year, the averageenrollment in EDD over the past four years has been about 300 students. In addition to a largecommon lecture section, the students have labs and writing/speaking activities in smaller groupsof about 30 students. The “Exploring Engineering” course includes technical lectures,presentations from departmental representatives , and many hands-on activities.The objective of this paper is to summarize the results of surveys conducted over each of the pastfour years of the engineering majors. The s urveys were intended to gauge student opinions as towhy they selected their declared major. Surveys were administered in April of each year, in the
. Page 24.437.7Bibliography1. Micceri T, Wajeeh E. The Influence of Geographical Location and Application to Multiple Institutions on Recruitment. BPA-IR technical report, USF, Tampa, FL. Available on the WWW (http://isis. fastmail. usf. edu/surveys/Studies/). 1998.2. Price IF, Matzdorf F, Smith L, Agahi H. The impact of facilities on student choice of university. Facilities. 2003;21(10):212-222.3. Rocca SJ, Washburn SG. Factors influencing college choice on high school and transfer matriculants into a college of agriculture. NACTA Journal. 2005;49(1):32-38.4. Briggs S. An exploratory study of the factors influencing undergraduate student choice: the case of higher education in Scotland. Studies in Higher
their future studies.References1. Courter, S. S., Millar, S. B. and Lyons, L. (1998), From the Students' Point of View: Experiences in a Freshman Engineering Design Course. Journal of Engineering Education, 87: 283–288. doi: 10.1002/j.2168- 9830.1998.tb00355.x2. Dym, C. L. (1994), Teaching Design to Freshmen: Style and Content. Journal of Engineering Education, 83: 303–310. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.1994.tb00123.x3. Burton, J. D. and White, D. M. (1999), Selecting a Model for Freshman Engineering Design. Journal of Engineering Education, 88: 327–332. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.1999.tb00454.x4. Dally, J. W. and Zhang, G. M. (1993), A Freshman Engineering Design Course. Journal of Engineering Education, 82: 83–91. doi: 10.1002/j.2168
causes frustration for students is moving easily between verbal, symbolic, andgraphical representations. This represents a major challenge to students, especially in theirphysics classes. A quick look at a typical physics books used at TAMU14 reveals that almost allthe problems are presented verbally, although pictures are used on occasion. This is also the casewith optimization problems in calculus, which are often used as applications of the derivative.Often, students do not have any major difficulty in carrying out the mathematical manipulations.Rather, they struggle to convert the verbal description into a mathematical description. Studentsare unable to answer questions such as: 1. What is(are) the variable(s) of interest? 2
THE GAUNTLET ScoringClimb Ramp • There are 4 “lines” – each line you pass in a positive vertical direction is 5 points. If you pass one line more than once, no additional points are givenIdentify Ball • If your robot can identify one blue ball to pass through 10 points. If your robot can identify 2 consecutive blue balls to pass through 20 points.Navigate Maze • If your robot successfully navigates the maze – 20 pointsStop at Edge • The style in which you robot stops at the edge is between 0-20 points. • If your robot falls over the edge – s=0; if your robot stops “short” or has an appendage over the edge – s=0.5; if your robot stops
Technical College Jill Davishahl is a faculty member in the engineering department at Bellingham Technical College where she teaches courses ranging from Intro to Engineering Design to Engineering Statics. Outside of teach- ing, Jill is working on the development of a Bachelor of Applied Science in Engineering Technology and is currently PI on the NSF funded ATE project grant in renewable energy as well as PI on an NSF funded S-STEM project. She holds a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Washington.Mr. Eric Davishahl, Whatcom Community College Eric Davishahl is faculty and engineering program coordinator at Whatcom Community College. His teaching and research interests include
Stefanou et al.’s framework, student autonomycan be promoted at three different levels: organizational, procedural, and cognitive. These threelevels include varying degree of student choice: organizational autonomy takes into account theenvironment (e.g., due dates), procedural autonomy incorporates form (e.g., deliverable form),and cognitive autonomy involves content (e.g., designing projects). This range of possible SDLexperiences allows for a wide interpretation of the role and value of SDL and student autonomyby both students and faculty. Using methods of grounded theory, three research questions wereaddressed: (a) How do the pedagogical practices in the first-year mathematics, physics, andengineering classes fit into Stefanou et al.’s
