workshops Objective 1 Objective 2 Critical Engineering Literacy Test (CELT) Evidence-based Self-Assessment of Problem Solving • Develop a two-tier multiple-choice information Strategies (ESAPSS) literacy test. The first tier focuses on assessing • Develop a two-tier Likert-scale survey: The first tier students’ reflective judgment and information measures students’ perceptions of their self-directed literacy skills. The second tier checks students’ learning and problem solving strategies. The second reasoning and explanations. tier gathers evidence such as student
tutorials in which two components of motivation aremanipulated: task value and control beliefs. To manipulate task value, the module hastutorials on two quite different topics that would have different levels of interest forstudents: osmosis and the Northern Lights. Before the task value tutorials, the moduleasks students to rate their interest in the two topics. We anticipated that the NorthernLights topic would be more interesting for most students, but it was not for all students,and it was not necessary for that to be the case. After completing the two tutorials thatinclude pre and post tests, students answer questions about their reflections on task value.For the control beliefs manipulation, the module includes two topics about which
will allow for added laboratory activities.Assessment and Evaluation of the GPMTBased on the evidences and findings from the current project, the newly-developed structure forassessment and evaluation is helpful in adopting evidence-based instructional methods, whichhave a more student-centered learning format. For example, the traditional-transmission learningformat, in which the degree of a student’s success depends only on the performance of quizzes,tests and projects in class, does not truly reflect the effectiveness on learning.We adopted more collaborative approaches for this NSF project to break away from traditionalnorms in education, while assessing students’ abilities in various summative cases; many aspectsin learning effectiveness
are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1] Schubert, K., & Delgado Solorzano, X., & Massey, L., & Gattis, C., & Popp, J., & Cao, C., & Carter, T., & Muralidhara, D. (2022, August), A Successful 2-week Innovation- and Student Success-Focused Bridge Program for First-Year Students. Paper presented at 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Minneapolis, MN. https://peer.asee.org/42080[2] https://honorscollege.uark.edu/prospective-students/path-program/index.php[3] Schubert, K. D., & Moergen, K. N., & Gattis, C. S., & Lo, W. (2020, June), Integrating Innovation Curriculum: Measuring Student Innovation to
groups of individuals cannot exist without a mixture of critical andempathetic reasoning: “rational reflection would not be able to provide us with the imaginarypower that we need to envisage future scenarios and to take part in other people’s perspectivesand to evaluate their destinies” (p. 106).STEM and Empathy. Through emotional reflection, STEM professionals come to decisions abouthow their choices affect individuals beyond themselves. STEM curriculum alone often fails toteach this important concept [25-27]. Humanities instruction may be key to supporting thesetypes of reflections. Prior research indicates that interdisciplinary and holistic approaches may bemore effective than traditional programs in developing empathy [28-30]. Through
was able to positively influence students’ perception of mastery experience(participating in research) which in turn should lead to improvements in students’ beliefs thatthey can succeed in a research setting (research self-efficacy).Altogether these results suggest that the program [3] had gains in achieving the intended sitegoals as well as to enhance the knowledge and skills of a diverse cohort of undergraduates.AcknowledgementsThis material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant EEC-1659856. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.References1. Bandura, A., Self-Efficacy. Encyclopedia
, a ‘health’ monitor that provides them their average score on recent assignmentsby type (homework, exam, lab quizzes), and interactive rewards that surprised students based ontheir performance and engagement.MethodsThis study uses a student-facing dashboard visualization to engage students in the course andencourage reflection on their study strategies (see Figure 1). Figure 1: Example of the Delphinium Chemistry Dashboard developed for the studyThe dashboard includes a visualization of course tasks and the percent completed for each task(Modules and Assignments), summary visualizations of students’ performance in key knowledgedomains (Badges), fun visualizations that unlock based on students engagement (Rewards), and asummary of
busy.Challenges associated with communication and teamwork typically centered on interpersonalcommunication as participants needed to negotiate relationships and understand thecommunication norms and preferences of their coworkers and managers [20].RQ2: What skills, practices, and attitudes fostered through the capstone experience doindividuals draw on or apply in their early work experiences?Even as participants experience significant challenges in their transition to work, however, theyalso report significant transfer from their industry-oriented capstone courses to their industryworkplaces, as reflected in their perceptions of preparedness as well as the detailed interviewdata around transfer. Importantly, this transfer aligns closely with the two
students and full curriculum modules with a subset of these classrooms.We have 4 additional curriculum modules in various stages of development. Each of the field tripprograms engage students in an engineering design challenge, from designing an object thathovers in a rising column of air to designing a patch for a greenhouse on the moon to modifyinga structure to reduce swaying during an earthquake. The classroom activities provideopportunities for students to develop science and engineering ideas that augment the engineeringdesign challenge and to reflect on the field trip experience.Research accomplishments. Our research has focused on using an iterative design process toinform design principles used to develop the engineering field trip
National Science Foundation grants #1926330/1926172. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.References[1] ABET, “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs,” Baltimore, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/EAC-Criteria-2020- 2021.pdf.[2] Center for the Study of Ethical Development, “About the DIT,” The University of Alabama, 2019. https://ethicaldevelopment.ua.edu/about-the-dit.html.[3] Qualtrics, “Qualtrics.” Provo, UT, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://www.qualtrics.com.[4] National Science Foundation, “Women, Minorities, and Persons
