partnersalso served as resources during the semester, and as evaluators during the end-of-semester designshowcase. This work seeks to better understand the impact of this experience on students. This iscurrently being investigated through quantitative and qualitative measures, including theEngineering Design Expectancy Value Scale (EDVES) and focus groups. Additionally, the workwill inform further research regarding this and other community-inspired design projects.Introduction & BackgroundEngineering programs often seek to provide their students with authentic experiences in theirengineering curriculum. Beyond broad calls for authentic experiences (e.g., [1], [2]), theseexperiences have been found to be broadly beneficial to students. In one meta
. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024WIP: Using ePortfolios to Enable Life Project MentoringAmong First-Year Engineering StudentsConstanza Miranda 1,2, Mareham Yacoub 1, Rachel McClam 21 Johns Hopkins University, Whiting School of Engineering.2 Johns Hopkins University, Biomedical Engineering Department.2 Johns Hopkins University, School of Education.AbstractThis is a work in progress. ePortfolios are portfolios in electronic form. These are known topromote folio thinking, a reflective technique that allows students to describe their learningexperiences through a purposeful gathering of objects. This systematic gathering of proof oflearning and professional development could also empower students as they build a digitalpresence
. To satisfy this goal, we offer differentgeneral engineering courses. Most of our students (~80%) enroll in Introduction to Engineering Ior Honors Introduction to Engineering I. Students who are under-prepared in math and do nothave necessary prerequisites for the first semester of 8-semester engineering degree plans areenrolled in Fundamentals of Success in Engineering Study [1]. We also have a small group ofstudents (~10%) who are well ahead of the requirements and are offered to take a special sectionof Honors Introduction to Engineering I course along with the optional Honors ResearchExperience and Honors Innovation Experience courses [2]. All general engineering coursesmeet twice a week for lectures and once a week for a drill section
properly covert 3D CAD models into files that the 3D printers (utilized in the course) canread and use to create the modeled part. The developed understanding and skills in 3D printing islater utilized by students during course design challenges in addition to semester-concluding teamdemonstrations of respective Cornerstone projects.As alluded to, the engineering system that a Cornerstone project represents may vary amongstdifferent iterations of the ENGR 111 course; and the focus of this paper is specific to two differentsemesters with dissimilar Cornerstone systems. The Cornerstone utilized during the Spring 2022semester (Project 1) was a bench-scale windmill generation system. Alternately, the Cornerstoneutilized during the Spring 2023 semester
initialoutcomes of our reimagined first-year seminar, with a specific focus on evaluating preciseengineering skills through the application of the Engineering Student Entrepreneurial MindsetAssessment (ESEMA) survey [1].As a pivotal component of this transformative initiative, we introduce the "Mission to Mars"project, serving as a cornerstone within the Engineering Fundamentals course. Far beyond aconventional educational endeavor, this project epitomizes the commitment to instilling anentrepreneurial mindset [2] in students. This approach is meticulously designed to not only exposestudents to the challenges and wonders of engineering but also to foster an innovative andentrepreneurial spirit.The KEEN FrameworkThe Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering
the habitat. Finally, the smaller groups integrated theircomponents and collaborated to maximize the energy efficiency and performance of the Solar-powered Habitat.The assessments of this project were designed for each level of teamwork: 1) Studentshighlighted their contributions through an Engineering Portfolio. 2) Smaller groups reflected ontheir design and building process by submitting weekly engineering logs and a semester-endposter. Finally, 3) Each group habitat (comprising 5~6 groups) presented its energy-efficienthabitat design in the first-year design expo at the end of the semester. The ongoing datacollection of this effort on project-based, multidisciplinary, multilevel teamwork proved how thisproject design effectively cultivated
semester and at the end of each semester of a 2-semester long coursesequence at a large, midwestern, public, R1 university. We hypothesize that students’ teamworkpredisposition score on teaming may attribute to low evaluations of team effectiveness. Theresults may have important implications for engineering educators and practitioners who seek todevelop effective teamwork among their students and colleagues. Using teamwork predispositionas a criteria for creating teams can be an important factor in better team effectiveness andlearning outcomes in engineering coursework.Keywords: Teamwork Predisposition; Team EffectivenessINTRODUCTIONEffective teamwork is critical for professional success in today's complex and dynamic world[1]. Collaborative work
