. Hartleroad, “Comparison of the Academic Achievement of First-Year Female Honors Program and Non-Honors Program Engineering Students,” Journal of the National Collegiate Honors, 2005, [Online]. Available: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nchcjournal[27] X. Gong, M. E. Cardella, and Q. Lei, “COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FIRST-YEAR ENGINEERING HONORS PROGRAMS BETWEEN US AND CHINA,” in 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2011.[28] D. I. Miller and D. F. Halpern, “Can spatial training improve long-term outcomes for gifted STEM undergraduates?,” Learn Individ Differ, vol. 26, pp. 141–152, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.012.[29] S. Y. Yoon and E. L. Mann, “Exploring the Spatial Ability of Undergraduate Students: Association
. Williams. 2018. Opinion: Why EM? The Potential Benefits of Instilling an Entrepreneurial Mindset. Advances in Engineering Education, 7, 1, 1-11.11. Cheryl Q. Li, Ronald S. Harichandran, Nadiye O. Erdil, Jean Nocito-Gobel, and Maria-Isabel Carnasciali. 2018. Investigating the Entrepreneurial Mindset of Engineering and Computer Science Students. 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, June 2018, Salt Lake City, UT. ASEE Conferences, Washington, DC. https://peer.asee.org/3072612. Ben Tribelhorn, Heather Dillon, Andrew M. Nuxoll, and Nicole C. Ralston. 2021. Connecting Entrepreneurial Mindset to Software Development. 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual Conference, July 2021. ASEE Conferences
development of autobiographical memory,” Psychological Review, vol. 104, pp. 499-523, 1997.12. D. B. Pillemer, Momentous events, vivid memories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.13. M. C. Green & T. C. Brock, “The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 79, pp. 701-721, 2000.14. Q. Wang, Q. Song, & J. B. K. Koh, “Culture, Memory, and Narrative Self-Making,” Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 199-223.15. H. A. Bosma, & E. S. Kunnen, “Determinants and mechanism in ego identity development: A review and synthesis,” Developmental Review, vol. 21, pp. 39-66, 2001.16. A. Thorne, “Culture and cognitive development
).[26] V. Venkatesh, S. A. Brown, and H. Bala, "Bridging the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide: Guidelines for Conducting Mixed Methods Research in Information System.," MIS Q., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 21–54, Mar. 2013.[27] M. Friedman, "Use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance.," J. Am. Stat. Assoc., vol. 32, no. 200, pp. 675–701, Dec. 1937.[28] J. Walther, N. W. Sochacka, and N. N. Kellam, "Quality in Interpretive Engineering Education Research: Reflections on an Example Study.," J. Eng. Educ., vol. 102, no. 4, pp. 626–659, Oct. 2013.[29] J. Saldaña, The coding manual for qualitative researchers., 3rd ed. SAGE, 2015.[30] H. W. Marsh and R. G. Craven, "Reciprocal Effects of Self
. R. Tenenbaum, F. J. Crosby, and M. D. Gliner, “Mentoring Relationships in Graduate School,” J. Vocat. Behav., vol. 59, pp. 326–341, 2001.[26] N. Van der Linden et al., “Gaining insight into doctoral persistence: Development and validation of Doctorate-related Need Support and Need Satisfaction short scales,” Learn. Individ. Differ., vol. 65, 2018.[27] J. H. Waldeck, V. O. Orrego, T. G. Plax, and P. Kearney, “Graduate student/faculty mentoring relationships: Who gets mentored, how it happens, and to what end,” Commun. Q., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 93–109, Jun. 1997.[28] J. S. Wrench and N. M. Punyanunt, “Advisee‐advisor communication: An exploratory study examining interpersonal communication variables in
online teaching. Respondents were not certain about theviability of online learning in replacing traditional face-to-face lectures. They observed lessengagement in students’ interactions via online discussion and increasing academic dishonesty.They were also uncertain about how to evaluate the students’ learning progress.Ramlo [10] employed Q methodology, a mixed methodology, to study the subjective experiencesof 78 college and university faculty across disciplines related to COVID-19 in a way thatfacilitated differentiated rather than aggregate viewpoints. Data analysis revealed three mainviewpoints. The first viewpoint, summarized as “techies who like to teach,” included faculty whohad taught online before or had extensive experience with
? *Q#T - Traditional instruction mode; Q#V - Virtual instruction mode Figure 1. Survey Results © American Society for Engineering Education, 2021There was no overwhelming consensus since only 50% of participants appreciated the overallcourse design and project alignments. Of all the projects, most students enjoyed working on thewind turbine project in mechanical engineering. Table 1. Understanding of Major Questions 2019 2020 Before Now Before Now
