instructors might want toemphasize the importance of breaking down concepts as students learn them, asking questions,and/or make sure to acknowledge the hard work and time their students are putting into learningnew concepts. This might provide students with positive feelings or attitude when learning aconcept. On the other hand, when it comes to participants P1 and P2’s intrinsic feelings aboutbeing excited to learn, it is unclear how to make other students feel the same way. However, P1’snote about appreciating when instructors engage students more frequently during class may be ashort-term way to keep students engaged. Although this is not an intrinsic desire to learn, it mayhelp keep students more involved in the learning process, and this may
. Johnston, H. Wildy, and J. Shand, “Student voices that resonate – Constructing composite narratives that represent students’ classroom experiences,” Qual. Res., p. 14687941211016158, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1177/14687941211016158.[4] M. S. Wertz, M. Nosek, S. McNiesh, and E. Marlow, “The composite first person narrative: Texture, structure, and meaning in writing phenomenological descriptions,” Int. J. Qual. Stud. Health Well-Being, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 5882, Jan. 2011, doi: 10.3402/qhw.v6i2.5882.[5] C. J. Porter and J. A. Byrd, “Juxtaposing #BlackGirlMagic as ‘Empowering and Problematic:’ Composite Narratives of Black Women in College,” J. Divers. High. Educ., 2021, doi: 10.1037/dhe0000338.[6] L. Roche and J. Sadowsky, “The
. Botella, “Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses,” Educ. Res. Rev., vol. 22, pp. 74–98, 2017.[2] R. Hernández, “Does continuous assessment in higher education support student learning?,” High. Educ., vol. 64, pp. 489–502, 2012.[3] M. M. C. Mok, C. L. Lung, D. P. W. Cheng, R. H. P. Cheung, and M. L. Ng, “Self‐ assessment in higher education: Experience in using a metacognitive approach in five case studies,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 415–433, 2006.[4] B. Lustgarten, “Impact Of Traditional Versus Alternative Assessment On Student Achievement,” 2022.[5] S. Dikli, “Assessment at a distance: Traditional vs. alternative assessments.,” Turk. Online J. Educ
am able to be on campus and focus on my studies” [modality], “The pressure external of what would happen if I failed” [external] TABLE I FACILITATORS - C ATEGORIES AND O RIGINAL C ODES . # S TUDENTS IS THE NUMBER OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS AT LEAST ONE OF WHOSE RESPONSES WAS CODED WITH AT LEAST ONE CODE FROM THAT CATEGORY. C ODES IN EACH CATEGORY ARE LISTED INDECREASING FREQUENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY AN EXAMPLE STUDENT RESPONSE CODED BY THE TOP THREE MOST FREQUENT CODES IN EACH CATEGORY. C ATEGORIES GROUP CODES EXPRESSING SIMILAR SENTIMENT. Category # Students Codes Example Response No-answer 289
been used in education to assessstudent understanding of specific concepts and as a tool for curricular planning [10], [11], [12].We focus on the latter purpose.Jonassen and Marra [13] advanced a theoretical perspective on concept mapping grounded in aconstructivist framework. We offer three salient items from this perspective that aim to supporteducators’ creation of concept maps as tools for curriculum design and reflection. Conceptmapping functions from a constructivist perspective in that engaging in this activity presents itscreator(s) with the task of internally negotiating their own knowledge and understanding about aparticular topic or domain [13]. As a result of this negotiating process, they argue that creating anexternal
environment in which to properly self-assess? Understanding these questions can provide valuable information to instructors to guidefocus in future course iterations.To answer these questions, a broad knowledge survey was issued in conjunction with a validatedintellectual humility scale. Does the outcome of the IH assessment indicate how students willself report on a knowledge survey? The knowledge survey implemented here considered the self-report levels of students with respect to course topics in a broad context compared to theinstructor(s) estimate of where they should rate themselves. Initial results do not indicatesignificance in correlation between KS deviations from instructor(s) targets and intellectualhumility scores, but there are trends
rigorous standards for the students’ future studies. With these high expectations, studentsoften struggle due to the fact they are not only learning engineering concepts for the first time, butthey are also learning how to learn.As educators, it is our imperative duty to find instructional methods that best deliver not onlyrequisite information to students, but in a manner that is also conducive to critical thinking. Anincreasing number of studies suggest that the use of traditional textbooks may not be the mostefficient or cost-effective means of education. To the latter point, multiple studies have beenconducted on textbook prices for over five decades. Textbook prices have increased 1,000% fromthe late 1970’s to the mid-2010’s. Throughout the
