Counselors’ Beliefs about Engineering in High School: A Case Site in Virginia (Fundamental)IntroductionThe importance of engineering education in K-12 has been substantially articulated in multiplereports and publications. For example, Brophy et al. [1] provide an overview of the state of K-12engineering education, whereas the National Research Council report [2] moves further byproviding seven recommendations to improve K-12 engineering education through research andscholarship. As one of the expanding domains within K-12 engineering education, K-12 actors’beliefs about engineering are important areas of study because understanding how the actors(student, teacher, school counselor parents/guardians, etc.) believe, perceive
correlations that emerged among the parents’knowledge and awareness of engineering and their students’ summer camp learningexperiences and outcomes. Because this study explores’ parents’ knowledge andawareness of engineering concepts, it is unique and has the potential to generate newquestions in engineering education research.IntroductionA talent pool with workers competent in the science, technology, engineering andmathematics (STEM) disciplines are necessary to be able to compete in the globaleconomy [1]. STEM workforces play an important role advancing technology andgenerating new approaches, ideas, and technologies [1]. While there is a high need forpeople who are proficient in STEM areas, there is a scarcity of interest for students whoare
challenge that many instructors, coursedevelopers, and other stakeholders within first year engineering programs encounter every day.When trying to reach this goal, it is necessary to understand the extent to which students intendto engage in the classroom environment, and how pedagogical and curricular approaches affectstudents’ academic motivation [1]. Introductory engineering courses are one common element inmany engineering colleges nationwide. There is growing recognition in research thatexperiences related with courses taken in the first year, and the level of success in these courses,are directly related to students’ achievement and retention, more than many other factors [2,3].This evidence-based practice paper describes the examination of
; Turner, 2010; Turner et al., 2017; Turner, Smith et al., 2015; Turner, Trotter et al., 2006). She has been awarded over $1 million to sup- port her research. She currently is PI on an EEC EAGER award focusing on factors that affect Native Americans’ entry into and persistence in the engineering faculty.Dr. Gale Mason Chagil, Culture Inquiry Consulting, LLC Dr. Gale Mason-Chagil, Cultural Inquiry Consulting, LLC, has 18 years’ experience conducting culturally- competent educational and career development research with Native American communities. She special- izes in social change and social justice research and in consultation for projects administered by schools, community-based organizations, and foundations. She
requiredparts kit or lab fee. At the same time laptops have become ubiquitous among students allowinguniversities to save money on computer labs and IT expenses by requiring students to providetheir own laptop. Not all students are able to afford laptops, and even among those that can thereis a disparity between the quality and capabilities of the laptops purchased. These increasedexpenses can add an inequitable burden on students of different social and economic status. Thispaper explores the impact of these expenses on students of different social and economic status.The impacts are measured using student survey data from a variety of computer and electricalengineering courses.1 IntroductionThis draft is for a full paper in the Research track and
; ChineseuniversitiesIntroduction The landscape of international student mobility in global higher education hasbeen changing over the last two decades. In addition, the countries (e.g. China,Singapore, and Malaysia) that have large study-abroad student populations are nowtaking an increasingly large market share of global higher education and are attractinga mass of international students [1]. As shown in the Global Mobility Trends, a reportreleased by the Institute of International Education, Mainland China has taken up a 10%market share in 2016, as the third-largest destination for international students [2]. Topfive countries that have sent international students to study in China in 2016 includeSouth Korea, the US, Thailand, Pakistan, and India [3]. In 2016
almost two generations, industry and some in academia have been calling for engineeringgraduates who are better prepared to immediately make a positive impact working on complexengineering problems [e.g. 1, 2-4]. These calls have often taken the form of highlighting the dearthof “professional skills” in engineering graduates, including communication and ability to work inteams . Over the last decade, with the impetus of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE)Grand Challenges, more are also calling for engineers who are prepared to lead, given theinterdisciplinary teams required to solve these problems. These calls have, in turn, led to greaterrecognition by engineering educators of the need for engineers who can lead. This recognition
