ARISE program at UIUC. Here we describe thedevelopment, structure, and outcomes of the pilot year of an all-undergraduate soft roboticsresearch program.Introduction Participation in undergraduate research opportunities increases understanding, confidenceand awareness of opportunities in STEM fields [1]. In a national study, students’ desire to pursuea PhD increased by ~29% after performing undergraduate research [1]. Approximately 45% ofUIUC Engineering undergraduate students participate in research on or off campus.Comparatively, less than 1% of students from the three cohorts of ARISE program haveparticipated in research. To help close the undergrad research gap between ARISE students andtheir peers, we proposed developing a mentored
university?”The large southwestern university engineering leadership team chose to address the need forchange using a deliberate “re-building strategy” [1]. This choice involved invoking “a processoriented approach to the remaking of a curriculum…, involving external stakeholders. Thisapplies sound systems engineering principles to the engineering curriculum itself” [1].“The re-building strategy…is a fundamental change of academic view linking academia withsocietal context and needs…by emphasizing a shared set of values, identity and commitment. Itis about educating engineers who will become change agents after graduation, with anunderstanding of stakeholder needs and the wider societal impact of engineered systems withinthe innovation process’ [1
programming, which created barriers to learning insubsequent course work. To help remove these barriers, we revised the course for spring of 2020to incorporate teaching best practices, which included a change to tutorial- and video-basedinstruction instead of real-time note taking, improved alignment between course material andassessments, and a switch to mastery-based assessments. These types of changes have beenshown to improve student attitudes and reduce failure rates in introductory programming courses[1-3]. However, the link between course format, student performance, and student attitudestoward programming remained unclear. If we clarified this link, students could be betterequipped to solve engineering problems and perform engineering
as Brightspace, Cengage,Explain Everything, Tophat, and zyBooks, just to name a few, provide platforms for interactivelearning in the classroom, and for individual study. Whether it be online or in person, theseplatforms are being assessed for student motivational purposes [1], class preparedness [2],increasing students’ reading abilities [3], and overall student outcomes [4]. While onlineresources help educators to be more systematic, organized [5], and provide digital interactiveplatforms for learning, the question we address in a concrete outcomes based way, and fromstudents’ perspectives is, “Does the online, interactive, digital content help the student learn andapply knowledge more effectively than traditional methods?”The digital
versions in Fall2020 than the traditional face-to-face version in Fall 2019. Specifically, a greater percentage ofstudents enjoyed the course, felt engaged and valued, were more prepared for lessons and sawvalue in the course and the skills they learned in the course.IntroductionDuring their first year of study, students enrolled in engineering at Michigan TechnologicalUniversity (Michigan Tech) complete a common set of core classes including calculus,chemistry, physics, composition, global issues, and engineering. A student’s pathway throughthese first-year courses, specifically the First-Year Engineering (FYE) courses (shown in Figure1), is determined by their score on a math placement assessment. Students who place intoCalculus 1 or higher are
private multi-campus Mexicanuniversity, is preparing for these challenges through its new educational model that migratestraditional lecture instruction to challenge-based learning, emphasizing competencies instead ofeducational objectives [1].Challenge-based learning (CBL) is an active learning approach [1, 2, 3] that merges the HowPeople Learn (HPL) framework [4, 5] with a modified version of the Legacy Cycle [6]. The HPLframework presents four interrelated attributes that need to be considered in learningenvironments: the focus on the learner (their preconceived knowledge, skills, and attitudes), theattention to what is taught, why it is taught, and what competencies are (learning withunderstanding), the importance of formative assessments
historical roots in earlyuniversities [1]. The resurgence of this idea in modern times began during the late 1990sresulting in Living Learning Communities (LLCs), wherein students live on the same floor of aresidence hall and share common courses and/or social structures with the ultimate goal ofcreating a shared community that gives participants a sense of belonging at the university orwithin specific disciplines [1]. Inkelas and her colleagues [1] conducted a survey of LLCs in theUnited States and estimated that there are more than 600 LLCs on college campuses across thenation. According to these authors, LLCs are most successful when they have a stronginfrastructure foundation (e.g., goals/objectives, collaboration between academic affairs
