Paper ID #36724Work in Progress: Student Reflections from a Semester-Long Place-BasedPhotovoltaic Solar Energy ProjectDr. Marissa H. Forbes, University of San Diego Marissa Forbes, PhD is an Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering at the University of San Diego. She is co-creator and co-leader of the Water Justice Exchange, a cross-campus, inter-community initia- tive fostering synergistic research, teaching and solutions for water challenges in the San Diego/Tijuana region. Dr. Forbes earned her MS and PhD from the University of Colorado Boulder in Civil (environ- mental) Engineering, and conducts research that aims
Paper ID #42483Students’ Metacognitive Regulation Strategies in Written Reflections withinThird-Year Introductory Environmental Engineering CourseAnu Singh, University of Nebraska, Lincoln Anu Singh is a Ph.D. student in Engineering Education Research at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She completed her M.Tech in Digital Communication and her B.Tech in Electronics and Communication Engineering in India. Her research interests include self-regulation, metacognition, reflection, and argumentative writing in engineering.Prof. Heidi A. Diefes-Dux, University of Nebraska, Lincoln Heidi A. Diefes-Dux is a Professor in
receivedendorsements through OSU’s Drake Institute for Teaching and Learning to create and sustaineducational environments that intentionally value inclusive excellence and advance equity.A key goal is to improve the negative climate culture that is often linked to the STEM fields andthe lack of representation. Through instruction design and culturally responsive pedagogy, ourteam creates learning environments that value diverse viewpoints and representation to teachingstudents to approach problem solving in a collaborative and culturally relevant way.At the Institutional level, OSU’s Shared Values speak to our mission as a community-engagedland grant university. Many initiatives reflect the commitment to justice, equity, diversity, andinclusion. Notable and
and environmental justice issues, in general. Q5. It is important to learn about social and environmental justice in this class, to better recognize the connection between societal issues and STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) course content. Q6. I feel I have a responsibility to help find solutions to social and environmental injustice.The Reading, Writing, and Reflection AssignmentThe general topic for the activity was the government response to natural or anthropogenicdisasters in the U.S., taking into consideration the location of the event and the socioeconomicstatus of the affected community. The response was defined as the time it took the government torespond to the catastrophe and the resources that were deployed to help
history of engineers. At present, 30 textbooks reflecting the concept of greenengineering education have been revised and newly edited, covering variousdisciplines such as engineering, science, management and law.2. Construction of Green Engineering Courses ECUST has offered a series of courses related to green engineering. First,"Fundamentals of Enterprise EHS Risk Management" has been offered to allengineering undergraduates as a compulsory course. This course built by over fortycorporate alumni and university faculty was listed as a national-level MOOC in 2017.Taken by about 2,300 people each year, it has been listed as a required or electivecourse by 106 universities nationwide. Second, eight "Green Engineering" electivecourses have been
timeline that reflects theresearcher’s tenure at the university. At this level, faculty members can tailor meaningful projectsfor researchers over a set period. The last and broadest level of participation is short-termengagement through undergraduate and graduate courses. For short-term engagement, studentsparticipate in community-based class projects for one semester or can take elective courses thatoffer community-based research. With short-term engagement, students apply concepts ofcommunity-based research. This participatory approach serves as an opportunity for students toconduct research and advance into mid-term engagement opportunities (Figure 1). These levels ofengagement provide a more diverse audience that is engaged in community-based
processes. Students worked in groups tocreate 3D parts with cultural or historical perspective. Students searched for art forms, traditions, socialhabits, and rituals from the chosen cultural background or a significant time in history and used it asinspiration to create unique CAD designs and then 3D printed models. Students were required to incorporatethe best DfAM practices required to successfully design a part using additive manufacturing. Each studentgroup prepared a poster that was shared in a gallery walk [17]. Everyone explored the variety of culturallyand historically inspired projects during the gallery walk and self-reflected on the information in an essay.Students were encouraged to include thoughts on unconscious bias, norms, habits
methodologies were examined within a large enrollmentcourse, it was concluded that students who selected their own teams earned grades that mirroredtheir overall course grade. Lower performing students who were randomly assigned, orpurposefully grouped with higher performing students based on previous performance, typicallyearned higher grades on the group assignment than other events in the course. However, theincreased grade in these cases did not consistently reflect improved individual performance.Keywords: team grading; team-based learning; team selection; group projects; assessment1. IntroductionGroup work, commonly referred to as cooperative learning [1], is an essential aspect of anundergraduate engineering experience because it is required to