sophisticatedknowledge of instrumental methods and scientific principles, but perhaps it still fails to preparestudents for complexities and uncertainties of engineering practice in real contexts (Bucciarelli &Kuhn, 1997). We have found that most graduate engineering curricula continue to focus on 1 of 20technical concerns at the expense of the broader social, human, environmental, and ethicalcontext of engineering (Copeland & Lewis, 2004); however engineers need such meta-disciplinary knowledge to see the legitimacy of contextual problems and to deal with thosecontexts effectively (Christensen & Ernø-Kjølhede, 2006). In an effort to close the gap between engineering education and education
orbiracial, and 1% Native American or Hawaiian (University of Maryland, Clark School ofEngineering, 2018).The choice to conduct our study at the Clark School is an important one given its status as a PWIand ranking in recent years as one of the top 10 producers of Black bachelor’s and master’sengineering degree recipients (Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 2018). To date, HistoricallyBlack Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have been heralded by scholars and practitioners asbeing the most successful at bolstering the enrollment and retention of Black students in STEMfields (Gasman & Nguyen, 2014; Palmer, Davis, & Thompson, 2010; Utpon & Tanenbaum,2014; Solórzano, 1995). PWIs, on the other hand, have been largely regarded as inhospitable
, stricter government safety or environmental regulations also need to bemet. There are many examples, like cars and home appliances, that reflect this challengingscenario. Consequently, industry needs mechanical engineering graduates that have the necessaryknowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) to successfully participate in the design and developmentof complex products or systems.The fact that companies need engineering graduates with a good foundation in the process todesign and develop products and systems is reflected in the new ABET accreditation criteria [1]and in references such as the Engineering Competency Model that was jointly developed byAmerican Association of Engineering Societies (AAES) and the United States Department ofLabor (DOL
freshmen at the institution, with lessaccess to student supports such as housing, orientation, retention efforts, or scholarships, as theytransition to the four-year institution [1]. Transfer students also have fewer opportunities toparticipate in high-impact learning experiences such as undergraduate research and internshipsthan first-time freshmen [2]. STEM transfer students can have challenges as they adjust tocampus life [3], [4], including course credit loss [5], which can delay graduation or lead toattrition, perception of lack of advisor support or misinformation [6], or perception of “stigma”as a transfer student [3]. Providing resources, supports, and access to select activities in the earlytransfer period thus is a critical time to
Interest Levels of Male versus Female Students going into STEM Fields (Evaluation)IntroductionThe fields of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, also known as STEM, haveexperienced rapid growth in terms of their importance and the demand for qualified graduates[1]. STEM careers provide an essential driving force behind new innovations and growth in theUnited States. STEM fields have seen a job growth rate three times that of non-STEM careers,and are continuing to grow [2]. Despite efforts to increase the number of STEM graduates, TheUnited States is struggling to supply enough qualified workers to fulfill these demands. TheUnited States is facing a problem as students’ interest, and therefore literacy in STEM has
inspiring and empowering K-12 female students to pursue STEM(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) majors and careers. Created in 2013, theFemineer® Program enhances the College of Engineering’s commitment to support underservedpopulations by recruiting and graduating increased numbers of historically underrepresentedstudents. Research has shown that men outnumber women in the STEM field. According to theNational Science Foundation, 20.5% of Engineering Bachelor degrees were awarded to women in2004 and 19.8% were awarded in 2014 [1]. This data has shown that women are earning lessEngineering Bachelor degrees and there has not been much progress since 2004. The Femineer®Program wants to fix this problem by giving K-12 girls access
2016, theconcept of engineering education accreditation which emphasizes student-centered,outcome-based education (OBE) and continuous improvement, has been more widelyrecognized and promoted [1][2]. Practical teaching, especially field practice teaching, isconsidered to be an important part of engineering education [3][4] and plays a crucialrole in cultivating students' ability to combine theory with practice, think independentlyand communicate, work in a team as well as solve complex problems, and in improvingstudents' sense of social responsibility and interests in engineering [5][6][7].Compared to common practice teaching course, field practice teaching courses(especially those involving the accommodation at the site of practice
1“Plug and Chug” of specification equations is not design. Letting students have thisimpression is doing them a huge disservice.Teaching is tricky business. How one teaches structural design has some particularly impactfulconsequences. Students expect to learn the specifications (or codes) but over emphasizing thecode may leave students without a deeper understanding of the mechanics and structuralbehaviors involved in structural design. There must be a balance between teaching the code andbehavior because many students likely have become programmed, trudging through many mathand science courses, to solve problems in a very methodical fashion of reading a prompt,recognizing the method or formula to use, and arriving at the single correct