in students’ use of sources, and howcourse design can incorporate effective asynchronous online delivery in diverse models.IntroductionAs the COVID-19 pandemic spread globally and governments began instituting large-scalelockdowns, academic institutions were faced with a new challenge: how to continue to providehigh quality educational services when students and faculty were unable to leave their homes.Educators were asked to move their teaching materials online in weeks or even days, oftenlacking prior experience with online learning or the one-on-one support of overburdenedinstructional design experts [1], [2]. Students have been asked to continue their education underthe assumption that these methods are an adequate substitute for
learn more about the differentengineering disciplines and other engineering-related topics. By having both in- and out-of-classrequirements as well as a peer review, this assignment series was designed to encourage betterparticipation among the students.Exploring Engineering logisticsAfter successfully integrating a peer sharing presentation series in the learning strategies courseof the General Engineering Learning Community [1], [2], the assignment was translated for usewithin Clemson’s introductory general engineering courses. Given the name “ExploringEngineering,” the adapted assignment allows students to engage with pressing issues and trendswithin the field of engineering and investigate the topics in which they are most
implementing a curriculum focused on cohort formation, career exploration, andprofessional development. The AcES, consisting of a weeklong pre-fall bridge experience, twocommon courses, and a variety of co-curricular activities, has been operating for eight years.Students who receive S-STEM funded scholarships participate in three focus groups and twoone-on-one interviews each semester throughout their undergraduate studies.Student responses from the one-on-one interviews and focus groups conducted from 2017-2020were examined with qualitative coding methods. Questions examined in this work include: 1)Did the engineering in history course help make you feel like you belong in engineering at WVUand that you are included in engineering at WVU?, 2) Do you
forengineering and pre-engineering students was 10% lower than for students in other disciplines atthe same university. This trend appears to be, unfortunately, present at a majority of U.S.institutions of higher education [1]. In order to address this critical issue, engineering facultymembers at this university developed a program for a subset of incoming first-year engineeringstudents, called the Engineering Learning Community (ELC). The ELC was first implemented inthe Fall 2016 semester, and since then has been iterated each academic year based on studentfeedback, best practices, and, beginning in the Fall 2019 semester, support from the NationalScience Foundation (NSF) in the form of S-STEM scholarships for financially qualified students.The
ethics and ethical frameworks. With the knowledge gainedfrom this research, first-year engineering programs can better explore how incoming students viewdecision-making and design more effective instructional practices. BackgroundIntroductionEthics is the “standards of conduct that apply to everyone” [1]. It is the difference between rightand wrong. People use ethics to determine how to act when confronted with any situation; askingquestions such as “who will this benefit?”, “who will this harm?”, and “what are theconsequences?”. However, engineering ethics is different from everyday ethics. Engineeringethics are a set of professional ethics, or “those special morally permissible standards of conductthat
their mode of instruction in Fall 2019, Spring 2020 and Fall 2020.Engineering 101 (ENGR101) is an introductory engineering mathematics course loosely based onthe Wright State University (WSU) engineering mathematics education model [1-3]. The courseis a 4-credit course meeting for 90 minutes of lecture (common for multiple sections of the course)two times a week, and 90 minutes of recitation and 90 minutes of lab meetings once a week. It isa required course for all engineering students who are taking pre-calculus and are one term behindthe expected starting point in mathematics. The lecture component provides an overview ofrelevant topics in engineering analytical methods that are most heavily used in core engineeringcourses [4]. These topics
yet begun. While all teams usedbasic sketching, the amount of CAD modeling that had been done varied. The major challenges faced byinstructors as the medium turned unexpectedly virtual included: (1) enabling teams to continue to worktogether given varying locations; (2) internet connectivity and lack of experience with appropriate softwaretools; (3) the inability to physically work with peers on the second prototype; (4) the lack of access to toolsand materials for prototyping; and (5) needing to learn and use modeling software remotely. Consideringall these challenges, the instructors collegially decided to enable asynchronous delivery of learningexperiences, supplemented by virtual office hours.To help students transition into the virtual
different learning activities, they function as a motivational asset, central to thedevelopment of a sense of belonging and persistence in engineering programs [1]. Thetransformation of ENGR 110 is informed both by the needs of first-year engineering students andpedagogical practices designed to foster autonomy.The redesigned course addresses three themes: “What is Engineering?”, “Exploring Michiganand Michigan Engineering”, and “Self-Understanding”. Within these themes, students gainexposure to engineering disciplines, engineering contributions to society, the interdisciplinarynature of engineering, engineering as both a technical and social discipline, experiential learningopportunities, personal strengths, ethics, values, social identity