experience (i.e., apprehension). They later transformthese experiences through internal reflection (i.e., intention) or manipulation of externalphenomena (i.e., extension). In our courses, we use case studies and simulation/game-likeactivities. Prado et al. [15] found that both simulations and case studies as pedagogical toolsworked well to convey the main ideas in a course on sustainable development.In this paper, we describe our approach within a Civil and Environmental Engineeringdepartment, where we have developed two policy-oriented courses for upper-level undergraduateand graduate students. The primary questions we answered when developing the policy forengineers courses were 1) what learning objectives to prioritize and 2) what teaching and
course content – redesign of a local food system – was not a “favoritetopic” of some of the students.A further detailed analysis of Figure 2 shows that for Spring 2021, the same five questions wereadministered during the fifteenth week of the course. The response rate (N=9) was equal to one-third of the full course enrollment (N=30), and again reflects the poor rate of response typicallyobserved on our campus. As mentioned above, in Spring 2022, only three of the same fivequestions were administered during the fifteenth week of the course (i.e., question 1 and question2 are no longer included in the campus-wide instrument). The response rate (N=6) represented aminority of the enrollment (N=28). While the overall response reported in Figure 2 was
. That systems thinking perspective can be applied to anything, really, including social problems.”The first offering of introduction to sustainability challenges course was in the Fall 2015semester. Metrics for the engineering sustainability designation as a whole, such as participationand placement, indicated some positive results (for example, see above) but assessments of thelearning outcomes for the introductory seminar class (see Table 2 below for learning outcomesand current assessment plan) also indicated some areas where we fell short of learning targets inthe initial years of the designation. For instance, students’ ability to describe sustainability wasrather anemic.For example, D.T. (2018) wrote in a final reflection paper (see
, our paper aims to offernew insights and recommendations for educators and institutions seeking to cultivate well-rounded engineers equipped with both technical expertise and a nuanced understanding of thehumanities.BackgroundEngineering education traditionally emphasizes the development of strong problem-solvingskills. This focus is reflected in the 2004 US National Academy of Engineering report, “TheEngineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century,” which links engineering withtechnology and the identity of engineers as technical problem solvers [8]. This requires engineersto break down large complex problems into smaller, more manageable parts [9]. By breakingdown complex problems into manageable parts, engineers can identify the
protect and improve our planet and our lives,despite student and industry demand for it [6], [7], [8].The Engineering for One Planet (EOP) [9] initiative seeks to change the course of engineeringeducation to reflect the growing urgency to incorporate fundamental climate and sustainabilitytopics into all engineering disciplines. Catalyzed by The Lemelson Foundation [10] andVentureWell [11] in 2020 —in collaboration with hundreds of contributors from acrossgeographies, lived experience, and sectors — EOP seeks to ensure that all engineers areequipped with core skills in social and environmental sustainability, such as sustainable designand lifecycle impacts, and related professional skills, such as teamwork and critical thinking.Fueled by the input
, students reported dedicating 5-6 hours on average to project tasks. This range is not reflected equally across each team, andsome individuals listed up to 18 hours of project activities during the final two weeks. Thecurrent project timeline also required the instructor to review and provide timely feedback whilemanaging the activity during the 2.5-hour lab. Individual and team reports were due by 5 PM theday preceding the lab period so the instructor could review the progress before the midafternoonlab. Students have also provided feedback that the presentation and report are valuable, but theyrequested a longer period of time between test day and the due date for presentation and report.The other major challenge associated with this project is
, intrapersonal, and interpersonal. The cognitive dimensionpertains to an individual's increasing ability to effectively process and comprehend information.Simultaneously, the intrapersonal dimension focuses on self-awareness, self-reflection, and theregulation of emotions and thoughts. Lastly, the interpersonal dimension involves an individual'scapacity to engage in and comprehend relationships with others, though the process ofdeveloping empathy and co-creating shared meaning. These dimensions represent distinct modesof development and influence how individuals perceive and interact with the world, themselves,and others. Following this framework, our study uses Kegan's theory to position developmentalideas associated with innovation and inform
these activities. An internship program has been established with theACUA and we will be assessing the impact of the internship program this summer. The SJLWThas also been trained to adopt our activities and implement in their outreach program thissummer. Activities for the WaterCave and WaterTalk modules will be ready by the end of thesummer of 2023. We will initiate school visits and adaptation of the developed modules this Fall.Acknowledgement:We acknowledge the support of the USEPA for funding this project (Grant # 84034701). Anyopinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the USEPA.
