, research identity, academic self-concepts, undergraduateresearchIntroduction and Literature Review The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [1] projects that jobs requiring master’s degrees andPh.D.s in science and engineering will grow by 17% and 13% respectively between 2016-2026,compared to the projected 7% growth for all occupations. While more careers requiring graduatedegrees in industry and academia are becoming available, graduate program enrollment is notmatching this growth. Student enrollment in engineering graduate school has remained stagnant,even as enrollment in undergraduate engineering degrees has increased [2]. Lack of adequategraduate school enrollment will not only prevent current students from pursuing new andinnovative
’ experiences in engineering (e.g., Figard & Carberry, 2023; Figard etal., 2023b; Figard et al., 2023c), this paper expands on the nuanced complexities surroundingidentity within the disabled engineering community by addressing the following researchquestion: How do disabled women in engineering degree programs describe the intersections oftheir marginalized identities, as they relate to their educational experiences?Methods The findings presented in this paper are a subset of a larger project and data collectioneffort that focuses more broadly on the experiences of disabled engineering students. Morecomplete methodological details can be found in (Figard et al., 2023b; Figard et al., 2024).1 Identity-first language is used in this paper to
´olica de Chile Gabriel Astudillo is Coordinator for Measurement and Evaluation at the Engineering School in Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile (PUC-Chile). Gabriel received an MA in Social Sciences from Universidad de Chile. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Encouraging Teamwork after the PandemicType of paper: Work in progress (WIP).AbstractThe Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) proposes that one of thestudent outcomes that engineers must have is "an ability to function effectively on a team whosemembers together provide leadership, create a collaborative and inclusive environment, establishgoals, plan tasks, and meet objectives" [1
suchas gender and ethnic biases, the competitive nature of seeking funding in research, having theresources to adequately support students, and discovering how their branch of study will fit withinthe boundaries of the university.Keywords: academic career, engineering doctoral students, teaching preparednessIntroductionDoctoral students who choose an academic career path will essentially be required to teach courses.However, the structure of graduate education typically prioritizes developing researchers, ratherthan future educators [1] Additionally, the teaching experience they have is through their graduateteaching assistantships, which may or may not have associated training on how to teach. Teachingcan be difficult if you are not fully aware
student typology, and studenttypology as a constructed type.Key words: student engagement, learning outcomes, constructive typology 1. IntroductionStudent engagement is an important concept in research on postsecondary student experience.Student engagement means “the quality of effort students themselves devote to educationallypurposeful activities that contribute directly to desired outcomes” [1] (p. 555). Within theengineering education communities, student engagement is a presumably desired goal to achievein engineering courses and other academic activities. This is evident in the papers published inthe proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education annual conferences. Oursearch in the PEER repository in January 2024 showed
instructors in a 3rd year undergraduate ControlSystems and Instrumentation course and used in combination with the limitations owningintellectual humility scale (Haggard et. al.) to gauge the accuracy of perceived growth oflearning by students. Student responses were compared against the instructors’ initialexpectations for student knowledge in the context of the departmental curriculum as well asgrowth targets upon course completion. Our guiding research questions were (1) What doknowledge surveys reveal about student perceptions in their knowledge compared withinstructor perceptions?” and (2) “What insights do we gain in comparing student intellectualhumility scale results with their knowledge surveys?" Preliminary findings for research question1
task. Nevertheless, tasks demanding greatercognitive effort, attention, or those involving dual tasks or higher cognitive skills, are typicallyconsidered complex. Lee Taylor [12], in a comprehensive review paper, presented a table (Table-1) categorizing tasks into simple and complex based on earlier studies up until the publication year- 2016. Table 1. Categorization of simple and complex cognitive tasks [12] Simple cognitive tasks Complex cognitive tasks Mental transformation Arithmetic efficiency Monitoring Attention Memory recall Complex motor coordination Numerical vigilance
small group of students to reinforce and provideadditional clarity on various topics and concepts introduced in a course [1] [2] [3]. Similar, activelearning strategies have been used successfully in engineering education to strengthen STEMcompetencies to improve student success [4] [5]. Based off findings in the literature, studentacademic success is determined by mean course grade [6] and degree progression that aresignificant indicators of student acclimation to engineering pathways [7]. Primarily, PLTL hasbeen implemented in in-person classrooms, though there is interest in investigating theeffectiveness of PLTL implementation in online courses [8].This research study examines a unique student population participating in engineering
