Paper ID #23301Peer Review and Reflection in Engineering Labs: Writing to Learn and Learn-ing to WriteDr. Vanessa Svihla, University of New Mexico Dr. Vanessa Svihla is a learning scientist and assistant professor at the University of New Mexico in the Organization, Information & Learning Sciences program, and in the Chemical & Biological Engineering Department. She served as Co-PI on an NSF RET Grant and a USDA NIFA grant, and is currently co-PI on three NSF-funded projects in engineering and computer science education, including a Revolutioniz- ing Engineering Departments project. She was selected as a
prototype launch presentations delivered from 2013 through 2017 aspart of a product design capstone class at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Theaims of this study include: 1) to identify specific metaphors communicated by engineeringstudents in hopes of beginning a corpus of student-generated metaphors; 2) to analyze therhetorical goals of these metaphors; and 3) to inspire discussion about pedagogical opportunitiesand challenges to educate engineering students about the use of effective translation techniques,such as metaphor, within engineering courses that require students to communicate technicalinformation to specialized and non-specialized audiences.2. Understanding Metaphor2.1 Defining metaphorBroadly defined, a metaphor is
and, further, that communication skills are very important in theworkplace.Mastery. Participants describe the various communication activities that they have engaged in,and some describe the particular competencies that they have mastered, as illustrated in thefollowing excerpts from portfolios and survey responses.In this first example, the participant describes in her experiences communicating in differentmodes and media and the importance of that communication to her groups’ work. A game capstone project "Paint bomber" is a good example of how exchanging thoughts and ideas with others was crucial to the game design process and very beneficial. I had to explain and describe our ideas to the rest of our classmates visually
purpose of elevating the understanding of all parties; this is anexample of both the challenge and the reward for teaching science diplomacy. And yetengineers are not entirely excluded from practicing a form of subterfuge in negotiation asexemplified through the process of entering a low bid to win a construction project andrelying upon cost overruns to turn a profit [3]. It is within this dynamic tension, betweenpractices shared by engineers and diplomats and practices shared by engineers andscientists, where a pilot course entitled, “Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, andMath (STEAM) Diplomacy” was initially proposed in 2017 [4].As defined in 2010, in a report co-published by the Royal Society and the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement
education for more than 30 years. As a manager, teacher and researcher, she has served many departments, including Office of BIT President, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Law, etc. In 2011, she built the Center for Faculty Development (CFD) of BIT, which has been named as the National Demonstrational Center by the Ministry of Education of China. Now, professor Pang is the head of Graduate School of Educational and the director of CFD at BIT. Her teaching, research, and writing focused on general education and suzhi education, faculty de- velopment, and higher education management. She has published 8 books, more than 50 papers, and undertook around 15 research projects. Her monograph ”General
understand the content ofthe design project, they are able to address the boundary between being precise and being clear.For even an experienced technical writing teacher, who might have twenty different researchtopics in a class, the ability to comment on precision is challenging. Another advantage of our approach is the depth of the content. Assuming that a student ina typical technical writing course spends 3 hours outside of class for every hour in class onassignments and assuming that 2 of those hours are spent on the writing, the student would spendat most 15 hours researching the topic of the document sequence. However, because eachstudent in Effective Engineering Writing has one entire design course (with 2 hours of largelecture and 3
require that they write and speak in such a way that they can be understoodby all of the others; the Mechanical Engineers must be able to talk to classmates who arestudying Civil and Environmental Engineering, Industrial and Systems Engineering, EngineeringMechanics, Nuclear Engineering, or any other of the eleven undergraduate majors within ourcollege – not including the students from other programs who venture into our class. Allstudents, regardless of their major, must be able to describe their chosen technical projects using Page 22.579.3the jargon of their field but explaining those concepts well enough that all of those otherengineers
communication in engineering design, interdisciplinary communication and collaboration, design education, and gender in engineering. She was awarded a CAREER grant from the National Science Foundation to study expert teaching in capstone design courses, and is co-PI on numerous NSF grants exploring communication, design, and identity in engineering. Drawing on theories of situated learning and identity development, her work includes studies on the teaching and learning of communication, effective teaching practices in design education, the effects of differing design pedagogies on retention and motivation, the dynamics of cross-disciplinary collaboration in both academic and industry design environments, and gender and
manufacturing-focused courses. Sarah’s research interests include aspects of project-based learning and enhancing 21st century skills in undergraduate engineering students.Dr. Adam Lenz, Oregon State University c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Exploring students’ and instructors’ perceptions of engineering: case studies of professionally-focused and career exploration courses Work in ProgressAbstractPrevious work developed a working definition of engineering professional identity (EPI), definedas the degree of internalization of the norms, behaviors, language, values, and practices ofengineering. This EPI