college students (FGCS) face considerable obstacles to college success,including a lack of role models in the family, a lack of familial mentoring and support, a lack offamiliarity with the college climate, and, generally, lower socioeconomic status [1-6]. They tendto be less academically prepared for college, and English is not their native language for a higherproportion than of continuing-generation college students (CGCS) [3]. However, in many ways,recent research suggests that FGCS are very similar to CGCS. They respond to the same factorsencouraging college persistence and success [7-8], and often demonstrate considerable “grit” inpursuing their undergraduate careers (9), a factor instrumental in undergraduate achievement.Indeed, Boone and
Efficient) Teaching (Work in Progress)IntroductionThe paper is the result of a Faculty Learning Community (FLC) [1] within the college ofengineering at the University of Delaware. The FLC was initiated, with the help of a $4k grantfrom the University’s Center for Teaching and Learning, to create a series of short guides oneffective teaching practices that distill the literature on various topics into actionable steps anyfaculty member (particularly new faculty) can implement. The FLC consisted of members fromall departments within the college of engineering and a single colleague from the college ofeducation with expertise in professional development (7 members total). All
different professors taught sections EngineeringStatics in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering with no common syllabus or commonassignments. Drop, withdraw, fail (DWF) rates varied from 2% to 78% – students picked theircourse section based on grade expectation. Over the years between 2005 and 2013, I taught moreand more of the offered sections, effectively reducing course drift and enforcing a common set oflearning objectives.Figure 1. Total Enrollment in Statics Total as taughtinby Enrollment Howard Statics, Fall and Spring Author's sections, Other faculty's
, Aerospace Engineering,IntroductionPersistence, retention and academic achievement in higher education are influenced by a complexinteraction between self-efficacy, motivation and engagement. Bandura [1] defined perceived self-efficacy as “belief in one’s capabilities to organize, and execute the courses of action required toproduce given attainments, the perception to do tasks and achieve goals”. Bandura and Locke [2]observed a strong relation between self-efficacy and performance in general. A meta-analysis of114 studies by Stajkovic and Luthans [3] found a strong correlation between self-efficacy andwork-related performance. A review of literature [4] on self-efficacy and academic performancepublished between 2003-15 indicated a moderate
of the need for targeted faculty development in the implementation of active-learning methodologies to insure the method has the intended effect on student learning andengagement.Introduction:Teaching methods are known to affect student performance in a course. The meta-analysis of225 studies on active-learning by Freeman, et al [1] found students in STEM courses taught withextensive lecturing are 1.5 times more likely to fail, earn a D, or withdraw from the course thanstudents taught with active-learning methods in the same STEM course subject. A second meta-analysis of engineering and technology education journal articles confirmed that small-group andcollaborative learning pedagogies increased student performance by close to a half a
with students through outreach events andprograms to increase student awareness of library resources, with the primary goal of fosteringacademic success and lifelong learning. [1] At Syracuse University, approximately 25% of thegraduate students are STEM majors, making it a high priority for the STEM Librarian to findnew and effective avenues for connecting with them. However, attempts to connect graduatestudents to these resources have been hindered by a lack of understanding for how to reach andcommunicate with graduate students, an absence of regularized funding to host events, andinsufficient data regarding graduate students professional development needs and interests. TheSTEM Librarian’s traditional interactions with graduate students
narrow and implicit due to lack of support in development of research designskills, and professional identity and socialization4, 1. Wenger5 reminds us that “meaningfullearning in social contexts requires both participation and reification to be in interplay” (p. 1),but REU participants likely lack opportunities afforded to graduate students to more legitimatelyparticipate in the community, given their relative inexperience and contracted timeframe.While the challenges of attracting, retaining, and educating engineers are well-recognized6,engineering researchers are divided in their beliefs about effective ways to socialize REUstudents into the engineering field. Sadler, Burgin, McKinney and Ponjuan7 call for moreexplication of concepts, others
Hispanic students. Architecture, engineering, and technology students make upbetween 10% and 30% of the entering first year students. There was an application process forthe program. Students who were accepted, would be a part of a cohort of students who met witha lead instructor weekly, with the program being run as a 1-credit course. Additional instructorsfrom the student life side were also available to help facilitate activities, and connect students toco-curricular and extra-curricular aspects of college life. The present paper will describe some ofthe programming and assignments of this pilot program, and discuss some of the relatedstrengths, weaknesses, challenges, and successes. A primary focus of the programming was tohelp students