that does not have a tangible product as an outcome or answer, and sometimes struggleto relate concepts that, while important, are more theoretical to their intended majors and careers[1]. In the authors’ experiences, foundational engineering courses that cover non-technical skillssuch as problem solving, teamwork, communication, recognition of holistic issues, and otherimportant transferable skills are especially prone to this challenge of engaging students whocome into the discipline expecting engineering to look more like the more concrete math orscience courses they are familiar with from their prior studies. Community engagement projects,also commonly referred to as service-learning projects, are one way that instructors facingsimilar
performance.A student entering an engineering college in the 1980s may have heard the phrase, “Look to theleft, look to the right, only one of you will become an engineer.” While some of us may haveheard that phrase when entering college, today the aspirational objective should be, “Look to theleft, look to the right, all three of you have the opportunity to graduate as an engineer.”Several factors are creating challenges in meeting this aspirational objective: student preparation,student demographics, and student to college adaptation [1][2][3][4][5].Student preparation is one of the most challenging elements a college can face. Incoming studentpopulation preparation is changing. Over the last 5 years, students that are entering engineeringare less
ESS now pilot the "Cohort internship model" or "Cohort Pipeline to EngineeringWorkforce." Most interns received return offers while working towards associate and bachelor'sdegree completion. Most importantly, students who completed the ESS increased theirbelonging, self-efficacy to the engineering profession, and confidence in their goals.II. INTRODUCTIONRegardless of academic preparation, many students enroll in college without the strong skills andstrategies to navigate higher education effectively [1]. To streamline transitions and bridge theskills gap, first-year experience (FYE) courses, often referred to as college success seminars orfreshman seminars, are designed for first-year students in 2-year and 4-year institutions. First-year
implications of the mini-courseapproach are discussed.Literature ReviewThis paper touches on two themes that have received considerable attention in the literature:redesign of the first-year engineering experience and student success/retention within engineeringmajors. The literature presents various motivations and methodologies for redesigning thefirst-year engineering experience. The goals of a first-year engineering experience are typicallymultifaceted and vary based on context. There is value in helping students understand whatengineering is – exposing them to the breadth of majors available – and what it takes to besuccessful in the rigorous engineering coursework [1, 2]. It is not clear to what extent prospectivestudents come in knowing which
solicitation of the College of Engineering in 2020 and a three-yearredesign was undertaken and completed in Fall 2023 with its third iteration.This paper assesses how the redesign achieved the initial goals and how its delivery reflects thedesired characteristics. Four course outcomes were adopted: 1) Develop creative solutions byapplying engineering design, math, science, and data analysis, 2) Construct an effectiveprototype or model using technology and tools, 3) Demonstrate improved power skills(communication, teamwork, information literacy, professionalism), and 4) Employ NSPE Codeof Ethics to examine case studies and extrapolate for other situations. In terms of the courseoutcomes, this paper describes how students self-assessed their achievement
Department of Computer Science within the School of Engineering at Tufts University. Having received his graduate degrees in Computer Science and Electrical Engineering from Tufts University, he continues research in the design, implementation, and evaluation of different educational technologies. With particular attention to engaging students in the STEAM content areas, he focuses his investigations on enhancing creativity and innovation, supporting better documentation, and encouraging collaborative learning. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 1 Catalyzing Sociotechnical Thinking
hardware—typically acamera—and software—typically control code or other image processing operations—thatinterprets information from an image to inform decisions in many different applications [1].These applications include—but are not limited to—manufacturing processes, control ofautonomous vehicles, and medical imaging. With the advent of self-driving vehicles and othersimilar technologies, students are becoming increasingly familiar with consumer uses formachine vision. In turn, the application of machine vision in various engineering disciplines isbecoming increasingly apparent to student; thus, the perceived utility of creating a machinevision system in a project-based learning environment may be motivating to students [2].Previous work
engineering instructorsuse pedagogical knowledge in their practices to achieve these more general objectives [1].Instructors' pedagogical knowledge affects their classroom practices, which in turn affects boththe effectiveness of students' learning and their attitudes about learning [2]. Whatinstructors bring to the table is the primary factor that influences how they make decisionsconcerning college-level courses and activities [3]. Understanding how instructors' pedagogicalknowledge is put into practice for the best possible student learning and accomplishment wouldhelp us to create sustainable progression.Retention statistics persistently demonstrate that American engineering students who discontinuetheir studies do so during the first two years
