the program.IntroductionHigh college student attrition is a problem has been widely studied for the last few years. Thisproblem is even greater in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)disciplines. For instance, Wilson et al. [1] report that fewer than 50% of STEM students wouldeventually graduate with the same degree they started as freshmen. While there are lowerretention rates in STEM disciplines across a wide spectrum of students, this problem is moresevere in low income and first generation students [2]. Higher education literature suggests thatthe first generation (FG) students enter into a college with “distinct disadvantages” as comparedto their peers in many ways including “academic preparation in high school
learningefforts have enhanced or detracted from students’ engineering education as a whole incomparison to their non-service learning peers, and if the practices and outcomes of thesesections create new trajectories and plans for students, specifically whether it enhances futureinvolvement in community outreach efforts.IntroductionNortheastern University is a top fifty university [1] located adjacent to the Roxburyneighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts. Thanks to exponential growth and development overthe last decade, Northeastern has become a landmark within the community. For decades, it hasbeen shaped by its urban backdrop and has recently taken innovative steps to use its status in thecommunity to provide an impactful outreach program. The backbone of
duties depending on their role withineach course. GTAs are primarily responsible for delivering and managing the lab content of thecourse and UTAs have primary responsibilities in grading, providing peer mentoring, andassisting students in class. The Midwestern university has two primary first-year tracks: astandard and an honors version. The standard version has an instructional team that consists of 1instructor, 1 GTA, and 3-4 UTAs per section of 72 students. The honors version has aninstructional team that consists of 1 instructor, 1 GTA, and 3-4 UTAs per section of 36 students.To prepare teaching assistants for the first-semester course in the classroom and lab, TAs arerequired to complete formal training in three areas: Grading, Lab, and
American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Gallup StrengthsFinder in EngineeringAbstractThe Gallup StrengthsFinder® Inventory identifies individual’s top-five Strengths from the 34themes in the inventory [1]. Strengths such as Activator, Deliberative, and Restorative aregrouped into four domains: executing, influencing, relationship building and strategic thinking.All of our first-year students at Elizabethtown College complete the Strengths Inventory.Throughout the two-semester Introduction to Engineering (ItE) course sequence, wecontextualize Strengths for engineering students by contrasting strengths and skills. We use theStrengthsFinder to capture personal strengths and define engineering skills through the lens
c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Work in Progress: Growing Character Strengths Across BoundariesAbstractCreating a community of purpose amongst engineering students is helpful in guiding theirsuccessful transition from high school to higher education learning environments. In suchlearning environments, the capacity to studiously pursue long-term goals can be a definingcharacteristic of successful students. Duckworth and associates refer to this as the “tendency tosustain interest in and effort towards very long-term goals” [1]. In this paper, we will discuss thework we are currently doing to develop strength in character for our students.First, it is important to understand the word ‘grit’ as one that encompasses
has been integrated into many different courses in a variety of differentacademic disciplines. This is largely due to the importance that companies place on teamworkskills in potential new employees [1-2] as well as the incorporation of teamwork requirementsfor accreditation across a variety of disciplines [2-5]. Studies have also shown learning and otherbenefits of working in teams while in college [6-7]. However, Chen argues that many studentslack these important teamwork skills when they enter the workforce [8]. Since about half of U.S.companies, [9] and 81% of Fortune 500 companies [10] have company rely heavily on team-based structures, students who are deficient in their teamwork skills are ill-equipped to functionwithin these companies
mathematics placement test to all incoming first time full-time first yearstudents, except those with proof of advanced placement or transfer credits for calculus courses.Performance on this placement test determines students’ starting point in the calculus sequence.Students will either be placed in Calculus-I, which is the preferred scenario, or one of the twopre-calculus courses. Students that are placed in pre-calculus courses start 1-2 courses behind ascompared to those placed in Calculus-I. In addition, performance in the mathematics placementtest also drives placement in physics and chemistry. All this put together means that students thatdo not do well on the mathematics placement test are looking at 1-2 added semester(s) to theirgraduation