al., “Racial/Ethnic Minority Community College Students’ Critical Consciousness and Social Cognitive Career Outcomes,” Career Dev. Q., vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 302–317, 2020, doi: 10.1002/cdq.12238.[14] K. Crenshaw, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics [1989],” Fem. Leg. Theory, pp. 57–80, 2018.[15] K. Cross, K. Clancy, R. Mendenhall, P. Imoukhuede, and J. Amos, “The Double Bind of Race and Gender: A Look into the Experiences of Women of Color in Engineering,” 2017 ASEE Annu. Conf. & Expo. Proc., 2017.[16] S. M. Malcolm, P. Q. Hall, and J. W. Brown, “The double bind: the price of being a
) “Effect of think-pair-share in a large CS1 class: 83% sustained engagement,” In Proceedings of the ninth annual international ACM conference on International computing education research (ICER '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2013, pp. 137-144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2493394.249340823. Nagappan, N.; Williams, L.; Ferzli, M.; Wiebe, E.; Yang, K.; Miller, C.; and Balik, S. (2003) “Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming,” In Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education (SIGCSE '03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2003, pp. 359-362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/611892.61200624. Porter, L.; Bouvier, D.; Cutts, Q.; Grissom, S.; Lee, C.; McCartney, R.; Zingaro, D.; and Simon
Proceedings, 2018, doi: 10.18260/1-2--30204.[56] J. A. Mejia, D. Ruiz, V. Popov, A. Esquinca, and D. Gadbois, “Board 104: Asset-based Practices in Engineering Design (APRENDE): Development of a Funds-of-Knowledge Approach for the Formation of Engineers,” in Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2019.[57] S. L. Dika, M. A. Pando, B. Q. Tempest, and M. E. Allen, “Examining the Cultural Wealth of Underrepresented Minority Engineering Persisters,” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., vol. 144, no. 2, pp. 1–9, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000358.[58] S. L. Dika, M. A. Pando, B. Q. Tempest, K. A. Foxx, and M. E. Allen, “Engineering self- efficacy, interactions with faculty
professional responsibilities in engineering situations and makeinformed judgments considering the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic,environmental, and societal contexts. All other all-section average scores were above 3.0. That is, Table 4. Summary of Survey Results on Student Outcomes Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 All Sections Q# Av. Std. Dev Av. Std. Dev Av. Std. Dev Av. Std. Dev Q1-a 2.77 1.20 2.82 1.10 3.11 0.94 2.89 1.10 Q1-b 2.64 1.26 2.88 0.96 3.11 0.87 2.86 1.08 Q2-a 2.91
-engagement-visible/.[16] Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence: Intercultural Communication Center, “Recognizing and Addressing Cultural Variations in the Classroom,” 2006.[17] Q. Zhu, “Toward a Globalized Engineering Education: Comparing Dominant Images of Engineering Education in the United States and China,” Am. Soc. Eng. Educ. Annu. Conf. Expo., 2019.[18] W. Sun and Q. Zhang, “How to Build an American Classroom Environment in a Chinese Engineering College,” Am. Soc. Eng. Educ. Annu. Conf. Expo., 2015.[19] G. J. Ryan, L. L. Marshall, K. Porter, and H. Jia, “Peer, professor and self-evaluation of class participation,” Act. Learn. High. Educ., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 49–61, 2007.Appendix – Final Version of the Participation Log
students) and we iterating the May 1st deadline for accepting or declining offers. A significant portion of the Family Session was allocated for Q & A – families were able to ask staff as well as 3‐4 current engineering students questions. We found that they had lots of questions for the current students ranging across different areas. Concurrently in the alternate location, admitted students were given the same opportunity to learn about the student support services while asking questions of staff and current 4students. A portion of that time was dedicated to a hands‐on activity: designing & building a paper tower. Students were only allowed
were created using the combined approaches of a review ofrelevant literature and instruments, a Q-Study, and expert panel. Items were adapted fromidentified existing and relevant instruments, administered to a development sample, andevaluated and optimized for scale length (see 35, 37 and 38 for full descriptions of thedevelopment process). Once initial items were generated, think-aloud sessions were conductedwith undergraduate students to determine face validity [38]. During the second phase ofinstrument development, a pilot testing of the survey was conducted with data collected from133 participants. An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to reduce the number andrefine the content of items as well as establish a preliminary structure
