framed the design of this study. Table 1 outlines the major dimensions of the framework. Table 1. Collaborative software learning criteria framework from Stahl (2004, p. 81)Collaboration: Facilitating interactions, helping participants to maintain an overview of them, allowingparticipants to negotiate group decisions and building tacit knowing on the group level.Social awareness: Displaying or comparing alternative interpretations of different participants incollaboration and keeping track of who knows or does what, when, whereKnowledge building: Accumulating, storing, organizing, preserving and displaying multimedia artifactsthat arise in interaction.Knowledge management: The ability to collect items from broad discourses and organize them
been an Electrical Engineering Professor. Dr. Mendoza is interested in Socioeconomi- cally Disadvantaged Engineering Students, Latino Studies in Engineering, Computer Aided/Instructional Technology in Engineering, and Entrepreneurship/Service Learning.Dr. Jacques C. Richard, Texas A&M University Dr. Richard got his Ph. D. at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1989 & a B. S. at Boston University, 1984. He was at NASA Glenn, 1989-1995, taught at Northwestern for Fall 1995, worked at Argonne National Lab, 1996-1997, Chicago State, 1997-2002. Dr. Richard is a Sr. Lecturer & Research Associate in Aerospace Engineering @ Texas A&M since 1/03. His research is focused on computational plasma modeling using
survey. The results of this survey were used to inform changes for the followingyear. The 2015 and 2016 survey results are presented together later in this paper.Implementation RevisionsFollowing the experiences of the first year, student feedback and perceptions were reviewedregarding the flipped classroom format, blended learning techniques, and project-basedapproaches. Several changes were made for the Fall 2016 offering of ENGG 233.Revision #1: Weekly In-Class TutorialDuring the 2015 semester, no in-class lectures or tutorial sessions were offered and all of thecourse content was delivered via lecture videos. Students relied on the weekly studio sessions forhelp from their instructor or graduate teaching assistant, or they had to seek help
Outstanding Doctoral Research Award. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Forget Diversity, Our Project is DueAbstractThis research paper examines how four first-year engineering students interact with one anotherin teams to answer two research questions: 1) How do students experience working in diverseteams? and 2) Do their perceptions of diversity, affect, and engineering practice change as aresult of working in diverse teams? Despite engineering's emphasis on developing students’teaming skills, little research has been conducted on how students develop sensitivity to studentsfrom different cultures and backgrounds within diverse teams. We interviewed four students in afirst
declared an engineering major but had intentions to transfer to anengineering major the following spring semester. This was a 1-credit hour, online and in-personhybrid class, technologically managed by a Learning Management Software (LMS).Over 700 students enrolled in the course, and our instructional team consisted of one Instructor,one graduate TA, and two undergraduate TAs. This paper reports evidence-based practice oftwo assessment methods, Divide-and-Conquer and Grade-a-thons, that we used to successfullyevaluate a large-enrollment course with small grading staff. The coursework was divided intotwo types of assignments: weekly homework and a final report.The design of the course was based on content that had been previously implemented at
, otheruniversities can adopt and adapt these activities to use in their programs.1. IntroductionChoosing a major is a daunting task for many first-year college students, especially if the choicesspan fields with which students have little exposure and experience. It is estimated that 20 – 50%of first-year college students enter college as “undecided” about their major[7]. In order toprovide first-year engineering students time to discern, a set of resources and course activitieswere created and assessed in an introduction to engineering course. The results of two studies arepresented in this paper.The structure of the remainder of the paper is as follows. The next section describes theeducational theory relevant to this study, models of introduction to
approach implemented and researched in engineering to teach students mathematicalmodeling skills through the development of a model to solve an authentic problem.1 Model-adaptation activities (MAAs) were created within the same theoretical framework inmathematics education, but they are scarcely implemented and researched within engineering.2Simulations are used in education to either enable a student to investigate a concept through anexpert-developed simulation or challenge a student to build a simulation.3-6 Activities thatinvolve building simulations typically consist of prescriptive instruction on how to develop agiven simulation; such instruction fosters passive learning.3-6 In the literature there is a lack ofopen-ended simulation
