confirmed by students’ provision on feedback in one dimensionthat is really intended for another dimension. Potential strategies for improving studentparticipation in peer feedback were discussed. Means for improving students’ understanding ofdimensions along which they are to assess peer work and provide peer feedback were alsodiscussed.AcknowledgementsThis work was made possible by grants from the National Science Foundation (DUE 0717508and EEC 0835873). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed inthis material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation.Bibliography1. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research
sessions, PAL Leaders are required to attend weekly staffmeetings with the PAL Coordinator. The staff meetings provide a venue for PALs to share theirobservations and experiences from classes and tutoring sessions, learn new skills, and assessareas for improvement. Administrative tasks are also discussed, including program advertisingand human resource issues. In order for students to experience the benefits of PAL, they mustfirst attend the tutoring sessions. The program must rigorously publicize the positive, uniqueattributes of the sessions to ensure that session nonattendance reflects a student’s consciouschoice rather than an unknowing one. It is the responsibility of PAL leaders to advertise through
whole, Figures 11 and 12 show ALEKS performancefor the course. Figure 11. Initial ALEKS assessment pie chart for overall class performance. Figure 12. Final ALEKS assessment pie chart for overall class performanceTable 5 reflects the initial and post assessment results and percent increase for each topic. Theseresults reflect significant growth for the class as a whole for all topics. Table 5. Class performance—mastery of ALEKS topics: initial and final assessment. Class Initial Class Final ALEKS Objectives/Topics % Increase Assessment Assessment
instructor reflects on the day’s work and also talks about thenext meeting and the preparatory work required prior. This pattern generally continues for all the meetings except for the final projectpresentations. It is important to know that student groups also meet outside of class hours towork on projects and complete the prep work. With the outbreak of COVID-19, there was a sudden shift in the design thinking coursedelivery in the Spring 2020 semester. In March 2020, the class was asked to meet online for therest of the semester after the Spring break. The instructional team met before the Spring break tobrainstorm on how to proceed the instruction during the online learning and finalized theirindividual approaches before resuming
providingstudents with “opportunities for reflection to connect thinking and doing” [19] in lecture, labs,and design studio classes help in the growth of students’ metacognition. Specifically, as shown inTable 2, students might appreciate the value of honing their metacognitive skills every step alongthe way if the course (a) offers learning resources (like screencasts) to enrich their understandingof metacognition and (b) students with the help of instructors, teaching assistants, and teammembers find ways on how to apply such skills in coping up with the demands of highereducation which are more challenging than what they have had in their high schools. As onestudent recalled (under postliminal state) that “I saw positive changes in my learning
values of and relationships among specific components of a mathematical model ● apply mathematical models to authentic, real-world problems ● interpret and draw conclusions from graphical, tabular, and other numerical representations of data ● summarize and justify analysis of mathematical models for problems ● express solutions to problems using an appropriate combination of words, symbols, tables, or graphs.Figure 1 contains an outline of the specific topics covered and the number of 50-minute classsessions dedicated to each. The graphic reflects topics covered during the Fall 2020 iteration ofthe course to provide the most recent picture of the course content.Figure 1. Engineering Math Course Topical OutlineAn additional
challenges of the virtual/in personlabs. Student's feedback was collected to reflect their overall lab experience in this special time.1. Introduction and BackgroundLabs are a vital component to learn engineering disciplines, since hands-on labs reinforce thetheory that the students learned in lecture. With the development of modern technology,universities are changing from face-to-face education to remote web-based learning. However, itis a challenge to bring hands-on labs online due to the complexity of the labs, which includevarious equipment, materials, and resources. Setting up a web‐system for e‐education requires asignificant amount of time, as well as the necessity of having a computer and other resources.Especially due to COVID-19, most