streamlined andredesigned, it was desirable for each required course to “pull more weight” by delivering morevalue to students. Second, we wanted to “set the stage” for what was to come: both to providefoundational technical preparation in CAD, design, and analysis, and to establish studentexpectations of engineering as a socio-technical enterprise. Third, as capstone and other designprojects became increasingly multidisciplinary, we hoped to develop a common foundation inthe design process, with students from all engineering majors (and any non-engineering studentswho choose to enroll in Introduction to Engineering) learning a common, shared language ofdesign.The redesigned course model for our institution’s Introduction to Engineering consists of
Engineering Education and the National Society of Professional Engineers.Dr. Marie C. Paretti, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Marie C. Paretti is a Professor of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech, where she directs the Vir- ginia Tech Engineering Communications Center (VTECC). Her research focuses on communication in engineering design, interdisciplinary communication and collaboration, design education, and gender in engineering. She was awarded a CAREER grant from the National Science Foundation to study expert teaching in capstone design courses, and is co-PI on numerous NSF grants exploring communication, design, and identity in engineering. Drawing on theories of situated learning and identity
society.As a practical consideration, there is a high likelihood that in many institutions, the newlyproposed Student Outcomes 4, 5, and 7 (addressing communication, ethics/social context, andteaming/project management, respectively) will all be relegated to capstone courses, perhapswith a cursory introduction in the first year, but with little or no emphasis in the middle years.Our community knows this is a “worst practice,” as many scholars have been building ethicsacross the curriculum, communication across the curriculum, and design across the curriculumefforts for decades.54, 55, 56 The ways in which these disparate skills are lumped together (whyelse would you put teaming, risk assessment, uncertainty analysis, and project managementtogether
included where resources are most readily available:firstly, in freshman engineering, and again four years later, during a senior capstone course. Thisapproach, unfortunately, leaves discipline-specific technical courses in the second and third yearslargely absent of writing, leaving a gaping hole where writing would be most contextual, andreinforcing students’ notion that writing and engineering are separate and unrelated, and eventhat writing is less or even not important.The pilot work presented herein is part of our larger effort to develop, refine, and disseminateinstructor-friendly writing exercises that can be adopted in a wide range of technical courses,including large lecture format courses where writing is rarely included because of the
. [4] Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Definition and Selection of Competencies (DeSeCo) Project. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/41529556.pdf [5] Williams, J. (2002). The engineering portfolio: Communication, reflection, and student learning outcomes assessment. International Journal of Engineering Education, 18(2), 199–207. [6] Boiarsky, C. (2004). Teaching engineering students to communicate effectively: A metacognitive approach. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20 (2), 251–60. [7] Gömleksi˙ z, M. N. (2007). Effectiveness of cooperative learning (jigsaw II) method in teaching English as a foreign language to
capstone course. His active areas of research include infrastructure protection and resiliency and engineering education. He is active in the Infrastructure Security Partnership and the American Society of Civil Engineers, including services on the Committee on Critical Infrastructure, as well as the American Society of Engineering Education. Hart and his wife Christina reside at West Point, have been married for 22 years, and have eight wonderful children. Page 25.1122.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2012 Requiring a Course in Infrastructure for All
requirement, under learningoutcome (d), that students be able to “function on multidisciplinary teams” [25]. Insofar as mostprograms utilized their capstone design experience to bring their students together, most collegesmix, at best, students from different engineering disciplines rather than drawing on studentsmajoring in business, economics, and other relevant fields such as history, psychology, andanthropology. Some programs also simply choose projects that require multiple disciplinaryperspectives to be applied without requiring the students themselves to come from differentdisciplinary backgrounds. The current guideline says multidisciplinary capstone design. [In] the new guideline, which will probably go live December 1
school visits, theAmbassadors present in pairs on topics chosen by the hosting teachers. Typically two to fourpairs of Ambassadors present on a given day for the entire school day. This allows theAmbassadors to give classroom presentations to most students at the targeted grade level.Oftentimes Ambassadors are invited to present on “What is Engineering” and “My CollegeExperience” in an auditorium setting to allow a second touch point for all students in the school.Additionally, the group selects two to four schools each semester to partner with on long-termprojects, which are modeled after UConn’s Capstone Senior Design projects. Typically, theEngineering Ambassadors present a project kick off, maintain communications with teams atlocal schools
, D.F., & Jolly, L. (2003). Dilemmas in Framing Research Studies in EngineeringEducation. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings.Riley, D.M. (2012). Aiding and ABETing: The Bankruptcy of Outcomes-Based Education as aChange Strategy. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings.Rottman, C., Reeve, D., Sacks, R., & Klassen, M. (2018). Where’s My Code? EngineersNavigating Ethical Issues on an Uneven Terrain. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings.Rowe, J.W.K. (2005). Measure What You Value: Developing Detailed Assessment Criteria forEngineering Capstone Projects. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings.Shepard, T., & Altobell, C.T. (2012). Engineering in Summer Camps: Tapping the Potential.ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings
dimensions of curricular change.Ms. Kenyetta Anisah Rose Neal Akowa American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Before Engineering: How do students consider social and technical dimensions when solving complex problems early in their academic engineering career?Abstract. Engineering education has made strides towards integrating social context intoengineering problems. Real-world problems are one way educators have sought to contextualizetechnical problems; however, these problems are usually in capstone or design courses thatstudents take later in their engineering coursework. Instead, students learn technical skills asabstracted from
