makerspace is shownin Figure 1, and the Greenhouse now exists within the upper left quadrant of the space. The newGreenhouse includes an 80” touchscreen (highlighted in green), movable tables, chairs, andwhiteboards, as well as fixed whiteboards, cork boards, and open storage with light prototypingmaterials. The previous Greenhouse created a scaffolding of community and student events thatis crucial to the structure of the makerspace today.Two staff positions run the operations of the makerspace: a manager and assistant manager.Primary responsibilities of the manager include operations, budget, payroll, hiring, policy andprogram development, outreach, and assessment of the space. Outreach programs includepartnership with the school’s K-12 STEM
securing jobs and employment4, 5. AtPurdue University Northwest, graduates of the Master’s degree program have had similarexperience. However, once the enrollment hit triple digit numbers, a “coursework only” optionhad to be introduced to address 1) the needs of those who were already working, 2) the limitationthat the faculty number presents in such growth and 3) the needs of, and issues faced with, onlinestudents.In this paper, the issues and strategies used to create, implement, and sustain the program arediscussed. Such issues include: limitation of financial resources, flexibility of the program, andcurrency of the program to address the needs of industry, delivery modes, as well as recruitmentto sustain high enrollment.Initial Stages of the
mathematics and science. Project TESAL (Teachers Engaged in Science And Literacy)is a three year Math Science Partnership providing proximal context for developing this model.Project TESAL involved two weeks professional development each summer, two days eachsemester, and classroom observations/support. Teachers participated all three years and createdthen implemented and refined two lesson plans per year. Project TESAL involved 24participating teachers from four counties with 41% to 67% low-income students, less than 80%highly qualified mathematics or science teachers, and below average mathematics and sciencetest scores in a state well below the national average.Our model includes the following steps:Step 1: Identify mathematics and science
and academics institutes. We sought their views as theywere at the helm of affairs and, perhaps, role models for today’s youth and impacting theirthought processes. We devised a questionnaire, sent them in advance and then conductedaudio-visual interviews. Since the CEO’s had decades of successful experience, we alsoincluded open-ended questions to provide them adequate space for genuine expression.The present level of ethics averaged to 2.87 and the 2020 prediction stood at optimistic 4.5,on the scale of 1 to 7 (7 being the best). We also asked CEOs, reasons for present poor rating,optimism for 2020, the causes behind present status and of course the remedial measures.The major reasons included pressure to achieve results, especially short
conditions. We defined three distinctperiods that correspond with when the departmental policy changes were implemented. Theseperiods are Traditional Methods (2002-2005), SCALE-UP (2006-2013), and Return toTraditional (2014-2015), which are defined in more detail below.Traditional Methods (2002-2005)Traditional lecture was the pedagogical approach used during this time. Additional componentsof instruction and assessment for this period are described in Table 1 below.Table 1. Overview of Traditional Methods period course policies Textbook Homework Exam Format Grading Policy(2002) Calculus 4thEdition (Stewart Four exams- 60%2001) Variety of
retained in STEM in the academic year immediately subsequent to their enrollment in Calculus I? Q4: What, if any, is the difference in STEM retention rate between students who experience R-Calc versus those who experience N-Calc? Q5: What, if any, effect does R-Calc have on retention rates for URM, Women, Pell- eligible students? Q6: What, if any, effect does R-Calc have on pass rates in post-requisite courses?Questions 1 and 3 are answered with descriptive statistics. The remaining questions ask whethera metric applied to students taking R-Calc differs from the same metric applied to students takingN-Calc. In all cases the metric is a simple proportion (pass rate or retention rate) so all of thesequestions are
%, (37 students) 91.9% (57students), and 95% (59 students). Finally, end of year response rates were 62.1% (36 students),71% (44 students), and 76.7% (48 students). Respondents with missing data on survey items ofinterest for this study were excluded from the analytical sample. The final sample for analysisincluded 111 students (55 women and 56 men) from the M-Engin program.MeasuresEngineering Major Confidence The dependent variable of interest for this study is students’ end-of-year engineering majorconfidence. This is a continuous variable ranging from 1-5, with 5 being the highest rating astudent could self-report (Strongly Disagree = 1, Strongly Agree = 5). Prior to this study, anexploratory factor analysis was performed on the
