challenges of the pandemic, with the number of participants exceeding the pre-pandemic number in 2023. FTC engages students with STEM concepts, offering them uniquehands-on experiences through project-based learning, which serves as an ideal “Practice”component in the proposed LPS framework. 2) The judge room presentation component of theFTC competitions requires students to document, reflect, and learn from their experiences andthis helps us gather necessary data to evaluate the design, implementation, and results of the LPSframework. 3) Compared with other educational robotics platforms such as VEX [20], B.E.S.T[21], and World Robot Olympiad (WRO) [22], FTC’s motto of Gracious Professionalism moreaccurately addresses the service component of the
refers to the availability of employment opportunities, jobstability, working environment conditions, as well as comprehensive satisfaction suchas personal income and development. With the changes in the employment rate ofvocational college graduates and higher quality requirements, the focus of the graduategroup has shifted from simply finding a job to considering employment quality.Therefore, employment quality is a reflection of problems in the field of employmentquality, which includes subjective and objective aspects. From a subjective perspective,employment quality refers to individual workers' subjective satisfaction with their work,including the pleasure and social identity brought by work. It also refers to what kindof job individual
. Then, theyimplement these strategies. Finally, the problem solver reflects on their performance [1] [2]. Forill-structured problems where the solution path is not immediately obvious, the systematicapproach of self-regulated learning can help students navigate the possible difficulties and deadends. If a solution method does not work out, the problem solver can reflect on this and try adifferent approach.The Model of Domain Learning is another conceptual framework that can be applied to problemsolving. The goal is to understand how novices build expertise and become experts [3] [4]. Inthis framework, the learner progress through three stages. In the first stage, Acclimation, thelearner has little knowledge of a field, and the knowledge is
interviews were semi-structured and lasted approximately 45 minutes. All interviews wereconducted via Zoom or in person and were transcribed by a professional transcription service.The interviews were aimed at uncovering differences that faculty had noticed in their coursessince the COVID-19 pandemic began. Interview questions (Table 1) were developed by theresearch team and were piloted for clarity. Participants were sent the interview questions prior tothe interview to allow them to gather class data and reflect on the differences beforehand.Table 1. Semi-Structured Interview Questions High-Level Interview Protocol 1. What differences have you noticed in teaching before, during, and after COVID? 2. Before COVID, did you notice any gaps in
interest, and this discrepancy isfurther reflected during the college application process. This mismatch cultivates a system ofexclusion for minoritized students: students are led to think they can succeed during outreach,only to be told they are not allowed in during recruitment.Holloway et al. [44] listed 11 major factors used to admit or deny students during the collegeapplication review process by IHEs in the years 2006-2010: (1) “subject matter expectations (thenumber of semesters of math, science, English, social studies, and foreign language that eachstudent is required to have taken in high school), (2) overall high school grade point average(GPA) (3) core high school GPA (English, math, science, foreign language, and social studiesclasses
to the free-response question after the assessment reflected positively onengineering clubs. The most common response was that club participation had improved theparticipant’s score. Thirteen percent of the open responses said that clubs had no impact on theiranswers, while 60% said that clubs improved their score. No response indicated a lower scorebecause of clubs. 4. DISCUSSIONResidual TimeThis data set follows the residual time assessment conducted by Olewnik & Kashyap [1]. Themedian residual time for participants is between 10 and 30 hours per week, which appears tocenter around the average of 19.5 hours measured [1]. The least time was spent at a job, doingresearch, and on mental/physical
anonymous surveys are used in this study to judge the impact ofGrOW. The surveys contain both self-reflection questions and quantitative questions to evaluate“success”. The self-reflection questions judge adjustment to graduate school and feelings ofbelonging and self-worth using a 5-point Likert scale. The quantitative questions gather metricssuch as GPA, number of publications, and fellowships earned. The surveys are attached in theappendix for reference.Survey 1 was distributed in August 2022, after the first event of the GrOW program. Twenty-threeattendees participated in the survey. Survey 2 was distributed in December 2022, after the fourthevent. First-year MG graduate students who had not attended any of the GrOW events were alsoinvited to
examination. Following each coding session, reflections, emotions, impressions, andinterpretations were recorded in a memo document to note emerging trends. After thepreliminary coding, a second-pass axial coding was conducted on the Excel sheet to identifycommon themes related to the control/treatment group and the decision to stay/leave. Theseemergent codes were discussed with the second author to refine the claims made from the dataand for coding consensus.The authors of this paper have varied experiences with engineering and as members of thegroups we interviewed. The research team of faculty, postdoctoral scholars, graduate students,and undergraduate students included researchers from higher education and engineeringeducation. Three of the
