these changes have had on other students as a teaching fellow.Implementation of this change has occurred over the past ten years via modifications and Page 15.93.2additions to the course curriculum. While the course still offers two fifty-minute sessionsof traditional lecture on principles of engineering science (dimensional analysis, dataanalysis, statics, mechanics of materials, heat transfer, and computational tools) and atwo-hour discussion session; a hands-on team-oriented project based learning designproject was added in an attempt to improve the overall effectiveness of the course byallowing students to become truly involved in their
engineering major do you study principles associated with the diffusion of dissolved molecules across membranes (EE, ME, CHE)? 3. In which engineering discipline do you study strength of materials such as membranes and prosthetics (CHE, EE, ME)? 4. Does engineering help people (1=little,2,3,4,5=very much) 5. Are you excite about becoming an engineer (1=little,2,3,4,5=very much) 6. Engineers have an ethical obligation to do quality work (1=no,2,3,4,5=always) With regards to the first two questions about the engineering disciplines, approximately 80%of the students indicated in the pre and post class quizzes that flowing fluids and diffusion wascovered in the chemical engineering curriculum. There was a modest shift in class
Paper ID #18609Work in Progress: Increasing Interest in STEM and Improving Retention forAt-Risk Students - A Two-Year StudyDr. Melissa Danforth, California State University, Bakersfield Melissa Danforth is an Associate Professor and the Chair of the Department of Computer and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at CSUB. Dr. Danforth is the PI for a NSF Federal Cyber Service grant (NSF-DUE1241636) to create models for information assurance education and outreach. Dr. Danforth is the Project Director for a U.S. Department of Education grant (P031S100081) to create engineering pathways for students in the CSUB service
AC 2010-1278: INTRODUCING CRITICAL THINKING TO FRESHMANENGINEERING STUDENTSJames Lewis, University of Louisville James E. Lewis, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Fundamentals in the J. B. Speed School of Engineering at the University of Louisville. His research interests include parallel and distributed computer systems, cryptography, engineering education, undergraduate retention and technology (Tablet PCs) used in the classroom.Jeffrey Hieb, University of Louisville Jeffrey L. Hieb, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Fundamentals at the University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky. His research interests include cyber security
has become an integral component in engineering education.Senior capstone courses and first-year engineering design courses are becoming ubiquitouswithin an undergraduate engineering education. It has been suggested that attention be paid tothe formation of teams and that training in how to work as a team occurs early and often inengineering education.1 Effective teams can provide many benefits to students, including anincrease in knowledge and skills, such as communication, from working with people unlikethemselves. Furthermore, such skills undoubtedly transition into myriad facets of life aftercollege—rendering the skills an invaluable asset for engineering students.Formation of Teams and Team Dynamics in Engineering EducationTeams and
, retaining and graduating STEM majors preparedto enter the national workforce and be successful. An overview of these programs is shownbelow. • Integrated Engineering Curriculum (IEC) – NSF-997279 – provides freshman and sophomore engineering majors with team-based, hands-on, active learning while integrating fundamental math, science and engineering topics. • Integrated Science Curriculum (ISC) – NSF-0311481 – provides freshman and sophomore math and science majors with integrated, experiential learning similar to the IEC. • Louisiana Tech’s STEM Talent Expansion Program (LaTechSTEP) – NSF-0622462 – stimulates interest in STEM topics at the high school level by
retaining its students.1. Attrition may also be triggered by lack of student interest in, or enthusiasm for, the type of academic learning experience that characterizes the traditional engineering Page 12.180.5 curriculum.Retention Strategies: Faculty Development—promoting the use of “engaging” pedagogy Curriculum Development—promoting the design of “engaging” projects or modules. Collaboration between academic departments and career development services2. Attrition caused by an absence of personal and meaningful social contact with other members of the college community, resulting in feelings
Accrediting Engineering Programs – Effective for Reviews during the 2013-2014 Accreditation Cycle, 27 October 2012, 22 March 2014, .6. Oakes, W., Coyle, E., and Jamieson, L., “EPICS: A Model of Service-Learning in an Engineering Curriculum”. Page 24.1369.12 Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference, 2000.7. Oakes, W. and Thompson, M. “Integration of Service Learning into a Freshman Engineering Course”. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference, 2004.8. Duffy, J., Tsang, E. and Lord, S. “Service-Learning in Engineering: What, Why and How
