composed of a single peer mentor guiding asmall cohort of students. At the start of each fall semester, mentors were asked to write a briefbio segment introducing themselves and their interests. Each first-year student was required tojoin a peer mentor group. Mentees were then grouped based on shared interests with mentors.Once paired with a mentor, the mentees were strongly encouraged to engage in weeklyinteractions, either through attendance at a one-hour event or by maintaining regularcommunication with their mentor. With the goal of improving community bonds amongstfirst-year students, these events were typically fun, social events: meals together, game nights,sporting events, and so on. This arrangement provided first-year students with the
communicatetheir ideas. In this approach, students are encouraged to formulate their thoughts in writing andthen engage in oral interaction with a peer. VNPS on the other hand is a teaching technique thatinvolves students leaving their seats and participating in a group setting while standing at a verticalnon-permanent surface like a whiteboard to accomplish a task. An added advantage of the VNPSapproach is that it provides students the opportunity of seeing the work done by other groups,thereby gaining insights into ideas they may decide to adopt. It has been suggested that the use ofvertical non-permanent surfaces for group tasks promotes greater thinking, classroomparticipation, discussion, persistence, and knowledge mobility [12].The overarching
the most useful resources were: • (Giroux & Moje, 2017) – defines “engineering literacy” and suggests ways for engineering faculty to design assignments to help students reach this goal • (Reynolds & Vogel, 2007) – describes a concrete exercise that teaches students the importance of linguistic precision in engineering writing • (Smelser, 2001) – introduces best practices for using peer review in engineering writing instruction • (Rosenberg, 2005) – is an accessible guide to technical writing that focuses on concision, tables and graphics, and other “professional secrets.”These resources provided a foundation for the project outcomes, especially the student and faculty-facing writing reference
district and is in the process of creating a mentorship program to help high school students transition to university. His research interests include first-year university students’ experience, high school students’ transition to university, peer-to-peer mentorship, and student support networks.Ms. Sarah Huizar, University of Texas at El Paso Sarah Huizar is a Program Manager for UTEP’s Center for Research in Engineering and Technology Education (CREATE). She develops, implements, and manages a wide range of activities through the center’s STEMShine grant. She specializes in mentorship, essential skills building for freshman engineering students, project planning, community building through eSports, writing and design.Dr
skillsFigure 1b: The first-year bottom skills.Among second-year students, time management was the most important skill receivingapproximately 74% of responses (Figure 2a). Understanding the mathematical language in aproblem and self-learning and recognizing the need for lifelong learning received responses of45% and 43%, respectively. Work in teams, the last top skill, effectively received a response of31%. In Figure 2b, communicating effectively in writing was selected as the least valued skillfrom the second-year students, receiving 7% of responses. Applying the Engineering code ofethics and Managing a Project using appropriate project management tools tied for the secondlowest important skill with 4.8% of responses. Conducting a proper literature
Paper ID #43068Work in Progress: Establishing a Peer-Mentoring Program for Transfer First-YearEngineering StudentsMrs. Leslie Bartsch Massey, University of Arkansas Leslie Massey is an advanced instructor in the First-Year Engineering Program at the University of Arkansas. She received her BS in Biological Engineering and MS in Environmental Engineering from the University of Arkansas. She previously served as a project manager for the Arkansas Water Resources Center, but returned to join the College of Engineering faculty in 2013 to pursue her passion of teaching.Mr. Chris Cagle ©American Society
Georgia TechPeer Leader Resources Survey 1: What do you want out of a peer mentor in ECE Select all that apply Self-developed Discovery Studio? Write-in provided Survey 2: What support did your peer leader in ECE Discovery for “any other types Studio provide? of support” • Help completing ECE Discovery Studio Assignments • Help building a community at Georgia Tech • Help finding opportunities at Georgia Tech • Help navigating difficult
with groups, N/A Please share how the peer Reassured Me, Gave me compliments, Work through mentors helped you develop problems with me, Gave me extra time, Provided direction confidence when working in /support, Encouragement, Welcoming, Kind, Let students try the makerspace classroom. first/ fostered learning, Helpful, N/A (Confidence) Please share what new Programming /coding, Writing, Presentation skills, Soldering, technical skills you learned in Tool use, Drafting, 3D printing, Prototyping, Other, Circuits, this course. (Technical Skills) N/A How did the peer mentors
