other. We also understand that these interactions may invoke feelings of discomfort, but wemust be extremely candid with ourselves and one another to move forward.To this effect, our organization commits to: 1. Developing a deeper understanding for ourselves of the root causes of racism, discrimination or any form of implicit bias, and developing plans to eliminate them from academic settings. 2. Exploring and implementing best development, recruitment, support, and mentoring practices to increase the numbers and rank of underrepresented minority faculty at partner institutions. 3. Finding ways to increase the enrollment, retention and persistence to degree of underrepresented minority students in higher education
-worldconfirmation of the theory and concepts from lecture classes. All too often, however,undergraduate laboratory classes fall short of enhanced learning and are instead more notable forstudent dissatisfaction and/or frustration [1], [2], [3]. There are several reasons for this problem.First, organized laboratory classes are often used to meet numerous student outcomes such asthose comprising ABET student outcomes (1) – (7) [4]. Second, organized laboratory classes areoften taught separately from theory classes, leading to a disconnect from pre-requisite coursesand uneven understanding among the student cohort. Third, organized lab classes often involveteamwork, without specific instruction or guidance on how to work effectively, how to divide uptasks
the linguistic feature characteristics of multiple writing assignmentscompleted by engineering undergraduates, including entry-level engineering laboratory reportsand writing produced in non-engineering courses. We used Biber’s multidimensional analysis(MDA) method as the analysis tool for the student writing artifacts. MDA is a corpus-analysismethodology that utilizes language processing software to analyze text by parts of speech (e.g.,nouns, verbs, prepositions, etc.). MDA typically identifies six “dimensions” of linguistic featuresthat a text may perform in, and each dimension is rated along a continuum. The dimensions usedin this study include Dimension 1: Informational vs. involved, Dimension 3: Contextdependence, Dimension 4: Overt
(ECPMs). There are also six program events each year that focus on professionaldevelopment and exploration of opportunities in the fields. Many CS/M Scholars begin theprogram with little to no experience in computer science. The seminar class in the first quarter,the programming class in the second quarter and program events during the first year constitutewhat we call “early exposure to computer science.”More details about the CS/M Scholars Program, including the recruitment of the Scholars,descriptions of the first-quarter seminars and details of the mentoring program, a listing ofprogram events and how the program design and associated research grew out of a previous S-STEM project at WWU can be found in a previous ASEE article [1].Student
students (URES) suffer 60% attrition in their freshmencohort leading to only 40% earning a B.S. degree in engineering. Three key reasons are poorteaching and advising; the difficulty of the engineering curriculum; and a lack of “belonging” withinengineering. Each, in some way, erodes a student’s self-efficacy, or confidence in his or her ability toperform [1]. The American Society of Engineering Educators conducted two recent national studieson freshmen engineering cohort retention: Going the Distance and reported the following B.S.degree completion outcomes by ethnicity: Asian Americans-66.5%, Caucasian-59.7% /Hispanic/Latino-44.4% , Native American-38.6%, African American-38.3%, and All Females-61%. [2]The attrition problem is concentrated in
was canceled due to COVID-19 restrictions. There was some attrition that we handled byhaving a waitlist of students who were invited to participate in the program without a stipend. As afew participants dropped out due to time commitments or the difficulty of the program, the waitliststudents were more than happy to take their place.The bootcampWe offered 6-week intensive summer bootcamps; one was held in the classroom during summer2019 and other was conducted virtually in summer 2020. The bootcamp ran Monday to Thursdayfrom 9 AM - 4 PM and half-day on Friday. Lectures were followed by lab work. Students werepaid $2000 for completing the bootcamp.The bootcamp covered the six areas of curricula outlined in [1]: (1) data description and
curriculum design and development targetingprofessionals, undergraduates and community college students interested in advancing theirskills in data science in the context of Industry 4.0 and intelligent manufacturing. The projectteam has accomplished several main tasks towards the goals of the project in Year 1, to bedetailed in this paper.IntroductionNortheastern University (NU), in collaboration with three Manufacturing USA Institutes,proposes to build an Integrative Manufacturing and Production Engineering Educationleveraging Data Science (IMPEL) Program to address the current and projected skills gap inmanufacturing which is anticipated to leave an estimated 2.4 million manufacturing positionsunfilled between 2018 and 2028 [1]. This skill gap is
