own historical performance in feedbackand not compare with their peers. Since similar to leaderBoard, RPG competition among studentsmay frustrate lagged students to lead fixed mindset trend. One of characters of students with fixedmindset is they feel threatened by the success of others 1 .3.1 Experience Points (XP) and LevelsIn RPGs, experience points (XP) and levels are often used to reward players and demonstrate theirprogress through the game. Players earn XP and level up by accomplishing tasks such asdefeating enemies, overcome obstacles, pick up trophies, etc. We design XP and levels in asimilar way but in an educational context.The first design consideration is whether XP/levels are applicable for only a single course
. engineering The program has helped me feel more confident about my ability to do computer programming. The program has helped me feel more confident about my ability to record and analyze data. The program has helped me understand options for further education in science and engineering. The program has helped me understand options for future careers in science and engineering. Perceptions of the Please write three words or short phrases that best describe your program experience in the program. Which aspects of the program did you
engineering through the exploration of: 1) race, gender, and identity in the engineering workplace; 2) discipline-based education research (with a focus on computer science and computer engineering courses) in order to inform pedagogical practices that garner interest and retain women and minorities in computer-related engineering fields.Dr. Matthew W. Ohland, Purdue University at West Lafayette Matthew W. Ohland is Associate Head and Professor of Engineering Education at Purdue University. He has degrees from Swarthmore College, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the University of Florida. His research on the longitudinal study of engineering students, team assignment, peer evaluation, and active and collaborative
theyengage with business and community facilitators to discuss how they will apply their learningtoward being effective principled leaders as they transition to the next phase of their lives [6].”Annually in the fall, senior students take part in a leadership day where they attend a workshop,often at local companies and interface with working professionals to work through a variety ofwork place issues and ethic case studies. These workshops include discussion of peer andsupervisor interactions, ethical treatment of customers and clients, individual ethical behavior inthe work place, and reporting of suspicious or fraudulent behavior.Engineering students participate in a two semester senior year design capstone experience, ethicsis again addressed in
guided discussions aboutsustainable electronics, each participant’s research progress, and connecting the research processto science standards and curricula. These guided discussions provided an important opportunityfor peer mentoring (teacher participants providing some mentoring for each other), as well asmentoring from the program directors at Purdue University and Tuskegee University. The guideddiscussion occurred via teleconference between teachers on the two university campuses. Thesementoring activities supplemented the research specific mentoring from faculty and graduatestudents. At the end of the program, teachers prepared a technical report, detailing their researchfindings and proposed curricula, and also made oral
Assistant in the Product Design & Development Lab at Texas Tech University. He has published multiple peer-reviewed publications and conference proceedings addressing the topics of Communication in Design, Creativity and Innovation, and Engineering Education. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Exploring the Relationship among Gender Composition, Activity Structure, and Brainstorming Novelty AbstractIdeation is a critical stage in the engineering design process and has substantial impacts ondownstream decision making. As a result, a better understanding of the factors that positivelycontribute to
two of those scholars to participate in proposal writing activities. Further,several REU scholars have started graduate programs in materials science and engineeringnationwide, with two scholars starting their research at OSU and another scholar applying to ourgraduate program for Fall 2020. One of the significant impacts of this program was in groomingundergraduate engineering and science students to pursue interdisciplinary research with astrong-base in materials science and engineering. We believe that this is critical for developing aworkforce to address global grand challenges in energy, aerospace, medicine, environmentalsustainability and maintain technological leadership position of developed and developingcountries in the 21st
and experiences with team projects that emulate those inindustry. Martin acknowledged a trend in computing education where most software thatstudents write for programming assignments “never see the light of day.” Consequently, Martinargued that “toy projects” that have no real customers or use outside of the classroom areharmful [8].Likewise, Nurkkala and Brandle assessed common gaps between common software engineering“toy projects” and real software practice, explaining: A student project is just that—a project. It is not a product in any meaningful, commercial sense. Such a nonproduct escapes the scrutiny of sales, marketing, and customer relations. It also is isolated from external forces like press reviews, competing
