populated by their peers and taught by lecturers from within the faculty. Theadministration and content of the course straddles the Humanities and engineering, and as suchprovides a unique space in which to study the intersection of science and the arts and theperceived positive impact of a liberal arts education for engineers, including increased culturalawareness, greater flexibility in inter and cross-disciplinary collaboration, improvedcommunication skills, and comfort with learning outside the discipline [1-6]. To extend thisfurther, the comparatively homogenous engineering population of Representing Science on Stageand the immersion of its students in a liberal arts classroom that by necessity demands theiractive participation, affords
University of Wisconsin - Madison, and a faculty fel- low at the Wisconsin Center for Education Research (WCER) and the Center on Education and Work. Dr. Nathan studies the cognitive, embodied, and social processes involved in STEM reasoning, learn- ing and teaching, especially in mathematics and engineering classrooms and in laboratory settings, using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Dr. Nathan has secured over $20M in external re- search funds and has over 80 peer-reviewed publications in education and Learning Sciences research, as well as over 100 scholarly presentations to US and international audiences. He is Principal Investiga- tor or co-Principal Investigator of 5 active grants from NSF and the
Paper ID #9010New Metaphors for New Understandings: Ontological Questions about De-veloping Grounded Theories in Engineering EducationDr. Kacey Beddoes, Oregon State University Kacey Beddoes is a Postdoctoral Researcher in the College of Engineering at Oregon State University. Her current research interests include interdisciplinary engineering education, gender in engineering education research, research methodologies, and peer review. She received her PhD in Science and Technology Studies (STS) from Virginia Tech, and serves as Managing Editor of Engineering Studies and Assistant Editor of the Global Engineering Series
background of a technology from a business perspective and answer questions such as “How is the technology scientifically superior to other competing technologies?” (ii) Assess the nature of a business opportunity (e.g. whether it is sizable, real, immediate, and has a first-mover advantage). (iii) Develop a business model and strategy for technology commercialization. (iv) Apply the Porter’s five forces analysis14 and SWOT15 analysis to a problem. (v) Identify and rank critical business issues and develop risk mitigation strategies. (vi) Write a succinct business development proposal targeted at either venture capitalist (VC) or internal corporate venture (ICV) funding.It should be
learninginclude that students dislike forced interaction, dislike the increased responsibility for their ownlearning, and prefer instruction solely from an expert perspective [7]. The distribution ofcriticisms of active learning techniques are adopted as identifying elements of their practice inthe corresponding three categories: ‘Increased Interaction’, ‘Increased Responsibility’ and‘Decreased Expertise’. Decreased expertise in this context involves removal of the professor asthe primary authority for information as presented from the peer-directed activity; their peers areviewed as having decreased expertise compared to the knowledge of the instructor. It is ofinterest if there is parity in the criticism of the presented active learning activities in
professionals,asking questions in a fashion that encouraged the interviewees to volunteer information. Thesesurveys, which followed the customer discovery approach used in lean design [11], were thenanalyzed to understand how AE is received outside of the classroom. Participants in the survey showed that once they learned the AE style, they preferred to useit for presentations in industry and research. Since the style is not widespread, though, participantsdescribed facing resistance from superiors and peers because of uncertainty about the style andopposition to deviating from company standards and traditional methods. Defying this resistance,many participants who attempted to incorporate elements of the AE style found that they had
class, while others justneed a book in hand) and that online learning makes it easier for students to cheat and gethigher grades compared to students in a traditional classroom setting. Comparing onlygrades is not conclusive. Students and faculty tend to believe that even if both groupsearn the same grades, long term retention is going to be higher in the students who sit in aclassroom and interact with others. Page 22.642.6Q8. Does internet based learning help foster strong peer-to-peer relationships andcollaboration?In general, students and faculty were neutral on this subject. They all agreed thatrelationships depend the individual, and that it is
, and STEM education. She has published 20 peer-reviewed publications in these areas, and her research has been funded by the NSF, AFRL, and LA-BOR. She also serves as an Associate Editor for the American Control Conference and the Conference on Decision and Control, two premier conferences in the controls community. She is a member of the IEEE, SIAM, and ASEE.Prof. Kirk St.Amant, Louisiana Tech University Kirk St.Amant is a Professor and Eunice C. Williamson Endowed Chair in Technical Communication at Louisiana Tech University (USA) where he is also a Research Faculty member with Tech’s Center for Biomedical Engineering and Rehabilitation Science (CBERS). He researches how cognition affects usability and the
