the intrinsic motivation of students. Thus,arguably it also has a positive impact on learning experience. Existing literature does not identifywhat attitudes and practices can be implemented in schools of engineering to promote effectivecare in teaching. This paper describes the progress of an ongoing research currently carried out ata large engineering school in Chile. The investigation has two main objectives. First, tounderstand what does it mean to care in teaching; second, to understand what is the influence thatcaring teaching has on the students’ learning experience.IntroductionFrom a philosophical perspective [1], the ethics of care involves attending to and meeting theneeds of who we take responsibility for. It particularly values
fundamental concept that is commonly taught in foundational engineering classes inthe “middle years” where students often struggle to find relevance [1], [2]. Instructors deliverlectures on the processing, production, storage and delivery of energy for industrial andhousehold purposes. There are discussions about the resources used to create energy and how tobetter use those resources. Sometimes engineering considerations of energy focus on quantitiesand numbers involving efficiency and costs. Energy continues to be one of those engineeringtopics that is siloed and discussed in isolation without a social, cultural, or environmentalcontext.The conceptualization of energy within a sociotechnical framework is critical for the formationof future
Case Study of Elementary Students’ Conceptions of Engineering Across STEM and Non- STEM SchoolsIntroductionWith the inclusion of engineering practices in A Framework for K-12 Science Education [1] andengineering standards in the Next Generation Science Standards [2], engineering instruction isgrowing increasingly common in elementary classrooms in the U.S. One approach to increasingengineering instruction is through schools with an explicit focus on science, technology,engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and national policy documents in the U.S. have calledfor the development of such schools [3]. However, a clear vision for what K-12 engineeringeducation should include and how it should be implemented is
of these more difficult topics [1-15].The discrete-time equivalent of the impulse response, the unit sample response, can bejust as onerous for students to understand, since it’s regularly viewed as “just a computersimulation” and not related to anything that’s practical or happening in the real-world.To illustrate this point, for several years, the authors have presented to students a questionsimilar to, “In your own words, define the term, impulse response.” The average score onthis question was routinely the lowest of any of the questions on the Signals & Systemsfinal examination. This improved significantly when real-time demonstrations, otherhardware demonstrations, and laboratory exercises were introduced in the
[1] [2] [3]. Such reward systems are incongruous with institutional missionsthat include teaching, service, and community engagement in addition to knowledge production.Moreover, such reward systems have been characterized as gendered, since theydisproportionately value activities typically or stereotypically dominated by men and undervalueactivities often undertaken by women [4] [5]. Other studies have found that ambiguities inpromotion systems disadvantage women more than men [6] [7]. Still others have identifiedgender biases in a range of data considered in faculty evaluation, including research quality andproductivity [8] [9], student ratings of instruction [10] [11], and review letters [12]. All of thesefactors no doubt contribute to
theEngineering Education and Centers Division of the Directorate for Engineering and as aCAREER PI (2010). There are many resources for PIs that focus on NSF’s review criteria andthe mechanics of writing a strong proposal. This paper concentrates on three topics that are lessoften discussed: articulating how your CAREER proposal fits into your career vision and goals;meeting with NSF program officers; and building a network of support for developing theproposal.1. Articulating how your CAREER proposal fits into your career vision and goalsTo write an effective CAREER proposal, you need to articulate how your five-year project fitswithin your long-term academic career plans and that that you are the only person to do the workyou propose [1]. Your CAREER
. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020What will you do to help elementary students who struggle in the engineering design process? Analysis of teachers’ reflections. (Fundamental)IntroductionThe next generation of STEM workers and leaders requires knowledge and skills in order toeffectively contribute and compete in the global workforce [1], [2]. More importantly, thesustainability of our planet requires citizens who can work collaboratively to think critically,make ethical and moral decisions, and solve problems [3]. The science and engineering practicesdescribed by the Next Generation Science Standards [4] can provide a framework for teachers toengage their students in
(often surface-level) similarities betweenindividuals. A good match can provide essential support, whereas a poor match can leave anindividual feeling continued (or increased) isolation. Because of differences in cultural capitalbetween various identity-defined populations, even the initial ability to access the support is apotential issue beyond the quality of the match itself [1]. There are fewer URMs in STEMcompared to other populations [2], and thus, limited individuals to serve in these capacities whenseeking demographics-based matches.In previous work, the authors developed a profile format for role models (STEM alumni of apredominantly white institution who identified as URMs) to communicate their personal andprofessional narratives to