the main focus of this polytechnic institute?The institute that is home to Idol focuses primarily on preparing students for successful careers,and most often hires instructors who bring prior industry experience to their teaching positionsalong with their academic credentials. Industry involvement with instructors, course materials,and collaboration with student projects is common and encouraged, so students get firsthandexperience with workplace standards and practices.For students, assignments and extracurricular activities that have clear links to their futureworking life make their courses more meaningful to them and more practical for the workplace.For instructors, this system demands time in keeping up to date on current industry
-termimpact on how students understand the societal impact of the engineering technologies they areexposed to as students. As part of the course in which the activity analyzed here took place, afinal exam was administered and it included a question that was related to the socio-technicalactivity discussed in this paper. Future analysis of this data could provide a glimpse into short-term retention of socio-technical systems thinking demonstrated by the students. Moreover,about 4-6 semesters after the students take this course, they enroll in their capstone final project. 12The project is highly technical and includes a stakeholder analysis. Getting
theatre. If we reframe day-to-dayinteractions as offers, it’s easy to spot effortless ungenerous offers and their effects. We all knowthe feeling of being asked, “How was your day?” and reluctantly trying to create and edit asatisfying narrative of our day for another’s entertainment and edification; our return offer ismost frequently an uninspired “fine”.When we reframe ours’ and our students’ interactions together as offers, a litany of activelearning stumbling blocks take on new clarity. An excellent example of this was shared by Dr.Raquell Holmes, who led a group of four students to write a book on cell modeling over multiplesemesters. Intentionally, this project required a lot of stretching on the part of the undergraduategroups. They were
focuses on communication in engineering design, interdisciplinary communication and collaboration, design education, and gender in engineering. She was awarded a CAREER grant from the National Science Foundation to study expert teaching in capstone design courses, and is co-PI on numerous NSF grants exploring communication, design, and identity in engineering. Drawing on theories of situated learning and identity development, her work includes studies on the teaching and learning of communication, effective teaching practices in design education, the effects of differing design pedagogies on retention and motivation, the dynamics of cross-disciplinary collaboration in both academic and industry design
they are implemented, such pedagogies can directly or indirectly address both 5the chilly climate and faculty teaching style issues; by “warming” classroom climates, thecampus climate can begin to shift [22].Other ways to (in)directly address climate and faculty issues include providing challengingmaterial while also structuring in support for learning, creating hands-on research experiences(preferably with positive faculty mentoring), and developing or improving first-year seminars,capstone projects, learning communities, internships in industry, and access to women-focusedorganizations such as the Society of Women Engineers [22]. It is
, several ofour middle years major-required courses, and a new third-year course designed for students whoexpect to graduate within the next year [29]. The first-year course introduces students toprinciples of reflection as a building block of SDL, in addition to design thinking, and thebiomedical engineering (BME) field. In the middle years’ courses, students engage in signaturelearning experiences that foster their entrepreneurial mindset and encourage them to integratewhat they are learning with some of their prior extra- and co-curricular experiences. In their thirdyear, students complete a new, major-required course entitled The Art of Telling Your Story thatacts as a type of capstone experience in this vertically integrated curriculum.The
institutional budget allotments to those departments.Figure 1. Customization of the Comm Lab structure to suit each institution’s needs, internalorganization, and funding mechanisms. At MIT, a central Comm Lab administration overseesdiscipline-specific Comm Labs that are embedded within each participating department in theSchool of Engineering. Each departmental Comm Lab has its own assigned manager. TheBrandeis Comm Lab is a centralized resource that serves all seven departments within theDivision of Science, with one director overseeing all operations. At Rose-Hulman, the CommLab is currently embedded within the school’s makerspace, and may in the future be expanded toserve all undergraduates in a senior capstone
. We see potential for this approach of holistic assessment to be useful outside of UVA,especially for other institutions’ evaluations of how HSS and STS contribute to engineeringeducation. Engineering educators already value assessing technical skills through real-worldcase-study evaluations, such as in capstone research and design projects and in the Principles andPractice of Engineering (PE) exam. The difficulties of assessing students’ abilities to integratetheir various kinds of knowledge are also present in these technical activities. Our approach canhelp pave the way for identifying indicators of students’ integration of information and holisticcritical thinking across subjects and skills. Also, it was clear from the spread of the
WorcesterPolytechnic Institute (WPI) as a part of the school’s humanities capstone program, especiallyincluding experiences around a recent showcase of LGBTQ+-themed plays at the university.Their paper began from and substantiated the same starting point as this present study: thattheater experiences at a technical university provide a space that supports a “culture ofinclusivity.” However, their study focused primarily on showing how WPI’s theater programcontributes to such a culture and focuses on implications for liberal education, while this presentone is more provocative in stance, asking how the University Dramatic Society that I study couldinform sociotechnical practice more broadly. Furthermore, the papers diverge in methodology:while DiBiasio and