. (2015). Developing the Postsecondary Student Engagement Survey (PosSES) to Measure Undergraduate Engineering Students’ Out of Class Involvement. Paper presented at the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Seattle, WA.14. Simmons, D. R., & Yu, R. (2015). Conducting a Q Study to Refine and Develop New Measures of Engineering Student Co-Curricular Involvement. Paper presented at the Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2015, Dublin, Ireland.15. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research: Sage.16. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches: Sage publications.17. Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation: Sage.18
.[13] J. Cha and Y. He, Zhongguo gongcheng jiaoyu gaige san da zhanlue (Three Straetgies in Chinese Engineering Education Reform), Beijing: Beijing Institute of Technology Press, 2009.[14] Q. Gu, "The work, lives and professional development of teachers in China," Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 235-238, 2013.[15] Y. Wei, "Yingjie jiaoyu yanjiu de xin fanshi: Shenjing jiaoyuxue [Embracing a new paradigm for educational research: Neuroeducation]," 19 December 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.cae.cn/cae/html/main/col35/2012-12/27/20121227152437045647584_1.html. [Accessed 4 February 2019].[16] D. Starr, "China and the Confucian education model," Universitas, vol. 21, pp. 1-27, 2012.[17] R. L
Research in 2006,” Des. Res. Q., Sep. 2006.[2] E. Sanders, “An Evolving Map of Design Practice and Design Research,” Interactions, pp. 13–17, Dec. 2008.[3] IDEO, The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design. 2015.[4] C. B. Zoltowski, W. C. Oakes, and M. E. Cardella, “Students’ ways of experiencing human-centered design,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 28–59, 2012.[5] I. Mohedas, S. Daly, and K. Sienko, “Design Ethnography in Capstone Design: Investigating Student Use and Perceptions,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 888–900, 2014.[6] R. P. Loweth, S. R. Daly, J. Liu, and K. H. Sienko, “Assessing Needs in a Cross-Cultural Design Project: Student Perspectives and Challenges,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 36, no. 2, pp
engineers. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence (pp. 362-373). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.[25] Davis, M. (2006). Integrating ethics into technical courses: Micro-insertion. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(4): 717-730.[26] Richards, L. G., Gormon, M., Scherer, W. T., & Landel, R. D. (1995). Promoting active learning with cases and instructional modules. Journal of Engineering Education, 84(4): 375-381.[27] Jesiek, B. K., Zhu, Q., Woo, S. E., Thompson, J., & Mazzurco, A. (2014). Global engineering competency in context: Situations and behaviors. Online Journal of Global Engineering Education, 8(1).[28] Jesiek, B. K., Woo, S. E., Zhu, Q., Ramane, K. D., & Choudhary, N. (2015
] K. E. Gerdes, E. A. Segal, and C. A. Lietz, “Conceptualising and measuring empathy,” Br. J. Soc. Work, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 2326–2343, 2010.[16] J. Zaki, “Empathy: A motivated account,” Psychol. Bull., vol. 140, no. 6, pp. 1608–1647, 2014.[17] J. L. Hess and N. D. Fila, “The manifestation of empathy within design: findings from a service-learning course,” CoDesign, vol. 12, no. 1–2, pp. 93–111, 2016.[18] J. B. Scott, “The Practice of Usability: Teaching User Engagement Through Service-Learning,” Tech. Commun. Q., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 381–412, 2008.[19] W. A. Sugar, “What Is So Good about User-Centered Design? Documenting the Effect of Usability Sessions on Novice Software Designers,” J. Res. Comput. Educ., vol
. Battalora and B.A. Teschner, “Industry–University Partnerships: Engineering Education and Corporate Social Responsibility,” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., vol. 144, no. 3, p. 04018002, Jul. 2018.[10] E. Conlon and H. Zandvoort, “Broadening ethics teaching in engineering: beyond the individualistic approach,” Sci. Eng. Ethics, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 217–232, Jun. 2011.[11] C. Mitcham, “A historico-ethical perspective on engineering education: from use and convenience to policy engagement,” Eng. Stud., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 35–53, Mar. 2009.[12] Q. Zhu and B. K. Jesiek, “A Pragmatic Approach to Ethical Decision-Making in Engineering Practice: Characteristics, Evaluation Criteria, and Implications for Instruction and Assessment
, 2004, pp. 77–80.[37] M. S. Kim and Y. S. Kim, “Analysis of perceived creativity and design team interaction,” in ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 2007, pp. 559–568.[38] Z. Qian, Y. Lan, J. Feng, and Q. Yiping, “Teamwork approach for senior research projects for college undergraduates,” in 2012 7th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE), 2012, pp. 1999–2001.[39] N. Gonzalez, L. Moll, and C. Amanti, Funds of Knowledge : Theorizing Practices in Households, Communities, and Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005.[40] C. G. Vélez-ibáñez and J. B. Greenberg, “Formation and Transformation of