“agreeableness” trait [1] [2] [3]. For the professor, very often thereis little control over the team composition and no guarantee that the team will be able to sustaingood work habits and healthy team dynamics for the entirety of the experience. At ourinstitution, the projects culminate in a Capstone Expo that is attended by an audience ranging inskill sets and interests from Middle and High School students to industry partners, industryexperts, engineering students and faculty and students from around the university. This paperwill cover all the above aspects of the Capstone experience up to and including preparing theteam for the Expo.KeywordsCapstone, teamwork, 21st century skills, design, interdisciplinaryBackgroundCapstone at our institution is
, compared toboth national demographics and the pool of engineers with PhDs.1 Additionally, this model of afaculty career has not kept pace with changing labor force realities, even though career pathsacross the nation and in many domains see multiple transitions and have very low expectationsof retiring from a single company after 30 years. This faculty career model contradicts careerhappiness based on reasonable life choices, particularly those described by the Life CareerRainbow2,3 which defines an arc of life as moving through growth, exploration, establishment,maintenance and disengagement phases of life (see Figure 1). This mismatch means thatacademia is not able to adapt to shifting demographics, expectations of Millennials, and desiresfor
review, andbenchmarking led to the identification of barriers in the areas of career navigation, climate, andflexibility in work/life management balance which have been previously reported. 1-4Opportunities for reducing barriers and launching new interventions were assembled into acomprehensive institutional transformation strategy funded in 2012 by NSF ADVANCE(1209115). The goal of this funded project, referred to as AdvanceRIT, increases therepresentation and advancement of women STEM faculty by creating new interventions,structures, and resources to support faculty career navigation while promoting supportive andaligned cultural change. An additional emphasis adapts interventions to address the needs of keysub-populations including women of
assumptions about these aspects that match “how we dothings around here.”For example, a traditional lecture-style mechanics course might be typified by what Kingdescribes as the "Sage on the Stage" dynamic [1]. This may also include an expectation ofweekly tightly-defined problem sets with black-and-white answers, teaching assistant officehours which students are expected to attend only when they have concrete questions, limitedlecture attendance, and a strict curve grading system that implies a limited number of top marks.Another lecture class might involve clickers, expectations of both attendance and participation,teaching assistant support for collaborative work on open-ended problems, etc. Although boththe classes described above are lecture
Figure 1. Carpenter Hall when it opened in 1957. It housed the administrative offices of the College of Engineering (Dean, College publications office, student services, admissions, placement) and the Engineering Library.13
design and conduct37, 38, 39 to guide our process. We piloted ourinterview protocol with several returning and direct-pathway engineering PhD students or recentgraduates who were not a part of our survey sample. Feedback from participants in our pilotinterviews helped us to test and refine our protocol.Our final interview protocols addressed seven primary topics: 1) an introduction to the interviewand basic background information about a participant’s current position in their PhD program, 2)a characterization of their pre-PhD work and research experiences, 3) their process in deciding topursue a PhD, 4) characterization of academic experiences and the their doctoral research,including the progression of their research agenda, 5) students’ plans
explosions killedcrews of seven and the Mars orbiter explosion cost NASA $125 million.1,2 These catastrophicevents have one thing in common – miscommunication between engineers and other projectmembers. In the hotel walkway disaster, a structural engineer submitted preliminary drawingsthat were taken to be final from the steel fabricator.1 Internal flight safety problems werebypassed and miscommunication between engineering and management foolishly launched aspacecraft based on incomplete and misleading information, causing the Space Shuttleexplosions.1 The Mars orbiter disintegrated because of a mismatch in units between groundcontrol and the actual spacecraft.3 When there is miscommunication between engineers and otherindividuals involved in
values and tolerance. Then the students are instructed to build the circuit in Figure 1. This circuit is simply a resistor mounted in series with a dc voltage supply and dc ammeter. The dc voltage measured across the resistor should be the same as the voltage supply. The objective of the assignment is toFigure 1 Circuit for Laboratory Assignment