that time was considered a “consolation” degree. These studentscould not successfully complete their desired program of study, but managed to pass a lessrigorous General Engineering curriculum. A small percentage of students (~1%) completed twoengineering degrees or earned a second bachelor’s degree outside of engineering.Several students earned degrees that were similar to their originally declared major. Table 1 listsoriginally declared majors along with degrees earned that were thought to be similar to thesemajors.Table 1: List of earned degrees considered as similar to matriculation major Original declared Degree earned in similar major major Biomedical engineering Bioinformatics, Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Clinical Lab Science
education and project-based learning.Dr. Louis A. DiBerardino III, Ohio Northern University Dr. DiBerardino is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Ohio Northern University. His teaching and research interests are in first-year engineering, dynamic systems, and musculoskeletal biome- chanics. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Impact of Various Pedagogies on Design Confidence, Motivation, and Anxiety of First-Year Engineering StudentsIntroductionThe content and pedagogies of first-year engineering programs vary widely from institution toinstitution. In the content space, efforts are underway to establish a first-year body of knowledge[1][13][14
meansfor verifying design themes, aesthetics, and/or obstacles.Section 1: IntroductionAcademic engineering institutions strive to prepare students for the engineering profession.Typical engineering curriculum builds strong foundational skills in mathematics and scienceduring the first two years of engineering education. Institutions vary on when students can electto study an engineering discipline. Students often begin their engineering education in a specifieda discipline. Other institutions offer an introduction to engineering fundamentals or generalengineering course with students choosing a specific discipline after their first year. At FloridaInstitute of Technology (FIT), most students elect a discipline before matriculating. However
likely tograduate with an engineering degree but also with a higher quality, e. g. with a higher GPA. TheDYP program synthesizes what has been shown in the research literature to be effective andwhat should be done in first-year engineering seminars into a comprehensive, scalable and easy-to-implement approach. The main components of the approach are: 1. Coverage of studentdevelopment topics in a first-year engineering course/lab/seminar to facilitate new students’growth, instilling positive change, and developing strategies that will enhance student success.2. Building upon the student development topics introduced in the course/lab/seminar, studentsare asked to design their own individual process to be successful in graduating with
/societal impact learning outcomes. Reported satisfaction with the ability toassess ethics and societal impact learning outcomes averaged 4.5 (just over neutral to somewhatsatisfied), and correlated with the number of assessment methods used. Five interviews wereconducted with first year course instructors, and provided additional details. The results providegood examples of incorporating ethics and societal impact issues into courses for first yearengineering students.IntroductionIt is important that all engineering and computing students develop an understanding of ethicalissues and associated expectations for their discipline prior to graduation.1 This is a requirementfor program accreditation.2,3 As well, ethical development is a key component
, theGrand Challenges used in this module were further refined by engineering and library faculty toreflect the college’s mission and initiatives and/or relate to imminent projects in the college’soperational improvement plans. The curriculum is intentionally designed for the students’holistic exposure to engineering and research skills, practices, and content area experts. Therefined Challenges are described in Table 1 below and in greater detail in the following section.Table 1. Refined Grand ChallengesRestore and Improve Urban Two distinct design projects are included:Infrastructure a) a campus traffic analysis and parking lot redesign, and b) a campus storm-water
;thedifferenceisstatisticallysignificant,withp<0.001. DesiredOutcomesforCourseRedesignInadditiontofeedbackontheexistingcourse,thefeedbackmechanismsabovewerealsousedtoinformthedesignprocessforapotentialcourserevision.Objectivesandconstraintswereidentifiedtoassistinthegenerationandevaluationofcourseredesignalternatives;thefullsetofobjectivesandconstraintsareshownbelowinTable1,butthesecanlargelybegroupedintofivegeneraldesiredoutcomesasfollows:Foradiversestudentbody,includingbothengineeringmajorsandnon-engineeringmajorsandstudentsfromunderrepresentedgroups, 1. Increaseengagementinarigorousengineeringcourse. 2. Increaseutilityofarigorousengineeringcourse. 3. Increasestudentlearninginarigorousengineeringcourse 4
to Engineering Course to Improve RetentionAbstractThis complete research paper revisits and describes the efficacy of first-year retentioninterventions focused on engineering identity that were developed for a common Introduction toEngineering course. This research aims to improve retention rates where presently about half ofthe engineering undergraduate students exit or drop out [1]. The American Society ofEngineering Education (ASEE) has indicated that engineering universities should developretention programs to reduce these numbers [1]–[3]. One of the main recommendations is todevelop first-year retention programs [1]–[3]. At one university, two engineering professorsdeveloped first-year retention interventions into