experiments, results, and problems encountered; 2) students had the opportunity toreceive feedback on their work from other faculty mentors in the program (not just their ownassigned mentor) in a collegial, low-pressure setting and to observe how scientific dialogueoccurs in practice; and 3) students had the opportunity to learn about what their peers in theprogram are working on, with the goal of giving them a better appreciation for the breadth ofresearch in the field. An additional goal of the check-ins was for the crosstalk that occurredbetween mentors (and students) in these group meetings also helped students to see commonthreads between the various research approaches and scales among the different projects.At the conclusion of the 10-week REU
preferred having consecutive[evaluation] sessions throughout the semester rather than a just single one at the end. The inclusionof a series of sessions will respond to student learning needs and support their academic growthand development. This insight provides valuable feedback that will help inform futureimplementation and modification of the assessment scheme. “I like the idea of having a point-scale assessment sheet because it puts every student on the same level. In my other classes I feel inferior to my peers because I know they’re smarter than me. But with this assessment, I feel at their level and more confident learning the material.” “I just love the idea of focusing on learning. Grades definitely add more stress.” “Took off
started totake more leadership roles in the program, created their own student organization recognized byuniversity, organized and hosted leadership and professional development activities, organicallydeveloped peer-tutoring during daily study hour in the designated room, and teamed up with variousscience and technology events oriented towards regional public school districts.Eventually, data talks! Figure 3.1 shows from the S-STEM project reporting site shows the impact ofthe project. During the first four years of the project, we awarded a scholarship to 68 eligible andqualified students, with 55 of them graduated by Spring 2019. Among the 16 scholars in theprogram, six of them graduated in Dec. 2019 and the remaining will graduate in May 2020
students’ GitHub repositories and instantly autogrades their project checkpoints. This does not just let students get instant feedback about their progress, but also allows them to resubmit as often as they like before the deadline, which in turn incentivizes them to start early. 12. Constant feedback collection – The instructor introduced in the Spring semester a link that students can always access to provide their feedback anonymously about anything concerning the course. It consisted of a Qualtrics survey that has on box where they can write whatever they want and submit it. The instructor check their feedback once or twice per week and tried to address their concerns as much as possible
, engineers, ambassadors, or role models)directing affirming comments towards students or explicitly telling them they could be engineers[11], or in more subtle ways, like peers seeking one’s help with engineering.Gendered Engineering Identity Development. Though this paper primarily utilizes Godwin andcolleagues’ [8] work to conceptualize our emergent findings, other researchers have createdframeworks to focus on specific populations of students. Capobianco and colleagues et al. [2]focus on the formation of engineering identity in female students, identifying girls’ sense ofacademic identity, school identity, occupational identity, and engineering aspirations as shapingtheir engineering identities, with academic identity and engineering aspirations
for them. Even if they don’t get feedback from employers, there are peer advisors, faculty, staff, and alumni who are happy to work with them to provide input and support throughout their search.Theme 2: Finding the Right OptionsMany students reported that they chose Mechanical Engineering because of the breadth ofopportunities that it presented, then struggled to identify the opportunities that would be mostrelevant or most interesting to them. That issue was compounded by both the hidden job market(i.e.: small companies often don’t post and promote positions in the same way large companiesdo) and the lack of specificity in job postings, with second and third-year engineering studentsoften not having the base of knowledge yet to
Paper ID #31031Equity, Inclusion and Ethics: Adapting a Mentoring Curriculum to Developan Ethics Workshop for Engineering StudentsDr. 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 interests in educational
(e.g., Paul, Parker).Theme 1: From expressing individual abilities to serving a broader purposeAs demonstrated in their reflective writings, the students shifted in their understandings of theiridentities as engineers. At the beginning of the term, students described their choice to major inan engineering degree field as an expression of their individual abilities or interests. Forexample, Hector initially reflected how he had entered engineering based on a childhood wherehe would “take things apart and put them back together.” His interest in working directly withtechnology was further galvanized through participation in a series of high school roboticscourses. Generally, several other students identified with Hector’s trajectory. Many
