prior work include varying levels of prior programming experience, studentlearning skills, and defensive (rather than collaborative) climate [34], [2], [16], [3], [13]. The relationshipbetween student motivation and persistence is less clear: some work finds motivation and engagement aremajor factors associated with the success or retention of students (e.g. [16], [17], [8]), while others (e.g.[31]) do not.B. Disparate ImpactsWith persistent lack of diversity in the tech field, studies of undergraduate retention in computing musttake into account the specific experiences of students from groups historically underrepresented in thisdiscipline. Researchers observed gender differences in student behavior in undergraduate classes [1]; moresources
in engineering classroomsand how different cultural competencies of students in a team impacts teamwork and in turn student learning. Introduction Globalization has increased the importance of foreign markets and internationalcommerce making the American workforce more globally interdependent. This has necessitatedthat engineers of today work in collaborative environments to solve problems in global contexts.Undergraduate engineering education needs to focus on training engineers who can work ineffective teams whose members are diverse in geographic location, origin, skills, and culture [1],[2], [3], [4]. This prompted the ABET to change the EC2000 criterion of learning outcomes
underserved populations, and especially in the STEM subjects. Prior to joining JHU, Rachel spent 6 years as a principal in a Title 1 middle school in Washington, DC. Before that, she was an assistant principal, math department chair, and 5th grade math teacher. She holds a B.A. in Psychology from Duke University and an M.A.T. from American University. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023WIP: Using participatory design and qualitative research strategies in thedevelopment of a new faculty mentoring program for undergraduateengineering studentsConstanza Miranda 1*, Rachel McClam 21 Johns Hopkins University, Whiting School of Engineering. constanzamiranda@jhu.edu2 Johns Hopkins University
collaboratively with several universities in Asia, the World Bank Institute, and US- AID to design and conduct workshops promoting active-learning and life-long learning that is sustainable and scalable. Dr. Lawanto’s research interests include cognition, learning, and instruction, and online learning.Joshua Marquit, Pennsylvania State University ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 1 Work in Progress: Proposing Items for an Engineering Undergraduate Subjective Wellbeing Questionnaire (EUSWQ) Muhammad Asghar 1,*, Angela Minichiello 1, Daniel Kane 1
its attempts to foster interdependency, and thatthis can result in maladaptive team behaviors like specialization and attentional narrowing.In response to these observations, this paper seeks to articulate features of laboratories that cantrigger this cognitive-load-based loss of learning. It suggests future experimental and theoreticalwork to refine the features that have been articulated.1 IntroductionLaboratory activities, defined here as “instructor-led, hands-on experiences in which studentscharacterize or prototype an engineering artifact or measure natural phenomena,” are acornerstone of engineering pedagogy, with some estimates predicting that as many as 50% ofengineering classes include a laboratory activity [1]. Other work shows
, little is known about the expectations of QL for engineering students asthey begin their college engineering studies. This WIP aims to share the results of usingqualitative content analysis (QCA) to identify how QL appears in first-year engineering courses.These results are the initial step in developing an instrument to measure the QL of engineeringstudents using a Student Model within the evidence-centered designed framework.IntroductionThere is broad agreement that college students need more instruction in QL, as described in [1],[2], and many other studies. Additionally, many existing instruments measure the QL for thegeneral population of collegiate students, like the Heighten QLA [3], Collegiate LearningAssessment+ [4], and the GRE
engineering, rejecting thenormative ubiquity of math and science, when responding to surveys. However, when evaluatingideas, students elevated math, science, and technical rationality and objected to ideas supportedby engineers’ prior experiences or cultural knowledge.Keywords: epistemology, design thinking, mixed methods research Introduction and BackgroundExisting research indicates students’ epistemological beliefs, defined as one’s belief about thelimits, certainty, and sources of knowledge, are particularly important in ill-structured problemsolving, such as engineering design [1-2]. For example, Jonassen described students’epistemologies as important in ill-structured problem solving since students
a new type of learning whereknowledge is gained and must be able to apply any information and concepts learned fromdifferent viewpoints (Tan, 2021). To meet the drastic changes in the world, many countrieshave released educational policies to promote innovation. Western countries, such as U.S.and Australia, have paid much attention to curriculum reform that allocates a massive amountof money to promote STEM curriculum and teachers’ training [1, 2]. In the Asian context,China launched a Strategy of Invigorating the Country through Science and Education knownas Kejiao Xingguo, which identified science and technology as the essential subjects todevelop nations’ 21st-century skills [3]. Since 1997, the Ministry of Education of Singaporehas