select examples that are less relatable to campus,or to the region. It is possible, however, that some students will still apply them. The homelessexample was reflected in several submissions about bus stop benches, despite not having ahomeless population around town, and one student also mistakenly assumed Legionella would bepresent in their air conditioning window unit, which was not water-cooled.Misunderstandings were identified in 54 examples, or less than 6% of all examples (Table).Misunderstandings were primarily in the thwarting non-humans category, which represented39% of misunderstandings, or thwarting humans category, with 22% of misunderstandings.While the cause of misunderstanding was not captured in coding, researchers had the sense
statistical report,” The Ohio State University, Tech. Rep., 2019.[14] National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, “Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2019,” 2019, special report NSF 19-304.[15] P. Ring, L. Neyse, T. David-Barett, and U. Schmidt, “Gender differences in performance predictions: Evidence from the cognitive reflection test,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 7, 11 2016.[16] L. G. Jones and L. P. Jones, “Context, confidence and the able girl1,” Educational Research, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 189–194, 1989. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188890310304[17] L. S. Dix, Ed., Women: Their Underrepresentation and Career
. 81.0% 86.2%The instructor communicated the course material clearly. 67.8% 69.7%The instructor engaged students by encouraging participation 75.9% 73.7%during classThe instructor engaged students by encouraging course preparation, 86.2% 88.8%reflection or other activities outside of class.The instructor displayed a personal interest in students and their 78.8% 81.2%learning.The instructor used technology appropriately 86.1% 85.4%Taking
. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 “Mapping” the Landscape of First-Year Engineering Students’ Conceptualizations of Ethical Decision MakingAbstractWhen working in a professional world, engineers often encounter problems that involve social andethical considerations that cannot be solved using the technical skills that make up a majority oftheir engineering education. When encountering ethical challenges, an engineer should haveethical awareness and be reflective on the ethical implications of their decisions. It is importantfor universities to focus on improving their students’ ethical reasoning and social awareness if theywant to develop successful engineering graduates
section that claimed the civil-version “did not teach as much basic math and science for their discipline area”.The instructors plan to teach at least one more semester with the discipline-specific version to gather moredata on the student engagement responses. Two years after each version were given, the instructors intendadminister the same survey to the same students in order to determine if the students in reflection felt theirversion of the introduction course was helpful for them to progress in their respective program choice.AcknowledgementsThe author would like to acknowledge the Utah Valley University’s Office of Engaged Learning forfunding the project.References[1] R. Adams et al., “Multiple Perspectives on Engaging Future Engineers
demonstrate effective oral communication of technical content. A lecture focusing on effective oral presentation techniques was presented to demonstrate effective oral presentations. Students presented their IOP in the class [8]. • Writing Assignments: Writing assignments (WAs) were chosen as an assessment method to demonstrate students’ improvements in technical writing. Individual writing assignments included topics ranging from “Explain how something works” to “Reflect on your speaking skills”. Specific content was not as important as demonstrating mastery of writing skills. For example, the first writing assignment was: Understand the roles of engineers in different fields and different industries in
, and WE Engage! in 2019, were developed to complement existingfreshmen student support programs, with a focus on specific target populations whose numbershave been historically low relative to the larger university population and surrounding areas.Engage ME! is a diversity and inclusion program developed to recruit, retain, and graduatemulticultural COE students. While open to all students, Engage ME! emphasizes engagementwith African American, Hispanic/Latino and Native American students for personal, academic,and professional development. Although the UNC Charlotte student body reflects the diversity ofour community, the same cannot be said for the COE. Underrepresented students from ethnicand racial minorities account for 41% of the
population, and attendees weremore interested in understanding the material and working with others than the fall population,who identified more interest in securing a passing grade. The spring SI attendees also reported amore favorable view of engaging in small group work, which is an integral component topedagogical foundation of SI.The notable difference in motivation may be reflective of the differences in class environmentbetween the fall and spring semesters. With the spring semester’s smaller student population,there may be a different sense of community and accessibility to resources than is experienced in the larger lectures during the fall. No longer in their first semester, spring