. al. 2016) (Kowalchuk, et. al 2013). Through theaward of a Track 2 S-STEM three years ago, the LDP has now expanded into the STEM majors atthe university and has made an important discovery regarding the evolution of LeadershipKnowledge among some of the STEM leaders.The participants in the LDP program showed statistically significant changes on Leadership Self-efficacy Survey (Bobbio & Manganelli, 2009) and the Motivation to Lead Survey (Chan &Drasgow, 2001) when compared to their peers. However, when comparing student responsesover time (pre, post and post 2) in conjunction with student reflections during the focus groups,there may be effects of response-shift bias (Rohs 1999). Anecdotal evidence from students’responses to open
pedagogy [1]. John Dewey [8] who is most commonly associatedwith the theory of experiential learning described this learning approach as simply ‘learning bydoing”. This echos Confucius’s famous quote that states the following: I hear and I forgot, I seeand I remember, I do and I understand. Critical pedagogy is a philosophy of education and socialmovement. Critical pedagogy includes relationships between teaching and learning. Itsproponents claim that it is a continuous process of what they call "unlearning", "learning", and"relearning", "reflection", "evaluation", and the impact that these actions have on the students, inparticular students whom they believe have been historically and continue to be disenfranchisedby what they call "traditional
the overall lessons we learned from this experience and discuss next summer’splans as a result of our analysis and self-reflections.1. IntroductionIn recent years, Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) educators,professionals, business leaders, and policymakers have recognized and highlighted therequirement to build a strong and technologically trained workforce. This requires a strongeducation system with qualified and trained educators. While the American college leveleducators are willing to train this workforce, the K-12 education system is currently challengedby a crisis of inadequate teacher preparation in STEM disciplines leading to low studentpreparation and performance1. Furthermore, the K-12 science teachers will be
.The random forest classifier also introduces a relatively low computational cost in training. Thus,as new data is gathered, the model can be easily iterated upon to reflect the new data. If newfeatures are found during testing, the model can also be quickly updated to reflect those newfeatures. The random forest classifier then provides a flexible model that can be rapidly retrainedto reflect new observations or new data.Social-Cognitive-Theory-Based Support IntegrationAn independent educational game environment has disadvantages compared to instructorinteraction 28 . Students on the very low end of the content knowledge spectrum might find itimpossible to make any progress at all within the game. To remedy this, the student learningsupports
concernsand better manage their life-work-study balance for the five cohorts that have been supported bythis NSF S-STEM program. Student demographics are summarized along with graduation rates.A description of the support activities is provided and their contribution to retaining students inengineering is discussed. The value of the financial support and ASPIRE related activities isassessed using a survey and student reflections. The paper concludes with lessons learnedthrough implementation of this program.BackgroundBeginning in fall 2012, the University of New Haven has offered financial support toacademically promising sophomore and junior engineering and computer science studentsthrough A Scholarship Program to Increase Retention in Engineering
had submitted large scale proposals (~$2M each for 5 years), we anticipatedsignificant alignment among team members regarding project goals and approaches. However,team members from most institutions reported that re-establishing the conceptual basis and theplanned operations of the project was an important step in the development of their teamdynamics. The significant time lag between submitting the proposal and securing funding(almost nine months) was proffered as a major causative factor in the need to re-align projectgoals and approaches. One team reflected: Our proposal was based on what we thought the future might look like. When we would write a sentence, we put four things in that sentence, and the sentence makes it look
different instructors (color-coded including one who did not flip the class) showquite different results even though common or block exams were used in all threesections. The flipped classroom always had the lowest DWF rate, but not that the“flipped B” instructor (green) achieved lower DWF rates the second time he taught thecourse suggesting that the use of the flipped classroom may take some experience - evenwith substantial help—to implement most effectively.SummaryWe have provided here an executive summary of several efforts to transform the facultyculture with respect to teaching and with the result that student achievement and successhas been strongly enhanced. These preliminary results reflect the efforts of individualfaculty members who have
material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Division ofGraduate Education under Grant Numbers DGE-1535462/1535226. Any opinions, findings, andconclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
series of qualitative, longitudinal interviewswith students selected from normative and non-normative groups to understand how theynavigate their engineering experiences and define their educational trajectories over the firsttwo years of college. This data is being deductively analyzed based on our existing identity andintersectionality frameworks, as well as inductively coded for emerging themes on howstudents feel belongingness within engineering culture.This project seeks to move traditional demographic data beyond socially constructedperceptions of others and allows for the representation of student diversity from the perspectiveof each participant. This increasingly accurate reflection of diversity provides novel insight intothe
encourage more women andunderrepresented students to pursue engineering and to consider more fully the wide range ofengineering disciplines available.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1505006. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.ReferencesBandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287.Wharton, A. (1992). The social construction of gender and race in organizations: A socialidentity and group mobilization perspective. In P. Tolbert & S