human and non- human, through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. 8. As followers of Jesus Christ, we are not our own, but are instead members of His body and servants of God. 9. Our work matters to God, should reflect God’s values, and should align with God’s purposes. 10. Designing for sustainability, with its conscientious use of resources and consideration of environmental, economic, societal, and global contexts, is a helpful framework for approaching design work in a manner consistent with faithful stewardship and obedience, reflecting God’s love for humans and the rest of His creation, upholding His values of justice and mercy, and aligning with his plan for future
thegame for all three cohorts, and qualitative analysis based on students’ de-identified responses toa reflection question at the graduate level. Students were informed that grading was solely basedon completion of their quantitative and/or qualitative responses with good faith effort. Each student participant in the game represented an imaginary province, and studentsalso formed groups of four students each, where each group represented an imaginary nation.Each imaginary nation and province was allocated ten points at the beginning of each of the fourdecades. For each decade, students had to make individual provincial decisions as well ascollective national decisions to determine how to allocate ten points to protect their province
). 3Figure 2. Knowledge ThreadsEach knowledge thread contains a variety of competency strands. For example, theprofessionalism thread encompasses teamwork, communications, social justice, and ethics(Figure 3).Figure 3. Professionalism Thread Competency StrandsThe disciplinary knowledge thread reflects multi-disciplinary competency strands, to includescience and engineering fundamentals, project management, public policy, and environmentalengineering specific topic areas, such as surface water resources and hydrology, air quality andcontrol, solid and hazardous waste, etc. Within each strand, competency domains were identified 4to provide additional detail as shown in Figure 4. For each domain, specific
diversityof member views regarding the proposed ABET changes, summarize them, and present them forfurther discussion at that year’s Interdivisional Town Hall [3].By 2018 a set of “Town Hall Guiding Principles” had been created by the Ad Hoc Committee:Atsushi Akera (LEES), Chair, Alan Cheville (ERM), John Estell (First-Year Programs), SusannahHowe (DEED), Mark Killgore (Civil), and Joe Tranquillo (Biomedical), Chair-Elect, with theunderstanding that not every town hall meeting would be able to focus on all of the followingcriteria: A great Town Hall meeting will: ● Address a Big Question ● Build community by allowing ASEE members to mix across divisions ● Foster self-reflection among the members of the ASEE community
students’ experiences of, access to, and desire for sustainability-focused activities, as wellas the degree to which they feel empowered to promote the kinds of changes they would like thesee in the engineering education system.Autoethnography is a technique that combines the personal reflection of autobiography with theexamination of cultural relations, values, and beliefs that are characteristic of ethnography[12]. Itmay be argued that the qualitative nature of autoethnography runs counter to the more dominantquantitative epistemology in engineering. However, the socio-cultural insights it elicits can beboth insightful and instructive when seeking to understand and support change in the engineeringeducation system because systems change is, at
the lockdown. Figure 2. Correlation Coefficient Matrix of the pollutants for Kolkata6.0 Experiential Learning Outcomes, Assessing Data Analytical and Problem-SolvingSkills, and Grand Challenges of EngineeringThe interns and the high school senior through their reflective essays on their learning experiencesduring the beginning and the end of the course demonstrated their perspective of acknowledgingthe big picture; ability to apply knowledge gained to real-world situations; and displaying empathyby perceiving the challenges of the pandemic, and the extent the underrepresented populations aredisproportionately affected.Experiential Learning OutcomesSome of the experiential learning outcomes included the following: a
with the specific focus of each survey section, we aimed toensure the relevance and coherence of our assessment tools. This alignment provides a clearerframework for understanding the survey results and reflects the complexity and interconnectednessof sustainability in engineering education.Research Questions: 1. Impact of Active Learning Approaches: How are active learning strategies and hands- on curricular implementations in engineering classrooms related to changes observed in undergraduate engineering students' responses in a six-section pre-post sustainability survey and their open-ended feedback? 2. Comparative Analysis Across Disciplines: How do the pre-post sustainability survey results differ among students
