“ Interaction during exam oral increased my motivation to learn”. 6. Oral exam administrator competency in both behavioral (tone, helpfulness, etc.) and technical aspects (questioning, accuracy of feedback, content knowledge, etc.).The surveys aimed to elicit students’ insight about the impact of oral exams on their learningexperience, how they prepared for the oral exams, and what they felt were the main benefits anddrawbacks of oral exams.To study the impact on academic performance within the class, a fewclasses conducted semi-experiments. There is no rigorous control group. The semi-experimentconducted is elaborated on in a later section. Ethical Approval:Ethical Approval was granted for the study by UC San Diego’s Institutional Review
committee and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) panel. She advises the student chapter of the Society of Women Engineers (SWE) at SFSU.Dr. Stephanie Claussen, San Francisco State University Stephanie Claussen is an Assistant Professor in the School of Engineering at San Francisco State Univer- sity. She previously spent eight years as a Teaching Professor in the Engineering, Design, and Society Division and the Electrical Engineering Departments at the Colorado School of Mines. Her research interests lie in sociotechnical teaching and learning, students’ and engineers’ perceptions of ethics and social responsibility, community engagement in engineering, and the experiences of low-income and first
engineering instructors and theconstruction CoP. The goal is to identify information that can help facilitate access to industrypractitioners that can complement the practical needs of construction engineering students andunderstand the practical course-support needs of construction engineering instructors. The surveywas administered online, and 293 engineering instructors and 143 industry practitioners filled itout. In addition, we secured ethical clearance through our IRB office. Data were analyzed usingdescriptive statistics, and some of the responses were analyzed by different variables to see ifthere were any important differences to show between participants. Preliminary results of thesurvey are presented next.Participants from IndustryOne
Kay Bothwell, Oregon State University Michelle Bothwell is a Professor of Bioengineering at Oregon State University. Her teaching and research bridge ethics, social justice and engineering with the aim of cultivating an inclusive and socially just engineering profession.Dr. Christine Kelly, Oregon State University Dr. Kelly earned her BS in Chemical Engineering from the University of Arizona and her PhD in Chem- ical Engineering from the University of Tennessee. She served as an Assistant Professor for 6 years at Syracuse University, and has been an Associate Professor at Oregon State University in the School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering since 2004, where she also served for three and
principles via hands-on experiences, highlights the importanceof professional ethics, project planning, prototype fabrication, engineering creativity, andpreviews each engineering discipline. Student teams undertake a design project that involvesdesigning, constructing, and testing an autonomous hovercraft. Work examining the effect ofproject-based learning by Major and Kirn [13] has shown increased confidence and reducedanxiety to perform engineering tasks. Cohort 1 took this course in-person and worked in teamswith at least one other CREATE scholar. Due to the pandemic the course was re-structured andstudents worked on teams of four to design Rube Goldberg machines. The course emphasizedengineering design and teamwork throughout the semester
experience including feeling more confident and preparedwith respect to engineering and problem solving, and feeling motivated to seek more researchexperience. Suggestions for improving the undergraduate research experience included offeringmore varied research projects, and clarifying student expectations.SeminarsSeminars are an integral part of the Engineering Scholars program. They are designed to increasestudents’ understanding of engineering research including the sociological aspects of conductingresearch. Engineering sociology seminars including topics such as engineering research ethics,research methods, identifying social problems addressed by engineers, and how to read academicjournals. Scholars rated the usefulness of these seminars on a
, effectivecommunication with their mentees will help them in their future careers. One mentor said, “I am always trying to have a mental note of how I am explaining things to thestudents…It will be the same thing when I get into the job field, there will be times when I haveto explain my ideas to people who don’t have my background and I will have to find ways tomake it relatable.” Another noted, “After I complete my PhD, I’ll go into a biotech company. Iknow their work ethic is working in groups, so I hope to bring to the table the communicationskills I developed through mentoring into those groups.”While mentors and mentees agreed that the PINC mentoring program successfully created anenvironment of open communication, they noted times when