article focuses on the continuous improvements made to a cornerstone course. Theseimprovements are related to how to determine work topic, team composition, and teamassessment methods for each semester.Cornerstone courses are engineering design courses that provide first-year students with an earlyintroduction to competences for solving real-world problems [1]. This type of course is usuallytaught using project-based learning (PBL) methodology, which introduces students at earlystages to ill-structured problems. PBL methodology has proven to have several benefits forstudents by enabling them to generate original opinions and express individual standpoints,improve their active participation in self-learning processes, enhance communication skills
a greater percentage than working engineers.As to persistence in engineering, a number of studies [1], [2], [4], [5], [14] found that students’abilities, perception of abilities, especially in mathematics play a big part. Another largecontributing factor to persistence is student aspirations and how well the discipline – or moreaccurately, their perception of the discipline – lines up with their career aspirations and personalinterest. To improve retention, engineering programs need to ensure that students recognize howtheir career aspirations and personal interests align with their chosen field early in their studies.Toward this end, an accurate picture of student interest is needed.Study PopulationThe authors teach an introductory course
entering collegethat affected their high school academic performance. The theory and research are reviewed,along with the implication of finding so many students with depressive symptoms foradministrators, faculty, and advisors working with this cohort of students.IntroductionHigh school performance and standardized test scores have been shown to be strong predictors ofretention and strong academic performance, but they do not fully explain the variance instudents’ success rate. Research has shown there are many factors affecting academicachievement including emotional and behavioral variables [1], [2], [3]. One of these variables isdepression. In the past 20 years, the American College Health Association has continued toreport depression as one
positively affectedparticipants’ spatial reasoning and, if so, which origami/CAD combination resulted in a greaterimprovement in skills. The Purdue Spatial Visualization Tests (PSVT) were used to assess spatialaptitude. This study examined the change in PSVT scores before, during, and after completion ofthe workshop modules. These scores were also evaluated in the context of the participants’ countryof origin, prior origami and/or CAD experience, as well as whether participants’ parents orguardians are engineers.Introduction and Related WorkThe mental steps for representing, analyzing, and outlining inferences from spatial relations arecalled spatial reasoning 1 . Previous research shows that well-developed spatial skills have asignificant
truss, testing waterquality, performing a traffic study, and attending a public planning commission meeting instead of usingArduinos. The students were often registered for the version that matched their schedule rather thanbased on the version that matched their discipline of interest, so all three sections in both semesters had adistribution of the student’s preferred programs.The survey results after 1 semester of each delivery method (114 students completing the survey fromboth semesters) did not show any statistical difference between the discipline-specific and the generalizedversion of the course. The survey regardless of which approach was delivered did verify that 65% of thestudents felt it was engaging, 72% said it increased their
preparing technical reports and PowerPoint andposter oral presentations. On the last day of the program, students presented their group projects.We report on a 9-year exercise conducted using the WOW project including detailed studentfeedback from the most recent year. 1. IntroductionEngineering design is defined as the communication of a set of rational decisions obtained withcreative problem solving for achieving certain stated objectives within prescribed constraints [1].The role of design in an engineering curriculum is a key factor contributing to its success [1]. 1Engineering design projects provide students with a broad view related to the material presentedin lectures. Through project-based
correlated with amotivation. However, amotivation was buffered by the intervention condition; students in the intervention condition did not have their performance affected by their amotivation. Students in the control condition still did. This work is supported by NSF grant 1540627.IntroductionThe demand for engineers in the market is increasing as technology continues to increase incomplexity. However, college students in engineering fields often experience decreases inmotivation due to loss of interest and reduced competence beliefs [1, 2], which leads to thereduced retention in an engineering major and career [3].Motivation is an important component in predicting a variety of academic outcomes such asperformance