free of charge. The following is a more detaileddescription of the project requirements: o Fabricated object – Make a themed object from scratch. Usually this will be part of your puzzle, but they can also be hiding places and objects of interest in the room. For examples: Puzzle boxes, a small chest of drawers, the apparatus used to play your puzzle, or theme appropriate furniture (still needs to be portable). This object should be small enough for one person to carry it without assistance. o 3D printed object – Using Solidworks to make the object, each team will 3D print a small piece(s) used in their puzzle and/or fabricated object. Examples: Three different colors of numbered keys, a
; Exposition, Annual Conference, 2004.4 Flemming, L., Engerman, K., and Williams, D. ―Why Students Leave Engineering: the Unexpected Bond,‖Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education Conference& Exposition, Annual Conference,2006.5 Fortenberry, N., Sullivan, J., Jordan, P., and Knight, D., ―Engineering Education Research Aids Instruction,‖Science, Vol. 317, 2007.6 Ohland, M., Sheppard, S., Lichtenstein, G., Eris, O., Chachra, D., and Layton, R., ―Persistence, Engagement, andMigration in Engineering Programs,‖ Journal of Engineering Education, July 2008.7 Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N., Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, Westview Press,Boulder, CO, 20008 Zhang, G., Min,YK., Ohland, M., and
also utilizes data including thefollowing: concurrent math course the student is taking, which engineering course(s) they aretaking, and self-reported gender.The response rate over the last three years is commonly over 90%, with a minimum response rateof 83% over the last three years. Table 1. Survey Questions and Timing Start of Middle End of End of Question Fall of Fall Fall Spring How certain do you feel about engineering in Fall Fall general? (that
dataonce it had all been obtained. As the students were working through the videos, the instructorwas able to join the breakout rooms to answer questions and provide guidance.With the data gathering complete, the students continued working in the breakout rooms toanalyze their values and results within Excel. The majority of the time, one person from eachgroup would use the Zoom share screen feature to present their excel spreadsheet so all memberscould work together on the data analysis. Once everyone was satisfied with the results, thespreadsheet and corresponding graph(s) were uploaded to the learning management system forinstructor review and grading.Kinematics and Dynamics lab – Virtual labThis lab begins with a general presentation covering
of Scientific Writing, 4th ed. (New York: Springer, 2018).4. S. Sheffield, R. Fowler, L. K. Alford, and K. Snyder, “Implementing a Single Holistic Rubric to Address Both Communication and Technical Criteria in a First Year Design-Build-Test-Communicate Class,” 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (Columbus, Ohio: ASEE, June 2017), https://peer.asee.org/28479.5. K. M. Kecskemety, A. H. Theiss, and R. L. Kajfez, “Enhancing TA Grading of Technical Writing: A Look Back to Better Understand the Future,” 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (Seattle: ASEE, June 2015), 10.18260/p.24005.6. Cheryl Glenn, Director of First-Year Composition, Pennsylvania State University, interview (13 November 2018).7. S. A
devices, an optional 4-day course on engineering of musicalinstruments, and an opportunity for students to get together and speak about their experiencesthrough guided storytelling. We will report on the results of these programs at a later date.BibliographyASEE (2014). Going the Distance: Best Practices and Strategies for Retaining Engineering,Engineering Technology, and Computing Students. https://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/college-profiles.Alon, S. (2005). Model mis-specification in assessing the impact of financial aid on academicoutcomes. Research in Higher Education, 46(1), 109–125.Alon, S., & Tienda, M. (2005). Assessing the “mismatch” hypothesis: Differences in collegegraduation rates by institutional
Paper ID #25277Visibly Random Grouping Applied to First-Semester EngineeringDr. Kathleen A. Harper, Ohio State University Kathleen A. Harper is a senior lecturer in the Department of Engineering Education at The Ohio State University. She received her M. S. in physics and B. S. in electrical engineering and applied physics from Case Western Reserve University, and her Ph. D. in physics from The Ohio State University. She has been on the staff of Ohio State’s University Center for the Advancement of Teaching, in addition to teaching in both the physics and engineering education departments. She is currently a member of the
. Therefore, future studies regarding student motivationsystems or other psychological factors are in need to explore factors that facilitate or impedestudents to transfer to a four-year engineering institution and factors that facilitate or impedetheir subsequent success at the four-year institutions. Third, time to graduation was consideredonly at the final degree granting institution. Therefore, further exploration about the amount oftime that transfer students have spent at their initial institution(s) is necessary in order to accountfor total time to graduation. Fourth, some factors that could be investigated here are the slope ofhow fast they graduate from the degree granting institution which is an indicator oftransferability of courses that