engineering degree, with the ultimate goal of broadening participation among those who attend engineering college. Sullivan was conferred as an ASEE Fellow in 2011 and was awarded NAE’s 2008 Gordon Prize for Innovation in Engineering and Technology Education.Dr. Derek T Reamon, University of Colorado, Boulder Derek Reamon is the Co-director of the Integrated Teaching and Learning Program (ITLP) and the Gen- eral Engineering Plus (GE+) degree program, and a Senior Instructor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering. As ITLP co-director, he coordinates 19-22 sections of First-year Engineering Projects, a course that has a proven benefit on retention within engineering and is also a nationally recognized model for
Barrier Change. She currently is the Vice President of her school’s chapter of the American Society of Civil Engineers and oversees the Concrete Canoe and Steel Bridge competition teams. She will be the president of the chapter next year.Dr. Jack Bringardner, NYU’s Tandon School of Engineering Jack Bringardner is the Assistant Dean for Academic and Curricular Affairs at NYU Tandon School of Engineering. He is also an Assistant Professor in the General Engineering Department and Civil Engineer- ing Department where he teaches the First-Year Engineering Program course Introduction to Engineering and Design. He is the Director of Vertically Integrated Projects at NYU. His Vertically Integrated Projects course is on
Paper ID #33743WIP: Halting Attrition in Civil Engineering Programs ThroughLower-Division Engagement Course ImplementationMs. Briceland McLaughlin, Boise State University Briceland McLaughlin is an academic advisor at Boise State University. She graduated with an M.Ed. from the University of Kansas in 2011 and has worked at higher education institutions across the country over the last decade in both student affairs and academic support roles. Briceland is interested in the intersectionality of student development theory and curriculum design.Dr. Nick Hudyma, Boise State University Nick is a professor and chair of Civil
first-yearengineering curriculum. The lab project was piloted during Winter and Spring Quarters of 2004,with one section offered in each quarter for a total of 127 students then expanded to 3 sections in2005 with an enrollment of 190 students. This alternate project is currently being revised andwill be fully integrated into the program by Winter and Spring of 2006. In addition, an honorsversion of the project was offered in Spring 2005 to a single section of 32 students. A revisedhonors version will also be offered in Spring 2006. A three-pronged approach was employed indeveloping the project involving on-campus nanotechnology research laboratory tours hosted byfaculty and researchers, nanotechnology teaching modules, and hands-on lab
. Researchers also could, in the future, consider the relationship between students’selected 3C and the “life experiences” discussed in the original reflection prompt. These effortscould lead to major improvements in undergraduate engineering curriculums, as well asempower undergraduate engineering students to recognize the importance of reflection andutilizing an EM.AcknowledgementsThe authors gratefully acknowledge the Kern Family Foundation for conference registrationfunding for the authors of this paper.References[1] J. Turns, B. Sattler, K. Yasuhara, J. Borgford-Parnell, and C. J. Atman, “Integrating Reflection into Engineering Education,” in 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2014, pp. 24.776.1-24.776.16.[2] D. A. Schön
skill development. In response to thischallenge, a collaborative partnership between the Psychology and Engineering department at theUniversity of Calgary has yielded a theoretical-based communication technique applied to theengineering curriculum in order to enhance team effectiveness.While teams stimulate an innovative environment, the interdependence of individuals leads to anincreased risk of conflict between members2. Teams literature has identified three types ofconflict that can arise3: task conflict (TC), relationship conflict (RC) and process conflict (PC).Briefly, TC involves contrary perspectives and opinions about the task, RC refers to perceivedinterpersonal incompatibilities (i.e., personality clashes), and PC involves discordant
): p. 409-426. 4. Artemeva, N., S. Logie, and J. St-Martin, "From page to stage: How theories of genre and situated learning help introduce engineering students to discipline-specific communication". Technical Communication Quarterly, 1999. 8(3): p. 301-316. 5. Cross, K., M. Paretti, and H. Matusovich. "Student beliefs about learning communication skills", in 2013 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2013. 6. Ford, J.D. and L.A. Riley, "Integrating communication and engineering education: A look at curricula, courses, and support systems". Journal of Engineering Education, 2003. 92(4): p. 325-328. 7. Manuel-Dupont, S., "Writing-Across-the-Curriculum in an Engineering Program". Journal of