teaching practices, and the use of technology and innovative pedagogies on student learn- ing and success. She also led a project to develop a taxonomy for the field of engineering education research, and she was part of a team that studied ethical decision-making in engineering students.Dr. Matthew Charles GrahamMadison E. Andrews, University of Texas at Austin Madison Andrews is a STEM Education doctoral student, Mechanical Engineering master’s student, and graduate research assistant for the Center for Engineering Education at the University of Texas at Austin. She received her B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Clemson University in 2017.Dr. Jenefer Husman, University of Oregon Jenefer Husman received a doctoral degree
structural mechanics and bioconstruction (with emphasis in bamboo); appropriate technology; engineering ethics; and mechanics education. He has served as PI of several NSF-sponsored research projects and is co-author of Lying by Approximation: The Truth about Finite Element Analysis. He is active in the Mechanics Division.Dr. Michael J. Prince, Bucknell University American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Paper ID #29762 Dr. Michael Prince is a professor of chemical engineering at Bucknell University and co-director of the National Effective Teaching
Bio-inspired Design Using C-K TheoryIntroductionThe engineer of 2020 is expected to not only offer technical ingenuity but also adapt to acontinuously evolving environment. The ability to operate outside the narrow limits of onediscipline and be ethically grounded in solving the complex problems of the future will also beneeded. To address the competencies of the future engineer, undergraduate education must trainstudents to not only solve engineering challenges that transcend disciplinary boundaries, but alsocommunicate, transfer knowledge, and collaborate across technical and non-technical boundaries.One approach to train engineers in these competencies is teaching biomimicry or bio-inspireddesign in an engineering curriculum, which offers
specifically focused ondiversity), and their intentions to pursue engineering in the future.In addition to being asked parallel questions (to the student questionnaire) about their ownexperiences with diversity, faculty were also queried about curriculum design (both in terms ofexplicit focus on individuals from diverse backgrounds and in terms of the extent to which socialimpacts are considered in the presentation of theory, assessment of learning, and the applicationof technology); the extent to which non-technical professional skills are taught which wouldenable multidisciplinary and multicultural teams to function at a high level; the ethical andprofessional responsibilities of an engineer are communicated in a way which promotes social,global
a general email to thousands, or a brief presentation todozens, the student designers demonstrated an ethic of care by speaking individually with eachstudent.The new Pod members would be equally distributed, and each new Pod would include at leasttwo members of the student design team to serve as seeds of the desired community norms andpractices. During the first term the Pods were expected to meet a 2-5 times to agree on their ownmethods of achieving the four Pod goals. While the student designers developed materials andexamples of activities and practices that were likely to achieve the goals, none were specificallyrequired. This allowed the Pods the flexibility to develop individually, informed by the peopleparticipating.We have also
., Southerland, S.A., Gilmer, P.J., 2006, "Retaining undergraduate women in science, mathematics, and engineering", Journal of College Science Teaching, 36, 34. 11. Pei Cheng Ooi, Michelle T. T. Tan, “Effectiveness of Workshop to Improve Engineering Students’ Awareness on Engineering Ethics”, International Conference on New Horizons in Education, INTE 2014. 12. Micari, M., Drane, D., 2007, "Promoting success: possible factors behind achievement of underrepresented students in a peer-led small-group STEM workshop program", Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering. 13. Yost, E., Handley, D.M., Cotton, S., Winstead, V., Cater-Steel, A., Cater, E., 2010, "Understanding the links between mentoring
studied ethical decision-making in engineering students. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Impact of Flexible Classroom Spaces on Instructor Pedagogy and Student BehaviorIntroductionThe use of active learning techniques, such as asking students to respond to multiple-choice“clicker” questions or to work together with their peers to solve a problem in class, has beenshown to benefit students by improving their retention of information, conceptual understanding,self-esteem, and attitudes about their program of study [1], [2], [3]. However, many barriers stillremain to the implementation of active learning, including insufficient training for instructors, alack