Education and Energy Engineering PracticeOver the past century of engineering education there has been a persistent debate about andcritique of the outcomes of engineering education regarding the preparation of engineers forpractice [1], [2], [3]. The focus of this critique largely centers on the tendency of engineeringeducation to emphasize the technical, rational science of engineering, while overlooking thecomplex practical, social, and behavioral interactions that comprise most of the practices ofemployed engineers [4], [5]. As the importance of the human systems of work has increased,there is increased attention paid to the practical and social practices of scientific, technology, andengineering work [6]. In addition, there are calls to
epistemic culture and gain insight into aninstance that was primed for epistemic negotiation. In this paper, we present our initial charac-terization of the team’s epistemic culture and our analysis of the instance we identified. We alsodiscuss possible barriers to teams having epistemic negotiations.1 IntroductionThere are three certainties in life: death, taxes, and group projects. Whether working on a teamleads to innovative solutions or frustration often depends more on the dynamics among team mem-bers than the project itself. These dynamics can be especially important on interdisciplinary teamswhere individuals may have different ways of thinking about knowledge (or epistemic beliefs)because of their disciplinary backgrounds [1, 2, 3]. For
of emergency remote teaching caused by COVID-19 havereinforced different opportunities to develop professional skills than prior to the pandemic.While some students expressed they had fewer opportunities to develop professional skills,participants also identified opportunities to (1) hone written communication skills when in-person discussions were reduced and (2) leverage knowledge from family members to continuedeveloping professionally. Our next steps include finishing the qualitative analysis phase of theproject and mixing the qualitative and quantitative data to develop overarching findings that theengineering education community can use to understand how students’ professional skillsdevelop and how to promote that development even
Morse-Alumni Distinguished University Teaching Professor at the University of Minnesota; and Emeritus Cooperative Learning Pro- fessor of Engineering Education at Purdue University. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Work in Progress: An observation study of the PEER-led, Student Instructed, STudy group (PEERSIST) model in thermodynamics Cody Jenkins1, Thien Ta2, Ryan J. Milcarek1, Gary Lichtenstein2, Samantha R. Brunhaver1, Karl A Smith3 1 Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA, 2Quality Evaluation Designs, Bluff, UT, USA, 3University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN, USAAbstractThe PEERSIST (Peer-led
. Wayne Hodgins, who is credited with the conceptualization of digital learningobjects and has been called “Mr. Metadata” for his contribution to the field of computer science[1], foresaw a future defined by internet-based learning. He envisioned placing the “control ofcontent...into the hands of every individual...where everyone in need of a given skill orknowledge can be connected directly with those who have it… to have potentially billions ofauthors and publishers” [2, p. 81]. Years later, it is clear that this vision—to democratizeeducation by empowering billions of people to reach and teach one another—has largely beenfulfilled. To provide an example, YouTube EDU, a sub-site of YouTube, is devoted exclusivelyto publishing instructional
self-efficacy with engineering students1 IntroductionIn this research paper, we re-evaluate structural aspects of validity for two instruments, the CurrentStatistics Self-Efficacy (CSSE) scale and the Statistical Reasoning Assessment (SRA) [1, 2]. The CSSE isa self-report measure of statistics self-efficacy while the SRA is a scored and criterion-based assessment ofstatistical reasoning skills and misconceptions. Both instruments were developed by statistics educationresearchers and have been consistently used to measure learning and interventions in collegiate statisticseducation. Our re-evaluation is part of a broader study of the effect of using a reflection-based homeworkgrading system in a biomedical engineering statistics course [3, 4
is to explore the use of a visual method tosynthesize the co-curricular navigation profiles of student groups over time. Specifically, in thiswork, we consider the navigation profiles of three groups of students who continually scoredlow, medium, and high GPAs over four years. We find there to be a gap in studying the interplayof students’ co-curricular involvement and GPAs. On the one hand, students’ participation in co-curricular activities can be important to their development and persistence [1], [2]. On the otherhand, the more students participate in co-curriculars the less time they have available to studyand excel in the curricular space. This duality motivates our research question: What are the co-curricular navigation
