studentsenrolled in the course, much of infrastructure is necessary for maintaining the course. Ourapproach in implementing M&I was to make gradual changes in all these areas.M&I was first offered at Georgia Tech as a small, pilot section of about 40 students, taught by apost-doctoral fellow hired expressly for the purpose of assisting in implementing and teachingthe curriculum. As shown in Table 1, the number and size of lecture sections using the M&Icurriculum have expanded since then. By spring 2008, approximately 30 percent of students Page 13.707.3enrolled in the introductory physics sequence were in M&I-based sections. The number
education for student growth and societal advances. While directing the Micro Medical Device Engineering Research Labo- ratory (M.D. – ERL), she has managed, as PI or co-PI, ˜$13 million, yielding 93 research graduates*, a patent, and >100 publications [*12 PhDs (64% women, 18%UR)]. Her favorite quote is by Ray Mc- Dermott, ”Culture is not a past cause to a current self. Culture is the current challenge to possible future selves.”Sonia Goltz, Michigan Tech Sonia Goltz earned her PhD in industrial/organizational psychology at Purdue University and is the Mickus Endowed Faculty Fellow of Business Impact in the College of Business at Michigan Tech, where she has served as Co-PI on two NSF ADVANCE grants.andrew storer
, Computing, and Applied Sciences at Clemson University. His work focuses on how technology supports knowledge building and transfer in a range of learning environments. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Examining the motivations and experiences of transfer students participating in an undergraduate research courseAbstractIn this paper, we use both quantitative and qualitative methods to examine transfer student’s in ascholarship program to better understand their university experiences and what drives them tosucceed. The Student Pathways in Engineering and Computing for Transfers (SPECTRA)program is an NSF S-STEM (Award#1834081) that aims to aid students in their transfer fromtwo
Paper ID #27333Partners in Professional Development: Initial Results from a CollaborationBetween Universities, Training Programs, and Professional SocietiesDr. Katy Luchini-Colbry, Michigan State University Katy Luchini-Colbry is the Assistant Dean for Graduate Student Services at the College of Engineering at Michigan State University, where she completed degrees in political theory and computer science. A recipient of a NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, she earned Ph.D. and M.S.E. in computer science and engineering from the University of Michigan. She has published more than two dozen peer-reviewed works related to her
especially concerning for female students if perceptions of ability or previous experiencekeep them from claiming or being granted leadership roles on their teams. Prior studies call formore research around increasing team members’ “role repertoires” or the number of different rolesan individual can take on based on what is needed by the team as a potential benefit to teamperformance [9].The connection between increasing diversity in STEM fields, student retention, and students’ability to practice different team roles during their undergraduate careers is worth investigating.According to the University of Colorado Boulder, since 2010 the number of female students inundergraduate engineering degrees has risen while their retention and graduation
selecting one classification over another, and the impact that decision can haveon their research and the populations being researched. They highlight the importance of askingparticipants to choose how they prefer to identify. Hence, we considered that this study cancontinue this conversation by providing an overview of how engineering students identify andreflect on the use of the different terminology.MethodsAs the purpose of this work is to explore the perspectives of engineering students that identify ashaving Latin American origin, regarding the ways in which they identify themselves and howothers seek to label them, this pilot study analyzed both quantitative and qualitative data toimplement the beginnings of a case study. A pilot study
, “Putting diversity in perspective: A critical cultural historical context for representation in engineering,” Jun. 2017. doi: 10.18260/1-2--28776.[3] M. Newsome, “Colleges now produce fewer Black graduates in math and engineering,” The Hechinger Report, Apr. 12, 2021. http://hechingerreport.org/even-as-colleges-pledge-to- improve-share-of-engineering-graduates-who-are-black-declines/ (accessed Feb. 15, 2023).[4] S. A. Elkins, J. M. Braxton, and G. W. James, “Tinto’s separation stage and its influence on first-semester college student persistence,” Res. High. Educ., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 251–68, 2000.[5] K. M. Whitcomb and C. Singh, “Underrepresented minority students receive lower grades and have higher rates of attrition
climate change effects their motivations and agency to solve complex global problems for a sustainability in their career.Dr. Allison Godwin, Purdue University, West Lafayette Allison Godwin, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Engineering Education at Purdue University. Her research focuses what factors influence diverse students to choose engineering and stay in engineering through their careers and how different experiences within the practice and culture of engineering foster or hinder belongingness and identity development. Dr. Godwin graduated from Clemson University with a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and Ph.D. in Engineering and Science Education. She is the recipient of a 2014 American Society for Engineering