it in engineering, influencing team dynamics, team goals, andultimately how inclusive and collaborative teams are. This affects the individual experiences ofteam members, influences the quality of their solutions, and affects their ability to ethically andresponsibly solve complex problems. Student’s diversity compass affects team interactions and,ultimately, the climate of engineering for underrepresented groups.ConclusionsThe two main research questions we asked initially in this project were 1) What are individualstudent’s perceptions of diversity? and 2) What are student’s perceptions of working on diverseteams? We found many different ways first-year students at a large public land grant institutionunderstand and perceive diversity. We
the degree and start a STEM career. Even though it may take them more time, they are determined to succeed because of all the professional skills they learned through real life: ethical hard work attitude, resourcefulness, perseverance, and grit. After discussion within the project team and with the program officer, the team put together a mechanism of renewing scholarship from year to year and a selection rubric. As a built-in accountability measure, all scholars need to apply for the scholarship and go through the same selection process each year. Once selected, the scholars receiving the scholarship are required to maintain their GPA at 3.0 or higher for the courses they are taking. When
program within a large public university. We focusedon a one-credit first year course taken by all students, including transfer students. The courseobjectives include gaining familiarity with engineering disciplines and engineering careers,strategies for success in the engineering degree program, exposure to resources available at theinstitution, and engineering ethics. The course meets in a large group format once per week,then in smaller groups (approximately 30 students) once per week. Both the large group andsmall group course meetings are led by faculty.The metacognition intervention included a series of modules that started in about week 6 (of 15)of the course. Greater detail about the purpose and design of the modules has been
0 0 Mean 2.1 1.7aIn 2016, these choices were labeled “2-good amount” and “3-satisfactory amount.”The final question on the post-site survey asked the students what they had learned about themselvesduring the summer experience. In 2017, five of the six respondents said specifically that they learned theylike research, which fits exactly what the REU is designed to do. In 2016, some of the students hadstruggled a bit more. Their comments indicated that several learned about their ability to be moreindependent than they thought, one discovered a stronger work ethic than expected, one identified a needto work on self-motivation, and one
Derrick C. Gilmore is the Deputy Provost forResearch and Sponsored Programs at Kentucky State Uni- versity. In this role he provides oversight of administrative functions that include research compliance, re- search ethics, education and policy, administration, and technology transfer. His research interest include: sponsored research capacities/impacts at Minority Serving Institutions, behavioral health for African- Americans and disparities in drug law/arrest rates for minorities. He has served as a reviewer for numerous federal agencies. He also serves as the Principal Investigator/Project Director for Verizon Minority Male Maker Program, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SMASHA) supported
-upThe details of each Day activities are the following:Day 1 began with introducing the fundamental knowledge of rhetorical writing and writingpedagogy, which is designed to address the workshop objective (i). More specific, theparticipants are introduced to the rhetorical situation (writer, audience, purpose, and context),rhetorical appeals (logical as logos, ethical as ethos, emotional as pathos), and the definition ofgenre.Days 1 and 2 were designed to the rubric development process, addressing workshop objective(ii), which began with deep reading sessions. In these deep reading sessions, small groups of 3-4participants from both engineering and English worked together to describe the strengths instudent writing samples from FYC and
leadershipexperience.Sample InfluencesAll participants in Focus Group 0 and one participant in Focus Group 2 were either currentlytaking or had previously taken a course on basic engineering management and ethics principlesfrom one of the interviewing researchers. These participants had a preexisting student-professorrelationship with the interviewer and a preexisting knowledge of leadership developmentprocesses, which were covered in the course.The researchers were cognizant of this influence on the participants’ responses in the LeadershipDevelopment and Engineering Leadership Development sections of the focus group protocol.Specific instances of this influence were identified in an effort to minimize the threat to thevalidity of the study. More importantly, the
TechnologyCenter and solar building across the region were particularly well received by scholars (4.6), aswere the presentations of professionals and researchers (4.2) Interactive sessions on RCR (4.4) andCV/ Resume development (4.2) were viewed as valuable by scholars.Table 7: Scholars’ Assessment of Enrichment Activities Activity (1=very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied Energy Education Videos 3.9 Responsible Conduct of Research/ Ethics 4.4 CV and Resume Developing 4.2 Tours (Solar buildings solar business, Technology 4.6 Center, power plant, green roof
