Paper ID #29475Developing Technical Self-efficacy through a Maker-inspired DesignProjectDr. Jennifer S Mullin, UC Davis Jennifer S. Mullin is an Assistant Professor of Teaching in the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at UC Davis. Her work concerns the intersection between design, communication and prob- lem solving skills in engineering by enhancing all three through informed instructional choices using a ”learn-by-doing,” hands-on approach. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020Developing Technical Self-efficacy through a Maker-inspired Design ProjectAbstract:This
Paper ID #30811Relationship between Gen Z Engineering Students’ Personality Types andTopics of Technical InterestDr. Goli Nossoni, University of New Haven Dr. Goli Nossoni is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental En- gineering at University of New Haven. She received her M.S. and Ph.D. from Michigan State University in Structural Engineering and Materials Science. In addition to her interest in engineering education, Dr. Nossoni specializes in the research area of materials especially concrete and corrosion of steel inside concrete.Dr. Ronald S Harichandran P.E., University of New
Paper ID #28951Self-Efficacy Development in Students in a Declared EngineeringMatriculation StructureDr. Racheida S Lewis, University of Georgia Racheida S. Lewis, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor at the University of Georgia in the Engineering Educa- tion Transformations Institute (EETI) and the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. She has been recognized as a Gates Millennium Scholar, GEM Associate Fellow, New Horizon Scholar, and a 2019 inductee into the Bouchet Honor Society. She completed her doctoral work at Virginia Tech where she focused on the impact matriculation structures have on self-efficacy
in the College of Engineering and Technology at Utah Valley University. She is recognized through multiple awards for her research in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Susan holds a fellowship with Stanford University and a doctorate from Northeastern University, Boston.Dr. Sean S Tolman, Utah Valley University Sean S. Tolman is an Associate Professor in the Mechanical Engineering Program at Utah Valley Uni- versity in Orem, UT. He earned his BSME degree at Brigham Young University in 2002 and a MSME degree from the University of Utah in 2008 before returning to BYU to pursue doctoral studies complet- ing a PhD in 2014. He spent 8 years working in the automotive safety industry specializing in
engineering, teaching assistant programs, and technical communication education methods.Ms. Serendipity S Gunawardena, The Ohio State University Sery is an undergraduate researcher. She is pursuing a Computer Science & Engineering degree with a Psychology minor. She is from Athens, Ohio and currently resides in Dayton, Ohio. She is a Teaching Assistant for the Honors Fundamentals of Engineering Program and enjoys tutoring younger students. Outside of class, Sery likes calligraphy and playing the piano.Dr. Krista M Kecskemety, The Ohio State University Krista Kecskemety is an Assistant Professor of Practice in the Department of Engineering Education at The Ohio State University. Krista received her B.S. in Aerospace
at the college of engineering, computer science and technology (ECST).Prof. Paul S Nerenberg, California State University, Los Angeles Dr. Paul S. Nerenberg is currently an Assistant Professor of Physics and Biology at California State University, Los Angeles. He received his PhD in Physics from MIT and has a strong interest in improving the quality of introductory physics education, particularly for students who enter college with little or no previous physics coursework.Ni Li, Northwestern Polytechnial University Ni Li, Ph.D., was an Assistant Professor of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at California State University, Los Angeles. Now, she is working in the school of Aeronautics at Northwestern
published over 75 journal, conference, and technical papers. Presently, Dr. Altman is a Professor of Computer Science at CU Denver and has been an active ABET Program Evaluator (CAC) since 2008. His current research focus is on STEM and more specifically, Engineering Education.Prof. Katherine Goodman, University of Colorado Denver Katherine Goodman is assistant professor at the University of Colorado Denver, and the associate director of Inworks, an interdisciplinary innovation lab. Her research focuses on transformative experiences in engineering education. She is currently division chair of the Technological and Engineering Literacy - Philosophy of Engineering Division (TELPhE).Dr. Michael S. Jacobson, University of
child plays with, what books their child reads, and where their childgoes to school. As a result, a student’s exposure and perception of different career disciplinesand professional roles is highly influenced by the introductory actions of parents.Parents themselves can serve as role models for engineering if they themselves are engineers [4].Studies have found that children are often more literate in the professions of their parents and asa result occupational inheritance may occur. This phenomenon has been found to occur infamilies in which a parent, sibling, or other relative(s) are engineers as well as in families withmedical professionals and lawyers. [15]Parents also provide support for their children when selecting majors [4]. In fact
of origami task (O-folding instructions 19 . LI-2).Modules were provided online via the course management system. Participants had one week tocomplete each module and submit the appropriate task deliverable(s) via the online system. Thedeliverable for each origami-based module was a photograph of the object(s) they created (Figure2). The deliverable for each CAD-based module was a SketchUp file of their final drawing(s)(Figure 4). Figure 4: Deliverable of CAD task (C-LI-1).Figure 3: Example of CAD task (C-LI-1) mul-tiview orthographic drawings