unable to meet highexpectations. They tend to demand less academically and behaviorally, which translates intofewer opportunities to achieve and a decreased chance of graduating and going on to highereducation. As an example of this belief system, one teacher at a low-income school once said ofher students [6]: “We need to tell them, ‘You’re not all going to college.’ Some are not collegematerial and we should tell them that. They should set lower goals and follow them.” To combat this issue found in many underserved communities, we designed andimplemented a number of after school programs for at-risk elementary, middle, and high schoolstudents who have expressed or demonstrated interest in any aspect of science, technology,engineering and/or
carefully limited in scope to focus on a particular phenomenon or method of interest, and datais specified such that there is only one "right answer". Students have become acculturated to thishighly structured environment, which is not a good representation of real engineering. A primarygoal in this course is the integrated presentation of all the thermal-fluid disciplines, as well asothers such as materials, mechanics and economics, in a project which requires a "systems"treatment. This invariably requires computer modeling of the system to permit parametric analysisand tradeoff studies, both technical and economic. This task is alien to most students at the juniorlevel and many struggle with it, while others relish the challenge. After becoming
byextensive field testing, materials design, and a research program, of which this study is a part.The curriculum units foster opportunities for middle-school children in OST settings to becomeengineers and solve problems that are identified as “personally meaningful and globallyrelevant” [20]. Each unit has been developed to include fourteen Curricular Design Principles forInclusivity [21], identified through previous research studies to support student learning, in fouroverarching categories: Set learning in a real-world context, present design challenges that areauthentic to engineering practice, scaffold student work, and demonstrate that everyone canengineer. The Curricular Design Principles are detailed under Findings in Table 3. There
Institute of Medicine, Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America's Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2011.[2] B. M. Ferdman. (2013, 1 December 2015). Diversity at work: the practice of inclusion in diverse organizations.[3] Cech, E. A., & Waidzunas, T. J. (2011). Navigating the heteronormativity of engineering: The experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. Engineering Studies, 3(1), 1-24.[4] Cech, E. A., & Rothwell, W. R. (2018). LGBTQ Inequality in Engineering Education. Journal of Engineering Education, 107(4), 583-610.[5] Patridge, E. V., Barthelemy, R. S., & Rankin, S. R. (2014). Factors impacting the academic
engineering design studentsAbstractThis evidence-based practice paper describes the use of creativity practice exercises intended toenhance student creativity in a capstone design program. Engineering programs, in general, andcapstone design programs, in particular, that seek innovative conceptual solutions to complexproblems would benefit from techniques to develop and assess student creativity. Therefore, astudy was performed to evaluate two such techniques. Over the first two years of the study,capstone design students in the United States Air Force Academy’s Department of EngineeringMechanics were each assigned to one of 14 teams which received various learning experiences(treatments) intended to enhance individual creativity and design project
communication, identity, design, and organizational ethics.Mr. Sean M Eddington, Brian Lamb School of Communication - Purdue Sean Eddington is a doctoral student in the Brian Lamb School of Communication studying organizational communication. He earned his B.A. in History from Purdue University, and his M.S. from Northwest Missouri State University. Sean’s research interests exist at the intersections of organizational communi- cation, online organizing, resilience, and gender. He has researched new engineering faculty experiences throughout their on-boarding process, and has been published in 2015 Proceedings of the American Soci- ety for Engineering Education along with his research team. Eddington has also served as a
populations as well as many technical and non-technicalextracurricular opportunities. The survey will be sent to all undergraduate engineering studentsclassified as sophomores or juniors in the semester of the initial survey administration. The surveywas piloted with a group of undergraduate and graduate engineering students at this university infall 2019 and early spring 2020. The initial survey administration was conducted in spring 2020.Survey Measures. The survey will capture the types and extent of student involvement in variouscategories of extracurricular activities [25]–[27]. Students will select their involvements from alist of types of involvement (e.g., ambassador program, engineering/technical/design, professionalsociety, identity-based
