semester. In addition,students complete two peer reviews for each project they work on. Moreover, their writing andoral communication skills are assessed through weekly project updates and final presentations.Weekly reading quizzes are also developed from the biography of Steve Jobs (by WalterIsaacson), The Secret of Apollo (by Stephen B. Johnson), and Inviting Disaster: Learning fromthe edge of technology (by James R Chiles). The Biography of Steve Jobs provides a greatexample of the importance of collaboration in innovation and entrepreneurship. Students whojoin the program read this book during their first year in the program. Those students who areable and permitted to do a second year in the program read and take quizzes from Johnson’sbook
provided the big picture status of the project.Over the course of this project, students were successful in characterizing the dynamic forces andvibrations experienced via a design of experiments (Figure 2(a)). These results along with thegraduate mentor’s numerical analysis have been documented as a peer-reviewed conferenceproceeding [1] and eventually as an archival journal publication [2]. Students also finalized thedesign of an actuator and manufactured a functional prototype (Figure 2 (b) and (c)) along withperforming psychophysical tests to understand human perception to the vibration and its changes(Figure 2(d)). The human perception study provided useful information to determine theessential aspects of force and vibration that needed to be
component to data science is extracting the data in various ways. A very common method of collecting this data is through web-scraping various web pages. This workshop introduced students to the concept of web scraping and writing python scripts to automate this collection method. • High Performance Computing Workshop: A mechanical engineering professor at WTAMU hosted a workshop about high performance computing and the utility it has in a variety of disciplines. The students who participated had the opportunity to actually SSH into the WTAMU HPC cluster and run various distributed systems scripts. Tentative 2- Day Hackathon schedule can be found in Figure 1. Day Time
, which iswhy learning communities or cohorts have shown success in a student’s first year [17] especiallyfor underrepresented, first generation, or low-income students. In a recent study [17], a learningcommunity was built along with a summer immersion program, a peer mentoring program, and afirst-year experience course. The summer immersion program linked science and social justiceissues with hands-on activities and built a sense of belonging. The results showed increasedsuccess in the first year and those that participated were more likely to graduate. The study notedthat this type of community may not be appropriate for commuter populations if studentintegration cannot be balanced with maintaining connections to their home communities.Overall
in characterizing graduate-level attrition, persistence, and career trajectories; engineering writing and communication; and methodological development. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Work in Progress: Toward a Holistic Understanding of Engineering Student Success in Mechanical Engineering across Educational StagesAbstract: This WIP paper will present our results to date in conducting a multimethod single casestudy, which is appropriate for deeply understanding multiple stakeholder perspectives within abounded environment, in our case, the Department of Mechanical Engineering at PennsylvaniaState University. The in-progress goal of our team in Mechanical Engineering at
usable low word errorrates, the generated text output is an incomplete representation of a multi-party conversation; Inshort, it solves the “what” but not the “who.” This creates barriers to our ideal of an inclusive andequitable learning community. Thus students who are deaf or hard of hearing are furthermarginalized and excluded from multi-party peer discussions with non-deaf participants becauseit is hard to visually follow who is speaking. To address these communication barriers, weutilized the Human Centered Engineering Design framework to identify a set of features thatovercomes the above barriers. This paper explores computerized diarization techniques thatutilize a wide set of algorithms and audio metrics to assist in speaker
engineering and art designpractices. Others have reported and discussed the challenges inherent with teachinginterdisciplinary design.5,6 Though instructors who primarily teach in general education coursesmay be familiar with these challenges, the inclusion of co-teaching with an instructor out ofone’s discipline makes this a unique course design to provide general background to non-engineering and art students while continuing to emphasize the art and engineering designintersection.The general education capstone course is a culminating course, which requires students to workin an interdisciplinary theme on a project. Reflection, writing, and presentations are requiredlearning objective areas in the general education capstone course, though each
