Paper ID #11881Communication Among Undergraduate Engineers on a Self-Directed TeamDuring a Product Decision MeetingMr. Jared David Berezin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Jared Berezin is a Lecturer in the Writing, Rhetoric, and Professional Communication (WRAP) team within the Comparative Media Studies/Writing Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Jared teaches in a range of communication-intensive courses at MIT, including Product Engineering Pro- cesses, Computer Systems Engineering, Managerial Psychology, and Science Writing for the Public. He has also been a science writer for Dana-Farber Cancer
standards, financial management, business conduct, leadership,communication, etc…. Early in the semester, the students were asked to update, peer review, andsubmit copies of their resume as an assignment. Under the auspices of “another resume exercise,”in opening to a lecture on diversity and inclusion, the author provided each student in attendanceone of two resumes. The resumes, provided in Appendices A & B, were developed to reflectexperiences familiar to students at the author’s institution, and were identical with the exceptionof utilizing a traditionally female vice traditionally male first name. The resumes were distributedto students in attendance randomly. Students were given approximately 5-10 minutes to reviewthe resume then, using
. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Adventures in Transitioning Team-Based Learning from In- Person to OnlineIntroductionGood communication is fundamental to facilitating active engagement online and to providing anoutstanding educational experience. In the world of COVID-19 and the shift from in-person toonline learning, good communication between instructor-to-student and student-to-student can bechallenging. If a student is reluctant to ask a question in a traditional lecture hall, they may alsobe reluctant to ask a question in front of their peers in a Zoom meeting. Yet these interactions arecrucial to maintaining active student engagement in an online
Engineering Class The goal is to implement HIPs for mechanical engineering students who are still intheir early part of the core mechanical engineering program. This course would be one of thefirst mechanical engineering courses required by the university that is not considered part ofthe general education curriculum. The purpose of this study is to track the effects of HIPs withcarefully planned pedagogies that would provide numerous benefits for the students, such asoverall increased learning gains and graduation rates. There are seven HIPs characteristicsused to measure the results at the end of the semester: these are (1) interaction with faculty, (2)interaction with peers, (3) feedback from instructor, (4) quality time spent on the course
,students discuss their answers to the question with a peer. Finally, after the discussion, all of thestudents answer the question again. Often the students in the classroom converge on the correctresponse after discussing the question with their peers.18 The Think-Pair-Share pedagogy wasselected for comparison since implementing it in a class is fairly easy and did not require asignificant redesign of the instructor's notes. Additionally, implementing the Think-Pair-Sharemethod in thermodynamics was made even easier by the development of the AIChE ConceptWarehouse,19 which has hundreds of concept questions that instructors can use for free.The driving motivation for this study is the comment from Bishop and Verleger that states, "Wesuggest that in
participants expressed positive working relationships with peers in theircollaborative work projects. This was the first time I had a positive group experience in my engineering studies. I told my team, “If you can explain it to me simply, or in an analogy then I will understand. And then we can explain it to others.” So that was sort of our guide in writing our reports. And this was a really good team to work with. Google Group 17, focus group interview, March 7, 2013 Homogeneous Shared Work vs. Heterogeneous Autonomous Work The theme of homogeneous shared work versus heterogeneous autonomous work ispertinent to the first half of our first and second research questions, “Which instructionalscaffolds
technical-writing coursecoordinator is recruited for the SO-3 (“communication”) committee, and the curricular-labfaculty are recruited for the SO-6 (“experimentation”) committee. Beyond this, faculty mayvolunteer for a specific SO committee based on personal interest or pedagogical expertise.Finally, for the “technical” student outcomes (SO-1, “engineering problem solving”; SO-2,“engineering design”; and SO-6, “experimentation”) the Assessment Coordinator recruits boththermal-systems and mechanical-systems faculty for each of the corresponding student-outcomecommittees. This is because the accreditation criteria specific to mechanical engineeringidentifies thermal and mechanical systems as the twin core topic areas for BS ME students.The Assessment