students’ experiences of support mechanisms to enhance wellbeing on an engineering programme in the UK,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–16, 2020, doi: 10.1080/03043797.2020.1835828.[2] B. J. Sottile, L. E. Cruz, Y.-A. Lo Burleson, and K. Mclain, “It’s About Time: An Analysis of Student Activities Under Remote Learning,” 2021, [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/37412.[3] J. Armstrong, “Workload in Engineering Courses and How To Reduce It,” 1996, [Online]. Available: https://aaee.net.au/wp- content/uploads/2020/07/AAEE2019_Annual_Conference_paper_72.pdf.[4] S. Mansouri, M. Wai, J. Li, and J. Lamborn, “A quantitative method to evaluate student workload,” in Proceedings of the
in engineeringentrepreneurship education,” Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 3(1), 4-13, 2020.Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127419890828[2] P. Weilerstein and A. Shartrand, A, “A decade of technological innovation: A retrospectiveview of the first decade of the NCIIA,” ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, ConferenceProceedings, Pittsburgh, PA, 2008. Available: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-56749132141&partnerID=tZOtx3y1[3] J. Blessing, K. Mekemson, and D. Pistrui, “Building an entrepreneurial engineeringecosystem for future generations: The Kern Entrepreneurship Education Network,” ASEEAnnual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA, 2008. Available: https://peer.asee.org/3488.[4] S. Sheppard, S
may not be meeting those challenges.MethodsContext: This research was conducted at a single large research intensive (RH-VH) public universitylocated in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States, as part of an NSF Funded S-STEM program. S-STEM programs are intended to support low-income students in their trajectories to and through school.While most funded SSTEM programs in the United States are aimed at undergraduate student support, thisSSTEM is unique in that it supports low income Master’s students to obtain thesis-based MS degrees.Students in the program are supported financially, have substantial professional development programming,regular mentorship meetings with faculty affiliated with the program, and peer/near-peer mentoring. At
interactions among team members vs. task-related activities [13]. Theserelationships are shown in Table II below: TABLE II Interpersonal Factors Related to Task Factors in Tuckman’s Model Interpersonal Interactions Task-Related Activities Testing and Dependence of/on Team Members Recognition of Task(s) Conflict within the Team Emotional Responses to Task Demands Team Cohesion Develops Open Exchange of Interpretations Interdependence of Roles on the Team Emergence of Solutions to the Problem(s)Adapted from [13]Although the original model contained the four stages shown above, Tuckman added a fifthstage, “termination
peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability,” Am. Psychol., vol. 63, pp. 160–168, 2008, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.160.[17] K. Beddoes, S. Cutler, and R. Croninger, “WIP: The Field of Engineering Education Research as Seen Through the Peer Review Process,” 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, Tampa, Florida, Jun. 2019. doi: 10.18260/1-2--32349.[18] K. K. Janke, A. S. Bzowyckyj, and A. P. Traynor, “Editors’ Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development,” Am. J. Pharm. Educ., vol. 81, no. 4, May 2017, doi: 10.5688/ajpe81473.[19] M. Petrescu and A. Krishen, “The evolving crisis of the
). Some suggested using case studies for deeperunderstanding (“I think you could delve more into case studies and study them in a moredetailed way so as to get a broader scope of human ideologies, history and perspectives” -Student Q).Many students reported that they overcame their initial negative views of humanities whichthey used to previously find “monotonous” (Student R) or irrelevant to engineering. “Ithought humanities wasn’t very related to science and engineering, but I realise now that asan engineer it is very important to be aware about all these topics” (Student S).Quantitative Data Analysis Figure 1: Box plot for Survey QuestionsStudent Evaluations: The course was piloted for the first time with engineering
members.ReferencesAllen, K.-A., Kern, M. L., Rozek, C. S., McInerney, D. M., & Slavich, G. M. (2021). Belonging: A review of conceptual issues, an integrative framework, and directions for future research. Australian Journal of Psychology, 73(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2021.1883409Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497– 529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497Buckley, J. B., Robinson, B. S., Tretter, T. R., Biesecker, C., Hammond, A. N., & Thompson, A. K. (2023). Belonging as a gateway for learning: First‐year engineering students’ characterizations of