, the instructor decided to pilot peer oral exams in the nextoffering of the course (Spring Quarter 2021).Several differences ought to be noted between peer review, as conventionally implemented, andpeer oral exams to further emphasize the motivation for the latter. Firstly, in peer review,students in reviewer roles typically evaluate or write a critique of the work of their peers beforemeeting with them, whereas during the meeting, they go through the work with them, givingtheir critique or explaining their evaluation and offer pointers for improvement [78], [19], [77].In peer oral exams, on the other hand, the objective of the peer examiner is to dynamically probethe peer examinee’s knowledge and understanding, or, technically speaking, to
content of ModSim is organized into five highly-scaffolded worksheets,three self-directed projects, and a handful of hands-on activities [21]. The learning in theworksheets is more “directed,” in the sense that students do not choose what to work on and forwhich there are accepted ‘correct’ answers. Most worksheets take the form of MATLABLiveScripts, which are structured as literate programs to serve as both reading and exercise[22]. The worksheets are designed to be completed over a week of instructional time and areintended to introduce the ideas necessary to complete project work, described next.Pedagogy: As Little and Cardenas [1] write, “The pedagogy of the studio is based upon the ideathat students will learn best those things they have
seek out resources on campus, especially when itcomes to emotional and mental health [9]. Peer advisors are often the missing link to connectstudents to campus resources, including career and personal counselors [9], [19]. This informaltrust created between students and peer advisors is something faculty and staff cannot replicateand promotes student success [9], [19]. Purdy writes, “The connections forged between the peeradvisors and our advisees are something professional advisors could not achieve. It builds trustwith the advising center that carries throughout the advisee’s academic career and fosters anenvironment where they are willing to keep an open mind to believe that the advisors care aboutthem and truly have their best interest at
Paper ID #41796Assessing the Motivation and Emotion Levels of First-Year Engineering StudentsEnrolled in an Academic Writing CourseDr. Aparajita Jaiswal, Purdue University Aparajita Jaiswal is an Intercultural Research Specialist with CILMAR, Purdue University. Her research endeavors revolve around exploring strategies for seamlessly integrating intercultural learning into both regular curriculum and study abroad programs. Aparajita actively engages in offering guidance in developing research studies, curriculum enhancements, and assessment methods pertaining to integration and cultivation of intercultural competence. Her
were requiredto meet every other week, in person, for approximately one hour. During the first meeting ofeach semester, peer mentors helped their mentees develop SMART goals related to theiracademic, social, and professional development; mentors were encouraged to follow-up withtheir students’ progress throughout the academic year and revise goals as necessary. Additionalareas of support that peer mentors were encouraged to address included resume writing,coursework selection, student organization membership, and on-campus resources. Outside ofthese recommendations, peer mentors were encouraged to foster genuine relationships with theirmentees and offer support as needed. At the end of each mentee meeting, peer mentors wererequired to submit
Paper ID #42154Near-Peer Mentors’ Discussions with a Student Avatar Experiencing LogisticalIssues on a First-Year Design TeamDr. Pamela S. Lottero-Perdue, Towson University Pamela S. Lottero-Perdue, Ph.D., is Professor of Science and Engineering Education in the Department of Physics, Astronomy & Geosciences at Towson University. She has integrated engineering into courses for PreK-8 teacher candidates, developed and directed a graduate STEM program for PreK-6 teachers, and partnered with teachers to implement PreK-8 science-integrated engineering learning experiences. She has authored numerous engineering-focused
Rhetorical analysis purposeful writing comparing a popular comparing an engineering source with a document with a more scholarly source literary or personal form Revision and writing process Drafting; peer critique Every paper requires multiple Portfolio drafts; structured “peer review” style feedback from classmates. Argument & analysis Responsible advocacy Students create documents in
to write effectivecomments (Figure 1). Effective comments are based on five major elements: balanced,respectful, implementable, constructive, and specific. The students' teams will be shownexamples of good and bad written comments during recitation. During Week 3 — 5, the raterpractice was implemented to allow students to be familiar with the CATME interface. DuringWeek 6 — 7, the students on Milestone I were involving an initial design of the prototype. Peerevaluation I allowed the instructor to have an insight into the team dynamics at the normingstage. During Week 8 — 10, the students were working on Milestone II involving an improveddesign of the prototype. Peer evaluation II allowed the instructor to keep track of the teamdynamics at
