find strategies to overcome them. With a qualitative approach, this study also includeddescriptive statistics to complement each other. Findings revealed that Latinx student participantsperceived and experienced Engineering as competitive and challenging, especially to interactand develop long-lasting relationships with their classmates. Also, participants reflected on thedifferent learning outcomes they gained by participating in the ROLE program highlighting theirpersonal discoveries and academic and research development. Overall, participants enjoyed theexperience of acquiring a new skillset through research activities and were highly satisfied by thecommunity building they created among all peers and mentors.Background While
a rule (algorithm) for sorting and grouping. Then cards, describing sets of characteristics of select elements, were distributed, Sam and in small groups while debating with each other, students determined patterns and features that would be helpful in rules. After discussion of their thinking, a periodic table was reviewed to highlight how their pattern seeking and algorithmic approach to making decisions reflected how the original periodic table was constructed based on observable properties of elements.ASEE 2023, Baltimore, MD Across all cases, teachers reported that students found the instruction engaging. Teachersreported that they found that
, and self-identifying goals for the internship. - Halfway through the internship, the evaluation team met with the students over Zoom to determine their satisfaction, general feedback, and to reflect if they were meeting their self- identified goals from the survey. - After the internship concluded, the team met with the students a final time. Again, the themes of the conversation are satisfaction, feedback, and reflection on self-identified goals.Students were informed that the surveys and interviews were anonymous. They were an importantformative evaluation tool to determine if corporations should continue on with the program.IV. Discussion The grant team experienced many challenges but overall was an
additionalsupports be put in place to help students persist in STEM2-5. This paper will describe theprogram's recruitment strategies, the practices that have been most effective, and thedemographics of the successful applicants. In addition, the paper explores the evolution of cohortcommunity building efforts, starting with mostly faculty-led and planned events to events led bya consultant. Improvement in sense of community has been reflected in the evaluation reports,and selected supporting evidence will be shared from the reports.RecruitmentThis S-STEM grant was awarded in fall of 2018 with the goal of supporting at-risk studentsthrough multiple academic pathways, with our definition of at-risk as students who start atCampbell in a math class before pre
% indicated that they do know an engineer in both surveys, 43% indicated that they do notknow an engineer in both surveys, 18% moved from not knowing an engineer to knowing anengineer, and 11% moved from knowing an engineer to not knowing an engineer [6, 7]. Basedon our analysis, we believe these numbers offer preliminary evidence that we are helpingstudents develop concrete ideas of who engineers are and what they do.Moreover, drawings and descriptions of engineers seemingly shifted towards representingcontent from the PEER. Although the drawings did generally reflect the kinds of actions andartifacts found in other studies (e.g. [9]), in our study more students represented cars, buildings,and the ideas of fixing and repair post compared to pre
demonstratedto improve collegiate graduates’ entry-level starting salaries, level of initial position, and jobresponsibilities [10] [11] [12]. The authors discuss the importance of experiential experiences inthe formation of professionalism in RS students [13]. To establish a reflective element withineach RS student experience, each fall the students come together for a one-hour seminar to talkand write about their journey and to continue learning about methods of growing their supportweb with university professors and staff [14].The RS students selected for this program implementation were typically residential applicantsof a low-socioeconomic status (SES) and that selected an under-represented minorityrace/ethnicity in their database entry. There was
. Sample items include “High stress is expected for engineering students”and “Engineering students commonly stay up all night working”. Responses were measured on a6-point Likert scale in accordance with agreement with each statement (Strongly disagree,disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree). The use of a 6-point scalerequires participants to take a stance towards agreement or disagreement, which in the case ofrelatively neutral opinions, may reflect the participant’s unconscious bias [8]. For the pilotsurvey, an additional “No basis for judgement” option was added to check for questionsparticipants are consistently unable to answer due to not having experience with the item beingasked about or feeling that they did not