, as well as several years of electrical and mechanical engineering design experience as a practicing engineer. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering from Swarthmore College, his Master’s of Education degree from the University of Massachusetts, and a Master’s of Science in Mechanical Engineering and Doctorate in Engineering Education from Purdue University.Ms. Ann E. Delaney, Boise State University Ann Delaney is the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Coordinator and the SAGE Scholars Program Director in the College of Engineering at Boise State University. SAGE Scholars is an NSF-funded S-STEM scholarship program which is part of the Redshirting in Engineering Consortium. As part of this program
Research and Education c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Implementation of an Introductory Engineering Course and its Impact on Students’ Academic Success and RetentionAbstractThis Complete Research paper will describe the implementation of an introductory course(ENGR194) for first semester engineering students. The course is meant to improve retention andacademic success of engineering first-year students in the College of Engineering at the Universityof Illinois at Chicago. The implementation of this course is part of an ongoing National ScienceFoundation (NSF) Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (S-STEM)project. This paper reports on the impact of combinatorial
engineering students at the J.B. Speed Schoolof Engineering (SSoE) at the University of Louisville must take.The interest barrier, defined in this paper as “student beliefs related to the significance and/orusefulness of engineering”, inherently includes student perception(s) related to the level ofpleasure experienced in conducting engineering-related tasks or activities. Research has identifiedinterest as the most significant retention impediment for SSoE students; specifically, an increasein interest predicted which students remained in engineering. Yet the significance of the interestquestion extends well beyond SSoE to engineering programs all over the country.First-year engineering makerspace courses can have a positive impact on first-year
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
, 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
] 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
, and A. S. Malik, “The influences of emotion on learning and memory,” Front. Psychol., vol. 8, no. 1454, 2017.[3] M. J. Riemer, “Integrating emotional intelligence into engineering education,” World Trans. Eng. Technol. Educ., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 189–194, 2003.[4] D. Kim and B. K. Jesiek, “Work-in-Progress: Emotion and intuition in engineering students’ ethical decision-making and implications for engineering ethics education,” 2019.[5] A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Freeman, 1997.[6] F. Pajares, “Self-efficacy in academic settings,” in American Educational Research Association, 1995.[7] D. W. McMillan and D. M. Chavis, “Sense of community: A definition and theory,” J
provided to the instructor. Student surveyresponses and course outcomes were combined using their student ID number, which was thenremoved. Only students that completed all study components were included in the analysis.The beginning of the semester surveys included student demographic information, a self-assessment of engineering skills, and the GRIT-S questionnaire [17]. The end of semester surveyincluded the intrinsic motivation activity perception questionnaire for computer programming, arepeat of the engineering skills assessment, rating for how much students felt different aspects ofthe course benefited them and additional questions about their perceptions of the self-directedproject. To determine students’ feelings on the aspects of the
they made no use of the peer-mentors or they had little to no effect (‘NoDetermination’). Technique 2’s requirement that students make use of their assigned peer-mentorclearly, and unsurprisingly, forces them to establish some clear ‘consultant’ or ‘mentor’relationship. More importantly, the provided instructions for those interactions do admittedlyfocus on the project itself and steer those interactions towards a more transactional interaction,which explains the majority ‘consultant’ roles identified. Clearly without having interacted, theydo not even have a chance to promulgate a relationship at all, particularly one that goes beyondthe project and towards developing as a student and budding engineer. (a
[19]. In addition, we will survey sophomore-levelstudents in spring 2020; all of these students will have taken the course. In summary, this work-in-progress paper presents a survey that measures a range ofoutcomes to assess the impact of a first-year engineering design course. By surveying thestudents at the beginning and end of the semester, positive changes in student self-efficacy andstudents’ perceptions of their skills are measured.References[1] A. Bandura, “Self-efficacy,” in Encyclopedia of human behavior, V. S. Ramachaudran, Ed. New York: Academic Press, 1994, Vol. 4, pp. 71-81.[2] A. Bandura, “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change,” Psychological Review, vol. 84, pp. 191-215, 1977.[3] A
excitedabout the idea of solving a real-world problem and adding value by using their creativity. Someworry about bringing a solution to life due to their little engineering experience so far. In week 2,there is a dip in motivation. Most students again find teamwork and discussion helpful. Somecomment heated discussion within their team and difficulty reaching consensus. During week 3,there is an increase in motivation. Many say they enjoy the hands-on rapid prototyping activity.Week 4’s planning activity such as coming up with a materials list gets some students excited.After week 5’s proposal presentation, many students comment that they find sharing their ideasand seeing other students’ ideas interesting. Week 6 is the first construction and
have already proposed algorithms, pipelines and tools to resolve the issues based onthe U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)’s requirement onprotecting protected health information [6]–[8]. However, HIPAA requires protection on lots ofunexpected information in the academic setting, such as locations, dates, telephone numbers, faxnumbers, social security numbers, etc. [9]. In the education context, Rudniy reported anautomating deidentification project using peer feedback textual data for online writing projectsvia MyR [10]. However, our peer to peer comment data is structured in groups to facilitateteamwork learning so that it is highly possible that the commenter mentions more than one groupmember, which might
