were revised to contain themore general term, “computing,” which is used in both the CS and IT fields. The currentversion of the IT attitude survey is a subset of statements from the original 52 statementIT survey.Participants’ responses to the statements in the attitude survey were mapped to anumerical value between one and four, with higher values reflecting more positiveattitudes. In other words, a positively worded statement was scored a four for stronglyagree, a three for agree, a two for disagree, and a one for strongly disagree. A negativelyworded statement was scored a four for strongly disagree, a three for disagree, a two foragree, and a one for strongly agree. A high score for a gender statement reflected agender neutral, rather
are placed into one of three categories: foundational, technical and professional.The BOK2 outcomes are also written to reflect preparation as a continuum11,12 , distinguishingbetween Bloom’s level of cognitive achievement13 for baccalaureate level work, to post-baccalaureate, and finally to pre-licensure experience. Therefore, the BOK2 describes whatstudents should achieve by the time they graduate, along with the additional preparation requiredfor them to achieve licensure and practice professionally.Adopting the BOK2 required the review of all civil engineering courses to determine if theircontent was sufficient to meet the new outcomes. Moreover, their respective course objectiveswere painstakingly revised as necessary. The capstone
respective protocol, where at the end of the survey (or at logical midpoints during a long survey) the participant will be asked to reflect upon the questions encountered and responses provided to determine if, after looking back, anything else seems confusing or if there is any additional information the participant thinks we should know but the instrument has not sufficiently drawn out of the participant.Verbal Cognitive Validation in the Context of an Engineering Education StudyPurpose of the Research StudyThis paper presents the utility of think-alouds as a VRM in the context of a particularengineering education study. The study is described here in order to lend context to the methodsand results from the think-aloud
werecategorized to determine the amount of time spent on each of five exam behaviors: reading fromthe textbook, writing, calculating, reading the test question, and talking/reflecting. Problemsolutions were separately graded using a previously created rubric. The time spent on variousbehavior categories were then examined with respect to grades students received for theirsolutions. Reading from the textbook represented the bulk of students’ time on the problems(35% on average). Interestingly, there was a significant negative correlation between time spentreading the textbook and students’ grades. The more time that students spent with the text, themore poorly they performed. This correlation was strongest for students who had the lowestsolution scores
. Page 22.1491.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 The Progressive Learning Platform for Computer EngineeringAbstractThis paper describes the Progressive Learning Platform (PLP), a system designed to facilitatecomputer engineering education while decreasing the overhead costs and learning curveassociated with existing solutions. The PLP system is a System on a Chip design withaccompanying tools reflecting a contemporary CPU architecture. It is unique in that it can beused in a number of courses (Digital Logic Design, Microcomputer Principles, ComputerArchitecture, Compilers, Embedded Systems) as students progress through a ComputerEngineering curriculum. The system consists of a fully
), advisory board reports, and revision history documented in the university bulletin.” • “It was stated that our Objectives were too focused on current students and not on our alumni. However, our stated objectives were word for word the same as they were in 2003 (they were clearly stated and reflected our objectives at that time so why change them?). I also note that Criterion 2 has not changed since 2003. It was therefore strange that our Objectives have now garnered a weakness when they were just fine in 2003. I believe this underscores a weakness in the Accreditation process in which the published Criteria are too open to interpretation by the specific visiting committee. Programs should be
. Page 22.248.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Assessment Based on Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences Mysore Narayanan, Miami University, Ohio.Abstract Scholars in the area of cognitive science and educational psychology agree that‘assessment’ as ‘learning’ should not be treated like a third-party research project orsome administrator’s questionnaire. Assessment must be actually viewed as acommunity effort or nothing. Assessment must be driven by a faculty's owncommitment to reflect, react, innovate and improve. Educators have also recognized thatit is very important that instructors make a strong effort to teach to the
