, doi: 10.1177/0146167203261885.[2] I. H. Settles, R. C. O’Connor, and S. C. Y. Yap, “Climate Perceptions and Identity Interference Among Undergraduate Women in STEM: The Protective Role of Gender Identity,” Psychol. Women Q., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 488–503, Jun. 2016, doi: 10.1177/0361684316655806.[3] W. J. Schell, B. E. Hughes, and B. Tallman, “Exploring the Conflict Between an Engineering Identity and Leadership,” Dec. 2018, doi: 10.24908/pceea.v0i0.13100.[4] B. Tedlock, “Braiding narrative ethnography with memoir and creative nonfiction,” in The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (Kindle edition), 4th ed., N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, Eds. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2011.[5] T
and H.-J. Sheen, "Identifying nanotechnology professional competencies for engineering students using Q methodology," International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1389-1397, 2015.[19] P. Larsen, E. Kristiansen, J. Bennedsen and K. Bjerge, "Enhancing non-technical skills by a multidisciplinary engineering summer school," European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1076-1096, 2017.[20] H. Hendriana, "Teachers' hard and soft skills in innovative teaching of mathematics," World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 145- 150, 2017.[21] C. Burvill, B. Field, Z. Abdullah and M. Alias, "Problem-solving with industrial drawings: Supporting formal
/10.18260/p.25671McDermott, R., & Varenne, H. (1995). Culture as disability. Anthropology & EducationQuarterly, 26(3), 324-348.Mihelcic, J. R., Paterson, K. G., Phillips, L. D., Zhang, Q., Watkins, D. W., Barkdoll, B. D.,Fuchs, V. J., Fry, L. M., & Hokanson, D. R. (2008). Educating engineers in the sustainablefutures model with a global perspective. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 25(4),255-263.Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how thesociology of. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociologyand history of technology, 17.Ramírez, M. C., Bengo, I., Mereu, R., & Silva, J. C. (2011). Participative methodology for
completed based on student reflectionessays and the course reflection survey and will be disseminated as a conference paper.References[1] Q. Zhu and B. Jesiek, “Engineering Ethics in Global Context: Four Fundamental Approaches,” in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, 2017.[2] M. F. Willicks, F. Willicks, V. Stehling, M. Haberstroh, and F. Hees, “Sustainable Development Goals Meet ‘Third Mission’: The Engineers Without Borders Challenge in Germany Sustainable Development Goals Meet ‘Third Mission’: The Engineers Without Borders Challenge in Germany,” in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, 2018.[3] M. David Zelinka and B. Amadei, “A Methodology to Model the
). Broadening the Appeal by Changing the Context of Engineering Education. ASEE Annual Conference.5. Rippon, S. and Collofellow, J. (2010). Camping the Way to Higher Retention Rates. ASEE Annual Conference.6. Zhang, Q., Vanasupa, L., Zimmerman, J., and Mihelcic, J. (2010). Development and Dissemination of Learning Suites for Sustainability Integration in Engineering Education. ASEE Annual Conference.7. Heun, M. and VanderLeest, S. (2008). Why a Liberal and Multidisciplinary Education is Needed to Solve the Energy Crisis. ASEE Annual Conference.8. Foster, J. and Heeney, A. (2009). The Engineering Science Praxis Sequence: Challenges and Opportunities when Integrating Sustainable Development into the Engineering Design
Proposals Monday Creating and supporting effective arguments Read pp. 35-47 & pp. 95-101Wednesday Creating and supporting effective argumentsFriday Title, mapping, and conclusion slides Read pp. 171-184 & pp. 221-227; HW #5: due on Course Management System by 11:59 PMMonday Problem-Solution Student Mentor Read pp. 264-268 Demonstration; Q & A sessions; Introducing a colleagueWednesday Introducing
the team presentations, theinstructors controlled the Q&A sessions. Since they were in the front and facing the front, theyoften did not notice when people in the audience had their hands raised, which resulted in eitherthe question being ignored or forcing the presenting team to be brave enough to override theinstructors and call on audience members to ask their questions. This act, through a learningpartnership lens, is tantamount to taking the floor from an authority figure. In the course thishierarchical structure may have led to tighter teams in which students learned to self-author andindependently collaborate. However, this hierarchical obstacle also may have restricted theamount of co-learning that can happen between the different