support general education outcomes and support ABETguidelines in the first year. As the unit progressed it became a way to support those students whowere considered not college ready in English and give a connection to the field for students whowould not have engineering coursework for at least one year. In its current form, this curricularunit provides support for different forms of writing, information literacy (IL), research, andconnects students to their chosen field, the campus and individual instructors throughout thecollege of engineering.This curricular unit consists of five sessions with the embedded engineering librarian and threestand-alone class sessions with the instructor to provide students an opportunity to completevarious forms
typically seen until the senior-level course.Student OutcomesWhile the initial expectation was that students in the first-year course would perform to aequitable but lesser degree than their counterparts, our expectations were subverted when seeingthe outcomes and productions of students at both levels. Overall, students at the lower levelshowed competency in writing and presenting equal to or surpassing their senior-level peers inthe first semester. Examples are given and explained regarding the differences in both writingand presenting outcomes.WritingOne of the areas of frequent struggle and focus in the senior-level capstone sections is the writingand explaining of equations and mathematical calculations undertaken in the process ofengineering
a working prototype and poster presentation.All three of these modules incorporated problem-solving, peer reviews, reflections andassessments. Graded submitted work from students included creating and updating anengineering notebook during the design process, work plans, detailed designs, and bills ofmaterials. Technical communication skills were additionally addressed through the preparationand delivery of oral presentations and through the technical writing of precise problemdefinitions and poster presentations. Students were introduced to fundamentals of CAD modelingand technical drawing along with basic fabrication skills, including 3D printing, and the safe useof band saws, drill presses, and other fabrication hand tools. Finally
a set of two short writtenreflections in a follow-up homework assignment. Overall, this topic is given most of the classtime during one class week in a semester-length one-credit course meeting once per week for anhour and twenty minutes. In the author’s context, this class contains about 60 students who areexclusively engineering majors and is facilitated by a single instructor and two or moreundergraduate peer mentors but could be scaled for larger or smaller classes without largechanges. This set of activities is usually run late in the semester when a rapport has beenestablished between the students and the instructor, time-sensitive academic success content hasalready been addressed, and the students are less self-conscious speaking in
communicate 4. Write your team’s goals from this week and indicate if it was accomplished. If you did not reach your goals, please explain why 5. Was your team able to equally divide the work this week a. Yes b. No c. Other (with comments) 6. Do you have any concerns about your team going forward? Please detail them belowTeam Evaluation Questionnaire for Final Assessment (Required) 1. How would you assess yourself and each of your group members on the effort they put into this project? Write down every group member's name (including your own), give them a rating from 1-5 (1 being the worst) in terms of their effort. Explain as needed. Effort is defined as: Preparation and Readiness to work
students to reflect on their team’s operationalbehavior and their team’s design habits so that they could better understand what was needed forsuccess in this course and beyond. To address these needs, the team of instructors for ENES100developed and implemented a “Team Performance Rubric”.Although there are many tools and software that are available for assessing the performance of ateam and gathering peer evaluations [1], a novel aspect of the rubric is a reflective andresponsive approach for assessing design practices within the team. A rubric was developed forrating a team’s engineering design process habits, such as"effective use of modeling techniques”and “design iteration,” as well as the team’s effectiveness, such as “productive discourse
10-17 who were novice learners in introductory programming. Comparing the group that usedOpenAI’s code generator Codex and the baseline group that did not use Codex for their learning,the authors found that the Codex group performed better at generating code during the evaluationand post-test. In another study, Kazemitabaar et al. [20] developed CodeAid, a Large LanguageModel-based programming assistant for undergraduate students similar to a teaching assistant.CodeAid was designed to support students in programming by answering questions about code,helping to write code, and helping to fix code. Through studying the class deployment ofCodeAid over a semester, the authors proposed design implications for designing AI assistants ineducational