to the green roof, have a capstoneproject on the green roof, or are on a tour led by faculty.Rehabilitation PlanDuring the first year, three 3m x 3m square plots with different types of plants were planted.Students chose an area of the green roof next to the windows, which is the most viewable part ofthe green roof from inside the building. The sun can be very intense in this area during thesummer months, particularly with the reflection from the windows. Three different types ofplants/plant mixtures were planted to determine which plants thrived in this area: stone crop, asedum mix, and thyme. Stone crop is the common term for sedums and was used in this study todifferentiate from the sedum mix. The different types of plants included in the
score of zero. The lowervariability in scores also may reflect the quick decision-making required during real-time gradingof the exams, as opposed to more contemplative grading possible for a written exam. Differencesin grading between oral exams and transcripts of oral exams also was noted by Thomas andcoworkers [16].Role of Oral Exams in Environmental Engineering EducationWhen asked for their exam preference in engineering courses, respondents expressed apreference for written exams, although nearly one-third of respondents indicated they preferredan equal number of oral and written exams (All Written: 4.9%, Mostly Written/Some Oral:58.9%, Equal: 31.6%, Mostly Oral/Some Written: 4.3%, All Oral: 0.3%). These responsesindicate a desire on the
education, any designed learning outcomes must be measured for successfulstudent comprehension. Redman, Wiek, and Barth recommend identifying which reason whichtools should be used and how to connect learning outcomes with the tools used with apsychometric model. Tools vary from student self-assessment, reflective writing, case studies,focus group interviews, performance observation, conventional testing, and regular coursework[15]. These varying methodologies of tools can offer insights into how competent students are inthe realm of sustainability, so those selecting tools should be holistically assessing the topics ofsustainability. For example, one such tool, the Sustainability Matrix, aims to interpretcompetences in resource consumption, design
students to explore and innovate, as reflected in theirheightened level of collaboration. The findings emphasize the significance of integratingexperiential learning methods into environmental engineering education to enhance activeengagement and skill development among students. Importantly, these results hold broaderimplications for educational practices, highlighting the crucial role of hands-on, experientiallearning methodologies in nurturing collaborative skills vital for the future success ofengineering professionals. The limitation identified was the use of a single group for thisexperimental study as well as the small sample size.AcknowledgementThis study is part of the work that was supported by the National Science Foundation Grant
complete two separate follow-up assessments; the first was offered on the same day asthe workshop (comprehensive assessment test or CAT0), and the second was a voluntaryopportunity to reflect on the Best, Worst, and ways to Improve the workshopadministered as part of follow-up to the workshop.The purpose of this paper is to share:1) details of the workshop, which may be replicated by others;2) results of the analysis of the RAT, CAT0, and additional follow-up data; and3) suggestions for applying the lessons learned in this preconference workshop to aneducational module that could be used to introduce Boyer’s Model and careercartography to graduate students as well as early and midcareer faculty of environmentalengineering.MethodsWorkshop content
when Rensselaer was accredited (Figure1). Additional accreditations progressed at a rate of approximately one every three years until1990, after which an average of 2.5 accreditations were added per year. Two of the EnvE PUIswere accredited prior to 1990 – Cal Poly Obispo (1971) and Cal Poly Humboldt (1981) – whilethe remaining six were accredited after, reflecting the overall increased accreditation rate.Bucknell and Central State received accreditation most recently in 2017.One may assume from the history of the disciplines that institutions with both EnvE and CivEprograms had the CivE program first. This is correct for four of the five EnvE/CivE PUIs –Bucknell, West Point, PUPR, and UW-Platteville. Bucknell has the longest period of
www.engineeringforoneplanet.org. With testing through pilot grants andfurther community input, the EOP Framework has evolved from its early focus on“environmental responsibility” to reflect the broader lenses of social and environmentalsustainability, among other refinements based on over 600 comments that were collected andincorporated into the revised version released in 2022.The EOP Framework is a cornerstone of the EOP initiative, the first of its kind to guidecoursework, teaching tools, and student experiences that define what it means to be an engineerwho is equipped to protect our planet and the life it sustains (Figure 1 & Figure 2A) [20].Aligned with ABET’s seven required student outcomes, it provides faculty members with avetted menu of competencies that