. (2003). Efficacy of using a single, non-technicalvariable to predict the academic success of freshmen engineering students. Journal ofEngineering Education, 92, 41−48.Meyers, K.L., Silliman, S.E., Gedde, N.L., Ohland, M. (2010). A Comparison of EngineeringStudents’ Reflections on Their First-Year Experiences. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2). 169-178.Montgomery, R., Follman, D., and Diefes-Dux, H. (2003). Relative Effectiveness of DifferentFirst-Year Seminars. Frontiers in Education Conference. Boulder, CO.Mourtos, N.J. and Furman, B.J. (2002). Assessing the Effectiveness of an Introduction toEngineering Course for Freshmen, Frontiers in Education Conference. Boston, MA.NSF (2015). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in
’ current major,mathematics progression, and overall academic progress during future terms. Additionalinterviews and follow-up with the participants will also be explored.AcknowledgementsThis paper is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1430398. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.BibliographyAlvarado, C., & Dodds, Z. (2010). Women in CS: An Evaluation of Three Promising Practices. ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Milwaukee, WI.Charney, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Sofer, W., Neigeborn, L., Colleta, S., & Nemeroff, M. (2007
Section of their Rube Goldberg Machine (Outcome C). As part of this work-in-progress, feedback will be obtained regarding Outcomes C, D, and G from these students duringtheir Senior Capstone. Students will be asked to reflect on their comments and if they were usedin the execution of their Senior Capstone. Students will also be assessed on the impact theirfreshman design course had on their ability to design a system, component or process, tofunction on a multidisciplinary team, and to communicate effectively.ConclusionsIt is suspected that there is a positive impact on student learning using the techniques described.Students were successful in their projects. They took ownership of their individual RubeGoldberg sections. There were NO complaints
rationale for each form. At the end of the semester, students wereasked to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of whatever grouping technique was used intheir section. A qualitative analysis of all of these data has led to a description of the experiencefrom the perspective of the students. Further, the trends that emerged from these engineeringstudent descriptions were compared to and contrasted with the benefits described (largely byinstructors) in implementations in mathematics courses elsewhere.Course Background, Description, and SettingThe work described was situated in the first-year engineering honors program [17]. Thisprogram, which has enjoyed a rich history, typically serves between 350 and 450 students peracademic year. Almost all of
Mean Change Z SignificantProblem Deviation Deviation 2013 2014 In Mean Value α = 0.01 2013 2014 P3 8.90 2.37 9.32 2.18 +0.42 4.06 YES P6 10.09 2.64 10.75 2.08 +0.66 5.77 YES P7 9.89 3.04 10.76 2.20 +0.87 6.56 YES P8 7.17 3.13 8.27 2.75 +1.1 8.09 YESTable 4 lists the topics covered in each exam problem and reflects the increased emphasis anarrays and loops
the characteristics thatlifelong learners would possess.Mourtos7 developed a different strategy for looking at the definition of lifelong learning and itsrelationship to the ABET student outcome. In his work, he divided the ABET outcome into thetwo parts of: • recognizing the need for lifelong learning and • the ability to engage in lifelong learning.Mourtos7 developed 14 attributes to measure lifelong learning in students in both of thesecategories. These measures were then used in course design to ensure that lifelong learning wasincluded and assessed in the curriculum. The methods of assessment included student work,student course reflections, and student surveys. Mourtos7 recognizes that the 14 attributes oflifelong learning
experience went, and, we believe, will continue to reach, farbeyond the first year of college.Acknowledgements and DisclaimerFunding for this project was provided by grants from the National Science Foundation and theLearn and Serve America program to the Engineering Design Center for Service-Learning atWestern Michigan University. Opinions and findings presented in this article are those of theauthors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation nor Learn andServe America. Page 12.750.11Bibliography1. “Bragg’s Law.” X-ray diffraction. 2002. The Cavendish Laboratory, The University of Cambridge. Retrieved 10 Oct. 2005
address specific engineering problems devised first toelicit responses that reflect aspects of their engineering knowledge and skills, and second, toreveal how they apply this learning to engineering design practice. One of the problems given tostudents in the first year was a closed-ended question about the information they would need todesign a playground. Figure 1 contains the text of the question. You have been asked to design a playground. You have a limited amount of time and resources to gather information for your design. From the following list, please put a check mark next to the FIVE kinds of information you would MOST LIKELY NEED as you work on your design: - Availability of materials - Body proportions - Budget