instead places it upon the student, allowing students to form theirown questions about topics, develop their own interpretations, and collaborate with their peers[2]. Osborn and Nag claim that this approach aligns better with both Maslow's Hierarchy ofNeeds as well as Bloom's Taxonomy of Thinking, and though limited in their exploration ofthese approaches, they have seen promising preliminary successes.When specifically discussing first-year engineering courses, it is important to consider factorsbeyond teaching and learning styles, such as the ability of students to build relationships withtheir peers. Research from Sorby, Monte, and Hein focuses on developing a common first-yearengineering program at Michigan Technological University. While
capital among three cohorts of first-year engineering students.AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the education of students of all ages and challenged teachersand academic support services to make major adaptations to continue to support student learningwhile also limiting the spread of the virus. Our team received an NSF grant in the Fall of 2018 tobroaden participation in engineering by recruiting and retaining students who have beenhistorically marginalized in engineering. We focused our research on first-year students whoparticipated in pathway programs which provided peer and formal mentoring, success coaching,shared classes, and social activities, that would provide a sense of community and sharedengineering identity for participants
required to develop conceptual and technical design reviews. Weekly activities include discussion posts on technical and communication topics related to the design project. Peer evaluations are conducted via Purdue’s CATME Peer-Evaluation tool three times during a semester and serve as a measure of teamwork. Technical writing is considered a critical piece of project documentation. Project deliverables such as oral presentations, design reviews, peer evaluations, and prototype testing are used to assess student learning objectives.III. Challenges in Teaching and Learning at the regional campusHigher Education institutions especially land grant institutions have relied upon the traditionalstudent population admitted to the central campus. With the
Teaching AssistantsAbstractThis complete experience-based practice paper describes the ongoing development of diversity,equity, and inclusion (DEI) training for undergraduate engineering teaching assistants in a first-year, team project-based design course. At a large private university, undergraduate teachingassistants play a key role in first-year student success and the mentorship of their cornerstonedesign project. As the first points of reference for students, they assist with content delivery,guide students through hands-on labs and projects, and deliver regular feedback on assignments.Effective teaching assistants are leaders, thus their training as educators is essential to our first-year students’ success. To support this endeavor, peer
courses to that which is tangibleand relatable through the iterative practices that they go through in trying to design a solution toa problem under the anticipatory guidance of professors with their peers.14 They also receivefirst-hand team experiences in this process and begin to understand the value of multipleperspectives in solving engineering problems. They can connect their future work to the businessworld as well. It keeps them motivated during the early period of their undergraduate programsbecause they see immediate relevance to that which they are working on. Adding a makerspacecomponent to this process further reinforces the “hand-on” nature of engineering problemsolving and iterative design processes.15,16Impacts of human centered
choice of one National Academy of EngineeringGrand Challenge, was burdensome for students to write and for the instructors to grade [2].Overall, instructors and students felt that the course did not provide enough opportunities forapplication, reflection, or meaningful contextualized learning.Motivation for Course RedesignSeveral factors motivated the redesign of the introduction to engineering course. The main onesinclude the following: To address attrition of first year engineering students, the university embarked on an “engineering reimagined” strategy to bolster student success and improve retention. One of this paper’s authors, and an instructor in the course for three years prior to the redesign, noticed early on that it was
] including: a first-yearexperience course sequence with broad early exposure to engineering academic and careeroptions; community-engaged learning through participation in STEM outreach events; a course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE); a place-based learning community withintegrated instruction across multiple disciplines spanning two quarters.BackgroundWCC engineering students generally form a community of peer support at the 200-level becausemost engineering fundamentals courses are offered once per year, resulting in a cohort programby default. Students with similar transfer goals tend to have similar course schedules and buildcommunity around their shared interests. Unfortunately, many students who start WCC at the100 (or pre