Year Summer Experience (FYSE) program is a three-week residential summerorientation program focused on the development and strengthening of math-intensiveengineering problem solving skills. All new students offered admission to the School ofEngineering and students who applied to engineering but were instead admitted to the Divisionof Letters and Sciences (L&S) were invited to participate in the program. Recruitment andselection of participants is geared toward inclusion of women, racial/ethnic minorities, first-generation college students, and engineering admits with relatively weak mathematicspreparation. Approximately 40-60 first-year students participate in the program each summer.The participants are required to live in the provided
AC 2011-562: THE EFFECT OF CONTEXTUAL SUPPORT IN THE FIRSTYEAR ON SELF-EFFICACY IN UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING PRO-GRAMSRachelle Reisberg, Northeastern University Rachelle Reisberg is Director of Women in Engineering at Northeastern University. She received her bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Electrical Engineering from Rice University. She was President of a start-up software company before joining Northeastern.Joseph A Raelin, Northeastern University JOE RAELIN is an internationally-recognized scholar in the fields of work-based learning and leadership. He holds the Asa. S. Knowles Chair of Practice-Oriented Education at Northeastern University in Boston. He is author of the just released Leaderful Fieldbook
/Nov). Ausubell‟s learning theory: An approach to teaching higher order thinking skills,The High School Journal, 82(1). Research Library[13] Ausubel, D.P. & Robinson, F. G. (1969). School learning: an introduction to educational psychology. (p.46). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.[14] Oxford, R.L. (1990). Looking at language learning strategies. In Language learning strategies: what everyteacher should know, (pp. 1-37). New York: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.[15] Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., Cocking, R.R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience andschool. (p.20). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press
accuracy (CE) beforecommunicating the solution (S). Finally, reflect on the process through self-assessment (S).Data Collection MethodsFaculty were not required to use PROCESS in their classes and the level of integration of thePROCESS problem solving structure into classroom lectures varied across instructors. Beforethe semester started, faculty were provided with Figure 1, the PROCESS rubric, and acomprehensive user guide complete with code definitions and grading examples to help themdetermine whether they wanted to utilize PROCESS in their classroom instruction as a problemsolving structure. In addition, all course sections were assigned a graduate teaching assistant thatparticipated in a four-hour interactive training session on grading with
switched for Workshop 2 such that the participants will complete 8 CADmodules first and then the 4 origami modules. Workshop 3 will consist of 12 origami modules andWorkshop 4 will consist of 12 CAD modules with each module increasing in complexity anddifficulty. All 4 workshops will be deployed in Fall 2018 to first-year female engineering student. Itis estimated that there will be 50 - 75 participants in each workshop cohort.References [1] M. S. Khine, Visual-spatial Ability in STEM Education. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2016. [2] M. C. Linn and A. C. Petersen, “Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis,” Child development, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1479–1498, 1985. [3] G. Park, D
Christian College. Her research interest revolves around technology innovations in education, software estimation, software design and curriculum design of software engineering course(s).Dr. Muhsin Menekse, Purdue University, West Lafayette Muhsin Menekse is an Assistant Professor at Purdue University with a joint appointment in the School of Engineering Education and the Department of Curriculum & Instruction. Dr. Menekse’s primary research investigates how classroom activities affect conceptual understanding in engineering and science for all students. His second research focus is on verbal interactions that can enhance productive discussions in collaborative learning settings. And his third research focus is on
. Louisville, KY.4. Howe, S., "Where are we now? Statistics on Capstone Courses Nationwide." Advances in Engineering Education, 2010. 2(1): p. 1-27.5. Trevisan, M., et al. "A Review of Literature on Assessment Practices in Capstone Engineering Design Courses: Implications for Formative Assessment." in American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. 2006. Chicago, IL.6. Howe, S. and J. Wilbarger, "2005 National Survey of Engineering Capstone Design Courses," in American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. 2006: Chicago, IL. p. 21 pp.7. McKenzie, L.J., et al. "Capstone Design Courses and Assessment: A National Study." in American Society for