creative solutions, but the rubrics didn’t encourage orvalue that creativity.Students were focused on points instead of learningAnalytic rubrics can lead students to focus more on their targeted score or grade and less onwhether their product is an effective example of what they were expected to produce (Panadero& Jonsson, 2013). It’s not surprising that our students are focused on their grades or that theycare about how their score on a particular assignment could have been higher; however, theassociation of points with the specific categories on the analytic rubric (e.g., 5pts for includingcenter of buoyancy and center of gravity calculations; 10pts for performance during the Q&A)seemed to lead students to focus too intently on the
. 34 pp. 77-89, 2000.[8] R. Muhammad, Y. Kamar and N. Ibrahim, “Relationship Between Primary SchoolPupils Performance in Art and Science in Sokoto, Nigeria,” Journal of Educational &Social Research, 2013.[9] Q. Zheng, “On the Effect of Arts Education in Brain Development,” Theory andPractice of Education, vol. 9, pp. 56-58, 2011[10] H. Eysenck, “Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory,”Psychological Inquiry, vol. 4, pp. 147-178, 1993.[11] U. Wolfradt and J. Pretz, “Individual differences in creativity: Personality, storywriting, and hobbies,” European Journal of Personality, vol. 15, pp. 297-310, 2001.[12] F. Williams, Classroom ideas for encouraging thinking and feeling, New York:Wiley & Sons, 1969.[13] F. Williams, TCD
toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and Discourse,” Read. Res. Q., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 38–70, Jan. 2004.[40] G. Geneva, Culturally responsive teaching: theory, research, and practice. Teachers College, 2000.[41] S. Guzey, T. Moore, and G. Roehrig, “Bridge design on the reservation: A study of curriculum implementation with American Indian youth,” in ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, 2009.[42] S. S. Jordan, “CAREER : Engineering Design Across Navajo Culture , Community , and Society,” in ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, 2014.[43] S. S. Jordan et al., “Culturally-Relevant Engineering Design Curriculum for the Navajo Nation,” in ASEE Annual
improvements during an industry-‐sponsored civil engineering senior design course. Proceedings of the ASEE 2015 Annual Meeting. Washington, DC: ASEE. Paper ID #12028 11. Golder, K., & Webb, D. B. (2015). Educating, enlightening, and entertaining: Audience perceptions of the educational value of a presentation competition for engineering students. Proceedings of the ASEE 2015 Annual Meeting. Washington, DC: ASEE. Paper ID #12335 12. Gotch, C. M., Langfitt, Q., French, B. F., & Haselbach, L. (2015). Determining reliability scores from an energy literacy rubric. Proceedings of the ASEE 2015
provides insight to the up and coming technology. Ms. Monereau, presently is an active member of the Associated General Contractors (AGC), American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE), and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). Through her tenure within these organizations she has served on the Board of Directors for NSBE, and multiple leadership roles throughout her undergraduate career with AGC and ASME. For more insight into her research, review her paper: Reality in the Nuclear Industry: Augmented, Mixed, and Virtual (https://peer.asee.org/?q=monereau).Dr. Makita R. PhillipsMs. Arielle M. Benjamin
design for innovative concept generation. Journal of Mechanical Design, 136(5).24. Fila, N. D., Hess, J. L., Dringenberg, E., & Purzer, Ş. (in press). Exploring the role of empathy in a decontextualized engineering design task. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(2).25. Postma, C. E., Zwartkruis-Pelgrim, E., Daemen, E., & Du, J. (2012). Challenges of doing empathic design: Experiences from industry. International Journal of Design, 6(1), 59-70.26. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261-283.27. Young, R. A., & Collin, A. (2004). Introduction: Constructivism and social constructionism