innovative curriculum activities thatcultivate inclusive engineering identities and demonstrate how the engineering professionbenefits from diversity. We intend to expand first-year engineering student perceptions aboutwho can be an engineer and what engineers do. This effort aims to create a cultural shift inengineering departments so students think beyond stereotypical perceptions of who belongs tothe engineering profession (White men) toward more expansive notions about how theengineering profession needs diversity to thrive. Arguably, inclusive engineering departmentswill contribute to the retention and success of students who are underrepresented in engineeringin terms of gender and race, but also in terms of backgrounds, talents, and
ENGR 111 provides a context andpotential for addressing motivational barriers, such as interest in engineering, in a manner thattraditional classrooms cannot do. Likewise, ENGR 111 provides students the situational meansto experience problem solving in a way that wouldn’t be possible in a traditional coursestructure. While research in college retention has focused on integration into the university,research in engineering retention has focused more on integration into the engineering culture;thereby making ENGR 111 an ideal mechanism for addressing the first-year interest barrier. Thisstudy employed a post measure of students, asking about their individual interest in engineeringand how impactful their ENGR 111 course experience was on their
become a permanent part of the engineering curriculum. Before offering the ELC in thefall of 2017, several improvements were made to the program. One of the major improvementswas to include a Precalculus course in addition to Calculus I, and a core composition Englishcourse. The added option of taking either Calculus I or Precalculus allowed all of the students inthe learning community to be enrolled in an ELC math course. The improved fall 2017 ELC alsoincluded courses for the students to take in their second semester including a second semesterEnglish course, a second semester math course and a Solidworks design course. Having linkedclasses through the entire first year allowed the students to stay with the same group of peers insmaller class
experiences.Dr. Marie C Paretti, Virginia Tech Marie C. Paretti is an Associate Professor of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech, where she co- directs the Virginia Tech Engineering Communications Center (VTECC). Her research focuses on com- munication in engineering design, interdisciplinary communication and collaboration, design education, and gender in engineering. She was awarded a CAREER grant from the National Science Foundation to study expert teaching in capstone design courses, and is co-PI on numerous NSF grants exploring com- munication, design, and identity in engineering. Drawing on theories of situated learning and identity development, her work includes studies on the teaching and learning of communication
first-year curriculum. As the lead author of the ”Thinking Like an Engineer” textbook, currently in its 3rd edition, she has been the primary author team–member in charge of the development of the MyEngineeringLab system. She is also the Chief Advisor for SC Alpha Chapter of Tau Beta Pi, the engineering honor society.Dr. Jonathan R. A. Maier, Clemson University Jonathan R.A. Maier earned his PhD and MS degrees in mechanical engineering from Clemson University, and an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Maier has conducted research sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, and both large and small companies. Now in his seventh year
Paper ID #15069Video Instruction to Complement All Learning Styles in a First-Year Intro-duction to Engineering CourseDr. Jack Bringardner, NYU Tandon School of Engineering Jack Bringardner is an Assistant Professor in the First-Year Engineering Program at NYU Tandon School of Engineering. He studied civil engineering and received his B.S. from the Ohio State University and his M.S and Ph.D. at the University of Texas at Austin. His primary focus is developing curriculum and pedagogical techniques for engineering education, particularly in the Introduction to Engineering and Design course at NYU. He has a background in
gains from first yeardesign.References[1] N. L. Fortenberry et al. “Engineering Education Research Aids Instruction,” Science Vol. 317, August 2007.[2] Beier, M.E. and Rittmayer, A.D., “Motivational Factors in STEM: Interest and Self-Concept,” Olio Digest(2010), 7-11.[3] Bandura, A., “Self-Efficacy in Human Agency,” American Psychologist, Vol. 37, 1982.[4] Stevens, R., O’Connor, K., Garrison, L., Jocuns, A. and Amos, D.M., “Becoming an Engineer: Toward a ThreeDimensional View of Engineering Learning,” Journal of Engineering Education, July 2008.[5] Savage, R., Chen, K., Vanasupa, L.,“Integrating Project-based Learning Throughout the UndergraduateEngineering Curriculum.” Journal of STEM Education Volume 8, Issue 3 & 4 June-December 2007.[6
