. A diagram outlining the stages of the research project. Selected results from highlighted elements of the diagram are discussed in this paper.Table 1 raises ethical concerns. To improve six-year graduation rates and retention to degree, thecalculated option is to focus recruiting efforts on students from low-poverty high schools andminimize enrollment by students from high-poverty high schools. This would cause harm to thepopulations we are most interested in helping in this study and we stress that these results shouldnot be used to support such a decision. Rather, these results should be used to to help stakeholdersunderstand the impact of systemic inequities on individuals so that those inequities can
ethical decision-making in un- dergraduate engineering students. Dr. Finelli leads a national initiative to create a taxonomy/keyword outline for the field of engineering education research, and she is past chair of the Educational Research and Methods Division of the American Society of Engineering Education.Ms. Kenyon M Richardson Kenyon Richardson is a program assistant and research assistant with the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching in Engineering at the University of Michigan. Currently, she is assisting with an NSF grant- funded study on faculty motivation to adopt effective classroom practices. She has a bachelor’s degree in Anthropology and is interested in the use of computer-assisted qualitative
analysis. Other seminars will be dedicated to professional development issues such as professional ethics & responsible conduct of research, how to be successful in graduate school, career path decision, and effective technical communication. Finally, selected research topics will be given by both participating faculty and other invited speakers to broaden the background of the REU students beyond their own subjects. A list of presenters and seminar topics is included in the Table below. Table 4. REU Weekly Seminar Series Presenters Topics Chiang Shih/Janice Dodge Program orientation/Lab Safety Chiang Shih Responsible
Conversion project lead with the iFoundry and on the steering committee of the College of Engineering’s Strategic Instructional Initiatives Program.Kathryn F Trenshaw, University of Illinois, Urbana-ChampaignProf. Michael C. Loui, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Michael C. Loui is a professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and University Distinguished Teacher-Scholar at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His interests include computational complexity theory, professional ethics, and the scholarship of teaching and learning. He serves as editor of the Journal of Engineering Education and as a member of the editorial boards of College Teaching and Accountability in Research. He is a Carnegie
: Comsol Training Week 2 May 26 10:00am-12:00pm Seminar: How to Conduct Research? May 28 10:00am-12:00pm Group Meeting June 03 2:00pm-5:00pm Field Trip: Visit the University of Science and Technology Beijing Week 3 June 04 9:00am-10:00pm Presentation: Research Ethics 10:00am-12:00pm Group Meeting June 11 10:00am-11:00am Seminar: Introduction to Heat Pipes Week 4 11:00am-12:00am Group Meeting (Mid-term project presentation) 2:00pm-5:00pm Field Trip: Visit Beijing Aeronautics and Astronautics University Field Trip: Visit Fuel Cell Research
evaluation, ethical andsocietal issues, project management, team and communication skills, improved attitudes, andother professional skills. Semi-annually, as well as at the beginning and end of LTS experiences,NESLOS will be administered to engineering students as a means of measuring learning out-come and skill gains. It is anticipated that NESLOS results will provide insight into LTS drivenlearning outcomes. (5) Measures of well-being: We include survey elements that follow Keye’s FlourishingScale to provide a categorical diagnosis of “flourishing” or “languishing” mental health of thestudents 23. The instrument will be adapted for evaluating engineering students. Subjective well-being items are used to comprehensively assess students in
. Students then integrate the non-technical framework from Stages 1-3 and the technical material from Stage 4 within a problem-solving exercise. The exercises necessarily vary across courses, but they share commonelements: hands-on involvement of the student (e.g., through a laboratory or in-class exercise),analysis of real-world data or simulation (e.g., electroencephalograms during a brain-computerinterface), and reflection on ethical or practical issues raised by the data (e.g., whether the dataindicate an acceptable level of performance, given cost constraints). Instructors are urged toconnect their activities to local resources whenever possible (e.g., research laboratories or designfirms). Successful applications will not only make the GC seem