short profiles ofeach participant to elevate their unique stories and identities; the profiles were approved by theparticipants. Each chose a pseudonym for the study and some details about them are excludedintentionally to protect their privacy.Student ProfilesEsperanzaEsperanza was a sophomore student in the winter of 2022. She identifies as Christian, cis-gendered,female, heterosexual, and as multiracial and Hispanic but does not speak Spanish. Esperanza wasdiagnosed with a physical disability that causes nerve pain that impacts her hands and feet, whichaffects her ability to walk, write, and do lab work and results in physical exhaustion that requires her torest to recuperate. She also is affected by asthma and anxiety. She chose not to
explanations, opinion, judgment, etc Ind Individual thinking/problem solving. CG Discuss clicker question in groups of 2 or more students WG Working in groups on worksheet activity OG Other assigned group activity, such as responding to instructor question Prd Making a prediction about the outcome of demo or experiment SP Presentation by student(s) TQ Test or quiz W Waiting O Other – explain in comments Instructor is Doing Lec Lecturing RtW Real-time writing on board, doc. projector, etc. Fup Follow-up/feedback on clicker question or activity to entire class PQ Posing non-clicker question to students (non-rhetorical) CQ Asking a clicker question AnQ
questions and how they interacted with their peers during thediscussion. The students held steadfast to the discussion guidelines, exhibiting respect andconsideration for their fellow students, allowing for a deeper conversation. As the class consistsof senior engineering students, the expectation was that they would be able to identify theengineering failures, but may struggle with the discussion on racial inequities due to a lack ofexposure in previous engineering courses. Surprisingly, the students understood and articulatedthe impact of institutional discrimination on the events leading up to and response to HurricaneKatrina.However, not all of the students reviewed the reading material prior to class. Since a largeportion of the class had not
Theory uses a formalized network diagraming convention to model environmentalsettings [13]. The network diagram consists of a Subject, Mediating Artifacts, Object, andOutcome. The Subject uses external (LMS, computer devices) and internal (plans, strategies)tools to complete an Object (milestone) thereby achieving a desired Outcome. The tools, alsoknown as Mediating Artifacts, are imbued with cultural, historical, and social significance.Mediating Artifacts influence the behavior of the Subject using them, and in turn, the largersocial environment the Subject inhabits. A simple example is shown in Fig. 1. A Subject(Student) is tasked with writing a report on “Activity Theory” (Outcome). The Student (Subject)uses ChatGPT, Wikipedia, and Google
point in the past was negotiated with the otherdepartments in sort of an agreement that they came to in how the students will be graded. I don'treally know the details of that it's been there for longer than I have…And we've just kind of keptdoing that same thing.” It must be noted that instructors had autonomy to write their own midterm exams as Jacknoted that the instructors were “responsible for making the tests for their sections,” but not thefinal exam as the final was a standardized, multiple-choice exam for all sections and was writtenby the course supervisor. In triangulating this finding with the public documents from the institution, such as thefaculty and student handbooks, it showed consistency in one dimension and
. Students enter the program as rising juniors orseniors, and instructors are Ph.D. students with at least a year left in graduate school. As such,these former students are, at the time of writing, in high school (in 11th or 12th grade), their firstyear of college, or their second year of college. All former instructors are currently in academiccareers, including continuing as Graduate Research Assistants, Postdoctoral Researchers andFellows, Research Engineers, and Teaching Professors. Students have enrolled in Purdue’sengineering programs and indicated a preference for civil engineering, but no formal statisticsare maintained on previous students.The course was first taught in the summer of 2020 and continues to be conducted every summer.Due to
American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE), The Collaborative Network for Engineering and Computing Diversity (CoNECD), Frontiers in Education (FIE), as well as major psychological con- ferences.Catherine G. P. Berdanier, Pennsylvania State University Catherine G.P. Berdanier is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Penn- sylvania State University. She earned her B.S. in Chemistry from The University of South Dakota, her M.S. in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering and her PhD in Engineering Education from Purdue University. Her research expertise lies in characterizing graduate-level attrition, persistence, and career trajectories; engineering writing and communication; and
