the problem in this manner, they tend to quickly formulate solutions to this well-defined problem [12] and ultimately commit Type III Errors.Wholistic mastery of engineering problem framing skills is vital to engineering students such thatthey can apply them to scenarios with poorly defined problems as practicing engineers. Soleexposure to well-defined problems in engineering courses leads students to develop untenablehabits such as little reflection on what could be done or the scenario as a whole and subsequentlack of proactive behavior to find the information needed [13]. While these students may be ableto solve well-defined problems upon graduation, they may be unable to do such when the problemis in a realistic context as design problems
improve their problem solving skills and to address their misconceptions.Acknowledgements:Portions of this project were supported by a National Science Foundation (NSF) IUSE Grant(DUE-1504730). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.References:[1] ACT, INC. "Profile Report-National."[2] Jacquez, R. B., et al. "Building a foundation for pre-calculus engineering freshmen throughan integrated learning community." Page 10 (2005): 1.[3] Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N. Talking about leaving. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1997.[4] Santiago, L., Coolbaugh, A.R., Veeramachaneni, S.S., and Morris, M.L., Board# 129
. To assist in keeping students engaged and avoiding passive lecture settings, a variety ofactive learning education theories are possible fits for FYS. A possible learning theory relevantFYS is Kolb’s model [8]. Specifically for FYS, Kolb's concrete experience and activeexperimentation stages are best suited [9]. Keeping within Kolb’s theory, and to promote activelecturing, engaging activities were implemented from various active learning domains. Theseactivities took the form of brainstorming, case study reflections, scavenger hunts, think-pairshares, etc. We also wish to maintain and build a sense of community within the students thatleads to social networking development [10]. Within this social knowledge network, as soon asstudents begin
customers (engineering students and faculty in ourcase). Through this process, as educators understand more about what the customers needed, theeducators revise the design. In our application of this process, we interviewed more than 100 engineering students(most in their third or fourth year) who had not seen the films—about one-third of theinterviewed engineering students were women. The rationale behind selecting the students whohad not seen the films (our prototype) was to discover what the students reflected on as beingimportant in learning to write as engineers. In particular, we asked students about the following: 1. Biggest challenges faced when called upon to write an engineering report 2. Biggest surprises about engineering
commentary from the first-year students. Their perspective will provemore valuable as they progress through their collegiate career and evaluate how the foundationlaid in their first three semesters has benefited them. From this study’s perspective, they hadno/limited knowledge of the previous design. • “Though I spent much of the semester trying to understand what learning to code had to do with engineering, it came together at the end when I had to write a reflection about how my teams worked and what I have learned. My coding fear had been replaced with confidence” [6]. • “Though I learned to code during high school computer science, this was a new environment considering the lab challenge
, programming the robot to find its way to find entrance and cross the bridge, and reachingthe trebuchet to load the payload.By comparing responses in pre- and post-bootcamp surveys, students indicated an increasedconfidence and ability to solve problems in Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry, Pre-calculus andCalculus. Additionally, the students expressed an increase in realizing the importance of math inlearning CS and ENGR concepts. The paper will discuss the quantitative and qualitative resultsof the surveys. The authors will assess the students’ performance in the ALEKS, discipline-basedprojects, as well as the student success in the math courses during the Fall 2020 online semester.Faculty reflections on the online bootcamp and the differences with
equitably with female students.MethodsData CollectionThe study presented here is part of a larger research project, investigating what contributes todissatisfaction of female students in teams. As a part of that study, we first interviewed fifteenfemale students before interviewing five male students; prior work presents an analysis of thefemale student interviews (Hirshfield & Fowler, 2018), and this paper focuses on the findingsfrom the interviews with male students. Students were first asked to reflect on their projectexperiences, answering questions about their project, their team, how their team divided up theproject work, and if there was anything they wished they had done differently in the project.Next, students were shown a graph