year of college are often faced with a number of challenges such as anew, higher-level curriculum, managing their time effectively, as well as developingrelationships with faculty and other students [1]. The greatest proportion (over 50%) of thestudents leaving an institution has been found to be between the first and second years of study[2, 3]. In a study of engineering student attrition at the University of Pittsburgh over a six-yearperiod, of the freshman attrition, half was accounted for by freshman that are placed on academicprobation at the end of their first term [4].Within first year engineering programs, mathematics is often one of the largest contributors toattrition in the first year [5]. Many schools across the country have
education or recruitment. Inthe future, models of all major engineering subdisciplines will be developed, with current plansfor Aerospace and CS/Electrical engineering focused demonstrations. The intention behind theseself-contained demonstrations is to provide comprehensive methods of educating undecidedengineering majors about future career paths and promoting interdisciplinary critical thoughtthrough hands-on interaction.Introduction In the interest of student retention in engineering colleges, numerous programs have adjustedtheir first year engineering courses to include subjects that immediately define the role of themodern professional engineer [1] [2]. This has resulted in the earlier introduction of engineeringdesign principles, in
ofinformation, i.e., existing solutions, for the ‘research/information gathering’ phase of the designprocess.IntroductionIn the NAE “The Engineer of 2020” report, engineering is described as being “about designunder constraint” [1]. ABET criteria (c) and (e) also clearly emphasize students’ ability todesign a system, process, or product to meet desired needs under constraints [2]. As the centralactivity in engineering, design must be taught and applied in the engineering curriculum in orderto prepare next generation engineers who are able to create value for the society through design.The engineering design process has become one of the main topics in first year introductorycourses and many incorporate design activities such as hands-on design projects
collaborationcentered extra-curricular resources can improve the project experience for first-year engineeringstudents.Background and Motivation First-year engineering education and its impact on student retention, culture, andexperience is an important topic to current educators trying to improve university levelengineering education. Persistence in an engineering program is directly related to the first-yearexperience [1]. The first-year curriculum and surrounding environment are essential componentsto providing students with points of both learning and discovery that will ultimately impact theirdecision to stay within their chosen path [1]. Although the engineering path may not be the bestpath for every student, there is a serious concern over
Judgment Scale for Suitability with First Year Student Reflective ResponsesAbstractThis Complete Evidence-Based Practice paper describes the use of reflection in a first-yearengineering design course. Reflection is an essential part of learning, but it is not widely used inengineering curricula. However, using reflective learning techniques in the classroom can helpstudents develop critical thinking skills [1] [2], which are highly valued in the modern workplace[3]. Critical thinking consists of an objective analysis and reconstruction of availableinformation, often from multiple sources, before deciding what to accept as valid. While weexpect that the ability to think critically develops with practice and time, it would be
Maine.introductionEngineers have a vital role in modern society. They are the developers and innovators of theproducts, services, and overall environment in which we live. As consumers, we seekimproved and reliable services. We want innovative, environmentally neutral, andsustainable products. We expect a reliable and safe infrastructure to continue our dailyliving standard. Engineers are needed to keep us at the living standard that we enjoy andexpect.As we enter into the 21st Century, the demand for more engineers in the United States isincreasing. According to projections from the U.S. Department of Labor, “engineeringoccupations will add 178,300 jobs in the 2008-2018 period at a growth of 10.3% [1].”The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects that the number
determine which studentsare more likely to persist in engineering or leave the engineering degree program.IntroductionIn the nation, the engineering retention rate is consistently reported to be below the nationalaverage for higher education retention at around 50 percent [1] - [6]. This low retention numberis placing a growing demand on the higher education system to keep and produce more engineers[7] - [9]. There are numerous reasons students leave engineering that range from student issues toinstitutional issues, but one of the leading causes has been attributed to the coursework thatengineering students are required to take early on in their program [3], [10] - [12]. These earlycourses include a series of math courses typically made up of 2 or
