students' self-regulation. Activities for developing students'sense of purpose may become relevant, especially in the context of recent advances inArtificial Intelligence (AI), which, some argue, may lead to a decreased sense of purpose. Inthis work-in-progress paper we describe ongoing research whose objective is to (1)understand how to develop a greater sense of purpose in students, exploring its relation toself-regulation and to (2) understand the relation between students' sense of purpose and theiracademic and personal motivations. Specifically we describe a multiple methods study thatwe carried out on an introductory AI course at a highly selective engineering school in LatinAmerica in which 144 students participated. We designed a Purpose
intersection of artificial intelligence, robotics, control systems and applications of AI in education. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 WIP: Traditional Engineering Assessments Challenged by ChatGPT: An Evaluation of its Performance on a Fundamental Competencies ExamIntroduction The evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, particularly in naturallanguage processing, has brought forth transformative changes across various areas, includingengineering education [1]. One of the most prominent manifestations of these advancementsis ChatGPT, a large language model (LLM) developed by OpenAI, which has demonstratedremarkable capabilities in text
address climate change. Currently, MiguelAndres is working on a framework to support and conduct undergraduate research. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 WIP: Unannounced Tests to Improve Student Performance and Build Academic Integrity John Bonilla1, Miguel Valarezo1, Miguel Andrés Guerra1*1 Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Colegio de Ciencias e Ingenierías, Departamento de Ingeniería Civil, Casilla Postal 17-1200-841, Quito 170901, Ecuador.* Correspondence: Miguel Andrés Guerra, MAGuerra@usfq.edu.ecAbstractHuman self-evaluation is something that has been part of each one since birth and has allowedeveryone to mold and develop
, 2024 Quantifying Spatial Skills Across STEM Disciplines: A Systematized Literature Review of Assessment ToolsIntroductionSpatial ability has been broadly defined as an individual’s ability to mentally transform,manipulate, and generate well-structured visual information [1], [2]. Numerous applications ofspatial ability exist in a variety of settings. Although many constructs of spatial ability have beenidentified in the literature, researchers have not agreed upon a set list of defining constructs [3].Constructs of spatial thinking that are commonly discussed in the literature include mentalrotation, spatial visualization, and spatial orientation. This paper refers to spatial ability as aquantification of performance on
theories of situated learning [1]and socialization into professional communities [2] to ask what and how students learn during anNSF-funded Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) summer program in materialsscience and engineering. REU program evaluation data can offer valuable insights into student learning, but thesedata are rarely analyzed with regards to research questions. Typically, they are used for theevaluation and then discarded. This is a missed opportunity. The NSF requires REU programs toevaluate how well they achieve their goals [3]. As the evaluators for a three-year REU site at amedium-sized public research university in the United States, we pushed the boundaries oftraditional program evaluation to generate data that
typical pedagogical approaches engineeringfaculty often use to teach engineering education (i.e., the case study). Two validated instrumentshave found special favor in engineering fields, namely, the Defining Issues Test 2 (DIT-2) (Restet al., 1999) and the Engineering and Science Issues Test (ESIT) (Borenstein et al., 2010). Twomain issues presented that counseled pursuing another approach – first, the DIT-2 and the ESITare not publicly available, but more fundamentally neither instrument directly addresses someissues of current note in engineering ethics, so a new instrument was developed. Three scenarioswere generated in Sottile (2023); see that reference for an explanation for the motivation behindeach of the scenarios.Scenario 1: Concealing
Affinity Research Groups (ARG) Model Navarun Gupta1, Buket D. Barkana2, Jungling Hu3, Deana DiLuggo4, Ioanna Badara5 1 Department of Electrical Engineering, The University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT 06604 2 Department of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325 3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT 06604 4 School of Education, The University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT 06604 5 Departments of Education, Post University, Waterbury, CTAbstract:Our paper reports the self-evaluation of a research-based course taught in the School ofEngineering at the University of Bridgeport. The University of
Appalachia region.Introduction and Background LiteratureThe Region Central Appalachia encompasses 68 counties in greatest economic distress within therural regions of Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, and West Virginia [13]. Job creation and access tohigher education within Central Appalachia has proven difficult because of the isolation andrugged terrain of mountainous geography. This isolation has limited infrastructure that supportsindustry and provides the resources desired by people who could be enticed to live and work inthe area [1]. Within the region, companies that employ engineers have a difficult time hiring andretaining engineers [1]. Companies have also reported a need for an increase in the number ofengineers local to the region
