-visiting prior stages to ensure that the final review meetsthe project's desired scope and research questions. The research team currently consists of anengineering librarian, two literature reviewers, and one content expert. Arksey and O'Malley'smethodology informed thedevelopment of the scoping review ScR S age Ob ec e O c
get full creditfor submitting a correct numerical answer or no credit if the submitted numerical answer wasincorrect. Sometimes, students understood the concept and made a calculation error. They weretreated the same as the students who never understood the concept.Offering partial credit for an exam is an interesting topic by itself among the educationalcommunity. Some faculty members do not give it, while many others do. The methods fordetermining partial credit include reviewing exam papers manually [12], asking and reviewingpost-exam reflections from the students [13], and conducting in-person interviews [14]. Somefaculty members went in the other direction of eliminating partial credit and supplementing itwith extra credit problems [15
assigned to a single QL instance.Indicators used for assigning each category of the coding frame are in Table 3. Indicators (including tasks) Cognition- Cognition- Cognition- Disposition Beliefs Content Reasoning Communication (Dis) (Bel) (CogCon) (CogR) (CogCom) Students analyze Students analyze Task requires Task requires use Task requires or reflect on their or reflect on comprehension of of quantitative student write
’ engineering-related epistemologies. Forexample, in a study of engineering students’ beliefs about problem solving, McNeill andcolleagues [6] used the Reasoning about Current Issues Test (RCI), a domain general measureexamining reflective judgement, as a measure of engineering students’ personal epistemologies.While other studies have utilized domain-specific instruments to measure students’ engineering-related personal epistemologies, these instruments are often unsupported by strong statisticalevidence (e.g., inadequate sample size, poor internal consistency). For example, Carberry andcolleagues [7] validated the Epistemological Beliefs Assessment for Engineering (EBAE) usinga sample size of 43 first-year engineering students, a sample size the
terms in consultation with the engineeringlibrarian, and the finalized search string is shown in Figure 3. We are currently further refining thesearch string by taking a more systematic approach to identify terms related to the sense ofbelonging, based on the previous suggestions by Phillips et al.’s (2017) reflection on a systematicliterature review. (belonging OR belongingness OR connectedness OR relatedness OR “sense of inclusion” OR “sense of school membership” OR “sense of social fit”) AND (“engineer* educat*” OR “STEM educat*” OR “biology educat*” OR “chemistry educat*” OR “math educat*” OR “physics educat*” OR “geoscience educat*” OR “computer science educat*” OR “engineering student*” OR “STEM student*” OR “biology student*” OR
to reflect on accessibility within this setting. Each timeco-researchers mentioned negative experiences related to their disability(s) or accessibility, theywere asked to consider what supports or changes could have improved their experience.Data Analysis and Trustworthiness Transcripts were de-identified before beginning any analysis to maintain co-researcherconfidentiality. After de-identification, transcripts were uploaded to Dedoose (2021) to code andanalyze the interview data. Data analysis was conducted in two rounds using thematic analysis(Braun & Clarke, 2006) through a critical lens. Salient themes were identified using aconstant-comparative, open coding process (Saldaña, 2016). Open coding was used in the firstround to
Columbia University: an M.S in Anthropology, an M.S. in Computer Science, a B.A. in Mathematics, and a B.S. in Applied Mathematics and Physics. Hammond advised 17 UG theses, 29 MS theses, and 10 Ph.D. dissertations. Hammond is the 2020 recipient of the TEES Faculty Fellows Award and the 2011 recipient of the Charles H. Barclay, Jr. ’45 Faculty Fellow Award. Hammond has been featured on the Discovery Channel and other news sources. Hammond is dedicated to diversity and equity, which is reflected in her publications, research, teaching, service, and mentoring. More at http://srl.tamu.edu and http://ieei.tamu.edu. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 WIP: ASSESSMENT OF
validated instruments tailored to GTA training, theresearch team developed and implemented a specialized survey designed around the course.The research commenced with the validation of the newly created survey instrument. Throughextensive factor analysis, the validity of the survey was established, ensuring its alignment withthe essential elements of PK and PCK. The survey comprises 40 items across 11 domains,reflecting the course modules' targeted pedagogical and leadership outcomes. The instrument'sreliability was affirmed by Cronbach’s alpha coefficients exceeding 0.75 for all domains,highlighting its consistency in measuring GTA pedagogical development.With the participationof 124 engineering GTAs in the pre-survey and 114 completing both pre