-44 0.000 Figure 4. Values of influence, Figure 3. SDGs influence (I) vs. dependence (D) diagram dependence, influence ratio, net influence, and priority index Figure 2 shows that the double causality table has a total of Q = n2 – n = 272 interactionswhere n = 17 (number of SDGs). The diagonal terms are assumed to be 0 since they represent agoal influencing itself, which mathematically
1999. Accessed January 11, 2012 from http://www.onlineethics.org/Education/instructessays/herkert2.aspx.10. Seely, B. Patterns in the History of Engineering Education Reform: A Brief Essay. In Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2005, pp. 114-30.11. Mayberry, M. 1998. Reproductive and Resistant Pedagogies: The Comparative Roles of Collaborative Learning and Feminist Pedagogy in Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4): 443- 459.12. Gramsci, A. (2001). Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Q. Hoare and G. Nowell Smith, eds. and trans. London: Electric Book Company. p. 526.13
Identity Construct. Paper presented at ePIC 2011: ePortfolio and Identity Conference. London, England. Retrieved December 26, 2012 from: http://www.epforum.eu/sites/www.epforum.eu/files/ePIC%202011.pdf.26. Banta, T.W. (2012). Our primitive art of assessment. Peer Review 13, 4. Retrieved January 6, 2013, from: http://www.aacu.org/peerreview/pr-fa11wi12/realitycheck.cfm.27. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.28. Committee on Graduate Education. 1998. Report and recommendations. Washington, DC: Association of American Universities.29. Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy (COSEPUP). 1995. Reshaping the education of scientists and engineers
Brain Break 2:05 pm - 3:00 pm Forum and Panel Discussions Figure 3. Representative Camp ScheduleThe following on-line platforms and tools were utilized as a method to support campassignments and deliver daily instruction:Webex – Webex is an on-line platform, utilized by our university, to host real-time, virtualmeetings and large-scale virtual events. Webex Events, a tool offered by Webex, provides accessto features such as web-polling, Q&A, and chat. By utilizing WebEx Events our students wereable to participate in fun and interactive polling, post questions to instructors, as well as chatwith participants.Canvas – Canvas is an on-line course management system, utilized by our University Professors,to
Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies, Psychology Press, 2004.[36] D. Haraway, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective,” Fem. Stud., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 575–599, 1988, doi: 10.2307/3178066.[37] J. W. Malazita and K. Resetar, “Infrastructures of abstraction: how computer science education produces anti-political subjects,” Digit. Creat., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 300–312, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1080/14626268.2019.1682616.[38] L. Nakamura, “Indigenous Circuits: Navajo Women and the Racialization of Early Electronic Manufacture,” Am. Q., vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 919–941, 2014.[39] L. T. Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed
some interesting questions, and poses another potentialfactor to be considered in student retention.References1. National Academy of Engineering (NAE). 2008. Grand Challenges for Engineering. National Academies Press, Washington DC. http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/File.aspx?id=11574&v=ba24e2ed Accessed Jan. 31, 2017.2. National Academy of Engineering (NAE). 2004. The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century. National Academies Press. Washington DC.3. Mihelcic, J.R., C.C. Naughton, M.E. Verbyla, Q. Zhang, R.W. Schweitzer, S.M. Oakley, E.C. Wells, L.M. Whiteford. 2017. The Grandest Challenge of All: The Role of Environmental Engineering to Achieve Sustainability in the World’s Developing
of engineering education. In G. L. Downey & K. Beddoes (Eds.), What is global engineering education for?: The making of international educators (pp. 45-76). San Rafael, CA.: Morgan and Claypool.Jesiek, B. K., Zhu, Q., Woo, S. E., Hompson, J., & Mazzurco, A. (2014). Global engineering competency in context: Situations and behaviors. Online Journal for Global Engineering Education, 8(1), Article 1, 3. Available at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/ojgee/vol8/iss1/1Knight, D., & Sullivan, J., & Louie, B. (2007, June), Expanding Understanding of First Year Engineering Student Retention and Team Effectiveness Through Social Styles Assessment Paper presented at 2007 Annual