organized. For courses with over 100screencasts, we created separate, course-specific YouTube channels where screencasts areorganized into playlists by topic. Playlists are shorter, making it easier for users to navigate. Wealso added more textbook table of contents and linked screencasts to chapters in the textbooks,and simplified the existing links from textbooks. Because the FE exam form was revised since we created the links to screencasts usefulfor FE exam review, we have updated our website to reflect these changes. An FE exam playlistwas created on YouTube as well as a specific YouTube channel.Active learning materials An active-learning course package for chemical engineering thermodynamic was addedto the instructor resource
perceived learning on the part of the students during video production, as well as qualitative evidence of learning in students’ written reflections on the video making process. However, it is also evident that perhaps too much effort was devoted by students to making videos look and sound good. We hypothesize that the cognitive load devoted to this takes their concentration from the underlying thermodynamics. Further, in a team of 3-‐4 students, individuals can specialize. Observations suggest that some students concentrated nearly exclusively on video editing and acting and did not participate meaningfully in understanding the concepts
changed only throughmutual reflective engagement about communal practices11,12 such as teaching practices orcurriculum design practices. CoPs provide a place for this mutual reflective engagement, invitingfaculty to engage in continuously deeper levels with RBIS, from the periphery to the core1.At research-intensive universities, faculty primarily engage in research CoPs. The primary markof membership within these CoPs is recognized depth of understanding in a field of study, asdemonstrated by key cultural artifacts such as dissertations and research articles22. Thesecommunal practices create a central identity of faculty as researchers and as experts. In contrast,the practices promoted by most RBIS do not value faculty as researchers or as
course surveywas used to obtain student feedback regarding instruction. There are a total of twenty questionsin the survey: the first eighteen questions are based on best practice and cover not onlycurriculum but also classroom and lab facilities; the question 19 and 20 are intended to elicitstudents’ feedback on their overall assessment of the instruction. Students were also encouragedto provide written comments to further improve the teaching practice. Students also rated howwell the course objectives were achieved on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being Strongly Agree and 1being Strongly Disagree. Table 1 reflects student feedback regarding access to new, effectivecurriculum modules and labs that more accurately reflect the needs of industry
, 2012b; Prince, Vigeant, & Nottis, 2010), as well as student answers to post-‐activity reflection questions. Faculty using these activities will be surveyed both for the amount of time they spent on each particular topic as well as about their sense of how much they liked the approach they were testing. Acknowledgement Funded through TUES NSF-‐1225031 Page 24.366.3 2 Bibliography Prince, M., Vigeant, M., &
expansion of the CW.In the past year, we have focused on (a) analyzing extensive interviews with faculty members toinvestigate aspects of the educational systems that influence the propagation of the CW in fivediverse institutional settings, (b) a multi-institutional “Common Questions Study” expandedfrom last year, (c) student metacognitive responses to complex concept questions, (d) machinelearning of constructed responses, (d) continued development and review of concept questions,and (e) development of adaptive instructional tools.Ecosystems Metaphor for PropagationIn this project, we use an ecosystem metaphor to understand the propagation of an instructionaltool, the Concept Warehouse [9]. This metaphor reflects a socio-cultural perspective that
questions by having students grade them using the samerubric as the instructors. They observed that students matched the instructor-determined gradesless than 50% of the time. However, the rubric required students to discern between a “minorerror,” a “minor logic error” and a “significant conceptual error,” such that poor performance onthe calibration task may have been reflective of students’ inability to discern between these typesof mistakes.In this study we will examine preliminary data collected in an engineering statics course toobserve whether our students follow trends observed with postdiction calibration in other fields.Specifically, we are interested in determining if: 1) High-performing students are better calibrated than low
identity draws on three constructs reflected in similarresearch in physics, math, and science broadly: subjective interest in the subject, external feelings ofrecognition, and competency beliefs. That these concepts overlap with related frameworks forunderstanding students’ motivation to succeed and perform in STEM education is perhaps unsurprising,but results in a complicated picture of how EI forms and what role it might play in students’ trajectories.To disentangle expectancy value constructs of motivation and EI measures of competency beliefs, wouldrequire a simultaneous consideration of both- an approach absent in the current literature[8]. While a gooddeal of this work focuses on the factors that inform matriculation into engineering
from the larger community of thesurrounding town. Many of the students who attend St. Teresa’s live on this side of town, wherethere is quite a bit of poverty. Most students receive government-funded scholarships to attendthe private school, which is owned and run by a Black woman native to the local community.The school serves students pre-K through eighth grade. Roper Developmental Research Schoolis a public school affiliated with a University. The student population is selected by lottery andrequired to reflect the demographics and socioeconomics of the school-age population of theState. Participants were recruited and consented through a convenience sampling, by word ofmouth through researchers’ contacts in the schools and
limit their professional effectiveness since our study of engineering judgment in student writing clearly indicates that technical work is clearly mediated through communication practice. This finding is also reflected in Wilde and Guile’s (2021) use of the concepts of situated judgment and immaterial activity. They note that material production includes interprofessional teams’ idea generation and digitalFigure 2. High-level themes and sub- exchanges of ideas, suggestions, and recollections that