one of the six ethical frameworksthey had been peer-taught in class OR an engineering professional organization’s code of ethicsinto their papers and presentations (or both). They also had the option to use other ethicsresources in addition to the aforementioned requirements. Students were not required toincorporate the same ethical frameworks for the end-of-semester writing assignment andpresentation that they had taught to the class for the first presentation—in fact, such arequirement would have been difficult since the teams had been scrambled and reassigned for thesecond half of the semester. Thus, the team members were all “specialists” in differentframeworks, necessitating team discussions and decisions about which codes and/or
demonstrated in the remainder of this paper, we also saw this collaborativeassignment-writing as an opportunity. We believe that it was the very process of workingclosely with peers that enabled us to create an assignment that was both effective atsociotechnical integration and transferable across diverse contexts.Assignment Version 1In our initial meeting, we focused on creating a space for problem redefinition (or at leastconsidering how problems are defined and what factors influence problem definition), inspiredby prior work in this area [25]. Problem redefinition was something we agreed had relevanceacross our diverse course contexts. For example, traditional engineering science courses oftenpresent well-defined, closed-ended problems for
technique that uses art to foster visual literacythrough facilitated group discussion, has been shown to promote the development of skills thattransfer to other domains. In this paper, we report findings from our use of VTS in anexperimental graduate course in environmental engineering that aims to foster students’capacities for reflection. Using data from writing samples with methods of thematic analysis, weexplore students’ perceptions of their own learning from the VTS portion of this semester-longcourse called Developing Reflective Engineers through Artful Methods. One significant themeidentified was “Knowledge/Skills”, in which students identified specific knowledge gained orskills developed through their VTS experience, including skills of
Paper ID #25386WIP: Common Practices in Undergraduate Engineering OutreachDr. Joanna K. Garner, Old Dominion University Dr. Garner is the Executive Director of The Center for Educational Partnerships at Old Dominion Univer- sity in Norfolk, VA.Mr. Michael Alley, Pennsylvania State University, University Park Michael Alley is a professor of teaching for engineering communications at Pennsylvania State Univer- sity. He is the author of The Craft of Scientific Writing (Springer, 2018) and The Craft of Scientific Presentations (Springer-Verlag, 2013). He is also founder of the popular websites Writing Guidelines for
Education and Training Writing for her ASEE 2012 Proceedings article, ”Behavioral Interview Training in Engineering Classes.” In 2004, she earned the ASEE Southeastern Section’s Thomas C. Evans Award for the most out- standing paper pertaining to engineering education. As a consultant, she has edited and written documents and presented workshops for educators, industry, and professional organizations.Dr. Christopher J Rowe, Vanderbilt University Dr. Christopher J. Rowe, M.Eng., Ed.D., is associate professor of the Practice of Engineering Manage- ment and Director of the Division of General Engineering at Vanderbilt University. He holds degrees in biomedical engineering, management of technology, and higher education
at Urbana- Champaign and a PhD from the University of Texas at Austin.Mr. Michael Alley, Pennsylvania State University, University Park Michael Alley is a professor of teaching for engineering communications at Pennsylvania State Univer- sity. He is the author of The Craft of Scientific Writing (Springer, 2018) and The Craft of Scientific Presentations (Springer-Verlag, 2013). He is also founder of the popular websites Writing as an Engineer or Scientist (www.craftofscientificwriting.com) and the Assertion-Evidence Approach (www.assertion- evidence.com). American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020Work In Progress (WIP): A Systematic Review of
Paper ID #18334Design Meets Disability Studies: Bridging the Divide between Theory andPracticeDr. Sarah Summers, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Dr. Sarah Summers earned her PhD in Rhetoric and Composition from Penn State University and joined the RHIT faculty in 2014. Her work focused on writing in the disciplines, particularly at the advanced undergraduate and graduate levels. She teaches courses in writing and engineering communication, in- cluding technical and professional communication, intercultural communication, digital writing, and grant writing.Prof. Renee D. Rogge, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