solving (aka. ENGR 1) andsecond semester programming (aka. ENGR 2) courses. Each course was divided into learningmodules that build off the knowledge and skills developed in prior modules. For each module,students were instructed to PREP: Preview the material; get Ready for class; Expand theirknowledge; and then Prove it by completing the homework. Prior to each exam, students wereasked "ARE you ready?" and encouraged to answer this question by Assessing their performanceon each module by analyzing mistakes made on assignments and asking questions of theinstructor for further clarification; Reviewing any topics not mastered; then taking the Exam.This work will discuss the (PREP)ARE model in detail, giving examples of activities for eachstage to
for Engineering Education, 2018 A Comparison of Students Learning Programming with Online Modules, Instruction and Team ActivitiesAbstractThis paper investigates how first-year students learn programming through lectures involvingteam-based activities. Although programming instruction has traditionally been performedthrough individual means, advocates of “pair-programming” provide support for collaborativelearning in software engineering. While these studies have explored dyads of programmingstudents, this study goes further and investigates the effects of learning introductory computerprogramming in teams of four or five students. The primary research questions beinginvestigated in this paper include: 1) how do team
simulations on CAD software.The activity was successfully administered to an introduction to mechanical engineering class of221 students during the Spring semester of 2017. A discussion of the resources and personnelrequired (faculty and graduate teaching assistants) is also presented. The activity is consideredsimple to implement only requiring a computer station with installed CAD software offered bymost engineering programs. Continuous improvements to the activity are made based on facultyobservations as well as a survey administered to the students.1. IntroductionIncorporating team-based design projects into first-year engineering courses is beneficial to first-year engineering students [1]. First-year design projects have been proven to increase
that 40% of the engineering and pre-engineering students enrolled in a Calculus Icourse in the fall 2016 semester, did not end up completing the course. There are several factors that affect retention rates in engineering, including inadequateadvising and poor problem-solving and project management skills [1]. The low retention ratescan also be caused by lack of recognition and support [2]. Another important factor is the socialconnections between the new students, their peers, and the faculty. The students who do not feelconnected to their peers or to their program department are more likely to leave [3][4]. With theunderstanding that these are the key factors that are negatively affecting engineering retentionrates, a solution was
toavoid any potential ethical conflicts. Beyond ethical conflicts, this is also important as there arefaculty both within the college of engineering (CoE) and the FYE group itself with groupinterview experience and one with significant experience with engineering education. Facultybeing interviewed may not have been as forthright knowing data gathering was being performedby their peers. Furthermore, members of the FYE program abstained from surveys responses andfocus groups. A series of four questions was asked in survey form of all faculty: 1. What is your understanding of the rational motivating this curriculum change? 2. From your perspective, what are the potential benefits of the FYE program? 3. What concerns do you have
College of Engineering Student Success Strategic Plan. In developing thestrategic plan four organizing themes emerged: messaging, structural, support, and community.Table 1 provides details of the strategic plan themes.B. Strategy DetailsThe structure chosen to improve student experiences and performance in the college includedelements as given above in Table 1. Details are provided below.B.1. Messaging ThemeThis theme concerns how the college messages about engineering to various audiences. Thisincludes the type of work engineers do, studying engineering, preparing for careers inengineering, the nature of engineering work and its impact, and how engineers intersect withothers in society to drive progress and prosperity. In this regard, the 2008
are widely offered at U.S. universities and colleges. Theircharacteristics vary in areas such as content [1], [7], [10], instruction, length of course [2] andtarget student population [5], [8], [11]. For example, based on their content, first-year seminarsare classified into four general categories. Academic seminars focus on the development of skillssuch as critical thinking and written and oral communication. Basic study skills seminars focusprimarily on the development of study skills, grammar, and note taking. Discipline-specificseminars introduce students to specific majors and their related curricular demands. Extendedorientation seminars emphasize adjustment to college and include an introduction to institutionalpolicies, procedures
experiments. A key advantage of utilizing Aksense board isthat students, particularly non-engineering students, do not have to have any priorknowledge about electronics, programming, soldering or wiring different electroniccomponents together in order to create exciting individual projects. In this paper weelaborate on architecture and utilization of Aksense and present the limited feedback wehave received from our first-year engineering students.2. Background & MotivationThe first-year Introduction to Engineering at Sonoma State University is a one-unitlaboratory course, meeting once a week for three hours. All the engineering students arerequired to take this course. This course is also offered to students across differentdisciplines as a 1