and academic success of engineering students is a critical issuethat will generate a profound impact upon the nation‟s economy and prosperity.1 According tothe American Society of Engineering Education, enrollment in baccalaureate programs increased14% between 2000 and 2005, but the number of engineering graduates remained relativelyunchanged since 2005.2 The demand for qualified engineering graduates will grow 11% between2008 and 2018 based on the most recent U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projections.3 Therefore,preparing a qualified engineering workforce is a national issue particularly since the scientificand technological leadership of the U.S. has “experienced a gradual erosion”4 of its position.Considering the critical role played by
program, it has not beenpossible to show which parts of the STEP effort have been most responsible for the increase inretention rates. Efforts have been undertaken in Phase 2 to do this, as will be discussed.Results of the current STEP project (Table 2) show that students who participated have higherretention rates than students enrolled in Western Michigan University in general (cohortsretention rates verses University Baseline). This initial STEP effort, concluding after the 2009-10 academic year, increased the first-year retention rate to an average of 66% (through the 2008cohort, as shown in Table 2; and 65% when including initial data analysis through 2009-10) fromthe college‟s historical baseline of 57%, which matched well with the
0 200 400 600 800 1000 time (s) Fig. 2, Temperature versus Time ChartThe heat transfer equation in case Bi < 1 is given as follows [11]: The first term of this equation is time dependent. In this first term, m is the mass of the sphere, cis the specific heat of the sphere, T(t) is the time dependent temperature of the sphere, and t is thetime.The second term represents the convection heat loss at the outer surface of the sphere. In thesecond term, h is the convection coefficient, As is the surface area of the sphere, and T is
less than 450 per year) and is housed within anddelivered via a 15,000 ft2 makerspace. The ENGR 110/111 sequence is relatively new, resultantfrom the desire to restructure the previous iteration of the institution’s introductory engineeringcourse. A key motivational factor in the desire to restructure included aspiration(s) to conform tomodern research in engineering education methodologies, especially the implementation of activelearning.Active learning has been defined as “any instructional method that engages students in the learningprocess”. Generally, active learning refers to activities that are introduced into the classroom, withthe core elements of student activity and engagement in the learning process. In summary, activelearning
11.1315.5Table 2. Type and Level of Assessment of OME over the Course of its Development. Phase Univ. & Term Pre-Course Post-Course Likert 5-pt Scale Open-Ended Questions I NU: F ’03-04 ~ √ ~ √ II PSU: S 2005 ~ √ √ √ III NU: F 2005 √ √ √ √Phase I, NU: In an effort to develop and improve public speaking, the Demo Minute2 wasinitiated at Northeastern University, which subsequently spawned what is now the OME. At theend of the
enable engineering schools to produce better-informed retention strategiesand transform engineering education. Page 23.1031.8References1. AAU Undergraduate STEM Initiative. Five-Year Initiative for Improving Undergraduate STEM Education. (AAU, 2011).2. Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities. (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1998). at 3. Litzinger, T., Van Meter, P., Kapali, N., Zappe, S. & Toto, R. Translating education research into practice within an engineering
. Ralston, University of Louisville Dr. Patricia A. S. Ralston is Professor and Chair of the Department of Engineering Fundamentals at the University of Louisville. She received her B.S., MEng, and PhD degrees in chemical engineering from the University of Louisville. Dr. Ralston teaches undergraduate engineering mathematics and is currently involved in educational research on the effective use of technology in engineering education, the incorpo- ration of critical thinking in undergraduate engineering education, and retention of engineering students. She leads a research group whose goal is to foster active interdisciplinary research which investigates learning and motivation and whose findings will inform the
, no. 2, pp. 108–114, 2018.[5] A. K. Ribera, A. L. Miller, and A. D. Dumford, “Sense of peer belonging and institutional acceptance in the first-year: The role of high-impact practices,” J. Coll. Stud. Dev., vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 545–563, 2017.[6] C. Sandeen, “High-Impact Educational Practices: What We Can Learn from the Traditional Undergraduate Setting,” Contin. High. Educ. Rev., vol. 76, pp. 81–89, 2012.[7] K. Lund Dean and S. Wright, “Embedding engaged learning in high enrollment lecture- based classes,” High. Educ., vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 651–668, Oct. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10734- 016-0070-4.[8] W. R. Watson, S. L. Watson, S. T. Magar, and L. Tay, “Comparing attitudinal learning of large