, haveexperimented with forms of media production as alternatives to writing for producing anddisseminating scholarly work. Both of these projects focus on the production of new mediaforms, such as web pages, games, and interactive digital art pieces, as the result of scholarlywork, rather than merely as methods for producing more traditional written/publication material.More recently, thanks largely to the proliferation of 3D printing hardware and related grantsfrom the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Andrew Mellon Foundation, digitalhumanists have begun incorporating making practices into their research and pedagogy.Makerspaces and critical design labs such as those at the University of Victoria, the University ofToronto, the University of
in Engineering Education (FREE, formerly RIFE, group), whose diverse projects and group members are described at feministengineering.org. She received a CAREER award in 2010 and a PECASE award in 2012 for her project researching the stories of undergraduate engineering women and men of color and white women. She received ASEE-ERM’s best paper award for her CAREER research, and the Denice Denton Emerging Leader award from the Anita Borg Institute, both in 2013. She helped found, fund, and grow the PEER Collaborative, a peer mentoring group of early career and re- cently tenured faculty and research staff primarily evaluated based on their engineering education research productivity. She can be contacted by email at
Kelso Farrell is an Associate Professor at the Milwaukee School of Engineering. She has a PhD in English Literature (Science Fiction) from Louisiana State University (2007), an MA in English from Montana State University, and a BA in Creative Writing from the University of Montana. At LSU, Jennifer was part of the Communication Across the Curriculum (CxC) and worked in the Engineering Communication Studio. Jennifer has published articles in The Leading Edge, Carbon, The Journal of Popular Culture, and Foundation.Dr. Alicia Domack, Milwaukee School of Engineering c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Impact of Experiential Learning on
not likely to result in newengineering courses examining the collected works of Shakespeare, writing poetry, or teachingverse in iambic-parameter. On the other hand, anything is possible. We engineers need not be seen as bland. Nor must we fear to reach out to our peers, Who teach of things we do not understand. Let us reach out and overcome our fears. Then shall we strive to find a common ground, And train a grad whose skills are found well round.References[1] Snow, C. (1956). “The Two Cultures.” New Statesman, 6 October 1956.[2] Snow, C. (1959). “The Rede Lecture.” Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.[3
confidence and design thinking.Only one ePortfolio was assessed at the capstone level (4) for all competencies forboth reflection and integrative learning. Although no ePortfolio rated 1 or less forall competencies for either reflection or integrative learning, two ePortfolios wererated no greater than 2 for all competencies, for both reflection and integrativelearning.Students saw value of the ePortfoliosAnalysis of interviews revealed that student perspectives were broadened in anumber of ways through creation of the ePortfolio. The ways they werebroadened differed depending on which of the following two purposes theePortfolio served: 1) as a prompt for students to demonstrate— through reflectionvia writing—their achievement in the five
full of variety with the salient point being a passion for teaching and helping all individuals overcome common communication challenges.Mr. Michael Alley, Pennsylvania State University Michael Alley is a professor of teaching for engineering communications at Pennsylvania State Univer- sity. He is the author of The Craft of Scientific Writing (Springer, 2018) and The Craft of Scientific Presentations (Springer-Verlag, 2013). He is also founder of the popular websites Writing as an Engineer or Scientist (www.craftofscientificwriting.com) and the Assertion-Evidence Approach (www.assertion- evidence.com).Lori B. Miraldi, Pennsylvania State University Director of the Engineering Ambassadors Program College of
consulting and verification and validation. He has headed the corporate product and technology innovations and quality and delivery innovation departments. He has designed and delivered workshops in the areas of problem solving, project management and innovation management that were received very well by the participants. Pradeep was on the apex senior management group before proceeding on to pursue his academic, research and social interests. Before Patni, he has worked at IIT Delhi, IIT Bombay, SGGS College of Engineering and Crompton Greaves R & D Electronics in different research and academic positions. Pradeep Waychal has also published papers in peer reviewed journals, presented keynote invited talks in many
Paper ID #30819Program: Study DesignMs. Rebecca Balakrishnan, University of Manitoba I am a career development professional with 8 years of experience working with post-secondary students at University of Manitoba on all aspects of career exploration, planning and job search. This takes a variety of forms, including one-on-one appointments, facilitating workshops, and writing resources. Recently, as part of my Master of Education in Counselling Psychology thesis, I have collaborated with faculty in the Faculty of Engineering to integrate career development activities into the Biosystems Engineering curriculum.Dr