University Monica E. Cardella is the Director of the School of Universal Computing, Construction, and Engineering Education (SUCCEED) at Florida International University. She is also a Professor of Engineering and Computing Education in SUCCEED and FIU’s STEM Transformation Institute ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Storytelling Approaches for Elevating Student Voices in Research and DisseminationIntroductionThis Work-in-Progress (WIP) paper advances storytelling as an approach that supportsreflection, learning and community building [1] while also allowing for undergraduate studentsto craft their own stories as a version of narrative research, a form of
Deformation & Failure Mechanisms, Materials Science, Fracture Mechanics, Process-Structure-Property Relationships, Finite Element Stress Analysis Modeling & Failure Analysis, ASME BPV Code Sec VIII Div. 1 & 2, API 579/ASME FFS-1 Code, Materials Testing and Engineering Education. Professionally registered engineer in the State of Texas (PE). ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Teaching Effective Communication for TeamworkThis is a Work in Progress paper.IntroductionEngineering projects are often complex and require collaboration, making teamwork skillscritical for engineers. Employers want to hire students with strong professional skills, includingthe ability to work
criteria and 226 articles made it to the nextphase. These 226 articles were then screened by full text and only six articles made it to the finalinclusion phase. The themes that emerged from the synthesis of the six articles are improvementof conceptual learning and critical thinking, use of technology for inclusive teaching practices, andenhancement of student interactions and engagement. The findings of this study are timely andrelevant as ABET is increasingly accrediting online engineering programs in the United States.Keywords: online engineering, teaching engineering online, online educationIntroductionOnline education is rapidly expanding due to its accessibility, scalability, and flexibility [1-2].Despite the numerous advantages of online
themselves multiple-choice with a list of potential justifications to choose from(these are called Two-Tier MCQs or TT-MCQs [1]).We propose JMCQ (Justified MCQ), a TT-MCQ assessment with an added twist to gain insight:students must additionally explain why wrong options in the MCQ are wrong by selecting (fromchoices) a short explanation. We reason that a single justification is also a single piece of data andperhaps a single point of failure (for the student) whereas multiple justification options forpotential wrong answers might help build a more complete picture of a student’s conceptualunderstanding. Because the two tiers provide two scores, a correctness score and a justificationscore, we seek to understand the degree to which one can quantify
are motivated, persist through their programs, and learnengineering material [1]- [3] which has led to calls for supporting students’ engineering identitiesalongside traditionally taught competences [4]-[8]. The degree to which students feel recognizedor seen as the “kind of person” who can do engineering has been delineated as the mostimportant element in the development of an engineering identity [9], [10]. An understanding ofrecognition is critical for designing high-impact curricular practices that support identitydevelopment and in guiding program culture that includes students in the community ofengineering. Researchers have explored if students believe others see them as engineers andemphasized the importance of these beliefs [11], [12
, and diverse strategies used by universities [1].Craney et al. [2] surveyed 465 undergraduate research participants from varied disciplines andbackgrounds, discovering high satisfaction and significant gains in professional development,deeper subject understanding, and better preparedness for graduate studies and careers. Similarly,Lopatto [3] found that 85% of UR participants in science continued to postgraduate education,with those not pursuing further studies reporting lesser gains. Haddad and Kalaani [4] introduceda model to integrate research into traditional curriculums via summer workshops and designatedcourses, aiming to boost participation through the creation of an Undergraduate Research Office.Lopatto's further research [5
review will be used toadvance pedagogy and educational strategies to advance the student–centered educationalenvironment.Keywords: Facial Expressions, Cognitive Engagement, Cognitive Skills, Emotions, Problem–SolvingIntroductionCognitive engagement involves actively employing mental processes in tasks or problem–solving,utilizing attention, memory, reasoning, and decision–making. Simultaneously, facial expressionentails the orchestrated use of facial muscles for emotional communication, classified by the FacialAction Coding System (FACS) into specific action units, e.g., raising eyebrows (AU1) or smiling(AU12) [1]. This systematic framework enables standardized analysis of facial expressions. Theintegration of cognitive engagement and facial