– think of trying to gather more new contacts than your roommate. In projects,we will continue to emphasize how all students have unique talents to bring to their teams.References[1] T. Rath, StrengthsFinder 2.0, New York: Gallup Press, 2007.[2] M. L. Loughry, M. W. Ohland and D. J. Woehr, "Assessing teamwork skills for assurance of learning using CATME team tools," Journal of Marketing Education, vol. 36, pp. 5-19, 2013.[3] S. Zemke and D. Elger, "Curricular elements that promote professional behavior in a design class," in ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, Chicago, 2006.[4] J. Asplund, S. Agrawal, T. Hodges, J. Harter and S. J. Lopez, "The Clifton StrengthsFinder 2.0 Technical Report," Gallup Inc., Washington DC, 2014.[5] S. J
, Portland,Oregon. https://peer.asee.org/15336[6] Ezzell, S., & Gordy, P. (2004, June), Energizing Your Engineering Program ThroughCompetitions And Team Based Projects Paper presented at 2004 Annual Conference, Salt LakeCity, Utah. https://peer.asee.org/13973[7] Lumsdaine, E., & Loukus, J., & Dreyer, J., & Chenoweth, S., & Lumsdaine, M. (2009, June),Forming And Managing Project Teams In A Large Capstone Design Course Paper presented at2009 Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, Texas. https://peer.asee.org/4892[8] Harding, T. (2007, June), Benefits And Struggles Of Using Large Team Projects In CapstoneCourses Paper presented at 2007 Annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu, Hawaii.https://peer.asee.org/3009[9] Underwood
Testing and13 Pressure: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective," in Building Autonomous Learners:14 Perspectives from Research and Practice using Self-Determination Theory, W. C. Liu, J.15 C. K. Wang, and R. M. Ryan Eds. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2016, pp. 9-29.16 [3] N. T. Butz, R. H. Stupnisky, R. Pekrun, J. L. Jensen, and D. M. Harsell, "The impact of17 emotions on student achievement in synchronous hybrid business and public18 administration programs: A longitudinal test of control‐value theory," Decision Sciences19 Journal of Innovative Education, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 441-474, 2016.20 [4] M. Hastie, I. C. Hung, N. S. Chen, and Kinshuk, "A blended synchronous learning
less mechanics concepts involvedwith cross sections while ENGT Strength of Materials course has mainly 2D orthogonal views ofstructural cross sections, thereby losing all depth cues associated with the 3D structures. Thisfinding is contradictory to the result from a previous study carried out by the same author(s)[1].The previous study found a significant positive correlation (ρ = 0.552 at p = 0.01) between SBSTscores of mechanical engineering students and their performance in the Mechanics of Materials(MOM) course. It is noted that the engineering students’ performances in MOM in the previousstudy was measured by using the MOM concept inventory [22], a survey consisting of 23conceptual understanding questions, not the final course grades as
group as a senior engineer, and later brought his real-world expertise back into the classroom at Purdue University Calumet. He is currently a Clinical Associate Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago where he enjoys success in teaching and education research.Prof. Jeremiah Abiade c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Execution Details and Assessment Results of a Summer Bridge Program for First-year Engineering StudentsAbstractThis paper reports the execution details and the summary assessment of a Summer Bridge Program(SBP) that is a part of an ongoing National Science Foundation (NSF) Scholarships in Science,Technology, Engineering, and Math (S-STEM
. She researches STEM learning with a focus on math learning and spatial representations. Ms. Bego is also assisting the Engineering Fundamentals Department in the Speed School in performing student retention research. She is particularly interested in interventions and teaching methods that allevi- ate working memory constraints and increase both learning retention and student retention in engineering. Ms. Bego is also a registered professional mechanical engineer in New York State.Dr. Patricia A. Ralston, University of Louisville Dr. Patricia A. S. Ralston is Professor and Chair of the Department of Engineering Fundamentals at the University of Louisville. She received her B.S., MEng, and PhD degrees in chemical
can enhance student engagement and motivation. Significant responses have been theimplementation of student-centered learning [2], [47], [48], project-based learning [49]–[52],collaborative project-based learning approach [7], [53]–[55], collaborative learning [56]–[59] tomotivate students and to support students’ constructing practical, adaptable knowledge to a real-life setting.Project-Based Collaborative Learning in Engineering In an engineering context, the term ‘project’ is perceived as a ‘unit of work,’ on the basisof client(s)’ needs [60]. Project in an engineering education setting is multi-disciplinary andhighly related to a real-life situation, and project-based learning requires the creation of concreteartifact (e.g., a