dropoutrates and improving student success.Keywords: AI, data mining, dropout, engineering, first-year students, higher educationIntroductionOver the years, many studies have been conducted to understand why students leave theirstudies in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplinesprematurely. Research has delved into sociocognitive factors that play a critical role in studentpersistence in university. For instance, sense of belonging [1, 2], self-efficacy [3, 4], identity[5, 6], and intrinsic motivation [7], which are vital to student persistence in university. Forinstance, Andrews et al. [8] researched how the incorporation of makerspaces impactsstudents' self-efficacy and sense of belonging concerning design, engineering
The introduction of Team-based learning (TBL) in the 1980s marked a significant shift inaddressing the challenges of large class settings in educational environments [1], [2]. Originally abusiness school innovation, TBL has now permeated various disciplines including engineering,medicine, and social sciences globally. Some courses, such as first-year engineering, maycombine TBL with project-based learning (PBL) to introduce students to common engineeringthemes such as design, sustainability, and ethics. Despite its wide-ranging benefits, TBL'seffectiveness can be inequitable for a variety of reasons, including free riders, imbalances in taskallocation, and more broad communication issues [3], [4]. Thus, the application of teamworkassessment
scientific research abilities, which are critical for their respective future careers.Engineering education is no exception to this academic requirement [1]. The employability ofengineering students today depends on more than just using their technical abilities; in order toeven secure part-time employment and progress in their careers, they also require complementaryprofessional abilities or soft skills [2], [3], [4]. These professional skills include the capacity forinitiative, teamwork, communication, planning and organization, and commercial acumen [5], [6],[7]. Professionals believe that communication skills are one of the most important skills requiredfor employability [8].Writing and more specifically academic writing and communication is an
versions of the course were retention ofstudent success elements from UNIV 1201 and the inclusion of a collaborative designexperience.The primary goals of developing the GEEN 1201 course was to support freshmen andsophomore students in their transition to upper-level studies through development of knowledgeand skills. The desired impacts for the course were to: (1) provide a general introduction to keyskills so students have a platform on which to build as they enter discipline specific courses, (2)provide a guided experience related to design projects that are often part of upper level courses,(3) initiate patterns relevant to teamwork as engineering practice commonly involvescollaborative processes, and (4) reinforce commitment among engineering
can have a profound effect on motivation to learn andpersist to degree completion. Undeniably, student interest can change over time and majoring insomething other than a student’s initial interest at the time of university or college matriculationshould be encouraged based on exploration and self-reflection. However, there are policies basedon capacity limits in majors and constraints such as classroom capacity and course offerings thatschools grapple with which exclude students from their interest. From literature, we know thatabout half of females interested in engineering actually enter the major they were initiallyinterested in during their first year [1]. While there is some engineering education research whichexamines entry into
route for the class as some students has no initial project ideas. A hybrid teamformation strategy was suggested for first-year student project team: the MD approach is firstapplied in the class, then followed by the BD approach.IntroductionTeamwork is a common practice for engineering professionals in the form of project teams. Thegroup of individuals known as the "project team" is in charge of carrying out the activities andcompleting the deliverables specified in the project plan and schedule as instructed by the projectmanager, at the degree of effort or involvement specified for them [1]. The outcome of a specificproject is dependent on the collective individual contributions of every team member. Teamsutilizing individual knowledge and
EAS199: Engineering Principles. The course prioritizes the retention ofincoming engineering students at the university by providing students with the opportunity tostrengthen their academic skills such as time management and metacognition, while alsointroducing them to the engineering process. We have previously reported on the goals of thisiterative redesign, which was motivated by the goal of making the course a more equitable,accessible, and socially just learning environment as the mindset and profile of incoming first-year engineering students has changed with time [3]. Generation Z is known to be one of themost diverse populations with a growing desire to learn to lead and make positive changes intheir communities [1]. With this, we
PAPERSThe First-Year Programs Division (FPD) seeks paper and workshop proposals on topics related to FPD’s primaryobjective: scholarly work relating to educational activities associated with first-year engineering students, includingfreshmen and transfer students. Topics/themes of interest include, but are not limited to, those listed in Table 1.Table 1. Topics/themes of interest for First-Year Programs Division [1]. Topic Call for Papers Themes Research Advances in engineering education research as it applies to the first-year experience; Innovation Innovative approaches to first-year engineering education; Assessment Pedagogical strategies for first-year learning objectives, ABET accreditation requirements