Paper ID #38301”Better Living through Chemistry?” DuPont & TeflonDr. Marilyn A. Dyrud, Oregon Institute of Technology Marilyn Dyrud retired in 2017 as a professor emerita in the Communication Department at Oregon In- stitute of Technology, where she taught classes in writing, speech, rhetoric, and ethics for four decades. She received her BA in 1972 from the University of the Pacific in Stockton, CA, and her graduate degrees from Purdue University: MA in 1974 and PhD in 1980. She became involved in engineering education by joining ASEE in 1983 and is currently active in two divisions: Engineering Ethics and Engineering
Program information Connections to peer mentors & supports SJ: Data on belonging in STEM ADEI definitions Identity & Examples of equity in STEM Bias & Prejudice Belonging How identity pertains to engineering Social Identity Wheel (case studies) Story Sharing ENGR: Engineering design process Socially just mindset & contexts How Engineers Role of failure in design Social impact of product/design Make Decisions
twentieth centuries. The creation of MIT'sUndergraduate Research Opportunities Program in 1969 encouraged an explosion in popularitysuch that Undergraduate Research Programs (URPs) became fairly common globally by the1990s.Developing and maintaining URPs benefit students, faculty mentors, and the university equally.Incorporating a research component along with a sound academic foundation enables students togain research and professional experience, work on real-world applications, develop oral andwritten communication skills as well as better relationships with faculty and peers [1]. Accordingto Thiry et al. [2], "Through coursework and out-of-class experiences, students describedlearning to work and think independently, to take responsibility for
efficacy, COVID-19hindered many students’ ability to allocate time for studying and well-being in the same mannerthey had prior to the pandemic, partially due to the way it “distorted [their] flow of time” [4].Students recorded the effects of this alteration in time diaries, writing that “the effort put intoclass feels more intensive yet yields much worse results”, and even when they could completetheir work, “it takes much longer” [2]. These responses suggest that students are no longer gettingthe expected returns from their time spent studying. In [5], a modified version of the TimeManagement Behavior scale [3] was used to evaluate the time management behaviors ofundergraduate electrical and computer engineering students prior to the pandemic
technical writing Written Design Teamwork
transformation: the theory Mediated Learning Experience (MLE) from Feuerstein[23][26] and Maturana’s understanding of learning as a space of transformation for both thelearner and the teacher [27] [28].Mediated Learning Experience. Feuerstein defines the role of the mediator (or agent) asfundamental to promoting cognitive changes in a student. A teacher, a parent, or anadvantaged peer can fulfill this role, depending on the objective of transformation. Themediator must have maturity, experience, and the ability to organize, reorder, group, andstructure the stimuli or information the student receives based on a specific task or goal [26].This means that the agent mediates between the world and the student (subject), transformingthe stimuli the student
aid in the formation of peer-to-peer relationships[3] through a shared identity as a “maker”.Makerspaces are unique learning environments that center around the act of “making,” a broad term thatincludes almost all forms of creative manufacture such as sewing, woodworking, mechatronics, etc.Communities of practice form within these spaces as the collaborative use of machines and technologiespromote the sharing of ideas, knowledge, and experience[4] and a shared identity as a maker. Hilton[5]found that participation in university Makerspaces led to an increase in engineering design self-efficacyamongst undergraduate engineering students. Tomko[2] demonstrated that engagement in Makerspacesincreased engineering students’ motivation and
context. This paper describes a course derived fromthe Wright State model, which has evolved significantly over time. The course includes moderate-intensity active learning, with 1 hour of lecture, a 2-hour studio, and 2-hour lab each week. Dataon student perceptions and performance from the most recent offering of the course in Fall 2022are presented. A large number of students were batch enrolled into the course in summer 2022, butthen subsequently withdrew early. The students who dropped had lower math confidence, lowerself perceptions of science and math ability compared to their peers, and lower STEM identity,compared to students who remained in the course. Among students who earned overall coursegrades of D or F, the majority were taking
conducted on how female and low-income students function in a cooperative,learner-based studio environment and advance understanding of the role different levels ofmentorship (peer, senior members, assistants, and faculty) play in the PWS model and how itimpacts the performance of female members of the cohorts. By working together in a team-basedenvironment, the PWS built strong connections among the PWS scholar cohort. The PWS isdeveloping well-rounded students who are afforded hands-on experiences, and the opportunity towork in multi-disciplinary team environments and gain exposure to real-life projects in computerscience, engineering, and technology. These experiences, combined with professionaldevelopment and mentorship, will enable scholars to