the questionnaireadapted from the Engineering Student Survey and Students Persisting in Engineering Survey[30]. The self-reported ethnicities of WISE students indicated higher percentages of White andAsian students than the overall undergraduate population. GPA and percent of time studyingduring a typical week were normally distributed as assessed by histograms and q-q plots. Datawere self-reported and not available for undergraduate women STEM majors who did notparticipate in WISE.Table 1. Participant Characteristics from the WISE Mentee Survey (N = 51) Characteristic n Percentage Ethnicity Asian & Pacific American
, but to also introduce them along the way to some basictheoretical knowledge needed to understand the complexity of the final product. The researchteam’s expectation was that exposing the participants to an introductory level of knowledge fromvarious fields will stimulate their interest and will help them identify engineering areas that areof specific interest to each of them. The workshops activities were split between hands-on, Q&Aand presentations, with the latest starting with a brief introduction to the theory of bio-inspiredrobot mechanisms, 3D modeling, animation, STL generation, slicing, G code generation, printingof the robot segments, and concluding with the prototype. The workshops focus was on theconnection between 3D computer
UMI Workshop June 18-20, 2018 Monday, June 18th 6:00 pm Welcome Reception & Dinner The Alexandrian Hotel Tuesday, June 19th 7:30 am Breakfast 8:00 am Welcome and Introduction 8:05 am Introduction of Potential New Partners 8:15 am Overview of Status of the Project 8:30 am Q&A 10:15 am Morning Break 10:30 am Session – Mega/REU/RET 12:00 pm Working Lunch 1:30 pm
should be factored into pairing new GTAs as peer level contacts. mentors. We needed to have Midway through fall 2015, we We allowed instructors to vote on more efficient changed the format so that the format change to gain buyin. weekly training everyone had to review slides Providing documents with meetings. We prior to the meeting and then used annotations (voice and/or spent meetings the meeting time to allow Q&A on significant written notes) that help going through all slides. The new format reduced instructors understand the material common slides and the meeting time by at least 15 is
” Karmen Harris. “Implantable RFID Tags to Track Students” Larissa Hall. “iPad Carrying Case” Ashley James. “High-Tech Band-Aids” Taylor Kelly. “Special Education Progress Monitoring Software” Abagail Lewis. “The Relaxed Rider. A Stroller for Autistic Children” Cameron Lucero. “Technology Aiding Disabled Children at Heartspring in Wichita, KS. Senior Design Proposal” Brandon Mais. “Developing an Interactive iPad App to Assist in Daily Task Management for Children with Developmental Disabilities” Geoffrey Miller. “Q-Sensor Wrist Watch/Head Band Event Counter” Bryn Mayfield. “Hammock Swing with Ergonomic Inserts” Zac Myers. “Shock Resistant iPads” Jacob Nagely. “Sleep Sensors to Aid Heartspring Children with
department and the other was from the former students who tookthis course before. The presentation of the director of undergraduate program is important to thestudents because he/she is the one the students have to look for if there are class schedule relatedand academic problems. The students must know at least two people. One is their academicadvisor and the other is the director of undergraduate program. During the presentation, they hadan idea of what the departmental expectation was and what to do and what not to do. Thepresentation of former students gave the current students the idea of the course at a peer level.The presentation given by the former students was about their term project. After thepresentation, the students had a Q&A
Page 26.810.11zero, position increases the speed in one direction (red) along the constraint line, while movingthe slider down from the mid position increases the speed in the opposite direction (orange). Thethrottle is also selectable as either Q (heat) or W (work), and the associated rate of change in thespecific internal energy, as defined by the first law of thermodynamics, eq. (1), determinemovement along the constraint line. The adjustable slider and selectable constrain lines enablethe player to explore the entire surface at a fast or leisurely pace. This feature, along with thecontinuously updated “Current Position” information box allows the player to observe how thevarious thermodynamic properties change throughout the different
, IdealFirstly, descriptive statistics was performed to have an interpretation if there was a gapbetween expectations and perceptions. To determine the significance in differences wasused Mann Whitney test was used (Normality Test was used, but every Q had a non-normaldistribution). In Tangibles dimension, Q2 (Sequence on topics) and Q5 (Topics and RealExamples – Study Cases) as a significant difference between perception and expectation Page 26.1312.7(P100points willTedious be Course selected. TheseComfortprojects are in the “Projects with more weight” column, and