Distributed System of Governance in Engineering Education.” In it, we analyze diversity discourses among faculty and administrators in engineering programs across the Unites States, and the initiatives deployed in the name of diversity. We use methods of discourse analysis to study how the term “diversity” is leveraged in different contexts to enact certain methods of recruitment and retention of particular populations.Introduction Diversity initiatives have been a priority in university settings for decades, but havelargely not delivered on their promises. The percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded toHispanic, Black and Native American students is in the single digits [1], and the proportion ofwomen in
reflexivity toward awarenessof the politics imbued in technology as well as the often exclusionary cultures entangled therein.Further this research brings field work observations of these groups and their practices(designated as Study 1) into conversation with interviews of engineering education researchers(designated as Study 2). In that vein, this examination asks: What might an analysis of thepractices and mindsets of feminist hacker and opensource science hardware groups contribute tothe world of engineering education, specifically for educators interested in change-makingstrategies for creating a more equitable higher education environment that takes on issues ofracism, sexism, heteronormativity, ableism, etc.?With a theoretical grounding in the
major. By far, a 100% ofundergraduate placement for totally 2006 graduates has been maintained at the JI. Over 80% ofthe graduates pursued higher level studies in graduate schools, mainly in the US. Among thestudents who pursued graduate studies in US universities, over 55% were admitted to the top 10engineering schools. The students who chose employment after graduation were placed inengineering as well as non-engineering organizations.Different forms of multi/inter-disciplinary effort have been tried with some successes achievedand lessons learned [1][2][3]. Publications suggest that integrating curricula and organizingactivities across disciplines are not easy [4][5]. Yet it is believed that interdisciplinary curriculaand activities relate
University of Delaware, and her Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering (2014) from New York University. She is passionate about translational research and engineering education. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 GENDER AND RACIAL DISPARITIES IN STUDENTS’ SELF-CONFIDENCE ON TEAM-BASED ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS Jenni M. Buckley, PhD1,3, Sara Grajeda, PhD2, Amy E. Trauth, PhD1, Dustyn Roberts, PhD4,1 1 University of Delaware, Department of Mechanical Engineering 2 University of Delaware, Center for Research in Education and Science Policy 3 University of Delaware, College of Education and Human Development
Information systems.IntroductionSeveral studies have pointed out the need to foster a diagnosis and an intervention concerninggender equality in academic contexts (1-14). Studies carried out by Amâncio (9-10) demonstratedthe existence of gender patterns in access and mobility processes to which are linked gender biasesand stereotypes that place women on the "margins" of knowledge production. Recent studiesdeveloped in Portugal (15) describe how women and men are socially perceived according toessentialist dichotomous principles, which favour the invisibility and devaluation of women.Legislation on the promotion of gender equality in educational institutions in Portugal is relativelyrecent compared to other European countries and it is the result of a
during the firstsemester, transfer students go through a period of adjustment. Investigation into these transitionshas brought to light the reality of “transfer shock” [1] and its consequences for transfer studentson multiple levels: personal, social, and academic. In recent years, research has focused on thecomplexity of such factors, like background, prior educational experiences, the transfer process,social adjustment, and academic progress, to reduce transfer shock [2-6]. These studies haveutilized diverse methodological and analytic approaches, from institutional data, quantitativeanalysis of survey responses, to more recently some qualitative analysis of focus groups and open-ended questions. These results create a picture of the barriers
Science and Engineering Fairs (Evaluation)Science and Engineering (S&E) fairs are a valuable educational activity that are believed toincrease students’ engagement and learning in science and engineering by using inquiry-focusedlearning, engaging students in authentic scientific practices and engineering design processes [1-3], and emphasizing creativity [4, 5]. Proponents also argue that S&E fairs enhance students’interest in science and science careers [6, 7] as well as engineering [2]. From the fair, studentsreport that they have learned more about the scientific process and engineering design, althoughthey may not all feel their attitudes towards STEM fields has improved [2, 8]. In this paper, wefocus on science attitudes, but because