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
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
, 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
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
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
) Limit social media and cellphone use (n = 1) Social changes Make friends in STEM and non-STEM (n = 1) Join clubs on campus (n = 1) 3 Type of help received Meet with professors during office hours (n = 13) Peer tutoring (n = 7) YouTube and Internet (n = 5) Academic advisors (n = 5) TAs (n = 3) Off-campus tutors (n = 2) 4 Motivation
, and math involved in an engineering course) together insuch a way that student thinking is changed. Referencing Gagne’s design guidance [11], it iscritical to get their attention with an engaging opening and then pair that with a connection totheir past learning.Engineering students are often directed to the major because they are proficient in math andscience, yet they may or may not also possess impactful professional skills (writing, speaking,audio/visual production) that are not typically applied in engineering course work. The use ofthese skills needs to be encouraged as preparation for their engineering career. Recent feedbackfrom industry partners has yielded that many interns and recent graduates are technicallycompetent yet lack the
competencies. Upon the conclusion of the program, theresearch mentors write a letter of completion to the GCSP committee in support of the scholar’sapplication [8].Establishing an effective community of practice, the steps taken this summer to create acommunity between the GCSP-REU’s has effectively established a Grand Challenges ScholarsProgram community of practice that will continue to evolve. For example, the summerGCSP-REUs were invited to participate in a weekly GCSP-REU hangout discussion. Both inperson and virtual options were provided for all scholars (hybrid). By extending this invitation tothe scholars, the research scholars were recognized for their progress and validated by their peersand members of the engineering research field. Both
and thus effective teamwork?InterventionWe have adopted several modules of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Tools for Teamwork:Asset Mapping and Team Processing Handbook [11] to introduce students to important teamconcepts. Prior to forming groups and as part of the Handbook, students are asked to reflect ontheir identities, strengths, communication and conflict styles. As part of this, they complete aseries of self-assessments [12] and generate an asset map where they give thought to how theirlife experiences, not only educational experiences, will benefit a team. For an example of whatan asset map looks like, see examples in [4], [13]. Further, students read several articleshighlighting diversity and engineering and write a short
school had programming experiences.Finally, this study presents the impact of project type and the use of an iterative design project onthe changes in student comfort with additive manufacturing and three-dimensional modeling.IntroductionThe Maker Movement arose from individuals who expressed interest in the creation, design, andmanufacturing of new objects, and the further sharing these experiences with their peers [2].These individuals go by makers. As a result, physical locations that serve as meeting spaces forthese maker communities have been commonly referred to as makerspaces. Makerspaces provideaccess to technology, different trainings, inspiration for ideas, and collaboration among memberswhen developing projects [2]. In 2016, the
for diversity,going the extra mile in and outside of class to assist with learning [8], [24], [25], [27], [37].Other student support was evidenced in the form of transfer fairs [25], campus visits, careercenter access, computer support, daycare, writing tutors, academic success workshops, and post-transfer information sessions [24]. It was also noted that often transfer support comes most in thepre-transfer phase but that student support should be provided across three points: pre-transfer,pre-enrollment, and first term post-transfer [6]. Similarly related to student support isengagement. Ways to improve student engagement to increase transfer student capital includedengaging with peers, role models, and peer mentors [6], [46]; developing
post-instructionfor the CAEN section, which was for Architectural and Civil Engineering majors. The very smallresponse counts and less pronounced changes in the ratings did not result in significantdifferences although increased understanding was reported for all prompts and the studentsindicated they saw real-world applications for the information they had learned.Ratings for all five of the learning-objective based statements for the EECS section, ElectricalEngineering and Computer Science, resulted in significant changes. These were for robot chassisconstruction and wiring, experience using a computer board, ability to write Python programs,and being motivated by competing with classmates. Like for the other sections, students reportedbeing
the quality of institutional management, additional factors have been found thatinfluence students' academic performance in STEM degree programs. For example, Russell& Zafonte [5] report that first-year students have valuable skills that enable them to succeedin their careers, such as critical thinking. Nevertheless, this study argues that studentsconsider writing skills and collaborative work less important for their career development.Regarding those mentioned above, it has been widely documented that university studentsrequire a broad set of skills to be successful in their careers. For example, it has been shownthat collaborative work helps students to promote conceptual learning, developcommunication skills, foster interdependence