that products designed to applicable constraints and combined withlocal empowerment can have an impact in markedly improving the lives of the less fortunate.Consequently, Polak’s ASEE presentation inspired instructors of the first-year engineeringcourses at Ohio Northern University to undertake, what was to some, a radical redesign of theircurriculum: the incorporation of a capstone project focusing on poverty alleviating designs for aThird World country.First-Year Engineering CurriculumThe first-year engineering curriculum at Ohio Northern University is a year-long (three quarter)sequence. The intent of the sequence is to both introduce students to interdisciplinary topics ofimportance in engineering and to integrate the students into
needand desire to reduce the gap in student learning and real world problem solving asgraduates enter the workforce. The National Academy of Engineering has appealed toengineering programs to integrate theory and practice in the curriculum, and introducemore innovative learning methods that simulate industrial decision making in theclassroom and laboratory [1]. Hence, the challenge for engineering educators is the useof more innovative methods for instruction and learning to replicate real world problemsolving, and provide an environment for intellectual exchange of ideas and solutions in aclassroom setting. This is further reinforced by the Accreditation Board for Engineeringand Technology (ABET) to encourage the use of a cadre of tools and
, graphics, and communication. These oversights may have caused the students to question the relevance of the teamwork activities to their design project, in turn, leading them to label the exercises as “busy work” (a term they use all too readily for many of the assignments in DTC, even those that they come to value later in their undergraduate career). The syllabus also did not explicitly list how the teamwork assignments would be weighted in the final course grade. While they were included as part of the student’s “individual grade,” this only comprised 10% of the final grade, of which, the teamwork assessments were only a small part.2) Adding eight additional exercises to an already crowded curriculum was a mistake. The principal
leave the coursehaving a better understanding of how important the role of communication and empathy isthroughout the design process. Once ENGR 180 is designated as an FC course, this will becomea valuable course for not only engineering students, but also students from other majors.References[1] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24988.
interviews followed a semi-structured protocol revolving around questions of: general understanding of the program and thereason for its establishment; potential benefits of the program for the university and the college;concerns about the shift in curriculum model; and views of what constitutes success or failure ofsuch a program. The general methodology for our qualitative interview process follows thatoutlined in by Strauss (Strauss, 1987). An external evaluation center performed the interviewsand small focus groups to avoid ethical conflicts. Ethnographic data has consisted of informal notes and journals kept by members of theFYE team. The goal of such an informal structure is to preserve natural observations (Anderson,2003). Since the
difficulty.One tool for promoting first-to-second year undergraduate student retention is the use of a first-year seminar [5]. Most first-year seminars take place in small, discussion based settings and theyconsist of curricular and co-curricular topics that are designed to help students integrate bothacademically and socially into college life [6]. Due to the high number of credit hours requiredfor students in the GVSU School of Engineering, the first year curriculum is being reviewed toidentify how to include a mandatory first year seminar in the program plans. Rather than waitingfor the planning and approving of a fist year seminar, the learning skills modules wereimplemented in an Introduction to Engineering course during the Fall 2018 semester.The
. Elizabeth Stephan is the Director of Academics for the General Engineering Program at Clemson University. She holds a B.S. and a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Akron. Since 2002, she has taught, developed, and and now coordinates the first-year curriculum. As the lead author of the ”Thinking Like an Engineer” textbook, currently in its 4th edition, she has been the primary author team–member in charge of the development of the MyEngineeringLab system. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Promoting Metacognitive Awareness in a First-Year Learning Strategies Course for Cohorted General Engineering Students First Year
?” 35 42 “Is Computer Science collaborative?” 97 100 “Is Computer Science multidisciplinary?” 100 97 “Is Computer Science creative?” 90 97 “Is Computer Science intimidating?” 55 80 Figure 2: Responses of ‘yes’ to selected yes/no questionsFigures 1 and 2 summarize the responses of the students to selected questions before and after theclass. We omit from this table questions related to gender, age, race, and class year. Table 1 showsthe fraction of students (expressed as an integral percentage) that chose either 4 or 5 in responseto the given “1 through 5