barriers to URM and FGC students. A more in-depth discussion of thesefindings can be found in [3] and [11].Finding 2 – The organizational cultures influenced participants’ perceptions of changepossibilities related to diversity and inclusion, and their role in change. Analysis of the post-design session interviews revealed the influence that the disciplinary/organizational cultures ofboth ECE and BME had on (1) the effectiveness of design thinking toward culture change, and(2) where change occurred (e.g., individual versus systemic levels). Reflecting a more limiteddesign culture within the school, the stakeholders in the ECE design sessions recognized andacknowledged limitations in their ability to make large-scale change within ECE. As such
disciplinary cultures of the ECE and BME departments impact the effectiveness of thedesign thinking process.Analysis of the post-design session interviews revealed the impact that the disciplinary andorganizational cultures of both ECE and BME impacted (1) the effectiveness of design thinkingtoward culture change, and (2) the space in which change occurred (e.g., individual versussystemic levels). Reflecting a more limited design culture within the school, the stakeholders inthe ECE design sessions recognized and acknowledged limitations in their ability to make large-scale change within ECE. As such, prototypes developed by ECE stakeholders from the designthinking sessions addressed interactional and day-to-day issues that faculty, staff, and
they are working towarddegree completion.Program ManagementThis one-of-a-kind scholarship program has a complex structure and requires carefulcoordination. Because the program continues to evolve and develop, we created a checklist toensure all key tasks are correctly completed throughout the year (see Appendix A). The checklistcomponents include information on marketing and recruitment, communications, student supportservices, event coordination, and program evaluation and assessment activities; and it is crucialfor replicating and improving program management. In some aspects, the working checklistbecomes a reflective journal for the current year. While there were aspects we planned out beforeimplementation, some facets of the program are
hesitant to explain their answers or commenton their solutions once they had reached the end of the mathematical process. Students neglectedcritical elements in the communication process like the interpretation and reflection steps ofmathematical modelling. The use of mathematics to justify engineering decision-making is ofgreat importance to practicing engineers (Gainsburg 2012), and justification requirescommunicating the results of these interpretation and reflection steps.“Once they have the answer, I wish i did this more, but getting students to comment on the result.Ok, here's the result, give me some comments. Tell me why you expect the terms up her or downhere, or at least rationalize why this makes sense, or take some limits of
providesstudents with the opportunity to reflect on the state of their learning. The checkpoint includesmultiple choice and true/false questions that assess the various learning outcomes of theanimation. Students are given feedback on the correctness of their answer and an explanation ofthe correct answer with an indication of the topic to review in the animation for the assessedconcept. Students can return to the checkpoint at any point in their current session to continuetheir progress through the questions. Although feedback and progress status are given to thestudents, it is important to note that these checkpoints provide formative self-assessment and arenot intended to be a computer-assisted learning system that adjusts to the
facilitated with question prompts on self-regulated learning andcreative problem solving. These question prompts served as the scaffolding for creativeproblem solving and included metacognitive prompts, procedural prompts, elaborationprompts, and reflective prompts, as well as prompts for creative problem solving strategies.Sixty-four participants among those students were voluntarily recruited for interviews toexplore the follow-up effect of Scaffolding for Creative Problem Solving at least one yearlater after they participated in the community service learning with the scaffolding. Thefindings from the interview reveal that students have adopted some strategies ofself-regulated learning and creative problem solving and deemed the benefits from
students draw on a higher number of identities when navigating theirdoctoral experiences when compared with undergraduates [17], leverage the past and the futurewhen making decisions for the present [16], and seek ways to integrate their identities into theirresearch projects and graduate experiences [15].Quantitative Instrument Development and DeploymentIn addition to describing the experiences of students and identifying key themes and features ofthese experiences, results from IPA analysis informed item development for a quantitativeinstrument. We developed novel Likert-type survey measures of graduate student future timeperspectives, identities, identity based motivations, and experiences to begin establishing itemsthat reflect graduate
) discover how to observedifferent process skills during group work. Participants explore the process skill definitions andthen reflect on ways they can elicit these skills in their own classes. In order to model an activelearning classroom where process skills could be observed, an introductory sample assignmentwas developed on a topic that was accessible to all participants. Participants complete theactivity in groups and then reflect on the process skills that were employed while working on theactivity.In the remaining modules, participants explore the rubrics to familiarize them with the generalstructure, then use two different rubrics to assess students in an authentic context. In the module‘Student Interaction Rubrics.’ participants examine