(2015-2016) I have the privilege of being a Course Assistant for three classes at Stanford: (1) E14: Introduction to Solid Mechanics; (2) BIOE51: Anatomy for Bioengineers; (3) BIOE80: Introduction to Bioengineering and Engineering Living Matter. I also have pleasure of serving as the Safety and Operations Manager at the Volkswagen Automotive Innovation Laboratory, which includes managing the machine shop and teaching students how to use the machinery. In this role I am able to advise and educate students on design choices for their personal and research projects from ideation phases to functional products, with an emphasis on design and manufacturing techniques. c American Society for
projects focused on STEM education and mentoring.Dr. Monique S Ross, Florida International University Monique Ross holds a doctoral degree in Engineering Education from Purdue University. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Engineering from Elizabethtown College, a Master’s degree in Computer Science and Software Engineering from Auburn University, eleven years of experience in industry as a software engineer, and three years as a full-time faculty in the departments of computer science and engineering. Her interests focus on broadening participation in engineering through the exploration of: 1) race, gender, and identity in the engineering workplace; 2) discipline-based education research (with a focus on computer
racialgroup. Table 3 showed the percentage agreement on the Maternal Wall questions by gender.Table 4 showed the percentage agreement on the Tug of War questions by gender. Table 3 andTable 4 showed that women suffered more Tug of War and Maternal Wall bias than menregardless of their racial background.Regression analysis: Models 1 and 2 in Table 1A4 show that women, African Americans andAsian Americans reported higher level of Prove-It-Again bias compared to their male or whitecounterparts while controlling for other demographic variables such as, age, education, seniorityas engineers, and if working in the academia. Interestingly the difference on reporting Prove-It-Again and Tightrope bias is not statistically significant between Latino/Latina and
organizing preparation for the next general review. Previously, he has worked in promoting reflection in courses within Stanford University.Dr. Helen L. Chen, Stanford University Helen L. Chen is a research scientist in the Designing Education Lab in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Director of ePortfolio Initiatives in the Office of the Registrar at Stanford University. She is also a member of the research team in the National Center for Engineering Pathways to Innovation (Epicenter). Chen earned her undergraduate degree from UCLA and her Ph.D. in Communication with a minor in Psychology from Stanford University in 1998. Her current research interests include: 1) engineering and entrepreneurship education
topic in recent years. Many questions arise that point toone theme: what can we do to bridge the gap found among minority students? There are a multitude of programs and organizations designed to increase the success ofminority students at engineering colleges across the US, such as the Society of WomenEngineers, Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers, and National Society of Black Engineers.Summer bridge camps and similar programs that help increase students’ academic preparation inmathematics have also been beneficial for underrepresented students (1, 2). At Louisiana StateUniversity (LSU), we provide a program that offers a potential solution to bridging the gap forminority students–Supplemental Instruction. Supplemental
fluency, design fluency, cognitiveflexibility (the mental ability to think about multiple concepts), planning, response inhibition,handling novel situations, working memory, reasoning, problem solving, and abstract thinking(Alvarez, Emory and Emory 2006; Lezak, Howieson, and Loring, 2004; Monsell, 2003). Normanand Shallice (1980) outline five types of situations where routine activation of behavior wouldnot be sufficient for optimal performance: 1. Those that involve planning or decision making 2. Those that involve error correction or troubleshooting 3. Situations where responses are not well-rehearsed or contain novel sequences of actions 4. Dangerous or technically difficult situations 5. Situations that
Paper ID #20134Combining Active Learning Approaches for Improving Computing CourseOutcomes at Minority-Majority InstitutionsDr. Debra Lee Davis, Florida International University, School of Computing and Information Sciences Dr. Debra Davis is an Instructor in the School of Computing and Information Sciences at Florida Interna- tional University. Her research interests emphasize interdisciplinary topics including understanding and improving: (1) Computer Science education, including increasing participation of women; (2) educational applications and techniques for online STEM learning; and (3) complex human-machine interactions
,the investigators of this project also provided each group with the project milestones and finalproject deliverables. The outcome for the first meeting was for each group to brainstorm ideasfor their exhibit and to develop an initial concept idea. The second meeting was to present theoverall project concept. The third meeting was to review the preliminary CAD for the project.The fourth and final meeting was to review all of the components of the project. The authorsconsidered each of these meetings as a milestone towards the execution of the project, and eachmilestone was accompanied by a design review, which will be discussed below. Details abouteach meeting, activities and outcomes are described in Table 1.Table 1Collaborative Meeting
