promising tool for holistically assessing design solutions in engineering education.Additionally, given the strong correlation between ranks of students and faculty, ACJ couldbe used to include students in their own assessment to reduce the faculty grading burden or todevelop a shared construct of capability which could increase the alignment of teaching andlearning.Key Words: Engineering Education, Design, Assessment, Adaptive Comparative Judgement.BackgroundIn the recent past, an increasing emphasis has been placed on the development ofundergraduate engineering students’ design capabilities, with a focus on enabling students todevelop innovative and creative design solutions [1], [2]. This change has been driven bydesign being mandated by ABET as
activity exposurechallenge through the implementation of new educational science procedural standards thatincorporate engineering thinking such as SEPS (Scientific and Engineering Practices Standards).The challenge is that K-12 (high school focus) is still very siloed, so a difficult roll-out [1], [2].Some colleges are implementing pre-course trainings to help incoming students better preparefor college, such as summer bridge courses and pre-course preparation sessions [3], [4], [5], [6].These tend to focus on a particular topic and typically do not explore interdisciplinary elements[7], [8].Extracurricular student organizations and clubs are assembled to foster student engagement ofspecific topics. These are often student run with limited faculty
©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 What Makes an Effective Peer Mentor? Perceptions of Undergraduate Engineering Students During COVID-19IntroductionThis complete research paper is focused on sharing undergraduate engineering students’perceptions of what made an effective peer mentor during COVID-19. These students were at awestern institution of the United States in a college of engineering.Traditionally, mentors are thought to have more experience and may hold more power whencompared to their mentee [1]–[4]. These relationships may tend to be more one-sided, with thesenior mentor conveying information to the junior mentee [2], [4], [5]. Contrastingly, peermentorship are non-hierarchical relationships that occur
Paper ID #38624First-Year Students in Experiential Learning in Engineering Education:A Systematic Literature ReviewDr. Gerald Tembrevilla, Mount Saint Vincent University Gerald Tembrevilla obtained his PhD in science (physics) education at the University of British Columbia. He served as a postdoctoral fellow in the Faculty of Engineering at McMaster University. Currently, he is an Assistant Professor at Mount Saint Vincent University in Halifax, Canada and teaching and doing research on 1.) the integration of learning technologies to improve hands-on science, scientific argumentation skills, and 2.) examining the
area and not general or introductory engineering. These, among otherfactors, make designing an effective introduction to engineering courses challenging. Landis [1]recommends five course objectives for introduction to engineering courses: community building,professional development, academic development, personal development and orientation.Design projects apply to many of these. In community building, the team aspects of numerousprojects help students develop professional skills and build a support network for their collegeexperience. Teaching the engineering design process and engineering’s role in a better society isexcellent professional development. Productive interactions with peers and faculty, as well aslearning to prioritize important
,thus improving the self-reported learning outcomes of the course.IntroductionMany universities require a first-year cornerstone course for incoming engineering students, andBucknell University is no exception. One version of the college-wide introductory course,adopted in the 2002-2003 academic year [1], involved seminar-based instruction related to thedisciplines of engineering as well as a separate week introducing engineering ethics. The courseformat was recently revised to a project-based course in the 2021-2022 academic year [2] but thepilot year maintained a separate week of standalone instruction for engineering ethics. Thepurpose of this paper is to document the ongoing adjustments made during the second iterationof the project-based
guidelines fromthe general education committee (lifelong learning), the first-year experience requirement, and isused by various departments as a beginning indicator for ABET. The course is to meet thefollowing GE outcomes: Acquire foundational skills and capacities- Write effectively for variousaudiences; Develop capacities for continued development and lifelong learning- demonstrateactivities, techniques, or behaviors that promote intellectual or cultural growth [1]. Moreimportantly, the unit serves to grow consistency across the course and still maintain academicfreedom for faculty and academic choice for students.Motivation- OtherThere were also other intangible factors that contributed to the development of the unit of study.Previous research