required by state reporting guidelines where possible, and existing coursearticulation agreements for alignment of math placement information. Qualitative data from focusgroups have been collected by the same two researchers in each setting, with a core set ofconsistent prompts.Descriptive validity. We have recorded each focus group session with two independent audiorecording devices, then had the audio files transcribed verbatim through a secure third partyservice. Each audio file was verified against the recordings prior to analysis. Written artifactsgenerated in the focus group were labeled and photographed before analysis.Evaluative validity. Each member of the qualitative analysis team submitted written responsesand reflections to bracketing
industrial setting.Progress of the Ongoing TasksExecution of a Service Learning Project Course (ENGR 294). In Fall 2019, Cohort I Scholarsattended a Service Learning Project (SLP) course which was implemented for the first time at theUniversity. This course creates an opportunity for students to engage with their local communityand provides students with a sense of pride and belonging through their efforts. Following theservice learning model, the course also has a reflection component to allow Scholars to deeplyconnect with themselves and the community. During the last session of the course, Scholarspresented a summary of their service learning project proposals to their fellow Scholars, peers, andfaculty. Cohort I Scholars will continue to work on
foundation for additionalqualitative exploration.Data Collection, Analysis, and AdaptationsAll survey data was collected through a digital instrument using Qualtrics software. Survey datawas primarily information on attitudinal shifts using quantitative Likert-type scaling. The surveyalso included some open-ended questions identifying new areas for exploration; additionalqualitative data was collected through regular reflections during the internship and semi-structured interviews at the end of the internship. Researchers used SPSS software forquantitative data analysis of the survey information. Qualitative data was coded both manuallyand using NVivo software. Protocols for research were approved by the Institutional ReviewBoard (IRB) at the
prospectsfor each sub-workforce can vary significantly” [7, p.1], which necessitates a closer examinationof individual sub-workforces of interest.Within civil engineering, the accelerated rate of technological development, the declining stateof national infrastructure, and the degradation of the environment present new challenges tocurrent and future generations of workers. Civil engineers must respond to growing populationsin urban areas, intensifying natural disasters, and increasing calls for sustainability [9]. Work atthe intersection of human health, environmental protection, and built environment entailsresponsibilities that continue to broaden and these changes in practice need to be reflected incurricula. The American Society of Civil
and satisfaction, and intent to persist. To help accomplish this goal, wehave revised the Decision-Making Competency Inventory (DMCI) [4], [5] from its originalsingle scale by adding items that allow it to map more directly to the components of Byrnes’sSelf-Regulation Model of Decision Making [4]. The first revision included three factors –Generation and Evaluation, Impulsive / Lack of Process, and Reflection [6]. A second revision,which included an additional four items expected to load onto the Reflection factor, resulted infour factors – Learning (previously Reflection, with three of the new items), Avoidance,Information Gathering, and Impulsivity [7]. In this paper, we will also discuss new findingsbetween the DMCI and major changes as
development inyouth is the degree to which one has explored and committed to a vocation we posit thatachieving an engineering identity includes: crisis—i.e., a time when one’s values and choices arebeing examined and reevaluated, and commitment—when the outcome of a crisis leads to acommitment made to becoming an engineer. This time, of crisis and commitment occurs foryouth during their middle and high school years. Engineering Identity scores reflect the extent towhich a student self-identifies as an engineer. Students provided responses to 15 items, using a5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree; lower scores indicatehigher engineering identities. Doing Engineering scores showcase a student’s prior experiencewith
programsurvey was used to probe participant ‘s abilities/confidence in research. Their results indicateddirect relationships between research skills and research self-efficacy. These researchers alsofound that research skills and self-efficacy were good predictors of career aspirations.8 However,the measures used to assess research self-efficacy were not ideal. For example, items such as “Ihave the ability to have a successful career as a researcher,” and “I have a strong interest inpursuing a career as a researcher” are reflective of the student’s career goals, but may not reflecttheir beliefs in their current research capabilities. This concern about the quality of self-efficacyitems for assessing the gains in REU programs was highlighted earlier by