a problem. Students spend a minute or two thinking about an answer or solution and then pair up to discuss (share) their answers. The instructor may ask for several students to share their answers with the whole class. (f) Student demonstrations: Student demonstrations can be a quick way to make a point more vivid, give students a chance to hear from their peers, and give everyone in the class a “think break.” In the assessment phase, each team makes a presentation defending the recommendationof the engineer/manager they were assigned to play. The presentations are normally restricted to10 to 15 minutes so that the students are required to present their view point succinctly.Sometimes, they also
addition, Hu and colleagues find that students who participate in undergraduate research havegreater interactions and relationships with their faculty, improved writing and communicationskills, and enhanced critical thinking skills [2]. Moreover, summer undergraduate research hasalso been found to support these outcomes, with Lopatto finding that such programs supportnetworking skills and professional development for students [3]. Due to these findings, TheCitadel initiated the Undergraduate Research Office in 2016 and the inaugural The CitadelSURE (Summer Undergraduate Research Experience) program in the summer of 2017. Notethat this program is not quite the same as typical REU programs where students come frommultiple universities to work on one
because it follows aprescribed sequence of individual work and group work, and includes immediate feedback aswell as peer evaluation. TBL is similar to other flipped classroom approaches in the sense thatstudents have to prepare, e.g. by reading a chapter of a textbook, before coming to class to beprepared for in-class discussions and activities. The uniqueness of TBL is that in class studentswork in permanent teams throughout the quarter, activities follow a prescribed process–first areading assignment (or studying material from other sources), then an in-class quiz, and finallyproblems solved interactively in class that require students to apply facts and concepts from thepre-reading.The framework of assuring that students come prepared to
learning stems from Vygotskian social developmenttheory 2. Basic themes of Vygotskian theory are: Social interactions play a fundamental role in the development of cognition. A peer could also be a more knowledgeable other – MKO (like: teacher, coach or older adult) Learning occurs in the zone of proximal development (the difference between what people can do alone and what they can do with assistance).Students involved in collaborative learning with the same level of knowledge will benefit by co-constructing a new understanding of an unknown material through discussion with peers 3-5 .Students with different levels of knowledge will both benefit from collaborative learning. Themore knowledgeable students get the
intermediate range of difficulty.The problem is designed to allow the students to test their learning of the basics, but also to buildupon the introductory concepts with collaborative discussion and critical thinking. The studentsstart by reading and setting-up the problem individually, taking 5-7 minutes. They then work insmall groups loosely formed by their own preferences. Usually there is walking and consultingamong the students and peer teaching happens quite frequently. The instructor periodically joinsdifferent groups and helps answer questions, preferably by asking other questions, which lead thestudents to more critical thinking, forming theories, and testing theories on their own. In the end,the students write a solution report and turn it
. Some of the students may decide to compile their diploma thesis in samecompany. Therefore, we use the opportunity of the final seminar work to make therecommendation to them of whether to write the diploma thesis in English or not.The students are required to deliver a PowerPoint presentation of their internship work and toshow it to an audience of all their year-group peers and the internal supervisors. The contentshould not be chronologically structured but should focus on the main tasks, if there was more Page 14.733.7than one. Presenting the internship, the seniors came across as very poised, goal-oriented, and1 Our
an intensive writing and presentation experience with criticalfeedback engages students in a continuous reflection on the elements of the complete designprocess throughout the entire semester. It was found that this approach produces students whoare better prepared for their senior design projects and engineering practice. Students noted anincrease in their understanding of machine design concepts as an integration of all their priorpreparatory training. The effectiveness of the revised course structure was evaluated through asurvey of previous and current students.Introduction and backgroundPrior to 2011, one of the common concerns of the Mechanical Engineering department’s seniorstudents was the inability to “engineer” or practice “design
peer institution (who took circuitsas a service course from their EE department) via anonymous surveys administered to bothgroups (in both cases, 6 to 12 months after completion of the course). In addition, through aninternal end-of-semester assessment tool, we compare our students’ perception of their ability toachieve each course objective to embedded indicators based on performance in selected courseassessments. Finally, evidence of proficiency in circuit design and implementation is manifestedin students’ subsequent senior capstone projects, in which some groups have designed and builtPCBs to power and embody the main electronic components in their designed systems.`IntroductionIn the fall of 2012, QU held its first freshman engineering