) from McGill University and completed his postdoctoral train- ing in developmental psychology at the University of California at Riverside (UCR). He earned a B.S. in electrical engineering from Cairo University, and a MSc. in computer engineering from New York Uni- versity (NYU) before working in the engineering field for several years. Dr. Ibrahim’s research interests c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Paper ID #27185 include: (1) practices of science, (2) engineering design, (3) computer-human interaction, (4) pedagogical training, (5) educational research, and (6) assessment and
needs of all incoming first-year students in engineering.Introduction and MotivationThe Wright State Model for Engineering Mathematics Education (Wright State Model or WSM)is being modified during a three-year pilot implementation to fit within the context of a large,public, research-oriented engineering college with an incoming first-year cohort ofapproximately 900 students [1]. During year two of the pilot (Y2), the WSM course, knownlocally as Engineering Math, became compulsory for all first semester engineering studentsassessed not to be ready for enrollment in a one-semester Calculus I course - about 14% of thefirst-year engineering cohort.1Inspirations for adapting the WSM model into Engineering Math harken back to the originalmotivation
solution to help humanity to meet specific needs. Thecourse is centered on experiential learning for all first-year engineering students through hands-on education in a classroom structured as a makerspace. Students collaborate at worktables inteams, each team with their own tools, with a dedicated class suite of 3D printers and othermaker tools to help students not only design, but also physically build and program functionalprototypes.The goals and benefits of the Engineering Design & Society course are to:1) Promote a culture of making in first-year students through early introduction of solidmodeling, programming, sensors, data acquisition, 3D printing, and other maker tools;2) Help students learn techniques to solve open-ended engineering
Engineering Education, 2019 Mechanical Engineering Organized Around Mathematical SophisticationThis paper describes a work in progress. It is applying a proven, NSF funded problem-solvingapproach to a new and important demographic of underrepresented minority students. Those thataspire to become engineering majors, but are not calculus ready. The work will determine if itincreases success for that population. The intervention, called the Conservation and AccountingPrinciples or CAP, is applicable to all Engineering Science (ES) [1]. The CAP unifies theapproach to ES problems and has Algebraic, Trigonometric and Calculus formulations. The CAPallows a student to solve real world (Authentic) problems in
paper will explore first-year female students’ perception of and self-confidence with respect toengineering. Results and conclusions from this study may be used to improve the support andresources provided to first-year women in engineering with the ultimate goal of increasedpersistence.Introduction and Related WorkA student’s perception of and self-confidence in engineering have been shown to influence theirpersistence in undergraduate degree programs. College students with a strong understanding of theengineering profession are more likely to persist in engineering, however, those without may switchmajors and exit engineering 1 . The more familiar students are with the variety of engineeringoccupations that are available to them, the higher
disciplines and to shed light to the skills that engineers possess.Students are instructed how to address societal problems by providing innovative solutions anddesigns. The most recent posted online catalogs of 182 higher education institutions wereexamined. The selection of the institutions was arbitrary and covered all states. Figure 1 showsthe number of institutions considered in each state. From these universities, 19 (11%) do not teachany introductory course in engineering and 55 (30%) have a separate introductory course for eachengineering discipline. The remaining 108 (59%) universities are of interest in this study. Eighty-four percent (84%) of the 108 universities have as a terminal degree the doctorate and theremaining 16% a bachelor’s or
Practice Exam Program Impact on Student Academic Performance and Student RetentionIntroduction. Retention of students in engineering programs continues to be a concern as schoolstry to increase enrollments and graduates. Retention rates in engineering from first to secondyear are the lowest among majors [1] and persistence to second year is only around 80%, worsefor some ethnic groups (2017 Engineering by the Numbers, ASEE Retention and Time-To-Graduation Benchmarks for Undergraduate Engineering Schools). This is due to a variety offactors including a challenging curricula, high credit loads, and students taking only a smallnumber of courses in their major the first year.It was recognized that college exams, especially for
decisions that affect their lives every day, whether they are small decisions (whatto eat, where to study, etc.) or critical decisions (what major to declare, what internship to select,etc.). To help students make self-regulated decisions, it is important to understand how theirabilities to self-regulate are influencing how they make important decisions. Previous workevaluated whether students changed their self-declared intended major during their first semesterin a year-long FYE program [1]. That work determined students became more confident in theirintended major as the year progressed. However, students with low confidence in their originalintended major were more likely to change their intended major by the end of the first semester.In this