decision-making processes on students’ success and retention in their fields.Bibliography1. Bodner, G. M, Follman, D. K, & Hutchinson, M. A. (2005). Shaping the Self-Efficacy Beliefs of First-Year Page 13.351.11 Engineering Students: What is the Role We Play? Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference. Portland, OR.2. Lent R.W., Brown, S.D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a Unifying Social Cognitive Theory of Career and Academic Interest, Choice and Performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79-122.3. Lent, R. W; Brown, S. D., Sheu, H., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B. R
concepts,course topics, and software knowledge developed in the previous course(s), and apply them tonew problems.11 The interesting and unintentional opportunity that Michigan Tech had was to create paralleland similar design activities between the two paths in the first-year engineering program. Thisinitiative let the students in the pre-calculus path know that they were completing activities Page 14.852.4similar to the calculus-ready students. The following sections show how the concepts ofsustainability and green engineering were incorporated into ENG1001 and ENG1101, and howthe students applied these concepts in ENG1102.ENG1001
Alabama -Foundation Coalition Program.” http://www.foundationcoalition.org/publications/journalpapers/fie95/4d22.pdf(accessed 11/28/07).7. G. L. Hein and S. A. Sorby, “Engineering Explorations: Introducing First Year Students to Engineering,” presentedat IEEE/ASEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Reno, NV, 2001.8. J. Parker, D. Cordes, C. Laurie, A. Hopenwasser, J. Izatt, and D. Nikles, “Curriculum Integration in the FreshmanYear at the University of Alabama - Foundation Coalition Program.”http://www.foundationcoalition.org/publications/journalpapers/fie95/4a11.pdf (accessed 11/28/07).9. M. A. Reyes, M. R. Anderson-Rowland, and M. A. McCartney, “Freshman Introductory Engineering SeminarCourse: Coupled with Bridge Program Equals Academic Success
I coursewill generate A‟s, B‟s, C‟s and D‟s for engineering students as well as for other majors. Yet,assuming that grades are an indication of what was learned, it is imperative that most engineeringstudents earn an “A” or an “B”, due to the need for this knowledge in subsequent calculus-basedcourses in the freshman engineering curriculum. This discussion supports the need for moretutoring and mentoring of freshman engineering students in Calculus I as an intervention strategyfor student success than for students in other fields.With the comparison of the distributions of the STEM GPA and the overall GPA for Calculus Istudents at this university, the difficulty that Calculus I students are having in their otherfreshman-level courses
practices”.When students of the former Mechanical Engineering program (degree: Diplom) at Page 11.701.2Technische Universität Darmstadt evaluated their department in 1997 they also criticizedsimilar aspects of their study program4. Faculty members used this opportunity to makechanges in their curriculum. This was also motivated by demands from industry5, and byrecent recommendations in the European Bologna Process.6 Since the fall of 2000, students atthe Technische Universität Darmstadt have been able to enroll in reformed “Bachelor´s andMaster´s programs” (degrees: Bachelor and Master of Science).The European Bologna ProcessIn 1999 Germany and 38
been an Electrical Engineering Professor. Dr. Mendoza is interested in Socioeconomi- cally Disadvantaged Engineering Students, Latino Studies in Engineering, Computer Aided/Instructional Technology in Engineering, and Entrepreneurship/Service Learning.Dr. Jacques C. Richard, Texas A&M University Dr. Richard got his Ph. D. at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1989 & a B. S. at Boston University, 1984. He was at NASA Glenn, 1989-1995, taught at Northwestern for Fall 1995, worked at Argonne National Lab, 1996-1997, Chicago State, 1997-2002. Dr. Richard is a Sr. Lecturer & Research Associate in Aerospace Engineering @ Texas A&M since 1/03. His research is focused on computational plasma modeling using
, concise, and straightforward; being sure thatthe item was directly assessing what needed to be assessed; and considering the relevance of theitem to the student experience [22]. Items were all written to be statements that students couldrate agreement with on a Likert scale, where 5 = strongly agree and 1 = strongly disagree. Thesurvey developed now provides the foundation for a future pilot study, in order to analyze thesuggested constructs and determine factor loading to pick the best survey item(s) that relate toeach theme.Results: Survey Items to Assess Women’s Dissatisfaction in TeamsOne goal of the survey is to be able to use the resultant data to determine whether themesidentified in the interviews are related to the gender makeup of the