engineeringeducation, to examine the use of intuition in engineering problem solving. CTA is a class ofobservational protocols that surface tacit knowledge through engaging experts with a task(Crandall, 2006). The purpose of CTA is to capture how the mind works through three primaryaspects: knowledge elicitation, data analysis, and knowledge representation. Many methods ofCTA exist, and best practices call for a combination of CTA methods. In this study we are usingtwo methods: 1) the Critical Decision Method (CDM), which assesses individuals decisionmaking in non-routine incidents through a set of cognitive probes (Klein, 1989), and 2) theKnowledge Audit Method (KAM), which we use to guide our probing questions and identifytypes of knowledge used, or not
analyses andcalculated Cronbach’s alpha for all scales in the SEES. Our findings provided supportingevidence for the reliability and factorial validity of the interpretations of each scale in the SEES.Finally, we performed group analyses for gender and race/ethnicity groups, and the differencesaligned with previous theories and established research. We conclude that the SophomoreEngineering Experiences Survey has sufficient validity evidence for assessing the experiences ofsophomore engineering students and, therefore, can be used to 1) offer empirical insights into thecurrent state of sophomore engineering experiences, 2) identify factors that contribute to positiveor negative experiences, 3) further elucidate group differences, and 4) provide
alsoreinforces the importance of using multiple strategies to support students in believing that theycan (self-efficacy) do engineering and should continue to pursue it as a valuable career choice.IntroductionEngagement plays a significant role in determining the level of success that engineers canachieve, both during school and at work. In the workplace, employee engagement has beenshown to increase productivity [1], retention rate [1], job satisfaction [2], and customer loyalty[3]. On a similar note, academic student engagement has been shown to be positively associatedwith critical thinking [4], academic achievement [5], retention in engineering degree programs[6], and persistence [7]. Retention in engineering is especially important as the demand
andreflect on their community’s strengths and concerns through imagery, fostering critical dialogueand knowledge-sharing [1]. While popularly utilized in medicine, social sciences, and education,its application in engineering education [2–5] and computer science education [6–8] is relativelynew and underexplored. This position paper aims to bridge this gap by presenting acomprehensive account of a pilot study that introduces photovoice to computer science students,showcasing the method’s merits and contributions. It will outline implementation and adaptationof the method’s steps, obstacles faced during its duration, the value derived from the emergentthemes from visual artifacts developed from participants, and the holistic value derived fromactive
environment, Content analysis, SurveyIntroductionLack of attendance is a common pain point for instructors. While instructors can provide grade-based incentives to encourage attendance, there may be inherent qualities of a course thatincrease or decrease a student’s motivation to attend, especially for a student whose totalworkload requires them to strategically ration their time. There have been many prior studies onattendance and absenteeism involving surveys of student-reported reasons for attending ormissing classes [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], including studies specific to engineering courses [7],[8], [9] and hands-on learning environments [10], [11]. While it is generally accepted that activelearning improves student motivation, there is a
) framework to actively promote research quality.Our reflection data illustrate how numerical reporting conventions, formative life experiences,and professional aspirations can all affect a young engineer's perception of the relevance ofvariability. We conclude with a discussion of implications for instructional practice.IntroductionVariability—the phenomenon of non-identical values—is core to modern science. The movebeyond calculating averages to the study of real variation is one of the most important scientificdevelopments of the 19th century [1]. Ernst Mayr [2] positions variability as fundamental tounderstanding evolution through “population thinking.” Statistics as a discipline exists in largepart to develop techniques to study variability
’ belongingnessand their behavioral response. In addition, we found that, despite mean differences inbelongingness, affective response, and behavioral response, there were few gender differences inthe pattern of relations. For both female- and male-identifying students, belongingness predictedboth students’ affective and behavioral responses. These findings suggest that course-levelbelongingness plays an essential role in how students respond to active learning and that fosteringan atmosphere that supports belongingness may benefit all students.1. Introduction Engineering education has long understood the importance and value of instructional practicesthat invite students to construct rather than passively receive knowledge – broadly referred to as