their major. A key detrimental factor contributing to this isthat a majority of the incoming first year students are considered to be underprepared inmathematics. Our university is exploring various options to help these students reach calculus Ias soon as possible. Pre-calculus summer boot camp is one of programs successfullyimplemented at our institution [1]. Other initiatives include: 1) developing sample placementtests for students to practice under the same environment as the original test, 2) making aplacement calculator for students to input the scores from the practice placement tests todetermine their likely mathematics placement, and 3) establishing a strong outreach to educatestudents about the impact of their mathematics placement
within the college and university,but also have potential for a broader societal impact by increasing and diversifying the pool ofpotential engineering talent that is needed in the United States’ workforce. Recommendations toinclude long-term studies of the participants are discussed.1.0 Introduction & BackgroundThe inability of academic institutions in the United States to attract and retain URM populationsin STEM fields has long been associated with the lack of workforce diversity [1]. URM retentionin STEM is an accepted urgent national priority and has attracted increasing attention from manystakeholders in academia. This focus is evident from the many successful programs that havebeen implemented nationally, dedicated to attracting
students behave similarly to FYE college studentswhen doing peer evaluations, thereby making the use of assessment tools such as CATMEappropriate in K12 contexts.IntroductionTeamwork and the correct team behavior are key attributes sought after by a large number ofcompanies when hiring new employees [1, 2]. Working in teams not only helps distribute theworkload better but leads to greater efficiency, better communication in the future as well ascreates a supportive environment for workers that can serve as a platform for even betterperformance. Hence, teamwork skills training has become more prevalent throughout collegeprograms and in businesses [3]. In fact accreditation bodies in Business, Engineering andHealthcare have mandated teamwork
students find their way into STEM disciplines have been the focus of anumber of research investigations. STEM pipeline models have exsited for many years, andemerged in response to economic and innovation concerns, as a means to effectively plan forsufficient numbers of professionals in relevant disciplines [1]. “Leaky pipeline” concernsemerged surrounding the disproportionate exit of marginalized youth from STEM fields resultingin underrepresentation. Early work in this area drew on supply-side economics and flowmodelling approaches to support the generativity of workforce predictions. This model has beencritiqued for over-simplifying the diversity of routes and experiences of STEM students andworkers, and has been elaborated on by a number of
the improv game intervention are less conclusive. No significanteffect of the games specifically on self-efficacy or ambiguity tolerance could be found within thescope of this study. Nevertheless, the instructor and a large majority of students indicated that thegames were a positive addition to the course climate.Introduction Many first year engineering courses emphasize design principles. Inherent to design workis creativity, implying that there is a significant degree of choice in how to perform the work.This flexibility can be difficult for first year students. Often, the technical and pre-collegecourses to which these students are accustomed focus on closed-ended problems. As defined byWood [1], a closed-ended problem is one
study show steady achievement of the course outcomes, with progresstoward achieving all course goals.IntroductionThis complete evidence-based practice paper describes a longitudinal study of 6 years (from2012 – 2017) of attainment of course and programmatic outcomes in a first-year Fundamentalsof Engineering course that was entirely redesigned using the backward course designmethodology to incorporate numerous active learning and project based learning techniques(in2012) [1].First-year engineering courses are subject to a variety of forces in defining their direction andpurpose. In this case, each course goal has been carefully chosen a priori and linked to ABETaccreditation aligned course outcomes. The course goals are: (I) create a passion
to evaluate new exercises, which has beenshown to help increase interest in engineering professions [1]. The outcome of the yearlyprogram helped modify and enhance our formal offering for the college students.Program StructureThis program is structured as a pilot for curriculum development and is designed with flexibilityin mind to create a cohesive cohort through team-based learning. It aims to offer our teachingstaff the ability to select the topics they aim to pilot and test during the summer before they areimplemented in our school curriculum. While topics may change in different years, the generaloutcome continues to be a rich selection of multiple engineering and applied sciences topics thatbecome available for the summer pre