motivation, and negative emotions on both student andprofessional teams can be linked to misunderstanding caused by communication errors,specifically differences in how individuals interpret language used by team members [1][2][3]. Asource of this problematic interpretation results from use of ambiguous terminology, oftenrelated to probability (i.e “probably”, “maybe”, “often”, “unlikely”) or time (i.e “ASAP”,“soon”, “right away”), but can also include other wording that is somewhat vague inunderstanding (“good”, “alright”, “bad”). Brewer and Holmes previously investigated ambiguousterminology and the variability of responses across both probability and time-based languageambiguity and whether a relationship existed across demographics (specifically
represent 38% of astudent’s time in the degree, the expected proportion of pre-construction students to allconstruction students is approximately 40% of the population. Figure 1 presents the program’senrollment trends over the last nine years, which shows the unexpectedly high proportion of pre-majors to matriculated majors.The pre-construction program was introduced when the degree was modified from an IndustrialTechnology major to an Engineering Technology/Construction Management major, it wasinitially implemented as a series of pre-requisites to take upper level courses. When the pre-construction program was modified to be a pre-major program in the Fall 2014 Catalog (so thatstudents enrolling in the Construction - Matriculated
whitepaper on the future of the Division. As part of hisstudy for the whitepaper the author responded [1] to nine comments in the Division’s fourthhandbook [2] on a previously published paper by him on “Why technological literacy and forwhom? [3]The principal axiom drawn from this analysis was that “the general aims or purposes ofprograms in engineering and technological literacy are far from clear, and in so far as they aredeclared or implicit, are a function of the audience to whom the course or program isdirected”.In order to better understand the problem a comparative study is made with an innovativecurriculum in liberal studies that took place in the UK, as they are roughly analogous. Itconfirms that any attempt to develop technological
drawupon the skills they learn in Statics throughout their engineering education. Students with astrong understanding of statics will likely have an easier time with related and more challengingconcepts in subsequent courses. Specifically, Statics has been shown to be an effective predictorof how students will perform in Dynamics [1], and instructors in Capstone Design courses oftenstate that lacking an understanding of statics concepts hinders achievement in design [2]. It istherefore worthwhile to examine common teaching practices in Statics and to developinstructional methods that will enable students to confidently apply the skills they learn in Staticsto a wide variety of engineering problems.In many courses – Statics as well as others – it
study the experiences of students on teams that have the goal of participating in anational or international competition versus those of students on non-competition teams. Usingsurvey data from students in the project ecosystem, paired with institutional data on studentdemographics, we conduct an exploratory analysis to understand whom our projects ecosystem isserving.IntroductionProject-based learning is often used in engineering classes to allow students to practicecollaboration, communication, and teamwork. These skills are considered essential professionalskills in the field of engineering and are often emphasized in engineering education curriculums[1]. At the University of California, Irvine, (UCI) students in the Department of Mechanical
, then move on to discuss transitioning from bell-curve gradingto specifications grading in a statistics class, and finally creating a first-year engineering coursefrom scratch using specifications grading. In all three cases, the move to specifications gradingtook a few twists and turns, but overall, we plan to continue to use specifications grading.Through the diversity of course types, we hope to show how specifications grading can be usedflexibly in different types and levels of engineering courses. As we explain, in each case studythere are particular goals, benefits, and challenges of specifications grading in different types ofcourses that can help faculty guide implementation.Case StudiesCase Study 1: Senior Capstone DesignAt a small
correlated with amotivation. However, amotivation was buffered by the intervention condition; students in the intervention condition did not have their performance affected by their amotivation. Students in the control condition still did. This work is supported by NSF grant 1540627.IntroductionThe demand for engineers in the market is increasing as technology continues to increase incomplexity. However, college students in engineering fields often experience decreases inmotivation due to loss of interest and reduced competence beliefs [1, 2], which leads to thereduced retention in an engineering major and career [3].Motivation is an important component in predicting a variety of academic outcomes such asperformance