, visually compelling format, and will givethem practice in oral expression. The seminar format of the class means that students will frequently voice their questions, andare expected to prepare for class in small in-person and online groups. In particular, studentswill frequently work in pairs, a format which offers the pedagogical advantages of groups, whileensuring participation of all (both) members.22 In addition to the motivating and creativeaspects, pairwork enables students to explore the questions they bring to class, and to try outtheir arguments on their peers. In addition to a college-wide end-of-term student course evaluation, students course areassessed using a six-point writing rubric. Because of the highly interdisciplinary
. This expanded list ofcompetencies is then validated using a dataset of engineering job advertisements.Methodology Researchers must determine the frame of articles to include and the source. Gomez-Jauregui et al. provide a critical review of the Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and GoogleScholar databases as potential sources for comprehensive literature reviews [31]. The authorschose Scopus as the source for this study because it provides complete information for citedarticles and extensive functionality to filter the articles selected. The authors based the Scopus database search on the title, abstract, and keywords toidentify peer-reviewed research articles related to soft skills. The Boolean search then considereda wide range of
weekly class lectures and group assignments, students were required to choose atleast five “choice activities” to attend. Some of these choice activities occurred during thescheduled class period, such as a presentation on how to use SPSS software or how to presentdata using Excel. Other choice activities included attending a workshop on how to write a grantproposal to fund undergraduate research or attending a state-wide undergraduate researchconference. Each section of the course required certain choice activities and gave students thefreedom to select from other choice activities in order to fulfill the requirement to participate in 5activities. The focus section of the course required attending a workshop on survey design, aworkshop
(e.g., Critical Reflective Writing; Teaching and Learningin Undergraduate Science and Engineering, etc.) All of these activities share a common goal of creat-ing curricular and pedagogical structures as well as academic cultures that facilitate students’ interests,motivation, and desire to persist in engineering. Through this work, outreach, and involvement in the com-munity, Dr. Zastavker continues to focus on the issues of women and minorities in science/engineering. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Work in Progress: Transformation through Liberal Arts-Focused Grand Challenges Scholars ProgramsAbstractThe National Academy of Engineering’s Grand Challenges Scholars Program
2018 mid-term elections. With campus gun rampage beingthe motivating factor behind their vote, voters under age 29 heavily influenced the outcome ofthe 2018 mid-term elections [1], [2]. Since the March for Our Lives protest, there has thus been arenewed effort to strengthen gun control laws, and in 2018, lawmakers around the countrysubsequently enacted fifty new laws restricting access to guns [3]. As of this writing, ten states have enacted legislation permitting the concealed carrying ofhandguns on university campuses. In sixteen states, concealed carrying of handguns onuniversity campuses have been banned, and in twenty-three states, the decision to allowhandguns on campus has been left up to the university’s discretion [4]. On
suggests that that the divide between socialjustice (SJ) concerns and technical knowledge in engineering curricula is an important reasonthat students with SJ concerns leave engineering [1, 2]. In their recent book, Engineering Justice,Leydens and Lucena [3] present criteria they hope “can be used to guide educators [to render] SJvisible within the engineering sciences without compromising valuable course content.” Oneapproach is the so-called “Problem Re-write Assignment”: students write a context for atraditional “decontextualized” engineering science problem. We undertook this pilot study tounderstand how students frame their thinking about “contextualized/decontextualized”(Con/Decon) problems and what resources they would use to write a social
staff who are not theinstructor of the course, allowing students to discuss strengths of the course and suggested courseimprovements with their peers prior to voting individually on their level of agreement anddisagreement with each proposed strength or improvement. Open-ended comments are alsorequested from students as part of the group interview process.The second offering of the pilot just concluded at the time of writing this paper; thus we arelooking mostly at raw data to confirm what the authors saw as emerging themes from thepost-assessments and overall research dataset.Research Limitations. Of the 99 students enrolled in the class at the end of the term, 92 took thepost-survey, 63 of which consented to participate in longitudinal