, "Community Engagement in Engineering Education: Needs and Learning Outcomes," in Developments in Engineering Education Standards: Advanced Curriculum Innovations: IGI Global, 2012, pp. 301-317.[8] E. A. Davis, A. S. Palincsar, A. M. Arias, A. S. Bismack, L. Marulis, and S. Iwashyna, "Designing educative curriculum materials: A theoretically and empirically driven process," Harvard Educational Review, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 24-52, 2014.[9] V. Svihla, T. Kubik, and T. Stephens-Shauger, "Performance assessment practice as professional learning," Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, vol. 13, no. 2, 2019.[10] P. Freire, Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder, 1970.[11] L. T. Smith
modalities of governance as operatingsimultaneously, and sometimes in tension. This is compatible with the ecological and systemsoriented perspective from which we chose to study engineering education governance. Giventhat this is a work in progress, where we seek to develop our ideas in dialogue with our audience,we will close the paper with these sparse concluding remarks. We welcome all those who readthis paper to send us your thoughts (and any case studies that you are willing to share with us) byemailing any of the authors starting with the project PIs: akeraa@rpi.edu, rac039@rpi.edu,riley@purdue.edu.References[1] Akera, A., Appelhans, S., Cheville, A., De Pree, T., Fatehiboroujeni, S., Karlin, J., Riley, D.M., ABET & engineering
Student Affairs, Washington, DC: Author.2. Schneider, C.J. and Miller, R. (2005). Liberal education outcomes: A preliminary report onstudent achievement in college, Association of American Colleges and Universities, Washington.DC.3. Baxter Magolda, M.B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming highereducation to promote self-development. Stylus Publishing.4. Parks Daloz, L.A., Keen, C.H., Keen, J.P. and Daloz Parks, S. (1996). Common fire: lives ofcommitment in a complex world. Beacon.5. Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2010) The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts and Tools,Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.6. Paul, R., Niewoehner, R. and Elder, L. (2006). The thinker’s guide to engineering reasoning,Foundation Critical
strong data that could indicate best practices, and which do not? Format of Final Product: The team would spend one (or if desired, two) semester(s) developing a set of critical areas for further investigation, culminating in an article suitable for a peer-reviewed journal.additional references, each, to clarify their portion of the outline. To share his or herfindings, each student used a 5-slide PowerPoint presentation to explain what he or shehad learned. The DoS participated via teleconference in the instructor-facilitateddiscussion. Then, for four weeks, each student worked independently to write a five-page, singled-spaced, draft document with a minimum of fifteen references, each, thatclarified his or her
learning approaches with ever-changing research-based and technologically instrumented means, transferring control over education from teachers to mangers of the bureaucracy.Therefore, engineering education is considered as a system that can be studied, controlled,optimized, and assessed. A classic example in this regard is the “pipeline” metaphor [10] that hasbeen widely used in the United States to understand and tackle the systematic challenges withretaining engineering students and recruiting underrepresented populations. Nearly allengineering education graduate programs in the United States are in engineering colleges,schools, or departments. Arizona State University (ASU)’s Engineering Education PhD Programis another good example
Life History in a Social Science Perspective. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 1989.[20] D. J. Clandinin and F. M. Connelly, Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.[21] F. M. Connelly and D. J. Clandinin, Teachers as Curriculum Planners: Narratives of Experience. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1988.[22] J. W. Creswell, Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2005.[23] P. B. Myers and K. D. Myers, Myers-Briggs Type Indicators. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc, 1998.[24] A. S. Denzer and K. E. Hedges, “From CAD to
Through Humanistic And Global Perspectives. Paper presented at 1999 Annual Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina. https://peer.asee.org/7632.5. Parkhurst, R., & Moskal, B., & Lucena, J., & Bigley, T., & Downey, G., & Ruff, S. (2006, June), A Comparative Analysis Of Online And In Class Versions Of Engineering Cultures Paper presented at 2006 Annual Conference & Exposition, Chicago, Illinois. https://peer.asee.org/672.6. Jesiek, B. K., & Chang, Y., & Shen, Y., & Lin, J. J., & Hirleman, D., & Groll, E. A. (2011, June), International Research and Education in Engineering (IREE) 2010 China: Developing Globally Competent Engineering Researchers Paper presented at 2011 Annual
good.Instructors appear most satisfied with the ability of students to write for intended audience(s),provide appropriate data representations, and adhere to appropriate document formats, and leastsatisfied with their ability to develop coherent and grammatically correct writing. Table 9. In general, what is your perception of undergraduate students' writing skills in each of the following areas? Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent MeanStatement (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)Appropriateness for 4 22 18 7 2 2.64intended audience(s)Appropriate data 4