specially designed curriculum interventionscan afford a more inclusive learning experience. Optimizing Design Experiences for Future Engineers in Chemistry LaboratoryRetaining undergraduate engineering students is a critical issue, particularly those who identifyas female or as members of an underrepresented ethnic minority (URM) [1]–[3]. Our localcircumstance parallels that of the nation, an unacceptably low-level of student retention, which isparticularly prevalent for freshman students in general chemistry. This situation is complicatedby the nature of introductory science and mathematics courses, which are notoriouslychallenging and intimidating [4]–[6]. Targeted curriculum interventions may be one
, reducing cost, and expandingaccess to nontraditional students unable to participate in residential programs.IntroductionEach year, the National Science Foundation provides grants to institutions of higher education tofund research internships for undergraduate students. These internship programs, titled“Research Experiences for Undergraduates” (REUs), each “consist of a group of ten or soundergraduates who work in the research programs of the host institution. Each student isassociated with a specific research project, where he/she works closely with the faculty and otherresearchers” [1]. The REU funding structure is intended to provide research opportunities tostudents who may not have access to undergraduate research opportunities at their
development workshop for teachers or a careerday for students. Though these may introduce a teacher or student to engineering, they are lesslikely to provide sustained improvements in terms of broadening participation or decreasingmisalignments of engineering. In addition, single interventions are unlikely to cause significantimprovement in teacher confidence to teach engineering. In an effort to improve teacherconfidence of engineering curriculum and to reduce teacher and student mis-conceptions ofengineering, this NSF funded ITEST project used a collaborative model to provide industry andUniversity support to middle school science teachers to 1) develop approximately monthlyscience activities (curriculum) with a contextually relevant engineering
program to earn aminor in Computing Applications. Many of these courses are taught by non-CS faculty and thecourse contents are adapted for life sciences students. Every course is assigned a dedicated groupof peer mentors who assist instructors and students during lectures and hold separate mentoringsessions every week. The curriculum for the Computing Applications minor (aka PINC minor) consists of thefollowing five courses, and the recommended course sequence is as follows: Fall (Year 1, Semester 1) ● CSc 306: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Computer Programming Spring (Year 1, Semester 2) ● CSc 219: Data Structures and Algorithms Fall (Year 2, Semester 3) ● CSc 308: An Interdisciplinary
assist students’academic achievement and confidence related to their abilities and experiences in the classroom.Situated learning and social cognitive abilities, and self-efficacy specifically in engineering andmathematics serve as the theoretical base for E-path’s conceptual framework. Self-efficacy is acomponent of social cognitive theory; a self-system that allows individuals to exercise controlover their thoughts, feelings, motivation, and actions. Self-efficacy is an individual’s belief inoneself to achieve specific results and perceived capabilities to attain specific types ofperformance [1], [2].Specifically, self-efficacy judgments are task and situation-specific. One critical componentidentified by the investigative team was to use PLTL
commonlyfail in higher education institutions [1], and this failure is typically attributed to facultyresistance, ineffective leadership, competing values, and conservative traditions [2]. Recentnationwide National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded efforts to revolutionize engineeringdepartments provide insight into the salience of power dynamics as drivers of or barriers toequitable, lasting change. REvolutionizing engineering and computer science Departments(RED) grants specifically required the unit lead (chair or dean) to serve as the principalinvestigator (PI) and required inclusion of social scientists with expertise in organizationalchange and engineering education researchers. This interdisciplinary team composition provideda venue for examining
becomeacclimated to their chosen undergraduate institution, and more. Accordingly, experiences gainedthrough differing pathways (e.g., FYE programs, transfer programs, major specific courses)impact students’ community and engineering identity development in different ways during thefirst year and beyond.Nationally, there is no standard format, content, or timing with regard to FYE experiences.However, engineering education researchers have created ways of classifying FYE differences(e.g., [1], [2]). We used those existing classifications to identify diverse engineering pathwaysand understand how those pathways impacted engineer formation with respect to participation inengineering communities and developing engineering identities. The knowledge our
Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Preparing Future Engineers Through Project Based LearningAbstractA significant amount of research suggests the common reasons students leave an engineeringmajor include lack of faculty mentoring, lack of a sense of belonging, financial hardships, andcourse difficulties in the prerequisite STEM courses [1]. Project-based learning (PBL)potentially addresses several of these reasons and increases the chances of a student completingan engineering major.Engineering students are more likely to persist when they feel a sense of belonging andcommunity engagement, when they have early interactions with faculty mentors, and when theyexperience a series of successes [2]. The research question involves whether