providing more scaffolding opportunitiesfor participant learning during week 2. Specifically, mentors not only made sure that participantsconduct lab exercises, but also explain reasons of why certain things do not work and explaintroubleshooting instructions. Mentors training was improved to expand upon their projectexposure to ensure they were able to explain the project development plan and ensure that everystudent in the team and the team as a whole understood the goals and were able to participate inthe project development.data collection techniques and measuresData collection consisted of three techniques: survey, reflection activity, and engineering identityformation assessment. Survey data were collected at 8 time points using established
studies [1-3]. Yet, the opportunities to develop, sustain, and grow one’sengineering identity are not uniformly distributed across students enrolled in engineering programs, nor evenamong those select students offered the opportunities to participate in mentored engineering researchinterventions [4]. Indeed, engineering students from underrepresented and structurally marginalized groups may have feweraccess points to engage with engineering peers, mentors, and professionals prior to and during their collegiatestudies [5-7]. These challenges can compound for students who may be underrepresented on multipledimensions in this field, seeing their personal identities reflected less often in their intended engineering careers(e.g., gender, sexuality
evidence-basedpractices to achieve transformative, systemic and sustainable change that will increase thegrowth rate in the number of BIPOC and women obtaining undergraduate/graduate engineeringdegrees and establish a future growth rate that can substantially close the participation gaps. Theshare of engineering degrees awarded to women and/or those who are Black, Indigenous andPeople of Color (BIPOC) in the United States over the past decade reflects only slow progress inthe efforts to increase representation of these groups at the undergraduate and graduate levels.And for men who identify as Black, Indigenous, and/or People of Color, the percentage ofmaster’s and doctoral engineering degrees being awarded has actually declined in recent years[1
know”. Some codes appear both in theFacilitators and the Barriers data, with different interpretation: for example, prep coded a response to thebarriers question when a student said they didn’t feel adequately prepared to succeed in their next class,and it coded a response to the confidence question when the student reflect on the extent to which thepreparation that they do have equips them for success.A. Most frequent categories for facilitators and barriersWhen coding responses of CSE majors in the eight participating classes to the question: What makes youfeel good about your plans to take the next course in this sequence?, the most frequently seen category wasKnowledge, which includes the codes prep and cs-skills. Students feel confident
], [13].It is also a pre-cursor to motivation and engagement [14], [15], and sustained academicperformance [16], [17]. Therefore, it is critical, and especially for students who are the mostvulnerable to attrition such as URM, to develop a strong SOB early in a college career [18].Similarly, while retention models recognize the importance of academic success and intellectualgrowth to retention, they do not connect effective Self-Regulation of Learning (SRL) toretention. Zimmerman’s social-cognitive model of SRL [19] focuses on an individual’scognition, actions, and affect while learning. Effective SRL occurs when learners are activelyengaged in the task (or performance in SRL-speak) and bookend each task with forethought andself-reflection. The
and published in academic journals, reports, dissertations, and conference materials. Methods &Result: The study reveals a multifaceted definition of effective mentorship, highlighting both formal structured programs and informal, spontaneous connections between mentors and mentees. Drawing from established theories like Kram's mentorship theory and Edmondson's psychological safety concept, the instruments analyzed demonstrate a diverse conceptual foundation rooted in higher education. Over 40 years, 47 unique instruments were identified, reflecting a global interest in doctoral education research, with the USA leading in the number of studies. While many instruments exhibit high internal consistency reliability and
a crucial tool, reflecting the learner's understandingand competence, and ultimately guiding them towards targeted improvement and development.However, in active learning the content is usually taught for a set amount of time, and a student’saptitude is based on how much they learned in that time. Conversely, mastery learning assumes thatall students, given enough time and intervention, can eventually master the content [4], [5], [6].Learning within mastery frameworks concerns itself with identifying learning trajectories andproviding students with curriculum for gaining knowledge and skills, assessing mastery throughformative assessments, and providing feedback to help students master one set of skills beforemoving on to the next set [7