] V. Wilczynski and R. Adrezin, “Higher education makerspaces and engineering education,” in ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2016, p. V005T06A013.[11] M. Tomko, M. W. Alemán, W. Newstetter, R. L. Nagel, and J. Linsey, “Participation pathways for women into university makerspaces,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 700– 717, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1002/jee.20402.[12] A. C. Barton and E. Tan, STEM-rich maker learning: Designing for equity with youth of color. Teachers College Press, 2018.[13] S. Vossoughi, P. K. Hooper, and M. Escudé, “Making Through the Lens of Culture and Power: Toward Transformative Visions for Educational Equity,” Harv. Educ
Aeronautical Sciences, ICAS 2014, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84910611467&partnerID=40&md5 =dfb1accc4f70983f9f4bfc12f40d9a06[2] M. K. Orr, N. M. Ramirez, S. M. Lord, R. A. Layton, and M. W. Ohland, “Student Choice and Persistence in Aerospace Engineering,” J. Aerosp. Inf. Syst., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 365–373, Apr. 2015, doi: 10.2514/1.I010343.[3] A. R. Bielefeldt, M. Polmear, C. Swan, D. Knight, and N. Canney, “An overview of the microethics and macroethics education of computing students in the United States,” in 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Indianapolis, IN: IEEE, Oct. 2017, pp. 1–9. doi: 10.1109/FIE.2017.8190445.[4] L. L. Bucciarelli, “Ethics
-44, 2013.[2] K. Archer, "Do multiple homework attempts increase student learning? A quantitative study," The American Economist, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 260-269, 2018.[3] P. Magalhães, D. Ferreira, J. Cunha and P. Ros, "Online vs traditional homework: A systematic review on the benefits to students’ performance," Computers & Education, vol. 152, 2020.[4] B. A. Smith and L. P. McCroy, "Using homework to improve students' abilities to self- regulate," Studies in teaching 2011 research digest, pp. 121-126, 2011.[5] S. Bonham, R. Beichner and D. Deardorff, "Online homework: Does it make a difference?," The Physics Teacher, vol. 39, p. 293–296., 2001.[6] S. W. Bonham, D. L. Deardorff and R. J. Beichner
New Engineering Education in the Middle East,” Eng. Educ. Lett., vol. 2015, no. 1, p. 8, Feb. 2014, pp1-7.[8] E. Ramadi, S. Ramadi, and K. Nasr, “Engineering graduates’ skill sets in the MENA region: a gap analysis of industry expectations and satisfaction,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 34–52, 2016.[9] M. A. Mestiraihi, K. Becker, R. Dupont, and D. K. Stevens, “Examining the Preparedness of Water Program Graduates in Egypt: Industries Perspective,” Middle East J. Appl. Sci. Technol., vol. 04, no. 04, pp. 60–74, 2021, doi: 10.46431/MEJAST.2021.4406.[10] M. Al Mestiraihi, K. H. Becker, R. R. Dupont, and D. K. Stevens, “Developing Undergraduate Water Program Courses: Meeting the Needs of the Egyptian Workforce
:e208.[2] Rogers A, Gardner M, Augenstein I. Qa dataset explosion: A taxonomy of nlp resourcesfor question answering and reading comprehension. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR).2022.[3] Salloum S, Gaber T, Vadera S, Sharan K. A systematic literature review on phishingemail detection using natural language processing techniques. IEEE Access. 2022 Jun 14.[4] Bird S. NLTK: the natural language toolkit. InProceedings of the COLING/ACL 2006Interactive Presentation Sessions 2006 Jul (pp. 69-72).[5] Chollet, F. & others, 2015. Keras. Available at: https://github.com/fchollet/keras[6] Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE. Imagenet classification with deep convolutionalneural networks. Communications of the ACM. 2017 May 24;60(6):84-90.[7] Elor, Yotam
. L., Zhu, X., & Hwang, T. (2015). Understanding the Construct of Maximizing Tendency: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(5), 437-450.Ehlert, K. M., Rucks, M. L., B, A. M., Desselles, M., Grigg, S. J., & Orr, M. K. (2019). Expanding and Refining a Decision-Making Competency Inventory for Undergraduate Engineering Students. IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).Godwin, A., Potvin, G., Hazari, Z., & Lock, R. (2016). Identity, Critical Agency, and Engineering: An Affective Model for Predicting Engineering as a Career Choice. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(2), 312-340.Holland, J. L. (1985). The present status of a theory of vocational
Engineering Education, Minneapolis, MS, Jun. 2022.[2] M. D. Koretsky, J. L. Falconer, B. J. Brooks, and Silverstein, “The AIChE Concept Warehouse: A web-based tool to promote concept-based instruction,” Advances in Engineering Education, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 27, 2014.[3] M. D. Koretsky, B. J. Brooks, R. M. White, and A. S. Bowen, “Querying the questions: Student responses and reasoning in an active learning class,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 219–244, 2016, doi: 10.1002/jee.20116.[4] M. D. Koretsky, B. J. Brooks, and A. Z. Higgins, “Written justifications to multiple- choice concept questions during active learning in class,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 38, no. 11