hearing student’s comment on what - Pre/post-class is confusing: "When to use which feedback cards for formula" – this depends entirely on students in two determining the type of data; after Degree and type sections of the course class this day, 33% of hearing students of difficulty that - Reflection and in the class and 0% of DHH students topic has for discussion of student felt they had high level of knowledge DHH students research team
currently involved in their thirdacademic year of implementation. During this time, Cohort 1 faculty were introduced to: (1) thePrinciples of Teaching and Learning [3] as a framework for thinking about and guiding changesin their practice; (2) Teaching as Research as a strategy to effect changes in their courses andassess the impact [4]; and (3) a Community of Practice to share and reflect on their efforts tochange practices. Workshops with experts in the field on active learning, deep and transferablelearning, and cross-course connections were supplemented with research on how people learn [5,6] and discipline-based education research.The extent of participating faculty and classroom transformation is being examined through thelens of limiting
practices for implementation in theeducation sector are still being explored.Methodology Mixed methods were used throughout this study and included a variety of quantitativedata (pre-/post-test instrument) and qualitative data (workshop reflections, focus group, lessonplans, student artifacts); however, this paper only reports on the lesson plans developed by thefaculty participants.Participants. A call was made to all of the Colleges of Education and of Science and Engineering toseek 20 faculty participants. Faculty participant demographics included 15 females, 5 males, 14of which taught in the College of Education (COE) and 6 taught in College of Science andEngineering (COSE). The faculty participants taught a wide range of courses
subject. The studentwho did not work hard was met with overall approval, and he said that it was likely to be in thecircumstance of the subject they were best at, and that everyone has such a class. Alice,contrastingly, rejected the questions altogether. She holds that “smart” is a subjective termdefined by the person describing it, and that everyone is smart, just smart in different ways. Herown subjective view of smart rejects the idea of tying intelligence into the amount of effortneeded to do something, but instead is reflected in an individual’s own conscious choice to tryand learn more.When Ivan was asked about a class he had to work very hard in, he claimed that the reason hehad to work so hard was that the professor was not good at
through a Service LearningProject (SLP). This existing community- oriented outreach activity, which is run through theUniversity of Illinois at Chicago, not only provides students with a sense of pride and belongingthrough their efforts during the event, but this event also has a reflection component to allowScholars to deeply connect with themselves and the community. At the end of each semester,Scholars will present their service learning project experience to their fellow Scholars, peers, andfaculty during a Scholar appreciation event. Professional Development Seminars. During the spring semester of their third year, S-STEM Scholars will enroll in the first course of a two-course sequence on ProfessionalDevelopment, 499.1. This course
Fellows:Modeled after the Action Research Fellows Program of the ESTEME@OSU community, theTeaching Innovation Fellows Program is designed to support CBEE instructors and staff totake the next step in educational innovation through participation in a Professional LearningCommunity (PLC) and action research while addressing project goals. The PLC option isdesigned to encourage teaching or co- curricular development and reflection without the needto formally collect and analyze data, though we encourage assessment of current and/orreformed teaching/co-curricular practice through evaluation of informal measures (e.g.,observations of groups, feedback from TAs and LAs) and artifacts or work products (e.g.,completed assignments, exams). Each project is
therewas no race or ethnicity making up the majority of the class, which had 28% of the class self-identifying as African American, 28% as Hispanic/Latino, and 44% as White as shown in Figure2. As the students in this special section were allowed to select more than one race or ethnicityon their demographics survey, the percentages shown in Figure 2 add up to more than 100%.This diversity is an approximate reflection of the university’s undergraduate demographics,which includes approximately 9% of the population self-identifying as African American, 35%as Hispanic/Latino, and 49% White as of Fall 201514. For the university numbers, studentsidentifying with more than one race were categorized as multi-racial (3% of the undergraduatestudent
publication[8]; Book chapter (in publications and global educators review); Plenary Talk at the 11th networks. International Workshop on Design Theory; ASEE 2019 Workshop Biomimicry Educators Network contribution Evaluate the learning impact of the evidence-based instructional resources. Objecti ve 2 a. Assess student engagement in learning. Reflection analysis for JMU and