ofwhich features her engineering skills. In The Expanse, Naomi Nagata is in every episode of thefirst season, but I focused my analysis on the pilot as well as episode 2, episode 7, and episode10 because they more heavily showcase Naomi’s problem-solving and engineering skills.While viewing the selected episodes, I crafted detailed analytic memos (Miles et al., 2018)reflecting on questions related to the depictions of each engineer as well as how they interactwith the elements of plot, genre, and narrative worlds around them. I drew heavily on theelements of feminist narrative theory according to Herman et al. (2012) to inform my reflectionquestions. Reflection questions included, for example: • What are the key aspects of genre, plot and
intentional choice made after pilot testing the protocol. We were interested in howparticipants’ perceived the role of topical expertise because research suggests engineering faculty see it ascritically important [15]. When asked about the role and importance of a teacher's topical knowledge, participants’consensus was that it could be assumed, rather than being something that differentiated good or bad teaching. Wesee this as important, and likely contextual. Upon reflection, we see it as unsurprising for participants in ourinstitutional context to see faculty as inherently experts to the point that it can be unspoken. To many participants,assumed expertise is reputational and a motivation for attending their institution.The second theme was the
, p. 3] Firstly, we chose to conduct single two-hour longinterviews (rather than employing quantitative or psychometric instrumentation or collectingother forms of qualitative data). We iterated on the interview protocol by developing an initialdraft of a protocol, having one interviewer practice it with another, revising the protocol,implementing pilot interviews with three graduate students with workforce experiences, revisingthe protocol again, soliciting feedback from our advisory board (who brings expertise in ethicsand DEI), revising yet again, implementing initial interviews, writing reflective memos aftereach interview, and continuously asking which aspects of the interview process were workingwell or needed revision. We were thus
graduate attribute definitionsoften miss crucial aspects of what this looks like for engineering practice. The authorsrecommend team- and project-based educational activities to foster lifelong learning orientations.It will be important to attend to alumni reflections on these types of learning activities and anyconnections to their lifelong learning orientations.Ford et al. [28] investigated the effects of capstone design project experiences on lifelonglearning during workplace transitions. They examined alumni from four institutions, focusing ontheir initial three months at work. Challenges often related to self-directed learning, which wasless emphasized in undergrad programs, as well as interpersonal interactions with colleaguesfrom different
interests inengineering, (4) students’ choices and intentions to persist, (5) final reflection, and (6) end/signoff. Interviews were conducted via Zoom and audio recorded. Interviews ranged in length from30-to-90 minutes.The four graduate students (SMC, SJB, BAC, KM) were responsible for conducting theinterviews. Their positionalities, identities, and lived-experiences influenced how they interactedwith the participants. Each interviewer was first interviewed by another member of the team tobetter understand the personal experiences and biases that were elicited by the interviewprotocol. This provided insight into the experiences the interviewer would be likely to try andconfirm in the data collection process, and could therefore be mindful of
the data" (p.56). However, engineers are often more familiar with quantitative methods and summarizingtheir findings using numbers [2], which substantially limits the use of qualitative methods.According to Jackson, Drummond, & Camara [3], the goal of qualitative research involves"understanding human beings' richly textured experiences and reflections about thoseexperiences" (p. 22). As engineers have become familiar with qualitative methodologies [1-2],researchers have begun to explore different types of approaches to illuminate the humanexperience. It is clear that different engineers, engineering students, and engineering facultyexperience their education and careers differently, which modern studies have only begun todescribe [4-6