. While females haveslightly higher mean grades and higher mean GPAs in the course, they have significantly lowerFCI gains than their male constituents. If course grade can be taken to reflect how much astudent has learned, and GPA as a measure of academic success, then it would be reasonable tothink that the female students would have slightly higher FCI gains than their male counterparts.The results presented here reflect the opposite and give rise to a discussion in terms of testingand the potential connection to gender issues. Research on standardized tests (i.e. SAT, GRE, LSAT, etc…) and their relationship togender have been widely reported in the literature [45 – 46]. In 1992, the American Associationof University Women Educational
). However, one of the earlier definitions is still widely accepted andcomprehensive: Service-learning is “a course based, credit-bearing, educational experience inwhich students (a) participate in an organized service activity that meets identified communityneeds and (b) reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding ofcourse content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civicresponsibility." (Bringle & Hatcher, 1995). Key elements of service-learning that appear to beimportant to researchers and practitioners include: projects or placements that meet academicobjectives in a credit-bearing course, the meeting of real community needs, analysis or reflectionon the part of students to
provides precise feedback that reflects that understanding. Therefore,camp staff should conduct a debriefing with the programmer(s) after every robot challengeactivity. These meetings should start with camper evaluation of the robot’s performance and adetailed analysis of the program’s part in performance success or failures. The staff should avoiddictating programming actions to correct flaws but never leave the camper really uncertain as towhat to do next. In addition, this may be a great opportunity to reinforce the difference betweenhow the camper collects and acts on information vs. how the robot has to be programmed toaccomplish the same tasks. It has been our experience that this is the first time the campersexperience the impact their
practicalproblems and issues that practitioners usually face, into the classroom.(6) Pedagogical studieshave demonstrated that the case study/ case history approach to engineering education provides agreater understanding of the multifaceted nature of civil engineering.(7,8) They can be used to Page 22.312.2simulate a variety of learning protocols such as: design and analysis experiences,interdisciplinary issues and concerns, costs, hazards, owner preferences, and compliance withstandards and guidelines. Cases, by and large, describe situations, projects, problems, decisions,etc., and are primarily derived from actual experience, and do reflect thoughts
benefited all students, faculty, and advisorsinvolved. Through writing assignments that require students to research engineering fieldsand achievements, while reflecting on their own interests and experiences and goals, theE/FEWP creates a substantial picture of students’ own evolving academic and professionalawareness—a picture that is useful to and enhanced by significant freshman advising andmentoring.Freshman Engineering ProgramThe Freshman Program at the University of Pittsburgh has an academic and an advisingcomponent. The mission of both components is to create a first year experience thatpromotes the student’s continued pursuit of an engineering degree. Part of the EngineeringLibrary’s mission has been to work with freshmen in order to give
) covers the entire four years. This reflects two meanings. On the Page 22.346.7one hand, the importance of FEHPs has been continually manifested and emphasized, as it is notonly the first stage of the entire honors program, but it also takes the responsibility of gettinghonors students well motivated and prepared for future engineering study and work. The majordifference in first-year programs between Uni-US and Uni-CN (actually between mostuniversities in the United States and China) is that in the United States, there is at least aone-year period in which students take “general education” courses. However, there is no similargeneral education in
motivation for students to seekcontent knowledge and conceptual understanding that help them solve problems or addresschallenges. Common among effective PBIL curricula and experiences is a focus on student-generated ideas, where students reflect on their actions and investigations to make new decisionsand to improve conceptual understanding 11,12.There is a large amount of research extolling the benefits of curriculum and learning experiencesrooted in PBIL13,14,15,16,17. These studies have found that PBIL affords: more active learning ofcontent; the development of problem-solving skills; increased ownership in learning; greaterunderstanding of the nature of the scientific endeavor; more flexible thinking; improvedcollaboration skills; and
. Overview of Course Our course will be developed to accommodate a number of different learning styles,following the recommendations of Felder and Silverman1. This research suggests that aneffective method for learning should involve both active components (i.e., letting students dosomething in the lab or participate in a discussion), along with a reflective component, whichallows the students to analyze or process their observations. They have found that active learnersdo not learn well in lecture-style or passive settings, and that reflective learners need to be givenan opportunity to think about information and develop their own understandings. Anotherdifference in learning styles relates to the order in which students process information