- of students participating in a multinationalcollaborative project. The comparison is between their motivation before and after theirparticipation in the academic activity, there is no comparison between participation and no-participation since the project was part of a course for all participants. The following objectiveswere established: 1. Determine the level of interest of US students participating in the collaborative multinational design project, before they enter and after they finish their participation 2. Determine the perception of value of US students participating in the collaborative multinational design project, before they enter and after they finish their participation 3. Determine if there was change in
course of the semester as well as tocompare results from the on-campus and distance groups. Previous studies by Cavalli et al.1 in arequired junior level materials science course (also taught to both on-campus and distancesections) indicated distance students, who are often working professionals, tended tounderestimate their mastery of the material as represented by posttest performance. In contrast,on-campus students tended to overestimate their understanding of the course topics. Distancestudents attributed a higher value to recorded lectures and homework assignments with regardsto aiding their understanding and on-campus students valued in-class discussions. Thecomposites course studied in the present work would fall later in the curriculum
enrollment. It will open new horizons and expand the breadth offaculty and student involvement in research and development.1. BackgroundIn this paper, we will describe how we gradually attempted to achieve our goal. We developedthis teaching module, which incorporates well-selected signal processing, bioinformatics,biomedical imaging, signal processing, and instrumentation topics, which make extensive use ofMATLAB, Simulink, Python, Bio-perl, and LabVIEW tools. This teaching module includes adetailed description of associated core lab exercises, student responses, and recommendations.This low-cost program consists of a series of theory modules coupled with a hands-on laboratorycomponent using readily available test equipment and graphical
and Professor at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan. He has been an invited keynote speaker for national and international conferences. He has been a Program Evaluator for ABET Electrical/Computer Engineering, Computer Science and Engineering programs in the US and for international programs. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 COMPUTING in CIRCUITS and SYSTEMSAbstract. Many engineering and computing programs offer an introductory course on electriccircuits analysis. Typically this is a three (3) credit hours lecture course, in some schoolsaccompanied by a 1 credit laboratory section. In our school the first circuit course is offeredwithout a laboratory
this paper wedescribe the design of the new general engineering curriculum at the University of San Diego.The argument for an engineering curriculum with a broad foundation that includes the liberal artsis not novel. Just after the creation of the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1955, theEngineers’ Council for Professional Development commissioned a study to investigate howengineering education could keep pace with rapid developments in science and technology. Theresult of this study was the influential Grinter report1, among whose recommendations includedan emphasis on the importance of integrating liberal arts into engineering education. While thereport argued for balance between the technical and liberal arts, few current
communicationinvolves more than simply getting one's own points across clearly; it also requires the ability toempathically listen and create spaces that foster honesty. This paper explores four conversationand participation architectures that provide engineering education students and practitioners withaffordances for holding challenging and awkward conversations.Conversation and collaboration skills are an important facet of engineering student development.ABET student outcomes criteria (d) and (g) emphasize the ability to function onmultidisciplinary teams and the ability to communicate effectively, respectively [1]. We arguethat, in an increasingly complex and transdisciplinary world full of "wicked problems" [2],engineering students need to develop a high
. The chemistry grade and personal statement are assigned 50 and 150 points respectively.Student personal statements are reviewed by three faculty and are subjectively assigned ratings.Table 1 lists the weights assigned to admission requirements. Applicants are ranked according toadmission scores and an appropriate number of students are admitted in the EE program. Table 1: Admission score weights Subject Score Weight Calculus GPA 450 45% Physics GPA 200 20% Chemistry GPA 50 5% Overall GPA