), we focus on the potential of leveraging the CPPs as a way to increase students’ self-efficacy, persistence within engineering, and sense of belonging. This study addresses thefollowing research question, “What factors influence first-year engineering students’ perceptionsof their engineering self-efficacy, design self-efficacy, intentions to persist, and sense of belongingthrough the application of community-partnered projects?”Methods1. Development of the Survey InstrumentThe survey instrument was developed during the fall of 2023 by an undergraduate student andthree faculty members. The instrument included a total of six scales (please refer Table 1). Thesurvey instrument measures the perceptions of first-year engineering students
confidence.1. IntroductionChoosing a major is a pivotal decision in a student's academic journey, setting the course fortheir future career and professional development [1], [2], [3], [4]. Engineering is a cornerstone ofmodern society, driving innovation, solving complex problems, and improving the quality of lifefor people around the globe. As a field of study covering a broad range of disciplines, includingmechanical, electrical, civil, and computer engineering, engineering offers diverse career pathsand opportunities. However, the decision to pursue a major in engineering is not one to be takenlightly, given its rigorous curriculum and the demands of the profession. As a result,understanding engineering as a major is paramount, not only for
approaches they used. For instance, the instructors faced aninteraction barrier—sources of resistance to initiating a student-instructor interaction, such as alack of instructor self-confidence or student reticence. We illustrate challenges instructors facedand their approaches to resolve them through reflective episodes from the instructors. Ouraudience is twofold: Education researchers will find new lines of investigation for future work onstudios, while early instructors will learn how to get started with teaching in studios.IntroductionStudio instruction is a useful active learning alternative to passive approaches, such as purelecture. Drawing on a tradition from architecture and the fine arts [1], studio instructionde-emphasizes the instructor
have seen valuable outcomes as a result of implementingpeer advising programs. Peer advising programs are much less common than peer mentoringprograms and differ in both purpose and structure. The purpose of peer advising programs istwofold: to provide first- and second-year students with reliable information from a relatablesource and to provide upper-class students with an opportunity for professional development andleadership.In 2012, The National Academic Advising Association defined peer advisers as “students whohave been selected and trained to offer academic advising services to their peers” [1]. Somestudents struggle transitioning to college and report difficulty with balancing time betweendifferent courses and commitments, adapting to
work will examine how engineering identity and EM differ acrossdemographics and students’ selected majors.IntroductionThis Complete Research paper describes the impact of a design sprint early in a first-yearengineering course on engineering identity and the entrepreneurial mindset (EM). Engineeringidentity is a person’s belief they are an engineer, and engineering-related experiences canstrengthen a student’s engineering identity [1]. Prior research has shown the first year is criticalin forming an identity, and a strong engineering identity has been linked to retention [2]-[4].Problem-based learning [5], service-learning projects [6], summer bridge programs [7] and casestudies [8] are just a few examples of interventions used in engineering
mentoring program's development, this paperpresents both the qualitative and quantitative feedback from students regarding theprogram and their self-development through a Likert-type questionnaire administered atthe end of the semester. It also presents the qualitative feedback from faculty membersregarding the technical and behavioral aspects acquired by the students. The obtained datademonstrate that the development of applied projects that combine learning with realcommunity problems fosters greater engagement and expands the incoming student'sworldview, allowing them to perceive themselves as capable of being transformativeagents in their communities.IntroductionThis complete paper presents the implementation of an annual mentoring program [1-4
, students’ certainty in their choice of major significantlyincreased from the beginning to the end of the semester. Based on the survey results, a modulewas added to the course to familiarize students further with job opportunities associated withvarious engineering/computer science majors. This work provides context for recruiting studentsinto engineering and computer science majors and for integrating information on careeropportunities into first-year courses.IntroductionThe major students select before or during the first year of their studies at the university impactsthem significantly for the rest of their careers [1], [2]. These impacts include job satisfaction,socioeconomic status, and career success. Therefore, investigating the factors