and opportunities for improvement, we highlighttargets for future research. The paper concludes by laying a groundwork for future inquiry in thecontext of this Statics study abroad program.Why Statics? Statics acts as a critical, core course for a number of engineering disciplines both withinPUWL curricula and more broadly among engineering institutions [1]. Some describe Statics as a‘gatekeeper’ course, a bottleneck in student’s curricular pathways that can make-or-break theirgraduation timeline, potentially deterring students from continuing their engineering studies in theprocess [2]. Statics acts as a curricular lynchpin, and access to Statics courses can drasticallyinfluence students’ enrollment decisions during their early years
outlined in the present work provides positive experiences for students and potentiallymore fully prepares them for success beyond the classroom. Importantly, because assigning teamsmight be perceived as disempowering to students—at least initially—engineering educators shouldwork to be transparent in their team formation practices and explain to students the rationale forsuch approaches.1. Introduction As engineering students graduate and enter the workforce, they are expected to possess numerous skills necessary for long-term success in the field. Chief among them is the ability to work collaboratively in teams [1]. This is because modern engineering practice requires proper collaboration and communication. It is therefore not surprising
writing prompt: personal experiences with biasWhile discussions of bias and limitations in model-based reasoning appear in analytical problemsthroughout the course, the main intervention took place during an open-ended team project thatoccurred after the first midterm. As part of the intervention, students were asked to writereflections about their own experiences of bias. They were instructed to choose one of the twofollowing prompts: 1. Please describe a time when you, or someone you know, were personally impacted by bias in an engineering design. What was the value to society the design was intended to create? How did bias affect how the design worked for you (or the person you know)? How did this impact you (or the person you
critical to success in follow-up mechanics courses andupper-level engineering courses. Data has been collected on students’ performance onhomework, quizzes and exams, and on the students’ thoughts on learning and course delivery.Thus far, we have concluded that the use of traditional hand-written homework, frequentassessment via quizzes [1], or the Pearson Mastering Engineering [2] software for formativeassessment did not have a significant impact on students’ performance on exams. It was alsoobserved that neither traditional nor online homework scores correlated well with exam scores;however, in-class quizzes did correlate with final exam scores. More recently, using theMastering Engineering Online system, specifically the inclusion of the
these materials were investigated. During the concluding ceremony of theSAMS program, a mini-symposium-style final project presentation gave students the opportunityto share their results and educate their peers about their insights on the role of sustainableengineering in their respective domain.IntroductionThe development of pipelines for students to introduce them to STEM careers before college andto increase their confidence in STEM-related skills is the key for the students’ success [1-5]. In2001, the Summer Academy for Math and Science (SAMS) program at Carnegie MellonUniversity was established to provide opportunities for rising high school seniors fromunderrepresented communities (i.e., students that belong to one or more of the
. Overall, the course aims to teach students analog/digitalsensing technologies, actuation hardware, Proportional-Integral-Derivative control, andmicrocontroller software implementation from a system-level teaching approach ensuring cross-functional debugging skills for each lab. This approach can be advantageous towards studentscompleting their semester project in the design and development of their own mechatronicsystem.IntroductionFrom agricultural to space exploration, mechatronics is an important branch of engineering forunderstanding and solving complex multidisciplinary problems. The engineering workforce hasdemanded more of engineers acquiring mechatronic skills as our society expands for moreintegrative technical products and services [1
the field ofBME where advancements are often made at the interface of materials, electrical, mechanical,and medical knowledge. Moreover, today’s biomedical engineers must be capable problem-solvers who are comfortable working in multidisciplinary teams within the design process.Traditional educational approaches, which leverage standard lecture-style dissemination of siloedinformation with limited hands-on project and design experience, are not sufficiently preparingour graduates for success in the interdisciplinary, project-focused world [1]. At UVM,foundational technical content is currently taught across the departments of MechanicalEngineering, Civil Engineering, and Electrical Engineering. In the new curriculum, these topicswill be