medicine,learning to read medical images requires the ability to understand cross-sections [1]. Wanzel,Hamstra, Anastakis, Matsumoto, & Cusimano, [2] also reported a correlation between medicalstudents’ scores in mental rotation and their performance on a surgical procedure, Z-plasty. Inengineering, higher abilities in cross-sectioning have been linked to better performance inMechanics of Materials courses [3]. Two categories of spatial reasoning, as defined by Linn andPetersen [4], are mental rotation and spatial visualization. Mental rotation involves the ability tomanipulate three-dimensional (3D) objects in one’s mind by rotation, and spatial visualizationinvolves the ability to manipulate three-dimensional (3D) objects in one’s mind
the first offering of the course. Insights gained from thefirst offering of this course as well as recommendations for future work will also be discussed.IntroductionMassive open online courses (MOOCs) have attracted the attention of many colleges anduniversities in recent years. Since the term was coined in 2008, MOOCs have been a topic ofsignificant debate in regards to their teaching effectiveness and intellectual property issues [1].Despite the controversies surrounding MOOCs, companies such as Udacity, Coursera, and edXhave offered many of these courses in which millions of students have enrolled. Thesecompanies have partnered with dozens of different colleges and universities to offer MOOCcourses including Harvard, Stanford, and MIT
graduate compared to other majors. The student retention ratedepends on several factors including institution selectivity, race, ethnicity, and gender of student,all of which are tied to the student preparedness for undergraduate engineering education [1].Some US institutions admit students as undeclared majors. These students declare their majoreither in the sophomore or in junior year. However, at other institutions, majority of the studentsdeclare their majors during their admission in the freshman year. Until the new “undeclaredengineering” major was introduced in 2011, engineering and computer science students at CSUFwere, generally, admitted with a declared engineering major. Those who were not certain abouttheir majors were admitted as
more related to writing or the Arts. Our learning objectives for the cohort of5th grade students include:Figure 1: Project groups from the local participating school visiting the design lab to both showoff their project work and gather feedback and advice from the freshmen students. 1. Develop an interest in STEM fields 2. Learn the basic principles of the Design Thinking/engineering design process and apply it to a project 3. Increase awareness of community problems and understand that they have the capacity to help solve themThroughout the semester we provide opportunities for the nine fifth grade students working onSTEM projects to interact with the freshmen students by bringing them to campus (Figure 1) atseveral points to
instructors have an expectation that students havehad an appropriate background for certain basic concepts and dedicate minimal, if any,classroom time to them. A sample of responses are: (1) All Disciplines: Setting up and solving systems of linear equations through various techniques, including using MATLAB shortcuts or matrix manipulations such as Gaussian elimination or use of Cramer’s rule. (2) Disciplines with additional computer resource needs: Familiarization with university computer resources, specifically logging into and using Linux based machines (3) Statics/Mechanics Course: Proficiency in calculating and manipulating 3 dimensional vectors (4) Introduction to Electrical Engineering Course: Understanding of
2015, the program manager implemented an intervention programbased on six-week performance grades that were entered by all 100 and 200 level instructors atthe University. Students enrolled in the introduction to engineering course were required by theirinstructor and peer mentor to attend the interventions, if needed, as a means to increase studentsuccess.After the six week performance grades were posted all instructors of the introductoryengineering course and peer mentors were responsible for meeting with the freshman whoqualified for the intervention process. Students who received a C, D, or F grade were required tomeet with their peer mentor during office hours. Students were required to attend (1) interventionsession with their mentor
tohelp first year student design project teams avoid or overcome difficulties in teamwork when theteam is not of their own choosing, and a large part of their own final grade depends on the team’ssuccess with the design project.Our conceptual framework is drawn from examples of successful business and sports teams,which have been studied extensively to identify the dynamics that make them successful andhow their members apply their sense of human nature to behaviors that build trust.Conceptual Framework for the Development of Team TrustWhat is Trust When It Comes to Teamwork?One way to define trust is to consider it as a commitment to cooperation with others withoutbeing certain of their actions [1]. While our team members “trust” one another
(2015-2016) I have the privilege of being a Course Assistant for three classes at Stanford: (1) E14: Introduction to Solid Mechanics; (2) BIOE51: Anatomy for Bioengineers; (3) BIOE80: Introduction to Bioengineering and Engineering Living Matter. I also have pleasure of serving as the Safety and Operations Manager at the Volkswagen Automotive Innovation Laboratory, which includes managing the machine shop and teaching students how to use the machinery. In this role I am able to advise and educate students on design choices for their personal and research projects from ideation phases to functional products, with an emphasis on design and manufacturing techniques. c American Society for