the National Science Foundation under grant EEC#1929727. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1] W.C. Johnson and R.C. Jones, “Declining Interest in Engineering Studies at a Time ofIncreased Business Need.”http://www.worldexpertise.com/Declining_Interest_in_Engineering_Studies_at_a_Time_of_Increased_Business_Needs.htm (accessed Jan. 20, 2023).[2] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Civil Engineers.” https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/civil-engineers.htm (accessed Jan. 20, 2023).[3] Data USA, “Civil Engineering”. https://datausa.io/profile/cip/civil-engineering (accessed
we willobserve their teaching when implementing the game lesson. Data will then be coded andanalyzed using thematic analysis to find out the change in preparedness and engagement towardsteaching computer science.IntroductionIn response to the lack of engineering and computer science education in high school, the NextGeneration Science Standards (NGSS) were created in 2014 by twenty-six states with twentystates adopting these standards [1]. The NGSS shifted science instruction to incorporate cross-cutting (utilizing common themes among STEM disciplines) engineering standards and expandon computational thinking skills [2]. However, as technology and computing have advanced, theNGSS do not reflect the modern skills needed for computing to
the faculty's efforts to legitimize the students’contributions impact how the students feel about themselves as researchers and how they cancontribute to the group.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under GrantNumbers 2346868 and 2144698. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe National Science Foundation. We would like to express gratitude to Team Y for participatingin this study and for their willingness to open their meetings to us and provide feedback on theinitial drafts of this paper. We would also like to thank Dr. Nicola Sochacka for her insightfulfeedback and
your mental health, it is hard to know that you are not alone in how you are feeling. Normalizing the conversation about mental health makes it much easier to share and work through things.”During Fall 2022-2023, ERASe partnered with the Russ College of Engineering Student Senatorto host a wellness week for the college. The students proposed and led the following activities: • Mindfulness and Journaling: a group meditation followed by a journal reflection • Planting healthy roots: Focus on the correlation between taking care of a plant and decreased symptoms of depression and anxiety. With financial support from Ohio University Student Senate, students were provided with materials to plant succulents and
related to mental health, were not something that was discussed. Future work will includeconducting the same interviews with students from a variety of achievement levels andsocioeconomic background to get a more nuanced understanding of these groups of students andgain a greater understanding about how grades may or may not influence students’ identityformation as engineers.AcknowledgmentsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under AwardNumber DUE #1950330. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions, or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe National Science Foundation.References[1] J. Heywood, The Assessment of Learning in
. tracks.Linnstrument Linnstrument Subtle finger Linnstru Can be played using a Wide range of Intended for Resembles a Linnstrument[26]. is a MIDI movements can ment single finger. Also can precise and those familiar digital tablet, 128 (less controller be detected to MIDI be played atop a table, unique music with music and with brightly customizable) controlled reflect unique controlle using a guitar strap; complexity willing to spend colored lights $1099. through music controls r, any can be used with with time learning
individual’sconnections with others and the level of support they receive from their classmates andcolleagues can be quantified through social capital [15]. In this study, social capital is defined asthe number of friends a student indicated they work with academically—in other words, thenumber of friends a student also uses as an academic resource.The clustering coefficient is a measure of network density, reflecting the interconnectedness ofan individual’s egonet. Figure 2 shows two different students’ social networks. The left socialnetwork has a clustering coefficient of 0.14. This is a low clustering coefficient which indicatesthat the ego’s network of friends are mostly not friends with each other. Each node is connectedto the ego, but there are only a few
Paper ID #41634Exploring the Relationship between Transfer Students’ Social Networks andtheir Experience of Transfer ShockNoor Aulakh, Rowan UniversityJoyLynn Torelli, Rowan UniversityAlexandria Ordoveza, Rowan UniversityDarby Rose Riley, Rowan University Darby Riley is a doctoral student of engineering education at Rowan University. She has a special interest in issues of diversity and inclusion, especially as they relate to disability and accessibility of education. Her current research is focused on the adoption of pedagogy innovations by instructors, specifically the use of reflections and application of the