interventions were developed: (i)the use of international engineering case studies ina quantitative analysis course,(ii) the intentional formation of multinational student design teamswithin a capstone design course, (iii) a Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL)research project in a transport phenomena course, and (iv) an engineering course coupled to acommunity-engaged project. The research aims to address the following questions: 1. To what extent can global competence be developed in engineering students through the use of the proposed global engagement interventions? 2. What are the relative strengths of each of the proposed global engagement interventions in developing global engineering competence?For this project, the
Education,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 105–115, Apr. 2004.[5] S. Ferguson and R. W. Foley, “Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes and ABET Accreditation: A Pilot Study of Fourth-Year Engineering Students using Longitudinal Concept Maps,” presented at the 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, OH, 2019.[6] ABET, “Rationale for Revising Criteria 3 and 5,” 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/accreditation-alerts/rationale-for- revising-criteria-3/. [Accessed: 19-Dec-2016].[7] R. W. Foley, L. M. Archambault, A. E. Hale, and H.-K. Dong, “Learning Outcomes in Sustainability Education Among Future Elementary School Teachers,” Journal of
’ Success and Persistence. Journal of Engineering Education. October 2005, pp. 419-425.10. Zhang, G., Anderson, T., Ohland, M., and Thorndyke, B. Identifying Factors Influencing Student Graduation: A Longitudinal, Cross-Institutional Study. Journal of Engineering Education. October 2004, pp. 313-320.11. Seymour, E., Hewitt, N. (1997) Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Westview Press.12. Arnet, J. (2004). Emerging Adulthood: The Winding Road from the Late Teens through the Twenties. Oxford University Press.13. Frank, M., Lavy, I., and Elata, D., Implementing the Project-Based Learning Approach in an Academic Engineering Course. Journal of International Journal of Technology and Design
of an engineering identity.The work presented here addresses this gap through a sequential, mixed-methods study. Theoverall goal of this study is to construct a grounded theory of engineering leadership as acomponent of the professional formation of undergraduate engineers. Informed by an analysis ofnational data, the grounded theory approach will lead to an explanatory model of engineeringleadership identity development. An initial application of the model will develop and test a seriesof educational interventions, enabling engineering educators to more effectively train engineeringstudents in leadership. In the first phase, existing national data sets of college students are analyzedusing quantitative methods to better understand how
Paper ID #37161Student perspectives on engineering design, decision-making,adaptability, and support in capstone designMs. Shruti Misra, University of Washington I am a graduate student in Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Washington, Seattle. My research interest is broadly focused on studying innovation in university-industry partnerships. I am interesting in various ways that universitiesDr. Denise Wilson, University of Washington Denise Wilson is a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Washington, Seattle. Her research interests in engineering education focus on the role of self
at Virginia Tech, his research focused on understanding engineering career choice in the Appalachian region of the United States. Matthew is currently employed as an engineer at Bledsoe Telephone Cooperative, a rural telecommunications service provider in Pikeville Tennessee.Dr. Holly M Matusovich, Virginia Tech Dr. Matusovich is an Assistant Professor and Assistant Department Head for Graduate Programs in Vir- ginia Tech’s Department of Engineering Education. She has her doctorate in Engineering Education and her strengths include qualitative and mixed methods research study design and implementation. She is/was PI/Co-PI on 8 funded research projects including a CAREER grant. She has won several Virginia Tech
. Web: IGI Global, 2012, pp. 1–26.[6] G. Wiggins and J. McTighe, “What is backward design?,” in Understanding by Design., 1st editio., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall, 2001, pp. 7–19.[7] U. of F. Heavener School of Business, “Business Administration | General Studies | BABA.” [Online]. Available: https://catalog.ufl.edu/UGRD/colleges- schools/UGBUS/BAG_BABA/#academiclearningcompacttext.[8] U. of F. Fisher School of Accounting, “Accounting.” [Online]. Available: https://catalog.ufl.edu/UGRD/colleges-schools/UGACT/ACT_BSAC/#academiclearningcompacttext.[9] C. Atman, R. Adams, and M. Cardella, “Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners,” J
experiences, new types of pressures may impact both students and their families. Toidentify some of the pressures that should be anticipated when introducing a new program, thisexploratory case study focused on the hopes, concerns, and fears of the first cohort of studentsenrolled in the first semester of a pilot program at the Purdue Polytechnic Institute – a new multi-disciplinary, hands-on, competency-based program. Since students do not act in isolation,additional considerations are given to expectations and concerns of their parents, and facultyresponse to those concerns. Students and parents were surveyed, and in-depth interviews wereconducted with both students and faculty. Qualitative and quantitative analyses found that whilethe majority of