study is informed by the need to address the well-documentedunderrepresentation of low-socioeconomic status (SES) and minoritized students in engineeringand other related careers [1]–[3]. Researchers advanced that, in addition to intellectual andscientific reasons, low-income students are attracted to the major by the potential prospect ofemployment after completing a degree [1], [4]. Financial considerations are critical for low-SESengineering students; this includes considerations of financial aid and differential tuition [5].Programs such as the National Science Foundation Scholarships in STEM (S-STEM) have beenimplemented to address financial assistance of low-SES students. This study is part of alongitudinal five-year S-STEM project
contains student record data from 1988 through 2010 for 11 MIDFIELD partnerschools, though not all schools provided data in all years. Using the most current MIDFIELDdata (which includes more recent data than reported in Ohland et al.’s paper), we find that amongthose who graduated in engineering, more than 10% began in a non-engineering discipline. Ofthe over 7000 people who graduated in engineering but began in some other discipline, almost40% came from other science and math disciplines, which is unsurprising since many of theprerequisite courses in those disciplines are the same as for engineering, making the transition Page 24.1186.2easier with
this interactivecourse, which introduces students to fundamental engineering skills – including teamwork,design, project management, technical writing, critical thinking, programming, communication(including written, oral, and graphical), and an introduction to engineering research. The courseincludes extensive introductory design pedagogy coupled with project management; includingtwo individual design challenges during the semester, and culminating in a team-basedCornerstone project that all students present at the end of the semester. For conveying keyinstructional topics to the students, a few select classes are held in the EG classroom(s), whileadditional instruction is delivered online via supplementary, instructor-created videos
] M. W. Ohland, G. Zhang, B. Thorndyke, and T. J. Anderson, “The creation of the multiple-institution database for investigating engineering longitudinal development (MIDFIELD),” in ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, 2004.[13] G. Zhang, T. J. Anderson, M. W. Ohland, and B. R. Thorndyke, “Identifying factors influencing engineering student graduation: A longitudinal and cross-institutional study,” J. Eng. Educ., 2004.[14] J. L. Hieb, K. B. Lyle, P. A. S. Ralston, and J. Chariker, “Predicting performance in a first engineering calculus course: Implications for interventions,” Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 40–55, 2015.[15] C. Moller-Wong and A. Eide, “An engineering student
22.768.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Helping Freshmen Develop a Personal Identity as an EngineerAbstractFreshman retention is a top priority in nearly all engineering schools. Increased retentionoptimizes new-student recruitment dollars, decreases students‟ time to graduation, impactsschool rankings, and helps to meet industry‟s increasing demand for engineers. Most researchersand experts in the field agree on a number of basic tenants of retention. Topmost are the tenantsof creating community amongst freshmen, bonding freshmen with returning students, creatingopportunities for meaningful interaction between freshmen and faculty both in and outside of theclassroom, helping freshmen
of taking the early morning section. Page 24.1407.10Identifying the instructors’ teaching styles and other characteristics that may decrease theconsequences of early morning sections is another way to continue this research. These teachingstyles and characteristics can be shared/promoted among faculty members (e.g., via professionaldevelopment workshops).Bibliography1. Barker, M. S. An Investigation of the Relationship between Selected Demographic Variables and Dual Enrollment Participation on Postsecondary Success for First Time Freshmen. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Tel: 800-521
believed that the Center andits resources were “important” or “essential” to their academic success in their first-yearengineering course(s). In addition, the majority of students’ activities in the Learning Center thatsupported their engineering coursework included working on team design projects, using thenetwork computers, attending a special first-year class, using the 3D printers, using hand tools tobuild a project, using the space to meet with classmates, and getting help from teaching assistantsand faculty members. Qualitative analyses revealed that students generally valued the resourcesin the Learning Center but remarked –not surprisingly– that the Center’s actual operationalspace, which is only 700 ft2 of the total 1600 ft2, was too
Orr for reviewing this paper.References[1] “Employment Outlook for Engineering Occupations to 2024,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2016/employment-outlook-for- engineering-occupations-to-2024.htm. [Accessed: 30-Jan-2019].[2] S. D. Sheppard, A. L. Antonio, S. R. Brunhaver, and S. K. Gilmartin, “Studying the Career Pathways of Engineers,” in Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, A. Johri and B. M. Olds, Eds. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 283–309.[3] National Science Foundation, “NSRCG Public 2006 Data File,” 2006. [Online]. Available: https://sestat.nsf.gov/datadownload/.[4] G. Lichtenstein, H. G. Loshbaugh, B. Claar