yearsafter graduation) of an undergraduate engineering program in the United States to investigatehow the program’s teaching and learning of metacognitive skills through reflective activitiestranslated to lifelong learning in the workplace context [24]. They found that in connection to thecourse projects that emulated the self-directed learning common in workplace environments,being comfortable with uncertainty and confident and resilient in the face of overwhelmingchallenges were important dispositions that enabled lifelong learning in the workplace aftergraduation [24]. The researchers also distinguished between alumni who saw metacognition ashaving a narrower role specifically for engineering problem solving activities, and those whoused it in
importance ofnon-technical, professional skills; (d) Learning to manage one’s education; and (e) Reflecting onone’s passions that include becoming an engineer. Each learning process is described in moredetail below (also see Table 1 in the appendix).Learning the science and application of engineering. Generally, students were aware of andexpecting to learn technical knowledge and skills. Their learning and experiences ranged frombroader abstract knowledge of engineering fundamentals (e.g., engineering science) to specificsfocused on their personal interests (see Table 1 in the appendix). Even those with more exposureto the nature of engineering practice, meaning they realized there were differences between“book” knowledge and “practical” knowledge
, resources, positive supervisor relations) can influencecreativity [35]. Hunter et al. [35] derived 14 creative climate dimensions (i.e., positive peergroup, positive supervisor relations, resources, challenge, mission clarity, autonomy, positiveinterpersonal exchange, intellectual stimulation, top management support, reward orientation,flexibility and risk-taking, product emphasis, participation, and organizational integration) fortraditional workplaces. Because engineering graduate programs are dynamic environments withcomplex interpersonal relationships and structural influences that exist in both academic andresearch settings, we modified the definitions of these dimensions to reflect research group andclassroom climates. Additionally, we
National Science Foundation (NSF). Asthe most diverse representation across Black engineering graduate students was desired, snowballsampling was followed. In total, 33 Community Members representing 11 institutions and diverse types(PWIs, HBCUs, International) were represented. Community members were compensated with a $100Amazon gift card. Narrative interviews composed of a narration and conversational phase were conductedand ranged from 1.5-2 hours in duration. Interviews prompted Community Members to reflect on theirexperiences navigating engineering paying special attention to any aspects uniquely correlated with theiridentity. Interview Protocol The initial prompt used was, “We are hoping
validating them in engineering capstone projects. By validating the relationship between faculty's effective communication and motivation, we might be able to understand their relationship to capstone design projects' outcomes. As a result of assessing the relationship between Project Management and Team culture and how they were affecting the capstone projects at Rowan University in 2019, we concluded that the capstone projects in completion might be affected by the faculty's effective communication, hence, affecting student's motivation[12]. Consequently, the current study was applied to validate if faculty's effective communication directly affects students' motivation, which in turn is reflected in the student's capstone project completion
related to the student’s educational journey. During the participatory workshop, staff felt that they could voiceconcerns and ideas of how to improve the existing system.Preliminary conclusionsThis work in progress shows there is an opportunity to use participatory design methods to improve themultivocality of the design of a mentoring experience in an engineering school. There has been acceptance and eveninterest in participating, overall, from the students and teaching faculty. Interviews with faculty and the workshopwith advisors might have served as a reflective practice, in line with what [56] showcased in their study oncollaborative course reflection. We believe that this participative process might be the first step toward building
manuscript introduces a lesson design in engineeringeducation to analyze and improve educational strategies, reflective practices, and instructionalmaterials.Assessment methods: This study outlines a lesson design utilizing the ArgumentationFramework to support first-year engineering students in overcoming conceptual challenges whiledeveloping engineering projects. This approach was implemented in an Engineering Technologyundergraduate course at a Midwestern university, whose curriculum covered foundational topicsin Energy Science. The task involved designing a zero-energy home using Aladdin software, asan integrated CAD/CAE platform for design and simulation. Students documented their analysis,inferences, and decisions in a design journal with