importance of creating theseopportunities for college retention.VII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.DUE-1832553. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation. The authors would like to acknowledge Jason Osei-Tutu, Dr. RuzicaTodorovic and Bridget O’ Connell for supporting our research and facilitating the Center ofExcellence for Engineering and Computer Science at Wilbur Wright College, City Colleges ofChicago. This research is derived from the research “Building Bridges into Engineering andComputer Science” that is approved by the City
finalpresentation, reflecting the group dynamics seen within this part of the course and givingstudents fair and accurate scores for their involvement.4. ConclusionThis study introduces a method for educators to effectively evaluate students' behavior in thecontext of team projects, using data drawn from their activity on the 'Slack' messagingplatform and statistical techniques. By analyzing student posts on Slack, changes in student'MGUDS-S' global competence scores, and other data related to their communication andgroup activity, we were able to identify significant correlations between students'contributions, MGUDS-S scores, and group dynamics. We believe that our findingsunderscore the importance of recognizing individual contributions within group
methodin the post-workshop survey. Another limitation is in how the questions were worded in the post- workshop survey.The questions in the post-workshop survey were written to reflect the questions in the pre-workshop survey. However, the questions were not written such that an equitable statisticalcomparison could be made between the participants before the study and after the study. Thequestions in the post-workshop survey asked how participants felt that they improved in thedifferent categories, with the Likert scale ranging from no improvement to significantimprovement. What was needed instead was a question of direct comparison (i.e. during theworkshop, how productive did you feel?) and the same Likert scale as was used in the pre
student groups receiving funding from the student activitiesbudget that they must take attendance at all events. This attendance is taken through a phone appclub leaders have to scan or check in attendees to events. The authors accessed this data from theuniversity repository for team meetings for the academic years of 2021-2022, 2022-2023, and thefall of 2023 in which the observations of the team took place.ResultsThe authors decided to break the results into three subcategories of belonging, identity andinteractions which impact the participation of women and minority students within theengineering design and build team. The subcategories reflect three key areas which wereobserved over the study during in person observation and review of field
Paper ID #42380The Effect of Ego Network Structure on Self-efficacy in Engineering StudentsDavid Myers, Rowan UniversityMatthew Currey, Rowan UniversityLuciano Miles Miletta, Rowan UniversityDarby Rose Riley, Rowan University Darby Riley is a doctoral student of engineering education at Rowan University. She has a special interest in issues of diversity and inclusion, especially as they relate to disability and accessibility of education. Her current research is focused on the adoption of pedagogy innovations by instructors, specifically the use of reflections and application of the entrepreneurial mindset. Her previous
Education, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 340–352, 09 2021. [Online]. Available: https: //www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/s-dude-culture-students-with-minoritized/docview/2348348625/se-2[13] J. Misra, J. H. Lundquist, E. Holmes, S. Agiomavritis et al., “The ivory ceiling of service work,” Academe, vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 22–26, 2011.[14] N. A. Fouad, W.-H. Chang, M. Wan, and R. Singh, “Women’s reasons for leaving the engineering field,” Frontiers in psychology, p. 875, 2017.[15] J. Walther, N. W. Sochacka, and N. N. Kellam, “Quality in interpretive engineering education research: Reflections on an example study,” Journal of engineering education, vol. 102, no. 4, pp. 626–659, 2013.[16] K. J. Cross, S. Farrell, and B. Hughes, Queering STEM
system the students use at the university for other courses. This page is the current“Hub” for the makerspace, where students can go to find resources, take training quizzes, andsign-up for workshops. 3.5 Feedback To gain more of an understanding on how to grow the team, feedback meetings are heldwith the entire instructor team to reflect and discuss the current direction of the workshops andtraining system. With our goal of creating a positive work environment for all the instructors, wehope to understand how we can make changes to the system to benefit those running theworkshops for those who attend them. When developing the new training system discussedearlier in Section 3.3, an internal survey provided more insight on the
efforts indiversity, equity, and inclusion were out of his scope. Initially, the researchers felt Omar’sresponses could have fit in broader systemic issues such as greenwashing or performativeallyship [34], [35], but in reflection following the interview process, the researchers felt Omarmight have been uncomfortable, or felt he was being assessed, leading him to look for the “right”answer. However, Omar perceived his work as separate from efforts in diversity or equity, the“science side of things.” Later in the interview, Omar also mentioned that he did not have a lot ofinvolvement with the Center outside of his lab, lab work, and advisor. Omar may not have beenexposed to the importance of inclusive or equitable practices in the way Zenith was