of closed-ended fundamental of engineering type problems, to the starting of the execution of student designed deeper learning activities. Learning activities during these phases include “learning conversations” (daily scheduled 2 hour faculty led or student led active learning workshops), one on one faculty conversations, workshops by external experts such as practicing engineers, peer group learning, self guided research and learning, problem solving sessions, and reflection. Figure 2. Approximate time on task for learning activities vs. project execution during semester. • Upon reaching the completion of the personal model development, students stand for an oral exam where high levels of
“generic” office ceiling plan or theplumbing riser diagram for a “medium rise building” that is at once everywhere and thusnowhere. In HCL, to both its credit and its detriment, the same numbers almost all butdisappear into side-bars or simple rule-of-thumb tables6 yet with a purpose that I believe hasgreater promise and purpose. For the bulk of HCL’s arguments are qualitative, relational andgeometric - more or less southern exposure, greater or lesser degrees of cross ventilationpaths, etc. - in a manner that literally relies on a student’s “obvious” reading of its very notslick photographs and simple illustrations to pass along ownership of their “proof” to thereader - “Here, see for yourself!” Reflecting now on my two systems courses, there
was a theme that was used in development of courses. These objectiveswere reflected in the design of the syllabi of the courses and were served through well- definedoutlines.Just- in- time math and science ideas and self- paced learning were introduced in these programsto help interrelations between engineering courses and the math and science prerequisites.The nontraditional approach to education was borrowed by some universities, were self- pacedand one- room math schoolhouse type of classes was introduced.The program incurred many challenges but opened up many opportunities for success forstudents. Despite the success, the program still faced considerable administrative challenges.The experience proved that the collaboration could benefit
through a series of assignments and the narrative will bebased on a series of reflective questions.The intention is for the curriculum to not only allow students to track and articulate thedevelopment of the selected attributes but to also enable them to acquire a deeper understandingof how their work place experiences contributed to their professional growth with respect to theattributes.The paper includes a summary of the pilot study of the initial curriculum design, a description ofthe current iteration of the curriculum, an outline of the implementation strategy and a shortdiscussion of several operational challenges associated with implementation.Initial Work Term Curriculum Pilot StudyThe Faculty of Engineering has been examining ways to
mentor, I persisted.” — Female post-doctoral associateiThe need to increase the numbers of traditionally underrepresented minorities (URMs) in engineeringcareers and research is well documented. Underrepresented minorities (African Americans,Hispanics or Latinos/as, and American Indians/Alaska Natives) make up approximately 31% ofthe population1, but account for just 11.6% of the science and engineering workforce2. Thisdisparity is also reflected in the demographics of students earning degrees in engineering. In2008, just 12.4% of the Bachelor‘s degrees in engineering were earned by underrepresentedminorities3. Looking at graduate degrees for the same year, 19% of the Master‘s degrees and3.5% of the doctoral degrees granted in engineering fields
workQualitative Interviews Fifteen students at a large, public institution were interviewed in the spring of their senioryear (2007). Interviews were semi-structured and open-ended. Questions were designed to elicitstudents’ reflections on their college experience. Students spoke about their motivation to studyengineering primarily in response to one question: Are there any aspects of engineering that youparticularly like? Follow-up prompts elicited detail about the qualities or specific activities ofengineering that students cited. Students spoke about gender and their experience as engineeringstudents in response to three related questions: (1) How has gender played a role in yourexperience here at the UW? (2) Can you tell me of a particular
, an interesting issue is the time delay betweendemand and supply. It seems harmless at the first look, but it turns out to be a potential cause foroscillation or even instability, which is reflected as the periodic cycles of boom and bust ineconomy. This problem is pretty hard to analyze except with advanced knowledge of systemthinking. However, it can be conveniently simulated and analyzed with the help ofSTELLA®/iThink® .The third part of this course is the investigation of systems in different fields. The first topic is aphysical system, where a simple climate model can be set up. The inflow of energy from the sunis assumed to be constant, and the outflow of energy by radiation is affected by the concentrationof greenhouse gasses, as well
