Paper ID #26486Applying Project-based Learning with an Emphasis on Engineering Commu-nication for First-Year StudentsDavid Alan Degenhardt, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign David Degenhardt is currently pursuing a master’s degree in aerospace engineering at the University of Illinois. His work focuses on improving introduction-level classes for aerospace students. In August 2018 he was awarded the Aerospace Engineering Graduate Teaching Assistant Fellowship by the Department of Aerospace Engineering at the University of Illinois, under the supervision of Dr. Brian Woodard.Dr. Brian S. Woodard, University of Illinois
Paper ID #26427Work in Progress: A Path to Graduation: Helping First-Year Low Income,Rural STEM Students SucceedDr. Carol S. Gattis, University of Arkansas Dr. Carol Gattis is the Associate Dean Emeritus of the Honors College and an adjunct Associate Pro- fessor of Industrial Engineering at the University of Arkansas. Her academic research focuses on STEM education, developing programs for the recruitment, retention and graduation of a diverse population of students. Carol also serves as a consultant specializing in new program development and grants. She earned her bachelor’s, master’s and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical
New Haven Jean Nocito-Gobel, Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering at the University of New Haven, received her Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. She has been actively involved in a number of educational initiatives in the Tagliatela College of Engineering including KEEN and PITCH, PI of the ASPIRE grant, and is the coordinator for the first-year Intro to Engineering course. Her profes- sional interests include modeling the transport and fate of contaminants in groundwater and surface water systems, as well as engineering education reform.Dr. Ronald S. Harichandran, University of New Haven Ron Harichandran is Dean of the Tagliatela College of Engineering
Paper ID #26188Impact of Engineering Design-Focused Summer Academy Experience on In-terest Toward STEM Learning and Careers (Evaluation, Diversity)Dr. Kuldeep S. Rawat, Elizabeth City State University KULDEEP S. RAWAT is currently the Dean of Life, Physical Sciences, Mathematics and Technology and Director of Aviation Science program at Elizabeth City State University (ECSU).He has earned an M.S. in Computer Science, 2001, an M.S. in Computer Engineering, 2003; and, a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering, 2005, from the Center for Advanced Computer Studies (CACS) at University of Louisiana-Lafayette. He serves as the Site
Computer Engineering & Computer Science student at Northeastern University. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Community Engagement and Service-Learning: Putting faces to a community to create better engineersAbstractThis complete evidence-based practice paper presents how Service-Learning (S-L) helped first-year engineering students attending an urban institution to grow their concept of community.When S-L is incorporated into a first-year engineering design course, students expand theirlearning as they work and teach in the community. In addition, students get a chance to see andexperience the greater community to which they belong. Through S-L, engineering students
, 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
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
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
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
. computer lab work and group exercises [25].Table 3. Description of categories within the Assessment Methods theme. Description Example Student reflections Students are asked to report A five-point scale was used to on their perceptions of the ask students about the course innovation(s), impacts of an engineering typically using Likert scales professor visiting precalculus and/or open response courses [17]. questions. Pre
uncovered several insightful findings related to first-year engineeringstudents' use of time. Future work should look at collecting data on a larger scale to determine ifany of the activity categories are significant predictors of success, such as GPA. Additionally,the development and use of a time tracking app and dashboard may allow for deeper findingsinto how students and potentially faculty can think about time spent outside the classroom.AcknowledgementsThis work was supported in part by NSF Grants#1447489 and #1444277. We would like to thankour informants for participating in the field studies reported here. Any opinions, findings, andconclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do notnecessarily
data, labeling evidence and specific details of each theme in the data, and compared andreached consensus for any discrepancies. The frequencies with which each theme wasmentioned/represented were also counted and tabulated.The first theme is ‘Customer Involvement’. As “the end goal [of engineering design] is the creationof an artifact, product, system, or process that performs a function or functions to fulfill customerneed(s).” [27], it is very important to involve the customer throughout the process from needsanalysis to gaining feedback to ensure that the design solution fulfills customer need(s) and meetsor exceeds customer expectations. For this theme, when coding, data was categorized into threegroups: no mention of customer; some