basis [1]. This strategy is designed to not overwhelmlearners with content that does not meet their immediate learning needs [2]. For over 25 years, anhonors first-year engineering program has offered a cornerstone robotics design project as theculmination of a two-course sequence on engineering fundamentals [3]. To provide students withthe new technical knowledge needed for the robotics project while allowing teams to progress intheir own designs, a JIT learning instructional strategy is used for three technical explorationactivities. The motivation for this paper is to share a strategy for how JIT learning can be used in adesign-build course to motivate student learning and consistently teach important skills while stillproviding students
First-Year StudentsIntroductionDiscussion of engineering curriculum development often focuses on technical knowledge andskills needed to prepare students to design engineering solutions. However, the context in whichthese solutions are applied is important as indicated in the first cannon in the National Society ofProfessional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics which states that "engineers shall hold paramountthe safety, health, and welfare of the public" [1]. The focus on preparing students for thetechnical demands of engineering design may lead to them not fully appreciating the societalimpact of engineering solutions. Cech [2] studied the evolution of the interest of students inpublic welfare issues, such as ethical responsibilities
even introduced awalking component to a class [1].As previously noted, walking also has important mental health benefits. These mental healthbenefits include self-esteem, cognitive functioning and a positive mood. One study alsosuggested that there is growing evidence that physical activities such as walking can help preventor treat depression and anxiety, although more research in these areas is still necessary. Thatbeing said, additional research is starting to illustrate being in nature and green-spaces canincrease your well-being. Thus walks on campus in and around nature could have additionalpositive effects for the students [2, 3, 4, 5]. In addition to the mental health benefits, walking hasbeen shown to improve physical health metrics
agile processes. The second activity discussed below highlights principles ofsoftware engineering without requiring students to do any programming. In addition, students areintroduced to humanitarian causes that encourage them to consider how their major cancontribute to social good.Lesson 1: Agile Process ActivityTraditional design processes in engineering and computing follow a sequence of steps. The endgoal of a design process could be a product or it could be a process. The steps to develop theproduct or process using a traditional approach usually start with comprehensive planning to becompleted before proceeding to creation. In contrast, agile design and development utilizesrepeated iterations of a shorter plan-create-test-revise process
) fields: a strong sense of STEM identity [1],[2], scientificself-efficacy [3], a sense of belonging [4], and a psychological sense of community [5]. This isespecially true for first year and transfer students pursuing STEM undergraduate degrees. Avariety of studies have been published that go into detail about why these characteristics havesuch a significant effect on student performance and retention [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. This paperbuilds on past research focused on the intersections between reflection, metacognition, andSTEM professional skills [6]. We present Critical Self-Reflection [7] to integrate development ofthese characteristics into student research experiences to foster experiential learning. STEMstudents are not often trained to
featured in relevant courses and how to further incorporate the theories as practicein the classroom. The following morning, prior to instruction, the faculty shared out their plansand identified opportunities for collaboration. This learn-plan-share-collaborate cycle repeatedthroughout the workshop.Spaced RetrievalSpaced retrieval requires a learner to apply previously learned knowledge after some time haspassed. This has obvious value as students must frequently pull from prior knowledge duringexams, subsequent courses, and internships. This teaching practice within a course createsopportunities for practicing this skill. This has been shown in multiple contexts to improveretention of material [1]–[4]. Based on this, it was decided that the
and money management, and actively participatedin the financial literacy course implemented for the introductory engineering class.IntroductionA solid working knowledge in financial literacy is a critical factor in students’ success, especially forunderrepresented minority (URM) students in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)disciplines (see examples, [1] thru [4]). This is particularly important with the recent impacts of thepandemic on the national economy, the changing landscape of the job market, as well as the globaleconomic crisis. Students’ financial literacy will help them make sound decisions to succeed professionallyin their career paths. Unfortunately, traditional university curricula do not expose students
rhetoric, composition, and technical communication in engineering.Prof. Robert Gerrick, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University - Prescott ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 1 From the Start: A Case for Introducing a Design, Build, Test Classroom Earlier in the CurriculumFollowing a recommendation of the College of Engineering Industrial Advisory Board, faculty atEmbry-Riddle Aeronautical University integrated almost all upper-level engineering capstoneswith courses in advanced technical writing starting in 2003 and finalized the completion of thiseffort in 2013. The courses are co-taught by a