(3) CAC Criterion 3 d, “an ability to function effectively on teams to accomplish acommon goal. Five performance criteria were developed for this outcome. The performancecriteria measure students ability to: 1. Plan group meetings and time management and assign team roles (leader, recorder, etc) 2. Distribute project tasks evenly to team members 3. Resolve conflicts professionally within the group (Example will be an assignment to identify potential problems and indicate how they will resolve them) 4. Track progress of team members to ensure project is on schedule (Through submission of progress reports) 5. Share ideas, complete assigned task on time, help others, and be professional to each other (through peer
of the EAMU vector is described and data collected from the 2018-2019 academic year is presentedto show both an increase in the fidelity of the assessment data and the creation of meaningful student performancedata trends over time.The ABET accreditation visit found no shortcomings in Criterion 3 – Student Outcomes. For this reason, this paper isapropos, as it may reduce challenges for any other mechanics-based programs seeking initial accreditation or thoseprograms seeking to revise their assessment framework in preparation for ABET accreditation.Introduction and BackgroundQuality assurance in engineering education is paramount [1], [2]. Programmatic and peer review contribute to boththe quality and relevancy of engineering programs by
concepts of stress analysis (mechanics of deformable bodies). Students need to take advantage of the office hours and professor tutoring available in this course. It is also recommended to investigate increasing the time for each class via, possibly, problem solving lab sessions. 2. Make the course a project based course, with no final exam. The project would be an ongoing project involving all aspects of material covered during the term (fatigue, shaft design, springs, threaded fasteners, and gears.) Students would have to make a final presentation, during the final exam time-slot, with a written report. The report and presentations would be subject to peer review. Students have indicated the formal
2015-2016. Week Intro Engr Proj Engr Proj 1 Engr Proj 2 1 CDS Overview Introduction Syllabus 2 Syllabus, Safety Proj 1 Lecture - 3 Fabrication Lab Safety - - 4 - - - 5 Rubrics, Logbooks, Proposal Team Presentations - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - Peer Evaluations - 9 Peer
Wednesday Friday Traditional Reading assignment Lecture Lecture Lecture Blended Online reading Lecture Worksheets, group projects, case studies, or homework time. assignment Held in active learning space working with peers and instructors.To answer the question, Do students benefit from the blended course?, we compared exam scoresfrom the traditional and blended courses. To answer the question, How do students progress onBloom’s taxonomy in the blended course?, we used worksheets that served both as learningactivities and measurements of Bloom’s taxonomy progress. We focused on two concepts thatstudents typically have
implement a flipped-classroom approach6 using screencasts3. I hadpreviously recorded and uploaded my lecture notes using a tablet PC to allow students to focuson comprehension rather than having to write down every word during class. Screencasts servedas an extension of these tablet-recorded notes by recording screen-captures and audio using theopen source software Camstudio7 for short mini-lectures and example problems. The resultingscreencasts are then uploaded to YouTube and embedded on the course website or into PDFreading guides using LaTeX. This has permitted the recording of “passive” course content asscreencasts provided to students prior to class as part of their reading assignment. This ability tomove essential but “passive” course
partially during a face-to-face class meeting. The guided practice assignment at thebeginning of this module used the following resources: Section 2.1 “The heat conductionequation”, Section 2.2 “Steady heat conduction in a slab: method”, Section 4.1 “The well-posedproblem”, and Section 4.2 “General solution of the heat conduction equation” from A HeatTransfer Textbook, and the CU screencast video “Heat Equation Derivation.” The group activityportion of Module 3 took place during a face-to-face class meeting. Two conceptual questionsfrom the CU ConcepTests were posed and discussed following a Peer Instruction model [38].Additionally, students worked together to complete two problems.The work for Module 4 (Temperature Profiles) was completed entirely
misunderstanding of the difficulties for them to engage material due to no real ● Set schedule challenging to interaction follow by students that have ● Students may feel isolated demands at work and home and less happy without the interaction with their peers and professorThis table shows some general differences between these two approaches. However, there areseveral additional variables to consider before determining which of the two systems is better fora specific course. Some of these complex