is to continue to establish abenchmark for comparing the ESC experiences of project-based student engineers to those intraditionally operated programs.The three programs studied in this paper are in the same college of the same institution. Further,the cultures of engineering and computer science are similar [1][2][3]. Thus, we consider thecultures of the two engineering programs and the computer science program to belong to a sharedcontext.Previous studies demonstrate the stressful nature of engineering and engineering educationculture. Heavy workloads, high expectations, rigorous assignments, smart students, and fiercecompetition for grades are typical descriptors of engineering programs [4] [5] [6]. Studentsuffering and a bootcamp-like
colleges at the University of Florida. Findings suggests that 1) females engage in self-reflection more than males; 2) graduate student mentors in hybrid/wet labs are more insightfulthan those in dry labs; and 3) Non-engineering graduate student mentors are more insightful thanengineering graduate student mentors. Ongoing research, including qualitative interviews toidentify the self-reflective practices and influences of engineering graduate student researchermentors, will uncover existing reflection strategies. Future research will also focus on developinga scale that measures self-awareness-related dimensions within STEMM mentoring relationships.BackgroundObjective Self-Awareness Theory The Objective Self-Awareness (OSA) Theory was
practices in engineering gateway courses to enhance Hispanic/Latino transfer student success. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024The Success and Retention of Students using Multiple-Attempt Testing (MAT)in Fundamental Engineering Courses: Dynamics and Thermodynamics Marino Nader1, Michelle Taub2, Sierra Outerbridge2, Mohammadreza Chimehrad1, Harrison Oonge3, and Hyoung Jin Cho1 1 Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering 2 Department of Learning Sciences and Educational Research 3 Department of Undergraduate Studies, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816-2362
. Kent J. Crippen, University of Florida Kent Crippen is a professor of STEM education in the school of teaching and learning at the University of Florida and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Towards A Survey Instrument For Use In Proactive Advising This paper focuses on developing a survey instrument to support proactive advisingstrategies based on data analysis. Proactive advising strategies aim to identify at-risk studentsearly, as these students often delay seeking support, and engage them effectively in the supportprocess[1]. An advising curriculum can be created to provide structure for the
(Instron 3369 ID3369B13598) to gather data. This data was exported into an MS-Excel worksheet categorizingthe different plastics into Stress-Strain plots. We learned from our mentor that testing a singlesample is not sufficient, and that at least 5 were required whereby an average was then used togenerate the plots. The raw data from the tests were then exported into an Excel worksheet. Theaverage value from the 5 samples of each material were then used for plotting the correspondingstress strain curves. Figure 1 shows the stress-strain curves for the different 3D printed plastics,with and without CF. We used the theory covered in a course that we took on Materials Scienceand Engineering to obtain the material and mechanical properties of our
for training socially responsible engineers. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Wellbeing of Graduate Engineering Students: A Systematic Review 1. IntroductionRecent studies show that students in graduate school often face difficulty in terms of their mentalhealth and wellbeing which affects the quality of their learning and experiences. In this regard,Evans et al [1] found that graduate students face mental health challenges at a rate six times higherthan the general population. This increased mental health crisis among graduate students is linkedto specific aspects of their academic journey, such as difficulties in managing time, unclear andunpredictable academic processes, a feeling of
comprehensionand problem-solving abilities. As STEM research focuses more on workforce developmentand students’ career visions rather than content learning, Takeuchi et al. [1] emphasize theneed to examine current learners, target learners, and their positions with respect to STEM.They argue that improving the rate of learning transfer across STEM education requiresgreater focus on spatial skills as a part of STEM integration applicable and relevant toindustry context. Literature suggests that visuospatial skills contribute to success in STEMdisciplines [2]–[4]. Children with good visuospatial skills performed better on numeric tasks,such as estimating the values on a number line, while children with poor visuospatial skillswere less accurate in their
individuals on a series of questions (Appendix B). A specific setdescribed questions related to social justice orientations. Students were then asked to identify towhat extent they agree with each statement (on an anchored scale from 1-7 where 1= stronglydisagree and 7= strongly agree) about each member of their traditional and chosen familiesaligned with these traits. This process was repeated for each member individually. We computedthe average score on each question across each student’s traditional and chosen families. We thenused Welch’s two-sample t-tests to identify differences between the two kinds of support groups.In that, each trait that we compare is an average score across the members of that respectivetraditional or chosen family. All