peer-reviewed journal articles and conference proceedings and served as a journal reviewer in engineering education, STEM education, and educational psychology. She has also served as a co-PI, an external evaluator, or an advisory board member on several NSF-funded projects.Dr. Cedrick Kwuimy, University of Cincinnati Dr. Kwuimy is currently an Assistant Professor - Educator in the Department of Engineering & COmput- ing Education - CEAS at the University of Cincinnati. He graduated from the University of Yaounde 1 in Cameroon with a focus on applied nonlinear dynamics and applied physics. Prior to joining the Univer- sity of Cincinnati, Dr. Kwuimy was Research Fellow at the African Institute for Mathematical
deadlines while reducing stress for students by allowing them tosubmit past the deadline for all assignments.Some key questions we address through our research are: 1) For which course assignments dostudents benefit from having a flexible deadline policy? 2) Is enforcing a “hard” deadline forweekly learning content necessary for students to perform well on larger assignments such asprojects and assessments? 3) Do flexible deadlines reduce stress and improve the courseexperience for both students and instructional staff?We use data from the Fall 2022 academic semester to inform future implementation of a flexibledeadline policy in large first-year courses. For Fall 2022, we piloted a flexible deadline structuresuch that if students submit past the
University to redefinethe way engineering mathematics is taught, with the goal of increasing student retention,motivation and success in engineering.First implemented in 2004, the Wright State Model involves the introduction of a first-yearengineering mathematics course, EGR 101 Introductory Mathematics for EngineeringApplications (now running under semester course number EGR 1010) [1]. Taught byengineering faculty, the EGR 101 course includes lecture, laboratory and recitationcomponents. Using an application-based, hands-on approach, the EGR 101 course addressesonly the salient math topics actually used in the core first and second-year engineering courses.These include the traditional physics, engineering mechanics, electric circuits and
areas: (1) the webof relationships formed, which cohere into a community; (2) students’ transitions from receivingmentorship as first-year students to mentoring others in their sophomore and junior years; and (3)the feedback and iteration process by which the program has continuously developed, whichforefronts student voice and agency. The paper will provide specific examples in each of thethree key areas described, with a special focus on students’ own descriptions of the meaning theyhave made through their participation in the mentorship program. Recommendations will also beshared for those interested in implementing similar programs on their campuses.The mentorship program forms a complex web of relationships between and among students
Ruengvirayudh, P.AbstractThis Complete Research paper will address the timely interventions the first-year science andengineering students used at Loyola Marymount University (LMU) to reverse their initialstruggles, measured by an early alert and/or midterm deficiency, to improved course grades.First-year undergraduate students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics(STEM) disciplines face many challenges, including (1) transition and adjustment from highschool to college, (2) time management skills with academic, personal, and socialresponsibilities, and (3) addressing different levels of preparation for their STEM classes. Toaddress the struggles that the students face, the First-Year Advising Committee (FYAC) at LMUconducted a
levels of thinking [1]–[5].While team-based design projects are widely used in first-year introductory engineering courses,implementing these team-based experiences can be logistically challenging. Introductory coursesoften have large class enrollments with constraints on the availability of faculty instructors,especially at large, research-focused universities [6]. Our institution uses a cadre ofundergraduate TAs to mentor student teams and facilitate small group discussions in our large-enrollment (ca. 700 students) introductory engineering course with a TA-to-student ratio of 1:25[7]. Teamwork in this course is structured around two summative interdisciplinary projects [8],[9]. We have previously identified the need to provide support to our
relations in the course should be improved. Skewness quantitative calculations showedhigh skew for interest/enjoyment, perceived competence, and relatedness and moderate left-skewfor value/usefulness subgroup categories. T-test and Mann-Whitney U-test results did not show asignificant difference between mid and end of semester survey results indicating studentperceptions of the course were already made by mid-semester. Pearson correlation coefficientanalysis showed correlations between perceived competence and value/usefulness,interest/enjoyment, and perceived competence and interest/enjoyment and value/usefulness.These findings support current literature demonstrating higher intrinsic motivation scores lead tohigher perceived learning. 1