flexible classroom space on faculty teaching and student learning. She also led a project to develop a taxonomy for the field of engineering education research, and she was part of a team that studied ethical decision-making in engineering students. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Instructor Use of Movable Furniture and Technology in Flexible Classroom SpacesAbstractFlexible classroom spaces, which have movable tables and chairs that can be easily rearrangedinto different layouts, make it easier for instructors to effectively implement active learning thana traditional lecture hall. Instructors can move throughout the room to interact with
strategies advanced in the engineeringeducation literature produce higher levels of student engagement [19]. Students also read fourshort classroom scenarios that described examples of interactive engagement. These scenarioswere aligned with the following ABET student outcomes: c) an ability to design a system,component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic,environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability;d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams; e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solveengineering problems; k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering toolsnecessary for engineering practice. Students were then asked
engineering design projects for a servicelearning project. The research questions to be studied were as follows: What influence does theuse of Design Heuristic Cards have on freshmen engineering students’ design strategies? Whataspects blocked creative processes during engineering students’ design strategies? The researchexposed to two undergraduate students to the principles of qualitative research, the concept ofcoding for inter-reliability of interpreted information, the importance of Institutional ReviewBoard considerations and ethical handling of information, and ensured that the REU studentswere communicating and cross-talking ideas and concepts during emergent themes.Assessment of Students’ ExperiencesAn independent evaluator assessed students
(Analytical thinking, complex reasoning) 70.4% 27.8% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% Initiative (Self-starter, productive) 64.2% 34.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% Prioritizing/Planning/Organizing 51.9% 37.0% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% Professionalism (Responsible, accountable, dependable) 73.6% 24.5% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% Integrity (Honesty, ethics, fairness) 87.0% 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Attitude/Cooperation 90.7% 9.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Communications (Verbal, written, collaborative, teamwork) 75.9% 20.4
material, component, orsystem.Learn from Failure - Recognize unsuccessful outcomes due to faulty 52.6%equipment, parts, code, construction, process, or design, and then re-engineer effective solutions.Ethics in the Lab - Behave with highest ethical standards, including 44.7%reporting information objectively and interacting with integrity.Models - Identify the strengths and limitations of theoretical models as 36.8%predictors of real world behaviors. This may include evaluating whethera theory adequately describes a physical event and establishing orvalidating a relationship between measured data and underlyingphysical principles.Psychomotor - Demonstrate competence in selection, modification, and
attributes such asleadership, outgoingness, and caring. They primarily perceived professionals in STEM fields tohave strong mental/academic skills and attributes such as good time management skills, problemsolving skills, and work ethic. From these responses, only two of six respondents listedcommonalities between teaching and STEM (leadership and intelligence). All respondantsindicated that they did not have internship or coop experiences in their current STEM fields.Phase 2: Exploratory Survey In Spring 2015, 25 surveys were completed by applicants (4 paper and 21 electronic),which was a 46% response rate of all applicants to the program. The participant pool was 76%females and 24% males; 16% indicating that they transferred into the
and review the audio recording. In some cases, thestudent was asked to conduct additional real practice interviews. The PI determined when thestudent was ready to commence actual data collection interviews. Between interviews, the audiorecordings were transcribed; several of them were collected before data was analyzed.Students involved in the research at the UC Berkeley campus have been undergraduate studentsstudying an engineering discipline. These students also began their training with an onlinecertificate program offered through CITI for ethical human subjects research. The students eachread the book Interviewing as Qualitative Research by Irving Seidman, along with publicationson prior work. Student then each took turns completing