did somelevel of mental manipulation of the object to get the answer. Guessing categorizes responses thatused the word ‘guess’ or explained that the student arrived at a conclusion by chance or withoutshowing evidence of deliberate reasoning. Guiding rule describes when the student(s) used astandard or criterion to judge which option is likely to be the answer, for example, studentresponses that involved the use of if-then logic (“if…then…”) or stating a specific criterion thatled to the answer (“whatever is…is the answer”). Intuition describes students’ responses inwhich the word “intuition” was used or the response showed that the student came to anunderstanding of the answer immediately without the need of conscious reasoning. Process
College John R. Williams Outstanding Teacher for 2012, and the 2012 Statler College Teacher of the Year.Dr. Robin A. M. Hensel, West Virginia University Robin A. M. Hensel, Ed.D., is the Assistant Dean for Freshman Experience in the Benjamin M. Statler College of Engineering and Mineral Resources at West Virginia University. While her doctorate is in Curriculum and Instruction, focusing on higher education teaching of STEM fields, she also holds B.S. and M.A. degrees in Mathematics. Dr. Hensel has over seven years of experience working in engineering teams and in project management and administration as a Mathematician and Computer Systems Analyst for the U. S. Department of Energy as well as more than 25 years of
engineering include a program at University of Arkansas that showed significantly higherfall-to-spring student retention and higher average GPA among students who were part of a freshmanpeer mentoring program [6], as well as Marra et al.’s study of students who participated in a peermentoring program and their subsequent feelings of belonging and intentions to persist in engineering[7].Summer Bridge ProgramsIt is well established that summer bridge programs work. Summer bridge programs have beenimplemented at many universities in an attempt to combat the high rates of attrition observed in STEMmajors, especially in students from underrepresented backgrounds in STEM [8]. Bridge programs takemany forms, with some focusing substantially on
concept(s)claimed. Unlike the real patent system, enforcement of patent claims was formally left to theinstructor. Typically, enforcement involved a quick meeting with the infringing team to find away to modify their idea so that it now fell into a useful gap in the other team’s patent claims.Teams who subsequently felt that their patent was being infringed upon were likewise brought infor a quick discussion to see how the other team’s idea fell into a gap in their claims. Having theclass patent system thus generated very effective discussions about what patent claims mean,how they work, and why they are written as they are. Class patent applications were submitted as a pdf file attached to an email to theinstructor. A sample patent
created a new position to keepthe program going long-term. The current E2 director has other job duties, but the camp and thepeer mentor program make up 50% of her responsibilities (25% for each program). Fortunately,the current staff member spent two years assisting the previous camp director with this program,and experienced students also have assisted in easing the transition between staff. It is alsoimperative to partner with other campus programs, units, and resources to ensure that theprogram is successful. Some changes made by campus residential life in 2018 possibly had anegative impact on the camp’s enrollment and participation due to competing activities.Communication for planning 2019’s camp began immediately after the 2018 program to
of 0.85 wasdetermined which provides a p-value of .40 and indicates no significant difference. Comparingengineering retention rates at the fifth semester, a z-score of 0.92 was calculated which provides ap-value of .36 and indicates no significant difference. Moving onto STEM College retention ratesat the third semester, a z-score of 0.60 with a p-value of .55 indicates no significant differencebetween Group 1 and Group 2. And lastly, STEM College retention rates at the fifth semester werecompared between groups with a z-score of 0.87 with a p-value of .38 indicates no significantdifference.Even though Group 2's retention rates declined slightly, overall there was no significant differencebetween the old model and new model with regards to
, “Specialreport: The research agenda for the new discipline of engineering education,” Journal ofEngineering Education, vol. 95, pp. 259–261, 2006.[2] B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich, “The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs aboutknowledge and knowing and their relation to learning,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 67,pp. 88-140, 1997.[3] W. G. Perry, Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.[4] P. M. King & K. S. Kitchener, The Development of Reflective Judgment: Understanding andPromoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 1994.[5] M. Schommer, “Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge
growth. By developing an assessment framework thathelps administrators clearly understand and develop a path to assess both student-learning andstudent-growth objectives greater benefits will come from first-year engineering programs.ReferencesBates, J. S. (2014, June), A First-Year Course Based on Conceptual Design Paper presented at2014 ASEE Annual Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana.Brawner, C., Camacho, M., Long, R., Lord, S., Ohland, M., and Wasburn, M. (2009) Work inProgress – The Effect of Engineering Matriculation Status on Major Selection. ASEE / IEEEFrontiers in Education Conference, San Antonio, TX.Brozina, C. (2018). Measuring commuter student support and success through academicintegration. In 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education (FIE
was jointly supported by the CollegeNow City University of New York program and NSF ATE Project #1601636 - Chemical andBioEnergy Technology for Sustainability (CBETS). Thank you to Ms. Susana Rivera forproviding the demographic information for the program and for her support of the College Nowprogram at BCC.References[1] J. C. Chang, "Women and minorities in the science, mathematics and engineering pipeline," ERIC Digest, p. ED467855, 2002.[2] J. Jones, A. Williams, S. Whitaker, S. Yingling, K. Inkelas, and J. Gates, "Call to action: Data, diversity, and STEM education," Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 40-47, 2018/03/04 2018.[3] "Federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
university and into first careers. In addition, thisstudy will be repeated with additional cohorts to better understand year-to-year variability in studentperception, major choices, and certainty levels.References: 1. Meyers, K. (2016). A Course to Promote Informed Selection of an Engineering Major using a Partially Flipped Classroom Model. Journal of STEM Education, 17(3). 2. Meyers, K., & Brozina, S. (2017). Supporting an Informed Selection of an Engineering Major. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Columbus, OH. 3. Seymour, E., Hewitt, N. M., & Friend, C. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences (Vol. 12). Boulder, CO
re-writing their goals using the technique. Some of these pre andpost goals were written on the board and as a class, the instructors, peer mentors, and studentsgot to discuss whether they thought the post-goals were better and why. This was effective athelping students to better define and enhance their own individual goals in practical ways, and inconsideration of academic excellence, and the upcoming year(s) in general, as appropriate. Thetentative assignment was to use the “S.M.A.R.T.” technique to form goal(s) for the semester andyear. Further, students were to continue to update their BP notebooks and complete select G4.0activities.Weeks 4 -5 By week 4, upon conferring with the instructors and Peer Mentors, it was decided
were added to capture additional detail as to the students’ perception of their abilities. These questions included: 1. WHY do engineers need to be proficient at communicating through writing, orally, and graphically? 2. What skill(s) do you think you need to work on most and WHY?Results and DiscussionsQuantitative ResultsThe quantitative results are summarized in Table 2 for better comparison. The results of thesurvey, regardless of the type of the communication, show a meaningful positive change in thelevel of the students’ confidence in each category at the end of the semester, with the largestchange belonging to the graphical communication. In addition, we carried out a paired t-test onthe average of
on the first submission, the students who took Instructor 1from the experimental group outperformed the comparison group students on all othersubmissions. Instructor 1’s students average scores increased by 1.251 points compared to theaverage scores of the students from the comparison group that only increased by 0.384 points.The students who took Instructor 2 from the experimental group received the lowest averagescore on all four submissions, but had the greatest gains across the submissions (with the averageincreasing by 1.780 points). Mathematical Model Complexity (out of 9 points) Change in Means across 4 Submissions 8.5
an engineering degree.Future work will continue to follow these students as they navigate their college degreeprograms, monitoring how these factors and others may predict major retention further into thecurriculum.AcknowledgmentsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) underGrant No. 1734347. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed inthis material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.References[1] K. M. Ehlert, M. K. Orr, and Grigg, “WIP : What’s your major? First-year engineering students’ conifidence in their major choice,” in Proceedings from FYEE 2018, Glassborrow NJ, 2018.[2] V. Germeijs and K. Verschueren, “High
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
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