in the body of the report they submit. A meeting with course stafffollows to provide teams with feedback on their plans.Typical errors seen in team Gantt charts include failing to divide the work between members, or,at the opposite extreme, assigning tasks so atomistically that a coherent overall vision is lost.These typically are symptomatic of deeper problems—wanting to work together on all aspects ofthe project, for example, often comes from a lack of trust and confidence in one another, whereastotally compartmentalizing the project between team members may reflect a generalunwillingness to lead on the part of individual team members. In these cases, the project plan canserve as a diagnostic for team problems and a reason to
. There are sixteen four-letter MBTI types. Example descriptionsof two of the sixteen types follow:ISTJISTJ is the most common type among practicing engineers. They are usually quiet andcan appear withdraw because of the I, but most of them make good use of their quiet timeby thinking of ideas and how facts go together. As S’s, they concentrate on executing thejob at hand, using logic (a T trait) to figure out the solution. Their J preference enablesthem to schedule and plan ahead, and they don’t like to have to adapt and change oncethey start down a path. ISTJs are dependable, organized, goal-oriented, and focused onthe facts.INTJINTJs combine their love of personal reflection with a structured and logical assembly ofendless possibilities. They
students in their declared major as they enterENG1102 in the spring of 2005 and 2007. This data looks at all the first-year engineeringstudents enrolled in ENG1102 in the spring 2005 and 2007 semesters. As expected, the percentof Engineering Undecided (EGN) students retained in their original major is close to zero forboth study groups, which reflects the fact that these students are switching into a degree grantingmajor. More than 57% of the students are still in their originally declared engineering major atthe end of their third year, with most of the majors retaining between 75 and 85% of theiroriginal students. With the exception of EGE, EME, EMSE, and non-engineering majors, thepercent of students retained in their original major is lower
traditionally assessed in academe. However, this must beaccompanied by a meta-cognitive ability to reflect, assess and regulate one’s engagement inlearning. For a learner human agency constitutes a foundation upon which new knowledge isassembled and integrated into a framework for choosing and adequately performing vocationalpursuits. Our students bring these traits to bear upon their decisions when choosing a vocationand the requisite educational training/certification necessary to enter this vocation. Unquestionably, causal factors (e.g. prior knowledge, socio-economic factors, psychological―tenor‖) influence ―agency‖—thus our current study of these factors. The centrality of one’sbeliefs about individual capabilities to control events affecting his
interactive” … “Encourage more class involvement”Incorporating any of these suggestions will involve additional time outlay from the class, yetwill likely enhance the quality and variety of the OMEs. Professors can make their owndetermination of which adjustments are appropriate according to their own course schedule,class dynamics, and timing.Professors. As educators, a few additional advisory thoughts emerge from the data, feedback,and our reflection on the OME to further improve it as a design course asset. Some furthermodifications may involve the following: (1) Identify the main objectives clearly to thestudents at the beginning of the semester and emphasize supplemental goals for the OME,beyond the details of administration and assignment
taughtduring lectures based on faculty cohort discussion. Figure 4. Two Examples of Robot Designs and Their Solid Models.Recommendations Page 11.1465.12Upon reflection, opportunities for improving future freshman projects are evident from the ECUengineering program robot projects. In addition to logistical considerations (large groups,limited resources), not enough attention was paid to the management of the projects by thestudents. While a course in project management is required later in the curriculum, some basicconcepts – creating a timeline, regular progress reports, etc. – could be effective in helping thestudents plan and execute
was supported by the National ScienceFoundation (EEC Grant # 1550961). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendationsdo not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References1. NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards. (Achieve, Inc. on behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS, 2013).2. Carr, R. L., Bennett, L. D. & Strobel, J. Engineering in the K‐12 STEM Standards of the 50 US States: An Analysis of Presence and Extent. Journal of Engineering Education 101, 539– 564 (2012).3. Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W. & Kersten, J. A. NGSS and the landscape of engineering in K-12 state science standards. J Res Sci Teach 52, 296–318 (2015).4