Research MentoringUndergraduate research mentoring is a critical component of undergraduate research programswhich have increasingly become a focal point in higher education, offering students anopportunity to engage in meaningful, hands-on learning experiences [1], [2]. These programsare instrumental in developing critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills, whichare essential for academic and professional success [3], [4], [5]. They also provide a platformfor students to immerse themselves in research methodologies, enhancing their understanding oftheir field of study [6]. Such experiences not only foster a deeper academic engagement but alsoprepare students for future research endeavors or professional careers [7]. Moreover
significantpotential for developing, testing, applying theoretical and conceptual frameworks in the realm ofgame-based learning in engineering education, and sample demographics.Keywords: engineering design process; first-year engineering; game-based learning; game-basedlearning in engineeringIntroductionBefore the introduction of computers or even early digital games seen in arcades, games were anessential part of society to evade boredom and interact with others as people whether it be physicalor mental games. Games not only provide a fun and interactive way of stimulating the mind butalso encourage players to make decisions and prioritize their goals to solve difficulties [1]. Playersare forced to figure out solutions by using real-world knowledge
chemical kinetics as an example shown in Table 1. While the LHETM model can be adaptedto traditional lecture-based formats, its strength lies in its ability to weave together active learningand inductive teaching, thereby promoting students’ cognitive and metacognitive abilities. Themodel follows a structured sequence starting with L (Law), followed by H (Hypothesis), E(Experiment), and T (Theory), integrating M (Mathematics) at any stage where appropriate.Depending on the specific focus or requirements of a topic, instructors have the flexibility to adjustthe order of these elements to best suit the educational objectives.Table 1. Guideline of using LHETM model in teaching chemical kinetics. Way of instruction
, Authentic Assessment, and Engineering SimulationsThe transfer of learning focuses on the ability to apply knowledge and skills acquired in onecontext to solve problems in different, often real-world, situations [1], [2]. Facilitating thistransfer is essential for preparing students to effectively enter their workplace [3]. This isespecially relevant in the field of engineering as there may be gaps between academic and on-the-job information. However, discussions on how students carry knowledge, skills, andattitudes (KSA) from one module to another, and the research on the transfer of learningfocused from school and work contexts are largely unexplored [4].Studies have uncovered some key elements on effective transfer of learning. These
participant instructors for Spring 2023 data collection [i.e., one expertinstructor (as the same for Fall 2022) and three novice instructors]. Four instructors have variousbackground in content area expertise and teaching experience for the Art of Telling Your Storyclass. We also recruited students taking the Art of Telling Your Story class during Fall 2022 andSpring 2023. See Table 1 for participant information.Study Design Informed by Lofland’s (1971) guidance on ethnographic research, our study wasdesigned to collect data from multiple participants, utilizing various sources of data, within anaturally occurring setting. Instead of implementing purposive manipulation of study variablesor examining the effects of experimental manipulation
techindustries. The development of AI technology not only transformed it into a powerful tool but alsopaved the way for its integration into various fields of technology, expanding possibilities andrevolutionizing research and development [1]. In the dynamic domain of AI technology, racinggames emerge as a captivating platform for experimentation which offers a safe, cost-effective,and efficient environment for pushing the boundaries of both game development and AIdevelopment [2-3]. With the progression of AI, many companies are striving to implement it intotheir technology and machines, especially in cars [4-5]. Because of this, there is a high demand forexperimentation and research in this field to ensure safety and optimization [6]. As the
active learning to, instead, consideringthe ways in which the disciplinary community can provide support in shifting activity systems toresolve contradictions and achieve transformation.IntroductionDecades of research into reform teaching practices have shown that active learning improvesstudent outcomes [1]-[4]. However, many STEM classes are still primarily passive, with lectureas the main teaching method [5]-[7]. One often-cited reason for this discrepancy is that studentsare “resistant” to active learning pedagogies [8]-[12]. Faculty, too, are reported to be resistant toadopting these pedagogies, sometimes because of the conflicting claims on faculty time [13] in adivergent rewards system [14], [15] in which teaching is (or at least, is