pursuing a B.S. degree in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineer- ing at Oklahoma State University. She has been associated with the OSU Industrial Assessment Center since 2019. Her areas of interest include manufacturing, energy systems, and renewable energy.Dr. Michael L McCombs, Oklahoma State University Dr. Michael L. McCombs Dr. McCombs is Associate Professor of Professional Practice in the Division of Engineering Technology at Oklahoma State University (OSU). He earned a PhD in technical rhetoric at OSU in 2018 and an MA degree in technical writing at Minnesota State University in 2005. Dr. McCombs is the assistant director of the OSU Industrial Assessment Center (IAC), where he has worked in various positions since
, learning environment, andacademic concern. The TA section includes an overall rating for the teaching assistant (TA). Atthe end of each section, a “Comments/Suggestions” box is included, where the students areencouraged to write their comments. These surveys are administered typically at 1/3 (Week 5)and 2/3 (Week 10) of the semester.Based on the findings of each survey, the instructor makes a brief presentation during class,where the most frequent comments/issues are discussed along with actions to address them. Thethird survey further serves as a measure of the efficiency of the adopted actions from the secondsurvey. The fourth survey is administered by the university typically during Week 14 of thesemester and serves as a final assessment
use to sortperformances prior to giving the final course grade. In fact, the S-index that is reported on thedashboard represents this calculation based upon the work completed at that time. The portion ofthe S-index that comes from mastery is the M-index, which is also given on the dashboard. TheM-index is basically a weighted sum of the mastery bars and is designed to come out roughlyequal to the number of objectives mastered at the end of the semester. It does not represent thatearly in the semester but provides relative measure for students to gage their progress relative totheir peers in mastery alone.No matter what angle you take, it is not possible to determine course grade from mastery alone.But that is true for any course with
requiring the student to write in a response. The questionnaire was administered ninetimes during the course of the semester during weeks 3-5, 7-10, 14, and 15.Analysis: Questions 1-5 give insight into students’ learning orientation and to what extentstudents adopt a service mindset and are motivated by unique aspects of the interprofessionalPBSL project, such as its interprofessional and/or service components. Questions 6-14 giveinsight into students’ communication and teamwork skills.The analysis of qualitative data was conducted in two phases: a conventional content analysis ofME student responses to the open-ended questionnaire items (Phase I) and a directed contentanalysis of the ME student-generated Slack transcripts (Phase II). In Phase I
body responsible for accrediting all specialty andsubspecialty programs for physicians in the United States. The ACGME was founded in 1981 asa federation of several key medical organizations to include ABMS, American MedicalAssociation (AMA), Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), American OsteopathicAssociation (AOA), American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM), andthe Council of Medical Specialty Societies (CMSS)— each of which appoints members to theACGME's board of directors. Accreditation is achieved through a peer-review process overseenby volunteer physicians on 30 review committees [55].To accomplish its annual reviews of residency programs, the ACGME publishes institutionalrequirements [56], common
voluntarily joined the course. While in the training, they also had theopportunity to ask questions and create a community with other peers and faculty. This furthermotivated them to practice outside of class. Informed consent forms were collected on day oneand, after the students completed their final assessment and exit survey, a gift card and t-shirtwere issued to those with no more than two absences at the end of the course. The finalassessment was the PSVT-R [7] also. In Fall 2016, the authors invested in the videos created bySorby [5] which discussed the workbook chapter’s content. The videos were presented at thebeginning of each chapter and the authors learned from the students that this material facilitatedthe understanding of the modules to
hybrid continuous-episodic chapter management, growth and successprogram. The NRP programmatic structure serves as robust system to prepare Hispanics STEMprofessionals for the STEM workforce and ensure organizational mission fulfillment.Additionally, this study serves as an example of best practices for other peer chapter-based nationalengineering diversity organizations. The experience report is organized as follows. In Section 2,SHPE’s decade-long chapter continuous programming chronology is detailed from the EOYR toNRP version 3. The program’s strategic approach and corresponding required components arediscussed. Participation outcomes and lessons learned from the different iterations of the programsare discussed in Section 3. An outlook on