can motivate students to complete tasks on time, but they can also create stress andanxiety, potentially leading to negative impacts on student performance and mental health. Onestudy by Miller, Asarta, & Schmidt [1] found that flexible deadlines can have a positive impacton student performance. Their work is consistent with the findings of both Burger, Charness, andLynham [2], and Bisin and Hyndman [3] who found that rigid deadlines can be harmful tostudent performance. Waller, Conte, Gibson, and Carpenter [4] identified how deadlines can beperceived differently and that for some, deadlines create a sense of urgency, which motivatesindividuals to complete their work.Kappe and van der Flier [5] identified how student conscientiousness was
student experience [1]. The goal of the DYP approach is to train and empowerstudents to take ownership of their learning process and to make the most out of theirengineering education. The DYP approach provides students with skills needed to becomeeffective and successful World Class Engineering Students (WCES).Original Course CurriculumThe Introduction to Engineering course at Wentworth Institute of Technology has been offeredeach fall semester to around 400 first-year students. The course is delivered in sections of around65 students each, representing all engineering majors. This one-credit lecture module met onceper week, for fifty-minute lectures, twelve times during the semester. The original sequence oftopics covered is shown in Appendix A
Engineering DesignIntroduction/BackgroundIn its 2022 Report on the state of US science and engineering, the National Science Boardhighlighted the continued need to broaden participation in engineering [1]. This undoubtedlyrequires a multifaceted approach, with higher education playing a key role in attracting andretaining students who historically have been underrepresented in STEM. Evidence howeversuggests that many of these students experience disproportionately higher attrition rates fromscience and engineering programs [2]. In the same study, the authors note a common set offactors which plague attrition in engineering programs, including a lack of self-confidence orself-efficacy, unwelcoming academic climates, as well as sexism and
has been noted that the national graduation rate for Latinas with a Ph.D. inengineering is very low; only 91 (< 1%) of awardees in 2018- 2019 identified as Latina. Ourresearch investigates the interest of first year engineering students in research, which mightilluminate strategies for addressing the underrepresentation of Latinas in national Ph.D.engineering programs. The purpose of this quantitative study is to characterize early perspectivesabout research, graduate school, and becoming a researcher. A statistical analysis of the resultsfrom a cross-sectional survey was completed. A principal component analysis extracted thefollowing constructs: (1) research self-efficacy, (2) engineering research identity, and (3)perceived cultural
tacklethe “messiness” of open-ended design problems.[1] Particularly in large first-year courses,implementing and assessing these open-ended design problems is difficult due to resource(space, staffing, time, financial, etc.) constraints. Finding an appropriate balance betweenconcrete and open-ended design projects is critical to maximizing students’ learning.ENGGEN 115: Principles of Engineering Design is a required first-year course in the Faculty ofEngineering at the University of Auckland. The course was re-designed in 2022 to emphasizedesign process over technical engineering, promote creative problem solving, and to test aconcrete/open-ended balance that might work for the combination of curriculum, student cohort,and faculty arrangement in
University of Michigan in 1985 and her M.S. in 1988 and Ph.D. in 1991 in chemical engineering both from Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Karen’s educational research emphasis includes faculty development and mentoring, graduate student development, critical thinking and communication skills, enhancing mathematical student success in Calculus (including Impact of COVID-19), and promoting women in STEM. Her technical research focuses on sustainable chemical process design, computer aided design, and multicriteria decision making. She also has extensive experience in K-12 STEM education and program evaluation and assessment. She has held a variety of administrative positions: 1) Director of STEM Faculty Development
tofreshman engineering courses.1. IntroductionFirst-year engineering courses can be difficult to design — they need to be effective atconveying crucial concepts, enjoyable to keep students engaged and interested, and useful to theextent that they provide students with knowledge and skills, offering more opportunities for themin the future. Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) offers an Engineering Fundamentalscourse (ENGR-1100) which has been historically mathematics-focused. This is the firstengineering-related course students experience at MTSU, and students faced difficultmathematics lectures that ultimately drove numerous students away from the discipline.According to MTSU's course catalog, the Engineering Fundamentals course is described