thiswork and how these informed the design of the survey, including the reasoning behind usingself-efficacy measures. We will also present our early analysis of the validity of this tool and itsutility in measuring HCED learning. Findings from this paper cover data collected at thebeginning of the Fall 2023 semester. Future work will include pre/post comparison andlongitudinal analysis. Design is a central part of engineering and continues to play an important role inengineering undergraduate education [1]–[3]. Design projects have been positioned in thefreshman and senior years as cornerstone and capstone projects [1], [4]–[7]. Beyond thesedesign-focused courses, many engineering courses employ a project-based learning approach,often
a formaldefinition supported by the literature for a total of six constructs related to learning inmakerspaces. The six constructs are (1) Learning by Doing, related to the process of learningthrough active engagement in maker activities; (2) Learning by Others, related to the process oflearning through engagement with other people or artifacts created by others; (3) ContentKnowledge and Skills, related to the technical disciplinary knowledge learned in makerspaces;(4) Cultural Knowledge and Skills, related to learning and navigating the culture of amakerspace; (5) Ingenuity, related to the inventiveness of learners when creating solutionsconstrained by their making environment; and (6) Self-awareness, related to learners’development of
readiness to teach courses once they begin their academic careers.There is no singular shared opinion of the purpose of a doctoral degree in America. The resultingcareer sectors of an engineering PhD can include industry, government, and academia, where eachfield has different demands and necessities from a graduate. Currently, a significant portion ofengineering PhD recipients have academic or post-doctoral commitments, with 42.7% of recipientshaving these commitments in 2022 [1]. Academic responsibilities can be quite varied; oftenfeaturing research, teaching, and institutional service requirements. Despite the diverseresponsibilities, there is usually a focused emphasis on research, especially for early careeracademics. This can lead to
valuable insights into student perspectives and informthe ongoing discourse surrounding the integration of AI technologies in engineering education.Methods1. Development of the Survey InstrumentIn the summer of 2023, the survey instrument was developed. As indicated in Table 1, theinstrument is constructed using five scales. The survey's purpose was to gather information aboutstudents' opinions about ChatGPT as a learning tool, including their views on its reliability, ethicalissues, accessibility, and ease of use. There were 32 items in all on the five scales of the instrument.The participants were asked to rate their opinions about using ChatGPT on a 5-point Likert-typescale. The five-strongly agree, four-agree, three-neither agree nor disagree
, including working directly with a client andconsidering the ethical implications of their solutions. These correlations point to areas wherestudents may need additional help in design thinking.BACKGROUNDA purpose of engineering design education is to support students’ movement along the path frombeginning toward informed designers. However, the pathways that students progress along thispath are not straightforward. Often, students are introduced to engineering design as first-yearstudents and do not see a design-focused course again until much later in their education,sometimes not until a capstone design experience in their final year. Both first-year and final-yearengineering design courses have been studied in a variety of contexts (e.g. [1
online instruction [2]. However, this assumption of courseflexibility as a necessary characteristic of online education has recently been challenged asproblematic, and in fact prohibitive of an optimal learning experience [9]. For example,asynchronous learners often feel confused, requiring additional self-evaluation efforts to helpmitigate said confusion [1]. The identification of what synchronous elements matter most can helpinstructors to decide how to allocate their scarce time resources when designing and running onlinecourses, and help students to succeed at learning while avoiding lower-impact synchronousobligations in online coursework.Further, while online education has the potential to improve access to STEM learning forhistorically
from Engineering Faculty and StudentsIntroductionThis is a work-in-progress about student workload. Over the past two decades, practitioners andresearchers have shown concern for student workload within faculties and schools of engineering[1], [2]. Since the late 1990s, engineering curricula have been overloaded with content andoutcome assessments, with the objective that students are able to demonstrate both technical andprofessional skills [3]. Different types of course assignments are often concentrated in specificweeks, what amplifies learners' levels of anxiety and academic stress [4]. During the pandemic,some students perceived that they have spent more time on academic tasks, without necessarilyobtaining better learning results [2], [5
) and analytical questions (Q7-Q15) were computed respectively. A blue booklet with emptysheets was given to the students to support their calculations as they answered their multiple-Figure 1.A coding example of a score of One for the perceived effort.Note. Something written in the test booklet, but incoherent and possibly only meaningful to the Participant.choice exam questions. The entries that the student hand-annotated in these booklets werecollected by the research team, who custom-created and face-validated a 3-point coding processto allow the team to categorize the effort students spent on select exam questions. In this study,each question was meticulously analyzed on a scale ranging from zero to two (Christensen et al.,2019).Figure 2.A