engineering and introduces some tools used for the design and implementation of devices and systems.Nicole Bosca American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Work-in-Progress – Integration of Voice Technology into First-Year Engineering CurriculumIntroductionThis is a work-in-progress paper. Voice technology is a growing field and is becoming moreprominent in our day-to-day lives. National Public Research, in a study conducted in early 2020,found that an estimated 60 million people (24% of total U.S. adult population) own a voice-enabled smart speaker [1]. The number of smart speakers in the U.S. household has grown by anastounding 135% in last
transferringregulation of behavior from outside to inside the individual is called internalization; hence whenindividuals are self-determined, the reasons to engage in this behavior are fully internalized [1].So, it is not just about the individual on his or her own, but how the individual interacts with thesocial context. In the absence of adequate support, intrinsic motivation is undermined thusdiminishes sense of self [2]. In this case, we are interested in investigating team dynamics in theclassroom as the social context.At this time, this study consists of a pilot project conducted in a semester-long first yearengineering design course. The authors evaluated motivation in teams, for which “Psych Safe”modules were used in the classroom to support team
commentsAbstractDe-identifying qualitative datasets is time-consuming and expensive but is a critical step inprotecting the confidentiality of study participants. Peer-to-peer comments are an importantsupplement to peer evaluation ratings in team-based learning courses. Those comments comprisevaluable research data for educational study to investigate but they usually contain identifiableinformation, such as names. In this work in progress, we study and propose a pipeline tool toidentify all names appearing in CATME team peer evaluation comments and replacing thosenames with pseudonyms such as Rater 1 and Rater 2. We explored several natural languageprocessing techniques empowered by machine learning methods and then optimized to the finalalgorithm. At its
within teams, and to develop empathy towardstheir clients.Structure of Communication in Design Thinking CourseOur course designer completed the Center for Teaching and Learning Course Design Institute 1.0during summer 2019. Through this institute, the castletop method is utilized to develop thecourse and ensure that LOs are closely tied to course activities and assessments.The ENGR 180 LOs that a student must be able to meet after successful completion of the coursewere: 1. Analyze a communication situation to determine the audience and their information needs 2. Identify the appropriate rhetorical approach to use (or that is in use) in that situation 3. Apply the design process to generate a solution that addresses an identified user
Partnering with PhysicsAbstractThis work-in-progress paper will describe an effort at curriculum reform for the first yearengineering program at Texas A&M University. A variety of motivations for, and challengesencountered in this effort are discussed, which highlight how educational change often takesplace in tension between educational theory and institutional constraints. Preliminary discussionof results and future plans for assessment are discussed.IntroductionRetention of engineering students continues to be a concern nationally [1]. There are perhapsadditional pressures for improvement in retention at large state institutions, where legislatureskeenly watch metrics such as retention, and where the institutions have a mission to serve
science con- cepts by creating innovative instructional resources and conducting interdisciplinary quasi-experimental research studies in and out of classroom environments. Dr. Menekse is the recipient of the 2014 William Elgin Wickenden Award by the American Society for Engineering Education. Dr. Menekse also received three Seed-for-Success Awards (in 2017, 2018, and 2019) from Purdue University’s Excellence in Re- search Awards programs in recognition of obtaining three external grants of $1 million or more during each year. His research has been generously funded by grants from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Purdue Research Foundation (PRF), and National Science Foundation (NSF
question portion, indicating that they comprehendedthe IBL lessons. Initial exam comparisons indicated that the IBL approaches support increasedstudent learning of the conceptual aspects of technical concepts.IntroductionMany educational experts recommend that a fundamental paradigm shift needs to occur inengineering education [1]. Both students and teachers need to acquire and implement pedagogicalskills that currently are not prevalently found in college teaching of engineering. This work aimsto address the following problems; first, the majority of university engineering classes are stilltaught in an archaic presentation lecture style [2]. Second, most students are unaware of thebenefits of inductive learning and think that they prefer
survey of the different potential pathways for anengineering career, students increasingly are expected to complete meaningful design projectswithin these programs. This change creates opportunities to introduce first-year engineeringstudents to the complexities of the engineering information landscape via information literacyinstruction.Background on problem being addressedThe engineering education and library science literature suggest several best practices forcreating information literacy instructional (ILI) interventions. ILI interventions are mosteffective when contextualized to the specific needs of learners [1], [2] through integratinginformation literacy into the curriculum [3] and establishing the relevance of information literacyby