, and S. Thomas, “Developing Quantitative Reasoning: Will Taking Traditional Math Courses Suffice? An Empirical Study,” J. Gen. Educ., vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 305–313, 2012, doi: 10.5325/jgeneeduc.61.4.0305.[2] L. A. Steen, Achieving Quantitative Literacy: An Urgent Challenge for Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Association of America, 2004. Accessed: Oct. 09, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.maa.org/press/maa-reviews/achieving-quantitative- literacy-an-urgent-challenge-for-higher-education[3] ETS, “HEIghten® Quantitative Literacy Assessment,” HEIghten® Quantitative Literacy Assessment, 2021. https://www.ets.org/heighten/about/quantitative_literacy/ (accessed Oct. 07, 2021).[4] D. Zahner, D. Van Damme, R
their first-, second-,and third-year experiences during these four years. Each year students report on their experiencesfrom the previous year. Students may have participated in different types of co-curricular(s) onceor many times. We drew a random sample of five students from each group and took a closerlook at the individual profiles of co-curricular participation over time between the low, medium,and high GPA groups. We ensured the student was either a first year, sophomore, or junior (weexcluded those reporting to be in grade 12 to focus on the undergraduates’ experiences) during2015-2018 and had consistently scored a cumulative GPA within the above ranges. A summaryof student data used in this WIP can be found in the Appendix.Table 1
expressedare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.References[1] M. D. Koretsky et al., "For Systematic Development of Conceptests for Active Learning," in EDULEARN19 Proceedings, 2019: IATED, pp. 8882-8892.[2] B. P. Self et al., "Understanding Context: Propagation and Effectiveness of the Concept Warehouse in Mechanical Engineering at Five Diverse Institutions and Beyond–Results from Year 1," in 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference, 2020.[3] M. D. Koretsky, S. B. Nolen, J. Galisky, H. Auby, and L. G. Grundy, "Progression from the Mean: Cultivating Instructors’ Unique Trajectories of Practice using Educational Technology," Journal of Engineering Education, no. 113, 2024, doi
withoutcompromising integrity or equity.References[1] J. Qadir, "Engineering Education in the Era of ChatGPT: Promise and Pitfalls of Generative AI for Education," 2023 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Kuwait, Kuwait, 2023, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1109/EDUCON54358.2023.10125121[2] P. P. Ray, “ChatGPT: A comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope,” Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, vol. 3, pp. 121–154, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.003.[3] S. Nikolic et al., “ChatGPT versus engineering education assessment: a multidisciplinary and multi-institutional benchmarking and analysis of this generative artificial
. Lee, and D. Pino, “First-Year Community College Students’ Perceptions of and Attitudes Toward Intrusive Academic Advising,” NACADA Journal, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 30–42, Jun. 2016, doi: 10.12930/NACADA-15-012.[2] S. Kraft-Terry and C. Kau, “Direct Measure Assessment of Learning Outcome–Driven Proactive Advising for Academically At-Risk Students,” NACADA Journal, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 60–76, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.12930/NACADA-18-005.[3] J. A. Kitchen, D. Cole, G. Rivera, and R. Hallett, “The Impact of a College Transition Program Proactive Advising Intervention on Self-Efficacy,” J. Stud. Aff. Res. Pract., vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 29–43, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1080/19496591.2020.1717963.[4] R. D. Robnett, M. M
General description (description of lacking either content description of No tasks of content of task;behaviors or tasks to of ratee's work or both content and described value to team notthe ratee upon which value contributed to value of the includedfeedback was given) the group ratee's work Gap Gap(s) alluded to but
-)learning on control systems engineering,” Jun. 2017,doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/expat.2017.7984380.4. G. Kestin, K. Miller, L. S. McCarty, K. Callaghan, and L. Deslauriers, “Comparing theeffectiveness of online versus live lecture demonstrations,” Physical Review Physics EducationResearch, vol. 16, no. 1, Jan. 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.16.013101.5. W.-M. Roth, C. J. McRobbie, K. B. Lucas, and S. Boutonn, “Why may students fail tolearn from demonstrations? A social practice perspective on learning in physics,” Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 509–533, May 1997, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(199705)34:5%3C509::aid-tea6%3E3.0.co;2-u.6. J. P. Canal, “Maximizing student learning