shape an individual's motivation,such as from colleagues, mentors, and family. Socializers often inform students’ motivation toobtain STEM degrees, yet there is minimal literature that examines the role of socializers amongSTEM undergraduates, particularly at minority serving institutions (MSI). This critical researchgap inequitably disadvantages historically marginalized and non-traditional students. In thiswork-in-progress, we answer the following two research questions: (1) Who are the socializersthat influence student’s motivation to pursue and persist in their STEM education? and (2) Inwhat ways do these socializers influence students' motivation? Using the Expectancy-Valuetheoretical framework, we answer the research questions using
(Retired) Hungler served in the Royal Canadian Airforce. His research is now foc ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Use of Theories in Extended Reality Educational Studies: A Systematic Literature ReviewOver the past few decades, the use of extended reality environments for the purpose of teachingand learning has become increasingly popular. Such environments provide an opportunity forperceptual presence and immersion through multisensory experience and interaction and thusmimicking the real-world [1], [2]. Extended reality (XR) encompasses environments andtechnologies such as Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), and Mixed Reality (MR)[3], [4]. AR overlays
contributed to the refinement ofthe observation protocol we had created. This protocol will play a key role in the larger NSF studydedicated to exploring the role of language in introductory engineering courses.Literature ReviewIn the social and behavioral sciences, direct observations are considered to be the base or root ofall research methods [1], [2]. Their main benefit of observations as a qualitative data collectionmethod is that they allow “for the researcher to see and record firsthand the activities in whichresearch participants are engaged in the context(s) in which these activities happen” [3, p. 160].Moreover, observations allow researchers to collect data about phenomena that the participantsmight not be aware of themselves and therefore
variables.Psychologists first used FA to understand the factors underlying the construct of intelligence. Itis often used to support theory and develop new social and behavioral science instruments tomeasure variables that cannot be directly observed. The end goal of FA is to establish constructvalidity, which is critical to developing quality assessment tools. [1] Construct validity refers tothe degree to which a test or measure assesses the underlying theoretical construct it issupposed to measure. For example, construct validity addresses the issues of whether anintelligence test measures intelligence or a test of motivation measures actual motivation.A construct is a complex variable that cannot be measured directly. Instead, its existence isinferred through
engagement [1-3]. There hasalso been some preliminary work exploring how practice-based and other work-based learningcan prepare students for the workplace, but these learning environments offer unique challenges.As stated by Luk and Chan [4], “compared to learning in the classroom, learning in theworkplace is less predictable”, which overall makes it difficult to determine and map what thelearning outcomes truly are for work experiences and how they connect to classroom learning.Various frameworks of learning outcomes and experiences from internship experiences havebeen created [4-7], but none has truly allowed for the complexity and breadth of studentexperiences to be mapped and expanded upon. Therefore, there is value in creating assessmentand
technical management fields [1]. Although generative AI technology has been around for over a decade, one could eventrace relevant research back to the 1960s [2], it was the release of ChatGPT, an AI-poweredlanguage model developed by OpenAI, that brought this innovative technology into the limelightand allowed general population to access it, disrupting not only the technology sector (e.g., IT),but more recently, the academic world in terms of content generation from both the students andfaculty perspectives. This WIP paper will not dive deep into the technicality of generative AI technology- thatis out of the scope of this study; but instead, it will focus on the experimental application ofChatGPT in the academic setting, to be more
[1, 2]. During that study, 24 faculty from 9institutions were interviewed several times about a range of aspects of their instruction [3]. Weidentified how each instructor’s application of the educational tool interacted uniquely with theirinstructional ecosystem in ways that we termed their trajectory of practice. The study reportedhere extends that work by exploring ways to conceptualize how instructors frame their teaching.For this case study, we contrasted two instructor’s framings in an attempt to establish theviability of applying this analytical lens to the whole data set.Theoretical FrameworkWe used the lens of resources and framing as an analytical tool to understand differences in howinstructors approach their courses. Instructors