interactivestudent learning.IntroductionThe goal of this NSF IUSE is to catalyze inter-institutional STEM community transformation to createmore experiential, effective, and engaging hands-on interactive learning environments. Our specific ob-jectives are to: (1) implement a multi-hub and spoke model with dissemination hubs around the USreachinng out to approach regional instutitions (spokes) to facilitate the adoption of light-weight, portable,ultra-Low-Cost Desktop Learning Module (LCDLM) Equipment to enable understanding of thefundamentals of momentum, heat and mass transfer. The goal is to allow students to engage in anexperiential hands-on systems to illustrate the physics that underlie transport processes and tounderstand how such thermal energy and
prerequisite courses for calculus in highschool, there are a growing number of students who either choose or are placed in college classesbelow the calculus level [1]. Despite success in precalculus in high school, many students acrossthe country are not successful in the college level precalculus course. Even if the students aresuccessful in precalculus (e.g., receiving a B or above), many do not go on to take calculus or failto be successful in calculus [1, 2]. Single variable calculus is a major gatekeeper for studentswho want to pursue degrees in STEM [3]. The national trend of high attrition in university-levelprecalculus and calculus highlights the need to continue to assess and build on the best practicesto strengthen these courses and increase
operation of healthcare systems. . American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Real Data and Application based Interactive Modules for Data Science Education in Engineering Kerul Suthar1, Thomas Mitchell1, Anna Hartwig1, Jin Wang1, Shiwen Mao2, Laura Parson3, Peng Zeng4, Bo Liu5, Q. Peter He1,* 1 Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849 2 Dept. of Electric and Computer Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849 3 Dept. of Educational and Organizational Leadership, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105 4
its roots in the autism activism of the 1990s. In recent years, theterm neurodiversity has come to represent a wide range of cognitive or neurological variationsthat are present in the human population. A large body of literature suggests that neurodivergentindividuals, including those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyslexia, orautism spectrum disorder (ASD) possess a wide range of unique strengths that are assets inengineering. These strengths include divergent thinking, risk-taking, 3-dimensional visualizationskills, pattern identification, and systems thinking [1]-[5]. Despite the potential of nontraditionalthinkers to contribute to engineering breakthroughs, recruitment and retention rates ofneurodivergent students
QuestionsThe ability to identify one’s own confusion and to ask a question that resolves it is an essentialmetacognitive skill that supports self-regulation [1]. Yet, while students receive substantialtraining in how to answer questions, little classroom time is spent training students how to askgood questions. The study presented here is from a pilot conducted in preparation for a largerstudy funded through NSF-DUE that investigates if training students to ask better questions, andgiving them practice and feedback on writing those questions, affects other important STEMlearning outcomes.One challenge in research around question-asking is defining what constitutes a good question,as there are many ways in which a question may be characterized
activities andinformal “tinkering” activities - as they produced physical artifacts to support their inquiries, wewere also struck by their activities as they produced ”knowledge” artifacts. That is, there wereclear hallmarks of tinkering [1, 2]– playful, iterative, self-directed, unplanned yet goal-directedactivity – as students manipulated theoretical “objects” that populated their developing models,particularly for one student, Lainie.1 This led to the follow question that frames this paper: how isstudents’ engagement with theoretical objects in the design of theory similar to students’engagement with physical objects in engineering design? In particular, we will argue that theirplayful, iterative work with ideas as they construct theory is
andemotional engagement in turn predicts students’ cognitive engagement, which is validatedagainst academic performance in coursework. The ability to measure student engagement can beused by the instructor to tailor the presentation of material in class, identify course material thatengages and disengages with students, and identify students who are engaged or disengaged andat risk of failure. Further, this approach allows quantitative comparison of teaching methods,such as lecture, flipped classrooms, classroom response systems, etc. such that an objectivemetric can be used for teaching evaluation with immediate closed-loop feedback to theinstructor.1. IntroductionStudent engagement in the classroom is necessary for the successful learning outcomes
, harnessing the value of developingintervention programs that are deeply integrated in a scale that accommodates diverse student participants,and developing programs that have interdisciplinary scopes with room for inclusivity. It is also ofimportance to note that there are culture gaps in the learning pedagogy of today’s students such that it is ofsignificance to connect the education of the students to the local community and for K-12 education systemto transition to project-based learning.1. IntroductionThe premise of convening a workshop to highlight the strategies to improve student engagement byenhancing the curriculum of engineering education draws on Linus Pauling’s suggestion, that, “To have agood idea you must first have lots of ideas.” [1