with the Flipped Classroom ModelI. Introduction Modern students are increasingly non-traditional. Definitions vary, but it generally refersto postsecondary students who meet some of the following criteria: being older than 25 years old,having a gap between post-secondary education and high school graduation, being financiallyindependent from their parents and having dependents. These conditions require them to workfull or part-time while pursuing their degree. This presents a significant challenge, as balancingwork and school lead to increased stress, fatigue, and a reduced ability to focus on academics [1].In some cases, students may drop out due to the demands of their job. According to the
pathway, global affect, local affect, emotion, survey1 IntroductionWhile problem-solving is often thought of as a cognitive endeavor, the process also causesstudents to experience emotions [1], particularly when the problems are novel or challenging.Over the course of a problem, the series of emotions that a student experiences is referred to asan affective pathway; these pathways are intimately intertwined with the cognitive processes ofproblem-solving [2]–[4]. This work focuses on the development of a survey question that ourresearch team is developing to measure students’ affective pathways.Affective pathways are of significant interest to us as a result of their ability to influencestudents’ global affect (attitudes, self-concept
computing) from Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications China in 2015. He worked as a software engineer at Sina for one year after he graduated as a master from China Agriculture University in 2009. He received the Best Paper Award from IEEE Edge in 2019. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 WIP: A Study Report in a Web Technologies Course: What Makes Feedback Effective for Project-based Learning? Alaa Jaber1 , Kimberly Lechasseur2 , Khairul Mottakin1 , Zheng Song1 akjaber@umich.edu, kalechasseur@wpi.edu, khairulm@umich.edu, zhesong@umich.edu 1 Computer and Information Science Department, University of Michigan at
internationally, STEM majors experience more attrition and longer times tograduate than other majors. The high rate of attrition has been documented from a public policystandpoint at various universities in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and SouthAfrica [1]. The cost of attrition is significant. Students who attrite are personally burdened by thecost of a partial education when the costs of college are rising [2] and by the loss of income froma lucrative STEM career. Socially, attrition of STEM majors reduces the size of the workforce ata time of high demand for skilled college graduates [3]. The cost of attrition is particularlydetrimental to underrepresented minority (URM) groups who attrite in larger numbers [4], and tothe diversity of
Measuring College Students’ Sense of BelongingBackground This research paper endeavors to review the various instruments developed to measurethe sense of belonging among college students. College students’ sense of belonging (SB) hasbeen identified as a critical contributor to their persistence, academic success, and professionalidentity [1]. However, the complexity of the SB construct, which has been variously defined inthe literature, presents difficulties for researchers in choosing an instrument that fits theirresearch needs. For example, Goodenow [2, p. 25] defines SB as “being accepted, valued,included, and encouraged by others (teacher and peers) in the academic classroom setting and offeeling oneself
., ABET.org, Engineering Figure 1. EDM/LA Process of Our Study Accreditation Commission) student outcomes. These student outcomes have beendivided into sub-outcome performance indicators which are divided into four performance levels (see Table1). The rubrics are used to apply program level tags to course performance. Our pilot framework alsoallows course specific content and skills tags to identify course outcomes that instructors may wish to track.There are two approaches we are exploring for applying tags in Gradescope. The first uses the built-inrubrics functionality in Gradescope and the second uses the Gradescope’s post-grading tags functionality
when accomplishing this purpose. Specifically, a largeamount of information is considered indirect knowledge, or knowledge only reasonablyaccessible to a learner through social contact [1]. Further, within the learning context,interactions are adapted reciprocally by the learning environment and learner [2]. These andrelated foundations indicate that understanding the social aspect(s) of the learning environment isessential for understanding and improving learning.To identify and optimize social variables related to student learning, recent engineeringeducation literature shows a growing awareness of and interest in peer support. Theseobservations of student interactions and outcomes indicate improved learning, motivation, andself-efficacy due
Research Fellowship and an Honorable Mention for the Ford Foundation Fellowship Program. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024“I see myself as an engineer”: Disentangling Latinx engineering students’perspectives of the engineering identity survey measureIntroductionConsiderable effort has been made to understand undergraduate students’ engineering identityformation and its effect on student success. Engineering identity development is a criticalpsychological construct impacting student experiences within engineering. Particularly,engineering identity has been linked to improved feelings of belonging [1], [2], [3], [4], motivationto enroll in an engineering program [5], leads to greater certainty of
PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews andMeta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist (Tricco et al., 2018). Our reviewfollowed the six stages presented by the JBI Manual: 1) Objectives and research questions, 2)Information sources and search strategy, 3) Inclusion criteria, 4) Data management and selectionprocess, 5) Data collection, item, and synthesis, and 6) Outcomes. The current work-in-progresspaper focuses on stages 2) and 3), highlighting the significance of developing an effective searchprotocol and strategy and its impact on the quantity and quality of the identified literature. Theobjectives and research questions of the scoping review are presented below.Objectives. Identifying and synthesizing
indicate that althoughfirst-year international students rarely considered leaving their programs, nor reflected that theirstress related to school or life was overwhelming, their data show decreasing trends in the areas ofsatisfaction with advisor relationships, support networks, cost, goals, and quality of life and work.Together, these results imply that students’ acclimation process to graduate school in the U.S. isperhaps not happening innately. Further, our findings suggest future research should explore thevariations between international students from different countries as they have different culturalbackgrounds that may contribute to or influence their experiences.Introduction, Literature Review, and Theoretical FramingIn 2022, 197,183 F-1
only enhance problem-solving skills but also fosterinnovation and creativity in finding solutions to complex engineering problems. Engineers rarelywork in isolation in the professional environment. They are frequently part of multidisciplinaryteams where collaboration is vital for problem solving and project completion. In addition totechnical expertise, engineering demands strong interpersonal, leadership, and conflict-resolutionabilities. In the classroom, teamwork fosters the development of technical as well as soft skillsthat are essential for success in the workplace [1], [2]. Teamwork also exposes college studentsto diverse viewpoints and concepts, fostering creativity and ingenuity [3], [4]. It helps studentsappreciate the variety of
incorporating a diverse range of institutions, thestudy captures a broader spectrum of experiences and contexts, which enhances thegeneralizability of the results.Keywords: Calculus I, engineering education, student persistence, multilevel analysis, diversity,higher education.IntroductionExamining retention enables institutions to identify various factors that influence studentpersistence, such as understanding why some high-performing students choose not to return tothe university [1]. Student departure, as highlighted by researchers like Aljohani [2],significantly affects educational success indicators; however, institutions have struggled toeffectively address this challenge.The retention rate of an institution plays a pivotal role in influencing
developing a system by which a machine can recognize thosefeatures. Eleven experienced college algebra graders of a large state university were asked tograde graphs of linear equations generated by students in their classes, and interviewed to clarifywhat features of the graphs were important to them in grading. When grading each graph on ascale of 10 points, the graders generally agreed on the relative worth of particular features: acorrect slope was worth 4 points, y-intercept was worth 4 points, labeling is worth 1 point. Afterthat, and everything else was a matter of 1 point. Furthermore, the graders judged slope andintercept from two points (the y-intercept and the first point to the right). Returning to thestudents’ work, the researchers saw
curricularcomplexity across this dataset that can be used alongside our network analysis efforts for furtherresearch. IntroductionSince ABET’s transition to an outcomes-based philosophy in the accreditation process,engineering faculty have more freedom to structure engineering programs instead of followingoverly prescribed disciplinary criteria [1]. Thus, engineering programs can exhibit differentorganizational structures when defining required coursework – which can be influenced by manyinternal and external factors [2]. For example, faculty at Wright State University, led by NathanKlingbeil, have published extensively on a model of introductory engineering mathematicscourses that circumvents the necessity of the
information andimprove their reasoning, they are not inclined to change their minds from their initialintuitive judgment. This finding supports literature that suggests ‘reasoning’ can only goso far in the ethics curriculum if behavioral change is the goal. More interdisciplinaryeducational research is necessary to design an ethics curriculum that can appropriatelyprepare future AI professionals for the demands of industry.1. IntroductionThis evidence-based practice paper details a novel learning intervention for applied ethicseducation curriculum that leverages students’ intuitions as a precursor to the ethical decision-making process. In 2004, Bertolami voiced a concern that ethics is boring: “Most ethicalprinciples are simply too abstract, dry