Excelling Ph.D. Students. He has published his work in various peer-reviewed journals in science and engineering education, including IEEE Transactions on Education, Studies in Educational Evalua- tion, and Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Dr. Lavi is the inventor of the SNAP Method® for structured creative problem-solving (US & UK trademarks).Cong Cong, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyDr. Yuan Lai, The Pennsylvania State University Yuan Lai, PhD, is a lecturer in urban science and planning at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research interests include urban science, urban informatics, and future connections between computer science and cities to address urban socio-technicMr. Justin A. Lavallee
this study. Thecriteria used were the following. (1) The main focus of the paper must be on engineering, science, or STEM students more broadly. While there is important work to be done with students in other fields, our focus was on the STEM classroom. (2) The paper must have been published in the last twenty years. Given how much high- achieving and honors programs have changed through the years, we thought only getting the research from the last two decades would yield the most useful results. (3) The paper must be from a peer-reviewed journal or academic conference. We wanted only high-quality studies to be part of the systematic review and felt this criterion would better ensure quality. (4) The
significantly modified or new learning outcomes for Fall 2022): 1) Students will develop critical thinking, writing, technology, and research skills. 2) Students will demonstrate competency in accessing WMU resources and services and will make meaningful connections with faculty, staff, student leaders, and peers to facilitate success. 3) Students will understand the requirements to earn their bachelor’s degree in CEAS. 4) Students will be aware of neuroscience-based learning tools and will understand responsible personal, academic, and social behaviors needed to be a successful student. 5) Students will create a personalized wellness plan highlighting the importance of emotional, environmental, financial, intellectual
Program information Connections to peer mentors & supports SJ: Data on belonging in STEM ADEI definitions Identity & Examples of equity in STEM Bias & Prejudice Belonging How identity pertains to engineering Social Identity Wheel (case studies) Story Sharing ENGR: Engineering design process Socially just mindset & contexts How Engineers Role of failure in design Social impact of product/design Make Decisions
Northwestern’s Advising-as-Teaching model in which the first-year advisors and the first-year engineering program instructors are one and the same.Dedicated first-year instructors and advisors, as at Northwestern, were not feasible in ourengineering programs however, most notably because our engineering students share a firstsemester engineering design experience, rather than a first year design experience We insteadaimed to replicate what we perceived as the most influential and helpful elements of theNorthwestern Advising-as-Teaching model – regular, meaningful, interactions between studentsand their 360 Coach and E-Team (engineering team) peer mentor. Our 360 Coaches may achievethis regular interaction within the context of the first-semester
example “I think that previously I was veryafraid of coding and it seemed like kind of a large part of engineering and now that I understandsome of the basics I'm less intimidated and more enthusiastic.” One student proposed a clearconnection between skills, reward and persistence, writing, “I am more enthusiastic becausethrough these engineering courses I have become a better problem solver and I want to keepexperiencing that feeling throughout my career.”Student data indicated that the semantics instructors use in the classroom are vitally important inaiding students to identify the new skills they are learning and why they are learning them,whether teamwork, algorithmic thinking or problem solving. This was most evident in our datawith respect
. Li, A. Öchsner, and W. Hall, "Application of experiential learning to improve student engagement and experience in a mechanical engineering course," European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 283-293, 2019/05/04 2019, doi: 10.1080/03043797.2017.1402864.[65] W.-J. Shyr, "Multiprog virtual laboratory applied to PLC programming learning," European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 573-583, 2010/10/01 2010, doi: 10.1080/03043797.2010.497550.[66] M. Andersson and M. Weurlander, "Peer review of laboratory reports for engineering students," European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 417-428, 2019/05/04 2019, doi: 10.1080/03043797.2018.1538322
teaching is primarily in team-based engineering courses, and her research fo- cuses on equity in communication and collaboration as well as in group design decision making (judg- ment) under uncertainty. She is especially interested in how power relationships and rhetorical strate- gies affect group judgment in engineering design; one goal of this work is to to understand factors that inhibit full participation of students who identify with historically marginalized groups and investigate evidence-based strategies for mitigating these inequities. In addition, she is interested in technology and how specific affordances can change the ways we collaborate, learn, read, and write. Teaching engineer- ing communication