environments as well as the transition to virtual delivery.Introduction to Engineering Courses at Both InstitutionsLafayette College and University of Delaware are two different types of institutions and thestructure of the introduction to engineering class reflects those differences. Lafayette College is asmall, undergraduate-only institution with a total enrollment in the introduction to engineeringcourse of around 200 students in 2020. At Lafayette College, introduction to engineering is afall-semester course where students are assigned to two modules with each module lasting forhalf of a fourteen-week semester. This course is required for all engineering students at LafayetteCollege and students receive a full course credit for the course
accomplish no matter where the students were learning. Teams made short videos describing their design and capturing five consecutive launches, including distance measurements. Videos were uploaded to VoiceThread so students could watch and learn from each other’s designs. Teams worked in two phases: an initial design and a re-design, in order to reflect the iterative nature of engineering. 2. Propose ten redesign ideas of a simple device: This project offered teams the opportunity to practice the ideation process and to demonstrate the fact that multiple solutions can exist for open-ended problems. 3. Design a pandemic tool: Now that students felt comfortable working remotely and have gotten to
critique) they referenced some specific aspect of the learningenvironment or experience that could be improved. Including such examples and descriptionstakes more time and effort to produce as a more careful reflection of the student’s learningexperience, and thus could be seen as an indicator for student engagement.We expected that if the course improvements increased the level of student engagement, twothings would happen in the course evaluation comments: (1) sentiments would discernibly shiftfrom primarily negative to primarily positive; and (2) sentiments would discernibly shift fromaffective to behavioral and cognitive. As expected, with better alignment between courselearning objectives, pedagogical methods, and assessments, the overall
the survey were entered into a drawing for one of three $50 gift cards. Threehundred fifty-seven eligible students were initially invited to participate in the study; elevenstudents requested a total withdrawal from their classes and these were removed from theanalysis, leaving a potential pool of three hundred forty-six students. Ninety-two FTIACstudents responded to the initial survey – a participation rate of 26.6%. Tables 1 and 2 show thedemographics of the FTIAC participants as well as the overall demographics of the Fall 2020CEAS FTIAC group, respectively. Female students were significantly overrepresented in therespondent group but the racial distribution was reflective of the overall population.Table 1: Demographics of Fall 2020 start
. • 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”. • Descriptive Statistics Activity: The topics covered in this lecture include mean, standard deviation, linear regression, significant figures, and measurement techniques.MATLAB workshops:The MATLAB workshops were conducted during the regular lecture meeting times and taughtby the instructor and a teaching assistant. The TAs were male or female, sophomore or juniorlevel engineering students, who took the course before. The lecture consisted of a
be mitigatedthrough scaffolded assignments, regular peer evaluations, and more frequent opportunities forindividual and team-based self-reflection [2], [8], [12].The transition to online instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic this past year onlycompounded the pre-existing logical and pedagogical challenges associated with engineeringdesign in FYE courses. The most pressing challenge for these courses in an online-onlyenvironment was ensuring students access to essential equipment and materials to design andconstruct a physical prototype. In general, programs responded to this challenge in one of threeways: (1) abandoning physical prototyping for an entirely “paper design” project; (2) requiringstudents to purchase third party construction
in actual course design/redesign. The lead instructor forthe course has additionally participated in this project via assisting with qualitative dataassessment. To ensure safe spacing, students had designated days when they could attend class inperson, though students could opt to attend online at any time rather than in person.4.2. Data CollectionData included institutional demographic data for students, student survey responses, studentfocus groups, and course observations. Data were collected in the last few weeks of the course sothat students’ responses reflected a full-semester experience. For the written survey, the responserate was 54% (282/522). Missing data analysis pertaining to the four different demographicidentities under study
assignments with due dates reflective of the workcompleted during that time. The students are still required to meet the rigor of the project bycompleting all the tasks; e.g. brainstorming, engineering drawing, Gantt chart, bill ofmaterials, proposal, prototype build and test, and final report and presentation. Within thiswork, a student with ASD may tend towards the details of the design, or the scheduling anddocumentation. The instructor must help the team with coordinating tasks and keepingeveryone involved. Some other academic accommodations the instructor can make are clearand direct classroom expectations, asking precise questions, hands on learning, performingvisual demonstrations, giving more time on essay type tests, using task analysis with