done in association with this framework. Students’ artifactsare the primary source for evaluation. Reflective essays will also be required at the end of theproject. In addition the teamwork and communication aspects are assessed through existingassessments9.Rubric development is an iterative process involving the faculty advising the multi-disciplinary Page 22.1278.11team, together with the input of systems engineering faculty members with extensive industrialexperience in the systems field. This is to ensure that the learning objectives are appropriatelyaddressed and that the rubrics are constructed to effectively and reliably capture the range
. Opinionsexpressed by the authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of the NationalScience Foundation. Bibliography1. Wellman, J. (2002). State Policy and Community College - Baccalaureate Transfer. (National Center Report #02-6), San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education & The Institute for Higher Education Policy.2. California Post Secondary Education Commission. (2010). Executive Summary: Ready or Not Here They Come: Projections for Public Higher Education, 2009-2010. (Report D10-01), Sacramento, CA:3. National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Table 270. Associate's Degrees and Other Subbaccalaureate Awards
fails to reflect this change.2Social science research documents disproportionate attrition of women in STEM disciplines atcritical transition points such as receiving a Ph.D. degree, entering the assistant professorposition, receiving tenure and promotion to associate rank, and receiving promotion to fullprofessor.2 Among factors accounting for this phenomenon, especially in the areas ofrecruitment and advancement of women faculty, are biases and weaknesses in recruitmentstrategies (University Leadership Council 2008) as well as institutional climate, including asense of isolation,3 lack of role models,4 and lack of women in key academic leadershippositions.5In this context, the NSF ADVANCE program represents one of the most far reaching
, #0942778. Any opinions, findings, and 6conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.Bibliography [1] http://www.coe.neu.edu/Depts/SET/set/whatisset.html [2] A. Selmer, M. Kraft, R. Moros, C.K. Colton, “Weblabs in Chemical Engineering Education”, Trans IChemE, Part D, Education for Chemical Engineerings, Vol. 2, pp. 38-45, 2007. [3] Sloan Consortium of Institution and Organizations Committed to Quality Online Education, “Staying the Course: Online Education in the United States, 2008”. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications
iLab, and felt the lab had made themthink about and understand some things they would not have been able to from just lectures ortextbooks. This activity successfully helped us to understand the requirement for the VR-Lab.Acknowledgement and DisclaimerThis work is partially supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Numbers DUE-0942778, EEC-0935008, and HRD-0928921.Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are thoseof the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.Bibliography 1. I. E. Allen and J. Seaman, “Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009”. Technical report, The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved May 1, 2010
,” “O,” and “C” have beenidentified in human development research to constitute the motivational and decision making(executive) skills requisite not only for science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)attainment but, as well, for succeeding in life more generally, e.g., for protecting against schoolfailure and drop out and for promoting healthy life styles and success in interpersonalrelationships, including peer relationships, student-teacher relationships, family relationships,and civic engagement and community contributions9,12,13. Indeed, the “soft skills” indexed bySOC reflect both practical (planning, coordination) and analytical (problem solving) abilitiesand, in the case of compensation (and the loss-based selections) a component
, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed herein arethose of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.Bibliography:[1] National Science Board. (2004). Science and engineering indicators: 2004. Arlington, VA: National ScienceFoundation.[2] National Science Foundation. (2007). It’s Elemental: Enhancing Career Success for Women in the ChemicalIndustry: 2007. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.[3] http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/20/28/III/E/1/1067[4] Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences.Boulder,CO: Westview Press.[5] The State of “Learning” in New York: An annual snapshot with comparisons of Select Counties around the
the 1956 Burdell-Gullette Report and the 1944 “Conference on the Humanities,” organized by WilliamWickenden, whose efforts were instrumental in the founding of the Liberal Education Division‟sprecursor, the Humanistic-Social Division of ASEE.This paper revisits the history of our own society‟s efforts to “broaden” engineering education,and does so in a way that allows us to reflect on the changes associated with ABET‟s EC 2000.A careful study of the past unveils the long history of our own attempts to bring liberal educationto engineers and how these efforts fit within and contribute to the distinct professionalconfiguration of engineering. It also reveals how engineering educators possess a distinct body ofpractice for adapting their