. Given that student perceptionswere generally positive toward the different interventions, the instructors will continueimplementing these practices but will examine ways to clarify the utility or improveupon the techniques with lower ratings.References[1] H.J. Passow, “Which ABET Competencies Do Engineering Graduates Find Most Important in their Work?,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 101, pp. 95-118. 2012.[2] L. K., Alford, R. Fowler, and S. Sheffield. “Evolution of Student Attitudes Toward Teamwork in a Project-based, Team-based First-Year Introductory Engineering Course,” in ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2014.[3] B. Oakley, R. Felder, R. Brent, and I. Elhajj, “Turning Student Groups into Effective
what the right cross sectionshould look like. Consequently, Tanner’s response was coded as mental action.Guessing. Responses that used the word “guess” or explained that the student arrived at aconclusion by chance or without showing evidence of deliberate reasoning were classified asguessing. For instance, Mia responded with, “No, I just guessed on each question.” In this case,she specifically had “guess” in her response. The other students’ who responses involvedguessing also reported using other strategies. These are further discussed in the section oncombined strategies below.Guiding rule. Guiding rule implies that in the participant responses, the student(s) used astandard or criteria to judge which option is likely to be the answer for
education, and educational psychology, as well as an external evaluator and an advisory board member on several NSF-funded projects (CAREER, iCorps, REU, RIEF, etc.). c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Paper ID #23514Dr. Jacques C. Richard, Texas A&M University Dr. Richard got his Ph. D. at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1989 & a B. S. at Boston University, 1984. He was at NASA Glenn, 1989-1995, worked at Argonne National Lab, 1996-1997, taught at Chicago State University, 1997-2002. Dr. Richard is a Sr. Lecturer & Research Associate in Aerospace Engi- neering @ Texas
to the local industries in STEM fields is also considered for future. References 1. X. Kong, K. P. Dabney, and R. H. Tai, “The Association Between Science Summer Camps and Career Interest in Science and Engineering”, International Journal of Science Education, Communication and Public Engagement, 2013. 2. M. Yilmaz, J. Ren, S. Custer, and J. Coleman, “Hands-On Summer Camp to Attract K–12 Students to Engineering Fields”, IEEE Educational Society, 2010.3. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, http://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering- technology-programs-2017-20184. G. C. Weaver, K. Haghighi, D. D. Cook, C. J. Foster, S. M. Moon, P. J. Phegley, Tormoehlen, R. L
given to thestudents at the beginning of the semester, skills that students are not familiar or comfortable withwhen they enter the program include making sketches, diagrams, graphs, etc. and using them astools to learn, to investigate, and to document. This paper will describe the results of that surveyand the introduction of four specific assignments into the first-year engineering design course thatare designed to both improve these skills and foster appreciation for these skills. The authors willevaluate the impact on the students’ perception of their abilities and their level of comfort in usingthese visualizations skills to solve engineering problems.Literature Review and BackgroundIn the 1950’s when the United States was focused on the
Brandon H. Griffin Teaching Award in the COE at OU in both 2012 and 2013. Page 26.1147.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Mentorship Techniques for First-Year Freshman and Transfer Engineering StudentsAbstract:In the early 2000’s, faculty leaders in the College of Engineering at the University of Oklahomarecognized the need to expose first-year engineering students to resources available to them thatwould improve their probability of success. During the development of an orientation course, theDean’s Leadership Council was created to empower upper
engineering as their intended major. HWCOEbegins the process of corresponding with all new admits via email, phone calls and letters tocongratulate them on their acceptance into the University and welcome them into the College. Atthis time, students are informed of the diverse student support services provided by the collegewhich includes the STEPUP program and other support services offered through the college.Students electing to apply to the STEPUP program must submit: ▪ A resume documenting past leadership, organizational and community service experiences, ▪ A cover letter describing the reason for their interest in the STEPUP program and any personal goal(s) they would like to accomplish as a result of their participation in