andevaluate the outcomes of the cooperation. The development of a survey to monitor thestudents’ thinking is presented and other possible evaluation tools and needs are discussed.Rationale for cooperationThere are several different motives for university-school collaboration resulting in manydifferent types of cooperation programs [1]. The driving forces for starting the presentedcooperation were the town school district’s wish to better contextualise school teaching andmake better use of the expertise available in local university, as well as university’s hopes toserve the local community and to increase the local pupils’ interests towards engineering andbusiness careers and education at LUT University. Both parties also had the interest ofenhancing
process, conducted proposal-writing workshops; Co-facilitator (2004), Boston East Pipeline Network; and Alumni, Lead Boston 2004 (The National Conference for Community and Justice). She won the 2006 Northeastern University Aspiration Award, and was recognized at the 2003 Northeastern University Reception honoring Principal Investigators that obtained funding in excess of $1 million over a five-year period.Mrs. Jennifer Ocif Love, Northeastern University Jennifer Love is a full-time faculty member of Northeastern University’s First Year Engineering Program in the College of Engineering. She is currently working toward a doctorate in education at Northeastern University with her research focusing on preK-20 engineering
knowledge was broughtinto and out of a hackathon and did not address the process in which students worked on projects(La Place et al., 2017).MethodsTo extend the previous knowledge transfer work and software development work, we offer thefollowing research questions: 1. What technical knowledge do students use in capstones and hackathons? 2. Where do students learn the knowledge used in capstones and hackathons? 3. How does the software development process used by students differ between capstone and hackathon projects?This is a qualitative pilot study meant to fuel future research on knowledge transfer betweenhackathons and academic experiences. The nature of hackathons often results in participantsdesigning and developing a project
Paper ID #29099Building Capacity to Promote STEAM in Communities - The impact ofprofessional development for teachers, instructors and staff members –Work in Progress –Mr. Marcelo Caplan, Columbia College Marcelo Caplan - Associate Professor, Department of Science and Mathematics, Columbia College Chicago. In addition to my teaching responsibilities, I am involved in the outreach programs and activities of the department. I am the coordinator of three outreach programs 1) the NSF-ISE project ”Scientists for To- morrow” which goal is to promote Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) learning in community centers
into the structure of science education by “raising engineeringdesign to the same level as scientific inquiry” [1] presents new challenges for science teachers.While teachers generally support higher standards and effective instruction, few have theopportunity to develop their content knowledge and pedagogical skills in ways that translate intoclassroom practice. Summer research experience programs aim to build long-term collaborativepartnerships with STEM teachers by involving them in research and introducing them to themost current developments in engineering and science. Opportunities for high school scienceand pre-engineering teachers to participate in bioengineering research projects providesprofessional development, improved
understand how middle school students’ interests and perceptions ofengineering are influenced by an out-of-school engineering experience and influences theircareer beliefs. Using a Holland’s theory of career choice, the preliminary analysis of this datahelped us identify student cases that demonstrate the complex relationships between students’changing perceptions of engineering, their interests, and beliefs about their future career. Thispaper shares two cases that represents the eighty-six percent of student profiles from themakerspace experience: (1) students with initial low interests and self-efficacy who demonstratehigh situational interests; and (2) students with high interests and uncertain self-efficacy whodemonstrate improved fit between
years, this paper will begin to identify problematic conceptsand common errors students have about the course concepts.BackgroundEngineering knowledge and expertise is often defined as the ability to solve complex and ill-structured problems. In order to prepare engineering students for this reality, engineering coursesare often designed with embedded problem-solving activities regardless of discipline oracademic level. For disciplines such as mechanical, biomedical, civil, aerospace and oceanengineering, knowledge of mechanics concepts is fundamental. However, years of research havedemonstrated that students continue to experience difficulties understanding these concepts at theconceptual level [1-3]. Conceptual change researchers have
assignments. Students then have the opportunity to demonstratemastery of the LOs several times throughout the term. Instead of traditional summativeassessment, this approach aligns the student assessment with mastery of the desired outcomes.SBG allows for student and instructor monitoring of LO mastery and emphasizes the learningrather than earning points.1 Additionally, SBG allows for individualized instruction that adaptsthe course material to address students’ weaknesses in a just-in-time fashion.While used widely in K-12, we are just now beginning to assess SBG in higher education inengineering.2 Recent work by Carberry, et al. has uncovered best practices associated with SBGthat are leveraged in our work, including tracking a small number of