evaluation that aligns withthe learning objectives of the respective courses while providing an evaluation model thatempowers learners.To move this opportunity forward, we have identified two primary areas for further explorationof visual methods-based assessment and evaluation in STEM education. First, a more concretecomparison to traditional methods regarding effectiveness and validity is necessary. The secondarea is more internalized, where we further explore the benefits and consequently, limitations ofvisual methods in assessment and evaluation, particularly to identify what circumstances best fitspecific visual method options. More generally, future research should focus on developingeffective and ethical practices for integrating visual
of mentors and advisors from nonprofit organizations also participated in curricularactivities, but the nonprofit partners were not involved in course instruction, and theirinvolvement in ongoing curricular design and programming was mostly limited to mentoringactivities that focused on exposing students to nonprofit models. Finally, the instructional staffwas supplemented by buy-outs of faculty with expertise in communication, humanities,engineering, ethics, and data analytics.Integral to the curricular organization of this academic plan were collaborative, cross-disciplinary projects where students were introduced to “real world problems” that they workedon in small groups or teams. Outside of this studio course, students were also
Director of First-Year Engineering at Youngstown State University. He completed his B.S. and M.S. in Industrial & Systems Engineering from Virginia Tech, and his PhD is in Engineering Education, also from Virginia Tech.Dr. Aditya Johri, George Mason University Aditya Johri is Professor of Information Sciences & Technology and Director of Technocritical Research in AI, Learning & Society Lab (trailsLAB) at the College of Engineering and Computing at George Mason University, USA. He studies how technology shapes learning across formal and informal settings and the ethical implications of using technology. He publishes broadly in the fields of engineering and computing education, and educational technology. His
Education Has Failed’: Reading like an Engineer in 1960s America,” Technol. Cult., vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 753–782, 2009.[6] A. G. Christie, “A Proposed Code of Ethics for All Engineers,” Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci., vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 97–104, 1922.[7] R. Kline, “Construing ‘technology’ as ‘applied science’: Public rhetoric of scientists and engineers in the United States, 1880-1945,” Isis, vol. 86
that is a problem.I believe engineers are smart enough to see climate change and be proactive without being forcedinto through course work.”. Four more students believed even though it wasn’t covered in class,that isn’t an issue, as the responsibility of climate change shouldn’t fall on engineering students,but rather on big companies or government.The remaining students who said no, said that climate change is either brushed over, not broughtup at all, or that coverage is not sufficient. One recurring theme is the lack of substantiality indesign courses. For example, “Especially in introductory design classes, the importance ofdesign for the environment is lost. Ethics already has some sustainability components, but thesefailed to strongly