average score earned). All statistical analyses were conducted usingIBM SPSS 25.The inter-rater reliability between the coders measured using Cohen’s kappa and is shown inTable 3. The two values in each cell of the table represent the reliability for the pre-interviews(left) and post-interviews (right). Agreement between Coders 1, 2, and 4 ranges from roughly“moderate” to “strong,” while agreement with Coder 3 is “minimal” to “weak” [32]. However,unless otherwise noted, Coder 3’s ratings are included in the aggregate results that follow as theeffect of removing Coder 3 is inconsequential, as will be shown.Table 3. Inter-rater reliability: Cohen's kappa for the four coders for pre / post interviews Coder 2
practice. Then, transfer that knowledge and experience to the final steps in theprocess, when they are fully immersed abroad.The guided CIAs are individual writing, out-of-class assignments that are followed by in-classdiscussions on the significance of the analyses. The papers are structured around the threequestions [24] given below for CIA #1:1. What? – A brief description of: o the most salient emotion(s) experienced so far in your attempt to contextualize and define the design problem o the incident, encounter or activity that evoked the emotion(s)2. So What? o How has the experience impacted your assumptions, expectations and perspectives of the co-learners or design process?3. Now What? o What specific
. Anderson, “On the development of a professional identity: Engineering persisters vs engineering switchers,” in 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 2009, pp. 1–6.[5] K. L. Meyers, M. W. Ohland, A. L. Pawley, S. E. Silliman, and K. A. Smith, “Factors relating to engineering identity,” Global Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 119–131, 2012.[6] J. A. Rohde, L. Benson, G. Potvin, A. Kirn, and A. Godwin, “You Either Have It or You Don’t: First Year Engineering Students’ Experiences of Belongingness,” presented at the 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Jun. 2018, Accessed: Feb. 02, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/you-either-have-it-or-you-don-t-first-year-engineering
, B. M. Wallen, and J. A. Starke, “An Environmental Engineering Sequence: Deliberately Addressing and Evaluating Environmental Attitudes and Knowledge (presentation & 6-page paper),” presented at the 2017 Mid-Atlantic Section Fall Conference, 2017.[3] S. Dexter, E. Buchanan, K. Dins, K. R. Fleischmann, and K. Miller, “Characterizing the Need for Graduate Ethics Education,” in Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, New York, NY, USA, 2013, pp. 153–158, doi: 10.1145/2445196.2445245.[4] A. R. Bielefeldt and N. E. Canney, “Changes in the Social Responsibility Attitudes of Engineering Students Over Time,” Sci Eng Ethics, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 1535–1551, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11948-015
good There is too muchtextual balance of visual balance of visual written information.composition information, with information, with written information. written information.Effective use of There is a good balance Bright font colors There is not a goodcolor and contrast of color. on bright balance of color or background or vice contrast. versa.Fonts By using an appropriate Some fonts in the The font(s) used in font, it is easy to view infographic are too
Architecture from the University of California.Prof. L. D. Timmie Topoleski, University of Maryland, Baltimore County c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Engineering State of Mind Instrument: A tool for self-assessmentIntroduction Undergraduate student recruitment and retention in engineering continue to be animportant topic in higher education, especially as it relates to diversity and inclusion. In 2016about 45% of freshmen indicated they planned to major in an S&E field (up from about 8% in2000); [1]. While the number of degrees awarded in the STEM fields has increased steadily inthe past 10 years, only 16% of bachelor’s degrees awarded were engineering degrees. Best practices (i.e
KEEN “3Cs” - Curiosity, Connections, and Creating Value.ReflectionIt is a practice of human nature to reflect on experiences of the past and present. However, in thecase of reflection, most people fail to recognize the use of these experiences to aid in the future.True reflection “on experience can be framed as an intentional and dialectical thinking processwhere an individual revisits features of an experience with which he/she is aware and uses one ormore lenses in order to assign meaning(s) to the experience that can guide future action (and thusfuture experience)” [1]. It takes various elements and perspectives to achieve reflective thinking.Schon simplified reflection down to two categories known as “reflection-on-action” and“reflection
personalized for each student, covering the topics needed, and progressing at the pace chosen by the student. At the onset, the student completes a self-test. The questions cover all the topics to be covered in an upcoming math course. Once in the math course, the instructor would expect the student to know all the prerequisite topics. However, this theoretical expectation is not always matched in practice. Upon completion of the self-test, the student is aware of the percentage of prerequisite topics s/he has mastered. ALEKS will then provide tutorials, along with quizzes, to ensure the student covers all the gaps that remain. 2.3. Learning Strategies Course First-year students were given the option to enroll in a zero-credit course
, 5 2005, http://notes.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf [2] Robert P. Hesketh, Stephanie Farrell, and C. S. Slater, AN INDUCTIVE APPROACH TO TEACHING COURSES IN ENGINEERING, Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Session 2003- 2531; pgs 8.197.1 – 8.197.19. [3] Leonhard D. Bernold, Preparedness of Engineering Freshman to Inquiry-Based Learning, J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2007, 133(2): 99-106. [4] Deslauriers, L., McCarthy L.S., Miller K., Callaghan, Kestin G., Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom, Proceedings of the National Academy of