Appendix summarizes the questions and how they are reflective of the sixcategories investigated as perceptions. Some questions overlap several categories.In relationship to Accessibility, students felt very comfortable using the tool and referring toexamples, repeating problems to prepare for tests and to gain mastery. The areas where they didnot feel that it benefitted them more as compared to the hard text learning method was in notetaking and in referring back to information. The note taking was very minimal using the onlineversion of the book and rereading was rarely done. Repeating practice problems was done withsignificance (91%) and produced slightly higher mastery as noted in the grade’s analysis sectionof this paper.Personal confidence
in groups,connecting to peers and the institution, self-reflection, and discipline, etc., are embeddedthroughout the course. The biggest challenge for this course is to give students some insight intomultiple engineering disciplines and to help them make an informed decision about their majorchoice. This course also heavily relied on hands-on and in-person activities until Fall 2019.Midway through Spring 2020, the course was moved to synchronous online mode. In Fall 2020,the common lecture portion of the course was offered in a hybrid/converged mode. Instructorstaught from a university classroom and the lecture was simultaneously broadcasted. A limitednumber of students (on a rotation basis) had an option to attend the class in-person while
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
study must be viewed along with the threats tovalidity that are inherent in all studies based on retrospective survey questions. We do not knowhow students interpreted the survey questions, nor how accurately their responses match theirtrue feelings. Multiple questions related to when they started college which was 12 weeks tothree years prior to taking the survey. We fully understand that their responses might have beeninfluenced by their experiences and might not reflect what they were truly looking forward to orconcerned about when they first started college. When reviewing the comparisons between thefirst-year students and upper-level students, one must also consider that students who weredismissed from the college of engineering due to
factors might have influenced their decision. The intent was to better understandhow students, who are uncertain about their choice of major at the start of the fall semester, cometo a decision about which major to declare. And why some students who are more confident oftheir intended major at the start of the semester end up changing their intended major. Theprimary question being asked is: What can the 1st-year engineering program do to better aid students in their choice of major?An estimated 40% of entering 1st-year engineering students are uncertain about their choice ofmajor [1]. This was reflected in the number of 1st-year students at Binghamton University asreported in a survey they were given in
. In addition, upper-level courses in ArcGIS and AutoCAD are incorporated into therevised departmental curriculum, so less proficiency in the freshman year may be acceptable forthese two technologies knowing that it will be enhanced with the future courses. It is interestingthat the first-year students scored lower in faculty assessment in the same two topics that theyperceived as being less essential to their semester project. Additional research is needed todetermine if these trends are also observed in future offerings of the course. If studentsunderstand the importance of these technologies as they relate to the semester project, there maybe more commitment to achieving proficiency.This research provides reflection for department faculty
complicated. • I think all the project simulations were as helpful as they could be during these circum- stances. • I think it would still be a challenge for the hands-on experience because of the virtual learning we must use. However, I do feel once we are allowed to go back to school, we will be able to have a much better and improved experience with these projects.From the survey responses collected from the participants, it is evident that many students ex-pressed a better understanding of engineering discipline when the course was offered in virtualmode. These responses do not necessarily reflect the enhanced learning experiences in the virtualmode because only 66% responded favorably rated their experiences compared to 79
responses compared to thepost-survey responses are presented in some of our prior research [24, 25].AcknowledgementsThis work was made possible by a collaborative research grant from the National ScienceFoundation (DUE 1827392; DUE 1827600; DUE 1827406). Any opinions, findings, andconclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References 1. J. S. Zawojewski, H. A. Diefes-Dux, and K. J. Bowman, Models and modeling in engineering education: Designing experiences for all students. Sense Publishers, 2008. 2. A. R. Carberry and A. F. McKenna, "Exploring student conceptions of modeling and modeling uses in engineering design