and modified degree-fulfilling credit bearingofferings. And while original administrators left, new administrators (provost, faculty/admin)arrived and created a policy environment eliminating non-credit bearing math offerings or non-degree fulfilling math courses. These policy changes incentivized formalization andsustainability of courses like corequisite calculus.Data collection to study the course’s impact on retention initially motivated faculty to endorsethe pilot. However, several noted that COVID compromised the data. After two years of piloting,with “good enough” data, the ethical commitment to meet students where they are, a long-termNSF grant encouraging the course pilot, knowing COVID had set students back and a drop inenrollments
on the analytic sample, there were nodifferences in prior academic achievement, students’ identification as low-income or a first-generation student, gender, or rates of algebra-level mathematics coursework based on whetherstudents were or were not enrolled in the introduction to engineering reasoning course. 7Using this comparison sample, we examined differences in students’ end-of-semester socialbelonging, help-seeking, engineering efficacy, and mathematics efficacy based on theirenrollment in the introduction to engineering reasoning course. Institutional review boardapproval was obtained for the study; ethical standards and principles as
Science Foundation.Bibliography[1] T. S. Kuhn, The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.[2] A. Sen, Development as Freedom. New York: First Anchor, 1999.[3] I. Robeyns, “The Capability Approach: An Interdisciplinary Introduction,” 2003.[4] M. C. Nussbaum, Creating capabilities: the human development approach. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011.[5] M. Walker, “Universities and a Human Development Ethics: A Capabilities Approach to Curriculum,” Eur. J. Educ., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 448–461, Sep. 2012.[6] P. Flores-Crespo, “Education, Employment and Human Development: Illustrations from Mexico,” J. Educ. Work, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 45–66, Feb. 2007.[7] A. Akera
Paper ID #41889Board 427: Work in Progress: ADVANCE Strategic Partnership for Alignmentof Community Engagement in STEM (SPACES)Dr. Angela R Bielefeldt, University of Colorado, Boulder Angela Bielefeldt is a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder in the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering (CEAE) and Director of the Integrated Design Engineering (IDE) program. The IDE program offers a BS degree accredited under the general criteria of the ABET EAC and a new PhD degree in Engineering Education. Bielefeldt’s research focuses on sustainability, ethics, social responsibility, and community
3.8 1.6 2.3 3.6 1.3 Designing a research study 2.0 3.4 1.4 2.0 3.5 1.5 Finding research articles 2.6 4.4 1.8 3.3 4.9 1.6 Preparing a research presentation 2.2 3.4 1.2 2.6 4.3 1.7 Interpreting research findings 2.2 4.2 2.0 2.8 4.0 1.2 Presenting research findings 2.6 4.2 1.6 2.5 4.0 1.5 Applying to graduate school 2.6 3.4 0.8 2.6 3.6 1.0 Ethics in science 2.4 3.6 1.0
less common due to the extended thinkingrequired. It is also possible that these “visible” codes represent language that is accessible tostudents who are still learning the language of design—and that the LbE debrief may be a venuefor instruction on these types of arguments. We also noticed that the design context, holistic statements, and sets of artifacts play aprevalent role in the types of arguments made by students. For example, in a comparison sessionabout graphic design, students’ attention was expectedly turned toward aesthetic. The fewexamples where “scientific principles” emerged as a justification all related to a CO2 car project.And the comments coded as “ethics” all seemed to stem from a single controversial image. It
criteria; and (5)to explore the complicated ethical issues regarding the technological advances that blur the boundariesbetween machines and organisms. The development of the undergraduate modules began in year one and was performed by summer in-terns and teams of students in the Junior/Senior Engineering Clinic, under the supervision of the investi-gators. Piloting the modules in undergraduate courses began in year two (the current year of the project),and they will be refined based on our formative evaluation. In the second half of year two and year three,we will continue to use the modules at Rowan while also focusing on dissemination activities such as be-ta-testing at other institutions and G6-12 teacher-training workshops.Artificial Blood
Paper ID #37688Board 276: Enhancing Early Childhood Educators’ Knowledge of ComputerScience and Engineering Concepts to Spark Young Children’s EarlyInterest in STEM CareersDr. Gisele Ragusa, University of Southern California Gisele Ragusa is a Professor of Engineering Education at the University of Southern California. She con- ducts research on college transitions and retention of underrepresented students in engineering, PreK-12 STEM Education, ethics, socially assistive robotics, and also research about engineering global prepared- ness.Lilian Leung, University of Southern Callifornia Lilian Leung is a program specialist