, many of the existing studiesrely on quantitative surveys so the relative importance of factors are based only on the factorspre-determined to be relevant, i.e., participants can only answer questions about the factors theyare asked about. Because no single framework currently appears sufficient to adequately explainthe unique set of challenges Appalachian students face related to engineering as a career choice,we are embarking on a broader qualitative study of potential factors that draws on known factorsbut also explores potential interactions as well as areas not well accounted for in existingtheories.In light of this goal, this paper focuses on the development of appropriate interview protocols(high school, college and working professionals
Society.Desen Sevi Ozkan, Virginia Tech Desen is a Ph.D. student in Engineering Education at Virginia Tech and holds a B.S. in Chemical Engi- neering from Tufts University.Hannah Claire Strom, Virginia Tech I am currently a Sophomore Undergraduate in Chemical Engineering with an intended Spanish minor at Virginia Tech. I am participating in Undergraduate Research with the Engineering Education department and intend to study Engineering Education in graduate school. I have previously worked as a grader for the Foundations of Engineering Class and assisted teaching Matlab once a week. I also work as a peer mentor for incoming freshman through the Center for Enhancement of Engineering Diversity. I wish to explore more about
even parents, should also be aware that young students areable to engage in engineering practices such as evidence-based reasoning. This study also pointsto an important scaffolding tool to help young students build their EBR skills, using the question“Why?”LimitationsThis study followed three classrooms during a pilot implementation of an integrated STEM andliteracy curriculum for Kindergarten students. Teachers were using the curriculum for the firsttime and the curriculum was not in its final state. Classroom 1 did not have the fullimplementation video recorded so may have had additional instances of EBR in the classroom atother times.AcknowledgementsThe material presented is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation
Educational Organization and Leadership; Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction).Dr. Ali Ansari, University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign Ali Ansari is a Teaching Assistant Professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He holds a Masters and Ph.D in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and graduated from Southern Methodist University with a degree in Electrical Engineering. Ali has been teaching for the past two years at Bucknell University in both the Biomedical Engineering and Electrical and Computer Engineering and been focusing on student focused pedagogy centered around Game-based learning techniques.Wayne L Chang, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Wayne Chang is an
of learning from school into professional practice as well as exploring students’ conceptions of diversity and its importance within engineering fields.Ms. Allyson Jo Ironside, Oregon State University Ally Ironside is a recent graduate from LeTourneau University where she studied Water Resources in Civil Engineering. She is currently fusing her technical background with her passion for education in pursuing a doctoral degree in Civil Engineering while conducting research in Engineering Education at Oregon State University. Her research interests include the adoption of teaching best practices in engineering and the personal epistemology development students.Dr. Nathaniel Hunsu, University of Georgia Nathaniel
classroombelonging, but the more factors evident the greater the likelihood that a student would experiencethe feeling of classroom belonging.5.5 LimitationsThis study suffers from many of the drawbacks of pilot work. The sample size was small,meaning that effect sizes had to be quite large to register as statistically significant. This can beremedied through expansion to a broader base of students and additional institutions. Thesestudents were from only a handful of majors (mostly mechanical and civil engineering) andresults might differ significantly through inclusion of other majors.The engineering identity measure (EI) is new and adapted from Godwin et al.’s (2016)definitional work and has not been qualified as a valid and reliable measurement scale
One uses arithmeticaland algebraic principles to understand sentences as equations with the parts of speech asvariables. Level Two focuses on more complex applications of “sentence algebra” to helpengineering writers troubleshoot common sentence-level errors and develop a clear, discipline-specific style. Level Three uses flowcharts as algorithms to teach the rhetoric behind effectivedocument structures. The system’s quantitative approach and bottom-up paradigm make it user-friendly for engineering students by guiding their ascent toward writing mastery using anapproach already encountered in the students’ studies of math, physics, chemistry, and otherSTEM disciplines. The author is encapsulating this new math-based approach for