process.Background and motivationEngineering curricula are typically structured with courses in mathematics, scientific theory, andapplied mathematical and physical analysis methods. Despite a decades-long push for designcourses and activities, studies show that engineering programs focus too heavily on teachingscience and analysis rather than holistic design [1]. This conflicts with the needs of modernsociety, which requires products that take into consideration factors unrelated to technical skills,such as user needs and sustainability [2]. In other words, technical design does not take place in avacuum; market and environmental factors play a critical role in design success. In fact, “designin context” that considers consumer needs and market
urban, commuter, public research university; an urban, private,teaching-focused university; and a rural, public, teaching-focused university.The survey questions have three parts: 1) student perspectives in writing in engineeringdisciplines; 2) how students use prior writing knowledge when writing lab reports in engineeringlab courses; and 3) how engineering lab course writing instructions impact students’ engineeringlab report writing. Findings suggest that the three transfer groups present statistical distinctionson the readiness of writing engineering lab reports (concurrent group as the highest and absentgroup as the lowest). The three groups also show different perspectives on how their freshmenwriting courses contributed to their
c Society for Engineering Education, 2021WIP: Understanding Context: Propagation and Effectiveness of the Concept Warehouse in Mechanical Engineering at Five Diverse Institutions and Beyond – Results from Year 2It has been well-established that active learning strategies increase student retention, improveengagement and student achievement, and reduce the performance gap of underrepresentedstudents [1], [2]. Concept-based learning is a particular form of active learning which “is the useof activity-based pedagogies whose primary objectives are to make students value deepconceptual understanding (instead of only factual knowledge) and then to facilitate theirdevelopment of that understanding” [3], and its
multidisciplinary use. We hope that the analysis and reflections on our initial offeringshas improved our understanding of these challenges, and how we may address them whendesigning future data science teaching modules. These are the first steps in a design-basedapproach to developing data science modules that may be offered across multiple courses.1. Introduction As technology advances, familiarity and expertise in data-driven analysis is becoming anecessity for jobs across many disciplines. Data science is an emerging field that encompasses alarge array of topics including data collection, data preprocessing, data quality, data visualization,and data analysis using statistical and machine learning methods. A recent National Academy ofSciences
knowledge of the tools and techniques used bythe research team. The current project is providing the funding support and training necessary forthe PI to take a more active role in leading research efforts. The project has two foci: i)educating the PI on the tools and approaches applied in collection, processing, and analysisof longitudinal datasets compiled from multiple sources and ii) assessing the links amonginstitutional supports, psychological processes, and student outcomes.Research DesignThe project is focused on understanding the underlying psychological processes associated withpersistence of engineering students (Figure 1). The goal is to develop a clearer understanding ofwhat types of institutional support structures contribute to these
problems. The research team offered the HEPE course inSpring 2020 semester, where engineering students collaborated with social science students (i.e., studentsfrom economics and strategic communication disciplines) to solve a contemporary, complex, open-endedtransportation engineering problem with social consequences. Social science students also received theopportunity to develop a better understanding of technical aspects in science and engineering. The open-ended problem presented to the students was to “Restore and Improve Urban Infrastructure” inconnection to the future deployment of connected and autonomous vehicles, which is identified as agrand challenge by the National Academy of Engineers (NAE) [1].MethodologyThe HEPE course was offered
is determined via high school grade point averages andstandardized test scores; however, these have been shown to be poor predictors of studentperformance trajectories in engineering and computer science education [1]. Instead, theSUCCESS survey measures the following NCA factors: Big5 personality traits (Neuroticism,Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness), Grit (Consistency of Interest),Engineering Identity (Recognition, Interest), Mindset, Mindfulness, Meaning & Purpose,Belongingness, Gratitude, Future Time Perspectives of Motivation (Expectancy, Connectedness,Instrumentality, Value, Perceptions of Future), Test Anxiety, Time and Study Environment,Perceptions of Faculty Caring (Social Support, Empathic Faculty