with on a weekly basis. Groups that contained students from underrepresented groupswere paired with a similar supervisor when possible. This decision was based on research withpeer mentoring programs which indicated that such peers became role models to the students andaided in persistence9,12.Prior to meeting with the students, supervisors attended a training session. The training sessionbegan with an explanation of the program. During this explanation the instructor emphasizedthat the supervisions were intended to be a positive learning experience for the students.Mistakes should be used to help teach students and should not be penalized. In addition, thetraining session also provided the supervisors with information on common learning
learners.” Thisreference also notes it is possible to successfully train engineering students in communicationskills and group work.Haag3 notes that there is widespread interest in the retention and matriculation of female andminority engineering students. One effort to reform education with a goal of improvingeducation to these groups is the NSF-supported Foundation Coalition. Some of the goals include“improvement of the interactions that affect the educational environment through teaming, …integration of subject matter within the curriculum, and the promotion of life long learning.”Some of the challenges in self and peer evaluations in group working include that “some studentswere reluctant to write critical comments about others fearing
-motivated project management, and teamwork andcommunication (both amongst their peers and with faculty and graduate students). The projectstructure is consistent with research by the National Academy of Engineering, which emphasizescreativity, practical ingenuity, leadership, and management, in addition to strong analytical skillsas some of the primary characteristics required for successful engineers of the future [12]. FIREproject teams require a minimum of two first-year researchers to facilitate teamwork andcollaboration and to provide students with a peer with whom they can collaborate withoutreservations of seniority. These collaborative teams are intended to not only foster the leadershipand management skills emphasized by the NAE but also
concepts. Both the TA and the instructor for this coursereinstated during the interview that having students work in groups would create moreopportunities for interaction between students, and thus make the classroom more engagingthrough peer-to-peer learning as opposed to a situation where the instructor simply works outproblems on the white-board. Furthermore, the instructor was very supportive of his TA tryinginnovative teaching methods that are not very common or frequently used in the departmentcourses as long as the goal was to improve student engagement. For this class of 40 students, theone and a half hour long, once-a-week discussion section was divided into 2 equal groups andoccurred in back-to back sessions following a half hour break
under which Page 26.564.3equilibrium is valid; definitions of normal and shear stresses and failure criteria for yielding;hydrostatic pressure, buoyancy, and the Reynolds number; and energy conservation via the firstlaw and the second law’s implications for efficiency. In addition to this focus on fundamentals,students are required to develop communication skills via memo writing on various topics.A secondary aim of the course is to development basic SolidWorks proficiency, which providesthe link between the two freshman courses. Students are provided with custom tutorials to learnthe basics of 3-D modeling and drawing generation; these
Paper ID #33060Collaborative Learning in an Online-only Design for ManufacturabilityCourseMiss Taylor Tucker, University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign Taylor Tucker graduated from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with a Bachelor’s degree in engineering mechanics. She is interested in engineering design and lends her technical background to her research with the Collaborative Learning Lab, exploring how to improve ill-structured tasks for engineering students in order to promote collaborative problem solving and provide experience relevant to authentic work in industry. She also writes for the Department
actively seek classes and instructors in which to easily earn “A” gradesand the advent of internet resources is making the search easier for students13,14.At the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, beginning in the Fall 2014, the transcript willinclude (1) the student’s grade, (2) the median grade of classmates, (3) and the number of studentin the class15,16. The additional information on the transcript shows the student’s performancerelative to their peers. The proposed contextual grading is expected to place the “spotlight” oncourses with high grade distributions. Transcripts typically have the semester and cumulativeGrade Point Average (GPA). It will now show the student’s Schedule Point Average (SPA)which is the average grade for the