teacher training: A critical literature review, Journal of Turkish Science Education,vol. 2, pp.2-18.[3] Levin, T. and Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-basedclassrooms: A developmental view, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, vol. 39,pp.417-441.[4] Mcmahon, G., 2009. Critical thinking and ICT integration in a Western Australian secondaryschool. Educational Technology and Society, vol. 12, pp.269–281.[5] Fu, J. S. (2013). ICT in Education: A Critical Literature Review and Its Implications.International Journal of Education and Development using Information and CommunicationTechnology, 9(1), 112.[6] Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Strahl, J. D. and Ross, S. M. (2008). Does technology
), non-technical constraints (C),stakeholder considerations (S), broader considerations about cultural ecosystems (BC). We thencame to consensus on how we rated each consideration.Based on our analysis, the students of the CTSS class made a distinctive shift how theyprioritized design considerations for the energy-conversion playground design, as demonstratedin Figure 1. Notably, the aggregate number of considerations that centered on socioculturalconsiderations increased from 7 (10.3% of total responses) to 29 in the second iteration (41.4%of total responses). Moreover, the aggregate frequency of technical centered responses reducedfrom 26 in the first iteration (38.2% of total responses) to 4 in the second iteration (5.1% of totalresponses
Engineering Classroom," European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 34, pp. 29-45, 2009.5. M. Borrego and S. Cutler, "Constructive Alignment of Interdisciplinary Graduate Curriculum in Engineering and Science: An Analysis of Successful IGERT Proposals," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 99, pp. 355-369, 2010.6. M. Borrego and L. K. Newswander, "Definitions of Interdisciplinary Research: Toward Graduate-Level Interdisciplinary Learning Outcomes," Review of Higher Education, vol. 34, pp. 61-84, 2010.7. G. L. Downey, The machine in me: an anthropologist sits among computer engineers. New York: Routledge, 1998.8. G. Kunda, Engineering culture: control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Philadelphia: Temple
questions. Therefore, we did not remove participants thatneglected to answer between one (1) and five (5) questions. After removing a total of 574participants, 1574 participants remained for exploratory factor analysis.Survey Participants’ Demographics The demographic information we collected from participants included (a) age, (b) gender,(c) years working as an engineer, (d) years working within academia, (e) engineering degree, and(f) current engineering practice. The engineering disciplines participants could select from weredepicted by the specific degree offerings from the university through which the survey was beingdisseminated. Table 2 shows the profession(s) of survey participants at the time of the survey.For each question
of thinking that roughly capture patterns in LAs’descriptions and diagnoses of, and imagined responses to, the teamwork troubles: individualaccountability, where the trouble is seen as caused by individual(s) described as “off task” or“checked out” or demonstrating some level of incompetence; delegation of work, where thetrouble was located in the team leader’s inability to delegate tasks effectively to team members,or in the group’s general lack of communication about what tasks need to be completed, whoshould execute the tasks, and what work other groups in the team were doing; and emergentsystems, where trouble was described as a group-level phenomenon emerging from the patternsof interaction amongst group members, contextual features
asystematic review of literature on the impact(s) of involving undergraduates in engineeringoutreach with a particular focus on studies that report on the impact on the undergraduatestudents. Supporting this effort is the NSF EArly-concept Grant for Exploratory Research(EAGER) program.Introduction In response to the need to increase interest and persistence in STEM careers, manyuniversities have created organized outreach initiatives. Engineering outreach by undergraduatestudents takes different forms but can include leading summer camps, teaching afterschoolprograms, conducting classroom presentations, and hosting engineering fairs and competitionson colleges campuses. The focus of evaluation efforts for K-12 outreach programs is typically
,WPI’sMassachusettssettingsurelymakesadifference:wherestatelawsprotectindividualchoiceingenderidentityandexpression,onewouldexpecttofindamorecomfortableenvironmentforLGBTQstudents.However,asnotedinourshorthistoryofNewVoices,WPI’suseoftheatretoexplorequestionsofsexualorientationextendsbackto1987,afullsixyearsbeforePresidentBillClinton’s“Don’tAsk,Don’tTell”policyandmanyyearsbeforemostpeopleevenentertainedthepossibilityoflawspermittinggaymarriageoradoption.Howmightthepresenceofthisvibranttheatreprogram,andopportunitiesforengineeringstudentstowriteandperformoriginalplaysontopics2Rich,A.(1980).“CompulsoryHeterosexualityandLesbianExistence.”Signs5.4:631-660.3Harris,S.(2014).“ThirdofGayEngineersHideSexualityfromColleagues.”TheEngineer.23July.4Cech,E.(2015).“LGBTProfessionals’WorkplaceExperiencesinSTEM-RelatedFederalAgencies.”ASEE.Paper#12513.5Trenshaw,K.etal
Satisfaction Measures:question was missing). (m) Personal satisfaction from work (n) Satisfaction with quality of work unitSurvey respondents were asked “do you consider (o) Satisfaction with working conditionsyourself to be one or more of the following,” with (p) Employee empowermentthe following response categories offered: (q) Co-workers cooperation“Heterosexual or Straight,” “Gay, Lesbian, (r) Satisfaction with procedures (s) Overall job satisfactionBisexual, or Transgender,” or “Prefer not to say.”Respondents who answered “prefer not to say” were excluded from