, technical support, and encouragement. • GiggleBot programming workshop. One ExCITE student volunteer demonstrated three GiggleBots [16] to the CS I students. Three CS I students and five ACM/ACM- W members participated. Among these five students, two were freshmen, and three were upperclassmen. The presenter demonstrated how to drive a GiggleBot with a pre-programmed Microbit [17] and then let the participants do the same. The students also plugged markers into the GiggleBots, to let the robots draw lines on the papers on the floor by moving. Then the students were divided into groups to write programs for the robots on the computers in the lab and then download their code to the robots to
criticism include forums where methods, ideas, assumptions, and reasoning can beevaluated and critiqued by the community. In the context of EER teams, these venues could beformal (e.g. an advisory board meeting or peer review process) or informal (e.g. a hallway con-versation or sidebar conversation during a meeting). They might be internal, only including groupmembers, or external to the group. The modes of communication in a venue may be spoken (e.g. ameeting or phone call) or written (e.g. an email or peer review). Additionally, the venue could havevaried degrees of collaboration involved in the critical activities (e.g. a team discussion regardingthe solution to a problem vs a team delegating tasks to be completed). We anticipate that
, which included extrinsic factors (financial remuneration,professional prestige, job accessibility, and job security), intrinsic factors (personal interests,self-efficacy, outcome expectations, professional development opportunities), and interpersonalfactors (influence of family members, teacher and educators, peers; social responsibility). Therelative importance of many of these factors was found to vary between individualistic andcollectivist cultures.Factors relevant for selecting majors and interest in different engineering majors has been foundto differ among demographic groups. For example, while an affinity or belief in one’s ability inmath and science was cited most frequently among their reasons for selecting their engineeringmajor
computing and engineering students, wewill need to develop a research agenda that further elucidates this nascent area of study. Weparticularly expect that intentional work will be needed to uncover the as-yet poorly understoodecosystem surrounding TNB computing students, their advocates, and their allies. In particular,we see a clear need to understand intersections with race and disability, as the 2015 U.S.Transgender Survey showed that TNB people of color and people with disabilities had worseoutcomes than their already marginalized peers [3]. In order to be a force for change for thisgoal, we held a virtual workshop to develop a research agenda that includes TNB students inBPC/BPE for inclusive and intersectional policy, practices, and
cases hence the use of a collective case study design. Crowe et al. [17] were of theopinion that each individual case should be analyzed separately before conducting a cross-casecomparison to explore the similarities in their perceptions of self-assessment. Drawing on Croweet al. [17], the multiple data sets were coded separately and analyzed using the NVivo dataanalysis software. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted on both data sets. The finalcodebook was conceptualized using both the self-regulation theory [15] and the student self-assessment cycle [3]. The authors completed multiple iterations of coding and engaged in criticalreviews of codes by peer debriefers [16]. Thereafter, a cross-case comparison was conducted toexplore the
Paper ID #38654Board 88: Work in Progress: Impact of Electronics Design Experience onNon-majors’ Self-efficacy and IdentityTom J. Zajdel, Carnegie Mellon University Tom Zajdel is an Assistant Teaching Professor in electrical and computer engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. Dr. Zajdel is interested in how students become motivated to study electronics and engineer- ing. He has taught circuits, amateur radio, introductory mechanics, technical writing, and engineering de- sign. Before joining CMU, Tom was a postdoctoral researcher at Princeton University, where he worked on electrical sheep-herding of biological
InquiryThroughout the larger effort described above, our team of five became acutely aware of thechallenges we faced as individuals and a collective in attempting to utilize design thinking in amore traditional engineering course design context. Certainly there were successes, inspiringmoments, and personal growth. There were also moments of doubt, conflict, and even despair aswe considered our experiences and the potential to expand those experiences to our peers. Thuswe decided to investigate the tensions we were experiencing in bringing design thinking to ourdistinct course design context.We utilized a collaborative inquiry [15] approach to investigate the tensions we experienced andhow they informed our application of design thinking in engineering