. The fall seminar will consist of social events, lectures, and hands-on activities;final group presentations (topics selected by scholars) will enhance teamwork andcommunication skills.Table 1. PWS First Semester Course Week Topic Week 1 Introduction/Surveys Week 2 Feelings of Belonging & Mindsets Week 3 How People Learn Week 4 Communication in the College Environment Week 5 Project Introduction Week 6 Invited Guest Speaker from local industry Week 7 Metacognition & Study Skills Week 8 Workplace Fundamentals / Project Review Week 9 Mindset & Response to Failure Week 10 Research & Ethics Week 11 Registration & Semester
alienating students most motivated by the broadersocial aspects of engineering practice in light of research that suggests these aspects may bedisproportionately prioritized by women and minoritized students already underrepresented inengineering [13]–[17].Integrating broader social and technical aspects into engineering courses can be both appealingfor students and effective preparation for their future work. In a study of a senior engineeringcapstone course, Banios [18] found an increase of the amount of broader engineering practices(e.g., need analysis, ethics, risk assessment and analysis, iteration, management, and etc.) in thecapstone course resulted in positive exit comments from students. A follow-up study also provedthat the engineering
. “The roles of perceived identity compatibility and social support for women in a single-sex STEM program at a co-educational university,” Sex Roles, vol. 65, no. 9/10, pp. 725-736, 2011.[22] L. Rosenthal, B. London, S. Levy, M. Lobel and A. Herrera-Alcazar. A. “The relation between the Protestant work ethic and undergraduate women’s perceived identity compatibility in STEM majors,” Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 241-262, 2011.[23] J. E. L. Shin, S. R. Levy, and B. London, B. “Effects of Role Model Exposure on STEM and Non-STEM Student Engagement,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 46, pp. 410-427, 2016.[24] V. Tinto
will be presented in aggregate to individual ERCs toavoid rank-ordering the ERCs.Optional modules are also under development to expand insights and provide flexibility forindividual centers. The optional quantitative modules include measurements that are not amandatory requirement from NSF (e.g., engineering identity, engineering ethics) or apply only toa specific subset of the ERC population (e.g., RET experiences, mentorship experiences formentors, etc.). TEEC will also make recommendations for existing measurements on otherassessment topics to provide support and guidance to all ERCs to help meet their diversifiedevaluation requirements. All optional scales can be added to the baseline set of categories whiledisseminating the instrument to
had minimal input from the PI or program manager to not hinder the stimulatingdiscussions between the participants Seminars on twice-exceptional education, creativity, andthe creative product were included. Workshops were presented on responsible conduct ofresearch and ethics, graduate school, preparing for the GRE exam, and technical writing. Thepresentation of the seminars and workshops by experts in their respective fields were successfulin increasing the participants’ self-awareness along with expanding their knowledge ofpossibilities following undergraduate education.Role of NSF RET FellowsThe program involved two local K-12 STEM teachers joining the University of Connecticut forsix weeks during summer 2016 to work alongside the REU
question about why they are interested in the research experience. A primary component of our initial selection rubric was the number of science and math courses they had taken and how they had performed in those classes. In year one of this project, we required that students must have taken a year of college calculus, physics, and chemistry to participate. However, we quickly observed that most of our applicants did not have these courses. Therefore, we modified our selection criteria so that we would not overlook students with great potential. The new rubric puts more weight on the teacher recommendation with an emphasis on work ethic and “grit”, students’ grades in the science classes they had taken, and their veteran status. Of the
Gallagher Hall Grand Foyer6 PhD Careers in Conservation All week Online6 SISS: Cultural Communication in the Work- Noon-1:30pm International Ctr, Room 3119 Register Place: Conflict Management7 Responsible Conduct of Research: 12:00-1:00pm Genome Center, Rm 1005 Contemporary Ethical Issues in Biomedical Research7 CEE: Supporting Students Outside of the 4:10-6:00pm MUII, 2nd floor, MU, Please Register Classroom8 Stress Management 11:00-Noon SCC Rm D, Please Register10 Strategies to Reduce Writing Anxiety Noon-1pm Sact’o. Campus, ASB 232513 Writing National Science Foundation
, no. 5, 1999, pp. 664-682.[14] B.M. Capobianco, “Undergraduate Women Engineering their Professional Identities,” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, vol. 12, no. 2-3, 2006.[15] D.P. Dannels, “Learning to be Professional: Technical Classroom Discourse, Practice, and Professional Identity Construction,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, vol. 14, no. 1, 2000, pp. 5-37.[16] M.C. Loui, “Ethics and the Development of Professional Identities of Engineering Students,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 94, no. 4, 2005, pp. 383-390.[17] R. Stevens et al., “Becoming an Engineer: Toward a Three Dimensional View of Engineering Learning,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol
Coordinate travel, housing & other amenities. Check-in formalities. Arrive @ TAMU.@ TAMU Pre-program survey (championed by external evaluator). # Debrief. Campus tour. (WEEK) RESEARCH PROJECT EXPERIENCE (VIP TEAMS) PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (COE USRG)* May Define project objectives, methodology, Welcome breakfast. Orientation. General lab (Week-1) schedule & outcomes. Specific lab(s) safety. safety training. Welcome Bar-B-Q. Ethics. Jun. Research plan due! Overview of metrology/ GRE workshop: What to expect. Seminar: (Week-2) NDI principles, techniques, labs & literature. TAMU early admissions program. Jun. Tackle/plan-for research questions & tasks. GRE workshop: Maximize
syllabi). Please see Appendix A for a transcription of this quiz. On the first day of class,our assessment expert either personally proctored this quiz or sent a trained sociology graduatestudent to do so. Students were assured that their quiz would remain anonymous to theirengineering professor and told to “just do their best” on this assessment. At the end of thesemester, on the last class day, this quiz was repeated, again personally by evaluator or hersurrogate. The engineering professors never had custody of the metrics and did not know theidentities of the students. No course grade was attached to their performance on the metric, perthe ethics guidelines of TTU’s Human Research Protection Program.These collected quizzes from all three
research interests include educational data mining, ethical considerations regarding the use of data in education, assessment in engineering education, and the statistics curriculum for engineering. She is a member of Eta Kappa Nu (HKN), Purdue.Ms. Huma Shoaib, Purdue University Huma Shoaib is an engineering education graduate student at Purdue working with The Weldon School Biomedical Engineering. Her research interests are; identifying computational thinking patterns in engi- neering students and underrepresentation of women in engineering.Dr. Kerrie A Douglas, Purdue University at West Lafayette (COE) Dr. Douglas is an Associate Professor in the Purdue School of Engineering Education. Her research is focused on
, manyengineering experiments are costly and complicated, restricting their use to instructionallaboratories. Another common occurrence is that engineering lab classes often encompass a widevariety of learning objectives [9]. For the purposes of ABET evaluation and assessment, it is notuncommon for lab classes to be used to assess student outcomes beyond experimentation, andincluding student outcomes having to do with communication, teamwork, ethics andprofessionalism, and life-long learning. Communication, in particular, is a component in labclasses that often results in the majority of time being spent on the preparation of written reportsrather than on actually doing the experiment or in reflecting on the results [10]. As a result,students in dedicated
short, the predominate interests behind the choice of minority engineering students were,predictably, math skill, love of science and family influence. However, the highest performingstudents were also motivated by good career opportunities (the “hunger factor”), the bent towardmaking and fixing things, and the desire to improve the world.Success in EngineeringThe second question put to them was “What does it take to be successful in your engineeringprogram?” The top three responses were (see figure 2): (1) Dedication and motivation, from 49.3% of students: “Dedication and motivation because there is a lot to learn and a lot to do;” “Commitment;” “Determination.” (2) Effort and hard work, from 31.3%: “It takes a very strong work ethic
. 1312-23.16 Rayne, K., T. Martin, S. Brophy, N.J. Kemp, J.D. Hart, and K.R. Diller. 2006. The development ofadaptive expertise in biomedical engineering ethics. Journal of Engineering Education 95 (2): 165-173.17 Cordray, D. S., T. R. Harris, and S. Klein, 2009, “A Research Synthesis of the Effectiveness,Replicability, and Generality of the VaNTH Challenge-based Instructional Modules inBioengineering,” J. Eng. Education, Vol. 98, pp. 335-348.18 Roselli, R.J. and S.P. Brophy, 2006, Effectiveness of challenge-based instruction in biomechanics.Journal of Engineering Education 95 (4): 311-324.19 Prince, M. J. and M. Vigeant, 2006, “Using Inquiry-based Activities to Promote Understanding of CriticalEngineering Concepts,” ASEE Annual
. With great effort to haveno interference in these discussions, the PI or a dedicated undergraduate assistant attended thesesessions and took notes. The undergraduate assistant was also critical in providing support andmaintaining order and timeliness among the students on a day-to-day basis, as well as facilitatingvarious activities, workshops, and events that occurred during the program. The seminars andworkshops that were offered throughout the program were presented by experts in theirrespective fields. The subjects of the seminars included twice-exceptional education and thecreative product. Workshops were presented on responsible conduct of research and ethics,graduate school and preparing for the GRE exam, and technical writing. These