other words, we may see the society in which itoperates.Bibliography1. Schaffer, S. (1995.) Accurate measurement is an English science. In M.N. Wise (Ed.), The Values of precision(pp. 135-172). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.2. Slaton, A. (2001). Reinforced concrete and the modernization of American building, 1900-1930. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.3. Gooday, G. J.N. (1995). "The Morals of energy metering: Constructing and deconstructing the precision of theVictorian electrical engineer's ammeter." In M. N. Wise (Ed.), The Values of precision (pp. 239-282). Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.4. Tonso, K.L. (1996). The impact of cultural norms on women. Journal of Engineering Education, 85, 3: 217–225.5. Cech, E. A
students had four weeks to address the reviewers’ comments. The papers were then peer-reviewed by the same group who provided the first review. After this second peer-review, thepapers were returned to the authors. The authors addressed the final comments and the articlewas submitted to a journal.The Project – PresentationsPresentations were scheduled for the last two weeks of the semester. The class met three timesper week for 50 minutes per lecture. Based on the number of papers, each author(s) had 20minutes for their presentation and five minutes for questions. Each presentation was critiquedonly by the instructor.ConclusionsPaperNone of the papers were accepted. The reasons for the rejections were related to “little or nocontribution to the
Institute of Medicine, Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America's Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2011.[2] B. M. Ferdman. (2013, 1 December 2015). Diversity at work: the practice of inclusion in diverse organizations.[3] Cech, E. A., & Waidzunas, T. J. (2011). Navigating the heteronormativity of engineering: The experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. Engineering Studies, 3(1), 1-24.[4] Cech, E. A., & Rothwell, W. R. (2018). LGBTQ Inequality in Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering Education, 107(4), 583-610.[5] Patridge, E. V., Barthelemy, R. S., & Rankin, S. R. (2014). Factors impacting the academic
communication and management acumen (e.g., technicalwriting, technical presentations, and project management). Such an approach is essential topreparing future engineers for the workplace [1]. The challenge becomes providing studentswith effective exposure to both kinds of skills within engineering programs.Traditionally, the development of such skills has been a matter of content-specific courseworkintegrated into a school’s engineering program(s). (A classic example is the technical writingcourse often offer by English or communication departments and required of engineeringundergraduates.) As institutional resources shrink and student demand increases, the need tofind alternative methods for offering training in these “soft-skill” areas grows
much as it can empower, usingcommon methods guided by a researcher’s position, i.e. narrative smoothing [26] and datacleaning of outliers. Our research intended and unintended consequences. References[1] Milner IV, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational researcher, 36(7), 388-400.[2] Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2(163-194), 105.[3] Campbell, C. M., & O’Meara, K. (2014). Faculty agency: Departmental contexts that matter in faculty careers. Research in Higher Education, 55(1), 49-74.[4] Milner IV, H. R
publicartifact (an advertisement, a tv clip, song lyrics, part of a policy debate, a toy) that representsdisability and analyze the representation based on our course readings and discussions. Onestudent might choose to bring in the catalog pages that depict an American Girl doll that wearsan insulin pump, another might show a YouTube video of a child receiving a cochlear implant,and a third might play part of 3OH!3’s song “Don’t Trust Me” that includes the lyrics “Shush,girl. Shut your lips. / Do the Helen Keller and talk with your hips.” As students share theseartifacts with their peers, they are honing their ability to see how representation matters indisability studies. The presentation assignment also asks them to look beyond the good
should consider using a genre-based approach to integrating writing into engineeringcurriculum if they are concerned with the integration of students into real, actual engineeringcommunities of practice.Acknowledgement The project presented in this paper was funded by the Old Dominion University’s QualityEnhancement Plan (QEP): as Interdisciplinary Writing (IDW) Project “Student Writing in theSTEM Disciplines: A Faculty Learning Community”19.References 1. Lang, J. D., Cruse, S.,McVey, F. D., & McMasters, J. (1999). Industry expectations of new engineers: A survey to assist curriculum designers. Journal of Engineering Education,88, 43-51. 2. Reave, L. (1999). Technical communication instruction in engineering schools: A
localdevelopment: the contribution of engineers without borders from Italy and Colombia: towardsthe improvement of water quality in vulnerable communities. Systemic Practice and ActionResearch, 24(1), 45-66.Richards, L. G., & Gorman, M. E. (2004). Using case studies to teach engineering design andethics. In CD) Proceedings, 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Conference (Vol.52).Richards, J., Elby, A., Gupta, A. (2014) Characterizing a New Dimension of Change inAttending and Responding to the Substance of Student Thinking. In Polman, J. L., Kyza, E. A.,O’Neill, D. K., Tabak, I., Penuel, W. R., Jurow, A. S., O’Connor, K., Lee, T., and D’Amico, L.(Eds.). (2014). Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the
: Chapter 1: Anthropology and Development: Challenges for the Twenty-First Century [21] Reading: Chapter 1: Freedom as Development [22]3-4 Goal 6 - Clean Water and Project: group work on case study Sanitation Writing: individual reflection on intersectionality of chosen SDG, Goal 6 and the project Guest lecture and discussion: lecture on inequality and health from professor in Social Sciences Department Reading: supplementary reading(s) determined by guest lecturer5-6 Goal 13 - Climate